Critical and exegetical handbook to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians

γι
ὙοΣν 5

eee
oes
Peers)

oper
qh tits arr te

ateagze
we tetas ΣΝ
wre rtm

ΠΕ τῷ τῳ τὴ τι γῇ τὰ τὶ
ΟΣ

Sighs tangy y ts
ir

a gti rithms ste
tate κα v sits
eg

tater
ὁ αἷν

a
ΜΠ

τ τῷ
ΜΉ ΤΣ

τ

= ean?
εἴν τι Tass Mev

ὁ τῆς
ΜΉ ΤΩΝ

ΠΕΡῚ

ἅτ ἃ
Vieng ae
at ΣΉ Syst athe in caer eee
Hh Rad woe ban δ eign cag k egauan ες
ty teayiam ote

prince ives Masse Ta

Server)

Ba αν ἐδ νὰ eM
Ἄν
ay ει

τανε πον

wis οἵ ω

τὴν ον θὰ

εὐ εν νᾶ οὗ ὁ
sania?

ΤῊΝ

ve ta τ τη τὰ τῆλ
ἜΣ

me τὸν eon sara OIL
grgek na tang ze
ΠΡ
ethene rs
Wig gp tans gy edt e σεις
τὰ
1 POW τα τὸ ἢ τον
ψτατν τφτεσηξιακὸ,
ΩΣ
eats

sete Coe τι
᾿ ταν tate τεσσ τα τὰ τὰ ΤῈ
τα τρ ἀντι aie τ καρ τῷ ταν τὰν Bele θη eas
Lames grey τη Ba
ites eee τὸ σὰ τ ποτὰ a eee
γαμεῖ τὸ am Here τῷ 8 προ ταππεῖρσιν
τῶ rey ciara ea

center ᾽
“πὴ τὴ σὰ Le lid

τῖκι τα ἐενπφ τροπῇ, 3
rath τῳ “ῷ τὴ πὰ τὸ πα ray με eID
Ὁ τα τα τὰ Men sere τ, sh THN τα ΝΕ

Math pte yet Ae
Pa CONTA ge Iya ΤΆ
RL tL Pah τὸ τ τ
ν τα ἐδ ἐν σα δε τῷ τὶ
ταῦτα eset ey
ΠΩ

BAAN IEE OTe τὴν τὸ τῷ τῇ, yw) τιν τὴ τα πέσ τῷ τῇ σι; τῇ "8
reer ete 4

Det ible hunted ἐν 9 ἐπι τῷ τῷ τῶν τῷ ry, PH
᾿ 4 Zh Ω

Deore teeta d Ἢ :
τῷ Στ Ate LR ere

ΟΣ 72s
ἀπρτγετθν Ὁ τάττει

eh anh τιν τῷ τα
τῇ πὸ τίς τα τὰ δῇ ro
τὸ τοῖν τὰ τὴ τὸ eho eee
πρὶ τῇ τοῦτα ES
τε

᾿
τε σα σι ΠΑ τες ae
Fa ra

TUT FE τῆεν zip an ce tent:
Peat τῇ,

ἡ τὴ,

ΙΣ Ἷ
Faby
ase

τῇ ἐμ τα ae τὰ τῷ Targa ἐν τς

ARB
ZW τον ἦν
oct τσὶ

Ἐν τόσο ρ' Me
zt

Psd
τα tise ΡΉΈΗΗ
ὙΌΣ et t=

eA ssenee:
isiunterew eee ee tes
ΗΝ το Siw tatmerea LaReoe

LIBRARY OF PRINCETON

THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

CRITLEAL, AND -EXEGETICAL
HANDBOOK TO THE EPISTLES TO

BS2444 .M613 11 6.2 '
PHTLIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS. |

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2009

httos://archive.org/details/criticalexeget11meye

MAY 11 196]

ἊΣ
‘ty,
oe

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICATD ΚΑ δον

COMMENTARY

ON

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

BY ,,
UY
HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Ts.D.,

OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER.
From the German, With the Sanction of the Author.

THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY

WitLrAM PB DICKS ON 2D,
AND

FREDERICK CROMBIE, D.D.

PART ix.
DHE BPISTEES TO THE PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS:

EDINBURGH:

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

PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB,
FOR

ΠῚ τ 1 ΙΑ EDN BiUsRG sce

LONDON, . . . ..:ἕ . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN, . . τ ὁ « ROBERTSON AND CO.
NEW YORK, . . . .-. SCRIBNER, WELFORD, AND ARMSTRONG,

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

HANDBOOK

TO

THE EPISTLES

TO THE

PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS.

BY y
Y
HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, ΤΗ.}).,

OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER,

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

THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY

WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D.,

PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.

EDINBURGH:
fowl. CLARK 38 GEORGE STRELT.

MDCCCLXXV.

= ee oan πως; } τ " ͵
Η ᾽ Ὁ ᾿ - .

᾿ by i : ace >

io ww 5

᾿' εἰ my ᾿ re
| a | .
ae ᾽ if

ἥν; ‘ a) ὦ ᾽

5)

ae ( . ΠῚ

‘ ‘ . νυ

ὃ

y

« ᾿ ᾿ By
" st ol
7 a

᾿ eli * . @ % ᾿
ce de

5 ' + ΗΝ

ΠῚ τ εν» :

PREFATORY NOTE.

a aE Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians
Bs was translated from the third edition of the
German by the late Mr. G. H. Venables; but, as
it became necessary to incorporate the numerous

alterations and additions made by Dr. Meyer for the fourth
edition, the work of revising and completing the version of
Mr. Venables has been entrusted to the Rev. John C. Moore,
who has also executed independently the greater portion of the
translation, from the fourth German edition, of the Commen-
tary on the Epistle to the Colossians. I have myself trans-
lated a small portion of the latter, and, as in previous volumes,
have revised the whole with some care, and carried it through
the press.

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

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

equally applicable to the present.
Wea De

GLAsGow COLLEGE,
October 1875.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLES

TO THE

PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS.

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

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

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

BauMGaRTEN (Sigmund Jakob). See GALATIANS.

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

Vill EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLES TO

Bayne (Paul), ¢ 1617, Min. at Cambridge: A Commentarie upon the I.
and II. chapters of Saint Paul to the Colossians .. .

4°, Lond. 1634, al.

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

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

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

8°, Berl. 1865.

Boumer (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 (Colossians) by M. B. Riddle, D.D.]

8°, New York and Edin. 1870.

BREITHAUPT (Joachim Justus), 1 1732, Prof. Theol. at Halle: Animadver-

siones exegeticae et dogmatico-practicae in Epistolam ad Philippenses.

4°, Halae, 1703.

Brenz [or Brentius] (Johann), ¢ 1570, Provost at Stuttgart : Hxplicatio

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

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

DaIL1eE (Jean), ¢ 1670, Pastor at Paris: Exposition sur la divine Epitre
de ’apétre S. Paul aux Filippiens. 8°, Genev. 1659.
DaALMER (Karl Eduard Franz): Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Colosser.
8°, Gotha, 1858.
DaveENANT (John), ¢ 1641, Bishop of Salisbury: Expositio Epistolae Pauli
ad Colossenses, 2°, Cantab. 1627, al. [Translated, with notes, by
Josiah Allport. 2 vols. 8°, Lond. 1831.]
Davies (JOHN LLEWELYN), Rector of Christ Church, Marylebone: The
Epistles of St. Paul to the Ephesians, the Colossians, and Phile-
mon, with introduction and notes, and an essay on the traces

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

Eavie (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 Colossians.

8°, Lond. and Glasg. 1856.

THE PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS. it

Ex.icotr (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.

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

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

Frerauson (James), ¢ 1667, Min. at Kilwinning : A Briefe Exposition of the
Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and Colossians.
8°, Edin. 1656, αἱ.
Fuatt (Johann Friedrich), { 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen: Vorlesungen
iiber die Briefe Pauli an die Philipper, Kolosser, Thessalonicher, und
den Philemon, herausgegeben von Chr. F. Kling.
8°, Tubing. 1829.

Herricus (Johann Heinrich), 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. 11., 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 Pauliad Philippenses. [THEILE: Com-
ment. in N. T., vol. xxii. ] 8°, Lips. 1839.
Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), Prof. Theol. at Erlangen: Die
Heilige Schrift des N. T. zusammerhingend untersucht. IV. 2. Die
Briefe Pauli an die Kolosser und Philemon. IV. 3. Der Brief Pauli

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

Jatuo (Georg Friedrich), Director of Gymnasium at Hildesheim: Pauli

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

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

x EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLES TO

Licutroor (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.

Marruias (Konrad Stephan), Prof. Theol. at Greifswald: Erklirung des
Briefes Pauli an die Philipper. 8°, Greifswald, 1835.
Mayeruorr (Ernst Theodor): Der Brief an die Kolosser mit vornehmlicher
Beriicksichtigung der Pastoralbriefe kritisch gepriift.
8°, Berl. 1838.
MELANCHTHON (Philipp), f 1560, Reformer: Enarratio Epistolae Pauli ad
Colossenses. 8°, Viteb. 1559, al.
MicHacE Lis (Johann David). See GALATIANS.
MULLER (Cornelius) : Commentatio de locis quibusdam Epistolae ad Philip-
penses. 4°, Hamburgi, 1844.
Muscutus [or Meusstin] (Wolfgang), ¢ 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), ¢ 1850, Prof. Theol. at Berlin: Der
Brief Pauli an die Philipper praktisch erliiutert . . .
8°, Berl. 1849.

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

Rettig (Heinrich Christian Michael), { 1836, Prof. Theol. at Ziirich:

Quaestiones Philippenses. 8°, Giessen. 1831.

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

8°, Berl. 1827.

Rituret (Albert), Prof. Theol. at Geneva: Commentaire sur lépitre de

Vapdtre Paul aux Philippiens . . . ; 8°, Généve, 1841.
RorLtt (Herman Alexander), ¢ 1718, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Brevis
Epistolae Pauli ad Colossenses exegesis. 4°, Traject. 17381.

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

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

8°, Zurich, 1833.

Scumip (Sebastian). See Romans.

THE PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS. ΧΙ

Scnoranus (Meinardus H.), t 1644, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Analysis et
Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses.
4°, Franek. 1637.
Srerger (Wilhelm), ¢ 1836, Prof. Theol. at Geneva: Der Brief Pauli an
die Colosser; Uebersetzung, Erklirung, einleitende und epikritische
Abhandlungen. 8°, Erlangen, 1835.
Srorr (Gottlob Christian), { 1805, Prof. Theol. at Tubingen: Dissertatio
exegetica in Epistolam ad Philippenses. . . . Dissertatio exegetica
in Epistolae ad Colossenses partem priorem [et posteriorem] . . .
4°, Tubing. [1783-87].
Expositions of the Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and Colossians
by John Calvin and D. Gottlob Christian Storr. Translated from the
original by Robert Johnston. [Biblical Cabinet.] 12°, Edin. 1842.
Surcerus [Scuwertzer] (Johann Heinrich), Prof. of Greek in Heidelberg :
In Epistolam ad Colossenses commentarius critico-exegeticus.
4°, Tiguri, 1699.

Trt (Salomon van). See Romans.

VeLasquez (Juan Antonio), 8. J.: In Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses
commentaria et adnotationes. 2°, Lugd. et Paris. 1628-33.

Victorinus (Ὁ. Marius), about A.D. 860, teacher of rhetoric at Rome: In
Epistolam ad Philippenses liber unicus. [In Mai’s Scrip. Vet. Nov.
Cou. mn. 1.

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

“ZACHARIAE (Gotthilf Traugott). See GALATIANS.

THE

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

INTRODUCTION.
§ 1. THE PHILIPPIAN COMMUNITY.’

SHE fortified city of Philippi” was situated in Mace-
ἢ donia, on the borders of Thrace; in earlier times,
as a Thasian colony, it was called, from its site
abounding in springs, Κρηνίδες (Diodor. 8. xvi.
5. 8; Strabo, vi. 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. οὖν. iv.
15; Strabo, vii. p. 511); and the victory over Brutus and
Cassius made it a landmark in the history of the world.
Through this overthrow of Roman freedom it acquired a high
rank as a Roman colony with the Jus Italicum (see on Acts
xvi. 11); but it obtained another and higher historical interest,
attended by a greater gain for the Roman Empire, through the
fact that it was the first city in Europe in which Paul, under
the divine direction in a nocturnal vision (see on Acts xvi.

1See generally, Mynster, Linleit. in d. Br. an d. Philipper, in his ΚΙ, theol.
Schriften, p. 169 ff. ; Hoog, de coetus Christ. Philipp. conditione, etc., Lugd.
Bat. 1825; Rettig, Quaest. Philipp., Giess. 1831; Schinz, d. christl. Gem. z.
Plal., Ziivich, 1833; J. B. Lightfoot, δέ. Paul’s Ep. to the Philippians, Lond.
1868, p. 46 ff.

* Now the village of Felibah. On the site and the ruins, see Cousinéry, Voyage
dans la Macéd., Paris, 1831, 11. ch. x. p. 1 ff. ; Perrot in the Revue archéolog.
1860, II. pp. 44 ff, 67 ff.

PHIL. A

2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

9 f.), and amid ill-treatment and persecution (Acts xvi. 16 ff. ;
1 Thess. 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 προσευχή (see on Acts xvi. 13), and the Christian
church was one consisting mostly of those who had been
Gentiles. The view which discovers a Judaizing faction
(iii. 2) in it (Storr, Flatt, Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Rheinwald,
Guericke, and others), seems all the more unwarrantable, when
we consider how deeply the apostle was concerned to ward off
from his beloved Philippians the danger, at that time every-
where so imminent, of the intrusion of Judaistic disturbance,
and how susceptible the Philippians themselves were to such
a danger, owing to a certain spiritual conceit’ which had-
already impaired their unanimity (i. 12-11. 16, iv. 2). Comp.
1, 28. See, against the view of heretical partisanship, Schinz,
p. 48 ff; Ruilliet, Commentaire, Geneva, 1841, p. 352 ff;
Weiss, Introduction to his Ausleg., Berl. 1859; compare,
however, Huther in the Mecklenb. theolog. Zeitschrift, 1862,
p. 623 ff.

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

INTRODUCTION, 3

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

It is justly the universal tradition (Chrysostom ; Euthalius,
in Zacagni, Coll. vet. mon. pp. 547, 642, 648; Synopsis of
Athanasius, Syrian Church, the subscriptions), and the almost
unanimous view of modern writers, that the epistle was written
in Rome. We are pointed to Rome by the οἰκία Καίσαρος
(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, 11. 17),—as
well as by the entire conformity of his position and work
(i. 12 ff.) to what we find recorded in Acts xxviii. 16 ff. The
epistle must, moreover, have been written during the Jater
period of the Roman captivity; for the passages, i. 12 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. 12 ff., or from the mention of the Praetorium
and the imperial house. We must reject the isolated attempts
to transfer its composition to Corinth (Acts xviii. 12; Oeder,
Progr., Onold. 1731) or to Caesarea (Acts xxiii, 23-xxvi. 32;
Paulus, Progr, Jen. 1799; and Bottger, Beitr. 1. p. 47 ff;
favoured also by Rilliet, and Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt.
p. 212). Concerning and against these views, see particularly
Hoelemann, Commentar, 1839, p. iii. ff.; Neander, Gesch. ἃ.
Pflanzung, etc., p. 498 f.

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

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

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

4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

the return of the former after his recovery from “ a sickness
nigh unto death,” made him the bearer of the letter (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 the apostle was trans-
ferred to the prison-house, but that with that transference
the process had reached the stage of its judicial discussion,
in which the Philippians believed that they could not but
discern a change to the worse for Paul, whom they regarded
as suffering privations in prison. Those traces, also, which
Hofmann has discovered of a letter of the church brought to
Paul by Epaphroditus along with the contribution, and ex-
pressing not only the concern of the Philippians for the apostle,
but also their need of instruction regarding the assaults to
which their Christianity was exposed, and regarding various
other matters of theirs that required to be settled and arranged,
are so far from being warranted by the exegesis of the passages
in question, that there is neither direct occasion nor any other
sufficient reason for going beyond the oral communications of
Epaphroditus in order to account for the apostle’s acquaintance
with the circumstances of the Philippians. And just as the
aid tendered by the careful love of the church had furnished
the occasion for this letter to them, so also does its entire
tenor breathe forth the heartfelt and touching love, which the
captive apostle cherished towards his Philippians. Not one
of his epistles is so rich as this in hearty effusions of affection
and in tender references; and not one of them is so charac-
teristically epistolary, without any rigid arrangement, almost
without dogmatic discussion, as also without quotations from the
Old Testament or dialectic chains of reasoning. Not one is so
eminently an epistle of the feelings, an outburst of the moment,
springing from the deepest inward need of loving fellowship
amidst outward abandonment and tribulation ; a model, withal,
of the union of tender love, and at times an almost elegiac
impress of courageous resignation in the prospect of death,
with high apostolic dignity and unbroken holy joy, hope, and

INTRODUCTION. 5

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

After the apostolic salutation (i. 1 f.), Paul, with heart-
winning fervour, expresses thanks, intercession, and confidence
as regards his readers (i. 3-11), and then enlarges on his
present position, with his hope of a speedy return (i. 12-26) ;
after which he exhorts them to unanimity and humility, and
generally to the Christian life (i. 27-ii. 18). He promises to
send Timothy to them soon, yet trusts that he himself shall
also soon come to them (ii. 19-24); in the meantime he
sends away to them Epaphroditus, their messenger, who is
delicately and touchingly commended to them (11. 25-30).
On the point, apparently, of passing on to a conclusion (iii. 1),
he proceeds to deal with his Jewish opponents, with whom he
compares himself at some leneth, 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 (111. 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 Polycarp,
111, 11, onwards; see Marcion in Epiph. Haer. 42; Canon Murat.;
Tertull. ὁ. Mare. v.19, de praescr. 36; literal use made of it, as
early as the epistle from Vienne and Lyons, in Eus. v. 2 ; direct
quotations from it in Iren. iv. 18. 4, v.13. 3; Cypr. Zest. 11. 39;
Clem. Paed. i. 107; Tert. de resurr. 23, 4'7,—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 Tiib. Zeitschr. 1836,
3, p. 196), has directed his bold attacks against this epistle
also (see his Paulus der Ap. Jesu Christi, 1845, p. 458 ff,
and second ed. II. p. 50 ff.; also in the theol. Jahrb. 1849,
p. 501 ff, 1852, p. 133 ff); and Schwegler, nachapostol.
Zeitalt. II. p. 133 ff, has adopted the same views. See,
against these attacks, now hardly worth the trouble of refuta-
tion, besides the Commentaries and Introductions, Liinemann,
Pauli ad Phil. epist. contra Baurum defend. Gott. 1847;
Briickner, Zp. 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 Zz. Bl. of the Allg. KZ.
1850, No. 149 ff., 1851, No. 6 ff.; Hilgenfeld in his Zeztschr.
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 11. 4 ff.
from 2 Cor. x. 18, e¢ al.), under a want of connection, and
poverty of ideas (in proof of which stress is laid on iii. 1, as
the author’s own confession)—rest entirely on uncritical pre-
supposition, and on a mistaken judgment as to the distinctive
epistolary peculiarity of the letter, and as to the special tone of
feeling on the part of the apostle in his present position gene-
rally and towards his Philippians. Lastly, we must reckon as
wholly fanciful the doubt thrown upon what is said at 1. 12,
for which a combination of this passage with iv. 22 is alleged
to furnish ground, and to which the mention of Clement, iv. 3,

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

INTRODUCTION. ii

who is taken to be Clement of Rome, and is supposed to weave
the bond of unity round Paul and Peter, must supply the key ;
while the supposed anachronism in the mention of the bishops
and deacons in i. 1, the Euodia and Syntyche in iv. 2, and the
σύζυγος γνήσιος in iv. 3, are likewise wrongly adduced against
the Pauline authorship. Indeed, even the historical occasion
of the epistle—the aid sent to Paul—is made to appear as a
fictitious incident at variance with 1 Cor. ix. 15. The spe-
cial arguments of Baur are set aside by an impartial interpre-
tation of the passages to which they refer, and the same may
be said with regard to the latest attacks of Hitzig (zur Kritik
d. paulin. Briefe, 1870) and of Hinsch (in Hilgenfeld’s Zeit-
schrift, 1873, p. 59 ff) on the genuineness. The latter,
though independent in his movement, stands on the ground
occupied by Baur; the former has no ground whatever.
Against Hinsch, see Hilgenfeld in his Zedtschr. 1873, p. 178 fff.

Heinrichs, with whom Paulus in the main concurred, Hezdelb.
Jahrb. 1817, 7, has sought to do away with the unity of the
epistle by the assumption that there were originally two epistles,
—one exoteric, addressed to the whole church, consisting of
1. 1-iii. 1, χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ, and the salutations, iv. 21-23 ; the
other esoteric, to the apostle’s more intimate friends, which con-
tained from 111. 1, τὰ αὐτὰ γράφειν, down to iv. 20.1 But this
idea is nothing but a consequence of misconceiving the free
epistolary movement, which, especially in a letter like this called
forth by a special occasion, and addressed to a community so
dear to him, might naturally be most unfettered (see on iii. 1) ;
and in this case, the distinction of exoteric and esoteric
elements is a mistake, which is no less unhistorical than con-
trary to all psychological probability.

From ii. 1 we must, moreover, assume that, prior to our
epistle, Paul had addressed another letter to the Philippians,
which is ποῦ now extant; and this is confirmed by Polycarp
(Phil. 3). See on ui. 1, remark.

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

πὸ} were ὅλι ξ ἜΛΗΝ μος | ᾿
ee ν᾽. τ oes Yh ᾿
ἐμ...

Παύλου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Φιλιππησίους."

ABDEFGwN have merely πρὸς Φιλιπσπησίους.

CIbA PLB Re JP,

Ver. 1. ᾿Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] Lachm, and Tisch. read Χριστοῦ Τησοῦ.
The same in vv. 6 and 8. This is to be preferred on account of
the strong attestation of BD Καὶ (the latter, however, only in
vv. 1 and 8), which is reinforced in ver. 8 by A; it was readily
supplanted by the more usual ’I. x. — Ver. 7. Elz. has merely
τῇ ἀπολογ. without ἐν. Lachm. has ἐν, which Griesb., Matth.,
Scholz, and Tisch. adopt, in brackets. It is found in BD*
EKLPs, min. Syr. Copt. Arr. Vulg. It. and some Fathers.
Looking at this indecisive attestation, : and seeing that ἐν might
more readily be supplementarily or mechanically added than
omitted, it should be deleted. — Ver. 8. ἐστίν] after μου is de-
fended by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., omitted by Tisch., fol-
lowing BF Gxs*, min. Vulg. It. Aeth. Chrys. An addition
made from a reminiscence of Rom. 1. 9.— Ver. 9. σπερισσεύῃ]
BD E have περισσεύσῃ. So Lachm., who has placed περισσεύῃ in
the margin, and Tisch. 7. With the considerable testimony
which exists in favour of the Recepta, restored also by Tisch. 8,
it should be retained, as περισσεύσῃ might very easily originate in
the similarity of sound in the following final syllables: ἐπιγνώξεΙ,
πάσξηΙ, and αἰσθήξε!. The Lecepta is also supported by the
readings περισσεύει and περισσεύοι. ---- Ver. 11. Elz. has καρπῶν...
τῶν, against decisive testimony. An emendation.— Ver. 14.
Lach, and Tisch. 8 have τοῦ Θεοῦ after λόγον, although, according
to testimony of some weight (such as A Bx, Clem.), only an
explanatory addition, which some Codd. give in a different
position, while others change it into rod xupiov.— Vv. 16, 17.
Elz. reverses their position: of μὲν ἐξ epidciug . . . μου" of δὲ ἐξ
ἀγάπης ... κεῖμαι, against decisive testimony. A transposition
intended to produce uniformity with ver. 10.— Instead of
ἐγείρειν (Griesb., Lachm., Tisch.) Elz. has ἐπιφέρειν, which is de-
fended by Matth. and Scholz, and vindicated by Reiche. But

1 The Philippians are also called Φιλισ πήσιοι by Steph. Byz., Φιλιππηνοί by
Polyb. (according to Steph. Byz.), Φιλισσεῖς in the Corp. Inscript.

9

10 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

ἐγείρ. is decisively attested by the preponderance of uncials
(including δ) and vss. ; ἐπιφέρειν, instead of which Theophyl. ms.
has προσφέρειν, is an ancient gloss. — Ver. 18. πλήν] B has ὅτι;
AFGPRs, min. some vss. and Fathers: πλὴν ὅτι. So Lachm.
and Tisch. 8. But the reference of the σλήν not being under-
stood, it was explained by the é written on the margin, which
has in some cases (B) supplanted the πλήν, and in others passed
into the text along with it.— Ver 21. Χριστός] χρηστόν was 80
isolated and weak in attestation (Ar. pol.), that it should not
have been recommended by Griesb., following earlier authority.
— Ver. 23. Elz. has γάρ instead of δὲ, against decisive testimony.
The γὰρ after πολλῷ is neither critically nor exegetically to be
rejected. See Reiche, Comm. crit.— Ver. 24. tv τῇ σαρκί] ἐν 15
wanting in ACP, min. Clem. Or. Petr. alex. Cyr. Chrysost.
Wrongly condemned by Griesb. and Tisch. 8; for ἐν might easily
be absorbed by the final syllable of ἐπιμένειν, especially as it is
frequently used elsewhere with the simple dative. — Ver. 25.
ovurupaev| Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read σαραμενῶ, which Griesb.
also approved of, following ABCD*FGx, min. A neglect of
the doubly compound verb, attested certainly more weakly, but
yet by D*** EK LP, Chrys. al. and many min., which took place
all the more readily, because the word does not occur elsewhere
in the N. T., and even its meaning might be offensive. — Ver. 27.
Instead of ἀκούσω, Lach. and Tisch. ὃ read ὠχούω, but. without a
preponderance of testimony in its favour. — Ver. 28. ἐστὴν αὐτοῖς]
Elz. has αὐτοῖς μὲν ἐστίν, against decisive testimony. — tui]
AB C**s, min. vss. Aug. read ὑμῶν. So Lachm. and Tisch.
Rightly ; the dative is a mechanical alteration in accordance
with the preceding αὐτοῖς and the following ὑμΐ. ---- Ver. 30. Elz.
has ἴδετε. But εἴδετε is attested by AC D* ἘΞ Νὰ, min. and
Fathers, and was supplanted by ἤδετε through Itacism.

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

CHAP. I. 1, 2. 11

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

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

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

12 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

Paul does not expressly assert his apostolic dignity by the side
of Timothy (as in 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. 1. 1), may be explained by
the intimate and cordial relation in which he stood to the
Philippians ; for in regard to them he saw no external cause,
and felt no internal need, for making this assertion; and we
may assume the same thing in Philem. 1. The non-mention
of his apostolic dignity in the First and Second Epistles to the
Thessalonians is, considering the early date at which they were
composed, to be similarly explained (see Liinemann on 1 Thess.
i. 1). In their joint designation as δοῦλοι “I. X. (see on
Rom. i. 1),—a designation resulting from the deep conscious-
ness of the specific vocation of their lives (1 Cor. iv. 1),—both
the apostleship of Paul and the official position of Timothy
(comp. Rom. xvi. 21: Tipo. ὁ συνεργός pov; Col. iv. 12)
are included. Compare σύνδουλος, Col. 1. 7, iv. 7. — τοῖς
ἁγίοις ἐν X. ᾽1.1 see on Rom i. 7, and on ἡγιασμένος ἐν Χ. ᾿1.,
1 Cor. i. 2.— σὺν ἐπισκ. x. Staxov.] along with overseers and
deacons. Paul writes to all’ the Christians at Philippi (comp.
Rom. i. 7), bishops and deacons being expressly included (σύν,

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

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

CHAP. I. 1, 2. 19

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

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

14 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS,

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

Ver. 3 ὁ Comp.’ Rom..2.°9; 1 Cor:L 4; Eph) 2 eee
Thess. 1. 2; Philem. 4; Col. 1. 3.— ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμ.]
not: in every recollection, but, as the article requires: in my
whole recollection of you, so that the sense is not: as often as
Τ remember you (so usually, following Chrysostom and Luther),
but: my remembrance of you in zs entire tenor and compass is
mingled with thankfulness towards God. On ἐπί with the
dative, comp. ii. 17. Maldonatus, Homberg, Peirce, Michaelis,
Bretschneider, Hofmann, are mistaken in making ὑμῶν geni-
tive of the subject (and ἐπὶ as stating the ground, 1 Cor. i. 4):
“that ye are constantly mindful of me,’ or “ on accownt of your
collective remembrance” (Hofmann), which is supposed to imply
and include the ad transmitted to him as a single μνεία. 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. — μνείᾳ] is to
be rendered in the usual sense of remembrance (comp. 1 Thess.

1 Τὴ the Epistle of Polyearp to the Philippians, πρεσβύτεροι and διώκονοι are
spoken of as existing in Philippi, but no ἐπίσκοπος. See especially chap. v. 6.
Therefore even at this later period bishops and presbyters were identical in
Philippi.

CHAP. I. 3, 4. 19

iii. 6; 2 Tim.i. 3), and not, as by van Hengel, in that of
mention, which it only obtains in the passages—certainly
otherwise corresponding—Rom. i. 9, Eph. 1. 16, 1 Thess. i
2, Philem. 4, by the addition of ποιεῖσθαι. In this case it is
the μνείαν ἔχειν (1 Thess. iii, 6 ; 2 Tim.i. 3; Plat. Legg. vii. p.
798 A), and not the μν. ποιεῖσθαι, that is thought of. — πάν-
τότε] cannot belong to εὐχαριστῶ in such a way that the
following ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει x.7.d. Should be separated from it and
joined to the participial clause, as Hofmann’ desires. It is
true that πάντοτε down to ὑμῶν is closely linked with what
precedes; but the connection is of such a character that
πάντοτε already finds the befitting limitation through ἐπὶ
πάσῃ τ. μνείᾳ ὑμῶν, and now by πάντοτε x.7.r. can be
announced, when the εὐχαριστῶ τ. O. μ. ἐπὶ π. τ. pov. ὑμ. takes
place, namely, “at all times, in every request which I make for
you all, thanksgiving towards my God is joined with my entire
remembrance of you.” Negatively expressed, the sense up to
this point therefore is: “J never (πάντοτε) make my interces-
sory prayer for you all, without always (πάντοτε, as in Rom. i.
10, Col. i. 4) ὧν τὲ associating thanks towards my God with
my entire remembrance of you.” This does not render the
πάντων inappropriate, as Hofmann objects, the fact being that
the apostle constantly bears all his Philippians upon his heart,
and cannot help praying for them al/; he feels this, and ex-
gresses it. If we should, with Castalio, Beza, and many
others, including Weiss, connect as follows: “whilst I at all
times in all my praying for you all make the prayer with joy,’
the expression ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει τὴν δέησιν ποιούμενος, as thus
linked together, would be only a burdensome tautology. In-
stead of μετὰ yap. τ. 6. ποιούμ., Paul would have simply and
naturally written the mere χαίρων. This applies also to the
view of Huther, who (in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1863, p.
400) substantially agrees with Weiss. Hoelemann incorrectly

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

16 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

connects ὑπὲρ παντ. vu. with εὐχαριστῶ (Rom. 1. 8; Eph. 1.
16; 1 Thess. i 2; 2 Thess.i. 3). Against this it may be
urged, that the otherwise too general ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει pov
needs’ an addition more precisely defining it; and the words
μετὰ yap. τὴν δέησ. ποιούμ. which follow, show that the
thought is still occupied with the prayer, and has i as yet im
prospect to express the object of the thanks. Lastly, the article
in τὴν δέησιν points back to a more precisely defined δέησις,
the specification of which is contained in this very ὑπ. 7. vp.
Comp. Col. i. 8. — As to the distinction between δέησις and
προσευχή (ver. 9, iv. 6), see on Eph. vi. 18.—On the empha-
tic sequence of πάσῃ, πάντοτε, πάσῃ, πάντων, comp. Lobeck,
Paral. p. 56. Paul does not aim at such accumulations, but
the fulness of his heart suggests them to him; comp. 2 Cor.
ix. 8.— μετὰ χαρᾶς «.7.d.] His heart urges him, while men-
tioning his prayer for them all, to add: “ when I make with
joy the (mentioned) prayer (τὴν 56.),’—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
μετὰ yap. onwards, for ποιούμ. is connected with εὐχαριστῶ
(in opposition to Heinrichs), as containing the characteristic
definition of mode for δέησις ὑπ΄. πάντ. ὑμ.

Ver. 5 f. “Emi τῇ κοινων. ty. εἰς τὸ εὐαγγ.} is to be taken
together with εὐχαριστῶ, ver. ὃ (1 Cor. 1. 4), and not with
μετὰ yap. «.T.r. (Calvin, Grotius, van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald,
Weiss, Hofmann) ; for in that case, with the right explanation
of ἐπὶ πάσῃ τ. pv. ὑμ., the specification of the ground for thanks
would be entirely wanting, or would at all events result only
indirectly, namely, as object of the joy. On account of your
fellowship in respect of the gospel; by this Paul means the
common brotherly coherence (Acts ii. 42) which united the
Philippians together for the gospel (as the aim to which the
κοινωνία has reference), that is, for its furtherance and efficiency.
The great cause of the gospel was the end at which, in their
mutual coherence, they aimed ; and this, therefore, gave to their

1 This applies also in opposition to Ewald, who attaches ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν, and
to Hofmann, who at the same time joins ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει, to the participial clause.
The participial clause only begins with the emphatically prefixed μετὰ χαρᾶς.

CHAP. I. 5, 6. 17

fellowship with one another its specific character of a holy
destination. The correctness of this interpretation is con-
firmed by the context in ver. 9, where that which is here
expressed by ἡ κοινωνία ὑμῶν is characterized, under the cate-
gory of the disposition on which this κοινωνία is based, as ἡ
ἀγάπη ὑμῶν. 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 κοινωνία to the
aid sent to Paul (Zeger, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Wetstein,
Michaelis, Bisping, and others), so that it is to be taken
actively as communication (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 81,
287), although it is never so used in the N. T. (comp. on
Rom. xv. 26 ; Gal. vi. 6 ; Philem. 6), but also the view of Theo-
doret, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Heinrichs, and others :
“quod evangelii participes facti estis,’ as if it ran τοῦ evay-
γελίου (Theodoret: κοινωνίαν δὲ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τὴν πίστιν
ἐκάλεσε). Chrysostom and Theophylact, who are followed by
most of the recent interpreters (including Schinz, Weiss,
Schenkel, Huther, Ellicott, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann), under-
stand the fellowship of the Philippians with the apostle, that
is, ὅτε. κοινωνοί μου γίνεσθε kK. συμμερισταὶ τῶν ἐπὶ τῷ εὐαγγ.
πόνων, Theophylact ; consequently, their co-operation with him
in spreading the gospel, in which case also a reference to the aid
rendered is included. In this case, since the text says nothing
about a “ service” devoted to the gospel (Hofmann), an addition
like μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ (1 John i. 3, et al.), or some other more precise
definition, like that in ver. 7, would be an essential element—
not arising (as in Gal. ii. 9) out of the context—which there-
fore must have been expressed, as indeed Paul must have said
so, had he wished to be understood as referring to fellowship
with all who had the cause of the gospel at heart (Wiesinger).
The absolute “your fellowship,” if no arbitrary supplement is
allowable, can only mean the mutual fellowship of the members
of the church themselves—The article is not repeated after
ὑμῶν, because κοινωνία eis τὸ εὐαγγ. is conceived as forming a
single notion (comp. on κοινωνεῖν eis, iv. 15; Plato, Rep. p.
453 A).— ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμ. ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν] is usually connected
PHIL. B

18 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

with τῇ κοινωνίᾳ κατὰ. This connection is the true one, for
the constancy of the κοινωνία, 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 (τῇ before
ἀπὸ) is not requisite, as ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν was construed as
ἐπὶ τῷ κοινωνεῖν ὑμᾶς (Winer, p. 128 [E.T.171]). It cannot
be connected with τ. δέησιν ποιούμ. (Weiss), unless ἐπὶ τ.
κοίνων. K.T.r. is also made to belong hereto. If joined with
πεποιθώς (Rilliet, following Lachmann, ed. min.), it would
convey an emphatically prefixed definition of the apostle’s
confidence, whereas the whole context concerns the previous
conduct of the readers, which by the connection with πεποιθ.
would be but indirectly indicated. If connected with evya-
ριστῶ (Beza, Wolf, Bengel), the words—seeing that the expres-
sion πάντοτε ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει has already been used, and then
in ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ x.7.r. a transition has already been made
tc the object of the thanks— would contain a definition
awkwardly postponed.—tThe 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. 1. 6.—
πεποιθώς] confidence by which Paul knows his εὐχαριστεῖν,
vv. 3-5, to be accompanied. Without due ground, Hofmann.
confuses the matter by making a new prolonged paragraph
begin with πεποιθώς." ---- αὐτὸ τοῦτο] 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 τοῦτο merely
(Weiss), but would mean, being confident of this very thing,
which is being spoken of (ii. 18; Gal. ἢ. 10; 2 Cor. ii.
3). But nothing has been yet said of the contents of the
confidence, which are to follow. It is therefore to be taken

1 He makes ver. 6, namely, constitute a protasis, whose apodosis is again divided
into the protasis καθώς ἐστιν δίκαιον ἐμοί and the apodosis corresponding thereto.
But this apodosis of the apodosis begins with διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με, ver. 7, and yet is only
continued after the words μάρτυς γ. ὁ Θεός, ὡς ἐπιποθῶ ὑμᾶς, which are a parenthesis,
in vv. 8, 9. Such a dialectically involved and complicated, long-winded period
would be most of all out of place in this epistle ; and what reader would have
been able, without Hofmann’s guidance, to detect it and adjust its several
parts ?

CHAP. I. 7. 19

as ob id ipsum, for this very reason (2 Pet. 1. 5; Plato, Sj ymp.
p. 204 A, and Stallb. ad loc. ; Prot. p. 310 E; sec Anab, i.
9. 21, and Kiihner 7m Joc., ide his Gramm. ΤΊ. 1, p. 267; see
also Winer, p. 135 [E. T. 178], and comp. on Gal. ii. 10),
namely, ‘because your κοινωνία εἰς τὸ evaryy., from the first day
until now, is that which alone can warrant and justify my
confidence for the future, ὅτε ὁ évapEduevos K.7.\. — ὁ ἐναρξά-
μενος x.7.0.] 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, 11. 3. — ἐν ὑμῖν] That Paul
did not intend to say among you (as Hoelemann holds), but
in you, im animis vestris (comp. 11. 13; 1 Cor. xii. 6), is shown
by ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν following, by which the language
ὁ ἐναρξ. ἐν ὕμιν x.7.d. expresses a confidence felt in respect
to all individuals. — ἔργον ἀγαθόν] without article, hence:
an excellent work, by which is meant, in conformity with
the context, the κοινωνία tp. εἰς τὸ εὐαγγ. ---- ἄχρις ἡμέρας
"I. X.] corresponding to the ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμέρ. ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν,
ver. 5, presupposes the nearness of the παρουσία (in oppo-
sition to Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others), as everywhere in
the N. T., and especially in Paul’s writings (Weiss, b7b/. Theol.
p. 297, ed. 2). Comp. ver. 10, iii 20. The device by
which the older expositors (see even Pelagius) gratuitously in-
troduce qualifying statements, “ Perseverat autem in illum usque
diem, quicunque perseverat usque ad mortem suam” (Estius),
whereby is meant not “ continuitas usque ad illum diem,” but
“terminus et complementum perfectionis, quod habituri isto die
erimus” (Calovius), is just as un-Pauline as Calvin’s makeshift,
“that the dead are still in profectu, because they have not yet
reached the goal,” and as Matthies’ philosophical perverting of
it into the continual and eternal Parousia.

Ver. 7. Subjective justification of the confidence expressed
in ver. 6. How should he otherwise than cherish it, and
’ that on the ground of his objective experience (αὐτὸ τοῦτο),

1 Hofmann also adopts this explanation of αὐτὸ τοῦτο.

20 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

since it was to him, through his love to his readers, a duty
and obligation! Not to cherish it would be wrong. “ Caritas
enim omnia sperat,’ Pelagius——As to καθώς, which, in the
conception of the corresponding relation, states the grownd,
comp. on iii, 17; 1 Cor. i 6; Eph. i 4; Matt. vi 11.
—On οὐ κανοῦ: comp. Acts iv. 19; Eph. vi. 1; Phil. iv. 8;
Col. iv. 1; 2 Pet. i: 12. A classical author would have
written : δίκαιον ἐμὲ τοῦτο φρονεῖν (Herod. i. 39; Dem. 198.
8; Plat. Symp. p. 214 C), or: δίκαιός εἰμι τοῦτο dp. (Herod.
i. 32; Dem. 1469. 18, and frequently; Thuc. 1. 40. 3). —
τοῦτο φρονεῖν] 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
φρονεῖν does not admit of (in opposition to Weiss), as it is
not equivalent to ζητεῖν (comp. on Col. 111. 2). See besides,
Huther, 1.6. p. 405 f—On ὑπέρ, comp. iv. 10; 2 Mace. xiv. ὃ ;
Eur. Archel. fr. xxv. 2 f.; Plut. Phil. c. Flam. 3; on τοῦτο φρ,,
Gal. v. 10, οὐδὲν ἄλλο dp. The special reference of the sense
of φρονεῖν : to be mindful about something, must have been sug-
gested by the context, as in iv. 10; but is here insisted on by
Hofmann, and that in connection with the error, that with
καθώς the protasis of an apodosis is introduced. The φρονεῖν
is here perfectly general, cogitare ac sentire, but is characterized
by τοῦτο as a ev φρονεῖν, which Paul feels himself bound to
cherish in the interest of the salvation of all his readers (ὑπὲρ
πάντων ὑμῶν). ---- διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν TH καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς} An ex-
pression of heartfelt love (comp. 2 Cor. vit. 3) on the part of
the apostle towards his readers, not on the part of his readers
towards him (Oeder, Michaelis, Storr, Rosenmiiller, am Ende,
Flatt), thus making ὑμᾶς the subject; although the sing.
καρδίᾳ (comp. Eph. iv. 18, v. 19, vi. 5; Rom. 1. 21; 2 Cor.
ili, 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. —
ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς x.7.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* L 7: ya

and Pelagius. These words, ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς x.7.d., 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 τέ...
Kai (as well... .as also): (1) The position of the apostle, and
(2) his employment in this position. The latter, which, through
the non-repetition of the article before βεβ., is taken as a whole
(Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 294 [E. T. 9427), is both antithetical,
the defence of the gospel, and also thetical, the confirmation of it,
that is, the corroboration of its truth by proof, testimony, etc.,
its verification ; comp. Heb. vi. 16; Rom. xv. 8; Mark xvi.
20; Thucyd. i 140. 6, iv. 87. 1; Plat. Polit. p. 309 C;
Wisd. v. 18. For an instance of this kind of βεβαίωσις
during the earliest period of the apostle’s captivity at Rome,
see Acts xxvill. 23. Hofmann, taking a groundless objection
to our explanation from the use of τέ... καί (see, however,
Baeumlein, Purtik. p. 225), refuses to connect the τέ with the
following «ai; he prefers to connect with the one ἔχειν, namely
with the ἔχειν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ, another, namely an ἔχειν συγκοι-
νωνούς. This is an artificial conjunction of very different
references of the ἔχειν, yielding the illogical formalism: I have
you (1) ὧν my heart, and (2) for my companions, etc. The
latter would indeed be only a more precise qualitative defini-
tion of the former. The question, moreover, whether in 77
amon. κ. βεβ. Tod evaryy. 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.
For the words do not justify us in excluding the judicial
defence (Wieseler, Chronol. d. apostol. Zeitalt. p. 430), since the
ἀπολογία might be addressed not merely to Jews and Judaists,
but also to Gentile judges.—7rod evayy.] belongs to τῇ ἀπολ. x.
βεβαιώσει, and not to βεβ. only; the latter view would make
τῇ amon. 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 Be. .
But to interpret ἀπολογία and βεβαίωσις as synonymous (Rhein-
wald), or to assume an ἕν διὰ δυοῖν for ἀπολογίᾳ εἰς βεβαίωσιν

22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

(Heinrichs), is logically incorrect, and without warrant in the
connection. It is also contrary to the context (on account of
τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ) to understand the βεβαίωσις τ. evayy. as the
actual confirmation afforded by the apostle’s sufferings (Chry-
sostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others). — συγκοινωνούς μου
κτλ. characterizes the ὑμῶς, and supplies a motive for the
ἔχειν με ἐν TH καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς «.7.r.: since you, etc. This love to
you, unalterable even in my affliction, is based on the real
sympathy, which results from all of you being joint-partakers
with me in the grace. The emphasis is laid, primarily on ovyk.
and then on πάντας, which is correlative with the previous
πάντων. The idea of the grace which the apostle had recewed
(τῆς χάριτος) is defined solely from the connection, and that
indeed by the two points immediately preceding, ἔν τε τοῖς
δεσμοῖς μου and τῇ amon. κ. βεβ. Tod 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 ταύτης (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 /ellow-
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 συμπάσχοντες, συναπολογούμενοι, συμ-
βεβαιοῦντες TO εὐωγγέλιον, 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 evangelit 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 (Rom. i. 5, et al.), the
Philippians being said to be active promoters of this through
their faith (see Theodore of Mopsuestia); along with which
a reference is introduced to the assistance rendered (Storr,
am Ende, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Hofmann; comp. also Weiss)—
which assistance has come to be regarded as a κοινωνία εἰς TO
εὐωγγέλιον (but see on ver. 5), as Hofmann expresses it.
Those who feel dissatisfied that Paul does not mention at the
very beginning of the epistle the assistance rendered to him,
prescribe a certain line for the apostle ; which, however, he does
not follow, but gives expression first of all to his love for the
Philippians in subjects of a higher and more general interest,
and puts off his expression of thanks, properly so called, to
the end of the epistle. Lastly, the translation gaudi (Vulgate,
Itala, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Primasius, Sedulius) is derived
from another reading (yapds).—The σύν in συγκοινωνούς refers
to μου, my joint-partakers (iv. 14) of the grace, thus com-
bining ovyx. with a double genitive of the person and the
thing, of the subject and the object (Kihner, 11. 1, p. 288 ;
Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 2997), and placing it first with emphasis ;
for this joint fellowship is the point of the love in question.
—As to the repetition of ὑμᾶς, see Matthiae, p. 1031, and on
Col. ii. 13 ; comp. Soph. 0. C. 1278, and Reisig ἐπ loc. .

REMARK.—Whether ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς... εὐαγγ. Should be con-
nected with the preceding διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν τῇ καρδίῳ ὑμᾶς (Chry-
sostom, Erasmus, Castalio, Luther, and many; also Huther),
or with συγκα. x.r.A. which follows (Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Cor-
nelius a Lapide, Storr, Flatt, Lachmann, van Hengel, Tischendorf,
Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and others), cannot be
determined. Still the former, as of a less periodic character,
is more in harmony with the fervent tone of feeling. Besides,
the repetition of ὑμᾶς betrays a break in the flow of thought
after r. εὐαγγ.

Ver. 8. A solemn confirmation of the preceding assurance,
that he had his readers in his heart, etc. Comp., on the
connection, Rom. 1 9. Theophylact, moreover, strikingly
observes: οὐχ ὡς ἀπιστούμενος μάρτυρα καλεῖ τὸν Θεόν, ἀλλὰ
τὴν πολλὴν διάθεσιν οὐκ ἔχων παραστῆσαι διὰ λόγου. ---- ὡς

24 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

ἐπιποθῶ «.7.r.| how much I long after you all, etc., which
would not be the case if I did not bear you in my heart
(yap), as announced more precisely in ver. 7. On ἐπυποθῶ,
comp. Rom. i. 11; Phil. ii. 26; 1 Thess. iii. 6; 2 Tim. 1 4.
The compound denotes the direction (Plat. Legg. ix. p. 855 F;
Herod. v. 93; Diod. Sic. xvii. 101; Ecclus. xxv. 20), not the
strength of the ποθεῖν (comp. on 2 Cor. v. 2), which is conveyed
by ὡς ; comp. Rom. i. 9; 1 Thess. 11. 10.— ἐν σπλάγχνοις
Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ] 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. ἐν, on account of the sensuous expression
which follows (σπλάγχνα, like D'2M, as seat of the affections,
especially of heartfelt love, ii. 1; Col. 1. 12; Philem. 7,
12, 20; also in classical authors), is to be taken locally :
in the heart of Jesus Christ; that is, so that this longing of
mine is not my own individual emotion, but a longing which
I feel in virtue of the dwelling and working of Christ im me.
Paul speaks thus from the consciousness that his inmost life
is not that of his human personality, of himself, but that
Christ, through the medium of the Holy Spirit, is the personal
principle and agent of his thoughts, desires, and feelings.
Comp. on Gal. ii. 20. Filled with the feeling of this holy
fellowship of hfe, which threw his own individuality into the
background, he could, seeing that his whole spiritual ζωή was
thus the life of Christ in him, represent the circumstances
of his ἐπιποθεῖν, as if the viscera Christi were moved in him,
as if Christ's heart throbbed in him for his Philippians. Bengel
aptly says: “In Paulo non Paulus vivit ‘sed Jesus Christus ;
quare Paulus non in Pauli, sed Jesu Christi movetur vis-
ceribus.” Comp. Theodoret: οὐκ ἀνθρώπινον τὸ φίλτρον,
πνευματικόν. Not doing justice to the Pauline consciousness
of the wnio mystica which gives rise to this expression, some
have rendered ἐν in an instrumental sense, as in Luke i. 78
' (Hofmann); others have taken it of the norma: “according
' According to Hofmann, namely, ἐν ora. X. I. asserts with reference to the

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

CHAP. I. 9. 25

to the pattern of Christ’s love to His people” (Rosenmiiller,
Rilliet) ; and some have found the sense of the norma in the
genitival relation : “in animo penitus affecto ut animus fuit
Christi” (van Hengel). So also Wetstein, Heinrichs, and
earlier expositors; whilst Storr refers ἐν oma. “I. X. even
to the readers (sc. ὄντας). 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 vere Christiano,” is in substance correct, but
fails to give its full development to the consciousness of the
“Χριστὸς ἐν ἡμῖν (Gal. ii, 20, iv. 19; Rom. viii 10; 2 Cor.
xiii. 5; Eph. 111. 17); notwithstanding which Hofmann regards
the identification of Paul’s own heart with the heart of Christ
as simply zmpossible ; thus, however, applying to the mysti-
cism of deep pious feeling, and the living immediate plastic
form in which it finds expression, a criterion alien to its
character, and drawing around it a literal boundary which
it cannot bear.

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

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

26 TIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

his perverse metamorphosis of the simple discourse, running
on from πεποιθώς in ver. 6, into a lengthened protasis and
apodosis,—a construction in which the apodosis of the apodosis
is supposed to begin with ἐν od. X.’I.; comp. on ver. 6.—
ἵνα] introduces the contents of the prayer conceived of under
the form of its design (Col. 1. 9: 1 Thess. 1.11; Matt. xxiv.
20),and thus explains the preparatory τοῦτο. Comp. on John
vi. 29. “This I pray, that your love should more and more,”
etc. —% ἀγάπη ὑμῶν], not love to Paul (van Hengel, follow-
ing Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, Bengel, and others),—a
reference which, especially in connection with ἔτε μᾶλλον x.
μᾶλλον, would be all the more unsuitable on account of the
apostle having just received a practical proof of the love of
the Philippians. It would also be entirely inappropriate to
the context which follows (ἐν ἐπυγνώσει κιτ.λ.). 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
κοινωνία εἰς TO evaryry., for which Paul has given thanks in
ver. 5.1 This previous thanksgiving of his was based on the
confidence, ὅτε ὁ ἐναρξάμενος x.7.r., ver. 6, and the contents of
his prayer now is in full harmony with that confidence. The
connection is misapprehended by Calovius and Rheinwald,
who explain it as love to God and Christ; also by Matthies
(comp. Rilliet), who takes it as love to everything, that is truly
Christian ; comp. Wiesinger: love to the Lord, and to all that
belongs to and serves Him; Weiss: zeal of love for the cause
of the gospel,—an interpretation which fails to define the
necessary personal object of the ἀγάπη, and to do justice to
the idea of co-operative fellowship which is implied in the
κοινωνία in ver. 5, — ἔτι μᾶλλον] quite our: still more. Comp.
Homer, Od.i. 322, xviii. 22 ; Herod. i. 94; Pind. Pyth. x. 88,
Olymp. i. 175; Plat. Huthyd. p. 283 C; Xen. Anab. vi. 6.

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

CHAP. I. 9. 27

35; Diog. L. ix. 10. 2. See instances of μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον
in Kypke, II. p. 307. With the reading περισσεύῃ note the
sense of progressive development. — ἐν ἐπιγνώσει κ. πάσῃ ais-
θήσει] constitutes that in which—.e. respecting which—the love
of his readers is to become more and more abundant. Comp.
Rom. xv. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 9 (Hz), viii. 7; Col. ii. 7; Ecclus.
xix. 20 (24). Others take the ἐν as instrumental: through
(Heinrichs, Flatt, Schinz, and others); or as local: in, 1.6.
in association with (Oecumenius, Calvin, Rheinwald, Hoele-
mann, and others),—7repioo. being supposed to stand absolutely
(may be abundant). But the sequel, which refers to the
ἐπύγνωσις and αἴσθησις, and not to the love, shows that Paul
had in view not the growth in love, but the increase in ἐπί-
γνωσις and αἴσθησις, which the love of the Philippians was
more and more to attain. The less the love is deficient in
knowledge and αἴσθησις, it is the more deeply felt, more
moral, effective, and lasting. If ἐπύγνωσις is the penetrating
(see on 1 Cor. xiii. 12; Eph. i. 17) cognition of divine truth,
both theoretical and practical, the true knowledge of salvation,’
which is the source, motive power, and regulator of love
(1 John iv. 7 ff.); αἴσθησις (only occurring here in the New
Testament), which denotes perception or feeling operating either
through the bodily senses” (Xen. Mem. i. 4. 5, Anab. iv. 6. 13,
and Kriiger im loc.; Plat. Theaet. p. 156 B), which are also
called αἰσθήσεις (Plat. Theaet. p. 156 B), or spiritually * (Plat.
Tim. p. 43 C; Dem. 411. 19, 1417. 5), must be, according
to the context which follows, the perception which takes place
with the ethical senses,—an activity of moral perception which
apprehends and makes conscious of good and evil as such
(comp. Heb. v. 14). The opposite of this is the dulness and
maction of the inward sense of ethical feeling (Rom. xi. 8 ;
Matt. xiii. 15, οὐ al.), the stagnation of the αἰσθητήρια τῆς
καρδίας (Jer. iv. 19), whereby a moral unsusceptibility, in-

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

2 «*Nam etiam spiritualiter datur visus, auditus, olfactus, gustus, tactus,
i, 6. sensus investigativi et fruitivi” (Bengel).

28 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

capacity of judgment, and indifference are brought about.
Comp. LXX. Prov. i. 7; Ex. xxviii. 5; Ecclus. xx. 17, Ree.
(αἴσθησις ὀρθή); 4 Mace. ii. 21. Paul desires for his readers
every (πάσῃ) αἴσθησις, 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 ἐπίγνωσις and αἴσθησις is that of spontaneity to
receptivity, and the former is the ἡγεμονικόν 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. Εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν x.7.r.] states the aim of the
περισσ. ἐν ἐπίγν. κ. 7. αἴσθ., and in ἵνα ἧτε εἰλικρ. K.T.r. We
have the ultimate design. δοκιμάζειν τὰ διαφέροντα is to
be understood, as in Rom. 11. 18: in order to approve that
which is (morally) excellent. So the Vulgate, Chrysostom,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio,
Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, Michaelis, Flatt, Rheinwald,
Rilliet, Ewald, and others. See on διαφέρειν, praestantiorem
esse (Dem. 1466. 22; Polyb. iii. 87. 1; Matt. x: 31), and
τὰ διαφέροντα, praestantiora (Xen. Hier. i. 3; Dio Cass. xliv.
25), Sturz, Lew. Xen. I. p. 111 ἢ Comp. διαφερόντως, eximie
(Plat. Prot. p. 349 D, and frequently). For δοκιμάξ., comp.
Rom. xiv. 22, οὐ al. Others understand it as a testing of
things which are morally different (Theodoret, Beza, Grotius,
Wolf, and others; also Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, de
Wette, Corn. Miiller, Wiesinger, Weiss, Huther). In point
of usage, this is equally correct; see on δοκιμάζ., in both
senses, 1 Thess. 11. 4. But in our view the sense which yields
a definition of the aim of the words περίσσ. ἐν éeruyy. κ. π. αἰσθ.,
as well as the antecedent of the eiduxpivera which follows,
seems more consistent with the context. The éesting of good
and evil is not the aim, but the expression and function, of
the ἐπίγνωσις and αἴσθησις. Looking at the stage of Christian
life which must be assumed from vv. 5 and 7 (different in
Rom. xii. 2), the former, as an aim, does not go far enough;
and the εἰλικρίνεια is the result not of that testing, but of the

CHAP, I. 10, 11. 29

approbation of the good. Hofmann’s view is therefore unsuit-
able, that it means the proving of that which is otherwise ;
otherwise, namely, than that towards which the Christian’s
love is directed. This would amount merely to the thought
of testing what is unworthy of being loved (=ta érepa)—a
thought quite out of keeping with the ¢e/ic mode of expression.
- εἰλικρινεῖς], pure, sincere = καθαρός ; Plat. Phil. p. 52 D.
Comp., on its ethical use, Plat. Phaedr. p. 66 A, and Stall-
baum in loc, 81 C; 2 Pet. ii. 1; 1 Cor. v. 8; 2 Cor. 1. 12,
ii, 17; Wisd. vii 25, and Grimm in ἰοο. ---- ἀπρόσκοποι
practical proof of the εἰλικρίνεια in reference to intercourse
with others (2 Cor. vi. 3): giving no offence; 1 Cor. x. 32;
Tenat. Trall. interpol. 7; Suicer, Thes. sv. As Paul decidedly
uses this word in an active sense in 1 Cor. l.c. (comp. Ecclus.
xxxv. 21), this meaning is here also to be preferred to the
in itself admissible intransitive,—viz. not offending (Acts xxiv.
16; comp. John xi. 9),—1in opposition to Ambrosiaster, Beza,
Calvin, Hoelemann, de Wette, Weiss, Huther, Hofmann, and
others. — εἰς ἡμέρ. X.], to, ie. for, the day of Christ, when
ye are to appear pure and blameless before the judgment-
seat. Comp. il. 16; Eph. iv. 30; Col. i. 22; 2 Pet. ii 9, ili.
7; 2 Tim. 1. 12; alsoJude 24 ἢ These passages show that
the expression is not equivalent to the ἄχρις ἡμέρας 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. πεπλ. καρπὸν δικ.] modal definition of the
εἰλικριν. κ. ἀπρόσκ., and that from the positive side of these
attributes, which are manifested and tested in this fruitful-
ness—.e. in this rich fulness of Christian virtue in their pos-
sessors. καρπὸς Suxatoc. is the fruit which is the product of
righteousness, which proceeds from a righteous moral state.
Comp. καρπ. τοῦ πνεύματος, Gal. v. 22; «. τοῦ φωτός, Eph.
v. 9; «. δικαιοσύνης, Jas. 111. 18, Heb. xii. 11, Rom. vi. 21 f,
Prov. xi. 30. In πὸ instance is the genitive with καρπός
that of apposition (Hofmann). The δικαιοσύνη here meant,
however, is not justitia fider (justificatio), as many, even
Rilliet and Hoelemann, would make it, but, in conformity

30 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

-with ver. 10, a righteous moral condition, which is the
moral consequence, because the necessary vital expression, of
the righteousness of faith, in which man now καρποφορεῖ τῷ
Θεῷ ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος, Rom. vii. 5f.; comp. vi. 2,
viii. 2; Col.i. 10. We must observe that the emphasis is
laid not on δικαιοσύνης, but on xapmov,—which therefore
obtains more precise definition afterwards,—so that δικαιοσύνης
conveys no new idea, but only represents the idea, already
conveyed in ver. 10, of the right moral condition. Comp. on
δικαιοσύνη, Eph. v. 9; Rom. vi. 13, 18, 20, xiv. 17, e al.
—On the accusative of the remote olject, comp. Ps. ev. 40,
exlvii, 14;.Ecclus. xvii.6.; Col. i. 9 (not 2 Thess. 1 11);
Winer, p. 215 [E. T. 287]. A classical author would have
used the genitive (£7z.) or the dative.—rdov διὰ ᾽1. X.] se.
ὄντα, the more exact specific definition of this fruit, the peculiar
sacred essence and dignity of which are made apparent, seeing
that it is produced, not through observance of the law, or
generally by human power, but through Christ, who brings it
about by virtue of the efficacy of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 1, 20,
iii. 22; Eph. iv. 7 f£,17; John xv. 14, e¢ al.).—eis δύξαι
κτλ. belongs to πεπληρ. «.7.r., not specially to τὸν διὰ , X.
How far this fruitfulness tends to the honour of God (comp.
John xv. 8), see Eph. i. 6-14. God’s δόξα is His majesty in
itself ; ἔπαινος is the praise of that majesty. Comp. Eph. i. 6,
12,14. This ἔπαινος is based on matter of fact (its opposite
is ἀτιμάζειν τ. Θεόν, Rom. ii. 23), in so far as in the Christian
moral perfection of believers God’s work of salvation in them,
and consequently His glory, by means of which it is effected,
are manifested. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 20. The whole work of re-
demption is the manifestation of the divine δόξα... See John
xii. 27 f. The glory of God is, however, the ultimate aim
and constant refrain of all Christian perfection, ii. 11; 1 Cor.
x. 31; Eph it 32; 1 Pet. iv. 11; Rom. ἈΠ 36.

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

CHAP. I. 18. 91

desires to bring before them; γινώσκειν is therefore placed
first: but ye are to know. It is otherwise in 2 Tim, 11]. 1,
also 1 Cor. xi. 3, Col. ii. 1.— 7a κατ᾽’ ἐμέ] my circumstances,
my position, asin Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7; Tob. x. 9; 2 Mace.
iii, 40, e¢ al. ; Xen. Cyr. vii. 1.16; Ael. V. Hui. 20. — parrov]
not fo the hindrance, but much the contrary. See Winer, p. 228
[E. T. 304]. He points in this to the apprehension assumed
to exist, and certainly confirmed to him by Epaphroditus as
existing, on the part of his readers, which, before going further,
he wishes to relieve. There is no trace even here of a letter
received from them with the contribution (Hofmann; comp.
Wiesinger) ; comp. on ver. 1. Hoelemann: “ magis, guam antea
contigerat ;” but this meaning must have been intimated by a
νῦν or ἤδη. ---- προκοπήν] progress, 1.6. success. Comp. ver. 25 ;
1 Tim. iv. 15. As to the later Greek character of this word,
see Lobeck, ad Phryn. Ὁ. 85. In consequence of the apostle’s
fate, the gospel had excited more attention, and the courage
of its preachers had increased ; see ver. 13 f. As to whether
a change had taken place in his condition, which the readers
regarded as a change for the worse, as Hofmann requires us to
assume, we have no specific hint whatever. The situation of
the apostle generally, and in itself, abundantly justified their
concern, especially since it had already lasted so long. — ἐλή-
λυθεν] evenit, 1.0. has redounded. Comp. Acts xix. 27; Wisd.
xv. 5; Herod. i. 120; Soph. 4j. 1117 (1138); Plat. Gorg.
p. 487 B. So the matter stands ; note the perfect.

Ver. 13. “Mate «.7.r.] so that my bonds became manifest in
Christ, etc. This ὥστε introduces the actual result of that
προκοπή, and consequently a more precise statement of ‘ts
nature. “Ἔν Χριστῷ does not belong to τοὺς δεσμούς μου,
alongside of which it does not stand; but φανεροὺς ἐν Χριστ.
is to be taken together, and the emphasis is laid on φανερούς,
so that the δεσμοί did not remain κρυπτοί or ἀποκρύφοι ἐν
“Χριστῷ, as would have been the case, if their relation to Christ

1 «Rem, qualis sit, addita rei consequentis significatione definit,” Ellendt,
Lex. Soph. 11. p. 1012. Hofmann’s view, thatit stands in the sense of εἰς τοῦτο
ὥσσε, also amounts to this, But Hoelemann is in error in making it assert the
greatness of the προκοπή, Not the.greatness, but the salutary effect, is indicated.

32 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

had continued unknown, and if people had been compelled to
look upon the apostle as nothing but an ordinary prisoner
detained for examination. This ignorance, however, did not
exist ; on the contrary, his bonds became known in Christ, in so
far, namely, that in their causal relation to Christ—ain 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 δέσμιος, his bonds would have been
οὐκ ἐμφανεῖς ἐν Χριστῷ; but now that, as δέσμιος € ἐν κυρίῳ
or τοῦ κυρίου (Eph. iv. 1, iii, 1; Philem. 9), as πάσχων ὡς
Χριστιανός (1 Pet. iv. 16), he had become the object of public
notice, the φανέρωσις of his state of bondage, as resting ἐν
Χριστῷ, was thereby brought about,—a φανερὸν γίνεσθαι, con-
sequently, which had its distinctive characteristic quality in the
ἐν Χριστῷ. It is arbitrary to supply ὄντας with ἐν Χριστῷ
(Hofmann). Ewald takes it as: “shining in Christ,” 1.6. much
sought after and honoured as Christian. Comp. also Calvin, and
Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zcitalt. p. 457. But, according to
New Testament usage, φανερός does not convey so much as this ;
in classical usage (Thue. 1. 17. 2, iv. 11.3; Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 58,
Anab. vii. 7. 22 and Kriiger in loc.) it may mean conspicuous,
eninent. — ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ] πραυτώριον is not the im-
perial palace in Rome (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius
a Lapide, Grotius, Bengel, and many others, also Mynster,
Rheinwald, and Schneckenburger in the Deutsch. Zeitschr.
1855, p. 300), which is denoted in iv. 22 by ἡ Καίσαρος
οἰκία, but was never called practorium. It could not well,
indeed, be so called, as τὸ πραυτώριον is the standing appellation
for the palaces of the chief governors of provinces (Matt. xxvil.
27; John xviii. 28, xix. 9; Acts xxiii 35); hence it might
and must have been explained as the Procurator’s palace in

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

CHAP, I. 12. Ps po:

Caesarea, if our epistle had been written there (see especially
Béttger, Beitr. I. p. 51 1). But it is the Roman castrum
practorianorum, the barracks of the imperial body-guard (Came-
rarius, Perizonius, Clericus, Elsner, Michaelis, Storr, Heinrichs,
Flatt, Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette, Rilliet,
Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, and others), whose
chief was the praefectus practorio, the στρατοπέδων ἔπαρχος,
to whom Paul was given in charge on his arrival in Rome
(Acts xxviii. 16). It was built by Sejanus, and was situated
not far from the Porta Viminalis, on the eastern side of the
city.’ See Suet. 710. 37; Tac. Ann. iv. 2; Pitiscus, Thesaur.
antig. 111. 174; and especially Perizonius, de orig., signif. et
usu voce. praectoris et practorii, Franeq. 1687, as also his
Disquisitio de praetorio ac vero sensu verborum Phil. 1. 13,
Franeq. 1690; also Hoelemann, p. 45, and J. B. Lightfoot,
p. 97 ff. τὸ πραυτώριον does not mean the troop of praetorian
cohorts (Hofmann), which would make it equivalent to οἱ
πραιτωριανοί (Herodian, viii. 8. 14).2—The becoming known
in the whole praetoriwm is explained by the fact, that a
praetorian was always present with Paul as his guard (Acts
xxviii. 16), and Paul, even in his captivity, continued his
preaching without hindrance (Acts xxviii. 30 f.).— καὶ τοῖς
λοιποῖς πᾶσι] not in the sense of locality, dependent on ἐν
(Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin), but: and to all the others,
besides the praetorians. It is a popular and inexact way of
putting the fact of its becoming still more widely known
among the (non-Christian) Romans, and therefore it must be
left without any more specific definition. This extensive pro-

1 Doubtless there was a praetorian guard stationed in the imperial palace
itself, on the Mons Palatinus, as in the time of Augustus (Dio. Cass. liii. 16).
See Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 404, who understands the station of
this palace-guard to be here referred to. But it cannot be proved that after
the times of Tiberius, in whose reign the castra praetoriana were built in front
of the Viminal gate (only three cohorts having previously. been stationed in the
city, and that sine castris, Suetonius, Octav. 49), anything else than these castra
is to be understood by the wonted term practorium, στρατόπεδον, when mentioned
without any further definition (as Joseph. Antt. xviii. 6. 7: πρὸ τοῦ βασιλείου).

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

7; Plin. H. NV. xxv. 2, 6, et al., where the prepositional expression (in prae-
torium, ex praetorio) is always local.

PHIL, σ

34 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

clamation of the matter took place in part directly through
Paul himself, since any one might visit him, and in part
indirectly, through the praetorians, officers of justice, dis-
ciples, and friends of the apostle, and the like’ Van
Hengel, moreover, understands it incorrectly, as if of λουποί
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. 11. ὃ,
iv. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 13. Equally arbitrary is the limitation of
Hofmann: that it refers to those, who already knew about him.

Ver. 14. τοὺς πλείονας] the majority, 1 Cor. x. 5, xv. 6, et
al. It is not to be more precisely specified or limited. — ἐν
κυρίῳ] belongs not to ἀδελφῶν (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 πεποιθότας, along with which,
however, it is not to be rendered: relying wpon the Lord with
respect to my bonds (Rheinwald, Flatt, Rilliet, comp. Schnecken-
burger, p. 301). It means rather: in the Lord trusting my
bonds, so that ἐν κυρίῳ is the specific modal definition of
πεποιθ. τοῖς δ. μ., which trust is based and depends on Christ.
Comp. ii. 24; Gal. v.10; Rom. xiv. 14; 2 Thess. iii, 4. On
the dative, comp. 2 Cor. x. 7; Philem. 21, and the ordinary.
usage in the classics; in the New Testament mostly with ἐπέ
or ἐν. "Ev κυρίῳ is placed first as the correlative of the ἐν
Χριστ., ver. 13. As the apostle’s bonds had become generally

1 This suffices 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 first it had become manifest that his captivity was caused, not by his
having committed any crime against the state, but by his having preached Christ,
which might not be challenged (?) on the state’s account. As if what is expressly
reported in Acts xxviii. 81 were not sufficient to have made the matter known, and
as if that Seria ἐν ἰδίῳ μισθώματι precluded the judicial preparation of the case
(ver. 7)! As if the increased courage of the πλείονες, ver. 14, were intelligible
only on the above assumption! As if, finally, it were admissible to understand,
with Hofmann, among these πλείονες all those who ‘‘even now before the con-
clusion of the trial were inspired with such courage by it” !

CHAP, I. 14. ao

known as in Christ, so also in Christ (who will not abandon
the work of His prisoner that had thus become so manifest)
may be found the just ground of the confidence which encou-
rages the brethren, Paul’s fellow-Christians in Rome, ἀφόβως
T.r. λαλεῖν. They trust the bonds of the apostle, inasmuch as
these bonds exhibit to them not only an encouraging example
of patience (Grotius), but also (comp. 111. 8; Col. 1. 24 f.;
2 Tim. ii. 8 ἢ; Matt. v. 11 f, and many other passages) a
practical guarantee, highly honourable to Christ and His gospel,
of the complete truth and justice, power and glory of the word,
for the sake of which Paul is in bonds; thereby, instead of
losing their courage, they are only made all the bolder in virtue
of the elevating influence of moral sympathy with this situation
of the apostle in bonds. Weiss explains as if the passage ran
τῇ φανερώσει τῶν δεσμῶν μου (which would tend to the recom-
mendation of the gospel) ; while Hofmann thinks that, to guard
themselves against the danger of being criminally prosecuted on
account of their preaching, they relied on the apostle’s imprison-
ment, in so far as the latter had now shown itself, in the
judicial process that had ut length been commenced, to be solely
on account of Christ, and not for anything culpable. The
essential elements, forsooth, are thus introduced in consequence
of the way in which Hofmann has construed for himself the
situation (see on ver. 13).— περίσσοτ.Ἷ 1.6. in a higher degree
than they had formerly ventured upon, before I lay here in
bonds. Their ἀφοβία 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 secwrtty.
But the reason of the increased ἀφοβία lay deeper, in the sphere
of the moral idea, which manifested itself in the apostle’s
bonds, and in accordance with which they trusted those bonds
in the Lord, seeing them borne for the Lord’s sake. They
animated the brethren to boldness through that holy confidence,
rooted in Christ, with which they imbued them.—rov λόγον

1 Oecumenius well says: εἰ γὰρ μὴ θεῖον ἦν, φησὶ, τὸ κήρυγμα, οὐκ ἄν ὁ Παῦλος
ἠνείχετο ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ δεδέσθαι. Comp. ver. 16.

36 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

λαλεῖν] 6. to let the gospel become known, to preach, Acts
xi. 19, and frequently. On ἀφόβως, comp. Acts iv. 31.

Ver. 15. This is not indeed the case with all, that they
ἐν κυρίῳ πεποιθότες τοῖς δεσμ. μου περίσσοτ. τοὰλμ. K.T.rA. No,
some in Rome preach with an improper feeling and design ;
but some also with a good intention. (Both parties are de-
scribed in further detail in vv. 16,17.) In either case—Christ
is preached, wherein I rejoice and will rejoice (ver. 18).—
τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον x. ἔριν] 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 ἐν κυρίῳ πεποιθ. τοῖς δεσμ. μου quite otherwise,
and indeed in a way which excludes the idea of envy and con-
tention (comp. also Huther, /.c.), and appear as the majority to
which these τινές stand in contrast as exceptions ; but they are
the anti-Pauline party, Judaizing preachers, who must have
pursued their practices in Rome, as in Asia and Greece, and
exercised an immoral, hostile opposition to the apostle and
his gospel." We have no details on the subject, but from
Rom. xiv. we see that there was a fruitful field on which
this tendency might find a footing and extend its influence
in Rome. The idea that it refers to certain members of the
Pauline school, who nevertheless hated the apostle personally
(Wiesinger, comp. Flatt), or were envious of his high reputa-
tion, and impugned his mode of action (Weiss), is at variance
with the previous ἐν κυρίῳ, assumes a state of things which is
in itself improbable, and is not required by the utterance of
ver. 18 (see the remark after ver. 18). See also Schnecken-
burger, p. 301 f. — καί] indicates that, whilst the majority were
actuated by a good disposition (ver. 14), an evil motive also
existed in several,—expresses, therefore, the accession of some-
thing else in other subjects, but certainly not the accession of a
subordinate co-operating motive in a portion of the same persons

1 For the person to whom individually their φθόνος and ἔρις (as likewise the
subsequent εὐδοκία) had reference was self-evident to the readers, and Paul, more-
over, announces it to them in ver. 16f. Without due reason Hinsch finds in this
the mark of a later period, when the guarding of the apostle’s personal position
alone was concerned. See against this, Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1873, p. 180 f.

CHAP. I. 15, 37

designated in ver. 14 (Hofmann).— διὰ φθόνον x. ἔριν] 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 dua φθόνον, comp. Matt. xxvii. 18; Mark xv. 10; Plat.
Rep. p. 586 Ὁ: φθόνῳ διὰ φιλοτιμίαν. ---- Τινὲς δὲ καί] But
some also; there also are not wanting such as, etc. Observe
that the δὲ καί joins itself with τινές, whereas in μὲν καί pre-
viously the καί is attached to the following διὰ φθόνον. The
τινές here are they who in ver. 14 were described as πλείονες,
but are now brought forward as, in contrast to the τινὲς μέν,
the other portion of the preachers, without any renewed refer-
ence to their preponderance in numbers, which had been already
intimated. -- δ εὐδοκίαν) on account of goodwill, that 15,
because they entertain a feeling of goodwill towards me. This
interpretation is demanded by the context, both in the anti-
thesis διὰ φθόνον κ. ἔριν, and also in ver. 16: ἐξ ἀγάπης.
As to the linguistic use of εὐδοκία in this sense (ii. 13), see
Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p.372. Comp. on Rom. x. 1. Others
take it, contrary to the context, as: “ex benevolentia, gua desi-
derant hominum salutem” (Estius, comp. already Pelagius) ; or,
“quod tpst id probarent,’ from conviction (Grotius, Heinrichs, and
others), from taking delight in the matter generally (Huther), or in
the cause of the apostle (de Wette), or in his preaching (Weiss).

1 Van Hengel has not taken this into account, when he assumes that in τινὲς
δὲ καί Paul had in view only a portion of those designated in ver. 14. Itis an
objection to this idea, that what is said subsequently in ver. 16 of the τινὲς δὲ
καί completely harmonizes with that, whereby the πλείονες generally, and not
merely a portion of them, were characterized in ver. 14 (ἐν κυρ. rex. 7. δεσμ.). This
applies also in opposition to Hofmann, according to whom the two τινές, ver.
15 f., belong to the πλείονες of ver. 14, whom they divide into two classes. Hof-
mann’s objection to our view, viz. that the apostle does not say that the one
party preach solely out of envy and strife, and the other solely out of goodwill,
is irrelevant. He could not, indeed, have desired to say this, and does not say
it ; but he could describe in general, as he has done, the ethical antitheses which
characterized the twoparties. Moreover, ἔρις means everywhere in the N. T., and
especially here in its conjunction with φθόνος (comp. Rom. i. 29; 1 Tim. vi. 4),
not rivalry—the weaker sense assigned to it here, without a shadow of justifica-
tion from the context, by Hofmann (‘‘ they wish to outdo him”’)—but strife, con-
tention. Just as little is ἐριθεία to be reduced to the general notion of egotism, as
is done by Hofmann ; see on ver. 17.

38 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

Vv. 16, 17. We have here a more detailed description of
both parties in respect to the motives which actuated them in
relation to the δεσμοί of the apostle. — oi μέν... οἱ δέ] cor-
responds to the two parties of ver. 15, but—and that indeed
without any particular purpose—in an diverted order (see the
critical remarks), as in 2 Cor. 11. 16, and frequently in classical
authors (Thuc. i. 68. 4.; Xen. Anabd. i, 10. 4). In ver. 18
the order adopted in ver. 15 is again reverted ἴο. ---- οὗ ἐξ
ἀγάπης sc. ὄντες, ὃ, genetic description of the ethical condition of
these people: those who are of love, 1.6. of loving nature and
action; comp. Rom. ii. 8; Gal. iii. 7; John xviii. 37, et al.
We must supply what immediately precedes: τὸν Χριστὸν
κηρύσσουσιν, of which εἰδότες «.7.X. then contains the particular
moving cause (Rom. v. 3,6,9; Gal. 1.16; Eph. vi. 8 f, οὐ αἴ.).
We might also take of μέν (and then οἱ δέ) absolutely: the
one, and then bring up immediately, for ἐξ ἀγάπης, the subse-
quent τ. Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν (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 εἰδότες «.7.A. and οἰόμενοι
κτλ. ; besides, οὐχ ἁγνῶς would then follow as merely a weak
and disturbing auxiliary clause to ἐξ ἐριθείας. ---- ὅτε εἰς ἀπολ.
τοῦ εὐαγγ. κεῖμαι] 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 116. --- κεῖμαι] as in Luke ii. 34;
I Thess. ii.,3; comp. Plat. Legg. x. p. 909; Thuc. aaa
2,47, 2; Ecclus. xxxviii. 29, and other passages in which
“ κεῖσθαι tanquam passivum verbi ποιεῖσθαι vel τιθέναι vide-
tur,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 943. Others render: I lie in
prison (Luther, Piscator, Estius, Wolf, am Ende, Huther, and
others); but the idea of lying under fetters, which κεῖμαι
would thus convey (comp. Eur. Phoen. 1633; Aesch. Ag. 1492),
does not harmonize with the position of the apostle any more
than the reference of its meaning thereby introduced: they

CHAP. I. 16, 17. 39

know that I am hindered in my preaching, and therefore they
“ swpplent hoe meum impedimentum sua pracdicatione,” Estius.
See, on the contrary, Acts xxviii. 30, 31; Phil. i 7. Van
Hengel also imports (comp. Weiss) : “me ad causam rei Chris-
tianae, ubi urgeat necessitas, coram judice defendendam hic in
miseria jacere.” Comp. Hom. Od. i. 46 ; Soph. 47. 316 (929);
Pflugk, ad Eur. Hee. 496. — οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἐριθ.] sc. ὄντες, the factious,
the cabal-makers. See on Rom. ii. 8; 2 Cor. xii. 20; Gal.
v. 20. So also Ignatius, ad Philadelph. 8. It corresponds
with the φθόνον x. ἔριν, ver. 15.— τὸν X. καταγγ. οὐχ ἁγνῶς]
belong together. καωταγγ. is, in substance, the same as κηρύσ-
σειν, but more precisely defining it as the announcement of the
Messiah (Acts xvi. 3, 23; Col. 1, 28, e¢ αἰ). The words τ.
Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν might have been left out, following
the analogy of ver. 16, but are inserted to bring out the ¢ragic
contrast which is implied in preaching Christ, and yet doing
80 οὐχ ἁγνῶς, non caste, not in purity of feeling and purpose.
καθαρῶς is synonymous (Hom. H. in Apoll. 121), also with a
mental reference (Hesiod. ἔργα, 339). Comp. Plat. Legg. viii.
po8t0 DD; 2 Con wi: L1, xi 2; Phil iv. δ. οὐ al; 2 Cor.
vi. 0. --- οἰόμενοι x.7.r.] thinking to stir up affliction for my
bonds, to make my captivity full of sorrow. This they zntend
to do, and that is the immoral moving spring of their unworthy
conduct; but (observe the distinction between οἰόμενοι and
εἰδότες in ver. 16) Paul hints by this purposely-chosen word
(which is nowhere else used by him), that what they imagine
jails to happen. On οἶμαι with the present infinitive, see
Pflugk, ad Hur. Hee. 283. The future infinitive would not
convey that what is meant is even now occurring. See gene-
rally Stallbaum, ad Plat. Crit. p. 52 C; comp. Phaed. p. 116 E.
How far they thought that they could effect that injurious
result by their preaching, follows from ver. 15 and from ἐξ
ἐριθείας ; 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 PHILIPPIANS.

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

Ver. 18. On τί γάρ, scil. ἐστι, comp. on Rom. 111. 3, where,
however, γάρ is not, as here, conclusive (see on 1 Cor. xi. 227);
comp. also Klotz, ad Devar. p. 245. It is rendered necessary
by the πλήν that the mark of interrogation should not be
placed (as it usually is) after τί γάρ, but the question goes on
to καταγγέλλεται (comp. Hofmann); and it is to be observed
that through πλήν the τί γάρ receives the sense of τί γὰρ ἄλλο
(see Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 232 C). Hence: what else
takes place therefore (in such a state of the case) except that, etc.,
1.6. what else than that by every sort of preaching, whether it is
done in pretcnee or in truth, Christ is proclaimed ὁ and therein,
that it is always Christ whom they preach, J rejoice, ete. How
magnanimous is this liberality of judgment as to the existing
circumstances in their reference to Christ! By προφάσει and
ἀληθείᾳ is indicated the characteristic difference in the two
kinds of preachers, vv. 15-17, and thus παντὶ τρόπῳ 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 αἰτία of their working (see on the contrast between αἰτία
and πρόφασις, Polyb. 111. 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 πρόφασις and ἀλή-

1 According to Weiss, γάρ is intended to establish the οἰόμενοι κι «.λ., 50 far as
the latter is only an empty imagination. But this is an unnecessary seeking
after a very obscure reference. The + yap draws, as it were, the result from
vv. 15-17. Hence also we cannot, with Huther, adopt as the sense: ‘‘Js it
then so, as they think ?”

CITAP. I. 18. 41

θεια or τἀληθές, see Raphel, Polyb.; Loesner and Wetstein.
To take πρόφασις as opportunity, occasion (Herod. i. 29,
30, iv. 145, vi. 94; Dem. xx. 26; Antiph. v. 21; Hero-
dian, i 8. 16, v. 2. 14),—as, following the Vulgate, Luther,
Estius, Grotius (“nam occasione illi Judaei, dum nocere Paulo
student, multos pertrahebant ad evang.”), and others under-
stand it,—is opposed to the context in vv. 15-17, in which
the want of honest disposition is set forth as the characteristic
mark of these persons. On πλήν in the sense of 4, comp.
Kiihner, 11. 2, p. 842.— ἐν τούτῳ] the neuter: therein, in
accordance with the conception of that ὧν which the feeling
has tts basis. Comp. Col. i. 24; Plat. ep. x. p. 603 C; Soph.
Tr. 1118; Kihner, II. 1, p. 403. In the Xpicrds καταγ-
γέλλεται lies the apostle’s 10γ.---- ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι] sur-
passing the simple χαίρω by a plus, and therefore added in a
corrective antithetical form (¢mo etiam) ; comp. on 1 Cor. 111. 2 ;
2 Cor. xi. 1. To begin a new sentence with ἀλλά (Lachmann,
Tischendorf), and to sever χαρήσομαι from its connection
with ἐν τούτῳ (Hofmann, who makes the apostle only assert
generally that he will continue to rejoice also in the future),
interrupts, without sufficient reason, the flow of the animated
discourse, and is also opposed by the proper reference of οἶδα
γάρ in ver. 19. This applies also in opposition to Hinsch,
p. 64 f.

NemMark.—Of course this rejoicing does not refer to the
impure intention of the preachers, but to the objective result.
See, already, Augustine, ὁ. Faust. xxii. 48; ὁ. Hp. Parm. 11. 11.
Nor does παντὶ τρόπῳ apply to the doctrinal purport of the
preaching (Gal. i. 8), but to its ethical nature and method, to
disposition and purpose. See Chrysostom and those who follow
him. Nevertheless the apostle’s judgment may excite surprise
by its mildness (comp. 111. 2), since these opponents must have
taught what in substance was anti-Pauline. But we must con-
sider, first, the tone of lofty resignation in general which prevails
in this passage, and which might be fitted to raise him more
than elsewhere above antagonisms ; secondly, that in this case
the danger did not affect, as it did in Asia and Greece, in Galatia
and Corinth, his personal sphere of apostolical ministry ; thirdly,
that Rome was the very place in which the preaching of Christ

42 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

might appear to him in itself of such preponderating import-
ance as to induce him in the meantime, while his own ministry
was impeded and in fact threatened with an imminent end,
to allow—in generous tolerance, the lofty philosophical spirit of
which Chrysostom has admired—of even un-Pauline admixtures
of doctrine, in reliance on the discriminating power of the
truth ; lastly, that a comparison of 111. 2 permits the assumption,
as regards the teachers referred to in the present passage, of ἃ
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 111. 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 Zeztschr. 1871, p. 314 ff. ; in oppo-
sition to Hinsch, see on ver. 15. Calvin, moreover, well says :
“Quamquam autem gaudebat Paulus evangelii incrementis,
nunquam tamen, si fuisset in ejus manu, tales ordinasset
ministros,” |

Ver. 19. Reason assigned not only for the ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρή-
σομαι, but for the entire conjoint assertion: ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω,
ἀλλὰ x. Xap. For both, for his present joy and for his future
joy, the apostle finds the subjective ground in the certainty
now to be expressed. — τοῦτο] the same thing that was con-
veyed by ἐν τούτῳ in ver. 18, this fact of Christ’s being
preached, from whatever different motives it may be done,—
not: my present, τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ (Hofmann). — εἰς σωτηρίαν] is,
in conformity with the context, not to be explained of the
deliverance from captivity (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Musculus,
Heinrichs), or of the preservation of the apostles life (Oecu-
menius), or of the trzwimph over his enemies (Michaelis), or of
the salvation maltorum hominum (Grotius); nor is it to be
more precisely defined as the eternal Messianic redemption (van
Hengel, Weiss ; comp. Matthies and Hoelemann), or as spiritual
salvation (Rheinwald, de Wette). On the contrary, the expres-
sion: “it will turn out to my salvation” (comp. Job xiii. 16),
will be salutary for me, is, without anticipating the sequel,

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

CHAP. I. 19. 43

to be left without any more precise modal definition ; for Paul
himself only announces, as the discourse proceeds (ver. 20),
how far he expects salutary results for himself to arise out of
the state of things in question. Bengel aptly remarks: “ non
modo non in pressuram,” ver. 17. On ἀποβήσεται, will turn
out, issue, comp. Luke xxi. 13; Job xiii. 16; 2 Mace. ix. 24;
Plat. Lys. p. 206 A; de virt. p. 379 C; Rep. p. 425 C; Dem.
1412. 10.—Through the entreaty of his Philippians, Paul knows,
it will be salutary for him (comp. 2 Cor. i. 11; Rom. xy.
31; 2 Thess. 11.12; Philem. 22), and through supply of the
Spirit of Christ, that is, through the Spirit of Christ supply-
ing him with help, strength, courage, light, etc. (comp. on
ἐπιχορηγ., Eph. iv. 16). The words διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως
εις Χριστοῦ, embrace, therefore, two elements whick work to-
gether and bring about the ἀποβήσ. eis σωτηρ., one of these
on the part of the readers themselves (hence ὑμῶν is placed
first), the other on the part of the Holy Spirit. After καί,
διά is to be again understood ; the article, however, is not
repeated before émvyop., not because the entreaty and the
ἐπιχορηγία are to be taken together as one category, which
in this passage would be illogical,’ but because Paul conceived
the second member of the clause without the article: supply
(not the supply) of the Spirit. τοῦ πνεύματος is the genitive
of the sulyect; as genitive of the olject (Wiesinger, in accord-
ance with Gal. 11. 5) the expression would be inappropriate,
since Paul already has the Spirit (1 Cor. vii. 40), and does
not merely expect it to be supplied, though in his present
position he does expect the help, comfort, etc., which the Spirit
supplies. Comp. Theodoret: τοῦ θείου μοι πνεύματος χορη-
γοῦντος τὴν χάριν. Respecting the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, see on
Rom. vill. 9; Gal. iv. 6; 2 Cor. iii, 17. Paul here designates
the Holy Spirit thus, because Jesus Christ forms, in the
inmost consciousness of the apostle, the main interest and aim
of his entire discourse, ver. 18 ff.

1 Bengel well says: ‘‘ precationem in coelum ascendentem ; exhibitionem de
coelo venientem.” If, however, ἐσιχορηγίας is still to be included in dependence
on τῆς ὑμῶν (so Buttmann, neut. Gr. Ὁ. 87[E. T. p. 1007), the readers would at all
events appear as those communicating, which would yield an incongruous idea.

44 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PIHILIPPIANS.

Ver. 20. It will prove salutary for me in conformity with
my earnest expectation (see, regarding ἀποκαραδοκία, on Tom.
viii. 19) and my hope, that I, ete. (object of the earnest expec-
tation and hope). Others take ὅτι as argumentative (Vatablus,
Estius, Matthies) ; but by this interpretation the κατὰ τ. ἀποκ.
kK. ἔλπ. μ. seems, after the ofda 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 ὅτε «.7.X.
what it is that he earnestly expects and hopes (comp. Rom.
vill. 20 ἢ), he thereby supplies the precise definition of the
former merely general expression εἰς cwrnpiav.—This is neither
clumsy nor unsuited to the meaning of ἀποκαραδ., as Hofmann
thinks, who goes back with ὅτε to the far distant οἶδα, and
finds it convenient to co-ordinate it with the first é7 Paul
would have made this alleged conjunction convenient and at
the same time intelligible, only in the event of his having
written καὶ ὅτι. ---- ἐν οὐδενὶ αἰσχυνθήσομαι] that J shall
im no pont (2 Cor. vi. 3, vu. 9; Jas. i. 4), in no respect,
be put to shame; that is, in no respect will a result ensue
tending to my shame,—a result which would expose me
to the reproach of having failed to accomplish my destiny
(comp. the sequel). Comp. on αἰσχύνεσθαι, 2 Cor. x. 8,
1 John 11. 28, and the passages of the LXX. in Schleusner,
Lp. 98 f.; also Xen. Cyr. vi. 4::6; Plut. Mor p, dae
Matthies understands it differently: “in nothing shall I show
myself shamefaced and fearful ;” comp. van Hengel: “ pudore
confusus ab officio deflectam.” But the context, in which Panl
desires to explain more in detail (comp. ver. 21) the words
μοι ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν, 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-
eraced” (Weiss, comp. Huther), that is, be found unfaithful
to his office, or deficient .in the discharge of its duties to the
glorifying of Christ. The connection requires a description,
not of Paul’s behaviour, but of the fate in which the τοῦτο of
ver. 19 would issue for him. Hoelemann takes ἐν οὐδενί as
masculine, of the preachers described in ver. 15 ff., who in
their ministry, though actuated by such various motives, “ ita

CHAP. I. 20. 45

esse versaturos, ut inde non oriatur, de quo erubescat et doleat
quum ipse, tum etiam in re sua quasi Christus.” This inter-
pretation is opposed both by the context, which from ver. 18
onwards brings forward no persons at all; and also by the sense
itself, because Paul, thus understood, would be made to express
a confidence in the labours of those teachers which, as regards
the malicious portion of them (ver. 17, comp. ver. 15), would
not be befitting. The αἰσχύνεσθαι of the apostle was indeed
the very object which they had in view; but, he means to say,
οὐκ αἰσχύνομαι, τουτέστιν οὐ περιέσονται, Chrysostom.—daAn’
ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥησίᾳ K.T.r.| the contrast to ἐν οὐδενὶ αἰσχυνθή-
σομαι; for the apostle can receive no greater honour and
triumph (the opposite to the αἰσχύνεσθαι) than to be made
the instrument of glorifying Christ (111. 7 f.): but with all
Freeness, as always, so also now, Christ will be magnified in my
body.—év πάσῃ παῤῥησ.] ἐν πάσῃ corresponds to the previous
ἐν οὐδενί, so that every kind of freeness, which is no way re-
strained or limited (comp Acts iv. 29, xxviii. 31; 2 Cor. iii. 12),
is meant, which amounts substantially to the idea, “ une pleine
liberté ” (Rilliet and older expositors) ; comp. Wunder, ad Soph.
Phil. 141 f. The subject of the freeness is Paul himself, inas-
much as it was in his body that the fearless glorifying of Christ
was to be manifested (see below); but he expresses himself in
the passive (μεγαλυνθήσεται) and not in the active, because, in
the feeling of his being the organ of divine working, the μοι
ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν (ver. 19) governs his conceptions and
determines his expression. Hofmann’s view, that ἐν π. παῤῥησ.
means “in full publicity,’ as an unmistakeable fact before the
eyes of all, is linguistically erroneous. See, in opposition to
it, on Col. 11. 15. — ὡς πάντοτε καὶ viv] so that the present
circumstances, however inimical they are in part towards me
(vy. 15-18), will therefore bring about no other result than this
most happy one for me, which has always taken place—éev τῷ
σώματί μου] instead of saying: ἐν ἐμοί, he says: in my body,
because the decision was now close at hand, whether his body
should remain alive or be put to death. But whichever of these
possible alternatives should come to pass, he earnestly expected
and hoped that the glory of Christ would be thereby secured

46 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS,

(εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου), in so far, namely, as through
his remaining in the body his apostolic labours would be con-
tinued to the glory of Christ, and by the slaying of his body
there would take place, not the mere closing of his witness
for Christ, as Hofmann, in opposition to the text (vv. 21-23),
refines away this point, but his union with Christ. Thus,
therefore, he will not be put to shame even by his death ; but,
on the contrary, Christ will be freely glorified by it, namely,
practically glorified, inasmuch as Paul, conscious of the great
gain which he shall acquire through death (ver. 21), will with
unwavering joyfulness—with the frank joyful courage of the
martyr who is being perfected—die to the glorifying of Christ.
Comp. John xxi. 19. In any case, accordingly, the result
must ensue, that in his body, just as it has always hitherto
been the living personal instrument of Christ’s glory, now
also the free glorification of Christ shall be made manifest,
whether this result be secured through its being preserved alive
or being slain; “nam et corpus loguitur et corpus moritur,”
Grotius. Hoelemann erroneously refers ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥ. to the
bold preaching of the various teachers described in vv. 15-18,
from which now, as always, the glory of Christ shall result ;
and that indeed, through the influence which such a fearless
working would have on the fate of the apostle, in his body,
whether Christ grant to him a longer course of life or death,
in either of which cases the Lord will manifest Himself to
him as augustissimum auaxiliatorem. But against this view it
may be urged, that ἐν οὐδενί does not refer to the teachers
(see above) ; that παῤῥησίᾳ is the contrast to αἰσχυνθήσομαι,
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 im his tody,—an expression which, as regards
the last point, might be suited to the present position of the
apostle, but not to the ὡς πάντοτε. Rilliet takes μεγαλυνθή-
σεται not in the sense of praising (Luke i. 46; Acts v. 13,
᾿ x, 46, xix. 17; Thue. viii. 81; Xen. Hell. vii. 1. 13), but in the
material signification of grandir (Matt. xxiii. 5 ; Luke i. 58; 2
Cor. x. 15), making it apply to the mental indwelling of Christ

CHAP. I. 21. 47

(Gal. ii. 20; Rom. viii. 10; Gal. iv.19); so that Paul is made
to hope that Christ may grow ever more and more in him,
that is, may more and more reveal Himself as the principle
of his life, and that this growth will be perfected whether he
himself live or die. But ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥησίᾳ would be an
inappropriate definition of this idea; and ἐν τῷ σώματί μου
would also be inappropriate, as 1f Christ would have, even by
the apostle’s death, to grow in his body; lastly, neither the
foregoing nor the subsequent context points to the peculiar
mystical idea of a growth of Christ in the human body ; while
the similar idea in Gal. iv. 19 is there very peculiarly and
clearly suggested by the context.

Ver. 21. Justification not of the joy, ver. 18 (Weiss), which
has already been justified in ver. 19 ἢ, but of the εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς
εἴτε διὰ θανάτου 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. 11. 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. Miiller, who,
however, assumes that in the second clause Paul had the
thought: “et st mihi moriendwm est, moriar Christo, ita etiam
morte mea Christus celebratur,’ but that in the emotion of
the discourse he has not expressed this, allowing himself to
be carried away by the conception of the gain involved in
the matter. This assumption is altogether superfluous ; for,
to the consciousness of the Christian reader, the reference of

1 Not the being dead (Huther, Schenkel). On the combination of the Inf.
pres. (continuing) and aor. (momentary), comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 4: προείλετο
μᾶλλον σοῖς νόμοις ἐμμένων ἀποθανεῖν ἢ παρανομῶν ζῆν, Kur. Or. 808: σὺν σοὶ κατθα-
νεῖν αἱρήσομαι καὶ ζῆν, Epictet. Hnchir. 12; 2 Cor. vii. 3. See generally Mitzn.

ad Antiph. p. 153 f. ; Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 159. The being dead would have been
expressed, as in Herod. i, 31, by ve@vevas,

48 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

the κέρδος to Christ must of itself have been clear and certain.
But the idea of κέρδος, which connects itself in the apostle’s
mind with the thought of death, prevents us from assuming
that he meant to say that τέ was a matter of no moment
to him personally whether he lived or died (Wiesinger) ; for
on account of the κέρδος in death, his own personal wish
must have given the preference to the dying (see ver. 29).
Others (Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Er. Schmid, Raphel, Knatch-
bull, οὐ 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 κέρδος
the predicate, and that the infinitives with the article are to
be explained by πρός or κατά, so that Christ “tam in vita
quam in morte lucrum esse praedicatur.” Lastly, in opposition
to the context, Rheinwald and Rilliet take τὸ ζῆν as meaning
life in the higher, spiritual sense, and καί as: and consequently,
which latter interpretation does not harmonize with the pre-
ceding alternative cite... εἴτε. This explanation is refuted
by the very τὸ ζῆν ἐν σαρκί which follows in ver. 22, since
ἐν σαρκί contains not an antithesis to the absolute τὸ ζῆν, but
on the contrary a more precise definition of it. Although
the διὰ θανάτου and τὸ ἀποθανεῖν contrasted with the ζῆν,
as also ver. 20 generally, afford decisive evidence against the
view that takes τὸ ζῆν in the higher ethical sense, that view
has still been adopted by Hofmann, who, notwithstanding the
correlation and parallelism of τὸ ζῆν and τὸ ἀποθανεῖν, oddly
supposes that, while τὸ ἀποθανεῖν is the subject in the second
clause, τὸ ζῆν is yet predicate in the first. Like τὸ ἀποθανεῖν,
τὸ ζῆν must be subject also.— ἐμοί] is emphatically placed
first: to me, as regards my own person, though it may be
different with others. Comp. the emphatic ἡμῶν, 111. 20.—
For profane parallels to the idea, though of course not to
the Christian import, of τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος, see Wetstein.
Comp. Aelian. V. H. iv. 7; Soph. Ant. 464 f.; Eur. Med.
145.

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

* Compare also Spiess, Logos Spermaticos, 1871, p. 330 f.

CHAP. I. 22. 49

son between the two cases as regards their desirability. Weiss
understands δέ as antithetic, namely to τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος, and
Hofmann as in contrast also to the ἐμοὶ τὸ ζῆν Χριστός, but
both proceed on an erroneous view of what follows; as does
also Huther.—According to the τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος just ex-
pressed, the ἀποθανεῖν was put as the case more desirable for
Paul personally ; but because the ζῆν, 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 two.—The structure of the
sentence is accordingly this, that the apodosis sets in with
καὶ τί αἱρήσομαι, and nothing is to be supplied: “ But if the
remaining in my bodily life, and just this, avails for my work,
1 refrain from a making known what I should choose.” We
have to remark in detail: (1) that εἰ does not render proble-
matical that which was said of the ζῆν ἐν σαρκί, but in
accordance with the well-known and, especially in Paul's
writings, frequent (Rom. v. 17, vi. 15, and often) syllogistic
usage (Herbst and Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1), posits the
undoubted certainty (Wilke, Rhetor. p. 258), which would take
place in the event of a continuance of life; (2) that Paul was
the more naturally led to add here the specially defining ἐν σαρκί
to τὸ ζῆν (comp. Gal. ii. 20; 2 Cor. x. 3), because, in the pre-
viously mentioned κέρδος, the idea of life apart from the body
(comp. 2 Cor. v. 8) must have been floating in his mind; (3)
that τοῦτο again sums up with the emphasis of emotion (comp.
Rom. vii. 10) the τὸ ζῆν ἐν σαρκί which had just been said,
and calls attention to it (Bernhardy, p. 285; Kihner, II. 1,
p. 568 f.; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 219), for it was the remain-
ing in life, just this, this and nothing else (in contrast to the
ἀποθανεῖν), which was necessarily to the apostle καρπὸς ἔργου ;
(4) that καρπός is correlative to the preceding κέρδος, and
embodies the idea emolwmentum (Rom. 1. 13, vi. 21, e¢ al. ;
Wisd. iii. 13), which is more precisely defined by ἔργου : work-
fruit, gain of work, ie. advantage which accrues to my apos-
tolical work ; comp. on the idea, Rom. 1.12; (5) that καί, at
the commencement of the apodosis, is the subjoining also,
PHIL. D

DID . THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PILIILIPPIANS.

showing that if the one thing takes place, the other also sets
in; see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 130 ἢ ; Baeumlein, Paréih.
p. 146; Nagelsbach, z. Ilias, Ὁ. 164, ed. 3; comp. on 2 Cor.
ii. 2; (6) that τί stands in the place of the more accurate
πότερον (Xen. Cyrop. i. 3.17; Stallbaum, ad Phileb. p. 168;
Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 219 ; Winer, p. 159 [E. T. 2117), and
that the future αἱρήσομαι (what I should prefer) is quite in order
(see Eur. Hel. 631, and Pflugk ὧν Jloc.; 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: of δὲ μὴ εἰδότες 6 τι ποιοῦσι,
κακῶς δὲ αἱρούμενοι, Soph. Ant. 551: σὺ μὲν yap εἵλου Shy; (7)
that οὐ γνωρίζω is not to be taken, as it usually has been, ac-
cording to the common Greek usage with the Vulgate, in the
eense of ignoro, but, following the invariable usage a the N. T.
(comp. also 3 Mace. i. 6; 3 Ksr. vi. 12; Αδαδ: Prom. 487;
Athen. xii. p. 539 B; Diod. 510. 1. 6), as: Ido not make it known,
1 do not explain myself on the point, give no information upon
it." Comp. van Hengel, Ewald, Huther, Schenkel, also Bengel,
who, however, without any ground, adds mihi. Paul refrains
from making and declaring such a choice, because (see ver.
23 f.) his desire is so situated between the two alternatives,
that it clashes with that which he is compelled to regard as
the better—The conformity to words and context, and the
simplicity, which characterize the whole of this explanation
(so, in substance, also Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, and many others, in-
eluding Heinrichs, Rheinwald, van Hengel, de Wette, Wies-
inger, Ewald, Ellicott, Hilgenfeld)—in which, however, xaprr.
ἔργου is not to be taken as operae pretium (Calvin, Grotius,
and others), nor καί as superfluous (Casaubon, Heinrichs, and
others), nor οὐ γνωρίζω as equivalent to οὐκ oida (see above),
—exclude decisively all other interpretations, in which τοῦτο

1 Not as if Paul intended to say that ‘‘ he kept it to himself,” a sense which
Hofmann wrongly ascribes to this declaration. He intends to say rather that he
refrains from a decision regarding what he should choose. The dilemma in which
he found himself (comp. ver. 23) caused him to waive the giving of such a deci-
sion, in order not to anticipate in any way the divine purpose by his own choice.

CHAP. I. 22, 51

and the καί of the apodosis have been the special stumbling-
blocks. Among these other explanations are (a) that of
Pelagius, Estius, Bengel, Matthies, and others (comp. Lach-
mann, who places a stop after ἔργου), that ἐστί is to be under-
stood with ἐν σαρκί, that the apodosis begins with τοῦτο, and
that καὶ τί aip. «.7.r. is a proposition by itself: “if the living
in the flesh is appointed to me, then this has no other aim for me
than by continuous labour to bring forth fruit,’ etc. (Huther, L.c.
p. 581 δ. But how arbitrarily is the simple ἐστί, thus sup-
plied, interpreted (mihi constitutwm est)! The words τοῦτό μοι
καρπὸς ἔργου, taken as an apodosis, are—immediately after the
statement ἐμοὶ yap τὸ ζῆν Χριστός, in which the idea of καρ-
mos ἔργου is substantially conveyed already—adapted less for
a new emphatic inference than for a supposition that has been
established; and the discourse loses both in flow and force.
Nevertheless Hofmann has in substance followed this explana-
tion.’ (Ὁ) Beza’s view, that ed is to be taken as whether: “an
vero vivere in carne mihi operae pretium sit, et quid eligam ignoro.”
This is linguistically incorrect (καρπὸς ἔργου), awkward (εἰ...
καὶ τί), and in the first member of the sentence un-Pauline
(vy. 24-26). (c) The assumption of an aposiopesis after ἔργου :
if life, etc., is to me καρπὸς ἔργου, “ non repugno, non aegre fero”
(so Corn. Miiller), or, “ze ne dois pas désirer la mort” (Rilliet).
See Winer, p. 557 f. [Εἰ Τὶ 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 καρπός from the sequel
after ζῆν, takes τοῦτο, which apples to the ἀποθανεῖν, as the
beginning of the apodosis, and understands καρπὸς ἔργου as
an actual fruit: “but if life is ὦ fruit in the flesh (an earthly
fruit), this (death) is also a fruit of (in) fact (a substantial,
veal fruit)” —is involved, artificial, and contrary to the genius

1 [f it be life in the flesh, namely, which I haye to expect instead of dying (?),
then this, namely the life in the flesh, is to me produce of labour, in so far as by
living I produce fruit, and thus then (καί) it is to me unknown, etc. This inter-
pretation of Hofmann’s also is liable to the objection that, if Paul intended to
say that he produced fruit by his life, logically he must have predicated of his
ζῆν ἐν σαρκί, not that it was to him καρπὸς ἔργου, but rather that it was ἔργον καρ-
σοῦ, a work (a working) which produces fruit.

52 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

of the language (καρπ. épyov!). (6) The explanation of Weiss
is that, after ἐν σαρκί, κέρδος is to be again supplied as a pre-
dicate, so that τοῦτο, 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 κέρδος, which was predicated of the
antithesis of the ζῆν, is as arbitrary as it is intolerably
forced; and, indeed, according to ver. 21, not κέρδος merely
would have to be supplied, but ἐμοὶ κέρδος ; and, since κέρδος
is not to be taken from ἀποθανεῖν, of which it is predicate, we
should have to expect an also before τὸ ζῆν, so that Paul
would have written: εἰ δὲ (or GAN εὖ) καὶ τὸ ζῆν ἐν σαρκὶ
ἐμοὶ κέρδος κ.τ.λ.

Ver. 23. Respecting the τί αἱρήσομαι οὐ γνωρίζω, Paul ex-
presses himself more fully in vv. 23, 24, proceeding with the
explicative δέ; for δέ is not antithetical (Hofmann: “ on the
contrary”), but, in fact, the reading ydp is a correct gloss,
since the situation now follows, which necessitates that relin-
quishment of a choice. But I am held in a stract (comp.
Luke xii. 50; Acts xvii. 5; 2 Cor. v.14; Wisd) τ
Dem. 396. 22, 1484. 23; Plat. Legg. vii. p. 791. E, Theaet.
p. 165 B; Heind. ad Plat. Soph. 46) of the two points, namely
the ἀποθανεῖν and the ζῆν, of which he has just said, τί aip.
ov yvwp. These δύο are not conceived in an instrumental
sense, which is expressed with ovvéy., by the dative (Matt.
iv. 24; Luke viii. 87; Acts xviii. 5; Plat. Soph. p. 250
D; Eur. Heracl. 634), but as that from which the συνεχέσθαι
proceeds and originates (Bernhardy, p. 227 f.; Schoem. ad 75.
p. 348; Miatzner, ad Antiph. p. 167). ---- τὴν ériOup. ἔχων
κιτ.λ.] since my longing rs to die. The article denotes, not
“votum jam commemoratum” (Hoelemann), for Paul has not

1 It is therefore more in harmony with the context to refer ἐκ σῶν δύο to what
precedes than to what follows (Luther, Rheinwald, Corn. Miiller, and others),
Note that the emphasis is laid on συνέχομαι, which is the new climactic point in
the continuation of the discourse. The word cvsex. itself is rightly rendered by
the Vulgate: coarctor. The mere teneor (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 ἐπιθυμεῖν, but doubtless the desire,
which Paul has. He says that his desire tends towards dying,
etc.,’ but that life is more necessary ; and therefore he knows that
not that for which he longs, but that which is the more neces-
sary, will come to pass, and that he will remain alive (ver. 25).
Augustine aptly observes: “ Non patienter moritur, sed patien-
ter vivit et delectabiliter moritur.” — ἀναλῦσαι] comp. 2 Tim.
iv. 6; Isa, ΧΧΧΥΠΙ 12. Dying is conceived as a breaking up
(a figure taken from the camp) for the departure, namely, from
this temporal life to Christ (comp. ὑπάγειν, Matt. xxvi. 24:
ἐκδημεῖν, 2 Cor. v. 8 f.; and similar passages); hence the καὶ
σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι immediately added.*»— πολλῷ xy. parr.
κρεῖσσον] by much in a higher degree better ; a cumulative ex-
pression in the strength and vividness of feeling. As to μᾶλλον
with the comparative, see on Mark vii. 36; 2 Cor. vii. 13;
and Kiihner, 11 2, p. 24 f, and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 13.5;
Bornemann, ad Cyrop. Ὁ. 137, Goth. If here interpreted as
potius (ver. 12), it would glance at the preference usually given
to life; but nothing in the context leads to this. The pre-
dicate κρεῖσσον (a much better, 1.6. happier lot) refers to the
apostle himself ; comp. below, δ’ ὑμᾶς. Eur. Hee. 214: θανεῖν
μου ξυντυχία κρείσσων ἐκύρησεν.

Ver. 24. ᾿Επιμένειν involves the idea: to remain sfill
(still further), to stay on, comp. Rom. vi. 1. ---- ἐν τῇ σαρκί] in
my flesh. Not quite equivalent to the idea involved in ἐν
σαρκί without the article (ver. 22). The reading without the ἐν
(see the critical remarks) would yield an ethical sense here
unsuitable (Rom. vi. 1, xi. 22 ; Col. 1, 23).—dvaryxatér.] namely,
than the for me far happier alternative of the ἀναλῦσαι x. σ.
X. εἶναι. The necessity for that is only a subjective want

1 Tt is thus explained why Paul did not write σοῦ ἀναλῦσαι (as Origen reads).
εἰς is not dependent on σὴν ἐσιθ. (i218. is never so construed ; comp. Corn.
Miiller) ; but τὴν éxié. is absolute, and εἰς +3 ἀναλ. expresses the direction of σὴν
imi. ἔχων : having my longing towards dying. Comp. Thue. vi. 15. 2.

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

a4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILLIPIANS.

felt by the pious mind. But the objective necessity of the
other alternative has precedence as the greater; it is more
precisely defined by δι’ ὑμᾶς, regarded from the standpoint of
love. “Vitae suae adjici nihil desiderat sua causa, sed eorum,
quibus utilis est.” Seneca, ep. 98; comp. ep. 104. — δ ὑμᾶς]
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 indiwvidualizing mode
of expression adopted by special love.

Vv. 25, 26. Τοῦτο πεποιθ. τοῦτο does not belong to οἶδα,
but to πεποιθ., and refers to the case of necessity just ex-
pressed ; having which is the object of his confidence, Paul
knows that, etc., so that ὅτε is dependent on οἶδα alone,—
in opposition to Theophylact, Erasmus, Calovius, Heinrichs,
Flatt, and others, under whose view the οἶδα would lack the
specification of a reason, which is given in this very τοῦτο
πεποιθ., as it was practically necessary. On the accusative of the
object with πεποιθ., comp. Bernhardy, p. 106 ; Kiihner, II. 1,
p. 267; also Wunder, ad Soph. O. T. 259f. Observe that
we may say: πεποίθησιν πέποιθα, 2 Kings xviii. 19. Comp.
on 11. 18.— μενῶ] TL shall remain; contrast to the ἀναλῦσαι,
which was before expressed by ἐπιμένειν ἐν τ. σαρκί, Comp.
John ΧΙ]. 34, xxi. 22f; 1 Cor. xv. 6. The loving emotion
of the apostle (ver. 8) leads him to add to the absolute μενῶ:
καὶ συμπαραμενῷ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν, and I shall continue together
with all of you ; I shall with you all be preserved in temporal
life. From vv. 6 and 10 there can be no doubt as to the ¢er-
minus ad guem which Paul had in view; and the πᾶσιν (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 μενῶ the
remaining alive without his co-operation, and by παραμενῶ,
which should (according to Hofmann) be read (see the critical
remarks), his remaining willingly, and which assumes that
the apostle did not conceive the καὶ παραμενῶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν as
dependent on ὅτι, but conveys in these words a promise to
remain with those, “from whom he could withdraw himself.”

CHAP. I. 25, 26. Ὁ

What a rationalistic, artificial distinction of ideas and separa-
tion of things that belong together! and what a singular pro-
mise from the apostle’s lips to a church so dear to him: that
he will not withdraw himself, but will remain faithful to them
(Schneider and Kriiger, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 6.2)! If παραμενῶ
is the true reading, Paul says quite simply: I know that I
shall remain (shall not be deprived of life), and continue with
you all, i.e. and that I shall be preserved to you all; comp.
Heb. vii. 23 ; Ecclus. xii.15; Hom. 171. xii. 402; Plat. Menez.
p. 235 B; Lucian. Migr. 30 ; Herodian. vi. 2. 19 .----παραμενῶ,
to continue there, just like μενῶ in the sense of in vita manere,
Herod. i. 30. Hence συμπαραμένειν (Thue. vi. 89. 3; Men.
in Stob., lxix. 4, 5), to continue there with, to remain alive
along with. Thus LXX. Ps. lxxii. 5; Basil, 1. p. 49; Gregory
of Nazianzus, I. p. 74 (joined with συνδιαιωνίζειν). ---- εἰς τὴν
ὑμῶν... πίστ.] ὑμῶν, as the personal subject of the προκοπή
and χαρὰ τῆς πίστεως, 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, προκοπὴν x.
χαράν. 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
ἕν διὰ δυοῖν (Heinrichs, Flatt) is erroneous. Weiss, however,
is also in error in urging that τῆς maior. cannot belong to
προκοπήν also, because it would be in that case the genitive of
the olject ; the faith also is to be an increasing and progressive
thing, 2 Cor. x. 15.— Ver. 26. ἵνα τὸ καύχημα «.7.d.] the
special and conerete aim of the general proposition εἰς τὴν ὑμῶν
mMpok. Kk. XY. τ. πίστ., Which is consequently represented as the
ultimate aim of the μενῶ καὶ συμπαραμ. πᾶσ. by. Comp.
ver. 10. The καύχημα, because ὑμῶν 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: μειζόνως ἔχω
καυχᾶσθαι ὑμῶν ἐπιδόντων, Ewald: my pride in you at the
last day) ; nor is it equivalent to καύχησις, gloriatio (Flatt and
many others), but it denotes, as it invariably does,’ materies

1 This applies also against Huther, 1.6. p. 585, who, in support of the
signification gloriatio, appeals to Pind. Isth. v. 65: καύχημα κατάβρεχε σιγᾷ. But

56 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

gloriandi (Rom. iv. 2; 1 Cor. v. 6, ix. 161; 2 Cor. i 14,
v. 12; Gal. vi. 4). Hence: that the matter in which you have to
glory, 1.06. the bliss as Christians in which you rejoice (compare
previously the χαρὰ τῆς πίστεως), may increase abundantly
(comp. previously the προκοπὴ τῆς πίστεως). The ἐν Χριστῷ
᾿Ιησοῦ that is added expresses the sphere in which the περισ-
σεύειν 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 περισσεύειν took place
otherwise, it would be an egotistical, foreign, generally ab-
normal and aberrant thing; as was the case, for example,
with some of the Corinthians and with Judaistic Christians,
whose καυχᾶσθαι was based and grew upon works of the law.
The normal περισσεύειν of the καύχημα of the Philippians,
however, namely, its περισσεύειν ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, shall take
place—and this is specially added as the concrete position of
the matter—éev ἐμοὶ διὰ τὴς ἐμῆς παρουσίας π. πρὸς ὑμᾶς,
that is, 2 shall have im me by my coming again to you its pro-
curing cause; imasmuch 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
καύχημα, and thus the περισσεύειν will rest in me. Conse-
quently the ἐν in ἐν X.’I., and the ἐν in ἐν ἐμοί, are differently
conceived; the former is the specific, essential definition of
περισσεύῃ, the latter the statement of the personal procuring
ground for the περισσ. ἐν “I. X., which the apostle has in
view in reference to the καύχημα 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
the increase of their glorying is given to the readers in the
person of the apostle, in so far as the having him again among
in this passage also καύχημα means that in which one glories, as the Scholiast

has appropriately explained it: εἰ καὶ τηλικαῦτα εἰσὶ τῶν Αἰγινητῶν τὰ xaropba-
ματα, βρέχε καὶ ἱπικάλυπτε τῇ σιωπῇ.

CHAP. I. 25, 26. 57

them would be a matter of Christian joy and pride to them.
Thus would the apostle make himself in fact the object and
contents of the καυχᾶσθαι, which would neither be consistent
with the logical relation of the ἵνα to the preceding εἰς τ. ὑμ.
προκοπὴν x.T.r., nor with Paul’s own deep humility (1 Cor.
111. 21, xv. 9; Eph. in. 8), which he satisfies also in 2 Cor. i.
14 by the mutual nature of the καύχημα between himself and
his friends, and in view of the day of Christ. By many (see
Calvin, Heinrichs, Rheinwald, ‘Rilliet, and others) ἐν X. ’I.,
and by some even ἐν ἐμοί (Storr, Flatt, Huther), are referred,
contrary to the position of the words, to τὸ καύχημα ὑμῶν,
with various arbitrary definitions of the sense, eg. Flatt: “so
that ye shall have still more reason, in reference to me, to
glorify Jesus Christ (who hath given me again to you) ;”
Rheinwald: “If I shall be delivered by the power of Christ,
ye will find abundant cause for praising the Lord, who has
done such great things for me.” — πάλιν] is connected, as an
adjectival definition, with wapovc. See on 2 Cor. xi. 23;
Gali 13; 1 Cor. viii. 7.

ReMARK.—From vy. 20-26 we are not to conclude that
Paul at that time was in doubt whether he should live to see
the Parousia (Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 355, and others). For in ver.
20 he only supposes the case of his death, and that indeed, in
ver. 21, as the case which would be profitable for himself, and
for which, therefore, he protests in ver. 23 that he longs. But
on account of the need for his life being prolonged (ver. 24), he
knows (ver. 25) that that case will not come to pass. This
οἶδα (ver. 25) is not to be weakened into a probabiliter sperare
or the like (Beza, Calvin, Estius, and many others, also Hein-
richs, Rheinwald; comp. Matthies, van Hengel, Rilliet), with
which Grotius, from connecting οἶδα πέποιθ., even brings out
the sense, “8010 me haee sperare,i.e. malle ;” whilst others fall
back upon the argumentum a silentio, viz. that Paul says
nothing here of any revelation (see Estius, Matthies, and
others), but only expresses an inference in itself liable to error
(Weiss). No, although he has supposed the possibility (comp.
11. 17) of his being put to death, he nevertheless knew that
he should remain alive; and it must withal be confessed
that. the result did not correspond to this definite οἶδα, which
Bengel even goes so far as to refer to a dictamen pro-

58 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

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

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

2 All we can gather from Rom. viii. 10 f. is merely that the life of believers
remains unaffected by the death of the body ; as at John xi. 25f. They re-
main in fellowship with Christ ; but as to the mode and place of this fellowship,
of which they might indeed be partakers even in /Zades (Paradise, Luke xvi.
22 ff., xxiii. 43 ; Phil. ii. 10), as little is said in that passage as In viii. 38, xiv. 8.
But in the passage we are considering, the words σὺν Χριστῷ sivas point to an
actual being with the Lord in heaven (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 14, 17; Acts vii. 59 ;
2 Cor. l.c.), and do not therefore apply to the state in Hades (in opposition to
Giider, Erschein. Chr. unt. d. Todten, p. 111, and others) ; see also 2 Cor. v. 8.
This union with Christ, however, is not the δόξα as the ultimate goal of hope ;
see iii. 20f. ; Col. iii. 8. To the latter belongs also the bodily transfiguration,
which can only take place at the Parousia, 1 Cor. xv. 28. This applies also in
opposition to Gerlach, d. letzt. Dinge, p. 79 ff., whose distinction between
corporeality and materiality [Leiblichkeit und Kérperlichkeit] is not in harmony
with the New Testament, which distinguishes rather between σῶμα and σάρξ.

CHAP, I. 27. 9

or

κυρίῳ, ᾧ καὶ συνέπαθον, Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 5, of Peter: μαρτυρήσας
ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸν ὀφειλόμενον τύπον τῆς δόξης, and of Paul: εἰς τὸν
ἅγιὸν τόπον ἐπορεύθη, Martyr. Ignat. 26. It is an intermediate
state, not yet the fully perfected glory, but ὧν heaven, where ,
Christ is (11. 20 f). Georgi, in Zeller’s theolog. Jahrb. 1845,
I. p. 22, following Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 368, erroneously dis-
covers in our passage a modification of the New Testament
view, developed only when the hope of a speedy Parousia fell
into the background. Comp. Neander and Baumgarten Crusius
(whose view amounts to an inconsistency of the conceptions).
Opposed to these views, even apart from 2 Cor. v. 8 and Acts
vil. 59, is the fact that the speedy Parousia appears still to
be very distinctly expected in this epistle. See particularly
ili. 20f. But we find nothing said in the New Testament as
to an intermediate body between death and resurrection. See
remark on 2 Cor. v. 3. There is a vague fanciful idea in
Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 443 f., who in p. 419 ff, however, forcibly
shows the incorrectness of the doctrine of the sleep of the soul.

Ver. 27. To these accounts regarding his own present
position Paul now subjoins certain exhortations to right con-
duct for his readers. — μόνον) 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. 25) may be accomplished in
them, needs only to summon them ἕο be in a way worthy of
the gospel members of the Christian community (πολιυτεύεσθε) ;
nothing further is needed. Hofmann, in consequence of his
finding previously a promise, finds here, equally erroneously,
the only counter-demand made for it. — τοῦ Χιριστοῦ] of Christ.
See on Mark i. 1. ---- -πολυτεύεσθε] comp. on Acts xxiii. 1.
See also 2 Mace. vi. 1, x1. 25; 3 Macc. 11. 4; Joseph. Ant.
iii. 5. 8, Vit. 2; Wetstein ad loc., and Suicer, Thes. II. p. 709 ff.
The word, which is not used elsewhere by Paul in the epistles
to express the conduct of life, is here purposely chosen, because
he has in view the moral life, internal and external, of the Chris-
tian commonwealth, corresponding to the purport of the gospel
(πολιτεύεσθαι, to be citizen of a state, to live as citizen). See
the sequel. It is also selected in Acts xxiii. 1, where the idea
of the oficial relation of service is involved (πολιτεύεσθαι, to
administer an office in the state). Comp. 2 Macc. vi. 1, xi. 25;

60 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

3 Macc. il. 4. In the absence of such references as these,
Paul says περιπατεῖν (Eph. iv. 1; Col. 1. 10, with ἀξίως).
Comp. however, Clement, Cor. i. 3: πολιτεύεσθαι κατὰ TO
καθήκον τῷ Χριστῷ, and ch. 54: πολιτευόμενος τὴν ἀμετα-
μέλητον πολιτείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ch. 21: ἀξίως αὐτοῦ πολιτευό-
μενοι. --- εἴτε ἐλθὼν «.7.d.] a parenthetic definition as far as
ἀπών, so that ἀκούσω then depends on ἵνα: in order that I
—whether it be when I have come and seen you, or during my
absence from you—may hear, etc. The two cases εἴτε... εἴτε
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 (εἴτε
ἀπών). 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 ὅτι στήκετε x.7.r. It cannot surprise
us to find the notion of learning expressed by the common
form of the zewgma,' corresponding to the εἴτε ἀπών ; and
from the ἀκούσω accordingly employed there naturally sug-
gests itself a word of kindred import to correspond with ete
ἐλθῶν «.7.r., such as γνῶς The rash opinion, repeated even
by Hofmann, that ἀκούσω only refers to the second case, does
the apostle the injustice of making his discourse “hiulea”
(Calvin), and even grammatically faulty (Hofmann), it being
supposed that he intended to write either: “ut sive veniens
videam vos, sive absens audiam,” or: “sive quum venero et
videro vos, sive absens audiam de statu vestro, atelligam
utroque modo,” ete. Calvin allows a choice between these
two interpretations; the latter is approved of by de Wette
and Weiss (comp. Rilliet and J. B. Lightfoot). Hofmann also
accuses the apostle of the confusion of having written εἴτε

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

iil. 327, and Faesi in loc. ; generally Nigelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 179, ed. 8 ; Bremi,
ad Lys. p. 43 ff. ; Kiihner, 11. 2, p. 1075 f.

CHAP. I. 97. 61

ἀπὼν ἀκούσω τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν (which words are to be taken
together), as if he had previously put εἴτε ἐλθὼν ὄψομαι
ὑμᾶς; but of having left it to the reader mentally to supply
the verbs that should have depended on ἵνα, and of which
two’ would have been needed! The passage employed for
comparison, Rom. iv. 16, with its close, concise, and clear
dialectic, is utterly a stranger to such awkwardness. Hoele-
mann finally interprets the passage in a perfectly arbitrary
way, as if Paul had written: ἵνα, εἴτε ἐλθὼν κ. ἰδὼν ὑμᾶς, εἴτε
ἀπὼν καὶ ἀκούσας τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν, στήκητε K.7.r., thus making
the participles absolute nominatives. — τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν] the object
of ἀκούσω, so that ὅτι στήκετε x.T.X., that, namely, ye stand, etc.,
is a more precise definition arising out of the loving confidence
of the apostle, analogous to the familiar attraction οἶδά ce τίς
et, and the like; Winer, p. 581 [E. T. 781]. It has been
awkwardly explained as absolute: “quod attinet ad res vestras”
(Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Matthies, and others), while van Hengel
not more skilfully, taking εἴτε ἀπὼν ἀκούσω τ. 7. ty. together,
afterwards supplies ἀκούσω again. Grotius, Estius, and am
Ende take τά even for ταῦτα, and Hoelemann makes Paul ex-
press himself here also by an anakoluthon (comp. above on εὔτε
ἐλθὼν x.7.r.), so that either ὅτε should have been omitted and
στήκητε Written, or τά should not have been inserted. — ἐν ἑνὶ
πνεύματι] is to be joined with στήκετε, alongside of which it
stands, although Hofmann, without any reason, takes it abso-
lutely (2 Thess. 11. 15). It is the common element, in which
they are to stand, 1.6. to remain stedfast (Rom. v. 2; 1 Cor.
xv. 1, xvi. 13); πνεύματι, however, refers not to the Holy
Spirit (Erasmus, Beza, and others, also Heinrichs, Rheinwald,
Matthies, van Hengel, Weiss), but, as the context shows by
μιᾷ ψυχῇ, to the human spirit; comp. 1 Thess. v. 25. The
perfect accord of their minds in conviction, volition, and
feeling, presents the appearance of one spirit which the various
persons have in common. De Wette well says: “the practical

i But why two? He would only have needed to insert μαθῶ or γνῶ before
ὅτι. 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. Actsiv.32. It is, as a matter of
course, plain to the Christian consciousness that this unity of
the human spirit is brought about by the Holy Spirit (see on
Eph. iv. 3 ἢ, 23), but él πνεύμ. does not say so. Moreover
the emphasis is on this ἐν ἑνὶ πν., and therefore μιᾷ w. 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 ἀντέκευμ. ---- μιᾷ ψυχῇ συναθλ.
κτλ] The ψυχή, as distinguished from the πνεῦμα, is the
principle of the individual personal life, which receives its
impressions on the one hand from the πνεῦμα as the principle
of the higher divine ζωή, 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. ἰσόψυχος, 11. 20;
σύμψυχοι, ii. 2; Herodian. vill, 5. 15: μιᾷ τε γνώμῃ καὶ
ψυχῇ, Rom. xv. 6, ὀμοθυμαδόν, 4 Mace. xiv. 20, ὁμόψυχος,
1 Pet. iii. 8, ὁμόφρων. But μιᾷ wy. does not also belong to
στήκετε (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Er. Schmid, and
others), for συναθλ.. requires a modal definition in harmony
with the context. — συναθλοῦντες] in keeping with στήκετε,
according to the conception of a contest (comp. ver. 30), under
which the activity of Christian faithfulness is presented in —
relation to all hostile powers. Comp. Col. 11. 1; 1 Thess. 11. 2;
1 Tim. vi. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 7, eal.; also Soph. 0. C. 564; Eur.
Suppl. 317; Aesch. Prom. 95. The compound, striving together
(comp. iv. ὃ, and συναγωνίζεσθαι, Rom. xv. 30), is not to be
overlooked, as if ovva@X., with the dative of the thing ex-
pressed merely the entering or stepping into the lists for it
(Hofmann). It does not refer, however, to the fellowship of
the Philippians themselves (“quasi facto agmine contra hostes
evang.,” Grotius; comp. Hoelemann, Rilliet, de Wette, Wie-
singer, Weiss, and others, following Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Theophylact, Oecumenius). Paul looks upon himself as a
combatant (ver. 30, comp. ver. 7), and the Philippians as
striving with him, and affording him assistance (Diod. ili. 4)
as his σύναθλοι in defending the faith (objectively viewed),
protecting it and rendering it victorious. That they were to

CHAP. I. 28. 63

do this with one accord, is stated emphatically by μιᾷ ψυχῇ,
but is not conveyed by συναθλ. in itself. If, however, Paul
is the combatant, the passage cannot be understood in the
sense: “ adjwvantes decertantem adversus impios evangelil
fidem,” Erasmus, Paraphr. ; comp. Castalio, Michaelis, Mynster,
Flatt, Lightfoot,—even apart from the fact that such a per-
sonification of πίστις is unprecedented, and must have been
suggested by the text, as in the case of τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, 1 Cor.
xiii. 6.—19 πίστει is the dative commodi (comp. Jude 3), not
instrumenti (Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, Loesner, Rhein-
wald, and others), which μιᾷ ψυχῇ was. As to the genitive
of the object with πίστις, see on Rom. iii. 22.

Ver. 28. On πτύρεσθαι, to become frightened (of horses,
Diod. ii. 19, xvii. 34; Plut. Fad. 3; Mare. 6), to be thrown
into consternation (Diod. xvii. 37 f.; Plat. Aw p. 370 A;
Plut. Mor. p. 800 C), see Kypke, 11. p. 312. In Gen. ΧΙ]. 8
Aquila has καταπτύρεσθαι. --- ἐν μηδενί] in no point, nulla
ratione, ver. 20; 2 Cor. vi. 3, vii. 9; Jas. i. 4.—The ἀντε-
κεΐμενοι (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 9) are the non-Christian opponents
of the gospel among Jews and Gentiles, and not the Judaizers
and their adherents (Flatt), or the malevolent false teachers
(Matthies). This follows from ver. 30, since the whole
position and ministry of the apostle was a conflict with
such adversaries, comp. ver. 7.— ἥτις ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς x.7.r.]
which is indeed, etc., refers to the preceding μὴ πτύρεσθαι
ὑπὸ τῶν ἀντικειμ., to which Paul desires to encowrage them.
This wndauntedness in the συναλθεῖν, and not the latter itself
(Hofmann), is now the leading idea, with which what has
further to be said connects itself; hence ἥτις 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 ἀπωλείας ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν δέ. ----- αὐτοῖς] τοῖς ἀντι-
κειμένοις is to be taken simply as dative of reference: which
is to them an indication of perdition. “Ὅταν yap ἴδωσιν, ὅτι
μυρία τεχναζόμενοι οὐδὲ πτῦραι ὑμᾶς δύνανται, οὐ δεῦγμα τοῦτο
σαφὲς ἕξουσιν, ὅτε τὰ μὲν αὐτῶν ἀπολοῦνται, τὰ δὲ ὑμέτερα
ἰσχυρὰ καὶ ἀνάλωτα καὶ αὐτόθεν ἔχοντα τὴν σωτηρίαν ; Theo-
phylact. The ἥτις 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 ἥτις ye (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 305).° But the
fact that the ἀντικείμενοι do not recognise in the undauntedness
of those persecuted a proof (not: causa, as in the Vulgate ;
but comp. Rom. ii. 25 f.; 2 Cor. viii. 24; Plat. Hp. vii. p.
341 E; Legg. xii. p. 966 C) of their own perdition, and on
the other hand of the salvation of the persecuted (ὑμῶν δὲ
σωτηρίας), does not alter the state of the case in itself, that the
μὴ πτύρεσθαι is in reality objectively such an ἔνδειξις to them.
It is, indeed, the σημεῖον of the righteous divine cause, and of
its necessary final victory. Perdition and salvation: both with-
out more precise definition ; but the reader knew what reference
to assign to each, viz. the Messianic perdition and salvation.
Comp. on the matter, 2 Thess. i. 5 ff.; Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim.
11. 12; Luke xii. 32, ct αἱ. ---- καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Θεοῦ] and that
(see on Rom. xii. 11) of God, thus certain, therefore, and
infallible. It adds force to the encouragement conveyed by
ὑμῶν δὲ σωτηρίας ; for the context shows by the ὑμῖν which
is emphatically placed first in ver. 29,—without making the
reading ὑμῖν necessary, however, in ver. 28 (Hofmann); see
the critical remarks,—that τοῦτο refers only to this second and
main part of ἥτις «.7.rX. (Calvin, Piscator, Calovius, Flatt, and
others, also Ewald and Hofmann), and not to both halves of
ἥτις (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 (ὅτι, that) (Clemens Alex., Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Erasmus, and others, and recently Rilliet); in which case the
(preparative) τοῦτο would receive an uncalled-for importance,
and yet ἀπὸ Θεοῦ would be obviously intelligible through
ἐχαρίσθη. ᾿
Ver. 29. Ὅτι is argumentative. “Καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Θεοῦ I
say, “since indeed to you it was granted,’ etc. This grant
distinguishing yow is the practical proof, that the just ex-
pressed ἀπὸ Θεοῦ is indubitably right, and that consequently
the ἔνδειξις of your final salvation which is afforded to the
adversaries in your undauntedness is a divine ἔνδειξις, a

CHAP. I. 29. 65

token given by God.’ Hofmann’s view, that ὅτι specifies the reason
why God imparts to them what has been before stated, is based
upon the erroneous reading ὑμῖν in ver. 28; and is itself erro-
neous, because ὅτε would introduce merely the self-evident
thought that they had not sought out their suffering wilfully,
but had had it given to them by God, and because, for the pur-
pose of marking the alleged contrast to the wilfulness, not ὑμῖν,
but ἀπὸ Θεοῦ again would have been emphatically prefixed, and
consequently Paul must have written: ὅτι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ὑμῖν ἐχαρ-
ἰσθη κατὰ. Hofmann curiously explains the emphasized ὑμῖν,
as if Paul meant to say that with respect to their sufferings
the case stood exactly as with hisown. In that case he must at
least have written, in prospect of ver. 30, καὶ ὑμῖν, to you also.
— ὑμῖν] emphatically put first, corresponding to the previous
ὑμῶν δὲ σωτηρίας. ---- ἐχαρίσθη] donatum est ; by whom, is self-
evident. 1 Cor. ii. 12.— τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ] as if the πάσχειν
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 ὑπέρ, as Hofmann artificially explains.
But here his full heart interposes, after τ. ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, and
before he writes πάσχειν, the fresh thought οὐ μόνον τὸ εἰς avr.
πιστεύειν, so that ἀλλὰ καὶ must now be also added; and, on
account of the different prepositional relation (εἰς) introduced,
the τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ already expressed is again taken up by
τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ. Thus οὐ μόνον... ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ appears as a
parenthesis of more special definition, after which the πάσχειν,
which had been prepared for by τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, but is only
now introduced, is to be dwelt upon with emphasis: “to you
the gift of grace is granted, in behalf of Christ—not only to
believe on Him, but also for Him—to suffer.” Plat. Legg. x.
p. 802 C: εἰ δὲ φανήσεται ψυχὴ πρῶτον, ob πῦρ οὐδὲ ἀὴρ, ψυχὴ
δὲ ἐν πρώτοις γεγενημένη. See also Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p.
431; Fritzsche, ad Matth.p.501. Itis an awkward construc-
tion,to take τὸ ὑπὲρ X. absolutely and (notwithstanding thesubse-
quent ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ) in the sense: as to what 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

66 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

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

Ver. 30. So that ye have the same conflict, etc., serves to cha-
racterize the ὑμῖν éyap. τὸ ὑπὲρ X. πάσχειν just asserted ; and
Paul’s intention in thus speaking, is to bring home to them the
high dignity and distinction of suffering for Christ, which is in-
volved in the consciousness of fellowship in conflict with the
apostle. It is impossible, in accordance with the true explana-
tion of what goes before (see on ver. 29), to find in τὸν αὐτόν,
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 ὑμεῖς was floating before his mind as the
logical subject of the preceding clause. Comp. on Eph. ui. 18,
iv. 2; 2 Cor.i. 7; Col. ii, 2, 1,16; Phil ut 19; Kubneraie
2, Ὁ. 661 f. There is therefore neither a logical nor a gram-
matical reason, with Bengel, Michaelis, Lachmann, Ewald (comp.
also Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 256 [Εἰ T. 2997), to treat ἥτις...
πάσχειν as a parenthesis,—a construction which would be only
an injurious interruption to the flow of the discourse. — τὸν
αὐτόν] namely, in respect of the object ; it is the conflict for
Christ (ver. 29) and His gospel (ver. '7). — οἷον εἴδετε x.7.r.]| 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. 16 ff; comp.
1 Thess. ii. 2), and now (from my epistle which is read out to,
you) ye hear in my person. Paul, in his epistle, speaks to the
Philippians as if they were listening to him in person; thus
they hear in him his conflict, which is made known to them in
the statements of the apostle. This explanation is all the less
unfitting, as Hofmann terms it (comparing the ἐν ἡμῖν in
1 Cor. iv. 6), since Paul must necessarily have assumed that
the statements in the epistle regarding his sufferings would not
fail to receive more detailed description in Philippi on the
part of Epaphroditus. The rendering de me for the second
ἐν ἐμοί, adopted by Peschito, Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin,
Grotius, and others, including Flatt, is erroneous.

CHAP. Il. 67

CHAPTER LL

Ver. 1. Instead of εἴ rs σαραμ., D* L, min. have: εὖ rig rapap.
Approved by Griesb., adopted by Matth. It is nothing but a
mechanical repetition of the preceding εἴ τις. The same judg-
ment must be passed on the reading: εἴ sig σπλάγχνα, although
this τις (instead of which the Recepta τινα 15 to be restored) has the
ereatly preponderant attestation of ABC DEFGK LP's, min.
Bas. Chrys. (?) Damasc. Oec. Theoph., and is adopted by Griesb.
Matth. Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch. Twa (as early as Clem. Al.
Strom. iv. p. 604, Pott.; also Theodoret) is, notwithstanding its
small amount of cursive attestation, we do not say absolutely
necessary,’ but requisite for such an understanding of the entire
verse as naturally offers itself to the reader; see the exegetical
remarks. — Ver. 3. 7] Lachm. and Tisch. read, and Griesb. also
recommended: μηδὲ κατά, following A BC8, min. vss. and
Fathers. An attempt at interpretation, as are also the readings
ἢ χατά, καὶ κατά, μηδὲν κατά. ---- Ver. 4. Elz. Scholz, have ἕκαστος
in both places, which is defended also by Reiche. But ἕκαστοι,
which is confirmed by preponderating testimony even before
σκοποῦντες (in opposition to Hofmann), was supplanted by the
singular, as only the latter occurs elsewhere in the N. T. — Elz.
has σκοπεῖτε instead of σκοποῦντες, against decisive testimony. —
Ver. 5. τοῦτο γάρ] A B Οἵ ΜῈ, min. vss. Fathers, Lachm. and
Tisch. 8 have τοῦτο only. But what led to the omission of γάρ
was, that, φρονεῖτε being subsequently read, the preceding ἕκαστοι
was looked upon as the beginning of the new sentence (A C 8).
Moreover, the commencement of a lesson at τοῦτο favoured the
omission. — φρονείσθω] The reading φρονεῖτε appears to have deci-
sive attestation from the uncials, of which only C*** K LP
favour the Recepta φρονείσθω. But it is incredible, if the well-
known and very common imperative form φρονεῖτε was the original
reading, that it should have been exchanged for the otherwise

1 Reiche, Comment. crit. p. 213, would read σι instead of ria ; but the former
is found only in min., and isscarcely susceptible of a forced explanation (‘‘ si qua
est vobis,” or ‘‘ si guid valet”’).—The old Latin versions, with their si qua or si
quid, leave us uncertain as to their reading. But the Vulg. Lachm. has: si
quis.

68 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

unusual passive form φρονείσθω, merely for the reason that it was
sought to gain a passive form to be supplied with the following
words ὁ χαὶ ἐν X. Ἶ. (where the supplying of ἦν would have been
sufficient). And as the very ancient testimony of most Greek
authorities since Origen, also of the Goth. Copt. Arm. and
nearly all min., is in favour of opoveiodw, we must retain it as the
original, which has been made to give way to the more current
φρονεῖτε. The latter, however, is adopted by Tisch. 8, following
Lachmann. — Ver. 9. Elz. Scholz, Tisch. 7 have ὄνομα alone
instead of τὸ ὄνομα, In opposition to A BCR, 17, and several
Fathers. The article has been suppressed by the preceding
syllable. — Instead of ἐξομολογήσηται the future ἐξομολογήσεται 15
decisively attested. — Ver. 13. The article before Θεός (Elz.
Scholz) is condemned by preponderating testimony. — Ver. 15.
γένησθε] A D* E* FG, Vulg. It. Cypr. have ἤτε. So also Lachm.
But the testimony is not decisive, and there is the more reason
for defending the Recepta, because γένησθε might be more readily
glossed by ἤτε than the converse, both in itself, and also here
on account of the following ἐν οἧς Quiveode x.7.2.— ἀμώμητα]
Lachm. Tisch. 8 have ἄμωμα, following A BC 8, min. Clem.
Cyr. But the latter is the prevailing form in the N. T., and
readily crept in (comp. var. 2 Pet. 111. 14).— é μέσῳ] A BC D*
F Gxs8,min. Clem. have μέσο. Approved by Griesb., and
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the Recepta is ex-
planatory. — Ver. 19. xupi»] Lachmann reads Χριστῷ, upon
too weak authority. — Ver. 21. Elz.: τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Iqood. But
σὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ X. (Tisch.: τὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ) has the preponderance of
evidence in its favour. — Ver. 26. After ὑμᾶς, A C Ὁ E 8*, min.
vss. and some later Fathers have ie, 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.: ἐπὶ λύπῃ,
against decisive testimony in favour of ἐπὶ λύπην. ---- Ver. 30. τὸ
ἔργον τού Xprorot] Tisch. 7 reads τὸ ἔργον merely ; following, indeed,
only C, but correctly, for the bare τὸ ἔργον appeared to need
some defining addition, which was given to it by τοῦ Χριστοῦ or
Χριστοῦ (Tisch. 8), or even by κυρίου (A 8). — παραβουλ.] The form
παραβολ. has preponderant attestation, and is to be preferred.
See the exegetical remarks.

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

CHAP. Il. 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 ἥτις in ver. 28 onwards, leads
them back to the exhortation to wnanimity already given in
ver. 27, to which is then subjoined in ver. 3 ἢ the sum-
mons to mutual humility.— εἴ tis κτλ] four stimulative
elements, the existence of which, assumed by e¢ (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 ἐστί simply
is to be supplied (comp. iy. 8): Jf there be any encowragement
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 (ἐν Χριστῷ and πνεύματος), and the second to the subjective
principle, to the specific disposition of the Christian (ἀγάπης
and σπλάγχνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί. Thus the inducements to
action, involved in these four elements, are, in equal measure,
at once objectively binding and inwardly affecting (πῶς
σφοδρῶς, πῶς μετὰ συμπαθείας πολλῆς ! Chrysostom). —
παρακλ. ἐν X.| ἐν X. defines the παρακλ. 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 im Christ, that
brother exhorteth brother. παράκλησις means exhortation
G@-Cor. xiv. 3; Rom. xti.»8; Acts v.36, ix..31, xu 15,
xy. 31), wc. persuasive and edifying address; the more special
interpretation consolatio, admissible in itself, anticipates the
correct rendering of the παραμύθιον which follows (in opposi-
tion to Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Erasmus,
Beza, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Heinrichs, and many others;
and recently Hoelemann and Ewald). — εἴ τὸ παραμ. ἀγάπ.]

1 Hitzig, z. Krit. Paul. Briefe, p. 18, very erroneously opines that there is
here a made excitement, an emphasis in which not so much is felt as is put
into the words ; and the four times repeated 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.

παραμύθιον (see generally Schaefer ad Bos. p. 492; Lobeck
ad Phryn. p. 517; Jacobs ad Ach. Tat. p. 708) corresponds
to the fourth clause (σπλάγχνα x. οἶκτ.), and for this reason,
as well as because it must be different from the preceding
element,! cannot be taken generally with Calovius, Flatt,
Matthies, de Wette, Hoelemann, van Hengel, Ewald, Weiss, J.
B. Lightfoot, and Hofmann as address, exhortation (Plat. Legg. ᾿
vi. p. 773 E, xi. p. 880 A), but definitely as comfort (Thue. v.
103 ; Theocr. xxii. 7; Anth. Pal. vil. 195, 1; Wisd: une;
Esth. viii. 15; comp. παραμυθία, Plat. Axioch. p. 375 A;
Tuc. Nigr. 7; Ps. Ixv. 12; Wisd. xix. 12; 1 Cor. ΧΟ
᾿Αγάπης is the genitive of the subject: a consolation, which
love gives, which flows from the brotherly love of Christians.
In order to make out an allusion to the Trinity in the three
first points, dogmatic expositors like Calovius, and also Wolf,
have understood ἀγάπης of the love of God (to us). —€ τις
κοινων. πν.] if any fellowship of the Spirit (1.6. participation in
the Spirit) exists; comp. on 2 Cor. xiii. 13. This is to be
explained of the Holy Spirit, not of the animorwm conjunctio
(Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, am Ende, Baumgarten-Crusius, de
Wette, Hoelemann, Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others; Usteri
and Rilliet mix up the two), which is inconsistent with the
relation of this third clause to the first (ἐν Χριστῷ), and also
with the. sequel, in which (ver. 2) Paul encowrages them to
fellowship of mind, and cannot therefore place it in ver. 1 as a
motive. — εἴ τινα orn. x. οἰκτ.] if there be any heart and com-
passion. The former used, as ini. 8, as the seat of cordial
loving affections generally ; the latter, specially as misericordia
(see on Rom. ix. 15), which has its seat and life in the heart.
See also on Col. iii. 12 ; comp. Luke i. 28; Tittmann, Synon.
p. 68 f—It must further be remarked, with regard to all four
points, that the context, by virtue of the exhortation based
upon them πληρώσατέ μον τὴν χαράν in ver. 2, certainly pre-
supposes their existence in the Philippians, but that the

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

CHAP. Il. 1. Τί

gencral expression (if there is) forms a more moving appeal,
and is not to be limited by the addition of iz you (Luther,
Calvin, and others). Hence the idea is: “ If there is exhorta-
tion in Christ, wherewith one brother animates and incites
another to a right tone and attitude; {7 there is comfort of love,
whereby one refresheth the other; {7 there 2s fellowship in the
Spirit, which inspires right feelings, and confers the consecra-
tion of power; if there is a heart and compassion, issuing. in
sympathy with, and compassion for, the afflicted—manifest
all these towards me, in that ye make full my joy (μου τὴν
χαράν). Then, namely, I experience practically from you that
Christian-brotherly exhortation,’ and share in your comfort of
love, and so ye put to proof, in my case, the fellowship in the
Spirit and the cordial sympathy, which makes me not distressed,
but glad in my painful position—There is much that is mis-
taken in the views of those who defend the reading τὰς before
om). (see van Hengel and Reiche), which cannot be got rid
of by the assumption of a constructio ad synesin (in opposi-
tion to Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 71 [E. T. 817). 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: εἴ τις οὖν παρά-
κλησις, ἐν Xpict@ εἴ τι παραμύθιον, ἀγάπης" εἴ τις κοινωνία
πνεύματος, εἴ τις, σπλάγχνα κ. οἰκτιρμοί; this last e τὸς being
a repetition of the previous one with an emphasizing of the εἰ,
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 πληρώσατε Artifices such as this can only serve to
recommend the reading εἴ τινα.

ln the application of the general εἴ ris παράκλησις ἐν X., the subjects of this
παρώκλησις roust, following the rule of the other elements, be the Philippians ;
Paul (Wiesinger, comp. Ewald) cannot be conceived as the παρακαλῶν.

From this interpretation of the whole passage he should have been deterred by
the forlorn position which is assigned to the εἴ cis before cradyxve as the stone
of stumbling, as well as by the purposelessness and even inappropriateness of
an oddly emphasized problematical sense of this εἴ es. —Ifit be thought that
the reading εἴ ris ova. 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 aii. 29) xv. 11, xvii. 13; 1 John i. 43) 2am
12; 2 Cor. x. 6). For the circumstances of the case, comp.
i. 9. The μου represents, as it very often does in the N. T.
(eg. iv. 14; Col. iv. 18; Philem. 20), and in Greek authors,
the dative of interest.— ἵνα] The mode in which they are to
make his joy full is conceived in ¢elic form, as that which is
to be striven for in the action of making full; and in this aim
of the πληροῦν the regulative standard for this activity was
to consist. Paul might quite as fitly have put the τὸ αὐτὸ
φρονεῖν in the imperative, and the πληροῦν τὴν χαράν in the
telic form; but the immediate relation to himself, in which he
had conceived the whole exhortation, induced him to place the
πληροῦν τ. χ. in the foreground. — τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε] denotes
generally harmony, and that, indeed, more closely defined by
the sequel here as identity of sentiment. See Tittmann, Synon.
p. 67; Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 87 f.; comp. Herod. i. 60,
ix. 54, and the passages in Wetstein. The opposite: ἀμφὶς
φρ., Hom. 171. xiii. 345 ; ἄλλῃ φρ., hymn. Ap. 469; διχοφρο-
νεῖν, Plut. Mor. p. 763 E; διχόμητις, Nonn. ev. Joh. xx. 29;
and similar forms. Hoelemann interprets τὸ αὐτό as illud
ipsum, that, namely, which was said in ver. 1, the παράκλησις ἐν
X. down to οἰκτιρμοί. This is at variance with the context (see

by way of necessary explanation of the passage :—Ist, Let the verse be regarded
as consisting of a series of four protases, on which the apodosis then follows in
ver. 2; 2d, Let ἐν Χριστῷ, ἀγάπης, πνεύματος and σπλάγχνα x. οἰκπιρμιοί be taken
uniformly as predicative specifications ; 3d, Let κοινωνία be again understood with
the last εἴ σις. Paul would accordingly say : ‘‘ Jf any exhortation is exhortation
in Christ, if any comfort is comfort of love, if any fellowship is fellowship of the
Spirit, if any (fellowship) is cordiality and compassion (that is, full of cordiality
and compassion) fulfil ye,” ete. The apostle would thus give to the element of
the xowwyviz, besides the objective definition of its nature (πνεύμαπος, referring to
the Holy Spirit), also a subjective one (ord. x. οἰκτιρμ.), and mark the latter
specially by the repetition of εἴ 1s sc. κοινωνία, as well as designate it the more
forcibly by the nominative expression (σπλάγχνα x. oixr., not another genitive),
inasmuch as the latter would set forth the ethical nature of such a κοινωνία (comp.
such passages as Rom. vii. 7, viii. 10, xiv. 17) in the form of a direct predicate.
The εἰ, moreover, would remain uniformly the syllogistic εἰ in all the four clauses,
and not, as in Hofmann’s view, suddenly change into the problematic sense in
the fourth clause.

CIAP. II. 2. 73

the following τ. adr. ἀγάπ. and ἕν φρον.), and contrary to the
wonted use of the expression elsewhere (Rom. xii. 16, xv. 5;
2 Cor. xiii. 11; Phil. iv. 2).— τὴν αὐτὴν ay. ἔχ., σύμψ. τὸ
ἕν φρον.] Two more precise definitions of that like-minded-
ness, so far as it is zdentity of (mutual) love, and agreement of
feeling and active impulse, sympathy (σύμψυχοι, only found
here in the N. T.; but see Polemo, ii. 54, and comp. on i. 27,
also on ἐσόψυχον, ver. 20). This accumulation of definitions
indicates earnestness; Paul cannot sever himself from the
thought, of which his heart is so full. Comp. Chrysostom :
βαβαὶ, ποσάκις τὸ αὐτὸ λέγει ἀπὸ διαθέσεως πολλῆς! He
also well remarks on τ. αὐτ. ἀγάπ. ἔχ. : τουτέστι ὁμοίως φιλεῖν
καὶ φιλεῖσθαι. The following τὸ ἕν φρονοῦντες is to be closely
connected with σύμψ,., so that σύμψυχοι has the emphasis
and adds the more precise definition of the previously men-
tioned unity of mind: with harmony of soul cherishing the one
sentiment. There are therefore only two, and not three, special
explanations of the τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε; and ἕν with the article
points back to the previous τὸ αὐτό, which is now represented
by τὸ ἕν without any essential difference in sense. Exposi-
tors, not attending to this close connection of σύμψ. with τὸ
ἕν φρον. (which Wiesinger, Weiss, Ellicott, and: Schenkel have
acknowledged), have either made the apostle say the very same
thing twice over (Oecumenius: δυπλασιάζει TO ὁμοφρονεῖν), or
have drawn entirely arbitrary distinctions between τὸ αὐτό and
τὸ ἕν dpov.—e.g. Bengel, who makes the former refer to the
same oljects of the sentiment, and the latter to the same senti-
ment itself ; Tittmann, /.c., that the former is cdem sentire, velle
et quaerere, and the latter in wno expetendo consentire ; Beza and
others, that the former means the agreement of will, the latter
the agreement in doctrine ; while others put it inversely ; Hof-
mann thinks that ἕν with the article means the one thing, on
which a Christian must inwardly be bent (comp. Luke x. 42).
It means, on the contrary, the one thing which has just been
designated by τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε (as in iv. 2; Rom. xii. 16;
and other passages) ; the context affords no other reference for
the article. — It is usual, even in classical authors, for the
participle of a verb to stand by the side of the verb itself, in

74 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

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

Ver. 3 ἢ Μηδὲν κατὰ ἐριθ. ἤ Kevodo€.] sc. φρονοῦντες (not
ποιοῦντες, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Camerarius, Storr, am Ende,
Rheinwald, Flatt, van Hengel, and others); so that, accord-
ingly, what was excluded by the previous requirement τὸ αὐτὸ
φρονῆτε.. .. φρονοῦντες, is here described. To take, as in Gal.
v. 18, μηδὲν... κενοδοξίαν as a prohibition by itself, without
dependence on φρονοῦντες (see on Gal. l.c.), as J. B. Lightfoot
does, is inappropriate, because the following participial anti-
thesis discloses the dependence of the μηδὲν κιτιλ. 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 ἡγούμ., and takes μηδὲν as neutiquam ;
but incorrectly, for ἡγούμ. x.7.r. affirms the esteeming others
better than oneself, which, therefore, cannot take place in a
factious (κατὰ ἐρίθειαν, see on i. 1 7) or in a vainglorious (ἢ Kevo-
δοξίαν) way. The κατὰ denotes that which is regulative of the
state of mind, and consequently its character, and is exchanged.
in the antithetic parallel for the dative of the instrument: by
means of humility, the latter being by the article set down as a
generic idea (by means of the virtue of humility). The mutual
brotherly humility (Eph. iv. 2; Col. in. 12; Acts xx. 19) is
the determining principle, by which, for example, Caius is
moved to regard Lucius as standing higher, in a moral point
of view, than himself, and, on the other hand, Lucius to pro-
nounce Caius to be of a higher moral rank than himself (ze.
ἀλλήλους... ἑαυτῶν). Hoelemann erroneously refers τῇ ταπειν-
opp. to ὑπερέχ., so that it “excellentiae designet praesidiwm,”
—a view which the very position of the words should have
warned him not to adopt. — κενοδοξία] ostentation, only here
in the N. T. Comp. Wisd. xiv. 14; Polyb. 111. 81. 9; Lucian,
D. Mort. x. 8, xx. 4; and see on Gal. v. 26.— Ver. 4. μὴ τὰ
ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστοι σκοπ.] The humble mind just indicated cannot
exist together with se/fishness, which has its own interests in
view. See instances of σκοπεῖν ta τινος, to be mindful of
any one’s interests, in Herod. i. 8; Plat. Phaedr. p. 232 D;

CHAP. II. 2, 4. 75

Thue. vi. 12. 2; Eur. Supp. 302. Comp. Lucian, Prom. 14:
τἀμαυτοῦ μόνα σκοπῶ. The opposite of τὰ ἑαυτῶν ox. may be
seen in 2 Mace. iv. 5: τὸ δὲ συμφέρον κοινῇ . ... σκοπῶν.
Comp. ἕητεῖν τὰ ἑαυτοῦ, 1 Cor. x. 24,33, xiii. 5; Phil. 11. 21,
where ζητεῖν presents no essential difference in sense. Others
consider that the having regard to gifts and merits is intended
(Calvin, Hammond, Raphel, Keil, Commentat. 1803, in his
Opuse. p. 172 ff, Hoelemann, Corn. Miiller), which, after the
comprehensive τῇ ταπεινοῴρ. x.7.r., would yield a very insipid
limitation, and one not justified by the context. — ἕκαστοι] It
is usually, and in other passages of the N. T. invariably, the
singular that is used in this distributive apposition ; the plural,
however, is not unfrequently found in classical authors. Hom.
Od. ix. 164; Thue. i. 7.1; Xen. Hell. ii. 4, 38; Herodian,
iii, 13, 14.— adda καὶ «.7.r.] a weaker contrast than we
should have expected from the absolute negation in the first
clause ;' a softening modification of the idea. Jn strict con-
sistency the καί must have been omitted (1 Cor. x. 24).
Comp. Soph. 4j. 1292 (1313): ὅρα μὴ τοὐμὸν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ
σόν; and see Fritzsche, ad Mure. p. 788; Winer, p. 463 f.
[E. T. 624]. The second ἕκαστοι might have been dispensed
with; it is, however, an earnest repetition.— The influences
- disturbing unity in Philippi, disclosed in vv. 2-4, are not,
according to these exhortations, of a doctrinal kind, nor do
they refer to the strength and weakness of the knowledge and
conviction of individuals, as was the case in Rome (Rom. xiv.)
and Corinth (1 Cor. viii. and x.)—in opposition to Rheinwald
and Schinz ;—but they were based upon the jealousy of moral
self-estimation, in which Christian perfection was respectively
ascribed and denied to one another (comp. ver. 12, iii. 12 ff.).
Although this necessarily implies a certain difference of opinion
as to the ethical theory, the epistle shows no trace either of
any actual division into factions, or of ascetic jealousy (which

1 Τῇ which, in fact, it is not merely the limitation (Hofmann) to one’s own that
is forbidden, as if μόνον stood along with it. What Hofmann at the same time
deduces from the reading ἕκαστος (before σκοποῦντες), which he follows, as dis-
tinguished from the subsequent ἕκασσοι (with a here wholly irrelevant compari-

son of Plat. Apol. p. 39 A), is sophistical, and falls, moreover, with the reading
itself.

76 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

de Wette assumes as co-operating). But the exhortations to
unity are too frequent (i. 27, 11. 2 ἢ, 11. 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 wl humour and isolation disturbing the cordial
fellowship of life (Hofmann). Comp. Huther, in the Mecklenb.
Zeitschr. 1862, p. 640 ff.

Ver. 5. Enforcement of the precept contained in ver. 3 f.
by the example of Jesus (comp. Rom. xv. 3; 1 Pet. 1. 21;
Clem. Cor. I. 16), who, full of humility, kept not His own inte-
rest in view, but in self-renunciation and self-humiliation sacri-
ficed it, even to the endurance of the death of the cross, and
was therefore exalted by God to the highest glory ;’ this ex-
tends to ver. 12. See on this passage Kesler in Thes. nov. ex
mus. Has. et Iken. Il. p. 947 f.; Schultens, Dissertatt. philol.
I. p. 443 ff; Keil, two Commentat. 1803 (Opuse. p. 172 ff) ;
Martini, in Gabler’s Journ. 7. auserl. theol. Lit. LV. p. 34 ff. ; von
Ammon, Magaz. 7. Pred. 11. 1, p. 7 ff.; Kraussold in the Annal.
ἃ. gesammt. Theol. 1835, 11. p. 273 ff.; Stein in the Stud. w.
Krit, 1837, p. 165 ff; Philippi, d. thdtige Gehors. Chr. Berl.
1841, p. 1 ff.; Tholuck, Disp. Christol. de 1. Phil. 11. 6-9, Halle
1848 ; Ernesti in the Stud. ει. Krit. 1848, p. 858 ff, and 1851,
p. 595 ff; Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 502 ff, and
1852, p. 133 ff, and in his Paulus, ΤΙ. p. 51 ff. ed. 2; Liebner,
Christol. p. 325 ff.; Raebiger, Christol. Paulin. p. 76 ff. ;
Lechler, Apost. wu. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 58 ff; Schnecken-
burger in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1855, p. 333 ff.; Wetzel in
the Monatschr. 7. d. Luth. Kirche Preuss, 1857 ; Kahler in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 99 ff; Beyschlag in the Stud. wv. 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 Zettschr.

1 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 καί,
that Paul really intended to adduce the example of Christ (in opposition to Hof-
mann’s view) ; comp. Rom. xy. 3. Christ’s example is the moral, ideal, histori-

cally realized. Comp. Wuttke, Sittenl. 11, § 224; Schmid, Sittenl. Ὁ. 355 ff. ;
and as early as Chrysostom,

CHAP. II. 6. vi

1871, p. 519 ff; Grimm in the same Zettschr. 1873, p. 33 ff.
Among the more recent dogmatic writers, Thomasius, II. p.
148 ff.; Philippi, IV. 1, p. 469 ff; Kahnis, 1. p. 458 ff.
— φρονείσθω ἐν ὑμ.] sentiatur in animis vestris. The parallelism
with the ἐν which follows prohibits our interpreting it intra
vestrum caetum (Hoelemann, comp. Matthies). The passive
mode of expression is unusual elsewhere, though lpgically
unassailable. Hofmann, rejecting the passive reading, as also
the passive supplement afterwards, has sadly misunderstood
the entire passage.'—6 καὶ ἐν X. I] sc. ἐφρονήθη. On ἐν,
comp. the Homeric ἐνὶ φρεσί, ἐνὶ θυμῶ, which often occurs
with φρονεῖν, Od. xiv. 82, vi. 313; Jl. xxiv. 173. καί is not
cum maxime, but the simple also of the comparison (in opposi-
tion to van Hengel), namely, of the pattern of Christ.

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

1 Reading φρονεῖτε, and subsequently explaining the ἐν Χριστῷ "Ingo as a frequent
expression with Paul for the ethical Christian quality (like ἐν κυρίῳ in iv. 2),
Hofmann makes the apostle say that the readers are to have their mind so directed
within them, that it shall not be lacking in this definite quality which makes it
Christian. Thus there would be evolved, when expressed in simple words,
merely the thought: ‘‘ Have in you the mind which is also the Christian
one.” Asif the grand outburst, which immediately follows, would be in harmony
with such a general idea! This outburst has its very ground in the lofty
example of the Lord. And what, according to Hofmann’s view, is the purpose of
the significant x«i? It would be entirely without correlation in the text ; for in ἐν
ὑμῖν the ἐν would have to be taken as local, and in the ἐν Χριστῷ, according to that
misinterpretation, it would have to be taken in the sense of ethical fellowship,
and thus relations not at all analogous would be marked.

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

78 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS,

The human state is first introduced by the words ἑαυτὸν
ἐκένωσε in ver..7. So Chrysostom and his successors, Beza,
Zanchius, Vatablus, Castalio, Estius, Clarius, Calixtus, Semler,
Storr, Keil, Usteri, Kraussold, Hoelemann, Rilliet, Corn. Miiller,
and most expositors, including Liinemann, Tholuck, Liebner,
Wiesinger, Ernesti, Thomasius, Raebiger, Ewald, Weiss, Kahnis,
Beyschlag (1860); Schmid, idl. Theol. II. p. 306, Messner,
Lehre d. Ap. 233 f£, Lechler, Gess, Person Chr. p. 80 f,
Rich. Schmidt, Uc, J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm; comp. also Hof-
mann and Diisterdieck, Apolog. Beitr. 111. p. 65 ff It has
been objected (see especially de Wette and Philippi, also
Beyschlag, 1866, and Dorner in Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1856, p.
994 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
δόξα) ; and that the earthly Christ only could be held up as a
pattern. But Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, as subject, is all the more justly
used (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 9; 1 Cor. vii. 6; ΟΟΙ. 1. 14 ff; 1 Cor.
x. 4), since the subject not of the pre-human glory alone, but
at the same time also of the human abasement’ and of the
subsequent exaltation, was to be named. Paul joins on to ὅς
the whole summary of the history of our Lord, including His
pre-human state (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9: ἐπτώχευσε πλούσιος ὦν) ;
therefore vv. 8-11 cannot by themselves reculate our view as
regards the definition of the subject; and the force of the
example, which eertainly comes first to light in the historical
Christ, has at once historically and ethically its deepest root in,
and derives its highest, because divine (comp. Matt. v. 48;
Eph. v. 1), obligation from, just what is said in ver. 6 of His
state before His human appearance. Moreover, as the context
introduces the incarnation only at ver. 7, and introduces it as
that by which the subject divested Himself of His divine
appearance, and as the earthly Jesus never was in the form of

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

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

CHAP. 11. 6. 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 λόγος ἔνσαρκος, as
the subject meant by ὅς (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 ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο ;” comp. on Col. i. 15. —
ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων] not to be resolved, as usually, into
“ although, etc.,’ which could only be done in accordance with
the context, if the ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγεῖσθαι x.7.d. could be pre-
supposed as something proper or natural to the being in the
form of God; nor does it indicate the possibility of His divest-
ing Himself of His divine appearance (Hofmann), which was
self-evident ; but it simply narrates the former divinely glorious
position which He afterwards gave up: when He found Himself
in the form of God, by which is characterized Christ’s pre-
human form of existence. Then He was forsooth, and that
objectively, not merely in God’s self-consciousness—as the not
yet incarnate Son (Rom. i. 3, 4, vill. 3; Gal. iv. 4), according
to John as Aoyos—with God, in the fellowship of the glory
of God (comp. John xvii. 5). It is this divine glory, in which
He found Himself as ica Θεῷ ὧν and also εἰκὼν Ocod—as such
also the instrument and aim of the creation of the world, Col.
i. 15 f—and into which, by means of His exaltation, He again
returned ; so that this divine δόξα, as the possessor of which
before the incarnation He had, without a body and invisible to

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

80 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

the eye of man (comp. Philo, de Somn. I. p. 655), the form of
God, is now by means of His glorified body and His divine-
human perfection visibly possessed by Him, that He may appear
at the παρουσία, not again without it, but in and with it (11. 20f.).
Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. 1. 15, 11. 4. Mopd¢y, therefore, which
is an appropriate concrete expression for the divine δόξα
(comp. Justin, Apol. I. 9), as the glory visible at the throne
of God, and not a “fanciful expression” (Ernesti), is neither
equivalent to φύσις or οὐσία (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecu-
menius, Theophylact, Augustine, Chemnitz, and many others ;
comp. also Rheinwald and Corn. Miller); nor to status (Calo-
vius, Storr, and others); nor is it the godlike capacity for
possible equality with God (Beyschlag), an interpretation which
ought to have been precluded both by the literal notion of the
word μορφή, and by the contrast of μορφὴ δούλου in ver. 7. But
the μορφὴ Θεοῦ presupposes’ the divine φύσις as ὁμόστολος
μορφῆς (Aesch. Suppl. 496), and more precisely defines the
divine status, namely, as form of being, corresponding to the
essence, consequently to the homoousia, and exhibiting the con-
dition, so that μορφὴ Θεοῦ finds its exhaustive explanation in
Heb. i. 3: ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ THs ὑποστάσεως
τοῦ Θεοῦ, this, however, being here conceived as predicated
of the pre-existent Christ. In Plat. Rep. 11. p. 381 C, μορφή.
is also to be taken strictly in its literal signification, and not
‘less soin Eur. Bacch. 54; Ael. H. A. i. 24; Jos. ὁ. Ap, ii.
16, 22. Comp. also Eur. Bacch. 4: μορφὴν ἀμείψας ἐκ θεοῦ
βροτησίαν, Xen. Cyr. 1. 2. 2: φύσιν μὲν δὴ τῆς ψυχῆς κ. τῆς
μορφῆς. What is here called μορφὴ Θεοῦ is εἶδος Θεοῦ
in John v. 37 (comp. Plat. Rep. p. 380 D; Plut. Mor. p.
1013 C), which the Son also essentially possessed in His pre-
human δόξα (John xvii. 5). The explanation of φύσις was
promoted among the Fathers by the opposition to Arius and a

1 Bengel well says: ‘‘Ipsa natura divina decorem habebat infinitum, in se,
etiam sine ulla creatura illum decorem intuente.”—What Paul here designates
simply by ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων is pompously expressed by Clement, Cor. I. 16:
τὸ σκῆπτρον τῆς μεγαλωσύνης τοῦ Θεοῦ. The forma mentis acterna, however, in
Tacitus, Agric. 46, is a conception utterly foreign to our passage (although

adduced here by Hitzig), and of similar import with Propertius, ili. 1, 64:
‘*ingenio stat sine morte decus.”

CHAP. II. 6. 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. —
ὑπάρχων] designating more expressly than ὥν the relation of
the subsisting state (111. 20; Luke vil. 25, xvi. 23; 2 Pet.
iii, 11); and hence not at all merely in the decree of God, or in
the divine self-consciousness (Schenkel). The time is that of
the pre-human existence. See above on és. Those who under-
stand it as referring to His human existence (comp. John i. 14)
think of the divine majesty, which Jesus manifested both by
word and deed (Ambrosiaster, Luther, Erasmus, Heinrichs,
Krause, Opusc. p. 33, and others), especially by His mdracles
(Grotius, Clericus) ; while Wetstein and Michaelis even suggest
that the transfiguration on the mount is intended. It would
be more in harmony with the context to understand the pos-
session of the complete divine image (without arbitrarily
limiting this, by preference possibly, to the moral attributes
alone, as de Wette and Schneckenburger do)—a possession
which Jesus (“as the God-pervaded man,” Philippi) had (poten-
tialiter) from the very beginning of His earthly life, but in a
latent manner, without manifesting it. This view, however,
would land them in difficulty with regard to the following
éaut. ἐκένωσε «.T.r., and expose them to the risk of insert-
ing limiting clauses at variance with the literal import of
the passage; see below. — οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι
ica Θεῷ] In order to the right explanation, it is to be ob-
served: (1) that the emphasis is placed on ὡἁρπαγμόν, and
therefore (2) that τὸ εἶναι ica Θεῷ cannot be something essen-
tially different from ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχειν, but must in sub-
stance denote the same thing, namely, the divine habitus of
Christ, which is expressed, as to its form of appearance, by ἐν
. μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχ., and, as to its internal nature, by τὸ εἶναι
ica Θεῷ ;* (3) lastly, that ἁρπαγμός does not mean pracda, or

1 An entirely groundless objection has been made (even by Liinemann) against
the view which takes τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ as not essentially different from ἐν wopOF Θεοῦ
εἶναι, viz. that Paul would, instead of +d εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, have written merely
φοῦσο, or even nothing at all. He might have done so, but there was no neces-
sity for his taking that course, least of all for Paul! He, on the contrary,
distinguishes very precisely and suitably between the two ideas representing

PHIL. F

82 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

that which ws seized on (which would be ἁρπάγιμον, Callim.
Cer. 9; Pallad. ep. 87; Philop. 79; or ἅρπαγμα or ἅρπασμα,
and might also be ἁρπαγή), or that which one forcibly snatches
to himself (Hofmann and older expositors); but actively:
robbing, making booty. In this sense, which is ἃ priori probable
from the termination of the word which usually serves to
indicate an action, it is used, beyond doubt, in the only profane
passage in which it is extant, Plut. de pueror. educ. 15 (Mor.
p. 12 A): καὶ τοὺς μὲν Θήβῃσι καὶ τοὺς ᾿Ηλίδι φευκτέον ἔρωτας
καὶ τὸν ἐκ Κρήτης καλούμενον ἁρπαγμόν, where it denotes the
Cretan kidnapping of children. It is accordingly to be ex-
plained: Not as a robbing did He consider the being equal with
Grod, 1.0. 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 7m His seizing what did not belong to Him. In opposi-
tion to Hofmann’s earlier logical objection (Schriftbew. I.
p. 149) that one cannot consider the being as a doing, comp.
1 Tim. vi. 5; and see Hofmann himself, who has now recog-
nised the linguistically correct explanation of ἁρπαγμός, but
leaves the object of the ἁρπάζειν 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. 1.

25 (in Wetstein): ody ἁρπαγμὸν" τὴν παραίτησιν ὡς ἔξ
ἀδρανοῦς καὶ ὑδαρεστέρας ἐποιεῖτο φρενός ; further, Eus. in
Lue. vi. in Mai’s Nov. Bibl. patr. iv. p. 165, and the passage
in Possini Cat. in Mare. x. 42, p. 233, from the Anonym.
Tolos.: ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἁρπαγμὸς ἡ τιμή ;" as also the entirely
synonymous form ἁρπασμός in Plut. Mor. p. 644 A, and ληΐσμος

the same state, by saying that Christ, in His divine pre-human form of life,

did not venture to use this His God-equal being for making booty. Both, there-

fore, express the very same divine habitus; but the εἶναι, ἴσα Θεῷ is the general”
element, which presents itself in the divine μορφή as its substratum and lies at

its basis, so that the two designations exhaust the idea of divinity. Comp. |
also Liebner, p. 328.

1 On ἡγεῖσθαι, in this sense of the mode of regar ding, which places the
object under the point of view of a qualitative category, comp. Kriiger on Z'hue.
ii, 44, 8,

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

3 Where, according to the connection, the sense is: Not ὦ seizing to oneself

CHAP. II. 6. 83

in Byzantine writers; also σκυλευμός in Eustathius ; comp.
Phryn. App. 36, where ἁρπαγμός is quoted as equivalent to
ἅρπασις. The passages which are adduced for ἅρπαγμα
ἡγεῖσθαι or ποιεῖσθαί τι (Heliod. vii. 11. 20, viii. 7; Eus. Z.
Z. viii. 12; Vit. C. 1. 31)—comp. the Latin praedam ducere (Cic.
Verr. v. 15; Justin, 11. 5. 9, xiii. 1. 8)—do not fall under the
same mode of conception, as they represent the relation in ques-
tion as something made a booty of, and not as the act of making
booty. We have still to notice (1) that this οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν
ἡγήσατο corresponds exactly to μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν σκοποῦντες
(ver. 4), as well as to its contrast ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε in ver. 7 (see
on ver. 7); and (2) that the aorist ἡγήσατο, indicating a definite
point of time, undoubtedly, according to the connection (see the
contrast, ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε x.7.r.), transports the reader to that
moment, when the pre-existing Christ was on the point of coming
into the world with the being equal to God. Had He then thought :
“When I shall have come into the world, I will seize to myself,
by means of my equality with God, power and dominion,
riches, pleasure, worldly glory,” then He would have acted the
part of ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγεῖσθαι τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ ; to which, however,
He did not consent, but consented, on the contrary, to self-
renunciation, ete. It is accordingly self-evident that the sup-
posed case of the ἁρπαγμός is not conceived as an action of the
pre-existing Christ (as Richard Schmidt objects), but is put as
connecting itself with His appearance on earth. The reflection,
of which the pre-existent Christ is, according to our passage,
represented as capable, even in presence of the will of God
(see below, γενόμ. ὑπήκοος), although the apostle has only con-
ceived it as an abstract possibility and expressed it in an
anthropopathic mode of presentation, is decisive in favour of
the personal pre-existence ; but in this pre-existence the Son
appears as subordinate to the Father, as He does throughout
the entire New Testament, although this is not (as Beyschlag
objects) at variance with the Trinitarian equality of essence in
the Biblical sense. By the ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγεῖσθαι x.7.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 the example of Christ.

84 TITE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

subordination.—The linguistic correctness and exact apposite
correlation of the whole of this explanation, which harmonizes
with 2 Cor. viii. 9,1 completely exclude the interpretation,
which is traditional but in a linguistic point of view is quite
incapable of proof, that ἁρπαγμός, either in itself or by
metonymy (in which van Hengel again appeals quite inap-
propriately to the analogy of Jas. 1. 2, 2 Pet. i. 15), means
praeda or res rapienda, With this interpretation of ἁρπαγμός,
the idea of εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ has either been rightly taken as
practically zdentical with ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχειν, or not. (A)
In the former case, the point of comparison of the figurative
praeda has been very differently defined: evther, that Christ
regarded the existence equal with God, not as a something
usurped and illegitimate, but as something natwral 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. Β. Lightfoot) ; comp. Beza,
Calvin, Estius, and others, who, however, give to the conception
a different turn;” or, that He did not desire pertinaciously to
retain for Himself this equality with God, as a robber his booty,
or as an unexpected gain (Ambrosiaster, Castalio, Vatablus,
Kesler, and others; and recently, Hoelemann, Tholuck, Reuss,

1 Riabiger and Wetzel, and also Pfleiderer, /.c., have lately adopted this view ;
likewise Kolbe in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1873, p. 311 f. Hofmann also now
explains the passage in a way not substantially different. But Grimm, /.c.
p. 88, very unjustly describes the retention of ἁρπαγμός 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 (dpr2y%, ἅρπαγμα, aprucux, Anis, σκύλευμα, σῦλον, Asia), but never by
dpraywos, or any other form of word ending with ws. It is true that various
substantives ending in “os 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
dprayuss. Its rejection, therefore, in our passage, is not pedantic, but is simply
linguistically demanded. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 426, ed. 2, erroneously objects
to our view of ἑρπαγμός, that, in that case, it would be impossible to conceive of
any object, and that thus an utterly empty antithesis to the giving up of Christ’s
own possession is the result. As if there were not given in the very notion of
dprayues its object, viz. that which does not belong to the subject of the action,
and this, indeed, in its unrestricted and full compass, just because nothing special
is added as an object.

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

CHAP. II. 6. 85

Liebner, Schmid, Wiesinger, Gess, Messner, Grimm ; comp. also
Usteri, p. 314) ;* or, that He did not conceal it, as a prey
(Matthies) ; 07, that He did not desire to display tt triwmphantly,
as a conqueror his spoils (Luther, Erasmus, Cameron, Vatablus,
Piscator, Grotius, Calovius, Quenstedt, Wolf, and many others,
including Michaelis, Zachariae, Rosenmiiller, Heinrichs, Flatt,
Rheinwald) ;? whilst others (Wetstein the most strangely, but
also Usteri and several) mix wpvery various points of comparison.
The very circumstance, however, that there exists so much
divergence in these attempts at explanation, shows how arbi-
trarily men have endeavoured to supply a modal definition for
dpm. ἡγήσ., Which is not at all suggested by the text—(B) In
the second case, in which a distinction is made between τὸ εἶναι
Μ ial b] A a e / . . .

loa Θεῷ and ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχειν, it is explained: non
rapinam duaxit, 1.6. non rapiendum οὐδὲ dusxit, or directly, non
vapuit (Musculus, Er. Schmidt, Elsner, Clericus, Bengel, and
many others, including am Ende, Martini, Krause, Opuse. Ὁ. 31,
Schrader, Stein, Rilliet, van Hengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, de
Wette, Ernesti, Raebiger, Schneckenburger, Ewald, Weiss, Schen-
kel, Philippi, Thomasius, Beyschlag, Kahnis, Rich. Schmidt, and
others) ; that Christ, namely, though being ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, did
not desire to seize to Himself the εἶναι ica Θεῷ, to grasp eagerly
nullam injuriam cuiquam facere, sed suo jure uti ; nihilominus tamen quasi jure
suo cessit.” So also Calvin, substantially, only that he erroneously interprets
ἡγήσατο as arbitratus 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,” ete.

1 In this class we must reckon the interpretation of Theodoret (comp.
Origen, ad Rom. v. 2, x. 7, Eusebius, and others): that Christ, being God by
nature, did not hold His equality with God as something specially great, as
those do who attain to honours rap’ ἀξίαν; but that He, τὴν ἀξίαν κατακρύψας,
chose humiliation. To this comes aiso the view of Theodore of Mopsuestia :
μορφὴν γὰρ δούλου λαβὼν τὴν ἀξίαν ἐκείνην ἀπέκρυψεν, Toure Tos δρῶσιν εἶναι νομει ζόμενος,
ὅπερ tpaivero.—Tholuck compares the German expression: als ein gefundenes
Essen (einen guten Fund) ansehen. According to him, the idea of the whole
passage is, ‘‘Tantum aberat, ut Christus, quatenus λόγος est, in gloria atque
beatitate sua acquiescere sibique soli placere vellet, ut amore erga mortales
ductus servi formam induere ac vel infimam sortem subire sine ulla haesitatione
sustineret.””

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

86 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

the possession of it.’ In this view expositors have understood
the ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ as the divine plenitudinem et altitudinem
(Bengel) ; the sessionem ad deatram (L. Bos) ; the divine honour
(Cocceius, Stein, de Wette, Grau) ; the vitam vitae Dei aequalem
(van Hengel); the existendi modum cum Deo aequalem (Liine-
mann); the coli et beute vivere ut Dews (Krause) ; the dominion
on earth as a visible God (Ewald); the divine autonomy
(Ernesti) ; the heavenly dignity and glory entered on after the
ascension (Raebiger, comp. Thomasius, Philippi, Beyschlag,
Weiss), corresponding to the ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα in
ver. 9 (Rich. Schmidt); the nova jura divina, consisting in
the κυριότης πάντων (Briickner); the divine δόξα of universal
adoration (Schneckenburger, Lechler, comp. Messner); the
original blessedness of the Father (Kahnis) ; indeed, even the
identity with the Father consisting in dvisibility (hillet),
and the like, which is to sustain to the μορφὴ Θεοῦ 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, ἢ apédtre Paul, 1870, p. 223 ff” In order to meet
the οὐχ dpm. Hy. (comparing Matt. iv. 8 ff), de Wette (comp.

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

2 The lead in this mode of considering the passage was taken by Arius,
whose party, on the ground of the proposition ἐκεῖνο ἁρπάζει τις, ὃ οὐκ ἔχει,
declared: ὅτι Θεὸς ὧν ἐλάσσων οὐχ ἥρπασε τὸ εἶναι ἴσα τῷ Θεῷ τῷ μεγάλῳ x.
μείζονι, See Chrysostom.

3 He thinks that the divine μορφή of Christ stands to the ica εἶναι Θεῷ in the
relation of potentia to actus. ““ Christ était des l’origine en puissance ce qu’ ἃ

“1a fin il devint en réalité ;” the μορφὴ Θεοῦ denotes the general form of being of
Christ, but ‘une forme vide, qui doit étré remplie, c’est-4-dire spirituellement
réalisée.”” This higher position He had not wished to usurp, but had attained to
it “réellement par le libre développement de sa vie morale.”

CHAP. 11. 6. 87

Hofmann, Schrijibew. p. 151) makes the thought be supplied,
that it was not in the aim of the work of redemption be-
fitting that Christ should at the very outset receive divine
honour, and that, if He had taken it to Himself, it would have
been a seizure, an usurpation. But as ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπ. already
involves the divine essence,’ and as ica εἶναι Θεῷ has no
distinctive more special definition in any manner climactic
(comp. Pfleiderer), Chrysostom has estimated this whole mode
of explanation very justly: εἰ ἦν Θεός, πῶς εἶχεν ἁρπάσαι ; καὶ
πῶς οὐκ ἀπερινόητον τοῦτο; τίς γὰρ ἂν εἴποι, ὅτι ὁ δεῖνα
ἄνθρωπος ὧν οὐχ ἥρπασε τὸ εἶναι ἄνθρωπος ; πῶς γὰρ ἄν τις
ὅπερ ἐστὶν, ἁρπάσειεν. Moreover, in harmony with the
thought and the state of the case, Paul must have expressed
himself conversely : ὃς ἴσα Θεῷ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπ. ry. TO εἶναι
ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, so as to add to the idea of the equality of nature
(ἴσα), by way of climax, that of the same form of appearance
(μορφή), of the divine δόξα also. With respect to τὸ εἶναι ἴσα
Θεῷ, it is to be observed, (1) that ἴσα is adverbial: in like manner,
as we find it, although less frequently, in Attic writers (Thue.
iii. 14 ; Eur. Or. 880 αἴ. ; comp. ὁμοῖα, Lennep. ad Phalar. 108),
and often in the later Greek, and in the LXX. (Jobv. 14, x. 10,
xi. 12, xiii, 12; Wisd. vii. 3, according to the usual reading).
This adverbial use has arisen from the frequent employment,
even so early as Homer (Ji. v. 71, xv. 439; Od. xi. 304, xv.
519 al.), of ica as the case of the object or predicate (see Ellendt,
Leu. Soph. 1. Ὁ. 847 ; Kriiger, 11. ὃ xlvi. 6. 8). But as εἶναι,
as the abstract substantive verb, does not suit the adverbial
loa, pari ratione, therefore (2) τὸ εἶναι must be taken in the
sense of existere ; so that τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ does not mean the
being equal to God (which would be τὸ εἶναι ἴσον Θεῷ), but
the God-equal eaxistence, existence in the way of parity with
God.” Paul might have written ἴσον (as mascul.) Θεῷ
(John v. 18), or ἐσόθεον ; but, as it stands, he has more dis-
tinctly expressed the metaphysical relation, the divine mode of

1 Not merely the similarity, from which is there distinguished the equality by
εἶναι ἴσα (in opposition to Martini and others).

2 [The German is ; nicht das Gotte gleich sein, sondern das gotigleiche Sein, das
Sein auf gottgleiche Weise, die gottgleiche Existenz.]

88 TIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

existence,, of the pre-human Christ. (3) The article points
back to ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, denoting the God-equal exist-
ence manifesting itself in that μορφή ; for the μορφὴ Θεοῦ is the
appearance, the adequate subsisting form, of the God-equal
existence. (4) Ernesti (in controversy with Baur), who is fol-
lowed by Kihler, Kahnis, Beyschlag, and Hilgenfeld, entertains
the groundless opinion that our passage alludes to Gen. 1]. f,
the ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ pointing in particular to Gen. iii. 5. In the
text there is no trace? of any comparison of Christ with the
first human beings, not even an echo of like expression; how
different from the equality with God in our passage is the ἔσεσθε
ὡς θεοί in Gen. iii. 5! Certainly, any such comparison lay
very remote from the sublime idea of the divine glory of the
pre-existent Christ, which was something quite different from
the image of God in the first human beings. Comp. also
Rich. Schmidt, p. 172 ; Grimn, p. 42 f.

Ver. 7. "AAN ἑαυτὸν éxévwoe] The emphatically prefixed
ἑαυτόν is correlative to the likewise emphatic ἁρπαγμόν in
ver. 6. Instead of the ἁρπάζειν, by which he would have
entered upon a foreign domain, He has, on the contrary, emptied
Himself, and that, as the context places beyond doubt, of the
divine μορφή, which He possessed but now exchanged for a
μορφὴ δούλου; 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 aman. Those who have already taken ver. 6

1 Which, therefore, was not essentially different from that of the Father.
The ἴσα εἶναι Θεῷ is the Pauline Θεὸς ἣν ὁ λόγος. Hofmann erroneously, although
approved by Thomasius, makes the objection (Schriftbew. p. 150) that an exist-
ence equal to divine existence can only be predicated of Him, who is not God.
It may he 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 Thue. iii. 14 is here without any bearing whatever.

* Ritschl indeed also, Altkath. Kirche, p. 80, requires, for the understanding
of our passage, a recognition that Christ, as ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, 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, xa’
εἰκόνα Θ., or καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν @,, instead of ἐν μορφῇ @.? 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 μορφὴ
Θεοῦ of the body of man, and are therefore irrelevant.

CHAP. II. 7. 89

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

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

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

90 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

LXX. Jer. xv. 9; Plat. Rep. p. 560D; Ecclus. xiii, 5, 7),
The specific reference of the meaning to making poor (Grotius)
must have been suggested by the context (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9 ;
Ecclus. /.c.), as if some such expression as ἐν πλούτῳ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχ.
had been previously used. Figuratively, the renunciation of
the divine μορφή might have been described as a putting it off
(é€xdvec@at).—The more precise, positive definition of the mode
in which He emptied Himself, is supplied by μορφὴν δούλου
λαβών, and the latter then receives through ἐν ow. avOp. γενό-
μενος καὶ σχήμ. εὗρ. ὡς ἄνθρ. its specification of mode, correla-
tive to εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ. This specification is not co-ordinate (de
Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Weiss, Schenkel), but subordinate
to μορφὴν δούλ. λαβών, hence no connecting particle is placed
before ἐν ou., and no punctuation is to be placed before καὶ
σχήματι, but a new topic is to be entered upon with ἐταπείνω-
σεν in ver. 8 (comp. Luther). The division, by which a stop is
placed before καὶ σχήματι... ἄνθρωπος, and these words are
joined to ἐταπείνωσεν x.t.r. (Castalio, Beza, Bengel, and others ;
including Hoelemann, Rilliet, van Hengel, Lachmann, Wiesin-
ger, Ewald, Rich. Schmidt, J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm), is at variance
with the purposely-chosen expressions σχήματι and εὑρεθείς,
both of which correspond to the idea of μορφή, and thereby show
that «. cy. εὑρ. ws ἄνθρ. is still a portion of the modal defini-
tion of μορφὴν δούλου λαβών. Nor is the σχήμ. ebp. ὡς ἄνθρ.
something following the κένωσις (Grimm), but the empirical
appearance, which was an integral part of the manner in
which the act of self-emptying was completed. Besides,
ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν has its own more precise definition follow-
ing; hence by the proposed connection the symmetry of
structure in the two statements, governed respectively by
ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε and ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν, would be unnecessarily
disturbed. This applies also in opposition to Hofmann, who
(comp. Grotius) even connects ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἄνθρ. yevou. with
ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν, whereby no less than three participial
definitions are heaped upon the latter. And when Hofmann
discovers in ἐν ὁμοιώματι x.T.r. a second half of the relative
sentence attached to Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, it is at variance with the
fact, that Paul does not by the intervention of a particle (or

CHAP. Il. 7. 91

by ὃς καί, or even by the bare ὅς) supply any warrant for such
a division, which is made, therefore, abruptly and arbitrarily,
simply to support the scheme of thought which Hofmann
groundlessly assumes: (1) that Jesus, when He was in the
divine μορφή, emptied Himself; and (2) when He had become
man, humbled Himself. Comp. in opposition to this, Grimm,
p. 46, and Kolbe in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1873, p. 314.—
μορφὴν δούλου λαβών] so that He took slave-form, now making
this lowly form of existence and condition His own, instead of
the divine form, which He had hitherto possessed. How this
was done, is stated in the sequel. The aorist participle de-
notes, not what was previous to the ἑαυτ. éxév., but what was
contemporaneous with it. See on Eph.i.9. So also do the
two following participles, which are, however, swbordinated to
the μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, as definitions of manner. That
Paul, in the word δούλου, thought not of the relation of one
serving im general (with reference to God and men, Matthies,
Rheinwald, Rilliet, de Wette, comp. Calvin and others), or
that of a servant of others, as in Matt. xx. 28 (Schnecken-
burger, Beyschlag, Christol. p. 236, following Luther and
others), or, indefinitely, that of one subject to the will of
another (Hofmann), but of a slave of God (comp. Acts 111. 13;
Isa. lii.), as is self-evident from the relation to God described
in ver. 6, is plain, partly from the fact that subsequently the
assumption of the slave-form is more precisely defined by ἐν
ὁμοιώμ. avOp. yevou. (which, regarded in itself, puts Jesus only
on the same line with men, but in the relation of service towards
God), and partly from ὑπήκοος in ver. 8. To generalize the
definite expression, and one which corresponds so well to the
connection, into “ miseram sortem, qualis esse servorum solet”
(Heinrichs, comp.-Hoelemann; and already, Beza, Piscator,
Calovius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others), is pure caprice, which
Erasmus, following Ambrosiaster (comp. Beyschlag, 1860, p.
471), carries further by the arbitrary paraphrase: “servi nocentis,
cum ipsa esset innocentia,” comp. Rom. viii. 3. — ἐν ὁμοιώμ.
avOp. yevou. «.7.r.] the manner of this popd. δούλου λαβεῖν : so
that He came in the likeness of man, tliat is, so that He entered
into a form of existence, which was not different from that which

92 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

men have. In opposition to Hofmann, who connects ἐν ὁμοιώ-
ματι κιτιλ. With ἐταπείνωσεν x.7.r., see above. On γίνεσθαι ἐν,
in the sense, to come into a position, 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. 20; and frequently in Greek authors
after Homer (Xen. Anab. i. 9.1; Herodian, iii. 7. 19, ii. 13. 21);
see Niagelsbach, zur Ilias, Ὁ. 295 f. ed. 3. This entrance into
an existence like that of men was certainly brought about by
human birth ; stillit would not be appropriate to explain γενόμ.
by natus (Gal. iv. 4; Rilliet ; comp. Gess, p. 298 ; Lechler, p. 66),
or as an expression for the “beginning of existence” (Hofmann),
since this fact, in connection with which the miraculous con-
ception is, notwithstanding Rom. i. ὃ, also thought to be
included, was really human, as it is also described in Gal. iv. 4.
Paul justly says: ἐν ὁμοιώματι avOp., because, in fact, Christ,
although certainly perfect man (Rom. v. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 21;
1 Tim. 11. 5), was, by reason of the divine nature (the ica
εἶναι Θεῷ) present in Him, not simply and merely man, not
a purus putus homo, but the incarnate Son of God (comp. Rom.
i. 3; Gal. iv. 4; and the Johannine ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο), ds
ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί (1 Tim. iii. 16), so that the power of the
higher divine nature was united in Him with the human ap-
pearance, which was not the case in othermen. The nature of
Him who had become man was, so far, not fully identical with,
but substantially conform (ἐν ὁμοιώμ.) to, that which belongs
to man." Comp. on Rom. viii. 3, i. ὃ ἢν, and respecting the
idea of ὁμοίωμα, which does not convey merely the conception

Our passage contains no trace of Docctism, even if Paul had, instead of
ἀνθρώπων, used the singular, which he might just as well have written here as
ὡς ἄνθρωπος in the sequel, in place of which he might also have used ὡς dvépworas.
This applies in opposition to Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 131, and Lechler, p. 66.
Even Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 1, p. 472, is of opinion that the above-named in-
terpretation amounts to Docetism. But Christ was in fact, although perfect
man, nevertheless something so much more exalted, that the phrase ἐν ono.
ἀνθρ. must have vindicated itself to the believing consciousness of the readers
without any misconception, and especially without that of Docetism, which Baur
introduces into it (neutest. Theol. p. 269), particularly when we consider the
thoroughly ethical occasion and basis of the passage as an exhibition of the
loftiest example of humility (comp. Rich. Schmidt, p. 178). Nevertheless,
Beyschlag has repeated that objection.

CHAP, II. 7. 93

of analogy, see on Rom. i. 23, v. 14, vi. 5, viii. 3. The expres-
sion is based, not upon the conception of a guasi-man, but upon
the fact that in the man Jesus Christ (Rom. v. 15) there was
the superhuman life-basis of divine ἐσότης, the εἶναι ica Θεῷ
not indwelling in other men. Justice, however, is not done to
the intentionally used ouowwpare (comp. afterwards σχήματι),
if, with de Wette, we find merely the sense that He (not
appearing as divine Ruler) was fownd in a human condition, —
a consequence of the fact that even ver. 6 was referred to the
time after the incarnation. This drove also the ancient dog-
matic expositors to adopt the gloss, which is here out of place,
that Christ assumed the accidentales infirmitates corporis (yet
without sin), not ex naturae necessitate, but ex οἰκονομίας
libertate.(Calovius). By others, the characteristic of debile et
aljectum (Hoelemann, following older expositors) is obtruded
upon the word ἀνθρώπων, which is here to be taken in a purely
generic sense ; while Grotius understood ἀνθρ. as referring to
the first human beings, and believed that the sinlessness of
Jesus was meant. It is not at all specially this (in opposi-
tion also to Castalio, Liinemann, Schenkel, and others), but
the whole divine nature of Jesus, the μορφή of which He laid
aside at His incarnation, which constitutes the point of differ-
ence that lies at the bottom of the expression ἐν ὁμοιώματι (διὰ
TO μὴ ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον εἶναι, 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. — καὶ σχήμ.
εὗρ. ὡς ἄνθρωπ.] to be closely connected with the preceding
patticipial affirmation, the thought of which is emphatically
exhausted: “and in fashion was found as a man,’ so that the
divine nature (the Logos-nature) was not perceived in Him.

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

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

94 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS

σχῆμα, habitus, which receives its more precise reference from
the context (Pflugk, ad Zur. Hee. 619), denotes here the entire
outwardly perceptible mode and form, the whole shape of the
phenomenon apparent to the senses, 1 Cor. vii. 31 ; comp. τὸ τῆς
θεοῦ σχῆμα x. ἄγαλμα, Plat. Crit. p. 110 B; τύραννον σχῆμα,
Soph. Ant. 1154; Eur. Med. 1039; Plat. Polit. p. 267C:
σχῆμα βασιλικόν, p. 290 Ὁ: τῶν ἱερέων σχῆμα; Dem. 690.
21: ὑπηρέτου σχῆμα; Lucian, Cyn. 17: τὸ ἐμὸν σχῆμα τὸ δ᾽
ὑμέτερον ; also, in the plural, Xen. Mem. iii. 10. 7; Lucian,
2. M. 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 (evpe#.) as a man. In His external
character, after He had laid aside the divine form which He
had previously had,’ there was observed no difference between
His appearance and that of a man, although the subject of His
appearance was at the same time essentially divine. The ὡς
with ἄνθρ. does not simply indicate what He was recognised
to be (Weiss); this would have been expressed by ἄνθρ. alone;
but He was found as a man, not invested with other qualities.
The Vulgate well renders it, “inventus wt homo.’ This
included, in particular, that He presented and manifested in
Himself the human σάρξ, human weakness and susceptibility
of death (2 Cor. xii. 4; Rom. vi. 9; Acts xxvi. 23).

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

' Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 644. : ὄψεσθε Θεὸν ἐν σχήματι ἀνθρώπου. Comp.
‘ , ~ > Lond ‘ 2 ἈΝ ~ , > <> > ΄ δ
p. 744: τὸν βασιλέα τῶν οὐρανῶν, τὸν ἐπὶ γῆς φανέντω ἐν mopOn ἀνθρώπου ταπεινώσεως.
How these passages agree with the Nazaraic character of the book, is not a point
for discussion here.

CHAP. II. 8. 95

racter of ταπείνωσις in the shameful death of Jesus. It is a
climactic parallelism (comp. on iv. 9) in which the two pre-
dicates, although the former in the nature of the case already
includes the latter (in opposition to Hofmann), are kept
apart as respects the essential points of their appearance in
historical development. Bengel well remarks: “ Status exin-
anitionis gradatim profundior.” Hoelemann, mistaking this,
says: “He humbled Himself even below His dignity as man.”
- γενόμ. ὑπήκοος] The aorist participle is quite, like the
participles in ver. 7, simultaneous with the governing verb:
so that He became obedient. This ὑπήκοος is, however, not to
be defined by “ capientibus se, damnantibus et interficientibus”
(Grotius); nor is it to be referred to the Jaw, Gal. iv. 4
(Olshausen), but to God (Rom. v. 19; Heb. v. 8 f.), whose
will and counsel (comp. eg. Matt. xxvi. 42) formed the ground
determining the obedience. Comp. ver. 9: διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεός
κατὰ, The expression itself glances back to μορφ. δούλου ;
“ obedientia servum decet,” Bengel. — μέχρι θανάτου] belongs
to ὑπήκ. yevou., not to éram. ἑαυτ. (Bengel, Hoelemann)—
which latter connection is arbitrarily assumed, dismembers the
discourse, and would leave a too vague and feeble definition
for éram. éavt. in the mere ὑπήκ. yevou. By μέχρι death is
pointed out as the culminating point, as the highest degree,
up to which He obeyed, not merely as the temporal goal (van
Hengel). Comp. 2 Tim. i. 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 vii. 33;
Isa. 1111. 8. Hofmann groundlessly takes ὑπήκ. γίνεσθαι in
the sense of showing obedience (comp. on Gal. iv. 12). The
obedience of Christ was an ethical becoming (Heb. v. 8). ----
θανάτου δὲ σταυρ.] τουτέστι τοῦ ἐπικαταράτου (comp. Gal.
iii. 13; Heb. xii. 2), τοῦ τοῖς ἀνόμοις ἀφωρισμένου, Theophy-
lact. The δέ, with the repetition of the same word (comp.
Rom. 111. 22, ix. 30), presents, just like the German aber,
the more precisely defined idea in contradistinction to the
idea which is previously left without this special definition:
unto death, but what kind of death 2. unto the most shameful

96 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

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

REMARK 1.—According to our explanation, vv. 6—8 may be
thus paraphrased: Jesus Christ, when He found Himself in the
heavenly mode of existence of dine glory, did not pernit Him-
self the thought of using His equality with God for the purpose of
seizing possessions and honour for Himself on carth: No, He
empticd Himself of the divine glory, inasmuch as, notwithstand-
ing His God-equal nature, He took upon Him the mode of existence
of a slave of God, so that He entered into the likeness of men, and
in His outward bearing and appearance manifested Himself not
otherwise than as aman. He humbled Himself, so that He be-
came obedient unto God, etc. According to the explanation of
our dogmatic writers, who refer vv. 6-8 to the earthly life of
Christ, the sense comes to this: “ Christum jam inde a primo con-
ceptionis momento divinam gloriam et majestatem sibi secundum
humanam naturam communicatum plena usurpatrone exserere et
tanguam Deum se gerere potuisse, sed abdicasse se plenario ejus
usu et humilen se exhibuisse, patrique suo coelestr obedientem
factum esse usque ad mortem crucis” (Quenstedt). The most
thorough exposition of the passage and demonstration in this
sense, though mixed with much polemical matter against the
Reformed and the Socinians, are given by Calovius. The point.
of the orthodox view, in the interest of the full Deity of the God-
man, lies in the fact that Paul is discoursing, not de humaliatione
INCARNATIONIS, but de huiiliatione INCARNATI. Among the
Reformed theologians, Calvin and Piscator substantially agreed
with our [Lutheran] orthodox expositors.

REMARK 2.—On a difference in the dogmatic understanding of
vy. 6-8, when men sought to explain more precisely the doctrine
of the Church (Porm. Cone. 8), was based the well-known con-
troversy carried on since 1616 between the theologians of
Tiibingen and those of Giesscn. The latter (Feuerborn and
Menzer) assigned to Jesus Christ in His state of humiliation
the χτῆσις of the divine attributes, but denied to Him their
“χρῆσις, thus making the κένωσις a renunciation of the χρῆσις. The
Tiibingen school, on the other hand (Thummius, Luc. Osiander,
and Nicolai), not separating the χτῆσις and χρῆσις, arrived at
the conclusion of a hidden and imperceptible use of the divine
attributes, and consequently made the κένωσις a χἀρύψις τῆς

CHAP. II. 6-8. 97

“χρήσεως. See the account of all the points of controversy in
Dorner, II. 2, p. 661 ff., and especially Thomasius, Christi Pers.
uw. Werk, Il. p. 429 ff. The Saxon Decisio, 1624, taking part
with the Giessen divines, rejected the κρύψις, without thoroughly
refuting it, and even without avoiding unnecessary concessions
to it according to the Hormula 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 Glawbensl. IV. 1, p. 279 ff.
ed. 2. It is certain that, according to our passage, the idea of
the κένωσις is clearly and decidedly to be maintained, and the re-
ducing of it to a κρύψις rejected. But, since Paul expressly refers
the ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε to the μορφὴ Θεοῦ, and consequently to the divine
mode of appearance, while he makes the εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ to subsist
with the assumption of the μορφὴ δουλοῦ, just as subsequently the
Incarnate One appears only as ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρ. and as σχήματι
ὡς ἄνθρ.; and since, further, in the case of the χτήσις 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 κτῆσις and the χρῆσις must therefore be in-
separably kept together. But, setting aside the conception of
the χρύψις 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 μορφὴ Θεοῦ in virtue of the incarnation, entered
upon a human development, consequently as conditioned, not
as absolute, but as theanthropic. At the same time, the se//-
consciousness of Jesus Christ necessarily remained the self-con-
sciousness of the Son of God developing Himself humanly, or
(according to the Johannine phrase) of the Logos that had
become flesh, who was the μονογενὴς rape πατρός ; see the nume-
rous testimonies in John’s Gospel, as 11. 13, vill. 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 Ago of Jesus on earth
was identical with the £yo which was previously in glory with
the Father; any division of the Son speaking on earth into two
gos, one of whom was the eternally glorious Logos, the other
the humanly humble Jesus, is rejected by clear testimonies of
Scripture, however intimate we may seek to conceive the mar-
riage of the two during the earthly life of Jesus;” Liebner
in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 362. That which the
divine Logos laid aside in the incarnation was, according to
PHIL. G

98 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

our passage, the μορφὴ Θεοῦ, that is, the divine δόξα as a form of —
existence, and not the εἶνα, tou Θεῷ essentially and necessarily
constituting His nature, which He retained,., and to which
belonged, just as essentially and necessarily, the divine—and
consequently in Him who had become man the divine-human—
self-consciousness.” But as this cannot find its adequate ex-
planation either in the absolute consciousness of God, or in the
archetypal character which Schleiermacher assigned to Christ, or
in the idea of the religious genius (Al. Schweizer), or in that of
the second Adam created free from original sin, whose personal
development proceeds as a gradual incarnation of God and deifi-
cation of man (Rothe), so we must by no means say, with Gess,
v. d. Pers. Chr. Ὁ. 304 f., that in becoming incarnate the Logos had
laid aside His self-consciousness, in order to get it back again only
in the gradual course of development of a human soul, and that
merely in the form of a hwman self-consciousness. See, in op-
position to this, Thomasius, Christa Pers. u. Werk, II. p. 198 f.;
Schoeberlein in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1871, p. 471 ff, comp. the
latter’s Geheimnisse des Glaubens, 1872, 3. The various views
which have been adopted on the part of the more recent Lutheran
Christologists,’ diverging from the doctrine of the Formula Con-
cordiae in setting forth Christ’s humiliation (Dorner: a gradual]
ethical blending into one another of the divine and human life
in immanent development; Thomasius: self-limitation, 1.6.

1 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
Apollos. His conception, however, is just as little Apollinarian as that of John ;
comp. on Rom. i. 3 1. ; Col. i. 15.

3 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 Loffler and others,
and also further, to that of the Socinians. Comp. on John xvii. 5. Yet even
Beyschlag’s Christology leads no further than to an ideal pre-existence of Christ
as archetype οἱ humanity, and that not as a person, but merely as the principle
of a person ;—while Keerl (ὦ. Gottmensch. das Lbcnbild Grottes, 1866), in unper-
ceived direct opposition to our passage and to the entire N. T., puts the Son of
God already as Son of man in absolute (not earthly) corporeality as pre-existent
into the glory of heaven. From 1 Cor. xv. 47 the conception of the pre-exist-
ence of Christ as a heavenly, pneumatic man and archetype of humanity
(Holsten, Biedermann, and others) can only be obtained through misapprehen-
sion of the meaning. See on 1 Cor. /.c., and Grimm, p. 51 ff.

CHAP. 11. 9. 99

partial self-renunciation of the divine Logos; Liebner: the
entrance of the Logos into a process of becoming, that is, into
a divine-human development), do not fall to be examined
here in detail; they belong to the province of Dogmatics.
See the discussions on the subject by Dorner, in the Jahrb. 7.
Deutsche Theol. 1856, 2, 1857, 2, 1858, 3; Broemel, in the
Kirchl. Zeitschr. of Kliefoth and Mejer, 1857, p. 144 ff. ; Liebner,
in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 349 ff.; Hasse, ibid.
p. 336 ff.; Schoeberlein, 1.0. p..459 ff.; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u.
Werk, 11. pp. 192 ff., 542 ff.; Philippi, Dogmat. IV. 1, p. 364 ff.
—According to Schoeberlein, the Son of God, when He became
man, did not give up His operation in governing the world in
conjunction with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but continued
to exercise it with divine consciousness im heaven. Thus the
dilemma cannot be avoided, either of supposing a dual person-
ality of Christ, or of assuming, with Schoeberlein, that heaven
is not local. Not only the former, however, but the latter view
also, would be opposed to the entire N. T.

Ver. 9. The exaltation of Christ,—by the description of
which, grand in its simplicity, His example becomes all the
more encouraging and animating. — v0] for a recompense, on
account of this self-denying renunciation and humiliation in
obedience to God (καί, also, denotes the accession of the cor-
responding consequence, Luke 1. 35; Acts x. 29; Rom. 1. 24,
iv. 22; Heb. xiii 12). Comp. Matt. xxii. 12; Luke xxiv. 26.
Nothing but a dogmatic, anti-heretical assumption could have
recourse to the interpretation which is at variance with linguistic
usage: guo facto (Calvin, Calovius, Glass, Wolf, and others).
The conception of recompense (comp. Heb. ii. 9, xii. 2) is
justified by the volwntariness of what Christ did, vv. 6—8, as
well as by the ethical nature of the obedience with which He
did it, and only excites offence if we misunderstand the
Subordinatianism in the Christology of the apostle. Augus-
tine well says: “Humilitas claritatis est meritwm, claritas
humilitatis praemiwm.” Thus Christ’s saying in Matt. xxiii. 12
was gloriously fulfilled in His own case. — ὑπερύψωσε] comp.
Song of Three Child. 28 ff; LXX. Ps. xxxvi. 37, xevi. 10;
Dan. iv. 34; Synes. Hp. p. 225 A; it is not found elsewhere
among Greek authors, by whom, however, ὑπερύψηλος, exceed-

100 TIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

angly high, is used. He made Him very high, exceedingly
exalted, said by way of superlative contrast to the previous
ἐταπείνωσεν, of the exaltation to the fellowship of the highest
glory and dominion, Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12; Eph. 1. 21,
al.; John xii. 32, xvii. δ. This exaltation has taken place
by means of the ascension (Eph. iv. 10), by which Jesus
Christ attained to the right hand of God (Mark xvi. 19;
Acts vi. 55 ΤΠ; Rom. vii. 345 Eph. 1. 201 Col aie
Heb, τ 3, vii. 1, x.12, xu. 2; 1 Tim m.16; 1 Petree
although it is not this local mode, but the exaltation viewed
as a state which is, according to the context, expressed by
ὑπερύψ. It is quite unbiblical (John xvii. 5), and without
lexical authority, to take ὑπέρ as intimating: more than pre-
viously (Grotius, Beyschlag).— ἐχαρίσατο] He granted (i. 29),
said from the point of view of the subordination, on which also
what follows (κύριος... εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ πατρός) is based. Even
Christ receives the recompense ag God’s gift of grace, and
hence also He prays Him for it, John xvi. 5. The glory of
the exaltation did not stand to that possessed before the incarna-
tion in the relation of a plus, but it affected the entire divine-
human person, that entered on the regnum gloriae. —- τὸ ὄνομα]
is here, as in Eph. i. 21, Heb. 1. 4, to be taken in the strictly
literal sense, not as digiitas or gloria (Heinrichs, Hoelemann, —
and many others), a sense which it might have ex adjuncto
(see the passages in Wetstein and Hoelemann), but against
which here the following ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ is decisive.
The honour and dignity of the name of Jesus are expressed
by τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, but are not implied in τὸ ὄνομα of
itself. Nor is it to be understood of an eppellative name, as
some have referred it to κύριος in ver. 11 (Michaelis, Keil, Baum-
earten-Crusius, van Hengel, Schneckenburger, Weiss, Hofmann,
Grimm) ; others to υἱὸς Θεοῦ (Theophylact, Pelagius, Estius) ;
and some even to Θεός (Ambrosiaster, Oecumenius, and again

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

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

CHAP. II. 10. FOL

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

Ver. 10 f. “Iva] This exaltation, ver. 9, was to have, in
accordance with the divine purpose, general adoration and
confession as its result,—a continuation of the contrast with
the previous state of self-renunciation and humiliation. In
the mode of expression there may be detected a reminiscence
of Isa. xlv. 23 (Rom. xiv. 11).— The ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ. ’I., empha-
tically prefixed, affirms that, in the name of Jesus, 1.6. in what
is involved in that most glorious name “Jesus Christ,” and
is present to the conception of the subjects as they bend their
knees, is to be found the moving ground of this latter action
(comp. Ps. Ixiii. 5; 1 Kings xviii. 24; 1 Chron. xvi. 10, al. ;
meer vis 11: ἘΠ νυ 20s Cokin 17 i Petiv- ls 16;
Jas. v. 14). The bowing of the knee represents adoration,
of which it is the symbol (Isa. xlv. 23; Rom. xiv. 11, x1 4;
Eph. ii. 14; 3 Esdr. viii. 73; 3 Macc. Ἢ. 1; and in Greek
writers from Homer onward), and the subject to be adored
is, according to the context (ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ. ᾽1., and comp. ver. 11),
none other than Jesus, the adoring worship of whom has its
warrant in the fellowship of the divine government and of the
divine δόξα to which He is exalted (comp. the habitual ἐπικα-
λεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου, Rom. x. 12 f.; 1 Cor. 1. 2; 2 Tim.
li. 22; Acts vii. 59, ix. 14, 21, xxii. 16), but has also at the
same time its peculiar character, not absolute, but relative, 2.¢.
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. Stinde, I. p. 218),—a peculiarity which did
not escape the observation of Pliny (Zp. x. 97: “ Christo
quast Deo”), and was, although only very casually and im-
perfectly, expressed by him. This adoration (comp. ver. 11,
εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ πατρός) 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; 17am
vi. 15 f.); the Father only is ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, Rom.
ix. 5 (comp. Ignat. Zars. interpol. 5), ὁ Θεός absolutely, God
also of Christ (see on Eph. i. 17), the Θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ
(2 Cor. vi. 18; Rev. i. 8, iv. 8, a/.); and the Son, although of
like nature, as σύνθρονος and partaker of His δόξα, is subor-
dinate to Him (1 Cor. xi. 3, xv. 27 f.), as in turn the Spirit
is to the Son (2 Cor. iii. 18); the honour which is to be paid
to the Son (Rev. v. 8 ff.) has its principle (John v. 22 f.) and
aim (ver. 11) in the Father, and therefore the former 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 (κύριος). Comp. also Hofmann: “the
praying to God, determined in: the person praying by the con-
setousness 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 olyect of the adoration, but also with
the word ἐπουρανίων which follows, because the mediatorship
of Jesus, which is implied in the atonement, does not affect
the angels as its objects (comp., on the contrary, Heb. i. 4, 6).
The two sentences may not be separated from one another (in
opposition to Hofmann); but, on the contrary, it must be
maintained that the personal object, to whom the bowing of
the knee as well as the confession with the tongue applies,
is Jesus. Linguistically erroneous is the view which makes ἐν
τῷ ὀνόμ. equivalent to εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, for the glorification of
His dignity (Heinrichs, Flatt, and others), or as a paraphrase
for ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ (Estius; Rheinwald leaves either of the two to
be chosen) ; while others, by the interpretation “ guoties auditur

CHAP. II. 10. 103

nomen, brought out a sense which is altogether without
analogy in the N. T. See, in opposition to this, Calvin : “ quasi
vox (the word Jesus) esset magica, quae totam in sono vim
haberet inclusam.”—ézrovpaviwy x.7.d.] every knee of heavenly
beings (those to be found in heaven), and those on earth, and
those under the earth, is to bow, none is to remain unbent; that
is, every one from these three classes shall bow his knees
(plural). ἐπουρ. includes the angels (Eph. i. 20 f., iii. 10;
Heb. i. 4, 6; 1 Pet. 12, 11. 22); ἐπύγ. the human beings on
earth (comp. Plat. Ax. p. 368 B: ἐπίγειος ἄνθρωπος); and
καταχθ. the dead in Hades (comp. Hom. Jl. ix. 457: Ζεὺς
καταχθόνιος, Pluto: καταχθόνιοι δαίμονες, the Manes, Anthol.
vu. 333). Comp. Rev. v. 13; Ignat. Trall. 9, and the
similar classical use of ὑποχθόνιος, ὑπὸ γαῖαν (Eur. Hee. 149,
and Pflugk ὧν 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 κύριος. Our passage,
however, does not yield any further particulars regarding the
so-called descent into hell, which Schweizer has far too rashly
condemned as “a myth without any foundation in Scripture.”
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and many
others, including Baumgarten-Crusius and Wiesinger, have

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

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

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

104 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

incorrectly understood by καταχθ. the Daemones, which is an
erroneous view, because Paul does not regard the Daemones
as being in Hades (see, on the contrary, at Eph. 11. 2, vi. 12),
There is an arbitrary rationalizing in Heinrichs, who takes the
words as neuters: “omnes rerum creatarwm complecus” (comp.
Nosselt and J. B. Lightfoot), and already in Beza: “ quaecwn-
que et supra mundum sunt et in mundo.” We meet with the
right view as early as Theodoret. The Catholics referred καταχθ.
to those who are in purgatory ; so Bisping still, and Dollinger,
Christenth. ει. Kirche, p. 262, ed. 2.—As regards the realization
of the divine purpose expressed in ἵνα x.7.X., respecting the
ἐπιγείων, it was still in progress of development, but its comple-
tion (Rom. xi. 25) could not but appear to the apostle near at
hand, in keeping with his expectation of the near end of the
αἰὼν οὗτος. Observe, moreover, how he emphasizes the wni-
versality of the divine purpose (iva) with regard to the bowing
the knees and confession with the tongue so strongly by πᾶν
γόνυ and πᾶσα γλῶσσα, that the arbitrary limitation which
makes him mean only those who desire to give God the glory
(Hofmann) is out of the question.

Ver. 11 appends the express confession combined with the
adoration in ver. 10, in doing which the concrete form of repre-
sentation is continued, comp. Rom. xiv. 11; Isa. xlv. 23;
hence γλῶσσα is tongue, correlative to the previous γόνυ, not
language (Theodoret, Beza, and others). — €€ouon.] a strengthen-
ing compound. Comp. on Matt. ii. 6. Respecting the future
(see the critical remarks) depending on ἵνα, see on Gal. ii. 4;
Eph. vi. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 18. ---- κύριος] predicate, placed first
with strong emphasis: that Lord is Jesus Christ. This is the
specific confession of the apostolic church (Rom. x. 9; 2 Cor.
iv. 5; Acts ii, 36), whose antithesis is: ἀνάθεμα ᾿Ιησοῦς
1 Cor. xii. 8. The κύριον εἶναι refers to the fellowship of the
divine dominion (comp. on Eph. i. 22 f.,iv.10; 1 Cor. xv. 27f);
hence it is not to be limited to the rational creatwres (Hoele-
mann, following Flatt and others), or to the church (Rheinwald,
Schenkel). — εἰς δόξ. Θεοῦ πατρ.] may be attached to the
entire bipartite clause of purpose (Hofmann). Since, however,
in the second part a modification of the expression is intro-

CHAP. II. 11. 105

duced by the future, it is more probably to be joined to this
portion, of which the ¢elic destination, ze. the final cause, is
specified. It is not to be connected merely with κύριος I. X.,
as Bengel wished: “J. Ch. esse dominum, quippe qui sit wm
gloria Dei patris,’ making εἰς stand for ἐν, for which the
Vulgate, Pelagius, Estius, and others also took it. Schnecken-
burger also, p. 341 (comp. Calvin, Rheinwald, Matthies,
Hoelemann), joins it with κύριος, but takes εἰς δόξαν rightly :
to the honour. But, in accordance with ver. 9, it was self-
evident that the κυριότης 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 κυριότης of Jesus Christ glorifies
the Father (whose will and work Christ’s entire work of sal-
vation is; see especially Eph. i.; Rom. xv. 7-9; 2 Cor. i. 20),
whereby alone the exaltation, which Christ has received as a
recompense from the Father, appears in its fullest splendour.
Comp. John xii. 28, xvii. 1. The whole contents of ver. 9 f.
is parallel to the ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, namely, as the recompensing
re-elevation to this original estate, now accorded to the divine-
human person after the completion of the work of humiliation.
Complicated and at variance with the words is the view of van
Hengel, that ἐξομολ. εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ is equivalent to ἐξομολ.
Θεῷ, to praise God (Gen. xxix. 34, al.; Rom. xv. 9 ; Matt. xi. 25;
Luke x. 21), and that ὅτι is quod; hence : “ laudibus celebrarent,
quod hune filium suum principem fecerit regni divini.”

REMARK.—From vy. 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 τὸ εἶναι tow Θεῷ be related

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

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

106 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

to ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ εἶναι as the essence to its adequate manifestation,
and if our explanation of ἁρπαγμός be the linguistically correct
one, then must the Gnostic conception of the Aeon Sophia—
which vehemently desired to penetrate into the essence of the
original Father (Iren. Haer. 1. 2. 2), and thus before the close of
the world’s course (Theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 507 ff.) wished to usurp
forcibly something not de jure belonging to it (Paulus, LI. Ὁ. 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 εἶναι
ἴσα Θεῷ aS Something future and greater than the μορφὴ Θεοῦ; since
in the case of the μορφή, as well as in that of the ow, the full
fellowship in the divine nature is already the relation assumed
as existing. Consequently (2) the ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε 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 κένωμα----ὧϑ 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 ἁρπαγμός indeed
actually takes place, but as an unnatural enterprise neutralizes
itself, and has, as its result, merely something negative, in this
ease, In virtue of a moral self-determination, matters cannot
come to any such aprayués; and the negative, which even wm
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 ἑαυτὸν
κενοῦν instead of the γενέσθαι ἐν κενώματι"). (3) That even the
notion of the μορφὴ Θεοῦ arose from the language used by the
Gnostics, among whom the expressions μορφή, μορφοῦν, μόρφωσις,
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, μορφὴ Θεοῦ is
not once used by the Gnostics, although it is current among
other authors, including philosophers (6... Plat. Rep. p. 381 C:
μένει ἀεὶ ἁπλῶς ἐν τῇ αὑτοῦ μορφῇ, comp. p. 381 B: ἥκιστ᾽ ἂν πολλὰς
μορφὰς ἴσχοι ὁ Θεός). Further, (4) the erroneousness of the view,
which in the phrases ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων and σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς
ἄνθρ. discovers a Gnostic Docetism, is self-evident from the ex-
planation of these expressions in accordance with the context
(see on the passage); and Chrysostom and his successors have
rightly brought out the essential difference between what the
apostle says in ver. 7 and the Docetic conceptions (Theophylact :

CHAP. 11. 12. 107

οὖκ ἦν δὲ τὸ φαινόμενον μόνον, namely,man, ἀλλὰ καὶ Θεός, οὖκ ἦν ψιλὸς
ἄνθρωπος. Διὰ τοῦτο φήσιν" ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων" ἡμεῖς μὲν γὰρ ψυχὴ
‘nah σῶμα, ἐκεῖνος δὲ ψυχὴ καὶ σῶμα καὶ Θεός κιτιλ. Theodoret: περὶ
σοῦ λόγου ταῦτα OHO, ὅτι Θεὲς ὧν οὐχ ἑωρᾶτο Θεὸς τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν περικεί-
μενος φύσιν x7.A.). Comp. on Rom. vill. 3. Lastly, (5) even the
three categories ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγ. καὶ καταχθ., and also the notion
of the descensus ad inferos which the latter recalls, are alleged
by Baur to be genuinely Gnostic. But the idea of the descent
to Hades is not distinctively Gnostic ; it belongs to the N. T., and
is a necessary presupposition lying at the root of many passages
(see on Luke xxiii. 43; Matt. xii. 40; Acts 11. 27 ff; Rom. x.
6 ff.; Eph. iv. 8 ff.) ; it is, in fact, the premiss of the entire belief
in Christ’s resurrection ἐκ vexpav. That threefold division of
all angels and men (see also Rev. v. 13) was, moreover, so
appropriate and natural in the connection of the passage (comp.
the twofold division, καὶ νεκρῶν καὶ ζώντων, Rom. xiv. 9, Acts
x. 42,1 Pet. iv. 5f., where only men are in question), that its
derivation from Gnosticism could only be justified in the event
of the Gnostic character of our passage being demonstrated on
other grounds. The whole hypothesis is engrafted on isolated
expressions, which only become violently perverted into concep-
tions of this kind by the presupposition of a Gnostic atmosphere.
According to the Gnostic view, it would perhaps have been said
of the Aeon Sophia: ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων ob προάλλεσθαι ἡγήσωτο
εἰς τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ κιτιλ. The apostle’s expressions agree
entirely with the Christology of his other epistles; it is from
these and from his own genuine Gnosis laid down in them, that
his words are to be understood fully and rightly, and not from the
theosophie phantasmagoria of any subsequent Gnosis whatever.

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

1 Linden, in the Stud. uv. Krit. 1860, p. 750, attempted a new explanation of
vv. 12-14. According to this, μὴ ὡς is to stand for ὡς μή, κατεργάζ. to be indica-
tive, μὴ ws... xarepy. to belong to the protasis, ver. 13 to be treated as a paren-
thesis, and, finally, the apodosis to followin πάντα x.¢.a. Against this view
may be simply urged the fact, that μὴ ὡς (2 Thess. iii. 15 ; Philem. 14; 2 Cor.
ix. 5) cannot be equivalent to ὡς μή, and that there must have been used not even
ὡς μή, but, on account of the negation of a purely actual relation, ὡς οὐκ ; to say
nothing of the involved construction, and of the so special tenor of the alleged
apodosis after a preparation of so grand and general a nature by the alleged
protasis.

108 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

inference from the example of Christ (vv. 6-11), who by the
path of self-renunciation attained to so glorious a recompense.
Following this example, the readers are, just as they had always
been obedient, etc., to work out their own salvation with the
utmost solicitude. ὑπηκούσατε is not, indeed, correlative with
γενόμ. ὑπήκοος in ver. 8 (Theophylact, Calovius, Bengel, and
others), as the latter was in what preceded only an accessory
definition ; but the σωτηρία is correlative with the exaltation
of Christ described in ver. 9, of which the future salvation of
Christians is the analogue, and, in fact, the joint participation
(Rom. viii. 17; Eph. ii. 6; Col. ii. 12f., iii. 3f.). Since, therefore,
ὥστε has its logical basis in what immediately precedes, it must
not be looked upon as an inference from all the previous admoni-
tions, 1. 26 ff., from which it draws the general result (de Wette).
It certainly introduces the recapitulation of all the previous
exhortations, and winds them up (on account of the new exhor-
tation which follows, see on ver. 14) as in iv. 1; 1 Thess.
iv. 18: Rom, vi. 12. 1/Cor., πὶ. 21, iv..5, vi 8, x1. So; Ἐν
xv. 58, but in such a way that it joins on to what was last
discussed. It is least of all admissible to make, with Hofmann,
ὥστε point backwards to πληρώσατέ μου τ. χαρών in ver. 2,
so that this prayer “7s repeated in a definitive manner” by
the exhortation introduced with ὥστε. In that case the
apostle, in order to be understood, must at least have inserted
a resumptive οὖν after ὥστε, and in the following exhortation
must have again indicated, in some way or other, the element
ot the making joy.— καθὼς πάντοτε ὑπηκούσατε] whom ? is
neither a question to be left unanswered (Matthies), nor one
which does not require an answer (Hofmann). The context
yields the supplement here, as well as in Rom. vi. 16, Philem.
21, 1 Pet. i. 14; and the right supplement is the wswal one,
viz. mihi, or, more definitely, meo evangelio, as is plain, both
from the words which follow μὴ ὡς... ἀπουσίᾳ μου, and also
from the whole close personal relation, in which Paul brings
home to the hearts of his readers his admonitions (from i. 27
down till 11. 18) as their teacher and friend. On πάντοτε,
comp. ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμέρας ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν (i. 5). We cannot
infer from it a reference to earlier epistles which have been lost

CHAP. 11. 12. 109

(Ewald). — μὴ ὡς . . . ἀπουσίᾳ μου] belongs not to ὑπηκούσατε
(Luther, Wolf, Heumann, Heinrichs, and others), as is evident
from μὴ ὡς and νῦν, but to κατεργάξεσθε, so that the comma
before μετὰ φόβου is, with Lachmann, to be deleted. Comp.
Grotius.—os had to be inserted, because Paul would not and
could not give an admonition for a time when he would be
present. Not perceiving this, B, min., vss., and Fathers have
omitted it. If ὡς were not inserted, Paul would say: that they
should not merely in his presence work out their salvation.
But with ὡς he says: that they are not to work out their own
salvation in such a way as of they were doing it in Ms
presence’ merely (neglecting it, therefore, in His absence); nay,
much more now, during His absence from them, they are to work wt
out with fear and trembling. There is nothing to be supplied
along with ὡς, which is the simple modal as, since μὴ ὡς is
connected with the governing verb that follows in the anti-
thesis (τ. éavt. owt. κατεργάζεσθε) as its prefixed negative
modal definition: not as in my presence only (not as limiting
it to this only) work out your salvation. And the ἀλλά
is the antithetic much more, on the contrary, nay.: Krasmus,
Estius, Hoelemann, Weiss, Hofmann, and others, incorrectly
join μόνον with μή, and take ws in the sense of the degree:
not merely so, as ye have done it, or would do it, in my absence ;
comp. de Wette, who assumes a blending of two comparisons,
as does also J. B. Lightfoot. It is arbitrary not to make
μόνον beiong to ἐν τ. map. μου, beside which it stands; comp.
also Rom. iv. 16 (where τῷ ἐκ τοῦ νόμου 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 ὑπακούετε after ὑπηκούσατε, and then
to make peta φόβου κιτιλ. a sentence by itself (Hofmann).
Moreover, in such a case the arrangement of the words in the
alleged apodosis would be illogical; νῦν (or, more clearly, καὶ
νῦν) must have begun it, and μόνον must have stood imme-
diately after μή. ---- πολλῷ μᾶλλον] than if I were present; for

1 The word παρουσία does not contain, any more than ini. 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 THE PHILIPPIANS.

now (νῦν), when they were deprived of the personal teaching,
stimulus, guidance, and guardianship of the apostle, moral
diligence and zealous solicitude were necessary for them wm a
far higher measure, in order to fulfil the great personal duty of
working out their own salvation. That ἑαυτῶν, therefore, cannot
be equivalent to ἀλλήλων (Flatt, Matthies, and older expositors),
is self-evident. — μετὰ φόβου x. τρόμου] that is, with such
earnest solicitude, that ye shall have a lively fear of not doing
enough in the matter. Comp. on 1 Cor.u.3; 2 Cor. v.15;
Eph. vi. 5. 4εῖ yap φοβεῖσθαι x. τρέμειν ἐν τῷ ἐργάζεσθαι τὴν
ἰδίαν σωτηρίαν ἕκαστον, μή ποτε ὑποσκελισθεὶς ἐκπέσῃ ταύτης,
Oecumenius. Awe before the presence of God (Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Oecumenius), before the future Judge (Weiss),
the feeling of dependence on God (de Wette), a reverential
devotion to God (Matthies, comp. van Hengel), and similar ideas,
must be implied in the case, but do not constitute the sense of the
expression, in which also, according to the context, we are not
to seek a contrast to spiritual pride (Schinz, Rilliet, Hoelemann,
Wiesinger), as Augustine, Calvin, Bengel, and others have
done. — κατεργάξεσθε] bring about, peragite (Grotius), “ wsque
ad metam” (Bengel), expressing, therefore, more than the
simple verb (comp. Eph. vi. 13; Dem. 1121.19; Plat. Legg.
vii. p. 791 A; Eur. Heracl. 1046: πόλει σωτηρίαν κατεργά-
σασθαι; and see on Rom.i. 26). The swnvmons 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 καινότης ζωῆς. See especially
Rom. vi. 8, 12 ff, and 2 Cor. vi. 1. Our passage stands
in contrast, not to the certitudo salutis, but to the moral
securitas, into which the converted person might relapse, if he
do not stand fast (iv. 1; 1 Cor. x. 12), and labour at his
sanctification (1 Thess. iv. 8, 7; 2 Cor. vii. 1; 1 Tim, 11. 15),

ΘΈΑΙ 11 13, Bhai!

etc. Comp. Wuttke, Sittend. II. ὃ 266. The demand is
expressed all the more carnestly, 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 Θεός is placed first as the subject,
not as the predicate (Hofmann): God is the agent. It is,
however, unnecessary and arbitrary to assume before γάρ (with
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, and others)
an unexpressed thought (“ be not terrified at my having said :
with fear and trembling”). Bengel gratuitously supplies with
Θεός the thought: “ praesens vobis etiam absente me” (comp.
also van Hengel), while others, as Calvin, Beza, Hoelemann,
Rilliet, Wiesinger, who found in μετὰ 08. x. tp. the anti-
thesis of pride (see on ver. 12), see in ver. 13 the motive to
humility ; and de Wette is of opinion that what was expressed
in ver. 12 under the aspect of fear is here expressed under
the aspect of confidence. In accordance with the wnity of the
sense we ought rather to say: that the great moral demand
μετὰ φόβ. κ. tp. τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτ. κατεργάζεσθαι, 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 μετὰ φόβου x. τρόμου is to be made good by
pointing to the fact that they work before God, who'is even
already producing in them the right tendency of will. But
the idea of the ἐνώπιον τοῦ cod was so familiar to the apostle,
that he would doubtless have here also directly expressed it.
Kahler (comp. Weiss) imports a hint of the divine punishment,
of which, however, nothing is contained in the text. So also
Hofmann: with fear in presence of Him who is a devouring
Jive (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 ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας
which is added! The thought is rather “ dulcissima sententia
omnibus pus mentibus,’ Form. Conc. Ὁ. 659.—Calvin (comp.
Calovius) rightly observes on the swhject-matter: “intelligo

112 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

gratiam supernaturalem, quae provenit ex spiritu regenerationis ;
nam quatenus sumus homines, jam in Deo sumus et vivimus
et movemur, verum hic de alio motu disputat Paulus, quam
illo universali.” Augustine has justly (in opposition to the
Pelagian rationalizing interpretation of a mediate working:
“velle operatur suadendo et praemia promittendo”), in con-
formity with the words, urged the efficaciter operari, which
Origen, de Princ. 11. 1, had obliterated, and the Greeks who
followed qualified with synergistic reservations. — ἐν ὑμῖν]
not entra coetum vestrum (Hoelemann), but in animis vestris
(ον απ 65 2 Cor iv 125, Eph. 2; ΘΟ ἘΣ
1 Thess. 11. 15), in which He produces the self-determination.
directed to the κατεργάζεσθαι of their own σωτηρία, and the
activity in carrying out this Christian-moral volition.’ This
activity, the ἐνεργεῖν, 1s the inner moral one, which has the
κατεργάζεσθαι as its consequence, and therefore is not to be
taken as equivalent to the latter (Vulgate, Luther, and others,
including Matthies and Hoelemann). Note, on the contrary,
the climactic selection of the two cognate verbs. The regene-
rate man brings about his own salvation (κατεργάζεται) when
he does not resist the divine working (ἐνεργῶν) of the willing
and the working (ἐνεργεῖν) in his soul, but yields steady obedi-
ence to it in continual conflict with the opposing powers (Eph.
vi. 10 ff.; Gal. v.16; 1 Thess. v. 8, al.) ; so that he περιπατεῖ,
not κατὰ σάρκα, but κατὰ πνεῦμα (Rom. viii. 4), is con-
sequently the child of God, and as child becomes evr (Rom.
viii. 14,17, 23). According, therefore, as the matter is viewed
from the standpoint of the hwman activity, which yields
obedience to the divine working of the θέλειν and ἐνεργεῖν, or
from that of the divine activity, which works the θέλειν and
ἐνεργεῖν, 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 Dews in nobis operatur et operari,” Augus-

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

CHAP. II. 14. PTS

tine. How wholly is it otherwise with the unregenerate in
Rom. vii. !— The repetition by Paul of the same word, ἐνεργῶν

. . TO ἐνεργεῖν, has its ground in the encouraging design which
he has of making God’s agency felt distinctly and emphatically ;
hence, also, he specifies the two elements of all morality, not
merely the ἐνεργεῖν, but also its premiss, the θέλειν, and keeps
them apart by using καί twice: God is the worker in you,
as of the willing, so of the working. From His working
comes man’s working, just as already his willing." — ὑπὲρ τῆς
εὐδοκίας] for the sake of goodwill, in order to satisfy His own
benignant disposition. On the causal ὑπέρ, which is not
secundum, comp. Rom. xv. 8; Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 421; Winer, .
p. 359 [E. T. p. 480]; and on εὐδοκία, which is not, with
Ewald, to be taken in a deterministic sense, comp. i. 15;
Rom. χ. 1. Theodoret aptly says: εὐδοκίαν δὲ τὸ ἀγαθὸν τοῦ
Θεοῦ προσηγόρευσε θέλημα: θέλει δὲ πάντας ἀνθρώπους
σωθῆναι κιτλ. The explanation: “for the sake of the good
pleasure, which He has in such willing and working” (Weiss),
would amount to something self-evident. Hofmann erroneously
makes ὑπὲρ τ. evdox. belong to πάντα ποιεῖτε, and convey the
sense, that they are to do everything for the sake of the divine
good pleasure, about which they must necessarily be concerned,
ete. In opposition to this view, which is connected with the
misunderstanding of the previous words, the fact is decisive,
that τῆς εὐδοκίας only obtains its reference to God through its
belonging to ὁ ἐνεργῶν x.7.r.; but if it be joined with what
follows, this reference must have been marked? and that, on
account of the emphasized position which ὑπ. τ. εὐδοκ. would
have, with emphasis (as possibly by ὑπὲρ τῆς αὐτοῦ εὐδοκίας).

“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. Pers. u. Werk, I. p. 287. Incorrectly, however, the Reformed
theologians add: ‘‘ quae prohiberi 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. Η

114 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

they have to do, 1 Cor. x. 31) willingly and without hesitation,
—an injunction for which, amidst the temptations of the pre-
sent (i. 27-30), there was sufficient cause. — χωρὶς. γογγυσμ.]
without (far removed from) murmuring. The γογγυσμός
(Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 358), that fault already prevalent in
ancient Israel (Ex. xvi. 7 ff.; Num. xiv. 2), is to be con-
ceived as directed against God, namely, on account of what He
imposed upon them both to do and to suffer, as follows from
the context in vv. 13 and 15; hence it is not to be referred
to their fellow-Christians (Calvin, Wiesinger, Schnecken-
burger), or to their superiors (Estius), as Hoelemann also
_ thinks. Comp. on 1 Cor. x. 10.— διαλογισμῶν] not: with-
out disputes (Erasmus, Beza, and many others, including
Schneckenburger), de imperatis cum timperatoribus (Hoelemann,
comp. Estius), or among themselves (Calvin, Wiesinger), and
that wpon irrelevant questions (Grotius), and similar interpreta-
tions, which, although not repugnant to Greek usage generally
(Plut. Mor. p. 180 C; Ecclus. ix. 15, xiii. 35), are at variance
with that.of the N. T. (even 1 Tim. 11. 8), and unsuitable to
the reference of yoyyvou. to God. It means: without hesita-
tion, without your first entering upon scrupulous considerings
as to whether you are under any obligation thereto, whether
it is not too difficult, whether it is prudent, and the like.
Comp. Luke xxiv. 38, and on Rom. xiv. 1; Plat. Ax p. 367 A:
φροντίδες... καὶ διαλογισμοί, Tim. p. 59 C: οὐδὲν ποικίλον
ἔτι διαλογίσασθαι. Ecclus. xl. 2. The Vulgate renders it
rightly, according to the essential sense: “ hacsitationibus.”
The yoyyvopot would presuppose aversion towards God; the
διαλογισμοί, uncertainty in the consciousness of duty.

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

CHAP, II. 15. 115

prehending epexegetically the ¢wo former predicates. Children:
of God (in virtue of the υἱοθεσία that took place in Christ,
Rom. viii. 15, 23; Gal. iv. 5; Eph. 1. 5) they are (Rom.
vill. 16, ix. 8). They are ¢o become such children of God, as
have nothing with which fault can be found ; which in children
of God presupposes the inward moral ἀκεραιότης, since they
are led by the Spirit of God (Rom. vii. 14). This ethical view
of the υἱοθεσία, prominent throughout the N. T., and already
implied in the mode of contemplating Israel as the people of
adoption (Rom. ix. 4) in the O. T. and Apocrypha, necessarily
involves, in virtue of the zdeal character of the relation, the
moral development towards the lofty aim—implies, therefore, in
the being the constant task of the becoming; and hence the
sense of showing themselves is as little to be given, with Hof-
mann, to the γένησθε here as in Matt. x. 16, John xv. 8, e¢ al. ;
comp. also on Gal.iv. 12. ᾿Αμώμητος, qui vituperari non potest,
occurring elsewhere in the N. T. only at 2 Pet. ii. 14 (mot
equivalent to ἄμωμος or ἄμεμπτος), but see Hom. 71. xii. 109 ;
Herod. iii. 82; frequently in the Anthol. Its opposite is:
τέκνα μώμητα, 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 with the state of things arownd. — pécor (see the critical
remarks) is adverbial, in the midst of (Hom. 112, xii. 167; Od.
xiv. 300; Eur. Rhes. 531 (μέσα); LXX. Num. xxxv. 5).—
σκολιᾶς κ. διεστραμμ.] crooked and perverted, a graphic figura-
tive representation of the great moral abnormity of the genera-
tion. Comp. on σκολιός, 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 δίεστρ., Matt. xvii. 17; Deut. xxxii. 20; Polyb. viii.
24. 3, ν. 41. 1, 1. 21. 8; also διάστροφος, Soph. Aj. 442. —
ἐν οἷς} 1.6. among the people of this γενεά; see Buttmann,
Neut. Gr. p. 242 [E. T. p. 282]; Bremi, ad Jsocr. I. p. 213 Ἐν;
Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 49 f.— φαίνεσθε] not imperative (Cyprian,
Pelagius, Ambrosiaster, Theophylact, Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin,
Grotius, and others, including Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, Baum-
garten-Crusius), but the existing relation, which constitutes the
essential distinctive character of the Christian state as con-

116 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

trasted with the non-Christian, Eph. v. 8, al. The aim of the
ἐν ois φαίνεσθε x.7.r. is, by means of an appeal to the true
Christian sense of honour (the consciousness of their high
Christian position towards them that are without), to assist
the attainment of the end in view; this is misunderstood
by Bengel, when he suggests the addition of “ servata hae
admonitione,’ a view in which he is followed by Hofmann.
The meaning is not lucctis (so usually), but (comp. also
Weiss, Schenkel, and J. B. Lightfoot): ye appear,’ come into
view, apparetis (Matt. ii. 7, xxiv. 27; Jas. iv. 14; Rev.
xvii. 23; Hom. Jv. i,.477; xxiv. 785: 188. Od. ii? δ:
707; Hes. Oper. 600; Plat. Rep. p. 517 B; Xen. Hell. iv. 3.
10; Polyb. ix. 15.7; Lucian, D. D. iv. 3; also Xen. Symp. i.
9, Anab. vil. 4.16; hence τὰ φαινόμενα, the heavenly appear-
ances), Lucetis (Vulgate) would be ¢aivere, John i. 5, v. 35;
1 John 11. 8; 2 Pet. i, 19; Rev. i. 16, xxi.-23; 1 Mace ay.
40; Plat. Zim. Ὁ. 39 B; Arist. Nub. 586; Hes. Oper. 528;
Theoc. 11. 11.— ςωστῆρες] light-givers (Rev. xxi. 11), here
a designation, not of torches (Beza, Cornelius a Lapide) or
lamps (Hofmann), which would be too weak for ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ,
and without support of linguistic usage; but, in accordance
with the usage familiar to the apostle in the LXX., Gen. i. 14,
16, of the shining heavenly bodies ; Wisd. xiii. 2 ; Ecclus. xliii,
7; Heliod. 87; Anthol. xv. 17; Constant. Rhod. ep. in Para-
lip. 205.—év κόσμῳ] is to be taken in reference to the
physical world, and closely connected with gwar. As light-
bearers in the world (which shine in the world, by day the sun,
by night the moon and stars), the Christians appear in the
midst of a perverted generation. Comp. Matt. v. 14; also
classical expressions like πάτρας φέγγεα (Anthol. vi. 614, 2),
etc. If φαίνεσθε be rightly interpreted, ἐν κόσμῳ cannot be
joined with it (de Wette, Weiss, who takes κόσμῳ in the
ethical sense), or be supplemented by φαίνονται (Hoelemann,

? So also Homer, Jd. i. 200, which Hofmann compares and brings out for our
passage the sense: ‘* stand in the light proper to them.” Comp., however, 77,
xix. 16, xxii. 28, and lc. ; Duncan, Lex. ed. Rost. p. 1148 f. In the former
passage, i. 200, the sense is: her eyes (Athene’s) appeared terrible. Comp.

Niigelsbach, p. 87, ed. 8. The same sense, according to another explanation, is
found in Faesi.

CHAP. II. 16. E17

Rilliet, van Hengel). It is erroneous, further, to make ἐν
κόσμῳ mean in heaven (Clericus, Rheinwald’), and also
erroneous to attach a pregnant force to ἐν, making it mean
“ within the world,” in contrast to the lights of heaven shining
From above ; thus Hofmann, connecting it with λόγον ζωῆς ἐπέχ.
and bringing out with emphasis something quite self-evident.
On κόσμος without the article, see Winer, p. 117 [E. T. p. 153].
On the whole passage, comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 577: ὑμεῖς ot
φωστῆρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος Kal ἡ σελήνη" TL ποιήσουσι
πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, ἐὰν ὑμεῖς σκοτισθήσεσθε ἐν ἀσεβείᾳ K.TD.
Paul, however, has put φωστῆρες without the article, because
he has conceived it qualitatively.

Ver. 16. Aoyov ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες) a definition giving the
reason for φαίνεσθε ws φωστ. ἐν K.: since ye possess the word of
life. This is the Gospel, ἐπειδὴ τὴν αἰώνιον προξενεῖ ζωήν,
Theodoret. See Rom. 1. 16 ; comp. John vi. 68; Acts v. 20;
it is the divinely efficacious vehicle of the πνεῦμα τῆς ζωῆς
which frees from sin and death (see on Rom. viii. 2), and
therefore not merely “ the word concerning life” (Weiss). Christ
Himself is the essential λόγος τῆς ζωῆς (1 Johni. 1), His
servants are ὀσμὴ ζωῆς eis ζωήν (2 Cor. ii. 16), therefore the
word preached by them must be λόγος ζωῆς in the sense in-
dicated. Paul does not elsewhere use the expression. As to
ζωή without the article, of eternal life in the Messiah’s king-
dom (iv. 3), see Kaeuffer, de ζωῆς al. not. p. 73 f. As pos-
sessors of this word, the Christians appear like φωστῆρες in a
world otherwise dark; without this possession they would not
so present themselves, but would be homogeneous with the
perverted generation, since the essence of the gospel is light
(Eph. v. 8; Col. 1,12; 1° Thess. v. 5; 1 Pet.-ii. 9; Luke
xvi. 8; Acts xxvi. 18, al.), just as Christ Himself is the prin-
cipal light (John i. 4, 5, iii, 19, viii. 12, xii. 35, al.) ; but the
element of the unbelieving γενεά, whose image is the κόσμος
in itself devoid of light, is darkness (2 Cor. iv. 6, vi. 14 ; Eph. v.
8, vi. 12; Col. 1. 13; Johni. 5, iii. 19). ᾿Επέχειν, to possess,”

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

ad Isoc. Paneg. p. 90), did not enter into the Biblical usus loguendi.
* Hofmann erroneously pronounces against this, representing that ἐπέχειν could

118 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

to have in possession, at disposal, and the like; see Herod. i.
104, vii. 35; Xen. Symp. vii. 1; Thue. i. 48. 2, τς 101. 3;
Anth: Pali. wii. 297. 4; Polyb. ti 37.6, 112. 8) veal
Lucian, Necyom. 14. Not: holding fast (Luther, Estius, Bengel,
and others, including Heinrichs, Hoelemann, Baumgarten-
Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, Schneckenburger); nor yet: sus-
tinentes (Calvin), so that the conception is of a light fixed on
a candlestick. Others understand it similarly: holding forth
(Beza, Grotius, and others, including Rheinwald, Matthies,
Wiesinger, Lightfoot), namely, “that those, who have a longing
for life, may let it be the light which shall guide them to life,”
as Hofmann explains more particularly; comp. van Hengel.
This would be linguistically correct (Hom. J/. ix. 489, xxii. 49 ;
Plut. Mor. p. 265 A; Pind. Ol. ii. 98; Poll. iii. 10), but not in
harmony with the image, according to which the suljects them-
selves appear as shining, as se/f-shining. Linguistically incorrect
is Theodoret’s view: τῷ λόγῳ προσέχοντες (attendentes), which
would require the dative of the object (Acts iii. 5; 1 Tim. iv.
16; Ecclus. xxxi. 2); 2 Mace. ix. 25 ; Job xxx. 26; Polyb. ΠΕ
43. 2, xviii. 28. 11). Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact
take ἐπέχ. correctly, but understand λόγον ζωῆς as equivalent
to σπέρμα €. or ἐνέχυρα €., and indicate, as the purpose of the
words : ὅρα, πῶς εὐθέως τίθησι τὰ ἔπαθλα (Chrysostom). This.
view is without sanction from the τἰδι5 loguendi. Linguis-
tically it would in itself be admissible (see the examples in
Wetstein), but at variance with the N. T. mode of expression
and conception, to explain with Michaelis, Storr, Zachariae, and
Flatt: supplying the place of life (in the world otherwise dead),
so that λόγον ἐπέχειν would mean: to hold the relation. Comp.
Syr.—els καύχημα «.7.r.] the result which the γίνεσθαι
ἀμέμπτους κιτιλ. 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 (ὅτι), had not laboured in
only be thus used in the sense of having under one’s control. Compare, in oppo-

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

CHAP. II. Τῷ 119

vain, of which the excellent quality of his Philippian converts
would afford practical evidence, ὅτε τοιοῦτους ὑμᾶς ἐπαΐδευσα,
Theophylact. Comp. 1 Thess. 11.19 f.; 2 Cor.1.14. Thus they
were to be to him on that day a στέφανος καυχήσεως (1 Thess.
lc.). Paul cannot mean a present καυχᾶσθαι in prospect of the
day of Christ (Hofmann), for εἰς καύχημα «.7.d. cannot be the
result accruing for him from the ἐν οἷς φαίνεσθε x.7.d. (since
by it the position of the Christians generally is expressed), but
only the result from the ethical development indicated by ἵνα
γένησθε ἄμεμπτοι «.7.. Hence also dre cannot be a statement
of the reason (Hofmann) ; it is explicative : that. — The twofold’
yet climactic, figurative description of his apostolical exertions
(on ἔδραμ., comp. Gal. ii. 2; Acts xx. 24; on ἐκοπίασα, comp.
1 Cor. xv. 10; Gal. iv. 11), as well as the repetition of ets
xevov (see on Gal. ii. 2; 2 Cor. vi. 1; Polye. Phil. 9), is in
keeping with the emotion of joy, of triumph.

Ver. 17. The connection of ideas is this: What Paul had
said in ver. 16: εἰς καύχημα x.7.d., presupposed, in the first
place, that he himself would live to sce the further develop-
ment described in ver. 15: ἵνα γένησθε ἄμεμπτοι. 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 of I
should be put to death in my vocation dedicated to your faith,”
etc. Van Hengel finds in these words the contrast to the
hope of living to see the Parousia. But this hope is not ex-
pressed in what precedes, since the result eis καύχημα K.7.X.
was conditioned, not by the apostle’s living to see the Parousia,
but only by his living to see the described perfection of his
readers; inasmuch as, even when arisen at the Parousia, he
might glory in what he had lived. to see in the Philippians.
Many others are satisfied with making these words express
merely a climax (in relation to. ἐκοπίασα) (see especially
Heinrichs and Matthies); but this is erroneous, because éxo-
miaca 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 objec-
tion (“at vero imminent tristissima !”) to which Paul replies ;

1Comp. Anthol. Pal. xi. 56. 2: μὴ τρέχε, μὴ κοπία,

120 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

or the explanation of ἀλλά by the intervening thought: “non,
je Wat pas travaillé en vain, mais au contraire,” etc., Rilliet ;
comp. also Erasmus, Paraphr. In a similar but direct way
Hofmann gains for ἀλλά the explanation, but on the contrary, by
connecting it antithetically with the preceding negative clauses
ὅτι οὐκ εἰς κενόν x.7.r., Which, with the right explanation
of the following words, is impossible. According to de Wette
(comp. also Storr and Flatt), ver. 17 connects itself with 1. 26,
so that ἀλλά 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 χαίρω in ver. 17 corresponding so naturally and appositely
with the καύχημα in ver. 16.— εἰ καὶ «.7.d.] if I even (which
I will by no means call in question) should be powred out, ete.
On the concessive sense of εἰ καί (1 Cor. iv. 7; 2 Cor. iv
3, 16, v. 16, vii. 8, al.), see Herm. ad Viger. Ὁ. 832; Klotz,
ad Devar. p. 519. The case supposed is thus rendered more
probable than by the reading of EG, καὶ εἰ (even assuming that
I). Stallbaum, ad Plat. Ap. S. p. 32 A; Gorg. p. 509 A;
Schmalf. Syntax d. Verb. sec. 99 f. The protasis beginning
with ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καί extends to τ. πίστ. ὑμῶν. As in ver. 12,
so also here Hofmann makes the violent assumption that the
apodosis already begins at ἐπὶ τ. θυσίᾳ κιτιλ. with σπένδομαι
again to be supplied, whilst at the same time there is imputed
to this ἐπὶ τ. θυσίᾳ «.7.X., in order to give an appropriate turn
to the assumed antithesis for ἀλλά, a tenor of thought which
the words do not bear ; see below. — σπένδομαι] J become offered
as a libation, poured out as a drink-offermg (2 Tim. iv. 6,
frequently in all classical writers; see also Schleusner, Zhes.
V. p. 19; Suicer, Thes. II. p. 993). The sense stripped of
figure is: if even my blood is shed, if even I should be put to
death Paul represents his apostolic exertions for the faith of
the Philippians as an offering (comp. Rom. xv. 16); if he is
therein put to death, he is, by means of the shedding of his

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

CHAP. II. 17. 121

blood in this sacrifice, made a libation, just as among the Jews
(Num. xxviii. 7, xv. 4 ff; Joseph. Anié. 111. 9.4; see gene-
rally, Ewald, Alterth. p. 46 f.; Saalschiitz, MR. p. 314 f.) in
the sacrifices, together with meat-offerings, libations of wine were
made, which were poured upon the ground from sacred vessels
(σπονδεῖα) at the altar. As to the Hellenic sacrificial libations,
see Hermann, Gottesd. Alterth. § 25,15 f. On the figurative
representation of the shedding of blood as a σπονδή, comp.
Anthol. ix. 184. 6: ξίφος aia τυράννων ἔσπεισεν, Ignatius,
Rom. 2; σπονδισθῆναι Θεῷ ὡς ἔτι θυσιαστήριον ἑτοιμὸν ἐστί.
—The present tense is used, because Paul has strongly in view
his present danger (i. 20 ff.); Kithner,II.1,p.119f Rilliet
(comp. Wetstein) takes the passive erroneously : I am besprinkled
(which also does not correspond with the present tense), making
Paul say, “ que la libation préparatoire du sacrifice a coulé sur
sa téte.” Confusion with κατασπένδεσθαι, Plut. Alex. 50, de
def. orac. 46; Strabo, iv. p. 197; Eur. Or. 1239; Antip. Sid.
73 (Anthol. vii. 27). — ἐπὶ τ. θυσ. x. λειτ. τ. 7. tp.) at the
sacrifice and priestly service of your faith, that is, whilst I present
your faith as a sacrifice and perform priestly service in respect
to it; the sense of this, stripped of the figure, is: whilst J,
by furtherance of your faith in Christ, serve God, as by the
offering and priestly ministration of a sacrifice. τῆς πίστ.
is the object which is conceived as sacrificed and undergoing
priestly ministration; θυσίᾳ and λειτουργίᾳ have one article
in common, and are thereby joined so as to form one concep-
tion. But λειτουργίᾳ (priestly 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, Rom. xv. 16, 27) is added by the apostle as
a more precise definition, because the mere θυσίᾳ would leave it
uncertain whether he was to be considered as a priest, whereas
Paul desires expressly to describe himself as such. θυσίᾳ, 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, vill. 3. 5,1. 36. 12, δ).
The ἐπί, however, is simply to be taken as at, as ini. 3 and

122 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

frequently ; not as to, in addition to (Beza, Raphel, Matthies,
de Wette, Weiss, and many others; comp. also Hofmann), or
with the Vulgate as swpra (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 «. Nevroupy. Finally, although Paul’s official
activity concerned the faith of all his churches, he says ὑμῶν
with the same right of individualizing reference as in Ov ὑμᾶς
ati. 24 and many other passages. The passage is peculiarly
misunderstood by Hofmann, who holds that ἐπί has the sense
in association with; that τῆς πίστεως vu. is the genitive of
apposition to θυσίᾳ and λευτουργ. ; that the sacrificing and
ministering subject is not the apostle, but the Philippian
church, which, when it became believing, had presented its
own sacrifice to God, and has been constantly honowring Him
with its own work of service. Accordingly Paul says that, even
though his labours should end in a violent death, yet the
shedding of his blood would not be an isolated drink-offering, but
would associate itself with their sacrifice. But this would only
make him say, with artificial mysteriousness, something which
is perfectly self-evident (namely : after that ye became believers,
and whilst ye are believers). Moreover, ἐπί would thus be
made to express two very different relations, namely, with 77
θυσίᾳ after, after that, and with the λευτουργίᾳ at, during.
And how could a reader discover from the mere ἐπί .«.7.2.
the alleged antithetical reference of an dsolated drink-offering,
especially as no antithesis of the persons is even indicated
by ὑμῶν being placed first (immediately after ἐπ ὁ The
entire explanation is a forced artificial expedient in conse-
quence of the mistaken assumption that an apodosis begins
after σπένδομαι, and a new section sets in with χαίρω." ---

1 On this mode of libation rests the expression ἐσισσένδειν, to pour a libation
over something (Herod. 11. 39, iv. 60. 62, vii. 167; Aesch. Ag. 1395; Plut.
Rom. 4).

2 In which χαίρω x. σνγχαίρω πᾶσιν ὑμῖν are supposed to serve merely as an in-
troduction for the exhortation which follows ; thus Paul would be made to say,
that even for that supposed case of the σπένδεσθαι he is in a joyful mood, and
he rejoices with any person in the church whose heart is joyful (all this is sup- °
posed to be implied in πᾶσιν ὑμεῖν 1).

CHAP. II. 17. 129

χαίρω] Apodosis down to ὑμῖν: I rejoice, not at the θυσία x.
λειτουργία τῆς πίστ. ὑμ. (Chrysostom, who connects ἐπὶ τ. Ove.
κτλ. With χαίρω; comp. Oecumenius; so also Rillict), for
it is mere arbitrariness to separate the sacrificial expressions
σπένδομαι and ἐπὶ τ. θυσίᾳ x.7.r. and attach them to different
parts of the sentence, and because χαίρω, as the point of the
apodosis, would have been placed before ἐπὶ τ. θυσ. «.7.r.; but
at the σπένδεσθαι: I rejoice to be employed for so sacred a des-
tination. Theophylact appropriately remarks: οὐχ ὡς ὁ ἀπο-
θανούμενος λυποῦμαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ χαίρω... ὅτι σπονδὴ γίνομαι,
and Theodoret: ταῦτα δὲ λέγει ψυχαγωγῶν αὐτοὺς κ. διδάσκων
τοῦ μαρτυρίου τὸ μέγεθος. Comp. Grotius, Heinrichs. The
ground of the apostle’s joy, assumed by many (including Flatt,
Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette): because my death will tend
lo the advantage of the gospel (i. 20), and also the interpretation
of Weiss: that joy at the progress of the Philippians towards
perfection is intended, are both quite gratuitously imported into
the passage. The explanation of it as referring generally to
inward joyfulness of faith (Wiesinger) or divine serenity (Ewald),
does not correspond with the protasis, according to which it
must be joyfulness in the prospect of death. “Even if I am
compelled to die in this sacrificial service, I rejoice therein,”
and that, indeed, now for the case supposed; hence not
future. —kat συγχ. πᾶσιν ὑμῖν] is wrongly explained by most
commentators: “and I rejoice with you all” (so Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Heinrichs, Matthies, van Hengel,
Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Schneckenburger, Weiss,
Hofmann, and many others) ; along with which explanation
Chrysostom, Theophylact, and various of the older expositors,
bring forward another ground for this joint joy than for the
χαίρω (Chrysostom: χαίρω μὲν, ὅτι σπονδή γίνομαι: συγ-
χαίρω δὲ, ὅτι θυσίαν προσενεγκών ; comp. Schneckenburger).
Decisive against this interpretation is the χαίρετε which follows
in ver. 18,—a summons which would be absurd, if ovyy. tp.
meant: “I rejoice with you.” The Vulgate already rightly
renders: congratulor (comp. Jerome, Beza, Castalio, Grotius,
Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Bisping, Ellicott, Light-
foot), I congratulate you all, namely, on the fact that I am

124 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

poured out in the service of your faith. Such a martyrdom,
namely, for the sake of their faith, how it must have elevated and
honoured the readers, their whole church; for such a martyr
death concerned them all! Comp. on Eph. 11. 13; it re-
dounds to their glory, if the apostle sheds his blood on account
of their Christian standing established by him. It is ὧν this
light that Paul wishes his σπένδεσθαι, should it occur, to be
regarded by his readers, and therefore gracefully and in-
geniously represents it (though Hofmann holds this to be
impossible) as something on which he must congratulate them
all. Pauline linguistic usage is not to be urged in objection
to this view (Weiss), as Paul employs συγχαίρω 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 συγχαίρομαι
(3 Macc. i. 8). The active as well as the middle may convey
either meaning, to rejoice along with, or gratulart (Polyb. xxix.
7.04; (xxx. 10. Ἐν Plat. dor. Ὁ. 251. 8} 5 Mace: τ
Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 54.

Ver. 18. And upon the same (upon my possibly occur-
ring σπένδεσθαι ἐπὶ τ. Ovo. «.7.r., ver. 17) rejoice ye also
(because it takes place for the sake of your faith), and con-
gratulate me thereon (on such a sacred destination). The verbs
are inuperatives. “Postulat enim Paulus parem συμπάθειαν a
Philipp.,” Beza. The ground of the χαίρετε may not be arbi-
trarily introduced (Hofmann: whatever untowardness may
occur), but must by logical necessity be the same which, in
ver. 17, suggested the συγχαίρω ὑμῖν; and that of the συγ-
χαίρετέ μοι must be the same as caused Paul to say χαίρω in
ver. 17. The expositors, who do not take συγχαίρειν as
gratulart, are here placed in the awkward position of making
the apostle summon his readers to a joy which, according to
ver. 17, they would already possess. By this impossibility

1 The difficulty which van Hengel (comp. Hofmann) urges, that the readers
‘*vix aut ne vix quidem induci potuerunt de hujus viri morte violenta gaudentes
vel gavisuri,” entirely mistakes the lofty standpoint of the apostle, who looks
death in the face with a holy joy (comp. the frequent corresponding sentiments
in the epistles of Ignatius), and also attributes to his readers a corresponding
mode of looking at the possibility of his death.

CHAP. II. 19. L265

Weiss, in spite of the τὸ αὐτό, 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. — τὸ
αὐτὸ] in the same (on the accusative, comp. Matt. ii. 10)
rejoice ye also; see also oni. 25. Hence it is not to be taken
as equivalent to ὡσαύτως (Beza, Storr, Flatt, Heinrichs, Rhein-
wald, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann) (comp.
on i. 6), in order thereby to avoid identifying it with the joy
mentioned in ver. 17. As to χαίρειν with the accusative in
classical authors, see generally Lobeck, ad Aj. 131; Kiihner,
Tip. 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. — ἐλπίζω δὲ κιτ.λ.1 The progress of thought
attaching itself to ver. 17 (not to ver. 12) is: However
threatening, according to ver. 17 f., and dangerous to life my
situation is, nevertheless I hope soon to send Timothy to you,
etc. He hopes, therefore, for such a change in his situation,
as would enable him soon to spare that most faithful friend
for such a mission. Here also, as in i. 21-26, there is an
immediate change from a presentiment of death to a confidence
of his being preserved in life and even liberated (ver. 24). The
right view of vv. 17, 18 debars us from construing the pro-
gress of the thought thus: jor the enhancement of my joy, how-
ever, etc. (Weiss). Others take different views, as 6.5. Bengel :
although I can write nothing definite regarding the issue of my
case,—an imported parenthetic thought, which is as little
suggested in ver. 17 f. as is the antithetical relation to χαίρετε
kK. συγχαίρ. μοι discovered by Hofmann, viz. that the apostle
is anxious as to whether all is well in the church. — ἐν κυρίῳ]
making the hope causally rest in Christ. Comp. on 1 Cor.
xv. 19.— ὑμῖν] not equivalent to the local πρὸς ὑμᾶς (van
Hengel), nor yet the dative commodi (“vestros in usus,

1 Hofmann’s hypothesis, that the church hdd expressed a desire that the apostle
would send them one who should aid them, with word and deed, in their affairs,
has no hint of it given at all in the text ; least of allin ta κἀγὼ εὐψυχῶ x.7.A.
Why should Paul not have mentioned, in some way or’ another, the wish of the

church ?—Baur and Hinsch find no motive mentioned for the mission of Timothy.
As if the motive of love conveyed by ἵνα κἀγώ x.7.A. were not enough!

126 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

vestra in gaudia,” Hoelemann, comp. de Wette and Hofmann),
whereby too special a sense is introduced; but the dative
of reference (1 Cor. iv. 17; Acts xi. 29), indicating the persons
concerned as those for whom the mission generally is intended.
— κἀγώ] I also, as ye through the accounts! to be received of
me, namely, those which ye shall receive through this epistle,
through Epaphroditus, and through Timothy. — εὐψυχεῖν] to
be of good cowraye, occurs here only in the N. Τὶ See Poll.
11, 135; Joseph. Antt. xi. 6. 9. Comp the εὐψύχει in
epitaphs (like χαῖρε) in Jacobs, ad Anthol. xii. p. 304.— τὰ
περὶ ὑμ.] the things concerning you, quite generally, your cir-
cumstances. Eph. vi. 22; Col. iv. 8. See Heindorf, ad Plat.
Phaed. p. 58 A.

Ver. 20. Reason why TZimothy is the person sent. Hof-
mann erroneously takes it as: the reason why he sends no one
at the time. As if νῦν yap or ἄρτι yap οὐδένα x.7.r. were
written. — ἰσόψυχον] like-nvinded, namely, with me; in what
respect, is stated in the sequel. Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Rilliet,
Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, wrongly interpret it: no one who
would be so minded as he (Rheinwald combines the two
references). As αὐτῷ is not added, the text gives no other
reference for ἴσος (in écoyvy.) than to the subject of ἔχω (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: φίλος ἔσος τῇ
ψυχῇ pov. The word occurs only here in the N. T.; see
LXX. Ps. lv. 14; Aesch. Agam. 1470. Comp. on the subject-
matter, 1 Cor. xvi. 10.— ὅστις «.7.X.] the emphasis is laid on
γνησίως, and ὅστις, quippe qui, ita comparatum ut, introduces
the character of an ἐσόψυχος, such as is not at his disposal. —

'There is a delicate compliment implied in this κἀγώ ; 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 εὐψυχῶ.

CHAP. 11. 21. 127

γνησίως in genuine, sincere fashion, 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.—pepspvjce] namely, when 1 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.
mm. 25; 2 Cor. xi. ‘28.

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

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

aS THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

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

Ver. 22. Contrast, not of the person (which would have run
τὴν δὲ αὐτοῦ Sox. or αὐτοῦ δὲ τὴν Sox.), but of the qualifica-
tion, in order further to recommend him, whom he hopes soon
to be able to send; not to make up for the disadvantage,
that they can in the first instance only hope, etc. (as Hofmann
artificially explains). But the approved character (indoles spec-
tata, comp. Rom. v. 4; 2 Cor. 11. 9, ix. 13) of him ye know;
for Timothy had himself been in Philippi (Acts xvi. 1, 3,
xvii. 14); hence γινώσκ. is not the imperative (Vulgate, Pela-
gius, Castalio, Cornelius a Lapide, Clericus, Rheinwald, Hoele-
mann), — ὅτε «.7.r.] that he, namely, etc. — ὡς πατρὶ τέκνον]
Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 17. The apostle had here ἐδούλευσεν before
his mind, but alters the conception in such a way, that he
thinks upon the service as rendered no longer to him, but with
him, in a humble glance at Christ (ver. 21), whom he himself
also serves, so that the apostle’s servant is at the same time
his σύνδουλος. 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 σύν before πατρί. But, however frequently
the Greeks put the preposition only once in comparisons (see
Bernhardy, p. 204 f.; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 479), its omission does
not occur in the clause placed first. The poetical use of
such an omission in the case of words which are connected by

their activity, even though it be consecrated to the kingdom of God (1), by special
personal aims, instead of devoting themselves ALWAYS ONLY (? οὐ σὰ I. X.) to that
which is MOST ADVANTAGEOUS for the cause of Christ ( οὐ τὰ "I, X.!). Thus there
is imported into the passage what is not at all to be found in it.

CHAP. II. 23-25. 129

kai, τέ, or 7 (Dissen, ad Pind. Nem. x. 38; Lobeck, ad Aj.
397 ff.) does not concern us here. — εἰς] in respect to the gospel
(comp. i. 5), the serving in question having reference to the
preaching, defence, etc., thereof.

Ver. 23. Μὲν οὖν] οὖν resumes ver. 19, and to the μέν
corresponds the δὲ in ver. 24.— ὡς ἂν ἀπίδω «.7.d.] when (of
the tiine, see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 759, that is, as soon as, comp.
on 1 Cor. xi. 34; Rom. xv. 24) I anyhow (by ἄν the matter is
left to experience) shall have seen to the end (Jonah iv. 5). The
latter, which expresses the perceiving from a distance (Herod.
vil. 37; Dem. 1472. 15; Lucian, D. D. vi. 2), denotes the
knowledge of the final course of matters to be expected,—only
after which could it be decided whether or not he could spare the
faithful Timothy for a time. The form ἀφίδω (Lachmann and
Tischendorf) in A B* D* F G καὶ 15, 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 ἰδεῖν
(with the digamma). Comp. on Acts iv. 29, and see Winer,
p. 44 [E. T. p. 48]; J. B. Lightfoot ad loc.; Buttmann, Newt.
Gr. p. 7 [Εἰ T. p. 7]. — τὰ περὶ ἐμέ] the things about me, that is,
the state of my affairs. Substantially not different from τὰ
περὶ ἐμοῦ (ver. 19 f.). See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 20;
Winer, p. 379 [E. T. p. 506].

Ver. 24. Kai αὐτός] also myself personally. What Paul
shall see, therefore, is, as he contidently trusts (not merely
hopes), his liberation (comp. 1. 25 f.); that it will make it pos-
sible for him to come soon.’ The terminus a quo of the ταχέως
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 ταχέως as a relative definition of the time is not
opposed to this view. But that καὶ αὐτός includes also the
case of his coming at the same time with Timothy (Hofmann),
is, according to ver. 19 ff, not to be assumed.

Ver. 25 ἢ About Lpaphroditus ; the sending him home,

1 How could this confidence, which the result did not justify, have been put
by any later author into the apostle’s mouth? Only Paul himself could have
written in such a way as here and ini. 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.— dvaryk. δὲ
ny.| I have, however, judged 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 Rome, see vv. 26, 28.
—’Era¢poditoy] otherwise not further known. The name
(signifying Venustus) was a common one (Tac. Ann. xv. 55;
Suet. Domit. 14; Joseph. Vit. 76; Wetstein zn loc.), also
written ᾿Επαφρόδευτος (Boeckh, Corp. inser. 1811, 2562); but
to regard the man as identical with ᾿Επαφρᾶς (Col. i 7,
iv. 12; Philem. 23) (Grotius, Paulus, and others) is all the
more arbitrary, since Epaphras was a Colossian teacher—The
grouping together of jive predicates which follows, has arisen
out of loving and grateful regard for Epaphroditus, as an
honourable testimony to him in his relation to the apostle as
well as to the church. — ἀδελῴ., συνεργ., συστρατ.] a climactic
threefold description of companionship, advancing from the
most general category, that of Christian brotherhood (ἀδελφός),
to a twofold more special relation. On ovotpar., which sets
forth the joint working (cvvepy.) in relation to the hostile
powers, comp. Philem. 2; 2 Tim. 11. 8. -- ὑμῶν δὲ ἀπόστ. x.
AetToupy. τ. xp. μου.] still belonging to τόν ; hence ὑμῶν, placed
in contrast to the μου, belongs to AevToupy. τ. χ. μ. as well (in
opposition to de Wette and others). ’Azrdcrodos here means
delegate (2 Cor. vill. 23), and not apostle (Vulgate, Hilarius,
Theodoret, Luther, Erasmus, Calovius, Wetstein: “mei muneris
vicarium apud vos,” am Ende, and others), which would necessi-
tate the genitive ὑμῶν being taken as in Rom. xi. 13, against
which the context, by the union with Aevroupy. τ. x. μ., 18
decisive ; as, indeed, Paul uses ἀπόστ. as an official designa-
tion only in the sense of the actual apostolic rank, based
upon a direct call by Christ, in its narrower and wider refer-
ence (comp. on Gal. i. 19; Rom. xvi. 7; 1 Cor. xv. 7), and
hence there is no necessity to seek even an allusion to his
“ quasi”-apostolic position towards the Philippians (Matthies).
—k. λειτουργ. τ. x. μι] the sacrificial minister of my need, ws

CHAP. II. 26, 27. Por

τὰ Tap αὐτῶν ἀποσταλέντα κομίσαντα χρήματα, Theodoret.
By sending aid they had cared for the apostle’s need (iv. 16) ;
and that gift of love being regarded as a sacrifice offered to
God, Epaphroditus, who had been entrusted by them with the
conveying of it, was the λειτουργός 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 τῆς χρείας μ. comp. iv. 16; Rom. xii. 13.—
πέμψαι] as also in Greek authors frequently, in the sense of
dimittere domum, to send home,’ consequently equivalent to
ἀποπέμπειν or ἀναπέμπειν (Philem. 12); Xen. Hell. ii. 7. 9;
Sop. 0. R. 1518; Polyb. v. 100. 10; and frequently in
Homer. See especially Od. xv. 74: χρῆ ξεῖνον παρεόντα
φιλεῖν, ἐθέλοντα δὲ πέμπειν.

Ver. 26. State of mind (ἣν with participle) of Epaphroditus,
which supplied the motive for the ἀναγκ. ἡγησ. «.7.d.2 —The
imperfect is used (ἦν), 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. — ἀδημονῶν) in anaicty. Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 37.—
ὅτι ἠσθ.} that he was sick. How the Philippians received this
information, remains an open question, as also how Epaphro-
ditus learned that they had heard it.

Ver. 27. Confirmation of that ἠκούσατε, ὅτι ἦσθ. — καὶ γὰρ
K.7.r.| for he has also (really, see Hartung, Partikell. I. Ὁ. 132 ;
Baeumlein, p. 150) been sick.—mapamr. θανάτῳ] adds the
specification of the mode: in a way almost equivalent to death.
There is neither an ellipsis (de Wette: ἀφίκετο or some such

1 That Paul, however, here writes πέμψαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, and, cn the other hand,
x. ὑμῖν in ver. 19, is an accidental and undesigned variation. Hofmann thinks
that by +. ὑμῖν is meant the sending of a representative of the apostle to the
Church, and by +. πρὸς ὑμᾶς 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 ὑμῖν and πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 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 from being interpreted to his disadvantage (Hof-
mann), assumes the existence of a certain distrust, for which there is no basis in
the text. Besides, Epaphroditus had in fact accomplished the purpose of his
mission.

192 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

word is to be understood before παραπλ. ; comp. van Hengel)
nor a solecism (van Hengel); παραπὰλ. is adverbial (equi-
valent to παραπλησίως, see Polyb. iv. 40. 10, iii, 33. 17;
Lucian, Cyn. 17; comp. παραπλησιαίτερον, 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 ἴῦ. --- λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην] grief upon grief (super-
added). LXX. Ezra vii. 26; Ps. lxix. 27; Isa. xxviii. 10.
Comp. expressions with the dative (as Ecclus. xxvi. 15) in
classic Greek, e.g. oyyvn ἐπὶ ὄγχνῃ (Hom. Od. vii. 120), ἐσλὰ ἐπ᾽
ἐσλοῖς (Pind. Ol. viii. 84), φόνος ἐπὶ φόνῳ (Eur. Iph. T. 197);
Polyb. i. 57. 1. See also Eur. Hec. 586: λύπη tus adAAn
διάδοχος κακῶν κακοῖς, Soph. El. 235: ἄταν draws, Eur.
Troad. 175: ἐπ᾽ ἄλγεσι 8 adyvvOd. The first λύπην 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 ἢ, i. 15, 17, 30), not over the sickness of Epa-
phroditus (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus,
Estius, and others, also Weiss), to which would be added that
for his death. ᾿Αλυπότερος in ver. 28 is fatal to the latter
view, for it appears that, even after Epaphr. had been sent
away, ἃ λύπη 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 λύπην as “cogitatio anxietatis vestrae.” See, in opposi-
tion, on ver. 28. Calvin’s remark suffices to justify the double
λύπη: “Non jactat Stoicorum ἀπάθειαν, quasi ferreus esset et
immunis ab humanis affectibus.” Comp. John xi. 35 f.—
σχῶ] 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. — πάλιν]
belongs to χαρῆτε, 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 ἰδόντες αὐτόν (Beza, Grotius, and others, also Baumgarten-
Crusius and de Wette).— κἀγὼ ἀλυπότ. ὦ) ᾿Εὰν yap ὑμεῖς
χαρῆτε, καὶ ἐγὼ χαίρω, Oecumenius. He is not ἄλυπος, for he
is in captivity and surrounded by adversaries; but the joy
which he is aware is already prepared for his beloved Philip-
pians by the return of Epaphroditus, lessens his λύπη. This
tender interweaving of his own alleviation with the rejoicing
of his readers is lost, if we refer ἀλύποτ. to the removal of the
vexation of seeing the recovered one so full of longing and so wn-
easy (Hofmann), which, regarded as λύπη, would be sentimental.
According to Weiss, Paul intends to say: still more ἄλυπος,
than I have already become in consequence of Epaphroditus’
recovery. An unsuitable idea, because the comparative neces-
sarily presupposes a certain degree of the λύπη still remaining.
In the consciousness of this Paul has written ἀλυπότ. : if it
had been otherwise, he would perhaps have used, as in ver. 19,
κἀγὼ εὐψυχῶ or κἀγὼ χαίρω.

Ver. 298 Οὖν] Let, then, the reception which he meets
with among you be in accordance with my purpose in accelerat-
ing his return (ia ἰδόντες κιτ.λ.) ; receive him with all joy. —
ἐν κυρίῳ] denotes, as in Rom. xvi. 2, the Christian character of
the προσδέχεσθαι, the nature and action of which have their
distinctive quality in Christ, in whose fellowship Christians live
and move. — peta πάσ. yap.| excludes every kind of sullen or
indifferent temper and expression: “with all joyfulness.” — καὶ
τοὺς τοιούτους K.T.r.] and the people of such a sort, ete. “Iva μὴ
δόξῃ αὐτῷ μόνῳ χαρίζεσθαι, κοινῶς παραινεῖ πάντας τοὺς τὴν
αὐτὴν ἀρετὴν ἐπιδεικνυμένους τιμᾶν, Theophylact. But Epa-
phroditus is im his view, as in the given case, the person
belonging to the class thus to be held in honour.’

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

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

comparative instead of ivrizevs. Besides, the emphasis is not on σοὺς ποιούτους
(Hofmann), but on ἐντίμους, correlative to the preceding μετὰ πάσ. χαρᾶς.

134 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

xv. 38), obvious, namely, that of labour for the gospel; the
addition in the Ree. tod Χριστοῦ is a correct gloss, and it is
this ἔργον κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν (comp. ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος, 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 συνεργός and συστρατιώτης
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, 11. 20) with a similar
activity on the part of the apostle. The interpretation which
refers ἔργον 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 xxvii. (in opposition to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theo-
phylact, comp. Theodoret). — μέχρι Oav. Hyy.| as in Ps. cvii. 18 :
ἤγγισαν ἕως τῶν πυλῶν TOD θανάτου, Ecclus. li. 6: ἕως θανά-
του, Rev. xii. 11. The expression with μέχρι is more definite
than the dative would be (as in Ps. Ixxxviii. 3: ἡ ζωή μου τῷ
ἅδη ἤγγισε), or εἰς θάνατ. (Job xxxiii, 22); he came near even
unto death.— παραβουλ. τῇ ψυχ.] Such is the Teat. Rec., which
Bengel, Matthaei (vehement in opposition to Wetstein and
Griesbach), Rinck, van Hengel, Reiche, and others defend,
and Tischendorf still follows in the 7th ed. Justly, however,
Scaliger, Casaubon, Salmasius, Grotius, Mill, Wetstein, and
others, including Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf,
ed. 8, Rheinwald, Matthies, Rilliet, Winer, Ewald, Weiss,
J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann, and others, have preferred παραβολ.
τ. wv. The latter has the authority of ABDEFGx, 177,
178, 179 in its favour, as well as the support of the Itala by
“ parabolatus est de anima sua,’ and of Vulgate, Aeth., Pelagius,
by “tradens (Ambrosiaster: in interitum tradens) animam
suam.” Since βολεύεσθαι was unknown to the copyists, whilst
βουλεύεσθαι was very current, instead of the one ἅπαξ λεγόμ.
another crept in, the form of which, on account of the pre-
valence of the simple word, had nothing offensive. apa-

CHAP. II. 30. 13D

βολεύεσθαι, which is nowhere certainly preserved (in opposition
to Wetstein’s quotations from the Fathers, see Matthiae, ed.
min. p. 341 f,, and Reiche, Comment. crit. p. 220 f.), is formed
from the very current classical word παράβολος, putting at
stake, venturesome, and is therefore equivalent to παράβολον
εἶναι, to be venturous, to be an adventurer, as περπερεύεσθαι
equivalent to πέρπερον εἶναι (1 Cor. xili. 4), ἀλογεύεσθαι
equivalent to ἄλογον εἶναι (Cic. Att. vi. 4), ἀποσκοπεύειν and
ἐπισκοπεύειν (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 591), κωμικεύεσθαι (Luc.
Philop. 22).. See more such verbs in Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 67,
and comp. generally Kiihner, 1. p. 695, 11. 1, p. 98. Hence
the παραβολευσάμενος x.T.r., Which is to be regarded as a
modal definition to p. Gav. ἤγγισε, means: so that he was ven-
turesome with his sow (dative of the more definite reference),
ie. he hazarded his life, in order to supply, etc. In this sense
παραβάλλεσθαι is current among Greek authors, and that not
merely with accusative of the object (Hom. J/. 1x. 322; so
usually, as in 2 Mace. xiv. 38), but also with dative of reference
(Polyb. ii. 26. 6, iii, 94. 4; Diod. Sic. 111. 35: ἔκριναν παραβαλ-
λέσθαι ταῖς ψυχαῖς), in the sense of ῥιψοκινδυνεῖν (Schol. Thue.
iv. 57) and παραῤῥίπτειν (Soph. fr. 499. Diud.). Comp. παρα-
βάλλομαι τῇ ἐμαυτοῦ κεφαλῇ in Phryn. ed. Lob. p. 238. Hence,
also, the name parabolani for those who waited on the sick
(Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. 2, p. 173, ed. 4). Taking the read-
ing of the Zeat. Rec., παραβουλεύεσθαι would have to be
explained: male consulere vitae (Luther aptly renders: since
he thought light of his life). See especially Reiche. This
verb, also, does not occur in profane Greek authors; but for
instances from the Fathers, especially Chrysostom, and that in
the sense specified, see Matthiae, l.c.; Hase in Steph. Thes.
VI. p. 220.— να ἀναπὰλ. x.7.r.] The object, to attain which
he hazarded his life. We have to notice (1) that ὑμῶν
belongs to ὑστέρημα; and (2) that τῆς πρός με λειτουργ. can
denote nothing else but the function,—well known and defined

1 The matter is conceived as staking a price or forfeit. Comp. παραβόλιον in
Poll. viii. 63, Phrynich. p. 238. On the subject-matter comp. also προΐεσθαι ras
ψυχάς (Pausanias, iv. 10. 3); the animae magnae prodigus of Horace (Od.
i. 12. 37) ; and the vitam profundere pro patria of Cicero (de Off. 1. 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 (πρός we). All explana-
tions are therefore to be rejected, which either expressly or
insensibly connect ὑμῶν with λευτουργ., and take the latter
in the general sense of rendering service (διακονεῖν). We must
reject, consequently, Chrysostom’s explanation (comp. Theo-
phylact, Theodoret, Pelagius, Castalio, Vatablus, and others) :
TO οὖν ὑστέρημα τῆς ὑμετέρας λειτουργίας ἀνεπλήρωσεν"...
ὅπερ ἐχρῆν πάντας ποιῆσαι, τοῦτο ἔπραξεν αὐτός .' also the
similar view taken by Erasmus and many others (comp.
Grotius, Estius, Heinrichs, Rheinwald, van Hengel, Rillet) :
“ quo videlicet pensaret id, quod ob absentiam vestro erga me
officio videbatur deesse;” the arbitrary explanation of Matthies:
“in order that he might perfect the readiness of service which
you have shown on various occasions ;” and several other inter-
pretations. Hoelemann, also, in opposition to the simple
literal sense, takes τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρ. as defectus cui subvenistis,
and τῆς πρός με λειτουργ. as: rerum necessariarum ad me sub-
ministrando deferendarum. No; of the two genitives, referring
to different things (comp. ver. 25, and see Winer, p. 180
[ΕΒ T. p. 2391), by which τὸ ὑστέρημα is accompanied, the first
conveys who were wanting (ὑμῶν, ye were wanting, ye your-
selves were not there, comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 17), and the second
to what this want applied. Consequently the passage is to be
explained: in order to compensate for the circwmstance, that ye
have been wanting at the sacrificial service touching me; that is,
for the circumstance, that this sacrificial service, which has been
made through your love-gifts in my support, was completed, not
jointly by you, but without you, so that only your messenger
Epaphroditus was here, and not ye yourselves in person.
How delicate and winning, and at the same time how enlist-

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

CHAP. 11. 30. fon

ing their grateful sympathy in the fate of Epaphroditus, was
it to represent the absence of the Philippians as something
that had been lacking in that λειτουργία, and therefore, as
something which Paul had missed, to supply which, as repre-
sentative of the church, the man had (as his deadly sickness
had actually shown) hazarded his life! He did not there-
fore contract the illness on his journey to Rome (de Wette,
Weiss, and older expositors), as Hofmann thinks, who repre-
sents him as arriving there in the hot season of the year; but
through his exertions διὰ τὸ ἔργον 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 ἀναπὰλ. τὸ ὑμ. ὑστέρ., comp.-1 Cor. xvi. 17. The com-
pound verb is appropriately explained by Erasmus: “ accessione
implere, quod plenitudini perfectae deerat.” See on Gal. vi. 2.
—It was a foolish blunder of Baur to hold the entire passage
respecting Timothy and Epaphroditus as merely an imitation of
2 Cor. vii. 23 f. 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 imcumbent on
the readers,—which would be un-Pauline; iv. 10 is far from
favouring this idea.

138 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

CHAPTER 11k

Ver. 3. Instead of Θεοῦ Elz. has Θεῷ, against decisive testi-
mony, although again defended by Reiche. A clumsy emenda-
tion in order to complete the rAurp. — Ver. 6. ζῆλον] Lachm. and
Tisch. read ζῆλος, following A B D* FG &*. A copyist’s error ;
comp. the exeg. remarks on 2 Cor. ix. 2.— Ver. 8. Instead of
μὲν ow Elz. and Tisch. 8 have μενοῦνγε, which, although supported
by A P 8, is opposed by very preponderating testimony. — The
second «iva: is wanting in B D* F Ge*, 17, Arm. Vulg. It.
_ Lucif., et al. Suspected by Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and
Tisch. 8. But how readily may it, otherwise superfluous, have
been left out before the similar #a!— Ver. 10. The second
σήν is wanting in A Bs*; omitted by Lachm.; overlooked as
unnecessary.—Instead of συμμορφιζόμενος (80 Lachm. and Tisch.),
which Griesb. approves, Elz. and Scholz have συμμορφούμενος.
But the former has in its favour A B D* P &*, min. Or. ms.
Bas. Macar., as also συνφορτιζόμενος in F G It. Lucif. Ir. The
Recepta substitutes an analogous form more familiar. — Ver. 11.
σῶν vexp.| A BD E P 8, min., and many vss. and Fathers, have
σὴν ἐκ vexp., Which is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by
Scholz, Lachm., and Tisch. But Paul always uses ἀνάστασις with
merely the genitive τῶν νεκρῶν, or only vexp. The ἐκ was written
on the margin here to explain the word éavaor., which does
not occur elsewhere in the Ν, T., and subsequently the erroneous
insertion of this ἐκ after τῶν (so still F G) produced the read-
ing τὴν ἐκ vexp. — Ver. 12. The Χριστοῦ alone (Elz. gives τοῦ X.
᾿Ιησοῦ) has preponderant evidence. — Ver. 14. ἐπί] Lachm. and
Tisch. read εἰς, following A Bx, min. Clem. Aeth. Rightly;
ἐπί is explanatory. — Ver. 16. After στοιχεῖν, Elz., Scholz have
κανόνι, τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν, Which is wanting in A B s*, min. Copt.
Sahid. Aeth. Hilar. Aug., οὐ al. There are, besides, several
variations, and differences in the arrangement of the words. The
Recepta has arisen from glosses (following Gal. vi. 16; Phil.
ii. 2), and has far too little homogeneousness in a critical point
of view, to enable it to be defended on the ground of homoio-
teleuton (so Matth. and Rinck).— Ver. 21. After ἡμῶν, Elz.
has εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτό, which (although defended by Matth.) is
omitted by decisive authorities. An ancient supplement, —

CHAP. III. 1. 139

ἑαυτῷ] Following ABD* FG K P s*, min. Eus. Theophyl, αὐτῷ
is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be read; ἑαυτῷ is a more precise
definition.

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

Ver. 1. Τὸ λοιπόν] introduces what is std to be done by
the readers in addition to what has been hitherto communi-
cated; see on Eph. vi. 10. Hence it is of frequent occurrence
towards the close of the epistles, as bringing in a further
request, exhortation, etc. Comp. iv. 8; 2 Cor. xu 11;
1 Thess. iv. 1; 2 Thess. iii, 1. To the closing address thus
introduced, but at once abandoned again in ver. 2, Paul would
have attached his giving of thanks for the aid sent to him
(comp. iv. 8, 10 ff). This is contrary to the view of Schinz
and van Hengel, who, from the fact that Paul has not yet
expressed his thanks, conclude that he did not at this point
desire to proceed to the closing of the letter. We need not
search for a connection with what precedes (Chrysostom: ἔχετε
᾿Επαφρόδιτον, δι’ dv ἠλγεῖτε, ἔχετε Τιμόθεον, ἔρχομαι κἀγώ, τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον ἐπιδίδωσι" τί ὑμῖν λείπει λουπόν ; comp. Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Erasmus, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Michaelis,
and others). The preceding topic is closed, and the exhorta-
tion beginning with τὸ Xow. which now follows stands by
itself; so that we are not even justified in saying that Paul
here passes from the particular to the general (Schinz,
Matthies), but must simply assume that he is proceeding to
the conclusion, which he desired to commence with this general
encouragement. — χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ] is a summons to Christian
joyfulness, which is not κατὰ κόσμον (see Chrysostom), but
has its ground in Christ, and is thereby specifically defined,
inasmuch as Christ-—through the Holy Spirit—rules in the
believing heart; hence the χαρὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου (1 Thess.

140 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

i. 6) or ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (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 ἐν κυρίῳ
we are not to seek for a new special element, preparing the
way for the transition to the explanations which follow
(Weiss, Hofmann); for Paul could not in what went before
mean any other joy, either on his own part (i. 18) or on the
part of his readers (ii. 17 ἢ, 28), and in other passages also
he does not add to χαίρετε the self-evident definition ἐν
κυρίῳ (2 Cor. ΧΗ]. 11; 1 Thess. v. 16). Another joy in
the Christian life he knew not at all.— ta αὐτὰ γράφειν]
“ Hic incipit de pseudo-apostolis agere,” Calvin. After yaip.
ἐν x. there is a pause; Paul breaks of: τὰ αὐτά has been
erroneously referred to χαίρ. ἐν x., and in that case the retro-
spective reference which Paul had in view is either not
explained at all (Bengel, Zachariae), or is believed to be found
in 11. 18 (van Hengel, Wiesinger), or in i. 27 f. (Matthies,
Rilliet), or in 1. 27-11. 16 (Storr). This view is at variance,
not indeed with the plural ta αὐτά (see, on the contrary,
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 19 Ὁ: Miatzner, ad Antiph. p.
153; Kiihner 11. 1, p. 60), but with the facts, first, that there is
no express summons whatever to Christian joyfulness generally,
given in the previous portion of the epistle (not even in il.
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 ἀσφαλές, in accordance with its idea (without
danger), points not to the repetition of a summons of this kind,
but to a warning, such as follows immediately in the context.’
The accusation of poverty of thought (Baur) is therefore all the
more groundless here. And as the altogether vague refer-
ence of Theodoret and Erasmus (Annotat.) to the nwmerous

1 The expedient to which Wiesinger has recourse is gratuitously introduced,
when he connects the χαίρετε ἐν x. more closely with the warning that follows by
imagining that, in χαίρ. ἐν x., he detects already the idea on which the sequel is
based, namely the στήκετε ἐν κυρίῳ, 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, τὰ αὐτά cannot be inter-
preted as applicable to anything but the subsequent warning
against the false teachers. This warning, however, has not
occurred previously, either at i. 15 f,, or indirectly in 1. 27, as
Liinemann thinks, or in i. 27—ii.-18, as Ewald assumes.
Hence many have caught at the explanation: “eadem
repetere, quae praesens dixeram” (Pelagius, Theodore of Mop-
suestia, so also Erasmus, Paraphr., Calvin, Beza, Balduin,
Estius, Calovius, Wolf, Schrader, and others; de Wette unde-
eldedly). But this quae praesens dixeram is quite gratuitously
imported; it must at least have been indicated by τὰ αὐτὰ
καὶ yp. vp. or in some other way. The same objection applies
against Wieseler (Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 458 f.), who
takes ta αὐτά as contrasted with the oral communications,
which would be made to the readers by Epaphroditus and
especially by Zimothy. 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 carlier epistle to the Philippians *
which is not preserved, and that he here repeats the same.
So Aegidius Hunnius, Haenlein, Bertholdt, Flatt, Kohler, in
the Annal. d. ges. Theol. 1834, III. 1, p. 18 ἃ; 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. — ὀκνηρόν] irksome, matter of scruple
(Dem. 777. 5; Theocr. xxiv. 35; Pind. Nem. xi. 28; Herodian
vi. 9,7; Soph. 0. 1. 834), comp. οὐκ ὀκνητέον, Polyb. i. 14.
7, also Plat. Hp. 11. 310 D: τἀληθῆ λέγειν οὔτε ὀκνήσω οὔτε
aicxvvodpat, — ἀσφαλές] safe, so that ye will the more firmly
rely thereon for the determination of your conduct. Comp.
Acts xxv. 26; Heb. vi. 19; Wisd. vii. 23; Plat. Rep. 450 E;
Phacd. p. 100 DE; Dem. 372. 2, 1460.15. Hofmann,
1 Comp. also Credner, Hinl. I. p. 338.

142 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

without any precedent of usage, assigns to ὀκνηρόν the sense
of indolent cowardice, and takes ἀσφαλές as prudent, which
linguistically is admissible (Heind. ad Plat. Soph. p. 231 <A),
but would be unsuitable to the ὑμῖν. The apostle wishes to
say, that the repetition is for himself not irksome (ὄκνος,
haesitatio), and is for his readers an ἀσφαλὲς τεκμήριον (Eur.
Ehes. 94.) to be attended to.

Nort.—This exegetical result, that, previously to our epistle,
Paul had already written another to the Philippians; is confirmed
by Polycarp,? who, ad Phil. 3, says: rod μακαρίου x. ἐνδόξου
Παύλου, ὃς γενόμενος ἐν ὑμῖν κατὰ πρόσωπον τῶν τότε ἀνθρώπων ἐδίδαξεν
ἀκριβῶς x. βεβαίως τὸν περὶ ἀληθείας λόγον, ὃς καὶ ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν
ἐπιστολὰς, εἰς ἅς ἐὰν ἐγκύπτητε, δυνήσεσθε οἰκοδομεῖσθαι x.7.A. [Ὁ 15
true that the plur. in this passage (ἐπιστολὰς, εἰς ἅς) is usually
explained as referring to one epistle (see Cotelerius in Joc. ; and
Fabricius, Cod. Apoer. II. p. 914 f.; Hilgenfeld, Apost. Vater, Ὁ.
210; J.B. Lightfoot, p. 138 f.), just as it is well known that
also in profane authors ἑσιστολαί (comp. literae) is used of one
despatch (Thue. i. 132. 6, viii. 39. 2), sometimes generally in a
generic sense as plural of the category, and sometimes specially
of commissions and orders. See Schaefer, Plut. VI. p. 446;
Blomf. and Stanl. ad Aesch. Prom. 3; Rettig, Quaest. Phil. I.
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
1x. 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 ἐπιστολή, 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, ili. 18.

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

-

CHAP. III. 1. Ἡ {510

cuishes between the singular and plural. See ch. xiii: τὰς
ἐπιστολὰς ᾿Ιγνατίου τὰς πεμφθείσας ἡμῖν im αὑτοῦ καὶ ἄλλας ὅσας
εἴχομεν παρ᾿ ἡμῖν, ἐπέμψαμεν ὑμῖν, καθὼς ἑνετείλιασθε" αἵτινες ὑποτεταγ-
μέναι εἰσὶ τῇ ᾿πιστολῇ ταύτῃ. In order to prove that Polycarp
in ch. ui. did not mean more than one epistle to the Philippians,
an appeal has been made to ch. xi., where, in the Latin ver-
sion, which alone has been preserved, it is said: “Ego autem
nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi, in quibus laboravit beatus
Paulus, qui estis (non-genuine addition: lJaudati) in principio
epistolae ejus ; de vobis enim gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis,
quze Deum solae tune cognoverant, nos autem nondum nove-
ramus.” But epistolae ejus cannot here be the epistle to the
Philippians, for the idea: “ye are in the beginning of his
epistle,’ would be simply absurd; epistolae is, on the contrary,
the nominative plural, and the sense is: “Ye are originally his
epistles,’ that is, his letters of recommendation, in which phrase
allusion is made to 2 Cor. ii. 1 ff! The correctness of this
explanation, which Wieseler has substantially adopted, is cor-
roborated by the sequel: de vobis enim gloriatur, etc.—It is,
moreover, ὦ 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. 1ff., but errs in taking
epistolae as the genitive ; he makes this epistle to be the whole of the Christians
gathered by Paul, and thus represents Polycarp as declaring, in reference to the
Philippian church, that i stands first in this epistle, because it is reckoned among
his earliest acquisitions. According to this interpretation, a vast aggregate of
churches would be depicted as one epistle, in which one church would stand
written first, and others after it, each therefore being marked by name in the
order of its date. What a different picture this would yield from that presented
in 2 Cor. iii., and one, too, delineated singularly enough! And how unsuitable
would such a precedence, as to time, be for the church at Philippi! By how
long a period had the establishment of all the churches of Asia preceded it!
Hofmann’s-objection to our view, viz. that the present estis would be unsuit-
able, does not apply, since Polycarp realizes the state of matters as it stood with
the church in principio (ἐν ἀρχῇ, i.e. in the earliest times of the gospel), as present ;
hence also he subsequently says gloriatur (not gloriabatur). The conception is
this : Paul in all the churches of that early Christian age boasts of the excellent
Philippian church, and so this church serves him as so many letters of recom-
mendation, which by his gloriari he communicates, and as it were reads before,
those other churches.

144 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

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

Ver. 2. This is now the τὰ αὐτά which he had previously
written, and probably in the very same words. At least this
seems to be indicated by the peculiar expressions in them-
selves; and not only so, but it serves also to explain the rela-
tion of contrast, which this vehement “ fervor pii zeli” (Calvin)
presents to the tender and cordial tone of our epistle. That
lost epistle had probably expressed the apostle’s mind at
length, and with all the warmth of controversy, for the
warning of his readers as to the Judaizing false teachers. How
entirely different is the tone in which, in the present epistle,
he speaks G. 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 τὰ αὐτά to the χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ, labour in
very different ways to establish a connection of thought with
βλέπετε x.T.r.; 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 ὁ con-
trario, on what the true Christian joy was, and on what it was |
not, based. — βλέπετε] not: be on your guard against, ete.
(which would be 6X. ἀπό, Mark viii. 15, xii. 38), but asa
calling attention to: behold! (1 Cor. 1. 26, x. 18), with a view,
however, to warn the readers against these men as_ per-
nicious, by pointing to the forbidding shape in which they
present themselves. — τοὺς κύνας} 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. 171. viii. 289; Od. xvil.
248; Anth. Pal. ix. 302), snappishness (Pollux, On. v. 65),
low vulearity (Lucian, Wigr. 22), malice and cunning (Jacobs,
ad Anthol. VI. p. 18), and the like, see generally Wetstein ;
used also among the Jews in similar special references (Isa.
lvi. 10 f.; Deut. xxiii. 18; Rev. xxii. 15, οἱ al.), and, because

CHAP. IIL. 2. 145

dogs were unclean animals, generally to denote the profane,
impure, unholy (Matt. vii. 6; Ps. xxii. 17; Rev. xxii. 15;
Schoettgen, Hor. I. p. 1145); hence the Gentiles were so desig-
nated (see on Matt. xv. 26). In this passage also the profane
nature and demeanour of the false teachers, as contrasted
with the holy character of true Christianity, is to be adhered
to as the point of comparison (Chrysostom: οὐκέτι τέκνα
Ιουδαῖοι... ὥσπερ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ
ἀλλότριοι ἦσαν, οὕτω καὶ οὗτοι γεγόνασι νῦν). Any more special
reference of the term—as to shamelessness (Chrysostom and
many others, including Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald),
covetousness (both combined by Grotius), snappishness (Rilliet,
and older expositors, following Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and
Pelagius), envy, and the lke; or to the disorderly wandering
about in selfishness and animosity towards those who were
living peaceably in their Christian calling (Hofmann), to which
Lange fancifully adds a loud howling against Paul—is not
furnished by the context, which, on the contrary, follows it up
with yet another general designation, subjoining, namely, to that
of the low, unholy character (κύνας) that of the evil working :
τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτ. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 13. The opposite: 2 Tim.
ii, 15; Xen. Mem. i. 2.57. ᾿ἘΕργάζονται μέν, φησιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ
κακῷ, Kal ἀργίας πολλῷ χεῖρον ἔργον, ἀνασπῶντες TA καλῶς
κείμενα, Chrysostom ; comp. ΤΠθοαογθῦ, Oecumenius, Theophy-
lact. They, in fact, labowred in opposition to the fundamental
doctrine of justification by faith. — τὴν κατατομήν] the cutting
in pieces (Theophr. H. pl. iv. 8.12), a word formed after the
analogy of περιτομή, and, like the latter in ver. 3, used in a
concrete sense : those who are cut in pieces! A bitter parono-
masia, because these men were circumcised merely as regards
ihe body, and placed their confidence in this fleshly circum-
cision, but were wanting in the inner, spiritual circumcision,
which that of the body typified (see ver. 3; Rom. ii. 28 ἢ;
Col 11.11; Eph. u.11; Acts vii.51). Comp. Gal.v.11f. In
the absence of this, their characteristic consisted simply in the
bodily mutilation, and that, from the ideal point of view which
Paul here occupies, was not cirewmcision, but concision ; whilst,
on the other hand, czvcumcision, as respected its moral idea, was
PHIL, : K

146 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

entirely independent of the corporeal operation, ver. 3. Comp.
Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 459, ed. 2. This qualitative distinction
between περίτ. and xatat. has been misunderstood by Baur,
who takes the climax as quantitative, and hence sees in it a
warped and unnatural antithesis, which is only concocted to
give the apostle an opportunity of speaking of his own person.
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact justly lay stress on
the abolition of the legal cirewmeision as such brought about
through Christ (the end of the law, Rom. x. 4),—a presup-
position which gives to this antinomistic sarcasm its warrant.’
A description of zdolatry, with allusion to Lev. xxi. 5, 1 Kings.
xviii. 28, e¢ al. (Storr, Flatt, J. B. Lightfoot; comp. Beza), is
quite foreign to the context. It is erroneous also to discover here
any indication of a cutting off of hearts from the faith (Luther's
gloss), or a cutting in pieces of the church (Theodoret, Calvin,
Beza, Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, Michaelis, Zachariae, and
others), against which the necessary (comp. ver. 3) passive sig-
nification of the word (not cutters in pieces, but cut in pieces) is
decisive-—The thrice repeated βλέπετε belongs simply to the
ἐπιμονὴ of earnest emotion (Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 315;
Buttmann, Weut. Gr. Ὁ. 341 [E. T. 8987), so that it points to
the same dangerous men, and does not, as van Hengel miscon-
ceives, denote three different classes of Jewish opponents, viz.
the apostate, the heretical, and the directly inimical. The
passage quoted by him from Philostr., Vit. Soph. ii. 1, does not
bear upon the point, because in it the three repetitions of
ἔβλεψε are divided by μὲν... δέ. Weiss also refers the three
designations to three different categories, namely: (1) the
unconverted heathen, with their immoral life; (2) the self-
seeking Christian teachers, 1. 15-17; and (3) the wnbelieving

1 Luther’s works abound in sarcastic paronomasiae. Thus, for instance, in
the preface to his works, instead of Decret and WDecretal, he has written
** Drecket” and ‘* Drecketal”’ [Germ. Dreck = dregs, filth]; the Legenden he
calls Liigenden, the Jurisperitos he terms Jurisperditos ; also in proper names,
such as Schwenkfeld, whom he called ‘‘ Stenkfeld.” In ancient authors, comp.
what Diog. L. vi. 2, 4 relates of Diogenes: στὴν Εὐκλείδου σχολὴν ἔλεγε χολήν,
σὴν δὲ Πλάτωνος διατριβήν κατατριβήν. Thuc. vi. 76. 4: οὐκ ἀξυνετωτέρου, κακοξυ-
verwrépov δέ. See also Ast, ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 276; Jacobs, Delect. epigr.
p. 188. For the Latin, see Kiihner, ad Cic. Tusc. p. 291, ed. 3.

CHAP. III. 8. 147

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

Ver. 3. Justification of the preceding τ. κατατομήν ; 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. — ἡμεῖς] with emphasis: we,

148 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

not they. The κατατομή being not the unconverted Jews, but
Christian Judaizers, the contrasted ἡμεῖς 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 ἡμεῖς are the
᾿Ισραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ of Gal. vi. 15 ἢ, 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 1s with the article, does not befit; in iii. 17 the context
stands otherwise. — 7) περιτομή] If this predicate belongs to ws,
not to those men, then, in regard to the point of circumcision,
nothing remains for the latter but the predicate κατατομή !
As the ἡμεῖς, among whom the readers also were included,
were for the most part wnceircwmeised (Gal. 11. 9, iii.; Eph.
ii. 11), it is clear that Paul here takes περυτομή purely in
the antitypical spiritual sense, according to which the cir-
cumcised are those who, since the reception of baptism, are
regencrated by the Holy Spirit, and therefore members of the
true people of God; the investiture with their new moral
condition is typically prefigured by the legal bodily περιτομή
of the Jewish theocracy. Comp. Rom. 11. 29, iv. 10 f.; Eph.
1. 11; Col. 11. 11 ; Acts vii. 51. Whether the bodily circum-
cision was presciit 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. 11. 28, v. 6. Comp. the further
amplification of the thought in Barnab. Hp. 9.— οὗ πνεύματι
Θεοῦ «.7.r.] We who serve through the Spirit of God, in con-
trast to the external, legal λατρεία (Rom. ix. 4).1 Comp. Heb.
ix. 10,14; Rom. xii. 1 f. With this λατρεία, wrought by
the Holy Spirit, there takes place on the part of man
(comp. Rom. i. 9), but in virtue of that very working of the
Holy Spirit, the worship which is required in John iv. 24.

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

2 If we adopt the reading πνεύματι Oca, πνεύματι must be understood as in Rom.
1.9, See Reiche, Comment. crit. Ὁ. 229 ff.

CHAP. III. 4. 149

The article οἱ extends also to the two participles which follow ;
and the arthrous participles (quippe qui colimus, etc.) contain
the experimental proof that the ἡμεῖς are the περιτομή. The
dative πνεύματι 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 znstrwmental, expressing the inward agent (Rom.
v. 5, viii. 14 Ε΄, οὐ al.) : vi spiritus divint (Rom. viii. 13, e¢ al.).
On the absolute λατρεύειν, to render divine worship, comp. Luke
mg ©; Acts xxvi. 7; Heb. ix. 9, x. 2; Rom. ix. 4; 3 Esdr.
iv. 54.— καυχώμ. ἐν Χ. ᾽11 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 jleshly, 1... 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: καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες, with which the disposi-
tion of mind contrary to the καυχᾶσθαι ἐν X. ᾽1. (from which
disposition the καυχᾶσθαι, opposed to that Christian καυχᾶσθαι,
of itself results) is negatived; so that this contrast is pregnant,
belonging, however, by way of antithesis, to the second state-
ment, and not containing a separate third one (Hofmann).
If x. οὐκ ἐν o. mem. were merely a more precise definition of
purport added to καυχ. ἐν X. ’I. (Weiss), it must have been
added without καί As to οὐκ in the passage, referring to
concrete persons and a definite fact, and negativing not merely
the ἐν σαρκί (Hofmann), but the actual position ἐν o. πεποιθ,,
see Winer, p. 451 f. [ἢ T. 609]; Baeumlein, Partik. p.
276 f.

Ver. 4. By the οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθ., 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. 8, and the real object against which
the whole conflict with it was ultimately directed. Hence, by
the words οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθ. he by no means intends to
concede that he is destitute of that πεποίθησις 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. 6.27 So no one might say
that he was despising what he himself did not posscss. — The
classical καίπερ with the participle (only used here by Paul;
and elsewhere in the N. T. only in Heb. v. 8, e¢ al.; 2 Pet.
1. 12), adds to the adversative sentence a limiting concessive
clause (Baeumlein, Partiz. Ὁ. 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 (ἐγώ) ὃ
If, following the Homeric usage, he had separated the two
particles, he would have written: καὶ ἐγώ περ.; if he had
expressed himself negatively, he would have said: οὐδέπερ ἐγώ
οὐκ ἔχων. --- The confidence also in flesh, 1.6. in such circum-
stances as belong to the sphere of the materially human, is in
ἔχων (comp. 2 Cor. 111. 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 πεποίθησις, his
possession of which he in the first instance urges, is not fiduciae
argumentum (Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and others, includ-
ing Flatt, Hoelemann, and Weiss); nor is the possession of it
to be viewed as something which he might have (Storr, Rilliet,
Matthies, Ewald); nor is it to be referred to the pre-Christian
period of the apostle’s life (van Hengel). The latter is also the
view of Hofmann, who holds ἔχων (and then διώκων also) as the
imperfect participle, and gives to the whole passage the involved
misinterpretation : that καίπερ introduces a protasis, the apodosis

' καὶ ἐν σαρκί, namely, in addition to the higher Christian relations, on which
I place my confidence.

? Only a comma is to be placed after πεποιθότες in ver. 3; but after ἐν σαρκί in
ver. 4 a full stop; and after ἄμεμσσος in ver. 6 another full stop. So also
Lachmann and Tischendorf. In opposition to Hofmann’s confusing construction
of the sentence, see below.

3 Comp. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 246. 8.

CHAP. III. 5, 6. Lal

of which follows with ἀλλά 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 ἀλλά of the apodosis is used indeed after καίτοι
(with finite tense; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. Ὁ. 68 E; Parm.
p. 128 C), but not after the common καίπερ with parti-
ciple, attaching itself to a governing verb; secondly, because
καί before ἐν σαρκί means nothing else than also, which does
not suit the imterpretation of Hofmann, who desires to force
upon it the here inappropriate sense, and that idecd ; thirdly,
because the present δοκεῖ presupposes the present sense for
ἔχων also; and lastly, because with ἐγὼ μᾶλλον the present (in
accordance with the preceding δοκεῖ), 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 ! — Tus... ἄλλος] quite generally : any other person,
but the intended application to the above-mentioned Judaizers
was obvious to the reader. See the sequel. The separation
by δοκεῖ lays all the stronger stress on the tis. — δοκεῖ] not:
“thinks to be able to confide” (de Wette and many others) ;
nor yet: “si quis alius videtwr” (Vulgate), since it is a matter
depending not upon the judgment of others, but upon his
own fancy, according to the connection. Hence: if any one
allows himself to think, if he presumes. Just in the same
way, as in the passage parallel also in substance, Matt. 111. 9.
Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 16.— ἐγὼ μᾶλλον] se. δοκῶ πεπ. ἐν σαρκί,
I for my part presume it still more. This mode of expression
implies a certain boldness, defiance ; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 21.

Vv. 5, 6. Predicates of the ἐγώ, by which that ἐγὼ μᾶλλον
is justified—_If those Judaizers were, as may be inferred from
our passage, partly proselytes (to these the περιτ. ὀκταήμ. stands
in contrast), partly persons whose Jewish descent was not so
noble and pure as that implied in ἐκ γένους... . (Ε βραίων, and
if they could not boast of any such Jlaw-strictness, zealous
activity, and righteousness, as is described in κατὰ νόμον...
ἄμεμπτος ; and if, on the other hand, there were found con-

152 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

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

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

CHAP. III. δ, 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. — κατὰ νόμον x.7.r.] After his
Jewish εὐγένεια there now follows his distinguished personal
position in Judaism, set forth in a threefold climactic grada-
tion: (1) In respect of the law (of Moses) a Pharisee. Comp.
Acts xxvi. 5, xxii. 6. The Pharisees stood in the closest and
strictest relation to the law, as they with their traditions
were regarded as the most orthodox expositors, defenders, and
observers of it. The interpretation of νόμον, not in its habitual
historic sense, but generally as regular rule (Beza) or dis-
ciplina (αἵρεσις) (Castalio, Wolf, Grotius, Storr, Heinrichs,
Rheinwald, Hoelemann, and others), is all the more erroneous,
since the validity of the Mosaic law in Christianity was the very
principle upheld by those Judaizers; see also below, δικαίοσ.
τ. ἐν vouw. (2) In respect of zeal (zealous maintenance and
championship of the law-religion, 1 Macc. ii. 58 ; Acts xxi. 20;
Gal. i. 14), a persecutor of the church. Comp. Gal. i. 13 f.
The present participle is used as a substantive, comp. on Gal. 1.
23. What Paul, to his deep grief, had been (1 Cor. xv. 8 f.;
1 Tim. i. 13), he, with a bitter recalling of his former dis-
tinction in Judaism, throws, by way of confronting the Jewish
zealots, into the scale, as a characteristic predicate not yet
extinct. And precisely thus, unaccompanied by any ποτέ 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). (9) Jn respect
to righteousness, which is grounded on the law, having become
blameless (11. 15), having carried it so far (not: having borne
myself so, as Hofmann renders it; comp. on li. 15), that
human judgment finds nothing in me to blame in this respect!
That which is here denoted by dix. ἡ ἐν νόμῳ is not substan-
tially different from δικ. ἡ ἐκ νόμου in ver. 9; comp. Rom.
x. 5. It has its basis im the law, so far as it consists in the
accordance of its nature with the character and the rules of
that institute (Gal. 111. 11, v. 4), and proceeds from the law,
so far as it is produced by the precepts of the latter which
man follows. In opposition to the correlation with ver. 9

154 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

de Wette interprets: “the righteousness valid in the state
of law (comp. Rom. 11. 12).” Calvin appropriately observes
that Paul means “ totam justitiam legis,” but “ communi homi-
num existimatione ;” that it is not, therefore, the real moral
Sulfilment of the law, but its justitia eaterna literalis. Comp.
J. Miller, v. d. Stinde, I. p. 59, ed. 5.

Ver. 7. Now, with the antithetic ἀλλά, the apostle comes
again to his real standpoint, far transcending any πεποιθέναι
ἐν σαρκί, and says: No! everything that was gain to me, ete.
— ἅτινα] quaecunque, the category of the matters specified in
vv. 5 and 6... The emphasis is to be placed on this word;
comp. ταῦτα subsequently. — ἦν μοι κέρδη) μοι is not the
dative of opinion (Erasmus, Beza, and many others, including
Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette, Hof-
mann; comp. van Hengel, who takes κέρδη as lucra opinata) ;
but such things were to the apostle in his pre-Christian state
really gain (κατὰ σάρκα). 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; ἃ career rich in gain
was opened up to him. The plural κέρδη denotes the various
advantages dependent on such things as have been mentioned.
Frequently used also in the classical writers. — ταῦτα]
emphatically: these very things. — διὰ tov X.] for the sake of
Christ, who had become the highest interest of my life. Paul
explains himself more particularly in vv. 8, 9, explanations
which are not to be here anticipated. — ζημίαν] as harm, that
is, as disadvantageous (the contrast to κέρδος ; comp. Plat. de
lucrt cup. p. 226 EH, 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. Cone. p. 708; Calvin on ver. 8.
This one disadvantage he has seen in everything of which he

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

CHAP. IL, 8, tab

is speaking; hence the plural is no& again used here as pre-
viously in κέρδη. The ἥγημαι (perfect), however, has occurred,
and is an accomplished fact since his conversion, to which the
apostle here glances back. On ἡγεῖσθαι ζημίαν, comp. Sturz,
Lex. Xen. Il. p. 454; Lucian, Leviph. 24; on the relation of
the singular to the plural κέρδη, Eur. Cycl. 311: πολλοῖσι
κέρδη πονηρὰ ζημίαν jperato.

Ver. 8. Αλλά is the climactic but, still, much more, giving a
corrective reference of the sense, signifying that with the pre-
vious ἅτινα... ζημίαν there has not yet been enough said.
Comp. on 2 Cor. vii. 11. In the μὲν οὖν it is implied, that
= μὲν rem praesentem confirmet, οὖν autem conclusionem ex
rebus ita comparatis conficiat,’ Klotz, ad Devar. Ὁ. 663.
Hence ἀλλὰ μὲν ody: at quidem igitur. The καί before ἡγοῦ-
μαι (after ἀλλὰ μ. οὖν) serves also to help the climactic sense,
outbidding what has been said previously: e¢iam, 1.6. adeo. It
is consequently to be explained: but, accordingly, I am even of
opinion that everything (not merely what was meant by ἅτινα
in ver. 7) is a disadvantage. It is clear, withal, from the
following διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον «.7.r. that πάντα is meant indeed
without restriction, of all things, goods, honours, etc. (comp.
also Hofmann), but in so far as they are not made subordinate to
the knowledge of Christ. The explanation of others, according
to which ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν is intended to oppose the present ἡγοῦ-
μαι by way of correction to the perfect ἥγημαι (Calvin and
others, including Winer, p. 412 [E. T. 552], and the ex-
planation hitherto given by me), is incorrect, because ἥγημαι,
and not the aorist ἡγησάμην, was employed previously, and the
perfect already involves the continuance of the opinion in the
present, so that no contrast of the tenses would logically be
elicited. The climactic contrast lies rather in the fact that the
second ἡγεῖσθαι ζημίαν is a much more comprehensive one than
the first, in fact, one without exception (πάντα). ---- διὰ τὸ
ὑπερέχον K.T.r.] on account of the surpassingness of the knowledge
of Christ ; that is, because this knowledge, to which I have
attained, is a possession which excels in value everything else;
the eminent quality of a possession attained is the grownd (διά)
for estimating other possessions according to their relation to

. 156 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

that one, and consequently, if they stand to the latter in a rela-
tion hindersome to us, for looking upon them no longer as some-
thing advantageous, but as hurtful. As to the neuter adjective
used as a substantive with the genitive, in order to the more
prominent setting forth of the attribute, see Bernhardy, p.
155 f.; Winer, p. 220 [E. T. 294]. — Xpucrés ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ κυριός
pov; this is the fundamental swm of the whole contents of
Christian knowledge. This saving knowledge is the necessary
intelligence of faith (comp. on John viii. 32), and grows with
the experience of faith (ver. 10; Eph. in. 16 ff).— δύ ὅν] for
the sake of whom, 1.6. for the sake of possessing Him ; comp.
afterwards ἵνα Χριστὸν... αὐτῷ. --- τὰ πάντα) the whole, not
general like πάντα previously (Hofmann), but: which I
possessed, vv. 5—T7. This more precise definition by the article
results from ἐζημιώθην, in connection with which the aorist
is to be noted, by which Paul denotes that great historical
turning-point in his life, the event of his conversion ; through
that event he has lost all his (pre-Christian) valued possessions,’
and thenceforth he has them no more. Luther erroneously
interprets: “considered as harm ;” and the emotion and force
of the expression are only weakened by the frequently given
reflexive sense (see Beza, Calvin, Heinrichs, Flatt, Hoelemann,
van Hengel, and many): J have made myself lose—a meaning,
besides, which cannot be shown to belong to the passive form
of the aorist of this verb (not even in Luke ix. 25). The future
passive form ζημιωθήσομαι (see Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 9.
12, Thue. iii. 40. 2) is invariably damno afficiar. — καὶ ἡγοῦμαι
κτλ] 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 δι’ ὃν «.7.A.;
hence δι’ ὃν τ. 7. ἐζημ. is not, with van Hengel, to be put in a
parenthesis. Paul had become loser of all these things for
Christ’s sake, and he holds them as not worthy of possession,

1 Observe here, also, the shrewdly contrived correspondence of ζημίαν in ver.
7 ἴ., and ἐζημιώθην in ver. 8, in which the former expresses the idea of damnum,
detrimentum, and the latter: I have become loser of. It might be reproduced
in Latin: ‘‘ etiam censeo omnia detrimentum (i.e. detrimentosa) esse. . . propter

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

CHAP. III. 9. 157

but as rubbish! oxvBarov,' refuse (such as sweepings, dung,
husks, and the like) ; Ecclus. xxvii. 4; Plut. Wor. 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. Comp.
the similar figurative expressions περικάθαρμα and περιψήμα,
1 Cor. iv. 13. — ἵνα X. κερδ.] The design in the ἡγοῦμαι σκύβ.
εἶναι : in order to gain Christ, not the aim of τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώ-
θην (Hofmann), there being no reason for such a retrospective
reference. The gaining of Christ, 1.6. 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 κέρδη
which he has Jost, and so he looked to this gain in his ἡγοῦμαι
σκύβαλα εἶναι; 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. 11. 17; 2 Cor.
xiii. 3); nevertheless, this κερδαίνειν is from its nature a
development, the completion of which still lies before him.
Comp. ver. 12 ff.

Ver. 9. Καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ] and to be found in Him. The
emphasis, which previously lay upon Χριστόν, is laid not upon
ἐν αὐτῷ (Hofmann), but upon the εὑρεθῶ placed first for that
reason, and introducing a new feature of the relation aimed
at, annexing to the (subjective) gaining of Christ the (objec-
tive) moulding of life corresponding to it. The apostle desires
to be fownd in Christ, as in the element of his life; by this he
means (comp. Ignatius, Lph. 11) the whole perceptible mani-
festation of his Christian being and nature; so that evp. must
neither be limited to the judicitum Dei (Beza, comp. Flatt),
nor taken as sim (Grotius and others). Calvin erroneously
makes εὑρεθῶ active: Paulum renuntiasse omnibus quae
habebat, τ recwperaret in Christo. — μὴ ἔχων x.7.r.] Specific
modal definition to εὗρ. ἐν αὐτῷ: so that J, in accordance with
this design, may not have, etc. Van Hengel erroneously
connects (Lachmann, also, and Tischendorf have omitted the
comma after αὐτῷ) μὴ ἔχων «.7.r. immediately with εὗρ. ἐν
αὐτῷ et deprehendar in communione ejus non meam qualem-

? Not to be derived from τοῖς κυσὶ βάλλειν, quod canibus projicitur, but from
σκῶρ (σκάς). See Lobeck, Pathol. p. 92.

158 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

cunque habere probitatem. Thus, indeed, ἐν αὐτῷ would be
utterly superfluous! The subjective negation μή flows from
the conception of design (iva), see Baeumlein, Partik. p. 295;
Buttmann, Newt. Gr. Ὁ. 302 [E. T. 351]; and ἔχων is the
simple habens, possessing, not: holding fast (am Ende, Rhein-
wald, Baumgarten-Crusius).— ἐμὴν Six. τὴν ἐκ νόμου] See on
ver. 6; comp. Rom. x. ὃ. It is the righteousness acquired as
a self-achievement (ἐμήν), which proceeds from the law by
means of a justifying compliance with it (Rom. ii.13). As
to the nature of this righteousness, and the impossibility of
attaining it, comp. Gal. 1. 16, ii. 10; Rom. ii. 19 f, iv. 4,
vii. 7 ff, ix. 31, et al. —tHv διὰ πίστ. Χριστοῦ] contrast to
ἐμήν : that procured by faith in Christ’ (as the causa appre-
hendens). The causa efficiens is God (His grace, see Eph. ii. 8) ;
hence, for the complete exhaustion of the matter, τὴν ἐκ Θεοῦ
dux. is added, in which ἐκ Θεοῦ, correlative to the preceding
ἐκ νόμου, expresses the causal issuing from God. As to the
way in which this ἐκ Θεοῦ takes place, namely, by God’s
imputing faith as righteousness,” see Rom. i. 17, i. 24 f,
iv. 3 ff; 2 Cor. v.19; Gal. iii. 6.— ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει] on the
ground of faith (Acts ii. 16), added at the end with solemn
emphasis, and dependent on ἔχων, which is again to be sup-
plied after ἀλλά. So also Weiss. The repetition of ἔχων
after ἐπὶ τ. πίστει, which Hofmann feels the want of in this
explanation, would be simply superfluous and clumsy. ᾿Επὶ τ.
στ. is usually attached to δικαιοσύνην (“ justitiam superstructam
fidei,’ Hoelemann, Wiesinger), some having taken ἐπί as “ in °
fide” (Vulgate, Calvin), or im fide sitam (Castalio) ; others as
“ner fidem” (Beza, Grotius); others, for the sake of faith (de
Wette) ; others, wpon the condition of faith (Storr, Flatt,
Matthies, Rilliet, van Hengel, J. B. Lightfoot). But it may
be urged against this connection, first, that, im accordance with
the previous definitions, we could not but expect the repeti-

1 On the genitive of the object with rier, comp. i. 27. Against taking it as
the genitive auctoris, see on Rom. 111, 22.

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

CHAP. III. 10. 159

tion of the article; secondly, that δικαιοῦσθαι with ἐπί nowhere
occurs in the N. T.; and lastly, that δικαιοσύνη in its quality
as righteousness of faith was already distinctly designated by
τὴν διὰ πίστ. X., so that the same attribute of it would be
expressed ¢wice, and, on the other hand, the ἔχων which is
to be repeated after ἀλλά (the basis of which is still ἐπὶ τ.
π᾿ would be without any more precise definition. In oppo-
sition to Hofmann, who makes ἐπὶ τ. πίστει belong to the
following infinitive clause, see on ver. 10.

Ver. 10. Telic definition of the relation expressed by μὴ
ἔχων x.7.d. in ver. 9. Paul has not the righteousness of the
law, but the righteousness of faith, in order to know, etc. This
knowledge would fail him if, on the contrary, instead of the
righteousness of faith, he had that of the law. So he reverts
to a more detailed illustration of τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως X.,
ver. 8, expressing, in the first place, again generally the great
personal contents of the knowledge accruing from the righteous-
ness of faith (τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτόν), and next, more particularly,
the most important—especially to the apostle in his position
infinitely important—matters which were its objects (τὴν δύνα-
pw «.7.r.), developing them from his own richest experience,
which had thus brought home to his deepest consciousness the
ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως X. The τοῦ γνῶναι might also be con-
ceived as dependent on εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ (Wiesinger, Schnecken-
burger, Schenkel); but the more precise definition of this
εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ by μὴ ἔχων «.7.r. is so important, earnest, and
solemn, that it most naturally carries with it also the state-
ment of aim which follows. Chrysostom joins ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει
to ver. 10: τί δέ ἐστὶν ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτόν; ἄρα
διὰ πίστεως ἡ γνῶσις, καὶ πίστεως ἄνευ γνῶναι αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔστι.
So also Theodoret and Erasmus, and recently Hofmann (comp.
also his Schrifibew. I. p. 618), who, in doing so, takes ἐπί in
and by itself correctly as on the ground of faith. But such
cases of emphatic prefixing, while they are certainly found
with ἵνα (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 ἵνα, but in such infinitive
clauses only between article and infinitive; hence Paul would

160 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

have written τοῦ ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει γνῶναι. Comp. Rom. viii. 12;
1 Cor. xvi. 4. Hofmann improperly appeals, not any longer
indeed to Rey. 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
τοῦ yv. is meant to depend on τῇ πίστει; “describit vim et
naturam fider, quod scilicet sit Christi cognitio” (Calvin). But
πίστις is never joined with the genitive of the infinitive with
the article ; and, besides, not the nature, but the object of
the faith (ver. 9) would be denoted by the genitive (Col.
ii, 12; 2 Thess. ii. 13, et al.). Nor is τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτόν to be
regarded as parallel with ἵνα X. κερδήσω x. εὑρ. ἐν αὐτῷ
(Estius, Storr, Heinrichs, and others, including Rheinwald,
Hoelemann, Hilliet, 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 ἡγοῦμαι σκύ-
Bada εἶναι; and since in ἵνα Χριστὸν Kepd. κ. εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ
two elements are given, a subjective and an objective one, so
that thus there would be presented no parallel corresponding
with the subjective τοῦ γνῶναι x.t.X. Moreover, Paul is in the
habit of introducing two parallel clauses of design with a
double ἵνα (Rom. vii. 13; Gal. iii 14; 2 Cor. ix. 3). — The
γνῶναι, 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 eapertus non fuerit, non dntelliget,’ Anselm), as is plain
from τὴν δύναμιν «.7.r. Comp.1 Cor. ii. 8, vill. 2; Gal. iv. 9,
et al. ; frequently so used in John. See also Weiss, bib]. Theol.
Ῥ. 421, ed. 2.--- καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἀναστ. αὐτοῦ καὶ τ.
κοινων. τ. παθ. αὐτ. and (that is, and especially) the power of
His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings. The
δύναμ. τ. ἀναστ. αὐτ. is not the power by which He has been
raised (Vatablus, Grotius; comp. Matthies), which would be
quite unsuitable to the context, but the power which the resur-
rection of Christ has, its vis et efficacia in respect to believers.
The special point that Paul has in view, is supplied by the
context through what is said immediately before of the

CHAP. III. 10. 161

righteousness of faith, to which τοῦ γνῶναι «7.2. refers. He
means the powerful guarantee of justification and salvation which
the resurrection of Christ affords to believers; see Rom. iv. 25,
v.10; 1 Cor. xv. 17; Acts xiii. 37, 38. This power of the
resurrection is experienced, not by him that is righteous
through the law, but by him that is righteous through faith,
to whom the resurrection of the Lord brings the constant
energetic certainty of his reconciliation procured by Jesus’
death and the completion of eternal life (Rom. vi. 11;
1 Cor. vi. 14; Col. iii. 1 ff; Phil. iii..21). Comp. also Rom.
viii. 34, where this δύναμις τῆς ἀναστ. is triumphant in the
apostle. As a matter of course, this power, in virtue of which
the resurrection of Christ, according to 1 Cor. xv. 17, Rom.
iv. 25, might be described as “complementum redemtionis”
(Calvin), is already in regeneration experimentally known,
as is Christ generally (αὐτόν) ; but Paul speaks from the con-
sciousness that every element of the regenerate life, which
has τὴν ἐκ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει, is an ever new
perception of this power. The view which understands it of
the moral power of awakening (Beza and others, also van
Hengel; comp. Rilliet), according to Rom. vi. 4, Col. 11. 12,
or the living power of victory, which les 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, Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, Schenkel;
substantially also Hofmann),—does not accord either with the
words themselves (for so understood it would be the power of
the risen Christ, not the power of His resurrection), or with the
following x. τὴν κοινωνίαν τῶν παθημ. αὐτοῦ, which, in a
logical point of view (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10-12), must either
have gone before, or have been expressed by ἐν τῇ κοι-
vovia κτλ. 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 δύναμις, with-
out, however, being exclusively meant. By the series ser-
PHIL. 1)

1602 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

monis Bengel (comp. Samuel Crell) has allowed himself to be
misled into explaining ἀνάστασις, not of the resurrection at
all, but of the exortus or adventus of the Messiah. Refer-
ences of various kinds are mixed up by Rheinwald, Flatt,
Schinz, Usteri, and others. —xat τὴν κοινων. τῶν παθημ.
αὐτοῦ] In these words Paul intends to express—and he does
so by the repetition of the article with a certain solemnity
—a second, highly valuable relation, conditioned by the first,
to the experimental knowledge of which the possession of the
righteousness of faith was destined to lead him, namely, the
fellowship of the sufferings of Christ, in which he sees a high
proof of divine grace and distinction (i. 29, 11. 17 £.). Comp.
Col. i 24. Suffering for the sake of Christ’s cause is a
participation in Christ's sufferings (a συμπάσχειν, Rom. viii.
17), because, as respects the characteristic kind and way of
suffering, one suffers the same that Christ suffered (accord-
ing to the ethical category, drinks of the same cup which
Christ drank, Matt. xx. 22). Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 13, and see
on 2 Cor. 1. 5, Col. 1. 24; also on τὴν νέκρωσιν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ,
2 Cor. iv. 10. The explanation which makes it: suffering
with such a disposition of mind as He suffered (as sted-
fastly, etc.), given by Flatt and others, is imported from a
rationalistic point of view; and the view which takes it in
the sense of: the believing appropriation of the merit of Christ
(Calovius, Rheinwald, and others), is opposed to the words, and
at variance with the habitual conception of a real συμπάσχειν
with Christ, under which the sufferings of Christian martyrs were
regarded. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, have already
in substance the correct view. Observe, moreover, that Paul
has not written τὴν δύναμιν τῆς κοινωνίας «.7.r. (Hoelemann :
“vim ac pondus;” de Wette: “all that this fellowship in-
volves;” comp. Corn. a Lapide: “dulcedinem ac sanctita-
tem”); the γνῶναι, on the contrary, relates to the matter
itself, to the knowledge of which only those righteous by faith
can attain, whilst to those righteous by the law it remains an
unknown element; the subjectivity for it is wanting to the
latter, though the objective suffering is present. It was other-
wise with the previous element; for the resurrection of Christ

CHAP. III, 11. 163

in itself—the fact as such—is known also by him who is
righteous through the law, but not so its δύναμις, of which
only the righteous through faith is aware. The knowledge of
this δύναμις, in virtue of which he experiences in the resur-
rection of Christ the abiding divinely effectual guarantee of
his justification and eternal life, makes him capable also of
recognising in his sufferings for the sake of the gospel a
fellowship in the sufferings of Christ; the latter knowledge
is conditioned by the former; he would not have it without
the former, because he would be driven to look upon his
faith as vain and idle, and upon himself, so far as he suffers,
as ἐλεεινότερον πάντων ἀνθρώπων (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. — συμμορφι-
ζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ) denotes the corresponding situation
(comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10), in which Paul was conscious that he
should know, as one righteous by faith, the κοινωνίαν τῶν παθ.
Χριστοῦ: inasmuch as I am made like to His death ; for his
position then was such that he saw himself threatened with
martyrdom, consequently (comp. 11. 17) his state of suffering
developed itself into similarity to the death of Christ. This
present state of development of the being made lke 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 παθημότων to the definite θανάτῳ. And the sense:
“non detrectando mortem ejus morti similem” (Vatablus ; comp.
Matthies and de Wette) is imported into the words, which by
Grotius, van Hengel, Rilliet, Schneckenburger, and others, are
interpreted quite in opposition to the context, as referring
to the ethical dying to the world, its lusts, etc. (Rom. vi.;
Gal. 11.19). The nominative συμμορῴ., which is to be ex-
plained as dependent, not in a clumsily complicated fashion on
εὑρεθῶ (Grotius, Hoelemann, Hofmann, and others), but on τοῦ
γνῶναι «.T.r., refers to its logical subject. See Eph. iv. 2.
Ver. 11. Εἴ πως] if possibly, designating the aim, the attain-

164 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

ment of which is before the apostle’s mind in the συμμορφιζό-
μενος τῷ Gay. αὐτοῦ. In this case, however, the deliberative
form of expression (comp. Rom. 1. 10, xi. 14; Kihner, IL. 2,
p. 1054) bears the impress, not of doubt that he will attain to
the resurrection of the dead (in case, namely, he should not live
to see the Parousia), but of humility under the conception of
the greatness of the bliss, and of the moral condition to which, on
man’s part, it is subject; od θαῤῥῶ yap, φησιν, οὔπω: οὕτως
ἐταπεινοφρόνει, ὅπερ ἀλλαχοῦ réyer’ ὁ δοκῶν ἑστάναι, βλεπέτω
μὴ πέσῃ, Theophylact : comp. Chrysostom. ‘This suffices also
in opposition to Baur’s doubt (Paulus, IL. p. 79 f.) whether
Paul could have expressed himself in this way at all. The
expression excludes moral secwrity, but not the certitudo
salutis in itself, as, following Estius and other Catholic ex-
positors, Bisping still thinks. The certainty of salvation is
founded on God’s decree, calling (Rom. vii. 29 f.), promise,
and attestation by the Spirit (Rom. vill. 10), in faith on
the saving facts of redemption (Rom. vill. 32 ff.). Comp.
Calovius.—The reader could not feel any doubt as to what
ἐξανάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν Paul means, namely, the first, in which
οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ (1 Cor. xv. 23) shall
arise.’ Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 16. It is the resurrection of the
dead κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, not different from the ἀνάστασις τῶν δικαίων.
See on Luke xiv. 14. Nevertheless, we must not find this
resurrection denoted by the double compound ἐξανάστ., the
ἐξ in it conveying the idea ἐκ τῆς γῆς εἰς τὸν ἀέρα (Theophy-
lact). This εξ is simply to be explained by the conception
ἐκ τῆς γῆς, so that neither in the substantial meaning nor even
in style (Bengel: “Paulinus enim stylus Christo adscribit
ἀνάστασιν, ἐξανάστασιν Christianis”) is ἐξανάστ. to be dis-

1 It is incorrect to ascribe to the apestle the idea that none but believers will
rise at the resurrection, and that unbelievers will remain in Hades (Weiss). The
resurrection of ali, as Christ Himself unquestionably taught it (see on John
y. 28 f. ; Luke xiv. 14), is also in Paul’s view the necessary premiss of the judg-
ment of all, of believers and also of unbelievers (of the κόσμος, Rom. iii. 6; 1 Cor.
vi. 2, xi. 82). That view, moreover, is at variance with the apestle’s distinct
declaration in Acts xxiv. 15, comp. xvii. 31. Gerlach properly declares himself
(Letzte Dinge, p. 147 ff.) opposed to Weiss, but still limits the final judgment,
at p. 101 ff., as regards the persons subjected to it, in a way that is exegetically
altogether unjustifiable.

CHAP, III. 12. 165

tinguished from ἀνάστ.; 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, 1. 35.4; Gen. vii 4.
Compl. We may add, that while it has been explained, at
variance with the context, as referring to the ethical resurrec-
tion, Rom. vi. 4 f. (Flacius, Balduin, Coccejus, and others ;
comp. Schrader), it is also erroneous to find in it the sense:
“if perchance J should remain alive until the resurrection of the
dead” (van Hengel, Hilgenfeld); since, on the contrary,
essentially the same meaning is expressed as in Luke xx. 94
by οἱ καταξιωθέντες... τῆς ἀναστάσεως, and it is conceived
as a possible case (comp. i. 20 ff., 11. 17) that Paul-will not
remain alive until the Parousia.' καταντ. εἰς (comp. Eph.
iv. 13) denotes the attaining to a goal (frequently in Polybius,
see Schweighiiuser, Lex. Ὁ. 332; see also the passages from the
LXX. and Apocr. in Schleusner, III. p. 254 1), which, how-
ever, is here not a point of time, but a bliss which is to be
attained. Comp. Acts xxvi. 7.

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

Ver. 12. Οὐχ ὅτι] By this I do not mean to say that, ete.
See on 2 Cor. 1. 24, iii. 5; John vi. 46. Aken, Lehre v.
Temp. uw. Mod. p. 91 ff. He might encounter such a miscon-
ception on the part of his opponents; but “in summo fervore
sobrietatem spiritualem non dimittit apostolus,” Bengel. — ἤδη
ἔλαβον) that I have already grasped it. The object is not
named by Paul, but left to be understood of itself from the

1 This also applies against the view of Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 233, who has
altogether misunderstood vy. 11 and 12.

166 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

context. The latter represents a prize-runner, who at the goal of
the σταδιοδρομία grasps the βραβεῖον (ver. 14). This βραβεῖον
typifies the bliss of the Messiah’s kingdom (comp. 1 Cor. ix.
24; 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8), which therefore, and that as βραβεῖον,
is here to be conceived as the object, the attainment of which is
denied to have already taken place. And accordingly, ἔλαβον
is to be explained of the having attained in 2dea/ anticipation,
in which the individual is as sure and certain of the future
attainment of the βραβεῖον, 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 ἦγ loc.). The reference to the βραβεῖον (so
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Bengel, Hein-
richs, Rilliet, and others) is not proleptic;* on the contrary,
it is suggested by the idea of the race just introduced in ver.
12, and is prepared for by the preceding καταντήσω εἰς τὴν
ἐξανάστασιν τ. νεκρ., in which the Messianic σωτηρία makes
its appearance, and the grasping of the βραβεῖον is realized ;
hence it is so accordant with the context that all other refer-
ences are excluded. Accordingly, we must neither supply
metam generally (Beza, comp. Ewald); nor τὴν ἀνάστασιν
(Rheinwald) ; nor tov Χριστόν (Theodoret ; comp. Weiss) ; nor
moral perfection (Hoelemann, following Ambrosiaster and
others); nor the right of resurrection (Grotius); nor even
“the knowledge of Christ which appropriates, imitates, and
strives to follow Him” (de Wette ; comp. Ambrosiaster, Calvin,
Vatablus, van Hengel, Wiesinger) ; nor yet the καταντῶν of ver.
11 (Matthies). — ἢ ἤδη τετελείωμαι] or—in crder to express
without a figure that which had been figuratively denoted by
ἤδη EhaBov—were already perfected. For only the ethically
perfected Christian, who has entirely become and is (observe
the perfect) what he was intended to become and he, would

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

? This being perfected is not the result of the ἔλαβον (Wiesinger, Weiss), but
the moral condition of him who can Βα ἔλαβον. Note that # is used, and not
καί ; καί might have been taken as annexing the result.

-

CHAP. III. 12. 167

be able to say with truth that he had already grasped the
βραβεῖον, however infallibly certain might be to him, looking
at his inward moral frame of life, the future σωτηρία. He
who is not yet perfect has still always to rwn after it; see the
sequel. The words ἢ ἤδη δεδικαίωμαι, introduced in consider-
able authorities before 7, form a correct gloss, when under-
stood in an ethical sense. For instances of τελειοῦσθαι---- ὙΠ] ἢ
is not, with Hofmann, to be here taken in the indefinite
generality of being ready—in the sense of spiritual perfection
(comp. Heb. i. 10, v. 9, xii. 23), see Ast, Lex. Plat. 1ΤῚ Ὁ.
369; comp. Philo, Alley. p. 74 C, where the βραβεῖα are
adjudged to the soul, when it is perfected. To be at the goal
(Hammond, Wolf, Loesner, Heinrichs, Flatt, Rilliet, and
others), is a sense, which veveA. 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 τέλειοι
in ver. 15 is correlative with τετελείωμαι. ---- διώκω δέ] but 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 δέ has the force
of an ἀλλά in the sense of on the other hand; Baeumlein,
Partik. p. 95, and comp. on Eph. iv. 15. We must under-
stand τὸ βραβεῖον as object to διώκω, just as in the case of ἔλαβον
and καταλάβω: hence διώκω is not to be taken absolutely
(Rilliet ; comp. Rheinwald, de Wette, Hofmann), although
this in itself would be linguistically admissible (in opposition
~to van Hengel), see on ver. 14. Phavorinus: διώκειν ἐνίοτε
τὸ ἁπλῶς κατὰ σπουδὴν ἐλαύνειν ; also Eustathius, ad 11. xxiii.
344.—ei καὶ καταλάβω] This εἰ is, as in εἴ πως, ver. 11, delibera-
tive: 171 also, etc., the idea of σκοπεῖν or some similar word being
before his mind; the compound καταλάβω is more (in opposition
to Weiss) than ἔλαβον, and denotes the apprehension which
takes possession ; comp. on Rom. ix. 30, 1 Cor. ix. 24, where
we have the same progression from Aap. to καταλαμβ.:
Herod. 1x. 58: διωκτέοι εἰσὶ ἐς ὃ καταλαμφθέντες - and καί
implies: I not merely grasp (ἔλαβον), but also actually appre-

168 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIIE PHILIPPIANS,

hend.' — ἐφ᾽ & καὶ κατελήφθην ὑπὸ X.] Comp. Plat. Tim. p.
38 D: ὅθεν καταλαμβάνουσί τε καὶ καταλαμβάνονται, 1 Cor.
xi. 12: ἐπυγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην, Ignatius, Rom.
8: θελήσατε, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς θεχληθῆτε, Trall. 5: πολλὰ yap
ἡμῖν λείπει, ἵνα Θεοῦ μὴ λειπώμεθα : because I was also appre-
hended by Christ. This is the determining ground of the διώκω,
and of the thought thereto annexed, εἰ καὶ καταλάβω. Theo-
phylact (comp. Chrysostom and Theodoret) aptly remarks:
δεικνὺς, ὅτε ὀφείλη ἐστὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα, φησί: διότι καὶ κατελήφθ.
ὑπὸ X. Otherwise, in fact, this having been apprehended
would not have been responded to on my part.? Respecting
ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, on the ground of this, that, ie. propterea quod, see on
Rom. v. 12; 2 Cor. v. 4. The interpretation: for which, on
which behalf (Oecumenius, Beza, Grotius, Rheinwald, Rilliet,
Weiss, and others), just as in iv. 10, is indeed linguistically
correct and simple; but it assigns the conversion of Paul,
not to the general object which it had (Gal. i. 16), but toa
personal object. In this case, moreover, Rilliet, de Wette,
Wiesinger supply τοῦτο previously, which is not in accordance
with the objectless ἔλαβον. More artificial are the explana-
tions: whereunto, in the sense of obligation (Hoelemann) ;
under which condition (Matthies); in so far as (Castalio,
Ewald) ; in the presupposition, that (Baur); which is certain
Srom the fact, that (subjective ground of knowledge; so Ernesti,
Urspr. d. Siinde, 11. p. 217). According to Hofmann, Paul
desires to give the reason why, and for what purpose, he con-
templates an apprehension. But thus the reference of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ κτλ.
would be limited to εἰ «. καταλάβω, although the positive
leading thought has been introduced in διώκω δέ, “Ed ᾧ κιτιλ.
serves this leading thought along with that of its accessory
definition εἰ «, KataXaBw.— καί] also, subjoins to the active
καταλάβω the ingeniously corresponding passive relation
κατελήφθην. And by κατελήφθ. 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, ‘‘exemplum accipientis jam jamque,” Bengel.

2 Paul is conscious that, being apprehended by Christ, he may not and cannot
do otherwise. Comp. Bengel: quoniam,; sensus virtutis Christi accendit
Christianum,

CHAP. III. 13, 14. 169

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

Vy. 13, 14. Once more, and with loving earnestness
(ἀδελφοί), Paul says what he had already said in ver. 12 with
οὐχ ὅτι... καταλάβω ; and in doing so, he brings more into
relief in the first portion the element of se/f-estimation, which
in his own case he denies; and, in the second part, he sets
forth more in detail the idea: διώκω δὲ εἰ κ. καταλ. ----- ἐγὼ
ἐμαυτόν] ego ne ἐρϑιυνην, an emphatic mode of indicating one’s
own estimation, in which one is both subject and object of the
judgement. 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.
— λογίζομαι] I judge, 1 am of opinion,’ Rom. iii. 28, viii. 18,
aay L432 Cor. x. .5, ef al.) Xen.Anads it 2513 + Dem.
Ixiii, 12. — ἂν δέ] Comp. Anthol. Pal. vil. 455: ἕν δ᾽ ἀντὶ
πάντων, also the frequent ὃν μόνον ; see Stallbaum, ad. Plat.
Symp. p. 184 C, Rep. p. 548 C. It is here usually supple-
mented by ποιῶ (Chrysostom appears to have understood ποιῶν).
So also Winer, Buttmann, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ellicott. But
how arbitrarily, seeing that the context by what immediately
precedes suggests simply the supplying of λογίζομαι (not λογίζ.
κατειληφέναι, Oecumenius, Weiss), and this is in perfect har-
mony with the sense! Hence we take it thus: “ but one
thing I think, unwm censco.” This one thing which Paul
thinks regarding the matter in question, in contrast to the
previous negative (δέ, as in ver. 12), is then directly expressed
by all that follows from τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω to ἐν ΧΙ. Nearest to
this contextual supplement comes the Syriac, which has added
οἶδα, and Luther, who has added λέγω. The supplying of

1 Οὐ belongs to AsyiZouas. The erroncous reference to κασειληφέναι produced the
reading οὔπω (A 1) δὲ min. vss. and Fathers), which Tischendorf 8, has adopted.

170 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

λογίζομαι is confirmed by the cognate φρονῶμεν, ver. 15.
Without supplying anything, év δέ has either been connected
with διώκω (thus Augustine, Serm. de divers. i. 6, Pierce,
Storr, van Hengel, and others), or has been taken absolutely :
“unum contra!” see Hoelemann, comp. Rheinwald. But the
former is to be rejected, because the subsequent διώκω carries
its own complete definiteness; and the Jatter 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 ἐστί, Hofmann also comes
at length in substance to this latter supplement, mixing up an
imaginary contrast to that which the adversaries imputed to the
apostle: over-against this, his conduct subsequently described
was the only thing which was quite right (?).— τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω]
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; τινὲς in Theodoret,
Vatablus, Zeger, Wolf, and others, also Ewald and Hofmann) ;
this would be at variance with the context, for τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω
ἐπιίλανθ. 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 stadiwm
of the runner still pressing forward; and not to what had
belonged to his pre-Christian conduct (Hofmann). Comp.
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact. — émAav@av.] 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-
looks the degree of moral perfection already attained, which he
would not do, if he reckoned it already as itself perfection.
ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι is joined with the genitive and accusative ;
the simple verb, on the contrary, only with the genitive. See
Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 313. On the use of the word in the sense of
intentional forgetting, comp. Herod. iii. 75, iv. 43; 1 Mace. 1. 49.

CHAP, III. 13, 14. Ly

It thus amounts to the sense of nwllam rationem habere (Sturz,
Lew, Xen. 11. p. 294).— τοῖς δὲ ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεκτεινόμ. but
stretching myself out towards that which is before. The dative
is governed by the verb compounded with ἐπί (Kriiger, ὃ 48.
11. 5; Nigelsbach, zur lias, p. 30, ed. 3), the ἐπί intimating
the direction. In the case of such an one running “prono et
quasi praecipiti corpore” (Beza), “ oculus manum, manus pedem
praevertit et trahit,” Bengel. On the verb, comp. Strabo,
xvii. p. 800; Aristot. Poet. 21; Plut. Mor. p. 1147 A. Ta
ἔμπερ. represent the higher stages of Christian perfection not
yet attained.’ — κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω] I hasten towards the goal,
therefore in a straight course towards the prize of victory.
The opposite: ἀπὸ σκοποῦ, Hom. Od. xi. 344, xxii. 6; Plat.
Theact. p. 179 C, Tim. p. 25 E; Xen. Conv. ii. 10; Lucian,
Icarom. 2; and παρὰ σκοπόν, Pind. Ol. xiii. 144. On διώκω
without an accusative of the object (m opposition to van Hengel),
comp. Xen. Anabd. vii. 2. 20, vi. 5. 25 (δρόμω διώκειν) ;
Aesch. Sept. 89; Buttmann, Lexil. p. 219; Jacobs, ad Anthol.
IX. p. 213. Comp. on ver. 12. The prize of victory (τὸ
βραβεῖον, see on 1 Cor. ix. 24; Clem. Cor. I. 5; Schol. min.
ad Soph. El. 680; Oppian, Cyneg. iv. 196; Lycophr. 1154)
represents the salvation of the Messiah's kingdom (see on ver.
12), to which God has called man. Hence: τῆς ave κλήσεως,
a genitive which is te be taken not as appositional (de Wette,
Schenkel), but as the genitive of the subject: the βραβεῖον, to
which the calling relates. Comp. Luther: “ which the heavenly
calling holds out.” This is therefore the object of the ἐλπὶς
τῆς κλήσεως (Eph. i. 18, iv. 4; comp. the Platonic καλὸν τὸ
ἄθλον καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς μεγάλη, Phaed. p. 114 C).— 1 ἡ ἄνω κλῆσις
τοῦ Θεοῦ is the calling which issued from God above in heaven
(on ἄνω, comp. Col. iii. 2, Gal. iv. 26; and on the subject-matter,
Heb. ii. 1), by which He has called us to the σωτηρία of His
kingdom. .The general form of expression, not even limited

1 Τὰ tumpoobey is thus conceived by the apostle as that which still lies further in
prospect after every advance in the ethical course ; not as that which lay before
him in consequence of his conversion (contrasting with his pre-Christian eflorts),
as Hofmann 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 ἃ pronoun (such as τῆς ἐμῆς), 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 ἄνω κλῆσις τοῦ
Θεοῦ, which in the individual cases may have taken historically
very different forms. The ἄνω, which in itself is not neces-
sary, is added, because Paul is thoroughly filled with the con-
sciousness of the divine nature of the κλῆσις in its exaltedness
above everything that is earthly. Lastly, the κλῆσις 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 c¢éleste méme”
(Rulliet) ; 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 βραβευτής or βραβεύς, as the judge of the
contest (Pollux, iii, 145; Blomf. Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 307),
who through the herald summons the runners to the race
(Grotius, Wolf, Rosenmiiller, am Ende, Hoelemann, van Hengel,
Wiesinger) ; τῆς ἄνω κλ. τ. ©. serves to define more accurately
that which is figuratively denoted by βραβεῖον, but does not
itself form a part of the allegory.— ἐν X. ’I.] is rightly (so
also Weiss) joined by Chrysostom to διώκω : ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ
τοῦτο ποιῶ, φησίν. ov yap ἔνι χωρὶς τῆς ἐκείνου ῥοπῆς τοσοῦτον
διελθεῖν διάστημα. Comp. Theodoret and Oecumenius. This
thought, that the διώκειν just described is done by him i
Christ, as the great upholding and impelling element of life in
which amidst this activity he moves, is emphatically placed
at the end as that which regulates all his efforts. The usual
connection of these words with τ. ἄνω κλήσεως τ. Θεοῦ, in
which the calling is understood as brought about through Christ
(rather : having its causal ground in Christ), yields a superfluous
and self-obvious definition of the κλήσις already so accu-
rately defined ; although the connecting article would not be
necessary, since, according to the construction καλεῖν ἐν X.
(1 Cor. vii. 22; 1 Pet. v. 10), ἐν X. I. might be joined with
κλήσεως so as to form one idea; comp. Clem. Cor. I. 46. A
contrast to the calling issued to Jsracl to be God’s people on
carth, is groundlessly suggested by Hofmann.

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

a) δ

CHAP. III. 13. 173

not perfection, like τετελείωμαι in ver. 12, but the moral ripeness
which, with differences of degree in the case of individuals,
belongs to the true Christian state that has advanced beyond
the novitiate—that Christian maturity in which one is no
longer νήπιος ἐν Χριστῷ; comp. on 1 Cor. 11. 6, 111. 1; Eph.
iv. 13. The τετελείωμαι is the ideal goal of the development
of this τέλειον εἶναι, contradistinguished from the νηπιότης.
The special aspect of this maturity, which Paul had in view in
using τέλειοι, is to be regarded, not as theoretical knowledge,—
the doctrine of righteousness by faith being conceived to be spe-
cially referred to (Erasmus, Wolf, Rheinwald, and others)—
but as the moral character and striving of believers, as appears
from ver. 13 f., along with which the corresponding relation
of practical insight is self-evident as a necessary 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 lke) 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 éco:—with which we are to supply
sumus simply, and not volumus esse—Paul leaves it to the
conscientious judgment of every reader whether he, on his
part, belongs to the number of the τέλειοι; but by including
himself in this predicate, and yet having previously negatived
the ἤδη τετελείωμαν 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 τοῦτο φρονώμεν
leaves room only for the consciousness: ὡς τελείου TO μὴ
νομίζειν ἑαυτὸν τέλειον εἶναι, Chrysostom. A tone of zrony
(Schenkel) is utterly alien to the heartfelt character of the
whole discourse, which is, moreover, in this application,
ver. 15, so expressed as to include the apostle in common
with his readers. To the Catholic fictions of a state of perfec-
tion the passage is in direct opposition. — τοῦτο φρονῶμεν]
let us have this frame of mind, namely, which I, in ver. 13 ἢ,
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 τοῦτο dpov. in the passage from ver. 4 onwards: “renun-
ciandum esse splendidis virtutibus Judd. (vv. 4-7), contra in
solo Christo acquiescendum (vy. 8-10) et ad victricem pal-
mam studio indefesso annitendum (vv. 12—14),” Hoelemann ;
comp. Calvin, Wolf, Heinrichs, and others, including Matthies,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Rilliet, and Reiche; similarly Hofmann,
who makes it refer to the entire presentation—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 progress of
the Church in the right way pressing onward to the goal, in
which respect Paul desires to serve for their model (ver. 17),
—as which he has sketched himself in ver. 13 ἢ, when he
begins with ἀδελφοί and introduces his ἐγώ Besides, the
φρονῶμεν, Which is correlative with the λογίζομαι, does not
point back beyond ver. 13 f. Therefore, not even the appro-
priation of Christ, vv. 8-11, is to be included in the refer-
ence of the τοῦτο (in opposition to de Wette and Wiesinger).
Van Hengel is inclined to refer τοῦτο to τὸ βραβεῖον; but
the readers needed the exhortation to the right mode of striving
after the βραβεῖον, and not the summons generally, that they
should have the βραβ. in view. ‘This applies also against
the similar, although more exact, interpretation of Fritzsche
(Diss, IT. in 2 Cor. p. 92): “hac mente simus se. ut τὸ βραβ.
τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως consectemur.” —Kal εἴ τι ἑτέρως φρον.] and
if as to any point (τὶ, accusative of the object) ye be otherwise
minded, take up another way of thinking, varying, namely,
from that specified in τοῦτο φρονῶμεν. 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

(τὶ) may occur, which a man cannot fit into the φρονεῖν
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 ἐπίγνωσις and αἴσθησις εἰς
τὸ δοκιμάζειν «.7.r., 1. 9,in the moral judgment which deter-
mines the φρονεῖν. Hofmann arbitrarily limits the ri to some
matter endependent of the essential disposition of the Christian
life. This sense would have required a more precise defini-
tion, in order to be found. And the hope which is uttered in
the apodosis, is in perfect harmony with the prayer ini. 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 subject addressed is the
readers generally (see ver. 17), not the νήπιοι (Hunnius, Wolf,
Bengel, Storr, and others, including Flatt, Rheinwald, Hoele-
mann, Rilliet, Reiche), whom several expositors have regarded
as those who had not yet raised themselves to the pure
righteousness of faith excluding the law (see Rheinwald and
Reiche), or who had allowed themselves to be led away by
false teachers (see Hunnius, Grotius, Storr). But setting aside
the arbitrariness generally with which this contrast is intro-
duced, it is opposed by the fact, that Paul does not assume
any thorough and essential diversity in the φρονεῖν, but only
such a variation as might affect some one or other isolated
point (τὶ), and that not in the doctrinal, but in the moral
province of Christian conduct. Moreover, if persons led
astray were here in question, nothing would be less in har-
mony with the character of the apostle than the hopeful
tolerance which is expressed in the words καὶ τοῦτο. ..
ἀποκαλύψει. Lastly, the change of person (in opposition to
Bengel) was necessary, because Paul, speaking of a partial
ἑτέρως φρονεῖν, could not include himself. — In ἑτέρως, other-
wise (not occurring elsewhere in the ‘N. T.), there is implied,
according to the context, an wnfavourable sense, the notion of
incorrectness, secius quam oportet. Comp. Hom. Od. i. 234;
Dem. 298. 22, 597. 3; Eustath. ad Od. p. 1448. 2; Soph.
Phil. 503; Valckenaer, Diatr. p. 112; just as ἕτερος (comp.

176 TILE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

on ἄλλο, Gal. v. 10) may denote even that which is bad or
hostile (Wisd. xix. 3; Dissen. ad Pind. Nem. viii. 3, Pyth.
ni. 54; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 321). It is here the
ἑτεροδοξεῖν (Plat. Theact. pp. 190 E, 193 D), as frame of mind.
This has not been attended to by van Hengel, when he takes
with equal unsuitableness τὴ in an emphatic sense, and φρονεῖν
as to strive for: “si quid bont per aliam viam expetitis, quam
ego persequor.” — καὶ τοῦτο ὁ Θεὸς vp. ἀποκ. Expression of
the hope that such variations will not fail to be rectified, on the
part of God, by His revealing operation. Certainly, therefore,
the variations, which Paul so forbearingly and confidently and
without polemical handling commits to revealing correction
on the part of God, were not on matters of principle or of an
anti-Pauline character. — καὶ τοῦτο] this also, like other things
which He has already revealed unto you; so that in καὶ is
contained the idea also stil (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 135).
Hofmann erroneously says that cai implies: there, where the
disposition is present, which I require. It in fact belongs to
τοῦτος This τοῦτο, however, is not: that ye (Oecumenius,
Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Fritzsche, /.c. p. 93), but what ye
wrongly think; the frame of mind in question, as it ought to be
instead of the ἑτέρως φρονεῖν, 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 ἀποκαλύψει, which is to be taken as
purely future, is conceived by Paul as taking place through the
Holy Spirit (see Eph. i. 17; Col. i. 10), not by human instrue-
tion (Beza). He might also have written διδάξει (comp. θεοδέ-
δακτοι, 1 Thess. iv. 9; also John vi. 45), by which, however,
the special kind of instruction which he means would not
have been indicated. This is the inward divine unveiling of
ethical truth, which is needed for the practical reason of him
who in any respect otherwise φρονεῖ than Paul has shown
in his own example; for οὐ περὶ δογμάτων ταῦτα εἴρηται, ἀλλὰ
περὶ βίου τελειότητος καὶ τοῦ μὴ νομίζειν ἑαυτοὺς τελείους εἶναι,
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
@ Cor. ii..14, ii, 16; Eph. i 17, ii. 21 £; Rom. viii. 9, 15,
26; Gal. v. 22, 25, εὐ αἴ.

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 pomt to which we have attained! Neither to
the right nor to the left, but forward in the same direction !
This warning Paul expresses briefly and precisely thus: “ Only
whereto we have attained—according to the same to direct your
walk !’’—that is, “ however ye may be in some point otherwise
minded and, therefore, may have to await further revelation,
at all events ye ought not to deviate—this must in every case
be your fundamental rule—/rom that whereto we have already
attained in the Christian life ; but, on the contrary, should let the
JSurther direction of your moral walk be determined by that same.”
Such a general precept addressed to the Philippians conveys an
honourable testimony to the state of their moral constitution
on the whole, however different in individuals we may con-
ceive the point to be from which Paul says εἰς ὃ ἐφθ., as is
evident from the very fact that he includes himself in the eis
ὃ ἐφθ., which could not but honour and stimulate the readers.
On πλήν, nisi quod, comp. 1. 18; on φθάνειν εἰς, to attain to
anything, comp. Matt. xii. 28; Luke xi. 26; 1 Thess. ii. 16
(ert); Rom., ix. 31; Dan. iv. 19;-Tob. v. 18; Plut. Mor.
Ῥ. 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 στοιχεῖν with
the dative of the rule: to advance (march) according to something,
that is, to direct oneself in one’s constant conduct by some-
thing, see on Gal. v. 16, 25. The infinitive, however, as the
expression of a briefly measured wish or command, without
supplying λέγω, δεῖ, or the like (which Buttmann requires,

PHIL, M

178 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

Neut. Gr. p. 233 [E. T. 272]), stands in place of the impera-
tive, asin Rom. xii. 15; see Hom. J/. i. 20, and Niagelsbach
in loc.; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 473 A; Pflugk, ad Hur.
Heracl. 314; Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 86. Fritzsche, how-
ever, Diss. II. 2 Cor. p. 93, has erroneously made the infinitive
dependent on ἀποκαλύψει: “ praeterea instituet vos, ut, quam
ego consecutus sum τῷ βραβείῳ τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως intentam
mentem, ejusdem participes fieri ipsi annitamini.” Comp.
Oecumenius. Decisive against this view is the plural ἐφθά-
σαμεν, which, according to the context (ver. 15), cannot apply
merely to Paul, as well as the fact that the antithesis of persons
(ego... ipst) is gratuitously introduced. Michaelis, who is
followed by Rilliet, closely unites ver. 16 with the sequel,’
but in such a way that only an awkward arrangement of the
sentences is attained, and the nervous vigour of the concise
command is taken away.—The εἰς ὃ éf@ac.—which cannot
in accordance with the context denote the having attained to
Christianity, to the being Christian (Hofmann’s view, which
yields a meaning much too vague and general)—has been
rightly explained by Chrysostom and Theophylact as relating
to the attainments in the Christian life, which are to be
maintained, and in the further development of which
constant progress is to be made (ὃ κατωρθώσαμεν, κατέχωμεν,
Theophylact). Comp. Schinz and van Hengel. This view is
corroborated by the sequel, in which Paul represents himself
as model of the walk; and therefore it is not to be referred
merely to the measure of the right frame of mind attained
(Weiss). Most expositors understand the words as signifying
the measure of Christian knowledge acquired (so also Heinrichs,
Flatt, Rheinwald, Matthies, Hoelemann, de Wette, Wiesinger),
in conformity with which one ought to live. In connection
with this, various arbitrary definitions of the object of the know-
ledge have been suggested, as, for instance, by Grotius : “ de cir-

1 This is thrown out as a suggestion also by Hofmann, according to whom the
infinitive clause ought ‘‘ perhaps more correctly” to be coupled with συμμιμηταὶ
z.7.a,, and taken as a prefixed designation of that in doing which they are to
be his imitators and to have their attention directed to those, etc. Thus the

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

CHAP, III. 16. 179

cumcisione et ritibus ;” Heinrichs and de Wette: concerning
the main substance of the Christian faith apart from secondary
matters; Schneckenburger: “that man is justified by faith,
and not by the works of the law ;” along with which de Wette
lays stress on the point that it is not the idiidual more or
less perfect knowledge (so usually; see Flatt, Rheinwald,
Matthies) that is meant, but the collective conviction, the
truths generally recognised. But the whole interpretation
which refers it to knowledge is not in keeping with the text ;
for ἐφθάσαμεν, correlative with otovyeiv, presents together
with the latter a wnity of figurative view, the former de-
noting the point of the way already attained, and τῷ αὐτῷ
στοιχεῖν, perseverance in the direction indicated by that
attainment. Therefore, if by στουχεῖν there is clearly (see
ver. 17) intended the moral conduct of life, this also must be
denoted by εἰς ὃ ἐφθ. as respects its quality attained up to the
present time. Moreover, if εἰς ὃ ἐφθ. is to be understood as
referring to knowledge, there would be no motive for the pro-
minence given to the identity by τῷ αὐτῷ.

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

D
Cerne
| pie με Σὰ
Here B is the point of the development of Christian life εἰς ὃ
ἐφθάσαμεν, which, in the case of different individuals, may be more
or less advanced. The τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν 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 τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν. The reproach of wicertainty
which Wiesinger brings against this canon, because a ἑτέρως
φρονεῖν 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 εἰς ὃ ἐφθ., and particularly to that of the
knowledge attained ; but it is altogether unfounded, first, because
the ἑτέρως φρονεῖν only refers to one or another concrete single
point (τὴ, so that the whole of moral attainment—the collec-
tive development—which has been reached is not thereby dis-
turbed; and, secondly, because Paul in this case has to do witha

180 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

church already highly advanced in a moral point of view (i. 5 ff.),
which he might, at all events generally, enjoin to continue in the
same direction as the path in which they had already travelled.
Very groundless is also the objection urged by Hofmann, that
the εἰς 6 ἐφθ. must necessarily be one and the same for all. This
is simply to be denied; it is an utterly arbitrary assumption.

Ver. 17. In carrying out this command they are to follow
his example, which he has previously held up to their view,
especially from ver. 12 onwards. — cupptpntat] co-imitators,
is a word not elsewhere preserved. Comp., however, συμμι-
μούμενοι, Plat. Polit. p. 274 Τὸ. σύν is neither superfluous
(Heinrichs, comp. Hofmann), nor does it refer to the imitation
of Christ in common with the apostle (Bengel, Ewald),—a
reference which cannot be derived from the remote i. 30-11. 8,
and which would be expressed somewhat as in 1 Cor. xi. 1;
1 Thess. 1.6. 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 wno consensu et una mente” (Calvin) would be
meant; but it means, as is required by the context that follows:
“una cum alus, qua me imitantur (Estius; comp. Erasmus,
Annot., Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Wiesinger, Weiss, Ellicott,
and others). Theophylact aptly remarks: συγκολλᾷ αὐτοὺς
τοῖς καλῶς περιπατοῦσι, Whereby the weight of the exhortation
is strengthened. — σκοπεῖτε] direct your view to those who, etc.,
namely, in order to become imitators of me in hike manner as
they are. Other Christians, not Philippians, are meant, just
as ver. 18 also applies to those of other places. — καθώς] does
not correspond to the οὕτω, as most expositors think, but is
the argumentative “as” (see oni. 7), by which the two previous
requirements, συμμιμηταί K.7.r. and σκοπεῖτε K.7.r., are estab-
lished: in mcaswre as ye have us for an example. This
interpretation (which Wiesinger and Weiss adopt) is, notwith-
standing the subtle distinction of thought which Hofmann
suggests, required both by the second person ἔχετε (not ἔχουσι)
and by the plural ἡμᾶς (not ἐμέ). This ἡμᾶς refers not to the
apostle alone (so many, and still de Wette; but in this case, as
before, the singular would have been used), nor yet generally

CHAP. III. 18. 181

to the apostle and his companions (van Hengel, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Lightfoot), especially Zimothy (Hofmann), or to all
tried Christians (Matthies) ; but to him and those οὕτω (in this
manner, imitative of me) περυπατοῦντας. ‘This view is not at
variance with τύπον in the singular (de Wette) ; for the several
τύποι of individuals are conceived collectively as τύπος. Comp.
1 Thess. i. 7 (Lachmann, Liinemann); see also 2 Thess. 111. 9 ;
comp. generally, Bernhardy, p. 58 f.; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 12 f.
This predicative τύπον, which is therefore placed before ἡμᾶς,
is emphatic.

Ver. 18. Admonitory confirmation of the injunction in ver.
17. — περιπατοῦσιν] is not to be defined by κακῶς (Oecume-
nius), or longe aliter (Grotius; comp. Syr.); nor is it to
be taken as circulantur (comp. 1 Pet. v. 8) (Storr, Heinrichs,
Flatt), which is at variance with the context in ver. 17.
Calvin, unnaturally breaking up the plan of the discourse,
makes the connection: “ambulant terrena cogitantes” (which is
prohibited by the very article before ἐπίγ. dpov.), 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 περύπ. along with ὧν τὸ τέλος K.7.X.
Erasmus (see his Annot.) and others, including Rheinwald,
van Hengel, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, and Weiss, consider
the discourse as broken off, the introduction of the relative
clauses inducing the writer to leave out the modal definition
of περιπ. Hofmann transforms the simple λέγειν (comp. Gal.
i. 9) into the idea of naming, and takes τοὺς ἐχθρούς as its
olject - predicate, in which case, however, the mode of the
περιπατεῖν would not be stated. On the contrary, the con-
struction is a genuine Greek mode of attraction (see Wolf, ad
Dem. Lept.15; Pflugk, ad Hur. Hee. '7'71; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 925;
Buttm. Neut. Gr. p. 68 LE. T. 77]), so framed, that instead
of saying: many walk as the enemies of the cross, this pre-
dicative definition of mode is drawn into the relative clause ods
πολλάκις K.T.A. and assimilated to the relative; comp. Plat. Rep.

1 Hence also the conjecture of Laurent (Newt. Stud. p. 21 f.), that οἷς

πολλάκις... ἀπώλεια is a supplementary marginal note inserted by the apostle,
is unwarranted.

182 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

p. 402 ο., and Stallbaum in Joc. It is therefore to be interpreted:
Many, of whom I have said that to you often, and now tell you
even weeping, walk as the enemies, etc. The πολλάκις, emphati-
cally corresponding with the πολλοί (2 Cor. viii. 22), refers to
the apostle’s presence in Philippi; whether, at an earlier date
in an epistle (see on 111. 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.— νῦν δὲ καὶ κλαίων] διὰ τέ;
ὅτι ἐπέτεινε τὸ κακὸν, ὅτι δακρύων ἄξιοι οἱ τοιοῦτοι... οὕτως
ἐστὶ συμπαθητικὸς, οὕτω φροντίζει πάντων ἀνθρώπων, 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. — .
τοὺς ἐχθρ. τ. ot. τ. ΧΙ] The article denotes the class of men
characteristically defined. We must explain the designation
as referring, not to enemies of the doctrine of the cross (Theo-
doret: ὡς διδάσκοντας ὅτι δίχα τῆς νομικῆς πολιτεΐας ἀδύνατον
σωτηρίας τυχεῖν, so in substance Luther, Erasmus, Estius,
Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, and many others; also
Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Matthies), so that passages such as Gal.
v. 11, vi. 12, would have to be compared; but, as required
by the context which follows, to Christians of Epicurean
tendencies (ἐν ἀνέσει ζῶντες x. τρυφῇ, 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 παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Cor. i. 5),
so that it is hateful to them to suffer with Christ (Rom.
_ viii. 17). Comp. ver. 10, also Gal. vi. 14. In opposition to
the context, Rilliet and Weiss understand non-Christians, who
reject Christianity with hostile disdain, because its founder
was crucified (comp. 1 Cor. 1, 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 πολλοί, the melancholy
force of which lies in the very fact that they are Christians, but

CHAP. III. 19. 183

Christians whose conduct is the deterrent contrast to that
which is required in ver. 17. See, besides, in opposition to
Weiss, Huther in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1862, p. 630 ff—
We have still to notice that the persons here depicted are
not the same as those who were described in ver, 2 (contrary
to the usual view, which is also followed by Schinz and Hil-
genfeld) ; for those were teachers, while these πολλοί are Chris-
tians generally. The former might’ indeed be characterized
as ἐχθροὶ τ. σταυροῦ τ. X., according to Gal. vi. 12, but their
Judaistic standpoint does not correspond to the Epicureanism
which is affirmed ‘of the Jatter in the words ὧν ὁ Θεὸς ἡ κοιλία,
ver. 19. Hoelemann, de Wette, Liinemann, Wiesinger,
Schenkel, and Hofmann have justly pronounced against the
identity of the two; Weiss, however, following’ out his wrong
interpretation of κύνες in ver. 2 (of the heathen), maintains the
identity to a certain extent by assuming that the conduct of
those κύνες is here described; while Baur makes use of the
passage to deny freshness, naturalness, and objectivity to the
polemic attack here made on the false teachers.

Ver. 19. A more precise deterrent delineation of these
persons, having the most deterrent element put foremost, and
then those points by which it was brought about.— ὧν τὸ
τέλος av@n.] By this is meant Messianic perdition, eternal
condemnation (comp. i. 28), which is the wltimate destiny ap-
pointed (τό) for them (τέλος is not: recompense, see Rom. vi. 21 ;
2 Cor. xi. 15; Heb. vi. 8). For corresponding Rabbinical
passages, see Wetstein and Schoettgen, Hor. p. 801.— ὧν ὁ
Θεὸς ἡ κοιλία] λατρεύουσι γὰρ ὡς Θεῷ ταύτῃ καὶ πᾶσαν θερα-
πείαν προσάγουσι, Theophylact. Comp. Rom. xvi. 18; Eur. Cyel.
994 f.; Senec. de benef. vii. 26 ; and the maxim of those whose
highest good is eating and drinking, 1 Cor. xv. 32. It is the
γαστριμαργία (Plat. Phaed. p. 81 E; Lucian, Amor. 42) in its
godless nature; they were κοιλιοδαίμονες (Eupolis in Athen. iii.
p. 100 B), τὰς τῆς γαστρὸς ἡδονὰς τιθέμενοι μέτρον εὐδαιμονίας
(Lucian, Patr. enc. 10); τῇ γαστρὶ μετροῦντες καὶ τοῖς aicyic-
τοις τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν (Dem. 524, 24).---- καὶ ἡ δόξα κ.τ.λ.] also
dependent on av: and whose honour is in their shame, that is,
who find their honour in that which redounds to their shame,

184 TIIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

as for instance, in revelling, haughty behaviour, and the like, in
which the immoral man is fond of making a show. ἡ δόξα is swb-
jective, viewed from the opinion of those men, and τῇ αἰσχύνῃ is
objective, viewed according to the reality of the ethical relation.
Comp. Polyb. xv. 23. 5: ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐχρῆν αἰσχύνεσθαι καθ᾽ ὑπερ-
βολὴν, ἐπὶ τούτοις ὡς καλοῖς σεμνύεσθαι καὶ μεγαλαυχεῖν, and
also Plat. Theaet. p. 176 D; ἀγάλλονται γὰρ τῷ ὀνείδει. On
εἷναι ἐν, versari in, to be found in, to be contained in some-
thing, comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 470 E: ἐν τούτῳ ἡ πᾶσα εὐδαιμονία
ἐστίν, Eur. Phoen. 1310: οὐκ ἐν αἰσχύνῃ ta ca. The view,
foreign to the context, which refers the words to cirewmeision,
making aicy. signify the genitals (Schol. Ar. Equ. 364; Am-
brosiaster; Hilary; Pelagius; Augustine, de verb. apost. xv. 5 ;
Bengel; Michaelis; Storr), is already rejected by Chrysostom
and his successors. — οὗ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες) 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. ui. 2. Thus Paul closes his delineation with a summary
designation of their fundamental immoral tendency, and he
put ΠΗ not in the genitive (uniformly with the ὧν), 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 (7, guz) article of apposition.
Comp. Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 228]; Buttmann, οι. Gr. p. 69
Eee TOR:

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

CHAP. III. 20. 185

be a proof of it. The apostle gives, rather, an experimental
proof e contrario, and that for what immediately precedes, not
for the remote ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια (Weiss). — ἡμῶν] emphati-
cally placed first; contrast of the persons. These ἡμεῖς, how-
ever, are the same as the ἡμᾶς in ver. 17, consequently Paul
himself and the οὕτω περιπατοῦντες. ---- τὸ πολίτευμα) the
commonwealth, which may bear the sense either of: the state
(2 Mace. xii. 7; Polyb.i. 13. 12, ii. 41. 6 ; Lucian, Prom. 15 ;
Philo, de opif. p. 33 A, de Jos. p. 536 D); or the state-adminis-
tration (Plat. Legg. 12, p. 945 D; Aristot. Pol. 111. 4; Polyb. iv.
23. 9; Lucian, Dem. enc. 16), or its principles (Dem. 107.
25, 262. 27; Isocr. p. 156 A); or the state-constitution
(Plut. Them. 4; Arist. Pol. iii. 4.1; Polyb. v. 9. 9, iv. 25. 7),
see generally Raphel, Polyb. in loc.; Schweigh. Lex, Polyb.
p. 486; Schoemann, ad Plut. Cleom. p. 208. Here, in the
first sense: our commonwealth, that is, the state to which we
belong, is in heaven. By this is meant the Messiah's kingdom
which had not yet appeared, which will only at Christ’s
Parousia (comp. ἐξ οὗ «.7.X. which follows) come down from
heaven and manifest itself in its glory on earth. It is the state
of the heavenly Jerusalem (see on Gal. iv. 26; comp. Usteri,
Lehrbegr. Ὁ. 190; Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, Ὁ. 59), of which
true Christians are citizens (Eph. 11. 19) even now before the
Parousia in a proleptic and ideal sense (ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης,
Rom. v. 2; comp. viii. 24), in order that one day, at the
ἐπιφάνεια τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου (2 Thess. ii. 8), they may
be so in complete reality (comp. Heb. xii. 22 f, xi. 14), as
κοινωνοί τῆς μελλούσης ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι δόξης (1 Pet: vids;

Col. 111. 4), nay, as συμβασιλεύοντες (2 Tim. ii. 12; caus
Rom. vi 17; 1 Cor. iv. 8). Hence, according to the neces-
sary psychological relation, “ where your treasure is, there will
your heart be also” (Matt. vi. 21), they φρονοῦσιν, not τὰ
ἐπίγεια, but τὰ ἄνω (Col. 111. 1 f.), which serves to explain the
logical correctness of the γάρ in its relation to οὗ τὰ ἐπίγ. φρον.
Others, following the Vulgate (conversatio), render it: our walk,
making the sense, “tota vita nostra quasi jam nunc apud
Deum naturasque coelestes puriores versatur, longe remota a
τοῖς ἐπιγείοις eorumque captatione” (Hoelemann). So Luther

186 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

(who up till 1528 rendered it “citizenship”), Castalio, Erasmus,
Calvin, Grotius, and many others, including Matthies, van
Henzel, de Wette; while Rheinwald mixes up interpretations
of various kinds. This rendering is not justified by linguistic
usage, which indeed vouches for πολιτεύεσθαι (i. 27) in this
sense, and for πολυτεία (Clem. Cor. I. 54: πολιτεύεσθαι πολιτείαν
Θεοῦ, Ep. ad Diogn. 5), but not for πολίτευμα, not even in Eus.
Hf, E. v. prooem. Nor does lineuistic usage even permit the in-
terpretation: citizenship. So Luther, in the Postdl. Hpist. D. 3,
post f. pasch.: “ Here on earth we are in fact not citizens...;
our citizenship is with Christ in heaven..., there we are to
remain for ever citizens and lords;” comp. Beza, Balduin,
Erasmus Schmid, Zachariae, Flatt, Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss,
and others. This would be πολιτεία, Acts xxii. 28; Thue. vi.
104.3; Dem. 161: 11; Polyb: vi, 2: 12% ΘΟ Mace, anges
Theophylact’s explanation, τὴν πατρίδα (which is ‘used also for
heaven by Anaxagoras in Diog. L. 11. 7), must be referred to
the correct rendering state (comp. Hammond, Clericus, and
others’), while Chrysostom gives no decided opinion, but
Theodoret (τὸν οὐρανὸν φανταζόμεθα) and Oecumenius (στρα-
τευόμεθα) appear to follow the rendering conversatio. —
ἐξ οὗ καὶ «.7.X.] And what a happy change is before us,
in consequence of our thus belonging to the heavenly state!
From the heaven (scil. ἥξοντα, comp. 1 Thess. 1. 10) we
expect, etc. The neuter ov, which is certainly to be taken
in a strictly Jocal sense (in opposition to Calovius), is not to
be referred to πολίτ. (Wolf, Schoettgen, Bengel, Hofmann) ;
but is correctly rendered by the Vulgate: “wnde.” Comp.
on ἐξ οὗ, Col. 11. 19, and Bornemann, ad Yen. Anab. i. 2. 20:
ἡμέρας τρεῖς, ἐν ©. — καί, also, denotes the relation correspond-
ing to the foregoing (namely, that our πολίτευμα is to be
found in heaven), not a second one to be added (Hofmann). —
σωτῆρα] 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 ἀπώλεια (Weiss),

1 The Gothic Version has: ‘‘ unsara bdéudins” (that is, building, dwelling).

CHAP. III. 21. 187

which, indeed, the ἡμεῖς have not at all to fear. Comp. on
the subject - matter, Luke xviii. 7 f., xxi. 28; Tit. ii, 13;
2 Tim, iv. 18. — ἀπεκδεχ.] comp. 1 Cor. i. 7; Tit. ii, 13. As
to the signification of the word: perseveranter expectarc, see
on Rom. viii. 19; Gal. v. 5.

Ver. 21. As a special feature of the Lord’s saving activity
at His Parousia, Paul mentions the bodily transfiguration of
the ἡμεῖς, 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 ἡμεῖς 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 ! — petacynyar. |
shall transform.’ What is meant is the ἀλλάσσειν 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 ἡμεῖς 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 ἀπεκδεχόμεθα and to the
definition of the quality of the body to be remodelled: τῆς
ταάπειν. ἡμῶν, both these expressions being used under the con-
viction of being still alive in the present state when the change
occurs. Moreover, the resurrection is something more than a
μετασχημάτισις ; it is also an investiture with a new body
out of the germ of the old (1 Cor. xv. 36-38, 42-44, — τῆς
ταπεινώσ. ἡμῶν] Genitive of the subject. Instead of saying
ἡμῶν merely (owr body), he expresses it with more specific
definition: the body of our humiliation, that is, the body which

? 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
μετασχημώτισμός non substantialem mutationem, sed accidentalem, non ratione
quidditatis corporis nostri, sed ratione qualitatum salva quidditate importat.”
This is correct only so far as the future body, although an organism without σάρξ
and αἷμα, 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. Siinde, I. p. 127 f. More precise definitions, such as those in
Delitzsch’s Psychol. p. 459 ff., lose themselves in the misty region of hypothesis.
The inappropriateness of the expression employed in the Confession: Resurrec-
tion of the flesh, has been rightly pointed out by Luther in the Larger Catechism,
p. 501.

188 TIIk EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

as the vehicle of the state of our humiliation, namely, through
the privations, persecutions, and afflictions which affect the
body and are exhibited in it, thereby reducing us into our pre-
sent oppressed and lowly position ; πολλὰ πάσχει viv TO σῶμα,
δεσμεῖται, μαστίζεται, μυρία πάσχει δεινά, Chrysostom. This
definite reference of τ. Taz. 7. is required by the context
through the contrast of the ἡμεῖς to the ἐχθροὺς τοῦ σταυροῦ
τ. X., so that the sufferings which are meant by the cross of
Christ constitute the ταπείνωσις of the ἡμεῖς (comp. Acts viii.
33); in which case there is no ground for our taking ταπεί-
νωσις, contrary to Greek usage (Plat. Legg. vil. p. 815 A;
Polyb. ix. 33.10; Jas. 1. 10), as equivalent to ταπεινότης,
lowliness, as in Luke 1. 48 (Hofmann). On this account, and
also because ἡμῶν applies to subjects distinctly defined in con-
formity with the context, it was incorrect to explain tazrew.
generally of the constitution of our life (Hofmann), of weakness
and frailty (Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and many others ;
including Rheinwald, Matthies, Hoelemann, Schrader, Rilliet,
Wiesinger, Weiss) ; comparison being made with such passages
as Col. i. 22; Rom. vu. 24; 1 Cor. xv. 44. The contrast
lies in the states, namely, of humiliation on the one hand and
of δόξα on the other; hence ἡμῶν and αὐτοῦ are neither to be
joined with σῶμα (in opposition to Hoelemann), nor with τ.
σῶμα τ. tat. and τ. o. τῆς δόξης as ideas forming an unity
(Hofmann), which Paul would necessarily have marked by sepa-
rating the genitives in position (Winer, p. 180 [Εἰ T. 239]). —
σύμμορφον] Result of the μετασχημ., so that the reading εἰς
τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτό is a correct gloss... See on Matt. xii. 13 and
1 Cor. i. 8; Fritzsche, Diss. IJ. in 2 Cor. Ὁ. 159; Liibcker,
grammat. Stud. p. 33 f. The thing itself forms a part of the
συνδοξάζεσθαι, Rom. viii. 17. Comp. also 1 Cor. xv. 48 f.;
Rom. viii, 29. We may add Theodoret’s appropriate re-
mark: ov κατὰ τὴν ποσότητα THs δόξης, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν
ποιότητα. --- τῆς δόξ. αὐτοῦ] to be explained like τῆς ταπ. Hy. :
in which His heavenly glory is shown forth. Comp. ἐγείρεται
ἐν δόξῃ, 1 Cor. xv. 44. — κατὰ τ. ἐνέργ. x.7.d.] removes every
doubt as to the possibility ; according to the working of His
being able (comp. Eph. i. 19) also to subdue all things unio

CHAP. III. 21. 189

Himself ; that is, in consequence of the energetic efficacy which
belongs to His power of also subduing all things to Himself.
Comp. κατὰ τ. évépy. τῆς δυνάμ. αὐτοῦ, Eph. iii. 7, also Eph.
1.19; as to the subject-matter, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 25 f.; as to
the expression with the genitive of the infinitive, Onosand. I. p.
12: ἡ τοῦ δύνασθαι ποιεῖν ἐξουσία. ---- Kai] adds the general
element ὑποτάξαι αὐτῷ τὰ π. to the μετασχηματ. κτλ.
Bengel aptly says: “non modo conforme facere corpus nostrum
suo.” — ta πάντα] 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. xxvii. 18; 1 Cor. xv. 27), and to
whom He will ultimately deliver up again the dominion
(1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). Chrysostom and Theophylact have
already with reason noticed the argumentum ὦ majori ad
MUNUS.

1 Hoelemann takes καί asand, so that the sense would be, ‘‘that Christ can do
all things, and subdues all things to Himself.” The very aorist ὑποτάξαι should

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

190 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

(ΕΙΣ Ay P'T. B.Bo Ee

Ver. 3. Instead of va Elz. has καί, against decisive witnesses.—
Instead of σύζυγε γνήσιε, γνήσιε σύζυγε should be written, with
Lachm. and Tisch., upon preponderating evidence.—On decisive
testimony, in ver. 12, instead of ofa δὲ ram. (Hlz.), οἶδα καὶ rum.
is to be received. The δέ has taken its rise from the last syl-
lable of oféa; hence we also find the reading δὲ xa. — Ver. 13.
After we Elz. has Χριστῷ, in opposition to A B D* x, vss.
(also Vulgate) and Fathers. Defended by Reiche, but it is an
addition from 1 Tim. i. 12, from which passage also are found
the amplifications in Or., X. ᾿Ιησοῦ and X. I. τῷ xupiw juav.— Ver
16. εἰς] wanting in A D* E**, min. vss. and Fathers. Bracketed
by Lachm. But after 613, Is might the more readily be
omitted, as it seemed superfluous, and might, indeed, on account
of the absence of an object for ἐπέμψ., appear offensive. — Ver.
19. With Lachm. and Tisch., the form τὸ πλοῦτος is to be adopted
upon decisive testimony. See on 2 Cor. viii. 2.— Ver. 23.
πάντων ὑμῶν] ABDEFGPs**, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm.
Vulg. It. Damasc. Ambrosiast. Pel. have rod πνεύματος ὑμῶν.
So Lachm. and Tisch. Taken from Gal. vi. 18, whence also in
Elz. ἡμῶν has likewise crept in after κυρίου.

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

CHAP. IV. 1. 191

iii. 171 — ὥστε] accordingly ; the ethical actual result, which:
what has been said of the ἡμεῖς in. 11. 20. f ought to have
with the readers. Comp. ii. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 58.— ἀγαπητοί
x.T.r.] “blandis appellationibus in eorum affectus se insinuat,
quae tamen non sunt adulationis, sed sinceri amoris,” Calvin.—
How might they disappoint and grieve such love as this by
non-compliance ! — ἐπιπόθητοι] longed for, for whom I yearn
(comp. i. 8); not occurring elsewhere in the N. T.; comp.
App. Hisp. 43; Eust. Opuse. p. 357. 39; Aq. Ez. xxiii. 11
(ἐπιπόθησις); Ps. cxxxix. 9 (ἐπυπόθημα) ; Ael. NV. A. vii. ὃ
(ποθητόο). ---- στέφανος] comp. 1 Thess. 11. 19; Ecclus. 1, 9,
Pal, xye, ὦ; Kz, xvi. 12, xxii, 42; Prove-xvi. 31, xvit. 6;
Job xix. 9. The honour, which accrued to the apostle from
the excellent Christian condition of the church, is repre-
sented by him under the figure of a crown of victory. Comp.
στέφανον εὐκλείας μέγαν, Soph. Aj. 465; Eur. Suppl. 313;
Iph. A.193, Here. F. 1334; Thue. ii. 46; Jacobs, ad Anthol.
“IX. p. 30; Lobeck ad Aj. lc. ; also στεφανοῦν (Wesseling, ad
Diod. Sic. I. p. 684), στεφάνωμα, Pind. Pyth. 1. 96, xi. 9,
στεφανηφορεῖν, Wisd. iv. 2, and Grimm ὧν loc. The refer-
ence of χαρά to the present time, and of στέφ. 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. — οὕτω] corresponding to the
τύπος that has just been set forth and recommended to you
(iii. 17 ff.). Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus,
Calvin, Bengel, and others, interpret: so, as ye stand, so that
Paul “praesentem statum laudando ad perseverantiam eos
hortetur,” Calvin. This 15. at variance with the context, for
he has just adduced others as a model for his readers; and the
exhortation would not agree with cuppup. μ. γίνεσθε, iii. 17,
which, notwithstanding all the praise of the morally advanced
community, still does not presuppose the existence already of
a normal Christian state. — ἐν κυρίῳ] Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 8.

1 In opposition to which Hofmann quite groundlessly urges the objection,
that Paul in that case would have written περιπατεῖτε instead Of στήκετε. Asif
he must have thought and spoken thus mechanically! The στήκετε is in fact
substantially just a περιπατεῖν which maintains its ground.

193 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS,

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

Ver. 2 f. After this general exhortation, ver. 1, the apostle,
still deeply concerned for the community that is so dear to
him, finds it requisite to give a special admonition to and for
two meritorious women, through whose disagreement, the
details of which are unknown to us, but which probably
turned on differences of their working in the church, a scandal
had occurred, and the στήκειν ἐν κυρίῳ 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 αὐταῖς in
ver. 3 is made to apply to others (viz. αἵτινες «.7.0.). For the
two feminine names on inscriptions, see Gruter and Muratori.
With Tischendorf and Lipsius (Gramm. Unters. Ὁ. 31), Συντυχή
is to be treated as oxytone. Comp. generally Kiihner, I. p.

1 According to Baur, indeed, they are alleged to be two parties rather than
two women ; and Schwegler (nachapostol. Zeitalt. 11. p. 185) makes out that
Huodia represents the Jewish-Christian, and Syntyche the Gentile-Christian
party, and that γνήσιος σύζυγος applies to Peter! On the basis of Constitutt. ap.
vii. 46. 1 (according to which Peter appointed an Luodius, and Paul Ignatius, as
Bishop of Antioch), this discovery has been amplified with further caprice by
Volkmar in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 147 ff. But exegetical fiction in con-
nection with the two feminine names has been pushed to the utmost by Hitzig,
2. Krit. Paulin. Br. p. 5 ff., according to whom they are supposed to have
their origin in Gen. xxx. 9 ff. ; he represents our author as having changed
Asher aud Gad into women in order to represent figuratively two parties, and
both of them Gentile-Christian.

* Theodore of Mopsuestia quotes the opinion that the two were husband and

wife.

CHAP. IV. 3. 193

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

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

PHIL. N

194 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

tinguished fellow - labourer of the apostle, well known, as a
matter of course, to the readers of the epistle, who had his
abode in Philippi and deserved well of the church there
by special services. Some have arbitrarily fixed on Stlas
(Bengel), and others quite unsuitably on Timothy (Estius),
and even on Lpaphroditus (Vatablus, Grotius, Calovius,
Michaelis, van Hengel, and Baumgarten-Crusius), whom Hof-
mann also would have us understand as referred to, inasmuch
as he regards him as the amanuensis of the epistle, who had
therefore heard it dictated by the apostle, and then heard it
again when it came to be read in the church, so that he knew
himself to be the person addressed. What accumulated in-
vention, in order to fasten upon Epaphroditus the, after all,
unsuitable confession before the church that he was himself
the person thus distinguished by the apostle! According to
Luther’s gloss; Paul means “the most distinguished bishop im
Philippi.” Comp. also Ewald, who compares συμπρεσβύτερος,
1 Pet.v.1. But how strange would such a nameless desig-
nation be in itself! How easily might the preferential
designation by γνήσιος have seemed even to slight other fellow-
labourers in Philippi! Besides, Paul, in describing his
official colleagues, never makes use of this term, σύζυγος,
which does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and which would
involve the assumption that the unknown individual stood
in quite a special relation to the apostle corresponding to this
purposely-chosen predicate. Laying aside arbitrariness, and
seeing that this address is surrounded by proper names
(vv. 2, 3), we can only find in ovfvye a proper name, in
which case the attribute γνήσιε corresponds in a delicate
and winning way to the appellative sense of the name (comp.
Philem. 11); genwine Syzygus, that is, thou who art in
reality and substantially that which thy name expresses:
« fellow-in-yoke,” 1.6. yoke-fellow, fellow-labourer. We may
assume that Syzyeus 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 yoke ploughing
or thrashing (1 Cor. ix. 9; 1 Tim. v. 18), a conception which

CHAP. IV. 8. 1905

was suggested to him by the very name itself. The opposite of
γνήσιος would be: οὐκ ὄντως ὦν (comp. Plat. Polit. p. 293 E),
so that the man with his name Syzygus would not be ἐπώνυμος
(Eur. Phoen. 1500; Soph. Aj. 430), Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr.
p. 272 ἢ He bore this his name, however, as ὄνομα ἐτήτυμον
(Del. Epigr. v. 42). This view of the word being a proper
name—to which Wiesinger inclines, which Laurent decidedly
defends* in his Newt. Stud. p. 134 ff. and Grimm approves of
in his Zexicon, and which Hofmann, without reason, rejects?
simply on account of the wsus loguendi of γνήσιος not being
proved—was already held by τινές in Chrysostom; comp.
Niceph. Call. ii. p. 212 D; Oecumenius permits a choice
between it and the explanation in the sense of the husband of
one of the two women. It is true that the name is not pre-
served elsewhere ; but with how many names is that the case ?
Hence it was unwarranted to assume (Storr) a translation of
the name Κολληγᾶς (Joseph. Bell. vii. 3. 4),in connection with
which, moreover, it would be hard to see why Paul should
have chosen the word σύζυγος elsewhere not used by him,
and not συνεργός, or the like? To refer the word to Christ,
who helps every one to bear his yoke (Wieseler), was a
mistake. — συλλαμβ. αὐταῖς] lay hold along with them, that is,
assist them (Luke v. 7; Herod. vi. 125; Xen. Ages. 2. 31;
Wunder, ad Soph. Phil. 280; Lex. Plat. III. p. 294), namely,
for their reconciliation and for restoring their harmonious
action. — αἵτινες] utpote quae, giving the motive, comp. i. 28;

1 Jn doing so, Laurent takes the reference of σύν contained in the name as
general: ‘‘ helper of all labour in the vineyard of the Lord.” More thoughtful,
however, is the reference to the apostle himself, whose true yoke-fellow is to
supply his place with his former female fellow-strivers (συνήδλ. μοι) ; comp.
also subsequently συνεργῶν μου.

2 According to our view, γνήσιος is, in fact, taken in no other sense than that
which is current in all Greek authors, viz. ἀληξινός, verus, as Hofmann himself
takes it. Whether we refer it thus to σύζυγε as an appellative word, or as the
appellative contents of a name—is a matter which leaves the linguistic use
of γνήσιος altogether untouched. As is well known, νόθος has the same general
linguistic usage in the opposite sense (see e.g. Plat. Rep. p. 586 A; Jacobs, ad
Del. Epigr. i. 103. 8).

3 This holds at the same time against the view of Pelagius : ‘* Germanus dictus
est nomine, qui erat compar officit.” He is followed by Lyra.

196 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

see on Rom.i. 25, ii. 15, vi. 2, et al.—év τῷ evayy.] the domain,
in which they, etc. Comp. Rom. 1.9; 1 Thess. ni. 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 συνήθλησαν, comp. i. 27.— μετὰ καὶ
Κλήμεντος «.7.r.] and in what fellowship, so honowrable to them,
have they shared my conflict for Christ’s sake ? <n association
also with Clement and, etc. The reference of the καί is
to wot; their joint-striving with Paul had been a fellowship
in striving also with Clement, etc.; they had therein stood
side by side with these men also. On kat... καί, the first καὶ
meaning also, comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. Ὁ. 891 ; on its rarer
position, however, between preposition and noun, see Schaefer,
Ind. ad Gregor. Cor. Ὁ. 1064; Hartung, Partikell. I. Ὁ. 148 ;
Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 480 f The connection of μετὰ κ. KX. «7.0.
with συλλαμβ. αὐταῖς (Coccejus, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, J. B.
Lightfoot, Hofmann) is opposed by the facts, that Paul has
committed the service of mediation to an individual, with
which the general impress now given to this commission is not
in keeping, and that the subsequent ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα κ-τ,λ., 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 λοιποὶ συνεργοί, as well as generally
the more special circumstances of which Paul here reminds his
readers, were—if μετὰ καὶ x.7.r. be joined with συνήθλησάν μοι,
beside which it stands—historically known to these readers,
although unknown to us.—That Clement was a teacher in
Philippi (so most modern expositors ; according to Grotius, a
presbyter in Philippi, but “ Romanus aliquis in Macedonia
negvotians ”), must be maintained in accordance with the con-
text, seeing that with him those two Philippian women laboured
as sharing the conflict of the apostle; and of a travelling com-
panion of this name, who had laboured with the apostle in

CHAP. IV. 3. 197

Macedonia, there is no trace to be found; and seeing that the
λουποὶ συνεργοί also are to be regarded as Philippians, because
thus only does the laudatory expression ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα K.TD.
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 Déllinger), following Origen,
ad Joh. 1. 29; Eusebius, H. #. iti. 15; Epiphanius, Haer.
xxvil. 6; Jerome, Pelagius, and others; so also Francke, in
the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. 1841, iii. p. 73 ff., and van Hengei,
who conjectures Euodia and Syntyche to have been Roman
women who had assisted the apostle 7 Rome, and had travelled
with Epaphroditus to Philippi. See generally, besides Liine-
mann and Briickner, Lipsius, de Clem. Rom. ep. p. 167 ff. ;
J. B. Lightfoot, p. 166 ff.; and Hilgenfeld, Apost. Véiter, Ὁ.
92 ff.— ὧν τὰ ὀνόμ. «.7..] refers merely to τῶν λοιπῶν K.TX.,
whom Paul does not adduce by name, but instead of this
afirms of their names something so great and honourable.
God has recorded their names in His book, in which are
written down the future partakers of the everlasting Messianic
life; so surely and irrevocably is this life assigned to them.
What Paul thus expresses by this solemn ficure, he knew
from their whole Christian character and action, in which he
recognised by experience “ quasi electionis” absconditae sigilla”

1 Nevertheless, upon this hypothesis Baur builds up a whole fabric of com-
binations, which are intended to transfer the date of our epistle to the post-
apostolic age, when the Flavius Clemens known in Roman history, who was a
patruclis of Domitian (Suet. Dom. 15), and a Christian (Lami, de erud. apost.
p- 104; Baur, IT. p. 68), had already become the well-known Clement of Roman
tradition. Comp. Volkmar in the Theolog. Jahrb. 1856, p. 309, according to
whom the Roman Clement is to be here already assumed as a martyr. Indeed,
according to Schwegler and Hitzig, z vit. paulin. Br. p. 18, a first attempt
is made here to connect this Clement also with Peter (for no other in their view
is the σύζυγος). Thus, no doubt, the way is readily prepared for bringing down
our epistle to the days of Trajan. Round the welcome name of Clement all
possible fictions crystallize.

2 The detailed discussion of the question as to the ground of the divine electio

here portrayed (the Reformed theologians, ‘‘the decretum absolutum ;” the
Lutherans, ‘‘ the pracvisa fides ;” the Catholics, “‘ the praevisa opera”) is out of

198 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

(Calvin). See, moreover, on Luke x. 20, and Wetstein on our
passage ; it is different in Heb. xii. 23 (see Liinemann in Joc).
ἐστί 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 ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα x.7.d.; see Luke x. 20; Hermas,
Pastor i. 1. 3. It is at all events certain that this predicate,
which Paul nowhere else uses, is an especially honourable one,
and does not simply convey what holds true of all Christians
(so Hofmann in connection with his erroneous reference of
μετὰ καὶ κιτιλ). At Luke x. 20, and Rev. xiii. 8 also, it is a
mark of distinction.

Ver. 4 ἢ. 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 mdvrore—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. — πάντοτε] not to be con-
nected with πάλιν ἐρῶ (Hofmann), which would make the
πάλιν very superfluous, is an essential element of the Chris-
tian χαίρειν ; comp. 1 Thess. v.16; 2 Cor. vi. 10. Just at
the close of his epistle the apostle brings it in significantly.
Paul desires joyfulness at all times on the part of the believer,
to whom even tribulation is grace (i. 7, 29) and glory (Rom.
v. 3), and in whom the pain of sin is overcome by the cer-
tainty of atonement (Rom. viii. 1); to whom everything must
serve for good (Rom. vill. 28; 1 Cor. ii. 21 f.), and nothing
can separate him from the love of God (Rom. viii. 38 f.).—
πάλιν ἐρῶ] once more I will say. Observe the futwre, which
exhibits the considcration given to the matter by the writer;
consequently not equivalent to πάλιν λέγω, 2 Cor. xi. 16;
Gal.i.9. Καλῶς ἐδιπλασίασεν, ἐπειδὴ τῶν πραγμάτων ἡ φύσις
λύπην ἔτικτε, διὰ τοῦ διπλασιασμοῦ δείκνυσιν, ὅτε πάντως
δεῖ χαίρειν, Chrysostom.— To ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν} your mildness
place here. Flacius, Clav. s.v. ‘‘liber,” justly observes that it is not fatalis

quaedam electio which is pointed to, but οὗ veram justitiam, qualis Christi est,
eredentes eo referri ct inscribi.

CHAP. IV. 4, 5. 199

[Lindighkeit, Luther], that is, yous gentle character, as opposed
to undue sternness (Polyb. v. 10. 1: ἡ ἐπιείκεια καὶ φιλαν-
θρωπία, Lucian, Phal. pr. 2: ἐπιεικὴς «. μέτριος, Herodian,
ἢ ΤᾺ Sox das 1 Tims τὰν 35 Hit. ut 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: ἀκριβοδίκαιος,
Arist. Eth. Nic. v.10. 8, σκληρός. As to the neuter of the
adjective taken as a substantive, see on 111. 8; comp. Soph.
0.C.1127. It might also mean: your becoming behaviour ;
see 6.5. the passages from Plato in Ast, Lex. 1. 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.
ἐπίεικ. always occurs in the above-named special sense. —
γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν ἀνθρ.] let it be known by all men, through the
acquaintance of experience with your conduct. Comp. Matt.
v.16. The wniversality of the expression (which, moreover, is
to be taken popularly: “let no man come to know you in a
harsh, rigorous aspect”) prohibits our referring it to their rela-
tion to the enemies of the cross of Christ, against whom they
should not be hatefully disposed (Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact), or to the enemies of Christianity (Pelagius,
Theodoret, Erasmus, and others), or to the Judaists (Rhein-
wald), although none of these are excluded, and the 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 link may be psychologically explained by the fact, that
the disposition of Christian joyfulness must elevate men quite
as much above strict insisting upon rights and claims as above
solicitude (ver. 6). Neither with the former nor with the latter
could the Christian fundamental disposition of the χαίρειν ἐν
κυρίῳ subsist, in which the heart enlarges itself to yielding
love and casts all care upon God.—o κύριος ἐγγύς] points to
the nearness of Christ's Parousia, 1 Cor. xvi. 22. Comp. on
éyyus, Matt. xxiv. 32 f£.; Luke xxi. 31; Rev. i. 3, xxii. 10;
Rom. xiii. 11. The reference to God, by which Paul would
bring home to their hearts, as Calvin expresses it, “divinae

200 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

providentiae fiduciam” (comp. Ps. xxxiv. 18, cxix. 151, exlv.
18; so also Pelagius, Luther, Calovius, Zanchius, Wolf, Rhein-
wald, Matthies, Rilliet, Cornelius Miiller, and others), is not
suggested in vv. 1, 2,4 by the context, which, on the con-
trary, does not refer to God until ver. 6. Usually and rightly,
following Chrysostom and Erasmus, the words have been
attached to what precedes. If the Lord is at hand, who is
coming as the Vindew of every injustice endured and as the
σωτήρ 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 ἐπιείκεια !
The words therefore convey an encowragement to the latter.
What follows has its complete reference, and that to God,
pointed out by the antithesis ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ κ.τ.λ.

Ver. 6. The μεριμνᾶτε 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.; μηδέν, 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: τὸ πολλὰ μεριμνᾶν καὶ
τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι ἡσυχίαν ἔχειν. 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. — ἐν παντί] opposed to the μηδέν: hence: in every
case or affair (comp. Eph. v. 24; 2 Cor. iv. 8; 1 Thess. v.
18; Plat. Huthyd. p. 301 <A), not: at all times (Syriac,
Grotius, Bos, Flatt, Rheinwald). — τῇ προσευχῇ κ. τῇ δεήσει]
by prayer and supplication. On the distinction between the two
(the former being general, the latter swpplicating prayer), see on
Eph. vi. 18. The article indicates the prayer, which ye make ;

1 They do not belong, by way of introduction, to what follows, as Hofmann
thinks, who understands ‘‘ the helpful nearness of the Lord” (Matt. xxviii. 20 ;
Jas. iv. 8) in the present, and consequently the assurance of being heard in the
individual case. Comp., rather, on the ἐγγύς habitually used of the future jinal
coming, in addition to the above passages, Matt. 111, 2, iv. 17, x. 7; Marki. 15;
Luke xxi. 8, 28; Rom. xiii. 12; Heb. x. 25; Jas. v. 8; 1 Pet. iv. 7; and the
ἔρχομαι ταχύ of the Apocalypse. The simply correct rendering is given after
Chrysostom by Erasmus (‘‘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, 11. 1,
p. 529). — μετὰ εὐχαρ.] belongs to γνωριξζ. «.7.r., which, exclud-
ing all solicitude in the prayer, should never take place (comp.
1 Thess. v. 18; Col. iii. 17) without thanksgiving for the
proofs of divine love already received and continually being
experienced, of which the Christian is conscious wader all cir-'
cumstances (Rom. ν 111. 28). In the thanksgiving of the sup-
pliant there is expressed entire surrender to God’s will, the very
opposite of solicitude. — τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμ.} what ye desire (Plat.
Rep. viii. p. 566 B; Dionys. Hal. “πη. vi. 74; Luke xxiii.
24), that is, In accordance with the context: your petitions
eeedonn y.15; Dan) vi. 7; PSs Psi xix. 6, xxxviv 4; e al. ;
Schleusner, Zhes. I. p. 100). — γνωριζέσθω πρὸς τ. Θεόν] must
be made known towards God ; πρός, versus; it is the coram
of the direction. Comp. Bernhardy, p. 265; Schoem. ad Is.
ili. 25. The expression is more graphic than the mere dative
would be; and the conception itself (yvwprf.) is popularly
anthropopathic ; Matt. vi. 8. Bengel, moreover, aptly remarks
on the subject-matter: “qui desideria sua praepostero pudore
ac diffidenti modestia...velant, suffocant ac retinent, curis
anguntur ; qui filiali et liberali fiducia erga Deum expromunt,
expediuntur. Confessionibus ejusmodi scatent Psalmi.”

Ver. 7. The blessed result, which the compliance with
ver. 6 will have for the inner man. How independent is this
blessing of the concrete granting or non-granting of what is
prayed for !— ἡ εἰρήνη τ. Θεοῦ] the peace of soul produced by
God (through the Holy Spirit; comp. χαρὰ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ,
Rom. xiv. 17), the repose and satisfaction of the mind in God’s
counsel and love, whereby all inward discord, doubt, and
variance are excluded, such as it is expressed cg. in Rom.
vill. 18, 28. So in substance most expositors, including
Rheinwald, Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hoelemann, Rilliet, de
Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and Winer. This
view—and not (in opposition to Theodoret and Pelagius) that
explanation of peace in the sense of harmony with the brethren
(hom. xv. 93; ‘xv1.).20 352) Cor. xi. - ΤΊ]; 1; Thessa yaa:
2 Thess. iii. 16), which corresponds to the ordinary use of the

202 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

correlative ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης in ver. 9—is here required on
the part of the context, both by the contrast of μεριμνᾶτε
in ver. 6, and by the predicate ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα. νοῦν.
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 μέριμνα, to which the feeble
νοῦς by itself is liable; as, indeed, in the classical authors
also (Plat. Rep. p. 329 O, p. 372 Ὁ), and elsewhere (Wisd.
iii. 3), εἰρήνη denotes the tranquillitas and secwritas, the mental
γαλήνη (Plat. Legg. vii. p. 791 A) and ἡσυχία----ὃ, rest, which
here is invested by tod Θεοῦ with the consecration of divine
life. Comp. εἰρήνη τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Col. iii. 15; John xiv. 33;
and, on the other hand, the false εἰρήνη «x. ἀσφάλεια, 1 Thess.
v. ὃ. It is therefore not to be understood, according to Rom.
v. 1, as “pax, qua reconciliati estis Deo” (Erasmus, Paraphr. ;
so Chrysostom, 7) καταλλαγὴ, ἡ ἀγάπη τ. Θεοῦ: 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 εἰρήνη πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, the
latter εἰρήνη τοῦ Ocov.—») ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν] which sur-
passes every reason, namely, in regard to its salutary power and
efficacy ; that is, which is able more than any reason to elevate
above all solicitude, to comfort and to strengthen. Because
the reason in its moral thinking, willing, and feeling is of itself
too weak to confront the power of the σάρξ (Rom. vii. 23, 25;
Gal. v. 17), no reason is in a position to give this clear holy
elevation and strength against the world and its afflictions.
This can be effected by nothing but the agency of the divine
peace, which is given by means of the Spirit in the believing
heart, when by its prayer and supplication with thanksgiving
it has elevated itself to God and has confided to Him all its
concerns, 1 Pet. v. 7. Then, in virtue of this blessed peace,
the heart experiences what it could not have experienced by
means of its own thinking, feeling, and willing. According
to de Wette, the doubting and heart-disquieting νοῦς 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 πάντα, according to which not merely all douwbt-
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 itncomprehensibleness of the
peace of God, “the greatness of which the understanding
cannot even grasp” (Wiesinger). So Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, also Hoele-
mann and Weiss. Comp. Eph. ii. 20. But the context,
both in the foregoing μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε and in the φρουρήσει
«.7.X. Which follows, points only to the blessed influence, in
respect of which the peace of God surpasses every kind of
reason whatever, and consequently is more efficacious than it.
It is a ὑπερέχειν τῇ δυνάμει; Paul had no occasion to bring
into prominence the incomprehensibleness of the εἰρήνη Θεοῦ.
— On ὑπερέχειν with the accusative (usually with the genitive,
11. 3), see Valckenaer, ad Hur. Hippol. 1365; Kiihner, II. 1,
p. 337.— φρουρήσειν «.7.r.] not custodiat (Vulgate, Chrysos-
tom, Theodoret, Theophylact: ἀσφαλίσαυτο, Luther, Calovius,
Cornelius a Lapide, and others, including Storr, Heinrichs,
Flatt), but custodiet (Castalio, Beza, Calvin), whereby protection
against all injurious influences (comp. 1 Pet. i. 5) is promised.
Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 560 B: of . . . ἄριστοι φρουροί te καὶ
φύλακες ἐν ἀνδρῶν θεοφιλῶν εἰσὶ διανοίαις. Eur. Suppl. 902:
ἐφρούρει (πολλοὺς) μηδὲν ἐξαμαρτάνειν. “ Animat eos hac
fiducia,” Erasmus, Annot. This protecting vigilance is more
precisely detined by ἐν 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
φρουρά which the peace of God exercises implies in Christ,
as it were, the dpovpapyia (Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 17). Comp.
Col. iii. 15, where the εἰρήνη τοῦ Χριστοῦ βραβεύει in men’s
hearts. Others consider ἐν X. ’I. as that which takes place on
the part of the readers, wherein the peace of God would keep

204 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

them, namely “in unity with Christ, in His divinely-blessed,
holy life,” de Wette; or ὥστε μένειν καὶ μὴ ἐκπεσεῖν αὐτοῦ,
Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Zanchius,
and others, including Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, van
Hengel, Matthies, Rilliet, Wiesinger, Weiss. But the words
do not affirm wherein watchful activity is to keep or preserve
the readers (Paul does not write τηρήσει ; 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 τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν «.7.X. circum-
cludente,” etc.) is all the less warranted, the more familiar
the idea ἐν Χριστῷ 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 φρουρήσει «.7.r., are not to be arbi-
trarily limited, eg. to opponents (Heinrichs), or to Satan (Beza,
Grotius, and others), or sim (Theophylact), or pravas cogitationes
(Calvin), or “ omnes insultus et cwras” (Bengel), and the like ;
but to be left quite general, comprehending all such special
aspects. Erasmus well says (Paraphr.): “adversus omnia,
quae hic possunt incidere formidanda.” — τὰς καρδ. ty. K. τὰ
von. ὑμῶν] emphatically kept apart. It is enough to add

engel’s note: “cor sedes cogitationum.” Comp. Roos, Fun-
dam. psychol. ea sacr. script. III. § 6: “causa cogitationum
interna eaque libera.” The heart is the organ of self-conscious-
ness, and therefore the moral seat of the activity of thought
and will. As to the νοήματα (2 Cor. 111. 14) as the internal
products of the theoretical and practical reason, and therefore
including purposes and plans (Plat. Polit. p. 260 D;
2 Cor. ii. 11), comp. Beck, bibl. Seelenl. Ὁ. 59, and Delitzsch,
Psychol. Ὁ. 179. The distinction is an arbitrary one, which
applies τ. caps. to the emotions and will, and τ. νοήμ. to the
intelligence (Beza, Calvin).

Ver. 8 ἢ 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 τὸ
λοιπόν, with which Paul had already, at iii, 1, wished to pass

CHAP, IV. 8, 9. 205

on to the conclusion. See on iii 1. This τὸ λοιπόν is
not, however, resumptive (Matthies, Ewald, following the
old expositors), or concluding the exhortation begun in
iii. 1 (Hofmann), for in that passage it introduced quite a
different summons; but, without any reference to iii. 1, it
conveys the transition of thought: “what over and above all
the foregoing I have to urge upon you in general still is:
everything that,’ etc. According to de Wette, it is intended
to bring out what remained for man to do, in addition to that
which God does, ver. 7. But in that case there must have
been expressed, at least by ὑμεῖς before ἀδελφοί or in some
other way, an antithetic statement of that which had to be
done on the part of man.—éca] nothing being excepted,
expressed asyndetically six times with the emphasis of an
earnest ἐπιμονή. Comp. ii. 1, 111. 2; Buttmann, Newt. Gr.
p. 341 [E. T. 998]. ---- ἀληθῆ] The thoroughly ethical contents
of the whole summons requires us to understand, not theoretical
truth (van Hengel), but that which is morally true; that is,
that which is in harmony with the olyective standard of morality
contained in the gospel. Chrysostom: ἡ ἀρετή" ψεῦδος δὲ ἡ κακία.
Oecumenius: ἀληθὴ δέ φησι τὰ ἐνάρετα. Comp. also Theophy-
lact. See 1 Johni. 6; John iii. 21; Eph. v. 9; 1 Cor. v. 8.
To limit it to truth in speaking (Theodoret, Bengel) is in itself
arbitrary, and not in keeping with the general character of the
predicates which follow, in accordance with which we must
not even understand specially wnfeigned sincerity (Erasmus,
Grotius, Estius, and others; comp. Eph. iv. 21; Plat. Phil. p.
59 Ο: τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ ὃ δὴ λέγομεν εἰλικρινές), though this
essentially belongs to the morally true.— σεμνά] worthy of
honour, for it is in accordance with God. Comp. 1 Tim. ii. 2:
εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ σεμνότητι. Plat. Soph.p.249 A: σεμνὸν καὶ ἅγιον
νοῦν. Xen. Occ. vi. 14: τὸ σεμνὸν ὄνομα τὸ καλόν τε κἀγαθόν.
Dem. 385. 11; Herodian, i. 2.6; Ael. V. H. ii. 13, viii. 36 ;
Polyb. ix. 36, 6, xv. 22. 1, xxii. 6. 10. --- δίκαια] upright, as
it ought to be; not to be limited to the relations “erga alios”
(Bengel, Heumann, and others), so that justice in the narrower
sense would be meant (so Calvin: “ne quem laedamus, ne
quem fraudemus;” Estius, Grotius, Calovius, and others),

206 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

Comp., on the contrary, Theogn. 147 : ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ συλλήβδην
πᾶσ᾽ ἀρετή ἔστι. ---- ἁγνά] pure, unstained, not: chaste in the
narrower sense of the word (2 Cor. xi. 2; Dem. 1371. 22;
Plut. Mor. p. 268 E, 438 Ὁ, οὐ 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, vi. 11 ; 1 Tim. v. 225 Jas. 11. 17; 1 Peta
1 John iii. 3; often so used in Greek authors. Comp. Menand.
in Clem. Strom. vii. p. 844: πᾶς ἁγνός ἐστιν ὁ μηδὲν ἑαυτῷ
κακὸν συνιδών. ---- προσφιλῆ] dear, that which ts loved. This is
just once more Christian morality, which, in its whole nature
as the ethical καλόν, is worthy of love ;' Plat. Rep. p. 444 E;
Soph. Zl. 972: φιλεῖ yap πρὸς τὰ χρηστὰ πᾶς ὁρᾶν. “ Nihil
est amabilius virtute, nihil quod magis alliciat ad diligendum,
Cic. Lael. 28. Comp. ad Famil. ix. 14; Xen. Mem. 11. 1. 33.
The opposite is the αἰσχρόν, which deserves hate (Rom.
vii. 15). Chrysostom suggests the supplying τοῖς πιστοῖς x.
τῷ Θεῷ; Theodoret only τῷ Θεῷ. Others, as Calovius,
Estius, Heinrichs, and many: “amabilia hominibus.? But
there is no necessity for any such supplement. The word
does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., although frequently
in classical authors, and at Ecclus. iv. 8, xx. 13. Others
understand kindliness, benevolence, friendliness, and the like.
So. Grotius ; comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.: “quaecumque ad
alendam concordiam accommoda.” Linguistically faultless
(Ecclus. J.c.; Herod. i; 125; Thuc. vii. 86; Polyb. x. 5. 6),
but not in keeping with the context, which does not adduce
any special virtues. — εὔφημα] not occurring elsewhere either
in the N. T., or in the LXX., or Apocrypha; it does not
mean: “quaecumque bonam famam conciliant” (Erasmus ;
comp. Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Heinrichs,
and others, also Rheinwald); but: that which sownds well
(Luther), which has an auspicious (faustum) sound, 1.6. that
which, when it is named, sounds significant of happiness, as,
for instance, brave, honest, honourable, etc. The opposite
would be: δύσφημα. Comp. Soph. 47. 362; Eur. Iph. 7. 687:

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

CHAP. IV. 8, 9. 207

εὔφημα φώνει. Plat. Leg. vii. p. 801 A: τὸ τῆς ὠδῆς γένος
εὔφημον ἡμῖν. Aesch. Suppl. 694, Agam. 1168 ; Polyb.
xxxi. 14. 4; Lucian, Prom. 3. Storr, who is followed by
Flatt, renders it: “ sermones, qui bene alis precantur.’ So
used in later Greek authors (also Symmachus, Ps. Ixu. 6);
but this meaning is here too special.—ei τίς x«.7.A.] com-
prehending all the points mentioned: ¢f there be any virtue,
and if there be any praise; not if there be yet another, etc.
(de Wette).—dpery used by Paul here only, and in the rest of
the N. T. only in 1 Pet. ii. 9, 2 Pet. i 3, 5. in the ethical
sense: moral aptitude in disposition and action (the opposite
to it, κακία: Plat. Rep. 444 Ὁ, 445 C, 1, p. 348 C). Comp.
from the Apocrypha, Wisd. iv. 1, v. 13, and frequent instances
of its use in the books of Macc. — ἔπαινος] not: res laudabilis
(Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Flatt, Matthies, van Hengel, and
many others; comp. Weiss), but praise (Erasmus: “aus
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
ἔπαινος ; or when Christ pronounces a blessing on the humble,
the peacemakers, the merciful, etc., or the like. “Vera laus
uni virtuti debetur,’ Cic. de orat. ii. 84. 342; virtue is καθ᾽
αὑτὴν ἐπαινετή, Plat. Def. p. 411 C. Mistaken, therefore,
were such additions as ἐπιστήμης (D* ἘΠ F G) or disciplinae
(Vulg., It., Ambrosiaster, Pelagius). — ταῦτα λογίζεσθε] consider
these things, take them to heart, in order (see ver. 9) to deter-
mine your conduct accordingly. “ Meditatio praecedit, deinde
sequitur opus,” Calvin. On λογίζεσθαι, comp. Ps. 111. 2 ; Jer.

! We are not entitled to assume (with Beza) as the reason why Paul does not
use this word elsewhere, that it is ‘‘verbum nimium humile, si cum donis
Spiritus Sancti comparetur.” The very passage before us shows the contrary, as
it means no other than Christian morality. Certainly in Paul’s case, as with
the N. T. authors generally and even Christ Himself, the specific designations
of the idea of virtue, which correspond more closely to the sphere of theocratic
O. T. ideas, such as δικαιοσύνη, ὑπακοή, ἁγιότης, ἁγιωσύνη, ὁσιότης, x.7.A., ἴ00 NECes-
sarily suggested themselves to his mind to allow him to use the general term for
morality, ἀρετή, as familiar, however worthily and nobly the Platonic doctrine,

in particular, had grasped the idea of it (εἰς ὅσον δυνατὸν ἀνθρώπῳ ὁμοιοῦσῥαι Θεῷ,
Plat. Rep. p. 618 A, 500 C, et.al.)

208 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PIIILIPPIANS.

xxvi 3;-Nah.a 99; Ps. xxxv. 4; xxxvi 4; ὃ Mace. yee
Soph. 0. &. 461; Herod. viii. 53; Dem. 63, 12; Sturz, Lez.
Xen. 111. p. 42; the opposite: θνητὰ λογίζεσθαι, Anthol. Pal.
xl. 56. 3.—Ver. 9. The Christian morality, which Paul in
ver. 8 has commended to his readers by a series of predicates,
he now again urges upon them in special reference to their
relation to himself, their teacher and example, as that which
they had also learned, etc. ‘The first καί is therefore also, pre-
fixing to the subsequent ταῦτα πράσσετε an element corre-
sponding to this requirement, and ¢mposing an obligation to its
fulfilment. ‘“ Whatsoever also has been the object and purport
of your instruction, etc., that do.” To take the four times
repeated καί as a double as well ...as also (Hofmann and
others), would yield an inappropriate formal scheme of separa-
tion. Καί in the last three cases is the simple and, but so
that the whole is to be looked upon as bipartite: “Duo priora
verba ad doctrinam pertinent, reliqua duo ad exemplum”
(Estius).— ἅ] not ὅσα again; for no further categories of
morality are to be given, but what they are bound to do
generally is to be described under the point of view of what
is known to the readers, as that which they also have learned, ete.
— παρελάβετε] have accecpted. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1; John
i, 11; Polyb. xxx. 16. 9. The interpretation: “ have.
reccivcd” (Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, and most exposi-
tors, including Rheinwald, Rillict, Hoelemann, de Wette,
Weiss, Hofmann), which makes it denote the znstrwction com-
municated.(1 Thess. ii. 13, iv. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 6; 1 Cor.
xi. 233 Galed.9, 12); Col. 11 6.5 comp. Plat. Zheaet. p. 19S 7Be
παρωλαμβάνοντα δὲ μανθάνειν), would yield a twofold designa-
tion for the one element,’ and on the other hand would omit
the point of the asscisus, which is so important as a motive ;
moreover, from a lceical point of view, we should necessarily
expect to find the position of the two words reversed (comp.

1 Real distinctions have, indeed, been made, but how purely arbitrary they
ere! Thus Grotius (comp. Hammond) makes izéé. apply to the primam in-
stitutionem, and παρελάβ. to the exactiorem doctrinam. Rilliet explains it dif-
ferently, making the former denote : ‘‘ son exseignement direct,” and the latter :
** les instructions, qwil leur a transmises sous une forme quelconque.”

CHAP. IV. 8, 9. 209

Gal. i. 12). — ἠκούσατε] does not refer to the proper preaching
and teaching of the apostle (Erasmus, Calvin, Elsner, Rhein-
wald, Matthies), which is already fully embraced in the two
previous points; nor does it denote: “ audistis de me absente”
(Estius and others, including Hoelemann, Rilliet, Hofmann),
for all the other points refer to the time of the apostle’s pre-
sence, and consequently not merely the “ de me,’ but also the
“ absente” would be purely imported. No, by the words
ἠκούσατε and εἴδετε, to both of which ἐν ἐμοί belongs, he re-
presents to his readers his own example of Christian morality,
which he had given them when he was present, in its two
portions, in so far as they had perceived it in him (ἐν ἐμοί,
comp. i. 30) partly by hearing, in his whole oral behaviour
and intercourse with them, partly by seeing, in his manner of
action among them; or, in other words, his example both in
word and decd.-—tadta πράσσετε] these things do, is not
related to ταῦτα λογίζεσθε, ver. 8, as excluding it, in such
a way that for what is said in ver. 8 the λογίζεσθαι merely
would be required, and for what is indicated in ver. 9
the πράσσειν ; on the contrary, the two operations, which
in substance belong jointly to the contents of both verses,
are formally separated in accordance with the mode of expres-
sion of the parallelism. Comp. on 11. 8 and Rom, x. 10.—
καὶ ὁ Θεός x.7.r.] in substance the same promise as was
given in ver. 7. God, who works peace (that holy peace of soul,
ver. 7), will be with you, whereby is meant the help given
through the Holy Spirit ; and His special agency, which Paul
here has in view, is unmistakeably indicated by the very
predicate τῆς εἰρήνης.

REMARK.—It is to be noticed that the predicates in ver. 8,
ἀληθῆ... εὔφημα, do not denote different dndividual virtues, but
that each represents the Christian moral character gencrally, so
that in reality the same thing is described, but according to the
various aspects which commended it. Comp. Diog. Laert. ii. 106:
ἕν τὸ ἀγαθὸν πολλοῖς ὀνόμασι κωλούμενον. Cic. de fin. 111. 4. 14: “una
virtus unum istud, quod honestum appellas, rectum, laudabile, de-
corum.” That itis Christian morality which Paul has in view,
is clearly evident from ver. 9 and from the whole preceding

PHIL. ο

210 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

context. Hence the passage cannot avail for placing the
morality of the moral law of nature (Rom. 11. 14 f.) on an
equality with the gospel field of duty, which has its specific
definition and consecration—as also, for the reconciled whom it
embraces, the assurance of the divine keeping (vv. 7, 9)—in the
revealed word (ver. 9), and in the enlightening and ethically
transforming power of the Spirit (comp. Rom. xii. 2).

Ver. 10. Carrying on his discourse with δέ, Paul now in
conclusion adds, down to ver. 20, some courteous expressions, as
dignified as they are delicate, concerning the aid which he had
received. Hitherto, indeed, he had only mentioned this work
of love briefly and casually (ii. 25, 30). In the aid itself
Baur discovers a contradiction of 1 Cor. ix. 15, and conjectures
that the author of the epistle had 2 Cor. xi. 9 in view, and
had inferred too much from that passage. But, in fact, Baur
himself has inferred too much, and 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. — ἐν κυρίῳ] as in iii. 1,
iv. 4. It was, indeed, not a joy felt apart from Christ; οὐ
κοσμικῶς ἐχάρην, φησὶν, οὐδὲ βιωτικῶς, Chrysostom. — μεγά-
λως] 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. 11. 10; and Stallbaum, ad Plat.
Phaedr. p. 256 E, Menex. p. 235 A.—6re ἤδη ποτέ κιτ.λ.] is
to be rendered: “that ye have at length once again come into the
flourishing condition of taking thought for my benefit, in behalf
of which ye also TOOK thought, but had no favourable opportunity.”
— ἤδη ποτέ] taken in itself may mean: already once; or, as
in Rom. i. 10: tandem aliquando. The latter is the meaning
here, as appears from ἐφ᾽ 6 κτλ. Chrysostom justly observes
(comp. Oecumenius and Theophylact) that it denotes χρόνον
μακρόν, when namely that θάλλειν had not been present, which
has now again (comp. ver. 15 f.) set in. Comp. Baeumlein,
Partik. p. 140. This view of ἤδη ποτέ is the less to be
evaded, seeing that the reproach which some have discovered in

CHAP. IV. 10. 21

the passage (ἐπιτίμησις, 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. — dveOanrere] 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 (θαλλούς) It cannot be the revival of
their care-taking love which is meant, so that the readers would
have previously been ἀπομαρανθέντες ἐν τῇ ἐλεημοσύνῃ (Ocecu-
menius, also Chrysostom, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus,
Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, Flatt,
Wiesinger, Ewald, and most expositors, who rightly take
ἀνεθάλ.. 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 ἐφ᾽ 6 ἐφρονεῖτε x.7.X. which imme-
diately follows, and by which the continuous care previously
exercised is attested! No, it is the flowrishing anew of their
prosperity (comp. Rheinwald, Matthies, van Hengel, Baum-
garten-Crusius, Schenkel, Hofmann, and others), the opposite
of which is afterwards expressed by ἠκαιρεῖσθε, that is denoted,
as prosperous circumstances are so often represented under
the figure of becoming green and blooming. Comp. Ps. xxviii.
7: ἀνέθαλεν ἡ σάρξ μου, Wisd. iv. 3 ἢ; Hes. Op. 231:
τέθηλε πόλις, Pind. 75}. 111. 9: ὄλβος... θάλλων, Pyth.
Vil. 22: θάλλουσαν εὐδαιμονίαν. Plat. Legg. xii. p. 945 Ὁ:
ἡ πᾶσα οὕτω θάλλει τὲ Kal εὐδαιμονεῖ χώρα x. πόλις. Οἵ
frequent occurrence in the tragedians; comp. also Jacobs,
ad Dei. Epigr. viii. 97. It is therefore inconsistent, both
with delicate feeling and with the context, to take dveOan.
transitively : “ revirescere sivistis solitam vestram rerum mearum
procurationem” (Hoelemann; comp. Coccejus, Grotius, Hein-

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

213 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

richs, Hammond, and others, including Rilliet, de Wette, Weiss),
although the transitive use of ἀναθάλλειν in the LXX. and
also in the Apocrypha is unquestionable (Ezek. xvii. 24 ; Ecclus.
i. 16, xi. 20, 1. 10; see generally Schleusner, Zhes. I. p.
220 f.); and that of θάλλειν is also current in classical authors
(Pind. Ol. 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 prosperity, that 1ῦ is appropriate as a subject of joy
in the Lord (see Weiss) ; it is appropriate at all events, when
such a wse is made of the revived prosperity.— τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ
φρονεῖν] is usually, with the correct intransitive rendering of
aveOan., so understood that τὸ is taken together with φρονεῖν,
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, Syntaw d. Griech. Verb. Ὁ. 401 f.; Ellendt, Lex.
Soph. II. p. 222. Comp. van Hengel: “negotium volo mihi
consulendi.” But the whole view which takes τό with
φρονεῖν is set aside by the following ἐφ᾽ @ x. ἐφρονεῖτε ; seeing
that ἐφ᾽ 6, 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 ᾧ
the previous τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν, and would consequently
yield the logically absurd conception: ἐφρονεῖτε ἐπὶ τῷ ὑπὲρ
ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν, whether ἐφ᾽ ᾧ be taken as equivalent to οὗ ἕνεκα
(Beza) or qua de ve (Rheinwald, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger,
Ewald, and others), or iz 60 quod (Erasmus), ἦγ) qua ve (Cor-
nelius a Lapide, Hoelemann), or et post id (Grotius), and the
like. Recourse has been had, by way of helping the matter,
to the suggestion that φρονεῖν ἐπί is a thinking without action,
and φρονεῖν ὑπέρ a thinking with action (de Wette, Wiesinger ;
comp. Ewald); but how purely arbitrary is this view! Less
arbitrarily, Calvin and Rilliet (“vous pensiez bien ἃ moi”)
have referred ᾧ to ἐμοῦ, by which, no doubt, that logical

1In the transitive interpretation (see, against it, swpra) the +d φρονεῖν, which

would likewise be taken together, would be the accusative forming the object of
ἀνεθάλ, See Buttmann, Neut, Gr. p. 226 (E. T. 263]; Kiihner, 11, 2, p. 603.

CHAP. IV. 10. 213

awkwardness is avoided; but, on the other hand, the objection
arises, that ἐφ᾽ ᾧ is elsewhere invariably used by Paul as
neuter only, and that it is difficult to see why, if he desired to
take up ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ in a relative form, he should not have
written ὑπὲρ οὗ, since otherwise in ἐπί, if it merely went
back to ἐμοῦ, 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 (καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε). Weiss, in-
terpreting ἐφ᾽ 6 as: about which to take thought, refers it back
to ἀνεθάλετε----ὃ, 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 τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ together
(comp. τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν, ii. 20 ; also τὰ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν, ver. 18 ; and see
generally, Kriiger, § 50:6, 125 Kiihnerp Th Ὶ px 291 £); and
that as the accusative of the object to φρονεῖν (comp. Bengel,
Schenkel, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann) : “to take into consideration
that which serves for my good,” to think of my benefit; on
ὑπὲρ, comp. i 7. Only thus does the sequel obtain its literal,
logical, and delicately-turned reference, namely, when ἐφ᾽ ᾧ
applies to τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ. Taking this view, we have to notice:
(1) that ἐπί is used in the sense of the aim (Lobeck, ad Phryn.
p. 475; Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 435): on behalf of which, for
which, comp. Soph. 0. R. 569; (2) that Paul has not again
written the mere accusative (ὁ καὶ ἐφρ.), because ἐφ᾽ ᾧ is in-
tended to refer not alone to «. ἐφρονεῖτε, but also to the
antithesis ἠκαιρεῖσθε δέ, consequently to the entire «. é¢p.,
ἠκαιρ. δέ; (3) that the emphasis is placed on é¢pov. as the

1 All the more groundless, therefore, is Hofmann’s objection, that φρονεῖν iri
ew: means: to be proud about something. This objection, put thus generally, is
even in itself incorrect. For φρονεῖν ἐπί ci does not in itself mean: to be proud
about something, but only receives this signification through the addition of μέγα,
μεγάλα, or some similar more precise definition (Plat. Theaet. p. 149 1), Ale. 1.
p. 104 C, Prot. p. 842 Ὁ, 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 καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε as the ground, ‘‘ upon, or on account of, which their
re-emergence from an unfavourable position has been a revival unto care for him.”
If the reference of ἐφ᾽ w to ro ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ were not directly given in the text, it would
be much simpler to take ἐφ᾽ ᾧ as in Rom. v. 12, Phil. iii. 12, 2 Cor. v. 4, in

214 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

imperfect, and καί indicates an element to be added to the
φρονεῖν which has been just expressed; hence καὶ ἐφρ. inti-
mates: “in behalf of which ye not only are taking thought
(that is, since the ἀνεθάλετε), but also were taking thought
(namely, πρόσθεν, before the ἀνεθάλετε) ;” lastly, (4) that after
ἐφρ. there is no μέν inserted, because the antithesis is meant
to emerge unprepared for, and so all the more vividly. —
ἠκαιρεῖσ θε] ye had no favourable time; a word belonging to
the later Greek. Diod. exc. Mat. p. 30; Phot., Suid. The
opposite: εὐκαιρεῖν, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 125. Unsuitably
and arbitrarily this is explained: “deerat vobis opportunitas
mittend.” (Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, and
others). It refers, in keeping with the ἀνεθάλετε, not without
delicacy of description, to the wnfavowrable state of things as
regards means (Chrysostom: οὐκ εἴχετε ἐν χερσὶν, οὐδὲ ἐν
ἀφθονίᾳ ἦτε ; 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. εὐκαιρεῖν τοῖς βίοις
in Polyb. xv. 21. 2, xxxii. 21.12; and also the mere εὐκαιρεῖν
in the same sense, iv. 60. 10; εὐκαιρία: xv. 31. 7,1. 59. 7;
axatpia: Plat. Legg. iv. p. 709 A; Dem. 16. 4; Polyb. iv.
44, 11.

Ver. 11. Obviating of a misunderstanding. — οὐχ ὅτι] as in
iil. 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 κατά, scewndum, in the sense
of propter, see Kihner, 11. 1, p. 413, and ad Xen. Mem. i. 3.
12. According to van Hengel’s interpretation: “wt more
receptum est penuriac, 5. hominibus penuria oppressis,” κατά
could not have been united with an abstract noun (Rom. 111. 5,
et al.).—éyo yap ἔμαθον x.7.r.] for I, as regards my part
(although it may be different with others), have learned in the

the sense of propterca quod, and that as a graceful and ingenious specification of
the reason for the great joy of the apostle, that they had flourished again to
take thought for his benefit; for their previous omission bad been caused not
by any lack of the φρονεῖν in question, but by the unfavourableness of the times.

CHAP, IV. 12. 215

circumstances, in which I find myself, to be self-contented, that is,
to have enough independently without desiring aid from others.
Tt is evident from the reason thus assigned that in οὐχ. ὅτι καθ᾽
tor. Δ. he has meant not the objective, but the subjective state
of need. —éye] with noble self-consciousness, there being no
need to supply, with Bengel, “in tot adversis.” — ἔμαθον]
signifies the having learned by experience (comp. Plat. Symp. p.
182 C: ἔργῳ δὲ τοῦτο ἔμαθον καὶ οἱ ἐνθάδε τύραννοι), and all
that accordingly he can, he owes to the strengthening in-
fluence of Christ, ver. 13.— ἐν οἷς εἰμι] 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 quocunque statw sim” (Raphel, Wetstein, and others),
which would be ungrammatically expressed. In opposition to
the context (see ver. 12), Luther: among whom (οἷς, mas-
culine) J am. As to αὐτάρκεια as applied to persons, the
subjective self-sufficing, by means of which a man does not
make the satisfaction of his needs dependent upon others,
but finds it in himself, comp. Ecclus. xl. 18; Xen. Mem. iv.
7.1; Dem. 450. 14; Stob. v. 43; and see on 2 Cor. ix. 8.
Ver. 12. Paul now specifies this his αὐτάρκεια (in Plat. Def.
p. 412 B, termed τελειότης κτήσεως ἀγαθῶν). ----- οἶδα] 1
understand how (1 Thess. iv. 4; Col. iv. 6; 1 Tim. i. 5;
Matt. vii 11; Soph. 47. 666 ὦ; Anth. Pal. vii. 440. 5 ff) ;}
result of the ἔμαθον. ---- καὶ ταπειν.] also to be abased, namely,
by want, distress, and other ailotted 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. οἶδα καὶ περισσεύειν is to be understood analogously, of
the right attitude to the matter, so that one is not led away by

1It is the moral understanding, having its seat in the character. Comp.
Ameis, Anh. z. Hom. Od. ix. 189.

216 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

abundance to find his satisfaction in the latter instead of in
himself. Pelagius well says: “ut nec abundantia extollar, nec
frangar inopia.” — The first καί adds to the general ἐν οἷς εἰμι
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 περισσεύειν καὶ ὗστε-
ρεῖσθαι, for ταπεινοῦσθαι is a more comprehensive idea than the
counterpart of περισσεύειν, and also contains a figurative con-
ception. Some such expression as ὑψοῦσθαι would have been
adequate as the contrast of razrewv. (Matt. xxiii. 12 ; 2 Cor. xi. 7;
Phil. 11. 8, 9; Polyb. v. 26.12). There is a lively versatility
of conception, from not perceiving which some have given to
this περισσεύειν (to have a superfluity) the explanation excellere
(Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin), or to tazew. the meaning to be
poor, to be in pitiful plight, ὀλίγοις κεχρῆσθαι, Theophylact
(Estius and others; comp. also Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius,
Rheinwald, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hof-
mann), which even the LXX., Lev. xxv. 39, does not justify. —
In what follows, ἐν παντὶ x. ἐν πᾶσι is not to be regarded as
belonging to ταπεινοῦσθαι and περισσεύειν (Hofmann), but is
to be joined with μεμύημαι. We are dissuaded from the
former connection by the very repetition of the οἶδα ; and the
latter is recommended by the great emphasis, which rests upon
ἐν παντὶ κ. ἐν πᾶσι heading the last clause, as also by the
correlative πάντα at the head of ver. 13. Further, no comma
is to be placed after μεμυήμαι, nor is ἐν παντὶ... μεμυήμαι to be
explained as meaning: “ «nto everything I am witiated,’ and
then καὶ χορτάζεσθαι «.7.d. as elucidating the notion of “ every-
thing”: “cum re qualicunque omnibusque, tam saturitate et
fame, quam abundantia et penuria, tantam contraxi familiari-
tatem, ut rationem teneam iis bene utendi,” van Hengel;
comp. de Wette, Rilliet, Wiesinger; so also, on the whole,
Chrysostom, Erasmus, Estius, and many others, but with
different interpretations of παντί and πᾶσιν. This view is at
variance with the fact, that μυεῖσθαι has that into which one
is initiated expressed not by means of ἐν, but—and that most
usually—in the accusative (Herod. ii. 51; Plat. Gorg. p. 497 C,
Symp. p. 209 E; Aristoph. Piut. 845 (ἐμμυεῖσθαι) ; Lucian,

CHAP. IV. 12. 217

Philop. 14), or in the dative (Lucian, Demon. 11), or genitive
(Heliod. i. 17; Herodian, i. 13. 16); hence πᾶν κ. πάντα, or
παντὶ κ. πᾶσιν, OY παντὸς K. πάντων must have been written
(in 3 Mace. ii. 30 it has κατά 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 well the being satisfied
as the being hungry, as well the having superfluity as want ;
in all situations, without exception, he quite understands how
to assume and maintain the right attitude to these different
experiences, which in ver. 11 he characterizes by the words
αὐτάρκης εἶναι. “Ev παντὶ x. ἐν πᾶσι is accordingly to be taken
after the analogy of ἐν οἷς εἰμι, ver. 11, and therefore as neuter.
It was purely arbitrary to render ἐν παντί: 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 παντί correctly as neuter, but make πᾶσιν (as in 2 Cor.
xi. 6) masculine (Bengel: “respectu omnium hominum”). It
is not necessary to supply anything to either of the two words ;
and as to the alternation of the singular and plural, which
only indicates the total absence of any exception (comp.
analogous expressions in Lobeck, Paral. p. 56 ff.), there is no
occasion for artificial explanation.-—In German we say: 770
Allem und Jedem [in all and each]. Comp. on ἐν πᾶσι on
Col. i. 18. With strange arbitrariness Hofmann makes ἐν
παντὶ κ. ἐν πᾶσι denote everything that is a necessary of life
(in detail and in whole). In that case certainly the contrast
of χορτάξ. and πεινᾶν is unsuitable !— μεμύημαι] the proper
word for the various grades of initiation into the mysteries
(Casaubon, Ezere. Baron. Ὁ. 390 ff; Lobeck, Aglaoph. I. p.
38 ff.) is here used in a figurative sense, like znitiatum esse, of
a special, unusual, not by every one attainable, familiar
acquaintance with something. See Munthe, Oblss. p. 383;
Jacobs, ad Anthol. 111. p. 488. The opposite is ἀμύητος. ----
The climax should here be noticed, ἔμαθον... οἶδα... μεμύημαι.
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 πεινῶν instead of πεινῆν, see Lobeck, ad
Phryn. p. 61; Jacobs, ad Ael. 11. p. 261.

Ver. 13. After the special statement, the consciousness of
the αὐτάρκεια now finds fresh utterance generally ; and in the
grand brevity of the latter how marked is the assurance, and,
αὖ the same time, the humility !— ἰσχύω] of moral strength,
homogeneous as to category with ἔμαθον in ver. 11, and with
οἶδα and μεμύημαι in ver. 12, because these predicates also were
dynamically meant, of the understanding of ethical practice.
There is therefore the less reason for limiting πάντα in any
way (van Hengel: “omnia memorata;” comp. Weiss); there
is nothing for which Paul did not feel himself morally strong ;
for every relation he knew himself to be morally adequate.
πάντα is the accusative of the object. Gal. v. 6; Jas. v. 16.
The opposite to it: μηδὲν ἰσχύωσιν, Plat. Crit. p. 50 B, Ael.
V. Π| xii. 22, et al. — ἐν τῷ ἐνδυν. με] Not in his own human
ability does Paul feel this power, but it has its basis 7 Christ,
whose δύναμις the apostle experiences in his fellowship of life
with Him (2 Cor. xii. 9). Comp. 1 Tim. i.12; 2 Tim. i. 1,
iv. 17. Thus he is able to do all things ἐν τῷ κράτει τῆς
ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, Eph. vi. 10.

Ver. 14. Πλήν] 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.
Chrysostom and Theophylact. — καλῶς] in the moral sense. —
συγκοιν. μου τῇ θλίψ.1 characterizes the work according to its
high ethical value (ὅρα σοφίαν, πῶς ἐπαίρει τὸ πρᾶγμα, Theophy-
lact): thot ye became partukers with me in my affliction. He
who renders the aid enters into the relation of a participant in
the position of the afflicted one, inasmuch as by his very work
of love he, in common with the latter, shares and bears his
θλῖψεις. Comp. Rom. xii. 13. It is a practical participation,
and not merely that of feeling and emotion. Comp. Eph. v.
11; Rev. xviii. 4,1. 9. By τῇ Oty, Paul means his position
at the time as a whole, not: went (which also in 2 Cor. vill.
13 it does not mean). The dative is governed by ovyxow.

CHAP. IV. 15. 219

(Eph. v. 11; Rev. xviii. 4; Rom. xii. 13, xv. 27, οἱ al.); and
μου is, in accordance with the well-known usage, to be taken
as if μοι 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 ἐποιήσατε (see on Eph. i. 9) ; as to the
participle with καλῶς ποιεῖν, see Winer, p. 323 f. [E. T. 434],

Ver. 15 f. A courteous recalling of the fact, that in the
very beginning of the gospel the Philippians had distinguished
themselves by such manifestation of love towards Paul. — δέ]
carrying the discourse onward: But what ye have done con-
nects itself with a relation into which, as ye also know, no
other church, but yours only, placed itself to me at the very
first !— οἴδατε δὲ κ.τ.λ.7 but tt is known also to you, Philippians,
that, etc. Hofmann very erroneously derives the object of
οἴδατε from what precedes, and takes ὅτε 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 oida (οἴδαμεν,
οἴδατε, «.7.X.) is accompanied, not with an accusative of the
object, but with ὅτι, the latter conveys the contents (that), and
not the reason or the cause (because), of the οἶδα (comp. i. 19,
25; Rom. iii. 2; 1 Cor. iii, 16, xii. 2; Gal. iv. 13, and in-
numerable other passages); secondly, because the previously
attested καλῶς ἐποιήσατε, while perfectly suitable to be ex-
pressed by the grateful apostle, was not so suited to be transferred
to the consciousness of the donors, to which it was self-evident,
and to be appealed to by them; thirdly, because the καί in
the alleged reference to other churches would be very unsuit-
able, since the question here concerns merely a work of love
of the Philippians, but other churches could only know
generally that it was well done to aid the apostle, into which
general idea, therefore, Hofmann insensibly transforms the
object of οἴδατε, instead of abiding strictly by the concrete
καλῶς ἐποιήσατε as its object; finally, it would be strange and
not in keeping with the thoughtful manner of the apostle, to

220 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

furnish the idea: “ye know that ye did well therein” (which
οἴδατε 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 οἴδατε 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 οἴδατε κ. ὑμεῖς, that in that which the readers Ὁ
also know (consequently in ὅτι «.7.A.) the stress lies upon the
negative οὐδεμία K.7.A.—Kal ὑμεῖς] ye also, as 1. --- ὈΦιλιπ-
πήσιοι] 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 ὅτε ὑμεῖς,
Φιλιππ.), but in his zncreasing earnestness. Comp. 2 Cor. vi.
11.—& ἀρχῇ τ. εὐαγγ.] 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, im relation to the
present and to the wider development of the church now
attained, as still belonging to the period of the beginning of
the gospel. Comp. Clement. Cor. I. 47. An epexegetical
more precise definition of this expression—which does not
betray the hand of a later author (Hinsch)—for the date
intended is: ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Maxed., when I departed from
Macedonia, Acts xvii. 14. Paul, therefore, ammediately on
leaving that country, received aid from the infant church, when
the brethren τὸν Παῦλον ἐξαπέστειλαν πορεύεσθαι ὡς ἐπὶ τὴν
θάλασσαν and ἤγαγον ἕως ᾿Αθηνῶν, Acts lc. 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 εἰς λόγον
Soc. x. λήψ., into which they had entered with the apostle at

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

CHAP. IV. 15 221

his very departure. But this receipt of money αὐ Corinth is
not the fact meant by ἐκοινώνησεν «.7.d., in which case ἐξῆλθον
would have to be taken, with Estius, Flatt, van Hengel, de
Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann, and others, in the sense of
the pluperfect (Winer, p. 258 [E. T. 8497); for the latter
would be the more unwarranted in the context, seeing that
Paul himself by ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ evayy. carries them back to the
earliest time possible, and indeed afterwards (ver. 16) to a
period even antecedent to the ὅτε ἐξῆλθον. 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), mwst—have been used. — ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς λόγον
δόσεως κ. λήψ'.7 entered into fellowship with me in reference to
account of gwing 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 me.” On κοινωνεῖν εἰς, comp. oni. 5. The analysis
of the figurative description is this: The Philippians keep
an account of expenditure on Paul and income from him; and
the apostle likewise keeps account of his expenditure on the
Philippians and «come from them. This mutwal account-
keeping, in which the δόσις on the one part, agrees with
the λῆψις on the other, is the κοινωνία εἰς λόγον x.7.r. It is
true that in this case no money-amount is entered in the
account of the Philippians under the heading of λῆψις, or
the account of the apostle under the heading of δόσις - instead
of this, however, comes in the blessing, which the readers were
to receive from their gifts of love, according to ver. 17, as if it
were an income corresponding to this expenditure, and coming
in from it. We are therefore not justified in adopting the view,
that doc. and λῆψ. apply to Paul alone (Schrader), or that
δόσεως applies to the Philippians and Mp. to Paul (“ Ego sum
in vestris expensi tabulis, vos in meis accepti,’ Grotius; comp.
Erasmus, Camerarius, Casaubon, Castalio, and others, including
Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Matthies, van Hengel, Rilliet, Ewald) ;
for the words require the idea of an account under both
headings on the side of both parties. Others, maintaining

323 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

indeed this reciprocity, but arbitrarily introducing ideas from
1 Cor. xi. 11, comp. Rom. xv. 27, consider that the δόσις on
the part of the apostle, and the λῆψις on the part of the
Philippians, consisted in the spiritual benefits brought about
by the preaching of the gospel (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Pelagius, Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Zanchius,
Zeger, Estius, Hammond, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann, and
others); whilst others, again, import into the words the thought:
“ Quae a Philippensibus accepit in rationes Det remuneratoris
refert Paulus” (Wetstein, Rosenmiiller; comp. Wolf, Schoettgen,
and already Ambrosiaster). Rheinwald finds the λῆψις of the
Philippians and the δόσις 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 λῆψες
on the part of the Philippians. — On λόγος, ratio, account, comp.
Matt. xii. 36; Luke xvi. 2; Rom. xiv. 12; 1 Macc. x. 40;
Dem. 227. 26+ Diod. Sic. i. 49; Polyb. xv: 34. 2. "Tie
rendering which takes εἰς λόγον : in respect to (Bengel, Hein-
richs, Storr, Matthies, van Hengel, Rilliet, Liinemann), would
no doubt be linguistically correct (Dem. 385.11; 2 Mace. i.
14; and see Kriiger on Thue. 111. 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 δόσις καὶ λῆψις (Ecclus. xii.
14, xlii. 7) as expenditure and income, see Wetstein. Comp.
Plat. Rep. p. 382 AB: ἡ ἀπόδοσις x. ἡ λῆψις. As to the
corresponding jn) Nv, see Schoettgen, Hor. p. 804.

Ver. 16. Ὅτι] since, indeed, ye also already in Thessalonica,
etc. It is argumentative, namely, outbidding the early defini-
tion of date ἐν ἀρχῇ... . Μακεδονίας, in ver. 15, by one even
antecedent, and thus serving more amply to justify that speci-
fication of time} for which purpose the ὅτε specifying the

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

CHAP. IV. 16. 223

reason was quite sufficient, and (in opposition to Hofmann’s
objection) no γάρ was necessary. The opinion of Wiesinger,
that ὅτε «.7.X. is intended to explain that it was only with the
aid sent after Paul at a distance that the readers had entered
into such a connection with the apostle as is previously men-
tioned, is bound up with the untenable interpretation of
ἐξῆλθον as pluperfect. The rendering of ὅτε by that (Rheinwald,
Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, Rilliet, de Wette, Liine-
mann, Weiss) is to be set aside, because, while the emphatic
οἴδατε καὶ ὑμεῖς, ver. 15, accords doubtless with the exclusion of
other churches in ver. 15, it does not accord with ver. 16 (“ye
also know that ye have sent... to me!”), to which it would
stand in an illogical relation, even apart from the uncalled-for
inversion of the order of time, which would result. Hofmann’s
explanation, which makes ὅτι in ver. 16 parallel to the ὅτι in
ver. 15 and places it in causal relation to οἴδατε, falls with
his erroneous view of ver. 15.— The καί before ἐν Ococan.,
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, Partih.
I. p. 135; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 797. ---- ἐν Oeccan.] is not used,
in the sense of the bearers having arrived, for εἰς, for there is
no certain instance of ἀποστέλλειν or πέμπειν with ἐν in this
sense (Thue. vii. 17 must, with Becker and Kriiger, be read:
és τὴν Σικελίαν) ; 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 ia Thessalonica.
Comp. on Matt. x. 16; Poppo and Kriiger on Thue. iv. 27. 1.
— καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δίς] Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 18. The conception
is: “when the first aid arrived, the ἐπέμψατε had taken place
once ; when the second arrived, it lad taken place both once
and twice.” Paul has not written δίς merely, nor yet ἅπαξ x.
δίς (1 Mace. iii. 30; Xen. Anab. iv. 7.10), but by καὶ ἅπ. «.

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 καί (comp. Luther,
Castalio, and others) have thought. This view is also at variance with the
specification of time ὅτε ἐξῆλθον, ver. 15; for Paul abode several weeks in
Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 2), and then there still followed his sojourn in Beroea
(Acts xvii. 10 ff.), ere he quitted Macedonia and travelled to Athens,

224. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

δίς he sets forth the repetition of the matter more emphatically,
to the praise of his readers (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 144).
Comp. καὶ dis καὶ τρίς, Plat. Phaed. p. 63 1), Phil. p. 59 E;
Herod. ii. 121, iii. 148. The opposite: οὐχ ἅπαξ οὐδὲ δίς,
Plat. Clit. p. 410 B.— εἰς τ. χρείαν] 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 πέμψαι,
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. — οὐχ ὅτι
K.7.r.] 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 τὸ doua)—this, namely, taken in and by itselfi—in which
case the article means the donation accruing to him as the case
occurred, and the present ἐπιζητῶ denotes the constant and charac-
teristic striving after (Bernhardy, p. 370): it is not my busi-
ness, etc. The compound verb indicates by ἐπί the direction.
Comp. on ἐπιποθῶ, i. 8, and on Matt. vi. 35; Rom. 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: ¢msuper quacro (Polyb.
i. 5. 3); so van Hengel, who indelicately, and notwithstanding
the article, explains τὸ δόμα as still more σῇ ί8.----- ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιζητῶ]
The repetition of the verb after ἀλλά makes the contrast stand
out independently with special emphasis; comp. Rom. vii,
15; 1 Cor. ii. 7; Fritzsche, ad Rom. 11. p. 137. — τὸν καρπὸν
κτλ] 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
ἐπιζητεῖν devoid of any selfish aim,—which, however, would
not be the case, if the ἐπιζητῶ τὸ δόμα were true. This
applies against Hofmann’s objection, that the καρπός must be
something which Paul himself desires to have; the notion of
ἐπιζητῶ is anguiro, appeto, and this indeed applies to personal

CHAP. IV. 18. 225

possession in the negative half of the sentence; but then the
second half expresses the real state of the case, which does
away with the notion of selfishness—The καρπός 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 δόμα, 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 gudgment (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 δόμα
is figuratively conceived as frwit, 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 8). 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 εἰς λόγον ὑμῶν, which here
also is not to be understood, with Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Rilliet,
and others, as equivalent to εἰς ὑμᾶς, is the completion of the
figure in ver. 15; although there is no need to explain καρπός
as interest (Salmasius, Michaelis, who thinks in πλεονάζ. of com-
pound interest, Zachariae, Heinrichs), because it is difficult to
see why Paul, if he used ¢his figure, should not have applied
to it the proper term (τόκος), and because the idea of
interest is quite alien to that of the δόμα (a present). —r.
πλεονάξζ. εἰς λόγον ὑμῶν] to be taken together (see above); εἰς
states the destination of the mdeovat. Van Hengel and de
Wette needlessly break up the passage by coupling εἰς λόγ.
tp. with ἐπιζητῶ, because πλεονάζειν with εἰς is not used else-
where by Paul (not even 2 Thess. i. 3). The preposition is
in fact not determined by the word in itself, but by its logical
reference, and may therefore be any one which the reference
requires.

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

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

PHIL. P

226 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

seek, but the fruit (ver. 17); and as regards what has been
received from you in the present instance, I have everything
already, and need nothing further.” That this refers to the
desire of the church to know what he possibly still needed
(Hofmann), is a very unnecessary assumption. — ἀπέχω δὲ
πάντα] not: habeo autem omnia (Vulgate) ; not a mere acknow-
ledgment of receipt (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide,
Heinrichs, and others); nor yet equivalent to περισσεύω
(Rheinwald) ; but, in keeping with the sense of the compound :
1 have everything away, so that I have nothing left to desire
at your hands. Comp. Philem. 15; Matt. vi 2, 5, 16;
Luke vi. 24; Callim. ep. 22; Arrian. Hpict. 111. 2. 13, i. 24.
17; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VIL. pp. 276, 298. Πάντα, therefore,
according to the context (ἐπιζητῶ τ. δόμα, ver. 17), is: every-
thing which I coud desire, although there is no necessity for
introducing specially, with Chrysostom and Oecumenius, τὰ
ἐλλειφθέντα ἐν τῷ παρελθόντι χρόνῳ: The emphasis, moreover,
is laid, not on πάντα, but on ἀπέχω, in contrast to ἐπιζητεῖν.
---- καὶ περισσεύω] and my wants are thus so fully satisfied,
that I have over. — πεπλήρωμαι] forms a climax to περίσσ. :
Tam full, 1 have abundance. The gift must have been ample ;
but gratitude sets this forth in all the stronger a light. To
πεπλήρ. is attached δεξάμενος K.7.A.— ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας κ.τ.λ.]
This apposition to τὰ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν, expressing a judgment as to
the latter (see on Rom. xii. 1), sets forth, to the honour of the
givers, the relation in which the gifts received stand towards
God, by whom they are esteemed as ὦ sacrifice well-pleasing to
Him. As to ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας, smell of a sweet savour, N32 0%
genitive of quality), which is used of free-will offerings, see
on Eph. v. 2. It describes the thing according to its effect on
God, namely, that it is acceptable to Him; θυσίαν x.7.0., how-
ever, describes it according to what it is. — δεκτὴν, εὐάρεστ.
acceptable, well-pleasing, a vividly asyndetic climax (on the
former, comp. Ecclus. xxxii. 7); τῷ Θεῷ, however, applies to
the whole apposition ὀσμὴν ... 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 O. T., which regards works well-

CUAP. IV. 19. 9 ἢ

pleasing to God as ethical sacrifices, see the expositors on Rom.
xii. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 5; Heb. xiii. 16. Comp. Philo, de vit. Mos.
II. p. 151: ἡ yap ἀληθὴς ἱερουργία τίς ἂν εἴη πλὴν ψυχῆς
θεοφιλοῦς εὐσέβεια; passages from the Rabbins in Schoettg.
Hor. p. 1006.

Ver. 19. The thought starts from τῷ Oecd. But God, to
whom your gift stands in the relation of such a sacrifice, will
recompense you.—Paul says ὁ δὲ Θεός μου (comp. i. 3), because
he himself had been the recipient of that which they had
brought as a sacrifice pleasing to God; as his God (to whom
he belongs and whom he serves, comp. on Rom. i. 8), there-
fore, will God carry out the recompense. — πληρώσει] used
with significant reference to πεπλήρ., ver. 18, according to the
idea of recompense. Not, however, a wish (hence also in
Codd. and in the Vulgate the reading πληρώσαι), as Chrysos-
tom, Luther, and others take it, but a promise. — πᾶσαν χρείαν
ὑμῶν] likewise corresponding to the service which the readers
had rendered ; for they had sent εἰς τὴν χρείαν (ver. 16) of the
apostle. To be understood as: every need which ye have, not
merely bodily (so usually, following Chrysostom, who explains
it as the fulfilment of the fourth petition, also van Hengel, de
Wette, Wiesinger), and not merely spiritual (Pelagius, hilliet,
also mainly Weiss), but as it stands: every need. It is not,
however, an earthly recompense which is meant (Hofmann),
but (comp. on ver. 17) the recompense in the Messiah's king-
dom, where, in the enjoyment of the σωτηρία, the highest
satisfaction of every need (comp. on πληρ. χρείαν, Thue. i. 70.
4, and Wetstein in Joc.) shall have set in amidst the full,
blessed sufficiency of the eternal ζωή (comp. Rom. viii. 17 f.;
Rey. xxi. 4). There are specifications of this satisfaction in
the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. v.; comp.
especially the χορτασθήσεσθε and γελάσετε, Luke vi. 21, also

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

228 TIIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

the od μὴ διψήσῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα in John iv. 14, and the sarcastic
κεκορεσμένοι in 1 Cor. iv. 8. That it is the Messianic satis-
faction in the ἐλευθερία τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ Θεοῦ (Rom.
viii. 21), in the possession of the πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τῆς κληρο-
νομίας αὐτοῦ (Eph. i. 18), which is to be thought of, Paul
himself states by ἐν δόξῃ, which is to be taken as instrumental
(Eph. 1. 23, v. 18) and dependent on πληρ.: with glory,
whereby the Messianic is indicated. Hofmann also, though
he rejects the instrumental view, comes ultimately to it:
“ Thereurith and thus will God fulfil all their need, 2m that He
gives them glory.” Others, who also correctly join the words
with πληρ., take them as a modal definition : in a glorious way,
that is, amply, splendide, and the like. See Castalio, Beza,
Calvin, and many others, including Hoelemann, van Hengel,
Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss. But what an indefinite yet
peculiarly affected, and withal—by its so habitual reference
elsewhere to the final judgment—misleading expression would
this be for so simple an idea! And how far would it be from
the apostle’s mind, considering his expectation of the nearness
of the Parousia (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 29, 31), to promise on
this side of τέ a hearty recompense, which was to take place,
moreover, ἐν Χριστῷ Ιησοῦ! 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 ἐν δόξῃ with τὸ πλοῦτος αὐτοῦ (Grotius, Storr, Flatt, Rhein-
wald, and others) : “pro amplissinvis suis divitiis, id est, potestate
sua omnia excedente,’ Heinrichs. It is true that ἐν δόξῃ
aight be attached without a connecting article (according to
the combination πλουτεῖν ἐν τινι, 1 Tim. vi. 8; comp. 1 Cor.

1 In order, however, to bring out of the passage, notwithstanding this ἐν dey,
the idea of a recompense in this life, Hofmann makes δόξα mean the glory of the
children of God which is hidden from the world, and which is the fulfilment of
every want only in proportion ‘‘as there is lacking in us what, either corporally
or spiritually, is necessary for the completion of our divine sonship.” Instead of
such arbitrary inventions, let us keep clearly before us how great a weight in the
very word of promise, which forms the conclusion of the epistle, lies in the fact
that the grand aim of all promise and hope, i.e. the glory of eternal life (Rom.
v. 2, viii. 18, 21, ix. 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 πλοῦτος with
the genitive of the thing, and πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης in particular,
said of God, is so constantly used by him, that it seems alto-
gether unwarranted to assume the expression πλοῦτος ἐν δόξῃ
in this passage. See Rom. ix. 23; Eph. i. 18, 111. 16; Col.
i. 27. He would have written: κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης
αὐτοῦ, comp. Rom. ix. 29. --- κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος αὐτοῦ) that
is, in conformity with His being so rich, and consequently
having so much to give. Comp. Rom. x. 12, xi. 33. This

assures what is promised.—eév Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ] definition
annexed to πληρώσει... δόξῃ; that which is promised has

its causal ground iz Christ, who by His work has acquired for
believers the eternal δόξα. Christ is, in fact, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς
δόξης, Col. i. 27.

Ver. 20. The conception of the superabundant salvation,
which Paul has just promised from God, forces from his heart
a doxology. — πατρί] through Christ, in virtue of our υἱοθεσία,
Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv. 5. As to τ. Oc@K. πατρὶ ju. comp.
on Gal. i. 5.— 1 ἡ δόξα] se. εἴη, the befitting glory. See on
Eph. 111. 21; Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27, et al. — εἰς τοὺς αἰῶν. τῶν
grand Gal 25's Limi) 6; ΠΝ Tims ive 18 3 Heb: xn 21;
1 Pet. iv. 11,-v. 11, and frequently in Rev. As to the
analysis of the expression, see on Eph. 111, 21.

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

1 Since Paul does not here express, as in other cases (Rom. xvi. 17 ; 1 Cor.
xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12), the conception of mutual salutation (ἀλλήλους), he has
in ἀσπάσασθε had in view the immediate recipients of the epistle (presbyters and
deacons, i. 1). Soalso1 Thess. v. 26.

230 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

specially expressing this here, as there was, for instance, in the
address 1. 1, where τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν X. "I. bears a certain formal
character. — οὗ σὺν ἐμοὶ aderdd.] is the narrower circle of
those Christians who were round the apostle in Rome, including
also the official colleagues who were with him, though there is
no ground for understanding these alone (Chrysostom, Oecu-
menius, Theophylact, and many others), Grotius even pointing
distinctly to Timothy, Linus, and Clement. The difficulty,
which has been raised in this case by a comparison of ii. 20,
is unfounded, since, in fact, the expression in 11. 20 excludes
neither the giving of a salutation nor the mention of brethren ;
eroundless, therefore, are the attempted solutions of the
difficulty, as, for example, that of Chrysostom, that either
ii. 20 is meant οὐ περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει, or that Paul οὐ
παραιτεῖται καὶ τούτους ἀδελφοὺς καλεῖν (comp. Oecumenius,
who brings forward the latter as a proof of the σπλάγχνα of
the apostle). Misapprehending this second and in itself correct
remark of Chrysostom, van Hengel insists on a distinction
being drawn between two classes of companions in office,
namely, travelling companions, such as Luke, Mark, Titus, Silas,
and those who were resident in the places where the apostle
sojourned (among whom van Hengel reckons in Rome, Clement,
Euodia, Syntyche, and even Epaphroditus), and holds that only
the latter class is here meant. The limits of the narrower circle
designated by οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ a6. are not at all to be definitely
drawn. Estius well says: “Qui .. . mihi vincto ministrant,
qui me visitant, qui mecum hic in evangelio laborant.” —
πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι] generally, all Christians who are here; comp.
on 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Cor. xvi. 20.— μάλιστα δέ] but most
of all, pre-eminently ; they have requested the apostle to give
special prominence to their salutation. Comp. Plat. Critias,
p. 108 D: τούς τε ἄλλους κλητέον καὶ δὴ Kal τὰ μάλιστα
Μνημοσύνην. 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.
—ot ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας] sc. ἅγιοι, as is plain from the
connection with the preceding (in opposition to Hofmann) :

CHAP. IV. 21-23, 291

those from the emperor's house (from the Palatium, see Bottger,
Beitr. 11. p. 49) who belong to the saints. We have to think
of probably inferior servants of the emperor (according to
Grotius, Hitzig, and others: freedmen), who dwelt, or at least
were employed, in the palace. In this way there is no need for
departing from the immediate meaning of the word, and taking
it in the sense of household (Hofmann). In no case, however,
can we adopt as the direct meaning of οἰκία the sense of
domestic servants, a meaning which it does not bear even in
Xen. Mem. ii. 7.6; Joseph. Anté. xvi. 5.8; and Tac. Hist.
ii. 92;' domestic servants would be οἰκετεία. Others have
taken οἰκία, in accordance with current usage, as family
(1 Cor. xvi. 15, and frequently), and have understood kinsmen
of the emperor, a meaning which in itself seems by no means
shown by Philo in Flace. p.190 A to be at variance with
linguistic usage” (in opposition to Hofmann). So recently
Baur, who needed this point for his combinations against the
genuineness of the epistle, and van Hengel.’ But apart from
the fact that through Nero himself this family was greatly
diminished, and that conversions among those related to the
emperor were ἃ priori (comp. also 1 Cor. 1. 26 ff.) very impro-
bable, doubtless some historical traces of such a striking success
would have been preserved in tradition* Matthies, quite

1 Where it is said of those who entered the service of the emperor : ‘‘ in domum
Caesaris transgressi.” Comp. Herodian, iii. 10. 9: πρὶν cis τὸν βασίλειον οἶκον
παρελθεῖν.

* For in Philo 1.6. it is said regarding Herod Agrippa: ‘* Even though he were
not king, but only one of the emperor’s kinsmen (ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας), it would
still be necessary to prefer and honour him.”

* Whether Chrysostom and his successors understood here members of the
imperial family, is a matter of doubt. At all events Chrysostom does not take
the word itself, οἰκία, as family, but explains it by τὰ βασίλεια, palace, and finds
in the salutation a purpose of encouragement : εἰ γὰρ οἱ ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις πάντων
καπεφρόνησαν διὰ τὸν Pacirta τῶν οὐρανῶν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον αὐσοὺς χρὴ ποῦτο ποιεῖν.
Comp. Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact.

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

232 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS,

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

represented in the circle of the imperial house itself. ‘* Concluding from one
that there were several, the author of the epistle might make his apostle write
earnest salutations to the church in Philippi from believing members of the
imperial house in the plural,” ete. 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 ovcr the whole plan of the epistle. With
this Clement, namely, and the participation, as attestcd by him, of the imperial
house in the gespel, is given the προκοπὴ τοῦ ttayy. (i. 12), and with the latter
the feeling of joyfulness, which expresses itself throughout the epistle as the
ground-tone of the apostle (1. 17 f., eemp. iii. 1, iv. 1, 4, 10), and which is
again and again the refrain ef each separate section. Only by the preponderance
of this feeling is it to be explained that the authcr makes his apestle even
express the hope of a speedy liberation (ii. 24), But with this joy there is also
blended, with a neutralizing cffect, the idea of a newly approaching death,
1. 20-24, and this divided state cf mind between life and death betrays an author
“who had alrcady lefore his eyes as an actual fact the end of the apesile,
which was so far from harmonizing with all these presuppositions.”

1See generally on ‘‘ Paul and Seneca,” and the apocryphal fourteen Latin
letters exchanged between them, Baur in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1858, 2. ὃ ;
Reuss in Herzog’s ELucyklop. XIV. p. 274 fi. ; J. B. Lightfoot, Bic. Il. p.
268 ff., 327 ff. ; latest edition of the text of these epistles in the Z'heol. Quartalschr.
1867, p. 609 ff.

CHAP. IV. 21-23. Zan

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

᾽
=
‘
5
ῃ
'
‘
oe Ι!
a "»
τὴν ᾿
ν᾿ τ δα ἦν 7,
aes 7 ἡ"
tans
er
i ΕΝ aa 4

ree.” at ae a inv tg
Βὴ Ve Cle Tarr 7 “hy. 4
> Π in

Sarg.

? ie

7 Nae
ὟΝ γον νι β
. Pa Ba

: A)

ς “—
a J ᾿ Ν᾿

ΠῚ

THE

EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

--- -- «-.-.---

INTRODUCTION
§ 1. THE CHURCH.

A GAALLLH the exception of the Epistle to the Romans, the

‘| letter now before us is the only one of all the epistles
of Paul that have been preserved, which is addressed
to a church that was neither founded by Paul him-
self nor even subsequently visited by him in person (see oni. 7,
ii. 1), although the Colossian Philemon was his immediate dis-
ciple (Philem. 19), and the Book of Acts relates that the apostle
passed through Phrygia on two occasions (Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23).
There, in Phrygia Magna on the Lycus, was situate Kolossae,
or Kolassae (see the critical remarks oni. 2). It is designated
by Herodotus, vii. 30, as πόλις μεγάλη, and by Xenophon,
Anab. i. 2. 6, as εὐδαίμων κ. μεγάλη; but, subsequently, as
compared with the cities of Apamea and Laodicea which had
become great (ueyioTa ... πόλεις, Strabo xii. 8, p. 576), it
became so reduced, that it is placed by Strabo, /.c., only in the
list of the Phrygian πολίσματα, and by Pliny, NV. ZH. v. 41,
only among the oppida, although celeberrima. ‘According to
the Eusebian Chronicle and Oros. vii. 7, it also was visited by

1 See Hofmann, Jntroduct. in lectionem ep. P. ad Col. Lips. 1749 ; Bohmer,
Isagoge in ep. ad Col. Berol. 1829 ; Mayerhoff, Der Brief an d. Kol. kritisch
gepriift, Berlin, 1838 ; Wiggers, d. Verh. d. Ap. P. zu d. christl. Gem. in Kol.
in the Stud. τ. Krit. 1838, p. 165 ff. ; Leo Montet, Introd. in ep. ad Col. 1841;
Klépper, De orig. ep. ad Eph. et Col. 1853 ; Weiss in Herzog’s Encykl. XIX.
p. 717 ff. ; Schenkel in his Bibellex. III. p. 565 ff. ; Holtzmann, Krit. der
Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe, 1872.

235

200 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS,

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

By whom the church—which consisted for the most part
of Gentile Christians, i. 21, 27, 11. 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 11. 1 com-
pared with Acts xviii. 23, that the time of its being founded
was subsequent to the visit to Phrygia in Acts xviii. 23.
From the address (i. 2) we are not warranted to infer (with
Bleek), that the body of Christians there had not yet been
constituted into a formal church; comp. on Rom. i. 7. It
was so numerous, that it had a section assembling in the house
of Philemon (Philem. 2).

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

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

INTRODUCTION. 237

Tychicus was also to visit the Ephesians, and to convey the
letter written at the same time to them (see on Eph. Introd.
§ 2). Tychicus was despatched at the same time with Onesimus,
the Colossian slave (iv. 9), who had to deliver to his master
Philemon the well-known letter from the apostle (Philem. 11 f.).
Doubtless Onesimus also—who had come, although still as a
heathen, from Colossae to Paul—brought with him accounts as
to the state of matters there, as he had been a servant in a Chris-
tian household amidst lively Christian intercourse (Philem. 2).

In accordance with these circumstances giving occasion to
the letter, the aim of the apostle was not merely to confirm
the church generally in its Christian faith and life, but also
to warn it against heretical perils by which it was threatened.
The false teachers whom he had in view were Jewish-Christians ;
- not, however, such as those who, as in Galatia and in the neigh-
bourhood of Philippi (Phil. 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 theosophie speculation. While they
' likewise adhered to circumcision (11.11), and to precepts as to
meats and feasts (ii. 16), to the prejudice of Christ’s atoning
work (ii. 13 ff.), they at the same time—and this forms their
distinctive character—put forward a philosophy as to the higher
spirit-world, with the fancies and subtleties of which (ii. 18)
were combined, as practical errors, a conceited humility, wor-
ship of angels, and unsparing bodily asceticism (ii. 20—23)—
extravagances of an unhealthy Gnosis, that could not fail to
find a fruitful soil in the mystico-fanatical character of the
Phrygian people, which served as an appropriate abode for-
merly for the orgiastic cultus of Cybele, and subsequently for
Montanism.’ These theosophists, however, came most keenly
into conflict with the exalted rank and the redeeming work
of Christ, te whom they did not leave His full divine dignity
(as εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ x.7.r., 1. 15 ff.), but preferred to assign to

1 The theosophic tendency, which haunted Colossae, may help to explain the
fact that Paul does not make use, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, of arguments
derived from the O. T. The epistle contains no quotation from Scripture.

' 238 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Him merely a rank in the higher order of spirits, while they
ascribed to the angels a certain action in bringing about the
Messianic salvation, entertaining, probably, at the same time,
demiurgic ideas as to the creation of the world. We must
not conelude from i. 18, 11. 12, that they also rejected the
resurrection of Christ; into such an important point as this
Paul would have entered directly and at length, as in 1 Cor.
xv. But that in dualistic fashion they looked on matter as
evil, may be reasonably inferred from their adoration of spirits,
and from their asceticism mortifying the body, as well as from
the at all events kindred phenomenon of later Gnosticism.
Attempts have been made in very different ways to ascer-
tain more precisely the historical character of the Colossian
false teachers, and on this point we make the following re-
marks: (1) They appear as Jewish-Christians, not as Jews (in
opposition to which see ii. 19), which they were held to be
by Schoettgen, Eichhorn, and others, some looking on them as
Pharisees (Schoettgen ; comp. Schulthess, Lngelwelt, p. 110 f.) ;
others, as indirect opponents of Christianity through the sem-
blance of more than earthly sanctity (Eichhorn) ; others, as
adherents of the Alexandrine Neo-Platonism (doctrine of the
Logos) (so Juncker, Kommentar, Introd. p. 43 ff.) ; others, as
Chaldaeans or Magians (Hug); others, as syncretistic wniversalists,
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 ἢ; in opposition to him, Rheinwald, de pseudodoct.
Coloss. Bonn, 1834). Just as little were they adherents of a
heathen philosophy, whether they might be looked upon as of
the Epicurean (Clemens Alexandrinus), or of the Pythagorean
(Grotius), or of the Platonic and Stoic (Heumann) school, or
of no definite school at all (Tertullian, Euthalius, Calixtus).
(2) The right view of these false teachers, in accordance with
history, necessarily carries us back to Lssenism. In opposition
to the opinion that they were Christian Zssenes (so Chemnitz,
Zachariae, Storr, Flatt, Credner, Thiersch, histor. Standp. p.270f.,
Ritschl, Ewald, Holtzmann, οὐ a/.), it is not to be urged that
the Essene washings, and various other peculiarities of Essenism,

INTRODUCTION. 239

remain unnoticed in the epistle; or that the secluded and
exclusive character peculiar to this society, and the limitation
of their abode to Syria and Palestine, do not suit the case of
the Colossian heretics; or that the hypocrisy, conceit, and
‘persuasiveness which belonged to the latter do not harmonize
with the character of the Essenes, as it is otherwise attested.
These difficulties are got rid of by comparison with the Roman
ascetics (Rom. xiv.), who likewise were Essene Jewish-Chris-
tians, only more unprejudiced and inoffensive than these
Asiatics, whose peculiar character, which had already received
a more Gnostic development and elaboration, was of a philo-
sophic stamp, addicted to rhetorical art, full of work - piety
and hypocrisy, and therefore fraught with more danger to
Pauline Christianity, the greater the opportunity they had, just
then whilst the great apostle was himself far away and in
bonds, of raising their head. Now, if at that time the
Essene influence was not at all unfrequent among the Jews,
and thence also among Jewish-Christians (see Ritschl, alt-
kath. Kirche, p. 232 Τῇ, and in the Theolog. Jahrb. 1855,
p. 355), and if, beyond doubt, the theosophy of the Essenes
—kindred with the Alexandrine philosophy, although in origin
Jewish—and their asceticism (see Joseph. Sell. ii. 8; Philo,
Quod omnis probus liber, p. 876 ff. ; Euseb. Praep. ev. viii. 11 ff.),
as well as their adherence to their tradition (Joseph. 1.6. ii.
8. 7; comp. Credner, Beitr. I. p. 369), are very much in
accord with the characteristic marks of our heretics (comp.
generally Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 286 ff.), the latter are with
justice designated as Jewish-Christian Gostics, or more ac-
curately, as Gnostics addicted to an Essene tendency.’ This
designation, however, is not to be taken in the sense of any
subsequently elaborated system, but must be understood as
intimating that in the doctrines of our theosophists there were
apparent the widely-spread, and especially in Essenism strongly-
asserted, elements of Gnosticism, out of which the formal
Gnostic systems were afterwards gradually and variously deve-
loped (comp. Bohmer, Jsag. p. 56 ff.; Neander, Gelegenhettsschr.

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

240 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

p. 40 ff.; Schott, Zsay. p. 272; Weiss, 10. p. 720; Grau, Le. ;
Holtzmann, p. 296 ff.; Clemens in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871,
p. 418 ff). Among the latter, the Cerinthian doctrine in par-
ticular is, in various points, closely allied with that combated
in our epistle (comp. F. Nitzsch on Bleek, Vorles. p. 15 f.;
Lipsius, d. Giosticismus, 1860, p. 81 f.), although we are not
justified in considering with Mayerhoff that this polemic was
already directed against Cerinthus and his adherents, and
thence arguing against the genuineness of the epistle. <A
similar judgment is to be formed regarding their relation to the
Valentinians, who often appealed to the Epistle to the Ephe-
sians; and Baur leaps much too rapidly to a conclusion,
when he thinks (Paulus, I. p. 4 ff.) that in the Colossian false
teachers are to be found the Gnostic Hbionites (who no doubt
originated from Essenism)—thereby making our epistle a pro-
duct of the fermentation of the post-apostolic age, and connect-
ing it as a spurious twin-letter with that to the Ephesians.
Holtzmann forms a much more cautious judgment, when he
takes his stand at a preliminary stage of Gnosticism ; but even
this he places in the post-apostolic age,—a position which the
less admits of proof, seeing that we have no other letter from
the later period of the apostle’s life before the letters of the
captivity and subsequent to that to the Romans, and possess
for comparison no letter of Paul at all addressed to those
regions where the Gnostic movements had their seat. The false
teachers have, moreover, been designated as Cabbalistic (Herder,
Kleuker, Osiander in the TZvib. Zeitschr. 1834, 3, p. 96 ff) ;
but this must likewise be restricted to the effect that the
theosophic tendency generally, the special Essene-Christian
shape of which Paul had to combat, may have probably been
at bottom akin to the subsequently developed Cabbala, although
the origin of this Jewish metaphysics is veiled in obscurity.
(3) We must decidedly set aside, were it only on account of
the legal strictness of the men in question, the assumption of
Michaelis, that they were disciples of Apollos, to whom Hein-
tichs adds also disciples of John, as well as Essenes and other
Judaistic teachers, and even a malevolum honinum genus cx
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 place of composition our epistle coincides with
that to the Ephesians, and is, like the latter, to be assigned
not, in conformity with the usual opinion, to the Roman, but
to the Caesarean captivity of the apostle. See on Eph. Jnitrod.
ὃ 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 xxvii. 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. 8 we must observe that he there expresses the longing for
Suture free working. The latter remark applies also in oppo-
sition to Wieseler (Chronol. des apostol. Zeitalt. p. 420) and
Hofmann, who likewise regard iv. 3 f. as decisive in favour
of the Roman captivity, while Hofmann finds the statement
as to Mark and Jesus contained in iv. 11 incompatible with
the situation in Caesarea (but see i loc.). In assuming that

1 Which, with Hausrath, Laurent, and others, Sabatier also (l’apdtre Paul,
1870, p. 198 ff.) prefers, while Weiss leaves the point undecided. Hofmann
rejects our view, and Holtzmann does not find it the more probable.

COL. Q

Lo

49 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

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

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

INTRODUCTION. 243

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

§ 3. GENUINENESS.

Even if it be allowed that the apparent allusions to our
Epistle which one might find in the apostolic Fathers
(Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius) are uncertain, and that even
the mention of πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως in Justin Mart. ὁ.
Tryph. p. 311 (comp. p. 310, 326), and Theophil. ad Autol.
li. 31, may be independent of Col. 1, 15, still the external
attestation of our Epistle is so ancient, continuous, and general
(Marcion, the school of Valentinus; Irenaeus, Her, 111. 14. 1
and v. 14. 2, who first cites it by name; Canon Murat.; Clem.
Al. Strom. i. p. 277, iv. p. 499, v. Ὁ. 576, vi. p. 645; Tert.
Praescr. 7, de resurr, 23; Origen, 6. 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. Beriick-
sicht. d. Pastoralbr. kritisch gepriift, Berl. 1858) assumed
the genuineness of the Epistle to the Ephesians, to the
prejudice of our Epistle (de Wette inverts the procedure to
the prejudice of the Ephesian Epistle); Baur, on the other
hand (Paulus, II. p. 8 ff.), rejected both the cognate Epistles ;
comp. also Schwegler, nachapost. Zeitalt. Il. p. 325 fff
According to Weisse (philos. Dogmat. I. p. 146), our Epistle,
like most of the Pauline letters, is pervaded by interpola-
tions. Hitzig also (σιν Kritik paulin. Briefe, 1870, p. 22 ff.)
asserts their presence, and ascribes them to the author of the
(un-Pauline) Ephesian Epistle, who, after the composition of
his own work, had manipulated afresh a Pauline letter to the
Colossians, the genuine text of which he misunderstood. In
assigning his reasons for this view, Hitzig does not go beyond
the bounds of bare assertions and misunderstandings on his own
part. Hoenig (in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1872, p. 63 ff.), after

244 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

comparing the two kindred letters, propounds the view that
all those passages of the Epistle to the Colossians are to be
regarded as interpolations, regarding which it can be shown
that the author of the (not genuine) Epistle to the Ephesians
did not know them. But Hoenig has reserved to a future
time the exhibition of the detailed grounds for this bold view,
and has consequently for the present withdrawn it from
criticism. After thorough investigation, Holtzmann (Kritik d.
Epheser- αὐ. 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 (a) differences in language and
style, (Ὁ) deviations from the Pauline character both of con-
ception and of representation, (c) the comparison with the
Epistle to the Ephesians, and (d) the supposed reference of the
polemics to Cerinthus. But, first, the stamp of language and
the style are so entirely Pauline, that particular expressions,
which we are accustomed to in Paul’s writings but do not find

INTRODUCTION. 245

here (δικαιοσύνη «.7.., σωτηρία κιτιλ., ἀποκάλυψις, ὑπακοή,
ἄρα, διό, διότι, ἔτι, et al.), or ἅπαξ λεγόμενα which occur (as
ἐθελοθρησκεία, πιθανολογία, ct al.), cannot furnish any counter
argument, since, in fact, they are fully outweighed by similar
phenomena in epistles which are indubitably genuine. There
is the less ground for urging the occurrence only six times of
yap (Text. Rec.), as even in the larger Epistle to the Ephesians
it occurs only eleven times, and in the Second Epistle to the
Thessalonians only five times. And how little are such
mechanical 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 “EdAny καὶ
᾿Ιουδαῖος (iii. 11) cannot seem surprising, nor can the com-
bining of designations similar in meaning (as i. 6, 10, 1].
18, 23) appear as a strange hunting after synonyms. See,
besides, Huther, Schlussbetracht. p. 420 ff.; Hofmann, p. 179 f.
Secondly, un-Pauline conceptions are only imported into the
Epistle by incorrect interpretations ; and the peculiar develop-
ments of doctrine, which Paul gives only here, but which are
in no case without their preliminary conditions and outlines in
the earlier Epistles, were suggested to him by the special occa-
sion of the letter (as, in particular, the development of the
relation of Christ to the angel-world). And if the Epistle is
said to lack in its dogmatic portion the logical arrangement
which is found in the hortatory portion (the reverse being the
case in the genuine Epistles) ; if Pauline freshness and vigour
are said to be wanting, and poverty of thought to prevail ;
these are judgments which in some cases are utterly set aside
by a right exegesis, and in others are of a partisan character
and aesthetically incorrect. The complaint, in particular, of
“ poverty of thought” is characteristic of the procedure of such
criticism towards its victims, no matter how precarious a
subjective standard must ever be in such questions, or how
various may be the judgments which are put forth as based
on taste (according to Bohmer, Jsag. p. 160, our Epistle is
“viva, pressa, solida, nervis plena, mascula”). Thirdly, the
affinity of our Epistle with that to the Ephesians in style and
contents is explained by their composition at the same time,

246 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION. 247

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

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

? The exegesis of the Epistle will also dispose of what Hilgenfeld, who rejects
the genuineness of the Ephesian and Colossian letters, adduces by way of estab-
lishing his assertion, that ‘‘the new and characteristic feature of the Colossian
Epistle consists simply in this, that it represents Paulinism no longer merely
in contradistinction to Jewish Christianity, but also in contradistinction to
Gnosticism (proper) ;” see Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1870, p. 245f. 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 rarpwye, see especially his
Paulus, 11. 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, ὦ, Valent. Gnosis u. d. heil.
Schr. 1871.

248 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS,

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

1 Ewald appeals (presupposing, moreover, the non-genuineness of the Epistle
to the Ephesians) to the longer compound words, such as ἀνταναπληρόω, aoro-
καταλλάσσω, ἀπαλλοτριόω, παραλογίξομαι, ἐθελοθρησκεία, ὀφθαλμοδουλεία ; to uN-
usual modes of expression, such as θέλω ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι (ii. 1), δ᾽ ἐστιν for the
explanatory that is (i. 24 [27], ii. 10, ili. 14), in connections capable of being
easily misunderstood ; to the circumstances, that in the progress of the discourse
and in the structure of sentences we entirely miss ‘‘ the exceedingly forcible flow
and the exultant ebullition, and then, again, the quick concentration and the
firm collocation of the thoughts ;” that the words δέ, γάρ, and ἀλλά 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
ereat 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 δικαιοσύνη and δικαιοῦν, and the description of the Logos
by the word πλήρωμα itself (i. 19, ii. 9); that we find a multitude of words
and figures peculiarly Pauline, but that we miss all the more the whole apostle in
his most vivid idiosyncrasy throughout the main portions of the Epistle ; and
that many a word and figure, in fact, appears imitated from the Epistles of
Paul, especially that to the Romans.

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

Παύλου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς.

ΠῚ Β K min. Copt. have the superscription πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς. So
Matth. Lachm. and Tisch. Comp. on ver. 2.

CEALTESR &

Ver. 1. The arrangement Χριστοῦ ’Ijoo5 (Lachm. Tisch.) has pre-
ponderant testimony in its favour, but not the addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ
after Χριστοῦ in ver. 2 (Lachm.).— Ver. 2. Ἰζολοσσαῖς) K P, also C
and δὲ in the subscription, min. Syr. utr. Copt. Or. Nyss. Amphi-
loch. Theodoret, Damase. οὐ. al. have Κολασσαῖς. Approved by
Griesb., following Erasm. Steph. Wetst.; adopted by Matth.
Lach. Tisch. 7. The Recepta is supported by BDEFGLR&,
min. Vule. It. Clem. Chrys. Theophyl. Tert. Ambrosiast. Pelag.
The matter is to be judged thus: (1) The name in itself correct is
undoubtedly ἹΚολοσσαί, which is supported by coins of the city
(Eckhel, Doctr. num. 111. p. 107) and confirmed νὸν Herod. vii. 30
(see Wessel. and Valck. am loc.) ; Xen. Anab. 1. 2. 6 (see Bornem.
in loc.) ; Strabo, xii. 8, p. 576; Plin. WV. H. v. - (2) But since
the form Κολασσαΐ has so old and considerable attestation, and is
preserved in Herodotus and Xenophon as a various reading, as
also in Polyaen. viii. 16, and therefore a mere copyist’s error can-
not be found in the case—the more especially as the copyists,
even apart from the analogy which suggested itself to them of
the well-known κολοσσύς, W ‘ould naturally be led to the prevalent
form of the name Kodccou/,—we must assume that, although
Κολοσσαΐ was the more formally correct name, still the name
Κολασσαΐ was also (vulgarly) in use, that this was the name
which Paul himself wrote, and that Κολοσσαῖς 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 πατρὸς ἡμῶν, Elz. (Lachm. in
brackets) has καὶ κυρίου ’Inood Χριστοῦ, in opposition to BDEKL,
min. vss. and Fathers. A complementary addition in accord-
ance with the openings of other epistles, especially as no ground
for intentional omission suggests itself (in opposition to Reiche,
Comm. crit. Ὁ. 351 f.). — Ver. 3. xa? πατρί] Lachm. and Tisch. 7:

250

CHAP. I. 251

πατρί. So B C*, vss. and Fathers, while Ὁ" F G, Chrys. have
σῷ πατρί. Since, however, Paul always writes ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ
σοῦ κυρίου (Rom. xv. 6; 2 Cor. 1. 3, xi. 31; Eph.i. 3; also 1 Cor.
Xv. 24; Eph. Vv. 20), and never ὁ Θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ τ. x. OF ὁ Θεὲς πατὴρ
r. κι, the Recepta, which has in its favour A C** D*¥** EK LP 8,
min. Vulg. and Fathers, is with Tisch. 8 to be retained. The
zai was readily omitted in a mechanical way after the imme-
diately preceding Θεοῦ πατρός. ---- Instead of epi, Lachm. reads
ὑπέρ, which is also recommended by Griesb., following B D* ἘΣ
FG, min. Theophyl. Not attested by preponderating evidence,
and easily introduced in reference to ver. 9 (where ὑπέρ stands
without variation).— Ver. 4. Instead of ἣν ἔχετε (which is re-
commended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.), Elz.
Matth. Scholz have στήν merely, but in opposition to A C D*
E* F GP 8, min. vss. (including Vulg. It.) Fathers. If τήν were
originally written, why should it have been exchanged for ἣν
gyere? On the other hand, ἥν ἔχετε, 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 (εἰς), like ἔχετε, begins with E. The grammatical gap
would then, following Eph. i. 15, be filled up by τήν. — Ver. 6.
χαὶ ἔστι] καί 15 Wanting in A B C D* E* P δὶ, min. and some vss.
and Fathers; condemned by Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and
Tisch. 8. But, not being understood, this xa/, which has the
most important vss. and Fathers in its favour, was omitted in
the interest of simplicity as disturbing the connection. — καὶ
αὐξανόμενον] 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 homocoteleuton, the more especially as a similar ending and a
similar beginning here came together (ONKA).— Ver 7. καθὼς
καί] καί is justly condemned by Griesb. on decisive evidence,
and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. A mechanical repetition
from the preceding. — ὑμῶν] ABD* GF s*, min.: ἡμῶν; approved
by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. But since the first person both
precedes and follows (ἡμῶν... ἡμῖν), it was put here also by care-
less copyists. — Ver. 10. After περιπατῆσαι, Elz. Tisch. 7 have
ὑμᾶς, against decisive testimony; a supplementary addition. —
εἰς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν] Griesb. Lachm. Scholz. Tisch. 8 have τῇ ἐπιγνώσει.
SoA BC D* E* FGP 8, min. Clem. Cyr. Maxim. But it lacks
the support of the vss., which (Vulg. It. in scientia Dei) have
read the Recepta εἰς τ. ἐπίγν. attested by D*** E** K L and
most min., also Theodoret, Dam. Theophyl. Oec., or with 8**
and Chrys. ἐν τῇ ἐπιγνώσει, The latter, as well as the mere τῇ

252 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

ἐπιγν., betrays itself as an explanation of the difficult εἰς τ. ἐπίγν.,
which, we may add, belongs to the symmetrical structure of the
whole discourse, the participial sentences of which all conclude
with a destination introduced by «/s.— Ver. 12. . ἱκανώσαντι]
Lachm.: καλέσαντι καὶ ἱκανώσαντι, according to B, whilst D* F G,
min. Arm. Aeth. It. Didym. Ambrosiast. Vigil. have καλέσαντι
merely. Looking at the so isolated attestation of xaA. x. ἱκαν.,
we must assume that καλέσαντι was written on the margin by
way of complement, and then was in some cases inserted with
zai, and in others without καί substituted for izavaic—Instead
of ἡμας, Tisch. 8 has ὑμᾶς ; but the latter, too weakly attested by
B τὲ, easily slipped in by means of the connection with εὐχαρ. ----
Ver. 14. After ἀπολυτρ. Elz. has διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, against de-
cisive testimony ; from Eph. 1. 7. — Ver. 16. τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ
σά] Lachm. has erased the first σά and bracketed the second. In
both cases the τά is wanting in B s*, Or.; the first τά only is
wanting in D* E* FG Pandtwomin. But how easily might TA
be absorbed in the final syllable of sévTA; and this would then
partially involve the omission of the second r4! The assump-
tion that the final syllable of πάντα 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 δι’ αὐτοῦ
is wanting in Β D* F GL, min. Vulg. It. Sahid. Or. Cyr.
Chrys. Theophyl. and Latin Fathers. Omitted by Lachm. It
was passed over as superfluous, obscure, and disturbing the
sense. — Ver. 21. Instead of the Recepta ἀποκατήλλαξεν, Lachm.,
following B, has ἀποκατηλλάγητες. D* FG, It. Goth. Ir. Am-
brosiast. Sedul. have ἀποκατωλλαγέντες. Since, according to this,
the passive is considerably attested, and the active ἀποκατήλλαξεν,
although most strongly attested (also by 8), may well be sus-
pected to be a syntactic emendation, we must decide, as between
the two passive readings ἀποχατηλλάγητε and ἀποκαταλλαγέντες, in
favour of the former, because the latter is quite unsuitable. If
the Recepta were original, the construction would be so entirely
plain, that we could not at all see why the passive should have
been introduced. — Ver. 22. After θανάτου, A P δὲ, min. vss. Ir.
have αὐτοῦ, which Lachm. has admitted in brackets. It is attested
so weakly, as to seem nothing more than a familiar addition. —
Ver. 23. τῇ before κτίσει 15, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be omitted,
following A B C D* 6 καὶ, min. Chrys.—Instead of διάκονος,
Ῥ κα have κήρυξ x. ἀπόστολος. A gloss; comp. 1 Tim. ii. 7. In A
all the three words κήρυξ x. ἀπ. x. δίακ. are given. — Ver. 24. νῦν]
D* E* FG, Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel. have ὃς νῦν. Rightly ; the
final syllable of διάκονος in ver. 23, and the beginning of a

CHAP. I. 1, 2. 200

church-lesson, co-operated to the suppression of ὅς, which, how-
ever, is quite in keeping with the connection and the whole
progress of the discourse. — After zadju. Elz. has μου, against
decisive testimony. — ὅ ἐστιν] C ΤῊ ἢ E,min.: ὅς ἐστιν, So Lachm.
in the margin. A copyist’s error. — Ver. 27. The neuter τί τὸ
πλοῦτος (Matth. Lachm. Tisch.) is attested by codd. and Fathers
sufficiently to make the masculine appear as an emendation:
comp. on 2 Cor. viii. 2. — ὅς ἐστιν] A BF GP, min. (guod in Vulg.
It. leaves the reading uncertain): 6 ἐστιν. So Lachm. <A gram-
matical alteration, which, after ver. 24, was all the more likely.
— Ver. 28. After διδάσκ., πάντα ἄνθρωπον is wanting in D* E* FG,
min. vss. and Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., but is to be
defended. The whole καὶ διδάσκ. πάντα ἄνθρωπ. Was omitted owing
to the homocoteleuton (so still in L, min. Clem.), and then the
restoration of the words took place incompletely. — After Χριστῷ
Elz. has ’Inood, against decisive testimony.

Vv. 1, 2. Διὰ θελήμ. Θεοῦ] see on 1 Cor.i.1. Comp. 2
Cor. 1: Eph. i. 1.— καὶ Τιμόθ.] 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 amanvensis, but is not
here jointly mentioned as such (comp. Rom. xvi. 22). See on
Phil. i. 1.— ὁ ἀδελφός) see on 1 Cor. i. 1; referring, not to
official (Chrys.: οὐκοῦν καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπόστολος), but generally to
Christian brotherhood. — τοῖς ἐν Kon. ay. x.7.r.] to the saints
who are in Colossae. To this theocratic designation, which in
itself is not as yet more precisely defined (see on Rom.i. 7), is
then added their distinctively Christean character: and believ-
ing brethren in Christ. Comp.on Eph. i. 1. ἁγίοις is to be
understood as a substantive, just as in all the commencements
of epistles, where it occurs (Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor.; 2 Cor.; Eph.;
Phil.) ; and ἐν Χριστῷ is closely connected with mor. ἀδ., with
which it blends so as to form one conception (hence it is not
τοῖς ἐν X.), expressly designating the believing brethren as
Christians, so that ἐν X. forms the element of demarcation,
in which the readers are believing brethren, and outside of
which they would not be so in the Christian sense. Comp.
on 1 Cor. iv. 17; Eph. vi. 21; in which passages, however,
πιστός is faithful,—a meaning which it has not here (in oppo-
sition to Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Dalmer), because every-

254 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

where in the superscriptions of the Epistles it is only the
Christian standing of the readers that is described. No doubt
ἐν Χριστῷ was in itself hardly necessary; but the addresses
have a certain formal stamp. If ἁγίοις is taken as an adjec-
tive : “the holy and believing brethren” (de Wette), ἐν Χριστῷ
being made to apply to the whole formula, then πιστοῖς coming
after ἁγίοις (which latter word would already have, through
év X., its definition in a Christian sense, which, according to
our view, it still has not) would be simply a superfluous and
clumsy addition, because ἁγίοις would already presuppose the
πιστοῖς. ---- The fact that Paul does not expressly describe the
church to which he is writing as a church (as in 1 Cor.;
2 Cor.; Gal.; 1 and 2 Thess.) has no special motive (comp.
Rom., Eph., Phil.), but is purely accidental. If it implied
that he had not founded the church and stood in no kind of
relation to it as such, and especially to its rulers (de Wette,
by way of query), he would not have written of a “αοδικέων
ἐκκλησία (iv. 16). Indeed, the principle of addressing as
churches those communities only which he had _ himself
founded, is not one to be expected from the apostle’s disposi-
tion of mind and wisdom; and it is excluded by the inscription
of the Epistle to the Ephesians (assuming its genuineness and
destination for the church at Ephesus), as also by Phil. i. 1
(where the mention of the bishops and deacons would not
compensate for the formal naming of the church). It is also
an accidental matter that Paul says ἐν Χριστῷ merely, and
not ἐν X. ᾿Ιησοῦ (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! — χάρις ὑμῖν
κτλ. See on Rom. i. 7.

Ver. 3 f. Thanksgiving for the Christian condition of the
readers, down to ver. 8.— εὐχαριστδυμεν] I and Timothy ;
plural and singular alternate in the Epistle (i. 23, 24, 28,
29 ff.,iv. 3); but not without significant occasion. — καὶ πατρὶ
κτλ] who is at the same time the Father, etc. See on Eph.
i. 8. — πάντοτε] belongs to edvyap., as in 1 Cor. i. 4; 1 Thess.
i. 2; 2 Thess. i. 3; Philem. 4, and not to περὶ dp. προσευχ.

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 praying, and περὶ ὑμῶν προσευχ.
—words which are not, with Bihr, to be separated from one
another (whereby προσευχ. would unduly stand without
relation)—is nothing but a more precise definition of πάντοτε:
“always (each time, Phil. 1. 4; Rom. i. 10°), when we pray
for you.’ — ἀκούσαντες x.7.X.] with reference to time; ajter
having heard, etc. Comp. ver. 9. In that, which Paul had
heard of them, lies the grownd of his thanksgiving. The πίστις
is faith (Rom. i. 8; 1 Thess. 1. 3; 2 Thess.i. 3) not farthful-
ness (Ewald), as at Philem. 5, where the position of the words
is different. That Paul has heard their faith prazsed, is self-
evident from the context. Comp. Eph. 1. 15; Philem. 5.
— ἐν X.’I.] on Christ, in so far, namely, as the faith has its
basis in Christ. See on Marki. 15; Gal. iii. 26 ; Eph.i. 13,15.
As to the non-repetition of τήν, see on Gal. 111. 26.---ἣν ἔχετε]
Paul so writes,—not by joining on immediately (τὴν ἀγάπην εἰς
πάντας K.T.r.), 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 ἀγάπη,
and indeed definitely upon the reason why they cherished τί.
Ver. 5. Διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα x.7.r.| on account of the hope, etc.,
does not belong to evyap. ver. 3 (Bengel, “ ex spe patet, quanta
sit causa gratias agendi pro dono fidei et amoris;” comp.
Bullinger, Zanchius, Calovius, Elsner, Michaelis, Zachariae,
Storr, Rosenmiiller, Hofmann, and others), because the ground
for the apostolic thanksgiving at the beginnings of the Epistles,
as also here at ver. 4, always consists in the Christian cha-
racter of the readers (Rom. i. 8; 1 Cor. 1. 4 ff.; Eph. 1. 18 ;
Phil. i. 5; 1 Thess. i. 3; 2 Thess. i. 3; 2 Tim.i. 5 ; Philem. 5),
1 For a like use of ἀεί, see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 360 A.

256 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

and that indeed as a ground in itself,’ and therefore not merely
on account of what one has in future to hope from it; and,
moreover, because εὐχαριστεῖν with διώ and the accusative
does not occur anywhere in the N. T. It is connected with
ἣν ἔχετε x.7.r., and thus specifies the motive ground of the
love; for love guarantees the realization of the salvation
hoped for. So correctly, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Steiger, Bleek, and
others. The more faith is active through love, the richer one
becomes εἰς Θεόν (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). Τῦ is erroneous to refer it jointly to πίστις,
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 ἣν ἔχετε (or the 160. τήν) indicates a further
statement merely as regards τὴν ἀγάπην ; and with this accords
the close of the whole outburst, which in ver. 8 emphatically
reverts to τὴν ὑμῶν ayamrnv.—The ἐλπίς is here conceived
objectively (comp. ἐλπ. βλεπομένη, Rom. viii. 24): our hope
as to ἐέ5 objective contents, that which we hope for. Comp. Job
vi. 8; 2 Mace. vii. 14, and see on Rom. viii. 24 and Gal.
v. 5; Zockler, de vi ac notione voc. ἐλπίς, Giss. 1856, p. 26 fff.
-- τὴν ἀποκειμ. ὑμῖν ἐν τ. ovp.] What is meant is the Messianic
salvation forming the contents of the hope (1 Thess. v. 8;
Rom. v. 2, viii. 18 ff.; Col. 111. 3 f), which remains deposited,
that is, preserved, laid wp (Luke xix. 20), in heaven for the
Christian until the Parousia, in order to be then given to him.?
On ἀποκ. comp. 2 Tim. iv. 8; 2 Mace. xii. 45; Kypke, II.
p. 320f.; Loesner, p. 360; Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 678.
Used of death, Heb. ix. 27; of punishments, Plat. Loer.

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

2 It is erroneous to say that the Parousia no longer occurs in our Epistle. It
is the substratum of the ἐλπὶς ἀποκ. ἐν 7, odp. Comp. iii. 1 ff. (in opposition to
Mayerhoff, and Holtzmann, p. 203f.).

CHAP. I. 6. 95 T

p. 104 Ὁ, 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 πολίτευμα
in heaven (see on Phil. iii. 20), of the κληρονομία τετηρημένη
ἐν ovpav. (1 Pet. i. 4), and of the βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως
(Phil. iii. 14). — ἣν προηκούσατε x.7.r.]| Certainty of this hope,
which is not an unwarranted subjective fancy, but is objec-
tively conveyed to them through the word of truth previously
announced. The πρό in προηκούσατε (Herod. viii. 79; Plat.
Legg. vii. Ὁ. 191 A; Xen. Mem. ii. 4.7; Dem. 759. 26,955.1;
Joseph. Anti. villi. 12. 3) does not denote already formerly,
whereby Paul premises se nihil allaturum novi (Calvin and
many), but must be said with reference to the futwre, to which
the hope belongs ; hence the sense imported by Ewald: where-
with the word of truth began among you (Mark i. 15), is the
less admissible. The conception is rather, that the contents
of the ἐλπίς, the heavenly salvation, is the great future bless-
ing, the infallible pre-announcement of which they have heard.
As previously announced, it is also previously heard. — τῆς
ἀληθείας is the contents of the λόγος (comp. on Eph. i. 13) ;
and by τοῦ evay., the ἀλήθεια, that is, the absolute truth, is
specifically defined as that of the gospel, that is, as that which
is announced in the gospel. Both genitives are therefore to be
left in their substantive form (Erasmus, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-
Crusius, and many others understand τῆς ἀληθ. as adjectival :
sermo verax; comp. on the contrary, on ἀλήθ. τοῦ εὐαγγ., Gal.
11. 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 τοῦ evayy. as the genitive of apposition to τῷ λόγῳ τῆς
ἀληθ. (Calvin, Beza, and many others, including Flatt, Bihr,
Steiger, Bohmer, Huther, Olshausen, de Wette, Hofmann) ;
following Eph. i. 13, Paul would have written τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ.
Ver. 6. In what he had just said, ἣν προηκούσατε.. ..
εὐαγγελίου, Paul now desires to make his readers sensible of
the great and blessed fellowship in which, through the gospel,
they are placed, in order that they may by this very con-
sciousness feel themselves aroused to faithfulness towards the
COL. R

258 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

gospel, in presence of the heretical influences; ἐπειδὴ μάλιστα
οἱ πολλοὶ ἐκ τοῦ κοινωνοὺς ἔχειν πολλοὺς τῶν δογμάτων στη-
ρίξονται, Chrysostom. Comp. Oecumenius: προθυμοτέρους
αὐτοὺς περὶ THY πίστιν ποιεῖ ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν πάντας κοινωνούς,
— εἰς ὑμᾶς] not ἐν ὑμῖν, because the conception of the previous
arrival predominates ; 1 Mace. xi.63. Often so with παρεῖναι
in classical authors (Herod. i. 9, vi. 24, viii. 60; Polyb. xvii
1. 1; comp. Acts xii. 20). See Bornemann and Kiihner, ad
Xen. Anab. 1. 2.2; Bremi, ad Aeschin. p. 320 ; and generally,
Nagelsbach, z. Zlias, p. 158 f., ed. 3. Observe, moreover, the
emphasis of tod παρόντος: it is there! it has not remained
away; and to the presence is then added the bearing fruit.
καθὼς καὶ ἐν παντὶ τ. κόσμῳ] A popular hyperbole. Comp.
Rom. i. 8; Acts xvii. 6, and see ver. 29. 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 zdea” (Baumgarten-Crusius) and the like;
although, certainly, the idea of the catholicity of Christianity
is expressed in the passage (comp. Rom. x. 18; Mark xiv. 9,
xvi. 15; Matt. xxiv. 14).—x«al ἔστι καρποφ. «.7.d.] Instead of
continuing: καὶ καρποφορουμένου x.7.r., Paul carries onward
the discourse with the finite verb, and thus causes this element
to stand out more independently and forcibly : “and i is
fruit-bearing and growing” (see Maetzner, ad Lycurg. Leocr.
Ῥ. 108; Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 222 Β; Winer, p. 533
[E. T. 717]), by which is indicated the fact, that the gospel,
wherever it is present, is also in course of living dynamical
development, and this state of development is expressed by ἔστι
with the participle. This general proposition based on expe-
rience: καὶ ἔστι καρποφ. κ. αὐξαν., is then by καθὼς x. ἐν

1 ΤΆ καί is not genuine, as Bleck, Hofmann, and others consider (see the
critical remarks), the passage is to be translated : as it also in the whole world
is fruit-bearing, by which Paul would say that the gospel is present among the
readers in the same fruit-bearing quality which it developes on all sides. But
in that case the following καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν would necessarily appear as very super-
fluous. No doubt we might, after the preceding παρόντος, take the ἐστί, with
F. Nitzsch, as equivalent to πάρεστι (sce Stallb. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 59 B) ; and to
this comes also the punctuation in Tisch. 8, who puts a comma after ἐσσίν. But
how utterly superfluous would this ἐστί then be!

CHAP. I..7, 8 259

ὑμῖν confirmed through the experience found also among the
readers ; so that Paul’s view passes, in the first clause (τοῦ
παρόντος... κόσμῳ), from the special to the general aspect,
and in the second, from the general to the special. With xap-
ποφορ. (ποῦ occurring elsewhere in the middle) is depicted the
blissful working in the inward and outward life(comp. Gal. v. 22;
Eph. v. 9) ; and with αὐξανόμ. the continuous diffusion, whereby
the gospel is obtaining more and more adherents and local
extension. Comp. Theodoret: καρποφορίαν τοῦ εὐαγγ. κέκληκε
τὴν ἐπαινουμένην πολιτείαν αὔξησιν δὲ τῶν πιστευόντων τὸ
πλῆθος. Huther and de Wette groundlessly refrain from
deciding whether av&. is intended to refer to the outward
growth or to the inward (so Steiger), or to both. See Acts vi. 7,
xu. 24, xix. 20. .Comp. Luke xiii. 19; Matt. xiii. 32..° The
μᾶλλον στηρίζεσθαι, which Chrysostom finds included in αὐξ,,
is not denoted, but presupposed by the latter. Comp. Theo-
phylact. The jigure is taken from a éree, in which the καρ-
ποφορία does not exclude the continuance of growth (not so
in the case of cereals).— ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρ. «.7.r.] 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 ? —
τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ] contents of the gospel, which they have
heard; the object of ἠκούσ. is the gospel, and τ. χάριν τ. Θεοῦ
belongs to ἐπέγνωτε; and by ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (2 Cor. vii. 14),
equivalent to ἀληθῶς (John xvii. 8), the qualitative character
of this knowledge is affirmed: it was a true knowledge, corre-
sponding to the nature of the χάρις, without Judaistic and other
errors. Comp. on John xvii. 19. Holtzmann hears in ἠκούσατε
.. . ἀληθῶς “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. Καθώς] not guandoguidem (Flatt, comp. Bihr),-
but the as of the manner in which. So, namely, as it had just
been affirmed by ἐν ἀληθείᾳ that they had known the divine
grace, had they learned it (comp. Phil. iv. 9) from Epaphras.

260 TIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Notwithstanding this appropriate connection, Holtzmann finds
in this third καθώς a trace of the interpolator.— Nothing
further is known from any other passage as to Hpaphras the
Colossian (iv. 12); according to Philem. 23, he was ovvavy-
μάλωτος of the apostle. That the latter circumstance is not
mentioned in our Epistle is not to be attributed to any special
design (Estius: that Paul was unwilling to make his readers
anxious). See, on the contrary, on iv. 10. Against the
identity of Epaphras with Lpaphroditus, see on Phil. 11. 25.
The names even are not alike (contrary to the view of Grotius
and Ewald, who look upon Zpaphras as an abbreviation) ;
᾿Επαφρᾶς and the corresponding feminine name ᾿Ε παφρώ are
found on Greek inscriptions. — cvydovrAov] namely, of Christ
(comp. Phil. i. 1). The word, of common occurrence, is used
elsewhere by Paul in iv. 7 only. — ὅς ἐστιν «.7.r.] 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 πιστός. --- ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν] for, as their teacher, he
is the servant of Christ for them, for their bencfit. The inter-
pretation, znstead 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
(διάκονός μου ἐν Χριστῷ, or something similar). Comp.
Philem. 13. Even with Lachmann’s reading, ὑπ. ἡμῶν
(Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald), it would not be necessary to take
ὑπέρ as instead ; it might equally well be taken as for in
the sense of interest, as opposite of the anti-Pauline work-
ing (comp. Luke ix. 50). The present ἐστί (Paul does not put
ἣν) has its just warrant in the fact, that the merit, which the
founder of the church has acquired by its true instruction, is
living and continuous, reaching in its efficacy down to the
present time. This is an ethical relation, which is quite inde-
pendent of the circumstance that Epaphras was himself a
Colossian (in opposition to Hofmann), but also makes it un-
necessary to find in ἐστι an indirect continuance of Epaphras’
work for the Colossians (in opposition to Bleek). —o καὶ δηλώσας

CHAP. ies) &: 261

κτλ] who also (in accordance with the interest of this faithful
service) has made us to know ; comp. 1 Cor.i.11. The ἀγάπη
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 ὑμῶν (comp. 1 Cor.
ix. 12; 2 Cor. i. 6, vii. 7, viii. 13, οὐ al.), which betokens the
love of the readers to Lpaphrasasmeant. There had just been
expressed, to wit, by ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, the faithful, loving position of
this servant of Christ towards the Colossians, and correlative to
this is now the love which he met with from them, consequently
the counter-love shown to him, of which he has informed the
apostle. A delicate addition out of courtesy to the readers. —
ἐν πνεύματι] attaches itself closely to ἀγάπην, 80 as to form one
idea, denoting the love as truly holy—not conditioned by any-
thing outward, but divinely upheld—which is zn the Holy Spirit
as the element which prompts and animates it ; for it is the fruit
of the Spirit (Gal. v. 22 ; Rom. xv. 30), οὐ σαρκικὴ, ἀλλὰ πνευ-
ματική (Oecumenius). Comp. χαρὰ ἐν πν., Rom. xiv. 17.

REMARK.—Since ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε x.7.2., ver. 6, refers the
readers back to the first commencement of their Christianity,,
and χαθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ ᾿Επαφρᾶ κ-τ.λ., ver. 7, cannot, except by
pure arbitrariness, be separated from it as regards time and
regarded as something later, it results from our passage that
Epaphras is to be considered as the jivst preacher of the gospel
at Colossae, and consequently as founder of the church. This
exegetical result remains even if the Reccepta καθὼς καί is re-
tained. This καί would not, as Wiggers thinks (in the Stud. w.
ΑΚ τί. 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 καθὼς καὶ ἀπὸ ᾽Ἔπαφρ. guddere or καθὼς
ἐμάθετε καὶ ἀπὸ ᾽Ἔπαφρ. would have been employed) ; but it is to
be taken as also, not otherwise, placing the ἐμάθετε on a parity
with the ἐπέγνωτε. This applies also in opposition to Vaihinger,
in Herzog’s Encykl. iv. Ὁ. 79 f.

1 Who, at the same time, makes the ἐν πνεύματι suggest the reference, that the
ἀγάπη took place in a manner personally unknown—which must have been con-
veyed in the context.

262 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Ver. 9. Intercession, down to ver. 12.— διὰ τοῦτο] on
account of all that has been said from ἀκούσαντες in ver. 4
onward: induced thereby, we also cease not, etc. This reference
is required by ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσαμεν, which cannot corre-
spond to the δηλώσας ἡμῖν, belonging as that does merely to
an accessory thought, but must take up again (in opposition to
Bleek and Hofmann) the ἀκούσαντες which was said in ver. 4.
This resumption is emphatic, not tautological (Holtzmann). —
Kal ἡμεῖς] are to be taken together, and it is not allowable to join
καί either with διὰ τοῦτο (de Wette), or even with mpocevy.
(Baumgarten-Crusius). The words are to be rendered: We also
(I and Timothy), like others, who make the same intercession for
you, and among whom there is mentioned by name the founder
of the church, who stood in closest relation to them.—pocevy. |
“ Precum mentionem generatim fecit, ver. 3; nunc exprimit, quid
precetur” (Bengel). — καὶ αἰτούμενοι] adds the special (asking)
to the general (praying). Comp. 1 Mace. 1. 44; Matt, xxi
22; Mark xi. 24; Eph. vi. 18; Phil.iv.6. As to the popular
form of hyperbole, od παυόμ., comp. on Eph. i. 16. On ὑπὲρ
ὑμῶν, so far as it is also to be taken with x. αἰτούμ., comp.
Lys. ὁ. Ale. p. 141. — ἵνα πληρωθ.Ἵ Contents of the asking in
the form of its purpose. Comp. on Phil. 1. 9. The emphasis
lies not on πληρωθ. (F. Nitzsch, Hofmann), but on the object
(comp. Rom. xv. 14, i. 29, al.), which gives t6 the further eluci-
dation in vv. 9, 10 its specific definition of contents. — τὴν
ἐπίγν. Tov θελ. αὐτοῦ] with the knowledge of His will, accusa-
tive, as in Phil. i. 11; αὐτοῦ applies to God as the subject,
to whom prayer and supplication are addressed. The context
in ver. 10 shows that by the θέλημα is meant, not the cownsel
of redemption (Eph. i. 9; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy-
lact, and many others, including Huther and Dalmer), but,
doubtless (Matt. vi. 10), that which God wills in a moral respect
(so Theodoret, who makes out a contrast with the νομικαῖς
παρατηρήσεσιν). Comp. Rom. ii. 18, xii. 2; Eph. v.17, vi. 6;
Col. iv. 12. The distinction between γνῶσις and ἐπίγνωσις,
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. — ἐν πάσῃ κτλ.

CHAP. 1. 9. 263

instrumental definition of manner, how, namely, this πληρω-
θῆναι τὴν ἐπίγν. τ. θελ. αὐτοῦ (a knowledge which is to be
the product not of mere human mental activity, but of objec-
tively divine endowment by the Holy Spirit) must be brought
about: by every kind of spiritual wisdom and insight, by the
communication of these from God; comp. on Eph.i. 8 A
combination with the following περιπατῆσαι (comp. iv. 5: ἐν
copia περιπ.), 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
(ver. 9), and of the corresponding practical conduct of life
(ver. 10f.); hence the latter portion is most naturally and
emphatically headed by the expression of this Christian prac-
tice, the περιπατῆσαι, to which are then subjoined its modal
definitions in detail. Accordingly, περιπατῆσαι is not, with
Hofmann, to be. made dependent on τοῦ θελήμ. αὐτοῦ and
taken as its contents, but τ. Ged. τ. O. is to be left as an ubso-
lute idea, as in iv. 12. On πνευματικός, proceeding from the
Holy Spirit}? comp. Rom. i. 11; 1°Cor. ii 13, xii. 1; Eph.
i. 8,v. 19, et al. The σύνεσις is the insight, in a theoretical
and (comp. on Mark xii. 33) practical respect, depending upon
judgment and inference, Eph. 11, 4; 2 Tim. ii 7. For the
opposite of the pneumatic σύνεσις, see 1 Cor. 1. 19. It is
related to the σοφία as the special to the general, since it is
peculiarly the expression of the zntelligence in the domain of
truth,” while the σοφία 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 πνευματική; its
opposite is the σοφία σαρκική (2 Cor. 1. 12; Jas. iii. 15),
being of man, and not of God, in its aim and efforts. Accord-
ing as φρόνησις is conceived subjectively or objectivized, the
σύνεσις may be considered either as synonymous with it

1 Hence ἡ avwbey σοφία, Jas. iii. 15,17. The predicate, although in the case
of divine endowment with σοφία and σύνεσις obvious of itself (as Hofmann
objects), was yet all the more apposite for expressly bringing the point into pro-
minence, the greater the danger which threatened Colossae from non-divine,

fleshly wisdom ; comp. 11. 23.
2 Comp. Dem. 269. 24: σύνεσις, 4 τὰ καλὰ καὶ αἰσχρὰ διαγινώσκεται.

264 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

(Eph. 1.8; Dan. 11. 21; Plat. Crat. p. 411 A), or as an attri-
bute of it (Ecclus. 1. 4: σύνεσις φρονήσεως).

Ver. 10. The practical aim’ which that πληρωθῆναι x.7.r.
is to accomplish; ἀεὶ τῇ πίστει συζεύγνυσι τὴν πολιτείαν,
Chrysostom. The Vulgate renders correctly : μέ ambuletes (in
opposition to Hofmann, see on ver. 9). — ἀξίως τοῦ κυρίου] so
that your behaviour may stand in morally appropriate relation
to your belonging to Christ. Comp. Rom. xvi. 2; Eph. iv. 1;
Phil. i. 27; 1 Thess. ii. 12; 3 John 6. The genitive (and in
the N. T. such is always used with ἀξίως) does not even
“ perhaps” (Hofmann) belong to the following εἰς 7. dpec.,
especially as ἀρεσκεία, 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 Ὁ: ἀξίως τοῦ Ocod. — εἰς
πᾶσαν ἀρεσκείαν) on behalf of every kind of pleasing, that is,
in order to please Him in every way. The word only occurs
here in the N. T., but the apostle is not on that account to be
deprived of it (Holtzmann) ; it is found frequently in Polybius,
Philo, οὐ al. ; also Theophr. Char..5; LXX. Prov. xxix. 30
(xxx. 30); Symmachus, Ps. Ixxx. 12. On πᾶσαν ap. comp.
Polybius, xxxi. 26. 5: πᾶν γένος ἀρεσκείας προσφερόμενος.
Among the Greeks, ἀρεσκεία (to be accentuated thus, see
Winer, p. 50 [E. T. 57]; Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 11 [E. T.
12]) bears, for the most part, the sense of seeking to please.
Comp. Prov. xxix. 30: ψευδεῖς ἀρεσκείαι. ---- ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ
κτλ] There now follow three expositions, in order to define
more precisely the nature and mode of the περιπατῆσαι ἀξίως
κατὰ. 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) ἐν παντὶ
ἔργῳ «.7.r., (2) ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει, (3) μετὰ χαρᾶς, and ends

1 Not to be attached as object of the request immediately to προσευχόμενοι, and
all that intervenes to be assigned to the interpolator (Holtzmann, p. 85). Yet,
according to Holtzmann, p. 123, ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ down to σοῦ Θεοῦ is alleged to be
simply an interpolated duplicate of ver. 6; in which case, however, it would not

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

CHAP. I. 10. 265

with a relation expressed by εἰς, viz. (1) εἰς τ. ἐπίγν. τ. Θεοῦ,
(2) εἰς πᾶσ. trop. x. μακροθυμ., (3) εἰς τὴν μερίδα K.T.r.
The construction would be still more symmetrical if, in the
third clause, ἐν πάσῃ χαρᾷ (Rom. xv. 32) had been written
instead of μετὰ yapas—which was easily prevented by the ver-
satility of the apostle’s form of conception. — ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ
ἀγαθῷ καρποφ. is to be taken together (and then again, avéa-
νόμ. εἰς THY ἐπίγν. τ. Θεοῦ), inasmuch as ye by every good work
(by your accomplishing every morally good action) bear fruit,
as good trees, comp. Matt. vii. 17. But not as if the καρπο-
φορεῖν and the αὐξάνεσθαι 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, ἐν παντὶ ἔργ. ay. is not to be
connected with εἰς πᾶσων ἀρεσκ. (Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Erasmus, and others, also Steiger); otherwise we mistake and
destroy the symmetrical structure of the passage. — καὶ αὐξα-
vom. εἰς τ. ἐπίγν. τ. Θ.] and, inasmuch as with this moral frwit-
bearing at the same time ye decrease wn 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 ἐπίγν. τ. Θεοῦ (ver. 6, iii. 10, i. 2), sustains an ethically
necessary action and reaction with practical morality. Just
as the latter is promoted by the former, so also knowledge
erows through moral practice in virtue of the power of inward
experience of the divine life (the ζωὴ tod Θεοῦ, Eph. iv. 18),
by which God reveals Himself more and more to the inner
man. The fact that here τοῦ Θεοῦ generally is said, and not
τοῦ θελήματος Θεοῦ repeated, is in keeping with the progressive
development set forth ; there is something of a climaxin it. On
εἰς, used of the telic reference, and consequently of the reqgula-
tive direction of the growth, comp. on Eph. iv. 15; 2 Pet.
i. 8. The reading τῇ ἐπυγνώσει τ. Θ. would have to be taken
as instrumental, with Olshausen, Steiger, Huther, de Wette,
Bleek, who follow it, but would yield after ver. 9 something
quite self-evident. We may add that αὐξάν., with the dative
of spiritual increase by something, is frequent in Plato and
classic writers.—As to the nominatives of the participles, which

266 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

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

Ver. 11 is co-ordinate with the foregoing ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ . ..
Θεοῦ. ---- ἐν πάσῃ Suv. δυναμ.] ἐν is instrumental, as in ver. 9
(Eph. vi. 10; 2 Tim. ii. 1); hence not designating that, in the
acquiring of which the invigoration is supposed to consist (Hof-
mann), but: by means of every (moral) power (by its bestowal
on God’s part) becoming empowered. δυναμόω (Lobeck, ad
Phryn. Ὁ. 605) does not occur in Greek authors, and is only
found here and at Heb. xi. 34, Lachm. in the N. T.; in the
LXX. at Eccles. x. 10; Dan. ix. 27 ; Ps. lxvii. 31; in Aquila;
Job xxxvi. 9; Ps. Ilxiv. 4 Paul elsewhere uses ἐνδυναμοῦν.
— κατὰ τὸ κράτος τῆς δόξ. αὐτ.] according to the might of His
majesty ; with this divine might (see as to κράτος 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 dts eminent strength and efficacy are characterized (κατά
in Eph. 1. 19 has another sense). Comp. 2 Thess. 1. 9;
Phil. 11. 21. And τὸ κράτος τ. δόξ. adr. is not His glorious
power (Luther, Castalio, Beza, and others; also Flatt and
Bihr), against which αὐτοῦ should have been a sufficient warn-
ing; but τὸ κράτος is the appropriate attribute of the divine
majesty (of the glorious nature of God). Comp. Eph. iii. 16 ;
Ecclus. xviii. 5. The κράτος therefore is not the glory of God
(Bohmer), but the latter as the former,—and the δόξα is not
to be referred to a single aspect of the divine greatness
(Grotius: power; Huther: Jove), but to its glorious whole.
Comp. on Rom. vi. 4. — els πᾶσαν ὕπομ. x. μακροθ. in re-
spect to every endurance (in affliction, persecution, temptation,
and the like, comp. Rom. v. 3; 2 Cor. i. 6, vi. 4; Jas. 1. 3 Ἐν;
Luke viii. 15; Rom. ui 7, οὐ 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: μακροθυμεῖ
τις πρὸς ἐκείνους ods δυνατὸν Kal ἀμύνασθαι ὑπομένει δὲ,
οὺς οὐ δύναται ἀμύνασθαι, is arbitrary. See, on the contrary,
for instance, Heb. xii. 2, 3. ‘Others understand it variously ;

CHAP. I. 12. _ Se

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

Ver. 12. While ye give thanks with joyfulness, etc.—a third
accompanying definition of περιπατῆσαι ἀξίως x.7.d. (ver. 10),
co-ordinate with the two definitions preceding, and not to be
connected with od παυόμεθα «.7.r. (Chrysostom, Theophylact,
Calvin: “iterum redit ad gratulationem,” Calovius, Bohmer,
Baumgarten-Crusius). — τῷ πατρί] of Jesus Christ; comp.
ver. 13, and τοῦ Κυρίου in ver. 10, not: “the Father absolutely”
(Hofmann). It is always in Paul’s writings to be gathered
from the context, whose Father God is to be understood as
being (even at Eph. i. 17); never does he name God absolutely
(in abstracto) ὁ πατήρ. 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 εἰς τὴν
μερίδα x.7.r. betray itself as an interpolation from Eph. 1. 18
and i. 11 (Holtzmann), seeing that, on the one hand, the

268 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS,

expression at our passage is so wholly peculiar, and, on the
other hand, the idea of κληρονομία is so general in the N. T.
Comp. especially Acts xxvi. 18.1. — τῷ ἱκανώσαντι x.7.d.]
Therein lies the ground of the thanksgiving, quippe qui, etc.
God has made us fit (ἡμᾶς 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 ἀλήθεια, of which light is the
distinctive element and the quickening and saving principle
(Eph. v. 9) of the Christian constitution both in an intellectual
and ethical point of view (Acts xxvi. 18); hence Christians are
children of the light (Eph. v. 8; 1 Thess. v. 5; Luke xvi. 8).
Comp. Rom. xiii. 12; 2 Cor. vi. 14; 1 Pet. ii. 9. In Christ the
light had attained to personal manifestation (John i. 4 ff, iii. 9,
vil. 12; Matt. iv. 16, e¢ al.), as the personal revelation of the
divine nature itself (1 John i. 5), and the gospel was the means
of its communication (Eph. iii. 9; Heb. vi. 4; 2 Cor. iv. 4;
Acts xxvi. 23, οἱ al.) to men, who without this enlightenment
were wifit for the Messianic salvation (Eph. ii. 1 ff, iv. 18,
v. 11, vi. 12; 1 Thess. v. 4, οὐ al.).. The instrumental defini-
tion ἐν τῷ φωτί is placed at the end, in order that it may stand
out with special emphasis; hence, also, the relative sentence
which follows refers to this very element. An objection has
been wrongly urged against our view (which is already adopted
by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact; comp. Estius and
others, including Flatt and Steiger), that Paul must have used
πνεῦμα instead of φῶς (see Olshausen). The ἱκανοῦν ἐν τῷ
φωτί is, indeed, nothing else than the καλεῖν εἰς τὸ φῶς
(1 Pet. 1. 9) conceived in respect of its moral efficacy, and
the result thereof on the part of man is the εἶναι φῶς ἐν κυρίῳ
(Eph. v. 8), or the εἶναι υἱὸν τοῦ φωτός (1 Thess. v. 5; John
ΧΙ, 36), ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ (Phil. ii. 15). But the light

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

CHAP. I. 19. 269

is a power; for it is τὸ φῶς τῆς ζωῆς (John viii. 12), has its
armour (Rom. xiii. 12), produces its fruit (Eph. v. 9), effects
the Christian ἐλέγχειν (Eph. v. 13), endurance in the conflict
of affliction (Heb. x. 32), etc. "Ev τῷ φωτί is usually con-
nected with τοῦ κλήρου τῶν ἁγίων, so that this κλῆρος is de-
scribed as eaisting or to be found in light, as the kingdom of
light ; in which case we may think either of its glory (Beza
and others, Bohmer, Huther), or of its purity and perfection
(Olshausen, de Wette, and Dalmer) as referred to. But
although the connecting article τοῦ might be wanting, and the
κλῆρος τ. ay. ἐν τῷ φωτί might thus form a single conception, it
may be urged as an objection that the heritage meant cannot
be the temporal position of Christians, but only the future
blessedness of the Messianic glorious kingdom ; comp. ver. 19,
τὴν Bao. τοῦ υἱοῦ. Hence not ἐν τῷ φωτί, but possibly ἐν
τῇ δόξῃ, ἐν τῇ ζωῇ, ἐν τοῖς οὐρανεῖς, or the like, would be a
fitting definition of κλῆρος, which, however, already has in
τῶν ἁγίων its definite description (comp. Eph. 1. 18; Acts
xx. 32, xxvi. 18). Just as little—for the same reason, and
because τ. μερίδα already carries with it its own definition
(share in the κλῆρος)---ἰ58 ἐν τῷ φωτί to be made dependent on
τὴν μερίδα, whether ἐν be taken locally (Bengel: “ Lux est
regnum Dei, habentque fideles in hoc regno partem beatam”)
or as in Acts vill. 21 (Ewald), in which case Hofmann finds
the sphere expressed (comp. also Bleek), where the saints have
got their peculiar possession assigned to them, so that the being
in light stands related to the future glory as that which is still
in various respects conditioned stands to plenttude—as if κλῆρος
(comp. on Acts xxvi. 18) had not already the definite and full
eschatological sense of the possession of eternal glory. This
κλῆρος, of which the Christians are possessors (τῶν ἁγίων), ideally
before the Parousia, and thereafter really, is the theocratic de-
sionation (nbn) of the property of the Messianic kingdom (see
on Gal. iii, 18; Eph. i. 11), and the μερὶς (pon) τοῦ κλήρου is
the shave of indiziduals' in the same. Comp. Ecclus. xliv. 23.

‘Comp. also Bleek. Hofmann incorrectly says that σοῦ κληροῦ serves only to

designate the μερίς as destined for special possession. In that case, at least, the
qualitative genitive of the abstract must have been put (τῆς κληρονομίας, as in

270 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS,

Ver. 13. A more precise elucidation of the divine benefit
previously expressed by τῷ ἱκανώσαντι.... φωτί. 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."
— ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσ. τοῦ cKoT.] τοῦ σκοτ. is not genitive of apposi-
tion (Hofmann), but, corresponding to the εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν
that follows, genitive of the subject: out of the power, which
darkness has, The latter, as the influential power of non-
Christian humanity (of the κόσμος, which is ruled by the devil,
Eph. ii. 2), is personified ; its essence is the negation of the
intellectual‘and ethical divine ἀλήθεια, and the affirmation of
the opposite. Comp. Luke xxii. 53; Matt. iv. 16; Acts
xxvi. 18; Rom, xii. 12; Ephivi 8,vi 12; ec al. Theraee
of the ἐῤῥύσατο has taken place by means of the conversion to
Christ, which is the work of God, Rom. viii. 29 ἢ ; Eph.
1. 4 ff. It is to be observed, that the expression ἐκ τ. ἐξουσ.
τ. σκότους is chosen as the correlative of ἐν τῷ φωτί in ver. 12.
— καὶ μετέστησεν] The matter is to be conceived locally (εἰς
ἕτερον τόπον, Plat. Legg. vi. p. 762 B), so that the deliver-
ance from the power of darkness appears to be united with
the removing away into the kingdom, etc. Comp. Plat. Rep.
p. 518 A: ἔκ τε φωτὸς εἰς σκότος μεθισταμένων καὶ ἐκ σκό-
τους εἰς φώς. ---- εἰς τὴν βασιλ. K.7.X., that is, into the kingdom
of the Messiah, Eph. v. 5; 2 Pet. 1. 11 ; for this and nothing
else is meant by ἡ βασιλεία Χριστοῦ (τοῦ Θεοῦ, τῶν οὐρανῶν)
im all passages of the Ν. 1. Comp. iv. 11; and see on Rom. °
xiv; 7; do Cor. iv., 20: Matt. iit: 2).vi 10. ΠΟ

Ps. xvi. 5). But the concrete rod κλήρου τ΄. ἅγ. is, as the literal sense of μερίς,
portio, most naturally suggests, the genitivus partitivus (G. totius), so that the
individual is conceived as wepirns of the κλῆρος of the saints, in which he for his
part συμμετέχει.

1 This Christological outburst runs on in the form of purely positive statement,
although having already in view doctrinal dangers of the kind in Colossae.
According to Holtzmann, the Christology belongs to the compiler ; the whole
passage, vv. 14-20, is forced and without motive, and it is only in ver. 21 that
we find the direct sequel to ver. 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 without due motive? WHoltzmann 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, ae

μετέστ. is to be explained by the matter being conceived
proleptically (τῇ γὰρ ἐλπίδι ἐσώθημεν, Rom. viii. 24), as
something already consummated (comp. on ἐδόξασε, Rom.
viii. 30). Thus the kingdom which is nigh is, by means of
their fellowship of life with their Lord (Eph. ii. 6), as certain
to the redeemed as if they were already translated into it.
The explanation which refers it to the Christian church (so
still Heinrichs, Bahr, Huther, and most expositors) as con-
trasted with the κόσμος, is just as unhistorical as that which
makes it the invisible znward, ethical kingdom (see especially
Olshausen, following an erroneous view of Luke xvii. 21), to
which also Bleek and Hofmann ultimately come. Certainly
all who name Christ their Lord are under this king (Hofmann) ;
but this is not yet his βασιλεία ; that belongs to the future
aiwv, Eph. v. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 9 f., xv. 24,50; Gal. v. 21, e al. ;
John xviii. 36.— τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ] in essential meaning,
indeed, nothing else than τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ (Matt.
iii, 17, xvii. 5, οὐ al.), or τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ αὐτοῦ
(Matt. xii. 18; Mark xii. 6), but more prominently singling
out the attribute (Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 141 [E. T. 162]):
of the Son of His love, that is, of the Son who is the object of
His love, genitive of the subject. Comp. Gen. xxxv. 18: υἱὸς
ὀδύνης μου. Entirely parallel is Eph. i. 6 ἢ : ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ,
ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν κτλ. Augustine, de Trin. xv. 19, understood it
as genitive of origin, making ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ denote the divine
substantia.’ So again Olshausen, in whose view the expression
is meant to correspond to the Johannine μονογενής. This is
entirely without analogy in the N. T. mode of conception,
according to which not the procreation (ver. 15), but the send-
ing of the Son is referred to the divine love as its act; and
the love is not the essence of God (in the metaphysical sense),
but His essential disposition (the essence in the ethical sense),
even in 1 John iv. 8, 16. Consequently it might be ex-
plained: “of the Son, whom His love has sent,” if this were
suggested by the context; so far, however, from this being the
case, the language refers to the exalted Christ who rules (Gact-

1 Theodore of Mopsuestia finds in the expression the contrast that Christ was
the Son of God οὐ φύσει, ἀλλ᾽ ἀγάπῃ τῆς υἱοθεσίας.

272 TIIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

λείαν). The expression itself, ὁ vids τῆς ἀγάπ. αὐτοῦ, 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 σκότος, which in its nature is directly
opposed to the divine love. The view, that it is meant to be
intimated that the sharing in the kingdom brings with it the
viobecia (Huther, de Wette), imports what is not expressed,
and anticipates the sequel. Holtzmann without ground, and
unfairly, asserts that in comparison with Eph. i. 6 our passage
presents “stereotyped modes of connection and turns of an
ecclesiastical orator,” under which he includes the Hebraizing ὁ
vids τῆς ἀγάπης αὖτ. as being thoroughly wn-Pauline—as if the
linguistic resources of the apostle could not even extend to an
expression which is not indeed elsewhere used by him, but is
in the highest 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 vioecia (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 βασιλεία does not denote the kingdom
of the church); nor yet a mark of the deliverance from dark-
ness having taken place (Ritschl in the Jahrb. 7. Deutsche
Theol. 1863, p. 513), since this deliverance necessarily
coincides with the translation into the kingdom; but it is the
abiding (ἔχομεν, habemus, not accepimus) relation, in whach that
transference into the kingdom of God has tts causal basis. The
ransoming (from the punishment of sin, see the explanatory
τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν auapt.) 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. δ), has given Himself as a
λύτρον (Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45; 1 Tim. ii. 6); and this
redemption, effected by His ἱλαστήριον (Rom. i. 21 ff),
remains continually in subsistence and efficacy. Hence: ἐν ᾧ,
which specifies wherein the subjective ἔχομεν is objectively
based, as its causa meritoria (Rom. ili. 24). Comp., moreover,
on Eph. i. 7, whence διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ has found its way
hither as a correct gloss. But the deleting of this addition
by no means implies that we should make τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν also

CHAP. I. 15. 215

belong to τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν (Hofmann), as in Heb. ix. 15,
especially as Paul elsewhere only uses ἀπολύτρωσις either
absolutely (Rom. iii. 24; 1 Cor.i.30; Eph. i. 7, iv. 30) or
with the genitive of the subject (Rom. vill. 23; Eph. i. 14).
The expression ἄφεσις τ. ἅμαρτ. is not used by him elsewhere
in the epistles (comp., however, Rom. iv. 7), but at Acts wiii.
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.
uw. Krit. 1832, p. 497 ff. (Werke 2. Theol. II. Ὁ. 321 ff), and,
in opposition to his ethical interpretation (of Christ as the
moral Reformer of the world), Holzhausen in the 7. Zeitschr.
1832, 4, p. 236 ff.; Osiander, ibid. 1833, 1, 2; Biihr, ap-
pendix to Komment. p. 321 ff.; Bleek on Heb. i. 2. See
generally also Hofmann, Schrifibew. I. p. 153 ff, IL 1, p.
357 ff.; Beyschlag in the Stud. εν. Krit. 1860, p. 446 ---
After having stated, in ver. 14, what we have in Christ (whose
state of exaltation he has in view, see ver. 13, τὴν βασιλείαν),
Paul now, continuing his discourse by an epexegetical relative
clause, depicts what Christ 7s, namely, as regards His divine
dignity—having in view the influences of the false teachers,
- who with Gnostic. tendencies depreciated this dignity. The
plan of the discourse is not tripartite (originator of the physi-
cal creation, ver. 15 f.; maintainer of everything created,
ver. 17; relation to the new moral creation, ver. 18 ff..—so
Bihr, while others divide differently’), but bipartite, in such a
way that vv. 15-17 set forth the exalted metaphysical rela-
tion of Christ to God and the world, and then ver. 18 ff., His
historical relation of dignity to the church This division,
which in itself is logically correct (whereas ver. 17 is not
suited, either as regards contents or form, to be a separate,
co-ordinate part), is also externally indicated by the two con-
firmatory clauses ὅτε ἐν αὐτῷ «.7.d. in ver. 16 and ver. 19, by

1e.g, Calovius: ‘‘ Redemptoris descriptio a Dettate : ab opere creationis,” and
** quod caput ecclesiae sit.” Comp. Schmid, Bibl. Theol. 11. 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, with reference to the same.

COL. g

274 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

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

1 In conformity with the confirmatory function of the ὅτι, according to which
not the clause introduced by ὅτι, but the clause which it is to confirm, contains
the leading thought, to which ὅτι x.7.. is logically subordinated. Hence the
two parts are not to be begun with the two clauses ὅσι ἐν αὐτῷ 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.

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

CHAP. I. 12. 275

incarnation already possessed the essential divine glory, so
that He was as to nature ἴσα Θεῷ, and as to form of
appearance ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων (see on Phil. 11. 6); so,
after He had by means: of the incarnation divested Himself,
not indeed of His God-equal nature, but of His divine δόξα,
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 δόξα now exists (comp. on ii. 9) in His
elorified corporeal manifestation (Phil. i. 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 ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ
τῆς ὑποστάσεως Θεοῦ (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.
Evie /, τυ 91; Phil. ai. 20; 2 Thess. 2 7: 1 Pet. iv. 13;
Tit. ii. 13, e¢ al.). The predicate τοῦ ἀοράτου, placed as it is
in its characteristically significant attributive position (Borne-
mann, Schol. in Luc. p. xxxvi.; Bernhardy, p. 322 1.) behind the
emphatic τοῦ Θεοῦ, posits for the conception of the exact image
visibility (Heb. xii. 14; 2 Cor. ili. 18; Acts xxii. 11); but
the assumption that Paul had thus in view the Alexandrian
doctrine of the Logos, the doctrine of the hidden and manifest
God (see Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 308; comp. Bihr, Olshausen,
Steiger, Huther), the less admits of proof, because he is not
speaking here of the pre-existence, but of the exalted Christ,

tinct suspense in regard to his conception of this pre-existence. And Pfleiderer
(in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871, p. 533) sees in thé pre-existence a subjective
product, the consequence, namely, of the fact that Christ is the ideal of the
destiny of the human mind, hypostasized in a single person, to which is trans-
ferred the eternity and unchanged sclf-equality of the idea.

1 This is the chief point of agreement between our Epistle and the Epistle to
the Hebrews ; and it is explained by the Pauline basis and footing, on which
the author of the latter stood. The subsequent πρωτότοκος rac. xzic., however,
has nothing to do with πρωτότοκος, Heb. i. 6, where the absolute word is rather
to be explained in accordance with Rom. viii. 29. We make this remark in
opposition to Holtzmann, according to whom “the autor ad Ephesios as to his
Christology walks in the track opened by the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Other
apparent resemblances to this letter are immaterial, and similar ones can be
gathered from all the Pauline letters.

276 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

including, therefore, His human nature; hence, also, the com-
parison with the angel Metatron of Jewish theology (comp.
Hengstenberg, Christol. III. 2, p. 67) is irrelevant. The
Fathers, moreover, have, in opposition to the Arians, rightly
laid stress upon the fact (see Suicer, Zhes. I. p. 415) that,
according to the entire context, εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ is meant in the
eminent sense, namely of the adequate, and consequently con-
substantial, image of God (μόνος... καὶ ἀπαραλλάκτως εἰκών,
Theophylact), and not as man (Gen. 1. 26; comp. also 1 Cor.
xi. 7; Col. iii. 10) or the creation (Rom. i. 20) is God’s image.
In that case, however, the invisibility of the εἰκών 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 εἰκών ; whereas the notion of εἰκών necessarily involves
perceptibility (see above); “ Dei inaspecti aspectabilis imago,”
Grotius. This visibility —and that not merely mental (Rom. i.
20)—had been experienced by Paul himself at his conversion,
and at Christ’s Parousia will be fully experienced by all the
world. Different from this is the (discursive) cognoscibility of
God, which Christ has brought about by His appearance and
working. Johni. 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 guodammodo, and the text is thus laid
open to every kind of rationalizing caprice. We may add that
Christ was already, as λόγος ἄσαρκος, necessarily the image of
God, but ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, in purely divine glory ; not, as after His
exaltation, in divine-human δόξα ; consequently, the doctrine of
an eternal humanity of Christ (Beyschlag) is not to be based
on εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Comp. Wisd. vii. 26, and Grimm, Handb.
p. 161 ἢ The idea, also, of the prototype of humanity, which

CHAP. I. 15. Δ

is held by Beyschlag here to underlie that of the image
of God (comp. his Christol. p. 227), is foreign to the context.
Certainly God has in eternity thought of the humanity which
in the fulness of time was to be assumed by His Son (Acts xv.
18); but this is simply an deal 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. — πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως} 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; βούλεται δεῖξαι, ὅτε πρὸ πάσης τῆς κτίσεώς ἐστιν ὁ
υἱός: πῶς av; διὰ γενήσεως" οὐκοῦν καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων πρότερος,
καὶ οὕτως ὥστε καὶ αὐτὸς ἔκτισεν αὐτούς, Theophylact. The
false teachers denied to Christ the supreme unique rank in the
order of spirits. But he is first-born of every creature, that
is, born before every creature—having come to personal exist-
ence, entered upon subsistent being, ere yet anything created
was extant (Rom. i. 25, viii. 39; Heb. iv. 13). Analogous,
but not equivalent, is Prov. vii. 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 ἐν ἀρχῇ ἣν ὁ λόγος, which in substance, although
not in form, is also Pauline; comp. Phil. ii. 6. Philo’s term
πρωτόγονος, 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

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

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

278 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

of the personal pre-existence of Christ before the world as
regards (timeless) origin, is not defined by the figurative
πρωτότοκος more precisely than as procession from the divine
nature (Philo illustrates the relation of the origin of the
Logos, by saying that the Father ἀνέτεθλεν Him), whereby
the premundane Christ became subsistent ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ and
ἴσα Θεῷ (Phil. ii. 6). The genitive πάσης κτίσεως, moreover,
is not the partitive genitive (although de Wette still, with
Usteri, Reuss, and Baur, holds this to be indubitable), because
the anarthrous πᾶσα κτίσις does not mean the whole creation, or
everything which is created (Hofmann), and consequently cannot
affirm the category or collective whole’ to which Christ belongs
as its first-born individual (it means: every creature ; comp. on
πᾶσα οἰκοδομή, Eph. ii. 21°); but it is the genitive of compari-
son, corresponding to the superlative expression: “ the first-born
in comparison with every creature” (see Bernhardy, p. 139), that
is, born carlier than every creature. Comp. Bihr and Bleek,
Ernesti, Urspr. d. Stinde, I. p. 241; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. Ὁ. 424 ;
Philippi, Glaubensl. II. p. 214, ed. 2. In Rev.i. ὃ, πρωτότοκ.
τῶν νεκρῶν, the relation is different, τ. νεκρῶν pointing out
the category ; comp. πρωτότοκ. ἐν πολλοῖς a6., Rom. vill. 29.
The genitive here is to be taken quite as the comparative

1 Comp. Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 608 C. The article would necessarily be
added, as πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις, Judith xvi. 14, or ἡ πᾶσα κείσις, 3 Mace. vi. 2, or’ |
κτίσις πᾶσα. Comp. also ὅλη ἡ κτίσις, Wisd. xix. 6.

2 Hofmann, Schriflbew. I. p. 156: ‘In relation to all that is created, Christ
occupies the position which a first-born has towards the household of his father.”
Essentially similar is his view in his Heil. Schr. N. T., p. 16, where σ΄. κτίσ, is
held to mean ‘‘all creation,” and to signify ‘‘all that is created in its unity,”
which is also the opinion of Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 211. The inter-
pretation of Hofmann (comp. Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 79) is incorrect, because there
would thereby be necessarily affirmed a homogeneous relation of origin for Christ
and all the xia. The καίσις would stand to Christ in the relation of the wsra- _
τεχϑείς to the πρωτότεκες, of the ἐπίγονος to the πρώ τόγονος. Hofmann indeed (ell.
Schr. in loc.) opines that πάσης κτίσεως is simply genitive ‘‘ of the definition of
relation.” But this, in fact, explains nothing, because the question remains,
What relation is meant to be defined by the genitive? The πρωτότοκος rdons
κτίσεως is not at all to be got over so easily as it is by Hofmann, namely, with
a grammatically erroneous explanation of the anarthrous πᾶσα κτίσις, and with
appeal to Ps. Ixxxix. 28 (where, in fact, rpuréroxos stands without genitive, and
23 in the sense of the first rank).

CHAP. I. 15. 279

genitive with πρῶτος ; see on John i. 15, and generally,
Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 335 f. The element of comparison is the
relation of time (πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἷναι, John xvii. 5), and
that in respect of origin. But because the latter in the case
of every κτίσις is different from what it is in the case of
Christ, neither πρωτόκτιστος nor πρωτόπλαστος 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 πρωτότοκος 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 κτίσις,
but born, having come forth homogeneous from the nature of
God. And by this is expressed, not a relation homoge-
neous with the κτίσις (Holtzmann), a relation kindred to the
world (Beyschlag, Christol. p. 227), but that which is abso-
lutely exalted above the world and unique. Theodoret justly
observes: ody ὡς ἀδελφὴν ἔχων τὴν κτίσιν, ἀλλ’ ὡς πρὸ πᾶσης
κτίσεως γεννηθείς. At variance with the words, therefore, is
the Arian interpretation, that Christ is designated as the first
ereature ; so also Usteri, p. 315, Schwegler, Baur, Reuss.
With this view the sequel also conflicts, which describes Christ
as the accomplisher and aim of creation ; hence in His case a
mode of origin higher and different from the being created must be
presupposed, which is, in fact, characteristically indicated in the
purposely-chosen word πρωτότοκος. The Socinian interpreta-
tion is also incorrect” (Grotius, Wetstein, Nosselt, Heinrichs,
and others), that κτίσις denotes the new ethical creation, along
with which there is, for the most part, associated the refer-
ence of πρωτότοκ. to the highest dignity (Pelagius, Melanch-

? How much, however, the designations πρωτόκτιστος, κτίσμα, καίζειν κι...) AS
applied to the origin of the Son, were in use among the Alexandrians (following
Prov. viii. 22, where Wisdom says : κύριος ἔκτισέ με, comp. Ecclus. i, 4, xxiv. 8f.),
may be seen in Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. 1, p. 827, ed. 4.

3 The Socinian doctrine argues thus: ‘‘primogenitum unum ex corum
numero, quorum primogenitus est, esse necesse est ;” but Christ could not be
‘*unus e rebus conditis creationis veteris,”—an assumption which would be Arian ;
He must consequently belong to the new creation, from which it follows, at the
same time, that He does not possess a divine nature. See Catech. Racov. 167,
Ῥ. 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 κτίσις would neces-
sarily require for the moral notion a more precise definition,
either by a predicate (καινή, 2 Cor. v. 17; comp. Barnabas,
ep. α. XVi.: λαβόντες τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ ἐλπίσαντες
ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου, ἐγενόμεθα καινοὶ, πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς
κτιζόμενον), or at least by a context which admitted of no
doubt ; also, that πρωτότοκος never means the most excellent,
and can only have this sense ex adjuncto (as at Ps. lxxxix. 28 ;
Rom. vin. 29), which in this passage is not by any means the
case, as the context (see ver. 16, and πρὸ πάντων in ver. 17 ;
comp. also πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν in ver. 18) brings pro-
minently forward the relation of time. Chrysostom justly says:
οὐχὶ ἀξίας κ. τιμῆς, GANA χρόνου μόνον ἐστὶ σημαντικόν, and
already Theophilus, ad Autol. ii. 31, p. 1172 : ὅποτε δὲ ἠθέλησεν
ὁ Θεὸς ποιῆσαι ὅσα ἐβουλεύσατο, τοῦτον τὸν AOYoV ἐγέννησε
προφορικόν, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως. This πρωτότοκον.
εἶναι belongs to the high dignity of Christ (comp. Rev. iii. 14:
ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ), but it does not signify it. Comp.
Justin, ο. 77.100: πρωτότοκον μὲν τοῦ Θεοῦ x. πρὸ πάντων τῶν
κτισμάτων. The ethical’ interpretation of the passage appears
all the more mistaken, since according to it, even if wpw-
τότοκ. is understood temporally (Baumearten-Crusius: “ κτίσις
is that which is remodelled, and πρωτότοκος, He who has come
first under this category, has first received this higher spiritual
dignity”), Christ is made to be included wnder the κτίσις,
which is at variance both with the context in ver. 16 f,
and with the whole N. T. Christology, especially the sinless-
ness of Christ. If, however, in order to obviate this ground
of objection, πρωτότοκος is combined as an adjective with
εἰκών, we not only get a complicated construction, since both

1 Both errors of the Socinians, ete., are already present in Theodore cf Mop-
suestia, namely, that πρωτότοκος x7. xriz. does not sland iri χρόνου, Lut ext
προτιμήσεως, and signifies παρὰ πᾶσαν σὴν κτίσιν σιμώμενος ; and that the following
ἐν αὐτῷ κισ.λ. does not denote τὴν πρώτην, but σὴν ἐν αὐτῷ γενομένην dvaxciosy.

Comp. also Photius, Amphil. 192.

CHAP. I. 16. 281

words have their genitival definition, but πρωτότοκος (instead
of πρωτότυπος) would be an inappropriate predicate for εἰκών.
This applies against Schleiermacher, who, taking κτίσις 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, “Zp.
iii. 31, p. 237, and Basil the Great, c. Hunom. iv. p. 104, have
made the first-born even into the first-bringer-forth (πρωτοτόκος,
as paroxytone, according to the classical usage, Hom. J/. xvii. 5 ;
Plat. Theaet. p. 161 A,151C; Valckenaer, Schol. 11. p. 389), as,
with Erasmus in his Annot. (but only permissively) Erasmus
Schmid and Michaelis did, although πρωτοτόκος in an active
sense occurs only of the female sex, and the very πρωτότοκος ἐκ
τ. vexp. of ver. 18 ought to have dissuaded from such an idea, to
say nothing of the unfitness and want of delicacy of the figure’
as relating to Christ’s agency in the creation of the world, and of
the want of reference in the πρῶτον to the idea of a devrepov—an
idea which, with the usual interpretation, is implied in κτίσεως.
—Ver. 15 f. is, moreover, strikingly opposed to that assumption
of a world without beginning (Schleiermacher, Rothe).

Ver. 16. For in Him were all things created,—the logically
correct confirmation of πρωτότοκος wdc. κτίσεως. For if the
creation of all things took place in Christ, it is evident that He
must stand before the series of created things, and be πρωτό-
Tokos πάσης κτίσεως. --- ἐν αὐτῷ] is not equivalent to dv’ αὐτοῦ
(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 ~ αὐτο < 4 oe 0.9 , ‘ , I id 1.
πῖρωτον αὐτὸν TETOXEVAL, TOUT ἐσσι WemMoinnevas Τὴν xTigiy, Isldore, U.C.

282 TIIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

divine idea of the world. A well - known classical usage
to denote the dependence of a state of things, the causality
of which is contained in any one. See Bernhardy, p. 210;
Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 403 f.; from the N. T., Winer, p. 364 [E. T.
521]. Not as if the “causa principalis” of the creation
lay in Christ, but the organic causality of the world’s becom-
ing created was in Him; hence the following δ αὐτοῦ
affirms not a different state of things, but the same thing under
a varied form of conception and designation, by which it is
brought out in greater definiteness. The primary grownd of
creation is ever God, Rom. xi. 36; 1 Cor. vii. 6 ; Heb. x1. 3.
The speculative interpretation of scholastic theology, which
found here the “ causa exenplaris,’ according to which the idea
omnium rerum was in Christ, is indeed followed in the main
again by Beyschlag, as earlier by Kleuker, Bohmer, Bihr,
Neander, Schleiermacher, Steiger, Julius Miiller, Olshausen (the
latter saying: “the Son of God is the intelligible world, the
Koopos νοητός, 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 ἐκτίσθη denotes the historical fact of the having
been created, it would require not ἐν αὐτῷ, but ἐξ αὐτοῦ, by
which the coming forth of the real from the ideal existence in
Christ might be expressed. Huther finds the inward connection
indicated by ἐν αὐτῷ 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 (ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν; John i. 4), consequently of a divine
act. depending on Christ; comp. John i. 3: χωρὶς αὐτοῦ
ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν ; Heb. 1. 2; and Bleek in loc. Lastly,
de Wette finds in ἐν besides the instrumental agency at
the same time something of a ¢clic idea (comp. also Ewald and
Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 424f.); but this blending together of
two heterogeneous references is not justified by the δ αὐτοῦ
καὶ εἰς αὐτόν that follows. — ἐκτίσ θη] physical act of creation ;
Schleiermacher ought not to have called in question the

CHAP. I. 16. 283

lineuistic usage to this effect, with a view to favour the ethical
interpretation of the founding of the church. See Wisd. 1, 14,
x. 1, xi. 18; Deut. iv. 32; comp. Gen. vi. 7; Ecclus. xxiv. 9,
comp. xv. 14; Judith xiii. 18 ; comp. Gen. 1. 1; 1 Cor. xi. 9;
Eph. ii. 9; Rom. i. 25; Rev. x. 6, comp. xiv. 7. The word
may have the meaning adopted by Schleiermacher : to ob/ain its
arrangement and constitution (Herod. i. 149,167,168; Thuc.
i. 100; Aesch. Choeph. 484; Soph. Ant. 1101; Pind. Οἱ.
vi. 116; 3 Esdr. iv. 53), and that according to the relative
nature of the notion implied in the word condere (comp.
Blomf. Gloss. in Aesch. Pers. 294); but not here, where it is
correlative with πάσης κτίσεως, and where the quite general
and in no way to be restricted ta πάντα follows. Through-
out the N. T., in general κτίζω, κτίσις, κτίσμα, denote the
original bringing forth, never merely the arrangement of that
which exists; and even in such passages as Eph. 11, 10, 15,
iv. 24, the relation is conceived, only in a popular manner, as
actual creation Observe, moreover, the distinction of the tenses :
ἐκτίσθη, which denotes the act that took place; and then
ἔκτισται, which denotes the creation which has taken place and
now subsists. See Winer, p. 255 [E. T. 340]; Kiihner, IT. 1,
p. 143 f, and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 1. 4, iii. 7. 7.— 7a πάντα]
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. — τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς x.7.r.] the things to be
found in the heavens and those to be found on earth. This is
certainly a less exact designation of all created things than
that in Rev. x. 6 (τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ K.T.A.; comp.
Neh. ix. 6; Gen. ii. 1, οὐ αἰ.), 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 ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐκτίσθη sed τὰ
πάντα, etc., quo habitatores significantur, qui reconciliantur,”
comp. Heinrichs and others, also Catech. Racov. 132, p. 214,
ed. Oeder), and to think, with Schleiermacher, of the kingdom.

284 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

of heaven; but it is arbitrary also, especially after τὰ πάντα,
to make the apostle mean primarily the living (Bahr, de
Wette) or rational creatures. The expression embraces every-
thing ; hence there was neither need for the mention of the
lower world, nor, looking at the bipartite form of enumeration,
occasion for it (it is otherwise in Phil. ii. 10; Rev. v. 3).
The idea that Paul could not have adduced those wnder the
carth 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. — τὰ ὁρατὰ κ. τὰ ἀύρατα] 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 sowls of men (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others),
which, on the contrary, as animating a portion of the ὁρατά,
are zneluded among the latter. Theodoret erroneously asserts
that even τὰ ὁρατά applies to heavenly things (sun, moon, and
stars) ; it applies to everything visible, as in Plat. Phaed. p. 79 A:
θῶμεν οὗν, εἰ βούλει, ἔφη, δύο εἴδη τῶν ὄντων τὸ μὲν ὁρατόν,
τὸ δὲ ἀειδές. ---- The ἀόρατα are now more precisely specified
disjunctively by etre, sive... sive (put more than twie ;
comp. Plat. Rep. p. 612 A, 493 Ὁ; Ecclus. xli. 4). As to the
four denominations of angels which follow—whose difference of
rank Hofmann groundlessly denies,’ understanding thereby
merely “ spirits collectively, of whatever name they may be” —see
on Eph. i. 21; Rom. viii. 38. In accordance with Eph. 1. 21,
where the grades of angels are mentioned in descending order,
the arrangement here must be understood so, that the θρόνοι are
the highest and the κυριότητες the lowest class, the ἀρχαί and
the ἐξουσίαι being two middle orders lying between these two
extremes. At Eph. 1... Paul names also fowr grades of the
angelic hierarchy ; but neither there nor here has he intended
to give a complete enumeration of them, for in the former case
he omits the θρόνοι, and in the latter the δυνάμεις. The
θρόνοι are not mentioned elsewhere in the N. T. (nor yet in
Ionat. ad Trall. 5), but they occur in the Test. Levi, p. 548, in

' See, on the other hand, Hahn, Zheol. ἃ. N. 7. 1. p. 292. ; Philippi,
Glaubensl. 11. p. 808 f.; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 559.

CHAP. I. 16. 285

which they are placed in the seventh heaven (ἐν @ det ὕμνοι
τῷ θεῷ προσφέρονται), also in Dionys. Areop. Hier. coel. 6 ff.,
and in the Rabbins (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1097; Schoettgen, ~
Hor. p. 808). As regards the expression, the last three de-
nominations are to be taken as abstracts, which represent the
respective concretes, and analogously the concrete noun θρόνοι
is used for those to be found on the thrones (for those enthroned) ;
comp. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 11; Ruhnken, ad Tim. p. 190.
In this case the very natural supposition that the angels,
whose designation by the term θρόνοι must have been in cur-
vent use, were, in the imagery which gave sensuous embodi-
ment to religious ideas, conceived as on thrones, is not to be
called in question (in opposition to Fritzsche,ad Rom. II. p. 226).
They were probably conceived as enthroned round the throne
of God (comp. Rev. iv. 4, xx. 4). It is to be observed, more-
over, generally that Paul presupposes the various classes of
angels, which he names, as well known ; although we are un-
acquainted with the details of the case, this much is neverthe-
less certain, that the apostle was far removed from the dreamy
fancies indulged in on this point by the later Rabbins (see
Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. Il. p. 874). But very soon
after the apostolic age (comp. Hermas, Past. vis. 111. 4), instrue-
tion as to τοποθεσίας τὰς ἀγγελικάς was regarded as teaching
for the more perfect. See Ignatius, ad Trall. 5. For the Chris-
tian faith there remains and. suffices the testimony as to different
and distinctively designated stages and categories in the angelic
world, while any attempt to ascertain more than is written in
Scripture passes into the fanciful domain of theosophy.— With
ἐξουσίαι is concluded the confirmatory sentence (ὅτι), so that a full
stop is to be placed after ἐξουσ. With τὰ πάντα begins a new
sentence,in which τὰ πάντω and αὐτός correspond to one another;
hence a comma only must stand after ἔκτισται. There is no
reason for placing (with Lachmann) τὰ πάντα down to ἐκκλησ.
in a parenthesis. — τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ x.7.d.] a solemn reca-
pitulation, but in such a way that, instead of the act of crea-

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

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

286 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

tion previously mentioned, there is now presented the finished
and ready result (ἔκτισται) ; the causal relation which was pre-
viously denoted by ἐν is now more precisely indicated as a
relation of mediate agency (Sv αὐτοῦ, comp. 1 Cor. viii. 6) ; then
in εἰς αὐτόν a new element is added, and the emphasis which in
ver. 16 lay on ἐκτίσθη, is now laid on τὰ πάντα which stands
at the head of the sentence. We cannot say with Hofmann,
that by δι’ αὐτοῦ and εἰς αὐτόν the Son comes to stand in con-
tradistinction to what has been created as Creator, after by ἐν
αὐτῷ the creative act has been presented as one that had taken
place only not without the Son. By the latter, ἐν αὐτῷ would
become too general and indefinite a thought; while δ αὐτοῦ
in fact leaves the Father as the Creator, which He is, and predi-
cates of the Son merely the “causa medians” of the execution of
the work, just as εἰς αὐτόν predicates the “causa finalis” of the
same.—eis αὐτόν] in reference to Him, for Him,as the aim and
end, “in quo Pater acquiescit,” Beza. Comp. Rom. xi. 36; 1 Cor.
viii. 6; Barnab. Hp. 12: ἐν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα καὶ εἰς αὐτόν.
The more exact purport of this relation is apparent from all
that follows down to ver. 20. Everything, namely, is created,
in order to be dependent on Christ and to serve His will and aims
Comp. on Eph. i. 23, iv.10; Phil. i. 9 ff. The final cause
of the world, referred in Rom. xi. 36 to God, is here affirmed
of Christ, and with equal right; for He, as He was the organ
of God in creation, is the commissioned ruler to whom the
κυριότης τῶν πάντων is committed (Matt. xxviii. 18; Phil. ii. 9 ;
1 Cor. xv. 27; Heb. ii. 8), in order that everything created
may have the ethical telic destination of serving Him.’ More

’ And, if the world was created not merely δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, but also εἰς αὐτόν, conse-
sequently in telic reference to Him, it is certain that with the counsel of crea-
tion there was also posited, in prospect of the entry of sin, the counsel of
redemption. Comp. Thomasius, Christi Pers, τι. Werk, I. p. 196 f.; Julius
Miller, Dogm. Abhand. p. 121 ff.

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

CHAP. I. 17. 287

special definitions of the meaning of εἰς αὐτόν are without due
warrant, and in particular, the often-repeated one: to His glori-
fication (Beza, Flatt, Bohmer, and others) ; it lays down Christ
in general as the legitimus finis (Calvin).— The expositors,
who explain the words as referring to the new moral creation,
have summoned to their aid all kinds of arbitrary conjectures
in detail—a remark which applies not merely to Nosselt,
Heinrichs, and others, but also to Schleiermacher, who holds
(comp. Baumgarten-Crusius) that τὰ ἐν τ. οὐρ. is everything
that belongs to the kingdom of heaven, and ta ἐπὶ τ. γῆς
everything which belongs to civil order in earthly kingdoms ;
that τὰ ὁρατά and τὰ ἀόρατα apply only to the latter; that
the θρόνοι x.7.d. are magisterial offices, and the like.

Ver. 17. Καὶ αὐτός] which is to be separated from the
preceding by a comma only (see on ver. 16), places, in contra-
distinction to the created objects in ver. 16 (τὰ πάντα), the
subject, the creating self: “and He Himself, on His part, has
an earlier existence than all things, and the collective whole
subsists in Him.” Never is αὐτός in the nominative! the
mere unemphatic “he” of the previous subject (de Wette),
either in Greek authors or in the N. T., not even in
passages such as Buttmann (Newt. Gr. p. 94 [E. T. 107])
brings forward; see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 47; Winer, p.
141 ΓΕ T. 187]; Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 563. — πρὸ πάντων] like
πρωτότοκος, referring to time, not to rank (as the Socinians,
Nosselt, Heinrichs, Schleiermacher, Baumgarten-Crusius, and
said of Christ that τὰ πάντα were created ἐξ αὐτοῦ. But by ἐν αὐτῷ, and by the
more precise definition δ αὐτοῦ, it is guarded ; and the subordination remains
unaffected by the circumstance that the εἰς αὐτόν is laid down by God for the
world as itstelicaim. This εἰς αὐτόν ἔκτισται is the necessary preliminary condi-
tion, on God’s part, to the universal dominion which he has destined for Christ,
and which the latter shall one day, at the goal of consummation, hand over to
the Father (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). Moreover, what Paul says of the xvas in Rom.
Vili. is essentially connected with that εἰς αὐτόν, which does not go beyond Paul
or come at all into opposition to him. The resemblance of our passage to ὃ
πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, Rey. i. 17, xxii. 13, rests upon the Christological basis of
their common faith, not upon a dependence of our epistle on the Apocalypse,
which would doubtless imply a post-Pauline date (in opposition to Holtzmann,
p. 247). ve

' Bengel correctly cbserves on ver. 16: ‘‘ 7986 hic saepe positum magnam sig-
nificat majestatem et omnem excludit creaturam.”

288 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

others hold); Paul thus repeatedly and emphatically lays stress
on the pre-existence of Christ. Instead οἵ ἐστί, he might
have written ἦν (John i. 1); but he makes use of the former,
because he has in view and sets forth the permanence of
Christ’s existence, and does not wish to narrate about Him
historically, which is done only in the auxiliary clauses with
ὅτι, vv. 16 and 19. On the present, comp. John viii. 58.
His existence is more ancient than that of all things (πάντων,
not masculine, as the Vulgate and Luther translate). — ἐν
αὐτῷ] as in ver. 16, referring to the causal dependence of the
subsistence of all existing things on Christ.— συνέστηκε] de-
notes the subsistence of the whole, the state of lasting inter-
dependence and order,—an idea which is not equivalent to
that of creation, but presupposes it. Reiske, Jud. Dem. ed.
Schaef. p. 481: “Corpus unum, integrum, perfectum, secum
consentiens esse et permanere.” Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 5; Plat.
Rep. p. 530 A: ξυνεστάναι τῷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ δημιουργῷ αὐτόν
τε καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ, Tim. ». 61 A: γῆν... ξυνεστηκυῖαν, Legg.
vil. p. 817 B: ἡ πολιτεία ξυνέστηκε μίμησις τοῦ καλλίστου...
βίον. Herod. vii. 225; Philo, quis rer. div. haer. p. 489:
ὁ ἔναιμος ὄγκος, ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ διαλυτὸς ὧν καὶ νεκρὸς, συνέστηκε
x. ζωπυρεῖται προνοίᾳ Θεοῦ «.7.r. It expresses that there is
in Christ not merely the creative cause, but also the cause
which brings about organic stability and continuance in unity
(preserving and governing) for the whole of existing things.
Comp. Heb.i. 3. Of attempts at explanation under the moral
interpretation, we may note that of Schleiermacher: the con-
solidating of earthly relations and institutions; and that of
Baumgarten - Crusius: “in this new world He is Lord in
recognition and in sway.”

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

CHAP. I. 18. 289

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

Ver. 18. Second part (see on ver. 15) of the exhibition of
the exaltedness of Christ. To that which Christ is as πρωτό-
ToKos πάσης κτίσεως (vv. 16, 17) is now added what He is as
πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, namely, the Head of the Church,
and thus His πρωτεύειν has its consummation (ἐν πᾶσιν). The
latter, namely, ἵνα γένηται... . πρωτεύων, embraces also a retro-
spect to that πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, and includes it in
ev πᾶσιν, Without its being necessary, however, to attach ver.
18 to the carrying out of the relation to the world expressed

COL. T

290 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

in πρωτότοκ. π. κτίσ. (Hofmann, comp. Rich. Schmidt). The
perspective proceeds from the dignity of the original state of
our Lord to that of His state as Saviour, from His cosmical
to His soteriological glory, and so at length exhibits Him to
view as the ἐν πᾶσι πρωτεύων. ---- That ver. 18, with its confir-
mation in ver. 19 f., has an apologetic reference to the Gnostic
false teaching, must be assumed from its connection with what
goes before. The passage is to be looked upon as antagonistic
to the worship of angels (ii. 18), which disparaged Christ in His
dignity as Head of the Church, but not (in opposition to Bahr
and Huther) as antagonistic to a theological dogma, such as is
found in the Cabbala, according to which the body of the
Messiah (the Adam Kadmon) is the aggregate of the emana-
tions. For the emphasis of the passage and its essential
point of doctrine lie in the fact that Christ is the Head of the
church, and not in the fact that He is the head of the
church ; it is not the doctrine of another σῶμα, but that of
any other πρωτεύων, which is excluded. — καὶ αὐτός] stands
again, as x. αὐτός in ver. 17, in significant reference to τὰ
πάντα: et ipse, in quo omnia consistunt, est caput, ete. so that the
passage continues to divide itself as into the links of a chain.
— ToD σώματος τῆς ἐκκλησ.] to be taken together; the second
genitive is that of apposition (Winer, p. 494 [E. T. 666)),
which gives to the word governing it concrete definiteness ;
comp. Miiller in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1871, p. 611 ff On
the familiar Pauline mode of considering the church of be-
lievers, livinely and actively ruled by Christ as the head
(Eph. iii. 10; Phil. iii. 6; Acts ix. 31), as His body,’ comp.
1 (Cor x17, xi 12 ff, 20: Eph i 25, iv. 12, Vv. 265
Rom. xii. 5. — és ἐστιν «.7.r.] epexegetical relative clause (as
in ver. 15), the contents of which are related by way of confir-
mation to the preceding statement (Matthiae, p. 1061 ἢ ;
Kiithner, ad Xen. Mem.i. 2.64; Stallbaum, ad Phil. p. 195 ἢ),

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

CHAP, I. 18. ἡ 291

like our: he, who, ete., which might be expressed, but not neces-
sarily, by ὅστις (or dove). Comp. on Eph.i. 14. If Christ
had not risen, He would not be Head of the church (Acts
11. 24-36 ; 1 Cor. xv.; Rom. i. 4, e¢ al.). — ἀρχή] beginning ;
which, however, is not to be explained either as “initinum
secundae et novae creationis” (Calvin), progenitor of the re-
generate (Bisping), or “author of the church” (Baumearten-
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 πρωτότοκος its definition in ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν,
just as if the words ran: ἀρχὴ τῶν νεκρῶν, πρωτότοκος ἐξ
αὐτῶν, although Paul did not express himself thus, because at
once upon his using the predicate ἀρχή in and by itself the
exegetical πρωτότοκος suggested itself to him. Accordingly
Christ is called ἀρχὴ (τῶν νεκρῶν), inasmuch as He is among
all the dead the first arisen to everlasting life. It is arbitrary
to discover in ἀρχή an allusion to the offering of first-fruits
sanctifying the whole mass (Chrysostom, Beza, Ewald, and
others) ; especially as the term ἀπαρχή, which is elsewhere used
for the first portion of a sacrifice (Rom. xi. 16), is not here
employed, although it has crept in from 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23, in
a few minusculi and Fathers, as in Clement also, Cor. I. 24,
Christ is termed ἀπαρχὴ τῆς ἀναστάσεως. To assume a re-
miniscence of 1 Cor. xv. (Holtzmann) is wholly unwarranted,
especially as ἀπαρχή is not used. On ἀρχή, used of persons,
denoting the one who begins the series, as the first in order of
time, comp. Gen. xlix. 3, where ἀρχὴ τέκνων μου is equivalent
to πρωτότοκος μου, as also Deut. xxi. 17. In what respect any
one is ἀρχή of those concerned, must be yielded by the con-
text, just as in this case it is yielded by the more precisely
defining πρωτότοκος ἐκ τ. νεκρῶν ; hence it has been in sub-
stance correctly explained, following the Fathers: ἀρχή, φησίν,
ἐστι τῆς ἀναστάσεως, Too πάντων ἀναστάς, Theophylact.

1 The Fathers have already correctly judged that even in regard to the isolated
cases of rising from the dead, which have taken place through Christ and before
Him, Christ remains the first-risen. Theophylact: εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἄλλοι πρὸ τούτου
ἀνέστησαν, ἀλλὰ πάλιν ἀπέθανον᾽ αὐτὸς δὲ τὴν τελείαν ἀνάστασιν ἀνέστη. Comp. on
1 Cor. xv. 20.

292 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Only τῆς ἀναστάσεως is not to be mentally supplicd, nor is
it to be conjectured (de Wette) that Paul had intended to
write ἀρχὴ τ. ἀναστάσεως, but, on account of the word πρωτό-
Toxos presenting itself to him from ver. 15, did not complete
what he had begun. It follows, moreover, from the use of
the word πρωτότοκος, that ἀρχή is to be taken in the temporal
sense, consequently as equivalent to primus, not in the sense
of dignity (Wetstein), and not as principle (Bihr, Steiger,
Huther, Dalmer, following earlier expositors). — πρωτότοκος ἐκ
τ. νεκρ.] ἐκ τ. vexp. is conceived in the same way as in ἀναστῆναι
ex τ. vexp. (Eph. v. 14), so that it is the dead in Hades
among whom the Risen One was, but from whom He goes
forth (separates Himself from them, hence also ἀπὸ τ. vexp.,
Matt. xiv. 2, xxvii. 64, xxviii. 7), and returning into the body,
with the latter rises from the tomb. Comp. πρῶτος ἐξ dvac-
τάσεως νεκρῶν, Acts xxvi. 23, also 1 Cor. xv. 22 f This
living exit from the grave is figuratively represented as birth ;
comp. Rev. i. 5, where the partitive genitive τῶν vexp. (not ἐκ
τ. v.) yields a form of conceiving the matter not materially
different. Calvin takes πρωτότοκος ἐκ. τ. v. as specifying the
eround for ἀρχή : “ principium (absolutely), quia primogenitus
est ex mortuis; nam in resurrectione est rerum omnium in-
stauratio.” Against this it may be urged, that ἀρχή has no more
precise definition; Paul must have written either ἀρχὴ τῆς
καινῆς κτίσεως, or at least ἧς instead of ὅς. Calvin was likewise
erroneously of opinion (comp. Erasmus, Calovius) that Christ
is called Primogenitus ex mortuis, not merely because He was
the first to rise, but also “quia restitwit alvis 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 πρωτότοκος (αἰνίττεται δὲ ὁ λόγος καὶ
τὴν πάντων ἡμῶν ἀνάστασιν, Theodoret). This expression is
purposely chosen in significant reference to ver. 15, as is inti-
mated by Paul himself in the following ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν
καὶ. But it is thus all the more certain, that πρωτότοκος ἐκ
τ. vexp. is to be taken independently, and not adjectivally
together with ἀρχή (Heinrichs, Schleiermacher, Ewald), which

CIIAP. I. 18. 293

would only amount to a tautological verboseness (/irst-born
beginning) ; and, on the other hand, that ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν may
not be separated from πρωτότοκος in such a way as to
emphasize the place, issuing forth fron which Christ is what
He is, namely, ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος ; the former, “ as the personal
beginning of what commences with Him ;” the latter, “in the
same relation to those who belong to the world therewith
coming into life as He held to the creation” (Hofmann).
In this way the specific more precise definition, which is by
means of é« τ. νεκρῶν in significant reference to ver. 15
attached to the predicates of Christ, ἀρχή and πρωτότοκος,
would be groundlessly withdrawn from them, and these pre-
dicates would be left in an indefiniteness, in which they would
simply be open vessels for receiving a gratuitously imported
supplement. — ἵνα γένηται x.7.r.] not to be restricted to the
affirmation ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν (Hofmann),’ but to be referred to the.
whole sentence that Christ is ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τ. vexp.,
expressing the divine teleology of this position of Christ as the
Risen One: ὧν order that He may become, etc. ; not: in order
“that He may be held as” (Baumgarten-Crusius), nor yet “ that
He may be” (Vulgate, and so most expositors), as γίγνεσθαι and
εἶναι are never synonymous. ‘The ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύει is
looked upon by Paul as something which is still in course of
development (comp. Steiger and Huther), and is only to be
completed in the future, namely, when the Risen One shall
have conquered all the power of the enemy (1 Cor. xv. 25 f.)
and have erected the kingdom of the Messiah—hbut of this
result His resurrection itself was the necessary historical basis;
and hence the future universal πρωτεύειν is the divinely in-
tended aim of His being risen.— ἐν πᾶσιν] in all points,
without excepting any relation, not, therefore, merely in the
relation of creation (vv. 15-17). Comp. Phil. iv. 12; 1 Tim.
111... 11 iv.8 53-2 Tims 1 (7, ὖν 0} 1|0 11} 9 ΠΗ: xii) 4a.
Ἔν παντί is more commonly used by Paul (1 Cor. i. 5;
2 Cor. iv. 8, et al.). According to Beza, πᾶσιν is masculin ~

: pe age μα
“inter omnes, videlicet fratres, ut Rom. viii. 29. © ΠΡ
_p us abode.

TO πλήρωμα

1So that it would express the design, which Christ Himself b
forth from the dead.

294 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Kypke and Heinrichs. But this would be here, after the
universal bearing of the whole connection, much too narrow
an idea, which, besides, is self-evident as to the Head of the
church. According to Pelagius, it denotes: “tam in visi-
bilibus quam in invisibilibus ereatwris.” 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. — αὐτός] emphatic, as in vv. 17, 18.
-- πρωτεύων] having the first rank, not used elsewhere in the
N. T., but see Esth. v. 11; 2 Mace. vi. 18, xiii. 15; Aquila,
Zech. iv. 7; Plat. Legg. iii. p: 692 D, Dem. 1416. 25:
πρωτεύειν ἐν ἅπασι κράτιστον. 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 πρωτότοκον
εἶναι ἐκ τ. vexp.; but it is not contained in this πρωτότοκον
εἶναι itself—an idea against which the very ἵνα γένηται
is logically decisive (in opposition to de Wette’s double
signification of πρωτότοκ.).

Ver. 19.1 “Οτι] Confirmatory of the ἵνα γένηται «.7.r., just
said : “ about which divinely intended γίγνεσθαι ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸν
πρωτεύοντα there can be no doubt, for it has pleased, that in Him,
etc.” How could He, who was thus destined to be possessor of
the divine fulness and reconciler of the world, have been des-
tined otherwise than to become ἐν πᾶσιν πρωτεύων 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 ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχὴ
K.T.., nor at all to ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν (Hofmann, following up his
incorrect explanation of these words), as if the reason were
specified why Christ should have gone to His high dignity as
beginner of a new world by the path of deepest abasement—a
thought which Paul would have known how to express quite
differently (comp. Phil. ii. 7 f.) than by the bare ἐκ τῶν vexp.,

1 Holtzmann, after having rejected vv. 14-18 entirely as an interpolation,
aiows to stand as original in vy. 19, 20 only the words: ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν
xararrdtes, to which xeraaa. there is then attached in ver. 21, as object, καὶ
ἡμᾶς, also you, with reference to ἡμᾶς in ver. 18. How daring and violent, and

yet how paltry (i:escuing merely the καὶ ὑμᾶς), would the procedure of the author
thus have been!

CHAP. I. 19. 295

which 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 in
ver. 19 as ground of proof that from which in ver. 15 (ὅς
ἐστιν εἰκὼν «.T.r.) he had started (de Wette); for ver. 19 isa
historical statement (observe the aorists), whereas ver. 15 ex-
pressed what Christ is, His habitual being. — ἐν αὐτῷ] although
belonging to κατοικ., is prefixed in emphatic transposition
(Kiihner, II. 2, p. 1101). — εὐδόκησε] He was pleased, placuit
ei, that, etc. As to this use of εὐδοκεῖν in the later Greek
(1 Cor. i. 21; Gal. i. 15, οὐ al.), for which, in the classical
language, δοκεῖν merely was employed, see Fritzsche, ad Lom.
IL. 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 ἵνα γένηται x.7.r. has just stated the divine purpose.
Among Greek authors also ὁ @eds is not unfrequently omitted,
where it is self-evident as the subject. See Kiihner, II. 1, p.
30 c. According to Ewald and Ellicott (also Weiss, Bibl.
Theol. p. 428, ed. 2, and Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 208),
πᾶν TO πλήρωμα is the subject; 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
(=m 23, δόξα, λόγος, πνεῦμα). Without support from N. T.
usage ; πᾶν, too, would be unsuitable for the subject of εὐδό-
knoe; and εἰς αὐτόν in ver. 29 clearly shows that Θεύς is
conceived as subject, to which εἰρηνοποιήσας then refers.
According to Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 1, p.
357 f.), Christ is meant to be the subject of εὐδόκ. 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 Kather, who in respect to the work of redemption
to be executed gives the decree, while Christ executes it as
obedient to the Father; hence also Paul, “ beneficium Christi
commemorans, nunquam dimittit memoriam Patris,” Bengel.
Comp. Reiche, Comment. crit. p. 263.— πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα
κατοικ.] that in Him the whole fulness was to take up its abode.
The more precise definition of the absolute πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα

296 TIIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

is placed beyond doubt by the subject to be mentally sup-
plied with εὐδόκησε, namely, τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ (Eph.
iii. 19; comp. τὸ πλήρ. τῆς θεότητος, Col. ii. 9). Τὸ πλήρωμα,
the signification of which is not to be defined actively : id quod
ven vmplet (in opposition to Storr, Opuse. I. p. 144 ff., Bahr,
Steiger), but passively: id quo res impletur (see generally
on Eph. i. 10, ii. 19, Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 469), has
here, as in Eph. ii. 9, the derivative general notion of copia,
πλοῦτος, like the German fille, What is meant, namely, is
the whole charismatic riches of God, His whole gracious fulness
of εὐλογία πνευματική (Eph. i. 3), of which Christ became
permanent (κατοικῆσαι!) possessor and bearer, who was thereby
capable of fulfilling the divine work of reconciliation (see the
following καὶ ov’ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι κιτ.λ.). The case is
otherwise in 11. 9, where the divine essence (τῆς θεότητος) is
indicated as the contents of the πλήρωμα, and the κατοικεῖν
of the same in Christ is affirmed as presené and with reference
to His state of exaltation. It would be an utterly arbitrary
course mentally to supply here the τῆς θεότητος, ii. 9, and to
regard both passages as an echo of Eph. i. 23, where the
notion of πλήρωμα is a very different one (in opposition to
Holtzmann). Inasmuch as the charismatic πλήρωμα of God,
meant in our passage, dwelt in Christ, and consequently Christ
was the possessor and disposer of it, this divine fulness is not
in substance different from the πλήρωμα Χριστοῦ, 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 scholastici gratieom habitualem... appellant, ex
qua in Christo, tanquam inexhausto fonte, omnes gratiae In nos
pro cujusque membri medulo deriventur ;” comp. also Bleek.
Observe, at the same time, the stress lying on the πᾶν, in con-
trast to a merely pertial imparting out of this fulness, which
would have been inadequate to the object of reconciling the
universe. The crtological interpretation of the “fulness of

1 Hence not: ‘‘la tolalité de Vélre qui doit étre realisée dans le monde,”
Sabatier, Vapdélre Paul, p. 209.

CHAP. I. 19. 297

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

1 As in the Son of God in the metaphysical sense ; hence the original being of
God in Him cannot be conceived merely as ideal, which was to develope itself into
reality, and the realization of which, when it at length became perfect, made Him
the absolute abode of the fulness of Godhead. So Beyschlag, Christol. p. 232 f.,
according to whom Christ would be conceived as ‘‘man drawing down upon
himself” this indwelling of God. He is conceived as the incarnate Son (comp.
ver. 13 fi.), who, in accordance with the Father’s decree, has appeared as bearer
ot the whole fulness of salvation. For He wasits dwelling not merely in principle,
but in fact and reality, when He appeared, and He employed it for the work,
which the Father desired to accomplish by Him (ver. 20). Comp. Gal. iv. 4;
Rom. viii. 3. The indwelling of the πᾶν τὸ “πλήρωμα 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 σλήρωμα from the
technical language of the Gnostics, especially of the Valentinian doctrine of
Aeons, but finds the Gnosticism to belong to the (post-apostolic) writer of
the epistle. According to Baur (see his Neutest. Theol. Ὁ. 258), Christ is the
πλήρωμα of God as He ‘‘in whom that which God is in Himself, according to the
abstract idea of His nature, is filled with its definite concrete contents.” Comp.
also Hilgenfeld in his Zettschr. 1870, p. 247, according to whom our passage is
intended tv affirm that the Pleroma of divine nature is to be sought not in the
proliz series of the Aeons of the Gnostics, but in Christ alone. Holtzmann, with

298 TIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Paul maintains that in Jesus there dwells the totality of all
divine powers of life, and not merely a single emanated spirit ;
but this view is all the more unwarranted, because Paul him-
self does not intimate any such polemical destination of the
word; on the contrary, in Eph. iii. 19 also he uses πᾶν τὸ
πλήρωμα τ. Θεοῦ 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 ἐν αὐτῷ (in Him and in none
other), but πᾶν (the whole πλήρωμα, not merely a single con-
stituent element of it) with the main emphasis, and have logically
said: ὅτι wav τὸ πλήρωμα εὐδόκησεν ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικῆσαι.
Hofmann (comp. his Schriftbew. p. 29, 359), who in general
has quite misunderstood ver. 19 f. (comp. above on εὐδόκησεν),
takes πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα as “the one-like totality of that which
is ;” and holds that the will of Christ (to which evéox. applies)
can only have been, “ that that may come to dwell in Him, which
otherwise would not be in Him, consequently not what is in God,
but what is out of God.” This idea of the immanent indwelling
of the universe in Christ, repeated by Schenkel in the sense of
Christ being the archetype, would be entirely alien to the N. T.
view of the relation of Christ to the world, and is not indi-
cated either at Eph. i. 10 or here in the context by τὰ πάντα
ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν. Christ is not the place for the world,
50 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 τὸ
πᾶν (or τὰ πάντα) κατοικῆσαι, or by TO πλήρωμα τοῦ παντὸς
(or τῶν πάντων) κατοικῆσ. Lastly, at utter variance with
both the word and the context, some have based on Eph. i.
more caution, adheres to the view that the idea of the πλήρωμα forms a first step
towards the extended use which the Gnostics make of the word ; whereas Hilgen-
feld (Zeitschr. 1873, p. 195) finds the idea here already so firmly established,
“that the πλήρωμα emerges asin a certain measure holding an independent posi-

tion between God and Christ.”
1 Comp. Rich. Schmidt, /.c. p. 208.

CHAP. I. 19. 299

22 f. the interpretation of πλήρωμα as the church. So already
Theodoret: πλήρ. τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐν τῇ πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους éxa-
λεσεν, ὡς τῶν θείων χαρισμάτων πεπληρωμένην. Ταύτην ἔφη
εὐδοκῆσαι τὸν Θεὸν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ κατοικῆσαι, τουτέστιν αὐτῷ
συνῆφθαι, and recently in substance Heinrichs, Baumgarten-
Crusius, and others ; comp. also Schleiermacher, who, in accord-
ance with Rom. xi. 12, 25, understands “the fulness of the
Gentiles and the collective whole of Israel,” the dwelling of whom
in Christ is the “definitive abiding state,” which the total
reconciliation (see the sequel) must necessarily have preceded,
as this reconciliation is conditioned by the fact that both
parties must have become peaceful. — κατοικῆσαι] The πλή-
ρώμα is personified, so that the abiding presence, which it was
to have according to the divine εὐδοκία in Christ, appears
conceived under the form of taking up its abode; in which,
however, the idea of the Shechinah would only have to be
presupposed, in the event of the πλήρωμα being represented as
appearance (min 1139). See on Rom. ix. 5. Comp. Johni. 14.
Analogous is the conception of the dwelling of Christ (see
on Eph. iii. 17) or of the Spirit (see Theile on Jas. iv. 5)
in believers. Comp. also 2 Pet. ili. 13. In point of tme,
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 ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα, and was to be
empowered thereto by the dwelling in Him of that whole
divine πλήρωμα. Without having completed the performance
of this work, He could not become ἐν πᾶσιν πρωτεύων ; but
of this there could be no doubt, for God has caused it to be
completed through Him (ὅτι, ver. 19). Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde,
I. p. 215 f. (comp. also Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 428, ed. 2), refers
εὐδόκησε «.7.r. 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. u. 9); he also is of
opinion that ἀποκαταλλάξαι 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 ἀποκαταλλάξαι

300 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIE COLOSSIANS.

is just the point on which this view breaks down. For ver.
21 clearly shows that ἀποκαταλλάξαιν is to be taken in the
usual sense of the work of reconciliation completed through the
ἱλαστήριον of Christ. Moreover, that which Christ received
through His exaltation was not the divine πλήρωμα, but the
divine δόξα.

Ver. 20." “Haec inhabitatio est fundamentum reconcilia-
tionis,” Bengel. Hence Paul continues: καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ ἀπο-
καταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα, and through Him to reconcile the whole.
As to the double compound ἀποκαταλλ., prorsus reconciliare,
see on Eph. 11. 106. The considerations which regulate the
correct understanding of the passage are: (1) that τὰ πάντα
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 «telligent betigs
generally (the usual view), or to men (Cornelius a Lapide,
Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), especially the
Gentiles (Olshausen), or to the “ universam ecelesian” (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., which
he has taken to apply to the cosmical ἀποκαταλλαγή. But, instead of appre-
hending this as the function of the risen Christ, he has by διὰ rod αἵματος
x.7.a. occasioned the coincidence of two dissimilar spheres of conception, of
which, moreover, the one is introduced as form for the other. The interpo-
lator reproduces and concentrates the thought of Eph. i. 7, 10, ii. 13-17,
bringing the idea of a cosmical reconciliation (Eph. i. 10) into expression in
such a way ‘‘ that he, led by the sound of the terminology, takes up at the same
time and includes the thought of the reconciliation of the Jews and Gentiles.” In
opposition to this view, the exegesis of the details in their joint bearing on the
whole will avail to show that the passage with all its difficulty is no such con-
fused medley of misunderstanding and of heterogeneous ideas, and contains nothing
un-Pauline. The extension of the reconciliation to the celestial spheres, in par-
ticular, has been regarded as un-Pauline (see, especially, Holtzmann, p. 231 ff.).
But even in the epistles whose genuineness is undisputed it is not difficult to
recognise the presuppositions, from which the sublime extension of the concep-
tion to an universality of cosmic effect in our passage might ensue. We may
add, that Eph. i. 10 is not ‘‘the leading thought of the interpolation” at
ver. 16 ff. (Holtzmann, p. 151) ; in ver. 16 ff. much more is said, and of other
import.

* As if we might say in German, abversdéhnen, that is: to finish quite the
reconciliation. Comp. ἀφιλάσκεσθαι, Plat. Leggy. ix. p. 873 A.

CHAP. I. 20. 301

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

1 God is the subject, whose hostility is removed by the reconciliation (comp. on
Rom. v.10) ; τὰ πάντα 15 the object, which was affected by this hostility grounded
of necessity on the holiness and righteousness of God. If the hostile disposition
of men towards God, which had become removed by the reconciliation, were meant
(Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 515), the universal στὰ πάντα
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. (ὦ) But in Christ, by means of His ἱλαστήριον,
through which God made peace (εἰρηνοποιήσας κ.τ.λ.), the
reconciliation of the whole has taken place, in virtue of the
blotting out, thereby effected, of the curse of sin. Thus not .
merely has the fact effecting the reconciliation as its causa
meritoria taken place, but the realization of the wniversal recon-
ciliation itself is also entered wpon, although it is not yet com-
pleted, but down to the time of the Parousia is only in course
of development, inasmuch, namely, as in the present αἰών the
believing portion of mankind is indeed in possession of the
reconciliation, but the unreconciled unbelievers (the tares among
the wheat) are not yet separated; inasmuch, further, as the
non-intelligent creation still remains in its state of corruption
occasioned by sin (Rom. viil.); and lastly, inasmuch as until
the Parousia even the angelic world sees the kingdom of the
devil which has issued from it still—although the demoniac
powers have been already vanquished by the atoning death,
and have become the object of divine triumph (ii. 15)—not
annulled, and still in dangerous operation (Eph. vi. 12) against
the Christian church. But through the Parousia the reconcilia-
tion of the whole which has been effected in Christ will reach
its consummation, when the unbelieving portion of mankind will
be separated and consigned to Gehenna, the whole creation in
virtue of the Palingenesia (Matt. xix. 28) will be transformed
into its original perfection, and the new heaven and the
new earth will be constituted as the dwelling of δικαιοσύνη
(2 Pet. 11. 13) and of the δόξα of the children of God
(Rom. viii. 21); while the demoniac portion of the angelic
world will be removed from the sphere of the new world, and
cast into hell. Accordingly, in the whole creation there will
no longer be anything alienated from God and object of His
hostility, but τὰ πάντα will be in harmony and reconciled
with Him; and God Himself, to whom Christ gives back the
regency which He has hitherto exercised, will become the only

CHAP. I. 20. 303

Ruler and All in All (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). This collective
reconciliation, although its consummation will not occur until
the Parousia, is yet justly designated by the aorist infinitive
ἀποκαταλλάξαι, because to the telic conception of God in
the εὐδόκησε it was present as one moment in conception. —
The angels also are necessarily included in τὰ πάντα (comp.
subsequently, τὰ ἐν τοῖς ovpavois); and in this case—seeing
that a reconciliation of the angels who had not fallen, who
are holy and minister to Christ (Hahn, Zheol. d. N. T. 1. p.
269 ff.), 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, ἴῃ 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 still subsists—
which has had its powers broken no doubt already by the
death of Christ (Gi. 14 f; Heb. 1. 14), but will undergo at
length utter separation—a result which is to be expected
in the new transformation of the world at the Parousia. The
idea of reconciliation is therefore, in conformity with the
manner of popular discourse, and according to the variety of the
several objects included in τὰ πάντα, meant partly in an imme-
diate sense (in reference to mankind), partly in a mediate
sense (in reference to the κτίσις affected by man’s sin, Rom.
viii, and to the angelic world affected by its partial fall) ;?

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

2 The idea of ἀποκαταλλάξαι is not in this view to be altered, but has as its
necessary presupposition the idea of hostility, as is clear from εἰρηνοσοίησας and from
ἐχθρούς, ver. 21, compared with Eph. ii. 16! Compare Fritzsche, ad Rom. I.
p. 276 ff.; Eur. Med. 870: διαλλαγῆναι τῆς ἔχθρας, Soph. Aj. 731 (744):

904 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

the idea of ἀποκαταλλάξαι, in presence of the all-embracing
πον . : 7
Ta πάντα, is as it were of an elastic nature. At the same
time, however, ἀποκαταλλ. is not to be made equivalent
(Melanchthon, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Flatt, Bihr, Bleek,
and others) to ἀποκεφαλαιώσασθαι (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. 5) with God (de Wette), and not in the strict
sense therefore vestoring it—an interpretation which violates
the meaning of the word. Calvin, nevertheless, has already so
conceived the matter, introducing, moreover, the element—
foreign to the literal sense—of confirmation in righteousness :
“quum creaturae sint, extra lapsus periculum non essent, nisi
Christi gratia fuissent confirmati.” According to Ritschl, in
the Jahrb. 7. Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 522 f£, Paul intends to
refer to the angels that had been active in the law-giving on
Sinai (Deut. xxxii. 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. 111. 10, as, indeed, there is nothing in the
context to indicate any such reference to the angels of the law
in particular. The exegetical device traditionally resorted to,
that what was meant with respect to the angels was their
reconciliation, not with God, but with men, to whom on
θ:οῖσιν ὡς καταλλαχθῆ χόλου, Plat. Rep. p. 566 BE: 7 pos σοὺς ἔξω ἐχθροὺς τοῖς μὲν
καταλλαγῇ, τοὺς δὲ καὶ διαφθείρῃ. This applies also against Hofmann’s enervating
weakening of the idea into that of transposition from the misrelation into a
good one, or of ‘‘an action, which makes one, who stands ill to another, stand well
to him.” Insucha misrelation (namely, to Christ, according to the erroneous
view of εὐδόκησε) stand, in Hofmann’s view, even the ‘‘ spirits collectively,”
in so far as they bear sway in the world -life deteriorated by human sin,
instead of in the realization oj salvation.—Richard Schmidt, J.c. p. 195, also
proceeds to dilute the notion of reconciliation into that of the bringing to Christ,
inasmuch as he explains the καταλλάσσειν as effected by the tact that Christ has
become the head of all, and all has been put in dependence on Him. Hilgenfeld,
le. p. 251 f., justly rejects this alteration of the sense, which is at variance with
the following context, but adheres, for his own part, to the statement that here
the author in a Gnostic fashion has in view disturbances of peace in the heavenly
spheres (in the πλήρωμα).
1 Comp. Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 2, p. 269 f., ed. 2.

CHAP. I. 20. 305

account of sin they had been previously inimical (so Chrysos-
tom, Pelagius, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Zanchius,
Cameron, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, Michaelis, Bohmer, and
others), is an entirely erroneous makeshift, incompatible with
the language of the passage. — εἰς αὐτόν] is indeed to be
written with the spiritus lenis, as narrating the matter from
the standpoint of the author, and because a refleaive 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 (Bihr, Huther, Olshausen, de Wette, Reiche,
Hofmann, Holtzmann, and others; comp. Estius, also Grotius :
“ut ipsi pareant”), but to God, constituting an instance of
the abbreviated form of expression very usual among Greek
writers (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 471) and in the N. T. (Winer, p. 577
[E. T. 776]), the constructio pracgnans: to reconcile to God-
ward, so that they are now no longer separated from God
(comp. ἀπήλλοτρ., ver. 21), but are to be united with Him im
peace. Thus εἰς avr., although identical in reality, is not in
the mode of conception equivalent to the mere dative (Eph.
meebo Rom. ye Τὸ} 1 Cor vi. Lis) 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 δι’ αὐτοῦ,
which, as in ver. 16, would have been expressed by καὶ eis
αὐτόν, and also because the explanation which follows (eipyvo-
ποιήσας «.T.d.) concerns and presupposes simply the mediate
agency of Christ (δύ αὐτοῦ). ---- εἰρηνοποιήσας, down to σταυροῦ
αὐτοῦ, is a modal definition of δ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι (not a
parenthesis): so that He concluded peace, etc., inasmuch, namely,
as the blood of Christ, as the expiatory offering, is meant to
satisfy the holiness of God, and now His grace is to have free
course, Rom. v. 1; Eph. vi. 15. The aorist participle is, as
ver. 21 shows, to be understood as contemporary with amoxa-
ταλὰλ. (see on Eph. i. 9, and Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 161 f; Miiller
in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1872, p. 631 ff.), and not antecedent to
it (Bahr), as has been incorrectly held by Ernesti in consist-
ency with his explanation of ver. 19 (see on ver. 19), who,
moreover, without any warrant from the context, in accordance
COL. U

306 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

with Eph. ii. 14-16, thinks of the conclusion of peace between
Jews and Gentiles. The nominative refers to the subject; and
this is, as in the whole sentence since the εὐδόκησεν, not
Christ (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Luther, Storr,
Heinrichs, Flatt, Steiger, Hofmann, and many others), but God.
The verb εἰρηνοποιεῖν, occurring only here in the N. T., which
has elsewhere ποιεῖν εἰρήνην (Eph. ii. 15 ; Jas. iii. 18), and also
foreign to the ancient Greek, which has εἰρηνοποίος, is never-
theless found in Hermes, ap. Stob. Eel. ph. i. 52, and in the LXX.
Prov. x. 10. — διὰ τοῦ αἵμ. τ. σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ] that is, by means
of the blood to be shed on His cross, which, namely, as the sacri-
ficial blood reconciling with God (comp. 2 Cor. v. 21), became
the causa medians which procured the conclusion of peace be-
tween God and the world. Rom. iii. 25, ν. 9 ἢ ; Eph. i. 7.
The reason, which historically induced Paul to designate the
blood of Christ with such specific definiteness as the blood of His
cross, is to be sought in the spiritualism of the false teachers,
who ascribed to the angels a mediating efficacy with God.
Hence comes also the designation—so intentionally material—
of the reconciling sacrificial death, ver. 22, which Hofmann
seeks to avoid as such, namely, as respects its definite character
of a satisfaction.’ — δ’ αὐτοῦ] not with the spiritus asper,
equivalent to δι’ ἑαυτοῦ, as those take it who refer εἰρηνοποιήσας
to Christ as subject (ἑαυτὸν ἐκδούς, Theophylact), since this re-
ference is erroneous. But neither can δι’ αὐτοῦ be in apposition
to διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τ. στ. αὐτοῦ (Castalio, “ per ejus sanguinem,
h. e. per eum”), for the latter, and not the former, would be
the explanatory statement. It is a reswmption of the above-
given δι’ αὐτοῦ, after the intervening definition εἰρηνοποιήσας
κατιλ,, in order to complete the discourse thereby interrupted,

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

CHAP. L 20. 307

and that by once more emphatically bringing forward the δι᾽
αὐτοῦ which stood at the commencement; “ through Him,’ I
say, to reconcile, whether they be things on earth or whether
they be things in heaven. Comp. on Eph.i.11; Rom. viii. 23.
— εἴτε Ta ἐπὶ τ. γ., εἴτε Ta ἐν τ. οὐρ.Ἷ divides, without “ affected
tautology ” (Holtzmann), but with a certain solemnity befitting
the close of this part of the epistle, the ta πάντα into its two
component parts. As to the quite wniversal description, see
above on τὰ πάντα ; 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 jist, because the atonement took place on earth,
and primarily affected things earthly; (2) that the disjunctive
expression εἴτε... εἴτε renders impossible the view of a recon-
ciliation of the two sections one with another (Erasmus, Wet-
stein, Dalmer, and others). To the category of exegetical
aberrations belongs the interpretation of Schleiermacher, who
understands earthly and heavenly things, and includes among
the latter all the relations of divine worship and the mental
tendencies of Jews and Gentiles relative thereto: “ Jews and
Gentiles were at variance as to both, as to the heavenly and
earthly things, and were now to be brought together in rela-
tion to God, after He had founded peace through the cross of
His Son.” The view of Baumgarten-Crusius is also an utter
misexplanation : that the reconciliation of men (Jews and Gen-
tiles) among themselves, and with the spirit-world, is the thing
meant; and that the reconciliation with the latter consists in
the consciousness given back to men of being worthy of con-

that we may come to stand holy before Him. Not different in substance are
Hofmann’s utterances in his Heil. Schr. N. 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 Olshausen, at
least the tendency of Christ's atonement is assumed to have
pointed, see on Eph. 1. 10, remark 2. Comp. also Schmid in
the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1870, p. 133.

Ver. 21. As far as ver. 23, an application to the readers of
what had been said as to the reconciliation, in order to animate
them, through the consciousness of this blessing, to stedfast-
ness in the faith (ver. 29)..---- καὶ ὑμᾶς «.7.r.] you also, not : and
you, so that it would have to be separated by a mere comma
from the preceding verse, and νυνὶ dé... θανάτου 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. 11. is much
too rich in its contents to admit of these contents being here
compressed into vv. 20, 21 (in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 150).
As to the way in which Holtzmann gains an immediate con-
nection with what precedes, see on ver. 19. The construction
(following the reading ἀποκατηλλάγητε, see the critical notes)
has become anacoluthic, inasmuch as Paul, when he began the
sentence, had in his mind the active verb (which stands in the
Recepta), but he does not carry out this formation of the sen-
tence; on the contrary, in his versatility of conception, he
suddenly starts off and continues in a passive form, as if he
had begun with καὶ ὑμεῖς «7A. See Matthiae, p. 1524;
Winer, p. 527 ff. [E. T. 714]; and upon the aorist, Buttmann,
Neut. Gr. p. 171 [E. T. 197].— ἀπηλλοτρ. κτλ] when ye
were once in the state of estrangement, characterizes their heathen
condition. As to ἀπήλλοτρ., see on Eph. 11. 12; from which
passage ἀπὸ τῆς πολιτείας τ. ’Iop. is here as unwarrantably
supplied (Heinrichs, comp. Flatt), as is from Eph. iv. 14 τῆς
ζωῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ (Bahr). In conformity with the context, seeing
that previously God was the subject as author of reconciliation,
the being estranged from God (rod Θεοῦ), the being excluded
from His fellowship, is to be understood. Comp. ἄθεοι ἐν τ.
κόσμῳ, Eph. ii. 12. On the subject-matter, Rom. i. 21 ff. —
ἐχθρούς] sc. τῷ Θεῷ, in a passive sense (comp. on Rom. v. 10,

CHAP. I. 21. 309

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

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

2 See Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 276 ff., who aptly explains καταλλάσσεσθαί
ci: in alicujus favorem venire, qui antea succensuerit. Comp. Philippi, Glau-
bensl. IV. 2, p. 265 ff.,ed. 2. The reconciliation of men takes place, when God,
instead of being further angry at them, has become gracious towards them,—
when, consequently, He Himself is reconciled. Comp. Luke xviii. 13 ; 2 Cor.
v. 19. So long as His wrath is not changed, and consequently He is not recon-
ciled, men remain unreconciled. 2 Macc. vii. 33: ὁ ζῶν κύριος... βραχέως
ἑπώργισται καὶ πάλιν καταλλαγήσεται τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ δούλοις, COMP. Vill. 29, 1. 5, v. 20;
Clem. Cor. I. 48 :΄ ἱκετεύοντες αὐτόν (God), ὅπως ἵλεως γενόμενος ἐπικαταλλαγῇ
ἡμῖν. In Constt. Apost. viii. 12. 14, it is said ot Christ that He τῷ κόσμῳ
κατήλλαξε God, and 8 17, of God: σοῦ καταλλαγέντος αὐτοῖς (with believers).

310 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

This is grammatically admissible, since we may say διανοεῖσθαι
ἐν, animo versart in (Ps. Ixxiii. 8; Ecclus. vi. 37; Plato,
Prot. p. 341 E), and therefore the repetition of the article
was not necessary. But the badness of the disposition was
so entirely self-evident from the context, that the assumed
more precise definition by ἐν τοῖς ἔργ. τ. movnp. would appear
tediously circumstantial—The articles τῇ and τοῖς denote the
disposition which they have had, and the works which they have
done. In the latter case the subjoined attributive furmished
with the article (rots πονηροῖς) is not causal (“ because they
were bad,” Hofmann), but emphatically brings into prominence
the quality, as at Eph. vi. 13; 1 Cor. vii. 14, and often
(Winer, p. 126 [E. T. 167]).—vuvi δὲ ἀποκατηλλάγητε] as
if previously ὑμεῖς x.7.r. were used (see above): Ye also...
have nevertheless now become reconciled. On δέ 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 νυνί, with the aorist fol-
lowing, comp. ver. 26; Rom. vil. 6; Eph. 11. 13; Plat. Symp.
p. 193 A: πρὸ τοῦ ... ἕν ἦμεν, νυνὶ δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀδικίαν διῳκίσ-
θημεν ὑπὸ τ. θεοῦ. Ellendt, Lex Soph. Il. p. 176; Kiihner,
II. 2, p. 672. It denotes the present time, which has set i
with the dmoxatnAX. (comp. Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 171
[E. T. 197]); and the latter has taken place oljectively through
the death of Christ, ver. 22, although realized subjectively in
the readers only when they became belicvers—whereby the
reconciliation became appropriated to them, and there existed
now for them a decisive contrast of their νυνί with their
ποτέ The reconciling subject is, according to the context
(vv. 19, 20), not Christ (as at Eph. 11. 16), through whom
(comp. Rom. v. 10; 2 Cor. v. 18) the reconciliation has taken
place (see ver. 20), but, as at 2 Cor. v. 19, God (in opposition
to Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Beza, Calvin, Estius,
Calovius, Heinrichs, and others, including de Wette and
Ewald). For the reference to Christ even the reading ἀποκα-
τήλλαξεν would by no means furnish a reason, far less a
1 Comp. Luthardt, vom freien Wiilen, p. 403.

CHAP, I. 22. 311

necessity, since, on the contrary, even this active would have,
according to the correct explanation of εὐδόκησε in ver. 19,
to be taken as referring to God (in opposition to Hofmann).
Ver. 22. Ἔν τᾷ σώματι «.7.d.] that, by means of which they
have been reconciled ; corresponding to the δ αὐτοῦ and διὰ
τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ of ver. 20: ἐπ 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
αὑτοῦ (with the spiritus asper), which would not be justified,
even though Christ were the subject. We have further to
note: (1) διὰ τ. θανάτου informs us whereby the being recon-
ciled ἐν τῷ σώματι τ. σ. av. was brought about, namely, by the
death occurring, without which the reconciliation would not
have taken place in the body of Christ. (2) Looking to the
concrete presentation of the matter, and because the procuring
element is subsequently brought forward specially and on its
own account by διά, the ἐν 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 ἀπο-
καταλλάσσειν 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 διὰ τοῦ θανάτου 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 saivation, therefore, dnseparably asso-
ciated itself with His body; comp. ἐν τῇ σαρκί pov, ver. 24,
see also 1 Pet. 11. 24 and Huther ὧν loc. The conception of
substitution, however, though involved in the thing (in the
ἱλαστήριον), is not to be sought in ἐν (in opposition to Bohmer
and Baumgarten-Crusius). (3) The reason for the intentional
use of the material description: “in the body which consisted
of His flesh” (comp. ii. 11; Ecclus. xxiii. 16), is to be sought
in the apologetic interest of antagonism to the false teachers,
against whom, however, the charge of Docetism, possibly on
the ground of il. 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 spiritual beings (who are
without σῶμα τῆς σαρκός). Other writers have adopted the
view, without any ground whatever in the connection, that
Paul has thus written in order to distinguish the real body
of Christ from the spiritual σῶμα of the church (Bengel,
Michaelis, Storr, Olshausen). The other capa of Christ,
which contrasts with His earthly body of flesh (Rom. 1. 3,
viii. 3), is His glorified heavenly body, Phil. iii, 21; 1 Cor.
xv. 47 ff References, however, such as Calvin, eg., has dis-
covered (“humile, terrenum et infirmitatibus multis obnoxium
corpus”), or Grotius (“tantas res perfecit instruamento adeo
tenui;” comp. also Estius and others), are forced upon the
words, in which the form of expression is selected simply in
opposition to spiritualistic erroneous doctrines. Just as little
may we import into the simple historical statement of the
means διὰ τοῦ θανάτου, with Hofmann, the ignominy of shedding
His blood on the cross, since no modal definition to that effect
is subjoined or indicated. — παραστῆσαι ὑμᾶς «.7.r.] Ethical
definition of the object aimed at in the ἀποκατήλλ. : ye have been
reconciled... in order to present you, etc. The presenting swb-
ject is therefore the subject of ἀποκατήλλ., so that it is to be
explained: ἵνα παραστήσητε ὑμᾶς, ut sisteretis vos, and there-
fore this continuation of the discourse is by no means awkward
in its relation to the reading ἀποκατηλλάγητε (in opposition to
de Wette). We should be only justified in expecting ἑαυτούς
(as Huther suggests) instead of ὑμᾶς (comp. Rom. xii. 1) if
(comp. Rom. vi. 13; 2 Tim. 11. 15) the connection required a
reflexive emphasis. According to the reading ὠποκατήλλαξεν
the sense is wt sisteret vos, in which case, however, the subject
would not be Christ (Hofmann), but, as in every case since εὐδό-
knoe in ver. 19, God.—tThe point of time at which the παραστ.
is to take place (observe the aorist) is that of the judgment, in

CHAP. 1. 22. gue

which they shall come forth holy, etc., before the Judge. Comp.
ver. 28, and on Eph. v. 27. This reference (comp. Biihr,
Olshausen, Bleek) is required by the corftext in ver, 23, where
the πὰραστῆσαι k.7.r. is made dependent on continuance in the
fwith as its condition ; consequently there cannot be meant the
result already accomplished by the reconciliation itself, namely,
the state of δικαιοσύνη 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. — ἁγίους x.7.X.] does not represent the
subjects as sacrifices (Rom. xii. 1), which would not consist
with the fact that Christ is the sacrifice, and also would not
be in harmony with aveyxx.; it rather describes without figure
the moral holiness which, after the justification attained by
means of faith, is wrought by the Holy Spirit (Rom. vii. 6,
viii. 2, 9, e¢ al.), and which, on the part of man, is preserved
and maintained by continuance in the faith (ver. 23). The
three predicates are not intended to represent the relation
“erga Deum, respectu vestri, and respectu proxims” (Bengel,
Bihr), since, in point of fact, ἀμώμους (blameless, Eph. i. 4,
v. 27; Herod. ii. 177; Plat. Rep. p. 487 A: οὐδ᾽ ἂν ὁ Μῶμος
TO γε τοιοῦτον μέμψραιτο) no less than dveykr. (reproachless,
1 Cor. 1. 8) points to an external judgment: but the moral
condition is intended to be described with exhaustive emphasis
positively (ἁγίους) and negatively (ἀμώμ. and dveyxr.). The
idea of the moral holiness of the righteous through faith
is thoroughly Pauline; comp. not only Eph. 11. 10, Tit. ii.
14, 111. 8, but also such passages as Rom. vi. 1-23, viii. 4 ff. ;
Gal. v. 22-25; 1 Cor. ix. 24 ff.; 2 Cor. xi. 2, e¢ al. — κατ ΕΞ
νώπιον αὐτοῦ] refers to Christ. to His judicial appearance at
the Parousia, just as by the previous αὐτοῦ after σαρκός Christ

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

Le THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

also was meant. The wswal reference to God (so Huther, de
Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek) is connected with
the reading ἀποκατήχλαξεν taken as so referring; comp. Jude
24; Eph. 1. 4 The objection that κατενώπιον 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 ἐνώπιον 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 ἔμπροσθεν is also used of
Christ in 1 Thess. ii. 19. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 10: ἔμπροσθεν
τοῦ βήματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, which is a commentary on our κατε-
νώπιον αὐτοῦ; see also Matt. xxv. 32.

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

Ver. 23. Requirement, with which is associated not, indeed,
the being included in the work of reconciliation (Hofmann),
but the attainment of its blessed final aim, which would
otherwise be forfeited, namely the παραστῆσαι «.7.X. above
described : so far at any rate as ye, 1.6. assuming, namely, that
ye, etc. A confidence that the readers will fulfil this condi-
tion is not conveyed by the εἴγε 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 παραστῆσαι «.7.X. — that “ fructus in posterum lae-

CHAP. I. 23. ᾿ 315

tissimus” of their reconciliation (Bengel). — τῇ πίστει]
belonging to ἐπεμέν. : abide by the faith, do not cease from it
See on Rom. vi. 1. The mode of this abiding is indicated by
what follows positively {τεθεμ. «. ἐδραῖοι), and negatively («. μὴ
μετακίιν. x.7.d.), under the figurative conception of a building,
in which, and that with reference to the Parousia pointed at by
παραστῆσαι «.T.r., the hope of the gospel is conceived as the
Joundation, in so far as continuance in the faith 7s based on
this, and is in fact not possible without it (ver. 27). “Spe
amissa perseverantia concidit,” Grotius. On τεθεμελ,, which
is not interjected (Holtzmann), comp. Eph. iii. 17; 1 Pet.
v. 10; and on ἑδραῖοι, 1 Cor. xv. 58. The opposite of
τεθεμελ. is χωρὶς θεμελίου, Luke vi. 49; but it would be a
contrast to the tefewer. καὶ édpaioz, if they were μετακινούμενοι
κτλ. 3 concerning μή, see Winer, p. 443 [E. T. 596];
Baeumlein, Part. p. 295.— μετακινούμ.] passively, through
the influence of false doctrines and other seductive forces. —
ἀπό] away... from, so as to stand ho longer on hope as the
foundation of perseverance in the faith. Comp. Gal: 1. 6.—
The ἐλπὶς τοῦ evayy. (which is proclaimed through the gospel
by means of its promises, comp. ver. 5, and on Eph. i. 18) is
the hope of eternal life in the Messianic kingdom, which has
been imparted to the believer in the gospel. Comp. vv. 4,
5,27; Rom. v. 2, viii. 24; Tit. 1 2 f, iti. 7. — od ἠκούσατε
x.T.r.| three definitions rendering the μὴ μετακινεῖσθαι κ.τ.λ.
in its universal obligation palpably apparent to the readers ;
for such a μετακινεῖσθαι would, in the case of the Colossians,
be inexcusable (οὗ ἠκούσατε, comp. Rom. x. 18), would set at
naught the universal proclamation of the gospel (τοῦ κηρυχθ.

1 In our Epistle faith is by no means postponed to knowing and perceiving
(comp. 11. 5, 7, 12), as Baur asserts in his Neut. Theol. p. 272. The frequent
emphasis laid upon knowledge, insight, comprehension, and the like, is not to
be put to the account of an intellectualism, which forms a fundamental pecu-
liarity betokening the author and age of this Epistle (and especially of that to
the Ephesians), as Holtzmann conceives, p. 216 ff. ; on the contrary, it was
owing to the attitude of the apostle towards the antagonistic philosophical specu-
lations. Comp. also Grau, Entwickelungsgesch. d. NV. 1΄. 11. 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.

«.7.X.), and would stand in contrast to the personal weight
of the apostle’s position as its servant (od éyev. κιτλ). If,
with Hofmann, we join τοῦ κηρυχθέντος as an adjective to τοῦ
εὐαγγελίου, οὗ ἠκούσατε, we withdraw from the οὗ ἠκούσατε
that element of practical significance, which it must have, if
it is not to be superfluous. Nor is justice done to the third
point, ob ἐγενόμην κιτιλ., 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 his condition at that time. According to this, they would
be merely destined as a transition. In accordance with the
context, however, and without arbitrary tampering, they can
only have the same aim with the two preceding attributives
which are annexed to the gospel; and, with this aim, how
appropriately and forcibly do they stand at the close!’ λοιπὸν
yap μέγα ἣν τὸ Παύλου ὄνομα, Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom.
Comp. on ἐγὼ Παῦλος, 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. —
ἐν πάσῃ κτίσει (without τῇ, see the critical remarks) is to
be taken as: in presence of (coram, see Ast, Lex. Plat.1. p. 701;
Winer, p. 360 [E. T. 4817) every ercature, before everything
that is created (κτίσις, as in i. 15). There is nothing created
under the heaven, in whose sphere and environment (comp.
Kiithner, IT. 1, p. 401) the gospel had not been proclaimed.
The sense of the word must be left in this entire generality,
and not limited to the Acathen (Bihr). It is true that the
popular expression of universality may just as little be pressed
here as in ver. 6. Comp. Herm. Past. sim. viii. 3; Ignatius,
fom. 2. But as in i. 15, 80 also here πᾶσα κτίσις is not
all creation, according to which the sense is assumed to be:
“on a stage embracing the whole world” (Hofmann). This Paul
would properly have expressed by ἐν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει, or ἐν
παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ, or ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ K.; comp. ver. 6. The expression

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

CHAP. I. 24. 9.1.7

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 οὗ
ἠκούσατε (because it is not continued by οὗ καὶ ἐγώ), Holtz-
mann arrives merely at the connection between ver. 23 and
ver. 25: μὴ μετακιν. ἀπὸ Tod evayy. ov éyev. ἐγὼ IT. διάκ.
κατὰ τὴν οἶκον. τ. θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς, just as he
then would read further thus: πληρῶσαι τ. λόγ. τ. θεοῦ, εἰς
ὃ καὶ κοπιῶ ἀγωνιζόμ. κατὰ τ. ἐνέργ. αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐνεργουμ. ἐν
ἐμοί, ---- διάκονος) See on Eph. iii. 7. Paul has become such
through his calling, Gal. 1. 15 ἢ; 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 suffer-
ings Which the apostle is now enduring, ver. 24, and then
with respect to his important calling generally, vv. 25-29.
— ὃς (see the critical remarks) viv χαίρω κιτιλ.: I who
now rejoice, etc. How touchingly, so as to win the hearts of
the readers, does this join itself with the last element of
encouragement in ver. 23 !— vov] places in contrast with the
creat element of his past, expressed by ov éyev. «.7.X., which
has imposed on the apostle so many sorrows (comp. Acts
ix. 16), the situation as it now exists with him in that
relation of service on his part to the gospel. This present
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 vdv is not transitional
(Bahr) or inferential (Liicke: “quae cum ita sint”); nor yet
is it to be defined, with Olshausen, by arbitrary importation of
the thought: now, after that I look upon the church as firmly
established (comp. Dalmer), or, with Hofmann, to be taken as
standing in contrast to the apostolic activity. — ἐν tots παθήμ.]
over the sufferings; see on Phil. i. 18; Rom. v. ὃ. This joy
in suffering is so entirely in harmony with the Pauline spirit,

1See upon ver. 24, Liicke, Progr. 1833; Huther in the Stud. u. Krit.
1838, p. 189 ff.

»

318 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIIE COLOSSIANS.

that its source is not to be sought (in opposition to Holtz-
mann) in 2 Cor. vii. 4, either for the present passage or for
Eph. iii. 13; comp. also Phil. ii. 17. — ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν] joins itself
to παθήμασιν so as to form one conception, without connect-
ing article. Comp. on vv. 1, 4; 2 Cor. vii. 7; Eph. τι. 13;
Gal. iv. 14. Since ὑπέρ, according to the context, is not to be
taken otherwise than as in ὑπὲρ Tod σώμ. αὐτοῦ, it can neither
mean instead of (Steiger, Catholic expositors, but not Cornelius
a Lapide or Estius), nor on accownt of (Rosenmiiller, Hein-
richs, Flatt; comp. Eph. ii. 1; Phil. 1. 29), but simply: am
commodum, namely, wa ὑμᾶς ὠφελῆσαι δυνηθῶ, Oecumenius,
and that, indeed, by that honourable attestation and glorifying
of your Christian state, which ws actually contained in my
tribulations ; for the latter show forth the faith of the readers,
for the sake of which the apostle has undertaken and borne
the suffering, as the holy divine thing which is worthy of
such a sacrifice. Comp. Phil. 1.12 ff; Eph. 11.13. The
reference to the example, which confirms the readers’ faith
(Grotius, Wolf, Bahr, and others), introduces inappropriately
a reflection, the indirect and tame character of which is not
at all in keeping with the emotion of the discourse. — The
ὑμῶν, mneaning the readers, though the relation in question
concerns Pauline Christians generally, is to be explained by
the tendency of affectionate sympathy to individualize (comp.
Phil. 1. 25, 11. 17, et al.). It is arbitrary, doubtless, to supply
τῶν ἐθνῶν 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.— καί] not equivalent to
καὶ γάρ (Heinrichs, Bihr), but the simple and, subjoining to
the subjective state of feeling the oljective relation of suffer-
ing, which the apostle sees accomplishing itself in his destiny.
It therefore carries on, but not from the special (ὑμῶν) “ ad
totam omnino ecclesiam” (Liicke), since the new point to be
introduced is contained in the specific avtavamAnpe .. .
Χριστοῦ, and not in ὑπὲρ τ. σώμ. αὐτοῦ. The connection of

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

CHAP. 1. 24. 319

ideas is rather: “I rejoice over my sufferings, and what a
holy position is theirs! through them I fulfil,” etc. Hence
the notion of χαίρω is not, with Huther, to be carried over
also to ἀνταναπληρῶ: and I supplement with joy, ete. At
the same time, however, the statement introduced by καί
stands related to χαίρω as elucidating and giving infor-
_ mation regarding it.— ἀνταναπληρῶ] The double compound
is more graphic than the simple ἀναπληρῶ, Phil. 11. 30;
1 Cor. xvi. 17 (I fill up), since ἀντί (to fill up over against)
indicates what is brought in for the making complete over
against the still existing ὑστερήματα. The reference of the ἀντί
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: ἀνταναπληροῦντες πρὸς τὸν εὐπορώτα-
Tov ἀεὶ τοὺς ἀπορωτάτους (where the idea is, that the poverty
of the latter is compensated for by the wealth of the former) ;
so also ἀνταναπλήρωσις, Epicur. ap. Diog. L. x. 48; Dio Cass.
xliv. 48: ὅσον... ἐνέδει, τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς Tapa τῶν ἄλλων συντε-
λείας ἀνταναπληρωθῇ. Comp. ἀντεμπίπλημι, Xen. Anabd. iv.
5. 28; ἀνταναπλήθειν, Xen. Hell. 11. 4.12; and ἀντιπληροῦν,
Xen. Cyr. ii. 2.26. The distinction of the word from the
simple ἀναπληροῦν does not consist in this, that the latter is
said of him, who “ὑστέρημα a se relictum 086 explet,” and
ἀνταναπλ. of him, who “alterius ὑστέρημα de suo explet” (so
Winer, de verbor. ὁ. praepos. in N. T. usu, 1838, 111. 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 avtava7n. the filling up is conceived and
described as defectui respondens, in avat., on the other hand,

1 Many ideas are arbitrarily introduced by commentators, in order to bring
out of the ἀντί in ἀνταναπλ. a reciprocal relation. See e.g. Clericus : “ Ille ego,
qui olim ecclesiam Christi vexaveram, nunc vicissim in ejus utilitatem pergo
multa mala perpeti.” Others (see already Oecumenius) have found in it the
meaning : for requital of that which Christ suffered for us ; comp. also Grimm
in his Lexicon. Wetstein remarks shortly and rightly : “ἀντὶ ὑστερήμαςτος suc-
cedit πλήρωμα, τοῦ rather ἀναπλήρωμα.

320 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

only in general as completio. See 1 Cor. xvi. 17; Phil. ii. 30;
Plat. Legg. xii. p. 957 A, Tim. p. 78 D, e¢ al. Comp. also
Tittmann, Synon. p. 230. — τὰ ὑστερήματα]ῇ The plural
indicates those elements yet wanting in the sufferings of
Christ in order to completeness. Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 10;
2 Cor. ix. 12. — τῶν Ory. τοῦ Χριστοῦ] τοῦ X. is the geni-
tive of the subject. Paul describes, namely, his own sufferings,
in accordance with the idea of the κοινωνεῖν tots τοῦ Χριστοῦ
παθήμασι (1 Pet. iv.13; comp. Matt. xx. 22; Heb. xiii. 13),
as afflictions of Christ, in so far as the apostolic suffering in
essential character was the same as Christ endured (the same
cup which Christ drank, the same baptism with which Christ
was baptized). Comp. on Rom. viii. 17; 2 Cor.i. 5; Phil.
iii. 10. The collective mass of these afflictions is conceived
in the form of a definite measure, just as the phrases ἀνα-
πιμπλάναι κακά, ἀναπλῆσαι κακὸν οἶτον, and the like, are
current in classic authors, according to a similar figurative
conception (Hom. JJ. viii. 34. 354, xv. 132), Schweigh. Lew.
Herod. I. p. 42. He only who has suffered all, has filled up
the measure. That Paul is now, in his captivity fraught
with danger to life, on the point (the present dvtavamn. -
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 ὑστέρημα in
it,—this he regards as something grand and glorious, and
therefore utters the ἀνταναπληρῶ, which bears the emphasis at
the head of this declaration, with all the sense of triwmph
which the approaching completion of such a work involves.
“I rejoice on account of the sufferings which I endure for you,
and—so highly have I to esteem this situation of aftlic-
tion—I am in the course of furnishing the complete fulfil-
ment of what in my case still remains in arrear of fellowship of
afliction 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, avtava-
πληρῶ, to be emphatically prefixed, but also the description,
in the most honourable and sublime manner possible, of the

CIAP. I. 24. 321

apostolic afflictions themselves as the θλίψεις τοῦ Χριστοῦ,
since in their kind and nature they are no other than those
which Christ Himself has suffered. These sufferings ave,
indeed, sufferings for Christ's sake (so Vatablus, Schoettgen,
Zachariae, Storr, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Bohmer, and others;
comp. Wetstein), but they are not so designated by the geni-
tive; on the contrary, the designation follows the idea of
ethical identity, which is conveyed in the ἰσόμοιρον εἷναι τῷ
Χριστῷ, as in Phil. 11. 10. Nor are they to be taken, with
Liicke (comp. Fritzsche, l.c.), as: “ afflictiones, quae Paulo
apostolo Christo auctore et auspice Christo perferendae erant,”
since there is no ground to depart from the primary and most
natural designation of the suffering subject (θλῦψις, with the
genitive of the person, is always so used in the N. T., eg. in
2 Cor. i. 4, 8, iv.17; Eph. iii. 12 ; Jas. i. 27), considering how
current is the idea of the κοινωνία of the sufferings of Christ.
Theodoret’s comment is substantially correct, though not
exhibiting precisely the relation expressed by the genitive :
Χριστὸς Tov ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κατεδέξατο θάνατον... καὶ
τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ὑπέμεινε, καὶ ὁ θεῖος ἀπόστολος ὡσαύτως ὑπὲρ
αὐτῆς ὑπέστη τὰ ποικίλα παθήματα. 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,
mie) Luke: xxii. ὦ 7, xvii 32.5 Romi ii, 25: ὦ Cor: v: 21,
et al.), is not only the view of Heinrichs: “ qualia et Christus
passurus fursset, si diutius vixisset” (so substantially also
Phot. Amphil. 143), but also that of Hofmann, who explains
it to mean: the supplementary continuation of the afflictions
which Christ suffered in His earthly life—a continuation
which belonged to the apostle as apostle of the Gentiles, and
consisted in a suffering which could not have affected Christ,

1 When de Wette describes our view of 6a. +. X. as tame, and Schenkel as
tautological, the incorrectness of this criticism arises from their not observing
that the stress of the expression lies on ἀνταναπληρῶ, and not on τ. 6a. +. 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 suffering for all mankind, but were
rather to be viewed under the aspect of two quantitative
halves, one of which He bore Himself as διάκονος περιτομῆς
(Rom. xv. 8), leaving the other behind to be borne by Paul
as the διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν ; so that the first, namely, that which
Jesus suffered, consisted in the fact that Israel brought Him
to the cross, because they would not allow Him to be their
Saviour; whilst the other, as the complement of the first, con-
sisted in this, that Paul lay in captivity with his life at stake,
because Israel would not permit him to proclaim that Saviour
to the Gentiles. Every explanation, which involves the idea
of the suffering endured by Christ in the days of His flesh
having been incomplete and needing supplement, is an anomaly
which offends against the analogy of faith of the N. T.
And how incompatible with the deep humility of the apostle
(Eph. iii. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 9) would-be the thought of being
supposed to supplement that, which the highly exalted One
(ver. 15 ff.) had suffered for the reconciliation of the universe
(ver. 20 ff.)! Only when misinterpreted in this fashion can
the utterance be regarded as one perfectly foreign to Paul (as
is asserted by Holtzmann, pp. 21 ἔ, 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 ὧν statu gloriae
in virtue of His kingly office. Others, likewise, holding the
genitive to be that of the sulyject, have discovered here the
conception of the suffering of Christ in the Church, His body,
so that when the members suffer, the head suffers also. So
Chrysostom and Theophylact (who compare the apostle with
a lieutenant, who, when the general-in-chief is removed, takes
the latter’s place and receives his wounds), Theodore of Mop-
suestia, Augustine, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Melanchthon,
Clarius, Cornelius a Lapide, Vitringa, Bengel, Michaelis, and
others, including Steiger, Bahr, Olshausen, de Wette, Schenkel,
Dalmer; comp. Grotius and Calovius, and even Bleek. But
the idea of Christ suffering in the sufferings of His people
1 Comp. also Sabatier, U’apétre Paul, p. 218.

CIIAP. I. 24. 323

(Olshausen: “Christ is the suffering God in the world’s
history !”) is nowhere found in the N. T., not even in Acts
ix. 4, where Christ, indeed, appears as. the One against whom
the persecution of Christians is directed, but not as affected by
it in the sense of suffering. He lives in His people (Gal. ii. 20),
speaks in them (2 Cor. xiii. 3); His heart beats in them
(Phil i. 8); He is mighty in them (ver. 29), when they are
weak (2 Cor. xii. 9), their hope, their life, their victory; but
nowhere is it said that He suffers in them. This idea, more-
over—which, consistently carried out, would involve even the
conception of the dying of Christ in the martyrs—would be
entirely opposed to the victoriously reigning life of the Lord
in glory, with whose death all His sufferings are at an end,
Acts ii. 34 ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 24; Phil. ui. 9 ff.; Luke xxiv. 26;
John xix. 30. Crucified ἐξ ἀσθενείας, He lives ἐκ δυνάμεως
Θεοῦ, 2 Cor. xiii. 4, at the right hand of God exalted above all
the heavens and filling the universe (Eph. i. 22 ἢ, iv. 10),
ruling, conquering, and beyond the reach of further suffering
(Heb. i. 18 ff). The application made by Cajetanus, Bellar-
mine, Salmeron, and others, of this explanation for the pur-
pose of establishing the treasury of indulgences, which consists
of the merits not merely of Christ but also of the apostles and
saints, is a Jewish error (4 Macc. vi. 26, and Grimm in Joc.),
historically hardly worthy of being noticed, though still de-
fended, poorly enough, by Bisping. — ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου] belongs
to avtavarx., as to which it specifies the more precise mode ;
not to τῶν OrAp. τ. X. (so Storr, Flatt, Bahr, Steiger, Bohmer,
Huther), with which it might be combined so as to form one
idea, but it would convey a more precise description of the
Christ-sufferings experienced by the apostle, for which there
was no motive, and which was evident of itself. Belong-
ing to dvtavarn., it contains with ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώμ. ἀ. a pointed
definition (σάρξ... σῶμα) of the mode and of the aim.’ Paul
accomplishes that ἀνταναπληροῦν in his flesh which in its

1 Steiger rightly perceived that ἐν +. σαρκί μ. and ὑπὲρ r. σ. &. belong together ;
but he erroneously coupled both with τῶν ὅλ. +. X. (‘* the sufferings which Christ
endures in my flesh for His body”), owing to his incorrect view of the éaipas +. 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 psychically (comp. 2 Cor.
iv. 11; Gal. iv. 14; 1 Pet. iv. 1), for the benefit of the body
of Christ, which is the church (comp. ver. 18), for the con-
firmation, advancement, and glory of which (comp. above on
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν) he endures the Christ - sufferings. Comp. Eph.
iii. 13. The significant purpose of the addition of ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ
κτλ, is to bring out more clearly and render palpable, in
connection with the ἀνταναπληρῶ «.7.r., what lofty happiness
he experiences in this very ἀνταναπληροῦν. He is therein
privileged to step in with his mortal σάρξ 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 ecpexegetical relative clause
ἧς ἐγενόμην «.7.r. (comp. on ver. 18): whose servant I have
become in conformity with my divine appointment as preacher
to the Gentiles (κατὰ τ. οἶκον. x.7.r.). In this way Paul now
brings this his specific and distinctive calling into prominence
after the general description of himself as servant of the gospel
in ver. 23, and here again he gives expression to the conscious-
ness of his ¢ndividual authority by the emphasized ἐγώ. The
relation of the testimony regarding himself in ver. 25 to that
of ver. 23 is climactic, not that of a clumsy duplicate (Holtz-
mann).— κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομ. K.T.r.] in accordance with the
stewardship of God, which is given tome with reference to you.
The οἰκονομία τ. Θεοῦ 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 οἰκοδεσπότης), by which, in the theocratic figurative con-
ception, is denoted the church (comp. 1 Tim. 111. 15). Comp.
1 Cor. ix. 17, iv. 1; Tit. i. 7. Hence such an one is, im 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

ἀντανασιληρῶ 2.7.2., we ought to join ἐν τῇ σαρκί μον with σῶν dairy, r. X., as the
latter would otherwise be without any reference to the person of the apostle. It
has, in fact, this reference through the very statement, that the ἀντανασπληροῦν
x,7.a, takes places in the flesh of the apostle,

CHAP. I. 25. S20

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 wt 15 entrusted to Paul,
by the addition of εἰς ὑμᾶς x.7-r. It is purely arbitrary, and
at variance with the context (τὴν 608. μοι), to depart from the
proper signification, and to take it as institution, arrangement
(see on Eph. i. 10, iii. 2). So Chrysostom and his successors
(with much wavering), Beza, Calvin, Estius, Rosenmiiller, and
others. It is well said by Cornelius a Lapide: “in domo Dei,
quae est ecclesia, sum oeconomus, ut dispensem ... bona et
dona Dei domini mei.” Comp. on 1 Cor. iv. 1.—els ὑμᾶς]
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 τ. δοθεῖσάν μοι, as in Eph. 111. 2; not
with πληρῶσαι x.7.X. (Hofmann), with the comprehensive tenor
of which the individualizing “for you” is not in harmony,
when it is properly explained (see below). — πληρῶσαι κ.τ.λ.]
telic infinitive, depending on τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς, beside
which it stands (Rom. xv. 15 f.); not on ἧς éyev. διάκ.
(Huther). Paul, namely, has received the office of Apostle to
the Gentiles, in order through the discharge of it to bring to
completion the gospel (τὸν λόγον τ. Θεοῦ, 1 Cor. xiv. 36;
2% Cornu. 75 Ὁ} 25% Thess.- ἢ. 13 > Acts ivy. 29,°31,'vie2,
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 for the Gentiles had
been committed to him. The same conception of πλήρωσις
occurs in Rom. xv. 19. Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.; also
Calovius.’ Similarly Bengel: “ad omnes perducere; P. ubique
ad summa tendit.” Partly from not attending to the con-
textual reference to the element, contained in τ. 600. μοι εἰς

1 Who rightly says: ‘‘ Nimirum impletur ita verbum non ratione sui ceu im-
perfectum, sed ratione hominum, cum ad plures sese diffundit.”

326 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

ὑμᾶς, of the πλήρωσις of the gospel which was implied in
the Gentile - apostolic ministry, and partly from not doing
justice to the verbal sense of the selected expression πληρῶ-
cat, or attributing an arbitrary meaning to it, commentators
have taken very arbitrary views of the passage, such as, for
example, Luther: to preach copiously; Olshausen, whom
Dalmer follows: “to proclaim it completely as respects its
whole tenor and compass;” Cornelius a Lapide: “ut com-
pleam praedicationem ev., quam cocpit Christus ;” Vitringa,
Storr, Flatt, Bahr: πληροῦν has after 13 the signification of
the simple docere ; Huther: it means either to diffuse, or (as
Steiger also takes it) to “vealize,’ to introduce into the life,
inasmuch as a doctrine not preached is empty ;’ de Wette: to
“ execute,’ the word of God being regarded either as a commvis-
sion or (comp. Heinrichs) as a decree; Estius and others,
following Theodoret: “ut omnia loca impleam verbo Dei” (quite
at variance with the words here, comp. Acts v. 28); Fritzsche,
ad Lom. III. p. 275: to supplement, namely, by continuing the
imstruction of your teacher Epaphras. Others, inconsistently
with what follows, have explained the λόγος τ. Θεοῦ to mean
the divine promise (“ partim de Christo in «genere, partim de
vocatione gentium,” Beza, comp. Vatablus), in accordance with
which πληρ. would mean exsequi. Chrysostom has rightly
understood τ. Ady. τ. Θεοῦ of the gospel, but takes πληρῶσαι, to
which he attaches εἰς duds, 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 λόγος
τοῦ Θεοῦ, and that as regards its great contents. — As to τὸ
μυστήριον K.7.r., the decree of redenvption, hidden from eternity
in God, fulfilled through Christ, and made known through the
gospel, see on Eph. i. 9. It embraces the Gentiles also; and
this is a special part of its nature that had been veiled (see
Eph. iii. 5), which, however, is not brought into prominence till

1 Τῇ a similarly artificial fashion, emptying the purposely chosen expression of
its meaning, Hofmann comes ultimately to the bare sense : ‘‘to proclaim God's
word,” asserting that the word is a fact, and so he who proclaims the fact

Fulfils it.

CHAP. I. 26. 521

ver. 27. Considering the so frequent treatment of this idea
in Paul’s writings, and its natural correlation with that of the
γνῶσις, an acquaintance with the Gospel of Matthew (xiii. 11)
is not to be inferred here (Holtzmann).'’— ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων
kK. ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν] This twofold description, as also the
repetition of ἀπό, has solemn emphasis: from the ages and
JSrom the generations. The article indicates the ages that had
existed (since the beginning), and the generations that have
lived. As to ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων, comp. on Eph. iii. 9. Paul
could not write πρὸ τῶν αἰών., because while the divine
decree was formed prior to all time (1 Cor. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 9),
its concealment is not conceivable before the beginning of
the times and generations of mankind, to whom it remained
unknown. Expressions such as Rom. xvi. 25, χρόνοις αἰωνίοις,"
and Tit. 1. 2 (see Huther im loc.), do not conflict with this
view. ἀπὸ τ. γενεῶν 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 (¢dmes—#men).— vuvi δὲ ἐφανερώθη] A tran-
sition to the finite tense, occasioned by the importance of the
contrast. Comp. oni. 6. Respecting νυνί, see on ver. 21. The
φανέρωσις has taken place differently according to the different
subjects ; partly by ἀποκάλυψις (Eph. iii. 5; 1 Cor. ii. 10),
as in the case of Paul himself (Gal. 1. 12,15; Eph. iii. 3);
partly by preaching (iv. 4; Tit. 1. 3; Rom. xvi. 26); partly
by both. The historical realization (de Wette; comp. 2 Tim.
i. 10) was the antecedent of the ¢avépwous, but is not here
this latter itself, which is, on the contrary, indicated by τοῖς
ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ as a special act of clearly manifesting communica-

1 Just as little ground is there for tracing κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα x.¢7.A., in ii. 22,
to Matt. xv. 95; οὐ κρατῶν, in 11. 19, to Matt. vii. 3,4; ἀπάτη, in 11. 8, to
Matt. xiii. 22; and in other instances. The author, who manifests so much
lively copiousness of language, was certainly not thus confined and dependent
in thought and expression.

? According to Holtzmann, indeed, p. 309 ff., the close of the Epistle to the
Romans is to be held as proceeding from the post-apostolic auctor ad Ephesios,—
a position which is attempted to be proved by the tones (quite Pauline, how-
ever) which Rom. xvi. 15-27 has in common with Col. i. 26 f. ; Eph. iii. 20,

iii. 9, 10, v. 21 ; and in support of it am erroneous interpretation of διὰ γραφῶν
προφητικῶν, in Rom, xvie 26, is invoked.

328 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

tion. — τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ] 1.6. not: to the apostles and prophets
of the N. T. (Flatt, Bahr, Bohmer, Steiger, Olshausen, Baum-
earten-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. 5,7
whence also the reading ἀποστόλοις (instead of ἁγίοις) 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 κλητοὶ ἅγιοι
belonging to God, Rom. i. 7, vill. 30, ix. 23 f. Huther
wrongly desires to leave τοῖς ἁγίοις indefinite, because the
μυστήριον, so far as it embraced the Gentiles also, had not
come to be known to many Jewish-Christians. But, apart from
the fact that the Judaists did not misapprehend the destina-
tion of redemption for the Gentiles in itself and generally,
but only the direct character of that destination (without a
transition through Judaism, Acts xv. 1, e¢ al.), the ἐφανερώθη
τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ is in fact a summary assertion, which is to
be construed ὦ wotiori, and does not cease to be true on
account of exceptional cases, in which the result was not
actually realized.

Ver. 27. Not eaposition of the ἐφανερ. τοῖς ay. αὐτοῦ, since
the γνωρίσαι has for its object not the μυστήριον itself, but the
glory of the latter among the Gentiles. In reality, οἷς subjoins
an onward movement of the discourse, so that to the general
τὸ μυστήριον ἐφανερώθη τοῖς ay. αὐτοῦ a particular element is
added: “The mystery was made manifest to His saints,—to
them, to whom (qguippe quibus) God withal desired especially
to make known that, which is the riches of the glory of this
mystery among the Gentiles.” Along with the general
ἐφανερώθη τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ God had this special definite
dircction of His will. From this the reason is plain why Paul
has written, not simply οἷς ἐγνώρισεν ὁ Θεύς, but οἷς ἠθέλεσεν
ὁ Θεὸς γνωρίσαι. The meaning that is usually discovered in

1 Holtzmann also, p. 49, would have the apostles thought 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

ἠθέλησεν, free grace, and the like (so Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Calvin, Beza, and many others, including Bihr, Bohmer, de
Wette ; Huther is, with reason, doubtful), is therefore not the
aim of the word, which is also not intended to express the
joyfulness of the announcement (Hofmann), but simply and
solely the idea: “He had a mind.” — γνωρίσαι) to make
known, like ἐφανερώθη, from which it differs in meaning not
essentially, but only to this extent, that by éfavep. the thing
formerly hidden is designated as openly displayed (Rom. i. 19,
iii. 21, xvi. 26; Eph. v. 13, οἱ al.), and by γνωρίσαι that
which was formerly unknown as brought to knowledge. Comp.
Rom. xvi. 26, ix. 22; Eph. 1. 9, ui. 3, 5, 10, vi. 19; Luke
ii. 15, ct al. The latter is not related to éfavep. either as
a something more (Bahr: the making fully acquainted with
the nature); or as its result (de Wette); or as entering
more into detail (Baumgarten-Crusius) ; or as making aware,
namely by experience (Hofmann).— τί τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης
κιτ.λ.] what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the
Gentiles, i.e. what rich fulness of the glory contained in this
mystery exists among the Gentiles—since, indeed, this riches
consists in the fact (ὅς és), that Christ is among you, in
whom ye have the hope of glory. In order to a proper inter-
pretation, let it be observed: (1) τί occupies with emphasis
the place of the indirect 6, τὸ (see Poppo, ad Xen. Cyrop. i. 2.
10; Kithner, ad Mem. i. 1. 1; Winer, p. 158 f. [E. T. 210)),
and denotes “ guae sint divitiae” as regards degree: how great
and unspeakable the riches, etc. Comp. on Eph. i. 18,
ii. 18. The text yields this definition of the sense from the
very connection with the quantitative idea τὸ πλοῦτος. (2)
All the substantives are to be left in their full solemn force,
without being resolved into adjectives (Erasmus, Luther, and
many others: the glorious riches; Beza: “ divitiae gloriosi
hujus mysterii”). Chrysostom aptly remarks: σεμνῶς εἶπε
καὶ ὄγκον ἐπέθηκεν ἀπὸ πολλῆς διαθέσεως, ἐπιτάσεις ζητῶν
ἐπιτάσεων. Comp. Calvin: “ magniloquus est in extollenda
evangelii dignitate.” (3) As τῆς δόξης is governed by τὸ
πλοῦτος, so alsois τοῦ μυστηρίου governed by τῆς δόξης, and
ἐν τοῖς ἔθν. belongs to the ἐστί which is to be supplied, comp.

330 TILE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Eph. i. 18. (4) According to the context, the δόξα cannot
be anything else (see immediately below, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης)
than the Messianic glory, the glory of the kingdom (Rom.
viii. 18, 21; 2 Cor. iv. 17, οἱ al.), the glorious blessing of the
κληρονομία (comp. ver. 12), which before the Parousia (Rom.
viii. 30; Col. ii. 3 f.) is the ideal (ἐλπίς), 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 δόξα of God meant, in particular His wisdom and
grace, which manifest themselves objectively in the making
known of the mystery, and realize themselves subjectively
by moral glorification and by the hope of eternal glory (de
Wette), or the splendor internus of true Christians, or the bliss
of the latter combined with their moral dignity (Bohmer).
(5) The genitive of the subject, τοῦ μυστηρίου τούτου, defines the
δόξα as that contained in the μυστήριον, previously unknown,
but now become manifest with the mystery that has been
made known, as the blessed contents of the latter. Comp.
ver. 23: ἐλπίς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. To take the δόξα as attribute
of the mystery, is forbidden by what immediately follows,
according to which the idea can be none other than the
familiar one of that glory, which is the proposed aim of the
saving revelation and calling, the object of faith and hope (Gin
opposition to Hofmann and many others); 111. 4. Comp. on
Rom. v. 2.— €v τοῖς ἔθνεσιν] φαίνεται δὲ ἐν ἑτέροις, πολλῷ δὲ
πλέον ἐν τούτοις ἡ πολλὴ τοῦ μυστηρίου δόξα, Chrysostom.
“Qui tot saeculis demersi fuerant in morte, ut viderentur
penitus desperati,” Calvin.—és ἐστι Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν] “ Christus
in gentibus, summum illis temporibus paradoxon,’ Bengel.
According to a familiar attraction (Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 2077),
this ὅς applies to the previous subject τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης
Tov μυστ. T., and introduces that, in which this riches consists.
Namely: Christ among you,—in this it consists, and by this
information is given at the same time how great it is (τί ἐστιν).

CHAP. I. 27. oon

Formerly they were χωρὶς Χριστοῦ (Eph. ii. 12); now Christ,
who by His Spirit reigns in the hearts of believers (Rom.
viii. 10; Eph. iii 17; Gal. ii, 20; 2 Cor. iii. 17, et al.), ts
present and active among them. The proper reference of the
relative to τὸ πλοῦτος K.7.X., and also the correct connection of
ἐν ὑμῖν with Χριστός (not with ἡ ἐλπίς, 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 Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, makes this ἐν ὑμῖν depend on
ἐστί, whereby the thoughtful and striking presentation of the
fact “Christ among the Gentiles” is without reason put in the
backeround, and ἐν ὑμῖν becomes superfluous. Following the
Vulgate and Chrysostom, ὅς is frequently referred to τοῦ
μυστηρ. τούτου: “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 ὅς ἐστι through τί, while ἐν ὑμῖν corresponds‘ to the ἐν
τοῖς ἔθνεσιν referring to the πλοῦτος, and the following ἡ ἐλπὶς
τῆς δόξης glances back to the πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης. --- Χριστός]
Christ Himself, see above. Neither ἡ τοῦ X. γνῶσις (Theo-
phylact) is meant, nor the doctrine, either of Christ (Grotius,
Rosenmiiller, and others), or about Christ (Flatt). On the
individualizing ὑμῖν, although the relation concerns the Gen-
tiles generally, comp. ὑμᾶς in ver. 25. “ Accommodat ipsis
Colossensibus, ut efficacius in se agnoscant,” Calvin. — ἡ ἐλπὶς
τῆς δόξης] characteristic apposition (comp. iii. 4) to Χριστός,
giving information how the Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν forms the great
riches of the glory, etc. among the Gentiles, since Christ is
the hope of the Messianic δόξα, in Him is given the possession
in hope of the future glory. The emphasis is on ἡ ἐλπίς, in
which the probative element lies. Compare on the subject-

1 Hence also to be rendered not im vobis (Luther, Bohmer, Olshausen), but

inter vos. The older writers combated the rendering in vobis from opposition to
the Fanatics.

oan THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

matter, Rom. viii. 24: τῇ yap ἐλπίδι ἐσώθημεν, and the contrast
ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες in Eph. ii. 12; 1 Thess. iv. 13; and on
the concrete expression, 1 Tim. i. 1; Ignat. Hph. 21; Magnes.
11; Ecclus. xxxi 14; Thuc. ini. 57. 4; Aesch.-Cha Zag
776.

Ver. 28. Christ was not proclaimed by add in the definite
character just expressed, namely, as “ Christ among the Gentiles,
the hope of glory ;” other teachers preached Him in a Judaistic
form, as Saviour of the Jews, amidst legal demands and
with theosophic speculation. Hence the emphasis with which
not the simply epexegetic ὅν (Erasmus and others), but the
ἡμεῖς, Which is otherwise superfluous, is brought forward ;’ by
which Paul has meant himself along with Timothy and other
like-minded preachers to the Gentiles (we, on our part). This
emphasizing of ἡμεῖς, however, requires the ὅν to be referred
to Christ regarded in the Gentile-Messianic character, precisely
as the ἡμεῖς make Him known (comp. Phil. 1. 17 f.), thereby
distinguishing themselves from others; not to Christ generally
(Hofmann), in which case the emphasizing of ἡμεῖς is held
to obtain its explanation only from the subsequent clause
of purpose, ἵνα παραστ. «.7.4.— The specification of the mode
of announcement νουθετοῦντες and διδάσκοντες, admonishing
and teaching, corresponds to the two main elements of the
evangelical preaching μετανοεῖτε and πιστεύετε (Acts xx. 21,
xxvi, 18; Rom. iu. 3 ff; Marki 15). Respecting the idea
of νουθετεῖν, see on Eph. vi. 4. It occurs also joined with
διδάσκ." in Plato, Legg. viii. p. 845 B, Prot. p. 323 D, Apol.
p. 26 A; Dem. 130. 2.— ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ] belongs to νουθεΐ.
and διδάσκ.: by means of every wisdom (comp. 111. 16) which
we bring to bear thereon. It is the πῶς of the process of
warning and teaching, comp. 1 Cor. 111. 10, in which no sort
of wisdom remains unemployed. The fact that Paul, in

1 Without due reason, Holtzmann, p. 153, finds the use of the plural disturb-
ing, and the whole verse tautological as coming after ver. 25. It is difficult,
however, to mistake the full and solemn style of the passage, to which also the
thrice repeated πάντα ἄνθρωπον belongs.

2 In iii. 16 the two words stand in the inverse order, because there it is not
the μετανοεῖν preceding the wieris which is the aim of the νονδεσία, but mutual
improvement on the part of believers.

CHAP. I. 29. 333

1 Cor. i. 17, comp. ii. 1, 4, repudiates the σοφία λόγου in his
method of teaching, is not—taking into consideration the sense
in which σοφία there oceurs—at variance, but rather in keeping,
with the present assertion, which applies, not to the wisdom of
the world, but to Christian wisdom in its manifold forms. —
The thrice repeated πάντα ἄνθρωπον (in opposition to the
Judaizing tendency of the false teachers) “ maximam habet
δεινότητα ac vim,” Bengel. The proud feeling of the apostle of
the world expresses itself..— ἵνα παραστήσ. «.7.r.] The pur-
pose of the ὃν ἡμεῖς καταγγέλλομεν down to σοφίᾳ. This
purpose is not in general, that man may so appear (Bleek), or
come. to stand so (Hofmann), but it refers, as in ver. 22, and
without mixing up the conception of sacrifice (in opposition to
Bahr and Baumgarten-Crusius), to the judgment (comp. on
2 Cor. iv. 14), at which it is the highest aim and glory
(1 Thess. ii. 19 f.) of the apostolic teachers to make every man
come forward τέλειον ἐν X. ᾿Εν Χριστῷ contains the distin-
suishing specialty of the τελειότης, as Christian, which is not
based on anything outside of Christ, or on any other element
than just on Him. It is perfection in respect of the whole
Christian nature; not merely of knowledge (Chrysostom,
Theophylact, and others, including Bohmer), but also of life.
Moreover, this év X. is so essential to the matter, and so cur-
rent with the apostle, that there is no ground for finding in it
an opposition to a doctrine of the law and of angels (Chrysostom,
Theophylact, and others). Theophylact, however (comp. Chry-
sostom), rightly observes regarding the entire clause of purpose :
τί λέγεις ; πάντα ἄνθρωπον ; vai, φησι, τοῦτο σπουδάζομεν" εἰ
δὲ μὴ γένηται, οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς.

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 unknown to them by face (ii. 1), Paul

1 Which Hofmann groundlessly calls in question, finding in πάντα ἄνθρωπον
the idea: ‘‘every one singly and severally.” This is gratuitously introduced,
and would have been significantly expressed by Paul through ἕνα ἕκαστον (Acts
xx. 31), or through the addition of καθ᾿ ἕνα, or otherwise ; comp. also 1 Thess.

ii. 11. Calvin hits the thought properly : ‘‘ué sine exceptione totus mundus ex
me discat.”

334 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

now turns from the form of expression embracing others in
common with himself, into which he had glided at ver. 28 in
harmony with its contents, back to the individual form (the
first person singular), and asserts, first of all, in connection
with ver. 28, that for the purpose of the παραστῆσαι x.7.n. (εἰς
6, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 10) he also gives himself even toil (κοπιῶ,
comp. Rom. xvi. 6, 12; 1 Cor. iv. 12), striving, etc. — καί]
also, subjoins the κοπιᾶν to the καταγγέλλειν «.7.r., in which
he subjects himself also to the former; it is therefore aug-
mentative, in harmony with the climactic progress of the dis-
course; not a mere equalization of the aim and the striving
(de Wette). Neither this καί, nor even the transition to the
singular of the verb,—especially since the latter is not empha-
sized by the addition of an éy#,—-can justify the interpretation
of Hofmann, according to which εἰς 6 is, contrary to its position,
to be attached to ἀγωνιζόμενος, and κοπιῷ is to mean: “J
become weary and faint” (comp. John iv. 6; Rev. 11. 3, and
Diisterdieck in loc.). Paul, who has often impressed upon others
the μὴ ἐκκακεῖν, and for himself is certain of being more than
conqueror in all things (Rom. viii. 37; 2 Cor. iv. 8, e al.),
can hardly have borne testimony about himself in this sense,
with which, moreover, the aywvifec@as in the strength of Christ
is not consistent. In Ais case, as much as in that of any one, the ~
οὐκ ἐκοπίασας of Rev. ii. 3 holds good. — ἀγωνιζόμενος] Com-
pare 1 Tim. iv. 10. Here, however, according to the context,
i. 1 ff, the inward striving (comp. Luke xiii. 24) against diffi-
culties and hostile forces, the striving of solicitude, of watching,
of mental and emotional exertion, of prayer, etc., is meant ; as
respects which Paul, like every regenerate person (Gal. v. 17),
could not be raised above the resistance of the σάρξ to the
πνεῦμα ruling in him. Comp. Chrysostom: καὶ οὐχ ἁπλῶς
σπουδάζω, φησιν, οὐδὲ ὡς ἔτυχεν, ἀλλὰ κοπιῶ ἀγωνιζόμενος
μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς σπουδῆς, μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς ἀγρυπνίας. It is
not: “tot me periculis ac malis objicere” (Erasmus, comp.
Grotius, Estius, Heinrichs, Bihr, and others), which outward
struggling, according to Flatt, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius,
and others, should be understood along with that inward
striving ; ii, 1 only points to the latter; comp. iv. 12. — κατὰ

CHAP. I. 29. 335

τὴν ἐνέργειαν x.7.r.] for Paul does not contend, amid the labours
of his office, according to the measure of his own strength,
but according to the effectual working of Christ (αὐτοῦ is not to
be referred to God, as is done by Chrysostom, Grotius, Flatt,
Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), which worketh in him. Comp.
Phil. iv. 13. How must this consciousness, at once so humble
and confident of victory, have operated upon the readers to
stir them up and strengthen them for stedfastness in the faith !
—THv ἐνεργουμ.] is middle; see on 2 Cor. i. 6; Gal. v. 6;
Eph. iii, 20. The modal definition to it, ἐν δυνάμει, mightily
(comp. on Rom. i. 4), is placed at the end significantly, as in
2 Thess. 1, 11; it is groundlessly regarded by Holtzmann as
probably due to the interpolator.

29
99
or

TUE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

CEAPT ER Tt

VER. 1. περί] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read ὑσέρ, following A BC D*
Ps min. But how easily may ὑπέρ have been suggested to the
copyists by i. 24 and iv. 12!-The form ἑώρακαν (Lachm. and
Tisch. 7) or ἑόρακαν (Tisch. 8) is more than sufficiently attested
by A BC D* s%*, etc., to induce its reception in opposition to
the usage elsewhere. Respecting this Alexandrian form see
Winer, p. 73 [E. T. 90]; and on éép., Fritzsche, ad Aristoph. Th.
32. — Ver. 2. Instead of συμβιβασθέντες, Elzevir has συμβιβωσθέντων,
in opposition to decisive testimony; an emendation. — πάντα
σλοῦτον] AC min. have πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος (so Lachm. Tisch. 7), and are
also joined by B &* Clem. with πᾶν πλοῦτος (so Tisch. 8). Here
also (comp. 1. 27) the neuter is the original ; in thinking of the
more common ὁ πλοῦτος the INANTO became IIANTA, in accord-
ance with which πλοῦτον 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 τοῦ Θεοῦ (so Griesb.
Scholz, Tisch. 7, Rinck; among modern expositors, Bahr,
Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald), Elzevir has rod Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ
σοῦ Χριστοῦ, While Lachm. reads τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ, and Tisch. 8 τοῦ
Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ. Among the numerous various readings, rod Θεοῦ
Χριστοῦ (also adopted by Steiger, Huther, Bleek, Hofmann) is
certainly strongly enough attested by Bb. Hilar. (but without
vss.), while the simple τοῦ Θεοῦ has only 37, 67**, 71, 80*, 116,
Arm. ed. Venet. in its favour. A Ο δ , 4, Sahid. Vulg. ms. have
σοῦ Θεοῦ πατρὺς (τοῦ) X., Which Bohmer and Reiche prefer, whilst
n** Syr. p. have +. Θεοῦ καὶ warp. τοῦ X., and others still, such as
Syr. Copt. Chrys. read +. ©. πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, and conse-
quently come nearest to the Jtecepta; but a few authorities,
after the mention of God, insert ἐν Xpror%,as Clem. Ambrosiaster:
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν X. Negarding these variations we must judge thus:
(1) the far too weak attestation of the bare rod Θεοῦ is decisive
against it; (2) the reading of Lachm.: τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ, is to be
regarded as the original, from which have arisen as glosses the
amplifications τοῦ Θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ X.,' and τοῦ Θεοῦ warp. καὶ τοῦ X.,

1 Tf 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. oon

as well as the Recepta ; (3) the reading rod Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ arose
out of a gloss (ἐν Χριστῷ) written on the margin at ἐν ᾧ, in accord-
ance with i. 27, which supplanted the original Χριστοῦ ; (4) the
ἐν Χριστῷ thus introduced was again subsequently eliminated,
without, however, the original Χριστοῦ being reinserted, and thus
arose the reading of Griesb. τοῦ Θεοῦ, which therefore—and with
this accords its late and weak attestation—appears to be merely
a half completed critical restoration. — Ver. 4. δέ] 15 wanting in
B s*, Tisch. 8; but it was readily omitted by the copyists before
the syllable AE. — μή τις] Lachm. and Tisch. read μηδείς, which,
following preponderant codd. (A B C Ὁ E P δ), is to be pre-
ferred.— Ver. 7. ἐν τῇ πίστ.] Lachm. and Tisch. have only τῇ
“πίστει, following B D* min. Vulg. It. Archel. Ambrosiast.
Theophyl. Properly; the ἐν was mechanically introduced from
the adjoining text. — ἐν αὐτῇ] though suspected by Griesb., and
rejected by Tisch. 8 (it is wanting in A C &*, min. Copt. Tol.
Archel.), is to be defended. Its omission was easily occasioned
by the fact that περισσ. was found to be already accompanied by
a more precise definition expressed by ἐν. The ἐν αὐτῷ read by
D* s**, 1, Pel. vss., though only a mechanical repetition of the
preceding ἐν αὐτῷ, testifies indirectly to the fact that originally
ἐν αὐτῇ Was in the text. — Ver. 10. ὅς ἐστιν] Lachm. reads ὁ ἐστιν,
following B D E F G Germ. Hilar. A mistaken correction,
occasioned by the reference of the preceding ἐν αὐτῷ to τὸ
“πλήρωμα. --- Ver. 11. After σώματος Elz. has τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν; an
exegetical addition, in opposition to decisive testimony. Comp.
Rom. vi. 6.— Ver. 13. The second ὑμᾶς is indeed wanting in
Elz., but receives so sufficient attestation through A C K L 8%,
min. vss. and Fathers, that its omission must be explained on
the ground of its seeming superfluous. B min. Ambr. have
ἡμᾶς, Which is conformed to the following 7%. Instead of this
qui, Elz. has iui, in opposition to decisive: testimony. — Ver.
17. Δ] Lachm. reads ὅ, following B F G It. Goth. Epiph. Am-
brosiast. Aug. To be preferred, inasmuch as the plural was
naturally suggested to the copyists by the plurality of the
things previously mentioned.— Ver. 18. ἅ μὴ ἑώρακεν] μή 15
wanting in A B D* s*, 17, 28, 67**, Copt. Clar. Germ. codd.
in Aug., Or. ed. Tert.? Lucif. Ambrosiast., while F G have οὐκ.
The negation is with justice condemned by Griesb., Steiger,
Olshausen, Huther, Ewald; deleted by Tisch. 8 (bracketed by
Lachm.), although defended specially by Reiche, whom Hot-

original expression must have given rise to dogmatic scruples, and only the
description of God as τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ could have done so.

COL, Y

308 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

mann also follows. An addition owing to misapprehension.
See the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 20. εἰ] Elz. reads εἰ οὖν, in
opposition to decisive testimony. An addition for the sake of
connecting, after the analogy of ver. 16 and iii. 1.

Expressing in a heart-winning way his earnest concern for
the salvation of the souls of his readers, Paul introduces
(vv. 1-3) what he has to urge upon them in the way of
warning against the seduction of false teachers (vv. 4, 5), of
exhortation to faithfulness (vv. 6, 7), and then, again, of warn-
ing (ver. 8). He then supports what he has urged by sub-
joining the relative soteriological instructions and remindings
(vv. 9-15), from which he finally draws further special
warnings as respects the dangers threatening them on the
part of the false teachers (vv. 16-23).

Ver. 1. Τάρ] The apostle now confirms in concreto the εἰς ὃ
kK. kot. ἀγωνιζόμενος «.7.r., Which has just been affirmed of
himself in general: in proof of that assertion I would have
you to know, etc. Hofmann holds erroneously, in consequence
of his mistaken explanation of κοπιῶ in 1. 29, that Paul desires
to explain why he has said that he is becoming weary over the
exertion, etc. — Instead of the more frequent od θέλω ὑμᾶς
ἀγνοεῖν (see on Rom. xi. 20, 1. 13), Paul uses the θέλω dp.
εἰδέναι, also in 1 Cor. xi. 3; comp. Phil. i, 12. --- ἡλίκον!
whet a great, vehement conflict. Paul nowhere else uses this
word, which is classical, but does not occur either in the LXX.
or in the Apocrypha; in the N. T. it is only found again at Jas.
ii. 5. That by the conflict is meant the internal pressure of
solicitude and apprehension, etc. (comp.i. 29, also Rom. xv. 30),
is plain—when we remember the imprisoned condition of the
apostle, who now could not contend outwardly with the false
teachers themselves—from ver. 2. It is at the same time self-
evident that the wrestling of prayer was an eminent way of con-
ducting this spiritual conflict, without its being necessary to
regard iv. 12 as a criterion for determining the sense in our
passage.—xat τῶν ἐν Aaodix.] The neighbouring Laodiceans
(Rev. iii. 14 ff.) were without doubt exposed to like heretical
dangers; hence also the injunction as to the mutual communi-
cation of the Epistles, iv. 16.—«al ὅσοι «.7..] The sense is:

CHAP. IL. 1. 339

and generally (καί, see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 786. 870) for
all to whom I am personally unknown. It adds the entire
category, to which the ὑμεῖς and those ἐν “αοδικείᾳ, both
regarded as churches, were reckoned to belong. Comp. Acts
iv. 6. It is plain from our passage that Paul had not been
in Colossae and Laodicea. It is true that Wiggers, in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 176, would have ὅσοι x... under-
stood as referring to a portion of the Colossians and Laodiceans,
in which case καί would mean even ; but the text itself is deci-
sively opposed to this view by the following αὐτῶν, ver. 2, which,
if the ὅσοι κτλ. 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
μάλιστα δέ or the like), and the comprehensive ὅσοι withal does
not seem accounted for. Erroneous also is the view (held
already by Theodoret in the Hypothes. and in the Commentary,
though Oredner, Hinl. ὃ 154, erroneously denies this) of
Baronius, Lardner, and David Schultz (in the Stud. u. Krit.
1829, p. 535 ff.), that the ὅσοι x.7.X. were other than the ὑμεῖς
and οἱ ἐν Δαοδικ.; Paul having been personally known to
both the latter. The subsequent αὐτῶν is fatal to this theory
likewise ; and how singularly without reason would it have
been, if Paul had designated as the objects of his anxiety,
along with two churches of the district which are supposed
to have known him personally, αἰΐ 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 1. 8 and oni. 23. Comp. Wieseler, Chronol.
des apost. Zeitalt. p. 440. According to Hilgenfeld, in his
Zeitschr. 1870, p. 245 f., the intimation that Paul was per-
sonally unknown to the Colossians betrays the composition of
the Epistle at a ater 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 personally, is natural enough, seeing that they were not
in a position to oppose the living impression of the apostle’s
personal ministry, and his direct authority, to the heretical
seductions. Comp. ver. ὅ. --- ἐν σαρκί] not belonging to
éwpaxact—in which case it would be a contrast to seeing ἐν
πνεύματι (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Baumgarten-Crusius)—
joins itself, so as to form one idea, with τὸ πρόσωπον pov
(Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 169]). Seever. 5. The addition, which
might in itself be dispensed with (comp. Gal. 1.22; 1 Thess.
ii. 17), serves the purpose of concrete representation, without its
being necessary to import into it a contrast to the “ spiritual
phystognomy” (Olshausen), or to the having made acquaintance
in a spiritual fashion (Hofmann), in connection with which
Estius even discovers a certain ταπείνωσις through a higher
estimation of the latter; although generally the idea of a
spiritual mode of intercowrse, independent of bodily absence,
very naturally occasioned the concrete description: my bodily
face. There is all the less ground for assigning ἐν σαρκί, as
an anticipation of ver. 5, to the hand of the manipulator, and
that in such away 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: cn order
that their hearts may be comforted, viz. practically by the fact,
that they are wiited in love, ete. Accordingly, συμβιβασθ.
«.T.r. 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 παράκλησις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν, not impeaching
them on account of the heretical seductions, but making those
temptations to be felt as a misfortune, in the presence of which
one requires comfort (Vulgate: “wt consolentur”). Chrysostom
remarks aptly (comp. Theophylact): ἤδη λοιπὸν σπεύδει καὶ
ὠδίνει ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς TO δόγμα, οὔτε κατηγορῶν οὔτε ἀπαλλάττων

CHAP. II. 2. $41

αὐτοὺς κατηγορίας. The explanation which makes παρακαλ.
mean, like pox (LXX. Deut. 111. 28; Job iv. 3), to strengthen,
confirm (so Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius), is quite
opposed to the Pauline usage, according to which it means to
exhort (so Luther here), to give consolation (so Hofmann ; comp.
Bleek), to entreat, to encourage, to comfort ; the latter in par-
ticular when, as here, it is joined with καρδία. Comp. iv. 8;
Eph. vi. 22; 2 Thess. ii. 17 (also Ecclus. xxx. 23).— συμ-
βιβασθέντες) referred to the logical subject of the foregoing,
1.6. to the persons, of whom ai καρδίαι αὐτῶν was said. See on
Eph. iv. 2. It means here not instructi (Vulgate; comp.
1 Cor. ii. 16, and the LXX.), nor yet ¢ntroduced,’ which lin-
guistic usage does not permit, but brought together, wnited,
compactt (ver.19 ; Eph. iv. 16; Thue. 11. 29. 5; Herod. i. 74;
and see Wetstein and Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 453 f.). In con-
nection therewith, ἐν ἀγάπη, which denotes Christian brotherly
love, is the moral element, in which the union is to subsist; to
which is then added the telie reference of συμβιβασθ. by καὶ
εἰς κτλ. : united in love and for behoof of the full richness,
etc., z.e. in order, by that union, to attain the possession of
this full richness, which could not be attained, but only
hindered, by division and variance. καὶ εἰς is not to be
joined with παρακὰ. (Storr, Flatt), since the καί rather adds
to the év-relation of the συμβιβ. its e/s-relation, and is there-
fore merely the simple and, not etiam (Bengel, Hofmann) ;
but not to be explained either as et quidem (Bahr, Bohmer),
or by an ἔλθωσι to be supplied (Olshausen permits a choice be-
tween the two).— τῆς πληροφ. τῆς συνέσ.] The full certainty
of Christian insight is the lofty blessing, the whole riches of

1 So Hofmann, who couples it in this sense with εἰς πᾶν πὸ πλοῦτος, taking ἐν
ἀγάπῃ adverbially, and explaining the καί, which stands in the way, in the sense
of ‘‘even,” to the effect that this introduction into all riches of the understanding
has as its presupposition another introduction, viz. that into the faith. This is
a sophistically forced mode of disposing of the καί, suggested by nothing in the
context, especially since faith by no means, either of itself or in vy. 5-7, falls to
be considered as a preliminary stage, as if the πληροφορία x.7.a., like a new
stadium, had to be entered upon through a second introduction ; on the contrary,
this rAnpePopia is the full rich development of faith in the inner life. We may

add that συμβιβάζειν κε ίο introduce is nothing but a lexicographical fiction
invented by Hofmann. Chrysostom already says rightly : ἵνα ἑνωθῶσι.

342 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

which, 4.6. its blissful possession as a whole, they are to attain,
so that in no element of the σύνεσις and in no mode thereof
does there remain any lack of completely undoubting convic-
tion ;' comp. 1 Thess. i. 5 ; Heb. vi. 11, x. 22; Rom. iv. 21,
xiv. 5. On the conception of πληροφορεῖν, see Bleek on Hebr.
II. 2, p. 233 f. As to σύνεσις, intelligence, both theoretical and
practical, comp. on i. 9; that here also what is specifically
Christian is meant κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, is plain from the context.
See the sequel. The cumulative fulness of the description
πᾶν TO WH. τ. πληρ. τ. συνέσ. is naturally and earnestly called
forth by the consideration of the dangers which threatened
the πληροφ. τ. συνέσ. through the attempts of false teachers
(ver. 4). Οἶδα, ὅτι πιστεύετε, ἀλλὰ πληροφορηθῆναι ὑμᾶς
βούλομαι: οὐκ εἰς τὸν πλοῦτον μόνον, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς πάντα τὸν
πλοῦτον, ἵνα καὶ ἐν πᾶσι καὶ ἐπιτεταμένως πεπληροφορημένοι
ἦτε, Chrysostom. — εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν «.7.r.] parallel to the pre-
ceding εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος «.7.r., and destined to bring in with
emphasis the great object of the σύνεσις (the divine counsel of
redemption, TO μυστήριον, see on i. 26); so that what was
previously set forth at length by εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος τ. πληροφ.
τ. συνέσ. ig now succinctly swmmed wp for the sake of annex-
ing the object by εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν. Thus the distinction between
ἐπίγνωσις and γνῶσις (ver. 3) is brought out clearly.? Comp.
on 1.9. But τοῦ μυστ. τ. O. is not to be attached also to τῆς
συνέσεως (Hofmann), so that the τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν would occupy an
interrupting position. — τοῦ Θεοῦ] Genitive of the subject; it
is God, whose decree the μυστ. is. The reading to be approved,
τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ (see the critical remarks), means: of the God
of Christ, 1.6. to whom Christ belongs in a special way, as to
His Father, Sender, Head, etc.; see on Eph. i. 17; comp.

1 Neither Greek authors, nor the LXX., nor the Apocrypha have xranpoQopic..
In Ptol. Tetr. p. 4. 9, πληροφόρησις is found.

2 According to Holtzmann, p. 303, in the frequent mention of γνῶσις and
ἐπίγνωσις, Of σοφία and σύνεσις, Of γνωρίζειν and φωτίζειν, of wuernpioy ἀποκεκρυμε.
and φανέρωσις rod μυστ., we may detect already the terminology of the Grecian
mysteries. As if these ideas and expressions were not sufficiently Pauline, and
their intentional application were not sufficiently intelligible in the light of
theosophie aberrations. Comp. also on i. 23; and Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 420,
ed. 2.

CHAP. 11. 3. - 643

John xx. 17; Matt. xxvii. 46. The separation of Χριστοῦ,
however, from τ. Θεοῦ, and the taking it as apposition to τοῦ
μυστηρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ, so that Christ Himself appears as the per-
sonal secret of God, “ because He is personally the truth con-
tained in God and revealed from God” (Hofmann, comp.
Holtzmann, p. 215), must be rejected, because Paul would
thus have expressed himself in a way as much exposed to mis-
apprehension as possible. He would either have inserted an
6 ἐστι after τοῦ Θεοῦ (i. 24; 1 Cor. iii. 11), or have omitted
τοῦ Θεοῦ, which would have made τὸ μυστήριον Χριστοῦ,
as in Eph. iii. 4, the mystery contained personally in Christ.
But as the apostle has actually written, the reader could only
understand the mystery of the God of Christ. If Christ is
God’s (see on 1 Cor. 111, 23; comp. Luke ii. 26, ix. 20; Acts
iv. 26), then God is also the God of Christ. After Θεοῦ,
therefore, no comma is to be inserted. Finally, the view of
Hilary (“ Deus Christus sacramentum est”), that ὁ Θεός is
Christ Himself (so Steiger and Bisping, also Philippi, Glau-
bensl. IV. 1, p. 460, ed. 2), is wholly without Pauline analogy,
and is not to be supported by such passages as Rom. ix. 5;
Tit. 1.13; Eph. v. 5; in fact, even the lofty predicates em-
ployed ini. 15 ff, 1. 9, draw the line of distinction between
God and Christ. Moreover, the expression itself is not harsher
(de Wette), or even more inconceivable (Olshausen), more
unsuitable and obscure (Reiche), than the phrase ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ
κυρίου ἡμ. ᾿Ιησοῦ 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 Χριστοῦ jinds its
motive in the connection, because it was just ὧν Christ that
God formed the decree of redemption (the μυστήριον), and has
carried it out (Eph. ii. 10 f,, οὐ al.). Whosoever has known
God as the God of Christ, has the divine μυστήριον therewith
unveiled to him.

Ver. 3. “Ev 6] is to be referred to τοῦ puvornpiov—a
remark which applies also in the case of every other reading
of the foregoing words—not to Christ, as is commonly done

1 Older dogmatic expositors (see especially Calovius) discover here the omni-
science of Christ.

344 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

with the Recepta, and by Bohmer, Dalmer, and Hofmann even
with our reading. The correct reference is given, in connec-
tion with the Reecepta, 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 ἀπόκρυφοι
stands to τοῦ μυστηρ. The destination of this relative clause
is to bring out the high value of the ἐπίγνωσις τοῦ μυστηρίου
(since ὧν Hum, etc.), and that in contrast to the pretended
wisdom and knowledge of the false teachers; hence also the
emphatic πάντες ot Ono. x.7.4.— The σοφία and γνῶσις are
here conceived objectively, and the genitives indicate wherein
the treasures consist. The distinction between the two words
is not, indeed, to be abandoned (Calvin: “ duplicatio ad
augendum valet ;” comp. Huther and others), but yet is not
to be defined more precisely than that γνῶσις is more special,
knowledge, and σοφία 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 θησαυροί, comp.
Plato, Phil. p.15 E: ὥς τινα σοφίας εὑρηκὼς θησαυρόν, Xen.
Mem.in. 2.9, 1.6. 14; Wisd. vii. 14; Ecclus: i: 22 4am
111. 1. ---- ἀπόκρυφοι) is not the predicate to εἰσί (so most
writers, with Chrysostom and Luther), as if it were azroxe-
κρυμμένοι εἰσιν instead of εἰσὶν ἀπόκρυφοι; for, as it stands, —
the unsuitable sense would be conveyed: “7 whom all
treasures... are hidden treasures.” But neither is it a descrip-
tion of the qualitative how of their δοίη in Him,' in so far,
namely, as they do not lie open for ordinary perception (Hof-
mann) ; for this adverbial use of the adjective (see Kiihner,
ad Xen. Anab. i. 4.12, ii. 2.17; Kriiger, § 57. 5) would be
without due motive here, seeing that the apostle is concerned,
not about the mode of the ἐν ᾧ εἰσι, but about the charac-
terizing of the treasures themselves, whereupon the how
in question was obvious of itself. We must therefore take

1 In connection with which Dihr, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Bleek convert
the notion of being hidden into that of being deposited for preservation (ἀπο-
κεῖσθαι, 1. 5).

CHAP. II. 4. 345

ἀπόκρυφοι simply as an attributive adjective to θησαυροί,
placed at the end with emphasis: im whom the collective hidden
treasures ... are contained. Comp. LXX. Isa. xlv. 3; 1 Mace.
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. /.c.), because unattainable by the power of natural dis-
cernment in itself, but coming to be found by those who
attain εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου, whereby they penetrate
into the domain of these secret riches and discover and
appropriate them. The objection to this view of azoxp. as the
adjective to θησ., viz. that there must then have been written
ot ἀποκρ. (Bahr, Bleek, Hofmann), is erroneous; the article
might have been (1 Mace. i. 23), but did not need to be, in-
serted. With the article it would mean: quippe qui abscondite
sunt ; without the article it is simply: “ thesauri absconditi”
(Vulgate), 1... ἀπόκρυφοι ὄντες, not of ὄντες ὠπόκρυφοι.

Ver. 4. After this affecting introduction, testifying to his
zealous striving for the Christian development of his readers,
and thereby claiming their faithful adherence to his gospel,
the warning now follows, for the sake of which Paul has
prefixed vv. 1-3 (τοῦτος. That τοῦτο does not refer merely
to ver. 3 (so Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Zanchius,
Estius, and others, including Bihr and Bohmer; Huther is
undecided) is in itself probable, since vv. 1-5 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. 1-5, which ye
ought to know, I say with the desien that, etc.— ἵνα μηδείς
(see the critical remarks); comp. Mark v. 43; Tit. ui. 12;
Rey. iii, 11, οὐ αἱ. ----παραλογίζ] In N. T., only found else-
where in Jas. 1. 22 (see Theile ὧν Joc.) ; frequent in the later
Greek writers since Demosthenes (822. 25, 1037.15). It
indicates, by a term borrowed from false reckoning, the
deception and overreaching that take place through false rea-
soning. What particular sophistries the false teachers, whose
agitations at all events tended (see ver. 8 f.) to the disadvan-
tage of the Pauline gospel, were guilty of, does not appear. It

346 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

is certain, however, that they were not those suggested by
Bohmer (nothing good can come out of Nazareth; one who
was crucified cannot have possessed divine wisdom), since the
false teachers were not non-Christians. Hardly did these
beguiling sophistries affect the person of the apostle, as if he
were not concerning himself about the confirming and train-
ing of churches not planted by himself, 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 we in
what follows find any defence in opposition to personal
calumniation. This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann,
p. 177. The γάρ in ver. 5 by no means requires this inter-
pretation. — ἐν mi@avoroyia] by means of persuading speech;
Luther’s “with rational discourses” misapprehends the mean-
ing. It occurs in this place only in the N. T.; but see Plato,
Theact. p. 162 E; comp. Dem. 928. 14: λόγους θαυμασίως
πιθανούς, also πιθανολογεῖν, Diog. L. x. 87; Diod. Sic. i. 39;
and πιθανῶς λέγειν, Lucian, Amor. 7. Hence the art of per-
suasion: ἡ πιθανολογική, Arr. Epict. i. 8. 7.

Ver. 5. A special reason, having reference to his bodily
absence, by which his readers are encouraged not to allow
themselves to be deceived. — τῇ σαρκί] with respect to the
flesh, 1.6. bodily. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 3.— ἀλλά] at, yet am I on
the other hand, beginning the apodosis; see on Rom. vi. 5 and
1 Cor. iv. 15.—76 πνεύματι] with respect to the spirit, ae.
mentally ; my spirit, translating itself in thought into your
midst, is along with you. Erroneously Grotius: “Deus
Paulo revelat, quae Colossis fierent,’ so that πνεῦμα would be
meant of the Holy Spirit. According to Wiggers, in the Stud.
u. Krit. 1838, p. 181, and Vaihinger, in Herzog’s Lncyklop.
IV. p. 79, ἄπειμι takes for granted the apostle’s having been
there previously. A quite groundless assumption; the verb
expresses (ἀπό) the being away from, but does not indicate
whether a person had been previously present or not, which
can only be gathered from the connection or other circum-
stances of the case. In this case the context directly indi-
cates, by ver. 1, that a bodily παρεῖναι had not occurred. It

CHAP. IL. δι 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 ὡς θεασάμενος αὐτοὺς
ἔγραψεν τὴν ἐπιστολήν. --- σὺν ὑμῖν] in your society, among
you. Comp. Luke viii. 38, xxi. 56; Phil. i 23; 1 Thess.
iv. 17; 2 Pet. i. 18, οὐ al.—yaipwv x. βλέπων] There is
here no illogical prefixing of the χαίρων in the lively feeling
of joy (Huther, comp. de Wette); χαίρων rather expresses
joy at the fact that he is with them spiritually, and καὶ βλέπων
ὑμ. τὴν τάξιν κιτιλ. then adds what at this joyful being with
the Colossians he sees in them, so that the description thus
advances with «x. βλέπ.: in spirit I am along with you,
rejoicing in this mental presence, and therewith secing, etc.
Comp. also Hofmann, who, however, imports into βλέπων the
pregnant meaning not conveyed by the simple verb; it is as
plainly present to my soul, as if I saw it with myeyes. This
would be κ. ὡς βλέπων, or κ. ὡς ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς BA. Renderings
blending the ideas, such as gaudeo videns (Grotius, Wolf,
Bihr, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and others), or beholding
with joy (Bengel, Heinrichs, Flatt), are at variance with the
words as they stand. Some erroneously cite Josephus, Bell.
iii. 10. 2, where χαίρω καὶ βλέπων (not βλέπω) means: I
rejoice, when I even see it. Winer, p. 438 [E. T. 589], and
Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 425, supply with χαίρων the words:
concerning you. But the supplying of ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν is not justified by
the context, which naturally suggests joy at the being together
with the readers, for χαίρ. stands alongside of this as an
accompanying relation without any other definition of object.
And according to this view there is no ground at all for an
explicative rendering of cat, which Winer still admits (so also
Boéhmer and Olshausen).— The testimony, moreover, which is
given to the readers by βλέπων «.7.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—tpav τ. τάξιν] The
prefixed pronoun owes this position to the favourable expec-
tation which the Colossians, more than many others, have

948 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

awakened in the apostle. The τάξις is order, orderly condi-
tion. Its antithesis is ἀταξία, Plato, Zim. p. 30 A. For the
idea see Plato, Gorg. p. 504 A: ta&ews ... καὶ κόσμου τυχοῦσα
οἰκία, Polyb. i. 4. 6: ἡ σύμπασα σχέσις κ. τάξις τῆς οἰκουμένης,
il. 90. 6: ἡ... διαίρεσις x. τάξις. It is often used of the
organized condition of the state, Dem. 200. 4, Plat. Crit.
p. 109 D; elsewhere also (see Sturz, Lex. Xen. IV. p. 245)
of the army, sometimes to designate a scction of it (a company
of two λόχοι), and sometimes to express its recular arrange-
ment in rank and jfile (Thue. ii. 87. 2, iv.°72. 2, 12674;
viii. 69. 1). Hofmann’ takes both ra& and στερέωμα in a
military sense. But the two words have not in and of them-
selves the military sense; they would receive it from the con-
text, which is not the case here. Moreover, the meaning
fortress, military bulwark, is expressed not by στερέωμα
generally, but by ἔρυμα or ὀχύρωμα, 2 Cor. x. 4. Hence, if
we would avoid arbitrariness, we can only abide by the view
that here tats means the orderly state of the Christian church,
which has hitherto not been disturbed by sectarian divisions
or forsaken by the readers. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 40. To this
outward condition Paul then subjoins the zaner one, by which
the former is conditioned: and the solid hold of your faith in
Christ. στερέωμα, firmamentum, that which has been made
jim (Arist. partt. an. τι. 9; Theophr. Z pl. v. '7. 3), a late
word, often found in LXX., Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus,
and Apocrypha (see Schleusner, Zhes. V. p. 102 f.), represents
the stedfastness and immoveableness of faith in such a way,
that the latter appears as protected by a strong work (with
solid foundation, masonry, etc.) from injury (Ezek. xii. 5; Ps.
xvil. 2; 3 Esdr. viii. 81). On the subject-matter, comp. Acts
Xvi. 5: ἐστερεοῦντο τῇ πίστει, 1 Pet. v. 9: ἀντίστητε στερεοὶ
τῇ πίστει. The abstract firmness, however (Huther, de Wette,
Baumegarten-Crusius, Bleek, and older expositors), which would
be στερεότης, is never designated by the word. Chrysostom
explains rightly: ὅτε πολλὰ συναγαγὼν συγκολλήσεις πυκνῶς
καὶ ἀδιασπαστῶς, τότε στερέωμα γίνεται. The genitive τῆς
πίστεως, finally, is not to be taken in such a way as ¢o make
? Whom Holtzmann, p. 177, has too rashly followed.

CHAP. II. 6, 7. 349

faith the στερέωμα (Hofmann), which protects the readers, as
if it were τὸ ὑμῶν στερέωμα; but as the genitive of the sub-
ject, in such a way that their faith has the στερέωμα securing
it, which Paul spiritually sees—To call in question the wnse-
ducedness here attested (Baumgarten-Crusius, who leaves it a
question whether the sense is not merely: “7 it is so”), or
to refer it to only a part of the church (Flatt), is a quite
arbitrary result of unduly pressing the general utterance of
commendation.

Ver. 6 f. From the warning given in ver. 4 and having its
sround assigned in ver. 5, follows (οὖν) the positive obligation
to make Christ, as He had been communicated to them through
the instruction which they had received, the element in which
(ἐν αὐτῷ) their conduct of the inner and outer life moves
(περιπατεῖτε), whereupon the more precise modal definitions
are subjoined by ἐῤῥιζωμένοι x.7.X.— ὡς] according as. Observe
that in the protasis παρελάβετε and in the apodosis περυπα-
τεῖτε (not ἐν αὐτῷ, as Hofmann thinks) have the emphasis, in
which case the addition of an οὕτως was not necessary. Their
walk in Christ is to be in harmony with the instruction, by
means of which they have through Epaphras received Christ.
— παρελάβετε] have received (i. 7; Eph. iv. 20), comp. Gal.
EAM el Arial Thess: 11.13, iv. 1-2. Thess. 11. 6 .5,1Cor. xi. 23.
Christ was communicated to them as the element of life. The
rendering: have accepted (Luther, Bihr, 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: καθὼς
ἐδιδάχθητε, and ver. 8: κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρ.) the con-
trast between true and false Christian instruction as regulative
of the walk, and not the contrast between entrance into the
fellowship of Christ and the walk therewith given (Hofmann),
predominates.” — τὸν X. I. τὸν κύριον] A solemnly complete

1 To this conception ἐν αὐτῷ refers subsequently. Chrysostom and his followers
take this ἐν so, that Christ 15 regarded as the way. But this Johannine con-
ception nowhere occurs in Paul’s writings ; nor does it accord with παρελάβετε,
with which, however, the extremely common Pauline idea of the ἐν Χριστῷ εἶναι
is in harmony.

2 Eph. iii. 17 f., by comparing which Holtzmann discovers in our passage the

350 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

designation, a summary of the whole confession (1 Cor. xii. 3;
Phil. 11. 11), in which τὸν κύριον, 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 ᾿Ιησοῦν, a view which is not warranted by Eph.
iii, 1.— Ver. 7. ἐῤῥιζωμ. x. ἐποικοδ. ἐν αὐτῷ] introduces the
ethical habitus in the case of the required περιπατεῖν ev 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 περιπατεῖτε and with one another.
Comp. Eph. iii. 17 f. By beginning a new sentence with
ἐῤῥιζωμένοι x.7.r., and thus construing it in connection with
ver. ὃ (Schenkel, Hofmann), we should gain nothing in sym-
metry, and should only lose without sufficient reason in
simplicity of construction ; while we should leave the ἐν αὐτῷ
περυπατεῖτε in ver. 6 in a disproportionately bald and isolated
position. This conjunction, moreover, of heterogeneous figures
might quite as legitimately have been made by the apostle
himself as by an interpolator, whose hand Holtzmann thinks
that he here discovers. — Observe further the difference in time
of the two participles, whereby the stedfastness of the ἐν Χριστῷ
εἶναι (figuratively represented by ἐῤῥιζωμ.) is denoted as a
subsistent state, which must be present in the case of the περι-᾿
πατεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ, while the further development of the Christian
condition (figuratively represented by ἐποικοδ.) is set forth as a
continuing process of training ; comp. Acts xx. 32. — ἐποικοδ.]
becoming built up, in which ἐπί exhibits the building rising on
the foundation. Comp. 1 Cor. 11. 10,12; Eph. 11. 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 Eph. 11. 20: ἐποικοδομηθέντες, which, how-
ever, as modal definition of περύπατ., would not have suited
here. The progress and finishing of the building (de Wette,
following Acts xx. 32, where, however, the simple form οἰκοδ.,

hand of the interpolator, is both as regards contents and form too diverse for
that purpose,

CHAP. II. 6, 7. SOL

should be read) are conveyed by the present, not by ἐποικοδ.
in itself (comp. Eph. ii. 22). Nor does the latter represent
the readers as stones, which are built up on the top of ‘those
already laid (Hofmann); on the contrary, they are in their
aggregate as a church (comp. on Eph. 1.0.) represented as an
οἰκοδομή in the course of being built (7c. of a more and more
full development of their Christian common life), in regard to
which the ἐπί in ἐποικοδ. presupposes the fowndation laid by
Epaphras, namely, Christ (1 Cor. 111. 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. it, 12). --- ἐν αὐτῷ] belongs to both
participles, so that Christ is to be conceived doubtless as the
soil for the roots striking downwards (Eph. iii. 17), and as the |
foundation (1 Cor. iii. 11) for the building extending upwards ;
but the expression is determined by the conception of the
thing signified, namely, the ἐν Χριστῷ εἶναι, as in ἐν αὐτῷ
περίπατ., and not by the figures; hence Paul has not written
ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν (1 Cor. iii. 12), or ἐπ’ αὐτῷ (Eph. 11. 20), which
would have been in harmony with the latter participle, but he
exhibits Christ as the Person, ix whom that which is meant by
the being rooted and becoming built up has its specific being
and nature, and consequently the condition of endurance and
growth.. Comp. on Eph. ii. 21. ---- καὶ βεβαιούμ. τῇ πίστ.]
And to this being rooted and becoming built up there is to be
added the being stablished by the faith, as the development
of quality in the case, in order that no loose rooting may
take place, nor any slack building be formed. The datwe τῇ
πίστει (see the critical remarks) is to be taken as instrumental,
not: with respect to (in opposition to de Wette), since the-follow-
ing modal definition περισσ. ἐν αὐτῇ specifies, not how they
are to be stablished in respect of the faith, but how they are
to be stablished by it, by the fact, namely, that they are rich
in faith ; poverty in faith would not be sufficient to bring
about that establishment. In like manner we should have to

1 Hofmann inappropriately, since in the case of ἐποικοδ. atany rate we have to

think of the foundation, takes ἐν αὐτῷ in the sense that Christ surrounds the
building.

oes THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

take the reading ἐν τ. πίστει, which Hofmann defends. He,
however, joins this ἐν τ. πίστει not with βεβαιούμ., but with
the following mepiccevovtes,—a connection which is excluded
by the genuineness of ἐν αὐτῇ, but which is, even apart from
this, to be rejected, because Paul would, in order to be fairly
intelligible, have inserted the ἐν αὐτῷ only after βεβαιούμενοι,
to which it would also refer.— καθὼς ἐδιδάχθ.Ἴ namely, to
become stablished by the faith. For this they have received
(from Epaphras, i. 7) the instructions which are to guide
them. — περισσεύοντες x.T.r.] is subordinate to the βεβαιούμ.,
and that as specifying the measure of the faith, which must
be: found in them in order that they may be stablished
through faith; while at the same time the requisite vital
expression, consecrated to God, of the piety of the believing
heart is brought out by ἐν evyap.: while ye are abounding
in the same amidst thanksgiving, 1.6. 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 περίσσ.,
in which lies the more precisely defining element; περισσεύειν
ἐν is nothing else than the usual abundare aliqua re, to have
abundance of something (Rom. xv. 13; 1 Cor. viii. 7; Phil.
i. 9, et al.), and ἐν evyap. indicates an accompanying circum-
stance in the case, the ethical consecration of grateful piety,
with which the richness in faith must be combined; comp,
iii. 17,i1.12. It is well explained, in substance, by Theophy-
lact: περισσόν τι ἐνδείκνυσθαι ἐν τῇ πίστει, εὐχαριστοῦντες TO
θεῷ, ὅτι ἠξίωσεν ἡμᾶς τοιαύτης χάριτος, καὶ μὴ ἑαυτοῖς τὴν
προκοπὴν ἐπυγράφοντας. Rightly also by Oecumenius, who
takes ἐν evyap. as equivalent to σὺν evyap. Comp. Castalio,
Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bahr,
Steiger, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dalmer, Hofmann,
and others. Others, however, regard ἐν evyap. as belonging to
περισσ. Such is the view not only of the majority who reject
ἐν αὐτῇ on critical grounds (as Ewald), but also of Luther,
Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, Huther (that the Colossians in their
faith towards God. . . are to show themselves abundantly grate-
ful). De Wette favours this rendering on the ground that the
clause is not attached by καί, which, however, is quite in keep-

CHAP. IL. 8. oo

ing with the circumstance that περίσσ. «.7.r. is subordinate
to the βεβαιούμ. κιτλ. In opposition to the combination
περισσ. ἐν evap. there may be urged, first, the arrangement
of the words in itself; secondly, the fact that ἐν αὐτῇ 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 év
evyap. is to be treated as a relation associated with the
faith.

Ver. 8. Be upon your guard, lest there shall be some one
carrying you away as ὦ prey. In that case, how erievously
would what I have just been impressing upon your hearts,
in vv. 6, 7, be rendered fruitless !— The future ἔσται after
μή (comp. Heb. 111. 12) has arisen from the apprehension that
the case may yet actually occur. See Stallbaum, ad Plat.
Rep. p. 451 A; Hartung, Partikell. II. Ὁ. 139 f.; Ellendt,
Lex. Soph. 11. p. 104. Comp. also on Gal. iv. 11.— As to
the participle with the article, comp. on Gal.i. 7: τινές εἰσιν
οἱ ταράσσοντες. --- Respecting συλαγωγεῖν, belonging to the
later Greek, see Eustath. ad 71. v. p. 393, 52. Very inaccu-
rately rendered by the Vulgate: decipiat. In Aristaen. ii. 22,
joined with οἶκον, it means to vob; and is so taken here by
Hilary, Chrysostom, Theodoret (ἀποσυλᾶν τὴν πίστιν),
Theophylact (τὸν νοῦν), Luther, Wolf, and many others,
including Baumgarten-Crusius. But the stronger sense of
the word praedam abigere (Heliod. x. 35; Nicet. Ann. 5, p. 96
D) is in keeping with the verb of the previous exhortation,
περιπατεῖτε, as well as with the purposely chosen peculiar
expression in itself, which is more significant than the classical
συλᾶν or συλεύειν, and serves vividly to illustrate the idea of
the seduction, through which one falls under extraneous power,
as respects its disgracefulness. — διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας κ. κενῆς
ἀπάτης] through philosophy and empty deceit. It is to be
observed that neither the preposition nor the article is repeated
before κενῆς (see Kiithner, II. 1, pp. 476, 528 ; Buttmann, Mew.
Gr. p. 86 [E. T. 100]), because with καὶ κεν. dwar. there
is added no further element different from τῆς φιλοσοῴ. (in

COL. Z

oe: THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

opposition to Hofmann), but only that which the philosophy
in its essence 1s ; it is empty deception, that is, having no real
contents ; the πιθανολογία (ver. 4), with which it is presented,
is a xeveayopia (Plat. Rep. p. 607 B), and κενολογία (Plut.
Mor. p. 1069 C). On the idea of κενός (1 Cor. xv. 14; Eph.
ν. 6), comp. Dem. 821. 11.: κενώτωτον πάντων λόγων λέγουσι,
and on ἀπάτη, Plat. Soph. p. 260 C: ὄντος δέ γε ψεύδους ἔστιν
aTraTn...,Kal μὴν ἀπάτης οὔσης εἰδώλων τε καὶ εἰκόνων ἤδη
καὶ φαντασίας πάντα ἀνάγκη μεστὰ εἶναι. The φιλοσοφία,
however, against which Paul utters his warning, is not philo-
sophy generally and wm itself,—a view at variance with the
addition x. κενῆς amar. closely pertaining to it, however much
the wisdom of the world in its degeneracy (comp. Herm.
gottesd. Alterth. § 12; and Culturgesch. d. Giriech. u. Rom. I.
p. 236 ff, IL p. 132), as experience was conversant with its
phenomena in that age,| may have manifested itself to the
apostle as foolishness when compared with the wisdom of the
gospel (1 Cor.i. 18 ff, ii. 6). Rather, he has in view (comp.
ver. 18) the characteristic speculation, well known to his
readers, Which engaged attention in Colossae and the surround-
ing district,” and consisted of a Gnostic theosophy mixed up
with Judaism (Essenism). This is, on account of its nature
directed to the supersensuous and its ontological character,
correctly designated by the term philosophy in general, apart
from its relation to the truth, which is signalized by the
κ. κενῆς ἀπάτης appended.” (Plat. Def. p. 414 C: τῆς τῶν

1 Comp. Luther’s frequent denunciations of philosophy, under which he had
present to his mind its degeneracy in the Aristotelian scholasticism.

2Comp. also Calovius. The latter rightly remarks how ἀφιλοσόφως and
ἀδθεολόγως 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 χενὴ ἀπάτη, but an
imperfectio. Fathers of the Church also, as e.g. Clemens Al. (comp. Spiess,
Logos spermat. p. 341), aptly distinguish philosophy itself from the phenomena
of its abuse. The latter are philosophy also, but not in accordance with the
truth of the conception.

3 These words x. κέν, ἀπ, characterizing the philosophy meant, are therefore
all the less to be regarded, with Holtzmann, as a tautological insertion ; and it
is mere arbitrariness to claim the words κατὰ 7. παράδ. τῶν ἀνθρώσ΄. for the

Synoptical Gospels (Matt. xv. 2f.) ; as if παράδοσις (comp. especially Gal. 1, 14)
were not sufficiently current in the apostle’s writings.

CHAP. II. 8. 355

ὄντων ἀεὶ ἐπιστήμης ὄρεξις" ἕξις θεωρητικὴ τοῦ ἀληθοῦς, πῶς
ἀληθές). Possibly it was also put forward by the false
teachers themselves expressly under this designation (comp.
the Sophists as the φάσκοντες φιλοσοφεῖν, Xen. Mem. i. 2. 19 ;
and οἰόμενοι πάντ᾽ εἰδέναι, 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 inanem fraudem esse dicit.”
The nature of this philosophy is consequently to be regarded
as Judaistic-Oriental ;* we are under no necessity to infer from
the word φιλοσοφία a reference to Greek wisdom, as Grotius
did, suggesting the Pythagorean (Clemens Alexandrinus thought
of the Zpicureans, and Tertullian of such philosophers as Paul
had to do with at Athens). The idea that the “ sacrarwm liter-
arum earumque recte interpretandarum sczentia " (Tittmann, de
vestigris Gnosticor. in N. T. frustra quaesitis, p. 86 ff.) is meant,
is opposed, not to the word in itself, but to the marks of
heretical doctrine in our Epistle, and to the usage of the
apostle, who never so designates the O. T. teaching and
exposition, however frequently he speaks of it; although
Philo gives it this name (see Loesner, Obss. p. 564), 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, 7168. 8.0.) ; see Grimm on 2 Macc.
i 1, p. 298 f —xata τ. παράδ. τ. ἀνθρ.Ἷ might be —and
this is the common view—closely joined with ἀπάτης (Winer,
p. 128 ΕΓΒ T.169]). But the od κατὰ Χριστόν would not
suit this connection, since ἀπάτη is already in itself a definite
and proper idea, in association with which a κατὰ Χριστόν
would be inconceivable; whereas the figurative συλωγωγεῖν
still admits also the negative modal statement (od κατὰ X.)
for greater definiteness. Accordingly κατὰ τ. mapdd. K.7.d,
(comp. Steiger, Ellicott) is to be taken as definition of mode
to συλαγωγῶν. Paul, namely, having previously announced
whereby the συλαγωγεῖν takes place, now adds for the still
more precise description of that procedure, in order the more

1 The speculations of Essenism are also designated as philosophy in Philo.
Comp. Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 292.

356 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

effectively to warn his readers against it, that in accordance
with which it takes place, 1.6. what is the objective regulative
standard by which they permit themselves to be guided.
He does this positively (κατὰ τὴν.... κόσμου) and negatively
(x. ov κατὰ Χριστόν). The genitive τῶν ἀνθρ. is to be
explained: ἣν παρέλαβε παρὰ τῶν avOp. (comp. 2 Thess. iii.
6), and τῶν denotes the category, the traditio humana as such,
opposed to the divine revelation. Comp. Mark vii. 8. What
is mcant, doubtless, is the ritual Jewish tradition outside of
the Mosaic law (comp. on Matt. xv. 2), the latter being
excluded by τῶν avOp.; but Paul designates the thing quite
generally, according to the genus to which it belongs, as
human. — κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου] Parallel of the fore-
going: according to the clements of the world, 1.6. according to
the religious rudiments, with which non-Christian humanity
occuptes itself. The expression in itself embraces the ritual
observances! both of Judaism and heathenism, which, in
comparison with the perfect religion of Christianity, are only
“puerilia rudimenta” (Calvin), as it were the A BC of
religion, so that Paul therefore in this case also, where he
warns his readers against Judaistic enticing, characterizes the
matter according to its category. As to the designation itself
and its various interpretations, see on Gal. iv. 3. Among the
latest expositors, Bleek agrees with our view, while Hofmann
explains: “because it (the philosophy which is described as
deceit) permits the material things, of which the created world
consists, to form its standard.” See in opposition to this on
Gal. 1... Both expressions, τὴν mapas. τ. avOp. and τὰ oroty.
τ. κόσμου, have it as their aim to render apparent the worth-
lessness and unsuitableness for the Christian standpoint
(comp. Gal. iv. 9). Hence, also, the contrast which, though
obvious of itself, is nevertheless emphatic: καὶ οὐ κατὰ
Χριστόν. The activity of that συλαγωγεῖν has not Christ for
its objective standard; He, in accordance with His divine
dignity exalted above everything (see ver. 9), was to be the

1 Calvin well says: ‘Quid vocat elementa mundi? Non dubium quin
ccremonias ; nam continuo post exempli loco speciem unam adducit, cireum-
cisionem scilicet.”

CHAP. II. 9. 357

sole regulative for all activity in Christian teaching, so that
the standard guiding their work should be found in the rela-
tion of dependence upon Him; but instead of this the pro-
cedure of the συλαγωγῶν allows human tradition, and those
non-Christian rudiments which the Christian is supposed to
have long since left behind, to serve as his rule of conduct!
How unworthy it is, therefore, to follow such seduction !

Ver. 9. Since indeed in Him dwells, etc. This is not “a
peg upon which the interpolator hangs his own thoughts”
(Holtzmann). On the contrary, Paul assigns a reason for the
ov κατὰ Χριστόν just said, with a view more effectually to
deter them from the false teachers. The force of the reason
assigned lies in the fact that, if the case stand so with Christ,
as is stated in vv. 9 ff, by every other regulative principle of
doctrine that which is indicated in the words κατὰ Χριστόν
is excluded and negatived. Others make the reason assigned
refer to the warning: βλέπετε x.7.A., so that ὅτε 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 ἐν αὐτῷ placed
emphatically first (in Him and in no other) points back to the
immediately preceding od κατὰ Χριστόν (comp. Chrysostom
and Calvin); there is therefore nothing to show that the
reference of ὅτι ought to be carried further back (to βλέπετε).
In Christ the whole fulness of Godhead—what a contrast to the
human παράδοσις and the στουχεῖα of the world ! — κατοικεῖ]
The present, for it is the exalted Christ, in the state of His
heavenly δόξα, that is in view. Comp. i. 15. In Him the
entire πλήρωμα has its κατοικητήριον (Eph. ii. 22), so that He
is the personal bearer of it, the personal seat of its essential
presence. — πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα (comp. on 1. 19) is here more
precisely defined by the “vocabulum abstractum significantissi-
mum” (Bengel) τῆς θεότητος, which specifies what dwells in
Christ in its entire fulness, 1.6. not, it may be, partially, but
in its complete entirety. On the genitive, comp. Rom. xi. 25,
xv. 29. Itis not the genitive auctoris (Nosselt: “ universa
comprehensio eorum, quae Deus per Christum vellet in homines
transferre”) ; the very abstract θεότητ. should have been a

358 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

sufficient warning against this view, as well as against the
interpretation : “id quod inest θεότητι" (Biihr). ἡ θεότης, the
Godhead (Imucian, Icarom. 9; Plut. Mor. p. 415 0), the
abstract from ὁ Θεός, is to be distinguished from ἡ θειότης, the
abstract from θεῖος (Rom. i. 20; Wisd. xviii. 19; Lucian, de
calumn. 17). The former is Deitas, the being God, 1.06. the
divine essence, Godhead ; the latter is divinitas, i.e. the divine
quality, godlikeness. See on Rom. i. 20. Accordingly, the
essence of God, undivided and in its whole fulness, dwells in
Christ in His exalted state, so that He is the essential and
adequate image of God (1. 15), which He could not be if He
were not possessor of the divine essence. The distinction
between what is here said about Christ and what is said about
Him in i. 19 is, that the πλήρωμα is here meant metaphysi-
cally, of the divina essentia, but in the former passage charis-
matically, of the divina gratia, and that κατοικεῖν is conceived
here as in present permanence, but in the former passage
historically (namely, of Christ’s historical, earthly appearance).
See oni. 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. τινές in
Chrysostom), indeed, quotes the explanation that Christ sig-
nifies the church in which the πλήρωμα dwells, but on account
of σωματικῷς hesitates to agree to it, and rather accedes to
the common view, thereby deviating from his interpretation of
1.19. Theophylact is substantially right (comp. Chrysostom
and Oecumenius): εἰ τί ἐστιν ὁ Θεὸς λόγος, ἐν αὐτῷ οἰκεῖ, 50
that the fulness of the Godhead in the ontological, and not in

1 Thus, indeed, the fulness of the Godicad has been removed from Christ, but
there has only been gained instead of it the unbiblical idea that the church
dwells in Christ. The church has its support in Christ as the corner-stone
(Eph. ii. 20, 21), but it does not dwell in Him. On the contrary, Christ dwells
in the church, which is His body, and the πλήρωμα filled by ITim (see on Eph. i.
23), namely, in virtue of the Spirit dwelling in the church (see on Eph. ii. 22),
which is the Spirit of Christ (Rom. viii. 9; Gal. iv. 6; Phil. i. 19).

CHAP. II. 9. 359

the simply mystical or morally religious sense (de Wette) is
meant. — But how does it dwell in Christ? σωματικῶς, in
bodily fashion, 1.6. in such a way that through this indwelling
in Christ it is in a bodily form of appearance, clothed with a
body. Comp. also Hofmann in loc. and Schriftbew. II. 1, p.
29; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 428, ed. 2. It is not in Christ
(ἀσωμάτως), ἃ8 before the Incarnation it was in the λόγος (Θεὸς
ἣν ὁ λόγος, John i. 1), but (comp. also Gess, Pers. Chr. p.
260 ff.) it is in His glorified body (Phil. iii. 21), so that the
ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ and ica Θεῷ εἶναι, which already existed in the
λόγος ἄσαρκος (Phil. ii. 6), now in Christ’s estate of exaltation
—which succeeded the state of humiliation, whereby the μορφὴ
Θεοῦ was affected—have a bodily frame, are in bodily personality.
Of course the θεότης does not thereby itself come into the
ranks of the σωματικαὶ οὐσίαι (Plat. Locr. Ὁ. 96 A), but is
in the exalted Christ after a real fashion σωματικῷ εἴδει (Luke
iii. 22), and therefore Christ Himself is the visible divine-
human image of the invisible God (i. 15). In this glory, as
Possessor of the Godhead dwelling in Him bodily, He will
also appear at the Parousia—an appearance, therefore, which
will manifest itself visibly (1 John iii. 2) as the actual ἐπιφάνεια
τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ (Tit. ii. 13). The reference of the
whole statement, however, to the ewalted Christ is placed
beyond question by the use of the present κατοικεῖ, which
asserts the presently existing relation, without requiring a νῦν
along with it (in opposition to Huther). The renderings:
essentialiter, οὐσιωδῶς (Cyril, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, and
others, including Usteri, Steiger, Olshausen, Huther, Bisping),
in which case some thought of a contrast to the divine ἐνέργεια
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
τυπικῶς (ver. 17), are linguistically inappropriate ; for σωματι-
kos never means anything else than corporeus. Comp. on the

It is now only worth remarking historically, but is almost incredible, how
the Socinians have twisted our verse. Its sense in their view is: ‘‘ quod in
doctrina ipsius tota Dei voluntas integre et reapse est patefacta,” Catech. Racov.
194, p. 398, ed. Oeder. Calovius gives a refutation in detail.

360 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

adverb, Plut. Mor. p. 424 D. The less justifiable is the
hypothesis of Rich. Schmidt (Paul. Christol. p. 191), that in the
term σωματικῶς the contrast of ver. 17 was already present to
the apostle’s mind. Those who adopt the erroneous explana-
tion of πλήρωμα as referring to the church, assign to σωματι-
κῶς the meaning: “so that the church stands related to Him
as His body” (Baumgarten-Crusius and Schenkel), which issues
in the absurdity that the body of Christ is held to dwell in
Christ, whereas conversely Christ could not but dwell in His
body. It is true that the church is related to Christ as His
body, not, however, in so far as 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 zt, 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 κατοικεῖν x.7.r. is thus prominently set
forth as bodily, cannot, indeed, be directly shown to have been
supplied by the circumstances of the Colossians, but is never-
theless to be recognised in an apologetic interest of opposition
to the false teachers, who by their doctrines concerning the
angels (comp. ver. 10: ἀρχῆς «. ἐξουσ.) must have broken up,
in a spiritualistic sense, the πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος.

Ver. 10. Kai ἐστε ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρ.] still depending on
ὅτι: and (since) ye are filled in Him, 1.6. and since the πλη-
ρότης which ye possess rests on Him, the bodily Bearer of the
divine πλήρωμα. The two are correlative: from the πλήρωμα
τῆς θεότητος, which dwells in the exalted Christ, flows the
πεπληρωμένον εἶναι of the Christian, which has its basis, there-
fore, in no other than in Christ, and in nothing else than just
in fellowship with Him. Filled with what? was self-evident
to the consciousness of the reader. It is the dynamic, charis-
matic πλήρωσις, which Christians, in virtue of their union of
life with the Lord, whose Spirit and ζωή are in them, have
received, and continuously possess, out of the metaphysical πλή-
ρωμα dwelling in Christ, out of the πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος .---- |

CHAP. II. 10. 361

The emphasis is not upon ἐστέ, but, as shown by the subse-
quent relative definitions, upon ἐν αὐτῷ. If the πεπληρω-
μένον εἶναι depends on Him, on nothing and on no one but
on Him, then everything else which men may teach you, and
with which they may wish to seize you and conduct you in
leading strings, is οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν. With due attention to
this emphasis of ἐν αὐτῷ, we should neither have expected
ὑμεῖς (in opposition to de Wette; comp. Estius and others:
“et vos”) nor have explained ἐστέ in an imperative sense (in
opposition to Grotius, Bos, Heumann); which latter view is
to be rejected, because the entire connection is not paraenetic,
and generally because, whilst a πληροῦσθε (Eph. v. 18)
or γίνεσθε πεπληρ. May, ἐστε πεπληρ. cannot, logically be
enjoined." There is, moreover (comp. also Hofmann), nothing
to be supplied with πεπληρ. (usually: τῆς θεότητος, see Theo-
phylact and Huther; de Wette, Bleek: τοῦ πληρώμ. τ. θεότ.),
since the specifically ontological sense of the purposely-chosen
θεότητος would not even be consistent with the supposed
equalization of the Christians with Christ (οὐδὲν ἔλαττον
ἔχετε αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ πεπληρωμένοι Kal ὑμεῖς ἐστε τῆς θεότητος,
Theophylact), and this equalization does not exist αὖ all,
because Paul has not written καὶ ὑμεῖς. 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 κατὰ Χριστόν. --- ὅς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ
«.7.d.| This, as also ver. 11, now supplhes confirmatory informa-
tion regarding the fact that they have their being filled not
otherwise than just in Christ ; namely, neither through ἀρχαὶ
κ. ἐξουσίαι, since Christ is the head of every ἀρχή and ἐξουσία ;
nor yet through circwmcision, since they have received in
Christ the real ethical circumcision. — πάσης dpy. κ. é£ove.]
is not more precisely defined as in Eph. iii. 10; hence, in

1 Calovius has well said : ‘‘ Beneficium Christi, non nostrum officium ;” comp.
Wolf, In complete opposition to the context, Grotius brings out the sense :
**illo contenti estote,” which he supports by the remark : ‘‘ quia quod plenum
est, nihil aliud desiderat.”

362 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

virtue of the munus regium of the Lord quite generally : every
principality and power, but with the tacit 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 θρησκεία, 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 ἀρχή and ἐξουσία, 1.6.
their governing sovereign, the Christian cannot have anything
to expect from any angelic powers subordinate to Christ,
—a result involved in the union in which He stands to the
Higher, to Christ Himself—With the reading 6 ἐστιν (see the
critical remarks), which is also preferred by Ewald,’ Lachmann
has placed καί ἐστε ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρ. 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 τὸ πλήρωμα τ. θεότ. should be desig-
nated as ἡ κεφαλὴ «.TX., which applies rather to the personal
possessor of the πλήρωμα, to Christ.

Ver. 11. Respecting the connection and its reference to the
false teachers, so far as they “legem evangelio miscebant”
(Calvin), see on ver. 10.— ἐν 6] like ἐν αὐτῷ 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 περίετμ., which took
place on them through their conversion (comp. ver. 1 2).----καῇ
also circumcised were ye. The καί is the simple also, which,
however, does not introduce an element included under
πεπληρωμ. ἐστε (Hofmann), but to the previous relative state-
ment (ὅς ἐστιν κιτ.λ.) appends another; comp. ver. 12. Hof-
mann’s objection, that the foregoing relative statement has
indeed reference to the readers, but 7s made without reference
to them, is an empty subtlety, which is connected with the

1 Inasmuch as he takes δ ἐστιν 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 πάσης ἀρχῆς x. ἐξουσ. ---- περιτομῇ
ἀχειροπ.] is not supplementary and parenthetical (Hofmann),
as if Paul had written περιτομῇ δὲ ayerpor., but: appends
immediately to περιετμηθ. its characteristic, whereby it is dis-
tinguished from what is elsewhere meant by circumcision ;
hence the thought is: “in your union with Christ there has
also taken place a circumcision upon ‘you (Gentiles), which is not
(like the Jewish circumcision) the work of hands ;” comp. Eph.
ii, 11. On the word ἀχείροπ. itself (which is similar to
ayetpovpyntos, Poll. ii. 154), in analogous antithetical reference,
comp. Mark xiv. 58; 2 Cor. v. 1; and on the idea of the
inner ethical circumcision, of which the bodily is the type,
comp. Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6; Ezek. xliv. 7; Acts vii. 51. See
Michaelis zn loc., and the expositors on Rom. ii. 29 ; Schoettgen,
Hor. I. p. 815.— ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει «.7.r.] This characteristic
περιετμήθητε περιτ. ἀχειρ. took place by means of the putting off
of the body of the flesh, which was accomplished in your case
(observe the passive connection), 1.6. in that the body, whose
essence and nature are flesh, was taken off and put away from
you by God.’ With reference to ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει «.7.d., which
is to be coupled not merely with περιετμήθητε (Hofmann), but
with the entire specifically defined conception of circumcision
περίετμ. TEplT. ἀχειροπ., it is to be noticed: (1) that the geni-
tive τῆς σάρκος is the genitivus materiae, asin 1. 22; (2) that
the σάρξ here is not indifferent, but means the flesh as the seat
of sin, and of its lusts and strivings (Rom. vii. 23, 25, ν 11. 3, 13 ;
Gal. v.16 ; Eph. ii. 3; Col. iii. 5, e¢ al.) ; so that Paul (3) might
have conveyed the idea of τὸ σῶμα τῆς σαρκ. also by τὸ
σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας (Rom. vi. 6), but the description by τῆς
σαρκός was suggested to him by the thought of the circumcision
(Rom, ii. 28; Eph. ii. 11). (4) The significant and weighty
expression ἀπεκδύσει (the substantive used only here, the verb
also in ver. 15, iii. 9; Josephus, Anté. vi. 14. 2) is selected in
contrast to the operation of the legal circumcision, which only

1 Compare Hofmann, Schriftbew. 11. 2, p. 171. The same writer, however,
now objects that ἀπέκδυσις cannot have passive significance. But this it is not
alleged to have: God is the ἀπεκδύων, 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 σῶμα τ. σαρκός and removed a portion of one
member of it; whereas the spiritual circumcision, divinely
performed, consisted in a complete parting and doing away
with this body, in so far as God, by means of this ethical cir-
cumcision, has taken off and removed the sinful body from man
(the two acts are expressed by the double compound), like a
garment which is drawn off and laid aside. LEthically cir-
cumcised, z.c. 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 καινὴ κτίσις, as a καινὸς
ἄνθρωπος created after God (Eph. iv. 24), man has no longer
any σῶμα τῆς σαρκός at all, because the body which he has
is rid of the sinful σάρξ as such, as regards its sinful quality ;
he is no longer ἐν τῇ σαρκί as previously, when lust ἐνηργεῖτο
ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν (Rom. vii. 5; comp. ver. 23); he is no longer
σάρκινος, TeTpapévos ὑπὸ THY ἁμαρτίαν (Rom. vil. 14), but is
dead for sin (Rom. vi. 11); he has crucified the σάρξ (Gal.
ν. 24), and no longer walks κατὰ σάρκα, but ἐν καινότητι
πνεύματος (Rom. vil. 6); by the law of the Holy Spirit he is
freed from the law of sin and death (Rom. viii. 2), ἐν πνεύματι
(Rom. viii. 9), dead with Christ (Gal. 1.19; 2 Cor. v. 14;
Col. iii. 3), and risen, so that his members are ὅπλα δικαιο-
σύνης τῷ Θεῷ (Rom. vi. 13). This Christian transformation is
represented in its ideal aspect, which disregards the empirical
imperfection, according to which the σάρξ is still doubtless even
in the regenerate at variance with the πνεῦμα (Gal. v.17). Our
dogmatists well describe regeneration as perfecta a parte Dei,
but as imperfecta a parte hominum recipientium. To take σῶμα
in the sense of massa or aggregate (Calvin, Grotius, Calovius,
and others, including Steiger and Bihr’), is opposed as well to

1 The epoch of this transformation is baptism (see Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 439,
ed. 2; comp. Holtzmann, p. 178), by which, however, the baptism of Christian
children is by no means assumed as the antitype of circumcision (Steiger,
Philippi). Comp. on 1 Cor. vii. 14; Acts xvi. 15.

2 Comp. also Philippi, Glaubensl. V. 2, p. 225, who declares my explanation
to be forced, without proof, and contrary to the Scripture; and Reiche, Comm.
crit. p. 274, who understands σῶμα of the ‘ toto quasi vitiositatis (τ. σαρκός)
corpore,” so that the putting away of all immorality is denoted. Similarly
Dalmer.

CHAP. Il. 11. 265

the context, in which the discourse turns upon cirewmeision and
(ver. 12) upon burial and resurrection, as also to the linguistic
usage of the N. T. In classic authors it expresses the notion
in question in the physical sense, eg. Plat. Tim. p. 32 C: τὸ
τοῦ κόσμου σῶμα (comp. p. 31 B, Hipp. maj. p. 301 B), and
in later writers may also denote generally a whole consisting
of parts (comp. Cicero, ad Att. 11. 1. 4). In opposition to the
erroneous assumption that σῶμα must have a figurative mean-
ing here, as Julius Miiller, v. d. Stinde, I. p. 459 ἢ, stillin the
5th ed., thinks,’ see on Rom. vi. 6; comp. also Hofmann,
Schriftbew. I. p. 560 £.— ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ X.] by means of
the circumcision of Christ, parallel to the previous ἐν τῇ ἀπεκ-
δύσει K.T.r., naming specifically (as different from that of the
Old Testament) the circumcision described previously according
to its nature. The genitive τοῦ Χριστοῦ is to be rendered:
the circumcision, which is produced through Christ. The con-
text requires this by the further explanation of the thing itself
in ver. 12. Comp. above, ἐν 6 But Christ is not conceived
of as Himself the circwmeiser, in so far, namely, as by baptism
(Theophylact, Beza, and others), or by His Spirit (Bleek), He
accomplishes the cleansing and sanctification of man (see on
ver. 12); but as the One through whom, in virtue of the
effective living union that takes place in conversion between
man and Himself, this divine περιτομή, in its character speci-
fically different from the Israelite circumcision, is practically
brought about and rendered a reality, and in so far it is based
on Christ as its αἴτιος (Theodoret). It is not, however, bap-
tism itself (Hofmann, following older expositors) that is meant
by the circumcision of Christ, although the predicate ayetpor.
would not be in opposition to this view, but the spiritual trans-
formation, that consecration of a holy state of life, which takes
place in baptism ; see ver.12: ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι. According
to Schneckenburger, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1848, p. 286 ff, the
ἀπέκδυσις τ. σώμ. τ. σαρκ. 15 meant of the death of Christ, and
also the περιτομὴ τοῦ X. is meant to denote this death, so that

1 Miiller also holds that Paul here conceives the old sinful nature as a body

which, in regeneration, the Christian puts off; and that σάρξ is to be understood
only of the earthly-human life.

92

366 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

the latter is an explanation by way of application of the
former, in opposition to the heretical recommendation of a
bodily or mystical περιτομή. It may be decisively urged
against this view, that after τῆς σαρκός there is no αὐτοῦ,
(comp. 1. 22), which was absolutely necessary, if the reader
was to think of another subject than that of περιετμήθητε ;
further, that τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν, in ver. 13, stands
in significant retrospective reference to the ἀπέκδυσις τ. cop.
τῆς σαρκός ; and that συνταφέντες κ.τ.λ.. in ver. 1 2. is synchronous
with περιετμήθητε «.7.r., and represents substantially the same
thine. 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: ἐν τ. ἀπεκδ. τοῦ
σώμ. τ. σαρκ., ἐν τ. Tepit. τ. X., should be deleted as an
addition of the interpolator, because the expression σῶμα
τῆς σαρκός 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 τῆς σαρκός, but τῆς σαρκὸς
αὐτοῦ, and this αὐτοῦ 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 περίετ-
μήθητε, so far as it has taken place by means of the circum-
cision of Christ, has been accomplished. — συνταφέντες κ.τ.λ.]
synchronous with περίετμ. (comp. oni. 20, εἰρηνοποιήσας) : in
that ye became buried with Him in baptism. The immersion
in baptism, in accordance with its similarity to burial, is—
seeing that baptism translates into the fellowship of the death
of Christ (see on Rom. vi. 3)—a burial along with Christ,
Rom. vi. 4. Through that fellowship of death man dies as to
his sinful nature, so that the σῶμα τῆς σαρκός (ver. 11) ceases
to live, and by means of the fellowship of burial is put off
(ver. 11). The subject who effects the joint burial is God, as
in the whole context. In the burial of Christ this joint burial
of all that confess Him as respects their sinful body was
objectively completed; but it takes place, as respects each
individually and in subjective appropriation, by their baptism,

CHAP. 11. 12. 367

prior to which the realization of that fellowship of burial was,
on the part of individuals, still wanting—év 6 καὶ συνηγέρ-
@nre] A new benefit, which has accrued to the readers ἐν
Χριστῷ, and which in their case must bring still more clearly
to living consciousness their ἐν Χριστῷ πεπληρωμένον εἶναι:
so that ἐν 6 here is parallel to the ἐν ᾧ in ver. 11, and refers
to Christ, as does also αὐτόν 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 ἐν τῷ βαπτ. (Beza, Calixtus, Estius,
Michaelis, Heinrichs, and others, including Steiger, Bohmer,
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, Dalmer, Bleek) ; but,
in opposition to this may be urged, first, the very symmetry
of the discourse (6s... ἐν ᾧ kai... ἐν ᾧ Kai); secondly, and
specially, the fact that, if ἐν ᾧ refers to baptism, ἐν could not
be the proper preposition, since ἐν τῷ βαπτ., in accordance with
the meaning of the word and the figure of burial, refers to the
dipping into (not overflowing, as Hofmann thinks), whilst the
spiritual awakening to new life, in which sense these exposi-
tors take συνηγέρθ., would have taken place through the
emerging again, so that we should expect é& ov, or, at all
events, the non-local δι of; and, thirdly, the fact that just as
συνταφέντες has its own more precise definition by ἐν τῷ
βαπτ., so also has συνηγέρθ. through διὰ τῆς πίστεως «.7.X.,
and therefore the text affords no occasion for taking up again
for συνηγέρθ. the more precise definition of the previous point,
viz. ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι. 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 βαπ-
τίσματι in ver. 12, and there now follows a second blessing
received by the readers in Christ (ἐν ᾧ cai): 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 σῶμα τῆς σαρκός was put off. This συνηγέρθ. is to be
understood in the sense of the fellowship of the bodily resurrec-
tion of Christ, into which fellowship man enters by faith in

568 TIIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

such a way that, in virtue of his union of life and destiny
with Christ brought about by means of faith, he knows his
own resurrection as having taken place in that of Christ—a
benefit of joint resurrection, which is, indeed, prior to the
Parousia, an weal possession, but through the Parousia
becomes veal (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 συνηγέρθ.
is taken in the ethical sense, as referring to the spiritual
awakening, viz. from moral death, so that Paul, after the
negative aspect of the regeneration (ver. 11; βαπτίσματι,
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 ἐν ᾧ καί, corre-
sponding with the similar commencement of ver. 11, and
referring to Christ, makes us expect the mention of a new
benefit, and not merely that of another aspect of the previous
one, otherwise there would have been no necessity for repeat-
ing the ἐν < καί; as also, that the inference of participation in
the proper resurrection of Christ from death les at the basis of
the following τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν. Comp. on Eph.
11. 1, and 11. 5, 6. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Oecumenius
have already correctly explained it of the proper resurrection
(καὶ γὰρ ἐγηγέρμεθα τῇ δυνάμει, εἰ Kal μὴ TH ἐνεργείᾳ), but Theo-
phylact makes it include the ethical awakening also: holding
that it is to be explained κατὰ δύο τρόπους, of the actual
resurrection im spe, and at the same time ὅτι πνευματικῶς τὴν
νέκρωσιν τῶν ἔργων τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀπεῤῥίψαμεν. --- διὰ τῆς
πίστεως κιτ.λ. The τῆς πίστεως is described by Holtzmann,
p. 70, as syntactically clumsy and offensive; he regards it as
an interpolation borrowed from Eph. i. 19 f. Groundlessly ;
Paul is describing the subjective mediwm, without which the
joint awakening, though objectively and historically accom-
plished in the resurrection of Christ, would not be appropriated
individually, the ληπτικὸν 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 τῆς ἐνεργείας τ. O. is the object
of faith ; so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Zeger, Grotius, Estius, Cornelius
a Lapide, Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, and others, including Baum-
garten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, and Hofmann, in the 2d ed. of
the Schriftbew. II. 2, p.174 f. But others, such as Luther
(“through the faith which God works”), Bengel, Flatt, Biihr,
Steiger, de Wette, Bohmer, Huther, e¢ a/., take τῆς évepy. τ. O.
as genitivus causae, for which, however, Eph. i. 19 is not to
be adduced (see ἐγ loc.), and in opposition to which it is de-
cisive that in a// passages, where the genitive with πίστις is
not the believing subject, it denotes the object (Mark xi. 22;
Acts i. 16 ; Rom. ui. 22 ; Gal. 11.16, 20, ii, 22; Eph. iii. 12;
Phil. i. 27, iii. 9 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13 ; Jas. ii. 1; Rev. ii. 13, xiv. 12),
and that the description of God as the Being who has raised
up Christ from the dead stands most naturally and directly
in significant reference to the divine activity which procures,
not the jaith, but the συνεγείρεσθαι, and which is therefore
set forth in a very appropriate manner as the special object?
Onmteith.(compy ivi) L7,. 24, wi δ. 249-3 2) Cor; ivi 13) 14:
Eph. 1.19 f.; 1 Pet. i. 21). At the basis, namely, of the τοῦ
ἐγείραντος αὐτ. ἐκ vexp. lies the certainty in the believer's
consciousness: since God has raised up Christ, His activity,
which has produced this principale and majus, will have
included therein the consequens and minus, my resurrection
with Him. To the believer the two stand in such essential
connection, that in the operation of God which raised up Christ
he beholds, by virtue of his fellowship of life with Christ,
the assurance of his own resurrection having taken place along
with that act; in the former he has the pledge, the ἐνέχυρον
(Theodoret) of the latter. Hofmann now again (as in the first
ed. of the Schrifibewcis) explains τῆς évepy. τ. O. as in apposi-
tion to τῆς πίστεως, in such a way that Paul, “ as {7 correcting
himself,’ makes the former take the place of the latter, in
order to guard against the danger of his readers conceiving to

1 The efficacy of the divine power shown in the resurrection of Christ is the
guarantee of the certainty of salvation.

COL. 2A

370 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

themselves faith as a conduct on man’s part making possible
the participation in the resurrection of Christ by God, while in
reality it is nothing else than the product of the ἐνέργεια 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 dua
THs πίστεως, μᾶλλον δὲ διὰ τῆς ἐνεργ. τ. O.).

Ver. 13. Since that συνηγέρθητε was the awaking to eternal
life, Paul now goes on to give special prominence to this great
blessing, the making alive, and that in reference to the Gentile-
Christian position of the readers; and to this he annexes, in
ver. 14 ἢ, an anti-Judaistic triumphant statement reminding
them of the cancelling of their debt-bond with the law.—
To attach καὶ ὑμᾶς... σαρκὸς ὑμῶν still to ver. 12, and to
make it depend on ἐγείραντος (Steiger), is rendered impossible
by the right explanation of τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐνεργείας τ. O.
in ver. 12,’ to say nothing of the abrupt position in which
συνεζωοπ. would thus appear. Kai ὑμᾶς goes along with
συνεζωοπ., 50 that ὑμᾶς is then repeated (see Fritzsche, Quaest.
Iue. p. 14; Bornemann in the Séchs. Stud. 1846, p. 66;
Kihner, 11. 1, p. 568 ; Winer, p. 139 [E. T. 1847), the repeti-
tion being here occasioned by the emphasis of the συνεζωοπ. :
“You also, when ye were dead .. . He made you alive together
with Him.” The καί therefore is not the copula and, but, in
harmony with the ὑμᾶς placed. in the front emphatically: also,
as in Eph.u.1. It has its reference in this, that the readers
had been Gentiles liable to eternal death, but the συνεζωοπ.
had been extended, as to all believers, so also to them. The

1 This applies also in opposition to Hofmann, who takes ver. 13 likewise as a
continuation of the description of God given in τοῦ ἐγείρ. αὐτὸν ἐκ vexp., and
therein makes the apostle guilty of a clumsy change of construction, viz. that he
intended to make συζωοποιήσαντος follow, but, because this word would have been
**inconvenient” after νεκροὺς ὄντας x.7.A., exchanged it for an independent sen-
tence. But συζωοποιήσαντος 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. 12. avn

correctness of this reference is shown by the context as well
through τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκ. ὑμ., as through the pronoun of
the first person which is introduced after χαρισάμ. Extremely
arbitrary is the view of Olshausen, who thinks that in ver.
11 f. the readers are addressed as representatives of the collec-
tive community, but by καὶ ὑμᾶς in ver. 13 personally ; while
Baumgarten-Crusius, in complete antagonism to the position
of the words, joins καί, not to ὑμᾶς, but to the verb: “also
He has called you to the new life that abideth.’—To arrive at
a proper understanding of what follows we must observe:
(1) That συνεζωοποίησεν is not to be taken, any more than
συνηγέρθητε previously, in an ethical sense, as referring to
regeneration (so usually since Oecumenius, as eg. Grotius:
“sicut Christo novam contulit vitam ex morte corporis, ita et
nobis novam ex morte animorum;” comp. also Bleek and
Hofmann), but in its proper sense, and that (comp. Kaeuffer,
de ζωῆς αἰων. 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. 11. 5. The reconciliation (which de
Wette understands) is not the ζωοποίησις itself, as is plain
from the compound συνεζωοπ., but its precursor and medium.
The συζωοποιεῖν stands in the same relation to the cuveyeipew
as the nature of the act to its process; but the reason why
συνηγέρθ. here stands before the συζωοποιεῖν (it is different in
Eph. ii. 5) is, that the συνηγέρθητε was correlative with the συν-
ταφέντες in ver. 12, hence that word is used first, while in
Eph. dc. the being dead preceded, with which the συζωοποιεῖν
primarily corresponds. (2) Like συνεζωοπ., so also νεκρούς
is not to be taken in an ethical sense (so usually both here

* God is the subject of συνεζωοποίησεν, not Christ (Ewald and the older exposi-
tors) ; for God has raised up Christ, and God is, according to the present con-
text (it is different in iii. 13), the forgiver of sins, and has brought about the
remission of sins through the ἱλαστήριον of Christ (ver. 14). Hence also it is not
to be written ¢, αὑτῷ (with the aspirate). Just as God was obviously the act-
ing subject in σπεριετμήθητε, in συνταφέντες, and in συνηγέρθ., so also He is intro-
duced in the same character emphatically in ver. 12, and remains so till the
close of ver. 15.

Ὁ THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

and in Eph. i. 1, as eg. Calvin, who thinks that the alienatio
a Deo is meant), but, with Chrysostom and Theodoret, in its
proper sense; the readers have been—this is the conception
—-prior to their conversion to Christ a prey of death. This is
by no means to be understood, however, in the sense of
physical death (for that comes from Adam’s sin, see on Rom.
v. 12), but in that of eternal death, to which they were liable
through their sins, so that they could not have become par-
takers of the eternal ζωή (comp. on Rom. vii. 9 f.). See also
on Eph. i. 1. What is meant; therefore, is not a death
which would have only become their eternal death in the
absence of the quickening (Hofmann), but the eternal death
itself, in which they already lay, and out of which they would
not have come without that deliverance, nay, which on
the contrary—and here we have a prolepsis of the thought—
would only have completed itself in the future αἰών. (3)
This being dead occurred in the state (év) of their sins (τοῖς
indicates the sins which they had committed) and of the
uneireumcision of their flesh, 1.6. when as respects their sinful
materially-psychical natwre they were still uncircumcised, and
had not yet put off by conversion their Gentile jleshly con-
stitution.” The ἀκροβυστία in itself they even now had as
Gentile Christians, but according to ver. 11 it was no longer
ἀκρόβ. τῆς σαρκός 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 σῶμα τῆς σαρκός. The ethical reference of the expres-
sion does not lie, therefore, in ὠκροβυστία itself, but in the
characteristic τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν (genitive of the subject) ; in this
uncircumcision they were as Gentiles prior to their conversion,
but were so no longer as Christians. Consequently axpof. is
not to be taken figuratively (Deut. x. 16; Ezek. xliv. 7; Jer.
iv. 4) as a designation of vitiositas (so Theodoret, Beza,

1 Quite correlative is the conception of the ζωή as eternal life, which the
righteous man already has, although he has still in prospect the glorious perfec-
tion of it in the future αἰών.

2 The ἐν is not repeated before +7 ἀκροβ. because the two elements coupled by

καί are conceived together so as to form the single idea of unconversion ; Kiihner,
11. 1, p. 476. This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 156.

CHAP. Il. 13. Se

Grotius, Bihr, Bleek, and most expositors), but in its proper
sense, in which the readers as ἀκρόβυστοι could not but have
understood it, and therein withal not as a symbol of wneleanness
(Huther), or of the alienatio a Deo (Calvin, comp. Hofmann),
or the like; on the contrary, the entire ethical stress lies on
τῆς σαρκ. vp. The idea of original sin (Flacius and other
dogmatic expositors, comp. Bengel: “exquisita appellatio
peccati origin.”) is likewise involved, and that according to
its N. T. meaning (Rom. vii. 14 ff), not in axpoBvor., but
doubtless in τῆς σαρκ. ὑμῶν. Nevertheless this τῆς cape.
ὑμῶν belongs only to τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ, and not to τοῖς παρα-
πτώμασι 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 παράπτωμα
presupposes not the σάρξ, but the L£yo in its relation to the
divine law as the subject; hence also the expression παράπτ.
τῆς σαρκ. (or ἁμαρτία τ. c.) does not occur, while we find ἔργα
τῆς σαρκός in Gal. v. 19. Holtzmann, p. 71, ascribes the
words καὶ τῇ ἀκροβ. τ. σαρκὸς du. 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 (Ὁ. 155). But they are not at all tautological ; and see on
ver. 11.— χαρισάμενος x.7.r.| after having granted to us, i.e.
forgiven, etc. This blotting out of our whole debt of sin was
necessarily prior to the συνεζωοπ. ὑμᾶς σὺν αὐτῷ. By the
fact, namely, that He remitted to us all the sins which we had
committed (πάντα τὰ παραπτ.), the causa efficiens of the being
(eternally) dead was done away. Comp. Chrysostom: τὰ
παραπτώματα, ἃ THY νεκρότητα ἐποίει. This χαρισάμενος K.T.X.
is the appropriation of the reconciliation on the part of God,
which believers experienced when they believed and were bap-
tized ; the olyective expiatory act through the death of Christ
had preceded, and is described in ver. 14. — ἡμῖν] applies to
believers generally.’ This extension, embracing himself in com-

1 Not specially to Jewish Christians (Hofmann, who discovers here the same
idea that is expressed in Heb. ix. 15, and makes a new period begin with
χαρισάμενος), 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

874 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

mon with others, is prepared for by καὶ ὑμᾶς, but could
not have been introduced, if χαρισάμ. κιτιλ. had been con-
ceived as synchronous with cvvefwo7., in which case Paul
must logically have used ὑμῖν (not ἡμῖν), as the reading
isin B x** Vulg. Hilary. On χαρίζεσθαι, comp. 2 Cor. ii.
10, xii, 18; Eph. iv. 32. On the subject-matter: 2 Cor. v.
19 ff.

Ver. 14. The participle, which is by no means parallel and
synchronous with χαρισάμενος in ver. 13, or one and the
same with it (Hofmann), is to be resolved as: after that He
had blotted out, etc. For it is the historical divine reconciling
act of the death of Christ that is meant, with which χαρισά-
μενος κτλ. cannot coincide, since that work of reconciliation
had first to be accomplished before the χαρίζεσθαι «.7.r. could
take place through its appropriation to believers. — ἐξαλείφειν}
is to be left quite in its proper signification, as in Acts 11. 19,
Rev. iii. 5, vii. 17, xxi. 4, and frequently in LXX. and
Apocrypha, since the discourse has reference to something
written, the invalidating of which is represented in the sensuous
form of blotting owt, even more forcibly than by διαγράφειν (to
score out; see Ruhnken, ad Tim. p. 81). Comp. Plat. Rep.
p. 386 ©, p. 501 B: ἐξαλείφοιεν.... πάλιν ἐγγράφοιεν, Ep.
7, p. 842 C: τὸ ζωγραφούμενόν τε καὶ ἐξαλειφόμενον, Dem.
468. 1 in reference to a law: εἰ χρὴ τοῦτον ἐξαλεῖψαι, Xen.
Hell. ii. 3. 51; Lucian, Imag. 26; Eur. Iph. A. 1486. Comp.
Valckenaer, ud Act. iii. 19.— τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον] the
handwriting existing against us. What is thus characterized
is not the burden of debt lying upon man, which is, as it were,
his debt-schedule (Bleek), but the Mosaic law. <A χειρόγραφον,
namely, is an obligatory document of debt (Tob. v. 3, ix. 5;
Polyb. xxx. 8. 4; Dion. Hal. v. 8; and the passages in
Wetstein; also the passages quoted from the Rabbins in
Schoettgen), for which the older Greek writers use συγγραφή
first, in which he, in accordance with the sense and connection, continues the
discourse from the standpoint of the common Christian consciousness. Comp.
i. 12 ; Gal. iv. 5, 6; Eph. ii. 1, 4, e¢ al.; Winer, p. 589 [E. T. 725]. Nor does
the idea of the figurative χειρόγραφον, which Hofmann urges, by any means

require such a limitation—which there is nothing to indicate—of the ἡμῖν em-
bracing himself and others.

CHAP. II. 14. 375

or γραμματεῖον, Dem. 882. 7, 956. 2; see also Hermann,
Privatalterth. § 49,12. And the law is the χειρόγραφον con-
fronting us, iz so far as men are bound to fulfil it perfectly,
in order to avoid the threatened penal curse ; and consequently
because no one renders this fulfilment, it, like a bill of debt,
proves them debtors (the creditor is God). We are not to
carry the figure further, in which case we should come to the
halting point in the comparison, that the man who is bound
has not himself written the χειρόγραφον. Hofmann maintains
that this element also, namely, man’s having written it with
his own hand, is retained in the conception of the figurative
χειρόγραφον. But the apostle himself precludes this view by
his having written, not : τὸ ἡμῶν χειρόγρ. (which would mean :
the document of debt drawn by us), but: τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγρ. ;
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 against
us. The words τοῖς δόγμασιν appended (see below) also preclude
the conception of the debt-record being written by man’s own
hand. Moreover, the law is to be understood as an integral
whole, and the various limitations of it, either to the ceremonial
law (Calvin, Beza, Schoettgen, and others), or to the moral law
(Calovius), are altogether in opposition to the connection (see
above, πάντα Ta παραπτ.), and un-Pauline. The explanation
referring it to the conscience (Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and

1 The relation of obligation and indebtedness in which man stands to the law
(comp. Gal. iii. 10) is quite sufficient to justify the conception of the latter as
the χειρόγραφον, without seeking this specially in the promise of the people, Ex.
xxiy. 3 (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others; also Hofmann) ;
which the reader could not guess without some more precise indication. Indeed,
that promise of the people in Ex. xxiv. 3 has by no means the mark of being
self-written, but contains only the self-obligation, and would not, therefore, any
more than the amen in Deut. xxvii. (which Castalio suggests), suffice for the
idea of the χειρόγραφον, if the latter had to contain the debtor’s own handwriting.
In accordance with the apostle’s words (τὸ καθ᾿ ἡμῶν χειρόγρ., see above), and
with the type of his doctrine regarding the impossibility of legal righteousness,
his readers could think only of the γράμμα of the law itself as that which proves
man a debtor; comp. Rom. ii. 27, 29, νἱϊ. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 6. Wieseler, on Gal.
p- 258 (appealing to Luke xvi. 5 ff.), Bleek, and Holtzmann, p. 64, also errone-
ously press the point that the χειρόγρ. must necessarily be written or signed by
the deblor himsel/.

376 TILE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

others) is also at variance both with the word and with the
context.' The conscience is the medium for the knowledge of
the law as the handwriting which testifies against us ; without
the activity of the conscience, this relation, in which the law
stands to us, would remain unknown. Exception has been
taken to its being explained of the Mosaic law on account of
the use of ἡμῶν, seeing that this law existed only for the Jews.
But without due ground ; for it is in fact also the schedule of
debt against the Gentes, in so far, namely, as the latter have
the knowledge of the δικαίωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ (Rom. i. 32), have in
fact τὸ ἔργον Tod νόμου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν (tom.
ii. 15), and, consequently, fall likewise under the condemning
sentence of the law, though not directly (Rom. 111. 19, i. 12),
but indirectly, because they, having incurred through their
own fault a darkening of their minds (Rom. 1. 20-23), trans-
eress the “ κοινὸν ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων νόμον " (Dem. 639. 22).
The earnest and graphic description of the abrogation of the
condemning law in ver. 14 is dictated by an apologetic motive,
in opposition to the Judaism of the false teachers ; hence it
is the more inappropriate to understand with Cornelius a
Lapide and others the covenant of God with Adam in Gen.
ii. 16, as was already proposed by Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact (comp. Iren. Haer. v. 17. 3, and Tertullian). —
τοῖς δόγμασιν} Mespecting δόγμα, command, especially of legal
decrees, see on Eph. ii. 15; Wetstein on Luke i. 1; the
dative is closely connected with χειρόγραφον, and is instru-
mental: what is written with the commands (therein given), so
that the δόγματα, which form the constituent elements of the
law, are regarded as that wherewith it is written. Thus the
tenor of the contents of what is written is indicated by the
dative of the instrument (adlativus modi), just as the external
constituent elements of writing, e.g. γράμμασι in Gal. vi. 11,
and τύποις in Plat. Lp. 7, p. 343 A, are expressed by the

1 Luther’s gloss: ‘‘ Nothing is so hard against us as our own conscience,
whereby we are convinced as by our own handwriting, when the law reveals to
us our sin.” Melanchthon: ‘‘sententia in mente et corde tanquam scripta lege
et agnitione lapsus,” in connection with which he regards the conscience as
ἐς syllogismus practicus ex lege ductus.”

CHAP. II. 14. 577

same dative. Observe the verbal nature οἵ χειρόγραφον, and
that the dative is joined to it, as to τὸ γεγραμμένον (comp.
Plat. lc.: τὰ γεγραμμένα τύποις). 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, 11. p. 890; Heindorf, ad Plat. Cratyl. p. 131 ;
and especially Kihner, 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 χειρόγρ. its reference to the law. The explanation given by
many writers (Calvin, Beza, Vitringa, Wolf, Michaelis, Hein-
richs, and others, comp. Luther), which hits nearly the true
sense: the χειρόγραφον, consisting in the δόγμασι, is to be
corrected grammatically in accordance with what we have said
above. It is in compiete variance with the arrangement of the
words to join τοῖς δόγμ. to τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν by supplying an ὄν
(Calovius)." Bihr, Huther, and Dalmer (comp. de Wette) regard
it as a more precise definition of the entire τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμ. χειρόγρ.,
so that Paul explains what he means by the χειρόγρ., 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 τὸ τοῖς δόγμασι καθ᾽ ἡμῶν
χειρόγρ., or in some other way corresponding grammatically
with the sense assumed. Ewald joins τοῖς δόγμ. as appropriat-
ing dative (see Bernhardy, p. 88 f.) to χειρόγρ.: our bond of
obligation to the statutes.” But if χειρόγρ. were our bond of
obligation (subjectively), the expression τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρ. would
be inappropriate, and Paul would have said merely τὸ ἡμῶν yep.
τ. δόγμ. It is incorrect as to sense, though not linguistically
erroneous, to connect τοῖς δόγμ. with ἐξαλείψρας, in which case
it is explained to mean (as by Harless on Eph. 11. 15) that the

1 So also Wieseler in Rosenmiiller’s Rep. Il. p. 135 fi. : τὸ χειρόγρ. τὸ σοῖς δόγμι.
καθ᾽ ἡμῶν oy.

2 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 by the evangelical doctrines of faith (the
Greek expositors, Estius, Grotius, Hammond, Bengel, and
others) ; or nova praecepta stabiliendo (Fritzsche, Diss. in 2 Cor.
II. p. 168 f.). In opposition to these views, see Eph. ii. 15.
Erasmus, Storr, Flatt, Olshausen, Schenkel, Bleek, and Hof-
mann have attached it to the following relative clause,’ in
opposition to the simple order of the words, without any
certain precedent in the N. T. (with regard to Acts i. 2, Rom.
xvi. 27, see on those passages), and thereby giving an emphasis
to the τοῖς δόγμ. which is not warranted (for the law as such
contains, in fact, nothing else than déyuata). — 6 ἣν ὑπεναντίον
npiv| an emphatic repetition—bringing into more marked pro-
minence the hostile relation—of the thought already expressed
by καθ᾽ ἡμῶν, with the view of counteracting the legalistic
efforts of the false teachers. Bengel’s distinction, that there is
here expressed ipsa pugna, and by καθ᾽ ἡμῶν, status belli, is
arbitrary and artificial. It means simply: which was against
us, not: secretly against us, as Beza and others, including
Bohmer, interpret the word, which Paul uses only in this
place, but which is generally employed in Greek writers, in
the Apocrypha and LXX., and in the N. T. again in Heb, x.
27. The relative attaches itself to the entire τὸ καθ᾽ my.
χειρόγρ. τοῖς δόγμ. ---- καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν κιτ.λ.] Observe not only
the emphatic change of structure (see on i. 6) which passes
from the participle, not from the relative (Hofmann), over to
the further act connected with the former in the finite tense,
but also (comp. on 1. 16) the perfect (Thuc. viii. 100; Dem.
786. 4): and itself (the bill of debt) he has taken out of the
way, whereby the abrogation now stands completed. A graphi-
cally illustrative representation: the bill of debt was blotted
out, and it has itself been carried away and is no longer im
its place; ἦρκεν αὐτὸ ἐκ τοῦ μέσου μὴ ἀφεὶς ἐπὶ χώρας,
Oecumenius. αὐτό denotes the handwriting itself, materialiter,

1 So also Thomasius, Chr. Pers. τι. Werk, III. 1, p. 110. He considers as the
χειρόγραφον not the Mosaic law itself, but the bill of debt which the broken law
has drawn up against us. The very parallel in Eph. ii, 15 is decisive against this
view.

CHAP. 11. 14. 379
in contrast to the just mentioned blotting out of its contents.
For He has nailed it, ete. ; see the sequel. Hofmann imports
the idea: 7 im this (hostile) quality ; as if, namely, it ran καὶ
τοιοῦτο ὃν (Xen. Anab. vi. 5.13; Philem. 9).— The ἐκ τοῦ
μέσου is our: “ out of the way,” said of obstructions which are
removed. Comp. Plat. Hryx. p. 401 HE; Xen. Anad. i. 5.14;
de praefect. 3. 10, and the passages in Kypke, 11. p. 323.
The opposite: ἐν μέσῳ εἶναι, to be in the way, Dem. 682. 1;
Aesch. Suppl. 735; Dorv. ad Charit. vii. 3, p. 601. Thus
the law stood in the way of reconciliation to God, of the
χαρίζεσθαι x.7.d. in ver. 13. — προσηλώσας κ.τ.λ.] προσηλοῦν
only found here in the N. T.; see, however, Plat. Phaed. p.
83 D (with πρός) ; Lucian, Prom. 2, Dial. D. I. (τῷ Καυκάσῳ
προσηλωμένος) ; Galen. IV. p. 45, 9: τῷ σταυρῷ, 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. 111. 13), and became the end of the law (Rom. x.
4), at the same time that Christ was nailed as ἱλαστήριον to
the cross, the law was nailed to it also, and thus it ceased
to be ἐν μέσῳ. Observe, moreover, the logical relation of the
aorist participle to the perfect ἦρκεν. The latter is the state
of the matter, which has emerged and exists after God has
nailed, etc. The x. αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ μέσου takes place since that
nailing. In the strong expression προσηλώσας, 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:
οὐδαμοῦ οὕτως μεγαλοφώνως ἐφθέγξατο. ‘Opas σπουδὴν
τοῦ ἀφανισθῆναι τὸ χειρόγραφον ὅσην ἐποιήσατο ; οἷον πάντες
ἦμεν ὑφ᾽ ἁμαρτίαν kK. κόλασιν" αὐτὸς κολασθεὶς ἔλυσε καὶ τὴν
ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν κόλασιν. Nevertheless, προσηλώσας neither
figuratively depicts the tearing im pieces of the χειρόγρ.
(Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact), nor is there any
allusion to an alleged custom of publicly placarding antiquated
laws (Grotius). According to Hofmann (comp. also his
Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 370 f£.), a public placarding with a view
to observance is meant; the requirement of Israelitish legal

380 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

obligation has become changed into the requirement of faith
in the Crucified One which may be read on the cross, and this
transformation is also the pardon of transgressions of the law.
This is a fanciful pushing further of the apostolic figure, the
point of which is merely the blotting out and taking away of
the law, as the debt-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 /orgive-
ness of sins introduced by χαρισάμενος x.7.d. in ver. 13, and
nothing more. Comp. 1 Pet. 11. 24. It is to be observed, at
the same time, that the ἐξαλείφειν and the αἴρειν ἐκ τ. μέσου
do not represent two acts substantially different, but the same
thing, the perfect accomplishment of which is explained by
way of climax with particularising vividness.

Ver. 15." In this doing away of the law was involved the
victory and triumph of God over the devilish powers, since the
streneth 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 ἀπεκδυσ.
ran parallel, as the majority suppose, with προσηλώσας, there
must have been a «ad inserted before ἐδευγμάτ., as in ver. 14
before the finite verb, because otherwise no connection would
be established. Hence a full stop (Beza) must be placed before
ἀπεκδυσ., or at least a colon (Elzevir, Bleek) ; and without
any connecting particle the significant verb heads all the
more forcibly the description of this final result expressed
with triumphant fulness: Having stripped the lordships and
powers, he has made a show of them boldly, holding triumph
over them in the same. Observe the symmetrical emphatic
prefixing of ἀπεκδυσ., ἐδειγμάτ., and θριαμβ. The subject is

1 Holtzmann, p. 156 f., rejects this verse because it interrupts the transition of
thought to ver. 16 (which is not the case); because δειγμαςίζειν is un-Pauline
(but in what sense is it un-Pauline ? it is in any sense a very rare word) ; because
δριαμβεύειν 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).

CHAP. II. 15. 381

still always God, not Christ,, as Baur and Ewald hold, fol-
lowing Augustine, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Erasmus, Grotius,
Calovius, and many others; hence the reading ἀπεκδ. τὴν
σάρκα in FG (which omit τ. apy. «. τ. ἐξουσ.) Syr. Goth.
Hil. Aug. was an erroncous gloss; and at the close, not αὑτῷ
(Syr. Vulg. It. Theodoret, Luther, Melanchthon, Elzevir,
Griesbach, and Scholz), instead of which G has ἑαυτῷ, but
αὐτῷ should be written; see Wolf ὧν loc. The figurative
ἀπεκδυσ., which illustrates the deprivation of power that has
taken place through the divine work of reconciliation, repre-
sents the ἀρχὰς καὶ ἐξουσ. as having been clothed in armour
(comp. Rom. xiii. 12; Eph. vi. 11; 1 Thess. v. 8), which
God as their conqueror stripped off and took from them ;
Vule.: exspolians. Comp. on ἐκδύειν and ἀποδύειν, used from
Homer’s time in the sense of spoliare, Dem. 763. 28, 1259.
11; Hesiod, Sewt. 447; Xen. Anab. 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 ἀπεκδυσάμενος, which is else-
where used intransitively (comp. 111. 9), the active ἀπεκδύσας
(comp. Matt. xxvii. 28, 31; Luke x. 30); yet even in Plat.
Rep. p. 612 A, the (right) reading ἀπεδυσάμεθα is to taken
in the sense of nudavimus ; and Xenophon uses the perfect
ἀποδέδυκεν, Which is likewise intransitive elsewhere (see
Kiihner, I. p. 803), actively, see Anab. Lc. : πολλοὺς ἤδη
ἀποδέδυκεν, multos veste spoliavit ; comp. Dio Cass. xlv. 47.
Further, the middle, as indicating the victorious self-interest
of the action (szb¢ exspoliavit), is here selected even with
nicety, and by no means conveys (as Hofmann, in order to
refute this explanation, erroneously lays to its charge) the
idea: in order to appropriate to Himself this armour; see on
the contrary generally, Kriiger,§ 52. 10. 1; Kihner, 11. 1, p.
95 f. The disarming in dtself, and not the possession of the
enemy’s weapons, is the interest of the victor. Lastly, the
whole connection does not admit of any intransitive inter-
pretation, such as Hofmann, in his Schriftbew. I. p. 350 ἢ

1 Through this erroneous definition of the subject it was possible to discover
in our passage the descent into hell (Anselm and others).

382 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

(and substantially also in his Heil. 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 ἀρχαὶ and ἐξουσίαι
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 xu. 30 ἢ, xvi. 11.—That
these ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι are two categories of evil angels
(comp. Eph. vi. 12), corresponding to two classes of good angels
similarly named (comp. ver. 10), is taught by the context,
which has nothing to do with mediating beings intervening
between God and the world (Sabatier), or even with human
rulers. Jitschl, in the Jahrb. 7. Deutsche Theol. 1863, p.
522, understands the angels of the law-giving (comp. on 1.
20), of whom God has divested Himself (middle), ze. from
whose environment He has withdrawn Himself. Even apart
from the singular expression ἀπεκδυσάμ. in this sense, this
explanation is inappropriate, because the ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι
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. 111. 19) have no share in the
contents of the law, which, as the νόμος Θεοῦ, 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 τὰς ἀρχὰς x. τὰς

' In which sense also Grotius explained it, though he takes ἀπεκδυσάμ.
rightly as exarmatos. See, in opposition to him, Calovius. Hofmann’s expla-
nation is also followed by Holtzmann, p. 222; it is an unfortunate attempt at
rationalizing.

CHAP. II. 15. 383

ἐξουσίας is so comprehensive that, in the absence of any more
precise indication in the text, it cannot be specially limited
to the powers that were active in the law-giving, but must
denote the collective angelic powers—hostile, however, and
therefore devilish. Zhem God has disarmed, put to shame,
and 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 was, doubtless, specially occasioned by those specu-
lations regarding the power of demons, with which the false
teachers were encroaching on the work of Christ. — Sevyparifew,
preserved only here and in Matt. 1. 19 (comp. however,
παραδειγματίζειν, especially frequent in Polybius ; see Schweig-
hauser, Lex. p. 429), denotes, in virtue of its connection with
the conception of triumph, the making a show (Augustine, ep.
59: “exemplavit ;” Hilary, de trin. 9: “ ostentui esse fecit ἢ)
for the purpose of humiliation and disgrace (comp. Chry-
sostom), not in order to exhibit the weakness of the conquered
(Theodoret, Bohmer), but simply their accomplished subju-
gation ; comp. Nah. 1. 6: θήσομαί σε εἰς παράδειγμα. ---
ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ] is usually rendered publicly, before the eyes of all,
consequently as equivalent to φανερῶς in John vii. 10 (the
opposite: ἐν κρυπτῷ, John vii. 4; Matt. vi. 4; Rom. ii. 28) ;
but this the word does not mean (see on John vii. 4);
moreover, the verb already implies this idea ;* and the usage
of Paul elsewhere warrants only the rendering: boldly, freely
and frankly. Comp. Eph. vi. 19; Phil. 1 20. Hilary:
“cum fiducia ;” Vulgate: “confidenter palam.” The objection
that this sense is not appropriate to the action of God
(Hofmann), overlooks the fact that God is here represented
just as a hwman triumpher, who freely and boldly, with re-
morseless disposal of the spoils acquired by victory, subjects

1 Hence Hofmann joins it with θριαμβεύσας, in which, however, the idea of
publicity is obviously already contained. Hofmann, indeed, assumes a reference
of contrast to the invisible triumphs, which God has ever been celebrating over
those powers. But thus the idea of θριαμβεύειν 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 θρίαμβος
Moreover, the pretended contrast is altogether foreign to the context.

384 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

the conquered to ignominious exhibition.’ — θριαμβεύσας adr.
ἐν αὐτῷ] synchronous with édevyp.: while He triumphed over
them. Respecting θριαμβεύειν τινα, to triumph over some one,
see on 2 Cor. ii. 14. Comp. the passive θριαμβεύεσθαι, to be
led in triumph, Plut. Coriol. 35. αὐτούς refers κατὰ σύνεσιν
to the devils individually, who are conceived as masculine (as
δαίμονες, κοσμοκράτορες, Eph. vi. 12), see generally Winer,
Ῥ. 138 [E. T. 183]; and ἐν αὐτῷ is referred either to the cross
(hence, also, the readings ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ or σταυρῷ) or to
Christ. The former reference is maintained by the majority
of the Fathers (Theophylact: ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοὺς δαίμονας
ἡττημένους δείξας), Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and many others, in-
cluding Bohmer, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald, Weiss, Bibl. Theol.
p. 432, ed. 2; and the latter, by Erasmus, Luther, Melanch-
thon, Wolf, Estius, Bengel, and many others, including Flatt,
Bahr, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, Bleek,
Hofmann, Rich. Schmidt. The reference to Christ is erroneous,
because Christ is not mentioned at all in ver. 14, and God
pervades as subject the entire discourse from ver. 11 onwards.
We must hold, therefore, by the reference to τῷ σταυρῷ, so
that ἐν αὐτῷ once more places the cross significantly before
our eyes, just as it stood emphatically at the close of the
previous sentence. Aé¢ the cress God celebrated His triumph,
inasmuch as through the death of Christ on the cross obliter-
ating and removing out of the way the debt-bill of the law He
completed the work of redemption, by which the devil and his
powers were deprived of their strength, which rested on the law
and its debt-bond. The ascension is not to be here included.
Ver. 16. Οὖν] since ye, according to vv. 11-15, are raised
to a far higher platform than that of such a legal system. —
κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει] No one is to form ὦ judgment (whether ye
are acting allowably or unallowably, rightly or wrongly) con-

1 It is an inconsiderate fancy of Hofmann to say, by way of controverting our
explanation : Who would be surprised, that the triumpher should make a show of
the conquered, ‘‘ without previously asking their permission” ? As if such a
thought, no doubt very silly for the victor, were necessarily the contrast to the
frank daring action, with which a general, crowned with victory, is in a position
to exhibit his captives without any scruple, without sparing or hesitation! He
has the ἐξουσία for the deyuariew, and uses it ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ.

CHAP. II. 16. 385

cerning you in the point of eating (ἐν, comp. Rom. ii. 1, xiv. 22;
1 Pet. ii. 12). There is hereby asserted at the same time their
independence of such judgments, to which they have not to yield
(comp. Eph. v. 6). With Paul, βρῶσις is always actio edendi,
and is thus distinct. from βρῶμα, cibus (Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Cor.
viii. 4; 2 Cor. ix. 10; also Heb. xii. 16), although it is also
current in the sense of βρώμα with John (iv. 32, vi. 27, 55), and
with profane authors (Hom. 71. xix. 210, Od. i. 191, x. 176, ef
al.; Plat. Legg. vi. p. 783 C; Hesiod, Scut. 396). This we
remark in opposition to Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 200. The
case is the same with πόσις (Rom. xiv. 17) and πόμα (1 Cor.
x. 4; Heb. ix. 10).— év πόσει] Since the Mosaic law contained
prohibitions of meats (Lev. vu. 10 ff.), but not also general
prohibitions of drinks, it is to be assumed that the false teachers
in their ascetic strictness (ver. 23) had extended the prohibition
of the use of wine as given for the Nazarites (Num. vi. 3),
and for the period of priestly service (Lev. x. 9), to the Chris-
tians as such (as ἁγίους). Comp. also Rom. xiv. 17,21. De
Wette arbitrarily asserts that it was added doubtless in con-
sideration of this, as well as of the Pharisaic rules as to drinks,
Matt. xxiil. 24, and of the prohibition ef wine offered to idols
(οὖν does not point to such things), but still mainly on accownt
of the similarity of sound (Rom. xiv. 17; Heb. ix. 10, and
Bleek in Joc.).—-é€v μέρει ἑορτῆς «.7.r.] ἐν μέρει, with the
genitive, designates the category, as very frequently also in
classical authors (Plat. Zheaet. p. 155 EH, Rep. p. 424 Ὁ:
Dem. 638. 5, 668. 24); comp. on 2 Cor. iu. 10, and see
Wyttenbach, ad Plut. 1. p. 65. The three elements: festival,
new moon, and Sabbath, are placed side by side as a further
classis rerum ; in the point (ἐν) 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 (ἑορτῆς), or monthly (νουμην.), or weekly (caPBar.).
But they are three, co-ordinated; there would be only one
thing with three connected elements, if καί were used instead
of ἤ in the two latter places where it occurs. The three are
given in inverted order in 1 Chron. xxiii. 31; 2 Chron. ii. 4,
COL. 2B

eo |” THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

xxxil. 8. On the subject-matter, comp. Gal. iv. 10. Respect-
ing the Jewish celebration of the new moon, see Keil, Archdol.
I. ὃ 78; Ewald, Alterth. p. 470 f£.; and on σάββατα as equi-
valent to σάββατον, comp. Matt. xii. 1, xxvii. 1; Luke iv. 16,
et al, ἐν μέρει has been erroneously understood by others in
the sense of a partial celebration (Chrysostom: ἐξευτελίζει
λέγων: ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς: οὐ yap δὴ πάντα κατεῖχον τὰ πρό-
tepa, Theodoret: they could not have kept all the feasts, on
account of the long journey to Jerusalem; comp. Dalmer), or:
vicibus festorum (Melanchthon, Zanchius), or, that the partier-
pation in the festival, the taking part in it is expressed (Otto,
dekalog. Unters. p. 9 ff.), or that it denotes the segregatio, “ nam
qui dierum faciunt discrimen, quasi unum ab alio dividunt”
(Calvin). Many, moreover inaccurately, hold that ἐν μέρει
means merely: in respect to (Beza, Wolf, and most expositors,
including Bahr, Huther, and de Wette); in 2 Cor. ii. 10,
ix. 3, it also denotes the category. Comp. Aelian. V. H. viii. 3:
κρίνοντες ἕκαστον ἐν τῷ μέρει φόνου.

Ver. 17." An epexegetical relative sentence, assigning the
ground for what has just been said 6, 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. — σκιά] not an outline (σκιαγραφία, σκιαγράφημα),
as in the case of painters, who “non exprimunt primo ductu
imaginem vivis coloribus et εἰκονικῶς, sed rudes et obscuras
lineas primum ex carbone ducunt,’ Calvin (so also Clericus,
Huther, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), which σκιά does
not mean even in Heb. viii. 5, x. 1, and which is forbidden
by the contrast of τὸ σῶμα, since it would rather be the per-
fect picture that would be put in opposition to the outline.

1 Holtzmann, without assigning his reasons, regards the entire verse as an
“extract from the Epistle to the Hebrews” (Heb. ix..6, 9 f., 25, x. 1, 11, viti. 5) ;
he thinks that the whole polemic of vv. 16-23 was intended to introduce the
more developed features of later heresy into the picture of the apostolic age.
But the difficulty of ver. 18 (which Holtzmann considers utterly unintelligible)
and ver. 22 f., as well as the alleged un-Pauline character of some expressions
in ver. 19, does not furnish a sufficient basis for such an opinion. Comp. on
vy. 18, 19, 22, 23.

CHAP. Il. 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 αἰὼν
μέλλων (neither ἀγαθῶν from Heb. x. 1, nor anything else, is
to be supplied with τῶν μελλόντων), and in doing so he fol-
lows the figurative conception, that the μέλλοντα, 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. Itis to be noted
further: (1) The emphasis of confirmation lies not on τῶν
μελλόντων (Beza), but on σκιά, in contrast to τὸ σῶμα. Τί,
namely, the things in question are only the shadow of the
Messianic, and do not belong to the reality thereof, they are
—in accordance with this relatively non-essential, because
merely typical nature of theirs—not of such a kind that
salvation may be made dependent on their observance or non-
observance, and adjudged or withheld accordingly. (2) The
passage is not to be explained as if ἦν stood in the place of
ἐστί, so that τὰ μέλλοντα would denote the Christian relations
already then existing, the καινὴ διαθήκη, the Christian plan
of salvation, the Christian life, etc. (so usually since Chrysos-
tom); but, on the contrary, that which is spoken of ts
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 μέλλοντα have not
yet been manifested at all, and belong altogether (not merely
as regards their completion, as de Wette thinks, comp. also
Hofmann) to the αἰὼν μέλλων, 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 μέλ-
AovTa could only be viewed as having already se¢ im either in
whole or in part, if ἦν and not ἐστί 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.

ul. 23; 1 Tim. i. 16), or if ἐστί were meant to be said from
the standpoint of the divine arrangement of those things
(Hofmann), or if this present tense expressed the logical
present merely by way of enabling the mind to picture them
(Rom. v. 14), which, however, is inadmissible here, since the
elements indicated by σκιά 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 guality, in which the things concerned are meant to be
presented by the figurative σκιά, 15 determined solely by the
contrast of τὸ σῶμα, namely, as wasubstantiality in a Messianic
aspect: shadow of the future, standing in relation to it, there-
fore doubtless as typically presignificant, but destitute and
void of its reality. The reference to transitoriness (Spencer, de
legit. rit. Ὁ. 214 f., Baumgarten-Crusius, and others) is purely
imported. — τὸ δὲ σῶμα] scil. τῶν μελλόντων, but the body of
the future." Inasmuch as the legal state of things in ver. 16
stands to the future Messianic state in no other relation than
that of the shadow to the living body itself, which casts the
shadow, Paul thus, remaining faithful to his figure, designates
as the body of the future that which is real and essential in
it, which, according to the context, can be nothing else than
just the μέλλοντα 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: 6 ἐστι τύπος τῶν
μελλόντων, αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ μέλλοντα Χριστοῦ. ---- Χριστοῦ] scil.
ἐστί, belongs to Christ. The μέλλοντα, namely, viewed under
the figurative aspect of the σῶμα which casts the shadow
referred to, must stand in the same relation to Christ, as the
body stands in to the Head (ver. 19); as the body now
adumbrating itself, they must belong to Christ the Head of
the body, in so far, namely, as He is Lord and ruler of all the
relations of the future Messianic constitution, 1.6. of the Mes-

* The explanation of Hilgenfeld, 1873, p. 199: ‘‘the mere σῶμα Χριστοῦ, a
purely somatic Christianity,” is at variance with the antithetical correlation
of σκιά and σῶμα, as well as with the apostle’s cherished conception of the
σῶμα of Christ, which is contained immediately in ver. 19.

CHAP. 11. 18. 989

sianic kingdom, of the βασιλεία τοῦ Χριστοῦ (i. 13; Eph.
ν. 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 μέλλοντα themselves,
after the body which has cast that shadow, does not hold to
Christ, to whom as Head the σῶμα (τῆς σκιᾶς) belongs as His
own. This view, which is far removed from “ distorting” the
thought (as Hofmann objects), is required by the ΙΝ
and ‘obvious correlation of the conception of the body 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
Ta μέλλοντα in the sense, or not purely in the sense, of the
relations of the αἰὼν μέλλων, but in that of the then existing
Christian relations, which in fact still belonged to the αἰὼν
οὗτος, and because, in connection therewith, they do not take
up with clearness and precision the contextually necessary
relation of the genitive Χριστοῦ as denoting Him, whose the
σῶμα 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 appeared in Christ ;” Ewald: “so far as there is
anything really solid, essential, and eternal in the O. T., it
belongs to Christ and to His Spirit ;” Hofmann: “ the body
of the future is there, where Christ is, present and given with
Him” (consequently : as if ἐν Χριστῷ were used). το θῇ τὸ ae
in contrast to σκιά, comp. Josephus, Bell. ii. 2. 5: σκιὰν
αἰτησόμενος βασιλείας, ἧς ἥρπασεν ἑαυτῷ τὸ σῶμα. Philo, de
conf. ling. ». 494 : τὰ μὲν ῥητὰ τῶν χρησμῶν σκιάς τινας ὡσανεὶ
σωμάτων εἶναι τὰς δ᾽ ἐμφαινομένας δυνάμεις τὰ ὑφεστῶτα ἀλη-
θείᾳ πράγματα. Lucian, Hermot. 29. Observe, however,
that σῶμα invariably retains its strict literal sense of body, as
a sensuous expression for the substantially real, in contrast
to the unsubstantial shadow of it.

Ver. 18.1 Warning against a further danger, with which
they were threatened on the part of these false teachers. —
μηδείς] not different from μήτις in ver. 16, as if the latter
emphasized the verb and the former the subject (Hofmann).

1See upon ver. 18, Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 277 ff.

390 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

This would be correct, if in ver. 16 it were μὴ οὖν κρινέτω τις
ὑμᾶς. Comp. on μήτις, ver. 8, and on μηδείς, ver. 4. More-
over, the words cannot be regarded (with Holtzmann) as a
duplicate proceeding from the interpolator, especially as they
contain a new warning, and in such a peculiar form (κατα-
Bpafs.). — καταβραβευέτω] Let no one deprive you of the prize.
καταβραβεύειν, which is not a Cilician word (Jerome; see, on
the contrary, Eustath. ad J. i. 93. 33: καταβραβεύει αὐτὸν,
ὥς φασιν οἱ παλαιοί), is only now preserved among ancient
Greek authors in Dem. ¢. Mid. 544, ult.: ἐπιστάμεθα Σ΄ τρά-
Tova ὑπὸ Μειδίου καταβραβευθέντα καὶ παρὰ πάντα τὰ δίκαια
ἀτιμωθέντα, 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 BpaBevs. Midias had bribed the judges. The
κατά intimates that the prize was due to the person concerned,
although it has been in a hostile spirit (not merely wn-
righteously, which would be παραβραβεύειν, Plut. Mor. p.
535 C; Polyb. xxiv. 1. 12) withdrawn from him and ad-
judged to another. The right view substantially, though not
recognising the distinction from παάραβραβ., is taken by
Chrysostom (παραβραβευθῆναν yap ἐστιν, ὅταν παρ᾽. ἑτέρων
μὲν ἡ νίκη, παρ᾽ ἐτέρων δὲ τὸ βραβεῖον) and Theophylact, also
Suidas: τὸ ἄλλου ἀγωνιζομένου ἄλλον στεφανοῦσθαι λέγει ὁ
ἀπόστολος καταβραβεύεσθαι. Comp. also Zonaras, ad Coneil.
Laod. can. 35, p. 351: τὸ μὴ τὸν νικήσαντα ἀξιοῦν τοῦ Bpa-
Belov, ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέρῳ διδόναι αὐτὸ ἀδικουμένου τοῦ νικήσαντος. 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 70
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

1 With which Theodoret confounds it (ἀδίκως βραβεύειν) ; he makes it the
unrighteous awarding of the prize of victory: ἐπειδὴ σοίνυν καὶ of τὰς νομικὰς
παρατηρήσεις τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ παραμιγνῦντες ἀπὸ σῶν κρειττόνων αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὰ ἐλάτσω
μετέφερον, εἰκότως ἔφη" μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω.

CHAP, IL. 18. 391
the case of the κρίνειν in ver. 16, ought the readers to give heed
to, or let themselves be Jed astray by, this hostile proceeding
of the καταβραβεύειν, 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 advyersus vos praemium accipiat ;” Erasmus is substan-
tially correct: “praemiwm, quod sectari coepistis, vobis inter-
vertat ;” comp. Calvin, Estius, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Ewald, and others; while the Vulgate (seducat), Luther (“to
displace the goal”), and others content themselves with a much
less accurate statement of the sense, and Bengel imports into
the passage the sense of wsurped false leading and instruction;
as Beza similarly took it." The βραβεῖον, to which xataBp.
refers, is not Christian liberty (Grotius, who explains it prae-
mium exigere), nor yet: “the honour and prize of the true
worship of God” (de Wette), but, in accordance with the stand-
ing apostolic conception (comp. Phil. iii. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 24):
the bliss of the Messianic kingdom, the incorruptible στέφανος
(1 Cor. ix. 25), the στεφ. τῆς δικαιοσύνης (2 Tim. iv. 8), τῆς
δόξης (1 Pet. v. 4), τῆς ζωῆς (Jas. 1. 12); comp. 2 Tim. ii. 5.
With reference to the βραβεῖον, Elsner, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt,
Steiger, and others, including Bahr, Bohmer, Reiche, Huther,
and Bleek, following Photius in Oecumenius (μηδεὶς twas
κατακρινέτω), have taken καταβραβ. in the sense of to condemn,
parallel to the κρινέτω 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 κατακρίνειν in the case of καταβραβεύειν ; but
it cannot be justified by proofs adduced, and it is decidedly in
opposition to the context through the following θέλων x.7.X,
which presupposes not a judgment of the opponents, but an

1 «Nemo adversum vos rectoris partes sibi ultro sumat.”” He starts from the
common use of βραβεύειν in the sense of regere ac moderari (sce Dorvill. ad
Charit. p. 404). Comp. oniii. 15. But neither the passage of Dem. l.c., nor
the testimony of the Greek Fathers, of Suidas, Eustathius, and Zonaras, nor the

analogy of παραβραβεύειν, would justify the adoption of this sense in the case of
the compound κασαβραβ.

392 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

action, something practical, which, through their perverse re-
ligious attitude, they would fain accomplish. — Oédav] 50.
καταβραβεύειν ὑμᾶς : while he desires to do this, would willingly
accomplish it (comp. Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. ii. 97) by humility,
ete. So rightly Theodoret (τοῦτο τοίνυν συνεβούλευον ἐκεῖνοι
γίνεσθαι ταπεινοφροσύνῃ δῆθεν κεχρημένοι), Theophylact (θέλου-
σιν ὑμᾶς καταβραβεύειν διὰ ταπεινοφρ.), Photius in Oecumenius,
Calvin, Casaubon, and others, including Huther and Buttmann,
Neut. Gr. p. 322 [E. T. 376]. The “languidum et frigidum,”
which Reiche urges against this view, applies at the most
only in the event of καταβραβ. 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 ἐν ταπεινοφρ. κατὰ. The interpretation adopted
‘by others: taking delight in humility, etc. (Augustine, Cas-
talio, Vatablus, Estius, Michaelis, Loesner, and others, including
Storr, Flatt, Bahr, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, Hof-
mann, and Hilgenfeld), is based upon the extremely unneces-
sary assumption of an un-Greek imitation of 2 57, such as
occurs, indeed, in the LXX. (1 Sam. xviii. 22; 2 Sam. xv. 26;
1 Kings x. 9; 2 Chron. ix. 8; Ps. exlvil. 10), but not in the
N. T.; for in Matt. xxvii. 43, θέλειν is used with the accusa-
tive, comp. on Rom. vil. 21. Moreover, in the O. T. passages
the object of the delight is almost invariably (the only excep-
tion being Ps. exlvii. 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
kataBp. It would then (see Erasmus, Anzot.) have to be
rendered cupide or studiose (Plat. Theaet. p. 143 D; and see
Reisig, Conject. Ὁ. 143 f.), or unconstrained, voluntarily, equiva-
lent to ἐθελοντί, ἐθελοντήν, ἐθελοντής (Plat. Symp. p. 183 A,
very frequent in Homer, Soph. Phil. 1327, Aesch. Choeph.
19. 790, and the passages from Xenophon quoted by Sturz,
Lex, II. p. 21), which sense, here certainly quite unsuitable,
has been transformed at variance with linguistic usage into the
idea: “hoc munus sibi a nullo tributum exercens” (Beza), or:
unwarrantably (Bohmer, comp. Steiger), or of his own choice
(Luther, who, like Ewald, couples it with ἐμβατεύων), or:

CHAP. II. 18. 393

arbitrarily (Ewald), or: capriciously (Reiche), etc.; conse-
quently giving it the sense of ἑκών, αὐτοθελής, αὐτοκέλευστος,
or αὐτογνώμων. Even Tittmann, Synon. Ὁ. 131, comes at length
to such an wltro, erroneously quoting Herod. ix. 14, where
θέλων must be taken as in Plat. Vheaet. l.c.— ἐν ταπεινοφρ.
κ. θρησκ. τῶν ayyér.] ἐν is not propter, which is supposed to
have the meaning: because tamewopp. «.7.r. 1s necessary to
salvation (Reiche) ; nor does it denote the condition in which
the καταβραβεύειν takes place (Steiger, Huther); but, in keep-
ing with the θέλων, it is the means by which the purpose is
to be attained: by virtue of humility and worshipping of angels.
Thereby he wishes to effect that the βραβεῖον shall be with-
drawn from you (and given to himself and his followers),
τ. ἀγγέλων is the genitive of the object (comp. Wisd. xiv. 27;
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 θρησκ., not to tatrewodp. 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,
εἰκῆ φυσιούμ. K.T.r.), 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 (ἐν tavewodp.), and as respects the abnormal religious
phenomenon manifested among them (x. θρησκ. τ. ἀγγέλων);
and then proceeds to give a deterrent exposure of both of these
together according to their true character in a theoretical
(ἃ... ἐμβατ.) and in a moral (εἰκῆ guc. . . . τὴν κεφαλὴν)
respect. How far the false teachers bore themselves as
ταπεινόφρονες, is correctly defined by Theodoret: λέγοντες,
ὡς ἀόρατος ὁ τῶν ὅλων Θεὸς, ἀνέφικτος Te Kal ἀκατάληπτος,
καὶ προσήκει διὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τὴν θείαν εὐμένειαν πραγμα-
τεύεσθαι, so that they thus regarded man as too insignificant
in the presence of the divine majesty to be able to do without’

1 Compare Augustine, Conf. x. 42: ‘Quem invenirem, qui me reconciliaret
tibi? Abeundum mihi fuit ad angelos? Multiconantes ad te redire, neque per

994 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

the mediation of angels, which they sought to secure through
θρησκεία (comp. 4 Mace. iv. 11), thereby placing the merit of
Christ (Rom. v. 2) in the background. It is differently ex-
plained by Chrysostom and Theophylact (comp. also Photius
in Oecumenius): the false teachers had declared the majesty of
the Only-Begotten to be too exalted for lowly humanity to have
access through Him to the Father, and hence the need of the
mediation of angels for that purpose. In opposition to this
view it may be urged, that the very prominence so frequently
and intentionally given to the majesty of Christ in our Episile,
and especially as above the angels, rather goes to show that
they had depreciated the dignity of Christ. Reiche and Ewald
(comp. Hofmann’s interpretation below) find the ταπεινοφρο-
σύνη in the ἀφειδία σώματος of ver. 23, where, however, the
two aberrations are adduced separately from one another, see
on ver. 23. Proofs of the existence of the worship of angels
in the post-apostolic church are found in Justin, Ap. I. 6,
p. 56,‘ Athenagoras, and others; among the Gnostic heretics
(Simonians, Cainites): Epiph. Haer. xx. 2; Tertullian, praeser.
393 Iren. Haer. 1. 51. 2; and with respect to the worshipping
of angels in the Colossian region Theodoret testifies: ἔμεινε
δὲ τοῦτο τὸ πάθος ἐν TH Φρυγίᾳ καὶ Πισιδίᾳ μέχρι πολλοῦ" οὗ
δὴ χάριν καὶ συνελθοῦσα σύνοδος ἐν Aaodixcia τῆς Φρυγίας
(A.D. 364, can. 35) νόμῳ κεκώλυκε τὸ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις προσεύ-
χεσθαι, καὶ μέχρι δὲ τοῦ νῦν εὐκτήρια τοῦ ἁγίου υχαὴλ παρ᾽
ἐκείνοις καὶ τοῖς ὁμόροις ἐκείνων ἐστὶν ἰδεῖν. The Catholic
expedients for evading the prohibition of angel-worship in
our passage (as also in the Concil. Laod., Mansi, 11. 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 “ κεκρυμμένη εἰδω-
Noratpela” (“ ὅτι οὐ δεῖ Χριστιανοὺς ἐγκαταλείπειν τὴν ἐκκλη-

se ipsos valentes, sicut audio, tentaverunt haec, et inciderunt in desiderium
curiosarum visionum, et digni habiti sunt illusionibus.” The (false) σασεινο-
φροσύνη was the subjective source of their going astray to angel-worship.

1 Hasselbach gives substantially the right interpretation of the passage in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 329 ff.

CHAP. II. 18. 395

σίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἀπιέναι καὶ ἀγγέλους ὀνομάξειν᾽ x.7.X.), in
accordance with the second Nicene Council, only to the
cultus latriae, not duliae, consequently to actual adoration,
not τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν. In opposition to the words
as they stand (for θρησκεία with the genitive of the
subject would necessarily be the cultus, which the angels
present to God, 4 Mace. v. 6, 12; Joseph. «πη. xii. 5. 4;
comp. Acts xxvi. 5), and also in opposition to the context
(see ver. 19), several have taken τῶν ἀγγέλων as the
genitive of the subject, and have explained it of a religious
condition, which desired to be like that of the angels, eg.
Luther: “spirituality of the angels,’ comp. Melanchthon,
Schoettgen (“habitus aliquis angelicus”), Wolf, Dalmer.
Nevertheless, Hofmann, attempting a more subtle definition of
the sense, has again taken τῶν ἀγγέλων as genitive of the sub-
ject, and joined with it not only θρησκείᾳ, but also ταπεινο-
φροσύνῃ. The ταπεινοφροσύνη of the angels, namely, consists
in their willingly keeping within the bounds assigned to them as
spirits, and not coveting that which man in this respect has
beyond them, namely, what belongs to the corporeal world.
And the θρησκεία of the angels is ὦ self-devotion to God, in
which, between them and Him, no other barrier exists than
that between the Creator and His creatures. That ταπεινοφρο-
σύνη and this θρησκεία man makes into virtue on his part,
when he, although but partially, renownces that which belongs
to Him in distinction from the angels (ταπεινοφρ.), and, as one
who has divested himself as much as possible of his corporeality,
presents himself adoringly to God in such measure as he refrains
from what was conferred upon him for bodily enjoyment. I
do not comprehend how, on the one hand, the apostle could
wrap up the combinations of ideas imputed to him in words
so enigmatical, nor, on the other, how the readers could,
without the guidance of Hofmann, extract thera out of these
words. The entire exposition is a labyrinth of imported sub-
jective fancies. Paul might at least have written ἐν ἐγκρατείᾳ
ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι. (or καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν, or καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα) τῆς
ταπεινοφροσύνης καὶ θρησκείας τῶν ἀγγέλων! Even this
would still have been far enough from clear, but it would at

396 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

least have contained the point and a hint as to its inter-
pretation. See, besides, in opposition to Hofmann, Rich.
Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 193 £.— ἃ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων] Sub-
ordinate to the θέλων «.7.r. as a warning modal definition to
it: entering upon what he has beheld, 1.6. 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 ἑώρακεν (comp.
Tert. ὁ. Mare. v. 19) denotes not a seeing with the eyes,
but a mental beholding,” which belonged to the domain of
the φαντάζεσθαι, in part, doubtless, also to that of visionary
ecstasy (comp. Acts ii. 17; Rev. ix. 17; ὅραμα in Acts ix.
10, 12, x. 3; 2 Chron. ix. 29, οὐ al.; Luke i. 22). "Phisere=
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 μή and sometimes ov) before ἑώρακεν.
"Ep Bareve (only used here in the N. T.; but see Wetstein,
also Reisig, ad Oed. Col. pracf. p. xxxix.), with accusative of the
place conceived as object (Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 257), also with the
genitive, with the dative, and with εἰς, means to step upon, as
e.g. νῆσον, Aesch. Pers. 441; πόλιν, Eur. El. 595; γῆν, Josh.
xix. 49; also with reference to a mental domain, which is

1 This fanciful habit could not but be fostered and promoted by the Jewish
view, according to which the appearances of angels were regarded as φαντάσματα
(Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. 1, p. 158, ed. 4).

2 Ewald regards ἑώρακεν as more precisely defined by ἐν σασεινοῷρ. x.7.4., as if
it ran ἅ ἐν σαπεινοῷρ. x.7.A. ἑώρωκεν : “while he enters arbitrarily upon that, which
he has seenin humility and angel-worship (consequently has not actually himself
experienced and known), and desires to teach it as something true.” But such
a hyperbaton, in the case of the relative, besides obscuring the sense, is without
precedent in the N. T. Comp. on ver. 14. Besides, the thought itself is far
from clear ; and respecting θέλων, see above.

3 For the sphere of vision of the ἑώρακεν 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 μή, but takes ἃ tap. ἔμβας.
incorrectly : ‘‘ abiding by the sensuous.” Opposed to this is the very use of the
perfect tap. and the significant expression ἐμβατεύων. The apostle does not mean
the ὁρατά, but the ἀόρατα (i. 16), into which they ascend by visions which they
profess to have had.

CHAP. Il. 18. 397

trodden by investigation and other mental activity, as Philo,
de plant. Noé, p. 225 C, et al.; see Loesner, p. 369 f.; 2 Macc.
ii. 30; comp. also Nemes. de nat. hom. p. 64, ed. Matth.:
οὐρανὸν ἐμβατεύει τῇ θεωρίᾳ, but not Xen. Conv. iv. 27, where,
with Zeunius, ἐμαστεύετε ought to be read. Phavorinus:
ἐμβατεῦσαι: τὸ ἔνδον ἐξερευνῆσαν ἢ σκοπῆσαι. It is frequently
used in the sense of seizing possession (Dem. 894. 7 : Eur.
Heracl. 876; Schleusner, Thes. II. 332; Bloomfield, Gloss. in
Aesch. Pers. p. 146 f.). So Budaeus and Calvin (se dngerens),
both with the reading μή, also Huther (establishing himself
jirmly in the creations of fancy); still the context does not
suggest this, and, when used in this sense, ἐμβατ. is usually
coupled with εἰς (Dem. 894. 7, 1085. 24, 1086. 19; Isa.
ix. 9, οἱ al.; 1 Mace. xii. 25). In the reading of the Recepta,
ἃ μὴ ἑώρ., the sense amounts either to: entering into the un-
seen transcendental sphere, wherein the assumption would be
implied that the domain of sense was the only field legitimately
open, which would be unsuitable (2 Cor. v. 7, xiii, 12); or to:
entering into things, which (although he dreams that he has
seen them, yet) he has not seen—a concealed antithetical refer-
ence, which Paul, in order to be intelligible, must have indi-
cated. The thought, in the absence of the negative, is not weak
(de Wette), but true, in characteristic keeping with the perverse-
ness of theosophic fancies (in opposition to Hofmann’s objec-
tion), and representing the actual state of the case, which Paul
could not but know. According to Hofmann, the ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν
which he reads is to be taken, not with ἐμβατεύων, 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 ταπεινοφροσύνη
κ. θρησκεία τῶν ayy., With which the connection, hit upon by

‘ Comp. Chrysostom: they have not scen the angels, and yet bear themselves
as if they had seen them.

* For even the unseen, which may in any other way have been brought to our
knowledge, we may and under certain circumstances should imitate (comp. e.g.
Eph. ν. 1). And even the angels and their actions have been included among
the objects of the divine revelation as to the history of salvation and its accom-
plishment.

oO

398 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

him, of εἰκῆ with ἐμβατεύων (“an investigation, which results in
nothing”), also falls to the ground.—eix φυσιούμ. «.7.r., and
then καὶ οὐ κρατῶν x.7.X., ave both subordinate to the ἃ ἑώρακεν
ἐμβατεύων, and contain two modal definitions of it fraught with
the utmost danger. — εἰκῆ φυσιούμ. for the entering upon
what was seen did not rest upon a real divine revelation, but
upon a conceited, fanciful self-exaggeration. Τὸ δέ γε φυσιού-
μενος TH ταπεινοφροσύνῃ ἐναντίον οὐκ ἔστι τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἐσκήπ-
τοντο, τοῦ δὲ τύφου τὸ πάθος ἀκριβῶς περιέκειντο, Theodoret.
On εἰκῆ, temere, i.e. without ground, comp. Matt. v. 22; Rom.
xiii, 4; Plat. Menez. Ὁ. 2340; Xen. Cyrop. 11. 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 ἐμβατ. is not taken
absolutely with Hofmann, we may not join it with εἰκῆ (in
opposition to Steiger, de Wette, Reiche; Bohmer is doubtful),
since it is not the wselessness (in this sense εἰκῆ would require
to be taken, 1 Cor. xv. 2; Gal. 111. 4, iv. 11) of the ἐμβα-
reve ἃ ἑώρ. (or ἃ μὴ ἑώρ.), but this ἐμβατεύειν in and of
itself, that forms the characteristic perversity in the conduct of
those people—a perversity which is set forth by εἰκῆ φυσιούμ.
κιτίλ., and in ver. 19 as immoral and antichristian. — ὑπὸ τοῦ
νοὸς τῆς σαρκ. αὐτοῦ! becoming puffed up by (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 πνεῦμα, whose
organ it is designed to be, but of the materio-physical human
nature, of the σάρξ as the seat of the sin-power, and is governed
by its lusts instead of the divine truth. Comp. Rom. 1, 21, 28,
iv. 1, vi. 19, vii. 14, xii. 2; Eph. iv. 17 f.; see also Kluge in
the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1871, p. 329 ff. The νοῦς does not
belong to the essence of the σάρξ (in opposition to Holsten) ;
but, be it observed, the matter is so represented that the σάρξ
of the false teacher, in accordance with its dominant superiority,
appears personified (comp. Rom. viii. 6), as if the νοῦς, 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, 11. 19. 399

the man, who is guided by it, is ἀνόητος (Gal. iii. 1, 3; Tit.
iii. 3), loses his moral judgment (Rom. xii. 2), falls into ἐπεθυ-
μίας ἀνοήτους (1 Tim. vi. 9), and withstands Christian truth
and purity as κατεφθαρμένος τὸν νοῦν (2 Tim. iii. 8; 2 Cor.
xi. 3), and ἐσκοτισμένος τῇ διανοίᾳ (Eph. iv. 18).— The
puffing wp of the persons in question consisted in this, that
with all their professed and apparent humility they, as is
commonly the case with mystic tendencies, fancied that
they could not be content with the simple knowledge and
obedience of the gospel, but were capable of attaining a special
higher wisdom and sanctity. It is well said by Theophylact :
πῶς yap ov σαρκικοῦ νοὸς K. παχέος τὸ ἀθετῆσαι TA ὑπὸ Xpic-
tod λεχθέντα, John 111. 16, 17, 19, x. 26 ἔ, καὶ μυρία ὅσα!
Ver. 19. Kai] annexing to εἰκῆ φυσιούμενος κιτιλ. ἃ
further, and that a negative, modal form of the ἃ ἑώρακεν
ἐμβατεύων. This ἐμβατεύειν 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 !*— οὐ κρατῶν x.7.r.] not holding fast (but letting it
go, comp. Song of Sol. iii. 4: ἐκράτησα αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκα
αὐτόν) the Head, inasmuch, namely, as they seek angelic media-
tion. Bengel aptly observes : “ Qui non unice Christum tenet,
plane non tenet.” — ἐξ οὗ «.7.A.] represents the whole objection-
ableness of this ov κρατῶν τ. κεῴ., and the absolute necessity
of the opposite. This οὗ 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 τὴν xepar. In this view it may be masculine,
according to the construction κατὰ σύνεσιν (Kiihner, IL. 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. The compressed character-
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 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

personally (though it zs Christ), but in accordance with the
neuter idea: from which. See Matthiae, p. 988; Kiihner, IT.
1, p. 55. Comp. Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 201. The τ. «cedar.
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. ἐξ denotes the
causal issuing forth of the subsequently expressed relation,
comp. Eph. iv. 16.— πᾶν τὸ σῶμα] 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. 259 ff.). Comp. on 1 Cor. xii. 12 f,, vi 15;
Rom. xu. 4 ἘΠ; also 1 Cor. xi. 3. Any pressing contrary
to the author's design of the thought of a σῶμα, which strictly
taken is a trunk, is in this particular case excluded by the
eraphic delineation of the constantly living and active con-
nection of the members with the Head. Every comparison,
indeed, when pressed, becomes halting. — διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν x.
συνδεσμῶν émtyop. Kk. συμβιβ.1 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 ἐξ
ov therefore is to be referred neither to the participles only,
nor to the verb only, but to both ; and διὰ τ. ἀφ. κ. συνδεσμ.
specifies by what means the ézvyop. x. συμβιβ., proceeding
from the Head, is brought about, viz. through the (bodily) nerve-
impulses (not joints, as it is usually explained; see on Eph.
iv. 16), which are conveyed from the Head to the body, and
through the bands, which, proceeding from the Head, place the
whole in organic connection. Observe that ἐπύχορ. refers to
διὰ τ. ἁφῶν, and συμβιβ. to «. συνδεσμ. 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 ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἐστι πᾶσα αἴσθησις κ.
πᾶσα κίνησις. As, therefore, the body receives its efficiency
from the head through the contact of impulses effected by
means of the network of nerves, so would the church,

CHAP. II. 19. 401

separated from Christ—from whom the feelings and impulses
in a spiritual sense, the motions and activities of the higher
ζωή, 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 (κοινωνία), which
give to the union of individuals the coherence of articulate
unity. Faith is the inner ground of the ddai, not the latter
themselves (in opposition to Bengel) ; so also is Jove the inner
ground of the συνδεσμοί of the mystical body, not these latter
themselves (in opposition to Tertullian, Zanchius, Estius,
Bengel, and others) ; and the operative principle on the part of
Christ the Head is the Holy Spirit (Eph. iv. 4; 1 Cor. xii. 3 f,
7, et al.). Theodoret erroneously (comp. Ewald) explains the
συνδεσμοί as the ἀπόστολοι kK. πῤοφῆται x. διδάσκαλοι, and
Bohmer takes the agai and συνδεσμ. as the believers. The
latter, as also the teachers, are in fact the members, and share
in experiencing what is here asserted of the entire body.—
ἐπιχορηγούμ. receiving supply, being furnished. Comp. on
the passive expression, which is not un-Pauline (Holtzmann),
but in harmony with the generai passive usage (Kiihner, IT.
1, p. 109), Polyb. iv. 77. 2: πολλαῖς ἀφορμαῖς ἐκ φύσεως
κεχορηγημένος, iii. 75. 3, οὐ al.; Diod. Sic. i. 73; Ecclus.
xliv. 6; 3 Macc. vi 40. The compound, not expressing “ in
addition besides” (Bleek), denotes that the yopnyia is coming
to, ws being conveyed towards. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 10; Gal. iii.
5; Dion. Hal. x. 54. But it is not said with what the body
is provided, as χορηγεῖν (comp. also ἐπίχορ., Ecclus. xxv. 22)
is often used absolutely (see 6... the passages from Polybius in
Schweighauser, Lex. p. 663), and admits of its more precise
definition being supplied from the context, which, however,
here points not to nourishment (Grotius, de Wette), but to that
which is accomplished through the feelings (ἁφῶν), namely,
the vital activity, of which the body would’ be destitute in
the absence of the different impulses. Comp. Chrysostom: τὸ
εἶναι καὶ To καλῶς εἶναι, Theophylact : πᾶσα αἴσθησις xk.
COL. 20

402 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

πᾶσα κίνησις, and in the application: λαμβάνει τὸ Shy x.
αὔξειν πνευματικῶς. ---- τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ] denoted by the
article as the divine growth absolutely; τοῦ Θεοῦ is the
genitive auctoris: which God confers (1 Cor. iii. 6, 7), with
which ἐξ οὗ is not at variance (as Bahr thinks), since God is
ranked above Christ (1 Cor. xi. 3), and is the supreme operat-
ing principle in the church (1 Cor. xii. 6; Eph. iv. 6). At
once weak, and suggested by nothing in the text, is the view :
“incrementum, quod Deus probat ” (Calvin, Bahr’). What is
meant is the gradual growth of Christians collectively toward
Christian werfection. The circumstance that αὔξει as an
intransitive only occurs again in Eph. ii. 21, comp. iv. 15,
and αὔξησις only in Eph. iv. 16, cannot prove it to be an
un-Pauline mode of expression (Holtzmann). Respecting the
connection of the verb with the more precisely defined cog-
nate noun, see Winer, p. 210 [E. T. 281]; Lobeck, Paralip.
p. 507 f.; Kiihner, 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 with
Him also in resurrection (iii. 1). His aim is to show, in
connection with the former, the groundlessness and perversity
of the heretical prohibitions of meats (vv. 20-23), and to
attach to the latter—to the fellowship of resurrection—the
essence of Christian morality in whole and in detail, and there-
with the paraenetic portion of the Epistle (iii. 1—iv. 6), the tenor
of which thereby receives the character of the holiest moral
necessity. — εἰ ἀπεθάνετε x.T.r.] the legal abstinence required
by the false teachers (see below) stands in contradiction with
the fact, that the readers at their conversion had entered into
the fellowship of the death of Christ, and thereby had become
loosed from the στοιχεία τοῦ κόσμον (see on ver. 8), 1.6. from the
ritual religious elements of non-Christian humanity, among
which the legal prohibition of meats and the traditional regu-
lations founded thereon are included. How far the man who

1 Comp. Chrysostom and Oecumenius, who explain τοῦ Θεοῦ by κατὰ Θεό».

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 virtue
of their fellowship of death with Him, whereby the bind-
ing relation of debt which had hitherto subsisted for them
has ceased. Comp. Gal. ii. 19, iv. 3,9; Rom. vii 4, e¢ al. —
ἀποθνήσκειν, with ἀπό, meaning to die away from something,
moriendo liberarit a (Porphyr. de abstin. ab esu anim.i. 41), is
only met with here in the N. T.; elsewhere it is used with the
dative, as in Gal. 11. 19, Rom. vi. 2, whereby the same thing
is otherwise conceived in point of form. It is, moreover, to
be observed, that Christ Himself also is by death released from
the στοιχεία, since He was made under the law, and, although
sinless, was destined to take upon Himself the curse of it;
hence it was only by His death in obedience to the Father
(Phil. ii. 8; Rom. v. 19), that He became released from
this relation. Comp. on Gal. iv. 4. Huther erroneously
denies that such an ἀποθανεῖν can be predicated of Christ, and
therefore assumes (comp. Schenkel and Dalmer) the brachy-
logy: “if, by your dying with Christ, ye are dead from the
στουιχεία τοῦ Kocpov.— Ti ὡς ζῶντες κιτ.λ. why are ye, as
though ye were still alive in the world, commanded: Touch not,
etc. Such commands are adapted to those who are not, like
you, dead, ete. As ἀποθανόντες σὺν X. ἀπὸ τ. στοιχ. τ. κόσμ.,
ye are no longer alive in the domain of the non-Christian
κόσμος, but are removed from that sphere of life (belonging
to the heavenly πολίτευμα, Phil. iii. 20). The word δογμα-
τίζειν, only found here in the N. T., but frequently in the
LXX. and Apocrypha, and in the Fathers and decrees of
Councils (see Suicer, Thes. I. p. 935), means nothing more
than to decree (Diod. Sic. iv. 83; Diog. L. iii. 51; Anth. Pal.
ix. 576.4; Arrian. £pict. iii. 7; Esth. iii. 9 ; 3 Esdr. vi. 34;
2 Macc. x. 8, xv. 36; 3 Mace. iv. 11), and δογματίζεσθε is

404 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

passive: why are ye prescribed to, why do men make decrees for
you (vobis) ? so that it is not a reproach (the censure conveyed
by the expression affects rather the false teachers), but a warn-
ing to those readers (comp. vv. 16, 18) who were not yet led
away (i. 4, 11. 5), and who ought not to yield any compliance
to so absurd a demand. That the readers are the passive
subject, is quite according to rule, since the active has the
dative along with it, δογματίζειν τινι (2 Mace. x. 8); comp.
also Hofmann and Beza. The usual rendering takes δογματ.
as middle, and that either as: why do ye allow commands to
be laid down for you (Huther), rules to be imposed upon yow
(de Wette), yourselves to be entangled with rules (Luther) ? and
such like;' or even: why do ye make rules for yourselves (Ewald) ?
comp. Vulgate: decernitis. This, however, would involve a
censure of the readers, and ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ 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, ὡς
ζῶντες ἐν x. indicates the erroneous aspect in which the Chris=
tian standing of the readers was regarded by the false teachers,
who took up such an attitude towards them, as if they were
not yet dead from the world, which nevertheless (comp. ver.
11f.) they are through their fellowship with Christ (ili. 3 ;
Gal. 11. 19f.; 2 Cor. v.14f). The ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ, 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 εἶναι ἐν τῇ σαρκί in Rom.
vii. 5 and Gal. vi. 14. Observe, further, that this ζῆν ἐν
κόσμῳ is not one and the same thing with εἶναι ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα
TOU κόσμου (Hofmann, by way of establishing his explanation
of στουχεῖα in the sense of the material things of the world); 4
but the ζῆν ἐν x. is the more general, to which the special εἶναι
ὑπὸ τ. στοιχεῖα τ. x. is subordinate. If the former is the case,
the latter also takes place by way of consequence. — μὴ
ἅψῃ κιτιλῇ a vivid concrete representation of the δόγματα
concerned, in a “ compendiaria mimesis” (Flacius). The ¢riple

1 Comp. Chrysostom: πῶς τοῖς στοιχείοις ὑπόκεισθε ; similarly Theodoret, Beza;
and recently, Bahr, Bohmer, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and others.

CHAP. II. 20, 21. 405

description brings out the wrgency of the eager demand for
abstinence, and the relation of the three prohibitions is such,
that μηδέ both times means nor even ; in the second instance,
however, in the sense of ne quidem, so that the last point
stands to the two former together in the relation of a climax -
thow shalt not lay hold of, nor even taste, nor once touch !
What was meant as object of this enjoined ἀπέχεσθαι (1 Tim.
iv. 3) the reader was aware, and its omission only renders the
description more vivid and terse. Steiger’s view, that the
object was suppressed by the false teachers themselves from
fear and hypocrisy, is quite groundless. From the words
themselves, however (yevon), and from the subsequent context
(see ver. 23), it is plain that the prohibitions concerned certain
meats and drinks (comp. ver. 16); and it is entirely arbitrary
to mix up other things, as even de Wette does, making them
refer also to sexual intercourse (Ouyyavew γυναικός, Eur. Hipp.
1044, et al.; see Monck, ad Eur. Hipp. 14; Valckenaer, ad
Phoen. 903), while others distinguish between ἅψῃ and θίγῃς
in respect of their objects, eg. Estius: the former refers to
unclean objects, such as the garments of a menstruous woman,
the Jatter to the buying and selling of unclean meats ; Erasmus,
Zanchius: the former concerns dead bodies, the Jatter 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 ἅψῃ refer (1 Cor. vii. 1).
Others give other expositions still; Bohmer arbitrarily makes
Θύγης refer to the oil, which the Essenes and other theoso-
phists regarded as a labes. That Paul in ἅψῃ and Oly. had no
definite object at all in view, is not even probable (in opposi-
tion to Huther), because yevon stands between them, and
ver. 23 points to abstinence from meats, and not at the same
time to anything else.—Following the more forcible ἅψῃ, lay
hold of, the more subtle θύγῃς, touch, is in admirable keeping
with the climax: the. object was to be even ἄθικτον (Soph.
0. C. 39). Comp. on the difference between the two words,
Xen. Cyrop. i. 3.5: ὅταν μὲν τοῦ ἄρτου ἅψῃ, εἰς οὐδὲν τὴν
χεῖρα ἀποψώμενον (σὲ ὁρῶ), ὅταν δὲ τούτων {these dainty
dishes) τινὸς θίγῃς, εὐθὺς ἀποκαθαίρῃ τὴν χεῖρα εἰς τὰ χειρό-

406 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

paxtpa, alsov. 1.16. In an inverted climax, Eur. Bacch. 617 :
οὔτ᾽ ἔθιγεν οὔθ᾽ ἥψαθ᾽' ἡμῶν. See also Ex. xix. 12, where the
LXX. delicately and aptly render 37¥?3 ΜᾺ), to touch the outer
border of the mountain, by the free translation θίγειν te αὐτοῦ,
but then express the general 172 Y237 by the stronger ὁ ἅψά-
μενος τοῦ ὄρους. Hofmann erroneously holds that ἅπτομαι
expresses rather the motion of the subject grasping at some-
thing, θυγγάνω 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 ἅπτεσθαι signifies the actual laying hold of, and, in
Paul’s writings, of 1 Cor. vii. 1, 2 Cor. vi. 17, as also the quite
common Grecian usage in the sense of contrectare (attingere et
inhaerere), and similarly the signification of the active to fasten
to, to make to stick (Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 698; Duncan, Lez.
Hom. ed. Rost, p. 150). The mere stretching out the hand
towards something, in order to seize it, is never ἅπτεσθαι.
Hofmann, moreover, in order to establish a climax of the
three points, arbitrarily makes the subtle gloss upon yevon,
that this might even happen more wnintentionally, and upon
θίγῃς, that this might happen involuntarily—Respecting the
aorist θυγεῖν (a present θύγειν instead of Oryydve can nowhere
be accepted as certain), see Schaefer, ad Greg. Cor. p. 990,
Ellendt, Lew. Soph. I. p. 804; Kiihner, I. p. 833.

Ver. 22. We are not to put in a parenthesis μὴ ἅψῃ... ἀπο-.
χρήσει, (Erasmus Schmid, Heinrichs, and others), but merely
ἅ ἐστιν... . ἀποχρ. (Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Ewald) ; for
the construction proceeds uninterruptedly to θύγῃς, is then only
broken by the judgment ἅ ἐστι π. εἰς $0. τ. ἀποχρ., and there-
after runs on with κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλμ. K.7.X.— ἅ ἐστι... ἀποχρ.
is an inserted’ judgment of the apostle anent that which the false
teachers interdicted by μὴ ἅψη x«.7.r.: which all are destined
to destruction” through the using,—from which it is to be rendered

' For it is only an incidental observation in opposition to the above doypa-
σίζεσθαι ; the main ground of opposition to the latter lies in εἰ ἀπεθάν. σὺν Χ,

? ἐστὴν sis φθοράν, it serves for destruction, i.e. it serves for the purpose of being
destroyed. See generally Winer, p. 178 [E. T. 229]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr.
Ῥ. 181 [E. T. 150f.]. Comp. Wisd. iv. 18 ; Ecclus. xxxiv. 10; Judith v. 21, 24,
Vili. 22.

CHAP. II. 22. 407

palpably apparent, how preposterous it is to make such things
a condition of eternal bliss by urging abstinence from them.
We have here a similar line of argument to that in Matt.
xv. 17. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 13. Hence φθορά 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 τῇ
ἀποχρήσει, which, like abusus, indicates the using up, the con-
suming (Plut. Mor. p. 267E; Davis, ad Cic. N. D. iv. 60).
So it is unanimously explained by Chrysostom, Theodoret (εἰς
κόπρον yap ἅπαντα μεταβάλλεται), Oecumenius (φθορᾷ γὰρ,
φησιν, ὑπόκειται ἐν τῷ ἀφεδρῶνι), Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther,
Beza, Calvin, Wolf, Grotius, Michaelis, and many others, in-
cluding Bihr, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann.
But, according to others, who likewise regard @ ... ἀποχρ. as a
parenthetical judgment, the ἅ is to be referred to the prohibi-
tions, atroyp. to the use, 1.6. the following of them, and φθορά
(comp. Gal. vi. 8) to the destruction of the persons who follow
them: all which δόγματα by their use tend to (eternal) destruction.
So Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Cornelius a Lapide, Calixtus, Heu-
mann, Junker. Erroneously; because ἀπόχρησις never means
merely wse, and even the simple χρῆσις, in the sense of τήρησις,
would be an unsuitable designation; in fact, the entire addi-
tion, “ by the use,” would be utterly superfluous. On account
of ἀποχρ., the expedient must also be rejected, on linguistic
grounds, that @... ἀποχρ. are still words of the false teachers,
which Paul repeats with irony: “omnia haec (vetita) usw suo
perniciem afferunt,” Heinrichs, comp. Schenkel. By others,
who, like Tischendorf, have deleted the marks of parenthesis,
the whole down to ἀνθρώπων is taken together: all this, which
the false teachers forbid, tends through the using to (“ moral,”
de Wette) destruction, “si sc. ex doctorum Judaicorum prae-
ceptis et doctrinis hac de re judicium feratur,’1 Kypke; so also

1 Similarly Dalmer, who, however, takes τῇ ἀποχρ. in the sense of abuse,
joining it immediately to κατὰ τὰς διδασκ. x.7.2. But while ἀποχρῆσθαι (Dem.
215. 8 ; Herodian, v. 1. 13) is found in the sense of abuse (κατα χρῆσις, raparpiess),
ἀποχρῆσις is not, though it was so taken by Erasmus Schmid, Schoettgen,
Zachariae, as also by Grimm in his Lexicon,

408 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Vatablus, Storr, Flatt, Bohmer, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius
(Huther is undecided between this explanation and ours). But
in opposition to this it may be urged, that the compound ἀπο-
χρήσει would be entirely without a motive, since not the conswmp-
tion, but the wse at all would be soul-destroying according to
the maxims of those people. Our view alone supplies a motive
for the use of ἀποχρήσει, and that through the point of its
connection with εἰς φθοράν, in which case, however, the object
affected by ἀποχρ. and εἰς φθορ. must be the same (the things for-
bidden). De Wette’s objections are irrelevant, since the thought
of the parenthesis @ ... amoyp. is expressed not strangely,
but with Pauline ingenuity, the words κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλμ. κ-τ.λ.
annexed to δογματίζεσθε are by no means superfluous (see
below), nor does this annexation require us to begin the paren-
thesis with μὴ ἅψῃ and thereby to include heterogeneous
elements together; for μὴ ἅψῃ x.7.X. still belongs closely to
δογματ., of which it is the contents, and κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλμ. K.T.r.
is then annexed, after the brief incidentally inserted remark, to
δογματ. and its contents (μὴ ἅψῃ «.7.r.).— κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα
κτλ] The article before ἐντάλμ., and extending also to διδασ-
Kan., is generic. The μὴ ἅψῃ κιτιλ. was decreed by the false
teachers conformably to the commandments and doctrines of men,
not in consequence of what God had commanded and taught.
This element, annexed to δογματίζ., is by no means superfluous
(in opposition to de Wette), since, in fact, δόγμα 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 δογματίζεσθαι stands to the
ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ κιτλ. 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 ἀπεθάνετε σὺν X. x.7.2.), but
such as consisted in the human (Essene) definitions, expansions,
and amplifications of the former (κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν
ἀνθρώπων, 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 δογματίζεσθαι was regulated
by human standard, without the divine authority and warrant.

CITAP. II. 23. 409

Moreover, διδασκ. is not synonymous with ἐντάλμ., but has a
wider sense (in Matt. xv. 9 and Mark vi. 7, the narrower idea
comes after as a more precise definition), so that the two
together specify the preceptive and generally (καί) the doctrinal
standard. Comp. Isa. xxix. 13.

Ver. 23. And of what nature and quality is that, which I
have just termed τὰ ἐντάλματα x. διδασκαλ. τῶν ἀνθρ. 1 ---
ἅτινα] quippe quae, ie. ita comparata, ut (Kiihner, ad Xen.
Mem. ii. 1, 30). The conception was different in ἅ of ver. 22,
where the thing in question was regarded purely objectively,
as mere object. — ἐστί] belongs to ἔχοντα, without, however,
being with this equivalent to ἔχει; it introduces what the
ἅτινα areas regards their quality. If it belonged to οὐκ ἐν
τιμῇ τινι (Bahr), or to πρὸς πλησμ. τ. o. (Bengel), or to ἐν
ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ «.7.r. (that which moves and has its being in
ἐθέλοθρ. x.7.r.), aS Hofmann thinks, taking λόγον μ. ἔχοντα
cod. parenthetically—why should it not have been actually
placed beside that to which it would belong? Apart from
this, Hofmann’s connection of it with ἐν ἐθέλοθρ. could alone
deserve consideration, since from ἐν ἐθελοθρ. onwards all that
follows is consecutive. But even this connection must be
abandoned, because the sphere of subsistence indicated by ἐν
ἐθελοθρ. «.7.X. would be too wide for such special prohibitions,
ver. 21, as are conveyed by ἅτινα, and because we have no
right to put aside from the connection, as a mere incisum,
the important thought (comp. ver. 8) expressed by Ady. τ. ἔχ.
σοφίας, which comes in with ἐστί so emphatically at the very
head of the judgment, and appropriately, as regards meaning,
attaches to itself all that follows. — λόγον ἔχειν, explained by
many since Jerome approximately in the sense of speciem or
practeatum habere (see Kypke, de Wette, Dalmer, and others ;
also Koster in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 318), may, according as
we adopt for λόγος 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, Zea. II.
p. 257; from Polyb. in Schweighiuser, Lex. p. 370*), in

1 So Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. 1870, p. 250, holding that what is rejected in
the legal sense in ver. 22 is here ‘‘ permitted as voluntary asceticism.” See,

410 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

which case the ground may certainly be only an apparent one,
a pretext (comp. Ellendt, Lew. Soph. II. p. 36); further, to have
an insight into something (often thus in Plato, eg. Rep. p.
475 C), to have regard to (Herod. i. 62 ; Plat. Zim. p. 87 C) ; or:
to have a reputation, so that one is in any relation the subject
of discourse, of legend, of mention, of rumour, etc.; see e.g.
Plat. Zpin. p. 987 B: ‘Ewodopos . . . ᾿Αφροδίτης εἶναι σχεδὸν
ἔχει λόγον (dicitur), Herod. v. 56: λόγον ἔχει τὴν Πυθίην
ἀναπεῖσαι, comp. ix. 78 ; Xen. Occ. 11. 4 (the same thing con-
ceived under another form: λόγος ἔχει τινα, Herod. vii. 5, and
frequently). The latter signification is here to be adhered
to, because the subsequent οὐκ ἐν tym τινι, when correctly
rendered, accords with it as bearing on the matter in hand, and
is in sense appropriately correlative. Hence: that which has
a repute of wisdom, popularly passes for wisdom. Comp. ὄνομα
ἔχειν (Rey. iii, 1) and ὀνομάξεσθαι (1 Cor. v. 11). — μέν]
without a subsequent δέ; there was before the apostle’s mind
the contrast: repute, truly, but not the reality, οὐ δύναμιν, οὐκ
ἀλήθειαν, Chrysostom. He omitted to express this, however,
led aside by the progress of his discourse, so that instead of
bringing in the antithesis of λόγον by δέ, he makes οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ
τινι follow without δέ, and in contrast not to the λόγον, but
to the ἐν ἐθελοθρ. «.7.r.,—from which we are to gather in
substance, what in starting with λόγον μέν it was intended
to express. See Erasmus, Annot., and generally Winer,
p. 534 f. [E. T. 719]; Buttmann, Newt. 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 μέν without an adversative word following is so common,
that there is no ground for requiring before οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τ. an
ἀλλά (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 πρὸς
πλησμ. τ. σαρκός an ill-inserted remnant of the original. —
ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ] instrumental, specifying by what means it is
brought about, on the part of those who lay down the com-

however, on the sequel, from which the impossibility of this interpretation is
self-evident,

CHAP. 11. 23. 4T}

mandments and doctrines referred to, that the latter have a
repute of wisdom: through self-chosen worship, 1.6. through a
cultus, which is not divinely commanded, but is the work of
their own self-determination. What was meant by this, the
reader was aware; and ver. 18 places it beyond doubt that the
worship of angels formed an essential and chief part of it,
though it need not, from the general character of the expres-
sion in our passage, have been meant exclusively ; other forms
of capricious cultus may have been included with it. The
substantive ἐθελοθρ. does not occur elsewhere except in eccle-
siastical writers; but the verb ἐθελοθρησκεῖν is explained by
Suidas: ἰδίῳ θελήματι σέβειν τὸ δοκοῦν, and Epiph. Haer. 1. 16
explains the name Pharisees: διὰ τὸ ἀφωρισμένους εἶναι αὐτοὺς
ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων διὰ τὴν ἐθελοπερισσοθρησκείαν Tap’ αὐτοῖς
νενομισμένην. Comp. ἐθελοδουλεία (Plat. Symp. p. 184 OC,
Rep. p. 562 Ὁ), ἐθελοκάκησις, ἐθελοκίνδυνος, ἐθελόπορος, ἐθελο-
πρόξενος (Thue. iii. 70. 2, where the scholiast explains: ἀφ᾽
ἑαυτοῦ γενόμενος καὶ μὴ κελευσθεὶς x.7.r.), and various others.
Hofmann erroneously takes away from the word in itself the
bad serise, and explains (after the analogy of ἐθελοπονία and
ἐθελουργία) : 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 θρησκεία was certainly some-
thing bad. The unfavourable meaning, according to Hof-
mann’s present explanation (he gave a different but also
erroneous view in his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 72; see, in opposi-
tion to it, my third edition), is only got by the addition of
σώματος, which belongs to all thé three points, so that é@edo-
θρησκεία σώματος must be understood as a worship gladly
and earnestly rendered, but which is rendered only with bodily
demeanour. But σώματος does not suit either with ἐθελοθρ.
or tarewo¢gp., but only with ἀφειδίᾳ. For it is plain from

? According to Hofmann, namely, ταπεινοφροσύνη σώματος is a disposition of self-
humiliation, which, however, only weakens the body by abstinences. But it would
rather have the absurd sense: humility of the body ; for ταπεινοφροσύνη neither
means humiliation nor self-humiliation, but humility, meekness, ver. 18, 111, 12 ;
Phil. ii. 3.

Aa 2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIIE COLOSSIANS.

ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος that σώματος is the genitive of the object,
from which it follows that θρησκεία σώματος would yield the
opposite sense: a θρησκεία rendered to the body (comp. θρησκ.
τῶν ἀγγέλων in ver. 18), which would come ultimately to the
idea of the λατρεύειν τῇ ἡδονῇ (Lucian, Migr. 15), comp. Plut.
Mor. p. 107 C: λατρεία τοῦ σώματος, and on the matter con-
ceived as θρησκεία, Phil. iii. 19.— tamewodpoc.] from the
point of view of the false teachers (comp. ver. 18), what they
thus designated ; although in fact it consisted in this, that, as
in all false humility, they with spiritual conceit (comp. ver. 18,
and subsequently πρὸς πλήσμον. τ. σαρκός) took pleasure in
unduly undervaluing themselves —an ethical self-contempt,
which involved in relation to God the ἐθελοθρησκεία, and to-
wards the body an wnsparingness through mistaken abstinence
and mortifying asceticism, inconsistent with Christian liberty.
On ἀφειδίᾳ, comp. Plat. Dein. p.412 D; Plut. Mor. p. 762 D;
further, ἀφειδεῖν βίου, Thue. ii. 43. 3; ψυχῆς, Soph. #1. 968 ;
σωμάτων, Lys. ii. 25, Diod. Sic. xiii, 60.— οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι]
not through anything whatever that is an honour, not through
anything honourable, by which that repute would appear
founded in truth and just. The expression is purposely chosen,
in order to make the λόγος σοφίας appear as repute without
honour, 1.0. without any morally estimable substratum on the
part of the persons concerned. The following πρὸς πλησμονὴν
τῆς σαρκός is also purposely chosen; in it πλησμον. signifi-
cantly glances back to ἀφειδίᾳ, and τῆς σαρκός to σώματος,
and there is produced a thoughtful contrast, a striking ethical
oxymoron: for the sake of fully satisfying the flesh. Those com-
mandments and doctrines have a repute of wisdom, etc., 7
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 2s satisfied ;
the fleshly sinfui lust of these men gets fully satisfying
nourishment conveyed to it, when they see that their doctrines
and commandments pass for wise. What lust of the flesh it
is which Paul has in view, is placed beyond doubt by the case
itself and also by ver. 18, namely, that of religious conectt and
pride, which through the λόγον σοφίας ἔχειν feels itself flattered

CHAP. II. 23. 413

and gratified in the fancy of peculiar perfection. This interpre-
tation, which we have given of οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι, πρὸς πλησμονὴν
τῆς σαρκός, is held in substance, following Hilary (“sagina
carnalis sensus traditio humana est”), by Bengel, Storr, Flatt,
Bohmer, Steiger, Bahr, Huther, Dalmer, Bleek,and others. Most,
however, refer ἐν τιμῇ Tue to the honour to be shown to the
body (or the σάρξ, see Luther), and πρὸς πλησμ. τ. σαρκ. to
bodily satisfaction, so that the sense results: not in some estecm-
ing of the body to the satisfying of bodily wants;* “ sentit
apost., sapientiam illam aut praecepta talia esse, per quae
corpori debitus honor, pertinens ad expletionem, 1.6. justam
refectionem carnis, subtrahatur,’ Estius. So, in substance,
Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Oceumenius,
Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin,
Musculus, Clarius, Zeger, Erasmus Schmid, Zanchius, Vatablus,
Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Michaelis, Nosselt, Rosen-
miiller, and others, including de Wette and Baumgarten-
Crusius. It is fatal to this view :—(1) that ἐν τιμῇ τινι, as
is shown by the repetition of ἐν, is the contrast not merely to
ἐν ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος, but to the entire connected ἐν ἐθελοθρη-
oxeia ... σώματος, and hence the reference to the honour to
be shown to the body does not seem justified by the context ;”
(2) further, that for the designation of the mere satisfaction
at this particular place, where Paul could only have had a
πρόνοιαν τῆς σαρκός in view, as in Rom. xiii. 14, the term
πλησμονήν would be very inappropriate, especially in contra-
distinction to the mortifications of the false teachers, since it
denotes filling up, satisfying fully, even in Ex. xvi. 3 (See
generally the passages from the LXX. and Apocrypha quoted
by Schleusner, hes. IV. p. 375 f.); comp. Plat. Legg. viii.
Ῥ. 837: Xen. Mem. iii. 11. 14, rep. Lac. 2. 5, Cyrop. iv. 2. 40,
Ages. 5.1; Lucian. Migr, 33, Ep. Saturn. 28 ; Polyb. 11. 19. 4;
(3) finally, that the interchange of σώματος and σαρκός, in

1 «God will have the body honoured, i.e. it is to have its food, clothing, etc.,
for its necessities, and not to be destroyed with intolerable fasting, labour, or
impossible chastity, as the doctrine of men would do,” Luther's gloss.

2 This applies also in opposition to Olshausen, who in the case of ἐν σιμῇ rive

follows the explanation of respect for the body, but with regard to πρὸς rancu.
7. capx. 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, σαρκός stands in as ingenious correlation with
σώματος, AS πλησμονήν With ἀφειδίᾳ. These arguments apply
also in opposition to Ewald’s view; “what seems very wise,
but is im 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 πλησμονὴ
τ. σαρκός rightly, but explains οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι in such a way
as to make τόνε masculine, and to attach it as appropriating
dative to τιμῇ : “not so that honour accrues to any one.” This
is to be rejected, because Paul, instead of simply and clearly
writing τιμῇ Twos, would only have expressed himself in a
way singularly liable to be misunderstood by τινί, which every
reader was led to join as a feminine with τιμῇ (“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 τινί taken as masculine.

CHAP. III. | 415

CHAPTER IIl.

Ver. 4. Instead of ὑμῶν, which Griesb. approves, and Lachm.
puts in the margin, but Tisch. 8 in the text, ἡμῶν is read by
Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. 7, in opposition to C Ὁ ἢ E* F P G& min.
Arm. Slav. ed. Vulg. It. and many Fathers (not Origen). A is
defective here. Considering this weighty evidence in favour of
ὑμῶν, and seeing that the following καὶ ὑμεῖς 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 ἡμῶν, we have stronger grounds for regarding ὑμῶν as
original than as a repetition from ver. 3.— Ver. 5. ὑμῶν] is
wanting, indeed, in Β CO*8* 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. —é’ ἅ] C* D* E F G Clar. Germ. read δ ὅ
or διό, Rightly; the Recepta, though strongly attested, is an
alteration to correspond with the plurality of the preceding
objects under comparison of Eph. v. 6.— ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τ. ἀπειθείας]
is wanting in B D* (Ὁ Sahid. Aeth. Clem. Cypr. Ambrosiast.,
bracketed by Lachm. and omitted by Tisch. The eyidence
against it is too weak to justify its rejection, especially in the
face of the agreement of the passage otherwise with Eph. v. 6,
and of the incompleteness of the thought which would remain,
in case those words were omitted; Reiche properly defends
them. — Ver. 7. Instead of τούτοις Elz. and Scholz have αὐτοῖς,
in opposition to decisive Codd., although defended by Reiche.
—Ver. 11. Before ἐλεύθ. Lachm. inserts xa/; considerably
attested, it is true (not by BCs), but nevertheless an addition
which crept in easily in consequence of the first two clauses of
the verse; nearly all the same authorities (not A) have it also
before Σχύθης. --- Ver. 12. Instead of ofxripuod Elz. has οἰκτιρμῶν,
in opposition to decisive testimony. — Ver. 13. ὁ Χριστός] Lachm.
reads ὁ χύριος, following ABD* FG 213, Vulg. It. Aug. (once)
Pel. Rightly ; the Recepta is an interpretation, instead of which
ὁ Θεός (Ὁ) and Deus in Christo (Arm. Aug. once) are also found.
— Ver. 14. ὁ] ABCFGP Vulg. It. Clem. Chrys. read ὅ, which

416 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

is approved by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. ὅς
(s*) and the Recepta ἥτις (N**) are emendations.— Ver. 15.
Instead of τοῦ Χριστοῦ Elz, has rod Θεοῦ, in opposition to decisive
evidence, from Phil. iv. 7.— Ver. 16. The χαΐ before tu». and
ὠδαῖς should in both cases be omitted (Scholz omits only the
first), in accordance with preponderating evidence. Borrowed
from Eph. v. 19.— ἐν χάρ.] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἐν τῇ χάρ., which,
on the authority of BD* E*F Gx** Clem. Chrys. Theodoret,
is to be preferred. The article was passed over as superfluous.
— Following far preponderant testimony (also ἐδ), we must read
subsequently with Lachm. and Tisch. 8: ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμ. τῷ
Θεῷ, not: ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμ. τῷ κυρίῳ (Elz. Reiche), or: ἐν τῇ xapdig
iu. τ. Θεῷ (Tisch. 7). Comp. Eph. v. 19.— Ver. 17. κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ]
Lachm. : ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which is to be adopted on the authority
of AC D* FG min. vss. and Fathers; 8 has xup. ᾿Ιησοῦ Xp. —
καὶ carpi] καί is to be omitted, with Lachm. and Tisch., following
ABCR® min. vss. and Fathers; from Eph. v. 20.— Ver. 18.
After τοῖς Elz. reads ἐδίοις, in opposition to decisive evidence ;
from Eph. v. 22.— Ver. 19. After γυναῖκας Lachm. has ὑμῶν,
which, with considerable evidence in its favour, is the more
especially to be adopted, as in Eph. v. 25 ἑαυτῶν 15 found. The
omission easily occurred, because τοῖς ἀνδράσιν previously was
also without genitival definition. — Ver. 20. Instead of ἐν κυρίῳ
Elz. has τῷ κυρίῳ, which is to be regarded on decisive evidence
as an omission of the apparently superfluous #.— Ver. 21.
ἐρεθίζετε) Lachm. and Scholz, as also Griesb., recommend: sap-
οργίζετε, following, it is true, AC D* E*¥ FG K L® (aapopyiZeras)
min. Vule. It. Theodoret, ms. Theoph. ; but it comes from Eph.
vi. 4. — Ver. 22. Elz. and Tisch. have ὀφθαλμοδουλείαις, which
Reiche approves. But ὀφθαλμοδουλείῳ (recommended by Griesb.
and adopted by Lachm. and Scholz) is the reading in A B D E
F G min. Damasce. Theoph.; and Chrysostom also by κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμο-
δουλείαν testifies in favour of the singular. The singular is to be
preferred as preponderantly attested, and because the final
syllable AI (¢) might very easily bring about the conversion
into the plural. If the singular had come in from Eph. vi. 6,
Chrysostom’s reading, κατ ὀφθ., would be more frequent. — In-
stead of κύριον Elz. has Θεόν, contrary to decisive witnesses.— Ver.
23. καὶ πᾶν 6, τι ἐάν] The reading ὃ ἐάν, which Griesb. approves,
and Lachm. Scholz and Tisch. have adopted, is decisively
attested ; the Recepta is from ver. 17.— Ver. 24. τῷ γάρ] γάρ
has so decisive witnesses against it (also 8), that, with Lachm.
and Tisch. (Griesb. also condemns it), it is to be deleted
as a current connective addition.— Ver. 25. ὁ δὲ] ὁ γάρ is

CHAP. III. 1. 417

decisively attested (also by δ); it is approved by Griesb., and
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The antithetical 6: crept in
from misunderstanding. — zowse?ras] The form κομίσεται (Lachm.)
is found in B D*** E K L 8** min. Fathers. To these may
be added F G, which have κομίζεται. The Recepta must give
way to the more strongly attested κομίσεται. Comp. on Eph.
vi. 8.

ConTENTS.—The generally hortatory second portion of the
Epistle, preceded in 11. 6 merely by a special exhortation
against the danger of heresy, does not begin with ii. 6
(Hofmann), but only now, and seeks to promote in the
readers the essential moral direction of the Christian life
(vv. 1-4); after which they are encouraged to lay aside and
abandon everything which is contrary to that direction
(vv. 5-11), and to adopt and follow all that is good and
edifying in a Christian sense (vv. 12-17). Then follow
exhortations in reference to the various relations of the
household (ver. 18-iv. 1).

Ver. 1 ἢ Ec] does not make the relation problematical any
more than in 11. 20, but sets it forth as an undoubted fact
(ii. 12), from which the subsequent duty results, in syllogistic
form, as is frequently the case in Paul’s writings (see Fritzsche,
ad Rom. I. p. 325), and also in the classics (Hartung, Parti-
kell. I. p. 259 ἢ; Kithner and Herbst, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1).
The being risen with Christ, namely, is not meant in the
sense of the regenerate moral life (see on 11. 12), but as
the relation of real participation in the resurrection of Christ,
which involves as its ethteal correlate the obligation τὰ
ἄνω ζητεῖν. To be risen with Christ and not τὰ ἄνω ζητεῖν,
would be a contradiction. — οὖν] therefore, points back to
ver. 20, and with logical propriety, since fellowship in the
resurrection of Christ is the necessary consequence’ of fellow-

1 It is therefore with all the less reason that Hitzig, p. 23 ff., would have
vy. 1, 2 regarded as ‘‘ a portion of the reviser’s work,” at the same time denying
the integrity of the text in ii. 22, 23, declaring ii. 19 to be an interpolation,
andvery arbitrarily remodelling ii. 17, 18. He thinks that the interpolation of
iii. 1 f. betrays times subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem, when earthly
grounds of hope had vanished, but not extending beyond the period of Trajan,
—which is assumed to result from iv. 17. Combinations such as these are

COL. 2D

418 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

ship in His death—a fact which Paul had in view also in ver.
21, in writing ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ. The οὖν is not intended
to be reswmptive, namely, of what was said in 11. 12 (Hof-
mann); otherwise what comes after that verse down to the
present one must have had the nature of a parenthesis, or a
digression. — τὰ ἄνω] the opposite to ta ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς : that
which is in heaven (comp. John vii. 23; Gal. iv. 26; Phil.
iii, 14), by which is indicated the Messianic salvation which,
with its future blessings (ii. 17), is preserved in heaven to be
manifested and communicated at the Parousia (vv. 3, 4).
Comp. Matt. vi. 33, and the conceptions of the treasure in
heaven (Matt. vi. 20), of the heavenly βραβεῖον (ii. 18;
Phil. iii. 14), πολίτευμα (Phil. 111. 20), Jerusalem (Gal. iv. 26).
It is substantially the same as δόξαν x. τιμὴν x. ἀφθαρσίαν
ζητεῖν in Rom. ii. 7. As a philosophical analogy, comp.
especially the ἄνω ὁδός in the beautiful close of Plato’s Re-
public, and the farewell of Socrates in the Phaedo. A liturgical
colowring, which such expressions as Ta ἄνω (also τὰ ἐν τοῖς
οὐρανοῖς «.7.X. In i. 16, 20) are alleged to have (Holtzmann),
is arbitrarily assumed as a criterion of a later age.— οὗ ὁ X.
ἐστιν x.T.r.| furnishing a motive encouraging them to perfect
the fellowship. “ Par est enim illuc tendere studia curasque
membrorum, ubi jam versatur caput,’ Erasmus. The event
of the bodily ascension (but not a definite form of the process)
is here, as in every case where the exalted Christ is the sub-
ject of discourse, presupposed. Comp. especially Phil. iii. 21;
1 Cor. xv. 48. Notwithstanding the local οὗ, Hofmann thinks
that Paul has conceived the supramundane existence of Christ
not at all locally. Comp., however, on Eph. i. 20 and Mark
xvi. 19; and see the frequent and significant ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω
and ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγώ from the lips of Jesus in John. — Ver. 2.
τὰ ἄνω] repeated with emphasis, and then still further
strengthened by the negative contrast. The φρονεῖτε is more
beyond the reach of criticism. According to Holtzmann, vv. 2, 3 presuppose
the destruction of all hopes connected with the continuance of the theocracy,
and directly allude to Heb. xii. 22; even the “‘sitting at the right hand”
(as in Eph. i. 20) is withal, notwithstanding Rom. viii. 34, assailed. Of

the entire chapter, Holtzmann only leaves vv. 3, 12, 13, 17 to stand as
original,

CHAP. III. 3. 419

comprehensive than {nretre, expressing not only the striving
(comp. Rom. ii. 7), but the whole practical bent of thought and
disposition (comp. Beck, bibl. Seelenl. p. 62), the moral meditari,
Phil. ii. 5. — τὰ ἐπὶ τ. γῆς] eg. money and estate, honours,
comforts, ete. Comp. Phil. iii, 19: οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες,
also 1 John ii. 15, et al. Neither the contrast nor the sub-
sequent text warrants us in finding here a further reference to
the requirements of the false teachers. So Theophylact:
Ta περὶ βρωμάτων κ. ἡμέρων; Calvin: “adhuc persequitur
suam disputationem de ceremoniis, quae similes tricis facit,
quae nos humi repere cogant;” comp. Beza, Michaelis, and
others. The hortatory portion of the Epistle proceeds no
longer at all in the form of statements opposed to the false
teachers, but in that of general moral exhortations.— We have
to observe, further, that the earthly is not of itself placed
under the point of view of the sinful, which would be quite
un-Pauline (1 Cor. vi. 12, x. 23), but is so as the contents of
the striving which is opposed to the τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖν. Comp.
the idea in Matt. vi. 21.

Ver. 3. Assigning a reason for the requirement of ver. 2. —
For ye are dead ; how then could your mind be directed
towards earthly things! and your life does not belong to the
realm of the visible world, but it is hidden with Christ in God:
how should you not then τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖν! It is a guide to
a correct and certain interpretation of the passage, that this
statement of a reason must affirm the same thing as was
already contained, only without special development, in εἰ
συνηγέρθ. τ. X. of ver. 1. This special exposition Paul now
gives. Whosoever is risen, namely, has died and lives, and
these are the two points to which ver. 3 refers. — ἀπεθάνετε]
namely, by your having entered into the fellowship of the
death of Christ. This being dead has dissolved in the con-
sciousness of the Christian the ties that hitherto bound him
to earthly things., He finds himself still in the realm of the
earthly, but he no longer dives therein, ii. 21. Comp. Phil. iii.
20; Gal. ii. 20.— ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν] must necessarily be the life,
which has followed the being dead; consequently the eternal
life, comp. ver. 4, which set in through the resurrection (of

420 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

which Christians, in fact, have become partakers with Christ,
ver. 1)—a life which the believer has, prior to the Parousia, as
a possession that has not yet been manifested but is still in
secret (οὔπω ἐφανερώθη, 1 John 111. 2), a treasure in heaven,
possessed in hope and still unrevealed, destined to appear in
glorious manifestation only at the Parousia. — σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ]
For Christ Himself, apart from fellowship with whose life the
ζωή of His believers cannot have its being and essence, is
hidden till the Parousia; and only then sets in His davépwous
(ver. 4), ἀποκάλυψις (1 Cor. i. 7; 2 Thess. i. 7; 1 Pet. i 7,
13, iv. 13), ἐπιφάνεια (1 Thess. 11. 8; 1 Tim.-vi. 14), with
which also the ἀποκάλυψις τῶν υἱῶν τ. Θεοῦ (Rom. viii. 19)
will take place, ver. 4. Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 10 ἢ; 1 John iii. 2.
——évy τῷ Θεῷ] in God, in so far, namely, as Christ, who,
according to John (i. 18), is εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, remains
hidden in God till the Parousia, as σύνθρονος of God (ver. 1),
living united with God in His glory hitherto unseen, in order
thereafter to proceed from God and to manifest Himself with
the full divine glory. But, as with Christ, so also with our life,
which is hidden σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ, and therefore can only issue
forth at His second coming from God, and be received by us
in real glorious communication and manifestation through our
συνδοξασθῆναι (Rom. viii. 17, comp. v. 2,10). Ifthe coherence
of the relation expressed by κέκρυπται was asserted by σὺν
τῷ X., so also is its inherence by ἐν τῷ Θεῷ. The essential
part of our explanation, viz. that ἡ ζωὴ ἡμ. is eternal life, is
held also by Chrysostom, Theodoret (ἐκείνου yap ἀναστάντος
πάντες ἠγέρθημεν, GAN οὐδέπω ὁρῶμεν τῶν πραγμάτων τὴν
ἔκβασιν), Oecumenius (τῶν γὰρ ἀληθῶς Χριστιανῶν ζωὴ ἔστιν
μένουσα, ἡ μέν τοι πάρουσα εἰκόνα μᾶλλον θανάτου ἢ ζωῆς
ἔχει), Theophylact (Paul wished to show αὐτοὺς καθημένους ἄνω
καὶ ἄλλην ζῶντας Conv, τὴν ἐν τῷ Θεῷ, τὴν μὴ φαινομένην),
Calvin, Beza, Erasmus Schmid, Grotius, and others, including
Baumgarten-Crusius. The accurate contextual connection of
this view with what precedes, and with ver. 4 (see above), ex-
cludes the explanation adopted by many, of ζωή in the ethacal,
spiritual sense. So Erasmus, Vatablus, Calovius, Bengel,
Flatt (“the inner, new, blissful life of true Christians”), Bihr,

CHAP. III. 3. 421

Boéhmer, Steiger, Olshausen,’ and others, including Huther,
Bleek, and de Wette, who apprehends this life as being hidden
in two respects: namely, as regards the disposition and striving,
it is, because directed to the heavenly, internal and ideal,
whereas the life of worldly men in the common sense is real
or manifest ; as regards the imputation or recompense, it lacks
outward happiness, but enjoys internal peace, and is there-
fore in this respect also hidden or ideal, whereas the worldly
life, in unison with the outer world, leads to external peace or
to happiness, and is so far, therefore, real or manifest also ;
the σὺν τῷ X. denotes not merely the spiritual fellowship, but
is “at the same time to a certain extent” to be understood in
a local sense (comp. ver. 1), and ἐν τῷ Θεῷ denotes the sphere
of the Christian life, or “its relation to the system of the
universe, that it belongs to the invisible world, where God
Himself lives.” Of all this there is nothing in the words, the
historical sense of which neither requires nor bears such a
spiritualistic idealisation with more senses than one, but, on
the contrary, excludes it as caprice. The ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν does not
refer to the ethical life of Christians at all, neither alone nor
along with eternal life (Cornelius a Lapide, Estius; comp.
Bleek and Ewald). On the contrary, it is aptly said by
Kaeuffer, de ζωῆς aiwv. not. p. 93: “vitam enim piam et
honestam, quam homo Christianus in hac terra vivere possit
ac debeat, P. dicere non poterat nunc cum Christo in Deo (in
coelis puta, in quibus Christus nunc est) reconditam esse,
atque olim in splendido Jesu reditu de coelo revelatum iri;
haec non nisi vitae coelesti conveniunt.” Hofmann’s distinc-
tion is less clear and definite: the ζωή is meant as the blessing,
in which Christians have an advantage over the world, by their

1 «The life of believers is said to be hidden, inasmuch as it is internal, and
what is external does not harmonize with it ;” and in ἐν τῷ Θεῷ God is conceived
as the element, ‘‘into whose essence believers, like Christ Himself, are assumed
and enwrapped.”

* In whose view the Christian leads a life in God, and this is a hidden life, be-
cause the world knows nothing about it (comp. Erasmus: ‘‘juxta judicium
mundi”); in fact, to the Christian himself its full glory is not manifest (comp.
Bengel) ; and by σὺν τῷ X. it is shown that the Christian leads such a life not of
himself, but only in his fellowship with Christ. Dalmer gives an obscure and
heterogeneous explanation.

422 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

having participated in the death and resurrection of Christ,—
a life, which is indeed life in the full sense of the word, but
which does not appear before the world as what it is, so long
as Christ is hidden from the world and in God. Notwith~
standing, Hofmann properly rejects the explanations referring
it to the holy life of the Christian, and to the holy and blissful
life together. Observe, further, the difference in the tenses,
the aorist ἀπεθάνετε denoting the accomplished act of dying at
conversion, by which they entered into the fellowship of the
death of Christ; and the perfect xéxp., the continuous subsisting
relation in reference to the present up to the (near) Parousia.
Ver. 4. And what a blissful future is connected with the
ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν exp. κιτιλ.} This bright, favourable side of the
previous thought is the continuation of the proof of ver. 2
begun in ver. 3, detaching them thoroughly from earthly
pursuits and elevating them to the courage of victory ; vividly
introduced without connecting particle (καί) : “repentina luce
percellit,” Bengel, which Hofmann fails to perceive, when he
objects to the absence of 5é The relation is not antitheti-
cal at all. — φανερωθῇ] shall have become manifest, have come
forth from His present concealment, namely, by His Parousia.
See on ver. 9. --- ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν] your life. Christ Himself is
thus designated (comp. ἡ ἐλπίς in i. 27), because He is the
personal author, possessor, and bearer of the eternal life of
His believers (comp. John xiv. 6, xi. 25), and this, according
to the context, inasmuch as they have entered into the fellow-
ship of His resurrection: they are alive’ with Him (σὺν τ.
X., ver. 3); His life is their life. The definite object of this
apposition, moreover, is argumentative, for the following TOTE
K.T.. — καὶ ὑμεῖς] as Christ, so also ye with Him. The two
subjects have the emphasis. — φανερωθ. ἐν δόξῃ] Comp. συν-
δοξασθῶμεν in Rom. viii. 17. It means nothing else than the
glory of the Messianic kingdom, in which believers (also glorified
bodily, 1 Cor. xv. 43; 2 Cor. v. 1 ff.; Phil. iii. 21) shall be
manifested visibly. The offence which Holtzmann takes at
the use of φανεροῦσθαι (instead of ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι, Rom. Vill.

1Comp. Ignatius, Eph. 3, where Christ is designated τὸ ἀδιάκριτον ἡμῶν ζῆν,
also Magnes. 1, Smyrn. 4.

CHAP. III. 5. 423

17 ff.) and ζωή, presupposes a too limited range for Paul’s
‘manipulation of language. Our passage has nothing to do
with 2 Cor. iv. 10 ἢ Nor does it even “almost look” (Holtz-
mann) as if the author were conceiving the readers as already
dead at the Parousia. The φανερωθῆναι ἐν δόξῃ takes place
in the case of those still alive through their being changed,
as the reader was aware.

Ver. 5. Οὖν] draws the inference from vv. 3, 4, in order
now to lead to that which must be done with a view to the
carrying out of the μὴ τὰ ἐπὶ τ. γῆς. The inference itself is:
“Since, according to vv. 3, 4, ye are dead, but have your life
hidden with Christ in God and are destined to be glorified
with Christ, it would be in contradiction of all this, according
to which ye belong no longer to the earth but to the heavenly
state of life, to permit your earthly members still to live ; no, ye
are to put them to death, to make them die” (Rom. iv, 19 ; Heb.
xi. 12; Plut. Mor. p. 954 Ὁ)! ---- νεκρώσατε] prefixed with
emphasis as the point of the inference ; the term is selected in
significant reference to ἀπεθάνετε and ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν, vv. 3, 4.—
Ta μέλη ὑμῶν] means nothing else, and is not to be explained
otherwise than: your members (hand, foot, eye, etc). That
these were not to be put to death in the physical sense, but in
an ethical respect (comp. ii. 11)—-seeing, namely, that they, as
the seat and organs of sinful lusts (Rom. vii. 23), which they
still are even in the case of the regenerate (Gal. v. 17, 24),
are to lose their vigour of life and activity through the Chris-
tian moral will governed by the Holy Spirit, and in so far
to experience ethical deadening (comp. Rom. vii. 5, 23, viii. 13,
and the analogous representation by Jesus as to plucking out
the eye, etc., Matt. v. 29 f., xvii. 8 ἢ ; comp. also xix. 12)—
was self-evident to the reader, as it was, moreover, placed
beyond doubt by the following appositions πορνείαν x.7.A,
Hence there was neither ground nor warrant in the context
to assume already here (see ver. 9) the conception of the old
man, Whose desires are regarded as members (Beza, Flacius,

1 In the section vv. 5-17, in which Honig, in relation to Eph. iv. 1-5, 20,
finds the stamp of originality, Holtzmann discovers the concentrating labour of
the interpolator, whose second (and better) eflort is the passage in Colossians.

424 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Calovius, and others, in-
cluding Bohmer, Olshausen, and Bleek), although the required
putting to death presupposes that the old man is still par-
tially alive. Nor is sin itself, according to its totality, to be
thought of as body and its individual parts as members (Hilary,
Grotius, Bengel, Bihr, and others; comp. also Julius Miiller,
v. ὦ. Stinde, I. p. 461, ed. 5, and Flatt)—a conception which
does not obtain even in ii. 11 and Rom. vi. 6, and which is
inadmissible here on account of ὑμῶν. The view of Steiger,
finally, is erroneous (comp. Baumgarten-Crusius), that the entire
human existence is conceived as σῶμα. We may add that the
νέκρωσις of the members, etc., is not inconsistent with the
death (ἀπεθάνετε, ver. 3) already accomplished through con-
version to Christ, but is required by the latter as the necessary,
ever new act of the corresponding morality, with which faith
lives and works." And in view of the ideal character of this
obligation the command νεκρώσατε x.7...—this requirement,
which is ever repeating itself, of the ethical mortificatio—is
never superfluous. — τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς] which are upon the earth,
corresponds to the τὰ ἐπὶ τ. y. in ver. 2; in contrast, not to
the glorified human nature of Christ (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis,
I. p. 560), but to the life hidden with Christ in God. In this
antithetical addition is involved an element which justifies the
requirement νεκρώσατε τ. μ. ὑμ., not expressing the activity of
the μέλη for what is sinful (de Wette, comp. Flatt and others, in
connection with which Grotius would even supply τὰ φρονοῦντα
from ver. 2), which the simple words do not affirm, but: that
the μέλη, as existing upon earth, have nothing in common with
the life which exists in heaven, that their life is of another
kind and must not be spared to the prejudice of that heavenly
ζωή! Comp. also Hofmann’s present view. The context does
not even yield a contrast of heavenly members (Huther), 1.6. of
a life of activity for what is heavenly pervading the members,
or of the members of the new man (Julius Miiller), since the
ζωή is not to be understood in the sense of the spiritual,

1 Clirysostom illustrates the relation by comparing the converted person to a
cleansed and brightened statue, which, however, needs to be afterwards cleansed
afresh from new accretions of rust and dirt.

CHAP. III. 5. 425

ethical life. — πορνείαν x.7.X.] Since Paul would not have the
members slain as such absolutely and unreservedly, but only
as regards their ethical side, namely, the sinful nature which
dwells and: works in them (Rom. vil. 23), he now subjoins
detailed instances of this sinful nature, and that with a bold
but not readily misunderstood directness of expression apposi-
tionally, so that they appear as the forms of immorality cleay-
ing to the members, with respect to which the very members
are to be put to death. In these forms of immorality, which
constitute no such heterogeneous apposition to τὰ μέλη ὑμ.
as Holtzmann thinks, the life of the μέλη, which is to be put
to death, is represented by its parts. Paul might have said:
λέγω δὲ πορνείαν; but by annexing it directly, he gave to his
expression the form of a distributive apposition (see Kiihner,
II. 1, p. 247), more terse and more compact after the σχῆμα
καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος. It is neither a sudden leap of thought
nor a metonymy. — ἀκαθαρσ.]) in reference to lustful unclean-
ness; comp. on Rom. i. 24; Gal. v.19; 2 Cor. xii, 21; Eph.
iv. 19, v. 3. Paul gives, namely, from πορν. to κακήν, four
forms of the jist Gentile fundamental vice, unchastity, be-
ginning with the special (πορνείαν), and becoming more and
more general as he proceeds. Hence follows: πάθος, passion
(the ἡττᾶσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς, Plat. Prot. p. 352 A; Dem.
805.14; Arist. Hth. ii. 4), heat; Rom. i. 26; 1 Thess. iv. 5;
and Liinemann in loc. Comp. also Plat. Phaed. p. 265 B:
τὸ ἐρωτικὸν πάθος, Phacdr. p. 252 C. And finally: ἐπιθυμ.
κακήν (Plat. Legg. ix. p. 854 A), evil desire, referring to
unchaste longing. Comp. Matt. v. 28; Breitenbach, ad Xen.
Hier. 6. 2. Unnatural unchastity (Rom. 1. 26 f.; 1 Cor.
vi. 9) is included in ἀκαθ., παθ., and ἐπιθ. κακ., but is not ex-
pressly denoted (Erasmus, Calovius, Heinrichs, Flatt, Bohmer)
by πάθος (comp. pathici, Catullus, xvi. 2; παθικεύεσθαι, Nicarch.
in Anth. xi. 73), a meaning which neither admits of linguistic
proof, nor is, considering the general character of the adjoining
terms (axa@apo. ἐπιθ. kax.),in keeping with the context. ἐπιθ.
κακ. is to be distinguished from πάθος as the more general con-
ception; the πάθος is alwaysalso ἐπιθυμία and relatively ἐπεθ.
κακή, but not the converse, since a ἡγεῖσθαι or κρατεῖν τῆς

426 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

ἐπιθυμίας may also take place. — x. τὴν πλεονεξίαν] After the
vice of uncleanness comes now the second chief vice of the Gen-
tiles (comp. on Eph. iv. 19): covetousness. Hence the connection
here by means of καί, which is not even, but (in opposition to
Hofmann) the simple and, and the article, which introduces the
new category with the description of its disgraceful character,’
associating this descriptive character as a special stigma with
the vice of πλεονεξία. In opposition to the erroneous interpreta-
tions: insatiable lust (Estius, Michaelis), or: the gains of prosti-
tution (Storr, Flatt, Bahr), see on Eph. lc, and Huther. The
πλεονεξία is not separated by the article from the appositional
definitions of the μέλη, and co-ordinated with τὰ μέλη, so that
the latter would only be “the members which minister to
unchaste lust” (Huther) ; for τὰ μέλη dy. can only denote the
members generally, the collective members ; and ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν
(Rom. vil. 5, 23) understood generically, and not as referring
to particular individual members, sin is operating with all its
lusts, as, in accordance with this ethical mode of viewing the
matter, the collective members form the σῶμα τῆς σαρκός of
ii, 11. Bengel remarks aptly that the article indicates ¢otwm
genus vitia a genere convmemoratarum modo specierum diversum.
— ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρ.] quippe quae est, etc., further supports
the νεκρώσατε specially in reference to this vice, which, as the
idolatry of money and possessions, is κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν of a heathen
nature. It has been well said by Theodoret: ἐπειδὴ τὸ μαμωνᾷ
κύριον ὁ σωτὴρ προσηγύρευσε, διδάσκων, ὡς ὁ TO πάθει τῆς
πλεονεξίας δουλεύων ὡς Θεὸν τὸν πλοῦτον τιμᾶ. In 1 Cor. ν.
11, the εἰδωλολατρ. is to be taken differently (in opposition to
Holtzmann). Moreover, see on Eph. v. 5. Observe, further,

1 Looking to the so closely marked twofold division of the vices adduced, it is
inconsistent with the text to take, with Hofmann, the three elements, éxaéape.,
πάθος, and ἐσπιθυμ. κακ., in such a general sense as to make ἀκαθαρσία mean
every ‘‘action which mars the creaturely honour (1) of man,” πάθος, the passion
which enslaves through excitement of the blood, and ἐσιθυμία κακή, all evil desire,
which is, as such, a morbid excitement of the blood. The excitement of the blood,
thus sanguinely enough invented without any hint whatever from the text, is
then held to convert the second and third elements into cases in which one sins
against his own body,—a characteristic point, which Paul has not in view at all

in connection with the apposition to τὰ μέλη x.¢7.4., aS is plain from the appended
x. 7. πλεονεξίαν belonging to the same apposition.

CHAP, III. 6, 7. 427

that the addition of the πλεονεξία to unchastity (comp. 1 Cor.
v. 11) can afford no ground for supposing that the author of
the Ephesians borrowed this combination from 1 Thess. ii. 3,
and that it was taken into our present Epistle from that to the
Ephesians (Holtzmann). Comp. also 1 Cor. vi. 9 f.

Ver. 6. This relative affirmation stands in a confirmatory
reference to the νεκρώσατε «.7.r. above, the omission of which
would draw down upon the readers, instead of the favepw-
θῆναι ἐν δόξῃ of ver. 4, a fate such as is here described. —
δι ὅ (see the critical remarks) has the significant stress of the
relative clause: on account of this immorality mentioned in
ver. 5. The Recepta δι᾿ ἅ is to be taken just in the same way,
and not to be referred to the μέλη (Bihr), since it is not the
latter themselves, but their life-activities specified by πορνείαν
«.7.., Which call forth the wrath of God. — ἔρχεται] namely,
at the judgment. Comp. Eph.v. 6; 1 Thess. i. 10: ἡ ὀργὴ ἡ
ἐρχομένη ; Matt. iii. 7 : ἡ μέλλουσα ὀργή. Hence: ἡμέρα ὀργῆς
in Rom. ii. 5; Rev. vi 17. Chrysostom well says: Paul warns
διὰ τῶν μελλόντων ἐξ ὧν ἀπηλλάγημεν κακῶν. See also
on Eph. v. 6. The frequent reference to the manifestation of
the divine wrath (comp. Rom.1i. 18 ff.) in the course of this tem-
poral life (Huther and many others) overlooks the correlation
with ver. 4, and the apostle’s conception of the nearness of the
Parousia. Hence, also, the combination of the two references
(Theophylact and others, also Flatt) is to be rejected. — Respect-
ing the υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθ. (the Jews and Gentiles, who reject the
gospel and thereby disobey God), comp. on Eph. v. 6, and as
to this mode of expression generally, Steiger on 1 Pet. i. 14.

Ver. 7. Transition to the following exhortation ; and how
touching through the effect of the contrast ! ---- ἐν οἷς] is, with
the reading δ 6 in ver. 6, necessarily to be referred to the
υἱοὺς τ. ἀπειθ.: among whom ye also walked once, by which is
meant, not external association (which in fact was not can-
celled by conversion, 1 Cor. v. 10), but the fellowship of moral
conduct. But, even with the reading δι ἅ in ver. 6, ἐν οἷς is
to be taken (comp. Eph. ii. 2 f.) as inter guos (Vatablus, Rosen-
miiller, de Wette, Schenkel, Bleek), and not to be referred, as
it commonly is (Chrysostom, however, seems to understand it

428 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

as masculine) to the vices named in ver. 5, because the rela-
tive most naturally attaches itself to what immediately pre-
cedes, in order to continue the discourse, and because, if ἐν οἷς
refer to the sins, then ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοις once more asserts sub-
stantially the same thing, so that the discourse gains nothing
in thoughtfulness through the two verbs, as in Gal. v. 25,
but is unduly amplified. The distinctions which in this
case have been attempted between περιπατεῖν and ζῆν still
make the one or the other appear as self-evident. See
eg. Calvin: vivere and ambulare are distinguished from each
other like potentia (comp. Grotius: “ moveri”) and actus, the
former preceding and the latter following; Beza (and Estius) :
vivere denotes naturae habitum, ambulare, ἐνέργειαν ipsam ;
Bihr (comp. Olshausen and Reiche): the former refers more
to the disposition, the latter to the outward conduct; Hof-
mann: the state of life (ἐζῆτε), with which the conduct im
detail (περιεπατ.) harmonized. — ὅτε ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοις] ἐζῆτε
stands emphatically and pregnantly first: when ye lived in
these, ze. when ye were alive therein, inasmuch as the ἀπεθάνετε
of ver. 5 had not yet set in in your case, the requirement of
the vexpody in ver. 5 was still strange to you, and these dis-
graceful things formed the element and sphere of activity of
your life. On ζῆν, to be alive, in contrast to the being dead,
comp. Rom. vii. 9; 2 Cor. xiii. 4; also Col. ii. 20 ; ἐν τούτοις"
is newer, grouping together demonstratively, and setting forth
contemptuously, the states of vice spoken of. According to
Flatt, Bohmer, and Huther, it is masculine: “then, when ye
belonged to the children of disobedience,’ so that ζῆν ἐν κόσμῳ
(ii. 20) and ἀναστρέφειν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ (2 Cor. i. 11) would
have to be compared. In opposition to this view it may be
urged that ὅτε ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοις, in this sense, would be a very
meaningless and superfluous more precise designation of the
ποτέ, whereas, according to the view above adopted, it is
thoughtful and characteristic.?7— On the change from the

1 With the Mecepta αὐποῖς any other reference than that, which οἷς has, is
excluded ; hence the origin of αὐτοῖς.

2 Hence not to be attributed, with Holtzmann, to the tautological style of the
author, in remembrance of 1 Cor. vi. 11.

CHAP. III. 8. 429

merely historical aorist to the descriptive imperf.ct, lending a
lively colour to the representation, and claiming the closer
attention of the reader who had passed more rapidly over the
περιεπατ., comp. Kiihner, II. 1, p, 133, and Reisig, ad Soph.
0. C. p. 254 f.

Ver. 8. Nuvi δέ] In contrast to the past, which has just
been described : but now, when ye are no longer alive in those
things. — καὶ ὑμεῖς] does not refer to the fact that the Lphe-
sians also are thus exhorted (Eph. iv. 22, 25, 31), as Holtz-
mann here contrives critically to suggest; but as καὶ vu. in
ver. 7 reminded the readers of the immoral pre-Christian
society, which they also had formerly resembled, so this καὶ
ὑμεῖς reminds them of the moral Christian society, which they
also ought to resemble now.— τὰ πάντα] the whole of these,
2.6. the things indicated by ἐν τούτοις without any exception ;
ye shall retain nothing of them, “ne quid veneni resideat”
(Grotius). To this τὰ πάντα the apostle then annexes directly
and in rapid asyndetic continuation yet other sins, which are
likewise to be left off. Bleek erroneously takes ὀργὴν x.7.2.
as in apposition to τὰ πάντα ; for the latter can only be retro-
spective (comp. Hofmann), and cannot, consistently with the
text, be taken as meaning, “ everything that belongs to the old
man.” — ἀπόθεσθε)] like garments (see on Eph. iv. 22); a
lively change of figures; the conception of members is laid
aside. — θυμόν] distinguished from ὀργήν as the ebullition, the
effervescing of the latter (Eustath. ad 71. 1. p. 7.17). See on
Rom. ii. 8; comp. Eph. iv. 31; Rev. xvi. 19 ; Ecclus. xlviii.
10; 1 Mace. ii. 49; Hom. ΠῚ ix. 629; Plat. Phil. p. 47 E:
τοῖς θυμοῖς κ. ταῖς ὀργαῖς. ---- κακίαν) wickedness, malicious
nature. Comp. on Rom. i. 29; Eph. iv. 91. ----- βλασφημίαν]
slander, not against God, but against others, as oral outbreak
of the evil dispositions mentioned. Comp. Eph. le. ; 1 Cor.
iv. 13; Rom. 111. 8; Tit. ii. 2; frequently in classic writers ; in
Dem. 312. 19 joined with συκοφαντία. ---- αἰσχρολογίαν] only
used here in the N. T.: shameful discourse, which, in accordance
with the category of all the sins here named, is not to be un-
derstood of wncehaste discourse, as, following the Fathers (see
Suicer, Zhes. I. p. 136), it has commonly been taken (Hof-

430 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

mann: “obscene” discourse); comp. Epictet. Hnchir. 33.
16; Xen. de Lac. rep. 5.6; αἰσχρολογοῦντας in Plat. Rep.
p- 395 E; Pollux, iv. 105; and the passages in Wetstein ;
also αἰσχροεπέω in Athen. xiii. p. 571 A; and respecting the
αἰσχρολογία ἐφ᾽ ἱεροῖς, see Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 689. Rather:
railing speech (Polyb. viii. 13. 8, xxxi. 10. 4), forming one
genus with βλασφηωίαν, but a wider idea. Comp. αἰσχρὰ
ἔπεα, Hom. 11. 111. 38, xxiv. 238. All the elements in
ver. 8 specify the malevolent and hostile disposition; and the
two last, especially the oral manifestation thereof; hence the
addition of ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμ., which, without arbitrariness,
cannot but be referred to both words (so also Bleek), not to
αἰσχρολ. alone, and is, with Grotius, to be conceived as de-
pending on the still operative idea of ἀπόθεσθε, so that it
may not be characterized as a “secondary malformation”
(Holtzmann). The readers are to lay aside, generally, ὀργὴν,
θυμὸν, κακίαν ; and to lay aside from their mouth βλασφη-
μίαν, αἰσχρολογίαν. We are not to suppose any special
purpose in connection with the addition; it serves merely
for the concrete representation ; but, if we should regard it as
the more precise definition of αἰσχρολ. (Hofmann), or should
even, as is often done, by supplying an ἐκπορευομένην, join
it with aicyponroy., or with Bracd. and αἰσχρολογ., it would
be utterly void of meaning. The special idea of that which
defiles (Chrysostom), or of the opposite of Christian prazse
to God (Hofmann), does not form the basis of the ἐκ τ. στόμ.
dp. ; on the contrary, it is the conception in general of what
is unsuited and foreign (comp. on νυνὶ δέ) to Christian fellow-
ship and intercourse, which serves as the presupposition for
the entire exhortation. Comp. Eph. iv. 29.

Ver. 9. Μὴ ψεύδεσθε eis ἀλλ.] 2c. lie not one to another, so
that εἰς expresses the direction of the ψεύδεσθαι (comp. Ψ.
κατά Twos in the sense of the hostile direction, Plat. Huthyd.
p. 284 A, al.; Jas. iii. 14), like πρός in Xen. Anab. i. ὃ. 5;
Plat. Legg. xi. p. 917 A; Lev. vi 2. It is different in
Susann. 55. 59. It connects itself with what precedes, and
hence it is to be separated only by a comma from ver. 8
(with Lachmann and Tischendorf) ; the following ἀπεκδυσά-

CHAP. III. 9. 431

μενοι «.7.. adds a determining motive for the whole ἀπόθεσθε

. ἀλλήλους : since ye have put off the old man... and put
on the new, etc., with which the rétaining of wrath, etc., and
the further lying (observe the present ψεύδ) would not be
consistent; on the contrary, this transformation which, in
principle, has taken place in and with the conversion to Christ,
must manifest itself practically by the laying aside of those
vices. Accordingly, the aorist participles are not synchronous
with the foregoing (exuentes, etc., so Vulgate, Luther, Calovius,
and others, including Flatt, Olshausen, Huther, de Wette, Ewald,
and Bleek), but precede it; they are not included in the
exhortation, for which reason 1 Pet. v. 6 ἢ is inappropriately
appealed to, but assign a ground for it. This is clear, even in
a linguistic point of view, from the fact that ψεύδεσθε is the
present ; and also, as regards the sense, from the circumstance
that if the words be regarded as part of the exhortation itself,
as a definition of the mode of what is required, the exwentes
only, and not the induentes, would correspond with the require-
ment to lay aside and to abstain from lying. Besides, ver. 11
is inappropriate as a constituent part of an exhortation, but
suits well as an argumentative enlargement. Finally, the
assumed figurative exhortation only comes in expressly at
ver. 12, and that by way of inference (odv) from what had
been said previously from ἀπεκδυσάμ. onwards in the same
figure, though not yet in paraenetic form. Without any
sufficient reason, and out of harmony with the simple parae-
netic form of the entire context, Hofmann begins with ἀπεκ-
δυσάμ. a new period, whose protasis ends in ver. 11, and
whose apodosis begins with ody in ver. 12 (comp. on Rom.
ii, 17 ff.) ; by this we gain only a more clumsy complica-
tion of the discourse, especially as the supposed apodosis
has again participial definitions. The entire practical part
of the Epistle proceeds in plain sentences, not dialectically
joined together. Comp., moreover, on ver. 12. — Respect-
ing the double compound ἀπεκδυσ., comp. on ii. 11. — The
terminus ante quem for παλαιός is the adoption of Chris-
tianity, so that, by the whole expression ὁ παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος
generically the collective pre-Christian condition in a moral

432 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

respect! is presented as personified.” Comp. on Rom. vi. 6;
Eph. iv. 22. — σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ] not generally : with
his doing (Hofmann), but in the bad sense: along with his
evil practices, with his bad tricks. Comp. on Luke xxiii. 51
and Rom. viii. 13.

Ver. 10. The positive aspect of the transformation (regenera-
tion) wrought by God through conversion to Christ ; and since
ye have put on, etc. — τὸν νέον] The collective new Christian-
ethical condition, conceived as personified and set forth objec-
tively, so that it appears as becoming individually appropriated
by the putting on. It might, with equal propriety, be desig-
nated from the point of view of time as the homo recens in
contrast to the decayed and worn-out nature of the pre-
Christian moral condition (comp. the νέον φύραμα in 1 Cor.
v. 7), as from the point of view of the new, altogether different,
and previously non-existent guality as the homo novus. It is
the former here,® the latter in Eph. iv. 23 (comp. also ii. 15),
where καινὸς ἄνθρ. is used. See regarding the difference
between the two words, Tittmann, Synon. Ὁ. 59 ff. The speci-
fication of quality is then further added by tov ἀνακαινούμ.
κατ. The notion of not growing old (Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Erasmus) is not implied in νέον. ---- τὸν ἀνακαι-
νούμενον] The homo recens, so far, namely, as the converted
person has appropriated it as his moral individuality, is not
something ready-made and finished, but (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 16)
in a state of development (through the Holy Spirit, Rom. vu. 6,
vill. 2; Tit. iii, 5), by means of which there is produced in
him ὦ new character and quality specifically different from that

τ Original sin is not denoted by the expression and the conception to which it
is subservient (in opposition to Calvin: ‘‘ veteris hominis nomine intelligi pra-
vitatem nobis ingenitam ;” comp. Calovius: ‘‘concupiscentiam pravam con-
genitam”’) ; it is, however, according to the biblical view (Rom. vii. 14 ff.), its
presupposition and the regulative agent in the moral character of the old man.

2 With the entrance of Christianity into the life of humanity, the old has
passed away, and all things have become new (2 Cor. v. 17). But the old man
was individually put off by the several subjects through their own historical
conversion to Christ. The Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε of Gal. iii. 27 is not in substance
different from the having put on the new man.

3 In the ethical sense Christians are, as it were, the νεολαία (Blomfield, Gloss,
Pers. 674) of humanity.

CHAP. III. 10. 433

of the old man. Comp. Rom. xii. 2. Hence the present par-
ticiple, which is neither to be taken as zmperfect (B.-Crusius),
nor as renewing itself (Bleek); and ava does not refer to the
relation of re-establishment,’ namely, of the justitia originalis
(since τοῦ κτίσαντος does not directly mean the jist creation),
but only to the old constitution, the transformation and new-
moulding (renewal) of which forms the process of development
of the νέος ἄνθρωπος. Comp. Winer, de verb. 6. praepos. compos.
p. 10f The xaworns of the νέος ἄνθρ. is relative. In Greek
authors ἀνακαινόω is not found, but ἀνακαινίζω is (Isocr. Arcop.
3, App. 2, p. 13; Plut. Marcell. 6), Heb. vi. 6; also in the
LXX. — εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν] is to be taken along with the follow-
ing κατ᾽ εἰκ. τ. κτίσ. αὐτόν, and with this expresses the end
aimed at by the dvaxawodc@a. Through the latter there is
to be produced a knowledge, which accords with the image
of God. Comp. Beza. God, as respects His absolute know-
ledge, z.c. a knowledge absolutely adequate to its objects, is the
model, with which the relative knowledge of the regenerate to
be attained in the course of their being renewed, 1.6. their
increasing penetration into divine truth, is to be accordant.
And the more it is so—the more fully it has developed itself
in accordance with the divine ideal—the more is it also the
determining power and the living practical agent of the whole
conduct, so that all those vices enumerated in ver. 8 are
excluded by it, and even become morally impossible. Hof-
mann rightly takes κατ᾽ εἰκ. τοῦ κτίσ. αὐτὸν as the more precise
description of ἐπίγνωσιν, though defining the sense to this
effect, that the new man “everywhere looks to, and estimates
everything by the consideration, whether he finds the stamp of
this image.” But, in that case, an object (πάντων) would

1“ Renovatus autem dicitur novus ille homo, quia novus quondam fuit in
prima creatione,” Calovius. Comp. Steiger, Huther, de Wette, Philippi, Dogm.
II. p. 375 ff., ed. 2, and many ethers. Thus we should have for the νέος ἄνθρωπος,
not the conception of a nova creatura (καινὴ κείσις, 2 Cor. v.17; Gal. vi. 15),
but that of a vedintegrata creatura. But it is to a new life that the believer is
regenerated, raised up, etc. by God. This new creation is not the redintegratio
of the first, though it is its antitype, as Christ Himself, so far as in Him the new
creation is founded and begun (how, see Rom. v. 15, 17-19, vi. 1ff.), is the

antitype of Adam (Rom. v. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 45). Consequently this passage is
only indirectly probative for the doctrine of the image of God as innate.

COL. 2E

434 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

necessarily stand with ἐπίγνωσιν, and the idea of ἀνακρίνειν or
δοκιμάζειν would be substituted for that of ἐπίγνωσις. The
κατ᾽ εἰκόνα x... is usually connected with ἀνακαινούμ. and
eis ἐπίγν. taken by itself, in connection with which Steiger,
Huther, de Wette, and Bleek (comp. also Ewald) arbitrarily
adopt the view, that the prominent mention of the knowledge
was occasioned by a polemic opposition to the false teachers and
their tendencies to false gnosis. But how abrupt, isolated,
and indefinite would the εἰς ἐπίγν. thus stand! No; the sub-
sequent κατ᾽ εἰκόνα x.7T.r. just serves as a more precise charac-
teristic definition for the—in theory and practice so extremely
important—point of Christian knowledge. The expression of
this definition in this particular way comes very naturally to
Paul, because he is speaking of the homo recens creatus, in con-
nection with which, after the analogy of the creation of Adam,
the idea of the image of God naturally floated before his mind,
—the image which that first-created man had, and which the
recens creatus is to attain and present by way of copy in that
towards which he is being developed, in the ἐπίγνωσις. This
development is only completed in the αἰὼν μέλλων, 1 Cor,
xiii, 12; for its aim before the Parousia, see Eph. iv. 13 ἢ
—T00 κτίσαντος αὐτόν] A description of God, harmonizing
With the conception of the νέος ἄνθρωπος, who is God’s crea-
ture. Comp. on Eph. iv. 24. It is erroneous, with Chrysos-
tom, Theophylact, Ewald, and others, to understand Christ? as
referred to; for creating is invariably represented in Scripture
as the work of God (even in i. 16), and especially here where
a parallel is instituted with the creation of Adam after God’s
image. Comp. Eph. ii. 10,iv. 24. Olshausen, indeed, under-
stands τοῦ κτίσ. αὐτ. to mean God, but would have the image
of God, in accordance with i. 15, taken of Christ, who is the
archetype of man. There is no ground for this view in the
context, which, on the contrary, reminds us simply of Gen.
i. 27; comp. κατὰ Θεόν, in Eph. iv. 24, a simpler expression,
which has found here a significant more precise definition out
of the riches of the apostle’s store of ideas (not a fanciful

‘So also Julius Miiller, v. d. Siinde, II. p. 496, ed. 5 ; see, on the other hand,
Ernesti, Urspr. der Siinde, 11. p. 138 ff.

CITAP. IIL. 11. 435

variation, as Holtzmann thinks) in vivid reproduction. —
αὐτόν] must refer to the νέος ἄνθρωπος, whom God has created
by regeneration, not to τ. ἄνθρωπον alone (“which is the
substance, on which the old and new qualities appear as acci-
dents,’ de Wette), as the orthodox explanation is forced to
assume contrary to the text; see eg. Calovius: “ Per imaginem
ejus, qui creavit ipsum, imago Dei, quae in prima creatione
nobis concessa vel concreata est, intelligitur, ad quam nos
renovamur, quaeque in nobis reparatur per Spiritum sanctum,
quae ratione intellectus consistebat in cognitione Dei, ut
ratione voluntatis in justitia et sanctitate, Eph. iv. 24. Per
verbum itaque τοῦ κτίσαντος non nova creatio, sed vetus dla
et primaeva intelligitur, quia in Adamo conditi omnes sumus ad
imaginem Dei in cognitione Dei.” Rather, the divine creation
of the new man had that primaevam creationem for its sacred-
historical type, and is the work of salvation antitypically cor-
responding with it, which the Creator has done in Christ ;
hence also Paul has not written κτίζοντος (as Philippi, Lc.
p. 576, thinks might have been expected), but κτίσαντος,
comp. iv. 24, ii. 10; .2 Cor. v. 17; also Jas. i. 18.

Ver. 11. Where all the separating diversities have ceased, by
which those phenomena of malevolence and passion mentioned
in ver. 8 were occasioned and nourished. Comp. Gal. iii. 28,
of which passage Baur indeed sees here only an extended and
climactic imitation. — 67ov] where there is not, etc.; namely
there, where the old man has been put off, and the νέος x.7.r.
put on, ver. 10. It represents the existing relation according
to local conception, like the Latin ut, 1.6. qua in re, or in quo
rerum statu, like the local tva; comp. Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem.
ili. 5.1; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 331 f. The relation is
one objectively veal, historically occurring (comp. Gal. iii. 28 ;
Rom. x. 12; 1 Cor. xii. 13), present in renewed humanity.
Consequently ὅπου is not to be referred to the ἐπίγνωσις, and
to be interpreted within which, ic. in the Christian conscious-
ness (Schenkel); but just as little is the relative clause to be
joined immediately with εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα K.7T.r. 50
that it affirms that there, where this image is found, all
contrasts. etc., have vanished; so Hofmann in connection with

436 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS,

his erroneous explanation of εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν Kat’ εἰκόνα K.7.r.,
see on ver. 10. — Respecting ἔνι, equivalent to ἔνεστι, see on ᾿
Gal. iii, 28. —"EdAnv κ, ’Iovd.] national diversity, without
taking “Ελλην, however, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, and
others, in the sense of proselyte. — mepit. x. ἀκροβ.] theocratic
diversity..— βάρβαρος «.7.r.] In the increasing vividness of
conception the arrangement by pairs is dropped, and the
nouns are placed beside each other asyndetically. Paul does
not couple with βάρβαρος, as he does again in the case of
δοῦλος, its opposite, which was already adduced (“Ελλην, comp.
on Rom. i. 14), but proceeds by way of a climax: Σκύθης.
Bengel (comp. Grotius) well says: “Scythae .. . barbaris
barbariores ;” they were included, however, among the bar-
barians (in opposition to Bengel, who thinks that the latter
term indicates the Muwmidians). For instances in which the
Scythians are termed βαρβαρώτατοι (comp. also 2 Mace. iv.
47; 3 Macc. vii. 5), see Wetstein. We may infer, moreover,
from the passage, that among the Christeans there were even
some Scythians, possibly immigrants into Greek and Roman
countries. — ἀλλὰ τὰ πάντα. . . Χριστός] the dividing cireum-
stances named, which, previous to the putting on of the véos
ἄνθρωπος, were so influential and regulative of social interests
and conduct, have now—a fact, which was beyond doubt not
recognised by the Jewish prejudice of the false teachers —
since the Christian renovation (comp. 2 Cor. v. 17) ceased
to exist in the fellowship established by the latter (ideal
expression of the thought: their morally separating influence
is abolished) ;, whereas Christ 1s the swm total of all desires
and strivings, and that in all individuals, without distinction
of nations, etc.; He “solus proram et puppim, ut aiunt,
principium et finem tenet” (Calvin). All are one in Christ,

1 For even a Ἕλλην might be circumcised and thereby received into the
theocracy. — The tact that Ἕλλην stands before ’Iovd. (it is otherwise in Gal.
iii. 28; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Rom. x. 12, et al.) ought not to be urged, with
Holtzmann, following Baur and Hokstra, against the originality of the passage.
Paul does not arrange the designations mechanically, as is evident from the
second clause. Holtzmann, however, justly denies, in opposition to Mayerhoff
and Hokstra, that the arrangement is so inserted in antagonism to the Jewish
peoples

CHAP. III. 12. 437

Gal. iii. 28, v.15; Rom. x. 12; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Eph. ii. 14.
Comp. on this use of the τὰ πάντα in the sense of persons, who
pass for everything, 1 Cor. xv. 28 ; Herod. iii. 157, vii. 156 ;
Thue. viii. 95.1; Dem. 660. 7; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 727.
— Χριστός] the subject put at the end with great emphasis.
He, in all His believers (ἐν πᾶσι) the all-determining principle
of the new life and activity, is also the constituent of the
new sublime unity, in which those old distinctions and con-
trasts have become meaningless and as it were no longer
exist. The Hellene is no longer other than the Jew, etc,
but in all it is only Christ, who gives the same specific
character to their being and life.

Ver. 12. Οὖν] for these virtues are in keeping with the
νέος ἄνθρωπος, according to what has been said in ver. 11;
it would be a contradiction to have put on the new man, and
not to have put on these virtues. The new moral condition,
into which ye have entered by your conversion, passing
thereby into the fellowship of equality and unity in Christ
described in ver. 11, binds you to this by the necessity of
moral consistency. The οὖν therefore serves for the introduc-
tion of the direct summons by way of inference from its fore-
going premisses, just lke the ody in ver. 5, but not for the
introduction of the apodosis (Hofmann ; see on ver. 9), as if
it were resumptive. — ἐνδύσασθε] for, although the putting on
of the νέος avOp. has taken place as a fact historically through
the conversion to Christ, nevertheless it has also, in accordance
with the ethical nature of the νέος ἄνθρ. (comp. τὸν dvaxat-
νούμενον k.T.r. in ver. 10), its continued acts, which are to take
place, namely, by appropriation of the virtues which the new
man as such must have. — ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ «.7.r.] as it becomes
such; ἐκλ. τ. Θεοῦ is the subject, and ay. x. ἀγαπ. its predicates.
The consciousness of this distinguished bliss, of being the elect
of God—chosen by God from profane humanity for eternal
Messianic salvation (Eph. i.4; Rom. viii. 33; Tit. 1. 2, ai.),
who as such* are holy (through the ἁγιασμὸς πνεύματος,
2 Thess. ii. 13), and beloved of God (Rom. v. 5 ; Eph. i. 6), —

' For the act of the divine ἐκλογή, which in itself is before time, has come
into temporal realization and manifestation through the calling (comp. ver. 15).

438 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

how could it fail to touch the consciences of the readers,
and incite them to the very virtues, corresponding to so high
a position, — virtues of that fellowship described in ver. 11,
which are required from them as renewed men! Observe,
moreover, that the ἐκλογὴ τ. Θεοῦ is the presupposition of what
is said by ἀπεκδυσάμενοι κιτιλ. in vv. 10, 11, and that
therefore ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ κτλ. is not inserted without significant
connection with what goes before. It is likewise admissible
to take the words ἅγιος κ. ἠγαπ. substantively, either as
co-ordinate with the ἐκλεκτοὶ τ. ©. and explanatory of this idea
(“as the elect of God, holy and beloved,” Luther, Calvin,
Grotius, and the majority, including Bihr, Bohmer, Huther,
de Wette, Hofmann), or so that ἐκλεκτ. τ. Θεοῦ stands in adjec-
tival relation to them (Bleek: “elect holy and beloved ones of
God”); but it is more in keeping with the purposely chosen
order of the words to concentrate the whole stress on ἐκλεκτοὶ.
Θεοῦ. Bengel, connecting as we do, aptly observes: “ Ordo
verborum exquisite respondet ordini rerum: electio aeterna
praecedit sanctificationem in tempore; sanctificati sentiunt
amorem et deinceps imitantur.” Theophylact (comp. also
Steiger) took ἅγιοι as the chief word, which is more precisely
defined by ἐκλ. τ. Θεοῦ and ἠγαπ. (ἐγένοντο μὲν γὰρ ἅγιοι,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐκλεκτοὶ οὐδὲ ἠγαπημένοι: ὑμεῖς δὲ ταῦτα πάντα).
Neither supported by the position of the words nor by the
context, which does not suggest any contrast. — σπλάγχνα
οἰκτιρμοῦ] οἶκτ. is the genitive of quality, and the expression
is quite similar to that in Luke i. 78, σπλάγχνα ἐλέους ; see
im loc. Hence σπλάγχνα is not to be taken here in the
abstract sense (love, so usually), but in its proper sense:
viscera, as the seat of sympathy ; consequently: a heart, the
moving feeling of which is sympathy. Comp. Ewald and
Hofmann. The two are separated in Phil. 11. 1. As to the
conception of οὐἰκτίρμ., comp. on Rom. ix. 15 — χρηστότητα]
kindliness, the opposite is ἀποτομία, Rom. xi. 22. Comp.
Eph. iv. 32. See generally, Tittmann, Synon. p. 140 τῇ --
ταπεινοφρ., humbleness, which is meant here, however, according

Comp. generally, Weiss in the Jahrb. 7. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 78 fi., and
Bibl. Theol. § 88, ed. 2.

CHAP, III. 19. 439

to the entire context, not towards God (Bohmer), but (see
ver. 11) in relation to others, as the opposite of haughti-
ness (ὑψηλοφρονεῖν) ; Eph. iv. 2; Phil. ii. 3.— On πρᾳοτ,,
gentleness (opposite: Eph. iv. 31, and ὠγριότης, Plat. Conv.
p. 197 Ὁ), and μακροθ., long-suffering, bearing with immoral
opposition (comp. Eph. iv. 2, and on Gal. v. 22), ver. 18
throws fuller light.

Ver. 13. Neither the second part of the verse, καθὼς...
ὑμεῖς, nor ἀνεχόμενοι... μομφήν, is to be parenthesized ; for
the whole is an uninterrupted continuation of the construction.
— ἀνεχόμ. ἀλλ.] modal definition of the ἐνδύσασθαι of the last
two virtues, informing us how the required appropriation of
them is to manifest itself in active conduct: so that ye, etc.
This conduct is conceived as developing itself in and with
the completion of the required ἐνδύσασθε; hence ἀνεχόμενοι
ἀλλήλ. is not to be regarded as only “ loosely appended”
(Hofmann) to μακροῦ. ---- καὶ χαριζόμενοι «.7.d.] for the endur-
ance (comp. Eph. iv. 2) is to advance to positive forgiveness, and
not to remain a mere passive attitude. Observe here the alter-
nation of ἀλλήλων (one the other) and ἑαυτοῖς (yourselves cach
other); the latter is used, because to the χαρίζεσθαι of the Chris-
tzans, which they are to show {0 themselves mutually, there is
proposed as pattern the χαρίζεσθαι which they have experienced
from above, from Christ. Comp. Kihner, ad Xen. Mem.u. 6. 20.
— μομφήν] blame, reproach, only here in the N. T., not found
at all in the Apocrypha and LXX., but very common in the
classics, especially the poets, also with ἔχειν, to find fault
with something, Eur. Phoen. 780, Ale. 1012, Or. 1069;
Soph. 47. 179, and Schneidewin ὧν loc. ; Pind. Isthm. iv. 61.
-- καθὼς καὶ «.7.r.] The duty of the χαρίζεσθαι ἑαυτ. is so
essentially Christian and important, that Paul goes on further
to hold up before the readers the great motive and incitement
for its fulfilment, namely, the forgiveness which they them-
selves have experienced, which Christ (ὁ κύριος, see the critical
remarks) has bestowed upon them. Comp. Eph. iv. 32, where,
however, the principal subject of the χαρίζεσθαι is indicated,
namely, God (comp. 11. 13), who has pardoned ὧν Christ.
To the expression in our passage—and a consideration of the

440 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

circumstances of the Colossian church naturally prompted the
emphasizing of the merit of Christ—corresponds the frequent
ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, Rom. xvi. 20, 24; 1 Cor. xvi. 23;
2, Cor. wii. 9d. 9; xi. 13; Gal. i. 6, vi 18 5 Philo
There is no trace here of “an advanced Christology ” (Holtz-
mann). The divine pardon obtained for us by Christ in His
work of atonement (Rom. v. 6 f., 15), and continuously pro-
cured through His intercession (Rom. viii. 34), is in so far His
(in the sense that He is the pardoning subject) as He is the
procurer, bearer, and accomplisher of the divine grace (Eph. ii.
16; Col. i. 19 f.), and God’s love is His love (Rom. viii. 55,
39; Eph. ii.19; Rom. v. 7 f.). The pardon received from
Christ, however, binds us by moral necessity (Matt. xviii. 33 ;
and generally, Rom. viii. 9) to forgive also upon our side;
—anything beyond this, namely, what is contained in Matt.
vi. 12, as de Wette thinks, is not conveyed in the words, but
results as a consequence. — καὶ ὑμεῖς] sc. χαριζόμενοι. The
context suggests this, and not the imperative; hence the
orderly connection is not broken, and the whole verse contains
accompanying participial definitions, after which, in ver. 14,
the discourse continues wninterrupted.— Respecting the
double καί of the comparison, see on Rom. i. 13. —It is to be
observed, moreover, that καθώς refers only to the pardon ttself,
and does not concern the service by which Christ has pro-
cured the pardon, the death, namely, which the Christian
ought to be ready to undergo for the brethren, John xii. 54,
as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others think, but which would
be here an, irrelevant importation.

Ver. 14. In addition to all this, however, put on love, by
which Christian perfection is knit. In making τ. ἀγάπην
dependent on ἐνδύσασθε, Paul abides by his figure: becoming
added (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 433) to all those virtues (regarded
as garments), love is to be put on like an upper garment
embracing all, because love brings it about, that the moral
perfection is established in its organic unity as an integral
whole. Thus love is the bond of Christian perfection, its
συνδετικὸν ὄργανον ; without love, all the individual virtues,
which belong in themselves to that perfection, would not unite

CHAP. III. 14. 441

together into that necessary harmonious entirety, in which
perfection consists. Not as if the latter were already existent
without love (as Schenkel objects to this view), but love is the
σύνδεσμος constituting its perfection ; apart from love there is no
τελειότης, Which has its conditio sine gua non only in the in-
clusion of its other factors in love ; how love accomplishes this,
no one has better shown than Paul himself in 1 Cor. xiii.’ Nor
is it as if the genitive would necessarily be a plurality (as Hof-
mann objects) ; on the contrary, the τελειότης according to its
nature and to the context is a collective idea, with which the
conception of a σύνδεσμος well corresponds. It might, more-
over, occasion surprise, that Jove, which is withal the principle
and presupposition of the virtues enumerated, is mentioned last,
and described as being added ; but this was rendered necessary
by the figurative representation, because love, from its nature,
in so far as it includes in principle the collective virtues and
comprehends them in itself, necessarily had assigned to it in the
figure of putting on garments the place of the wpper garment,
so that Paul rightly proceeds in his description from the under
garments to the upper one which holds all the others together,
and with whose function love corresponds. Accordingly the
absolute ἡ ἀγάπη is not to be taken in any other sense than
the general and habitual one of Christian brotherly love (i. 8, ii.
2; 1 Cor. xi.; Phil. i. 9); nor yet in any sort of reference
limiting it to special qualities, e.g. as by de Wette: “as active,
beneficent, perfecting love.” 6 (see the critical remarks),
which, namely love, conceived of as neuter, as in our “ that is.”
Comp. on ἐξ οὗ, ii. 19. — σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότ.] bond of per-
fection, t.e. what binds together the Christian moral perfection
into the totality of its nature, συνδεσμεύει, Polyb. iii. 42. 8;
ξυνδεῖ καὶ ξυμπλέκει, Plat. Polit. p. 309 B. Chrysostom
(though mingling with it the foreign figure of the root) aptly
Says: συγκράτησις τῶν THY τελειότητα ποιούντων. Comp.
Theophylact : πάντα ἐκεῖνά, φησιν, αὕτη συσφίγγει παροῦσα;
ἀπούσης δὲ διαλύονται καὶ ἐλέγχονται ὑπόκρισις ὄντα καὶ οὐδέν.
The genitive, which is that of the object, denotes (it is otherwise
in Eph. iv. 3; comp. Acts viii. 23 ; LXX. Isa. lviii. 6) that
4 Comp. Clem. Cor. I. 49 f.

442 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

which is held together by the bond. Comp. Plat. Rep.
p- 616 C: εἶναι yap τοῦτο τὸ φῶς ξύνδεσμον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ...
πᾶσαν ξυνέχον τὴν περιφοράν, also p. 520 A: τὸν ξύνδεσμον
τῆς πόλεως, Polit. p. 810 A: τὸν ξύνδεσμον ἀρετῆς μερῶν
φύσεως ἀνομοίων. Taken as the genitive of quality, it would
yield the adjective sense: the perfect bond, “animos sc. con-
jungens,” Grotius. So also Erasmus, Vatablus, Calovius,
Estius, Wolf, Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and others. But
how arbitrary this would be in itself, and especially in view of
the fact that, in the event of τ. τελειότ. being disposed of as an
adjective, the more precise definition of σύνδεσμος would have
to be gratuitously introduced ! Taken as the genitivus causae
(Schenkel), it would not correspond with the figure, though it
is in substance correct that that, which as a bond envelopes per-
fection, only thereby brings about its existence (comp. above).
According to Huther, the sense is: “ by man’s putting on love
he is girt with perfection; whosoever lives in love is perfect.”
Thus the genitive would have to be conceived as genitive of
apposition, which would yield an incongruous analysis of the
figure, induced by the opinion that 6 does not refer to the ὠγάπη
itself, but to the ἐνδύσασθαι τὴν ἀγάπην According to
Hofmann (comp. Ellicott), the genitive is meant to be that of
the subject, and the τελειότης is to indicate the completeness
of the Christian state, of which love is the bond, znasmuch as
it binds Christians together among themselves, wherever that
completeness exists (John xiii. 35). This is erroneous; for if in
some curious fashion the abstract ἡ τελειότης (consequently an
ageregate of attributes) were to be the acting subject, which
makes use of love as a bond (consequently for the purpose of
binding), yet the Christians among themselves could not be
conceived as the object of that binding, but only the πάντα
ταῦτα in accordance with the immediate context (ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ

1 σύνδεσμος, namely, would apply to the girdle, as Clericus, Ewald, and
Schenkel make it do. But to that view the ἐνδύσασθε to be supplied would be
contextually less suitable (comp. Eph. vi. 14) ; while after what has gone before
the reader would most naturally think of love simply as a garment, and not as
the girdle, ‘‘ which holds together all individual efforts towards perfection ”’

(Ewald). Besides, it would not at all be easy to see why Paul should not have
used the definite word ζώνη instead of σύνδεσμος.

CHAP. III. 15. 443

τούτοις). The apostle would have been able to express the
tenor of thought forced upon him by Hofmann simply and
clearly by some such phrase as 6 (or ὅς, or ἥτις) ἐστι σύνδεσμος
τῶν ἐν Χριστῷ τελείων (comp.i. 28). Others take it as the swm
of perfection. So Bengel, Zachariae, Usteri, Bohmer, Steiger,
de Wette, Olshausen (“inasmuch as it comprehends in itself
—hbears, as it were, bound up in itself—all the individual
aspects of the perfect life, all virtues”). Comp. on the subject-
matter, Rom. xiii. 10. This explanation cannot. be justified
linguistically (not even by Simplic. Lpictet. Ὁ. 208, according
to which the Pythagoreans termed friendship: σύνδεσμον
πασῶν τῶν ἀρετῶν, 1... the bond which knits all the virtues
together), unless we take σύνδεσμος in the sense of a bundle,
as Herodian uses it, iv. 12. 11 (πάντα τὸν σύνδεσμον τῶν
ἐπιστολῶν), which, however, even apart from the singular
form of the conception in itself, would be unsuitable to
the context, since love is to be added to all the previously
enumerated elements of perfection, and may therefore well be
termed the bond that holds them together, but not their bundle,
not the swm of them. The word σύνδεσμος itself, which
except in our two parallel epistles does not occur in Paul’s
writings, is too hastily assigned by Holtzmann “ to the range
of language of the Auctor ad Ephesios.” As if we had the
whole linguistic range of the copious apostle in the few
epistles which bear his name! Indeed, even ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ
τούτοις (comp. Eph. vi. 16) is alleged to betray the auctor in
question. — In opposition to the Catholic use of our passage
to support the justificatio operum, it is enough to observe that
the entire exhortation has justification as its presupposition
(ver. 12), and concerns the moral life of those who are already
justified. Irrelevantly, however, it is urged in the Apol. Conf.
Aug. 3, p. 104 f. (comp. Calovius and others), in opposition to
the Catholics, that τελειότης is the integritas ecclesiae, and that ἢ
through love the church is kept in harmony, as Erasmus,
Melanchthon, and others also explained it.

Ver. 15. All these virtues, however, along with the love
which binds them together, must have their deep living
foundation in the peace of Christ, which reigns in the heart,

444 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

and their abiding incitement in gratitude towards God for the
salvation received in Christ. Hence now the further summons
—appended by the simple xai—to the readers, to let that
peace reign in their hearts and to be thankful. The εἰρήνη tod
«Χριστοῦ is the holy satisfaction of mind wrought by Christ
through the Spirit, the blessed inner rest, of which the atone-
ment and justification appropriated in faith (Rom. v. 1) are the
presupposition and condition. See on Phil. iv. 7. Comp.
Luther, Bengel, and others, including Flatt, Bahr, Olshausen,
Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, Hof-
mann. ΤῸ understand the peace of mutual concord (the Greek
Fathers, Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, and many others,
also Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 297), is less in accordance with
the universality of the connection, which here descends to the
deepest ground of the Christian life in the heart ; and besides,
the concord in question already follows of ztself on the virtues
recommended. Moreover, there is implied in βραβ. the
determining and regulating power, the supreme authority,
which the peace of Christ is to have in the Christian heart,
which suits most fully the above interpretation alone. —
BpaBevérw| βραβεύειν only found here in the N. T., but as
little un-Pauline as καταβραβ. in ii. 18 (in opposition to
Holtzmann) ; it means primarily: to arrange and. conduct the
contest (Wisd. x. 12, and Grimm 7 loc.); then: to confer the
prize of victory, to be βραβεύς, 1.6. umpire (Plut. Aor. p. 960 A;
Diod. Sic. xiii. 53); finally: to govern’ generally. See for
the last signification especially Dem. 36. 7, 1231.19; Eur.
Hel. 1079; Isocr. Areop. p. 144 B; Polyb. vi. 4. 3, xiii. 1. 5,
xxvii. 14, 4, οὐ al.; passages from Josephus in Krebs, and
from Philo in Loesner. Considering its very frequent occur-
rence in the latter sense, and its appropriateness in that sense
to ἐν τ. καρδ. ὑμ., and seeing that any reference to the Messianic
βραβεῖον (comp. ii. 18) is foreign to the context, the majority
of modern expositors have rightly interpreted it: the peace of
Christ must rule, govern in your hearts. So Luther (“let it
be master and keep you in all tribulation”), Castalio, Beza,
Bengel, and many others, including Flatt, Bihr, Olshausen,

1 The Vulgate incorrectly renders : exultef. So also the Gothic.

CHAP. III. 15. 445

Steiger, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dalmer, and
Bleek. The conception involves the superintending, arranging,
and administering activity, aud that in supreme deciding com-
petence (comp. Ewald and Hofmann), as it ought to be exer-
cised by the εἰρήνη τ. X. in the heart, quite like the German
verfiigen [to dispose of]. Bremi says aptly, ad Dem. Ol. p.
179, Goth. : it is not simply equivalent to διοικεῖν, “ sed pleno
jure et ex arbitrio διοικεῖν. Chrysostom and his followers
have retained the meaning: to confer the prize of victory, but
with ideas introduced to which nothing in the text points.
Theophylact : ὑβρίσθημεν πολλάκις ὑπό τινος" ἀγωνίζονται Tap’
ἡμῖν λογισμοὶ δύο, ὁ μὲν εἰς ἄμυναν κινῶν, ὁ δὲ εἰς μακροθυμίαν.
᾿Εὰν ἡ εἰρήνη τ. Θεοῦ στῇ ἐν ἡμῖν, ὥσπερ τις βραβευτὴς
δίκαιος, τουτέστι κριτὴς καὶ ἀγωνοθέτης, καὶ δῷ τὸ βραβεῖον
τῆς νίκης τῷ κελεύοντι μακροθυμεῖν, παύσεται ὁ ἀνταγωνιστής.
Comp. also Erasmus, Vatablus, and Calvin, who, however, ex-
plain it erroneously: palmam ferat. Grotius: “ dijudicet,
nempe si quid est inter vos controversum.” So also, substan-
tially, Hammond, Kypke, and others; similarly, Melanchthon :
“oubernet omnia certamina.” Comp. βραβεύειν ἔριν (Plut.
ftom. 9) and the like. See Dorville, ad Charit. p. 445. But
the context points to deeper matters than disputes, upon which
the peace of Christ in the heart is to decide. — εἰς ἣν x. ἐκλ.
k.T.X.| argumentative, supporting the exhortation just uttered ;
for which ye also (kai expressing the corresponding relation)
were called, etc. ; eis ἥν, in behalf of which, i.e. to possess which
peace, is not the final aim of the calling, which is rather par-
ticipation in the Messianic kingdom, but a mediate aim. Comp.
1 Pet. ii, 21.— ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι] not instead of εἰς ἕν σῶμα
(Grotius, Flatt, and many others) ; nor yet: “as growing to be
members of a single body” (Hofmann, gratuitously importing),
but (comp. Ellicott and Bleek) as the result of ἐκλήθητε,
announcing the relation of fellowship, into which the indivi-
duals are translated through their calling, and in which they
now jind themselves continuously. This abiding condition was
the predominant conception; hence the pregnancy of the ex-
pression (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 469); so that ye are in one body,
namely, as its members. The element of unity, added with

446 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

emphasis, and that quite in Pauline form (Rom. xii. 5; 1
Cor. x. 17; in opposition to Holtzmann), stands in appropriate
reference to the entire requirement. To have become by the
calling one body with those who share in that calling, and yet
not to let the holy moral disposition, for the sake of which we
are called, be the common ruling power of life—what a con-
tradiction! In that case there would be wanting to the ἕν
σῶμα the ἕν πνεῦμα accordant with the calling (Eph. iv. 4;
1 Cor. xii. 13).— The mention of this calling—the great bless-
ing which makes everything, that is at variance with what has
hitherto been demanded (ver. 12 ff), appear as ingratitude
towards God—induces the apostle to add still further the
highest motive of all for every Christian virtue (comp. ii. 7,
i. 12): «. εὐχάριστοι γίνεσθε: and become ye thankful (comp.
on Eph. iv. 32); in which the γίνεσθε (not equivalent to ἐστέ)
requires the constant striving after this exalted aim as some-
thing not yet attained; comp. eg. John xv. 8. It was nothing
but a misconception of that inner connection and of this sig-
nificance of γίνεσθε, which led to the taking edydp. as amabiles,
friendly, and the like (comp. Eph. iv. 32; Prov. xi. 15). So
Jerome, Erasmus (not in the Paraphr.), Calvin, Vatablus, Beza,
(benefict), Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Krebs, and many others,
including Bihr, Steiger, Olshausen, and Reiche. The lin-
guistic use of εὐχάριστος in this sense in the classical writers
is well known (Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 1, Occ. v.10), but equally so is
also its use in the sense of thankful (Xen. Cyr. viii. 3. 49 ;
Herodian, ii. 3.14; Diod. Sic. xviii. 28); and the N. T., in
which, moreover, the adjective is nowhere else found, has, like
the Apocrypha, εὐχαριστεῖν and εὐχαριστία only in the latter
signification (comp. ver. 17), the reference of which in our
passage to God after εἰς ἣν x. ἐκλήθ. (it is God who calls) is
self-evident, but not (in opposition to Grotius and Calovius)
the mutua gratitudo. The ascription of the words x, εὐχάρ. γίν.
to the interpolator, who is also supposed to have inserted ἐν
εὐχαριστίᾳ in iv. 2 (Holtzmann), is destitute of ground either
in the language or in the matter of the passage. It is not at
all easy to see why εὐχάριστος should be “as un-Pauline as
εὔσπλαγχνος in Eph. iv. 32.”

CHAP. III. 16, 447

Ver. 16 ἢ The series of exhortations begun in ver. 12 is
now closed,’ and Paul proceeds to give, before going on in
ver. 18 to the duties of particular callings, an encouraging
allusion to the Christian means of grace for furthering the
common life of piety, namely, the word of Christ. This ought
to dwell richly among them, so that they might by means of
its operation (1) instruct and admonish each other in all wisdom
with psalms, etc.; (2) by the divine grace sing to God in their
hearts ; and (3) let all that they do, in word or deed, be done
in the name of Jesus with thanksgiving to God. Accordingly,
the previous paraenesis by no means ends in a “ loose aggrega-
tion” (as Hofmann objects), but in a well-weighed, steadily-
progressive, and connected conclusion on the basis of the λόγος
of Christ? placed at the very beginning. According to Hof-
mann, ver. 16 f. is only meant to be an amplification of the
εὐχάριστοι γίνεσθε in ver. 15.. This would be a dispropor-
tionate amplification—especially as evy. yiv. is not the leading
thought in the foregoing—and could only be plausibly up-
held by misinterpretations in the details; see below. —
ὁ λόγος τ. Χριστοῦ] ic. the gospel. The genitive is that of
the subject ; Christ causes it to be proclaimed, He Himself
speaks in the proclaimers (2 Cor. xiii. 3), and has revealed it
specially to Paul (Gal. iv. 11 ἔν); it is His word. Comp.
1 Thess. i. 8, iv. 15; 2 Thess. iii. 1; Heb. vi. 1. The desig-
nation of it, according to its principal author: ὁ X. τοῦ Θεοῦ,
is more current. — ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμῖν] not: among you (Luther
and many others), which would not be in keeping with the
conception of zmdwelling; nor yet: im animis vestris (Theo-
doret, Melanchthon, Beza, Zanchius, and others, including
Flatt, Bohmer, and Olshausen), so that the indwelling which

1 Lachmann and Steiger have put ὁ λόγος... πλουσίως in a parenthesis, which
just as arbitrarily sets aside the new and regulative idea introduced by ὃ λόγες,
as it very unnecessarily comes to the help of the construction.

2 This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 54f., who finds in ver. 16
an echo of Eph. v. 19, which at the same time interrupts the entire connection,
and presents something un-Pauline almost in every word (p. 164). Un-Pauline,
in his view, is ὁ λόγος x. Χριστοῦ (but see 1 Thess. i. 8, iv. 15); un-Pauline the
juxtaposition of ψαλμοῖς, ὕμνοις, gdais (the reason why it is so, is not plain); un-
Pauline the gde» itself, and even the adverb πλουσίως. How strangely has the
apostle, so rich in diction, become impoverished !

448 TIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

depends on knowledge and faith would be meant, since the
subsequent modal definition is of an oral nature: but in you,
1.6. in your church, the ὑμεῖς, as a whole, being compared to a
house, in which the word has the seat of its abiding operation
and rule (comp. Rom. viii. 11; 2 Tim. 1. 5).— πλουσίως] im.
ample measure. In proportion as the gospel is recognised
much or little in a church as the common living source and
contents of mutual instruction, quickening, discipline, and edifi-
cation, its dwelling there is quantitatively various. De Wette
explains it, not comprehensively enough, in accordance with
what follows: “so that many come forward as teachers, and
often.” In another way Hofmann limits it arbitrarily: the
letting the word of Christ dwell richly in them is conceived
as an act of gratitude. ow easy it would have been for
Paul to have indicated this intelligibly! But the new point
which he wishes to urge upon his readers, namely, to let the
divinely-powerful means of Christian life dwell richly in them,
is placed by him without any link of connection, and inde-
pendently, at the head of his closing exhortation. — The fol-
lowing ἐν πάσῃ. . . τῷ Θεῷ is the modal definition of the
foregoing: so that ye, ete. ; construction according to the logical
subject, as in ii. 2.—€v πάσῃ σοφίᾳ] Since what precedes has
its defining epithet in πλουσίως, and that with all the emphasis
of the adverb put at the end, and since, moreover, the sym-
metry of the following participial clauses, each of which begins
with ἐν (ἐν πάσῃ copia... ἐν τ. χάριτι), ought not to be
abandoned without some special reason, the ἐν τ. cod. is to be
referred to what follows (so Bos, Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Bahr,
Steiger, Olshausen, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Ewald, Dalmer, Reiche, Bleek, Hofmann, and others; Bohmer
hesitates, and Beza permits this reference), and not to what
precedes (so Syriac, Chrysostom, Luther, and many others).
Comp. i. 28. Every sort of (Christian) wisdom is to be
active in the mutual instruction and admonition. Regarding
the details, see on i. 28.— ἑαυτούς] mutually, among your-
selves, comp. ver. 19. --- ψαλμοῖς «.7.A.] modal definition of
the mutual διδάσκειν and νουθετεῖν, which are to take place
by means of (see below, ἐν χάρ. ἄδοντες x.7.X.) psalms, ete. It

CHAP. III. 16. 449

is all the more arbitrary to refer it merely to νουθετ. (de
Wette), seeing that the position of ἑαυτούς binds the two par-
ticiples together, and seeing that inspired songs by no means
exclude a doctrinal purport. The conceivableness of a didactic
activity in mutual singing (in opposition to Schenkel and
Hofmann), and that without confounding things radically
different, is still clearly enough recognisable in many of our
best church songs, especially in those born of the fresh spirit
of the Reformation. Storr and Flatt, Schenkel and Hofmann
join the words with ἄδοντες, although the latter has already a
definition both before and after it, and although one does not
say ψαλμοῖς x.7.X., ἄδειν (dative), but ψαλμοὺς κιτιλ. (accusa-
tive), as in Ex, xiv. 32; Plat. Symp. 197 E, Rep.-p. 388 D,
and in all Greek authors. The dative of the instrument with
ἄδειν would be appropriate, if it had along with it an accu-
sative of the object praised (as eg. Eur. fon. 1091). See,
moreover, on Eph. v.19. Concerning the distinction between
ψαλμοί (religious songs after the manner of the Psalms of the
O. T., to be regarded partly as Christian songs already in use,
partly as improvised effusions, 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26) and ὕμνοι
(songs of praise), to both of which ὠδαὶ πνευματικαί (1.6. songs
inspired by the Holy Spirit) are then added as the general
category, see on Eph. v. 19. Observe, moreover, that Paul is
here also (comp. Eph. 1...) speaking not of divine worship” in
the proper sense of the term, since the teaching and admonition
in question are required from the readers generally and mutu-
ally, and that as a proof of their abundant possession of the
word of Christ, but rather ef the communication one with
another in religious intercourse (e.g. at meals, in the agapae and
other meetings, in family circles, etc.)—in which enthusiasm
makes the fulness of the heart pass from mouth to mouth, and
brotherly instruction and admonition thus find expression in
the higher form of psalms, etc., whether these may have been

? Many arbitrary more special distinctions are to be found in expositors. See
Bahr. Even Steiger distinguishes them very precariously into (1) songs accom-
panied by stringed instruments ; (2) solemn church songs ; (3) songs sung in the
house and at work.

2 This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann, who discovers here and in
Eph. v. 19 an already far advanced stage of worship.

coL, 2F

450 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

songs already well known, or extemporized according to the
peculiar character and productive capacity of the individual
enthusiasm, whether they may have been sung by individuals
alone (especially if they were improvised), or chorally, or in
the form of alternating chants (Plin. Zp. x. 97). How com-
mon religious singing was in the ancient church, even apart
from divine service proper, may be seen in Suicer, 7168.
II. p. 1568f. The existence of a multitude of rhythmic
songs, composed ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς by Christians, is attested by Eus.
H. E. ii. 17, v. 28. Regarding singing in the agapae, see
Tertullian, Apol. 39: “post aquam manualem et lumina, ut
quisque de scripturis sanctis vel proprio ingenio potest, provo-
catur in medium Deo canere.” See generally, Augusti, Denkw.
II. p. 110 ff. — The asyndetic (see the critical remarks) juxta-
position of ψαλμ., ὕμν., and @dais mv. renders the discourse
more urgent and animated. — ἐν τῇ χάριτι ἔδοντες K.7.r.] is
commonly regarded as subordinate to what goes before; as if
Paul would say: the heart also is to take part in their singing,
οὐχ ἁπλῶς τῷ στόματι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ, ὅ ἐστι μετὰ προσ-
οχῆς, Theophylact. But Paul himself has not in the least
expressed any such contrasting reference; and how superfluous,
nay, even inappropriate, would such an injunction be, seeing
that the διδάσκειν and νουθετεῖν takes place in fact by the
ψαλμοὶ x.7.r., and this is to be the outcome of the abundant
indwelling of the gospel; and seeing, further, that there is no
mention at all of a stated common worship (where, possibly,
lip-service might intrude), but, on the contrary, of mutual
edifying intercourse! The entire view is based upon the
unfounded supposition of a degeneracy of worship in the
apostolic age, which, even though it were true in itself, would
be totally inapplicable here. Moreover, we should expect the
idea, that the singing is to be the expression of the emotion of
the heart, to be represented not by ἐν τ. καρδ., but by ἐκ τῶν
καρδ. (comp. 2 Tim. ii, 22; Matt. xii. 34) or ἀπὸ τ. κα Comp.
Wisd. viii. 21, also classical expressions like ἐκ φρενός and
the like. No, the participial clause is co-ordinate with the
preceding one (as also at Eph. v. 19, see im Joc.), and conveys
—after the audible singing for the purpose of teaching and

CHAP. III. 16. 451

admonition, to be done mutually—as a further element of
the pious life in virtue of the rich indwelling of the word
of Christ, the still singing of the heart, which each one must
offer to God for himself inwardly; we. the silent praising
of God, which belongs to self-edification in the inner man.
Chrysostom already indicates this view, but mixes it up, not-
withstanding, with the usual one; Theophylact quotes it as
another (ἄλλως), giving to it, moreover, the inappropriate an-
tithesis: μὴ πρὸς ἐπίδειξιν, but adding with Chrysostom the
correct illustration: κἂν yap ἐν ἀγορᾷ ἧς, δύνασαι κατὰ σεαυ-
τὸν ἄδειν μηδενὸς ἀκούοντος. Bengel well describes the two
parallel definitions ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ «7d. and ἐν χάριτι κτλ.
as distributio of the πλουσίως, and that mutuo et seorsim. — ἐν
τῇ χάριτι] does not belong to ὠδαῖς πνευμ. (Luther: “ with
spiritual pleasant songs,” also Calvin), but to ἄδοντες as the
parallel element to ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ. In the same way, namely, —
as the teaching and admonition above mentioned are to take
place by means of every wisdom, which communicates and
operates outwardly through them, so the still singing of the
heart now spoken of is to take place by means of the divine
grace, Which stirs and moves and impels men’s minds,—a
more precise definition, which is so far from being useless and
idle (as Hofmann objects), that it, on the contrary, excludes
everything that is selfish, vain, fanatical, and the like.
Chrysostom says rightly: ἀπὸ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ πνεύματος,
φησὶν, ἄδοντες «.7.X.; comp. Oecumenius: διὰ τῆς παρὰ τοῦ
ἁγίου πνεύματος δοθείσης χάριτος, also Estius and Steiger.
Hofmann’s view is erroneous: that ἄδειν ἔν τίνι means to sing
of something, thus making the grace experienced the subject-
matter of the songs. This it does not mean even in the LXX.
Ps. cxxxviiil. 5, where 2 is taken in a local sense.’ The
subject-matter of the singing would have been expressed by
an accusative (as μῆνιν ἄειδε), or with εἰς. Inappropriate as

1 As in the Vulgate, and by Luther.

* Nevertheless, Holtzmann, p. 164, adopts the linguistically quite incorrect
explanation of Hofmann: he thinks that it alone yields a tolerable sense,
but that it is foreign to the linguistic usage of Paul (no, it is foreign to all
linguistic usage).

Ae THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

to sense (since the discourse concerns singing in the heart)
is the view of others: with gracefulness. So Theophylact
(who, however, permits a choice between this and the true
explanation), Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon (“sine confusione,
εὐσχημόνως), Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Cor-
nelius a Lapide, Wetstein, Bengel, and others, including Bahr,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel, Reiche. Even though the sing-
ing in public worship were spoken of, the injunction to sing
gracefully, and especially with the emphasis of being placed
first, would touch on too singular an element. Anselm, and
in more modern times Bohmer, Huther, de Wette, and Bleek
take it: with thankfulness, in which case the article, which
Bleek rejects (see the critical remarks), would denote not the
eratitude already required in ver. 15 (so Huther), but that
which is due. But the summons to general thanksgiving
towards God (in ver. 15, grateful conduct was meant by εὐχάρ.
giv.) only follows in ver. 17; and inasmuch as the interpreta-
tion which takes it of the divine grace is highly suitable both
to the connection and to the use of the article (which sets
forth the χάρις as a conception formally set apart), and places
an admirably characteristic element in the foreground, there is
no reason for assuming here a call to thanksgiving.— As ἐν
ταῖς καρδ. vu. was contrasted with the preceding oral singing,
sd is τῷ Θεῷ contrasted with the destination for others; the
still heart-singer sings to God. It is just for this reason that
the otherwise superfluous τῷ Θεῷ is added. Comp. 1 Cor.
xiv. 28.

Ver. 17. The apostle having announced in ver. 16 the first
way in which the abundant indwelling of the word of Christ
must manifest itself by ἐν πάσῃ copia διδάσκοντες... πνευ-
ματικοῖς, and having set forth as the second the ἐν τῇ χάριτι
ἄδοντες «.7.r., now adds the third, and that, indeed, as one
embracing the entire conduct of life; the καί, and, attaches
it to the two participial clauses in ver. 16, not, however,
introducing another participial mode of expression conformed
to the foregoing, but leading over, through the verb to be sup-
plied, into the direct form of discourse: And whatsoever ye do
by word or by work, do all in the name of Jesus. The πᾶν 6,

CHAP. III. 17. 453

τι ἂν ποιῆτε... ἔργῳ is the absolute nominative, placed at the
beginning with rhetorical emphasis, and syntactically inde-
pendent. See Kiihner, II. 1, p. 42; Winer, p. 534 [E. T.
718]. — ἐν λόγῳ ἢ ἐν ἔργῳ) Comp. Aesch. Prom. 659: τί χρὴ
δρῶντ᾽ ἢ λέγοντα δαίμοσιν πράσσειν φίλα. See Pfluek, ad Eur.
Hee. 373: “ Dictis factisque omnis continetur actio.” For
instances of λόγος and ἔργον associated in that order and
conversely, see Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. 11. 3. 6; Lobeck,
Paral. p. 64 f.— πάντα] again emphatically prefixed, not,
however, taking up again the previous πᾶν, but rather: in the
case of everything which is done by word or deed, all is to take
place in the name of Jesus;' no element of the doing is to
be out of this sphere! The imperative ποιεῖτε is to be sup-
plied from the context. Comp. on Eph. v. 21.— ἐν ὀνόμ.]
Not: with tvocation of (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy-
lact, Melanchthon, and others), but: so that the name is the
holy moral element, in which the action proceeds, inasmuch,
namely, as this name, as the sum of the faith which moulds
the new life, fills the consciousness, and gives to the action its
specific Christian quality and consecration. “Ev «Χριστῷ
᾿Ιησοῦ would not be substantially different. Comp. on Eph.
v. 20; Phil 1. 10; John xiv. 13. “Illum sapiat, illum
sonet, illum spiret omnis vestra vita,’ Erasmus. The ideal
character of the requirement is misapprehended, when, with
Cornelius a Lapide, it is lowered to a mere consilium. See,
on the contrary, Calovius.—evyap. τῷ Θεῷ «.7.r.] accompany-
ing definition: whilst ye at the same time give thanks, etc.
Comp. ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ in ii. 7, iv. 2,1. 13; Phil. iv. 6. In the
apostle’s view, there belongs essentially to the devoutness of
Christian life the self-expressing piety of thankfulness for all
Christian bliss, in the consciousness, assurance, and experience
of which one does everything in the name of Jesus. Since
evyap. denotes thanksgiving, Grotius ought not to have taken
the participle in a declaratory sense (“guid sit in nomine
Christi omnia facere et loqui”); a misinterpretation, which

* Paul, as is well known, is fond of placing close beside each other different

forms of πᾶς with different references. See Wilke, Rhetor. p. 381; comp. also
on Phil. iv. 12.

454 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Hofmann rightly rejects, but substitutes another explanation
which neglects the verbal import of εὐχαριστεῖν : namely, that
Paul declares the doing here required to be a thanksgiving, etc.,
doing, which is practical thanks. Εὐχαριστεῖν is never in the
N. T. equivalent to χάριν ἀποδοῦναι, gratias referre. — πατρί]
Father of Jesus. — δι’ avtod] For Jesus, as the personal.
historical mediator of Messianic bliss through the work of
atonement, is therewith for the Christian consciousness the
mediator of thanksgiving ; He it is, through whose benefit the
Christian can and does give thanks. Comp. Rom. i. 8, vii. 25, al.
Hence in Eph. v. 20: ἐν ὀνόματι κατ. Both the thought
and expression were so habitually in use and belonged so
essentially to the circumstances of the case, that the hypothesis
of a contrast to the mediation of angels (Theodoret, Bengel,
and many others, including Biihr) is unfounded, more especially
seeing that the entire context has no polemical reference.

Ver. 18 to iv. 1. Instructions for the different portions of
the household. Why Paul should have given to the churches
such a table of household rules only in this Epistle and in
that to the Ephesians (comp. also 1 Tim. and Tit.), must be left
wholly undecided (Chrysostom exhausts himself in conjectures).
They are not polemical; but possibly, in the presence of a
theosophico-ascetic atmosphere, the practical rules of healthy
domestic life seemed to him the more seasonable. They do’
not contain traces of a /ater development of church-life (Holtz-
mann). The circumstance that the precepts for the several
forms of domestic society uniformly (vv. 18, 20, 22 ff.) begin
with the subordinate party, as also at Eph. v. 21 ff., is to be

1 This domestic code is held by Holtzmann to be an insertion of the interpo-
lator from Eph. v. 21-vi. 9. He groundlessly questions the genuineness of the
expressions εὐάρεστος, ἀδικεῖν, ἐρεθίζειν, ἰσότης, τὸ δίκαιον, ἁπλότης τῆς καρδίας, and
even appeals to the use of ἀνθρωπόρεσκος, ἀνταπόδοσις, and the formula σῷ κυρίῳ
Χριστῷ δουλεύειν as direct evidence against its Pauline origin. Might not, how-
ever, the word ἀνθρωπάρεσκος have been sufficiently familiar to Paul from the
LXX. (Ps. liii. 5) and otherwise (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 621), and have been
used by him in the two parallel epistles? Is not ἀνταπόδοσις a term in general
use since Thucydides? Is not ‘‘to serve the Lord Christ” a Pauline idea,
and even (comp. Rom. xvi. 18) literal expression? The danger of a petitio
principii only too easily steals upon even the cautious and sober critic in such
points of detail. He finds what he seeks.

CHAP. III. 19. 455

regarded as having occurred without any set purpose ; the idea
of abedience was primarily present to the writer's mind. If
Paul’s aim had been to counteract the abuse of Christian freedom
and equality,or in other words, perverse desires for emancipation,
he would not have considered so weighty a purpose sufficiently
met by the mere mode of arrangement, but would have
entered upon the matter itself (in opposition to Huther and de
Wette); and this we should have to assume that he would
have done also ὧν the event of his having had in view an
attitude of resistance on the part of those bound to obedience
as the thing most to be feared (in opposition to Hofmann).
Just as much might such an attitude be a thing to be feared
from the stronger party. Respecting the nominatives in the
address, see especially Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 172 A. —
ὡς ἀνῆκεν) not the perfect (with present signification), as
Huther thinks and Bleek does not disapprove, but the dm-
perfect, which has its logical reference in the ἐν κυρίῳ to be
connected with it: as was fitting in the Lord, 1.0. as was be-
coming in the relation of the ἐν Χριστῷ εἶναι (Philem. 8), as
was appropriate to the Christian state, but had not yet been
in this way realized. The imperfect (comp. Acts xxii. 22)
denotes, therefore, as also in χρῆν and ἔδει, the incomplete
condition, which extends even into the present. See Kiihner,
II. 1, p. 176 f£; Bernhardy, p. 373. Similarly, Winer, p. 254
[E. T. 338]. Comp. also Buttmann, p. 187 [E. T. 216].
We are not to think of an omission of ay; see Kiihner, Lc.
The connection of ἐν κυρίῳ with ὑπότασσεσθε (Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Estius, Rosenmiller, Hofmann, and others)—in
which case Hofmann imparts into ws ἀνῆκεν the abstract idea:
as was already in itself titting—is opposed by the position of
the words themselves, as well as by the parallel in ver. 20:
εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν ἐν κυρίῳ.

Ver. 19. Comp. Eph. v. 25 ff., where this love is admirably
characterized according to its specifically Christian nature. —
πικραίνεσθε] become not embittered, description of a spitefully
cross tone and treatment. Plat. Legg. v. Ὁ. 131 Ὁ ; Dem. 1464.
18: μήτε πικραίνεσθαι μήτε μνησικακεῖν. Philo, Vit. Mos. ΤΙ.
p. 135. Comp. πικρῶς διακεῖσθαι πρός τινα, Polyb. iv. 14.1;

456 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

LXX. Ex. xvi. 20; Ruth i. 20; 3 Esdr. iv. 31; éewrexpai-
νεσθαί τινι, Herod. v. 62.

Ver. 20 f. Comp. Eph. vi. 1-4, where likewise is given a
characteristic development in fuller detail of what is here
only succinctly stated. — κατὰ πάντα] not to be restricted ;
for Paul is quoting the rule, that which holds good principaliter
in the relation of children, while possible exceptional cases
obviously come under the principle of obeying God rather
than man (Oecumenius: δίχα τῶν εἰς ἀσέβειαν φερόντων).
Comp. Eph. v. 24. --- εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν ἐν κυρίῳ] In connection
with this reading (see the critical remarks), to supply τῷ Θεῷ
to evap. is arbitrary (in opposition to de Wette and Baum-
garten-Crusius), since this is not suggested by the context as
in Rom. xii. 1, 2; nor is ἐν κυρίῳ to be taken as instead of
the dative (Flatt, Bahr, Bleek), or in the sense: coram Domino
(Bohmer), but rather as in ver. 18. We have to leave evdp.
without any other more precise definition than what is con-
tained in ἐν κυρ., so that it is affirmed of childlike obedience,
that it is well - pleasing, and that indeed not in a worldly
fashion apart from Christ, οὐκ ἀπὸ τῆς φύσεως μόνης (Chry-
sostom), but in a definite Christian character ; consequently
the Christian ethical beauty, in which the δίκαιον (Eph. vi. 1)
of that virtue manifests itself Comp. προσφιλῆ in Phil. iv. 8.
It would be a perfectly groundless violence to couple, with
Hofmann, ἐν κυρίῳ with ὑπακούετε τ. γ. x. 7., notwithstanding
the clause which is introduced by yap.—Ver. 21. οἱ πατέρες]
they, and not the mothers, are addressed as holding the
government of the household, also in reference to education.
Comp. on Eph. vi. 4. — ἐρεθίζετε)] irritate, very frequent in
the classics and LXX., especially in connection with anger,
as here (comp. Eph. vi. 4). This irritation takes place through
unjust or over-severe (ἐστὶν ὅπου καὶ συγχωρεῖν ὀφείλετε,
Chrysostom) treatment, which the child, provoked thereby to
anger, mus bear without being able to get satisfaction for its
injured sense of justice ; whereby it becomes liable to a spirit-
less and sullen, and therefore immoral, resignation, a despair
paralysing all moral power of will; hence ἵνα μὴ ἀθυμῶσιν.
This verb is only found here in the N. T., but frequently in

CHAP, III. 22-24. 457

LXX., also Judith vii. 22; 1 Macc. iv. 27; and in classic
writers from the time of Thucydides (v. 91. 1, vii. 21, ai.).
Its opposite is θαῤῥεῖν. Bengel aptly says: “ fractus animus
pestis juventutis.”

Ver. 22. Comp. Eph. vi. 5 ff. The minuteness with which
Paul enters into this point in comparison with the others,
may naturally have been caused by the flight and conversion
of Onesimus, who was a Colossian slave. — τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα
κυρίοις) the masters, who are so after a jfleshly manner, 1.6. in
respect to material-human nature; a description, which pre-
supposes another relation belonging to the higher pneumatic
sphere, in which, namely, Christ is (ver. 24) the master.
Comp. Rom. ix. 3.— μὴ ἐν ὀφθαλμ. ὡς ἀνθρωπάρ] See
on Eph. vi. 6. The obedience of Christian slaves becomes
men-pleasing, and, to appearance, eye-service, when it is not
subordinated to, and normally conditioned by, the fear of
Christ (2 Cor. v. 11) as the higher Master. See below, where
ἐν ἁπλότ. καρδίας (see on Eph. vi. 5) corresponds to the ἐν
ὀφθαλμοδουλ., and φοβούμ. τ. κύριον to the ws ἀνθρωπάρ. LEye-
service presupposes insincerity of heart, and men-pleasing
takes for granted a want of the fear of Christ. Comp. on the
latter, Gal. i. 10.

Ver. 23 f. More precise explanation of the ἐν ἁπλότ. καρδ.,
φοβούμ. τ. κύρ. just required. — ποιῆτε] in your service. — ἐκ
ψυχῆς] μετὰ εὐνοίας, μὴ μετὰ δουλικῆς ἀνάγκης, ἀλλὰ μετὰ
ἐλευθερίας καὶ προαιρέσεως, Chrysostom. Comp. on Eph. vi. 6.
— ἐργάζεσθε] execute, carry out, not equivalent to ποιεῖτε, but
correlative with it, hence also not in the narrower sense: labour
(as eg. in Xen. Oec. 111. 4 with reference to slaves). — ὡς τῷ
xup.| Point of view of the épydf.; this is to be regarded as
taking place for Christ, rendered as a service to Him. Comp.
Eph. vi. 6 f. And the relation to the human masters, to
whom the slaves belong, is in this higher aspect of the service
thrown so much into the background as not to be taken into
account at all, in accordance with the principle that no man
can serve two masters; hence ov« is not relatively, but
absolutely negative. Respecting the contrast of ἀνθρ. and
Χριστός, see on Gal. i, 1.— εἰδότες «.7.A.] Ground of the

458 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

obligation in one’s own consciousness for the ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ κ.
οὐκ avOp.: since ye know that ye shall receive from the Lord,
etc. On εἰδότες, comp. iv. 1.— ἀπὸ κυρίου, excluding the
human recompense, stands first with emphasis, and ἀπό (on
the part of) denotes, not expressly the direct giving (παρά),
through which the recompense is received, but generally the
issuing, proceeding from the Lord, who is the possessor and
bestower, although the receiving of the recompense at the
judgment will be in reality direct (Eph. vi. 8; 2 Tim. 1. 18).
Comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 23; Winer, p. 347 [E. T. 463]. — τῆς
κληρον.] In the Messianic κληρονομία, 1.6. in the future
possession of eternal bliss (see on Gal. 11]. 18; Eph. 1. 11;
Col. i. 12; Rom. iv. 13), the reward consists. The motive for
its purposely-chosen designation by this particular term lies in
the fact, that in human relations slaves are not usually heirs,
comp. Gen. xxi. 10. Hence also this closing word, next to
the ἀπὸ κυρ., has special emphasis: from the Lord ye shall
receive the recompense of the inheritance. Comp. as to sub-
stance, Ignat. ad Polyc. 4: ἵνα κρείττονος ἐλευθερίας ἀπὸ Θεοῦ
τύχωσιν. ---- ΟΠ ἀνταπόδοσις (only found here in the N.T.),
comp. Thue. iv. 81.1 (where, however, the sense is different) ;
Plut. Mor: p. 12 F; Polyb. vi..5..3, xx. 7. 2; xxx ieee
passages from Diod. Sic. in Munthe’s Obss. Ὁ. 390; and from
the LXX. in Schleusner, I. p. 296; also ἀνταπόδομα in
Rom. xi. 9. --- τῷ κυρίῳ X. δουλεύετε] without γάρ (see the
critical remarks) embraces succinctly the whole summary oj
the Christian duty of slaves in accordance with the principle
already laid down in the ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ x. οὐκ ἀνθρώποις:
Χριστῷ is not to be taken as appositionally equivalent to ὅς
ἐστι Χριστός (Hofmann), but in accordance with the quite
common usage; hence: ¢o the Lord Christ be serviceable! It
is properly rendered thus imperatively in the Vulgate ; also by
Ewald, Dalmer, Schenkel, and Bleek. The whole significant
emphasis lies upon τῷ κυρ. Χριστῷ; His slaves they are
to be in the relation of human service. Where the ydp is
regarded as not genuine, the indicative interpretation (the

1 The decisive preponderance of the witnesses omitting this γάρ renders it
quite impossible to uphold it by subjective criticism (in opposition to Hofmann),

CHAP. III. 25. 459

usual one) makes the utterance—which, moreover, would be
superfluous after ver. 23 —vapid, especially without the
addition of an οὕτως.

Ver. 25. Ground of encouragement (γάρ, see the critical
remarks) to fulfil the precept τῷ κυρ. X. δουλεύετε: for he
who does wrong shall carry off (the penal recompense of) what
wrong he has done,—a locus communis, of which the slaves
were to make the application, that the unjust treatment which
they experienced from their masters would not go unpunished ;
hence they could not but feel themselves the more encouraged to
be in their relation of servitude slaves of no other than Christ,
and to permit no unjust treatment to make them deviate
from that principle. Paul therefore adds for their further
encouragement : καὶ οὐκ ἔστι προσωποληψία, and there is no
partiality, of which likewise general proposition the intended
application is, that in that requital the impartial Judge
(Christ, comp. ver. 24) will not favour the masters, and will
not injure the slaves, comp. Eph. vi. 9. The correct view
is held substantiaily by Theodoret, Beza, Calvin, Estius,
Zachariae, Ewald, and others. Others have understood ὁ ἀδικῶν
as referring to the slave who violates his duty, in which case
ἀδικεῖν is taken either in the strict sense of the trespass of
him who intentionally injures his master (Hofmann, comp.
Philem. 18), or loosely and generally in the sense of doing
wrong, comp. Rev. xxii. 11 (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Bengel,
Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Steiger, and others). But against this
view the x. οὐκ ἔστε προσωπολ. may be decisively urged,

proceeding on the supposition that its omission may be traced to an artificial
combination of ideas, which is imputed to the copyists. Just as little is the
Recepta δὲ (instead of γάρ) in ver. 25 to be detended.

1 Hofmann finds it incredible that Paul should have closed the section
referring to the slaves with a proposition couched in such general terms as
ver. 25, which applies not to the slaves, but to the masters. This, however, is
an erroneous view. For in vv. 22-24 the apostle has instructed the slaves
regarding their active bearing in service, and he is now, in the general pro-
position of ver. 25, suggesting for their reflection and deliberate consideration
the proper soothing and elevating point of view regarding their passive bearing
in service also, Thus ver. 25 also applies to the slaves, and forms merely the
transition to the precept for the masters in iv. 1. This applies also in opposition
to the doubts expressed by Holtzmann, p. 44 f.

460 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

which assumes that the subject to be punished is higher, of
superior rank ; for the idea which has been imported into the
passage is purely fanciful: “Tenues saepe putant, 5101 propter
tenuitatem ipsorum esse parcendum; id negatur,” Bengel, in
connection with which Theophylact appeals to Lev. xix. 15.
And if on account of οὐκ ἔστι προσωπολ. the unjust masters
must be taken as meant by ὁ ἀδικῶν in the application of the
sentence, the reference to both parties, to the masters and
the slaves (Erasmus, Grotius, and others, including Bahr,
Huther, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Bleek, following Jerome and
Pelagius), is thereby excluded, since προσωώπολ. is appropriate
only to the masters.— κομίσεται] shall carry off for himself
(sibi), refers to the Messianic judement, and ἠδίκησε to that
which he, who is now ἀδικῶν (present), has (shall have) then
done. Onthe expression κομίζεσθαι x.7.r., used to express the
idea of a recompense equivalent to the deed in respect of
its guilt, comp. Eph. vi. 8, and on 2 Cor: ν. 10. — Respecting
TpocwmoAn via, see on Gal. 11. 6.

CHAP. IV. 1. 461

ΟἿΑ ΡΟ ἘΠΕ ΤΥ:

VER. 1. οὐρανοῖς] Lachm. and Tisch. read οὐρανῷ, following
A BC s* min. vss. Clem. Or. Damase. The plural is from Eph.
vi. 9.— Ver. 3. δ 6] Lachm. reads δι ὅν, following BF G.
Not attested strongly enough, especially as after +. Χριστοῦ the
masculine involuntarily suggested itself.— Ver. 8. γνῷ τὰ περὶ
ὑμῶν] A BD* FG min. Aeth. It., and some Fathers have γνῶτε
τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν. Recommended by Griesb., received by Scholz,
Lachm. and Tisch. 8, approved also by Rinck and Reiche ; and
rightly, because it has preponderant attestation, and is so
necessary as regards the context that it must not be regarded
as an alteration from Eph. vi. 22 (comp. zn loc.). The Recepta
is to be regarded as having arisen through the omission of the
syllable TE before TA. — Ver. 12. Instead of στῆτε Tisch. 8 has
σταθῆτε, Only on the authority of A*B and some min.—
πεπληρωμένοι] A BC D*F GS min. have πεπληροφορημένοι. Recom-
mended by Griesb., received by Lachm. and Tisch., and justly ;
the familiar πεπληρωμ. creptin involuntarily, or by way of gloss.
— Ver. 13. ζῆλον πολύν] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. Reiche
read σολὺν πόνον, following A BC D**® 80, Copt., while D* FG
have πολὺν κόπον, and Vulg. It.: multum ldaborem. Accordingly
the Kecepta is at any rate to be rejected, and πολὺν πόνον to be
preferred as having decisive attestation ; πόνον was glossed partly
by κόπον, partly by ζῆλον (πόθον and ἀγῶνα are also found in codd.).
Neither ζῆλον nor κόπον would have given occasion for a gloss;
and in the N. T. πόνος only further occurs in the Apocalypse.
— Ver. 15. αὐτοῦ] ACPS min. have αὐτῶν; B: αὐτῆς. The
latter is the reading of Lachm., who with B** instead of Νυμφᾶν
accents Νύμφαν. The αὐτῶν, which is received by Tisch. 8, is
to be held as original; the plural not being understood was
corrected, according as the name Nuzg. was reckoned masculine
or feminine, into αὐτοῦ or αὐτῆς.

Ver. 1. Τὴν ἰσότητα] not: equity, for the word signifies
acqualitas, not aequitas, i.e. ἐπιείκεια (in opposition to Steiger,

1 x” has γνώ vs τὰ περι ὑμῶν ; N** deletes the σε, and is thus a witness for the
Recepta.

462 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Huther, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, and most expositors), but:
equality (2 Cor. viii, 13 f.; very often in Plato, Polyb.
1. 38. 8, vi. 8. 4; Lucian, Herm. 22, Zeux. 5, also the
passages from Philo in Wetstein, and the LXX. Job xxxvi. 29 ;
Zech. iv. 7), so that ye, namely, regard and treat the slaves
as your equals. What is herein required, therefore, is not a
quality of the master, and in particular not the freedom from
moral unevenness, which is equivalent to δικαιοσύνη (Hofmann),
but a quality of the relation, which is to be conceded; it is
not at all, however, the equalization of the outward relation,
which would be a de facto abolition of slavery, but rather
the equality, which, amidst a continued subsistence of all the
outward diversity, is brought about in the Christian κοινωνία
by kindly treatment. While τὸ δίκαιον (what is right) expresses
that which, according to the Christian consciousness of right,
belongs as matter of right to the slave, τὴν ἰσότητα requires
the concession of the parity (¢galité) implied in the Christian
ἀδελφότης. Paul has in view (in opposition to Hofmann)
merely Christian slaves (whom he has exhorted in 111. 22 f.) ;
otherwise, in fact, the conception of ἰσότης would be not at
all appropriate. It is just by the Christian status of both
parties that he desires to see their inequality in other respects
ethically counterbalanced. A commentary on τὴν ἰσότητα is
supplied by Philem. 16. At variance with the context,
Erasmus, Melanchthon, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Bohmer,
and others understand the equality of impartial treatment,
according to which the master does not prefer one slave to
another. This would not in fact yield any definite moral
character of the treatment in itself, nor would it suit all the

1 This conception, coincident with δικαιοσύνη, does not pertain to ἰσότης at all ;
and just as little to tos in Soph. Phil. 685, where ‘cos ἐν γ᾽ ἴσοις ἀνήρ is nothing
else than par inter pares, namely, to his friends a friend, to his foes a foe.
Comp. Schneidewin én loc. At many other passages ἴσος denotes the equality of
right, that which is impartial, and is hence often combined with δίκαιος (righteous
in the narrower sense). But ἰσότης is always (even in Polyb. ii. 38. 8)
equality ; see e.g. Plato, Rep. 658 C, where it is said of the democracy : ἰσότησά
rive ὁμοίως ἴσοις σε καὶ ἀνίσοις διανέμουσα, that is, it distributes uniformly to equal
and wnequal a certain equality. In such passages the conception of egalité

comes into view with special clearness. Hofmann has explained our passage as
if ἰσότης and ὁμαλότης, or λειότης (levelness), were identical conceptions.

CHAP. IV. 2. 463

cases where there is only one slave. As to the middle
παρέχεσθε (Tit. ii. 7; Acts xix. 24), observe that it is based
simply on the conception of the self-activity of the subject;
Kiihner, II. 1, p. 97. -- εἰδότες consciousness, that serves as
a motive, as in ili, 24.— καὶ ὑμεῖς x.7.r.] Theophylact says
correctly: ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνοι ὑμᾶς, οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔχετε κύριον,
and that in heaven, namely Christ.

Vv. 2-6. After having already concluded the general
exhortations at iii. 17, Paul now subjoins some by way of
supplement, and that in aphoristic epistolary fashion, con-
cerning prayer along with intercession for himself (vv. 2-4),
and demeanour towards non-Christians (vv. 5, 6). How special
was the importance of both under the circumstances then
existing !

Ver. 2. To prayer apply yourselves perseveringly ; comp.
Rom. xii. 12; Eph. vi. 18; Acts i, 14; also 1 Thess. v. 17:
ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθε, which is substantially the same
thing. Comp. Luke xviii. 1. — ypnyop. ἐν αὐτῇ] modal
definition of the προσκαρτερεῖν : so that ye are watchful (that
is, alacres, mentally attentive and alert, not weary and
distracted, comp. 1 Thess. v. 6; Eph. vi 18; 1 Pet. iv.
7, v. 7 £.; Matt. xxvi. 41) in the same. ἐν, not to be taken
as instrumental, is meant of the business, in the execution of
which they are to be vigilant, since it is prayer in itself, as an
expression of the spiritual life, and not as an aid to moral
activity, that is spoken of. Hence we must not interpret it,
with Hofmann, as indicating how Christian watchfulness ought
to be (namely, a watching in prayer), but rather how one
ought to be in praying (namely, watchful therein). The
point of the precept is the praying ; and hence it is continued
by προσεύχομενοι. ---- ἐν evyap.] accompanying attitude, belong-
ing to ypny. ἐν αὐτῇ ; with thanksgiving, amidst thanksgiving,
namely, for the benefits already received. Comp. i. 12, ii. 7,
iii. 17; Phil. iv. 6; 1 Thess. v.17. This is the essential
element of the picty of prayer:* αὕτη γὰρ ἡ ἀληθινὴ εὐχὴ

1 But Olshausen incorrectly says: ‘‘the prayer of the Christian at all times,

in the consciousness of the grace which he has experienced, can only be a prayer
of thanksgiving.” He holds the more general προσευχή to be more precisely

464 TUE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

ἡ εὐχαριστίαν ἔχουσα ὑπὲρ πάντων ὧν ἴσμεν Kal ὧν οὐκ
ἴσμεν, ὧν εὖ ἐπάθομεν ἢ ἐθλίβομεν, ὑπὲρ τῶν κοινῶν εὐερ-
γεσίων, Theophylact. The combination with τῇ προσευχῇ
προσκαρτ. (Bohmer, Hofmann) is without ground in the con-
text, although likewise suitable as to sense.

Ver. 3. Comp. Eph. vi. 19 f.— ἅμα καὶ περὶ ἡμ.] while
your prayer takes place at the same time also (not merely for
yourselves, for others, and about whatever other affairs, but at
the same time also) for ws, includes us also. This ἡμῶν, not
to be referred to Paul alone, like the singular dédeuae subse-
quently and ver. 4, applies to him and Timothy, i. 1. — ἵνα]
contents of the prayer expressed as its purpose,as in i. 9 and
frequently.—@vpav τ. λόγου] is not equivalent to στόμα (Beza,
Calvin, Zanchius, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, and
others, comp. Storr and Bohmer)—a singular appellation which
Eph. vi. 7 does not warrant us to assume—but is rather a
figurative way of indicating the thought: wnhindered opera-
tion in the preaching of the gospel. So long as this does not
exist, there is not opened to the preachers a door for the word,
through which they may JZet it go forth. Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 9 ;
2 Cor. iii 12; Dion. Hal. de vi Dem. p. 1026. 14: οὐδὲ
θύρας ἰδὼν λόγος, also Pind. Ol. vi. 44; πύλας ὕμνων
ἀναπιτνάμεν, Bacchyl. fr. xiv. 2. The παῤῥησία of the preach-
ing (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact), however, lies not
in the θύρα and its opening, but in what follows. Hofmann
incorrectly holds that the closed door is conceived as being on
the side of those, to whom the preachers wished to preach the
word, so that it could not enter in. This conception is
decidedly at variance with the immediately following λαλῆσαι
k.7.d., according to which the hindrance portrayed (the door
to be opened) exists on the side of the preachers. Moreover,
in this ἵνα ὁ Θεὸς x.7.X. the wish of the apostle, as regards his
own person, is certainly directed to liberation from his captivity
(comp. Philem. 22), not, however, to this ὧν <self, but to the
free working which depended on it. It was not the preaching
in the prison which Paul meant, for that he had; but he

defined by ἐν εὐχαρ. Against this view the very ver. 3 is decisive, where, in
fact, Paul does πού mean a prayer of thanks.

CIIAP. IV. 4. 465

longed after the opening of a θύρα τοῦ λόγου; God was to give
it to him. Perhaps the thought of liberation suggested to
himself the choice of the expression. Nor is the plural
ἡμῶν and ἡμῖν, embracing others with himself, at variance
with this view (as Hofmann holds); for by the captivity of
the apostle his faithful friend and fellow-labourer Timothy,
who was with him, was, as a matter of course, also hindered
in the freedom of working, to which he might otherwise have
devoted himself. This was involved in the nature of their
personal and official fellowship. Observe how it is only with
δέδεμαι that Paul makes, and must make, a transition to the
singular. This transition by no means betrays (in opposition
to Hitzig and Holtzmann) the words δ᾽ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι, ἵνα dav.
αὐτό to be an interpolation from Eph. vi. 20. The fact, that.
Paul elsewhere (Rom. vii. 2; 1 Cor. vii. 27, 39) has déew in
the figurative sense, cannot matter; comp., on the contrary,.
the δεσμός and δέσμιος which he so often uses. — λαλῆσαε
«.7..] infinitive of the aim: in order to speak the mystery of
Christ. The emphasis is on λαλῆσαι: not to suppress tt,
but to let it be proclaimed. Comp. 1 Cor. 11. 6 ; 2 Cor. iv. 13;
1 Thess. 11. 2.— τοῦ Χριστοῦ) genitive of the sulyect, the
divine mystery contained in the appearance and redemptive
act of Christ (comp. Eph. iii. 4), in so far, namely, as the
divine counsel of redemption, concealed previously to its being
made known by the gospel, was accomplished in Christ’s
mission and work (i. 26, ii. 2; Eph. i 9; Rom. xvi. 25).
Thus the μυστήριον of God in 11. 2 is, because Christ was the
bearer and accomplisher of it, the μυστήριον τοῦ X pra tov.—
δι’ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι] δι’ 6 applies to the pvaortnp.; and the whole
clause serves to justify the intercession desired. When, namely,
Paul wishes λαλῆσαι TO μυστήρ. τ. X., he therewith desires
that, which is in such sense his entire destination, that on
account of this mystery—because, namely, he has made it
known—he also bears his fetiers. This καί is consequently
the also of the corresponding relation, quite common with re-
latives (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 152).

Ver. 4. “Iva «.7.d.] cannot, seeing that the preceding ἵνα ὁ
Θεὸς ἀνοίξῃ κτλ. means the free preaching outside of the

COL, 2G

466 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

prison, be dependent either on δέδεμαι (Bengel, Hofmann,
comp. Theodoret) or on προσευχόμενοι, so that it would run
parallel with ἵνα in ver 3 (Beza, Bihr, de Wette, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Dalmer, and others) ; it is the aim of the λαλῆσαι τὸ
μυστ. τ. X.: ὧν order that I may make wt manifest (by preach-
ing) as I must speak it. Comp. also Bleek, who, however, less
simply attaches it already to ἵνα ὁ Θεὸς ἀνοίξῃ x.7.X. The sig-
nificant weight of this clause expressing the aim les in the
specification of mode ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι, in which δεῖ has the
emphasis. To give forth his preaching 7 such measwre, as wt
was the necessity of his apostolic destiny to do (Set)—so frankly
and without reserve, so free from hindrance, so far and wide
from land to land, with such liberty to form churches and to
eombat erroneous teachings, and so forth—Paul was unable, so
lone as he was in captivity, even when others were allowed
access to him. There is a ¢ragic trait in this ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι,
the feeling of the hindered present. The traditional explana-
tion is that of Chrysostom: μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς παῤῥησίας καὶ
μηδὲν ὑποστείλάμενον, namely, in captivity, where Paul longed
to speak in the right way (de Wette; so usually), or conform-
ably to higher necessity (Biihr, Huther, comp. Beza, 1 Cor.
ix. 16), or without allowing himself to be disturbed in his
preaching as apostle to the Gentiles by his imprisonment occa-
sioned by Jewish - Christian hostility (Hofmann). But in
opposition to the reference of the whole intercession to
the ministry ὧν prison, see on ver. 3. The wish and the
hope of working once more 2 freedom were so necessarily
bound up in Paul with the consciousness of his comprehensive
apostolic task, that we can least of all suppose him to have
given it up already in Caesarea, where he appealed to the
emperor. yen in the Epistle to the Philippians (i. 25, i.
24), his expectation is still in fact direeted to renewed freedom
of working.

Ver. 5 f. Another exhortation, for which Paul must still
have had occasion, although we need not seek its link of
connection with the preceding one. Comp. Eph. v. 15 f,
where the injunction here given in reference to the non-
Christians is couched in a general form. — ἐν σοφίᾳ] Practical

CHAP. IV. 5, 6. 467

Christian wisdom (not mere prudence ; Chrysostom aptly quotes
Matt. x. 16) is to be the element, in which their walk amidst
their intercourse with the non-Christians moves. pos of the
social direction, Bernhardy, p. 205. As to οἱ ἔξω, see on
1 Cor. v. 12. Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 12.— τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγορ.]
definition of the mode in which that injunction is to be carried
out: so that ye make the right point of time your own (see on
Eph. v. 16), allow it not to pass unemployed. Sor what? is to
be inferred solely from the context; namely, for all the activi-
ties in which that same wise demeanour in intercourse with the
non-Christians finds expression-—which, consequently, may be
according to the circumstances very diversified. Individual
limitations of the reference are gratuitously introduced, such
as “ad ejusmodi homines meliora docendos,” Heinrichs, comp.
Erasmus, Beza, Calovius, and others, including Flatt and
Bohmer; or: “in reference to the furtherance of the kingdom
of God,” Huther, Hofmann. There is likewise gratuitously
imported the idea of the shortness of time, on account of which
it is to be well applied (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Castalio,
and others, including Bihr), as also the view that the καιρός,
which signifies the αἰὼν οὗτος, is not the property of the
Christian, but belongs τοῖς ἔξω, and is to be made by Chris-
tians their own through good deeds (Theodoret, comp. Oecu-
menius), or by peaceful demeanour towards the non-Christians
(Theophylact). Lastly, there is also imported the idea of an
evil time from Eph. v. 16, in connection with which exposi-
tors have in turn lighted on very different definitions of the
meaning; eg. Calvin: “in tanta saeculi corruptela eripiendam
esse benefaciendi occasionem et cum obstaculis luctandum ;”
Grotius : “ effugientes pericula.” — Ver. 6. ὁ Ady. tu.] what ye
speak, namely, πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω ; the more groundless, therefore,
is the position of Holtzmann, that ver. 6 is a supplement
inserted at a later place, when it should have properly come in
at chap. iii. between vv. 8 and 9. ἔστω is to be supplied,
as is evident from the preceding imperative zrepurraretre. — ἐν
᾿ χάριτι] denotes that with which their speech is to be furnished,
with grace, pleasantness. . Comp. on Luke iv. 22; Ecclus.
xxvi, 16, xxxvii. 21; Hom, Od. viii. 175; Dem. 51. 9. This

+68 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

χαριέντως εἶναι of speaking (comp. Plato, Prot. p. 544 B, Rep.
p. 331 A) is very different from the χαριτογλωσσεῖν of Aesch.
Prom. 294. — arate ἠρτυμ.] seasoned with salt, a figurative
representation of speech as an article of food, which is
communicated. The salt is emblem of wisdom, as is placed
beyond doubt by the context in ver. 5, and is in keeping with
the sense of the following εἰδέναι x.7.r. (comp. Matt. v. 13 ;
Mark ix. 49, 50). As an article of food seasoned with salt?
is thereby rendered palatable, so what is spoken receives
through wisdom (in contents and form) its morally attracting,
exciting, and stimulating quality. Its opposite is the stale,
ethically insipid (not the morally rotten and corrupt, as Beza,
Bohmer, and others hold) quality of speech, the μῶρον, μωρο-
λογεῖν, in which the moral stimulus is wanting. The designa-
tion of wit by dds (ἅλες) among the later Greeks (Plut. Moral.
p. 685 A; Athen. ix. p. 366 C) is derived from the pungent
power of salt, and is not relevant here. Moreover, the relation
between the two requirements, ἐν χάριτι and Grate ἠρτυμένος,
is not to be distinguished in such a way that the former shall
mean the good and the latter the correct impression (so, arbi-
trarily, Hofmann); but the former depicts the character of the
speech more generally, and the latter move specially. The good
and correct impression is yielded by both. — εἰδέναι x.7.r.]
taken groundlessly by Hofmann in an imperative sense (see on
Rom. xii. 15; Phil. iii. 16), is, as if ὥστε stood alongside of it,
the epexegetical infinitive for more precise definition: so that
ye know; see Matthiae, ὃ 532 f, p. 1235 f.; Winer, p. 296
[E. T. 398]. This εἰδέναι (to understand how, see on Phil.
iv. 12) is, in fact, just an ability, which would not be found in
the absence of the previously-described quality of speech, but
is actually existent through the same. -— πῶς) which may be
in very different ways, according to the varieties of indivi-
duality in the questioners. Hence: ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ, “nam haec
pars est non ultima prudentiae, singulorwm habere respectum,”
Calvin. — ἀποκρίνεσθαι) We may conceive reference to be

1 The poets use ἀρτύειν often of articles of food or wines, which are prepared

in such a way as to provoke the palate. Soph. /ragm. 601, Dind.; Athen. il.
p. 68 A; Theoph. de odor. 51; Symm, Cant, viii. 2. Hence ἄρτυμα, spice.

CHAP. IV. 7—9. 469

made to questions as to points of faith and doctrine, as to
moral principles, topics of constitution and organization, his-
torical matters, and so forth, which, in the intercourse of Chris-
tians with non-Christians, might be put, sometimes innocently,
sometimes maliciously (comp. 1 Pet. 11. 1), to the former, and
required answer. Paul does not use the word elsewhere.
Comp. as to the thing itself, his own example at Athens, Acts
xvii. ; before Felix and Festus ; before the Jews in Rome, Acts
xxvii. 20, and so forth; and also his testimony to his own
procedure, 1 Cor. ix. 20—22. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calo-
vius, and others, inappropriately mix up believers as included
in évi ἑκάστῳ, in opposition to ver. 5.

Vv. 7-9. Sending of Tychicus, and also of Onesimus.
Comp. on Eph. vi. 21 f. — By aderg. Paul expresses the rela-
tion of Tychicus as a Christian brother generally ; by διάκονος,
his special relation as the apostle’s official servant, in which
very capacity he employs him for such missions; and by σύν-
δουλος (i. 7) he delicately, as a mark of honour, places him as
to official category on a footing of equality with himself ; while
ἐν κυρίῳ, belonging to the two latter predicates,’ marks the
specific definite character, according to which nothing else than
simply Christ—His person, word, and work—is the sphere in
which these relations of service are active. Comp. Eph.
vi. 21.— εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο] for this very object, having a
retrospective reference as in Rom. xiii. 6, 2 Cor. v. 5 (in
opposition to Hofmann), in order, namely, that ye may learn
from him all that concerns me. The following ἵνα γνῶτε τὰ
π. ὑμῶν (see the critical remarks) is explicative; πάντα op.
yvwp. τὰ ὧδε in ver. 9 then corresponds to both. Comp. on
Eph. vi. 22. — wapaxanr.] may comfort, in your anxiety con-
cerning me, respecting my position. With the reading γνῷ
Ta περὶ ὑμῶν, the reference would be to the sufferings of the
readers ; δείκνυσι καὶ αὐτοὺς ἐν πειρασμοῖς ὄντας Kal παρακλή-
σεως χρήζοντας, Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom. — σὺν ’ Ovn-
σίμῳ] belonging to ἔπεμψα. As to this slave of Philemon, see

1 διάκονος and σύνδουλος are also connected by the common attribute sieré;,

and separated from ἀδελφός, which has its special adjective. Chrysostom, more-
over, aptly remarks on the different predicates : τὸ ἀξιόπιστον συνήγαγεν.

470 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Introd. to the Epistle to Philemon. Paul commends him! as
his faithful (πιστός, as in ver. 7, not: having become a believer,
as Bahr would render it) and beloved brother, and designates
him then as Colossian, not in order to do honour to their city
(Chrysostom, Theophylact), but in order to bespeak their
special sympathy for Onesimus, the particulars as to whom,
especially as regards his conversion, he leaves to be communi-
cated orally. — ἐξ ὑμῶν] As a Colossian he was from among
them, that is, one belonging to their church. Comp. ver. 12.
—Ta ὧδε] the state of matters here, to which τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ,
ver, 7, especially belonged.

Ver. 10. Sending of salutations down to ver. 14. —’ Apio-
tapxos|] a Thessalonian, known from Acts xix. 29, xx. 4,
xxv. 2, Philem. 24, was with Paul at Caesarea, when the
latter had appealed to the emperor, and travelled with him to
Rome, Acts xxvii. 2. --- ὁ συναυχμάλωτός μου] Οὐδὲν τούτου
τοῦ ἐγκωμίου μεῖζον, Chrysostom. In the contemporary letter
to Philemon at ver. 24, the same Aristarchus is enumerated
among the συνεργοί; and, on the other hand, at ver. 23
Epaphras, of whose sharing the captivity owr Epistle makes no
mention (see i. 7), is designated as συναυχμάλωτος, so that in
Philem. /.c. the cvvavyuddwros is expressly distinguished from
the mere συνεργοί, and the former is not affirmed of Aristar-
chus. Hence various interpreters have taken it to refer not
to a proper, enforced sharing of the captivity, but to a voluntary
one, it being assumed, namely, that friends of the apostle
allowed themselves to be temporarily shut up with him in
prison, in order to be with him and to minister to him not
merely as visitors, but continuously day and night. Comp.
Huther, de Wette, and Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. xxi. Accord-
ing to this view, such friends changed places from time to
time, so that, when the apostle wrote owr letter, Aristarchus,
and when he wrote that to Philemon, Zpaphras, shared his
captivity. But such a relation could the less be gathered by
the readers from the mere συναύχμάλωτος (comp. Lucian,

1 And how wisely and kindly, after what had happened with Onesimus! Yet
Holtzmann holds that of the whole verse only the name Onesimus is character-
istic, and reckons the verse to owe its existence to that name.

CHAP. IV. 10. 471

As. 27), seeing that Paul himself was a prisoner, and con-
sequently they could not but find in συναυχμάλ. simply the
entirely similar position of Aristarchus asa συνδεσμώτης (Plat.
Rep. p. 516 C; Thue. vi. 60. 2), and that as being so at the
same time, not, as in Rom. xvi. 7, at some earlier period. Hence
we must assume that now Aristarchus, but when the Epistle to
Philemon was written, Epaphras, lay in prison at the same
time with the apostle——-an imprisonment which is to be re-
garded as detention for trial, and the change of persons in the
ease must have had its explanation in circumstances to us
unknown but yet, notwithstanding the proximity of the two
letters in point of time, sufficiently conceivable. It is to be
observed, moreover, that as αἰχμάλ. always denotes captivity
im war (see on Eph. iv. 8 ; also Luke iv. 18), Paul by συναύχμ.
sets himself forth as a captive warrior (in the service of
Christ). Comp. συστρατιώτης, Phil. ii, 25; Philem. 2.
Hofmann (comp. also on Rom. xvi. 7) is of opinion that we
should think “of the war-captive state of one won by Christ
from the kingdom of darkness,’ so that συναυχμάλωτος would be
an appellation for fellow-Christian ; but this is an aberration,
which ought least of all to have been put forth in the pre-
sence of a letter, which Paul wrote in the very character of a
prisoner. — Upon ἀνεψιός, consobrinus, cousin: Herod. vii. 5.
82, ix. 10; Plat. Legg. xi. p. 925 A; Xen. Anab. vii. 8. 9,
Tob. vii. 22, Num. xxxvi. 11; see Andoc. i 47; Pollux,
ii. 28. Not to be confounded either with nephew (aderqu-
Sods) or with ἀνεψιάδης, cousin's son, in the classical writers,
ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς. See generally, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 506. To
take it in a wider sense, like our “ kinsman, relative” (so in
Hom. J/. ix. 464, who, however, also uses it in the strict
sense as in x. 519), there is the less reason, seeing that Paul
does not use the word elsewhere. Moreover, as no other Mark
at all occurs in the N. T., there is no sufficient ground for the
supposition of Hofmann, that Paul had by ὁ ἀνεψ. Βαρν.
merely wished to signify which Mark he meant. Chrysostom
and Theophylact already rightly perceived that the relation-
ship with the highly-esteemed Barnabas was designed to
redound to the commendation of Mark. — περὶ ob ἐλαβ. évton.]

472 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

in respect of whom (Mark) ye have received injunctions'\—a
remark which seems to be made not without a design of remind-
ing them as to their execution. What injunctions are meant,
by whom and through whom they were given, and whether
orally or in writing, Paul does not say; but the recalling of
them makes it probable that they proceeded j/rom himself, and
were given ἀγράφως διά τινων (Oecumenius). Ewald conjec-
tures that they were given in the letter to the Laodiceans,
and related to love-offerings for Jerusalem, which Mark was
finally to fetch and attend to. But the work of collection
was probably closed with the last journey of the apostle to
Jerusalem. Others hold, contrary to the notion of ἐντολή,
that letters of recommendation are meant from Barnabas
(Grotius), or from the Roman church (Estius) ; while others
think that the following ἐὰν ἔλθῃ «.7.r. forms the contents of
ἐντολάς (Calvin—who, with Syriac, Ambrosiaster, and some
codd., reads subsequently dé€ac@at,—comp. Beza, Castalio,
Bengel, Bihr, and Baumgarten-Crusius)—a view against
which may be urged the plural ἐντολάς and the absence of
the article. Hofmann incorrectly maintains that περὶ ob ἐλάβ.
ἐντολάς is to be taken along with ἐὰν ἔλθῃ π. dy. : respecting
whom ye have obtained instructions for the case of his coming to
you. This the words could not mean; for ἐὰν ἔλθῃ a. dp.
signifies nothing else than: if he shall have come to you, and
this accords not with ἐλάβ. évtor., but only with déFacGe
αὐτόν, which Hofmann makes an exclamation annexed with-

1 περὶ ov is not to be referred to Barnabas, as, following Theophylact and
Cajetanus (the former of whom, however, explains as if rap’ od were read), Otto,
Pastoralbr. p. 259 ff., has againdone. The latter understands under the ἐντολάς
instructions formerly issued to the Pauline churches noé to receive Barnabas,
which were now no longer to be applied. Asif the σπαροξυσμός of Acts xv. 39
could have induced the apostle to issue such an anathema to his churches against
the highly-esteemed Barnabas, who was accounted of apostolic dignity! Paul
did not act so unjustly and imprudently. Comp., on the contrary, Gal. ii. 9
and (notwithstanding what is narrated at Gal. ii. 11) 1 Cor. ix. 6.

2 In 1 Tim. iii. 14 f., a passage to which Hofmann, with very little ground,
appeals, the verb of the chief clause is, in fact, a present (γράφω), not, as would
be the case here, a praeterite, which expresses an act of the past (ἐχάβετε). There
the meaning is : Jn the case of my departure being delayed, however, this my

letter has the object, etc. But here, if the conditional clause were to be annexed
to the past act ἐλάβετε, the circumstance conditioning the latter would logically

CHAP. IV. 11. 473

out connecting link (that is, with singular abruptness).—éav
ἔλθῃ x.7.d.] Parenthesis; Mark must therefore have had in
view a journey, which was to bring him to Colossae. δέχεσθαι
of hospitable reception, as often in the N. T. (Matt. x. 14;
John iv. 45) and in classical authors (Xen. Anabd. iv. 8. 23).
From the circumstance, however, that δέξασθε stands without
special modal definition, it is not to be inferred that Paul was
apprehensive lest the readers should not, without this sum-
mons, have recognised Mark (on account of Acts xv. 38 f.) as
an apostolic associate (Wieseler, Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt.
p. 567). Not the simple δέξασθε, but a more precise defini-
tion, would have been called for in the event of such an
apprehension.

Ver. 11. Of this Jesus nothing further is known. — οἱ ὄντες
ἐκ περιτ. is to be attached, with Lachmann (comp. also Steiger,
Huther, Bleek), tc what follows, so that a full stop is not to
be inserted (as is usually done) after epir. Otherwise of
ὄντες ἐκ περίτ. Would be purposeless, and the following οὗτοι
μόνοι «.T.r. too general to be true, and in fact at variance with
the subsequent mention of Epaphras and Luke (vv. 12-14).
It is accordingly to be explained: Of those, who are from the
circumcision, these alone (simply these three, and no others)
are such fellow-labourers for the kingdom of the Messiah, as have
become a comfort to me. The Jewish-Christian teachers, conse-
quently, worked even at Caesarea to a great extent in an
anti-Pauline sense. Comp. the complaint from Rome, Phil. i.
15,17. The nominative of ὄντες ἐκ mepit. puts the generic
subject at the head; but as scmething is to be affirmed not
of the genus, but of a special part of it, that general subject
remains without being followed out, and by means of the
μετάβασις εἰς μέρος the special subject is introduced with
οὗτοι, so that the verb (here the εἰσί to be supplied) now
attaches itself to the latter. A phenomenon of partitive
apposition, which is current also in classical authors. See
Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 246; Nagelsbach and Faesi on Hom. 71. iii.

have to be conceived and expressed in oblique form (from the point of view of
the person giving the injunction), in some such form, therefore, as: si ἔλθοι πρὸς
ὑμᾶς (comp. Acts xxiv, 19, xxvii. 39; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 491 f.).

474 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

211. Comp. Matthiae, p. 1307. Hence there is the less
reason for breaking up the passage, which runs on simply,
after the fashion adopted by Hofmann, who treats ἐκ περιτο-
μῆς οὗτοι μόνοι as inserted parenthetically between οἱ ὄντες
and συνεργοί. The complimentary affirmation is to be referred
to all the three previously named, without arbitrary exclusion
of Aristarchus (in opposition to Hofmann). At any rate,
Caesarea was a city so important for the Christian mission,
that many teachers, Jewish-Christian and Gentile-Christian,
must have frequented it, especially while Paul was a prisoner
there ; and consequently the notice in the passage before us
need not point us to Rome as the place of writing. — παρη-
yopia] consolation, comfort, only here in the N. T.; more
frequently in Plutarch; see Kypke. Méyiotov ἐγκώμιον τὸ τῷ
ἀποστόλῳ γενέσθαι θυμηδίας πρόξενον, Theodoret. Bengel
imposes an arbitrary limitation: “in forensi periculo.”

Ver. 12. ᾿Επαφρᾶς) See i. 7 and Introd. — It is to be
observed that, according to ver. 11, Epaphras, Luke, and
Demas (ver. 14) were no Jewish-Christians, whereas Tiele in
the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 765, holding Luke to be by birth
a Jew, has recourse to forced expedients, and wishes arbitrarily
to read between the lines. Hofmann, refining groundlessly (see
on ver. 14), but with a view to favour his presupposition that
all the N. T. writings were of Israelite origin, thinks that our
passage contributes nothing towards the solution of the ques-
tion as to Luke’s descent; comp. on Luke, Introd. καὶ 1.—o ἐξ
ὑμῶν] as in ver. 9, exciting the affectionate special interest of
the readers; ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν afterwards thoughtfully corresponds.
— δοῦλος X. is to be taken together with πάντοτε ἀγωνιζ., but
ὁ ἐξ ὑμῶν is not to be connected with δοῦλος (Hofmann); on
the contrary, it is to be taken by itself as a special element of
recommendation (as in ver. 9): Epaphras, your own, a servant
of Christ who is always striving, ete.—daywwf.| Comp. Rom. xv.
30. The more fervent the prayer for any one is, the more is it
a striving for him, namely, in opposition to the dangers which
threaten him, and which are present to the vivid conception

1This postulate, wholly without proof, is also assumed by Grau, Zntwick-
elungsgesch. d. neutest. Schriftth. I. p. 54.

CHAP. IV. 12. 475

of him who wrestles in prayer. Comp. also ii. 1. The
striving of Epaphras in prayer certainly had reference not
merely to the heretical temptations to which the Colossians, of
whose church he was a member, were exposed, but—as is
evident from ἵνα στῆτε x.7.d. (purpose of the ἀγωνιξ. «.7..)—
to everything generally, which endangered the right Christian
frame in them. — στῆτε] designation of stedfast perseverance ;
in which there is neither wavering, nor falling, nor giving way.
To this belongs ἐν παντὶ θελήμ. τ. O., expressing wherein
(comp. 1 Pet. v. 12) they are to maintain stedfastness; in
every will of God, that is, in all that God wills. Comp. on
στῆναι ἐν in this sense, John vii. 44; Rom. v. 2; 1 Cor. xv.
1, xvi. 13. This connection (comp. Bengel and Bleek)
recommends itself on account of its frequent occurrence, and
because it completes and rounds off the whole expression ; for
στῆτε now has not merely a modal definition, τέλ. x. memAnp.,
but also a local definition, which admirably corresponds to the
figurative conception of standing. This apples, at the same
time, in opposition to the usual mode of construction with
τέλ. κ. TeTAnp., followed also by Hofmann, according to which
ἐν π. θέλ. τ. Θ. would be the moral sphere, “ within which the
perfection and firm conviction are to take place,” Huther.!—
τέλειοι Kal πεπληροφορημένοι] perfect and with full conviction
(comp. 11. 2; Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5; and see on Luke i. 1)
obtain through the context (στῆτε ἐν π. θέλ. τ. ©.) their more
definite meaning; the former as moral perfection, such as the
true Christian ought to have (i. 28); and the latter, as sted-
fastness of conscience, which excludes all scruples as to what
God's will requires, and is of decisive importance for the
τελειότης of the Christian life; comp. Rom. xiv. 5, 22 f.

1 Tf we follow the Recepta πεπληρωμένοι (see the critical remarks), on the other
hand, we must join, as is usually done, following Chrysostom and Luther, ἐν .
aA. τ. Θεοῦ to πεπληρωρμ. : filled with every will of God, which, instead of being
transformed into ‘‘ voluntatis divinae verae et integrae cognitio” (Reiche, comp.
Beza), is rather to be understood as denoting that the heart is to be full of all
that God wills, and that in no matter, consequently, is any other will than the
divine to rule in the believer. Respecting ἐν, comp. on Eph. v. 18. Bahr
incorrectly renders: ‘‘ by virtue of the whole counsel of God,” which is not
possible on account of the very absence of the article in the case of παντί, Grotius,
Heinrichs, Flatt, and others, erroneously hold that ἐν is equivalent to sis.

476 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Ver. 13. General testimony in confirmation of the particular
statement made regarding Epaphras in πάντοτε x.7.r. ; on which
account there is the less reason to ascribe to the interpolator
the more precise definition of ἀγωνιζ. ὑπ. vu., which is given
by ἐν ταῖς προσευχ. (Holtzmann). The γάρ is sufficiently
clear and logical. — πολὺν πόνον (see the critical remarks) ;
much toil, which is to be understood of the exertion of mental
activity—of earnest working with its cares, hopes, wishes,
fears, temptations, dangers, and so forth. The word is pwr-
posely chosen, in keeping with the conception of the conflict
(ver. 12); for πόνος is formally used of the toil and trouble
of conflict. See Herod. vi. 114, vii. 89; Plat. Phaedr. p.
247 B; Dem. 637.18; Eur. Suppl. 317; Soph. Trach. 21.
169; often so in Homer as 7]. i. 467, and Niigelsbach in loc. ;
comp. Rey. xxi. 4.— καὶ τῶν ἐν Aaod. κ. τ. ἐν ‘Iepar.]
Epaphras had certainly laboured in these adjoining towns, as
in Colossae, which was probably his headquarters, as founder,
or, at least, as an eminent teacher of the churches.

Ver. 14. Luke the physician, the (by me) beloved, is the
Evangelist—a point which, in presence of the tradition current
from Iren. ii. 14. 1 onward, is as little to be doubted as that
the Mark of ver. 10 is the Evangelist. Luke was with Paul
at Caesarea (Philem. 24), and travelled with him to Rome (Acts
xxvii. 1), accompanying him, however, not as physician (as if
μου or ἡμῶν had been appended), but as an associate in teach-
ing, as συνεργός, Philem. 24. Hofmann calls this in question,
in order to avoid the inference from ver. 11, that Luke was a
non-Israelite. The addition, moreover, of ὁ éatpds is simply
to be explained after the analogy of all the previous saluta-
tions sent, by assuming that Paul has appended to each of the
persons named a special characteristic description by way of
recommendation. The case of Ζημᾶς is the only exception ;
on which account it is the more probable that the latter had

1 In the case of Luke, the attachment of the honourable professional designa-
tion ὁ ἰατρός to the name suggested itself so naturally and spontaneously—con-
sidering the peculiarity of his professional position, to which there was probably
nothing similar in the case of any other cvyvspyes—that there is no reason to
assume any special purpose in the selection (Chrysostom, Erasmus, and many,
suggest that the object was to distinguish Luke from others of the same name).

CIIAP. IV. 15, 477

even at this time (at the date of 2 Tim. iv. 10 he has aban-
doned him) seemed to the apostle not quite surely entitled to
a commendatory description, although he still, at Philem. 24,
adduces him among his συνεργοί, to whose number he still
belonged. Hence the assumption of such a probability is not
strange, but is to be preferred to the altogether precarious
opinion of Hofmann, that Demas was the amanuensis of the
letter, and had, with the permission of the apostle, inserted
his name (comp. Bengel’s suggestion). Whence was the reader
to know that? How very different is it at Rom. xvi. 22!
The name itself is not Hebrew (in opposition to Schoettgen),
but Greek; see Boeckh, Corp. inscrip. 1085; Becker, Anecd.
714.

Ver. 15. Messages down to ver. 17.— The first καί is:
and especially, and in particular, so that of the Christians at
Laodicea (τοὺς ἐν Aaod. ἀδελφ.). Nymphas is specially singled
out for salutation by name. In the following καὶ τὴν κατ᾽
οἶκον αὐτῶν €xkXr., the church which is in their house, the plural
αὐτῶν (see the critical remarks) cannot without violence re-
ceive any other reference than to τοὺς ἐν Aaod. ἀδελφοὺς x.
Νυμφᾶν. Paul must therefore (and his readers were more pre-
cisely aware how this matter stood) indicate a church different
from the Laodicean church, a foreign one, which, however,
was in filial association with that church, and held its meetings
in the same house wherein the Laodiceans assembled. If we
adopt the reading αὐτοῦ, we should have to think, not of the
family of Nymphas (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, and others),
but, in accordance with Rom. xvi. 5, 1 Cor. xvi. 19, Philem. 2,
of a portion of the Laodicean church, which held its separate
meetings in the house of Nymphas. In that case, however, the
persons here saluted would have been already included among
τοὺς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ἀδελφούς. The plural αὐτῶν by no means
warrants the ascribing the origin of ver. 15 to an unseasonable
reminiscence of 1 Cor. xvi. 19 and Rom. xvi. 5, perhaps also
of Philem. 2 (Holtzmann). What a mechanical procedure

1 Nymphas appears to have been specially well known to the apostle, and on

friendly terms with him ; perhaps a συνεργός, who was now for a season labouring
in the church at Laodicea,

478 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

would that be!—The personal name Nymphas itself, which
some with extreme arbitrariness would take as a symbolic
name (Hitzig, comp. Holtzmann), is not elsewhere preserved,
but we find Nymphaeus, Nymphodorus, Nymphodotus, and Nym-
phius, also Nymphs.

Ver. 16." This message presupposes essentially similar
circumstances in the two churches. —1 ἡ ἐπιστολή) is, as a
matter of course, the present Epistle now before us; Winer,
p. 102 [E. T. 133]. Comp. Rom. xvi. 22; 1 Thess. v. 27.—
ποιήσατε, ἵνα] procure, that. The expression rests on the con-
ception: to be active, in order that something may happen,
John xi. 37. Comp. Herod. i. 8: ποίει, ὅκως καὶ 1. 209;
Xen. Cyrop. vi. 8.18. The following καὶ τὴν ἐκ Aaod. «7A.
is, with emphatic prefixing of the object, likewise dependent
on ποιήσατε, not co-ordinated with the latter as an independent
imperative sentence like Eph. v. 53—~a forced invention of
Hofmann, which, besides, is quite inappropriate on account of
the stern command which it would yield.” — τὴν ἐκ Δαοδικείας
not: that written to me from Laodicea. So τινές in Chrysostom,
who himself gives no decisive voice, as also Syriac, Theodoret,
Photius in Oecumenius, Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, Calvin,
Calovius, Wolf, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Storr, and others,
as also again Baumgarten-Crusius. This is at variance with
the context, according to which καὶ ὑμεῖς, pursuant to the
parallel of the first clause of the verse, presupposes the Laodi-
ceans, not as the senders of the letter, but as the receivers of the

1See Anger, Beitr. zur histor. krit. Hinl. in d. A. u. N. T. 1.3; diber den
Laodicenerbrief, Leip. 1848 ; Wieseler, de epistola Laodicena, Gott. 1844; and

Chronol. d. apost. Zeit. p. 450 ff. ; Sartori, Ueber d. Laodicenserbrief, Liib.
1853.

* Hofmann needed, certainly, some such artificial expedient, wholly without
warrant in the words of the text, to favour his presupposition that the Zpistle to
the Ephesians was meant, and that it was a circular letter. Fora circular letter
goes through the circuit destined for it of itself, and there is no occasion to ask
or to send for it in order to procure, that (ποιήσατε, ἵνα) people may get it to read.
But the effect of the forced separation of the second ἵνα from σοιήσατε is, that the
words σὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας are supposed only to affirm that the letter ‘‘ will come”
from Laodicea to Colossae, that it ‘‘ will reach” them, and they ought to read
it. In this way the text must be strained to suit what is ἃ priori put into
it. This applies also in opposition to Sabatier, ’ap. Paul, p. 201, who entirely
ignores the connection with ποιήσατε (‘‘ la lettre gui vous viendra de Laod.”).

CHAP. IV. 16. 479

letter, by whom it was read. How unsuitable also would be
the form of the message by ποιήσατε! Paul must, in fact,
have sent to them the letter. Lastly, neither the object aimed at
(Theophylact already aptly remarks : ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ οἶδα, τί ἂν ἐκείνης
—namely, that alleged letter of the Laodiceans—éde αὐτοῖς
πρὸς βελτίωσιν), nor even the propriety of the matter would be
manifest. Purely fanciful is the opinion of Jablonsky, that
Paul means a letter of the Laodiceans to the Colossian overscers,
as well as that of Theophylact: ἡ πρὸς Τιμόθεον πρώτη" αὕτη
yap ἐκ Δαοδικείας ἐγράφη. So also a scholion in Matthaei.
In accordance with the context—although Lange, Avost.
Zeitalt. I. p. 211 ff, denounces the idea as a “ fiction,” and
Hofmann declares it as excluded by the very salutations with
which the Colossians are charged to the Laodiceans—we can
only understand it to refer to a letter of Paul to the Laodiceans,
which not merely these, to whom it was written, but also the
Colossians (καὶ ὑμεῖς) were to read, just as the letter to the
Colossians was to be read not merely by the latter, but also in
the Laodicean church. The mode of expression, τὴν ἐκ Aaod:-
κείας, is the very usual form of attraction in the case of pre-
positions with the article (comp. Matt. xxiv. 17; Luke xi. 13),
so that the two elements are therein comprehended: the letter
to be found in Laodicea, and to be claimed or fetched from
Laodicea to Colossae, See generally, Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 473 f.,
and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 6. 11, ad Anab.i. 1. 5; Stallbaum, ad
Plat. Apol. p. 32 B; Winer, p. 584 [E. T. 784]. This letter
written to the Laodiceans has, like various other letters of the
apostle, been lost." In opposition to the old opinion held by
Marcion, and in modern times still favoured especially by such
as hold the Epistle to the Ephesians to be a circular letter

1 The apocryphal letter to the Laodiceans, the Greek text of which, we may
mention, originated with Elias Hutter (1599), who translated it from the Latin,
may be seen in Fabricius, Codex apocr. p. 873 ff., Anger, p. 142 ff. The whole
letter,—highly esteemed, on the suggestion of Gregory 1., during the Middle Ages
in the West, although prohibited in the second Council of Nice, 787 (to be found
also in pre-Lutheran German Bibles),—which is doubtless a still later fabrication
than that already rejected in the Canon Muratorianus, consists only of twenty
verses, the author of which does not even play the part of a definite situation.

Erasmus rightly characterizes it: ‘‘quae nihil habeat Pauli praeter voculas
aliquot ex ceteris ejus epistolis mendicatas,”

480 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

(Bohmer, Bottger, Bihr, Steiger, Anger, Reuss, Lange, Bleek,
Dalmer, Sabatier, Hofmann, Hitzig, and others), that the
Epistle to the Ephesians is to be understood as that referred to,
see Introd. to Eph. ὃ 1; Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt.
p- 435 ff; Sartori, lc.; Reiche, Comm. crit. ad Eph. i. 1;
Laurent in the Jahrb. 7. D. Theol. 1866, p.131 ff. The hypo-
thesis that the Epistle to Philemon is meant (so Wieseler, also
Thiersch, Hist. Standp. p. 424; and some older expositors, see
in Calovius and in Anger, p. 35) finds no confirmation either in
the nature and contents of this private letter,’ or in the expres-
sions of our passage, which, according to the analogy of the
context, presuppose a letter to the whole church and for it.
Even the Epistle to the Hebrews (Schulthess, Stein, in his Comm.
Ξ. Luk., appendix) has been fallen upon in the vain search after
the lost! According to Holtzmann, the words are intended to
refer to the Epistle to the Ephesians, but καὶ τὴν ἐκ Aaodvx. ἵνα
κ. Up. ἀναγν. is an insertion of the interpolator ;? comp. Hitzig.

REMARK.—It is to be assumed that the Epistle to the Laodi-
ceans was composed at the same time with that to the Colossians,
inasmuch as the injunction that they should: be mutually read
in the churches can only have been founded on the similarity
of the circumstances of the two churches as they stood at the
time. Comp. 11. 1, where the καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ, specially
added to περὶ ὑμῶν, expresses the similar and simultaneous
character of the need, and, when compared with our passage, is
to be referred to the consciousness that the apostle was writing

1 For, although it is in form addressed to several persons, and even to the
church in the house (see on Philem. 1, 2), it is at any rate in substance clear, as
Jerome already remarks: “ Paulum tantummodo ad Philemonem scribere, ct
unum cum suo sermocinari.” Besides, it is to be inferred from the contents of
the Colossian letter, that the Laodicean letter meant was also doctrinal in con-
tents, and that the reciprocal use of the two letters had reference to this, in
accordance with the essentially similar needs of the two neighbouring churches.

* Because, if we annex ἵνα to ποιήσατε, an awkward sense arises, ‘‘ seeing that
the Colossians can only cause that they get the letter éo read, but not that they
read it.” That 15 ἃ subtlety, which does injustice to the popular style of the
letter. But if we take ἵνα independently (as Hofmann does), then Holtzmann
is further of opinion that the author of Eph. iv. 29, v. 27, 89, is immediately
betrayed—an unfounded inference (comp. Winer, p. 295 [E. T. 8967), in which,
besides, only the comparison of Eph. v. 33 would be relevant, and that would be
balanced by 2 Cor. viii. 7.

CHAP. IV. 17. 481

to both churches. And the expression τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας pro-
duces the impression that, when the Colossians received their
letter, the Laodiceans would already have theirs. At the same
time the expression is such, that Paul does not expressly inform
the Colossians that he had written also to the Laodiceans, but
speaks of this letter as of something known to the readers,
evidently reckoning upon the oral communication of Tychicus.
The result, accordingly, seems as follows: Tychicus was the
bearer of both letters, and travelled by way of Laodicea to
Colossae, so that the letter for that church was already in
Laodicea when the Colossians got theirs from the hands of
Tychicus, and they were now in a position, according to the
directions given in our passage, to have the Laodicean letter
forwarded to them, and to send their own (after it was publicly
read in their own church) to Laodicea.

Ver. 17. The particular circumstances which lay at the
root of this emphatic admonitory utterance’ cannot be ascer-
tained, nor do we even know whether the διακονία is to be
understood in the narrower sense of the office of deacon
(Primasius), or of any other office relating to the church
(possibly the office of presbyter), or of the calling of an evange-
list, or of some individual business relating to the service of
the church. We cannot gather from ἐν κυρίῳ any more pre-
cise definition of the Christian διακονίᾳ. Ewald conjectures
that Archippus was a still younger man (Bengel holds him to
have been sick or weak through age), an overseer of the
church, who had been during the absence of Epaphras too
indulgent towards the false teachers. Even Fathers lke
Jerome and the older expositors: regard him as bishop (so
also Déllinger, Christenthum u. Kirche, ed. 2, p. 308), or as
substitute for the bishop during the absence of Epaphras
(similarly Bleek), whose successor he had also become (Cor-
nelius a Lapide and Estius). Comp. further as to this
Colossian,” on Philem. 2. — The special motive for this precise

1 Bengel: ‘‘ vos meis verbis dicite tanquam testes. Hoc magis movebat, quam
si ipsum Archippum appellaret.”

? Theodoret already with reason declares himself against the opinion that
Archippus had been a Laodicean teacher (so Theodore of Mopsuestia, Michaelis,
and Storr), just as the Constitt. apost. vii. 46. 2 make him appointed by Paul as
bishop of Laodicea. Recently it has been defended by Wieseler, Chronol. des

COL. 2H

482 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

form of reminding him of his duty is not clear." But what
merits attention is the relation of disciplinary admonitive
authority, in which, according to these words, the church stood
to the office-bearers, and which should here be the less called
in question with Hofmann, since Paul in the letter to
Philemon addressed jointly to Archippus would doubtless
himself have given the admonition, if he had not conceded
and recognised in the church that authority of which he in-
vokes the exercise—and that even in the case, which cannot
be proved, of the διακονία having been the service of an
evangelist. The expedient to which Oecumenius and others
have recourse can only be looked upon as flowing from the
later hierarchical feeling: Wa ὅταν ἐπιτιμᾶ "ApyuTmos αὐτοῖς,
μὴ ἔχωσιν ἐγκαλεῖν ἐκείνῳ ὡς πικρῷ... ἐπεὶ ἄλλως ἄτοπον
τοῖς μαθηταῖς περὶ τοῦ διδασκάλου διαλέγεσθαι (Theophylact).
— βλέπε κιτ.λ.] Grotius, Wolf, Flatt, Bahr, and many, take
the construction to be: βλέπε, ἵνα τὴν διακ. ἣν Taper. ἐν Kup.,
πληροῖς, from which arbitrary view the very αὐτήν should
have precluded them. The words are not to be taken other-
wise than as they stand: Zook to the service (have it in thy

apost. Zeitalt. p. 452, and Laurent in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1866, p. 130, argu-
ing that, if Archippus had been a Colossian, it is not easy to see why Paul,
in ver. 17, makes him be admonished by others ; and also that ver. 17 is joined
by καί to ver. 15 f., where the Laodiceans are spoken of. But the form of
exhortation in ver. 17 has a motive not known to us at all ; and the reason based
on καί in ver. 17 would only be relevant in the event of ver. 17 following imme-
diately after ver. 15. Lastly, we should expect, after the analogy of ver. 15,
that if Archippus had not dwelt in Colossae, Paul would have caused a salutation
to be sent to him as to Nymphas. Besides, it would be altogether very sur-
prising that Paul should have conveyed the warning admonition to Archippus
through a strange church, the more especially when he had written at the same
time to himself jointly addressed with Philemon (Philem. 2).

1 Hitzig, p. 31 (who holds also vy. 9, 15, 16 to be not genuine), gives it as
his opinion that Archippus is indebted for this exhortation, not to the apostle,
but to the manipulator, who knew the man indeed from Philem. 2, but
probably had in his mind the Flavius Archippus, well known from Plin. Ep.
x. 66-68, and the proconsul Paulus, when he adjusted for himself the relation
between the Apostle Paul and his fellow-warrior Archippus (Philem. 2). I do
not understand how any one could ascribe even to an interpolator so singular an
anachronistic confusion of persons. Yet Holtzmann finds the grounds of Hitzig
so cogent, that he ultimately regards vv. 15-17 as the rivet, ‘‘ by means of which
the Auctor ad Hphesios has made a connected triad out of his own work, the
interpolated Colossian epistle, and the letter to Philemon.”

CHAP. IV. 18. 483

view), which thow hast undertaken in the Lord, in order that
thou mayest fulfil it, mayest meet its obligations; ἵνα avr.
πληρ. is the purpose, which is to be present in the βλέπειν τ.
διακ. κτλ. Comp. 2 John 8. On πληροῖς, comp. Acts ΧΙ].
25; 1 Mace. ii. 55; Liban. Hp. 359; Philo, in Flace. p. 988:
τὴν διακονίαν ἐκπλήσαντες. ---- ἐν κυρίῳ] not: from the Lord
(Bahr); not: for the sake of the Lord (Flatt); not: secundum
Domini praecepta (Grotius). Christ, who is served by the
διακονία (1 Cor. xii. 5), is conceived as the sphere, in which
the act of the παραλαμβάνειν τὴν διακονίαν is accomplished
objectively, as well as in the consciousness of the person con-
cerned ; he is in that act not out of Christ, but living and
acting in Him. The ἐν κυρ. conveys the element of holy
obligation. The less reason is there for joining it, with
Grotius, Steiger, and Dalmer, to the following ἵνα αὐτ. πλήηρ.

Ver. 18. Conclusion written with his own hand; comp.
2 Thess. 111. 17. See on 1 Cor. xvi. 21. — Be mindful for me
of my bonds, a closing exhortation, deeply touching in its sim-
plicity, in which there is not a mere request for intercession
(ver. 5), or a hint even at the giving of aid, but the whole
pious affection of grateful love is claimed, the whole strength
of his example for imparting consolation and stedfastness is
asserted, and the whole authority of the martyr is thrown into
the words. Every limitation is unwarranted. Τοῦτο yap ἱκανὸν
εἰς πάντα αὐτοὺς προτρέψασθαι, Kal γενναιοτέρους ποιῆσαι
πρὸς τοὺς ἀγῶνας" ἄρα καὶ οἰκειοτέρους αὐτοὺς ἐποίησε καὶ τὸν
φόβον ἔλυσεν, Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom. — ἡ χάρις]
κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν: the grace of God bestowed in Christ. Comp.
Petr. vie 2b; 2 Tim. iv. 22% Tit ui δὲ. Comp, on Eph:
vi. 24.

MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH,
PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE,

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

DR. LUTHARDT’S NEW WORK.

Just published, in demy 8vo, price 9s.,

ΓΙ. JOHN THE AUTHOR OF THE
FOURTH GOSPEL.

By PROFESSOR C. Ἐς LUTHARDT,

AUTHOR OF ‘FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY,’ ETC.

Granslated and the Literature Enlarged
By C. R. GREGORY, Lerpzic.

παρ. I. Tradition. 11. St. John’s Authorship disputed. JII. The Testimony
of the Church. IV. Testimony outside of the Church. V. St. John’s
Residence at Ephesus. VI. The Passover Controversy. VII. The Testi-
mony of the Gospel itself. VIII. St. John’s Gospel and the Second
Century. IX. St. John’s Gospel and the Synoptists. X. St. John’s Gos-
pel and the Revelation. ΧΙ. St. John’s Christology psychologically
possible. AppEeNDIx.—Literature of the disputed Origin of the Fourth
Gospel, from 1792 to the present.

‘A work which must be regarded as a very able and almost exhaustive summary of
the arguments in favour of the catholic tradition on this subject—exhaustive, that is to
say, in the present state of the question, and until new evidence shall have been dis-
covered. Nothing can be more lucid or effective than the author’s method of arranging
and presenting his arguments.’—Scotsman.

‘There are few works in the later theological literature which contain, in such a con-
fined space, such wealth of sober theological knowledge, and such an invulnerable
phalanx of objective apologetical criticism. —Professor Guericke.

‘In this work, from the pen of one of the greatest divines of Germany, the facts are
made to speak for themselves, and the result is a complete refutation of the Anti-
Johannine school of criticism, and a correspondingly complete establishment of the
truth on which the unanimous testimony of the ancient Church is shown to rest. ...
Such a work as this was much needed.’—Dickinson’s Quarterly.

‘It is with no ordinary gratification that we welcome Dr. Luthardt’s exhaustive
treatise. All the more so, that while he writes evidently with the earnestness of a man
fighting for a treasure, he never descends to the mere special pleader. . . . We cor-
dially commend Dr. Luthardt’s work as an able and seasonable contribution to the
literature of this question.’—Cowrant.

‘Those who consult Luthardt’s volume will find him to be a safe guide. He is
remarkably temperate and fair. He makes the liberal concessions of one who feels that
his resources are substantial, and that he need not fight for trifles.... This is by
far the best handbook on the subject which any inquirer can have. We hope that in its
present form it will find a large circle of readers.’—Daily Review.

Τ᾽ and T. Clark's Publications.

DR. MURPHY'S NEW WORK.

Just published, in demy 8vo, 700 pages, price 15s.,

A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY

ON THE

BOOK OF PSALMS6,

WITH A NEW TRANSLATION.

By JAMES G. MURPHY, LLD., T.C.D.,

AUTHOR OF COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOKS OF GENESIS, EXODUS, ETO.

‘Every Bible Student will look upon this volume with interest, and should give warm
thanks to the learned author for the care and erudition which have been bestowed upon
it... . The introductory chapters are very valuable, referring both to the nature of
the Psalms, their themes, their authors, and their arrangements. The exegesis is admir-
able, and the spirit is devout.’—Methodist Recorder.

Just published, in Two Vols. 8vo, price 21s.,

A ΠΟΘ EIN a Ae

ON THE

GOSPELY OF $17 UU eae

By F. GODET,

DOCTOR AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, NEUCHATEL.

Translated from the Second French Edition,

‘We are indebted to the publishers for an English translation of the admirable work
which stands at the head of this review. . . . It isa work of great ability, learning, and
research.’—Christian Observer.

‘The whole book is very valuable, and is the work of a critic, scholar, and divine of
no ordinary attainments, who has devoted to it wonderful conscientiousness and diligent
care.’— Union Review.

‘This is one of the most important and valuable works yet issued in the Foreign
Theological Library. Rich in learning, scientific in method, profound and luminous in
thought, it is a masterpiece of exposition, critical and spiritual, worthy to be placed side
by side with the author’s great ‘Commentary on St. John’s Gospel.”’—Dickinson’s

Theological Quarterly. A

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just Published, in Demy 8vo, Price 7s. 6d.,

THE

MIRACLES OF OUR LORD
IN RELATION T0 MODERN CRITICISM.

BY

F. L. STEINMEYER, DD.

ORDINARY PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN.

TRANSLATED, WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR, FROM
THE GERMAN BY

L A. WHEATLEY.

IntTRODUCTION.—1. The Problem. 2. Method of Solving it. 3. Value of the
Solution. JEsus AS A WORKER OF MIRACLES.

First Grour.—Miracles considered as Signs of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Seconp Group.—Miracles considered as Symbols.

Tutrp Group.—Miracles as Witnesses of the Power of the Kingdom of Heaven.
FourtH Groupr.—Miracles as Prophecies.

‘In this exegesis Dr. Steinmeyer displays a very high degree of critical acumen and
a rare subtlety and originality of thought.’—Scotsman.

‘We have read this excellent translation of Professor Steinmeyer’s famous work on
Miracles with great satisfaction. It is a careful and masterly reply to Strauss—to his
attack on the historical veracity of the Gospels and on the reality of Biblical Miracles.
It is therefore, by anticipation, a reply to “Supernatural Religion.” ... We most
cordially recommend the volume to young theological students.— Watchman.

‘This work will be found of great and lasting service in the cause of truth against the
sceptical tendencies of the present eager age. . . . The whole argument is bold, masterly,
and convincing; and the essay will take its place among the best recent volumes of
Christian evidence.’ —Standard.

‘ A work of intrinsic importance at the present time, and both as an argument for the
miracles and an exposition of their meaning, deserves thoughtful consideration,’—
English Independent.

‘Besides the value of the work apologetically, there is much of acute criticism and
suggestive exegesis, which will be prized by all who have learned to value duly even the
smallest contribution to a more fresh, life-like, and, correct conception of that unique
divine life portrayed in the Gospels.’—British and Foreign Evangelical Review.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, in demy 8vo, price 12s.,

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE PAULINE. EPIS Pie

By PATON J. GLOAG, D.D.,

Author of a ‘ Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the
Apostles.’

‘Those acquainted with the author’s-previous works will be prepared for something
valuable in his present work; and it will not disappoint expectation, but rather exceed it.
The most recent literature of his subject is before him, and he handles it with ease and
skill. . . . It will be found a trustworthy guide, and raise its author’s reputation in this
important branch of biblical study.’—British and Foreign Evangelical Review.

‘A work of uncommon merit. He must be a singularly accomplished divine to whose
library this book is not a welcome and valuable addition.’— Watchman.

‘It will be found of considerable value as a handbook to St. Paul’s Epistles. The
dissertations display great thought as well as research. The author is fair, learned, and
calm, and his book is one of worth.’—Church Bells.

‘A capital book, full, scholarly, and clear. No difficulty is shirked, but dealt with
fairly, and in an evangelical spirit. ΤῸ ministers and theological students the book will
be of great value.’—Evangelical Magazine.

‘Tt bears the stamp of study and of calm, critical power. It is a good defence of the
orthodox views, written in a style which combines dignity, strength, and clearness. It
may be read with pleasure by any lover of theology, and will be a valuable addition to
the book-shelf as a book of reference. —Glasgow Herald.

‘We honestly and heartily commend the work.’— United Presbyterian Magazine.

‘Most fair, comprehensive, critical, and effective, disposing of modern as well as
ancient difficulties in the most satisfactory way.’—Homilist.

‘This work will commend itself to all competent judges, alike by the candour and
earnestness of its spirit, the breadth of its learning, and the cogency of its reasoning.’—
Baptist Magazine.

‘We congratulate Dr. Gloag on his production of a work at once creditable to our
sacred scholarship and helpful to the cause of truth. His aim is to furnish an introduc-
tion to the Pauline Epistles, each of which he takes up in the chronological order which
he accepts. . . . The volume has a real and permanent value, and will take a high place
in our biblical literature.’—London Weekly Review.

‘We recommend it as the best text-book on the subject to students of theology and to
clergymen—as a most reliable guide, from the orthodox standpoint, to a knowledge of the
present position of the historical criticism of the Pauline Epistles.’— Courant.

‘It everywhere bears the marks of an impartial judgment and of thorough research,’—
New York Evangelist.

‘A safe and complete guide to the results of modern criticism. At the same time it
gives a fair idea of the processes by which those results are arrived at.’—Literary
Churchman.

T. and T. Clark’s Publications.

Just published, Fourth Edition, price 6s.,

THE TRIPARTITE NATURE OF MAN,

SPIRIT, SOUL, AND BODY,

Applied to Illustrate and Explain the Doctrines of Original Sin, the New Birth,
the Disembodied State, and the Spiritual Body.

By Rev. J. B. HEARD, M.A.

With an Appendix on the FATHERHOOD oF Gop.

‘The author has got astriking and consistent theory. Whether agreeing or disagreeing
with that theory, it is a book which any student of the Bible may read with pleasure,’—
Guardian.

‘A valuable and interesting treatise on the “ Tripartite Nature of Man,” the first English
theological work of any pretensions which has dealt with the subject in a methodical
and systematic manner. —DEAN or Norwicu.

‘It is with considerable satisfaction we note the issue of a fourth edition of this most
original and valuable treatise, which, without exaggeration, may be described as one of
the ablest contributions to our theological literature which has been published of late
years. —English Independent.

Carhurtonian Lectures on Prophecy, 1870 to 1874,

In crown 8vo, price 5s.,

POLES OF THE...PROPEE TS:

Twelve Lectures Preached in the Chapel of Lincoln’s Inn, in the Years
1870-74, on the Foundation of Bishop Warburton.

By EDWARD HAMILTON GIFFORD, D.D.

‘The author has long ago attained high position as a scholar, a man of science, and a
theologian, and in the volume before us he offers his readers some of the best fruits of
these varied accomplishments.’—Standard.

‘We have not for many years met with a book dealing with the important question of
prophecy in all respects so satisfactory, so reverent in its treatment of the written
word, so fair in argument, so courteous and dignified withal in its replies to the objections
of “science falsely so called.” ’—Daily Review.

‘This volume deals with the subject of prophecy in a clear and forciblemanner. The
objections to a belief in prophetic utterances are ably met, and much light is thrown
upon the matter, which has here been dealt with in a scholarly and Christian spirit.’—
Rock.

T. and T. Clark’s Publications.

Just published, in crown 8vo, price 6s.,

PASTORAL THEOLOGY,

A TREATISE ON THE OFFICE AND DUTIES OF THE
CHRISTIAN PASTOR.

By the Late PATRICK FAIRBAIRN, D.D,,

PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW.
WITH A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.

‘This treatise on the office and duties of a Christian pastor, by the late Professor
Fairbairn, is well deserving thoughtful perusal. Throughout the volume, however,
there is a tone of earnest piety and practical good sense, which finds expression in many
profitable counsels, embodying the result of large experience and shrewd observation.
. . . Much of the volume is devoted to the theory and practice of preaching, and this
part we can most heartily commend; it is replete with valuable suggestions, which even
those who have had some experience in the ministry will find calculated to make them
more attractive and efficient preachers.’—Christian Observer.

‘This work is pervaded throughout by an earnest zeal for the interests of religion,
ag well as for the prosperity of the Church to which the author belonged, and is on the
whole free from the charge of intolerance and bigotry.’—Scotsman.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

Just published, in crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d.,

THE PASTORAL EPISTEGs
The Greek Text and Translation. |

WITH INTRODUCTION, EXPOSITORY NOTES, AND
DISSERTATIONS.

‘We cordially recommend this work to ministers and theological students.’— Methodist
Magazine.

‘We have read no book of his with a keener appreciation and enjoyment than that
just published on the Pastoral Epistles.’-—Nonconformist.

‘The work is in every way worthy of Dr. Fairbairn’s high reputation. Nay, more, it
will enhance it. Wide and well-digested learning, accurate scholarship, thorough
independence of thought exercised in a calm and serious spirit, sound judgment, ripe
Christian experience, distinguish this work.’—London Weekly Review.

‘Dr. Fairbairn deserves our best thanks for this meritorious work of conscientious
criticism and careful exposition of a portion of Scripture which has not received so much
attention as it merits.’—Daily Review.

‘Dr. Fairbairn has done essential service by this very scholarly and able work, in which
he deals vigorously with the critical questions of our own day.’—British Quarterly Review.

‘The work is indeed a complete exegesis of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and ᾿
embraces all the critical and controversial questions to which they have given rise.’—
Rock.

.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, in demy 8vo, 570 pages, price 10s. 6d.,

MODERN DOUBT AND CHRISTIAN BELIEF.

A Series of Apologetic Lectures addressed to Earnest
Seekers after Truth.

BY THEODORE CHRISTLIEB; B.D.

UNIVERSITY PREACHER AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT BONN.

Translated, with the Author's sanction, chiefly bythe Rev. H. U. Werrsrecut,
Ph.D., and Edited by the Rev. T. L. Kinessury, M.A., Vicar of Easton
Royal, and Rural Dean.

CONTENTS.

FIRST LECTURE.—Tse Existing BREACH BETWEEN MoprErRN CULTURE AND
Curistianity.—Introduction.—I, Causes of the Breach. II. Present Extent of the
Breach. 111. Can the Breach be filled up?

SECOND LECTURE.—Rrason Anp REVELATION.—Whence do we derive our Know-
ledge of God?—I. Natural Theology, or the Knowledge of God derived from Nature and
Reason. 11. Supernatural Theology, or the Knowledge of God derived from Revelation.

II. Relation between Revealed Religion and Natural Theology.

THIRD LECTURE.—Mopern Non-Brexrtcat Concerrions or Gop.—Present Condi-
tion of the Controversy respecting the Idea of God.—I. Atheism. II. Materialism.
111, Pantheism. IV. Deism and Rationalism.

FOURTH LECTURE.—THEOoLoeGy or ScRIPTURE AND OF THE CHURCH.—I. Biblical
Theism. IJ. Trinitarian Conception of the Divine Nature.

FIFTH LECTURE.—TueE Mopern ΝΈΘΑΤΙΟΝ or Miracies.—Miracles the greatest
stumbling-block to the spirit of our Age—The consequences of their Negation—A nnihila-
tion of all Religions, and of the Moral Personality of Man—Fundamental importance of
the question.—I. Nature and Possibility of Miracles. II. Necessity and Historical
Manifestations of the Miraculous. III. Are Miraculous Manifestations still vouchsafed?

SIXTH LECTURE.—Mopern Anti-MiracuLous Accounts OF THE Lire oF CuRIst.
—The Christological Problem, the great Theological question of the present day—
Variety in the Rationalistic methods of treating the Life of Christ—All combine in the
denial of the Miraculous—Rationalism and Mythicism.—I. Old Rationalistic Accounts of
the Life of Christ. II. Schenkel’s ‘Sketch of the Character of Christ.’ III. Strauss:
‘Life of Christ.’ IV. Rénan’s ‘ Vie de Jesus.’

SEVENTH LECTURE.—Mopern DEnIALs oF THE ReEsuRRECTION.—I. Anti-Mira-
culous Theories. II. The Historical Testimonies. III. Collapse of the ‘ Visionary
Hypothesis.’

EIGHTH LECTURE.—Tue Moprrn CriricAL THrory oF Primitive Curisti-
Aanity.—The Tiibingen School and its Founder, F. C. Baur.—I. The Principles of the
Tiibingen School. 11. Critique and Refutation of this Theory.

‘ We express our unfeigned admiration of the ability displayed in this work, and of
the spirit of deep piety which pervades it; and whilst we commend it to the careful
perusal of our readers, we heartily rejoice that in those days of reproach and blasphemy,
so able a champion has come forward to contend earnestly for the faith which was. once
delivered to the saints.’.—Christian Observer.

‘The book is written with a distinct aim of a most important kind, viz. to give to
intelligent laymen a fair and full idea of the present state of the never-ending con-
troversy hetween doubt and Christian faith. ... The lectures are, in animation, in
clearness, in skilful grouping of topics, in occasional and always appropriate eloquence,
worthy of the author’s reputation as one of the most eloquent preachers of the day.’—
British and Foreign Evangelical Review.

‘These lectures are indeed an armoury of weapons—arms of precision every one. We
have the very highest admiration for them, and recommend them warmly to our readers.’
—Literary Churchman.

' ‘We do not hesitate to describe this as the clearest, strongest, and soundest volume of
apologetics from a German pen we have read. The author takes hold of the great
central and critical points and principles, and handles them with extraordinary vigour
and wisdom.’— Watchman.

‘Tt is one of the best works on Christian Evidences as a modern question to be found
in any language. —Freeman.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In crown 8vo, price 4s.,

ADS) Ὁ “THE “STU Dy

I

GERMAN THEOLOGY.
By Rev. GEORGE MATHESON, M.A., B.D.,

MINISTER OF INELLAN.

1. Natural Theology of Kant. 2. Kant’s Interpretation of the Facts of Scrip-
ture. 8. Transition to Schleiermacher. 4. Thought-Translation of the
System of Schleiermacher. 5. Diversities in his School. 6. Fichte. 7.
Introduction to the Theology of Hegeland Schelling. 8. Trinity of Hegel
and Schelling. 9. Evolution of Hegelian Trinity in Time. 10. And in
the History of the Church. 11. The Right and Left. 12. Mythical
Theory of Strauss. 19. Breaking up of the Mythical Theory—School of
Tiibingen. 14, Signs of a Return to the Old Rationalism. 15. ‘The Old
Faith and the New.’ 16. Parallel between the History of English and
German Theology.

‘The writer of this treatise has formed to himself singularly clear conceptions, and he
possesses in a remarkable degree the faculty of lucid exposition. . . . Besides serving as
an admirable introduction to the study of German theology, this little volume will be
valuable to the general reader, as furnishing an intelligible and interesting account of the
principal phases which theological speculation has assumed in Germany in modern times.’
—Scotsman.

‘This little volume is a valuable and instructive introduction to a department of theo-
logical literature that every student is now compelled to examine.’—British Quarterly
Review.

‘ A helpful little volume: helpful to the student of German theology, and not less so
to the careful observer of the tendencies of English religious thought,’—Freeman.

‘The author has a complete grasp of his subject, and displays marked ability in his
searching analysis of the progress of thought in Germany.’—Glasgow News.

‘The writer or compiler deserves high praise for the clear manner in which he has in
a brief compass stated these opinions.’—Christian Observer.

Just published, in demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,

DELIVERY AND DEVELOPMENT
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

The Jilth Sevies of the Cunningham Lectures.
By ROBERT RAINY, D.D.,

PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AND CHURCH HISTORY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH.

‘We gladly acknowledge their high excellence and the extensive learning which they
all display. ‘They are able to the last degree ; and the author has in an unusual measure
the power of acute and brilliant generalization. He handles his array of multifarious
facts with ease and elegance; and we must needs acknowledge (and we do it willingly)
that the Lectures are a real contribution to the settlement of the vast and obscure question
with which they are occupied.’—Literary Churchman.

‘This is an important book; for it contains a mass of powerful principles, poured
forth by an original mind, on a subject interesting to all times and fascinating for our
own.’ —Daily Review.

ritical and ex
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library

a [8
Ἶ τ
rope ΤῊΣ εν γεν
thaw Hobe nce Moire indie ta ten ee Ἢ;
Ἧι νὸν 5 ἀρ δ κι hy
Bliss. su ἊΣ ἘΟΡΗΙ RAF ‘
omer Barta ® 1 ER ae λιν, ‘ : Anas iii

Shahsiwek tsa cated
Tchad δὲ με Με» tracked eine Pa ated δεῖ)
R She pne hen ie
ibaa Deeb aes tail soy avee an eal
egrets
afi a atacad
ye teh
aha

τους
eetetat ie

ΠῚ
lon

vee
shakey
1

i hg

ΤῊΝ ts

wae
We erproncbe et

ΚῊ Η
Panes Serer

Vanna
aes

wr ων τ ψ' a
Rona ΠΥ gteruen Dour as weber ay! οὐ μῦν
rere gs” ¥ We AE TOTES FE UEL Ft
VAS hear rere
neal teak tiene

γ᾽ νὰν τὰ ταν pra gee ee ger e UEea eRe
anew Meu be de vtun acute de ary “ἢ i\
Sree erie rer or
ον
iT" ΤῊΝ ὄνων
Cotta Ree egy
δ OE Gn τισι Pancrase
Ce Le ee γ] ΙΝ
wee PUT Gyo ATW μον Degegraepeere
ert ta tS ΝΎ Ν
μα gs ΣΈ ΜΕΝ τὰ" sw EN
haan we ok tl δ

στοῦ ere ueuay:

OMA aa ad i
Oni ene Th vine
WWE VE μὰν WES a bs yon we μεν tel
ταῖν τ ατὺν ἡ τν: HOT ere DUBE G RE OTE. ταῦ
eros Wee Smear bre εν gray ἢ δῶτε ον το ad OR
τερσμτ ἀτ NT δ' ἐτυτυτῳτυτν are UT Wenge
AVG HOD TE OF BT Gm AT EG AS ον ων ἐτνὴν
δεν τη EE a UT ETRE A τς ΜΗ Ὗ
ΓΤ OTe Re eee
corer yea θα δὴ
ee Be δὲ ΤΠ SQ
124 Bes
Way αν bs ‘
ΠΟΥ εν ΤῊ
γῆς τε rit be bead re a ew yids
: ἊΝ tA ie ΘΥΡῚ Ν᾽
ΠΝ " PUSS ME ENT Y αν αὶ
beneines matiserath Herat Wt
br GF iting bre wayne ost
es γε μεν ἐς φόντητα τον ees Marer Git
ΧΑ ΜῊΝ
wane ὅν κι
ἐλ ψα τα τες Mee ἀν πα ae de procieee cea νεμτν,
PW MENTE UPET REN ἃ ΣῊΝ US Moe SPAT AUF AY Oo) ψενδισ LET EE ΓΝ

ant AOS WW ht ΠΝ
reac Wade Meare Ni, irate

Syreusinrst
levee tend

ne,
Wythe uc ΠῚ Wet τον nD
‘

ΠΤ " να δ
τὶς δε ψδνταυ aH ae HEP EA TA ind ate ἡ
AUT PARE PERE
ΜῊ

ἀκ σας
CN ἡ

τ δ ayer beh
ΠΡΟ

a ae pone Oy
aur eo Ma ATLL Ἷ
τᾷ Ὧν ΠΝ; id Healers

Wr bret a
ΠΣ ἘΝ bE 8 ΠῚ Ὲ

ΠΗ fit
vei Weer Oren iy

et rare ae wee bon
Heen hehe ve akc wed δ hte
she εν: ΤᾺ av τῶν,