[library of PRiMCET ON
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
BS234^ .M613 11 c. 2
Critical and exegetical
handbook to the epistles to t
Phi LI PP LANS AND COLOSSIANS.
4
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICA
COMMENTARY
MAY 11 19S1
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
HEINEICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYEE, Th.D.,
OBERCONSISTOKIALRAXH, HANN0V:EB.
jFrom i\)t (©crman, iDitlj X.\)z ^anrtton of i\)t Hutj^or.
THE TEANSLATION KEVISED AND EDITED BY
WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D.,
AND
FEEDERICK CROMBIE, D.D.
PART IX.
THE EPISTLES TO THE PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS.
EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET,
MDCCCLXXV.
PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB,
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON, . . . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN, KOBERTSON AND CO.
NEW YORK, .... 9CRIBNER, WELFORD, AND ARMSTRONG.
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
HANDBOOK
TO
THE EPISTLES
TO THE
PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS.
BY ^
HEINEICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYEE, Th.D,
OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANKOVER.
TRANSLATED FEOM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY
EEV. JOHN C. MOOEE, B.A.
THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY
WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D,
PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
EDINBUEGH:
T. & T. CLAEK, 3 8 GEOEGE STEEET.
MDCCCLXXV.
PEEFATOEY NOTE.
IHE 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 re%dsing and completing the version of
Mr. Venables has been entrusted to the Eev. John C. Moore,
who has also executed independently the greater portion of the
translation, from the fourth German edition, of the Commen-
tary on the Epistle to the Colossians. I have myself trans-
lated a small portion of the latter, and, as in previous volumes,
have revised the whole with some care, and carried it through
the press.
It is stated by Dr. Meyer's son, in the Preface to the new
edition of this volume, that his father had, before his fatal
illness, despatched the one half of the manuscript of his
revision to the printers, and that the other half was found
labelled '' ready for the press." The book, therefore, although
issued subsequently to the author's death, is entirely his own
work, I have reserved the biogi-aphical sketch of Dr. Meyer
given by his son for the first volume of the series. The Com-
mentary on the Epistle to Philemon, which in the German
accompanies those now issued, will also appear subsequently.
It is scarcely necessary to say that the explanations given
in preceding volumes as to the principles on which this
translation is issued, and the caveat inserted regarding the
views or opinions occasionally expressed by Dr. Meyer, are
equally applicable to the present.
W. P. D.
Glasgow College,
October 1875.
EXEGETICAL LITERATUEE OF THE EPISTLES
PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS.
[For commentaries or collections of notes embracing the whole New
Testament, see Preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew ;
for those which deal with the Pauline, or Apostolic, Epistles generally, see
Preface to the Commentary on the Epistle to the Komaus. The following
list includes only those which concern the Epistle to the Philippians or the
Epistle to the Colossians, or in which one of these Epistles holds the first
place on the title-page. TYorks 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 he. The editions quoted are
usually the earliest ; al. appended denotes that the book has been more or
less frequently reprinted ; f marks the date of the author's death.]
AiRAY (Henry), f 161G, Provost of Queen's College, Oxford: Lectures upon
the whole Epistle to the Philippians ... 4°, Lond. 1618, al.
Am Ende (Johann Gottfried), t 1821, Superintendent at Neustadt on
the Orla : Pauli Epistola ad Philippenses Graece . . . nova versione
Latina et annotatione perpetua illustrata. 8°, Viteb. 1798, al.
Bahr (Carl Christian Wilhelm Felix), Muaisterialrath, Baden : Commentar
iiber den Brief Pauli an die Colosser, mit stater Beriicksichtigung
der iiltern und neuern Ausleger. 8°, Basel, 1833.
Baumgarten (Sigmund Jakob). See Galatians.
Baumgarten-Crusius (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), 1 1843, Prof. Theol. at
Jena : Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser und Kolosser
... 8°, Jena, 1845. — Commentar iiber die Briefe an die Philipper
und Thessalonicher . .*. 8°, Jena, 1848.
VIU EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLES TO
Bayne (Paul), t 1617, Min. at Cambridge : A Commentarie upon the I.
and II. chapters of Saint Paul to the Colossiaus . . .
4°, Lond. 1634, al.
Beelen (Jean-Theodore), R. C. Prof. Or. Lang, at Louvain : Commen-
tarius in Epistolam S. Pauli ad Philippenses. 8°, Lovanii, 1852.
Bleek (Friedrich), f 1859, Prof. Theol. at Berlin : Vorlesungen iiber die
Briefe an die Kolosser, den Philemon uud die Epheser . . .
8°, Berl. 1865.
BoHMER (Wilhelm), Prof. Theol. at Breslau : Theologische Auslegung des
paulinischen Sendschreibens an die Colosser.]] 8°, Breslau, 1835.
Braune (Karl), Superintendent at Altenburg in Saxony: Die Briefe S''.
Pauli an die Epheser, Kolosser, Philipper. Theologisch-homil-
etisch bearbeitet. [In Lange's Bibelwerk.] 8°, Bielefeld, 1867.
[Translated from the German, with additions (Philippians), by
Horatio B. Hackett, D.D., and (Colossiaus) by M. B. Riddle, D.D.]
8°, New York and Edin. 1870.
Breithaupt (Joachim Justus), f 1732, Prof. Theol. at Halle : Animadver-
siones exegeticae etdogmatico-practicae in Epistolam ad Philippenses.
4°, Halae, 1703.
Brenz [or Brentius] (Johann), f 1570, Provost at Stuttgart : Explicatio
Epistolae ad Philippenses. 8°, Fraucof. 1548.
Byfield (Nicholas), f 1622, Vicar of Isleworth : An Exposition upon the
Epistle to the Colossiaus ... 4°, 1617, al.
Calixtus (Georg). See Romans.
Cartwright (Thomas), f 1603, Prof. Theol. at Cambridge: Commentary
on the Epistle to the Colossiaus. 4°, Lond. 1612.
Daille (Jean), f 1670, Pastor at Paris : Exposition sur la divine Epitre
de I'apotre S. Paul aux Filippieus. 8°, Genev. 1659.
Dalmer (Karl Eduard Franz) : Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Colosser.
8°, Gotha, 1858.
Davenant (John), f 1641, Bishop of Salisbury : Expositio Epistolae Pauli
ad Colossenses, 2°, Cantab. 1627, al. [Translated, with notes, by
Josiah AUport. 2 vols. 8°, Lond. 1831.]
Davies (John Llewelyn), Rector of Christ Church, Marylebone : The
Epistles of St. Paul to the Ephesians, the Colossiaus, and Phile-
mon, with introduction and notes, and an essay on the traces
of foreign elements in the theology of these Epistles.
8°, Lond. 1867.
Eadie (John), D.D., Prof. Bibl. Lit. to the United Presbyterian Church :
A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the
Philippians. 8°, Edin. 1859.
A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle to the Colossiaus.
8°, Lond. and Glasg. 1856.
THE PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS, IX
Ellicott (Charles John), D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol: A Criti-
cal and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Philip-
pians, Colossians, and Philemon, with a revised translation.
8°, Lond. 1857, al.
Elton (Edward), Minister at Bermondsey : An Exposition of the Epistle
to the Colossians ... 4°, Lond. 1615, al.
Ferguson (James), f 1667, Min. at Kilwinning : A Briefe Exposition of the
Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and Colossians.
8°, Edin. 1656, al.
Flatt (Johann Friedrich), f 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen : Vorlesungen
iiber die Briefe Pauli an die Philipper, Kolosser, Thessalonicher, und
den Philemon, herausgegeben vou Chr. F. Kling.
8°, Tubing. 1829.
Heinrichs (Johann Heiurich), Superintendent at Burgdorf : Testamentum
Novum Graece perpetuo annotatione illustravit J. P. Koppe. Vol.
vii. p. 2. Compleetens Pauli Epistolas ad Philippenses et Colossenses.
Continuavit J. H. Heinrichs. 8=, Gotting. 1803, ed. II., 1826.
Hengel (Wessel Albert van). Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Commentarius per-
petuus in Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses. 8°, Lugd. Bat. 1839.
HOELEMANN (Hermann Gustav), Teacher in Gymnasium at Zwickau : Com-
mentarius in Epistolam divi Pauli ad Philippenses. [Theile : Com-
ment, in N. T., vol. xxii.] 8°, Lips. 1839.
HoFMANN (Johann Christian Konrad von). Prof. Theol. at Erlangen : Die
Heilige Schrift des N. T. zusammenhiingend untersucht. IV. 2. Die
Briefe Pauli an die Kolosser und Philemon. IV. 3. Der Brief Pauli
an die PhiHpper. 8°, Nbrdlingen, 1870-2.
HuTHER (Johann Eduard), Pastor at Wittenforden, Schwerin : Commentar
iiber den Brief Pauli an die Colosser. 8°, Hamb. 184:1.
Jatho (Georg Friedrich), Director of Gymnasium at Hildesheim : Pauli
Brief an die Philipper. 8°, Hildesheim, 1857.
Junker (Friedrich) : Historisch-kritischer und philologischer Commentar
iiber den Brief Pauli an die Colosser ... 8°, Mannheim, 1828.
Kahler (C. E.) : Auslegung der Epistel an die Philipper.
8°, Kiel, 1855.
Krause (Friedrich August Wilhelm), f 1827, Tutor at Vienna : Die Briefe
an die Philipper und Thessalonischer Ubersetzt und mit Anmerk-
ungen begleitet. 8°, Frankf. 1790.
Krause (Johann Friedrich), f 1820, Superintendent at Weimar : Observa-
tiones critico-exegeticae in Pauli Epistolae ad Philippenses c. i. et ii.
4°, Regimont. [1810].
X EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLES TO
LiGHTFOOT (Joseph Barber), D.D., Hulsean Professor of Divinity at
Cambridge : St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. A revised
text, with introductions, notes, and dissertations.
8°, Lond. and Camb. 1868, al.
St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon. A revised text,
with introductions, notes, and dissertations. 8°, Lond. 1875.
^Iatthias (Konrad Stephan), Prof. Theol. at Greifswald : Erklarung des
Briefes Pauli an die Philipper. 8°, Greifswald, 1835.
Mayerhoff (Ernst Theodor) : Der Brief an die Kolosser mit voruehmlicher
Berlicksichtigung der Pastoralbriefe kritisch gepriift.
8°, Berl. 1838.
Melanchthon (Philipp), t 1560, Reformer : Euarratio Epistolae Pauli ad
Colossenses. 8°, Viteb. 1559, al.
MiCHAELis (Johann David). See Galatians.
MuLLER (Cornelius) : Commentatio de locis quibusdam Epistolae ad Philip -
penses. 4°, Hamburgi, 1844.
MuscuLUS [or Meusslin] (Wolfgang), t 1563, Prof. Theol. at Berne:
In Epistolas ad Philippenses, Colossenses, Thessalonicenses ambas et
primam ad Timotheum commentarii. 2°, Basil. 1565, al.
Neander (Johann August Wilhelm), f 1850, Prof. Theol. at Berlin: Der
Brief Pauli an die Philipper praktisch erliiutert . . .
8°, Berl. 1849.
Peirce (James), f 1726, Minister at Exeter : A Paraphrase and Notes on
tlie Epistles of St. Paul to the Colossians, Philippians, and Hebrews,
after the manner of Mr. Locke ... 4°, Lond. 1727, al.
Rettig (Heinrich Christian Michael), f 1836, Prof. Theol. at Zurich :
Quacstiones Philippenses. 8°, Giessen. 1831.
RHEimvALD (Georg Friedrich Heinrich), f 1849, Prof. Theol. at Bonn :
Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Philipper.
8°, Berl. 1827.
RiLLiET (Albert), Prof. Theol. at Geneva : Commentaire siir Fepitre de
I'apotre Paul aux Philippiens ... 8°, Geneve, 1841.
RoELL (Herman Alexander), f 1718, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht : Brevis
Epistolae Pauli ad Colossenses exegesis. 4°, Traject. 1731.
SCHENKEL (Daniel), Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg : Die Briefe an die Epheser,
Philipper, Kolosser. Theologisch - homiletisch bearbeitet, [In
Lange's Bibelwerk.] 8°, Bielefeld, 1862.
SciiiNZ (Wilhelm Heinrich) : Die christliche Gemeinde zu Philippi.
8°, Zurich, 1833.
ScHjiiD (Sebastian). See Romans.
THE PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS. XI
SCHOTANL'S (Jleinardus H.), t 1644, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Analysis et
Commentaria iu Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses.
4°, Franek. 1637.
Stkiger (Wilhelm), f 1836, Prof. Theol. at Geneva : Der Brief Pauli au
die Colosser ; Uebersetzung, Erkliirung, einleitende und epikritische
Abhandlungen. 8°, Erlangen, 1835.
Storr (Gottlob Christian), f 1805, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen : Dissertatio
exegetica in Epistolam ad Philippenses. . . . Dissertatio exegetica
in Epistolae ad Colossenses partem priorem [et posteriorem] . . .
4°, Tubing. [1783-87].
Expositions of the Epistles of Paul to the Philippiaos and Colossiang
by John Calvin and D. Gottlob Christian Storr. Translated from the
original by Robert Johnston. [Biblical Cabinet.] 12°, Edin. 1842.
SuiCERUS [Schweitzer] (Johann Heinrich), Prof, of Greek in Heidelberg:
In Epistolam ad Colossenses commentarius critico-exegeticus.
4°, Tiguri, 1699.
Til (Salomon van). See Romans.
Velasquez (Juan Antonio), S. J. : In Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses
commentaria et adnotationes. 2°, Lugd. et Paris. 1628-33.
ViCTORiNUS (C. Marius), about a.d. 860, teacher of rhetoric at Rome : In
Epistolam ad Philippenses liber unicus. [In Mai's Scrip. Vet. Nov.
Coll. iii. 1.]
AYeiss (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 Ncirdlingeu:
Die Briefe des Apostel Paulus an die Philipper, an Titus, Timotheus
und Philemon erklart. [In Olshausen's Commentar.] 8°, Konigsb.
1850. [Translated by the Rev. John Fulton, A.M.
8°, Edin. 1851.]
Zachariae (Gotthilf Traugott). See Galatians.
THE
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
IITTRODUCTIOK
1. THE PHILIPPIAN COMMUNITY.^
|HE fortified city of Pkilijypi' was situated in Mace-
donia, on the borders of Thrace ; in earlier times,
as a Thasian colony, it was called, from its site
abounding in sjDrings, KprjvlSe^ (Diodor. S. xvi.
3. 8 ; Strabo, vii. p. 490), but it changed this name for that
of its enlarger and fortifier, Philip, the son of Amyntas. It
was rich in gold mines (Herod, vi. 46 ; Appian. Bell. civ. iv.
15; Strabo, vii. p. 511); and the victory over Brutus and
Cassius made it a landmark in the history of the world.
Through this overthrow of Eoman freedom it acquired a high
rank as a Eoman colony with the Jus Italicum (see on Acts
xvi. 11) ; but it obtained another and higher historical interest,
attended by a greater gain for the Eoman 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.
' See generally, Mynster, Elnle'd. in d. Br. an d. Pliilipper, in his Kl. theol.
Schrlften, p. 169 ff. ; Hoog, dc coetus Christ. PluUpp. conditione, etc., Lugd.
Bat, 1825; Piettig, Quaest. Pliilipp., Giess. 1831; Schinz, tZ. christl. Gem. z.
Phil., Ziirich, 1833; J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians, Lond.
1868, p. 46 ff.
^ Now the village of Felihah. On the site and the ruins, see Cousinerj', Voyage
dans la Maced., Paris, 1831, II. ch. x. p. 1 ff. ; Perrot in the Revue archeolog.
1860, II. pp. 44 ff , 67 ff
PHIL. A
2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPLiNS.
9 f.), and amid ill-treatment and persecution (Acts xvi. 1 6 ff. ;
1 Thess. ii. 2), planted Christianity. Thus did the city vindi-
cate its original name, in a higher sense, for the entire West.
This event took place in the year 53, during the second
missionary journey of the apostle, who also, in his third
journey, laboured among the Macedonian churches (Acts xx.
1 f), and especially in Philippi (Acts xx. 6). With what
rich success he there established Christianity is best shown
by our epistle itself, which exhibits a more cordial, affectionate,
and undisturbed relation between the church and the apostle,
and bears a more unalloyed testimony to the distinction of the
church (comp. especially iv. 1), than we find in any other
apostolic letter. This peculiar mutual affection also explains
the fact that Paul, contrary to his usual custom, accepted aid
on more than one occasion from the Philippians (iv. 10 ff. ;
2 Cor. xi. 9) ; from which, however, on account of this very
love, we are not entitled to infer that they were specially
wealthy. The Jews were so few in number that they had
only a irpoaev-^rj (see on Acts xvi. 13), and the Christian
church was one consisting mostly of those who had been
Gentiles. The view which discovers a Judaizing faction
(iii. 2) in it (Storr, Flatt, Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Eheinwald,
Guericke, and others), seems all the more unwarrantable, when
we consider how deeply the apostle was concerned to ward off
from his beloved Philippians the danger, at that time every-
where so imminent, of the intrusion of Judaistic disturbance,
and how susceptible the Philippians themselves were to such
a danger, owing to a certain spiritual conceit^ which had
already impaired their unanimity (i. 12-ii. 16, iv. 2). Comp.
i. 28. See, against the view of heretical partisanship, Schinz,
p. 48 ff. ; Eilliet, Commentaire, Geneva, 1841, p. 352 ff. ;
Weiss, Introduction to his Auslcg., Berl. 1859 ; compare,
however, Huther in the Mccklcnl. tlieolog. Zeiisclirift, 1862,
p. 623 ff.
^ Credner, § 158 f., represents the conceit of the Philippians as apparent also
in "the servile courting of the rank of a rrfurti toXis." But the statement in
Acts xvi. 12, which, besides, is purely historical, gives no warrant for the charge
of any arbitrary assumption of rank.
INTRODUCTION. 3
§ 2. PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION, OCCASION, AND
CONTENTS.
It is justly the universal tradition (Chrysostom ; Euthalius,
in Zacagni, Coll. vet. mon. pp. 547, 642, 648 ; Synopsis of
Athanasius, Syrian Church, the subscriptions), and the almost
unanimous view of modern writers, that the epistle was written
in Eome. We are pointed to Eome by the oUla Kaia-apo<;
(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. 1 2 ff.) to what we find recorded in Acts xxviii. 1 6 ff. The
epistle must, moreover, have been written during the later
period of the Eoman captivity ; for the passages, i. 1 2 ff., ii
26 ff., betoken that a somewhat lengthened course of impri-
sonment had elapsed, and the apostle was already abandoned
by all his more intimate companions (ii. 20), except Timothy
(i. 1). A more precise specification, such as Hofmann in
particular gives (that the apostle had then been transferred
from his hired dwelling to the prison-house), is not deducible
either from i. 1 2 ff., or from the mention of the Praetorium
and the imperial house. We must reject the isolated attempts
to transfer its composition to Corinth (Acts xviii. 1 2 ; Oeder,
Progr., Onold. 1731) or to Caesarea (Acts xxiii. 23-xxvi. 32 ;
Paulus, Frogr., Jen. 1799; and Bottger, Beitr. I. p. 47 ff. ;
favoured also by Eilliet, and Thiersch, Kirclic im apost. Zeitalt.
p. 212). Concerning and against these views, see particularly
Hoelemann, Commentar, 1839, p. iii. ff. ; Neander, Gcsch. d.
PJlamung, etc., p. 498 f.
We are to assume, therefore, as the date of coiliposition, not
indeed the full expiration of the Sterta oX?/ of Acts xxviii. 3
(Hofmann), but the latter portion of that period, — in the year
63 possibly, or the begiiming of 64.^ See on Acts, Introd. § 4.
The occasion of the epistle was the fact that the Philippians
had sent Epaphroditus with pecuniary aid to Paul, who, on
' Marcion properly assigned to our epistle the last place, in point of time,
among his ten Pauline epistles.
4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
tlie return of the former after liis 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
having afforded a motive for this gift on the part of the
church ; and it is an uncertain reading between the lines to
assume, with Hofmann, not merely that tlie apostle was trans-
ferred to the prison-house, but tha.t with that transference
the process had reached the stage of its judicial discussion,
in which the Philippians believed that they could not but
discern a change to the worse for Paul, whom they regarded
as suffering privations in prison. Those traces, also, which
Hofmann has discovered of a letter of the church brought to
Paul by Epaphroditus along with the contribution, and ex-
pressing not only the concern of the Philippians for the apostle,
but also their need of instruction regarding the assaults to
which their Christianity was exposed, and regarding various
other matters of theirs that required to be settled and arranged,
are so far from being warranted by the exegesis of the passages
in question, that there is neither direct occasion nor any other
sufficient reason for going beyond the oral communications of
Epaphroditus in order to account for the apostle's acquaintance
with the circumstances of the Philippians. And just as the
aid tendered by the careful love of the church had furnished
the occasion for this letter to them, so also does its entire
tenor breathe forth the heartfelt and touching love, which the
captive apostle cherished toivards his Philipioians. Not one
of his epistles is so rich as this in hearty effusions of affection
and in tender references ; and not one of them is so charac-
teristically cjiistolary, without any rigid arrangement, almost
without dogmatic discussion, as also without quotations from the
Old Testament or dialectic chains of reasoning. Not one is so
eminently an epistle of the feelings, an outburst of the moment,
springing from the deepest inward need of loving fellowship
amidst outward abandonment and tribulation ; a model, withal,
of the union of tender love, and at times an almost elegiac
impress of courageous resignation in the prospect of death,
with high apostolic dignity and unbroken holy joy, hope, and
INTRODUCTION. 5
victory over the world. " Summa epistolae : Gaudco, gaudde"
Bengal ; comp. Grotius : " laetior alacriorqiie et blandior
ceteris."
After the apostolic salutation (i. 1 f.), Paul, with heart-
winning fervour, expresses thanks, intercession, and confidence
as regards his readers (i. 3-11), and then enlarges on his
present position, with his hope of a speedy return (i. 12-26) ;
after which he exhorts them to unanimity and humility, and
generally to the Christian life (i. 27-ii. 18). He promises to
send Timothy to them soon, yet trusts that he himself shall
also soon come to them (ii. 19-24) ; in the meantime he
sends away to them Epaphroditus, their messenger, who is
delicately and touchingly commended to them (ii. 25-30).
On the point, apparently, of passing on to a conclusion (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 salva-
tion, and so to maintain their Christian standing (iii. 2-iv. 1).
After a special exhortation to, and commendation of, two
women (iv. 2, 3), the apostle subjoins the concluding words of
encouragement (iv. 4-9), to which he had already set himself
in 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. 21-23).
§ 3. GENUINENESS AND UNITY.
The genuineness of this epistle is established externally by
the continuous testimonies of the ancient church from Poly carp,
iii. 11, onwards; see MarcioninEpiph.^ac7\ 42; Canon Murat.;
Tertull. c. Marc. v. 19, cle praeser. 36; literal use made of it, as
early as the epistle from Vienne and Lyons, in Eus. v. 2 ; direct
quotations from it in Iren. iv. 18. 4, v. 13. 3 ; Cypr. Test iii, 39 ;
Clem. Paeel i. 107; Tert. cle resurr. 23, 47, — in the presence
of which testimonies it is unnecessary to adduce uncertain
allusions from apostolic Fathers and Apologists. Internally it
bears the seal of genuineness in the thoroughly Pauline cha-
racter of its contents, of its spirit, of its emotions, of its delicate
6 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
turns and references, of its whole diction and form, and
in the comparative absence, moreover, of doctrinal definition
properly so called, as well as in the prominence throughout
of the features characteristic of its origin as a cordial and fresh
occasional letter. Nevertheless, Baur, after repeated threats
(see die sogen. Pastoralbr. pp. 79, 86, and Tilb. Zcitsclir. 1836,
3, p. 196), has directed his bold attacks against this epistle
also (see his Pcmlus der Ap. Jcsu Christi, 1845, p. 458 ff.,
and second ed. II. p. 50 ff. ; also in the theol. Jalirh. 1849,
p. 501 ff, 1852, p. 133 ff.^); and Schwegler, nacliapostol.
Zeitalt. II. p. 133 ff., has adopted the same views. See,
against these attacks, now hardly worth the trouble of refuta-
tion, besides the Commentaries and Introductions, Liinemann,
Paidi ad Phil, efist. contra Bauruiii defend., Gott. 1847;
Bruckner, 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 inhi^ Zeitschr.
1871, p. 309 ff. According to the opinion of Baur, the
epistle moves in the circle of Gnostic ideas and expressions, to
which it attaches itself; but the only passage adduced as a
proof is ii. 5 ff., and this entirely under mistaken explanations
or arbitrary references of the several elements of that passage.
Comp. the commentary on this passage, and the remark after
ii. 11. The further charges — that the epistle labours under
feeble repetitions (copies of passages in other epistles, as iii. 4 ff.
from 2 Cor. x. 18, et al), under a want of connection, and
poverty of ideas (in proof of which stress is laid on iii. 1, as
the author's own confession) — rest entirely on uncritical pre-
supposition, and on a mistaken judgment as to the distinctive
epistolary 'pecidiaritTj of the letter, and as to the special tone of
feeling on the part of the apostle in his present position gene-
rally and towards his Philippians. Lastly, we must reckon as
wholly fanciful the doubt thrown upon what is said at i. 12,
for which a combination of this passage with iv. 2 2 is alleged
to furnish ground, and to which the mention of Clement, iv. 3,
1 Compare also Plank in the same, 1847, p. 481 f. ; Kdstlin in tlie same, 1850,
p. 263 ii".
INTRODUCTION, 7
wlio is taken to be Clement of Eome, 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
cri;^i'709 7i'7;<7io9 in iv. 3, are likewise wrongly adduced against
the Pauline authorship. Indeed, even the historical occasion
of the epistle — the aid sent to Paul — is made to appear as a
fictitious incident at variance with 1 Cor. ix. 15. The spe-
cial arguments of Baur are set aside by an impartial interpre-
tation of the passages to which they refer, and the same may
be said with regard to the latest attacks of Hitzig (ziir Kritik
d. pmilin. Brief e, 1870) and of Hinsch (in Hilgenf eld's Zeit-
sclirift, 1873, p. 59 ff.) on the genuineness. The latter,
though independent in his movement, stands on the ground
occupied by Baur; the former has no ground whatever.
Against Hinsch, see Hilgenfeld in his Zeitsch7\ 1873, p. 178 ff.
Heinrichs, with whom Paulus in the main concurred, Heidelh.
Jalirh. 1817, 7, has sought to do away with the unity of the
epistle by the assumption that there were originally tivo epistles,
— one exoteric, addressed to the whole church, consisting of
i. 1-iii. 1, 'xaipere Iv Kvpiw, and the salutations, iv. 21-23 ; the
other esoteric, to the apostle's more intimate friends, which con-
tained from iii. 1, -ra avra ypd^eiv, down to iv. 20.-^ But this
idea is nothing but a consequence of misconceiving the free
epistolary movement, which, especially in a letter like this called
forth by a special occasion, and addressed to a community so
dear to him, might naturally be most unfettered (see on iii. 1) ;
and in this case, the distinction of exoteric and esoteric
elements is a mistake, which is no less unhistorical than con-
trary to all psychological probability.
Prom 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 (see his Beitrcige z. Krit. d. paulin.
Briefe, edited by Sulze, 1867) has found himself forced, in accordance -with his
criticism based on style, to regard the portion from chap. iii. onwards as the
fragment of a second Epistle to the Philippians.
A B D E F G K have merely Trphg ^tXi'x^nGio-jg.
CHAPTEE I.
Ver. 1. 'indoZ xpiarou] Lachm. and Tisch. read Xpisroii iriaoij.
The same in vv. 6 and 8. This is to be preferred on account of
the strong attestation of B D E N (the latter, however, only in
vv. 1 and 8), Mdiich is reinforced in ver. 8 by A ; it was readily
supplanted by the more usual 'I. X. — Ver. 7. Elz. has merely
rfi ocTTOAoy. vjitJioict sv. Lachm. has iv, which Griesb., Matth.,
Scholz, and Tisch. adopt, in brackets. It is found in BD**
E K L P t«, min. Syr. Copt. Arr. Vulg. It. and some Fathers,
Looking at this indecisive attestation, and seeing that iv might
more readily be supplementarily or mechanically added than
omitted, it should be deleted. — Ver. 8. Iffrh] after /j,ou is de-
fended iDy Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., omitted by Tisch., fol-
lowing B F G i^'*, min. Vulg. It. Aetli. Chrys. An addition
made from a reminiscence of Eom. i. 9. — Ver. 9. cs^/cg-eu?!]
BD E have 'TrspKraiUri. So Lachm., who has placed rrspisairi in
the margin, and Tisch. 7. With the considerable testimony
which exists in favour of the Recci^ta, restored also by Tisch. 8,
it should be retained, as Tipteavep might very easily originate in
the similarity of sound in the following final syllables : sT/yvwSEl,
-raffSHi, and aia&yi'^EI. The Eeccpta is also supported by the
readings crspigaivn and mpiasvlioi. — Ver. 11. Elz. has ■Ao.p'rrZyj . . .
Tuv, against decisive testimony. An emendation. — Ver. 14.
Lach. and Tisch. 8 have rov eio\J after 7^6yov, although, according
to testimony of some weight (such as A B N, Clem.), only an
explanatory addition, which some Codd. give in a different
position, while others change it into rov y.vplou. — Vv. 16, 17.
Elz. reverses their position : o'l /ih it, spi&iiag . , . /mu' o'i Bi It,
dydcrri; . . . xsi/xat, against decisive testimony. A transposition
intended to produce iiniformity with ver. 10. — Instead of
lyilpuv (Griesb., Lachm., Tisch.) Elz. has i'mppnv, which is de-
fended by Matth. and Scholz, and vindicated by Eeiche. But
' The Philippians are also called iiXi-jfrriiriti by Steph. Byz., ^/A/t^tjjk)/ by
Polyb. (according to Steph. Byz. ), iiki-^Tilt in the Corp. Inscript.
9
10 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS,
sysip. is decisively attested by the preponderance of uncials
(including x) and vss. ; s'Tritpipnv, instead of whicli Theopliyl. ms.
has rrpoaipspi/v, is an ancient gloss. — Ver. 18. •t?.jji/] B has on;
AFGPi^, min. some vss. and Fathers: rXriv or/. So Lachm.
and Tisch. 8. But the reference of the crXjj'i' not being under-
stood, it was explained by the oti written on the margin, which
has in some cases (B) siqyjjlanted the tX-z^v, and in others passed
into the text along loitli it. — Ver 21. XpiCTog,] yjpriSTov was so
isolated and weak in attestation (Ar. poL), that it should not
have been recommended by Griesb., following earlier authority.
— Ver. 23. Elz. has yap instead of h\, against decisive testimony.
The yap after toXXw is neither critically nor exegetically to be
rejected. See Eeiche, Comm. crit. — Ver. 24. iv rfi aap^l] h is
wanting in A C P X, miu. Clem. Or. Petr. alex. Cyr. Chrysost.
Wrongly condemned by Griesb. and Tisch. 8 ; for h might easily
be absorbed by the final syllable of s'rif/.ivsiv, especially as it is
frequently used elsewhere with the simple dative. — Ver. 25.
eufiTupa/Mivu'] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read vapa/Mvui, which Griesb.
also approved of, following ABC D* P G 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 azovau, Lack and Tisch. 8 read dx.ovu), but without a
preponderance of testimony in its favour. — Ver. 28. Iffriv auroTg]
Elz. has auToTg fx,h sariv, against decisive testimony. — u/aTi/]
A B C** X, min. vss. Aug. read v/j-uv. So Lachm. and Tisch.
Eightly ; the dative is a mechanical alteration in accordance
with the preceding a-jToTg and the following v/j^Tv. — Ver. 30. Elz.
has 'ibiTs. But iJdiTB is attested by A C D* E* s, min. and
Fathers, and was supplanted by '/8sts through Itacism.
Contents. — After the greeting to his readers (vv. 1, 2), Paul
assures them of his gratitude towards God on account of their
condition as Christians (vv. 3-5), while as regards the future
also he has confidence, in accordance with his heartfelt love
towards them, as to the continued work of God in their case
(vv. 6-S). His prayer is, that their love may increase yet more
and more on behalf of Christian perfection to the glory of God
(vv. 9-1 1). He then declares how his present position redounds
to the furtherance of the gospel, to which even the preaching
of those who are actuated by impure motives contributes
CHAP. I. 1, 2. 11
(vv. 12-18), because Christ in fact is preached, which must
tend to his — the apostle's — salvation, since now nothing else but
the glorification of Christ in his case will be the result, whether
he remains alive in the body or not (vv. 19-21). Which of the
two he should prefer, he knows not ; since, however, the former
is more needful for the sake of his readers, he is convinced that
it will be the case for their furtherance and joy (vv. 22-26).
Only their conduct should be in conformity with the gospel,
in order that he, if he should come again to them, or should
be absent, might learn their Christian unity and fearlessness
(w. 27-30).
Vv. 1, 2. Kal Ti/MoO.'] not as amanuensis, although he may
have been so (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 21; 2 Thess. iii. 1 7 ; Col. iv.
18 ; and see on Gal. vi. 11), for from Eom. xvi. 22 we must
assume that the amanuensis as such is not included in the
superscription ; nor yet merely as taking part in the greeting
(Estius, Weiss), for ver. 1 is the address of the epistle, and
as such names tliosc from whom it emanates ; but as subordi-
nate joint-writer of the letter (comp. on 1 Cor. i. 1 ; 2 Cor. i. 1 ;
Col. i. 1 ; Philem. 1), who, as a distinguished helper of the
apostle, and well known to the readers, adopts the teachings,
exhortations, etc. of the letter, which the apostle had pre-
viously discussed with him, as his own. At the same time,
the apostle himself remains so completely the proper and
principal writer of the epistle, that so early as ver. 3 he
begins to speak solely in his own person, and in ii. 19 speaks
of Timothy, who was to be sent to them, as a third person.
Nevertheless this joint mention of Timothy must have been
as accordant witb the personal relation existing between the
latter and the readers (Acts xvi. 10 ft., xix. 22), as it was
serviceable in preparing the way for the intended sending of
Timothy (ii. 19), and generally edifying and encouraging as a
testimony of the intimate fellowship between the apostle and
his subordinate fellow-labourer.^ — BovXoo X. 'I] Tlie fact that
* In general, when Paul names others besides himself in the address, the
ground for it must be sought for in tlie relation in which those named — who
were then present with Paul — stood to the churches concerned, and not in any
wish on his part to give by that means to the epistles an official and public cha-
1 2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PIIILIPPIANS.
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 canse,
and felt no internal need, for making this assertion ; and we
may assume the same thing in Philem. 1. The non-mention
of his apostolic dignity in the First and Second Epistles to the
Thessalonians is, considering the early date at which they were
composed, to be similarly explained (see Liinemann on 1 Thess.
i. 1). In their joint designation as BovXol 'I. X. (see on
Ptom. i. 1), — a designation resulting from the deep conscious-
ness of the specific vocation of their lives (1 Cor. iv. 1), — both
the aiiostlcsliip of Paul and the official position of Timothy
(comp. Eom. xvi. 2 1 : Ti/jl60. 6 <Tvv6pj6<; fxov ; Col. iv. 1 2)
are included. Compare (tvvBov\o<;, Col. i. 7, iv. 7. — rot?
ayioa iv X. T.] see on Pom i. 7, and on ■rj'yLaa/xevo<i iv X. I.,
1 Cor. i. 2. — avv iincrK. k. htaKov.^ along with overseers and
deacons. Paul writes to aU} the Christians at Philippi (comp.
Eom. i. 7), bishops and deacons being expressly included {avv,
racter (Huther on Col. p. 45, with whom Corn. Miiller agrees, Commentat. de
loc. quihusd. ep. ad Phil, Hamb. 1843, p. 5) ; for in tliat case tlie Epistles to
the Romans and Ephesians would least of all bear the apostle's name alone.
To him, too, with his personal consciousness of his high apostolic standing
(Gal. i. 1), the need of any confirmation or corroboration hij others must have
been an idea utterly foreign. Lastl}', tliis very Epistle to the Philippians bears
less of the rfidal and more of the familiar character than any of the others.
— The fact, moreover, that in almost all the epistles, in the superscription of
which Paul docs not name himself alone, Timothy is mentioned with him
{Silcanus being named with the latter in 1 and 2 Thessalonians), is a proof that
Timothy was the apostle's vwst intimate companion, and was hi^jh.hj esteemed
among the churches. In 1 Corinthians only, Soilhene.s. and not Timothy, is
mentioned along with Paul in the address.
1 For all had, in fact, by their common readiness in cfl'ering given occasion to
the apostolic letter. Thus tlie decorum of reply naturally gave rise to tlie inser-
tion of the otherwise superfluous -ran, without its implying any special design of
not putting to shame tliose wlio po.ssibly had not contributed (van Hengel). And
when Paul still farther in this Epistle makes mention repeatedly and earnestly of
a^?his readers (i. 4, 7 f., 25, ii. 17, 26, iv. 25), the simple and natural explana-
tion is to be sought in the feeling of special all-emhracing love, by which he was
attached to this well-constituted church not divided by any factions. Hence
there is no ground for seeking further explanation, as e.g. de Wette does, by sug-
gesting erroneou.sly that " Paul wished to manifest his impartiality with regard
to the dissension in the church."
CHAP. I. 1, 2. 13
comp. Acts xiv. 5). As official designations, the words did not
require the article (Kiihner, ad. Xcn. Anab. iii. 5. 7 : a-rparT]-
yol Se Koi \o')(a'^ol), althougii particular persons are meant (in
opposition to Hofmann), who are regarded, however, just as
office-bearers. The reason why the latter are specially men-
tioned in the salutation, in a way not found in any other epistle,
must be sought in the special occasion of the letter, as the
aid which had been conveyed to Paul could not have been
collected without the guidance, and co-operation otherwise, of
these office-bearers.^ They might even have transmitted to
him the money by means of an accompanying letter in the
name of the church (Ewald ; compare Hofmann) ; there is,
however, no trace elsewhere of this. Arbitrary suggestions are
made by Cornelius a Lapide and Grotius : that he thus
arranged the salutation with reference to Epaphroclitus, who
was one of the eiriaKoiToi ; by Matthias : that the iirLo-KOTroL
and Blukovoc had specially distinguished themselves among the
Philippians by their zeal and energy ; by Eilliet and Corn.
Mliller : that the intention was to describe the church as a
regularly constituted one, or as an undivided whole (Rheinwald),
a collective body organized into unity (Hofmann) (which,
in fact, other churches to whom Paul wrote were also) ; or
that, with the view of preventing disunion, Paul wished to
suggest to them the recognition of the office as an antidote to
self-exaltation (Wiesinger). Other expositors have given yet
other explanations. — The writing of the words as one : avv-
eTncTKOTTOi'; (B** D*** K, Chrysost. Theophyl. min.) is to be re-
jected, because avv would be without appropriate reference, and
the epistle is addressed to the whole community. See already
Theodore of Mopsuestia. — As to the bisJwjJs, called from their
official duty eiTLaKOTroi (Acts xx. 28 ; 1 Tim. iii. 2 ; Tit. i. 7),
or figuratively 7roifiev€<; (Eph. iv. 11), and after the Jewish-
theocratic analogy 'irpea-^vrepoi, see on Acts xx. 28, Eph.
iv. 11. And how much the plural is at variance with tlie
' There is tlierefore the less ground for Baur bringing forward the mention
of bishops and deacons in this passage to help the proof of a post-apostolic com-
position of the epistle, as is also done by Hinsch in the passage specified. See,
against this, Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1873, p. 178 f.
14 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Catholic doctrine of the episcopate, see in Calovius. The
absence also of any mention of joreshjters^ strikingly shows
that the latter were still at that time identical with the
bishops. Comp. particularly Acts xx. 17, 28 ; and see
Pdtschl, altlcatli. Kirche, p. 400 ff. ; also J. B. Lightfoot, p.
93 ff., and Jul. JMliller, dogmat. Ahh. p. 581. Mistaken view in
Dollinger's Christenthum u. Kirche, p. 308, ed. 2, who makes
out of (Tv^vye <yvrj(ne the bishop Kar e^o')(rjv. As to the
StaKovla, the care of the poor, sick, and strangers, comp. on
Ptom. xii. 7, xvi. 1 ; 1 Cor. xii. 28. We may add that the
'jolacing of the officials after the church generally, which is not
logically requisite, and the mere subjoining of them by avv,
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
hehincl the fioch !" — X^P'''* ^f^^^ /c.t.X.] See on Rom. i. 7.
Ver. 3 f. Comp. Eom. i. 9 ; 1 Cor. i. 4; Eph. i. 16; 1
Thess. i. 2 ; Philem. 4 ; Col. i. 3. — eVt Trdarj rrj fiveia v/jl.]
not : in every recollection, but, as the article requires : in my
ivhole recollection of j^ou, so that the sense is not : as of ten as
I remember you (so usually, following Chrysostom and Luther),
but : my remembrance of you in its entire tenor and compass is
mingled with thankfulness towards God. On eVt with the
dative, comp. ii. 1 7. Maldonatus, Homberg, Peirce, Michaelis,
Bretschneider, Hofmann, are mistaken in making vficov geni-
tive of the subject (and eVt as stating the ground, 1 Cor. i. 4) :
" that ye are constantly mindful of me," or " on account of your
collective remenibrance" (Hofmann), which is supposed to imply
and include the aid transmitted to him as a single fxvela. 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. — H^vcla] is to
be rendered in the usual sense of remembrance (comp. 1 Thess.
^ In the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, -rpKrpiiiripoi and S/a^iava/ are
spoken of as existing in Philippi, but no i'jr'nrxo'ro;. See especially chap. v. 6.
Therefore even at this later period bishops and presbyters were identical in
Philippi.
CHAP. I. 3, 4. 15
iii. 6 ; 2 Tim. i. 3), and not, as by van Hengel, in that of
mention, whicli it only obtains in the passages — certainly
otherwise corresponding — Eom. i. 9, Eph. i. 16, 1 Thess. i.
2, Philem. 4, by the addition of Troteladav. In this case it is
the [xveiav ej(€Lv (1 Thess. iii. 6 ; 2 Tim. i. 3 ; Plat. Legg. vii. p.
798 A), and not the fiv. Troceca-Bac, that is thought of. — irdv-
Tore] cannot belong to ev'^^aptarco in such a way that the
following iv irdarj Seyjaet k.t.\. should be separated from it and
joined to the participial clause, as Hofmann^ desires. It is
true that Trdvrore down to vf^cov is closely linked with what
precedes ; but the connection is of such a character that
Trdvrore already finds the befitting limitation through eVt
rrddrj T. fivela v/moov, and now by Trdvrore /c.r.X. can be
announced, ichen the €v-)(apL(7ro> r. ©. [x. etrl tt. t. yuv. v\x. takes
place, namely, " at all times, in every request ivliich I malcc for
you all, thanksgiving towards my God is joined with my entire
remembrance of you." Negatively expressed, the sense up to
this point therefore is : "I never (Trdvrore) make my interces-
sory prayer for you all, ivitlwut always (rrdvrore, as in Kom. i.
10, Col. i. 4) in it associating thanks toivards my God luitli
my entire rememlranee of you." This does not render the
Travrcav inappropriate, as Hofmann objects, the fact being that
the apostle constantly bears cdl his Philippians upon his heart,
and cannot help praying for them all ; he feels this, and ex-
presses 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 loith joy"
the expression ev Tzda-rj SeT^o-et t^i* Beijcnv TrocovfjLevo<i, as thus
linked together, would be only a burdensome tautology. In-
stead of /xerd ')(ap. r. S. ttolovijl., Paul would have simply and
naturally written the mere 'xalpoiv. This applies also to the
view of Huther, w^ho (in the Mccklenb. Zeitschr. 1863, p.
400) substantially agrees with Weiss. Hoelemann incorrectly
^ According to whom Paul is supposed to say that ^'lie thanlcs his God for
their collective remembrance at all times, in each of his intercessory prayers
making the request for them all with joy." Thus, however, the apostle would in
fact have expressed himself in a manner extravagant even to falsehood* because
implying an impossibility.
1 6 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIAIfS.
connects V7re|0 iravr. v/ji. with ev-)(apL<TT(a (Eom. i. 8 ; Eph. i.
16; 1 Thess. i. 2 ; 2 Thess. i. 3). Against this it may be
iirged, that tlie otherwise too general eV iraa-r) Be^crec fiov
needs^ an addition more precisely defining it ; and the words
/j,era 'xap. rrjv Berjo: ttolov/u,. 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 T^-jv Beri<TLv points back to a more precisely defined Si7jcTi<;,
the specification of which is contained in this very vtt. it. vfi.
Comp. Col. i. 3. — As to the distinction between Serjai'; and
Trpoaev^-)'^ (ver. 9, iv. 6), see on Eph. vi. 18. — On the empha-
tic sequence of mrda-rj, iravroTe, iracrr), TravTojv, comp. Lobeck,
Pai^al. p. 56. Paul does not aim at such accumulations, but
the fulness of his heart suggests them to him ; comp. 2 Cor.
ix. 8. — fjiera %apa9 /c.t.'X.] His heart urges him, while men-
tioning his prayer for them all, to add : " when I make unth
joy the (mentioned) prayer {rrjv B.)" — 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
fxera ')(ap. onwards, for TroLovp,. is connected with ev-^apLo-ra)
(in opposition to Heinrichs), as containing the characteristic
definition of mode for Birjai'i vir. iravr. v/a.
Ver. 5 f. 'EttL rfj koivcov. v/j,. et9 to ei;a77.] is to be taken
together with evxapia-Tw, ver. 3 (1 Cor. i. 4), and not with
fjuera 'xctp. k.tX. (Calvin, Grotius, van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald,
Weiss, Hofmann) ; for in that case, with the right explanation
of eVt irda-rj r. piv. vfi., 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
felloiuship in respect of the gospel; by this Paul means the
common hrotherly coherence (Acts ii. 42) which united the
Philippians together for the gospel (as the aim to which the
KOLvaivia has reference), that is, for its furtherance and efficiency.
The great cause of the gospel was the end at which, in their
mutual coherence, they aimed ; and this, therefore, gave to their
' This applies also in opposition to Ewald, who attaches vv\^ -xairui vf^uii, and
to Hofmann, who at the same time joins iv -rarri SijjVs/, to the participial clause.
The participial clause only begins with the emphatically preiixed fUTo. x^p^s-
CHAP. I. 5, C. 17
fellowship with one another its specific character of a holy
destination. The correctness of this interpretation is con-
firmed by the context in ver. 9, where that which is here
expressed by rj Koivwvla v/iwv is characterized, under the cate-
gory of the disposition on which this koivcovm is based, as ^
wyuTrr) v/icbv. As this view is in full harmony with both words
and sense, and is not dependent on anything to be supplied,
it excludes divergent interpretations. We must therefore
reject not only the explanation which refers KOLvwvia 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 Bom. III. p. 81,
287), although it is never so used in the K T. (conip. on
Piom. XV. 26 ; Gal. vi. 6 ; Philem. 6), but also the view of Theo-
doret, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Heinrichs, and others :
" quod evangelii participes facti cstis," as if it ran tou evay-
<ye\iou (Theodoret : KOivwviav he rov evayyeXlov r-qv iricmv
eKoXecre). Chrysostom and Theophylact, who are followed by
most of the recent interpreters (including Schinz, Weiss,
Schenkel, Huther, Ellicott, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann), under-
stand the fellowship of the Philippians vAih the apostle, that
is, 071, KOLvwvoi [MOV yivedde k. a-v^jxeptcrTai rdv inri tco evayy.
TTovcov, Theophylact ; consequently, their co-operation luith him
in spreading the gospel, in which case also a reference to the aid
rendered is included. In this case, since the text says nothing
about a " service " devoted to the gospel (Hofmann), an addition
like fier ifiov (1 John i. 3, ct cd), or some other more precise
definition, like that in ver. 7, would be an essential element —
not arising (as in Gal. ii. 9) out of the context — which there-
fore must have been expressed, as indeed Paul must have said
so, had he wished to be understood as referring to fellowship
^oith all who had the cause of the gospel at heart (Wiesinger).
The alsolute " your fellowship," if no arbitrary supplement is
allowable, can only mean the mutual fellowship of the memhers
of the church themselves. — The article is not repeated after
vfjLoov, because Koivwvia eU to evayy. is conceived as forming a
single notion (comp. on Koivoyveiv etV, iv. 15 ; Plato, Hep. p.
453 A). — aTTo 7rp(OTr]<; rj/j,. d'^pi' rov vvv] is usually connected
PHIL. B
18 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPL'\.NS.
with. T§ Koivwvia k.tX. This connection is the t7nie one, for
the constancy of the Koivcovla, that has been attested hitherto,
is the very thing which not only supplies the motive for the
apostle's thankfulness, but forms also the ground of his just
confidence for the future. The connective article (ry before
aTTo) is not requisite, as iirl tt} koivcovlo, v^wv was construed as
eVt Ta> KOLvwvetv vfia<i (AViner, p. 128 [E. T. l7l]). It cannot
be connected with t. Serjaiv ttoiov/x. (Weiss), unless eVl t.
KOivcov. K.T.X is also made to belong hereto. If joined with
7re7roi^co9 (Eilliet, 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 ireiroiO.
would be but indirectly indicated. If connected with ey;^a-
ptarco (Beza, Wolf, Bengel), the words — seeing that the expres-
sion irdvTore iv ircKrrj herjaei has already been used, and then
in eTTt rf) Koivwvia k.t.X. a transition has already been made
to the object of the thanks — would contain a definition
awkwardly postponed. — The first day is that in which he first
preached the gospel to them, which was followed by immediate
and decided results, Acts xvi. 13 ff. Comp. Col. i. 6. —
Trevrot^ft)?] confidence by which Paul knows his ev^xapia-retv,
w. 3-5, to be accompanied. Without due ground, Hofmann
confuses the matter by making a new prolonged paragraph
begin with 'jreiroiOoi^} — avTo tovtoI 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 tovto merely
(Weiss), but M'ould 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
' He makes ver. 6, namely, constitute aiirotasis, whose apodosis is again divided
into the protasis »a,Sus Iffnt I'lKccttiv ly-oi and the apodosis corresponding thereto.
But this apodosis of the apodosis begins with S/a t« £;^£/v fit, ver. 7, and yet is only
continued after the words fnHprus y. i ete;, u; I'TrivoPu ifiZ;, which are a jjarentJiesis,
in vv. 8, 9. Such a dialectically involved and complicated, long-Avinded period
would be most of all out of place in this epistle ; and what reader would have
been able, without Hofmann's guidance, to detect it and adjust its several
parts ?
CHAP. I. 7. 19
as oh id ijjsiim} for this very reason (2 Pet. i. 5 ; Plato, Symp.
p. 2 4 A, and Stallb. acl loc. ; Prot. p. 310 E ; Xen. Anab. i.
9. 21, and Ktihner in loc, also his Gramm. IL 1, p. 267 ; see
also Winer, p. 135 [E. T. 178], and comp. on Gal. ii. 10),
namely, because your Koivwvia et? to evayy., from the first day
until now, is that which alone can warrant and justify my
confidence for the future, on 6 evap^dixevo<; k.tX. — o ivap^d-
/xevc; K.rX] God. Comp. ii. 13. That which He has begun
He will complete, namely, by the further operations of His
grace. The idea of resistance to this grace, as a human possi-
bility, is not thereby excluded ; but Paul has not to fear this
on the part of his Philippian converts, as he formerly had in
the case of the Galatians, Gal. i. 6, iii. 3. — iv vfilv] That Paul
did not intend to say among yov. (as Hoelemann holds), but
in you, in animis vestris (comp. ii. 13 ; 1 Cor. xii. 6), is shown
by vTrep ttuvtcov vfiwv following, by which the language
o ivap^. iv vfiiv k.t.\. expresses a confidence felt in respect
to all individuals. — 6^701^ dyaOov] without article, hence :
an excellent work, by which is meant, in conformity with
the context, the Koivwvla v/m. eh to evayy. — d^^pci rj/xepa^
'I. X.] corresponding to the diro 'Trpoorr]'; rjfxep. a%/3t rov vvv.
ver. 5, presupposes the nearness of the Trapovaia (in oppo-
sition to Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others), as everywhere in
the N. T., and especially in Paul's writings (Weiss, hihl. Theol.
p. 297, ed. 2). Comp. ver. 10, iii. 20. The device by
which the older expositors (see even Pelagius) gratuitously in-
troduce qualifying statements, " Perseverat autem in ilium usque
diem, quicunque perseverat usgite ad mortem suam " (Estius),
whereby is meant not " coniinuitas usque ad ilium diem," but
" terminus et complementum perfectionis, quod luibituri isto die
erimus " (Calovius), is just as un-Pauline as Calvin's makeshift,
" that the dead are still in x)Tofeetu, because they have not yet
reached the goal," and as Matthies' philosophical perverting of
it into the continual and eteriud 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 {avro tovto),
^ Hofmann also adopts tliis explanation of kIto toZtb.
2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
since it was to him, through his love to his readers, a duty
and obligation I Not to cherish it would be wrong. " Caritas
enim omnia sperat/' Pelagius. — As to Ka6co<;, which, in the
conception of the corresponding relation, states the ground,
comp. on iii. 17; 1 Cor. i. 6; Eph, i. 4; Matt. vi. 11.
— On hUatov, comp. Acts iv. 19 ; Eph. vi. 1 ; Phil. iv. 8 ;
Col. iv. 1 ; 2 Pet. i. 12. A classical author would have
written: hUaiov i/xe tovto (ppovelv (Herod, i. 39 ; Dem. 198.
8; Plat. Sgmjx p. 214 C), or: Si«ato9 el/xt tovto (pp. (Herod.
i. 32; Dem. 1469. 18, and frequently; Time. i. 40. 3). —
TOVTO (f)poveLv] to have this feeling, this practical bent of mind
in favour of you, by which is meant the confidence expressed
in ver. 6, and not his striving in prayer for the -perfecting of
his readers' salvation (ver. 4), which the sense of the word
(ppoveiv does not admit of (in opposition to Weiss), as it is
not equivalent to ^rjTetv (comp. on Col. iii. 2). See besides,
Huther, I.e. p. 405 f. — On virep, comp. iv. 10 ; 2 Mace. xiv. 8 ;
Eur. Archel. fr. xxv. 2 f. ; Plut. Phil. c. Flam. 3 ; on tovto (jjp.,
Gal. v. 10, ovSev ciWo ^p. The special reference of the sense
of (ppovelv : to he mindful dbo^it so7)iething, must have been sug-
gested by the context, as in iv. 10; but is here insisted on by
Hofmann, and that in connection with the error, that with
Ka6(o<; the protasis of an apodosis is introduced. The (fypoveiv
is here perfectly general, cogitare ac sentire, but is characterized
by TOVTO as a ev (j)povecv, which Paul feels himself bound to
cherish in the interest of the salvation of all his readers (vTrep
7rdvTQ)v vfxwv). — hia to eyeiv jie iv Trj KupSla v/ia?] An ex-
pression of heartfelt love (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 3) on the part of
the apostle towards his readers, not on the part of his readers
towards him (Oeder, Michaelis, Storr, Eosenmiiller, am Ende,
Flatt), thus making v/jid<; the subject; although the sing.
KapBia (comp. Eph. iv. 18, v. 19, vi. 5 ; Ptom. 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. —
ev T6 Tot? Secr/iot? /c.t.X.] SO that, accordingly, this state of
suffering, and the great task which is incumbent on me in it,
cannot dislodge you from my heart. See already Chrysostom
CHAP. I. 7. 21
and Pelagius. These words, ev re ro'c'i Sea-fxoi<i k.t.\., set
forth the faithful and abiding love, which even his heavy
misfortunes cannot change into concern for himself alone.
They contain, however, the two points, co-ordinated by re . , .
Kai (as well . . . as also) : (1) The jposition of the apostle, and
(2) his employment in this position. The latter, which, through
the non-repetition of the article before /3e/3., is taken as a whole
(Buttmann, ncut. Gr. p. 294 [E. T. 342]), is both antithetical,
the defence of the gospel, and also thetieal, the confirmation of it,
that is, the corroboration of its trutli by proof, testimony, etc.,
its verif cation ; comp. Heb. vi. 16; Eom. xv. 8 ; Mark xvi.
20; Thucyd. i. 140. 6, iv. 87. 1; Plat. Polit. p. 309 C;
Wisd, V. 18. For an instance of this kind of fie^alwcn'i
during the earliest period of the apostle's captivity at Home,
see Acts xxviii. 23. Hofmann, taking a groundless objection
to our explanation from the use of re . . . Kai (see, however,
Baeumlein, PartiJc. p. 225), refuses to connect the re with the
following Kai ; he prefers to connect with the one e'%ety, namely
with the e^^iv iv rf} Kaphia, another, namely an €-)(eLv cxt^kol-
vwvov'i. This is an artificial conjunction of very different
references of the e'xetv, 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 quaKtative defini-
tion of the former. The question, moreover, whether in rfi
arrok. k. /3e/3. rov evayy. Paul intended to speak of his judicial
examination (Heinrichs, van Hengel), or of his extra-judicial
action and ministry during his captivity, cannot be answered
without arbitrariness, except by allowing that both were meant.
Por the words do not justify us in excluding the judicial
defence (Wieseler, Chronol. d. apostol. Zeitalt. p. 430), since the
airoXoyla might be addressed not merely to Jews and Judaists,
but also to Gentile judges. — rov evayy.'] belongs to rfj airoX. k.
/SeySatwcret, and not to /3e/3. only ; the latter view would make
rfi airoX. denote the personal vindication (Chrysostom, Estius,
and others), but is decisively opposed by the non-repetition
— closely coupling the two words — of the article before /3e/3.
But to interpret cnrokoyia and ^e^aL(oai<; as synonymous (Ehein-
wald), or to assume an €v Bia Bvolv for uTroXoyla et<? ^e^aicoacv
22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
(Heinriclis), is logically incorrect, and without warrant in the
connection. It is also contrary to the context (on account of
rrj dTToXoyia) to understand the /3e/3ata)o-t9 r. evayy. as the
actual confirmation afforded by the apostle's sufferings (Chry-
sostom, Theodore t, Erasmus, and others). — avyKOLvwvov^ fxov
k.tX.'] characterizes the vixa<i, and supplies a motive for the
e%ety /.te ev ry KapSla vfjia<i k.t.X. : since you, etc. This love to
you, unalterable even in my affliction, is based on the real
syrapathij, which results from all of you being joint-ijartalcers
with me in the grace. The emphasis is laid, primarily on ctv^k.
and then on Trai/ra?, which is correlative with the previous
TrdvToov. The idea of the grccce ivhich the apostle had received
(Trj<; ')(apLro<i) is defined solely from the connection, and that
indeed by the two points immediately preceding, ev re Tot9
8e(T/j,oi<i fiov and ry aTroX. k. ySe/3. 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 ravTi]^ (as is Hofmann's objection) —
had been vouchsafed not only to himself, but also to all
his Philippian converts, who like him had had to suffer for
Christ (ver, 29 f ) ; and thus, in his bonds, and whilst vin-
dicating and confirming the gospel, conscious of the holy
similarity in this respect between his and their experience,
sympathetically and lovingly he bore them, as his 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 o-i;/x7racr%oyT69, a-vvaTrdXoyovfjLevoi, avfi-
^e^aiovvTe<i to evayyeXcov, and that in virtue of the above-
named grace of God, as a manifestation of which he had
recognised his bonds, and his activity for the gospel in
these bonds. Others interpret it much too generally and
vaguely, looking at the tender and special references of the
context, as the " gratiosa evangelii donatio " (Hoelemann, comp.
Wolf, Heinrichs, de Wette, and others). Likewise without any
CHAP. I. 8. 23
more immediate reference to the context, and inappropriate, is
its explanation of the apostolic office (Eom. i. 5, et al), the
Philippians being said to be active promoters of this through
their faith (see Theodore of Mopsuestia) ; along with which
a reference is introduced to the assistance rendered (Storr,
am Ende, Eosenmiiller, Flatt, Hofmann ; comp. also Weiss) —
which assistance has come to be regarded as a KOLvwvia eh to
eiiajyeXtov (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 liis expression 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 {')(apa<i). — The avv in avyKotvo)vov<; refers
to fiov, my Joint-partakers (iv. 14) of the grace, thus com-
bining a-}jjK. with a double genitive of the person and the
thing, of the subject and the object (Klihner, II. 1, p. 288 ;
Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 239]), and placing it first with emphasis ;
for this Joint fellowship is the point of the love in question.
— As to the repetition of vjj.d<;, see Matthiae, p. 1031, and on
Col. ii. 13 ; comp. Soph. 0. C. 1278, and Eeisig in loc.
Eemark. — Whether 'iv n roTg hsixoTg . . . ihctyy. should be con-
nected with the preceding ha rb 'iyjiv ^s h r?j y.aphia u/xaj (Chry-
sostom, Erasmus, Castalio, Luther, and many ; also Huther),
or with auy-A.. k.t.X. which follows (Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Cor-
nelius a Lapide, Storr, Elatt, Lachmann, van Hengel, Tischendorf,
Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and others), cannot be
determined. Still the former, as of a less periodic character,
is more in harmony with the fervent tone of feeling. Besides,
the repetition of j/jLag betrays a break in the flow of thought
after r. ijayy.
Ver. 8. A solemn confirmation of the preceding assurance,
that he had his readers in his heart, etc. Comp., on the
connection, Eom. i. 9. Theophylact, moreover, strikingly
observes : ou^ <U9 aTrio-Tov/iei/o? fxdprvpa KoXel top Geov, aWa
Tr]P TToWrjv hLaOeatv ovk e^iov TrapaarrjaaL Bia Xoyov. — ct)9
24 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
iTTLTToOib /c.tA.] Jioiu MucJi I loiig ciftcr you all, etc., wliicli
would not be the case if I did not bear you in my heart
{yap), as announced more precisely in ver. 7. On eVtTro^w,
comp. Eom. i. 11 ; Phil. ii. 26 ; 1 Thess. iii. 6 ; 2 Tim. i. 4.
The comijound denotes the direction (Plat. Lcgg. ix. p. 855 F ;
Herod, v. 93 ; Diod. Sic. xvii. 101 ; Ecclus. xxv. 20), not the
strength of the rrrodelv (comp. on 2 Cor. v. 2), which is conveyed
by ft)"?; comp. Pom. i. 9 ; 1 Thess. ii. 10. — iv a-irXdyx^oi';
XpLarov 'l7]crov] is not, with Hofmann,^ to be connected with
what follows (see on ver. 9) ; it is an expression of the
heartiness and truth of his longing, uttered in the strongest
possible terms, ev, on account of the sensuous expression
which follows {a7fKa<y'xya, like ^''^Hl, as seat of the affections,
especially of heartfelt love, ii. 1 ; Col. iii. 1 2 ; Philem. 7,
12, 20; also in classical authors), is to be taken locally:
in the heart of Jesus Christ ; that is, so that this longing of
mine is not my own individual emotion, but a longing ivhich
I feel in virtue of the dwelling and ivorhing of Christ in me.
Paul speaks thus from the consciousness that his inmost life
is not that of his human personality, of himself, but that
Christ, through the medium of the Holy Spirit, is the personal
principle and agent of his thoughts, desires, and feelings.
Comp. on Gal. ii. 20. Pilled with the feeling of this holy
fellowship of life, which threw his own individuality into the
background, he could, seeing that his whole spiritual ^cotj was
thus the life of Christ in him, represent the circumstances
of his iiTiTrodeiv, as if the viscera Christi were moved in him,
as if Christ's heart throhhed in him for his Philippians. Bengel
aptly says : " In Paulo non Paulus vivit sed Jesus Christus ;
quare Paulus non in Pauli, sed Jesu Christi movetur vis-
ceribus." Comp. Theodoret : ouk avOpoyirivov to (^iXrrpov,
TTvevfiariKov. Not doing justice to the Pauline consciousness
of the wiio mysiica which gives rise to this expression, some
have rendered iv in an instrumental sense, as in Luke i. 78
(Hofmann) ; others have taken it of the norma : " according
' According to Hofmann, namely, Iv ctcx. X. 'I. asserts with reference to tlie
following y.tt.\ Touro vfoaivx- that Christ's heart towards those wlio are His pro-
duces such prayer in the apostle, and manifests itself tliercin.
CHAP. I. 9. 25
to the pattern of Christ's love to His people " (Eosenmiiller,
Eilliet) ; and some have found the sense of the norma in the
f/enitival relation : " in animo penitus aftecto nt animus fuit
Christi" (van Hengel). So also Wetstein, Heinrichs, and
earlier expositors ; whilst Storr refers iv cnrX. 'I. X. even
to the readers (sc. 6vTa<i). For many other interpretations,
see Hoelemann and Weiss. The merely approximate state-
ment of the sense, given by Grotius and others : " amore non
illo communi, sed vei^e Christiano" is in substance correct, but
fails to give its full development to the consciousness of the
Xpto-To? eV rjfxtv (Gal. ii. 20, iv. 19; Eom. viii. 10; 2 Cor.
xiii. 5 ; Eph. iii. 1 7) ; notwithstanding which Hofmann regards
the identification of Paul's own heart with the heart of Christ
as simply wijjossihle ; thus, however, applying to the mysti-
cism of deep pious feeling, and the living immediate plastic
form in which it finds expression, a criterion alien to its
character, and drawing around it a literal boundary which
it cannot bear.
Ver. 9. After having stated and discussed, in vv. 3-8,
the reason why he thanks God with respect to his readers,
Paul now, till the end of ver. 11, sets forth what it is that he
asks m jprayer for them. " Redit ad precationem, quam obiter
tantura uno verbo attigerat (namely, ver. 4) ; exponit igitur
summam eorum, quae illis petebat a Deo" (Calvin). — «at] the
simple and, introducing the new part of,^ and thus continuing,
the discourse : And this (which follows) is ichat I pray, — so
that the oljcd is placed first in the progress of the discourse ;
hence it is Ka\ rovro Trpoaev'x^o/xai, and not k. Trpoaev'^. tovto.
Hofmann's explanation of the kul in the sense of also, and his
attaching iu airX. X. 'I. to ver. 9, are the necessary result of
^ The word vpoiriC^ofjiai, which now occurs, points to a new topic, the thanks-
giving and its grounds having been previously spoken of. Therefore x. r.
-xfotTiux,. is not to be attached, with Piilliet and Ewald, to the preceding verse :
a)id (how I) pray this. Two different things would thus be joined. The
foi-mer portion is concluded by the fervent and solemn ver. 8. Jatho also
{Br. an d. Phil, Hildesh. 1857, p. 8) connects it with u;, namely thus : and
how I pray for this, namely, to come to you, in order that I may edify you.
But to extract for roZro, out of ItivoSZ vfta;, the notion : "my presence with
you," is much too harsh and arbitrary; for Paul's words are not even WfroSu
i'Siif vfia;, as in Piom. i. 11.
26 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
his perverse metamorphosis of the simple discourse, running
on from TreTrot^co? in ver. 6, into a lengthened protasis and
apodosis, — a construction in which the apodosis of the apodosis
is supposed to begin with iv arrX. 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. 1 1 ; Matt, xxiv,
20), and thus explains the preparatory tovto. Comp. on John
vi. 29. "This I pray, that your love should more and more,'*
etc. — rj dydirr) v/ji(bv], not love to Paul (van Hengel, follow-
ing Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, Bengel, and others), — a
reference which, especially in connection with eri, fidWov k.
/jidWov, 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 inaj)propriate to
the context which follows (eV eTnyvcoa-ei k.t.X). Nor is it
their love generally, without specification of an object for it, as
a proof of faith (Hofmann) ; but it is, in accordance with the
context, the brotherly love of the Philippians one to another,
the common disposition and feeling at the bottom of that
Koivwvia ek to evayy., for which Paul has given thanks in
ver. 5.-^ This previous thanksgiving of his was based on the
confidence, otl o ivap^dfievo'i k.t.X., ver. 6, and the conterds of
his 'prayer now is in full harmony with that confidence. The
connection is misapprehended by Calovius and Eheinwald,
who explain it as love to God and Christ ; also by Matthies
(comp. Eilliet), 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 dydTrt), and to do justice to
the idea of co-operative fellowship which is implied in the
KOLvcovia in ver. 5. — €tl /xdXkov] quite our: still more. Comp.
Homer, Od. i. 322, xviii. 22 ; Herod, i. 94 ; Pind. Pyth. x. 88,
Olymp. i. 175; Plat. Euthyd. p. 283 C; Xen. Anal), vi. 6.
^ The idea that "your love' means the readers themselves (Bullinger), or
that this passage gave rise to the mode of addressing the hearers tliat has
obtained since the Fathers (very frequently, e. g. in Augustine) in the language
of the chiu'ch (Bengel), is purely fanciful.
CHAP. I. 9. 27
35 ; Diog. L. ix, 10. 2. See instances of fiaXKov koX fiaXKov
in Kypke, II. p. 307. "With the reading Trepiaaevrj note the
sense of progressive development. — iv iTTLyvcoaet k. Trdarj alo--
O^a-et] constitutes that in ivhich — i.e. respecting ivhich — the love
of his readers is to become more and more abundant. Comp.
Eom. XV. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 9 (Elz.), viii. 7; Col. ii. 7; Ecclus.
xix. 20 (24). Others take the iv as instrumental: through
(Heinrichs, Flatt, Schinz, and others) ; or as local : in, i.e.
in association with (Oecumenius, Calvin, Eheinwald, Hoele-
mann, and others), — irepicrcT. being supposed to stand alsolutely
{may he abundant). But the sequel, which refers to the
iirtrfvcdaL^ and ata-9Tja-i<;, and not to the love, shows that Paul
had in view not the growth in love, but the increase in iiri-
yvtoai^ and ataOrja-c;, which the love of the Philippians was
more and more to attain. The less the love is deficient in
knowledge and at(Tdr)cn<;, it is the more deeply felt, more
moral, effective, and lasting. If i7rt<yvo)ac<; is the penetrating
(see on 1 Cor. xiii. 1 2 ; Eph. i. 1 7) 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.) ; ata9r)crc<; (only occurring here in the New
Testament), which denotes perception or feeling operating either
through the bodily senses^ (Xen. Mem. i. 4. 5, Anah. iv. 6. 13,
and Kriiger in loc. ; Plat. Theaet. p. 1 5 6 B), which are also
called aladijcrei'i (Plat, TJieaet. p. 1 5 6 B), or spiritually ^ (Plat.
Tim. p. 43 C ; Dem. 411. 19, 1417. 5), must be, according
to the context which follows, the perception lohich tal'cs place
ivith the ethical senses, — an activity of moral perception which
apprehends and makes conscious of good and evil as such
(comp. Heb. v. 14). The opposite of this is the dulness and
inaction of the inward sense of ethical feeling (Piom. xi. 8 ;
Matt. xiii. 15, et al), the stagnation of the aiadrjTijpLa t%
KapBia<i (Jer. iv. 19), whereby a moral unsusceptibility, in-
1 Not a mere knowledge of the divine will (Eheinwald), which leads to the
right objects, aims, means, and proofs of love (Weiss ; comp. Hofmanu). This,
as in Col. i. 9, would have been expressed by Paul. Neither can iTiyti. be
limited to the knowledge of men (Chrysostom, Erasmus, and others).
2 " Nam etiam spiritualiter datur visus, auditus, olfactus, gustus, tactus,
i. e. sensus investiirativi et fruitivi " (Eengel).
28 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
capacity of judgment, and indifference are brought about.
Comp. LXX. Prov. i. 7 ; Ex, xxviii. 5 ; Ecclus. xx. 1 7, Eec.
(aca6T]a-i<i op6i'-j) ; 4 Mace. ii. 21. Paul desires for his readers
every {irdarj) atad'qac'i, because their inner sense is in no given
relation to remain without the corresponding moral activity
of feeling, which may be very diversified according to the
circumstances which form its ethical conditions. The relation
between i7rl<yvu)(TL^ and aca-67}(Tt<; is that of spontaneity to
receptivity, and tlie former is the rjye/MoviKou for the efficacy
of the latter. In the contrast, however, mistaking and mis-
apprehending are not correlative to the former, and deception
to the latter (Hofmann) ; both contrast with both.
Vv. 10, 11. El<i TO BoKifi,d^ecv /c.r.X] states the aim of the
ireptcro: iv iircyv. k. it. ataO., and in Xva rjre elXtKp. k.t.X. we
have the ultimate design. BoKL/j^d^ecv rd Bcacpepovra is to
be understood, as in Eom. ii. 18 : m order to approve that
vjhich is (morally) excellent. So the Vulgate, Chrysostom,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio,
Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, Michaelis, Elatt, Eheinwald,
Eilliet, Ewald, and others. See on Biacfyepeiv, 'praestantimxm
esse (Dem. 1466. 22; Polyb. iii. 87. 1; Matt. x. 31), and
ra Biacpepovra, praestantiora (Xeu. Hier. i. 3 ; Dio Cass. xliv.
25), Sturz, Lex. Xcn. I. p. 711 f. Comp. Sta(f)ep6vT03^, eximie
(Plat. Frot. p. 349 D, and frequently). Eor SoKi/xu^., comp.
Eom. xiv. 22, et al. Others understand it as a testing of
things ivhich are morally different (Theodoret, Beza, Grotius,
Wolf, and others ; also Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, de
Wette, Corn. Mliller, Wiesinger, Weiss, Huther). In point
of usage, this is equally correct; see on BoKtfid^., in both
senses, 1 Thess. ii. 4. But in our view the sense which yields
a defiiiition of the aim of the words ireptaa-. iv iiriyv. k. it. alad.,
as well as the antecedent of the elXiKptveia whieh folloius,
seems more consistent with the context. The testing of good
and evil is not the aim, but the expression and function, of
the i7riyv(ocn<; and atadrja-i^. Looking at the stage of Christian
life which must be assumed from vv. 5 and 7 (different in
Eom. xii. 2), the former, as an aim, does not go far enough ;
and the elXcKplveta is the result not of that testing, but of the
CHAP. I. 10, 11. 29
approbation of the good. Hofmann's view is therefore unsuit-
able, that it means the proving of that lohich 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 %inv)orthy of being loved (= ra erepa) — a
thought quite out of keeping with the tclic mode of expression,
— eiXiKpLvecsi], pure, sincere = Ka6ap6<; ; Plat. Phil. p. 52 D,
Comp., on its ethical use, Plat. Phaeelr. p. 66 A, and Stall-
baum in loc., 81 C ; 2 Pet. iii. 1 ; 1 Cor. v. 8 ; 2 Cor. i. 12,
ii. 17; Wisd. vii. 2 5, and Grimm in loc. — tt7r/3oo-/co7rot]
practical proof of the elXiKpiveta in reference to intercourse
with others (2 Cor. vi, 3): giving no offence; 1 Cor. x. 32 ;
Ignat, Trail, interpol. 7 ; Suicer, Thes. s.v. As Paul decidedly
uses this word in an active sense in 1 Cor. I.e. (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. — et? i]fiep. X.], to, i.e. for, the day of Christ, when
ye are to appear pure and blameless before the judgment-
seat. Comp. ii. 16 ; Eph. iv. 30 : Col. i. 22 ; 2 Pet. ii. 9, iii.
7 ; 2 Tim. i. 12 ; also Jude 24 f. These passages show that
the expression is not equivalent to the a')(pL<i rjfiepa^ 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. TreTrX. Kapirov Si/c.] modal definition of the
etkiKptv. K. airp6<Tic., and that from the positive side of these
attributes, which are manifested and tested in this fruitful-
ness — i.e. in this rich fulness of Christian virtue in their pos-
sessors. KapiTo<i SiKaioa: is the fruit ivhich is the product of
righteoiisness, which proceeds from a righteous moral state.
Comp. Kapir. rov Tryey/iaro?, Gal. v. 22 ; k. tov <f)a)T6<;, Eph.
v. 9 ; K. BiKai,oavv7]<;, Jas. iii. 18, Heb. xii. 11, Eom. vi. 21 f.,
Prov. xi. 30. In no instance is the genitive with Kapiro^;
that of apposition (Hofmann). The BiKacocrvvr) here meant,
however, is not j'ustitia fidei {justificatio), as many, even
Eilliet and Hoelemann, would make it, but, in conformity
30 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
with ver. 10, a righteous moral condition, which is the
moral consequence, because the necessary vital expression, of
the righteousness of faith, in which man now Kapnro^opel rut
©eft) eV KaLvoTrjTi irveviiaro^, Eom. vii. 5 f. ; comp. vi. 2,
viii. 2 ; Col. i. 10. We must observe that the emphasis is
laid not on Sticatoo-WT;?, but on Kapirov, — which therefore
obtains more precise definition afterwards, — so that ZiKaioavvrj^
conveys no new idea, but only represents the idea, already
conveyed in ver. 10, of the right moral condition. Comp. on
BLKaioavvT], Eph. v. 9 ; Eom. vi. 13, 18, 20, xiv. 17, et al.
— On the aecusaiive of the remote ohj'ect, comp. Ps. cv. 40,
cxlvii. 14; Ecclus. xvii. 6; Col. i. 9 (not 2 Thess. i. 11);
Winer, p. 215 [E. T. 287]. A classical author would have
used the genitive (Elz.) or the dative. — tov Bia 'I. X.] sc.
ovra, the more exact specific definition of this fruit, the peculiar
sacred essence and dignity of Avliich 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 ef&cacy of the Holy Spirit (Gal. ii. 20,
iii. 22; Eph. iv. 7 f., 17; John xv. 14, et al). — ek Bo^av
K.T.X.] belongs to ireTrXrip. k.tX., not specially to tov Sia 'I. X.
How far this fruitfulness tends to the honour of God (comp.
John XV. 8), see Eph. i. 6-14. God's Bo^a is His majesty in
itself; eiraivo'i is the ]praise of that majesty. Comp. Eph. i. 6,
12, 14. This eiraivci is hascd on matter of fact (its opposite
is artixd^eiv r. Qeov, Eom. 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 v/hich it is effected,
are manifested. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 20. The whole work of re-
demption is the manifestation of the divine ho^a. ^ee John
xii. 27 f. The glory of God is, however, the ultimate aim
and constant refrain of all Christian perfection, ii. 1 1 ; 1 Cor.
X. 31 ; Eph. iii. 31 ; 1 Pet. iv. 11 ; Kom. xi. 36.
Ver. 12. See, on vv. 12-26, Huther in the Mecldenl.
Zeitschr. 1864, p. 558 ff. — Paul now proceeds by the Be of
continuation to depict his own i^osition down to ver. 26. See
the summary of contents. — The element of transition in the
train of thought is that of the notifeation which Paul now
CHAP. I. 13. 31
desires to bring before tliem; 'yivcoa-Keiv is therefore placed
Jirst : hut ye are to know. It is otherwise in 2 Tim. iii. 1,
also 1 Cor. xi. 3, Col. ii. 1. — ra Kaj iixe] my circumstances,
my position, as in Eph. Vi. 2 1 ; Col. iv. 7 ; Tob. x. 9 ; 2 Mace,
iii. 40, ct al. ; Xen. Cyr. vii. 1. 16 ; Ael. V. H. ii. 20. — iiaXkov]
not to the hindrance, but much the contrary. See Winer, p. 2 2 8
[E. T. 304]. He points in this to the apprehension assumed
to exist, and certainly confirmed to him by Epaphroditus as
existing, on the part of his readers, which, before going further,
he wishes to relieve. There is no trace even here of a letter
received from them with the contribution (Hofmann; comp.
Wiesinger) ; comp. on ver. 1. Hoelemann : " magis, quam antea
contigerat ;" but this meaning must have been intimated by a
vvv or tjBt). — 7rpoKO'7r')]v] 2}r ogress, i.e. success. Comp. ver. 25 ;
1 Tim. iv. 15. As to the later Greek character of this word,
see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 85. In consequence of the apostle's
fate, the gospel had excited more attention, and the courage
of its preachers had increased ; see ver. 1 3 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. — eX?;-
Xvdev] cvenit, i.e. has redounded. Comp. Acts xix. 2 7 ; Wisd.
XV. 5; Herod, i. 120; Soph. Aj. 1117 (1138): Plat. Gorg.
p. 487 B. So the matter stands; note the jyerfect.
Ver. 13. "Sla-re /c.t.X,.] so that my bonds became manifest in
Christ, etc. This ware introduces the actual result of that
TTpoKOTTr}, and consequently a more precise statement of its
nature} ^Ev XpcarS does not belong to tov<; Sea/xoix; fiov,
alongside of which it does not stand ; but ^avepov^ iv Xpiar.
is to be taken together, and the emphasis is laid on <pavepov^,
so that the hecrixol did not remain KpvirroL or airoKpv^ot iv
XptarS, as would have been the case, if their relation to Christ
^ "Rem, qualis sit, addita rei consequentis significatione definit," Ellendt,
Lex. Sojyh. II. p. 1012. Hofmann's view, tliatit stands in the sense of i!; toZra
uitTi, also amounts to this. But Hoelemann is in eiTor in making it assert the
greatness of the ■rpoxo'Tyi. Not the gi-eatness, but the salutary effect, is indicated.
32 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIAXS.
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 hnoion 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 notorious. If Paul had been
only known generally as 8ea-fito<;, his bonds would have been
ouK ifKpaveU iv XptaTw ; but now that, as 8ecrfiL0<; iv Kvpixo
or rov Kvpiov (Eph. iv. 1, iii. 1 ; Philem. 9), as irda'xuiv ft)9
XpL<niav6<i (1 Pet. iv. 16), he had become the object of public
notice, the (pavepwac^ of his state of bondage, as resting iv
Xpi(7TQj, was thereby brought about, — a ^avepov '^iveaBai, con-
sequently, which had its distinctive characteristic quality in the
ev XpicTTM. It is arbitrary to supply 6vTa<; with iv XptaTo)
(Hofmann). Ewald takes it as : " shining in Christ," i.e. much
sought after and honoured as Christian. Comp. also Calvin, and
Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zcitalt. p. 457. But, according to
New Testament usage, <^avep6<; does not convey so much as this ;
in classical usage (Thuc. i. 17. 2, iv. 11. 3 ; Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 58,
Anal. vii. 7. 22 and Kriiger in loc.) it may mean conspicuous,
eminent. — iv oXw rw ir pan cop up'] Trpatroopiov is not the im-
pcricd iialacc in Eome (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius,
Tlieophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius
a Lapide, Grotius, Bengel, and many others, also IMynster,
Eheinwald, and Schneckenburger in the Deidsch. Zcitschr.
1855, p. 300), which is denoted in iv. 22 by r) Kaia-apo^
oLKia, but was never called 2^^'((ciori7im.^ It could not well,
indeed, be so called, as to Trpairdopiov is the standing appellation
for the palaces of the chief governors of irrovinces (Matt, xxvii.
27 ; John xviii. 28, xix. 9 ; Acts xxiii. 35) ; hence it might
and must have been explained as the Procurator's palace in
' Act. Thorn. § 3, 17, IS, 19, in TischenJorf, Act. apocr. pp. 192, 204 f.,
cannot be cited in favour of this designation (in opposition to Rheinwald) ; the
vpairupix liciinXiKa. there spokcn of (§ 3) are royal castles, so designated after the
analogy of the residences of the Roman provincial rulers. Comp. Sueton. A^ij.
72 ; Tib. 39, et al. ; Juvenal, x. 161.
CHAP. I. IC. 33
Caesarea, if our epistle had been written there (see especially
BottfTcr, Bcitr. I. p. 51 f.). But it is the Eoman castrum
irractorianorum, the barracks of the imjjcrial hody-guarcl (Came-
rarius, Perizonius, Clericus, Eisner, Michaelis, Storr, Heinrichs,
Flatt, Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette, Eilliet,
Wiesinger, Ewald, AVeiss, J. B. Lightfoot, and others), whose
chief was the praefcchis praetorio, the arparoTreBcou eVap^^o?,
to wdiom Paul was given in charge on his arrival in Eome
(Acts xxviii. 16). It was built by Sejanus, and was situated
not far from the Porta Viminalis, on the eastern side of the
city.^ See Suet. Tih. 37; Tac. Ann. iv. 2; Pitiscus, Thesaur.
a7itiq. III. 174; and especially Perizonius, dc orig., signij. ct
tistt voce. 2?raeioris ct praetorii, Franeq. 1687, as also his
Disqitisitio de praetorio ac vero scnsu verhorum Phil. i. 13,
Franeq. 1690; also Hoelemann, p. 45, and J. B. Lightfoot,
p. 97 ff. TO TTpatTcopiov does not mean the troojo of praetorian
cohorts (Hofmann), which would make it equivalent to ol
irpaLTwpiavoi (Herodian, viii. 8. 14).' — The hecoming known
m the ivhole praetorium is explained by the fact, that a
praetorian was always presejit with Paul as his guard (Acts
xxviii. 16), and Paul, even in his captivity, continued his
preaching without hindrance (Acts xxviii. 30 £). — Ka\ toU
XotTTot? iraat] not in the sense of locality, dependent on iv
(Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin), but : and to cdl the others,
besides the praetorians. It is a popular and inexact way of
putting the fact of its becoming still more widely known
among the (non- Christian) Piomans, and therefore it must be
left without any more specific definition. This extensive pro-
' Doubtless there was a praetorian gnard stationed in the imperial palace
itself, on the Mons Palatinus, as in the time of Augustus (Dio. Cass. liii. 16).
See "Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 404, who -anderstands 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 praetorlana 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 praetoriuvi, (rrparoTthov, when mentioned
without any further definition (as Joseph. Anlt. xviii. 6. 7 : ■rfo roZ (iairiXiisu).
^ Not even in such passages as Tacitus, Hist. ii. 24, iv. 46 ; Suetonius, Ner.
7 ; Plin. H. N. xxv. 2, 6, et al., where the prepositional expression {in prae-
torium, ex praetorio) is always local.
PHIL. C
34: THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
clamation of the matter took place in part directly tlirougli
Paul himself, since any one might visit him, and in part
indirectly, through the praetorians, officers of justice, dis-
ciples, and friends of the apostle, and the like.^ Van
Hengel, moreover, understands it incorrectly, as if ol Xoiiroi
were specially "homines exteri," "Gentiles" — a limitation
which could only be suggested by the context, and therefore
cannot be established by the use of the word in Eph. ii. 3,
iv. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 13. Equally arbitrary is the limitation of
Hofmann : that it refers to those, loho already knew about him.
Ver. 14. TOL'9 ifkeiova'^'] the majority, 1 Cor. x. 5, xv. 6, et
al. It is not to be more precisely specified or limited. — ev
KvpLcp] belongs not to dSeX^wv (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 TreTrot^ora?, along with which,
however, it is not to be rendered : relying upon the Lord with
respect to my bonds (Eheinwald, Flatt, Eilliet, comp. Schnecken-
burger, p. 301). It means rather: m the Lord trusting my
bonds, so that iv Kvplw is the specific modal definition of
TTe-TTOiO. Tot? h. [Jb., which trust is based and depends on Christ.
Comp. ii. 24 ; Gal. v. 10 ; Eom. xiv. 14 ; 2 Thess. iii. 4. On
the dative, comp. 2 Cor. x. 7 ; Philem. 21, and the ordinary
usage in the classics ; in the New Testament mostly with eVt
or iv. 'Ev Kvpia is placed first as the correlative of the iv
Xptar., ver. 13. As the apostle's bonds had become generally
1 This sutRces fully to explain the situation set forth in ver. 13. The words
therefore afford no ground for the historical combination which Hofmann here
makes : that during the two years, Acts xxviii. 30, the apostle's case was held
in abeyance ; and that only now had it been brought up for judicial discussion,
whereby iirst it had become manifest that his captivity was caused, not by his
havinc committed any crime against the state, but by his having preached Christ,
which might not be challenged (?) on the state's account. As if what is expressly
reported in Acts xxviii. 31 were not sufficient to have made the matter known, and
as if that S/er/a Iv /S/w fur^u/^ccTi precluded the judicial preparation of the case
(ver. 7) ! As if the increased courage of the -rXuovt;, ver. 14, were intelligible
only on the above assumption ! As if, iinally, it were admissible to understand,
with Hofmann, among these ^Xiiom all those who "even now before the con-
elusion of the trial were inspired with such courage by it" J
CHAP. I. 14. 35
known as in Christ, so also in Christ (avIio will not abandon
the work of His prisoner that had thus become so manifest)
may be found the just ground of the confidence which encou-
rages the brethren, Paul's fellow-Christians in Eome, a^oySo;?
T. X. \aX€Lv. They trust tlic honcls of the apostle, inasmuch as
these bonds exhibit to them not only an encouraging example
of patience (Grotius), but also (comp. iii. 8 ; Col. i. 24 f. ;
2 Tim. ii. 8 f. ; Matt. v. 1 1 £, and many other passages) a
practical guarantee, highly honourable to Christ and His gospel,
of the complete truth and justice, ijowcr and glory of the ivorcl}
for the sake of ivhich 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
rfi (f>av€po)aec tmv Bea-fjiwv jxov (which would tend to the recom-
mendation of the gospel) ; while Hofmann thinks that, to guard
themselves against the danger of heing criminally prosecuted on
account of their preaching, they relied on the apostle's imprison-
ment, in so far as the latter had noiu shown itself, in the
judicial process that had at length leen commenced, to be solely
on account of Christ, and not for anything cidpahle. 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). — Trepto-o-or.] i.e. in a higher degree
than they had formerly ventured upon, before I lay here in
bonds. Their a^oj3ia in preaching had increased. This, how-
ever, is explained by Hofmann, in accordance with the above
hypothesis, by the fact that the political guiltlessness of preach-
ing Christ had now been established, — thus referring, in fact,
the increase of their fearless boldness to a sense of legal security.
But the reason of the increased a^o/3ia lay deeper, in the sphere
of the moo^al idea, which manifested itself in the apostle's
bonds, and in accordance with which they trusted those bonds
in the Lord, seeing them borne for the Lord's sake. They
animated the brethren to boldness through that holy confidence,
rooted in Christ, with which they imbued them. — top \6<yov
' OecuTQenius well says : si yap fth hTov mv, ^>i«';, to xvfuyfitt, ouk uh i UaZxo;
rnu^iTo iivif auTou ^tSiiriai. Comp. VCr. 16.
36 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPLVNS.
XaXety] i.e. to let the gospel become known, to preach, Acts
xi. 19, and frequently. On a(p6^a)^, comp. Acts iv. 31.
Ver. 15. This is not indeed the case vjith all, that they
iv Kvptu) TTeiToidoTe'i TOt? Zeafji. [xov irepcaaor. to\^. k.t.\. No,
some in Eome preach with an improper feeling and design ;
but some also with a good intention. (Both parties are de-
scribed in further detail in w. 16, 17.) In either case — Christ
is preached, wherein I rejoice and will rejoice (ver. 1 8). —
Tive<i fiev Kol hia (pOovov k. epiv\ These do not form a part of
those described in ver. 14 (Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Calvin, and
others, also Weiss, Hofmann, and Hinsch), for these latter are
characterized by eV /cu/aicj TreiroiO. rot? Sea/j,. fxov quite otherwise,
and indeed in a way which excludes the idea of envy and con-
tention (comp. also Huther, I.e.), and appear as the majority to
which these TLve<i stand in contrast as cxccjJtions ; but they are
the anti-Pauline party, Judaizing preachers, who must have
pursued their practices in Eome, as in Asia and Greece, and
exercised an immoral, hostile opposition to the apostle and
his gospel.^ We have no details on the subject, but from
Eom. xiv. we see that there was a fruitful field on which
this tendency might find a footing and extend its influence
in Eome. The idea that it refers to certain members of the
Pauline scJiool, who nevertheless hated the apostle 2^crsonally
(Wiesinger, comp. Flatt), or were envious of his high reputa-
tion, and impugned his mode of action (Weiss), is at variance
with the previous iv Kvpiw, 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 Sclmecken-
burger, p. 301 f. — /cat] indicates that, whilst the majority were
actuated by a good disposition (ver. 14), an evil motive also
existed in several, — expresses, therefore, the aceession of some-
thing else in other subjects, but certainly not the accession of a
subordinate co-operating motive in a portion of the same persons
' For the person to whom individually their <p6!ivo; and 'ipi; (as likewise the
subsequent illoKia) had reference was self-evident to the readers, and Paul, more-
over, announces it to them in ver. 16 f. Without due reason Hinsch finds in this
the mark of a later period, when the guarding of the a,\)Oiii\(is piersonal position
alone was concerned. See against this, Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1873, p. ISO f.
ciiAr. I. 15. 37
designated in ver. 14 (Hofmann). — Bia (pdovov k. epiv] on
account of envy and strife, that is, for the sake of satisfying
the strivings of their jealousy in respect to my influence, and
of their contentious disposition towards me. Comp. ver. 17.
On hia (j)66vov, comp. Matt, xxvii. 1 8 ; Mark xv. 10; Plat.
lic}). p. 586 D: <pd6vq) Bm (f)t\oTLfiLav. — Tive^ Be /cat] But
some also ; there also arc not vxinting such as, etc. Observe
that the Be Kal joins itself Avith rivk^, whereas in yu\v Kal pre-
viously the Kal is attached to the following Bia (pOovov. The
T«/e? here are they who in ver. 14 were described as TrXeioz/e?,
but are now brought forward as, in contrast to the rti^e? /xev,
the other i^ortion of the preachers, without any renewed refer-
ence to their preponderance in numbers, which had been already
intimated.'^ — Bi evBoKLav] on account of goodwill, that is,
because they entertain a feeling of goodwill towards me. This
interpretation is demanded by the context, both in the anti-
thesis Bia (J366vou K. epLv, and also in ver. 16 : e| ur^a'm)'^.
As to the linguistic use of evBoKia in this sense (ii. 13), see
Fritzsche, ad Eom. II. p. 372. Comp. on Eom. x. 1. Others
take it, contrary to the context, as : " ex benevolentia, qua dcsi-
derant hominum scdutem" (Estius, comp. already Pelagius) ; or,
"quod ipsi id prolarcnt" 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 lor caching (Weiss).
^ Van Hengel has not taken this into account, when he assumes that in tivIs
01 Kdi Paul 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 t/ve? "ol
xct't completely hai-monizes with that, whereby the crXs/^v:; generally, and not
merely a portion of them, were characterized in ver. 14 (sv Kup. •ti't. t. liri/,.). This
applies also in opposition to Hofmann, according to whom the two timU, ver.
15 f., belong to the vXito^is of ver. 14, whom they divide into two classes. Hof-
mann's objection to our view, viz. that the apostle does not say that the one
part}- preach solely out of envy and strife, and the other solely out of goodwill,
is irrelevant. He could not, indeed, have desired to say this, and does not say
it ; but he could describe in general, as he has done, the ethical antitheses which
characterized the two parties. Moreover, ifn means everj'where in the N. T., and
especially here in its conjunction with (p6ovo; (comp. Rom. i. 29 ; 1 Tim. vi. 4),
not rivalry — the weaker sense assigned to it here, without a shadow of justifica-
tion from the context, by Hofmann ("they wish to outdo him") — hnt strife, con-
tention. Just as little is \pihU to be reduced to the general notion of egotism, as
is done by Hofmann ; see on ver. 17.
38 THE EPISTLE. OF PAUL TO THE PIIILIPPIA.NS.
Vv. 16, 17. We liave here a more detailed description of
both parties in respect to the motives which actuated them in
relation to the Becr/xol of the apostle. — ol fiiv . . . ol Be] cor-
responds to the two parties of ver. 15, but — and that indeed
without any particular purpose — in an inverted order (see the
critical remarks), as in 2 Cor. ii, 16, and frequently in classical
authors (Thuc. i. 68. 4; Xen. Anab. i. 10. 4). In ver. 18
the order adopted in ver. 1 5 is again reverted to. — ol i^
a.yd7r7]<i] sc. ovr€<;, a genetic description of the ethical condition of
these people : those ivho are of love, i.e. of loving nature and
action; comp. Eom. ii. 8 ; Gal. iii. 7; John xviii. 37, et al.
We must supply what immediately precedes : rov Xpia-tov
Krjpvaaovaiv, of which elZore^ k.t.\. then contains the particular
moving cause (Eom. v. 3, 6, 9 ; Gal. ii. 16 ; Eph. vi. 8 f., etal.).
We might also take ol [xev (and then ol he) absolutely : the
one, and then bring up immediately, for e| a'^a-nr]'^, the subse-
quent T. Xpia-Tov Kara<yye\\ovaiv (so Hofmann and others).
But this would be less appropriate, because the progress of
the discourse does not turn on the saying that the one preach
out of love, and the other out of contention (for this has been
said in substance previously), but on the internal determining
motives which are expressed by eiB6r€<i k.t.X. and olo/jievot
K.T.X. ; besides, ov^ dypco<i would then follow as merely a weak
and disturbing auxiliary clause to i^ ipi9ela<i. — otc eh diroX.
Tov evayy. Kelfiai] that I am destined, am ordained of God for
(nothing else than) the defence of the gospel — a destination
which they on their parts, in consequence of their love to me,
feel themselves impelled to subserve. They labour sympa-
thetically hand in hand with me. — /cet/^ai] as in Luke ii. 34 ;
1 Thess. iii. 3 ; comp. Plat. Lcgg. x. p. 909; Thuc. iii. 45,
2, 47, 2 ; Ecclus. xxxviii. 29, and other passages in which
" Keladai tanquam passivum verbi iroie'laOaL vel TiOevat vide-
tur," Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 943. Others render : / lie in
prison (Luther, Piscator, Estius, Wolf, am Ende, Huther, and
others) ; but the idea of lying U7ider fetters, which Kel^iaL
would thus convey (comp. Eur, Phoen. 1633; Aesch. Ag. 1492),
does not harmonize with the p)osition of the apostle any more
than the reference of its meaning thereby introduced : they
CHAP. I. IG, 17. 39
know that I am Jdndcred in my preaching, and tlierefore they
'■' supplent hoc meum impedimentum sua praedicatione," Estius.
See, on the contrary, Acts xxviii. 30, 31; Phil. i. 7. Van
Hengel also imports (comp. Weiss) : " me ad causam rei Cliris-
tianae, ubi nrgeat necessitas, coram judice defendendam hie in
miseria Jacere." Comp. Hom. Od. i. 46 ; Soph. Aj. 316 (323) ;
Pflugk, ad Eur. JScc. 496. — ol 3e e| epi^.] sc. ovre<;, the factious,
the cahal-makers. See on Eom. ii. 8 ; 2 Cor. xii. 20; Gal.
V. 20. So also Ignatius, ad PMladelp)h. 8. It corresponds
■with the (ji96vov k. epiv, ver. 15. — rov X. Karay^. ov'^ a<yvct)<;^
belong together. Karayy. is, in substance, the same as Kiqpva-
a-eiv, but more precisely defining it as the announcement of the
Messiah (Acts xvii. 3, 23 ; Col. i. 28, et al). The words r.
Xpiarov KarayyeWova-iv might have been left out, following
the analogy of ver. 16, but are inserted to bring out the tragic
contrast which is implied in preaching Christ, and yet doing
so oup^ a<yvb)<;, non caste, not in purity of feeling and puri^ose.
Ka6ap(aq is synonymous (Hom. H. in Apoll. 121), also with a
mental reference (Hesiod. epya, 339). Comp. Plat. Zegg. vui.
p. 840 D; 2 Cor. vii. 11, xi. 2; Phil. iv. 8, ct al. ; 2 Cor.
vi. 6. — ol6/ji€voi K.T.X."] thinhing to stir up affliction for my
ho'dds, to make my captivity full of sorrow. This they inte^id
to do, and that is the immoral moving spring of their unworthy
conduct ; but (observe the distinction between olojxevot and
€i8oT€9 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 ol/xac with the present infinitive, see
Pflugk, ad Eur. Sec. 283. The future infinitive would not
convey that what is meant is even now occurring. See gene-
rally StaUbaum, ad Plat. Crit. p. 52 C ; comp. Phacd. p. 1 1 6 E.
How far they thought that they could effect that injurious
result by their preaciiing, follows from ver. 15 and from ef
ipi6eLa<i ; 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.
40 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PIIILIPriANS.
This was the ccibal in the backgroimd of their dishonest preach-
ing. That by the spread of the gospel they desired to provoke
the hostility of the heathen, especially of Nero, against Paul,
and thus to render his captivity more severe, is a groundless
conjecture imported (Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, and
others ; comp. already Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Pelagius). — On iyeipeiv (see the critical remarks) comp. iy.
(B^iz/a?, Plat. Theaet. p. 149 C, and similar passages.
Ver. 18. On rt yap, scil. e<TTt, comp. on Ptom. 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 'Kkrjv that the mark of interrogation should not be
placed (as it usually is) after ri yap, but the question goes on
to /carayyiWerai, (comp. Hofmann) ; and it is to be observed
that through TrXijv the rl yap receives the sense of rt yap aXKo
(see Heindorf, ad Flat. Soph. p. 232 C). Hence: ivhat else
takes place therefore (in such a state of the case) except that, etc.,
i.e. what else than that hy every sort of preaching, xohetlicr it is
done in pretence or in truth, Christ is p^roclaivicd ? and therein,
that it is always Christ whom they preach, / rejoice, etc. How
magnanimous is this liberality of judgment as to the existing
circumstances in tlieir reference to Christ ! By irpo^da-ei, and
dXijdeia is indicated the characteristic difference in the two
kinds of preachers, vv. 15-17, and thus iravTl rpoiruf 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 atV/o. of their working (see on the contrast between airia
and 7rpoj)a(Ti^, Polyb. iii. 6. 6 ff.) — but a matter of pretence,
under the cloak of which they entertained in their hearts
envy, strife, and cabal, as the real objects of their endeavours.
For instances of the antithesis between 'irp6<^acn<i and aX?;-
' According to Weiss, yif is intended to establish the eU/^tvci x.r.X., so far as
the latter is only an empty hnaginallon. But this is an unnecessary seekiHg
after a very obscure rei'erence. The t* yap draws, as it were, the result from
vv. 15-17. Hence also we cannot, with Huther, adopt as the sense : "/s it
tlieu so, as they think / "
CIIAF. I. IS. 41
Oeta or raXrj6k<;, see liaphel, Polyl. ; Loesner and Wetstein,
To take irpo^acn^ as opportunity, occasion (Herod, i. 29,
30, iv. 145, vi. 94; Dem. xx. 26 ; Antiph. v. 21 ; Hero-
dian, i. 8. 16, v. 2. 14),— »-as, following the Vnlgate, Luther,
Estius, Grotius (" nam occasione illi Judaei, dum nocere Paulo
student, multos pertrahebant ad evang."), and others under-
stand it, — is opposed to the context in vv. 15-17, in which
the want of honest disposition is set forth as the characteristic
mark of these persons. On irkt-jv in the sense of rj, comp.
Kilhner, II. 2, p. 842. — iv tovtw'] the neuter: therein, in
accordance with the conception of that in ivhich the feeling
has its basis. Comp. Col. i. 24 ; Plat. liejx x. p. 603 C ; Soph.
Tr. 1118; Kilhner, II. 1, p. 403. In the Xpca-rb<; KUTay-
jeWeraL lies the apostle's joy. — aWa kuI ')(aprjcroixaL] sur-
passing the simple xaipw by a lolus, and therefore added in a
corrective antithetical form {imo ctiam) ; comp. on 1 Cor. iii. 2 ;
2 Cor. xi. 1. To begin a new sentence with aWd (Lachmann,
Tischendorf), and to sever ')(ap'q<TO[xai from its connection
with ev TovTU) (Hofmann, who makes the apostle only assert
generally that he vAll continue to rejoice also in the future),
interrupts, without sufficient reason, the flow of the animated
discourse, and is also opposed by the proper reference of olZa
rydp in ver. 1 9. This applies also in opposition to Hinsch,
p. 64 f.
Pemark. — 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. Up. Farm. ii. 11.
Nor does cracr/ rpc'roj apply to the doctrinal p^^^'^Tort of the
preaching (Gal. i. 8), but to its ethical nature and method, to
disposition and purpose. See Chrysostom and those who follow
him. Nevertheless the apostle's judgment may excite surprise
by its mildness (comp. iii. 2), since these opponents must have
taught what in substance was anti-Pauline. But we must con-
sider, first, the tone of lofty resignation in general which prevails
in this passage, and which might be fitted to raise him more
than elsewhere above antagonisms ; secondly, that in this case
the danger did not affect, as it did in Asia and Greece, in Galatia
and Corinth, his ptersonal sphere of apostolical ministry ; thirdly,
that Fome was the very place in which the preaching of Christ
42 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
might appear to him in itself of such preponderating import-
ance as to induce him in the meantime, while his own ministry
was impeded and in fact threatened with an imminent end,
to allow — in generous tolerance, the lofty 'philosophical spirit of
which Chrysostom has admired — of even un-Pauline admixtures
of doctrine, in reliance on the discriminating power of the
truth ; lastly, that a comparison of iii. 2 permits the assumption,
as regards the teachers referred to in the present passage, of a
less important grade of anti-Pauline doctrine,^ and especially of
a tenor of teaching which did not. fundamentally overthrow
that of Paul. Comp. also on iii. 2, All the less, therefore, can
the stamp of mildness and forbearance which our passage bears
be used, as Baur and Hitzig ^ employ 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 oppo-
sition to Hinsch, see on ver. 15. Calvin, moreover, well says :
" Quamquam autem gaudebat Paulus evangelii incrementis,
nunquam tamen, si fuisset in ejus manu, tales ordinasset
ministros."
Ver. 19. Eeason assigned not only for the aXka koI x^PV-
aofxai, but for the entire conjoint assertion : iv rovrw xP'ipw,
aXka K. xp-p. For both, for his present joy and for his future
joy, the apostle finds the subjective ground in the certainty
now to be expressed. — roDro] the same thing that was con-
veyed by €.v Tovrro in ver. 18, this fact of Christ's Icing
preached, from whatever different motives it may be done,—
not : m7j present, ra kut epA (Hofmann). — eU a-cdTrjplav] is,
in conformity with the context, not to be explained of the
deliverance from captivity (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Musculus,
Heinrichs), or of the iireservation of the apostles life (Oecu-
menius), 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 eterncd Messianic redemption (van
Hengel, Weiss ; comp. Matthies and Hoelemann), or as spiritual
salvation (Ptheinwald, de Wette). On the contrary, the expres-
sion : " it will turn out to my salvation" (comp. Job xiii. 16),
will be scdutary for me, is, without anticipating the sequel,
' Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeitalt. p. 38S.
- Who thinks that he recognises here an indistinct shadow of Tacitns, Agric.
41 : " Optlmus quisque amove etfide, pessimi malignltate et livore."
CHAP. I. 19. 43
to be left luitliout any more ^^recisc modal definition ; for Paul
himself only announces, as the discourse proceeds (ver. 20),
hoiv far he expects salutary results for himself to arise out of
the state of things in question. Bengel aptly remarks : " non
modo non in prcssuram" ver. 17. On airojSrjaerav, will turn
out, issue, comp. Luke xxi. 13 ; Job xiii. 16 ; 2 Mace. ix. 24;
Plat. Lys. p. 206 A; de virt. p. 379 C ; %9. p. 425 C ; Dem.
1412. 1 0. — Tliroiigh the entreaty of his Philiiopians, Paul knows,
it will be salutary for him (comp. 2 Cor. i. 11; Ptom. xv,
31 ; 2 Thess. iii. 12 ; Philem. 22), and through siqjply of the
Spirit of Christ, that is, through the Spirit of Christ supply-
ing him with help, strength, courage, light, etc. (comp. on
i'mj(opr}>y., Eph. iv. 16). The words hia Trj<; vficov Be'^aeaf
. . . Xpia-rov, embrace, therefore, ttoo elements whick work to-
gether and bring about the airo^rjo-. ek a-wTTjp., one of these
on the part of the readers themselves (hence v/jlcjv is placed
first), the other on the part of the Holy Spirit. After Kal,
Bid is to be again understood ; the article, however, is not
repeated before eTri-^op., not because the entreaty and the
iiTLXopri^ia 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 ivithout the article : supply
(not the supply) of the Spirit, rov -irvevixara is the genitive
of the subject; as genitive of the ohject (Wiesinger, in accord-
ance with Gal. iii. 5) the expression would be inappropriate,
since Paul already has the Spirit (1 Cor. vii. 40), and does
not merely expect it to be supplied, though in his present
position he does expect the help, comfort, etc., ivhich the Sp)irit
siqiplics. Comp, Theodoret : tov OeCov fioL Trz/eu^aro? xoprj-
fyovvTO'i rrjv 'x.'^piv. Eespecting the irvevfia Xpiarov, see on
Eom. viii. 9 ; Gal. iv. 6 ; 2 Cor. iii. 1 7. Paul he^^e designates
the Holy Spirit thus, because Jesus Christ forms, in the
inmost consciousness of the apostle, the main interest and aim
of his entire discourse, ver. 1 8 if.
> Beugel well says: " precation em in coeZwm ascendentem ; exhibition em de
coelo venientem. " If, however, ivixopnyieis is still to be included in dependence
on T^j vfiuy (so Bnttmann, neitt. Gr. p. 87 [E. T. p. 100]), the readers would at all
events appear as those communicating, which would yield an incongruous idea.
44 TPIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PIIILIPPIAXS.
Ver. 20, It will prove salutary for me in conformity with
my earnest expectation (see, regarding airoKapahoKta, on liom,
viii. 19) and my hope, that I, etc. (object of the earnest expec-
tation and hope). Others take on as argumentative (Vatablus,
Estiiis, Matthias) ; but by this interpretation the Kara r. clttok.
K. cXtt. /Li. seems, after the olSa 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 oto- k.tX.
tvliat it is that he earnestly expects and hopes (comp. Eom.
viii. 20 f.), he thereby supplies the precise definition of the
former merely general expression etV ao3Tr}piav. — This is neither
clumsy nor unsuited to the meaning of airoKapah., as Hofmann
thinks, who goes back with on to the far distant olZa, and
finds it convenient to co-ordinate it with the first otl. Paul
would have made this alleged conjunction convenient and at
the same time intelligible, only in the event of his having
written /cat otl. — ev ovhevl alcr'^vvdjja-o/xat^ that / shall
in no point (2 . Cor. vi. 3, vii. 9 ; Jas. i. 4), in no respect,
he put to shame; that is, in no respect will a result ensue
tending to my shame, — a result which would expose me
to the reproach of having failed to accomplisli my destiny
(comp. the sequel). Comp. on ala-'x^vveaOai, 2 Cor. x. 8,
1 John ii. 28, and the passages of the LXX. in Schleusner,
I. p. 98 f.; also Xen. Cyr. vi. 4. 6; Plut. Mor. p. 1118 E.
Matthies understands it differently : " in nothing shall / shoio
myself shamefaced and fearful ;" comp. van Hengel : "pudore
confusus ab officio clcfleetam!' But the context, in which Paul
desires to explain more in detail (comp. ver. 21) the words
fioL diro^rjaerat eU acoTriplav, ver. 19, will not harmonize with
any other than the above-named purely passive interpretation ;
not even with the sense that Paul would not " stand dis-
graced " (Weiss, comp. Huther), that is, be found unfaithful
to his office, or deficient in the discharge of its duties to the
glorifying of Christ. The connection requires a descrij)tion,
not of Paul's hchaviour, but of the fate in which the tovto of
ver. 19 would issue for him. Hoelemann takes iv ovBevi as
mascidinc, of the preachers described in ver. 15 ff., who in
their ministry, though actuated by such various motives, " ita
ciiAr. I. -20, 45
esse versaturos, \\t iude non oriatur, de quo erubescat et doleat
quum ipse, turn etiani in re sua quasi Christus." This inter-
pretation is opposed both by the context, which from ver. 18
onwards brings forward oio 2)cvsons at all ; and also by the sense
itself, because Paul, thus understood, would be made to express
a confidence in the labours of those teachers which, as regards
the malicious portion of them (ver. 17, comp. ver. 15), would
not be befitting. The alayyveaQai of tlie apostle was indeed
the very object which they had in view ; but, he means to say,
ovK al<j')(yvofiaL, rovrearLP ov irepieaovrai, Chrysostom. — uXK'
ev iraay irapprjaia /c.tA.] the contrast to eV ovhevl ala-^vvOi']-
crofxaL; for the apostle can receive no greater honour and
triumph (the opposite to the ala'^yveadat) than to be made
the instrument of glorifying Christ (iii. 7 f.) : hid loith all
frecncss, c(s ahcciys, so cdso now, Christ loill he magnifiecl in my
hodfj. — eV irdcrr] Trapprja.] iv iraar) corresponds to the previous
iv ovSevi, so that evcnj hind of freeness, which is no way re-
strained or limited (comp Acts iv. 29,xxviii. 31; 2 Cor. iii. 12),
is meant, which amounts substantially to the idea, " une pleinc
liberie " (Eilliet and older expositors) ; comp. Wunder, ad Soph.
Phil. 141 f. The subject of the freeness is Fcml himself, inas-
much as it was in his hocly that the fearless glorifying of Christ
w^as to be manifested (see below) ; but he expresses himself in
the passive (/lejaXwdTjaeTai) and not in the active, because, in
the feeling of his being the organ of divine working, the fxot
aTTo^rjaerai, et9 awTrjplav (ver. 19) governs his conceptions and
determines his expression. Hofmann's view, that ev vr. irapprjo:
means " in full p)'^Micityy as an unmistakeable fact before the
eyes of all, is linguistically erroneous. See, in opposition to
it, on Col. ii. 15. — oi<; iravTore koI vvv\ so that the present
circumstances, however inimical they are in part towards me
(vv. 15-18), M'ill therefore bring about no other result than this
most happy one for me, which has always taken place. — ev raJ
(TcofULrl /jlov] instead of saying : iv ifioL, he says : i7i my body,
because the decision was now close at hand, whether his body
should remain alive or be put to death. But whichever of these
possible alternatives should come to pass, he earnestly expected
and hoped that the glory of Christ would be thereby secured
46 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
(et're Bia ^cwr}? eore Blo. davarov), in so far, namely, as through
his remaining in the tody his apostolic labours would be con-
tinued to the glory of Christ, and hj the slaying of his hody
there would take place, not the mere closing of his witness
for Christ, as Hofmarm, in opposition to the text (vv. 21-23),
refines away this point, but his union with Christ. Thus,
therefore, he will not be put to shame even by his death ; but,
on the contrary, Christ will be freely glorified by it, namely,
'practically glorified, inasmuch as Paul, conscious of the great
gain which he shall acquire through death (ver. 21), will loith
unwavering joyfalness — with the frank joyful 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 hody, just as it has always hitherto
been the living personal instrument of Christ's glory, now
also the free glorification of Christ shall be made manifest,
whether this result be secured through its leing 'preserved alive
or being slain; "nam et corpus locjiiitur et corpus moritur"
Grotius. Hoelemann erroneously refers iv 'rraarj irapp. to the
bold preaching of the various teachers described in w. 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 hody,
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 augustis&imum auxiliatorem. But against this view it
may be urged, that ev ovhevl does not refer to the teachers
(see above) ; that nrapprjo-ia is the contrast to al(T')(vv6rjao[iaL,
so that the subject of the latter must be also the subject of
the former ; and lastly, that Paul would thus be made to say
that the fearless working of others had always shown forth
Christ's honour in his hody, — an expression which, as regards
the last point, might be suited to the 'present position of the
apostle, but not to the 0)9 iravroTe. Eilliet takes fieyaXwdrj-
aerac 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 mcntalindivelling of Christ
CHAP. I. 21. 47
(Gal. ii. 20 ; Eom. viii. 10 ; Gal. iv. 19) ; so that Paul is made
to hope that Christ may grov) ever more and more in him,
that is, may more and more reveal Himself as the principle
of his life, and that this growth will be perfected whether he
himself live or die. But ev nrdarj irapprjaia would be an
inappropriate definition of this idea ; and ev tm acv/xart fiov
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 context.
Ver. 21. Justification not of the joy, ver. 18 (Weiss), which
has already been justified in ver. 19 £, but of the elre hia ^o)rj<i
€iT€ Blo, Oavdrov just expressed : For to me the living is Christ,
that is, if I remain alive, my prolonged life will be nothing
but a life of which the whole essential element and real
tenor is Christ (" quicquid vivo, vita naturali, Christum vivo,"
Bengel), as the One to whom the whole destination and
activity of my life bear reference (comp. on Gal. ii. 20) ; and
the dying^ is gain, inasmuch as by death I attain to Christ ;
see ver. 23. Whichever, therefore, of the two may come to
pass, will tend to the free glorification of Christ ; the former,
inasmuch as I continue to labour freely for Christ's glory ;
the latter, inasmuch as in the certainty of that gain I shall
suffer death with joyful courage. Comp. Corn. Mtiller, who,
however, assumes that in the second clause Paul had the
thought : " et si mihi moriendum est, moriar Christo, ita etiam
morte mea Christus celehratur," but that in the emotion of
the discourse he has not expressed this, allowing himself to
be carried away by the conception of the gain involved in
the matter. This assumption is altogether superfluous ; for,
to the consciousness of the Christian reader, the reference of
1 Not the being dead (Huther, Schenkel). On the combination of the Inf.
pres. (continuing) and aor. (momentary), comp. Xen. 3Iem. iv. 4. 4 : vfotiXtro
(imWo^ toTs t'ofAOis iijt,i/.i\iuy a.'7to6a,y%lt ii -xafOLtofJiut X>^t, Eui". Or, 308 : irwi/ toi xarffix-
viiv a'if»(ro/iai xai %riv, Epictet. Enchit. 12 ; 2 Cor. vii. 3. See f^enerally Matzn.
ad Antiph. p. 153 f. ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 159. The being dead would have been
expressed, as in Herod, i. 31, by nhoDiui.
4.8 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIAXS.
the K6pSo<i to Christ must of itself have been clear and certain.
But the idea of Kep8o<;, which connects itself in the apostle's
mind with the thought of death, prevents us from assuming
that he meant to say that it was a matter of no moment
to him personally whether he lived or died (Wiesinger) ; for
on account of the KepSo^ in death, his own personal wish
must have given the preference to the dying (see ver. 23).
Others (Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Er. Schmid, Eaphel, Knatch-
bull, ct 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 Kepho<;
the predicate, and that the infinitives with the article are to
be explained by tt/jo? or Kara, so that Christ " ta.iii in vita
quam in mortc lucrum esse praedicatur." Lastly, in opposition
to the context, Eheinwald and Eilliet take to ^7]v as meaning
life in the liiglicr, spiritual sense, and Kal as : and consequently,
which latter interpretation does not harmonize with the pre-
ceding alternative etVe . . . elre. This explanation is refuted
by the very to ^rjv iv aapKL which follows in ver. 22, since
iv a-apKL contains not an antithesis to the absolute to ^rjv, but
on the contrary a more precise definition of it. Although
the Sia davdrov and to uTrodavecv contrasted with the ^171',
as also ver. 20 generally, afford decisive evidence against the
view that takes to ^rjv in the higher ethical sense, that view
has still been adopted by Hofmann, who, notwithstanding the
correlation and parallelism of to ^fjv and to dirodaveiv, oddly
supposes that, while to airodavelv is the subject in the second
clause, TO t^?]v is yet 'predicate in the first. Like to diroOaveiv,
TO ^i)v must be subject also. — eixoi.'\ is emphatically placed
first : to me, as regards my own person, tliough it may be
different with others. Comp. the emphatic i)iJiwv, iii. 20. —
For profane parallels to the idea, tliough of course not to
the Christian import, of to airodavelv KepBo<;,^ see Wetstein,
Comp. Aelian. F. H. iv. 7 ; Soph. Ant. 4G4 f . ; Eur. Med.
145.
Ver. 22. Ae] carrying onward the discourse to the compari-
' Compare also Spicss, Lo(jos Spermatkos, 1871, p. 330 f.
CHAP. I. 22. 49
son between the two cases as regards their desmahility. Weiss
understands Se as antithetic, namely to to airoOavelv K€pBo<;, and
Hofmann as in contrast also to the ifxot ro ^rjv XpiaT6<;, but
both proceed on an erroneous view of what follows ; as does
also Huther. — According to the to airoOavelv KepBo<i just ex-
pressed, the airodavdv was put as the case more desirable for
Paul personally ; but because the ^?>, in which indeed Christ
is his one and all, conditioned the continuance of his official
labours, he expresses this now in the hypothetical protasis and,
as consequence thereof, in the apodosis, that thus he is in
doubt respecting a choice between the tioo. — The structure of the
sentence is accordingly this, that the apodosis sets in with
Koi rl alp7](T0/xai,, and nothing is to be supplied : " But if the
remaining in my bocliln life, and just this, avails for my work,
I refrain from a making known ivhat I shoidcl choose." We
have to remark in detail: (1) that el does not render proble-
matical that which was said of the l^rjv iv aapKi, but in
accordance with the well-known and, especially in Paul's
writings, frequent (Kom. v, 17, vi. 15, and often) syllogistic
usage (Herbst and Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1), posits the
undoubted certainty (Wilke, Rhetor, p. 258), which would take
place in the event of a continuance of life ; (2) that Paul was
the more naturally led to add here the specially defining iv aapKi
to TO t,riv (comp. Gal. ii. 20 ; 2 Cor. x. 3), because, in the pre-
viously mentioned KepBo<;, the idea of life apart from the body
(comp. 2 Cor. v. 8) must have been floating in his mind ; (3)
that Tovro again sums up with the emphasis of emotion (comp.
Eom. vii. 10) the to ^rjv iv o-ap/ct which had just been said,
and calls attention to it (Bernhardy, p. 283; Kiihner, II. 1,
p. 568 f . ; Pritzsche, ad Matth. p. 219), for it was the remain-
ing in life, just this, this and nothing else (in contrast to the
airoOavelv), which was necessarily to the apostle Kap7rb<; epyov ;
(4) that Kap'KO'i is correlative to the preceding KepSo<;, and
embodies the idea cmolumcntiim (Piom. i. 13, vi. 21, et al. ;
Wisd. iii. 13), which is more precisely defined by epyov. work-
fruit, gain of ivork, i.e. advantage ivhich accrues to my apos-
toliccd work ; comp. on the idea, Eom. i. 13 ; (5) that Kai, at
the commencement of the apodosis, is the subjoining also,
PHIL. D
5 , THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
showing that if the one thing takes place, the other also sets
in ; see Hartung, Partikdl. I. p. 130 f . ; Baemnlein, Partih.
p. 146 ; Nagelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 164, eel. 3 ; comp. on 2 Cor.
ii. 2 ; (6) that rl stands in the place of the more accurate
TTorepov (Xen. Gyrop. i. 3. 17; Stallbaiim, ad Pliilcb. p. 168;
Jacobs, ad Del crgigr. p. 219 ; Winer, p. 159 [E. T. 211]), and
that the futuo^e alpijao/xai (what I should prefer) is quite in order
(see Eur. Hd. 631, and Pflugk in loc. ; and Winer, p. 280
[E. T. 374]), while also the sense of the middle, to choose for
himself, to prefer for himself, is not to be overlooked ; comp. 2
Thess. ii. 13 ; Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 29 : ol Se fx-i] elhore'^ o ri ttoiovo-l,
KaKCO'i Se alpovixevoL, Soph. Ant. 551 : crv fiev <yap eiXov ^ijv ; (7)
that ov yvcopl^co is not to be taken, as it usually has been, ac-
cording to the common Greek usage Avith the Vulgate, in the
reuse of ignoro, but, following the invariable usage of the N. T.
(comp. also 3 Mace. ii. 6 ; 3 Esr. vi. 12 ; Aesch. Prom. 487 ;
Athen. xii. p. 539 B ; Died. Sic. i. 6), as : I do not malcc it hnoiun,
I do not explain myself on the ijoint, give no information upon
it.^ Comp. van Hengel, Ewald, Huther, Schenkel, also Bengel,
who, however, without any ground, adds mihi. Paul refrains
from making and declaring such a choice, because (see ver,
23 f.) his desire is so situated between the two alternatives,
that it clashes with that which he is compelled to regard as
the better. — The conformity to words and context, and the
simplicity, which characterize the whole of this explanation
(so, in substance, also Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, and many others, in-
cluding Heinrichs, Eheinwald, van Hengel, de Wette, Wies-
inger, Ewald, Ellicott, Hilgenfeld), — in which, however, Kapir.
epyov is not to be taken as operae pretiiwi (Calvin, Grotius,
and others), nor kul as superfluous (Casaubon, Heinrichs, and
others), nor ov rypcopl^M as equivalent to ovk olBa (see above),
— exclude decisively all other interpretations, in which tovto
^ Not as if Paul intended to say that "he kept it to Iilmself," a sense wliich
Hofmann wrongly ascribes to this declaration. He intends to say rather that he
refrains from a decision regarding what he shonld choose. The dilemma in which
he found himself (comp. ver. 23) caused him to waive tlie giving of such a deci-
sion, in order not to anticipate in any way the divine purpose by his oiixn choice.
CHAP. I. 22. 51
and tlie /cat of the apodosis have been the special stumbling-
blocks. Among these other explanations are {a) that of
Pelagius, Estius, Bengel, Matthies, and others (comp. Lacli-
mann, who places a stop after epyov), that ia-To is to be under-
stood with iv crapKL, that the apodosis begins with tovto, and
that Kal ri alp. k.t.X is a proposition by itself : " if the living
in the flesh is aijpointed to me, then this has no other aim for me
than hy continuous labour to bring forth fo^uit," etc. (Huther, I.e.
p. 581 f). But how arbitrarily is the simple io-rl, thus sup-
plied, interpreted (mihi constitutum est) ! The words tovto /xol
Kapiro^ epyov, taken as an apodosis, are — immediately after the
statement i/xol jap ro ^ijv XpcaTo^;, in which the idea of Kap-
7ro9 epyov is substantially conveyed already — adapted less for
a new emphatic inference than for a supposition that has been
established ; and the discourse loses both in flow and force.
Nevertheless Hofmaun has in substance followed this explana-
tion.^ (b) Beza's view, that el is to be taken as whether : " an
vcro vivere in came mihi operae 'prctium sit, et quid cligam ignoro."
This is linguistically incorrect (KapTro^ epyov), awkward (et . . .
Kal ri), and in the first member of the sentence un-Pauline
(vv. 24-26). (c) The assumption of an aposioioesis oiiox epyov:
if life, etc., is to me /cap7ro<; epyov, " non rcpugno, non acgre fero''
(so Corn. Miiller), or, " je ne dois pas desirer la mo7-t" (Eilliet).
See AViner, p. 557 £ [E. T. 751]; Meineke, Menand. p. 238.
This is quite arbitrary, and finds no support in the emotional
character of the passage, which is in fact very calm, {d) Hoele-
mann's explanation — which supplies Kap7r6<i from the sequel
after ^7]v, takes tovto, which applies to the a'TToOavelv, as the
beginning of the apodosis, and understands Kapiro^ epyov as
an actual fruit : " but if life is a fruit in the flesh {an earthly
fruit), this {death) is also a fruit of {in) fact {a sid)stantial,
real fruit) " — is involved, artificial, and contrary to the genius
^ If it he life in the flesh, namely, which I ha^^e to expect instead of dying (?),
then this, namely the life in the flesh, is to me 2^^'oduce of labour, in so far as by
living I produce fruit, and thus then (xal) it is to me unhiown, etc. This inter-
pretation of Hofmann's also is liable to the objection that, if Paul intended to
say that he produced fruit by his life, logically he must have predicated of his
Z,rtv iv (Tapxi, not that it was to him aa/i^os 'ipyou, but rather that it was 'ifyo)/ xap-
rrou, a work (a working) which produces fruit.
52 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
of tlie language (Kapir. epjov !). (c) The explanation of Weiss
is that, after iv aapKi, KepBo<; is to be again supplied as a pre-
dicate, so that Tovro, which is made to apply to the entire
protasis, begins the apodosis : " but if life is a gain, that is a
fruit of his labour, because the successes of his apostolic
ministry can alone make his life worth having to him" (ver.
24). This supplying of KepSo<;, which was predicated of the
antithesis of the ^rjv, is as arbitrary as it is intolerably
forced; and, indeed, according to ver. 21, not KepBo<i merely
would have to be supplied, but ifiol KepSo'i ; and, since K€pSo<i
is not to be taken from uTroOavelv, of which it is predicate, we
should have to expect an also before to ^Tjv, so that Paul
would have written : el he (or aXV el) kol to ^rjv iv aapKo
i/xol KepBo<; k.t.X.
Ver. 23. Respecting the rt alpi^aofjbai ov lyvoypc^co, Paul ex-
presses himself more fully in vv. 23, 24, proceeding with the
explicative Be ; for Be is not antitheticcd (Hofmann : " on the
contrary"), but, in fact, the reading f^dp is a correct gloss,
since the situation now follows, which necessitates that relin-
quishment of a choice. But I am held in a strait (comp.
Luke xii. 5 ; Acts xviii. 5 ; 2 Cor. v. 1 4 ; Wisd. xvii. 1 1 ;
Dem. 396. 22, 1484. 23; Plat. Lcgg. vii. p. 791 E, Tlieaet.
p. 165 B; Heind. ad Plat. Soph. 46) of the two points, namely
the diroOavelv and the t:?jv} of which he has just said, rt alp.
ov lyvcop. These Bvo are not conceived in an instrumental
sense, which is expressed with avve^,., by the dative (Matt.
iv. 24; Luke viii. 37; Acts xviii. 5; Plat. Sojjh. p. 250
D; Eur. Heracl. 634), but as that from which the avve'^^ea-dat
proceeds and originates (Bernhardy, p. 227 f . ; Schoem. ad Is.
p. 348; Matzner, ad Antiph. p. 167). — Tr]v eTndvfi. e^toi/
K.T.X.] since my longing is to die. The article denotes, not
" votum jam commcmorcdum" (Hoelemann), for Paul has not
^ It is therefore more in harmony with the context to refer U to"* Sw'o to what
precedes than to ivhat follows (Lutlicr, Filieinwakl, Corn. Miiller, and others).
Note that the emphasis is laid on iTvnxoi^°^', 'whieh is the new climactic point in
the continuation of the discourse. The Avord irwix- itself is rightly rendered by
the Vulgate : coarctor. The mere ieneor (Weiss and earlier expositors) is not
sufficient according to the context. Paul feels himself in a dilemma between two
opposite alternatives.
CHAP. I. 24. 53
indeed as yet expressed an iTri9vfj,elv, but doubtless the desire,
which Paul has. He says that his desire tends towards dying,
etc.,^ but that life is mo7'c necessary ; and therefore he knows that
not that for which he longs, but that which is the more neces-
sary, will come to pass, and that he will remain alive (ver. 25).
Augustine aptly observes : " Non patienter moritur, sed patien-
ter vivit et delectabiliter moritur." — ava\.v(TaL\ comp. 2 Tim.
iv. 6 ; Isa. xxxviii. 12. Dying is conceived as a hrealdng up
(a figure taken from the camp) for the departure, namely, from
this temporal life to Christ (comp. vTrdyeiv, Matt. xxvi. 24 ;
iKBrjfieLv, 2 Cor. v. 8 f . ; and similar passages) ; hence the fcal
<Tvv XpLCTTU) elvac immediately added.^ — ttoWo) 7. fidW.
Kpelaaov] hy much in a higher degree better ; a cumulative ex-
pression in the strength and vividness of feeling. As to [xaXkov
with the comparative, see on Mark vii. 36 ; 2 Cor. vii. 13 ;
and Klihner, II. 2, p. 24 f., and ad Xcn. Mem. iii. 13. 5 ;
Bornemann, ad Cyro]). p. 137, Goth. If here interpreted as
fotius (ver. 12), it would glance at the preference usually given
to life; but nothing in the context leads to this. The pre-
dicate Kpeiaaov (a much letter, i.e. hapjncr lot) refers to the
apostle himself ; comp. below, hi vfj.d<;. Eur. Hce. 214: Oaveiv
fiov ^vvTV^ia Kpeiaaaiv iKvprjaev.
Ver. 24. ' E-Trifiiveiv involves the idea : to remain still
(still further), to stay on, comp. Eom. vi. 1. — iv rfj a-apKi] in
my flesh. Not quite equivalent to the idea involved in iv
aapKi without the article (ver. 22). The reading without the iv
(see the critical remarks) would yield an ethiccd sense here
imsuitable (Rom. vi. 1, xi. 22 ; Col. i. 23). — ava^Kaior^ namely,
than the for me far happier alternative of the avaXvaai, k. a.
X. ehac. The necessity for that is only a subjective want
^ It is thus explained why Paul did not write roZ avaxZa-ai (as Origen reads).
t'l; is not dependent on rhy IviL {ItiS. is never so construed ; comp. Corn.
Miiller) ; but rr.y ifi6. is absolute, and tU to a»a^. expresses the direction of t^v
iTit. s;^4;v : Jiavbig my longing towards dying, Comp. Thuc. vi. 15. 2.
* Bengel : " i)ec€cZe?-e Sanctis nunquam non optabile fuit, sed cum Christo esse
ex novo testamento est. " This Christian longing, tlierefore, has in view any-
thing rather than a "having emerged from the limitation of personality"
(Si'hleiermacher). — Tlie translation dissolvi (Vulgate, Hilary) is to be referred to
another reading {atccf.v^^vai).
54 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILLIPIANS.
felt by the pious mind. But the objective necessity of the
other alternative has precedence as the greater ; it is more
precisely defined by Si v[ia<i, regarded from the standpoint of
love. " Vitae suae adjici nihil desiderat sua causa, sed eorum,
quibus utilis est." Seneca, fp. 98 ; comp. ejx 104. — St vfid<f\
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. TovTo ireTTotd.] tovto does not belong to olha,
but to ireTTotd., and refers to the case of necessity just ex-
pressed ; having which is the object of his confidence, Paul
knows that, etc., so that ort is dependent on o28a alone, —
in opposition to Theophylact, Erasmus, Calovius, Heinrichs,
Piatt, and others, under whose view the olSa would lack the
specification of a reason, which is given in this very tovto
ireiTOLd,, as it was practically necessary. On the accusative of the
object with ireiroid., comp. Bernhardy, p. 106 ; Kiihner, II. 1,
p. 267; also Wunder, ad Soph. 0. T. 259 f Observe that
we may say: TreiroiQiqcnv irenoiQa, 2 Kings xviii. 19. Comp.
on ii. 18. — ixev(jd\ I shall remain; contrast to the dvaXvaai,
which was before expressed by eTrtfjieveiv iv t. aapKL. 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 fxevut :
Kal crvfMTrapa/iieva) iraaiv vfuv, and I shall continue together
ivith all of you ; I shall with you all be preserved in temporal
life. Prom vv. 6 and 1 there can be no doubt as to the ter-
minus ad giiem which Paul had in view ; and the iraatv (comp.
1 Cor. XV. 51 ; Rom. xiii. 11) shows how near he conceived
that goal to be (iv. 5). Notwithstanding, Hofmann terms this
view, which is both verbally and textually consistent, quixotic,
and invents instead one which makes Paul mean by ixevw the
remaining alive without Ids co-operation, and by irapaiievS),
which should (according to Hofmann) be read (see the critical
remarks), his remaining ivillioigly, and which assumes that
the apostle did not conceive the Kal irapafievco iraacv vfxlv as
dependent on otl, but conveys in these words a promise to
remain with those, "from vjhom he coidd withdraw himself."
CHAr. I. 25, 20. 55
"What a rationalistic, artificial distinction of ideas and separa-
tion of things that belong together ! and what a singular pro-
mise from the apostle's lips to a church so dear to him : that
he will not ivithdraw himself, but will remain faithful to them
(Schneider and Kruger, ad Xen. Anal. ii. 6. 2) ! If rrrapafievo!)
is the true reading, Paul says quite simply : I hioio that I
shall remain (shall not be deprived of life), and continue with
you all, i.e. and that I shall be preserved to you all ; comp.
Heb. vii. 23 ; Ecclus. xii. 15 ; Horn. //. xii. 402 ; Plat. Menex.
p. 235 B; Lucian. Nigr. 30 ; Herodian. vi. 2. 19. — irapafxevw,
to continue there, just like /xei/co in the sense of in vita mancre,
Herod, i. 30. Hence avjxiTapaixeveLv (Thuc. vi. 89. 3 ; Men.
in Stob., Ixix. 4, 5), to continue there with, to remain alive
along with. Thus LXX. Ps. Ixxii. 5 ; Basil, I. p. 49 ; Gregory
of Nazianzus, I. p. 74 (joined with avvSiaKovl^eLv). — et? rrjv
v/uLcov . . . TTLcrT.] vjjLOiv, as the personal subject of the irpoKoirrj
and %a/3a t?}? irlcneo)';, 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, tt/jo/cott^// k.
-^apdv. Hence : for your faith — furtherance and joy. Both
points are to be advanced by the renewed labours of the apostle
among them (ver. 26). The blending of them together by an
ev Bca hvolv (Heinrichs, Flatt) is erroneous. Weiss, however,
is also in error in urging that tt}? Triar. cannot belong to
irpoKOTrrjv also, because it would be in that case the genitive of
the ohject ; the faith also is to be an increasing and progressive
thing, 2 Cor. x. 15. — Ver. 26. ha rb Kav^VH^a, k.t.X.] the
special and concrete aim of the general proposition et9 Tr]v vfioov
rrrpoK. k. ^. r. Trlar., which is consequently represented as the
ultimate aim of the fievw Kal avfiirapaii. -irda. vfi. Comp.
ver. 10. The Kavxn/^a, because vfjicov 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 : fi€i^6v(o<; e^o)
Kair^aaOaL vfiwy einZovTcov, Ewald : my pride in you at the
last day) ; nor is it equivalent to Kav^y](n^, gloriatio (Flatt and
many others), but it denotes, as it invariably does/ materies
^ This applies also against Huther, I.e. p. 585, who, in support of the
signification gloriatio, appeals to Piud. I^th. v. 65 : Kauxn/^i^ xard^pi^i giya., Eut
56 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
gloriandi (Eom. iv. 2 ; 1 Cor. v. 6, ix. 15 f.; 2 Cor. i. 14,
V. 12 ; Gal. vi. 4). Hence : that the matter in vjhich you have to
glory, i.e. the bliss as Christians in which you rejoice (compare
previously the %apa tj}? -jriaTecos;), may increase abundantly
(comp. previously the irpoKoirri Trj<i irlcrrewi). The ev Xpia-rtp
^Irjo-ov that is added expresses the siohcre in which the 'Tvepia--
aeveiv 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 TrepLaa-evetv took place
otherwise, it would be an egotistical, foreign, generally ab-
normal and aberrant tiling ; as was the case, for example,
with some of the Corinthians and with Judaistic Christians,
whose Kavxaadat was based and grew upon works of the law.
The normal Trepiaa-evecv of the Kav-^r)[xa of the Philippians,
however, namely, its Trepia-aeveiv iv Xpiartp 'Irjaov, shall take
place — and this is specially added as the concrete position of
the matter — ev ifiol Bia rrjt; e/i?}? irapovaia^ ir. rrrpo^ y/ta?,
that is, it shall have in me hy my coming again to you its pro-
curing cause ; inasmuch as through this return in itself, and
in virtue of my renewed ministry among you, I shall be the
occasion, impulse, and furtherance of that rich increase in your
Kav-)(T}iia, and thus the Trepiaaeveiv luill rest in me. Conse-
quently the iv in iv X. 'I., and the iv in iv ifjuoi, are differently
conceived ; the former is the specific, essential definition of
Trepiaaev-g, the latter the statement of the 2^crsoncd procuring
ground for the Treptaa. iv 'I. X., which the apostle has in
view in reference to the KavxVH'^^ 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 inter-
pretation of Hofmann is thus all the more erroneous, viz. that
tlie increase of their glorying is given to the readers in the
person of the apostle, in so far as the having him again among
in this passage also xavx^ni^ot. means tliat in v)1dch one glories, as the Scholiast
has appropriately explained it : tl xai TriXiKuZra, ilr) tuv Alyivnru* ra xuroflu-
CHAP. I. 25, 26. 57
tliem looulcl he a matter of Christian joy and pride to them.
Thus would the apostle make himself in fact the object and
contents of the Kav)(aa6av, which would neither be consistent
with the logical relation of the Xva to the preceding et? t. v^.
TrpoKoirrjv k.t.X., nor with Paul's own deep humility (1 Cor,
iii. 21, XV. 9 ; Eph. iii. 8), which he satisfies also in 2 Cor. i.
14 by the mutual nature of the Kuv^VH-f^ between himself and
his friends, and in view of the day of Christ. By many (see
Calvin, Heinrichs, Eheinwald, Eilliet, and others) eV X. 'I.,
and by some even iv i/Mol (Storr, Flatt, Huther), are referred,
contrary to the position of the words, to to Kav-^rj/xa v/xcop,
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) ; "
Eheinwald : " 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." — ttoXiv] is connected, as an
adjectival definition, with irapoua. See on 2 Cor. xi 23;
Gal. i. 13; 1 Cor. viii. 7.
PiEMAr.K. — From w. 20-26 we are not to conclude that
Paul at that time was in doubt whether he should live to see
the Parousia (Usteri, Zehrhcgr. 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 profitaUe 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
hioics (ver. 25) that that case will not come to pass. This
o76a (ver. 25) is not to be weakened into ?^ pirohahiliter sperare
or the like (Beza, Calvin, Estius, and many others, also Hein-
richs, Eheinwald ; comp. Matthies, van Hengel, Eilliet), with
which Grotius, from connecting n76a mrroiS., even brings out
the sense, "scio me haec sperare, i.e. vialle ;" whilst others fall
back upon the argumcntum- 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 piossihility (comp.
ii. 17) of his being put to death, he nevertheless knew that
he should remain alive ; and it must withal be confessed
that, the result did not coi-respond to this definite oiba, which
Bengel even goes so far as to refer to a dictamen pro-
58 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
phefiaim. By no means, however, is an imaginary situation ^
to be suspected here (Baur), and just as little can a second
imprisonment at Eome be founded on this passage (Chrysostom,
Oecumenius, Theodoret, Bullinger, Piscator, Calovius, Estius,
Bengel, and many others, also Wiesinger) ; as to the relation of
this passage to Acts xx. 25, see on Acts. — We have further to
notice that Paul, according to ver. 23, assumes that, in case he
should be put to death, he would go not into Hades, but into
heaven to Christ, — a conviction of the bliss attending martyr-
dom which is found in 2 Cor. v. 8 and in the history of Stephen,
Acts vii. 59, and therefore does not occur for the first time in
the Apocalypse (vi. 9 ff., vii. 9 ff.).^ Wetstein's idea is a mere
empty evasion, that by avaXZaat is doubtless meant the dying,
but \>j Gm X. ilvai only the time following the resurrection
(comp. also Weitzel, Stud. %l Krit. 1836, p. 954 ff.) ; as also is
that of Grotius, that ouv X. ihai means : " in Christi custodia esse,"
and " nihil hinc de loco definiri potest." It is also altogether at
variance with the context (see vv. 20, 21), if, with Kaeuffer, we
interpret ava7^Z6ai as the change that takes place at the Parousia
(" ut quasi eximeretur carne "). Comp. on the contrary. Poly-
carp : ad Phd. 9, or/ ug rhv d(pirA6/jbniov avroTg to'ttov iigi vapa ruj
' Hinsch even assigns, I.e. p. 71, to tlie passage •\vitli its vivid emotion the
character of a historico-critical reflection. He represents the author of the
epistle as having in view the various opinions current in his age regarding the
close of the apostle's life, in other words, the question, whether his captivity
at that time ended in his being put to death, or in his being set at liberty and
beginning a new course of labour. The author adduces the grounds of both
views, x>iMing them in the mouth of the apostle, and in ver. 24 decides in favour
of the second ; the original, of which the present passage is an imitation, is to
be found (as Baur also thinks) in 2 Cor. v. 8, Rom. xiv. 8. See Hilgenfeld,
in opposition to Baur and Hinsch.
^ All we can gather from Rom. viii. 10 f. is merely that the life of believers
remains imaffected by the death of the body ; as at John xi. 25 f. They re-
main in fellowship with Christ ; but as to the mode and place of this fellowship,
of which they miglit 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 v/e are considering, the words a-lv Xpia-TM una.! point to an
actual being with the Lord in heaven (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 14, 17 ; Acts vii. 59 ;
2 Cor. I. c. ), and do not therefore apply to the state in Hades (in opposition to
Gilder, Erschein. Chr. unt. d. Todten, p. Ill, and others) ; see also 2 Cor. v. 8.
This union with Christ, however, is not the S«5« as the ultimate goal of hope ;
see iii. 20 f. ; Col. iii. 3. To ihe latter belongs also the bodily transfiguration,
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 materiality [Lelblichkeit und Korperlichkeit'] is not in harmony
with the New Testament, which distinguishes rather between cu/io, and ca-fl.
CHAP. I. 27. 59
xvp'iw, w xai eu'ArraSov, Clem. Eom. 1 Co7\ 5, of Pdcr : /J.apTvpr)Sag
STopevdri ilg rov oipuXo/xsvov ro'xov rrig d6^r}c, and oi Paul : i'lg rov
ciyiov HiTov sTopcjdrj, 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. 1845,
I. p. 22, following Usteri, Zchrhcgr. p. 368, erroneously dis-
covers in our passage a modification of the New Testament
view, developed only when the hope of a speedy Parousia fell
into the background. Comp. iSTeander 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 s'pecdy Parousia appears still to
be very distinctly expected in this epistle. See particularly
iii. 20 f But we find nothing said in the New Testament as
to an intermediate hody between death and resurrection. See
remark on 2 Cor. v. 3. There is a vague fanciful idea in
Dehtzsch, Psychol, p. 443 f, who in p. 419 ff., however, forcibly
shows the incorrectness of the doctrine of the sleep of the soul.
Ver. 27. To these accounts regarding his own present
position Paul now subjoins certain exhortations to right con-
duct for his readers. — ixovov] without connecting particle, as
in Gal. ii. 10, v. 13. With the above assurance, namely,
that he shall continue alive, etc., he, in order that the object
of this preserving of his life (ver. 2 5) may be accomplished in
them, needs only to summon them to he in a way ivorthy of
the gospel members of the Christian community (TroXcreveade) ;
nothing further is needed. Hofmann, in consequence of his
finding previously a promise, finds here, equally erroneously,
the only counter-deviand made for it. — tov XpcaTov] of Christ.
See on Mark i. 1. — TroXLTeveade] comp. on Acts xxiii. 1.
See also 2 Mace. vi. 1, xi. 25 ; 3 Mace. iii. 4 ; Joseph. Antt.
iii. 5. 8, Vit. 2 ; Wetstein ad loc., and Suicer, Thcs. II. p. 709 ff.
The word, which is not used elsewhere by Paul in the epistles
to express the conduct of life, is here 2^urposely chosen, because
he has in view the moral life, internal and external, of the Chris-
tian commonwealth, corresponding to the purport of the gospel
(irokireveaOat, to he 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 (irdXirevea-Oai,, to
administer a?i office in the state). Comp. 2 Mace. vi. 1, xi. 25 ;
CO THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
3 Mace. iii. 4. In the absence of such references as these,
Paul says irepi-TraTetv (Eph. iv. 1; Col. i. 10, with aficw?).
Comp. however, Clement, Cor. i. 3 : irokneveaOat kuto, to
Kadrjicov Tu> Xpiarw, and ch. 54: 7ro\iTev6/j,€vo<; rrjv ajxera-
/jLe\r]Tov TToXiTeLav rov Geov, ch. 21 : a^lw^ avrov TroiXirevo-
fxevoi. — elre i\6cov /c.t.X.] a parenthetic definition as far as
diroov, so that uKovaui then depends on %va : in order that I
— whether it he when I have come and seen you, or d^iring ray
absence from you — onay hear, etc. The two cases elVe . . . etVe
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 (etVe
aizuiv). In either event it is his earnest desire and wish that
he may come to learn the affairs of the church in their ex-
cellence as described by otl ar-qKere k.t.X. It cannot surprise
us to find the notion of learninrj expressed by the common
form of the zeugma} corresponding to the elfre airuiv ; and
from the aKoxxjoa accordingly employed there naturally sug-
gests itself a word of kindred import to corresj)ond with etVe
ekQoiv K.T.X, such as yvco. The rash opinion, repeated even
by Hofmann, that aKovaw only refers to the second case, does
the apostle the injustice of making his discourse "hiulca"
(Calvin), and even grammatically faidty (Hofmann), it being
supposed that he intended to write either : " ut sive veniens
videam vos, sive absens audiani," or : " sive qumn venero et
videro vos, sive absens audiam de statu vestro, intelligam
utroque modo," etc, Calvin allows a choice between these
two interpretations ; the latter is approved of by de Wette
and Weiss (comp. Eilliet and J. B. Lightfoot). Hofmann also
accuses the apostle of the confusion of having written ehe
' It is a mistake (notwithstanding Winer, p. 578 [E. T. 777]) to suppose that
in a zeugma the directly appropriate verb must be joined to the Jirst member.
It can also be joined with the second, as here. Comp. Xen. Anab. vii. 8. 12,
and Kiihner in loc. ; Plat. Reii. p. 589 C, and Stallbaum in loc. ; Horn. II.
iii. 327, and Faesi in loc. ; generally Niigelsbach, 2. lUas, ]). 179, ed. 3 ; Bremi,
ad Lys. p. 43 11. ; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 1075 f.
CHAP. I. 27. 61
uTToov tLKovcTbi TO, iTepl v/j,(t)v (whicli woi'ds are to "be taken
together), as if he had previously put etVe iXdojv o-^ofiat
vjj.d'i; but of having left it to the reader mentally to swp'ply
the verbs that should have depended on Xva, and of which
two ^ ■would have been needed ! The passage employed for
comparison, Eom. iv. 16, with its close, concise, and clear
dialectic, is utterly a stranger to such awkwardness. Hoele-
niann finally interprets the passage in a perfectly arbitrary
way, as if Paul had written : 'iva, etre iXOwv k. IScov v[xa^, ei-Ve
CLTTOiv Koi aKOvaa<i ra irepi vficov, crTi]KrjTe k.t.X., thus making
the participles ahsolute nominatives. — to. Trepl vfiibv] the object
of aKovao), so that ort arrjKere k.tX., that, namely, ye stand, etc.,
is a more precise definition arising out of the loving confidence
of the apostle, analogous to the familiar attraction olSd ae t/?
et, and the like; Winer, p. 581 [E. T. 781]. It has been
awkwardly explained as absolute: "quod attinet ad res vestras"
(Heinrichs, Eheinwald, Matthies, and others), while van Hengel
not more skilfully, taking etVe aTroov aKovaco r. tt. v/jl. together,
afterwards supplies aKovaco again. Grotius, Estius, and am
Ende take rd even for ravra, and Hoelemann makes Paul ex-
press himself here also by an anaJcoluihon (comp. above on etre
iXdcDv K.T.X.), so that either otl should have been omitted and
TT^KTjre written, or to, should not have been inserted. — iv kvl
TTvevfjiaTt] is to be joined with arrjKere, alongside of which it
stands, although Hofmann, without any reason, takes it abso-
lutely (2 Thess. ii. 15). It is the common element, m u-hich
they are to stand, i.e. to remain stedfast (Eom. v. 2 ; 1 Cor.
XV. 1, xvi. 13) ; TTveviiart, however, refers not to the Holy
Spirit (Erasmus, Beza, and others, also Heinrichs, Eheinwald,
Matthies, van Hengel, Weiss), but, as the context shows by
fiia yfrvxv, to the human spirit; comp. 1 Thess. v. 23. The
perfect aceord of their minds in conviction, volition, and
feeling, presents the appearance of one spirit which the various
persons have in common, De Wette weU says : " the practical
^ But why tivo ? He would only have needed to insert ^a-^w or yvu before
oTi. This would have suited both halves of the alternative discourse, in the con-
fused form in which Hofmann makes it run ; and there would be no necessity
whatever for two verbs.
62 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
community of spirit." Comp. Acts iv. 32. It is, as a matter of
course, plain to the Christian consciousness that this unity of
the human spirit is hrought about by the Holy Sinrit (see on
Eph. iv. 3 f., 23), but hi nrveviJi,. does not say so. Moreover
the em2oliasis is on this iv evl irv., and therefore fita yjr. is
subsequently placed first. — The special mode, which this stand-
ing fast in one spirit desired by the apostle is to assume, is
contained in the sequel down to avriKeifi, — fiia -^vxr) (Tvva6\.
/C.T.X.] The '^v)(rj, as distinguished from the rrrvev/j-a, is the
principle of the individual personal life, which receives its
impressions on the one hand from the Trvev/j-a as the principle
of the higher divine ^cot], and on the other hand from the
outer world, and is the seat of the activity of feeling and
emotion, the sympathetic unity of which in the church is here
described (comp. on Luke i. 46 f.). Comp. la-6y}rv)(^o<;, ii. 20 ;
(TV[xy^vyoL, ii. 2; Herodian. viii. 5. 15: ^iia re yvco/uLr] koX
'^v)(ri, Eom. XV. 6, 6fxo6v/xaB6v, 4 Mace. xiv. 20, o^6y^vj(p<i,
1 Pet. iii. 8, 6/x6(j)po3v. But f^ia i/^. does not also belong to
(TTrjKere (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Er. Schmid, and
others), for <Tvva6X. requires a modal definition in harmony
with the context. — (7vva6XovvTe'i\ in keeping with arrjKeTe,
according to the conception of a contest (comp. ver. 30), under
whicli the activity of Christian faitlifulncss is presented in
relation to all hostile powers, Comp. Col. ii. 1 ; 1 Thess. ii. 2 ;
1 Tim. vi. 12 ; 2 Tim. iv. 7, ct al. ; also Soph. 0. a 564 ; Eur.
Suppl. 317 ; Aesch. Prom. 95. The compound, striving together
(comp. iv. 3, and avvaycovl^eadat, Eom. xv. 30), is not to be
overlooked, as if awaOx., with the dative of the thing ex-
pressed merely the entering or stepping into the lists for it
(Hofmann). It does not refer, liowever, to the fclloivship of
the PhilijJjnans themselves (" quasi facto agmine contra hostes
evang.," Grotius ; comp. Hoelemann, Killiet, de Wette, Wie-
singer, "Weiss, and others, following Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Theophylact, Oecumenius). Paul looks upon himself as a
combatant (ver. 30, comp. ver. 7), and the Philippians as
striving toith him, and affording him assistance (Diod. iii. 4)
as his a-vvadXoL in defending the faith (objectively viewed),
protecting it and rendering it victorious. That they were to
CHAP. I, 28. 63
do this vjitli one accord, is stated, emphatically by fiia "^vxTj,
hut is not conveyed by avvaOX. in itself. If, however, Paul
is the combatant, the passage cannot be understood in tlie
sense : " adjuvantcs decertantem adversus impios evangelii
fidcm" Erasmus, Paraplir. ; comp. Castalio, Michaelis, Mynster,
riatt, Lightfoot, — even apart from the fact that such a pcr-
sonification of TrLara is unprecedented, and must have been
suggested by the text, as in the case of rfj aXrjOeia, 1 Cor,
xiii. 6. — T?; TTiareL is the dative commodi (comp. Jude 3), not
instrumenti (Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, Loesner, Ehein-
wald, and others), which fxia yj^v^u was. As to the genitive
of the object with 'itl(ttl<^, see on Eom. iii. 22.
Ver. 28. On irrvpeadat, to hccomc frightened (of horses,
Diod. ii. 19, xvii. 34; Plut. Fah. 3; Marc. 6), to he throivn
into consternation (Diod. xvii. 37 f . ; Plat. Ax. p. 3 7 A ;
Plut. Mor. p. 800 C), see Kypke, II. p. 312. In Gen. xli. 8
Aquila has KarairTvpeaOai. — iv fxrjhevt] in no 2^oint, nulla
ratione, ver. 20; 2 Cor. vi. 3, vii. 9; Jas. i. 4. — The avrt-
KetfievoL (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 9) are the non-Christian opponents
of the gospel among Jews and Gentiles, and not the Jiulaizcrs
and their adherents (Flatt), or the malevolent false teachers
(Matthies). This follows from ver. 30, since the whole
position and ministry of the apostle was a conflict with
such adversaries, comp. ver. 7. — -^r^? ea-rlv avTOL<i k.t.X.]
lohich is indeed, etc., refers to the preceding firj Trrvpeadac
vTTo Toiv avTCK6L/jb., to wliicli Paul desires to encourage them.
This tindauntedmss in the crvvaXOelv, and not the latter itself
(Hofmann), is now the leading idea, wdth which what has
further to be said connects itself; hence ^'Ti9 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 aTrcoXe/a? v/xcov, vfuv he. — avroi'i\ Tol<i avn-
Ketjxevoi^ is to be taken simply as dative of reference: ivhieh
is to them an indication of perdition. "Orav lyap 'l8o3a-cv, ore
ixvpia Te')(va^6/xevot ouBe nrrvpat vfid<; hvvavrat, ov Beiy/ia toOto
<Ta(f)£<; e^ovcTLv, on ra fikv avTcov airoXovvTat, ra 8e v/meTepa
la'^vpa Koi avaXcora icai avrodev e')(pvTa rrjv (TMrrjpiav ; Theo-
phylact. The ^Tt9 involving a reason is just as in Eph. iii. 13,
64 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
See on that passage. This would be still more emphatically
expressed by -^Vt? 'ye (Klotz, ad Bexar, p. 305). But the
fact that the avriKeifievot do not recognise in the undaunteduess
of those persecuted a proof (not : causa, as in the Vulgate ;
but comp. Eom. iii. 25 f . ; 2 Cor. viii. 24; Plat. Ejp. vii. p.
341 E; Lcgg. xii. p. 966 C) of their own perdition, and on
the other hand of the salvation of the persecuted {vfxwv Se
o-coTTjpla';), does not alter the state of the case in itself, that the
//.r; -TTTvpecrOat is in reality objectively such an eVSet^t? to them.
It is, indeed, the a-rj/jLelov of the righteous divine cause, and of
its necessary final victory. Perdition- and salvation : both with-
out more precise definition ; but the reader kiicw what reference
to assign to each, viz. the Messianic perdition and salvation.
Comp. on the matter, 2 Thess. i. 5 ff. ; Eom. viii. 1 7 ; 2 Tim.
ii. 12 ; Luke xii. 32, ct cd. — koX tovto airo ©eov] and that
(see on Eom. xiii. 11) of God, thus certain, therefore, and
infallible. It adds force to the encouragement conveyed by
vixwv he aayrrjpla'i ; for the context shows by the vfxtv which
is emphatically placed first in ver. 29, — without making the
reading v/jlIv necessary, however, in ver. 2 8 (Hofmann) ; see
the critical remarks, — that tovto refers only to this second and
main part of 7;Tt? k.t.\. (Calvin, Piscator, Calovius, Flatt, and
others, also Ewald and Hofmann), and not to both halves of
ijTL<i (Beza, Grotius, and many others, also Wiesinger, Weiss,
and Ellicott). Entirely foreign to the connection is any purpose
of humiliation (Hoelemann and older expositors, following the
Greek Fathers). Nor are the words to be attached to what
follows {oTL, that) (Clemens Alex., Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Erasmus, and others, and recently Eilliet) ; in which case the
(preparative) tovto would receive an uncalled-for importance,
and yet aTTo Qeov would be obviously intelligible through
e')(apL(T6r].
Ver. 29. "Otl is argumentative. " Kal tovto airo ©eov," 1
say, "since indeed to you it was granted" etc. This grant
distinguishing yo%b is the practical proof, that the just ex-
pressed airo ©eov is indubitably right, and that consequently
the eVSet^t? of your final salvation which is afforded to the
adversaries in your undaunteduess is a divine €v8ei^i,<;, a
CHAP. I. 20. 65
iohen given hj God} Hofmann's view, that on specifies the reason
why God imparts to them what has been before stated, is based
upon the erroneous reading vixlv in ver. 2 8 ; and is itself erro-
neous, because on would introduce merely the self-evident
thought that they had not sought out their suffering loilfitUy,
but had had it given to them hy God, and because, for the pur-
pose of marking the alleged contrast to the wilfulness, not vfilv,
but airo 0eov again would have been emphatically prefixed, and
consequently Paul must have written : on diro Qeou v/xlv ix"'P~
laOrj K.T.X. Hofmann curiously explains the emphasized vfilv,
as if Paul meant to say that with respect to their sufferings
the case stood exactly as vnth his own. In that case he must at
least have written, in prospect of ver. 3 0, /cat v[uv, to you also.
— v/jllv] emphatically put first, corresponding to the previous
vfXMU Se cr(OTr]pia<;. — i^^apia-Or}] donatum est ; by whom, is self-
evident. 1 Cor. ii. 12. — to virep Xpcarov] as if the irda'^etv
was immediately to follow. The apostle does not leave this
unwritten purposely, in order to bring into prominence in the
first place the idea of virep, as Hofmann artificially explains.
But here his full heart interposes, after r. virep Xptarov, and
before he writes irda-xeiv, the fresh thought ou fxovov to et? avT.
iriaTeveiv, so that dWd koI must now be also added ; and, on
account of the different prepositional relation (et?) introduced,
the to virep XptaTov already expressed is again taken up by
TO virep avTov. Thus ov fj,6vov . . . virep avTov appears as a
parenthesis of more special definition, after which the irda'xeLv,
which had been prepared for by to virep XpcaTov, but is only
now introduced, is to be dwelt upon with emphasis : " to you,
the gift of grace is granted, in hehalf of Christ — not only to
believe on Him, but also for Him — to suffer!' Plat. Lcgg. x.
p. 802 C : el he (^avt^aeTat '^V'^i] irpoiTov, ov irvp ovSe drjp, "^vyrj
he iv irpoiTOL^ jeyevrjfMevr]. See also Dissen, ad Dcm. de cor. p.
431 ; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 501. It is an awkward construc-
tion, to take TO ivTrepX. absolutely and (notwithstanding thesubse-
quent virep avTov) in the sense: as to ivhat concerns Christ (Beza,
' At the same time it is to be observed here also (comp. on ver. 28) that this
divine pointing to the final salvation of believers was in fact before the adversaries,
and that their non-recognition of it altered nothing in this objective relation.
PHIL. E
G6 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Camerarius,Calovius,and others, including Matthies and Eilliet).
Tor the conception of suffering for Christ as a high divine distinc-
^iOTi, see already Acts v. 41 ; comp. Matt, v, 1 1 f. Comp. on ver. 7.
Ver. 30. So that ye have the same confiict, etc., serves to cha-
racterize the vixiv e%a/3. TO virep X. 'Trda')(€Lv just asserted ; and
Paul's intention in thus speaking, is to bring home to them the
high dignity and distinction of suffering for Chidst, which is in-
volved in the consciousness of fellowship in conflict with the
apostle. It is impossible, in accordance with the true explana-
tion of what goes before (see on ver. 29), to find in tov avTov,
that they have themselves sought their conflict of suffering as
little as the apostle had sought his, but, on the contrary, have
received it as a gift of grace from God (Hofmann). The par-
ticiple might have been put by Paul in the nominative (instead
of the dative), because u/iet9 was floating before his mind as the
logical subject of the preceding clause. Comp. on Eph. iii. 18,
iv. 2 ; 2 Cor. i. 7 ; Col. ii. 2, iii. 16 ; Phil. iii. 19 ; Kuhner, II.
2, p. 661 f. There is therefore neither a logical nor a gram-
matical reason, with Bengel, Michaelis, Lachmann, Ewald (comp.
also Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 256 [E. T. 299]), to treat ryrt? . . .
irdayeiv as a jjarenthesis, — a construction which would be only
an injurious interruption to the flow of the discourse. — tov
avTov] namely, in respect of the object ; it is the conflict for
Christ (ver. 29) and His gosjjcl (ver. 7). — olov eiBere /c.t.X,.] as
ye have seen it in my person (viz. whilst I was still with you in
Philippi ; see scenes of this conflict in Acts xvi. 1 6 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, spcahs to the
PhUippians 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 ev rjfiip in
1 Cor. iv. 6), since Paul must necessarily have assumed that
the statements in the epistle regarding his sufferings would not
fail to receive more detailed description in Pliilippi on the
part of Epaphroditus, The rendering de me for the second
iv i/xol, adopted by Peschito, Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin,
Grotius, and others, including Flatt, is erroneous.
CHAP. II. 07
CHAPTEE II.
VeR. 1. Instead of %! n "irapaii., D*L, min. have: tl nc rrapafi.
Approved by Griesb., adopted by Matth. It is nothing but a
mechanical repetition of the preceding £/ r/g. The same judg-
ment must be passed on the reading : i'l nc, c-itXayyya, although
tliis Tig (instead of which the Bcccpta nva is to be restored) has the
greatly preponderant attestation ofABCDEFGKL P'N, min,
Bas. Chrys. (?) Damasc. Oec. Theoph., and is adopted by Griesb.
Matth. Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch. Iiva (as early as Clem. Al.
Strom, iv. p. G04, 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. 'n\ Lachm. and Tisch. read, and Griesb. also
recommended : /ajjSs y.ard, following A B C N*, min. vss. and
Fathers. An attempt at interpretation, as are also the readings
7\ -/.ard, y.ai -/.ard, (j^rfih y.ard. — Ver. 4. Elz. Scholz, have 'iy.aGrog
in both places, which is defended also by Keiche. But 'izaGroi,
which is confirmed by preponderating testimony even before
(Tx OTTO D its; (in opposition to Hofmann), was supplanted by the
singular, as only the latter occurs elsewhere in the N. T. — Elz,
lias ffxoc7f?rs instead of cxocoSirsg, against decisive testimony. —
Ver. 5. rouTo yap] ABC* i<*, min. vss. Fathers, Lachm. and
Tisch. 8 have toZto only. But Avhat led to the omission of ydp
was, that, (pponTrs being subsequently read, the preceding i-/.aeroi
was looked upon as the beginning of the new sentence (A C N).
Moreover, the commencement of a lesson at rovro favoured the
omission. — <ppoviic^u\ The reading (ppoviTn appears to have deci-
sive attestation from the uncials, of which only C*** K L P
favour the Becepta (ppcisisOu. But it is incredible, if the well-
known and very common imperative form (ppoviTrs was the original
reading, that it should have been exchanged for the otherwise
^ Eeiche, Comment, crit. p. 213, would read n instead of nva. ; but the former
is found only in min., and is scarcely susceptible of a forced explanation ("si qua
est vobis," or "si quid valet"). — The old Latin versions, Avith their si qua or si
quid, leave us uncertain as to their reading. But the Vulg. Lachm. has : si
quis.
6S THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPLVXS.
unusual passive form <ppovushi, merely for the reason that it was
sought to gain a passive form to be supplied with the following
words 6 xa/ iv X. 'I. (where the supplying of r^v would have been
SLifiicient). And as the very ancient testimony of most Greek
authorities since Origen, also of the Goth. Copt. Arm. and
nearly all min., is in favour of (ppo<>u6&u, we must retain it as the
original, which has been made to give way to the more current
(ppo'juTi. The latter, however, is adopted by Tisch. 8, following
Lachmann. — Ver. 9. Elz. Scholz, Tisch. 7 have ovo/mu alone
instead of ro oi/o/xa, in opposition to ABC N, 17, and several
Fathers. The article has been suppressed by the preceding
syllable. — Instead of sB,o,'ji>oXo''/f,0rjrai tlie future i^oij.b'/.oyr,Girai is
decisively attested. — Ver. 13. The article before Qidg (Elz.
Scholz) is condemned by preponderating testimony. — Ver. 15.
yh-neSi] A D* E* E G, Vulg. It. Cypr. have rin. So also Lachm.
But the testimony is not decisive, and there is the more reason
for defending the Bccepta, because yhricdi might be more readily
glossed by rin than the converse, both in itself, and also here
on account of the following sv o7g (pahsaOi z.r.x. — d/xc<j/.i?)7-a]
Lachm. Tisch. 8 have afj,oj/xa, following A B C N, min. Clem.
Cyr. But the latter is the prevailing form in the N. T., and
readily crept in (comp. var. 2 Pet. iii. 14). — h /isauj'] ABC D*
E G t<, min. Clem, have /j.!aov. Approved by Griesb., and
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the Becqjta is ex-
planatory. — Ver. 19. zupi'jj] Lachmann reads xpiorw, upon
too weak authority. — Ver. 21. Elz.: ra tou Xpierou 'l^aoij. But
TO. 'ijjffoj X. (Tisch. : to. XpiaroU 'ijjffoi;) has the preponderance of
evidence in its favour. — Ver. 26. After v,u.a.c, A C D E N*, min.
vss. and some later Eathers have IdsTv, which Lachm. places in
brackets. To be adopted ; because, after i. 8, its omission would
be very probable, and there is no reason why it should have
got in as a gloss here and not at i. 8. — Ver. 27. Elz.: Jtt/ Xut;/?,
against decisive testimony in favour of et/ Xvvriv. — Ver. 30. rh
ipyov rouXpisToZ] Tisch. 7 reads to sVyov merely; following, indeed,
only C, but correctly, for the bare to 'ipyov appeared to need
some defining addition, which was given to it by t-oJ Xpisro^j or
XpiGToZ (Tisch. 8), or even by -/.upio-j (A t<). — crapa/Sot/X.] The form
Tapa/SoX. has preponderant attestation, and is to be preferred.
See the exegetical remarks.
Ver. 1. Ovv\ infers from i. 30 what is, under these circum-
stances, the most urgent duty of the readers. If they are
engaged in the same conflict as Paul, it is all the more im-
ciiAr. II. 1. 69
peratively required of them by the relation of cordial affec-
tion, which must bind them to the apostle in this fellowship
that they should fulfil his joy, etc. Consequently, although,
connecting what he is about to say with what goes imme-
diately before (in opposition to Hofmann), he certainly, after
the digression contained from 7^Ti9 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 sum-
mons to mutual humility. — el ri? ac.t.X,.] four stimulative
elements, the existence of which, assumed by el (comp on Col.
iii. 1), could not but forcibly bring home to the readers the
fulfilment of the apostle's joy, ver. 2/ With each eVrt simply
is to be supplied (comp. iv. 8) : If there he any encouragement
in Christ, if 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 oljective principle of the Christian
life {iv Xpiaru) and Trvev/jLaTd), and the second to the siihjective
principle, to the specific disposition of the Christian (aydirr]';
and airXdyx^^ '^'^'' oUripfxoL). Thus the inducements to
action, involved in these four elements, are, in equal measure,
at once objectively linding and inwardly affecting {irm
(r(j>oBpco<;, TTco? yaera av/x'iradela'i ttoWt}? ! Chrysostom). —
irapaKk. iv X.] iv X. defines the irapaKK. as specifically Chris-
tian, having its essence and activity in Christ; so that it
issues from living fellowship with Him, being rooted in it, and
sustained and determined by it. Thus it is in Christ, that
brother cxhorteth brother. TrapdKXrja-t,^ means exhortation
(1 Cor. xiv. 3; Eom. xii. 8; Acts iv. 36, ix. 31, xiii. 15,
XV. 31), i.e. persuasive and edifying address; the more special
interpretation consolatio, admissible in itself, anticipates the
correct rendering of the irapajxijOiov which follows (in opposi-
tion to Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Erasmus,
Beza, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Heinrichs, and many others ;
and recently Hoelemann and Ewald). — el' n irapa/j,. dydir.'l
■ Hitzig, z. Krit. Paul. Brief e, p. 18, very erroneously opines tliat there is
here a made excitement, an emphasis in which not so much is felt as is put
into the words ; and the four times repeated if is to cover the defect, — in con-
nection with which an utterly alien parallel is adduced from Tacit. Agric. 46.
70 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
TrapafjivOiov (see generally Scliaefer ad Bos. p. 492; Lobeck
ad Phryn. p. 517; Jacobs ad Ach. Tat. p. 708) corresponds
to the fourth clause (aTrXajx^^ i^- oIkt.), and for this reason,
as well as because it must be different from the preceding
element/ cannot be taken generally with Calovius, Flatt,
Matthies, do Wette, Hoelemann, van Hengel, Ewald, Weiss, J.
B. Lightfoot, and Hofmann as address, exhortation (Plat. Legg.
vi. p. 773 E, xi. p. 880 A), but definitely as comfort (Time. v.
103 ; Theocr. xxiii. 7 ; Anth. Pal. vii. 195, 1 ; Wisd. iii. 18 ;
Esth. viii. 15; comp. Trapafxydla, Plat. Axiocli. p. 375 A;
Luc. Nigr. 7; Ps. Ixv. 12; Wisd. xix. 12 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 3).
^AyaTTT]'; is the genitive of the subject: a consolation, luhich
love gives, which flows from the brotherly love of Christians.
In order to make out an allusion to the Trinitg in the three
first points, dogmatic expositors like Calovius, and also Wolf,
have understood a^ain]^ of the love of God (to us). — el Ti<i
KOLvcov. TTv.] if awj felloiuship of the Sjnrit {i.e. participation in
the Spirit) exists; comp. on 2 Cor. xiii. 13. This is to be
explained of the Iloh/ Spirit, not of the animorum conjunctio
(Michaelis, Eosenmliller, am Ende, Baumgarten-Crusius, de
Wette, Hoelemann, Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others ; Usteri
and Killiet mix up the two), which is inconsistent with the
relation of this third clause to the first (eV Xpta-ru)), 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. — et rtva crirX. k. oIk.t?\ if there he any heart and com-
passion. The former used, as in i. 8, as the seat of cordial
loving affections generally ; the latter, specially as miscricordia
(see on Eom. ix. 15), which has its seat and life in the heart.
See also on Col. iii. 12 ; comp. Luke i. 28 ; Tittmann, Synooi.
p. 68 f. — It must further be remarked, with regard to all four
points, that the context, by virtue of the exhortation based
upon them irXrjpcocraTe fiov rip xapdv in ver. 2, certainly pre-
supposes their existence in the Philippians, but that the
' Hofmann erroneously makes the qnito arbitrary distinction that tufo.x.x.
refers to the xcUl, and cra/ia^. to the feel'wrjs. The will, feelings, and intellect
are called into exercise by both. Comp., especially on rrafay-v^., Stallbanm, ad
Plat. Rep. p. 476 E ; Pkaed. p, 70 B ; Eathyd. p. 272 B ; Thnc. viii. 86, 1.
CHAP. II. 1, 71
general expression {if ilicre is) 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 : "If there is cxliorta-
tion in Christ, wherewith one brother animates and incites
another to a right tone and attitude ; if there is comfort of love,
whereby one refresheth the other ; if there is fdloivship in the
Spirit, which inspires right feelings, and confers the consecra-
tion of power; if there is a heart and eompassion, issuing, in
sympathy with, and compassion for, the afl&icted, — manifest
all these towards me, in that ye onake full my joy (jmov rrjv
■Xapdv)." Then, namely, I experience practically from you that
Christian-brotherly exhortation,^ and share in your comfort of
love, and so ye put to proof, in my case, the fellowship in the
Spirit and the cordial symioathy, which makes me not distressed,
but glad in my painful position. — There is much that is mis-
taken in the views of those who defend the reading ri? before
aifk. (see van Hengel and Eeiche), which cannot be got rid
of by the assumption of a consiructio ad synesin (in opposi-
tion to Buttmann, Mut. 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 : et rt? ovv irapd-
KXr}(n<;, iv XptcrTW' ec re TrapafiiidLov, d<yd7ri]<i' €c Tt9 KGivcovia
TrvevfiaTot, el xi?, a7r\d<y^va k. oIktlpixol; this last el rt? being
a repetition of the previous one with an emphasizing of the el.
Accordingly the verse is supposed to mean : " If exhortation,
let it be exhortation in Christ ; if consolation, let it be a con-
solation of love ; if fellowship of the Spirit, if any, let it be
cordiality and compassion." A new sentence would then begin
with irX'iqpdiaare? Artifices such as this can only serve to
recommend the reading el nva.
^ In the application of the general u ti; Tapax.Xn'ni sv X., the suhjects of this
vrafux/.niri; must, following the rule of the other elements, be the Philippians ;
Paul (Wiesinger, comp.' Ewald) cannot be conceived as the ■rapccxaXuv.
^ From this interpretation of the whole passage he should have been deterred by
the forlorn position which is assigned to the i" t/j before ir-rXa.yx,^a. as the stone
of stumbling, as well as by the purposelessness and even inappropriateness of
an oddly emphasized prolleviatical sense of this i1 tis. — If it be thought that
the reading u n; airX. must be admitted. I would simply suggest the following
72 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Ver. 2. The joy -which Paul already feels in respect to the
Philippians (i. 4), they are to make full to him, like a measure
(comp. John iii. 29, xv. 11, xvii. 13; 1 John i. 4 ; 2 John
12; 2 Cor. x. 6). For the circumstances of the case, comp.
i. 9. The [xov represents, as it very often does in the N. T.
{e.g. iv. 14; Col. iv. 18 ; Philem. 20), and in Greek authors,
the dative of interest. — 'iva] The mode in which they are to
make his joy full is conceived in telle form, as that which is
to he striven for in the action of making full ; and in this aim
of the TrXrjpovv the regulative standard for this activity was
to consist. Paul might quite as fitly have put the ro avTo
(f)povelv in the imperative, and the irXripovv rr-jv %apdv in the
telic form ; but the immediate relation to himself, in which he
had conceived the whole exhortation, induced him to place the
ifkripovv T. ')(. in the foreground. — to <xuto ^povrjre] denotes
generally harmony, and that, indeed, more closely defined by
the sequel here as identity of sentiment. See Tittmann, Synon.
p. 67; Pritzsche, ad Bom. III. p. 8 7 f. ; comp. Herod, i. 6 0,
ix. 54, and the passages in Wetstein. The opposite: a/KpU
(pp., Hom. //. xiii. 345 ; dWy (pp., hymn. AjJ. 469 ; Bi^o(f)po-
velv. Pint. Mar. p. 763 E ; hL')(pfi7)TL'i, Nonn. ev. Joh. xx. 2 9 ;
and similar forins. Hoelemann interprets to avro as illnd
ipsum, that, namely, which was said in ver. 1, the irapaKXtjai^ iv
X. down to oiKTtpfxoL This is at variance with the context (see
Ly way of necessary explanation of the passage : — 1st, Let the verse be regarded
as consisting of a series oi four j)rotases, on which the apodosis then follows in
ver. 2 ; 2d, Let sv Xpiffrai, aya'rtis, Tviufiaros and rrrXay^i/a x. otKTipfioi be taken
uniformly as p?'ecZJca<ife speciiications ; 3d, Let xoivuvlx be again understood with
the last £(' Ti;. Paul would accordingly say : " If any exhortation is exhortation
in Christ, if any comfort is comfort of love, if any fellowship is fellowship of the
Sinrit, if any (fellowship) is cordiality and compassion (that is, full of cordiality
and compassion) fulfl ye," etc. Tlie apostle would thus give to the element of
the xoivmia, besides the objective definition of its nature (irvstl^aTuj, referring to
the Holy Spirit), also a subjective one {<rrrX. x. olxripf/..), and mark the latter
specially by the repetition of i" n; sc. xoivutia, as well as designate it the more
forciblj' by the nominative expression ((j-crXay;^;»a x. elxr., not another genitive),
inasmuch as the latter would set forth the ethical nature of such a xoivuvla (comp.
such passages as Rom. vii. 7, viii. 10, xiv. 17) in the form of a direct predicate.
The it, moreover, would remain imiformly the syllogistic li in all the four clauses,
and not, as in Hofmanu's view, suddenly change into the problematic sense in
the fourth clause.
CHAP. II. 2. 73
the following r. avr. ajdir. and ev <}>pov.), and contrary to the
wonted use of the expression elsewhere (Eom. xii. 16, xv. 5 ;
2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; Phil. iv. 2). — rrjv avTrjv ay. ep^., avfi-^. to
ep (ppop.] Two more precise definitions of that like-minded-
ness, so far as it is identity of (mutual) love, and agreement of
feeling and active impulse, sympathy {<Jv[ji-\lrv)(OL, only found
here in the JST. T. ; but see Polemo, ii. 54, and comp. on i. 27,
also on laoyjrv^ov, ver. 20). This aecumulation of definitions
indicates earnestness; Paul cannot sever himself from the
thought, of which his heart is so full. Comp. Chrysostom :
fia/3al, TTGacLKi^ to avro Xeyei airo StaOiaeax; ttoXXt}? ! He
also well remarks on t. avr. aydir. e;;^. : Tovrecrri o/xolo)^ (f^iXelu
Kot (f)t\eladat. The following ro ev cppovovvre'i is to be closely
connected with av[i-^., so that avfju-ylrv^ot has the emphasis
and adds the more j^^^ceise definition of the previously men-
tioned unity of mind : with harmony of soul cherishing the one
sentiment. There are therefore only tivo, and not three, special
explanations of the to uvto (ppovijTe ; nnd ev with the article
points back to the previous to uvto, which is now represented
by TO ev without any essential difference in sense. Exposi-
tors, not attending to this close connection of avfi-ylr. with to
€P <^pov. (which Wiesinger, Weiss, Ellicott, and Schenkel have
acknowledged), have either made the apostle say the very same
thing twice over (Oecumenius : SiTrXacnd^ec to 6fxo(ppoveiv), or
have drawn entirely arbitrary distinctions between to avTo and
TO ev (ppov. — e.g. Bengel, who makes the former refer to the
same ohjects of the sentiment, and the latter to the same scnti-
ment itself ; Tittmann, I.e., that the former is idem sentire, velle
et quaerere, and the latter in iino cxpctendo eonsentire ; Beza and
others, that the former means the agreement of ivill, the latter
the agreement in doctrine ; while others put it inversely ; Hof-
mann thinks that eV witli the article means the one thing, on
which a Christian must invxirdly he hcnt (comp. Luke x. 42).
It means, on the contrary, the one thing which has just been
designated by to avTo (f)pov7]Te (as in iv. 2 ; Pom. xii. 16 ;
and other passages) ; the context affords no other reference for
the article. — It is usual, even in classical authors, for the
participle of a verb to stand by the side of the verb itself, in
74 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPLA-NS.
sucli a way that one of tlie two conveys a more precise
specification. See Stallb. ad Plat. Hip'p. w. p. 292 A; Borne-
mann, ad Cyrop. viii. 4. 9 ; Lobeck, Paral. p. 532 f.
Yer. 3 f. Mrjhev Kara ipi6. tj KevoSo^.^ sc. (f)povovvTe<; (not
iroLovvre'i, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Camerarius, Storr, am Ende,
Eheinwald, Elatt, van Hengel, and others) ; so that, accord-
ingly, what was excluded by the previous requirement to avro
<jipovi]T€ . . . <ppovovvTe<;, is here described. To take, as in Gal.
V, 13, /i7;Sei/ . . . KevoSo^iav as a prohibition hy itself, without
dependence on ^povovvTe<i (see on Gal. Z.c), as J. B. Lightfoot
does, is inappropriate, because the following participial anti-
thesis discloses the dependence of the firjBev k.t.X. on the
previous participle ; hence also Hofmann's view, that there is an
intentional leaving the verb open, cannot be admitted. Hoele-
mann combines it with riyov/n., and takes fxTjSev as neutiqiiam ;
but incorrectly, for tj^o^/x. k.tX. affirms the esteeming others
better than oneself, which, therefore, cannot take place in a
factious {Kara iplOeiav, see on i. 1 7) or in a vainglorious (r) Kevo-
So^lav) way. The Kara denotes that which is regulative of the
state of mind, and consequently its eharacter, and is exchanged
in the antithetic parallel for the dative of the instrument : hy
means of humility, the latter being by the article set down as a
generic idea (by means of the virtue of humility). The mutual
brotherly humility (Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii. 12; Acts xx. 19) is
the determining 'principle, by which, 'for example, Caius is
moved to regard Lucius as standing higher, in a moral point
of view, than himself, and, on the other hand, Lucius to pro-
nounce Caius to be of a higher moral rank than himself {i.e.
dW7]\ov<; . . . eavTOiv). Hoelemann erroneously refers r/J raireiv-
o(f)p. to virepe^., so that it " excellentiae designet pracsidium"
— a view which the yerj position of the words should have
warned him not to adopt. — KeuoSo^la] ostentation, only here
in the K T. Comp. Wisd. xiv. 14; Polyb. iii. 81. 9 ; Lucian,
B. Mort. x. 8, XX. 4; and see on Gal. v. 26. — Ver. 4. /a^ ra
eavTcJv eKaarot ct/cott.] The humble mind just indicated cannot
exist together with selfishness, which has its own interests in
view. See instances of a-Koiretv ra Tti/09, to be mindful of
any one's interests, in Herod, i. 8 ; Plat. Fhaedr. p. 2 3 2 D ;
CHAP. II. ?, 4. 75
Thuc. vi. 12. 2; Eur. Supp. 302. Comp. Liician, Prom. 14:
ra/xavTov fiova ctkotto). The opposite of ra kavrwv ctk. may be
seen in 2 Mace. iv. 5 : to Se o-v/LL(f}epov Kocvfj . ... aKoircov.
Comp. ^r]T6tv TO, eavTov, 1 Cor. x. 24, 33, xiii. 5 ; Phil. ii. 21,
where ^rjrelv presents no essential difference in sense. Others
consider that the having regard to gifts and merits is intended
(Calvin, Hammond, Eaphel, Keil, Commentat. 1803, in his
Opusc. p. 172 ff., Hoelemann, Corn. Miiller), which, after the
comprehensive rf} Taireivo^p. k.tX., would yield a very insipid
limitation, and one not justified by the context. — eKaa-roi] It
is usually, and in other passages of the N. T. invariably, the
singular that is used in this distributive apposition ; the plural,
however, is not unfrequently found in classical authors. Horn.
Ocl. ix. 164; Thuc. i. 7. 1 ; Xen. Hell. ii. 4, 38; Herodian,
iii. 13, 14. — aWa koI k.tX.'\ a weaker contrast than we
should have expected from the absolute negation in the first
clause ;^ a softening modification of the idea. In strict con-
sistency the icai must have been omitted (1 Cor. x. 24).
Comp. Soph. Aj. 1292 (1313): opa /nr) roufiov dWa xal to
a-ov; and see Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 788; Winer, p. 463 f.
[E. T. 624]. The second e/caa-Tot might have been dispensed
with ; it is, however, an earnest repetition. — The influences
disturhing unity in Philippi, disclosed in vv. 2-4, are not,
according to these exhortations, of a doctrinal kind, nor do
they refer to the strength and weakness of the knowledge and
conviction of individuals, as was the case in Eome (Eom. xiv.)
and Corinth (1 Cor. viii. and x.) — in opposition to Eheinwald
and Schinz ; — but they were based upon the jealousy of moral
self -estimation, in which Christian perfection was respectively
ascribed and denied to one another (comp. ver. 12, iii. 12 ff.).
Although this necessarily implies a certain difference of opinion
as to the ethical theory, the epistle shows no trace either of
any actual division into factions, or of ascetic jealousy (which
1 In which, in fact, it is not merely tlie limitation (Hofmann) to one's own that
is forbidden, as if fitff stood along with it. What Hofmann at the same time
deduces from the reading 'iKatrTOi (before (rxo-rovvTis), which he follows, as dis-
tinguished fi'om the subsequent sxairT^/ (with a here wholly irrelevant compari-
son of Plat. Apol. p. 39 A), is sophistical, and falls, moreover, with the reading
itself.
V6 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
de Wette assumes as co-operating). But tlie exhortations to
Tinity are too frequent (i. 27, ii. 2 f., iii. 15, iv. 2 f.) and too
urgent to justify us in questioning generally the existence
(Weiss) of those disturbances of harmony, or in regarding
them as mere ill humour and isolation disturbing the cordial
fellowship of life (Hofmann). Comp, Huther, in the Mccldenh.
Zcitschr. 1862, p. 640 ff.
Ver. 5. Enforcement of .the precept contained in ver. 3 f.
by the example of Jesus (comp. Eom. xv. 3 ; 1 Pet. ii. 21 ;
Clem. Cor. I. 16), who, full of luimility, kcjyt not His own inte-
rest in view, but in self-renunciation and self-humiliation sacri-
ficed it, even to the endurance of the death of the cross, and
was therefore exalted by God to the highest glory ;^ this ex-
tends to ver. 12. See on this passage Kesler in Thcs. nov. ex
Tims. Has. et Ihen. II. p. 947 f . ; Schultens, Disscrtatt. pJiilol.
I. p. 443 ff. ; Keil, two Commcntat. 1803 (Ojmsc. p. 172 ff.) ;
Martini, in Gabler's Journ. f. auscrl. theol. Lit. IV. p. 34 ff. ; von
Amnion, Magaz. f. Pred. II. 1, p. 7 ff. ; Kraussold in the Annal.
cl. gesammt. Theol. 1835, II. p. 273 ff. ; Stein in the Stud. u.
Krit. 1837, p. 165 ff. ; Philippi, d. thatige Gehors. Chr. Berl.
1841, p. 1 ff. ; Tholuck, Disp. Christol. de I. Phil. ii. 6-9, Halle
1848 ; Ernesti in the Stud. u. Krit. 1848, p. 858 ff., and 1851,
p. 595 ff ; Baur in the theol. Jahrh. 1849, p. 502 ff., and
1852, p. 133 ff., and in his Paulus, II. p. 51 ff. ed. 2 ; Liebner,
Christol. p. 325 ff. ; Eaebiger, Christol. Paidin. p. 76 ff . ;
Lechler, Apost. u. nachapost. Zcitalt. p. 58 ff . ; Schnecken-
burger in the Deutsch. Zcitschr. 1855, p. 333 ff . ; Wetzel in
the Monatschr. f. d. Luth. Kirchc Preuss. 1857 ; Kiihler in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 99 ff. ; Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit.
1860, p. 431 ff., and his Christol. d. N.^T. 1866, p. 233 ff. ;
Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. 1870, p. 163 ff. ; J. B. Light-
foot's Excursus, p. 125 ff . ; Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld's Zcitschr.
' 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 xai,
that Paul really intended to adduce the e.cample of Christ (in opposition to Hof-
mann's view) ; comp. Eom. xv. 3. Christ's example is the moral, ideal, histori-
cally realized. Comp. Wuttke, SiUenl. II. § 224 ; Schmid, Siitenl p. 355 ff. ;
and as early as Chrysostom.
CHAP. II. G. 17
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, IV. 1, p. 469 ff . ; Kahuis, I. p. 458 ff.
— (jipoveicrOco ev u/i.] scntiatur in animis vestris. The parallelism
with the iv which follows prohibits our interpreting it intm
vestrum cactum (Hoslemann, 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.^ — o koX iv X. 'I.] sc. i^povrjdr}. On iv,
comp. the Homeric ivl (ppeal, ivl dv/xco, which often occurs
with ^povelv, Ocl. xiv. 82, vi. 313 ; //. xxiv. 173. /cat is not
cum maxime, but the simple also of the comparison (in opposi-
tion to van Hengel), namely, of the pattern of Christ.
Ver. 6. The classical passage which now follows is like an
JEpos in calm majestic objectivity ; nor does it lack an epic
minuteness of detail. — o?] epexegetical ; subject of what
follows ; consequently Christ Jesus, but in the jJrc-Jiuman state,
in which He, the Son of God, and therefore according to the
Johannine expression as the X0709 da-apKo<;, was with God.^
^ Reading (fiponTTi, and subsequently explaining the Iv Xpurru 'l>t<rou as a frequent
expression with Paul for the ethical Christian quality (like sv xvpiA> in iv. 2),
Hofmann makes the apostle say that the readers are to have their mind so directed
within them, that it shall not he lacking in this definite quality tvhich makes it
Christian. Thus there would be evolved, when expressed in simple words,
merely the thought: "Have in you the mind Avhich is also the Christian
one." As if the grand outburst, which immediately follows, would be in harmony
with such a general idea ! This outburst has its very ground in the lofty
exami^le of the Lord. And what, according toHofmann's view, is the purpose of
the significant xai ? It would be entirely luithout correlation in the text ; for in Iv
vfiiy the Iv would have to be taken as local, and in the Iv Xfurru, according to that
misinterpretation, it would have to be taken in the sense of ethlccd fellowship,
and thus relations not at all analogous would be marked.
2 That Christ in His Trinitarian pre-existence was- already the eternal Prln-
ciple and Prototype of humanity (as is urged by Beyschlag), is self-evident ; for
otherwise He would have been one essentially different from Him who in the
fulness of time appeared in the flesh. But this does not entitle us to refer the
pre-existence to His whole divine-human person, and to speak of an eternal
humanity, — paradoxes which cannot exegetically be justified by our jiassage and
other expressions such as 1 Cor. xv. 47 ; Rom. v. 12 fl., viii. 29 ; Col. i. 15.
The Logos pre-existed as the divine principle and divine prototype of humanity ;
Bio; h xiyo;, and this, apart from the form of expression, is also the teaching
78 THE EPISTLE OF PxVUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
The human state is first introduced by the words kavrov
eKevwae in ver. 7. So Chrysostom and his successors, Beza,
Zanchius, Vatablus, Castalio, Estius, Clarius, Calixtus, Semler,
Storr, Keil, Usteri, Kraussold, Hoelemann, Eilliet, Corn. Miiller,
and most expositors, including Liinemann, Tholuck, Liebner,
Wiesinger, Ernesti, Thomasius, Eaebiger, Ewald, Weiss, Kahnis,
Beysciilag (1860), Schmid, Bill. Theol. II. p. 306, Messner,
Lelire d. Ap. 233 £, Lechler, Gess, Person Chr. p. 80 £,
Eich. Schmidt, I.e., J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm ; comp. also Hof-
mann and Diisterdieck, Ajjolog. Beitr. III. p. 65 ff. It has
been objected (see especially de Wette and Philippi, also
Beyschlag, 1866, and Dorner in Jahrh. f. D. Th. 1856, p.
394 f.), that the name Christ Jesus is opposed to this view;
also, that in vv. 8-11 it is the exaltation of the earthly Christ
that is spoken of (and not the return of the Logos to the divine
ho^a) ; and that the earthly Christ only could be held up as a
pattern. But XpLo-ro^ ^Irjcrov^, as subject, is all the more justly
used (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; Col. i. 1 4 ff. ; 1 Cor.
X. 4), since the subject not of the pre-human glory alone, but
at the same time also of the human abasement ^ and of the
subsequent exaltation, was to be named. Paul joins on to o?
the whole summary of the history of our Lord, including His
pre-human state (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9 : eTTTcox^vcre 7rXovcno<i wv) ;
therefore vv. 8-11 cannot by themselves regulate our view as
regards the definition of the subject; and the force of the
example, which certainly comes first to light in the historical
Christ, has at once historically and ethically its deepest root in,
and derives its highest, because divine (comp. Matt. v. 48 ;
Eph. V. 1), obligation from, just what is said in ver. 6 of His
state hcfore His human appearance. Moreover, as the context
introduces the incarnation only at ver. 7, and introduces it as
that by which the subject divested Himself of His divine
appearance, and as the earthly Jesus never was in the form of
of Paul. Onlj' in time coiild He enter upon the human existence; the notion of
eternal humanity would refute itself.
^ Hence Philippi's ohjcction, that (pponlv is elsewhere applied to man only,
and not to God, is devoid of significance. Unfounded is also Ceyschlag's objec-
tion (1S66) drawn from the word ex.^i^aTi ; see below.
CHAP. II. C. 79
God (comp. Gess, p. 295), it is incorrect, because at variance
with the text and illogical, though in harmony with Lutheran
orthodoxy and its antagonism to the Kenosis of the Logos/
to regard the incarnate historical Christ, the X0709 evaapKo<;. as
the subject meant by 09 (Novatian, de Trin. 17, Ambrosiaster,
Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Cameron, Piscator, Hunnius,
Grotius, Calovius, Clericus, Bengel, Zachariae, Kesler, and
others, including Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hengel,
de Wette, Schneckenburger, Philippi, Beyschlag (1866), Dor-
ner, and others ; see the historical details in Tholuck, p. 2 ff.,
and J. B. Lightfoot). Liebner aptly observes that our passage
is "the Pauline 6 X0709 aap^ ejivero;" comp. on Col. i. 15. —
ev p'Op(j)fj 060V virdp-^wv] not to be resolved, as usually, into
" although, etc.," which could only be done in accordance with
the context, if the apira^iibv r]<ydcr6ai k.t.X. could be pre-
supposed as something proper or natural to the being in the
form of God ; nor does it indicate the i^ossihility of His divest-
ing Himself of His divine appearance (Hofmann), which was
seK-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 (Eom. i. 3, 4, viii. 3 ; Gal. iv. 4), according
to John as X0709 — with God, in the fellowship of the glory
of God (comp. John xvii. 5). It is this divine glory, in which
He found Himself as laa ©eai wv and also eiKOiv Qeov — as such
also the instrument and aim of the creation of the world, Col.
i. 1 5 f. — and into which, by means of His exaltation, He again
returned ; so that this divine Bo^a, as the possessor of which
before the incarnation He had, without a body and invisible to
' According to wliich Christ had the full divine majesty "statim in sua con-
ceptione, etiam in utero matris" {Form. Cone. p. 767). But He had it in His
state of humiliation secreto, and only manifested it occasionally, quoties ip&i
visum fuerit. In opposition to this, Liebner rightly obsei-ves, p. 334 : "This is
altogether inadequate to express the powerful N. T. feeling of the depth and
greatness of our Lord's humiliation. This feeling unmistakeably extends to the
unique personal essence of the God-man, and in conformity with this, to the
very heart of the act of incarnation itself."
80 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
the eye of man (comp. Philo, dc Somn. I. p. 655), the form of
God, is now by means of His glorified body and His divine-
human perfection visibly possessed by Him, that He may cifijear
at the irapovaia, not again without it,but in and with it (iii. 2 f.).
Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15, iii. 4. Mopcj)^, therefore, which
is an appropriate concrete expression for the divine Bo^a
(comp. Justin, AjmI. I. 9), as the glory visible at the throne
of God, and not a " fanciful expression" (Ernesti), is neither
equivalent to c^ycrt? or ovala (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecu-
menius, Theophylact, Augustine, Chemnitz, and many others ;
comp. also Eheinwald and Corn. Miiller) ; nor to status (Calo-
vius, Storr, and others) ; nor is it the godlike cajmcit/)/ for
possible equality ivith God (Beyschlag), an interpretation which
ouglit to have been precluded both by the literal notion of the
word fiop(f)7], and by the contrast of /j.opcp'tj 8ovXov in ver. 7. But
the fiopcjiT] &eov presupposes^ the divine </)i;cri? as o/noaroXo'i
fiop^r}^ (Aesch. Siqipl. 496), and more precisely defines the
divine status, namely, as form of leing, corresponding to the
essence, consequently to the homoousia, and exhibiting the con-
dition, so that p-op^r) ©60V finds its exhaustive explanation in
Heb. i. 3 : a7Tavyaap,a tj)? B6^7]<; k. '^apaKTrjp tt}? vTTOcrrdcrecoii
rod ©eov, this, however, being here conceived as predicated
of the ^;rt;-ca;is^(;7i;! Christ. In Plat. Ile2}. ii. p. 381 C, pop(f)')]
is also to be taken strictly in its literal signification, and not
less so in Eur. Baccli. 54; Ael. H. A. iii. 24; Jos. c. Ap. ii.
16, 22. Comp. also Eur. Baccli . 4: p,op(pi]v apeiylra-i e'/c Oeov
^porrjalav, Xen. Cyr. i. 2. 2 : <^vcnv p.ev S?; t^? '^/^l'X'?? k. t7?<?
fiop(ji't]<;. What is here called popcpr] ©eov is elSo? ©eov
in John v. 37 (comp. Plat. Bejx p. 380 D; Plut. Ifor. p.
1013 C), which the Son also essentially possessed in His pre-
human So^a (John xvii. 5). The explanation of (j)vai<; was
promoted among the Eathers by the opposition to Arius and a
^ Bengel well says: "Ipsa natura divina decorem habebat infinitum, iu se,
etiam sine uUa creatura ilium decorem intuente." — What Paul here designates
simply by Iv fii!p(p-^ ©sou i'raf^av is pompously expressed by Clement, Cor. I. 16 :
T» trxti'TTpov tUs iiiya.Xoo(r{jins 'rou Qiov. The forma mentis aeterna, however, in
Tacitus, Acjrk. 46, is a conception utterly foreign to our passage (although
adduced here by Hitzig), and of similar import Avith Proiiertius, iii. 1, 64 :
"in^enio stat siue morte decus."
CHAP II. G. 81
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. —
vTrdp-x^wv] designating more expressly than u>v the relation of
the siibsistinrj state (iii. 20; Luke vii. 25, xvi. 23 ; 2 Pet.
iii. 11) ; and hence not at all merely in the decree of God, or in
the divine self-consciousness (Schenkel). The time is that of
the 2^^'C'-liuman existence. See above on o?. Those who under-
stand it as referring to His human existence (comp. Johni. 14)
think of the divine majesty, which Jesus manifested both hi/
loord and deed (Ambrosiaster, Luther, Erasmus, Heinrichs,
Krause, Ojmsc. 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 pos-
session of the complete divine image (without arbitrarily
limiting this, by preference possibly, to the moral attributes
alone, as de Wette and Schneckenburger do) — a possession
which Jesus (" as the God-pervaded man," Philippi) had (poten-
tialiter) from the very hcginning 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
eavT. eKevcoae k.t.X, and expose them to the risk of insert-
ing limiting clauses at variance with the literal import of
the passage ; see below. — ou^ apiray/xov r}y7]aaT0 to elvai.
laa 0ecp] In order to the right explanation, it is to be ob-
served : (1) that the emphasis is placed on apTrayfxov, and
therefore (2) that to elvat laa ©ew cannot be something essen-
tially different from ev f^opcpfj Qeov v7rdpj(ehv, but must in sub-
stance denote the same thing, namely, the divine hahitus of
Christ, which is expressed, as to its form of appearance, by ev
fj'Op(f)fj ©eov virdp-^., and, as to its internal nature, by to elvai
laa ©ew;^ (3) lastly, that dpira^ijio^ does not mean ^;r«cf?a, or
' An entirely gi'onndless objection has been made (even by Ltinemann) against
the view which takes to uvai iVa QiZ as not essentially different from h ^a/Jipp &iou
ilvai, A^iz. that Paul would, instead of ro tivai 'Ua. etu, have written merely
ravTo, or even nothing at all. He might have done so, but there was no neces-
sity for his taking that course, least of all for Paul.' He, on the contrary,
distinguishes very precisely and suitably between the two ideas representing
PHIL. E
82 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PIIILIPPIANS.
that which is seized on (which would be apird'yLpLov, Callim.
Cer. 9 ; Pallad. ep. 87; Philop. 7 9 ; or apirayina or dpTracrfia,
and might also he dp-Trayi]), or that which one forciUy snatches
to himself (Hofmann and older expositors) ; but actively :
rohhing, making looty. In this sense, which is a priori probable
from the termination of the word which usually serves to
indicate an action, it is used, beyond doubt, in the only profane
passage in which it is extant, Pint, de j^'eror. educ. 15 {Mor.
p. 1 2 A) : Ka\ tov<; jxev ©rj^rjai, koI roii^ ^H\iSi (pevKreov epa>Ta<;
Kot rov €K KprjT7}<i Kdkovjjbevov apira'yp.ov, where it denotes the
Cretan kidnapping of children. It is accordingly to be ex-
plained : Not as a rohhing did He consider^ the heiiig equal ivith
God, i.e. He did not place it under the point of view of making
booty, as if it was, with respect to its exertion of activity, to
consist in His seizing ivhat did not helong to Him. In opposi-
tion to Hofmann's earlier logical objection [Schrifthew. I.
p. 149) that one cannot consider the hcing as a doing, comp.
1 Tim. vi. 5 ; and see Hofmann himself, who has now recog-
nised the linguistically correct explanation of apTra'yiio'i, but
leaves the object of the apird^eiv indefinite, though the latter
must necessarily be something that belongs to others, con-
sequently a foreign possession. Not otherwise than in the
active sense, namely raptus, can we explain Cyril, de adorat.J.
p. 25 (in Wetstein) : ou^ dpira'yixov^ rrjv Trapairrjaiv co? e^
dSpavov^ Kal vSapea-ripa'i eTrocetTo (ppev6<i ; further, Eus. in
Idle. vi. in Mai's Nov. Bihl. patr. iv. p. 165, and the passage
in Possini Cat. in Marc. x. 42, p. 233, from the Anonym.
Tolos. : oTi ovK eartv apTrajfjub'; rj niirj ;'^ as also the entirely
synonymous form apiraa-fio'i in Plut. Mor. p. 644 A, and \7)lcrfio<i
the same state, by saying that Christ, in His divine pre-human form of life,
did not venture to use this His God-eqnal being for making booty. Both, there-
fore, express the very same divine habitus ; but the iTvai la-a Qiu is the general*
element, which presents itself in the divine /xopipri as its substratum and lies at
its basis, so that the two designations exhaust the idea of divinity. Comp.
also Liebner, p, 328.
^ On riyiTcr^Ki, in this sense of the mode of regarding, which places the
object under the point of view of a qualitative category, comp. Kriiger on Thuc.
ii. 44. 3.
^ Lot did not let the refusal of the angels be a making of profit to himself.
^ Where, according to the connection, the sense is : Not a seizing to oneself
CHAP. IT. C. 83
in Byzantine writers ; also crKv\ev/x6<i in Eustathius ; comp.
Phryn. App. 36, where dp7ra'y/x6<: is quoted as equivalent to
apTTacra. The passages which are adduced for apway/xa
Tjyeiadai or TrotelaOai ti (Heliod. vii. 11. 20, viii. 7 ; Eus. R.
E. viii. 1 2 ; Vit. C. ii. 3 1) — 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 ques-
tion as something 7nade a hooty of, and not as the act of malcing
'booty. We have still to notice (1) that this ovy^ apira'^p.'bv
rjf^rjcraTO corresponds exactly to [xy] ra eavrcov aKOTrovvre'i
(ver. 4), as well as to its contrast eaurov iKevcoae in ver. 7 (see
on ver. 7) ; and (2) that the aorist rjyrjaaro, indicating a definite
point of time, undoubtedly, according to the connection (see the
contrast, a\X' kavrov itcevcocre k.t.X), transports the reader to that
moment, ivhcn the pre-existing Christ %vas on the point of coming
into the ivorld loith the heing 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 apTray/iiov rj'yelcrOac to elvac "era 0eaj ; to which, however,
He did not consent, but consented, on the contrary, to self-
renunciation, etc. It is accordingly self-evident that the sup-
posed case of the dp7rayfx6<; is not conceived as an action of the
pre-existing Christ (as Eichard Schmidt objects), but is put as
connecting itself with His appearance on earth. The reflection,
of which the pre-existent Christ is, according to our passage,
represented as capable, even in presence of the will of God
(see below, yevo/ju. uttt^'/coo?), although the apostle has only con-
ceived it as an abstract possibility and expressed it in an
anthropopathic mode of presentation, is decisive in favour of
the personal pre-existence ; but in this pre-existence the Son
appears as sv.hordinate 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 dpirayiiov rjyeiaOai k.t.X., if it had
taken place. He would have wished to relieve Himself from this
is the position of honour, as among the heathen, but a renouncing and serving
after tlie example of Christ.
84 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPLVXS.
subordination. — The linguistic correctness and exact apposite
correlation of the whole of this explanation, which harmonizes
with 2 Cor. viii. 9/ completely exclude the interpretation,
which is traditional but in a linguistic point of view is quite
incapable of proof, that ap7raj/M6<;, either in itself or by-
metonymy (in which van Hengel again appeals quite inap-
propriately to the analogy of Jas. i. 2, 2 Pet. iii. 15), means
"praeda or res ra'picncla. With this interpretation of ap'ira<yfio<;,
the idea of elvai Xaa Gew has either been rightly taken as
practically identical with iv fiop^fj @eov vTrdpyeiv, or not. (A)
In the former case, the point of comparison of the figurative
'pracda has been very differently defined : cither, that Christ
regarded the existence equal with God, not as a something
usurped and illegitimate, but as something naturcd to Him, and
that, therefore. He did not fear to lose it through His humilia-
tion (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, and
other Fathers ; see Wetstein and J. B. Lightfoot) ; comp. Beza,
Calvin, Estius, and others, who, however, give to the conception
a different turn ;^ or, that He did not desire ijcrtinaciously to
retain for Himself this equality with God, as a robber his booty,
or as an unexpected gain (Ambrosiaster, Castalio, Vatablus,
Kesler, and others ; and recently, Hoelemann, Tholuck, Eeuss,
^ Riibiger and AVetzel, and also Pflciderer, I.e., have lately adopted this view ;
likewise Kolbe in the Luther. Zcitschr. 1873, p. 311 f. Hofmann also now
explains the passage in a way not substantially diffei'ent. But Grimm, Lc.
p. 38, very unjustly describes the retention of apTayfii; 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 i^ap'^nt-yn, a.fjrayi/.rt., a.fra.ciji.a., Xrii:, ffxvXiiifia, o'wXov, Xii'a), but never by
dp-rxy/ios, or any other form of word ending with f^og. It is true that various
substantives ending in f^o; may denote the result of the action ; not, however,
as we may be pleased to assume, but solely in accordance with evidence of
empirical usage, and this is just what is wanting for this sense in the case of
dpvay[yi.'os. Its rejection, therefore, in oi;r passage, is not pedantic, but is simply
linrjuistically demanded. Weiss, hihl. Theol. p. 426, ed. 2, erroneously objects
to our view of apv ay //.(>;, 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 tlie very notion of
df!rxy//.cs its object, viz. that which does not belong to the subject of the action,
and tliis, indeed, in its unrestricted and full compass, just because nothing special
is added as an object.
2 Beza: " Non iguoravit, se in ea re {i.e. quod Deo Patri coaequalis esset)
CHAP. II. c. 85
Liebner, Schmid, Wiesinger, Gess, Messner, Grimm ; comp. also
Usteri, p. 314);^ or, that He did not conceal it, as a prey
(Matthies) ; or, that He did not desire to disjylay it triumphantly,
as a conqueror his spoils (Luther, Erasmus, Cameron, Vatablus,
Piscator, Grotius, Calovius, Quenstedt, Wolf, and many others,
including Michaelis, Zachariae, Eosenmiiller, Heinrichs, Flatt,
Eheinwald) ;^ whilst others (Wetstein the most strangely, but
also Usteri and several) mix upvevyvarioics points of comparison.
The very circumstance, however, that there exists so much
divergence in these attempts at explanation, shows how arbi-
trarily men have endeavoured to supply a modal definition for
apTT. rjy^a-., which is not at all suggested by the text. — (B) In
the second case, in which a distinction is made between to elvac
Xcra ©€w and iv fJ'Op(j)fj &6ov vTTdp')(etv , it is explained : nan
rapinam duxit, i.e. non rapiendum sihi duxit, or directly, non
rapuit (Musculus, Er. Schmidt, Eisner, Clericus, Bengel, and
many others, including am Ende, Martini, Krause, Opusc. p. 31,
Schrader, Stein, Eilliet, van Hengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, de
Wette, Ernesti,Eaebiger, Schneckenburger, Ewald, Weiss, Schen-
kel, Philippi, Thomasius, Beyschlag, Kahnis, Eich. Schmidt, and
others) ; that Christ, namely, though being iv p-op^fj Qeov, did
not desire to seize to Himself the elvai taa ©ew, to grasp eagerly
nullam injuriam cuiquam faccre, sed suo jure uti ; nihllominus tamen quasi jure
suo cessit." So also Calvin, substantially, only that he erroneously interprets
•Ayritraro diS arhitratiis essct, " Non fuisset injuria, si aequalis Deo apparuisset. "
Estius : "that He had not recognised the equality with God as an usurped
possession, and therefore possibly desired to lay it aside, but had renounced
Himself" etc.
'• In this class -we must reckon the interpretation of Theodoret (comp.
Origen, ad lioni. v. 2, x. 7, Eusebius, and others) : that Christ, being God by
nature, did not hold His equality with God as something specially great, as
those do who attain to honours Tap a^lav ; but that He, -hv a^ixt xxTaxpv^a;,
chose humiliation. To this comes also the view of Theodore of Mopsuestia :
u,op(pnv yap 'hauXov Xafiuv Ttiv a^lai/ ixiivnti a'^ixpvyj/lv, ToZro to?; opuffiv iivcci vofiiC,ofityos,
'i-xip %(^tt.U'.To. — Tholuck compares the German expression : als ein r/efundenes
Essen {einoi guten Fund) anselun. According to him, the idea of the whole
passage is, " Tantum aberat, ut Christus, quatenus Xoyos est, in gloria atque
Ijcatitate sua acquiescere sibique soli placere vellet, ut amore erga mortales
ductus servi formam induere ac vel infimam sortem subire sine iilla haesitatione
sustineret."
* To this belongs also Pelagius, "Quod erat, humilitate celav'd, dans nobis
exemplum, nein his (jloriemur, quae forsitan non habemus."
86 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
the possession of it.^ In this view expositors have understood
the X<ja elvai Qew as the divine plenitudinem et altitudinem
(Bengel) ; the sessionem ad dextram (L. Bos) ; the divine lionour
(Cocceius, Stein, de Wette, Grau) ; the vitani vitae Dei aequalem
(van Hengel) ; the existendi modum cum Deo aequalem (Liine-
mann) ; the coli et hcate vivere ut Deus (Krause) ; the dominion
on earth as a visible God (Ewald) ; the divine autonomy
(Ernesti) ; the heavenly dignity and qlory entered on after the
ascension (Eaebiger, cornp. Thomasius, Philippi, Beyschlag,
Weiss); corresponding to the ovo/jia to virep irav ovoixa in
ver. 9 (Rich. Schmidt) ; the nova jura divina, consisting in
the KvpioTTj^i 'rrdvTcov (Bruckner) ; the divine So^a of universal
adoration (Schneckenburger, Lechler, comp. Messner) ; the
original Uessedness of the Father (Kahnis) ; indeed, even the
identity with the Father consisting in invisibility (Rilliet),
and the like, which is to sustain to the iJiop^t) Qeov 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, /' apotre Paid, 1870, p. 223 ff." In order to meet
the ovx apTT. ■)]y. (comparing Matt. iv. 8 ff.), de Wette (comp.
^ So also Liinemann, wlio, in tlie sense of the divine lire-existence of Christ,
paraphrases thus : " Christus, etsi ab aeterno inde dignitate creatoris et domini
rerum omnium frueretur, ideoque divina indutus magnificentia coram patre con-
sideret, nihilo tamen minus hand arripiendum sibi esse autumabat existendi
modum cum Deo aequalem, sod ultro se exinanivit. " In a sense opposed to the
divine pre-existence, however, Beyschlag says, Christol. p. 236 f. : "Christ
possessed the f^op(ph QioZ (that is, 'the inner form of God') ; He might have
but stretched out His hand towards the iVa &iu, uva.t ; He disdained, however,
to seize it for Himself, and chose quite the opposite ; therefore it was given Him
as the reward of His obedience, etc." Hilgenfeld, in his Zcitschrift, 1871,
p. 197 f., says: the Pa\;line Christ is indeed the heavenly man, but no divine
being ; the equality with God was attained by Him only through the renuncia-
tion, etc.
■■2 The lead in this mode of considering the passage was taken by Arius,
whose party, on tlie ground of the proposition Iku^io ct,pfa.Z,ti m, « ou» ex'-',
declared: en &ios a)» Ixarruv ohx '^ ft «■<'''- TO iiMCit 'Ua ru Qioi rai fisyaXtu *.
fiiil^oyi. See Chrysostom.
3 He thinks tliat the divine ^o/j?>j of Christ stands to the 5Va thai 0=* in the
relation of j^otentia to actus. " Christ etait des I'origine en puissance ce qu' a
* la fin il devint en r4alite ;" the fi^piph «£<>« denotes the general form of being of
Christ, but "une forme vide, qui doit etre remplie, c'est-Ji-dire spirituellement
realisee." This higher position He had not wished to usurp, but had attained to
it "reelleraent par le libre developpement de sa vie morale."
CHAP. II. C. 87
Hofmann, Schriftlciv. p. 151) makes the thought be supplied,
that it was not in the aim of the work of redemption be-
fitting that Christ should at the very outset receive divine
honour, and that, if He Imd taken it to Himself, it would have
been a seizure, an usurpation. But as iv fJ'Op(f)f} Qeov vtt. already
involves the divine essence,^ and as laa elvai QeS has no
distinctive more special definition in any manner climactic
(comp. Pfleiderer), Chrysostom has estimated this whole mode
of explanation very justly : el rjv 0eo?, ttco? eZp^et' dpirdaai ; koX
irSi'i ovK aTreptvorjTOv rovro ; Ti9 ^cip dv elirot, on o Selva
dvdp(07ro<; cov ou^ rjpTracre ro etvai dvdpcoTro^ ; 7rco9 ^d.p dv rt?
oTrep iarlvy dpirdaeiev. Moreover, in harmony with the
thought and the state of the case, Paul must have expressed
himself conversely : 09 'lo'cu @6m virdp^cov ov^ dpir. rjy. to elvat
iv fiopcf)]] &£ov, so as to add to the idea of tlie equality of nature
(Jcra), by way of climax, that of the same form of appearance
{fiop^rj), of the divine ho^a also. — With respect to to elvai, tara
@eu), it is to be observed, (1) that taa is adverbial: in like manner,
as we find it, although less frequently, in Attic writers (Time,
iii. 14 ; Eur. Or. 880fl/. ; comp. o/xola, Lennep. ad Phalar. 108),
and often in the later Greek, and in the LXX. (Job v. 1 4, x. 1 0,
xi. 12, xiii. 12 ; Wisd, vii. 3, according to the usual reading).
This adverbial use has arisen from the frequent employment,
even so early as Homer (//. v. 71, xv. 439; Od. xi. 304, xv.
519 al), of laa as the case of the object or predicate (see Ellendt,
Lex. SojjJi. I. p. 847 ; Kriiger, II. § xlvi. 6. 8). But as ehuL,
as the abstract substantive verb, does not suit the adverhial
laa, pari ratione, therefore (2) to elvai must be taken in the
sense of cxistere ; so that to elvai 'laa Qew does not mean the
heing equal to God ^which would be to elvai caov Qeo)), but
the God-equal existence, existence in the way of parity with
God.^ Paul might have written taov (as mascul.) ©ew
(John V. 18), or laodeov ; but, as it stands, he has more dis-
tinctly expressed the metaphysical relation, the divine mode of
' Not merely the similarity, from whicli is there distinguished the equality bj
uvai "irec (in opposition to Martini and others).
^ [The German is : iiicht das Gotte gleich sein, sondem das goitgleiche Seln, das
Sein auf gottgleiche Wt ise, die gottgleiche Existenz.]
88 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
existence} of the pre-human Christ. (3) The article points
back to ev fj-opcpfj ©eov v'iTdp-)(wv, denoting the God-equal exist-
ence inanifcsting itself in that /J^op(f)7] ; for the iJ'Opcbi] ©eov is the
appearance, the adequate subsisting form, of tlie God-equal
existence. (4) Ernesti (in controversy with Baur), who is fol-
lowed by Kiihler, Kahnis, Beyschlag, and Hilgenfeld, entertains
the groundless opinion that our passage alludes to Gen. ii. f ,
the t<ja elvai ©ew pointing in particuhar 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 eaeaBe
o)? 6eoL in Gen. iii. 5 ! Certainly, any such comparison lay
very remote from the sublime idea of the divine glory of the
pre-existent Christ, which was something quite different from
the image of God in the first human beings. Comp. also
Eich. Schmidt, p. 172 ; Grimm, p. 42 f.
Ver. 7. '^XX.' iavrov eKevcocre] Tlie emphatically prefixed
eavTov is correlative to the likewise emphatic apira'^p.ov in
ver. 6. Instead of tlie dpird^ecv, by which he would have
entered upon a foreign domain, He has, on tlie contrary, emjDtied
Himself, and that, as the context places beyond doubt, of the
divine fiopcp^, which He possessed but now exchanged for a
f^op(f)r] SovXov; He renounced the divine glorious form which,
prior to His incarnation, was the form of appearance of His
God-equal existence, took instead of it the form of a servant,
and became as a man. Those who have already taken ver. 6
^ Which, therefore, was not essentially different from that of the Father.
The lira iivat Bsw is the Pauline Btos ?v i x'oyos. Hofmann erroneously, although
approved by Thomasius, makes the objection (Schriftbnv. p. 150) that an exist-
ence equal to divine existence can only be predicated of Him, who is not God.
It may be predicated also of 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.
" Eitschl indeed also, A Itkath. Kirche, p. 80, requires, for the understanding
of our passage, a recognition that Christ, as Iv ^"^(p-ji &iov v'prupx'^^, is put in
comparison with the earthly Adam. But why should Paul, if this comparison
was before his mind, not have written, in accordance with Gen. i. 26, xcct
iixiva 0., or xaS' of^oiairiv 0., instead of £v fiopip^ 0. ? 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 ^o^ip>i
etou of the body of man, and are therefore irnlevant.
CHAP. II. T. 89
as referring to the incarnate Christ (see on 6'?, ver. G) are at
once placed in a difficulty by eKevcocre, and explain away its
simple and distinct literal meaning ; as, for instance, Calvin :
" supprimcndo . . . deposuit ; " Calovius (comp. Form. Cone.
pp. 608, 767) : " vcliiti (?) deposuit, quatenus earn (gloriam div.)
7ion pciyduo manifcstavit atqxic cxscruit ;'' Clericus : " non magis
ea U8US est, guam si ea destitutus fuisset ;" comp. Quenstedt,
Bos, Wolf, Bengel, Eheinwald, and many others. Beyschlag
also finds expressed here merely the idea of the self-denial exer-
cised on principle by Christ in His earthly life, consequently
substituting the IST. T. idea of airapvetaOaL kavrov. De Wette,
in accordance Avith his distinction between iJ-op^-r] Geov and elvac
i<ra Qeo) (comp. Schneckenburger, p. 336), referring it only to
the latter (so also Corn. ]\Iiiller, Philippi, Beyschlag, and others),
would have tliis elvai Xaa OerZ meant merely in so far as it
would have stood in Jesus' 2^ovxr, not in so far as He actually
2J0sscsscd it, so that the eavr. Ik&v. amounts only to a renun-
ciation of the elvai, laa Qew, which He mirjld have appropriated
to Himself ; while others, like Grotius, alter the signification of
Kevovu itself, some making it mean : He led a life of poverty
(Grotius, Baumgarten - Crusius), and others : dcjyressit (van
Hengel, Corn. Mliller, following Tittmann, Ojmsc. p. 642 f.,
Keil, comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others). Augustine :
" Kon amittens quod erat, sed accipiens quod non erat ; forma
servi accessit, non forma Dei discessit." But eKevcoae means
nothing but exinanivit (Vulgate) (see Eom. iv, 14; 1 Cor.
i. 1 7, ix. 1 5 ; 2 Cor. ix. 3 ; and the passages in the LXX.
cited by Schleusner ; Plat. Conv. p. 1 9 7 C, Rep. p. 5 6 D,
Phil. p. 35 E; Soph. 0. B. 29 ; Eur. Wies. 914; Thuc. viii.
57. 1 ; Xen. Oec. 8. 7),^ and is here piurposcly selected, because
it corresponds with the idea of the ap7rayfj.6<} (ver. 6) all the
more, that the latter also falls under the conception of Kevovv
(as emjyfyiny of that which is affected by the dp7ra'y/x6<; ; comp.
1 Comp. Hasse in the Jahrh. f. Deutsche Theol. 1S58, p. 394 f. (in opposition
to Dorner's reference of the idea to that of l^ov^iviTv). Dorner, in tlie same
Jahrh. 1856, p. 395, is likewise driven to reduce the idea of the nivuirii merely to
that of the renunciation of tlie appearance of majesty, which would have been
befitting tlie divine form and parity, this inner greatness and dignity of Jesus
Christ.
90 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
LXX. Jer. xv. 9; Plat. Rep. p. 560 D; Ecclus. xiii. 5, 7).
The specific reference of the meaning to maldng poor (Grotius)
must liave been suggested by the context (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9 ;
Ecclus. I.e.), as if some such expression as h irkoinw ©eov virapx-
had been previously used. Figuratively, the renunciation of
the divine p^opcjii] might have been described as a inttting it off
{eKhveadat). — The more precise, positive definition of the mode
in which He emj)tied Himself, is supplied by fiopcfirjv Bov\ov
Xa^cov, and the latter then receives through ip o/x. dvdp. <yev6-
fjuevo'i Kal o'X^lP'- ^^P- «"? av9p. its specification of mode, correla-
tive to elvai laa Qeco. This specification is not co-ordinate (de
"Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Weiss, Schenkel), but subordinate
to /xop^rjv BovX. Xa^oov, hence no connecting particle is placed
before iv op,., and no punctuation is to be placed before koL
a-')(rjpari, but a new topic is to be entered upon with eTaireivw-
aev in ver. 8 (comp. Luther). The division, by which a stop is
placed before koI a-yfipaTi . . . auOpcoTTa, and these words are
joined to iraireivcoaev k.t.X. (Castalio, Beza, Bengel, and others ;
including Hoelemann, Eilliet, van Hengel, Lachmann, Wiesin-
ger, Ewald, Ptich. Schmidt, J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm), is at variance
with the purposely-chosen expressions ayn^fjiaTL and evpedel'i,
both of which correspond to the idea of pop<p7], and thereby show
that K. a-^. evp. o)? avOp. is still a portion of the modal defini-
tion of pop(f)7]v Soukov \a/3(iiv. Nor is the cx^'lH" ^^P- ^^ civdp.
something following the Kevuxra (Grimm), but the empirical
appearance, which was an integral part of the manner in
which the act of self-emptying was comj^leted. Besides,
iraireivwaev eavrov has its own more precise definition follow-
ing ; hence by the proposed connection the symmetry of
structure in the two statements, governed respectively by
eavrov eKevcoae and eTaireivcocrev eavrov, would be unnecessarily
disturbed. This applies also in opposition to Hofmann, who
(comp. Grotius) even connects ev 6pot,copari avOp. yevop,. with
erairelvuiGev eavrov, whereby no less than three participial
definitions are heaped upon the latter. And when Hofmann
discovers in ev 6p.oiwp.ari K.r.X. a second half of the relative
sentence attached to Xpiarw ^Irjaov, it is at variance with the
fact, that Paul does not by the intervention of a particle (or
CITAP. II. 7. 91
by 09 Kal, or even by the ba,re 09) supply any warrant for such
a division, which is made, therefore, abruptly and arbitrarily,
simply to support tlie scheme of thought which Hofmann
groundlessly assumes: (1) that Jesus, when He was in the
divine {Ji-op^ii], emptied Himself ; and (2) when He had hccome
man, humUcd Himself. Comp. in ojDposition to this, Grimm,
p. 46, and Kolbe in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1873, p. 314. —
fjLopcjirjv 8ov\ov \aj3oiv] so that He took slave-form, now making
this lowly form of existence and condition His own, instead of
the divine form, which He had hitherto possessed. How this
was done, is stated in the sequel. The aorist i^articiple de-
notes, not what was 'previous to the eavr. e«eV., but what was
contemporaneous with it. See on Eph. i. 9. So also do the
two following participles, which are, however, sulordinatcd to
the fxop^rjv hovKov Xa^cov, as definitions of manner. That
Paul, in the word SovXou, thought not of the relation of 07ie
serving in genercd (with reference to God and men, IMatthies,
Eheinwald, Eilliet, de Wette, comp. Calvin and others), or
that of a servant of others, as in Matt. xx. 28 (Schnecken-
burger, Beyschlag, Christol. p. 236, following Luther and
others), or, indefinitely, that of one subject to the will of
another (Hofmann), but of a slave of God (comp. Acts iii. 1 3 ;
Isa. Iii.), as is self-evident from the relation to God described
in ver. 6, is plain, partly from the fact that subsequently the
assumption of the slave-form is more precisely defined by ev
ofjLotcofj,. avOp. lyevofji. (which, regarded in itself, puts Jesus only
on the same line with men, but in the relation of service towards
God), and partly from vinjKoo'; in ver. 8. To generalize the
definite expression, and one which corresponds so well to the
connection, into " miseram sortcm, 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 noeentis,
cum ipsa esset innocentia," comp. Pom. viii. 3. — ev ofxoicofi.
av6p. ^evopL. Ac.T.X..] the manner of tliis fiop(j). SovXov \ajBelv : so
that He came in the likeness of man, that is, so that He entered
into a form of existence, which ivas not different from that ivhich
92 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIAXS.
oncn have. In opposition to Hofmann, who connects ev ofiocco-
fiari k.tX. with iraTreivcoaev k.t.\., see above. On ylveadai ev,
in the sense, to come into a i^osition, into a state, comp. 2 Cor.
iii. 7; 1 Tim. ii. 14; Luke xxii. 44; Acts xxii. 17; 1 Mace. i. 27;
2 Mace. vii. 9 ; Ecclus. xliv. 2 ; and frequently in Greek authors
after Homer (Xen. Anah. i. 9. 1 ; Herodian, iii. 7. 19, ii. 13. 21);
see ISTagelsbach, zur Bias, p. 295 f. ed. 3. This entrance into
an existence like that of men was certainly brought about by
human hirth ; still it would not be appropriate to explain yevo/jb.
by natus (Gal. iv. 4; Eilliet ; comp. Gess, p. 295 ; Lechler, p. 66),
or as an expression for the "heginninr/ of existence" (Hofmann),
since this fact, in connection with which the miraculous con-
ccption is, notwithstanding Kom. i. 3, also thought to be
included, was really human, as it is also described in Gal. iv. 4.
Paul justly says: iv ofioLcofiari tl/^^/a., because, in fact, Christ,
although certainly perfect man (Rom. v. 1 5 ; 1 Cor. xv. 2 1 ;
1 Tim. ii. 5), was, by reason of the divine nature (the icra
elvat 06a>) present in Him, not simply and merely man, not
a pvj'us piitus homo, but the incarnate Son of God (comp. Eom.
i. 3 ; Gal. iv. 4 ; and the Johannine o X070? a-ap^ iyeveTo), 0?
i(f>avepa>67] iv aapKi (1 Tim. iii. 16), so that the power of the
higher divine nature was united in Plim with the human ap-
pearance, wjiich was not the case in other men. The nature of
Him who had become man was, so far, not fully idcnticcd with,
but substantially conform {iv o/xoLcofi.) to, that which belongs
to man.^ Comp. on Eom. viii. 3, i. 3 f., and respecting the
idea of o/xolco/xa, which does not convey merely the conception
Our passage contains no trace of Docetism, even if Paul had, instead of
a.'iSfoi'Jtaii, used the singular, which he might just as well have written here as
ui eiv^pu-ros in the sequel, in place of which he might also have used w; at^fta-xot.
This applies in opposition to Lange, aiwst. Zeitalt. I. p. 131, and Lechler, p. 66.
Even Pliilippi, Glauhensl. IV. 1, p. 472, is of opinion that the above-named in-
terpretation amounts to Docetism. But Christ was in fact, although perfect
man, nevertheless something so much more exalted, that the phrase h ciioiuft.
uv6f. must have vindicated itself to the believing consciousness of the readers
without any misconception, and especially without that of Docetism, which Barn-
introduces into it {neutest. Theol. p. 269), particularly when we consider the
thoroughly ethical occasion and basis of the passage as an exhibition of the
loftiest example of humility (comp. Rich. Schmidt, p. 178). Nevertheless,
Beyschlag has repeated that objection.
CHAP. II. 7. 93
of analogy, see on Rom. i. 23, v. 14, vi. 5,vm. 3. The expres-
sion is based, not upon the conception of a qiiasi-man, but upon
the fact that in the man Jesus Christ (Eom. v. 15) there was
the superhuman life-basis of divine iVott;?, the uvai taa &€(p
not indwelling in other men. Justice, however, is not done to
the intentionally used ofioia/fiaTt (comp. afterwards (r-x/ifiarC),
if, with de "VVette, we find merely the sense that He (not
appearing as divine Ruler) was found in a human condition, —
a consequence of the fact that even ver. 6 was referred to the
time after the incarnation. This drove also the ancient dog-
matic expositors to adopt the gloss, which is here out of place,
that Christ assumed the accidcntales inflrniitates corporis (yet
without sin), not ex naturae necessitate, but ex oiKovoixla^
libertatc' {Colowiws)} By others, the characteristic of dclnle ct
dbjcctum (Hoelemann, following older expositors) is obtruded
upon the word avOpwircov, which is here to be taken in a purely
generic sense ; while Grotius understood av6p. as referring to
the first human beings, and believed that the sinlessncss of
Jesus was meant. It is not at all specially this (in opposi-
tion also to Castalio, Liinemann, Schenkel, and others), but
the ivhole divine oiature of Jesus, the /^opcfuj of which He laid
aside at His incarnation, which constitutes the j^oint of differ-
ence that lies at the bottom of the expression iv ofMOLco/LLart, (Sta
TO fir} -y^LXop avOpcoTTov elvai, 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. — koX (TxnH''
evp. ft)? avOpoiTT.'] to be closely connected with the preceding
participial affirmation, the thought of which is emphatically
exhausted : " and in fashion was found as a man," so that the
divine nature (the Logos-nature) was not perceived in Him.
' To this also amounts the not so precisely and methodically expressed
explanation of Philippi : Since Christ remained in the divine form, His
assumption of the slave-form consisted " in the withdrawal of the rays of the
divine glory lohich continued to dwell in His flesh, and which He only veiled and
subdued iciih the curtain of the flesh." Thus also does Calvin depict it : the
carnis humilitas was instar veli, quo divina majcstas tegehatur.
94 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PIIILIPPIANS
(jyrijia, habitus, which receives its more precise reference from
the context (Pflugk, ad Eur. Hcc. 619), denotes here the entire
outwardly perceptible mode and form, the whole shape of the
phenomenon apparent to the senses, 1 Cor. vii. 3 1 ; comp. to Trj<i
deov (X')(riixa k. d<ya\/xa, Plat. Ci'it. p. HOB; rvpavvov a'^rjixa.
Soph. Ant. 1154; "Eaxv. Med. 1039; Plat. Polit. p. 267 C:
(7')(ri[ia ^aaikLKov, ]). 290 D: rwv lepecov cr'^rj/xa ; Dem. 690.
2 1 : vTrriperov (T')(f]/xa ; Lucian, Cyn. 17: to i/xov cr'xfjfia to S'
vfieTepou; also, in the plural, Xen. 3fcm. iii. 10. 7; Lucian,
D. 31. XX. 5. Men saw in Christ a human form, bearing,
language, action, mode of life, wants and their satisfaction,
etc., in general the state and relations of a human being, so that
in the entire mode of His appearance He made Himself known
and was recognised (evpeO.) as a man. In His external
character, after He had laid aside the divine form Avhich He
had previously had,^ there was observed no difference between
His appearance and that of a 7nan, although the subject of His
appearance was at the same time essentially divine. The w?
with avdp. does not simply indicate ivJiat He was recognised
to be (Weiss); tliis would have been expressed by av6p. alone;
but He was found as a man, not invested loith other qualities.
The Vulgate well renders it, " inventus ut homo." This
included, in particular, that He presented and manifested in
Himself the human adp^, human weakness and susceptibility
of death (2 Cor. xiii. 4 ; Ptom. vi. 9 ; Acts xxvi. 23).
Ver. 8. 'ETaireivcoaev] is ]3laced with great emphasis at the
head of a new sentence (see on ver. 7), and without any con-
necting particle : He has humbled Himself. 'EavTov 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 eKevcoae
is climactic, not, however, as if Paul did not regard the self-
renunciation (ver. 7) as being also QQ\i-humiliation, but in so
far as the former manifested in the most extreme way the clia-
^ Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 644 f. : H^ia-h Siov Iv a-x^f^an at^^u-Trov. Comp.
p. 744 : To» /3a»';Xsa tuv ohfaioit, rov i'pri yrii (fctAvra Iv f^o/np-^ at^fuvav Tavtivuiriciis.
How these passages agree with the Nazaraic character of the book, is not a point
for discussion here.
CIL\.P. II. 8. 95
racter of TaTreivcixn'i in the shameful death of Jesus. It is a
climactic parallelism (comp. on iv. 9) in which the two pre-
dicateSj although the former in the nature of the case already
includes the latter (in opposition to Hofmann), are kept
apart as respects the essential points of their appearance in
historical development. Bengel well remarks : " Status exin-
anitionis gradatim profandior." Hoelemann, mistaking this,
says : " He humbled Himself even hcloiv His dignitij as man."
— ^e.vo}h. u7r?7/coo9] The aorist participle is quite, like the
participles in ver. 7, simultaneous with the governing verb :
so that He hecame obedient. This vTnjKoo^ is, however, not to
be defined by " capientibus se, damnantihus et interficientibus"
(Grotius) ; nor is it to be referred to the laiu, Gal. iv. 4
(Olshausen), but to God (Eom. 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 : hio Kal 6 ©eo?
K.r.\. The expression itself glances back to yuopc^. hov\ov ;
" obedientia servum decet," Bengel. — f^^XP^ Bavdrov] belongs
to virrjK. fyevo/x., not to irair. eavr. (Bengel, Hoelemann) —
which latter connection is arbitrarily assumed, dismembers the
discourse, and would leave a too vague and feeble definition
for irair. eavr. in the mere vtdJk. yevo/x. By fJ^^xP^ death is
pointed out as the cidminating 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 height reached by His obedi-
ence was, however, just the extreme depth of the humiliation,
and thereby at the same time its end ; comp. Acts viii. 3 3 ;
Isa. liii. 8. Hofmann groundlessly takes virrjK. 'yivecrOai in
the sense of showing obedience (comp. on Gal. iv. 12). The
obedience of Christ was an ethical heeoming (Heb. v. 8). —
Oavarov Se crravp.! rovreaTt rov eTriKarapdrov (comp. Gal.
iii. 1 3 ; Heb. xii. 2), rov toI<; dv6fxot<; d^copca/j^ivov, Theophy-
lact. The Se, with the repetition of the same word (comp.
Eom. iii. 22, Lx. 30), presents, just like the German ahcr,
the more precisely defined idea in contradistinction to the
idea which is previously left without this special definition :
2cnto death, hut what kind of death ? unto the most shameful
96 THE EFISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. .
and most painful, unto the death of the cross; see Klotz, ad
Devar. p. 361, and Baeumlein, Partik. p. 97; and the
examples in Hartung, Fartikcll. I. p. 168 f . ; Ellendt, Lex.
Soph. I. p. 388.
Eemark 1. — According to our explanation, vv. 6-8 may be
thus paraphrased : Jesus Christ, lohen He found Himself in the
heavenly mode of existence of divine glory, did not permit Him-
self the thought of using His equality luith God for the p)urpose of
seizing possessions and honour for Himself on earth: No, He
emptied Hiraself of the divine glory, inasmuch as, notivithstand-
ing His God-equal nature. He took up)on Him the 7node of existence
of a slave of God, so that He entered into the likeness of men, and
in His outward hearing and appcaranee manifested Himself not
othcr^oise than as a man. He humbled Himself so that He he-
came obedient %mto God, etc. According to the explanation of
our dogmatic writers, who refer vv. 6-8 to the earthly life of
Christ, the sense comes to this: " Christum jam inde a primo con-
ccptionis moraento divinam gloriam et majestatem sihi secundum
humanam ncduram eommunicatam p)lcna usuoyatione exsererc et
tanquam Deum se gercrc p)otuisse, scd ahdicasse se ylenario ejus
usu et humilem se cxhihuisse, pcdrique suo coelesti obcdicntem
factum esse usque ad. mortem crucis" (Quenstedt). Tlie most
tliorough exposition of the passage and demonstration in this
sense, though mixed with much jDolemical matter against the
Eeformed and the Socinians, are given by Calovius. The point
of the orthodox view, in tlie interest of the full Deity of the God-
man, lies in the fact that Paul is discoursing, not de humiliatione
INCARNATIONIS, but dc huniiUatione incai;nati. Among the
Eeformed theologians, Calvin and Piscator substantially agreed
with our [Lutheran] orthodox expositors.
Eemark 2. — On a difference in llie dogmatic understanding of
vv. 6-8, when men sought to explain more precisely the doctrine
of the Church (Forrii. Cone. 8), was based the well-known con-
troversy carried on since 1616 between the theologians of
Tubingen and those of Gicsscn. The latter (Feuerborn and
Menzer) assigned to Jesus Christ in His slate of liumiliation
the xTYiffic of the divine attributes, but denied to Him tlieir
p/p^o/?, thus making the yAvMoi; a renunciation of the xP^^'^- ^^^^
Tubingen school, on the other hand (Thummius, Luc. Osiander,
and Nicolai), not separating the xT-Jjc/g and yjri(^'?, arrived at
the conclusion of a hidden and imperceptible use of the divine
attributes, and consequently made the xivuGig a npit-^ii rrii
CITAr. II. 6-8. 97
^pyjGrjjg. See the account of all the points of controversy in
Dorner, II. 2, p. G61 ff., and especially Thomasius, Christi Fers.
u. Wcrk, II. p. 429 ff. The Saxon Decisio, 1624, taking part
with the Giessen divines, rejected the zpi)-^ig, without thoroughly
refuting it, and even witliout avoiding unnecessary concessions
to it according to the Formula Concordiae (pp. 608, 767), so
that the disputed questions remained open and the controversy
itself only came to a close through final weariness. Among
the dogmatic writers of the present day, Philippi is decidedly on
the side of the Giessen school. See his Glaulensl. IV. 1, p. 279 ff.
ed. 2. It is certain that, according to our passage, the idea of
the Tisvuffig is clearly and decidedly to be maintained, and the re-
ducing of it to a zp-j-^ig rejected. But, since Paul expressly refers
the iaurhv szimai to the fu^oppr) Qiov, and consequently to the divine
mode of appearance, while he makes the ihai 'laa. QiCj to subsist
with the assumption of the /xoppji bo-jXoZ, just as subsequently the
Incarnate One appears only as h lij.(}ii^ij.ari avdp. and as cy^rjij.a7i
ug av9p. ; and since, further, in the case of the zTrisig 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 zTi^aig and the %p5i(T/5 must therefore be in-
separably kept together. But, setting aside the conception of
the ■/.pv'^l>ig as foreign to the N. T., this possession and use of the
divine attributes are to be conceived as having, by the renun-
ciation of the /iopp?5 Qsov in virtue of the incarnation, entered
upon a human development, consequently as conditioned, not
as absolute, but as theanthropic. At the same time, the self-
consciousncss of Jesus Christ necessarily remained the self-con-
sciousness of the Son of God developing Himself humanly, or
(according to the Johannine phrase) of the Logos that had
become flesh, who was the iim^yirrig irapa rrarpdg] see the nume-
rous 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, however intimate we may seek to conceive the mar-
riage of the two during the earthly life of Jesus;" Liebner
in the Jahrh.f. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 362. That which the
divine Logos laid aside in the incarnation was, according to
PHIL. G
98 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
our passage, the /^ofp^ QsoZ, that is, the divine d6^u as a form of
existence, and not the shai 'lea &sOj essentially and necessarily
constituting His nature, which He retained,^ and to which
belonged, just as essentially and necessarily, the divine — and
consequently in Him who had become man the divine-human —
self-consciousness.^ But as this cannot find its adequate ex-
planation either in the ahsolute consciousness of God, or in the
archetypal character which Schleiermacher assigned to Christ, or
in the idea of the religious genius (Al. Schweizer), or in that of
the second Adam created free from original sin, whose personal
development proceeds as a gradual incarnation of God and deifi-
cation of man (Eothe), so we must by no means say, with Gess,
V. d. Pers. Chr. p. 304 f, that in becoming incarnate the Logos had
laid aside His self-consciousness, in order to get it back again only
in the gradual course of development of a human soul, and that
merely in the form of a hiiman self-consciousness. See, in op-
position to this, Thomasius, Christi Pers. u. Werlc, II. p. 198 f . ;
Schoeberlein in the Jahrl. f. D. Th. 1871, p. 471 ff, comp. the
latter's Geheimnissc des Glaubens, 1872, 3. The various views
which have been adopted on the part of the more recent Lutheran
Christologists,^ diverging from the doctrine of the Formula Con-
cordiae in setting forth Christ's humiliation (Dorner : a gradual
ethical Mending into one another of the divine and human life
in immanent development ; Thomasius : self-limitation, i.e.
^ Comp. Diisterdieck, Apolog. Abh. III. p. 67 ff.
2 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 intercourse with Asia, and also from his relation to
ApoUos. His conception, however, is just as little Apollinarian as that of John ;
comp. on Rom. i. 3 f. ; Col. i. 15.
* Schenkel'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-manifes-
tation like to humanity, boldly renounces all the results of historical exegesis
during a whole generation, and goes back to the standpoint of Lbffler and others,
and also further, to that of the Socinians. Comp. on John xvii. 5. Yet even
Beyschlag's Christology leads no liirther than to an ideal pre-existence of Clirist
as archetype ot humanity, and that not as a person, but merely as the principle
of a person ; — while Keerl (d. Gottniensch. das Ehcnbild Oottes, 1866), in unper-
ceived direct opposition to our passage and to the entire K. T., puts tlie Son of
God already as Son of man in absolute (not earthly) corporeality as pre-existent
into the glory of heaven. From 1 Cor. xv. 47 the conception of the pre-exist-
ence of Christ as a heavenly, pneumatic man and archetype of humanity
(Holsten, Biedermann, and others) can only be obtained through misapprehen-
sion of the meaning. See on 1 Cor. I.e., and Grimm, j). 51 fl'.
CHAP. II. 9. 99
partial self-renunciation of the divine Logos ; Liebner : the
entrance of the Logos into a process of becoming, that is, into
a divine-human development), do not fall to be examined
here in detail ; they belong to the province of Dogmatics.
See the discussions on the subject by Dorner, in the Jakrb. f.
Deutsche TJicol. 185G, 2, 1857, 2, 1858, 3; Broemel, in the
Kirchl. Zcitschr. of Kliefoth and Mejer, 1857, p. 144 ff. ; Liebner,
in the Jahrl. f. Deutsche Thcol. 1858, p. 349 ff. ; Hasse, ihid.
p. 336 ff. ; Schoeberlein, I.e. p. 459 ff. ; Thomasius, Chr. Fers. u.
Werk, IL 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. Tlius the
dilemma cannot be avoided, either of supposing a diial person-
ality of Christ, or of assuming, with Schoeberlein, that heaven
is not loccd. 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 cmimcding. — Zto] for a recompense, on
account of this self-denying renunciation and humiliation in
obedience to God (/cat, cdso, denotes the accession of the cor-
responding consequence, Luke i. 35 ; Acts x. 29 ; Eom. i. 24,
iv. 22 ; Heb. xiii. 12). Comp. Matt, xxiii. 12 ; Luke xxiv. 26.
Nothing but a dogmatic, anti-heretical assumption could have
recourse to the interpretation which is at variance with linguistic
usage : qico 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 ohedience with which He
did it, and only excites offence if we misunderstand the
Subordinatianism in the Christology of the apostle. Augus-
tine well says : " Humilitas claritatis est meritum, claritas
humilitatis i^raemmm." Thus Christ's saying in Matt, xxiii. 12
was gloriously fulfilled in His own case. — virepv'^wae] comp.
Song of Three Child. 28 fif. ; LXX. Ps. xxxvi. 37, xcvi. 10;
Dan. iv. 34; Synes. IJp. p. 225 A; it is not found elsewhere
among Greek authors, by whom, however, vTrepv^rfko^;, exceed-
100 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
ingly high, is used. He made. Him very high, exceedingly
exalted, said by way of superlative contrast to the previous
iratrelvoiaev, of the exaltation to the felloio&hi]) of the highest
glory and dominion, Eom. viii. 17 ; 2 Tim. ii. 12 ; Eph. i. 21,
al. ; John xii. 32, xvii. 5.^ This exaltation has talccn i^laee
by means of the ascension (Eph. iv. 10), by which Jesus
Christ attained to the right hand of God (Mark xvi. 1 9 ;
Acts vii. 55 f.; Eom. viii. 34; 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
vTrepv-^^r. It is quite unbiblical (John xvii. 5), and without
lexical authority, to take v'jTep as intimating : more than 'pre-
viously (Grotius, Beyschlag). — e;\;apio-aTo] He granted (i. 29),
said from the point of view of the subordination, on whicli also
what follows (/ci//3i09 . . . et? Bo^av Oeov Trarpo?) 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 incarna-
tion in the relation of a ^^/^s, but it affected the entire divine-
human person, that entered on the regnum gloriae. — ro ovofMo]
is here, as in Eph. i. 21, Heb. i. 4, to be taken in the strictly
literal sense, not as dignitas or gloria (Heinrichs, Hoelemann,
and many others), a sense which it might have ex adjuncto
(see the passages in Wetstein and Hoelemann), but against
which here tlie following iv tu> ovofMaTt ^Irjcrov is decisive.
The honour and dignity of the name of Jesus are expressed
by ro virep irav ovofxa, but are not implied in to ovo/ma of
itself. Nor is it to be understood of an apipcllative name, as
some have referred it to Kvpio^ in ver. 1 1 (Micliaelis, Keil, Baum-
garten-Crusius, van Hengel, Schneckenburger, Weiss, Hofmann,
Grimm) ; others to u/o? Geov (Theophylact, Pelagius, Estius) ;
and some even to 0eo9 (Ambrosiaster, Oecumenius, and again
^ In tlie conception of the " exaltation " Paul agrees with John, but does not
convey expressly the notion of the return to the Father. This is not an incon-
sistency in relation to tlie doctrine of pre-existence (in opposition to Pfleiderer,
I.e. p. 517), hut a consequence of the more dialectically acute distinction of ideas
in Paul, since tliat change of condition affected the entire Christ, the God-man,
whereas the subject of tlie lire-existence was the Logos.
CHAP. II. 10. 101
Schultz ; but see on Eom. ix. 5). In accordance with the
context — ver. 11, comp. with ver. 6 — the thought is: "God
has, by His exaltation, (/ranted to Him that the name ' Jesus
Christ' surpasses all names in glory." The expression of this
thought in the form : God has granted to Him the name, etc.,
cannot seem strange, when we take into account the highly-
poetic strain of the passage.
Ver. 10 f. "Iva\ This exaltation, ver. 9, was to have, in
accordance with the divine purpose, general adoration and
confession as its result, — a continuation of the contrast with
the previous state of self-renunciation and humiliation. In
the mode of expression there may be detected a reminiscence
of Isa. xlv. 23 (Eom. xiv. 11). — The eV rw ovoyu. 'I., empha-
tically 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 foimd the moving ground of this latter action
(comp. Ps. Ixiii. 5 ; 1 Kings xviii. 24; 1 Chron. xvi. 10, al. ;
1 Cor. vi. 11; Eph. v. 20 ; Col. iii. 17; 1 Pet. iv. 14, 16;
Jas. V. 14). The hoiving of the hnee represents adoration,
of which it is the symbol (Isa. xlv. 23 ; Ptom. xiv. 11, xi. 4 ;
Eph. iii. 14; 3 Esdr. viii. 7 3 ; 3 Mace. ii. 1 ; and in Greek
Avriters from Homer ouM^rd), and the subject to be adored
is, according to the context (eV tw ovoji. 'I., and comp. ver. 11),
none other than Jes2is, the adoring worship of whom has its
warrant in the fellowship of the divine government and of the
divine Bo^a to which He is exalted (comp. the habitual eirtKa-
\ela6at to ovofia Kvpiov, Eom. x. 1 2 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
(see Liicke, de invocat. Jes. Ch. Gott. 1843, p. 7 f . ; comp.
Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 218), — a peculiarity which did
not escape the observation of Pliny {Ep. x. 97: " Christo
q^iiasi Deo"), and was, although only very casually and im-
perfectly, expressed by him. This adoration (comp. ver. 11,
eh 86^av &eov irarpo^) does not infringe that strict mono-
theism, which could ascribe absolute deity to the Father only
102 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS,
(John xvii. 3 ; Eph. iv. 5 ; 1 Cor. xii. 6, viii. 6 ; 1 Tim.
vi. 15 f.) ; the Father only is 6 o)v eVl irdvTwv 0e6<;, Piom.
ix. 5 (comp. Tgnat. Tars, interpol. 5), 6 Ge6<i absolutely, God
also of Christ (see on Eph. i. 17), the ©eo9 o iravTOKpdrwp
(2 Cor. vi. 18 ; Eev. i. 8, iv. 8, al) ; and the Son, although of
like natm^e, as avvOpovo^ and partaker of His ho^a, is subor-
dinate to Him (1 Cor. xi. 3, xv. 27 f.), as in turn the Spirit
is to the Son (2 Cor. iii. 18) ; the honour which is to be paid
to the Son (Kev. v. 8 ff.) has its principle (John v. 22 f.) and
aim (ver. 11) in the Father, and therefore the former is to be
honoured as the Father, and God in Christ fills and moves
the consciousness of him who prays to Christ. According to
van Hengel, it is not the adoration of Jesus which is here in-
tended, but that of God under application of the name of Jesus ;
and de Wette also thinks it probable that Paul only intended
to state that every prayer should be made in the name of
Jesus as the Mediator {Kvpto<;). Comp. also Hofmann : " the
praying to God, determined in- the person praying hj the con-
sciousness of his relation to Jesus as regulating his action!'
Instead of this we should rather say : the praying 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 honour
of Jesus, making Him the ohjcct of the adoration, but also with
the word eirovpaviwv which follows, because the meeliatorship
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 iv
TO) 6v6/jb. equivalent to ei? to ovofjua, for the glorifieation of
His dignity (Heinrichs, Flatt, and others), or as a paro.phrase
for iv 'Irja-ov (Estius ; Eheinwald leaves either of the two to
be chosen) ; while others, by the interpretation " quoties auditur
CHAP. II. 10, 103
nomcn} brought out a sense which is altogether without
analogy in the IST. T. See, in opposition to this, Calvin : " quasi
vox (the word Jesus) esset magica, quae totam in sono vim
haberet inclusam." — eirovpaviwv «.t.X.] 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), iirovp. includes the angels (Eph. i. 20 f., iii. 10;
Heb. i. 4, 6 ; 1 Pet. i. 12, iii. 22) ; einy. the hitman beings on
earth (comp. Plat. Ax. p. 3 6 8 B : eTTLyeco^ dv6pco7ro<;) ; and
Kara^O- the dead in Racks (comp. Horn. //. ix. 457: Zev<;
Kara^dovio^, Pluto:- KaTa-^Oovioi SaLfj,ove<i, the Manes, Anthol.
vii. 333). Comp. Eev. v. 13 ; Ignat. Trail. 9, and the
similar classical use of v7roy(66vio<;, vtto <yalav (Eur. Hec. 149,
and Pfiugk in loc.). The adoration on the part of the latter,
which Grotius and Hofmann misinterpret, presupposes the
descensus Ch. ad inferos^ Eph. iv. 9, in which He presented
Himself to the spirits in Hades as the Kvpio<;. Our passage,
however, does not yield any further particulars regarding the
so-called descent into hell, which Schweizer has far too rashly
condemned as " a myth without any foundation in Seripture."
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and many
others, including Baumgarten-Crusius and Wiesinger, have
' Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Bretsclmeider, and others, arrived at this inter-
pretation simply by understanding h tm h'cfjt.. as ad nomen (comp. Grotius :
" nunaqmto nomine") ; but Hoelemann, with forced subtiltj% by the analysis :
"quasi circumsonitum appelLitione nominis. "
■^ To transfer, with Grotius, Hofmann, and Grimm, the genuflexion of tlie dead
to the period after the resurrection, so that, according to Hofmann, the xaru-
;,-9i>vioi ^^ sleep below andawo.it their resurrection and shall then adore and confess,"
would be entirely eiToneous, mixing up with the direct, poetically plastic
description of the apostle a remotely siiggested 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 in the future, after the Parousia. Wiesinger,
however, has also placed the realization of the 7va (tSv yovu xdf/.-4^-/i x.r.x. at tlie
end of tlie world, when the knees, which hitherto had not willingly bent, would
be forced to do so (1 Cor. xv. 25 f.). On this point he ajipeals to Kom. xiv. 11,
where, however, the whole text is dealing with the last judgment, which is
not the case here. Besides, iv tJ ovofian is far from leading us to the idea of an
adoration partially/o?'cefZ; it rather presupposes the faith, of which the bowing
of the knee and the confession which follows are the fi'ee living action ; comp.
Eom. X. 9.
10-4 THE EriSTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILiri'IANS.
incorrectly understood by Kara-)(6. the Dacmoncs, 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 : " omncs rerum creatarum complexus " (comp.
Nosselt and J. B. Lightfoot), and already in Beza : " qiutecun-
qiie et supra mundum sunt et in mundo." We meet with the
right view as early as Theodoret. The Catholics referred KatayQ.
to those who are in lourgatonj ; so Bisping still, and Dollinger,
Christenth. u. Kirche, p. 262, ed. 2. — As regards the realization
of the divine purpose expressed in Xva k.t.X, respecting the
€7ny€ici)v, it was still in progress of dcvclojmient. but its comple-
tion (Eom. xi. 25) could not but appear to the apostle near at
hand, in keeping with his expectation of the near end of the
alcbv ouTo?. Observe, moreover, how he emphasizes the uni-
vcrsality of the divine purpose (iva) with regard to the bowing
the knees and confession with the tongue so strongly by irav
fyovv and Trdaa yXcoaaa, that the arbitrary limitation which
makes him mean only those tvho desire to give God the glory
(Hofmann) is out of the question.
Ver. 11 appends the express confession combined with the
adoration in ver. 1 0, in doing which the coneretc form of repre-
sentation is continued, comp. Eom. xiv. 1 1 ; Isa. xlv. 2 3 ;
hence ^Xdaaa is tongue, correlative to the previous ryovv, not
language (Theodoret, Beza, and others). — ef o/xoX.] a strengthen-
ing compound. Comp. on ]\Iatt. iii. 6. Respecting the future
(see the critical remarks) depending on 'Iva, see on Gal. ii. 4 ;
Eph. vi. 3 ; 1 Cor. ix. 18. — KvpLo<i\ predicate, placed first
witli strong emphasis : that Lord is Jesus Christ. This is the
specific confession of the apostolic church (Eom. x. 9 ; 2 Cor.
iv. 5; Acts ii. 30), whose antithesis is: uvdde/j.a 'Irjcrov'i
1 Cor. xii. 3. The Kvpiov elvai refers to the fellowship of the
divine dominion (comp. on Eph. i. 22 f.,iv. 10 ; 1 Cor. xv. 27 f) ;
hence it is not to be limited to the rational creatures (Hoele-
mann, following Flatt and others), or to the eliurch (Rhemwald,
Schenkel). — gU B6^. Oeov •jrarp.'] may be attached to the
entire bipartite clause of purpose (Hofmann). Since, however,
in the second part a modification of the expression is intro-
CHAP. 11. 11, 105
duced by the future,, it is more probably to be joined to this
portion, of which the tclic destination, i.e. the fiiud cause, is
specified. It is not to be connected merely with KvpLo^ T, X.,
as Bengel wished : " J. Ch. esse dominum, quijjpe qui sit in
(jloria Dei imtris" making eh stand for ev, for which the
Vidgate, Pelagius, Estiiis, and others also took it. Schnecken-
burger also, p. 341 (comp. Calvin, Eheinwald, IMatthies,
Hoelemann), joins it with Kupio^, but takes et? 86^av rightly :
to the honour. But, in accordance with ver. 9, it was self-
evident that the Kupt6T7]<; of the Son tends to the honour of the
Father ; and the point of importance for the full conclusion
was not this, but to bring into prominence that the universal
confessing recognition of the KvptoTir; of Jesus Christ glorifies
the Father (whose will and work Christ's entire work of sal-
vation is ; see especially Eph. i. ; Eom. xv. 7—9 ; 2 Cor. i. 20),
whereby alone the exaltation, which Christ has received as a
recompense from the Father, appears in its fullest splendour.
Comp. John xii. 28, xvii. 1, The whole contents of ver. 9 f.
is parallel to the iv fjt'Op^fj Qeov, namely, as the recompensing
re-elevation to this original estate, nov/ accorded to the divine-
human person after the completion of the work of humiliation.
Complicated and at variance with the words is the view of van
Hengel, that i^ofioX. et? So^av Qeov is equivalent to e^opboX.
Qecp, to 'praise God (Gen. xxix. 34, al.; Eom. xv. 9 ; Matt. xi. 25 ;
Luke x. 21), and that on is quod; hence : " lauclibus celebrarent,
quod hunc filium suum principem fecerit regni divini."
Eemaek. — From vv. 6-11, Baur, whom Schwegler follows,
derives his arguments for the assertion that our epistle moves
in the circle of Gnostic ideas and expressions,^ and must therefore
belong to the post-apostolic period of Gnostic speculation. But
with the true explanation of the various points these arguments^
fall to pieces of themselves. For (1) if ro sfca; 'isa ©sw be related
■ Its idea is, tliat Christ "divests Himself of that which He already is, in
order to receive back that of which He has divested Himself, with the full reality
of the idea filled with its absolute contents," Baur, Neute-'^t. Theol. p. 265.
^ Hinsch, I.e. p. 76, does not adopt them, but yet thinks it un-Pauline that
the incarnation of Christ is represented detached from its reference to humanity.
This, however, is not the case, as may be gathered from the connection of the
passage in its practical bearing with ver. 4 (t« iTipco)i).
106 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
to h /j^opfTj QsoZ sTmi as the essence to its adequate manifestation,
and if our explanation of apzay/j,6c 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. IIaeo\ i. 2. 2), and thus before the close of
the world's course {Theol. Jalirh. 1849, p. 507 ff.) wished to usurp
forcibly something not dejurc belonging to it {Paulus, II. p. 51 ff.)
— be one entirely alien and dissimilar to the idea of our passage.
But this conception is just as inconsistent with the orthodox
explanation of our passage, as with the one which takes the shai
'iaa 0£w as something future and greater than the FJ^op(pr\ QioZ; since
in the case of the i^opfri, as well as in that of the 'lea, the full
fellowship in tlie divine nature is already the relation assumed
as existing. Consequently (2) the iaurh Ixsi/wcs cannot be ex-
plained by the idea, according to which the Gnostics made that
Aeon, which desired to place itself in unwarranted union with
the Absolute, fall from the Pleroma to the %hu}j.a — 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 apitayiiog indeed
actually takes place, but as an unnatural enterprise neutralizes
itself, and has, as its result, merely something negative, in this
case, in virtue of a moral self-determination, matters cannot
come to any such apTtayiMoc; and the negative, which even m
this case occurs, not in consequence of an act that has failed,
but of one which has not taken place at all, is the voluntary
self-renunciation and self-denial by an act of the will, an ka-oTh
xsi/oD!/ instead of the yivsaHai h zivoj/j^an"). (3) That even the
notion of the fji^oppri Qsou arose from the language used by the
Gnostics, among whom the expressions iJ^opip-^, ij.op;poZv, /M6p(pc>jffig,
were very customary, is all the more arbitrarily assumed by
Baur, since these expressions were very prevalent generally, and
are not specifically Gnostic designations ; indeed, iMoptpn ©sou is
not once used by the Gnostics, although it is current among
other authors, including philosophers {e.g. Plat. Bep. p. 381 C:
IJ^svii asi ci'TrXojg Iv ry\ a'orov /J^op(pyi, comp. p. 381 B : ^Jc/Cr av croXXas
fjiyop<pag 'i(s-/oi 6 &s6g). Further, (4) the erroneousness of the view,
which in the phrases h 6/xo/uj/^ar/ ai/^pw^wv and s^yj,ubari shpskig ug
av&p. discovers a Gnostic Docctism, is self-evident from the ex-
planation of these expressions in accordance with the context
(see on the passage) ; and Chrysostom and his successors have
rightly brought out the essential difference between what the
apostle says in ver. 7 and the Docctic conceptions (Theophylact :
CHAP. II. 12. 107
olx r^v biro ^a/vo'«,si'ov,<Aovo!', namely, mari, a?.>.d -Kat Qiog, oIk r,v ■'l/iXhg
u'jdpU'TTog. A/a touto <prj6ir iv o/jyOiuf/^ari dvdpu'^rcijv' '/i/J^sTg fjAv yap -^[jyTi
y.at ffwtta, sxsTvog 8i •v^i'%51 xai cu/xa xui Qsog x.r.A. Theodoret : vspl
Tov Aoyou Tavra (pr\(Siv, on Qecg ujv ov^ lupa-o Qihg Trjv av&poi'Xiiav inpixu-
liivog (pvGiv Ti.r.x.). Comp. Oil Eom. viii. 3. Lastly, (5) even the
three categories s'Troupavlojv xai l-my. -/.a) -Karajj^., and also the notion
of the descensus ad inferos which the latter recalls, are alleged
by Banr to be genuinely Gnostic. But the idea of the descent
to Hades is not distinctively Gnostic ; it belongs to the N. T., and
is a necessary presupposition lying at the root of many passages
(see on Luke xxiii. 43 ; INIatt. xii. 40 ; Acts ii. 27 ff. ; Eom. x.
6 fF. ; Eph. iv. 8 ff.) ; it is, in fact, the premiss of the entire belief
in Christ's resurrection sx v^xpuv. That threefold division of
all angels and men (see also Eev. v. 13) was, moreover, so
appropriate and natural in the connection of the passage (comp.
the twofold division, xai vsxpuv xai Z^oivrm, Eom. xiv. 9, Acts
X. 42, 1 Eet. 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, wdiich only become violently perverted into concep-
tions of this kind by the presnjj^josition of a Gnostic atmosphere.
According to the Gnostic view, it would perhaps have been said
of the Aeon Sophia : og Iv iJ^opcpv^ ©sou •o'Kapyjjiv ou 'xpoaWie^ai riyriGaro
SIC TO 'rrXripoifj.a rou Qsou x.r.x. The ajiostUs expressions agree
entirely with the Christology of his other epistles; it is from
these and from his own genuine Gnosis laid down in them, that
his words are to be understood fully and rightly, and not from the
theosophic phantasmagoria of any subsequent Gnosis whatever.
Ver. 12.^ To this great example of Jesus Paul now annexes
another general admonition, which essentially corresponds Avith
that given in i. 27, with which he began all this hortatory
portion of the epistle (i. 27-ii. 18). — wo-re] itaque, draws an
' Linden, in tlie Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 750, attempted a new explanation of
w. 12-14. According to this, fj^h a; is to stand for us ^w, xxTtpyu^. to be indica-
tive, fiii ui . . . xnTipy. to belong to the protasis, ver. 13 to be treated as a paren-
thesis, and, iinally, the apodosis to follow in -Travra, x.r.x. Against this view
may be simply urged the fact, that f/.h a; (2 Thess. iii. 15 ; Philem. 14 ; 2 Cor.
ix. 5) cannot be equivalent to a; //.-/i, and that there must have been used not even
us firi, but, on account of the negation of a purely actual relation, u; olx ; to say
nothing of the involved construction, and of the so special tenor of the allege'd
apodosis after a preparation of so grand and general a nature by the alleged
protasis.
108 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
inference from the example of Christ (w. 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. virrjKovaaTe is not, indeed, correlative with
ryevofi. inn]Koo<; in ver. 8 (Theophylact, Calovius, Bengel, and
others), as the latter was in what preceded only an accessory
definition ; but the awTrjpia 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
(Eom. viii. 1 7 ; Eph. ii. 6 ; Col. ii. 1 2 f , iii. 3 f.). Since, therefore,
ware has its logical basis in what immediately precedes, it must
not be looked upon as an inference froiii all the lorcviovs admoni-
tions, i. 26 ff., from which it draws the general result (de Wette).
It certainly introduces the recapitulation of all the previous
exhortations, and winds them up (on account of the new exhor-
tation which follows, see on ver. 14) as in iv. 1 ; 1 Thess.
iv. 18 ; Eom. vii. 12 ; 1 Cor. iii. 21, iv. 5, v. 8, xi. 33, xiv. 39,
XV. 58, but in such a way that it joins on to icJiat lua.s last
discussed. It is least of all admissible to make, with Hofmann,
ware point backwards to likrjpoiaaTe. /xov t. ')(apuv in ver. 2,
so that this prayer " is orjJcatcd in a definitive manner " by
the exhortation introduced with wa-re. In that case the
apostle, in order to be understood, must at least have inserted
a resumptive ovv after ware, and in the following exhortation
must have again indicated, in some way or other, the element
of the making joy. — Ka6u><i rrdvrore vTT'qKovaare] 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 Kom. vi. 16, Philem.
21, 1 Pet. i. 14; and the right supplement is the usual one,
viz. mihi, or, more definitely, mco evangelic, as is plain, both
from the words which follow yti^ to? . . . arrovala fiov, and also
from the whole close personal relation, in which Paul brings
home to the hearts of liis readers his admonitions (from i. 27
down till ii. 18) as their teacher and friend. On irdvrore,
comp. (iTTo Trpairr](i r]fiepa<; a')(pL rov vvv (i. 5). We cannot
infer from it a reference to earlier ejnstlcs which have been lost
CHAP. II. 12. 109
(Ewuld). — /xr/ to? . . . aTTOvaia fiov\ belongs not to vTrrjKova-are
(Luther, "Wolf, Heimiann, Heinrichs, and others), as is evident
from yLi?; o)? and vvv, but to Karepyd^eade, so that the comma
before f^era j)6^ov is, with Lachmann, to be deleted. Comp.
Grotius. — o)? had to be inserted, because Paul would not and
could not give an admonition for a time when he would be
present. Not perceiving this, B, min., vss., and Fathers have
omitted it. If co? were not inserted, Paul would say : that they
should not merely in his presence work out their salvation.
But ivith &)9 he says : that they are not to loork out their oivn
salvation in such a v:ay as if they ivere doing it in His
jorescnee^ merely (neglecting it, therefore, in His absence); nay,
much more now, during His absence from them, they are to work it
out with fear and trcmUing. There is nothing to be supplied
along with w?, which is the simple modal as, since ixrj co? is
connected M'ith the governing verb that follows in the anti-
thesis (r. eavr. aoir. KaTcpyd^eaOe) as its prefixed negative
modal definition : oiot as in my ^J?'c.sc5ice only (not as limiting
it to this only) ivorJc out your salvation. And the dX\d
is the antithetic much more, on the contrary, nay. Erasmus,
Estius, Hoelemann, Weiss, Hofmann, and others, incorrectly
join ixovov with ixrj, and take &><? in the sense of the degree :
not merely so, as ye have done it, or would do it, in my absence ;
comp. de Wette, who assumes a blending of two comparisons,
as does also J. B. Lightlbot. It is arbitrary not to make
fxovov belong to iv r. irap. [xov, beside Mdiich it stands ; comp.
also Eom. iv. 16 (where tw eV tov vofxov forms one idea),
iv. 23 ; 1 Thess. i. 5. Still more arbitrary is it to hamper
the flow of the whole, and to break it up in such a way as to
insert the imperative viraKovere after vTrTjKovaare, and then
to make /xera ^o^ov k.t.\. a sentence by itself (Hofmann).
Moreover, in such a case the arrangement of the words in the
alleged apodosis would be illogical ; vvv (or, more clearly, /cat
vvv) must have begun it, and ixovov must have stood imme-
diately after ixrj. — ttoXXS fxdXXov] than if I were present ; for
' The word Tapoviria does not contain, any more than in i. 26, a reference to
the Parousia of Christ, which Kahler (" ye know what this word would properly
tell us ") reads between the lines.
110 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TilE PIIILIPPIANS.
now (vvv), when they were deprived of the personal teaching,
stimukis, guidance, and guardianship of the apostle, moral
diligence and zealous solicitude were necessary for them in a
far higher measure, in order to fulfil the great personal duty of
working out their own salvation. That kavroiv, therefore, cannot
be equivalent to aXkijXcov (Flatt, ]\'tatthies, and older expositors),
is self-evident. — /iera (po^ov k. rpoixov] that is, with such
earnest solicitude, that ye shall have a lively fear of not doing
enough in the matter. Comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 3 ; 2 Cor. vii. 1 5 ;
Eph. vi. 5. Aei<yap (jio/Seladat, k. rpejieLv ev tu> epyd^ea-dai rrjv
IBiav arcoTrjpiav eKacrrov, firj irore v7roa-K€\ta9el<i eKirear] TavTr]<;,
Oecnmenius. Aive he/ore the 2^'i'<^sence of God (Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Oecumenius), before the future Judge (Weiss),
the feehng of dependence on God (de Wette), a reverential
devotion to God (Matthies, comp. van Hengel), and similar ideas,
must be implied in the case, but do not constitute the sense of the
expression, in which also, according to the context, we are not
to seek a contrast to spiritual pride (Schinz, Killiet, Hoelemann,
Wiesinger), as Augustine, Calvin, Bengel, and others have
done. — Karepiyd^eaOe] "bring about, peragite (Grotius), " tisque
ad metam" (Bengel), expressing, therefore, more than the
simple verb (comp. Eph. vi. 13 ; Dem. 1121. 19 ; Plat. Zcgg.
vii. p. 791 A; Eur. Hcracl. 1046: irokei acoTrjpiav Karepyd-
aaadai; and see on Eom. i. 26). The summons itself is not
at variance with the principle that salvation is God's gift of
grace, and is prepared for, predestined, and certain to believers ;
but it justly claims the exercise of the new moral power bestowed
on the regenerate man, without the exertion of which he
would fall away again from the state of grace to which
he had attained in faith, and would not actually become
partaker of the salvation appropriated to him by faith, so that
the final reception of salvation is so far the result of his
moral activity of faith in the KaLvorrj^ fw?}?. See especially
Eom. vi. 8, 12 ff, and 2 Cor. vi. 1. Our passage stands
in contrast, not to the certitudo sahitis, but to the moral
securitas, into which the converted person might relapse, if he
do not stand fast (iv. 1 ; 1 Cor. x. 12), and labour at his
sanctification (1 Thess. iv. 3, 7 ; 2 Cor. vii. 1 ; 1 Tim. ii. 15),
CHAP. II. 13. Ill
etc. Comp. Wuttke, Sittenl. II. § 266. The demand is
expressed all the more earnestly, the more that the readers have
conflict and suffering to endure (i. 27-30).
Ver. 13. Ground of encouragement to the fulfilment of this
precept., in which it is not their own, but God's 'power, which
works in them, etc. Here ©eo? is placed first as the subject,
not as the predicate (Hofmann) : Gocl is the agent. It is,
however, unnecessary and arbitrary to assume before f^ap (with
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, and others)
an unexpressed thought (" be not terrified at my having said :
vjith fear and trembling"). Bengel gratuitously supplies with
0€O9 the thought : " praesens vohis etiam ahsente me" (comp.
also van Hengel), while others, as Calvin, Beza, Hoelemann,
Eilliet, Wiesinger, who found in fMeTo. (po/S. k. rp. the anti-
thesis of pride (see on ver. 12), see in ver, 13 the motive to
humility ; and de Wette is of opinion that what was expressed
in ver. 12 under the aspect of fear is here expressed under
the aspect of eonfidence. In accordance with the unity of the
sense we ought rather to say : that the great moral demand
fiera ^o/3. k. rp. rijv eavrcov crcor. Karepja^ecrdai, containing as
it did the utmost incentive to personal activity, needed for the
readers the support of a confidence which should be founded
not on their own, but on the divine working. According to
Ewald, the fiera (po^ou k. rpofxov is to be made good by
pointing to the fact that they looo-k before God, who' is even
already producing in them the right tendency of will. But
the idea of the evoj-mov rod Qeov was so familiar to the apostle,
that he would doubtless have here also directly expressed it.
Kahler (comp. Weiss) imports a hint of the divine jncnishment,
of which, however, nothing is contained in the text. So also
Hofmann : with fear in presence of Him loho is a devouring
fire (Heb. xii. 28 f.), who will not leave unpunished him who
does not subordinate his own will and working to the divine.
As if Paul had hinted at such thoughts, and had not, on
the contrary, himself excluded them by the virep Tfj<; ev8oKia<i
which is added I The thought is rather " dulcissima sententia
omnibus piis mentibus," Form. Cone. p. 659. — Calvin (comp,
Calovius) rightly observes on the subject-matter : " intelligo
112 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
gratiam supcrnaturalem, quae provenit ex spiritu regenerationis ;
nam quatenus sumus homines, jam in Deo sumus et vivimns
et raovemur, verum hie de alio motu disputat Paulus, quam
illo universali." Augustine has justly (in opposition to the
Pelagian rationalizing interpretation of a mediate working :
" velle operatur suadendo et pracmia 2^'>^omittciido"), in con-
formity with the words, urged the efficaciUr operari, which
Origen, dc Princ. iii. 1, had obliterated, and the Greeks who
followed qualified with synergistic reservations. — ev vfu,lv]
not intra coeticm vcstrum (Hoelemann), but in animis vestris
(1 Cor. xii. 6; 2 Cor. iv. 12; Eph. ii. 2; Col. i. 29 ;
1 Thess. ii. 13), in which He produces the self-determination
directed to the Karepyd^eaOac of their own (rwTrjpla, and the
activity in carrying out this Christian-moral volition.^ This
activity, the evepyelv, is the ^?Mic?' moral one, which has the
Karepyd^eaOai, as its consequence, and therefore is not to be
taken as equivalent to the latter (Vulgate, Luther, and others,
including Matthies and Hoelemann). I^ote, on the contrary,
the climactic selection of the two cognate verbs. The regene-
rate man brings about his own salvation (KaTepyd^eTai) when
he does not resist the divine working {evepycov) of the willing
and the working (ivepyecv) in his soul, but yields steady obedi-
ence to it in continvial conflict with the opposing powers (Eph.
vi. 10 ff. ; Gal. v. 16 ; 1 Thess. v. 8, al.) ; so that he irepLTraret,
not KaTci adpKa, but Kara irvevixa (Rom. viii. 4), is con-
sequently the child of God, and as child becomes heir (Rom.
viii. 14, 17, 23). According, therefore, as the matter is viewed
from the standpoint of tlie human activity, which yields
obedience to the divine working of the OiXeiv and ivepyelv, or
from that of the divine activity, which works the dekeuv and
ivepyeiv, 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 Bens in nobis operatur et operari," Augus-
* " Velle riuidem, quatenus est actus voluntatis, nostrum est ex creatione :
bene velle etiam nostrum est, sed CLuatenus volentes facti x>cr conversionem bene
volumus," Calovius.
CHAP. 11. u. 113
tine. How wholly is it otherwise with the unregenerate in
Eom. vii. ! — The repetition by Paul of the same word, ivepywv
. . . TO ivepjelv, has its ground in the encouraging design which
he has of making God's agency felt cUstmctlij and cmjjhaticalli/ ;
hence, also, he specifies the hvo elements of all morality, not
merely the evep<yelv, but also its premiss, the OeXecv, and keeps
them apart by using kul twice : God is the worker in you,
as of the luilling, so of the ivorlcing. From His working
comes man's working, just as already his willing.^ — virep t?]?
euhoKia'i] for the sake of goodwill, in order to satisfy His own
benignant disposition. On the causal inrep, which is not
sectmduon, comp. Eom. xv. 8 ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 421 ; Winer,
p. 359 [E. T. p. 480]; and on evSoKia, which is not, with
Ewald, to be taken in a deterministic sense, comp. i. 15 ;
Eom. X. 1. Theodoret aptly says : evSoKiav Se to ayadov tov
Geov 7rpo(77]yopeva€ OeXrjfia' Oekec he irdvTtt'i avOpu>7rov<i
cro)6)]vaL K.T.X. The explanation : " for the sake of the good
X)leasure, which He has in such willing and working" (Weiss),
would amount to something self-evident. Hofmann erroneously
makes ii'n'ep t. €u8ok. belong to irdvTa Trotetre, and convey the
sense, that they are to do everything for the sake of the divine
good plcasiLre, 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 T-^? evSoKia'; only obtains its reference to God through its
belonging to o ivepjcov k.tX. ; but if it be joined with what
follows, this reference must have been marked,^ and that, on
account of the cm'phasizcd position which vir. r. euSo/c. Avould
have, with emphasis (as possibly by virep t^? uvtov evSoKca^).
%Ver. 14. With ver. 13 Paul has closed his exhortations, so
far as the matter is concerned. He now adds a requisition in
respect to the mode of carrying out these admonitions, namely,
that they shall do everything (which, according to the admoni-
tions previously given, and summarily comprised in ver. 12,
' This is God's creative moral action in salvation, Eph. ii. 10. Comp.
Thomasius, Chr. Pets. u. Werk, I. p. 287. Incorrectly, however, the Keformed
theologians add : " quae 2)ro}uheri non potest."
^ Hofmann groundlessly compares Luke ii. 14 (but see on that passage) and
even Ecclus. xv. 15, where Fritzsche, Handb. p. 74 f., gives the right view,
PHIL. H
ll-i THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPLYNS.
they have to do, 1 Cor. x. 31) u-iUingJy and loitliout hesitation,
— an injunction for which, amidst the temptations of the pre-
sent (i. 27-30), there was sufficient cause. — ^wpi? 7077i;o-/a.]
withmii (far removed from) murmuring. The yo'y<yv(Tfi6<i
(Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 358), that fault already prevalent in
ancient Israel (Ex. xvi. 7 ff. ; ISTum. xiv. 2), is to be con-
ceived as directed against God, namely, on account of what He
imposed upon them both to do and to suffer, as follows from
the context in vv. 1 3 and 1 5 ; hence it is not to be referred
to their fdloiu- Christians (Calvin, Wiesinger, Schnecken-
burger), or to their superiors (Estius), as Hoelemann also
thinks. Comp. on 1 Cor. x. 10. — ^laXoyia-ficov'] not: with-
out disputes (Erasmus, Beza, and many others, including
Schneckenburger), de imijeratis cum imperatorihis (Hoelemann,
comp. Estius), or among themselves (Calvin, Wiesinger), and
that iq^on irrelevant questions (Grotius), and similar interpreta-
tions, which, although not repugnant to Greek usage generally
(Plut. 3for. p. 180 C ; Ecclus. ix. 15, xiii. 35), are at variance
with that of the IST. T. (even 1 Tim. ii. 8), and unsuitable to
the reference of <yo<y<yvcrfi. to God. It means : without hesita-
tion, without your first entering upon scrvpidous considerings
as to whether you are under any obligation thereto, whether
it is not too difficult, whether it is prudent, and the like.
Comp. Luke xxiv. 38, and on Eom. xiv. 1 ; Hat. Ax. p. 367 A :
(f^povTiSe'; . . . Kal BioXoyicr/uLol, Tim. p. 59 C: ovBev ttoiklXov
€Tt SiaXoyio-aaOai,. Ecclus. xl. 2. The Vulgate renders it
rightly, according to the essential sense : " haesitationibus."
The joyyva/xol, would presuppose aversion towards God ; the
BidKoyKT/iiol, uncertainty in the consciousness of duty.
Ver. 15. If to their obedience of the admonitions given
down to ver. 13 there is added the m.anner of obedience
prescribed in ver. 14, they shall he Nameless, etc. This, there-
fore, must be the high aion, which they are to have in view in
connection with what is required in ver. 14. — afiefiTTToi k.
aKepaioi] hlameless 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 Eom. xvi. 19). — reKva 0eov a/xcofi.] com-
CHAP. II. 15. 115
pretending epexegetically tlie tivo former predicates. Children
of God (in virtue of the vloOeala that took place in Christ,
Eom. viii. 15, 23 ; Gal. iv. 5 ; Eph. i. 5) they arc (Rom.
viii. 16, ix. 8). They are to hecoone such children of God, as
have nothing with lohich faidt can he found ; which in children
of God presupposes the inward moral aKepaioTT}^, since they
are led by the Spirit of God (Rom. viii. 14). This ethical view
of the vloOeaia, prominent throughout the N. T., and already
implied in the mode of contemplating Israel as the people of
adoption (Rom. ix. 4) in the 0. 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 heinfj the constant task of the becoming; and hence the
sense of showing themselves is as little to be given, with Hof-
mann, to the 'yevqaOe here as in Matt. x. 16, John xv. 8, et al. ;
comp. also on Gal. iv. 12. ^A/jico/ji7]ro<;, qui vituperari nan potest,
occurring elsewhere in the IST. T. only at 2 Pet. iii. 14 (not
equivalent to aiia)iio<i or a/j,ejjuTrTO^), but see Horn. II. xii. 109;
Herod, iii. 82; frequently in the Anthol. Its opposite is:
reKpa /jico/jLrjTa, Deut. xxxii. 5 ; the recollection of this latter
passage has suggested the subsequent words, which serve as a
recommendation of the condition to be striven for by contrast-
ing it loith the state of things around. — ^eaov (see the critical
remarks) is adverbial, in the midst of (Hom. //. xii. 167; Od.
xiv. 300; Eur. Bhcs. 531 (/ieVa) ; LXX. Num. xxxv. 5). —
cTKoXid'; K. ZieaTpaiijjb.l crooked and perverted, a graphic figura-
tive representation of the great moral abnormity of the genera-
tion. Comp. on aKo\i6<;, 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 Scea-rp., Matt. xvii. 1 7 ; Deut. xxxii. 2 ; Polyb. viii.
24. 3, V. 41. 1, ii. 21. 8; also Sidarpocpo'i, Soph. Aj. 442. —
ev 0I9] i.e. among the people of this jeved; see Buttmann,
Mut. Gr. p. 242 [E. T. p. 282] ; Bremi, ad Isocr. I. p. 213 f. ;
Klilmer, II. 1, p. 49 f. — (j^alveaOe] not imperative (Cyprian,
Pelagius, Ambrosiaster, Tlieophylact, Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin,
Grotius, and others, including Storr, Elatt, Rheinwald, Baum-
garten-Crusius), but the existing relation, which constitutes the
essential distinctive character of the Christian state as con-
116 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIAXS,
trasted with the non-Christian, Eph. v. 8, al. The aim of the
iv oh (patveaOe k.t.X. is, by means of an appeal to the true
Christian sense of honour (the consciousness of their high
Christian position towards them that are without), to assist
the attainment of the end in view ; this is misunderstood
by Bengel, when he suggests the addition of " scrvata hac
admonitionc" a view in which he is followed by Hofmann.
The meaning is not lucdis (so usually), but (comp. also
Weiss, Schenkel, and J. B. Lightfoot) : ye api^car} come into
vieto, apparctis (Matt. ii. 7, xxiv. 2 7 ; Jas. iv. 14; Eev.
xviii. 23; Hom. II. i. 477, xxiv. 785, 788, Od. ii. 1, //. 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, Anah. vii. 4. 1 6 ; hence to, ^aivojxeva, the heavenly appear-
ances). Zucetis (Vulgate) would be (fsalveTe, John i. 5, v. 35 ;
1 John ii. 8 ; 2 Pet. i. 19 ; Ptev. i. 16, xxi. 23 ; 1 Mace. iv.
40; Plat. Tim. p. 39 B; Arist. Huh. 580; Hes. Ojjer. 528;
Theoc. ii. 11. — (pcoarrjpes;'] light-givers (Eev. xxi. 11), here
a designation, not of torehes (Beza, Cornelius a Lapide) or
lainps (Hofmann), which would be too weak for iv tqj Koafiay,
and without support of linguistic usage ; but, in accordance
with the usage familiar to the apostle in the LXX., Gen. i. 14,
16, of the shining heavenly bodies ; Wisd. xiii. 2 ; Ecclus. xliii.
7 ; Heliod. 8 7 ; Anihol. xv. 1 7 ; Constant. PJiod. cp. in Para-
lip. 205. — ev Koa-fKo] is to be taken in reference to the
physical world, and closely connected with ^(ocrr. As light-
hearers in the world (which shine in the world, by day the sun,
by night tlie moon and stars), the Christians appear in the
midst of a piervcrted generation. Comp. Matt. v. 14; also
classical expressions like 7rdrpa<; (j^eyyea (Anthol. vi. 614, 2),
etc. If ^aiveade be rightly interpreted, h Koaixw cannot be
joined with it (de Wette, Weiss, who takes Koayuw in the
ethical sense), or be supplemented by ^alvovjai (Hoelemann,
' So also Homer, II. i. 200, which Hofmann compares and brings out for our
passage the sense : " stand in the light proper to them." Comp., however, II.
xix. 16, xxii. 28, and I.e.; Duncan, Lex. ed. Rost. p. 1148 1. 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.
CHAP. II. 16. 117
Eilliet, van Hengel). It is erroneous, further, to make ev
KocTfKo mean in heaven (Clericus, Eheinwald'), and also
erroneous to attach a pregnant force to ev, making it mean
" within the world," in contrast to the lights of heaven shining
from above ; thus Hofmann, connecting it with Xoyov ftu^? eVe;^.
and bringing out with emphasis something quite self-evident.
On K6afjL0<i without the article, see Winer, p. 117 [E. T. p. 153].
On the whole passage, comp. Test. XII. Pair. p. 577 : vftet? ol
<})coar7]p6<; rov ovpavov ■oi)<i 6 i]XLO<; Kal rj aeX^vrj' tc irocqcrovai
irdvTa Ttt edvT}, iav vfiel^ aKOTiaOiiaecrOe ev aae^eia k.tX.
Paul, however, has put ^coa-Trjpe'; without the article, because
he has conceived it qualitatively.
Ver. 16. A6<yov ^corj'i irri^ovre';'] a definition giving the
reason for i^aiveaOe to? (pcoar. ev k. : since ye j^osscss the vmrcl of
life. This is the Gospel, eTreiSr) rijv alcoviov Trpo^evel ^(nrjv,
Theodoret. See Eom. i. 1 6 ; comp. John vi. 68; Acts v. 2 ;
it is the divinely efficacious vehicle of the irvevixa tt)^ ^oj?}?
which frees from sin and death (see on Eom. viii. 2), and
therefore not merely " the word concerning life" (Weiss). Christ
Himself is the essential X0709 t^9 ^<y^9 (1 John i. 1), His
servants are oa/jLt} ^corj<i ek ^cotJv (2 Cor. ii. 16), therefore the
word preached by them must be X0709 ^cot)? in the sense in-
dicated. Paul does not elsewhere use the expression. As to
^tur; without the article, of eternal life in the Messiah's king-
dom (iv. 3), see Kaeuffer, de ^co^^ at. not. p. 73 f. As pos-
sessors of this word, the Christians appear like ^warrjpe'^ in a
world otherwise dark ; without tliis possession they would not
so present themselves, but would be homogeneous with the
perverted generation, since the essence of the gospel is light
(Eph. V. 8; Col. 1 12 ; 1 Thess. v. 5 ; 1 Pet. ii. 9; Luke
xvi. 8 ; Acts xxvi. 18, cd.), just as Christ Himself is the prin-
cipal light (John i. 4, 5, iii. 19, viii. 12, xii. 35, cd) ; but the
element of the unbelieving reeved, whose image is the Koap.o'^
in itself devoid of light, is darkness (2 Cor. iv. 6, vi. 14 ; Eph. v.
8, vi. 12 ; Col. i. 13 ; John i. 5, iii. 19). ^Eiri^eiv, to possess^''
' The designation of the heavens by xoa-fio;, first used by Pythagoras (see Bremi,
ad Jsoc. Paneg. p. 90), did not enter into the Biblical usus loquendi.
• Hofmann erroneously pronoiuiccs against this, representing that Wty^m could
118 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
to have in possession, at disposal, and the like ; see Herod, i.
104, viii. 35 ; Xen. Sijmp. viii. 1 ; Thuc. i. 48. 2, ii. 101. 3 ;
Anth. Pal. vii. 297. 4; Polyb. iii. 37. 6, 112. 8, v. 5, 6 ;
Lucian, Necyom. 14. Kot : liolding fast (Luther, Estius, Bengel,
and others, including Heinrichs, Hoelemann, Baumgarten-
Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, Schneckenburger) ; nor yet : sus-
tinentes (Calvin), so that the conception is of a light fixed on
a candlestick. Others understand it similarly: holding forth
(Beza, Grotius, and others, including Eheinwald, 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 (Horn. 11. ix. 489, xxii. 43 ;
Pint. 3for. p. 265 A; Find. 01. ii. 98 ; Foil. iii. 10), but not in
harmony with the image, according to which the suhjeds them-
selves appear as shining, as self-shining. Linguistically incorrect
is Theodoret's view : toj \o^(p 7rpoae-^ovre<i {attendentes) , which
would require the dative of the object (Acts iii. 5 ; 1 Tim. iv.
1 6 ; Ecclus. xxxi. 2 ; 2 Mace. ix. 2 5 ; Job xxx. 2 6 ; Polyb. iii.
43. 2, xviii. 28. 11). Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact
take cTre;^. correctly, but understand Xoyov ^o)?}? as equivalent
to airipfia ^. or eve')(ypa t,., and indicate, as the purpose of the
words : opa, ttco? €v6eo)<; rlOTjai, ra eiraOXa (Chrysostom). This
view is without sanction from the usiis loqitcndi. Linguis-
tically it would in itself be admissible (see the examples in
Wetstein), but at variance with the 'N. T. mode of expression
and conception, to explain with Michaelis, Storr, Zachariae, and
Elatt : supplying the place of life (in the world otherwise dead),
so that \6yov cTTe^eiz/ would mean : to hold the relation. Comp.
Syr. — eh Kav^^rjfia k.tX.] the result which the yivea-Oac
dfii/ju7nov<i K.T.X on the part of the readers was to have for
the apostle ; it was to become for him (and what an incitement
this must have been to the Philippians !) a matter of glorying
(i. 26) for the day of Christ (see on i. 10), when he should
have reason to glory, that he, namely (oVt), had not laboured in
only be thus used in the sense of having under one's control. Compare, in oppo-
sition to tliis, especially such passages as Thuc. iii. 107. 4, where the word is
quite synonymous with the parallel simple ix^" ', also Anth. Pal. vii. 276. 6.
CHAP. II. 17. 119
vain, of which the excellent quality of his Philippian converts
would afford practical evidence, ore roiovrovi vfxd<i eTaiSeva-a,
Theophylact. Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 19 f. ; 2 Cor. i. 14. Thus they
M'ere to be to him on that day a o-re^ai/o? Kav^7]aeco<; (1 Thess.
I.e.). Paul cannot mean a present Kav^^aadai, in pro&peet of the
day of Christ (Hofmann), for ci? Kav^VH''^ k.t.X. cannot he the
result accruing for him from the iv oh (paiveade k.t.\. (since
by it the position of the Christians generally is expressed), but
only the result from the ethical development indicated by tW
yevrjaOe afxe/jLTrroi, k.t.X. Hence also otc cannot be a statement
of the reason (Hofmann) ; it is explicative : that. — The twofold}
yet climactic, figurative description of his apostolical exertions
(on eSpa/j,., comp. Gal. ii. 2 ; Acts xx. 24 ; on eKOTriaaa, comp.
1 Cor. XV. 10 ; Gal. iv. 11), as well as the repetition of et?
K€v6v (see on Gal. ii. 2 ; 2 Cor. vi. 1 ; Polyc. Fhil. 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. 1 6 : eh kuvxvH'"' «-t-^-> presupposed, in the first
place, that he himself would live to see the further develop-
ment described in ver. 1 5 : "va <ykv7]a9e a/xefxTTToi,. Now, how-
ever, he puts the opposite case, so as to elevate his readers to
the right point of view for this also, and says : " But even if I
should he put to death in my vocation dedicated to your faith,"
etc. Van Hengel finds in these words the contrast to the
hope of living to see the Parousia. But this hope is not ex-
pressed in what precedes, since the result ek Kav^rnna k.t.X.
was conditioned, not by the apostle's living to see the Parousia,
but only by his living to see the described pcrf taction of his
readers; inasmuch as, even when arisen at the Parousia, he
might glory in what he had lived, to see in the Philippians.
Many others are satisfied with making these words express
merely a climax (in relation to iKoirlaaa) (see especially
Heinrichs and Matthies) ; but this is erroneous, because eKo-
TTiaaa in the preceding verse is neither the main idea, nor
specially indicative of tribulation. Arbitrary and entirely
unnecessary is, further, the assumption of an opponent's ohjec-
tion ("at vcro imminent tristissima !") to which Paul replies;
' Coinp. Anthol. Pal. xi. 56. 2 : fih rfi^t, fin xotr/a.
120 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIAXS.
or tlie explanation of aWd by the intervening thought : " non,
I'e nai pas travaille en vain, mais au contraire," etc., Eilliet ;
comp. also Erasmus, ParajjJir. In a similar but direct way
Hofmann gains for aXXd the explanation, hut on the contrary, by
connecting it antithetically with the preceding negative clauses
oTi ovK ek Kevov k.t.X., which, with the right explanation
of the following words, is impossible. According to de Wettc
(comp. also Storr and Flatt), ver. 17 connects itself with i. 26,
so that aWd forms a contrast to ver. 25, and all that inter-
venes is a digression. ' But how could any reader guess at
this ? The suggestion is the more groundless, on account of
the xaipo) in ver. 1 7 corresponding so naturally and appositely
with the Kav)(r]fia in ver. 16. — el koX k.tX^ if I even (which
I will by no means call in question) should he 2Joured out, etc.
On the concessive sense of el kuI (1 Cor. iv. 7 ; 2 Cor. iv
3, 16, v. 16, vii. 8, al), see Herm. ad Vigor, p. 832 ; Klotz,
<ad Devar. p. 519. The case supposed is thus rendered more
probable than by the reading of E G-, koX el {even assuming that
I). Stallbaum, ad Plat. Ap. S. p. 32 A; Gorg. p. 509 A;
Schmalf. Syntax d. Vcrh. sec. 99 f. The protasis beginning
with akX el Kal extends to t. itLctt. vixwv. As in ver. 12,
so also here Hofmann makes the violent assumption that the
apodosis already begins at eVl t. Ovaia k.tX. %vith crirevBofxat
again to be supplied, whilst at the same time there is imputed
to this eVt T. dvala k.t.X., in order to give an appropriate turn
to the assumed antithesis for dWd, a tenor of thought which
the words do not bear ; see below. — airevSofiai] Ihecome offered
as a libation, poured out as a drink-offering (2 Tim. iv. 6,
frequently in all classical writers ; see also Schleusner, Thes.
V, p. 79 ; Suicer, Thes. II. p. 993). The sense stripped of
figure is : if even my hlood is shed, if even / should he put to
death.} Paul represents his apostolic exertions for the faith of
the Philippians as an offering (comp. Eom. xv. 16); if he is
therein 'put to death, he is, by means of the shedding of his
' This (since the time of Chrysostom) unanimous interpretation of the figiira-
tive expression has been abandoned by Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 214 f., who explains
it as referring, not to the shedding of blood, but to the severance of the apostle's
life in his vocation from intercourse with the world by his imprisonment. Au
abortive suggestion, the forced result of incorrect assumptions.
CHAP. II. 17. 121
blood in this sacrifice, made a libation, just as among the Jews
(Num. xxviii. 7, xv. 4 ff. ; Joseph. Antt. iii. 9. 4 ; see gene-
rally, Ewald, Altcrth. p. 46 f. ; Saalschiitz, M. R ^. 314 f.) in
the sacrifices, together with meat-offerings, libations of wine were
made, which were poured upon the ground from sacred vessels
{(Tirovhela) at the altar. As to the Hellenic sacrificial libations,
see Hermann, Gottesd. Altcrth. § 25, 15 f. On the figurative
representation of the shedding of blood as a airovhi], comp.
Anthol. ix. 184. 6: ft'c^o? aljjia rvpavvcov eairecaev, Ignatius,
Horn. 2 ; cnrovBcadrjvat Qew ct)9 ert Ovacacrrripiov eTot/xov ecrri
— The 2J'>^escnt tense is used, because Paul has strongly in view
hi& 2^resent danger (i. 20 £f.) ; Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 119 f. Eilliet
(comp. Wetstein) takes the passive erroneously : / ain besprinkled
(which also does not correspond with the j^rcsent tense), making
Paul say, " que la libation preparatoire du sacrifice a coule sur
sa tete." Confusion with Karacnrev^ecrOat, Plut. Alex. 50, de
def. orac. 46 ; Strabo, iv. p. 197 ; Eur. Or. 1239 ; Antip. Sid.
73 (Anthol. vii. 27). — iirl r. 6va. k. Xeir. t. nr. v^x^^ at the
sacrifice and jp7'iestly 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. r?}? ttlcft.
is the object which is conceived as sacrificed and undergoing
priestly ministration ; dvaia and XeLTovpyla, have one article
in common, and are thereby joined so as to form one concep-
tion. But Xeirovpjla (jyricstly function, comp. Luke i. 23 ;
Heb. viii. 6, ix. 21, and frequently in the LXX. ; see Schleus-
ner, Thes. ; comp. also Diod. Sic. i. 21, and, for the figurative
use of the word, Eom. xv. 16, 27) is added by the apostle as
a more 23recise definition, because the mere 6vaia would leave it
uncertain whether he was to be considered as a p)^'icst, whereas
Paul desires expressly to describe himself as such, dvala, 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
(Herod, iv. 60, viii. 99 ; Herodian, viii. 3. 5, i. 36. 12, al).
The eVi, however, is simply to be taken as at, as in i. 3 and
122 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
frequently ; not as to, in addition to (Beza, Eaphel, Matthies,
de WettCj Weiss, and many others ; comp. also Hofmann), or
with the Vulgate as supra (Heinrichs, Hoelemann, van Hengel),
in the sense of the (heathen) mode^ of the libation, an interpre-
tation which should have been precluded by the addition
of the abstract k. Xecrovpy. Finally, although Paul's official
activity concerned the faith of all his churches, he says v/xtov
with the same right of individualizing reference as in hC v/j,a<i
at i. 24 and many other passages. The passage is peculiarly
misunderstood by Hofmann, who holds that eVi has the sense
in association with ; that t^9 Trla-Teayi vfi. is the genitive of
apposition to Ova'ia and Xecrovpy. ; that the sacrificing and
ministering sidijcd is not the aj)ostle, but the Philippian
cluirch, which, when it became hclieving, had presented its
own sacrifice to God, and has been constantly honouring Him
with its own work of service. Accordingly Paul says that, even
though his labours should end in a violent death, yet the
shedding of his Mood looidd not he an isolated drink-offering, hiit
wotdd associate itself loith 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, eVt would thus be
made to express two very different relations, namely, with ry
dvaia after, after that, and with the XeiTovpyia, at, during.
And how could a reader discover from the mere eVt .k.tX.
the alleged antithetical reference of an isolated drink-offering,
especially as no antithesis of the p)^i'sons is even indicated
by vfjiMv being placed first (immediately after eV/) ? The
entire explanation is a forced artificial expedient in conse-
quence of the mistaken assumption that an apodosis begins
after cr7rivBo/j,ac, and a new section sets in with ^alpco.'- —
' On this mode of libation rests the expression Wi/rTiilnv, to pour a libation
over something (Herod, ii. 39, iv. 60. 62, vii. 167 ; Aesch. Ag. 1395 ; Plut.
Jiom. 4).
* In which x"-'?" "• c^yx"-'?" '^"■"'i^ t'f-~^ are supposed to serve merely as an in-
troduction for the exhortation which follows ; tlius Paul would be made to say,
that even for that supposed case of the o-TenSsa-^'aj he is in a joyful mood, and
he rejoices ivith any j)crson in the cJnuxh whose heart is joyful (all this is sup-
posed to be implied in ■ruiriy If/Clv !),
CHAP. II. 17. 123
^aipa] Apodosis down to vfuv : I rejoice, not at the dvcrta k.
XeiTovpyia rrj^ TriaT. vjju. (Chrysostom, who connects eVl r. Ova.
K.T.\. with %aipa) ; comp. Oecumenius ; so also Eilliet), for
it is mere arbitrariness to separate the sacrificial expressions
(TTrevSofxai, and eVt t. Ova-la k.t.\. and attach them to different
parts of the sentence, and because xaip&>, as the point of the
apodosis, would have been placed before iirl r. 6va. k.t.X. ; but
at the airevheaOat : I rejoice to he em])loyed for so sacred a des-
tination. Tlieophylact appropriately remarks : ou% co? o airo-
davovixevo<; Xvirov/Jiat, aWa koX yaipoa . . . on (nrovBr] yi'vofiaL,
and Theodoret : ravra Se \eyet '^v)(a<y(0'^03v avrov^ k. SiSuo-kcov
Tov fjLaprvplov to fjLeyedo<;. Comp. Grotius, Heinrichs. The
ground of the apostle's joy, assumed by many (including Matt,
Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette) : because my death will tend
lo the advantage of the gospel (i. 2 0), and also the interpretation
of Weiss : that joy at the progress of the Philippians towards
perfeetion is intended, are both quite gratuitously imported into
the passage. The explanation of it as referring generally to
inward joy fidness of faith (Wiesinger) or divine serenity (Ewald),
does not correspond with the protasis, according to M'hich it
must be joyfulness in the prospect of death. "Even if I am
compelled to die in this sacrificial service, I rejoice therein,"
and that, indeed, now for the case supposed ; hence not
future. — Kol crv^x- iraacv v/xtv] is wrongly explained by most
commentators : " a7id I rejoice with you all" (so Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Heinrichs, Matthies, van Hengel,
Eilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Schneckenburger, Weiss,
Hofmann, and many others) ; along with which explanation
Chrysostom, Theophylact, and various of the older expositors,
bring forward another ground for this joint joy than for the
^aijOO) (Chrysostom : 'Xj^ipco /xev, on aTrovSij yivofj-ar a-vy-
^j^ai/jft) Be, oTL Ovalav irpoaeveyKOJv ; comp. Schneckenburger).
Decisive against this interpretation is the 'xalpere which follows
in ver. 18, — a summons which would be absurd, if cvyx- ^A*--
meant : " I rejoice ^vith you." The Vulgate already rightly
renders : congratulor (comp. Jerome, Beza, Castalio, Grotius,
Storr, Elatt, Eheinwald, Hoelemann, Bisping, Ellicott, Light-
foot), / congratulate you all, namely, on the fact that I am
124 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
poured out in the service of your faith. Such a martyrdom,
namely, for the sake of their faith, how it must have elevated afid
honoured the readers, their whole church ; for such a martyr
death concerned them all ! Comp. on Eph. iii. 1 3 ; it re-
dounds to their glory, if the apostle sheds his blood on account
of their Christian standing established by him. It is in this
light that Paul wishes his airevheaOai, should it occur, to be
regarded by his readers, and therefore gracefully and in-
geniously represents it (though Hofmann holds this to be
impossible) as something on which he must congratulate them
all. I'auline linguistic usage is not to be urged in objection
to this view (Weiss), as Paul employs av^yalpw 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 av^yaipoiiai
(3 Mace. i. 8). The active as well as the middle may convey
either meaning, to rejoice cdong with, or gratidari (Polyb. xxix.
7. 4, XXX. 10. 1 ; Plut. Mor. p. 231 B; 3 Mace. i. 8). See
Valchenaer, Schol. I. p. 54.
Ver. 18. And upon the same (upon my possibly occur-
ring airevhea-Qat, enl r. Over. k.t.\., ver. 17) rejoice ye also
(Ijecause it takes place for the sake of your faith), and con-
gratulcde me thereon (on such a sacred destination). The verbs
are impcrcdives. " Postulat enim Paulus parem av/jLTrddeiav a
Philipp.," Beza. The ground of the yaipere may not be arbi-
trarily introduced (Hofmann : wliatever untowardness may
occur), but must by logical necessity be the same which, in
ver. 1 7, suggested the avy^aipco vfxlv ; and that of the avj-
^(aLpeTe fiot must be the same as caused Paul to say ^a/pco in
ver. 17.^ The expositors, who do not take avyx^alpeiv as
gratidari, are here placed in the awkM'ard position of making
the apostle summon his readers to a joy which, according to
ver. 17, they would already possess. By this impossibility
* The difficulty which van Hengel (comi). Hofmann) urges, that the readers
" vix ant ne vix quidem induci potucrunt de hujus viri morte violenta gaudentes
vel gavisuri," entirely mistakes the lofty standpoint of tlie apostle, who looks
deatli in the face with a holy joy (comp. the frequent corresponding sentiments
in tlie epistles of Ignatius), and also attributes to his readers a corresponding
mode of looking at the possibility of his deatli.
CHAP. II. 19. 125
Weiss, in spite of the to avro, allows himself to be driven
into taking the joy in ver. 18, not as in ver. 17, but (comp.
also Hofmann) quite generally, of a joyful frame of mind. — to
avTo] in the same (on the accusative, comp. Matt. ii. 10)
rejoice yc also ; see also on i. 25. Hence it is not to be taken
as equivalent to biaavTw<; (Beza, Storr, Flatt, Heinrichs, Ehein-
wald, Eilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann) (comp.
on i. 6), in order thereby to avoid identifying it with the joy
mentioned in ver. 1 7. As to '^alpecv with the accusative in
classical authors, see generally Lobeck, ad Aj. 131; Klihner,
II. 1, p. 255 f.
Ver. 19. The apostle now, down to ver. 24, speaks of send-
ing Timothy^ to them, and states that he himself trusted to
visit them shortly. — iXTrl^oi Ze at.t.X,.] The progress of thought
attaching itself to ver. 1 7 (not to ver. 12) is : However
threatening, according to ver. 1 7 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 pro-
gress of the thought thus : for the enhancement of my joy, how-
ever, 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. 1 7 f. as is the antithetical relation to '^alpere
K. cniy^aip. fioi discovered by Hofmann, viz. that the apostle
is anxious as to tvhether all is well in the church. — ev Kupicpl
making the hope causally rest in Christ. Comp. on 1 Cor.
XV. 19. — vfXLv] not equivalent to the local tt/so? vfia^ (van
Hengel), nor yet the dative commodi {" vestros in usus,
' Hofmanii's hypothesis, that the churcli htid expressed a desire that the apostle
would send them one who should aid tliem, with word and deed, in their affairs,
has no hint of it given at all in the text ; least of all in Vva xuyu il-^uxi^ x.r.x.
Why should Paul not have mentioned, in some way or' another, the wish of the
church ? — Baur and Hinsch find 710 motive mentioned for the mission of Timothy.
As if the motive of love conveyed by '/»« Kayu x.t.x. were not enough !
126 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
vestra in gaudia/' Hoelemann, comp. cle Wette and Hofmann),
whereby too special a sense is introduced ; "but the dative
of reference (1 Cor. iv. 17 ; Acts xi. 29), indicating the persons
concerned as those for whom the mission generally is intended.
— «ra7co] / also, as ye through the accounts^ to be received of
me, namely, those which ye shall receive through this epistle,
through Epaphroditus, and through Timothy. — ev-y^v^eiv] to
he of good couraye, occurs here only in the IST. T, See Poll.
iii. 135 ; Joseph. Antt. xi. 6. 9. Comp the eu-»/^i;%et in
epitaphs (like %aipe) in Jacobs, ad Antlwl. xii. p. 304. — tcu
Trepl v/j,.] the things concerning you, quite generally, your cir-
cumstances. Eph. vi. 22 ; Col. iv. 8. See Heindorf, ad Plat.
Phacd. p. 58 A.
Ver. 20. Keason why Timothy is the person sent. Hof-
mann erroneously takes it as : the reason why he sends no one
at the time. As if vvv <yap or dprc jap ovBeva k.t.\. were
written. — la6'\lrv)^ov] lihe-minded, namely, ivith me ; in what
respect, is stated in the sequel. Castalio, Beza, Calvin, EiUiet,
Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, wrongly interpret it: no one who
would be so minded as he (Kheinwald combines the two
references). As avTa> is not added, the text gives no other
reference for taa (in la6-\\rv')(^) than to the subject of ej^co (see
also ver. 22) ; as, indeed, Paul could not give a better reason
for the choice of Timothy, and could not more effectively re-
commend him to his readers, than by setting forth his like-
mindedness with himself ; comp. Deut. xiii. 6 : ^/Xo? tcro? t^
"^^XV 1^°^- T^"^G word occurs only here in the N. T. ; see
LXX. Ps. Iv. 14 ; Aesch. Agam. 1470. Comp. on the subject-
matter, 1 Cor. xvi. 10. — o<ni<i «.t.X.] the emphasis is laid on
r/v'r](7Lco<;, and oo-rt?, quiiypc qui, ita comparaticm ut, introduces
the character of an laoylruxo^, such as is not at his disposal. —
' There is a delicate compliment implied in tliis Kctyu ; 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 ih-^uxi^.
CHAP. II. 21. 127
'yvqcrlw^'] in genuine, sincere fasliion, with one care without
guile (Dem. 1482, 14; Polyb. iv. 30. 2; 2 Mace. xiv. 8).
the selfish contrast to which is described in ver. 21. Comp.
2 Cor. viii. 8. — /xepL/jLvijaei] namely, wJien I shall have sent him.
The caring is not to be more precisely defined ; it necessarily
manifested itself according to the circumstances in watching,
correction, encouragement, counsel, and action. Comp. 1 Cor.
xii. 25; 2 Cor. xi. 28.
Ver. 21. 01 Trayre?] all (except Timothy), of those whom
I now have with me and at my disposal for sending; see
ver. 20. We have the less warrant to modify this judgment
in any way, expressed, as it is, so very clearly and decidedly
by the absolute antithesis ra iavrcov ^rjTovaiv, ov ra T. X.,
seeing that we are unacquainted with the circle surrounding
the apostle at that particular time, and do not know to what ex-
tent the anti-Pauline tendency, i. 15, 17, had then spread in
the immediate neighbourhood of the apostle. The only limi-
tation of the general expression, which is in accordance with
the text, lies in the fact that Paul does not mean the Chris-
tians generally in Pome, but such assistant teachers as would
otherwise, if they had been pure and honest, have been qiiali-
fied for such a mission. The trustworthy ones among these
otherwise qualified felloAv-labourers must have been alsent at
the time, especially Luke, who could by no means have been
included among ol Trdvre<i (in opposition to Wieseler, Chronol.
d. aijost. Zeitalt. p. 42 7) ; hence the Philippians are not saluted
specially either by Luke or by any other, and the omission of
such salutations by name at the end of this epistle receives
in part its explanation from this passage. Consequently, ol
irdvT. cannot be understood as many or the most (Beza, "Wolf,
Hammond, Drusius, Estius, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, and
others, including Heinrichs, Eheinwald, Piatt) ; nor is it :
'•■ all, tvhom I can spare" (Erasmus), or : " ivho are hnown to
you" (van Hengel). Neither is the negation to be taken rela-
tively : they seek more their own interest, etc. (Erasmus,
Calvin, and many others, also Flatt, Hoelemann, comp. the
reservations of Weiss), to which Hofmann's view^ also ulti-
^ The latter says : they allow themselves to he influenced in the direction of
128 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PIIILIPPIANS.
mately comes ; nor is it to be explained by assuming an in-
tention of distinguishing Timothy (Matthies) ; nor yet is the
judgment to be restricted, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and
Theophylact, to the hardships of the long journey, to which
they preferred their own rcijose. Bengel rightly defends the
full seriousness of the utterance, and adds : " subtilissima erat
aLa6r](Ti'i, 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 ^cr^o^i (which would have run
Tr]v he avTov Bok. or avTov Be rrjv Bok.), but of the qualifica-
tion, in order further to recommend him, whom he hopes soon
to be able to send ; not to make vp for the disadvantage,
that they can in the first instance only hope, etc. (as Hofmann
artificially explains). But the approved character {indoles spec-
tata, comp. Eora. v. 4 ; 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 13) of him ye know ;
for Timothy had himself been in Philippi (Acts xvi. 1, 3,
xvii. 14) ; hence ryivwcrK. is not the imperative (Vulgate, Pela-
gius, Castalio, Cornelius a Lapide, Clericus, Eheinwald, Hoele-
mann). — on ac.t.X,.] that he, namely, etc. — &)? irarpl reKvov]
Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 1 7. The apostle had here iBovXevaev before
his mind, but alters the conception in such a way, that he
thinks upon the service as rendered no longer to him, but loith
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 <rvvBov\o<;. See Winer, pp. 393, 537 [E. T. pp. 525, 722].
Hofmann labours without success to remove the incongruity,
which cannot be got rid of unless, with Vatablus, we were at
liberty to supply avv before irarpL But, however frequently
the Greeks put the preposition only once in comparisons (see
Bernhardy, p. 204 f . ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 479), its omission does
not occur in the clause placed first. The poetical use of
such an omission in the case of words which are connected by
their activity, even though it he consecrated to the kimjdom of God (?), hy special
personal aims, instead of devoting themselves always only (? ov rk 'I. X.) to thai
which is MOST ADVANTAGEOUS for the cause of Christ ( oh toc 'i. x. !). Thus there
is imported into the passage what is not at all to be found in it.
CIIAr. II. 23-25. 129
Kai, re, or i] (Dissen, ad Paul. Arm. x. 38 ; Lobeck, ad Aj.
397 ff.) does not concern us here. — el<f\ in respect to the rjosijcl
(conip. i. 5), the serving in question having reference to the
preaching, defence, etc., thereof.
Ver. 23. Mev ovv\ ovv resumes ver. 19, and to the [xev
corresponds the Se in ver. 24. — co<i av airlSco k.t.X.] vjJicn (of
the time, see Ivlotz, ad Devar. p. 759, that is, as soon as, comp.
on 1 Cor. xi. 34 ; Eom. xv. 24) / anyhoiv (by av the matter is
left to experience) shall lutve seen to the end (Jonah iv. 5). The
latter, which expresses the perceiving from a distance (Herod.
viii. 37; Dem. 1472. 15; Lucian, D. D. vi. 2), denotes the
knowledge of the final course of matters to he expected, — only
after which could it be decided whether or not he could spare the
faithful Timothy for a time. The form dcfjlBco (Lachmann and
Tischendorf) in A B'"' D'" F G N is, on account of this weighty
evidence, to be considered not as a copyist's error, but as the
original, and to be derived from the pronunciation of ISeiv
(with the digamma). Comp. on Acts iv. 29, and see Winer,
p. 44 [E. T. p. 4(S] ; J. B. Lightfoot ad he. ; Buttmann, Neut.
Gr. p. 7 [E. T. p. 7]. — TCL Trepl e'/ie] the things about me, that is,
the state of my affairs. Substantially not different from rd
Trepl ifMov (ver. 19 f.). See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 20 ;
Winer, p. 379 [E. T. p. 506].
Ver. 24. Kal aino<i\ also myself personally. Wliat Paul
shall see, therefore, is, as he confidently trusts (not merely
hopes), his liberation (comp. i. 25 f.) ; that it will make it pos-
sible for him to come soon} The terminus a quo of the Ta^ico';
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 ra-x^eca as a relative definition of the time is not
opposed to this view. But that koI avr6<; includes also the
case of his coming at the same time icith Timothy (Hofmann),
is, according to ver. 19 ff., not to be assumed.
Ver. 25 f. About Epaphroditus ; the sending him home,
' How could this confidence, which the result did not justif}', have been put
by any later author into the apostle's mouth ? Only Paul himself could have
wi'itten in such a way as here and in i. 25 f. See, in opposition to Hinsch,
Hilgenfeld, 1873, p. 185 f.
PHIL. I
130 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
and recommendation of him, down to ver. 30. — ava'yK. 8e
^57.] / have, however, juchjecl it necessary, although Epaphro-
ditus, namely, according to vv. 19—24, might have remained
here still, in order to have made his return-journey to you
later, either in company with Timothy, or eventually with
myself. For the special reason, which Paul had for not
keeping him longer with himself in Eome, see vv. 26, 28,
— 'EiracppoScTov] otherwise not further known. The name
(signifying Venustus) was a common one (Tac. Ann. xv. 55 ;
Suet. Domit. 14; Joseph. Vit. 76; Wetstein in lac), also
written ' E7ra(f)p6S6iTo<i (Boeckh, Corp. inscr. 1811, 2562); but
to regard the man as identical with ^Eira^pa'; (Col. i 7,
iv. 12; Philem. 23) (Grotius, Paulus, and others) is all the
more arbitrary, since Epaphras was a Colossian teacher. — The
grouping together of five predicates wliich follows, has arisen
out of loving and grateful regard for Epaphroditus, as an
honourable testimony to him in his relation to the apostle as
well as to the church. — aSeXcf)., crvvep'y., avarpar.] a climactic
threefold description of companionship, advancing from the
most general category, that of Christian brotherhood (aSeX^o9),
to a twofold more special relation. On ava-rpar., which sets
forth the joint working (a-vvepy.) in relation to the hostile
powers, comp. Philem. 2 ; 2 Tim. ii. 3. — vfj,(t)v Se diroa-r. k.
XeLToupy. T. ^/3. fjiov.'\ still belonging to top ; hence vfioov, placed
in contrast to the fiou, belongs to Xecrovpy. r. p^. p,. as well (in
opposition to de Wette and others). 'A7r6aTo\o<; here means
delegate (2 Cor. viii. 23), and not ap)ostle (Vulgate, Hilarius,
Theodoret, Luther, Erasmus, Calovius, Wetstein : " mei muneris
vicarium apud vos," am Ende, and others), which would necessi-
tate the genitive vpiwv being taken as in Eom. xi. 13, against
which the context, by the union with \ecrovpy. r. y^. jjl., is
decisive ; as, indeed, Paul uses airoar. as an official designa-
tion only in the sense of the actual apostolic rank, based
upon a direct call by Christ, in its narrower and wider refer-
ence (comp. on Gal. i. 1 9 ; Piom. xvi. 7 ; 1 Cor. xv. 7), and
hence there is no necessity to seek even an allusion to his
" quasi "-apostolic position towards the Philippians (Matthies).
— K. XecTovpy. t. '^. /i.] the scccrificial minister of my need, to?
CHAP. II. 26, 27. 131
ra Trap" avToov airocrraXivTa KO/XLaavra ')(prjixaTa, Theodoret.
By sending aid they had cared for the apostle's need (iv. 1 6) ;
and that gift of love being regarded as a sacrifice offered to
God, Epaphroditus, who had been entrusted by them Avith the
conveying of it, was the Xeirovpyo^ in the matter, that is, he
who performed the priestly service in the bringing of this
offering (comp. ver. 17). Such is also the conception in
2 Cor. ix. 12. On t?}? ^/oetW /"-. comp. iv. 16 ; Eom. xii. 13. —
Tre/A-v^at] as also in Greek authors frequently, in the sense of
dimittere domum, to send home} consequently equivalent to
aTTOTrefXTreiv or avaTrefXTreiv (Philem. 12); Xen. Hell. ii. 7. 9;
Sop. 0. B. 1518; Polyb. v. 100. 10 ; and frequently in
Homer. See especially Od. xv. 74 : ^p?; ^elvov irapeovra
^cXeiv, eOekovra Se Tre/jLireLv.
Ver. 26. State of mind {rjv with participle) of Epaphroditus,
which supplied the motive for the avayK. rjjrjo: K.rXr — The
imperfect is used ifiv), because Paul transports himself to the
time when the readers shall receive this epistle. Then is
Epaphroditus again among them ; but he was previously longing,
etc. — ah7]ixovwv] in anxiety. Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 3 7. —
OTL TjcO.'] that he ivas sick. Hoto the Philippians received this
information, remains an open question, as also hoio Epaphro-
ditus learned that they had heard it.
Ver. 27. Confirmation of that rjKovcrare, on r]a6. — Ka\ yap
K.TX]for he has also {really, see Hartung, PartikeU. I. p. 132 ;
Baeumlein, p. 150) teen sick. — irapaifk. Oavdrco] adds the
specification of the mode : in a ivay almost equivalent to death.
There is neither an ellipsis (de Wette : d^/^ero or some such
* That Paul, however, here writes -prifi^at -sfli hf^ai, and, en the otlier hand,
■r. vfTn in ver. 19, is an accidental and undesigned variation. Hofmann thinks
that by v. v(a~m is meant the sending of a representative of the ajjostle to the
Church, and by •r. •r^o? W(«as 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 ift,7v and wpl; vfiZ;. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 17;
Eph. vi. 22 ; Col. iv. 8 ; Tit. iii. 12 ; 2 Cor. xii. 17.
2 The supposition that Paul, in specifying this ground, wished to prevent the
so speedy return of the man fro7n being interpreted to his disadvantage (Hof-
mann), assumes the existence of a certain distrust, for which there is no basis in
the text. Besides, Epaphroditus had in fact accomplished the purpose of his
132 THE EnSTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
word is to be understood before TrapairX. ; comp. van Hengel)
nor a solecism (van Hengel) ; irapanrX. is adverbial (equi-
valent to TrapaTrX'Tjaio)';, see Polyb. iv. 40. 10, iii, 33. 17;
Lucian, Cyn. 1 7 ; comp. irapaTfKrja-Lavrepov , 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. — Xvinjv eVt Xvttt^i/] grief U2)on grief (super-
added). LXX. Ezra vii. 26; Ps. Ixix. 27; Isa. xxviii. 10.
Comp. expressions with the dative (as Ecclus. xxvi. 15) in
classic Greek, e.g. oyxyr] eirl oy)(^i'r] (Horn. Oel. vii. 120), eaXa kir
iaXot'i (Pind. 01. viii. 84), (fi6vo<i iirl (f>6va) (Eur. Iph. T. 197) ;
Polyb. i. 57. 1. See also Eur. Hcc. 586: Xiittt) rt? aWij
Bid8o'^o<; KUKcov KaKoi<i, Soph. El. 235 : arav aTai<;, Eur.
Troad. 175 : eir aXyeat S' aXr/vvOS). The first Xvtttjv refers to
the dreaded death of his friend ; the second, to the apostle's
affliction over the 'painful position in which he found him-
self, as a prisoner, and also through the doings of the adver-
saries (ver. 20 f., i. 15, 17, 30), not over tlie sickness of Epa~
fhroditiis (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus,
Estius, and others, also Weiss), to which would be added that
for his deatli. 'A\v7r6Tepo<; in ver. 28 is fatal to the latter
view, for it appears that, even after Epaphr. had been sent
away, a Xinrr] still remained, which, therefore, could not be
referred to the latter's sickness. Van Hengel errs in under-
standing the affliction as pain concerning this sickness, and the
first XvTrrjv as " cogitatio anxietatis vestrae." See, in opposi-
tion, on ver. 28. Calvin's remark suffices to justify the double
XvTrr) : " Non jactat Stoicorum airddeLav, quasi ferreus esset et
immunis ab humanis affectibus." Comp. John xi. 35 f. —
o-;^w] not optative. See Winer, p. 270 [E. T. p. 359].
Ver. 28. The more urgently, therefore (in consequence of
this sickness which he had had and recovered from, of which
ye received tidings, vv. 26, 27), I have brought about his
return, which otherwise I would still have delayed. — iraXiv']
belongs to 'xaprjre, as Paul usually places it before the verb, or,
at least, makes it follow immediately after. See Gersdorf,
Beitr. p. 491 f., and van Hengel. And the context affords no
ground for departing from the usual mode, and for joining it
CHAP. II. 29, 30. 133
with i8oi/T69 avrov (Beza, Grotius, and others, also Baumgarten-
Crusius and de Wette). — /ca7&) likinror. ai] 'Eav yap vfiel'i
-^apTjre, koX iyo) %ai/3a), Oecumenius. He is not aXfTro?, for he
is in captivity and surrounded by adversaries ; but the joy
which he is aware is abeady prepared for his beloved Philip-
pians by the return of Epaphroditus, lessens his Xvirrj. This
tender interweaving of his own alleviation with the rejoicing
of his readers is lost, if we refer dXviroT. to the removal of the
vexation of seeing the recovered one so full of longing and so un-
ccmj (Hofmann), which, regarded as Xvttt], would be sentimental.
According to Weiss, Paul intends to say : still more aXvTrof;,
than I have already become in consequence of Epaphroditus'
recovery. An unsuitable idea, because the comparative neces-
sarily presupposes a certain degree of the Xvtt?/ still remaining.
In the consciousness of this Paul has written aXuiror. ; if it
had been otherwise, he would perhaps have used, as in ver. 19,
Kujoi ev-^v^o) or Kor^oi '^alpco.
Ver. 29f. Ovv] Let, then, the reception which he meets
with among you be in accordance with my purpose in accelerat-
ing his return (iva ISovre^i k.tX.) ; receive him ivith all joy. —
iv KvpUo] denotes, as in Eom. xvi. 2, the Christian character of
the 7rpoa8e')(eadat, the nature and action of which have their
distinctive quality in Christ, in whose fellowship Christians live
and move. — fj,eTa irda: %ap.] excludes ei^ery kind of sullen or
indifferent temper and expression : " with all joyfulness." — Kal
TOL"? TOiovrov; /c.tA.] and the pcojjle of such a sort, etc. "Iva firj
Zo^rj avTM jjiovw y^apl^eaOai, KOLVO)<i Trapaivel irdvTa^; rovi rrjv
avTTjv dperrjv iTrtSecKw/xevov; rcfidv, Theophylact. But Epa-
phroditus is in his view, as in the given case, the person
belonging to the class thus to be held in honour.^
Ver. 30. Bid to epy.] emphatically prefixed: on account
of nothing else than for this great sacred aim. The ivork (see
the critical remarks) is, according to the context (comp. Acts
^ There is no ground for the reference, which Hofmann discovers here, to an
assumed inclination, on the part of the Philippians, to hold in honour people of
another so7't (such as are described in chap, iii.) more than the ranuTous. For
this assumption there would, at the most, be occasion only if Paul had used the
comparative instead of Ivrlfiovf. Besides, the emphasis is not on roh; roiovTot/s
(Hofmann), but on hri/ievs, correlative to the preceding ^tra ^uf. ;t«/iaf.
134 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
XV. 38), obvious, namely, that of Icthour for the gospel ; the
addition in the Rec. rov XpLcrrov is a correct gloss, and it is
this epyov kut ^^o'x/jv (comp. virep rov 6v6/xaTo<;, Acts v. 41)
in the service of which Epaphroditus incurred so dangerous
an illness, namely, when he, according to the testimony of
the predicates in ver. 25, as the (Tvvep<y6<i and o-vo-rparicorrjf;
of the apostle, with devotedness and self-sacrifice, united his
exertions for the gospel and his striving against the move-
ments of its adversaries (i. 15, 17, 30, ii. 20) with a similar
activity on the part of the apostle. The interpretation which
refers epyov to the business of conveying the 'bounty (de Wette,
following older expositors, comp. Weiss), does not suffice for
the more special characteristic description ; and the refer-
ence to the enmity of Nero against Paul, the dangers of
which Epaphroditus had shared, in order to reach the apostle
and to serve him, finds no warrant either in the context or in
Acts xxviii. (in opposition to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theo-
phylact, comp. Theodoret). — /^expi Qclv. »;77.] as in Ps. cvii. 18 :
rjyyicrav eoi<i tcov ttvXcov toO davdrov, Ecclns. li. 6 : e&)9 Oavd-
Tov, Eev. xii. 11. The expression with fie^pt is more definite
than the dative would be (as in Ps. Ixxxviii. 3 : ?) ^cotj /llov tc3
aSr) rjyyia-e), or et9 Odvar. (Job xxxiii. 22) ; he came 7iear even
unto death. — irapa^ovX. rfj '^l'%.] Such is the Text. Rec., which
Bengel, Matthaei (vehement in opposition to Wetstein and
Griesbach), Einck, van Hengel, Pteiche, and others defend,
and Tischendorf still follows in the 7th ed. Justly, however,
Scaliger, Casaubon, Salmasius, Grotius, Mill, Wetstein, and
others, including Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf,
ed. 8, Ptheinwald, Matthies, Eilliet, Winer, Ewald, Weiss,
J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann, and others, have preferred irapa^oX.
T. yjr. The latter has the authority of A B D E F G N, 177,
178, 179 in its favour, as well as the support of the Itala by
" yardbolatus est de anima sua," and of Vulgate, Aeth., Pelagius,
by " tradens (Ambrosiaster : in intcriium tradens) animam
suam" Since /3o\evea6ai was unknown to the copyists, whilst
^ovXeveadac was very current, instead of the one dira^ Xeyo/x.
another crept in, the form of which, on account of the pre-
valence of the simple word, had nothing offensive, vrapa-
CHAP. II. 30. 135
/SoXeveadai, which is nowhere certainly preserved (in opposition
to Wetsteiu's quotations from the Fathers, see Matthiae, ed.
min. p. 341 f., and Eeiche, Comment, crit. p. 220 f.), is formed
from the very current classical word 7rapd^o\o<;, pidtinr/ at
stake, venturesome, and is therefore equivalent to 7rapd/3o\ov
elvai, to he venturous, to be an adventurer, as irepirepeveaOai.
equivalent to nrepirepov elvai (1 Cor. xiii. 4), oX.o'yeveadaL
equivalent to dXoyov elvai (Cic. Att. vi. 4), diroaKoireveLv and
iTTicTKOTrevecv (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 591), KcofiLKeveaOai (Luc.
Fhilop. 22). See more such verbs in Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 67,
and comp. generally Kiihner, L p. 695, II. 1, p. 98. Hence
the 7rapa^o\eva-d/ji€vo<i /c.r.X., which is to be regarded as a
modal definition to fi. Oav. rf^'^ia-e, means : so that he was ven-
turesome with his sold (dative of the more definite reference),
i.e. he hazarded his life} in order to supply, etc. In this sense
irapa^aXkecrOai is current among Greek aiithors, and that not
merely with accusative of the object (Hom. II. ix. 322 ; so
usually, as in 2 Mace. xiv. 38), but also with dative of reference
(Polyb. ii. 26. 6, iii. 94. 4; Diod. Sic. iii. 35: eKptvav m-apa^aX-
Xeadav Tah -xp^vxal^), in the sense of pL-y\roicivhvvelv (Schol. Thuc.
iv. 57) and TrapappLirreLv (Soph. /r. 499. Diud.). Comp. irapa-
^dXXofiac rfi efiavToi) KecpaXfj in Phryn. ed. Loh. p. 238. Hence,
also, the name 'paraholani for those who waited on the sick
(Gieseler, Kir chenycsch. I. 2, p. 173, ed. 4). Taking the read-
ing of the Text. Pec, irapa^ovXevearOaL would have to be
explained : male eonsidcre vitae (Luther aptly renders : since
he thouglit light of his life). See especially Eeiche. 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, I.e.; Hase in Stcph. Thes.
VI. p. 220. — iva dvairX. /c.r.X..] The ohject, to attain which
he hazarded his life. We have to notice (1) that v/u,(ov
belongs to va-Teprj/xa ; and (2) that t»}? tt/do? p.e Xeirovpy. can
denote nothing else but the function, — well known and defined
' The matter is conceived as stalcing a price or forfeit. Comp. cra/ia/SaX/sv in
Poll. viii. 63, Phrynich. p. 238. On the subject-matter comp. also Tpo'iKr^ai ra;
i^/vx^; (Pausanias, iv. 10. 3) ; the aniviae magnae prodiijus of Horace {Od,
i. 12. 37) ; and the vitam projundere pro patria of Cicero {de Off. i. 24).
136 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
by the context (ver. 25), and conceived of as a sacrificial
service, — with which Epaphroditus had been commissioned by
the Philippians in respect to Paul (7rp6<i fxe). All explana-
tions are therefore to be rejected, which either expressly or
insensibly connect v/jicbv with XeiTovpy., and take the latter
in the general sense of rendering service (BiaKovelv). We must
reject, consequently, Chrysostom's explanation (comp. Theo-
phylact, Theodoret, Pelagius, Castalio, Yatablus, and others) :
TO ovv voreprjfia t)}9 vfieTepwi Xeiroupyla'i aveTr\rjpu)aev . . .
oirep ixP^W TTayra? iroLrjaai, rovro eirpa^eu avT6<; ;^ also the
similar view taken by Erasmus and many others (comp.
Grotius, Estius, Heinrichs, Kheinwald, van Hengel, Eilliet) :
" quo videlicet pensaret id, quod ob absentiam vcstro erga me
offixio vidcbatur clcessc;" the arbitrary explanation of Matthies :
" in order that he might ixi-fcd the readiness of service which
you have shown on various occasions ; " and several other inter-
pretations. Hoelemann, also, in opposition to the simple
literal sense, takes to v/mcov varep. as defectus cui s'lchvenistis,
and T^9 Trpo? /xe Xetrovpy. as : rerum necessariaricm ad me sub-
ministrando deferendarum. 'So ; of the two genitives, referring
to different things (comp. ver. 25, and see AViner, p. 180
[E. T. p. 239]), by which to vaTeprjfMa is accompanied, the first
conveys ivho were wanting (v/mcov, yc were wanting, yc your-
selves were not there, comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 1 7), and the second
to what this want applied. Consequently the passage is to be
explained : in order to com^yensate for the circumstanee, that ye
have been wanting at the sacrifieial service touching me ; tliat is,
for the circumstance, that this sacrificial service, lohich has been
made through your love-gifts in my siqjj^ooi, %oas comiJlctcd, not
jointly by you, but luithout you, so that only your messenger
Epaphroditus was here, and not ye yourselves in person.
How delicate and winning, and at the same time how enlist-
' Hofmann substantially reverts to this. He takes u^w» as tlie sxihject, which
had allowed somethbiff to remain lacking in the service, namely, in so far as
the church had onli/ collected the aid, but not conveyed it. How indelicate would
such a thought have been ! Besides, it was, in fact, an imiwssibility for the
church to have come personally. Hence the church was wanting, indeed, at
the transmission of the bounty, but it did not thereby alloio anything to be
wanting in the latter.
CHAP. II. 30. 137
ing their grateful sympathy in the fate of Epaphroditus, was
it to represent the absence of the Philippiaus as something
that had heen lacking in that Xeirovpyla, and therefore, as
something which Paul had missed, to supply which, as rqrre-
scntative of the church, the man had (as his deadly sickness
had actually shown) hazarded his life ! He did not there-
fore contract the illness on his journey to Rome, (de Wette,
AVeiss, and older expositors), as Hofmann thinks, who repre-
sents him as arriving there in the hot season of the year ; but
through his exertions ^la to epyov in Rome itself during his
sojourn there, when his sickness showed that he had risked
his life in order to bring the offering of the Philippians, and
thus compensate the apostle for the absence of the church.
On avairX. to vfx. vaTep., comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 17. The com-
pound verb is appropriately explained by Erasmns : " 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. 2 of. Hinsch very erroneously, because miscon-
ceiving the delicate courtesy of the grateful expression, thinks
that in ver. 30 the aid is described as a duty incumbent on
the readers, — which would be un-Pauline : iv. 10 is far from
favourincT this idea.
138 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
CHAPTEE III.
Vee. 3. Instead of ©sou Elz. has @su>, against decisive testi-
mony, although again defended by Eeiche. A clumsy emenda-
tion in order to complete the Xarp. — Ver. 6. t^riXov] Lachm. and
Tisch. read ^rjXog, following A B D* E G N*. A copyist's error ;
comp. the exeg. remarks on 2 Cor. ix. 2. — Ver. 8. Instead of
iu,'sv oh Elz. and Tisch. 8 have /j.iiovvyi, which, although supported
by A P X, is opposed by very preponderating testimony. — The
second sJvai is wanting in B D* F G X*, 17, Arm. Vulg. It.
Lucif., d al. Suspected by Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and
Tisch. 8. But how readily may it, otherwise superfluous, have
been left out before the similar JVa ! — A^er. 10. The second
TYiv is wanting in A B !:<* ; omitted by Lachm. ; overlooked as
unnecessary. — Instead of cviJ,iJ.(^p(piZ/i[j.ivog (so Lachm. and Tisch.),
which Griesb. approves, Elz. and Scliolz have 6\jiJ.iJ,op(po\jf/,ivog.
But the former has in its favour A B D* P X*, min. Or. ms.
Bas. Macar., as also G-o'^fopTiZ^6iJ.ivog in F G It. Lucif. Ir. The
Rcccpta substitutes an analogous form more familiar. — Ver. 11.
tZiv vsKp.'] A B D E P X, min., and many vss. and Fathers, have
TYiv sx vs-A.p., which is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by
Scholz, Lachm., and Tisch. But Paul always uses dvacraffig with
merely the genitive ruv nxpuv, or only vi-/.p. The ix was written
on the margin here to explain the word s^avaar., which does
not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and subsequently the erroneous
insertion of this Ix. after ruv (so still F G) produced the read-
ing TTjv Ix vvAp. — Ver. 12. The xpiarov alone (Elz gives rou X.
'p/iffoS) has preponderant evidence. — Ver. 14. It!] Lachm. and
Tisch, read ug, following A B X, min. Clem. Aeth. Eightly ;
sV/ is explanatory. — Ver. 16. After (Sraiyjiv, Elz., Scholz have
xavwi, TO avro (ppoviTv, which is Wanting in A B X*, min. Copt.
Sahid. Aeth. Hilar, Aug., et al. There are, besides, several
variations, and differences in the arrangement of the words. The
Bccopta has arisen from glosses (following Gal. vi. 16 ; Phil,
ii. 2), and has far too little homogeneousness in a critical point
of view, to enable it to be defended on the ground of homoio-
teleuton (so Matth. and Einck). — Ver. 21. After r^jb^v, Elz.
has ilg TO yi/ssSai avro, which (although defended by IVIatth.) is
omitted by decisive authorities. An ancient supplement. —
CHAP. III. 1. 139
iauTSj] Following A B D* F G K P s*, min. Eus. TlieophyL, aO-w
is, with Lachm. and Tiscb., to be read ; lavrtZ is a more precise
definition.
In iii. 1 Paul seems already preparing to close bis epistle ;
but at tbis point bis attention is directed, perbaps by some
special momentary occasion, to tbe party of anti- Pauline
teacbers, against wbicb be at once breaks fortb witb vebemence
and irony in ver. 2, warning bis readers against tbem ; and
tbereafter, from ver. 4 to 14, be sets fortb in detail bis own bear-
ing as contrasted witb tbe cbaracter of tbose false teacbers.
Ver. 1. To Xolttov] introduces wbat is still to be done by
the readers in addition to wbat bas been bitberto communi-
cated ; see on Epb. vi. 1 0. Hence it is of frequent occurrence
towards tbe close of tbe epistles, as bringing in a furtber
request, exbortation, etc. Comp. iv. 8 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ;
1 Tbess. iv. 1 ; 2 Tbess. iii. 1. To tbe closincr address tbus
introduced, but at once abandoned ai^ain in ver. 2, Paul would
have attached bis giving of thanks for tbe aid sent to him
(comp. iv. 8, 10 ff.). Tbis is contrary to tbe view of Schinz
and van Hengel, who, from the fact that Paul bas not yet
expressed bis thanks, conclude that he did not at tbis point
desire to proceed to tbe closing of tbe letter. We need not
search for a connection with wbat precedes (Chrysostom : e^^ere
^EiracppoScTov, Sl ov rjXyelre, e^ere Tt/juodeov, ep^OfxaL Kuydo, to
evayyeXiov iirLhihwai' rl vfxlu XetTret Xotirov ; comp. Oecumenius,
Tbeopbylact, Erasmus, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Micbaelis,
and others). Tbe preceding topic is closed, and the exhorta-
tion beginning witb to \ot7r. wbicb 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,
Mattbies), but must simply assume that be is proceeding to
the conclusion, v/bicb he desired to commence witb tbis general
encouragement. — '^(alpeTe iv Kvpiui] is a summons to Christian
joyfulness, wbicb is not Kara Koajxov (see Chrysostom), but
has its ground in Christ, and is thereby specifically defined,
inasmuch as Christ — through tbe Holy Spirit — rules in tbe
believing heart; hence tbe %a)oa 7rvev/MaT0<; djlov (1 Tbess.
140 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
i. 6) or iv irvevfjuaTi ajio) (Rom. xiv. 17) are in substance not
different from this (comp. Gal. v. 22). The subsequent
double repetition of this encouragement (iv. 4) is the result of
the apostle's special love for his readers, and of the whole
tone of feeling pervading the epistle. Moreover, in tV Kvptui
we are not to seek for a nciu sjjccial 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 '^aipere the self-evident definition eV
Kvplw (2 Cor. xiii. 11; 1 Thess. v. 16). Another joy in
the Christian life he knew not at all. — to, avra ^pd(f)eLv]
" Hie incipit de pseudo-apostolis agere," Calvin. After %ai'/3.
iv K. there is a 'pause ; Paul hreaks off. to, avrd has been
erroneously referred to %atp. eV k., and in that case the retro-
spective reference which Paul had in view is either not
explained at all (Bengel, Zachariae), or is believed to be found
in ii. 18 (van Hengel, Wiesinger), or in i. 27 f. (Matthies,
Eilliet), or in i. 27-ii. 16 (Storr). This view is at variance,
not indeed with the plural rd avrd (see, on the contrary,
Stallbaum, ad Flat. Apol. p. 19 D; Matzner, ad Antiph. p.
153 ; Kiihner II. 1, p. 60), but with the facts, first, that there is
no express summons whatever to Christian joyfidness gcncrcdly,
given in the previous portion of the epistle (not even in ii.
18) ; secondly, that so simple and natural a summons — which,
moreover, occurs again twice in iv. 4 — would certainly have
least of all given rise to an apology for repetition ; and
lastly, that ao-^aXe9, in accordance with its idea (loithout
danger), points not to the repetition of a summons of this hind,
but to a warning, such as follows immediately in the context/
The accusation of ■poverty of thought (Baur) is therefore all the
more groundless here. And as the altogether vague refer-
ence of Theodoret and Erasmus (A^motat.) to the mimerous
^ The expedient to which "Wiesinger has recourse is gratuitously introduced,
when he connects the x'^'P^'''^ '" *• more closely with the warning that follows by
Imagining that, in x"^'?- '" *■> ^^ detects already the idea on which the sequel is
based, namely the fTrixirt i> xvpia, iv. 1.
CHAP. III. 1. 141
exhortations contained in the epistle generally, or to the funda-
mental tone of the letter hitherto (Weiss), is simply at variance
with the literal import of the words, ra avrd cannot be inter-
preted as applicable to anything but the subsequent vxtrning
against the false teachers. This warning, however, has not
occurred previously, either at i. 1 5 f., or indirectly in i. 2 7, as
Liinemann thinks, or in i. 27-ii. 18, as Ewald assumes.
Hence many have caught at the explanation : " eadem
repetere, q^cae i^raesens dixeram " (Pelagius, Theodore of Mop-
suestia, so also Erasmus, Paraphr., Calvin, Beza, Balduin,
Estius, Calovius, Wolf, Schrader, and others ; de Wette unde-
cidedly). But this quae praesens dixeram is quite gratuitously
imported ; it must at least have been indicated by ra avra
Kal jp. vfi. or in some other way. The same objection applies
against Wieseler (Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 458 f.), who
takes ra avrd as contrasted with the oral communications,
which would be made to the readers hy Epaphroditus and
especially by Timothy. The only correct explanation, there-
fore, that remains is the assumption (which, however, is
expressly rejected already by Theodoret) that Paul had already
written what follows in an earlier epistle to the FMlippians ^
which is not preserved, and that he here repeats the same.
So Aegidius Hunnius, Haenlein, Bertholdt, Flatt, Kohler, in
the Annal. d. ges. Theol. 1834,111. 1, p. 18 f . ; Feilmoser,
Bleek, Jatho, Schenkel, Bisping, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann ; de
Wette undecidedly. It must remain uncertain, however,
whether this repetition covers ver. 2 only, or ver. 3 also, or a
still larger portion of the sequel ; as also, how far the repetition
is a literal one, which seems to be the case with ver. 2 from
its peculiar character. — oKv^pov^ irhsomc, matter of seruple
(Dem. 777. 5 ; Theocr. xxiv. 35; Bind. Ncm. xi. 28; Herodian
vi. 9, 7 ; Soph. 0. E. 834), comp. ovk oKvrjreov, Polyb. i. 14.
/, also Plat. Ep). II. 310 D : roKriOr} Xiyeiv ovre oKvrjcrco ovre
alaxwovfMat. — ao-^aXe?] safe, so that ye will the more firmly
rely thereon for the determination of your conduct. Comp.
Acts XXV. 26 ; Heb. vi. 19 ; Wisd. vii. 23 ; Plat. Ee2x 450 E ;
Ehacd. p. 100 DE; Dem. 372. 2, 1460. 15. Hofmann,
' Comp. also Creduer, Einl. I. p. 333.
142 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
without any precedent of usage, assigns to oKvrjpov tlie sense
of indolent cowardice, and takes aa^aXh as prudent, which
linguistically is admissible (Heind. ad Plat. Soph. p. 231. A),
but would be unsuitable to the v/xlv. The apostle wishes to
say, that the repetition is for himself not irksome {6kvo<;,
haesitatio), and is for his readers an aa(lia\6<; reKfi^piov (Eur.
Bhes. 94.) to be attended to.
Note. — This exegetical result, that, previously to our epistle,
Paid had already ivritten another to the Philiijpians^ is confirmed
by Polycarp,^ who, ad Phil. 3, says : roD /xaxaplov x. Ivoo^ov
UavXov, og ysvofisvog h v/jbTv xara vpoowrov rojv tots dvSpui'Trcav idioa^iv
axpilS^jg z. /Ss/Sa/wj tov 'Xspi aXriSiiag Xoyov, og zat d'TTuv v/j^Tv 'iypa-^iv
s'TTiaToXdg, slg ci,; Idv syzu'n'TriTc, duvri;riffds oiKBOo/MiTsdai x.t.X. It is
true that the phcr. in this passage {s'TnaToXug, iig cig) is usually
explained as referring to 07ie epistle (see Cotelerius in loc. ; and
Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. 11. p. 9 1 4 f. ; Hilgenfeld, Apost. Vdter, p.
210; J. B. Lightfoot, p. 138 f.), just as it is well known that
also in profane authors sV/ffroXa/ (comp. literae) is used of one
despatch (Thuc. i. 132. 6, viii. 39. 2), sometimes generally in a
generic sense as plural of the category, and sometimes specially
of commissions and orders. See Schaefer, Plut. VI. p. 446 ;
Blomf. and Stanl. ad Aesch. Prom. 3 ; Eettig, Quaest. Phil. II.
p. 37 f. But there is the less ground for assuming this con-
struction here, since doctrinal epistles, both in the N. T. and
also in the apostolic Fathers, are always described by the
singular when only one epistle is intended, and by the plural
(as in 1 Cor. xvi. 3 ; 2 Cor. x. 9-11 ; 2 Pet. iii. 16 ; comp. Acts
ix. 2, xxii. 5) if more than one are meant, — a practice from which
there is no exception (not even in 1 Cor. xvi. 3), as, in fact,
Polycarp, in regard to sttictoXti, elsewhere very definitely distin-
1 Ewald also acknowledges the composition of more than one epistle to the
Philippians, but finds traces of them not here, but at ii. 12, iii. 18.
^ I cannot at once accept the view that the passages in question, ch. iii. and
xi., are interpolated (Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 588 AT.). The interpolations
in the Ignatian epistles are at any rate of another kind. Besides, we have from
Polycarp only the one epistle ; and we have therefore no sufficient objec-
tive standard of comparison, in the absence of which a judgment founded on
taste is very uncertain. But even assuming the interpolation, we should still
have the result that the interpolator was acquainted with several epistles of Paul
to the Philippians. Otherwise he would have had no reason for using the p>lural,
especially as it was already distinction enough for the church to have had one
epistle addi'essed to it by the apostle.
CHAP. III. 1. 143
guishes between the singular and plural. See cli. xiii. : rac,
sTiCToXag 'lyvurlov ra; 'XZiMfhieag '/i/jlTv vv aurou xai cixy.ag oGag
i'iyjiiiv -jctp riiJjTv, ivsfjii-^a/jjiv v/ji^Tv, xaSojg svsTslXaadi' a'irivsg vTOTsray-
[xhat iJai rrj V/ffroX^ raur-/}. In order to prove that Polycarp
in eh. iii. did not mean more them one epistle to the Philippians,
an appeal has been made to ch. xi., where, in the Latin ver-
sion, which alone has been preserved, it is said : " Ego autem
nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi, in quibus laboravit beatus
Paulus, qui estis (non-genuine addition : laudati) in principio
epistolae ejus ; de vobis enim gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis,
quse Deum solae tunc cognoverant, nos autem nondum nove-
ramus." But cjnsfolae 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 originally his
epistles" that is, his letters of recommendation, in which phrase
allusion is made to 2 Cor. iii. 1 ff.^ The correctness of this
explanation, which Wieseler has substantially adopted, is cor-
roborated by the sequel: de vohis enim gloriatur, etc. — It is,
moreover, d priori intelligible and likely enough that Paul
should have corresponded with this church — which enjoyed his
most intimate confidence, and the founding of which marked
his entrance on his European labours — at an earlier period
than merely now, almost at the close of his life. And Poly-
carp was sufficiently close to the time of the apostle, not
merely to have inferred such a correspondence from our passage,
' Hofmann also explains the expression from 2 Cor. iii. 1 S. , but errs in taking
epistolae as the genitive; he makes this epistle to be the whole of the Christians
gathered by Paul, and thus represents Polycarp as declaring, in reference to the
Philip pian church, that it stands first in this epistle, because it is reckoned among
his earliest acquisitions. According to this interpretation, a vast aggregate of
churches woiild be depicted as one epistle, in which one church would stand
Avritten first, and others after if, each therefore being marked by name in the
order of its date. "What a different picture this would yield from tliat in'esented
in 2 Coi'. iii., and one, too, delineated 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 establi-shment of all the churches of Asia preceded it !
Hofmann's objection to our view, viz. that the present estis would be unsuit-
able, does not apply, since Polycarp realizes the state of matters as it stood with
the church in j^rincipio (Iv a/>;^^^7, i.e. in the earliest times of the gospel), as present ;
hence also he subsequently says gloriatur (not gloriahatar). The conception is
this : Paul in all the churches of that early Christian age boasts of tlie excellent
Philippian church, and so this church serves him as so many letters of recom-
mendation, which by his gloriari he communicates, and as it were reads before,
those other churches.
144 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
but to have had a historiccd knowledge of it (in opposition to
Hofmaun).
Ver. 2. This is now the ra avrd which he had previousl}^
written, and probably in the very same words. At least this
seems to be indicated by the peculiar expressions in them-
selves ; and not only so, but it serves also to explain the rela-
tion of contrast, which this vehement " fervor pii zeli " (Calvin)
presents to the tender and cordial tone of our epistle. That
lost epistle had probably expressed the apostle's mind at
length, and with all the warmth of controversy, for the
warning of his readers as to the Judaizing false teachers. How
entirely different is the tone in which, in the -pTesent epistle,
he speaks (i. 15 ff.) of teachers likewise of an anti-Pauline
type, and labouring, indeed, at that time in his immediate
neighbourhood! Comp., moreover, the remark after i. 18.
Those who refer ra avrd to the yaipere iv Kvplu), labour in
very different ways to establish a connection of thought with
/SXeVere k.t.X. ; as, for instance, Wiesinger : that Paul wished
to suggest, as a ground for the reiterated summons to joy in
the Lord, the danger which was threatening them from the
men described ; Weiss : that the readers were to learn e con-
frario, on what the true Christian joy was, and on what it was
not, based. — /SXeTrere] not : he on your guard against, etc.
(which would be /3\. dtro, Mark viii. 15, xii. 38), but as a
calling attention to : behold ! (1 Cor. i. 26, x. 18), with a view,
however, to ivarn the readers against these men as per-
nicious, by pointing to the forbidding shape in which they
present themselves. — tov<; Kvvas;~\ a term of reproach among
the Jews and the Greeks (frequently in Homer, who, however,
also uses it without any dishonourable reference ; see Duncan,
Lex. ed. Rost. p. 674); used by the latter specially to denote
impudence, furious boldness (Hom. //. viii. 289; Od. xvii.
248; Anth. Pal. ix. 302), snappishness (Pollux, On. v. 65),
low vulgarity (Lucian, Nigr. 22), malice and cunning (Jacobs,
ad Anthol. VI. p. 18), and the like, see generally Wetstein ;
used also among the Jews in similar special references (Isa.
Ivi. 10 f.; Deut. xxiii. 18 ; Eev. xxii. 15, ct al), and, because
CHAP. III. 2. 145
dogs were unclean animals, generally to denote the profane,
impure, wiJiohj (Matt. vii. 6 ; Ps. xxii. 1 7 ; Eev. xxii. 1 5 ;
Schoettgeu, Hor. I. p. 1145) ; hence the Gentiles were so desig-
nated (see on Matt. xv. 26). In this passage also i\\Q p)rofanc
nature and demeanour of the false teachers, as contrasted
with the holy character of true Christianity, is to be adhered
to as the point of comparison (Chrysostom : ovkLtl rcKva
^lovBalot . . . locrirep ol eOvLKol Kol rod ©eov Kal rov XptaroO
dWoTpLoi rjaav, ovrco koI ovtoc jeyovaai vvv). Any more special
reference of the term — as to shamelessness (Chrysostom and
many others, including Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald),
covetousncss (both combined by Grotius), snairpishncss (Eilliet,
and older expositors, following Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and
Pelagius), cnry, 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 hoivUng against Paul, — is not
furnished by the context, which, on the contrary, follows it up
with yet ^\iot\\Qr general designation, subjoining, namely, to that
of the low, unholy character (Kvva<;) that of the evil tvorhing :
Tov<i KUKov^ ipydr. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 13. The opposite: 2 Tim.
ii. 15 ; X.en. Mem. i. 2. 57. 'Epja^ovrat fxev, (prjatv^ dW e'lrl
KaKU), Kal dpyia^ iroWw '^etpov epyov, dva<sir(x)vre<i to, KakQ<;
Keipbeva, Chrysostom ; comp. Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophy-
lact. They, in fact, laboured m opposition to the fundamental
doctrine of justification by faith. — ttjv KaraTofiy]v\ the cutting
in pieces (Theophr. H. pi. iv. 8. 12), a word formed after the
analogy of irepiTOfxri, and, like the latter in ver. 3, used in a
concrete sense : those ivlio are cut in pieces ! A bitter piarono-
masia, 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, S2nritual circumcision,
which that of the body typified (see ver. 3; Eom. ii. 28 f.;
Col. ii. 1 1 ; Eph. ii. 1 1 ; Acts vii. 5 1). Comp. Gal. v. 1 1 f. In
the absence of this, their characteristic consisted simply in the
bodily mutilation, and that, from the ideal point of view which
Paul here occupies, was not ctVcwwicision, but concision ; whilst,
on the other hand, aVcumcision, as respected its moral idea, was
PHIL. ■ K
146 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIAI^S.
entirely independent of the corporeal operation, ver. 3. Comp.
Weiss, libl. Tlicol. p. 439, ed. 2. This qualitative distinction
between irepiT. and KaTor. 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 aholition of the legal circumcision as such brought about
through Christ (the end of the law, Eom. x. 4), — a presup-
position which gives to this antinomistic sarcasm its warrant.'"'
A description of idolatry, with allusion to Lev. xxi. 5, 1 Kings
xviii. 28, et al. (Storr, Flatt, J. B. Lightfoot ; comp. Beza), is
quite foreign to the context. It is erroneous also to discover here
any indication of a cutting off of hearts from the faith (Luther's
gloss), or a cutting in jjicccs of the church (Theodoret, Calvin,
Beza, Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, Michaelis, Zachariae, and
others), against which the necessary (comp. ver. 3) passive sig-
nification of the word (not cutters in pieces, but cut in piieces) is
decisive. — The thrice repeated ^Xiirere belongs simply to the
eirifiovT) of earnest e7notion (Dissen, ad Bern, de cor. p. 315 ;
Buttmann, Ncut Gr. p. 341 [E. T. 398]), so that it points to
the sam.e dangerous men, and does not, as van Hengel miscon-
ceives, denote three different classes of Jewish opponents, viz.
the apostate, the heretical, and the directly inimical. The
passage quoted by him from Philostr., Vit. Soph. ii. 1, does not
bear upon the point, because in it the three repetitions of
€^\ey\re are divided by fiev . . . te. Weiss also refers the three
designations to three different categories, namely : (1) the
unconverted heathen, with their immoral life ; (2) the self-
seeking C/msifmw, teachers, i. 15-17; and {3) the unhelieving
' Luther's works abound in sarcastic paronomasiae. Thus, for instance, in
the preface to his works, instead of i)ecret and Decretal, he has written
"Z>>-ecket" and " Z^recketal " [Germ. Dreck = dregs, filth] ; the Legenden he
calls Liigenden, the JuriapcrltoH he terms Jurisperditos ; also in proper names,
such as Schwenkfeld, whom he called " Stenlcfeld." In ancient authors, comp.
what Diog. L. vi. 2, 4 relates of Diogenes : rh EvxXi'i'Sou ff^^oxhv 'ixtyi x"^'^^,
Triv Ss nXaTiivos 'Siarpijitn* xararpifi^v. Thuc. vi. 76. 4 : oiia a^uviriaTipov, xaxn^u-
viTUTipov Ss. See also Ast, ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 276 ; Jacobs, Delect, ep'ujr.
p. 188. For the Latin, see Kiihner, ad Cic. Tmc. p. 291, ed. 3.
CHAP. III. s. 147
Jews, with their carnal conceit. But the first and third cate-
gories introduce alien elements, and the third cannot be
identified with those mentioned at i. 15-17, but must mean
persons much more dangerous. In opposition to the whole
misinterpretation, see Huther in the Mccklenh. Zeiischr. p.
626 ff. All the three terms must characteiize ooie class of
men as in three aspects deserving of detestation, namely the
Judaizing false teachers. As is evident from t. Kararoixi^v and
ver. 3 ff., they belonged to the same fundamentally hostile party
against which Paul contends in the Epistle to the Galatians.
At the same time, since the threefold repetition of the article
pointing them out may be founded upon the very oiotoriety
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 Borne mentioned
in i. 15 ff. (Heinrichs), because in the passage before us a
line of teaching must be thought of which was expressly and
in principle anti-Pauline, leading back into Judaism and to
legal righteousness ; and also because the earnest, demonstra-
tive /SXeVere, as well as acr^aXe? (ver. 2), can only indicate a
danger which was visibly and closely threatening the readers.
It is also certain that these opponents could not as yet have
succeeded in finding adherents among the Philippians ; for if
this had been the case, Paul would not have omitted to cen-
sure the readers themselves (as in the Epistle to the Galatians
and Second Corinthians), and he would have given a very dif-
ferent shape generally to his epistle, which betrays nothing but
a church as yet undivided in doctrine. His language directed
against the false teachers is therefore merely loarning and
prccaviiono/ry, as is also shown in ver. 3.
Ver. 3. Justification of the preceding r. KUTaTo/xrfv ; 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. — rjixd^'] with emphasis : ive,
148 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
not they. The Kajaroix-q being not the unconverted Jews, but
Christian Judaizers, the contrasted 97/u,et? cannot mean the Chris-
tians generally (Weiss), but only those who, in the apostle's
sense, were true and right Christians, whose more definite
characterization immediately follows. The r]iieh are the
^Iapar}\ Tov @6ov of Gal. vi. 15 f , the members of the people
of God in the sense of the Pauline gospel, and not merely Paul
and the true teachers of the gospel (Hofmann), — a restriction
which the exclusiveness of the predicate, especially furnished
as it is with the article, does not befit ; in iii. 1 7 the context
stands otherwise. — r) rrreptrofiij] If this predicate belongs to lis,
not to those men, then, in regard to the point of circumcision,
nothing remains for the latter but the predicate Kararofj,'^ I
As the J7yLtet9, among whom the readers also were included,
were for the most part uncirctimciscd (Gal. ii. 9, iii. ; Eph.
ii. 11), it is clear that Paul here takes irepiTOfir] purely in
the antitypical spiritual sense, according to which the cir-
cumcised are those who, since the reception of baptism, are
regenerated hy the Holy Spirit, and therefore members of the
true people of God; the investiture with their new moral
condition is typically ^rrfigurcd by the legal bodily TrepiTo/i/j
of the Jewish theocracy. Comp. Rom. ii. 29, iv. 10 f.; Eph.
ii. 11 ; Col. ii. 11 ; Acts vii. 51. AVhether the bodily circum-
cision ivas present or not, and whether, therefore, the subjects
were Jewish or Gentile Christians, was in that case matter of in-
difference, 1 Cor. vii. 19 ; Gal. iii. 28, v. 6. Comp. the further
amplification of the thought in Barnab. Ep. 9. — ol irvevfian
&60V K.r.X.] We vjho serve through the Spirit of God, in con-
trast to the external, legal Xarpeca (Kom. ix. 4).^ Comp. Heb.
ix. 10, 14; Eom. xii. 1 f. With this Xarpela, wrought by
the Holy Spirit,^ there takes place on the part of man
(comp. Eom. i. 9), but in virtue of that very working of the
Holy Spirit, the worship which is requiied in John iv. 24.
' True Cliristiaiiity is, according to Paul also, the true continuation of Judaism,
and that not luerely of the promise given in it, but also of the law ; the latter,
however, according to the idea of the ^x-/ifu(ris, Matt. v. 17, in which the letter
has yielded to the spirit.
^ If we adopt the reading -rviv/jocri ©eJ, 'riivft.ot.Tt must be understood as in Rom.
i. 9. See Itciche, Commtnt. crit. p. 229 ft'.
CHAP. III. 4. 149
The article ol extends also to the two participles which follow ;
and the arthrous participles {quippe qui colimus, etc.) contain
the experimental proof that the 77/^649 are the irepirojxri. The
dative irvevixan denotes neither the standard (van Hengel) nor
the object (Hilgenfeld), which latter view would amount to
the conception, foreign to the N. T., of a worship of the Holy-
Spirit — but is instrumental, expressing the inward agent (Kom.
V. 5, viii. 14 f., ct al.) : vis'piritus divini (Eom. viii. 13, et al.).
On the absolute Xarpeveiv, to render divine vjorship, comp. Lulce
ii. 37 ; Acts xxvi. 7 ; Heb. ix. 9, x. 2 ; Eom. ix. 4 ; 3 Esdr.
iv. 54. — Kav^cofi. iv X. 'I.] and who glory in Christ Jesus (as
Him through whom alone we have attained righteousness, etc.,
see ver. 9 ; comp. Gal. vi. 14), not in our own privileges and
legal performances, as those false teachers do, who place their
confidence in what is fleshly, i.e. in that which belongs to
material human nature and has nothing in common with the
divine blessings of the Christian (such as circumcision, descent,
outward observance of the law, comp. vv. 4-6). Hence the
contrast : koI ovk iv aapvl 'TTeTroiOore'^, with which the disposi-
tion of mind contrary to the Kav^daOat iv X. 'I. (from which
disposition the Kav^da-Oai, opposed to that Christian Kavx^daOai,
of itself results) is negatived ; so that tliis contrast is j)rcgnant,
belonging, however, by way of antithesis, to the second state-
ment, and not containing a separate third one (Hofmann).
If K. OVK iv a. TreTT. were merely a more precise definition of
^purport added to Kax)')(. iv X. 'I. (Weiss), it must have been
added without /cat. As to ovk in the passage, referring to
concrete persons and a definite fact, and negativing not merely
the iv o-apKi (Hofmann), but the actual position eV <t. 'jreiroid.,
see Winer, p. 451 £ [E. T. 609] ; Baeumlein, Partik. p.
276 f.
Ver. 4. By the ovk iv aapKl ireTroid., which he had just
used, Paul finds himself led to his own personal position ; for
he was, in fact, the proper organ of the anti-Judaizing ten-
dency expressed in ver. 3, and the real object against which
the whole conflict with it was ultimately directed. Hence, by
the words ovk iv aapKl ireTroiO. he by no means intends to
concede tliat he is destitute of that •yreTroiOrja-i'i which was
150 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
founded on externals ;^ no, in this respect also he has more to
show than others, down to ver. 6.^ So no one might say
that he was despising what he himself did not possess. — The
classical Kaiirep with the participle (only used here by Paul;
and elsewhere in the K T. only in Heb. v. ^, et al. ; 2 Pet.
i. 12), adds to the adversative sentence a limiting 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 (iyco).^
If, following the Homeric usage, he had sejjaratcd the two
particles, he would have written : koI iyco irep. ; if he had
expressed himself ncgativchj, he would have said : ovSiirep iyco
ov/c e'^oiv. — The confidence also in flcsli, i.e. in such circum-
stances as belong to the sphere of the materially human, is in
e')(wv (comp. 2 Cor. iii. 4) conceived as a possession ; he has
this confidence, namely, from his personal position as an
Israelite — a standpoint which, laying out of view for the
moment his Christian transformation, he boldly adopts, in
order to measure himself with his Judaistic opponents on their
own ground of proud confidence, and thereupon in ver. 7 ff.
yet again to abandon this standpoint and to make those
Israelitish advantages vanish into nothing before the light of
his vital position as a Christian. Hence the 7re7roLdT]ai<;, his
possession of which he in the first instance urges, is not Jicluciae
argumentum (Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and others, includ-
ing Piatt, Hoelemann, and Weiss) ; nor is the ijosscssion of it
to be viewed as something which he mifjht have (Storr, Eilliet,
Matthies, Ewald) ; nor is it to be referred to the pre-Christian
period of the apostle's life (van Hengel). The latter is also the
view of Hofmann, who holds e')(wv (and then Sicokwv also) as the
imperfect participle, and gives to the whole passage the involved
misinterpretation ; tJicct Kaiirep introduces a protasis, the apodosis
' Kx) Iv ffccfKi, namely, in addition to the higher Christian relations, on which
I place my confidence.
^ Only a comma is to be placed after -vivoi^ioTis in ver. 3 ; but after h ffapxl in
ver. 4 a full stop ; and after a//.t/yc-rTi!; in ver. 6 another full stop. So also
Lachmann and Tischendorf, In opposition to Hofmann's confusing construction
of the sentence, see below.
' Comp. Kiihner, IL 1, p. 246. 8.
CHAP. III. 5, 6. 151
of wliich follows vjith dWd in ver. 7. In accordance with this
view, ver. 4 is supposed to mean: "Although I possessed a con-
fidence, and that, indeed, based on such matters as are flesh, 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 uXkd of the apodosis is used indeed after Kalrot
(with, finite tense; Stallbaum, ad Flat. Fhaed. p. 68 E; Farm.
p. 128 C), but not after the common Kai'rrep with parti-
ciple, attaching itself to a governing verb ; secondly, because
Kal before ev aapKi means nothing else than also, which does
not suit the interpretation of Hofmann, who desires to force
upon it the here inappropriate sense, and that indeed ; thirdly,
because the present BoKet presupposes the pixscnt sense for
e^wv also ; and lastly, because with e'yoo [xaWov the pircscnt (in
accordance with the preceding SoKel), 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 ! — xt? . . . dWo'i] quite generally : any other loerson,
but the intended application to the above-mentioned Judaizers
was obvious to the reader. See the sequel. The separation
by hoKel lays all the stronger stress on the tiV — So/cet] not :
" thinks to lie able to confide" (de Wette and many others);
nor yet: "si quis alius vidctur" (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
alloivs himself to think, if he 2^^^^'sumes. Just in the same
way, as in the passage parallel also in substance. Matt. iii. 9.
Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 16. — iyo) fjiaXXov] sc. Soko) ireTr. iv aap/ci,
1 for my part presume it still more. This mode of expression
implies a certain boldness, defiance; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 21.
Vv. 5, 6. Predicates of the iyco, by which that iyoo fiaXXov
is justified. — If those Judaizers were, as may be inferred from
our passage, partly proselytes (to these the irepn. oKrarjix. stands
in contrast), partly persons whose Jewish descent was not so
noble and pure as that implied in e'/c <y£vov<;. . . . 'E/Spaicov, and
if they could not boast of any such laiv-strictness, zealous
activity, and righteousness, as is described in Kara v6/jlov . . .
d/jiefi7rro<; ; and if, on the other hand, there were found con-
152 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPLVNS.
joined in the case of Paul the elements here adduced of ancient
theocratic legitimacy and perfection ; the eyoD fiaWov in
ver. 4 was completely made good. — 'jrepcrofxr} oKrarjfj,.'] in
respect to circumcision an cighth-day-one, not older, as were the
proselytes who were only circumcised at a later period of life.
The eighth-day character in the relation specified by TrepiTOfjif}
is conceived as a quality of the persons concerned, which dis-
tinguishes them from those circumcised later.-"- The reading
wepiToiirj as nominative (some min. and Fathers, Erasmus,
Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, ]\Iill, Bengel, Mattliies, Heinrichs,
and others, also Elz. 1624, 1633, not 1641), so that it would
stand in the concrete sense {eircumcisiis) , is erroneous, because
this usage occurs only collectively. — e'/c j6vov<; 'Icrp.] that is, a
descendant of Jacob, not, therefore, possibly of Idumaean blood.
The theocratic name 'Icrp. corresponds entirely with the design
of the passage. Comp. on Eph. ii. 12. On what follows,
comp. 2 Cor. xi. 22; Rom. xi. 1. — ^uX?79 Beviafi.] therefore
not, possibly, an Ephraimite (Ezra iv. 1) ; a climactic more
precise definition of the evyeveia ; €v<yevr)<; jap rj (pvat^ ku^
euyevoov, Soph. Fhil. 862 (874). Eor its fuller exhibition
Paul finally specifies the last feature of his lineage : 'E^pala
i^ 'E/3p., that is, ct Ilehreio horn of Hehreiv parents, so that his
mother also was a Hebrew woman. His lineage is not carried
further back in respect to hoth parents, because it was not the
custom to trace back the genealogy of the wives. Inappro-
priate to the context is the rendering of Michaelis, following
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact : " one spcalcing
Hebrew, born of HohiLQ^^ -speaking parents." It is also erro-
neous, following the Greek Fathers, to take e^ 'EI3p. of the
tola majorum series (Beza, Grotius, Storr, Matthies, Baum-
garten-Crusius, and others), because this was after the two
previously specified points self-evident. If, among his an-
cestors, Paul had had one who was a non-Hebrew, he would
not have been descended from Jacob and Benjamin, but from
the non-Hebrew and his forefathers. For instances of ex-
pressions quite similar to 'E/3p. e| 'E^p., used to denote the
' For instances of the personal use of such nomina dialia, see especially
Wetstein on John xi. 39 ; comp. generally Kiihner, II. 1, p. 234 f.
CHAP. III. 5, 6. 153
identity, as conditioned by birth, of a man's position with that
of his parents, see Wetstein and Kypke ; they occur very
frequently in classic authors. — Kara vojjlov /c.t.X.] After his
Jewish evyiueia there now follows his distinguished personal
position in Judaism, set forth in a threefold climactic grada-
tion : (1) III respect of the laiv (of Moses) a Pharisee. Comp.
Acts xxvi. 5, xxii. 6. The Pharisees stood in the closest and
strictest relation to the law, as they with their traditions
were regarded as the most orthodox expositors, defenders, and
observers of it. The interpretation of vofiop, not in its habitual
historic sense, but generally as regular rule (Beza) or dis-
ciplina {aipeai^) (Castalio, Wolf, Grotius, Storr, Tleinrichs,
Eheinwald, 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, hiicaioa.
T. ev vofjiw. (2) In rcspcet of zeal (zealous maintenance and
championship of the law-religion, 1 Mace. ii. 58 ; Actsxxi. 20 ;
Gal. i. 14), a perseeutor of the church. Comp. Gal. i. 13 f.
The present participle is used as a substantive, comp. on Gal. i.
23. "What Paul, to his deep grief, had heen (1 Cor. xv. 8 f. ;
1 Tim. i. 13), he, with a bitter recalling of his former dis-
tinction in Judaism, throws, by way of confronting the Jewish
zealots, into the scale, as a characteristic predicate not yet
extinct. And precisely thus, unaccompanied by any irore as in
Gal. i. 23, it carries from the standpoint to which he has now
attained very strong weight (in opposition to Hofmann, who
holds the present sense to be impossible here). (3) In respect
to righteousness, which is grounded on the laio, having hecome
blameless (ii. 15), having carried it so far (not: having borne
myself so, as Hofmann renders it; comp. on ii. 15), that
human judgment finds nothing in me to blame in this respect !
That which is here denoted by Zlk. rj iv vo[iw is not substan-
tially different from hiK. rj iic vofiov in ver. 9 ; comp. Pom.
X. 5. It has its basis in the law, so far as it consists in the
accordance of its nature with the character and the rules of
that institute (Gal. iii. 11, v. 4), and proceeds from the law,
so far as it is produced by the precepts of the latter which
man follows. In opposition to the correlation "with ver. 9
154 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
de Wette interprets : " the rigliteousness valid in the state
of law (comp. Eom. ii. 12)." Calvin appropriately observes
that Paul means " totam justitiam legis," but " communi Jiomi-
num existimatione ;" that it is not, therefore, the real moral
fulfilment of the law, but its justitia externa literalis. Comp.
J. Miiller, v. d. Silnde, I. p. 59, ed. 5.
Ver. 7. Now, with the antithetic aX\d, the apostle comes
again to his real standpoint, far transcending any ireTroiOevaL
iv aapKi, and says : No ! everything that ivas gain to me, etc.
— uTLva'] quaecunriue, the category of the matters specified in
vv. 5 and 6.^ The emphasis is to be placed on this word;
comp. ravra subsequently. — rjv /jlol KepBrjj fioc is not the
dative of opinion (Erasmus, Beza, and many others, including
Heinrichs, Eheinwald, Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette, Hof-
mann ; comp. van Hengel, who takes KepSr] as lucra o'pinata) ;
but such things were to the apostle in his pre-Christian state
really gain (Kara crdpKa). By means of them he was within
the old theocracy put upon a path which had already brought
him repute and influence, and promised to him yet far greater
honours, power, and wealth in the future ; a career rich in gain
was opened up to him. The jplurcd KepSij denotes the various
advantages dependent on such things as have been mentioned.
Frequently used also in the classical M'riters. — ravra]
emphatically : these very things. — Bia tov X.] for the sake of
Christ, who had become the higher interest of my life. Paixl
explains himself more particularly in vv. 8, 9, explanations
which are not to be here anticipated. — ^r^p^iav] as harm, that
is, as disadvantageous (the contrast to KepSo<i ; comp. Plat, de
lucri cup. p. 226 E, Leg. viii. p. 835 B), because, namely,
they had been impediments to the conversion to Christ, and
that owing to the false moral judgment and confidence attach-
ing to them. Comp. Form. Ccr.c. p. 708; Calvin on ver. 8,
This one disadvantage he has seen in everything of which he
* Tlie later heretical enemies of the law appealed to this passage, in which also,
in their view, the Icau was meant to be included. On tlie other hand, Chrj'sostora
and his successors asserted that the law was meant ojibj in comparison with
Christ. Estius, however, justly observes : "non de ipsa lege loquitur, sed de
jzisiiiia, quae in lege est. "
CHAP. lU, 8, 155
is speaking ; hence the plural is not again used here as pre-
viously in Kephy^. The i]'yr}iji,ai {'perfect), however, has occurred,
and is an accomplished fact since his conversion, to whicli the
apostle here glances hack. On rjr^eZa-dai ^rj/xiau, comp. Stnrz,
Zcx. Xcn. II. p. 454; Lucian, Lexiph. 24 ; on the relation of
the singular to the plural Kephrj, Eur. Cycl. 311 : iroXkolaL
KepZrj TTOvripa ^rjfitav rjixei'^aTo.
Ver. 8. 'AWd is the climactic hut, still, much more, giving a
corrective reference of the sense, signifying that with the pre-
vious ariva . . . ^i]fiiap there has not yet been enough said.
Comp. on 2 Cor. "vii. 11. In the /jI€p ovv it is implied, that
" fiev rem praesentem confirmet, ovv autem conclusionem ex
rebus ita comparatis couficiat," Klotz, acl Dcvar. p. 663,
Hence aXka jxev ovv : at quiclem igitur. The Kal before rj^ov-
fxai (after dWa, fi. ovv) serves also to help the climactic sense,
oidhiclding what has been said previously : etiam, i.e. acleo. It
is consequently to be explained : hut, accordingly, I am even of
ojpinion that everything (not merely what was meant by aTiva
in ver. 7) is a disadvantage. It is clear, withal, from the
following hid to virepe-^ov k.tX. that irdvra is meant indeed
ivithout ixstriction, of all things, goods, honours, etc. (comp.
also Hofmann), but in so far as they are not made suhordinate to
the Jcnowledgc of Christ. The explanation of others, according
to which dWd /xev ovv is intended to oppose the idrcscnt 7770O-
liat by way of correction to the perfect rjyTjfiai (Calvin and
others, including Winer, p. 412 [E. T. 552], and the ex-
planation hitherto given by me), is incorrect, because T^yTj/jLai,,
and not the aorist rjyrjo-dfMtjv, was employed previously, and the
perfect already involves the continuance of the opinion in the
present, so that no contrast of the te7ises would logically be
elicited. The climactic contrast lies rather in the fact that the
second rjyetaOac ^rjixlav is a much more comprehensive one than
the first, in fact, one ivithout excej^tion {irdvTa). — hid to
vTrepi-^ov /c.t.X] on account of the surpassingness of the knovdedge
of Christ ; that is, because this knowledge, to which I have
attained, is a possession which excels in value everything else ;
the eminent quahty of a possession attained is the ground {hid)
for estimating other possessions according to their relation to
156 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
that one, and consequently, if tliey stand to the latter in a rela-
tion hindersome to us, for looking upon them no longer as some-
thing advantageous, but as hurtful. As to the neuter adjective
used as a substantive with the genitive, in order to the more
prominent setting forth of the attribute, see Bernhardy, p.
155 f. ; Winer, p. 220 [E. T. 294]. — Xpiarb^ 'Irjaov^ 6 Kvpio^
[MOV ; this is the fundamental sum of the wliole contents of
Christian knowledge. This saving knowledge is the necessary
intelligence of faith (comp. on John viii. 32), and grows with
i\\Q cxiKriencc of faith (ver. 10; Eph. iii. 16 ff). — hi ov] for
the sake of wliom, i.e. for the sake of possessing Him ; comp.
afterwards "va Xpiarov . . . avrw. — ra Trdv7a\ the whole, hot
general like irdvra previously (Hofmann), but : which I
possessed, vv. 5-7. This more precise definition by the article
results from i^TjfiicodTjv, in connection with which the aorist
is to be noted, by which Paul denotes that great historical
turning-point in his life, the event of his conversion ; through
that event he has lost all his (pre-Christian) valued possessions,^
and thenceforth he lias them no onore. Luther erroneously
interprets: "considered as harm;" and the emotion and force
of the expression are only weakened by the frequently given
refiexi'ce sense (see Beza, Calvin, Heinrichs, Elatt, Hoelemann,
van Hengel, and many) : / lutve made myself lose, — a meaning,
besides, which cannot be shown to belong to the passive form
of the aorist of this verb (not even in Luke ix. 25). The future
passive form ^7]fxLO)07](TOfjt,ab (see Klihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 9.
12, Thuc. iii. 40. 2) is invariably darnno ajficiar. — koX -t^'yovfiat
/c.T.X.] 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 hi ov k.t.X. ;
hence Be ou r. nr. i^rj/j,. is not, with van Hengel, to be put in a
parenthesis. Paul had hccome loser of all these things for
Christ's sake, and he holds them as not worthy of possession,
' Observe here, also, the shrewdly contrived correspondence of ^jj^/av in ver.
7 f., and iX,riiJi.iuS-/iv in ver. 8, in which tlie former expresses the idea of damnum,
detrimenlum, and the latter : I Jiave become loser of. It might be reproduced
in Latin : " etiam censeo omnia dctrimentum {i.e. detrimentosa) esse. . . propter
quem omnium detrimenium {i.e. jacturam) pasaus sum censeoc[ue ea esse quis-
quilias. "
CHAP. III. 0, 157
but as ruhhish ! (TKvjBaXov} refuse (such as sweepings, dung,
husks, and the like) ; Ecclus. xxvii. 4 ; Phit. Mot. p. 352 D ;
and see Wetstein ad loc. ; frequently in the Anthol., see Jacobs,
Ach. Tat. p. 522, ad Anthol. VII. p. 173, IX. p. 208. Conip.
the similar figurative expressions TrepiKadap/xa and Trepiyln'j/xa,
1 Cor. iv, 13. — tva X. KepS.] The design in the rjyov/jLai, ctkv^.
elvai : in order to gain Christ, not the aim of to, iruvTa i^Tjfxico-
Ot}v (Hofmann), there being no reason for such a retrospective
reference. The gaining of Christ, i.e. the appropriation of Him
by means of the fellowship brought about through faith, is
that, which for him is to take the place of those former KepZrj
which he has lost, and so he looked to this gain in his rj<yov/j,ao
cKv^aka elvat, ; it is present to his view as the one and
highest gain at which he has to aim. It is true that Paul
has Christ already long ago (Gal. ii. 20 ; Eph. iii. 17 ; 2 Cor.
xiii. 3) ; nevertheless, this KepSaiveiv is from its nature a
development, the completion of which still lies before him.
Comp. ver. 1 2 if.
Ver. 9. Kal eupeOo) iv avrw] and to Tje found in Him. The
emphasis, which previously lay upon XpiaTov, is laid not upon
iv avrS (Hofmann), but upon the evpedo) placed first for that
reason, and introducing a new feature of the relation aimed
at, annexing to the (subjective) gaining of Christ the (objec-
tive) moidding of life corresponding to it. The apostle desires
to he found in Christ, as in the element of his life ; by this he
means (comp. Ignatius, Uj^h. 11) the whole perceptible mani-
festation of his Christian being and nature ; so that evp. must
neither be limited to the Judicium Dei (Beza, comp. Flatt),
nor taken as sim (Grotius and others). Calvin erroneously
makes evpeOio active : Paulum renuntiasse omnibus quae
habebat, 7it recuperaret in Christo. — /jltj e'^cov /c.r.X.] Specific
modal definition to evp. iv avTui : so that I, in accordance with
this design, mai/ not have, etc. Van Hengel erroneously
connects (Lachmann, also, and Tischendorf liave omitted the
comma after avrw) fi-q e^wv k.t.X. immediately with evp. iv
avTM • et deprehendar in commimione ejus non mcam qiialem-
' Not to be derived from toI; xvir) (Hkxhv, quod canibus projicitur, but from
fy-up (<rxce;). See Lobeck, Pathol, p. 92.
158 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
cunquc habere 2^'^0'bitatem. Thus, indeed, eV avrS would be
utterly superfluous ! The subjective negation fit] flows from
the conception of design (Jva), see Baeumlein, FartiJc. p. 295;
Buttmann, Ncut. Gr. p. 302 [E. T. 351]; and e')(wv is the
simple hctbcns, ijosscssing, not : liolding fast (am Ende, Ehein-
wald, Baumgarten-Crusius). — eyu-^y htK. rrjv e'/c v6fjLov'\ See on
ver. 6 ; comp. Eom. x. 3. It is the righteousness acquired as
a self-achievement (e/ijyi^), which proceeds from the law by
means of a justifying compliance with it (Eom. ii. 13). As
to the nature of this righteousness, and the impossibility of
attaining it, comp. Gal. ii. 16, iii. 10; Eom. iii. 19 f., iv. 4,
vii. 7 ff., ix. 31, et al. — Tr]v Blcl Trlar. Xpiarov] contrast to
e[xrjv: that procured by faith in Christ^ (as the causa apprc-
hendens). The causa cfficiens is God (His grace, see Eph. ii. 8) ;
hence, for the complete exhaustion of the matter, ttjv e/c @eov
BcK. is added, in which e'/c 0eov, correlative to the preceding
e/c vo/xov, expresses the causal issuing from God. As to the
ivay in which this i/c Oeov takes place, namely, by God's
imputing faith as righteousness,^ see Eom. i. 17, iii. 24 £,
iv. 3 ff ; 2 Cor. V. 19 ; Gal. iii. 6. — eVt tt} Tricrret] on the
ground of faith (Acts iii. 16), added at the end with solemn
emphasis, and dependent on ep^wi', which is again to be sup-
plied after aXKa. So also Weiss. The repetition of e')(aiv
after iirl t. Trlaret, which Hofmann feels the want of in this
explanation, would be simply superfluous and clumsy. ^EttI t.
■77. is usually attached to hiKaioavvrjv (" justitiamsuperstructam
fidei," Hoelemann, Wiesinger), some having taken eVt as " in
fide" (Vulgate, Calvin), or in fide sitam (Castalio) ; others as
" 23er fidem" (Beza, Grotius) ; others, for the sake of faith (de
Wette) ; others, ufon the ■ condition of faith (Storr, Flatt,
Matthies, EiUiet, van Hengel, J. B. Lightfoot). But it may
be urged against this connection, first, that, in accordance with
the previous definitions, we could not but expect the repeti-
' On the genitive of the object with rrlirns, comp. i. 27. Against taking it as
the genitive auctoris, see on Rom. iii. 22.
2 In this passage also, therefore, justification by faith is the basis and presup-
position of further Christian development up to the blessed consummation, ver.
11. Comp. Kostlin, in the Jahrb. i. Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 121 f.
CHAP. III. 10. 159
tion of the article ; secondl)^ that hiKaiova-Oai with eV/ nowhere
occurs in the N. T. ; and lastly, that SiKaiocrvvr] in its quality
as righteousness of faith was already distinctly designated by
rrjv Bia Triar. X., so that the same attribute of it would be
expressed tivice, and, on the other hand, the e-^wv which is
to be repeated after aXkd (the basis of which is still eVt t.
TT.) would be ivithout any more j)recise definition. In oppo-
sition to Hofmann, who makes eVl r. ivLcnet belong to the
following infinitive clause, see on ver. 10.
Ver. 10. Telic definition of the relation expressed by fxr]
e-^cov K.T.X. in ver. 9. Paul has not the righteousness of the
law, but the righteousness of faith, in order to hioiv, etc. This
knowledge would fail him if, on the contrary, instead of the
righteousness of faith, he had that of the law. So he reverts
to a more detailed illustration of to virepe-^ov Trj<; yvcoaeco^ X.,
ver. 8, expressing, in the first place, again generally the great
2)ersoncd contents of the knowledge accruing from the righteous-
ness of faith (tov yvcovat avTov), and next, more particularly,
the most important — especially to the apostle in his position
infinitely important — matters which were its objects {rrjv Buva-
fjLLv K.T.X.), developing them from his own richest experience,
which had thus brought home to his deepest consciousness the
virepe'^ov irj^ Yfcocrew? X. The rod yvcovac might also be con-
ceived as dependent on evpeOco iv avrw (Wiesinger, Schnecken-
burger, Schenkel) ; but the more precise definition of this
evpeOdo if avrS by /u,?) e')(^wv k.t.X. is so important, earnest, and
solemn, that it most naturally carries with it also the state-
ment of aim which follows. Chrysostom joins eVt tt} iriarei
to ver. 10: ri Si iarlv eTrl ttj Trtarei rov jvcovac aiirov ; apa
Bta TriVrew? 97 7i'wcri9, koI irla-reco'; dvev 'yvQjvac avTov ovk eari.
So also Theodoret and Erasmus, and recently Hofmann (comp.
also his Sclirifibevj. I. p. 618), who, in doing so, takes eVt in
and by itself correctly as on tlie rjroimd of faith. But such
cases of emphatic prefixing, while they are certainly found
with Iva (see on Gal. ii. 10; Eph. iii. 18), are not found
before, the genitive of the infinitive with the article, which
represents the expression with 'iva, but in such infinitive
clauses only leiwecn article and infinitive ; hence Paul would
160 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPLiNS.
have written rov firl rfj iriaTei '^vwvai. Comp. Eom. viii. 1 2 ;
1 Cor. xvi. 4. Hofraann improperly appeals, not any longer
indeed to Kev. xii. 7, but, doing violence to the position of the
words in the LXX., to 2 Sam. vi. 2 ; Isa. x. 32. According
to Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and others, the genitive
rov <yv. is meant to depend on ry TrlaTet ; " describit vim ct
natur am field, quod scilicet sit Christi cognitio" (Calvin). But
7ria-TL<i is never joined with the genitive of the infinitive with
the article ; and, besides, not the nature, but the object of
the faith (ver. 9) would be denoted by the genitive (Col.
ii. 12 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13, ct al.). Nor is rov <yva)vai avrov to be
regarded as parallel with Xva X. KepSija-co k. evp. iv avru>
(Estius, Storr, Heinrichs, and others, including Eheinwald,
Hoelemann, Eilliet, de Wette, Winer), since it is in itself
arbitrary to despise the appropriate dependence on what im-
mediately precedes, and to go back instead to rjyov/jLat (xkv-
^aXa elvac ; and since in iva Xpiarov KepS. tc. evpeOco iv avrw
two elements are given, a subjective and an objective one, so
that thus there would be presented no parallel corresiJonding
with the subjective rov f^vwvai k.tX. Moreover, Paul is in the
habit of introducing two parallel clauses of design with a
double ha (Eom. vii. 13; Gal. iii. 14; 2 Cor. ix. 3). — The
r/vwvaL, which both conditions the faith and also in fuller
development follows it (see on ver. 8), is not the discursive,
or generally theoretical and speculative knowing, but the
inwardly salutary, experimental becoming - acquainted - with
(" qui exjjerius non fuerit, non iniellir/ct," Ansclm), as is plain
from rr]v hvva[xiv k.tX. Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 8, viii. 2 ; Gal. iv. 9,
ct cd. ; frequently so used in John. See also Weiss, hibl. Thcol.
p. 421, ed. 2. — Koi ttjv Bvvafxiv t?)? avacrr. avrov Kal r.
Koivwv. r. Trad, avr.] and (that is, and especially) the poiver of
His resurrection and the fcllowshii) of His sufferings. The
Bvva/j,. r. avaar. avr. is not the power hy lohieh He has heen
raised (Vatablus, Grotius ; comp. Matthies), which would be
quite unsuitable to the context, but the power which the resur-
rection of Christ has, its vis ct cfficacia in respect to believers.
The special point that Paul has in view, is supplied by the
context through what is said immediately before of the
CHAP. III. 10. 161
righteousness of faith, to which rod 'yvoovat k.tX. refers. He
means the poiverful 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 w^iom the resurrection of the Lord brings the constant
energetic certainty of his reconciliation procured by Jesus'
death and the completion of eternal life (Eom. viii. 1 1 ;
1 Cor. vi. 14 ; Col. iii. 1 ff. ; Phil. iii. 21). Comp. also Eom.
viii. 34, where this Svvafii^ t?)? avaar. is triicvijjJumt in the
apostle. As a matter of course, this power, in virtue of which
the resurrection of Christ, according to 1 Cor. xv. 17, Eom.
iv. 25, might be described as " complementum redemtionis"
(Calvin), is already in regeneration experimentally known,
as is Christ generally (avrov) ; but Paul speaks from the con-
sciousness that every element of the regenerate life, which
has TTjv €K ©€ov hiKatoavvrjv ein rfj iTiarei, is an ever neio
perception of this power. The view which understands it of
the moral power of awakening (Beza and others, also van
Hengel; comp. Eilliet), according to Eom. vi. 4, Col. ii. 12,
or the living poivcr of victory, which lies for the believer in
the resurrection of Christ, 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, Schneckenbarger, Wiesinger, Schenkel;
substantially also Hofmann), — does not accord either with the
words themselves (for so understood it would be the ijovjcr of
the risen Christ, not the power of His resurrection), or with the
following K. rrjv Koivwviav twv iraOrjfi. avrov, which, in a
logical point of view (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10—12), must either
have gone before, or have been expressed by eV rfj kol-
vwvla K.rX. The certainty of our own resurrection and glory
(Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Storr, Heinrichs, Hoelemann, and
others ; comp. Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and
Theophylact) is necessarily included also in the Bvvafit<;, with-
out, however, being exclusively meant. By the scenes ser-
PHIL. L
162 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPLiNS.
monis Bengel (corap. Samuel Crell) has allowed himself to be
misled into explaining avdaTaa-i<;, not of the resurrection at
all, but of the exortus or advcntus of the Messiah. Prefer-
ences of various kinds are mixed up by Eheinwald, Flatt,
Schinz, Usteri, and others. — koX rrjv kolvcov. twv iraOrjfj,.
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
righteousness of faith was destined to lead him, namely, the
fcUoivship of the svferings of Christ, in which he sees a high
proof of divine grace and distinction (i. 29, ii. 17 f.). Comp.
Col. i. 24. Sufiering for the sake of Christ's cause is a
participation in Christ's sufferings (a (TviJb'Trua')(eiv, Eom. viii.
17), because, as respects the characteristic kind and way of
suffering, one suffers the same that Christ suffered (accord-
ing to the ethical category, drinks of the same cup which
Christ drank. Matt. xx. 22). Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 13, and see
on 2 Cor. i. 5, Col. i. 24 ; also on ttjv veKpcoaiv tov 'Irja-ov,
2 Cor. iv. 10. The explanation which makes it: suffering
with such a disposition of mind as He suffered (as sted-
fastly, etc.), given by Flatt and others, is imported from a
rationalistic point of view ; and the view which takes it in
the sense of : the believing appropriation of the merit of Christ
(Calovius, Ptheinwald, and others), is opposed to the words, and
at variance with the habitual conception of a real av/xirda'^eLv
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 writtan t^j' BvvafiLv r?}? Koivcovla'i k.t.X. (Hoelemann :
" vim ac pondus ;" de Wette : " all that this fellowship in-
volves ;" comp. Corn, a Lapide : " dulcedinem ac sanctita-
tem") ; the ryvwvac, on the contrary, relates to the matter
itself, to the knowledge of which only those righteous by faith
can attain, whilst to those righteous by the law it remains an
unknown element ; the subjectivity for it is wanting to the
latter, though the objective suffering is present. It was other-
wise with the previous element ; for the resurrection of Christ
CHA.P. III. 11. 163
in itself — the fact as such — is l^nown also by him -who is
righteous through the law, but not so its Svvafii^, of which
only the righteous through faith is aware. The knowledge of
this Bvvafxc<;, in virtue of which he experiences in the resur-
rection of Christ the abiding divinely efiectual guarantee of
his justification and eternal life, makes him capable also of
recognising in his sufferings for the sake of the gospel a
fellowship in the sufferings of Christ ; the latter knowledge
is conditioned by the former ; he would not have it wilJiout
the former, because he would be driven to look upon his
faith as vain and idle, and upon himself, so far as he suffers,
as iXeetvorepov iravTWi' avOpco-rrcov (1 Cor. xv. 14, 17, 19).
The enthusiastic feeling of drinking the cup of Christ is not
possible, unless a man bears in his heart the mighty assurance
of salvation through the resurrection of the Lord. — av/xfxop(f)c-
^ojxevo^ ru) Oavcnw avTov] denotes the corresiJonding situation
(comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10), in which Paul was conscious that he
should know, as one righteous by faith, the Kotvcovlav twv iraO.
Xpiarov: inasmuch as I am made like to His death; for his
position then was such that he saw himself threatened with
martyrdom, consequently (comp. ii. 17) his state of suffering
developed itself into similarity to the death of Christ. This
present state of development of the being made like to Christ is
indicated by the present participle. The interpretation, which
takes it of the fellowship) in suffering generally, which is here
more precisely described (Calvin, Estius, and others; also
Wiesinger and Weiss), does not satisfy the progression from
the general TraOrj/xcTCov to the definite Oavara. And the sense :
" non dctrcctando mortem ejus morti similem" (Vatablus ; comp.
]Matlhies and de Wette) is imported into the words, which by
Grotius, van Hengel, Eilliet, Schneckenburger, and others, are
interpreted quite in opposition to the context, as referring
to the ethical dying to the world, its lusts, etc. (Ilom. vi. ;
Gal. ii. 19). The nominative o-v/x/xop^., which is to be ex-
plained as dependent, not in a clumsily complicated fashion on
evpeOw (Grotius, Hoelemann, Hofmann, and others), but on tov
yvwpat K.T.X, refers to its logiccd subject. See Eph. iv. 2.
Ver. 11. Et iTW'i] if p)ossiUy, designating the aim, the attain-
1 G 4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
ment of which is before tlie apostle's mind in the o-vfifMopcpi^o-
fievo^ Tc3 6av. avTov. In this case, however, the deliberative
form of expression (comp. Eom. i. 10, xi. 14; Kiihner, II. 2,
p. 1034) bears the impress, not of doubt that he will attain to
the resurrection of the dead (in case, namely, he should not live
to see the Parousia), but of Immility under the conception of
the greatness of the bliss, and of the moral condition to which, on
man's part, it is subject ; ov Oappw 'yap, (jyrjcriv, ovTrco- oi/tco?
iraireivof^povei, oirep aXkayov Xe/yef o BoKoJv eaTavai, ^XeTreTOo
fiT) Treat], Theophylact : comp. Chrysostom. This suffices also
in opposition to Baur's doubt {Paulus, II. p. 79 f.) whether
Paul could have expressed himself in this way at all. The
expression excludes moral security, but not the certiiudo
salutis in itself, as, following Estius and other Catholic ex-
positors, Bisping still thinks. The certainty of salvation is
founded on God's decree, calling (Eom. viii. 29 f.), promise,
and attestation by the Spirit (Piom. viii. 10), in faith on
the saving facts of redemption (Eom. viii. 32 ff.), Comp.
Calovius. — The reader could not feel any doubt as to what
i^avd(TTaa-i<; tcov veKpwv Paul means, namely, the ^rs^J, in which
01 rod Xpi(TTov iv rfj TrapovcrLa avrov (1 Cor. xv. 23) shall
arise.^ Comp. 1 Tliess. iv. 16. It is the resurrection of the
dead KaT ^^oxw> i^ot different from the avdaTa(7i,<; rwv Sikulcov.
See on Luke xiv. 14. Nevertheless, we must not find this
resurrection denoted by the double compound i^avda-r., the
e^ in it conve^dng the idea e/c t>}9 7?}9 eU rov depa (Theophy-
lact). This ef is simply to be explained by the conception
eic rri<; '^p-j^, so that neither in the substantial meaning nor even
in style (Bengel : " Paulinus enim stylus Christo adscribit
dvu(7Ta<7iv, k^avdaraciv Christianis ") is e^avdar. to be dis-
* It is incorrect to ascribe to the apcslle the idea that none but believers will
rise at the resurrection, nncl that unbelievers will remain in Hades (Weiss). The
resurrection of all, as Christ Himself unquestionably taught it (see on John
V. 28 f. ; Luke xiv. 14), is also in Pf.id's view the necessary premiss of the judg-
ment of all, of believers and also of unbelievers (of the xitfjioi, Eom. 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 properly declares himself
{Lidzte Dinge, p. 147 11.) opposed to Weiss, but still limits the final judgment,
at p. 101 ff., as regards the persons suTijected to it, in a way that is exegetically
altogether unjustifiable.
CHAP. III. 12. 165
tinguished from avda-r. ; but the former is to be explained
solely from the more vividly imaginative view of the event
which the apostle has before him. Comp. on 1 Cor. vi. 14.
The double compound substantive does not occur elsewhere in
the N. T. (the verb, Mark xii. 19 ; Luke xx. 28 ; Acts xv. 5) ;
but see Polyb. iii. 55. 4, ii. 21. 9, ii. 35. 4; Gen. vii. 4.
Com23l. We may add, that while it has been explained, at
variance with the context, as referring to the ethical resurrec-
tion, Eom. vi. 4 f. (Flacius, Balduin, Coccejus, and others ;
comp. Schrader), it is also erroneous to find in it the sense :
" if perchance / sJiould remain alive until the resurrection of the
dead " (van Hengel, Hilgenfeld) ; since, on the contrary,
essentially the same meaning is expressed as in Luke xx. 34
by ol KaTa^i(o6evT6'i . . . r?}? avaaTdo-eo}<;, and it is conceived
as a possible case (comp. i. 20 ff., ii. 17) that Paul will not
remain alive until the Parousia.^ Karavr. 6t? (comp. Eph.
iv. 13) denotes the attaining to a goal (frequently in Polybius,
see Schweighiiuser, Lex. p. 332; see also the passages from the
LXX. and Apocr. in Schleusner, III. p. 234 £), which, how-
ever, is here not a point of time, but a hliss which is to be
attained. Comp. Acts xxvi. 7.
Vv. 12-14. Protest, that in what he had said in vv. 7-11
he had not expressed the fanciful idea of a Christian perfection
already attained ; but that, on the contrary, his efforts are
still ever directed forward towards that aim — whereby a
mirror for self-contemplation is held up before the Philippians
in respect to the moral conceit which disturbed their unity
(ii. 2-4), in order to stir them up to a like humility and
diligence as a condition of Christian perfection (ver. 15).
Ver. 12. Ov'x,otl] By this I do not mean to say that, etc.
See on 2 Cor. i. 24, iii. 5 ; John vi. 46. Aken, Lchre v.
Temp. u. Mod. p. 91 ff. He miglit encounter such a miscon-
ception on the part of his opponents ; but " in summo fervors
sobrietatem spiritualem non dimittit apostolus," Bengel. — ■j'/S?;
eXa^ov] that / have already grasiKcl it. The object is not
named by Paul, but left to be understood of itself from the
' This also applies against the view of Otto, Pastoralhr. p. 233, who has
altogether misunderstood vv. 11 and 12.
166 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
context. The latter represents a prize-runner, who at the goal of
the <7T a^LoZpo[xLa grasps the ^pa^elov (ver. 1 4). This ^pa^elov
typifies the hliss of the Messiah's kingdom (comp. 1 Cor. ix.
24; 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8), which therefore, and that as ^pa/3eiov,
is here to be conceived as the object, the attainment of which is
denied to have already taken place. And accordingly, eXa^ov
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 ^pa^eiov, 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 ^pa/3e2ov (so
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Bengel, Hein-
richs, Eilliet, and others) is not proleptic ; ^ on the contrary,
it is svgr/cstcd by the idea of the race just introduced in ver.
12, and is prepaixd for by the preceding KaravTijao) et? rrjv
e^avdcrraa-iv r. veKp., in which the Messianic a-wrrjpia makes
its ftppearance, and the grasping of the /SpajSelov is realized;
hence it is so accordant with the context that all otlier refer-
ences are excluded. Accordingly, we must neither supply
mctam generally (Beza, comp. Ewald) ; nor rrjv avdaraa-iv
(Pvheinwald) ; nor rov Xpiarou (Theodoret ; comp. Weiss) ; nor
moral perfection (Hoelemann, following Ambrosiaster and
others) ; nor the rigid of resurrection (Grotius) ; nor even
" the hiowledge of Christ which appropriates, imitates, and
strives to follow Him " (de Wctte ; comp. Ambrosiaster, Calvin,
Vatablus, van Hengel, Wiesinger) ; nor yet the Karavrav of ver,
11 (Matthies). — ?') ^]^'q rerekelwiiai] or — in order to express
without a figure that which had been figuratively denoted by
Tilrj eXa/Sov — loerc alreadi/ perfeeted? For only the ethically
perfected Christian, who has entirely become and is (observe
the perfect) what he was intended to beconre and be, would
' As alco Hofmann olijects, vho finds the notion of the veib alone sufBcient
for expressing Avhat is to Le negatived, but yet likewise ultimately conies to
eternal life as a supplement ; for that which is not yet attained is cue and the
same with that which is one day to be attained.
^ This being perfected is not the result of the i>.up,i>v (Wiesinger, Weiss), but
the moral condition of him who can say 'ixccjiev. Note that n is used, and not
xai ; xa/ might have been taken as annexing the result.
CHAP. III. 12. 1G7
be able to say with truth that he had ah'eady grasped the
^pa/3eiov, however infallibly certain might be to him, looking
at his inward moral frame of life, the future acoTrjpia. He
who is not yet perfect has still always to run after it ; see the
sequel. The words 17 ijBr] SeSiKaico/iai,, introduced in consider-
able authorities before ^, form a correct gloss, when under-
stood in an ethical sense. For instances of TeXetovaOai — which
is not, with Hofraann, to be here taken in the indefinite
generality of being ready — in the sense of spiritual jpcrfcction
(comp. Heb. ii. 10, v. 9, xii. 23), see Ast, Lex. Plat. III. p.
3G9 ; comp. Philo, Alleg. p. 74 C, where the ^pa^eia are
adjudged to the soul, when it is perfected. To he at the goal
(Hammond, Wolf, Loesner, Heinrichs, Flatt, Eilliet, and
others), is a sense, which rereX. 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 riXeioc
in ver. 1 5 is correlative with reTeXelcofiai. — BtcoKco Be] hut I
•pursue it, i.e. I strive after it with strenuous running; see ver.
14. The idea of urgent haste is conveyed (Abresch, ad Aesch.
Sept. 90; Blomfield, Gloss. Pers. 86). The Be has the force
of an aWd in the sense of on the other hand; Baeumlein,
Partik. p. 9 5, and comp. on Eph. iv. 1 5. "We must under-
stand TO /Spa^elov as object to Blcokco, just as in the case of eXa^ov
and KaraXu^o) ; hence Blcokco is not to be taken ahsolutcly
(Eilliet ; comp. Eheinwald, de Wette, Hofmann), although
this in itself would be linguistically admissible (in opposition
to van Hengel), see on ver. 14. Phavorinus : BccoKeiv ivlore
TO a7rXw9 KUTo. aTrovBrjv eXavveiv ; also Eustathius, ad II. xxiii.
344. — ei KoX KaToXa^co] This el is, as in et ttw?, ver. 1 1, delibera-
tive : if I also, etc., the idea of aKoirelv or some similar word being
before his mind; the compound KaTaXaj3(o is more (in opposition
to Weiss) than eXafiov, and denotes the Of2'pr6hension which
takes possession; comp. on Eom. ix. 30, 1 Cor. ix. 24, where
we have the same progression from Xap,^. to KaTaXa/x^. ;
Herod, ix. 58: BuoKTeoi elcrl e? o KaTaXafi(f)6ivT€'i ; and kul
implies : I not merely grasj) {eXa/3ov), but also actucdly appre-
168 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
hcnd} — e(^' tS koX KareKrjcpOrjv vtto X.] Comp. Plat. Tim. p.
38 D : bOev KaTdkaiJij3dvoval re Koi KaraXafx^dvovraL, 1 Cor.
xiii. 12 : eTrcyvcoao/jLai Kado^i Koi iTreyvcoaOrjv, Ignatius, JRovi.
8 : dekrjO-aTe, 'iva Kal v/xei'; deXrjdrJTe, Trail. 5 : TroWd yap
Tj^lv Xeltrei, 'iva @eou fxrj XeLTTcofieSa : hcccmse 1 2vas also appre-
hended hij Christ. This is the determining ground of the Slcokco,
and of the thought thereto annexed, el koI KaTa\d/3(o. Theo-
phylact (comp. Chrysostom and Theodoret) aptly remarks :
SeiKvv^;, OTL ocfieiXr} ecrrl to Trpdy/xa, <f)7]cri' Blotl Kal KaTe\i]<^6.
VTTO X. Otherwise, in fact, this having been apprehended
would not have been responded to on my part.^ Eespecting
€^' w, on the ground of this, that, i.e. proipterea quod, see on
Eom. V. 1 2 ; 2 Cor. v. 4. The interpretation : for ivhich, on
lohich Ichalf (Oecumenius, Beza, Grotius, Kheinwald, Eilliet,
Weiss, and others), just as in iv. 10, is indeed linguistically
correct and simple ; bat 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, Eilliet, de Wette,
Wiesinger supply toOto previously, which is not in accordance
with the objectless e\a/3ov. More artificial are the explana-
tions : whereunto, in the sense of obligation (Hoelemann) ;
under luhich condition (Matthies) ; in so far as (Castalio,
Ewald) ; in the presupioosition, that (Baur) : which is certain
from the fact, that (subjective ground of knowledge ; so Ernesti,
Urspr. d. Silnde, II. p. 217). According to Hofmann, Paul
desires to give the reason tvhy, and for what purpose, he con-
templates an apprehension. But thus the reference of e'^' w k.t.X.
would be limited to el k. KaraXd/So), although the positive
leading thought has been introduced in Blcckco Se. ^E(f) w k.t.X.
serves this leading thought along vnth that of its accessory
definition el k, KaraXd^co. — /cat] also, sidyjoins to the active
KaraXd^o) the ingeniously corresponding passive relation
KaTeXij^drjv. And by KareXri^d. Paul expresses what at his
' 2 Tim. iv. 7 does not conflict with our passage, but is the confession at the
end of the course, " exempluni accipientis jam jamque," Bengel.
^ Paul is conscious that, being ajiprehended by Christ, he may not and cannot
do otherwise. Comp, Bengel: quoniam ; sensus virtutis Christi acceudit
Christianum.
CHAP. III. 13, 14. 169
conversion he experienced from Christ (hence the aorist) ; there
is no need for suggesting the idea, foreign to the context, of
an apprehended /j^^riitw (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret,
and others, including Flatt and van Hengel). The fact that
at that time Christ laid Jiold 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, Kajeki^jtO. viro X.
Vv. 13, 14. Once more, and with loving earnestness
(tiBeXcpoi), Paul says what he had already said in ver. 12 with
ovx ore . . . KaraXd^oi ; and in doing so, he brings more into
relief in the first portion the element of sc//-estimation, which
in his own case he denies ; and, in the second part, he sets
forth more in detail the idea : Blcokco 8e el k. kutoK. — iyoy
ifiavTov] ego me ipsuni, an emphatic mode of indicating one's
own estimation, in which one is both subject and object of the
judgment. Comp. John v. 30 f., vii. 17, viii. 54 ; Acts xxvi. 9,
et al. A reference to the judgment of others about him (Bengel,
Weiss, and others ; comp. also Hofmann) is here out of place.
— Xoyl^ofiaL] I judge, I am of opinion,^ Eom. iii. 28, viii. 18,
xiv. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 5, et cd. ; Xen. A^icdh ii. 2. 13; Dem.
Ixiii. 12. — h Be] Comp. Anthol. Pal vii. 455: ev S' dvrl
irdvTwv, also the frequent ev fiovov ; see Stallbaum, ad. Flat.
Symp. p. 184 C, Rep. p. 548 C. It is here usually supple-
mented by iTOLOi (Chrysostom appears to have understood ttocow).
So also Winer, Buttmann, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ellicott. But
how arbitrarily, seeing that the context by what immediately
precedes suggests simply the supplying of \oyl^o/jbac (not Xoyi^.
KareiXrjcjievai, Oecumenius, Weiss), and this is in perfect har-
mony with the sense ! Hence we take it thus : " but one
tiling / think, unum ccnsco." This one thing which Paul
thinks regarding the matter in question, in contrast to the
previous negative {Be, as in ver. 1 2), is then directly expressed
by all that follows from tcl fiev oTrlaoi to eV X. 'I. Nearest to
this contextual supplement comes the Syriac, which has added
olBa, and Luther, who has added Xeyco. The supplying of
' Ou belongs to Xoyl^ofiai. The erroneous reference to xa.ruXY.ip'!.vai produced tlie
reading bSvu (A D X min. vss. and Fathers), which Tischendorf 8. has adopted.
170 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIAXS.
XoyH^ofxat is confirmed by the cognate ^povwixev, ver. 15.
Without supplying anything, ev he has eitlier been connected
with Blmko) (thus Augustine, Serm. de divers, i. 6, Pierce,
Storr, van Hengel, and others), or has been taken absolutely :
" umim contra!" see Hoelemann, comp. Eheinwald. But the
former is to be rejected, because the subsequent Slcokco 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 eVrt. Hofmann also comes
at length in substance to this latter supplement, mixing up an
imaginary contrast to that which the adversaries imputed to the
apostle : over-against this, his conduct subsequently described
was the only thing ivhicJi tores quite right (?). — ra fiev oTrcatoli
what is behind, cannot be referred to what has been mentioned
in vv. 5 and 6 and the category of those pre-Christian advan-
tages generally (so in substance, Pelagius ; rivh in Theodoret,
Vatablus, Zeger, Wolf, and others, also Ewald and Hofmann) ;
this would be at variance with the context, for ra ixev oiria-a
iirCKavd. corresponds to the negation of the having already at-
tained or being perfect in ver. 12, and must therefore apply to
the previous achievements of the Christian life, to the degrees
of Christian moral perfection already reached, which are
conceived as the spaces already left behind in the stadium
of the runner still pressing forward ; and not to what had
belonged to his 'pre-Christian conduct (Hofmann). Comp.
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact. — eiTLkavdav^ forget-
ting, like the runner who dismisses from his mind the space
already traversed, and fixes his thoughts only on what still
lies before him. This is surely no break in the internal con-
nection (as Hofmann objects) ; on the contrary, like the runner
pressing forward, Paul in his continuous restless striving over-
loohs the degree of moral perfection already attained, which he
would not do, if he reckoned it already as itself perfection.
eirCkavOdvea-Oai is joined with the genitive and accusative ;
the simple verb, on the contrary, only with the genitive. See
Klihner, II. 1, p. 313. On the use of the word in the sense of
intentionaliongoitmg, comp. Herod, iii. 75, iv. 43; 1 Mace. i. 49.
CHAP. III. 13, 1!. 171
It thus amounts to the sense of nuUam rntionem Jinhcrc (Stnrz,
Lex. Xen. II. p. 294). — to69 Be efMTrpoadev iireKTeivojjb^ hut
stretching myself out towards that which is before. The dative
is governed by the verb compounded with eVt (Kriigev, § 48.
11. 5 ; Nagelsbach, zur Ilias, p. 30, ed. 3), the eVt intimating
the direction. In the case of such an one running "prono et
quasi praecipiti corpore" (13eza), " oculus manum, manus pedem
praevertit et trahit," BengeL On the verb, com p. Strabo,
xvii. p. 800; Aristot. Poet. 21 ; Phit. Mor. p. 1147 A. Ta
efiTrp. represent the higher stages of Christian perfection not
yet attained.'^ — Kara aKoirov BtoiKco] I hasten towards the goal,
therefore in a straight course towards the prize of victory.
The opposite : airo (tkottov, Horn. Od. xi. 344, xxii. 6 ; Plat.
Thcaet. p. 179 C, Tim.^. 25 E; Xen. Conv. ii. 10 ; Lucian,
Icarom. 2 ; and Trapa aKoirov, Pind. 01. xiii. 144. On Bccokco
without an accusative of the ohject (in opposition to van Hengel),
comp. Xen. Anal. vii. 2. 20, vi. 5. 25 (Spofico Slo)K6lv) ;
Aesch. ScjJt. 89 ; Buttmann, Zcxil. p. 219 ; Jacobs, ad Antliol.
IX. p. 213. Comp. on ver. 12. The prize of victory (to
^pa^eiov, see on 1 Cor. ix. 24 ; Clem. Cor. I. 5 ; Schol. min.
ad Soph. M. 680; Oppian, Cyneg. iv. 196; Lycophr. 1154)
represents the scdvation of the Messiah's kingdom (see on ver.
1 2), to which God has called man. Hence : t^? avco KXrja-ewf;,
a genitive which is to be taken not as appositional (de Wette,
Schenlvel), but as the genitive of the suhjcct : the jBpajSelov, to
ivhich the ccdling relates. Comp. Luther : " which the heavenly
calling holds out." This is therefore the object of the eKirh
rr]<i K\rj(Tea3<i (Eph. i. 18, iv. 4; comp. the Platonic kuXov to
adXov Kal 7} iXTrh /xeyaXi], Phaed. p. 1 1 4 C). — rj avco kXtjo-L';
Tov @6ov is the calling lohich issued from God ahove 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 awrripla of His
kingdom. The general form of expression, not even limited
* Ta. 'ifi.rrp'xrhv is thiis conceived by the apostle as that ivhick still lies further in
prospect after every advance in the ethical course ; not as that which lay before
him in consequence of his conversion (contrasting with his pre-Christian efforts),
as Hofinann thinks. It is the ever new, greater, and loftier task which he
sees before him, step after step.
172 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
by a pronoun (such as t?}? efirj^), does not allow us to think only
of the miraculous calling of the apostle himself ; this is rather
included under the general category of the avco /cA-T/crt? rov
Oeov, which in the individual cases may have taken historically
very different forms. The dvco, which in itself is not neces-
sary, is added, because Paul is thoroughly filled with the con-
sciousness of the divine nature of the /cX^cri9 in its exaltedness
above everything that is earthly. Lastly, the Kkricn<i itself is,
as always (even in 2 Thess. i. 11), the act of calling ; not that
whereto one is called (de Wette), or "le bonheur celeste meme"
(Eilliet) ; 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 yS/jaySeur?;? or ^pa/3ev<i, as the judge of the
contest (Pollux, iii. 145 ; Blomf Gloss, ad Acsch. Pcrs. 307),
who through the herald summons the runners to the race
(Grotius, Wolf, Eosenmiiller, am Ende, Hoelemann, van Hengel,
Wiesinger) ; r?}? avco kX. t. 0. serves to define more accurately
that which is figuratively denoted by j3pa(3eiov, but does not
itself form a part of the allegory. — ev X. 'I.] is rightly (so
also Weiss) joined by Chrysostom to Sccoko) : iv XpiarS 'Irja-ov
Tovro TTOift), (f)7]acv. ov <yap evt xwpl^ Tf]<; eKeivov po7rr}<i toctovtov
^LeKdelv 8idaT7]/j,a. Comp. Theodoret and Oecumenius. This
thought, that the SicoKecv just described is done by him in
Christ, as the great upholding and impelling element of life in
which amidst this activity he moves, is emphatically placed
at the end as that which regulates all his efforts. The usital
connection of these words with r. avco K\i]a€a)<; t. ©eov, in
which the calling is understood as hrovght ahout through Christ
(rather : having its causal ground in Christ), yields a sujDerfluous
and self-obvious definition of the K\'^ai<; already so accu-
rately defined ; although the connecting article would not be
necessary, since, according to the construction Ka\elv ev X.
(1 Cor. vii. 22 ; 1 Pet. v. 10), ev X. 'J. might be joined with
Kkrjcreai^ SO as to form one idea ; comp. Clem. Cor. I. 46. 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. — rekeioi] denotes
CHAP. III. 15. 173
not perfectio7i, like reTeXeicofjiai in ver. 1 2, but tlie 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 vi^ttlo'^ eV Xpta-rS ; comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 6, iii. 1 ; Eph.
iv. 13. The rereXeicofxai is the ideal goal of the development
of this reXeiov ehai, contradistinguished from the vrjTriorrjq.
The special aspect of this maturity, which Paul had in view in
using reXeioi, is to be regarded, not as theoretical hnoiolcdijc, —
the doctrine of righteousness hy faith being conceived to be spe-
cially referred to (Erasmus, Wolf, llheinwald, and others), —
but as the moral character and striving of believers, as appears
from ver. 13 f., along with which the corresponding relation
of practical insight is self-evident as a necessary presupposi-
tion (comp. Col. iv. 12, i. 28); although there is no reason
to suppose that particular questions in this domain (such as
those relating to sacrificial flesh, fasts, feasts, and the like) had
arisen in Philippi and occasioned division, of which no trace
exists. The jealousy and partial disunion in the church arose
from a moral conceit, which was prejudicial to mutual humility
(ii. 3 ff.) and to personal genuine striving after holiness
(ii. 12 ff.). In using oaoi — with which we are to supply
sv.mus simply, and not volumus esse — Paul leaves it to the
conscientious judgment of every reader whether he, on his
part, belongs to the number of the reketoc ; but by including
himself in this predicate, and yet having previously negatived
tlie ijSr) rereXelcofiat 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 tovto (^povcoixev
leaves room only for the consciousness : ct)9 TeXelov to firj
vo/xL^€iv eavTov reXeiov elvai, Chrysostom. A tone of irony
(Schcukel) is utterly alien to the heartfelt character of the
whole discourse, which is, moreover, in this application,
ver. 15, so expressed as to include the apostle in common
with his readers. To the Catholic fictions of a state of perfec-
tion the passage is in direct opposition. — tovto ^povwjxev]
let us have this frame of mind, namely, which I, in ver. 1 3 f.,
have just expressed as mine ; the frame of humble self-
174 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
estimation, and at the same time incessant pressing forward.
Grotius holds quite arbitrarily that Paul reverts to what he
had said in ver. 3. But it is also wrong to seek the reference
of TovTo (ppop. in the passage from ver. 4 onwards : " renun-
ciandum esse splendidis virtutibus Judd. (vv. 4-7), contra in
solo Christo acquiescendum (vv. 8-10) et ad victricem pal-
mam studio indefesso annitendum (vv. 12-14)," Hoelemann ;
comp. Calvin, Wolf, Heinrichs, and others, including Matthies,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Eilliet, and Eeiche ; similarly Hofmann,
who makes it refer to the entire presentation — joining on
to ver. 3 — of a frame of mind which is opposed to the
disposition of those against whom they are to be on their
guard. Vv. 4-11 are certainly said by way of warning
against the false teachers, and are opposed 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 iirogrcss 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 aSeXcjiol and introduces his iyca. Besides, the
(ppovM/xeu, which is correlative with the Xoyi^ofiai, does not
point back beyond ver. 13 £ Therefore, not even the appro-
priation of Christ, vv. 8-11, is to be included in the refer-
ence of the TOVTO (in opposition to de Wette and Wiesinger).
Van Hcngel is inclined to refer tovto to to ^pa/Setov; but
the readers needed the exhortation to the right mode of striving
after the ^pajBdov, and not the summons generally, that they
should have the ^pa^. in view. This applies also against
the similar, although more exact, interpretation of Pritzsche
[Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 92): " hac mente simus sc. ut to /3pa^.
T?}? avQ) K\-)]aeco<; consectc7mir." — koI et tl cTepca <ppov.^ and
if as to any i^oint {tI, accusative of the object) ye he othenvise
minded, take up another way of thinking, varying, namely,
from that specified in tovto (^povwiiev. A man may, for-
sooth, have in general the same frame of mind which Paul
has represented in himself, and to which he has summoned
his readers ; but at the same time an isolated concrete case
CHAP. III. 15. 175
(ri) may occur, which a man cannot fit into the (ppovelv
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 eTrlyvwa-t'; and acaOrjaa et?
TO SoKLftd^etv K.T.X., i. 9, in the moral judgment which deter-
mines the ^poveiv. Hofmann arbitrarily limits the rl to some
matter indcjje^idcnt of the essential disjJosition of the Christian
life. This sense would have required a more precise defini-
tion, in order to be found. And the hope which is uttered in
the apodosis, is in perfect harmony with the prayer in i. 9 f. ;
hence Hofmann's objection, that the readers must have them-
selves corrected the fault which according to our view here
emerges, is quite groundless. The sulijcct addressed is the
readers generally (see ver. 17j, not the vqtnoi (Hunnius, Wolf,
Bengel, Storr, and others, including Flatt, Eheinwald, Hoele-
mann, Eilliet, Eeiche), whom several expositors have regarded
as those who had not yet raised themselves to the pure
righteousness of faith excluding the law (see Eheinwald and
Eeiche), or who had allowed themselves to be led away by
false teachers (see Hunnius, Grotius, Storr). But setting aside
the arbitrariness generally with which this contrast is intro-
duced, it is opposed by the fact, that Paul does not assume
any thorough and essential diversity in the ^povetv, but only
such a variation as might affect some one or other isolated
point (tX), and that not in the doctrinal, but in the moral
province of Clnistian conduct. Moreover, if 2:iersons led
astray were here in question, nothing would be less in har-
mony with the character of the apostle than the hopeful
tolerance which is expressed in the words Kal tovto . . .
airoKaXin^ei. Lastly, the change of person (in opposition to
Bengel) was necessary, because Paul, speaking of a partial
eripcix; (f^povelv, could not include himself — In eT€pco<;, ofher-
ivise (not occurring elsewhere in the N. T.), there is implied,
according to the context, an unfavouraUe sense, the notion of
incorixctness, secius qiiam 023ortet. Com p. Hom. Od. i. 234;
Dem. 298. 22, 597. 3; Eustath. ad Od. p. 1448. 2; Soph.
Phil. 503; Valckenaer, Biatr. p. 112; just as erepo^ (comp.
170 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PIIILIPPIANS.
on clXko, Gal. V. 10) may denote even that which is bad or
hostile (Wisd. xix. 3 ; Dissen. ad Find. Nem. viii. 3, Pyth.
iii. 54 ; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 321). It is here the
irepoSo^eiv (Plat. Theact. pp. 190 E, 193 D), 2iQ frame of mind.
This has not been attended to by van Hengel, when he takes
with equal unsuitableness t\ in an emphatic sense, and <^povelv
as to strive for : " si quid honi per aliam viam cxpetitis, quam
ego persequor." — Kal tovto 6 0eo? v/x. uttok.] Expression of
the hojjc 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. — Kal tovto] this also, like other things
which He has already revealed unto you ; so that in kuI is
contained the idea also still (Hartung, Partikell. 1. p. 135).
Hofmann erroneously says that Kal implies : there, where the
disjjosition is 2yresent, ivhich I require. It in fact belongs to
TOVTO. This TOVTO, however, is not : that ye (Oecumenius,
Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Fritzsche, I.e. p. 93), but what ye
wrongly think ; the frame of mind in question, as it ought to he
instead of the eTepca ^poveiv, not : " whether you are right or
I" (Ewald). Calvin aptly says : " Nemo ita loqui jure posset,
nisi cui certa constat suae doctrinae ratio et Veritas." The
passage is very far from betraying uncertainty or want of
firmness (Baur). ■ — The airoKaXv^et,, which is to be taken as
purely future, is conceived by Paul as taking place through the
Holy Spirit (see Eph. i. 1 7 ; Col. i. 1 0), not by human instruc-
tion (Beza). He might also have written hihu^et (comp. deohi-
haKTOi, 1 Thess. iv. 9 ; also John vi. 45), by which, however,
the special land of instruction which he means would not
have been indicated. Tins is the inward divine unveiling of
ethical truth, which is needed for the practical reason of him
who in any respect otherwise ^povel than Paul has shown
in his own example ; for oi) irepl Soj/xaToiv tuvtu elprjTat, aXka
Trepl ^lov TeXeiOTrjTOi; Kal tov firj vofil^etv eavTov'i TeXetovi eivai,
Chrysostom. Wherever in this moral respect the right frame of
mind is not yet completely present in one or the other, Paul
CHAP. III. 16. 177
trusts to the disclosing operation of God Himself, whose Spirit
rules and works in the Church and its individual members
(1 Cor. ii. 14, iii. 16 ; Eph. i. 17, ii. 21 £; Eom. viii. 9, 15,
26 ; Gal. v. 22, 25, et al).
Ver. 16. A caution added to the precept given in ver. 15,
and the promise coupled with it : Only let there be no devia-
tion in the prosecution of the development of your Christian
life from the point to which we have attained ! Neither to
the right nor to the left, but forward in the same direction !
This warning Paul expresses briefly and precisely thus : " Only
whcrdo ive have attained, — according to the same to direct your
wcdlc .'" — 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 lohcrcto ive have already
attained in the Christian life ; hut, on the contrary, shoidd let the
further direction of your morcd ivalh he determined hy that same."
Such a general precept addressed to the Philippians conveys an
honourable testimony to the state of their moral constitution
on the whole, however different in individuals we may con-
ceive the point to be from which Paul says et? o i(f>9., as is
evident from the very fact that he includes himself in the eh
b i(f)0., which could not but honour and stimulate the readers.
On irX-ijv, nisi quod, comp. i. 18 ; on (pOdveiv eh, to attain to
amjthing, comp. Matt. xii. 2 8 ; Luke xi. 2 6 ; 1 Thess. ii. 1 6
(eVt): Ptom. ix. 31; Dan. iv. 19; Tob. v. 18 ; Pint. Mor.
p. 338 A; Apollod. xii. 242. It denotes the having come
forward, the having advanced. Ewald takes it : if we had the
advantage (see 1 Thess. iv. 15, and the common classical usage),
that is : "in what we already possess much better and higher
than Judaism." But this reference to Judaism is not given
in the text, which aims to secure generally their further pro-
gress in the development of Christian life. On o-rot^^etv with
the dative of the rule : to advance (march) aceording to something,
that is, to direct oneself in one's constant conduct by some-
thing, see on Gal. v. 16, 25. The infinitive, however, as the
expression of a briefly measured wish or command, without
supplying Xe^w, Set, or the like (which Buttmaun requires,
PHIL. M
178 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TPTE PIIILIPPLYNS,
Neut. Gr. p. 233 [E. T. 272]), stands in place of tlie impera-
tive, as in Eom. xii. 15 ; see Horn. II. i. 20, and Nagelsbach
in loc. ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 473 A; Pflugk, ad Eur.
Heracl. 314; Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 86. Fritzsche, how-
ever, Diss. II. 2 Cor. p. 93, has erroneously made the infinitive
dependent on airoKaXv-^et : " praeterea instituet vos, ut, quam
ego consecutus sum rol ^pa^elw t?}9 civco «X.7/cre&)9 intentam
mentem, ejusdem participes fieri ipsi annitamini." Comp.
Oecumenius. Decisive against this view is the plural icpdd-
o-a/xev, which, according to the context (ver. 15), cannot apply-
merely to Paul, as well as the fact that the antithesis of persons
(ego . . . ijjsi) is gratuitously introduced. Michaelis, who is
followed by Eilliet, closely unites ver. 16 with the sequel,^
but in such a way that only an awkward arrangement of the
sentences is attained, and the nervous vigour of the concise
command is taken away. — The ek o e(f)$da: — which cannot
in accordance with the context denote the having attained to
Christianity, to the hcing Christian (Hofmann's view, which
yields a meaning much too vague and general) — has been
rightly explained by Chrysostom and Theophylact as relating
to the attainments in the Christian life, which are to be
maintained, and in the further development of which
constant progress is to be made (o KajcopOdoaaiiev, KUTey^oo^ev,
Theophylact). Comp. Schinz and van Hengel. This view is
corroborated by the sequel, in which Paul represents himself
as model of the ivalk ; 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,
Piatt, Eheinwald, Matthies, Hoelemann, de Wette, Wiesinger),
in conformity with which one ought to live. In connection
with this, various arbitrary definitions of the oljcct of the know-
ledge have been suggested, as, for instance, by Grotius : " de cir-
' This is thrown out as a suggestion also by Hofmann, according to whom the
infinitive clause ought "perhaps more correctly" to be coupled with ffu/jt-fiifinra.)
x.T.k., and taken as a prefixed designation of that in doing which they are to
he his imitators and to have their attention directed to those, etc. TIius 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. III. ic. 179
cumcisione et ritibns ;" Hcinriclis aucl 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 x^oint that it is not the inclivichial more or
less perfect knowledge (so usually; see Flatt, Eheinwald,
]\Iatthies) that is meant, but the collective conviction, the
truths generally recognised. But the whole interpretation
which refers it to hioivledge is not in keeping with the text ;
for i^ddcra/ji€v, correlative with aroLx^lv, presents together
with the latter a unity of figurative view, the former de-
noting the point of the way already attained, and tS avrat
(jToi'^dv, perseverance in the direction indicated by that
attainment. Therefore, if by aTovy/lv there is clearly (see
ver. 17) intended the moral conduct of life, this also must be
denoted by ei9 o k<^0. as respects its quality attained up to the
present time. Moreover, if et<? o e^Q. is to be understood as
referring to knowledge, there would be no motive for the pro-
minence given to the identity by tw avrw.
Eemakk. — ^What Paul means in ver. 1 6 may be illustrated thus:
D
A- ^
Here B is the point of the development of Christian life ug <>
epSdm/xsv, which, in the case of different individuals, maybe more
or less advanced. The riZ avrip cror/Jh 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 rw ai/Tw cToiyytv. The reproach of uncertainty
which Wiesinger brings against this canon, because a WtfUiq
(ppovuv may take place which does not lie in the same direction,
and generally because the power of sin might hinder the follow-
ing out of this direction, would also apply in opposition to every
other explanation of the sig o l(pl}., and particularly to that of the
hioiiiedgc attained ; but it is altogether unfounded, first, because
the Wspui; (ppovuv only refers to one or another concrete single
point {ri), so that the ivliole of moral attainment — the collec-
tive development — which has been reached is not thereby dis-
turbed ; and, secondly, because Paul in this case has to do with a
180 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPLVNS.
cliurcli already liighly 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 ilg s^6. must necessarily be one and the same for all. This
is simply to be denied ; it is an utterly arbitrary assumption.
Ver. 17. In carrying out this command they are to follow
his example, which he has previously held up to their view,
especially from ver. 1 2 onwards. — a-vfifiifnjral] co-imitators,
is a word not elsewhere preserved. Comp., however, crvfi^i-
fiovfjLevot, Plat. Polit. p. 274 D. a-vv is neither superfi^ious
(Heinrichs, comp. Hofmann), nor does it refer to the imitation
of Christ in common with the apostle (Bengel, Ewald), — a
reference which cannot be derived from the remote i. 30-ii. 8,
and which would be expressed somewhat as in 1 Cor. xi. 1 ;
1 Thess. i. 6. Neither does it refer to the obligation of his
readers collectively to imitate him (Beza, Grotius, and others,
including Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette), so
that " omnes uno consensu ct una mente" (Calvin) would be
meant ; but it means, as is required by the context that follow^s :
" una cum aliis, qui me imitantur (Estius ; comp. Erasmus,
Annot., Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Wiesinger, Weiss, Ellicott,
and others). Theophylact a2")tly remarks : avyKoWa avTov<;
Tot? «aXw9 TrepLTrarovcTc, whereby the weight of the exhortation
is strengthened. — aKOTrelre] clireet your vieiv 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. 1 8 also applies to those of other places. — /ca^w?] does
not correspond to tlie ovto>, as most expositors think, but is
the argumentative " as" (see on i. 7), by which the two previous
requirements, av^fxifiriTal k.t.X. and aKoirclre k.tX., are estab-
lished : in measure as ye have us for an example. This
interpretation (which Wiesinger and Weiss adopt) is, notwith-
standing the subtle distinction of thought which Hofmann
suggests, required both by tlie second person e^j^ere (not e-^ovai)
and by the plural r)/j,d<; (not i/xi). This rj/u.d<: refers not to the
apostle alone (so many, and still de AVette ; but in this case, as
before, the singular would liave been used), nor yet generally
CHAr. III. 18. 181
to the apostle and Ms cojnpanions (van Hengel, Banmgarten-
Crusius, Lightfoot), especially Timothy (Hofmann), or to all
tried Christians (Matthies) ; but to him and those ovtw (in this
manner, imitative of mc) 7repL7raTovvTa<i. This view is not at
variance with tvttov in the singular (de Wette) ; for the several
TVTTot, of individuals are conceived collectively as tvtto?. Comp.
1 Thess. i. 7 (Lachmann, Llinemann) ; see also 2 Thess. iii. 9 ;
comp. generally, Bernhardy, p. 58 f . ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 12 f.
This predicative tvttov, which is therefore placed hcfo7X rjfidf,
is emphatic.
Ver. 18. Admonitory confirmation of the injunction in ver.
1 7. — 'TTepLirarovaiv] is not to be defined by KaKooq (Oecunie-
nius) , or longe alitcr (Grotius ; comp. Syr.) ; nor is it to
be taken as circidantiir (comp. 1 Pet. v. 8) (Storr, Heinrichs,
Piatt), 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 eViV <ppov.), and puts in
a parenthesis what intervenes (so also Erasmus, Schmid, and
Wolf) ; whilst Estius quite arbitrarily overleaps the first rela-
tive clause, and takes trepLir. along with o)v ro riXo^ k.t.X.
Erasmus (see his Annot.) and others, including Eheinwald,
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 irepiir. Hofmann transforms the simple Xcyeiv (comp. Gal.
i. 9) into the idea of naming, and takes toj)? i'^Opov'i as its
oTyect- predicate, in which case, however, the onode of tlie
TrepiTTaretv would not be stated. On the contrary, the con-
struction is a genuine Greek mode of attraction (see Wolf, a,d
Dcm. Lcpt. 1 5 ; Pflugk, ad Eur. Hcc. Ill; Ktihner, II. 2, p. 9 2 5 ;
Buttm. Ncid. Gr. p. 68 [E. T. 77]), so framed, that instead
of saying: many ivalk as the enemies of the cross, this pre-
dicative definition of mode is drawn into the relative clause ov'i
'TToWaKL'; K.T.\} and assimilated to the relative; comp. Plat. BeiJ.
' Hence also the conjecture of Laurent (Neitt. Stud. p. 21 i.), that ot;
rroXXuKi; . . . avixaa. is a Supplementary marginal note inserted by the apostle,
is unwarranted.
182 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
p. 40 2 c, and Stallbaum in 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 iroWaKL';, emphati-
cally corresponding with the ttoWoI (2 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. — vvv Se Koi KXalcjv] Sia rt;
OTt eirereLve to kukop, otl BaKpvcov a^cot ol tolovtoi . . . outco?
iarl aufiTraOrjTCKo^;, ovrco (ppovri^ec nrdvTOiv av0pco7rcov, Chrysos-
tom. The deterioration of these men, which had in the
meanwhile increased, now extorts tears from the apostle on
account of their own ruin and of their ruinous influence. —
T0U9 ix^P- ''"• ^'^' ''"• -^O '^1^® article denotes the class of men
characteristically defined. We must explain the designation
as referring, not to enemies of the doctrine of the cross (Theo-
dpret : w? Si,8dcrKovTa<i otl St'^a t?}? vo/jLLKr]<i TroXcTeia^ dhvvaTov
a(OT'qpLa<i Tvy^elv, so in substance Luther, Erasmus, Estius,
Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, and many others ; also
Heinrichs, Eheinwald, Matthies), so that passages such as Gal.
V. 11, vi. 12, would have to be compared; but, as required
by the context which follows, to Christians of Epicurean
tendencies (eV duecrec ^(jovTe<i k. Tpvcpfj, Chrysostom ; comp. Theo-
phylact and Oecumenius), who, as such, are hostile to the
fellowship of the cross of Christ (comp. iii. 10), whose maxims
of life are opposed to the iraOij/xaTa tov XpcaTov (2 Cor. i. 5),
so that it is hateful to them to svffer loith Christ (Eom.
viii. 17). Comp. ver. 10, also Gal. vi. 14. In opposition to
the context, Eilliet 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 preach-
ing of the cross required the crucifixion of their own lusts
(Weiss) ; Calvin interpreted it generally of hypocritical enemies
of the gospel. This misunderstanding ought to have been pre-
cluded by the very use of the tragic ttoWoI, the melancholy
force of which lies in the very fact that they are Christians, but
CHAP. III. 19. 183
Cliristians whose conduct is the deterrent contrast to that
which is required in ver. 17. See, besides, in opposition to
Weiss, Huther in the MecJdenh. Zcitschr. 1862, p. 630 ff. —
We have still to notice that the persons here depicted are
not the same as those who %vcre described in ver. 2 (contrary
to the usual view, which is also followed by Schinz and Hil-
genfeld) ; for those were teachers, while these ttoWoI are Chris-
tians generally. The former might indeed be characterized
as kxOpoX T. aravpov 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 cov 6 ©eo'i tj KoCkia,
ver. 19. Hoelemann, de Wette, Llinemann, Wiesinger,
Schenkel, and Hofmann have justly pronounced against the
identity of the two ; Weiss, however, following' out his wrong
interpretation of Kvve<i in ver. 2 (of the heathen), maintains the
identity to a certain extent by assuming that the conduct of
those Kvve'i 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 -^ut foremost, and
then those points by which it was brought about. — wv to
riXci aTTcoX.] By this is meant Messianic perdition, eternal
condemnation (comp. i. 28), which is the idti'inate destiny ap-
pointed (jo) for them {TeXo<i is not : recompense, see Eom. vi. 2 1 ;
2 Cor. xi. 15; Heb. vi. 8). For corresponding Eabbinical
passages, see Wetstein and Schoettgen, Hor. p. 801. — oiv 6
0eo9 rj Koikia] Xarpevovac <yap co? Qeo) ravTy Kal iracrav depa-
ireiav TTpoadyovac, Theophylact. Comp. Ptom. xvi. 18; Eur. CycL
334 f.; Senec. de henef vii. 26 ; and the maxim of those whose
highest good is eating and drinking, 1 Cor. xv. 32. It is the
yaaTptfiapyla (Plat. Fhacd. p. 81 E; Lucian, Amor. 42) in its
godless nature ; they were KotXioSal/jiove<; (Eupolis in Athen. iii.
p. 100 B), Ta<i Ti]<; yacrrpo^; 7)Sova<i Tc6efxevoi fxerpop €v8ac/jLovia<i
(Lucian, Pair. enc. 10) ; t^ yaarpX /j.eTpovpre'i Kal rol<i alo-^ia--
Toi'i rrjv evSacfxovLav (Dem. 524. 24). — kuI rj Bo^a k.t.X.] also
dependent on &v : and ivhose honour is in their shame, that is,
who find their honour in that which redounds to their shame.
184 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PIIILIPPIANS.
as for instance, in revelling, hauglity behaviour, and tlie like, in
which the immoral man is fond of making a show. ■>} 86 ^a is sub-
jective, viewed from the opinion of those men, and t^ alo-^vvri is
objective, viewed according to the reality of the ethical relation.
Comp. Polyb. xv. 23. 5 : e^' oh fXP'^^^ alcrj(yvea6aL Kad^ virep-
/3oXr;i', eTTi rovroL^ co? koXoI'^ cre/xvueadaL Kal fieyaXav^elv, and
also Plat. Tiicaet. p. 176 D; u<ydX\.ovTat yap tm oveihei. On
elvai iv, vcrsari in, to be found in, to be contained in some-
thing, comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 470 E: iv rovrto rj iraaa evSai/xovLa
icTTLv, Eur. Phoen. 1310: ovk iv ala')(^vvr] to, ad. The view,
foreign to the context, which refers the words to circumcision,
making atV;^. signify the genitals (Schol. Ar. JEJqu. 364; Am-
brosiaster ; Hikiry ; Pelagius ; Augustine, dc verb, apost. xv. 5 ;
Bengel; Michaelis ; Storr), is already rejected by Chrysostom
and his successors. — ol ra inriyaa ^povovvTe<i\ who bear the
earthly (that which is on the earth; the opposite in ver. 20)
in their mind (as the goal of their interest and effort). Comp.
Col. iii. 2. Thus Paul closes his delineation with a summary
designation of their fundamental immoral tendency, and he
put this, not in the genitive (uniformly with the wv), but more
independently and emphatically in the nominative, having in
view the logical subject of what precedes (comp. on i. 30),
and that with the individualizing (n, qui) article of apposition.
Comp. Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 228] ; Buttmann, Ncut. Gr. p. 69
[E. T. 79].
Ver. 20. After Paul has, by way of confirmation and warn-
ing, subjoined to his exhortation given in ver. 17 the deterrent
example of the enemies of the cross of Christ in ver. 1 8 £, he
now sketches by the side of that deterrent delineation — in out-
lines few, but how clear ! — the inviting pictwe of those whom,
in ver. 1 7, he had proposed as t^tto?. — ydp] The train of
thought runs thus : " Justly I characterize their whole nature
by the words ol ra iTTijeca (f)povovvTe<i ; for it is the direct
opposite of 02irs ; our iroXlreuiia, the goal of 02tr aspiration, is
not on earth, but in heaven." rydp therefore introduces a con-
firmatory reason, but not for his having said that the earthly
mind of the iroXkoi necessarily involves such a ^valk (Hof-
mann) ; for he has not said this, and what follows would not
CHAP. III. 20. 185
he a proof of it. The apostle gives, rather, an experimental
proof e contrario, and that for what immediately precedes, not
for the remote wv to Te\o9 uTrcokeia (Weiss). — rj/xcov] emphati-
cally placed first ; contrast of the persons. These /;;u.et?, how-
ever, are the same as the T^/^a? in ver. 17, consequently Paul
himself and the ovtco irepiirarovvTe';. — to TroXireu/ia] the
commonwealth, which may bear the sense either of: tlie state
(2 Mace. xii. 7 ; Polyb. i. 13. 12, ii. 41. 6 ; Lucian, Prom. 15 ;
Philo, de opif. p. 3 3 A, dc Jos. p. 5 3 6 D) ; or the state-adminis-
tration (Plat. Legg. 12, p. 945 D ; Aristot. Pol. iii. 4 ; Polyb. iv.
23. 9 ; Lucian, Pcm. cnc. 16), or its ^:)7'mcz2?/cs (Dem. 107.
25, 262. 27; Isocr. p. 156 A); or the state-constitution
(Pint. Them. 4 ; Arist. Pol. iii. 4. 1 ; Polyb. v. 9. 9, iv. 25. 7),
see generally Eaphel, Poh/h. in he. ; Schweigh. Lex. Pohjh.
p. 486 ; Schoemann, ad Pint. Cleom. p. 208. Here, in the
first sense : otir commonwealth, that is, the state to which toe
belong, is in heaven. By this is meant the Messiah's Icing dom
which had not yet a2opeared, which will only at Christ's
Parousia (comp. e'f ov k.tX. 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,
Zchrhegr. p. 190; Kitschl, altkatL Kirche, p. 59), of which
true Christians are citizens (EjDh. ii. 19) even now before the
Parousia in a proleptic and ideal sense (eTr' ikiriSi, x?}? So^?7V,
Eom. V. 2 ; comp. viii. 24), in order that one day, at the
i7ri(f)dveta t% iTapov(Tia<i rou Kvptov (2 Thess. ii. 8), they may
be so in complete reality (comp. Heb. xii. 22 f, xiii. 14), as
Koivwvol rrj^ /jLeWoucr7]<i aTroKokvirrecrOat Bo^r]'; (1 Pet. v. 1 ;
Col. iii. 4), nay, as a-v/Lt^aai\evovT€<i (2 Tim. ii. 12 ; comp.
Ptom. viii. 1 7 ; 1 Cor. iv. 8). Hence, according to the neces-
sary psychological relation, " where your treasure is, there will
your heart be also" (Matt. vi. 21), they <j)povouaiv, not to.
eTTiyeia, but ra avoi (Col. iii. If.), which serves to explain the
logical correctness of the <ydp in its relation to ol ra lirv^. (ppov.
Others, following the Vulgate (conversatio), render it : our zvalk,
making the sense, " tota vita nostra quasi jam nunc apud
Deum naturasque coelestes puriores versatur, longe remota a
T0i9 irrcyeioi'i eorumque captatione" (Hoelemann). So Luther
186 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
(wbo up till 1528 rendered it "citizenship"), Castalio, Erasmus,
Calvin, Grotius, and many others, including Matthies, van
Hengel, de Wette j while Eheinwald mixes up interpretations
of various kinds. This rendering is not justified by" linguistic
usage, which indeed vouches for troKneveaOai (i. 27) in this
sense, and for iroXireia (Clem. Cor. I. 5 4 : rroXireueadac iroknelav
0eov, Ep. ad Diogn. 5), but not for TroXLTevfia, not even in Eus.
IT. E. V. prooem. ISTor does linguistic usage even permit the in-
terpretation : citizenship. So Luther, in the Postil. Epist. D. o,
post f. pascli. : " 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 TroXireta, Acts xxii. 28 ; Thuc. vi.
104. 3; Dem. 161. 11 ; Polyb. vi. 2. 12 ; 3 Mace. iii. 21.
Theophylact's explanation, Tr;y Trarp/Sa (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 (rov ovpavbv (})avTa^6fie6a) and Oecumenius {arpa-
Tevo/jbeda) appear to follow the rendering conversaiio. —
ef ov Kol K.T.X.] And what a happy change is before us,
in consequence of our thus belonging to the heavenly state !
From the heaven (scil. rj^ovra, comp. 1 Thess. i. 10) we
expect, etc. The neuter ov, which is certainly to be taken
in a strictly local sense (in opposition to Calovius), is not to
be referred to ttoXlt. (Wolf, Schoettgen, Bengel, Hofmann) ;
but is correctly rendered by the Vulgate : " imdc" Comp.
on e^ ov, Col. ii. 19, and Bornemann, ad Xcn, Anab. i. 2. 20 :
rjfiepa'i Tpe7<;, iv tS. — Kat, cdso, denotes the relation correspond-
ing to the foregoing (namely, that our iroXirevfia is to be
found in heaven), not a second one to he added (Hofmann). —
<T(OTripa\ 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 dircoXeia (Weiss),
' The Gothic Version has : "unsara bdudins" (that is, building, dwelling).
CHAP. III. 21. 187
which, indeed, the i7/xet9 have not at all to fear. Comp. on
the subject-matter, Luke xviii. 7 f, xxi. 28; Tit. ii. 13;
2 Tim. iv. 18. — aTre/cSe;^.] comi?. 1 Cor. i. 7 ; Tit. ii. 13. As
to the signification of the word : ;perseveranter expedarc, see
on Eom. viii. 19 ; Gal. v. 5.
Ver. 21. As a special feature of the Lord's saving activity
at His Parousia, Paul mentions the lodily transfiguration of
the '7/"et9, 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 ij/x-et? are in a condition of bodily
humiliation through affliction and persecution. But at the
Parousia — what a change in the state of things ! what a glori-
fication of these bodies now so borne down ! — yxerao-T^T^/iar.]
shall transform} What is meant is the aXXdo-aecv 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 rjfieh will
live to see. To understand it at the same time of the resurrection
of the dead (so most expositors, including de Wette, Wiesinger,
Weiss), is inappropriate both to a7re/c:8e;^o/Ae^a and to the
definition of the quality of the body to be remodelled : t»}9
raireLv. rjiicov, both these expressions being used under the con-
viction of being still alive in the present state when the change
occurs. Lloreover, the resurrection is something more than a
fjbeTa(T'^r)/j,dTLcn<; ; it is also an investiture with a new body
out of the germ of the old (1 Cor. xv. 36-38, 42-44. — t?}?
raireLvoicr. rj/xcov] Genitive of the subject. Instead of saying
r]^(hv merely {oiir body), he expresses it with more specific
definition : the body of our humiliation, that is, the body ivldch
' As to the nature of this transformation, see 1 Cor. xv. 53. The older dog-
matic exegetes maintained in it the identity of substance. Calovius : "Ille
lJi.ira.(Tx,ir.i/.aTia ^'oi non subsiantlalem mutationem, sed accklentalcin, non ratione
quidd'datis corporis nostri, sed ratione quaVdatum salva quidditate importat."
This is correct only so far as the future body, although an organism without <ra.i>%
and cc^fAa, 1 Cor. xv. 50, will not only be again specifically human, but will also
belong to the identity of the persons. See 1 Cor. xv. 35 ff. Comp. Ernesti,
Urspr. d. Silnde, I. p. 127 f. More precise definitions, such as tliose in
Delitzsch's Psydiol. p. 459 ff., lose themselves in the misty region of hypothesis.
The inappropriateness of the expression employed in the Conjession: Resurrec-
tion of the flesh, has been rightly pointed out by Luther in the Larger Catechism,
p. 501.
188 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PIIILIPPIANS,
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 ns into our pre-
sent oppressed and lowly position ; iroXka izaa'^u vvv to crw^a,
Becr/xeLTat, /xacrTt^erac, fiupla irdo-'^ei Betvd, Chrysostom, This
definite reference of r. rair. r^fx. is required by the context
through the contrast of the ?)/iet9 to the i'^Opov^ rov aravpov
T. X., so that the sufferings which are meant by the cross of
Christ constitute the raTretvoocn'i of the rjfiel'i (comp. Acts viii.
33) ; in which case there is no ground for our taking raTrei-
vo)cn<;, contrary to Greek usage (Plat. Zcgff. vii. p. 815 A;
Polyb. ix. 33. 10 ; Jas. i, 10), as equivalent to TaireivoTT]^ ,
lowliness, as in Luke i. 48 (Hofmann). On this account, and
also because T^fioiv applies to subjects distinctly defined in con-
formity with the context, it was incorrect to explain Taireiv.
generally of the constitution of oiir life (Hofmann), of wcaJcness
and frailty (Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and many others ;
including Eheinwald, Matthies, Hoelemann, Schrader, Eilliet,
Wiesinger, Weiss) ; comparison being made with such passages
as Col. i. 22; Eom. vii. 24; 1 Cor. xv. 44. The contrast
lies in the states, namely, of humiliation on the one hand and
of Bo^a on the other ; hence r^fxCov and avrov are neither to be
joined with o-wfjua (in opposition to Hoelemann), nor with t.
(TMixa T. rair. and r. cr. tt}? B6^r)<; as ideas forming an unity
(Hofmann), wliich Paul would necessarily have marked by sepa-
rating the genitives in position (Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 239]). —
(TVfifiopcpov] Picsult of the fieraa'^rjfjb., so that the reading et?
TO ^eveaOai avro is a correct gloss. See on Matt. xii. 13 and
1 Cor. i. 8; Fritzsche, i)/ss. //. in 2 Cor. p. 159; Liibcker,
grammat. Stud. p. 33 f. Tlie thing itself forms a part of the
crwSo|a^eo-^ai, Eom. viii. 17. Comp. also 1 Cor. xv. 48 f . ;
Eom. viii. 29. We may add Theodoret's appropriate re-
mark : ov Kara ttjv 'jrocroTTjTa t?}? Bo^t)^, aWa Kara rrjV
TTOcoTTjTa. — T»}9 B6^. avTovj to be explained like t?}? tatt. rjfi. :
in which His heavenly glory is shown forth. ComiD. ejelpeTai,
iv Bo^T}, 1 Cor. XV. 44. — Kara r. evepy. k.t.X.] removes every
doubt as to the possibility ; according to the ivorJdng of His
heing ahle (comp. Eph. i. 19) cdso to suhdite all things unto
CHAP. III. 21. 189
Himself ; that is, in consequence of the energetic efficacy ichich
belongs to His j^oivcr of also snhduing all tldngs to Himself.
Comp. KOTO, T. ivepy. tt}? SvvdfM. avrov, Eph. iii. 7, also Eph.-
i. 19 ; as to the subject-matter, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 25 f. ; as to
the expression with the genitive of the infinitive, Onosand. I. p.
1 2 : 97 rov BvuaaOac irotelu e^ovala. — /cat] adds the general
element vTrord^ai, avro) ra ir. to the fieraa-'^rjfjiaT. k.t.X}
Bengel aptly says : " non modo conforme facere corpus nostrum
suo." — ra Trdvra] 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. 2 7), 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
rainus.
' Hoelemami takes xai as and, so tliat tlie sense would be, ' ' that Christ can do
all things, and siibdues all things to Himself." The very aorist vTroTdloci should
have withheld him from making this heterogeneous combination, as it betrays
itself to be dependent on ^uvu(rfat.
190 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIAXS.
CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 3. Instead of vaiYlz. lias xa/, against decisive witnesses.—
Instead of Gv'(uys yvrjan, yvyiffis av^uys should be Written, with
Lachm. and Tisch., upon preponderating evidence. — On decisive
testimony, in ver. 12, instead of oBa ds tut. (Elz.), olda xai rav.
is to be received. The 6s has taken its rise from the last syl-
lable of oiha ; hence we also find the reading hi xai — Ver. 1 3.
After [j.i Elz. has XpisrSj, in opposition to A B D* X, vss.
(also Vulgate) and Fathers. Defended by Reiche, but it is an
addition from 1 Tim. i. 1 2, from which passage also are found
the amplifications in Or., x. 'l/juoD and X. 'L rw xvplw yj/MoJv. — Ver
16. sig] wanting in A D* E**", min. vss. and Fathers. Bracketed
by Lachm. But after dl'S, iis might the more readily be
omitted, as it seemed superfluous, and might, indeed, on account
of the absence of an object for I'Trsfi-^., appear offensive. — Ver.
19. With Lachm. and Tisch., the form to crXoDro; is to be adopted
upon decisive testimony. See on 2 Cor. viii. 2. — Ver. 23.
Tai/rwv v/j^uv] A B D E F G P N**, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm.
Vulg. It. Damasc. Ambrosiast. Pel. have rov Tvivfiarog ujnuv.
So Lachm. and Tisch. Taken from Gal. vi. 18, whence also in
Elz. iiiMuv has likewise crept in after xvplov.
Ver. 1. Conclusion drawn from what precedes, from ver.
17 onwards. We are not justified in going further back (de
Wette refers it to the whole exhortation, iii. 2 ff., comp. also
Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann), because the direct address to the
readers in the second person is only introduced at ver. 1 7, and
that with aB€\(f)ol, as in the passage now before us ; secondly,
because the predicates uyaTrTjrol . . . o-ricjiavo^ fiov place the
summons in that close personal relation to the apostle, which
entirely corresponds with the words avfifiifxrjTal fiov <yivea6€
in ver. 1 7 ; thirdly, because wa-re finds its logical reference in
that which immediately precedes, and this in its turn is con-
nected with the exhortation avfifitixrjrai k.t.X. in ver. 1 7 ; and
lastly, because ovtw in ver. 1 is correlative to the ovtco in
CHAP. IV. 1. 191
iii. 17.1 — wo-re] accordingly; the ethical actual result, which
what has been said of the rjfim in. iii. 20 f. ought to have
with the readers. Comp. ii. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 58. — cfyairr^Toi
AC.T.X,.] " blandis appellationibus in eorum affectus se insinuat,
quae tanien non sunt adulationis, sed sinceri amoris," Calvin. —
How might they disappoint and grieve such love as this by
non-compliance ! — iiriTrodrjroL] longed for, for whom I yearn
(comp. i. 8) ; not occurring elsewhere in the N. T. ; comp.
App. Hisp. 43; Eust. Opusc. p. 357. 39; Aq. Ez. xxiii. 11
(iTTCTrodrja-i';) ; Ps. cxxxix. 9 (eTTCTroOrjixa) ; Ael. iV". A. vii. 3
(TrodrjTO'i).^ — ari(pavo<i] comp. 1 Thess. ii. 19;, Ecclus. i. 9,
vi. 31, XV. 6 ; Ez. xvi. 12, xxiii. 42 ; Prov. xvi. 31, xvii. 6 ;
Job xix. 9. The lionour, which accrued to the apostle from
the excellent Christian condition of the church, is repre-
sented by him under the figure of a croion of victory. Comp.
cTTe^avou eu/cXeta? fieyav, Soph. Aj. 465; Eur. Su202')l. 313;
Iph. ^.193, Here. F. 1334; Thuc. ii. 46 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol.
IX. p. 30 ; Lobeck ad AJ. I.e. ; also a-Tecpavovv (Wesseling, ad
Diod. Sic. I. p. 684), a-Tecjidvoty/xa, Pind. Fyth. i. 96, xii. 9,
a-Te(f)avr)(f)opecv, Wisd. iv. 2, and Grimm ioi loc. The refer-
ence of %a/?a to the present time, and of trre^. to the future
judgment (Calvin and others, comp. Pelagius), introduces arbi-
trarily a reflective distinction of ideas, which is not in keeping
with the fervour of the emotion. — 01)703] corresponding to the
TUTTo? that has just been set forth and recommended to you
(iii. 17 fl'.). Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus,
Calvin, Bengel, and others, interpret : so, as ye stand, so that
Paul " praesentem statum laudando ad perseverantiam eos
hortetur," Calvin. This is at variance with the context, for
he has just adduced others as a model for his readers ; and the
exhortation would not agree with av/jbfxtfM. [jl. ylveade, iii. 17,
which, notwithstanding all the praise of the morally advanced
community, still does not presuppose the existence already of
a normal Christian state. — iv Kvplcp] Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 8.
^ In opposition to which Hofmann quite gi-oundlessly urges the objection,
that Paul in that case would have written ■jripiTanTrt instead of ffTrmiTi. As if
he must have thought and spoken thus mechanically ! The trTrixin is in fact
substantially just a -nfivariTv which maintains its ground.
192 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPL^NS.
Christ is to be the element in ivliicli 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.
— a<ya'irr]Toi^ " 7rept7ra6r}<i haec vocis hujus dva(f)opd" Grotius.
In no other epistle so much as in this has Paul multiplied
the expressions of love and praise of his readers ; a strong
testimony certainly as to the praiseworthy condition of the
church, from which, however, Weiss infers too much. Here, as
always (Kom. xii. 19; 2 Cor. vii. 1, xii. 19; Phil. ii. 12; 1 Cor.
X. 14; Heb. vi. 9, d al.), moreover, d'yair'qroi stands as an
address without any more precise self-evident definition, and is
not to be connected (as Hofmann holds) with iv Kvpuo.
Ver. 2 f. After this general exhortation, ver. 1, the apostle,
still deeply concerned for the community that is so dear to
him, finds it requisite to give a special admonition to and for
tivo 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 ar^jKeiv iv Kvplw might more or less be
imperilled. Whether they were deaconesses in Philippi (as
many conjecture), must remain undecided. Grotius has
erroneously considered both names, Hammond and Calmet
only the second, to be masculine} and in that case avTai<i in
ver. 3 is made to apply to others (viz. acTive<; k.tX). For the
two feminine names on inscriptions, see Gruter and Muratori.
With Tischendorf and Lipsius (Gramm. Unters. p. 31), Hvvtv^i]
is to be treated as oxytone. Comp. generally Kliliner, I. p.
' According to Baur, indeed, they are alleged to be two parties rather than
two women ; and Schwegler (nachapostol. Zeitalt. II. p. 135) makes out that
Eiiodia represents the Jewish-Cliristlan, and Syntyche the Gentile-Christian
party, and that yv^i^io; avXvyo; applies to Peter ! On the basis of ConstUutt. ap.
vii. 46. 1 (according to wliich Peter appointed 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 If. But exegetical fiction in con-
nection with the two feminine names has been pushed to the utmost by Hitzig,
2. K^it. Paulin. Br. p. 5 ff., according to whom they are supposed to have
their origin in Gen. xxx. 9 ff. ; he represents our author as having changed
Asher and Gad into women in order to represent figuratively two parties, and
both ot them Gentile-Christian.
- Theodore of Mopsuestia quotes the opinion that the two were husband and
wife.
CHAP. IV. 3. 193
256. The twice used TrapaK.: "quasi coram adhortans
seorsum iitramvis, idque summa cum aeqiiitate," Bengel. An
earnestly individualizing eTrifiovT] (Bremi, ad Acschin. p. 400).
— TO avTo <f)pov.] see on ii. 2. — iv Kvp.] characterizes the
specifically Christian concord, the moral nature and effort of
which are grounded on Christ as their determining vital prin-
ciple. Paul does not desire a union of minds apao^t from
Christ. — Whether the disunion, which must he assumed, had
its deeper root in moral iiride on account of services in the
cause of the gospel (Schinz), is not clear.
Ver. 3. Indeed, I entreat thee also, etc. This bringing in
of a third party is a confirmation of the previous admonition
as regards its necessity and urgency ; hence the val ; comp.
Philem. 20. See also on Matt. xv. 27. — crv^vr^e is erroneously
understood by Clemens Alexandrinus, Isidorus, Erasmus,
Musculus, Cajetanus, Flacius, and others, as referring to the
loife of the apostle ; an idea which, according to 1 Cor. vii. 8,
compared with ix. 5, is at variance with history (see, already,
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact), and at the
same time at variance with grammar, as the adjective must in
that case have stood in the feminine {Test. XII. Patr. p. 526 ;
Eur. Ale. 314, 342, 385). Others understand the husband of
one of the two loomen (so, although with hesitation, Chry-
sostom, also Theophylact, according to whom, however, he
might have been a brother, and Camerarius ; not disapproved
by Beza) ; but what a strangely artificial designation would
" genuine conjux " be ! Weiss prefers to leave undecided the
nature of the bond which connected the individual in question
with the two women. But if, in general, a relation to the
t'jomen were intended, and that apart from the bond of matri-
mony, by the term av^vye Paul would have expressed himself
very awkwardly ; for the current use of the word av^v<yo<;, and
also of crv^uyi]<; (3 Mace. iv. 8) and av^v^ (Eur. Ale. 924), in
the sense of conjux (comp. av^evyvvvai, Xen. Occ. 7. 30 ;
Herodian, iii. 10. 14), must have been well known to the
reader. The usual mode of interpreting this passage (so
Flatt, Eheinwald, Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette, following
Pelagius and Theodoret) has been to refer it to some dis-
PHIL. N
194 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
tinguished fellow - labourer of the aiwstlc, well known, as a
matter of course, to the readers of the epistle, who had his
abode in Philippi and deserved well of the church there
by special services. Some have arbitrarily fixed on Silas
(Bengel), and others quite unsuitably on Timothy (Estius),
and even on E;paphroditus (Vatablus, Grotius, Calovius,
Michaelis, van Hengel, and Baumgarten-Crusius), whom Hof-
mann also would have us understand as referred to, inasmuch
as he regards him as the amanuensis of the epistle, who had
therefore heard it dictated by the apostle, and then heard it
again when it came to be read in the church, so that he hncw
himself to he the person addressed. What accumulated in-
vention, in order to fasten upon Epaphroditus the, after all,
unsuitable confession before the church that he was himself
the person thus distinguished by the apostle ! According to
Luther's gloss, Paul means " the most distinguished hisJiop in
Philippi." Corap. also Ewald, who compares av/xTrpea^vrepo^i,
1 Pet. V. 1. But how strange would such a nameless desig-
nation be in itself ! How easily might the preferential
designation by ^vrjCLO'; have seemed even to slight other fellow-
labourers in Philippi ! Besides, Paul, in describing his
official colleagues, never makes use of this term, crv^vyo';,
which does not occur elsewhere in the IsT. 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 av^vye a proper name, in
which case the attribute '^vr\(ne corresponds in a delicate
and winning way to the appellative sense of the name (comp.
Philem. 1 1) ; genuine Sgzijgus, that is, thou who art in
reality and substantially that which thy name expresses :
" fellow-in-yole" i.e. yolce-fellov:, fellow-labourer. We may
assume that Syzygus had rendered considerable services to
Christianity in Philippi in joint labour with the apostle, and
that Paul, in his appellative interpretation of the name, fol-
lowed the figurative conception of animals in the yoJce ploughing
or thrashing (1 Cor. ix. 9 ; 1 Tim. v. 18), a conception which
CHAP. IV. s, 195
was suggested to liim by the very oiame itself. The opposite of
ryv7](no<; would be: ovk oWw? mv (comp. Plat. Polit. p. 293 E),
so that the man with his name Syzygus would not be e7rcovvijio<;
(Eur. PJioen. 1500 ; Soph. Aj. 430), Jacobs, ad Del. E'piyr.
p. 272 f. He bore this his name, however, as ovofia er-^rvfiov
(Del. Epiyr. v. 42). This view of the word being a proper
name — to which Wiesinger inclines, which Laurent decidedly
defends^ in his Neut. Stud. p. 134 ff. and Grimm approves of
in his Lexicon, and which Hofmann, without reason, rejects ^
simply on account of the usus loquendi of <yvi](no<; not being
proved — was already held by Tive<; in Chrysostom ; comp.
ISTiceph, Call. ii. p. 212 D ; Oecumenius permits a choice
between it and the explanation in the sense of the husband of
one of the two women. It is true that the name is not pre-
served elsewhere ; but with how many names is that the case ?
Hence it was unwarranted to assume (Storr) a translation of
the name KoX\T]yd<; (Joseph. Bell. yu. 3. 4), in connection with
which, moreover, it would be hard to see why Paul should
have chosen the word a-v^vyo<; elsewhere not used by him,
and not avvepyo^, or the like.^ To refer the word to Christ,
who helps every one to bear his yoke (Wieseler), was a
mistake. — avWafi^. avra2<;] lay hold along ivith them, that is,
assist them (Luke v. 7 ; Herod, vi. 125 ; Xen. Ages. 2. 31 ;
Wunder, ad Soph. Phil. 280 ; Lex. Plat. IIL p. 294), namely,
for their reconciliation and for restoring their harmonious
action. — airives] ^itpote quae, giving the motive, comp. i. 2 8 ;
' In doing so, Lnurent takes the reference of (rCv contained in the name as
general: " helper of all laboxir in the vineyard of the Lord." ilore thoughtful,
however, is tlie reference to the apostle himself, whose true yoke-fellow is to
supx^ly his place with his former female felloiv-strlvers {aurkSx, f^oi) ; comp.
also subsequently ffuvspyuiv /mv.
2 According to our view, yvJia-ios is, in fact, taken in no other sense than that
which is current in all Greek autliors, viz. uXyi^'ivo;, vcrus, as Hofmann himself
takes it. "Whether we refer it thus to aCXuyi as an aj^pdlaiive word, or as the
appellative contents of a name — is a matter which leaves the linguistic use
of ywia; altogether untouched. As is well known, m'o6os has the same general
linguistic usage in the opposite sense (see e.g. Plat. Rep. p. 536 A ; Jacobs, ad
Del. Epigr. i. 103. 3).
^ This holds at the same time against the view of Pelagius : " Gcrmanus dictus
est nomine, qui erat compar officii. " He is followed by Lyra.
196 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
see on Eom. i. 25, ii. 15, vi. 2, d al. — ev tw eua77.] the domain,
in ivliich they, etc. Comp. Rom. i. 9 ; 1 Thess. iii. 2. It was
among women that the gospel had first struck root in Philippi
(Acts xvi. 13), and it is to be assumed that the two women
named had rendered special service in the spread and con-
firmation of Christianity among their sex, and therein had
shared the conflict of affliction and persecution with Paul
(1 Thess. ii. 2). On <Tvui]6X7]aav, comp. i. 27. — yttera kuI
K\i]/x€VTo<; K.T.\.] and in what fellowsliip, so honouraUe to them,
have they shared my conflict for Christ's sake ? in association
also with Clement and, etc. The reference of the Kai is
to fiot ; their joint-striving with Paul had been a fellowship
in striving also with Clement, etc. ; they had therein stood
side hy side with these men also. On /cat . . . Kai, the first Ka\
meaning also, comp. EUendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 891 ; on its rarer
position, however, between preposition and noun, see Schaefer,
Ind. ad Grcgor. Cor. p. 1064 ; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 143 ;
Kiihner, II. 1, p. 480 f The connection of jxera k. Kk. k.t.X
with (TvXKafM(3. avTa'l<i (Coccejus, Michaelis, Storr, Piatt, 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 tliat the subsequent &v ra ovofj^ara k.t.\., in
the absence of any specification of the churches, would neither
be based on any motive nor intelligible to the readers, and
would be strangest of all in the event of Paul's having intended,
as Hofmann thinks, to indicate here the presbyters and deacons
mentioned in i. 1. The XoittoI a-vvepyoi, as well as generally
the more special circumstances of which Paul here reminds his
readers, were — if //era koI k.t.X. be joined with avvrjdXrjadv fxoi,
beside which it stands — historically known to these readers,
althouG;h unknown to us. — That Clement was a teacher in
Pldlvppi (so most modern expositors ; according to Grotius, a
2)rcshyter in Philippi, but " Romanus aliquis in Macedonia
negotians "), must be maintained in accordance with the con-
text, seeing that with him those two PhiliiJinan women laboured
as sharing the conflict of tlie apostle ; and of a travelling com-
panion of this name, who had laboured with the apostle in
CHAP. IV. 3. 197
Macedonia, there is no trace to be found ; and seeing that the
XotTTol crvvepyoL also are to be regarded as Fhilijipians, because
thus only does the laudatory expression wv ra ovo/xara k.tX
appear in its vivid and direct set purpose of bespeaking for
the two women the esteem of the church. The more frequent,
however, in general the name of Clement was, the more
arbitrary is the old view, although not yet known to Irenaeus
(iii. 3. 3), that Clement of Rome is the person meant/ So
most Catholic expositors (not Dollinger), following Origen,
ad Joh. i. 29 ; Eusebius, H. E. iii. 15 ; Epiphanius, Hacr.
xxvii. 6 ; Jerome, Pelagius, and others ; so also Francke, in
the Zcitschr. f. Luth. Thcol. 1841, iii. p. 73 ff., and van Hengei,
who conjectures Euodia and Syntyche to have been Eoman
women who had assisted the apostle in Borne, and had travelled
with Epaphroditus to Philippi. See generally, besides Liine-
mann and Bruckner, Lipsius, cle Clem. Bom. cp. p. 167 ff. ;
J. B. Lightfoot, p. 166 ff. ; and Hilgenfeld, A2Josf. Vdier, p.
92 ff. — wv ra ouo/x. k.t.X.] refers merely to rwv \onroov k.tX.,
whom Paul does not adduce % iictme, but instead of this
affirms of their names something so great and honourable.
God has recorded their names in His book, in which are
written down the future partakers of the everlasting ]\Iessianic
life ; so surely cmd irrevocaUy is this life assigned to them:
What Paul thus expresses by this solenm figure, he hicio
from their whole Christian character and action, in which he
recognised by experience " qicasi clcetionis ^ aliseonditac sigilla "
• Nevertheless, upon this hypothesis Baur builds up a whole fabric of com-
binations, which are intended to transfer the date of our epistle to the post-
apostolic age, when the Flavins Clemens known in Roman history, who was a
patrueUs 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 Koman
tradition. Conip. Volkmar in the Theolog. Jahrb. 1S56, p. 309, according to
whom tlie Eoman Clement is to be here already assumed as a martyr. Indeed,
according to Schwegler and Hitzig, z. Krit. j^iauHn. Br. p. 13, a first attempt
is made here to connect this Clement also with Peter (for no other in their view
is the (rul^uye;). Thus, no doubt, the way is readily prepared for bringing down
our epistle to the days of Trajan. Kound the Avclcome name of Clement all
possible fictions crystallize.
^ The detailed discussion of the question as to the rjround of the divine electio
here portrayed (tlie Keformed theologians, "the decrctum ahsolutnm ;" the
Lutherans, " t\\Q pracvisa fides ;'^ the Catholics, ^' i\\Q praevisa opera") is owioi
198 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PIIILIPPIANS.
(Calvin). See, moreover, on Luke x. 20, and Wetstein on our
passage ; it is different in Heb. xii. 23 (see Liinemann in loc).
eVrt must be supplied, not the optative, as Bengel thinks ;
and it must remain an open question, whether the persons
referred to (among whom Ewald reckons Clement) are to be
regarded as already dead (Bengel, Ewald), which is not to be
inferred from wv ra ovo/jcara k.t.X. ; see Luke x. 20 ; Hernias,
Pastor i. 1. 3. It is at all events certain that this predicate,
which Paul nowhere else uses, is an especially Jwnourahlc one,
and does not simply convey what holds true of all Christians
(so Hofmann in connection with his erroneous reference of
/iera koI k.t.X.). At Luke x. 20, and Rev. xiii. 8 also, it is a
mark of distinction.
Ver. 4 f. Without any particle of transition, we have once
more general concluding admonitions, which begin by taking
up again the encouraging address broken off in iii. 1, and now
strengthened by Trdvrore — the key-note of the epistle. They
extend as far as ver. 9 ; after which Paul again speaks of the
assistance which he had received. — 'rravroTe] not to be con-
nected with TToXiv epoi (Hofmann), which would make the
ttoXlv very superfluous, is an essential element of the Chris-
tian ^(aipeLv; comp. 1 Thess. v. 16 ; 2 Cor. vi. 10. Just at
the close of his epistle the apostle brings it in significantly,
Paul desires joyfulness at all times on the part of the believer,
to whom even tribulation is grace (i. 7, 29) and glory (Rom.
V. 3), and in whom the pain of sin is overcome by tlie cer-
tainty of atonement (Rom. viii. 1) ; to wdiom everytliing must
serve for good (Rom. viii. 28 ; 1 Cor. iii. 21 f), and nothing
can separate him from the love of God (Rom. viii. 38 f.). —
TToKiv epw] once more I ivill say. Observe the future, which
exliibits the consideration given to the matter by the writer;
consequently not equivalent to irakiv Xeyoj, 2 Cor. xi. 16 ;
Gal. i. 9. KaXw? iBiTrXao-Laaev, iireiBr] twv Trpay/xdrcov rj (f)vai<i
Xvinqv eriKTe, Bia rov hLifKaaiacrixov BeUvvcnv, on irdvT(0<;
Bel -yaipeiv, Chrysostom. — To iirieiKh v/ji.(bv] your mildness
place here. Flacius, Clav. s.v. "liber," justly observes that it is not /atoZ/s
quaedam electio which is pointed to, but ob vtram justitiam, qualis Christi est,
credentes eo referri et hiscribi.
CHAP. IV. 4, 5. 199
[LindigJccit, Luther], that is, your gentle character, as opposed
to undue sternness (Polyb. v. 10. 1 : rj eTneUeca koI <f>i\av-
Optorria, Lucian, Phal. 'pr. 2 : eVtei/c^? k. fjbeTpi.o<;, Herodian,
ii. 14. 5, ix. 12; 1 Tim. iii. 3; Tit. iii. 2; Jas. iii. 17;
1 Pet. ii. 18 ; Ps. Ixxxv. 5 : Add. to Esth. vi. 8 ; 2 Mace. ix.
27). Comp. on 2 Cor. x. 1. The opposite: aKpL/SoSUato'i,
Arist. Mil. Nic. v. 10. 8, cr«;X?7po9. As to the neuter of the
adjective taken as a substantive, see on iii. 8 ; comp. Soph.
0. C. 112 7. It might also mean : your becoming behaviour ;
see e.g. the passages from Plato in Ast, Zex. I. p. 775. But
how indefinite would be such a requirement as this ! The
general duty of the Christian walk (which Matthies finds in
the words) is not set forth till ver. 8. And in the N. T.
iirceiK. always occurs in the above-named special sense. —
yvcoa6i]T(o iracnv dv6p.] let it he knoion hy all men, through the
acquaintance of experience with your conduct. Comp. Matt.
V. 16. The universality of the expression (which, moreover, is
to be taken ;popidarly : " let no man come to know you in a
harsh, rigorous aspect") prohibits our referring it to their rela-
tion to the enemies of the cross of Christ, against whom they
should not be hatefully disposed (Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact), or to the enemies of Christianity (Pelagius,
Theodoret, Erasmus, and others), or to the Judaists (Ehein-
wald), although none of these are excluded, and the motive for
the exhortation is in part to be found in the outward circum-
stances full of tribulation, face to face with an inclination
to moral pride. — The succession of exhortations without any
outward Hnk may be psychologically explained by the fact, that
the disposition of Christian joy fulness must elevate men quite
as much above strict insisting upon rights and claims as above
solicitude (ver. 6). Neither with the former nor with the latter
could the Christian fundamental disposition of the ^aipeiv kv
Kvpiw subsist, in which the heart enlarges itself to yielding
love and casts all care upon God. — 6 Kvpio<; e77i;9j points to
the nearness of Christ's Parousia, 1 Cor. xvi. 22. Comp. on
€77^9, Matt. xxiv. 32 f. ; Luke xxi. 31 ; Eev. i. 3, xxii. 10 ;
Eom. xiii. 11. The reference to God, by which Paul would
bring home to their hearts, as Calvin expresses it, " divinae
200 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
jprovidentiae fiduciam" (comp. Ps. xxxiv. 18, cxix. 151, cxlv.
1 8 ; so also Pelagius, Luther, Calovius, Zancliius, Wolf, Ehein-
wald, Matthies, Eilliet, Cornelius Miiller, and others), is not
suggested in v v. 1, 2, 4 by the context, which, on the con-
trary, does not refer to God until ver. 6. Usually and rightly,
following Chrysostom and Erasmus, the words have been
attached to lohat precedes} If the Lord is at hand, who is
coming as the Vindcx of every injustice endured and as the
arcoTrjp of the faithful, how should they not, in this prospect
of approaching victory and blessedness (iii. 20), willingly and
cheerfully renounce everything opposed to Christian eTrieUeLa !
The words therefore convey an cneouragcincnt to the latter.
What follows has its complete reference, and that to God,
pointed out by the antithesis aXV kv iravrl k.t.\.
Ver. 6. The fiepi/xvuTe is not to be limited in an arbitrary
way (as by Grotius, Flatt, Weiss, and others, to anxious care) ;
about nothing (neither want, nor persecution, nor a threaten-
ing future, etc.) are they at all to give themselves concern, but
on the contrary, etc. ; firjSev, which is emphatically prefixed, is
the accusative of the object (1 Cor. vii. 32 ff., xii. 25 ; Phil, ii,
20). Comp. Xen. Cyrop. viii. 7. 12 : ro iroXKa fiepi/jLvdv kuI
TO fjirj hiivaaOai r^avy^iav e-^eiv. Caring is here, as in Matt.
vi., the contrast to full confidence in God. Comp. 1 Pet. v. 7.
" Curare et orare plus inter se pugnant quam aqua et ignis,"
Bengel. — ev 7ravrC\ opposed to the /xTjSev ; hence : in every
case or affair (comp. Eph. v. 24; 2 Cor. iv. 8; 1 Thess. v.
18; Plat. Euthyd. p. 301 A), not: at all times (Syriac,
Grotius, Bos, Flatt, Eheinwald). — rfj Trpoaev^y k. rfj Serja-ec]
by prayer and siqyplication. On the distinction between the two
(the former being general, the latter supijlicating prayer), see ou
Eph. vi. 18. The article indicates the prayer, uVa'c/j. ye make;
' They do not belong, by way of introduction, to what foUoios, 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 lyyv; habitually used of the future ,/f«aZ
combnj, in addition to the above passages, Matt. iii. 2, iv. 17, x. 7 ; Mark i. 15 ;
Luke xxi. 8, 28 ; Rom. xiii. 12 ; Heb. x. 25 ; Jas. v. 8 ; 1 Pet. iv. 7 ; and the
ijixoi^ai rax,6 of the Apocalypsc. The simply correct rendering is given after
Chrysostom by Erasaius {"instat enim adventus Christi"), Grotius, and others.
CHAP. IV. 7. 201
and the repetition of the article, otherwise not required, puts
forward the two elements the more emphatically (Kiihner, II. 1,
p. 529). — [xera eup^a/?.] belongs to jvcopi^. k.t.X., which, exclud-
ing all solicitude in the prayer, should never take place (comp.
1 Thess. V. 18 ; Col. iii. 17) without thanksrjiving for the
proofs of divine love already received and continually being
experienced, of which the Christian is conscious under all cir-
cumstances (Eom. viii. 28). In the thanksgiving of the sup-
pliant there is expressed entire surrender to God's will, the very
opposite of solicitude. — ra alnj/jbara vfi.] what ye desire (Plat,
Bcp. viii. p. 566 B; Dionys. Hal, Antt. vi, 74; Luke xxiii,
24), that is, in accordance with the context: jonv petitions
(1 John V. 15 ; Dan. vi. 7, 13 ; Ps. xix. 6, xxxvi, 4, et al. ;
Schleusner, Thes. I. p. 100). — <yvwpii,i<j6(o tt/jo? t. &e6v] miist
he made hnoion towards God ; iTpo<i, versus ; it is the coram
of the direction, Comp. Bernhardy, p. 265; Schoem. ad Is.
iii. 25, The expression is more g^xq^hic than the mere dative
would be ; and the conception itself (yvwpi^.) is popularly
anthropopathic ; Matt, vi, 8, Bengel, moreover, aptly remarks
on the subject-matter: "qui desideria sua praepostero pudore
ac diffidenti modestia . , . velant, suffocant ac retinent, curis
anguntur ; qui filiali et liberali fiducia erga Deum expromunt,
expediuntur. Confessionibus ejusmodi scatent Psalmi."
Ver. 7. The blessed result, which the compliance with
ver, 6 will have for the inner man. How independent is this
blessing of the concrete granting or non-o-rantino; of what is
prayed for ! — tj elpijvT) r. ©eov] the peace of said produced by
God (through the Holy Spirit ; comp. %a/ja eV irvev^ari a<yi(p,
Eom. xiv. 17), the repose and satisfaction of the mind in God's
counsel and love, whereby all inward discord, doubt, and
variance are excluded, such as it is expressed e.g. in Eom.
viii. 18, 28, So in substance most expositors, including
Eheinwald, Flatt, Baum.garten-Crusius, Hoelemann, Eilliet, de
Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and Winer, This
view — and not (in opposition to Theodoret and Pelagius) that
explanation of peace in the sense of harmony luith the hrcthrcn
(Eom. XV. 33, xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii, 11; 1 Thess. v. 23;
2 Thess. iii. 1 6), which corresponds to the ordinary use of the
202 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPLiNS.
correlative o ©eo? Trj<; elp')]vrj<i in ver. 9 — is here required on
the part of the context, both by the contrast of fiept/ivdre
in ver. 6^ and by the predicate rj virepixovaa Travra vovv.
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 (xept^va, to which the feeble
vov<i by itself is liable ; as, indeed, in the classical authors
also (Plat. RciJ. p. 329 C, p. 372 D), and elsewhere (Wisd.
iii. 3), elpijvT) denotes the tranquillitas and securitas, the mental
'yoKrjvq (Plat. Lcgg. vii. p. 791 A) and '^crvyla — a rest, which
here is invested by tov Oeov with the consecration of divine
life. Comp. elp-qvi) rov Xpiarov, Col. iii. 1 5 ; John xiv. 3 3 ;
and, on the other hand, the false elprjvr] k. aa-(j)aXeia, 1 Thess.
V. 3. It is therefore not to be understood, according to Eom.
V. 1, as "pax, qua reconciliati estis Deo" (Erasmus, Faraphr. ;
so Chrysostom, 17 KaTaWayjj, 7} ayairy] r. 0eov ; and Theophy-
lact, Oecumenius, Beza, Estius, Wetstein, and others, including
Storr, Matthies, and van Hengel), which would be too general
and foreign to the context. The peace of reconciliation is
the presupposition of the divinely produced moral feeling
which is here meant ; the former is elprjvr] 7rpo<; rov Qeov, the
latter elp-qvrj rod Oeov. — r) virepi'^ovaa irdvra vovv] ivhich sur-
passes every reason, namely, in regard to its salutary power and
efficacy ; that is, ivJiich 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 adp^ (Rom. vii. 23, 25 ;
Gal. V. 17), no reason is in a position to give this clear holy
elevation and strength against the world and its afflictions.
Tliis can be effected by nothing but the agency of the divine
peace, which is given by means of the Spirit in the believing
heart, when by its prayer and supplication with thanksgiving
it has elevated itself to God and has confided to Him all its
concerns, 1 Pet. v. 7. Then, in virtue of this blessed peace,
the heart experiences what it could not have experienced by
means of its own thinking, feeling, and willing. According
to de Wette, the doulting and heart-disquieting vov^; is meant,
CHAP. IV. 7. 203
which is surpassed by the peace of God, because the latter is
based upon faith and feeling. In opposition to this, however,
stands the trdma, according to which not merely all douht-
ing 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 incominclicnsihlciicss of the
peace of God, " the greatness of which the understanding
cannot even grasp" (Wiesinger). So Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Cah^in, Grotius, also Hoele-
mann and "Weiss. Comp. Eph. iii. 20. But the context,
both in the foregoing firjBev fMepi/xvare and in the (jjpnvp'^aet
k.tX. which follows, points only to the blessed influence, in
respect of which the peace of God surpasses every kind of
reason whatever, and consequently is more efficacious than it.
It is a vTrepe^eiv ttj SwafMei; Paul had no occasion to bring
into prominence the incomprehensi'bleness of the elp-^vr) @eov.
— On virepe-^etv with the accusative (usually with the genitive,
ii. 3), see Valckenaer, cid Fur. Hippol. 1365; Kiihner, II. 1,
p. 337. — <f)povpi](Tet AT.T.A-.] not custodiat (Vulgate, Chrysos-
tom, Theodoret, Theophylact : aa^aXiaaiTo, Luther, Calovius,
Cornelius a Lapide, and others, including Storr, Heinrichs,
Elatt), but custodiet (Castalio, Beza, Calvin), whereby 2^'i^otcction
against all injurious influences (comp. 1 Pet. i. 5) is i^t'omised.
Comp. Plat. Rep. p. .5 6 B : oi . . . apiarot ^povpot re KaX
<f)vXaK€'i iv dv8p(ov 6eo<pi\(t)v elcrl Siavoiai<;. Eur. Suppl. 902:
i(f)povp6c (iroWov';) fir^Sev i^a/xaprdveLu. " Animctt eos hac
iiducia," Erasmus, Annot. This protecting vigilance is more
precisely defined by ev X. 'I., which expresses its specific cha-
racter, so far as this peace of God is in Christ as the element of
its nature and life, and therefore its influence, protecting and
keeping men's hearts, is not otherwise realized and carried out
than in this its holy sphere of life, which is Christ. The
^povpd which the peace of God exercises implies in Christ,
as it were, the (f)povpap'^ia (Xen. Ifein. iv. 4. 17). Comp.
Col. iii. 15, where the elp-qvr) tov Xpicrrov /Spa^evet, in men's
hearts. Others consider iv X. 'I. as that which takes place on
the part of the readers, wherein the peace of God would keep
204 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
them, namely " in unity ivith Christ, in His divinely-blessed,
holy life," de Wette ; or ware fj,ev€cv koX fjurj eKireaelv avTov,
Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Zanchius,
and others, including Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Eheinwald, van
Hengel, Matthies, Eilliet, Wiesinger, Weiss, But the words
do not affirm ivherein watchful activity is to kcc}) or 2J'>'(^scrve
the readers (Paul does not write n^prjo-et ; comp. John xvii. 11),
but wherein it will take place ; therefore the inaccurate render-
ing per Christum (Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, and others) is so
far more correct. The artificial suggestion of Hoelemann
(" Christo fere cinguli instar ra? KapSia<; vficov k.t.\. circum-
cludente," etc.) is all the less warranted, the more familiar
the idea iv Xpi(rra> 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 (f)povp7]aec k.t.\., are not to be arbi-
trarily limited, e.g. to opponents (Heinrichs), or to Satan (Beza,
Grotius, and others), or sm (Theophylact), ox pravas cogitationes
(Calvin), or " omncs insulins ct curas" (Bengel), and the like ;
but to be left quite general, comprehending all such special
aspects. Erasmus well says {Paraphr.) : " adversus omnia,
quae hie possunt incidere formidanda." — ra? Kaph. v/ji. k. to,
vo7)fi. vfiav] emphatically kept apart. It is enough to add
Bengel's note : " cor sedes cogitationum." Comp. Boos, Fun-
dam. p>sijchol. ex sacr. script. III. § 6 : " causa cogitationiim
interna eaque libera." The heart is the organ of self-conscious-
ness, and therefore the moral seat of the activity of tb ought
and will. As to the vorjfiara (2 Cor. iii. 14) as the internal
products of the theoretical and practical reason, and therefore
including purposes and plans (Plat. Folit. p. 260 D ;
2 Cor. ii. 11), comp. Beck, hihl. Scelcnl. p. 59, and Delitzsch,
Fsychol. p. 179. The distinction is an arbitrary one, which
applies T. Kaph. to the emotions and will, and t. voi^im. to the
intelligence (Beza, Calvin).
Ver, 8 f. A summary closing summons to a Christian mode
of thought and (ver. 9) action, compressing everything closely
and succinctly into a few pregnant words, introduced by to
'Koiirov, with which Paul had already, at iii 1, wished to pass
CHAP. IV. 8, 9, 205
on to tlie conclusion. See on iii. 1. This rb Xolttov is
not, however, resumptive (Matthies, Ewald, following the
old expositors), or concluding the exhortation begun in
iii. 1 (Hofmann), for in tliat passage it introduced quite a
different summons; but, without any reference to iii. 1, it
conveys the transition of thought : " what over and above all
the foregoing I have to urge upon you in general still is :
everything tlmt" etc. According to de Wette, it is intended
to bring out what remained for man to do, in addition to that
which God docs, ver. 7. But in that case there must have
been expressed, at least by v/xel? before aSeX^oi or in some
other way, an antithetic statement of that which had to be
done on the part of man. — oaa] nothing being excepted,
expressed asyndetically six times with the emphasis of an
earnest eTrifiovt']. Comp. ii. 1, iii. 2 ; Buttmanu, Hait. Gr.
p. 341 [E. T. 398]. — dXriOrj] The thoroughly ethical contents
of the whole summons requires us to understand, not theoreticcd
truth (van Hengel), but that which is morally triic ; that is,
that which is in harmony vnth the objective standard of morality
contained in the gospel. Chrysostom : -7 aperrj' yjrevBo^ Se tj kukm.
Oecumenius : dXTjdrj Bi (f)7]ac rd ivdpera. Comp. also Theophy-
lact. See 1 John i. 6 ; John iii. 21 ; Eph. v. 9 ; 1 Cor. v. 8.
To limit it to truth in speaking (Theodoret, Bengel) is in itself
arbitrary, and not in keeping with the general character of the
predicates which follow, in accordance with which we must
not even understand specially unfeigned sincerity (Erasmus,
Grotius, Estius, and others ; comp. Eph. iv. 21; Plat. Fhil. p.
59 C : TO dX't]dh Koi o Bi] Xeyo/Mev elXiKpivh), though this
essentially belongs to the morally true. — o-e/xi/a] toorthy of
honour, for it is in accordance with God. Comp. 1 Tim. ii. 2 :
evcre^ela koL aep.voTT}TC. Plat. Sojph. p. 249 A: ae/xvov Kal dyiov
vovv. Xen. Oec. vi. 14: to ae/xvov ovofxa to kuXov re Kd^jadov.
Dem. 385. 11 ; Herodian, i. 2. 6 ; Ael. V. H. ii. 13, viii. 36 ;
Polyb. ix. 36. 6, xv. 22. 1, xxii. 6. 10. — BUaia'] vpright, as
it ought to be ; not to be limited to the relations " erga alios"
(Bengel, Heumann, and others), so that justice in the narrower
sense would be meant (so Calvin : " ne quem laedamus, ne
quem fraudemus ;" Estius, Grotius, Calovius, and others).
206 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Comp., on the contrary, Theogn. 147 : iv BiKacoavvj) avW^/SBrjv
Traa aperi] ea-Tc. — d'yvd] pure, unstained, not : chaste in the
narrower sense of the word (2 Cor. xi. 2; Dem. 1371. 22 ;
Pint. Mor. 13. 268 E, 438 C, et al), as Grotius, Calovius, Estius,
Heumann, and others would explain it. Calvin well says :
" castimoniam denotat in omnibus vitae partibus." Comp.
2 Cor. vi. 6, vii. 11 ; 1 Tim. v. 22 ; Jas. iii. 17 ; 1 Pet. iii. 2 ;
1 John iii. 3 ; often so used in Greek authors. Comp. Menand,
in Clem. Strom, vii. p. 844: 7ra9 dyv6<i iariv 6 firjBev iavro)
KUKov avviSoov. — irpoa(^Lkrf\ dear, that ivhieh is loved.. This is
just once more Christian morality, which, in its whole nature
as the ethical Ka\6v, is ivorthy of love ;^ Plat. Rep. p. 444 E;
Soph. El. 972: ^Cket yap irpo^ rd '^prjard Tra? opdv. " Nihil
est amahilius virtute, nihil quod magis alliciat ad diligendum,
Cic. Zael. 28. Comp. ad Famil. ix. 14; Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 33.
The opposite is the ala')(^p6v, which deserves hate (Piom.
vii. 15). Chrysostom suggests the supplying Toc<i iriaToU k.
rcu ©ew; Theodoret only tm ©eS. Others, as Calovius,
Estius, Heinrichs, and many : " amabilia hominihus!' But
there is no necessity for any such supplement. The word
does not occur elsewhere in the K T., although frequently
in classical authors, and at Ecclus. iv. 8, xx. 13. Others
understand kindliness, benevolence, friendliness, and the like.
So Grotius ; comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. : " quaecumque ad
alendam concordiam accommoda." Linguistically faultless
(Ecclus. I.e.; Herod, i. 125; Thuc. vii. 86; Polyb. x. 5. 6),
but not in keeping with tlie context, which does not adduce
any special virtues. — evcjuj/xa'] not occurring elsewhere either
in the N. T., or in the LXX., or Apocrypha; it does not
mean: "quaecumque honam famam conciliant" (Erasmus;
comp. Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Heinrichs,
and others, also Eheinwald) ; but : that which sounds well
(Luther), which has an ausjncious (faustum) sound, i.e. that
which, when it is named, sounds significant of happiness, as,
for instance, Irave, honest, honourable, etc. The opposite
would be : Bvaj>r)fjt,a. Comp. Soph. AJ. 362 ; Eur. i}A :Z'. 687 :
> Luther well renders it: " ZiciZicA, " and the Gothic : 'Uiuhaleikj" the Vul-
gate: " amabiria.'" „
CHAP. IV. 8, 9. 207
€v<f)r]jjLa (jiciovei. Plat. Leg. vii. p. 801 A: to t?)9 wSfJ? 76^09
ezKJirjfjLov r]^lv. Aesch. Supyl. 694, Agam. 11G8 ; Polyb.
xxxi. 14. 4; Lucian, Prom. 3. Storr, who is folloAvecl by
Flatt, renders it : " scrmoncs, qui hene aliis precantur." So
used in later Greek authors (also Symmachus, Ps. Ixii. 6) ;
but this meaning is here too special. — el rt? k.t.X.'] com-
prehending all the points mentioned : if there le any virtue,
and if there he any p)^cdse ; not if there he yet another, etc.
(de Wette). — apeTtj used by Paul here only, and in the rest of
the K T. only in 1 Pet. ii. 9, 2 Pet. i. 3, 5,^ in the ethical
sense: moral aj^tiiude in disposition and action (the opposite
to it, icaKia: Plat. Rep. 444 D, 445 C, 1, p. 348 C). Comp.
from the Apocrypha, Wisd. iv. 1, v. 13, and frequent instances
of its use in the books of Mace. — cTraii/o?] not : res laudaUlis
(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
eTraivo<; ; or when Christ pronounces a blessing on the humble,
the peacemakers, the merciful, etc., or the like. " Vera laus
uni Adrtuti debetur," Cic. de orat. ii. 84. 342 ; virtue is Ka6'
avTrjv eTratveri], Plat. Def p. 411 C. Mistaken, therefore,
were such additions as i'm(Tri]fjL7i<i (D"' E'" F G) or disciplinae
(Vulg., It., Ambrosiaster, Pelagius). — ravra Xoyl^eade] consider
these things, take them to heart, in order (see ver. 9) to deter-
mine your conduct accordingly. " Meditatio praecedit, delude
sequitur opus," Calvin. On Xoyi^eadat, comp. Ps. lii. 2 ; Jer.
' We are not entitled to assume (with Beza) as tlie reason wliy Paul does not
use this word elsewhere, that it is " verbum nimium humile, si cum donis
Spiritus Sancti comparetur." The very passage before us shows the contrary, as
it means no other than Christian morality. Certainly in Paul's case, as with
the N. T. authors generally and even Christ Himself, the specific designations
of the idea of virtue, which correspond more closely to the sphere of theocratic
0. T. ideas, such as 'imaioffCvn, I'JTa.x.or,, ayt'orm, Uyioxrutn, offioTti;, x.r.x., too neces-
sarily suggested themselves to his mind to allow him to use the general term for
morality, apir^, as familiar, however worthily and nobly the Platonic doctrine,
in particular, had grasped the idea of it {tls iVay St/yarov uv^fu^u ofi(itiiZica.t ©sf,
Plat. Rep. p. 613 A, 500 C, et al).
20S THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PIIILIPPIANS.
xxvi. 3 ; ISTah. i. 9 ; Ps. xxxv. 4, xxxvi. 4 ; 3 Mace. iv. 4 ;
Sopli. 0. B. 4:61; Herod, viii. 53 ; Dem. 63, 12 ; Sturz, Lex.
Xcn. III. p. 42 ; the opposite : Ovrjra Xoyl^eaOai, Antliol. Pal.
xi. 56. 3. — Ver. 9. The Christian morality, which Paul in
ver. 8 has commended to his readers by a series of predicates,
he now again nrges npon them in special reference to their
relation to himself, their teacher and example, as that which
they had also learned, etc. The first Kai is therefore also, pre-
fixing to the subsequent ravra irpdara-ere an element corre-
sponding to this requirement, and imposing an oUiyation to its
fulfilment. " Whatsoever also has been tlie object and purport
of your instruction, etc., that do." To take the four times
repeated kuC as a double as ^vell . . . as also (Hofmann and
others), would yield an inappropriate formal scheme of separa-
tion. Kal in the last three cases is the simple and, but so
that the whole is to be looked upon as hijMrtitc : " Duo priora
verba ad dodrinam pertinent, reliqua duo ad cxempluni"
(Estius). — a] not oaa 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 ivhich they also have learned, etc.
— TrapeXa/Sere] have accepted. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1 ; John
i. 11; Polyb. xxxiii. 16. 9. Tlie interpretation: "have
received'' (Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, and most exposi-
tors, including Piheinwald, Eillict, Hoelemann, de Wette,
"Weiss, Hofmann), which makes it denote the instruction com-
municated (1 Thess. ii. 13, iv. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 6: 1 Cor.
xi. 23 ; Gal. i. 9, 12 ; Col. ii. 6 ; comp. Plat. Thcact. p. 198 B :
TrapaXaix^dvovra Be fiavOdveiv), would yield a twofold designa-
tion for the one element,^ and on the other hand would omit
the point of the asscnsus, which is so important as a motive ;
moreover, from a logical point of view, we should necessarily
expect to find the position of the two words reversed (comp.
' Real disl'tnclions have, indeed, been luado, Lut how purely arbitrary they
ore ! Thus Grotius (comp. Iliimmond) luahcs Ifza^. apply to the jjvimam hi'
stitutlonem, and w.piXaP>. to the cxucliorcm dodrinam. Eilliet explains it dif-
ferently, making the former denote : ^^ son v.iseignemcnt direct," and the latter :
'* les instructions, qu'il Icur a transmises ious unefonne quclconque."
CHAP. IV. 8, 9. 209
Gal. i. 12). — i)Kova-aTe] does not refer to the yvo^e.T: 2^rcacliing
and teaching of the apostle (Erasmus, Calvin, Eisner, Ehein-
wald, Matthies), which is already fully embraced in the two
previous j)oints ; nor does it denote : " audistis de mc alscnte"
(Estius and others, including Hoelemann, Eilliet, Hofmann),
for all the other points refer to the time of the apostle's jpre-
sence, and consequently not merely the " de me," but also the
" dbscnte" would be purely imported. No, by the words
rjKovaaTe and et'Sere, to hoth of which iv i/Moi belongs, he re-
presents to his readers his oivn excnivplc of Christian morality,
which he had given them when he was present, in its tvjo
portions, in so far as they had perceived it in him {ev ifioi,
comp. i. 30) partly by hearing, in his whole oral behaviour
and intercourse with them, partly by seeing, in his manner of
action among them ; or, in other words, his example both in
VJord and deed. — ravTa Trpdaaere] these things do, is not
related to raOra Xoyl^ecrOe, ver. 8, as excluding it, in such
a way that for what is said in ver. 8 the Xoyl^eaOac merely
would be required, and for what is indicated in ver. 9
the Trpdaaetv ; on the contrary, the two operations, which
in substance belong jointly to the contents of both verses,
are formalUj separated in accordance with the mode of expres-
sion of the parallelism. Comp. on ii. 8 and Eora. x. 10. —
Kal 6 @e6<i /C.T.X.] in substance the same promise as was
given in ver. 7. God, %oho ivorhs fcace (that holy peace of soul,
ver. 7), xvill he loith you, whereby is meant the help given
through the Holy Spirit ; and His special agency, which Paul
here has in view, is unmistakeably indicated by the very
predicate t^9 elprjV7]<^.
Eemark. — It is to be noticed that the predicates in ver. 8,
a'Kri&n . . . £i/p'/i,aa, do not denote different individual virtues, but
that each represents the Christian moral character generally, so
that in reality the same thing is described, but according to the
various aspects ivhich commended it. Comp. Diog. Laert. ii. 106 :
h TO dya§ov voXXoTg dvofxaai y.aXov/j.ivo'j. Cic. de fin. iii. 4. 14: " uncc
virtus unum^ istud, quod honestum appellas, rectum, laudahile, de-
corum!' That it is Christian morality which Paul has in view,
is clearly evident from ver. 9 and from the whole preceding
PHIL.
210 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
context. Hence the passage cannot avail for placing the
morality of the moral law pf 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. Eom. xii. 2).
Ver. 10. Carrying on his discourse with Be, Paul now in
conclusion adds, down to ver. 20, some courteous expressions, as
dignified as they are delicate, concerning the aid ivJiich he had
received. Hitherto, indeed, he had only mentioned this work
of love briefly and casually (ii. 25, 30). In the aid itself
Baur discovers a contradiction of 1 Cor. ix. 15, and conjectures
that the author of the epistle had 2 Cor. xi. 9 in view, and
had inferred too much from that passage. But, in fact, Baur
himself has inferred too much, and incorrectly, from 1 Cor. ix.
15; for in this passage Paul speaks of ^payment for his preach-
ing, 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. — ev Kvplfp] as in iii. 1,
iv. 4. It was, indeed, not a joy felt apart from Christ ; ov
Koa/xiKco'? e^dprjv, ^rjolv, ovSe ^iwtikco'?, Chrysostom. — fjieyd-
X&)9] mightily. Comp. LXX., 1 Chron. xxix. 9 ; Neh. xii. 42 ;
Polyb. iii. 87. 5 ; Polyc. Phil. 1. The position at the end is
emphatic. See on Matt. ii. 10 ; and Stallbaum, ad Plat.
Phaedr. p. 256 E, Menex. p. 235 A. — on i^hr] Trore k-tX."] is
to be rendered : " that ye have at length once again come into the
flourishing condition of taking tliought for my "benefit, in hclialf
of which ye also took thought, hut had no favourable opportunity."
— rjhr] irore] taken in itself may mean : already once ; or, as
in Eom. i. 10 : tandem aliquando. The latter is the meaning
here, as appears from €<^' w k.t.X. Chrysostom justly observes
(comp. Oecumenius and Theophylact) that it denotes 'xpovov
jxaKpov, when namely that OaXkeiv had not been present, which
has now again (comp. ver. 15 f.) set in. Comp. Baeumlein,
Partik. p. 140. This view of r/S?; irore is the less to be
evaded, seeing that the reproach which some have discovered in
CHAP. IV. 10. 211
the passage {iirirliJiTja-i^, Chrysostom) is not by any means con-
veyed in it, as indeed from the delicate feeling of the apostle
we might expect that it would not, and as is apparent from
the correct explanation of the sequel. — aveOaXeTc] 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 (daWovs:)} It cannot be the revival of
their care-talcing love which is meant, so that the readers would
have previously been airoixapavOevre^ iv rfj iXeijfxoavur) (Oecu-
menius, also Chrysostom, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus,
Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, Flatt,
Wiesinger, Ewald, and most expositors, who rightly take
aveddX. 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 e(/>' w ecppovecre k.t.X. which imme-
diately follows, and by which the continuous care previously
exercised is attested ! No, it is the fiourishing anew of their
prosperity (comp. Eheinwald, Matthies, van Hengel, Baum-
garten-Crusius, Schenkel, Hofmann, and others), the opposite
of which is afterwards expressed by rjicacpelade, that is denoted,
as prosperous circumstances are so often represented under
the figure of becoming green and blooming. Comp. Ps. xxviii.
V : avidaXev r] crdp^ fiov, Wisd. iv. 3 f. ; Hes. Op. 231:
ridrfXe 7r6\i<;, Find. Isth. iii. 9 : oX./3o9 . . . daXkwv, Pyth.
vii. 22: 6dWovaav evBacfiovLav. Plat. Legg. xii. p. 945 D:
7] Traara ovtq) OdWec re Kal evSaL/xovel '^capa k. iroXa. Of
frequent occurrence in the tragedians ; comp. also Jacobs,
ad Del. Epigr. viii. 97. It is therefore inconsistent, both
with delicate feeling and with the context, to take dveOdX.
transitively : " revireseere sivistis solitam vestram rerum mearum
procurationem" (Hoelemann; comp. Coccejus, Grotius, Hein-
^ The conjecture, on the ground of this figurative expression, that the Philip-
pians might have sent to the apostle in sprlnrj, and that wxiptTffh SI applies to
the winter season (Bengel), is far-fetched and arbitrary. The figurative at-JaX.
does not even need to be an image of spring, as Calvin, Estius, Weiss, and others
understand it.
212 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
richs, Hammond, and others, including Eilliet, de Wette, Weiss),
although the transitive use of avaOaXKetv in the LXX. and
also in the Apocrypha is unquestionable (Ezek. xvii. 24 ; Ecclus.
i. 16, xi. 20, 1. 10; see generally Schleusner, Thcs. I. p.
220 f.) ; and that of OdWeiv is also current in classical authors
(Find. 01. iii. 24; Aesch. Pers. 622 (608) ; Jacobs, ad Anthol
VII. p, 103; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 265). An unfounded objec-
tion is brought against the view which explains it of the
revival of p'ospcrity, that it is inappropriate 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. — to virep e'/xoO
(f)pov€lp] is usually, with the correct intransitive rendering of
avedaX.^ SO understood that ro is taken together with <^povdv,
and this must be regarded as the accusative of more precise
definition, which is only distinguished by its greater emphasis
from the mere epexegetical infinitive. See Bernhardy, p. 356;
Schmalfeld, Syntax d. Griech. Verh. p. 401 f . ; Ellendt, Lex.
SopJi. II. p. 222. Comp. van Hengel : "negotium volo mihi
consulendi." But the whole view which takes ro with
^povelv is set aside by the following e^' w k. e^povelre ; seeing
that hj> (p, unless it is to be rendered at variance with lin-
guistic usage by although (Luther, Castalio, Michaelis, Storr),
or just as (Vulgate, van Hengel), could only convey in its «
the previous to vTrep kfxov ^povelv, and would consequently
yield the logically absurd conception : i^poveire cttI tm virep
i/iov (ppovetv, whether icf) S be taken as equivalent to ov eveKa
(Beza) or qua de re (Eheinwald, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger,
Ewald, and others), or in eo quod (Erasmus), in qua re (Cor-
nelius a Lapide, Hoelemann), or et post id (Grotius), and the
like. Eecourse has been had, by way of helping the matter,
to the suggestion that t^povelv eVi is a thinking ivithout action,
and (fypovelv virep a thinking loith action (de Wette, Wiesinger ;
comp. Ewald) ; but how purely arbitrary is this view ! Less
arbitrarily, Calvin and Ptilliet ("vous pensiez bien k moi")
have referred c5 to e^iov, by which, no doubt, that logical
' In the transitive interpretation (see, against it, supra) the to (pponlv, which
wonhl likewise be taken together, woukl be the accusative forming the object of
&nidx. See Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 226 [E. T. 263] ; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 003.
CHAP. IV. 10. 213
awkwardness is avoided ; but, on the other hand, the objection
arises, that e^' c5 is elsewhere invariably used by Paul as
neuter only, and that it is difficult to see why, if he desired to
take up virep e/xov in a relative form, he should not have
written virep ov, since otherwise in eVt, if it merely went
back to ifxov, 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 (jcal ei^povelri). Weiss, in-
terpreting e^' w as : about loMch to take thought, refers it back
to aveddXere — a reference, however, which falls to the ground
with the active interpretation of that word. Upon the whole,
the only right course seems to be to take to virep i/juov together
(comp. ra irepl vficjv, ii. 20; also ra Trap v/iwy, ver. 1 8 ; and see
generally, Kriiger, § 50. 5. 12 ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 231 £), and
that as the accusative of the ohjcct to (f)poveiv (comp. Bengel,
Schenkel, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann) : " to take into consideration
that lohich serves for my good',' to think of my benefit ; on
virep, comp. i. 7. Only thus does the sequel obtain its literal,
logical, and delicately-turned reference, namely, when e'^' at
applies to to virep i/xov. Taking this view, we have to notice :
(1) tliat iirl is used in the sense of the aim (Lobeck, ad Phryn.
p. 475 ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 435) : on behalf of which, for
ivhich, comp. Soph. 0. B. 569; (2) that Paul has not again
written the mere accusative (o koI i4>p-), because i(j) S is in-
tended to refer not alone to k. icfipovecTe, but also to the
antithesis r]Kai.pelcr6e Be, consequently to the entire k. icpp.,
TjKaip. Be ;^ (3) that the emphasis is placed on i^pov. as the
* All the more groundless, tLerefore, is Hofmann's objection, that (ppavuv Irl
Tivi means : to be proud about something. This objection, put thus generally, is
even in itself incorrect. For (ppovtTv Iti nvt does not in itself mean : to be 2^1'oud
about something, but only receives this signification through the addition of ^sya,
ftiyaXa, OX some similar more precise definition (Plat. Theaet. p. 149 D, Ale. I.
p. 104 C, Prot. p. 342 D, Sympos. p. 217 A : Dem. 181. 16, 836. 10), either
expressly specified or directly suggested by the context. Very artificial, and for
the simple reader hardly discoverable, is the view under which Hofmann takes the
fact expressed by xa) \(ppo)iuri as the ground, ^'npon, or on account of, lohich their
re-emergence from an unfavourable position has been a revival unto care for him. "
If the reference of i<p' u to to ut£/> Ifmu were not directly given in the text, it would
be much simpler to take If S as in Kom. v. 12, Phil. iii. 12, 2 Cor. v. 4, in
214 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
imperfect, and Kai indicates an element to he added to the
jtpovelv which has been just expressed ; hence koI i^p. inti-
mates : " in behalf of which ye not only are taking thought
(that is, since the aveOdXeTe), but also iveox taking thought
(namely, TrpoaOev, Icfore the avedaKere) " lastly, (4) that after
ej>p. there is no /xeV inserted, because the antithesis is meant
to emerge unprepared for, and so all the more vividly. —
'^Katpelcrde] ye heed no favourable time ; a word belonging to
the later Greek. Diod. exc. Mai. p. 30 ; Phot., Suid. The
opposite: evKaipetv, Loheck, ad Phryn. p. 125. Unsuitably
and arbitrarily this is explained : " deerat vobis opportunitas
mittendi" (Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Eosenmiiller, and
others). It refers, in keeping with the avedaXere, not without
delicacy of description, to the unfavourable state of things as
regards means (Chrysostom : ovic etp^ere ev '^epalv, ovSe ev
acpdovia ^re ; so also Theophylact ; while Oecumenius adduces
this interpretation alongside of the previous one) which had
occurred among the Philippians, as Paul might have learned
from Epaphroditus and otherwise. Comp. evKaipelv T0X9 ^/ot?
in Polyb. xv. 21. 2, xxxii. 21. 12 ; and also the mere evKaipdv
in the same sense, iv. 60. 10 ; evKaipla: xv. 31. 7, i. 59. 7;
uKaipla: Plat. Zcgg. iv. p. 709 A; Dem. 16. 4; Polyb. iv.
44. 11.
Ver. 11. Obviating of a misunderstanding. — oy% otl] as in
iii. 12 : my meaning is not, that I say this in consequence of
want, that is, this my utterance of joy in ver. 10 f. is not
meant as if it were the expression of felt want, from which
your aid has delivered me. On Kara, secundum, in the sense
of propter, see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 413, and ad Xcn. Mem. i. 3.
12. According to van Hengel's interpretation: " ut more
receptum est pcnuriac, s. hominibus penuria oppressis," Kara.
could not have been united with an abstract noun (Rom. iii. 5,
ct al). — £7<w 7a/3 €[xa6ov /c.t.X.] for I, as regards my part
(although it may be different with others), have learned in the
the sense oijiropttrea quod, and tliat as a graceful and ingenious specification of
the reason for tlie great joy of tlie apostle, that tliey had flouritihed again to
take thought for liis benefit ; for tlicir pievious oniishion bad been caused not
by any hick of the (^ponlv in question, but by the unfavourablcncss of the times.
CHAP. IV. 12. 215
circumstances, in ivldcli I find myself, to he self-contented, that is,
to have enough independently without desiring aid from others.
It is evident from the reason thus assigned that in ov'^. ore kuO'
v<TT. X. he has meant not the objective, but the suhjcctive state
of need. — iyoo] with noble self-consciousness, there being no
need to supply, with Bengel, "in tot adversis." — e/xaOov']
signifies the having learned by experience (comp. Plat. Synqj. p.
182 C: epyo) Be tovto efiaOov koX ol ivOahe Tvpavvoc), and all
that accordingly he can, he owes to the strengthening in-
fluence of Christ, ver. 13. — iv oU el fit] in the situation, in
which I find myself See examples in Wetstein and Kypke ;
comp. also Matzner, ad Antiph. p. 131. Not merely his
position then, but, generally, every position in which he finds
himself, is meant, although it is not exactly to be taken as :
" in q^ioctinque statu si^n" (Eaphel, Wetstein, and others),
which would be ungrammatically expressed. In 023position to
the context (see ver. 12), Luther: among whom {oh, mas-
culine) / am. As to avTupKeia as applied to persons, the
suhjcctive self-sufficing, by means of which a man does not
make the satisfaction of his needs dependent upon others,
but finds it in himself, comp. Ecclus. xl. 18; Xen. Me)n. iv.
7. 1 ; Dem. 450. 14 ; Stob. v. 43 ; and see on 2 Cor. ix. 8.
Ver, 12. Paul now specifies this his avrdpKeia (in Plat. Bef
p. 412 B, termed TeXecorrjf; KTrjcrea)^ afyadcov). — olSa] I
understand how (1 Thess. iv. 4 ; Col. iv. 6 : 1 Tim. iii. 5 ;
Matt. viL 11 ; Soph. AJ. 666 f.; Anth.Pal. vii. 440. 5 ff.) ;^
result of the efxaOov. — /cat raireiv.] cdso to he ahascd, namely,
by want, distress, and other allotted circumstances which place
the person affected by them in the condition of abasement.
Paul understands this, inasmuch as he knows how to bear
himself in the right attitude to such allotted circumstances,
namely, in such a way that, independently thereof, he finds his
sufficiency in himself, and does not seek it in that which he
lacks. We find a commentary on this in 2 Cor. iv. 8, vi. 9,
10. olBa Kal Trepiaaevecv is to be understood analogously, of
the right attitude to the matter, so that one is not led away by
1 It is the vioral understanding, having its seat in tlie character. Comp.
Ameis, Anh. z. Horn. Od. is. 189.
216 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
abundance to find his satisfaction in the latter instead of in
himself Pelagius well says : " ut nee abiindantia extollar, nee
frangar inopia." — The first Kai adds to the general iv oh €i/jt,c
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 TrepLacreveiv Kal vare-
pelaOai, for raireLvovadai is a more com2}rchensive idea than the
counterpart of irepLaaeveiv, and also contains a figurative con-
ception. Some such expression as vylrovaOac would have been
adequate as the contrast of raTreiv. (IMatt. 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 TrepicTcrevetv (to have a supcrfiuitTj) the explanation exccllcrc
(Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin), or to raireiv. the meaning to he
poor, to he in pitifid ijlight, oXlyoc^i Ke-^pricrOat, Theophylact
(Estius and others ; comp. also Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius,
Ptheinwald, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hof-
mann), which even the LXX., Lev. xxv. 39, does not justify. —
In what follows, iv iravrl k. ev iracri is not to be regarded as
belonging to TaireLvova-Qai and irepLaa-evetv (Hofmann), but is
to be joined with /jie/ji,vr]/j,at. We are dissuaded from the
former connection by the very rex^etition of the ol8a ; and the
latter is recommended by the great emphasis, which rests upon
f.v TravTo K. iv iraart heading the last clause, as also by the
correlative Traj/ra at the head of ver. 13. Further, no comma
is to he placed after fxep^v^/xai,, nor is fv nravrl . . . /xe/xvyjfxai to be
explained as meaning : "into everything I am initiated" and
then KoX ^(oprai^eadat, k.tX. as elucidating the notion of " every-
thing" : " cum re qualicunque omnibusque, tam saturitate et
fame, quam abundantia et penuria, tantam contraxi familiari-
tatem, ut rationem teneam iis bene utendi," van Hengel;
comp. de Wette, Piilliet, Wiesinger; so also, on the whole,
Cln-ysostom, Erasmus, Estius, and many others, but with
different interpretations of nravrl and Traaiv. This view is at
variance with the fact, that /xvelaBac has that into which one
is initiated expressed not by means of ev, but — and that most
usually — in the accicsative (Herod, ii. 51 ; Plat. Goi-g. p. 497 C,
Si/mp. p. 209 E; Aristoph. Fmt. 845 (ifjifiveladai) ; Lucian,
CHAP. IV. 12. 217
PMlop. 14), or in the dative (Lucian, Demon. 11), or: genitive
(Heliod. i. 17; Herodian, i. 13. 16); hence irav k. iravra, or
iravrl k. irdaLv, or iravro^ k. Trdvrcov must have been written
(in 3 jMacc. ii. 30 it has Kara with the accusative). No ; Paul
says that in everything and in all, that is, under every relation
that may occur and in all circumstances, he is initiated into,
that is, made completely familiar with, as ivell the being satisfied
as the being hungry, as well the having su]jerfiuity as want;
in all sitviations, without exception, he quite understands how
to assume and maintain the right attitude to these different
experiences, which in ver. 1 1 he characterizes by the words
avrdpKr)<; elvai. 'Ev iravrl k. iv Tracn is accordingly to be taken
after the analogy of ev oU el^iL, ver. 11, and therefore as neuter.
It was purely arbitrary to render ev Travri: ubique (Vulgate,
Castalio, Beza, Calvin, and many others), or to refer it to
time (Chrysostom, Grotius), or to time and 'place (Theophylact,
Erasmus, and others, also Matthies). Luther and Bengel
explain iravrl correctly as neuter, but make irdaiv (as in 2 Cor.
xi. 6) masculine (Bengel: "respectu omnium hominum"). It
is not necessary to supply anything to either of the two words ;
and as to the alternation of the singular and plural, which
only indicates the total absence of any exception (comp.
analogous expressions in Lobeck, Fared, p. 56 ff.), there is no
occasion for artificial explanation. — In German we say: in
Allcm und Jedcm [in all and each]. Comp. on kv irdac on
Col. i. 18. With strange arbitrariness Hofmann makes ev
Travri k. kv rrdai denote everything that is a necessary of life
(in detail and in whole). In that case certainly the contrast
of '^oprd^. and rreivdv Ls unsuitable ! — fiefivrjfiat] the proper
word for the various grades of initiation into the mysteries
(Casaubon, Excre. Baron, p. 390 ff. ; Lobeck, Aglaoph. I. p.
38 ff.) is here used in a figurative sense, like initicduni esse, of
a special, unusual, not by every one attainable, familiar
acquaintance with something. See Munthe, Obss. p. 383 ;
Jacobs, ad Anthol. III. p. 488. The opposite is dfxv7]ro<;. —
The climax should here be noticed, efiaOov . . . olSa . . . fjie/jiV7)fiat,.
Ver. 13 places beyond doubt to whom the apostle owes this
lofty spiritual superiority over all outward circumstances. As
218 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
to the later form ireivav instead of Treivriv, see Lobeck, ad
Phryn. p. 61 ; Jacobs, ad Ael. 11. p, 261.
Ver. 13. After tlie special statement, the consciousness of
the avTCLpKeia 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 ! — la-X^"^^ ^^ moral strength,
homogeneous as to category with efiaOop in ver. 11, and with
olSa and fiefivrjfjbai in ver. 12, because these predicates also were
dynamically meant, of the understanding of ethical practice.
There is therefore the less reason for limiting "rravra 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 knev/ himself to be morally adequate.
irdvra is the accusative of the ohjcct. Gal. v. 6; Jas. v. 16.
The opposite to it: //,??Sei/ Icryywaiv, Plat. Crit. p. 50 B, Ael.
V. H. xii. 22, et al. — ev tu> ivSuv. yite] Not in his own human
ability does Paul feel this power, but it has its basis in Christ,
whose hvvaiit^ 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 iv tS Kpdrec t^9
la^vo<; avTov, Eph. vi. 10.
Ver. 14. n\t]v] Nevertheless (1 Cor. xi. 11; Eph. v. 33),
apart from the fact that with such moral power I am equal to
all emergencies, and therefore, as far as want is concerned, do
not need aid (comp. ver. 11). "Cavet, ne fortiter loquendo
contemsisse ipsorum beneficium videatur," Calvin. Comp.
Chvysostom and Theophylact. — Ka\a}<;] in the moral sense. —
cvyKotv. fMov Tfi 6\i-^.'\ characterizes tlie work according to its
high ethical value (ppa ao^iav, ttw? iTralpei to irpayfia, Theophy-
lact) : tJicd ye hecarae 2')artaJ:ers with one in ray affl,iction. 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
6\l^L<;. Comp. Ptom. xii. 13. It is a j^raciiccd participation,
and not merely that of feeling ond emotion. Comp. Eph. v.
11 ; Ptev. xviii. 4, i. 9. By jfj dXl'^., Paul means his position
at the time as a whole, not : v:oM (winch also in 2 Cor. viii.
13 it does not mean). Tlie dative is governed by avjKoiv,
CHAP. IV. 15.
2i9
(Epli. V. 11 ; Eev. xviii. 4; Eom. xii. 13, xv. 27, ct al) ; and
fiov is, in accordance with the well-known usage, to be taken
as if ixoi were in the text (comp on ii. 2 ; and Stallbaum,
ad Plat. Rep. p. 518 C, Symp. p. 215 C). The aorist participle
coincides as to time with iiroL^aare (see on Eph. i. 9) ; as to the
participle with KaXm iroieiv, see Winer, p. 323 f. [E. T. 434].
Ver. 15 f. A courteous recalling of the fact, that in the
very leyinning of the gospel the Philij)pians had distinguished
themselves hy such manifestation of love toioards Paul. — 8e]
carrying the discourse onward : But wliat ye have done con-
nects itself with a relation into which, as ye also know, no
other church, but yours only, placed itself to me at the very
first ! — olSare Se k.t.X.] hut it is hnoimi also to you, PhilijJl^ians,
that, etc. Hofmann very erroneously derives the olject of
oXhare from what precedes, and takes otl in the sense of
because. He makes the apostle say, namely, to the Philippians :
That they had done well in helpfully taking part in his afflic-
tion they knew also, as other churches knew that it was well
done ; by experience they knew it, because it was not the first
time that they had sent similar gifts to him, etc. This ex-
planation is erroneous, because invariably where olSa {oXhaixev,
olhare, k.t.X.) is accompanied, not with an accusative of the
object, but with otl, the latter conveys the contents (that), and
not the reason or the cause (heeause), of the otSa (comp. i. 19,
25; Eom. iii. 2; 1 Cor. iii. 16, xii. 2; Gal. iv. 13, and in-
numerable other passages) ; secondly, because the previously
attested Ka\m eiroir^aaTe, while perfectly suitable to be ex-
pressed hy the grateful apostle, was not so suited to be transferred
to the consciousness of the donors, to which it was self-evident,
and to be appealed to by them ; thirdly, because the KaC in
the alleged reference to other churches would be very unsuit-
able, since the question here concerns merely a work of love
of the Pliilippians, 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 oXZaTe, instead of abiding strictly by the concrete
«aXw9 eTTotrjcraTe as its object ; finally, it would be strange and
not in keeping with the thoughtfid manner of the apostle, to
220 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
furnish the idea : " ye know that ye did well therein" (which
olSare is supposed to convey) with the altogether external
specification ot a ground for it : " because ye have already
formerly and repeatedly supported me." The contents attributed
by Hofmann to otSare 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 otSare k. vfji,€i<;, that in that which the readers
also know (consequently in oVt k.t.X.) the stress lies upon the
negative ovZe^ia k.t.\. — koL v/xel'i^ ye also, as I. — ^iXnr-
Tr^a-ioi] addressing them by name, not because he desires to
assert something of them which no other church had done
(Bengel : for in this case Paul would have written on v^eh,
^iktTTTr.), but in his increasing earnestness. Comp. 2 Cor. vi.
11. — ev ap)(rj r. evayy.] glancing back, certainly, to the
second missionary journey (Weiss) ; but the relative expression
is used from the standpoint of the time then present, behind
which lay the founding of the Macedonian churches about
ten years back ; a long past which seemed, in rclatioyi to the
jyresent and to the wider development of the church now
attained, as still belonging to tlie period of the hcginning 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 : ore i^ifkdov airo MaKeS., ivhcn I departed from
Macedonia, Acts xvii. 14. Paul, therefore, immediately on
leaving that country, received aid from the infant church, when
the brethren rov TIavkov e^airea-Teikav iropeveaOat, co? eVt rrjv
OaXaaraav and rjyayov ew? ^Adrjvoiv, Acts I.e. Doubtless the
money which Paul subsequently received in Corinth (see 2 Cor.
xi. 9) through Macedonian delegates was sent, if not ex-
clusively, at least jointly by the Philippians, so that they
thereby gave continued active proof of the fellowship et9 \oyov
Boa: K. Xr}-^., into which they had entered with the apostle at
' To express tliis, Paul was not at all under the necessity of writing ai'Jars
ahrnl, as Hofmann objects. Tlie latter would convey a different conception,
namely : ye know without my remindinrj you (Acts ii. 22 ; 1 Thess. ii. 1, iii. 3 ;
2 Thess. iii. 7).
cnAP. IV. 15. 221
his very departure. But this receipt of money at Corinth is
not the fact meant by eKoivoovrjaev k.tX., in which case i^rjXOov
would have to be taken, with Estius, Flatt, van Hengel, de
Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann, and others, in the sense of
the phiperfect (Winer, p. 258 [E. T. 343]); for the latter
would be tlie more unwarranted in the context, seeing that
Paul himself by iv ap^fj tov evayy. carries them back to .the
earliest time possible, and indeed afterwards (ver. 16) to a
period even antecedent to the ore e^rjkOov. The aorist, how-
ever, has its justification in this purely historical statement of
fact, although the imperfect also, but following a different
conception, might — not, however (in opposition to Hofmann's
objection), must — have been used. — eKotvcovrja-ev eh \oyov
Socreo)? K. Xt^i/t.] 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 relation of furnishing aid
towards one." On KOivoivelv ek, 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 likewise keeps account of his expenditure on the
Philippians and income from them. This mutual account-
keeping, in which the h6<n^ on the one part, agrees with
the Xrj'^i'i on the other, is the Koivcovla et? \6yop k.t.X. It is
true that in this case no moncy-amonnt is entered in the
account of the Philippians under the heading of X'^i/rt?, or
the account of the apostle under the heading of Socri? ; instead
of this, however, comes in the blessing, which the readers were
to receive from their gifts of love, according to ver. 1 7, as if it
Avere an income corresponding to this expenditure, and coming
in from it. We are therefore not justified in adopting the view,
that Boa. and X7}-v|r. apply to Paul alone (Schrader), or that
B6ae(o<; applies to the Philippians and X?^i/r. to Paid (" Ego sum
in vestris expensi tabulis, vos in meis accejjti," Grotius ; comp.
Erasmus, Camerarius, Casaubon, Castalio, and others, including
Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Matthies, van Hengel, Eilliet, Ewald) ;
for the words require the idea of an account under hoih
headings on the side of loth parties. Others, maintaining
222 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
indeed this reciprocity, but arbitrarily introducing ideas from
1 Cor. xi. 11, comp. Eom. xv. 27, consider that the S6ai<; on
the part of the apostle, and the Xrj-\Jn<; on the part of the
Philippians, consisted in the sjnritual hencjits brought about
hj the preachmg of the gospel (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Pelagius, Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Zanchius,
Zeger, Estius, Hammond, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann, and
others) ; whilst others, again, import into the words the thought :
" Quae a Philippeusibus accepit in rationes Dei remuneratoris
refert Paulus" (Wetstein, EosenmllUer; comp. Wolf, Schoettgen,
and already Ambrosiaster). Eheinwald finds the X?}'x/rt9 of the
Philipj)ians and the Sotrt? of the apostle even in the assump-
tion that he also had assisted them, namely, out of the sums of
money collected in the churches, — an error which is at variance
with the context, and which ought to have been precluded both
by the prominence given to the statement of the date, and also
by the exclusion of all other churches, as well as by the inappro-
priateness of the mention just in this passage of such a \ri^L<;
on the part of the Philippians. — On X6709, ratio, account, comp.
Matt. xii. 36 ; Luke xvi. 2 ; Eom. xiv. 12 ; 1 Mace. x. 40 ;
Dem. 227. 26; Diod. Sic. i. 49; Polyb. xv. 34. 2. The
rendering which takes eh Xoyov : in respect to (Bengel, Hein-
richs, Storr, Matthies, van Hengel, Eilliet, Llinemann), would
no doubt be linguistically correct (Dem. 385. 11 ; 2 Mace, i..
14 ; and see Kriiger on Thuc. iii. 46. 3), but is to be rejected
on account of the context, as expressions of accounting follow
(comp. Cic. Lael. 16: "ratio acceptorum et datorum"). For
instances from Greek writers of Socri? koI \rj-\ln<; (Ecclus. xli.
14, xlii. 7) as expenditure and income, see Wetstein. Comp.
Plat. Ec2X p. 332 A B: rj aTroSoo-/,? k. rj X7)i/rt9. As to the
corresponding jnm a^D, see Schoettgen, Hor. p. 804.
Ver. 16. "On] since, indeed, ye also already in Thessalonica,
etc. It is argumentative, namely, outbidding the early defini-
tion of date ev dpxfj ■ . • MaKehovia^, in ver. 15, by one even
Mitecedenf, and thus serving more amply to justify that speci-
fication of time,^ for which purpose the ort specifying the
* If Baur had noticed this correct logical connection, he would not have made
an improper use of our passage to fortify his opinion of the affair of the aid
CHAP. IV. 1(1. 223
reason was quite sufficient, and (in opposition to Hofmann's
objection) no <ydp was necessary. The opinion of AViesinn-er,
that oTt, K.T.X. is intended to explain that it was only with the
aid sent after Paul at a distance that the readers had entered
into such a connection with the apostle as is previously men-
tioned, is bound up with the untenable interpretation of
k^TjXOov as pluperfect. The rendering of on by that (Eheinwald,
Matthics, Hoelemann, van Hengel, Eilliet, de Wette, Lline-
mann, AVeiss) is to be set aside, because, while the emphatic
othare koX vfieh, ver. 15, accords doubtless with the exclusion of
other churches in ver. 15, it does not accord with ver. 16 ("yc
also know that ye have sent ... to me !"), to which it would
stand in an illogical relation, even apart from the uncalled-for
inversion of the order of time, which would result. Hofmann's
explanation, which makes otl in ver. 16 parallel to the oxt in
ver. 15 and places it in causal relation to olZare, falls with
his erroneous view of ver. 15. — The /cat before ev GeaaaX.,
for which Hinsch, following Baur, thinks that he finds a
reference in 2 Cor. xi. 9, is the simple also in the sense of
also already ; a climax as regards time ; see Hartung, Partilc.
I. p. 135 ; Ktihner, II. 2, p. 797. — ev QeaaaX:] is not used,
in the sense of the bearers having arrived, for eh, for there is
no certain instance of dTroareWeiv or irifiireiv with ev in this
sense (Thuc. vii. 1 7 must, with Becker and Kriiger, be read :
69 rrjv HiKekLav) ; but the preposition is used from the stand-
point of the receiver : " also at Thessalonica (when I was there)
ye sent to me." Thus this sending took place in Thessalonica.
Comp. on ]\Iatt. x. 16 ; Poppo and Kriiger on Thuc. iv. 27. 1.
— Kal aira^ kuI Bh] Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 1 8. The conception
is : " when the first aid arrived, the eTre/i-v/rare had taken place
once ; when the second arrived, it had taken place hoth once
and twice." Paul has not written S/9 merely, nor yet drra^ k.
8/9 (1 Mace. iii. 30 ; Xen. Anal. iv. 7. 10), but by Kal air. k.
being an invented incident. — The same assistance which is meant in ver. 15
cannot be meant in ver. 16, as some not attending to the x.a.i (comp. Luther,
Castalio, and others) have thought. This view is also at variance with the
specification of time on i^rixecM, ver. 15 ; for Paul abode several weeks in
Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 2), and then there still followed his sojourn in Beroea
(Acts xvii. 10 ff.), ere he quitted Macedonia and travelled to Athens.
224 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PIIILIPPIANS.
St? he sets forth the repetition of the matter more cmjjhaticallT/,
to the praise of his readers (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 144).
Comp. KoX h\<i Kol rpi<;, Plat. Fhaed. p. 6 3 D, Phil. p. 59 E ;
Herod, ii. 121, iii. 148. The opposite: ovx anra^ ovSe SiV,
Plat. cut. p. 410 B. — et? r. p^petai'] on behalf of the necessity/,
in order to satisfy it; comp. ii. 15. The article indicates the
necessity that had been existing in Paul's case. On ire^iy^ai,
used absolutely, comp. Acts xi. 29. What they sent, they
knew.
Ver. 17. Just as in ver. 11 Paul anticipated a possible
misunderstanding in respect to ver. 10, so here in reference
to the praises contained in ver. 14 ff. This, he would say,
is not the language of material desire, but, etc. — oy% ore
/c.T.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 TO hojia) — this, namely, taken in and by itself — in which
case the article means the donation accruing to him as the case
occurred, and i\\Q present eVt^-^rw denotes the constant and charac-
teristic striving after (Bernhardy, p. 370): it is not my busi-
ness, etc. The comiwund verb indicates by eVt the direction.
Comp. on iiriirodw, i. 8, and on Matt, vi, 33 ; Eom. xi. 7.
The view which regards it as strengthening the simple verb
(studiose quacro, so Hoelemann and others) is not implied in
the context any more than the sense : insuper quacro (Polyb,
i, 5. 3) ; so van Hengel, who indelicately, and notwithstanding
the article, explains to hojia as still more gifts. — uX\! eVt^T^Tw]
The repetition of the verb after aXKd makes the contrast stand
out independently with special emphasis ; comp. Eom. viii.
1 5 ; 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; Pritzsche, ad Eom. II. p. 137. — top Kapirov
/c.T.X.] This is what Paul desires, towards which his wishes
and endeavours are directed : the fruit which abounds to your
account; not, therefore, a gain which he wishes to have for
himself, but gain for the Philippians. So completely is his
eTTi^rjrelu devoid of any selfish cmn, — which, however, would
not be the case, if the eVi^T/Tw to Sofia were true. This
applies against Hofmann's objection, that the Kapiro'i must be
something which Paul himself desires to have ; the notion of
tTn^TjTO) is anquiro, appcto, and this indeed applies to personal
CIIA.P. IV. 18. 225
possession in the negative half of the sentence ; but then the
second half expresses the real state of the case, which docs
avxuj icith the notion of selfishness. — The Kap^ro^ itself cannot
be the fruit of the gospel (Ewald), or of the labour of the apostle
(Weiss) ; but, in accordance with the context, only the fruit
of the hofxa, that is, the blessing which accrues from the gift to
the givers ; comp. on ver. 15. By this is meant ^ the divine
recompense at the judgment (2 Cor. ix. 6), which they will then
receive, as if it were the product of their account, for their
labour of love (Matt. xxv. 34 ff.). This produce of their Zofia
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 fi'.). Comp. ver. 19.
In substance it is the treasure in heaven that is meant (Matt.
xix. 21, vi. 20), which will be received at the Parousia.
Comp. on Col. i. 5. The figurative et? Xo7oi' u/xwi/, which here
also is not to be understood, with Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Eilliet,
and others, as equivalent to et? viJLa<i, is the completion of the
figure in ver. 1 5 ; although there is no need to explain /ca/jTro?
as interest (Salmasius, Michaelis, who thinks in ifKeovul^. of com-
pound interest, Zachariae, Heinrichs), because it is difficult to
see why Paul, if he used tliis figure, should not have applied
to it the proper term {roKoi), and because the idea of
interest is quite alien to that of the hofxa (ct i^^'csent). — t.
ifkeovd^. eh Xoyov v/xwv] to be taken together (see above) ; ei?
states the destination of the ifKecvd^. Van Hengel and de
Wette needlessly break up the passage by coupling et? X07.
vfi, with iTTi^rjTcb, because irXeovd^etv with eU is not used else-
where by Paul (not even 2 Thess. i. 3). The preposition is
in fact not determined by the word in itself, but by its logical
reference, and may therefore be any one which the reference
requires.
Ver. 18. Ae] The train of tlionght is: "not the gift do I
^ Not tlie acllve manifedatlon of the Chrislian life (Matthies, Hilliet, Hof-
maim ; comp. Vatablus, Mnsculus, Piscator, Zanchms ; Flatt and PJieiiiwald
mingle together hcterogencons ideas) ; for only the fruit of the "Sifix can be
meant, not the So^wa itself as fruit, which is produced in the shape of the love-
oft (Hofmann).
PHIL. P
226 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS,
seek, but the fruit (ver. 17) ; and as regards what has been
received from you in the present instance, I have everything
abeady, 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. — aizkyw Be
TrdvTo] not : hccbeo autem omnia (Vulgate) ; not a mere acJcnoio-
hdgmcnt of receipt (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide,
Heinrichs, and others) ; nor yet equivalent to irepia-cxeiKo
(Eheinwald) ; but, in keeping with the sense of the compound :
I have cvcri/thing aiuay, so that I have nothing left to desire
at your hands. Comp. Philem. 15; Matt. vi. 2, 5, 16;
Luke vi. 24; Callim. cio. 22 ; Arrian. Epict. iii. 2. 13, iii. 24.
17; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. pp. 276, 298. UavTa, therefore,
according to the context (iirL^rjrb) t. Bofxa, ver. 1 7), is : every-
thing ivliicli I could desire, although there is no necessity for
introducing specially, with Chrysostom and Oecumenius, ra
eXK€L(p6evTa iv tu> irapekOovri XP^^V- ^'^^® emphasis, moreover,
is laid, not on irdvTa, but on aTre^^o), in contrast to eirL^iiTeiv.
— KoX Treptaaevco] and my wants are thus so fully satisfied,
that / have over. — 7re7r\'i]p(o/xai,'] forms a climax to Trepiaa. :
lam full, I have abundance. The gift must have been ample ;
but gratitude sets this forth in all the stronger a light. To
ireirXijp. is attached Se^dfievo<i k.t.X. — 6a-/M7]p evcoSia^ /c.r.X.]
This apposition to ra irap vfiwv, expressing a judgment as to
the latter (see on Eom. xii. 1), sets forth, to the honour of the
oivers, the relation in which the gifts received stand towards
God, by whom they are esteemed as a sacrifice well-pleasing to
Him. As to 0(7^17) evcoSla';, smell of a sweet savour, nrT'J nn
(genitive of quality), which is used of frec-ivill offerings, see
on Eph. V. 2. It describes the thing according to its cfcct on
God, namely, that it is acccptaUe to Him ; Ovaiav k.t.X., how-
ever, describes it according to what it is. — SeKTijv, evdpear.]
acc€2)taUe, ivell-p)leasing , a vividly asyndetic climax (on the
former, comp. Ecclus. xxxii. 7) ; rut @eu>, however, applies to
the whole apposition oo-ytxr/j' . . . evap. The asyndetic juxta-
position of several epithets is frequent also in classical authors,
from Homer onward (Ameis z. Od. iv., Anh). As to the
view, originating in the 0. T., which regards works weU-
ciiAr. IV. 13. 227
pleasing to God as ethical sacrifices, see tlie expositors on Eom.
xii. 1 ; 1 Pet. ii. 5 ; Heb. xiii. 16. Comp. Pliilo, dc vit. Mos.
II. p. 151 : v yap ak')]Oi]<; lepovpyia rt? av etrj ttX^jv ■^ux^'i
6eo(f)L\ov'; eva-e^eia ; passages from the Eabbins in Schoettg.
Hor. p. 1006.
Ver. 19. The thought starts from rw Qeoj. But God, to
whom your gift stands in the relation of such a sacrifice, will
recompense you. — Paul says 6 Se ©eo? {xov (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 Kom. i. 8), there-
fore, will God carry out the recompense. — 'ir\7]p(t)<Tet] used
with significant reference to ireifkrjp., ver. 18, according to the
idea of recompense. Not, however, a ivish (hence also in
Codd. and in the Vulgate the reading ifkTjpuxraC), as Chrysos-
tom, Luther, and others take it, but a 'promise. — iraaav %/3etai/
viJbwv] likewise corresponding to the service which the readers
had rendered ; for they had sent ei<i rrjv ')(peiav (ver. 16) of the
apostle. To be understood as : every need which ye have, not
merely lodily (so usually, following Chrysostom, who explains
it as the fulfilment of the fourth yetition, also van Hengel, de
Wette, Wiesinger), and not merely spiritual (Pelagius, Ptilliet,
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 Idng-
dom, where, in the enjoyment of the acoTrjpla, the highest
satisfaction of every need (comp. on TrXi^p. -^elav, Thuc. i. 70.
4, and Wetstein in loc) shall have set in amidst the full,
blessed sufficiency of the eternal i^wrj (comp. Ptom. viii. 17 f . ;
Eev. xxi. 4).-^ There are specifications of this satisfaction in
the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. v. ; comp.
especially the 'XppTacr6)]aea0€ and yeXdaere, Luke vi. 21, also
^ Hofmann very irrelevantly oLjects that it is out of place to speak of want in
that kingdom. But just, in fact, on that account is the bliss of the kingdom
the complete satisfaction of every need. Comp. Eev. vii. 16 f. ; 2 Tim. iv. 7 i.
Thus also is the perfect then put in the place of that which is in part. Con-
sequently the idea of the satisfaction of every x?^'"^ i^^ eternal life, where man
even beholds God, and where He is all in all, is anything but a "monstrous
thought."
228 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
the ov fXT) Si-^Tjaj) ei? rov alcJva in John iv. 1 4, and the sarcastic
KeKopea/jiivot in 1 Cor. iv. 8. That it is the Messianic satis-
faction in the iXevOepla Trj<i ho^r}^ twv reKvrov rov ©eov (Eom.
viii. 21), in the possession of the 7r\ovTo<i rr)? 80^779 t/}9 Kkqpo-
vo/j,ia<i avTov (Eph. i. 18), which is to be thought of, Paul
himself states by iv So^tj, which is to be taken as instrumental
(Eph. i. 23, V. 18) and dependent on 'jrKrip.: ivith glory,
whereby the Messianic is indicated. Hofmann also, though
he rejects the instrumental view, comes ultimately to it :
" Therewith and thus will God fulfil all their need, in that He
gives them glory. "^ Others, who also correctly join the words
with irXrjp., take them as a modal definition : in a glorious ivaij,
that is, amply, sjolendide, and the like. See Castalio, Beza,
Calvin, and many others, including Hoelemann, van Hengel,
Eilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss. But what an indefinite yet
peculiarly affected, and withal — by its so habitual reference
elsewhere to the final judgment — misleading expression would
this be for so simple an idea ! And how far would it be from
the apostle's mind, considering his expectation of the nearness
of the Parousia (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 29, 31), to promise on
this side of it a hearty recompense, which was to take place,
moreover, tv Xptara) 'It^ctoO ! An appeal is "wrongly made to
2 Cor. ix. 8, where an increase of means for further well-
doing, to be granted through God's blessing, and not the
recompense, is the point under discussion. Others erroneously
join iv So^rj with to ttXouto? avrov (Grotius, Storr, Elatt, Ehein-
wald, and others) : "2^'^^ amplissionis suis divitiis, id est, potestate
sua omnia excedente," Heinrichs. It is true that iv ho^rj
might be attached without a connecting article (according to
the combination ifKovTelv iv rivi, 1 Tim, vi. 8 ; comp. 1 Cor,
' In order, however, to bring out of the passage, notwithstanding tliis h So|>?,
the idea of a recompense in this life, Hofmann makes So^a mean the glory of the
children of God iuhich is hidden from the world, and which is the fulfilment of
every want only in proportion ' ' as there is lacking in us ivhat, either corporally
or spiritually, is necessary for the completion of our divine sonship." Instead of
such arbitrary inventions, let us keep clearly before ns how gi'eat a weight in the
very word of promise, which forms the conclusion of the epistle, lies iii the fact
that the grand aim of all promise and hope, i.e. the glory of eternal life (Rom.
V. 2, viii. 18, 21, ix. 23 ; 1 Cor. xv. 43 ; 2 Cor. iv. 17 ; Col, iii, 4 ; and many
other passages), is once more presented to the reader's view.
CHAP. IV. 20-23. 229
i. 5 ; 2 Cor. ix. 11) ; but Paul always connects TrXoSro? with
the genitive of the thing, and ifKovro^ Trj<i Sof?;? in particular,
said of God, is so constantly used by him, that it seems alto-
gether unwarranted to assume the expression 'ir\ovTo<i kv Bo^rj
in this passage. See Eom. ix. 23; Eph. i. 18, iii. IG ; Col.
i. 27. He would have written: kuto. to mrXovTO'i t^? Bo^t]^
avTov, comp. Kom. ix. 23. — Kara ro ttTiovto? avrov] that
is, m conformity ivith His being so rich, and consequently
having so much to give. Comp. Eom. x. 12, xi. 33. This
assures what is promised. — ev XpLcnut 'Iiqaoxi] definition
annexed to wXrjpcoaei, . . . Bo^j] ; that which is promised has
its causal ground in Christ, who by His work has acquired for
believers the eternal Bo^a. Christ is, in fact, 17 eXTrU Trj<;
Bo^f, Col. i. 27.
Ver. 20. The conception of the superabundant salvation,
which Paul has just promised from God, forces from his heart
a doxology. — irarpi'] through Christ, in virtue of our vlodecria,
Eom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iv. 5. As to t. ©ecp k. iraTpl rjfi. comp.
on Gal. i. 5. — /; B6^a\ sc. e'lr), the hefitting glory. See on
Eph. iii. 21 ; Eom. xi. 36, xvi. 21, et al. — et? roif? alwv. twv
aiwi/.] Gal. i. 5 ; 1 Tim. i. 17 ; 2 Tim. iv. 18 ; Heb. xiii. 21 ;
1 Pet. iv. 11, V. 11, and frequently in Eev. As to the
analysis of the expression, see on Eph. iii. 21.
Vv. 21—23. ndvra ajiov] every one, no one in the church
being excepted, — a point which is more definitely expressed by
the singular.^ — iv X. T.] is not to be joined to ayiov (so
usually, as by Eheinwald, Hoelemann, Matthies, van Hengel,
de Wette, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann), but belongs to aaTrda.
(comp. Eom. xvi. 22 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 1 9), denoting the specifically
Christian salutation, in conveying which the consciousness
lives in Christ. This is the connection adopted by Ambrosiaster,
Estius, Heinrichs, Eilliet, Wiesinger, Schenkel, and J. B. Light-
foot, and it is the right one, since with wyiov it is self-evident
that Christians are meant, and there would be no motive for
' Since Paul does not here express, as in other cases (Rom. xvi. 17 ; 1 Cor.
xvi. 20 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 12), the conception oi mutual salutation {aXXriXov;), he has
in at'jra.ffa.ah had in view the immediate recipients of the epistle (presbyters and
deacons, i. 1). So also 1 Thess. v. 26.
230 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
specially expressing this here, as there was, for instance, in the
address i. 1, where to?? 07/0^9 iv X. 'I. bears a certain formal
character, — 01 avv ifiol a8eX(j).] is the narrower circle of
those Christians who were round the apostle in Eome, including
also the official colleagues who were with him, though there is
no ground for understanding these aJone (Chrysostom, Oecu-
menius, Theophylact, and many others), Grotius even pointing
distinctly to Timothy, Linus, and Clement. The difficulty,
which has been raised in this case by a comparison of ii. 20,
is unfounded, since, in fact, the expression in ii. 20 excludes
neither the giving of a salutation nor the mention of brethren ;
groundless, therefore, are the attempted solutions of the
difficulty, as, for example, that of Chrysostom, that either
ii. 20 is meant ov irepl tmv iv rfj iroXei, or that Paul ov
Trapanelrat Kal tovtov? aSeX^ou? Kokelv (comp. Oecumenius,
who brings forward the latter as a proof of the aifKw^'yya of
the apostle). Misapprehending this second and in itself correct
remark of Chrysostom, van Hengel insists on a distinction
being drawn between two classes of companions in office,
namely, travelling comioanions, such as Luke, Mark, Titus, Silas,
and those who were resident in the places where the apostle
sojourned (among whom van Hengel reckons in Eome, Clement,
Euodia, Syntyche, and even Epapln-oditus), and holds that only
the latter class is here meant. The limits of the narrower circle
designated by 01 crvv €/u,ol u8. are not at all to be definitely
drawn. Estius well says : " Qui . . . mihi vincto ministrant,
qui me visitant, qui mecum hie in evangelio laborant." —
Trai/re? ot ajLoi,] generally, all Christians who are here ; comp.
on 2 Cor. xiii. 12 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 20. — jxaXiara Se] but most
of all, pre-eminently ; they have requested the apostle to give
special prominence to their salutation. Comp. Plat. Criiias,
p. 108 D : Tov? re aX\.ov<; KkrjTeov koI Stj Kal ra jxaXiaja
Mv7]fj,0(Tvv7]v. Whether these persons stood in any personal
relations to the Philippians, remains uncertain. It is enough
to assume that Paul had said to them much that was honour-
able concerning the church to which he was about to write.
— ol CK rrj<; Kai(Tapo<i oiKia<;'\ sc. ayiob, as is plain from the
connection with the preceding (in opposition to Hofmann) :
CHAP, IV. 21-23. 231
iliose from the emperors house (from the Palatium, see Bottger,
Beitr. II. p. 49) who belong to the samts. We have to think
of probably inferior servants of the emperor (according to
Grotius, Hitzig, and others : freedmen), who dAuelt, or at least
were employed, in the palaee. In this way there is no need for
departing from the innnediate 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 olKta the sense of
domestic servants, a meaning which it does not bear even in
Xen. Mem. ii. 7. 6 ; Joseph. Antt. xvi. 5. 8 ; and Tac. Hist.
ii. 92;^ domestic servants would be olKerela. Others have
taken oIkm, in accordance with current usage, as family
(1 Cor. xvi. 15, and frequently), and have understood kinsmen
of the emperor, a meaning which in itself seems by no means
shown by Philo m Flaec. p. 190 A to be at variance with
linguistic usage ^ (in opposition to Hofmann). So recently
Baur, who needed this point for his combinations against the
genuineness of the epistle, and van Hengel." But apart from
the fact that through Nero himself this family was greatly
diminished, and that conversions among those related to the
emperor were a priori (comp. also 1 Cor. i. 2 6 £f.) very impro-
bable, doubtless some historical traces of such a striking success
would have been preserved in tradition.^ Matthies, quite
' Where it is said of those who entered the service of the emperor : " in domum
Caesa?-i.s transgressi." Comp. Herodian, iii. 10. 9 : ■r/j;* s/,- rov (iairlkiiov oTxov
Ta.fi'kdli.
■ For in Philo I.e. it is said regarding Herod Agrippa : " Even though he were
not king, but only one of the emperor's kinsmen (U t?j Kalirapoi olnica), it would
still be necessary to prefer and honour him."
* Whether Chrysostom and his successors understood here memhers of the
imperial family, is a matter of doubt. At all events Chrysostom does not take
the word itself, oUia, as family, but explains it by ra p,a<TiXiia, palace, and finds
in the salutation a purpose of encouragement : s/ yap ol Iv rol; fiaffiXi'iois Troo/Tut
xaTKppovntrav oia. ro» fiaffiXia rav oupxvuv, toXXu (/.ocXXov uvtou; ^pri touto "Jtoiilv.
Comp. Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact.
* 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 Bomanus of Christian tradition, the
latter also must have been a kinsman of the imperial family, as indeed the
Homil. Clement, iv. 7, comp. xiv. 10, designate him as av^^ wpo; yimvs Tif^tplou
Kaiirapos. He, therefore, would be exactly the man, in whom Christianity was
232 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
arbitrarily, understands the Praetorians, as if Paul had written :
ol eK Tov irpacToypiov (i. 13). This also applies, in opposition
to Wieseler, Chronol. d. apostol. Zeitalt. p. 420, who, con-
sidering the Praetoriiim to he a portion of the palace (see
remark on i. 13), thinks the apostle alludes especially to the
Praetorians. Those who transfer the epistle to Caesarea (see
Introduction, § 2), suppose the Praetorium of Herod in that
jplace to be intended, and consequently also think of Prae-
torians, Acts xxiii. 35 (Paulus, Bottger) ; or (so Eilliet) taking
olKia as familia, of administrators of the imperial private
domain, called Caesariani or Procuratores — a view against
which the plural should have warned them ; or even of " the
family of the imperial freedman Felix" (Thiersch). What
persons, moreover, were meant (various of the older expositors
have even included Seneca ^ among them), is a point just as
unknown to us, as it was well known to the Philippians or
became known to them through Epaphroditus. The general
result is, that people from the imperial palace were Christians,
and that those could obtain access to the apostle probably
represented in the circle of the imperial house itself. ^' Concluding frovi one
that there icere several, the author of the epistle might make his apostle write
earnest salutations to the church in, PldUppi from believing members of the
imperial house in the i)ldral," etc. Thus does criticism, departing from the solid
ground of history, lose itself in the atmosphere of subjective inventions, where
hypothesis finds no longer either support or limit. Indeed, Baur now goes
further beyond all bounds (II. p. 69), and discovers that the mention of
Clement even throws a new light over the whole ^;?a» of the epistle. With
this Clement, namely, and the participation, as attested by him, of the imperial
house ill Iho gojpel, is given the -rfoxoTh rod liayy. (i. 12), and with the latter
the feeling of joyfulness, which expresses ilself throughout the epistle as the
ground-tone of the apostle (li. 17 f., ccmp. iii. 1, iv. 1, 4, 10), and which is
again and again the refrain of each scpaiate section. Only by the preponderance
of this feeling is it to be explained that the author makes his apcstle even
express tlic hope of a speedy liberation (ii. 24). But with this joy tliere is also
blended, with a neutralizing effect, the idea of a neaily approaching death,
i. 20-24, and this divided state of mind between life and dcatli betrays an author
"who had already before his eyes as an actual fact the end of the apcstle,
ivhich v:as so far from harvionirjiig vjllh (dl these 2''resupposltions."
' See generally on "Paul and Sineea," and the apocryphal fourteen Latin
letters exchanged between tl.tm, Baur in Hilgenfeld's Zeltschr. 1858, 2. 3 ;
Pieuss in Herzog's Emyklop. XIV. p. 274 fl. ; J. B. Liglitfoot, Ejx. II. p.
268 If., 327 ff. ; latest edition of the text of tliese epistles in the 'Thtol. Qiiartalschr,
1867, p. 609 ff.
CHAP. IV. 21-23. 233
with special ease and frequency ; hence their especial sahita-
tion. The question also, whether one or another of the persons
saluted in liom. 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." — 77 %«/0i9 t. Kvp.
'I. X.] see on Gal. i. 6. — //.era iravroiv u/i.] Comp. Eom.
xvi. 24; 1 Cor. xvi. 24; 2 Cor. xiii. 13 ; 2 Thess. iii. 18;
Tit. iii. 15.
THE
EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
I N T E D U C T I N.'
§ 1. THE CHUECH.
ITH the exception of the Epistle to the Eomans, the
letter now before us is the only one of all the epistles
of Paul that have been preserved, wliich is addressed
to a church that was neither founded by Paul him-
self nor even subsequently visited by him in person (see on i. 7,
ii. 1), although the Colossian Philemon was his immediate dis-
ciple (Philem. 19), and the Book of Acts relates that the apostle
passed through Phrygia on two occasions (Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23).
There, in Phrygia Magna on the Lycus, was situate Kolossae,
or Kolassae (see the critical remarks on i. 2). It is designated
by Herodotus, vii. 30, as 7roXt9 fxeydXT], and by Xenophon,
Andb. i, 2. 6, as evBaifiav k. fieydXi] ; but, subsequently, as
compared with the cities of Apamea and Laodicea which had
become great (fieyia-raL . . . 7r6\ei<;, Strabo xii. 8, p. 576), it
became so reduced, that it is placed by Strabo, I.e., only in the
list of the Phrygian iroXiafxara, and by Pliny, N. H. v. 41,
only among the oppicla, although celeherrima. According to
the Eusebian Chronicle and Oros. vii. 7, it also was visited by
' See Hofmann, Introduct. in lectionem ep. P. ad Col. Lips. 1749 ; Bohmer,
Isagoge in ejy. ad Col. Berol. 1829 ; Mayerlioff, Der Brief an d. Kol. h-Ui?ch
geprii/f, Berlin, 1838 ; Wiggers, d. Verh. d. Ap. P. zu d. chrisil. Gem. in Kol.
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 165 ff. ; Leo Montet, Introd. in ep. ad Col. 1841 ;
Klopper, De orig. ep. ad Eph. et Col. 1853 ; Weiss in Herzog's Encylcl. XIX.
p. 717 S. ; Schenkel in liis Bihellex. III. p. 565 fF. ; Holtzmann, Krit. der
Epheser- und Kolosserbrie/e, 1872.
235
236 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
the earthquake which, according to Tacit. Ann. xiv. 2 7, devas-
tated Laodicea. This took place not so late as the tenth year
of Nero's reign (Eus. Chron.), or even the fourteenth (Orosius),
but, according to Tacitus, in the seventh — about the same
time with the composition of our epistle, perhaps shortly
afterwards, as the earthquake is not mentioned in it. In the
Middle Ages the city was again flourishing under the name
Chonae (Theophylact and Oecumenius on i. 2 ; Constant.
Porphyr. Them. i. 3) ; it is in the present day the village
of Chomis (see Pococke, Morgcnl. III. p. 114 ; and generally,
Mannert, Gcorjr. VI. 1, p. 127 f.; Bbhmer, Isag. p. 2 Iff.;
Steiger, p. 1 3 ff.).
By whom the church — which consisted for the most part
of Gentile Christians, i. 21, 27, ii. 13 — was founded, is not
unknown ; Epaphras is indicated by i. 7 f. as its founder,
and not merely as its specially faithful and zealous teacher.
See the remark after i. 7 f. That it had received and accepted
the Pauline gospel, is certain from the whole tenor of the
epistle. It may be also inferred as certain from ii. 1 com-
pared with Acts xviii. 23, that the time of its being founded
M^as 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 Ptom. i. 7. It
was so numerous, that it had a section assembling in the house
of Philemon (Philem. 2).
§ 2. OCCASION, AIM, TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION, CONTENTS.
The apostle had received through Epaphras, who had come
to him (i. 7 f., iv. 12; Philem. 23), detailed accounts of
the condition of the cliurch, and of its perils and needs at
that time, whereby he found himself inchiced — and the re-
moval of Epaphras from the church at the moment certainly
made the matter appear all the more urgent — to despatch
Tychicus, an inhabitant of Asia Minor (Acts xx. 4), to Colossae,
and to send with him this epistle (iv. 7 f., comp. Eph. vi. 2 1 f.).
INTRODUCTION. 237
TychicLis was also to visit the Epliesians, and to convey the
letter written at the same time to them (see on Eph. Introd.
§ 2). Tychicus was despatched at the same time with Oncsimvs,
the Colossian slave (iv. 9), who had to deliver to his m.aster
Philemon the well-known letter from the apostle (Philem. 1 1 f.).
Doubtless Onesimus also — who had come, although still as a
heathen, from Colossae to Paul — brought with him accounts as
to the state of matters there, as he had been a servant in a Chris-
tian household amidst lively Christian intercourse (Philem. 2).
In accordance with these circumstances giving occasion to
the letter, the aim of the apostle was not merely to confirm
the church generally in its Christian faith and life, but also
to warn it against heretical ipcrils by which it was threatened.
The false teachers whom he had in view were Jevjish-Christians ;
not, however, such as those who, as in Galatia and in the neigh-
bourhood of Philippi (Phil. iii. 2 ff.), restricting themselves to
the sphere of legal requirement and especially of the necessity
of circumcision, did away with Christian freedom, the founda-
tion of which is justification by faith, — but such as had mixed
up Christian Judaism with thcosojjhic speculation. While they
likewise adhered to circumcision (ii. 11), and to precepts as to
meats and feasts (ii. 16), to the prejudice of Christ's atoning
work (ii. 13 ff.), they at the same time — and this forms their
distinctive character — put forward a jJhilosojjhy as to the higher
spirit-world, with the fancies and subtleties of which (ii. 18)
were combined, as practical errors, a conceited humility, ivor-
ship of angels, and unsparing bodily asceticism (ii. 20—23) —
extravagances of an unhealthy Gnosis, that could not fail to
find a fruitful soil in the mystico-fanatical character of the
Phrygian people, wliich served as an appropriate abode for-
merly for the orgiastic cultus of Cybele, and subsequently for
Montanism.-^ These theosophists, however, came most keenly
into conflict with the exalted rank and the redeeming work
of Christ, to whom they did not leave His full divine dignity
(as elKwv ToO Qeov k.tX., i. 1 5 ff.), but preferred to assign to
^ The theosopldc tendency, which haunted Colossae; may help to explain the
fact that Paul does not make use, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, of arguments
derived from the 0. T. The epistle contains no c[uotation from Scriptiu'e.
238 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Him merely a rank in tlie 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, as in 1 Cor.
XV. But that in dualistic fashion they looked on matter as
evil, may be reasonably inferred from their adoration of spirits,
and from their asceticism mortifying the body, as well as from
the at all events kindred phenomenon of later Gnosticism.
Attempts have been made in very different ways to ascer-
tain more precisely the historical character of the Colossian
false teachers, and on this point we make the following re-
marks : (1) They appear as ^ e.\Y\z\\-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, Engehuelt, p. 110 f.) ;
others, as indirect opponents of Christianity through the sem-
blance of more than earthly sanctity (Eichhorn) ; others, as
adherents of the Alexandrine Nco-Platonism (doctrine of the
Logos) (so Juncker, Kommentar, Introd. p. 43 ff.) ; others, as
Chaldaectns 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, Eheinwald, de pseudodoct.
Coloss. Bonn, 1834). Just as little were they adherents of a
heathen philosophy, whether they might be looked upon as of
the Epicurean (Clemens Alexandrinus), or of the Pythagorean
(Grotius), or of the Platonic and Stoic (Heumann) school, or
of no definite school at all (Tertullian, Euthalius, Calixtus).
(2) The right view of these false teachers, in accordance with
history, necessarily carries us back to Essenism. In opposition
to the opinion that they were Christian Essenes (so Chemnitz,
Zachariae, Storr, Elatt, Credner, Thiersch, histor.Standp. p. 2 70 f.,
Eitschl, Ewald, Holtzmann, et al), it is not to be urged that
the Essene washings, and various other pecuEarities of Essenism,
INTKODUCTION. 239
remain unnoticed in the epistle ; or that the secluded and
exclusive character peculiar to this society, and the limitation
of their abode to Syria and Palestine, do not suit the case of
the Colossian heretics ; or that the hypocrisy, conceit, and
persuasiveness which belonged to the latter do not harmonize
with the character of the Essenes, as it is otherwise attested.
These difficulties are got rid of by comparison with the Eoman
ascetics (Eom. xiv.), who likewise were Essene Jewish-Chris-
tians, only more unprejudiced and inoffensive than these
Asiatics, whose peculiar character, which had already received
a more Gnostic development and elaboration, was of a philo-
sophic stamp, addicted to rhetorical art, full of work - piety
and hypocrisy, and therefore fraught with more danger to
Pauline Christianity, the greater the opportunity they had, just
then whilst the great apostle was himself far away and in
bonds, of raising their head. Now, if at that time the
Essene influence was not at all unfrequent among the Jews,
and thence also among Jewish-Christians (see Eitschl, cdt-
Tcath. Kirclie, p. 232 ff., and in the Theolog. Jahrh. 1855,
p. 355), and if, beyond doubt, the theosophy of the Essenes
— kindred with the Alexandrine philosophy, although in origin
Jewish — and their asceticism (see Joseph. Bell. ii. 8 ; Philo,
Quod omnis 2}rohis liber, p. 8 7 6 ff. ; Euseb. Praep. ev. viii. 1 1 ff.),
as well as their adherence to their tradition (Joseph. I.e. ii.
8. 7; comp. Credner, Beitr. I. p. 369), are very much in
accord with the characteristic marks of our heretics (comp.
generally Keim, Gesch. Jcsu, I. p. 286 ff.), the latter are with
justice designated as Jewish-Christian Gnostics, or more ac-
curately, as Gnostics addicted to an Essene tendency.'^ This
designation, however, is not to be taken in the sense of any
subsequently c.l ;iborated system, but must be understood as
intimating that in the doctrines of our theosophists there were
apparent the widely- spread, and especially in Essenism strongly-
asserted, elements of Gnosticism, out of which the formal
Gnostic systems were afterwards gradually and variously deve-
loped (comp. Bohmer, Isag. p. 56 ff. ; IsTeander, Gelegenheitsschr.
^ Comp. Grau, Entwickelungsgesch. d. n. t. Schriftth. II. p. 145 ff. ; Lipsius
in Schenkel's Bihel-Lexk. II. p. 498.
240 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
p. 40 ff. ; Schott, Isag. p. 272 ; Weiss, I.e. p. 720 ; Grau, I.e. ;
Holtzmann, p. 296 ff. ; Clemens in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 1871,
p. 418 ff.). Among the latter, the Cerinthian doctrine in par-
ticular is, in various points, closely allied with that combated
in our epistle (comp. F. Nitzsch on Bleek, Vorlcs. p. 1 5 f. ;
Lipsius, d. Gnosticismus, 18 CO, p. 81 f.), although we are not
justified in considering with Mayerhoff that this polemic was
already directed against Cerinthus and his adherents, and
thence arguing against the genuineness of the epistle. A
similar judgment is to be formed regarding their relation to the
Valentinians, who often appealed to the Epistle to the Ephe-
sians ; and Baur leaps much too rapidly to a conclusion,
when he thinks {Paulus, IT. p. 4 ff.) that in the Colossian false
teachers are to be found the Gnostic EhioniUs (who no doubt
originated from Essenism) — thereby making our epistle a pro-
duct of the fermentation of the post-apostolic age, and connect-
ing it as a spurious twin-letter with that to the Ephesians.
Holtzmann forms a much more cautious judgment, when he
takes his stand at a prelimmary 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 Eomans, and possess
for comj)arison 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 Cahhalistic (Herder,
Kleuker, Osiander in the Tiih. Zeitschr. 1834, 3, p. 96 ff.) ;
but this must likewise be restricted to the effect that the
theosophic tendency generally, the special Essene-Christian
shape of which Paul had to combat, may have probably been
at bottom akin to the subsequently developed Cabbala, although
the origin of this Jewish metaphysics is veiled in obscurity.
(3) We must decidedly set aside, were it only on account of
the legal strictness of the men in question, the assumption of
Michaelis, that they were diseiplcs of Aiwllos, to whom Hein-
richs adds also disciples of John, as well as Essenes and other
Judaistic teachers, and even a malevolum hominum genus ex
ethnicis — of which, in itself extremely improbable, medley the
INTRODUCTION. 241
epistle itself contains no trace. (4) In contrast to all pre-
vious attempts to classify the Colossian false teachers, Hofmann
prefers to abide by the position that they were Jewish
Christians, " who, starting from the presupposition that the
Gentile Christians, in their quality as belonging to Ethnicism,
were subject to the spirits antagonistic to God which ruled
therein, recommended — with a view to complete their state
of salvation, which, it was alleged, in this respect needed
supplement — a sanctification of the outward life, based partly
on the Sinaitic law, partly on dogmas of natural philosophy."
But this cannot be made good as an adequate theory by the
explanation of the characteristic individual traits, since, on the
contrary, that theosophico - Judaistic false teaching presents
sufficient evidences of its having its historical root in Essenism,
and its further development and diversified elaboration in the
later Gnosticism, provided that with unprejudiced exegesis we
follow the apostle's indications in regard to the point ; see
especially on ii. 16—23.
In date and ^:)/ace 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 Cacsarcan captivity of the apostle. See on Eph. Introd.
§ 2. In opposition to this view,'^ de Wette, Bleek, and others
attach decisive importance specially to two points : (1) That
what Paul says in Col. iv. 3, 11 of his labours for the gospel
harmonizes with Acts xxviii. 31, but not with his sojourn in
Caesarea, Acts xxiv. 23. But iv. 11 contains no special state-
ment at all as to the labours of the apostle in captivity, and as
to iv. 3 we must observe that he there expresses the longing for
future free working. The latter remark applies also in oppo-
sition to Wieseler (Chronol. dcs apostol. Zcitalt. p. 420) and
Hofmann, who likewise regard iv. 3 f. as decisive in favour
of the Eoman captivity, while Hofmann finds the statement
as to Mark and Jesus contained in iv. 11 incompatible with
the situation in Caesarea (but see in loc). In assuming that
* Which, with Hausrath, Laurent, and others, Sabatier also {Vapotre Paul,
1870, p. 193 if.) prefers, while "Weiss leaves the point undecided. Hofmann
rejects cm' view, and Holtzmauu does not find it the more probable.
COL. Q
242 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIAXS.
the conversion of the Gentile Onesimus (Philem. 1 0) is incom-
patible with the statement in Acts xxiv. 23, Wieseler infers
too much from the words rSiv IBicov aurov (Acts xxiv. 23),
especially as the intention of a liberal cnstody is obvious in
the arrangement of Felix. (2) That in Rome Paul might have
thought of the journey to Phrygia hoped for at Philem. 22,
but not in Caesarea, (comp. Hofmann, p. 2 1 7), where, accord-
ing to Acts xix. 21, Eom. i. 13, xv. 23 ff.. Acts xxiii. 11, he
had the design of going to Eome, 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 eomhine his
intended journey to Eome with a passage through Asia.
There is no doubt that when at Eome he expressed the hope
(Phil. ii. 24) of again visiting the scene of his former labours ;
but why should he not have done the same when at Caesarea,
so long, namely, as his appeal to the emperor had not
taken place ? See also on Philem. 22. — If our epistle was
written in Caesarea, the time of its composition was the year
60 or 61, while the procuratorship was still in the hands of
Felix.
As regards the contents of the epistle, after the salutation
(i. 1 f.), a thanksgiving (i. 3-8), and intercessory prayer
(i. 9-12), Paul passes on (ver. 12) to the blessedness of
the redemption which his readers had obtained through Christ,
whose dignity and work are earnestly and very sublimely
set before their minds with reference to the dangers arising
from heresy (i. 13-23). Next Paul testifies to, and gives the
grounds for, the joy which he now felt in his sufferings as an
apostle (i. 24-29). By way of preparation for his warnings
against the false teachers, he next expresses his great care for
his readers and all other Christians who do not personally know
him, as concerns their Christian advancement (ii. 1-3), and
then subjoins the warnings themselves in detail (ii. 4-23).
Next follow moral admonitions (iii. 1-iv. 6) ; a commendatory
INTRODUCTION. 243
mention of Tychicus and Onesimns (iv. V-9) ; salutations with
commendations and injunctions (iv. 1 0—1 7) ; and the conclu-
sion appended by the apostle's own hand (ver. 18).
§ 3. GENUINENESS.
Even if it be allowed that the apparent allusions to our
Epistle which one might find in the apostolic Fathers
(Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius) are uncertain, and that even
the mention of TrptuToro/co? Tracr?;? KTio-€Oi<; in Justin Mart. c.
Tryph. p. 311 (comp. p. 310, 326), and Theophil. ad Autol.
ii. 31, may be independent of Col. i. 15, still the external
attestation of our Epistle is so ancient, continuous, and general
(Marcion, the school of Yalentinus ; Irenaeus, ITaer. iii. 1 4. 1
and V. 14. 2, who first cites it by name ; Canon Murat. ; Clem.
Al. Strom, i. p. 277, iv. p. 499, v. p. 576, vi. p. 645 ; Tert.
Fraescr. 7, de resurr. 23 ; Origen, c. Cels. v. 8, etc.), that no
well-founded doubt can from this quarter be raised.
But modern criticism has assailed the Epistle on internal
grounds ; and the course of its development has been as fol-
lows. Mayerhoff {d. Brief an die Kol. mit vornehml. BeriicTc-
siclit. d. Pastoralbr. JcritiscJi geprilft, Berl. 1838) assumed
the genuineness of the Epistle to the Ephesians, to the
prejudice of our Epistle (de Wette inverts the procedure to
the prejudice of the Ephesian Epistle) ; Baur, on the other
hand {Paidus, II. p. 8 ff.), rejected both the cognate Epistles ;
comp. also Schwegler, nachapost. Zcitalt. II. p. 325 ff.
According to Weisse {philos. Dogmat. I, p. 146), our Epistle,
like most of the Pauline letters, is pervaded by interpola-
tions. Hitzig also (zur Kritik p)cmlin. Brief e, 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 misimderstood. In
assigning his reasons for this view, Hitzig does not go beyond
the bounds of bare assertions and misunderstandings on his own
part. Hoenig (in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 1872, p. 63 ff.), after
24-i THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSI ANS.
comparing the two kindred letters, propounds the view that
all those passages of the Epistle to the Colossians are to he
regarded as interpolations, regarding which it can he 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 j)resent withdrawn it from
criticism. After thorough investigation, Holtzmann {Kritik d.
Ephescr- 20. Kolosserbriefe, 1872) has arrived at the hypothesis
of a great series of interpolations, the author of which was
none other than the author of the Epistle to the Ephesians
written, according to Holtzmann, somewhere about the
year 100, who, with the help of this writing of his own, had
worked up the short and genuinely Pauline letter to the
Colossians, which he found in existence, into a new and
amplified form, and thereby rescued it in a second enlarged
edition from oblivion. But neither can the course of interpo-
lation thus set forth be exegetically verified, nor can it — seeing
that all the witnesses from the beginning prove only the present
shape of the letter, and no trace has been left of any earlier one
— be without arbitrariness rendered critically intelligible, as in
fact such a procedure on the part of an interpolator, who had
withal so much mastery of free movement in the sphere of
Pauline thought and language that he could write the Epistle
to the Ephesians, would yield a laborious and — as overlaying
and obscuring the given nucleus — somewhat clumsy mosaic
patchwork, which, from a psychological point of view, would
be hardly conceivable.
Mayerhoff, in order to characterize the Epistle as a pro-
duction of possibly the second century epitomized from the
Epistle to the Ephesians with the addition of some contro-
versial matter, lays stress on («) differences in language and
style, (p) deviations from the Pauline character both of con-
ception and of representation, (c) the comparison with the
Epistle to the Ephesians, and (d) the supposed reference of the
polemics to Cerinthus. But, first, the stamp of language and
the style are so entirely Pauline, that particular expressions,
which we are accustomed to in Paul's writings but do not find
II^TRODUCTION. 245
here (BiKaioavvrj k.t.\., cwTTjpla k.tX., atroKoXv^i^, viraKorj,
dpa, Bio, SioTL, en, et al), or aira^ Xeyofieva which occur (as
ideXoOprjarKela, TTidavoXoyla, et al.), cannot furnish any counter
argument, since, in fact, they are fully outweighed by similar
phenomena in epistles which are indubitably genuine. There
is the less ground for urging the occurrence only six times of
rydp (Text. Bee), as even in the larger Epistle to the Ephesians
it occurs only eleven times, and in the Second Epistle to the
Thessalonians only five times. And how little are such
mechanical standards of comparison at all compatible with a
mind so free in movement and rich in language as was that of
Paul ! In his case even the order of the words "EWrjv koX
'lovBato'i (iii. 11) cannot seem surprising, nor can the com-
bining of designations similar in meaning (as i. 6, 10, ii.
18, 23) appear as a strange hunting after synonyms. See,
besides, Huther, ScMusshdmcht. p. 420 ff . ; Hofmann, p. 179 f.
Secondly, un-Pauline conceptions are only imported into the
Epistle by incorrect interpretations ; and the peculiar develop-
ments of doctrine, which Paul gives only here, but which are
in no case without their preliminary conditions and outlines in
the earlier Epistles, were suggested to him by the special occa-
sion of the letter (as, in particular, the development of the
relation of Christ to the angel- world). And if the Epistle is
said to lack in its dogmatic portion the logical arrangement
which is found in the hortatory portion (the reverse being the
case in the genuine Epistles) ; if Pauline freshness and vigour
are said to be wanting, and poverty of thought to prevail ;
these are judgments which in some cases are utterly set aside
by a right exegesis, and in others are of a partisan character
and aesthetically incorrect. The complaint, in particular, of
" poverty of thought" is characteristic of the procedure of such
criticism towards its victims, no matter how precarious a
subjective standard must ever be in such questions, or how
various may be the judgments which are put forth as based
on taste (according to Bohmer, Isag. p. 160, our Epistle is
" viva, pressa, solida, tiervis 2^lc7ia, mascula"). Thirdly, the
affinity of our Epistle with that to the Ephesians in style and
contents is explained by their composition at the same time,
246 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
— as respects wMch, however, the priority lies with our letter,
— and by the analogy of the circumstances giving occasion
to write, which in either case the apostle had in view/ See
on Eph. Introd. ^ 3. Lastly, the assertion that Cerinthus is
assailed is erroneous — a critical iirotliysUron ; see § 2.
Baur,^ who describes the Epistle to the Ephesians and that
to the Colossians, which are held at any rate to stand or fall
together, as un-Pauline, and places the former in a secondary
relation to the latter, looks upon this latter as combating an
Ebionitism, which would have nothing to do with a recognition
of the universalism of Christianity at the cost of renounc-
ing everything that was incompatible with the absoluteness
of the Christian principle. He holds, however, that this
universalism was not that based on the Pauline anthropology,
but only the external universalism, which consisted in the
coalition between Gentiles and Jews effected by the death of
Christ, and in which, alongside of the forgiveness of sin, the
Clementines placed the aim of Christ's death. Thus, accord-
ing to Baur, the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians are
to be placed in the post-apostolic . period of a conciliation
between Jewish and Gentile Christianity. The highest
expression of this conciliatory destination is the Christology
of the Epistles, in so far, namely, as Christ appears as the
primordial principle of all being, and His whole work onward
to His exaltation as the self-realization of this idea, according
to which the pre-existence is the main point of the Christology.
The arguments of Baur are mostly derived from the Epistle to
the Ephesians ; those that particularly affect our Epistle, and
are supposed to attest a Gnostic stamp impressed on it (such
as the idea of Christ as the central point of the whole kingdom
of spirits, the notion of the ifXy^pwixa, etc.), will be shown by
the exposition to be a homogeneous development of elements of
^ The assertion is being constantly repeated, that Paul could not have copied
himself. But, in fact, we have not among the apostle's letters any other two,
which were written so immediately at the same time, and to churches whose
wants were similar. If we had had two such, who knows but that they would
have presented an analogous resemblance ?
2 Planck, Kbstlin, Hilgenfeld, Hockstra (in the Theolog. Tijdschrift, 1868),
as well as Schwegler, agree in substance with Baur.
INTRODUCTION. 247
doctrine already presented in the earlier Epistles.* Concerning
these Christological doubts, see, moreover, especially Eaebiger,
Christ ol. Paid. p. 42 if., and generally Klopper, de orig. cpp. ad
Eph. et Coloss. Gryphisw. 1853; Hofmann, p. 181 ff. ; Eich,
Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 196 £f. ; Sabatier, I'apolre Paul, p.
2 7 £f.^ It may be observed in general, that if our Epistle (and
that to the Ephesians) is nothing more than a pseudo-apostolic
movement of Gnosis against Ebionitism, then every other
Epistle is so also, since every other writing in the N. T. may,
with almost equal justice, be brought under some such category
of subjective presupposition ; and that it is in reality incon-
sistent, if the whole N. T. is not (and for the most part it
has already been) made out to be a collection of later books
written with some set purpose, which, by means of their
pseudo-epigraphic names, have succeeded in deceiving the
vigilance of centuries. The falrication of such an epistle
as that to the Colossians would be more marvellous than its
originality. "ISTon est cujusvis hominis, Paulinum pectus
effingere ; tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus,"
Erasmus, Annot. ad iv. 16.
Ewald has modified the theory of its composition by the
apostle in a peculiar way. In his view, the Epistle is indeed
planned and carried out quite after the manner of the apostle ;
but after the contents had been settled by preliminary dis-
cussion, Paul committed the composition to Timothy (i. 1),
again, hoAvever, 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
' The exegesis of the Epistle will also dispose of what Hilgenfeld, who rejects
the genuineuess of the Ejihcsian and Colossian letters, adduces by way of estab-
lishing his assertion, tliat " the new and characteristic feature of the Colossian
Epistle consists simply in this, that it represents Paulinism no longer merely
iu contradistinction to JcAvish Christianity, but also in contradistinction to
Gnosticism (proper) ;" see Hilgenfeld's ^etiicAr. 1870, p. 245 f. We see, he says,
Paulinism in this case not merely repelling, but even in part adopting. Gnostic
elements. — For Baur's Gnostic interpretation of the TXnfufx.oi, see especially his
Paulus, II. p. 12 ff., and Neutest. Theol. p. 257 ff.
2 Compare, also generally, in opposition to the hypothesis of a positive in-
fluence of Gnosis on N. T. doctrinal ideas, Heinrici, d. Valeni. Gnosis u. d. heil.
Schr. 1871.
248 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
by the fact that it is not made to extend uniformly to chap, iv.
Secondly, it may be nrged against it, that a Timothy himself,
even after preliminary discussion with the apostle, could hardly
have appropriated or imitated the completely Pauline stamp in
such measure, as in this Epistle it recurs at every sentence
and in every turn. Thirdly, the conjectured course of pro-
cedure does not appear in any other of Paul's Epistles, and yet
the present was one of the shortest and the easiest to be
dictated. Fourthly, such a procedure can scarcely be recon-
ciled with the high value and authority, well understood by
the apostle, which an Epistle from him could not but possess
for any Christian church, especially for one not founded by him-
self Fifthly, we cannot but naturally regard the concluding
salutation by his own hand (iv. 18) as simply the token of
his own, and not of a merely indirect, composition (2 Thess.
iii. 17). Sixthly, according to iv. 16, a similar merely indirect
composition on his part would have to be attributed also to the
Epistle to the Laodiceans, since the two Epistles, as they were
to be read in both churches, must have been, as it were, cast in
the same mould, and of essentially the same import. Lastly,
the peculiar dangerous character of the spiritualistic Judaism,
which had to be opposed in the Epistle, was precisely such as to
claim the undivided personal action of the apostle, which was
certainly, even in the enforced leisure of his imprisonment,
sufficiently within his power for the purpose of his epistolary
labours. The grounds on which the foregoing liypothesis is
based ^ — and in the main the assailants of the genuineness
' Ewald appeals (presupposing, moreover, the non-gemiinoncss of the Epistle
to the Ephcsians) to the longer conipound words, such as kiTctia-xXrifota, a.-jto-
xxTaXXaiTffu, aTccXXerfiou, •z'xpaXo'yi^ofiai, iSiXoipyiffxilay of^aXfuooovXiia ; tO Un-
usual modes of expression, such as fiXu vftas siS;>a( (ii. 1), « iirr/v for the
explanatory that is (i. 24 [27], ii. 10, iii. 14), in connections capable of being
easily misunderstood ; to the circumstances, that in the progress of the discourse
and in the structure of sentences we cntirelj' miss " the exceedingly forcible flow
and the exultant ebullition, and then, again, the quick concentration and the
firm collocation of tlie thoughts ;" that the words Si, ydp, and aXXa are less
frequently found, and that the sentences are connected more by simple little rela-
tional words and in excessively long series, like the links of a chain, alongside
of which is also frequently found the merely rhetorical accumulation of sen-
tences left without links of connection (such as i. 14, 20, 25 f., 27, ii. 8, 11, 23,
INTRODUCTION. 249
have already used them — are in part quite unimportant, in
part framed after a very subjective standard, and far from
adequate in the case of a letter-writer, who stands so high and
great in many-sided wealth both of thought and diction and
in its free handling as Paul, and who, according to the diversity
of the given circumstances and of his own tone of feeling, was
capable of, and had the mastery over, so ample and manifold
variety in the presentation of his ideas and the structure of
his sentences. Nor do those linguistic difficulties, which
Holtzmann, p. 104 ff., has brought forward more discreetly
than Mayerhoff, and to some extent in agreement with Ewald,
with a view to separate the portions of the letter pertaining
to the genuine Paul from those that belong to the manipulator
and interpolator, suffice for his object.^ They could only be
of weight, in the event of their exhibiting modes of expres-
sion beyond doubt un-Pauline, or of the interpolated character
of the passages in question being already established on other
grounds.
iii. 5) ; that we meet delicate but still perceptible distinctions of thought, such
as the non-mention of Sixa/sa-uv» and "SiKaiouv, and the description of the Logos
by the word ^Xr.pufia itself (i. 19, ii. 9) ; that we find a multitude of words
and figures peculiarly Pauline, but that we miss all the more the whole apostle in
his most vivid idiosyncrasy throughout the main portions of the Epistle ; and
that many a word and figure, in fact, appears imitated from the Epistles of
Paul, especially that to the Romans.
* When we take fully into account the singularly ample storehouse of the
Greek language, from which the apostle knew how to draw his materials with
so much freedom and variety in all his letters, we shall not be too hastily ready
to hold that such expressions, phrases, or turns, as have no jjarallels 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.
IlavXov €7n<TTo\r} vrpo? Ko\o(Tcra€L<;.
A B K min. Copt, have the superscription -xphg KoXaaeaiTg. So
Matth, Lachm. and Tisch. Comp. on ver. 2,
CHAP TEE I.
Ver. 1. The arrangement xpiffrov 'Jr,soZ (Lachm. Tisch.) has pre-
ponderant testimony in its favour, but not the addition of 'irt^ov
after xpiaroum ver. 2 (Lachm.). — Ver. 2. KoXosauTg] K P, also C
and X in the subscription, min. Syr. utr. Copt. Or. Nyss. Amphi-
loch. Theodoret, Damasc. et. al. have K&^.ao-ffa/j. Approved by
Griesb., following Erasm. Steph. Wetst. ; adopted by Matth.
Lach. Tisch. 7. The Eeccx)ta is supported by E D E F G L K,
min. Vulg. It. Clem. Chrys. Theophyl. Tert. Ambrosiast. Pelag.
The matter is to be judged thus : (1) The name in itself correct is
undoubtedly KoKoseai, which is supported by coins of the city
(Eckhel, Doc^r. num. III. p. 107) and confirmed by Herod, vii. 30
(see Wessel. and Valck. in loc.) ; Xen. Anctb. i. 2. 6 (see Bornem,
in loc.) ; Strabo, xii. 8, p. 57G ; Plin. N. H. v. 32. (2) But since
the form Kc^.a^ffa/ has so old and considerable attestation, and is
preserved in Herodotus and Xenopbon as a various reading, as
also in Polyaen. viii. 1 6, and therefore a mere copyist's error can-
not be found in the case — the more especially as the copyists,
even apart from the analogy which suggested itself to them of
the well-known -/.oXoeeo;, would naturally be led to the -prevalent
form of the name K&7.&c(jc:/, — we must assume that, although
KoXoagai was the more formally correct name, still the name
KoXaaaai was also (vulgarly) in nse, that this was the name
which Paul himself wrote, and that Ko}.oosu,T; 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 'Ttarphg riiLoiv, Elz. (Lachm. in
brackets) has xal Tiuplou 'lr,ffoZ Xpiarov, in opposition to BDEKL,
min. vss. and Fathers. A complementary addition in accord-
ance with the openings of other epistles, especially as no ground
for intentional omission suggests itself (in opposition to Iteiche,
Comm.crit.'g. 351 f.). — Ver. 3. xai Trarpl] Lachm. and Tisch. 7:
250
CHAr. I. 251
'xa.Tp'i. So B C* vss. and Fathers, while D* F G, Chrys. have
Tip 'Ttarpi. Since, however, Paul always writes 6 es&s -/.ai rrarrip
ToD Kupiou (Eom. XV. 6 ; 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31 ; Eph. i. 3 ; also 1 Cor.
XV. 24 ; Eph. v. 20), and never 6 Qibg 6 irarrip r. x. or 6 Qihg Tarrip
T. -A.., the Eecepta, which has in its favour A C** D*** E K L P N,
min. Vulg. and Fathers, is with Tisch. 8 to he retained. The
■/.ai was readily omitted in a mechanical way after the imme-
diately preceding ©eou 'Trarpog. — Instead of ts^/, Lachm. reads
h-:Tsp, which is also recommended by Griesb., following B D* E*
F G, min. TheophyL Not attested by preponderating evidence,
and easily introduced in reference to ver. 9 (where vir'sp stands
without variation). — Ver. 4. Instead of h h/in (which is re-
commended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.), Elz.
Matth. Scholz have rrtv merely, but in opposition to A C D*
E* F G P N, min. vss. (including Vulg. It.) Fathers. If Tr,v were
originally written, why should it have been exchanged for -/Jv
'iyjn ? On the other hand, tji/ ?%£-£, as it could be dispensed
with for the sense, might easily drop out, because the word
preceding concludes with the syllable HN, and the word fol-
lowing (s/'s), like £:';:(;£r=, begins with E. The grammatical gap
would then, following Eph. i. 15, be filled up by rr^'j. — Ver. 6.
xa/ idri] xai is wanting in A B C D* E* P t<, min. and some vss.
and Fathers ; condemned by Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and
Tisch. 8. But, not being understood, this %ai, which has the
most important vss. and Fathers in its favour, was omitted in
the interest of simplicity as disturbing the connection. — -/.a)
avB,a.v6/j!.svov] 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. xaSug
xa/] -/.a/ is justly condemned by Griesb. on decisive evidence,
and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. A mechanical repetition
from the preceding. — v/j^mv] ABD*GFn*, min.: !5,«.wv; approved
by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. But since the first person both
precedes and follows {ri,u,uiv . . . rifiTv), it was put here also by care-
less copyists. — Ver. 10. After mpi'Trarrisai, Elz. Tisch. 7 have
■jf/^ag, against decisive testimony ; a supplementary addition. —
iig rriv I'iriyvusiv] Griesb. Lachm, Scholz. Tisch. 8 have ^Jj imyMUion.
So A B C D* E* F G P N, min. Clem. Cyr. Maxim. But it lacks
the support of the vss., which (Vulg. It. in scientia Dei) have
read the Ecccpta iig t. sv/yv. attested by D*** E** K L and
most min., also Theodoret, Dam. TheophyL Oec, or with 6?**
and Chrys. iv rji l-jnyvucu. The latter, as well as the mere r^
252 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
i-iyv., betrays itself as an explanation of the difficult slg r. sv/yv.,
which, we may add, belongs to the synnnetrical structure of the
whole discourse, the participial sentences of which all conclude
with a destination introduced by sJg. — Ver, 12. /xavwiravr/]
Lachm. : KuXseavr/ xa! '/-/.avuiaavTi, according to B, whilst D* F G,
min. Arm. Aeth. It. Didym. Ambrosiast. Vigil, have xaXsgavn
merely. Looking at the so isolated attestation of xa?.. x. hav.,
we must assume that -/.aXisavTi was written on the margin by
way of complement, and then was in some cases inserted with
xaf, and in others without xa/ substituted for /'xavoic. — Instead
of '/jfiug, Tisch. 8 has i//iaj ; but the latter, too weakly attested by
B N, easily slipped in by means of the connection with svy^ap. —
Ver. 14. After d'-roXvrp. Elz. has dia roZ aiij^arog auroZ, against de-
cisive testimony ; from Eph. i. 7. — Ver. 1 6. to, h roTg oupavoTi xai
to] Lachm. has erased the first to, and bracketed the second. In
both cases the rd is wanting in B X*, Or. ; the first rd only is
wanting in D* E* F G P and two min. But how easily might TA
be absorbed in the final syllable of rrdvTA ; and this would then
partially involve the omission of the second rd ! The assump-
tion that the final syllable of rrdvTa was written twice would only
be warranted, if the omitting witnesses, especially in the case of
the second ra, were stronger. — Ver. 20. The second 5/ avroZ
is wanting in B D* F G 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 Beccpta aToxar^^xXtc^sv, Lachm.,
following B, has d'xoy.arrikXdynri. D* F G, It. Goth. Ir. Am-
brosiast. Sedul. have ccToxaraXXaye^rsg. Since, according to this,
the passive is considerably attested, and the active axoxar^XXa^si',
although most strongly attested (also by x), may well be sus-
pected to be a syntactic emendation, we must decide, as between
the two passive readings a-ToxarjjXXayjjrt and affoxaraXXaysvrsj, in
favour of the former, because the latter is quite unsuitable. If
the Rcccpta were original, the construction would be so entirely
plain, that we could not at all see why the passive should have
been introduced. — Ver. 22. After davdrov, A P X, min. vss. Ir.
have avTou, which Lachm. has admitted in brackets. It is attested
so weakly, as to seem nothing more than a familiar addition. —
Ver. 23. rJj before xrlgu is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be omitted,
following A B C D* F G N, min. Chrys. — Instead of didxovog,
P X have x^pug x. d'rroSToXog. A gloss ; comp. 1 Tim. ii. 7. In A
all the three words x'/ip-jt, x. a-r. x. diax. are given. — Ver. 24. vvv]
D* E* F G, Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel. have og vuv. Paghtly ; the
final syllable of didxovog in ver. 23, and the beginning of a
CHAP. I. 1, 2. 253
churcli-lesson, co-operated to the suppression of oj, which, how-
ever, is quite in keeping with the connection and the whole
progress of the discourse. — After rra^yi/x. Elz. has /x,ou, against
decisive testimony. — o Istiv] C D* E, min. : oc ssriv. So Lachm.
in the margin. A copyist's error. — Ver. 27. The neuter r/ rh
rrXoZro; (Matth. Lachm. Tisch.) is attested by codd. and Fathers
sufficiently to make the masculine appear as an emendation :
comp. on 2 Cor. viii. 2, — og ianv] ABFGT, min. {quod in Vulg.
It. leaves the reading uncertain) : o iartv. So Lachm. A gram-
matical alteration, which, after ver. 24, was all the more likely.
— Ver. 28. After diddax.., rrdvra avSpoj-rrov is wanting in D* E* F G,
min. vss. and Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., but is to be
defended. The whole x,ai hthdax. vdvra avDpwj. was omitted owing
to the homocotdcuton (so still in L, min. Clem.), and then the
restoration of the words took place incompletely. — After XpicTuj
Elz. has 'ijjffoD, against decisive testimony.
Vv. 1, 2. Aia dekrui. Qeov] see on 1 Cor. i. 1. Comp. 2
Cor, i. 1 ; Eph. i. 1. — koX TtfjicO.] 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. Eom. xvi. 22). See on
Phil. i. 1. — 6 clSeX^o?] see on 1 Cor. i. 1 ; referring, not to
official (Chrys. : ovkovv kuI avTO'i airoaToXoi), but generally to
Christian brotherhood. — rot? iv KoX. dy. k.t.X.] to the saints
vjho are in Colossae. To this theocratic designation, which in
itself is not as yet more precisely defined (see on Ptom. i. 7), is
then added their distinctively Christ iaoi character : and heliev-
ing brethren in Christ, Comp. on Eph. i. 1. djioa is to be
understood as a substantive, just as in all the commencements
of epistles, where it occurs (Kom. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. ; 2 Cor. ; Eph. ;
Phil.) ; and iv XpiarQ} is closely connected with irta-r. dS., with
which it blends so as to form one conception (hence it is not
TO 19 iv X.), expressly designating the believing brethren as
Christians, so that iv X. forms the clement of demarcation,
in which the readers are believing brethren, and outside of
which they would not be so in the Christian sense. Comp.
on 1 Cor. iv. 17 ; Eph. vi. 21 ; in which passages, however,
TTto-To? is faithful, — a meaning which it has not here (in oppo-
sition to Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Dalnier), because every-
254 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
where in the superscriptions of the Epistles it is only the
Christian standing of the readers that is described. No doubt
iv XptcFTca was in itself hardly necessary ; but the addresses
have a certain formal stamp. If d<yLOL<; is taken as an adjec-
tive : " the holy and believing brethren " (de Wette), eV XpiarS
being made to apply to the whole formula, then vLcnol^i coming
after 07/0^9 (which latter word would already have, through
iv X., its definition in a Christian sense, which, according to
our view, it still has not) would be simply a superfluous and
clumsy addition, because dyloa would already presuppose the
TTiarot'?. — 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.
Eom., 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 AaoBtKecov
€KK\7]ala (iv. 16). Indeed, the principle of addressing as
chiirches those communities only which he had himself
founded, is not one to be expected from the apostle's disposi-
tion of mind and wisdom ; and it is excluded by the inscription
of the Epistle to the Ephesians (assuming its genuineness and
destination for the church at Ephesus), as also by Phil. i. 1
(where the mention of the bishops and deacons would not
compensate for the formal naming of the church). It is also
an accidental matter that Paul says ev Xpia-rw merely, and
not iv X. 'Irjaov (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 ! — xapc'i vfuv
/C.T.X.] See on Eom. i. 7.
Ver. 3 f. Thanksgiving for the Christian condition of the
readers, down to ver. 8. — ev'xapiarovp.ev] I and Timothy ;
plural and singular alternate in the Epistle (i. 23, 24, 28,
29 ff., iv. 3) ; but not without significant occasion. — ical Trarpl
K.rX^ who is at the same time the Eather, etc. See on Eph.
i. 3. — TrdvTore] belongs to ev')(ap., as in 1 Cor. i. 4; 1 Thess.
i. 2 ; 2 Thess. i. 3 ; Philem. 4, and not to irepl vfi. Trpoaevx-
CHAP. I. 5. 255
(Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther,
Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and many others, in-
cluding Bohmer, Olshausen, Dalmer) — a connection opposed to
the parallel Eph. i. 16, as well as to the context, according to
which the thanksgiving is the main point here, and the prayer
merely a concomitant definition ; and it is not till ver. 9 that
the latter is brought forward as the object of the discourse,
and that as unceasing. This predicate belongs here to the
thanking, and in ver. 9 to the playing, and Trepl v/xwv iTpoaev^.
— words which are not, with Biihr, to be separated from one
another (whereby irpoaevx- would unduly stand without
relation) — is nothing but a more precise definition of TraWore :
" always {each time, Phil. i. 4 ; Eom. i. 1 ^), lohen we -pray
for you!' — aKovaavTe^ /ct-X.] 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 irlcnL'i
is faith (Eom. i. 8 ; 1 Thess. i. 3 ; 2 Thess. i. 3) not faithful-
ness (Ewald), as at Philem. 5, where the position of the words
is different. That Paul has heard their faith praised, is self-
evident from the context. Comp. Eph. i. 15; Philem. 5.
— iv X. 'I.] on Christ, in so far, namely, as the faith has its
basis in Christ. See on Mark i. 15 ; Gal. iii. 26 ; Eph. i. 13, 15.
As to the non-repetition of tt^V, see on Gal. iii. 26. — rjv ep^ere]
Paul so writes, — not by joining on immediately {rrjv ayd7r7]v et?
irdvra'^ k.tX), 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 dydfrT],
and indeed definitely upon the reason ivhy they cherished if.
Ver. 5. Aid rrju ikTriSa k.t.X.'] on account of the hope, etc.,
does not belong to ev')(ap. ver. 3 (Bengel, " ex spe patet, quanta
sit causa gratias agendi pro dono fidei et amoris ;" comp.
Bullinger, Zanchius, Calovius, Eisner, Michaelis, Zachariae,
Storr, Eosenmiiller, Hofmann, and others), because the ground
for the apostohc thanksgiving at the beginnings of the Epistles,
as also here at ver. 4, always consists in the Christian cha-
racter of the readers (Eom. i. 8 ; 1 Cor. i. 4 flP. ; Eph. i. 1 5 ;
Phil. i. 5 ; 1 Thess. i. 3 ; 2 Thess. i. 3 ; 2 Tim. i. 5 ; Philem. 5),
' For a like use of as/, see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Eep. p. 360 A.
256 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
and that indeed as a ground in itself} and therefore not merely
on account of what one has in future to hope from it ; and,
moreover, because ev^xapiarelv with Bed and the accusative
does not occur anywhere in the N. T. It is connected with
r)f ej^ere k.t.X., and thus specifies the motive ground of the
love; for love guarantees the realization of the salvation
hoped for. So correctly, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecun^enius,
Theophylact, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Steiger, Bleek, and
others. The more faith is active through love, the richer one
becomes et? Qeov (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 iria-Ti,'^,
so as to make the hope appear here as ground of the
faith and the love ; so Grotius and others, including Bahr,
Olshausen, and de Wette ; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius and
Ewald. For rjv e^^Te (or the Bee. ttjv) indicates a further
statement merely as regards tt^v dyd'irTjv ; and with this accords
tlie close of the whole outburst, which in ver. 8 emphatically
reverts to rrjv v/xoov dydirrjv. — The eXTrt? is here conceived
objectively (comp. eXir. ^Xeiroixivq, Eom. viii. 24) : our hope
as to its ohjcctive contents, that which we hope for. Comp. Job
vi. 8 ; 2 Mace. vii. 14, and see on Eom. viii. 24 and Gal.
V. 5 ; Zockler, dc vi etc notione voc. eXTrtV, Giss. 1856, p. 26 ff.
— T'qv dTTOKei/x. v/xlv ev r. ovp.l What is meant is the Messianic
salvation forming the contents of the hope (1 Thess. v. 8 ;
Ptom. V, 2, viii. 18 ff.; Col. iii. 3 f.), which remains dci^ositcd,
that is, preserved, laid tip (Luke xix. 20), in heaven for the
Christian until the Parousia, in order to be then given to hira.^
On dTTOK. comp. 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; 2 Mace. xii. 45 ; Kypke, 11.
p. 320 f.; Loesner, p. 360; Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. Ql^.
Used of death, Heb. ix. 27; of punishments. Plat. Locr.
' In opposition to the view of Hofmann, that Paul names the reason irhy the
news of the faith and love of the readers had become to him a cause of thanks-
giving.
2 It is erroneous to say that the Parousia no longer occurs in our Epistle. It
is the substratum of the ix-^); ccttox. Iv t. olp. Comp. iii. 1 ff. (in ojiposition to
ilayerhoff, and Holtzmann, p. 2031.).
CHAP. I. G. 257
p. 1 04 D, 4 Mace. viii. 10. As to the idea, comp. the conception
of the treasure in heaven (Matt. vi. 20, xix. 21 ; 1 Tim. vi. 19),
of the reward in heaven (see on Matt. v. 12), of the TrdKirevfia
in heaven (see on Phil. iii. 20), of the Kkripovo^la Te77]prjfievri
eV ovpav. (1 Pet. i. 4), and of the fipa^elov rrj<i avco KXrj(Teoi<i
(PhiL iii, 14). — rjv irpoTjKovaare /f.r.X.] Certainty of this hope,
which is not an unwarranted subjective fancy, but is objec-
tively conveyed to them through tlie word of truth previously
announced. The irpo in irpoTjKova-are (Herod, viii. 79 ; Plat.
Zegg. vii. p. 797 A ; Xen. Mem. ii. 4. 7 ; Dem. 759. 26, 955. 1 ;
Joseph. Jjitt. viii. 12. 3) does not denote already formerly,
whereby Paul premises se nihil allaturum novi (Calvin and
many), but must be said with reference to thefioture, to which
the hope belongs ; hence the sense imported by Ewald : lohere-
with the word of truth began among you (Mark i. 15), is the
less admissible. The conception is rather, that the contents
of the eXTTi?, the heavenly salvation, is the great future bless-
ing, the infallible lyre-announcement of which they have heard.
As previously announced, it is also previously heard. — tt}?
aX7}9eia<; is the contents of the X0709 (comp. on Eph. i. 13) ;
and by tov euay., the akrjOeia, that is, the absolute truth, is
specifically defined as that of the gospel, that is, as that ivhich
is announced in the gospel. Both genitives are therefore to be
left in their suhstantive form (Erasmus, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-
Crusius, and many others understand r?)? aX-qO. as adjectival :
sermo verax; comp. on the contrary, on akiid. rov evayy., Gal.
ii. 5, 14), so that the expression advances to greater definite-
ness. The circumstantiality has something solemn about it
(comp. 2 Cor. ix. 4) ; but this is arbitrarily done away, if we
regard tov evayy. as the genitive of apposition to to5 \6yw rrj^
uXrjO. (Calvin, Beza, and many others, including Flatt, Biihr,
Steiger, Bohmer, Huther, Olshausen, de Wette, Hofmann) ;
following Eph. i. 13, Paul would have written tw evayy ekiw.
Ver. 6. In what he had just said, ^v TrporjKovaare . . .
evayyeXiou, Paul now desires to make his readers sensible of
the great and hlcssed felloivship in which, through the gospel,
they are placed, in order that they may by this very con-
sciousness feel themselves aroused to faithfulness towards the
COL. B
258 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
gospel, in presence of the heretical influences ; eVetS^ ixakiaTcu
01 iroWoi e'/c rov fcocvcovov^ ^yetv ttoWol"? rcSf Boy/xdrcov arit]-
pi^ovjat, Chrysostom. Conip. Oecumenius : irpoOviiorepovi
avTOv<i Trepi tj)i/ iriarLV iroiel eic rov e^etJ' 7rdvTa<; Koivcovovf.
— €69 v/xa?] not iv vjjiiv, because the conception of the previous
arrival predominates ; 1 Mace. xi. 63. Often so with irapelvat,
in classical authors (Herod, i, 9, vi. 24, viii. 60 ; Polyb. xviii.
1. 1 ; comp. Acts xii. 20). See Bornemann and Klihner, ad
Xen. Anal. i. 2. 2 ; Bremi, ad Acschin.^. 320 ; and generally,
Nagelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 158 f., ed. 3. Observe, moreover, the
emphasis of rov irapovro'i : it is there ! it has not remained
away ; and to the presence is then added the 'bearing fruit. —
Kad(o<i Kal iv "jtuvtI t. Koa-fiw] A popular hyperbole. Comp,
Eom. i. 8 ; Acts xvii. 6, and see ver. 23. The expression is
neither arbitrarily to be restricted, nor to be used against the
genuineness of the Epistle (Hilgenfeld), nor yet to be rational-
ized by "as regards the idea" (Baumgarten-Crusins) and the like;
although, certainly, the idea of the catholicity of Christianity
is expressed in the passage (comp. Eom. x. 18 ; Mark xiv. 9,
xvi. 15 ; Matt. xxiv. 14). — kuI eart KupTrocp. k.t.X.] Instead of
continuing : kuI KapTro^opovjjiivou k.tX., Paul carries onward
the discourse with the finite verb, and thus causes this element
to stand out more independently and forcibly:^ "and it is
fruit-lcaring and groiving" (see Maetzner, ad Lycurg. Leocr.
p. 108; Ileindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 222 B; Winer, p. 533
[E. T. 717]), by which is indicated the fact, that the gospel,
wherever it is present, is also in course of Kving dynamical
development, and this state of development is expressed by ean
with the participle. This general proposition based on expe-
rience : Kol ea-TL Kap7ro(J3. k. av^av., is then by Ka6oii<i k. iv
1 If xai is not genuine, as Block, Ilofmann, and others consider (see tte
critical remarks), the iiassage is to be translated : as it also in the ichole world
is fruit-bearing, by which Paul would say that tlie gospel is present among the
readers in the same fruit-bearing equality which it developes on all sides. But
in that case the following xa^as xa) Iv ii^'tv would necessarily appear as very super-
fluous. No doubt we might, after the preceding Tap'ovro;, take the lirTi, with
F. Nitzsch, as equivalent to ■yrdfKrTt (see Stallb. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 59 B) ; and to
this comes also the punctuation in Tisch. 8, who puts a comma after ta-r/v. But
how utterly superfluous would this to-Ti then be !
CHAP. I. 7, 8. 259
vixiv confirmed throngli the experience found also among the
readers; so tliat Paul's view passes, in tlie first clause (tov
TTapovTO'i . . . Koaiiw), from tlie special to the general aspect,
and in the second, from the general to the special. "With Kap-
TTO^op. (not occurring elsewhere in the middle) is depicted the
blissful icorldng in the imvard and outward /t/c(comp. Gal. v. 22 ;
Eph. V. 9) ; and with av^avo/j,. the continuous diffusion, whereby
the gospel is obtaining more and more adherents and local
extension. Comp. Theodoret : Kapiroi^opLav tov evayy. KeKXrjKe
rrjv eTraivovfievrjv rrroXirelav' av^rjatv he tcov TricrTevovrcov ro
ifKrjOo';. Huther and de Wette groundlessly refrain from
deciding whether av^. is intended to refer to the outward
growth or to the imvard (so Steiger), or to hoth. See Acts vi. 7,
xii. 24, xix. 20. Comp. Luke xiii. 19; Matt. xiii. 32. The
fiaXkov arrjpl^eaOai, which Chrysostom finds included in av^.,
is not denoted, but ipresiqjposed by the latter, Comp. Theo-
phylact. The figure is taken from a tree, in which the Kap-
7ro(f>opia does not exclude the continuance of growth (not so
in the case of cereals). — a(f) 979 '^fiip. /c.t.X.] since the first
beginning of your conversion which so happily took place
(through true knowledge of the grace of God), that develop-
ment of the gospel proceeds among you ; how could ye now
withdraw from it by joining yourselves to false teachers ? —
rr]v %a/3iz^ tov Qeov] contents of the gospel, which they have
heard ; the object of ')]Kova. is the gospel, and r. xapty t. Oeov
belongs to eTriyvcoTe; and by iv aXirjOeia, (2 Cor. vii. 14),
equivalent to aXrjOm (John xvii. 8), the giialitative character
of this knowledge is affirmed : it was a true knowledge, corre-
sponding to the nature of the %a/3t'?, ivithout Judaistic and other
errors. Comp. on John xvii. 19. Holtzmann hears in ^/coycrare
. . . d\7]6(a<; "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. Ka6(o<;] not quandoquideni (Flatt, comp. Biihr),-
but the as of the manner in which. So, namely, as it had just
been af&rmed by iv akrjOeia that they had known the divine
grace, had they learned it (comp. Phil. iv. 9) from E;paphras.
2G0 THE EPISTLE OF TAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Notwithstanding this appropriate connection, Holtzmann finds
in this third /ca^w? a trace of the interpolator. — Nothing-
further is known from any other passage as to Ujjaphras the
Colossian (iv. 12) ; according to Philem. 23, he was avvai'X;-
fxd\Q)To<i of the apostle. That the latter circumstance is Qiof
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 Epaphroditus, see on Phil. ii. 25.
The names even are not alike (contrary to the view of Grotius
and Ewald, who look upon Epaphras as an abbreviation) ;
'E7ra(f)pd'i and the corresponding feminine name 'Evra^po) are
found on Greek inscriptions. — awBovXov] namely, of Christ
(comp. Phil. i. 1). The word, of common occurrence, is used
elsewhere by Paul in iv. 7 only. — o? eariv /c.r.X.] This
faithfulness towards the readers, and also, in the sequel, the
praise of their love, which Epaphras expressed to the apostle,
are intended to stir them up " ne a doctrina, quam ab eo didi-
cerant, per novos magistros abduci se patiantur," Estius. The
emphasis is on ttictto'?. — virep vfioov] for, as their teacher, he
is the servant of Christ /or them, for their benefit. The inter-
pretation, instead of you (" in prison he serves me in the
gospel," Michaelis, Bohmer), would only be possible in the
event of the service being designated as rendered to the apostle
{ZiaKovQ<i fiov iv XpiaTM, or something similar). Comp.
Philem. 13. Even with Lachmann's reading, vtt. 7)fiwv
(Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald), it would not be necessary to take
virep as instead; it might equally well be taken as for in
the sense of interest, as opposite of the anti-Pauline work-
ing (comp. Luke ix. 50). 1\\q p)rcscnt eo-rt (Paul does not put
rjv) 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 continuoiis, reaching in its efficacy down to the
present time. This is an ethical relation, which is quite inde-
pendent of the circumstance that Epaphras was himself a
Colossian (in opposition to Hofmann), but also makes it un-
necessary to find in iari an indirect co7itinuance of Epaphras'
work for the Colossians (in opposition to Bleek). — o koI Br)\coaa<i
CHAP. I. 7, 8. 261
/C.T.X.] U'lio also (in accordance with the interest of this faithful
service) has made us to Jcnoiv ; comp. 1 Cor. i. 11. The djoTTT)
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 v/ioov (comp. 1 Cor.
ix. 12 ; 2 Cor. i. 6, vii. 7, viii. 13, d al.), which betokens the
love of the readers to ]L]3aphras as meant. There had just been
expressed, to wit, by virep v/xcov, the faithful, loving position of
tliis servant of Christ toivards the Colossians, and correlative to
this is now the love icihicli lie met with from them, consequently
the counter-love shown to him, of which he has informed the
apostle. A delicate addition out of courtesy to the readers. —
iv "TTyev/xari] attaches itself closely to a<yd7r7)v, so as to form one
idea, denoting the love as truly holy — not conditioned by any-
thing outward, but divinely upheld — which is in the Holy S^nrit
as the element which prompts and animates it ; for it is the fruit
of the Spirit (Gal. v. 22 ; Rom. xv. 30), ov aapKLKrj, dXkd Trvev-
fxaTiKYj (Oecumenius). Comp. X"-P^ ^^ '^^■> Kom. xiv. 17.
Ee^iaek. — Since aip r.g yi,u,spa; rr'tougaTs x.r.x., ver. 6, refers the
readers back to the first commencement of their Christianity,,
and xa6ojg i/jA$srs airo 'E'Ta(ppa, x.r.'k., ver. 7, cannot, except by
pure arbitrariness, be separated from it as regards time and
reiiarded 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 the church. This
exegetical result remains even if the Beccpta za6ug %ai is re-
tained. This -/.at would not, as Wiggers thinks (in the Stud. u.
Krit. 1838, p. 185), place the preaching of Epaphras in contradis-
tinction to an earlier one, and make it appear as a continuation
of the latter (in this case xa^wj xa/ aero 'ETajSp. liiahTi or xa^wg
\ij.(j.hTi xai dcro 'E-raipp. would have been employed) ; but it is to
be taken as cdso, not oihenvise, placing the £,addirs on a parity
with the fViyvcort. This applies also in opposition to Vaihinger,
in Herzog's Encyld. iv. p. 79 f.
' Who, at the same time, makes the sv -rviCfJi.Kri suggest the reference, that the
ayd-rn took place in a manner personally unhioicn — wliich must have been con-
veyed in the context.
262 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Ver. 9. Intercession, down to ver. 12. — Zia tovto] on
account of all that lias been said from aKovaavre^ in ver. 4
onward : induced thereby, loe also cease not, etc. This reference
is required by a^' rj<; rj[iepa<^ rjnovaajjiev, which cannot corre-
spond to the hrfK.waa'i VH'^, belonging as that does merely to
an accessory thought, but must take up again (in opposition to
Bleek and Hofmann) the aKoua-avre^ which was said in ver. 4.
This resumption is cmjjJiatic, not tautological (Holtzmann). —
Kal '^fjieh] are to he tahen together, and it is not allowable to join
Kal either with hta rovro (de Wette), or even with Trpoaev)^^.
(Baumgarten-Crusius). The words are to be rendered : We also
(I and Timothy), like others, who make the same intercession for
you, and among whom there is mentioned by name the founder
of the church, who stood in closest relation to them. — irpoaevx-]
" Prccum mentionem geiiercitim fecit, ver. 3; nunc exprimit, quid
precetur" (Bengel). — Ka\ alrovixevoi] adds the special {ashing)
to the general {praying). Comp. 1 Mace. iii. 44 ; Matt. xxi.
22 ; Mark xi. 24 ; Eph. vi. 18 ; Phil. iv. 6. As to the popular
form of hyperbole, ov 'Travofi., comp. on Eph. i. 16. On v^rep
vfiwv, so far as it is also to be taken with k. alrov/j,., comp.
Lys. c. Ale. p. 141. — iva ifKr^pwO.'] Contents of the asking in
the form of Hq purpose. Comp. on Phil. i. 9. The emphasis
lies not on ifK-qptod. (F. Nitzsch, Hofmann), but on the object
(comp. Ptom. XV. 14, i. 29, al), which gives t(5 the further eluci-
dation in vv. 9, 10 its specific definition of contents. — rrjv
iiriyv. rov OeX. avrovl with the knowledge of His ivill, accusa-
tive, as in Phil. i. 1 1 ; avrov applies ta God as the subject,
to whom prayer and supplication are addressed. The context
in ver. 1 shows that by the 6eX7]/j,a is meant, not the counsel
of redemjjtion (Eph. i. 9 ; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy-
lact, and many others, including Huther and Dalmer), but,
doubtless (Matt. vi. 10), that which God w^ills in a moral respect
(so Theodoret, who makes out a contrast with the vojJUKaU
7rapar'rjp7]a€aiv). Comp. Eom. ii. 1 8, xii. 2 ; Eph. v. 1 7, vi. 6 ;
Col. iv. 12. The distinction between yvcoaL^; and eTrijvcoaL^,
which both here and also in ver. 10, ii. 2, iii. 10, is the know-
ledge which grasps and penetrates into the object, is incorrectly
denied by Olshausen. See on Eph. i. 17. — iv Trda-j) k.t.X.]
CHAP. I. 0. 263
instrumental definition of manner, how, namely, this TrXijpa-
dPjvac Trjv iiriyv. r. 6eX. avrov (a knowledge which is to be
the product not of mere human mental activity, but of objec-
tively divioie endowment by the Holy Spirit) must be brought
about : hi/ every hind of spiritual wisdom and insight, by the
communication of these from God ; comp. on Eph. i. 8. A
combination with the following TrepcTraTriaat (comp. iv. 5 : iv
ao(f)ia TrepLTT.), such as Hofmann suggests, is inappropriate,
because the two parts of the whole intercession stand to one
another in the relation of the divine ethical foundation
(yew 9), and of the corresponding practical conduct of life
(ver. 1 f ) ; hence the latter portion is most naturally and
emphatically headed by the expression of this Christian prac-
tice, the TTepLiraTrjaai,, to which are then subjoined its modal
definitions in detail. Accordingly, irepLiraTrjaai is not, with
Hofmann, to be made dependent on rov OeXt'^ix. avTov and
taken as its contents, but r. OeX. r. ©. is to be left as an abso-
lute idea, as in iv. 12. On irvevixariKo'^, proceeding from the
Holy Spirit} comp. Eom. i. 11; 1 Cor. ii, 13, xii. 1 ; Eph.
i. 3, V. 19, ct cd. The avvecn<; is the insight, in a theoretical
and (comp. on Mark xii. 33) practical respect, depending upon
judgment and inference, Eph. iii. 4 ; 2 Tim. ii. 7. For the
opposite of the 2^'^^cumcdic avvecn^i, see 1 Cor. i. 19. It is
related to the aocfyta as the specicd to the general, since it is
peculiar^ the expression of the intelligence in the domain of
truth,'^ while the aocjiia concerns the collective faculties of the
mind, the activities of knowledge, willing, and feeling, the
tendency and working of which are harmoniously subservient to
the recognised highest aim, if the wisdom is irvev[xarLKrj ; its
opposite is the croj)La aapKiKrj (2 Cor. i, 12 ; Jas. iii. 15),
being of man, and not of God, in its aim and efforts. Accord-
ing as ^povqcra is conceived subjectively or objectivized, the
cyvve(TL<i may be considered either as synonymous with it
^ Hence h avuhv <rt)(pia, Jas. iii. 15, 17. The predicate, although in the case
of divine endo'\%anent with a-ixpia and cvnais obvious of itself (as Hofmann
objects), was yet all the moi-e apposite for expressly bringing the point into pro-
minence, the greater the danger which threatened Colossae from non-divine,
fleshly wisdom ; comp. ii. 23.
* Comp. Dem. 269. 24 : (riviai;, v to. xuXa, xu.) a'tc^fa CiayivurniTxi,
264 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
(Eph. i. 8 ; Dan. ii. 21 ; Plat. Crat. p. 411 A), or as an attri-
bute of it (Ecclus. i. 4 : a-vvea-L<; (f)pov7]<Te(o<i).
Ver. 10. The practical cmn^ which that 'jrXrjpwOrjvai, k.t.X.
is to accomplish ; ael rfi iriaTeu crv^evyvvcn ti-jv irdkiTeiav,
Chrysostom. The Vulgate renders correctly : td amhuletis (in
opposition to Hofmann, see on ver. 9). — a.|tws" tov Kvptov] so
that your behaviour may stand in morally appropriate relation
to your belonging to Christ. Comp. Eom. xvi. 2 ; Eph. iv. 1 ;
Phil. i. 27; 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; 3 John 6. The genitive (and in
the N". T. such is always used with afto)?) does not even
'•' perhaps " (Hofmann) belong to the following et9 tt. apecr/c.,
especially as apeaKela, in the Greek writers and in Philo
(see Loesner, p. 361), stands partly with, partly without, a
genitival definition, and the latter is here quite obvious of
itself. Such a combination would be an unnecessary artificial
device. Comp. Plat. Conv. p. 180 D: a^lw^ tov &eov. — et9
iraaav apeaKelav] on helialf of every kind of ijlcasing, 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, ct al. ; also Theophr. Char. 5 ; LXX. Prov. xxix. 3
(xxx. 30); Symmachus, Ps. Ixxx. 12. On iraaav ap. comp.
Polybius, xxxi. 26. 5 : irav jeva apeaKeia<; Trpocr^epo^evo^.
Among the Greeks, upecrKeia (to be accentuated thus, see
Winer, p. 50 [E. T. 57]; Buttmann, Netd. Gr. p. 11 [E. T.
12]) bears, for the most part, the sense of seeking to ijlcase.
Comp. Prov. xxix. 3 : i/reuSet? apea-Keiai. — iu Travrl epjo)
/C.T.X.] There now follow three expositions, in order to define
more precisely the nature and mode of the TrepLirarrjaac a^lco^
k.tX We must, in considering these, notice the homogeneous
plan of the three clauses, each of which commences with a
prepositional relation of the participial idea, viz. (1) iv Travrl
epyu) K.tX., (2) iv irdar] Bvvdfiei, (3) /^era '^apd'i, and ends
' Not to be attached as object of the request immediately to "rpociuxo/^'-yoi, and
all that intervenes to be assigned to the interpolator (Holtzmann, p. 85). Yet,
according to Holtzmann, p. 123, Iv -ravTi 'ifyu down to row SioZ is alleged to be
simply an interpolated duplicate of ver. 6 ; in which case, however, it would not
be easy to see why xa/Jiro^o/ioy^Evo* was not written, after the precedent of ver. 6,
but on the contrary xapTofopounrti.
CHAP. I. 10. 265
with a relation expressed by eh, viz. (1) et? t. eVr/y. r. Oeov,
(2) et9 Trao". mrofx,. k. /xaKpodv/u,., (3) et? rrjv fxeplSa k.t.X.
The construction would be still more symmetrical if, in the
third clause, eV iraarj %a/oa (Rom. xv. 32) had been written
instead of fxera %apa? — which was easily prevented by the ver-
satility of the apostle's form of conception. — iv Travrl epjo)
ujadw KapTTocf). is to be taken together (and then again, av^a-
vojjb. eh Tr]v eirl^v. t. Qeov), inasmuch as yc hy every good icork
(by your accomplishing every morally good action) lecir fruit,
as good trees, comp. Matt. vii. 17. Bat not as if the Kapiro-
(fiopecv and the av^dveadai were separate things ; they take
place, as in ver. 6, jointly and at the same time, although, after
the manner of parallelism, a special more precise definition is
annexed to each. Moreover, iv iravrl epy. ay. is not to be
connected with eh iraa-av apea-K. (Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Erasmus, and others, also Steiger) ; otherwise we mistake and
destroy the symmetrical structure of the passage. — koX av^a-
vofi. eh T. eiTLyv. t. 0.] and, inasmuch as with this moral fruit-
hearing at the same time ye increase in respect to the know-
ledge of God, that is, succeed in knowing Him more and more
fully. The living, effective knowledge of God, which is meant
by eirlyv. t. Qeov (ver. 6, iii. 10, ii. 2), sustains an ethically
necessary action and reaction with practical morality. Just
as the latter is promoted by the former, so also knowledge
grows through moral practice in virtue of the power of inward
experience of the divine life (the ^co^ rod Qeov, Eph. iv. 18),
by which God reveals Himself more and more to the inner
man. The fact that here tov Qeov generally is said, and not
Tov de\ripLaro<i Qeov repeated, is in keeping with the progressive
development set forth ; there is something of a climax in it. On
eh, used of the telic reference, and consequently of the regula-
tive direction of the growth, comp. on Eph. iv. 15; 2 Pet.
i. 8. The reading ry einyvuKxeL r. Q. would have to be taken
as instrumental, with Olshausen, Steiger, Huther, de Wette,
Bleek, who follow it, but would yield after ver. 9 something
quite seK-evident. We may add that av^dv., with the dative
of spiritual increase hj something, is frequent in Plato and
classic writers. — As to the nominatives of the participles, which
266 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
are not to be taken with TrXojpcoO. (Beza, Bengel, Eeiche, and
others), but relate to the logical subject of TrepiTrar. a^i(o<;,
comp. on Eph. iv. 2 ; 2 Cor. i, 7.
Ver. 1 1 is co-ordinate with the foregoing ev iravrl epja . . .
@eov. — iv irdarj Bw. Bvva/M.l iv is instrumental, as in ver. 9
(Eph. vi. 10 ; 2 Tim. ii. 1) ; lience not designating that, in the
acqiiiring of ivJtich the invigoration is supposed to consist (Hof-
mann), but : hy means of every (moral) power (by its bestowal
on God's part) hecoming empowered. Bwafioto (Lobeck, ad
Phryn. p. 605) does not occur in Greek authors, and is only
found here and at Heb. xi. 34, Lachm. in the N". T. ; in the
LXX. at Eccles. x. 1 ; Dan. ix. 2 7 ; Ps. Ixvii, 3 1 ; in Aquila ;
Job xxxvi. 9 ; Ps. Ixiv. 4. Paul elsewhere uses ivhvva^ovv.
— Kara ro Kpdro<; tt}? Sof. avr.l according to the might of His
majesty ; with this divine might (see as to Kpdro^ on Eph. i. 19),
through the powerful influence of which that strengthening is
to be imparted to them, it is also to be correspondent — and
thereby its eminent strength and efficacy are characterized {Kara
in Eph. i. 19 has another sense). Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 9 ;
Phil. iii. 21. And to Kpdro<; r. 86^. avr. is not His glorious
power (Luthev, Castalio, Beza, and others ; also Elatt and
Bahr), against which avrov should have been a sufficient warn-
ing ; but TO Kparo^ is the appropriate attribute of the divine
majesty (of the glorious nature of God). Comp. Eph. iii. 16 ;
Ecclus. xviii. 5. The Kpdro^ therefore is not the glory of God
(Bohmer), but the latter has the former, — and tlie ho^a is not
to be referred to a single aspect of the divine greatness
(Grotius : p)ower ; Huther : love), but to its glorious whole.
Comp. on Eom. vi. 4. — eh irdcrav vtto^. k. fxaKpoO^ in re-
spect to every endurance (in affliction, persecution, temptation,
and the like, comp. Eom. v. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 6, vi. 4 ; Jas. i. 3 f. ;
Luke viii. 15 ; Eom. ii 7, ct 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 : [xaKpoOv^u
Tt9 Trpo? iKelvov; oi)? hwarov Kal d^vvaaOai' inrofievet, 8e,
0U9 ov hvvarat dfxvvacrdat, is arbitrary. See, on the contrary,
for instance, Heb. xii. 2, 3. Others understand it variously;
CHAP. I. 12. .267
but it is to be observed, that vTrofiov/] expresses the more
general idea of endurance, and that fiaKpo6u/ji[a, the opposite
of which is o^vOv/mla (Eur. Anch. 729; Jas. i. 19) and
6^v9vfj,T](Ti<; (Artem. iv. 69), always refers in the N. T. to the
relation of patient tolerance towards offenders. Comp. iii. 12 ;
Gal. V. 22; Eom. ii. 4; Eph. iv. 2; also Heb. vi. 12; Jas.
V. 10. — fxera X^pa?] is joined with traa-av v7ro/jb. k. jxaKpoO.
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 ivwe, joyful patience (comp. ver. 24) is denoted. But the
symmetry of the passage (see on ver. 10), in which the two
previous participles are also preceded by a prepositional defini-
tion, points so naturally to the connection with what follows
(S}T., Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Estius,
and others, including Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bohmer, Huther,
Ewald, Ellicott, Bleek, Hofniann), that it cannot be abandoned
without arbitrariness. Even in that case, indeed, the thought
oi joyful patience, which is certainly apostolic (Eom. v. 3 ; 1 Pet.
i. 6 ; Eom. xii. 12 ; comp. Matt. v. 12), is not lost, M'hen the
intercession rises from patience to joyful thanksgiving. Observe
also the deliberate juxtaposition of ixera xapa^ ei/'xapiar.
Ver. 12. IMiilc yc give thanks with joy fulness, etc., — a third
accompanying definition of TrepciraT'tjcraL d^L(o<; k.t.X. (ver. 10),
co-ordinate with the two definitions preceding, and not to be
connected -with ou Travo/neOa k.t.X. (Chrysostom, Theopliylact,
Calvin : " iterum redit ad gratulationem," Calovius, Bohmer,
Baumgarten-Crusius). — t&> irarpi] of Jesus Christ ; comp.
ver. 13, and rov Kvpiov in ver. 10, not : "the Father absolutely"
(Hofmann). It is always in Paul's writmgs 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
(m ahstracfo) 6 TraTijp. Comp. ver. 3, which, however, is held
by Holtzmann to be the original, suggesting a repetition by
the editor at our passage, in spite of the fact that the two
passages have different subjects. Just as little does ek rrjv
fiepiha K.T.X. betray itself as an interpolation from Eph. i. 18
and i. 11 (Holtzmann), seeing that, on the one hand, the
268 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TPIE COLOSSIANS.
expression at our passage is so wholly peculiar, and, on the
other hand, the idea of KXrjpovofiia is so general in the IST. T,
Comp. especially Acts xxvi. 18/ — rat iKavcoaavrt k.t.X]
Therein lies the ground of the thanksgiving, quippe qui, etc.
God lias made us fit (f]/xd<i applies to the letter-writers and
readers, so far as they are Christians) for a share in the Mes-
sianic salvation through the light, inasmuch as, instead of the
darkness which previously prevailed over us, He has by means
of the gospel brought to us the oKi^deia, 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. Eom. xiii. 12 ; 2 Cor. vi. 14 ; 1 Pet. ii. 9. In Christ the
light had attained to personal manifestation (John i. 4 ff., iii. 9,
viii. 12 ; Matt. iv. 16, et al), as the personal revelation of the
divine nature itself (1 John i. 5), and the gospel was the means
of its communication (Eph. iii. 9 ; Heb. vi. 4 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4 :
Acts xxvi. 23, ct al.) to men, who untltout this enlightenment
were iinfit for the Messianic salvation (Eph. ii. 1 ff., iv. 18,
V. 11, vi. 12 ; 1 Thess. v. 4, et al). The instrumental defini-
tion iv ra> ^coTL is placed at the end, in order that it may stand
out with special cmpluciis ; 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, Oecunienius, Theophylact ; comp. Estius and
others, including Flatt and Steiger), that Paul must have used
TTuev/xa instead of ^w? (see Olshausen). The iKavovv iv rcv
^corl is, indeed, nothing else than the KaXetv ei? to ^w?
(1 Pet. ii. 9) conceived in respect of its moral efficacy, and
the result thereof on the part of man is the etvai ^'m<; iv Kvpi(p
(Eph. V. 8), or the elvai v'lov toO <^wto9 (1 Thess. v. 5 ; John
xii. 36), ft)9 </:cocrT^/3t9 iv Koafxw (Phil. ii. 15). But the light
' Tlie mode in A^liicli Acts xxvi. IS comes into contact as regards lliongl.t and
expression with Col. i. 12-14, may be sufficiently explained Ly tlie circumbtance
that in Acts xxvi. also Paul is the speaker. Holtzmann justly advises caution
with ref(U'enoe to the apparent echoes of the IjooIc of Acts in general, as Luke
originally bears the Pauline stamp.
CHAP. I. 12. 269
is a. power ; for it is to </>&<? tt)? ^wj}? (John viii. 12), has its
armour (Eom. xiii. 12), produces its fruit (Eph. v. 9), effects
the Christian iXijx^''^ (Eph. v. 13), endurance in the conflict
of affliction (Heb. x. 32), etc. 'Eu tw ^cotI is usually con-
nected with Tov Kkrjpov rwv cv^loav, so that this KKr)po<i is de-
scribed as co:isting or to he found in light, as the Icingdom of
light ; in which case we may think either of its glory (Beza
and others, Bohmer, Huther), or of its imrity and 'perfection
(Olshausen, de Wette, and Dalmer) as referred to. But
although the connecting article rod might be wanting, and the
KKrjpo^ T. ay. ev tw (pcort might thus form a single conception, it
may be urged as an objection that the heritage meant cannot
be the tcmporcd position of Christians, but only the future
blessedness of the Messianic glorious Icingdom; comp. ver. 13,
rrjv ^aaiX. tov viov. Hence not ev tS (f)coTi, but possibly eV
TTJ Bo^r), ev Tj] ^oofj, ev Tot9 oupavet'i, or the like, would be a
fitting definition of K\rjpo<i, which, however, already has in
r€)v aylcov its definite description (comp. Eph. i. 18; Acts
XX. 32, xxvi. 18). Just as little — for the same reason, and
because t. iieplha already carries with it its own definition
(share in the KXijpo'i) — is ev tm ^corl to be made dependent on
Tr}v /jLeplSa, whether ev 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 s'phcre expressed (comp. also Bleek), where the saints have
got their -peculiar 2^ossession assigned to them, so that the being
in light stands related to the future glory as that which is still
in various respects conditioned stands to 'plenitude — as if K\^po<;
(comp. on Acts xxvi. 18) had not already the definite and full
eschatological sense of the possession of eternal glory. This
KXrjpo<;, of which the Christians are^;oss(?ssor.9 (tc5v uyicov), ideally
before the Parousia, and thereafter really, is the theocratic de-
signation (npri]) of the property of the Messianic kingdom (see
on Gal. iii, 18 ; Eph. i. 11), and the jxepU (pbii) tov K\t)pov is
the 5Z:f//'<; of individuals^ in the same. Comp. Ecclus. xliv. 23.
* Corap. also Bleek. Ilofmaim incorrectly says that toZ xXnfoZ serves only to
designate the fHfU as destined for special possession. In that case, at least, the
qualitative genitive of the abstract must have been put (t*?; xXnpim/i'ias, as in
270 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Ver. 13. A more precise elucidation of tlie divine benefit
previously expressed by tw iKavcoa-avrt . . . (pcorL This verse
forms the transition, by which Paul is led on to the instructions
as to Christ, which he has it in view to give down to ver. 20.'^
— e/c T?}? e^ovcr. rod cr/cor.] tov ctkot. is not genitive of ajoposi-
tion (Hofmann), but, corresponding to the eU rrjv /3acn\e{av
that follows, genitive of the suhjed : out of the ;poiver, which
darkness has. The latter, as the influential power of non-
Christian humanity (of the koo-ixo^;, which is ruled by the devil,
Eph. ii. 2), is ^personified ; its essence is the negation of the
intellectual 'and ethical divine akrjOeia, and the affirmation of
the opposite. Comp. Luke xxii. 5 3 ; Matt. iv. 16; Acts
xxvi. 18; Eom. xiii. 12; Eph. v. 8, vi. 12, et al. The act
of the ippvaaro has taken j^^t^i'Cc by means of the conversion to
Christ, which is the work of God, Eom. viii. 29 f. ; Eph.
ii, 4 ff. It is to be observed, that the expression e/c t. i^ova:
T. aKOTov; is chosen as the correlative of iv tw (pwrim ver. 12.
— Kol fi€Te(TT7]a-€v] The matter is to be conceived locally (et?
erepov tottov, Plat. Lcgg. vi. p. 762 B), so that the deliver-
ance from the power of darkness appears to be united with
the removing away into the kingdom, etc. Comp. Plat. Hep.
p. 5 1 8 A : €K T6 (f)coTo<; et? aKoro^ /jLeOtarafievcov Kol e/c (tko-
Tovi et? (/)co9. — et? rrjv /3acriX. k.t.X., that is, into the kingdom
of the Messiah, Eph. v. 5 ; 2 Pet. i. 1 1 ; for this and nothing
else is meant by 97 ^aaiXeia Xpiarov (tov @eov, twv ovpavoiv)
in all 'passages of the N. T. Comp. iv. 11; and see on Eom.
xiv. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 20; Matt. iii. 2, vi. 10. The aorist
Ps. xvi. 5). But tlie concrete rov xX^pou r. ay. is, as the literal sense of f^'-pis,
portio, most naturally suggests, the gcnitivus jyaj-tltivtis (G. totius), so that the
individual is conceived as /j-ifims of the nXripos of the saints, in which he for his
part ffuficfiiri^ii.
' This Christological outburst runs on in the form of purely positive statement,
although having already in view doctrinal dangers of the kind in Colossae.
According to Holtzmann, the Christology belongs to the compiler ; the wliole
passage, vv. 14-20, is forced and without motive, and it is only in ver. 21 that
we find the direct sequel to ver. 13. The latter statement is incorrect. And
why should this excursus, as a grand basis for all the exhortations and warnings
that follow, be held ivithout due motive ? Holtzmann forms too harsh a judg-
ment as to the whole passage i. 9-23, when he declares it incompatible with
any strict exegetical treatment.
CHAP. I. 13. 271
fieriar. is to be explained by the matter being conceived
proleptically {rfj <yap ekirihi iao)07}jii6v, Eom. viii. 24), as
something already consummated (comp. on eSo^aae, Eom,
viii. 3 0). Thus the kingdom which is nigh is, by means of
their fellowship of life with their Lord (Eph. ii. 6), as certain
to the redeemed as if they were already translated into it.
The explanation which refers it to the Christian church (so
still Heinrichs, Biihr, Huther, and most expositors) as con-
trasted with the Koa/xoi;, is just as unhistorical as that which
makes it the invisible inward, ethical kingdom (see especially
Olshausen, following an erroneous view of Luke xvii. 21), to
which also Bleek and Hofmann ultimately come. Certainly
all who name Christ their Lord are under tliis king (Hofmann) ;
but this is not yet his ^aaCkeia ; that belongs to the future
aldiv, Eph. V. 5 ; 1 Cor. vi. 9 f., xv. 24, 50 ; Gal. v. 21, d al. ;
John xviii. 36. — t?}? djdiri]'} avrov] in essential meaning,
indeed, nothing else thanroO vlov avrov rov dyaTnjTov (Matt.
iii. 17, xvii. 5, et al.), or rov vlov rov d<^ar:r]rov avrov
(Matt. xii. 1 8 ; Mark xii. 6), but more prominently singling
out the attribute (Buttmanu, M^it. 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 : vio?
68vvr]^ /MOV. Entirely parallel is Eph. i. 6 f : eu raj rj^yairrnxevw,
iv S e-)(piJLev K.r.X. Augustine, do Trin. xv. 19, understood it
as genitive of origin, making dydrrr] avrov denote the divine
suhstantia} So again Olshausen, in whose view the expression
is meant to correspond to the Johannine /iovo'yevy]<i. This is
entirely without analogy in the N. T. mode of conception,
according to which not the procreation (ver. 15), but the send-
ing of the Son is referred to the divine love as its act ; and
the love is not the essence of God (in the metaphysical sense),
but His essential disposition (the essence in the ethical sense),
even in 1 John iv. 8, 16. Consequently it might be ex-
plained : " of the Son, whom His love has sent," if this were
suggested by the context ; so far, however, from tliis being the
case, the language refers to the exalted Christ who q^cIcs {/Sacrt-
^ Theodore of Jropsuestia finds in the expression the contrast that Cluist was
the Son of God ou (pum, aXX' ayaa-ji TJJj viah/rlxi.
272 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
\elav). The expression itself, o u/o? tt)? a'^dir. avTOv, 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 c/coto?, 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
vloOeaia (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
vlo'i Tri<i a'^airt]'^ avr. as being thoroughly un-Fcmline — 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 vlodeaia (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 ^aaiXela does not denote the kingdom
of the cJiurch) ; nor yet a mark of the deliverance from dark-
ness having taken place (Eitschl in the JaJirh. f. Deutsche
Theol. 1863, p. 513), since this deliverance necessarily
coincides with the translation into the kingdom ; but it is the
abiding {evpixev, habemus, not accejnmus) relation, in lahich that
transference into the hingdom of God has its causal hasis. The
ransoming (from the punishment of sin, see the explanatory
T7)v d^eaiv roiv afxapr.) we have in Christ, inasmuch as He,
by the shedding of His blood as the purchase-price (see on
1 Cor. vi. 20; Gal. iii. 13, iv. 5), has given Himself as a
Xvrpov (Matt. xx. 28 ; Mark x. 45 ; 1 Tim. ii, 6) ; and this
redemption, effected by His lXaa-T7]ptov (Eom. iii. 21 ff.),
remains continually in subsistence and efficacy. Hence : iv S,
which specifies wherein the subjective exop'ev is objectively
based, as its causa mcritoria (Eom. iii. 24). Comp., moreover,
on Eph. i. 7, whence hta rov at/xaro? avrov has found its way
hither as a correct gloss. But the deleting of this addition
by no means implies that we should make twv dfiapriwv also
CHAP. I. 15. 273
belong to rijv airdkvTpcotnv (Hofmann), as in Heb. ix. 15,
especially as Paul elsewhere only uses airokvTpoacTL'i either
absolutely (Eom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. 1, iv. 30) or
with the genitive of the suhjcct (Eom. viii. 23 ; Eph. i. 14),
The expression a^eai'; r. afiapr. is not used by him elsewhere
in the epistles (comp., however, Eom. iv. 7), but at Acts xiii.
38, xxvi. 28. Holtzmann too hastily infers that the writer
had read the Synoptics.
Ver. 15. As to vv. 15-20, see Schleiermacher in the Stud.
u. Krit. 1832, p. 497 ff. {Werhe z. Thcol. II. p. 321 ff.), and,
in opposition to his ethical interpretation (of Christ as the
moral Eeformer of the world), Holzhausen in the Titb. Zcitschr.
1832, 4, p. 236 ff. ; Osiander, iUd. 1833, 1, 2; Bahr, ap-
pendix to Komment. p. 321 ff. ; Bleek on Heb. i. 2. See
generally also Hofmann, Schrifilciv. I. p. 153 ff., II. 1, p.
357 ff.; Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 446 f. —
After having stated, in ver. 1 4, what we have in Christ (whose
state of exaltation he has in view, see ver. 1 3, r^y ^aaCkelav),
Paul now, continuing his discourse by an epexegetical 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
jplan of the discourse is not tripartite (originator of the physi-
cal creation, ver. 1 5 f. ; maintainer of everything created,
ver. 1 7 ; relation to the new moral creation, ver. 1 8 ff., — so
Biihr, wdiile others divide differently^), but hipartite, in such a
way that vv. 15-17 set forth the exalted metaphysical rela-
tion of Christ to God and the ivorld, and then ver. 1 8 ff., His
historical relation of dignity to the church? This division,
which in itself is logically correct (whereas ver. 17 is not
suited, either as regards contents or form, to be a separate,
co-ordinate part), is also externally indicated by the two con-
firmatory clauses on ev avrw k.t.\. in ver. 16 and ver. 19, by
' e.g. Calovius : " PeJeniptoris descriptio aDeitafe: ab o])ere creathnis," and
"quod caput eccksiae sit." Comp. Schniid, Bibl. Theol. II. p. 299 f.
^ Olshausen brings the two divisions under the exegetically erroneous point of
view that, in vv. 15-17, Christ is described without reference to the incarnation,
and in vv. 18-20, icith reference to the same.
COL. S
274 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSL\NS.
which the tvjo preceding^ affirmations in vcr. 15 and vcr. 18
are shown to he the proper parts of the discourse. Others
(see especially Bengel, Schleiermacher, Hofmanii, comp. also
Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 77) have looked upon the twice-expressed
09 ia-Tiv in ver. 1 5 and ver. 1 8 as marking the beginning of the
two parts. But this would not be justifiable as respects the
second o? ia-Ttv ; for the main idea, which governs the ivhole
effusion, vv. 15-20, is the f/lori/ of the dominion of the Son of
God, in the description of which Paul evidently begins the
second part with the words Kal avro^, ver. 18, passing over
from the general to the special, namely, to His government
over the church to which He has attained by His resurrec-
tion. On the details, see below. — 09 eanv /c.t.X.] It is to be
observed that Paul has in view Christ as regards His ijrcsent
existence, consequently as regards the presence and continu-
ance of His state of exaltation (comp, on. w. 13, 14) ; hence
he affirms, not what Christ was, but what He is. On this
eVrtV, comp. w. 17, 18, and 2 Cor. iv. 4. Therefore not
only the reference to Christ's temporal manifestation (Calvin,
Grotius, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), biit also
the limitation to Christ's divine nature or the Logos (Calovius,
Estius, Wolf, and many others, including Bahr, Steiger, 01-
shausen, Huther) is incorrect. The only correct reference is
to His lohole person, which, in 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. — elKoov rov
&€ov rov aopuTov] image of God the invisible. Comp. on 2 Cor.
iv. 4. As, namely, Christ in His pre-existence^ down to His
' In conformity with the confirmatory function of the on, according to which
not the clause introduced by on, but the clause which it is to confirm, contains
the leading thought, to which on x.t.x. is logically subordinated. Hence the
two parts are not to be begun with the two clauses on Iv alru themselves (so
Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 182), in which case, moreover, ver. 15 is
supposed to be quite aloof from this connection — a supposition at variance with
its even verbally evident association with ver. 16.
2 Sabatier, p. 290, without reason represents the apostle as in a state of indis-
CHAP. I. Ic. 275
incarnation already possessed the essential divine gloiy, so
that He was as to nature icra ©ew, and as to form of
appearance iv f^op^fj Oeov v'7Tdp-)(ju)v (see on Phil. ii. 6) ; so,
after He had by means of the incarnation divested Himself,
not indeed of His God-equal nature, but of His divine Zo^a,
and had humbled Himself, and had in obedience towards
God died even the death of the cross. He has been exalted
again by God to His original glory (Phil. ii. 9 ; John xvii. 5),
so that the divine ho^a 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 airav^aaiia Trj<; Bo^t}'? koI '^^apaKTrjp
tt}? uTroaracreax? ©eov (Heb. i. 3),^ and, in this majesty, in
which He is the exactly similar visible revelation of God, He
will present Himself to all the world at the Parousia (Matt.
xvi. 27, XXV. 31 ; Phil. iii. 20 ; 2 Thess. i. 7 ; 1 Pet. iv. 13 ;
Tit. ii. 13, et al). The predicate rov aopdrov, placed as it is
in its characteristically significant attributive position (Borne-
mann, Schol. in Luc. p. xxxvi. ; Bernhardy, p. 322 f.) behind the
emphatic rov @eov, posits for the conception of the exact image
visihility (Heb. xii. 14; 2 Cor. iii. 18; Acts xxii. 11); but
the assumption that Paul had thus in view the Alexandrian
doctrine of the Logos, the doctrine of the hidden and manifest
God (see Usteri, Lehrhegr. p. 308; comp. Biihr, Olshausen,
Steiger, Huther), the less admits of proof, because he is not
speaking here of the pre-cxistence, but of the exalted Christ,
tinct suspense in regard to his conception of this pre-existence. And Pfleiderer
(in Hilgenfeld's Zeiischr. 1871, p. 533) sees in the pre-existence a subjective
product, the consequence, namely, of the fact that Christ is the ideal of the
destiny of the human mind, hypostasized in a single person, to which is trans-
ferred the etei'nity and unchanged self-equality of the idea.
^ This is the chief point of agreement between our Epistle and the Epistle to
the Hebrews ; and it is explained by the Pauline basis and footing, on which
the author of the latter stood. The subsequent irpuTiruxos •raa-. xtIct., however,
has nothing to do with Tpuroriixos, Heb. i. 6, where the absolute word is rather
to be explained in accordance with Rom. viii. 29. We make this remark in
opposition to Holtzmann, according to whom "the autor ad Ephesios as to his
Christplogy walks in the track opened by the Epistle to the Hebrews." Other
apparent resemblances to this letter are immaterial, and similar ones can be
gathered from all the Pauline letters.
276 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
including, therefore, His human nature ; hence, also, the com-
parison with the angel Mdatron of Jewish theology (comp.
Hengstenberg, Christol. III. 2, p. 67) is irrelevant. The
Fathers, moreover, have, in opposition to the Arians, rightly-
laid stress upon the fact (see Suicer, Thcs. I. p. 415) that,
according to the entire context, cIkmv tov ©eov is meant in the
eminent sense, namely of the adequate, and consequently con-
substantial, image of God (/jl6vo<; . . . kuI aTrapaXKaKTW^ elKwv,
Theophylact), and not as man (Gen. i. 2 6 ; comp. also 1 Cor.
xi. 7 ; Col. iii. 10) or the creation (Eom. i. 20) is God's image.
In that case, however, the invisibility of the elKwv is not at all
to be considered as presupposed (Chrysostom, 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 eiKMv; whereas the notion of ecKcov necessarily involves
perceptibility (see above) ; " Dei inaspecti aspectabilis imago,"
Grotius. This visibility —and that not merely mental (Eom. i.
20) — had been experienced by Paul himself at his conversion,
and at Christ's Parousia will be fully experienced by all the
world. Different from this is the (discursive) cognoscibility of
God, which Christ has brought about by His appearance and
working. John i. 18, xiv. 9. This applies against the view of
Calvin, Clericus, and many others, including de Wette : " in
His person, appearance, and operation . . . God has made Him-
self as it were visible;" comp. Grotius: "Adam imago Dei
fuit, sed valde tenuis ; in Christo perfectissime apparuit, quam
Deus esset sapiens, potens, bonus ;" Baumgarten-Crusius : " the
affinity to God (which is held to consist in the destination
of ruling over the spirit-world) as Christ showed it upon earth."
Thus the substantiality of the exact image is more or less
turned into a quasi or quodammoclo, and the text is thus laid
open to every kind of rationalizing caprice. We may add that
Christ was already, as X070? daapKo<i, necessarily the image of
God, but eV fJ'Op^y 0eov, in imrcly divine glory ; not, as after His
exaltation, in divine-human Bo^a ; consequently, the doctrine of
an eternal humanity of Christ (Beyschlag) is not to be based
on eiKoov TOV Qeov. Comp. Wisd. vii. 26, and Grimm, Handb.
p. 161 f. The idea, also, of the prototype of humanity, which
CHAP. I. 15. 277
is held by Beyschlag here to underlie that of the image
of God (comp. his Christol. p. 227), is foreign to the context.
Certainly God has in eternity thought of the humanity which
in the fulness of time was to be assumed by His Son (Acts xv.
1 8) ; but this is simply an ideal pre-existence (comp. Delitzsch,
Psychol, p. 41 ff.)' such as belongs to the entire history of sal-
vation, very different from the real antemundane existence of
the personal Logos. — TrpwroTo/co? Truarj^ /criVew?] 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 ; jSovXerai Bei^at, OTt irpo irdarj'i tt}? KTia€(i)<; iariv o
vlo'i' iroi<i biv ; hia 7ei/?;'cre&)9" ovkovv Kai tcov ayyeXcov irporepQ'^,
KoX ovTa><i coaTS Kal avTQ<; eKTicrev avTov<;, Theophylact. The
false teachers denied to Christ the supreme unique rank in the
order of spirits. But he is first-horn of every creature, that
is, born before every creature — having come to jJcrsonal exist-
ence^ entered upon subsistent being, ere yet anything created
luas extant {Rom. i. 25, viii. 39; Heb. iv. 13). Analogous,
but not equivalent, is Prov. viii. 22 f. It is to be observed
that this predicate also belongs to the entire Christ, inasmuch
as by His exaltation His entire person is raised to that state in
which He, as to His divine nature, had already existed before
the creation of the world, corresponding to the Johannine
expression iv apxfi w o X070?, which in substance, although
not in form, is also Pauline ; comp. Phil. ii. 6. Philo's term
7rpct)T6yovo<i, used of the Logos, denotes the same relation ; but
it is not necessary to suppose that Paul appropriated from
him this expression, which is also current among classical
authors, or that the apostle was at all dependent on the Alex-
andrian philosophic view. The mode in which he conceived
* According to Hofmann (Schriflbcic:), the expression is also intended to imply
tJiat the existence of all created thbirjs was brourjJd about throufjh Him. But
this is only stated hi what follows, and is not yet contained in ■rpuroroKOi by
itself, which only posits the origin of Christ (as Xoyo; vptupopiKOf) in His temporal
relation to the creature ; and this point is the more purely to he adhered to,
seeing that Christ Himself does not belong to the category of the KTifi;. Calvin
also has understood it as Hofmann does ; comp. also Gess, v. d. Pers. Chr. p.
79, and Beyschlag, p. 446, according to •whom Christ is at the same time to be
designated as the principle of the creature, \s-hose origin bears in itself that of
the latter.
278 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
of the personal pre-cxistence of Christ hefore the world as
regards (timeless) origin, is not defined by the figurative
irptororoKO'^ more precisely than as procession from the divine
nature (Philo illustrates the relation of the origin of the
Logos, by saying that the Father avereCkev Him), whereby
the premundane Christ became subsistent iv tJiop<^fi Qeov and
tcra Qeu) (Phil. ii. 6). The genitive 7rdcr7]<; /cTto-eo)?, moreover,
is riot the partitive genitive (although de Wette still, with
Usteri, Peuss, and Baur, holds this to be indubitable), because
the anarthrous nraa-a ktlo-i'^ does not mean the whole creation, or
everything which is created (Hofmann), and consequently cannot
affirm the category or collective ivhole^ to which Christ belongs
as its first-born individual (it means : every creature ; comp. on
iraaa oLKoBo/jbi], Eph. ii. 21^); but it is the genitive of compari-
son, corresponding to the superlative expression : " the first-horn
in comiDarison ivith every creature" (see Bernhardy, p. 139), that
is, born earlier than every creature. Comp. Biihr and Bleek,
Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sllnde, I. p. 241 ; Weiss, Bihl. Theol. p. 424 ;
Philippi, Glauhensl. II. p. 214, ed. 2. In Eev. i. 5, irpwroroK.
Twv vGKpwv, the relation is different, t. veKpcbv pointing out
the category; comp. irpcoioroK. iv ttoWol^ dS., Eom. viii. 29.
The genitive here is to be taken quite as the comparative
' Comp. Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 608 C. The article would necessarily be
added, as waira h ktIitis, Judith xvi. 14, or « «aira xtUis, 3 Mace. vi. 2, or h
XTicris nZcra. Coiup. also o'X» h XTitn;, Wisd. xix. 6.
2 Hofniaun, Schriflhew. I. p. 156 : " In relation to all that is created, Christ
occupies the position which a first-born has towards the household of his father."
Essentially similar is his view in his He'd. Schr. JV. T., p. 16, Avhere -r. kt'kt. is
held to mean "all creation," and to signify "■all that is created in its unity,"
which is also the opinion of Eich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 211. The inter-
pretation of Hofmann (comp. Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 79) is incorrect, because there
would thereby be necessarily affirmed a homogeneous relation of origin for Christ
and all the ktIiti;. The xt/V/j would stand to Christ in the relation of the ^asra-
TiX^iU to the "npuTOTzxc;, of the I'jriyoito; to the TpuToyoio;. Hofmanu indeed {Ileil.
Schr. in loc.) opines that •^dan; xTiinu; is simply genitive "of the definition of
relation." But this, in fact, ex])lains nothing, because the question remains,
What relation is meant to be defined by the genitive ? The -rpuTOToxo; -raam
kt'ktius is not at all to be got over so easily as it is by Hofmann, namely, with
a grammatically erroneous explanation of the anarthrous ^lara. KTi<n;, and with
appeal to Ps. Ixxxix. 28 (where, in fact, ■rfuroroKos stands without genitive, and
■^133 in the sense of the fiist rank).
CHAP. I. 15. 279
genitive with irpwra \ see on John i. 15, and generally,
Kiihner, II. 1, p. 335 f. The element of comjparison is the
relation of time {irpo rov rov Kocrfxov elvat, John xvii. 5), and
that in respect of origin. But because the latter in the case
of every Kriat^ is different from what it is in the case of
Christ, neither irpwro/cTcaTO'i nor TrpcoTOTrXacrrof; is made use
of,^ — terms which would indicate for Christ, who is withal
Son of God, a similar mode of origin as for the creature — but the
term TrpcoTOTOKo^ 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 KTiac<;,
but ho7-n, having come forth homogeneous from the nature of
God. And by this is expressed, not a relation homoge-
neous with the KTLcri<; (Holtzmann), a relation kindred to the
world (Beyschlag, Chrisiol. p. 227), but that which is abso-
lutely exalted above the world and unique. Theodoret justly
observes : 01)-^ d><i aBeXiprjv e^cov rrju kt'lctlv, oKk aj9 irpo iraarj'i
KTcaeco'i <yevv7]6eL';. At variance with the words, therefore, is
the Arian interpretation, that Christ is designated as the first
creature; so also Usteri, p. 315, Schwegier, Baur, Eeuss.
With tliis 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 Icing created must be
presupposed, which is, in fact, characteristically indicated in the
purposely-chosen word irpaTOTOKO'i. The Socinian interpreta-
tion is also incorrect^ (Grotius, Wetstein, Nosselt, Heinrichs,
and others), that KTicn^i denotes the oiew ethical creation, along
with which there is, for the most part, associated the refer-
ence of TrpwTOTOK. to the highest dignity (Pelagius, Melanch-
' How miicli, however, the designations vpuroKritTOi, x-rifffjui, xt/^e/v x.t.X., as
applied to the origin of the Son, were in use among the Alexandrians (following
Prov. viii. 22, where Wisdom says : xipios ekt/o-e fn, comp. Ecclus. i. 4, xxiv. 8f.),
may be seen in Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. 1, p. 327, ed. 4.
' Tlie Socinian doctrine argues thus: " primogenitnm unum ex corum
numero, quorum primogenitus est, esse necesse est;" but Christ could not be
" unus e rebus couditis creationis veteris, " — an assumption which Avould be Arian ;
He must consequently belong to the neiv creation, from which it follows, at the
same time, that He does not possess a divine nature. See Catech. Racov. 167,
p. 318, ed. Oeder.
280 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
thon, Cameron, Hammond, Zachariae, and others, including
Storr and Flatt ; comp. de Wette), which is assumed also by-
many who understand it of the physical creation. It is
decisive against this interpretation, that /crtVi? would neces-
sarily require for the moral notion a more precise definition,
either by a predicate {Kaivrj, 2 Cor. v. 17; comp. Barnabas,
ep. c. xvi. : Xa^ovre^; r^jv a(})eaiv twv liyi^aprixav Koi ekTricravre'i
€7rl TO) ovoixan tov Kvpiov, eyevofjueOa Kaivol, Trakiv ef «/>%^9
KTi^ofievoi), or at least by a context which admitted of no
doubt ; also, that nrpoiroTOKo^ never means the most excellent,
and can only have this sense ex acljuncto (as at Ps. Ixxxix. 2 8 ;
Eom. viii. 29), which in this passage is not by any means the
case, as the context (see ver. 16, and mrpo Trdvrcov in ver. 17 ;
comp. also irpcororoKO'i e/c tcov veKpoov in ver. 18) brings pro-
minently forward the relation of time. Chrysostom justly says :
ov-^l a^La<; k. tijxi)^, aXKa ')(^povov fxovov earX ai-JiiavriKov, and
already Theophilus, ad Auiol. ii. 31, p. 172 : oirore Se rjOeXr^crev
o ©eo<; irotriaaL oaa i^ovkevcraro, rovrov rov Xvyov i'vevvrjare
irpot^opiicov, 7rpo)TOTOKOv irdcrrj'^ KTicreco'i. This TrpcoroTOKov
elvac belongs to the high dignity of Christ (comp. Itev. iii. 14:
V ^PXV '''V'^ icTLcreco'i rov Oeov), but it does not signify it. Comp.
Justin, c. Tr. 100 : irpcororoKov /juev rov ©eov k. rrpo irdvrcov rwv
Krca-fidrcov. The ethicaP interpretation of the passage appears
all the more mistaken, since according to it, even if rrpa)-
roroK. is understood temporally (Baumgarten-Crusius : " Krla-a
is that which is remodelled, and irpcororoKo';, He who has come
first under this category, has first received this higher spiritual
dignity"), Christ is made to he included iinder the Krlcn<;,
which is at variance both with the context in ver. 16 f.,
and with the wliole N. T. Christology, especially the sinless-
ness of Christ. If, however, in order to obviate this ground
of objection, 7rp(or6roKo<; is combined as an adjective with
eiKciov, we not only get a complicated construction, since both
* Both errors of the Socinians, etc., are already present in TlieoLlore cf Mop-
suestia, namely, that ■Trpur'oToxo; -rir. ktit. does not stand iri xf''">"> ^''^^ '•'''
fTpiri/^nirsus, and signifies ■srapi rrarav rhv xt'tii Tifiufiiix:; ; and tliat Ihe following
i» auTu x.r.\. does not denote tJiv Tfurn^, but riv U Aur^ yitofiivn* ataKTiffiv.
Comp. also Photius, Amphil. 192.
CHAP. I. 16. 281
words have their genitival definition, but irpwroroKo^ (instead
of TrpcoTOTVTTos:) would be an inappropriate predicate for eUayv.
This applies against Schlciermacher, who, taking Kricn^i 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. Uunom. iv. p. 104, have
made the Qrst-horn even into the ^rai-hringcr-forth {nrpcoToroKO'^,
as paroxytone, according to the classical usage, Hom. II. xvii. 5 ;
Plat. Thcad. p. 161A, 151C; Valckenaer, Sclwl II. p. 389), as,
with Erasmus in his Annot. (but only permissively) Erasmus
Schmid and Michaelis did, although TrpeoToroKo^; in an active
sense occurs only of the female sex, and the very TrpcoToroKo^ e/c
T. veKp. of ver. 1 8 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 irpCirov to the idea of a heinepov — an
idea which, with the usual interpretation, is implied in Krccreco^.
— Ver. 1 5 f. is, moreover, strikingly opposed to that assumption
of a world ivithout hcginning (Schleiermacher, Eothe).
Ver. 16. For in Him ivere all things created, — the logically
correct confirmation of irptaroroKa irda. KTia60)<i. For if the
creation of all things took place in Christ, it is evident that He
must stand he/ore the series of created things, and be irpwTo-
T0/C09 trdarrj^ KTiaeaiq. — iv avrui] is not equivalent to hi avrov
(Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Bleek,
and many others), but : on Christ depended (causally) the act of
creation, so that the latter was not done independently of Him —
in a causal connection apart from Him — but it had in Him the
ground essentially conditioning it. In Him lay, in fact, the
potency of life, from which God made the work of creation
proceed, inasmuch as He was the personal principle of the
divine self-revelation, and therewith the accomplisher of the
1 •TfuTov auTot) nraxivai, tout lari •ri^oinxUai t^v xrlfiv, Isidore, I.e.
282 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
divine idea of the world. A well - known classical usage
to denote the dependence of a state of things, the causality
of which is contained in any one. See Bernhardy, p. 210 ;
Ktihner, II. 1, p. 403 f. ; from the K T., Winer, p. 364 [E. T.
521]. Not as if the " cansa j^'^^^ncijxdis " of the creation
lay in Christ, but the organic causality of the world's becom-
ing created was in Him ; hence the following hC avrov
affirms not a different stcttc of things, but the same thing under
a varied foriyi of conception and designation, by which it is
brought out in greater definiteness. The primary ground of
creation is ever God, Kom. xi. 36 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; Heb. xi. 3.
The speculative interpretation of scholastic theology, which
found here the " causa exempkcris," according to which the idea
omnium rcrum was in Christ, is indeed followed in the main
again by Beyschlag, as earlier by Kleuker, Bohmer, Bahr,
Neander, Schleiermacher, Steiger, Julius Mliller, Olshausen (the
latter saying : " the Son of God is the intelligible world, the
/foo-ytio? vor]T6<i, that is, things in their very idea ; He bears their
essence in Himself"), but is destitute of confirmation from
the modes of conception and expression elsewhere in the
N. T., and, as eKriadr} denotes the historical fact of tlie having
been created, it would require not iv avr(2, but ef avTov, by
which the coming forth of the real from tlie ideal existence in
Christ might be expressed. Hutlier finds the inward connection
indicated by iv avru) in the idea, that the eternal essence of
the universe is the divine essence itself, which in Christ became
man. This idea in itself has no biblical ground ; and Paul is
speaking here, not of the existence and essence of the universe
in Christ, but of the becoming created, which took place in
Christ (eV auToS ^(arj rjv, John i. 4), consequently of a divine
act depending on Christ ; comp. John i. 3 : X^pl's avrov
i<yev€7o ouSe eV o ylyovev ; Heb. i. 2 ; and Bleek in loc. Lastly,
de Wette finds in iv besides the instrumental agency at
the same time something of a tclic idea (comp. also Ewald and
Weiss, Bill. Theol. p. 424 f.); but this blending together of
two heterogeneous references is iiot justified by the Bl avrov
Kal ei? avTov that follows. — iKTiadi]] p)hysical act of creation ;
Schleiermacher ought not to liave called in question the
CHAP. I. 16. 283
linguistic usage to this effect, with a view to favour the ethical
interpretation of the founding of the cJmrch. See Wisd. i. 14,
X. 1, xi. 18 ; Deut. iv. 32 ; comp. Gen. vi. 7 ; Ecclus. xxiv, 9,
comp. XV. 1 4 ; Judith xiii. 1 8 ; comp. Gen. i. 1 ; 1 Cor. xi. 9 ;
Eph. iii. 9 ; Eom. i. 25 ; Eev. x. G, comp. xiv. 7. The word
way have the meaning adopted by Schleiermacher : to oltain its
arrangement and constitution (Herod, i. 149, 167, 168 ; Thuc.
i. 100; Aesch. Chocph. 484; Soph. Ant. 1101; Find. 01.
vi. 116; 3 Esdr. iv. 53), and that according to the relative
nature of the notion implied in the word conderc (comp.
Blomf. Gloss, in Acsch. Pers. 294) ; hut not here, where it is
correlative with rrdcrrj^; ACTt'creeo?, and where the quite general
and in no way to be restricted ra iravra follows. Through-
out the N. T., in general kti^q), Kria-t^, KTiaixa, denote the
original bringing forth, never merely the arrangement of that
which exists; and even in such passages as Eph. ii. 10, 15,
iv. 24, the relation is conceived, only in a popular manner, as
actual creation. — Observe, moreover, the distinction of the tenses :
iKTiaOri, which denotes the act that took place; and then
cKTiaTai, which denotes the creation ivhieh has taken place and
now suhsists. See Winer, p. 255 [E. T. 340]; Kiihner, II. 1,
p. 143 f., and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 1. 4, iii. 7. 7. — ra 7rdvTa\
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 iv rot? ovpavoh «.t.X.] the things to he
found in the heavens and those to he found on ea7ih. This is
certainly a less exact designation of all created things than
that in Eev. x. 6 (rov ovpavov koI to, iv avrtp k.t.X. ; comp.
Neh. ix. 6 ; Gen. ii. 1, et cd.), but does not differ from it, as
it does not exclude heaven and earth themselves, the consti-
tuent elements of which, in the popular view, are included in
these two categories. Comp. 1 Chron. xxx. 11. It is incor-
rect, therefore, to press this expression in opposition to the
explanation which refers it to the creation of the world
(Wetstein : " non dicit o ovpavov koI rj yrj iKTiaOrj sed to.
Trdvra, etc., quo hahitatorcs significantur, qui reconciliantur,"
comp. Heinrichs and others, also Catcch. Racov. 132, p. 214,
ed. Oeder), and to think, with Schleiermacher, of the kingdom
284 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
of lieamn ; but it is arbitrary also, especially after to, irdvTa,
to make the apostle mean primarily the living (Bahr, de
Wette) or rational creatures. The expression embraces every-
tJiinr/ ; hence there was neither need for the mention of the
loiver world, nor, looking at the bipartite form of enumeration,
occasion for it (it is otherwise in Phil. ii. 10; Eev. 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 opara k. ra dopara] By the latter is
meant the heavenly world of spirits, the angelic commonwealth,
as is evident from the more precise enumeration which follows,
and not the souls of men (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others),
which, on the contrary, as animating a portion of the opard,
are included among the latter. Theodoret erroneously asserts
that even to. opard ajDplies to heavenly things (sun, moon, and
stars) ; it applies to everything visible, as in Plat. Phaed. p. 79 A :
6(ofi€v ovv, el (3ov\€C,, €(f)r], Sua elSr) rcov oprcou to jmIv oparov,
TO Se deihh. — The dopara are now more precisely specified
disjunctively by elre, sive . . . sive (put more than twice;
comp. Plat. Eej). p. 612A, 493D; Ecclus. xli. 4). As to the
four denominations of angels ^\\\\c\\ follow — whose difference of
rank Hofmann groundlessly denies,-^ understanding thereby
merely " spirits collectively, of ivhatever name they may he " — see
on Eph. i. 21; Ptom. 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 6p6vot are
tlie highest and the Kvptorrjre^ the lowest class, the dp')(ai and
the i^ovalai, being two middle orders lying between these two
extremes. At Eph. I.e. Paul names also four grades of the
angelic hierarchy ; but neither tliere nor here has he intended
to give a eoriip)lete enumeration of them, for in the former case
lie omits the dpovoi, and in tlie latter the 8vvdfxei<i. The
BpovoL are not mentioned elsewhere in the N. T. (nor yet in
Ignat. ad Trail. 5), but they occur in the Test. Levi, p. 548, in
' See, on the other hand, Hahn, Thenl. d. N. T. I. p. 292 f. ; Philippi,
Gkiubensl. U. p. 308 f. ; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 559.
CHAP. I. ic. 285
•which they are placed in the seventh heaven (iv c5 ael v/xvoc
TO, 6eu> irpoa^epovrai), also in Dionys. Areop. Hier. cod. 6 ff.,
and in the Eabbins (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1097; Schoettgen,
Hot. p. 808). As regards the expression, the last three de-
nominations are to be taken as ahstracts, which represent the
respective concretes, and analogously the concrete noun Opovot
is used for tliose to he found on the thrones (for those enthroned) ;
comp. Klihner, II. 1, p. 11 ; Euhnken, ad Tim. p. 190.
In this case the very natural supposition that the angels,
whose designation by the term OpovoL must have been in cur-
rent use, were, in the imagery which gave sensuous embodi-
ment to religious ideas, conceived as on thrones, is not to be
called in question (in opposition to Fritzsche,«(:/ Rom. II. p. 226).
They were probably conceived as enthroned round the throne
of God (comp. Eev. iv. 4, xx. 4). It is to be observed, more-
over, generally that Paul presupposes the various classes of
angels, which he names, as well hioivn ; although we are un-
acquainted with the details of the case, this rnueh is neverthe-
less certain, that the apostle was far removed from the dreamy
fancies indulged in on this point by the later Eabbins (see
Eisenmenger, entdecld. Judenth. II. p. 374). But very soon
after the apostolic age (comp. Hernias, Past. vis. iii. 4), instruc-
tion as to roTToOealwi ra? djy6\LKd<i was regarded as teaching
for the morejperfect. See Ignatius, ad Trail. 5. For the Chris-
tian faith there remains and suffices the testimony as to different
and distinctivet. Abh. p. 316 ff. And this conception and representation belong
quite to the apostle's general sphere of ideas, not specially to that of the Epistle
to the Ephesians, into which the interpolator is supposed by Holtzmann again to
enter here, after he has manifested a comparative independence in vv, 15-lS.
CHAP. I. 18. 291
like our : he, ivJio, etc., which mif/Jit he expressed, but not neccs-
sarihj, by oartf; (or 00-76). 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. ; Eom. 1. 4, et cd). — up-)(rj\ Icginning ;
which, however, is not to be explained either as " initium
secundae et novae creationis" (Calvin), progenitor of the re-
generate (Bisping), or " autlior of the church" (Baunigarten-
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 irpcoTOTOKo^ its definition in e/c tmv veKptov,
just as if the words ran : ap^rj rtov veKpojv, irpcororoKO'; i^
avTwv, although Paul did not express himself thus, because at
once upon his using the predicate ap^q in and by itself the
exegetical irpwroroKa suggested itself to him. Accordingly
Christ is called a/3%^ {twv veKpwv), inasmuch as He is among
all the dead the first arisen to everlasting life. It is arbitrary
to discover in «/)%/; an allusion to the offering of first-fruits
sanctifying the whole mass (Chrysostom, Beza, Ewald, and
others) ; especially as the term aTTap')(f], which is elsewhere used
for the first portion of a sacrifice (Eom. 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 aTrapyj) rrj<i avaaTda€0}<;. To assume a re-
miniscence of 1 Cor. XV. (Holtzmann) is wholly unwarranted,
especially as aTrapp^?; is not used. On app^?;, used of persons,
denoting the one who begins the series, as the first in order of
time, comp. Gen. xlix. 3, where ap-xr) reKvwv fiov is equivalent
to 7r/ja)TOTo/co9 /jlov, as also Deut. xxi. 1 7. In what respect any
one is a/3X>; of those concerned, must be yielded by the con-
text, just as in this case it is yielded by the more precisely
defining Trpwroro/co? eic r. veKpcov ; hence it has been in suh-
stance correctly explained, following the Fathers : «p%^, (jirjaiv,
iaTt T7}9 avaardaeco^, ttoo ttuvtcov ava<Trd<}} Theophylact.
' The Fathers have already correctly judged tliat even in regard to the isolated
cases of rising from the dead, which have taken place through Christ and before
Him, Christ remains the first-risen. Theophylact : il ya.p xu.) cixxoi Tpo Tovmu
otiAffTrKTUv, aXXa. •jtaXti %'7r''Ja.toi' auTo; as rhv tiXi'ioi.)) kiu.iira.iTiv uviirrri. Comp. On
1 Cor. XV. 20.
292 THE EriSTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Only T))? uvaardcrew^ is not to be iiientcdly suioplicd-, nor is
it to be conjectured (cle Wette) that Paul had intended to
write apxh r. dvaaTdae(j)<i, but, on account of the word rn-puiro-
TOKO'i presenting itself to him from ver. 1 5, did not complete
what he had begun. It follows, moreover, from the use of
the word TrpcororoKOf;, that "px?? is to be taken in the tcmpoird
sense, consequently as equivalent to ^jrimais, not in the sense
of dlfjnity (Wetstein), and not as i^rinciplc (Biihr, Steiger,
Huther, Dalmer, following earlier expositors). — irpcoroTOKO'i €k
T. veKp.] eK T. veKp. is conceived in the same way as in dvaarrivai
eK T. veKp. (Eph. v. 14), so that it is the dead in Hades
among whom the Eisen One was, but f)vm whom He goes
forth {separates Himself from them, hence also diro r. veKp.,
Matt. xiv. 2, xxvii. 64, xxviii. V), and returning into the body,
with the latter rises from the tomb. Comp. irpcoro^ e^ uvaa-
Tacrew? veKpcov, Acts xxvi. 23, also 1 Cor. xv. 22 f. This
living exit from the grave is figuratively represented as hirth ;
comp. Eev. i. 5, where the partitive genitive twi^ veKp. (not €k
T. V.) yields a form of conceiving the matter not materially
different. Calvin takes TrpwroTo/co? e'/c. r. v. as specifying the
ground for ap%?; : " lorinciipiurii (absolutely), quia immogenitiis
est ex mortuis ; nam in resurrectione est rerum omnium in-
stauratio." Against this it may be urged, that dp^v bas no more
precise definition ; Paul must have written either dp'^i] rrjs;
Katvi]<i KTio-eax;, or at least ^9 instead of 09. Calvin was likewise
erroneously of opinion (comp. Erasmus, Calovius) that Christ
is called Frimogenitus ex mortuis, not merely because He was
the first to rise, but also "quia restituit aliis vitam." This
idea is not conveyed either by the word or by the context,
however true may be the thing itself; but a belief in the
subsequent general resurrection of the dead is the presupposi-
tion of the expression irpwTOTOKO'i {alvirTejai he \0709 koI
Tr}v irdvrwv i]/j,(ov dvaaracrcv, Theodoret). This expression is
imrposely chosen insignificant reference to ver. 15, as is inti-
mated by Paul himself in the following "va <yevr)TaL iv irdffiv
k.tX. But it is thus all the more certain, that TrpcoTOTOKci Ik
T. vGKp. is to be taken independently, and not adjectivally
together vjith dp-)(fj (Heinrichs, Schleiermacher, Ewald), which
ciiAr. I. 18. 293
would only amount to a tautological verboscness (first-lorn
heginning) ; and, on the otlier hand, that e/c roov veKpuv may
not be separated from irpwToroKO'i in such a way as to
emj)hasize the ^/acf , issuing forth from ivhich Chxht is what
He is, namely, cipxn> "^pdororoKoi; ; the former, " as the personal
beginning of what commences with Him;" the latter, "in the
same relation to those who belong to the world therewith
coming into life as He held to the creation" (Hofmann).
In this way the specific more precise definition, which is by
means of e/c r. veKpcov in significant reference to ver. lu
attached to the predicates of Christ, app^;?; and TrpcororoKO'?,
would be groundlessly ivithdrawn from them, and these pre-
dicates would be left in an indefiniteness, in which they would
simply be open vessels for receiving a gratuitously imported
supplement. — iva fyevr/Tat k.t.X.] not to be restricted to the
affirmation e/c rojv veKpcov (Hofmann),^ but to be referred to tlie
whole sentence that Christ is «/3%';, 7rpojT6TOKo<i e/c r. veKp.,
expressing the divine teleology of this position of Christ as the
Eisen One : in order that He may become, etc. ; not : in order
" that He 7nay he held as" (Baumgarten-Crusius), nor yet " that
He maybe" (Vulgate, and so most expositors), as 'yiyveaOai and
etvau are never synonymous. The iv iraaiv avro^ irpcoTevet 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 Eisen 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 Trpcoreveiv is the divinely in-
tended aim of His being risen. — iv iraaiv] in cdl ijoints,
without excepting any relation, not, therefore, merely in the
relation of creation (vv. 15-17). Comp. Phil. iv. 12 ; 1 Tim-,
iii. 11, iv. 15 ; 2 Tim. ii. 7, iv. 5 ; Tit. ii. 9 ; Heb. xiii. 4, 18.
'Ev iravrl is more commonly used by Paul (1 Cor. i. 5 ;
2 Cor. iv. 8, et al.). According to Beza, irdaiv is masadiv
"inter omnes, videlicet fratrcs, ut Piom. viii. 29." .^ '^- ,
.jj %ts abode.
' So tliat it would express the design, wliicli Christ Himself h ^ TrK-i^otiiiLa
forth from the dead. "
294 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Kypke and Heinrichs. But this would be here, after the
universal bearing of the whole connection, much too narrow
an idea, which, besides, is self-evident as to the Head of the
church. According to Pelagius, it denotes : " tarn in visi-
bilibus 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 as such. — avTo^] emphatic, as in w. 17, 18.
— irpcoTeuav] having the first rank, not used elsewhere in the
K T., but see Esth. v. 11 ; 2 Mace. vi. 18, xiii. 15 ; Aquila,
Zech. iv. 7; Plat. Lcgg. iii. p. 692 D, Dem. 1416. 25:
irpwreveiv iv airaat KpdncrTov. Xen. Cyr. viii. 2. 28 ;
Mem. ii. 6. 26. This precedence in rank is to be the final
result of the condition which set in with the irpwroroKov
elvat iic t. veKp. ; but it is not contained in this TrpcororoKov
ehat itself, — an idea against which the very tva ^ivrjTai
is logically decisive (in opposition to de Wette's double
signification of irpoiToroK.).
Ver. 19.^ "Ort] Confirmatory of the tW jivTjTat ac.t.X., just
said : " about which divinely intended ylyvecrOai, iv iracnv aurov
irpwrevovra there ean he no clouht,for it has pleased, that in Him,
etc." How could He, who was thus destined to be possessor of
the divine fulness and reconciler of the world, have been des-
tined otherwise than to become iv iraaiv Trpoirevcov I This con-
firmation, therefore, does not refer to the statement that Christ
is the Head of the church (Steiger, Huther, comp. Calovius),
which has already its confirmation by means of 09 ia-riv apxh
K.T.X., nor at all to e/c to)v veKpwv (Hofmann, following up his
incorrect explanation of these words), as if the reason were
specified why Christ should have gone to His high dignity as
beginner of a new world hj 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 e'/c rwv veKp.,
' Holtzmaiin, after having rejected vv. H-18 entirely as an interiiolation,
aiVows to stand as original in vv. 19, 20 only the words: ot< Iv «utiv ti^ixr.inv
v,a.Ta.x/i d^ai, to which xaraxx. there is then attached in ver. 21, as object, xai
"fias, also you, with reference to -/ifia; in ver. 13. How daring and violent, and
yet how paltry (rescuing merely the xai tfi-ai), would the procedure of the author
thus have been ! ''^
CHAP. I. 19. 205
wliich is currently used everywhere of resurrection from death,
and without conveying any special significance of humiliation.
Nor yet does Paul move in a circle, by putting forward iii
ver. 19 as ground of proof that from which in ver. 15 (09
ia-Tiv eUoov k.tX.) he had started (de Wette) ; for ver. 19 is a
historical statement (observe the aorists), whereas ver. 15 ex-
pressed what Christ is, His habitual being. — iv auru)] although
belonging to KaToiK., is prefixed in emphatic transposition
(Klihner, II. 2, p. 1101). — evZoKrjae] He was pleased, jplacuit
ei, that, etc. As to this use of evhoKuv in the later Greek
(1 Cor. i. 21 ; Gal. i. 15, et al.), for which, in the classical
language, toKuv merely was employed, see Fritzsche, ad Rom.
II. p. 370. On the accusative with infinitive, comp. 2 Mace.
xiv. 35 ; Polyb. i. 8. 4. The subject, whose pleasure it is, is
not expressed ; but that it is God, is obvious from the context,
which in 'iva yevrjTat k.t.X. has just stated the divine purpose.
Among Greek authors also 6 0eo9 is not unfrequently omitted,
where it is self-evident as the subject. See Klihner, II. 1, p.
30 c. According to Ewald and Ellicott (also Weiss, Bibl.
Thcol. p. 428, ed. 2, and Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 208),
Trdv TO ifKrjpcDfia is the svibject ; and the whole fulness is anew
expression for the Godhead, inasmuch as, going as it were out
of itself, it fills something separate and thus becomes visible
( = nin'' nna, ho^a, X0709, irvev/jia). Without support from IsT. T.
usage ; irdv, too, would be unsuitable for the suhjcct of eu8o-
KT^ae ; and et9 avrov in ver. 29 clearly shows that 0eo9 is
conceived as subject, to which elp^qvoiroLrjcraf; then refers.
According to Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbnv. II. 1, p.
357 f.), Christ is meant to be the subject of evSoK. Ver. 20
itself, and Eph. i. 9, ought to have precluded this error.
Throughout the whole of the N. T, it is never Christ, but
always the Father, who in respect to the work of redemption
to be executed gives the decree, while Christ executes it as
obedient to the Father ; hence also Paul, " beneficium Christi
commemorans, nunquam dimittit memoriam Patris," Bengel.
Comp. Eeiche, Comment, crit. p. 263. — 'irdv ro 7rX?;/3w/ia
KUTotK.'] that in Him the ivhole fidness tvas to take up its abode.
The more precise definition of the absolute irdv to ifkijpoj/ia
296 THE EriSTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIAXS.
is placed beyond doubt by the subject to be mentally sup-
plied with evh6Kt)ae} namely, to nXyjpco/j^a tov Geov (Eph.
iii. 19 ; comp. to TrXijp. tt}? deort^To^, Col. ii. 9). To irXrjpwfxa^
the signification of which is not to be defined actively : id quod
rem implet (in opposition to Storr, Opuse. I. p. 144 ff'., Biihr,
Steiger), but 2^'^^ssivebj : id quo oxs imijlctur (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,
'jrXovro'i, like the German Filllc. What is meant, namely, is
the whole cliarismatic vielies of God, His whole gracious fulness
of evXoyia irvev/xaTiKT] (Eph. i. 3), of which Christ became
permanent (KaToiKrjaaL) possessor and bearer, who was thereby
capable of fulfilling the divine work of reconciliation (see the
following Kal Bt' avrov aTTOKaraWd^ai, k.t.X.). The case is
otherwise in ii. 9, where the divine essence (r?}? ^eoTT^ro?) is
indicated as the contents of the nXrjpoiixa, and the KaroiKeiv
of the same in Christ is affirmed as p)rcsent and with reference
to His state of exaltation. It would be an utterly arbitrary
course mentally to supply here the t% de6r7]To<;, ii. 9, and to
regard both passages as an echo of Eph. i. 23, where the
notion of TrX'/jpco/jia is a very different one (in opposition to
Holtzmann). Inasmuch as the charismatic irXrjpwfxa of God,
meant in our passage, dwelt in Clirist, and consequently Christ
was the possessor and disposer of it, this divine fulness is not
in substance different from the TrXrjpco/xa Xpia-rov, 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 cur passage, and different also from Eph. i. 23. Beza
aptly observes : " cumulatissima omnium divinarum rerum
copia, quam scholastic! fjratiam hahitiialem . . . appellant, ex
qua in Christo, tanquam inexhausto fonte, omnes gratiae in nos
pro cujusque menibri modulo deriventur ;" comp. also Bleek,
Observe, at the same time, tlie stress lying on the ttuv, in con-
trast to a merely partial imparting out of this fulness, which
would have been inadequate to the object of reconciling the
universe. The cntolorjical interpretation of the " fulness of
•Hence not: "la io'cdltd de VCire qui doit etre realisee dans le mondc,"
Sabatier, I'apuLre Paul, p. 209.
CHAP. I. 19. 297
the nature of God" (Huther, Dalmer, AVeiss ; Oeciimenius,
and Tlieodoret : the nature of the ©eo? X0709 ; Calovius and
others : of the communicatio hypostatica, that is, of the ab-
solute immanence of God in Him, comp. Ernesti, Ursirr. d.
Sundc, I. p. 222; Kich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 201)
does not correspond to the idea of evhoKrjaev, for doubtless the
sending of the Son, and that with the ivholc treasure of divine
grace, into the world (John iii. 17) for behoof of its recon-
ciliation and blessedness, was the act of the divine pleasure
and resolve; but not so the divine nature in Christ, which
was, on the contrary, neeessary in Him,^ although by His in-
carnation He emptied Himself of the divine mode of appear-
ance {So^a or floppy], Phil. ii. 6 ff.). The divine nature is
presupjjoscd in what is here said of Christ. Comp, Gess, v. d.
Pers. Christi, p. 85. Some (see especially Steiger, Bahr, and
Reuss) have regarded to ifX-qpcoixa 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
' As in the Son of God in the metaphysical sense ; hence the original being of
God in Him cannot be conceived merely as ideal, which was to develope itself into
reality, and the realization of which, when it at length became perfect, made Him
the absolute abode of the fulness of Godhead. SoBcyschlag, CJn-istol. p. 232 f.,
according to whom Christ would be conceived as ^^man drawing dorcn npon
Idmself" this indwelling of God. He is conceived as the incarnate Son (comp.
ver. 13 fi.), who, in accordance with the Father's decree, has appeared as bearer
ot the whole fulness of salvation. For He was its dwelling not merely in j^rinciple,
but in fact and reality, when He appeared, and He employed it for the work,
which the Father desired to accomplish by Him (ver. 20). Comp. Gal. iv. 4 ;
Kom. viii. 3. The indwelling of the era* to •^x-zipui^a He had not, indeed, to achieve
by his own effort ; but He had, in obedience towards the Father, to preserve
(comp. Heb. iv. 15), apply, communicate it ; and so this indwelling is — not
merely in the risen One, but in His very work on the cross — the presupposition
of the universal reconciliation, ver. 20.
'^ Baur himself {Paulus, II. p. 12 ff.) likewise explains -^Xripufia from the
technical language of the Gnostics, especially of the Valentinian doctrine of
Aeons, but finds the Gnosticism to belong to the (post-apostolic) writer of
the epistle. According to Baur (see his Neutcst. Tkeol. p. 258), Christ is the
•rXripi-if^ci of God as He " in luhom that wldch God is in Himself, according to the
abstract idea of His nature, is filled with its definite concrete contents.'^ Comp.
also Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1870, p. 247, according to whom our passage is
intended to affirm that the Pleroma of divine nature is to be sought not in the
prolix series of the Aeons of the Gnostics, but in Christ alone. Holtzmann, with
208 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Paul maintains that in Jesus there dwells the totality of all
divine powers of life, and not merely a single emanated spirit ;
but this view is all the more unwarranted, because Paul him-
seK does not intimate any such polemical destination of the
word ; on the contrary, in Eph. iii. 1 9 also he uses ttolv to
TrXtjpw/jLa T. ©60V evidently without any reference of the kind.
And if he had wished to place the whole fulness of the efflux
of divine power in contrast to an asserted single emana-
tion, he must have prefixed, not iv avrw {in Him and in oione
other), but nrav {the tvlwle TrX^jpcojia, not merely a single con-
stituent clement of it) with the main emphasis, and have logically
said : on irav to 'rfkr^pcofxa evBoKrjaev tv avTw KaTOCKrjcrat.
Hofmann (comp. his Schrifthew. p. 29, 359), who in general
has quite misunderstood ver. 19 f. (comp. above on evZoKifja-ev),
takes irav to ifKi^pa^ia as "the one-like totality of that tuhich
is ;" and holds that the will of Christ (to which evBoK. applies)
can only have been, " that that may come to dwell in Him, which
otherwise woidd not he in Him, consequently not ivhat is in God,
hut what is out of God!' This idea of the immanent indwelling
of the universe in Christ, repeated by Schenkel in the sense of
Christ being the archetype, would be entirely alien to the N. T.
view of the relation of Christ to the world, and is not indi-
cated either at Eph. i, 1 or here in the context by to, iravTa
ev avTM €rvveaT')]K€v. 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 Hof-
mann, he would have known how to express it simply by to
'jTuv (or TO, iravTO) KaToiKYjo-ai, or by to TrXijpcofia tov 7ravTo<;
(or TMV TrdvTcov) KaTOLK)](T. Lastly, at utter variance with
both the word and the context, some have based on Eph. i.
more caixlion, adlieres to the view that the idea of the ■r\-/ipu[jt.a forms a first step
towards the extended use which tlie Gnostics make of the word ; wliereas Hilgen-
fchl {Zeitschr. 1873, p. 195) finds the idea here aheady so firmly established,
" that the rr\-/ipufia. emerges as in a certain measure holding an indei:)endent posi-
tion between God and Christ."
1 Comp. llich. Schmidt, I.e. p. 208.
CHAP. I. IP. 299
22 f. the interpretation of TrXjjpw/xa as the clmrcJi. So already
Theodoret : nrkrjp. rr}v iKKXrjalau iv rfj tt/oo? 'E(pealov<; e/ca-
Xeaev, co? tu>v 6eicov '^apiafxaTcov ireifKrjpwiievrjv. Tavrrjv e^r)
evBoKrjaai, tov Qeov iv tu> XpiaTO) KaroiKviaai, TOVTeaTiv avrm
(Ttwij^dat, and recently in substance Heinriclis, Baumgarten-
Cnisius, and others ; conip. also Schleiermacher, who, in accord-
ance with Eom. xi. 12, 25, understands " the fulness of the
Gentiles and the collective ivhole of Israel" the dwelling of whom
in Christ is the "definitive abiding state," which the total
reconciliation (see the sequel) must necessarily have preceded,
as this reconciliation is conditioned by the fact that both
parties must have become peaceful. — KaroiKrjaat] The ttXtj-
pcofia is personified, so that the abiding j?rcscncc, which it was
to have according to the divine evSoKia in Christ, appears
conceived under the form of talcing up its abode ; in which,
however, the idea of the Shechinah would only have to be
presupposed, in the event of the irXijpcofxa being represented as
appearance (p^n^ nna). See on Eom. ix. 5. Comp. John i. 14.
Analogous is the conception of the dwelling of Christ (see
on Eph. iii. 17) or of the Spirit (see Theile on Jas. iv. 5)
in behevers, Comp. also 2 Pet. iii. 13. In point of time,
the indwelling of the divine fulness of grace according to
God's pleasure in Christ refers to the earthly life of the
Incarnate One, who was destined by God to fulfil the divine
work of the airoKaroKKd^ai to, iravra, and was to be
empowered thereto by the dwelling in Him of that whole
divine iT\7]po)fj.a. Without having completed the performance
of this work. He could not become iv iracnv irpwrevaiv ; but
of this there could be no doubt, for God has caused it to be
completed through Him (on, ver. 19). Ernesti, Urspr. d. Si'inde,
I. p. 215 f. (comp. also Weiss, Bihl. Thcol. p. 428, ed. 2), refers
edhoK'qcre k.tX. 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 aTroKaraXka^at in ver. 20 does not apply to the
reconciliation through His blood, but to the reunion of all
created things through the exalted Lord, as a similar view is
indicated in Phil. ii. 10. But this idea of the airoKaraWd^ac
300 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIAXS.
is just the point on which this view breaks down. For vcr.
21 clearly shows that airoKaraWd^aL is to be taken in the
usual sense of the work of reconciliation completed through the
IXaa-rrjpLov of Christ. Moreover, that which Christ received
through His exaltation was not the divine 'ir\r]p(o/xa, but the
divine So^a.
Ver. 20.^ " Haec inhabitatio est fundamentum reconcilia-
tionis," Bengel. Hence Paul continues : kol Bi avrov airo-
KaraXku^aL ra iravra, and through Him to reconcile the ■whole.
As to the double compound airoKajaXK., lororsus rcconciliaref
see on Eph. ii. 16. The considerations which regulate the
correct understanding of the passage are : (1) that ra irdvTa
may not in any way be restricted (this has been appropriately
urged by Usteri, and especially by Huther) ; that it con-
sequently cannot be referred either merely to intelligent Icings
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
' According to Holtzmann, p. 92, the author is assumed to have worked
primarily with the elements of the fundamental passage 2 Cor. v. 18 f., wliich
he has taken to apply to the cosmical carox.aTo.xXa.yy). But, instead of appre-
hending this as the function of the risen Christ, he has by lia. toZ alfiuros
x.r.x. occasioned the coincidence of two dissimilar spheres of conception, of
Avhich, moreover, the one is introduced as form for the otlier. The interpo-
lator reproduces and concentrates the thought of Eph. i. 7, 10, ii. 13-17,
bringing the idea of a cosmical reconciliation (Eph. i. 10) into expression in
such a way " that he, led hy the sound of the terminology, takes up at the same
time and includes the tliouglit of the reconciliation of the Jews and Gentiles." In
opposition to this view, the exegesis of the details in their joint bearing on the
whole will avail to show that the passage with all its difficulty is no such con-
fused medley of misunderstanding and of heterogeneous ideas, and contains nothing
un-Pauline. The extension of the reconciliation to the celestial spheres, in par-
ticular, has been regarded as un-Pauline (see, especially, Holtzmann, p. 231 ff. ).
But even in the epistles whose genuineness is undisputed it is not difficult to
recognise the presuppositions, from which the sublime extension of tlie concep-
tion to an universality of cosmic effect in our passage might ensue. We may
add, that Eph. i. 10 is not "the leading thought of the interpolation" at
ver. 16 ff. (Holtzmann, ji. 151) ; in ver. 10 ff. much more is said, and of other
import.
* As if we might say in German, ahvcrsohnen, that is : to finish quite the
reconciliation. Comp. a.(^iXa.<rKi<!(c/.i, Plat. Legrj. ix. p. 873 A.
CHAP. I. 20. 301
taken as quite general: the ivholc of that ichich exists (has been
created) ; (2) that the reconciling sulject is here not Christ
(Hofmaun, in aceoi-dance with his incorrect reference of evSo-
K7]cre in ver. 19), but God, who throvgh Christ {ZC avrov)
reconciled all things ; (3) that consequently aTroKaraWd^at
cannot be meant of the transforming of the rnisrclation hctwcen
the world and Christ into a good relation (Hofmann), and just
as little of the reconciliation of all things toith one another, of
the removal of mutual hostility among the eonstitucnt elements
composing ra, irdvTa, but only of the universal reconcilia-
tion loith the God ivho is hostile to sin} as is clearly evident
from the application to the readers in ver. 21. The only
correct sense therefore is, that the entire universe has been re-
conciled with God. through Christ. But hoiv far ? In answer-
ing this question, which cannot be disposed of by speculation
beyond the range of Scripture as to the having entered into
the finite and having returned again to the infinite (Usteri), nor
by the idea imported into drrroKaraXK. of gathering ttj) into the
unity of absolute final aim (Baur, ne^it. Thcol. p. 257), the follow-
ing considerations are of service : {a) The original harmony,
which in the state of innocence subsisted between God and
the whole creation, was annulled by sin, which first obtained
mastery over a portion of the angels, and in consequence of
tliis (2 Cor. xi. 3), by means of the transgression of Adam, over
all mankind (Rom. v. 12). Comp. on Eph. i. 10. (&) 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 (Piom. viii. 1 9 ff.)
was affected by this relation, and given rip by God to fiarato-
T7]f; and BovXela t?)? ^Oopm (see on Eom. l.c). (c) Indeed,
even the world of heavenly spirits had lost its harmony with
^ God is the suhject, ivhose hoslUity is removed hy the reconciliation (comp. on
Eom. v. 10) ; -a. cravra is the oZ'/ec?, which was affected by tliishostilitj'gi'ounded
of necessity on the holiness and righteousness of God. If the hostile disposition
of men towards God, which had become removed by the reconciliation, were meant
(Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 18G3, p. 515), the universal tk -rayra
would not be suitable ; because the whole universe might, indeed, be affected
by the hostility of God against sin, but could not itself be hostilely disposed
towards Him. See, moreover, on ver. 21.
302 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
God as it originally existed, since a portion of the angels —
those that had fallen — formed the kingdom of the devil, in
antagonism to God, and became forfeited to the wrath of God
for the everlasting punishment which is prepared for the devil
and his angels, (d) But in Christ, by means of His ikaarrjpLov,
through which God made peace {elprivoirofqaa^ k.tX.), 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 caiosa
meritoria taken place, but the realization of the universal recon-
ciliation itself is also entered upon, although it is not yet conn-
pleted, but down to the time of the Parousia is only in course
of development, inasmuch, namely, as in the present aloov the
believing portion of mankind is indeed in possession of the
reconciliation, but the unreconciled unbelievers (the tares among
the wheat) are not yet separated; inasmuch, further, as the
non-intelligent creation still remains in its state of corruption
occasioned by sin (Eom. viii.) ; and lastly, inasmuch as until
the Parousia even the angelic world sees the kingdom of the
devil which has issued from it still — although the demoniac
powers have been already vanquished by the atoning death,
and have become the object of divine triumph (ii. 15) — not
annulled, and still in dangerous operation (Eph. vi. 12) against
the Christian church. But through the Parousia the reconcilia-
tion of the whole which has been effected in Christ will reach
its consummation, when the unbelieving portion of manldnd will
be separated and consigned to Gehenna, the whole creation in
virtue of the Palingenesia (Matt. xix. 28) will be transformed
into its original perfection, and the new heaven and the
new earth will be constituted as the dwelling of SiKaioavvr]
(2 Pet. iii. 13) and of the So^a of the children of God
(Eom. viii. 21); while the demoniac portion of the angelic
world will be removed from the sphere of the new world, and
cast into hell. Accordingly, in the whole creation there will
no longer be anything alienated from God and object of His
hostility, but ra irdvTa will be in harmony and reconciled
with Him ; and God Himself, to whom Christ gives back the
regency which He has hitherto exercised, will become the only
CHAP. I. 20. 303
Euler and All in All (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). This collective
reconciliation, although its consummation will not occur until
the Parousia, is yet justly designated by the aorist infinitive
airoKaTaXku^ai, because to the telic conception of God in
the evSoK-rjae it was present as one moment in conception. —
The angels also are necessarily included in ra iravra (comp,
subsequently, to. iv rol<; ovpavoU) ; and in tliis case — seeing
that a reconciliation of the angels who had not fallen, who
are holy and minister to Christ (Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. T. p.
269 ff.j, considered in themselves as individuals, 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 a whole. The original normal relation between God and
this higher order of spirits is no longer existing, so long as
the kingdom of demons in antagonism to God stiU 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 Avith the
manner of popular discourse, and according to the variety of the
several objects included in ra Trdvra, meant partly in an imme-
diate sense (in reference to mankind), partly in a mediate
sense (in reference to the ktIo-c^ affected by man's sin, Ptom.
viii., and to the angelic world affected by its partial faU) ;^
• According to Ignatius, Smyrn. 6, the angels also, lav //.h -xiffT-Uuffiv us tj
aTfia Xpia-rcv, incur judgment. But this conception of angels needing reconcilia-
tion, and possibly even unbelieving, is doubtless merely an abstraction, just as is
the idea of an angel t aching falsely (Gal. i. 8). It is true that, according to
1 Cor. vi. 3, angels also are judged ; but this presupposes not believing and
unbelieving angels, but various stages of moral perfection and purity in the
angelic world, when confronted with the absolute ethical standard, which in
Cliiibtianity must present itself even to the angels (Eph. iii. 10). Comp. ou
1 Cor. vi. 3.
- The idea of aToxccTaXXulai is not in this view to be altered, but has as its
necessary presupposition the idea of hostility, as is clear from uptiva-ro!r,<ra; and from
ix^pous, ver. 21, compared with Eph. ii. 16 ! Compare Fritzsche, ad Bom. I.
p. 276 ff. ; Eur. Med. 870 : ^ix>.>.ciy?,ycti tUs ix^fccs, Sojjh. Aj. 731 {7U) :
304 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
tlie idea of uTroKaraWd^at, in presence of tlie all-embracing
Tu Trdvra, is as it were of an clastic nature/ At the same
time, however, d'TTOKaraW. is not to be made equivalent
(Melanchthon, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Flatt, Biihr, Bleek,
and others) to aTroKetpaXaicoaaadaL (Eph. i. 10), which is
rather the sequel of the former; nor is it to be conceived
as merely completing the harmony of the good angels (who are
not to be thought absolutely pure, Job iv. 18, xv. 15 ; Mark
X. 18 ; 1 Cor. vi. 3) with God (de Wette), and not in the strict
sense theretore restoring it — an interpretation which violates
the meaning of the word. Calvin, nevertheless, has already so
conceived the matter, introducing, moreover, the element —
foreign to the literal sense — of confirmation in righteousness :
" quum creaturae sint, extra lapsus pcriculuni non essent, nisi
Christi gratia fuissent confirmati!' According to EitscM, in
the Jalirh. f. Deutsche TJieol. 1863, p. 522 f., Paul intends to
refer to the angels that had been active in the laiv-giving on
Sinai (Deut. xxxiii. 2 ; Ps. Ixvii. 18, LXX.), to whom he attri-
butes " a deviation from God's plan of salvation." But this
latter idea cannot be made good either by ii. 15, or by Gal.
iii. 19, or by Eph. iii. 10, as, indeed, there is nothing in the
context to indicate any such reference to the angels of the law
in particular. The exegetical device traditionally resorted to,
that what was meant with respect to the angels was their
reconciliation, not loith God, but loith men, to whom on
Siilffiv a; xaraXXccx,^^ X'^'^j Plat. liP}'). p. 566 E : vpo; roii; 'i'^eo f.^^pov; toT; fi\v
xxraXXay^, rov; Vi xa) lM(fS-/iprt. This applies also against Hofmann's enervating
weakening of the idea into that of transposition from the misrelation into a
,1,'oodone, or of ^' an action, ivhich makes one, who stands ill to another, stand well
to him." In such a misrelation (namely, to Christ, according to the erroneous
view of zhVoxntn) stand, in Hofmann's view, even the "spirits collectively,"
ill so far as they bear sway in the xoorld - life deteriorated by human sin,
instead of in the realization oj salvation. — Richard Schmidt, I.e. p. 195, also
l)roceeds to dilute the notion of reconciliation into that of the boinging to Christ,
inasmuch as he explains tlie xaraWufauM as effected by the fact that Christ has
become the head of all, and all has been put in dependence on Him. Hilgenfcld,
I.e. 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
sjiheres (in the -xX-Aftafji.oL).
' Comp. Philippi, Glaubensl IV. 2, p. 269 f., cd. 2.
CHAP. I. 20. 305
account of sin they had been previously inimical (so Chrysos-
tom, Pelagius, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Zanchius,
Cameron, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, Michaelis, Bbhmer, and
others), is an entirely erroneous makeshift, incompatible with
the language of the passage. — et? avrov] is indeed to be
written with the spiritus lenis, as narrating the matter from
the standpoint of the author, and because a reflexive emphasis
would be without a motive ; but it is to be referred, not to
Christ, who, as mediate agent of the reconciliation, is at the
same time its aim (Biihr, Huther, Olshausen, de Wette, Eeiche,
Hofmann, Holtzmann, and others ; comp. Estius, also Grotius :
"ut ipsi pareant"), but to God, constituting an instance of
the abbreviated form of expression very usual among Greek
^vriters (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 471) and in the K T. (Winer, p. 577
[E. T. 776]), the constructio praegnans: to reconcile to God-
ivard, so that they are now no longer separated from God
(comp. ainjWorp., ver. 21), but cere to he united with Him in
jpeace. Thus eh air., although identical in reality, is not in
the mode of conception equivalent to the mere dative (Eph.
ii. 16; Eom. v. 10; 1 Cor. vii. 11; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 20),
as Beza, Calvin, and many others take it. The reference to
Christ must be rejected, because the definition of the aim
would have been a special element to be added to Bt avrov,
which, as in ver. 16, would have been expressed by /cat ei?
avrov, and also because the explanation which follows {elprjvo-
rroLTja-a'i K.r.X.) concerns and presupposes simply the mediate
agency of Christ (8t' avrov). — 6lpTjvo7roL7Jaa<;, down to aravpov
avrov, is a modal definition of he avrov airoKaraKkd^at (not a
parenthesis): so that He concluded ijcace, 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, Piom. v. 1 ; Eph. vi. 15. Tlie aorist participle is, as
ver. 21 shows, to be understood as contemporary with amoKa-
raW. (see on Eph. i. 9, and Kiihner, II. 1, p. 161 f.; MiiUer
in the Luther. Zcitschr. 1872, p. 631 ff.), and not antecedent to
it (Biihr), as has been incorrectly held by Ernesti in consist-
ency with liis explanation of ver. 19 (see on ver. 19), who,
moreover, without any warrant from the context, in accordance
COL. n
306 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
with Eph. ii. 14-16, thinks of the conclusion of peace hefioeen
Jeivs and Gentiles. The nominative refers to the subject ; and
this is, as in the whole sentence since the evSoKrjcrev, not
Christ (Chrysostom, Theocloret, Oecumenius, Lnther, Storr,
Heinrichs, Flatt, Steiger, Hofmann, and many others), but God.
The verb elpi^voTrocelv, occurring only here in the N. T., which
has elsewhere Troidv elpi)vr}v (Eph. ii. 15 ; Jas. iii. 18), and also
foreign to the ancient Greek, which has elprjvoTroLo^;, is never-
theless found in Hermes, aj). Stob. Ecl.ijh. i. 52, and in the LXX.
Prov. X. 10. — Zia Tov aifi. r. crravpov avrov] that is, hy means
of the blood to he shed on His cross, which, namely, as the sacri-
iicial blood reconciling with God (comp. 2 Cor. v. 21), became
the causa medians which procured the conclusion of peace be-
tween God and the world. Eom. iii. 25, v. 9 f. ; Eph. i. 7.
The reason, Avhich 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 ef&cacy 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.'^ — Sl avTov] not with the spirittis asper,
equivalent to St eauTov, as those take it who refer elpr}voTroLrjaa<i
to Christ as subject {kavrov iK^ov'i, Theophylact), since this re-
ference is erroneous. But neither can Bt avrov be in apposition
to Bia TOV aifiaTO<; r. err. avrov (Castalio, " per ejus sanguinem,
h. e. 2^'^'^^ ^^"'^ ")> f*^^' ^^^^ latter, and not the former, would be
the explanatory statement. It is a resumption of the above-
given Bl avrov, after the intervening definition elprjvoiroL'^aa'i
K.r.X, in order to complete the discourse thereby interrupted,
• According to Hofmann, Schriftheio. IL 1, p. 362 tf., by the blood of the cross,
ver. 20, the death of Christ is meant to be presented as a. judicial act oj violence,
and " lohat befell Him " as an ignominy, which He allowed to be inflicted on Him
with the view of establishing a peace, which brought everything out of alienation
from Him into fellowship of peace with Him. Ver. 22 does not affirm the
expiation of sin, biit 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 ^\■hich we have need of in order
CHAP. I. 20. 307
and that by once more emphatically bringing forward the Bt
avTov which stood at tlie commencement ; " ihroKf/h Him" I
say, to reconcile, whether they be things on earth or whether
they be things in heaven. Comp. on Eph. i. 1 1 ; Eom. viii. 23.
— eXre ra inl t. 7., etre ra iv t. oi)/?.] divides, without " affected
tautology " (Holtzmann), but witli a certain solemnity befitting
the close of this part of the epistle, the to, iravra into its two
component parts. As to the quite universal description, see
above on to, iravra; comp. on ver, 16. We have, besides, to
notice: (1) that Paul here (it is otherwise in ver. 16, where
the creation was in question, comp. Gen. i. 1) names the
earthly things first, because the atonement took flace on earth,
and frimarily affected things earthly ; (2) that the disjunctive,
expression etre . , . elVe renders impossible the view of a recon-
ciliation of the two sections one with another (Erasmus, Wet-
stein, Dalmer, and others). To the category of exegetical
aberrations belongs the interpretation of Schleiermacher, who
understands earthly and heavenly things, and includes among
the latter all the relations of divine worship and the mental
tendencies of Jews and Gentiles relative thereto : " Jews and
Gentiles were at variance as to both, as to the heavenly and
eartlily things, and were now to be brought together in rela-
tion to God, after He had founded peace through the cross of
His Son." The view of Baumgarten-Crusius is also an utter
misexplanation : that the reconciliation of men (Jews and Gen-
tiles) among themselves, and with the spirit-world, is the thing
meant ; and that the reconciliation with the latter consists in
the consciousness given back to men of being worthy of con-
that we may come to stand lioly Lcfore Him. ITot different in substance are
Hofmann's utterances in his Hcil. Schr. N. T. But when we find it there stated :
"how far Christ has hereby (namely, by His having allowed Himself to be put
to death as a transgressor by men) converted the variance, which subsisted
between Him and the world created for Him, into its opposite, is not here speci-
fied in detail," — that is an unwarranted evasion ; for the strict idea of recon-
ciliation had so definite, clear, firm, and vivid (comp. ver. 14, ii. 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. iii. 13 ; Rom. iii. 25. Calvin well
says : " Ideo pignus et pretium nostrae cum Deo pacificationis sanguis Christi,
quia in cruce fusus."
308 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
nection with the higher spirits. — Lastly, against the reference
to universal restoration, to which, according to Olshansen, at
least the tcndenmj of Christ's atonement is assumed to have
pointed, see on Eph. i, 10, remark 2. Comp. also Schmid in
the Jahrl.f. D. Thcol. 1870, p. 133.
Ver. 21. As far as ver. 23, an application to the readers of
what had been said as to the reconciliation, in order to animate
them, through the consciousness of this blessing, to stedfast-
ness in the faith (ver. 23). — koX vjjLa<; ac.t.X.] you also, not : and
you, so that it would have to be separated by a mere comma
from the preceding verse, and vvvl he . . . Oavdrov would, not-
withstanding its great importance, come to be taken as paren-
thetical (Lachmann), or as quite breaking off the discourse, and
leaving it unfinished (Ewald). It begins a new sentence, comp.
Eph. ii. 1 ; but observe, at the same time, that Eph. ii. is much
too rich in its contents to admit of these contents being here
compressed into vv. 20,21 (in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 1 5 0),
As to the way in which Holtzmann gains an immediate con-
nection with what precedes, see on ver. 10. The construction
(following the reading diroKarrjWd'yTjTe, 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
Ecccpta), but he does not carry out this formation of the sen-
tence ; on the contrary, in his versatility of conception, he
suddenly starts off and continues in a passive form, as if he
had begun with koX v/x€i<; k.t.X. See Matthiae, p. 1524;
Winer, p. 527 ff. [E. T. 714] ; and upon the aorist, Buttmann,
Mitt. Gr. p. 171 [E. T. 107]. — dirriWorp. k.tX] -lohcn yc
■were once in the state of estranycnicnt, characterizes their heathen
condition. As to aTnjWorp., see on Eph, ii. 12; from which
passage avro Trj<; TroXtrela'i r. 'lap. is here as unwarrantably
supplied (Heinrichs, comp. Flatt), as is from Eph. iv. 14 ri)?
^(orj^ Tov Qeou (Biihr). In conformity with the context, seeing
that previously God was the subject as author of reconciliation,
the being estranged from God (roO Geov), the being excluded
from His fellowship, is to be understood. Comp, ddeot iv r.
Koafxo), Eph. ii. 12. On the subject-matter, Eom. i. 21 ff. —
i^9pov<;'] sc. Tui @€m, in a j3rtssu'C sense (comp. on Eom. v. 10,
CHAP. I. 21. 309
xi, 28): invisos Deo} as is required by the idea of having
become reconciled, through which God's enmity against sinful
men, who were reKva ^vcret 6py)]<; (Eph. ii. 3), has changed into
mercy towards them.^ This applies in opposition to the usual
active interpretation, which Hofmann also justly rejects : hos-
tile tmoards God, Eom. viii. 7 ; Jas. iv. 4 (so still Huther, de
Wette, Ewald, Eitschl, Holtzmann), which is not to be com-
hincd uith the passive sense (Calvin, Bleek). — ry Biavolq and
iv Tot9 epyoL^i r. ir. belong to hoth the preceding elements ; the
former as dative of the cause : on account of their disposition of
mind tliey were once alienated from God and hateful to Him ;
the latter as specification of the overt, actual sjjho'e of life,
in which they had been so (in the iviclced ivorJcs, in which their
godless and God-hated behaviour had exhibited itself). Thus
information is given, as to airrfW. and i'^0pov<j, of an internal
and of an external kind. The view which takes rf) Siavoia as
dative of the resjjcct (comp. Eph. iv, 18) : as respects disjwsitioji
(so, following older expositors, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Ewald), would no doubt suit the erroneous active
explanation of ix^P-' ^^^^ 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 o'cason ;" for the hidv. is not the reason itself, but
its immanent activity (see especially, Plato, Soph. p. 263 E),
and that here viewed nnder its moral aspect ; comp. on Eph.
iv. 18. Beza ("mente operibus malis intenta"), Michaelis,
Storr, and Bahr attach eV Toi<? epyoL<i k.t.X. to rfj Siavoia.
' Compare the phrase very current in the classical writers, from Homer
onward, Ix^p's 6io7;, qnem Dii oderunf.
* See Fritzsche, ad Horn. I. p. 27611, who aptly explains xaraxxd<ra-i<r$a.i
rivi : in aUaijus favorem venire, qui antea snccensuerit. Comp. Philippi, Glati-
hensl. IV. 2, p. 265 ff., ed. 2. The reconciliation of men takes place, when God,
instead of being further angry at them, has become gracious towards them, —
when, consequently. He Himself is reconciled. Comp. Luke xviii. 13 ; 2 Cor.
V. 19. So long as His wrath is not changed, and consequently He is not recon-
ciled, men remain unreconciled. 2 Mace. vii. 33 : o ^*y xCfus . . . fifia^^ius
i-xufyiaTai xcci "XaXn xaraXXayniriTai raii laurou %<tvXoi;, COmp. viii. 29, i. 5, V. 20 ;
Clem. Cor. I. 48 : Ixinuoyns alriv (God), 0-rus 'tXtco; ytvo/^iyos IvixmraXXayn
fi/i','*. In Constt. Apost. viii. 12. 14, it is said ot Christ that He ru xiaftif
xarrixxa^i God, and § 17, of God : iroZ xaraXXayUTo; auToT; (with believers).
310 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
This is grammatically admissible, since we may say BiavoelaOat
ev, animo versari in (Ps. Ixxiii. 8 ; Eccliis. 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 iv rot? epy. t. irovrjp. would appear
tediously circumstantial. — The articles tj} and roi? denote the
disposition tvMch they have had, and the works ivhich they have
done. In the latter case the subjoined attributive furnished
with the article {joh irovrjpol'i) is not causal (" beeause they
were bad," Hofmann), but emiohatically brings into prominence
the quality, as at Eph. vi. 13 ; 1 Cor. vii. 14, and often
(Winer, p. 126 [E. T. 167]). — vvvl he airoKarrjWd'yrjTe] as
if previously v/itet? k.t.X. were used (see above) : Ye also . . .
have nevertheless novj beeoone reconciled. On Be after participles
which supply the place of the protasis, as here, where the
thought is : although ye formerly, etc., see Klotz, ad Devar.
p. 374 ff.; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 136 ; Kiihner, ad Xen.
Mem. iii. 7. 8, Anab. vi. 6. 16. On vvvl, with the aorist fol-
lowing, comp. ver. 26 ; Eom. vii. 6 ; Eph. ii. 13 ; Plat. Symjp.
p. 1 9 3 A : irpo rod . . . ev ^j/xev, vvvl Be Blo, ttjv aBcKiav BiMKca-
6r}[xev vTTo r. 6eov. Ellendt, Lex Soph. II. p. 176 ; Kiihner,
II. 2, p. 672. It denotes the present time, which has set in
with the aTTOKaTrjXk. (comp. Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 171
[E. T. 1 9 7]) ; 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 tliem a decisive contrast of their vvvl with their
TTOTe} The reconciling subject is, according to the context
(vv. 19, 20), not Christ (as at Eph. ii. 16), through whom
(comp. Pom. V. 1 ; 2 Cor. v. 1 8) the reconciliation has taken
place (see ver. 20), but, as at 2 Cor. v. 19, God (in opposition
to Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Beza, Calvin, Estius,
Calovius, Heinrichs, and others, including de Wette and
Ewald). Eor the reference to Christ even the reading uiroKa-
rrjWa^ev would by no means furnish a reason, far less a
' Comp. Luthardt, vomfreien Willen, p. 403.
CHAP. I. 22. 311
necessity, since, on the contrary, even this active would have,
according to the correct explanation of evBoKrjae in ver. 19,
to be taken as referring to God (in opposition to Hofmann).
Ver. 22. 'Ev tu atofiaTi /c.t.X.] that, by mearis of which they
have been reconciled ; corresponding to the Be avrov and Bca,
Tov a'LfjLaro<i tov aravpov avrov of ver. 2 : 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
avrov (with the sjnritics aspcr), which would not be justified,
even though Christ were the subject. We have further to
note : (1) Blcl r. Oavdrov informs us whereby the being recon-
ciled ev T6u aco/xarc r. a. av. loas brought about, namely, by the
death occurring, without which the reconciliation would not
have taken place in the body of Christ. (2) Looking to the
concrete presentation of the matter, and because the procuring
element is subsequently brought forward specially and on its
own account by Bid, the ev is not, with Erasmus and many
others, to be taken as instrumental, but is to be left as local ;
not, however, in the sense that Christ accomplished the d'Ko-
KaraWdaa-eiv 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 Bm rod Oavdrov follows, in
the sense, that in the body of Christ, by means of the death
therein accomplished, our reconciliation was objectively
realized, which fact of salvation, therefore, inscjparably asso-
ciated itself with His body; comp. ev rfj aapKi fiov, ver. 24,
see also 1 Pet. ii. 2 4 and Huther in loc. The conception of
substitution, however, though involved in the thing (in the
ikaarrjpiov), is not to be sought in ev (in opposition to Bohmer
and Baumgarten-Crusius). (3) The reason for the intentional
use of the material description : " in the body tohich consisted
of His flesh" (comp. ii. 11 ; Ecclus. xxiii. 16), is to be sought
in the apologetic interest of antagonism to the false teachers,
against whom, however, the charge of Doceiism, possibly on
the ground of ii. 23, can the less be proved (in opposition to
Beza, Balduin, Bohmer, Steiger, Huther, and Dalmer), as Paul
312 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
nowhere in the epistle expressly treats of the material Incar-
nation, which he would hardly have omitted to do in contrast
to Docetism (comp. 1 John). In fact, the apostle found suffi-
cient occasion for writing about the reconciliation as he has
done here and in ver. 20, in the faith in angels on the part of
his opponents, by which they ascribed the reconciling media-
tion with God in part to those higher sinritual beings (who are
without crw/ia t?}? aapKo^). Other writers have adopted the
view, without any ground whatever in the connection, that
Paul has thus written in order to distinguish the real body
of Clirist from the spiritual a-wfia of the church (Bengel,
Michaelis, Storr, Olshausen). The other awfia of Christ,
which contrasts with His earthly body of flesh (Eom. i. 3,
viii. 3), is His glorified heavenly body, Phil. iii. 21 ; 1 Cor.
XV. 47 ff. Preferences, however, such as Calvin, e.g., has dis-
covered (" humile, terrenum et infirmitatibus multis obnoxium
corpus"), or Grotius (" tantas res perfecit instrumento adeo
tenui ;" comp. also Estius and otliers), are forced upon the
words, in wliich the form of expression is selected simply in
opposition to spiritualistic erroneous doctrines. Just as little
may we import into the simple historical statement of the
means Bia rov Oavarov, with Hofmann, the ignominy of shedding
His hlood on the cross, since no modal definition to that effect
is subjoined or indicated. — irapacrTrjaai v/xa,'? /c.t.X.] Ethical
defuiition of the object aimed at in the aTro/carrjW. : ye have been
reconciled . . . in order to 2'>resent you, etc. The presenting sid)-
jcct is therefore the subject of dTroKarTfXX., so that it is to be
explained : Iva irapaaTr^crrjTe vfxd<;, ut sisterctis vos, and there-
fore this continuation of the discourse is by no means awkward
in its relation to tlie reading d7roKaTt]X\.a<y7]T€ (in opposition to
de Wette). We should be only justified in expecting kavrov^
(as Pluther suggests) instead of vfia<i (comp. Eom. xii. 1) if
(comp. Eom. vi. 13 ; 2 Tim. ii. 15) the connection required a
reflexive emphasis. According to the reading diroKaTijiWa^ev
the sense is lU sisteret vos, in which case, however, the subject
would not be Christ (Hofmann), but, as in every case since evBo-
Krjae in ver. 19, God. — The^om^ of time at which the irapaar.
is to take place (observe the aorist) is that of the judgment, in
CHAP. I. 22. 313
wliicli they shall come forth holy, etc., hrforc the Judge. Conip.
ver. 28, and on Epli. v. 27. This reference (comp. Biihr,
Olshausen, Bleek) is required by the coiAext in ver. 23, where
the Trapaa-Tijaat k.t.X. is made dependent on continuance in the
faith as its condition ; consequently there cannot be meant the
result alrcadij accomplished hy the reconeiliation itself, namely,
the state of hcKaLoavvt] entered upon through it (so usually,
including Hofmann). The state of justification sets in at any
rate, and unconditionally, through the reconciliation ; but it
may be lost again, and at the Parousia will be found subsist-
ing only in the event of the reconciled remaining constant
to the faith, by means of which they have appropriated the
reconciliation, ver. 23. — ay/ou? /c.t.X.] does not represent the
subjects as sacrifices (Eom. xii. 1), which Avould not consist
with the fact that Christ is the sacrifice, and also would not
be in harmony with dve<yKk. ; it rather describes without figure
the moral holiness which, after the justification attained by
means of faith, is wrought by the Holy Spirit (Eom. vii. 6,
viii. 2, 9, et cd.), and which, on the part of man, is preserved
and maintained by continuance in the faith (ver. 23). The
three predicates are not intended to represent the relation
"erga i?t'2M?i, respectu vestri, and yq^'^qoXxi proximi" (Bengel,
Biihr), since, in point of fact, dfKOfiovi (blameless, Eph, i. 4,
V. 27 ; Herod, ii. 177 ; Plat. Ptcj). p. 487 A : ovB' av 6 Mwfxo^
TO ye ToiovTov fiifjtylracTo) no less than dv6<yK\. {reproachless,
1 Cor. i. 8) points to an external judgment: but the moral
condition is intended to be described with exhaustive emphasis
positively (dylovi) and negatively (d/xdofji. and dveyxX.), The
idea of the moral holiness of the ricrhteous through faith
is thoroughly Pauline ; comp. not only Eph. ii. 1 0, Tit. ii.
14, iii. 8, but also such passages as Pi,om. vi. 1-23, viii. 4 ff. ;
Gal. v. 22-25; 1 Cor. ix. 24 If. ; 2 Cor. xi. 2, ct al. — Kare-
vcoTTiov avTov] refers to Christ} to His judicial appearance at
the Parousia, just as by the previous avrov after <rap/c6^ Christ
' So also Holtzmann, p. 47, though holding in favour of the priority of Eph.
i. 4, that the seiise requires a reference to God, altliough syntactically the refer-
ence is made to Christ. But, in fact, the one is just as consistent with the sense
as the other.
314 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
also was meant. The usual reference to God (so Huther, de
Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek) is connected with
the reading arroKaWiKka^ev taken as so referring ; comp. Jude
24; Eph. i. 4. The objection that KarevctiTnov 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 iva>7nov is also applied to Christ
(2 Tim. ii. 14), and since in the notion itself there is nothing
opposed to this reference. The frequent use of the expres-
sion " before God" is traceable to the theocratically national
currency of this conception, which by no means excludes the
expression " before Christ^ So efXTrpocrOev is also used of
Christ in 1 Thess. ii. 19. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 10: einrpoaOev
Tov /3?7^aT09 Tov XptaTov, which is a commentary on our Kare-
vcoTTLov avTov; see also Matt. xxv. 32.
Eemaek. — The proper reference of 'Trapasrljgai x.r.x. to the
judgment, as also the condition appended in ver, 23, place it
beyond doubt that what is meant here (it is otherwise in Eph.
i. 4) is the holiness and blamelessness, which is entered upon
through justification by faith actu judiciali and is positively
wrought by tlie Holy Spirit, but which, on the other hand, is
preserved and maintained up to the judgment by the self-active
perseverance of faith in virtue of the new life of the reconciled
(Eom. vi.) ; so that the justitia inhaerens is therefore neither
meant alone (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin,
and others), nor excluded (Theodoret, Erasmus, Beza, and
others), but is included. Comp. Calovius.
Ver. 23. Eequirement, with which is associated not, indeed,
the being included in the work of reconciliation (Hofmann),
but the attainment of its blessed final aim, which would
otherwise be forfeited, namely the TrapaarfjaaL k.t.\. above
described : so far at any rate as ye, i.e. assuming, naincly, that
ye, etc. A confidence that the readers will ftdfil this condi-
tion is not conveyed by the d'ye in itself (see on 2 Cor. v. 3 ;
Gal. iii. 4 ; Eph. iii. 2), and is not implied here by the con-
text ; but Paul sets forth the relation purely as a condition
certainly taking place, which they have to fulfil, in order to
attain the irapaaTTjaat, k.t.X. — that " fructus in posterum lae-
CHAP. I. 23. ' 315
tissimus" of their reconciliation (Bengel). — r^^ jriaTei]
belonging to eTn/Mev. : abide hy the faith, do not cease from it/
See on Eom. vi. 1. The mode of this abiding is indicated by
what follows positively (reOe/u,. k. iSpaloc), and negatively (/c. (mt)
fjteraKtv. k.t.X.), under the figurative conception of a huilding,
in which, and that with reference to the Parousia pointed at by
Trapaa-TJjaai k.tX, the hope of the gospel is conceived as the
Joundation, in so far as conti7iuance in the faith is based on
this, and is in fact not possible without it (ver. 27). " Spe
amissa perseverantia concidit," Grotius. On rede/j-eX, which
is not interjected (Holtzmann), comp. Eph. iii. 17; 1 Pet.
V. 10; and on eBpaloc, 1 Cor. xv. 58. The opposite of
TeOefieX. is %«/3t9 Oe/xeXiov, Luke vi. 49 ; but it would be a
contrast to the redefjLek. Kal eSpaloL, if they were fieraKcvoufjuevoi,
K.T.X. ; concerning ytt?;, see Winer, p. 443 [E. T. 596];
Baeumlein, Fart. p. 295. — fxeraKtvov/n.] passively, through
the influence of false doctrines and other seductive forces. —
aTTo] azuay . . . from, so as to stand no longer on hope as the
foundation of perseverance in the faith. Comp. Gal. i. 6. —
The iXirU rod 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; Eom. v. 2, viii. 24; Tit. i. 2 f, iii. 7. — ov rjKovaare
K.tX.'] three definitions rendering the fit) fieraKivelaOaL k.t.X.
in its universal obligation palpably apparent to the readers ;
for such a jxeraKLvdadai would, in the case of the Colossians,
be inexcusable {ov rjKova-are, comp. Pom. x. 18), would set at
naught the universal proclamation of the gospel {tov K^ipv^O.
' In our Epistle faith is by no means postponed to knowing and perceiving
(comp. ii. 5, 7, 12), as Baur asserts in his Neut. Theol. p. 272. The frequent
emphasis laid upon knowledge, insight, comprehension, and the like, is not to
be put to the account of an intellectualism, which forms a fundamental pecu-
liarity betokening the author and age of this Epistle (and especially of that to
the Ephesians), as Holtzmann conceives, p. 216 ff. ; on the contrary, it was
owing to the attitude of the apostle towards the antagonistic philosophical specu-
lations. Comp. also Gran, Entwickelungsgesch. d. ^V. 7\ II. p. 153 ff. It was
owing to the necessary relations, in which the apostle, with his peculiarity of
being all things to all men, found himself placed towards the interests of the
time and place.
316 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
k.tX), and would stand in contrast to the personal weight
of the apostle's position as its servant (ov iyev. k.tX.). If,
with Hofmann, we join toO K7]pvj(6evTo^ as an adjective to rov
evayyeXcov, ov rjKoixTare, we withdraw from the ov r^KovaaTe
that element of practical significance, which it must have, if
it is not to be superfluons. Nor is justice done to the third
point, ov iyevofirjv k.t.X., if the words (so Hofmann, comp. de
Wette) are meant to help the apostle, by enforcing what he
is thenceforth to write with the weight of his name, to come
to Ids conditio7i at that time. According to this, they would
be merely destined as a transition. In accordance with the
context, however, and without arbitrary tampering, they can
only have the same aim with the two preceding attributives
which are annexed to the gospel ; and, with this aim, how
appropriately and forcibly do they stand at the close !^ Xoittov
yap fieya rjv to UavXov ovofia, Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom.
Comp. on iyo) IlavXof;, with a view to urge his personal
authority, 2 Cor. x. 1 ; Gal. v. 2 ; Eph. iii. 1 ; 1 Thess. ii. 18 ;
Philem. 19. It is to be observed, moreover, that if Paul
himself had been the teacher of the Colossians, this relation
would certainly not have been passed over here in silence. —
eV Trdarj Kria-ei (without rfj, see the critical remarks) is to
be taken as : injjrcscnce of (coram., see Ast, Zcx. Plat. I. p. 701 ;
Winer, p. 360 [E. T. 481]) every creature, before everything
that is created (Kri(n<i, as in i. 1 5). Tliere is nothing created
under the heaven, in whose sphere and environment (comp.
Kiihner, II. 1, p. 401) the gospel had not been proclaimed.
Tlie sense of the word must be left in this entire generality,
and not limited to the heathen (Biihr). It is true that the
popular expression of universality may just as little be pressed
here as in ver. 6. Comp. Herm. Fast. sim. viii. 3 ; Ignatius,
liojn. 2. Bat as in i. 15, so also here Traaa KTiafi is not
all creation, according to which the sense is assumed to be :
" on a stage emhracinfj the v:hole world" (Hofmann). This Paul
would properly have expressed by iv 'rrdari rfi Kjlaei, or iv
ttuvtI tcu Koa-fKp, or ev oXw tw k. ; comp. ver. 6. The expression
' According to Btiur, indeed, such passages as the present are among those
M hich betray tlie double personality of the author.
CHAP. I. 2-1. 317
is more lofty and poetic than in ver. 6, appropriate to the
close of the section, not a fanciful reproduction betraying an
imitator and a later age (Holtzmann), Omitting even ov
-^Kovaare (because it is not continued by ov koI iyo)), Holtz-
mann arrives merely at the connection between ver. 23 and
ver. 25 : firj /xeTaKiv. anb rod evayy. ov iyev. iyo) U. SiaK.
Kara rrjv oIkov. t. Oeov rrjv Sodeladv fMoc eh vfMd<i, just as he
then would read further tlius : TrX-qpoJaao r. \6<y. r. Oeov, et9
o Kal KOTTcS dycjvi^ofi. Kara r. kvepy. avrov ttjv evepyov/j,. iv
ifioL. — ScuKovo'i] See on Eph. iii. 7. Paul has become such
through his calling, Gal. i. 15 f.; Eph. iii. 7. Observe the
aorist.
Ver. 24.^ A more precise description of this relation of
service, and that, in the first place, with respect to the si'ffer-
ings which the apostle is now enduring, ver. 24, and then
with respect to his important calling generally, vv. 25-29.
— 09 (see the critical remarks) vvv xaipoi k.t.\. : / wJio
noio 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! — vvv] places in contrast with the
great element of his loast, expressed by ov iyev. k.tX., which
has imiDosed on the ai^ostle so many sorrows (comp. Acts
ix. 16), the situation as it now exists with him in that
relation of service on his part to the gospel. This iri-escnt
condition, however, he characterizes, in full magnanimous
appreciation of the sufferings under which he writes, as joyful-
ness over them, and as a becoming perfect in the fellowship of
tribulation with Christ, which is accomplished through them.
It is plain, therefore, that the emphatic vvv is not transitional
(Biihr) 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 looh 'upcn the cJiurch as firmly
estahlished (comp. Dalmer), or, with Hofmann, to be taken as
standing in contrast to the apostolic activity/. — iv toi<; iraOrnji.']
over the sufferings; see on Phil. i. 18 ; Eom. v. 3. This joy
in suffering is so entirely in harmony with tlie Pauline spirit,
1 See upon ver. 24, Liicke, Progr. 1833 ; Huther in the Stud. u. Krit.
1838, p. 189 fl.
318 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIA.NS,
that its source is not to be sought (in opposition to Holtz-
mann) in 2 Cor. vii. 4, either for the present passage or for
Eph. iii. 13 ; comp. also Phil. ii. 17. — virep vficov] joins itself
to 7ra6/]fjLaaLv so as to form one conception, without connect-
ing article. Comp. on vv. 1, 4 ; 2 Cor. vii. 7 ; Eph. iii. 13 ;
Gal. iv. 14. Since virep, according to the context, is not to be
taken otherwise than as in vnep rod o-co/z. avrov, it can neither
mean instead of (Steiger, Catholic expositors, but not Cornelius
a Lapicle or Estius), nor 07i account of (Eosenmiiller, Hein-
richs, Elatt; comp. Eph. iii. 1; Phil. i. 29), but simply: in
commoclum} namely, 'iva vjjid<; axpeXijcraL BvprjOo), Oecumenius,
and that, indeed, hy that honourahle attestatioii and glorifying
of your Christian state, ivliicli is actually contained in my
trihidations ; for the latter show forth the faith of the readers,
for the sake of which the apostle has undertaken and borne
the suffering, as the holy divine thing which is worthy of
such a sacrifice. Comp. Phil. i. 12 ff.; Eph. iii. 13. The
reference to the cxamjjle, which confirms the readers' faith
(Grotius, Wolf, Bahr, and others), introduces inappropriately
a reflection, the indirect and tame character of which is not
at all in keeping with the emotion of the discourse. — The
vfjLMP, meaning the oxaders, 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, ct al). It is arbitrary, doubtless, to supply
rwv edvoiv 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. — Kai\ not equivalent to
Koi <ydp (Heinrichs, Biihr), but the simple a^id, subjoining to
the subjective state of feeling the ohjcetive relation of suffer-
ing, which the apostle sees accomplishing itself in his destiny.
It therefore carries on, but not from the special {vfiwv) " ad
totam omnino ecclesiam" (Liicke), since the new point to be
introduced is contained in the specific avTavairKTjpa, . . .
Xpca-Tov, and not in virep t, aco/x. avrov. The connection of
' So also Bisping, who, however, explains it of the mc7'itorioiisness of good
ivorks availing for others.
CHAP. I. 24. 319
ideas is rather : " I rejoice over my sufferings, and what a
holy 2>osition is theirs ! through them / fulfil" etc. Hence
the notion of xat'pw is not, with Huther, to be carried over
also to avTavaTrkrjpcb : and I supplement ivith joy, etc. At
the same time, however, the statement introduced by Kal
stands related to %at/5&) as elucidating and giving ivfor-
maiion regarding it. — avravairXr^pS)] The double compound
is more greqjliic than the simple avaifKripoi, Phil. ii. 30 ;
1 Cor. xvi. 1 7 (/ fill iqj), since avri {to fill wp over against)
indicates what is brought in for the making complete over
against the still existing vareprjixara. 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 correspond-
ing adjustment} of the supplying of what is still wanting.
Comp. Dem. 182. 22 : avTava7fKripovvre<i nrpo^ rov eviropcora-
Tov ael T0U9 aTropMrdrov; (where the idea is, that the poverty
of the latter is comjjcnsated for by the wealth of the former) ;
so also avravaTrXrjpcixjL^, Epicur. ap. Diog. L. x. 48 ; Dio Cass,
xliv. 48 : 6(T0v . . . iveBei, tovto e/c t?^? 'jrapa rwv akXcov avvre-
X€ta<; dvrava7r\.7]po)df]. Comp. dvTefMTriTrXrjfMi, Xen. Anah. iv.
5. 28 ; dvTavaTfkrjdeiv, Xen. Sell. ii. 4. 12 ; and dvTLifXrjpovv,
Xen. Cgr. ii. 2. 26. The distinction of the word from the
simple dvairX.rjpovv does not consist in this, that the latter is
said of him, who " vareprj^ia a se relictum ipse explet," and
avravaifX.. of him, who " alterius vareprj/ia de suo explet " (so
"Winer, de verhor. c. praepos. in N. T. usu, 1838, III. p. 22) ;
nor yet in the endurance vieing with Christ, the author of the
afflictions (Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 275); but in the cir-
cumstance, that in avravaTrK. the filling up is conceived and
described as defectui rcspondens, in dvaifk., on the other hand,
^ Many ideas are arbitrarily introduced by commentators, in order to bring
out of tbe atri in ttVTata'rx. a reciprocal relation. See e.g. Clericus : " lUe ego,
qui olim ecclesiam Cbristi vexaveram, nunc vicissim in ejus ntilitatem pcrgo
multa mala perpeti." Others (see already Oecumenius) have found in it the
meaning : for requital of that which Christ suffered for us ; comp. also Grimm
in his iexicon. "Wetstein remarks shoi'tly and rightly : " inri ia-ripr.fiarti; suc-
Cedit •xXrtfUfi.a^" — or rather avofprkrifufia.
320 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
only in general as completio. See 1 Cor. xvi. 17 ; Phil. ii. 30 ;
Plat. Lcgg. xii. p. 957 A, Tim. p. 78 D, et cd. Comp. also
Tittmann, Synon. p. 230. — to, vareptj/xaTo] The plural
indicates those elements yet wanting in the sufferings of
Christ in order to completeness. Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 10;
2 Cor. ix. 1 2. — twv 6\iy^. tou XpLarov] rov X. is the geni-
tive of the suhjcd. Paul describes, namely, his own sufferings,
in accordance with the idea of the KOLvwveiv rot? rov Xpiarov
iraOrjpiaai (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 Ptom. viii. 17; 2 Cor. i. 5; Phil,
iii. 10. The collective mass of these afflictions is conceived
in the form of a definite measure, just as the phrases ava-
TrifiifkavaL kuko., avairXfjaaL kukov oItov, and the like, are
current in classic authors, according to a similar figurative
conception (Hom. II. viii. 34. 354, xv. 132), Schweigh. Lex.
Herod. I. p. 42. He only who has suffered all, has filled ttp
the measure. That Paul is now, in his captivity fraught
with danger to life, on the point (the present avravaifK.
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 varepijfia in
it, — this he regards as something grand and glorious, and
therefore utters the avravairk'qpw, which bears the emphasis at
the head of this declaration, with all the sense of triumph
which the approaching completion of such a work involves.
" / rejoice on account of the sufferings tvhich I endure for you,
and — so highly have I to esteem this situation of afflic-
tion — / am in the course of furnishing the comijlete fulfil-
ment of what in my case still remains in arrear of fellowship of
affliction with Christ." This lofty consciousness, this feeling
of the grandeur of the case, very naturally involved not only
the selection of the most graphic expression possible, avrava-
irXrjpo), to be emphatically prefixed, but also the description,
in the most honourable and sublime manner possible, of the
CHAP. I. 24. 321
apostolic afflictions themselves as the 6\i-^a<; rov Xpio-Tov}
since in their kind and nature they are no other than those
which Christ Himself has suffered. These sufferings arc,
indeed, sufferings for Chrisfs sake (so Vatablus, Schoettgen,
Zachariae, Storr, Eosenniiiller, Flatt, Bohmer, and others ;
comj). Wetstein), but they are not so designated by the geni-
tive ; on the contrary, the designation follows the idea of
ethical identity, which is conveyed in the iaofjuoipov elvac t&J
XpicrrS, as in Phil. iii. 10. Nor are they to be taken, with
Liicke (comp. Fritzsche, I.e.), as : " afflictiones, quae Paulo
apostolo Christo auctore et av.spiee Christo perferendae erant,"
since there is no ground to depart from the primary and most
natural designation of the suffering subject (^Xti/^i?, with the
genitive of the person, is alivo.ys so used in the N". T., e.fj. in
2 Cor. i. 4, 8, iv. 17 ; Eph. iii. 12 ; Jas. i. 27), considering how
current is the idea of the Koivcovla of the sufferings of Christ.
Theodoret's comment is substantially correct, though not
exhibiting precisely the relation expressed by the genitive :
XpL(no<i rov virep t?}? iKKXrjaia^ KareSi^aTo ddvarov . . . kuI
ra aWa oaa vTrefxeLve, Kal o 6eLo<i d7r6(TTo\o<i oiaavrca vTrep
avrrjii viriarr) ra iroiKcKa iraOrjixara. Ewald imports more,
when he says that Paul designates his sufferings from the
point of view of the continuation and further accomplishment
of the divine aim in the sufferings of Christ. Quite erroneous,
however, because at variance with the idea that Christ has
exhausted the suffering appointed to Him in the decree of God
for the redemption of the world (comp. also John xi. 52,
xix. :30 ; Luke xxii. 37, xviii. 31 ; Piom. iii. 25 ; 2 Cor. v. 21,
ct al), is not only the view of Heinrichs : " qualia et Christus
passurus fuisset, si diutius xixissct " (so substantially also
Phot. Amphil. 143), but also that of Hofmann, who explains
it to mean : the supplementary eontinuation 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 7iot have affected Christ,
1 When de Wette describes our view of ^Xi^f,. t. X. as tame, and Scbenkel as
tautological, tlie incorrectness of this criticism arises from their not observing
that the stress of the expression lies on uvrava.'rXnfu, and not on t, 6x. t. X.
COL. X
322 TUE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
because He was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel. As if
Christ's suffering were not, throughout the N". T., the one per-
fect and completely valid sujEfering /or all mankind, but were
rather to be viewed under the aspect of two quantitative
halves, one of which He bore Himself as Blukovo^ Treptroyu,^?
(Eom. XV. 8), leaving the other behind to be borne by Paul
as the BtBd(TKa\o<; edvcov ; so that the first, namely, that which
Jesus suffered, consisted in the fact that Israel hrovght Him
to the cross, because they would not allow Him to be their
Saviour ; whilst the other, as the complement of the first, con-
sisted in this, that Paul la)/ in ca'ptivity 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 hody,^
so that when the menibers suffer, the head suffers also. So
Chrysostom and Theophylact (who compare the apostle with
a lieutenant, who, when the general-in-chief is removed, takes
the latter's place and receives his wounds), Theodore of Mop-
suestia, Augustine, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Melanchthon,
Clarius, Cornelius a Lapide, Vitringa, Bengel, Llichaelis, and
others, including Steiger, Btihr, Olshausen, de Wette, Schenkel,
Dalmer ; comp. Grotius and Calovius, and even Bleek. But
the idea of Christ suffering in the sufferings of His people
^ Comp. also Sabatier, I'apdtre Paul, p. 213.
CHAP. I. M. 323
(Olsliausen : " Christ is the suffering God in the world's
history !") is nowhere found in the IST. 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 hy
it in the sense of suffering. He lives in His people (Gal. ii. 20),
speaks in them (2 Cor. xiii. 3) ; His heart beats in them
(PhiL i. 8) ; He is mighty in them (ver. 29), when they are
weak (2 Cor. xii. 9), their hope, their hfe, their victory ; but
nowhere is it said that He suffers in them. This idea, more-
over — which, consistently carried out, would involve even the
conception of the di/inff 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 e'f aa6eveia<i, He lives iic Bvvdfi€(o<}
0eov, 2 Cor, xiii. 4, at the right hand of God exalted aboA^e 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, Bellar-
mine, Salmeron, and others, of this explanation for the pur-
pose of establishing the treasury of indulgences, which consists
of the merits not merely of Christ but also of the apostles and
saints, is a Jewish error (4 Mace. vi. 26, and Grimm in loc),
historically hardly worthy of being noticed, though still de-
fended, poorly enough, by Bisping. — iv rfj a-apKc fiov] belongs
to avravairX., as to which it specifies the more 2^'^''<^cise mode;
not to Twv OXi'y^. T. X. (so Storr, Flatt, Bahr, Steiger, Bohmer,
Huther), with which it onight be combined so as to form one
idea, but it would convey a more precise description of the
Christ-sufferings experienced by the apostle, for Avhich there
was no motive, and which was evident of itself Belong-
ing to avravaifk., it contains with virep rev aco/u,. a. a pointed
definition (o-dp^ . . , awiia) of the mode and of the aim.^ Paul
accomplishes that dvTavaTrXrjpovv in his flesh^ which in its
• Steiger riglitly perceived that iv r. ca^xi fji.. and v-rif r. f. a. belong together ;
but he erroneously coupled both with ruv ^x. t. X. ("the sufferings which Christ
endures in my flesh for His body"), owing to his incorrect view of tlie ^xi^pus r. X
' Hofmann thinks, without reason, that, according to our explanation of
324 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
natural weakness, exposed to suffering and death, receives the
affliction from without and feels it x^sychically (comp. 2 Cor.
iv. 11 ; GaL iv. 14 ; 1 Pet. iv. 1), for the benefit of the hody
of Christ, which is the church (comp. ver. 18), for the con-
firmation, advancement, and glory of which (comp. above on
iiirep vfiMv) he endures the Christ - sufferings. Comp. Eph.
iii. 1 3. The significant purpose of the addition of iv rfj o-apKt
K.T.X is to bring out more clearly and render palpable, in
connection with the dvravaTrXrjpw k.t.X., what loft]/ happiness
he experiences in this very dvravaTfkrjpovv. He is therein
privileged to step in with his mortal cdp^ 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
rj<i iyevofiTjv k.t.X. (comp. on ver. 18) : whose servant I have
become in conformity with my divine appointment as preacher
to the Gentiles (Kara r. oIkov. k.t.\.). In this way Paul now
brings this his specific and clistinetivc ccdling into prominence
after the general description of himself as servant of the gospel
in ver. 23, and here again he gives expression to the conscious-
ness of his individual authority by the emphasized e7ct>. The
relation of the testimony regarding himself in ver. 2 5 to that
of ver. 23 is climactic, not that of a clumsy duplicate (Holtz-
mann). — Kara ttjv oiKovopb. k.t.\.'\ in accordance luith the
stewardship of God, which is given tome loith reference to you.
The oLKovofiia r. ©eov is in itself nothing else than a charac-
teristic designation of the apostolic office, in so far as its
holder is appointed as administrator of the household of God
(the olKoheairoTTj^), by which, in the theocratic figurative con-
ception, is denoted the church (comp. 1 Tim. iii. 15). Comp.
1 Cor. ix. 1 7, iv. 1 ; Tit. i. 7. Hence such an one is, in con-
sequence of this office conferred upon him, in his relation to
the church the servant of the latter (2 Cor. iv. 5), to which
a.}irava-rXt)pu x.r.X., we OUgllt tO joill Iv rjj ffccpxi fiov witll ruv ix'i^. T. X., aS the
latter would otherwise be without any reierence to the person of tlie apostle. It
has, in fact, this reference through the very statement, that the avruwrx^pout
X. T. X. takes places in the flesh of the apostle.
CHAP. I. 25. 323
function God has appointed him, just because he is His
steward. This sacred stewardship then receives its more pre-
cise distinguishing definition, so far as it is entrusted to Paul,
by the addition of et9 u/^a? k.t.X. It is purely arbitrary, and
at variance with the context {t7]v Sod. fMot), to depart from the
proper signification, and to take it as institution, arrcmrjcmcnt
(see on Eph. i. 10, iii. 2). So Chrysostom and his successors
(with much wavering), Beza, Calvin, Estius, Eosemniiller, and
others. It is w^ell said by Cornelius a Lapide : " in domo Dei,
quae est ecclesia, sum oeconomus, ut dispensem . . . bona et
dona Dei domini mei." Comp. on 1 Cor. iv. 1. — ei? u/xa?]
although the office concerned Gentile Christians generally ;
a concrete appropriation, as in ver. 24. Comp. on Phil. i. 24.
It is to be joined with t. Sodetadv fioc, as in Eph. iii. 2 ; not
with irXrjpwaaL k.tX. (Hofmann), with the comprehensive tenor
of which the individualizing "for you " is not in harmony,
when it is properly explained (see below). — 'irX7]pcoaat, k.t.\.]
telic infinitive, depending on t7]v SoOeiadv fiot et? vfj.a<;, beside
which it stands (Eom. xv. 15 f ) ; not on ?/? i^yev. Bmk.
(Huther). PauJ, namely, has received the office of Ajjostlc to
the Gentiles, in order through the discharge of it to hring to
co7n]pletion the gospel {tov Xoyov r. Geov, 1 Cor. xiv. 36 ;
2 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 2; 1 Thess. ii. 13; Acts iv. 29, 31, vi. 2,
and frequently), obviously not as regards its contents, but
as regards its universal destination, according to which the
knowledge of salvation had not yet reached its fulness, so long
as it was only communicated to the Jews and not to the
Gentiles also. The latter was accomplished through Paul, who
thereby made full the gospel — conceived, in respect of its
proclamation in accordance with its destiny, as a measure to be
filled — just because the divine stewardship /or the Gc7itilcs ha.d
been committed to him. The same conception of '7r\'t]pcoaL<;
occurs in Eom. xv. 19. Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. ; also
Calovius.^ Similarly Eengel : " ad omnes perducere ; P. ubique
ad summa tendit." Partly from not attending to the con-
textual reference to the element, contained in t. ho6. fxoc et?
' "Who rightly says : " Nimiram impletur ita vcvbum non ratio7ie siti ecu im-
perfectum, sed ratione hominum, cuin ad plures sese diffundit."
326 THE EPISTLE OF PxVUL TO THE COLOSSIANS,
y/i,a9, of the 7r\t]pci}(n^ of the gospel which was implied in
the Gentile - ayostolic ministry, and partly from not doing
justice to the verbal sense of the selected expression TrXrjpco-
aac, or attributing an arbitrary meaning to it, commentators
have taken very arbitrary views of the passage, such as, for
example, Luther : to preach cojnousli/ ; Olshausen, whom
Dalmer follows : " to proclaim it coinpletcly as respects its
whole tenor and compass ; " Cornelius a Lapide : " ut com-
pleam praedicationem ev., qiiam cocpit Christus ; " Vitringa,
Storr, riatt, Biihr : ifkr^povv has after "iw:) the signification of
the simple cloccre ; 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 cmpiti/ ; ^ de Wette : to
" execute" the word of God being regarded either as a commis-
sion or (comp. Heinrichs) as a decree; Estius and others,
following Theodoret: "ut omnia loca impleam vcrho Dei" (quite
at variance with the words here, comp. Acts v. 28); Fritzsche,
ad Eom. III. p. 275 : to sup)plemcnt, namely, ly continuing the
instruction of your teacher Epaphras. Others, inconsistently
with what follows, have explained the X0709 r. ©eov to mean
the divine promise (" partim de Christo in .genere, partim de
vocatione gentium," Beza, comp. Vatablus), in accordance with
which 'TrX.rjp. would mean cxscqui. Chrysostom has rightly
understood t. X6y. t. ©eov of the gospel, but takes TrXn^pwaai, to
which he attaches et? v[xa'i, 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 X070?
rov ©eov, and that as regards its great contents. — As to to
(jLvarripLov k.t.X., the decree of redemption, hidden from eternity
in God, fulfilled through Christ, and made known through the
gospel, see on Eph. i. 9. It embraces the Gentiles also ; and
this is a special part of its nature that had been veiled (see
Eph. iii. 5), which, however, is not brought into prominence till
' In a similarly artificial iasliion, cmptj-ing the purposely chosen expression of
its meaning, Hofmann comes ultimately to the bare sense : "to proclaim God's
word," asserting that the word is a J act, and so he who proclaims the fact
fulJiU it.
CHAP. I. 2G. 327
ver. 27. Considering the so frequent treatment of tliis idea
in Paul's writings, and its natural correlation with that of the
7z/wc7i9, an acquaintance with the Gospel of Matthew (xiii. 11)
is not to he inferred here (Holtzmann).^ — utto twv alcovwv
K. airo Tcov jevecov] This twofold description, as also the
repetition of utto, 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 airo rSiv aicavcov, comp. on Eph. iii. 9. Paul
could not write Trpo tcov aloov., because while the divine
decree ^q,s formed prior to all time (1 Cor. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 9),
its concecdment is not conceivable before the beginning of
the times and generations of mankind, to ichom it remained
unknown. Expressions such as Piom. xvi. 25,xpovoi<;alcovLOL^,^
and Tit. i. 2 (see Huther in loc), do not conflict with this
view. aiTo T. ryevewv 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). — vvvl he i(f)avepco6'r]'] A tran-
sition to the finite tense, occasioned by the importance of the
contrast. Comp. on i. 6. Eespecting vvvi, see on ver. 21. The
^avepa)<n<; has taken place differently according to the different
subjects; partly by a7ro/caXi;'\/ri9 (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 ; Eom. xvi. 2 6) ; partly
by both. The historical realization (de Wette ; comp. 2 Tim.
i. 10) was the antecedent of the ^avepcoaL<i, but is not here
this latter itseK, which is, on the contrary, indicated by roh
dyloci avrov as a special act of clearly manifesting communica-
' Just as little ground is there for tracing xara. ra hraXfmra, x.r.x., in ii. 22,
to Matt. XV. 9 ; ob Kfccruv, in ii. 19, to Matt. iii. 3, 4 ; aTam, in ii. 8, to
Matt. xiii. 22 ; and in other instances. The author, who manifests so much
lively copiousness of language, was certainly not thus confined and dependent
in thought and expression.
2 According to Holtzmann, indeed, p. 309 IT., the close of the Epistle to the
Eomans is to be held as proceeding from the post-apostolic auctor ad Ephesios, —
a position which is attempted to be proved by the tones (quite Pauline, how-
ever) which Rom. xvi. 15-27 has in common with Col. i. 26 f. ; Eph. iii. 20,
iii. 9, 10, V. 21 ; and in support of it an erroneous interpretation of S/a ypenpZt
vrfo^nrmui, in Eom. xvi. 26, is invoked.
328 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Hon. — TOi? dyloa avTov^ i.e. not : to the cqwstles and 2^voiiliets
of the K T. (Flatt, Biihr, Bohmer, Steiger, Olshausen, Baum-
garten-Crusius, following Estius and older expositors, and even
Theodoret, who, however, includes other Christians also), —
a view which is quite unjustifiably imported from Eph. iii. 5,^
whence also the reading iVKoaToKoi'^ (instead of a<yioL<i) 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 kXtjtoI ajiot
belonging to God, Kom. i. 7, viii. 30, ix. 23 f. Huther
wrongly desires to leave rol<i ayioi<; indefinite, because tlie
fjLVdTrjpLov, so far as it embraced the Gentiles also, had not
come to be known to many Jewish-Christians. But, apart from
the fact that the Judaists did not misapprehend the destina-
tion of redemption for the Gentiles in itself and generally,
but only the direct character of that destination (without a
transition through Judaism, Acts xv. 1, et al), the ecjiavepwOt]
Tot? dyioi<; avrou is in fact a summary assertion, which is to
be construed a j^oiiori, and does not cease to be true on
account of exceptional cases, in which the result was not
actually realized.
Ver. 27. Not eD:;posiiion of the i<j)avep. Tot<; dy. avrov, since
the lyvcopurat has for its object not the [xvan^ptov itself, but the
glory of the latter among the Gentiles. In reality, oh subjoins
an onvxird raovement of the discourse, so that to the general
ro iJLVcnrjpLov icftavepcaOg roL<; d<y. avrov a pa.Ttienlar clement is
added : " The mystery was made manifest to His saints, — to
them, to whom {quiirpe quihus) 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
ec^avepoiOr) Tot9 0.7/0^9 avrov God had this special definite
direction of His will. From this tlie reason is plain why Paul
has written, not simply oh iyvcopia-ev 6 0eo9, but oh ijdeXecrev
6 0eo9 yvwpicrat. The meaning that is usually discovered in
1 Holtzmann also, p. 49, would liave the apostles thouglit of "first of all."
The resemblances to Eph. iii. 3, 5 do not postulate the similarity of the con-
ception throughout. This would assume a mechanical process of thought,
which could not be proved.
CHAP. I. 27. 329
rjdekriacv, free grace, and the like (so Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Calvin, Beza, and many others, including Biihr, Bohmer, de
Wette ; Huther is, with reason, doubtful), is therefore not the
aim of the word, which is also not intended to express the
joyfidncss of the announcement (Hofmann), but simply and
solely the idea : " He had a mind." — ^vcopicrat] to make
Jcnoivn, like ec^avepuidr}, from which it differs in meaning not
essentially, but only to this extent, that by k4>avep. the thing
formerly hidden is designated as openly displayed (Piom. i. 19,
iii. 21, xvi. 26; Eph. v. 13, et al), and by jvcoplaac that
which was formerly unknown as hrought to hiowlcdfjc. Comp.
Eom. xvi. 26, ix. 22 ; Eph. i. 9, iii. 3, 5, 10, vi. 19 ; Luke
ii. 15, ct al. The latter is not related to i^avep. either as
a something more (Biihr: the making fully acquainted witli
the nature) ; or as its result (de Wette) ; or as entering
more into detail (Baumgarten-Crusius) ; or as mahing aware,
namely hy cxpei'ience (Hofmann). — rt to irkovro^ tti^ Bo^rj^
k.tX.] luhat is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the
Gentiles, i.e. ichat rich fulness of the glory contcdned in this
mystery exists among the Gentiles, — since, indeed, this riches
consists in the fact (09 errrt), that Christ is among yon, in
whom ye have the hope of glory. In order to a proper inter-
pretation, let it be observed: (1) tL occupies ivith emphasis
the place of the indirect o, Tt (see Poppo, ad Xen. Cyrop. i. 2,
10 ; Kithner, ad Mem. i. 1. 1 ; Winer, p. 158 f. [E. T. 210]),
and denotes " quax 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 to ttXouto?. (2)
All the substantives are to be left in their full solemn force,
without being resolved into adjectives (Erasmus, Luther, and
many others : the glorious riches ; Beza : " divitiae gloriosi
hujus niysterii"). Chrysostom aptly remarks: a-e/ivm elire
Kol oyKOV e7redrjK€v utto ttoWt)? Bta6icr€Ci><;, €7rLTdaei<; ^tjtwv
eTTLTaaecov. Comp. Calvin : " magniloquus est in extollenda
evaugelii dignitate." (3) As Tf;? Sof?;? is governed by to
ttXouto?, so also is rov /MvaTrjpiov governed by rrj^ B6^7)<;, and
€v ToU edv. belongs to the iari which is to be supplied, comp.
330 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Epli. i. 18. (4) According to the context, tlie Bo^a cannot
be anything else (see immediately below, ^ cXttI? tt}? Bo^t]^)
than the 3Icssianic glory, the glory of the kingdom (Eom.
viii. 18, 21 ; 2 Cor. iv. 17, et al.), the glorious blessing of the
K\7}povofj,ia (comp. ver. 12), which before the Parousia (Eom.
viii. 30 ; Col. iii. 3 f.) is the ideal (eX-Tr/?), but after it is the
realized, possession of believers. Hence it is neither to be
taken in the sense of the glorious effects generally, which the
gospel produces among the Gentiles (Chrysostom, Theophy-
lact, and many others, including Huther, comp. Dalmer), nor
in that specially of their conversion from death to life (Hof-
mann), whereby its glory is unfolded. Just as little, however,
is the Bo^a of God meant, in particular His wisdom and
grace, which manifest themselves objectively in the making
known of the mystery, and realize themselves subjectively
by moral glorification and by the hope of eternal glory (de
Wette), or the splendor internus of true Christians, or the bliss
of the latter combined with their moral dignity (Bohmer).
(5) The genitive of the siibject, rev fivarrjpLov tovtov, defines the
Bo^a as that contained in the /xvaWjptov, previously unknown,
but now become manifest with the mystery that has been
made known, as the blessed contents of the latter. Comp.
ver. 23 : eXTri? rov evayyeXLov. To take the Bo^a as attrihute
of the mystcrg, is forbidden by what immediately follows,
according to which the idea can be none other than the
familiar one of that glory, which is the proposed aim of the
saving revelation and calling, the object of faith and hope (in
opposition to Hofmann and many others) ; iii. 4. Comp. on
Rom. V. 2. — ev toI<; eOveacv] ^alverau Be iv eT€poi<i, ttoWoj Be
TrXeov ev tovtol^ rj nroWr) rov fMvarrjpLov Bo^a, Chrysostom.
" Qui tot saeculis demersi fuerant in morte, ut viderentur
penitus desperati," Calvin. — 09 eart Xpiaro'i iv v/xiv] " Christus
in gentihus, sum mum illis temporibus paradox on," Bengel.
According to a familiar attraction (Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 2 7]),
this 09 applies to the previous subject ro ifXovro'i Tr]<; So^;?
Tov fivar. T., and introduces that, in ivhich this riches consists.
Namely : Christ among you, — in this it consists, and by this
information is given at the same time how great it is (rt icrriv).
CHAP. I. 27. 331
Formerly they were %c«)/3i<? Xptarov (Epli. ii. 12) ; now Christ,
"who by His Spirit reigns in the hearts of believers (Eom.
viii. 10; Eph. iil 17; Gal. ii. 20; 2 Cor. iii. 17, et al), is
present and active among them. The proper reference of the
relative to to 7r\ovro<i k.t.X., and also the correct connection of
€v vfuv with Xpicrro^ (not with 77 eX,7rt9, as Storr and Flatt
think), are already given by Theodoret and Oecumenius (comp.
also Theophylact), Valla, Luther, Calovius, and others, includ-
ing Bohmer and Bleek, whereas Hofmann, instead of closely
connecting XpcaTo^; iv v/mIv, makes this iv v[uv depend on
ecrrl, whereby the thoughtful and striking presentation of the
fact " Christ among the Gentiles " is without reason put in the
background, and eV vfxlv becomes superfluous. Following the
Vulgate and Chrysostom, o? is frequently referred to tov
fivaTTjp. TovTov : " this mystery consists in Christ's being
among you, the Gentiles," Huther, comp. Ewald. The con-
text, however, is fatal to this view ; partly in general, because
it is not the mystery itself, but the riches of its glory,
that forms the main idea in the foregoing ; and partly, in
particular, because the way has been significantly prepared
for 09 earL through rt, while iv vfMtv corresponds^ to the iv
Tot? edvecTLv referring to the ttXovto^, and the following -q eXTrt?
T?7? S6^r)<; glances back to the ttXovto'; t^9 B6^7)<;. — Xptcrro?]
Christ Himself, see above. Neither 77 tov X. yvcoai<i (Theo-
phylact) is meant, nor the doctrine, either of Christ (Grotius,
Eosenmiiller, and others), or ahout Christ (Flatt). On the
individualizing vfuv, although the relation concerns the Gen-
tiles generally, comp. v/xa? in ver. 25. "Accommodat ipsis
Colossensibus, ut efiicacius in se aguoscant," Calvin. — rj i\7rU
tt}? Bo^Tj'i] characteristic apposition (comp. iii. 4) to Xpicrro^,
giving information how the Xpia-To<; iv vplv forms the great
riches of the glory, etc. among the Gentiles, since Christ is
the hope of the Messianic Zo^a, in Him is given the loossession
in hope of the future glory. The emphasis is on 97 eXTrtV, in
which the probative element lies. Compare on the subject-
^ Hence also to be rendered not in vobis (Lutlier, Bohmer, Olshausen), but
inter vos. Tlie older writers combated tlie rendering in vobis from opposition to
the Fanatics.
332 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
matter, Eom. viii. 24 : t^ f^ap ekiriht, ia-coOrjixev, and the contrast
iXTriSa firj e'XpvTe'i in Epli. ii. 12; 1 Tliess. iv. 13; and on
the concrete expression, 1 Tim. i. 1 ; Ignat. Epli. 2 1 ; Magnes.
11; Ecchis. xxxi. 14; Thuc. iii. 5 7. 4; Aesch. Cli. 236.
776.
Ver. 28. Christ was not proclaimed by all in the definite
character just expressed, namely, as " Christ among the G entiles,
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 oV (Erasmus and others), but the
r}^et9, which is otherwise superfluous, is brought forward ;^ by
Avhich Paul has meant himself along with Timothy and other
like-minded preachers to the Gentiles (ivc, on our imri). This
emphasizing of »//iet9, however, requires the 6v to be referred
to Clu-ist regarded in the Gentilc-Mcssianie character, precisely
as the i7/iet9 make Him known (comp. Phil. i. 17 £), thereby
distinguishing themselves from others ; not to Christ generally
(Hofmann), in which case the emphasizing of i^^ei? is hchl
to obtain its explanation only from the subsequent clause
of purpose, 'Iva Trapaar. k.t.X. — The specification of the mode
of announcement vov6eTovvT€<; and B(,Sda-KovTe<;, admonishing
and teaching, corresponds to the two main elements of the
evangelical preaching p,€TavoeiTe and Tria-Tevere (Acts xx. 21,
xxvi. 18; Eom. iii. 3 ff . ; Mark i. 15). Picspectrng the idea
of vovOerelv, see on Eph. vi. 4. It occurs also joined with
hih/mK^ in Plato, Legg. viii. p. 845 B, Frot. p. 323 D, Apol.
p. 20 A; Dem. 130. 2. — eV irdarj a-ocfila] belongs to vovOef.
and StBdaK. : hy means of every ivisdorn (comp. iii. 1 6) which
we bring to bear thereon. It is the ttco? 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
' Without due reason, Holtzmann, p. 153, finds the use of the plural disturb-
ing, and the whole verse tautological as coming after ver. 25. It is difficult,
however, to mistake the full and solemn style of the passage, to which also the
thrice repeated -raira. a^iSpwrov belongs.
^ In iii. 16 the two words stand in the inverse order, because there it is not
the /jLtravouy 211'cceding the vitrnt which is the aim of the nouhtria, but mutual
improvement on the part of believers.
CHAP. I. 29. 333
1 Cor. i. 17, comp. ii. 1, 4, repudiates the a-o^ia Xoyov in his
method of teaching, is not — taking into consideration the sense
in which o-o(})ia there occurs — at variance, but rather in keeping,
with the present assertion, which applies, not to the wisdom of
the iforld, hut to Christian wisdom in its manifold forms. —
The thrice rqjcated irdvra avdpcoirov (in opposition to the
Judaizing tendency of the false teachers) " maximam habet
BeivoTTjra ac vim," Bengel. The proud feeling of the apostle of
the v/orld expresses itself.^ — iva irapaa-rrja. k.tX."] The pur-
pose of the ov rjfiei^; KaTayyeWofiev down to ao(f)la. This
purpose is not in general, that man may so a2')pear (Bleek), or
come to stand so (Hofmanu), but it refers, as in ver. 22, and
without mixing up the conception of sacrifice (in opposition to
Biihr and Baumgarten-Crusius), to the judgment (comp. on
2 Cor. iv. 14), at which it is the highest aim and glory
(1 Thess. ii. 19 f.) of the apostolic teachers to mctlcc every man
come forward rekeiov iv X. 'Ev Xpiaro) contains the distin-
guishing specialty of the reXetoTT]^, 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 ivltole
Christian nature ; not merely of knowledge (Chrysostom,
Theophylact, and others, including Bohmer), but also of life.
]\loreover, this ev X. is so essential to the matter, and so cur-
rent with the apostle, that there is no ground for finding in it
an opposition to a doctrine of the law and of angels (Chrysostom,
Theophylact, and others). Theophylact, however (comp. Chry-
sostom), rightly observes regarding the entire clause of purpose :
Tt \eyei<i ; Trdvra dvOpwirov ; vai, ^rjcn, tovto aTrovBd^ofieV et
he fi7] ryevTjTUi,, ovSev 7rpo<; rj/Ma'i.
Ver. 29. On the point of now urging upon the readers
their obligation to fidelity in the faith (ii, 4), and that from
the platform of the personal relation in which he stood
towards them as one imknown to them by face (ii. 1), Paul
' "Which Hofmann groundlessly calls in question, finding in Tayra ccvfpwrov
the idea: "every one singhj and severally." This is gratuitously introduced,
and would have been significantly expressed by Paul through hcc iKaffrov (Acts
XX. 31), or through the addition of xaff Vva, or otherwise ; comp. also 1 Thess.
ii. 11. Calvin hits the thought properly : "ut sine exceptione totus mundus ex
vie discat."
334 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
now turns from the form of expression embracing others in
common ivitli Jiimsclf, into wliich he had glided at ver. 28 in
harmony with its contents, back to the individual form (the
first person singidar), and asserts, first of all, in connection
with ver. 28, that for the purpose of the irapaxTrrjaai, k.t.X. (et?
o, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 10) he also gives himself even toil {kottlS),
comp. Eom. xvi. 6, 12 ; 1 Cor, iv. 12), striving, etc. — kul']
also, subjoins the KOTriav to the KarayyeWeiv k.t.X., in which
he subjects himself cdso to the former ; it is therefore aicg-
mentativc, in harmony with the climactic progress of the dis-
course ; not a mere equalization of the aim and the stri^dng
(de Wette). Neither this Kal, nor even the transition to the
singular of the verb, — especially since the latter is not empha-
sized by the addition of an ijoo, — can justify the interpretation
of Hofmann, according to which et? o is, contrary to its position,
to be attached to dyQivi^6/j.€vo<;, and kottlco is to mean : " /
hccome weary and faint" (comp. John iv. 6 ; Eev. ii. 3, and
Diisterdieck in lac). Paul, who has often impressed upon others
the 117} etcKUKdv, and for himself is certain of being more than
conqueror in all things (Eom. viii. 37; 2 Cor. iv. 8, et al.),
can hardly have borne testimony about himself in this sense,
with which, moreover, the aycovi^eaOac in the strength of Christ
is not consistent. In his case, as mxich as in that of any one, the
ovK iKOTTiaaa'i of Eev. ii. 3 holds good. — a'yoivLll,6fMevo<i\ Com-
pare 1 Tim. iv. 10. Here, however, according to the context,
ii. 1 ff'., the inivarcl strivmg (comp. Luke xiii. 24) against difi&-
culties and hostile forces, the striving of solicitude, of watching,
of mental and emotional exertion, of prayer, etc., is meant ; as
respects which Paul, like every regenerate person (Gal. v. 17),
could not be raised above the resistance of the adp^ to the
TTvevixa ruling in him. Comp. Chrysostom : kclI ov'^ aTrXw?
airovhd^u), (j)7]cnv, ovSe &)? 6TV)(ev, aXka kottcw dycovi^ofievo';
fxera ttoW?}? t?}? (TttouS)}?, fieTa ttoXX?}? t?}? dypv7rvia<i. It is
not : " tot me periculis ac malis objicere" (Erasmus, comp.
Grotius, Estius, Heinrichs, Bahr, and others), which outivard
struggling, according to Flatt, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius,
and others, should be understood along with that inioard
striving ; ii, 1 only points to the latter ; comp. iv, 12. — Kara
CHAP. I. 29. 335
Trjv ivepyeiav /c.t.X.] for Paul docs not contend, amid the labours
of his office, according to the measure of his own strength,
but according to the effectual ivorhing of Christ (avToO is not to
be referred to God, as is done by Chrysostom, Grotius, Flatt,
Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), loMch worketh in him. Comp,
Phil. iv. 13. How must this consciousness, at once so humble
and confident of victory, have operated upon the readers to
stir them up and strengthen them for stedfastness in the faith !
— rrjv ivepjovfjb.] is middle ; see on 2 Cor. i. G ; Gal. v. 6 ;
Eph. iii. 20. The modal definition to it, iv hwdfiei, mightily
(comp. on Eom. i. 4), is placed at the end significantly, as in
2 Thess. i. 1 1 ; it is groundlessly regarded by Holtzmann as
probably due to the interpolator.
33b THE EPISTLE OF Tx^^UL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
CHAPTEE II.
Vee. 1. 'TTspl'] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read uts/^, following AB D*
P N min. But how easily may vTrip have been suggested to the
copyists by i. 24 and iv. 12! — The form sujpay.av (Lachm. and
Tisch. 7) or iopazav (Tisch. 8) is more than sufficiently attested
by A B C D* i<*, etc., to induce its reception in opposition to
the usage elsewhere. Eespecting this Alexandrian form see
Winer, p. 73 [E. T. 90] ; and on I6p., Fritzsche, ad Ao'istojoh. Th.
32. — Ver. 2. Instead of (ru/^/Sz/Sac^Ei/rj 5, Elzevir has (Tu,a/3//3a(r^£i/ri>;i/,
in opposition to decisive testimony; an emendation. — 'xdvra
■rXourov] A C min. have crav t-o 'jt'KoZto; (so Lachm. Tisch. 7), and are
also joined by B K* Clem, with rrav 'jXourog (so Tisch. 8). Here
also (comp. i. 27) the neuter is the original ; in thinking of the
more common 6 -xXoZrog the riANTO became IIANTA, in accord-
ance with which 'xXourov 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 roD GioxJ (so Griesb.
Scholz, Tisch. 7, Einck; among modern expositors, Biihr,
Olshausen, de Wette,Ewald), Elzevir has rou Qsou -/.a) iraTphg xai
roZ XpicTov, while Lachm. reads rou QtoZ Xpiarou, and Tisch. 8 roij
Q-ou, Xpiarov. Among the numerous various readings, rou ©soy
Xpiarov (also adopted by Steiger, Huther, Bleek, Hofmann) is
certainly strongly enough attested! by B. Hilar, (but without
vss.), while the simple roZ Gsou has only 37, G7**, 71, 80*, IIG,
Arm. al. Void, in its favour. A C ii*, 4, Sahid. Vulg. ms. have
Tou 0IOJ 'xarpog (roZ) X., which Bolimer and Eciche prefer, whilst
N** Syr. p. have r. ©sou zai -Trarp. roj X., and others still, such as
Syr. Copt. Chrys. read r. 0. Tarp&j xaJ rod Xpiarou, and conse-
quently come nearest to the Bcccpta ; but a few authorities,
after the mention of God, insert h XpiarCj, as Clem. Ambrosiaster :
Toj ©joD sv X. Eegarding these variations we must judge thus :
(1) the far too weak attestation of the bare t-oS Qsov is decisive
against it ; (2) the reading of Lachm. : rov QsoZ Xpiarov, is to be
regarded as the original, I'rom which have arisen as glosses the
amplifications roy QsoZ rrarpog to\J X.,^ and roZ QioZ Tarp. xoci ro\J X.^
* If this reading, relatively so strongly attested, were the original one, it
would not be easy to see why it should have been glossed or altered. The
CHAP. II. 337
as well as the Eeccpta ; (3) the reading roj QioZ Iv Xpiorui arose
out of a gloss {iv Xpiarui) written on the margin at iv Z, in accord-
ance with i. 27, which supplanted the original XpiSTou ; (4) the
iv xpisruj thus introduced was again subsequently eliminated,
without, however, the original XpiaroZ being reinserted, and thus
arose the reading of Griesb. rou Qsou, which therefore — and with
this accords its late and weak attestation — appears to be merely
a half completed critical restoration. — Ver. 4. di] is wanting in
B N*, Tisch, 8 ; but it was readily omitted by the copyists before
the syllable AE. — ^^ r/s] Lachm, and Tisch. read fir,ds/g, which,,
following preponderant codd. (A B C D E P N), is to be pre-
ferred. — Ver. 7. iv TTj T/ffr.] Lachm. and Tisch. have only r^
rrldTu, following B D* min. Vulg. It. Archel. Ambrosiast,
Theophyl. Properly ; the iv was mechanically introduced from
the adjoining text. — iv aJri^] though suspected by Griesb., and
rejected by Tisch. 8 (it is wanting in A C N*, min. Copt. Tol.
Archel.), is to be defended. Its omission was easily occasioned
by the fact that mpiffff. was found to be already accompanied by
a more precise definition expressed by iv. The iv avrw read by
D* K**, 1, Pel. vss., though only a mechanical repetition of the
preceding iv ahrui, testifies indirectly to the fact that originally
iv a\irr\ was in the text. — Ver. 10. oc ienv'] Lachm. reads o ioTiv,
following B D E F G Germ. Hilar. A mistaken correction,
occasioned by the reference of the preceding iv airw to to
rrX^puij^a. — Ver. 11. After sujiMarog Elz. liaS rm aiiapriMV, an
exegetical addition, in opposition to decisive testimony. Comp.
Eom. vi. 6. — Ver. 13. The second lij^ag is indeed wanting in
Elz., but receives so sufticient attestation through A C Iv L K*,
min. vss. and Fathers, that its omission must be explained on
the ground of its seeming superfluous. B min. Ambr. have
r,lj.ag, which is conformed to the following r,ij.vj. Instead of this
tumTv, Elz. has y/i/'f, in opposition to decisive testimony. — Ver.
17. a] Lachm. reads '6, following B F G It, Goth. Epiph. Am-
brosiast. Aug. To be preferred, inasmuch as the plural vras
naturally suggested to the copyists by the plurality of the
things previously mentioned. — Ver. 18. a ij.-}] IJjpaziv] iin is
wanting in A B D* N*, 17, 28, 67**, Copt. Clar. Germ. codd.
in Aug., Or. ed. Tert. ? Lucif. Ambrosiast., while F G have oh/..
The negation is with justice condemned by Griesb., Steiger,
Olshausen, Huther, Ewald ; deleted by Tisch. 8 (bracketed by
Lachm.), although defended specially by Eeiche, whom Hof-
original expression must have given rise to dogmatic scruples, and only the
description of God as roZ Qtou Kpifrou could have done so.
COL. Y
338 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
mann also follows. An addition owing to misapprehension.
See the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 20. el] Elz. reads si olv, in.
opposition to decisive testimony. An addition for the sake of
connecting, after the analogy of ver. 16 and iii. 1.
Expressing in a heart-winning way his earnest concern for
the salvation of the souls of his readers, Paul introduces
(w. 1-3) what he has to urge upon them in the way of
warning against the seduction of false teachers (vv. 4, 5), of
exhortation to faithfulness (vv. 6, 7), and then, again, of warn-
ing (ver. 8). He then supports what he has urged by sub-
joining the relative soteriological instructions and remindings
(vv. 9-15), from which he finally draws further special
warnings as respects the dangers threatening them on the
part of the false teachers (vv. 16-23).
Ver. 1, rdp] The apostle now confirms in concreto the et? o
K. Koir. aya)vi,^6/jLevo<i K.r.\, which has just been affirmed of
himself in general : in 'proof of that assertion I would have
you to know, etc. Hofmann holds erroneously, in consequence
of his mistaken explanation of kottlw in i. 29, that Paul desires
to explain why he lias said that he is hccominrj loeary over the
exertion, etc. — Instead of the more frequent ov 6i\co v/xa<;
ayvoelv (see on Eom. xi. 25, i. 13), Paul uses the Oekco vfM.
elBevat, also in 1 Cor. xi. 3 ; comp. Phil. i. 1 2. — rfkUov]
wh^t 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 tlie N". T. it is only found again at Jas.
iii. 5. That by the confiiet is meant the internal jjressure of
solicitude ayid apprehension, etc. (comp. i. 2 9, also Eom. xv. 3 0),
is plain — when we remember the imprisoned condition of the
apostle, who now could not contend outwardly with the false
teachers themselves — from ver. 2. It is at the same time self-
evident that the wrestling of prayer was an eminent way of con-
ducting this spiritual conflict, without its being necessary to
regard iv. 12 as a criterion for determining the sense in our
passage. — koI twv ev AaoBiK.'] The neighbouring Laocliceans
(Rev. iii. 14 ff.) were without doubt exposed to like heretical
dangers ; hence also the injunction as to the mutual communi-
cation of the Epistles, iv. 16. — koX oaot at.t.X] The sense is:
CHAP. II. 1. 339
and generally {icai, see Fritzsche, ad Mattli. p. 786. 870) for
all to whom I am ^personally unknoion. It adds the entio^e
category, to which the v^ieh and those ev AaoBtKeia, both
regarded as churches, were reckoned to hclong. 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 ocrot k.tX. under-
stood as referring to a portion of the Colossians and Laodiceans,
in which case /cat would mean even ; but the text itself is deci-
sively opposed to this view by the following auroov, ver. 2, which,
if the oaot k.t.X. to which it refers be not the class in which
the readers and Laodiceans were included, would be altogether
unsuitable; as, indeed, the bare even does not suffice to give
special prominence to a particular portion (we should expect
fiaktara he or the like), and the comprehensive ocoi, withal does
not seem accounted for. Erroneous also is the view (held
already by Theodoret in the Hypothes. and in the Commentary,
though Credner, Einl. § 154, erroneously denies this) of
Baronius, Lardner, and Da\'id Schultz (in the Stud. u. Krit.
1829, p. 535 ff.), that the 6<7ol k.t.X. were other than the vfieh
and ol ev AaoBtK. ; Paul having been personally known to
both the latter. The subsequent avrcov is fatal to this theory
likewise ; and how singularly without reason Avould it have
been, if Paul had designated as the objects of his anxiety,
along with two churches of the district which are supposed
to have known him personally, all not knowing him personally,
without distinction of locality ! With how many of the
latter were there no such dangers at all existing, as the Colos-
sians and Laodiceans were exposed to ! To this falls to be
added the fact, that in the entire Epistle there is not a single
hint of the apostle having been present in Colossae. See, on
the contrary, on i. 8 and on i. 23. Comp. Wieseler, Chronol.
des apost Zeitalt. p. 440. According to Hilgenfeld, in his
Zeitschr. 1870, p. 245 f., the intimation that Paul was per-
sonally unknown to the Colossians betrays the comiwsition of
the Epistle at a later time, when the recollection of his labours
there had been already superseded and had vanished from the
memory of the churches. As if such a forgetfulness were
340 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS
even conceivable, in presence of the high esteem in which the
apostle was held ! — That Paul should have been so concerned
about the Colossians and Laodiceans, as those who did not know
him pcrsoncdly, is natural enough, seeing that they were not
in a position to oppose the living impression of the apostle's
personal ministry, and his direct authority, to the heretical
seductions. Comp. ver. 5. — ev crapKl] not belonging to
eoipuKaac — in which case it would be a contrast to seeing ev
TTvevnari (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Baumgarten-Crusius) —
joins itself, so as to form one idea, with to irpoawirov fiov
(Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 169]). See ver. 5. The addition, which
might in itself be dispensed with (comp. Gal. i. 22 ; 1 Thess.
ii. 17), serves the purpose of concrete representation, wiihont its
being necessary to import into it a contrast to the " spiritual
^physiognomy" (Olshausen), or to the having made acquaintance
in a spiritual fashion (Hofmann), in connection with which
Estius even discovers a certain TaTreivcoai^; 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 lodily
face. There is all the less ground for assigning iv aapKi, 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 lie comforted, viz. practically by the fact,
that they are united in love, etc. Accordingly, avfi/3i./3aa&.
K.rX. 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 7rapdK\'qaL<; twv KapSioov avrcoy, 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 consolcniur''). Chrysostom
remarks aptly (comp. Theophylact) : rjhr] Xonrov cTrevSet kuI
wBlvec ifx^akuv eh to B6y/xa, ovtc KaTrjyopcov ovTe airaXkdTTWv
CHAP. n. 2. 341
avToi/^ KaTr)yopia<;. The explanation which makes irapaKoX.
mean, like j'cx (LXX. Deut. iii. 28 ; Job iv. 3), to strengthen,
confirm (so Huther, de "VVette, Baumgarten-Criisius), is quite
opposed to the Pauline usage, according to which it means to
exhort (so Luther here), to give consolation (so Hofmann ; comp.
Bleek), to entreat, to encourage, to comfort ; the latter in par-
ticular when, as here, it is joined with KapSia. Comp. iv. 8 ;
Eph. vi. 22 ; 2 Thess. ii. 17 (also Ecclus. xxx. 23). — a-v/ji,-
^i^aaOevTe'i] referred to the logical subject of the foregoing,
i.e. to the i^c.'^'sons, of whom al KupBiac avrwv 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 lin-
guistic usage does not permit, but brought together, itnited,
comjxicti (ver. 19 ; Eph. iv. 16 ; Thuc. ii. 29. 5 ; Herod, i. 74 ;
and see 'NVetstein and Valckenaer, ^Sc/ioZ. I. p. 453 f.). In con-
nection therewith, iv dyaTrrj, which denotes Christian brotherly
love, is the moral clement, in which the union is to subsist ; to
which is then added the telic reference of avfi^i^aaO. by Kal
649 K.r.\. : united in love ctnd for behoof of the full richness,
etc., i.e. in order, by that union, to attain the possession of
this full richness, which could not be attained, but only
hindered, by division and variance, /cat et9 is not to be
joined with TrapuKX. (Storr, Flatt), since the «at rather adds
to the ei'-relation of the av/j,^L^. its eiV-relation, and is there-
fore merely the simple and, not ctiam (Bengel, Hofmann) ;
but not to be explained either as ct quidem (Bilhr, Bohmer),
or by an eXOaxri to be supplied (Olshausen permits a choice be-
tween the two). — T?}? 7r\7]po(f). ri}? avvia.] The full certainty
of Christian insight is the lofty blessing, the ivhole riches of
' So Hofmann, who couples it in this sense with tU *«» ri rrXoZre;, taking Iv
aya-rn adverbially, and explaining the Ka'i, which stands in the way, in the sense
of ^^ even," to the effect that this introduction into all riches of the v.nderstanding
has as its presupposition another introduction, viz. that into the faith. This is
a sophistically forced mode of disposing of the xai, suggested by nothing in the
context, especially since faith by no means, either of itself or in vv. 5-7, falls to
be considered as a jjreliminary stafje, as if the TXyifioipiifia, x.r.x., like a new
stadium, had to be entered upon through a second introduction ; on the contrary,
this -rXyifit^ofla, is the full rich development of faith in the inner life. We may
add that ff-u^jS/iS«^si» = <o introduce is nothing but a lexicographical Jiction
invented by Hofmann. Chrysostom already says rightly : »'»« ivuiufi.
342 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
which, i.e. its blissful possession as a whole, they are to attain,
so that in no element of the avveai'^ and in no mode thereof
does there remain any lack of completely undouhting convic-
tion;^ comp. 1 Thess. i. 5 ; Heb. vi. 11, x. 22 ; Eom. iv. 21,
xiv. 5. On the conception of ifKTjpo^opetv, see Bleek on Hcbr.
II. 2, p, 233 f. As to avvecn<;, intelligence, both theoretical and
practical, comp. on i. 9 ; that here also what is specifically
Christian is meant Kar e^o'x^v, is plain from the context.
See the sequel. The cumulative fulness of the description
'iTav TO irX. T. TrXrjp. r. avvecr. is naturally and earnestly called
forth by the consideration of the dangers which threatened
the 'jT\7]po(p. T. crvvea: through the attempts of false teachers
(ver. 4). OlSa, on 'rricrrevere, aXka 7r\T]po<f)opT]6r]vat v/j,a<;
^ovXofxaf ouK eh rov ttKovtov fxovov, aXV eh irdvra rov
ifKovrov, 'iva aaX ev Trdcn koI eTrcTeTafievoyi TreTrXripotpoprjfxevot
^re, Chrysostom. — et? eirrjvwcnv /c.t.X,.] parallel to the pre-
ceding eh Trdv rb 7r\ovTo<i k.t.\., and destined to bring in with
emphasis the great ohjcct of the (Tvveai,<i (the divine counsel of
redemption, to fxva-T'^piov, see on i. 26) ; so that what was
previously set forth at length by eh 'irdv to 7rXovTo<; r. TrXijpocf).
T. avvia. is now succinctly summed ^tp for the sake of annex-
ing the object by eh eirir^voaaiv. Thus the distinction between
e'7rl^v(o(TL<i and <yv(Joai<; (ver. 3) is brought out clearly.^ Comp.
on i. 9. But Tov fiuar. t. 0. is not to be attached also to t?}?
avveaeo)^ (Hofmann), so that the rr]v eirv^vwaiv would occupy an
interrupting position. — tov ©eou] Genitive of the subject ; it
is God, whose decree the iivcjT. is. The reading to be approved,
tov 0eov XpiaTov (see the critical remarks), means : of the God
of Christ, i.e. to ichom Christ hclongs in a special way, as to
His Father, Sender, Head, etc. ; see on Eph, i, 17; comp.
' Neither Greek autliors, nor the LXX., nor the Apocrypha have !rX»/ioipa^;'a.
In Ptol. Tetr. p. 4. 9, vXnptip'opnm is found.
2 According to Holtznumn, p. 303, in the frequent mention of yvua-i; and
tT/yv&KT;;, of (ro(pia and (Tuviri;, of yvedpi^nv and (piyr/^s/v, of fiutrnfioi) a-TroKiKfVfi,//,.
and (pavipatris mu fiuirr., \ve may detect ah-eady the terminology of the Grecian
mysteries. As if these ideas and expressions were not sufficiently Pauline, and
their intentional application were not sufficiently intelligible in the light of
theosophic aberrations. Comp. also on i. 23 ; and Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 420,
ed. 2.
CHAP. II. s. 343
John XX. 17; Matt, xxvii. 46. The separation of XpLarov,
however, from t. ©eov, and the taking it as apposition to rov
fjLvarrjp. tov Qeov, so that Christ Himself appears as the ^3tT-
sonal secret of God, " because He is personally the truth con-
tained in God and revealed from God" (Hofmann, comp.
Holtzmaun, p. 215), must be rejected, because Paul would
thus have expressed himself in a way as much exposed to mis-
apprehension as possible. He would either have inserted an
o eo-Tt after tov Qeov (i. 24; 1 Cor. iii. 11), or have omitted
rov Qeov, which w^ould have made to fivarypLov Xptarov,
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
GocVs (see on 1 Cor. iii. 23 ; comp. Luke ii. 26, ix. 20 ; Acts
iv. 26), then God is also the God of Christ. After Qeov,
therefore, no comma is to be inserted. Finally, the view of
Hilary (" Deus Christus sacramentum est"), that 6 ©eo? is
Christ Himself (so Steiger and Bisping, also Philippi, Glau-
hensl IV. 1, p. 460, ed. 2), is wholly without Pauline analogy,
and is not to be supported by such passages as Piom. ix. 5 ;
Tit. ii. 13 ; Eph. v. 5 ; in fact, even the lofty predicates em-
ployed 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 (Eeiche), than the phrase o ©eo? tov
Kvpiov rjfi. 'Itjo-ov X. in Eph. i. 17; since in connection with
the notion " the God of Christ," the designation of the latter
as our Lord is unessential. The addition Xpta-Tov finds its
motive in the connection, because it was just in Christ that
God formed the decree of redemption (the /jLvar/jpcov), and has
carried it out (Eph. iii. 10 f., ct a!.). Whosoever has known
God as the God of Christ, has the divine iivart'ipiov therewith
unveiled to him.
Ver. 3. ^Ev cS] is to be referred to tov /xvarripLov — a
remark which applies also in the case of every other reading
of the foregoing words — not to Christ,^ as is commonly done
^ Older dogmatic expositors (see especially Calovius) discover here the omni-
science of Christ.
344 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSLVXS.
with the Bcccpta, and by Bohmer, Dalmer, and Hofmann even
with our reading. The correct reference is given, in connec-
tion with the Ecccpta, by Grotius (against whom Calovius
contends), Hammond, Bengel, and Michaelis ; and in connec-
tion with our reading, by Huther, Schenkel, and Bleek ; its
correctness appears from the correlation in which airoKpv^ot
stands to rov fivarijp. The destination of this relative clause
is to bring out the high value of the iTriyvcoa-i^ rod fxvarrjpiov
(since in Him, etc.), and that in contrast to the pretended
wisdom and knowledge of the false teachers ; hence also the
emphatic iravTa ol Orjo: k.t.\. — The aocpla and yvwac^ are
liere conceived objectively, and the genitives indicate wherein
the treasures consist. The distinction between the two words
is not, indeed, to be abandoned (Calvin : " duplicatio ad
augendum valet ;" comp. Huther and others), but yet is not
to be defined more precisely than that 'yvwai^ is more special,
hnowledge, and aocpia more general, the whole Christian wisdom,
by which we with the collective activity of the mind grasp
divine relations and those of human morality, and apply them
to right practice. Comp. on i. 9. — On Oijaavpoi, comp.
Plato, Fhil. p. 1 5 E : C09 riva aocpia^ evpojKto'i 6i]aavp6v, Xen.
Hfem. iv. 2. 9, i. 6. 14; Wisd. vii. 14; Ecclus. i. 22 ; Bar.
iii. 1 5. — aTTOKpv^oi] is not the predicate to eiVt (so most
writers, with Chrysostom and Luther), as if it were aTro/ce-
Kpvfip.evoi elaiv instead of elalv d-TTOKpv^oL : for, as it stands,
the unsuitable sense would be conveyed: "in ivliom cdl
treasures . . . are 1iidd.cn treasures." But neither is it a descrip-
tion of the qualitative Iwiv of their Icing in Him} in so far,
namely, as they do not lie open for ordinary perception (Hof-
mann) ; for this adveibial use of the adjective (see Klihner,
ad Xen. Anal. i. 4. 12, ii. 2. 17 ; Kriiger, ^ 57. 5) would be
without due motive here, seeing that the apostle is concerned,
not about the mode of the iv w elac, but about the charac-
terizing of the treasures themselves, whereupon the Jiow
in question was obvious of itself. We must therefore take
* In connection with wliicli Biihr, Baumgartcn-Crusius, and Bleek convert
the notion of being hidden into tliat of being deposited for preservation {ato-
Kuafai, i. 5).
CHAP. II. 4. o4y
d-TTOKpvcjjoc simply as an attributive adjective to ^Tjaavpol,
placed at the end with emphasis : in ivliom the collective hidden
treasures . . . are contained. Comp. LXX. Isa. xlv. 3 ; 1 ]\Iacc.
i. 23 ; Matt. xiii. 44. The treasures, which are to be found
in the mystery, are not such as lie open to the light, but, in
harmony with the conception of the secret, hidden (comp.
Matt, l.c), because unattainable by the power of natural dis-
cernment in itself, but coming to be found by those who
attain eU kirv^vwcnv rev fjivaTrjplov, whereby they penetrate
into the domain of these secret riches and discover and
appropriate them. The objection to this view of airoKp. as the
adjective to 67]a:, viz. that there must then have been written
ol d-TTOKp. (Biihr, Bleek, Hofmann), is erroneous ; the article
might have been (1 Mace. i. 23), but did not need to be, in-
serted. AVith the article it would mean : qui^ype qui alsconditi
sunt; without the article it is simply : "thesauri ahsconditi"
(Vulgate), i.e. aTroKpvcpoL 6vre<i, not ol ovre^ aTroKpv^oc.
Yer. 4. After this affecting introduction, testifying to his
zealous striving for the Christian development of his readers,
and thereby claiming their faithful adherence to his gospel,
the warning now follows, for the sake of which Paul has
prefixed vv. 1—3 (rovro). That tovto does not refer merely
to ver. 3 (so Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Zanchius,
Estius, and others, including Bahr and Bohmer ; Huther is
undecided) is in itself probable, since vv. 1-3 form a con-
nected sentence admirably preparatory in its entire purport
for what follows, and is confirmed by ver. 5, which glances
back to ver. 1. Hence : This contained in vv. 1-3, which ye
ought to know, I say with the design that, etc. — tW /iT^Se/?
(s9e the critical remarks); comp. Mark v. 43; Tit. iii. 12;
Eev. iii. 11, et al. — irapaXoyL^.'] In IST. T., only found else-
wliere 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 fcdse rea-
soning. IVJiat particular sophistries the false teachers, whose
agitations at all events tended (see ver. 8 f.) to the disadvan-
tage of the Pauline gospel, were guilty of, does not appear. It
346 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
is certain, however, that they were not those suggested by
Bohmer (nothing good can come out of ISTazareth; 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 ajjostle, as if he
were not concerning himself about the confirming and train-
ing of churches not planted by himself, as Hofmann thinks.
In that case we should have in vv. 1-3 only a self-testi-
mony to the contrary, which, as assertion against assertion,
would neither have been skilful nor delicate ; nor do w^e in
what follows find any defence in opposition to personal
calumniation. This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann,
p. 177. The yap in ver. 5 by no means requires this inter-
pretation. — iv in6av6ko<yia\ ty means of 2J(^')'suading speech;
Luther's " with rational discourses " misapprehends the mean-
ing. It occurs in this place only in the IST. T. ; but see Plato,
Thcact. p. 162 E; comp. Dem. 928. 14 : Xoyou? Oavixaa-Lca
irtOavov^, also TnOavokoyetv, Diog. L. x. 87; Diod. Sic. i. 3 9 ;
and TTiOavo)^ Xeyetv, Lucian, Amor. 7. Hence the art of per-
suasion : 7] inOavoXoyLKrj, Arr. E-pict. i. 8. 7.
Ver. 5. A special reason, having reference to his bodily
absence, by which his readers are encouraged not to allow
themselves to be deceived. — t^ crap«t] with respect to the
flesh, i.e. loclily. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 3. — aXKa\ at, yet am I on
the other hand, beginning the apodosis ; see on Kom. vi. 5 and
1 Cor. iv. 15. — Tw TTvevyuari] with respect to the spirit, i.e.
mentally ; my spirit, translating itself in thought into your
midst, is along with you. Erroneously Grotius : " Deus
Paulo revelat, quae Colossis fierent," so that irvevfia would be
meant of the Holy Spirit. According to Wiggers, in the Stud,
ti. Krit. 1838, p. 181, and Vaihinger, in Herzog's Encyldop.
IV. p. 79, aTret/xt takes for granted the apostle's having been
there previously. A quite groundless assumption; the verb
expresses (utto) the hciny aivay from, but does not indicate
whether a person had been previously present or not, which
can only be gathered from the connection or other circum-
stances of the case. In this case the context directly indi-
cates, by ver. 1, that a bodily irapelvai, had not occurred. It
CHAP. II. 5. 347
is otherwise in 1 Cor. v. 3 ; 2 Cor. x. 1, 11, xiii. 2, 10;
Phil. i. 27. From the similar expression in 1 Cor. v. 3.
Theodoret nevertheless infers that Paul 0)9 0ea(Tdfi€vo<i avTov<i
eypa^p-ev ttjv iiria-ToXtjv. — (tvu v/xlu] in your society, anion//
you. Comp. Luke viii. 38, xxii. 56; Phil. i. 23; 1 Thess.
iv. 17; 2 Pet. i. 18, ct al. — 'xaipcov k. ^\e7ro)v] There is
here no illogical prefixing of the 'XjoLipwv in the lively feeling
of joy (Huther, comp. de Wette) ; 'xaLpwv rather expresses
joy at the fact that he is with them spiritually, and koI ^Xiircov
vfjb. TTjv rd^iv K.T.X. then adds ivhat at this joyful hcinrj vnth
the Colossiccns he sees in them, so that the description thus
advances with k. jSkiir. : in spirit I am along with you,
rejoicing in this mental presence, and therewith seeing, etc.
Comp. also Hofmann, who, hoAvever, imports into pkiircov 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 K. tt)9 p\eir(ov, or k. (u? eV 6<f)6a\fxo2<i /3A,. Penderings
blending the ideas, such as gaudeo vidcns (Grotius, Wolf,
Biihr, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and others), or heholding
with joy (Bengel, Heinrichs, Flatt), are at variance with the
words as they stand. Some erroneously cite Josephus, Bell.
iii. 10. 2, where %a//3Ci> koX ^XeTroou (not /SXeVw) means: I
rejoice, when I even see it. Winer, p. 438 [E. T. 589], and
Fritzsche, ad Bom. II. p. 425, supply wdth ■x^at'pcov the words:
concerning you. But the supplying of e'^' vimv is not justified by
the context, which naturally suggests joy at the heing together
ivith the readcT^, for %a«p- 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
expliccdive rendering of Kal, which Winer still admits (so also
Bohmer and Olshausen). — The testimony, moreover, which is
given to the readers by ^Xeiroiv k.t.X 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 conceiv-
able, when the dangers which threatened a state of things
still even now so good are considered. — vficou r. tu^lv] The
prefixed pronoun owes this position t > the favourable expec-
tation which the Colossians, more than many others, have
348 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
awakened in the apostle. The raft? is order, orderly condi-
tion. Its antithesis is ara^ia, Plato, Tim. p. 30 A. For the
idea see Plato, Gorg. p. 504 A : rd^ew^ . . , koI Koa-fiov rv^ovcra
oiKia, Polyb. i. 4. 6 : ?; crvfjuraaa cr'^eai<; k. rd^i^ Trj<; oiKov/jieuT]'?,
iii. 36. 6 : 17 • • • ^i'Ciipecn<i k. rd^i'i. It is often used of the
organized condition of the state, Dem. 200. 4, Plat. Crit.
p. 109 D; elsewhere also (see Sturz, Lex. Xcn. IV. p. 245)
of the army, sometimes to designate a section of it (a company
of two \6-)(oi), and sometimes to express its regular arrcmrjc-
mcnt in rank and file (Thuc. iii. 87. 2, iv. 72. 2, 126. 4,
viii. 69. 1). Hofmann^ takes both tu^. and arepecofia in a
military sense. But the two words have not in and of them-
selves the military sense ; they would receive it from the con-
text, which is not the case here. Moreover, the meaning
fortress, militarij lidivarJc, is expressed not by arepecofia
generally, but by epv/xa or oyypwixa, 2 Cor. x. 4. Hence, if
we would avoid arbitrariness, we can only abide by the view
that here Td^i<i 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
outivard condition Paul then subjoins the inner one, by which
the former is conditioned : and the solid hold of yonr faith in
Christ. (TTepeco/jLa, firmamentum, that which has been made
firm (Arist. "partt. an. ii. 9 ; Theophr. II. i^l. v. 7. 3), a late
word, often found in LXX., Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus,
and Apocrypha (see Schleusner, Thcs. V. p. 102 f.), represents
the stedfastness and immoveableness of faith in such a way,
that the latter appears as protected by a strong work (with
solid foundation, masonry, etc.) from injury (Ezek. xiii. 5 ; Ps.
xviii. 2 ; 3 Esdr. viii. 81). On the subject-matter, comp. Acts
xvi. 5 : iaTepeovvro rrj irlareL, 1 Pet. v. 9 : dvTiarrjTe a-repeol
rfj TTia-reL. The abstract firmness, however (Huther, de Wette,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and older expositors), which would
be cTTepeoriTi, is never designated by the w^ord. Chrysostom
explains rightly : ore ttoWo, avvajajoov crv<yKoWi]a-ei<i ttvkvw
Kol dhLua'jraarQ)'^, Tore crrepeayfxa fytverai. The genitive t?^?
7riaT€G)9, finally, is not to be taken in such a way as to make
' "Whom Holt^mann, p. 177, has too rashly followed.
CHAP. II. c, 7. 349
faith the arepew/xa (Hofmann), which protects the readers, as
if it were to v/mmu aTepicofia ; but as the genitive of the sub-
ject, in such a way that their faith has the a-Tepecofia securing
it, wliich Paul spiritually sees. — To call in question the 2insc-
cliiccclncss here attested (Baumgarten-Crusius, who leaves it a
question whether the sense is not merely : " if it is so "), or
to refer it to only a ixirt of the church (Flatt), is a quite
arbitrary result of unduly pressing the general utterance of
commendation.
Yer. 6 f. From the warning given in ver. 4 and having its
ground assigned in ver. 5, follows (ovv) the positive obligation
to make Christ, as He had been communicated to them through
the instruction wliich they had received, the element in which
(eV avTa>) their conduct of the inner and outer life moves
(TrepcTTarelre), whereupon the more precise modal definitions
are subjoined hj ippi^cofxevoL k.t.X. — a)<f\ according as. Observe
that in the protasis TrapeXd^ere and in the apodosis irepiira-
reLre (not iv avrco, as Hofmann thinks) have the emphasis, in
which case the addition of an oi/rw? was not necessary. Their
^oalJc in Christ is to be in harmony with the instruction, by
means of which they have through Epaphras received Christ.
— TrapeXd/Sere] have received (i. 7; Eph. iv. 20), comp. Gal.
i. 9, 12 ; 1 Thess. ii. 13, iv. 1 ; 2 Thess. iii. 6 ; 1 Cor. xi. 23.
Christ was covwiunicatcd to them as the clement of life} The
rendering : have accciJted (Luther, Biihr, Bohmer, Huther,
Hofmann), is not contrary to Pauline usage (de Wette ; but
see on Phil, iv, 9 ; 1 Cor. xv. 1) ; but it is opposed to the
context, in which after ver. 4 (see especially ver. 7 : Ka6oi<;
iBiBd'^drjTe, and ver. 8 : Kara tyjv Trapdhoa-tv twv dv6p.) the con-
trast between true and false Christian instruction as regulative
of the walk, and not the contrast between entrance into the
fclloivsliip of Christ and the walk therewith given (Hofmann),
predominates.^ — tov X. 'I. rov Kvpiov] A solemnly complete
' To this conception Iv alrZ refers subsecLuently. Clirysostom and his followers
take this Iv so, that Christ is regarded as the way. But this Johannine con-
ception nowhere occiirs in Paul's writings ; nor does it accord with •xafiXa^m,
with which, however, the extremely common Pauline idea of the h XftirTui Jva;
is in harmony.
- Eph. iii. 17 f., by comparing wliich Holtzmann discovers in our passage the
350 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIAXS.
designation, a summanj of the whole confession (1 Cor, xii. 3 ;
Phil. ii. 11), in wliicli rov Kvpiov, conformably with its posi-
tion and the entire connection, is to be taken in the sense :
as the Lord, consequently attributively, not as a mere apposition
(de Wette, Bleek, Ellicott, and others), in which Hofmann
includes also ^Irjcrovv, a view which is not warranted by Eph.
iii. 1. — Ver. 7. ippc^cofj,. k. eiroLKoh. iv avrco] introduces the
ethical hahitus in the case of the required irepLirarelv iv X.
But the vivid conception, in the urgency of properly exhaust-
ing the important point, combines very dissimilar elements;
for the two figures, of a plant and of a building, are incon-
sistent as such both with TrepiTraretre and with one another.
Comp. Eph. iii. 17 f. By beginning a new sentence with
ippi^co/jiivoi K.T.X., and thus construing it in connection with
ver. 8 (Sclienkel, Hofmann), we should gain nothing in sym-
metry, and should only lose without sufficient reason in
simplicity of construction ; while we should leave the iv avra
TrepiTraTeire in ver. 6 in a disproportionately bald and isolated
position. This conjunction, moreover, of heterogeneous figures
might quite as legitimately have been made by the apostle
himself as by an interpolator, whose hand Holtzmann thinks
that he here discovers. — Observe further the difference in time
of the two participles, whereby the stcdfastness of the iv Xpiarm
etvav (figuratively represented by ippi^wp,.) is denoted as a
subsistent state, which must be present in the case of the Trepi-
irarelv iv avTw, while the further development of the Christian
condition (figuratively represented by iiroiKoh) is set forth as a
continuing process of training ; comp. Acts xx. 32. — eTrot/coS.]
becoming built up, in which eVt exhibits the building rising on
the foundation. Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 10, 12; Eph. ii. 20; Xen.
Anab. iii. 4. 11 ; Plat. Legg. v. p. 736 E. The building up
may in itself be also regarded as an act accomplished (through
conversion), as in Epli. ii. 20 : iTrotKoBofMrjOevTe'i, which, how-
ever, as modal definition of irepnrar., would not have suited
here. The progress and finishing of the building (de Wette,
following Acts xx. 32, wliere, however, the simple form olKoh.
hand of the interpolator, is both as regards contents and form too diverse for
that purpose.
CHAP. II. 6,7. 351
should be read) are conveyed by the present, not by iiroiKoS.
in itself (comp. Eph. ii. 22). Nor does the latter represent
the readers as stones, which are built up on the top of those
already laid (Hofmann) ; on the contrary, they are in their
aggregate as a cMtrch (comp. on Eph. I.e.) represented as an
olKoSofi^ 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 eVt in eVot/coS. 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. 1 2). — eV avTa>] belongs to both
participles, so that Christ is to be conceived doubtless as the
soil for the roots striking downwards (Eph. iii. 17), and as the
fou7idation (1 Cor. iii. 11) for the building extending upwards ;
but the expression is determined by the conception of the
thing signified, namely, the iv Xpiara> elvat, as in iv avrat
trepLirar., and not by the figures ; hence Paul has not written
€7r' avTov (1 Cor. iii. 12), or eV avro) (Eph. ii. 20), which
would have been in harmony with the latter participle, but he
exhibits Christ as the Person, in lohom that which is meant by
the being rooted and becoming built up has its specific being
and nature, and consequently the condition of endurance and
growth.^ Comp. on Eph. ii. 21. — Kal ^e^aiovfx. Tfj Triar.]
And to this being rooted and becoming built up there is to be
added the heiiig staUishcd ly the faith, as the development
of quality in the case, in order that no loose rooting may
take place, nor any slack building be formed. The dative rfj
-TTiarec (see the critical remarks) is to be taken as instrumental,
not : with respcet to (in opposition to de Wette), since the follow-
ing modal definition irepiaa: iv avrfj specifies, not how they
are to be stablished in respect of the faith, but how they are
to be stablished hy it, by the fact, namely, that they are rich
in faith ; poverty in faith would not be sufficient to bring
about that establishment. In like manner we should have to
* Hofmann inappropriately, siuce in the case of WoikoI. at any rate we have to
think of th& foundation, takes h alrcf in the sense that Christ surrounds the
building.
352 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIAKS.
take the reading ev r. iriarei, wliicli Hofmann defends. He,
however, joins this ev t. irLarec not with ^e^aiovfi., but with
the following 7repLaaevovTe<;, — a connection which is excluded
by the genuineness of iu avrfj, but which is, even apart from
this, to be rejected, because Paul would, in order to be fairly-
intelligible, have inserted the iv avrw only after ^€/3aiov/j,evot,
to which it would also refer. — kuOco^ iScSd'^O.'] namely, to
hccomc stahlishcd ty the faith. For this they have received
(from Epaphras, i. 7) the instructions which are to guide
them. — irepva-aevovTe^ ac.t.X.I is subordinate to the /Se^aiovfi.,
and that as specifying the measure of the faith, whicli must
be- found in them in order that they may be stahlishcd
through faith ; while at the same time the requisite vital
expression, consecrated to God, of the piety of the believing
heart is brought out by eV ev'^ap. : ivhilc ye are abounding
in the same amidst ihanhsgiviny, i.e. while ye are truly rich in
faith, and at the same time giving thanks to God for this
blessing of fulness of faith. The emphasis is upon irepiacr.,
in which lies the more precisely defining element ; TrepLaaeveiv
ev is nothing else than the usual ahundare aliqua re, to have
abundance of something (Horn. xv. 13; 1 Cor. viii. 7 ; Phil,
i. 9, et al.), and iv ev^ap. indicates an accomjyanying circum-
stance in the case, the ethical consecration of grateful piety,
with which the richness in faith must be combined ; comp.
iii. 17, i. 12. It is well explained, in substance, byTheophy-
lact : irepcaaov rt ivSeiKvvcrOac iv rfj irlarec, ev'^apiaTOvvre'i tm
06(0, oTt rj^lcoaev '>)fjia<; roLamrj^ ')(apiTO<;, Kal /xtj eavTol<i Tr]v
irpoKO'irrjv eTTcypdcpovTa-i. Eightly also by Oecumenius, who
takes iv eu^ap. as equivalent to avv ev'xap. Comp. Castalio,
Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bahr,
Steiger, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dalmer, Hofmann,
and others. Others, however, regard iv ev-^ap. as belonging to
'jrepLo-a. Such is the view not only of the majority who reject
iv avrfj on critical grounds (as Ewald), but also of Luther,
Michaelis, Storr, Elatt, Huther (that the Colossiaus in their
faith towards God . . . are to show themselves abundantly grate-
ful). De Wette favours this rendering on the ground that the
clause is not attached by kuI, which, however, is quite in keep-
CHAP. ir. 8. 353
ing with the circumstance that Trepta-a: k.t.X. is subordinate
to the ^€/3aiovfjt,. k.t.X. In opposition to the combination
'KcpLcra. iv ^v-)(ap. there may be urged, first, the arranfrenient
of the words in itself ; secondly, the fact that iv avrfj 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
participial clause as the object of the discourse, whereas iv
ev^ctp' is to be treated as a relation associated with the
faith.
Ver. 8. Be upon your guard, lest there shall he some one
carrying you away as a prey. In that case, how grievously
would what I have just been impressing upon your hearts,
in vv. 6, 7, be rendered fruitless ! — The future ecrrai after
firj (comp. Heb. iii. 1 2) has arisen from the apprehension that
the case may yet actually occur. See Stallbaum, ad Plat.
Bep. p. 451 A; Hartimg, Partikell. 11. p. 139 f . ; Ellendt,
Lex. Soph. II. p. 104. Comp. also on Gal. iv. 11. — As to
the participle with the article, comp. on Gal. i. 7 : nvh elaiv
ol rapdcraovT€<i. — Eespecting a-vXaycoyetv, belonging to the
later Greek, see Eustath. ad II. v. p. 393, 52. Very inaccu-
rately rendered by the Vulgate: dccipiat. In Aristaen. ii. 22^
joined with oIkov, it means to roh ; and is so taken here by
Hilary, Chrysostom, Theodoret {airoa-vXav t7]v Trtariv),
Theophylact (rbv vovv), Luther, Wolf, and many others,
including Baumgarten-Crusius. But the stronger sense of
the word praeclam ahigere (Heliod. x. 35 ; Nicet. Ajiu. 5, p. 96
D) is in keeping with the verb of the previous exhortation,
TrepLTTajeiTe, as well as with the purposely chosen peculiar
expression in itself, which is more significant than the classical
(TvKav or crvkeveiv, and serves vividly to illustrate the idea of
the seduction, through which one falls under extraneous power,
as respects its disgracefuhiess. — Bia tt}? ^iXocroi^ia^ k. Kevri<i
aTrdrr)';] through pihilosophy and empty deceit. It is to be
observed that neither the preposition nor tlie article is repeated
before Kevri<i (see Kiihner, II. 1, pp. 476, 528 ; Buttmaun, Neut.
Gr. p. 86 [E. T. 100]), because with koI Kev. airar. there
is added no further element different from t^? (f>iXoa-o(f). (in
COL. Z
354 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
opposition to Hofmann), but only that ivhicli the philosophy
in its essence is ; it is cmijty deception, that is, having no real
contents ; the TriOavoXoyLa (ver, 4), with which it is presented,
is a Keveayopla (Plat, i^t^^ p. 607 B), and KevoXor/la (Pint.
Mor. p. 1069 C). On the idea of Kevo^ (1 Cor. xv. 14 ; Eph.
V. 6), comp. Dem. 821. 11. : KevcoraTov irdvrcov Xoyoov Xiyovai,
and on uTraTr], Plat. So2Jh. p. 2 6 C : 6vTo<i Si ye ^jrevSov; ecrrcv
airdjr} . . ., Kal [xrjv airdrT]^ ovarjq elScoXwv re Kao cIkopcov rjhri
Kol (jiavTa(Tia<i iravTa dvay/CT] fieard elvat. The ^tXocro^la,
however, against which Paul utters his warning, is not 'philo-
sophy generally and in itself, — a view at variance with the
addition k. Kevrj<; dtrar. closely pertaining to it, however much
the wisdom of the world in its degeneracy (comp. Herm.
gottcsd. Altcrth. § 12 ; and Cidturgesch. d. Griech. u. Bom. I.
p. 236 ff., II. p. 132), as experience was conversant with its
phenomena in that age,^ may have manifested itself to the
apostle as foolishness when compared with the wisdom of the
gospel (1 Cor. i. 18 ff., ii. 6). Puather, he has in view (comp.
ver. 18) the characteristic speculation, toell Jcnoivn to his
readers, which engaged attention in Colossae and the surround-
ing district,^ and consisted of a Gnostic theosophy mixed up
with Judaism (Essenism). This is, on account of its nature
directed to the supersensuous and its ontological character,
correctly designated by the term philosophy in general, apart
from its relation to the truth, which is signalized by the
K. Kev7]<i dTrdrrj'i appended.^ (Plat. Dcf. p. 414 C : t?}? twv
1 Comp. Luther's frequent denunciations of philosophy, under which he had
present to his mind its degeneracy in the Aristotelian scholasticism.
• Comp. also Calovius. The latter rightly remarks how u(piXoffo<pus and
akoxiyu; men would proceed, who should regard philosophical and theological
truth as opposites ; and points out that if Greek philosophy do not teach the
doctrine of eternal life and its attainment, it is not a Kivri a-jtaTin, but an
imperfcdio. Fathers of the Church also, as e.g. Clemens Al. (comp. Spiess,
Logos ftpermat. p. 341), aptly distingviish philosophy itself from the phenomena
of its abuse. The latter are philosophy also, but not in accordance with the
truth of the conception.
^ These words x. kiv. a.v., characterizing the philosophy meant, are therefore
all the less to be regarded, with Holtzmaun, as a tautological insertion ; and it
is mere arbiti-ariness to claim the words xara, r. •rafd'S. ruv avipu*. for the
Synoptical Gospels (Matt. xv. 2 f.) ; as if vapd^mris (comp. especially Gal. i. 14)
were not sufficiently current in the apostle's writings.
CHAP. II. 8. 355
ovTcav del einaTrjiir)^ ope^L'i' e^i<? OeccprjTLKi-i tov akrjdov^, irui^
aXrjdi^;). Possibly it was also put forward by the false
teachers themselves expressly under this designation (comp.
the Sophists as the (^da-Kovre^ (f}t\oao(pe2v, 'K&n. Mem. i. 2. 19 ;
and olofxevot Travr elBivat, in i. 4. 1). The latter is the more
probable, since Paul uses the word only in this passage.
Comp. Bengel : " quod adversarii jactabant esse philosophiam
et sapientiam (ver. 23), id Paulus inanevi frauclcm esse dicit."
The nature of this philosophy is consequently to be regarded
as Judaistic-Oriental ; ^ we are under no necessity to infer from
the word (f)i\oa-o(f)la a reference to Greek wisdom, as Grotius
did, suggesting tlie Pythagorean (Clemens Alexandrinus thought
of the Epicureans, and TertuUian of such philosophers as Paul
had to do with ^t Athens). The idea that the " saerarum liter-
arum earumque recte interpretandarum scientia " (Tittmann, de
vestigiis Gnosticor. in N. T. frustra quaesitis, p. 8 6 ff.) is meant,
is opposed, not to the word in itself, but to the marks of
heretical doctrine in our Epistle, and to the usage of the
apostle, who never so designates the 0. T. teaching and
exposition, however frequently he speaks of it ; although
Philo gives it this name (see Loesner, Olss. 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, Thcs. s.v.) ; see Grimm on 2 Mace.
i. 1, p. 298 f. — Kara r. TrapdS. t. dv9p.~\ might be — and
this is the common view — closely joined with d7rdr'r)<; (Winer,
p. 128 f. [E. T. 169J). But the ov Kar'd Xptarov would not
suit this connection, since dirdrif) is already in itself a definite
and proper idea, in association with which a Kara Xptarov
would be inconceivable ; whereas the figiirativc avXaywyelv
still admits also the negative modal statement (ov Kara X.)
for greater definiteness. Accordingly Kara r. irapdS. K.r.\.
(comp. Steiger, Ellicott) is to be taken as definition of mode
to a-vXaycoyiov. Paul, namely, having previously announced
wherehj the avXaycoyelv takes place, now adds for the still
more precise description of that procedure, in order the more
\ The speculations of Essenism are also designated as philosopliy in Philo.
Comp. Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 292.
356 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
effectively to warn his readers against it, that in accordance
loith vjJiich it takes place, i.e. what is the objective regulative
standard by which they permit themselves to be guided.
He does this positively (Kara Tr]v .... Koafiou) and negatively
(k. ov Kara Xpiarov). The genitive rwv av9p. is to be
explained : rjv 7rape\a(3e Trapa rwv avdp. (comp. 2 Thess. iii.
6), and twv denotes the category, the traditio humana as such,
opposed to the divine revelation. Comp. Mark vii. 8. What
is meant, doubtless, is the ritual Jcivish tradition outside of
the Mosaic law (comp. on Matt. xv. 2), the latter being
excluded by rwp avdp. ; but Paul designates the thing quite
generally, according to the genus to which it belongs, as
human. — Kara ra o-roi')(e'ia rov Koa/u-ov] Parallel of the fore-
going : according to the elements of the tvorlcl, i.e. according to
the religious r^idiments, with which non-Christian hurnanity
occupies itself. The expression in itself embraces the ritual
observances^ both of Judaism and heathenism, which, in
comparison with the perfect religion of Christianity, are only
" puerilia rudinienta " (Calvin), as it were the A B C of
religion, so that Paul therefore in this case also, where he
warns his readers against Judaisiic enticing, characterizes the
matter according to its category. As to the designation itself
and its various interpretations, see on Gal. iv. 3. Among the
latest expositors, Bleek agrees with our view, while Hofmann
explains : " because it (the philosophy which is described as
deceit) permits the matcricd things, of ivhich the created world
consists, to form its standard." See in opposition to this on
Gal. I.e. Both expressions, r-qv irapdh. r. avOp. and ra o-toi^.
T. Koa-fiov, have it as their aim to render apparent the worth-
lessness and unsuitableness for the Christian standpoint
(comp. Gal. iv. 9). Hence, also, the contrast whicli, though
obvious of itself, is nevertheless emphatic : Kal ov Kara
Xpta-Tov. The activity of that a-vXajcoyetv has not Christ for
its ohjeciive standard; He, in accordance with His divine
dignity exalted above everything (see ver. 9), was to be the
'Calvin well says: "Quid vocat cicmenta mundi? l^on dubium quin
ccremonias ; nam continuo post exempli loco speciem imam adducit, circum-
cisionem scilicet."
ciiAr. II. 9. 357
sole regulative for all activity in Christian teaching, so that
the standard guiding their woric should be found in the rela-
tion of dependence upon Him ; but instead of this the pro-
cedure of the avXajcoywv allows human tradition, and those
non-Christian rudiments which the Christian is supposed to
have long since left behind, to serve as his rule of conduct !
How unworthy it is, therefore, to follow such seduction !
Ver. 9. Since indeed in Him divclls, etc. This is not " a
peg upon which the interpolator hangs his own thoughts"
(Holtzmann). On the contrary. Paid assigns a reason for the
ou Kara Xpcarov just said, with a view more eifectually 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 w^ords Kara XpiaTov
is excluded and negatived. Others make the reason assigned
refer to the learning : ^XeTrere k.t.X., so that oTt- 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 iv avTu> placed
emphatically first {in Him and in no other) points back to the
immediately preceding ov Kara Xpcarov (comp. Chrysostom
and Calvin) ; there is therefore nothing to show that the
reference of ore ought to be carried further back (to ySXeVere).
In Christ the tvhole fulness of Godhead — what a contrast to the
human 7rapdSoaL<; and the a-roL-^ela of the world ! — /carotKet]
The present, for it is the excdted Christ, in the state of His
heavenly ho^a, that is in view, Comp. i. 15. In Him the
entire TrXijpcDfxa has its KaTOLKrjT'qptov (Eph. ii. 22), so that He
is the personal bearer of it, the personal seat of its essential
presence. — ttuv to ifX'i^pwjia (comp. on i. 19) is here more
precisely defined by the " vocabulum cthstraetum signifeantissi-
mum" (Bengel) t^9 ^coti^to?, which specifies vjhat dwells in
Christ in its entire fulness, i.e. not, it may be, partially, but
in its complete entirety. On the genitive, comp. Eom. xi. 25,
XV. 29. It is not the genitive auetoris (Nosselt: "universa
comprehensio eorum, quae Deus per Christum vellet in homines
transferre") ; the very abstract deoTrjT. should have been a
358 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
sufficient warning against tliis view, as well as against the
interpretation : " id quod inest OeorrjTt" (Bahr). rj 6e6rr]s\ the
Godhead (Lucian, Icarom. 9 ; Plut. 3for. p. 415 C), the
abstract from o 0eo9, is to be distinguished from rj detorr)^, the
abstract from Oelo^ (Eom. i. 2 ; Wisd. xviii. 1 9 ; Lucian, de
column. 17). The former is Dcitas, the Icing God, i.e. the
divine essence, Godliead ; the latter is divinitas, i.e. the divine
quality, godliheness. See on Eom. i. 20. Accordingly, the
essence of God, undivided and in its whole fulness, dwells in
Christ in His exalted state, so that He is the essential and
adequate image of God (i. 15), which He could not be if He
were not possessor of the divine essence. The distinction
between what is here said about Clnist and what is said about
Him in i. 19 is, that the TrXrjpwfxa is here meant onetajjhysi-
cally, of the divina essentia, but in the former passage charis-
matically, of the divina gratia, and that KaroiKeiv 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 de-
liberately expressed by Paul, are similar to those in i. 19.
One of these, in particular, is the mis-explanation referring it
to the church as the God-filled organ of divine self-revelation
(Heinrichs, Baumgarten - Crusius, Schenkel) which has its
dwelling-place in Christ.^ Already Theodoret (comp. xi^e? in
Chrysostom), indeed, quotes the explanation that Christ sig-
nifies the church in which the Tfkrjpwixa dwells, but on account
of (xani^aTiKm 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) : et tL lariv 6 ©eo? ^.0709, ev avju- olKel, so
that the fulness of the Godhead in the ontological, and not in
' Thus, indeed, ihc fulness of the Godl.cad lias '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 support in Christ as tlie corner-stone
(Eph. ii. 20, 21), but it does not dwell in Him. On the contrary, Christ dwells
in the church, which is His body, and the -^x-Afu/j-a filled hj JIi7n {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 (Kom. viii. 9 ; Gal. iv. 6 ; PhiL i. 19).
CHAP. II. 9. 359
the simply mystical or morally religious sense (de Wette) is
meant. — But liow does it dwell in Christ ? a-co/xaTiKco^, in
bodily fashion, i.e. in such a way that through this indwelling
in Christ it is in a bodily form of appearance, clothed with a
body. Comp. also Hofmann in loc., and Schriftheui. II. 1, p.
29 ; Weiss, Bihl. TJicol. p. 428, ed. 2. It is not in Christ
(dcrw/iaTO)?), as before the Incarnation it was in the \6'yo<; (©eo?
Tjv 6 Xoyo^, John i. 1), but (comp. also Gess, Fers. Chr. p.
260 ff.) it is in His glorified body (Phil. iii. 21), so that the
iv i^opcjifi Oeov and laa 0ew elvat, which already existed in the
X0709 aaapKa (Phil. ii. 6), now in Christ's estate of exaltation
— which succeeded the state of humiliation, whereby the fiopcprj
0€ov was affected — have a bodily hame, are in bodily personality}
Of course the Oeorr)^ does not thereby itself come into the
ranks of the (xcofiartKal ovalac (Plat. Zocr. p. 96 A), but is
in the exalted Christ after a real fashion (TcofiaTCKw etSei (Luke
iii. 22), and therefore Christ HimseK is the visible divine-
human image of the invisible God (i. 15). In this glory, as
Possessor of the Godhead dwelling in Him bodily. He will
also appear at the Parousia — an appearance, therefore, which
will manifest itself visibly (1 John iii. 2) as the actual €7n<J3dveta
Tri<i Bo^TTi Tov fxeyaXou Qeov (Tit. ii. 13). The reference of the
whole statement, however, to the exalted Christ is placed
beyond question by the use of the present KaroiKei, which
asserts the presently existing relation, without requiring a vvv
along with it (in opposition to Huther). The renderings :
esscntialitcr, ovatcoSm (Cyril, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, and
others, including TJsteri, Steiger, Olshausen, Huther, Bisping),
in which case some thought of a contrast to the divine evipyeca
in the prophets (see Theophylact), and: realiter (Augustine, Eras-
mus, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Schoettgen, Wolf,
Nosselt, Bleek, and others), in which was found the opposite of
TUTTt/cw? (ver. 1 7), are linguistically inappropriate ; for acofiari-
Ko<i never means anything else than corporeus. Comp. on the
* It is now only •wortli remarking historically, but is almost incredible, how
the Socinians have twisted our verse. Its sense in their view is: "quod in
doctrina ipsius tota Dei voluntas integre et reapse est patefacta," Calech. Bacov.
194, p. 398, ed. Oeder. Calovius gives a refutation in detail.
360 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
adverb, Pint. 3for. p. 424 D, The less justifiable is the
hypothesis of Eich. Schmidt (Paul. Christol. p. 191), that in the
term a-to/xaTCKoJ'i the contrast of ver. 1 7 was already present to
the apostle's mind. Those who adopt the erroneous explana-
tion of TrX-qpwfia as referring to the church, assign to acofiarc-
K(i)<i the meaning : " so that the church stands related to Him
asHislody" (Baumgarten-Crusius and Schenkel), which issues
in the absurdity that the body of Christ is held to dwell in
Christ, whereas conversely Christ could not but dwell in His
body. It is true that the church is related to Christ as His
body, not, however, in so far as it dwells in Him (and, accord-
ing to the context, this must have been the case here, if the
explanation in question be adopted), but either in so far as
He, dwells in it, or in so far as He is its Head, which latter
thought is quite foreign to the connection of the passage ; for
even in ver. 10 Christ is not called the Head of the church.
It is, morever, to be observed, that the adverb is placed
emphatically at the end. The special reason, however, on
account of which the KaroiKeiv k.tX. is thus prominently set
forth as bodily, cannot, indeed, be directly shown to have been
supplied by the circumstances of the Colossians, but is never-
theless to be recognised in an apologetic interest of opposition
to the false teachers, who by their doctrines concerning the
angels (comp. ver. 1 : ap'^rj<; k. i^ovcr.) must have broken up,
in a spiritualistic sense, the nrXypwfjLa r?}? ^cott/to?.
Ver. 10. Kai iare iv avraj ireTrXrjp.'^ still depending on
on : and (since) ye are filled in Him, i.e. and since the ifKn)-
p6Tr)<; which ye possess rests on Him, the bodily Bearer of the
divine 7r\7Jp(ofj,a. The two are correlative : from the irXrjpwixa.
rrj9 deoTTjroq, which dwells in the exalted Christ, flows the
ireTrXripooixevov elvai of the Christian, which has its basis, there-
fore, in no other tlian in Christ, and in nothing else than just
in fellowship with Him. I'illed with lohat ? was self-evident
to the consciousness of the reader. It is the dynamic, charis-
matic ttXt^p 0)0-49, which Christians, in virtue of their union of
life with the Lord, whose Spirit and ^coij are in them, have
received, and continuously possess, out of the onctajjhysiccd irXr]-
pcojxa dwelling in Christ, out of the TrXtjpwfia Trj<i de6Ti)To<i. —
CHAP. II. 10. 361
The emphasis is not upon eVre, but, as shown by the subse-
quent relative definitions, upon iu avroi. If the TreTrXrjpcO'
fxevop elvat depends on Him, on nothing and on no one but
0)1 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 Kara Xpiarov. With due attention to
this emphasis of iv avTw, we should neither have expected
v/^et? (in opposition to de Wette ; comp. Estius and others :
" et vos ") nor have explained eVre in an imperative sense (in
ojDposition to Grotius, Bos, Heumann) ; which latter view is
to be rejected, because the entire connection is not paraenetic,
and generally because, whilst a irXrjpovaOe (Eph. v. 18)
or tyiveade TreirXijp. may, ea-re TreTrXrjp. cannot, logically be
enjoined.^ There is, moreover (comp. also Hofmann), nothing
to be supplied with ireifkrjp. (iisualhj : tP]<; 6e6Tr]T09, see Theo-
phylact and Huther ; de Wette, Bleek : tov TrXrjpco/j,. t. Oeor),
since the specifically ontological sense of the purposely-chosen
^eoTT^To? would not even be consistent with the supposed
equalization of the Christians with Christ (ovSev eXarrov
e^ere avrov, dXXa TreTrXrjpcofieuot Kal vfi€i<; e<ne rrj'i 6e6rr)To<;,
Theophylact), and this equalization does not exist at all,
because Paul has not written koX vpieh. In what their being
filled consisted, was known to the readers from their own expe-
rience, without further explanation ; their thoughts, however,
were to dwell upon the fact that, since their being full depended
on Christ, those labours of the false teachers were of quite
another character than Kara Xptajov. — o? ecmv rj Ke^aXrj
K.r.X.'] This, as also ver. 11, now snip-plies con Jirinatory informa-
tion regarding the fact that they have their being filled not
otherwise than just in Christ ; namely, neither through apyal
K. k^ovaiai, since Christ is the head of every a/3%?; and e^ovala ;
nor yet through circumcision, since they have received in
Christ the real ethical circumcision. — irdar}'; dp^- k. k^ovtrA
is not more precisely defined as in Eph. iii. 1 ; hence, in
' Calovius has well said : •' Bencficium Christi, non nostrum officium ;" comp.
Wolf. In complete opposition to tlie context, Grotius brings out the sense :
"iVZo conUnli es^o^e," which he supports by the remark: " quia quod plenum
est, nihil aliud desiderat, "
362 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
virtue of the munus rcgium of the Lord quite generally : emi'y
2orinciiMlity and power, but with the tacit apologetic reference :
consequently also of the angelic ^powers (i. 16) belonging to
these categories and bearing these names, to whose mediation,
to be attained through OprjcrKeia, the false teachers direct you,
— a reference which Hofmann, understanding the expressions
in the sense of spiritual beings ruling arbitrarily and in opposi-
tion to God especially over the Gentile world (notwithstanding
the fact that Christ is their Head !), groundlessly denies ; see
ver. 18. If Christ be the Head of every a/3%^ and e^ovaia, i.e.
their governing sovereign, the Christian cannot have anything
to expect from any angelic powers subordinate to Christ,
— a result involved in the union in which He stands to the
Higher, to Christ Himself. — With the reading o icmv (see the
critical remarks), which is also preferred by Ewald,^ Lachmann
has placed Kai eVre ev avrw 'KeTrkiqp. in a parenthesis. But,
while this important thought would neither have motive nor
be appropriate as a mere parenthesis, it would also be improper
that the neuter subject to 'jfkrjpwixa r. Beor. should be desig-
nated as rj Ke^aXr) k.tX, which applies rather to the personal
possessor of the ifKrjpwixa, to Christ.
Ver. 11. Eespecting the connection and its reference to the
false teachers, so far as they "legem evangelio miscebant"
(Calvin), see on ver. 10. — ev cS] like kv auroS 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 irepier/j,., which took
place on them through their conversion (comp. ver. 12). — /cat]
also circumcised were ye. The Kal is the simple also, which,
however, does not introduce an element included under
nreirk'qpooiJb. icne (Hofmann), but to the previous relative state-
ment (o9 ecTTLv K.T.X.) app)ends another; comp. ver. 12. Hof-
mann's objection, that the foregoing relative statement has
indeed reference to the readers, but is onade without reference
to them, is an empty subtlety, which is connected with the
' Inasmuch as he takes J'So-r/v directly as scilicet, utpote, and regards this usage
as a linguistic peculiarity of this Epistle. But this rendering is not required
cither in i. 24 or in iii. 17 ; and respecting i. 27, see the critical remarks.
CHAP. II. 11. 363
erroneous rendering of nrdar)^ ^PX^T^ '^- ^^ovcr. — Trepirofxy
d^eipoTr.] is not supplementary and parentlietical (Ilofmann),
us if Paul had written TrepiTOfifj 8e d-xeipoir., but appends
immediately to TrepLer/xijO. its cJiaraderistic, whereby it is dis-
tinguished from what is elsewhere meant by circumcision ;
hence the thought is : " in your union with Christ there has
also tahcn i^lace a circumcision tqjon you (Gentiles), which is not
(like the Jewish circumcision) the ivorh of hands ;" comiD. Eph.
ii. 11. On the word dxeipoir. itself (which is similar to
tf^eipovp'yrjro^, Poll. ii. 154), in analogous antithetical reference,
comp. Mark xiv. 58 ; 2 Cor. v. 1 ; and on the idea of the
inner ethical circumcision, of which the bodily is the type,
comp. Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6 ; Ezek. xliv. 7; Acts vii. 51. See
Michaelis in loc, and the expositors on Eom. ii. 2 9 ; Schoettgen,
Hor. I. p. 815. — ev rfj aTreKSvaet /c.r.A-.] This characteristic
'KepieT ixrjOriTe Trepir. ctx^ip. took place hy means of the ]}utiin() off
of the body of the flesh, which was accomplished in your case
(observe the 'passive connection), i.e. in that the hody, lohose
essence and nature are flesh, ivas talccn off and put aivay from
you hy God} With reference to ev ttj uTreKSvaec k.t.X., which
is to be coupled not merely with Trepier/uLijd'qre (Hofmann), but
with the entire specifically defined conception of circumcision
Trepier/jb. irepn. dx^ipoir., it is to be noticed: (1) that the geni-
tive T?}? adpKo<; is the genitivus materiae, as in i. 22 ; (2) that
the adp^ here is not indifferent, but means the flesh as the seat
of sin, and of its lusts and strivings (Rom. vii. 23, 25, viii. 3, 13 ;
Gal. V. 16 ; Eph. ii. 3 ; Col. iii. 5, et cd) ; so that Paul (3) might
have conveyed the idea of to aco/ia t^9 a-apK. also by to
aw/ia tt}? d/xaprla^ (Eom. vi. 6), but the description by t^?
crapK6<; was suggested to him by the thought of the circumcision
(Eom. ii. 28; Eph. ii. 11). (4) The significant and weighty
expression direKhva-ei (the substantive used only here, the verb
also in ver. 15, iii. 9 ; Josephus, Antt. vl 14. 2) is selected in
contrast to the operation of the legal circumcision, which only
* Compare Hofmann, Sclmfthew. II. 2, p. 171. The same writer, however,
now objects that a.v\xhuiris cannot have x)o.ssive significance. But this it is not
alleged to have ; God is the aTsxSwwv, i.e. He who, as author of regeneration,
puts off from man the body of flesh.
364 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
■wounded the acofia r. aapKo^; and removed a portion of one
member of it; whereas the spiritual circumcision, divinely
performed, consisted in a complete ijarting and doing avjay
toith this body, in so far as God, by means of this ethical cir-
cumcision, luis 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 cir-
cumcised, i.e. translated by conversion from the estate of sin
into that of the Christian life of faith and righteousness (see
ver. 12), consequently born again as Kaivi-j KTiac;,^ as a kulvo^;
avdpoiiTO'i created after God (Eph. iv. 24), man has no longer
any crcofia r?}? aapKo^; at all, because the body which he has
is rid of the sinful adp^ as such, as regards its sinful quality ;
he is no longer iv rfj aapfci as previously, when lust ivT]pjetTo
iv Tot? fxeXeaiv (Eom. vii. 5 ; comp. ver. 23) ; he is no longer
crdpKLvo'i, TreTrpa/xevo^ vtto rrjv afxaprlav (Rom. vii. 14), but is
dead for sin (Rom. vi. 11); he has crucified the (rdp^ (Gal.
V. 24), and no longer walks Kara crdpKa, but iv KaivorrjTC
TTvevfjiaTo^ (Ptora. vii. 6) ; by the law of the Holy Spirit he is
freed from the law of sin and death (Eom. viii. 2), iv Trvevfiarc
(Ptom. viii. 9), dead with Christ (Gal. ii. 19 ; 2 Cor. v. 14;
Col. iii. 3), and risen, so that his members are 07r\a BtKaio-
cvvr]<i rw Qe^ (Eom. vi. 13). This Christian transformation is
represented in its ideal aspect, Mdiich disregards the empirical
imperfection, according to which the crdp^ is still doubtless even
in the regenerate at variance with the Trvev/xa (Gal. v. 1 7). Our
dogmatists well describe regeneration as j^ci'fecta a parte Dei,
but as imjJcrfecta a parte liominuvi reeipicntium. To take acofia
in the sense of mas&a or aggregate (Calvin, Grotius, Calovius,
and others, including Steiger and Bahr^), is opposed as well to
' Tlie epoch of Ibis transformation is lapilsm (see Weiss, Blhl. Thcol. p. 439,
cJ. 2 ; comp. Iloltzmann, p. 178), by -wliicli, however, the baptism of Christian
cJdldrcn is by no means assumed as tlie antitype of circumcision (Steiger,
Philippi). Comp. on 1 Cor. vii. 14; Acts xvi. 15.
* Comp. also Pliilippi, Glauhensl. V. 2, p. 225, who dechares my explanation
to be forced, without proof, and contrary to the Scripture ; and Keiche, Comm.
crit. p. 274, who understands <rufccc of the " toto quasi vitiositatis (t. ffapxo;)
corpore," so that the putting away of all immorality is denoted. Similarly
Dalmer.
ciiA?. II. 11. 365
the context, in wliicli the discourse turns upon circumcision and
(ver. 12) upon hurial and resurrection, as also to the linguistic
usage of the N. T. In classic authors it expresses the notion
in question in the ^^//ysfco? sense, e.g. Plat. Tim. p. 32 C : to
Tov Koa-fxou awjxa (comp. p. 31 B, Hi^j). maj. p. 301 B), and
in later -writers nmy also denote generally a vjliole consisting
of parts (comp. Cicero, ad Alt. ii. 1. 4). In opposition to the
erroneous assumption that a-cofia must have a figurative mean-
ing here, as Julius Miiller, v. d. SiincU, I. p. 459 £, still in the
5th ed., thinks,^ see on Rom. vi. 6 ; comp. also Hofmann,
Schrifthciv. I. p. 560 f. — iv rfj Trepirofifj tov X.] 1)7/ means of
the circiimcision of Christ, parallel to the previous iv tjj aireK-
hvaet k.tX., naming specifically (as different from that of the
Old Testament) the circumcision descri'becl previously according
to its nature. The genitive tov XptaTov is to he rendered :
the circumcision, which is ijrochicccl through Christ. The con-
text requires this by the further explanation of the thing itself
in ver. 12. Comp. above, eV w. But Christ is not conceived
of as Himself the circuviciser, in so far, namely, as by la/ptism
(Theophylact, Beza, and others), or by His Spirit (Bleek), He
accomplishes the cleansing and sanctification of man (see on
ver. 1 2) ; but as the One through whom, in virtue of the
effective living union that takes place in conversion between
man and Himself, this divine Treptro/x?;, in its character speci-
fically different from the Israelite circumcision, is practically
hrought cibout and rendered a reality, and in so far it is based
on Christ as its atTto9 (Theodoret). It is not, however, &a^>
tism itself (Hofmann, following older expositors) that is meant
by the circumcision of Christ, although the predicate a^eipoTr.
would not be in opposition to this view, but the spiritual trans-
formation, that consecration of a holy state of life, which takes
place in hapiism ; see ver. 12: iv T<p PaTTTia/xaTC. According
to Schneckenburger, in the Theol. Jahrh. 1848, p. 286 ff., the
d7re/cSfcrt9 r. crco^u.. t. aapK. is meant of the dccdh of Christ, and
also the TrepiTOfir} tov X. is meant to denote this death, so that
• Miiller also holds that Paul here conceives the old sinful nature as a bocbj
which, in regeneration, the Christian puts off; and that <rdfl is to be understood
only of the earthly-human life.
366 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSI ANS.
the latter is an explanation by way of application of the
former, in opposition to the heretical recommendation of a
bodily or mystical irepiTOfir]. It may be decisively urged
against this view, that after tt}? crapK6<; there is no avrov,
(comp. i. 22), which was absolutely necessary, if the reader
was to think of another subject than that of Trepterfi-^OrjTe ;
further, that tj} uKpo^va-rla Tri<; a-apKo^ vimwv, in ver. 1 3, stands
in significant retrospective reference to the aireKSvaL'i r. o-m/m.
T?7? crapKO'^; and that avvTa(f)evTe<i k.t.X. in ver. 12 is synchronous
with 7repierfjt,rjd7]Te k.tX., and reprc-ients substantially the same
thing. Moreover, the description of the death of Christ as
His circumcision would be all the more inappropriate, since,
in the case of Christ, the actual circumcision was not absent.
According to Holtzmann, the entire clause : ev r. aTrexS. rov
awjM. T. aapK., iu r. irepir. r. X., should be deleted as an
addition of the interpolator, because the expression awfia
T^9 (TapKo^ has occurred at i. 22 in quite another — namely,
an indifferent, genuinely Pauline — reference. This reason is
incorrect, because in i. 22 it is not t^? a-apKO'i, but t?]? aapKo^
avTov, and this uvtou makes the great essential difference
between the expression in that passage and that employed in
our present one.
Ver. 12 supplies further information as to how the irepcer-
jxri6r]r€, SO far as it has taken place by means of the circum-
cision of Christ, has been accomplished. — cvvra^evre^i /c.t.X.]
synchronous with TrepteT/u,. (comp. on i. 20, elprjvoTrocqaai;) : in
that ye hccame buried with Him in haiJlism. The immersion
in baptism, in accordance with its similarity to burial, is —
seeing that baptism translates into the fellowship of the death
of Christ (see on Eom. vi. 3) — a huricd along with Christ,
Eom. vi. 4. Through that fellowship of death man dies as to
his sinful nature, so that the a-o)p.a tt}? aapKo^ (ver. 1 1) ceases
to live, and by means of the fellowship of burial is put off
(ver. 11). The subject who effects the joint burial is God, as
in the whole context. In the burial of Christ this joint burial
of all that confess Him as respects their sinful body was
objectively completed; but it takes place, as respects each
individually and in subjective appropriation, by their baptism.
CHAP. II. 12. 367
prior to whicli the realization of that fellowship of burial was,
on the part of individuals, still wanting. — ev u> koI avvrjyip-
6i}T€] A new benefit, which has accrued to the readers iv
XpiaTa>, and which in their case must bring still more clearly
to living consciousness their iv XpcarrS 'TreTrXrjpwfjLevov elvai, ;
so that iv at here is parallel to the iv w in ver. 11, and refers
to Christ, as does also avrov 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 iv rw ^airr. (Beza, Calixtus, Estius,
Michaelis, Heinrichs, and others, including Steiger, Bohmer,
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, Dalmer, Bleek) ; but,
in opposition to this may be urged, first, the very symmetry
of the discourse (o? . . . iv at Kai . . . iv w Kai) ; secondly, and
specially, the fact that, if iv a, refers to baptism, iv could not
be the proper preposition, since iv ro- (SaTTT., in accordance with
the meaning of the word and the figure of burial, refers to the
dipping into (not (yverfioioing, as Hofmann thinks), whilst the
spiritual awakening to new life, in which sense these exposi-
tors take avvrj'yipO., would have taken place through the
emerging again, so that we should expect ef ov, or, at all
events, the non-local St ov; and, thirdly, the fact that just as
<TvvTa<^evre<i has its own more precise definition by iv tc3
^UTTT., so also has avvrjyipd. through Bia t^? Trto-Teo)? k.tX.,
and therefore the text affords no occasion for taking up again
for (TvvTjyipO. the more precise definition of the previous point,
viz. iv tS ^aTTTca/xaTi. No, the first benefit received in
Christ which Paul specifies, viz. the moral circumcision,
accomplished by God through the joint burial in baptismal
immersion, has been fully handled in ver. 11 down to ^air-
TiafjiaTi in ver. 12, and there now follows a second blessing
received by the readers in Christ {iv c5 /cat) : they have been
raised up also with Christ, which has taken place through faith,
etc. The previous joint burial was the necessary moral pre-
liminary condition of this joint awakening, since through it
the o-£o/Lta T779 a-apKo^ was put off. This <Tvv7]yip9. is to be
understood in the sense of the felloicship of th& lodily resurrec-
tion of Christ, into which fellowship man enters by faith in
3G8 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE C0L03SL\NS.
sucli a way that, in virtue of his union of life and destiny
with Christ brought about by means of faith, he knows his
own resurrection as having taken place in that of Christ — a
benefit of joint resurrection, which is, indeed, prior to the
Parousia, an ideal possession, but through the Parousia
becomes real (whether its realization be attained by resurrec-
tion proper in the case of the dead, or by the change that shall
take place in those who are still alive). Usually awTjryipO.
is taken in the ethical sense, as referring to the S2nritual
awakening, viz. from moral death, so that Paul, after the
negative aspect of the regeneration (ver. 11 ; ^airrlcrfiaTL,
ver. 12), now describes its positive character; comp. also
Huther, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann. But in opposition to this
view is the fact that the fresh commencement ev u> Kai, corre-
sponding with the similar commencement of ver. 11, and
referring to Christ, makes us expect the mention of a new
henefit, and not merely that of another aspect of the 2^'^'<^vious
one, otherwise there would have been no necessity for repeat-
ing the iv f' Kal; as also, that the inference of participation in
the proper resurrection of Christ from death lies at the basis of
the following rod ijelpavro'; avrov i/c vcKpwv. Comp. on Eph.
ii. 1, and ii. 5, 6. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Oecumenius
have already correctly explained it of the proiKr resurrection
{koli f^ap iyTjyepfieOa rfj hvvd[xei, el koI /xrj ttj evepyeia), but Theo-
phylact makes it include the ethical awakening also : holding
that it is to be explained Kara Svo TpoTrov;, of the acttml
resurrection in spc, and at the same time on TrvevfjcaTiKm rrjv
veKpcoaiv rwv epyoov r7]<; afjbapria^ aTreppi^jrafjLev. — Bia Trj<j
Trla-rew'i /c.r.X.] The t?}? iriaTeca is described by Holtzmann,
p. 70, as syntactically clumsy and offensive ; he regards it as
an interpolation borrowed from Eph. i. 1 9 f. Groundlessly ;
Paul is describing the siibjeetive mccliiim, without which the
joint awakening, though objectively and historically accom-
plished in the resurrection of Christ, would not be appropriated
individually, the Xtjittikov for this appropriation being wanting.
The unbeliever has not the blessing of having risen with
Christ, because he stands apart from the fellowship of life with
Christ, just as also he has not the reconciliation, although the
CHAP. II. 12. 369
reconciliation of all has been accomplished objectively through
Christ's death. The genitive t^9 ivepyeLa^ t. 0. is the ohjed
of faith ; so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Zeger, Grotius, Estius, Cornelius
a Lapide, Michaelis, Eosenmiiller, and others, including Baum-
garten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, and Hofmann, in the 2d ed. of
the Schrifthcvj. II. 2, p. 174 f. But others, such as Luther
(" through the faith luhich God luorks"), Bengel, Flatt, Biihr,
Steiger, de Wette, Bohmer, Huther, ct al., take r?;? ivepy. r. G.
as genitivus causae, for which, however, Eph, i. 19 is not to
be adduced (see in loc), and in opposition to which it is de-
cisive that in all passages, where the genitive with 7ri(TTi<i is
not the believing subject, it denotes the object (Mark xi. 22 ;
Acts iii. 16 ; Eom. iii. 22 ; Gal. ii. 16, 20, iii. 22 ; Eph. iii. 12 ;
rhil. i. 27, iii. 9 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13 ; Jas. ii. 1 ; Eev. ii. 13, xiv. 12),
and that the description of God as the Being luJio has raised
U20 Christ jrorn the dead stands most naturally and directly
in significant reference to the divine activity which procures,
not the faith, but the avveyeipeadat, and which is therefore
set forth in a very appropriate manner as the special object^
of faith (comp. iv. 17, 24, vi. 8, x. 9; 2 Cor. iv. 13, 14;
Eph. i. 19 f. ; 1 Pet. i. 21). At the basis, namely, of the rod
iyeipavTot; avr. eV veKp. lies the certainty in the believer's
consciousness : since God has raised up Christ, His activity,
which has produced this imnciixde and majus, will have
included therein the consequens and minus, my resurrection
with Hirii. 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 Ivk-yypov
(Theodoret) of the latter. Hofmann now again (as in the first
ed. of the Schriftheu-cis) explains t?}? ivepy. r. O. as in apposi-
tion to 7r^9 Trlcrrea}'?, in such a way that Paul, " as if correcting
himself" makes the former take the place of the latter, in
order to guard against the danger of his readers conceiving to
' The efficacy of the divine power shown in the resurrection of Christ is the
guarantee of the certainty of salvation.
COL. 2 A
370 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
themselves faith as a conduct on man's 'part making possible
the participation in the resurrection of Christ by God, while in
reality it is nothing else than the product of the ivipyeia of
God. A quite gratuitously invented self-correction, without
precedent, and undiscoverable by the reader; although the
thought, if it had entered the mind of Paul, might have been
indicated with the utmost simplicity and ease (possibly by Sia
T?7? TTiVrew?, fidWov Be Sea ri}? evepy. t. 0.).
Ver. 13. Since that a-vvrjyepOTjTe wsis the awaking to eternal
life, Paul now goes on to give special prominence to tliis great
blessing, the making alive, and that in reference to the Gentile-
Christian position of the readers ; and to this he annexes, in
ver. 14 f , an anti-Judaistic triumphant statement reminding
them of the cancelling of their debt-bond with the law. —
To attach koX v/xd^ . . . aapKo'i v/xcov still to ver. 12, and to
make it depend on iyelpavra (Steiger), is rendered impossible
by the right explanation of t?}? iriaTeaxi r?}? ivepyelaf; r. 0.
in ver. 12,^ to say nothing of the abrupt position in which
avve^cooTT. would thus appear. Kal v/uid<; goes along with
avve^cooTr., so that vfia'i is then repeated (see Fritzsche, Quaesf.
Luc. p. 14; Bornemann in the Sachs. Stud. 1846, p. 66;
Klihner, II. 1, p. 568 ; Winer, p. 139 [E. T. 184]), the repeti-
tion being here occasioned by the emphasis of the a-vve^cooTr. :
" You also, when ye were dead . . . He made you alive together
with Him." The fcal therefore is not the copula cmd, but, in
harmony with the v/u,d^ 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 (rvve^woTr.
had been extended, as to all believers, so also to them. The
' This applies also iu opposition to Hofmann, wlio takes ver. 13 likewise as a
continuation of the description of God given in rod lyilp. ahrlv Ik vmp., and
therein makes the apostle gnilty of a clumsy change of construction, viz. that he
intended to make auZ^omvomiroft'Toi follow, but, because this word would have been
" mcoHre?M'eni " after vs^^auf mrcm x.r.x., exchanged it for an independent sen-
tence. But ffvX.uovoiwavro; would have been inserted without any inconvenience
whatever : on the contrary, it would only have expressed the alleged idea con-
formably to the construction clearly and definitely. The comparison of i. 26
is unsuitable. Holtzmann follows substantially the view of Hofmann, but
regards the change of structure as the result of dictation. There is no change of
structure in the passage at all.
CHAP. II. 13. 371
correctness of tliis reference is shown by the context as well
through rfj uKpo^va-Tia t/'}? aapK. vjj,., as through the pronoun of
the f,rst person which is introduced after -^apLadfi. Extremely
arbitrary is the view of Olshausen, who thinks that in ver.
1 1 f. the readers are addressed as representatives of the collec-
tive community/, but by koI vp.a^ in ver. 1 3 'personally ; while
Baumgarten-Crusius, in complete antagonism to the position
of the words, joins Kai, not to u/ia?, but to the verb : " also
He has called you to the ncvj life that ahideth." — To arrive at
a proper understanding of what follows we must observe:
(1) That avve^cooTTOLTjo-ev is not to be taken, any more than
avvr]yep9r]Te previously, in an ethical sense, as referring to
regeneration (so usually since Oecumenius, as e.g. Grotius :
" sicut Christo novam contulit vitam ex morte corporis, ita et
nobis novam ex morte animorum ; " comp. also Bleek and
Hofmann), but in its proper sense, and that (comp. Kaeuffer,
de ^wT;? alwv. not. p. 94 f.) as referring to the everlasting life
to which God^ raised up Christ, and which He has thereby
also provided for believers in virtue of their fellowship with
Christ (as an ideal possession now, but to be realized at the
Parousia). See also Eph. ii. 5. The reconciliation (which de
Wette understands) is not the ^wovroiT^cri? itself, as is plain
from the compound a-vue^cooTr., but its precursor and medium.
The a-v^oiOTTOLelv stands in the same relation to the crvveyeipeiv
as the nature of the act to its process ; but the reason why
crvvriyepd. here stands hcfore the av^woiroteiv (it is different in
Eph. ii. 5) is, that the avvr^r^epOr^re was correlative with the avv-
ra^6VT€<i in ver. 12, hence that word is used first, while in
Eph. I.e. the being dead preceded, with which the av^woTrotelv
primarily corresponds. (2) Like awe^cooir., so also vcKpov^
is not to be taken in an ethical sense (so usually both here
' God is the subject of a-t/vs^s/acrs/jjirsv, not Christ (Ewald and the older exposi-
tors) ; for God has raised up Christ, and God is, according to the present con-
text (it is different in iii. 13), the forgivcr of sins, and lias brought about the
remission of sins through the Ixaffrrifiov of Christ (ver. 14). Hence also it is not
to be written <r, auru (with the aspirate). Just as God was obviously the act-
ing subject in 'TfiftiT/ArifnTt, in <ru\iTa<pUTi;, and in ffw/iyi^P., so also He is intro-
duced in the same character emphatically in ver. 12, and remains so till the
close of ver. 15.
372 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSLVNS.
and in Epli. ii. 1, as e.g. Calvin, who thinks that the alicnatio
a Deo is meant), but, with Chiysostom and Theodoret, in its
proper sense ; the readers have been — this is the conception
— prior to their conversion to Christ a i^rey of death. This is
by no means to be understood, however, in the sense of
physical death (for that comes from Adams sin, see on Eoni.
V. 1 2), but in that of eternal death, to which they were liable
through their sins, so that they could not have become par-
takers of the eternal l^wr] (comp. on Eom. vii. 9 f.). See also
on Eph. ii. 1. What is meant, therefore, is not a death
which would have only hecome their eternal death in the
absence of the quickening (Hofmann), but the eternal death
itself, in which they already lay, and out of which they would
not have come without that deliverance, nay, which on
the contrary — and here we have a prolepsis of the thought —
would only have completed itself in the future aloov} (3)
This being dead occurred in the state (iv) of their sins {Tol<i
indicates the sins which they had committed) and of the
uncircumcision of their flesh, i.e. when as respects their sinful
matericdly -psychical nature they were still uncircumcised, and
had not yet put off by conversion their Gentile fleshly con-
stitution.^ The aKpo^varla in itself they even now had as
Gentile Christians, but according to ver. 11 it was no longer
aKpo^. Tj]<i aapfc6<; in their case, but was now indifferent (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 (T(ofjia rrj^ <TapK6<;. The ethical reference of the expres-
sion does not lie, therefore, in aKpo^varla itself, but in the
characteristic r^? aapKo^ vp^wv (genitive of the subject) ; in this
uncircumcision they were as Gentiles prior to their conversion,
but were so no longer as Christians. Consequently uKpo^. is
not to be taken figuratively (Deut. x. 1 6 ; Ezek. xliv. 7 ; Jer.
iv. 4) as a designation of vitiositas (so Theodoret, Beza,
1 Quite correlative is tlie conception of the ^w>j as eternal life, which the
righteous man akeady has, although he has still inj^irospect the glorious perfec-
tion of it in the future alcJv.
* The iv is not repeated before t7 axpoli. because the two elements coupled by
xai are conceived together so as to form the single idea of unconversion ; Kiihner,
II. 1, p. 476. This applies also in opposition to Holtzmanu, p. 156.
CHAP. II. 13. 373
Grotius, Biilir, Bleek, and most expositors), but in its 'pro'pcr
sense, in which the readers as uKpo^varoL could not but have
understood it, and therein withal not as a symbol of unclcanncss
(Huther), or of the alimatio a Deo (Calvin, comp. Hofmann),
or the like ; on the contrary, the entire ethical stress lies on
T>}<? aapK. vfi. The idea of original sin (Flacius and other
dogmatic expositors, comp. Bengel : " exquisita appellatio
peccati origin.") is likewise involved, and that according to
its K T. meaning (Eom. vii. 14 ff.), not in aKpo^vcrr., but
doubtless in T779 (rapK. vfiwv. Nevertheless this tj}? aapK.
vfxibv belongs only to rf} d/cpo/Svaria, and not to rot? irapa-
TTTcofiaa-i as well (Hofmann) ; comp. Eph. ii. 11. Otherwise we
should have, quite unnecessarily, two references heterogeneous
in sense for the genitive ; besides, the notion of nrapdinwiia
presupposes not the a-dp^, but the Ego in its relation to the
divine law as the subject ; hence also the expression Trapdirr.
T?}9 aapK. (or d/xapTia t. a.) does not occur, while we find epya
Ty]<; a-apKO'i in Gal. v. 19. Holtzmann, p. 71, ascribes the
words Kol rf] aKpojS. r. aapKo^ v/x. to the interpolator's love for
synonyms and tautological expressions, and wishes to condemn
them also in consequence of what in ver. 11 belongs to the
latter (p. 155). But they are not at all tautological ; and see on
ver. 11. — '^(apiadfievo'i /c.t.X..] after having granted to tis, i.e.
forgiven, etc. This blotting out of our whole debt of sin was
necessarily prior to the avve^woir. vfia<i aijv avra. By the
fact, namely, that He remitted to us all the sins which we had
committed (jrdvTa rd Trapairr.), the cccusa efficiens of the being
(eternally) dead was done aivay. Comp. Chrysostom : rd
nrapaTrrco/xaTa, d rrjv veKpor'qra iirolei. This '^apiadfievo^ k.t.\.
is the ax>pro2yriation of the reconciliation on the part of God,
which believers experienced ivhen they helicved and were bap-
tized ; the ohjective expiatory act through the death of Christ
had preceded, and is described in ver. 14. — '^filv] applies to
helicvers gencrcdly} This extension, embracing himself in com-
1 Not specially to Jeioish Christians (Hofmann, who discovers hero the same
idea that is expressed in Heb. ix. 15, and makes a new period begin with
•^apKroLfii^tos), since Paul does not express a contrast with the Gentile-Christians,
but very often passes from the second person, which refers to the readers, to the
374 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
mon with others, is prepared for by koI viu,d<;, but could
not have been introduced, if 'x^apccrdfz. k.tX. had been con-
ceived as synchronous with avve^woir., in which case Paul
must logically have used v/Jilv (not 17/iti/), as the reading
is in B K""''"" Vulg. Hilary. On 'x^apl^ea-dai, comp. 2 Cor. ii,
10, xii. 13; Eph. iv. 32. On the subject-matter: 2 Cor. v.
19 £f.
Ver. 14. The jparticiple, which is by no means parallel and
synchronous with '^apiadfxevo'i in ver. 13, or one and the
same with it (Hofmann), is to be resolved as : after that He
had Hotted out, etc. For it is the historical divine reconciling
act of the death of Christ that is meant, with which '^apia-d-
pievo<i k.tX. cannot coincide, since that work of reconciliation
had first to be accomplished before the '^apl^eaOai k.tX. could
take place through its appropriation to believers. — i^aXelcjietv]
is to be left quite in its piivjMr signification, as in Acts iii. 19,
Rev. iii. 5, vii. 17, xxi. 4, and frequently in LXX. and
Apocrypha, since the discourse has reference to something
loriltcn, the invalidating of which is represented in the sensuous
form of Uotting out, even more forcibly than by Siaypdcpetv (to
score out ; see Euhnken, af? Tim. p. 81). Comp. Plat. Ecp.
p. 386 C, p. 501 B : e^aXei^oLev . . . iraktv iyypdtjiotev, Ep.
7, p. 342 C : TO ^(oypacpovfievov t6 kov i^aXeicpo/xevov, Dem.
468. 1 in reference to a laiv : el '^py) tovtov e^aXel^i^at, Xen.
Hell. ii. 3. 51 ; Lucian, Imag. 26 ; Eur. Iph. A. 1486. Comp.
Valckenaer, ad Aet. iii. 19. — to KaO' rj/xcov 'xjecpoypacpov] the
handwriii'iKj existing against v.s. What is thus characterized
is not the lurdcn of dcht lying upon man, which is, as it were,
his debt-schedule (Bleek), but the Mosaic km. A ')(€ip6<ypa<^ov,
namely, is an obligatory document of debt (Tob. v. 3, ix. 5 ;
Polyb. XXX. 8. 4 ; Dion. Hal. v. 8 ; and the passages in
Wetstein ; also the passages quoted from the Piabbins in
Schoettgen), for which the older Greek writers use avyypacpy]
first, in which he, in accordance Avith the sense and connection, continues the
discourse from the standpoint of the common Christian consciousness. Comp.
i. 12 ; Gal. iv. 5, 6 ; Eph. ii. 1, 4, et al. ; Winer, p. 539 [E. T. 725]. Nor does
the idea of the figurative x^'fhp'^'P'"') which Hofmann urges, by any means
require such a limitation — which there is nothing to indicate — of the ««r» cm-
hracing himself and others.
CHAP. II. 14. 375
or ypafjL/MaTelov, Dem. 882. 7, 956. 2 ; see also Hermann,
Privatalterth. § 49, 12. And the laiu is the 'xetp6'ypaj>ov con-
fronting lis, m so far as men are bound to fulfil it perfectly,
in order to avoid the threatened penal curse ; and consequently
because no one renders this fulfilment, it, like a bill of debt,
proves them deUors (the creditor is God). We are not to
carry the figure further, in which case we should come to the
halting point in the comparison, that the man who is bound
has not himself tv7'itte7i the ^eipoypacpop} Hofmann maintains
that tliis element also, namely, man's having written it with
his oivn hoMcly is retained in the conception of the figurative
■)(^eip6<ypa(J3ov. But the apostle himself precludes this view by
his having written, not : to rj/ioov ')(eip6'yp. (which would mean :
the document of debt draion hy lis), but : to kuO' rjfxwv '^etpojp. ;
which purposely chosen expression does not affirm that we
have ourselves written the document, but it does affirm that it
authenticates us as arrested for debt, and is consequently agoAnst
us. The words rot? Boy/xaaiv 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
w'hole, and the various limitations of it, either to the ceremonicd
law (Calvin, Beza, Schoettgen, and others), or to the moral law
(Calovius), are altogether in opposition to the connection (see
above, iravra to, TrapaiTT.), and un- Pauline. The explanation
referring it to the conscience (Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and
^ The relation of ohUgation and indebtedness in wMch man stands to the law
(comp. Gal. iii. 10) is quite snfficient to justify the conception of the latter as
the ;i(^iifoypa(fo)/, without Seeking this specially in the promise of the people, Ex.
xxiv. 3 (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others ; also Hofmann) ;
which the reader could not guess without some more precise indication. Indeed,
that i>romise of the people in Ex. xxiv. 3 has by no means the mark of being
self-written, but contains only the seli-olUgation, and would not, therefore, any
more than the amen in Deut. xxvii. (which Castalio suggests), suffice for the
idea of the x^ifo'ypcc(pcv, if the latter had to contain the debtor's own handivriting.
In accordance with the apostle's words {to xxf hfiav z^'p'''yp-j see above), and
with the type of his doctrine regarding the impossibility of legal righteousness,
his readers could think only of the ypaftfix of the law itself as that which proves
man a debtor ; comp. Eom. ii. 27, 29, vii. 6 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6. Wieseler, on Gal.
p. 258 (appealing to Luke xvi. 5 ff.), BL ek, and Holtzmann, p. 64, also errone-
ously press the point that the x^if'-yf. must necessarily be written or signed by
the debtor hirRself.
376 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
otliers) is also at variance botli witli the word and with the
context.^ Tlie conscience is the medium for the Jcnowlcdqc of
the law as the handwriting which testifies against ns ; Mdthout
the activity" of the conscience, this relation, in which the law
stands to us, would remain unknown. Exception has been
taken to its being explained of the Mosaic law on account of
the use of rj/xcov, seeing that this law existed only for the Jeios.
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 BiKalcof^a rov ©eoO (Eom. i. 32), have in
fact TO epyov rov vo/xov ypairrov iv rat? KapSiai^ avTciov (Ilom.
ii. 15), and, consequently, fall likewise under the condemning
sentence of the law, though not directly (Eom. iii. 19, ii. 12),
but indirectly, because they, having incurred through their
own fault a darkening of their minds (Eom. i. 20-23), trans-
gress the " KOivov cLTTavToov dvOpcoTTcov vojxov" (Dem. 639. 22).
The earnest and graphic description of the abrogation of the
condemning law in ver. 14 is dictated by an apologetic motive,
in opposition to the Judaism of the false teachers ; hence it
is the more inappropriate to understand with Cornelius a
Lapide and others tlic covenant of God with Adam in Gen.
ii. 16, as was already proposed by Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact (comp. Iren. Ilacr. v. 1 7. 3, and Tertullian). —
Toh Boyfiaa-Lv] Eespecting Sojfia, command, especially of legal
decrees, see on Eph. ii. 15 ; "VVetstein on Luke ii. 1 ; the
dative is closely connected with •^eipoypatpov, and is instru-
;inental : ivhat is icrittcn ivith the commands (therein given), so
that the B6y/u.aTa, which form the constituent elements of the
law, are regarded as that whercv:ith it is written. Thus the
tenor of the contents of what is written is indicated by the
dative of the instrument {aUativus modi), just as the external
constituent elements of writing, e.g. ypdjxjxacn in Gal. vi. 11,
and TUTTot? in Plat. Up. 7, p. 343 A, are expressed by the
' Lutlicr's gloss: "Notliing is so hard against us as our own conscience,
vlieifby we are convinced as by our own handwriting, when the law reveals to
us our sin." Melanchthon : " scntentia in niente et corde tanquam scrijita lege
et agnitione lapsus," in connection with which he regards the conscience as
" syllogisnuis practicus ex lege ductus."
CHAP. II. 14. 377
same dative. Observe the vcrhal nature of j(eip6'ypa<^ov, and
that the dative is joined to it, as to to yeypafifxevov (comp.
Plat. I.e. : ra yeypa/xfieva rvvoa). This direct combination
of a verbal substantive with a dative of the instrument is such
an unquestionable and current phenomenon in classical Greek
(see Matthiae, II. p. 890 ; Heindorf, ad Flat. Cratyl. p. 131 ;
and especially Iviihner, II. 1, p. 374), that the connection in
question cannot in the least degree appear as harsh (Winer,
Buttmann), or even as unnatural (Hofmann) ; nor should it
have been regarded as something " welded on " by the inter-
polator (Holtzmann, p. 74), who had desired thereby to give
to 'x^eipoyp. its reference to the law. The explanation given by
many writers (Calvin, Beza, Vitringa, AVolf, Michaelis, Hein-
richs, and others, comp. Luther), which hits nearly the true
sense : the ')(eip6'ypa<^ov, consisting in the Soyfiacrt, 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 roU Boy/u,. to tp kuO' ^)/j.cov by supplying an 6v
(Calovius).^ Biihr, Huther, and Dalmer (comp. de Wette) regard
it as a more precise definition of the entire ro KaG" r^p,. -^eipoyp.,
so that Paul explains what he means by the ^^ipoyp., and, at
the same time, how it comes to be a debt-document testifying
against us. So also Winer, p. 206 [E. T. 275]. This, however,
would have been expressed by to toc<; Boy/xaat Ka6' r)p.a)v
X^Lpoyp., or in some other way corresponding grammatically
with the sense assumed. Ewald joins Tot9 Boyjx. as aji'proiwiat-
ing dative (see Bernhardy, p. 8 8 f.) to ^(eipoyp. : our bond of
oUigation to the statutes? But if j(eip6yp. were our bond of
obligation (subjectively), the expression ro kuO' rjp.cov %ei/>. would
be inappropriate, and Paul would have said merely to i^fxwv %e<p.
T. Boyp,. It is incorrect as to sense, though not linguistically
erroneous, to connect T049 Boy p.. tvith e^aXeL-^a<;, in which case
it is explained to mean (as by Harless on Eph. ii. 15) that the
' So also Wieseler in Eosenmiiller's Eep. II. p. 135 fi". : to x^ifoyp. to toI; liy/a.
X.x6 rifiuv ov.
- Comp. Wieseler on Gal. p. 258 : "with reference to the statutes." He takes
Paul's meaning to be, " our testimony with our own hand, that we have trans-
gressed the statutes of the law of Moses."
378 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
abrogation of the law had taken place either as regards its
statutes (Steiger) ; or ly the evangelical doctrines of faith (the
Greek expositors, Estius, Grotius, Hammond, Bengel, and
others) ; or nova praecepta stdbilicndo (Fritzsche, Diss, in 2 Cor.
II. p. 168 f.). In opposition to these views, see Eph. ii. 15.
Erasmus, Storr, Elatt, Olshaiisen, Schenkel, Bleek, and Hof-
mann have attached it to the following relative clause,^ in
opposition to the simple order of the words, without any-
certain precedent in the K T. (with regard to Acts i. 2, Eom.
xvi. 27, see on those passages), and thereby giving an emphasis
to the Tot9 ho<yiJb. which is not warranted (for the law as such
contains, in fact, nothing else than Boy/xara). — o ^v virevavriov
rjfitv] an emphatic repetition — bringing into more marked pro-
minence the hostile relation — of the thought already expressed
by Kaff' t)[x(av, with the view of counteracting the legalistic
efforts of the false teachers. Bengel's distinction, that there is
here expressed ipsa pugna, and by kuO^ rj/xMv, statics belli, is
arbitrary and artificial. It means simply : vjhich was against
us, not : secretly against ns, 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 IST. T. again in Heb. x.
27. The relative attaches itself to the entire to Kaff' rj/j,.
')(eip6<yp. Tot? S07//-. — KoX avTo rjpKev /c.t.X.] Observe not only
the emphatic change of structure (see on i. 6) which passes
from the ixirtieiple, 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 comijlctcd. A gra'phi-
cally ilhistrative representation : the bill of debt was Hotted
out, and it has itself hceoi carried avjay and is no longer in
its place ; rjpKev avro iic rov fieaov firj a(pel<i eVt '^copa'i,
Oecumenius. avro denotes the handwriting itself, materialiter,
' So also Thomasms, Chr. Pers. u. Wcrk, III. 1, p. 110. He considers as the
Xiipoypai^ov not the Mosaic law itself, but tlie hill of debt Avhich tlie broken law
has drawn up against us. The very parallel in Eph. ii. 15 is decisive against this
view.
CHAP. II. 14. 379
in contrast to the just mentioned Hotting out of its contents.
For He has nailed it, etc. ; see the sequel. Hofmann imports
the idea : it in this (hostile) quality ; as if, namely, it ran koL
TOLovTo 6v (Xen. Anah. vi. 5. 13; Philem. 9). — The e/c tou
/xia-ov is our : " out of the way" said of obstructions which are
removed. Comp. Plat. Eryx. p. 401 E ; Xen. Anah. i. 5. 14;
de pracfect. 3. 10, and the passages in Kypke, II. p. 323.
The opposite: eV fiecxw elvai, to he in the way, Dem. G82. 1 ;
Aescli. Suppl. 735 ; Dorv. ad Charit. vii. 3, p. 601. Thus
the law stood in the way of reconciliation to God, of the
■^api^eadai k.t.X. in ver. 13. — irpoa'tjXcocra^; /c.r.X.] irpoarfkovv
only found here in the N. T. ; see, however. Plat. Pliaed. p.
83 D (with Trpo?) ; Lucian, Prom. 2, Dial. D. I. (rw KavKaaw
irpoarfKcoixevo'^) ; Galen. IV. p. 45, 9 : rw aravpS, 3 Mace,
iv. 9. Since the law which condemned man lost its punitive
force through the death of Christ on the cross, inasmuch as
Christ through this death suffered the curse of the law for
men (Gal. iii. 13), and became the end of the law (Ptom. x.
4), at the same time that Christ was nailed as iXaa-rijpcov to
the cross, the law was nailed to it also, and thus it ceased
to be iv fiio-w. Observe, moreover, the logical relation of the
ao7'ist participle to the perfect rjpKev. The latter is the state
of the matter, which has emerged and exists after God has
nailed, etc. The k. auTo rjpKev eV jxeaov takes place since that
nailing. In the strong expression irpocrrfKwaa'i, purposely
chosen and placed foremost, there is involved an antinomistic
triumph, which makes the disarming of the law very palpably
apparent. Chrysostom has aptly observed on the whole passage:
ovBa/iiov ovroi^ fiejaXocbcovcoq i(f)dey^aTO. 'Opa<; oirovZriv
Toy d(f)avLa6P]vai to '^(^eipd'ypacpov oarjv eTroLi^aaro ; olov iravre';
rj/iev vcf)' afiapriav k. KoXaaiv auT09 KoXa(T6e\<; eXvae Kal rrjv
dfiapTLav Kal rrjv KoXaaiv. Nevertheless, 7rpoarf\(t}aa<i neither
figuratively depicts the tearing in piicccs of the x^^P^iP-
(Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theopliylact), nor is there any
allusion to an alleged custom of publicly placarding antiquated
laws (Grotius). According to Hofmann (comp. also his
Schriftbeiv. II. 1, p. 370 f.), a public placarding icitli a view
to ohservance is meant; the requirement of Israelitish legal
380 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIAXS.
ohligation 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 iiardon of transgressions of the law.
This is a fanciful pushing further of the apostolic figure, the
point of which is merely the blotting out and taking away of
the law, as the debt-document hostile to us, by the death of
the cross. The entire representation which is presented in this
sensuous concrete form, and which is not to be expanded into
the fanciful figure of transformation which we have just re-
ferred to, is intended, in fact, to illustrate merely the forgive-
ness of sins introduced by '^apca-ufievo'i k.t.\. in ver. 13, and
nothing more. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 24. It is to be observed, at
the same time, that the i^aXelcjieiv and the alpeiv e'/c t. fieaov
do not represent two acts substantially different, but the same
thing, the perfect accomplishment of which is explained by
way of climax with particularising vividness.
Ver. 15.^ In this doing away of the law was involved the
victory and triumjjh of God over the devilish 230ivers, since the
strength of the latter, 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 aTre/cSvo-.
ran parallel, as the majority suppose, with irpoa-rfkwaa'i, there
must have been a Kai inserted before iSefyfiuT., as in ver. 14
before the finite verb, because otherwise no connection would
be established. Hence a full stop (Beza) must be placed before
aTre/cSucr., or at least a colon (Elzevir, Bleek) ; and without
any connecting particle the significant verb heads all the
more forcibly the description of this final result expressed
with triumphant fulness : Having stripped the lordshipis and
2)0ivers, he has made a show of them loldly, holding triumph
over them in the same. Observe the symmetrical emphatic
prefixing of aireKhva., iBeij/naT., and dpiafi^. The subject is
' Holtzmann, p. 156 f., rejects this verse because it interrupts the transition of
thought to ver. 16 (which is not the case) ; because hiyfiaTi^im is un-Pauline
(but in what sense is it un-Pauline ? it is in any sense a very rare word;) ; because
ipixf^liiviiv is used here otherwise than in 2 Cor. ii. 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 most very indirectly).
ciLvr. II. 15. 381
still always God, not Christ} as Baur and Ewakl hold, fol-
lowing Augustine, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Erasmus, Grotius,
Calovius, and many others ; hence the reading aTre/cS. tt^v
adpKa in F G (wliicli omit t. apx- k. t. i^ova.) Syr. Goth.
Hil. Aug. was an erroneous gloss ; and at the close, not avr^
(Syr. Vulg. It. Theodoret, Luther, Melanchthon, Elzevir,
Griesbach, and Scholz), instead of which G has kavrw, but
auTft) should be written ; see Wolf in loc. The figurative
ciTreKSva:, which illustrates the dqirivation of poiver that has
taken place through the divine work of reconciliation, repre-
sents the ap'^a'i koI e^ova. as having been elothcd in armour
(comp. Eoni. xiii. 1 2 ; Eph. vi. 11; 1 Thess. v. 8), which
God as their conqueror stripped off and took from them ;
Vulg. : exspolians. Comp. on eKhveiv and airohveiv, used from
Homer's time in the sense of sjwliare, Dem. 763. 28, 1259.
11 ; Hesiod, Scut. 447 ; Xen. Aiiah. v. 8. 23 ; 2 Mace. viii.
27; and on the subject-matter. Matt. xii. 19 ; Luke xi. 22.
^Moreover, we might expect, in accordance with the common
usage of the middle, instead of aTreKhvadfxevo'i, which is else-
where used intransitively (comp. iii. 9), the active aTre/cSyo-a?
(comp. Matt, xxvii. 28, 31 ; Luke x. 30) ; yet even in Plat.
Rep. p. 6 1 2 A, the (right) reading dTreSvad/xeda is to taken
in the sense of nudavimus ; and Xenophon uses the perfect
uTToSeSuKev, which is likewise intransitive elsewhere (see
Klihner, I. p. 803), actively, see Anah. I.e. : ttoXXou? rjBr}
aTToBiBvKev, multos vestc 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 conveys (as Hofmann, in order to
refute this explanation, erroneously lays to its charge) the
idea : in order to apipropriate to Himself this armour ; see on
the contrary generally, Kriiger, § 52. 10. 1 ; Kiihner, II. 1, p.
9 3 f. The disarming in itself, and not the possession of the
enemy's weapons, is the interest of the victor. Lastly, the
whole connection does not admit of any intransitive inter-
pretation, such as Hofmann, in his Schrifthciv. I. p. 350 f.
' Through this erroneous definition of the subject it was possible to discover
in our passage the descent into hell (Anselm and others).
382 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
(and substantially" also in Lis Hcil. Schr. in loc), has attempted,
making the sense : God has laid aside from Himself the
powers ruling in the Gentile world — which were round about
Him like a veil concealing Him from the Gentiles — by mani-
festing Himself in unveiled clearness. Something such as
this, which is held to amount to the meaning that God has
put an end to the ignorance of the Gentile world and
revealed Himself to it, Paul must necessarily have said ; no
reader could unravel it from so strange a mode of veiling
the conception, the more especially seeing that there is no
mention at all of the victorious word of Christ ^ converting
the Gentiles, as Hofmann thinks, but on the contrary of
what God has effected in reference to the ap')(aX and i^ovaiai
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 apyal and l^ovalai are two categories of evil angels
(comp. Eph. vi. 1 2), corresponding to two classes of good angels
similarly named (comp. ver. 10), is taught by the context,
which has nothing to do with mediating beings intervening
between God and the world (Sabatier), or even with human
rulers. Eitschl, in the Jalirh. f. Deutsche Thcol. 1863, p.
522, understands the angels of the laiv-giving (comp. on i.
20), of whom God has divested Himself (middle), i.e. from
whose environment He has tviihdraivn Himself. Even apart
from the singular expression aireKEvcrdfj,. in this sense, this
explanation is inappropriate, because the cip'^al and e^ovaiai
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 w/io? Qeov, 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? «p%a9 k. Ta<;
' In which sense also Grotius explained it, though he takes awsxSua-ajM.
rightly as exarmatos. See, in opposition to him, Calovius. Hofraann's expla-
nation is also followed by Holtzmann, jx 222 ; it is an unfortunate attemi^t at
rationalizing.
CHAP. II. 15. 383
i^ovaia<i is so comprehensive that, in the absence of any more
precise indication in the text, it cannot be specially limited
to the powers that were active in the law-giving, but must
denote the collective angelic powers — hostile, however, and
therefore devilish. Them God has disarmed, jput to shame,
and triumphed over, through the abrogation of men's legal
debt-bond that took place by means of the atoning death.
The emphatic and triumphant prominence given to this
statement w^as, doubtless, specially occasioned by those specu-
lations regarding the power of demons, with which the false
teachers were encroaching on the work of Christ, — BetyfA^ari^eiv,
preserved only here and in Matt. i. 19 (comp. however,
TrapaBecyfiaTi^eiv, especially frequent in Polybius ; see Schweig-
hauser, Zcx. p. 429), denotes, in virtue of its connection with
the conception of triumph, the making a show (Augustine, ep.
59 : " exemplavit ; " Hilary, de trin. 9 : " ostentui esse fecit ")
for the purpose of humiliation and disgrace (comp. Chry-
sostom), not in order to exhibit the vjcahiess of the conquered
(Theodoret, Bohmer), but simply their accomplished siihju-
gation ; comp. Nah. iii. 6 : Orjao^iai ae eh TrapaSeiy/xa. —
ev Trapprjala] is usually rendered puUicly, before the eyes of all,
consequently as equivalent to ^avepw in John vii. 10 (the
opposite : iv KpvrrTw, John vii. 4 ; Matt. vi. 4 ; Eom. 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 : holdly, freely
and franldy. Comp. Eph. vi. 19; Phil. i. 20. Hilary:
" cum fidueia ; " Vulgate : " confidenter palam." The objection
that tliis sense is not appropriate to the action of God
(Hofmann), overlooks the fact that God is here represented
just as a human triumpher, who freely and boldly, with re-
morseless disposal of the spoils acquired by victory, subjects
* Hence Hofmann joins it with fipia/^^iuffx;, in which, however, the idea of
publicity is obviously already contained. Hofmann, indeed, assumes a reference
of contrast to the invisible tiiuniphs, which God has ever been celebrating over
those powers. But thus the idea of ^piaf^fitun)! is extended to an unwarranted
amplitude of metaphorical meaning, while, nevertheless, the entire anthropopathic
imagery of the passage requires the strict conception of the public ^plafif^s;
Moreover, the pretended contrast is altogether foreign to the context.
384 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
the conquered to ignominious exhibition.-^ — 6piafi^ev<Ta<i avr.
iv auru)] synchronous with iSeLy/x. : wJtilc He triumphed over
them. Kespecting Opca/x^eveLV riva, to triumijh over some one,
see on 2 Cor. ii. 14. Comp. the passive 6pia/x^6vea6ai, to be
led in triumph, Plut. CorioL 35. avrov^ refers Kara avvecnv
to the devils individually, who are conceived as masculine (as
Saifiove^, Koa-fioKpdrope^, Eph. vi. 12), see generally AViner,
p. 138 [E. T. 183] ; and ev avrS is referred either to the cross
(hence, also, the readings iv tw ^vXrp or aravp^) or to
Christ. The former reference is maintained by the majority
of the Fathers (Theophylact : iv no aravpca rov<i haipiova'i
rjTTrjixevov^ Se/fa?), Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and many others, in-
cluding Bohmer, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald, Weiss, Bill. Theol.
p. 432, ed. 2 ; and the latter, by Erasmus, Luther, Llelanch-
thon, Wolf, Estius, Bengel, and many others, including Flatt,
Eiihr, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, Bleek,
Hofmann, Eich. Schmidt. The reference to Christ is erroneous,
because Christ is not mentioned at all in ver. 14, and God
pervades as subject the entire discourse from ver. 11 onwards.
We must hold, therefore, by the reference to rw aravpw, so
that ev auTM 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 triumpli,
inasmuch as through the death of Christ on the cross obliter-
ating and removing out of the w\ay 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. Ouv'] since ye, according to vv. 11-15, are raised
to a far higher platform than that of such a legal system. —
KpiveTW iv /Spoocrei] No one is to Jorm a judgment (whether ye
are acting allowably or unallowably, rightly or wrongly) con-
1 It is an inconsiderate fancy of Hofmann to say, by way of controverting onr
explanation : Who would be surprised, that the triumpher should make a show of
the conquered, " luitJiout previously asking their permission" ? As if such a
thought, no doubt very silly for the victor, were necessarily the contrast to the
frank daring action, with wliich a general, crowned with victory, is in a position
to exhibit his captives without any scruple, without sparing or hesitation ! He
has the l^nvfia, for the ^uyfiari^nv, and uses it Iv TapptKrla.
CHAP. II. iG. 385
cerning you in the 2^oint of eating (iv, comp. Piom. ii. 1, xiv. 22 ;
1 Pet. ii. 1 2). 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, ^pw<TL<; is always actio edcndl,
and is thus distinct from ^pcofia, cihus (Rom. xiv. 1 7 ; 1 Cor.
viii. 4; 2 Cor. ix. 10 ; also Heb. xii. 16), although it is also
current in the sense of /Spwfia with John (iv. 32, vi. 27, 55), and
with profane authors (Horn. II. xix. 210, Od. i. 191, x, 176, e^
al; Plat. Zcgg. vi. p. 783 C; Hesiod, Scut. 396). This we
remark in opposition to Pritzsche, ad Earn. III. p. 200. The
case is the same with Troo-t? (Eom. xiv. 17) and 7r6fx,a (1 Cor.
X. 4 ; Heb. ix. 1 0). — iv Trocret] Since the Mosaic law contained
prohibitions of oiieats (Lev. vii. 10 £f.), but not also general
prohibitions of drinhs, it is to be assumed that the false teachers
in their ascetic strictness (ver. 23) had extended the prohibition
of the use of wine as given for the Nazarites (Num. vi. 3),
and for the period of priestly service (Lev. x. 9), to the Chris-
tians as such (as dyiovsi). Comp. also Eom. xiv. 17, 21. De
Wette arbitrarily asserts that it was added doubtless in con-
sideration of this, as well as of the Pharisaic rules as to drinks.
Matt, xxiii. 24, and of the prohibition of wine offered to idols
(ovu does not point to such things), but still mainly on account
of the similarity of sound (Piom. xiv. 17 ; Heb. ix. 10, and
Bleek m loc). — iv fxepei eopTrj<; k.t.\.] iv p-epet, with the
genitive, designates the category, as very frequently also in
classical authors (Plat. Theaet. p. 155 E, Hcjj. p. 424 D;
Dem. 638. 5, 608. 24); comp. on 2 Cor. iii. 10, and see
Wyttenbach, ad Plvt. I. p. 65. The three elements: festival,
new moon, and Sahhath, are placed side by side as a further
classis rcrum ; in the point {iv) of this category also no judg-
ment is to be passed upon the readers (if, namely, they do
not join in observing such days). The elements are arranged,
according as the days occur, either at longer unequal intervals
in the year (ioprrj^;), or monthly (vovp,r]v.), or weekly (cra/3/3aT.).
But they are three, co-ordinated ; there would be only one
thing with three connected elements, if kul were used instead
of T] in the two latter places where it occurs. The three are
given in inverted order in 1 Chron. xxiii. 31 ; 2 Chron. ii. 4,
COL. 2 B
386 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
xxxi. 3. On the subject-matter, comp. Gal. iv. 10. Eespect-
ing the Jewish celebration of the Tiew moon, see Keil, Arclidol.
I. § 78 ; Ewalcl, Alterth. p. 470 f . ; and on a-djS^ara as equi-
valent to ad^^arov, comp. Matt. xii. 1, xxviii. 1 ; Luke iv. 16,
et al. iv fxepei, has been erroneously understood by others in
the sense of a |)a?'^m/ celebration (Chrysostom : i^evTeXl^et
Xeycov rj iu [xepei iopri]';- ov fyap Srj iravTa KaTel')(pv la irpd-
repa, Theodoret : they could not have kept all the feasts, on
account of the long journey to Jerusalem ; comp. Dalmer), or :
mcihus festorum (Melanchthon, Zanchius), or, that the partici-
pation in the festival, the taking part in it is expressed (Otto,
dekalog. Untcrs. p. 9 ff.), or that it denotes the scgrcgatio, " nam
qui dierum faciunt discrimen, quasi vmum ab alio dividunt"
(Calvin). Many, moreover inaccurately, hold that eV p,epu
means merely : in respect to (Beza, "Wolf, and most expositors,
including Bahr, Huther, and de Wette) ; in 2 Cor. iii. 1 0,
ix. 3, it also denotes the category. Comp. Aelian. V. H. viii. 3 :
KpivovTe<i eKacTTOv iv tw /xepec (f>ovov.
Ver. 17.^ An epexegetical relative sentence, assigning the
ground for what has just been said. — o, which (see the critical
remarks), is not to be arbitrarily referred merely to the observ-
ance of feasts and days (Flatt and Hofmann), but to the things
of the law mentioned in ver. 16 generally, all of which it
embraces. — a-Kid^ not an outline (aKiaypa(pla, aKiaypdcprj/xa),
as in the case of painters, who " non exprimunt primo ductu
ima^inem vivis coloribus et elicoviKa><i, sed rudes et obscuras
lineas primum ex carbone ducunt," Calvin (so also Clericus,
Huther, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), which (XKid does
not mean even in Heb. viii. 5, x. 1, and which is forbidden
by the contrast of to o-w^ua, since it would rather be the per-
fect picture that would be put in opposition to the outline.
* Holtzmann, without assigning his reasons, regards the entire verse as an
" extract from theEpistU to thellebrews" (Heb. ix..6, 9 f., 25, x. 1, 11, viii. 5) ;
he thinks that the whole polemic of vv. 16-23 was intended to introduce the
more developed features of later heresy into the picture of the apostolic age.
But the difficulty of ver. 18 (which Holtzmann considers utterly unintelligible)
and ver. 22 f., as well as the alleged un-Pauline character of some expressions
in ver. 19, does uot furnish a sufficient basis for such an opinion. Comp. on
vv. 18, 19, 22, 23.
CHAP. II. 17. 387
It means nothing else than shadow. Paul is illustrating,
namely, the relation of the legal ordinances, such as are adduced
in ver. 16, to that which is future, i.e. to those relations of the
Messianic kingdom, which are to be manifested in the amv
fxeKKcov (neither a'ya6u>v from Heb. x. 1, nor anything else, is
to be supplied with rwv fieXXovrcov), and in doing so he fol-
lows the figurative conception, that the ixiXkovra, which there-
fore, locally considered, are in front, have cast their shadow
behind, which shadow is the Mosaic ritual constitution, — a
conception which admirably accords with the typical character
of the latter (Heb. viii. 5, x. 1), of which the constitution of
the Messianic kingdom is the antitype. It is to be noted
further: (1) The emphasis of confirmation lies not on twv
fieWovTcov (Beza), but on a-Kid, in contrast to to aoSfia. 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 natiu^e of theirs — not of such a kind that
salvation may be made dependent on their observance or non-
observance, and adjudged or withheld accordingly. (2) The
passage is not to be explained as if rfv stood in the place of
eVrt, so that ra fjueXkovra would denote the Christian relations
already then existing, the Kacvr) htadrjKr], the Christian plan
of salvation, the Christian life, etc. (so usually since Chrysos-
tom) ; but, on the contrary, that which is spoken of is
shadow, not, indeed^ as divinely appointed in the law (Hof-
mann) — for of this aspect of the elements in question the text
contains nothing — but in so far as Paul sees it in its actual
condition still at that time present. The fiiWovra have not
yet heen manifested at all, and belong altogether (not merely
as regards their completion, as de Wette thinks, comp. also
Hofmann) to the al(ov fiiWcov, which will begin with the
coming again of Christ to set up His kingdom — a coming, how-
ever, which was expected as very near at hand. The fieK-
\ovTa could only be viewed as having already set in either in
whole or in part, if ^u and not eVrt 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.
388 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
iii. 23 ; 1 Tim. i. 16), or if ea-rl were meant to be said fiom
the standpoint of the divine arrangement of those things
(Hofmann), or if this present tense expressed the logical
present merely by way of enabling the mind to picture them
(Rom. V. 14), which, however, is inadmissible here, since tlie
elements indicated by aKid still continued at this time, long
after Christ's earthly appearance, and were present really, and
not merely in legal precepts or in theory. (3) The charac-
teristic quality, in which the things concerned are meant to be
presented by the figurative <7Kid, is determined solely by the
contrast of to (tm/j-u, namely, as unsulstantiality 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. Tlie reference to transitoriness (Spencer, de
legit, rit. p. 214 f., Baumgarten-Crusius, and others) is purely
imported. — to Be crw/ia] scil. rwv fieXkovrwv, bnt the body of
the future.^ Inasmuch as the legal state of things in ver. 1 6
stands to the future Messianic state in no other relation than
that of the shadoio 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 context, can be nothing else than
just the fjiiWovTa themselves, their concrete reality as con-
trasted with the shadowy form which preceded them. Accord-
ingly, he might have conveyed the idea of the verse, but
without its figurative garb, in this way : o eVrt tutto? twv
fieWovrcov, avra Be to. /jbeWovra Xpiarov. — XpicrTov] scil.
eari, belongs to Christ. The fieXXovra, namely, viewed under
the figurative aspect of the o-w/jLa which casts the shadow
referred to, must stand in the same relation to Christ, as the
body stands in to the Head (ver. 1 9) ; as the body now
adumbrating itself, they must belong to Christ the Ifead of
the body, in so far, namely, as He is Zo7'd and ruler of all the
relations of the future IMessianic constitution, i.e. of the Mes-
* The explanation of Hilgcnfeld, 1873, ]>. 199: "the mere cu/^a. "KpirraZ, a
purely somatic Chrislianii;/," is at variance with the antithetical coirelation
of <rxici and (Tufiot, as well as with the apostle's cherished conception of the
trSfix of Christ, which is contained immediately in ver. 19.
CHAP. II. 18. 389
siauic kingdom, of the jSacriXeia tov Xptcrrov (i. 13; Eph.
V. 5). Whosoever, therefore, 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 fieWovra themselves,
after the lochj which has cast that shadow, does not hold to
Christ, to whom as Head the a-cofia (t?)? <TKLa<i) belongs as His
ovm. 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 hochj and its
head, as also by ver. 19, There is much inaccuracy and irrele-
vancy in the views of expositors, because they have not taken
ra fieWovra in the sense, or not purely in the sense, of the
relations of the alcov fieWcov, but in that of the then existing
Christian relations, which in fact still belonged to the alcov
o5to9, and because, in connection therewith, they do not take
up with clearness and precision the contextually necessary
relation of the genitive Xpcarov as denoting Him, whose the
aw/xa is, but resolve it into what they please, as e.g. Grotius (so
also Bleck) : " ad Christum pertinet, ab eo solo petenda est ;"
Huther : " the substance itself, to which those shadowy figures
point, has ajjpcarcd in Christ ;" Ewald : "so far as there is
anything really solid, essential, and eternal in the 0. T., it
belongs to Christ and to His Spirit ;" Hofmann : " the body
of the future is there, where Christ is, present and given with
Him" (consequently as if eV Xpta-ro} were used). — On to aoi/ia
in contrast to aKcd, comp. Josephus, Bell. ii. 2. 5 : a-Kiav
alTr]a-ojj.evo<; ^aaiXelaf, rj<i rjpTraaev eavTot to cMfia. Philo, dc
conf. ling. p. 434 : ra pXv prjTa rcov y^prjaixwv crKui<; rtva^ dxravel
aco/idrcov elvaf ra? S' i/Kpawofxiva^ 8vvdfi€L<; ra vcfjecrTwra dXrj-
Oeia TrpdyfiaTa. Lucian, Herniot. 29. Observe, however,
that awfxa invariably retains its strict literal sense of lodg, as
a sensuous expression for the substantially real, in contrast
to the unsubstantial shadow of it.
Ver. 18.-^ Warning against a further danger, with which
they were threatened on the part of these false teachers. —
pLTjhel'^;'] not different from yttT^ri? in ver. 16, as if the latter
emphasized the verb and the former the subject (Hofmann).
' See upon ver. 18, Eeiche, C'omm. Crit. p. 277 flf.
390 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
This would be correct, if in ver. 1 6 it were firj ovv Kpivira) Tt<j
v/Aa9. Comp. on /j,rjTi<;, ver. 8, and on /iT^SetV, ver. 4. More-
over, the words cannot be regarded (with Holtzmann) as a
duplicate proceeding from the interpolator, especially as they
contain a naa warning, and in such a peculiar form {icara-
^pa/3.). — Kara^pa^eveTco] Let no one deprive you of the prize.
Kara^pa^eveiv, which is not a Cilician word (Jerome ; see, on
the contrary, Eustath. a^ 7^. i. 93. 33 : Kara^pa^evei avrov,
CO? (j)aaLv ol TraXatoi), is only now preserved among ancient
Greek authors in Dem. c. Mid. 544, idt. : eTriarafxeOa Hrpd-
Tcova viro MeiSiov Kara/3 pa^evOevr a koX irapa iravra ra BLKaca
aTifjbcoOivra, where it expresses the taking away of victory in
a judicial suit, and the procuring of a sentence of condemna-
tion, and that in the form of the conception : to bring it about
to the injury of some one, that not he, but another, shall receive the
prize from the ^pa^ev<;. Midias had bi^ibcd the judges. The
Kara intimates that the prize was due to the person concerned,
although it has been in a hostUe spirit (not merely un-
righteously, which would be irapa^pa^eveiv} Plut. Mor. p.
535 C; Polyb. xxiv. 1, 12) loithdrawn from him and ad-
judged to another. The right view substantially, though not
recognising the distinction from irapajSpa/S., is taken by
Chrysostom (7rapa(3pa^ev6rivat <yap iariv, orav rrap krkpoav
jjbev r) VLKT], Trap irepcov Be ro ^pa/Selov) and Theophylact, also
Suidas : to dWov dycovc^ofievov dWov are(^avova6ai Xeyei o
arroaroko'; Kara/Spa^eveaOat. Comp. also Zonaras, ad Condi.
Laod. can. 35, p. 351 : to jxi-j rov viKijcravra d^covv rov ^pa-
jSeiov, dW erepo) BiBovat avro dBiKOVixevov rov vLK')]aavro<;. The
conception is : (1) To the readers as true believers belongs the
Messianic prize of victory, — this is the assumption upon which
the expression is based ; (2) The false teachers desire to
deprive them of the prize of victory and to give it to others,
namely, to themselves and their adherents, and that through
their service of angels, etc. ; (3) Just as little, however, as in
' With, -vvhicli Theodorct confounds it {ahlxai; Pipafiiviiv) ; he makes it the
unrighteous awarding of the prize of victory : i-rnlh toIvvv xai ei tu; mfuxxs
TafitryiprKTiii tu ivayyiX'ito ■rapafiiyyvvrif ccro tuv Kpurrovuv uvtov; iVi to. tXamw
CHAP. II. IS. 391
the case of the Kpiveiv in ver. 1 6, ought the readers to give heed
to, or let tliemsclves be led astray "by, this hostile proceeding
of the Kara^pa^eveiv, which is based upon subjective vanity
and is (ver. 19) separation from Christ and His body, —
this is implied in the imperatives. Consequently, the view
of Jerome, ad Aglas. p. 10, is not in substance erroneous,
although only approximately corresponding to the expression :
" Nemo adversus vos praemium accipiat ;" Erasmus is substan-
tially con-ect : "praemium, quod sectari coepistis, vobis intcr-
vertat ;" comp. Calvin, Estius, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Ewald, and others ; while the Vulgate {scducat), Luther (" to
disijlace the goal"), and others content themselves with a much
less accurate statement of the sense, and Bengal imports into
the passage the sense of itsurped false leading and instruction,
as Beza similarly took it.^ The /3pa^eiov, to which Kura^p.
refers, is not Christian liberty (Grotius, who explains it prae-
miuDi exigere), nor yet : " the honour and prize of the true
worship of God" (de AVette), but, in accordance with the stand-
ing apostolic conception (comp. Phil. iii. 14: 1 Cor. ix. 24):
the bliss of the Messianic hingdom, the incorruptible tTTe^ava
(1 Cor. ix. 25), the are^. rrj<i BiKaLoavvr]^ (2 Tim. iv. 8), r^?
So^'?79 (1 Pet. V. 4), T^9 ^cofj<; (Jas. i. 12) ; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 5.
With reference to the ^pa^elov, Eisner, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt,
Steiger, and others, including Bahr, Bohmer, Eeiche, Huther,
and Bleek, following Pliotius in Oecumenius (fjutjBeh vfxm
KaraKpivercci), have taken Kara/3paj3. in the sense of to condemn,
parallel to the Kpivkrco 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 KaraKpiveiv in the case of Kara/3 pa/Seveiu ; but
it cannot be justified by proofs adduced, and it is decidedly in
opposition to the context through the following OeXcov k.t.X,
which presupposes not a judgment of the opponents, but an
^ "Nemo adversum vos rectoris partes sibi iiltro sumat." He starts from the
common use of (ipafifjiiv in the sense of regere ac moderari (see Dorvill. ad
Charit. p. 404). Comp. on iii. 15. But neither the passage of Dem. I.e., nor
the testimony of the Greek Fathers, of Suidas, Eustathius, and Zonaras, nor the
analogy of vapafipalitviiv, would justify tlie adoption of this sense in the case of
the compound Kuralipa^.
392 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
action, something 2J'i'<^ciic<^i, which, through their perverse re-
ligious attitude, they would fain accomplish. — OeXcov] sc.
Kara^pa^eveiv vfxa'i : while he desires to do this, would willingly
accomplish it (comp. Dissen, ad Find. 01. ii. 97) by humility,
etc. So rightly Theodoret (touto tolvuv crvve^ovkevov eKelvot
^iveaOat Ta'ireLVO(^po(Tvvr] hrjdev Ke^y^prjixevoi), Theophylact (deKov-
atv vfj,d<i KarajBpa^eveLV Sia raTretvocpp.), Photius in Oecumenius,
Calvin, Casaubon, and others, including Hutlier and Buttmann,
Mut. Gr. p. 322 [E. T. 376]. The " languidum ct frigidurn"
which Eeiche urges against this view, applies at the most
only in the event of Kara/Spa^, being explained as to con-
demn ; and the accusation of incorrectness of sense (Hof-
mann) is only based upon an erroneous explanation of the
subsequent eV raireLvo^p. k.tX. The interpretation adopted
" by others : talcijig delight in humility, etc. (Augustine, Cas-
talio, Vatablus, Estius, Michaelis, Loesner, and others, including
Storr, Flatt, Bahr, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, Hof-
mann, and Hilgenfeld), is based upon the extremely unneces-
sary assumption of an im-Greek imitation of 2 "sn, such as
occurs, indeed, in the LXX. (1 Sam. xviii. 22 ; 2 Sam. xv. 26 ;
1 Kings X. 9 ; 2 Chron. ix. 8 ; Ps. cxlvii. 10), but not in the
N". T. ; for in Matt, xxvii. 43, OeXeiv is used with the accusa-
tive, comp. on Eom. vii. 21. Moreover, in the 0. T. passages
the object of the delight is almost invariably (the only excep-
tion being Ps. cxlvii. 10) a person. Even in the Apocrypha
that abnormal mode of expression does not occur. Others,
again, hold that it is to "be joined in an adverbial sense to
Kura/Sp. It would then (see Erasmus, Annot.) have to be
rendered cupide or studiosc (Plat. Theact. p. 143 D; and see
Eeisig, Conjcct. p. 143 f.), or unconstrained, voluntarily, equiva-
lent to ideXovTL, i6e\ovTt)v, edeXovTrj^ (Plat. Symp. p. 183 A,
very frequent in Homer, Soph. Phil. 1327, Aesch. Choeph.
19. 790, and the passages from Xenophon quoted by Sturz,
Lex. II. p. 21), which sense, here certainly quite unsuitable,
has been transformed at variance with linguistic usage into the
idea : " hoe tnumis sihi a nullo tributttm exerccns" (Beza), or :
■unwarrantably (Bohmer, comp. Steiger), or of his own choice
(Luther, who, like Ewald, couples it with ifi^arevcov), or :
CHAP. 11. 18. 393
arhitrarily (Ewald), or : capriciously (Kciclie), etc. ; conse-
quently giving it the sense of eKcov, avTo6e\'t]<;, avTOKe\evaTo<;,
or avroyvcoficov. Even Tittmann, Synon. p. 131, comes at length
to such an ultro, erroneously quoting Herod, ix. 14, where
Oekwv must be taken as in Plat. Thcact. I.e. — ev TaiTeLvo<^p.
K. Oprja-K. Tcov a77e\.] eV is not propter, which is supposed to
have the meaning : because rwjreLvocfyp. k.t.X. is necessary to
salvation (Eeiche) ; nor does it denote the condition in which
the Kara/Spa/Seveiv takes place (Steiger, Huther) ; but, in keep-
ing lyith the OeXwv, it is the means by which the purpose is
to be attained : hy virtue of humility and %vorsliip2nng of angels.
Thereby he wishes to effect that the jBpajBeiov shall be with-
drawn from you (and given to himself and his followers).
T. ayyiXcov is the genitive of the object (comp. Wisd. xiv. 2 7 ;
Herodian, iv. 8. 17; Clem. Cor. I. 45 ; see also Grimm on
4 Mace. v. 6, and the passages from Josephus in Krebs, p. 339),
and belongs only to OprjaK., not to ruTreivocpp. That the latter,
however, is not humility in the proper sense, but is, viewed
from the perverse personal standpoint of the false teachers, a
humility in their sense only, is plain from the context (see below,
eiKrj (^vaLovfjb. k.t.X.), although irony (Steiger, Huther) is not to
be found in the word. Paul, namely, designates the thing as
that, for which the false teachers held it themselves and
desired it to be held by others, and this, indeed, as respects
the disposition lying at the root of it, which they sought to
exhibit (eV raireLvoc^p), and as respects the abnormal religious
phenomenon manifested among them {k. OprjCK. t. uyyeXwv) ;
and then proceeds to give a deterrent exposure of both of these
together according to their true character in a theoretical
(a . . . ifjL^aT.) and in a moral (elKrj cjiua: . . . rrjv KecpaXyv)
respect. Hoiu far the false teachers bore themselves as
Ta'ireiv6j>pove<i, is correctly defined by Theodoret : Xeyovre'i,
0)9 do par 0'; o ru>v oXwv 0eo9, dve^tKTO<: re koX dKaTdXrjTrro^i,
Kal irpoai^Kei Sta tcuv dyyeXcov ttjv Oeiav eiifxiveiau irpayp.a-
reveaOat, so that they thus regarded man as too insignificant
in the presence of the divine majesty to be able to do without^
' Compare Augustine, Covf. x. 42 : " Queni invenirem, qui me reconciliaret
tibi ? Abeundum mihi fuit ad angelos ? Multi conantes ad te rediie, neque per
394 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
the mediation of angels, which they sought to secure through
Op7}(TKe[a (comp. 4 ]\Iacc. iv. 11), thereby placing the merit of
Christ (Eom. v. 2) in the background. It is differently ex-
plained by Chrysostom and Theophylact (comp. also Photius
in Oecumenius) : the false teachers had declared the majesty of
the Only-Bcgoitcn 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. Eeiche and Ewald
(comp. Hofmann's interpretation below) find the Taireivo^po-
avvr\ in the acpeiSia awfiaro^ of ver. 23, where, however, the
two aberrations are adduced separately from one another, see
on ver. 23. Proofs of the existence of the worship of angels
in the post-apostolic church are found in Justin, Ap. I. 6,
p. 56,^ Athenagoras, and others; among the Gnostic heretics
(Simonians, Cainites) : Epiph. Haer. xx. 2 ; Tertullian, praescr.
33 ; Iren. Haer. i. 31. 2 ; and with respect to the worshipping
of angels in the Colossian region Theodoret testifies : ejuuetve
Be rovTO TO irdOo^ iv Tjj ^pvyla Kal UicnhLa /JiS'^pi 'TToWov' ov
Br] X^piv Kol avveXOovcra (tvvoBo<; iv AaoBcKela t>}<? ^pvyia^
(a.D. 3G4, can. 35) vofiu) KeKcoXvKe to rot? a'y'yi\oL<; irpoaev-
'^eaOai, Kal fJ^^XP'' ^^ '^^^ ^^^ evKTijpta tov djLOU Mix^ijX Trap
eKeivoL'i Kal toI<; 6/x6poi,<; iKelvcov iaTLV ISelv. The Catholic
expedients for evading the prohibition of angel-worship in
our passage (as also in the Coneil. Laod., Mansi, II. p. 568)
may be seen especially in Cornelius a Lapide, who under-
stands not all angel -worship, but only that which places
the angels above Christ (comp. also Bisping), and who refers
the Laodicean prohibition pointing to a " KeKpvfifievq elBco-
\o\aTpeia " (" otu ov Bel XpicTTLavov'i iyKaTaXecTrecv ti^v eKK^r]-
se ipsos valentes, sicut audio, tentavenint Iiaec, et inciderunt in dcsidcrium
curiosarr.m visiomim, et digni liabiti sunt illusionibus. " The (false) ru'riive-
(ppoiruvii was the subjective source of their going astray to angel-worship.
' Hasselbach gives substantially the right interpretation of tlie passjige in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 329 ff.
CHAP. II. 18. 395
(Tiav rov Qeov koX aiTLevai Kot ayyeXov<; ovofid^etv" k.tX.), in
accordance with the second Nicene Council, only to the
cultus latriae, not duliae, consequently to actual adoration,
not TifjLr}TiKr]v irpoaKvvqcnv. In opposition to the words
as they stand (for Opr^a-Keta with the genitive of the
subject would necessarily be the cultus, which the angels
present to God, 4 Mace. v. 6, 12; Joseph. Antt. xii. 5. 4;
comp. Acts xxvi. 5), and also in opposition to the context
(see ver. 19), several have taken twv ayyeXcov 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 angch" comp. Melanchthon,
Schoettgen (" habitus aliquis angelicus "), Wolf, Dalmer.
Nevertheless, Hofmann, attempting a more subtle definition of
the sense, has again taken twv dyyeXcov as genitive of the suh-
icct, and joined with it not only OprjaKela, but also Taireivo-
^pocrvvrj. The Taveivocppocriivr) of the angels, namely, consists
in their willingly keeping within the hounds assigned to them as
spirits, and not coveting that which man in this respect has
heyond them, namely, what belongs to the corporeal world.
And the dprjaKeia of the angels is a self-devotion to God, in
which, between them and Him, no other harrier exists than
that hettveen the Creator and His creatures. That raTrecvocfipo-
a-vvT] and this OprjcrKeLa man makes into virtue on his part,
when he, although but partially, renounces that lohieh belongs
to Him in distinction from the angels (rairetvocpp.), and, as one
luho has divested himself as much as possible of his corporeality,
presents himself adoringly to God in such measure as he refrains
from what was conferred upon him for bodily enjoyment. I
do not comprehend how, on the one hand, the apostle could
wrap up the combinations of ideas imputed to him in words
so enigmatical, nor, on the other, how the readers could,
without the guidance of Hofmann, extract thern out of these
words. The entire exposition is a labyrinth of imported sub-
jective fancies. Paul might at least have written ev iyKpareia
iirl TOO 6/jL0ca>fiaTL (or kuO' cfxoLcocnv, or Ka9' o/u,oiorr]Ta) t^9
Ta7r€i,vo<f)pocrvvr]^ Kol 6pr)aK€ia<; rdv dyyeXcov I Even this
would still have been far enough from clear, but it would at
39G THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
least have contained the point and a hint as to its inter-
pretation. See, besides, in opposition to Hofmann, Eich.
Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 193 f. — a ecopuKev ifi/Sareucov] Sub-
ordinate to the OiXcov k.tX as a warning modal definition to
it : entering ujpon ivhat he has hcheld, i.e. instead of concerning
himself with what has been objectively given (ver. 19), enter-
ing the subjective domain of visions with his mental activity,
— by which is indicated the mystico-theosophic occupation of
the mind with God and the angels,^ so that ecapaKev (comp.
Tert. c. Marc. v. 19) denotes not a seeing with the eyes,
but a mental beholding," which belonged to the domain of
the (pavrd^eo-dai, in part, doubtless, also to that of visionary
ecstasy (comp. Acts ii. 17; Eev. ix. 1 7 ; opa/xa in Acts ix.
10, 12, X. 3 ; 2 Chron. ix. 29, et al.; Luke i. 22). This re-
ference must have been intelligible to the readers from the
assertions put forth by the false teachers,'' but the failure to
observe it induced copyists, at a very early date, to add a
negative (sometimes fiij and sometimes ov) before ecopuKev.
'Efi^areveLv (only used here in the K T. ; but see Wetstein,
also Eeisig, ad Ocd. Col. ijracf. p. xxxix.), with accusative of the
place conceived as object (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 257), also with the
genitive, with the dative, and with et?, means to step upon, as
e.g. vrjo-ov, Aesch. Pers. 441 ; ttoXlv, Eur. PI. 595 ; yfjv, Josh,
xix. 49 ; also with reference to a mental domain, which is
' This fanciful habit could not but be fostered and promoted by the Jewish
view, according to which the appearances of angels were regarded as ^avrair^ara
(Gieseler, Kircheiif/esch. I. 1, p. 153, cd. 4).
2 Ewald regards s^^axs* as more precisely defined by iv vaTuvopp. x.r.x., as if
it ran a. iy TCfxnto^f. K.r.x. laifcixiv : " tvhile he enters arhitrarihj ujJon iliat, which
he has seen in httmiUti/ and angel-worship (consequently has not actually himself
experienced and known), and desires to teach it as something true." But such
a hyperbaton, in the case of the relative, besides obscuring the sense, is without
precedent in the N. T. Comp. on ver. 14. Besides, the thought itself is far
from clear ; and respecting ^£X»v, see above.
^ For the sphere of vision of the lupaxiv lay not outside of the subjects, but in
the hollow mirror of their own fancy. This applies also in opposition to Hilgen-
feld, who now (1873, p. 198 f.) properly rejects the /^v, but takes a iup. Ififiar.
incorrectly : " abiding by the sensuous." Opposed to this is the very use of the
perfect leup. and the significant expression Ififiartvav. The apostle does noi mean
the ipard, but the aopara. (i. 16), into which they ascend by visions whicli they
profess to have had.
CHAP. 11. 18. 397
trodden by investigation and other mental activity, as Philo,
de flant. No'e, p. 225 C, d al.; see Loesner, p. 369 f. ; 2 Mace,
ii. 30 ; comp. also Nemes. de nat. hoin. p. 64, ed. Matth. :
ovpavov ifi^arevet rfj decopia, but not Xen. Conv. iv. 2 7, where,
with Zeuniiis, ifxaarevere ought to be read. Phavorinus :
e/jL^aTeuaat,' to evBov i^epevvP]crai, rj aK0Tr7]aat,. It is frequently
used in the sense of seizing possession (Dem. 894. 7 ; Eur.
Heracl. 876 ; Schleusner, Thcs. II. 332; Bloonifield, Gloss, in
AescJi. Fcrs. p. 146 f.). So Budaeus and Calvin (se ingercns),
both with the reading jjh], also Huther {estaUishincf himself
firmly in the creations of fancy) ; still the context does not
suggest this, and, when used in this sense, ifi^ar. is usually
coupled with eZ? (Dem. 894. 7, 1085. 24, 1086. 19; Isa.
ix. 3, et al.; 1 Mace. xii. 25). In the reading of the Rccepta,
a fir) i(op., the sense amounts either to : entering into the un-
seen transccndentcd sphere} wherein the assumption would be
implied that the domain of sense was the only field legitimately
open, which would be unsuitable (2 Cor. v. 7, xiii. 12) ; or to :
entering into things, which (although he dreams that he has
seen them, yet) he has not seen — a concealed antithetical refer-
ence, which Paul, in order to be intelligible, must have indi-
cated. The thought, in the absence of the negative, is not tveak
(de Wette), but true, in characteristic keeping with the perverse-
uess of theosophic fancies (in opposition to Hofmann's objec-
tion), and representing the actual state of the case, which Paul
could not but know. According to Hofmann, the a fxrj ecopuKev
wliich he reads is to be taken, not with ifx^arevcop, 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 exposition of the raireLvo^pocvvr]
K. 6pr](TKeta tS)v wyy., with which the connection, hit upon by
' Conip. Chrysostom : they have not seen the angels, and yet bear themselves
as if they had seen them.
- For even the xinseen, which may in any other way have been brought to our
knowledge, we may and nnder certain circumstances should imitate (comp. e.g.
Eph. V. 1). And even tlie angels and their actions have been included among
the objects of the divine revelation as to the history of salvation and its accom-
plishment.
398 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
him, of ecK^ with eix^arevcov (" an investigation, which results in
nothing"), also falls to the ground. — etV?} (pva-tovfi. k.tX., and
then Kal ov Kparcov k.tX., are both subordinate to the a ecopuKev
ifi^arevcov, and contain two modal definitions of it fraught with
the utmost danger. — et/c^ (jivcrtovfi.] for the entering upon
what was seen did not rest upon a real divine revelation, but
upon a conceited, fanciful self-exaggei-ation. To Be <y€ ^vacov-
fjLevo<i Tj} TaireLvoc^pocrvvrj ivavriov ovk earf rrjv fxev 'yap eaKyjir-
rovTo, rov Se TV(f>ov to 'jrddo<; aKpt^m irepceKeivTo, Theodoret.
On elKT], temere, i.e. without ground, comp. Matt. v. 22 ; Eom.
xiii. 4; Plat. Menex. p. 234 C; Xen. Cyrop. ii. 2. 22. It
places the vanity, that is, the objective groundlessness of the
pride, in contradistinction to their presumptuous fancies, em-
phatically in the foreground. Even if ifx^ar. is not taken
absolutely with Hofmann, we may not join it with et/c?) (in
opposition to Steiger, de Wette, Eeiche ; Bohmer is doubtful),
since it is not the uselessness (in this sense elK-fj would require
to be taken, 1 Cor. xv. 2; Gal. iii. 4, iv. 11) of the ifi^a-
reveiv a ecop. (or a [xr] eoop.), but this i/jb^areveiv in and of
itself, that forms the characteristic perversity in the conduct of
those people — a perversity which is set forth by eUi] (pva-Lov/x.
K.T.X., and in ver. 1 9 as immoral and antichristian. — vtto rod
voo<i T^9 a-apK. avTov] becoming puffed up hy (as operative
principle) the reason of his flesh. This is the morally deter-
mined intellectual faculty in its character and activity as not
divinely regulated, in which unennobled condition (see on
Eph. iv. 23) it is the servant, not of the divine Tri^eO/ia, whose
organ it is designed to be, but of the materio-physical human
nature, of the adp^ as the seat of the sin-power, and is governed
by its lusts instead of the divine truth. Comp. Eom. i. 21, 28,
iv. 1, vi. 19, vii. 14, xii. 2 ; Eph. iv. 17 f. ; see also Kluge in
the Jahrh. /. R Theol. 1871, p. 329 ff. The vov^ does not
belong to the essence of the adp^ (in opposition to Holsten) ;
but, be it observed, the matter is so represented that the adp^
of the false teacher, in accordance with its dominant superiority,
appears personified (comp. Eom. viii. 6), as if the vov<i, influenced
by it, and therewith serviceable to it, were its own. In virtue
of this non-free and, in its activity, sinfully-directed reason,
CHAP. II. 19. 399
the man, who is guided by it, is di^oT/ro? (Gal. iii. 1, 3 ; Tit.
iii. 3), loses his moral judgment (Eom. xii. 2), falls into iiridv-
/xia<; a.voy]rov<i (1 Tim. vi. 9), and withstands Christian truth
and purity as KaTe^6ap/u,ivo<i tov vovv (2 Tim. iii. 8 ; 2 Cor.
xi. 3), and iaKorLcrfxivo<; ttj Biavoia (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 attaining a special
higher wisdom and sanctity. It is well said by Theophylact :
7rw9 "/cLp ov aapKiKov Poo<; k. 'TTw^eo^ to aOeTrjcrai, ra vtto Xpua-
rov \e')(6evTa, John iii. 16, 17, 19, x. 26 f., koI p,vpia oaal
Ver. 19. Kat] annexing to eUr] (pvcnov/xevofi k.t.X. a
further, and that a negative, modal form of the a koopaKev
ifx^arevwy. This ifM/Sarevecv 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 /cparcov k.t.X] not holding fast (but letting it
go, comp. Song of Sol. iii. 4 : iKparrjaa avrov kuI ovk dcprJKa
avTov) the Mead, inasmuch, namely, as they seek angelic media-
tion. Bengel aptly observes : " Qui non unice Christum tenet,
plane non tenet." — e| ov k.t.X.] represents the whole objectiou-
ableness of this ov Kparwv r. Keep., and the absolute necessity
of the opposite. This ov is not to be referred to the verbal
idea (Bengel's suggestion : " ex quo sc. tenendo caput "),
but applies objectively (comp. Eph. iv. 15 f.) to that which
was designated by rrjv Ke^aX. In this view it may be masculine,
according to the construction Kara crvveacv (Kiihner, II. 1, p.
49), as it is usually taken, but it may also — and this is prefer-
able, because here the personality is not, as in Eph. iv. 15 f.,
specially marked — be neuter, so that it takes up the Head, not
' The conduct of those men is the negation of this holy relation, a separation
from the organism of the body of Christ as an unity. Tlie compressed cliaracter-
izing of this articulated organism is therefore as suitable here as in Eph.
iv. 16, and by no means an opus supererogationis on the part of the author
(Holtzmann).
400 THE EriSTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
personally (though it is Christ), but in accordance with the
neuter idea : ffom wliieh. See Matthiae, p. 988; Klihner, II.
1, p. 55. Comp. Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 201. The t. Kej>a\.
might also be taken attributively : not holding fast as the
Head Him, from whom, etc. (Ewald), which would be, how-
ever, less simple and less forcibly descriptive, ef denotes the
causal issuing forth of the subsequently expressed relation,
comp. Eph. iv. 16. — irav to ado/xa] consequently no member
is excepted, so that no member can expect from any other
quarter what is destined for, and conveyed to, the whole body
from the head. The conception of the church as the body of
Christ, the Head, is not in our Epistle and the Ephesian letter
different from that of the other Epistles (in opposition to
Holtzmann, p. 239 ff.). Comp. on 1 Cor. xii. 12 f., vi. 15 ;
Eom. xii. 4 f. ; also 1 Cor. xi. 3. Any pressing contrary
to the author's design of the thought of a aw/jba, which strictly
taken is a trunk, is in this particular case excluded by the
graphic delineation of the constantly living and active con-
nection of the members with the Head. Every comparison,
indeed, when pressed, becomes halting. — 8ia tcov a(^oiv k.
G-vvSeafiwv eTn')(op. k. <jv}Ji^i^?[ 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 i^
ov therefore is to be referred neither to the participles ohIt/,
nor to the verb only, but to hoth ; and tia r. d^. k. avvSea-fi.
specifies by what means the eiTL'Xpp. k. avfx^i^., proceeding
from the Head, is hrought 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 hands, which, proceeding from the Head, place the
whole in organic connection. Observe that eTrcx^op. refers to
Bia T. d(f)a)V, and aufx/Si^. to k. avvSea/j,. 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 aTro t?;? /cec^aX^? eVrt iraaa aXadrjai^ k.
irdaa /ctV^crt?. 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 cliurch,
CHAP. II. 19. 401
separated from Christ — from whom the feelings and impulses
in a spiritual sense, the motions and activities of the higher
^0)1], 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 (kocvcovIo), which
give to the union of individuals the coherence of articulate
unity. Faith is the inner ground of the a^ai, not the latter
themselves (in opposition to Bengel) ; so also is love the inner
fjround of the avvBeafioL of the mystical body, not these latter
themselves (in opposition to Tertullian, Zanchius, Estius,
Bengel, and others) ; and the operative principle on the part of
Christ the Head is the Holi/ Spirit (Eph. iv. 4 ; 1 Cor. xii. 3 f ,
7, et al). Theodoret erroneously (comp. Ewald) explains the
avvhea^oi as the airoaToXoi, k. irpocfiijTat k. BtSdarKaXoi, and
Bolimer takes the dcfjal and crvvBecrfi. as the believers. The
latter, as also the teachers, are in fact the meriibers, and share
in experiencing what is here asserted of the entire body. —
i'm^oprjyovfji,.'] receiving su'pp)ly, being furnished. Comp. on
the passive expression, which is not un-Pauline (Holtzmann),
but in harmony with the general passive usage (Kiihner, II.
1, p. 109), Polyb. iv. 77. 2 : iroWah d(f)op/xat<i e/c (f)va€(o<;
Ke^opvynH'^vo'?, iii- "^o. 3, ct al. ; Diod. Sic. i. 73; Ecclus.
xliv. 6 ; 3 Mace. vi. 40. The compound, not expressing " in
addition besides " (Bleek), denotes that the 'x^opTjjia is co7ning
to, is being conveyed toivards. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 10; Gal. iii.
5 ; Dion. Hal. x. 54. But it is not said ivith lohat the body
is x^rovided, as '^oprf^etv (comp. also eircxop., Ecclus. xxv. 22)
is often used absolutely (see e.g. the passages from Polybius in
Schweighauser, Lex. p. 663), and admits of its more precise
definition being supplied from the context, wliich, however,
here points not to nourishment (Grotius, de Wette), but to that
which is accomplished through the feelings {d<j>Siv), namely,
the vitcd activity, of which the body would be destitute in
the absence of the different impulses. Comp. Chrysostom : to
elvat Kal to /caXcS? ehac, Theophylact : irdaa aia6r]ai,<; k.
COL. 2 C
402 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
iraaa Kivt]a-L<;, and in the application : "kafi/Sdvec to ^fjv k.
av^eiv 7rvevfiaTiKaj<i. — tt]v av^r]cnv rov Qeov] denoted by the
article as the divine growth absolutely ; rev Oeov is the
genitive audoris : which God confers (1 Cor. iii. 6, 7), with
which ef ov is not at variance (as Bahr thinks), since God is
ranked above Christ (1 Cor. xi. 3), and is the supreme operat-
ing principle in the church (1 Cor. xii. 6 ; Eph. iv. 6). At
once weak, and suggested by nothing in the text, is the view :
" increraentum, quod Deus probat " (Calvin, Bahr^). AYhat is
meant is the gradual groivth of Christians collectively toward
Christian ^3e?/ec^t07i.. The circumstance that av^et as an
intransitive only occurs again in Eph. ii. 21, comp. iv. 15,
and av^7]crL<i only in Eph. iv. 16, cannot prove it to be an
un-Pauline mode of expression (Holtzmann). Eespecting the
connection of the verb with the more precisely defined cog-
nate noun, see "Winer, p. 210 [E. T. 281]; Lobeck, Paralip.
p. 507 f. ; Kuhner, II. 2, p. 262 f.
Ver. 20 f. After these warnings, vv. 16-19, which were
intended to secure his readers against the seduction threaten-
ing them, the apostle now returns for the same purpose once
more to the two main foundations of the Christian life, to the
fellowship with Christ in death (ver. 20), and fellowship wdth
Him also in resurrection (iii. 1). His aim is to show, in
connection with the former, the groundlessness and perversity
of the heretical prohibitions of meats (w. 20-23), and to
attach to the latter — to the fellowship of resurrection — the
essence of Christian morality in whole and in detail, and there-
with the ^xoTa'7ic^ic portion of the Epistle (iii. 1-iv. 6), the tenor
of which thereby receives the character of the holiest moral
necessity. — el a-neddvere /c.r.X.] the legal abstinence required
by the false teachers (see below) stands in contradiction with
the fact, that the readers at their conversion had entered into
the fcUowship of the death of Christ, and thereby had become
loosed from the a-roi'x^ela rov Kocrfiov (see on ver. 8), i.e. from the
ritual religious elements of non- Christian humanity, among
which the legal prohibition of meats and the traditional regu-
lations founded thereon are included. How far the man who
' Comp. Chrysostom and Oecumenius, who explain roZ euuhy xara Btiy.
CHAP. II. 20, 21. 403
has died with Christ has passed out of connection with these
elementary things, is taught by ver. 14, according to which,
through the death of Christ, the law as to its debt-obligation
has been abolished. Consequently, in the case of those who
have died with Christ, the law, and everything belonging to
the same category with it, have no further claim to urge, since
Christ has allowed the curse of the law to be accomplished on
Himself, and this has also taken place in believers in %drtue
of their fellowship of death with Him, whereby the bind-
ing relation of debt which had hitherto subsisted for them
has ceased. Comp. Gal. ii. 19, iv. 3, 9 ; Eom. yH. 4, ct al. —
aTToOvrjCTKeiv, with otto, meaning to die away from something,
moriendo liberari a (Porphyr. de ahstin. ah esu anim. i. 41), is
only met with here in the N. T. ; elsewhere it is used with the
dative, as in Gal. ii 19, Eom. vi. 2, whereby the same thing
is otherwise conceived in point of form. It is, moreover, to
be observed, that Christ Hiraself also is by death released from
the <jTOL')(eui, since He was made under the law, and, although
sinless, was destined to take upon Himself the curse of it ;
hence it was only by His death in obedience to the Father
(Phil. ii. 8 ; Eom. v. 1 9), that He became released from
this relation. Comp. on Gal. iv. 4. Huther erroneously
denies that such an anrodavelv can be predicated of Christ, and
therefore assumes (comp. Schenkel and Dalmer) the brachy-
logy : " if, by your djing with Christ, ye are dead from the
<7T0i^€ta Tov KoafjLov." — Tt o)? ^(i)VTe<j /C.T.X.] u'hy 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 aTroOavovre'; avv X. 0,770 r. arof^. r. Kocrfj,.,
ye are no longer alive in the domain of the non-Christian
Koo-fia, but are removed from that sphere of life (belonging
to the heavenly iroXirevfia, Phil. iii. 20). The word Soy/j,a-
ri^eiv, only found here in the N. T., but frequently in the
LXX. and Apocrj-pha, and in the Fathers and decrees of
Councils (see Suicer, TJies. I. p. 935), means nothing more
than to decree (Diod. Sic. iv. 83 ; Diog. L. iii. 51 ; Anth. Pal.
ix. 576. 4; Arrian. Epict. iii. 7; Esth. iii. 9 ; 3 Esdr. vi. 34;
2 Mace. X. 8, xv. 36; 3 Mace. iv. 11), and BoyfiaTi^eaOe is
404 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
passive : why are ye prescribed to, ivhy do men maJce decrees for
you (vohis) ? so that it is not a reproach (the censure conveyed
by the expression affects rather the/a/sc teachers), but a warn-
ing to those readers (comp. vv. 16, 18) who were not yet led
away (i. 4, ii. 5), and who ought not to yield any compliance
to so absurd a demand. That the readers are the passive
siibjcct, is quite according to rule, since the active has the
dative along with it, BojfjiaTii^eiv rivt (2 Mace. x. 8) ; comp.
also Hofmann and Beza. The usual rendering takes Boyfiar.
as middle, and that either as : why do ye allow commands to
he laid doivn for you (Huther), mdcs to he imposed upon you
(de Wette), yourselves to he entangled with rides (Luther) ? and
such like;^ or even : why do ye make rules for yourselves (Ewald) ?
comp. Vulgate : deeernitis. This, however, would involve a
censure of the readers, and w? ^wi^re? ev Koafjuoi would express
the unsuitableness of their conduct with their Christian stand-
ing — a reproach, which would be altogether out of harmony
with the other contents of the Epistle. On the contrary, g)9
^coi/re? eV k. indicates the erroneous aspect in which the Chris-
tian standing of the readers was regarded by the false teachers,
who took up such an attitude towards them, as if they were
not yet dead from the world, which nevertheless (comp. ver.
1 1 f.) they are through their fellowship with Christ (iii. 3 ;
Gal. ii. 19 f. ; 2 Cor. v. 14 f.). The cb? ^wz/re? iv Koa/xo), more-
over, is entirely misunderstood by Biihr : " as if one could at
all attain to life and salvation through externals!^ Comp., on
the contrary, the thought of the elvat ev rfj aapKt in Kom.
vii. 5 and Gal. vi. 14. Observe, further, that this ^-tiv iv
Koa-fKp is not one and the same thing with elvac viro ra uTOi-^da,
Tov Koa-fxov (Hofmann, by way of establishing his explanation
of a-TOf^ela in the sense of the material things of the world) ;
but the ^r]v iv k. is the mo7'e general, to which the special ehac
inro T. (TTOi^ela r. k. is suhordinate. If the former is the case,
the latter also takes place by way of consequence. — f^rj
a^ /c.T.\.] a vivid concrete representation of the BoyfxaTa
concerned, in a " compendiaria mimesis " (Flacius). The ti'iple
' Comp. Chrysostom : ^rus toTs (rroixt'ois uToxitirSt ; similarly Theodorct, Beza;
and recently, Balir, Bbhmer, Olsliausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and others.
cnAP. II. 20, 21. 405
description brings out the urgency of the eager demand for
abstinence, and the relation of the three prohibitions is such,
that [I'qhe both times means nor even ; in the second instance,
however, in the sense of ne quidcm, so that the last point
stands to the two former together in the relation of a climax :
thou shalt not lay hold of, nor even taste, nor once toiich !
What was meant as ohjcct of this enjoined aTrk^eaQai (1 Tim.
iv. 3) the reader was aware, and its omission only renders the
description more vivid and terse. Steiger's view, that the
object was suppressed by the false teachers themselves from
fear and hypocrisy, is quite groundless. From the words
themselves, however {ryevcrrj), and from the subsequent context
(see ver. 23), it is plain that the prohibitions concerned certain
meats and drinks (comp. ver. 16) ; and it is entirely arbitrary
to mix up other things, as even de Wette does, making them
refer also to sexual intercourse {Qiy^dveiv f^vvaiKo^, Eur. Hipp.
1044, e^ al.; see Monck, ad Eur. Hipp. 14; Valckenaer, ad
Fhocn. 903), while others distinguish between aylrrj and 6L<yrj<;
in respect of their objects, e.g. Estius : the former refers to
unclean objects, such as the garments of a menstruous woman,
the latter to the buying and selling of unclean meats ; Erasmus,
Zanchius : the former concerns dead bodies, the latter sacred
vessels and the like ; Grotius : the former refers to meats,
the latter to the "vitandas feminas," to which Flatt and
Dalmer, following older writers, make ai/r?; refer (1 Cor. vii. 1).
Others give other expositions still ; Bohmer arbitrarily makes
GtyV'* refer to the oil, which the Essenes and other theoso-
phists regarded as a lahcs. That Paul in ayfrr} and Oiy. had no
definite object at all in view, is not even probable (in opposi-
tion to Huther), because fyevarj stands between them, and
ver. 23 points to abstinence from meats, and not at the same
time to anything else. — Following the more forcible a-^jj, lay
hold of, the more subtle Olr^rj^, touch, is in admirable keeping
with the climax : the- object was to be even uOlktov (Soph.
0. C. 39). Comp. on the difference between the two words,
Xen. Cyrop. i. 3. 5 : orav fiev rov aprov a^jrrj, et9 ovSev tt]v
vet/ja aTToylrco/jievov (ere opc3), o'^av Be rovToav (these dainty
dishes) tiv6<; Otyu'i, evdv<; airoKadalprj ttjv X^tpa et? to, j^eipo-
406 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
fiaKTpa, also v. 1. 16. In an inverted climax, Eur. Bacch. 617 :
ovT edcyev ovd' Tjyjrad' rj/xcov. See also Ex. xix. 12, where the
LXX. delicately and aptly render in^'i^a yJ3, to touch the outer
border of the mountain, by the free translation Qu^uv tl avTov,
but then express the general "in^ VJbn by the stronger o dyjrd-
fi€vo<i rov 6pov<;. Hofmann erroneously holds that dirTOfMai,
expresses rather the motion of the subject grasping at some-
thing, Ocyydvoi 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 dirrecrdai signifies the actual laying hold of, and, in
Paul's writings, of 1 Cor. vii. 1, 2 Cor. vi. 17, as also the quite
common Grecian usage in the sense of contrectare (attingere et
inhaerere), and similarly the signification of the active to fasten
to, to make to stick (Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 698; Duncan, Lex.
Hom. ed. Eost, p. 150). The mere stretching out the hand
towards something, in order to seize it, is never dirrecrOai,.
Hofmann, moreover, in order to establish a climax of the
three points, arbitrarily makes the subtle gloss upon jeva-'p,
that this might even happen more ttnintentionally , and upon
^hv^y ^^i^t t^is might happen involuntarily. — Eespecting the
aorist dcydv (a present 6i<yeLv instead of dcyydveiv can nowhere
be accepted as certain), see Schaefer, ad Greg. Cor. p. 990,
Ellendt, Lex. Sojjh. I. p. 804; Kiihner, I. p. 833.
Ver. 22. We are not to put in a parenthesis /xr] d^^rrj . . . aTro-
Xprjaei. (Erasmus Schmid, Heinrichs, and others), but merely
d iariv . . . diro-^p. (Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Ewald) ; for
the construction proceeds uninterruptedly to Olyrj'?, is then only
broken by the judgment d iarc ir. et? <pd. r. dTToyj}., and there-
after runs on with Kara rd evrdXfi. k.t.X. — d iarc . . . diroyj).
is an inserted^ judgment of the apostle anent that which the false
teachers interdicted by /i?) d-^y k.tX. : ivhich all are destined
to destruction'^ through the using, — from which it is to be rendered
' For it is only an incidental observation in opposition to the above Say,a«-
TiXirSoci ; the main ground of opposition to the latter lies in il awiixv. <rvt X.
* t(rT)it lis (piofxv, it serves for destruction, i.e. it serves for the purpose of being
destroyed. See generally Winer, p. 173 [E. T. 229] ; Buttmann, J^eut. 6r.
p. 131 [E. T. 150 f. J. Comp. Wisd. iv. 18 ; Ecclus. xxxiv. 10 ; Judith v. 21, 24,
viii. 22.
CHAP. II. 22. 407
palpably apparent, how prepostcro2is it is to make such things
a condition of eternal bliss by urging abstinence from them.
We have here a similar line of argument to that in Matt.
XV. 17. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 13. Hence <}36opd is meant to
denote the perishing which takes place through the natural
dissolution (digestion) of the meats and drinks ; and with this
conception quite accords the purposely-chosen compound ttj
a7ro^7](Tec, which, like ahusus, indicates the ^csing iqy, the con-
suming (Plut. 3Ior. p. 267 E; Davis, ad Cic. N. D. iv. 60).
So it is unanimously explained by Chrysostom, Theodoret (et?
KOTvpov <yap aTravra fiera^dWerac) , Oecumenius ((pOopa <yap,
<liT](Tiv, viTOKenai iv tw dcfieSpdovi), Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther,
Beza, Calvin, Wolf, Grotius, ]\Iichaelis, and many others, in-
cluding Biihr, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann.
But, according to others, who likewise regard a . . . d7ro-)(p. as a
parenthetical judgment, the a is to be referred to the prohibi-
tions, diroxp- to the use, i.e. the following of them, and (f)6opd
(comp. Gal. vi. 8) to the destruction of the persons who follow
them : all tvhich Soyfiara hy their use tend to (eternal) destruction.
So Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Cornelius a Lapide, Calixtus, Heu-
mann, Junker. Erroneously ; because diro-^prjcn'; never means
merely use, and even the simple yprjcn<i, in the sense of T^pr}(n<i,
would be an unsuitable designation ; in fact, the entire addi-
tion, " by the use," would be utterly superfluous. On account
of diroj^p., the expedient must also be rejected, on linguistic
grounds, that a . . . aTro-yp. are still words of the false teachers,
which Paul repeats with irony : " omnia haec (vetita) usu suo
pcrniciem afferunt" Heinrichs, comp. Schenkel. By others,
who, like Tischendorf, have deleted the marks of parenthesis,
the whole down to dvOpaoircov is taken together : all this, which
the false teachers forbid, tends through the using to (" moral,"
de AVette) destruction, " si sc. ex doctorum J^idaicorum prae-
ceptis et doctrinis hac de re judicium feratur,"^ Kypke ; so also
' Similarly Dalmer, who, ho^veve^, takes rn avcxp. in the sense of abuse,
joining it immediately to xara Tas "hihatK. k.t.x. But while aTop^ptifffai {Dera,
215. 8 ; Herodian, v. 1. 13) is found in the sense of atwse (*a7-a;^^?<r(s, intfa^fnirii),
a.Tox,fnirii is not, though it was so taken by Erasmus Schmid, Schoettgen,
Zachariae, as also by Grimm in his Lexicon.
408 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
VataWus, Storr, Flatt, Bolmier, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius
(Huther is undecided between this explanation and ours). But
in opposition to this it may be urged, that the compound airo-
yprjaec would be entirely tvitlwut a motive, since not the consump-
tion, 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 aTro^pTi^aeL, and that through the 'point of its
connection with eU 4>^opdv, in which case, however, the object
affected by airoyji. and et? ^6op. must be the same (the things for-
bidden). De Wette's objections are irrelevant, since the thought
of the parenthesis a . . . airo-xp. is expressed not strangely,
but with Pauline ingenuity, the words Kara ra ivroK/j,. k.t.\.
annexed to Boyfiari^eaOe are by no means superfluous (see
below), nor does this annexation require us to begin the paren-
thesis with fMr] a>^ri and thereby to include heterogeneous
elements together ; for p^ a-<^ri k.tX. still belongs closely to
Soyp^ar., of which it is the contents, and Kara to. ivraXp,. k.t.\.
is then annexed, after the brief incidentally inserted remark, to
hoy par. and its contents {pirj a-^rj k.t.\.). — Kara ra ivTaXp^ara
/c.T.X.] The article before ivraXp,., and extending also to BiBaa--
Ka\., is generic. The /xr; a-v/r^; k.tX. was decreed by the false
teachers conformcibly to the commandments and doctrines of men,
not in consequence of what God had commanded and taught.
This element, annexed to hoyp,ari^., is by no means superfluous
(in opposition to de Wette), since, in fact, Soy pa in itself is a
command generally, and may be one based upon divine autho-
rity ; it rather serves to bring out with perfect clearness the
conflicting relation, in which that Soypari^ecrdat stands to the
aTreOdpere <tvv XpiaTM k.t.X. For what the false teachers
decreed was not the prohibitions of meats contained in the law
of Moses as such, and these alone (although they too would
have been incompatible with the direOdvere avv X. k.tX.), but
such as consisted in the human (Essene) definitions, expansions,
and amplifications of the former (jcara rr)v irapdSoaip tup
dvOpcoTTcop, ver. 8). It was in this, and not in the mere setting
up again of the Mosaic law abolished through Christ (Chry-
sostom and many others), that the Zoypbaji^eaOaL was regulated
by human standard, without the divine authority and warrant.
CHAP. II. 23. 409
Moreover, BcBaaK. is not synonymous with evraXfi., but has a
luidei' sense (in Matt. xv. 9 and Mark vi. 7, the narrower idea
comes afte7' as a more precise definition), so that the two
together specify the 2iycccptivc and generally (kul) the doctrinal
standard. Comp. Isa. xxix. 13.
Ver. 23. And of ivhat nature and quality is that, which I
have just termed xa ivToKfiara k. BtBaa-Ka\. rdov avOp.l —
artva] qidppc quae, i.e. ita com'parata, ut (Klihner, 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 ohject. — eVr/] belongs to e'^ovra, without, however,
being with this equivalent to e^^et ; it introduces what the
aTiva arc as regards their quality. If it belonged to ov/c iv
Tififj TLvi (Biihr), or to iTpo<; TrXija-fx. r. <7. (Bengel), or to iv
idekoOprjcTKela k.tX. (that which moves and lias its Icing in
iOeXoOp. K.T.\.), as Hofniaun thinks, taking Xoyov /x. e^ovra
crocj}. parenthetically — why should it not have been actually
2Jlaced beside that to M-hich it would belong ? Apart from
this, Hofmann's connection of it with iv iOekodp. could alone
deserve consideration, since from iv ideXodp. onwards all that
follows is consecutive. But even this connection must be
abandoned, because the sphere of subsistence indicated by iv
iOeXoOp. K.T.X. would be too tvide for such special prohibitions,
ver. 21, as are conveyed by anva, and because we have no
right to put aside from the connection, as a mere incisum,
the imiiortant thought (comp. ver. 8) expressed by Xo'7. t. e^.
co^ia^, which comes in with eVrt so emphatically at the very
head of the judgment, and appropriately, as regards meaning,
attaches to itself all that follows. — Xoyov e^^iv, explained by
many since Jerome approximately in the sense of specicm or
praetextum hahcre (see Kypke, de Wette, Dalmer, and others ;
also Koster in the Stud. ti. Krit. 1 8 5 4, p. 3 1 8), may, according as
we adopt for X0709 the signification ratio or sermo, mean either :
to have ground (so in the passages from Demosth., Dionys.
Hal, and Lesbonax in Kypke ; from Plat, in Ast, Lex. II.
p. 257; from Polyb. in Schweighauser, Lex. p. 370^), in
' So Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitsclir. 1870, p. 250, holding that what is rejected in
the legal sense in ver. 22 is here " permilled as voluntary asceticism." See,
410 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSLA.NS.
which case the ground may certainly be only an apparent one,
a pretext (comp. EUendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 36) ; further, to have
an insight into something (often thus in Plato, e.g. Rep. p.
475 C), to have regard to (Herod, i. 62 ; Plat. Tim. p. 87 C) ; or :
to have a repuicdion, so that one is in any relation the subject
of discourse, of legend, of mention, of rumour, etc. ; see e.g.
Plat. Epin. p. 987 B : 'Ecoacpopo'i . . . 'AcppoSlrr)'? etvat a'^eSbv
c'^ec Xoyov (dicitur), Herod, v. 56 : X6<yov e^ei ttjv UvOlrjv
avaTTuaai, comp. ix. 78 ; Xen. Occ. 11. 4 (the same thing con-
ceived under another form : A-0709 eyei nva, Herod, vii. 5, and
frequently). The latter signification is here to be adhered
to, because the subsequent ovk iv Ti^fi rivc, when correctly
rendered, accords with it as bearing on the matter in hand, and
is in sense appropriately correlative. Hence : that ivhich has
a repute of wisdom, popularly passes for wisdom. Comp. ovofjua
e^ecv (Rev. iii. 1) and ovofxa^eaOat (1 Cor. v, 11). — /xev]
without a subsequent Si ; there was before the apostle's mind
the contrast: repute, truly, hut not the reality, ov Svvajucv, ovk
ak^deiav, Chrysostom. He omitted to express this, however,
led aside by the progress of his discourse, so that instead of
bringing in the antithesis of \070y by hk, he makes ovk ev rifxy
Tivc follow without Se, and in contrast not to the \6<yov, but
to the ev eOekoOp. k.tX, — from which we are to gather in
substance, what in starting with \6<yov fiiv it was intended
to express. See Erasmus, Annot., and generally Winer,
p. 534 f. [E. T. 719]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 313 [E. T.
365]; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 656; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 153;
Baeumlein, Partik. p. 163 f. The linguistic phenomenon of
this fxev without an adversative word following is so common,
that there is no ground lor requiring before ovk ev rcfxfj r. an
aWd (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 irpo^
TrXrjafj,. r. aapKof; an ill-inserted remnant of the original. —
ev ideXodpijcTKeia] instnimental, specifying by what means it is
brought about, on the part of those who lay down the com-
however, on the sequel, from wliich the impossibility of this interpretation is
self-evident.
CHAP. II. 23. 411
mandments and doctrines referred to, that the latter have a
repute of wisdom : through self-chosen ivorship, i.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 aioare ; and ver. 1 8 places it beyond doubt that the
worship of angels formed an essential and chief part of it,
though it need not, from the general character of the expres-
sion in our passage, have been meant exclusively ; other forms
of capricious cultus may have been included with it. The
substantive iOeXodp. does not occur elsewhere except in eccle-
siastical writers ; but the vc7'h iOeXoOpTjaKelv is explained by
Suidas : ISio) deXtjfjuaTi ae/Seiv to Bokovu, and Epiph. JIaer. i. 1 6
explains the name Pharisees : Bm to d^ojpia/xivov; elvai avTov<;
CLTTo Tcov dWcov Bta TTjv eOeXoirepLcrcroO pTjcTKelav irap" avTol<i
vevo/jiC(r/jLevr)v. Comp. edeXoBovXeia (Plat. Symp. p. 184 C,
Rep. p. 562 D), ideXoKdKrjai,^, i6e\oKivBvvo<;, edekoiropo';, eOeko-
irpo^eva (Thuc. iii. 70. 2, where the scholiast explains: d^'
kavTov yevofievo'i koX p,7) Kekeva-Oel^ k.tX), and various others.
Hofmann erroneously takes away from the word in itself the
bad sense, and explains (after the analogy of idekoTrovla and
ideXovp'yia) : 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 dprjaKeia was certainly some-
thing bad. The unfavourable meaning, according to Hof-
mann's present explanation (he gave a different but also
erroneous view in his Schriftheio. II. 2, p. 72 ; see, in opposi-
tion to it, my third edition), is only got by the addition of
(Tco/jLaTO'i, which belongs to all the three points, so that ideXo-
BprjaKeia a(op,aTo<i must be understood as a worsliip gladly
and earnestly rendered, hut which is rendered only tviih bodily
demeanour. But acofxaTO'i does not suit either with ideXoOp.
or Ta'7reivo(^p.} but only with u(f}etBia. For it is plain from
* According to Hofmann, namely, rxviiv/)(ppoir!jvn ruftxros is a disposition of se?/-
humilialion, which, however, only iveakens the body by abstinences. But it would
rather have the absurd sense : humility of the body ; for ra*uioipfo<ru*n neither
means humiliation nor self-humiliation, but humility, meekness, ver. 18, iii. 12 ;
Phil. ii. 3.
412 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
aj>etBia acofxaro'; that crcu/iaTo? is the genitive of the object,
from which it follows that Oprjo-Keia cr(afiaTo<; would yield the
opposite sense : a OprjaKela rendered to the hody (comp. OfyqaK.
rcov dyyiXoiv in ver. 18), which would come ultimately to the
idea of the Xarpeuetu rfj '^Sovfj (Lucian, Nigr. 15), comp. Plut.
3for. p. 107 C : Xarpeia rov a(i>p.aro<i, and on the matter con-
ceived as OprjaKela, Phil. iii. 19. — TaTreiz/o^poo-.] from the
point of view of the false teachers (comp. ver. 18), what the]/
thus designated ; although in fact it consisted in this, that, as
in all false humility, they with spiritual conceit (comp. ver. 18,
and subsequently 7rpo9 ir\T]crjxov. t. crapKo^) took pleasure in
unduly undervaluing themselves — an ethical self-contempt,
which involved in relation to God the iOeXoOprjaKeia, and to-
wards the body an ujisjxcringncss through mistaken abstinence
and mortifying asceticism, inconsistent with Christian liberty.
On a(j)eiSla, comp. Plat. Dcjln. p. 412 D ; Plut. 3Ior. p. 762 D ;
farther, a(f)6theiv jBiov, Thuc. ii. 43. 3 ; 'fvxn'i, Soph. El. 968 ;
acofiaTcov, Lys. ii. 25, Diod. Sic. xiii. 60. — ovk iv rifij] tivl]
not through anything whatever that is an honour, not through
anything honourable, by which that repute would appear
founded in truth and just. The expression is pmyosdy chosen,
in order to make the X6709 croj)ia<i appear as repute without
honour, i.e. without any morally estimable substratum on the
part of the persons concerned. The following Trpo? TrXrjafxovijv
Ti]<; aapKo^ is also purposely chosen ; in it TrXi^a/iov. signifi-
cantly glances back to a^etSta, and t^? aapKo^; to <To>fiaTo<;,
and tliere is produced a thoughtful contrast, a striking ethical
oxymoron : for the sake of fully satisfying the flesh. Those com-
mandments and doctrines have a repute of wisdom, etc., in
order to afford thereby full satisfaction to the material-psychical
human nature. Thus, while the repute of wisdom is procured
among other things by mortifying the body, the flesh 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. Wliat 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
2)ride, which through the \6yov ao(f>ia<i e^av feels itself flattered
CHAP. II. 23. 413
and gratified in the fancy of peculiar perfection. This interpre-
tation, which we have given of ovic iv rififj nvt, Trp j? TrXrja-fxovrjv
rrj<i crapK6<;, is held in -substance, following Hilary (" sagina
carnalis sensus traditio humana est"), by Bengel, Storr, Flatt,
Buhmer, Steiger, Biihr, Huther, Dalmer, Bleek, and others. Most,
however, refer ev rififj rcvi to the honour to be shown to the
hod^ (or the a-dp^, see Luther), and tt/so? irXTja-fx. r. aapK. to
hodihj satisfaction, so that the sense results: not in some esteem-
ing of the hocly to the satisfying of bodily wants ; ^ " sen tit
apost., sapientiam illam aut praecepta talia esse, per quae
corpori debitus honor, pertinens ad expletionem, i.e. justam
refectionem carnis, subtrahatur," Estius. So, in substance,
Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Oceumenius,
Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, ]\Ielanchthon, Calvin,
Musculus, Clarius, Zeger, Erasmus Schmid, Zanchius, Vatablus,
Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Michaelis, Nosselt, Eosen-
miiller, and others, including de Wette and Baumgarten-
Crusius, It is fatal to this view : — (1) that iv rififj tlvl, as
is shown by the repetition of ev, is the contrast not merely to
iv dcfteiSla acofiaro^, but to the entire connected iv idekoOpri-
aKeia . . . cru)fxaTo<;, and hence the reference to the honour to
be shown to the body does not seem justified by the context ^'^
(2) further, that for the designation of the mere satisfaetion
at this particular place, where Paul could only have had a
nrpovoiav xr}? aapKO'^ in view, as in Eom. xiii. 14, the term
TrXrjafxovijv Avould be very inappropriate, especially in contra-
distinction to the mortifications of the false teachers, since it
denotes filling up, satisfying fully, even in Ex. xvi. 3 (see
generally the passages from the LXX. and Apocrypha quoted
by Sclileusner, Thes. IV. p. 375 f.); comp. Plat. Legg. viii.
p. 837 : Xen. 3fem. iii. 11. 14, rep. Lac. 2. 5, Cyrop. iv. 2. 40,
Ages. 5. 1 ; Lucian. iVtV/r. 33, Ep. Saturn. 28 ; Polyb. ii. 19. 4 ;
(3) finally, that the interchange of ao>ixaTo<i and aapK6<i, in
• " God will have the body honoured, i.e. it is to have its food, clothing, etc.,
for its necessities, and not to be destroyed with intolerable fasting, labour, or
impossible chastity, as the doctrine of men would do," Luther's gloss.
" This applies also in opposition to Olshausen, who in the case of Iv rif/.'^ tdii
follows the explanation of respect for the body, but with regard to vfis -rXyitr/^.
T. ffcijix. follows our view.
414 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
the event of the latter not being meant in an ethical character,
would seem to be without a motive, while, according to
our view, cra/D/co? stands in as ingenious correlation with
a-do/jbaro^, as rnrXrja-fiovqv with d(f)ecBia. 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
satisfaction of the flesh, which yet also demands its rights, if
man would not wantonly disorganize his earthly life or even
destroy it" (2 Cor. x. 3). Hofmann finally takes TrXTjafiovr}
T. aapK6<; rightly, but explains ovk iv rifjuy tlvl in such a way
as to make tlvl 7nasculine, and to attach it as appropriating
dative to n^ifi : " not so that honour accrues to any one." This
is to be rejected, because Paul, instead of simply and clearly
writing rifjifi Tuva, would only have expressed himself in a
way singularly liable to be misunderstood by rivi, which every
reader was led to join as a feminine with nfi^ ("in honore
aliquo," Vulgate). Nor is it to be easily seen what subjects,
beyond the teacher of the false wisdom himself, we should
have to conceive to ourselves under rivl taken as masculine.
CHAP. III. 415
CHAPTEE III.
Ver. 4. Instead of hfj^uv, which Griesb. approves, and Lachm.
puts in the margin, but Tisch. 8 in the text, 'hfJ^^v is read by
Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. 7, in opposition toCD*E*EPGN min.
Arm. Slav. ed. Vulg. It. and many Fathers (not Origen). A is
defective here. Considering this weighty evidence in favour of
vfjjuv, and seeing that the following -/.ai v//,^?; suggested the change
of person to the copyists, as indeed the beginning of a lesson
with ver. 4 could not but have favoured the insertion of the
general riiMuv, we have stronger grounds for regarding v/muv as
original than as a repetition from ver. 3. — Ver, 5. il/xwv] is
wanting, indeed, in B C * s * min. Clem. Or. (five times) Eus.,
but has all the vss. in its favour ; hence the evidence against it
is not sufficient to warrant its rejection, with Tisch. 8, as an
inserted supplement. — di' d] C* D* E F G Clar. Germ, read 3/ 5
or di6. Rightly ; the Eccepta, though strongly attested, is an
alteration to correspond with the plurality of the preceding
objects under comparison of Eph. v. 6. — Ivi rovg u'loug r. dmidiiag']
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 ; Eeiche properly defends
them. — Ver. 7. Instead of rovroic Elz. and Scholz have avToTg,
in opposition to decisive Codd., although defended by Eeiche.
— Ver. 11. Before sXtCd. Lachm. inserts 
TVNews
OpenLibrary