Skip to main content

Full text of "Critical and exegetical handbook to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians"

See other formats

[library of PRiMCET ON 


BS234^ .M613 11 c. 2 
Critical and exegetical 
handbook to the epistles to t 





MAY 11 19S1 




jFrom i\)t (©crman, iDitlj X.\)z ^anrtton of i\)t Hutj^or. 





















BY ^ 












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

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

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

W. P. D. 

Glasgow College, 
October 1875. 



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

AiRAY (Henry), f 161G, Provost of Queen's College, Oxford: Lectures upon 
the whole Epistle to the Philippians ... 4°, Lond. 1618, al. 

Am Ende (Johann Gottfried), t 1821, Superintendent at Neustadt on 
the Orla : Pauli Epistola ad Philippenses Graece . . . nova versione 
Latina et annotatione perpetua illustrata. 8°, Viteb. 1798, al. 

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

Baumgarten (Sigmund Jakob). See Galatians. 

Baumgarten-Crusius (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), 1 1843, Prof. Theol. at 
Jena : Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser und Kolosser 
... 8°, Jena, 1845. — Commentar iiber die Briefe an die Philipper 
und Thessalonicher . .*. 8°, Jena, 1848. 


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

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

4°, Lond. 1634, al. 
Beelen (Jean-Theodore), R. C. Prof. Or. Lang, at Louvain : Commen- 

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

Bleek (Friedrich), f 1859, Prof. Theol. at Berlin : Vorlesungen iiber die 

Briefe an die Kolosser, den Philemon uud die Epheser . . . 

8°, Berl. 1865. 
BoHMER (Wilhelm), Prof. Theol. at Breslau : Theologische Auslegung des 

paulinischen Sendschreibens an die Colosser.]] 8°, Breslau, 1835. 
Braune (Karl), Superintendent at Altenburg in Saxony: Die Briefe S''. 

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

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

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

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

8°, New York and Edin. 1870. 
Breithaupt (Joachim Justus), f 1732, Prof. Theol. at Halle : Animadver- 

siones exegeticae etdogmatico-practicae in Epistolam ad Philippenses. 

4°, Halae, 1703. 
Brenz [or Brentius] (Johann), f 1570, Provost at Stuttgart : Explicatio 

Epistolae ad Philippenses. 8°, Fraucof. 1548. 

Byfield (Nicholas), f 1622, Vicar of Isleworth : An Exposition upon the 

Epistle to the Colossiaus ... 4°, 1617, al. 

Calixtus (Georg). See Romans. 

Cartwright (Thomas), f 1603, Prof. Theol. at Cambridge: Commentary 
on the Epistle to the Colossiaus. 4°, Lond. 1612. 

Daille (Jean), f 1670, Pastor at Paris : Exposition sur la divine Epitre 
de I'apotre S. Paul aux Filippieus. 8°, Genev. 1659. 

Dalmer (Karl Eduard Franz) : Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Colosser. 

8°, Gotha, 1858. 

Davenant (John), f 1641, Bishop of Salisbury : Expositio Epistolae Pauli 
ad Colossenses, 2°, Cantab. 1627, al. [Translated, with notes, by 
Josiah AUport. 2 vols. 8°, Lond. 1831.] 

Davies (John Llewelyn), Rector of Christ Church, Marylebone : The 
Epistles of St. Paul to the Ephesians, the Colossiaus, and Phile- 
mon, with introduction and notes, and an essay on the traces 
of foreign elements in the theology of these Epistles. 

8°, Lond. 1867. 

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

A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle to the Colossiaus. 

8°, Lond. and Glasg. 1856. 


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

8°, Lond. 1857, al. 

Elton (Edward), Minister at Bermondsey : An Exposition of the Epistle 
to the Colossians ... 4°, Lond. 1615, al. 

Ferguson (James), f 1667, Min. at Kilwinning : A Briefe Exposition of the 
Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and Colossians. 

8°, Edin. 1656, al. 
Flatt (Johann Friedrich), f 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen : Vorlesungen 
iiber die Briefe Pauli an die Philipper, Kolosser, Thessalonicher, und 
den Philemon, herausgegeben vou Chr. F. Kling. 

8°, Tubing. 1829. 

Heinrichs (Johann Heiurich), Superintendent at Burgdorf : Testamentum 
Novum Graece perpetuo annotatione illustravit J. P. Koppe. Vol. 
vii. p. 2. Compleetens Pauli Epistolas ad Philippenses et Colossenses. 
Continuavit J. H. Heinrichs. 8=, Gotting. 1803, ed. II., 1826. 

Hengel (Wessel Albert van). Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Commentarius per- 
petuus in Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses. 8°, Lugd. Bat. 1839. 

HOELEMANN (Hermann Gustav), Teacher in Gymnasium at Zwickau : Com- 
mentarius in Epistolam divi Pauli ad Philippenses. [Theile : Com- 
ment, in N. T., vol. xxii.] 8°, Lips. 1839. 

HoFMANN (Johann Christian Konrad von). Prof. Theol. at Erlangen : Die 
Heilige Schrift des N. T. zusammenhiingend untersucht. IV. 2. Die 
Briefe Pauli an die Kolosser und Philemon. IV. 3. Der Brief Pauli 
an die PhiHpper. 8°, Nbrdlingen, 1870-2. 

HuTHER (Johann Eduard), Pastor at Wittenforden, Schwerin : Commentar 
iiber den Brief Pauli an die Colosser. 8°, Hamb. 184:1. 

Jatho (Georg Friedrich), Director of Gymnasium at Hildesheim : Pauli 
Brief an die Philipper. 8°, Hildesheim, 1857. 

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

Kahler (C. E.) : Auslegung der Epistel an die Philipper. 

8°, Kiel, 1855. 

Krause (Friedrich August Wilhelm), f 1827, Tutor at Vienna : Die Briefe 

an die Philipper und Thessalonischer Ubersetzt und mit Anmerk- 

ungen begleitet. 8°, Frankf. 1790. 

Krause (Johann Friedrich), f 1820, Superintendent at Weimar : Observa- 

tiones critico-exegeticae in Pauli Epistolae ad Philippenses c. i. et ii. 

4°, Regimont. [1810]. 


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

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

^Iatthias (Konrad Stephan), Prof. Theol. at Greifswald : Erklarung des 
Briefes Pauli an die Philipper. 8°, Greifswald, 1835. 

Mayerhoff (Ernst Theodor) : Der Brief an die Kolosser mit voruehmlicher 
Berlicksichtigung der Pastoralbriefe kritisch gepriift. 

8°, Berl. 1838. 

Melanchthon (Philipp), t 1560, Reformer : Euarratio Epistolae Pauli ad 
Colossenses. 8°, Viteb. 1559, al. 

MiCHAELis (Johann David). See Galatians. 

MuLLER (Cornelius) : Commentatio de locis quibusdam Epistolae ad Philip - 
penses. 4°, Hamburgi, 1844. 

MuscuLUS [or Meusslin] (Wolfgang), t 1563, Prof. Theol. at Berne: 
In Epistolas ad Philippenses, Colossenses, Thessalonicenses ambas et 
primam ad Timotheum commentarii. 2°, Basil. 1565, al. 

Neander (Johann August Wilhelm), f 1850, Prof. Theol. at Berlin: Der 
Brief Pauli an die Philipper praktisch erliiutert . . . 

8°, Berl. 1849. 

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

Rettig (Heinrich Christian Michael), f 1836, Prof. Theol. at Zurich : 

Quacstiones Philippenses. 8°, Giessen. 1831. 

RHEimvALD (Georg Friedrich Heinrich), f 1849, Prof. Theol. at Bonn : 

Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Philipper. 

8°, Berl. 1827. 
RiLLiET (Albert), Prof. Theol. at Geneva : Commentaire siir Fepitre de 

I'apotre Paul aux Philippiens ... 8°, Geneve, 1841. 

RoELL (Herman Alexander), f 1718, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht : Brevis 

Epistolae Pauli ad Colossenses exegesis. 4°, Traject. 1731. 

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

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

8°, Zurich, 1833. 

ScHjiiD (Sebastian). See Romans. 


SCHOTANL'S (Jleinardus H.), t 1644, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Analysis et 
Commentaria iu Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses. 

4°, Franek. 1637. 

Stkiger (Wilhelm), f 1836, Prof. Theol. at Geneva : Der Brief Pauli au 
die Colosser ; Uebersetzung, Erkliirung, einleitende und epikritische 
Abhandlungen. 8°, Erlangen, 1835. 

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

4°, Tubing. [1783-87]. 
Expositions of the Epistles of Paul to the Philippiaos and Colossiang 
by John Calvin and D. Gottlob Christian Storr. Translated from the 
original by Robert Johnston. [Biblical Cabinet.] 12°, Edin. 1842. 

SuiCERUS [Schweitzer] (Johann Heinrich), Prof, of Greek in Heidelberg: 
In Epistolam ad Colossenses commentarius critico-exegeticus. 

4°, Tiguri, 1699. 

Til (Salomon van). See Romans. 

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

ViCTORiNUS (C. Marius), about a.d. 860, teacher of rhetoric at Rome : In 
Epistolam ad Philippenses liber unicus. [In Mai's Scrip. Vet. Nov. 
Coll. iii. 1.] 

AYeiss (Bernhard), Prof. Theol. at Kiel : Der Philipperbrief ausgelegt, 
und die Geschichte seiner Auslegung kritisch dargestellt. 

8°, Berl. 1859. 

"Wiesinger (J. C. August), Pastor at Untermagerbein, near Ncirdlingeu: 

Die Briefe des Apostel Paulus an die Philipper, an Titus, Timotheus 

und Philemon erklart. [In Olshausen's Commentar.] 8°, Konigsb. 

1850. [Translated by the Rev. John Fulton, A.M. 

8°, Edin. 1851.] 

Zachariae (Gotthilf Traugott). See Galatians. 





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

' See generally, Mynster, Elnle'd. in d. Br. an d. Pliilipper, in his Kl. theol. 
Schrlften, p. 169 ff. ; Hoog, dc coetus Christ. PluUpp. conditione, etc., Lugd. 
Bat, 1825; Piettig, Quaest. Pliilipp., Giess. 1831; Schinz, tZ. christl. Gem. z. 
Phil., Ziirich, 1833; J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians, Lond. 
1868, p. 46 ff. 

^ Now the village of Felihah. On the site and the ruins, see Cousinerj', Voyage 
dans la Maced., Paris, 1831, II. ch. x. p. 1 ff. ; Perrot in the Revue archeolog. 
1860, II. pp. 44 ff , 67 ff 



9 f.), and amid ill-treatment and persecution (Acts xvi. 1 6 ff. ; 
1 Thess. ii. 2), planted Christianity. Thus did the city vindi- 
cate its original name, in a higher sense, for the entire West. 
This event took place in the year 53, during the second 
missionary journey of the apostle, who also, in his third 
journey, laboured among the Macedonian churches (Acts xx. 

1 f), and especially in Philippi (Acts xx. 6). With what 
rich success he there established Christianity is best shown 
by our epistle itself, which exhibits a more cordial, affectionate, 
and undisturbed relation between the church and the apostle, 
and bears a more unalloyed testimony to the distinction of the 
church (comp. especially iv. 1), than we find in any other 
apostolic letter. This peculiar mutual affection also explains 
the fact that Paul, contrary to his usual custom, accepted aid 
on more than one occasion from the Philippians (iv. 10 ff. ; 

2 Cor. xi. 9) ; from which, however, on account of this very 
love, we are not entitled to infer that they were specially 
wealthy. The Jews were so few in number that they had 
only a irpoaev-^rj (see on Acts xvi. 13), and the Christian 
church was one consisting mostly of those who had been 
Gentiles. The view which discovers a Judaizing faction 
(iii. 2) in it (Storr, Flatt, Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Eheinwald, 
Guericke, and others), seems all the more unwarrantable, when 
we consider how deeply the apostle was concerned to ward off 
from his beloved Philippians the danger, at that time every- 
where so imminent, of the intrusion of Judaistic disturbance, 
and how susceptible the Philippians themselves were to such 
a danger, owing to a certain spiritual conceit^ which had 
already impaired their unanimity (i. 12-ii. 16, iv. 2). Comp. 
i. 28. See, against the view of heretical partisanship, Schinz, 
p. 48 ff. ; Eilliet, Commentaire, Geneva, 1841, p. 352 ff. ; 
Weiss, Introduction to his Auslcg., Berl. 1859 ; compare, 
however, Huther in the Mccklcnl. tlieolog. Zeiisclirift, 1862, 
p. 623 ff. 

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



It is justly the universal tradition (Chrysostom ; Euthalius, 
in Zacagni, Coll. vet. mon. pp. 547, 642, 648 ; Synopsis of 
Athanasius, Syrian Church, the subscriptions), and the almost 
unanimous view of modern writers, that the epistle was written 
in Eome. We are pointed to Eome by the oUla Kaia-apo<; 
(iv. 22), and by the crisis between life and death in which 
Paul was placed, — a crisis which presupposes his appeal to the 
emperor as the ultimate legal resort (i. 20 ff., ii. 17), — as 
well as by the entire conformity of his position and work 
(i. 1 2 ff.) to what we find recorded in Acts xxviii. 1 6 ff. The 
epistle must, moreover, have been written during the later 
period of the Eoman captivity ; for the passages, i. 1 2 ff., ii 
26 ff., betoken that a somewhat lengthened course of impri- 
sonment had elapsed, and the apostle was already abandoned 
by all his more intimate companions (ii. 20), except Timothy 
(i. 1). A more precise specification, such as Hofmann in 
particular gives (that the apostle had then been transferred 
from his hired dwelling to the prison-house), is not deducible 
either from i. 1 2 ff., or from the mention of the Praetorium 
and the imperial house. We must reject the isolated attempts 
to transfer its composition to Corinth (Acts xviii. 1 2 ; Oeder, 
Progr., Onold. 1731) or to Caesarea (Acts xxiii. 23-xxvi. 32 ; 
Paulus, Frogr., Jen. 1799; and Bottger, Beitr. I. p. 47 ff. ; 
favoured also by Eilliet, and Thiersch, Kirclic im apost. Zeitalt. 
p. 212). Concerning and against these views, see particularly 
Hoelemann, Commentar, 1839, p. iii. ff. ; Neander, Gcsch. d. 
PJlamung, etc., p. 498 f. 

We are to assume, therefore, as the date of coiliposition, not 
indeed the full expiration of the Sterta oX?/ of Acts xxviii. 3 
(Hofmann), but the latter portion of that period, — in the year 
63 possibly, or the begiiming of 64.^ See on Acts, Introd. § 4. 

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

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


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


victory over the world. " Summa epistolae : Gaudco, gaudde" 
Bengal ; comp. Grotius : " laetior alacriorqiie et blandior 

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


The genuineness of this epistle is established externally by 
the continuous testimonies of the ancient church from Poly carp, 
iii. 11, onwards; see MarcioninEpiph.^ac7\ 42; Canon Murat.; 
Tertull. c. Marc. v. 19, cle praeser. 36; literal use made of it, as 
early as the epistle from Vienne and Lyons, in Eus. v. 2 ; direct 
quotations from it in Iren. iv. 18. 4, v. 13. 3 ; Cypr. Test iii, 39 ; 
Clem. Paeel i. 107; Tert. cle resurr. 23, 47, — in the presence 
of which testimonies it is unnecessary to adduce uncertain 
allusions from apostolic Fathers and Apologists. Internally it 
bears the seal of genuineness in the thoroughly Pauline cha- 
racter of its contents, of its spirit, of its emotions, of its delicate 


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

1 Compare also Plank in the same, 1847, p. 481 f. ; Kdstlin in tlie same, 1850, 
p. 263 ii". 


wlio is taken to be Clement of Eome, and is supposed to weave 
the bond of unity round Paul and Peter, must supply the key ; 
while the supposed anachronism in the mention of the bishops 
and deacons in i. 1, the Euodia and Syntyche in iv. 2, and the 
cri;^i'709 7i'7;<7io9 in iv. 3, are likewise wrongly adduced against 
the Pauline authorship. Indeed, even the historical occasion 
of the epistle — the aid sent to Paul — is made to appear as a 
fictitious incident at variance with 1 Cor. ix. 15. The spe- 
cial arguments of Baur are set aside by an impartial interpre- 
tation of the passages to which they refer, and the same may 
be said with regard to the latest attacks of Hitzig (ziir Kritik 
d. pmilin. Brief e, 1870) and of Hinsch (in Hilgenf eld's Zeit- 
sclirift, 1873, p. 59 ff.) on the genuineness. The latter, 
though independent in his movement, stands on the ground 
occupied by Baur; the former has no ground whatever. 
Against Hinsch, see Hilgenfeld in his Zeitsch7\ 1873, p. 178 ff. 

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

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

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

A B D E F G K have merely Trphg ^tXi'x^nGio-jg. 


Ver. 1. 'indoZ xpiarou] Lachm. and Tisch. read Xpisroii iriaoij. 
The same in vv. 6 and 8. This is to be preferred on account of 
the strong attestation of B D E N (the latter, however, only in 
vv. 1 and 8), Mdiich is reinforced in ver. 8 by A ; it was readily 
supplanted by the more usual 'I. X. — Ver. 7. Elz. has merely 
rfi ocTTOAoy. vjitJioict sv. Lachm. has iv, which Griesb., Matth., 
Scholz, and Tisch. adopt, in brackets. It is found in BD** 
E K L P t«, min. Syr. Copt. Arr. Vulg. It. and some Fathers, 
Looking at this indecisive attestation, and seeing that iv might 
more readily be supplementarily or mechanically added than 
omitted, it should be deleted. — Ver. 8. Iffrh] after /j,ou is de- 
fended iDy Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., omitted by Tisch., fol- 
lowing B F G i^'*, min. Vulg. It. Aetli. Chrys. An addition 
made from a reminiscence of Eom. i. 9. — Ver. 9. cs^/cg-eu?!] 
BD E have 'TrspKraiUri. So Lachm., who has placed rrspisairi in 
the margin, and Tisch. 7. With the considerable testimony 
which exists in favour of the Recci^ta, restored also by Tisch. 8, 
it should be retained, as Tipteavep might very easily originate in 
the similarity of sound in the following final syllables : sT/yvwSEl, 
-raffSHi, and aia&yi'^EI. The Eeccpta is also supported by the 
readings crspigaivn and mpiasvlioi. — Ver. 11. Elz. has ■Ao.p'rrZyj . . . 
Tuv, against decisive testimony. An emendation. — Ver. 14. 
Lach. and Tisch. 8 have rov eio\J after 7^6yov, although, according 
to testimony of some weight (such as A B N, Clem.), only an 
explanatory addition, which some Codd. give in a different 
position, while others change it into rov y.vplou. — Vv. 16, 17. 
Elz. reverses their position : o'l /ih it, spi&iiag . , . /mu' o'i Bi It, 
dydcrri; . . . xsi/xat, against decisive testimony. A transposition 
intended to produce iiniformity with ver. 10. — Instead of 
lyilpuv (Griesb., Lachm., Tisch.) Elz. has i'mppnv, which is de- 
fended by Matth. and Scholz, and vindicated by Eeiche. But 

' The Philippians are also called iiXi-jfrriiriti by Steph. Byz., ^/A/t^tjjk)/ by 
Polyb. (according to Steph. Byz. ), iiki-^Tilt in the Corp. Inscript. 



sysip. is decisively attested by the preponderance of uncials 
(including x) and vss. ; s'Tritpipnv, instead of whicli Theopliyl. ms. 
has rrpoaipspi/v, is an ancient gloss. — Ver. 18. •t?.jji/] B has on; 
AFGPi^, min. some vss. and Fathers: rXriv or/. So Lachm. 
and Tisch. 8. But the reference of the crXjj'i' not being under- 
stood, it was explained by the oti written on the margin, which 
has in some cases (B) siqyjjlanted the tX-z^v, and in others passed 
into the text along loitli it. — Ver 21. XpiCTog,] yjpriSTov was so 
isolated and weak in attestation (Ar. poL), that it should not 
have been recommended by Griesb., following earlier authority. 
— Ver. 23. Elz. has yap instead of h\, against decisive testimony. 
The yap after toXXw is neither critically nor exegetically to be 
rejected. See Eeiche, Comm. crit. — Ver. 24. iv rfi aap^l] h is 
wanting in A C P X, miu. Clem. Or. Petr. alex. Cyr. Chrysost. 
Wrongly condemned by Griesb. and Tisch. 8 ; for h might easily 
be absorbed by the final syllable of s'rif/.ivsiv, especially as it is 
frequently used elsewhere with the simple dative. — Ver. 25. 
eufiTupa/Mivu'] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read vapa/Mvui, which Griesb. 
also approved of, following ABC D* P G X, min. A neglect of 
the doubly compound verb, attested certainly more weakly, but 
yet by D*** E K L P, Chrys. al. and many min., which took place 
all the more readily, because the word does not occur elsewhere 
in the N. T., and even its meaning might be offensive. — Ver. 27. 
Instead of azovau, Lack and Tisch. 8 read dx.ovu), but without a 
preponderance of testimony in its favour. — Ver. 28. Iffriv auroTg] 
Elz. has auToTg fx,h sariv, against decisive testimony. — u/aTi/] 
A B C** X, min. vss. Aug. read v/j-uv. So Lachm. and Tisch. 
Eightly ; the dative is a mechanical alteration in accordance 
with the preceding a-jToTg and the following v/j^Tv. — Ver. 30. Elz. 
has 'ibiTs. But iJdiTB is attested by A C D* E* s, min. and 
Fathers, and was supplanted by '/8sts through Itacism. 

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

CHAP. I. 1, 2. 11 

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

Vv. 1, 2. Kal Ti/MoO.'] not as amanuensis, although he may 
have been so (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 21; 2 Thess. iii. 1 7 ; Col. iv. 
18 ; and see on Gal. vi. 11), for from Eom. xvi. 22 we must 
assume that the amanuensis as such is not included in the 
superscription ; nor yet merely as taking part in the greeting 
(Estius, Weiss), for ver. 1 is the address of the epistle, and 
as such names tliosc from whom it emanates ; but as subordi- 
nate joint-writer of the letter (comp. on 1 Cor. i. 1 ; 2 Cor. i. 1 ; 
Col. i. 1 ; Philem. 1), who, as a distinguished helper of the 
apostle, and well known to the readers, adopts the teachings, 
exhortations, etc. of the letter, which the apostle had pre- 
viously discussed with him, as his own. At the same time, 
the apostle himself remains so completely the proper and 
principal writer of the epistle, that so early as ver. 3 he 
begins to speak solely in his own person, and in ii. 19 speaks 
of Timothy, who was to be sent to them, as a third person. 
Nevertheless this joint mention of Timothy must have been 
as accordant witb the personal relation existing between the 
latter and the readers (Acts xvi. 10 ft., xix. 22), as it was 
serviceable in preparing the way for the intended sending of 
Timothy (ii. 19), and generally edifying and encouraging as a 
testimony of the intimate fellowship between the apostle and 
his subordinate fellow-labourer.^ — BovXoo X. 'I] Tlie fact that 

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


Paul does not expressly assert his apostolic dignity by the side 
of Timothy (as in 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1), may be explained by 
the intimate and cordial relation in which he stood to the 
Philippians ; for in regard to them he saw no external canse, 
and felt no internal need, for making this assertion ; and we 
may assume the same thing in Philem. 1. The non-mention 
of his apostolic dignity in the First and Second Epistles to the 
Thessalonians is, considering the early date at which they were 
composed, to be similarly explained (see Liinemann on 1 Thess. 
i. 1). In their joint designation as BovXol 'I. X. (see on 
Ptom. i. 1), — a designation resulting from the deep conscious- 
ness of the specific vocation of their lives (1 Cor. iv. 1), — both 
the aiiostlcsliip of Paul and the official position of Timothy 
(comp. Eom. xvi. 2 1 : Ti/jl60. 6 <Tvv6pj6<; fxov ; Col. iv. 1 2) 
are included. Compare (tvvBov\o<;, Col. i. 7, iv. 7. — rot? 
ayioa iv X. T.] see on Pom i. 7, and on ■rj'yLaa/xevo<i iv X. I., 
1 Cor. i. 2. — avv iincrK. k. htaKov.^ along with overseers and 
deacons. Paul writes to aU} the Christians at Philippi (comp. 
Eom. i. 7), bishops and deacons being expressly included {avv, 

racter (Huther on Col. p. 45, with whom Corn. Miiller agrees, Commentat. de 
loc. quihusd. ep. ad Phil, Hamb. 1843, p. 5) ; for in tliat case tlie Epistles to 
the Romans and Ephesians would least of all bear the apostle's name alone. 
To him, too, with his personal consciousness of his high apostolic standing 
(Gal. i. 1), the need of any confirmation or corroboration hij others must have 
been an idea utterly foreign. Lastl}', tliis very Epistle to the Philippians bears 
less of the rfidal and more of the familiar character than any of the others. 
— The fact, moreover, that in almost all the epistles, in the superscription of 
which Paul docs not name himself alone, Timothy is mentioned with him 
{Silcanus being named with the latter in 1 and 2 Thessalonians), is a proof that 
Timothy was the apostle's vwst intimate companion, and was hi^jh.hj esteemed 
among the churches. In 1 Corinthians only, Soilhene.s. and not Timothy, is 
mentioned along with Paul in the address. 

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

CHAP. I. 1, 2. 13 

comp. Acts xiv. 5). As official designations, the words did not 
require the article (Kiihner, ad. Xcn. Anab. iii. 5. 7 : a-rparT]- 
yol Se Koi \o')(a'^ol), althougii particular persons are meant (in 
opposition to Hofmann), who are regarded, however, just as 
office-bearers. The reason why the latter are specially men- 
tioned in the salutation, in a way not found in any other epistle, 
must be sought in the special occasion of the letter, as the 
aid which had been conveyed to Paul could not have been 
collected without the guidance, and co-operation otherwise, of 
these office-bearers.^ They might even have transmitted to 
him the money by means of an accompanying letter in the 
name of the church (Ewald ; compare Hofmann) ; there is, 
however, no trace elsewhere of this. Arbitrary suggestions are 
made by Cornelius a Lapide and Grotius : that he thus 
arranged the salutation with reference to Epaphroclitus, who 
was one of the eiriaKoiToi ; by Matthias : that the iirLo-KOTroL 
and Blukovoc had specially distinguished themselves among the 
Philippians by their zeal and energy ; by Eilliet and Corn. 
Mliller : that the intention was to describe the church as a 
regularly constituted one, or as an undivided whole (Rheinwald), 
a collective body organized into unity (Hofmann) (which, 
in fact, other churches to whom Paul wrote were also) ; or 
that, with the view of preventing disunion, Paul wished to 
suggest to them the recognition of the office as an antidote to 
self-exaltation (Wiesinger). Other expositors have given yet 
other explanations. — The writing of the words as one : avv- 
eTncTKOTTOi'; (B** D*** K, Chrysost. Theophyl. min.) is to be re- 
jected, because avv would be without appropriate reference, and 
the epistle is addressed to the whole community. See already 
Theodore of Mopsuestia. — As to the bisJwjJs, called from their 
official duty eiTLaKOTroi (Acts xx. 28 ; 1 Tim. iii. 2 ; Tit. i. 7), 
or figuratively 7roifiev€<; (Eph. iv. 11), and after the Jewish- 
theocratic analogy 'irpea-^vrepoi, see on Acts xx. 28, Eph. 
iv. 11. And how much the plural is at variance with tlie 

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


Catholic doctrine of the episcopate, see in Calovius. The 
absence also of any mention of joreshjters^ strikingly shows 
that the latter were still at that time identical with the 
bishops. Comp. particularly Acts xx. 17, 28 ; and see 
Pdtschl, altlcatli. Kirche, p. 400 ff. ; also J. B. Lightfoot, p. 
93 ff., and Jul. JMliller, dogmat. Ahh. p. 581. Mistaken view in 
Dollinger's Christenthum u. Kirche, p. 308, ed. 2, who makes 
out of (Tv^vye <yvrj(ne the bishop Kar e^o')(rjv. As to the 
StaKovla, the care of the poor, sick, and strangers, comp. on 
Ptom. xii. 7, xvi. 1 ; 1 Cor. xii. 28. We may add that the 
'jolacing of the officials after the church generally, which is not 
logically requisite, and the mere subjoining of them by avv, 
are characteristic of the relation between the two, which 
had not yet undergone hierarchical dislocation. Comp. Acts 
XV. 4; Heb. xiii. 24. Cornelius a Lapide, following Thomas 
Aquinas, sagely observes, that " the shepherd who rules goes 
hehincl the fioch !" — X^P'''* ^f^^^ /c.t.X.] See on Rom. i. 7. 

Ver. 3 f. Comp. Eom. i. 9 ; 1 Cor. i. 4; Eph. i. 16; 1 
Thess. i. 2 ; Philem. 4 ; Col. i. 3. — eVt Trdarj rrj fiveia v/jl.] 
not : in every recollection, but, as the article requires : in my 
ivhole recollection of j^ou, so that the sense is not : as of ten as 
I remember you (so usually, following Chrysostom and Luther), 
but : my remembrance of you in its entire tenor and compass is 
mingled with thankfulness towards God. On eVt with the 
dative, comp. ii. 1 7. Maldonatus, Homberg, Peirce, Michaelis, 
Bretschneider, Hofmann, are mistaken in making vficov geni- 
tive of the subject (and eVt as stating the ground, 1 Cor. i. 4) : 
" that ye are constantly mindful of me," or " on account of your 
collective remenibrance" (Hofmann), which is supposed to imply 
and include the aid transmitted to him as a single fxvela. That 
for which Paul thanks God — and it is here, as in the openings 
of the other epistles, something of a far higher and more 
general nature — does not follow until ver. 5. — H^vcla] is to 
be rendered in the usual sense of remembrance (comp. 1 Thess. 

^ In the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, -rpKrpiiiripoi and S/a^iava/ are 
spoken of as existing in Philippi, but no i'jr'nrxo'ro;. See especially chap. v. 6. 
Therefore even at this later period bishops and presbyters were identical in 

CHAP. I. 3, 4. 15 

iii. 6 ; 2 Tim. i. 3), and not, as by van Hengel, in that of 
mention, whicli it only obtains in the passages — certainly 
otherwise corresponding — Eom. i. 9, Eph. i. 16, 1 Thess. i. 
2, Philem. 4, by the addition of Troteladav. In this case it is 
the [xveiav ej(€Lv (1 Thess. iii. 6 ; 2 Tim. i. 3 ; Plat. Legg. vii. p. 
798 A), and not the fiv. Troceca-Bac, that is thought of. — irdv- 
Tore] cannot belong to ev'^^aptarco in such a way that the 
following iv irdarj Seyjaet k.t.\. should be separated from it and 
joined to the participial clause, as Hofmann^ desires. It is 
true that Trdvrore down to vf^cov is closely linked with what 
precedes ; but the connection is of such a character that 
Trdvrore already finds the befitting limitation through eVt 
rrddrj T. fivela v/moov, and now by Trdvrore /c.r.X. can be 
announced, ichen the €v-)(apL(7ro> r. ©. [x. etrl tt. t. yuv. v\x. takes 
place, namely, " at all times, in every request ivliich I malcc for 
you all, thanksgiving towards my God is joined with my entire 
remembrance of you." Negatively expressed, the sense up to 
this point therefore is : "I never (Trdvrore) make my interces- 
sory prayer for you all, ivitlwut always (rrdvrore, as in Kom. i. 
10, Col. i. 4) in it associating thanks toivards my God luitli 
my entire rememlranee of you." This does not render the 
Travrcav inappropriate, as Hofmann objects, the fact being that 
the apostle constantly bears cdl his Philippians upon his heart, 
and cannot help praying for them all ; he feels this, and ex- 
presses it. If we should, with Castalio, Beza, and many 
others, including Weiss, connect as follows : " whilst I at all 
times in all my 'praying for you all make the prayer loith joy" 
the expression ev Tzda-rj SeT^o-et t^i* Beijcnv TrocovfjLevo<i, as thus 
linked together, would be only a burdensome tautology. In- 
stead of /xerd ')(ap. r. S. ttolovijl., Paul would have simply and 
naturally written the mere 'xalpoiv. This applies also to the 
view of Huther, w^ho (in the Mccklenb. Zeitschr. 1863, p. 
400) substantially agrees with Weiss. Hoelemann incorrectly 

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


connects V7re|0 iravr. v/ji. with ev-)(apL<TT(a (Eom. i. 8 ; Eph. i. 
16; 1 Thess. i. 2 ; 2 Thess. i. 3). Against this it may be 
iirged, that tlie otherwise too general eV iraa-r) Be^crec fiov 
needs^ an addition more precisely defining it ; and the words 
/j,era 'xap. rrjv Berjo: ttolov/u,. which follow, show that the 
thought is still occupied with the prayer, and has it as yet in 
prospect to express the object of the thanks. Lastly, the article 
in T^-jv Beri<TLv points back to a more precisely defined Si7jcTi<;, 
the specification of which is contained in this very vtt. it. vfi. 
Comp. Col. i. 3. — As to the distinction between Serjai'; and 
Trpoaev^-)'^ (ver. 9, iv. 6), see on Eph. vi. 18. — On the empha- 
tic sequence of mrda-rj, iravroTe, iracrr), TravTojv, comp. Lobeck, 
Pai^al. p. 56. Paul does not aim at such accumulations, but 
the fulness of his heart suggests them to him ; comp. 2 Cor. 
ix. 8. — fjiera %apa9 /c.t.'X.] His heart urges him, while men- 
tioning his prayer for them all, to add : " when I make unth 
joy the (mentioned) prayer {rrjv B.)" — a feature which is 
met with in the opening of this epistle only. Ver. 4 is not 
to be placed in a parenthesis (as by Luther), nor yet from 
fxera ')(ap. onwards, for TroLovp,. is connected with ev-^apLo-ra) 
(in opposition to Heinrichs), as containing the characteristic 
definition of mode for Birjai'i vir. iravr. v/a. 

Ver. 5 f. 'EttL rfj koivcov. v/j,. et9 to ei;a77.] is to be taken 
together with evxapia-Tw, ver. 3 (1 Cor. i. 4), and not with 
fjuera 'xctp. k.tX. (Calvin, Grotius, van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald, 
Weiss, Hofmann) ; for in that case, with the right explanation 
of eVt irda-rj r. piv. vfi., the specification of the ground for thanks 
would be entirely wanting, or would at all events result only 
indirectly, namely, as object of the joy. On account of your 
felloiuship in respect of the gospel; by this Paul means the 
common hrotherly coherence (Acts ii. 42) which united the 
Philippians together for the gospel (as the aim to which the 
KOLvaivia has reference), that is, for its furtherance and efficiency. 
The great cause of the gospel was the end at which, in their 
mutual coherence, they aimed ; and this, therefore, gave to their 

' This applies also in opposition to Ewald, who attaches vv\^ -xairui vf^uii, and 
to Hofmann, who at the same time joins iv -rarri SijjVs/, to the participial clause. 
The participial clause only begins with the emphatically preiixed fUTo. x^p^s- 

CHAP. I. 5, C. 17 

fellowship with one another its specific character of a holy 
destination. The correctness of this interpretation is con- 
firmed by the context in ver. 9, where that which is here 
expressed by rj Koivwvla v/iwv is characterized, under the cate- 
gory of the disposition on which this koivcovm is based, as ^ 
wyuTrr) v/icbv. As this view is in full harmony with both words 
and sense, and is not dependent on anything to be supplied, 
it excludes divergent interpretations. We must therefore 
reject not only the explanation which refers KOLvwvia to the 
aid sent to Paul (Zeger, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Wetstein, 
Michaelis, Bisping, and others), so that it is to be taken 
actively as communication (see Fritzsche, ad Bom. III. p. 81, 
287), although it is never so used in the K T. (conip. on 
Piom. XV. 26 ; Gal. vi. 6 ; Philem. 6), but also the view of Theo- 
doret, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Heinrichs, and others : 
" quod evangelii participes facti cstis," as if it ran tou evay- 
<ye\iou (Theodoret : KOivwviav he rov evayyeXlov r-qv iricmv 
eKoXecre). Chrysostom and Theophylact, who are followed by 
most of the recent interpreters (including Schinz, Weiss, 
Schenkel, Huther, Ellicott, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann), under- 
stand the fellowship of the Philippians vAih the apostle, that 
is, 071, KOLvwvoi [MOV yivedde k. a-v^jxeptcrTai rdv inri tco evayy. 
TTovcov, Theophylact ; consequently, their co-operation luith him 
in spreading the gospel, in which case also a reference to the aid 
rendered is included. In this case, since the text says nothing 
about a " service " devoted to the gospel (Hofmann), an addition 
like fier ifiov (1 John i. 3, ct cd), or some other more precise 
definition, like that in ver. 7, would be an essential element — 
not arising (as in Gal. ii. 9) out of the context — which there- 
fore must have been expressed, as indeed Paul must have said 
so, had he wished to be understood as referring to fellowship 
^oith all who had the cause of the gospel at heart (Wiesinger). 
The alsolute " your fellowship," if no arbitrary supplement is 
allowable, can only mean the mutual fellowship of the memhers 
of the church themselves. — The article is not repeated after 
vfjLoov, because Koivwvia eU to evayy. is conceived as forming a 
single notion (comp. on Koivoyveiv etV, iv. 15 ; Plato, Hep. p. 
453 A). — aTTo 7rp(OTr]<; rj/j,. d'^pi' rov vvv] is usually connected 



with. T§ Koivwvia k.tX. This connection is the t7nie one, for 
the constancy of the Koivcovla, that has been attested hitherto, 
is the very thing which not only supplies the motive for the 
apostle's thankfulness, but forms also the ground of his just 
confidence for the future. The connective article (ry before 
aTTo) is not requisite, as iirl tt} koivcovlo, v^wv was construed as 
eVt Ta> KOLvwvetv vfia<i (AViner, p. 128 [E. T. l7l]). It cannot 
be connected with t. Serjaiv ttoiov/x. (Weiss), unless eVl t. 
KOivcov. K.T.X is also made to belong hereto. If joined with 
7re7roi^co9 (Eilliet, following Lachmann, ed. min.), it would 
convey an emphatically prefixed definition of the apostle's 
confidence, whereas the whole context concerns the previous 
conduct of the readers, which by the connection with ireiroiO. 
would be but indirectly indicated. If connected with ey;^a- 
ptarco (Beza, Wolf, Bengel), the words — seeing that the expres- 
sion irdvTore iv ircKrrj herjaei has already been used, and then 
in eTTt rf) Koivwvia k.t.X. a transition has already been made 
to the object of the thanks — would contain a definition 
awkwardly postponed. — The first day is that in which he first 
preached the gospel to them, which was followed by immediate 
and decided results, Acts xvi. 13 ff. Comp. Col. i. 6. — 
Trevrot^ft)?] confidence by which Paul knows his ev^xapia-retv, 
w. 3-5, to be accompanied. Without due ground, Hofmann 
confuses the matter by making a new prolonged paragraph 
begin with 'jreiroiOoi^} — avTo tovtoI if taken according to the 
common usage as the accusative of the object (comp. ver. 25), 
would not point to what follows, as if it were tovto merely 
(Weiss), but M'ould mean, being confident of this very thing, 
which is being spoken of (ii. 18 ; Gal. ii. 10 ; 2 Cor. ii. 
3). But nothing has been yet said of the contents of the 
confidence, which are to follow. It is therefore to be taken 

' He makes ver. 6, namely, constitute aiirotasis, whose apodosis is again divided 
into the protasis »a,Sus Iffnt I'lKccttiv ly-oi and the apodosis corresponding thereto. 
But this apodosis of the apodosis begins with S/a t« £;^£/v fit, ver. 7, and yet is only 
continued after the words fnHprus y. i ete;, u; I'TrivoPu ifiZ;, which are a jjarentJiesis, 
in vv. 8, 9. Such a dialectically involved and complicated, long-Avinded period 
would be most of all out of place in this epistle ; and what reader would have 
been able, without Hofmann's guidance, to detect it and adjust its several 
parts ? 

CHAP. I. 7. 19 

as oh id ijjsiim} for this very reason (2 Pet. i. 5 ; Plato, Symp. 
p. 2 4 A, and Stallb. acl loc. ; Prot. p. 310 E ; Xen. Anab. i. 
9. 21, and Ktihner in loc, also his Gramm. IL 1, p. 267 ; see 
also Winer, p. 135 [E. T. 178], and comp. on Gal. ii. 10), 
namely, because your Koivwvia et? to evayy., from the first day 
until now, is that which alone can warrant and justify my 
confidence for the future, on 6 evap^dixevo<; k.tX. — o ivap^d- 
/xevc; K.rX] God. Comp. ii. 13. That which He has begun 
He will complete, namely, by the further operations of His 
grace. The idea of resistance to this grace, as a human possi- 
bility, is not thereby excluded ; but Paul has not to fear this 
on the part of his Philippian converts, as he formerly had in 
the case of the Galatians, Gal. i. 6, iii. 3. — iv vfilv] That Paul 
did not intend to say among yov. (as Hoelemann holds), but 
in you, in animis vestris (comp. ii. 13 ; 1 Cor. xii. 6), is shown 
by vTrep ttuvtcov vfiwv following, by which the language 
o ivap^. iv vfiiv k.t.\. expresses a confidence felt in respect 
to all individuals. — 6^701^ dyaOov] without article, hence : 
an excellent work, by which is meant, in conformity with 
the context, the Koivwvla v/m. eh to evayy. — d^^pci rj/xepa^ 
'I. X.] corresponding to the diro 'Trpoorr]'; rjfxep. a%/3t rov vvv. 
ver. 5, presupposes the nearness of the Trapovaia (in oppo- 
sition to Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others), as everywhere in 
the N. T., and especially in Paul's writings (Weiss, hihl. Theol. 
p. 297, ed. 2). Comp. ver. 10, iii. 20. The device by 
which the older expositors (see even Pelagius) gratuitously in- 
troduce qualifying statements, " Perseverat autem in ilium usque 
diem, quicunque perseverat usgite ad mortem suam " (Estius), 
whereby is meant not " coniinuitas usque ad ilium diem," but 
" terminus et complementum perfectionis, quod luibituri isto die 
erimus " (Calovius), is just as un-Pauline as Calvin's makeshift, 
" that the dead are still in x)Tofeetu, because they have not yet 
reached the goal," and as Matthies' philosophical perverting of 
it into the continual and eteriud Parousia. 

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

^ Hofmann also adopts tliis explanation of kIto toZtb. 


since it was to him, through his love to his readers, a duty 
and obligation I Not to cherish it would be wrong. " Caritas 
enim omnia sperat/' Pelagius. — As to Ka6co<;, which, in the 
conception of the corresponding relation, states the ground, 
comp. on iii. 17; 1 Cor. i. 6; Eph, i. 4; Matt. vi. 11. 
— On hUatov, comp. Acts iv. 19 ; Eph. vi. 1 ; Phil. iv. 8 ; 
Col. iv. 1 ; 2 Pet. i. 12. A classical author would have 
written: hUaiov i/xe tovto (ppovelv (Herod, i. 39 ; Dem. 198. 
8; Plat. Sgmjx p. 214 C), or: Si«ato9 el/xt tovto (pp. (Herod. 
i. 32; Dem. 1469. 18, and frequently; Time. i. 40. 3). — 
TOVTO (f)poveLv] to have this feeling, this practical bent of mind 
in favour of you, by which is meant the confidence expressed 
in ver. 6, and not his striving in prayer for the -perfecting of 
his readers' salvation (ver. 4), which the sense of the word 
(ppoveiv does not admit of (in opposition to Weiss), as it is 
not equivalent to ^rjTetv (comp. on Col. iii. 2). See besides, 
Huther, I.e. p. 405 f. — On virep, comp. iv. 10 ; 2 Mace. xiv. 8 ; 
Eur. Archel. fr. xxv. 2 f. ; Plut. Phil. c. Flam. 3 ; on tovto (jjp., 
Gal. v. 10, ovSev ciWo ^p. The special reference of the sense 
of (ppovelv : to he mindful dbo^it so7)iething, must have been sug- 
gested by the context, as in iv. 10; but is here insisted on by 
Hofmann, and that in connection with the error, that with 
Ka6(o<; the protasis of an apodosis is introduced. The (fypoveiv 
is here perfectly general, cogitare ac sentire, but is characterized 
by TOVTO as a ev (j)povecv, which Paul feels himself bound to 
cherish in the interest of the salvation of all his readers (vTrep 
7rdvTQ)v vfxwv). — hia to eyeiv jie iv Trj KupSla v/ia?] An ex- 
pression of heartfelt love (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 3) on the part of 
the apostle towards his readers, not on the part of his readers 
towards him (Oeder, Michaelis, Storr, Eosenmiiller, am Ende, 
Flatt), thus making v/jid<; the subject; although the sing. 
KapBia (comp. Eph. iv. 18, v. 19, vi. 5 ; Ptom. i. 21 ; 2 Cor. 
iii. 15, and elsewhere) is not against this view, the position of 
the words is opposed to it, as is also the context, see ver. 8. 
The readers are present to the apostle in his loving heart. — 
ev T6 Tot? Secr/iot? /c.t.X.] SO that, accordingly, this state of 
suffering, and the great task which is incumbent on me in it, 
cannot dislodge you from my heart. See already Chrysostom 

CHAP. I. 7. 21 

and Pelagius. These words, ev re ro'c'i Sea-fxoi<i k.t.\., set 
forth the faithful and abiding love, which even his heavy 
misfortunes cannot change into concern for himself alone. 
They contain, however, the two points, co-ordinated by re . , . 
Kai (as well . . . as also) : (1) The jposition of the apostle, and 
(2) his employment in this position. The latter, which, through 
the non-repetition of the article before /3e/3., is taken as a whole 
(Buttmann, ncut. Gr. p. 294 [E. T. 342]), is both antithetical, 
the defence of the gospel, and also thetieal, the confirmation of it, 
that is, the corroboration of its trutli by proof, testimony, etc., 
its verif cation ; comp. Heb. vi. 16; Eom. xv. 8 ; Mark xvi. 
20; Thucyd. i. 140. 6, iv. 87. 1; Plat. Polit. p. 309 C; 
Wisd, V. 18. For an instance of this kind of fie^alwcn'i 
during the earliest period of the apostle's captivity at Home, 
see Acts xxviii. 23. Hofmann, taking a groundless objection 
to our explanation from the use of re . . . Kai (see, however, 
Baeumlein, PartiJc. p. 225), refuses to connect the re with the 
following Kai ; he prefers to connect with the one e'%ety, namely 
with the e^^iv iv rf} Kaphia, another, namely an €-)(eLv cxt^kol- 
vwvov'i. This is an artificial conjunction of very different 
references of the e'xetv, yielding the illogical formalism : I have 
you (1) in my heart, and (2) for my companions, etc. The 
latter would indeed be only a more precise quaKtative defini- 
tion of the former. The question, moreover, whether in rfi 
arrok. k. /3e/3. rov evayy. Paul intended to speak of his judicial 
examination (Heinrichs, van Hengel), or of his extra-judicial 
action and ministry during his captivity, cannot be answered 
without arbitrariness, except by allowing that both were meant. 
Por the words do not justify us in excluding the judicial 
defence (Wieseler, Chronol. d. apostol. Zeitalt. p. 430), since the 
airoXoyla might be addressed not merely to Jews and Judaists, 
but also to Gentile judges. — rov evayy.'] belongs to rfj airoX. k. 
/SeySatwcret, and not to /3e/3. only ; the latter view would make 
rfi airoX. denote the personal vindication (Chrysostom, Estius, 
and others), but is decisively opposed by the non-repetition 
— closely coupling the two words — of the article before /3e/3. 
But to interpret cnrokoyia and ^e^aL(oai<; as synonymous (Ehein- 
wald), or to assume an €v Bia Bvolv for uTroXoyla et<? ^e^aicoacv 


(Heinriclis), is logically incorrect, and without warrant in the 
connection. It is also contrary to the context (on account of 
rrj dTToXoyia) to understand the /3e/3ata)o-t9 r. evayy. as the 
actual confirmation afforded by the apostle's sufferings (Chry- 
sostom, Theodore t, Erasmus, and others). — avyKOLvwvov^ fxov 
k.tX.'] characterizes the vixa<i, and supplies a motive for the 
e%ety /.te ev ry KapSla vfjia<i k.t.X. : since you, etc. This love to 
you, unalterable even in my affliction, is based on the real 
syrapathij, which results from all of you being joint-ijartalcers 
with me in the grace. The emphasis is laid, primarily on ctv^k. 
and then on Trai/ra?, which is correlative with the previous 
TrdvToov. The idea of the grccce ivhich the apostle had received 
(Trj<; ')(apLro<i) is defined solely from the connection, and that 
indeed by the two points immediately preceding, ev re Tot9 
8e(T/j,oi<i fiov and ry aTroX. k. ySe/3. tov evayy., namely, as God's 
gift of grace enabling them to suffer for the gospel (comp. 
ver. 29 f. ; see also Acts v. 41 ; 1 Pet. ii. 19), and therewith 
to defend and confirm instead of falling away from and denying 
it. " Magnus in hac re honos, magna praemia " (Grotius). 
Paul knew that the experience of this grace — for the setting 
forth of which the context itself amply suffices, without the 
need of any retrospective ravTi]^ (as is Hofmann's objection) — 
had been vouchsafed not only to himself, but also to all 
his Philippian converts, who like him had had to suffer for 
Christ (ver, 29 f ) ; and thus, in his bonds, and whilst vin- 
dicating and confirming the gospel, conscious of the holy 
similarity in this respect between his and their experience, 
sympathetically and lovingly he bore them, as his fellow- 
sharers of this grace, in his heart. He knew that, whilst he 
was suffering, and defending and confirming the gospel, he 
had all his readers as o-i;/x7racr%oyT69, a-vvaTrdXoyovfjLevoi, avfi- 
^e^aiovvTe<i to evayyeXcov, and that in virtue of the above- 
named grace of God, as a manifestation of which he had 
recognised his bonds, and his activity for the gospel in 
these bonds. Others interpret it much too generally and 
vaguely, looking at the tender and special references of the 
context, as the " gratiosa evangelii donatio " (Hoelemann, comp. 
Wolf, Heinrichs, de Wette, and others). Likewise without any 

CHAP. I. 8. 23 

more immediate reference to the context, and inappropriate, is 
its explanation of the apostolic office (Eom. i. 5, et al), the 
Philippians being said to be active promoters of this through 
their faith (see Theodore of Mopsuestia) ; along with which 
a reference is introduced to the assistance rendered (Storr, 
am Ende, Eosenmiiller, Flatt, Hofmann ; comp. also Weiss) — 
which assistance has come to be regarded as a KOLvwvia eh to 
eiiajyeXtov (but see on ver, 5), as Hofmann expresses it. 
Those who feel dissatisfied that Paul does not mention at the 
very beginning of the epistle the assistance rendered to him, 
prescribe a certain line for the apostle ; which, however, he does 
not follow, but gives expression first of all to his love for the 
Philippians in subjects of a higher and more general interest, 
and puts off liis expression of thanks, properly so called, to 
the end of the epistle. Lastly, the translation gaudii (Vulgate, 
Itala, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Primasius, Sedulius) is derived 
from another reading {')(apa<i). — The avv in avyKotvo)vov<; refers 
to fiov, my Joint-partakers (iv. 14) of the grace, thus com- 
bining a-}jjK. with a double genitive of the person and the 
thing, of the subject and the object (Klihner, II. 1, p. 288 ; 
Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 239]), and placing it first with emphasis ; 
for this Joint fellowship is the point of the love in question. 
— As to the repetition of vjj.d<;, see Matthiae, p. 1031, and on 
Col. ii. 13 ; comp. Soph. 0. C. 1278, and Eeisig in loc. 

Eemark. — Whether 'iv n roTg hsixoTg . . . ihctyy. should be con- 
nected with the preceding ha rb 'iyjiv ^s h r?j y.aphia u/xaj (Chry- 
sostom, Erasmus, Castalio, Luther, and many ; also Huther), 
or with auy-A.. k.t.X. which follows (Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Cor- 
nelius a Lapide, Storr, Elatt, Lachmann, van Hengel, Tischendorf, 
Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and others), cannot be 
determined. Still the former, as of a less periodic character, 
is more in harmony with the fervent tone of feeling. Besides, 
the repetition of j/jLag betrays a break in the flow of thought 
after r. ijayy. 

Ver. 8. A solemn confirmation of the preceding assurance, 
that he had his readers in his heart, etc. Comp., on the 
connection, Eom. i. 9. Theophylact, moreover, strikingly 
observes : ou^ <U9 aTrio-Tov/iei/o? fxdprvpa KoXel top Geov, aWa 
Tr]P TToWrjv hLaOeatv ovk e^iov TrapaarrjaaL Bia Xoyov. — ct)9 


iTTLTToOib /c.tA.] Jioiu MucJi I loiig ciftcr you all, etc., wliicli 
would not be the case if I did not bear you in my heart 
{yap), as announced more precisely in ver. 7. On eVtTro^w, 
comp. Eom. i. 11 ; Phil. ii. 26 ; 1 Thess. iii. 6 ; 2 Tim. i. 4. 
The comijound denotes the direction (Plat. Lcgg. ix. p. 855 F ; 
Herod, v. 93 ; Diod. Sic. xvii. 101 ; Ecclus. xxv. 20), not the 
strength of the rrrodelv (comp. on 2 Cor. v. 2), which is conveyed 
by ft)"?; comp. Pom. i. 9 ; 1 Thess. ii. 10. — iv a-irXdyx^oi'; 
XpLarov 'l7]crov] is not, with Hofmann,^ to be connected with 
what follows (see on ver. 9) ; it is an expression of the 
heartiness and truth of his longing, uttered in the strongest 
possible terms, ev, on account of the sensuous expression 
which follows {a7fKa<y'xya, like ^''^Hl, as seat of the affections, 
especially of heartfelt love, ii. 1 ; Col. iii. 1 2 ; Philem. 7, 
12, 20; also in classical authors), is to be taken locally: 
in the heart of Jesus Christ ; that is, so that this longing of 
mine is not my own individual emotion, but a longing ivhich 
I feel in virtue of the dwelling and ivorhing of Christ in me. 
Paul speaks thus from the consciousness that his inmost life 
is not that of his human personality, of himself, but that 
Christ, through the medium of the Holy Spirit, is the personal 
principle and agent of his thoughts, desires, and feelings. 
Comp. on Gal. ii. 20. Pilled with the feeling of this holy 
fellowship of life, which threw his own individuality into the 
background, he could, seeing that his whole spiritual ^cotj was 
thus the life of Christ in him, represent the circumstances 
of his iiTiTrodeiv, as if the viscera Christi were moved in him, 
as if Christ's heart throhhed in him for his Philippians. Bengel 
aptly says : " In Paulo non Paulus vivit sed Jesus Christus ; 
quare Paulus non in Pauli, sed Jesu Christi movetur vis- 
ceribus." Comp. Theodoret : ouk avOpoyirivov to (^iXrrpov, 
TTvevfiariKov. Not doing justice to the Pauline consciousness 
of the wiio mysiica which gives rise to this expression, some 
have rendered iv in an instrumental sense, as in Luke i. 78 
(Hofmann) ; others have taken it of the norma : " according 

' According to Hofmann, namely, Iv ctcx. X. 'I. asserts with reference to tlie 
following\ Touro vfoaivx- that Christ's heart towards those wlio are His pro- 
duces such prayer in the apostle, and manifests itself tliercin. 

CHAP. I. 9. 25 

to the pattern of Christ's love to His people " (Eosenmiiller, 
Eilliet) ; and some have found the sense of the norma in the 
f/enitival relation : " in animo penitus aftecto nt animus fuit 
Christi" (van Hengel). So also Wetstein, Heinrichs, and 
earlier expositors ; whilst Storr refers iv cnrX. 'I. X. even 
to the readers (sc. 6vTa<i). For many other interpretations, 
see Hoelemann and Weiss. The merely approximate state- 
ment of the sense, given by Grotius and others : " amore non 
illo communi, sed vei^e Christiano" is in substance correct, but 
fails to give its full development to the consciousness of the 
Xpto-To? eV rjfxtv (Gal. ii. 20, iv. 19; Eom. viii. 10; 2 Cor. 
xiii. 5 ; Eph. iii. 1 7) ; notwithstanding which Hofmann regards 
the identification of Paul's own heart with the heart of Christ 
as simply wijjossihle ; thus, however, applying to the mysti- 
cism of deep pious feeling, and the living immediate plastic 
form in which it finds expression, a criterion alien to its 
character, and drawing around it a literal boundary which 
it cannot bear. 

Ver. 9. After having stated and discussed, in vv. 3-8, 
the reason why he thanks God with respect to his readers, 
Paul now, till the end of ver. 11, sets forth what it is that he 
asks m jprayer for them. " Redit ad precationem, quam obiter 
tantura uno verbo attigerat (namely, ver. 4) ; exponit igitur 
summam eorum, quae illis petebat a Deo" (Calvin). — «at] the 
simple and, introducing the new part of,^ and thus continuing, 
the discourse : And this (which follows) is ichat I pray, — so 
that the oljcd is placed first in the progress of the discourse ; 
hence it is Ka\ rovro Trpoaev'x^o/xai, and not k. Trpoaev'^. tovto. 
Hofmann's explanation of the kul in the sense of also, and his 
attaching iu airX. X. 'I. to ver. 9, are the necessary result of 

^ The word vpoiriC^ofjiai, which now occurs, points to a new topic, the thanks- 
giving and its grounds having been previously spoken of. Therefore x. r. 
-xfotTiux,. is not to be attached, with Piilliet and Ewald, to the preceding verse : 
a)id (how I) pray this. Two different things would thus be joined. The 
foi-mer portion is concluded by the fervent and solemn ver. 8. Jatho also 
{Br. an d. Phil, Hildesh. 1857, p. 8) connects it with u;, namely thus : and 
how I pray for this, namely, to come to you, in order that I may edify you. 
But to extract for roZro, out of ItivoSZ vfta;, the notion : "my presence with 
you," is much too harsh and arbitrary; for Paul's words are not even WfroSu 
i'Siif vfia;, as in Piom. i. 11. 


his perverse metamorphosis of the simple discourse, running 
on from TreTrot^co? in ver. 6, into a lengthened protasis and 
apodosis, — a construction in which the apodosis of the apodosis 
is supposed to begin with iv arrX. X. 'I. ; comp. on ver. 6. — 
iva] introduces the contents of the prayer conceived of under 
the form of its design (Col. i. 9 ; 1 Thess. i. 1 1 ; Matt, xxiv, 
20), and thus explains the preparatory tovto. Comp. on John 
vi. 29. "This I pray, that your love should more and more,'* 
etc. — rj dydirr) v/ji(bv], not love to Paul (van Hengel, follow- 
ing Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, Bengel, and others), — a 
reference which, especially in connection with eri, fidWov k. 
/jidWov, would be all the more unsuitable on account of the 
apostle having just received a practical proof of the love of 
the Philippians. It would also be entirely inaj)propriate to 
the context which follows (eV eTnyvcoa-ei k.t.X). Nor is it 
their love generally, without specification of an object for it, as 
a proof of faith (Hofmann) ; but it is, in accordance with the 
context, the brotherly love of the Philippians one to another, 
the common disposition and feeling at the bottom of that 
Koivwvia ek to evayy., for which Paul has given thanks in 
ver. 5.-^ This previous thanksgiving of his was based on the 
confidence, otl o ivap^dfievo'i k.t.X., ver. 6, and the conterds of 
his 'prayer now is in full harmony with that confidence. The 
connection is misapprehended by Calovius and Eheinwald, 
who explain it as love to God and Christ ; also by Matthies 
(comp. Eilliet), who takes it as love to everything, that is truly 
Christian ; comp. Wiesinger : love to the Lord, and to all that 
belongs to and serves Him ; Weiss : zeal of love for the cause 
of the gospel, — an interpretation which fails to define the 
necessary personal object of the dydTrt), and to do justice to 
the idea of co-operative fellowship which is implied in the 
KOLvcovia in ver. 5. — €tl /xdXkov] quite our: still more. Comp. 
Homer, Od. i. 322, xviii. 22 ; Herod, i. 94 ; Pind. Pyth. x. 88, 
Olymp. i. 175; Plat. Euthyd. p. 283 C; Xen. Anal), vi. 6. 

^ The idea that "your love' means the readers themselves (Bullinger), or 
that this passage gave rise to the mode of addressing the hearers tliat has 
obtained since the Fathers (very frequently, e. g. in Augustine) in the language 
of the chiu'ch (Bengel), is purely fanciful. 

CHAP. I. 9. 27 

35 ; Diog. L. ix, 10. 2. See instances of fiaXKov koX fiaXKov 
in Kypke, II. p. 307. "With the reading Trepiaaevrj note the 
sense of progressive development. — iv iTTLyvcoaet k. Trdarj alo-- 
O^a-et] constitutes that in ivhich — i.e. respecting ivhich — the love 
of his readers is to become more and more abundant. Comp. 
Eom. XV. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 9 (Elz.), viii. 7; Col. ii. 7; Ecclus. 
xix. 20 (24). Others take the iv as instrumental: through 
(Heinrichs, Flatt, Schinz, and others) ; or as local : in, i.e. 
in association with (Oecumenius, Calvin, Eheinwald, Hoele- 
mann, and others), — irepicrcT. being supposed to stand alsolutely 
{may he abundant). But the sequel, which refers to the 
iirtrfvcdaL^ and ata-9Tja-i<;, and not to the love, shows that Paul 
had in view not the growth in love, but the increase in iiri- 
yvtoai^ and ataOrja-c;, which the love of the Philippians was 
more and more to attain. The less the love is deficient in 
knowledge and at(Tdr)cn<;, it is the more deeply felt, more 
moral, effective, and lasting. If i7rt<yvo)ac<; is the penetrating 
(see on 1 Cor. xiii. 1 2 ; Eph. i. 1 7) cognition of divine truth, 
both theoretical and practical, the true knowledge of salvation,^ 
which is the source, motive power, and regulator of love 
(1 John iv. 7 ff.) ; ata9r)crc<; (only occurring here in the New 
Testament), which denotes perception or feeling operating either 
through the bodily senses^ (Xen. Mem. i. 4. 5, Anah. iv. 6. 13, 
and Kriiger in loc. ; Plat. Theaet. p. 1 5 6 B), which are also 
called aladijcrei'i (Plat, TJieaet. p. 1 5 6 B), or spiritually ^ (Plat. 
Tim. p. 43 C ; Dem. 411. 19, 1417. 5), must be, according 
to the context which follows, the perception lohich tal'cs place 
ivith the ethical senses, — an activity of moral perception which 
apprehends and makes conscious of good and evil as such 
(comp. Heb. v. 14). The opposite of this is the dulness and 
inaction of the inward sense of ethical feeling (Piom. xi. 8 ; 
Matt. xiii. 15, et al), the stagnation of the aiadrjTijpLa t% 
KapBia<i (Jer. iv. 19), whereby a moral unsusceptibility, in- 

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

2 " Nam etiam spiritualiter datur visus, auditus, olfactus, gustus, tactus, 
i. e. sensus investiirativi et fruitivi " (Eengel). 


capacity of judgment, and indifference are brought about. 
Comp. LXX. Prov. i. 7 ; Ex, xxviii. 5 ; Ecclus. xx. 1 7, Eec. 
(aca6T]a-i<i op6i'-j) ; 4 Mace. ii. 21. Paul desires for his readers 
every {irdarj) atad'qac'i, because their inner sense is in no given 
relation to remain without the corresponding moral activity 
of feeling, which may be very diversified according to the 
circumstances which form its ethical conditions. The relation 
between i7rl<yvu)(TL^ and aca-67}(Tt<; is that of spontaneity to 
receptivity, and tlie former is the rjye/MoviKou for the efficacy 
of the latter. In the contrast, however, mistaking and mis- 
apprehending are not correlative to the former, and deception 
to the latter (Hofmann) ; both contrast with both. 

Vv. 10, 11. El<i TO BoKifi,d^ecv /c.r.X] states the aim of the 
ireptcro: iv iircyv. k. it. ataO., and in Xva rjre elXtKp. k.t.X. we 
have the ultimate design. BoKL/j^d^ecv rd Bcacpepovra is to 
be understood, as in Eom. ii. 18 : m order to approve that 
vjhich is (morally) excellent. So the Vulgate, Chrysostom, 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, 
Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, Michaelis, Elatt, Eheinwald, 
Eilliet, Ewald, and others. See on Biacfyepeiv, 'praestantimxm 
esse (Dem. 1466. 22; Polyb. iii. 87. 1; Matt. x. 31), and 
ra Biacpepovra, praestantiora (Xeu. Hier. i. 3 ; Dio Cass. xliv. 
25), Sturz, Lex. Xcn. I. p. 711 f. Comp. Sta(f)ep6vT03^, eximie 
(Plat. Frot. p. 349 D, and frequently). Eor SoKi/xu^., comp. 
Eom. xiv. 22, et al. Others understand it as a testing of 
things ivhich are morally different (Theodoret, Beza, Grotius, 
Wolf, and others ; also Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, de 
Wette, Corn. Mliller, Wiesinger, Weiss, Huther). In point 
of usage, this is equally correct; see on BoKtfid^., in both 
senses, 1 Thess. ii. 4. But in our view the sense which yields 
a defiiiition of the aim of the words ireptaa-. iv iiriyv. k. it. alad., 
as well as the antecedent of the elXiKptveia whieh folloius, 
seems more consistent with the context. The testing of good 
and evil is not the aim, but the expression and function, of 
the i7riyv(ocn<; and atadrja-i^. Looking at the stage of Christian 
life which must be assumed from vv. 5 and 7 (different in 
Eom. xii. 2), the former, as an aim, does not go far enough ; 
and the elXcKplveta is the result not of that testing, but of the 

CHAP. I. 10, 11. 29 

approbation of the good. Hofmann's view is therefore unsuit- 
able, that it means the proving of that lohich is otherwise ; 
otherwise, namely, than that towards which the Christian's 
love is directed. This would amount merely to the thought 
of testing what is %inv)orthy of being loved (= ra erepa) — a 
thought quite out of keeping with the tclic mode of expression, 
— eiXiKpLvecsi], pure, sincere = Ka6ap6<; ; Plat. Phil. p. 52 D, 
Comp., on its ethical use, Plat. Phaeelr. p. 66 A, and Stall- 
baum in loc., 81 C ; 2 Pet. iii. 1 ; 1 Cor. v. 8 ; 2 Cor. i. 12, 
ii. 17; Wisd. vii. 2 5, and Grimm in loc. — tt7r/3oo-/co7rot] 
practical proof of the elXiKpiveta in reference to intercourse 
with others (2 Cor. vi, 3): giving no offence; 1 Cor. x. 32 ; 
Ignat, Trail, interpol. 7 ; Suicer, Thes. s.v. As Paul decidedly 
uses this word in an active sense in 1 Cor. I.e. (comp. Ecclus. 
XXXV. 21), this meaning is here also to be preferred to the 
in itself admissible intransitive, — viz. not offending (Acts xxiv. 
16 ; comp. John xi. 9), — in opposition to Ambrosiaster, Beza, 
Calvin, Hoelemann, de Wette, Weiss, Huther, Hofmann, and 
others. — et? i]fiep. X.], to, i.e. for, the day of Christ, when 
ye are to appear pure and blameless before the judgment- 
seat. Comp. ii. 16 ; Eph. iv. 30 : Col. i. 22 ; 2 Pet. ii. 9, iii. 
7 ; 2 Tim. i. 12 ; also Jude 24 f. These passages show that 
the expression is not equivalent to the a')(pL<i rjfiepa^ X. in 
ver. 6 (Luther, Erasmus, and others), but places what is said 
in relation to the decision, unveiling, and the like of the day 
of the Parousia, which is, however, here also looked upon as 
near. — Ver. 11. TreTrX. Kapirov Si/c.] modal definition of the 
etkiKptv. K. airp6<Tic., and that from the positive side of these 
attributes, which are manifested and tested in this fruitful- 
ness — i.e. in this rich fulness of Christian virtue in their pos- 
sessors. KapiTo<i SiKaioa: is the fruit ivhich is the product of 
righteoiisness, which proceeds from a righteous moral state. 
Comp. Kapir. rov Tryey/iaro?, Gal. v. 22 ; k. tov <f)a)T6<;, Eph. 
v. 9 ; K. BiKai,oavv7]<;, Jas. iii. 18, Heb. xii. 11, Eom. vi. 21 f., 
Prov. xi. 30. In no instance is the genitive with Kapiro^; 
that of apposition (Hofmann). The BiKacocrvvr) here meant, 
however, is not j'ustitia fidei {justificatio), as many, even 
Eilliet and Hoelemann, would make it, but, in conformity 


with ver. 10, a righteous moral condition, which is the 
moral consequence, because the necessary vital expression, of 
the righteousness of faith, in which man now Kapnro^opel rut 
©eft) eV KaLvoTrjTi irveviiaro^, Eom. vii. 5 f. ; comp. vi. 2, 
viii. 2 ; Col. i. 10. We must observe that the emphasis is 
laid not on Sticatoo-WT;?, but on Kapirov, — which therefore 
obtains more precise definition afterwards, — so that ZiKaioavvrj^ 
conveys no new idea, but only represents the idea, already 
conveyed in ver. 10, of the right moral condition. Comp. on 
BLKaioavvT], Eph. v. 9 ; Eom. vi. 13, 18, 20, xiv. 17, et al. 
— On the aecusaiive of the remote ohj'ect, comp. Ps. cv. 40, 
cxlvii. 14; Ecclus. xvii. 6; Col. i. 9 (not 2 Thess. i. 11); 
Winer, p. 215 [E. T. 287]. A classical author would have 
used the genitive (Elz.) or the dative. — tov Bia 'I. X.] sc. 
ovra, the more exact specific definition of this fruit, the peculiar 
sacred essence and dignity of Avliich are made apparent, seeing 
that it is produced, not through observance of the law, or 
generally by human power, but through Christ, who brings it 
about by virtue of the ef&cacy of the Holy Spirit (Gal. ii. 20, 
iii. 22; Eph. iv. 7 f., 17; John xv. 14, et al). — ek Bo^av 
K.T.X.] belongs to ireTrXrip. k.tX., not specially to tov Sia 'I. X. 
How far this fruitfulness tends to the honour of God (comp. 
John XV. 8), see Eph. i. 6-14. God's Bo^a is His majesty in 
itself; eiraivo'i is the ]praise of that majesty. Comp. Eph. i. 6, 
12, 14. This eiraivci is hascd on matter of fact (its opposite 
is artixd^eiv r. Qeov, Eom. ii. 23), in so far as in the Christian 
moral perfection of believers God's work of salvation in them, 
and consequently His glory, by means of v/hich it is effected, 
are manifested. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 20. The whole work of re- 
demption is the manifestation of the divine ho^a. ^ee John 
xii. 27 f. The glory of God is, however, the ultimate aim 
and constant refrain of all Christian perfection, ii. 1 1 ; 1 Cor. 
X. 31 ; Eph. iii. 31 ; 1 Pet. iv. 11 ; Kom. xi. 36. 

Ver. 12. See, on vv. 12-26, Huther in the Mecldenl. 
Zeitschr. 1864, p. 558 ff. — Paul now proceeds by the Be of 
continuation to depict his own i^osition down to ver. 26. See 
the summary of contents. — The element of transition in the 
train of thought is that of the notifeation which Paul now 

CHAP. I. 13. 31 

desires to bring before tliem; 'yivcoa-Keiv is therefore placed 
Jirst : hut ye are to know. It is otherwise in 2 Tim. iii. 1, 
also 1 Cor. xi. 3, Col. ii. 1. — ra Kaj iixe] my circumstances, 
my position, as in Eph. Vi. 2 1 ; Col. iv. 7 ; Tob. x. 9 ; 2 Mace, 
iii. 40, ct al. ; Xen. Cyr. vii. 1. 16 ; Ael. V. H. ii. 20. — iiaXkov] 
not to the hindrance, but much the contrary. See Winer, p. 2 2 8 
[E. T. 304]. He points in this to the apprehension assumed 
to exist, and certainly confirmed to him by Epaphroditus as 
existing, on the part of his readers, which, before going further, 
he wishes to relieve. There is no trace even here of a letter 
received from them with the contribution (Hofmann; comp. 
Wiesinger) ; comp. on ver. 1. Hoelemann : " magis, quam antea 
contigerat ;" but this meaning must have been intimated by a 
vvv or tjBt). — 7rpoKO'7r')]v] 2}r ogress, i.e. success. Comp. ver. 25 ; 
1 Tim. iv. 15. As to the later Greek character of this word, 
see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 85. In consequence of the apostle's 
fate, the gospel had excited more attention, and the courage 
of its preachers had increased ; see ver. 1 3 f. As to whether 
a change had taken place in his condition, which the readers 
regarded as a change for the worse, as Hofmann requires us to 
assume, we have no specific hint whatever. The situation of 
the apostle generally, and in itself, abundantly justified their 
concern, especially since it had already lasted so long. — eX?;- 
Xvdev] cvenit, i.e. has redounded. Comp. Acts xix. 2 7 ; Wisd. 
XV. 5; Herod, i. 120; Soph. Aj. 1117 (1138): Plat. Gorg. 
p. 487 B. So the matter stands; note the jyerfect. 

Ver. 13. "Sla-re /c.t.X,.] so that my bonds became manifest in 
Christ, etc. This ware introduces the actual result of that 
TTpoKOTTr}, and consequently a more precise statement of its 
nature} ^Ev XpcarS does not belong to tov<; Sea/xoix; fiov, 
alongside of which it does not stand ; but ^avepov^ iv Xpiar. 
is to be taken together, and the emphasis is laid on <pavepov^, 
so that the hecrixol did not remain KpvirroL or airoKpv^ot iv 
XptarS, as would have been the case, if their relation to Christ 

^ "Rem, qualis sit, addita rei consequentis significatione definit," Ellendt, 
Lex. Sojyh. II. p. 1012. Hofmann's view, tliatit stands in the sense of i!; toZra 
uitTi, also amounts to this. But Hoelemann is in eiTor in making it assert the 
greatness of the ■rpoxo'Tyi. Not the gi-eatness, but the salutary effect, is indicated. 


had continued unknown, and if people had been compelled to 
look upon the apostle as nothing but an ordinary prisoner 
detained for examination. This ignorance, however, did not 
exist ; on the contrary, his bonds became hnoion in Christ, in so 
far, namely, that in their causal relation to Christ — in this their 
specific peculiarity — was found information and elucidation with 
respect to his condition of bondage, and thus the specialty of 
the case of the prisoner, became notorious. If Paul had been 
only known generally as 8ea-fito<;, his bonds would have been 
ouK ifKpaveU iv XptaTw ; but now that, as 8ecrfiL0<; iv Kvpixo 
or rov Kvpiov (Eph. iv. 1, iii. 1 ; Philem. 9), as irda'xuiv ft)9 
XpL<niav6<i (1 Pet. iv. 16), he had become the object of public 
notice, the (pavepwac^ of his state of bondage, as resting iv 
Xpi(7TQj, was thereby brought about, — a ^avepov '^iveaBai, con- 
sequently, which had its distinctive characteristic quality in the 
ev XpicTTM. It is arbitrary to supply 6vTa<; with iv XptaTo) 
(Hofmann). Ewald takes it as : " shining in Christ," i.e. much 
sought after and honoured as Christian. Comp. also Calvin, and 
Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zcitalt. p. 457. But, according to 
New Testament usage, <^avep6<; does not convey so much as this ; 
in classical usage (Thuc. i. 17. 2, iv. 11. 3 ; Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 58, 
Anal. vii. 7. 22 and Kriiger in loc.) it may mean conspicuous, 
eminent. — iv oXw rw ir pan cop up'] Trpatroopiov is not the im- 
pcricd iialacc in Eome (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
Tlieophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius 
a Lapide, Grotius, Bengel, and many others, also IMynster, 
Eheinwald, and Schneckenburger in the Deidsch. Zcitschr. 
1855, p. 300), which is denoted in iv. 22 by r) Kaia-apo^ 
oLKia, but was never called 2^^'((ciori7im.^ It could not well, 
indeed, be so called, as to Trpairdopiov is the standing appellation 
for the palaces of the chief governors of irrovinces (Matt, xxvii. 
27 ; John xviii. 28, xix. 9 ; Acts xxiii. 35) ; hence it might 
and must have been explained as the Procurator's palace in 

' Act. Thorn. § 3, 17, IS, 19, in TischenJorf, Act. apocr. pp. 192, 204 f., 
cannot be cited in favour of this designation (in opposition to Rheinwald) ; the 
vpairupix liciinXiKa. there spokcn of (§ 3) are royal castles, so designated after the 
analogy of the residences of the Roman provincial rulers. Comp. Sueton. A^ij. 
72 ; Tib. 39, et al. ; Juvenal, x. 161. 

CHAP. I. IC. 33 

Caesarea, if our epistle had been written there (see especially 
BottfTcr, Bcitr. I. p. 51 f.). But it is the Eoman castrum 
irractorianorum, the barracks of the imjjcrial hody-guarcl (Came- 
rarius, Perizonius, Clericus, Eisner, Michaelis, Storr, Heinrichs, 
Flatt, Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette, Eilliet, 
Wiesinger, Ewald, AVeiss, J. B. Lightfoot, and others), whose 
chief was the praefcchis praetorio, the arparoTreBcou eVap^^o?, 
to wdiom Paul was given in charge on his arrival in Eome 
(Acts xxviii. 16). It was built by Sejanus, and was situated 
not far from the Porta Viminalis, on the eastern side of the 
city.^ See Suet. Tih. 37; Tac. Ann. iv. 2; Pitiscus, Thesaur. 
a7itiq. III. 174; and especially Perizonius, dc orig., signij. ct 
tistt voce. 2?raeioris ct praetorii, Franeq. 1687, as also his 
Disqitisitio de praetorio ac vero scnsu verhorum Phil. i. 13, 
Franeq. 1690; also Hoelemann, p. 45, and J. B. Lightfoot, 
p. 97 ff. TO TTpatTcopiov does not mean the troojo of praetorian 
cohorts (Hofmann), which would make it equivalent to ol 
irpaLTwpiavoi (Herodian, viii. 8. 14).' — The hecoming known 
m the ivhole praetorium is explained by the fact, that a 
praetorian was always presejit with Paul as his guard (Acts 
xxviii. 16), and Paul, even in his captivity, continued his 
preaching without hindrance (Acts xxviii. 30 £). — Ka\ toU 
XotTTot? iraat] not in the sense of locality, dependent on iv 
(Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin), but : and to cdl the others, 
besides the praetorians. It is a popular and inexact way of 
putting the fact of its becoming still more widely known 
among the (non- Christian) Piomans, and therefore it must be 
left without any more specific definition. This extensive pro- 

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

^ Not even in such passages as Tacitus, Hist. ii. 24, iv. 46 ; Suetonius, Ner. 
7 ; Plin. H. N. xxv. 2, 6, et al., where the prepositional expression {in prae- 
torium, ex praetorio) is always local. 



clamation of the matter took place in part directly tlirougli 
Paul himself, since any one might visit him, and in part 
indirectly, through the praetorians, officers of justice, dis- 
ciples, and friends of the apostle, and the like.^ Van 
Hengel, moreover, understands it incorrectly, as if ol Xoiiroi 
were specially "homines exteri," "Gentiles" — a limitation 
which could only be suggested by the context, and therefore 
cannot be established by the use of the word in Eph. ii. 3, 
iv. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 13. Equally arbitrary is the limitation of 
Hofmann : that it refers to those, loho already knew about him. 
Ver. 14. TOL'9 ifkeiova'^'] the majority, 1 Cor. x. 5, xv. 6, et 
al. It is not to be more precisely specified or limited. — ev 
KvpLcp] belongs not to dSeX^wv (Luther, Castalio, Grotius, 
Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs, van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald, 
Weiss, and others) — in which case it would not indeed have 
needed a connecting article (Col. i. 2, iv. 7), yet would have 
been entirely superfluous — but to TreTrot^ora?, along with which, 
however, it is not to be rendered : relying upon the Lord with 
respect to my bonds (Eheinwald, Flatt, Eilliet, comp. Schnecken- 
burger, p. 301). It means rather: m the Lord trusting my 
bonds, so that iv Kvplw is the specific modal definition of 
TTe-TTOiO. Tot? h. [Jb., which trust is based and depends on Christ. 
Comp. ii. 24 ; Gal. v. 10 ; Eom. xiv. 14 ; 2 Thess. iii. 4. On 
the dative, comp. 2 Cor. x. 7 ; Philem. 21, and the ordinary 
usage in the classics ; in the New Testament mostly with eVt 
or iv. 'Ev Kvpia is placed first as the correlative of the iv 
Xptar., ver. 13. As the apostle's bonds had become generally 

1 This sutRces fully to explain the situation set forth in ver. 13. The words 
therefore afford no ground for the historical combination which Hofmann here 
makes : that during the two years, Acts xxviii. 30, the apostle's case was held 
in abeyance ; and that only now had it been brought up for judicial discussion, 
whereby iirst it had become manifest that his captivity was caused, not by his 
havinc committed any crime against the state, but by his having preached Christ, 
which might not be challenged (?) on the state's account. As if what is expressly 
reported in Acts xxviii. 31 were not sufficient to have made the matter known, and 
as if that S/er/a Iv /S/w fur^u/^ccTi precluded the judicial preparation of the case 
(ver. 7) ! As if the increased courage of the -rXuovt;, ver. 14, were intelligible 
only on the above assumption ! As if, iinally, it were admissible to understand, 
with Hofmann, among these ^Xiiom all those who "even now before the con- 
elusion of the trial were inspired with such courage by it" J 

CHAP. I. 14. 35 

known as in Christ, so also in Christ (avIio will not abandon 
the work of His prisoner that had thus become so manifest) 
may be found the just ground of the confidence which encou- 
rages the brethren, Paul's fellow-Christians in Eome, a^oySo;? 
T. X. \aX€Lv. They trust tlic honcls of the apostle, inasmuch as 
these bonds exhibit to them not only an encouraging example 
of patience (Grotius), but also (comp. iii. 8 ; Col. i. 24 f. ; 
2 Tim. ii. 8 f. ; Matt. v. 1 1 £, and many other passages) a 
practical guarantee, highly honourable to Christ and His gospel, 
of the complete truth and justice, ijowcr and glory of the ivorcl} 
for the sake of ivhich Paul is in bonds ; thereby, instead of 
losing their courage, they are only made all the bolder in virtue 
of the elevating influence of moral sympathy with this situation 
of the apostle in bonds. Weiss explains as if the passage ran 
rfi (f>av€po)aec tmv Bea-fjiwv jxov (which would tend to the recom- 
mendation of the gospel) ; while Hofmann thinks that, to guard 
themselves against the danger of heing criminally prosecuted on 
account of their preaching, they relied on the apostle's imprison- 
ment, in so far as the latter had noiu shown itself, in the 
judicial process that had at length leen commenced, to be solely 
on account of Christ, and not for anything cidpahle. The 
essential elements, forsooth, are thus introduced in consequence 
of the way in which Hofmann has construed for himself the 
situation (see on ver. 13). — Trepto-o-or.] i.e. in a higher degree 
than they had formerly ventured upon, before I lay here in 
bonds. Their a^oj3ia in preaching had increased. This, how- 
ever, is explained by Hofmann, in accordance with the above 
hypothesis, by the fact that the political guiltlessness of preach- 
ing Christ had now been established, — thus referring, in fact, 
the increase of their fearless boldness to a sense of legal security. 
But the reason of the increased a^o/3ia lay deeper, in the sphere 
of the moo^al idea, which manifested itself in the apostle's 
bonds, and in accordance with which they trusted those bonds 
in the Lord, seeing them borne for the Lord's sake. They 
animated the brethren to boldness through that holy confidence, 
rooted in Christ, with which they imbued them. — top \6<yov 

' OecuTQenius well says : si yap fth hTov mv, ^>i«';, to xvfuyfitt, ouk uh i UaZxo; 
rnu^iTo iivif auTou ^tSiiriai. Comp. VCr. 16. 


XaXety] i.e. to let the gospel become known, to preach, Acts 
xi. 19, and frequently. On a(p6^a)^, comp. Acts iv. 31. 

Ver. 15. This is not indeed the case vjith all, that they 
iv Kvptu) TTeiToidoTe'i TOt? Zeafji. [xov irepcaaor. to\^. k.t.\. No, 
some in Eome preach with an improper feeling and design ; 
but some also with a good intention. (Both parties are de- 
scribed in further detail in w. 16, 17.) In either case — Christ 
is preached, wherein I rejoice and will rejoice (ver. 1 8). — 
Tive<i fiev Kol hia (pOovov k. epiv\ These do not form a part of 
those described in ver. 14 (Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Calvin, and 
others, also Weiss, Hofmann, and Hinsch), for these latter are 
characterized by eV /cu/aicj TreiroiO. rot? Sea/j,. fxov quite otherwise, 
and indeed in a way which excludes the idea of envy and con- 
tention (comp. also Huther, I.e.), and appear as the majority to 
which these TLve<i stand in contrast as cxccjJtions ; but they are 
the anti-Pauline party, Judaizing preachers, who must have 
pursued their practices in Eome, as in Asia and Greece, and 
exercised an immoral, hostile opposition to the apostle and 
his gospel.^ We have no details on the subject, but from 
Eom. xiv. we see that there was a fruitful field on which 
this tendency might find a footing and extend its influence 
in Eome. The idea that it refers to certain members of the 
Pauline scJiool, who nevertheless hated the apostle 2^crsonally 
(Wiesinger, comp. Flatt), or were envious of his high reputa- 
tion, and impugned his mode of action (Weiss), is at variance 
with the previous iv Kvpiw, assumes a state of things which is 
in itself improbable, and is not required by the utterance of 
ver. 18 (see the remark after ver. 18). See also Sclmecken- 
burger, p. 301 f. — /cat] indicates that, whilst the majority were 
actuated by a good disposition (ver. 14), an evil motive also 
existed in several, — expresses, therefore, the aceession of some- 
thing else in other subjects, but certainly not the accession of a 
subordinate co-operating motive in a portion of the same persons 

' For the person to whom individually their <p6!ivo; and 'ipi; (as likewise the 
subsequent illoKia) had reference was self-evident to the readers, and Paul, more- 
over, announces it to them in ver. 16 f. Without due reason Hinsch finds in this 
the mark of a later period, when the guarding of the a,\)Oiii\(is piersonal position 
alone was concerned. See against this, Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1873, p. ISO f. 

ciiAr. I. 15. 37 

designated in ver. 14 (Hofmann). — Bia (pdovov k. epiv] on 
account of envy and strife, that is, for the sake of satisfying 
the strivings of their jealousy in respect to my influence, and 
of their contentious disposition towards me. Comp. ver. 17. 
On hia (j)66vov, comp. Matt, xxvii. 1 8 ; Mark xv. 10; Plat. 
lic}). p. 586 D: <pd6vq) Bm (f)t\oTLfiLav. — Tive^ Be /cat] But 
some also ; there also arc not vxinting such as, etc. Observe 
that the Be Kal joins itself Avith rivk^, whereas in yu\v Kal pre- 
viously the Kal is attached to the following Bia (pOovov. The 
T«/e? here are they who in ver. 14 were described as TrXeioz/e?, 
but are now brought forward as, in contrast to the rti^e? /xev, 
the other i^ortion of the preachers, without any renewed refer- 
ence to their preponderance in numbers, which had been already 
intimated.'^ — Bi evBoKLav] on account of goodwill, that is, 
because they entertain a feeling of goodwill towards me. This 
interpretation is demanded by the context, both in the anti- 
thesis Bia (J366vou K. epLv, and also in ver. 16 : e| ur^a'm)'^. 
As to the linguistic use of evBoKia in this sense (ii. 13), see 
Fritzsche, ad Eom. II. p. 372. Comp. on Eom. x. 1. Others 
take it, contrary to the context, as : " ex benevolentia, qua dcsi- 
derant hominum scdutem" (Estius, comp. already Pelagius) ; or, 
"quod ipsi id prolarcnt" from conviction (Grotius, Heinrichs, and 
others), from taking delight in the matter generally (Huther), or in 
the cause of the apostle (de Wette), or in his lor caching (Weiss). 

^ Van Hengel has not taken this into account, when he assumes that in tivIs 
01 Kdi Paul had in view only a portion of those designated in ver. 14. It is an 
objection to this idea, that what is said subsequently in ver. 16 of the t/ve? "ol 
xct't completely hai-monizes with that, whereby the crXs/^v:; generally, and not 
merely a portion of them, were characterized in ver. 14 (sv Kup. •ti't. t. liri/,.). This 
applies also in opposition to Hofmann, according to whom the two timU, ver. 
15 f., belong to the vXito^is of ver. 14, whom they divide into two classes. Hof- 
mann's objection to our view, viz. that the apostle does not say that the one 
part}- preach solely out of envy and strife, and the other solely out of goodwill, 
is irrelevant. He could not, indeed, have desired to say this, and does not say 
it ; but he could describe in general, as he has done, the ethical antitheses which 
characterized the two parties. Moreover, ifn means everj'where in the N. T., and 
especially here in its conjunction with (p6ovo; (comp. Rom. i. 29 ; 1 Tim. vi. 4), 
not rivalry — the weaker sense assigned to it here, without a shadow of justifica- 
tion from the context, by Hofmann ("they wish to outdo him") — hnt strife, con- 
tention. Just as little is \pihU to be reduced to the general notion of egotism, as 
is done by Hofmann ; see on ver. 17. 


Vv. 16, 17. We liave here a more detailed description of 
both parties in respect to the motives which actuated them in 
relation to the Becr/xol of the apostle. — ol fiiv . . . ol Be] cor- 
responds to the two parties of ver. 15, but — and that indeed 
without any particular purpose — in an inverted order (see the 
critical remarks), as in 2 Cor. ii, 16, and frequently in classical 
authors (Thuc. i. 68. 4; Xen. Anab. i. 10. 4). In ver. 18 
the order adopted in ver. 1 5 is again reverted to. — ol i^ 
a.yd7r7]<i] sc. ovr€<;, a genetic description of the ethical condition of 
these people : those ivho are of love, i.e. of loving nature and 
action; comp. Eom. ii. 8 ; Gal. iii. 7; John xviii. 37, et al. 
We must supply what immediately precedes : rov Xpia-tov 
Krjpvaaovaiv, of which elZore^ k.t.\. then contains the particular 
moving cause (Eom. v. 3, 6, 9 ; Gal. ii. 16 ; Eph. vi. 8 f., etal.). 
We might also take ol [xev (and then ol he) absolutely : the 
one, and then bring up immediately, for e| a'^a-nr]'^, the subse- 
quent T. Xpia-Tov Kara<yye\\ovaiv (so Hofmann and others). 
But this would be less appropriate, because the progress of 
the discourse does not turn on the saying that the one preach 
out of love, and the other out of contention (for this has been 
said in substance previously), but on the internal determining 
motives which are expressed by eiB6r€<i k.t.X. and olo/jievot 
K.T.X. ; besides, ov^ dypco<i would then follow as merely a weak 
and disturbing auxiliary clause to i^ ipi9ela<i. — otc eh diroX. 
Tov evayy. Kelfiai] that I am destined, am ordained of God for 
(nothing else than) the defence of the gospel — a destination 
which they on their parts, in consequence of their love to me, 
feel themselves impelled to subserve. They labour sympa- 
thetically hand in hand with me. — /cet/^ai] as in Luke ii. 34 ; 
1 Thess. iii. 3 ; comp. Plat. Lcgg. x. p. 909; Thuc. iii. 45, 
2, 47, 2 ; Ecclus. xxxviii. 29, and other passages in which 
" Keladai tanquam passivum verbi iroie'laOaL vel TiOevat vide- 
tur," Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 943. Others render : / lie in 
prison (Luther, Piscator, Estius, Wolf, am Ende, Huther, and 
others) ; but the idea of lying U7ider fetters, which Kel^iaL 
would thus convey (comp. Eur, Phoen. 1633; Aesch. Ag. 1492), 
does not harmonize with the p)osition of the apostle any more 
than the reference of its meaning thereby introduced : they 

CHAP. I. IG, 17. 39 

know that I am Jdndcred in my preaching, and tlierefore they 
'■' supplent hoc meum impedimentum sua praedicatione," Estius. 
See, on the contrary, Acts xxviii. 30, 31; Phil. i. 7. Van 
Hengel also imports (comp. Weiss) : " me ad causam rei Cliris- 
tianae, ubi nrgeat necessitas, coram judice defendendam hie in 
miseria Jacere." Comp. Hom. Od. i. 46 ; Soph. Aj. 316 (323) ; 
Pflugk, ad Eur. JScc. 496. — ol 3e e| epi^.] sc. ovre<;, the factious, 
the cahal-makers. See on Eom. ii. 8 ; 2 Cor. xii. 20; Gal. 
V. 20. So also Ignatius, ad PMladelp)h. 8. It corresponds 
■with the (ji96vov k. epiv, ver. 15. — rov X. Karay^. ov'^ a<yvct)<;^ 
belong together. Karayy. is, in substance, the same as Kiqpva- 
a-eiv, but more precisely defining it as the announcement of the 
Messiah (Acts xvii. 3, 23 ; Col. i. 28, et al). The words r. 
Xpiarov KarayyeWova-iv might have been left out, following 
the analogy of ver. 16, but are inserted to bring out the tragic 
contrast which is implied in preaching Christ, and yet doing 
so oup^ a<yvb)<;, non caste, not in purity of feeling and puri^ose. 
Ka6ap(aq is synonymous (Hom. H. in Apoll. 121), also with a 
mental reference (Hesiod. epya, 339). Comp. Plat. Zegg. vui. 
p. 840 D; 2 Cor. vii. 11, xi. 2; Phil. iv. 8, ct al. ; 2 Cor. 
vi. 6. — ol6/ji€voi K.T.X."] thinhing to stir up affliction for my 
ho'dds, to make my captivity full of sorrow. This they inte^id 
to do, and that is the immoral moving spring of their unworthy 
conduct ; but (observe the distinction between olojxevot and 
€i8oT€9 in ver. 16) Paul hints by this purposely-chosen word 
(which is nowhere else used by him), that what they imagine 
fails to happen. On ol/xac with the present infinitive, see 
Pflugk, ad Eur. Sec. 283. The future infinitive would not 
convey that what is meant is even now occurring. See gene- 
rally StaUbaum, ad Plat. Crit. p. 52 C ; comp. Phacd. p. 1 1 6 E. 
How far they thought that they could effect that injurious 
result by their preaciiing, follows from ver. 15 and from ef 
ipi6eLa<i ; in so far, namely, that they doubtless, rendered the 
more unscrupulous through the captivity of the apostle, sought 
by their preaching to prejudice his authority, and to stir up 
controversial and partisan interests of a Judaistic character 
against him, and thus thought thoroughly to embitter the 
prisoner's lot by exciting opponents to vex and wrong him. 


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

Ver. 18. On rt yap, scil. e<TTt, comp. on Ptom. iii. 3, where, 
however, yap is not, as here, conclusive (see on 1 Cor. xi. 22^); 
comp. also Klotz, ad Devar. p. 245. It is rendered necessary 
by the 'Kkrjv that the mark of interrogation should not be 
placed (as it usually is) after ri yap, but the question goes on 
to /carayyiWerai, (comp. Hofmann) ; and it is to be observed 
that through TrXijv the rl yap receives the sense of rt yap aXKo 
(see Heindorf, ad Flat. Soph. p. 232 C). Hence: ivhat else 
takes place therefore (in such a state of the case) except that, etc., 
i.e. what else than that hy every sort of preaching, xohetlicr it is 
done in pretence or in truth, Christ is p^roclaivicd ? and therein, 
that it is always Christ whom they preach, / rejoice, etc. How 
magnanimous is this liberality of judgment as to the existing 
circumstances in tlieir reference to Christ ! By irpo^da-ei, and 
dXijdeia is indicated the characteristic difference in the two 
kinds of preachers, vv. 15-17, and thus iravTl rpoiruf receives 
the more precise definition of its respective parts. As regards 
the first class, the preaching of Christ was not a matter of 
sincerity and truth — wherein they, in accordance with their 
sentiments, were really concerned about Christ, and He was the 
real atV/o. of their working (see on the contrast between airia 
and 7rpoj)a(Ti^, Polyb. iii. 6. 6 ff.) — but a matter of pretence, 
under the cloak of which they entertained in their hearts 
envy, strife, and cabal, as the real objects of their endeavours. 
For instances of the antithesis between 'irp6<^acn<i and aX?;- 

' According to Weiss, yif is intended to establish the eU/^tvci x.r.X., so far as 
the latter is only an empty hnaginallon. But this is an unnecessary seekiHg 
after a very obscure rei'erence. The t* yap draws, as it were, the result from 
vv. 15-17. Hence also we cannot, with Huther, adopt as the sense : "/s it 
tlieu so, as they think / " 

CIIAF. I. IS. 41 

Oeta or raXrj6k<;, see liaphel, Polyl. ; Loesner and Wetstein, 
To take irpo^acn^ as opportunity, occasion (Herod, i. 29, 
30, iv. 145, vi. 94; Dem. xx. 26 ; Antiph. v. 21 ; Hero- 
dian, i. 8. 16, v. 2. 14),— »-as, following the Vnlgate, Luther, 
Estius, Grotius (" nam occasione illi Judaei, dum nocere Paulo 
student, multos pertrahebant ad evang."), and others under- 
stand it, — is opposed to the context in vv. 15-17, in which 
the want of honest disposition is set forth as the characteristic 
mark of these persons. On irkt-jv in the sense of rj, comp. 
Kilhner, II. 2, p. 842. — iv tovtw'] the neuter: therein, in 
accordance with the conception of that in ivhich the feeling 
has its basis. Comp. Col. i. 24 ; Plat. liejx x. p. 603 C ; Soph. 
Tr. 1118; Kilhner, II. 1, p. 403. In the Xpca-rb<; KUTay- 
jeWeraL lies the apostle's joy. — aWa kuI ')(aprjcroixaL] sur- 
passing the simple xaipw by a lolus, and therefore added in a 
corrective antithetical form {imo ctiam) ; comp. on 1 Cor. iii. 2 ; 
2 Cor. xi. 1. To begin a new sentence with aWd (Lachmann, 
Tischendorf), and to sever ')(ap'q<TO[xai from its connection 
with ev TovTU) (Hofmann, who makes the apostle only assert 
generally that he vAll continue to rejoice also in the future), 
interrupts, without sufficient reason, the flow of the animated 
discourse, and is also opposed by the proper reference of olZa 
rydp in ver. 1 9. This applies also in opposition to Hinsch, 
p. 64 f. 

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


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

Ver. 19. Eeason assigned not only for the aXka koI x^PV- 
aofxai, but for the entire conjoint assertion : iv rovrw xP'ipw, 
aXka K. xp-p. For both, for his present joy and for his future 
joy, the apostle finds the subjective ground in the certainty 
now to be expressed. — roDro] the same thing that was con- 
veyed by €.v Tovrro in ver. 18, this fact of Christ's Icing 
preached, from whatever different motives it may be done,— 
not : m7j present, ra kut epA (Hofmann). — eU a-cdTrjplav] is, 
in conformity with the context, not to be explained of the 
deliverance from captivity (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Musculus, 
Heinrichs), or of the iireservation of the apostles life (Oecu- 
menius), or of the triumph over his enemies (Michaelis), or of 
the salvation multorum hominum (Grotius) ; nor is it to be 
more precisely defined as the eterncd Messianic redemption (van 
Hengel, Weiss ; comp. Matthies and Hoelemann), or as spiritual 
salvation (Ptheinwald, de Wette). On the contrary, the expres- 
sion : " it will turn out to my salvation" (comp. Job xiii. 16), 
will be scdutary for me, is, without anticipating the sequel, 

' Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeitalt. p. 38S. 

- Who thinks that he recognises here an indistinct shadow of Tacitns, Agric. 
41 : " Optlmus quisque amove etfide, pessimi malignltate et livore." 

CHAP. I. 19. 43 

to be left luitliout any more ^^recisc modal definition ; for Paul 
himself only announces, as the discourse proceeds (ver. 20), 
hoiv far he expects salutary results for himself to arise out of 
the state of things in question. Bengel aptly remarks : " non 
modo non in prcssuram" ver. 17. On airojSrjaerav, will turn 
out, issue, comp. Luke xxi. 13 ; Job xiii. 16 ; 2 Mace. ix. 24; 
Plat. Lys. p. 206 A; de virt. p. 379 C ; %9. p. 425 C ; Dem. 
1412. 1 0. — Tliroiigh the entreaty of his Philiiopians, Paul knows, 
it will be salutary for him (comp. 2 Cor. i. 11; Ptom. xv, 
31 ; 2 Thess. iii. 12 ; Philem. 22), and through siqjply of the 
Spirit of Christ, that is, through the Spirit of Christ supply- 
ing him with help, strength, courage, light, etc. (comp. on 
i'mj(opr}>y., Eph. iv. 16). The words hia Trj<; vficov Be'^aeaf 
. . . Xpia-rov, embrace, therefore, ttoo elements whick work to- 
gether and bring about the airo^rjo-. ek a-wTTjp., one of these 
on the part of the readers themselves (hence v/jlcjv is placed 
first), the other on the part of the Holy Spirit. After Kal, 
Bid is to be again understood ; the article, however, is not 
repeated before eTri-^op., not because the entreaty and the 
iiTLXopri^ia are to be taken together as one category, which 
in this passage would be illogical,'- but because Paul conceived 
the second member of the clause ivithout the article : supply 
(not the supply) of the Spirit, rov -irvevixara is the genitive 
of the subject; as genitive of the ohject (Wiesinger, in accord- 
ance with Gal. iii. 5) the expression would be inappropriate, 
since Paul already has the Spirit (1 Cor. vii. 40), and does 
not merely expect it to be supplied, though in his present 
position he does expect the help, comfort, etc., ivhich the Sp)irit 
siqiplics. Comp, Theodoret : tov OeCov fioL Trz/eu^aro? xoprj- 
fyovvTO'i rrjv 'x.'^piv. Eespecting the irvevfia Xpiarov, see on 
Eom. viii. 9 ; Gal. iv. 6 ; 2 Cor. iii. 1 7. Paul he^^e designates 
the Holy Spirit thus, because Jesus Christ forms, in the 
inmost consciousness of the apostle, the main interest and aim 
of his entire discourse, ver. 1 8 if. 

> Beugel well says: " precation em in coeZwm ascendentem ; exhibition em de 
coelo venientem. " If, however, ivixopnyieis is still to be included in dependence 
on T^j vfiuy (so Bnttmann, neitt. Gr. p. 87 [E. T. p. 100]), the readers would at all 
events appear as those communicating, which would yield an incongruous idea. 


Ver. 20, It will prove salutary for me in conformity with 
my earnest expectation (see, regarding airoKapahoKta, on liom, 
viii. 19) and my hope, that I, etc. (object of the earnest expec- 
tation and hope). Others take on as argumentative (Vatablus, 
Estiiis, Matthias) ; but by this interpretation the Kara r. clttok. 
K. cXtt. /Li. seems, after the olSa already expressed, to be an 
addition for which there is no motive, and the flow of the 
discourse is interrupted. No, when Paul says with oto- k.tX. 
tvliat it is that he earnestly expects and hopes (comp. Eom. 
viii. 20 f.), he thereby supplies the precise definition of the 
former merely general expression etV ao3Tr}piav. — This is neither 
clumsy nor unsuited to the meaning of airoKapah., as Hofmann 
thinks, who goes back with on to the far distant olZa, and 
finds it convenient to co-ordinate it with the first otl. Paul 
would have made this alleged conjunction convenient and at 
the same time intelligible, only in the event of his having 
written /cat otl. — ev ovhevl alcr'^vvdjja-o/xat^ that / shall 
in no point (2 . Cor. vi. 3, vii. 9 ; Jas. i. 4), in no respect, 
he put to shame; that is, in no respect will a result ensue 
tending to my shame, — a result which would expose me 
to the reproach of having failed to accomplisli my destiny 
(comp. the sequel). Comp. on ala-'x^vveaOai, 2 Cor. x. 8, 
1 John ii. 28, and the passages of the LXX. in Schleusner, 
I. p. 98 f.; also Xen. Cyr. vi. 4. 6; Plut. Mor. p. 1118 E. 
Matthies understands it differently : " in nothing shall / shoio 
myself shamefaced and fearful ;" comp. van Hengel : "pudore 
confusus ab officio clcfleetam!' But the context, in which Paul 
desires to explain more in detail (comp. ver. 21) the words 
fioL diro^rjaerat eU acoTriplav, ver. 19, will not harmonize with 
any other than the above-named purely passive interpretation ; 
not even with the sense that Paul would not " stand dis- 
graced " (Weiss, comp. Huther), that is, be found unfaithful 
to his office, or deficient in the discharge of its duties to the 
glorifying of Christ. The connection requires a descrij)tion, 
not of Paul's hchaviour, but of the fate in which the tovto of 
ver. 19 would issue for him. Hoelemann takes iv ovBevi as 
mascidinc, of the preachers described in ver. 15 ff., who in 
their ministry, though actuated by such various motives, " ita 

ciiAr. I. -20, 45 

esse versaturos, \\t iude non oriatur, de quo erubescat et doleat 
quum ipse, turn etiani in re sua quasi Christus." This inter- 
pretation is opposed both by the context, which from ver. 18 
onwards brings forward oio 2)cvsons at all ; and also by the sense 
itself, because Paul, thus understood, would be made to express 
a confidence in the labours of those teachers which, as regards 
the malicious portion of them (ver. 17, comp. ver. 15), would 
not be befitting. The alayyveaQai of tlie apostle was indeed 
the very object which they had in view ; but, he means to say, 
ovK al<j')(yvofiaL, rovrearLP ov irepieaovrai, Chrysostom. — uXK' 
ev iraay irapprjaia /c.tA.] the contrast to eV ovhevl ala-^vvOi']- 
crofxaL; for the apostle can receive no greater honour and 
triumph (the opposite to the ala'^yveadat) than to be made 
the instrument of glorifying Christ (iii. 7 f.) : hid loith all 
frecncss, c(s ahcciys, so cdso now, Christ loill he magnifiecl in my 
hodfj. — eV irdcrr] Trapprja.] iv iraar) corresponds to the previous 
iv ovSevi, so that evcnj hind of freeness, which is no way re- 
strained or limited (comp Acts iv. 29,xxviii. 31; 2 Cor. iii. 12), 
is meant, which amounts substantially to the idea, " une pleinc 
liberie " (Eilliet and older expositors) ; comp. Wunder, ad Soph. 
Phil. 141 f. The subject of the freeness is Fcml himself, inas- 
much as it was in his hocly that the fearless glorifying of Christ 
w^as to be manifested (see below) ; but he expresses himself in 
the passive (/lejaXwdTjaeTai) and not in the active, because, in 
the feeling of his being the organ of divine working, the fxot 
aTTo^rjaerai, et9 awTrjplav (ver. 19) governs his conceptions and 
determines his expression. Hofmann's view, that ev vr. irapprjo: 
means " in full p)'^Micityy as an unmistakeable fact before the 
eyes of all, is linguistically erroneous. See, in opposition to 
it, on Col. ii. 15. — oi<; iravTore koI vvv\ so that the present 
circumstances, however inimical they are in part towards me 
(vv. 15-18), M'ill therefore bring about no other result than this 
most happy one for me, which has always taken place. — ev raJ 
(TcofULrl /jlov] instead of saying : iv ifioL, he says : i7i my body, 
because the decision was now close at hand, whether his body 
should remain alive or be put to death. But whichever of these 
possible alternatives should come to pass, he earnestly expected 
and hoped that the glory of Christ would be thereby secured 


(et're Bia ^cwr}? eore Blo. davarov), in so far, namely, as through 
his remaining in the tody his apostolic labours would be con- 
tinued to the glory of Christ, and hj the slaying of his hody 
there would take place, not the mere closing of his witness 
for Christ, as Hofmarm, in opposition to the text (vv. 21-23), 
refines away this point, but his union with Christ. Thus, 
therefore, he will not be put to shame even by his death ; but, 
on the contrary, Christ will be freely glorified by it, namely, 
'practically glorified, inasmuch as Paul, conscious of the great 
gain which he shall acquire through death (ver. 21), will loith 
unwavering joyfalness — with the frank joyful courage of the 
martyr who is being perfected — die to the glorifying of Christ. 
Comp. John xxi. 19. In any case, accordingly, the result 
must ensue, that in his hody, just as it has always hitherto 
been the living personal instrument of Christ's glory, now 
also the free glorification of Christ shall be made manifest, 
whether this result be secured through its leing 'preserved alive 
or being slain; "nam et corpus locjiiitur et corpus moritur" 
Grotius. Hoelemann erroneously refers iv 'rraarj irapp. to the 
bold preaching of the various teachers described in w. 15-18, 
from which now, as always, the glory of Christ shall result ; 
and that indeed, through the influence which such a fearless 
working would have on the fate of the apostle, in his hody, 
whether Christ grant to him a longer course of life or death, 
in either of which cases the Lord will manifest Himself to 
him as augustis&imum auxiliatorem. But against this view it 
may be urged, that ev ovhevl does not refer to the teachers 
(see above) ; that nrapprjo-ia is the contrast to al(T')(vv6rjao[iaL, 
so that the subject of the latter must be also the subject of 
the former ; and lastly, that Paul would thus be made to say 
that the fearless working of others had always shown forth 
Christ's honour in his hody, — an expression which, as regards 
the last point, might be suited to the 'present position of the 
apostle, but not to the 0)9 iravroTe. Eilliet takes fieyaXwdrj- 
aerac not in the sense of praising (Luke i. 46 ; Acts v. 13, 
X. 46, xix. 17 ; Thuc. viii. 81 ; Xen. Hell. vii. 1. 13), but in the 
material signification of grandir (Matt, xxiii. 5 ; Luke i. 58; 2 
Cor. x. 15), making it apply to the mcntalindivelling of Christ 

CHAP. I. 21. 47 

(Gal. ii. 20 ; Eom. viii. 10 ; Gal. iv. 19) ; so that Paul is made 
to hope that Christ may grov) ever more and more in him, 
that is, may more and more reveal Himself as the principle 
of his life, and that this growth will be perfected whether he 
himself live or die. But ev nrdarj irapprjaia would be an 
inappropriate definition of this idea ; and ev tm acv/xart fiov 
would also be inappropriate, as if Christ would have, even by 
the apostle's death, to grow in his body ; lastly, neither the 
foregoing nor the subsequent context points to the peculiar 
mystical idea of a growth of Christ in the human 'body ; while 
the similar idea in Gal. iv. 19 is there very peculiarly and 
clearly suggested by the context. 

Ver. 21. Justification not of the joy, ver. 18 (Weiss), which 
has already been justified in ver. 19 £, but of the elre hia ^o)rj<i 
€iT€ Blo, Oavdrov just expressed : For to me the living is Christ, 
that is, if I remain alive, my prolonged life will be nothing 
but a life of which the whole essential element and real 
tenor is Christ (" quicquid vivo, vita naturali, Christum vivo," 
Bengel), as the One to whom the whole destination and 
activity of my life bear reference (comp. on Gal. ii. 20) ; and 
the dying^ is gain, inasmuch as by death I attain to Christ ; 
see ver. 23. Whichever, therefore, of the two may come to 
pass, will tend to the free glorification of Christ ; the former, 
inasmuch as I continue to labour freely for Christ's glory ; 
the latter, inasmuch as in the certainty of that gain I shall 
suffer death with joyful courage. Comp. Corn. Mtiller, who, 
however, assumes that in the second clause Paul had the 
thought : " et si mihi moriendum est, moriar Christo, ita etiam 
morte mea Christus celehratur," but that in the emotion of 
the discourse he has not expressed this, allowing himself to 
be carried away by the conception of the gain involved in 
the matter. This assumption is altogether superfluous ; for, 
to the consciousness of the Christian reader, the reference of 

1 Not the being dead (Huther, Schenkel). On the combination of the Inf. 
pres. (continuing) and aor. (momentary), comp. Xen. 3Iem. iv. 4. 4 : vfotiXtro 

(imWo^ toTs t'ofAOis iijt,i/.i\iuy a.'7to6a,y%lt ii -xafOLtofJiut X>^t, Eui". Or, 308 : irwi/ toi xarffix- 

viiv a'if»(ro/iai xai %riv, Epictet. Enchit. 12 ; 2 Cor. vii. 3. See f^enerally Matzn. 
ad Antiph. p. 153 f. ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 159. The being dead would have been 
expressed, as in Herod, i. 31, by nhoDiui. 


the K6pSo<i to Christ must of itself have been clear and certain. 
But the idea of Kep8o<;, which connects itself in the apostle's 
mind with the thought of death, prevents us from assuming 
that he meant to say that it was a matter of no moment 
to him personally whether he lived or died (Wiesinger) ; for 
on account of the KepSo^ in death, his own personal wish 
must have given the preference to the dying (see ver. 23). 
Others (Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Er. Schmid, Eaphel, Knatch- 
bull, ct al.) have, moreover, by the non-mention of Christ in 
the second clause, been led to the still more erroneous 
assumption, in opposition both to the words and linguistic 
usage, that in both clauses Christ is the subject and Kepho<; 
the predicate, and that the infinitives with the article are to 
be explained by tt/jo? or Kara, so that Christ " ta.iii in vita 
quam in mortc lucrum esse praedicatur." Lastly, in opposition 
to the context, Eheinwald and Eilliet take to ^7]v as meaning 
life in the liiglicr, spiritual sense, and Kal as : and consequently, 
which latter interpretation does not harmonize with the pre- 
ceding alternative etVe . . . elre. This explanation is refuted 
by the very to ^rjv iv aapKL which follows in ver. 22, since 
iv a-apKL contains not an antithesis to the absolute to ^rjv, but 
on the contrary a more precise definition of it. Although 
the Sia davdrov and to uTrodavecv contrasted with the ^171', 
as also ver. 20 generally, afford decisive evidence against the 
view that takes to ^rjv in the higher ethical sense, that view 
has still been adopted by Hofmann, who, notwithstanding the 
correlation and parallelism of to ^fjv and to dirodaveiv, oddly 
supposes that, while to airodavelv is the subject in the second 
clause, TO t^?]v is yet 'predicate in the first. Like to diroOaveiv, 
TO ^i)v must be subject also. — eixoi.'\ is emphatically placed 
first : to me, as regards my own person, tliough it may be 
different with others. Comp. the emphatic i)iJiwv, iii. 20. — 
For profane parallels to the idea, tliough of course not to 
the Christian import, of to airodavelv KepBo<;,^ see Wetstein, 
Comp. Aelian. F. H. iv. 7 ; Soph. Ant. 4G4 f . ; Eur. Med. 

Ver. 22. Ae] carrying onward the discourse to the compari- 
' Compare also Spicss, Lo(jos Spermatkos, 1871, p. 330 f. 

CHAP. I. 22. 49 

son between the two cases as regards their desmahility. Weiss 
understands Se as antithetic, namely to to airoOavelv K€pBo<;, and 
Hofmann as in contrast also to the ifxot ro ^rjv XpiaT6<;, but 
both proceed on an erroneous view of what follows ; as does 
also Huther. — According to the to airoOavelv KepBo<i just ex- 
pressed, the airodavdv was put as the case more desirable for 
Paul personally ; but because the ^?>, in which indeed Christ 
is his one and all, conditioned the continuance of his official 
labours, he expresses this now in the hypothetical protasis and, 
as consequence thereof, in the apodosis, that thus he is in 
doubt respecting a choice between the tioo. — The structure of the 
sentence is accordingly this, that the apodosis sets in with 
Koi rl alp7](T0/xai,, and nothing is to be supplied : " But if the 
remaining in my bocliln life, and just this, avails for my work, 
I refrain from a making known ivhat I shoidcl choose." We 
have to remark in detail: (1) that el does not render proble- 
matical that which was said of the l^rjv iv aapKi, but in 
accordance with the well-known and, especially in Paul's 
writings, frequent (Kom. v, 17, vi. 15, and often) syllogistic 
usage (Herbst and Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1), posits the 
undoubted certainty (Wilke, Rhetor, p. 258), which would take 
place in the event of a continuance of life ; (2) that Paul was 
the more naturally led to add here the specially defining iv aapKi 
to TO t,riv (comp. Gal. ii. 20 ; 2 Cor. x. 3), because, in the pre- 
viously mentioned KepBo<;, the idea of life apart from the body 
(comp. 2 Cor. v. 8) must have been floating in his mind ; (3) 
that Tovro again sums up with the emphasis of emotion (comp. 
Eom. vii. 10) the to ^rjv iv o-ap/ct which had just been said, 
and calls attention to it (Bernhardy, p. 283; Kiihner, II. 1, 
p. 568 f . ; Pritzsche, ad Matth. p. 219), for it was the remain- 
ing in life, just this, this and nothing else (in contrast to the 
airoOavelv), which was necessarily to the apostle Kap7rb<; epyov ; 
(4) that Kap'KO'i is correlative to the preceding KepSo<;, and 
embodies the idea cmolumcntiim (Piom. i. 13, vi. 21, et al. ; 
Wisd. iii. 13), which is more precisely defined by epyov. work- 
fruit, gain of ivork, i.e. advantage ivhich accrues to my apos- 
toliccd work ; comp. on the idea, Eom. i. 13 ; (5) that Kai, at 
the commencement of the apodosis, is the subjoining also, 



showing that if the one thing takes place, the other also sets 
in ; see Hartung, Partikdl. I. p. 130 f . ; Baemnlein, Partih. 
p. 146 ; Nagelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 164, eel. 3 ; comp. on 2 Cor. 
ii. 2 ; (6) that rl stands in the place of the more accurate 
TTorepov (Xen. Gyrop. i. 3. 17; Stallbaiim, ad Pliilcb. p. 168; 
Jacobs, ad Del crgigr. p. 219 ; Winer, p. 159 [E. T. 211]), and 
that the futuo^e alpijao/xai (what I should prefer) is quite in order 
(see Eur. Hd. 631, and Pflugk in loc. ; and Winer, p. 280 
[E. T. 374]), while also the sense of the middle, to choose for 
himself, to prefer for himself, is not to be overlooked ; comp. 2 
Thess. ii. 13 ; Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 29 : ol Se fx-i] elhore'^ o ri ttoiovo-l, 
KaKCO'i Se alpovixevoL, Soph. Ant. 551 : crv fiev <yap eiXov ^ijv ; (7) 
that ov yvcopl^co is not to be taken, as it usually has been, ac- 
cording to the common Greek usage Avith the Vulgate, in the 
reuse of ignoro, but, following the invariable usage of the N. T. 
(comp. also 3 Mace. ii. 6 ; 3 Esr. vi. 12 ; Aesch. Prom. 487 ; 
Athen. xii. p. 539 B ; Died. Sic. i. 6), as : I do not malcc it hnoiun, 
I do not explain myself on the ijoint, give no information upon 
it.^ Comp. van Hengel, Ewald, Huther, Schenkel, also Bengel, 
who, however, without any ground, adds mihi. Paul refrains 
from making and declaring such a choice, because (see ver, 
23 f.) his desire is so situated between the two alternatives, 
that it clashes with that which he is compelled to regard as 
the better. — The conformity to words and context, and the 
simplicity, which characterize the whole of this explanation 
(so, in substance, also Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, and many others, in- 
cluding Heinrichs, Eheinwald, van Hengel, de Wette, Wies- 
inger, Ewald, Ellicott, Hilgenfeld), — in which, however, Kapir. 
epyov is not to be taken as operae pretiiwi (Calvin, Grotius, 
and others), nor kul as superfluous (Casaubon, Heinrichs, and 
others), nor ov rypcopl^M as equivalent to ovk olBa (see above), 
— exclude decisively all other interpretations, in which tovto 

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

CHAP. I. 22. 51 

and tlie /cat of the apodosis have been the special stumbling- 
blocks. Among these other explanations are {a) that of 
Pelagius, Estius, Bengel, Matthies, and others (comp. Lacli- 
mann, who places a stop after epyov), that ia-To is to be under- 
stood with iv crapKL, that the apodosis begins with tovto, and 
that Kal ri alp. k.t.X is a proposition by itself : " if the living 
in the flesh is aijpointed to me, then this has no other aim for me 
than hy continuous labour to bring forth fo^uit," etc. (Huther, I.e. 
p. 581 f). But how arbitrarily is the simple io-rl, thus sup- 
plied, interpreted (mihi constitutum est) ! The words tovto /xol 
Kapiro^ epyov, taken as an apodosis, are — immediately after the 
statement i/xol jap ro ^ijv XpcaTo^;, in which the idea of Kap- 
7ro9 epyov is substantially conveyed already — adapted less for 
a new emphatic inference than for a supposition that has been 
established ; and the discourse loses both in flow and force. 
Nevertheless Hofmaun has in substance followed this explana- 
tion.^ (b) Beza's view, that el is to be taken as whether : " an 
vcro vivere in came mihi operae 'prctium sit, et quid cligam ignoro." 
This is linguistically incorrect (KapTro^ epyov), awkward (et . . . 
Kal ri), and in the first member of the sentence un-Pauline 
(vv. 24-26). (c) The assumption of an aposioioesis oiiox epyov: 
if life, etc., is to me /cap7ro<; epyov, " non rcpugno, non acgre fero'' 
(so Corn. Miiller), or, " je ne dois pas desirer la mo7-t" (Eilliet). 
See AViner, p. 557 £ [E. T. 751]; Meineke, Menand. p. 238. 
This is quite arbitrary, and finds no support in the emotional 
character of the passage, which is in fact very calm, {d) Hoele- 
mann's explanation — which supplies Kap7r6<i from the sequel 
after ^7]v, takes tovto, which applies to the a'TToOavelv, as the 
beginning of the apodosis, and understands Kapiro^ epyov as 
an actual fruit : " but if life is a fruit in the flesh {an earthly 
fruit), this {death) is also a fruit of {in) fact {a sid)stantial, 
real fruit) " — is involved, artificial, and contrary to the genius 

^ If it he life in the flesh, namely, which I ha^^e to expect instead of dying (?), 
then this, namely the life in the flesh, is to me 2^^'oduce of labour, in so far as by 
living I produce fruit, and thus then (xal) it is to me unhiown, etc. This inter- 
pretation of Hofmann's also is liable to the objection that, if Paul intended to 
say that he produced fruit by his life, logically he must have predicated of his 
Z,rtv iv (Tapxi, not that it was to him aa/i^os 'ipyou, but rather that it was 'ifyo)/ xap- 
rrou, a work (a working) which produces fruit. 


of tlie language (Kapir. epjov !). (c) The explanation of Weiss 
is that, after iv aapKi, KepBo<; is to be again supplied as a pre- 
dicate, so that Tovro, which is made to apply to the entire 
protasis, begins the apodosis : " but if life is a gain, that is a 
fruit of his labour, because the successes of his apostolic 
ministry can alone make his life worth having to him" (ver. 
24). This supplying of KepSo<;, which was predicated of the 
antithesis of the ^rjv, is as arbitrary as it is intolerably 
forced; and, indeed, according to ver. 21, not KepBo<i merely 
would have to be supplied, but ifiol KepSo'i ; and, since K€pSo<i 
is not to be taken from uTroOavelv, of which it is predicate, we 
should have to expect an also before to ^Tjv, so that Paul 
would have written : el he (or aXV el) kol to ^rjv iv aapKo 
i/xol KepBo<; k.t.X. 

Ver. 23. Respecting the rt alpi^aofjbai ov lyvoypc^co, Paul ex- 
presses himself more fully in vv. 23, 24, proceeding with the 
explicative Be ; for Be is not antitheticcd (Hofmann : " on the 
contrary"), but, in fact, the reading f^dp is a correct gloss, 
since the situation now follows, which necessitates that relin- 
quishment of a choice. But I am held in a strait (comp. 
Luke xii. 5 ; Acts xviii. 5 ; 2 Cor. v. 1 4 ; Wisd. xvii. 1 1 ; 
Dem. 396. 22, 1484. 23; Plat. Lcgg. vii. p. 791 E, Tlieaet. 
p. 165 B; Heind. ad Plat. Soph. 46) of the two points, namely 
the diroOavelv and the t:?jv} of which he has just said, rt alp. 
ov lyvcop. These Bvo are not conceived in an instrumental 
sense, which is expressed with avve^,., by the dative (Matt. 
iv. 24; Luke viii. 37; Acts xviii. 5; Plat. Sojjh. p. 250 
D; Eur. Heracl. 634), but as that from which the avve'^^ea-dat 
proceeds and originates (Bernhardy, p. 227 f . ; Schoem. ad Is. 
p. 348; Matzner, ad Antiph. p. 167). — Tr]v eTndvfi. e^toi/ 
K.T.X.] since my longing is to die. The article denotes, not 
" votum jam commcmorcdum" (Hoelemann), for Paul has not 

^ It is therefore more in harmony with the context to refer U to"* Sw'o to what 
precedes than to ivhat follows (Lutlicr, Filieinwakl, Corn. Miiller, and others). 
Note that the emphasis is laid on iTvnxoi^°^', 'whieh is the new climactic point in 
the continuation of the discourse. The Avord irwix- itself is rightly rendered by 
the Vulgate : coarctor. The mere ieneor (Weiss and earlier expositors) is not 
sufficient according to the context. Paul feels himself in a dilemma between two 
opposite alternatives. 

CHAP. I. 24. 53 

indeed as yet expressed an iTri9vfj,elv, but doubtless the desire, 
which Paul has. He says that his desire tends towards dying, 
etc.,^ but that life is mo7'c necessary ; and therefore he knows that 
not that for which he longs, but that which is the more neces- 
sary, will come to pass, and that he will remain alive (ver. 25). 
Augustine aptly observes : " Non patienter moritur, sed patien- 
ter vivit et delectabiliter moritur." — ava\.v(TaL\ comp. 2 Tim. 
iv. 6 ; Isa. xxxviii. 12. Dying is conceived as a hrealdng up 
(a figure taken from the camp) for the departure, namely, from 
this temporal life to Christ (comp. vTrdyeiv, Matt. xxvi. 24 ; 
iKBrjfieLv, 2 Cor. v. 8 f . ; and similar passages) ; hence the fcal 
<Tvv XpLCTTU) elvac immediately added.^ — ttoWo) 7. fidW. 
Kpelaaov] hy much in a higher degree better ; a cumulative ex- 
pression in the strength and vividness of feeling. As to [xaXkov 
with the comparative, see on Mark vii. 36 ; 2 Cor. vii. 13 ; 
and Klihner, II. 2, p. 24 f., and ad Xcn. Mem. iii. 13. 5 ; 
Bornemann, ad Cyro]). p. 137, Goth. If here interpreted as 
fotius (ver. 12), it would glance at the preference usually given 
to life; but nothing in the context leads to this. The pre- 
dicate Kpeiaaov (a much letter, i.e. hapjncr lot) refers to the 
apostle himself ; comp. below, hi vfj.d<;. Eur. Hce. 214: Oaveiv 
fiov ^vvTV^ia Kpeiaaaiv iKvprjaev. 

Ver. 24. ' E-Trifiiveiv involves the idea : to remain still 
(still further), to stay on, comp. Eom. vi. 1. — iv rfj a-apKi] in 
my flesh. Not quite equivalent to the idea involved in iv 
aapKi without the article (ver. 22). The reading without the iv 
(see the critical remarks) would yield an ethiccd sense here 
imsuitable (Rom. vi. 1, xi. 22 ; Col. i. 23). — ava^Kaior^ namely, 
than the for me far happier alternative of the avaXvaai, k. a. 
X. ehac. The necessity for that is only a subjective want 

^ It is thus explained why Paul did not write roZ avaxZa-ai (as Origen reads). 
t'l; is not dependent on rhy IviL {ItiS. is never so construed ; comp. Corn. 
Miiller) ; but rr.y ifi6. is absolute, and tU to a»a^. expresses the direction of t^v 
iTit. s;^4;v : Jiavbig my longing towards dying, Comp. Thuc. vi. 15. 2. 

* Bengel : " i)ec€cZe?-e Sanctis nunquam non optabile fuit, sed cum Christo esse 
ex novo testamento est. " This Christian longing, tlierefore, has in view any- 
thing rather than a "having emerged from the limitation of personality" 
(Si'hleiermacher). — Tlie translation dissolvi (Vulgate, Hilary) is to be referred to 
another reading {atccf.v^^vai). 


felt by the pious mind. But the objective necessity of the 
other alternative has precedence as the greater ; it is more 
precisely defined by Si v[ia<i, regarded from the standpoint of 
love. " Vitae suae adjici nihil desiderat sua causa, sed eorum, 
quibus utilis est." Seneca, fp. 98 ; comp. ejx 104. — St vfid<f\ 
applies to the Philippians, who would naturally understand, 
however, that Paul did not intend to refer this point of 
necessity to them exclusively. It is the individualizing mode 
of expression adopted by special love. 

Vv. 25, 26. TovTo ireTTotd.] tovto does not belong to olha, 
but to ireTTotd., and refers to the case of necessity just ex- 
pressed ; having which is the object of his confidence, Paul 
knows that, etc., so that ort is dependent on o28a alone, — 
in opposition to Theophylact, Erasmus, Calovius, Heinrichs, 
Piatt, and others, under whose view the olSa would lack the 
specification of a reason, which is given in this very tovto 
ireiTOLd,, as it was practically necessary. On the accusative of the 
object with ireiroid., comp. Bernhardy, p. 106 ; Kiihner, II. 1, 
p. 267; also Wunder, ad Soph. 0. T. 259 f Observe that 
we may say: TreiroiQiqcnv irenoiQa, 2 Kings xviii. 19. Comp. 
on ii. 18. — ixev(jd\ I shall remain; contrast to the dvaXvaai, 
which was before expressed by eTrtfjieveiv iv t. aapKL. Comp. 
John xii. 34, xxi. 22 f; 1 Cor. xv. 6. The loving emotion 
of the apostle (ver. 8) leads him to add to the absolute fxevut : 
Kal crvfMTrapa/iieva) iraaiv vfuv, and I shall continue together 
ivith all of you ; I shall with you all be preserved in temporal 
life. Prom vv. 6 and 1 there can be no doubt as to the ter- 
minus ad giiem which Paul had in view ; and the iraatv (comp. 
1 Cor. XV. 51 ; Rom. xiii. 11) shows how near he conceived 
that goal to be (iv. 5). Notwithstanding, Hofmann terms this 
view, which is both verbally and textually consistent, quixotic, 
and invents instead one which makes Paul mean by ixevw the 
remaining alive without Ids co-operation, and by irapaiievS), 
which should (according to Hofmann) be read (see the critical 
remarks), his remaining ivillioigly, and which assumes that 
the apostle did not conceive the Kal irapafievco iraacv vfxlv as 
dependent on otl, but conveys in these words a promise to 
remain with those, "from vjhom he coidd withdraw himself." 

CHAr. I. 25, 20. 55 

"What a rationalistic, artificial distinction of ideas and separa- 
tion of things that belong together ! and what a singular pro- 
mise from the apostle's lips to a church so dear to him : that 
he will not ivithdraw himself, but will remain faithful to them 
(Schneider and Kruger, ad Xen. Anal. ii. 6. 2) ! If rrrapafievo!) 
is the true reading, Paul says quite simply : I hioio that I 
shall remain (shall not be deprived of life), and continue with 
you all, i.e. and that I shall be preserved to you all ; comp. 
Heb. vii. 23 ; Ecclus. xii. 15 ; Horn. //. xii. 402 ; Plat. Menex. 
p. 235 B; Lucian. Nigr. 30 ; Herodian. vi. 2. 19. — irapafxevw, 
to continue there, just like /xei/co in the sense of in vita mancre, 
Herod, i. 30. Hence avjxiTapaixeveLv (Thuc. vi. 89. 3 ; Men. 
in Stob., Ixix. 4, 5), to continue there with, to remain alive 
along with. Thus LXX. Ps. Ixxii. 5 ; Basil, I. p. 49 ; Gregory 
of Nazianzus, I. p. 74 (joined with avvSiaKovl^eLv). — et? rrjv 
v/uLcov . . . TTLcrT.] vjjLOiv, as the personal subject of the irpoKoirrj 
and %a/3a t?}? irlcneo)';, is placed first, with the emphasis of 
loving interest ; the latter genitive, however, which is the real 
genitive of the subject, belongs to both words, tt/jo/cott^// k. 
-^apdv. Hence : for your faith — furtherance and joy. Both 
points are to be advanced by the renewed labours of the apostle 
among them (ver. 26). The blending of them together by an 
ev Bca hvolv (Heinrichs, Flatt) is erroneous. Weiss, however, 
is also in error in urging that tt}? Triar. cannot belong to 
irpoKOTrrjv also, because it would be in that case the genitive of 
the ohject ; the faith also is to be an increasing and progressive 
thing, 2 Cor. x. 15. — Ver. 26. ha rb Kav^VH^a, k.t.X.] the 
special and concrete aim of the general proposition et9 Tr]v vfioov 
rrrpoK. k. ^. r. Trlar., which is consequently represented as the 
ultimate aim of the fievw Kal avfiirapaii. -irda. vfi. Comp. 
ver. 10. The Kavxn/^a, because vfjicov is placed along with it 
(comp. 1 Cor. v. 6, ix. 15 ; 2 Cor. ii. 14, ix. 3), is that of the 
readers and not of the apostle (Chrysostom : fi€i^6v(o<; e^o) 
Kair^aaOaL vfiwy einZovTcov, Ewald : my pride in you at the 
last day) ; nor is it equivalent to Kav^y](n^, gloriatio (Flatt and 
many others), but it denotes, as it invariably does/ materies 

^ This applies also against Huther, I.e. p. 585, who, in support of the 
signification gloriatio, appeals to Piud. I^th. v. 65 : Kauxn/^i^ xard^pi^i giya., Eut 


gloriandi (Eom. iv. 2 ; 1 Cor. v. 6, ix. 15 f.; 2 Cor. i. 14, 
V. 12 ; Gal. vi. 4). Hence : that the matter in vjhich you have to 
glory, i.e. the bliss as Christians in which you rejoice (compare 
previously the %apa tj}? -jriaTecos;), may increase abundantly 
(comp. previously the irpoKoirri Trj<i irlcrrewi). The ev Xpia-rtp 
^Irjo-ov that is added expresses the siohcre in which the 'Tvepia-- 
aeveiv is to take place, and characterizes the latter, therefore, 
as something which only develops itself in Christ as the 
element, in which both the joyful consciousness and the 
ethical activity of life subsist. If the TrepLaa-evetv took place 
otherwise, it would be an egotistical, foreign, generally ab- 
normal and aberrant tiling ; as was the case, for example, 
with some of the Corinthians and with Judaistic Christians, 
whose Kavxaadat was based and grew upon works of the law. 
The normal Trepiaa-evecv of the Kav-^r)[xa of the Philippians, 
however, namely, its Trepia-aeveiv iv Xpiartp 'Irjaov, shall take 
place — and this is specially added as the concrete position of 
the matter — ev ifiol Bia rrjt; e/i?}? irapovaia^ ir. rrrpo^ y/ta?, 
that is, it shall have in me hy my coming again to you its pro- 
curing cause ; inasmuch as through this return in itself, and 
in virtue of my renewed ministry among you, I shall be the 
occasion, impulse, and furtherance of that rich increase in your 
Kav-)(T}iia, and thus the Trepiaaeveiv luill rest in me. Conse- 
quently the iv in iv X. 'I., and the iv in iv ifjuoi, are differently 
conceived ; the former is the specific, essential definition of 
Trepiaaev-g, the latter the statement of the 2^crsoncd procuring 
ground for the Treptaa. iv 'I. X., which the apostle has in 
view in reference to the KavxVH'^^ of his readers, — a statement 
of the ground, which is not surprising for the service of an 
instrument of Christ (Hofmann), and which quite accords 
with the concrete species facti here contemplated, the personal 
return and the apostolic position and ministry. The inter- 
pretation of Hofmann is thus all the more erroneous, viz. that 
tlie increase of their glorying is given to the readers in the 
person of the apostle, in so far as the having him again among 

in this passage also xavx^ni^ot. means tliat in v)1dch one glories, as the Scholiast 
has appropriately explained it : tl xai TriXiKuZra, ilr) tuv Alyivnru* ra xuroflu- 

CHAP. I. 25, 26. 57 

tliem looulcl he a matter of Christian joy and pride to them. 
Thus would the apostle make himself in fact the object and 
contents of the Kav)(aa6av, which would neither be consistent 
with the logical relation of the Xva to the preceding et? t. v^. 
TrpoKoirrjv k.t.X., nor with Paul's own deep humility (1 Cor, 
iii. 21, XV. 9 ; Eph. iii. 8), which he satisfies also in 2 Cor. i. 
14 by the mutual nature of the Kuv^VH-f^ between himself and 
his friends, and in view of the day of Christ. By many (see 
Calvin, Heinrichs, Eheinwald, Eilliet, and others) eV X. 'I., 
and by some even iv i/Mol (Storr, Flatt, Huther), are referred, 
contrary to the position of the words, to to Kav-^rj/xa v/xcop, 
with various arbitrary definitions of the sense, e.g. Flatt : " so 
that ye shall have still more reason, in reference to me, to 
glorify Jesus Christ (who hath given me again to you) ; " 
Eheinwald : " If I shall be delivered by the power of Christ, 
ye will find abundant cause for praising the Lord, who has 
done such great things for me." — ttoXiv] is connected, as an 
adjectival definition, with irapoua. See on 2 Cor. xi 23; 
Gal. i. 13; 1 Cor. viii. 7. 

PiEMAr.K. — From w. 20-26 we are not to conclude that 
Paul at that time was in doubt whether he should live to see 
the Parousia (Usteri, Zehrhcgr. p. 355, and others). For in ver. 
20 he only supposes the case of his death, and that indeed, in 
ver. 21, as the case which would be profitaUe for himself, and 
for which, therefore, he protests in ver. 23 that he longs. But 
on account of the need for his life being prolonged (ver. 24), he 
hioics (ver. 25) that that case will not come to pass. This 
o76a (ver. 25) is not to be weakened into ?^ pirohahiliter sperare 
or the like (Beza, Calvin, Estius, and many others, also Hein- 
richs, Eheinwald ; comp. Matthies, van Hengel, Eilliet), with 
which Grotius, from connecting n76a mrroiS., even brings out 
the sense, "scio me haec sperare, i.e. vialle ;" whilst others fall 
back upon the argumcntum- a silentio, viz. that Paul says 
nothing here of any revelation (see Estius, Matthies, and 
others), but only expresses an inference in itself liable to error 
(Weiss). No, although he has supposed the piossihility (comp. 
ii. 17) of his being put to death, he nevertheless knew that 
he should remain alive ; and it must withal be confessed 
that, the result did not coi-respond to this definite oiba, which 
Bengel even goes so far as to refer to a dictamen pro- 


phefiaim. By no means, however, is an imaginary situation ^ 
to be suspected here (Baur), and just as little can a second 
imprisonment at Eome be founded on this passage (Chrysostom, 
Oecumenius, Theodoret, Bullinger, Piscator, Calovius, Estius, 
Bengel, and many others, also Wiesinger) ; as to the relation of 
this passage to Acts xx. 25, see on Acts. — We have further to 
notice that Paul, according to ver. 23, assumes that, in case he 
should be put to death, he would go not into Hades, but into 
heaven to Christ, — a conviction of the bliss attending martyr- 
dom which is found in 2 Cor. v. 8 and in the history of Stephen, 
Acts vii. 59, and therefore does not occur for the first time in 
the Apocalypse (vi. 9 ff., vii. 9 ff.).^ Wetstein's idea is a mere 
empty evasion, that by avaXZaat is doubtless meant the dying, 
but \>j Gm X. ilvai only the time following the resurrection 
(comp. also Weitzel, Stud. %l Krit. 1836, p. 954 ff.) ; as also is 
that of Grotius, that ouv X. ihai means : " in Christi custodia esse," 
and " nihil hinc de loco definiri potest." It is also altogether at 
variance with the context (see vv. 20, 21), if, with Kaeuffer, we 
interpret ava7^Z6ai as the change that takes place at the Parousia 
(" ut quasi eximeretur carne "). Comp. on the contrary. Poly- 
carp : ad Phd. 9, or/ ug rhv d(pirA6/jbniov avroTg to'ttov iigi vapa ruj 

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

^ All we can gather from Rom. viii. 10 f. is merely that the life of believers 
remains imaffected by the death of the body ; as at John xi. 25 f. They re- 
main in fellowship with Christ ; but as to the mode and place of this fellowship, 
of which they miglit indeed be partakers even in Hades (Paradise, Luke xvi. 
22 ff., xxiii. 43 ; Phil. ii. 10), as little is said in that passage as in viii. 38, xiv. 8. 
But in the passage v/e are considering, the words a-lv Xpia-TM una.! point to an 
actual being with the Lord in heaven (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 14, 17 ; Acts vii. 59 ; 
2 Cor. I. c. ), and do not therefore apply to the state in Hades (in opposition to 
Gilder, Erschein. Chr. unt. d. Todten, p. Ill, and others) ; see also 2 Cor. v. 8. 
This union with Christ, however, is not the S«5« as the ultimate goal of hope ; 
see iii. 20 f. ; Col. iii. 3. To ihe latter belongs also the bodily transfiguration, 
which can only take place at the Parousia, 1 Cor. xv. 23. This applies also in 
opposition to Gerlach, d. letzt. Dinge, p. 79 ff., whose distinction between 
corporeality and materiality [Lelblichkeit und Korperlichkeit'] is not in harmony 
with the New Testament, which distinguishes rather between cu/io, and ca-fl. 

CHAP. I. 27. 59 

xvp'iw, w xai eu'ArraSov, Clem. Eom. 1 Co7\ 5, of Pdcr : /J.apTvpr)Sag 
STopevdri ilg rov oipuXo/xsvov ro'xov rrig d6^r}c, and oi Paul : i'lg rov 
ciyiov HiTov sTopcjdrj, Martyr. Ignat. 26. It is an intermediate 
state, not yet the fully perfected glory, but in heaven, where 
Christ is (iii. 20 f.). Georgii, in Zeller's theolog. Jahrb. 1845, 
I. p. 22, following Usteri, Zchrhcgr. p. 368, erroneously dis- 
covers in our passage a modification of the New Testament 
view, developed only when the hope of a speedy Parousia fell 
into the background. Comp. iSTeander and Baumgarten Crusius 
(whose view amounts to an inconsistency of the conceptions). 
Opposed to these views, even apart from 2 Cor. v. 8 and Acts 
vii. 59, is the fact that the s'pecdy Parousia appears still to 
be very distinctly expected in this epistle. See particularly 
iii. 20 f But we find nothing said in the New Testament as 
to an intermediate hody between death and resurrection. See 
remark on 2 Cor. v. 3. There is a vague fanciful idea in 
Dehtzsch, Psychol, p. 443 f, who in p. 419 ff., however, forcibly 
shows the incorrectness of the doctrine of the sleep of the soul. 

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


3 Mace. iii. 4. In the absence of such references as these, 
Paul says irepi-TraTetv (Eph. iv. 1; Col. i. 10, with aficw?). 
Comp. however, Clement, Cor. i. 3 : irokneveaOat kuto, to 
Kadrjicov Tu> Xpiarw, and ch. 54: 7ro\iTev6/j,€vo<; rrjv ajxera- 
/jLe\r]Tov TToXiTeLav rov Geov, ch. 21 : a^lw^ avrov TroiXirevo- 
fxevoi. — elre i\6cov /c.t.X.] a parenthetic definition as far as 
diroov, so that uKovaui then depends on %va : in order that I 
— whether it he when I have come and seen you, or d^iring ray 
absence from you — onay hear, etc. The two cases elVe . . . etVe 
do not refer to the liberation and non-liberation of the apostle ; 
but they assume the certainty of the liberation (ver. 25 f.), after 
which Paul desired to continue his apostolic journeys and to 
come again to the Philippians ; and indeed trusted that he 
should come (ii. 24), but yet, according to the circumstances, 
might be led elsewhere and be far away from them (etVe 
aizuiv). In either event it is his earnest desire and wish that 
he may come to learn the affairs of the church in their ex- 
cellence as described by otl ar-qKere k.t.X. It cannot surprise 
us to find the notion of learninrj expressed by the common 
form of the zeugma} corresponding to the elfre airuiv ; and 
from the aKoxxjoa accordingly employed there naturally sug- 
gests itself a word of kindred import to corresj)ond with etVe 
ekQoiv K.T.X, such as yvco. The rash opinion, repeated even 
by Hofmann, that aKovaw only refers to the second case, does 
the apostle the injustice of making his discourse "hiulca" 
(Calvin), and even grammatically faidty (Hofmann), it being 
supposed that he intended to write either : " ut sive veniens 
videam vos, sive absens audiani," or : " sive qumn venero et 
videro vos, sive absens audiam de statu vestro, intelligam 
utroque modo," etc, Calvin allows a choice between these 
two interpretations ; the latter is approved of by de Wette 
and Weiss (comp. Eilliet and J. B. Lightfoot). Hofmann also 
accuses the apostle of the confusion of having written ehe 

' It is a mistake (notwithstanding Winer, p. 578 [E. T. 777]) to suppose that 
in a zeugma the directly appropriate verb must be joined to the Jirst member. 
It can also be joined with the second, as here. Comp. Xen. Anab. vii. 8. 12, 
and Kiihner in loc. ; Plat. Reii. p. 589 C, and Stallbaum in loc. ; Horn. II. 
iii. 327, and Faesi in loc. ; generally Niigelsbach, 2. lUas, ]). 179, ed. 3 ; Bremi, 
ad Lys. p. 43 11. ; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 1075 f. 

CHAP. I. 27. 61 

uTToov tLKovcTbi TO, iTepl v/j,(t)v (whicli woi'ds are to "be taken 
together), as if he had previously put etVe iXdojv o-^ofiat 
vjj.d'i; but of having left it to the reader mentally to swp'ply 
the verbs that should have depended on Xva, and of which 
two ^ ■would have been needed ! The passage employed for 
comparison, Eom. iv. 16, with its close, concise, and clear 
dialectic, is utterly a stranger to such awkwardness. Hoele- 
niann finally interprets the passage in a perfectly arbitrary 
way, as if Paul had written : 'iva, etre iXOwv k. IScov v[xa^, ei-Ve 
CLTTOiv Koi aKOvaa<i ra irepi vficov, crTi]KrjTe k.t.X., thus making 
the participles ahsolute nominatives. — to. Trepl vfiibv] the object 
of aKovao), so that ort arrjKere k.tX., that, namely, ye stand, etc., 
is a more precise definition arising out of the loving confidence 
of the apostle, analogous to the familiar attraction olSd ae t/? 
et, and the like; Winer, p. 581 [E. T. 781]. It has been 
awkwardly explained as absolute: "quod attinet ad res vestras" 
(Heinrichs, Eheinwald, Matthies, and others), while van Hengel 
not more skilfully, taking etVe aTroov aKovaco r. tt. v/jl. together, 
afterwards supplies aKovaco again. Grotius, Estius, and am 
Ende take rd even for ravra, and Hoelemann makes Paul ex- 
press himself here also by an anaJcoluihon (comp. above on etre 
iXdcDv K.T.X.), so that either otl should have been omitted and 
TT^KTjre written, or to, should not have been inserted. — iv kvl 
TTvevfjiaTt] is to be joined with arrjKere, alongside of which it 
stands, although Hofmann, without any reason, takes it abso- 
lutely (2 Thess. ii. 15). It is the common element, m u-hich 
they are to stand, i.e. to remain stedfast (Eom. v. 2 ; 1 Cor. 
XV. 1, xvi. 13) ; TTveviiart, however, refers not to the Holy 
Spirit (Erasmus, Beza, and others, also Heinrichs, Eheinwald, 
Matthies, van Hengel, Weiss), but, as the context shows by 
fiia yfrvxv, to the human spirit; comp. 1 Thess. v. 23. The 
perfect aceord of their minds in conviction, volition, and 
feeling, presents the appearance of one spirit which the various 
persons have in common, De Wette weU says : " the practical 

^ But why tivo ? He would only have needed to insert ^a-^w or yvu before 
oTi. This would have suited both halves of the alternative discourse, in the con- 
fused form in which Hofmann makes it run ; and there would be no necessity 
whatever for two verbs. 


community of spirit." Comp. Acts iv. 32. It is, as a matter of 
course, plain to the Christian consciousness that this unity of 
the human spirit is hrought about by the Holy Sinrit (see on 
Eph. iv. 3 f., 23), but hi nrveviJi,. does not say so. Moreover 
the em2oliasis is on this iv evl irv., and therefore fita yjr. is 
subsequently placed first. — The special mode, which this stand- 
ing fast in one spirit desired by the apostle is to assume, is 
contained in the sequel down to avriKeifi, — fiia -^vxr) (Tvva6\. 
/C.T.X.] The '^v)(rj, as distinguished from the rrrvev/j-a, is the 
principle of the individual personal life, which receives its 
impressions on the one hand from the Trvev/j-a as the principle 
of the higher divine ^cot], and on the other hand from the 
outer world, and is the seat of the activity of feeling and 
emotion, the sympathetic unity of which in the church is here 
described (comp. on Luke i. 46 f.). Comp. la-6y}rv)(^o<;, ii. 20 ; 
(TV[xy^vyoL, ii. 2; Herodian. viii. 5. 15: ^iia re yvco/uLr] koX 
'^v)(ri, Eom. XV. 6, 6fxo6v/xaB6v, 4 Mace. xiv. 20, o^6y^vj(p<i, 
1 Pet. iii. 8, 6/x6(j)po3v. But f^ia i/^. does not also belong to 
(TTrjKere (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Er. Schmid, and 
others), for <Tvva6X. requires a modal definition in harmony 
with the context. — (7vva6XovvTe'i\ in keeping with arrjKeTe, 
according to the conception of a contest (comp. ver. 30), under 
whicli the activity of Christian faitlifulncss is presented in 
relation to all hostile powers, Comp. Col. ii. 1 ; 1 Thess. ii. 2 ; 
1 Tim. vi. 12 ; 2 Tim. iv. 7, ct al. ; also Soph. 0. a 564 ; Eur. 
Suppl. 317 ; Aesch. Prom. 95. The compound, striving together 
(comp. iv. 3, and avvaycovl^eadat, Eom. xv. 30), is not to be 
overlooked, as if awaOx., with the dative of the thing ex- 
pressed merely the entering or stepping into the lists for it 
(Hofmann). It does not refer, liowever, to the fclloivship of 
the PhilijJjnans themselves (" quasi facto agmine contra hostes 
evang.," Grotius ; comp. Hoelemann, Killiet, de Wette, Wie- 
singer, "Weiss, and others, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Theophylact, Oecumenius). Paul looks upon himself as a 
combatant (ver. 30, comp. ver. 7), and the Philippians as 
striving toith him, and affording him assistance (Diod. iii. 4) 
as his a-vvadXoL in defending the faith (objectively viewed), 
protecting it and rendering it victorious. That they were to 

CHAP. I, 28. 63 

do this vjitli one accord, is stated, emphatically by fiia "^vxTj, 
hut is not conveyed by avvaOX. in itself. If, however, Paul 
is the combatant, the passage cannot be understood in tlie 
sense : " adjuvantcs decertantem adversus impios evangelii 
fidcm" Erasmus, Paraplir. ; comp. Castalio, Michaelis, Mynster, 
riatt, Lightfoot, — even apart from the fact that such a pcr- 
sonification of TrLara is unprecedented, and must have been 
suggested by the text, as in the case of rfj aXrjOeia, 1 Cor, 
xiii. 6. — T?; TTiareL is the dative commodi (comp. Jude 3), not 
instrumenti (Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, Loesner, Ehein- 
wald, and others), which fxia yj^v^u was. As to the genitive 
of the object with 'itl(ttl<^, see on Eom. iii. 22. 

Ver. 28. On irrvpeadat, to hccomc frightened (of horses, 
Diod. ii. 19, xvii. 34; Plut. Fah. 3; Marc. 6), to he throivn 
into consternation (Diod. xvii. 37 f . ; Plat. Ax. p. 3 7 A ; 
Plut. Mor. p. 800 C), see Kypke, II. p. 312. In Gen. xli. 8 
Aquila has KarairTvpeaOai. — iv fxrjhevt] in no 2^oint, nulla 
ratione, ver. 20; 2 Cor. vi. 3, vii. 9; Jas. i. 4. — The avrt- 
KetfievoL (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 9) are the non-Christian opponents 
of the gospel among Jews and Gentiles, and not the Jiulaizcrs 
and their adherents (Flatt), or the malevolent false teachers 
(Matthies). This follows from ver. 30, since the whole 
position and ministry of the apostle was a conflict with 
such adversaries, comp. ver. 7. — -^r^? ea-rlv avTOL<i k.t.X.] 
lohich is indeed, etc., refers to the preceding firj Trrvpeadac 
vTTo Toiv avTCK6L/jb., to wliicli Paul desires to encourage them. 
This tindauntedmss in the crvvaXOelv, and not the latter itself 
(Hofmann), is now the leading idea, wdth which what has 
further to be said connects itself; hence ^'Ti9 is not to be 
taken as referring to the sufferings, as it is by Ewald (comp. 
2 Thess. i. 5), who subsequently, although without critical 
proof, would read aTrcoXe/a? v/xcov, vfuv he. — avroi'i\ Tol<i avn- 
Ketjxevoi^ is to be taken simply as dative of reference: ivhieh 
is to them an indication of perdition. "Orav lyap 'l8o3a-cv, ore 
ixvpia Te')(va^6/xevot ouBe nrrvpat vfid<; hvvavrat, ov Beiy/ia toOto 
<Ta(f)£<; e^ovcTLv, on ra fikv avTcov airoXovvTat, ra 8e v/meTepa 
la'^vpa Koi avaXcora icai avrodev e')(pvTa rrjv (TMrrjpiav ; Theo- 
phylact. The ^Tt9 involving a reason is just as in Eph. iii. 13, 


See on that passage. This would be still more emphatically 
expressed by -^Vt? 'ye (Klotz, ad Bexar, p. 305). But the 
fact that the avriKeifievot do not recognise in the undaunteduess 
of those persecuted a proof (not : causa, as in the Vulgate ; 
but comp. Eom. iii. 25 f . ; 2 Cor. viii. 24; Plat. Ejp. vii. p. 
341 E; Lcgg. xii. p. 966 C) of their own perdition, and on 
the other hand of the salvation of the persecuted {vfxwv Se 
o-coTTjpla';), does not alter the state of the case in itself, that the 
//.r; -TTTvpecrOat is in reality objectively such an eVSet^t? to them. 
It is, indeed, the a-rj/jLelov of the righteous divine cause, and of 
its necessary final victory. Perdition- and salvation : both with- 
out more precise definition ; but the reader kiicw what reference 
to assign to each, viz. the Messianic perdition and salvation. 
Comp. on the matter, 2 Thess. i. 5 ff. ; Eom. viii. 1 7 ; 2 Tim. 
ii. 12 ; Luke xii. 32, ct cd. — koX tovto airo ©eov] and that 
(see on Eom. xiii. 11) of God, thus certain, therefore, and 
infallible. It adds force to the encouragement conveyed by 
vixwv he aayrrjpla'i ; for the context shows by the vfxtv which 
is emphatically placed first in ver. 29, — without making the 
reading v/jlIv necessary, however, in ver. 2 8 (Hofmann) ; see 
the critical remarks, — that tovto refers only to this second and 
main part of 7;Tt? k.t.\. (Calvin, Piscator, Calovius, Flatt, and 
others, also Ewald and Hofmann), and not to both halves of 
ijTL<i (Beza, Grotius, and many others, also Wiesinger, Weiss, 
and Ellicott). Entirely foreign to the connection is any purpose 
of humiliation (Hoelemann and older expositors, following the 
Greek Fathers). Nor are the words to be attached to what 
follows {oTL, that) (Clemens Alex., Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Erasmus, and others, and recently Eilliet) ; in which case the 
(preparative) tovto would receive an uncalled-for importance, 
and yet aTTo Qeov would be obviously intelligible through 

Ver. 29. "Otl is argumentative. " Kal tovto airo ©eov," 1 
say, "since indeed to you it was granted" etc. This grant 
distinguishing yo%b is the practical proof, that the just ex- 
pressed airo ©eov is indubitably right, and that consequently 
the eVSet^t? of your final salvation which is afforded to the 
adversaries in your undaunteduess is a divine €v8ei^i,<;, a 

CHAP. I. 20. 65 

iohen given hj God} Hofmann's view, that on specifies the reason 
why God imparts to them what has been before stated, is based 
upon the erroneous reading vixlv in ver. 2 8 ; and is itself erro- 
neous, because on would introduce merely the self-evident 
thought that they had not sought out their suffering loilfitUy, 
but had had it given to them hy God, and because, for the pur- 
pose of marking the alleged contrast to the wilfulness, not vfilv, 
but airo 0eov again would have been emphatically prefixed, and 
consequently Paul must have written : on diro Qeou v/xlv ix"'P~ 
laOrj K.T.X. Hofmann curiously explains the emphasized vfilv, 
as if Paul meant to say that with respect to their sufferings 
the case stood exactly as vnth his own. In that case he must at 
least have written, in prospect of ver. 3 0, /cat v[uv, to you also. 
— v/jllv] emphatically put first, corresponding to the previous 
vfXMU Se cr(OTr]pia<;. — i^^apia-Or}] donatum est ; by whom, is self- 
evident. 1 Cor. ii. 12. — to virep Xpcarov] as if the irda'^etv 
was immediately to follow. The apostle does not leave this 
unwritten purposely, in order to bring into prominence in the 
first place the idea of virep, as Hofmann artificially explains. 
But here his full heart interposes, after r. virep Xptarov, and 
before he writes irda-xeiv, the fresh thought ou fxovov to et? avT. 
iriaTeveiv, so that dWd koI must now be also added ; and, on 
account of the different prepositional relation (et?) introduced, 
the to virep XptaTov already expressed is again taken up by 
TO virep avTov. Thus ov fj,6vov . . . virep avTov appears as a 
parenthesis of more special definition, after which the irda'xeLv, 
which had been prepared for by to virep XpcaTov, but is only 
now introduced, is to be dwelt upon with emphasis : " to you, 
the gift of grace is granted, in hehalf of Christ — not only to 
believe on Him, but also for Him — to suffer!' Plat. Lcgg. x. 
p. 802 C : el he (^avt^aeTat '^V'^i] irpoiTov, ov irvp ovSe drjp, "^vyrj 
he iv irpoiTOL^ jeyevrjfMevr]. See also Dissen, ad Dcm. de cor. p. 
431 ; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 501. It is an awkward construc- 
tion, to take TO ivTrepX. absolutely and (notwithstanding thesubse- 
quent virep avTov) in the sense: as to ivhat concerns Christ (Beza, 

' At the same time it is to be observed here also (comp. on ver. 28) that this 
divine pointing to the final salvation of believers was in fact before the adversaries, 
and that their non-recognition of it altered nothing in this objective relation. 


Camerarius,Calovius,and others, including Matthies and Eilliet). 
Tor the conception of suffering for Christ as a high divine distinc- 
^iOTi, see already Acts v. 41 ; comp. Matt, v, 1 1 f. Comp. on ver. 7. 
Ver. 30. So that ye have the same confiict, etc., serves to cha- 
racterize the vixiv e%a/3. TO virep X. 'Trda')(€Lv just asserted ; and 
Paul's intention in thus speaking, is to bring home to them the 
high dignity and distinction of suffering for Chidst, which is in- 
volved in the consciousness of fellowship in conflict with the 
apostle. It is impossible, in accordance with the true explana- 
tion of what goes before (see on ver. 29), to find in tov avTov, 
that they have themselves sought their conflict of suffering as 
little as the apostle had sought his, but, on the contrary, have 
received it as a gift of grace from God (Hofmann). The par- 
ticiple might have been put by Paul in the nominative (instead 
of the dative), because u/iet9 was floating before his mind as the 
logical subject of the preceding clause. Comp. on Eph. iii. 18, 
iv. 2 ; 2 Cor. i. 7 ; Col. ii. 2, iii. 16 ; Phil. iii. 19 ; Kuhner, II. 
2, p. 661 f. There is therefore neither a logical nor a gram- 
matical reason, with Bengel, Michaelis, Lachmann, Ewald (comp. 
also Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 256 [E. T. 299]), to treat ryrt? . . . 
irdayeiv as a jjarenthesis, — a construction which would be only 
an injurious interruption to the flow of the discourse. — tov 
avTov] namely, in respect of the object ; it is the conflict for 
Christ (ver. 29) and His gosjjcl (ver. 7). — olov eiBere /c.t.X,.] as 
ye have seen it in my person (viz. whilst I was still with you in 
Philippi ; see scenes of this conflict in Acts xvi. 1 6 ff. ; comp. 
1 Thess. ii. 2), and now (from my epistle which is read out to 
you) ye hear in my person. Paul, in his epistle, spcahs to the 
PhUippians as if they were listening to him in person ; thus 
they hear in him his conflict, which is made known to them in 
the statements of the apostle. This explanation is all the less 
unfitting, as Hofmann terms it (comparing the ev rjfiip in 
1 Cor. iv. 6), since Paul must necessarily have assumed that 
the statements in the epistle regarding his sufferings would not 
fail to receive more detailed description in Pliilippi on the 
part of Epaphroditus, The rendering de me for the second 
iv i/xol, adopted by Peschito, Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, 
Grotius, and others, including Flatt, is erroneous. 

CHAP. II. 07 


VeR. 1. Instead of %! n "irapaii., D*L, min. have: tl nc rrapafi. 
Approved by Griesb., adopted by Matth. It is nothing but a 
mechanical repetition of the preceding £/ r/g. The same judg- 
ment must be passed on the reading : i'l nc, c-itXayyya, although 
tliis Tig (instead of which the Bcccpta nva is to be restored) has the 
greatly preponderant attestation ofABCDEFGKL P'N, min, 
Bas. Chrys. (?) Damasc. Oec. Theoph., and is adopted by Griesb. 
Matth. Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch. Iiva (as early as Clem. Al. 
Strom, iv. p. G04, Pott. ; also Theodoret) is, notwithstanding its 
small amount of cursive attestation, we do not say absolutely 
necessary,^ but requisite for such an understanding of the entire 
verse as naturally offers itself to the reader ; see the exegetical 
remarks. — Ver. 3. 'n\ Lachm. and Tisch. read, and Griesb. also 
recommended : /ajjSs y.ard, following A B C N*, min. vss. and 
Fathers. An attempt at interpretation, as are also the readings 
7\ -/.ard, -/.ard, (j^rfih y.ard. — Ver. 4. Elz. Scholz, have 'iy.aGrog 
in both places, which is defended also by Keiche. But 'izaGroi, 
which is confirmed by preponderating testimony even before 
(Tx OTTO D its; (in opposition to Hofmann), was supplanted by the 
singular, as only the latter occurs elsewhere in the N. T. — Elz, 
lias ffxoc7f?rs instead of cxocoSirsg, against decisive testimony. — 
Ver. 5. rouTo yap] ABC* i<*, min. vss. Fathers, Lachm. and 
Tisch. 8 have toZto only. But Avhat led to the omission of ydp 
was, that, (pponTrs being subsequently read, the preceding i-/.aeroi 
was looked upon as the beginning of the new sentence (A C N). 
Moreover, the commencement of a lesson at rovro favoured the 
omission. — <ppoviic^u\ The reading (ppoviTn appears to have deci- 
sive attestation from the uncials, of which only C*** K L P 
favour the Becepta (ppcisisOu. But it is incredible, if the well- 
known and very common imperative form (ppoviTrs was the original 
reading, that it should have been exchanged for the otherwise 

^ Eeiche, Comment, crit. p. 213, would read n instead of nva. ; but the former 
is found only in min., and is scarcely susceptible of a forced explanation ("si qua 
est vobis," or "si quid valet"). — The old Latin versions, Avith their si qua or si 
quid, leave us uncertain as to their reading. But the Vulg. Lachm. has : si 


unusual passive form <ppovushi, merely for the reason that it was 
sought to gain a passive form to be supplied with the following 
words 6 xa/ iv X. 'I. (where the supplying of r^v would have been 
SLifiicient). And as the very ancient testimony of most Greek 
authorities since Origen, also of the Goth. Copt. Arm. and 
nearly all min., is in favour of (ppo<>u6&u, we must retain it as the 
original, which has been made to give way to the more current 
(ppo'juTi. The latter, however, is adopted by Tisch. 8, following 
Lachmann. — Ver. 9. Elz. Scholz, Tisch. 7 have ovo/mu alone 
instead of ro oi/o/xa, in opposition to ABC N, 17, and several 
Fathers. The article has been suppressed by the preceding 
syllable. — Instead of sB,o,'ji>oXo''/f,0rjrai tlie future i^oij.b'/.oyr,Girai is 
decisively attested. — Ver. 13. The article before Qidg (Elz. 
Scholz) is condemned by preponderating testimony. — Ver. 15. 
yh-neSi] A D* E* E G, Vulg. It. Cypr. have rin. So also Lachm. 
But the testimony is not decisive, and there is the more reason 
for defending the Bccepta, because yhricdi might be more readily 
glossed by rin than the converse, both in itself, and also here 
on account of the following sv o7g (pahsaOi z.r.x. — d/xc<j/.i?)7-a] 
Lachm. Tisch. 8 have afj,oj/xa, following A B C N, min. Clem. 
Cyr. But the latter is the prevailing form in the N. T., and 
readily crept in (comp. var. 2 Pet. iii. 14). — h /isauj'] ABC D* 
E G t<, min. Clem, have /j.!aov. Approved by Griesb., and 
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the Becqjta is ex- 
planatory. — Ver. 19. zupi'jj] Lachmann reads xpiorw, upon 
too weak authority. — Ver. 21. Elz.: ra tou Xpierou 'l^aoij. But 
TO. 'ijjffoj X. (Tisch. : to. XpiaroU 'ijjffoi;) has the preponderance of 
evidence in its favour. — Ver. 26. After v,u.a.c, A C D E N*, min. 
vss. and some later Eathers have IdsTv, which Lachm. places in 
brackets. To be adopted ; because, after i. 8, its omission would 
be very probable, and there is no reason why it should have 
got in as a gloss here and not at i. 8. — Ver. 27. Elz.: Jtt/ Xut;/?, 
against decisive testimony in favour of et/ Xvvriv. — Ver. 30. rh 
ipyov rouXpisToZ] Tisch. 7 reads to sVyov merely; following, indeed, 
only C, but correctly, for the bare to 'ipyov appeared to need 
some defining addition, which was given to it by t-oJ Xpisro^j or 
XpiGToZ (Tisch. 8), or even by -/.upio-j (A t<). — crapa/Sot/X.] The form 
Tapa/SoX. has preponderant attestation, and is to be preferred. 
See the exegetical remarks. 

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

ciiAr. II. 1. 69 

peratively required of them by the relation of cordial affec- 
tion, which must bind them to the apostle in this fellowship 
that they should fulfil his joy, etc. Consequently, although, 
connecting what he is about to say with what goes imme- 
diately before (in opposition to Hofmann), he certainly, after 
the digression contained from 7^Ti9 in ver. 28 onwards, leads 
them back to the exhortation to unanimity already given in 
ver. 27, to which is then subjoined in ver. 3 f. the sum- 
mons to mutual humility. — el ri? ac.t.X,.] four stimulative 
elements, the existence of which, assumed by el (comp on Col. 
iii. 1), could not but forcibly bring home to the readers the 
fulfilment of the apostle's joy, ver. 2/ With each eVrt simply 
is to be supplied (comp. iv. 8) : If there he any encouragement 
in Christ, if any comfort of love, etc. It must be noticed that 
these elements fall into two parallel sections, in each of which 
the first element refers to the oljective principle of the Christian 
life {iv Xpiaru) and Trvev/jLaTd), and the second to the siihjective 
principle, to the specific disposition of the Christian (aydirr]'; 
and airXdyx^^ '^'^'' oUripfxoL). Thus the inducements to 
action, involved in these four elements, are, in equal measure, 
at once objectively linding and inwardly affecting {irm 
(r(j>oBpco<;, TTco? yaera av/x'iradela'i ttoWt}? ! Chrysostom). — 
irapaKk. iv X.] iv X. defines the irapaKK. as specifically Chris- 
tian, having its essence and activity in Christ; so that it 
issues from living fellowship with Him, being rooted in it, and 
sustained and determined by it. Thus it is in Christ, that 
brother cxhorteth brother. TrapdKXrja-t,^ means exhortation 
(1 Cor. xiv. 3; Eom. xii. 8; Acts iv. 36, ix. 31, xiii. 15, 
XV. 31), i.e. persuasive and edifying address; the more special 
interpretation consolatio, admissible in itself, anticipates the 
correct rendering of the irapajxijOiov which follows (in opposi- 
tion to Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Erasmus, 
Beza, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Heinrichs, and many others ; 
and recently Hoelemann and Ewald). — el' n irapa/j,. dydir.'l 

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


TrapafjivOiov (see generally Scliaefer ad Bos. p. 492; Lobeck 
ad Phryn. p. 517; Jacobs ad Ach. Tat. p. 708) corresponds 
to the fourth clause (aTrXajx^^ i^- oIkt.), and for this reason, 
as well as because it must be different from the preceding 
element/ cannot be taken generally with Calovius, Flatt, 
Matthies, do Wette, Hoelemann, van Hengel, Ewald, Weiss, J. 
B. Lightfoot, and Hofmann as address, exhortation (Plat. Legg. 
vi. p. 773 E, xi. p. 880 A), but definitely as comfort (Time. v. 
103 ; Theocr. xxiii. 7 ; Anth. Pal. vii. 195, 1 ; Wisd. iii. 18 ; 
Esth. viii. 15; comp. Trapafxydla, Plat. Axiocli. p. 375 A; 
Luc. Nigr. 7; Ps. Ixv. 12; Wisd. xix. 12 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 3). 
^AyaTTT]'; is the genitive of the subject: a consolation, luhich 
love gives, which flows from the brotherly love of Christians. 
In order to make out an allusion to the Trinitg in the three 
first points, dogmatic expositors like Calovius, and also Wolf, 
have understood a^ain]^ of the love of God (to us). — el Ti<i 
KOLvcov. TTv.] if awj felloiuship of the Sjnrit {i.e. participation in 
the Spirit) exists; comp. on 2 Cor. xiii. 13. This is to be 
explained of the Iloh/ Spirit, not of the animorum conjunctio 
(Michaelis, Eosenmliller, am Ende, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
Wette, Hoelemann, Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others ; Usteri 
and Killiet mix up the two), which is inconsistent with the 
relation of this third clause to the first (eV Xpta-ru)), and also 
with the sequel, in which (ver. 2) Paul encourages them to 
fellowship of mind, and cannot therefore place it in ver. 1 as a 
motive. — et rtva crirX. k. oIk.t?\ if there he any heart and com- 
passion. The former used, as in i. 8, as the seat of cordial 
loving affections generally ; the latter, specially as miscricordia 
(see on Eom. ix. 15), which has its seat and life in the heart. 
See also on Col. iii. 12 ; comp. Luke i. 28 ; Tittmann, Synooi. 
p. 68 f. — It must further be remarked, with regard to all four 
points, that the context, by virtue of the exhortation based 
upon them irXrjpcocraTe fiov rip xapdv in ver. 2, certainly pre- 
supposes their existence in the Philippians, but that the 

' Hofmann erroneously makes the qnito arbitrary distinction that tufo.x.x. 
refers to the xcUl, and cra/ia^. to the feel'wrjs. The will, feelings, and intellect 
are called into exercise by both. Comp., especially on rrafay-v^., Stallbanm, ad 
Plat. Rep. p. 476 E ; Pkaed. p, 70 B ; Eathyd. p. 272 B ; Thnc. viii. 86, 1. 

CHAP. II. 1, 71 

general expression {if ilicre is) forms a more moving appeal, 
and is not to be limited by the addition of in you (Luther, 
Calvin, and others). Hence the idea is : "If there is cxliorta- 
tion in Christ, wherewith one brother animates and incites 
another to a right tone and attitude ; if there is comfort of love, 
whereby one refresheth the other ; if there is fdloivship in the 
Spirit, which inspires right feelings, and confers the consecra- 
tion of power; if there is a heart and eompassion, issuing, in 
sympathy with, and compassion for, the afl&icted, — manifest 
all these towards me, in that ye onake full my joy (jmov rrjv 
■Xapdv)." Then, namely, I experience practically from you that 
Christian-brotherly exhortation,^ and share in your comfort of 
love, and so ye put to proof, in my case, the fellowship in the 
Spirit and the cordial symioathy, which makes me not distressed, 
but glad in my painful position. — There is much that is mis- 
taken in the views of those who defend the reading ri? before 
aifk. (see van Hengel and Eeiche), which cannot be got rid 
of by the assumption of a consiructio ad synesin (in opposi- 
tion to Buttmann, Mut. Gr. p. 71. [E. T. 81]). Hofmann is 
driven by this reading, which he maintains, to the strange 
misinterpretation of the whole verse as if it contained only 
protases and apodoses, to be thus divided : et rt? ovv irapd- 
KXr}(n<;, iv XptcrTW' ec re TrapafiiidLov, d<yd7ri]<i' €c Tt9 KGivcovia 
TrvevfiaTot, el xi?, a7r\d<y^va k. oIktlpixol; this last el rt? being 
a repetition of the previous one with an emphasizing of the el. 
Accordingly the verse is supposed to mean : " If exhortation, 
let it be exhortation in Christ ; if consolation, let it be a con- 
solation of love ; if fellowship of the Spirit, if any, let it be 
cordiality and compassion." A new sentence would then begin 
with irX'iqpdiaare? Artifices such as this can only serve to 
recommend the reading el nva. 

^ In the application of the general u ti; Tapax.Xn'ni sv X., the suhjects of this 
vrafux/.niri; must, following the rule of the other elements, be the Philippians ; 
Paul (Wiesinger, comp.' Ewald) cannot be conceived as the ■rapccxaXuv. 

^ From this interpretation of the whole passage he should have been deterred by 
the forlorn position which is assigned to the i" t/j before ir-rXa.yx,^a. as the stone 
of stumbling, as well as by the purposelessness and even inappropriateness of 
an oddly emphasized prolleviatical sense of this i1 tis. — If it be thought that 
the reading u n; airX. must be admitted. I would simply suggest the following 


Ver. 2. The joy -which Paul already feels in respect to the 
Philippians (i. 4), they are to make full to him, like a measure 
(comp. John iii. 29, xv. 11, xvii. 13; 1 John i. 4 ; 2 John 
12; 2 Cor. x. 6). For the circumstances of the case, comp. 
i. 9. The [xov represents, as it very often does in the N. T. 
{e.g. iv. 14; Col. iv. 18 ; Philem. 20), and in Greek authors, 
the dative of interest. — 'iva] The mode in which they are to 
make his joy full is conceived in telle form, as that which is 
to he striven for in the action of making full ; and in this aim 
of the TrXrjpovv the regulative standard for this activity was 
to consist. Paul might quite as fitly have put the ro avTo 
(f)povelv in the imperative, and the irXripovv rr-jv %apdv in the 
telic form ; but the immediate relation to himself, in which he 
had conceived the whole exhortation, induced him to place the 
ifkripovv T. ')(. in the foreground. — to <xuto ^povrjre] denotes 
generally harmony, and that, indeed, more closely defined by 
the sequel here as identity of sentiment. See Tittmann, Synon. 
p. 67; Pritzsche, ad Bom. III. p. 8 7 f. ; comp. Herod, i. 6 0, 
ix. 54, and the passages in Wetstein. The opposite: a/KpU 
(pp., Hom. //. xiii. 345 ; dWy (pp., hymn. AjJ. 469 ; Bi^o(f)po- 
velv. Pint. Mar. p. 763 E ; hL')(pfi7)TL'i, Nonn. ev. Joh. xx. 2 9 ; 
and similar forins. Hoelemann interprets to avro as illnd 
ipsum, that, namely, which was said in ver. 1, the irapaKXtjai^ iv 
X. down to oiKTtpfxoL This is at variance with the context (see 

Ly way of necessary explanation of the passage : — 1st, Let the verse be regarded 
as consisting of a series oi four j)rotases, on which the apodosis then follows in 
ver. 2 ; 2d, Let sv Xpiffrai, aya'rtis, Tviufiaros and rrrXay^i/a x. otKTipfioi be taken 
uniformly as p?'ecZJca<ife speciiications ; 3d, Let xoivuvlx be again understood with 
the last £(' Ti;. Paul would accordingly say : " If any exhortation is exhortation 
in Christ, if any comfort is comfort of love, if any fellowship is fellowship of the 
Sinrit, if any (fellowship) is cordiality and compassion (that is, full of cordiality 
and compassion) fulfl ye," etc. Tlie apostle would thus give to the element of 
the xoivmia, besides the objective definition of its nature (irvstl^aTuj, referring to 
the Holy Spirit), also a subjective one {<rrrX. x. olxripf/..), and mark the latter 
specially by the repetition of i" n; sc. xoivutia, as well as designate it the more 
forciblj' by the nominative expression ((j-crXay;^;»a x. elxr., not another genitive), 
inasmuch as the latter would set forth the ethical nature of such a xoivuvla (comp. 
such passages as Rom. vii. 7, viii. 10, xiv. 17) in the form of a direct predicate. 
The it, moreover, would remain imiformly the syllogistic li in all the four clauses, 
and not, as in Hofmanu's view, suddenly change into the problematic sense in 
the fourth clause. 

CHAP. II. 2. 73 

the following r. avr. ajdir. and ev <}>pov.), and contrary to the 
wonted use of the expression elsewhere (Eom. xii. 16, xv. 5 ; 
2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; Phil. iv. 2). — rrjv avTrjv ay. ep^., avfi-^. to 
ep (ppop.] Two more precise definitions of that like-minded- 
ness, so far as it is identity of (mutual) love, and agreement of 
feeling and active impulse, sympathy {<Jv[ji-\lrv)(OL, only found 
here in the JST. T. ; but see Polemo, ii. 54, and comp. on i. 27, 
also on laoyjrv^ov, ver. 20). This aecumulation of definitions 
indicates earnestness; Paul cannot sever himself from the 
thought, of which his heart is so full. Comp. Chrysostom : 
fia/3al, TTGacLKi^ to avro Xeyei airo StaOiaeax; ttoXXt}? ! He 
also well remarks on t. avr. aydir. e;;^. : Tovrecrri o/xolo)^ (f^iXelu 
Kot (f)t\eladat. The following ro ev cppovovvre'i is to be closely 
connected with av[i-^., so that avfju-ylrv^ot has the emphasis 
and adds the more j^^^ceise definition of the previously men- 
tioned unity of mind : with harmony of soul cherishing the one 
sentiment. There are therefore only tivo, and not three, special 
explanations of the to uvto (ppovijTe ; nnd ev with the article 
points back to the previous to uvto, which is now represented 
by TO ev without any essential difference in sense. Exposi- 
tors, not attending to this close connection of avfi-ylr. with to 
€P <^pov. (which Wiesinger, Weiss, Ellicott, and Schenkel have 
acknowledged), have either made the apostle say the very same 
thing twice over (Oecumenius : SiTrXacnd^ec to 6fxo(ppoveiv), or 
have drawn entirely arbitrary distinctions between to avTo and 
TO ev (ppov. — e.g. Bengel, who makes the former refer to the 
same ohjects of the sentiment, and the latter to the same scnti- 
ment itself ; Tittmann, I.e., that the former is idem sentire, velle 
et quaerere, and the latter in iino cxpctendo eonsentire ; Beza and 
others, that the former means the agreement of ivill, the latter 
the agreement in doctrine ; while others put it inversely ; Hof- 
mann thinks that eV witli the article means the one thing, on 
which a Christian must invxirdly he hcnt (comp. Luke x. 42). 
It means, on the contrary, the one thing which has just been 
designated by to avTo (f)pov7]Te (as in iv. 2 ; Pom. xii. 16 ; 
and other passages) ; the context affords no other reference for 
the article. — It is usual, even in classical authors, for the 
participle of a verb to stand by the side of the verb itself, in 


sucli a way that one of tlie two conveys a more precise 
specification. See Stallb. ad Plat. Hip'p. w. p. 292 A; Borne- 
mann, ad Cyrop. viii. 4. 9 ; Lobeck, Paral. p. 532 f. 

Yer. 3 f. Mrjhev Kara ipi6. tj KevoSo^.^ sc. (f)povovvTe<; (not 
iroLovvre'i, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Camerarius, Storr, am Ende, 
Eheinwald, Elatt, van Hengel, and others) ; so that, accord- 
ingly, what was excluded by the previous requirement to avro 
<jipovi]T€ . . . <ppovovvTe<;, is here described. To take, as in Gal. 
V, 13, /i7;Sei/ . . . KevoSo^iav as a prohibition hy itself, without 
dependence on ^povovvTe<i (see on Gal. Z.c), as J. B. Lightfoot 
does, is inappropriate, because the following participial anti- 
thesis discloses the dependence of the firjBev k.t.X. on the 
previous participle ; hence also Hofmann's view, that there is an 
intentional leaving the verb open, cannot be admitted. Hoele- 
mann combines it with riyov/n., and takes fxTjSev as neutiqiiam ; 
but incorrectly, for tj^o^/x. k.tX. affirms the esteeming others 
better than oneself, which, therefore, cannot take place in a 
factious {Kara iplOeiav, see on i. 1 7) or in a vainglorious (r) Kevo- 
So^lav) way. The Kara denotes that which is regulative of the 
state of mind, and consequently its eharacter, and is exchanged 
in the antithetic parallel for the dative of the instrument : hy 
means of humility, the latter being by the article set down as a 
generic idea (by means of the virtue of humility). The mutual 
brotherly humility (Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii. 12; Acts xx. 19) is 
the determining 'principle, by which, 'for example, Caius is 
moved to regard Lucius as standing higher, in a moral point 
of view, than himself, and, on the other hand, Lucius to pro- 
nounce Caius to be of a higher moral rank than himself {i.e. 
dW7]\ov<; . . . eavTOiv). Hoelemann erroneously refers r/J raireiv- 
o(f)p. to virepe^., so that it " excellentiae designet pracsidium" 
— a view which the yerj position of the words should have 
warned him not to adopt. — KeuoSo^la] ostentation, only here 
in the K T. Comp. Wisd. xiv. 14; Polyb. iii. 81. 9 ; Lucian, 
B. Mort. x. 8, XX. 4; and see on Gal. v. 26. — Ver. 4. /a^ ra 
eavTcJv eKaarot ct/cott.] The humble mind just indicated cannot 
exist together with selfishness, which has its own interests in 
view. See instances of a-Koiretv ra Tti/09, to be mindful of 
any one's interests, in Herod, i. 8 ; Plat. Fhaedr. p. 2 3 2 D ; 

CHAP. II. ?, 4. 75 

Thuc. vi. 12. 2; Eur. Supp. 302. Comp. Liician, Prom. 14: 
ra/xavTov fiova ctkotto). The opposite of ra kavrwv ctk. may be 
seen in 2 Mace. iv. 5 : to Se o-v/LL(f}epov Kocvfj . ... aKoircov. 
Comp. ^r]T6tv TO, eavTov, 1 Cor. x. 24, 33, xiii. 5 ; Phil. ii. 21, 
where ^rjrelv presents no essential difference in sense. Others 
consider that the having regard to gifts and merits is intended 
(Calvin, Hammond, Eaphel, Keil, Commentat. 1803, in his 
Opusc. p. 172 ff., Hoelemann, Corn. Miiller), which, after the 
comprehensive rf} Taireivo^p. k.tX., would yield a very insipid 
limitation, and one not justified by the context. — eKaa-roi] It 
is usually, and in other passages of the N. T. invariably, the 
singular that is used in this distributive apposition ; the plural, 
however, is not unfrequently found in classical authors. Horn. 
Ocl. ix. 164; Thuc. i. 7. 1 ; Xen. Hell. ii. 4, 38; Herodian, 
iii. 13, 14. — aWa koI k.tX.'\ a weaker contrast than we 
should have expected from the absolute negation in the first 
clause ;^ a softening modification of the idea. In strict con- 
sistency the icai must have been omitted (1 Cor. x. 24). 
Comp. Soph. Aj. 1292 (1313): opa /nr) roufiov dWa xal to 
a-ov; and see Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 788; Winer, p. 463 f. 
[E. T. 624]. The second e/caa-Tot might have been dispensed 
with ; it is, however, an earnest repetition. — The influences 
disturhing unity in Philippi, disclosed in vv. 2-4, are not, 
according to these exhortations, of a doctrinal kind, nor do 
they refer to the strength and weakness of the knowledge and 
conviction of individuals, as was the case in Eome (Eom. xiv.) 
and Corinth (1 Cor. viii. and x.) — in opposition to Eheinwald 
and Schinz ; — but they were based upon the jealousy of moral 
self -estimation, in which Christian perfection was respectively 
ascribed and denied to one another (comp. ver. 12, iii. 12 ff.). 
Although this necessarily implies a certain difference of opinion 
as to the ethical theory, the epistle shows no trace either of 
any actual division into factions, or of ascetic jealousy (which 

1 In which, in fact, it is not merely tlie limitation (Hofmann) to one's own that 
is forbidden, as if fitff stood along with it. What Hofmann at the same time 
deduces from the reading 'iKatrTOi (before (rxo-rovvTis), which he follows, as dis- 
tinguished fi'om the subsequent sxairT^/ (with a here wholly irrelevant compari- 
son of Plat. Apol. p. 39 A), is sophistical, and falls, moreover, with the reading 


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

Ver. 5. Enforcement of .the precept contained in ver. 3 f. 
by the example of Jesus (comp. Eom. xv. 3 ; 1 Pet. ii. 21 ; 
Clem. Cor. I. 16), who, full of luimility, kcjyt not His own inte- 
rest in view, but in self-renunciation and self-humiliation sacri- 
ficed it, even to the endurance of the death of the cross, and 
was therefore exalted by God to the highest glory ;^ this ex- 
tends to ver. 12. See on this passage Kesler in Thcs. nov. ex 
Tims. Has. et Ihen. II. p. 947 f . ; Schultens, Disscrtatt. pJiilol. 
I. p. 443 ff. ; Keil, two Commcntat. 1803 (Ojmsc. p. 172 ff.) ; 
Martini, in Gabler's Journ. f. auscrl. theol. Lit. IV. p. 34 ff. ; von 
Amnion, Magaz. f. Pred. II. 1, p. 7 ff. ; Kraussold in the Annal. 
cl. gesammt. Theol. 1835, II. p. 273 ff. ; Stein in the Stud. u. 
Krit. 1837, p. 165 ff. ; Philippi, d. thatige Gehors. Chr. Berl. 
1841, p. 1 ff. ; Tholuck, Disp. Christol. de I. Phil. ii. 6-9, Halle 
1848 ; Ernesti in the Stud. u. Krit. 1848, p. 858 ff., and 1851, 
p. 595 ff ; Baur in the theol. Jahrh. 1849, p. 502 ff., and 
1852, p. 133 ff., and in his Paulus, II. p. 51 ff. ed. 2 ; Liebner, 
Christol. p. 325 ff. ; Eaebiger, Christol. Paidin. p. 76 ff . ; 
Lechler, Apost. u. nachapost. Zcitalt. p. 58 ff . ; Schnecken- 
burger in the Deutsch. Zcitschr. 1855, p. 333 ff . ; Wetzel in 
the Monatschr. f. d. Luth. Kirchc Preuss. 1857 ; Kiihler in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 99 ff. ; Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1860, p. 431 ff., and his Christol. d. N.^T. 1866, p. 233 ff. ; 
Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. 1870, p. 163 ff. ; J. B. Light- 
foot's Excursus, p. 125 ff . ; Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld's Zcitschr. 

' Christ's example, therefore, in this passage is one of self -denial, and not of 
obedience to God (Ernesti), in which, in truth, the self-denial only manifested 
itself along with other things. It is, however, shown by the very addition of xai, 
that Paul really intended to adduce the e.cample of Christ (in opposition to Hof- 
mann's view) ; comp. Eom. xv. 3. Christ's example is the moral, ideal, histori- 
cally realized. Comp. Wuttke, SiUenl. II. § 224 ; Schmid, Siitenl p. 355 ff. ; 
and as early as Chrysostom. 

CHAP. II. G. 17 

1871, p. 519 ff.; Grimm in the same Zeitschr. 1873, p. 33 ff. 
Among the more recent dogmatic writers, Thomasius, II. p. 
148 ff.; Philippi, IV. 1, p. 469 ff . ; Kahuis, I. p. 458 ff. 
— (jipoveicrOco ev u/i.] scntiatur in animis vestris. The parallelism 
with the iv which follows prohibits our interpreting it intm 
vestrum cactum (Hoslemann, comp. Matthies). The 'passive 
mode of expression is unusual elsewhere, though logically 
unassailable. Hofmann, rejecting the passive reading, as also 
the passive supplement afterwards, has sadly misunderstood 
the entire passage.^ — o koX iv X. 'I.] sc. i^povrjdr}. On iv, 
comp. the Homeric ivl (ppeal, ivl dv/xco, which often occurs 
with ^povelv, Ocl. xiv. 82, vi. 313 ; //. xxiv. 173. /cat is not 
cum maxime, but the simple also of the comparison (in opposi- 
tion to van Hengel), namely, of the pattern of Christ. 

Ver. 6. The classical passage which now follows is like an 
JEpos in calm majestic objectivity ; nor does it lack an epic 
minuteness of detail. — o?] epexegetical ; subject of what 
follows ; consequently Christ Jesus, but in the jJrc-Jiuman state, 
in which He, the Son of God, and therefore according to the 
Johannine expression as the X0709 da-apKo<;, was with God.^ 

^ Reading (fiponTTi, and subsequently explaining the Iv Xpurru 'l>t<rou as a frequent 
expression with Paul for the ethical Christian quality (like sv xvpiA> in iv. 2), 
Hofmann makes the apostle say that the readers are to have their mind so directed 
within them, that it shall not he lacking in this definite quality tvhich makes it 
Christian. Thus there would be evolved, when expressed in simple words, 
merely the thought: "Have in you the mind Avhich is also the Christian 
one." As if the grand outburst, which immediately follows, would be in harmony 
with such a general idea ! This outburst has its very ground in the lofty 
exami^le of the Lord. And what, according toHofmann's view, is the purpose of 
the significant xai ? It would be entirely luithout correlation in the text ; for in Iv 
vfiiy the Iv would have to be taken as local, and in the Iv Xfurru, according to that 
misinterpretation, it would have to be taken in the sense of ethlccd fellowship, 
and thus relations not at all analogous would be marked. 

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


The human state is first introduced by the words kavrov 
eKevwae in ver. 7. So Chrysostom and his successors, Beza, 
Zanchius, Vatablus, Castalio, Estius, Clarius, Calixtus, Semler, 
Storr, Keil, Usteri, Kraussold, Hoelemann, Eilliet, Corn. Miiller, 
and most expositors, including Liinemann, Tholuck, Liebner, 
Wiesinger, Ernesti, Thomasius, Eaebiger, Ewald, Weiss, Kahnis, 
Beysciilag (1860), Schmid, Bill. Theol. II. p. 306, Messner, 
Lelire d. Ap. 233 £, Lechler, Gess, Person Chr. p. 80 £, 
Eich. Schmidt, I.e., J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm ; comp. also Hof- 
mann and Diisterdieck, Ajjolog. Beitr. III. p. 65 ff. It has 
been objected (see especially de Wette and Philippi, also 
Beyschlag, 1866, and Dorner in Jahrh. f. D. Th. 1856, p. 
394 f.), that the name Christ Jesus is opposed to this view; 
also, that in vv. 8-11 it is the exaltation of the earthly Christ 
that is spoken of (and not the return of the Logos to the divine 
ho^a) ; and that the earthly Christ only could be held up as a 
pattern. But XpLo-ro^ ^Irjcrov^, as subject, is all the more justly 
used (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; Col. i. 1 4 ff. ; 1 Cor. 
X. 4), since the subject not of the pre-human glory alone, but 
at the same time also of the human abasement ^ and of the 
subsequent exaltation, was to be named. Paul joins on to o? 
the whole summary of the history of our Lord, including His 
pre-human state (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9 : eTTTcox^vcre 7rXovcno<i wv) ; 
therefore vv. 8-11 cannot by themselves regulate our view as 
regards the definition of the subject; and the force of the 
example, which certainly comes first to light in the historical 
Christ, has at once historically and ethically its deepest root in, 
and derives its highest, because divine (comp. Matt. v. 48 ; 
Eph. V. 1), obligation from, just what is said in ver. 6 of His 
state hcfore His human appearance. Moreover, as the context 
introduces the incarnation only at ver. 7, and introduces it as 
that by which the subject divested Himself of His divine 
appearance, and as the earthly Jesus never was in the form of 

of Paul. Onlj' in time coiild He enter upon the human existence; the notion of 
eternal humanity would refute itself. 

^ Hence Philippi's ohjcction, that (pponlv is elsewhere applied to man only, 
and not to God, is devoid of significance. Unfounded is also Ceyschlag's objec- 
tion (1S66) drawn from the word ex.^i^aTi ; see below. 

CHAP. II. C. 79 

God (comp. Gess, p. 295), it is incorrect, because at variance 
with the text and illogical, though in harmony with Lutheran 
orthodoxy and its antagonism to the Kenosis of the Logos/ 
to regard the incarnate historical Christ, the X0709 evaapKo<;. as 
the subject meant by 09 (Novatian, de Trin. 17, Ambrosiaster, 
Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Cameron, Piscator, Hunnius, 
Grotius, Calovius, Clericus, Bengel, Zachariae, Kesler, and 
others, including Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hengel, 
de Wette, Schneckenburger, Philippi, Beyschlag (1866), Dor- 
ner, and others ; see the historical details in Tholuck, p. 2 ff., 
and J. B. Lightfoot). Liebner aptly observes that our passage 
is "the Pauline 6 X0709 aap^ ejivero;" comp. on Col. i. 15. — 
ev p'Op(j)fj 060V virdp-^wv] not to be resolved, as usually, into 
" although, etc.," which could only be done in accordance with 
the context, if the apira^iibv r]<ydcr6ai k.t.X. could be pre- 
supposed as something proper or natural to the being in the 
form of God ; nor does it indicate the i^ossihility of His divest- 
ing Himself of His divine appearance (Hofmann), which was 
seK-evident ; but it simply narrates the former divinely glorious 
position which He afterwards gave up : when He found Himself 
in the form of God, by which is characterized Christ's pre- 
human form of existence. Then He was forsooth, and that 
objectively, not merely in God's self-consciousness — as the not 
yet incarnate Son (Eom. i. 3, 4, viii. 3 ; Gal. iv. 4), according 
to John as X0709 — with God, in the fellowship of the glory 
of God (comp. John xvii. 5). It is this divine glory, in which 
He found Himself as laa ©eai wv and also eiKOiv Qeov — as such 
also the instrument and aim of the creation of the world, Col. 
i. 1 5 f. — and into which, by means of His exaltation, He again 
returned ; so that this divine Bo^a, as the possessor of which 
before the incarnation He had, without a body and invisible to 

' According to wliich Christ had the full divine majesty "statim in sua con- 
ceptione, etiam in utero matris" {Form. Cone. p. 767). But He had it in His 
state of humiliation secreto, and only manifested it occasionally, quoties ip&i 
visum fuerit. In opposition to this, Liebner rightly obsei-ves, p. 334 : "This is 
altogether inadequate to express the powerful N. T. feeling of the depth and 
greatness of our Lord's humiliation. This feeling unmistakeably extends to the 
unique personal essence of the God-man, and in conformity with this, to the 
very heart of the act of incarnation itself." 


the eye of man (comp. Philo, dc Somn. I. p. 655), the form of 
God, is now by means of His glorified body and His divine- 
human perfection visibly possessed by Him, that He may cifijear 
at the irapovaia, not again without it,but in and with it (iii. 2 f.). 
Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15, iii. 4. Mopcj)^, therefore, which 
is an appropriate concrete expression for the divine Bo^a 
(comp. Justin, AjmI. I. 9), as the glory visible at the throne 
of God, and not a " fanciful expression" (Ernesti), is neither 
equivalent to c^ycrt? or ovala (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecu- 
menius, Theophylact, Augustine, Chemnitz, and many others ; 
comp. also Eheinwald and Corn. Miiller) ; nor to status (Calo- 
vius, Storr, and others) ; nor is it the godlike cajmcit/)/ for 
possible equality ivith God (Beyschlag), an interpretation which 
ouglit to have been precluded both by the literal notion of the 
word fiop(f)7], and by the contrast of /j.opcp'tj 8ovXov in ver. 7. But 
the fiopcjiT] &eov presupposes^ the divine </)i;cri? as o/noaroXo'i 
fiop^r}^ (Aesch. Siqipl. 496), and more precisely defines the 
divine status, namely, as form of leing, corresponding to the 
essence, consequently to the homoousia, and exhibiting the con- 
dition, so that p-op^r) ©60V finds its exhaustive explanation in 
Heb. i. 3 : a7Tavyaap,a tj)? B6^7]<; k. '^apaKTrjp tt}? vTTOcrrdcrecoii 
rod ©eov, this, however, being here conceived as predicated 
of the ^;rt;-ca;is^(;7i;! Christ. In Plat. Ile2}. ii. p. 381 C, pop(f)')] 
is also to be taken strictly in its literal signification, and not 
less so in Eur. Baccli. 54; Ael. H. A. iii. 24; Jos. c. Ap. ii. 
16, 22. Comp. also Eur. Baccli . 4: p,op(pi]v apeiylra-i e'/c Oeov 
^porrjalav, Xen. Cyr. i. 2. 2 : <^vcnv p.ev S?; t^? '^/^l'X'?? k. t7?<? 
fiop(ji't]<;. What is here called popcpr] ©eov is elSo? ©eov 
in John v. 37 (comp. Plat. Bejx p. 380 D; Plut. Ifor. p. 
1013 C), which the Son also essentially possessed in His pre- 
human So^a (John xvii. 5). The explanation of (j)vai<; was 
promoted among the Eathers by the opposition to Arius and a 

^ Bengel well says: "Ipsa natura divina decorem habebat infinitum, iu se, 
etiam sine uUa creatura ilium decorem intuente." — What Paul here designates 
simply by Iv fii!p(p-^ ©sou i'raf^av is pompously expressed by Clement, Cor. I. 16 : 
T» trxti'TTpov tUs iiiya.Xoo(r{jins 'rou Qiov. The forma mentis aeterna, however, in 
Tacitus, Acjrk. 46, is a conception utterly foreign to our passage (although 
adduced here by Hitzig), and of similar import Avith Proiiertius, iii. 1, 64 : 
"in^enio stat siue morte decus." 

CHAP II. G. 81 

number of other heretics, as Chrysostom adduces them in 
triumph ; hence, also, there is much polemical matter in them. 
For the later controversy with the Socinians, see Calovius. — 
vTrdp-x^wv] designating more expressly than u>v the relation of 
the siibsistinrj state (iii. 20; Luke vii. 25, xvi. 23 ; 2 Pet. 
iii. 11) ; and hence not at all merely in the decree of God, or in 
the divine self-consciousness (Schenkel). The time is that of 
the 2^^'C'-liuman existence. See above on o?. Those who under- 
stand it as referring to His human existence (comp. Johni. 14) 
think of the divine majesty, which Jesus manifested both hi/ 
loord and deed (Ambrosiaster, Luther, Erasmus, Heinrichs, 
Krause, Ojmsc. p. 33, and others), especially by His miracles 
(Grotius, Clericus) ; while Wetstein and Michaelis even suggest 
that the transfiguration on the mount is intended. It would 
be more in harmony with the context to understand the pos- 
session of the complete divine image (without arbitrarily 
limiting this, by preference possibly, to the moral attributes 
alone, as de Wette and Schneckenburger do) — a possession 
which Jesus (" as the God-pervaded man," Philippi) had (poten- 
tialiter) from the very hcginning of His earthly life, but in a 
latent manner, without manifesting it. This view, however, 
would land them in difficulty with regard to the following 
eavT. eKevcoae k.t.X, and expose them to the risk of insert- 
ing limiting clauses at variance with the literal import of 
the passage ; see below. — ou^ apiray/xov r}y7]aaT0 to elvai. 
laa 0ecp] In order to the right explanation, it is to be ob- 
served : (1) that the emphasis is placed on apTrayfxov, and 
therefore (2) that to elvat laa ©ew cannot be something essen- 
tially different from ev f^opcpfj Qeov v7rdpj(ehv, but must in sub- 
stance denote the same thing, namely, the divine hahitus of 
Christ, which is expressed, as to its form of appearance, by ev 
fj'Op(f)fj ©eov virdp-^., and, as to its internal nature, by to elvai 
laa ©ew;^ (3) lastly, that dpira^ijio^ does not mean ^;r«cf?a, or 

' An entirely gi'onndless objection has been made (even by Ltinemann) against 
the view which takes to uvai iVa QiZ as not essentially different from h ^a/Jipp &iou 
ilvai, A^iz. that Paul would, instead of ro tivai 'Ua. etu, have written merely 
ravTo, or even nothing at all. He might have done so, but there was no neces- 
sity for his taking that course, least of all for Paul.' He, on the contrary, 
distinguishes very precisely and suitably between the two ideas representing 


that which is seized on (which would be apird'yLpLov, Callim. 
Cer. 9 ; Pallad. ep. 87; Philop. 7 9 ; or apirayina or dpTracrfia, 
and might also he dp-Trayi]), or that which one forciUy snatches 
to himself (Hofmann and older expositors) ; but actively : 
rohhing, making looty. In this sense, which is a priori probable 
from the termination of the word which usually serves to 
indicate an action, it is used, beyond doubt, in the only profane 
passage in which it is extant, Pint, de j^'eror. educ. 15 {Mor. 
p. 1 2 A) : Ka\ tov<; jxev ©rj^rjai, koI roii^ ^H\iSi (pevKreov epa>Ta<; 
Kot rov €K KprjT7}<i Kdkovjjbevov apira'yp.ov, where it denotes the 
Cretan kidnapping of children. It is accordingly to be ex- 
plained : Not as a rohhing did He consider^ the heiiig equal ivith 
God, i.e. He did not place it under the point of view of making 
booty, as if it was, with respect to its exertion of activity, to 
consist in His seizing ivhat did not helong to Him. In opposi- 
tion to Hofmann's earlier logical objection [Schrifthew. I. 
p. 149) that one cannot consider the hcing as a doing, comp. 
1 Tim. vi. 5 ; and see Hofmann himself, who has now recog- 
nised the linguistically correct explanation of apTra'yiio'i, but 
leaves the object of the apird^eiv indefinite, though the latter 
must necessarily be something that belongs to others, con- 
sequently a foreign possession. Not otherwise than in the 
active sense, namely raptus, can we explain Cyril, de adorat.J. 
p. 25 (in Wetstein) : ou^ dpira'yixov^ rrjv Trapairrjaiv co? e^ 
dSpavov^ Kal vSapea-ripa'i eTrocetTo (ppev6<i ; further, Eus. in 
Idle. vi. in Mai's Nov. Bihl. patr. iv. p. 165, and the passage 
in Possini Cat. in Marc. x. 42, p. 233, from the Anonym. 
Tolos. : oTi ovK eartv apTrajfjub'; rj niirj ;'^ as also the entirely 
synonymous form apiraa-fio'i in Plut. Mor. p. 644 A, and \7)lcrfio<i 

the same state, by saying that Christ, in His divine pre-human form of life, 
did not venture to use this His God-eqnal being for making booty. Both, there- 
fore, express the very same divine habitus ; but the iTvai la-a Qiu is the general* 
element, which presents itself in the divine /xopipri as its substratum and lies at 
its basis, so that the two designations exhaust the idea of divinity. Comp. 
also Liebner, p, 328. 

^ On riyiTcr^Ki, in this sense of the mode of regarding, which places the 
object under the point of view of a qualitative category, comp. Kriiger on Thuc. 
ii. 44. 3. 

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

^ Where, according to the connection, the sense is : Not a seizing to oneself 

CHAP. IT. C. 83 

in Byzantine writers ; also crKv\ev/x6<i in Eustathius ; comp. 
Phryn. App. 36, where dp7ra'y/x6<: is quoted as equivalent to 
apTTacra. The passages which are adduced for apway/xa 
Tjyeiadai or TrotelaOai ti (Heliod. vii. 11. 20, viii. 7 ; Eus. R. 
E. viii. 1 2 ; Vit. C. ii. 3 1) — comp. the Latin praedam ducere (Cic. 
Verr. v. 15 ; Justin, ii. 5. 9, xiii. 1. 8) — do not fall under the 
same mode of conception, as they represent the relation in ques- 
tion as something 7nade a hooty of, and not as the act of malcing 
'booty. We have still to notice (1) that this ovy^ apira'^p.'bv 
rjf^rjcraTO corresponds exactly to [xy] ra eavrcov aKOTrovvre'i 
(ver. 4), as well as to its contrast eaurov iKevcoae in ver. 7 (see 
on ver. 7) ; and (2) that the aorist rjyrjaaro, indicating a definite 
point of time, undoubtedly, according to the connection (see the 
contrast, a\X' kavrov itcevcocre k.t.X), transports the reader to that 
moment, ivhcn the pre-existing Christ %vas on the point of coming 
into the ivorld loith the heing equal to God. Had He then thought : 
" When I shall have come into the world, I will seize to myself, 
by means of my equality with God, power and dominion, 
riches, pleasure, worldly glory," then He would have acted the 
part of apTray/iiov rj'yelcrOac to elvac "era 0eaj ; to which, however, 
He did not consent, but consented, on the contrary, to self- 
renunciation, etc. It is accordingly self-evident that the sup- 
posed case of the dp7rayfx6<; is not conceived as an action of the 
pre-existing Christ (as Eichard Schmidt objects), but is put as 
connecting itself with His appearance on earth. The reflection, 
of which the pre-existent Christ is, according to our passage, 
represented as capable, even in presence of the will of God 
(see below, yevo/ju. uttt^'/coo?), although the apostle has only con- 
ceived it as an abstract possibility and expressed it in an 
anthropopathic mode of presentation, is decisive in favour of 
the personal pre-existence ; but in this pre-existence the Son 
appears as sv.hordinate to the Father, as He does throughout 
the entire New Testament, although this is not (as Beyschlag 
objects) at variance with the Trinitarian equality of essence in 
the Biblical sense. By the dpirayiiov rjyeiaOai k.t.X., if it had 
taken place. He would have wished to relieve Himself from this 

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


subordination. — The linguistic correctness and exact apposite 
correlation of the whole of this explanation, which harmonizes 
with 2 Cor. viii. 9/ completely exclude the interpretation, 
which is traditional but in a linguistic point of view is quite 
incapable of proof, that ap7raj/M6<;, either in itself or by- 
metonymy (in which van Hengel again appeals quite inap- 
propriately to the analogy of Jas. i. 2, 2 Pet. iii. 15), means 
"praeda or res ra'picncla. With this interpretation of ap'ira<yfio<;, 
the idea of elvai Xaa Gew has either been rightly taken as 
practically identical with iv fiop^fj @eov vTrdpyeiv, or not. (A) 
In the former case, the point of comparison of the figurative 
'pracda has been very differently defined : cither, that Christ 
regarded the existence equal with God, not as a something 
usurped and illegitimate, but as something naturcd to Him, and 
that, therefore. He did not fear to lose it through His humilia- 
tion (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, and 
other Fathers ; see Wetstein and J. B. Lightfoot) ; comp. Beza, 
Calvin, Estius, and others, who, however, give to the conception 
a different turn ;^ or, that He did not desire ijcrtinaciously to 
retain for Himself this equality with God, as a robber his booty, 
or as an unexpected gain (Ambrosiaster, Castalio, Vatablus, 
Kesler, and others ; and recently, Hoelemann, Tholuck, Eeuss, 

^ Riibiger and AVetzel, and also Pflciderer, I.e., have lately adopted this view ; 
likewise Kolbe in the Luther. Zcitschr. 1873, p. 311 f. Hofmann also now 
explains the passage in a way not substantially diffei'ent. But Grimm, Lc. 
p. 38, very unjustly describes the retention of apTayfii; in the sense which it has 
in Plutarch, as petty grammatical pedantry. The ideas, spoil, booty, occur in 
countless instances in all Greek authors, and in the LXX. , and are very variously 
expressed i^ap'^nt-yn, a.fjrayi/.rt., a.fra.ciji.a., Xrii:, ffxvXiiifia, o'wXov, Xii'a), but never by 
dp-rxy/ios, or any other form of word ending with f^og. It is true that various 
substantives ending in f^o; may denote the result of the action ; not, however, 
as we may be pleased to assume, but solely in accordance with evidence of 
empirical usage, and this is just what is wanting for this sense in the case of 
dpvay[yi.'os. Its rejection, therefore, in oi;r passage, is not pedantic, but is simply 
linrjuistically demanded. Weiss, hihl. Theol. p. 426, ed. 2, erroneously objects 
to our view of apv ay //.(>;, that, in that case, it would be impossible to conceive of 
any object, and that thus an utterly empty antithesis to the giving up of Christ's 
own possession is the result. As if there were not given in tlie very notion of 
df!rxy//.cs its object, viz. that which does not belong to the subject of the action, 
and tliis, indeed, in its unrestricted and full compass, just because nothing special 
is added as an object. 

2 Beza: " Non iguoravit, se in ea re {i.e. quod Deo Patri coaequalis esset) 

CHAP. II. c. 85 

Liebner, Schmid, Wiesinger, Gess, Messner, Grimm ; comp. also 
Usteri, p. 314);^ or, that He did not conceal it, as a prey 
(Matthies) ; or, that He did not desire to disjylay it triumphantly, 
as a conqueror his spoils (Luther, Erasmus, Cameron, Vatablus, 
Piscator, Grotius, Calovius, Quenstedt, Wolf, and many others, 
including Michaelis, Zachariae, Eosenmiiller, Heinrichs, Flatt, 
Eheinwald) ;^ whilst others (Wetstein the most strangely, but 
also Usteri and several) mix upvevyvarioics points of comparison. 
The very circumstance, however, that there exists so much 
divergence in these attempts at explanation, shows how arbi- 
trarily men have endeavoured to supply a modal definition for 
apTT. rjy^a-., which is not at all suggested by the text. — (B) In 
the second case, in which a distinction is made between to elvac 
Xcra ©€w and iv fJ'Op(j)fj &6ov vTTdp')(etv , it is explained : nan 
rapinam duxit, i.e. non rapiendum sihi duxit, or directly, non 
rapuit (Musculus, Er. Schmidt, Eisner, Clericus, Bengel, and 
many others, including am Ende, Martini, Krause, Opusc. p. 31, 
Schrader, Stein, Eilliet, van Hengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
Wette, Ernesti,Eaebiger, Schneckenburger, Ewald, Weiss, Schen- 
kel, Philippi, Thomasius, Beyschlag, Kahnis, Eich. Schmidt, and 
others) ; that Christ, namely, though being iv p-op^fj Qeov, did 
not desire to seize to Himself the elvai taa ©ew, to grasp eagerly 

nullam injuriam cuiquam faccre, sed suo jure uti ; nihllominus tamen quasi jure 
suo cessit." So also Calvin, substantially, only that he erroneously interprets 
•Ayritraro diS arhitratiis essct, " Non fuisset injuria, si aequalis Deo apparuisset. " 
Estius : "that He had not recognised the equality with God as an usurped 
possession, and therefore possibly desired to lay it aside, but had renounced 
Himself" etc. 

'• In this class -we must reckon the interpretation of Theodoret (comp. 
Origen, ad lioni. v. 2, x. 7, Eusebius, and others) : that Christ, being God by 
nature, did not hold His equality with God as something specially great, as 
those do who attain to honours Tap a^lav ; but that He, -hv a^ixt xxTaxpv^a;, 
chose humiliation. To this comes also the view of Theodore of Mopsuestia : 

u,op(pnv yap 'hauXov Xafiuv Ttiv a^lai/ ixiivnti a'^ixpvyj/lv, ToZro to?; opuffiv iivcci vofiiC,ofityos, 

'i-xip %(^tt.U'.To. — Tholuck compares the German expression : als ein r/efundenes 
Essen {einoi guten Fund) anselun. According to him, the idea of the whole 
passage is, " Tantum aberat, ut Christus, quatenus Xoyos est, in gloria atque 
Ijcatitate sua acquiescere sibique soli placere vellet, ut amore erga mortales 
ductus servi formam induere ac vel infimam sortem subire sine iilla haesitatione 

* To this belongs also Pelagius, "Quod erat, humilitate celav'd, dans nobis 
exemplum, nein his (jloriemur, quae forsitan non habemus." 


the possession of it.^ In this view expositors have understood 
the X<ja elvai Qew as the divine plenitudinem et altitudinem 
(Bengel) ; the sessionem ad dextram (L. Bos) ; the divine lionour 
(Cocceius, Stein, de Wette, Grau) ; the vitani vitae Dei aequalem 
(van Hengel) ; the existendi modum cum Deo aequalem (Liine- 
mann) ; the coli et hcate vivere ut Deus (Krause) ; the dominion 
on earth as a visible God (Ewald) ; the divine autonomy 
(Ernesti) ; the heavenly dignity and qlory entered on after the 
ascension (Eaebiger, cornp. Thomasius, Philippi, Beyschlag, 
Weiss); corresponding to the ovo/jia to virep irav ovoixa in 
ver. 9 (Rich. Schmidt) ; the nova jura divina, consisting in 
the KvpioTTj^i 'rrdvTcov (Bruckner) ; the divine So^a of universal 
adoration (Schneckenburger, Lechler, comp. Messner) ; the 
original Uessedness of the Father (Kahnis) ; indeed, even the 
identity with the Father consisting in invisibility (Rilliet), 
and the like, which is to sustain to the iJiop^t) Qeov the relation 
of a plus, or something separable, or only to be obtained at some 
future time by humiliation and suffering" (ver. 9). So, also, 
Sabatier, /' apotre Paid, 1870, p. 223 ff." In order to meet 
the ovx apTT. ■)]y. (comparing Matt. iv. 8 ff.), de Wette (comp. 

^ So also Liinemann, wlio, in tlie sense of the divine lire-existence of Christ, 
paraphrases thus : " Christus, etsi ab aeterno inde dignitate creatoris et domini 
rerum omnium frueretur, ideoque divina indutus magnificentia coram patre con- 
sideret, nihilo tamen minus hand arripiendum sibi esse autumabat existendi 
modum cum Deo aequalem, sod ultro se exinanivit. " In a sense opposed to the 
divine pre-existence, however, Beyschlag says, Christol. p. 236 f. : "Christ 
possessed the f^op(ph QioZ (that is, 'the inner form of God') ; He might have 
but stretched out His hand towards the iVa &iu, uva.t ; He disdained, however, 
to seize it for Himself, and chose quite the opposite ; therefore it was given Him 
as the reward of His obedience, etc." Hilgenfeld, in his Zcitschrift, 1871, 
p. 197 f., says: the Pa\;line Christ is indeed the heavenly man, but no divine 
being ; the equality with God was attained by Him only through the renuncia- 
tion, etc. 

■■2 The lead in this mode of considering the passage was taken by Arius, 
whose party, on tlie ground of the proposition Iku^io ct,pfa.Z,ti m, « ou» ex'-', 
declared: en &ios a)» Ixarruv ohx '^ ft «■<'''- TO iiMCit 'Ua ru Qioi rai fisyaXtu *. 

fiiil^oyi. See Chrysostom. 

3 He thinks tliat the divine ^o/j?>j of Christ stands to the 5Va thai 0=* in the 
relation of j^otentia to actus. " Christ etait des I'origine en puissance ce qu' a 
* la fin il devint en r4alite ;" the fi^piph «£<>« denotes the general form of being of 
Christ, but "une forme vide, qui doit etre remplie, c'est-Ji-dire spirituellement 
realisee." This higher position He had not wished to usurp, but had attained to 
it "reelleraent par le libre developpement de sa vie morale." 

CHAP. II. C. 87 

Hofmann, Schriftlciv. p. 151) makes the thought be supplied, 
that it was not in the aim of the work of redemption be- 
fitting that Christ should at the very outset receive divine 
honour, and that, if He Imd taken it to Himself, it would have 
been a seizure, an usurpation. But as iv fJ'Op(f)f} Qeov vtt. already 
involves the divine essence,^ and as laa elvai QeS has no 
distinctive more special definition in any manner climactic 
(comp. Pfleiderer), Chrysostom has estimated this whole mode 
of explanation very justly : el rjv 0eo?, ttco? eZp^et' dpirdaai ; koX 
irSi'i ovK aTreptvorjTOv rovro ; Ti9 ^cip dv elirot, on o Selva 
dvdp(07ro<; cov ou^ rjpTracre ro etvai dvdpcoTro^ ; 7rco9 ^d.p dv rt? 
oTrep iarlvy dpirdaeiev. Moreover, in harmony with the 
thought and the state of the case, Paul must have expressed 
himself conversely : 09 'lo'cu @6m virdp^cov ov^ dpir. rjy. to elvat 
iv fiopcf)]] &£ov, so as to add to the idea of tlie equality of nature 
(Jcra), by way of climax, that of the same form of appearance 
{fiop^rj), of the divine ho^a also. — With respect to to elvai, tara 
@eu), it is to be observed, (1) that taa is adverbial: in like manner, 
as we find it, although less frequently, in Attic writers (Time, 
iii. 14 ; Eur. Or. 880fl/. ; comp. o/xola, Lennep. ad Phalar. 108), 
and often in the later Greek, and in the LXX. (Job v. 1 4, x. 1 0, 
xi. 12, xiii. 12 ; Wisd, vii. 3, according to the usual reading). 
This adverbial use has arisen from the frequent employment, 
even so early as Homer (//. v. 71, xv. 439; Od. xi. 304, xv. 
519 al), of laa as the case of the object or predicate (see Ellendt, 
Lex. SojjJi. I. p. 847 ; Kriiger, II. § xlvi. 6. 8). But as ehuL, 
as the abstract substantive verb, does not suit the adverhial 
laa, pari ratione, therefore (2) to elvai must be taken in the 
sense of cxistere ; so that to elvai 'laa Qew does not mean the 
heing equal to God ^which would be to elvai caov Qeo)), but 
the God-equal existence, existence in the way of parity with 
God.^ Paul might have written taov (as mascul.) ©ew 
(John V. 18), or laodeov ; but, as it stands, he has more dis- 
tinctly expressed the metaphysical relation, the divine mode of 

' Not merely the similarity, from whicli is there distinguished the equality bj 
uvai "irec (in opposition to Martini and others). 

^ [The German is : iiicht das Gotte gleich sein, sondem das goitgleiche Seln, das 
Sein auf gottgleiche Wt ise, die gottgleiche Existenz.] 


existence} of the pre-human Christ. (3) The article points 
back to ev fj-opcpfj ©eov v'iTdp-)(wv, denoting the God-equal exist- 
ence inanifcsting itself in that /J^op(f)7] ; for the iJ'Opcbi] ©eov is the 
appearance, the adequate subsisting form, of tlie God-equal 
existence. (4) Ernesti (in controversy with Baur), who is fol- 
lowed by Kiihler, Kahnis, Beyschlag, and Hilgenfeld, entertains 
the groundless opinion that our passage alludes to Gen. ii. f , 
the t<ja elvai ©ew pointing in particuhar to Gen. iii. 5. In the 
text there is no trace^ of any comparison of Christ with the 
first human beings, not even an echo of like expression ; how 
different from the equality with God in our passage is the eaeaBe 
o)? 6eoL in Gen. iii. 5 ! Certainly, any such comparison lay 
very remote from the sublime idea of the divine glory of the 
pre-existent Christ, which was something quite different from 
the image of God in the first human beings. Comp. also 
Eich. Schmidt, p. 172 ; Grimm, p. 42 f. 

Ver. 7. '^XX.' iavrov eKevcocre] Tlie emphatically prefixed 
eavTov is correlative to the likewise emphatic apira'^p.ov in 
ver. 6. Instead of tlie dpird^ecv, by which he would have 
entered upon a foreign domain, He has, on tlie contrary, emjDtied 
Himself, and that, as the context places beyond doubt, of the 
divine fiopcp^, which He possessed but now exchanged for a 
f^op(f)r] SovXov; He renounced the divine glorious form which, 
prior to His incarnation, was the form of appearance of His 
God-equal existence, took instead of it the form of a servant, 
and became as a man. Those who have already taken ver. 6 

^ Which, therefore, was not essentially different from that of the Father. 
The lira iivat Bsw is the Pauline Btos ?v i x'oyos. Hofmann erroneously, although 
approved by Thomasius, makes the objection (Schriftbnv. p. 150) that an exist- 
ence equal to divine existence can only be predicated of Him, who is not God. 
It may be predicated also of Him who is not the very same person, but of equal 
divine nature. Thus it might also be asserted of the Holy Spirit. The appeal 
by Hofmann to Thuc. iii. 14 is here without any bearing whatever. 

" Eitschl indeed also, A Itkath. Kirche, p. 80, requires, for the understanding 
of our passage, a recognition that Christ, as Iv ^"^(p-ji &iov v'prupx'^^, is put in 
comparison with the earthly Adam. But why should Paul, if this comparison 
was before his mind, not have written, in accordance with Gen. i. 26, xcct 
iixiva 0., or xaS' of^oiairiv 0., instead of £v fiopip^ 0. ? This would have been most 
natural for himself, and would also have been a hint to guide the readers. — The 
passages quoted by Hilgenfeld from the Clementine Homilies affirm the ^o^ip>i 
etou of the body of man, and are therefore irnlevant. 

CHAP. II. T. 89 

as referring to the incarnate Christ (see on 6'?, ver. G) are at 
once placed in a difficulty by eKevcocre, and explain away its 
simple and distinct literal meaning ; as, for instance, Calvin : 
" supprimcndo . . . deposuit ; " Calovius (comp. Form. Cone. 
pp. 608, 767) : " vcliiti (?) deposuit, quatenus earn (gloriam div.) 
7ion pciyduo manifcstavit atqxic cxscruit ;'' Clericus : " non magis 
ea U8US est, guam si ea destitutus fuisset ;" comp. Quenstedt, 
Bos, Wolf, Bengel, Eheinwald, and many others. Beyschlag 
also finds expressed here merely the idea of the self-denial exer- 
cised on principle by Christ in His earthly life, consequently 
substituting the IST. T. idea of airapvetaOaL kavrov. De Wette, 
in accordance Avith his distinction between iJ-op^-r] Geov and elvac 
i<ra Qeo) (comp. Schneckenburger, p. 336), referring it only to 
the latter (so also Corn. ]\Iiiller, Philippi, Beyschlag, and others), 
would have tliis elvai Xaa OerZ meant merely in so far as it 
would have stood in Jesus' 2^ovxr, not in so far as He actually 
2J0sscsscd it, so that the eavr. Ik&v. amounts only to a renun- 
ciation of the elvai, laa Qew, which He mirjld have appropriated 
to Himself ; while others, like Grotius, alter the signification of 
Kevovu itself, some making it mean : He led a life of poverty 
(Grotius, Baumgarten - Crusius), and others : dcjyressit (van 
Hengel, Corn. Mliller, following Tittmann, Ojmsc. p. 642 f., 
Keil, comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others). Augustine : 
" Kon amittens quod erat, sed accipiens quod non erat ; forma 
servi accessit, non forma Dei discessit." But eKevcoae means 
nothing but exinanivit (Vulgate) (see Eom. iv, 14; 1 Cor. 
i. 1 7, ix. 1 5 ; 2 Cor. ix. 3 ; and the passages in the LXX. 
cited by Schleusner ; Plat. Conv. p. 1 9 7 C, Rep. p. 5 6 D, 
Phil. p. 35 E; Soph. 0. B. 29 ; Eur. Wies. 914; Thuc. viii. 
57. 1 ; Xen. Oec. 8. 7),^ and is here piurposcly selected, because 
it corresponds with the idea of the ap7rayfj.6<} (ver. 6) all the 
more, that the latter also falls under the conception of Kevovv 
(as emjyfyiny of that which is affected by the dp7ra'y/x6<; ; comp. 

1 Comp. Hasse in the Jahrh. f. Deutsche Theol. 1S58, p. 394 f. (in opposition 
to Dorner's reference of the idea to that of l^ov^iviTv). Dorner, in tlie same 
Jahrh. 1856, p. 395, is likewise driven to reduce the idea of the nivuirii merely to 
that of the renunciation of tlie appearance of majesty, which would have been 
befitting tlie divine form and parity, this inner greatness and dignity of Jesus 


LXX. Jer. xv. 9; Plat. Rep. p. 560 D; Ecclus. xiii. 5, 7). 
The specific reference of the meaning to maldng poor (Grotius) 
must liave been suggested by the context (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9 ; 
Ecclus. I.e.), as if some such expression as h irkoinw ©eov virapx- 
had been previously used. Figuratively, the renunciation of 
the divine p^opcjii] might have been described as a inttting it off 
{eKhveadat). — The more precise, positive definition of the mode 
in which He emj)tied Himself, is supplied by fiopcfirjv Bov\ov 
Xa^cov, and the latter then receives through ip o/x. dvdp. <yev6- 
fjuevo'i Kal o'X^lP'- ^^P- «"? av9p. its specification of mode, correla- 
tive to elvai laa Qeco. This specification is not co-ordinate (de 
"Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Weiss, Schenkel), but subordinate 
to /xop^rjv BovX. Xa^oov, hence no connecting particle is placed 
before iv op,., and no punctuation is to be placed before koL 
a-')(rjpari, but a new topic is to be entered upon with eTaireivw- 
aev in ver. 8 (comp. Luther). The division, by which a stop is 
placed before koI a-yfipaTi . . . auOpcoTTa, and these words are 
joined to iraireivcoaev k.t.X. (Castalio, Beza, Bengel, and others ; 
including Hoelemann, Eilliet, van Hengel, Lachmann, Wiesin- 
ger, Ewald, Ptich. Schmidt, J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm), is at variance 
with the purposely-chosen expressions ayn^fjiaTL and evpedel'i, 
both of which correspond to the idea of pop<p7], and thereby show 
that K. a-^. evp. o)? avOp. is still a portion of the modal defini- 
tion of pop(f)7]v Soukov \a/3(iiv. Nor is the cx^'lH" ^^P- ^^ civdp. 
something following the Kevuxra (Grimm), but the empirical 
appearance, which was an integral part of the manner in 
which the act of self-emptying was comj^leted. Besides, 
iraireivwaev eavrov has its own more precise definition follow- 
ing ; hence by the proposed connection the symmetry of 
structure in the two statements, governed respectively by 
eavrov eKevcoae and eTaireivcocrev eavrov, would be unnecessarily 
disturbed. This applies also in opposition to Hofmann, who 
(comp. Grotius) even connects ev 6pot,copari avOp. yevop,. with 
erairelvuiGev eavrov, whereby no less than three participial 
definitions are heaped upon the latter. And when Hofmann 
discovers in ev 6p.oiwp.ari K.r.X. a second half of the relative 
sentence attached to Xpiarw ^Irjaov, it is at variance with the 
fact, that Paul does not by the intervention of a particle (or 

CITAP. II. 7. 91 

by 09 Kal, or even by the ba,re 09) supply any warrant for such 
a division, which is made, therefore, abruptly and arbitrarily, 
simply to support tlie scheme of thought which Hofmann 
groundlessly assumes: (1) that Jesus, when He was in the 
divine {Ji-op^ii], emptied Himself ; and (2) when He had hccome 
man, humUcd Himself. Comp. in ojDposition to this, Grimm, 
p. 46, and Kolbe in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1873, p. 314. — 
fjLopcjirjv 8ov\ov \aj3oiv] so that He took slave-form, now making 
this lowly form of existence and condition His own, instead of 
the divine form, which He had hitherto possessed. How this 
was done, is stated in the sequel. The aorist i^articiple de- 
notes, not what was 'previous to the eavr. e«eV., but what was 
contemporaneous with it. See on Eph. i. 9. So also do the 
two following participles, which are, however, sulordinatcd to 
the fxop^rjv hovKov Xa^cov, as definitions of manner. That 
Paul, in the word SovXou, thought not of the relation of 07ie 
serving in genercd (with reference to God and men, IMatthies, 
Eheinwald, Eilliet, de Wette, comp. Calvin and others), or 
that of a servant of others, as in Matt. xx. 28 (Schnecken- 
burger, Beyschlag, Christol. p. 236, following Luther and 
others), or, indefinitely, that of one subject to the will of 
another (Hofmann), but of a slave of God (comp. Acts iii. 1 3 ; 
Isa. Iii.), as is self-evident from the relation to God described 
in ver. 6, is plain, partly from the fact that subsequently the 
assumption of the slave-form is more precisely defined by ev 
ofjLotcofj,. avOp. lyevofji. (which, regarded in itself, puts Jesus only 
on the same line with men, but in the relation of service towards 
God), and partly from vinjKoo'; in ver. 8. To generalize the 
definite expression, and one which corresponds so well to the 
connection, into " miseram sortcm, qualis esse servorum solet " 
(Heinrichs, comp. ■ Hoelemann ; and already, Beza, Piscator, 
Calovius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others), is pure caprice, which 
Erasmus, following Ambrosiaster (comp. Beyschlag, 1860, p. 
471), carries further by the arbitrary paraphrase: "servi noeentis, 
cum ipsa esset innocentia," comp. Pom. viii. 3. — ev ofxoicofi. 
av6p. ^evopL. Ac.T.X..] the manner of tliis fiop(j). SovXov \ajBelv : so 
that He came in the likeness of man, that is, so that He entered 
into a form of existence, which ivas not different from that ivhich 


oncn have. In opposition to Hofmann, who connects ev ofiocco- 
fiari k.tX. with iraTreivcoaev k.t.\., see above. On ylveadai ev, 
in the sense, to come into a i^osition, into a state, comp. 2 Cor. 
iii. 7; 1 Tim. ii. 14; Luke xxii. 44; Acts xxii. 17; 1 Mace. i. 27; 
2 Mace. vii. 9 ; Ecclus. xliv. 2 ; and frequently in Greek authors 
after Homer (Xen. Anah. i. 9. 1 ; Herodian, iii. 7. 19, ii. 13. 21); 
see ISTagelsbach, zur Bias, p. 295 f. ed. 3. This entrance into 
an existence like that of men was certainly brought about by 
human hirth ; still it would not be appropriate to explain yevo/jb. 
by natus (Gal. iv. 4; Eilliet ; comp. Gess, p. 295 ; Lechler, p. 66), 
or as an expression for the "heginninr/ of existence" (Hofmann), 
since this fact, in connection with which the miraculous con- 
ccption is, notwithstanding Kom. i. 3, also thought to be 
included, was really human, as it is also described in Gal. iv. 4. 
Paul justly says: iv ofioLcofiari tl/^^/a., because, in fact, Christ, 
although certainly perfect man (Rom. v. 1 5 ; 1 Cor. xv. 2 1 ; 
1 Tim. ii. 5), was, by reason of the divine nature (the icra 
elvat 06a>) present in Him, not simply and merely man, not 
a pvj'us piitus homo, but the incarnate Son of God (comp. Eom. 
i. 3 ; Gal. iv. 4 ; and the Johannine o X070? a-ap^ iyeveTo), 0? 
i(f>avepa>67] iv aapKi (1 Tim. iii. 16), so that the power of the 
higher divine nature was united in Plim with the human ap- 
pearance, wjiich was not the case in other men. The nature of 
Him who had become man was, so far, not fully idcnticcd with, 
but substantially conform {iv o/xoLcofi.) to, that which belongs 
to man.^ Comp. on Eom. viii. 3, i. 3 f., and respecting the 
idea of o/xolco/xa, which does not convey merely the conception 

Our passage contains no trace of Docetism, even if Paul had, instead of 
a.'iSfoi'Jtaii, used the singular, which he might just as well have written here as 
ui eiv^pu-ros in the sequel, in place of which he might also have used w; at^fta-xot. 
This applies in opposition to Lange, aiwst. Zeitalt. I. p. 131, and Lechler, p. 66. 
Even Pliilippi, Glauhensl. IV. 1, p. 472, is of opinion that the above-named in- 
terpretation amounts to Docetism. But Christ was in fact, although perfect 
man, nevertheless something so much more exalted, that the phrase h ciioiuft. 
uv6f. must have vindicated itself to the believing consciousness of the readers 
without any misconception, and especially without that of Docetism, which Barn- 
introduces into it {neutest. Theol. p. 269), particularly when we consider the 
thoroughly ethical occasion and basis of the passage as an exhibition of the 
loftiest example of humility (comp. Rich. Schmidt, p. 178). Nevertheless, 
Beyschlag has repeated that objection. 

CHAP. II. 7. 93 

of analogy, see on Rom. i. 23, v. 14, vi. 5,vm. 3. The expres- 
sion is based, not upon the conception of a qiiasi-man, but upon 
the fact that in the man Jesus Christ (Eom. v. 15) there was 
the superhuman life-basis of divine iVott;?, the uvai taa &€(p 
not indwelling in other men. Justice, however, is not done to 
the intentionally used ofioia/fiaTt (comp. afterwards (r-x/ifiarC), 
if, with de "VVette, we find merely the sense that He (not 
appearing as divine Ruler) was found in a human condition, — 
a consequence of the fact that even ver. 6 was referred to the 
time after the incarnation. This drove also the ancient dog- 
matic expositors to adopt the gloss, which is here out of place, 
that Christ assumed the accidcntales inflrniitates corporis (yet 
without sin), not ex naturae necessitate, but ex oiKovoixla^ 
libertatc' {Colowiws)} By others, the characteristic of dclnle ct 
dbjcctum (Hoelemann, following older expositors) is obtruded 
upon the word avOpwircov, which is here to be taken in a purely 
generic sense ; while Grotius understood av6p. as referring to 
the first human beings, and believed that the sinlessncss of 
Jesus was meant. It is not at all specially this (in opposi- 
tion also to Castalio, Liinemann, Schenkel, and others), but 
the ivhole divine oiature of Jesus, the /^opcfuj of which He laid 
aside at His incarnation, which constitutes the j^oint of differ- 
ence that lies at the bottom of the expression iv ofMOLco/LLart, (Sta 
TO fir} -y^LXop avOpcoTTov elvai, Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom), 
and gives to it the definite reference of its meaning. The 
explanation of the expression by the unique position of Christ 
as the second Adam (Weiss) is alien from the context, which 
presents to us the relation, not of the second man to the first 
man, but of the God-man to ordinary humanity. — koX (TxnH'' 
evp. ft)? avOpoiTT.'] to be closely connected with the preceding 
participial affirmation, the thought of which is emphatically 
exhausted : " and in fashion was found as a man," so that the 
divine nature (the Logos-nature) was not perceived in Him. 

' To this also amounts the not so precisely and methodically expressed 
explanation of Philippi : Since Christ remained in the divine form, His 
assumption of the slave-form consisted " in the withdrawal of the rays of the 
divine glory lohich continued to dwell in His flesh, and which He only veiled and 
subdued iciih the curtain of the flesh." Thus also does Calvin depict it : the 
carnis humilitas was instar veli, quo divina majcstas tegehatur. 


(jyrijia, habitus, which receives its more precise reference from 
the context (Pflugk, ad Eur. Hcc. 619), denotes here the entire 
outwardly perceptible mode and form, the whole shape of the 
phenomenon apparent to the senses, 1 Cor. vii. 3 1 ; comp. to Trj<i 
deov (X')(riixa k. d<ya\/xa, Plat. Ci'it. p. HOB; rvpavvov a'^rjixa. 
Soph. Ant. 1154; "Eaxv. Med. 1039; Plat. Polit. p. 267 C: 
(7')(ri[ia ^aaikLKov, ]). 290 D: rwv lepecov cr'^rj/xa ; Dem. 690. 
2 1 : vTrriperov (T')(f]/xa ; Lucian, Cyn. 17: to i/xov cr'xfjfia to S' 
vfieTepou; also, in the plural, Xen. 3fcm. iii. 10. 7; Lucian, 
D. 31. XX. 5. Men saw in Christ a human form, bearing, 
language, action, mode of life, wants and their satisfaction, 
etc., in general the state and relations of a human being, so that 
in the entire mode of His appearance He made Himself known 
and was recognised (evpeO.) as a man. In His external 
character, after He had laid aside the divine form Avhich He 
had previously had,^ there was observed no difference between 
His appearance and that of a 7nan, although the subject of His 
appearance was at the same time essentially divine. The w? 
with avdp. does not simply indicate ivJiat He was recognised 
to be (Weiss); tliis would have been expressed by av6p. alone; 
but He was found as a man, not invested loith other qualities. 
The Vulgate well renders it, " inventus ut homo." This 
included, in particular, that He presented and manifested in 
Himself the human adp^, human weakness and susceptibility 
of death (2 Cor. xiii. 4 ; Ptom. vi. 9 ; Acts xxvi. 23). 

Ver. 8. 'ETaireivcoaev] is ]3laced with great emphasis at the 
head of a new sentence (see on ver. 7), and without any con- 
necting particle : He has humbled Himself. 'EavTov is not 
prefixed as in ver. 7 ; for in ver. 7 the stress, according to the 
object in view, was laid on the reflexive reference of the action, 
but here on the reflexive action itself. The relation to eKevcoae 
is climactic, not, however, as if Paul did not regard the self- 
renunciation (ver. 7) as being also QQ\i-humiliation, but in so 
far as the former manifested in the most extreme way the clia- 

^ Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 644 f. : H^ia-h Siov Iv a-x^f^an at^^u-Trov. Comp. 
p. 744 : To» /3a»';Xsa tuv ohfaioit, rov i'pri yrii (fctAvra Iv f^o/np-^ at^fuvav Tavtivuiriciis. 

How these passages agree with the Nazaraic character of the book, is not a point 
for discussion here. 

CIL\.P. II. 8. 95 

racter of TaTreivcixn'i in the shameful death of Jesus. It is a 
climactic parallelism (comp. on iv. 9) in which the two pre- 
dicateSj although the former in the nature of the case already 
includes the latter (in opposition to Hofmann), are kept 
apart as respects the essential points of their appearance in 
historical development. Bengel well remarks : " Status exin- 
anitionis gradatim profandior." Hoelemann, mistaking this, 
says : " He humbled Himself even hcloiv His dignitij as man." 
— ^e.vo}h. u7r?7/coo9] The aorist participle is quite, like the 
participles in ver. 7, simultaneous with the governing verb : 
so that He hecame obedient. This vTnjKoo^ is, however, not to 
be defined by " capientibus se, damnantihus et interficientibus" 
(Grotius) ; nor is it to be referred to the laiu, Gal. iv. 4 
(Olshausen), but to God (Eom. v. 19 ; Heb. v. 8 f), whose 
will and counsel (comp. e.g. Matt. xxvi. 42) formed the ground 
determining the obedience. Comp. ver. 9 : hio Kal 6 ©eo? 
K.r.\. The expression itself glances back to yuopc^. hov\ov ; 
" obedientia servum decet," Bengel. — f^^XP^ Bavdrov] belongs 
to virrjK. fyevo/x., not to irair. eavr. (Bengel, Hoelemann) — 
which latter connection is arbitrarily assumed, dismembers the 
discourse, and would leave a too vague and feeble definition 
for irair. eavr. in the mere vtdJk. yevo/x. By fJ^^xP^ death is 
pointed out as the cidminating point, as the highest degree, 
up to which He obeyed, not merely as the temporal goal (van 
Hengel). Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 9 ; Heb. xii. 4 ; Acts xxii. 4 ; 
Matt. xxvi. 38. This extreme height reached by His obedi- 
ence was, however, just the extreme depth of the humiliation, 
and thereby at the same time its end ; comp. Acts viii. 3 3 ; 
Isa. liii. 8. Hofmann groundlessly takes virrjK. 'yivecrOai in 
the sense of showing obedience (comp. on Gal. iv. 12). The 
obedience of Christ was an ethical heeoming (Heb. v. 8). — 
Oavarov Se crravp.! rovreaTt rov eTriKarapdrov (comp. Gal. 
iii. 1 3 ; Heb. xii. 2), rov toI<; dv6fxot<; d^copca/j^ivov, Theophy- 
lact. The Se, with the repetition of the same word (comp. 
Eom. iii. 22, Lx. 30), presents, just like the German ahcr, 
the more precisely defined idea in contradistinction to the 
idea which is previously left without this special definition : 
2cnto death, hut what kind of death ? unto the most shameful 


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

Eemark 1. — According to our explanation, vv. 6-8 may be 
thus paraphrased : Jesus Christ, lohen He found Himself in the 
heavenly mode of existence of divine glory, did not permit Him- 
self the thought of using His equality luith God for the p)urpose of 
seizing possessions and honour for Himself on earth: No, He 
emptied Hiraself of the divine glory, inasmuch as, notivithstand- 
ing His God-equal nature. He took up)on Him the 7node of existence 
of a slave of God, so that He entered into the likeness of men, and 
in His outward hearing and appcaranee manifested Himself not 
othcr^oise than as a man. He humbled Himself so that He he- 
came obedient %mto God, etc. According to the explanation of 
our dogmatic writers, who refer vv. 6-8 to the earthly life of 
Christ, the sense comes to this: " Christum jam inde a primo con- 
ccptionis moraento divinam gloriam et majestatem sihi secundum 
humanam ncduram eommunicatam p)lcna usuoyatione exsererc et 
tanquam Deum se gercrc p)otuisse, scd ahdicasse se ylenario ejus 
usu et humilem se cxhihuisse, pcdrique suo coelesti obcdicntem 
factum esse usque ad. mortem crucis" (Quenstedt). Tlie most 
tliorough exposition of the passage and demonstration in this 
sense, though mixed with much jDolemical matter against the 
Eeformed and the Socinians, are given by Calovius. The point 
of the orthodox view, in tlie interest of the full Deity of the God- 
man, lies in the fact that Paul is discoursing, not de humiliatione 
INCARNATIONIS, but dc huniiUatione incai;nati. Among the 
Eeformed theologians, Calvin and Piscator substantially agreed 
with our [Lutheran] orthodox expositors. 

Eemark 2. — On a difference in llie dogmatic understanding of 
vv. 6-8, when men sought to explain more precisely the doctrine 
of the Church (Forrii. Cone. 8), was based the well-known con- 
troversy carried on since 1616 between the theologians of 
Tubingen and those of Gicsscn. The latter (Feuerborn and 
Menzer) assigned to Jesus Christ in His slate of liumiliation 
the xTYiffic of the divine attributes, but denied to Him tlieir 
p/p^o/?, thus making the yAvMoi; a renunciation of the xP^^'^- ^^^^ 
Tubingen school, on the other hand (Thummius, Luc. Osiander, 
and Nicolai), not separating the xT-Jjc/g and yjri(^'?, arrived at 
the conclusion of a hidden and imperceptible use of the divine 
attributes, and consequently made the xivuGig a npit-^ii rrii 

CITAr. II. 6-8. 97 

^pyjGrjjg. See the account of all the points of controversy in 
Dorner, II. 2, p. G61 ff., and especially Thomasius, Christi Fers. 
u. Wcrk, II. p. 429 ff. The Saxon Decisio, 1624, taking part 
with the Giessen divines, rejected the zpi)-^ig, without thoroughly 
refuting it, and even witliout avoiding unnecessary concessions 
to it according to the Formula Concordiae (pp. 608, 767), so 
that the disputed questions remained open and the controversy 
itself only came to a close through final weariness. Among 
the dogmatic writers of the present day, Philippi is decidedly on 
the side of the Giessen school. See his Glaulensl. IV. 1, p. 279 ff. 
ed. 2. It is certain that, according to our passage, the idea of 
the Tisvuffig is clearly and decidedly to be maintained, and the re- 
ducing of it to a zp-j-^ig rejected. But, since Paul expressly refers 
the iaurhv szimai to the fu^oppr) Qiov, and consequently to the divine 
mode of appearance, while he makes the ihai 'laa. QiCj to subsist 
with the assumption of the /xoppji bo-jXoZ, just as subsequently the 
Incarnate One appears only as h lij.(}ii^ij.ari avdp. and as cy^rjij.a7i 
ug av9p. ; and since, further, in the case of the zTrisig of the 
divine attributes thus laid down, the non-use of them — because 
as divine they necessarily cannot remain dormant (John v. 17, 
ix. 4) — is in itself inconceivable and incompatible with the 
Gospel history ; the zTi^aig and the %p5i(T/5 must therefore be in- 
separably kept together. But, setting aside the conception of 
the ■/.pv'^l>ig as foreign to the N. T., this possession and use of the 
divine attributes are to be conceived as having, by the renun- 
ciation of the /iopp?5 Qsov in virtue of the incarnation, entered 
upon a human development, consequently as conditioned, not 
as absolute, but as theanthropic. At the same time, the self- 
consciousncss of Jesus Christ necessarily remained the self-con- 
sciousness of the Son of God developing Himself humanly, or 
(according to the Johannine phrase) of the Logos that had 
become flesh, who was the iim^yirrig irapa rrarpdg] see the nume- 
rous testimonies in John's Gospel, as iii. 13, viii. 58, xvii. 5, 
V. 26. "Considered from a purely exegetical point of view, 
there is no clearer and more certain result of the interpretation 
of Scripture than the proposition, that the Ego of Jesus on earth 
was identical with the Ego which was previously in glory with 
the Father ; any division of the Son speaking on earth into two 
Egos, one of whom was the eternally glorious Logos, the other 
the humanly humble Jesus, is rejected by clear testimonies of 
Scripture, however intimate we may seek to conceive the mar- 
riage of the two during the earthly life of Jesus;" Liebner 
in the Jahrh.f. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 362. That which the 
divine Logos laid aside in the incarnation was, according to 


our passage, the /^ofp^ QsoZ, that is, the divine d6^u as a form of 
existence, and not the shai 'lea &sOj essentially and necessarily 
constituting His nature, which He retained,^ and to which 
belonged, just as essentially and necessarily, the divine — and 
consequently in Him who had become man the divine-human — 
self-consciousness.^ But as this cannot find its adequate ex- 
planation either in the ahsolute consciousness of God, or in the 
archetypal character which Schleiermacher assigned to Christ, or 
in the idea of the religious genius (Al. Schweizer), or in that of 
the second Adam created free from original sin, whose personal 
development proceeds as a gradual incarnation of God and deifi- 
cation of man (Eothe), so we must by no means say, with Gess, 
V. d. Pers. Chr. p. 304 f, that in becoming incarnate the Logos had 
laid aside His self-consciousness, in order to get it back again only 
in the gradual course of development of a human soul, and that 
merely in the form of a hiiman self-consciousness. See, in op- 
position to this, Thomasius, Christi Pers. u. Werlc, II. p. 198 f . ; 
Schoeberlein in the Jahrl. f. D. Th. 1871, p. 471 ff, comp. the 
latter's Geheimnissc des Glaubens, 1872, 3. The various views 
which have been adopted on the part of the more recent Lutheran 
Christologists,^ diverging from the doctrine of the Formula Con- 
cordiae in setting forth Christ's humiliation (Dorner : a gradual 
ethical Mending into one another of the divine and human life 
in immanent development ; Thomasius : self-limitation, i.e. 

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

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

* Schenkel's ideal transference of Christ's pre-existence simply into the self- 
consciousness of God, which in the person of Christ found a perfect self-manifes- 
tation like to humanity, boldly renounces all the results of historical exegesis 
during a whole generation, and goes back to the standpoint of Lbffler and others, 
and also further, to that of the Socinians. Comp. on John xvii. 5. Yet even 
Beyschlag's Christology leads no liirther than to an ideal pre-existence of Clirist 
as archetype ot humanity, and that not as a person, but merely as the principle 
of a person ; — while Keerl (d. Gottniensch. das Ehcnbild Oottes, 1866), in unper- 
ceived direct opposition to our passage and to the entire K. T., puts tlie Son of 
God already as Son of man in absolute (not earthly) corporeality as pre-existent 
into the glory of heaven. From 1 Cor. xv. 47 the conception of the pre-exist- 
ence of Christ as a heavenly, pneumatic man and archetype of humanity 
(Holsten, Biedermann, and others) can only be obtained through misapprehen- 
sion of the meaning. See on 1 Cor. I.e., and Grimm, j). 51 fl'. 

CHAP. II. 9. 99 

partial self-renunciation of the divine Logos ; Liebner : the 
entrance of the Logos into a process of becoming, that is, into 
a divine-human development), do not fall to be examined 
here in detail ; they belong to the province of Dogmatics. 
See the discussions on the subject by Dorner, in the Jakrb. f. 
Deutsche TJicol. 185G, 2, 1857, 2, 1858, 3; Broemel, in the 
Kirchl. Zcitschr. of Kliefoth and Mejer, 1857, p. 144 ff. ; Liebner, 
in the Jahrl. f. Deutsche Thcol. 1858, p. 349 ff. ; Hasse, ihid. 
p. 336 ff. ; Schoeberlein, I.e. p. 459 ff. ; Thomasius, Chr. Fers. u. 
Werk, IL pp. 192 ff., 542 ff. ; Philippi, Dogmat. IV. 1, p. 364 ff. 
— According to Schoeberlein, the Son of God, when He became 
man, did not give up His operation in governing the world in 
conjunction with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but continued 
to exercise it with divine consciousness in heaven. Tlius the 
dilemma cannot be avoided, either of supposing a diial person- 
ality of Christ, or of assuming, with Schoeberlein, that heaven 
is not loccd. Not only the former, however, but the latter view 
also, would be opposed to the entire N. T. 

Ver. 9. The exaltation of Christ, — by the description of 
which, grand in its simplicity, His example becomes all the 
more encouraging and cmimcding. — Zto] for a recompense, on 
account of this self-denying renunciation and humiliation in 
obedience to God (/cat, cdso, denotes the accession of the cor- 
responding consequence, Luke i. 35 ; Acts x. 29 ; Eom. i. 24, 
iv. 22 ; Heb. xiii. 12). Comp. Matt, xxiii. 12 ; Luke xxiv. 26. 
Nothing but a dogmatic, anti-heretical assumption could have 
recourse to the interpretation which is at variance with linguistic 
usage : qico facto (Calvin, Calovius, Glass, Wolf, and others). 
The conception of recompense (comp. Heb. ii. 9, xii. 2) is 
justified by the voluntariness of what Christ did, vv. 6—8, as 
well as by the ethical nature of the ohedience with which He 
did it, and only excites offence if we misunderstand the 
Subordinatianism in the Christology of the apostle. Augus- 
tine well says : " Humilitas claritatis est meritum, claritas 
humilitatis i^raemmm." Thus Christ's saying in Matt, xxiii. 12 
was gloriously fulfilled in His own case. — virepv'^wae] comp. 
Song of Three Child. 28 fif. ; LXX. Ps. xxxvi. 37, xcvi. 10; 
Dan. iv. 34; Synes. IJp. p. 225 A; it is not found elsewhere 
among Greek authors, by whom, however, vTrepv^rfko^;, exceed- 


ingly high, is used. He made. Him very high, exceedingly 
exalted, said by way of superlative contrast to the previous 
iratrelvoiaev, of the exaltation to the felloio&hi]) of the highest 
glory and dominion, Eom. viii. 17 ; 2 Tim. ii. 12 ; Eph. i. 21, 
al. ; John xii. 32, xvii. 5.^ This exaltation has talccn i^laee 
by means of the ascension (Eph. iv. 10), by which Jesus 
Christ attained to the right hand of God (Mark xvi. 1 9 ; 
Acts vii. 55 f.; Eom. viii. 34; Eph. i. 20 f . ; Col. iii. 1; 
Heb. i. 3, viii. 1, x. 12, xii. 2 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; 1 Pet. iii. 22), 
although it is not this local mode, but the exaltation viewed 
as a state which is, according to the context, expressed by 
vTrepv-^^r. It is quite unbiblical (John xvii. 5), and without 
lexical authority, to take v'jTep as intimating : more than 'pre- 
viously (Grotius, Beyschlag). — e;\;apio-aTo] He granted (i. 29), 
said from the point of view of the subordination, on whicli also 
what follows (/ci//3i09 . . . et? Bo^av Oeov Trarpo?) is based. Even 
Christ receives the recompense as God's gift of grace, and 
hence also He prays Him for it, John xvii. 5. The glory of 
the exaltation did not stand to that possessed before the incarna- 
tion in the relation of a ^^/^s, but it affected the entire divine- 
human person, that entered on the regnum gloriae. — ro ovofMo] 
is here, as in Eph. i. 21, Heb. i. 4, to be taken in the strictly 
literal sense, not as dignitas or gloria (Heinrichs, Hoelemann, 
and many others), a sense which it might have ex adjuncto 
(see the passages in Wetstein and Hoelemann), but against 
which here tlie following iv tu> ovofMaTt ^Irjcrov is decisive. 
The honour and dignity of the name of Jesus are expressed 
by ro virep irav ovofxa, but are not implied in to ovo/ma of 
itself. Nor is it to be understood of an apipcllative name, as 
some have referred it to Kvpio^ in ver. 1 1 (Micliaelis, Keil, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, van Hengel, Schneckenburger, Weiss, Hofmann, 
Grimm) ; others to u/o? Geov (Theophylact, Pelagius, Estius) ; 
and some even to 0eo9 (Ambrosiaster, Oecumenius, and again 

^ In tlie conception of the " exaltation " Paul agrees with John, but does not 
convey expressly the notion of the return to the Father. This is not an incon- 
sistency in relation to tlie doctrine of pre-existence (in opposition to Pfleiderer, 
I.e. p. 517), hut a consequence of the more dialectically acute distinction of ideas 
in Paul, since tliat change of condition affected the entire Christ, the God-man, 
whereas the subject of tlie lire-existence was the Logos. 

CHAP. II. 10. 101 

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

Ver. 10 f. "Iva\ This exaltation, ver. 9, was to have, in 
accordance with the divine purpose, general adoration and 
confession as its result, — a continuation of the contrast with 
the previous state of self-renunciation and humiliation. In 
the mode of expression there may be detected a reminiscence 
of Isa. xlv. 23 (Eom. xiv. 11). — The eV rw ovoyu. 'I., empha- 
tically prefixed, affirms that, in the name of Jesus, i.e. in what 
is involved in that most glorious name " Jesus Christ," and 
is present to the conception of the subjects as they bend their 
knees, is to be foimd the moving ground of this latter action 
(comp. Ps. Ixiii. 5 ; 1 Kings xviii. 24; 1 Chron. xvi. 10, al. ; 
1 Cor. vi. 11; Eph. v. 20 ; Col. iii. 17; 1 Pet. iv. 14, 16; 
Jas. V. 14). The hoiving of the hnee represents adoration, 
of which it is the symbol (Isa. xlv. 23 ; Ptom. xiv. 11, xi. 4 ; 
Eph. iii. 14; 3 Esdr. viii. 7 3 ; 3 Mace. ii. 1 ; and in Greek 
Avriters from Homer ouM^rd), and the subject to be adored 
is, according to the context (eV tw ovoji. 'I., and comp. ver. 11), 
none other than Jes2is, the adoring worship of whom has its 
warrant in the fellowship of the divine government and of the 
divine Bo^a to which He is exalted (comp. the habitual eirtKa- 
\ela6at to ovofia Kvpiov, Eom. x. 1 2 f. ; 1 Cor. i. 2 ; 2 Tim. 
ii. 22 ; Acts vii. 59, ix. 14, 21, xxii. 16), but has also at the 
same time its peculiar character, not absolute, but relative, i.e. 
conditioned by the relation of the exalted Son to the Father 
(see Liicke, de invocat. Jes. Ch. Gott. 1843, p. 7 f . ; comp. 
Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 218), — a peculiarity which did 
not escape the observation of Pliny {Ep. x. 97: " Christo 
q^iiasi Deo"), and was, although only very casually and im- 
perfectly, expressed by him. This adoration (comp. ver. 11, 
eh 86^av &eov irarpo^) does not infringe that strict mono- 
theism, which could ascribe absolute deity to the Father only 


(John xvii. 3 ; Eph. iv. 5 ; 1 Cor. xii. 6, viii. 6 ; 1 Tim. 
vi. 15 f.) ; the Father only is 6 o)v eVl irdvTwv 0e6<;, Piom. 
ix. 5 (comp. Tgnat. Tars, interpol. 5), 6 Ge6<i absolutely, God 
also of Christ (see on Eph. i. 17), the ©eo9 o iravTOKpdrwp 
(2 Cor. vi. 18 ; Eev. i. 8, iv. 8, al) ; and the Son, although of 
like natm^e, as avvOpovo^ and partaker of His ho^a, is subor- 
dinate to Him (1 Cor. xi. 3, xv. 27 f.), as in turn the Spirit 
is to the Son (2 Cor. iii. 18) ; the honour which is to be paid 
to the Son (Kev. v. 8 ff.) has its principle (John v. 22 f.) and 
aim (ver. 11) in the Father, and therefore the former is to be 
honoured as the Father, and God in Christ fills and moves 
the consciousness of him who prays to Christ. According to 
van Hengel, it is not the adoration of Jesus which is here in- 
tended, but that of God under application of the name of Jesus ; 
and de Wette also thinks it probable that Paul only intended 
to state that every prayer should be made in the name of 
Jesus as the Mediator {Kvpto<;). Comp. also Hofmann : " the 
praying to God, determined in- the person praying hj the con- 
sciousness of his relation to Jesus as regulating his action!' 
Instead of this we should rather say : the praying to Jesus, 
determined by the consciousness of the relation of Jesus to 
God (of the Son to the Father), as regulating the action of 
the person praying. All modes of explaining away the 
adoration as offered to Jesus Himself are at variance not only 
with the context generally, which has to do with the honour 
of Jesus, making Him the ohjcct of the adoration, but also with 
the word eirovpaviwv which follows, because the meeliatorship 
of Jesus, which is implied in the atonement, does not affect 
the angels as its objects (comp., on the contrary, Heb. i. 4, 6). 
The two sentences may not be separated from one another (in 
opposition to Hofmann) ; but, on the contrary, it must be 
maintained that the personal object, to whom the bowing of 
the knee as well as the confession with the tongue applies, 
is Jesus. Linguistically erroneous is the view which makes iv 
TO) 6v6/jb. equivalent to ei? to ovofjua, for the glorifieation of 
His dignity (Heinrichs, Flatt, and others), or as a paro.phrase 
for iv 'Irja-ov (Estius ; Eheinwald leaves either of the two to 
be chosen) ; while others, by the interpretation " quoties auditur 

CHAP. II. 10, 103 

nomcn} brought out a sense which is altogether without 
analogy in the IST. T. See, in opposition to this, Calvin : " quasi 
vox (the word Jesus) esset magica, quae totam in sono vim 
haberet inclusam." — eirovpaviwv «.t.X.] every knee of heavenly 
beings (those to be found in heaven), and those on earth, and 
those under the earth, is to bow, none is to remain unbent ; that 
is, every one from these three classes shall bow his knees 
(plural), iirovp. includes the angels (Eph. i. 20 f., iii. 10; 
Heb. i. 4, 6 ; 1 Pet. i. 12, iii. 22) ; einy. the hitman beings on 
earth (comp. Plat. Ax. p. 3 6 8 B : eTTLyeco^ dv6pco7ro<;) ; and 
Kara^O- the dead in Racks (comp. Horn. //. ix. 457: Zev<; 
Kara^dovio^, Pluto:- KaTa-^Oovioi SaLfj,ove<i, the Manes, Anthol. 
vii. 333). Comp. Eev. v. 13 ; Ignat. Trail. 9, and the 
similar classical use of v7roy(66vio<;, vtto <yalav (Eur. Hec. 149, 
and Pfiugk in loc.). The adoration on the part of the latter, 
which Grotius and Hofmann misinterpret, presupposes the 
descensus Ch. ad inferos^ Eph. iv. 9, in which He presented 
Himself to the spirits in Hades as the Kvpio<;. Our passage, 
however, does not yield any further particulars regarding the 
so-called descent into hell, which Schweizer has far too rashly 
condemned as " a myth without any foundation in Seripture." 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and many 
others, including Baumgarten-Crusius and Wiesinger, have 

' Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Bretsclmeider, and others, arrived at this inter- 
pretation simply by understanding h tm h'cfjt.. as ad nomen (comp. Grotius : 
" nunaqmto nomine") ; but Hoelemann, with forced subtiltj% by the analysis : 
"quasi circumsonitum appelLitione nominis. " 

■^ To transfer, with Grotius, Hofmann, and Grimm, the genuflexion of tlie dead 
to the period after the resurrection, so that, according to Hofmann, the xaru- 
;,-9i>vioi ^^ sleep below their resurrection and shall then adore and confess," 
would be entirely eiToneous, mixing up with the direct, poetically plastic 
description of the apostle a remotely siiggested reflection. He views the bowing 
of the knee, as it has been done and is continuously being done, and not as it 
will be done by an entire class only in the future, after the Parousia. Wiesinger, 
however, has also placed the realization of the 7va (tSv yovu xdf/.-4^-/i x.r.x. at tlie 
end of tlie world, when the knees, which hitherto had not willingly bent, would 
be forced to do so (1 Cor. xv. 25 f.). On this point he ajipeals to Kom. xiv. 11, 
where, however, the whole text is dealing with the last judgment, which is 
not the case here. Besides, iv tJ ovofian is far from leading us to the idea of an 
adoration partially/o?'cefZ; it rather presupposes the faith, of which the bowing 
of the knee and the confession which follows are the fi'ee living action ; comp. 
Eom. X. 9. 


incorrectly understood by Kara-)(6. the Dacmoncs, which is an 
erroneous view, because Paul does not regard the Daemones 
as being in Hades (see, on the contrary, at Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12), 
There is an arbitrary rationalizing in Heinrichs, who takes the 
words as neuters : " omncs rerum creatarum complexus " (comp. 
Nosselt and J. B. Lightfoot), and already in Beza : " qiutecun- 
qiie et supra mundum sunt et in mundo." We meet with the 
right view as early as Theodoret. The Catholics referred KatayQ. 
to those who are in lourgatonj ; so Bisping still, and Dollinger, 
Christenth. u. Kirche, p. 262, ed. 2. — As regards the realization 
of the divine purpose expressed in Xva k.t.X, respecting the 
€7ny€ici)v, it was still in progress of dcvclojmient. but its comple- 
tion (Eom. xi. 25) could not but appear to the apostle near at 
hand, in keeping with his expectation of the near end of the 
alcbv ouTo?. Observe, moreover, how he emphasizes the uni- 
vcrsality of the divine purpose (iva) with regard to the bowing 
the knees and confession with the tongue so strongly by irav 
fyovv and Trdaa yXcoaaa, that the arbitrary limitation which 
makes him mean only those tvho desire to give God the glory 
(Hofmann) is out of the question. 

Ver. 11 appends the express confession combined with the 
adoration in ver. 1 0, in doing which the coneretc form of repre- 
sentation is continued, comp. Eom. xiv. 1 1 ; Isa. xlv. 2 3 ; 
hence ^Xdaaa is tongue, correlative to the previous ryovv, not 
language (Theodoret, Beza, and others). — ef o/xoX.] a strengthen- 
ing compound. Comp. on ]\Iatt. iii. 6. Respecting the future 
(see the critical remarks) depending on 'Iva, see on Gal. ii. 4 ; 
Eph. vi. 3 ; 1 Cor. ix. 18. — KvpLo<i\ predicate, placed first 
witli strong emphasis : that Lord is Jesus Christ. This is the 
specific confession of the apostolic church (Eom. x. 9 ; 2 Cor. 
iv. 5; Acts ii. 30), whose antithesis is: uvdde/j.a 'Irjcrov'i 
1 Cor. xii. 3. The Kvpiov elvai refers to the fellowship of the 
divine dominion (comp. on Eph. i. 22 f.,iv. 10 ; 1 Cor. xv. 27 f) ; 
hence it is not to be limited to the rational creatures (Hoele- 
mann, following Flatt and others), or to the eliurch (Rhemwald, 
Schenkel). — gU B6^. Oeov •jrarp.'] may be attached to the 
entire bipartite clause of purpose (Hofmann). Since, however, 
in the second part a modification of the expression is intro- 

CHAP. 11. 11, 105 

duced by the future,, it is more probably to be joined to this 
portion, of which the tclic destination, i.e. the fiiud cause, is 
specified. It is not to be connected merely with KvpLo^ T, X., 
as Bengel wished : " J. Ch. esse dominum, quijjpe qui sit in 
(jloria Dei imtris" making eh stand for ev, for which the 
Vidgate, Pelagius, Estiiis, and others also took it. Schnecken- 
burger also, p. 341 (comp. Calvin, Eheinwald, IMatthies, 
Hoelemann), joins it with Kupio^, but takes et? 86^av rightly : 
to the honour. But, in accordance with ver. 9, it was self- 
evident that the Kupt6T7]<; of the Son tends to the honour of the 
Father ; and the point of importance for the full conclusion 
was not this, but to bring into prominence that the universal 
confessing recognition of the KvptoTir; of Jesus Christ glorifies 
the Father (whose will and work Christ's entire work of sal- 
vation is ; see especially Eph. i. ; Eom. xv. 7—9 ; 2 Cor. i. 20), 
whereby alone the exaltation, which Christ has received as a 
recompense from the Father, appears in its fullest splendour. 
Comp. John xii. 28, xvii. 1, The whole contents of ver. 9 f. 
is parallel to the iv fjt'Op^fj Qeov, namely, as the recompensing 
re-elevation to this original estate, nov/ accorded to the divine- 
human person after the completion of the work of humiliation. 
Complicated and at variance with the words is the view of van 
Hengel, that i^ofioX. et? So^av Qeov is equivalent to e^opboX. 
Qecp, to 'praise God (Gen. xxix. 34, al.; Eom. xv. 9 ; Matt. xi. 25 ; 
Luke x. 21), and that on is quod; hence : " lauclibus celebrarent, 
quod hunc filium suum principem fecerit regni divini." 

Eemaek. — From vv. 6-11, Baur, whom Schwegler follows, 
derives his arguments for the assertion that our epistle moves 
in the circle of Gnostic ideas and expressions,^ and must therefore 
belong to the post-apostolic period of Gnostic speculation. But 
with the true explanation of the various points these arguments^ 
fall to pieces of themselves. For (1) if ro sfca; 'isa ©sw be related 

■ Its idea is, tliat Christ "divests Himself of that which He already is, in 
order to receive back that of which He has divested Himself, with the full reality 
of the idea filled with its absolute contents," Baur, Neute-'^t. Theol. p. 265. 

^ Hinsch, I.e. p. 76, does not adopt them, but yet thinks it un-Pauline that 
the incarnation of Christ is represented detached from its reference to humanity. 
This, however, is not the case, as may be gathered from the connection of the 
passage in its practical bearing with ver. 4 (t« iTipco)i). 


to h /j^opfTj QsoZ sTmi as the essence to its adequate manifestation, 
and if our explanation of apzay/j,6c be the linguistically correct 
one, then must the Gnostic conception of the Aeon Sophia — 
which vehemently desired to penetrate into the essence of the 
original Father (Iren. IIaeo\ i. 2. 2), and thus before the close of 
the world's course {Theol. Jalirh. 1849, p. 507 ff.) wished to usurp 
forcibly something not dejurc belonging to it {Paulus, II. p. 51 ff.) 
— be one entirely alien and dissimilar to the idea of our passage. 
But this conception is just as inconsistent with the orthodox 
explanation of our passage, as with the one which takes the shai 
'iaa 0£w as something future and greater than the FJ^op(pr\ QioZ; since 
in the case of the i^opfri, as well as in that of the 'lea, the full 
fellowship in tlie divine nature is already the relation assumed 
as existing. Consequently (2) the iaurh Ixsi/wcs cannot be ex- 
plained by the idea, according to which the Gnostics made that 
Aeon, which desired to place itself in unwarranted union with 
the Absolute, fall from the Pleroma to the %hu}j.a — as to which 
Baur, in this alleged basis for the representation of our passage, 
lays down merely the distinction, that Paul gives a moral turn to 
what, with the Gnostics, had a purely speculative signification 
(" Whilst, therefore, in the Gnostic view, that apitayiiog indeed 
actually takes place, but as an unnatural enterprise neutralizes 
itself, and has, as its result, merely something negative, in this 
case, in virtue of a moral self-determination, matters cannot 
come to any such apTtayiMoc; and the negative, which even m 
this case occurs, not in consequence of an act that has failed, 
but of one which has not taken place at all, is the voluntary 
self-renunciation and self-denial by an act of the will, an ka-oTh 
xsi/oD!/ instead of the yivsaHai h zivoj/j^an"). (3) That even the 
notion of the fji^oppri Qsou arose from the language used by the 
Gnostics, among whom the expressions iJ^opip-^, ij.op;poZv, /M6p(pc>jffig, 
were very customary, is all the more arbitrarily assumed by 
Baur, since these expressions were very prevalent generally, and 
are not specifically Gnostic designations ; indeed, iMoptpn ©sou is 
not once used by the Gnostics, although it is current among 
other authors, including philosophers {e.g. Plat. Bep. p. 381 C: 
IJ^svii asi ci'TrXojg Iv ry\ a'orov /J^op(pyi, comp. p. 381 B : ^Jc/Cr av croXXas 
fjiyop<pag 'i(s-/oi 6 &s6g). Further, (4) the erroneousness of the view, 
which in the phrases h 6/xo/uj/^ar/ ai/^pw^wv and s^yj,ubari shpskig ug 
av&p. discovers a Gnostic Docctism, is self-evident from the ex- 
planation of these expressions in accordance with the context 
(see on the passage) ; and Chrysostom and his successors have 
rightly brought out the essential difference between what the 
apostle says in ver. 7 and the Docctic conceptions (Theophylact : 

CHAP. II. 12. 107 

olx r^v biro ^a/vo'«,si'ov,<Aovo!', namely, mari, a?.>.d -Kat Qiog, oIk r,v ■'l/iXhg 
u'jdpU'TTog. A/a touto <prj6ir iv o/jyOiuf/^ari dvdpu'^rcijv' '/i/J^sTg fjAv yap -^[jyTi ffwtta, sxsTvog 8i •v^i'%51 xai cu/xa xui Qsog x.r.A. Theodoret : vspl 
Tov Aoyou Tavra (pr\(Siv, on Qecg ujv ov^ lupa-o Qihg Trjv av&poi'Xiiav inpixu- 
liivog (pvGiv Ti.r.x.). Comp. Oil Eom. viii. 3. Lastly, (5) even the 
three categories s'Troupavlojv xai l-my. -/.a) -Karajj^., and also the notion 
of the descensus ad inferos which the latter recalls, are alleged 
by Banr to be genuinely Gnostic. But the idea of the descent 
to Hades is not distinctively Gnostic ; it belongs to the N. T., and 
is a necessary presupposition lying at the root of many passages 
(see on Luke xxiii. 43 ; INIatt. xii. 40 ; Acts ii. 27 ff. ; Eom. x. 
6 fF. ; Eph. iv. 8 ff.) ; it is, in fact, the premiss of the entire belief 
in Christ's resurrection sx v^xpuv. That threefold division of 
all angels and men (see also Eev. v. 13) was, moreover, so 
appropriate and natural in the connection of the passage (comp. 
the twofold division, xai vsxpuv xai Z^oivrm, Eom. xiv. 9, Acts 
X. 42, 1 Eet. iv. 5 f., where only men are in question), that its 
derivation from Gnosticism could only be justified in the event 
of the Gnostic character of our passage being demonstrated on 
other grounds. The whole hypothesis is engrafted on isolated 
expressions, wdiich only become violently perverted into concep- 
tions of this kind by the presnjj^josition of a Gnostic atmosphere. 
According to the Gnostic view, it would perhaps have been said 
of the Aeon Sophia : og Iv iJ^opcpv^ ©sou •o'Kapyjjiv ou 'xpoaWie^ai riyriGaro 
SIC TO 'rrXripoifj.a rou Qsou x.r.x. The ajiostUs expressions agree 
entirely with the Christology of his other epistles; it is from 
these and from his own genuine Gnosis laid down in them, that 
his words are to be understood fully and rightly, and not from the 
theosophic phantasmagoria of any subsequent Gnosis whatever. 

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

' Linden, in tlie Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 750, attempted a new explanation of 
w. 12-14. According to this, fj^h a; is to stand for us ^w, xxTtpyu^. to be indica- 
tive, fiii ui . . . xnTipy. to belong to the protasis, ver. 13 to be treated as a paren- 
thesis, and, iinally, the apodosis to follow in -Travra, x.r.x. Against this view 
may be simply urged the fact, that f/.h a; (2 Thess. iii. 15 ; Philem. 14 ; 2 Cor. 
ix. 5) cannot be equivalent to a; //.-/i, and that there must have been used not even 
us firi, but, on account of the negation of a purely actual relation, u; olx ; to say 
nothing of the involved construction, and of the so special tenor of the allege'd 
apodosis after a preparation of so grand and general a nature by the alleged 


inference from the example of Christ (w. 6-11), who by the 
path of self-renunciation attained to so glorious a recompense. 
Following this example, the readers are, just as they had always 
been obedient, etc., to work out their own salvation with the 
utmost solicitude. virrjKovaaTe is not, indeed, correlative with 
ryevofi. inn]Koo<; in ver. 8 (Theophylact, Calovius, Bengel, and 
others), as the latter was in what preceded only an accessory 
definition ; but the awTrjpia is correlative with the exaltation 
of Christ described in ver. 9, of which the future salvation of 
Christians is the analogue, and, in fact, the joint participation 
(Eom. viii. 1 7 ; Eph. ii. 6 ; Col. ii. 1 2 f , iii. 3 f.). Since, therefore, 
ware has its logical basis in what immediately precedes, it must 
not be looked upon as an inference froiii all the lorcviovs admoni- 
tions, i. 26 ff., from which it draws the general result (de Wette). 
It certainly introduces the recapitulation of all the previous 
exhortations, and winds them up (on account of the new exhor- 
tation which follows, see on ver. 14) as in iv. 1 ; 1 Thess. 
iv. 18 ; Eom. vii. 12 ; 1 Cor. iii. 21, iv. 5, v. 8, xi. 33, xiv. 39, 
XV. 58, but in such a way that it joins on to icJiat lua.s last 
discussed. It is least of all admissible to make, with Hofmann, 
ware point backwards to likrjpoiaaTe. /xov t. ')(apuv in ver. 2, 
so that this prayer " is orjJcatcd in a definitive manner " by 
the exhortation introduced with wa-re. In that case the 
apostle, in order to be understood, must at least have inserted 
a resumptive ovv after ware, and in the following exhortation 
must have again indicated, in some way or other, the element 
of the making joy. — Ka6u><i rrdvrore vTT'qKovaare] whom ? is 
neither a question to be left unanswered (Matthies), nor one 
which does not require an answer (Hofmann). The context 
yields the supplement here, as well as in Kom. vi. 16, Philem. 
21, 1 Pet. i. 14; and the right supplement is the usual one, 
viz. mihi, or, more definitely, mco evangelic, as is plain, both 
from the words which follow yti^ to? . . . arrovala fiov, and also 
from the whole close personal relation, in which Paul brings 
home to the hearts of liis readers his admonitions (from i. 27 
down till ii. 18) as their teacher and friend. On irdvrore, 
comp. (iTTo Trpairr](i r]fiepa<; a')(pL rov vvv (i. 5). We cannot 
infer from it a reference to earlier ejnstlcs which have been lost 

CHAP. II. 12. 109 

(Ewuld). — /xr/ to? . . . aTTOvaia fiov\ belongs not to vTrrjKova-are 
(Luther, "Wolf, Heimiann, Heinrichs, and others), as is evident 
from yLi?; o)? and vvv, but to Karepyd^eade, so that the comma 
before f^era j)6^ov is, with Lachmann, to be deleted. Comp. 
Grotius. — o)? had to be inserted, because Paul would not and 
could not give an admonition for a time when he would be 
present. Not perceiving this, B, min., vss., and Fathers have 
omitted it. If co? were not inserted, Paul would say : that they 
should not merely in his presence work out their salvation. 
But ivith &)9 he says : that they are not to loork out their oivn 
salvation in such a v:ay as if they ivere doing it in His 
jorescnee^ merely (neglecting it, therefore, in His absence); nay, 
much more now, during His absence from them, they are to work it 
out with fear and trcmUing. There is nothing to be supplied 
along with w?, which is the simple modal as, since ixrj co? is 
connected M'ith the governing verb that follows in the anti- 
thesis (r. eavr. aoir. KaTcpyd^eaOe) as its prefixed negative 
modal definition : oiot as in my ^J?'c.sc5ice only (not as limiting 
it to this only) ivorJc out your salvation. And the dX\d 
is the antithetic much more, on the contrary, nay. Erasmus, 
Estius, Hoelemann, Weiss, Hofmann, and others, incorrectly 
join ixovov with ixrj, and take &><? in the sense of the degree : 
not merely so, as ye have done it, or would do it, in my absence ; 
comp. de Wette, who assumes a blending of two comparisons, 
as does also J. B. Lightlbot. It is arbitrary not to make 
fxovov belong to iv r. irap. [xov, beside Mdiich it stands ; comp. 
also Eom. iv. 16 (where tw eV tov vofxov forms one idea), 
iv. 23 ; 1 Thess. i. 5. Still more arbitrary is it to hamper 
the flow of the whole, and to break it up in such a way as to 
insert the imperative viraKovere after vTrTjKovaare, and then 
to make /xera ^o^ov k.t.\. a sentence by itself (Hofmann). 
Moreover, in such a case the arrangement of the words in the 
alleged apodosis would be illogical ; vvv (or, more clearly, /cat 
vvv) must have begun it, and ixovov must have stood imme- 
diately after ixrj. — ttoXXS fxdXXov] than if I were present ; for 

' The word Tapoviria does not contain, any more than in i. 26, a reference to 
the Parousia of Christ, which Kahler (" ye know what this word would properly 
tell us ") reads between the lines. 


now (vvv), when they were deprived of the personal teaching, 
stimukis, guidance, and guardianship of the apostle, moral 
diligence and zealous solicitude were necessary for them in a 
far higher measure, in order to fulfil the great personal duty of 
working out their own salvation. That kavroiv, therefore, cannot 
be equivalent to aXkijXcov (Flatt, ]\'tatthies, and older expositors), 
is self-evident. — /iera (po^ov k. rpoixov] that is, with such 
earnest solicitude, that ye shall have a lively fear of not doing 
enough in the matter. Comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 3 ; 2 Cor. vii. 1 5 ; 
Eph. vi. 5. Aei<yap (jio/Seladat, k. rpejieLv ev tu> epyd^ea-dai rrjv 
IBiav arcoTrjpiav eKacrrov, firj irore v7roa-K€\ta9el<i eKirear] TavTr]<;, 
Oecnmenius. Aive he/ore the 2^'i'<^sence of God (Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, Oecumenius), before the future Judge (Weiss), 
the feehng of dependence on God (de Wette), a reverential 
devotion to God (Matthies, comp. van Hengel), and similar ideas, 
must be implied in the case, but do not constitute the sense of the 
expression, in which also, according to the context, we are not 
to seek a contrast to spiritual pride (Schinz, Killiet, Hoelemann, 
Wiesinger), as Augustine, Calvin, Bengel, and others have 
done. — Karepiyd^eaOe] "bring about, peragite (Grotius), " tisque 
ad metam" (Bengel), expressing, therefore, more than the 
simple verb (comp. Eph. vi. 13 ; Dem. 1121. 19 ; Plat. Zcgg. 
vii. p. 791 A; Eur. Hcracl. 1046: irokei acoTrjpiav Karepyd- 
aaadai; and see on Eom. i. 26). The summons itself is not 
at variance with the principle that salvation is God's gift of 
grace, and is prepared for, predestined, and certain to believers ; 
but it justly claims the exercise of the new moral power bestowed 
on the regenerate man, without the exertion of which he 
would fall away again from the state of grace to which 
he had attained in faith, and would not actually become 
partaker of the salvation appropriated to him by faith, so that 
the final reception of salvation is so far the result of his 
moral activity of faith in the KaLvorrj^ fw?}?. See especially 
Eom. vi. 8, 12 ff, and 2 Cor. vi. 1. Our passage stands 
in contrast, not to the certitudo sahitis, but to the moral 
securitas, into which the converted person might relapse, if he 
do not stand fast (iv. 1 ; 1 Cor. x. 12), and labour at his 
sanctification (1 Thess. iv. 3, 7 ; 2 Cor. vii. 1 ; 1 Tim. ii. 15), 

CHAP. II. 13. Ill 

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

Ver. 13. Ground of encouragement to the fulfilment of this 
precept., in which it is not their own, but God's 'power, which 
works in them, etc. Here ©eo? is placed first as the subject, 
not as the predicate (Hofmann) : Gocl is the agent. It is, 
however, unnecessary and arbitrary to assume before f^ap (with 
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, and others) 
an unexpressed thought (" be not terrified at my having said : 
vjith fear and trembling"). Bengel gratuitously supplies with 
0€O9 the thought : " praesens vohis etiam ahsente me" (comp. 
also van Hengel), while others, as Calvin, Beza, Hoelemann, 
Eilliet, Wiesinger, who found in fMeTo. (po/S. k. rp. the anti- 
thesis of pride (see on ver. 12), see in ver, 13 the motive to 
humility ; and de Wette is of opinion that what was expressed 
in ver. 12 under the aspect of fear is here expressed under 
the aspect of eonfidence. In accordance with the unity of the 
sense we ought rather to say : that the great moral demand 
fiera ^o/3. k. rp. rijv eavrcov crcor. Karepja^ecrdai, containing as 
it did the utmost incentive to personal activity, needed for the 
readers the support of a confidence which should be founded 
not on their own, but on the divine working. According to 
Ewald, the fiera (po^ou k. rpofxov is to be made good by 
pointing to the fact that they looo-k before God, who' is even 
already producing in them the right tendency of will. But 
the idea of the evoj-mov rod Qeov was so familiar to the apostle, 
that he would doubtless have here also directly expressed it. 
Kahler (comp. Weiss) imports a hint of the divine jncnishment, 
of which, however, nothing is contained in the text. So also 
Hofmann : with fear in presence of Him loho is a devouring 
fire (Heb. xii. 28 f.), who will not leave unpunished him who 
does not subordinate his own will and working to the divine. 
As if Paul had hinted at such thoughts, and had not, on 
the contrary, himself excluded them by the virep Tfj<; ev8oKia<i 
which is added I The thought is rather " dulcissima sententia 
omnibus piis mentibus," Form. Cone. p. 659. — Calvin (comp, 
Calovius) rightly observes on the subject-matter : " intelligo 


gratiam supcrnaturalem, quae provenit ex spiritu regenerationis ; 
nam quatenus sumus homines, jam in Deo sumus et vivimns 
et raovemur, verum hie de alio motu disputat Paulus, quam 
illo universali." Augustine has justly (in opposition to the 
Pelagian rationalizing interpretation of a mediate working : 
" velle operatur suadendo et pracmia 2^'>^omittciido"), in con- 
formity with the words, urged the efficaciUr operari, which 
Origen, dc Princ. iii. 1, had obliterated, and the Greeks who 
followed qualified with synergistic reservations. — ev vfu,lv] 
not intra coeticm vcstrum (Hoelemann), but in animis vestris 
(1 Cor. xii. 6; 2 Cor. iv. 12; Eph. ii. 2; Col. i. 29 ; 
1 Thess. ii. 13), in which He produces the self-determination 
directed to the Karepyd^eaOac of their own (rwTrjpla, and the 
activity in carrying out this Christian-moral volition.^ This 
activity, the evepyelv, is the ^?Mic?' moral one, which has the 
Karepyd^eaOai, as its consequence, and therefore is not to be 
taken as equivalent to the latter (Vulgate, Luther, and others, 
including Matthies and Hoelemann). I^ote, on the contrary, 
the climactic selection of the two cognate verbs. The regene- 
rate man brings about his own salvation (KaTepyd^eTai) when 
he does not resist the divine working {evepycov) of the willing 
and the working (ivepyecv) in his soul, but yields steady obedi- 
ence to it in continvial conflict with the opposing powers (Eph. 
vi. 10 ff. ; Gal. v. 16 ; 1 Thess. v. 8, al.) ; so that he irepLTraret, 
not KaTci adpKa, but Kara irvevixa (Rom. viii. 4), is con- 
sequently the child of God, and as child becomes heir (Rom. 
viii. 14, 17, 23). According, therefore, as the matter is viewed 
from the standpoint of tlie human activity, which yields 
obedience to the divine working of the OiXeiv and ivepyelv, or 
from that of the divine activity, which works the dekeuv and 
ivepyeiv, we may say with equal justice, either that God 
accomplishes the good which He has begun in man, up to the 
day of Christ ; or, that man brings about his own salvation. 
" Nos ergo volumus, sed Deus in nobis operatur et velle ; nos 
ergo operamur, sed Bens in nobis operatur et operari," Augus- 

* " Velle riuidem, quatenus est actus voluntatis, nostrum est ex creatione : 
bene velle etiam nostrum est, sed CLuatenus volentes facti x>cr conversionem bene 
volumus," Calovius. 

CHAP. 11. u. 113 

tine. How wholly is it otherwise with the unregenerate in 
Eom. vii. ! — The repetition by Paul of the same word, ivepywv 
. . . TO ivepjelv, has its ground in the encouraging design which 
he has of making God's agency felt cUstmctlij and cmjjhaticalli/ ; 
hence, also, he specifies the hvo elements of all morality, not 
merely the evep<yelv, but also its premiss, the OeXecv, and keeps 
them apart by using kul twice : God is the worker in you, 
as of the luilling, so of the ivorlcing. From His working 
comes man's working, just as already his willing.^ — virep t?]? 
euhoKia'i] for the sake of goodwill, in order to satisfy His own 
benignant disposition. On the causal inrep, which is not 
sectmduon, comp. Eom. xv. 8 ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 421 ; Winer, 
p. 359 [E. T. p. 480]; and on evSoKia, which is not, with 
Ewald, to be taken in a deterministic sense, comp. i. 15 ; 
Eom. X. 1. Theodoret aptly says : evSoKiav Se to ayadov tov 
Geov 7rpo(77]yopeva€ OeXrjfia' Oekec he irdvTtt'i avOpu>7rov<i 
cro)6)]vaL K.T.X. The explanation : " for the sake of the good 
X)leasure, which He has in such willing and working" (Weiss), 
would amount to something self-evident. Hofmann erroneously 
makes ii'n'ep t. €u8ok. belong to irdvTa Trotetre, and convey the 
sense, that they are to do everything for the sake of the divine 
good plcasiLre, about which they must necessarily be concerned, 
etc. In opposition to this view, which is connected with the 
misunderstanding of the previous words, the fact is decisive, 
that T-^? evSoKia'; only obtains its reference to God through its 
belonging to o ivepjcov k.tX. ; but if it be joined with what 
follows, this reference must have been marked,^ and that, on 
account of the cm'phasizcd position which vir. r. euSo/c. Avould 
have, with emphasis (as possibly by virep t^? uvtov evSoKca^). 
%Ver. 14. With ver. 13 Paul has closed his exhortations, so 
far as the matter is concerned. He now adds a requisition in 
respect to the mode of carrying out these admonitions, namely, 
that they shall do everything (which, according to the admoni- 
tions previously given, and summarily comprised in ver. 12, 

' This is God's creative moral action in salvation, Eph. ii. 10. Comp. 
Thomasius, Chr. Pets. u. Werk, I. p. 287. Incorrectly, however, the Keformed 
theologians add : " quae 2)ro}uheri non potest." 

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


they have to do, 1 Cor. x. 31) u-iUingJy and loitliout hesitation, 
— an injunction for which, amidst the temptations of the pre- 
sent (i. 27-30), there was sufficient cause. — ^wpi? 7077i;o-/a.] 
withmii (far removed from) murmuring. The yo'y<yv(Tfi6<i 
(Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 358), that fault already prevalent in 
ancient Israel (Ex. xvi. 7 ff. ; ISTum. xiv. 2), is to be con- 
ceived as directed against God, namely, on account of what He 
imposed upon them both to do and to suffer, as follows from 
the context in vv. 1 3 and 1 5 ; hence it is not to be referred 
to their fdloiu- Christians (Calvin, Wiesinger, Schnecken- 
burger), or to their superiors (Estius), as Hoelemann also 
thinks. Comp. on 1 Cor. x. 10. — ^laXoyia-ficov'] not: with- 
out disputes (Erasmus, Beza, and many others, including 
Schneckenburger), de imijeratis cum imperatorihis (Hoelemann, 
comp. Estius), or among themselves (Calvin, Wiesinger), and 
that iq^on irrelevant questions (Grotius), and similar interpreta- 
tions, which, although not repugnant to Greek usage generally 
(Plut. 3for. p. 180 C ; Ecclus. ix. 15, xiii. 35), are at variance 
with that of the IST. T. (even 1 Tim. ii. 8), and unsuitable to 
the reference of <yo<y<yvcrfi. to God. It means : without hesita- 
tion, without your first entering upon scrvpidous considerings 
as to whether you are under any obligation thereto, whether 
it is not too difficult, whether it is prudent, and the like. 
Comp. Luke xxiv. 38, and on Eom. xiv. 1 ; Hat. Ax. p. 367 A : 
(f^povTiSe'; . . . Kal BioXoyicr/uLol, Tim. p. 59 C: ovBev ttoiklXov 
€Tt SiaXoyio-aaOai,. Ecclus. xl. 2. The Vulgate renders it 
rightly, according to the essential sense : " haesitationibus." 
The joyyva/xol, would presuppose aversion towards God ; the 
BidKoyKT/iiol, uncertainty in the consciousness of duty. 

Ver. 15. If to their obedience of the admonitions given 
down to ver. 13 there is added the m.anner of obedience 
prescribed in ver. 14, they shall he Nameless, etc. This, there- 
fore, must be the high aion, which they are to have in view in 
connection with what is required in ver. 14. — afiefiTTToi k. 
aKepaioi] hlameless and sincere; the former represents moral 
integrity as manifesting itself to the judgment of others ; the 
latter represents the same as respects its inner nature (comp. on 
Matt. x. 16 and Eom. xvi. 19). — reKva 0eov a/xcofi.] com- 

CHAP. II. 15. 115 

pretending epexegetically tlie tivo former predicates. Children 
of God (in virtue of the vloOeala that took place in Christ, 
Eom. viii. 15, 23 ; Gal. iv. 5 ; Eph. i. 5) they arc (Rom. 
viii. 16, ix. 8). They are to hecoone such children of God, as 
have nothing with lohich faidt can he found ; which in children 
of God presupposes the inward moral aKepaioTT}^, since they 
are led by the Spirit of God (Rom. viii. 14). This ethical view 
of the vloOeaia, prominent throughout the N. T., and already 
implied in the mode of contemplating Israel as the people of 
adoption (Rom. ix. 4) in the 0. T. and Apocrypha, necessarily 
involves, in virtue of the ideal character of the relation, the 
moral development towards the lofty aim — implies, therefore, in 
the heinfj the constant task of the becoming; and hence the 
sense of showing themselves is as little to be given, with Hof- 
mann, to the 'yevqaOe here as in Matt. x. 16, John xv. 8, et al. ; 
comp. also on Gal. iv. 12. ^A/jico/ji7]ro<;, qui vituperari nan potest, 
occurring elsewhere in the IST. T. only at 2 Pet. iii. 14 (not 
equivalent to aiia)iio<i or a/j,ejjuTrTO^), but see Horn. II. xii. 109; 
Herod, iii. 82; frequently in the Anthol. Its opposite is: 
reKpa /jico/jLrjTa, Deut. xxxii. 5 ; the recollection of this latter 
passage has suggested the subsequent words, which serve as a 
recommendation of the condition to be striven for by contrast- 
ing it loith the state of things around. — ^eaov (see the critical 
remarks) is adverbial, in the midst of (Hom. //. xii. 167; Od. 
xiv. 300; Eur. Bhcs. 531 (/ieVa) ; LXX. Num. xxxv. 5). — 
cTKoXid'; K. ZieaTpaiijjb.l crooked and perverted, a graphic figura- 
tive representation of the great moral abnormity of the genera- 
tion. Comp. on aKo\i6<;, Acts ii. 40 ; 1 Pet. ii. 18 ; Prov. iv. 
24; Wisd. i. 3; Plat. Legg. xii. p. 945 B, Gorg. p. 525 A; 
and on Scea-rp., Matt. xvii. 1 7 ; Deut. xxxii. 2 ; Polyb. viii. 
24. 3, V. 41. 1, ii. 21. 8; also Sidarpocpo'i, Soph. Aj. 442. — 
ev 0I9] i.e. among the people of this jeved; see Buttmann, 
Mut. Gr. p. 242 [E. T. p. 282] ; Bremi, ad Isocr. I. p. 213 f. ; 
Klilmer, II. 1, p. 49 f. — (j^alveaOe] not imperative (Cyprian, 
Pelagius, Ambrosiaster, Tlieophylact, Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin, 
Grotius, and others, including Storr, Elatt, Rheinwald, Baum- 
garten-Crusius), but the existing relation, which constitutes the 
essential distinctive character of the Christian state as con- 


trasted with the non-Christian, Eph. v. 8, al. The aim of the 
iv oh (patveaOe k.t.X. is, by means of an appeal to the true 
Christian sense of honour (the consciousness of their high 
Christian position towards them that are without), to assist 
the attainment of the end in view ; this is misunderstood 
by Bengel, when he suggests the addition of " scrvata hac 
admonitionc" a view in which he is followed by Hofmann. 
The meaning is not lucdis (so usually), but (comp. also 
Weiss, Schenkel, and J. B. Lightfoot) : ye api^car} come into 
vieto, apparctis (Matt. ii. 7, xxiv. 2 7 ; Jas. iv. 14; Eev. 
xviii. 23; Hom. II. i. 477, xxiv. 785, 788, Od. ii. 1, //. ix. 
707; Hes. Oper. 600; Plat. Rep. p. 517 B; Xen. Hell. iv. 3. 
10 ; Polyb. ix. 15. 7 ; Lucian, D. D. iv. 3 ; also Xen. Symp. i. 
9, Anah. vii. 4. 1 6 ; hence to, ^aivojxeva, the heavenly appear- 
ances). Zucetis (Vulgate) would be (fsalveTe, John i. 5, v. 35 ; 
1 John ii. 8 ; 2 Pet. i. 19 ; Ptev. i. 16, xxi. 23 ; 1 Mace. iv. 
40; Plat. Tim. p. 39 B; Arist. Huh. 580; Hes. Ojjer. 528; 
Theoc. ii. 11. — (pcoarrjpes;'] light-givers (Eev. xxi. 11), here 
a designation, not of torehes (Beza, Cornelius a Lapide) or 
lainps (Hofmann), which would be too weak for iv tqj Koafiay, 
and without support of linguistic usage ; but, in accordance 
with the usage familiar to the apostle in the LXX., Gen. i. 14, 
16, of the shining heavenly bodies ; Wisd. xiii. 2 ; Ecclus. xliii. 
7 ; Heliod. 8 7 ; Anihol. xv. 1 7 ; Constant. PJiod. cp. in Para- 
lip. 205. — ev Koa-fKo] is to be taken in reference to the 
physical world, and closely connected with ^(ocrr. As light- 
hearers in the world (which shine in the world, by day the sun, 
by night tlie moon and stars), the Christians appear in the 
midst of a piervcrted generation. Comp. Matt. v. 14; also 
classical expressions like 7rdrpa<; (j^eyyea (Anthol. vi. 614, 2), 
etc. If ^aiveade be rightly interpreted, h Koaixw cannot be 
joined with it (de Wette, Weiss, who takes Koayuw in the 
ethical sense), or be supplemented by ^alvovjai (Hoelemann, 

' So also Homer, II. i. 200, which Hofmann compares and brings out for our 
passage the sense : " stand in the light proper to them." Comp., however, II. 
xix. 16, xxii. 28, and I.e.; Duncan, Lex. ed. Rost. p. 1148 1. In the former 
passage, i. 200, the sense is : her eyes (Athene's) appeared terrible. Comp. 
Nagelsbach, p. 87, ed. 3. The same sense, according to another explanation, is 
found in Faesi. 

CHAP. II. 16. 117 

Eilliet, van Hengel). It is erroneous, further, to make ev 
KocTfKo mean in heaven (Clericus, Eheinwald'), and also 
erroneous to attach a pregnant force to ev, making it mean 
" within the world," in contrast to the lights of heaven shining 
from above ; thus Hofmann, connecting it with Xoyov ftu^? eVe;^. 
and bringing out with emphasis something quite self-evident. 
On K6afjL0<i without the article, see Winer, p. 117 [E. T. p. 153]. 
On the whole passage, comp. Test. XII. Pair. p. 577 : vftet? ol 
<})coar7]p6<; rov ovpavov ■oi)<i 6 i]XLO<; Kal rj aeX^vrj' tc irocqcrovai 
irdvTa Ttt edvT}, iav vfiel^ aKOTiaOiiaecrOe ev aae^eia k.tX. 
Paul, however, has put ^coa-Trjpe'; without the article, because 
he has conceived it qualitatively. 

Ver. 16. A6<yov ^corj'i irri^ovre';'] a definition giving the 
reason for i^aiveaOe to? (pcoar. ev k. : since ye j^osscss the vmrcl of 
life. This is the Gospel, eTreiSr) rijv alcoviov Trpo^evel ^(nrjv, 
Theodoret. See Eom. i. 1 6 ; comp. John vi. 68; Acts v. 2 ; 
it is the divinely efficacious vehicle of the irvevixa tt)^ ^oj?}? 
which frees from sin and death (see on Eom. viii. 2), and 
therefore not merely " the word concerning life" (Weiss). Christ 
Himself is the essential X0709 t^9 ^<y^9 (1 John i. 1), His 
servants are oa/jLt} ^corj<i ek ^cotJv (2 Cor. ii. 16), therefore the 
word preached by them must be X0709 ^cot)? in the sense in- 
dicated. Paul does not elsewhere use the expression. As to 
^tur; without the article, of eternal life in the Messiah's king- 
dom (iv. 3), see Kaeuffer, de ^co^^ at. not. p. 73 f. As pos- 
sessors of this word, the Christians appear like ^warrjpe'^ in a 
world otherwise dark ; without tliis possession they would not 
so present themselves, but would be homogeneous with the 
perverted generation, since the essence of the gospel is light 
(Eph. V. 8; Col. 1 12 ; 1 Thess. v. 5 ; 1 Pet. ii. 9; Luke 
xvi. 8 ; Acts xxvi. 18, cd.), just as Christ Himself is the prin- 
cipal light (John i. 4, 5, iii. 19, viii. 12, xii. 35, cd) ; but the 
element of the unbelieving reeved, whose image is the Koap.o'^ 
in itself devoid of light, is darkness (2 Cor. iv. 6, vi. 14 ; Eph. v. 
8, vi. 12 ; Col. i. 13 ; John i. 5, iii. 19). ^Eiri^eiv, to possess^'' 

' The designation of the heavens by xoa-fio;, first used by Pythagoras (see Bremi, 
ad Jsoc. Paneg. p. 90), did not enter into the Biblical usus loquendi. 

• Hofmann erroneously pronoiuiccs against this, representing that Wty^m could 


to have in possession, at disposal, and the like ; see Herod, i. 
104, viii. 35 ; Xen. Sijmp. viii. 1 ; Thuc. i. 48. 2, ii. 101. 3 ; 
Anth. Pal. vii. 297. 4; Polyb. iii. 37. 6, 112. 8, v. 5, 6 ; 
Lucian, Necyom. 14. Kot : liolding fast (Luther, Estius, Bengel, 
and others, including Heinrichs, Hoelemann, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, Schneckenburger) ; nor yet : sus- 
tinentes (Calvin), so that the conception is of a light fixed on 
a candlestick. Others understand it similarly: holding forth 
(Beza, Grotius, and others, including Eheinwald, Matthies, 
Wiesinger, Lightfoot), namely, "that those, who have a longing 
for life, may let it be the light which shall guide them to life," 
as Hofmann explains more particularly ; comp. van Hengel. 
This would be linguistically correct (Horn. 11. ix. 489, xxii. 43 ; 
Pint. 3for. p. 265 A; Find. 01. ii. 98 ; Foil. iii. 10), but not in 
harmony with the image, according to which the suhjeds them- 
selves appear as shining, as self-shining. Linguistically incorrect 
is Theodoret's view : toj \o^(p 7rpoae-^ovre<i {attendentes) , which 
would require the dative of the object (Acts iii. 5 ; 1 Tim. iv. 
1 6 ; Ecclus. xxxi. 2 ; 2 Mace. ix. 2 5 ; Job xxx. 2 6 ; Polyb. iii. 
43. 2, xviii. 28. 11). Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact 
take cTre;^. correctly, but understand Xoyov ^o)?}? as equivalent 
to airipfia ^. or eve')(ypa t,., and indicate, as the purpose of the 
words : opa, ttco? €v6eo)<; rlOTjai, ra eiraOXa (Chrysostom). This 
view is without sanction from the usiis loqitcndi. Linguis- 
tically it would in itself be admissible (see the examples in 
Wetstein), but at variance with the 'N. T. mode of expression 
and conception, to explain with Michaelis, Storr, Zachariae, and 
Elatt : supplying the place of life (in the world otherwise dead), 
so that \6yov cTTe^eiz/ would mean : to hold the relation. Comp. 
Syr. — eh Kav^^rjfia k.tX.] the result which the yivea-Oac 
dfii/ju7nov<i K.T.X on the part of the readers was to have for 
the apostle ; it was to become for him (and what an incitement 
this must have been to the Philippians !) a matter of glorying 
(i. 26) for the day of Christ (see on i. 10), when he should 
have reason to glory, that he, namely (oVt), had not laboured in 

only be thus used in the sense of having under one's control. Compare, in oppo- 
sition to tliis, especially such passages as Thuc. iii. 107. 4, where the word is 
quite synonymous with the parallel simple ix^" ', also Anth. Pal. vii. 276. 6. 

CHAP. II. 17. 119 

vain, of which the excellent quality of his Philippian converts 
would afford practical evidence, ore roiovrovi vfxd<i eTaiSeva-a, 
Theophylact. Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 19 f. ; 2 Cor. i. 14. Thus they 
M'ere to be to him on that day a o-re^ai/o? Kav^7]aeco<; (1 Thess. 
I.e.). Paul cannot mean a present Kav^^aadai, in pro&peet of the 
day of Christ (Hofmann), for ci? Kav^VH''^ k.t.X. cannot he the 
result accruing for him from the iv oh (paiveade k.t.\. (since 
by it the position of the Christians generally is expressed), but 
only the result from the ethical development indicated by tW 
yevrjaOe afxe/jLTrroi, k.t.X. Hence also otc cannot be a statement 
of the reason (Hofmann) ; it is explicative : that. — The twofold} 
yet climactic, figurative description of his apostolical exertions 
(on eSpa/j,., comp. Gal. ii. 2 ; Acts xx. 24 ; on eKOTriaaa, comp. 
1 Cor. XV. 10 ; Gal. iv. 11), as well as the repetition of et? 
K€v6v (see on Gal. ii. 2 ; 2 Cor. vi. 1 ; Polyc. Fhil. 9), is in 
keeping with the emotion of joy, of triumph. 

Ver. 17. The connection of ideas is this : What Paul had 
said in ver. 1 6 : eh kuvxvH'"' «-t-^-> presupposed, in the first 
place, that he himself would live to see the further develop- 
ment described in ver. 1 5 : "va <ykv7]a9e a/xefxTTToi,. Now, how- 
ever, he puts the opposite case, so as to elevate his readers to 
the right point of view for this also, and says : " But even if I 
should he put to death in my vocation dedicated to your faith," 
etc. Van Hengel finds in these words the contrast to the 
hope of living to see the Parousia. But this hope is not ex- 
pressed in what precedes, since the result ek Kav^rnna k.t.X. 
was conditioned, not by the apostle's living to see the Parousia, 
but only by his living to see the described pcrf taction of his 
readers; inasmuch as, even when arisen at the Parousia, he 
might glory in what he had lived, to see in the Philippians. 
Many others are satisfied with making these words express 
merely a climax (in relation to iKoirlaaa) (see especially 
Heinrichs and Matthies) ; but this is erroneous, because eKo- 
TTiaaa in the preceding verse is neither the main idea, nor 
specially indicative of tribulation. Arbitrary and entirely 
unnecessary is, further, the assumption of an opponent's ohjec- 
tion ("at vcro imminent tristissima !") to which Paul replies; 

' Coinp. Anthol. Pal. xi. 56. 2 : fih rfi^t, fin xotr/a. 


or tlie explanation of aWd by the intervening thought : " non, 
I'e nai pas travaille en vain, mais au contraire," etc., Eilliet ; 
comp. also Erasmus, ParajjJir. In a similar but direct way 
Hofmann gains for aXXd the explanation, hut on the contrary, by 
connecting it antithetically with the preceding negative clauses 
oTi ovK ek Kevov k.t.X., which, with the right explanation 
of the following words, is impossible. According to de Wettc 
(comp. also Storr and Flatt), ver. 17 connects itself with i. 26, 
so that aWd forms a contrast to ver. 25, and all that inter- 
venes is a digression. ' But how could any reader guess at 
this ? The suggestion is the more groundless, on account of 
the xaipo) in ver. 1 7 corresponding so naturally and appositely 
with the Kav)(r]fia in ver. 16. — el koX k.tX^ if I even (which 
I will by no means call in question) should he 2Joured out, etc. 
On the concessive sense of el kuI (1 Cor. iv. 7 ; 2 Cor. iv 
3, 16, v. 16, vii. 8, al), see Herm. ad Vigor, p. 832 ; Klotz, 
<ad Devar. p. 519. The case supposed is thus rendered more 
probable than by the reading of E G-, koX el {even assuming that 
I). Stallbaum, ad Plat. Ap. S. p. 32 A; Gorg. p. 509 A; 
Schmalf. Syntax d. Vcrh. sec. 99 f. The protasis beginning 
with akX el Kal extends to t. itLctt. vixwv. As in ver. 12, 
so also here Hofmann makes the violent assumption that the 
apodosis already begins at eVl t. Ovaia k.tX. %vith crirevBofxat 
again to be supplied, whilst at the same time there is imputed 
to this eVt T. dvala k.t.X., in order to give an appropriate turn 
to the assumed antithesis for dWd, a tenor of thought which 
the words do not bear ; see below. — airevSofiai] Ihecome offered 
as a libation, poured out as a drink-offering (2 Tim. iv. 6, 
frequently in all classical writers ; see also Schleusner, Thes. 
V, p. 79 ; Suicer, Thes. II. p. 993). The sense stripped of 
figure is : if even my hlood is shed, if even / should he put to 
death.} Paul represents his apostolic exertions for the faith of 
the Philippians as an offering (comp. Eom. xv. 16); if he is 
therein 'put to death, he is, by means of the shedding of his 

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

CHAP. II. 17. 121 

blood in this sacrifice, made a libation, just as among the Jews 
(Num. xxviii. 7, xv. 4 ff. ; Joseph. Antt. iii. 9. 4 ; see gene- 
rally, Ewald, Altcrth. p. 46 f. ; Saalschiitz, M. R ^. 314 f.) in 
the sacrifices, together with meat-offerings, libations of wine were 
made, which were poured upon the ground from sacred vessels 
{(Tirovhela) at the altar. As to the Hellenic sacrificial libations, 
see Hermann, Gottesd. Altcrth. § 25, 15 f. On the figurative 
representation of the shedding of blood as a airovhi], comp. 
Anthol. ix. 184. 6: ft'c^o? aljjia rvpavvcov eairecaev, Ignatius, 
Horn. 2 ; cnrovBcadrjvat Qew ct)9 ert Ovacacrrripiov eTot/xov ecrri 
— The 2J'>^escnt tense is used, because Paul has strongly in view 
hi& 2^resent danger (i. 20 £f.) ; Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 119 f. Eilliet 
(comp. Wetstein) takes the passive erroneously : / ain besprinkled 
(which also does not correspond with the j^rcsent tense), making 
Paul say, " que la libation preparatoire du sacrifice a coule sur 
sa tete." Confusion with Karacnrev^ecrOat, Plut. Alex. 50, de 
def. orac. 46 ; Strabo, iv. p. 197 ; Eur. Or. 1239 ; Antip. Sid. 
73 (Anthol. vii. 27). — iirl r. 6va. k. Xeir. t. nr. v^x^^ at the 
sacrifice and jp7'iestly service of your faith, that is, whilst I present 
your faith as a sacrifice and perform priestly service in respect 
to it ; the sense of this, stripped of the figure, is : whilst I, 
by furtherance of your faith in Christ, serve God, as by the 
offering and priestly ministration of a sacrifice. r?}? ttlcft. 
is the object which is conceived as sacrificed and undergoing 
priestly ministration ; dvaia and XeLTovpyla, have one article 
in common, and are thereby joined so as to form one concep- 
tion. But Xeirovpjla (jyricstly function, comp. Luke i. 23 ; 
Heb. viii. 6, ix. 21, and frequently in the LXX. ; see Schleus- 
ner, Thes. ; comp. also Diod. Sic. i. 21, and, for the figurative 
use of the word, Eom. xv. 16, 27) is added by the apostle as 
a more 23recise definition, because the mere 6vaia would leave it 
uncertain whether he was to be considered as a p)^'icst, whereas 
Paul desires expressly to describe himself as such, dvala, as 
always in the N. T., is sacrifice, so that the idea is : at the 
sacrifice and priestly service of your faith ; hence there is no 
necessity for taking it as sacrificing, or the act of sacrifice 
(Herod, iv. 60, viii. 99 ; Herodian, viii. 3. 5, i. 36. 12, al). 
The eVi, however, is simply to be taken as at, as in i. 3 and 


frequently ; not as to, in addition to (Beza, Eaphel, Matthies, 
de WettCj Weiss, and many others ; comp. also Hofmann), or 
with the Vulgate as supra (Heinrichs, Hoelemann, van Hengel), 
in the sense of the (heathen) mode^ of the libation, an interpre- 
tation which should have been precluded by the addition 
of the abstract k. Xecrovpy. Finally, although Paul's official 
activity concerned the faith of all his churches, he says v/xtov 
with the same right of individualizing reference as in hC v/j,a<i 
at i. 24 and many other passages. The passage is peculiarly 
misunderstood by Hofmann, who holds that eVi has the sense 
in association with ; that t^9 Trla-Teayi vfi. is the genitive of 
apposition to Ova'ia and Xecrovpy. ; that the sacrificing and 
ministering sidijcd is not the aj)ostle, but the Philippian 
cluirch, which, when it became hclieving, had presented its 
own sacrifice to God, and has been constantly honouring Him 
with its own work of service. Accordingly Paul says that, even 
though his labours should end in a violent death, yet the 
shedding of his Mood looidd not he an isolated drink-offering, hiit 
wotdd associate itself loith their sacrifice. But this would only 
make him say, with artificial mysteriousness, something which 
is perfectly self-evident (namely : after that ye became believers, 
and whilst ye are believers). Moreover, eVt would thus be 
made to express two very different relations, namely, with ry 
dvaia after, after that, and with the XeiTovpyia, at, during. 
And how could a reader discover from the mere eVt .k.tX. 
the alleged antithetical reference of an isolated drink-offering, 
especially as no antithesis of the p)^i'sons is even indicated 
by vfjiMv being placed first (immediately after eV/) ? The 
entire explanation is a forced artificial expedient in conse- 
quence of the mistaken assumption that an apodosis begins 
after cr7rivBo/j,ac, and a new section sets in with ^alpco.'- — 

' On this mode of libation rests the expression Wi/rTiilnv, to pour a libation 
over something (Herod, ii. 39, iv. 60. 62, vii. 167 ; Aesch. Ag. 1395 ; Plut. 
Jiom. 4). 

* In which x"-'?" "• c^yx"-'?" '^"■"'i^ t'f-~^ are supposed to serve merely as an in- 
troduction for the exhortation which follows ; tlius Paul would be made to say, 
that even for that supposed case of the o-TenSsa-^'aj he is in a joyful mood, and 
he rejoices ivith any j)crson in the cJnuxh whose heart is joyful (all this is sup- 
posed to be implied in ■ruiriy If/Clv !), 

CHAP. II. 17. 123 

^aipa] Apodosis down to vfuv : I rejoice, not at the dvcrta k. 
XeiTovpyia rrj^ TriaT. vjju. (Chrysostom, who connects eVl r. Ova. 
K.T.\. with %aipa) ; comp. Oecumenius ; so also Eilliet), for 
it is mere arbitrariness to separate the sacrificial expressions 
(TTrevSofxai, and eVt t. Ova-la k.t.\. and attach them to different 
parts of the sentence, and because xaip&>, as the point of the 
apodosis, would have been placed before iirl r. 6va. k.t.X. ; but 
at the airevheaOat : I rejoice to he em])loyed for so sacred a des- 
tination. Tlieophylact appropriately remarks : ou% co? o airo- 
davovixevo<; Xvirov/Jiat, aWa koX yaipoa . . . on (nrovBr] yi'vofiaL, 
and Theodoret : ravra Se \eyet '^v)(a<y(0'^03v avrov^ k. SiSuo-kcov 
Tov fjLaprvplov to fjLeyedo<;. Comp. Grotius, Heinrichs. The 
ground of the apostle's joy, assumed by many (including Matt, 
Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette) : because my death will tend 
lo the advantage of the gospel (i. 2 0), and also the interpretation 
of Weiss : that joy at the progress of the Philippians towards 
perfeetion is intended, are both quite gratuitously imported into 
the passage. The explanation of it as referring generally to 
inward joy fidness of faith (Wiesinger) or divine serenity (Ewald), 
does not correspond with the protasis, according to M'hich it 
must be joyfulness in the prospect of death. "Even if I am 
compelled to die in this sacrificial service, I rejoice therein," 
and that, indeed, now for the case supposed ; hence not 
future. — Kol crv^x- iraacv v/xtv] is wrongly explained by most 
commentators : " a7id I rejoice with you all" (so Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Heinrichs, Matthies, van Hengel, 
Eilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Schneckenburger, Weiss, 
Hofmann, and many others) ; along with which explanation 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, and various of the older expositors, 
bring forward another ground for this joint joy than for the 
^aijOO) (Chrysostom : 'Xj^ipco /xev, on aTrovSij yivofj-ar a-vy- 
^j^ai/jft) Be, oTL Ovalav irpoaeveyKOJv ; comp. Schneckenburger). 
Decisive against this interpretation is the 'xalpere which follows 
in ver. 18, — a summons which would be absurd, if cvyx- ^A*-- 
meant : " I rejoice ^vith you." The Vulgate already rightly 
renders : congratulor (comp. Jerome, Beza, Castalio, Grotius, 
Storr, Elatt, Eheinwald, Hoelemann, Bisping, Ellicott, Light- 
foot), / congratulate you all, namely, on the fact that I am 


poured out in the service of your faith. Such a martyrdom, 
namely, for the sake of their faith, how it must have elevated afid 
honoured the readers, their whole church ; for such a martyr 
death concerned them all ! Comp. on Eph. iii. 1 3 ; it re- 
dounds to their glory, if the apostle sheds his blood on account 
of their Christian standing established by him. It is in this 
light that Paul wishes his airevheaOai, should it occur, to be 
regarded by his readers, and therefore gracefully and in- 
geniously represents it (though Hofmann holds this to be 
impossible) as something on which he must congratulate them 
all. I'auline linguistic usage is not to be urged in objection 
to this view (Weiss), as Paul employs av^yalpw elsewhere only 
in the passages 1 Cor. xii. 26, xiii. 6, and these are balanced 
by vv. 17 and 18 here. Van Hengel and de Wette have 
erroneously objected that it would have been av^yaipoiiai 
(3 Mace. i. 8). The active as well as the middle may convey 
either meaning, to rejoice cdong with, or gratidari (Polyb. xxix. 
7. 4, XXX. 10. 1 ; Plut. Mor. p. 231 B; 3 Mace. i. 8). See 
Valchenaer, Schol. I. p. 54. 

Ver. 18. And upon the same (upon my possibly occur- 
ring airevhea-Qat, enl r. Over. k.t.\., ver. 17) rejoice ye also 
(Ijecause it takes place for the sake of your faith), and con- 
gratulcde me thereon (on such a sacred destination). The verbs 
are impcrcdives. " Postulat enim Paulus parem av/jLTrddeiav a 
Philipp.," Beza. The ground of the yaipere may not be arbi- 
trarily introduced (Hofmann : wliatever untowardness may 
occur), but must by logical necessity be the same which, in 
ver. 1 7, suggested the avy^aipco vfxlv ; and that of the avj- 
^(aLpeTe fiot must be the same as caused Paul to say ^a/pco in 
ver. 17.^ The expositors, who do not take avyx^alpeiv as 
gratidari, are here placed in the awkM'ard position of making 
the apostle summon his readers to a joy which, according to 
ver. 17, they would already possess. By this impossibility 

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

CHAP. II. 19. 125 

Weiss, in spite of the to avro, allows himself to be driven 
into taking the joy in ver. 18, not as in ver. 17, but (comp. 
also Hofmann) quite generally, of a joyful frame of mind. — to 
avTo] in the same (on the accusative, comp. Matt. ii. 10) 
rejoice yc also ; see also on i. 25. Hence it is not to be taken 
as equivalent to biaavTw<; (Beza, Storr, Flatt, Heinrichs, Ehein- 
wald, Eilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann) (comp. 
on i. 6), in order thereby to avoid identifying it with the joy 
mentioned in ver. 1 7. As to '^alpecv with the accusative in 
classical authors, see generally Lobeck, ad Aj. 131; Klihner, 
II. 1, p. 255 f. 

Ver. 19. The apostle now, down to ver. 24, speaks of send- 
ing Timothy^ to them, and states that he himself trusted to 
visit them shortly. — iXTrl^oi Ze at.t.X,.] The progress of thought 
attaching itself to ver. 1 7 (not to ver. 12) is : However 
threatening, according to ver. 1 7 f., and dangerous to life my 
situation is, nevertheless I hope soon to send Timothy to you, 
etc. He hopes, therefore, for such a change in his situation, 
as would enable him soon to spare that most faithful friend 
for such a mission. Here also, as in i. 21-26, there is an 
immediate change from a presentiment of death to a confidence 
of his being preserved in life and even liberated (ver. 24). The 
right view of vv. 17,18 debars us from construing the pro- 
gress of the thought thus : for the enhancement of my joy, how- 
ever, etc. (Weiss). Others take different views, as e.g. Bengel : 
although I can write nothing definite regarding the issue of my 
case, — an imported parenthetic thought, which is as little 
suggested in ver. 1 7 f. as is the antithetical relation to '^alpere 
K. cniy^aip. fioi discovered by Hofmann, viz. that the apostle 
is anxious as to tvhether all is well in the church. — ev Kupicpl 
making the hope causally rest in Christ. Comp. on 1 Cor. 
XV. 19. — vfXLv] not equivalent to the local tt/so? vfia^ (van 
Hengel), nor yet the dative commodi {" vestros in usus, 

' Hofmanii's hypothesis, that the churcli htid expressed a desire that the apostle 
would send them one who should aid tliem, with word and deed, in their affairs, 
has no hint of it given at all in the text ; least of all in Vva xuyu il-^uxi^ x.r.x. 
Why should Paul not have mentioned, in some way or' another, the wish of the 
church ? — Baur and Hinsch find 710 motive mentioned for the mission of Timothy. 
As if the motive of love conveyed by '/»« Kayu x.t.x. were not enough ! 


vestra in gaudia/' Hoelemann, comp. cle Wette and Hofmann), 
whereby too special a sense is introduced ; "but the dative 
of reference (1 Cor. iv. 17 ; Acts xi. 29), indicating the persons 
concerned as those for whom the mission generally is intended. 
— «ra7co] / also, as ye through the accounts^ to be received of 
me, namely, those which ye shall receive through this epistle, 
through Epaphroditus, and through Timothy. — ev-y^v^eiv] to 
he of good couraye, occurs here only in the IST. T, See Poll. 
iii. 135 ; Joseph. Antt. xi. 6. 9. Comp the eu-»/^i;%et in 
epitaphs (like %aipe) in Jacobs, ad Antlwl. xii. p. 304. — tcu 
Trepl v/j,.] the things concerning you, quite generally, your cir- 
cumstances. Eph. vi. 22 ; Col. iv. 8. See Heindorf, ad Plat. 
Phacd. p. 58 A. 

Ver. 20. Keason why Timothy is the person sent. Hof- 
mann erroneously takes it as : the reason why he sends no one 
at the time. As if vvv <yap or dprc jap ovBeva k.t.\. were 
written. — la6'\lrv)^ov] lihe-minded, namely, ivith me ; in what 
respect, is stated in the sequel. Castalio, Beza, Calvin, EiUiet, 
Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, wrongly interpret it: no one who 
would be so minded as he (Kheinwald combines the two 
references). As avTa> is not added, the text gives no other 
reference for taa (in la6-\\rv')(^) than to the subject of ej^co (see 
also ver. 22) ; as, indeed, Paul could not give a better reason 
for the choice of Timothy, and could not more effectively re- 
commend him to his readers, than by setting forth his like- 
mindedness with himself ; comp. Deut. xiii. 6 : ^/Xo? tcro? t^ 
"^^XV 1^°^- T^"^G word occurs only here in the N. T. ; see 
LXX. Ps. Iv. 14 ; Aesch. Agam. 1470. Comp. on the subject- 
matter, 1 Cor. xvi. 10. — o<ni<i «.t.X.] the emphasis is laid on 
r/v'r](7Lco<;, and oo-rt?, quiiypc qui, ita comparaticm ut, introduces 
the character of an laoylruxo^, such as is not at his disposal. — 

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

CHAP. II. 21. 127 

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

Ver. 21. 01 Trayre?] all (except Timothy), of those whom 
I now have with me and at my disposal for sending; see 
ver. 20. We have the less warrant to modify this judgment 
in any way, expressed, as it is, so very clearly and decidedly 
by the absolute antithesis ra iavrcov ^rjTovaiv, ov ra T. X., 
seeing that we are unacquainted with the circle surrounding 
the apostle at that particular time, and do not know to what ex- 
tent the anti-Pauline tendency, i. 15, 17, had then spread in 
the immediate neighbourhood of the apostle. The only limi- 
tation of the general expression, which is in accordance with 
the text, lies in the fact that Paul does not mean the Chris- 
tians generally in Pome, but such assistant teachers as would 
otherwise, if they had been pure and honest, have been qiiali- 
fied for such a mission. The trustworthy ones among these 
otherwise qualified felloAv-labourers must have been alsent at 
the time, especially Luke, who could by no means have been 
included among ol Trdvre<i (in opposition to Wieseler, Chronol. 
d. aijost. Zeitalt. p. 42 7) ; hence the Philippians are not saluted 
specially either by Luke or by any other, and the omission of 
such salutations by name at the end of this epistle receives 
in part its explanation from this passage. Consequently, ol 
irdvT. cannot be understood as many or the most (Beza, "Wolf, 
Hammond, Drusius, Estius, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, and 
others, including Heinrichs, Eheinwald, Piatt) ; nor is it : 
'•■ all, tvhom I can spare" (Erasmus), or : " ivho are hnown to 
you" (van Hengel). Neither is the negation to be taken rela- 
tively : they seek more their own interest, etc. (Erasmus, 
Calvin, and many others, also Flatt, Hoelemann, comp. the 
reservations of Weiss), to which Hofmann's view^ also ulti- 

^ The latter says : they allow themselves to he influenced in the direction of 


mately comes ; nor is it to be explained by assuming an in- 
tention of distinguishing Timothy (Matthies) ; nor yet is the 
judgment to be restricted, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and 
Theophylact, to the hardships of the long journey, to which 
they preferred their own rcijose. Bengel rightly defends the 
full seriousness of the utterance, and adds : " subtilissima erat 
aLa6r](Ti'i, qua hoc percepit Paulus." But Baur erroneously 
discovers here merely an exaggeration, which arose from the 
subjectivity of a later author. What an uncalled-for fiction 
that would have been ! 

Ver. 22. Contrast, not of the ^cr^o^i (which would have run 
Tr]v he avTov Bok. or avTov Be rrjv Bok.), but of the qualifica- 
tion, in order further to recommend him, whom he hopes soon 
to be able to send ; not to make vp for the disadvantage, 
that they can in the first instance only hope, etc. (as Hofmann 
artificially explains). But the approved character {indoles spec- 
tata, comp. Eora. v. 4 ; 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 13) of him ye know ; 
for Timothy had himself been in Philippi (Acts xvi. 1, 3, 
xvii. 14) ; hence ryivwcrK. is not the imperative (Vulgate, Pela- 
gius, Castalio, Cornelius a Lapide, Clericus, Eheinwald, Hoele- 
mann). — on ac.t.X,.] that he, namely, etc. — &)? irarpl reKvov] 
Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 1 7. The apostle had here iBovXevaev before 
his mind, but alters the conception in such a way, that he 
thinks upon the service as rendered no longer to him, but loith 
him, in a humble glance at Christ (ver. 21), whom he himself 
also serves, so that the apostle's servant is at the same time 
his <rvvBov\o<;. See Winer, pp. 393, 537 [E. T. pp. 525, 722]. 
Hofmann labours without success to remove the incongruity, 
which cannot be got rid of unless, with Vatablus, we were at 
liberty to supply avv before irarpL But, however frequently 
the Greeks put the preposition only once in comparisons (see 
Bernhardy, p. 204 f . ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 479), its omission does 
not occur in the clause placed first. The poetical use of 
such an omission in the case of words which are connected by 

their activity, even though it he consecrated to the kimjdom of God (?), hy special 
personal aims, instead of devoting themselves always only (? ov rk 'I. X.) to thai 
which is MOST ADVANTAGEOUS for the cause of Christ ( oh toc 'i. x. !). Thus there 
is imported into the passage what is not at all to be found in it. 

CIIAr. II. 23-25. 129 

Kai, re, or i] (Dissen, ad Paul. Arm. x. 38 ; Lobeck, ad Aj. 
397 ff.) does not concern us here. — el<f\ in respect to the rjosijcl 
(conip. i. 5), the serving in question having reference to the 
preaching, defence, etc., thereof. 

Ver. 23. Mev ovv\ ovv resumes ver. 19, and to the [xev 
corresponds the Se in ver. 24. — co<i av airlSco k.t.X.] vjJicn (of 
the time, see Ivlotz, ad Devar. p. 759, that is, as soon as, comp. 
on 1 Cor. xi. 34 ; Eom. xv. 24) / anyhoiv (by av the matter is 
left to experience) shall lutve seen to the end (Jonah iv. 5). The 
latter, which expresses the perceiving from a distance (Herod. 
viii. 37; Dem. 1472. 15; Lucian, D. D. vi. 2), denotes the 
knowledge of the final course of matters to he expected, — only 
after which could it be decided whether or not he could spare the 
faithful Timothy for a time. The form dcfjlBco (Lachmann and 
Tischendorf) in A B'"' D'" F G N is, on account of this weighty 
evidence, to be considered not as a copyist's error, but as the 
original, and to be derived from the pronunciation of ISeiv 
(with the digamma). Comp. on Acts iv. 29, and see Winer, 
p. 44 [E. T. p. 4(S] ; J. B. Lightfoot ad he. ; Buttmann, Neut. 
Gr. p. 7 [E. T. p. 7]. — TCL Trepl e'/ie] the things about me, that is, 
the state of my affairs. Substantially not different from rd 
Trepl ifMov (ver. 19 f.). See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 20 ; 
Winer, p. 379 [E. T. p. 506]. 

Ver. 24. Kal aino<i\ also myself personally. Wliat Paul 
shall see, therefore, is, as he confidently trusts (not merely 
hopes), his liberation (comp. i. 25 f.) ; that it will make it pos- 
sible for him to come soon} The terminus a quo of the Ta^ico'; 
is, as in ver. 19, the then present time, although the sending of 
Timothy and his return (ver. 19) are to precede his own 
coming. The ra-x^eca as a relative definition of the time is not 
opposed to this view. But that koI avr6<; includes also the 
case of his coming at the same time icith Timothy (Hofmann), 
is, according to ver. 19 ff., not to be assumed. 

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

' How could this confidence, which the result did not justif}', have been put 
by any later author into the apostle's mouth ? Only Paul himself could have 
wi'itten in such a way as here and in i. 25 f. See, in opposition to Hinsch, 
Hilgenfeld, 1873, p. 185 f. 



and recommendation of him, down to ver. 30. — ava'yK. 8e 
^57.] / have, however, juchjecl it necessary, although Epaphro- 
ditus, namely, according to vv. 19—24, might have remained 
here still, in order to have made his return-journey to you 
later, either in company with Timothy, or eventually with 
myself. For the special reason, which Paul had for not 
keeping him longer with himself in Eome, see vv. 26, 28, 

— 'EiracppoScTov] otherwise not further known. The name 
(signifying Venustus) was a common one (Tac. Ann. xv. 55 ; 
Suet. Domit. 14; Joseph. Vit. 76; Wetstein in lac), also 
written ' E7ra(f)p6S6iTo<i (Boeckh, Corp. inscr. 1811, 2562); but 
to regard the man as identical with ^Eira^pa'; (Col. i 7, 
iv. 12; Philem. 23) (Grotius, Paulus, and others) is all the 
more arbitrary, since Epaphras was a Colossian teacher. — The 
grouping together of five predicates wliich follows, has arisen 
out of loving and grateful regard for Epaphroditus, as an 
honourable testimony to him in his relation to the apostle as 
well as to the church. — aSeXcf)., crvvep'y., avarpar.] a climactic 
threefold description of companionship, advancing from the 
most general category, that of Christian brotherhood (aSeX^o9), 
to a twofold more special relation. On ava-rpar., which sets 
forth the joint working (a-vvepy.) in relation to the hostile 
powers, comp. Philem. 2 ; 2 Tim. ii. 3. — vfj,(t)v Se diroa-r. k. 
XeLToupy. T. ^/3. fjiov.'\ still belonging to top ; hence vfioov, placed 
in contrast to the fiou, belongs to Xecrovpy. r. p^. p,. as well (in 
opposition to de Wette and others). 'A7r6aTo\o<; here means 
delegate (2 Cor. viii. 23), and not ap)ostle (Vulgate, Hilarius, 
Theodoret, Luther, Erasmus, Calovius, Wetstein : " mei muneris 
vicarium apud vos," am Ende, and others), which would necessi- 
tate the genitive vpiwv being taken as in Eom. xi. 13, against 
which the context, by the union with \ecrovpy. r. y^. jjl., is 
decisive ; as, indeed, Paul uses airoar. as an official designa- 
tion only in the sense of the actual apostolic rank, based 
upon a direct call by Christ, in its narrower and wider refer- 
ence (comp. on Gal. i. 1 9 ; Piom. xvi. 7 ; 1 Cor. xv. 7), and 
hence there is no necessity to seek even an allusion to his 
" quasi "-apostolic position towards the Philippians (Matthies). 

— K. XecTovpy. t. '^. /i.] the scccrificial minister of my need, to? 

CHAP. II. 26, 27. 131 

ra Trap" avToov airocrraXivTa KO/XLaavra ')(prjixaTa, Theodoret. 
By sending aid they had cared for the apostle's need (iv. 1 6) ; 
and that gift of love being regarded as a sacrifice offered to 
God, Epaphroditus, who had been entrusted by them Avith the 
conveying of it, was the Xeirovpyo^ in the matter, that is, he 
who performed the priestly service in the bringing of this 
offering (comp. ver. 17). Such is also the conception in 
2 Cor. ix. 12. On t?}? ^/oetW /"-. comp. iv. 16 ; Eom. xii. 13. — 
Tre/A-v^at] as also in Greek authors frequently, in the sense of 
dimittere domum, to send home} consequently equivalent to 
aTTOTrefXTreiv or avaTrefXTreiv (Philem. 12); Xen. Hell. ii. 7. 9; 
Sop. 0. B. 1518; Polyb. v. 100. 10 ; and frequently in 
Homer. See especially Od. xv. 74 : ^p?; ^elvov irapeovra 
^cXeiv, eOekovra Se Tre/jLireLv. 

Ver. 26. State of mind {rjv with participle) of Epaphroditus, 
which supplied the motive for the avayK. rjjrjo: K.rXr — The 
imperfect is used ifiv), because Paul transports himself to the 
time when the readers shall receive this epistle. Then is 
Epaphroditus again among them ; but he was previously longing, 
etc. — ah7]ixovwv] in anxiety. Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 3 7. — 
OTL TjcO.'] that he ivas sick. Hoto the Philippians received this 
information, remains an open question, as also hoio Epaphro- 
ditus learned that they had heard it. 

Ver. 27. Confirmation of that rjKovcrare, on r]a6. — Ka\ yap 
K.TX]for he has also {really, see Hartung, PartikeU. I. p. 132 ; 
Baeumlein, p. 150) teen sick. — irapaifk. Oavdrco] adds the 
specification of the mode : in a ivay almost equivalent to death. 
There is neither an ellipsis (de Wette : d^/^ero or some such 

* That Paul, however, here writes -prifi^at -sfli hf^ai, and, en the otlier hand, 
■r. vfTn in ver. 19, is an accidental and undesigned variation. Hofmann thinks 
that by v. v(a~m is meant the sending of a representative of the ajjostle to the 
Church, and by •r. •r^o? W(«as the sending of a representative of the Church to the 
apostle. This distinction is involved in the state of the case, but has nothing to 
do with the difference between the ift,7v and wpl; vfiZ;. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 17; 
Eph. vi. 22 ; Col. iv. 8 ; Tit. iii. 12 ; 2 Cor. xii. 17. 

2 The supposition that Paul, in specifying this ground, wished to prevent the 
so speedy return of the man fro7n being interpreted to his disadvantage (Hof- 
mann), assumes the existence of a certain distrust, for which there is no basis in 
the text. Besides, Epaphroditus had in fact accomplished the purpose of his 


word is to be understood before TrapairX. ; comp. van Hengel) 
nor a solecism (van Hengel) ; irapanrX. is adverbial (equi- 
valent to TrapaTrX'Tjaio)';, see Polyb. iv. 40. 10, iii, 33. 17; 
Lucian, Cyn. 1 7 ; comp. irapaTfKrja-Lavrepov , Plat. Polit. p. 
275 C), and the dativus congruentiae (instead of which the 
genitive might also have been used, Bernhardy, p. 148) is 
governed by it. — Xvinjv eVt Xvttt^i/] grief U2)on grief (super- 
added). LXX. Ezra vii. 26; Ps. Ixix. 27; Isa. xxviii. 10. 
Comp. expressions with the dative (as Ecclus. xxvi. 15) in 
classic Greek, e.g. oyxyr] eirl oy)(^i'r] (Horn. Oel. vii. 120), eaXa kir 
iaXot'i (Pind. 01. viii. 84), (fi6vo<i iirl (f>6va) (Eur. Iph. T. 197) ; 
Polyb. i. 57. 1. See also Eur. Hcc. 586: Xiittt) rt? aWij 
Bid8o'^o<; KUKcov KaKoi<i, Soph. El. 235 : arav aTai<;, Eur. 
Troad. 175 : eir aXyeat S' aXr/vvOS). The first Xvtttjv refers to 
the dreaded death of his friend ; the second, to the apostle's 
affliction over the 'painful position in which he found him- 
self, as a prisoner, and also through the doings of the adver- 
saries (ver. 20 f., i. 15, 17, 30), not over tlie sickness of Epa~ 
fhroditiis (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, 
Estius, and others, also Weiss), to which would be added that 
for his deatli. 'A\v7r6Tepo<; in ver. 28 is fatal to the latter 
view, for it appears that, even after Epaphr. had been sent 
away, a Xinrr] still remained, which, therefore, could not be 
referred to the latter's sickness. Van Hengel errs in under- 
standing the affliction as pain concerning this sickness, and the 
first XvTrrjv as " cogitatio anxietatis vestrae." See, in opposi- 
tion, on ver. 28. Calvin's remark suffices to justify the double 
XvTrr) : " Non jactat Stoicorum airddeLav, quasi ferreus esset et 
immunis ab humanis affectibus." Comp. John xi. 35 f. — 
o-;^w] not optative. See Winer, p. 270 [E. T. p. 359]. 

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

CHAP. II. 29, 30. 133 

with i8oi/T69 avrov (Beza, Grotius, and others, also Baumgarten- 
Crusius and de Wette). — /ca7&) likinror. ai] 'Eav yap vfiel'i 
-^apTjre, koX iyo) %ai/3a), Oecumenius. He is not aXfTro?, for he 
is in captivity and surrounded by adversaries ; but the joy 
which he is aware is abeady prepared for his beloved Philip- 
pians by the return of Epaphroditus, lessens his Xvirrj. This 
tender interweaving of his own alleviation with the rejoicing 
of his readers is lost, if we refer dXviroT. to the removal of the 
vexation of seeing the recovered one so full of longing and so un- 
ccmj (Hofmann), which, regarded as Xvttt], would be sentimental. 
According to Weiss, Paul intends to say : still more aXvTrof;, 
than I have already become in consequence of Epaphroditus' 
recovery. An unsuitable idea, because the comparative neces- 
sarily presupposes a certain degree of the Xvtt?/ still remaining. 
In the consciousness of this Paul has written aXuiror. ; if it 
had been otherwise, he would perhaps have used, as in ver. 19, 
Kujoi ev-^v^o) or Kor^oi '^alpco. 

Ver. 29f. Ovv] Let, then, the reception which he meets 
with among you be in accordance with my purpose in accelerat- 
ing his return (iva ISovre^i k.tX.) ; receive him ivith all joy. — 
iv KvpUo] denotes, as in Eom. xvi. 2, the Christian character of 
the 7rpoa8e')(eadat, the nature and action of which have their 
distinctive quality in Christ, in whose fellowship Christians live 
and move. — fj,eTa irda: %ap.] excludes ei^ery kind of sullen or 
indifferent temper and expression : " with all joyfulness." — Kal 
TOL"? TOiovrov; /c.tA.] and the pcojjle of such a sort, etc. "Iva firj 
Zo^rj avTM jjiovw y^apl^eaOai, KOLVO)<i Trapaivel irdvTa^; rovi rrjv 
avTTjv dperrjv iTrtSecKw/xevov; rcfidv, Theophylact. But Epa- 
phroditus is in his view, as in the given case, the person 
belonging to the class thus to be held in honour.^ 

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

^ There is no ground for the reference, which Hofmann discovers here, to an 
assumed inclination, on the part of the Philippians, to hold in honour people of 
another so7't (such as are described in chap, iii.) more than the ranuTous. For 
this assumption there would, at the most, be occasion only if Paul had used the 
comparative instead of Ivrlfiovf. Besides, the emphasis is not on roh; roiovTot/s 
(Hofmann), but on hri/ievs, correlative to the preceding ^tra ^uf. ;t«/iaf. 


XV. 38), obvious, namely, that of Icthour for the gospel ; the 
addition in the Rec. rov XpLcrrov is a correct gloss, and it is 
this epyov kut ^^o'x/jv (comp. virep rov 6v6/xaTo<;, Acts v. 41) 
in the service of which Epaphroditus incurred so dangerous 
an illness, namely, when he, according to the testimony of 
the predicates in ver. 25, as the (Tvvep<y6<i and o-vo-rparicorrjf; 
of the apostle, with devotedness and self-sacrifice, united his 
exertions for the gospel and his striving against the move- 
ments of its adversaries (i. 15, 17, 30, ii. 20) with a similar 
activity on the part of the apostle. The interpretation which 
refers epyov to the business of conveying the 'bounty (de Wette, 
following older expositors, comp. Weiss), does not suffice for 
the more special characteristic description ; and the refer- 
ence to the enmity of Nero against Paul, the dangers of 
which Epaphroditus had shared, in order to reach the apostle 
and to serve him, finds no warrant either in the context or in 
Acts xxviii. (in opposition to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theo- 
phylact, comp. Theodoret). — /^expi Qclv. »;77.] as in Ps. cvii. 18 : 
rjyyicrav eoi<i tcov ttvXcov toO davdrov, Ecclns. li. 6 : e&)9 Oavd- 
Tov, Eev. xii. 11. The expression with fie^pt is more definite 
than the dative would be (as in Ps. Ixxxviii. 3 : ?) ^cotj /llov tc3 
aSr) rjyyia-e), or et9 Odvar. (Job xxxiii. 22) ; he came 7iear even 
unto death. — irapa^ovX. rfj '^l'%.] Such is the Text. Rec., which 
Bengel, Matthaei (vehement in opposition to Wetstein and 
Griesbach), Einck, van Hengel, Pteiche, and others defend, 
and Tischendorf still follows in the 7th ed. Justly, however, 
Scaliger, Casaubon, Salmasius, Grotius, Mill, Wetstein, and 
others, including Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf, 
ed. 8, Ptheinwald, Matthies, Eilliet, Winer, Ewald, Weiss, 
J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann, and others, have preferred irapa^oX. 
T. yjr. The latter has the authority of A B D E F G N, 177, 
178, 179 in its favour, as well as the support of the Itala by 
" yardbolatus est de anima sua," and of Vulgate, Aeth., Pelagius, 
by " tradens (Ambrosiaster : in intcriium tradens) animam 
suam" Since /3o\evea6ai was unknown to the copyists, whilst 
^ovXeveadac was very current, instead of the one dira^ Xeyo/x. 
another crept in, the form of which, on account of the pre- 
valence of the simple word, had nothing offensive, vrapa- 

CHAP. II. 30. 135 

/SoXeveadai, which is nowhere certainly preserved (in opposition 
to Wetsteiu's quotations from the Fathers, see Matthiae, ed. 
min. p. 341 f., and Eeiche, Comment, crit. p. 220 f.), is formed 
from the very current classical word 7rapd^o\o<;, pidtinr/ at 
stake, venturesome, and is therefore equivalent to 7rapd/3o\ov 
elvai, to he venturous, to be an adventurer, as irepirepeveaOai. 
equivalent to nrepirepov elvai (1 Cor. xiii. 4), oX.o'yeveadaL 
equivalent to dXoyov elvai (Cic. Att. vi. 4), diroaKoireveLv and 
iTTicTKOTrevecv (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 591), KcofiLKeveaOai (Luc. 
Fhilop. 22). See more such verbs in Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 67, 
and comp. generally Kiihner, L p. 695, II. 1, p. 98. Hence 
the 7rapa^o\eva-d/ji€vo<i /c.r.X., which is to be regarded as a 
modal definition to fi. Oav. rf^'^ia-e, means : so that he was ven- 
turesome with his sold (dative of the more definite reference), 
i.e. he hazarded his life} in order to supply, etc. In this sense 
irapa^aXkecrOai is current among Greek aiithors, and that not 
merely with accusative of the object (Hom. II. ix. 322 ; so 
usually, as in 2 Mace. xiv. 38), but also with dative of reference 
(Polyb. ii. 26. 6, iii. 94. 4; Diod. Sic. iii. 35: eKptvav m-apa^aX- 
Xeadav Tah -xp^vxal^), in the sense of pL-y\roicivhvvelv (Schol. Thuc. 
iv. 57) and TrapappLirreLv (Soph. /r. 499. Diud.). Comp. irapa- 
^dXXofiac rfi efiavToi) KecpaXfj in Phryn. ed. Loh. p. 238. Hence, 
also, the name 'paraholani for those who waited on the sick 
(Gieseler, Kir chenycsch. I. 2, p. 173, ed. 4). Taking the read- 
ing of the Text. Pec, irapa^ovXevearOaL would have to be 
explained : male eonsidcre vitae (Luther aptly renders : since 
he thouglit light of his life). See especially Eeiche. This 
verb, also, does not occur in profane Greek authors ; but for 
instances from the Fathers, especially Chrysostom, and that in 
the sense specified, see Matthiae, I.e.; Hase in Stcph. Thes. 
VI. p. 220. — iva dvairX. /c.r.X..] The ohject, to attain which 
he hazarded his life. We have to notice (1) that v/u,(ov 
belongs to va-Teprj/xa ; and (2) that t»}? tt/do? p.e Xeirovpy. can 
denote nothing else but the function, — well known and defined 

' The matter is conceived as stalcing a price or forfeit. Comp. cra/ia/SaX/sv in 
Poll. viii. 63, Phrynich. p. 238. On the subject-matter comp. also Tpo'iKr^ai ra; 
i^/vx^; (Pausanias, iv. 10. 3) ; the aniviae magnae prodiijus of Horace {Od, 
i. 12. 37) ; and the vitam projundere pro patria of Cicero {de Off. i. 24). 


by the context (ver. 25), and conceived of as a sacrificial 
service, — with which Epaphroditus had been commissioned by 
the Philippians in respect to Paul (7rp6<i fxe). All explana- 
tions are therefore to be rejected, which either expressly or 
insensibly connect v/jicbv with XeiTovpy., and take the latter 
in the general sense of rendering service (BiaKovelv). We must 
reject, consequently, Chrysostom's explanation (comp. Theo- 
phylact, Theodoret, Pelagius, Castalio, Yatablus, and others) : 
TO ovv voreprjfia t)}9 vfieTepwi Xeiroupyla'i aveTr\rjpu)aev . . . 
oirep ixP^W TTayra? iroLrjaai, rovro eirpa^eu avT6<; ;^ also the 
similar view taken by Erasmus and many others (comp. 
Grotius, Estius, Heinrichs, Kheinwald, van Hengel, Eilliet) : 
" quo videlicet pensaret id, quod ob absentiam vcstro erga me 
offixio vidcbatur clcessc;" the arbitrary explanation of Matthies : 
" in order that he might ixi-fcd the readiness of service which 
you have shown on various occasions ; " and several other inter- 
pretations. Hoelemann, also, in opposition to the simple 
literal sense, takes to v/mcov varep. as defectus cui s'lchvenistis, 
and T^9 Trpo? /xe Xetrovpy. as : rerum necessariaricm ad me sub- 
ministrando deferendarum. 'So ; of the two genitives, referring 
to different things (comp. ver. 25, and see AViner, p. 180 
[E. T. p. 239]), by which to vaTeprjfMa is accompanied, the first 
conveys ivho were wanting (v/mcov, yc were wanting, yc your- 
selves were not there, comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 1 7), and the second 
to what this want applied. Consequently the passage is to be 
explained : in order to com^yensate for the circumstanee, that ye 
have been wanting at the sacrifieial service touching me ; tliat is, 
for the circumstance, that this sacrificial service, lohich has been 
made through your love-gifts in my siqjj^ooi, %oas comiJlctcd, not 
jointly by you, but luithout you, so that only your messenger 
Epaphroditus was here, and not ye yourselves in person. 
How delicate and winning, and at the same time how enlist- 

' Hofmann substantially reverts to this. He takes u^w» as tlie sxihject, which 
had allowed somethbiff to remain lacking in the service, namely, in so far as 
the church had onli/ collected the aid, but not conveyed it. How indelicate would 
such a thought have been ! Besides, it was, in fact, an imiwssibility for the 
church to have come personally. Hence the church was wanting, indeed, at 
the transmission of the bounty, but it did not thereby alloio anything to be 
wanting in the latter. 

CHAP. II. 30. 137 

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



Vee. 3. Instead of ©sou Elz. has @su>, against decisive testi- 
mony, although again defended by Eeiche. A clumsy emenda- 
tion in order to complete the Xarp. — Ver. 6. t^riXov] Lachm. and 
Tisch. read ^rjXog, following A B D* E G N*. A copyist's error ; 
comp. the exeg. remarks on 2 Cor. ix. 2. — Ver. 8. Instead of 
iu,'sv oh Elz. and Tisch. 8 have /j.iiovvyi, which, although supported 
by A P X, is opposed by very preponderating testimony. — The 
second sJvai is wanting in B D* F G X*, 17, Arm. Vulg. It. 
Lucif., d al. Suspected by Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and 
Tisch. 8. But how readily may it, otherwise superfluous, have 
been left out before the similar JVa ! — A^er. 10. The second 
TYiv is wanting in A B !:<* ; omitted by Lachm. ; overlooked as 
unnecessary. — Instead of cviJ,iJ.(^p(piZ/i[j.ivog (so Lachm. and Tisch.), 
which Griesb. approves, Elz. and Scliolz have 6\jiJ.iJ,op(po\jf/,ivog. 
But the former has in its favour A B D* P X*, min. Or. ms. 
Bas. Macar., as also G-o'^fopTiZ^6iJ.ivog in F G It. Lucif. Ir. The 
Rcccpta substitutes an analogous form more familiar. — Ver. 11. 
tZiv vsKp.'] A B D E P X, min., and many vss. and Fathers, have 
TYiv sx vs-A.p., which is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by 
Scholz, Lachm., and Tisch. But Paul always uses dvacraffig with 
merely the genitive ruv nxpuv, or only vi-/.p. The ix was written 
on the margin here to explain the word s^avaar., which does 
not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and subsequently the erroneous 
insertion of this Ix. after ruv (so still F G) produced the read- 
ing TTjv Ix vvAp. — Ver. 12. The xpiarov alone (Elz gives rou X. 
'p/iffoS) has preponderant evidence. — Ver. 14. It!] Lachm. and 
Tisch, read ug, following A B X, min. Clem. Aeth. Eightly ; 
sV/ is explanatory. — Ver. 16. After (Sraiyjiv, Elz., Scholz have 
xavwi, TO avro (ppoviTv, which is Wanting in A B X*, min. Copt. 
Sahid. Aeth. Hilar, Aug., et al. There are, besides, several 
variations, and differences in the arrangement of the words. The 
Bccopta has arisen from glosses (following Gal. vi. 16 ; Phil, 
ii. 2), and has far too little homogeneousness in a critical point 
of view, to enable it to be defended on the ground of homoio- 
teleuton (so Matth. and Einck). — Ver. 21. After r^jb^v, Elz. 
has ilg TO yi/ssSai avro, which (although defended by IVIatth.) is 
omitted by decisive authorities. An ancient supplement. — 

CHAP. III. 1. 139 

iauTSj] Following A B D* F G K P s*, min. Eus. TlieophyL, aO-w 
is, with Lachm. and Tiscb., to be read ; lavrtZ is a more precise 

In iii. 1 Paul seems already preparing to close bis epistle ; 
but at tbis point bis attention is directed, perbaps by some 
special momentary occasion, to tbe party of anti- Pauline 
teacbers, against wbicb be at once breaks fortb witb vebemence 
and irony in ver. 2, warning bis readers against tbem ; and 
tbereafter, from ver. 4 to 14, be sets fortb in detail bis own bear- 
ing as contrasted witb tbe cbaracter of tbose false teacbers. 

Ver. 1. To Xolttov] introduces wbat is still to be done by 
the readers in addition to wbat bas been bitberto communi- 
cated ; see on Epb. vi. 1 0. Hence it is of frequent occurrence 
towards tbe close of tbe epistles, as bringing in a furtber 
request, exbortation, etc. Comp. iv. 8 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; 
1 Tbess. iv. 1 ; 2 Tbess. iii. 1. To tbe closincr address tbus 
introduced, but at once abandoned ai^ain in ver. 2, Paul would 
have attached bis giving of thanks for tbe aid sent to him 
(comp. iv. 8, 10 ff.). Tbis is contrary to tbe view of Schinz 
and van Hengel, who, from the fact that Paul bas not yet 
expressed bis thanks, conclude that he did not at tbis point 
desire to proceed to tbe closing of tbe letter. We need not 
search for a connection with wbat precedes (Chrysostom : e^^ere 
^EiracppoScTov, Sl ov rjXyelre, e^ere Tt/juodeov, ep^OfxaL Kuydo, to 
evayyeXiov iirLhihwai' rl vfxlu XetTret Xotirov ; comp. Oecumenius, 
Tbeopbylact, Erasmus, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Micbaelis, 
and others). Tbe preceding topic is closed, and the exhorta- 
tion beginning witb to \ot7r. wbicb now follows stands by 
itself; so that we are not even justified in saying that Paul 
here passes from the 'particular to the general (Schinz, 
Mattbies), but must simply assume that be is proceeding to 
the conclusion, v/bicb he desired to commence witb tbis general 
encouragement. — '^(alpeTe iv Kvpiui] is a summons to Christian 
joyfulness, wbicb is not Kara Koajxov (see Chrysostom), but 
has its ground in Christ, and is thereby specifically defined, 
inasmuch as Christ — through tbe Holy Spirit — rules in tbe 
believing heart; hence tbe %a)oa 7rvev/MaT0<; djlov (1 Tbess. 


i. 6) or iv irvevfjuaTi ajio) (Rom. xiv. 17) are in substance not 
different from this (comp. Gal. v. 22). The subsequent 
double repetition of this encouragement (iv. 4) is the result of 
the apostle's special love for his readers, and of the whole 
tone of feeling pervading the epistle. Moreover, in tV Kvptui 
we are not to seek for a nciu sjjccial element, preparing the 
way for the transition to the explanations which follow 
(Weiss, Hofmann) ; for Paul could not in what went before 
mean any other joy, either on his own part (i. 18) or on the 
part of his readers (ii. 17 f., 28), and in other passages also 
he does not add to '^aipere the self-evident definition eV 
Kvplw (2 Cor. xiii. 11; 1 Thess. v. 16). Another joy in 
the Christian life he knew not at all. — to, avra ^pd(f)eLv] 
" Hie incipit de pseudo-apostolis agere," Calvin. After %ai'/3. 
iv K. there is a 'pause ; Paul hreaks off. to, avrd has been 
erroneously referred to %atp. eV k., and in that case the retro- 
spective reference which Paul had in view is either not 
explained at all (Bengel, Zachariae), or is believed to be found 
in ii. 18 (van Hengel, Wiesinger), or in i. 27 f. (Matthies, 
Eilliet), or in i. 27-ii. 16 (Storr). This view is at variance, 
not indeed with the plural rd avrd (see, on the contrary, 
Stallbaum, ad Flat. Apol. p. 19 D; Matzner, ad Antiph. p. 
153 ; Kiihner II. 1, p. 60), but with the facts, first, that there is 
no express summons whatever to Christian joyfidness gcncrcdly, 
given in the previous portion of the epistle (not even in ii. 
18) ; secondly, that so simple and natural a summons — which, 
moreover, occurs again twice in iv. 4 — would certainly have 
least of all given rise to an apology for repetition ; and 
lastly, that ao-^aXe9, in accordance with its idea (loithout 
danger), points not to the repetition of a summons of this hind, 
but to a warning, such as follows immediately in the context/ 
The accusation of ■poverty of thought (Baur) is therefore all the 
more groundless here. And as the altogether vague refer- 
ence of Theodoret and Erasmus (A^motat.) to the mimerous 

^ The expedient to which "Wiesinger has recourse is gratuitously introduced, 
when he connects the x'^'P^'''^ '" *• more closely with the warning that follows by 
Imagining that, in x"^'?- '" *■> ^^ detects already the idea on which the sequel is 
based, namely the fTrixirt i> xvpia, iv. 1. 

CHAP. III. 1. 141 

exhortations contained in the epistle generally, or to the funda- 
mental tone of the letter hitherto (Weiss), is simply at variance 
with the literal import of the words, ra avrd cannot be inter- 
preted as applicable to anything but the subsequent vxtrning 
against the false teachers. This warning, however, has not 
occurred previously, either at i. 1 5 f., or indirectly in i. 2 7, as 
Liinemann thinks, or in i. 27-ii. 18, as Ewald assumes. 
Hence many have caught at the explanation : " eadem 
repetere, q^cae i^raesens dixeram " (Pelagius, Theodore of Mop- 
suestia, so also Erasmus, Paraphr., Calvin, Beza, Balduin, 
Estius, Calovius, Wolf, Schrader, and others ; de Wette unde- 
cidedly). But this quae praesens dixeram is quite gratuitously 
imported ; it must at least have been indicated by ra avra 
Kal jp. vfi. or in some other way. The same objection applies 
against Wieseler (Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 458 f.), who 
takes ra avrd as contrasted with the oral communications, 
which would be made to the readers hy Epaphroditus and 
especially by Timothy. The only correct explanation, there- 
fore, that remains is the assumption (which, however, is 
expressly rejected already by Theodoret) that Paul had already 
written what follows in an earlier epistle to the FMlippians ^ 
which is not preserved, and that he here repeats the same. 
So Aegidius Hunnius, Haenlein, Bertholdt, Flatt, Kohler, in 
the Annal. d. ges. Theol. 1834,111. 1, p. 18 f . ; Feilmoser, 
Bleek, Jatho, Schenkel, Bisping, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann ; de 
Wette undecidedly. It must remain uncertain, however, 
whether this repetition covers ver. 2 only, or ver. 3 also, or a 
still larger portion of the sequel ; as also, how far the repetition 
is a literal one, which seems to be the case with ver. 2 from 
its peculiar character. — oKv^pov^ irhsomc, matter of seruple 
(Dem. 777. 5 ; Theocr. xxiv. 35; Bind. Ncm. xi. 28; Herodian 
vi. 9, 7 ; Soph. 0. E. 834), comp. ovk oKvrjreov, Polyb. i. 14. 
/, also Plat. Ep). II. 310 D : roKriOr} Xiyeiv ovre oKvrjcrco ovre 
alaxwovfMat. — ao-^aXe?] safe, so that ye will the more firmly 
rely thereon for the determination of your conduct. Comp. 
Acts XXV. 26 ; Heb. vi. 19 ; Wisd. vii. 23 ; Plat. Ee2x 450 E ; 
Ehacd. p. 100 DE; Dem. 372. 2, 1460. 15. Hofmann, 

' Comp. also Creduer, Einl. I. p. 333. 


without any precedent of usage, assigns to oKvrjpov tlie sense 
of indolent cowardice, and takes aa^aXh as prudent, which 
linguistically is admissible (Heind. ad Plat. Soph. p. 231. A), 
but would be unsuitable to the v/xlv. The apostle wishes to 
say, that the repetition is for himself not irksome {6kvo<;, 
haesitatio), and is for his readers an aa(lia\6<; reKfi^piov (Eur. 
Bhes. 94.) to be attended to. 

Note. — This exegetical result, that, previously to our epistle, 
Paid had already ivritten another to the Philiijpians^ is confirmed 
by Polycarp,^ who, ad Phil. 3, says : roD /xaxaplov x. Ivoo^ov 
UavXov, og ysvofisvog h v/jbTv xara vpoowrov rojv tots dvSpui'Trcav idioa^iv 
axpilS^jg z. /Ss/Sa/wj tov 'Xspi aXriSiiag Xoyov, og zat d'TTuv v/j^Tv 'iypa-^iv 
s'TTiaToXdg, slg ci,; Idv syzu'n'TriTc, duvri;riffds oiKBOo/MiTsdai x.t.X. It is 
true that the phcr. in this passage {s'TnaToXug, iig cig) is usually 
explained as referring to 07ie epistle (see Cotelerius in loc. ; and 
Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. 11. p. 9 1 4 f. ; Hilgenfeld, Apost. Vdter, p. 
210; J. B. Lightfoot, p. 138 f.), just as it is well known that 
also in profane authors sV/ffroXa/ (comp. literae) is used of one 
despatch (Thuc. i. 132. 6, viii. 39. 2), sometimes generally in a 
generic sense as plural of the category, and sometimes specially 
of commissions and orders. See Schaefer, Plut. VI. p. 446 ; 
Blomf. and Stanl. ad Aesch. Prom. 3 ; Eettig, Quaest. Phil. II. 
p. 37 f. But there is the less ground for assuming this con- 
struction here, since doctrinal epistles, both in the N. T. and 
also in the apostolic Fathers, are always described by the 
singular when only one epistle is intended, and by the plural 
(as in 1 Cor. xvi. 3 ; 2 Cor. x. 9-11 ; 2 Pet. iii. 16 ; comp. Acts 
ix. 2, xxii. 5) if more than one are meant, — a practice from which 
there is no exception (not even in 1 Cor. xvi. 3), as, in fact, 
Polycarp, in regard to sttictoXti, elsewhere very definitely distin- 

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

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

CHAP. III. 1. 143 

guishes between the singular and plural. See cli. xiii. : rac, 

sTiCToXag 'lyvurlov ra; 'XZiMfhieag '/i/jlTv vv aurou xai oGag 
i'iyjiiiv -jctp riiJjTv, ivsfjii-^a/jjiv v/ji^Tv, xaSojg svsTslXaadi' a'irivsg vTOTsray- 
[xhat iJai rrj V/ffroX^ raur-/}. In order to prove that Polycarp 
in eh. iii. did not mean more them one epistle to the Philippians, 
an appeal has been made to ch. xi., where, in the Latin ver- 
sion, which alone has been preserved, it is said : " Ego autem 
nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi, in quibus laboravit beatus 
Paulus, qui estis (non-genuine addition : laudati) in principio 
epistolae ejus ; de vobis enim gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis, 
quse Deum solae tunc cognoverant, nos autem nondum nove- 
ramus." But cjnsfolae ejus cannot here be the epistle to the 
Philippians, for the idea : " ye are in the beginning of his 
epistle," would be simply absurd ; epistolae is, on the contrary, 
the nominative plural, and the sense is : " Ye are originally his 
epistles" that is, his letters of recommendation, in which phrase 
allusion is made to 2 Cor. iii. 1 ff.^ The correctness of this 
explanation, which Wieseler has substantially adopted, is cor- 
roborated by the sequel: de vohis enim gloriatur, etc. — It is, 
moreover, d priori intelligible and likely enough that Paul 
should have corresponded with this church — which enjoyed his 
most intimate confidence, and the founding of which marked 
his entrance on his European labours — at an earlier period 
than merely now, almost at the close of his life. And Poly- 
carp was sufficiently close to the time of the apostle, not 
merely to have inferred such a correspondence from our passage, 

' Hofmann also explains the expression from 2 Cor. iii. 1 S. , but errs in taking 
epistolae as the genitive; he makes this epistle to be the whole of the Christians 
gathered by Paul, and thus represents Polycarp as declaring, in reference to the 
Philip pian church, that it stands first in this epistle, because it is reckoned among 
his earliest acquisitions. According to this interpretation, a vast aggregate of 
churches woiild be depicted as one epistle, in which one church would stand 
Avritten first, and others after if, each therefore being marked by name in the 
order of its date. "What a different picture this would yield from tliat in'esented 
in 2 Coi'. iii., and one, too, delineated singularly enough ! And how unsuitable 
would such a precedence, as to time, be for the church at Philippi ! By how 
long a period had the establi-shment of all the churches of Asia preceded it ! 
Hofmann's objection to our view, viz. that the present estis would be unsuit- 
able, does not apply, since Polycarp realizes the state of matters as it stood with 
the church in j^rincipio (Iv a/>;^^^7, i.e. in the earliest times of the gospel), as present ; 
hence also he subsequently says gloriatur (not gloriahatar). The conception is 
this : Paul in all the churches of that early Christian age boasts of tlie excellent 
Philippian church, and so this church serves him as so many letters of recom- 
mendation, which by his gloriari he communicates, and as it were reads before, 
those other churches. 


but to have had a historiccd knowledge of it (in opposition to 

Ver. 2. This is now the ra avrd which he had previousl}^ 
written, and probably in the very same words. At least this 
seems to be indicated by the peculiar expressions in them- 
selves ; and not only so, but it serves also to explain the rela- 
tion of contrast, which this vehement " fervor pii zeli " (Calvin) 
presents to the tender and cordial tone of our epistle. That 
lost epistle had probably expressed the apostle's mind at 
length, and with all the warmth of controversy, for the 
warning of his readers as to the Judaizing false teachers. How 
entirely different is the tone in which, in the -pTesent epistle, 
he speaks (i. 15 ff.) of teachers likewise of an anti-Pauline 
type, and labouring, indeed, at that time in his immediate 
neighbourhood! Comp., moreover, the remark after i. 18. 
Those who refer ra avrd to the yaipere iv Kvplu), labour in 
very different ways to establish a connection of thought with 
/SXeVere k.t.X. ; as, for instance, Wiesinger : that Paul wished 
to suggest, as a ground for the reiterated summons to joy in 
the Lord, the danger which was threatening them from the 
men described ; Weiss : that the readers were to learn e con- 
frario, on what the true Christian joy was, and on what it was 
not, based. — /SXeTrere] not : he on your guard against, etc. 
(which would be /3\. dtro, Mark viii. 15, xii. 38), but as a 
calling attention to : behold ! (1 Cor. i. 26, x. 18), with a view, 
however, to ivarn the readers against these men as per- 
nicious, by pointing to the forbidding shape in which they 
present themselves. — tov<; Kvvas;~\ a term of reproach among 
the Jews and the Greeks (frequently in Homer, who, however, 
also uses it without any dishonourable reference ; see Duncan, 
Lex. ed. Rost. p. 674); used by the latter specially to denote 
impudence, furious boldness (Hom. //. viii. 289; Od. xvii. 
248; Anth. Pal. ix. 302), snappishness (Pollux, On. v. 65), 
low vulgarity (Lucian, Nigr. 22), malice and cunning (Jacobs, 
ad Anthol. VI. p. 18), and the like, see generally Wetstein ; 
used also among the Jews in similar special references (Isa. 
Ivi. 10 f.; Deut. xxiii. 18 ; Eev. xxii. 15, ct al), and, because 

CHAP. III. 2. 145 

dogs were unclean animals, generally to denote the profane, 
impure, wiJiohj (Matt. vii. 6 ; Ps. xxii. 1 7 ; Eev. xxii. 1 5 ; 
Schoettgeu, Hor. I. p. 1145) ; hence the Gentiles were so desig- 
nated (see on Matt. xv. 26). In this passage also i\\Q p)rofanc 
nature and demeanour of the false teachers, as contrasted 
with the holy character of true Christianity, is to be adhered 
to as the point of comparison (Chrysostom : ovkLtl rcKva 
^lovBalot . . . locrirep ol eOvLKol Kol rod ©eov Kal rov XptaroO 
dWoTpLoi rjaav, ovrco koI ovtoc jeyovaai vvv). Any more special 
reference of the term — as to shamelessness (Chrysostom and 
many others, including Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald), 
covetousncss (both combined by Grotius), snairpishncss (Eilliet, 
and older expositors, following Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and 
Pelagius), cnry, and the like ; or to the disorderly wandering 
about in selfishness and animosity towards those who were 
living peaceably in their Christian calling (Hofmann), to which 
Lange fancifully adds a loud hoivUng against Paul, — is not 
furnished by the context, which, on the contrary, follows it up 
with yet ^\iot\\Qr general designation, subjoining, namely, to that 
of the low, unholy character (Kvva<;) that of the evil tvorhing : 
Tov<i KUKov^ ipydr. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 13. The opposite: 2 Tim. 
ii. 15 ; X.en. Mem. i. 2. 57. 'Epja^ovrat fxev, (prjatv^ dW e'lrl 
KaKU), Kal dpyia^ iroWw '^etpov epyov, dva<sir(x)vre<i to, KakQ<; 
Keipbeva, Chrysostom ; comp. Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
lact. They, in fact, laboured m opposition to the fundamental 
doctrine of justification by faith. — ttjv KaraTofiy]v\ the cutting 
in pieces (Theophr. H. pi. iv. 8. 12), a word formed after the 
analogy of irepiTOfxri, and, like the latter in ver. 3, used in a 
concrete sense : those ivlio are cut in pieces ! A bitter piarono- 
masia, because these men were circumcised merely as regards 
the body, and placed their confidence in this fleshly circum- 
cision, but were wanting in the inner, S2nritual circumcision, 
which that of the body typified (see ver. 3; Eom. ii. 28 f.; 
Col. ii. 1 1 ; Eph. ii. 1 1 ; Acts vii. 5 1). Comp. Gal. v. 1 1 f. In 
the absence of this, their characteristic consisted simply in the 
bodily mutilation, and that, from the ideal point of view which 
Paul here occupies, was not ctVcwwicision, but concision ; whilst, 
on the other hand, aVcumcision, as respected its moral idea, was 
PHIL. ■ K 


entirely independent of the corporeal operation, ver. 3. Comp. 
Weiss, libl. Tlicol. p. 439, ed. 2. This qualitative distinction 
between irepiT. and KaTor. has been misunderstood by Baur, 
who takes the climax as quantitative, and hence sees in it a 
warped and unnatural antithesis, which is only concocted to 
give the apostle an opportunity of speaking of his own person. 
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact justly lay stress on 
the aholition of the legal circumcision as such brought about 
through Christ (the end of the law, Eom. x. 4), — a presup- 
position which gives to this antinomistic sarcasm its warrant.'"' 
A description of idolatry, with allusion to Lev. xxi. 5, 1 Kings 
xviii. 28, et al. (Storr, Flatt, J. B. Lightfoot ; comp. Beza), is 
quite foreign to the context. It is erroneous also to discover here 
any indication of a cutting off of hearts from the faith (Luther's 
gloss), or a cutting in jjicccs of the church (Theodoret, Calvin, 
Beza, Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, Michaelis, Zachariae, and 
others), against which the necessary (comp. ver. 3) passive sig- 
nification of the word (not cutters in pieces, but cut in piieces) is 
decisive. — The thrice repeated ^Xiirere belongs simply to the 
eirifiovT) of earnest e7notion (Dissen, ad Bern, de cor. p. 315 ; 
Buttmann, Ncut Gr. p. 341 [E. T. 398]), so that it points to 
the sam.e dangerous men, and does not, as van Hengel miscon- 
ceives, denote three different classes of Jewish opponents, viz. 
the apostate, the heretical, and the directly inimical. The 
passage quoted by him from Philostr., Vit. Soph. ii. 1, does not 
bear upon the point, because in it the three repetitions of 
€^\ey\re are divided by fiev . . . te. Weiss also refers the three 
designations to three different categories, namely : (1) the 
unconverted heathen, with their immoral life ; (2) the self- 
seeking C/msifmw, teachers, i. 15-17; and {3) the unhelieving 

' Luther's works abound in sarcastic paronomasiae. Thus, for instance, in 
the preface to his works, instead of i)ecret and Decretal, he has written 
"Z>>-ecket" and " Z^recketal " [Germ. Dreck = dregs, filth] ; the Legenden he 
calls Liigenden, the JuriapcrltoH he terms Jurisperditos ; also in proper names, 
such as Schwenkfeld, whom he called " Stenlcfeld." In ancient authors, comp. 
what Diog. L. vi. 2, 4 relates of Diogenes : rh EvxXi'i'Sou ff^^oxhv 'ixtyi x"^'^^, 

Triv Ss nXaTiivos 'Siarpijitn* xararpifi^v. Thuc. vi. 76. 4 : oiia a^uviriaTipov, xaxn^u- 

viTUTipov Ss. See also Ast, ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 276 ; Jacobs, Delect, ep'ujr. 
p. 188. For the Latin, see Kiihner, ad Cic. Tmc. p. 291, ed. 3. 

CHAP. III. s. 147 

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

Ver. 3. Justification of the preceding r. KUTaTo/xrfv ; not, 
however, " an evident copy" of 2 Cor. xi. 18 f. (Baur), but very 
different from the latter passage amidst the corresponding 
resemblances which the similarity of subject suggested ; in both 
cases there is Pauline originality. — rjixd^'] with emphasis : ive, 


not they. The Kajaroix-q being not the unconverted Jews, but 
Christian Judaizers, the contrasted 97/u,et? cannot mean the Chris- 
tians generally (Weiss), but only those who, in the apostle's 
sense, were true and right Christians, whose more definite 
characterization immediately follows. The r]iieh are the 
^Iapar}\ Tov @6ov of Gal. vi. 15 f , the members of the people 
of God in the sense of the Pauline gospel, and not merely Paul 
and the true teachers of the gospel (Hofmann), — a restriction 
which the exclusiveness of the predicate, especially furnished 
as it is with the article, does not befit ; in iii. 1 7 the context 
stands otherwise. — r) rrreptrofiij] If this predicate belongs to lis, 
not to those men, then, in regard to the point of circumcision, 
nothing remains for the latter but the predicate Kararofj,'^ I 
As the J7yLtet9, among whom the readers also were included, 
were for the most part uncirctimciscd (Gal. ii. 9, iii. ; Eph. 
ii. 11), it is clear that Paul here takes irepiTOfir] purely in 
the antitypical spiritual sense, according to which the cir- 
cumcised are those who, since the reception of baptism, are 
regenerated hy the Holy Spirit, and therefore members of the 
true people of God; the investiture with their new moral 
condition is typically ^rrfigurcd by the legal bodily TrepiTo/i/j 
of the Jewish theocracy. Comp. Rom. ii. 29, iv. 10 f.; Eph. 
ii. 11 ; Col. ii. 11 ; Acts vii. 51. AVhether the bodily circum- 
cision ivas present or not, and whether, therefore, the subjects 
were Jewish or Gentile Christians, was in that case matter of in- 
difference, 1 Cor. vii. 19 ; Gal. iii. 28, v. 6. Comp. the further 
amplification of the thought in Barnab. Ep. 9. — ol irvevfian 
&60V K.r.X.] We vjho serve through the Spirit of God, in con- 
trast to the external, legal Xarpeca (Kom. ix. 4).^ Comp. Heb. 
ix. 10, 14; Eom. xii. 1 f. With this Xarpela, wrought by 
the Holy Spirit,^ there takes place on the part of man 
(comp. Eom. i. 9), but in virtue of that very working of the 
Holy Spirit, the worship which is requiied in John iv. 24. 

' True Cliristiaiiity is, according to Paul also, the true continuation of Judaism, 
and that not luerely of the promise given in it, but also of the law ; the latter, 
however, according to the idea of the ^x-/ifu(ris, Matt. v. 17, in which the letter 
has yielded to the spirit. 

^ If we adopt the reading -rviv/jocri ©eJ, 'riivft.ot.Tt must be understood as in Rom. 
i. 9. See Itciche, Commtnt. crit. p. 229 ft'. 

CHAP. III. 4. 149 

The article ol extends also to the two participles which follow ; 
and the arthrous participles {quippe qui colimus, etc.) contain 
the experimental proof that the 77/^649 are the irepirojxri. The 
dative irvevixan denotes neither the standard (van Hengel) nor 
the object (Hilgenfeld), which latter view would amount to 
the conception, foreign to the N. T., of a worship of the Holy- 
Spirit — but is instrumental, expressing the inward agent (Kom. 
V. 5, viii. 14 f., ct al.) : vis'piritus divini (Eom. viii. 13, et al.). 
On the absolute Xarpeveiv, to render divine vjorship, comp. Lulce 
ii. 37 ; Acts xxvi. 7 ; Heb. ix. 9, x. 2 ; Eom. ix. 4 ; 3 Esdr. 
iv. 54. — Kav^cofi. iv X. 'I.] and who glory in Christ Jesus (as 
Him through whom alone we have attained righteousness, etc., 
see ver. 9 ; comp. Gal. vi. 14), not in our own privileges and 
legal performances, as those false teachers do, who place their 
confidence in what is fleshly, i.e. in that which belongs to 
material human nature and has nothing in common with the 
divine blessings of the Christian (such as circumcision, descent, 
outward observance of the law, comp. vv. 4-6). Hence the 
contrast : koI ovk iv aapvl 'TTeTroiOore'^, with which the disposi- 
tion of mind contrary to the Kav^daOat iv X. 'I. (from which 
disposition the Kav^da-Oai, opposed to that Christian Kavx^daOai, 
of itself results) is negatived ; so that tliis contrast is j)rcgnant, 
belonging, however, by way of antithesis, to the second state- 
ment, and not containing a separate third one (Hofmann). 
If K. OVK iv a. TreTT. were merely a more precise definition of 
^purport added to Kax)')(. iv X. 'I. (Weiss), it must have been 
added without /cat. As to ovk in the passage, referring to 
concrete persons and a definite fact, and negativing not merely 
the iv o-apKi (Hofmann), but the actual position eV <t. 'jreiroid., 
see Winer, p. 451 £ [E. T. 609] ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 
276 f. 

Ver. 4. By the ovk iv aapKl ireTroid., which he had just 
used, Paul finds himself led to his own personal position ; for 
he was, in fact, the proper organ of the anti-Judaizing ten- 
dency expressed in ver. 3, and the real object against which 
the whole conflict with it was ultimately directed. Hence, by 
the words ovk iv aapKl ireTroiO. he by no means intends to 
concede tliat he is destitute of that •yreTroiOrja-i'i which was 


founded on externals ;^ no, in this respect also he has more to 
show than others, down to ver. 6.^ So no one might say 
that he was despising what he himself did not possess. — The 
classical Kaiirep with the participle (only used here by Paul; 
and elsewhere in the K T. only in Heb. v. ^, et al. ; 2 Pet. 
i. 12), adds to the adversative sentence a limiting concessive 
clause (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 201 f), and that in such a way, 
that from the collective subject of the former the apostle now 
with emphasis singles out partitively his own person (iyco).^ 
If, following the Homeric usage, he had sejjaratcd the two 
particles, he would have written : koI iyco irep. ; if he had 
expressed himself ncgativchj, he would have said : ovSiirep iyco 
ov/c e'^oiv. — The confidence also in flcsli, i.e. in such circum- 
stances as belong to the sphere of the materially human, is in 
e')(wv (comp. 2 Cor. iii. 4) conceived as a possession ; he has 
this confidence, namely, from his personal position as an 
Israelite — a standpoint which, laying out of view for the 
moment his Christian transformation, he boldly adopts, in 
order to measure himself with his Judaistic opponents on their 
own ground of proud confidence, and thereupon in ver. 7 ff. 
yet again to abandon this standpoint and to make those 
Israelitish advantages vanish into nothing before the light of 
his vital position as a Christian. Hence the 7re7roLdT]ai<;, his 
possession of which he in the first instance urges, is not Jicluciae 
argumentum (Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and others, includ- 
ing Piatt, Hoelemann, and Weiss) ; nor is the ijosscssion of it 
to be viewed as something which he mifjht have (Storr, Eilliet, 
Matthies, Ewald) ; nor is it to be referred to the pre-Christian 
period of the apostle's life (van Hengel). The latter is also the 
view of Hofmann, who holds e')(wv (and then Sicokwv also) as the 
imperfect participle, and gives to the whole passage the involved 
misinterpretation ; tJicct Kaiirep introduces a protasis, the apodosis 

' Kx) Iv ffccfKi, namely, in addition to the higher Christian relations, on which 
I place my confidence. 

^ Only a comma is to be placed after -vivoi^ioTis in ver. 3 ; but after h ffapxl in 
ver. 4 a full stop ; and after a//.t/yc-rTi!; in ver. 6 another full stop. So also 
Lachmann and Tischendorf, In opposition to Hofmann's confusing construction 
of the sentence, see below. 

' Comp. Kiihner, IL 1, p. 246. 8. 

CHAP. III. 5, 6. 151 

of wliich follows vjith dWd in ver. 7. In accordance with this 
view, ver. 4 is supposed to mean: "Although I possessed a con- 
fidence, and that, indeed, based on such matters as are flesh, if 
any other ventures to trust in such things, I for my part possessed 
confidence in a higher degree." This is erroneous ; first, because 
the familiar uXkd of the apodosis is used indeed after Kalrot 
(with, finite tense; Stallbaum, ad Flat. Fhaed. p. 68 E; Farm. 
p. 128 C), but not after the common Kai'rrep with parti- 
ciple, attaching itself to a governing verb ; secondly, because 
Kal before ev aapKi means nothing else than also, which does 
not suit the interpretation of Hofmann, who desires to force 
upon it the here inappropriate sense, and that indeed ; thirdly, 
because the present BoKet presupposes the pixscnt sense for 
e^wv also ; and lastly, because with e'yoo [xaWov the pircscnt (in 
accordance with the preceding SoKel), and not the imperfect, 
again suggests itself as to be supplied. And how awkward 
would be the whole form of expression for the, after all, very 
simple idea ! — xt? . . . dWo'i] quite generally : any other loerson, 
but the intended application to the above-mentioned Judaizers 
was obvious to the reader. See the sequel. The separation 
by hoKel lays all the stronger stress on the tiV — So/cet] not : 
" thinks to lie able to confide" (de Wette and many others); 
nor yet: "si quis alius vidctur" (Vulgate), since it is a matter 
depending not upon the judgment of others, but upon his 
own fancy, according to the connection. Hence : if any one 
alloivs himself to think, if he 2^^^^'sumes. Just in the same 
way, as in the passage parallel also in substance. Matt. iii. 9. 
Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 16. — iyo) fjiaXXov] sc. Soko) ireTr. iv aap/ci, 
1 for my part presume it still more. This mode of expression 
implies a certain boldness, defiance; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 21. 

Vv. 5, 6. Predicates of the iyco, by which that iyoo fiaXXov 
is justified. — If those Judaizers were, as may be inferred from 
our passage, partly proselytes (to these the irepn. oKrarjix. stands 
in contrast), partly persons whose Jewish descent was not so 
noble and pure as that implied in e'/c <y£vov<;. . . . 'E/Spaicov, and 
if they could not boast of any such laiv-strictness, zealous 
activity, and righteousness, as is described in Kara v6/jlov . . . 
d/jiefi7rro<; ; and if, on the other hand, there were found con- 


joined in the case of Paul the elements here adduced of ancient 
theocratic legitimacy and perfection ; the eyoD fiaWov in 
ver. 4 was completely made good. — 'jrepcrofxr} oKrarjfj,.'] in 
respect to circumcision an cighth-day-one, not older, as were the 
proselytes who were only circumcised at a later period of life. 
The eighth-day character in the relation specified by TrepiTOfjif} 
is conceived as a quality of the persons concerned, which dis- 
tinguishes them from those circumcised later.-"- The reading 
wepiToiirj as nominative (some min. and Fathers, Erasmus, 
Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, ]\Iill, Bengel, Mattliies, Heinrichs, 
and others, also Elz. 1624, 1633, not 1641), so that it would 
stand in the concrete sense {eircumcisiis) , is erroneous, because 
this usage occurs only collectively. — e'/c j6vov<; 'Icrp.] that is, a 
descendant of Jacob, not, therefore, possibly of Idumaean blood. 
The theocratic name 'Icrp. corresponds entirely with the design 
of the passage. Comp. on Eph. ii. 12. On what follows, 
comp. 2 Cor. xi. 22; Rom. xi. 1. — ^uX?79 Beviafi.] therefore 
not, possibly, an Ephraimite (Ezra iv. 1) ; a climactic more 
precise definition of the evyeveia ; €v<yevr)<; jap rj (pvat^ ku^ 
euyevoov, Soph. Fhil. 862 (874). Eor its fuller exhibition 
Paul finally specifies the last feature of his lineage : 'E^pala 
i^ 'E/3p., that is, ct Ilehreio horn of Hehreiv parents, so that his 
mother also was a Hebrew woman. His lineage is not carried 
further back in respect to hoth parents, because it was not the 
custom to trace back the genealogy of the wives. Inappro- 
priate to the context is the rendering of Michaelis, following 
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact : " one spcalcing 
Hebrew, born of HohiLQ^^ -speaking parents." It is also erro- 
neous, following the Greek Fathers, to take e^ 'EI3p. of the 
tola majorum series (Beza, Grotius, Storr, Matthies, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, and others), because this was after the two 
previously specified points self-evident. If, among his an- 
cestors, Paul had had one who was a non-Hebrew, he would 
not have been descended from Jacob and Benjamin, but from 
the non-Hebrew and his forefathers. For instances of ex- 
pressions quite similar to 'E/3p. e| 'E^p., used to denote the 

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

CHAP. III. 5, 6. 153 

identity, as conditioned by birth, of a man's position with that 
of his parents, see Wetstein and Kypke ; they occur very 
frequently in classic authors. — Kara vojjlov /c.t.X.] After his 
Jewish evyiueia there now follows his distinguished personal 
position in Judaism, set forth in a threefold climactic grada- 
tion : (1) III respect of the laiv (of Moses) a Pharisee. Comp. 
Acts xxvi. 5, xxii. 6. The Pharisees stood in the closest and 
strictest relation to the law, as they with their traditions 
were regarded as the most orthodox expositors, defenders, and 
observers of it. The interpretation of vofiop, not in its habitual 
historic sense, but generally as regular rule (Beza) or dis- 
ciplina {aipeai^) (Castalio, Wolf, Grotius, Storr, Tleinrichs, 
Eheinwald, Hoelemann, and others), is all the more erroneous, 
since the validity of the Mosaic law in Christianity was the very 
principle upheld by those Judaizers ; see also below, hiicaioa. 
T. ev vofjiw. (2) In rcspcet of zeal (zealous maintenance and 
championship of the law-religion, 1 Mace. ii. 58 ; Actsxxi. 20 ; 
Gal. i. 14), a perseeutor of the church. Comp. Gal. i. 13 f. 
The present participle is used as a substantive, comp. on Gal. i. 
23. "What Paul, to his deep grief, had heen (1 Cor. xv. 8 f. ; 
1 Tim. i. 13), he, with a bitter recalling of his former dis- 
tinction in Judaism, throws, by way of confronting the Jewish 
zealots, into the scale, as a characteristic predicate not yet 
extinct. And precisely thus, unaccompanied by any irore as in 
Gal. i. 23, it carries from the standpoint to which he has now 
attained very strong weight (in opposition to Hofmann, who 
holds the present sense to be impossible here). (3) In respect 
to righteousness, which is grounded on the laio, having hecome 
blameless (ii. 15), having carried it so far (not: having borne 
myself so, as Hofmann renders it; comp. on ii. 15), that 
human judgment finds nothing in me to blame in this respect ! 
That which is here denoted by Zlk. rj iv vo[iw is not substan- 
tially different from hiK. rj iic vofiov in ver. 9 ; comp. Pom. 
X. 5. It has its basis in the law, so far as it consists in the 
accordance of its nature with the character and the rules of 
that institute (Gal. iii. 11, v. 4), and proceeds from the law, 
so far as it is produced by the precepts of the latter which 
man follows. In opposition to the correlation "with ver. 9 


de Wette interprets : " the rigliteousness valid in the state 
of law (comp. Eom. ii. 12)." Calvin appropriately observes 
that Paul means " totam justitiam legis," but " communi Jiomi- 
num existimatione ;" that it is not, therefore, the real moral 
fulfilment of the law, but its justitia externa literalis. Comp. 
J. Miiller, v. d. Silnde, I. p. 59, ed. 5. 

Ver. 7. Now, with the antithetic aX\d, the apostle comes 
again to his real standpoint, far transcending any ireTroiOevaL 
iv aapKi, and says : No ! everything that ivas gain to me, etc. 
— uTLva'] quaecunriue, the category of the matters specified in 
vv. 5 and 6.^ The emphasis is to be placed on this word; 
comp. ravra subsequently. — rjv /jlol KepBrjj fioc is not the 
dative of opinion (Erasmus, Beza, and many others, including 
Heinrichs, Eheinwald, Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette, Hof- 
mann ; comp. van Hengel, who takes KepSr] as lucra o'pinata) ; 
but such things were to the apostle in his pre-Christian state 
really gain (Kara crdpKa). By means of them he was within 
the old theocracy put upon a path which had already brought 
him repute and influence, and promised to him yet far greater 
honours, power, and wealth in the future ; a career rich in gain 
was opened up to him. The jplurcd KepSij denotes the various 
advantages dependent on such things as have been mentioned. 
Frequently used also in the classical M'riters. — ravra] 
emphatically : these very things. — Bia tov X.] for the sake of 
Christ, who had become the higher interest of my life. Paixl 
explains himself more particularly in vv. 8, 9, explanations 
which are not to be here anticipated. — ^r^p^iav] as harm, that 
is, as disadvantageous (the contrast to KepSo<i ; comp. Plat, de 
lucri cup. p. 226 E, Leg. viii. p. 835 B), because, namely, 
they had been impediments to the conversion to Christ, and 
that owing to the false moral judgment and confidence attach- 
ing to them. Comp. Form. Ccr.c. p. 708; Calvin on ver. 8, 
This one disadvantage he has seen in everything of which he 

* Tlie later heretical enemies of the law appealed to this passage, in which also, 
in their view, the Icau was meant to be included. On tlie other hand, Chrj'sostora 
and his successors asserted that the law was meant ojibj in comparison with 
Christ. Estius, however, justly observes : "non de ipsa lege loquitur, sed de 
jzisiiiia, quae in lege est. " 

CHAP. lU, 8, 155 

is speaking ; hence the plural is not again used here as pre- 
viously in Kephy^. The i]'yr}iji,ai {'perfect), however, has occurred, 
and is an accomplished fact since his conversion, to whicli the 
apostle here glances hack. On rjr^eZa-dai ^rj/xiau, comp. Stnrz, 
Zcx. Xcn. II. p. 454; Lucian, Lexiph. 24 ; on the relation of 
the singular to the plural Kephrj, Eur. Cycl. 311 : iroXkolaL 
KepZrj TTOvripa ^rjfitav rjixei'^aTo. 

Ver. 8. 'AWd is the climactic hut, still, much more, giving a 
corrective reference of the sense, signifying that with the pre- 
vious ariva . . . ^i]fiiap there has not yet been enough said. 
Comp. on 2 Cor. "vii. 11. In the /jI€p ovv it is implied, that 
" fiev rem praesentem confirmet, ovv autem conclusionem ex 
rebus ita comparatis couficiat," Klotz, acl Dcvar. p. 663, 
Hence aXka jxev ovv : at quiclem igitur. The Kal before rj^ov- 
fxai (after dWa, fi. ovv) serves also to help the climactic sense, 
oidhiclding what has been said previously : etiam, i.e. acleo. It 
is consequently to be explained : hut, accordingly, I am even of 
ojpinion that everything (not merely what was meant by aTiva 
in ver. 7) is a disadvantage. It is clear, withal, from the 
following hid to virepe-^ov k.tX. that irdvra is meant indeed 
ivithout ixstriction, of all things, goods, honours, etc. (comp. 
also Hofmann), but in so far as they are not made suhordinate to 
the Jcnowledgc of Christ. The explanation of others, according 
to which dWd /xev ovv is intended to oppose the idrcscnt 7770O- 
liat by way of correction to the perfect rjyTjfiai (Calvin and 
others, including Winer, p. 412 [E. T. 552], and the ex- 
planation hitherto given by me), is incorrect, because T^yTj/jLai,, 
and not the aorist rjyrjo-dfMtjv, was employed previously, and the 
perfect already involves the continuance of the opinion in the 
present, so that no contrast of the te7ises would logically be 
elicited. The climactic contrast lies rather in the fact that the 
second rjyetaOac ^rjixlav is a much more comprehensive one than 
the first, in fact, one ivithout excej^tion {irdvTa). — hid to 
vTrepi-^ov /c.t.X] on account of the surpassingness of the knovdedge 
of Christ ; that is, because this knowledge, to which I have 
attained, is a possession which excels in value everything else ; 
the eminent quahty of a possession attained is the ground {hid) 
for estimating other possessions according to their relation to 


that one, and consequently, if tliey stand to the latter in a rela- 
tion hindersome to us, for looking upon them no longer as some- 
thing advantageous, but as hurtful. As to the neuter adjective 
used as a substantive with the genitive, in order to the more 
prominent setting forth of the attribute, see Bernhardy, p. 
155 f. ; Winer, p. 220 [E. T. 294]. — Xpiarb^ 'Irjaov^ 6 Kvpio^ 
[MOV ; this is the fundamental sum of the wliole contents of 
Christian knowledge. This saving knowledge is the necessary 
intelligence of faith (comp. on John viii. 32), and grows with 
i\\Q cxiKriencc of faith (ver. 10; Eph. iii. 16 ff). — hi ov] for 
the sake of wliom, i.e. for the sake of possessing Him ; comp. 
afterwards "va Xpiarov . . . avrw. — ra Trdv7a\ the whole, hot 
general like irdvra previously (Hofmann), but : which I 
possessed, vv. 5-7. This more precise definition by the article 
results from i^TjfiicodTjv, in connection with which the aorist 
is to be noted, by which Paul denotes that great historical 
turning-point in his life, the event of his conversion ; through 
that event he has lost all his (pre-Christian) valued possessions,^ 
and thenceforth he lias them no onore. Luther erroneously 
interprets: "considered as harm;" and the emotion and force 
of the expression are only weakened by the frequently given 
refiexi'ce sense (see Beza, Calvin, Heinrichs, Elatt, Hoelemann, 
van Hengel, and many) : / lutve made myself lose, — a meaning, 
besides, which cannot be shown to belong to the passive form 
of the aorist of this verb (not even in Luke ix. 25). The future 
passive form ^7]fxLO)07](TOfjt,ab (see Klihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 9. 
12, Thuc. iii. 40. 2) is invariably darnno ajficiar. — koX -t^'yovfiat 
/c.T.X.] not to be taken as independent (de Wette, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Weiss), but, in keeping with the climactic flow of the 
discourse, as still in continuous connection with hi ov k.t.X. ; 
hence Be ou r. nr. i^rj/j,. is not, with van Hengel, to be put in a 
parenthesis. Paul had hccome loser of all these things for 
Christ's sake, and he holds them as not worthy of possession, 

' Observe here, also, the shrewdly contrived correspondence of ^jj^/av in ver. 
7 f., and iX,riiJi.iuS-/iv in ver. 8, in which tlie former expresses the idea of damnum, 
detrimenlum, and the latter : I Jiave become loser of. It might be reproduced 
in Latin : " etiam censeo omnia dctrimentum {i.e. detrimentosa) esse. . . propter 
quem omnium detrimenium {i.e. jacturam) pasaus sum censeoc[ue ea esse quis- 
quilias. " 

CHAP. III. 0, 157 

but as ruhhish ! (TKvjBaXov} refuse (such as sweepings, dung, 
husks, and the like) ; Ecclus. xxvii. 4 ; Phit. Mot. p. 352 D ; 
and see Wetstein ad loc. ; frequently in the Anthol., see Jacobs, 
Ach. Tat. p. 522, ad Anthol. VII. p. 173, IX. p. 208. Conip. 
the similar figurative expressions TrepiKadap/xa and Trepiyln'j/xa, 
1 Cor. iv, 13. — tva X. KepS.] The design in the rjyov/jLai, ctkv^. 
elvai : in order to gain Christ, not the aim of to, iruvTa i^Tjfxico- 
Ot}v (Hofmann), there being no reason for such a retrospective 
reference. The gaining of Christ, i.e. the appropriation of Him 
by means of the fellowship brought about through faith, is 
that, which for him is to take the place of those former KepZrj 
which he has lost, and so he looked to this gain in his rj<yov/j,ao 
cKv^aka elvat, ; it is present to his view as the one and 
highest gain at which he has to aim. It is true that Paul 
has Christ already long ago (Gal. ii. 20 ; Eph. iii. 17 ; 2 Cor. 
xiii. 3) ; nevertheless, this KepSaiveiv is from its nature a 
development, the completion of which still lies before him. 
Comp. ver. 1 2 if. 

Ver. 9. Kal eupeOo) iv avrw] and to Tje found in Him. The 
emphasis, which previously lay upon XpiaTov, is laid not upon 
iv avrS (Hofmann), but upon the evpedo) placed first for that 
reason, and introducing a new feature of the relation aimed 
at, annexing to the (subjective) gaining of Christ the (objec- 
tive) moidding of life corresponding to it. The apostle desires 
to he found in Christ, as in the element of his life ; by this he 
means (comp. Ignatius, Uj^h. 11) the whole perceptible mani- 
festation of his Christian being and nature ; so that evp. must 
neither be limited to the Judicium Dei (Beza, comp. Flatt), 
nor taken as sim (Grotius and others). Calvin erroneously 
makes evpeOio active : Paulum renuntiasse omnibus quae 
habebat, 7it recuperaret in Christo. — /jltj e'^cov /c.r.X.] Specific 
modal definition to evp. iv avTui : so that I, in accordance with 
this design, mai/ not have, etc. Van Hengel erroneously 
connects (Lachmann, also, and Tischendorf liave omitted the 
comma after avrw) fi-q e^wv k.t.X. immediately with evp. iv 
avTM • et deprehendar in commimione ejus non mcam qiialem- 

' Not to be derived from toI; xvir) (Hkxhv, quod canibus projicitur, but from 
fy-up (<rxce;). See Lobeck, Pathol, p. 92. 


cunquc habere 2^'^0'bitatem. Thus, indeed, eV avrS would be 
utterly superfluous ! The subjective negation fit] flows from 
the conception of design (Jva), see Baeumlein, FartiJc. p. 295; 
Buttmann, Ncut. Gr. p. 302 [E. T. 351]; and e')(wv is the 
simple hctbcns, ijosscssing, not : liolding fast (am Ende, Ehein- 
wald, Baumgarten-Crusius). — eyu-^y htK. rrjv e'/c v6fjLov'\ See on 
ver. 6 ; comp. Eom. x. 3. It is the righteousness acquired as 
a self-achievement (e/ijyi^), which proceeds from the law by 
means of a justifying compliance with it (Eom. ii. 13). As 
to the nature of this righteousness, and the impossibility of 
attaining it, comp. Gal. ii. 16, iii. 10; Eom. iii. 19 f., iv. 4, 
vii. 7 ff., ix. 31, et al. — Tr]v Blcl Trlar. Xpiarov] contrast to 
e[xrjv: that procured by faith in Christ^ (as the causa apprc- 
hendens). The causa cfficiens is God (His grace, see Eph. ii. 8) ; 
hence, for the complete exhaustion of the matter, ttjv e/c @eov 
BcK. is added, in which e'/c 0eov, correlative to the preceding 
e/c vo/xov, expresses the causal issuing from God. As to the 
ivay in which this i/c Oeov takes place, namely, by God's 
imputing faith as righteousness,^ see Eom. i. 17, iii. 24 £, 
iv. 3 ff ; 2 Cor. V. 19 ; Gal. iii. 6. — eVt tt} Tricrret] on the 
ground of faith (Acts iii. 16), added at the end with solemn 
emphasis, and dependent on ep^wi', which is again to be sup- 
plied after aXKa. So also Weiss. The repetition of e')(aiv 
after iirl t. Trlaret, which Hofmann feels the want of in this 
explanation, would be simply superfluous and clumsy. ^EttI t. 
■77. is usually attached to hiKaioavvrjv (" justitiamsuperstructam 
fidei," Hoelemann, Wiesinger), some having taken eVt as " in 
fide" (Vulgate, Calvin), or in fide sitam (Castalio) ; others as 
" 23er fidem" (Beza, Grotius) ; others, for the sake of faith (de 
Wette) ; others, ufon the ■ condition of faith (Storr, Flatt, 
Matthies, EiUiet, van Hengel, J. B. Lightfoot). But it may 
be urged against this connection, first, that, in accordance with 
the previous definitions, we could not but expect the repeti- 

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

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

CHAP. III. 10. 159 

tion of the article ; secondl)^ that hiKaiova-Oai with eV/ nowhere 
occurs in the N. T. ; and lastly, that SiKaiocrvvr] in its quality 
as righteousness of faith was already distinctly designated by 
rrjv Bia Triar. X., so that the same attribute of it would be 
expressed tivice, and, on the other hand, the e-^wv which is 
to be repeated after aXkd (the basis of which is still eVt t. 
TT.) would be ivithout any more j)recise definition. In oppo- 
sition to Hofmann, who makes eVl r. ivLcnet belong to the 
following infinitive clause, see on ver. 10. 

Ver. 10. Telic definition of the relation expressed by fxr] 
e-^cov K.T.X. in ver. 9. Paul has not the righteousness of the 
law, but the righteousness of faith, in order to hioiv, etc. This 
knowledge would fail him if, on the contrary, instead of the 
righteousness of faith, he had that of the law. So he reverts 
to a more detailed illustration of to virepe-^ov Trj<; yvcoaeco^ X., 
ver. 8, expressing, in the first place, again generally the great 
2)ersoncd contents of the knowledge accruing from the righteous- 
ness of faith (tov yvcovat avTov), and next, more particularly, 
the most important — especially to the apostle in his position 
infinitely important — matters which were its objects {rrjv Buva- 
fjLLv K.T.X.), developing them from his own richest experience, 
which had thus brought home to his deepest consciousness the 
virepe'^ov irj^ Yfcocrew? X. The rod yvcovac might also be con- 
ceived as dependent on evpeOco iv avrw (Wiesinger, Schnecken- 
burger, Schenkel) ; but the more precise definition of this 
evpeOdo if avrS by /u,?) e')(^wv k.t.X. is so important, earnest, and 
solemn, that it most naturally carries with it also the state- 
ment of aim which follows. Chrysostom joins eVt tt} iriarei 
to ver. 10: ri Si iarlv eTrl ttj Trtarei rov jvcovac aiirov ; apa 
Bta TriVrew? 97 7i'wcri9, koI irla-reco'; dvev 'yvQjvac avTov ovk eari. 
So also Theodoret and Erasmus, and recently Hofmann (comp. 
also his Sclirifibevj. I. p. 618), who, in doing so, takes eVt in 
and by itself correctly as on tlie rjroimd of faith. But such 
cases of emphatic prefixing, while they are certainly found 
with Iva (see on Gal. ii. 10; Eph. iii. 18), are not found 
before, the genitive of the infinitive with the article, which 
represents the expression with 'iva, but in such infinitive 
clauses only leiwecn article and infinitive ; hence Paul would 


have written rov firl rfj iriaTei '^vwvai. Comp. Eom. viii. 1 2 ; 
1 Cor. xvi. 4. Hofraann improperly appeals, not any longer 
indeed to Kev. xii. 7, but, doing violence to the position of the 
words in the LXX., to 2 Sam. vi. 2 ; Isa. x. 32. According 
to Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and others, the genitive 
rov <yv. is meant to depend on ry TrlaTet ; " describit vim ct 
natur am field, quod scilicet sit Christi cognitio" (Calvin). But 
7ria-TL<i is never joined with the genitive of the infinitive with 
the article ; and, besides, not the nature, but the object of 
the faith (ver. 9) would be denoted by the genitive (Col. 
ii. 12 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13, ct al.). Nor is rov <yva)vai avrov to be 
regarded as parallel with Xva X. KepSija-co k. evp. iv avru> 
(Estius, Storr, Heinrichs, and others, including Eheinwald, 
Hoelemann, Eilliet, de Wette, Winer), since it is in itself 
arbitrary to despise the appropriate dependence on what im- 
mediately precedes, and to go back instead to rjyov/jLat (xkv- 
^aXa elvac ; and since in iva Xpiarov KepS. tc. evpeOco iv avrw 
two elements are given, a subjective and an objective one, so 
that thus there would be presented no parallel corresiJonding 
with the subjective rov f^vwvai k.tX. Moreover, Paul is in the 
habit of introducing two parallel clauses of design with a 
double ha (Eom. vii. 13; Gal. iii. 14; 2 Cor. ix. 3). — The 
r/vwvaL, which both conditions the faith and also in fuller 
development follows it (see on ver. 8), is not the discursive, 
or generally theoretical and speculative knowing, but the 
inwardly salutary, experimental becoming - acquainted - with 
(" qui exjjerius non fuerit, non iniellir/ct," Ansclm), as is plain 
from rr]v hvva[xiv k.tX. Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 8, viii. 2 ; Gal. iv. 9, 
ct cd. ; frequently so used in John. See also Weiss, hibl. Thcol. 
p. 421, ed. 2. — Koi ttjv Bvvafxiv t?)? avacrr. avrov Kal r. 
Koivwv. r. Trad, avr.] and (that is, and especially) the poiver of 
His resurrection and the fcllowshii) of His sufferings. The 
Bvva/j,. r. avaar. avr. is not the power hy lohieh He has heen 
raised (Vatablus, Grotius ; comp. Matthies), which would be 
quite unsuitable to the context, but the power which the resur- 
rection of Christ has, its vis ct cfficacia in respect to believers. 
The special point that Paul has in view, is supplied by the 
context through what is said immediately before of the 

CHAP. III. 10. 161 

righteousness of faith, to which rod 'yvoovat k.tX. refers. He 
means the poiverful guarantee of justification and salvation which 
the resurrection of Christ affords to believers ; see Rom. iv. 25, 
V. 10 ; 1 Cor. xv. 17 ; Acts xiii. 37, 38. This power of the 
resurrection is experienced, not by him that is righteous 
through the law, but by him that is righteous through faith, 
to w^iom the resurrection of the Lord brings the constant 
energetic certainty of his reconciliation procured by Jesus' 
death and the completion of eternal life (Eom. viii. 1 1 ; 
1 Cor. vi. 14 ; Col. iii. 1 ff. ; Phil. iii. 21). Comp. also Eom. 
viii. 34, where this Svvafii^ t?)? avaar. is triicvijjJumt in the 
apostle. As a matter of course, this power, in virtue of which 
the resurrection of Christ, according to 1 Cor. xv. 17, Eom. 
iv. 25, might be described as " complementum redemtionis" 
(Calvin), is already in regeneration experimentally known, 
as is Christ generally (avrov) ; but Paul speaks from the con- 
sciousness that every element of the regenerate life, which 
has TTjv €K ©€ov hiKatoavvrjv ein rfj iTiarei, is an ever neio 
perception of this power. The view which understands it of 
the moral power of awakening (Beza and others, also van 
Hengel; comp. Eilliet), according to Eom. vi. 4, Col. ii. 12, 
or the living poivcr of victory, which lies for the believer in 
the resurrection of Christ, according to 2 Cor. iv. 10, Gal. 
ii. 20, Phil. iv. 13, — by means of which the Christian, 
" through his glorified Lord, himself also possesses an infinite 
new power of acquiring victory over the world and death" 
(Ewald, comp. de Wette, Schneckenbarger, Wiesinger, Schenkel; 
substantially also Hofmann), — does not accord either with the 
words themselves (for so understood it would be the ijovjcr of 
the risen Christ, not the power of His resurrection), or with the 
following K. rrjv Koivwviav twv iraOrjfi. avrov, which, in a 
logical point of view (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10—12), must either 
have gone before, or have been expressed by eV rfj kol- 
vwvla K.rX. The certainty of our own resurrection and glory 
(Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Storr, Heinrichs, Hoelemann, and 
others ; comp. Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and 
Theophylact) is necessarily included also in the Bvvafit<;, with- 
out, however, being exclusively meant. By the scenes ser- 


monis Bengel (corap. Samuel Crell) has allowed himself to be 
misled into explaining avdaTaa-i<;, not of the resurrection at 
all, but of the exortus or advcntus of the Messiah. Prefer- 
ences of various kinds are mixed up by Eheinwald, Flatt, 
Schinz, Usteri, and others. — koX rrjv kolvcov. twv iraOrjfj,. 
avTov] In these words Paul intends to express — and he does 
so by the repetition of the article with a certain solemnity 
— a second, highly valuable relation, conditioned by the first, 
to the experimental knowledge of which the possession of the 
righteousness of faith was destined to lead him, namely, the 
fcUoivship of the svferings of Christ, in which he sees a high 
proof of divine grace and distinction (i. 29, ii. 17 f.). Comp. 
Col. i. 24. Sufiering for the sake of Christ's cause is a 
participation in Christ's sufferings (a (TviJb'Trua')(eiv, Eom. viii. 
17), because, as respects the characteristic kind and way of 
suffering, one suffers the same that Christ suffered (accord- 
ing to the ethical category, drinks of the same cup which 
Christ drank. Matt. xx. 22). Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 13, and see 
on 2 Cor. i. 5, Col. i. 24 ; also on ttjv veKpcoaiv tov 'Irja-ov, 
2 Cor. iv. 10. The explanation which makes it: suffering 
with such a disposition of mind as He suffered (as sted- 
fastly, etc.), given by Flatt and others, is imported from a 
rationalistic point of view ; and the view which takes it in 
the sense of : the believing appropriation of the merit of Christ 
(Calovius, Ptheinwald, and others), is opposed to the words, and 
at variance with the habitual conception of a real av/xirda'^eLv 
with Christ, under which the sufferings of Christian martyrs were 
regarded. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, have already 
in substance the correct view. Observe, moreover, that Paul 
has not writtan t^j' BvvafiLv r?}? Koivcovla'i k.t.X. (Hoelemann : 
" vim ac pondus ;" de Wette : " all that this fellowship in- 
volves ;" comp. Corn, a Lapide : " dulcedinem ac sanctita- 
tem") ; the ryvwvac, on the contrary, relates to the matter 
itself, to the knowledge of which only those righteous by faith 
can attain, whilst to those righteous by the law it remains an 
unknown element ; the subjectivity for it is wanting to the 
latter, though the objective suffering is present. It was other- 
wise with the previous element ; for the resurrection of Christ 

CHA.P. III. 11. 163 

in itself — the fact as such — is l^nown also by him -who is 
righteous through the law, but not so its Svvafii^, of which 
only the righteous through faith is aware. The knowledge of 
this Bvvafxc<;, in virtue of which he experiences in the resur- 
rection of Christ the abiding divinely efiectual guarantee of 
his justification and eternal life, makes him capable also of 
recognising in his sufferings for the sake of the gospel a 
fellowship in the sufferings of Christ ; the latter knowledge 
is conditioned by the former ; he would not have it wilJiout 
the former, because he would be driven to look upon his 
faith as vain and idle, and upon himself, so far as he suffers, 
as iXeetvorepov iravTWi' avOpco-rrcov (1 Cor. xv. 14, 17, 19). 
The enthusiastic feeling of drinking the cup of Christ is not 
possible, unless a man bears in his heart the mighty assurance 
of salvation through the resurrection of the Lord. — av/xfxop(f)c- 
^ojxevo^ ru) Oavcnw avTov] denotes the corresiJonding situation 
(comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10), in which Paul was conscious that he 
should know, as one righteous by faith, the Kotvcovlav twv iraO. 
Xpiarov: inasmuch as I am made like to His death; for his 
position then was such that he saw himself threatened with 
martyrdom, consequently (comp. ii. 17) his state of suffering 
developed itself into similarity to the death of Christ. This 
present state of development of the being made like to Christ is 
indicated by the present participle. The interpretation, which 
takes it of the fellowship) in suffering generally, which is here 
more precisely described (Calvin, Estius, and others; also 
Wiesinger and Weiss), does not satisfy the progression from 
the general TraOrj/xcTCov to the definite Oavara. And the sense : 
" non dctrcctando mortem ejus morti similem" (Vatablus ; comp. 
]Matlhies and de Wette) is imported into the words, which by 
Grotius, van Hengel, Eilliet, Schneckenburger, and others, are 
interpreted quite in opposition to the context, as referring 
to the ethical dying to the world, its lusts, etc. (Ilom. vi. ; 
Gal. ii. 19). The nominative o-v/x/xop^., which is to be ex- 
plained as dependent, not in a clumsily complicated fashion on 
evpeOw (Grotius, Hoelemann, Hofmann, and others), but on tov 
yvwpat K.T.X, refers to its logiccd subject. See Eph. iv. 2. 
Ver. 11. Et iTW'i] if p)ossiUy, designating the aim, the attain- 


ment of which is before tlie apostle's mind in the o-vfifMopcpi^o- 
fievo^ Tc3 6av. avTov. In this case, however, the deliberative 
form of expression (comp. Eom. i. 10, xi. 14; Kiihner, II. 2, 
p. 1034) bears the impress, not of doubt that he will attain to 
the resurrection of the dead (in case, namely, he should not live 
to see the Parousia), but of Immility under the conception of 
the greatness of the bliss, and of the moral condition to which, on 
man's part, it is subject ; ov Oappw 'yap, (jyrjcriv, ovTrco- oi/tco? 
iraireivof^povei, oirep aXkayov Xe/yef o BoKoJv eaTavai, ^XeTreTOo 
fiT) Treat], Theophylact : comp. Chrysostom. This suffices also 
in opposition to Baur's doubt {Paulus, II. p. 79 f.) whether 
Paul could have expressed himself in this way at all. The 
expression excludes moral security, but not the certiiudo 
salutis in itself, as, following Estius and other Catholic ex- 
positors, Bisping still thinks. The certainty of salvation is 
founded on God's decree, calling (Eom. viii. 29 f.), promise, 
and attestation by the Spirit (Piom. viii. 10), in faith on 
the saving facts of redemption (Eom. viii. 32 ff.), Comp. 
Calovius. — The reader could not feel any doubt as to what 
i^avd(TTaa-i<; tcov veKpwv Paul means, namely, the ^rs^J, in which 
01 rod Xpi(TTov iv rfj TrapovcrLa avrov (1 Cor. xv. 23) shall 
arise.^ Comp. 1 Tliess. iv. 16. It is the resurrection of the 
dead KaT ^^oxw> i^ot different from the avdaTa(7i,<; rwv Sikulcov. 
See on Luke xiv. 14. Nevertheless, we must not find this 
resurrection denoted by the double compound i^avda-r., the 
e^ in it conve^dng the idea e/c t>}9 7?}9 eU rov depa (Theophy- 
lact). This ef is simply to be explained by the conception 
eic rri<; '^p-j^, so that neither in the substantial meaning nor even 
in style (Bengel : " Paulinus enim stylus Christo adscribit 
dvu(7Ta<7iv, k^avdaraciv Christianis ") is e^avdar. to be dis- 

* It is incorrect to ascribe to the apcslle the idea that none but believers will 
rise at the resurrection, nncl that unbelievers will remain in Hades (Weiss). The 
resurrection of all, as Christ Himself unquestionably taught it (see on John 
V. 28 f. ; Luke xiv. 14), is also in's view the necessary premiss of the judg- 
ment of all, of believers and also of unbelievers (of the xitfjioi, Eom. iii. 6 ; 1 Cor. 
vi. 2, xi. 32). That view, moreover, is at variance with the apostle's distinct 
declaration in Acts xxiv. 15 , comp, xvii. 31. Gerlach properly declares himself 
{Lidzte Dinge, p. 147 11.) opposed to Weiss, but still limits the final judgment, 
at p. 101 ff., as regards the persons suTijected to it, in a way that is exegetically 
altogether unjustifiable. 

CHAP. III. 12. 165 

tinguished from avda-r. ; but the former is to be explained 
solely from the more vividly imaginative view of the event 
which the apostle has before him. Comp. on 1 Cor. vi. 14. 
The double compound substantive does not occur elsewhere in 
the N. T. (the verb, Mark xii. 19 ; Luke xx. 28 ; Acts xv. 5) ; 
but see Polyb. iii. 55. 4, ii. 21. 9, ii. 35. 4; Gen. vii. 4. 
Com23l. We may add, that while it has been explained, at 
variance with the context, as referring to the ethical resurrec- 
tion, Eom. vi. 4 f. (Flacius, Balduin, Coccejus, and others ; 
comp. Schrader), it is also erroneous to find in it the sense : 
" if perchance / sJiould remain alive until the resurrection of the 
dead " (van Hengel, Hilgenfeld) ; since, on the contrary, 
essentially the same meaning is expressed as in Luke xx. 34 
by ol KaTa^i(o6evT6'i . . . r?}? avaaTdo-eo}<;, and it is conceived 
as a possible case (comp. i. 20 ff., ii. 17) that Paul will not 
remain alive until the Parousia.^ Karavr. 6t? (comp. Eph. 
iv. 13) denotes the attaining to a goal (frequently in Polybius, 
see Schweighiiuser, Lex. p. 332; see also the passages from the 
LXX. and Apocr. in Schleusner, III. p. 234 £), which, how- 
ever, is here not a point of time, but a hliss which is to be 
attained. Comp. Acts xxvi. 7. 

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

Ver. 12. Ov'x,otl] By this I do not mean to say that, etc. 
See on 2 Cor. i. 24, iii. 5 ; John vi. 46. Aken, Lchre v. 
Temp. u. Mod. p. 91 ff. He miglit encounter such a miscon- 
ception on the part of his opponents ; but " in summo fervors 
sobrietatem spiritualem non dimittit apostolus," Bengel. — ■j'/S?; 
eXa^ov] that / have already grasiKcl it. The object is not 
named by Paul, but left to be understood of itself from the 

' This also applies against the view of Otto, Pastoralhr. p. 233, who has 
altogether misunderstood vv. 11 and 12. 


context. The latter represents a prize-runner, who at the goal of 
the <7T a^LoZpo[xLa grasps the ^pa^elov (ver. 1 4). This ^pa^elov 
typifies the hliss of the Messiah's kingdom (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 
24; 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8), which therefore, and that as ^pa/3eiov, 
is here to be conceived as the object, the attainment of which is 
denied to have already taken place. And accordingly, eXa^ov 
is to be explained of the having attained in ideal anticipation, 
in which the individual is as sure and certain of the future 
attainment of the ^pa^eiov, as if it were already an accom- 
plished fact. What therefore Paul here denies of himself is 
the same imagination with which he reproaches the Corinthians 
in 1 Cor. iv. 8 (see in loc). The reference to the ^pa/3e2ov (so 
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Bengel, Hein- 
richs, Eilliet, and others) is not proleptic ; ^ on the contrary, 
it is svgr/cstcd by the idea of the race just introduced in ver. 
12, and is prepaixd for by the preceding KaravTijao) et? rrjv 
e^avdcrraa-iv r. veKp., in which the Messianic a-wrrjpia makes 
its ftppearance, and the grasping of the /SpajSelov is realized; 
hence it is so accordant with the context that all otlier refer- 
ences are excluded. Accordingly, we must neither supply 
mctam generally (Beza, comp. Ewald) ; nor rrjv avdaraa-iv 
(Pvheinwald) ; nor rov Xpiarou (Theodoret ; comp. Weiss) ; nor 
moral perfection (Hoelemann, following Ambrosiaster and 
others) ; nor the rigid of resurrection (Grotius) ; nor even 
" the hiowledge of Christ which appropriates, imitates, and 
strives to follow Him " (de Wctte ; comp. Ambrosiaster, Calvin, 
Vatablus, van Hengel, Wiesinger) ; nor yet the Karavrav of ver, 
11 (Matthies). — ?') ^]^'q rerekelwiiai] or — in order to express 
without a figure that which had been figuratively denoted by 
Tilrj eXa/Sov — loerc alreadi/ perfeeted? For only the ethically 
perfected Christian, who has entirely become and is (observe 
the perfect) what he was intended to beconre and be, would 

' As alco Hofmann olijects, vho finds the notion of the veib alone sufBcient 
for expressing Avhat is to Le negatived, but yet likewise ultimately conies to 
eternal life as a supplement ; for that which is not yet attained is cue and the 
same with that which is one day to be attained. 

^ This being perfected is not the result of the i>.up,i>v (Wiesinger, Weiss), but 
the moral condition of him who can say 'ixccjiev. Note that n is used, and not 
xai ; xa/ might have been taken as annexing the result. 

CHAP. III. 12. 1G7 

be able to say with truth that he had ah'eady grasped the 
^pa/3eiov, however infallibly certain might be to him, looking 
at his inward moral frame of life, the future acoTrjpia. He 
who is not yet perfect has still always to run after it ; see the 
sequel. The words 17 ijBr] SeSiKaico/iai,, introduced in consider- 
able authorities before ^, form a correct gloss, when under- 
stood in an ethical sense. For instances of TeXetovaOai — which 
is not, with Hofraann, to be here taken in the indefinite 
generality of being ready — in the sense of spiritual jpcrfcction 
(comp. Heb. ii. 10, v. 9, xii. 23), see Ast, Lex. Plat. III. p. 
3G9 ; comp. Philo, Alleg. p. 74 C, where the ^pa^eia are 
adjudged to the soul, when it is perfected. To he at the goal 
(Hammond, Wolf, Loesner, Heinrichs, Flatt, Eilliet, and 
others), is a sense, which rereX. might have according to the 
context. In opposition to it, however, we may urge, not that the 
figure of the race-contest only comes in distinctly in the sequel, 
for it is already introduced in ver. 12, but that Paul would thus 
have expressed himself quite tautologically, and that riXeioc 
in ver. 1 5 is correlative with reTeXelcofiai. — BtcoKco Be] hut I 
•pursue it, i.e. I strive after it with strenuous running; see ver. 
14. The idea of urgent haste is conveyed (Abresch, ad Aesch. 
Sept. 90; Blomfield, Gloss. Pers. 86). The Be has the force 
of an aWd in the sense of on the other hand; Baeumlein, 
Partik. p. 9 5, and comp. on Eph. iv. 1 5. "We must under- 
stand TO /Spa^elov as object to Blcokco, just as in the case of eXa^ov 
and KaraXu^o) ; hence Blcokco is not to be taken ahsolutcly 
(Eilliet ; comp. Eheinwald, de Wette, Hofmann), although 
this in itself would be linguistically admissible (in opposition 
to van Hengel), see on ver. 14. Phavorinus : BccoKeiv ivlore 
TO a7rXw9 KUTo. aTrovBrjv eXavveiv ; also Eustathius, ad II. xxiii. 
344. — ei KoX KaToXa^co] This el is, as in et ttw?, ver. 1 1, delibera- 
tive : if I also, etc., the idea of aKoirelv or some similar word being 
before his mind; the compound KaTaXaj3(o is more (in opposition 
to Weiss) than eXafiov, and denotes the Of2'pr6hension which 
takes possession; comp. on Eom. ix. 30, 1 Cor. ix. 24, where 
we have the same progression from Xap,^. to KaTaXa/x^. ; 
Herod, ix. 58: BuoKTeoi elcrl e? o KaTaXafi(f)6ivT€'i ; and kul 
implies : I not merely grasj) {eXa/3ov), but also actucdly appre- 


hcnd} — e(^' tS koX KareKrjcpOrjv vtto X.] Comp. Plat. Tim. p. 
38 D : bOev KaTdkaiJij3dvoval re Koi KaraXafx^dvovraL, 1 Cor. 
xiii. 12 : eTrcyvcoao/jLai Kado^i Koi iTreyvcoaOrjv, Ignatius, JRovi. 
8 : dekrjO-aTe, 'iva Kal v/xei'; deXrjdrJTe, Trail. 5 : TroWd yap 
Tj^lv Xeltrei, 'iva @eou fxrj XeLTTcofieSa : hcccmse 1 2vas also appre- 
hended hij Christ. This is the determining ground of the Slcokco, 
and of the thought thereto annexed, el koI KaTa\d/3(o. Theo- 
phylact (comp. Chrysostom and Theodoret) aptly remarks : 
SeiKvv^;, OTL ocfieiXr} ecrrl to Trpdy/xa, <f)7]cri' Blotl Kal KaTe\i]<^6. 
VTTO X. Otherwise, in fact, this having been apprehended 
would not have been responded to on my part.^ Eespecting 
€^' w, on the ground of this, that, i.e. proipterea quod, see on 
Eom. V. 1 2 ; 2 Cor. v. 4. The interpretation : for ivhich, on 
lohich Ichalf (Oecumenius, Beza, Grotius, Kheinwald, Eilliet, 
Weiss, and others), just as in iv. 10, is indeed linguistically 
correct and simple ; bat it assigns the conversion of Paul, 
not to the general object which it had (Gal. i. 16), but to a 
personal object. In this case, moreover, Eilliet, de Wette, 
Wiesinger supply toOto previously, which is not in accordance 
with the objectless e\a/3ov. More artificial are the explana- 
tions : whereunto, in the sense of obligation (Hoelemann) ; 
under luhich condition (Matthies) ; in so far as (Castalio, 
Ewald) ; in the presupioosition, that (Baur) : which is certain 
from the fact, that (subjective ground of knowledge ; so Ernesti, 
Urspr. d. Silnde, II. p. 217). According to Hofmann, Paul 
desires to give the reason tvhy, and for what purpose, he con- 
templates an apprehension. But thus the reference of e'^' w k.t.X. 
would be limited to el k. KaraXd/So), although the positive 
leading thought has been introduced in Blcckco Se. ^E(f) w k.t.X. 
serves this leading thought along vnth that of its accessory 
definition el k, KaraXd^co. — /cat] also, sidyjoins to the active 
KaraXd^o) the ingeniously corresponding passive relation 
KaTeXij^drjv. And by KareXri^d. Paul expresses what at his 

' 2 Tim. iv. 7 does not conflict with our passage, but is the confession at the 
end of the course, " exempluni accipientis jam jamque," Bengel. 

^ Paul is conscious that, being ajiprehended by Christ, he may not and cannot 
do otherwise. Comp, Bengel: quoniam ; sensus virtutis Christi acceudit 

CHAP. III. 13, 14. 169 

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

Vv. 13, 14. Once more, and with loving earnestness 
(tiBeXcpoi), Paul says what he had already said in ver. 12 with 
ovx ore . . . KaraXd^oi ; and in doing so, he brings more into 
relief in the first portion the element of sc//-estimation, which 
in his own case he denies ; and, in the second part, he sets 
forth more in detail the idea : Blcokco 8e el k. kutoK. — iyoy 
ifiavTov] ego me ipsuni, an emphatic mode of indicating one's 
own estimation, in which one is both subject and object of the 
judgment. Comp. John v. 30 f., vii. 17, viii. 54 ; Acts xxvi. 9, 
et al. A reference to the judgment of others about him (Bengel, 
Weiss, and others ; comp. also Hofmann) is here out of place. 
— Xoyl^ofiaL] I judge, I am of opinion,^ Eom. iii. 28, viii. 18, 
xiv. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 5, et cd. ; Xen. A^icdh ii. 2. 13; Dem. 
Ixiii. 12. — h Be] Comp. Anthol. Pal vii. 455: ev S' dvrl 
irdvTwv, also the frequent ev fiovov ; see Stallbaum, ad. Flat. 
Symp. p. 184 C, Rep. p. 548 C. It is here usually supple- 
mented by iTOLOi (Chrysostom appears to have understood ttocow). 
So also Winer, Buttmann, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ellicott. But 
how arbitrarily, seeing that the context by what immediately 
precedes suggests simply the supplying of \oyl^o/jbac (not Xoyi^. 
KareiXrjcjievai, Oecumenius, Weiss), and this is in perfect har- 
mony with the sense ! Hence we take it thus : " but one 
tiling / think, unum ccnsco." This one thing which Paul 
thinks regarding the matter in question, in contrast to the 
previous negative {Be, as in ver. 1 2), is then directly expressed 
by all that follows from tcl fiev oTrlaoi to eV X. 'I. Nearest to 
this contextual supplement comes the Syriac, which has added 
olBa, and Luther, who has added Xeyco. The supplying of 

' Ou belongs to Xoyl^ofiai. The erroneous reference to xa.ruXY.ip'!.vai produced tlie 
reading bSvu (A D X min. vss. and Fathers), which Tischendorf 8. has adopted. 


XoyH^ofxat is confirmed by the cognate ^povwixev, ver. 15. 
Without supplying anything, ev he has eitlier been connected 
with Blmko) (thus Augustine, Serm. de divers, i. 6, Pierce, 
Storr, van Hengel, and others), or has been taken absolutely : 
" umim contra!" see Hoelemann, comp. Eheinwald. But the 
former is to be rejected, because the subsequent Slcokco carries 
its own complete definiteness ; and the latter would render 
the discourse abrupt without reason, since it is not written 
under emotional excitement, and would, withal, require a 
supplement, such as Beza gives by eVrt. Hofmann also comes 
at length in substance to this latter supplement, mixing up an 
imaginary contrast to that which the adversaries imputed to the 
apostle : over-against this, his conduct subsequently described 
was the only thing ivhicJi tores quite right (?). — ra fiev oTrcatoli 
what is behind, cannot be referred to what has been mentioned 
in vv. 5 and 6 and the category of those pre-Christian advan- 
tages generally (so in substance, Pelagius ; rivh in Theodoret, 
Vatablus, Zeger, Wolf, and others, also Ewald and Hofmann) ; 
this would be at variance with the context, for ra ixev oiria-a 
iirCKavd. corresponds to the negation of the having already at- 
tained or being perfect in ver. 12, and must therefore apply to 
the previous achievements of the Christian life, to the degrees 
of Christian moral perfection already reached, which are 
conceived as the spaces already left behind in the stadium 
of the runner still pressing forward ; and not to what had 
belonged to his 'pre-Christian conduct (Hofmann). Comp. 
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact. — eiTLkavdav^ forget- 
ting, like the runner who dismisses from his mind the space 
already traversed, and fixes his thoughts only on what still 
lies before him. This is surely no break in the internal con- 
nection (as Hofmann objects) ; on the contrary, like the runner 
pressing forward, Paul in his continuous restless striving over- 
loohs the degree of moral perfection already attained, which he 
would not do, if he reckoned it already as itself perfection. 
eirCkavOdvea-Oai is joined with the genitive and accusative ; 
the simple verb, on the contrary, only with the genitive. See 
Klihner, II. 1, p. 313. On the use of the word in the sense of 
intentionaliongoitmg, comp. Herod, iii. 75, iv. 43; 1 Mace. i. 49. 

CHAP. III. 13, 1!. 171 

It thus amounts to the sense of nuUam rntionem Jinhcrc (Stnrz, 
Lex. Xen. II. p. 294). — to69 Be efMTrpoadev iireKTeivojjb^ hut 
stretching myself out towards that which is before. The dative 
is governed by the verb compounded with eVt (Kriigev, § 48. 
11. 5 ; Nagelsbach, zur Ilias, p. 30, ed. 3), the eVt intimating 
the direction. In the case of such an one running "prono et 
quasi praecipiti corpore" (13eza), " oculus manum, manus pedem 
praevertit et trahit," BengeL On the verb, com p. Strabo, 
xvii. p. 800; Aristot. Poet. 21 ; Phit. Mor. p. 1147 A. Ta 
efiTrp. represent the higher stages of Christian perfection not 
yet attained.'^ — Kara aKoirov BtoiKco] I hasten towards the goal, 
therefore in a straight course towards the prize of victory. 
The opposite : airo (tkottov, Horn. Od. xi. 344, xxii. 6 ; Plat. 
Thcaet. p. 179 C, Tim.^. 25 E; Xen. Conv. ii. 10 ; Lucian, 
Icarom. 2 ; and Trapa aKoirov, Pind. 01. xiii. 144. On Bccokco 
without an accusative of the ohject (in opposition to van Hengel), 
comp. Xen. Anal. vii. 2. 20, vi. 5. 25 (Spofico Slo)K6lv) ; 
Aesch. ScjJt. 89 ; Buttmann, Zcxil. p. 219 ; Jacobs, ad Antliol. 
IX. p. 213. Comp. on ver. 12. The prize of victory (to 
^pa^eiov, see on 1 Cor. ix. 24 ; Clem. Cor. I. 5 ; Schol. min. 
ad Soph. M. 680; Oppian, Cyneg. iv. 196; Lycophr. 1154) 
represents the scdvation of the Messiah's kingdom (see on ver. 
1 2), to which God has called man. Hence : t^? avco KXrja-ewf;, 
a genitive which is to be taken not as appositional (de Wette, 
Schenlvel), but as the genitive of the suhjcct : the jBpajSelov, to 
ivhich the ccdling relates. Comp. Luther : " which the heavenly 
calling holds out." This is therefore the object of the eKirh 
rr]<i K\rj(Tea3<i (Eph. i. 18, iv. 4; comp. the Platonic kuXov to 
adXov Kal 7} iXTrh /xeyaXi], Phaed. p. 1 1 4 C). — rj avco kXtjo-L'; 
Tov @6ov is the calling lohich issued from God ahove in heaven 
(on dvw, comp. Col. iii. 2, Gal. iv. 26; and on the subject-matter, 
Heb. iii. 1), by which He has called us to the awrripla of His 
kingdom. The general form of expression, not even limited 

* Ta. 'ifi.rrp'xrhv is thiis conceived by the apostle as that ivhick still lies further in 
prospect after every advance in the ethical course ; not as that which lay before 
him in consequence of his conversion (contrasting with his pre-Christian efforts), 
as Hofinann thinks. It is the ever new, greater, and loftier task which he 
sees before him, step after step. 


by a pronoun (such as t?}? efirj^), does not allow us to think only 
of the miraculous calling of the apostle himself ; this is rather 
included under the general category of the avco /cA-T/crt? rov 
Oeov, which in the individual cases may have taken historically 
very different forms. The dvco, which in itself is not neces- 
sary, is added, because Paul is thoroughly filled with the con- 
sciousness of the divine nature of the /cX^cri9 in its exaltedness 
above everything that is earthly. Lastly, the Kkricn<i itself is, 
as always (even in 2 Thess. i. 11), the act of calling ; not that 
whereto one is called (de Wette), or "le bonheur celeste meme" 
(Eilliet) ; and the general currency of the idea and expression 
forbids us also, since no indication of the kind is given, to 
conceive of God as yS/jaySeur?;? or ^pa/3ev<i, as the judge of the 
contest (Pollux, iii. 145 ; Blomf Gloss, ad Acsch. Pcrs. 307), 
who through the herald summons the runners to the race 
(Grotius, Wolf, Eosenmiiller, am Ende, Hoelemann, van Hengel, 
Wiesinger) ; r?}? avco kX. t. 0. serves to define more accurately 
that which is figuratively denoted by j3pa(3eiov, but does not 
itself form a part of the allegory. — ev X. 'I.] is rightly (so 
also Weiss) joined by Chrysostom to Sccoko) : iv XpiarS 'Irja-ov 
Tovro TTOift), (f)7]acv. ov <yap evt xwpl^ Tf]<; eKeivov po7rr}<i toctovtov 
^LeKdelv 8idaT7]/j,a. Comp. Theodoret and Oecumenius. This 
thought, that the SicoKecv just described is done by him in 
Christ, as the great upholding and impelling element of life in 
which amidst this activity he moves, is emphatically placed 
at the end as that which regulates all his efforts. The usital 
connection of these words with r. avco K\i]a€a)<; t. ©eov, in 
which the calling is understood as hrovght ahout through Christ 
(rather : having its causal ground in Christ), yields a sujDerfluous 
and self-obvious definition of the K\'^ai<; already so accu- 
rately defined ; although the connecting article would not be 
necessary, since, according to the construction Ka\elv ev X. 
(1 Cor. vii. 22 ; 1 Pet. v. 10), ev X. 'J. might be joined with 
Kkrjcreai^ SO as to form one idea ; comp. Clem. Cor. I. 46. A 
contrast to the calling issued to Israel to be God's people on 
earth, is groundlessly suggested by Hofmann. 

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

CHAP. III. 15. 173 

not perfectio7i, like reTeXeicofjiai in ver. 1 2, but tlie moral ripeness 
which, with differences of degree in the case of individuals, 
belongs to the true Christian state that has advanced beyond 
the novitiate — that Christian maturity in which one is no 
longer vi^ttlo'^ eV Xpta-rS ; comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 6, iii. 1 ; Eph. 
iv. 13. The rereXeicofxai is the ideal goal of the development 
of this reXeiov ehai, contradistinguished from the vrjTriorrjq. 
The special aspect of this maturity, which Paul had in view in 
using reXeioi, is to be regarded, not as theoretical hnoiolcdijc, — 
the doctrine of righteousness hy faith being conceived to be spe- 
cially referred to (Erasmus, Wolf, llheinwald, and others), — 
but as the moral character and striving of believers, as appears 
from ver. 13 f., along with which the corresponding relation 
of practical insight is self-evident as a necessary presupposi- 
tion (comp. Col. iv. 12, i. 28); although there is no reason 
to suppose that particular questions in this domain (such as 
those relating to sacrificial flesh, fasts, feasts, and the like) had 
arisen in Philippi and occasioned division, of which no trace 
exists. The jealousy and partial disunion in the church arose 
from a moral conceit, which was prejudicial to mutual humility 
(ii. 3 ff.) and to personal genuine striving after holiness 
(ii. 12 ff.). In using oaoi — with which we are to supply 
sv.mus simply, and not volumus esse — Paul leaves it to the 
conscientious judgment of every reader whether he, on his 
part, belongs to the number of the reketoc ; but by including 
himself in this predicate, and yet having previously negatived 
tlie ijSr) rereXelcofiat in his own case (ver. 12), the apostle 
removes all idle misunderstanding and abuse of his words 
which might tend to moral pride, and then by tovto (^povcoixev 
leaves room only for the consciousness : ct)9 TeXelov to firj 
vo/xL^€iv eavTov reXeiov elvai, Chrysostom. A tone of irony 
(Schcukel) is utterly alien to the heartfelt character of the 
whole discourse, which is, moreover, in this application, 
ver. 15, so expressed as to include the apostle in common 
with his readers. To the Catholic fictions of a state of perfec- 
tion the passage is in direct opposition. — tovto ^povwjxev] 
let us have this frame of mind, namely, which I, in ver. 1 3 f., 
have just expressed as mine ; the frame of humble self- 


estimation, and at the same time incessant pressing forward. 
Grotius holds quite arbitrarily that Paul reverts to what he 
had said in ver. 3. But it is also wrong to seek the reference 
of TovTo (ppop. in the passage from ver. 4 onwards : " renun- 
ciandum esse splendidis virtutibus Judd. (vv. 4-7), contra in 
solo Christo acquiescendum (vv. 8-10) et ad victricem pal- 
mam studio indefesso annitendum (vv. 12-14)," Hoelemann ; 
comp. Calvin, Wolf, Heinrichs, and others, including Matthies, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Eilliet, and Eeiche ; similarly Hofmann, 
who makes it refer to the entire presentation — joining on 
to ver. 3 — of a frame of mind which is opposed to the 
disposition of those against whom they are to be on their 
guard. Vv. 4-11 are certainly said by way of warning 
against the false teachers, and are opposed to these ; but this 
opposition is of a dogmatic nature, for the upholding of the 
Pauline fundamental doctrine against Judaism, and it is only 
ver. 12 that begins what has regard to the moral iirogrcss of 
the Church in the right way pressing onward to the goal, in 
which respect Paul desires to serve for their model (ver. 17), 
— as which he has sketched himself in ver. 13 f., when he 
begins with aSeXcjiol and introduces his iyca. Besides, the 
(ppovM/xeu, which is correlative with the Xoyi^ofiai, does not 
point back beyond ver. 13 £ Therefore, not even the appro- 
priation of Christ, vv. 8-11, is to be included in the refer- 
ence of the TOVTO (in opposition to de Wette and Wiesinger). 
Van Hcngel is inclined to refer tovto to to ^pa/Setov; but 
the readers needed the exhortation to the right mode of striving 
after the ^pajBdov, and not the summons generally, that they 
should have the ^pa^. in view. This applies also against 
the similar, although more exact, interpretation of Pritzsche 
[Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 92): " hac mente simus sc. ut to /3pa^. 
T?}? avQ) K\-)]aeco<; consectc7mir." — koI et tl cTepca <ppov.^ and 
if as to any i^oint {tI, accusative of the object) ye he othenvise 
minded, take up another way of thinking, varying, namely, 
from that specified in tovto (^povwiiev. A man may, for- 
sooth, have in general the same frame of mind which Paul 
has represented in himself, and to which he has summoned 
his readers ; but at the same time an isolated concrete case 

CHAP. III. 15. 175 

(ri) may occur, which a man cannot fit into the (ppovelv 
in question, and regarding which he is of opinion that he 
ought to be differently minded, so that in such a state of 
things he becomes morally inconsistent in his frame of mind, 
inasmuch as he lacks the befitting eTrlyvwa-t'; and acaOrjaa et? 
TO SoKLftd^etv K.T.X., i. 9, in the moral judgment which deter- 
mines the ^poveiv. Hofmann arbitrarily limits the rl to some 
matter indcjje^idcnt of the essential disjJosition of the Christian 
life. This sense would have required a more precise defini- 
tion, in order to be found. And the hope which is uttered in 
the apodosis, is in perfect harmony with the prayer in i. 9 f. ; 
hence Hofmann's objection, that the readers must have them- 
selves corrected the fault which according to our view here 
emerges, is quite groundless. The sulijcct addressed is the 
readers generally (see ver. 17j, not the vqtnoi (Hunnius, Wolf, 
Bengel, Storr, and others, including Flatt, Eheinwald, Hoele- 
mann, Eilliet, Eeiche), whom several expositors have regarded 
as those who had not yet raised themselves to the pure 
righteousness of faith excluding the law (see Eheinwald and 
Eeiche), or who had allowed themselves to be led away by 
false teachers (see Hunnius, Grotius, Storr). But setting aside 
the arbitrariness generally with which this contrast is intro- 
duced, it is opposed by the fact, that Paul does not assume 
any thorough and essential diversity in the ^povetv, but only 
such a variation as might affect some one or other isolated 
point (tX), and that not in the doctrinal, but in the moral 
province of Clnistian conduct. Moreover, if 2:iersons led 
astray were here in question, nothing would be less in har- 
mony with the character of the apostle than the hopeful 
tolerance which is expressed in the words Kal tovto . . . 
airoKaXin^ei. Lastly, the change of person (in opposition to 
Bengel) was necessary, because Paul, speaking of a partial 
eripcix; (f^povelv, could not include himself — In eT€pco<;, ofher- 
ivise (not occurring elsewhere in the N. T.), there is implied, 
according to the context, an unfavouraUe sense, the notion of 
incorixctness, secius qiiam 023ortet. Com p. Hom. Od. i. 234; 
Dem. 298. 22, 597. 3; Eustath. ad Od. p. 1448. 2; Soph. 
Phil. 503; Valckenaer, Biatr. p. 112; just as erepo^ (comp. 


on clXko, Gal. V. 10) may denote even that which is bad or 
hostile (Wisd. xix. 3 ; Dissen. ad Find. Nem. viii. 3, Pyth. 
iii. 54 ; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 321). It is here the 
irepoSo^eiv (Plat. Theact. pp. 190 E, 193 D), 2iQ frame of mind. 
This has not been attended to by van Hengel, when he takes 
with equal unsuitableness t\ in an emphatic sense, and <^povelv 
as to strive for : " si quid honi per aliam viam cxpetitis, quam 
ego persequor." — Kal tovto 6 0eo? v/x. uttok.] Expression of 
the hojjc that such variations will not fail to be rectified, on the 
part of God, by His revealing operation. Certainly, therefore, 
the variations, which Paul so forbearingly and confidently and 
without polemical handling commits to revealing correction 
on the part of God, were not on matters of principle or of an 
anti-Pauline character. — Kal tovto] this also, like other things 
which He has already revealed unto you ; so that in kuI is 
contained the idea also still (Hartung, Partikell. 1. p. 135). 
Hofmann erroneously says that Kal implies : there, where the 
disjjosition is 2yresent, ivhich I require. It in fact belongs to 
TOVTO. This TOVTO, however, is not : that ye (Oecumenius, 
Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Fritzsche, I.e. p. 93), but what ye 
wrongly think ; the frame of mind in question, as it ought to he 
instead of the eTepca ^poveiv, not : " whether you are right or 
I" (Ewald). Calvin aptly says : " Nemo ita loqui jure posset, 
nisi cui certa constat suae doctrinae ratio et Veritas." The 
passage is very far from betraying uncertainty or want of 
firmness (Baur). ■ — The airoKaXv^et,, which is to be taken as 
purely future, is conceived by Paul as taking place through the 
Holy Spirit (see Eph. i. 1 7 ; Col. i. 1 0), not by human instruc- 
tion (Beza). He might also have written hihu^et (comp. deohi- 
haKTOi, 1 Thess. iv. 9 ; also John vi. 45), by which, however, 
the special land of instruction which he means would not 
have been indicated. Tins is the inward divine unveiling of 
ethical truth, which is needed for the practical reason of him 
who in any respect otherwise ^povel than Paul has shown 
in his own example ; for oi) irepl Soj/xaToiv tuvtu elprjTat, aXka 
Trepl ^lov TeXeiOTrjTOi; Kal tov firj vofil^etv eavTov'i TeXetovi eivai, 
Chrysostom. Wherever in this moral respect the right frame of 
mind is not yet completely present in one or the other, Paul 

CHAP. III. 16. 177 

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

Ver. 16. A caution added to the precept given in ver. 15, 
and the promise coupled with it : Only let there be no devia- 
tion in the prosecution of the development of your Christian 
life from the point to which we have attained ! Neither to 
the right nor to the left, but forward in the same direction ! 
This warning Paul expresses briefly and precisely thus : " Only 
whcrdo ive have attained, — according to the same to direct your 
wcdlc .'" — that is, " however ye may be in some point otherwise 
minded and, therefore, may have to await further revelation, 
at all events ye ought not to deviate — this must in every case 
be your fundamental rule — -from that lohcrcto ive have already 
attained in the Christian life ; hut, on the contrary, shoidd let the 
further direction of your morcd ivalh he determined hy that same." 
Such a general precept addressed to the Philippians conveys an 
honourable testimony to the state of their moral constitution 
on the whole, however different in individuals we may con- 
ceive the point to be from which Paul says et? o i(f>9., as is 
evident from the very fact that he includes himself in the eh 
b i(f)0., which could not but honour and stimulate the readers. 
On irX-ijv, nisi quod, comp. i. 18 ; on (pOdveiv eh, to attain to 
amjthing, comp. Matt. xii. 2 8 ; Luke xi. 2 6 ; 1 Thess. ii. 1 6 
(eVt): Ptom. ix. 31; Dan. iv. 19; Tob. v. 18 ; Pint. Mor. 
p. 338 A; Apollod. xii. 242. It denotes the having come 
forward, the having advanced. Ewald takes it : if we had the 
advantage (see 1 Thess. iv. 15, and the common classical usage), 
that is : "in what we already possess much better and higher 
than Judaism." But this reference to Judaism is not given 
in the text, which aims to secure generally their further pro- 
gress in the development of Christian life. On o-rot^^etv with 
the dative of the rule : to advance (march) aceording to something, 
that is, to direct oneself in one's constant conduct by some- 
thing, see on Gal. v. 16, 25. The infinitive, however, as the 
expression of a briefly measured wish or command, without 
supplying Xe^w, Set, or the like (which Buttmaun requires, 



Neut. Gr. p. 233 [E. T. 272]), stands in place of tlie impera- 
tive, as in Eom. xii. 15 ; see Horn. II. i. 20, and Nagelsbach 
in loc. ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 473 A; Pflugk, ad Eur. 
Heracl. 314; Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 86. Fritzsche, how- 
ever, Diss. II. 2 Cor. p. 93, has erroneously made the infinitive 
dependent on airoKaXv-^et : " praeterea instituet vos, ut, quam 
ego consecutus sum rol ^pa^elw t?}9 civco «X.7/cre&)9 intentam 
mentem, ejusdem participes fieri ipsi annitamini." Comp. 
Oecumenius. Decisive against this view is the plural icpdd- 
o-a/xev, which, according to the context (ver. 15), cannot apply- 
merely to Paul, as well as the fact that the antithesis of persons 
(ego . . . ijjsi) is gratuitously introduced. Michaelis, who is 
followed by Eilliet, closely unites ver. 16 with the sequel,^ 
but in such a way that only an awkward arrangement of the 
sentences is attained, and the nervous vigour of the concise 
command is taken away. — The ek o e(f)$da: — which cannot 
in accordance with the context denote the having attained to 
Christianity, to the hcing Christian (Hofmann's view, which 
yields a meaning much too vague and general) — has been 
rightly explained by Chrysostom and Theophylact as relating 
to the attainments in the Christian life, which are to be 
maintained, and in the further development of which 
constant progress is to be made (o KajcopOdoaaiiev, KUTey^oo^ev, 
Theophylact). Comp. Schinz and van Hengel. This view is 
corroborated by the sequel, in which Paul represents himself 
as model of the ivalk ; and therefore it is not to be referred 
merely to the measure of the right frame of mind attained 
(Weiss). Most expositors understand the words as signifying 
the measure of Christian knowledge acquired (so also Heinrichs, 
Piatt, Eheinwald, Matthies, Hoelemann, de Wette, Wiesinger), 
in conformity with which one ought to live. In connection 
with this, various arbitrary definitions of the oljcct of the know- 
ledge have been suggested, as, for instance, by Grotius : " de cir- 

' This is thrown out as a suggestion also by Hofmann, according to whom the 
infinitive clause ought "perhaps more correctly" to be coupled with ffu/jt-fiifinra.) 
x.T.k., and taken as a prefixed designation of that in doing which they are to 
he his imitators and to have their attention directed to those, etc. TIius the 
infinitive would come to stand as infinitive of the aim. But even thus the whole 
attempt would be an artificial twisting of the passage without reason or use. 

CHAP. III. ic. 179 

cumcisione et ritibns ;" Hcinriclis aucl de Wette : concerning 
the main substance of the Christian faith apart from secondary- 
matters ; Schneckenburger : " that man is justified by faith, 
and not by the works of the law ;" along with which de Wette 
lays stress on the x^oint that it is not the inclivichial more or 
less perfect knowledge (so usually; see Flatt, Eheinwald, 
]\Iatthies) that is meant, but the collective conviction, the 
truths generally recognised. But the whole interpretation 
which refers it to hioivledge is not in keeping with the text ; 
for i^ddcra/ji€v, correlative with aroLx^lv, presents together 
with the latter a unity of figurative view, the former de- 
noting the point of the way already attained, and tS avrat 
(jToi'^dv, perseverance in the direction indicated by that 
attainment. Therefore, if by aTovy/lv there is clearly (see 
ver. 17) intended the moral conduct of life, this also must be 
denoted by ei9 o k<^0. as respects its quality attained up to the 
present time. Moreover, if et<? o e^Q. is to be understood as 
referring to knowledge, there would be no motive for the pro- 
minence given to the identity by tw avrw. 

Eemakk. — ^What Paul means in ver. 1 6 may be illustrated thus: 

A- ^ 

Here B is the point of the development of Christian life ug <> 
epSdm/xsv, which, in the case of different individuals, maybe more 
or less advanced. The riZ avrip cror/Jh takes place, when the 
path traversed from A to B is continued in the direction of C. 
If any one should move from B in the direction of either D or 
E, he would not rw ai/Tw cToiyytv. The reproach of uncertainty 
which Wiesinger brings against this canon, because a WtfUiq 
(ppovuv may take place which does not lie in the same direction, 
and generally because the power of sin might hinder the follow- 
ing out of this direction, would also apply in opposition to every 
other explanation of the sig o l(pl}., and particularly to that of the 
hioiiiedgc attained ; but it is altogether unfounded, first, because 
the Wspui; (ppovuv only refers to one or another concrete single 
point {ri), so that the ivliole of moral attainment — the collec- 
tive development — which has been reached is not thereby dis- 
turbed ; and, secondly, because Paul in this case has to do with a 


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

Ver. 17. In carrying out this command they are to follow 
his example, which he has previously held up to their view, 
especially from ver. 1 2 onwards. — a-vfifiifnjral] co-imitators, 
is a word not elsewhere preserved. Comp., however, crvfi^i- 
fiovfjLevot, Plat. Polit. p. 274 D. a-vv is neither superfi^ious 
(Heinrichs, comp. Hofmann), nor does it refer to the imitation 
of Christ in common with the apostle (Bengel, Ewald), — a 
reference which cannot be derived from the remote i. 30-ii. 8, 
and which would be expressed somewhat as in 1 Cor. xi. 1 ; 
1 Thess. i. 6. Neither does it refer to the obligation of his 
readers collectively to imitate him (Beza, Grotius, and others, 
including Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette), so 
that " omnes uno consensu ct una mente" (Calvin) would be 
meant ; but it means, as is required by the context that follow^s : 
" una cum aliis, qui me imitantur (Estius ; comp. Erasmus, 
Annot., Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Wiesinger, Weiss, Ellicott, 
and others). Theophylact a2")tly remarks : avyKoWa avTov<; 
Tot? «aXw9 TrepLTrarovcTc, whereby the weight of the exhortation 
is strengthened. — aKOTrelre] clireet your vieiv to those who, etc., 
namely, in order to become imitators of me in like manner as 
they are. Other Christians, not Philippians, are meant, just 
as ver. 1 8 also applies to those of other places. — /ca^w?] does 
not correspond to tlie ovto>, as most expositors think, but is 
the argumentative " as" (see on i. 7), by which the two previous 
requirements, av^fxifiriTal k.t.X. and aKoirclre k.tX., are estab- 
lished : in measure as ye have us for an example. This 
interpretation (which Wiesinger and Weiss adopt) is, notwith- 
standing the subtle distinction of thought which Hofmann 
suggests, required both by tlie second person e^j^ere (not e-^ovai) 
and by the plural r)/j,d<; (not i/xi). This rj/u.d<: refers not to the 
apostle alone (so many, and still de AVette ; but in this case, as 
before, the singular would liave been used), nor yet generally 

CHAr. III. 18. 181 

to the apostle and Ms cojnpanions (van Hengel, Banmgarten- 
Crusius, Lightfoot), especially Timothy (Hofmann), or to all 
tried Christians (Matthies) ; but to him and those ovtw (in this 
manner, imitative of mc) 7repL7raTovvTa<i. This view is not at 
variance with tvttov in the singular (de Wette) ; for the several 
TVTTot, of individuals are conceived collectively as tvtto?. Comp. 
1 Thess. i. 7 (Lachmann, Llinemann) ; see also 2 Thess. iii. 9 ; 
comp. generally, Bernhardy, p. 58 f . ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 12 f. 
This predicative tvttov, which is therefore placed hcfo7X rjfidf, 
is emphatic. 

Ver. 18. Admonitory confirmation of the injunction in ver. 
1 7. — 'TTepLirarovaiv] is not to be defined by KaKooq (Oecunie- 
nius) , or longe alitcr (Grotius ; comp. Syr.) ; nor is it to 
be taken as circidantiir (comp. 1 Pet. v. 8) (Storr, Heinrichs, 
Piatt), which is at variance with the context in ver. 17. 
Calvin, unnaturally breaking up the plan of the discourse, 
makes the connection: "ambulant terrena cogitantes" (which is 
prohibited by the very article before eViV <ppov.), and puts in 
a parenthesis what intervenes (so also Erasmus, Schmid, and 
Wolf) ; whilst Estius quite arbitrarily overleaps the first rela- 
tive clause, and takes trepLir. along with o)v ro riXo^ k.t.X. 
Erasmus (see his Annot.) and others, including Eheinwald, 
van Hengel, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, and Weiss, consider 
the discourse as broken off, the introduction of the relative 
clauses inducing the writer to leave out the modal definition 
of irepiir. Hofmann transforms the simple Xcyeiv (comp. Gal. 
i. 9) into the idea of naming, and takes toj)? i'^Opov'i as its 
oTyect- predicate, in which case, however, the onode of tlie 
TrepiTTaretv would not be stated. On the contrary, the con- 
struction is a genuine Greek mode of attraction (see Wolf, a,d 
Dcm. Lcpt. 1 5 ; Pflugk, ad Eur. Hcc. Ill; Ktihner, II. 2, p. 9 2 5 ; 
Buttm. Ncid. Gr. p. 68 [E. T. 77]), so framed, that instead 
of saying: many ivalk as the enemies of the cross, this pre- 
dicative definition of mode is drawn into the relative clause ov'i 
'TToWaKL'; K.T.\} and assimilated to the relative; comp. Plat. BeiJ. 

' Hence also the conjecture of Laurent (Neitt. Stud. p. 21 i.), that ot; 
rroXXuKi; . . . avixaa. is a Supplementary marginal note inserted by the apostle, 
is unwarranted. 


p. 40 2 c, and Stallbaum in loc. It is therefore to be interpreted: 
Many, of whom I have said that to you often, and now tell you 
even weeping, walk as the enemies, etc. The iroWaKL';, emphati- 
cally corresponding with the ttoWoI (2 Cor. viii. 22), refers to 
the apostle's presence in Philippi ; whether, at an earlier date 
in an epistle (see on iii. 1), he had thus characterized these 
enemies of the cross (Flatt, Ewald), must be left undecided. 
But it is incorrect to make these words include a reference 
(Matthies) to ver. 2, as in the two passages different persons 
(see below) must be described. — vvv Se Koi KXalcjv] Sia rt; 
OTt eirereLve to kukop, otl BaKpvcov a^cot ol tolovtoi . . . outco? 
iarl aufiTraOrjTCKo^;, ovrco (ppovri^ec nrdvTOiv av0pco7rcov, Chrysos- 
tom. The deterioration of these men, which had in the 
meanwhile increased, now extorts tears from the apostle on 
account of their own ruin and of their ruinous influence. — 
T0U9 ix^P- ''"• ^'^' ''"• -^O '^1^® article denotes the class of men 
characteristically defined. We must explain the designation 
as referring, not to enemies of the doctrine of the cross (Theo- 
dpret : w? Si,8dcrKovTa<i otl St'^a t?}? vo/jLLKr]<i TroXcTeia^ dhvvaTov 
a(OT'qpLa<i Tvy^elv, so in substance Luther, Erasmus, Estius, 
Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, and many others ; also 
Heinrichs, Eheinwald, Matthies), so that passages such as Gal. 
V. 11, vi. 12, would have to be compared; but, as required 
by the context which follows, to Christians of Epicurean 
tendencies (eV duecrec ^(jovTe<i k. Tpvcpfj, Chrysostom ; comp. Theo- 
phylact and Oecumenius), who, as such, are hostile to the 
fellowship of the cross of Christ (comp. iii. 10), whose maxims 
of life are opposed to the iraOij/xaTa tov XpcaTov (2 Cor. i. 5), 
so that it is hateful to them to svffer loith Christ (Eom. 
viii. 17). Comp. ver. 10, also Gal. vi. 14. In opposition to 
the context, Eilliet and Weiss understand non-Christians, who 
reject Christianity with hostile disdain, because its founder 
was crucified (comp. 1 Cor. i. 18, 23), or because the preach- 
ing of the cross required the crucifixion of their own lusts 
(Weiss) ; Calvin interpreted it generally of hypocritical enemies 
of the gospel. This misunderstanding ought to have been pre- 
cluded by the very use of the tragic ttoWoI, the melancholy 
force of which lies in the very fact that they are Christians, but 

CHAP. III. 19. 183 

Cliristians whose conduct is the deterrent contrast to that 
which is required in ver. 17. See, besides, in opposition to 
Weiss, Huther in the MecJdenh. Zcitschr. 1862, p. 630 ff. — 
We have still to notice that the persons here depicted are 
not the same as those who %vcre described in ver. 2 (contrary 
to the usual view, which is also followed by Schinz and Hil- 
genfeld) ; for those were teachers, while these ttoWoI are Chris- 
tians generally. The former might indeed be characterized 
as kxOpoX T. aravpov r. X., according to Gal. vi. 12, but their 
Judaistic standpoint does not correspond to the Epicureanism 
which is affirmed' of the latter in the words cov 6 ©eo'i tj KoCkia, 
ver. 19. Hoelemann, de Wette, Llinemann, Wiesinger, 
Schenkel, and Hofmann have justly pronounced against the 
identity of the two ; Weiss, however, following' out his wrong 
interpretation of Kvve<i in ver. 2 (of the heathen), maintains the 
identity to a certain extent by assuming that the conduct of 
those Kvve'i is here described ; while Baur makes use of the 
passage to deny freshness, naturalness, and objectivity to the 
polemic attack here made on the false teachers. 

Ver. 19. A more precise deterrent delineation of these 
persons, having the most deterrent element -^ut foremost, and 
then those points by which it was brought about. — wv to 
riXci aTTcoX.] By this is meant Messianic perdition, eternal 
condemnation (comp. i. 28), which is the idti'inate destiny ap- 
pointed (jo) for them {TeXo<i is not : recompense, see Eom. vi. 2 1 ; 
2 Cor. xi. 15; Heb. vi. 8). For corresponding Eabbinical 
passages, see Wetstein and Schoettgen, Hor. p. 801. — oiv 6 
0eo9 rj Koikia] Xarpevovac <yap co? Qeo) ravTy Kal iracrav depa- 
ireiav TTpoadyovac, Theophylact. Comp. Ptom. xvi. 18; Eur. CycL 
334 f.; Senec. de henef vii. 26 ; and the maxim of those whose 
highest good is eating and drinking, 1 Cor. xv. 32. It is the 
yaaTptfiapyla (Plat. Fhacd. p. 81 E; Lucian, Amor. 42) in its 
godless nature ; they were KotXioSal/jiove<; (Eupolis in Athen. iii. 
p. 100 B), Ta<i Ti]<; yacrrpo^; 7)Sova<i Tc6efxevoi fxerpop €v8ac/jLovia<i 
(Lucian, Pair. enc. 10) ; t^ yaarpX /j.eTpovpre'i Kal rol<i alo-^ia-- 
Toi'i rrjv evSacfxovLav (Dem. 524. 24). — kuI rj Bo^a k.t.X.] also 
dependent on &v : and ivhose honour is in their shame, that is, 
who find their honour in that which redounds to their shame. 


as for instance, in revelling, hauglity behaviour, and tlie like, in 
which the immoral man is fond of making a show. ■>} 86 ^a is sub- 
jective, viewed from the opinion of those men, and t^ alo-^vvri is 
objective, viewed according to the reality of the ethical relation. 
Comp. Polyb. xv. 23. 5 : e^' oh fXP'^^^ alcrj(yvea6aL Kad^ virep- 
/3oXr;i', eTTi rovroL^ co? koXoI'^ cre/xvueadaL Kal fieyaXav^elv, and 
also Plat. Tiicaet. p. 176 D; u<ydX\.ovTat yap tm oveihei. On 
elvai iv, vcrsari in, to be found in, to be contained in some- 
thing, comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 470 E: iv rovrto rj iraaa evSai/xovLa 
icTTLv, Eur. Phoen. 1310: ovk iv ala')(^vvr] to, ad. The view, 
foreign to the context, which refers the words to circumcision, 
making atV;^. signify the genitals (Schol. Ar. JEJqu. 364; Am- 
brosiaster ; Hikiry ; Pelagius ; Augustine, dc verb, apost. xv. 5 ; 
Bengel; Michaelis ; Storr), is already rejected by Chrysostom 
and his successors. — ol ra inriyaa ^povovvTe<i\ who bear the 
earthly (that which is on the earth; the opposite in ver. 20) 
in their mind (as the goal of their interest and effort). Comp. 
Col. iii. 2. Thus Paul closes his delineation with a summary 
designation of their fundamental immoral tendency, and he 
put this, not in the genitive (uniformly with the wv), but more 
independently and emphatically in the nominative, having in 
view the logical subject of what precedes (comp. on i. 30), 
and that with the individualizing (n, qui) article of apposition. 
Comp. Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 228] ; Buttmann, Ncut. Gr. p. 69 
[E. T. 79]. 

Ver. 20. After Paul has, by way of confirmation and warn- 
ing, subjoined to his exhortation given in ver. 17 the deterrent 
example of the enemies of the cross of Christ in ver. 1 8 £, he 
now sketches by the side of that deterrent delineation — in out- 
lines few, but how clear ! — the inviting pictwe of those whom, 
in ver. 1 7, he had proposed as t^tto?. — ydp] The train of 
thought runs thus : " Justly I characterize their whole nature 
by the words ol ra iTTijeca (f)povovvTe<i ; for it is the direct 
opposite of 02irs ; our iroXlreuiia, the goal of 02tr aspiration, is 
not on earth, but in heaven." rydp therefore introduces a con- 
firmatory reason, but not for his having said that the earthly 
mind of the iroXkoi necessarily involves such a ^valk (Hof- 
mann) ; for he has not said this, and what follows would not 

CHAP. III. 20. 185 

he a proof of it. The apostle gives, rather, an experimental 
proof e contrario, and that for what immediately precedes, not 
for the remote wv to Te\o9 uTrcokeia (Weiss). — rj/xcov] emphati- 
cally placed first ; contrast of the persons. These /;;, how- 
ever, are the same as the T^/^a? in ver. 17, consequently Paul 
himself and the ovtco irepiirarovvTe';. — to TroXireu/ia] the 
commonwealth, which may bear the sense either of: tlie state 
(2 Mace. xii. 7 ; Polyb. i. 13. 12, ii. 41. 6 ; Lucian, Prom. 15 ; 
Philo, de opif. p. 3 3 A, dc Jos. p. 5 3 6 D) ; or the state-adminis- 
tration (Plat. Legg. 12, p. 945 D ; Aristot. Pol. iii. 4 ; Polyb. iv. 
23. 9 ; Lucian, Pcm. cnc. 16), or its ^:)7'mcz2?/cs (Dem. 107. 
25, 262. 27; Isocr. p. 156 A); or the state-constitution 
(Pint. Them. 4 ; Arist. Pol. iii. 4. 1 ; Polyb. v. 9. 9, iv. 25. 7), 
see generally Eaphel, Poh/h. in he. ; Schweigh. Lex. Pohjh. 
p. 486 ; Schoemann, ad Pint. Cleom. p. 208. Here, in the 
first sense : otir commonwealth, that is, the state to which toe 
belong, is in heaven. By this is meant the Messiah's Icing dom 
which had not yet a2opeared, which will only at Christ's 
Parousia (comp. e'f ov k.tX. which follows) come down from 
heaven and manifest itself in its glory on earth. It is the state 
of the heavenly Jerusalem (see on Gal. iv. 26 ; comp. Usteri, 
Zchrhegr. p. 190; Kitschl, altkatL Kirche, p. 59), of which 
true Christians are citizens (EjDh. ii. 19) even now before the 
Parousia in a proleptic and ideal sense (eTr' ikiriSi, x?}? So^?7V, 
Eom. V. 2 ; comp. viii. 24), in order that one day, at the 
i7ri(f)dveta t% iTapov(Tia<i rou Kvptov (2 Thess. ii. 8), they may 
be so in complete reality (comp. Heb. xii. 22 f, xiii. 14), as 
Koivwvol rrj^ /jLeWoucr7]<i aTroKokvirrecrOat Bo^r]'; (1 Pet. v. 1 ; 
Col. iii. 4), nay, as a-v/Lt^aai\evovT€<i (2 Tim. ii. 12 ; comp. 
Ptom. viii. 1 7 ; 1 Cor. iv. 8). Hence, according to the neces- 
sary psychological relation, " where your treasure is, there will 
your heart be also" (Matt. vi. 21), they <j)povouaiv, not to. 
eTTiyeia, but ra avoi (Col. iii. If.), which serves to explain the 
logical correctness of the <ydp in its relation to ol ra lirv^. (ppov. 
Others, following the Vulgate (conversatio), render it : our zvalk, 
making the sense, " tota vita nostra quasi jam nunc apud 
Deum naturasque coelestes puriores versatur, longe remota a 
T0i9 irrcyeioi'i eorumque captatione" (Hoelemann). So Luther 


(wbo up till 1528 rendered it "citizenship"), Castalio, Erasmus, 
Calvin, Grotius, and many others, including Matthies, van 
Hengel, de Wette j while Eheinwald mixes up interpretations 
of various kinds. This rendering is not justified by" linguistic 
usage, which indeed vouches for troKneveaOai (i. 27) in this 
sense, and for iroXireia (Clem. Cor. I. 5 4 : rroXireueadac iroknelav 
0eov, Ep. ad Diogn. 5), but not for TroXLTevfia, not even in Eus. 
IT. E. V. prooem. ISTor does linguistic usage even permit the in- 
terpretation : citizenship. So Luther, in the Postil. Epist. D. o, 
post f. pascli. : " Here on earth we are in fact not citizens . . . ; 
our citizenship is with Christ in heaven . . ., there we are to 
remain for ever citizens and lords ;" comp. Beza, Balduin, 
Erasmus Schmid, Zachariae, Flatt, Wiesinger, Ewald, "Weiss, 
and others. This would be TroXireta, Acts xxii. 28 ; Thuc. vi. 
104. 3; Dem. 161. 11 ; Polyb. vi. 2. 12 ; 3 Mace. iii. 21. 
Theophylact's explanation, Tr;y Trarp/Sa (which is used also for 
heaven by Anaxagoras in Diog. L. ii. 7), must be referred to 
the correct rendering state (comp. Hammond, Clericus, and 
others^), while Chrysostom gives no decided opinion, but 
Theodoret (rov ovpavbv (})avTa^6fie6a) and Oecumenius {arpa- 
Tevo/jbeda) appear to follow the rendering conversaiio. — 
ef ov Kol K.T.X.] And what a happy change is before us, 
in consequence of our thus belonging to the heavenly state ! 
From the heaven (scil. rj^ovra, comp. 1 Thess. i. 10) we 
expect, etc. The neuter ov, which is certainly to be taken 
in a strictly local sense (in opposition to Calovius), is not to 
be referred to ttoXlt. (Wolf, Schoettgen, Bengel, Hofmann) ; 
but is correctly rendered by the Vulgate : " imdc" Comp. 
on e^ ov, Col. ii. 19, and Bornemann, ad Xcn, Anab. i. 2. 20 : 
rjfiepa'i Tpe7<;, iv tS. — Kat, cdso, denotes the relation correspond- 
ing to the foregoing (namely, that our iroXirevfia is to be 
found in heaven), not a second one to he added (Hofmann). — 
<T(OTripa\ placed first with great emphasis, and that not as the 
accusative of the object (Hofmann), but — hence without the 
article — as 'predicative accusative : as Saviour, namely, from 
all the sufferings and conflicts involved in our fellowship with 
the cross of Christ (ver. 18), not from the dircoXeia (Weiss), 
' The Gothic Version has : "unsara bdudins" (that is, building, dwelling). 

CHAP. III. 21. 187 

which, indeed, the i7/xet9 have not at all to fear. Comp. on 
the subject-matter, Luke xviii. 7 f, xxi. 28; Tit. ii. 13; 
2 Tim. iv. 18. — aTre/cSe;^.] comi?. 1 Cor. i. 7 ; Tit. ii. 13. As 
to the signification of the word : ;perseveranter expedarc, see 
on Eom. viii. 19 ; Gal. v. 5. 

Ver. 21. As a special feature of the Lord's saving activity 
at His Parousia, Paul mentions the lodily transfiguration of 
the '7/"et9, in significant relation to what was said in ver. 
19 of the enemies of the cross. The latter now lead an 
Epicurean life, whilst the ij/x-et? are in a condition of bodily 
humiliation through affliction and persecution. But at the 
Parousia — what a change in the state of things ! what a glori- 
fication of these bodies now so borne down ! — yxerao-T^T^/iar.] 
shall transform} What is meant is the aXXdo-aecv of the 
body (1 Cor. xv. 51 f) at the Parousia, which in this passage, 
just as in 1 Cor. xv. 52, Paul assumes that the rjfieh will 
live to see. To understand it at the same time of the resurrection 
of the dead (so most expositors, including de Wette, Wiesinger, 
Weiss), is inappropriate both to a7re/c:8e;^o/Ae^a and to the 
definition of the quality of the body to be remodelled : t»}9 
raireLv. rjiicov, both these expressions being used under the con- 
viction of being still alive in the present state when the change 
occurs. Lloreover, the resurrection is something more than a 
fjbeTa(T'^r)/j,dTLcn<; ; it is also an investiture with a new body 
out of the germ of the old (1 Cor. xv. 36-38, 42-44. — t?}? 
raireLvoicr. rj/xcov] Genitive of the subject. Instead of saying 
r]^(hv merely {oiir body), he expresses it with more specific 
definition : the body of our humiliation, that is, the body ivldch 

' As to the nature of this transformation, see 1 Cor. xv. 53. The older dog- 
matic exegetes maintained in it the identity of substance. Calovius : "Ille 
lJi.ira.(Tx,ir.i/.aTia ^'oi non subsiantlalem mutationem, sed accklentalcin, non ratione 
quidd'datis corporis nostri, sed ratione quaVdatum salva quidditate importat." 
This is correct only so far as the future body, although an organism without <ra.i>% 
and cc^fAa, 1 Cor. xv. 50, will not only be again specifically human, but will also 
belong to the identity of the persons. See 1 Cor. xv. 35 ff. Comp. Ernesti, 
Urspr. d. Silnde, I. p. 127 f. More precise definitions, such as tliose in 
Delitzsch's Psydiol. p. 459 ff., lose themselves in the misty region of hypothesis. 
The inappropriateness of the expression employed in the Conjession: Resurrec- 
tion of the flesh, has been rightly pointed out by Luther in the Larger Catechism, 
p. 501. 


is the vehicle of the state of our humiliation, namely, through 
the privations, persecutions, and afflictions which affect the 
body and are exhibited in it, thereby reducing ns into our pre- 
sent oppressed and lowly position ; iroXka izaa'^u vvv to crw^a, 
Becr/xeLTat, /xacrTt^erac, fiupla irdo-'^ei Betvd, Chrysostom, This 
definite reference of r. rair. r^fx. is required by the context 
through the contrast of the ?)/iet9 to the i'^Opov^ rov aravpov 
T. X., so that the sufferings which are meant by the cross of 
Christ constitute the raTretvoocn'i of the rjfiel'i (comp. Acts viii. 
33) ; in which case there is no ground for our taking raTrei- 
vo)cn<;, contrary to Greek usage (Plat. Zcgff. vii. p. 815 A; 
Polyb. ix. 33. 10 ; Jas. i, 10), as equivalent to TaireivoTT]^ , 
lowliness, as in Luke i. 48 (Hofmann). On this account, and 
also because T^fioiv applies to subjects distinctly defined in con- 
formity with the context, it was incorrect to explain Taireiv. 
generally of the constitution of oiir life (Hofmann), of wcaJcness 
and frailty (Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and many others ; 
including Eheinwald, Matthies, Hoelemann, Schrader, Eilliet, 
Wiesinger, Weiss) ; comparison being made with such passages 
as Col. i. 22; Eom. vii. 24; 1 Cor. xv. 44. The contrast 
lies in the states, namely, of humiliation on the one hand and 
of Bo^a on the other ; hence r^fxCov and avrov are neither to be 
joined with o-wfjua (in opposition to Hoelemann), nor with t. 
(TMixa T. rair. and r. cr. tt}? B6^r)<; as ideas forming an unity 
(Hofmann), wliich Paul would necessarily have marked by sepa- 
rating the genitives in position (Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 239]). — 
(TVfifiopcpov] Picsult of the fieraa'^rjfjb., so that the reading et? 
TO ^eveaOai avro is a correct gloss. See on Matt. xii. 13 and 
1 Cor. i. 8; Fritzsche, i)/ss. //. in 2 Cor. p. 159; Liibcker, 
grammat. Stud. p. 33 f. Tlie thing itself forms a part of the 
crwSo|a^eo-^ai, Eom. viii. 17. Comp. also 1 Cor. xv. 48 f . ; 
Eom. viii. 29. We may add Theodoret's appropriate re- 
mark : ov Kara ttjv 'jrocroTTjTa t?}? Bo^t)^, aWa Kara rrjV 
TTOcoTTjTa. — T»}9 B6^. avTovj to be explained like t?}? tatt. rjfi. : 
in which His heavenly glory is shown forth. ComiD. ejelpeTai, 
iv Bo^T}, 1 Cor. XV. 44. — Kara r. evepy. k.t.X.] removes every 
doubt as to the possibility ; according to the ivorJdng of His 
heing ahle (comp. Eph. i. 19) cdso to suhdite all things unto 

CHAP. III. 21. 189 

Himself ; that is, in consequence of the energetic efficacy ichich 
belongs to His j^oivcr of also snhduing all tldngs to Himself. 
Comp. KOTO, T. ivepy. tt}? SvvdfM. avrov, Eph. iii. 7, also Eph.- 
i. 19 ; as to the subject-matter, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 25 f. ; as to 
the expression with the genitive of the infinitive, Onosand. I. p. 
1 2 : 97 rov BvuaaOac irotelu e^ovala. — /cat] adds the general 
element vTrord^ai, avro) ra ir. to the fieraa-'^rjfjiaT. k.t.X} 
Bengel aptly says : " non modo conforme facere corpus nostrum 
suo." — ra Trdvra] all things collectively, is not to be limited ; 
nothing can withstand His power ; a statement which to the 
Christian consciousness refers, as a matter of course, to created 
things and powers, not to God also, from whom Christ has 
received that power (Matt, xxviii. 18; 1 Cor. xv. 2 7), and to 
whom He will ultimately deliver up again the dominion 
(1 Cor. XV. 24, 28). Chrysostom and Theophylact have 
already with reason noticed the argumentum a majori ad 

' Hoelemami takes xai as and, so tliat tlie sense would be, ' ' that Christ can do 
all things, and siibdues all things to Himself." The very aorist vTroTdloci should 
have withheld him from making this heterogeneous combination, as it betrays 
itself to be dependent on ^uvu(rfat. 



Ver. 3. Instead of vaiYlz. lias xa/, against decisive witnesses.— 
Instead of Gv'(uys yvrjan, yvyiffis av^uys should be Written, with 
Lachm. and Tisch., upon preponderating evidence. — On decisive 
testimony, in ver. 12, instead of oBa ds tut. (Elz.), olda xai rav. 
is to be received. The 6s has taken its rise from the last syl- 
lable of oiha ; hence we also find the reading hi xai — Ver. 1 3. 
After [j.i Elz. has XpisrSj, in opposition to A B D* X, vss. 
(also Vulgate) and Fathers. Defended by Reiche, but it is an 
addition from 1 Tim. i. 1 2, from which passage also are found 
the amplifications in Or., x. 'l/juoD and X. 'L rw xvplw yj/MoJv. — Ver 
16. sig] wanting in A D* E**", min. vss. and Fathers. Bracketed 
by Lachm. But after dl'S, iis might the more readily be 
omitted, as it seemed superfluous, and might, indeed, on account 
of the absence of an object for I'Trsfi-^., appear offensive. — Ver. 
19. With Lachm. and Tisch., the form to crXoDro; is to be adopted 
upon decisive testimony. See on 2 Cor. viii. 2. — Ver. 23. 
Tai/rwv v/j^uv] A B D E F G P N**, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. 
Vulg. It. Damasc. Ambrosiast. Pel. have rov Tvivfiarog ujnuv. 
So Lachm. and Tisch. Taken from Gal. vi. 18, whence also in 
Elz. iiiMuv has likewise crept in after xvplov. 

Ver. 1. Conclusion drawn from what precedes, from ver. 
17 onwards. We are not justified in going further back (de 
Wette refers it to the whole exhortation, iii. 2 ff., comp. also 
Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann), because the direct address to the 
readers in the second person is only introduced at ver. 1 7, and 
that with aB€\(f)ol, as in the passage now before us ; secondly, 
because the predicates uyaTrTjrol . . . o-ricjiavo^ fiov place the 
summons in that close personal relation to the apostle, which 
entirely corresponds with the words avfifiifxrjTal fiov <yivea6€ 
in ver. 1 7 ; thirdly, because wa-re finds its logical reference in 
that which immediately precedes, and this in its turn is con- 
nected with the exhortation avfifitixrjrai k.t.X. in ver. 1 7 ; and 
lastly, because ovtw in ver. 1 is correlative to the ovtco in 

CHAP. IV. 1. 191 

iii. 17.1 — wo-re] accordingly; the ethical actual result, which 
what has been said of the rjfim in. iii. 20 f. ought to have 
with the readers. Comp. ii. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 58. — cfyairr^Toi 
AC.T.X,.] " blandis appellationibus in eorum affectus se insinuat, 
quae tanien non sunt adulationis, sed sinceri amoris," Calvin. — 
How might they disappoint and grieve such love as this by 
non-compliance ! — iiriTrodrjroL] longed for, for whom I yearn 
(comp. i. 8) ; not occurring elsewhere in the N. T. ; comp. 
App. Hisp. 43; Eust. Opusc. p. 357. 39; Aq. Ez. xxiii. 11 
(iTTCTrodrja-i';) ; Ps. cxxxix. 9 (eTTCTroOrjixa) ; Ael. iV". A. vii. 3 
(TrodrjTO'i).^ — ari(pavo<i] comp. 1 Thess. ii. 19;, Ecclus. i. 9, 
vi. 31, XV. 6 ; Ez. xvi. 12, xxiii. 42 ; Prov. xvi. 31, xvii. 6 ; 
Job xix. 9. The lionour, which accrued to the apostle from 
the excellent Christian condition of the church, is repre- 
sented by him under the figure of a croion of victory. Comp. 
cTTe^avou eu/cXeta? fieyav, Soph. Aj. 465; Eur. Su202')l. 313; 
Iph. ^.193, Here. F. 1334; Thuc. ii. 46 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. 
IX. p. 30 ; Lobeck ad AJ. I.e. ; also a-Tecpavovv (Wesseling, ad 
Diod. Sic. I. p. 684), a-Tecjidvoty/xa, Pind. Fyth. i. 96, xii. 9, 
a-Te(f)avr)(f)opecv, Wisd. iv. 2, and Grimm ioi loc. The refer- 
ence of %a/?a to the present time, and of trre^. to the future 
judgment (Calvin and others, comp. Pelagius), introduces arbi- 
trarily a reflective distinction of ideas, which is not in keeping 
with the fervour of the emotion. — 01)703] corresponding to the 
TUTTo? that has just been set forth and recommended to you 
(iii. 17 fl'.). Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, 
Calvin, Bengel, and others, interpret : so, as ye stand, so that 
Paul " praesentem statum laudando ad perseverantiam eos 
hortetur," Calvin. This is at variance with the context, for 
he has just adduced others as a model for his readers ; and the 
exhortation would not agree with av/jbfxtfM. [jl. ylveade, iii. 17, 
which, notwithstanding all the praise of the morally advanced 
community, still does not presuppose the existence already of 
a normal Christian state. — iv Kvplcp] Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 8. 

^ In opposition to which Hofmann quite gi-oundlessly urges the objection, 
that Paul in that case would have written ■jripiTanTrt instead of ffTrmiTi. As if 
he must have thought and spoken thus mechanically ! The trTrixin is in fact 
substantially just a -nfivariTv which maintains its ground. 


Christ is to be the element in ivliicli the standing fast required 
of them is to have its specific character, so that in no case can 
the moral life ever act apart from the fellowship of Christ. 
— a<ya'irr]Toi^ " 7rept7ra6r}<i haec vocis hujus dva(f)opd" Grotius. 
In no other epistle so much as in this has Paul multiplied 
the expressions of love and praise of his readers ; a strong 
testimony certainly as to the praiseworthy condition of the 
church, from which, however, Weiss infers too much. Here, as 
always (Kom. xii. 19; 2 Cor. vii. 1, xii. 19; Phil. ii. 12; 1 Cor. 
X. 14; Heb. vi. 9, d al.), moreover, d'yair'qroi stands as an 
address without any more precise self-evident definition, and is 
not to be connected (as Hofmann holds) with iv Kvpuo. 

Ver. 2 f. After this general exhortation, ver. 1, the apostle, 
still deeply concerned for the community that is so dear to 
him, finds it requisite to give a special admonition to and for 
tivo meritorious women} through whose disagreement, the 
details of which are unknown to us, but which probably 
turned on differences of their working in the church, a scandal 
had occurred, and the ar^jKeiv iv Kvplw might more or less be 
imperilled. Whether they were deaconesses in Philippi (as 
many conjecture), must remain undecided. Grotius has 
erroneously considered both names, Hammond and Calmet 
only the second, to be masculine} and in that case avTai<i in 
ver. 3 is made to apply to others (viz. acTive<; k.tX). For the 
two feminine names on inscriptions, see Gruter and Muratori. 
With Tischendorf and Lipsius (Gramm. Unters. p. 31), Hvvtv^i] 
is to be treated as oxytone. Comp. generally Kliliner, I. p. 

' According to Baur, indeed, they are alleged to be two parties rather than 
two women ; and Schwegler (nachapostol. Zeitalt. II. p. 135) makes out that 
Eiiodia represents the Jewish-Cliristlan, and Syntyche the Gentile-Christian 
party, and that yv^i^io; avXvyo; applies to Peter ! On the basis of ConstUutt. ap. 
vii. 46. 1 (according to wliich Peter appointed an Euodius, and Paul Ignatius, as 
Bishop of Antioch), this discovery has been amplified with further caprice by 
Volkmar in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 147 If. But exegetical fiction in con- 
nection with the two feminine names has been pushed to the utmost by Hitzig, 
2. K^it. Paulin. Br. p. 5 ff., according to whom they are supposed to have 
their origin in Gen. xxx. 9 ff. ; he represents our author as having changed 
Asher and Gad into women in order to represent figuratively two parties, and 
both ot them Gentile-Christian. 

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

CHAP. IV. 3. 193 

256. The twice used TrapaK.: "quasi coram adhortans 
seorsum iitramvis, idque summa cum aeqiiitate," Bengel. An 
earnestly individualizing eTrifiovT] (Bremi, ad Acschin. p. 400). 
— TO avTo <f)pov.] see on ii. 2. — iv Kvp.] characterizes the 
specifically Christian concord, the moral nature and effort of 
which are grounded on Christ as their determining vital prin- 
ciple. Paul does not desire a union of minds apao^t from 
Christ. — Whether the disunion, which must he assumed, had 
its deeper root in moral iiride on account of services in the 
cause of the gospel (Schinz), is not clear. 

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



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

CHAP. IV. s, 195 

was suggested to liim by the very oiame itself. The opposite of 
ryv7](no<; would be: ovk oWw? mv (comp. Plat. Polit. p. 293 E), 
so that the man with his name Syzygus would not be e7rcovvijio<; 
(Eur. PJioen. 1500 ; Soph. Aj. 430), Jacobs, ad Del. E'piyr. 
p. 272 f. He bore this his name, however, as ovofia er-^rvfiov 
(Del. Epiyr. v. 42). This view of the word being a proper 
name — to which Wiesinger inclines, which Laurent decidedly 
defends^ in his Neut. Stud. p. 134 ff. and Grimm approves of 
in his Lexicon, and which Hofmann, without reason, rejects ^ 
simply on account of the usus loquendi of <yvi](no<; not being 
proved — was already held by Tive<; in Chrysostom ; comp. 
ISTiceph, Call. ii. p. 212 D ; Oecumenius permits a choice 
between it and the explanation in the sense of the husband of 
one of the two women. It is true that the name is not pre- 
served elsewhere ; but with how many names is that the case ? 
Hence it was unwarranted to assume (Storr) a translation of 
the name KoX\T]yd<; (Joseph. Bell. yu. 3. 4), in connection with 
which, moreover, it would be hard to see why Paul should 
have chosen the word a-v^vyo<; elsewhere not used by him, 
and not avvepyo^, or the like.^ To refer the word to Christ, 
who helps every one to bear his yoke (Wieseler), was a 
mistake. — avWafi^. avra2<;] lay hold along ivith them, that is, 
assist them (Luke v. 7 ; Herod, vi. 125 ; Xen. Ages. 2. 31 ; 
Wunder, ad Soph. Phil. 280 ; Lex. Plat. IIL p. 294), namely, 
for their reconciliation and for restoring their harmonious 
action. — airives] ^itpote quae, giving the motive, comp. i. 2 8 ; 

' In doing so, Lnurent takes the reference of (rCv contained in the name as 
general: " helper of all laboxir in the vineyard of the Lord." ilore thoughtful, 
however, is tlie reference to the apostle himself, whose true yoke-fellow is to 
supx^ly his place with his former female felloiv-strlvers {aurkSx, f^oi) ; comp. 
also subsequently ffuvspyuiv /mv. 

2 According to our view, yvJia-ios is, in fact, taken in no other sense than that 
which is current in all Greek autliors, viz. uXyi^'ivo;, vcrus, as Hofmann himself 
takes it. "Whether we refer it thus to aCXuyi as an aj^pdlaiive word, or as the 
appellative contents of a name — is a matter which leaves the linguistic use 
of ywia; altogether untouched. As is well known, m'o6os has the same general 
linguistic usage in the opposite sense (see e.g. Plat. Rep. p. 536 A ; Jacobs, ad 
Del. Epigr. i. 103. 3). 

^ This holds at the same time against the view of Pelagius : " Gcrmanus dictus 
est nomine, qui erat compar officii. " He is followed by Lyra. 


see on Eom. i. 25, ii. 15, vi. 2, d al. — ev tw eua77.] the domain, 
in ivliich they, etc. Comp. Rom. i. 9 ; 1 Thess. iii. 2. It was 
among women that the gospel had first struck root in Philippi 
(Acts xvi. 13), and it is to be assumed that the two women 
named had rendered special service in the spread and con- 
firmation of Christianity among their sex, and therein had 
shared the conflict of affliction and persecution with Paul 
(1 Thess. ii. 2). On <Tvui]6X7]aav, comp. i. 27. — yttera kuI 
K\i]/x€VTo<; K.T.\.] and in what fellowsliip, so honouraUe to them, 
have they shared my conflict for Christ's sake ? in association 
also with Clement and, etc. The reference of the Kai is 
to fiot ; their joint-striving with Paul had been a fellowship 
in striving also with Clement, etc. ; they had therein stood 
side hy side with these men also. On /cat . . . Kai, the first Ka\ 
meaning also, comp. EUendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 891 ; on its rarer 
position, however, between preposition and noun, see Schaefer, 
Ind. ad Grcgor. Cor. p. 1064 ; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 143 ; 
Kiihner, II. 1, p. 480 f The connection of jxera k. Kk. k.t.X 
with (TvXKafM(3. avTa'l<i (Coccejus, Michaelis, Storr, Piatt, J. B. 
Lightfoot, Hofmann) is opposed by the facts, that Paul has 
committed the service of mediation to an individual, with 
which the general impress now given to this commission is not 
in keeping, and tliat the subsequent &v ra ovofj^ara k.t.\., in 
the absence of any specification of the churches, would neither 
be based on any motive nor intelligible to the readers, and 
would be strangest of all in the event of Paul's having intended, 
as Hofmann thinks, to indicate here the presbyters and deacons 
mentioned in i. 1. The XoittoI a-vvepyoi, as well as generally 
the more special circumstances of which Paul here reminds his 
readers, were — if //era koI k.t.X. be joined with avvrjdXrjadv fxoi, 
beside which it stands — historically known to these readers, 
althouG;h unknown to us. — That Clement was a teacher in 
Pldlvppi (so most modern expositors ; according to Grotius, a 
2)rcshyter in Philippi, but " Romanus aliquis in Macedonia 
negotians "), must be maintained in accordance with the con- 
text, seeing that with him those two PhiliiJinan women laboured 
as sharing the conflict of tlie apostle ; and of a travelling com- 
panion of this name, who had laboured with the apostle in 

CHAP. IV. 3. 197 

Macedonia, there is no trace to be found ; and seeing that the 
XotTTol crvvepyoL also are to be regarded as Fhilijipians, because 
thus only does the laudatory expression wv ra ovo/xara k.tX 
appear in its vivid and direct set purpose of bespeaking for 
the two women the esteem of the church. The more frequent, 
however, in general the name of Clement was, the more 
arbitrary is the old view, although not yet known to Irenaeus 
(iii. 3. 3), that Clement of Rome is the person meant/ So 
most Catholic expositors (not Dollinger), following Origen, 
ad Joh. i. 29 ; Eusebius, H. E. iii. 15 ; Epiphanius, Hacr. 
xxvii. 6 ; Jerome, Pelagius, and others ; so also Francke, in 
the Zcitschr. f. Luth. Thcol. 1841, iii. p. 73 ff., and van Hengei, 
who conjectures Euodia and Syntyche to have been Eoman 
women who had assisted the apostle in Borne, and had travelled 
with Epaphroditus to Philippi. See generally, besides Liine- 
mann and Bruckner, Lipsius, cle Clem. Bom. cp. p. 167 ff. ; 
J. B. Lightfoot, p. 166 ff. ; and Hilgenfeld, A2Josf. Vdier, p. 
92 ff. — wv ra ouo/x. k.t.X.] refers merely to rwv \onroov k.tX., 
whom Paul does not adduce % iictme, but instead of this 
affirms of their names something so great and honourable. 
God has recorded their names in His book, in which are 
written down the future partakers of the everlasting ]\Iessianic 
life ; so surely cmd irrevocaUy is this life assigned to them: 
What Paul thus expresses by this solenm figure, he hicio 
from their whole Christian character and action, in which he 
recognised by experience " qicasi clcetionis ^ aliseonditac sigilla " 

• Nevertheless, upon this hypothesis Baur builds up a whole fabric of com- 
binations, which are intended to transfer the date of our epistle to the post- 
apostolic age, when the Flavins Clemens known in Roman history, who was a 
patrueUs of Domitian (Suet. Dom. 15), and a Christian (Lami, de erud. apost. 
p. 104 ; Baur, II. p. 68), had already become the well-known Clement of Koman 
tradition. Conip. Volkmar in the Theolog. Jahrb. 1S56, p. 309, according to 
whom tlie Eoman Clement is to be here already assumed as a martyr. Indeed, 
according to Schwegler and Hitzig, z. Krit. j^iauHn. Br. p. 13, a first attempt 
is made here to connect this Clement also with Peter (for no other in their view 
is the (rul^uye;). Thus, no doubt, the way is readily prepared for bringing down 
our epistle to the days of Trajan. Kound the Avclcome name of Clement all 
possible fictions crystallize. 

^ The detailed discussion of the question as to the rjround of the divine electio 
here portrayed (tlie Keformed theologians, "the decrctum ahsolutnm ;" the 
Lutherans, " t\\Q pracvisa fides ;'^ the Catholics, ^' i\\Q praevisa opera") is owioi 


(Calvin). See, moreover, on Luke x. 20, and Wetstein on our 
passage ; it is different in Heb. xii. 23 (see Liinemann in loc). 
eVrt must be supplied, not the optative, as Bengel thinks ; 
and it must remain an open question, whether the persons 
referred to (among whom Ewald reckons Clement) are to be 
regarded as already dead (Bengel, Ewald), which is not to be 
inferred from wv ra ovo/jcara k.t.X. ; see Luke x. 20 ; Hernias, 
Pastor i. 1. 3. It is at all events certain that this predicate, 
which Paul nowhere else uses, is an especially Jwnourahlc one, 
and does not simply convey what holds true of all Christians 
(so Hofmann in connection with his erroneous reference of 
/iera koI k.t.X.). At Luke x. 20, and Rev. xiii. 8 also, it is a 
mark of distinction. 

Ver. 4 f. Without any particle of transition, we have once 
more general concluding admonitions, which begin by taking 
up again the encouraging address broken off in iii. 1, and now 
strengthened by Trdvrore — the key-note of the epistle. They 
extend as far as ver. 9 ; after which Paul again speaks of the 
assistance which he had received. — 'rravroTe] not to be con- 
nected with TToXiv epoi (Hofmann), which would make the 
ttoXlv very superfluous, is an essential element of the Chris- 
tian ^(aipeLv; comp. 1 Thess. v. 16 ; 2 Cor. vi. 10. Just at 
the close of his epistle the apostle brings it in significantly, 
Paul desires joyfulness at all times on the part of the believer, 
to whom even tribulation is grace (i. 7, 29) and glory (Rom. 
V. 3), and in whom the pain of sin is overcome by tlie cer- 
tainty of atonement (Rom. viii. 1) ; to wdiom everytliing must 
serve for good (Rom. viii. 28 ; 1 Cor. iii. 21 f), and nothing 
can separate him from the love of God (Rom. viii. 38 f.). — 
TToKiv epw] once more I ivill say. Observe the future, which 
exliibits the consideration given to the matter by the writer; 
consequently not equivalent to irakiv Xeyoj, 2 Cor. xi. 16 ; 
Gal. i. 9. KaXw? iBiTrXao-Laaev, iireiBr] twv Trpay/xdrcov rj (f)vai<i 
Xvinqv eriKTe, Bia rov hLifKaaiacrixov BeUvvcnv, on irdvT(0<; 
Bel -yaipeiv, Chrysostom. — To iirieiKh v/ji.(bv] your mildness 

place here. Flacius, Clav. s.v. "liber," justly observes that it is not /atoZ/s 
quaedam electio which is pointed to, but ob vtram justitiam, qualis Christi est, 
credentes eo referri et hiscribi. 

CHAP. IV. 4, 5. 199 

[LindigJccit, Luther], that is, your gentle character, as opposed 
to undue sternness (Polyb. v. 10. 1 : rj eTneUeca koI <f>i\av- 
Optorria, Lucian, Phal. 'pr. 2 : eVtei/c^? k. fjbeTpi.o<;, Herodian, 
ii. 14. 5, ix. 12; 1 Tim. iii. 3; Tit. iii. 2; Jas. iii. 17; 
1 Pet. ii. 18 ; Ps. Ixxxv. 5 : Add. to Esth. vi. 8 ; 2 Mace. ix. 
27). Comp. on 2 Cor. x. 1. The opposite: aKpL/SoSUato'i, 
Arist. Mil. Nic. v. 10. 8, cr«;X?7po9. As to the neuter of the 
adjective taken as a substantive, see on iii. 8 ; comp. Soph. 
0. C. 112 7. It might also mean : your becoming behaviour ; 
see e.g. the passages from Plato in Ast, Zex. I. p. 775. But 
how indefinite would be such a requirement as this ! The 
general duty of the Christian walk (which Matthies finds in 
the words) is not set forth till ver. 8. And in the N. T. 
iirceiK. always occurs in the above-named special sense. — 
yvcoa6i]T(o iracnv dv6p.] let it he knoion hy all men, through the 
acquaintance of experience with your conduct. Comp. Matt. 
V. 16. The universality of the expression (which, moreover, is 
to be taken ;popidarly : " let no man come to know you in a 
harsh, rigorous aspect") prohibits our referring it to their rela- 
tion to the enemies of the cross of Christ, against whom they 
should not be hatefully disposed (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact), or to the enemies of Christianity (Pelagius, 
Theodoret, Erasmus, and others), or to the Judaists (Ehein- 
wald), although none of these are excluded, and the motive for 
the exhortation is in part to be found in the outward circum- 
stances full of tribulation, face to face with an inclination 
to moral pride. — The succession of exhortations without any 
outward Hnk may be psychologically explained by the fact, that 
the disposition of Christian joy fulness must elevate men quite 
as much above strict insisting upon rights and claims as above 
solicitude (ver. 6). Neither with the former nor with the latter 
could the Christian fundamental disposition of the ^aipeiv kv 
Kvpiw subsist, in which the heart enlarges itself to yielding 
love and casts all care upon God. — 6 Kvpio<; e77i;9j points to 
the nearness of Christ's Parousia, 1 Cor. xvi. 22. Comp. on 
€77^9, Matt. xxiv. 32 f. ; Luke xxi. 31 ; Eev. i. 3, xxii. 10 ; 
Eom. xiii. 11. The reference to God, by which Paul would 
bring home to their hearts, as Calvin expresses it, " divinae 


jprovidentiae fiduciam" (comp. Ps. xxxiv. 18, cxix. 151, cxlv. 
1 8 ; so also Pelagius, Luther, Calovius, Zancliius, Wolf, Ehein- 
wald, Matthies, Eilliet, Cornelius Miiller, and others), is not 
suggested in v v. 1, 2, 4 by the context, which, on the con- 
trary, does not refer to God until ver. 6. Usually and rightly, 
following Chrysostom and Erasmus, the words have been 
attached to lohat precedes} If the Lord is at hand, who is 
coming as the Vindcx of every injustice endured and as the 
arcoTrjp of the faithful, how should they not, in this prospect 
of approaching victory and blessedness (iii. 20), willingly and 
cheerfully renounce everything opposed to Christian eTrieUeLa ! 
The words therefore convey an cneouragcincnt to the latter. 
What follows has its complete reference, and that to God, 
pointed out by the antithesis aXV kv iravrl k.t.\. 

Ver. 6. The fiepi/xvuTe is not to be limited in an arbitrary 
way (as by Grotius, Flatt, Weiss, and others, to anxious care) ; 
about nothing (neither want, nor persecution, nor a threaten- 
ing future, etc.) are they at all to give themselves concern, but 
on the contrary, etc. ; firjSev, which is emphatically prefixed, is 
the accusative of the object (1 Cor. vii. 32 ff., xii. 25 ; Phil, ii, 
20). Comp. Xen. Cyrop. viii. 7. 12 : ro iroXKa fiepi/jLvdv kuI 
TO fjirj hiivaaOai r^avy^iav e-^eiv. Caring is here, as in Matt. 
vi., the contrast to full confidence in God. Comp. 1 Pet. v. 7. 
" Curare et orare plus inter se pugnant quam aqua et ignis," 
Bengel. — ev 7ravrC\ opposed to the /xTjSev ; hence : in every 
case or affair (comp. Eph. v. 24; 2 Cor. iv. 8; 1 Thess. v. 
18; Plat. Euthyd. p. 301 A), not: at all times (Syriac, 
Grotius, Bos, Flatt, Eheinwald). — rfj Trpoaev^y k. rfj Serja-ec] 
by prayer and siqyplication. On the distinction between the two 
(the former being general, the latter supijlicating prayer), see ou 
Eph. vi. 18. The article indicates the prayer, uVa'c/j. ye make; 

' They do not belong, by way of introduction, to what foUoios, as Hofmann 
thinks, who understands "the helpful nearness of the Lord" (Matt, xxviii. 20 ; 
Jas. iv. 8) in the present, and consequently the assurance of being heard in the 
individual case. Comp., rather, on the lyyv; habitually used of the future ,/f«aZ 
combnj, in addition to the above passages, Matt. iii. 2, iv. 17, x. 7 ; Mark i. 15 ; 
Luke xxi. 8, 28 ; Rom. xiii. 12 ; Heb. x. 25 ; Jas. v. 8 ; 1 Pet. iv. 7 ; and the 
ijixoi^ai rax,6 of the Apocalypsc. The simply correct rendering is given after 
Chrysostom by Erasaius {"instat enim adventus Christi"), Grotius, and others. 

CHAP. IV. 7. 201 

and the repetition of the article, otherwise not required, puts 
forward the two elements the more emphatically (Kiihner, II. 1, 
p. 529). — [xera eup^a/?.] belongs to jvcopi^. k.t.X., which, exclud- 
ing all solicitude in the prayer, should never take place (comp. 

1 Thess. V. 18 ; Col. iii. 17) without thanksrjiving for the 
proofs of divine love already received and continually being 
experienced, of which the Christian is conscious under all cir- 
cumstances (Eom. viii. 28). In the thanksgiving of the sup- 
pliant there is expressed entire surrender to God's will, the very 
opposite of solicitude. — ra alnj/jbara vfi.] what ye desire (Plat, 
Bcp. viii. p. 566 B; Dionys. Hal, Antt. vi, 74; Luke xxiii, 
24), that is, in accordance with the context: jonv petitions 
(1 John V. 15 ; Dan. vi. 7, 13 ; Ps. xix. 6, xxxvi, 4, et al. ; 
Schleusner, Thes. I. p. 100). — <yvwpii,i<j6(o tt/jo? t. &e6v] miist 
he made hnoion towards God ; iTpo<i, versus ; it is the coram 
of the direction, Comp. Bernhardy, p. 265; Schoem. ad Is. 
iii. 25, The expression is more g^xq^hic than the mere dative 
would be ; and the conception itself (yvwpi^.) is popularly 
anthropopathic ; Matt, vi, 8, Bengel, moreover, aptly remarks 
on the subject-matter: "qui desideria sua praepostero pudore 
ac diffidenti modestia . , . velant, suffocant ac retinent, curis 
anguntur ; qui filiali et liberali fiducia erga Deum expromunt, 
expediuntur. Confessionibus ejusmodi scatent Psalmi." 

Ver. 7. The blessed result, which the compliance with 
ver, 6 will have for the inner man. How independent is this 
blessing of the concrete granting or non-o-rantino; of what is 
prayed for ! — tj elpijvT) r. ©eov] the peace of said produced by 
God (through the Holy Spirit ; comp. %a/ja eV irvev^ari a<yi(p, 
Eom. xiv. 17), the repose and satisfaction of the mind in God's 
counsel and love, whereby all inward discord, doubt, and 
variance are excluded, such as it is expressed e.g. in Eom. 
viii. 18, 28, So in substance most expositors, including 
Eheinwald, Flatt, Baum.garten-Crusius, Hoelemann, Eilliet, de 
Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and Winer, This 
view — and not (in opposition to Theodoret and Pelagius) that 
explanation of peace in the sense of harmony luith the hrcthrcn 
(Eom. XV. 33, xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii, 11; 1 Thess. v. 23; 

2 Thess. iii. 1 6), which corresponds to the ordinary use of the 


correlative o ©eo? Trj<; elp')]vrj<i in ver. 9 — is here required on 
the part of the context, both by the contrast of fiept/ivdre 
in ver. 6^ and by the predicate rj virepixovaa Travra vovv. 
The latter, if applicable to the 'peace of harmony, would express 
too much and too general an idea ; it is, on the other hand, 
admirably adapted to the holy peace of the soul which God 
produces, as contrasted with the (xept^va, to which the feeble 
vov<i by itself is liable ; as, indeed, in the classical authors 
also (Plat. RciJ. p. 329 C, p. 372 D), and elsewhere (Wisd. 
iii. 3), elpijvT) denotes the tranquillitas and securitas, the mental 
'yoKrjvq (Plat. Lcgg. vii. p. 791 A) and '^crvyla — a rest, which 
here is invested by tov Oeov with the consecration of divine 
life. Comp. elp-qvi) rov Xpiarov, Col. iii. 1 5 ; John xiv. 3 3 ; 
and, on the other hand, the false elprjvr] k. aa-(j)aXeia, 1 Thess. 
V. 3. It is therefore not to be understood, according to Eom. 
V. 1, as "pax, qua reconciliati estis Deo" (Erasmus, Faraphr. ; 
so Chrysostom, 17 KaTaWayjj, 7} ayairy] r. 0eov ; and Theophy- 
lact, Oecumenius, Beza, Estius, Wetstein, and others, including 
Storr, Matthies, and van Hengel), which would be too general 
and foreign to the context. The peace of reconciliation is 
the presupposition of the divinely produced moral feeling 
which is here meant ; the former is elprjvr] 7rpo<; rov Qeov, the 
latter elp-qvrj rod Oeov. — r) virepi'^ovaa irdvra vovv] ivhich sur- 
passes every reason, namely, in regard to its salutary power and 
efficacy ; that is, ivJiich is able more than any reason to elevate 
above all solicitude, to comfort and to strengthen. Because 
the reason in its moral thinking, willing, and feeling is of itself 
too weak to confront the power of the adp^ (Rom. vii. 23, 25 ; 
Gal. V. 17), no reason is in a position to give this clear holy 
elevation and strength against the world and its afflictions. 
Tliis can be effected by nothing but the agency of the divine 
peace, which is given by means of the Spirit in the believing 
heart, when by its prayer and supplication with thanksgiving 
it has elevated itself to God and has confided to Him all its 
concerns, 1 Pet. v. 7. Then, in virtue of this blessed peace, 
the heart experiences what it could not have experienced by 
means of its own thinking, feeling, and willing. According 
to de Wette, the doulting and heart-disquieting vov^; is meant, 

CHAP. IV. 7. 203 

which is surpassed by the peace of God, because the latter is 
based upon faith and feeling. In opposition to this, however, 
stands the trdma, according to which not merely all douht- 
ing reason, but every reason is meant. No one, not even 
the believer and regenerate, has through his reason and its 
action what he has through the peace of God. Others have 
explained it in the sense of the incominclicnsihlciicss of the 
peace of God, " the greatness of which the understanding 
cannot even grasp" (Wiesinger). So Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Cah^in, Grotius, also Hoele- 
mann and "Weiss. Comp. Eph. iii. 20. But the context, 
both in the foregoing firjBev fMepi/xvare and in the (jjpnvp'^aet 
k.tX. which follows, points only to the blessed influence, in 
respect of which the peace of God surpasses every kind of 
reason whatever, and consequently is more efficacious than it. 
It is a vTrepe^eiv ttj SwafMei; Paul had no occasion to bring 
into prominence the incomprehensi'bleness of the elp-^vr) @eov. 
— On virepe-^etv with the accusative (usually with the genitive, 
ii. 3), see Valckenaer, cid Fur. Hippol. 1365; Kiihner, II. 1, 
p. 337. — <f)povpi](Tet AT.T.A-.] not custodiat (Vulgate, Chrysos- 
tom, Theodoret, Theophylact : aa^aXiaaiTo, Luther, Calovius, 
Cornelius a Lapide, and others, including Storr, Heinrichs, 
Elatt), but custodiet (Castalio, Beza, Calvin), whereby 2^'i^otcction 
against all injurious influences (comp. 1 Pet. i. 5) is i^t'omised. 
Comp. Plat. Rep. p. .5 6 B : oi . . . apiarot ^povpot re KaX 
<f)vXaK€'i iv dv8p(ov 6eo<pi\(t)v elcrl Siavoiai<;. Eur. Suppl. 902: 
i(f)povp6c (iroWov';) fir^Sev i^a/xaprdveLu. " Animctt eos hac 
iiducia," Erasmus, Annot. This protecting vigilance is more 
precisely defined by ev X. 'I., which expresses its specific cha- 
racter, so far as this peace of God is in Christ as the element of 
its nature and life, and therefore its influence, protecting and 
keeping men's hearts, is not otherwise realized and carried out 
than in this its holy sphere of life, which is Christ. The 
^povpd which the peace of God exercises implies in Christ, 
as it were, the (f)povpap'^ia (Xen. Ifein. iv. 4. 17). Comp. 
Col. iii. 15, where the elp-qvr) tov Xpicrrov /Spa^evet, in men's 
hearts. Others consider iv X. 'I. as that which takes place on 
the part of the readers, wherein the peace of God would keep 


them, namely " in unity ivith Christ, in His divinely-blessed, 
holy life," de Wette ; or ware fj,ev€cv koX fjurj eKireaelv avTov, 
Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Zanchius, 
and others, including Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Eheinwald, van 
Hengel, Matthies, Eilliet, Wiesinger, Weiss, But the words 
do not affirm ivherein watchful activity is to kcc}) or 2J'>'(^scrve 
the readers (Paul does not write n^prjo-et ; comp. John xvii. 11), 
but wherein it will take place ; therefore the inaccurate render- 
ing per Christum (Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, and others) is so 
far more correct. The artificial suggestion of Hoelemann 
(" Christo fere cinguli instar ra? KapSia<; vficov k.t.\. circum- 
cludente," etc.) is all the less warranted, the more familiar 
the idea iv Xpi(rra> was to the apostle as representing the 
element in which the life and action, as Christian, move.^ — The 
pernicious influences themselves, the withholding and warding off 
of which are meant by (f)povp7]aec k.t.\., are not to be arbi- 
trarily limited, e.g. to opponents (Heinrichs), or to Satan (Beza, 
Grotius, and others), or sm (Theophylact), ox pravas cogitationes 
(Calvin), or " omncs insulins ct curas" (Bengel), and the like ; 
but to be left quite general, comprehending all such special 
aspects. Erasmus well says {Paraphr.) : " adversus omnia, 
quae hie possunt incidere formidanda." — ra? Kaph. v/ji. k. to, 
vo7)fi. vfiav] emphatically kept apart. It is enough to add 
Bengel's note : " cor sedes cogitationum." Comp. Boos, Fun- 
dam. p>sijchol. ex sacr. script. III. § 6 : " causa cogitationiim 
interna eaque libera." The heart is the organ of self-conscious- 
ness, and therefore the moral seat of the activity of tb ought 
and will. As to the vorjfiara (2 Cor. iii. 14) as the internal 
products of the theoretical and practical reason, and therefore 
including purposes and plans (Plat. Folit. p. 260 D ; 
2 Cor. ii. 11), comp. Beck, hihl. Scelcnl. p. 59, and Delitzsch, 
Fsychol. p. 179. The distinction is an arbitrary one, which 
applies T. Kaph. to the emotions and will, and t. voi^im. to the 
intelligence (Beza, Calvin). 

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

CHAP. IV. 8, 9, 205 

on to tlie conclusion. See on iii. 1. This rb Xolttov is 
not, however, resumptive (Matthies, Ewald, following the 
old expositors), or concluding the exhortation begun in 
iii. 1 (Hofmann), for in tliat passage it introduced quite a 
different summons; but, without any reference to iii. 1, it 
conveys the transition of thought : " what over and above all 
the foregoing I have to urge upon you in general still is : 
everything tlmt" etc. According to de Wette, it is intended 
to bring out what remained for man to do, in addition to that 
which God docs, ver. 7. But in that case there must have 
been expressed, at least by v/xel? before aSeX^oi or in some 
other way, an antithetic statement of that which had to be 
done on the part of man. — oaa] nothing being excepted, 
expressed asyndetically six times with the emphasis of an 
earnest eTrifiovt']. Comp. ii. 1, iii. 2 ; Buttmanu, Hait. Gr. 
p. 341 [E. T. 398]. — dXriOrj] The thoroughly ethical contents 
of the whole summons requires us to understand, not theoreticcd 
truth (van Hengel), but that which is morally triic ; that is, 
that which is in harmony vnth the objective standard of morality 
contained in the gospel. Chrysostom : -7 aperrj' yjrevBo^ Se tj kukm. 
Oecumenius : dXTjdrj Bi (f)7]ac rd ivdpera. Comp. also Theophy- 
lact. See 1 John i. 6 ; John iii. 21 ; Eph. v. 9 ; 1 Cor. v. 8. 
To limit it to truth in speaking (Theodoret, Bengel) is in itself 
arbitrary, and not in keeping with the general character of the 
predicates which follow, in accordance with which we must 
not even understand specially unfeigned sincerity (Erasmus, 
Grotius, Estius, and others ; comp. Eph. iv. 21; Plat. Fhil. p. 
59 C : TO dX't]dh Koi o Bi] Xeyo/Mev elXiKpivh), though this 
essentially belongs to the morally true. — o-e/xi/a] toorthy of 
honour, for it is in accordance with God. Comp. 1 Tim. ii. 2 : 
evcre^ela koL aep.voTT}TC. Plat. Sojph. p. 249 A: ae/xvov Kal dyiov 
vovv. Xen. Oec. vi. 14: to ae/xvov ovofxa to kuXov re Kd^jadov. 
Dem. 385. 11 ; Herodian, i. 2. 6 ; Ael. V. H. ii. 13, viii. 36 ; 
Polyb. ix. 36. 6, xv. 22. 1, xxii. 6. 10. — BUaia'] vpright, as 
it ought to be ; not to be limited to the relations " erga alios" 
(Bengel, Heumann, and others), so that justice in the narrower 
sense would be meant (so Calvin : " ne quem laedamus, ne 
quem fraudemus ;" Estius, Grotius, Calovius, and others). 


Comp., on the contrary, Theogn. 147 : iv BiKacoavvj) avW^/SBrjv 
Traa aperi] ea-Tc. — d'yvd] pure, unstained, not : chaste in the 
narrower sense of the word (2 Cor. xi. 2; Dem. 1371. 22 ; 
Pint. Mor. 13. 268 E, 438 C, et al), as Grotius, Calovius, Estius, 
Heumann, and others would explain it. Calvin well says : 
" castimoniam denotat in omnibus vitae partibus." Comp. 
2 Cor. vi. 6, vii. 11 ; 1 Tim. v. 22 ; Jas. iii. 17 ; 1 Pet. iii. 2 ; 
1 John iii. 3 ; often so used in Greek authors. Comp. Menand, 
in Clem. Strom, vii. p. 844: 7ra9 dyv6<i iariv 6 firjBev iavro) 
KUKov avviSoov. — irpoa(^Lkrf\ dear, that ivhieh is loved.. This is 
just once more Christian morality, which, in its whole nature 
as the ethical Ka\6v, is ivorthy of love ;^ Plat. Rep. p. 444 E; 
Soph. El. 972: ^Cket yap irpo^ rd '^prjard Tra? opdv. " Nihil 
est amahilius virtute, nihil quod magis alliciat ad diligendum, 
Cic. Zael. 28. Comp. ad Famil. ix. 14; Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 33. 
The opposite is the ala')(^p6v, which deserves hate (Piom. 
vii. 15). Chrysostom suggests the supplying Toc<i iriaToU k. 
rcu ©ew; Theodoret only tm ©eS. Others, as Calovius, 
Estius, Heinrichs, and many : " amabilia hominihus!' But 
there is no necessity for any such supplement. The word 
does not occur elsewhere in the K T., although frequently 
in classical authors, and at Ecclus. iv. 8, xx. 13. Others 
understand kindliness, benevolence, friendliness, and the like. 
So Grotius ; comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. : " quaecumque ad 
alendam concordiam accommoda." Linguistically faultless 
(Ecclus. I.e.; Herod, i. 125; Thuc. vii. 86; Polyb. x. 5. 6), 
but not in keeping with tlie context, which does not adduce 
any special virtues. — evcjuj/xa'] not occurring elsewhere either 
in the N. T., or in the LXX., or Apocrypha; it does not 
mean: "quaecumque honam famam conciliant" (Erasmus; 
comp. Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Heinrichs, 
and others, also Eheinwald) ; but : that which sounds well 
(Luther), which has an ausjncious (faustum) sound, i.e. that 
which, when it is named, sounds significant of happiness, as, 
for instance, Irave, honest, honourable, etc. The opposite 
would be : Bvaj>r)fjt,a. Comp. Soph. AJ. 362 ; Eur. i}A :Z'. 687 : 

> Luther well renders it: " ZiciZicA, " and the Gothic : 'Uiuhaleikj" the Vul- 
gate: " amabiria.'" „ 

CHAP. IV. 8, 9. 207 

€v<f)r]jjLa (jiciovei. Plat. Leg. vii. p. 801 A: to t?)9 wSfJ? 76^09 
ezKJirjfjLov r]^lv. Aesch. Supyl. 694, Agam. 11G8 ; Polyb. 
xxxi. 14. 4; Lucian, Prom. 3. Storr, who is folloAvecl by 
Flatt, renders it : " scrmoncs, qui hene aliis precantur." So 
used in later Greek authors (also Symmachus, Ps. Ixii. 6) ; 
but this meaning is here too special. — el rt? k.t.X.'] com- 
prehending all the points mentioned : if there le any virtue, 
and if there he any p)^cdse ; not if there he yet another, etc. 
(de Wette). — apeTtj used by Paul here only, and in the rest of 
the K T. only in 1 Pet. ii. 9, 2 Pet. i. 3, 5,^ in the ethical 
sense: moral aj^tiiude in disposition and action (the opposite 
to it, icaKia: Plat. Rep. 444 D, 445 C, 1, p. 348 C). Comp. 
from the Apocrypha, Wisd. iv. 1, v. 13, and frequent instances 
of its use in the books of Mace. — cTraii/o?] not : res laudaUlis 
(Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Flatt, Matthies, van Hengel, and 
many others ; comp. Weiss), but praise (Erasmus : " laus 
virtutis comes"), which the reader could not understand in 
the apostle's sense otherwise than of a laudatory judgment 
actually corresponding to the moral value of the object. Thus, 
for instance, Paul's commendation of love in 1 Cor. xiii. is an 
eTraivo<; ; or when Christ pronounces a blessing on the humble, 
the peacemakers, the merciful, etc., or the like. " Vera laus 
uni Adrtuti debetur," Cic. de orat. ii. 84. 342 ; virtue is Ka6' 
avTrjv eTratveri], Plat. Def p. 411 C. Mistaken, therefore, 
were such additions as i'm(Tri]fjL7i<i (D"' E'" F G) or disciplinae 
(Vulg., It., Ambrosiaster, Pelagius). — ravra Xoyl^eade] consider 
these things, take them to heart, in order (see ver. 9) to deter- 
mine your conduct accordingly. " Meditatio praecedit, delude 
sequitur opus," Calvin. On Xoyi^eadat, comp. Ps. lii. 2 ; Jer. 

' We are not entitled to assume (with Beza) as tlie reason wliy Paul does not 
use this word elsewhere, that it is " verbum nimium humile, si cum donis 
Spiritus Sancti comparetur." The very passage before us shows the contrary, as 
it means no other than Christian morality. Certainly in Paul's case, as with 
the N. T. authors generally and even Christ Himself, the specific designations 
of the idea of virtue, which correspond more closely to the sphere of theocratic 
0. T. ideas, such as 'imaioffCvn, I'JTa.x.or,, ayt'orm, Uyioxrutn, offioTti;, x.r.x., too neces- 
sarily suggested themselves to his mind to allow him to use the general term for 
morality, apir^, as familiar, however worthily and nobly the Platonic doctrine, 
in particular, had grasped the idea of it {tls iVay St/yarov uv^fu^u ofi(itiiZica.t ©sf, 
Plat. Rep. p. 613 A, 500 C, et al). 


xxvi. 3 ; ISTah. i. 9 ; Ps. xxxv. 4, xxxvi. 4 ; 3 Mace. iv. 4 ; 
Sopli. 0. B. 4:61; Herod, viii. 53 ; Dem. 63, 12 ; Sturz, Lex. 
Xcn. III. p. 42 ; the opposite : Ovrjra Xoyl^eaOai, Antliol. Pal. 
xi. 56. 3. — Ver. 9. The Christian morality, which Paul in 
ver. 8 has commended to his readers by a series of predicates, 
he now again nrges npon them in special reference to their 
relation to himself, their teacher and example, as that which 
they had also learned, etc. The first Kai is therefore also, pre- 
fixing to the subsequent ravra irpdara-ere an element corre- 
sponding to this requirement, and imposing an oUiyation to its 
fulfilment. " Whatsoever also has been tlie object and purport 
of your instruction, etc., that do." To take the four times 
repeated kuC as a double as ^vell . . . as also (Hofmann and 
others), would yield an inappropriate formal scheme of separa- 
tion. Kal in the last three cases is the simple and, but so 
that the whole is to be looked upon as hijMrtitc : " Duo priora 
verba ad dodrinam pertinent, reliqua duo ad cxempluni" 
(Estius). — a] not oaa again ; for no further categories of 
morality are to be given, but what they are bound to do 
generally is to be described under the point of view of what 
is known to the readers, as that ivhich they also have learned, etc. 
— TrapeXa/Sere] have accepted. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1 ; John 
i. 11; Polyb. xxxiii. 16. 9. Tlie interpretation: "have 
received'' (Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, and most exposi- 
tors, including Piheinwald, Eillict, Hoelemann, de Wette, 
"Weiss, Hofmann), which makes it denote the instruction com- 
municated (1 Thess. ii. 13, iv. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 6: 1 Cor. 
xi. 23 ; Gal. i. 9, 12 ; Col. ii. 6 ; comp. Plat. Thcact. p. 198 B : 
TrapaXaix^dvovra Be fiavOdveiv), would yield a twofold designa- 
tion for the one element,^ and on the other hand would omit 
the point of the asscnsus, which is so important as a motive ; 
moreover, from a logical point of view, we should necessarily 
expect to find the position of the two words reversed (comp. 

' Real disl'tnclions have, indeed, been luado, Lut how purely arbitrary they 
ore ! Thus Grotius (comp. Iliimmond) luahcs Ifza^. apply to the jjvimam hi' 
stitutlonem, and w.piXaP>. to the cxucliorcm dodrinam. Eilliet explains it dif- 
ferently, making the former denote : ^^ son v.iseignemcnt direct," and the latter : 
'* les instructions, qu'il Icur a transmises ious unefonne quclconque." 

CHAP. IV. 8, 9. 209 

Gal. i. 12). — i)Kova-aTe] does not refer to the yvo^e.T: 2^rcacliing 
and teaching of the apostle (Erasmus, Calvin, Eisner, Ehein- 
wald, Matthies), which is already fully embraced in the two 
previous j)oints ; nor does it denote : " audistis de mc alscnte" 
(Estius and others, including Hoelemann, Eilliet, Hofmann), 
for all the other points refer to the time of the apostle's jpre- 
sence, and consequently not merely the " de me," but also the 
" dbscnte" would be purely imported. No, by the words 
rjKovaaTe and et'Sere, to hoth of which iv i/Moi belongs, he re- 
presents to his readers his oivn excnivplc of Christian morality, 
which he had given them when he was present, in its tvjo 
portions, in so far as they had perceived it in him {ev ifioi, 
comp. i. 30) partly by hearing, in his whole oral behaviour 
and intercourse with them, partly by seeing, in his manner of 
action among them ; or, in other words, his example both in 
VJord and deed. — ravTa Trpdaaere] these things do, is not 
related to raOra Xoyl^ecrOe, ver. 8, as excluding it, in such 
a way that for what is said in ver. 8 the Xoyl^eaOac merely 
would be required, and for what is indicated in ver. 9 
the Trpdaaetv ; on the contrary, the two operations, which 
in substance belong jointly to the contents of both verses, 
are formalUj separated in accordance with the mode of expres- 
sion of the parallelism. Comp. on ii. 8 and Eora. x. 10. — 
Kal 6 @e6<i /C.T.X.] in substance the same promise as was 
given in ver. 7. God, %oho ivorhs fcace (that holy peace of soul, 
ver. 7), xvill he loith you, whereby is meant the help given 
through the Holy Spirit ; and His special agency, which Paul 
here has in view, is unmistakeably indicated by the very 
predicate t^9 elprjV7]<^. 

Eemark. — It is to be noticed that the predicates in ver. 8, 
a'Kri&n . . . £i/p'/i,aa, do not denote different individual virtues, but 
that each represents the Christian moral character generally, so 
that in reality the same thing is described, but according to the 
various aspects ivhich commended it. Comp. Diog. Laert. ii. 106 : 
h TO dya§ov voXXoTg dvofxaai y.aXov/j.ivo'j. Cic. de fin. iii. 4. 14: " uncc 
virtus unum^ istud, quod honestum appellas, rectum, laudahile, de- 
corum!' That it is Christian morality which Paul has in view, 
is clearly evident from ver. 9 and from the whole preceding 



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

Ver. 10. Carrying on his discourse with Be, Paul now in 
conclusion adds, down to ver. 20, some courteous expressions, as 
dignified as they are delicate, concerning the aid ivJiich he had 
received. Hitherto, indeed, he had only mentioned this work 
of love briefly and casually (ii. 25, 30). In the aid itself 
Baur discovers a contradiction of 1 Cor. ix. 15, and conjectures 
that the author of the epistle had 2 Cor. xi. 9 in view, and 
had inferred too much from that passage. But, in fact, Baur 
himself has inferred too much, and incorrectly, from 1 Cor. ix. 
15; for in this passage Paul speaks of ^payment for his preach- 
ing, not of loving gifts from persons at a distance, which in 
point of fact put him in the position to preach gratuitously in 
Achaia, 2 Cor. xi. 8 ff. There is, besides, in our passage no 
mention of regular sendings of money. — ev Kvplfp] as in iii. 1, 
iv. 4. It was, indeed, not a joy felt apart from Christ ; ov 
Koa/xiKco'? e^dprjv, ^rjolv, ovSe ^iwtikco'?, Chrysostom. — fjieyd- 
X&)9] mightily. Comp. LXX., 1 Chron. xxix. 9 ; Neh. xii. 42 ; 
Polyb. iii. 87. 5 ; Polyc. Phil. 1. The position at the end is 
emphatic. See on Matt. ii. 10 ; and Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
Phaedr. p. 256 E, Menex. p. 235 A. — on i^hr] Trore k-tX."] is 
to be rendered : " that ye have at length once again come into the 
flourishing condition of taking tliought for my "benefit, in hclialf 
of which ye also took thought, hut had no favourable opportunity." 
— rjhr] irore] taken in itself may mean : already once ; or, as 
in Eom. i. 10 : tandem aliquando. The latter is the meaning 
here, as appears from €<^' w k.t.X. Chrysostom justly observes 
(comp. Oecumenius and Theophylact) that it denotes 'xpovov 
jxaKpov, when namely that OaXkeiv had not been present, which 
has now again (comp. ver. 15 f.) set in. Comp. Baeumlein, 
Partik. p. 140. This view of r/S?; irore is the less to be 
evaded, seeing that the reproach which some have discovered in 

CHAP. IV. 10. 211 

the passage {iirirliJiTja-i^, Chrysostom) is not by any means con- 
veyed in it, as indeed from the delicate feeling of the apostle 
we might expect that it would not, and as is apparent from 
the correct explanation of the sequel. — aveOaXeTc] ye have 
again become green {refloruistis, Vulgate), like a tree or an 
orchard which had been withered, and has again budded and 
put forth new shoots (daWovs:)} It cannot be the revival of 
their care-talcing love which is meant, so that the readers would 
have previously been airoixapavOevre^ iv rfj iXeijfxoavur) (Oecu- 
menius, also Chrysostom, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, 
Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, Flatt, 
Wiesinger, Ewald, and most expositors, who rightly take 
aveddX. as intransitive, as well as all who take it transitively ; 
see below) ; for how indelicate would be such an utterance, 
which one could not, with Weiss, acquit from implying an 
assumption that a different disposition previously existed ; and 
how at variance with the e(/>' w ecppovecre k.t.X. which imme- 
diately follows, and by which the continuous care previously 
exercised is attested ! No, it is the fiourishing anew of their 
prosperity (comp. Eheinwald, Matthies, van Hengel, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Schenkel, Hofmann, and others), the opposite 
of which is afterwards expressed by rjicacpelade, that is denoted, 
as prosperous circumstances are so often represented under 
the figure of becoming green and blooming. Comp. Ps. xxviii. 
V : avidaXev r] crdp^ fiov, Wisd. iv. 3 f. ; Hes. Op. 231: 
ridrfXe 7r6\i<;, Find. Isth. iii. 9 : oX./3o9 . . . daXkwv, Pyth. 
vii. 22: 6dWovaav evBacfiovLav. Plat. Legg. xii. p. 945 D: 
7] Traara ovtq) OdWec re Kal evSaL/xovel '^capa k. iroXa. Of 
frequent occurrence in the tragedians ; comp. also Jacobs, 
ad Del. Epigr. viii. 97. It is therefore inconsistent, both 
with delicate feeling and with the context, to take dveOdX. 
transitively : " revireseere sivistis solitam vestram rerum mearum 
procurationem" (Hoelemann; comp. Coccejus, Grotius, Hein- 

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


richs, Hammond, and others, including Eilliet, de Wette, Weiss), 
although the transitive use of avaOaXKetv in the LXX. and 
also in the Apocrypha is unquestionable (Ezek. xvii. 24 ; Ecclus. 
i. 16, xi. 20, 1. 10; see generally Schleusner, Thcs. I. p. 
220 f.) ; and that of OdWeiv is also current in classical authors 
(Find. 01. iii. 24; Aesch. Pers. 622 (608) ; Jacobs, ad Anthol 
VII. p, 103; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 265). An unfounded objec- 
tion is brought against the view which explains it of the 
revival of p'ospcrity, that it is inappropriate as a subject of joy 
in the Lord (see Weiss) ; it is appropriate at all events, when 
such a use, is made of the revived prosperity. — to virep e'/xoO 
(f)pov€lp] is usually, with the correct intransitive rendering of 
avedaX.^ SO understood that ro is taken together with <^povdv, 
and this must be regarded as the accusative of more precise 
definition, which is only distinguished by its greater emphasis 
from the mere epexegetical infinitive. See Bernhardy, p. 356; 
Schmalfeld, Syntax d. Griech. Verh. p. 401 f . ; Ellendt, Lex. 
SopJi. II. p. 222. Comp. van Hengel : "negotium volo mihi 
consulendi." But the whole view which takes ro with 
^povelv is set aside by the following e^' w k. e^povelre ; seeing 
that hj> (p, unless it is to be rendered at variance with lin- 
guistic usage by although (Luther, Castalio, Michaelis, Storr), 
or just as (Vulgate, van Hengel), could only convey in its « 
the previous to vTrep kfxov ^povelv, and would consequently 
yield the logically absurd conception : i^poveire cttI tm virep 
i/iov (ppovetv, whether icf) S be taken as equivalent to ov eveKa 
(Beza) or qua de re (Eheinwald, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, 
Ewald, and others), or in eo quod (Erasmus), in qua re (Cor- 
nelius a Lapide, Hoelemann), or et post id (Grotius), and the 
like. Eecourse has been had, by way of helping the matter, 
to the suggestion that t^povelv eVi is a thinking ivithout action, 
and (fypovelv virep a thinking loith action (de Wette, Wiesinger ; 
comp. Ewald) ; but how purely arbitrary is this view ! Less 
arbitrarily, Calvin and Ptilliet ("vous pensiez bien k moi") 
have referred c5 to e^iov, by which, no doubt, that logical 

' In the transitive interpretation (see, against it, supra) the to (pponlv, which 
wonhl likewise be taken together, woukl be the accusative forming the object of 
&nidx. See Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 226 [E. T. 263] ; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 003. 

CHAP. IV. 10. 213 

awkwardness is avoided ; but, on the other hand, the objection 
arises, that e^' c5 is elsewhere invariably used by Paul as 
neuter only, and that it is difficult to see why, if he desired to 
take up virep e/xov in a relative form, he should not have 
written virep ov, since otherwise in eVt, if it merely went 
back to ifxov, the more precise and definite reference which he 
must have had in view would not be expressed, and since the 
progress of the thought suggested not a change of ^preposition, 
but only the change of the tenses (jcal ei^povelri). Weiss, in- 
terpreting e^' w as : about loMch to take thought, refers it back 
to aveddXere — a reference, however, which falls to the ground 
with the active interpretation of that word. Upon the whole, 
the only right course seems to be to take to virep i/juov together 
(comp. ra irepl vficjv, ii. 20; also ra Trap v/iwy, ver. 1 8 ; and see 
generally, Kriiger, § 50. 5. 12 ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 231 £), and 
that as the accusative of the ohjcct to (f)poveiv (comp. Bengel, 
Schenkel, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann) : " to take into consideration 
that lohich serves for my good',' to think of my benefit ; on 
virep, comp. i. 7. Only thus does the sequel obtain its literal, 
logical, and delicately-turned reference, namely, when e'^' at 
applies to to virep i/xov. Taking this view, we have to notice : 
(1) tliat iirl is used in the sense of the aim (Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
p. 475 ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 435) : on behalf of which, for 
ivhich, comp. Soph. 0. B. 569; (2) that Paul has not again 
written the mere accusative (o koI i4>p-), because i(j) S is in- 
tended to refer not alone to k. icfipovecTe, but also to the 
antithesis r]Kai.pelcr6e Be, consequently to the entire k. icpp., 
TjKaip. Be ;^ (3) that the emphasis is placed on i^pov. as the 

* All the more groundless, tLerefore, is Hofmann's objection, that (ppavuv Irl 
Tivi means : to be proud about something. This objection, put thus generally, is 
even in itself incorrect. For (ppovtTv Iti nvt does not in itself mean : to be 2^1'oud 
about something, but only receives this signification through the addition of ^sya, 
ftiyaXa, OX some similar more precise definition (Plat. Theaet. p. 149 D, Ale. I. 
p. 104 C, Prot. p. 342 D, Sympos. p. 217 A : Dem. 181. 16, 836. 10), either 
expressly specified or directly suggested by the context. Very artificial, and for 
the simple reader hardly discoverable, is the view under which Hofmann takes the 
fact expressed by xa) \(ppo)iuri as the ground, ^'npon, or on account of, lohich their 
re-emergence from an unfavourable position has been a revival unto care for him. " 
If the reference of i<p' u to to ut£/> Ifmu were not directly given in the text, it would 
be much simpler to take If S as in Kom. v. 12, Phil. iii. 12, 2 Cor. v. 4, in 


imperfect, and Kai indicates an element to he added to the 
jtpovelv which has been just expressed ; hence koI i^p. inti- 
mates : " in behalf of which ye not only are taking thought 
(that is, since the aveOdXeTe), but also iveox taking thought 
(namely, TrpoaOev, Icfore the avedaKere) " lastly, (4) that after 
ej>p. there is no /xeV inserted, because the antithesis is meant 
to emerge unprepared for, and so all the more vividly. — 
'^Katpelcrde] ye heed no favourable time ; a word belonging to 
the later Greek. Diod. exc. Mai. p. 30 ; Phot., Suid. The 
opposite: evKaipetv, Loheck, ad Phryn. p. 125. Unsuitably 
and arbitrarily this is explained : " deerat vobis opportunitas 
mittendi" (Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Eosenmiiller, and 
others). It refers, in keeping with the avedaXere, not without 
delicacy of description, to the unfavourable state of things as 
regards means (Chrysostom : ovic etp^ere ev '^epalv, ovSe ev 
acpdovia ^re ; so also Theophylact ; while Oecumenius adduces 
this interpretation alongside of the previous one) which had 
occurred among the Philippians, as Paul might have learned 
from Epaphroditus and otherwise. Comp. evKaipelv T0X9 ^/ot? 
in Polyb. xv. 21. 2, xxxii. 21. 12 ; and also the mere evKaipdv 
in the same sense, iv. 60. 10 ; evKaipla: xv. 31. 7, i. 59. 7; 
uKaipla: Plat. Zcgg. iv. p. 709 A; Dem. 16. 4; Polyb. iv. 
44. 11. 

Ver. 11. Obviating of a misunderstanding. — oy% otl] as in 
iii. 12 : my meaning is not, that I say this in consequence of 
want, that is, this my utterance of joy in ver. 10 f. is not 
meant as if it were the expression of felt want, from which 
your aid has delivered me. On Kara, secundum, in the sense 
of propter, see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 413, and ad Xcn. Mem. i. 3. 
12. According to van Hengel's interpretation: " ut more 
receptum est pcnuriac, s. hominibus penuria oppressis," Kara. 
could not have been united with an abstract noun (Rom. iii. 5, 
ct al). — £7<w 7a/3 €[xa6ov /c.t.X.] for I, as regards my part 
(although it may be different with others), have learned in the 

the sense oijiropttrea quod, and tliat as a graceful and ingenious specification of 
the reason for tlie great joy of tlie apostle, that tliey had flouritihed again to 
take thought for liis benefit ; for tlicir pievious oniishion bad been caused not 
by any hick of the (^ponlv in question, but by the unfavourablcncss of the times. 

CHAP. IV. 12. 215 

circumstances, in ivldcli I find myself, to he self-contented, that is, 
to have enough independently without desiring aid from others. 
It is evident from the reason thus assigned that in ov'^. ore kuO' 
v<TT. X. he has meant not the objective, but the suhjcctive state 
of need. — iyoo] with noble self-consciousness, there being no 
need to supply, with Bengel, "in tot adversis." — e/xaOov'] 
signifies the having learned by experience (comp. Plat. Synqj. p. 
182 C: epyo) Be tovto efiaOov koX ol ivOahe Tvpavvoc), and all 
that accordingly he can, he owes to the strengthening in- 
fluence of Christ, ver. 13. — iv oU el fit] in the situation, in 
which I find myself See examples in Wetstein and Kypke ; 
comp. also Matzner, ad Antiph. p. 131. Not merely his 
position then, but, generally, every position in which he finds 
himself, is meant, although it is not exactly to be taken as : 
" in q^ioctinque statu si^n" (Eaphel, Wetstein, and others), 
which would be ungrammatically expressed. In 023position to 
the context (see ver. 12), Luther: among whom {oh, mas- 
culine) / am. As to avTupKeia as applied to persons, the 
suhjcctive self-sufficing, by means of which a man does not 
make the satisfaction of his needs dependent upon others, 
but finds it in himself, comp. Ecclus. xl. 18; Xen. Me)n. iv. 
7. 1 ; Dem. 450. 14 ; Stob. v. 43 ; and see on 2 Cor. ix. 8. 

Ver, 12. Paul now specifies this his avrdpKeia (in Plat. Bef 
p. 412 B, termed TeXecorrjf; KTrjcrea)^ afyadcov). — olSa] I 
understand how (1 Thess. iv. 4 ; Col. iv. 6 : 1 Tim. iii. 5 ; 
Matt. viL 11 ; Soph. AJ. 666 f.; Anth.Pal. vii. 440. 5 ff.) ;^ 
result of the efxaOov. — /cat raireiv.] cdso to he ahascd, namely, 
by want, distress, and other allotted circumstances which place 
the person affected by them in the condition of abasement. 
Paul understands this, inasmuch as he knows how to bear 
himself in the right attitude to such allotted circumstances, 
namely, in such a way that, independently thereof, he finds his 
sufficiency in himself, and does not seek it in that which he 
lacks. We find a commentary on this in 2 Cor. iv. 8, vi. 9, 
10. olBa Kal Trepiaaevecv is to be understood analogously, of 
the right attitude to the matter, so that one is not led away by 

1 It is the vioral understanding, having its seat in tlie character. Comp. 
Ameis, Anh. z. Horn. Od. is. 189. 


abundance to find his satisfaction in the latter instead of in 
himself Pelagius well says : " ut nee abiindantia extollar, nee 
frangar inopia." — The first Kai adds to the general iv oh €i/jt,c 
the special statement on the one side, to which thereupon the 
second "also" adds the counterpart. The contrast, however, is 
less adequate here than subsequently in TrepLacreveiv Kal vare- 
pelaOai, for raireLvovadai is a more com2}rchensive idea than the 
counterpart of irepLaaeveiv, and also contains a figurative con- 
ception. Some such expression as vylrovaOac would have been 
adequate as the contrast of raTreiv. (IMatt. xxiii. 12 ; 2 Cor. xi. 7 ; 
PhiL ii. 8, 9 ; Polyb. v. 26. 12). There is a lively versatility 
of conception, from not perceiving which some have given to 
this TrepicTcrevetv (to have a supcrfiuitTj) the explanation exccllcrc 
(Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin), or to raireiv. the meaning to he 
poor, to he in pitifid ijlight, oXlyoc^i Ke-^pricrOat, Theophylact 
(Estius and others ; comp. also Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, 
Ptheinwald, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hof- 
mann), which even the LXX., Lev. xxv. 39, does not justify. — 
In what follows, iv iravrl k. ev iracri is not to be regarded as 
belonging to TaireLvova-Qai and irepLaa-evetv (Hofmann), but is 
to be joined with /jie/ji,vr]/j,at. We are dissuaded from the 
former connection by the very rex^etition of the ol8a ; and the 
latter is recommended by the great emphasis, which rests upon 
f.v TravTo K. iv iraart heading the last clause, as also by the 
correlative Traj/ra at the head of ver. 13. Further, no comma 
is to he placed after fxep^v^/xai,, nor is fv nravrl . . . /xe/xvyjfxai to be 
explained as meaning : "into everything I am initiated" and 
then KoX ^(oprai^eadat, k.tX. as elucidating the notion of " every- 
thing" : " cum re qualicunque omnibusque, tam saturitate et 
fame, quam abundantia et penuria, tantam contraxi familiari- 
tatem, ut rationem teneam iis bene utendi," van Hengel; 
comp. de Wette, Piilliet, Wiesinger; so also, on the whole, 
Cln-ysostom, Erasmus, Estius, and many others, but with 
different interpretations of nravrl and Traaiv. This view is at 
variance with the fact, that /xvelaBac has that into which one 
is initiated expressed not by means of ev, but — and that most 
usually — in the accicsative (Herod, ii. 51 ; Plat. Goi-g. p. 497 C, 
Si/mp. p. 209 E; Aristoph. Fmt. 845 (ifjifiveladai) ; Lucian, 

CHAP. IV. 12. 217 

PMlop. 14), or in the dative (Lucian, Demon. 11), or: genitive 
(Heliod. i. 17; Herodian, i. 13. 16); hence irav k. iravra, or 
iravrl k. irdaLv, or iravro^ k. Trdvrcov must have been written 
(in 3 jMacc. ii. 30 it has Kara with the accusative). No ; Paul 
says that in everything and in all, that is, under every relation 
that may occur and in all circumstances, he is initiated into, 
that is, made completely familiar with, as ivell the being satisfied 
as the being hungry, as well the having su]jerfiuity as want; 
in all sitviations, without exception, he quite understands how 
to assume and maintain the right attitude to these different 
experiences, which in ver. 1 1 he characterizes by the words 
avrdpKr)<; elvai. 'Ev iravrl k. iv Tracn is accordingly to be taken 
after the analogy of ev oU el^iL, ver. 11, and therefore as neuter. 
It was purely arbitrary to render ev Travri: ubique (Vulgate, 
Castalio, Beza, Calvin, and many others), or to refer it to 
time (Chrysostom, Grotius), or to time and 'place (Theophylact, 
Erasmus, and others, also Matthies). Luther and Bengel 
explain iravrl correctly as neuter, but make irdaiv (as in 2 Cor. 
xi. 6) masculine (Bengel: "respectu omnium hominum"). It 
is not necessary to supply anything to either of the two words ; 
and as to the alternation of the singular and plural, which 
only indicates the total absence of any exception (comp. 
analogous expressions in Lobeck, Fared, p. 56 ff.), there is no 
occasion for artificial explanation. — In German we say: in 
Allcm und Jedcm [in all and each]. Comp. on kv irdac on 
Col. i. 18. With strange arbitrariness Hofmann makes ev 
Travri k. kv rrdai denote everything that is a necessary of life 
(in detail and in whole). In that case certainly the contrast 
of '^oprd^. and rreivdv Ls unsuitable ! — fiefivrjfiat] the proper 
word for the various grades of initiation into the mysteries 
(Casaubon, Excre. Baron, p. 390 ff. ; Lobeck, Aglaoph. I. p. 
38 ff.) is here used in a figurative sense, like initicduni esse, of 
a special, unusual, not by every one attainable, familiar 
acquaintance with something. See Munthe, Obss. p. 383 ; 
Jacobs, ad Anthol. III. p. 488. The opposite is dfxv7]ro<;. — 
The climax should here be noticed, efiaOov . . . olSa . . . fjie/jiV7)fiat,. 
Ver. 13 places beyond doubt to whom the apostle owes this 
lofty spiritual superiority over all outward circumstances. As 


to the later form ireivav instead of Treivriv, see Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. p. 61 ; Jacobs, ad Ael. 11. p, 261. 

Ver. 13. After tlie special statement, the consciousness of 
the avTCLpKeia now finds fresh utterance generally ; and in the 
grand brevity of the latter how marked is the assurance, and, 
at the same time, the humility ! — la-X^"^^ ^^ moral strength, 
homogeneous as to category with efiaOop in ver. 11, and with 
olSa and fiefivrjfjbai in ver. 12, because these predicates also were 
dynamically meant, of the understanding of ethical practice. 
There is therefore the less reason for limiting "rravra in any 
way (van Hengel : " omnia memorata ;" comp. Weiss) ; there 
is nothing for which Paul did not feel himself morally strong ; 
for every relation he knev/ himself to be morally adequate. 
irdvra is the accusative of the ohjcct. Gal. v. 6; Jas. v. 16. 
The opposite to it: //,??Sei/ Icryywaiv, Plat. Crit. p. 50 B, Ael. 
V. H. xii. 22, et al. — ev tu> ivSuv. yite] Not in his own human 
ability does Paul feel this power, but it has its basis in Christ, 
whose hvvaiit^ the apostle experiences in his fellowship of life 
with Him (2 Cor. xii. 9). Comp. 1 Tim. i. 12 ; 2 Tim. ii. 1, 
iv. 17. Thus he is able to do all things iv tS Kpdrec t^9 
la^vo<; avTov, Eph. vi. 10. 

Ver. 14. n\t]v] Nevertheless (1 Cor. xi. 11; Eph. v. 33), 
apart from the fact that with such moral power I am equal to 
all emergencies, and therefore, as far as want is concerned, do 
not need aid (comp. ver. 11). "Cavet, ne fortiter loquendo 
contemsisse ipsorum beneficium videatur," Calvin. Comp. 
Chvysostom and Theophylact. — Ka\a}<;] in the moral sense. — 
cvyKotv. fMov Tfi 6\i-^.'\ characterizes tlie work according to its 
high ethical value (ppa ao^iav, ttw? iTralpei to irpayfia, Theophy- 
lact) : tJicd ye hecarae 2')artaJ:ers with one in ray affl,iction. He 
who renders the aid enters into the relation of a participant in 
the position of the afflicted one, inasmuch as by his very work 
of love he, in common with the latter, shares and bears his 
6\l^L<;. Comp. Ptom. xii. 13. It is a j^raciiccd participation, 
and not merely that of feeling ond emotion. Comp. Eph. v. 
11 ; Ptev. xviii. 4, i. 9. By jfj dXl'^., Paul means his position 
at the time as a whole, not : v:oM (winch also in 2 Cor. viii. 
13 it does not mean). Tlie dative is governed by avjKoiv, 

CHAP. IV. 15. 


(Epli. V. 11 ; Eev. xviii. 4; Eom. xii. 13, xv. 27, ct al) ; and 
fiov is, in accordance with the well-known usage, to be taken 
as if ixoi were in the text (comp on ii. 2 ; and Stallbaum, 
ad Plat. Rep. p. 518 C, Symp. p. 215 C). The aorist participle 
coincides as to time with iiroL^aare (see on Eph. i. 9) ; as to the 
participle with KaXm iroieiv, see Winer, p. 323 f. [E. T. 434]. 
Ver. 15 f. A courteous recalling of the fact, that in the 
very leyinning of the gospel the Philij)pians had distinguished 
themselves hy such manifestation of love toioards Paul. — 8e] 
carrying the discourse onward : But wliat ye have done con- 
nects itself with a relation into which, as ye also know, no 
other church, but yours only, placed itself to me at the very 
first ! — olSare Se k.t.X.] hut it is hnoimi also to you, PhilijJl^ians, 
that, etc. Hofmann very erroneously derives the olject of 
oXhare from what precedes, and takes otl in the sense of 
because. He makes the apostle say, namely, to the Philippians : 
That they had done well in helpfully taking part in his afflic- 
tion they knew also, as other churches knew that it was well 
done ; by experience they knew it, because it was not the first 
time that they had sent similar gifts to him, etc. This ex- 
planation is erroneous, because invariably where olSa {oXhaixev, 
olhare, k.t.X.) is accompanied, not with an accusative of the 
object, but with otl, the latter conveys the contents (that), and 
not the reason or the cause (heeause), of the otSa (comp. i. 19, 
25; Eom. iii. 2; 1 Cor. iii. 16, xii. 2; Gal. iv. 13, and in- 
numerable other passages) ; secondly, because the previously 
attested Ka\m eiroir^aaTe, while perfectly suitable to be ex- 
pressed hy the grateful apostle, was not so suited to be transferred 
to the consciousness of the donors, to which it was self-evident, 
and to be appealed to by them ; thirdly, because the KaC in 
the alleged reference to other churches would be very unsuit- 
able, since the question here concerns merely a work of love 
of the Pliilippians, but other churches could only know 
generally that it was well done to aid the apostle, into which 
general idea, therefore, Hofmann insensibly transforms the 
object of oXZaTe, instead of abiding strictly by the concrete 
«aXw9 eTTotrjcraTe as its object ; finally, it would be strange and 
not in keeping with the thoughtfid manner of the apostle, to 


furnish the idea : " ye know that ye did well therein" (which 
olSare is supposed to convey) with the altogether external 
specification ot a ground for it : " because ye have already 
formerly and repeatedly supported me." The contents attributed 
by Hofmann to otSare needed no assignment of a causal 
ground, or — if any — one internal, ethical, and in harmony with 
the subtle delicacy of the apostle. — Observe, moreover, in 
connection with otSare k. vfji,€i<;, that in that which the readers 
also know (consequently in oVt k.t.X.) the stress lies upon the 
negative ovZe^ia k.t.\. — koL v/xel'i^ ye also, as I. — ^iXnr- 
Tr^a-ioi] addressing them by name, not because he desires to 
assert something of them which no other church had done 
(Bengel : for in this case Paul would have written on v^eh, 
^iktTTTr.), but in his increasing earnestness. Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 
11. — ev ap)(rj r. evayy.] glancing back, certainly, to the 
second missionary journey (Weiss) ; but the relative expression 
is used from the standpoint of the time then present, behind 
which lay the founding of the Macedonian churches about 
ten years back ; a long past which seemed, in rclatioyi to the 
jyresent and to the wider development of the church now 
attained, as still belonging to tlie period of the hcginning of 
the gospel. Comp. Clement. Cor. I. 47. An epexegetical 
more precise definition of this expression — which does not 
betray the hand of a later author (Hinsch) — for the date 
intended is : ore i^ifkdov airo MaKeS., ivhcn I departed from 
Macedonia, Acts xvii. 14. Paul, therefore, immediately on 
leaving that country, received aid from the infant church, when 
the brethren rov TIavkov e^airea-Teikav iropeveaOat, co? eVt rrjv 
OaXaaraav and rjyayov ew? ^Adrjvoiv, Acts I.e. Doubtless the 
money which Paul subsequently received in Corinth (see 2 Cor. 
xi. 9) through Macedonian delegates was sent, if not ex- 
clusively, at least jointly by the Philippians, so that they 
thereby gave continued active proof of the fellowship et9 \oyov 
Boa: K. Xr}-^., into which they had entered with the apostle at 

' To express tliis, Paul was not at all under the necessity of writing ai'Jars 
ahrnl, as Hofmann objects. Tlie latter would convey a different conception, 
namely : ye know without my remindinrj you (Acts ii. 22 ; 1 Thess. ii. 1, iii. 3 ; 
2 Thess. iii. 7). 

cnAP. IV. 15. 221 

his very departure. But this receipt of money at Corinth is 
not the fact meant by eKoivoovrjaev k.tX., in which case i^rjXOov 
would have to be taken, with Estius, Flatt, van Hengel, de 
Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann, and others, in the sense of 
the phiperfect (Winer, p. 258 [E. T. 343]); for the latter 
would be tlie more unwarranted in the context, seeing that 
Paul himself by iv ap^fj tov evayy. carries them back to .the 
earliest time possible, and indeed afterwards (ver. 16) to a 
period even antecedent to the ore e^rjkOov. The aorist, how- 
ever, has its justification in this purely historical statement of 
fact, although the imperfect also, but following a different 
conception, might — not, however (in opposition to Hofmann's 
objection), must — have been used. — eKotvcovrja-ev eh \oyov 
Socreo)? K. Xt^i/t.] entered into fellowship with me in reference to 
account of giving and receiving, — a euphemistic indication, 
calculated to meet the sense of delicacy in the readers, of 
the thought : " has entered into the relation of furnishing aid 
towards one." On KOivoivelv ek, comp. on i. 5. The analysis 
of the figurative description is this : The Philippians keep 
an account of expenditure on Paul and income from him ; and 
the apostle likewise keeps account of his expenditure on the 
Philippians and income from them. This mutual account- 
keeping, in which the h6<n^ on the one part, agrees with 
the Xrj'^i'i on the other, is the Koivcovla et? \6yop k.t.X. It is 
true that in this case no moncy-amonnt is entered in the 
account of the Philippians under the heading of X'^i/rt?, or 
the account of the apostle under the heading of Socri? ; instead 
of this, however, comes in the blessing, which the readers were 
to receive from their gifts of love, according to ver. 1 7, as if it 
Avere an income corresponding to this expenditure, and coming 
in from it. We are therefore not justified in adopting the view, 
that Boa. and X7}-v|r. apply to Paul alone (Schrader), or that 
B6ae(o<; applies to the Philippians and X?^i/r. to Paid (" Ego sum 
in vestris expensi tabulis, vos in meis accejjti," Grotius ; comp. 
Erasmus, Camerarius, Casaubon, Castalio, and others, including 
Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Matthies, van Hengel, Eilliet, Ewald) ; 
for the words require the idea of an account under hoih 
headings on the side of loth parties. Others, maintaining 


indeed this reciprocity, but arbitrarily introducing ideas from 
1 Cor. xi. 11, comp. Eom. xv. 27, consider that the S6ai<; on 
the part of the apostle, and the Xrj-\Jn<; on the part of the 
Philippians, consisted in the sjnritual hencjits brought about 
hj the preachmg of the gospel (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Pelagius, Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Zanchius, 
Zeger, Estius, Hammond, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann, and 
others) ; whilst others, again, import into the words the thought : 
" Quae a Philippeusibus accepit in rationes Dei remuneratoris 
refert Paulus" (Wetstein, EosenmllUer; comp. Wolf, Schoettgen, 
and already Ambrosiaster). Eheinwald finds the X?}'x/rt9 of the 
Philipj)ians and the Sotrt? of the apostle even in the assump- 
tion that he also had assisted them, namely, out of the sums of 
money collected in the churches, — an error which is at variance 
with the context, and which ought to have been precluded both 
by the prominence given to the statement of the date, and also 
by the exclusion of all other churches, as well as by the inappro- 
priateness of the mention just in this passage of such a \ri^L<; 
on the part of the Philippians. — On X6709, ratio, account, comp. 
Matt. xii. 36 ; Luke xvi. 2 ; Eom. xiv. 12 ; 1 Mace. x. 40 ; 
Dem. 227. 26; Diod. Sic. i. 49; Polyb. xv. 34. 2. The 
rendering which takes eh Xoyov : in respect to (Bengel, Hein- 
richs, Storr, Matthies, van Hengel, Eilliet, Llinemann), would 
no doubt be linguistically correct (Dem. 385. 11 ; 2 Mace, i.. 
14 ; and see Kriiger on Thuc. iii. 46. 3), but is to be rejected 
on account of the context, as expressions of accounting follow 
(comp. Cic. Lael. 16: "ratio acceptorum et datorum"). For 
instances from Greek writers of Socri? koI \rj-\ln<; (Ecclus. xli. 
14, xlii. 7) as expenditure and income, see Wetstein. Comp. 
Plat. Ec2X p. 332 A B: rj aTroSoo-/,? k. rj X7)i/rt9. As to the 
corresponding jnm a^D, see Schoettgen, Hor. p. 804. 

Ver. 16. "On] since, indeed, ye also already in Thessalonica, 
etc. It is argumentative, namely, outbidding the early defini- 
tion of date ev dpxfj ■ . • MaKehovia^, in ver. 15, by one even 
Mitecedenf, and thus serving more amply to justify that speci- 
fication of time,^ for which purpose the ort specifying the 

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

CHAP. IV. 1(1. 223 

reason was quite sufficient, and (in opposition to Hofmann's 
objection) no <ydp was necessary. The opinion of AViesinn-er, 
that oTt, K.T.X. is intended to explain that it was only with the 
aid sent after Paul at a distance that the readers had entered 
into such a connection with the apostle as is previously men- 
tioned, is bound up with the untenable interpretation of 
k^TjXOov as pluperfect. The rendering of on by that (Eheinwald, 
Matthics, Hoelemann, van Hengel, Eilliet, de Wette, Lline- 
mann, AVeiss) is to be set aside, because, while the emphatic 
othare koX vfieh, ver. 15, accords doubtless with the exclusion of 
other churches in ver. 15, it does not accord with ver. 16 ("yc 
also know that ye have sent ... to me !"), to which it would 
stand in an illogical relation, even apart from the uncalled-for 
inversion of the order of time, which would result. Hofmann's 
explanation, which makes otl in ver. 16 parallel to the oxt in 
ver. 15 and places it in causal relation to olZare, falls with 
his erroneous view of ver. 15. — The /cat before ev GeaaaX., 
for which Hinsch, following Baur, thinks that he finds a 
reference in 2 Cor. xi. 9, is the simple also in the sense of 
also already ; a climax as regards time ; see Hartung, Partilc. 
I. p. 135 ; Ktihner, II. 2, p. 797. — ev QeaaaX:] is not used, 
in the sense of the bearers having arrived, for eh, for there is 
no certain instance of dTroareWeiv or irifiireiv with ev in this 
sense (Thuc. vii. 1 7 must, with Becker and Kriiger, be read : 
69 rrjv HiKekLav) ; but the preposition is used from the stand- 
point of the receiver : " also at Thessalonica (when I was there) 
ye sent to me." Thus this sending took place in Thessalonica. 
Comp. on ]\Iatt. x. 16 ; Poppo and Kriiger on Thuc. iv. 27. 1. 
— Kal aira^ kuI Bh] Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 1 8. The conception 
is : " when the first aid arrived, the eTre/i-v/rare had taken place 
once ; when the second arrived, it had taken place hoth once 
and twice." Paul has not written S/9 merely, nor yet drra^ k. 
8/9 (1 Mace. iii. 30 ; Xen. Anal. iv. 7. 10), but by Kal air. k. 

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


St? he sets forth the repetition of the matter more cmjjhaticallT/, 
to the praise of his readers (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 144). 
Comp. KoX h\<i Kol rpi<;, Plat. Fhaed. p. 6 3 D, Phil. p. 59 E ; 
Herod, ii. 121, iii. 148. The opposite: ovx anra^ ovSe SiV, 
Plat. cut. p. 410 B. — et? r. p^petai'] on behalf of the necessity/, 
in order to satisfy it; comp. ii. 15. The article indicates the 
necessity that had been existing in Paul's case. On ire^iy^ai, 
used absolutely, comp. Acts xi. 29. What they sent, they 

Ver. 17. Just as in ver. 11 Paul anticipated a possible 
misunderstanding in respect to ver. 10, so here in reference 
to the praises contained in ver. 14 ff. This, he would say, 
is not the language of material desire, but, etc. — oy% ore 
/c.T.A,.] as in ver. 11: I do not mean by this to convey that 
my desire is directed towards the gift (the emphasis being laid 
on TO hojia) — this, namely, taken in and by itself — in which 
case the article means the donation accruing to him as the case 
occurred, and i\\Q present eVt^-^rw denotes the constant and charac- 
teristic striving after (Bernhardy, p. 370): it is not my busi- 
ness, etc. The comiwund verb indicates by eVt the direction. 
Comp. on iiriirodw, i. 8, and on Matt, vi, 33 ; Eom. xi. 7. 
The view which regards it as strengthening the simple verb 
(studiose quacro, so Hoelemann and others) is not implied in 
the context any more than the sense : insuper quacro (Polyb, 
i, 5. 3) ; so van Hengel, who indelicately, and notwithstanding 
the article, explains to hojia as still more gifts. — uX\! eVt^T^Tw] 
The repetition of the verb after aXKd makes the contrast stand 
out independently with special emphasis ; comp. Eom. viii. 
1 5 ; 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; Pritzsche, ad Eom. II. p. 137. — top Kapirov 
/c.T.X.] This is what Paul desires, towards which his wishes 
and endeavours are directed : the fruit which abounds to your 
account; not, therefore, a gain which he wishes to have for 
himself, but gain for the Philippians. So completely is his 
eTTi^rjrelu devoid of any selfish cmn, — which, however, would 
not be the case, if the eVi^T/Tw to Sofia were true. This 
applies against Hofmann's objection, that the Kapiro'i must be 
something which Paul himself desires to have ; the notion of 
tTn^TjTO) is anquiro, appcto, and this indeed applies to personal 

CIIA.P. IV. 18. 225 

possession in the negative half of the sentence ; but then the 
second half expresses the real state of the case, which docs 
avxuj icith the notion of selfishness. — The Kap^ro^ itself cannot 
be the fruit of the gospel (Ewald), or of the labour of the apostle 
(Weiss) ; but, in accordance with the context, only the fruit 
of the hofxa, that is, the blessing which accrues from the gift to 
the givers ; comp. on ver. 15. By this is meant ^ the divine 
recompense at the judgment (2 Cor. ix. 6), which they will then 
receive, as if it were the product of their account, for their 
labour of love (Matt. xxv. 34 ff.). This produce of their Zofia 
is figuratively conceived as fruit, which is largely placed to 
the credit of their account, in order to be drawn by them at 
the day of harvest (comp. also Gal. vi. 7 fi'.). Comp. ver. 19. 
In substance it is the treasure in heaven that is meant (Matt. 
xix. 21, vi. 20), which will be received at the Parousia. 
Comp. on Col. i. 5. The figurative et? Xo7oi' u/xwi/, which here 
also is not to be understood, with Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Eilliet, 
and others, as equivalent to et? viJLa<i, is the completion of the 
figure in ver. 1 5 ; although there is no need to explain /ca/jTro? 
as interest (Salmasius, Michaelis, who thinks in ifKeovul^. of com- 
pound interest, Zachariae, Heinrichs), because it is difficult to 
see why Paul, if he used tliis figure, should not have applied 
to it the proper term {roKoi), and because the idea of 
interest is quite alien to that of the hofxa (ct i^^'csent). — t. 
ifkeovd^. eh Xoyov v/xwv] to be taken together (see above) ; ei? 
states the destination of the ifKecvd^. Van Hengel and de 
Wette needlessly break up the passage by coupling et? X07. 
vfi, with iTTi^rjTcb, because irXeovd^etv with eU is not used else- 
where by Paul (not even 2 Thess. i. 3). The preposition is 
in fact not determined by the word in itself, but by its logical 
reference, and may therefore be any one which the reference 

Ver. 18. Ae] The train of tlionght is: "not the gift do I 

^ Not tlie acllve manifedatlon of the Chrislian life (Matthies, Hilliet, Hof- 
maim ; comp. Vatablus, Mnsculus, Piscator, Zanchms ; Flatt and PJieiiiwald 
mingle together hcterogencons ideas) ; for only the fruit of the "Sifix can be 
meant, not the So^wa itself as fruit, which is produced in the shape of the love- 
oft (Hofmann). 



seek, but the fruit (ver. 17) ; and as regards what has been 
received from you in the present instance, I have everything 
abeady, and need nothing further." That this refers to the 
desire of the church to know what he possibly still needed 
(Hofmann), is a very unnecessary assumption. — aizkyw Be 
TrdvTo] not : hccbeo autem omnia (Vulgate) ; not a mere acJcnoio- 
hdgmcnt of receipt (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, 
Heinrichs, and others) ; nor yet equivalent to irepia-cxeiKo 
(Eheinwald) ; but, in keeping with the sense of the compound : 
I have cvcri/thing aiuay, so that I have nothing left to desire 
at your hands. Comp. Philem. 15; Matt. vi. 2, 5, 16; 
Luke vi. 24; Callim. cio. 22 ; Arrian. Epict. iii. 2. 13, iii. 24. 
17; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. pp. 276, 298. UavTa, therefore, 
according to the context (iirL^rjrb) t. Bofxa, ver. 1 7), is : every- 
thing ivliicli I could desire, although there is no necessity for 
introducing specially, with Chrysostom and Oecumenius, ra 
eXK€L(p6evTa iv tu> irapekOovri XP^^V- ^'^^® emphasis, moreover, 
is laid, not on irdvTa, but on aTre^^o), in contrast to eirL^iiTeiv. 
— KoX Treptaaevco] and my wants are thus so fully satisfied, 
that / have over. — 7re7r\'i]p(o/xai,'] forms a climax to Trepiaa. : 
lam full, I have abundance. The gift must have been ample ; 
but gratitude sets this forth in all the stronger a light. To 
ireirXijp. is attached Se^dfievo<i k.t.X. — 6a-/M7]p evcoSia^ /c.r.X.] 
This apposition to ra irap vfiwv, expressing a judgment as to 
the latter (see on Eom. xii. 1), sets forth, to the honour of the 
oivers, the relation in which the gifts received stand towards 
God, by whom they are esteemed as a sacrifice well-pleasing to 
Him. As to 0(7^17) evcoSla';, smell of a sweet savour, nrT'J nn 
(genitive of quality), which is used of frec-ivill offerings, see 
on Eph. V. 2. It describes the thing according to its cfcct on 
God, namely, that it is acccptaUe to Him ; Ovaiav k.t.X., how- 
ever, describes it according to what it is. — SeKTijv, evdpear.] 
acc€2)taUe, ivell-p)leasing , a vividly asyndetic climax (on the 
former, comp. Ecclus. xxxii. 7) ; rut @eu>, however, applies to 
the whole apposition oo-ytxr/j' . . . evap. The asyndetic juxta- 
position of several epithets is frequent also in classical authors, 
from Homer onward (Ameis z. Od. iv., Anh). As to the 
view, originating in the 0. T., which regards works weU- 

ciiAr. IV. 13. 227 

pleasing to God as ethical sacrifices, see tlie expositors on Eom. 
xii. 1 ; 1 Pet. ii. 5 ; Heb. xiii. 16. Comp. Pliilo, dc vit. Mos. 
II. p. 151 : v yap ak')]Oi]<; lepovpyia rt? av etrj ttX^jv ■^ux^'i 
6eo(f)L\ov'; eva-e^eia ; passages from the Eabbins in Schoettg. 
Hor. p. 1006. 

Ver. 19. The thought starts from rw Qeoj. But God, to 
whom your gift stands in the relation of such a sacrifice, will 
recompense you. — Paul says 6 Se ©eo? {xov (comp. i. 3), because 
he himself had been the recipient of that which they had 
brought as a sacrifice pleasing to God ; as his God (to whom 
he belongs and whom he serves, comp. on Kom. i. 8), there- 
fore, will God carry out the recompense. — 'ir\7]p(t)<Tet] used 
with significant reference to ireifkrjp., ver. 18, according to the 
idea of recompense. Not, however, a ivish (hence also in 
Codd. and in the Vulgate the reading ifkTjpuxraC), as Chrysos- 
tom, Luther, and others take it, but a 'promise. — iraaav %/3etai/ 
viJbwv] likewise corresponding to the service which the readers 
had rendered ; for they had sent ei<i rrjv ')(peiav (ver. 16) of the 
apostle. To be understood as : every need which ye have, not 
merely lodily (so usually, following Chrysostom, who explains 
it as the fulfilment of the fourth yetition, also van Hengel, de 
Wette, Wiesinger), and not merely spiritual (Pelagius, Ptilliet, 
also mainly Weiss), but as it stands : every need. It is not, 
however, an earthly recompense which is meant (Hofmann), 
but (comp. on ver. 17) the recompense in the Messiah's Idng- 
dom, where, in the enjoyment of the acoTrjpla, the highest 
satisfaction of every need (comp. on TrXi^p. -^elav, Thuc. i. 70. 
4, and Wetstein in loc) shall have set in amidst the full, 
blessed sufficiency of the eternal i^wrj (comp. Ptom. viii. 17 f . ; 
Eev. xxi. 4).-^ There are specifications of this satisfaction in 
the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. v. ; comp. 
especially the 'XppTacr6)]aea0€ and yeXdaere, Luke vi. 21, also 

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


the ov fXT) Si-^Tjaj) ei? rov alcJva in John iv. 1 4, and the sarcastic 
KeKopea/jiivot in 1 Cor. iv. 8. That it is the Messianic satis- 
faction in the iXevOepla Trj<i ho^r}^ twv reKvrov rov ©eov (Eom. 
viii. 21), in the possession of the 7r\ovTo<i rr)? 80^779 t/}9 Kkqpo- 
vo/j,ia<i avTov (Eph. i. 18), which is to be thought of, Paul 
himself states by iv So^tj, which is to be taken as instrumental 
(Eph. i. 23, V. 18) and dependent on 'jrKrip.: ivith glory, 
whereby the Messianic is indicated. Hofmann also, though 
he rejects the instrumental view, comes ultimately to it : 
" Therewith and thus will God fulfil all their need, in that He 
gives them glory. "^ Others, who also correctly join the words 
with irXrjp., take them as a modal definition : in a glorious ivaij, 
that is, amply, sjolendide, and the like. See Castalio, Beza, 
Calvin, and many others, including Hoelemann, van Hengel, 
Eilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss. But what an indefinite yet 
peculiarly affected, and withal — by its so habitual reference 
elsewhere to the final judgment — misleading expression would 
this be for so simple an idea ! And how far would it be from 
the apostle's mind, considering his expectation of the nearness 
of the Parousia (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 29, 31), to promise on 
this side of it a hearty recompense, which was to take place, 
moreover, tv Xptara) 'It^ctoO ! An appeal is "wrongly made to 
2 Cor. ix. 8, where an increase of means for further well- 
doing, to be granted through God's blessing, and not the 
recompense, is the point under discussion. Others erroneously 
join iv So^rj with to ttXouto? avrov (Grotius, Storr, Elatt, Ehein- 
wald, and others) : "2^'^^ amplissionis suis divitiis, id est, potestate 
sua omnia excedente," Heinrichs. It is true that iv ho^rj 
might be attached without a connecting article (according to 
the combination ifKovTelv iv rivi, 1 Tim, vi. 8 ; comp. 1 Cor, 

' In order, however, to bring out of the passage, notwithstanding tliis h So|>?, 
the idea of a recompense in this life, Hofmann makes So^a mean the glory of the 
children of God iuhich is hidden from the world, and which is the fulfilment of 
every want only in proportion ' ' as there is lacking in us ivhat, either corporally 
or spiritually, is necessary for the completion of our divine sonship." Instead of 
such arbitrary inventions, let us keep clearly before ns how gi'eat a weight in the 
very word of promise, which forms the conclusion of the epistle, lies iii the fact 
that the grand aim of all promise and hope, i.e. the glory of eternal life (Rom. 
V. 2, viii. 18, 21, ix. 23 ; 1 Cor. xv. 43 ; 2 Cor. iv. 17 ; Col, iii, 4 ; and many 
other passages), is once more presented to the reader's view. 

CHAP. IV. 20-23. 229 

i. 5 ; 2 Cor. ix. 11) ; but Paul always connects TrXoSro? with 
the genitive of the thing, and ifKovro^ Trj<i Sof?;? in particular, 
said of God, is so constantly used by him, that it seems alto- 
gether unwarranted to assume the expression 'ir\ovTo<i kv Bo^rj 
in this passage. See Eom. ix. 23; Eph. i. 18, iii. IG ; Col. 
i. 27. He would have written: kuto. to mrXovTO'i t^? Bo^t]^ 
avTov, comp. Kom. ix. 23. — Kara ro ttTiovto? avrov] that 
is, m conformity ivith His being so rich, and consequently 
having so much to give. Comp. Eom. x. 12, xi. 33. This 
assures what is promised. — ev XpLcnut 'Iiqaoxi] definition 
annexed to wXrjpcoaei, . . . Bo^j] ; that which is promised has 
its causal ground in Christ, who by His work has acquired for 
believers the eternal Bo^a. Christ is, in fact, 17 eXTrU Trj<; 
Bo^f, Col. i. 27. 

Ver. 20. The conception of the superabundant salvation, 
which Paul has just promised from God, forces from his heart 
a doxology. — irarpi'] through Christ, in virtue of our vlodecria, 
Eom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iv. 5. As to t. ©ecp k. iraTpl rjfi. comp. 
on Gal. i. 5. — /; B6^a\ sc. e'lr), the hefitting glory. See on 
Eph. iii. 21 ; Eom. xi. 36, xvi. 21, et al. — et? roif? alwv. twv 
aiwi/.] Gal. i. 5 ; 1 Tim. i. 17 ; 2 Tim. iv. 18 ; Heb. xiii. 21 ; 
1 Pet. iv. 11, V. 11, and frequently in Eev. As to the 
analysis of the expression, see on Eph. iii. 21. 

Vv. 21—23. ndvra ajiov] every one, no one in the church 
being excepted, — a point which is more definitely expressed by 
the singular.^ — iv X. T.] is not to be joined to ayiov (so 
usually, as by Eheinwald, Hoelemann, Matthies, van Hengel, 
de Wette, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann), but belongs to aaTrda. 
(comp. Eom. xvi. 22 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 1 9), denoting the specifically 
Christian salutation, in conveying which the consciousness 
lives in Christ. This is the connection adopted by Ambrosiaster, 
Estius, Heinrichs, Eilliet, Wiesinger, Schenkel, and J. B. Light- 
foot, and it is the right one, since with wyiov it is self-evident 
that Christians are meant, and there would be no motive for 

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


specially expressing this here, as there was, for instance, in the 
address i. 1, where to?? 07/0^9 iv X. 'I. bears a certain formal 
character, — 01 avv ifiol a8eX(j).] is the narrower circle of 
those Christians who were round the apostle in Eome, including 
also the official colleagues who were with him, though there is 
no ground for understanding these aJone (Chrysostom, Oecu- 
menius, Theophylact, and many others), Grotius even pointing 
distinctly to Timothy, Linus, and Clement. The difficulty, 
which has been raised in this case by a comparison of ii. 20, 
is unfounded, since, in fact, the expression in ii. 20 excludes 
neither the giving of a salutation nor the mention of brethren ; 
groundless, therefore, are the attempted solutions of the 
difficulty, as, for example, that of Chrysostom, that either 
ii. 20 is meant ov irepl tmv iv rfj iroXei, or that Paul ov 
Trapanelrat Kal tovtov? aSeX^ou? Kokelv (comp. Oecumenius, 
who brings forward the latter as a proof of the aifKw^'yya of 
the apostle). Misapprehending this second and in itself correct 
remark of Chrysostom, van Hengel insists on a distinction 
being drawn between two classes of companions in office, 
namely, travelling comioanions, such as Luke, Mark, Titus, Silas, 
and those who were resident in the places where the apostle 
sojourned (among whom van Hengel reckons in Eome, Clement, 
Euodia, Syntyche, and even Epapln-oditus), and holds that only 
the latter class is here meant. The limits of the narrower circle 
designated by 01 crvv €/u,ol u8. are not at all to be definitely 
drawn. Estius well says : " Qui . . . mihi vincto ministrant, 
qui me visitant, qui mecum hie in evangelio laborant." — 
Trai/re? ot ajLoi,] generally, all Christians who are here ; comp. 
on 2 Cor. xiii. 12 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 20. — jxaXiara Se] but most 
of all, pre-eminently ; they have requested the apostle to give 
special prominence to their salutation. Comp. Plat. Criiias, 
p. 108 D : Tov? re aX\.ov<; KkrjTeov koI Stj Kal ra jxaXiaja 
Mv7]fj,0(Tvv7]v. Whether these persons stood in any personal 
relations to the Philippians, remains uncertain. It is enough 
to assume that Paul had said to them much that was honour- 
able concerning the church to which he was about to write. 
— ol CK rrj<; Kai(Tapo<i oiKia<;'\ sc. ayiob, as is plain from the 
connection with the preceding (in opposition to Hofmann) : 

CHAP, IV. 21-23. 231 

iliose from the emperors house (from the Palatium, see Bottger, 
Beitr. II. p. 49) who belong to the samts. We have to think 
of probably inferior servants of the emperor (according to 
Grotius, Hitzig, and others : freedmen), who dAuelt, or at least 
were employed, in the palaee. In this way there is no need for 
departing from the innnediate meaning of the word, and taking- 
it in the sense of household (Hofmann). In no case, however, 
can we adopt as the direct meaning of olKta the sense of 
domestic servants, a meaning which it does not bear even in 
Xen. Mem. ii. 7. 6 ; Joseph. Antt. xvi. 5. 8 ; and Tac. Hist. 
ii. 92;^ domestic servants would be olKerela. Others have 
taken oIkm, in accordance with current usage, as family 
(1 Cor. xvi. 15, and frequently), and have understood kinsmen 
of the emperor, a meaning which in itself seems by no means 
shown by Philo m Flaec. p. 190 A to be at variance with 
linguistic usage ^ (in opposition to Hofmann). So recently 
Baur, who needed this point for his combinations against the 
genuineness of the epistle, and van Hengel." But apart from 
the fact that through Nero himself this family was greatly 
diminished, and that conversions among those related to the 
emperor were a priori (comp. also 1 Cor. i. 2 6 £f.) very impro- 
bable, doubtless some historical traces of such a striking success 
would have been preserved in tradition.^ Matthies, quite 

' Where it is said of those who entered the service of the emperor : " in domum 
Caesa?-i.s transgressi." Comp. Herodian, iii. 10. 9 : ■r/j;* s/,- rov (iairlkiiov oTxov'kdli. 

■ For in Philo I.e. it is said regarding Herod Agrippa : " Even though he were 
not king, but only one of the emperor's kinsmen (U t?j Kalirapoi olnica), it would 
still be necessary to prefer and honour him." 

* Whether Chrysostom and his successors understood here memhers of the 
imperial family, is a matter of doubt. At all events Chrysostom does not take 
the word itself, oUia, as family, but explains it by ra p,a<TiXiia, palace, and finds 
in the salutation a purpose of encouragement : s/ yap ol Iv rol; fiaffiXi'iois Troo/Tut 
xaTKppovntrav oia. ro» fiaffiXia rav oupxvuv, toXXu (/.ocXXov uvtou; ^pri touto "Jtoiilv. 

Comp. Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact. 

* Certainly Baur believes that he has found these traces in sufficient number. 
Flavius Clemens, namely, was a kinsman of Domitian (see on ver. 3). Now 
since out of this Clement grew the Clemens Bomanus of Christian tradition, the 
latter also must have been a kinsman of the imperial family, as indeed the 
Homil. Clement, iv. 7, comp. xiv. 10, designate him as av^^ wpo; yimvs Tif^tplou 
Kaiirapos. He, therefore, would be exactly the man, in whom Christianity was 


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

represented in the circle of the imperial house itself. ^' Concluding frovi one 
that there icere several, the author of the epistle might make his apostle write 
earnest salutations to the church in, PldUppi from believing members of the 
imperial house in the i)ldral," etc. Thus does criticism, departing from the solid 
ground of history, lose itself in the atmosphere of subjective inventions, where 
hypothesis finds no longer either support or limit. Indeed, Baur now goes 
further beyond all bounds (II. p. 69), and discovers that the mention of 
Clement even throws a new light over the whole ^;?a» of the epistle. With 
this Clement, namely, and the participation, as attested by him, of the imperial 
house ill Iho gojpel, is given the -rfoxoTh rod liayy. (i. 12), and with the latter 
the feeling of joyfulness, which expresses ilself throughout the epistle as the 
ground-tone of the apostle (li. 17 f., ccmp. iii. 1, iv. 1, 4, 10), and which is 
again and again the refrain of each scpaiate section. Only by the preponderance 
of this feeling is it to be explained that the author makes his apcstle even 
express tlic hope of a speedy liberation (ii. 24). But with this joy tliere is also 
blended, with a neutralizing effect, the idea of a neaily approaching death, 
i. 20-24, and this divided state of mind between life and dcatli betrays an author 
"who had already before his eyes as an actual fact the end of the apcstle, 
ivhich v:as so far from harvionirjiig vjllh (dl these 2''resupposltions." 

' See generally on "Paul and Sineea," and the apocryphal fourteen Latin 
letters exchanged between, Baur in Hilgenfeld's Zeltschr. 1858, 2. 3 ; 
Pieuss in Herzog's Emyklop. XIV. p. 274 fl. ; J. B. Liglitfoot, Ejx. II. p. 
268 If., 327 ff. ; latest edition of the text of tliese epistles in the 'Thtol. Qiiartalschr, 
1867, p. 609 ff. 

CHAP. IV. 21-23. 233 

with special ease and frequency ; hence their especial sahita- 
tion. The question also, whether one or another of the persons 
saluted in liom. xvi. should be understood as included here 
(see especially J. B. Lightfoot, p. 173 ff.), must remain entirely 
undecided. Calvin, moreover, well points to the working of 
the divine mercy, in that the gospel " in illam scelerum 
omnium et flagitiorum abyssum penetraverit." — 77 %«/0i9 t. Kvp. 
'I. X.] see on Gal. i. 6. — //.era iravroiv u/i.] Comp. Eom. 
xvi. 24; 1 Cor. xvi. 24; 2 Cor. xiii. 13 ; 2 Thess. iii. 18; 
Tit. iii. 15. 



I N T E D U C T I N.' 


ITH the exception of the Epistle to the Eomans, the 
letter now before us is the only one of all the epistles 
of Paul that have been preserved, wliich is addressed 
to a church that was neither founded by Paul him- 
self nor even subsequently visited by him in person (see on i. 7, 
ii. 1), although the Colossian Philemon was his immediate dis- 
ciple (Philem. 19), and the Book of Acts relates that the apostle 
passed through Phrygia on two occasions (Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23). 
There, in Phrygia Magna on the Lycus, was situate Kolossae, 
or Kolassae (see the critical remarks on i. 2). It is designated 
by Herodotus, vii. 30, as 7roXt9 fxeydXT], and by Xenophon, 
Andb. i, 2. 6, as evBaifiav k. fieydXi] ; but, subsequently, as 
compared with the cities of Apamea and Laodicea which had 
become great (fieyia-raL . . . 7r6\ei<;, Strabo xii. 8, p. 576), it 
became so reduced, that it is placed by Strabo, I.e., only in the 
list of the Phrygian iroXiafxara, and by Pliny, N. H. v. 41, 
only among the oppicla, although celeherrima. According to 
the Eusebian Chronicle and Oros. vii. 7, it also was visited by 

' See Hofmann, Introduct. in lectionem ep. P. ad Col. Lips. 1749 ; Bohmer, 
Isagoge in ejy. ad Col. Berol. 1829 ; Mayerlioff, Der Brief an d. Kol. h-Ui?ch 
geprii/f, Berlin, 1838 ; Wiggers, d. Verh. d. Ap. P. zu d. chrisil. Gem. in Kol. 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 165 ff. ; Leo Montet, Introd. in ep. ad Col. 1841 ; 
Klopper, De orig. ep. ad Eph. et Col. 1853 ; Weiss in Herzog's Encylcl. XIX. 
p. 717 S. ; Schenkel in liis Bihellex. III. p. 565 fF. ; Holtzmann, Krit. der 
Epheser- und Kolosserbrie/e, 1872. 



the earthquake which, according to Tacit. Ann. xiv. 2 7, devas- 
tated Laodicea. This took place not so late as the tenth year 
of Nero's reign (Eus. Chron.), or even the fourteenth (Orosius), 
but, according to Tacitus, in the seventh — about the same 
time with the composition of our epistle, perhaps shortly 
afterwards, as the earthquake is not mentioned in it. In the 
Middle Ages the city was again flourishing under the name 
Chonae (Theophylact and Oecumenius on i. 2 ; Constant. 
Porphyr. Them. i. 3) ; it is in the present day the village 
of Chomis (see Pococke, Morgcnl. III. p. 114 ; and generally, 
Mannert, Gcorjr. VI. 1, p. 127 f.; Bbhmer, Isag. p. 2 Iff.; 
Steiger, p. 1 3 ff.). 

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


The apostle had received through Epaphras, who had come 
to him (i. 7 f., iv. 12; Philem. 23), detailed accounts of 
the condition of the cliurch, and of its perils and needs at 
that time, whereby he found himself inchiced — and the re- 
moval of Epaphras from the church at the moment certainly 
made the matter appear all the more urgent — to despatch 
Tychicus, an inhabitant of Asia Minor (Acts xx. 4), to Colossae, 
and to send with him this epistle (iv. 7 f., comp. Eph. vi. 2 1 f.). 


TychicLis was also to visit the Epliesians, and to convey the 
letter written at the same time to them (see on Eph. Introd. 
§ 2). Tychicus was despatched at the same time with Oncsimvs, 
the Colossian slave (iv. 9), who had to deliver to his m.aster 
Philemon the well-known letter from the apostle (Philem. 1 1 f.). 
Doubtless Onesimus also — who had come, although still as a 
heathen, from Colossae to Paul — brought with him accounts as 
to the state of matters there, as he had been a servant in a Chris- 
tian household amidst lively Christian intercourse (Philem. 2). 
In accordance with these circumstances giving occasion to 
the letter, the aim of the apostle was not merely to confirm 
the church generally in its Christian faith and life, but also 
to warn it against heretical ipcrils by which it was threatened. 
The false teachers whom he had in view were Jevjish-Christians ; 
not, however, such as those who, as in Galatia and in the neigh- 
bourhood of Philippi (Phil. iii. 2 ff.), restricting themselves to 
the sphere of legal requirement and especially of the necessity 
of circumcision, did away with Christian freedom, the founda- 
tion of which is justification by faith, — but such as had mixed 
up Christian Judaism with thcosojjhic speculation. While they 
likewise adhered to circumcision (ii. 11), and to precepts as to 
meats and feasts (ii. 16), to the prejudice of Christ's atoning 
work (ii. 13 ff.), they at the same time — and this forms their 
distinctive character — put forward a jJhilosojjhy as to the higher 
spirit-world, with the fancies and subtleties of which (ii. 18) 
were combined, as practical errors, a conceited humility, ivor- 
ship of angels, and unsparing bodily asceticism (ii. 20—23) — 
extravagances of an unhealthy Gnosis, that could not fail to 
find a fruitful soil in the mystico-fanatical character of the 
Phrygian people, wliich served as an appropriate abode for- 
merly for the orgiastic cultus of Cybele, and subsequently for 
Montanism.-^ These theosophists, however, came most keenly 
into conflict with the exalted rank and the redeeming work 
of Christ, to whom they did not leave His full divine dignity 
(as elKwv ToO Qeov k.tX., i. 1 5 ff.), but preferred to assign to 

^ The theosopldc tendency, which haunted Colossae; may help to explain the 
fact that Paul does not make use, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, of arguments 
derived from the 0. T. The epistle contains no c[uotation from Scriptiu'e. 


Him merely a rank in tlie higher order of spirits, while they 
ascribed to the angels a certain action in bringing about the 
Messianic salvation, entertaining, probably, at the same time, 
demiurgic ideas as to the creation of the world. We must 
not conclude from i. 18, ii. 12, that they also rejected the 
resurrection of Christ ; into such an important point as this 
Paul would have entered directly and at length, as in 1 Cor. 
XV. But that in dualistic fashion they looked on matter as 
evil, may be reasonably inferred from their adoration of spirits, 
and from their asceticism mortifying the body, as well as from 
the at all events kindred phenomenon of later Gnosticism. 

Attempts have been made in very different ways to ascer- 
tain more precisely the historical character of the Colossian 
false teachers, and on this point we make the following re- 
marks : (1) They appear as ^ e.\Y\z\\-Christians, not as Jews (in 
opposition to which see ii. 19), which they were held to be 
by Schoettgen, Eichhorn, and others, some looking on them as 
Pharisees (Schoettgen; comp. Schulthess, Engehuelt, p. 110 f.) ; 
others, as indirect opponents of Christianity through the sem- 
blance of more than earthly sanctity (Eichhorn) ; others, as 
adherents of the Alexandrine Nco-Platonism (doctrine of the 
Logos) (so Juncker, Kommentar, Introd. p. 43 ff.) ; others, as 
Chaldaectns or Magians (Hug) ; others, as syncretistic universalists, 
who would have allowed to Christ a subordinate position in 
their doctrinal structure and passed Christianity off as a stage 
of Judaism (Schneckenburger, last in the Stud. u. Krit. 1832, 
p. 840 f.; in opposition to him, Eheinwald, de pseudodoct. 
Coloss. Bonn, 1834). Just as little were they adherents of a 
heathen philosophy, whether they might be looked upon as of 
the Epicurean (Clemens Alexandrinus), or of the Pythagorean 
(Grotius), or of the Platonic and Stoic (Heumann) school, or 
of no definite school at all (Tertullian, Euthalius, Calixtus). 
(2) The right view of these false teachers, in accordance with 
history, necessarily carries us back to Essenism. In opposition 
to the opinion that they were Christian Essenes (so Chemnitz, 
Zachariae, Storr, Elatt, Credner, Thiersch, histor.Standp. p. 2 70 f., 
Eitschl, Ewald, Holtzmann, et al), it is not to be urged that 
the Essene washings, and various other pecuEarities of Essenism, 


remain unnoticed in the epistle ; or that the secluded and 
exclusive character peculiar to this society, and the limitation 
of their abode to Syria and Palestine, do not suit the case of 
the Colossian heretics ; or that the hypocrisy, conceit, and 
persuasiveness which belonged to the latter do not harmonize 
with the character of the Essenes, as it is otherwise attested. 
These difficulties are got rid of by comparison with the Eoman 
ascetics (Eom. xiv.), who likewise were Essene Jewish-Chris- 
tians, only more unprejudiced and inoffensive than these 
Asiatics, whose peculiar character, which had already received 
a more Gnostic development and elaboration, was of a philo- 
sophic stamp, addicted to rhetorical art, full of work - piety 
and hypocrisy, and therefore fraught with more danger to 
Pauline Christianity, the greater the opportunity they had, just 
then whilst the great apostle was himself far away and in 
bonds, of raising their head. Now, if at that time the 
Essene influence was not at all unfrequent among the Jews, 
and thence also among Jewish-Christians (see Eitschl, cdt- 
Tcath. Kirclie, p. 232 ff., and in the Theolog. Jahrh. 1855, 
p. 355), and if, beyond doubt, the theosophy of the Essenes 
— kindred with the Alexandrine philosophy, although in origin 
Jewish — and their asceticism (see Joseph. Bell. ii. 8 ; Philo, 
Quod omnis 2}rohis liber, p. 8 7 6 ff. ; Euseb. Praep. ev. viii. 1 1 ff.), 
as well as their adherence to their tradition (Joseph. I.e. ii. 
8. 7; comp. Credner, Beitr. I. p. 369), are very much in 
accord with the characteristic marks of our heretics (comp. 
generally Keim, Gesch. Jcsu, I. p. 286 ff.), the latter are with 
justice designated as Jewish-Christian Gnostics, or more ac- 
curately, as Gnostics addicted to an Essene tendency.'^ This 
designation, however, is not to be taken in the sense of any 
subsequently c.l ;iborated system, but must be understood as 
intimating that in the doctrines of our theosophists there were 
apparent the widely- spread, and especially in Essenism strongly- 
asserted, elements of Gnosticism, out of which the formal 
Gnostic systems were afterwards gradually and variously deve- 
loped (comp. Bohmer, Isag. p. 56 ff. ; IsTeander, Gelegenheitsschr. 

^ Comp. Grau, Entwickelungsgesch. d. n. t. Schriftth. II. p. 145 ff. ; Lipsius 
in Schenkel's Bihel-Lexk. II. p. 498. 


p. 40 ff. ; Schott, Isag. p. 272 ; Weiss, I.e. p. 720 ; Grau, I.e. ; 
Holtzmann, p. 296 ff. ; Clemens in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 1871, 
p. 418 ff.). Among the latter, the Cerinthian doctrine in par- 
ticular is, in various points, closely allied with that combated 
in our epistle (comp. F. Nitzsch on Bleek, Vorlcs. p. 1 5 f. ; 
Lipsius, d. Gnosticismus, 18 CO, p. 81 f.), although we are not 
justified in considering with Mayerhoff that this polemic was 
already directed against Cerinthus and his adherents, and 
thence arguing against the genuineness of the epistle. A 
similar judgment is to be formed regarding their relation to the 
Valentinians, who often appealed to the Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians ; and Baur leaps much too rapidly to a conclusion, 
when he thinks {Paulus, IT. p. 4 ff.) that in the Colossian false 
teachers are to be found the Gnostic EhioniUs (who no doubt 
originated from Essenism) — thereby making our epistle a pro- 
duct of the fermentation of the post-apostolic age, and connect- 
ing it as a spurious twin-letter with that to the Ephesians. 
Holtzmann forms a much more cautious judgment, when he 
takes his stand at a prelimmary stage of Gnosticism ; but even 
this he places in the post-apostolic age, — a position which the 
less admits of proof, seeing that we have no other letter from 
the later period of the apostle's life before the letters of the 
captivity and subsequent to that to the Eomans, and possess 
for comj)arison no letter of Paul at all addressed to those 
regions where the Gnostic movements had their seat. The false 
teachers have, moreover, been designated as Cahhalistic (Herder, 
Kleuker, Osiander in the Tiih. Zeitschr. 1834, 3, p. 96 ff.) ; 
but this must likewise be restricted to the effect that the 
theosophic tendency generally, the special Essene-Christian 
shape of which Paul had to combat, may have probably been 
at bottom akin to the subsequently developed Cabbala, although 
the origin of this Jewish metaphysics is veiled in obscurity. 
(3) We must decidedly set aside, were it only on account of 
the legal strictness of the men in question, the assumption of 
Michaelis, that they were diseiplcs of Aiwllos, to whom Hein- 
richs adds also disciples of John, as well as Essenes and other 
Judaistic teachers, and even a malevolum hominum genus ex 
ethnicis — of which, in itself extremely improbable, medley the 


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

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

* Which, with Hausrath, Laurent, and others, Sabatier also {Vapotre Paul, 
1870, p. 193 if.) prefers, while "Weiss leaves the point undecided. Hofmann 
rejects cm' view, and Holtzmauu does not find it the more probable. 



the conversion of the Gentile Onesimus (Philem. 1 0) is incom- 
patible with the statement in Acts xxiv. 23, Wieseler infers 
too much from the words rSiv IBicov aurov (Acts xxiv. 23), 
especially as the intention of a liberal cnstody is obvious in 
the arrangement of Felix. (2) That in Rome Paul might have 
thought of the journey to Phrygia hoped for at Philem. 22, 
but not in Caesarea, (comp. Hofmann, p. 2 1 7), where, accord- 
ing to Acts xix. 21, Eom. i. 13, xv. 23 ff.. Acts xxiii. 11, he 
had the design of going to Eome, but a return to Asia Minor 
would have been, after his language in Acts xx. 25, far from 
his thoughts. But although certainly, when he spoke the 
words recorded in Acts xx. 25, a return to Asia was far from his 
thoughts, nevertheless this idea might subsequently occur to 
him just as easily at Caesarea as at Rome ; indeed more easily, 
for, if Paul had been set free at Caesarea, he could eomhine his 
intended journey to Eome with a passage through Asia. 
There is no doubt that when at Eome he expressed the hope 
(Phil. ii. 24) of again visiting the scene of his former labours ; 
but why should he not have done the same when at Caesarea, 
so long, namely, as his appeal to the emperor had not 
taken place ? See also on Philem. 22. — If our epistle was 
written in Caesarea, the time of its composition was the year 
60 or 61, while the procuratorship was still in the hands of 

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


mention of Tychicus and Onesimns (iv. V-9) ; salutations with 
commendations and injunctions (iv. 1 0—1 7) ; and the conclu- 
sion appended by the apostle's own hand (ver. 18). 


Even if it be allowed that the apparent allusions to our 
Epistle which one might find in the apostolic Fathers 
(Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius) are uncertain, and that even 
the mention of TrptuToro/co? Tracr?;? KTio-€Oi<; in Justin Mart. c. 
Tryph. p. 311 (comp. p. 310, 326), and Theophil. ad Autol. 
ii. 31, may be independent of Col. i. 15, still the external 
attestation of our Epistle is so ancient, continuous, and general 
(Marcion, the school of Yalentinus ; Irenaeus, ITaer. iii. 1 4. 1 
and V. 14. 2, who first cites it by name ; Canon Murat. ; Clem. 
Al. Strom, i. p. 277, iv. p. 499, v. p. 576, vi. p. 645 ; Tert. 
Fraescr. 7, de resurr. 23 ; Origen, c. Cels. v. 8, etc.), that no 
well-founded doubt can from this quarter be raised. 

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


comparing the two kindred letters, propounds the view that 
all those passages of the Epistle to the Colossians are to he 
regarded as interpolations, regarding which it can he shown 
that the author of the (not genuine) Epistle to the Ephesians 
did not know them. But Hoenig has reserved to a future 
time the exhibition of the detailed grounds for this bold view, 
and has consequently for the j)resent withdrawn it from 
criticism. After thorough investigation, Holtzmann {Kritik d. 
Ephescr- 20. Kolosserbriefe, 1872) has arrived at the hypothesis 
of a great series of interpolations, the author of which was 
none other than the author of the Epistle to the Ephesians 
written, according to Holtzmann, somewhere about the 
year 100, who, with the help of this writing of his own, had 
worked up the short and genuinely Pauline letter to the 
Colossians, which he found in existence, into a new and 
amplified form, and thereby rescued it in a second enlarged 
edition from oblivion. But neither can the course of interpo- 
lation thus set forth be exegetically verified, nor can it — seeing 
that all the witnesses from the beginning prove only the present 
shape of the letter, and no trace has been left of any earlier one 
— be without arbitrariness rendered critically intelligible, as in 
fact such a procedure on the part of an interpolator, who had 
withal so much mastery of free movement in the sphere of 
Pauline thought and language that he could write the Epistle 
to the Ephesians, would yield a laborious and — as overlaying 
and obscuring the given nucleus — somewhat clumsy mosaic 
patchwork, which, from a psychological point of view, would 
be hardly conceivable. 

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


here (BiKaioavvrj k.t.\., cwTTjpla k.tX., atroKoXv^i^, viraKorj, 
dpa, Bio, SioTL, en, et al), or aira^ Xeyofieva which occur (as 
ideXoOprjarKela, TTidavoXoyla, et al.), cannot furnish any counter 
argument, since, in fact, they are fully outweighed by similar 
phenomena in epistles which are indubitably genuine. There 
is the less ground for urging the occurrence only six times of 
rydp (Text. Bee), as even in the larger Epistle to the Ephesians 
it occurs only eleven times, and in the Second Epistle to the 
Thessalonians only five times. And how little are such 
mechanical standards of comparison at all compatible with a 
mind so free in movement and rich in language as was that of 
Paul ! In his case even the order of the words "EWrjv koX 
'lovBato'i (iii. 11) cannot seem surprising, nor can the com- 
bining of designations similar in meaning (as i. 6, 10, ii. 
18, 23) appear as a strange hunting after synonyms. See, 
besides, Huther, ScMusshdmcht. p. 420 ff . ; Hofmann, p. 179 f. 
Secondly, un-Pauline conceptions are only imported into the 
Epistle by incorrect interpretations ; and the peculiar develop- 
ments of doctrine, which Paul gives only here, but which are 
in no case without their preliminary conditions and outlines in 
the earlier Epistles, were suggested to him by the special occa- 
sion of the letter (as, in particular, the development of the 
relation of Christ to the angel- world). And if the Epistle is 
said to lack in its dogmatic portion the logical arrangement 
which is found in the hortatory portion (the reverse being the 
case in the genuine Epistles) ; if Pauline freshness and vigour 
are said to be wanting, and poverty of thought to prevail ; 
these are judgments which in some cases are utterly set aside 
by a right exegesis, and in others are of a partisan character 
and aesthetically incorrect. The complaint, in particular, of 
" poverty of thought" is characteristic of the procedure of such 
criticism towards its victims, no matter how precarious a 
subjective standard must ever be in such questions, or how 
various may be the judgments which are put forth as based 
on taste (according to Bohmer, Isag. p. 160, our Epistle is 
" viva, pressa, solida, tiervis 2^lc7ia, mascula"). Thirdly, the 
affinity of our Epistle with that to the Ephesians in style and 
contents is explained by their composition at the same time, 


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

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

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

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


doctrine already presented in the earlier Epistles.* Concerning 
these Christological doubts, see, moreover, especially Eaebiger, 
Christ ol. Paid. p. 42 if., and generally Klopper, de orig. cpp. ad 
Eph. et Coloss. Gryphisw. 1853; Hofmann, p. 181 ff. ; Eich, 
Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 196 £f. ; Sabatier, I'apolre Paul, p. 
2 7 £f.^ It may be observed in general, that if our Epistle (and 
that to the Ephesians) is nothing more than a pseudo-apostolic 
movement of Gnosis against Ebionitism, then every other 
Epistle is so also, since every other writing in the N. T. may, 
with almost equal justice, be brought under some such category 
of subjective presupposition ; and that it is in reality incon- 
sistent, if the whole N. T. is not (and for the most part it 
has already been) made out to be a collection of later books 
written with some set purpose, which, by means of their 
pseudo-epigraphic names, have succeeded in deceiving the 
vigilance of centuries. The falrication of such an epistle 
as that to the Colossians would be more marvellous than its 
originality. "ISTon est cujusvis hominis, Paulinum pectus 
effingere ; tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus," 
Erasmus, Annot. ad iv. 16. 

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

' The exegesis of the Epistle will also dispose of what Hilgenfeld, who rejects 
the genuineuess of the Ejihcsian and Colossian letters, adduces by way of estab- 
lishing his assertion, tliat " the new and characteristic feature of the Colossian 
Epistle consists simply in this, that it represents Paulinism no longer merely 
iu contradistinction to JcAvish Christianity, but also in contradistinction to 
Gnosticism (proper) ;" see Hilgenfeld's ^etiicAr. 1870, p. 245 f. We see, he says, 
Paulinism in this case not merely repelling, but even in part adopting. Gnostic 
elements. — For Baur's Gnostic interpretation of the TXnfufx.oi, see especially his 
Paulus, II. p. 12 ff., and Neutest. Theol. p. 257 ff. 

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


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

' Ewald appeals (presupposing, moreover, the non-gemiinoncss of the Epistle 
to the Ephcsians) to the longer conipound words, such as kiTctia-xXrifota, a.-jto- 

xxTaXXaiTffu, aTccXXerfiou, •z'xpaXo'yi^ofiai, iSiXoipyiffxilay of^aXfuooovXiia ; tO Un- 
usual modes of expression, such as fiXu vftas siS;>a( (ii. 1), « iirr/v for the 
explanatory that is (i. 24 [27], ii. 10, iii. 14), in connections capable of being 
easily misunderstood ; to the circumstances, that in the progress of the discourse 
and in the structure of sentences we cntirelj' miss " the exceedingly forcible flow 
and the exultant ebullition, and then, again, the quick concentration and the 
firm collocation of tlie thoughts ;" that the words Si, ydp, and aXXa are less 
frequently found, and that the sentences are connected more by simple little rela- 
tional words and in excessively long series, like the links of a chain, alongside 
of which is also frequently found the merely rhetorical accumulation of sen- 
tences left without links of connection (such as i. 14, 20, 25 f., 27, ii. 8, 11, 23, 


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

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

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

IlavXov €7n<TTo\r} vrpo? Ko\o(Tcra€L<;. 

A B K min. Copt, have the superscription -xphg KoXaaeaiTg. So 
Matth, Lachm. and Tisch. Comp. on ver. 2, 


Ver. 1. The arrangement xpiffrov 'Jr,soZ (Lachm. Tisch.) has pre- 
ponderant testimony in its favour, but not the addition of 'irt^ov 
after xpiaroum ver. 2 (Lachm.). — Ver. 2. KoXosauTg] K P, also C 
and X in the subscription, min. Syr. utr. Copt. Or. Nyss. Amphi- 
loch. Theodoret, Damasc. et. al. have K&^.ao-ffa/j. Approved by 
Griesb., following Erasm. Steph. Wetst. ; adopted by Matth. 
Lach. Tisch. 7. The Eeccx)ta is supported by E D E F G L K, 
min. Vulg. It. Clem. Chrys. Theophyl. Tert. Ambrosiast. Pelag. 
The matter is to be judged thus : (1) The name in itself correct is 
undoubtedly KoKoseai, which is supported by coins of the city 
(Eckhel, Doc^r. num. III. p. 107) and confirmed by Herod, vii. 30 
(see Wessel. and Valck. in loc.) ; Xen. Anctb. i. 2. 6 (see Bornem, 
in loc.) ; Strabo, xii. 8, p. 57G ; Plin. N. H. v. 32. (2) But since 
the form Kc^.a^ffa/ has so old and considerable attestation, and is 
preserved in Herodotus and Xenopbon as a various reading, as 
also in Polyaen. viii. 1 6, and therefore a mere copyist's error can- 
not be found in the case — the more especially as the copyists, 
even apart from the analogy which suggested itself to them of 
the well-known -/.oXoeeo;, would naturally be led to the -prevalent 
form of the name K&7.&c(jc:/, — we must assume that, although 
KoXoagai was the more formally correct name, still the name 
KoXaaaai was also (vulgarly) in nse, that this was the name 
which Paul himself wrote, and that Ko}.oosu,T; is an ancient 
correction. If the latter had originally a place in the text, there 
would have been no occasion to alter the generally known and 
correct form of the name. — After 'Ttarphg riiLoiv, Elz. (Lachm. in 
brackets) has xal Tiuplou 'lr,ffoZ Xpiarov, in opposition to BDEKL, 
min. vss. and Fathers. A complementary addition in accord- 
ance with the openings of other epistles, especially as no ground 
for intentional omission suggests itself (in opposition to Iteiche, 
Comm.crit.'g. 351 f.). — Ver. 3. xai Trarpl] Lachm. and Tisch. 7: 


CHAr. I. 251 

'xa.Tp'i. So B C* vss. and Fathers, while D* F G, Chrys. have 
Tip 'Ttarpi. Since, however, Paul always writes 6 es&s -/.ai rrarrip 
ToD Kupiou (Eom. XV. 6 ; 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31 ; Eph. i. 3 ; also 1 Cor. 
XV. 24 ; Eph. v. 20), and never 6 Qibg 6 irarrip r. x. or 6 Qihg Tarrip 
T. -A.., the Eecepta, which has in its favour A C** D*** E K L P N, 
min. Vulg. and Fathers, is with Tisch. 8 to he retained. The 
■/.ai was readily omitted in a mechanical way after the imme- 
diately preceding ©eou 'Trarpog. — Instead of ts^/, Lachm. reads 
h-:Tsp, which is also recommended by Griesb., following B D* E* 
F G, min. TheophyL Not attested by preponderating evidence, 
and easily introduced in reference to ver. 9 (where vir'sp stands 
without variation). — Ver. 4. Instead of h h/in (which is re- 
commended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.), Elz. 
Matth. Scholz have rrtv merely, but in opposition to A C D* 
E* F G P N, min. vss. (including Vulg. It.) Fathers. If Tr,v were 
originally written, why should it have been exchanged for -/Jv 
'iyjn ? On the other hand, tji/ ?%£-£, as it could be dispensed 
with for the sense, might easily drop out, because the word 
preceding concludes with the syllable HN, and the word fol- 
lowing (s/'s), like £:';:(;£r=, begins with E. The grammatical gap 
would then, following Eph. i. 15, be filled up by rr^'j. — Ver. 6. 
xa/ idri] xai is wanting in A B C D* E* P t<, min. and some vss. 
and Fathers ; condemned by Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and 
Tisch. 8. But, not being understood, this %ai, which has the 
most important vss. and Fathers in its favour, was omitted in 
the interest of simplicity as disturbing the connection. — -/.a) 
avB,a.v6/j!.svov] is wanting in Elz. Matth., who is of opinion that 
Chrys. introduced it from ver. 10. But it is so decisively 
attested, that the omission must be looked upon as caused by 
the homoeoteleuton, the more especially as a similar ending and a 
similar beginning here came together (ONKA). — Ver 7. xaSug 
xa/] -/.a/ is justly condemned by Griesb. on decisive evidence, 
and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. A mechanical repetition 
from the preceding. — v/j^mv] ABD*GFn*, min.: !5,«.wv; approved 
by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. But since the first person both 
precedes and follows {ri,u,uiv . . . rifiTv), it was put here also by care- 
less copyists. — Ver. 10. After mpi'Trarrisai, Elz. Tisch. 7 have 
■jf/^ag, against decisive testimony ; a supplementary addition. — 
iig rriv I'iriyvusiv] Griesb. Lachm, Scholz. Tisch. 8 have ^Jj imyMUion. 
So A B C D* E* F G P N, min. Clem. Cyr. Maxim. But it lacks 
the support of the vss., which (Vulg. It. in scientia Dei) have 
read the Ecccpta iig t. sv/yv. attested by D*** E** K L and 
most min., also Theodoret, Dam. TheophyL Oec, or with 6?** 
and Chrys. iv rji l-jnyvucu. The latter, as well as the mere r^ 


i-iyv., betrays itself as an explanation of the difficult slg r. sv/yv., 
which, we may add, belongs to the synnnetrical structure of the 
whole discourse, the participial sentences of which all conclude 
with a destination introduced by sJg. — Ver, 12. /xavwiravr/] 
Lachm. : KuXseavr/ xa! '/-/.avuiaavTi, according to B, whilst D* F G, 
min. Arm. Aeth. It. Didym. Ambrosiast. Vigil, have xaXsgavn 
merely. Looking at the so isolated attestation of xa?.. x. hav., 
we must assume that -/.aXisavTi was written on the margin by 
way of complement, and then was in some cases inserted with 
xaf, and in others without xa/ substituted for /'xavoic. — Instead 
of '/jfiug, Tisch. 8 has i//iaj ; but the latter, too weakly attested by 
B N, easily slipped in by means of the connection with svy^ap. — 
Ver. 14. After d'-roXvrp. Elz. has dia roZ aiij^arog auroZ, against de- 
cisive testimony ; from Eph. i. 7. — Ver. 1 6. to, h roTg oupavoTi xai 
to] Lachm. has erased the first to, and bracketed the second. In 
both cases the rd is wanting in B X*, Or. ; the first rd only is 
wanting in D* E* F G P and two min. But how easily might TA 
be absorbed in the final syllable of rrdvTA ; and this would then 
partially involve the omission of the second rd ! The assump- 
tion that the final syllable of rrdvTa was written twice would only 
be warranted, if the omitting witnesses, especially in the case of 
the second ra, were stronger. — Ver. 20. The second 5/ avroZ 
is wanting in B D* F G L, min. Vulg. It. Sahid. Or. Cyr. 
Chrys. Theophyl. and Latin Fathers. Omitted by Lachm. It 
was passed over as superfluous, obscure, and disturbing the 
sense. — Ver. 21. Instead of the Beccpta aToxar^^xXtc^sv, Lachm., 
following B, has d'xoy.arrikXdynri. D* F G, It. Goth. Ir. Am- 
brosiast. Sedul. have ccToxaraXXaye^rsg. Since, according to this, 
the passive is considerably attested, and the active axoxar^XXa^si', 
although most strongly attested (also by x), may well be sus- 
pected to be a syntactic emendation, we must decide, as between 
the two passive readings a-ToxarjjXXayjjrt and affoxaraXXaysvrsj, in 
favour of the former, because the latter is quite unsuitable. If 
the Rcccpta were original, the construction would be so entirely 
plain, that we could not at all see why the passive should have 
been introduced. — Ver. 22. After davdrov, A P X, min. vss. Ir. 
have avTou, which Lachm. has admitted in brackets. It is attested 
so weakly, as to seem nothing more than a familiar addition. — 
Ver. 23. rJj before xrlgu is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be omitted, 
following A B C D* F G N, min. Chrys. — Instead of didxovog, 
P X have x^pug x. d'rroSToXog. A gloss ; comp. 1 Tim. ii. 7. In A 
all the three words x'/ip-jt, x. a-r. x. diax. are given. — Ver. 24. vvv] 
D* E* F G, Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel. have og vuv. Paghtly ; the 
final syllable of didxovog in ver. 23, and the beginning of a 

CHAP. I. 1, 2. 253 

churcli-lesson, co-operated to the suppression of oj, which, how- 
ever, is quite in keeping with the connection and the whole 
progress of the discourse. — After rra^yi/x. Elz. has /x,ou, against 
decisive testimony. — o Istiv] C D* E, min. : oc ssriv. So Lachm. 
in the margin. A copyist's error. — Ver. 27. The neuter r/ rh 
rrXoZro; (Matth. Lachm. Tisch.) is attested by codd. and Fathers 
sufficiently to make the masculine appear as an emendation : 
comp. on 2 Cor. viii. 2, — og ianv] ABFGT, min. {quod in Vulg. 
It. leaves the reading uncertain) : o iartv. So Lachm. A gram- 
matical alteration, which, after ver. 24, was all the more likely. 
— Ver. 28. After diddax.., rrdvra avSpoj-rrov is wanting in D* E* F G, 
min. vss. and Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., but is to be 
defended. The whole x,ai hthdax. vdvra avDpwj. was omitted owing 
to the homocotdcuton (so still in L, min. Clem.), and then the 
restoration of the words took place incompletely. — After XpicTuj 
Elz. has 'ijjffoD, against decisive testimony. 

Vv. 1, 2. Aia dekrui. Qeov] see on 1 Cor. i. 1. Comp. 2 
Cor, i. 1 ; Eph. i. 1. — koX TtfjicO.] see on 2 Cor. i, 1 ; Phil. 
i. 1. Here also as subordinate joint-author of the letter, who 
at the same time may have been the amanuensis, but is not 
here jointly mentioned as such (comp. Eom. xvi. 22). See on 
Phil. i. 1. — 6 clSeX^o?] see on 1 Cor. i. 1 ; referring, not to 
official (Chrys. : ovkovv kuI avTO'i airoaToXoi), but generally to 
Christian brotherhood. — rot? iv KoX. dy. k.t.X.] to the saints 
vjho are in Colossae. To this theocratic designation, which in 
itself is not as yet more precisely defined (see on Ptom. i. 7), is 
then added their distinctively Christ iaoi character : and heliev- 
ing brethren in Christ, Comp. on Eph. i. 1. djioa is to be 
understood as a substantive, just as in all the commencements 
of epistles, where it occurs (Kom. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. ; 2 Cor. ; Eph. ; 
Phil.) ; and iv XpiarQ} is closely connected with irta-r. dS., with 
which it blends so as to form one conception (hence it is not 
TO 19 iv X.), expressly designating the believing brethren as 
Christians, so that iv X. forms the clement of demarcation, 
in which the readers are believing brethren, and outside of 
which they would not be so in the Christian sense. Comp. 
on 1 Cor. iv. 17 ; Eph. vi. 21 ; in which passages, however, 
TTto-To? is faithful, — a meaning which it has not here (in oppo- 
sition to Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Dalnier), because every- 


where in the superscriptions of the Epistles it is only the 
Christian standing of the readers that is described. No doubt 
iv XptcFTca was in itself hardly necessary ; but the addresses 
have a certain formal stamp. If d<yLOL<; is taken as an adjec- 
tive : " the holy and believing brethren " (de Wette), eV XpiarS 
being made to apply to the whole formula, then vLcnol^i coming 
after 07/0^9 (which latter word would already have, through 
iv X., its definition in a Christian sense, which, according to 
our view, it still has not) would be simply a superfluous and 
clumsy addition, because dyloa would already presuppose the 
TTiarot'?. — The fact that Paul does not expressly describe the 
church to which he is writing as a church (as in 1 Cor. ; 
2 Cor. ; Gal. ; 1 and 2 Thess.) has no special motive (comp. 
Eom., Eph., Phil.), but is purely accidental. If it implied 
that he had not founded the church and stood in no kind of 
relation to it as such, and especially to its rulers (de Wette, 
by way of query), he would not have written of a AaoBtKecov 
€KK\7]ala (iv. 16). Indeed, the principle of addressing as 
chiirches those communities only which he had himself 
founded, is not one to be expected from the apostle's disposi- 
tion of mind and wisdom ; and it is excluded by the inscription 
of the Epistle to the Ephesians (assuming its genuineness and 
destination for the church at Ephesus), as also by Phil. i. 1 
(where the mention of the bishops and deacons would not 
compensate for the formal naming of the church). It is also 
an accidental matter that Paul says ev Xpia-rw merely, and 
not iv X. 'Irjaov (1 Cor. ; Eph. ; Phil. ; 2 Thess.), although 
Mayerhoff makes use of this, among other things, to impugn 
the genuineness of the epistle ; just as if such a mechanical 
regularity were to be ascribed to the apostle ! — xapc'i vfuv 
/C.T.X.] See on Eom. i. 7. 

Ver. 3 f. Thanksgiving for the Christian condition of the 
readers, down to ver. 8. — ev'xapiarovp.ev] I and Timothy ; 
plural and singular alternate in the Epistle (i. 23, 24, 28, 
29 ff., iv. 3) ; but not without significant occasion. — ical Trarpl 
K.rX^ who is at the same time the Eather, etc. See on Eph. 
i. 3. — TrdvTore] belongs to ev')(ap., as in 1 Cor. i. 4; 1 Thess. 
i. 2 ; 2 Thess. i. 3 ; Philem. 4, and not to irepl vfi. Trpoaevx- 

CHAP. I. 5. 255 

(Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, 
Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and many others, in- 
cluding Bohmer, Olshausen, Dalmer) — a connection opposed to 
the parallel Eph. i. 16, as well as to the context, according to 
which the thanksgiving is the main point here, and the prayer 
merely a concomitant definition ; and it is not till ver. 9 that 
the latter is brought forward as the object of the discourse, 
and that as unceasing. This predicate belongs here to the 
thanking, and in ver. 9 to the playing, and Trepl v/xwv iTpoaev^. 
— words which are not, with Biihr, to be separated from one 
another (whereby irpoaevx- would unduly stand without 
relation) — is nothing but a more precise definition of TraWore : 
" always {each time, Phil. i. 4 ; Eom. i. 1 ^), lohen we -pray 
for you!' — aKovaavTe^ /ct-X.] with reference to time ; after 
having heard, etc. Comp. ver. 9, In that, which Paul had 
heard of them, lies the ground of his thanksgiving. The irlcnL'i 
is faith (Eom. i. 8 ; 1 Thess. i. 3 ; 2 Thess. i. 3) not faithful- 
ness (Ewald), as at Philem. 5, where the position of the words 
is different. That Paul has heard their faith praised, is self- 
evident from the context. Comp. Eph. i. 15; Philem. 5. 
— iv X. 'I.] on Christ, in so far, namely, as the faith has its 
basis in Christ. See on Mark i. 15 ; Gal. iii. 26 ; Eph. i. 13, 15. 
As to the non-repetition of tt^V, see on Gal. iii. 26. — rjv ep^ere] 
Paul so writes, — not by joining on immediately {rrjv ayd7r7]v et? 
irdvra'^ k.tX), nor yet by the mere repetition of the article, as in 
Eph. i. 15 (so the Recepta, see the critical remarks), — because 
he has it in view to enter more fully upon this point of dydfrT], 
and indeed definitely upon the reason ivhy they cherished if. 

Ver. 5. Aid rrju ikTriSa k.t.X.'] on account of the hope, etc., 
does not belong to ev')(ap. ver. 3 (Bengel, " ex spe patet, quanta 
sit causa gratias agendi pro dono fidei et amoris ;" comp. 
Bullinger, Zanchius, Calovius, Eisner, Michaelis, Zachariae, 
Storr, Eosenmiiller, Hofmann, and others), because the ground 
for the apostohc thanksgiving at the beginnings of the Epistles, 
as also here at ver. 4, always consists in the Christian cha- 
racter of the readers (Eom. i. 8 ; 1 Cor. i. 4 flP. ; Eph. i. 1 5 ; 
Phil. i. 5 ; 1 Thess. i. 3 ; 2 Thess. i. 3 ; 2 Tim. i. 5 ; Philem. 5), 

' For a like use of as/, see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Eep. p. 360 A. 


and that indeed as a ground in itself} and therefore not merely 
on account of what one has in future to hope from it ; and, 
moreover, because ev^xapiarelv with Bed and the accusative 
does not occur anywhere in the N. T. It is connected with 
r)f ej^ere k.t.X., and thus specifies the motive ground of the 
love; for love guarantees the realization of the salvation 
hoped for. So correctly, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecun^enius, 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Steiger, Bleek, and 
others. The more faith is active through love, the richer one 
becomes et? Qeov (Luke xii. 21), and this riches forms the 
contents of hope. He who does not love remains subject to 
death (1 John iii. 14), and his faith profits him nothing 
(1 Cor. xiii. 1-3). It is erroneous to refer it jointly to iria-Ti,'^, 
so as to make the hope appear here as ground of the 
faith and the love ; so Grotius and others, including Bahr, 
Olshausen, and de Wette ; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius and 
Ewald. For rjv e^^Te (or the Bee. ttjv) indicates a further 
statement merely as regards tt^v dyd'irTjv ; and with this accords 
tlie close of the whole outburst, which in ver. 8 emphatically 
reverts to rrjv v/xoov dydirrjv. — The eXTrt? is here conceived 
objectively (comp. eXir. ^Xeiroixivq, Eom. viii. 24) : our hope 
as to its ohjcctive contents, that which we hope for. Comp. Job 
vi. 8 ; 2 Mace. vii. 14, and see on Eom. viii. 24 and Gal. 
V. 5 ; Zockler, dc vi etc notione voc. eXTrtV, Giss. 1856, p. 26 ff. 
— T'qv dTTOKei/x. v/xlv ev r. ovp.l What is meant is the Messianic 
salvation forming the contents of the hope (1 Thess. v. 8 ; 
Ptom. V, 2, viii. 18 ff.; Col. iii. 3 f.), which remains dci^ositcd, 
that is, preserved, laid tip (Luke xix. 20), in heaven for the 
Christian until the Parousia, in order to be then given to hira.^ 
On dTTOK. comp. 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; 2 Mace. xii. 45 ; Kypke, 11. 
p. 320 f.; Loesner, p. 360; Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. Ql^. 
Used of death, Heb. ix. 27; of punishments. Plat. Locr. 

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

2 It is erroneous to say that the Parousia no longer occurs in our Epistle. It 
is the substratum of the ix-^); ccttox. Iv t. olp. Comp. iii. 1 ff. (in ojiposition to 
ilayerhoff, and Holtzmann, p. 2031.). 

CHAP. I. G. 257 

p. 1 04 D, 4 Mace. viii. 10. As to the idea, comp. the conception 
of the treasure in heaven (Matt. vi. 20, xix. 21 ; 1 Tim. vi. 19), 
of the reward in heaven (see on Matt. v. 12), of the TrdKirevfia 
in heaven (see on Phil. iii. 20), of the Kkripovo^la Te77]prjfievri 
eV ovpav. (1 Pet. i. 4), and of the fipa^elov rrj<i avco KXrj(Teoi<i 
(PhiL iii, 14). — rjv irpoTjKovaare /f.r.X.] Certainty of this hope, 
which is not an unwarranted subjective fancy, but is objec- 
tively conveyed to them through tlie word of truth previously 
announced. The irpo in irpoTjKova-are (Herod, viii. 79 ; Plat. 
Zegg. vii. p. 797 A ; Xen. Mem. ii. 4. 7 ; Dem. 759. 26, 955. 1 ; 
Joseph. Jjitt. viii. 12. 3) does not denote already formerly, 
whereby Paul premises se nihil allaturum novi (Calvin and 
many), but must be said with reference to thefioture, to which 
the hope belongs ; hence the sense imported by Ewald : lohere- 
with the word of truth began among you (Mark i. 15), is the 
less admissible. The conception is rather, that the contents 
of the eXTTi?, the heavenly salvation, is the great future bless- 
ing, the infallible lyre-announcement of which they have heard. 
As previously announced, it is also previously heard. — tt}? 
aX7}9eia<; is the contents of the X0709 (comp. on Eph. i. 13) ; 
and by tov euay., the akrjOeia, that is, the absolute truth, is 
specifically defined as that of the gospel, that is, as that ivhich 
is announced in the gospel. Both genitives are therefore to be 
left in their suhstantive form (Erasmus, Heinrichs, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, and many others understand r?)? aX-qO. as adjectival : 
sermo verax; comp. on the contrary, on akiid. rov evayy., Gal. 
ii. 5, 14), so that the expression advances to greater definite- 
ness. The circumstantiality has something solemn about it 
(comp. 2 Cor. ix. 4) ; but this is arbitrarily done away, if we 
regard tov evayy. as the genitive of apposition to to5 \6yw rrj^ 
uXrjO. (Calvin, Beza, and many others, including Flatt, Biihr, 
Steiger, Bohmer, Huther, Olshausen, de Wette, Hofmann) ; 
following Eph. i. 13, Paul would have written tw evayy ekiw. 

Ver. 6. In what he had just said, ^v TrporjKovaare . . . 
evayyeXiou, Paul now desires to make his readers sensible of 
the great and hlcssed felloivship in which, through the gospel, 
they are placed, in order that they may by this very con- 
sciousness feel themselves aroused to faithfulness towards the 



gospel, in presence of the heretical influences ; eVetS^ ixakiaTcu 
01 iroWoi e'/c rov fcocvcovov^ ^yetv ttoWol"? rcSf Boy/xdrcov arit]- 
pi^ovjat, Chrysostom. Conip. Oecumenius : irpoOviiorepovi 
avTOv<i Trepi tj)i/ iriarLV iroiel eic rov e^etJ' 7rdvTa<; Koivcovovf. 
— €69 v/xa?] not iv vjjiiv, because the conception of the previous 
arrival predominates ; 1 Mace. xi. 63. Often so with irapelvat, 
in classical authors (Herod, i, 9, vi. 24, viii. 60 ; Polyb. xviii. 
1. 1 ; comp. Acts xii. 20). See Bornemann and Klihner, ad 
Xen. Anal. i. 2. 2 ; Bremi, ad Acschin.^. 320 ; and generally, 
Nagelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 158 f., ed. 3. Observe, moreover, the 
emphasis of rov irapovro'i : it is there ! it has not remained 
away ; and to the presence is then added the 'bearing fruit. — 
Kad(o<i Kal iv "jtuvtI t. Koa-fiw] A popular hyperbole. Comp, 
Eom. i. 8 ; Acts xvii. 6, and see ver. 23. The expression is 
neither arbitrarily to be restricted, nor to be used against the 
genuineness of the Epistle (Hilgenfeld), nor yet to be rational- 
ized by "as regards the idea" (Baumgarten-Crusins) and the like; 
although, certainly, the idea of the catholicity of Christianity 
is expressed in the passage (comp. Eom. x. 18 ; Mark xiv. 9, 
xvi. 15 ; Matt. xxiv. 14). — kuI eart KupTrocp. k.t.X.] Instead of 
continuing : kuI KapTro^opovjjiivou k.tX., Paul carries onward 
the discourse with the finite verb, and thus causes this element 
to stand out more independently and forcibly:^ "and it is 
fruit-lcaring and groiving" (see Maetzner, ad Lycurg. Leocr. 
p. 108; Ileindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 222 B; Winer, p. 533 
[E. T. 717]), by which is indicated the fact, that the gospel, 
wherever it is present, is also in course of Kving dynamical 
development, and this state of development is expressed by ean 
with the participle. This general proposition based on expe- 
rience : Kol ea-TL Kap7ro(J3. k. av^av., is then by Ka6oii<i k. iv 

1 If xai is not genuine, as Block, Ilofmann, and others consider (see tte 
critical remarks), the iiassage is to be translated : as it also in the ichole world 
is fruit-bearing, by which Paul would say that tlie gospel is present among the 
readers in the same fruit-bearing equality which it developes on all sides. But 
in that case the following xa^as xa) Iv ii^'tv would necessarily appear as very super- 
fluous. No doubt we might, after the preceding Tap'ovro;, take the lirTi, with 
F. Nitzsch, as equivalent to ■yrdfKrTt (see Stallb. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 59 B) ; and to 
this comes also the punctuation in Tisch. 8, who puts a comma after ta-r/v. But 
how utterly superfluous would this to-Ti then be ! 

CHAP. I. 7, 8. 259 

vixiv confirmed throngli the experience found also among the 
readers; so tliat Paul's view passes, in tlie first clause (tov 
TTapovTO'i . . . Koaiiw), from tlie special to the general aspect, 
and in the second, from the general to the special. "With Kap- 
TTO^op. (not occurring elsewhere in the middle) is depicted the 
blissful icorldng in the imvard and outward /t/c(comp. Gal. v. 22 ; 
Eph. V. 9) ; and with av^avo/j,. the continuous diffusion, whereby 
the gospel is obtaining more and more adherents and local 
extension. Comp. Theodoret : Kapiroi^opLav tov evayy. KeKXrjKe 
rrjv eTraivovfievrjv rrroXirelav' av^rjatv he tcov TricrTevovrcov ro 
ifKrjOo';. Huther and de Wette groundlessly refrain from 
deciding whether av^. is intended to refer to the outward 
growth or to the imvard (so Steiger), or to hoth. See Acts vi. 7, 
xii. 24, xix. 20. Comp. Luke xiii. 19; Matt. xiii. 32. The 
fiaXkov arrjpl^eaOai, which Chrysostom finds included in av^., 
is not denoted, but ipresiqjposed by the latter, Comp. Theo- 
phylact. The figure is taken from a tree, in which the Kap- 
7ro(f>opia does not exclude the continuance of growth (not so 
in the case of cereals). — a(f) 979 '^fiip. /c.t.X.] since the first 
beginning of your conversion which so happily took place 
(through true knowledge of the grace of God), that develop- 
ment of the gospel proceeds among you ; how could ye now 
withdraw from it by joining yourselves to false teachers ? — 
rr]v %a/3iz^ tov Qeov] contents of the gospel, which they have 
heard ; the object of ')]Kova. is the gospel, and r. xapty t. Oeov 
belongs to eTriyvcoTe; and by iv aXirjOeia, (2 Cor. vii. 14), 
equivalent to aXrjOm (John xvii. 8), the giialitative character 
of this knowledge is affirmed : it was a true knowledge, corre- 
sponding to the nature of the %a/3t'?, ivithout Judaistic and other 
errors. Comp. on John xvii. 19. Holtzmann hears in ^/coycrare 
. . . d\7]6(a<; "the first tones of the foreign theme," which is then in 
vv. 9, 10 more fully entered upon. But how conceivable and 
natural is it, that at the very outset the danger which threatens 
the right knowledge of the readers should be present to his mind ! 
Ver. 7 f. Ka6(o<;] not quandoquideni (Flatt, comp. Biihr),- 
but the as of the manner in which. So, namely, as it had just 
been af&rmed by iv akrjOeia that they had known the divine 
grace, had they learned it (comp. Phil. iv. 9) from E;paphras. 


Notwithstanding this appropriate connection, Holtzmann finds 
in this third /ca^w? a trace of the interpolator. — Nothing- 
further is known from any other passage as to Ujjaphras the 
Colossian (iv. 12) ; according to Philem. 23, he was avvai'X;- 
fxd\Q)To<i of the apostle. That the latter circumstance is Qiof 
mentioned in our Epistle is not to be attributed to any special 
design (Estius : that Paul was unwilling to make his readers 
anxious). See, on the contrary, on iv. 10. Against the 
identity of Epaphras with Epaphroditus, see on Phil. ii. 25. 
The names even are not alike (contrary to the view of Grotius 
and Ewald, who look upon Epaphras as an abbreviation) ; 
'E7ra(f)pd'i and the corresponding feminine name 'Evra^po) are 
found on Greek inscriptions. — awBovXov] namely, of Christ 
(comp. Phil. i. 1). The word, of common occurrence, is used 
elsewhere by Paul in iv. 7 only. — o? eariv /c.r.X.] This 
faithfulness towards the readers, and also, in the sequel, the 
praise of their love, which Epaphras expressed to the apostle, 
are intended to stir them up " ne a doctrina, quam ab eo didi- 
cerant, per novos magistros abduci se patiantur," Estius. The 
emphasis is on ttictto'?. — virep vfioov] for, as their teacher, he 
is the servant of Christ /or them, for their benefit. The inter- 
pretation, instead of you (" in prison he serves me in the 
gospel," Michaelis, Bohmer), would only be possible in the 
event of the service being designated as rendered to the apostle 
{ZiaKovQ<i fiov iv XpiaTM, or something similar). Comp. 
Philem. 13. Even with Lachmann's reading, vtt. 7)fiwv 
(Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald), it would not be necessary to take 
virep as instead; it might equally well be taken as for in 
the sense of interest, as opposite of the anti-Pauline work- 
ing (comp. Luke ix. 50). 1\\q p)rcscnt eo-rt (Paul does not put 
rjv) has its just warrant in the fact, that the merit, which the 
founder of the church has acquired by its true instruction, is 
living and continuoiis, reaching in its efficacy down to the 
present time. This is an ethical relation, which is quite inde- 
pendent of the circumstance that Epaphras was himself a 
Colossian (in opposition to Hofmann), but also makes it un- 
necessary to find in iari an indirect co7itinuance of Epaphras' 
work for the Colossians (in opposition to Bleek). — o koI Br)\coaa<i 

CHAP. I. 7, 8. 261 

/C.T.X.] U'lio also (in accordance with the interest of this faithful 
service) has made us to Jcnoiv ; comp. 1 Cor. i. 11. The djoTTT) 
is here understood either of the love of the Colossians to Paul 
(and Timothy), as, following Chrysostom, most, including 
Huther, Bleek, and Hofmann,^ explain it, or of the brotherly 
love already commended in ver. 4 (de Wette, Olshausen, 
Ellicott, and others). But both these modes of taking it are 
at variance with the emphatic position of v/ioov (comp. 1 Cor. 
ix. 12 ; 2 Cor. i. 6, vii. 7, viii. 13, d al.), which betokens the 
love of the readers to ]L]3aphras as meant. There had just been 
expressed, to wit, by virep v/xcov, the faithful, loving position of 
tliis servant of Christ toivards the Colossians, and correlative to 
this is now the love icihicli lie met with from them, consequently 
the counter-love shown to him, of which he has informed the 
apostle. A delicate addition out of courtesy to the readers. — 
iv "TTyev/xari] attaches itself closely to a<yd7r7)v, so as to form one 
idea, denoting the love as truly holy — not conditioned by any- 
thing outward, but divinely upheld — which is in the Holy S^nrit 
as the element which prompts and animates it ; for it is the fruit 
of the Spirit (Gal. v. 22 ; Rom. xv. 30), ov aapKLKrj, dXkd Trvev- 
fxaTiKYj (Oecumenius). Comp. X"-P^ ^^ '^^■> Kom. xiv. 17. 

Ee^iaek. — Since aip r.g yi,u,spa; rr'tougaTs x.r.x., ver. 6, refers the 
readers back to the first commencement of their Christianity,, 
and xa6ojg i/jA$srs airo 'E'Ta(ppa, x.r.'k., ver. 7, cannot, except by 
pure arbitrariness, be separated from it as regards time and 
reiiarded as something later, it results from our passage that 
Epaphras is to be considered as the first preacher of the gospel 
at Colossae, and consequently as founder of the church. This 
exegetical result remains even if the Beccpta za6ug %ai is re- 
tained. This -/.at would not, as Wiggers thinks (in the Stud. u. 
Krit. 1838, p. 185), place the preaching of Epaphras in contradis- 
tinction to an earlier one, and make it appear as a continuation 
of the latter (in this case xa^wj xa/ aero 'ETajSp. liiahTi or xa^wg 
\ij.(j.hTi xai dcro 'E-raipp. would have been employed) ; but it is to 
be taken as cdso, not oihenvise, placing the £,addirs on a parity 
with the fViyvcort. This applies also in opposition to Vaihinger, 
in Herzog's Encyld. iv. p. 79 f. 

' Who, at the same time, makes the sv -rviCfJi.Kri suggest the reference, that the 
ayd-rn took place in a manner personally unhioicn — wliich must have been con- 
veyed in the context. 


Ver. 9. Intercession, down to ver. 12. — Zia tovto] on 
account of all that lias been said from aKovaavre^ in ver. 4 
onward : induced thereby, loe also cease not, etc. This reference 
is required by a^' rj<; rj[iepa<^ rjnovaajjiev, which cannot corre- 
spond to the hrfK.waa'i VH'^, belonging as that does merely to 
an accessory thought, but must take up again (in opposition to 
Bleek and Hofmann) the aKoua-avre^ which was said in ver. 4. 
This resumption is cmjjJiatic, not tautological (Holtzmann). — 
Kal '^fjieh] are to he tahen together, and it is not allowable to join 
Kal either with hta rovro (de Wette), or even with Trpoaev)^^. 
(Baumgarten-Crusius). The words are to be rendered : We also 
(I and Timothy), like others, who make the same intercession for 
you, and among whom there is mentioned by name the founder 
of the church, who stood in closest relation to them. — irpoaevx-] 
" Prccum mentionem geiiercitim fecit, ver. 3; nunc exprimit, quid 
precetur" (Bengel). — Ka\ alrovixevoi] adds the special {ashing) 
to the general {praying). Comp. 1 Mace. iii. 44 ; Matt. xxi. 
22 ; Mark xi. 24 ; Eph. vi. 18 ; Phil. iv. 6. As to the popular 
form of hyperbole, ov 'Travofi., comp. on Eph. i. 16. On v^rep 
vfiwv, so far as it is also to be taken with k. alrov/j,., comp. 
Lys. c. Ale. p. 141. — iva ifKr^pwO.'] Contents of the asking in 
the form of Hq purpose. Comp. on Phil. i. 9. The emphasis 
lies not on ifK-qptod. (F. Nitzsch, Hofmann), but on the object 
(comp. Ptom. XV. 14, i. 29, al), which gives t(5 the further eluci- 
dation in vv. 9, 10 its specific definition of contents. — rrjv 
iiriyv. rov OeX. avrovl with the knowledge of His ivill, accusa- 
tive, as in Phil. i. 1 1 ; avrov applies ta God as the subject, 
to whom prayer and supplication are addressed. The context 
in ver. 1 shows that by the 6eX7]/j,a is meant, not the counsel 
of redemjjtion (Eph. i. 9 ; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
lact, and many others, including Huther and Dalmer), but, 
doubtless (Matt. vi. 10), that which God w^ills in a moral respect 
(so Theodoret, who makes out a contrast with the vojJUKaU 
7rapar'rjp7]a€aiv). Comp. Eom. ii. 1 8, xii. 2 ; Eph. v. 1 7, vi. 6 ; 
Col. iv. 12. The distinction between yvcoaL^; and eTrijvcoaL^, 
which both here and also in ver. 10, ii. 2, iii. 10, is the know- 
ledge which grasps and penetrates into the object, is incorrectly 
denied by Olshausen. See on Eph. i. 17. — iv Trda-j) k.t.X.] 

CHAP. I. 0. 263 

instrumental definition of manner, how, namely, this TrXijpa- 
dPjvac Trjv iiriyv. r. 6eX. avrov (a knowledge which is to be 
the product not of mere human mental activity, but of objec- 
tively divioie endowment by the Holy Spirit) must be brought 
about : hi/ every hind of spiritual wisdom and insight, by the 
communication of these from God ; comp. on Eph. i. 8. A 
combination with the following TrepcTraTriaat (comp. iv. 5 : iv 
ao(f)ia TrepLTT.), such as Hofmann suggests, is inappropriate, 
because the two parts of the whole intercession stand to one 
another in the relation of the divine ethical foundation 
(yew 9), and of the corresponding practical conduct of life 
(ver. 1 f ) ; hence the latter portion is most naturally and 
emphatically headed by the expression of this Christian prac- 
tice, the TTepLiraTrjaai,, to which are then subjoined its modal 
definitions in detail. Accordingly, irepLiraTrjaai is not, with 
Hofmann, to be made dependent on rov OeXt'^ix. avTov and 
taken as its contents, but r. OeX. r. ©. is to be left as an abso- 
lute idea, as in iv. 12. On irvevixariKo'^, proceeding from the 
Holy Spirit} comp. Eom. i. 11; 1 Cor. ii, 13, xii. 1 ; Eph. 
i. 3, V. 19, ct cd. The avvecn<; is the insight, in a theoretical 
and (comp. on Mark xii. 33) practical respect, depending upon 
judgment and inference, Eph. iii. 4 ; 2 Tim. ii. 7. For the 
opposite of the 2^'^^cumcdic avvecn^i, see 1 Cor. i. 19. It is 
related to the aocfyta as the specicd to the general, since it is 
peculiar^ the expression of the intelligence in the domain of 
truth,'^ while the aocjiia concerns the collective faculties of the 
mind, the activities of knowledge, willing, and feeling, the 
tendency and working of which are harmoniously subservient to 
the recognised highest aim, if the wisdom is irvev[xarLKrj ; its 
opposite is the croj)La aapKiKrj (2 Cor. i, 12 ; Jas. iii. 15), 
being of man, and not of God, in its aim and efforts. Accord- 
ing as ^povqcra is conceived subjectively or objectivized, the 
cyvve(TL<i may be considered either as synonymous with it 

^ Hence h avuhv <rt)(pia, Jas. iii. 15, 17. The predicate, although in the case 
of divine endo'\%anent with a-ixpia and cvnais obvious of itself (as Hofmann 
objects), was yet all the moi-e apposite for expressly bringing the point into pro- 
minence, the greater the danger which threatened Colossae from non-divine, 
fleshly wisdom ; comp. ii. 23. 

* Comp. Dem. 269. 24 : (riviai;, v to. xuXa, xu.) a'tc^fa CiayivurniTxi, 


(Eph. i. 8 ; Dan. ii. 21 ; Plat. Crat. p. 411 A), or as an attri- 
bute of it (Ecclus. i. 4 : a-vvea-L<; (f)pov7]<Te(o<i). 

Ver. 10. The practical cmn^ which that 'jrXrjpwOrjvai, k.t.X. 
is to accomplish ; ael rfi iriaTeu crv^evyvvcn ti-jv irdkiTeiav, 
Chrysostom. The Vulgate renders correctly : td amhuletis (in 
opposition to Hofmann, see on ver. 9). — a.|tws" tov Kvptov] so 
that your behaviour may stand in morally appropriate relation 
to your belonging to Christ. Comp. Eom. xvi. 2 ; Eph. iv. 1 ; 
Phil. i. 27; 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; 3 John 6. The genitive (and in 
the N". T. such is always used with afto)?) does not even 
'•' perhaps " (Hofmann) belong to the following et9 tt. apecr/c., 
especially as apeaKela, in the Greek writers and in Philo 
(see Loesner, p. 361), stands partly with, partly without, a 
genitival definition, and the latter is here quite obvious of 
itself. Such a combination would be an unnecessary artificial 
device. Comp. Plat. Conv. p. 180 D: a^lw^ tov &eov. — et9 
iraaav apeaKelav] on helialf of every kind of ijlcasing, that is, 
in order to please Him in every way. The word only occurs 
here in the N". T., but the apostle is not on that account to be 
deprived of it (Holtzmann) ; it is found frequently in Polybius, 
Philo, ct al. ; also Theophr. Char. 5 ; LXX. Prov. xxix. 3 
(xxx. 30); Symmachus, Ps. Ixxx. 12. On iraaav ap. comp. 
Polybius, xxxi. 26. 5 : irav jeva apeaKeia<; Trpocr^epo^evo^. 
Among the Greeks, upecrKeia (to be accentuated thus, see 
Winer, p. 50 [E. T. 57]; Buttmann, Netd. Gr. p. 11 [E. T. 
12]) bears, for the most part, the sense of seeking to ijlcase. 
Comp. Prov. xxix. 3 : i/reuSet? apea-Keiai. — iu Travrl epjo) 
/C.T.X.] There now follow three expositions, in order to define 
more precisely the nature and mode of the TrepLirarrjaac a^lco^ 
k.tX We must, in considering these, notice the homogeneous 
plan of the three clauses, each of which commences with a 
prepositional relation of the participial idea, viz. (1) iv Travrl 
epyu) K.tX., (2) iv irdar] Bvvdfiei, (3) /^era '^apd'i, and ends 

' Not to be attached as object of the request immediately to "rpociuxo/^'-yoi, and 
all that intervenes to be assigned to the interpolator (Holtzmann, p. 85). Yet, 
according to Holtzmann, p. 123, Iv -ravTi 'ifyu down to row SioZ is alleged to be 
simply an interpolated duplicate of ver. 6 ; in which case, however, it would not 
be easy to see why xa/Jiro^o/ioy^Evo* was not written, after the precedent of ver. 6, 
but on the contrary xapTofopounrti. 

CHAP. I. 10. 265 

with a relation expressed by eh, viz. (1) et? t. eVr/y. r. Oeov, 
(2) et9 Trao". mrofx,. k. /xaKpodv/u,., (3) et? rrjv fxeplSa k.t.X. 
The construction would be still more symmetrical if, in the 
third clause, eV iraarj %a/oa (Rom. xv. 32) had been written 
instead of fxera %apa? — which was easily prevented by the ver- 
satility of the apostle's form of conception. — iv Travrl epjo) 
ujadw KapTTocf). is to be taken together (and then again, av^a- 
vojjb. eh Tr]v eirl^v. t. Qeov), inasmuch as yc hy every good icork 
(by your accomplishing every morally good action) lecir fruit, 
as good trees, comp. Matt. vii. 17. Bat not as if the Kapiro- 
(fiopecv and the av^dveadai were separate things ; they take 
place, as in ver. 6, jointly and at the same time, although, after 
the manner of parallelism, a special more precise definition is 
annexed to each. Moreover, iv iravrl epy. ay. is not to be 
connected with eh iraa-av apea-K. (Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Erasmus, and others, also Steiger) ; otherwise we mistake and 
destroy the symmetrical structure of the passage. — koX av^a- 
vofi. eh T. eiTLyv. t. 0.] and, inasmuch as with this moral fruit- 
hearing at the same time ye increase in respect to the know- 
ledge of God, that is, succeed in knowing Him more and more 
fully. The living, effective knowledge of God, which is meant 
by eirlyv. t. Qeov (ver. 6, iii. 10, ii. 2), sustains an ethically 
necessary action and reaction with practical morality. Just 
as the latter is promoted by the former, so also knowledge 
grows through moral practice in virtue of the power of inward 
experience of the divine life (the ^co^ rod Qeov, Eph. iv. 18), 
by which God reveals Himself more and more to the inner 
man. The fact that here tov Qeov generally is said, and not 
Tov de\ripLaro<i Qeov repeated, is in keeping with the progressive 
development set forth ; there is something of a climax in it. On 
eh, used of the telic reference, and consequently of the regula- 
tive direction of the growth, comp. on Eph. iv. 15; 2 Pet. 
i. 8. The reading ry einyvuKxeL r. Q. would have to be taken 
as instrumental, with Olshausen, Steiger, Huther, de Wette, 
Bleek, who follow it, but would yield after ver. 9 something 
quite seK-evident. We may add that av^dv., with the dative 
of spiritual increase hj something, is frequent in Plato and 
classic writers. — As to the nominatives of the participles, which 


are not to be taken with TrXojpcoO. (Beza, Bengel, Eeiche, and 
others), but relate to the logical subject of TrepiTrar. a^i(o<;, 
comp. on Eph. iv. 2 ; 2 Cor. i, 7. 

Ver. 1 1 is co-ordinate with the foregoing ev iravrl epja . . . 
@eov. — iv irdarj Bw. Bvva/M.l iv is instrumental, as in ver. 9 
(Eph. vi. 10 ; 2 Tim. ii. 1) ; lience not designating that, in the 
acqiiiring of ivJtich the invigoration is supposed to consist (Hof- 
mann), but : hy means of every (moral) power (by its bestowal 
on God's part) hecoming empowered. Bwafioto (Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. p. 605) does not occur in Greek authors, and is only 
found here and at Heb. xi. 34, Lachm. in the N". T. ; in the 
LXX. at Eccles. x. 1 ; Dan. ix. 2 7 ; Ps. Ixvii, 3 1 ; in Aquila ; 
Job xxxvi. 9 ; Ps. Ixiv. 4. Paul elsewhere uses ivhvva^ovv. 
— Kara ro Kpdro<; tt}? Sof. avr.l according to the might of His 
majesty ; with this divine might (see as to Kpdro^ on Eph. i. 19), 
through the powerful influence of which that strengthening is 
to be imparted to them, it is also to be correspondent — and 
thereby its eminent strength and efficacy are characterized {Kara 
in Eph. i. 19 has another sense). Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 9 ; 
Phil. iii. 21. And to Kpdro<; r. 86^. avr. is not His glorious 
power (Luthev, Castalio, Beza, and others ; also Elatt and 
Bahr), against which avrov should have been a sufficient warn- 
ing ; but TO Kparo^ is the appropriate attribute of the divine 
majesty (of the glorious nature of God). Comp. Eph. iii. 16 ; 
Ecclus. xviii. 5. The Kpdro^ therefore is not the glory of God 
(Bohmer), but the latter has the former, — and tlie ho^a is not 
to be referred to a single aspect of the divine greatness 
(Grotius : p)ower ; Huther : love), but to its glorious whole. 
Comp. on Eom. vi. 4. — eh irdcrav vtto^. k. fxaKpoO^ in re- 
spect to every endurance (in affliction, persecution, temptation, 
and the like, comp. Eom. v. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 6, vi. 4 ; Jas. i. 3 f. ; 
Luke viii. 15 ; Eom. ii 7, ct al.) and long-suffering (towards 
the offenders and persecutors), that is, so as to be able to 
exercise these virtues in every way by means of that divine 
strengthening. The distinction of Chrysostom : [xaKpoOv^u 
Tt9 Trpo? iKelvov; oi)? hwarov Kal d^vvaaOai' inrofievet, 8e, 
0U9 ov hvvarat dfxvvacrdat, is arbitrary. See, on the contrary, 
for instance, Heb. xii. 2, 3. Others understand it variously; 

CHAP. I. 12. .267 

but it is to be observed, that vTrofiov/] expresses the more 
general idea of endurance, and that fiaKpo6u/ji[a, the opposite 
of which is o^vOv/mla (Eur. Anch. 729; Jas. i. 19) and 
6^v9vfj,T](Ti<; (Artem. iv. 69), always refers in the N. T. to the 
relation of patient tolerance towards offenders. Comp. iii. 12 ; 
Gal. V. 22; Eom. ii. 4; Eph. iv. 2; also Heb. vi. 12; Jas. 
V. 10. — fxera X^pa?] is joined with traa-av v7ro/jb. k. jxaKpoO. 
by Theodoret, Luther, Beza, Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, 
Bengel, Heinrichs, and many others, including Olshausen, 
Bahr, Steiger, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dalmer, so that 
the ivwe, joyful patience (comp. ver. 24) is denoted. But the 
symmetry of the passage (see on ver. 10), in which the two 
previous participles are also preceded by a prepositional defini- 
tion, points so naturally to the connection with what follows 
(S}T., Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Estius, 
and others, including Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bohmer, Huther, 
Ewald, Ellicott, Bleek, Hofniann), that it cannot be abandoned 
without arbitrariness. Even in that case, indeed, the thought 
oi joyful patience, which is certainly apostolic (Eom. v. 3 ; 1 Pet. 
i. 6 ; Eom. xii. 12 ; comp. Matt. v. 12), is not lost, M'hen the 
intercession rises from patience to joyful thanksgiving. Observe 
also the deliberate juxtaposition of ixera xapa^ ei/'xapiar. 

Ver. 12. IMiilc yc give thanks with joy fulness, etc., — a third 
accompanying definition of TrepciraT'tjcraL d^L(o<; k.t.X. (ver. 10), 
co-ordinate with the two definitions preceding, and not to be 
connected -with ou Travo/neOa k.t.X. (Chrysostom, Theopliylact, 
Calvin : " iterum redit ad gratulationem," Calovius, Bohmer, 
Baumgarten-Crusius). — t&> irarpi] of Jesus Christ ; comp. 
ver. 13, and rov Kvpiov in ver. 10, not : "the Father absolutely" 
(Hofmann). It is always in Paul's writmgs to be gathered 
from the context, whose Father God is to be understood as 
being (even at Eph. i. 17) ; never does he name God absolutely 
(m ahstracfo) 6 TraTijp. Comp. ver. 3, which, however, is held 
by Holtzmann to be the original, suggesting a repetition by 
the editor at our passage, in spite of the fact that the two 
passages have different subjects. Just as little does ek rrjv 
fiepiha K.T.X. betray itself as an interpolation from Eph. i. 18 
and i. 11 (Holtzmann), seeing that, on the one hand, the 


expression at our passage is so wholly peculiar, and, on the 
other hand, the idea of KXrjpovofiia is so general in the IST. T, 
Comp. especially Acts xxvi. 18/ — rat iKavcoaavrt k.t.X] 
Therein lies the ground of the thanksgiving, quippe qui, etc. 
God lias made us fit (f]/xd<i applies to the letter-writers and 
readers, so far as they are Christians) for a share in the Mes- 
sianic salvation through the light, inasmuch as, instead of the 
darkness which previously prevailed over us, He has by means 
of the gospel brought to us the oKi^deia, of which light is the 
distinctive element and the quickening and saving principle 
(Eph. V. 9) of the Christian constitution both in an intellectual 
and ethical point of view (Acts xxvi. 18) ; hence Christians are 
children of the light (Eph. v. 8 ; 1 Thess. v. 5 ; Luke xvi. 8). 
Comp. Eom. xiii. 12 ; 2 Cor. vi. 14 ; 1 Pet. ii. 9. In Christ the 
light had attained to personal manifestation (John i. 4 ff., iii. 9, 
viii. 12 ; Matt. iv. 16, et al), as the personal revelation of the 
divine nature itself (1 John i. 5), and the gospel was the means 
of its communication (Eph. iii. 9 ; Heb. vi. 4 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4 : 
Acts xxvi. 23, ct al.) to men, who untltout this enlightenment 
were iinfit for the Messianic salvation (Eph. ii. 1 ff., iv. 18, 
V. 11, vi. 12 ; 1 Thess. v. 4, et al). The instrumental defini- 
tion iv ra> ^coTL is placed at the end, in order that it may stand 
out with special cmpluciis ; hence, also, the relative sentence 
which follows refers to this very element. An objection has 
been wrongly urged against our view (which is already adopted 
by Chrysostom, Oecunienius, Theophylact ; comp. Estius and 
others, including Flatt and Steiger), that Paul must have used 
TTuev/xa instead of ^w? (see Olshausen). The iKavovv iv rcv 
^corl is, indeed, nothing else than the KaXetv ei? to ^w? 
(1 Pet. ii. 9) conceived in respect of its moral efficacy, and 
the result thereof on the part of man is the etvai ^'m<; iv Kvpi(p 
(Eph. V. 8), or the elvai v'lov toO <^wto9 (1 Thess. v. 5 ; John 
xii. 36), ft)9 </:cocrT^/3t9 iv Koafxw (Phil. ii. 15). But the light 

' Tlie mode in A^liicli Acts xxvi. IS comes into contact as regards lliongl.t and 
expression with Col. i. 12-14, may be sufficiently explained Ly tlie circumbtance 
that in Acts xxvi. also Paul is the speaker. Holtzmann justly advises caution 
with ref(U'enoe to the apparent echoes of the IjooIc of Acts in general, as Luke 
originally bears the Pauline stamp. 

CHAP. I. 12. 269 

is a. power ; for it is to </>&<? tt)? ^wj}? (John viii. 12), has its 
armour (Eom. xiii. 12), produces its fruit (Eph. v. 9), effects 
the Christian iXijx^''^ (Eph. v. 13), endurance in the conflict 
of affliction (Heb. x. 32), etc. 'Eu tw ^cotI is usually con- 
nected with Tov Kkrjpov rwv cv^loav, so that this KKr)po<i is de- 
scribed as co:isting or to he found in light, as the Icingdom of 
light ; in which case we may think either of its glory (Beza 
and others, Bohmer, Huther), or of its imrity and 'perfection 
(Olshausen, de Wette, and Dalmer) as referred to. But 
although the connecting article rod might be wanting, and the 
KKrjpo^ T. ay. ev tw (pcort might thus form a single conception, it 
may be urged as an objection that the heritage meant cannot 
be the tcmporcd position of Christians, but only the future 
blessedness of the Messianic glorious Icingdom; comp. ver. 13, 
rrjv ^aaiX. tov viov. Hence not ev tS (f)coTi, but possibly eV 
TTJ Bo^r), ev Tj] ^oofj, ev Tot9 oupavet'i, or the like, would be a 
fitting definition of K\rjpo<i, which, however, already has in 
r€)v aylcov its definite description (comp. Eph. i. 18; Acts 
XX. 32, xxvi. 18). Just as little — for the same reason, and 
because t. iieplha already carries with it its own definition 
(share in the KXijpo'i) — is ev tm ^corl to be made dependent on 
Tr}v /jLeplSa, whether ev be taken locally (Bengel : " Lux est 
regnum Dei, habentque fideles in hoc regno 'partem beatam") 
or as in Acts viii. 21 (Ewald), in which case Hofmann finds 
the s'phcre expressed (comp. also Bleek), where the saints have 
got their -peculiar 2^ossession assigned to them, so that the being 
in light stands related to the future glory as that which is still 
in various respects conditioned stands to 'plenitude — as if K\^po<; 
(comp. on Acts xxvi. 18) had not already the definite and full 
eschatological sense of the possession of eternal glory. This 
KXrjpo<;, of which the Christians are^;oss(?ssor.9 (tc5v uyicov), ideally 
before the Parousia, and thereafter really, is the theocratic de- 
signation (npri]) of the property of the Messianic kingdom (see 
on Gal. iii, 18 ; Eph. i. 11), and the jxepU (pbii) tov K\t)pov is 
the 5Z:f//'<; of individuals^ in the same. Comp. Ecclus. xliv. 23. 

* Corap. also Bleek. Ilofmaim incorrectly says that toZ xXnfoZ serves only to 
designate the fHfU as destined for special possession. In that case, at least, the 
qualitative genitive of the abstract must have been put (t*?; xXnpim/i'ias, as in 


Ver. 13. A more precise elucidation of tlie divine benefit 
previously expressed by tw iKavcoa-avrt . . . (pcorL This verse 
forms the transition, by which Paul is led on to the instructions 
as to Christ, which he has it in view to give down to ver. 20.'^ 

— e/c T?}? e^ovcr. rod cr/cor.] tov ctkot. is not genitive of ajoposi- 
tion (Hofmann), but, corresponding to the eU rrjv /3acn\e{av 
that follows, genitive of the suhjed : out of the ;poiver, which 
darkness has. The latter, as the influential power of non- 
Christian humanity (of the koo-ixo^;, which is ruled by the devil, 
Eph. ii. 2), is ^personified ; its essence is the negation of the 
intellectual 'and ethical divine akrjOeia, and the affirmation of 
the opposite. Comp. Luke xxii. 5 3 ; Matt. iv. 16; Acts 
xxvi. 18; Eom. xiii. 12; Eph. v. 8, vi. 12, et al. The act 
of the ippvaaro has taken j^^t^i'Cc by means of the conversion to 
Christ, which is the work of God, Eom. viii. 29 f. ; Eph. 
ii, 4 ff. It is to be observed, that the expression e/c t. i^ova: 
T. aKOTov; is chosen as the correlative of iv tw (pwrim ver. 12. 

— Kol fi€Te(TT7]a-€v] The matter is to be conceived locally (et? 
erepov tottov, Plat. Lcgg. vi. p. 762 B), so that the deliver- 
ance from the power of darkness appears to be united with 
the removing away into the kingdom, etc. Comp. Plat. Hep. 
p. 5 1 8 A : €K T6 (f)coTo<; et? aKoro^ /jLeOtarafievcov Kol e/c (tko- 
Tovi et? (/)co9. — et? rrjv /3acriX. k.t.X., that is, into the kingdom 
of the Messiah, Eph. v. 5 ; 2 Pet. i. 1 1 ; for this and nothing 
else is meant by 97 ^aaiXeia Xpiarov (tov @eov, twv ovpavoiv) 
in all 'passages of the N. T. Comp. iv. 11; and see on Eom. 
xiv. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 20; Matt. iii. 2, vi. 10. The aorist 

Ps. xvi. 5). But tlie concrete rov xX^pou r. ay. is, as the literal sense of f^'-pis, 
portio, most naturally suggests, the gcnitivus jyaj-tltivtis (G. totius), so that the 
individual is conceived as /j-ifims of the nXripos of the saints, in which he for his 

part ffuficfiiri^ii. 

' This Christological outburst runs on in the form of purely positive statement, 
although having already in view doctrinal dangers of the kind in Colossae. 
According to Holtzmann, the Christology belongs to the compiler ; the wliole 
passage, vv. 14-20, is forced and without motive, and it is only in ver. 21 that 
we find the direct sequel to ver. 13. The latter statement is incorrect. And 
why should this excursus, as a grand basis for all the exhortations and warnings 
that follow, be held ivithout due motive ? Holtzmann forms too harsh a judg- 
ment as to the whole passage i. 9-23, when he declares it incompatible with 
any strict exegetical treatment. 

CHAP. I. 13. 271 

fieriar. is to be explained by the matter being conceived 
proleptically {rfj <yap ekirihi iao)07}jii6v, Eom. viii. 24), as 
something already consummated (comp. on eSo^aae, Eom, 
viii. 3 0). Thus the kingdom which is nigh is, by means of 
their fellowship of life with their Lord (Eph. ii. 6), as certain 
to the redeemed as if they were already translated into it. 
The explanation which refers it to the Christian church (so 
still Heinrichs, Biihr, Huther, and most expositors) as con- 
trasted with the Koa/xoi;, is just as unhistorical as that which 
makes it the invisible inward, ethical kingdom (see especially 
Olshausen, following an erroneous view of Luke xvii. 21), to 
which also Bleek and Hofmann ultimately come. Certainly 
all who name Christ their Lord are under tliis king (Hofmann) ; 
but this is not yet his ^aaCkeia ; that belongs to the future 
aldiv, Eph. V. 5 ; 1 Cor. vi. 9 f., xv. 24, 50 ; Gal. v. 21, d al. ; 
John xviii. 36. — t?}? djdiri]'} avrov] in essential meaning, 
indeed, nothing else thanroO vlov avrov rov dyaTnjTov (Matt. 
iii. 17, xvii. 5, et al.), or rov vlov rov d<^ar:r]rov avrov 
(Matt. xii. 1 8 ; Mark xii. 6), but more prominently singling 
out the attribute (Buttmanu, M^it. Gr. p. 141 [E. T. 162]): 
of the Son of His love, that is, of the Son who is the object of 
His love, genitive of the subject. Comp. Gen. xxxv. 18 : vio? 
68vvr]^ /MOV. Entirely parallel is Eph. i. 6 f : eu raj rj^yairrnxevw, 
iv S e-)(piJLev K.r.X. Augustine, do Trin. xv. 19, understood it 
as genitive of origin, making dydrrr] avrov denote the divine 
suhstantia} So again Olshausen, in whose view the expression 
is meant to correspond to the Johannine /iovo'yevy]<i. This is 
entirely without analogy in the N. T. mode of conception, 
according to which not the procreation (ver. 15), but the send- 
ing of the Son is referred to the divine love as its act ; and 
the love is not the essence of God (in the metaphysical sense), 
but His essential disposition (the essence in the ethical sense), 
even in 1 John iv. 8, 16. Consequently it might be ex- 
plained : " of the Son, whom His love has sent," if this were 
suggested by the context ; so far, however, from tliis being the 
case, the language refers to the exalted Christ who q^cIcs {/Sacrt- 

^ Theodore of Jropsuestia finds in the expression the contrast that Cluist was 
the Son of God ou (pum, aXX' ayaa-ji TJJj viah/rlxi. 


\elav). The expression itself, o u/o? tt)? a'^dir. avTOv, is found 
in the N. T. only here, but could not be chosen more suitably 
or with deeper feeling to characterize the opposite of the 
God-hated element of c/coto?, which in its nature is directly 
opposed to the divine love. The view, that it is meant to be 
intimated that the sharing in the kingdom brings with it the 
vloOeaia (Huther, de Wette), imports what is not expressed, 
and anticipates the sequel. Holtzmann without ground, and 
unfairly, asserts that in comparison with Eph. i. 6 our passage 
presents " stereotyped modes of connection and turns of an 
ecclesiastical orator," under which he includes the Hebraizing 6 
vlo'i Tri<i a'^airt]'^ avr. as being thoroughly un-Fcmline — as if the 
linguistic resources of the apostle could not even extend to an 
expression which is not indeed elsewhere used by him, but is 
in the highest degree appropriate to a specially vivid sense of 
the divine act of love ; something sentimental in the best sense. 
Ver. 14. Not a preliminary condition of the vlodeaia (de 
Wette), nor the benefit of which Christians become partakers 
in the kingdom of the Son of God (Huther ; against which it 
may be urged that the ^aaiXela does not denote the kingdom 
of the cJiurch) ; nor yet a mark of the deliverance from dark- 
ness having taken place (Eitschl in the JaJirh. f. Deutsche 
Theol. 1863, p. 513), since this deliverance necessarily 
coincides with the translation into the kingdom ; but it is the 
abiding {evpixev, habemus, not accejnmus) relation, in lahich that 
transference into the hingdom of God has its causal hasis. The 
ransoming (from the punishment of sin, see the explanatory 
T7)v d^eaiv roiv afxapr.) we have in Christ, inasmuch as He, 
by the shedding of His blood as the purchase-price (see on 
1 Cor. vi. 20; Gal. iii. 13, iv. 5), has given Himself as a 
Xvrpov (Matt. xx. 28 ; Mark x. 45 ; 1 Tim. ii, 6) ; and this 
redemption, effected by His lXaa-T7]ptov (Eom. iii. 21 ff.), 
remains continually in subsistence and efficacy. Hence : iv S, 
which specifies wherein the subjective exop'ev is objectively 
based, as its causa mcritoria (Eom. iii. 24). Comp., moreover, 
on Eph. i. 7, whence hta rov at/xaro? avrov has found its way 
hither as a correct gloss. But the deleting of this addition 
by no means implies that we should make twv dfiapriwv also 

CHAP. I. 15. 273 

belong to rijv airdkvTpcotnv (Hofmann), as in Heb. ix. 15, 
especially as Paul elsewhere only uses airokvTpoacTL'i either 
absolutely (Eom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. 1, iv. 30) or 
with the genitive of the suhjcct (Eom. viii. 23 ; Eph. i. 14), 
The expression a^eai'; r. afiapr. is not used by him elsewhere 
in the epistles (comp., however, Eom. iv. 7), but at Acts xiii. 
38, xxvi. 28. Holtzmann too hastily infers that the writer 
had read the Synoptics. 

Ver. 15. As to vv. 15-20, see Schleiermacher in the Stud. 
u. Krit. 1832, p. 497 ff. {Werhe z. Thcol. II. p. 321 ff.), and, 
in opposition to his ethical interpretation (of Christ as the 
moral Eeformer of the world), Holzhausen in the Titb. Zcitschr. 
1832, 4, p. 236 ff. ; Osiander, iUd. 1833, 1, 2; Bahr, ap- 
pendix to Komment. p. 321 ff. ; Bleek on Heb. i. 2. See 
generally also Hofmann, Schrifilciv. I. p. 153 ff., II. 1, p. 
357 ff.; Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 446 f. — 
After having stated, in ver. 1 4, what we have in Christ (whose 
state of exaltation he has in view, see ver. 1 3, r^y ^aaCkelav), 
Paul now, continuing his discourse by an epexegetical relative 
clause, depicts what Christ is, namely, as regards His divine 
dignity — having in view the influences of the false teachers, 
who with Gnostic tendencies depreciated this dignity. The 
jplan of the discourse is not tripartite (originator of the physi- 
cal creation, ver. 1 5 f. ; maintainer of everything created, 
ver. 1 7 ; relation to the new moral creation, ver. 1 8 ff., — so 
Biihr, wdiile others divide differently^), but hipartite, in such a 
way that vv. 15-17 set forth the exalted metaphysical rela- 
tion of Christ to God and the ivorld, and then ver. 1 8 ff., His 
historical relation of dignity to the church? This division, 
which in itself is logically correct (whereas ver. 17 is not 
suited, either as regards contents or form, to be a separate, 
co-ordinate part), is also externally indicated by the two con- 
firmatory clauses on ev avrw k.t.\. in ver. 16 and ver. 19, by 

' e.g. Calovius : " PeJeniptoris descriptio aDeitafe: ab o])ere creathnis," and 
"quod caput eccksiae sit." Comp. Schniid, Bibl. Theol. II. p. 299 f. 

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



which the tvjo preceding^ affirmations in vcr. 15 and vcr. 18 
are shown to he the proper parts of the discourse. Others 
(see especially Bengel, Schleiermacher, Hofmanii, comp. also 
Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 77) have looked upon the twice-expressed 
09 ia-Tiv in ver. 1 5 and ver. 1 8 as marking the beginning of the 
two parts. But this would not be justifiable as respects the 
second o? ia-Ttv ; for the main idea, which governs the ivhole 
effusion, vv. 15-20, is the f/lori/ of the dominion of the Son of 
God, in the description of which Paul evidently begins the 
second part with the words Kal avro^, ver. 18, passing over 
from the general to the special, namely, to His government 
over the church to which He has attained by His resurrec- 
tion. On the details, see below. — 09 eanv /c.t.X.] It is to be 
observed that Paul has in view Christ as regards His ijrcsent 
existence, consequently as regards the presence and continu- 
ance of His state of exaltation (comp, on. w. 13, 14) ; hence 
he affirms, not what Christ was, but what He is. On this 
eVrtV, comp. w. 17, 18, and 2 Cor. iv. 4. Therefore not 
only the reference to Christ's temporal manifestation (Calvin, 
Grotius, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), biit also 
the limitation to Christ's divine nature or the Logos (Calovius, 
Estius, Wolf, and many others, including Bahr, Steiger, 01- 
shausen, Huther) is incorrect. The only correct reference is 
to His lohole person, which, in the divine-human state of its 
present heavenly existence, is continually that which its divine 
nature — this nature considered in and by itself — was before 
the incarnation ; so that, in virtue of the identity of His 
divine nature, the same predicates belong to the exalted Christ 
as to the Logos. See Phil. ii. 6 ; John xvii. 5. — elKoov rov 
&€ov rov aopuTov] image of God the invisible. Comp. on 2 Cor. 
iv. 4. As, namely, Christ in His pre-existence^ down to His 

' In conformity with the confirmatory function of the on, according to which 
not the clause introduced by on, but the clause which it is to confirm, contains 
the leading thought, to which on x.t.x. is logically subordinated. Hence the 
two parts are not to be begun with the two clauses on Iv alru themselves (so 
Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 182), in which case, moreover, ver. 15 is 
supposed to be quite aloof from this connection — a supposition at variance with 
its even verbally evident association with ver. 16. 

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

CHAP. I. Ic. 275 

incarnation already possessed the essential divine gloiy, so 

that He was as to nature icra ©ew, and as to form of 

appearance iv f^op^fj Oeov v'7Tdp-)(ju)v (see on Phil. ii. 6) ; so, 

after He had by means of the incarnation divested Himself, 

not indeed of His God-equal nature, but of His divine Zo^a, 

and had humbled Himself, and had in obedience towards 

God died even the death of the cross. He has been exalted 

again by God to His original glory (Phil. ii. 9 ; John xvii. 5), 

so that the divine ho^a now exists (comp. on ii. 9) in His 

glorified corporeal manifestation (Phil. iii. 21); and He — the 

exalted Christ — in this His glory, which is that of His Father, 

represents and brings to view by exact image God, who is in 

Himself invisible. He is airav^aaiia Trj<; Bo^t}'? koI '^^apaKTrjp 

tt}? uTroaracreax? ©eov (Heb. i. 3),^ and, in this majesty, in 

which He is the exactly similar visible revelation of God, He 

will present Himself to all the world at the Parousia (Matt. 

xvi. 27, XXV. 31 ; Phil. iii. 20 ; 2 Thess. i. 7 ; 1 Pet. iv. 13 ; 

Tit. ii. 13, et al). The predicate rov aopdrov, placed as it is 

in its characteristically significant attributive position (Borne- 

mann, Schol. in Luc. p. xxxvi. ; Bernhardy, p. 322 f.) behind the 

emphatic rov @eov, posits for the conception of the exact image 

visihility (Heb. xii. 14; 2 Cor. iii. 18; Acts xxii. 11); but 

the assumption that Paul had thus in view the Alexandrian 

doctrine of the Logos, the doctrine of the hidden and manifest 

God (see Usteri, Lehrhegr. p. 308; comp. Biihr, Olshausen, 

Steiger, Huther), the less admits of proof, because he is not 

speaking here of the pre-cxistence, but of the exalted Christ, 

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

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


including, therefore, His human nature ; hence, also, the com- 
parison with the angel Mdatron of Jewish theology (comp. 
Hengstenberg, Christol. III. 2, p. 67) is irrelevant. The 
Fathers, moreover, have, in opposition to the Arians, rightly- 
laid stress upon the fact (see Suicer, Thcs. I. p. 415) that, 
according to the entire context, cIkmv tov ©eov is meant in the 
eminent sense, namely of the adequate, and consequently con- 
substantial, image of God (/jl6vo<; . . . kuI aTrapaXKaKTW^ elKwv, 
Theophylact), and not as man (Gen. i. 2 6 ; comp. also 1 Cor. 
xi. 7 ; Col. iii. 10) or the creation (Eom. i. 20) is God's image. 
In that case, however, the invisibility of the elKwv is not at all 
to be considered as presupposed (Chrysostom, Calovius, and 
others) ; this, on the contrary, pertains to the Godhead in itself 
(1 Tim. i. 17 ; Heb. xi. 27), so far as it does not present itself 
in its eiKMv; whereas the notion of ecKcov necessarily involves 
perceptibility (see above) ; " Dei inaspecti aspectabilis imago," 
Grotius. This visibility —and that not merely mental (Eom. i. 
20) — had been experienced by Paul himself at his conversion, 
and at Christ's Parousia will be fully experienced by all the 
world. Different from this is the (discursive) cognoscibility of 
God, which Christ has brought about by His appearance and 
working. John i. 18, xiv. 9. This applies against the view of 
Calvin, Clericus, and many others, including de Wette : " in 
His person, appearance, and operation . . . God has made Him- 
self as it were visible;" comp. Grotius: "Adam imago Dei 
fuit, sed valde tenuis ; in Christo perfectissime apparuit, quam 
Deus esset sapiens, potens, bonus ;" Baumgarten-Crusius : " the 
affinity to God (which is held to consist in the destination 
of ruling over the spirit-world) as Christ showed it upon earth." 
Thus the substantiality of the exact image is more or less 
turned into a quasi or quodammoclo, and the text is thus laid 
open to every kind of rationalizing caprice. We may add that 
Christ was already, as X070? daapKo<i, necessarily the image of 
God, but eV fJ'Op^y 0eov, in imrcly divine glory ; not, as after His 
exaltation, in divine-human Bo^a ; consequently, the doctrine of 
an eternal humanity of Christ (Beyschlag) is not to be based 
on eiKoov TOV Qeov. Comp. Wisd. vii. 26, and Grimm, Handb. 
p. 161 f. The idea, also, of the prototype of humanity, which 

CHAP. I. 15. 277 

is held by Beyschlag here to underlie that of the image 
of God (comp. his Christol. p. 227), is foreign to the context. 
Certainly God has in eternity thought of the humanity which 
in the fulness of time was to be assumed by His Son (Acts xv. 
1 8) ; but this is simply an ideal pre-existence (comp. Delitzsch, 
Psychol, p. 41 ff.)' such as belongs to the entire history of sal- 
vation, very different from the real antemundane existence of 
the personal Logos. — TrpwroTo/co? Truarj^ /criVew?] After the 
relation of Christ to God now follows His relation to what is 
created, in an apologetic interest of opposition to the Gnostic false 
teachers ; jSovXerai Bei^at, OTt irpo irdarj'i tt}? KTia€(i)<; iariv o 
vlo'i' iroi<i biv ; hia 7ei/?;'cre&)9" ovkovv Kai tcov ayyeXcov irporepQ'^, 
KoX ovTa><i coaTS Kal avTQ<; eKTicrev avTov<;, Theophylact. The 
false teachers denied to Christ the supreme unique rank in the 
order of spirits. But he is first-horn of every creature, that 
is, born before every creature — having come to jJcrsonal exist- 
ence^ entered upon subsistent being, ere yet anything created 
luas extant {Rom. i. 25, viii. 39; Heb. iv. 13). Analogous, 
but not equivalent, is Prov. viii. 22 f. It is to be observed 
that this predicate also belongs to the entire Christ, inasmuch 
as by His exaltation His entire person is raised to that state in 
which He, as to His divine nature, had already existed before 
the creation of the world, corresponding to the Johannine 
expression iv apxfi w o X070?, which in substance, although 
not in form, is also Pauline ; comp. Phil. ii. 6. Philo's term 
7rpct)T6yovo<i, used of the Logos, denotes the same relation ; but 
it is not necessary to suppose that Paul appropriated from 
him this expression, which is also current among classical 
authors, or that the apostle was at all dependent on the Alex- 
andrian philosophic view. The mode in which he conceived 

* According to Hofmann (Schriflbcic:), the expression is also intended to imply 
tJiat the existence of all created thbirjs was brourjJd about throufjh Him. But 
this is only stated hi what follows, and is not yet contained in ■rpuroroKOi by 
itself, which only posits the origin of Christ (as Xoyo; vptupopiKOf) in His temporal 
relation to the creature ; and this point is the more purely to he adhered to, 
seeing that Christ Himself does not belong to the category of the KTifi;. Calvin 
also has understood it as Hofmann does ; comp. also Gess, v. d. Pers. Chr. p. 
79, and Beyschlag, p. 446, according to •whom Christ is at the same time to be 
designated as the principle of the creature, \s-hose origin bears in itself that of 
the latter. 


of the personal pre-cxistence of Christ hefore the world as 
regards (timeless) origin, is not defined by the figurative 
irptororoKO'^ more precisely than as procession from the divine 
nature (Philo illustrates the relation of the origin of the 
Logos, by saying that the Father avereCkev Him), whereby 
the premundane Christ became subsistent iv tJiop<^fi Qeov and 
tcra Qeu) (Phil. ii. 6). The genitive 7rdcr7]<; /cTto-eo)?, moreover, 
is riot the partitive genitive (although de Wette still, with 
Usteri, Peuss, and Baur, holds this to be indubitable), because 
the anarthrous nraa-a ktlo-i'^ does not mean the whole creation, or 
everything which is created (Hofmann), and consequently cannot 
affirm the category or collective ivhole^ to which Christ belongs 
as its first-born individual (it means : every creature ; comp. on 
iraaa oLKoBo/jbi], Eph. ii. 21^); but it is the genitive of compari- 
son, corresponding to the superlative expression : " the first-horn 
in comiDarison ivith every creature" (see Bernhardy, p. 139), that 
is, born earlier than every creature. Comp. Biihr and Bleek, 
Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sllnde, I. p. 241 ; Weiss, Bihl. Theol. p. 424 ; 
Philippi, Glauhensl. II. p. 214, ed. 2. In Eev. i. 5, irpwroroK. 
Twv vGKpwv, the relation is different, t. veKpcbv pointing out 
the category; comp. irpcoioroK. iv ttoWol^ dS., Eom. viii. 29. 
The genitive here is to be taken quite as the comparative 

' Comp. Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 608 C. The article would necessarily be 
added, as waira h ktIitis, Judith xvi. 14, or « «aira xtUis, 3 Mace. vi. 2, or h 

XTicris nZcra. Coiup. also o'X» h XTitn;, Wisd. xix. 6. 

2 Hofniaun, Schriflhew. I. p. 156 : " In relation to all that is created, Christ 
occupies the position which a first-born has towards the household of his father." 
Essentially similar is his view in his He'd. Schr. JV. T., p. 16, Avhere -r. kt'kt. is 
held to mean "all creation," and to signify "■all that is created in its unity," 
which is also the opinion of Eich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 211. The inter- 
pretation of Hofmann (comp. Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 79) is incorrect, because there 
would thereby be necessarily affirmed a homogeneous relation of origin for Christ 
and all the ktIiti;. The xt/V/j would stand to Christ in the relation of the ^asra- 
TiX^iU to the "npuTOTzxc;, of the I'jriyoito; to the TpuToyoio;. Hofmanu indeed {Ileil. 
Schr. in loc.) opines that •^dan; xTiinu; is simply genitive "of the definition of 
relation." But this, in fact, ex])lains nothing, because the question remains, 
What relation is meant to be defined by the genitive ? The -rpuTOToxo; -raam 
kt'ktius is not at all to be got over so easily as it is by Hofmann, namely, with 
a grammatically erroneous explanation of the anarthrous ^lara. KTi<n;, and with 
appeal to Ps. Ixxxix. 28 (where, in fact, ■rfuroroKos stands without genitive, and 
■^133 in the sense of the fiist rank). 

CHAP. I. 15. 279 

genitive with irpwra \ see on John i. 15, and generally, 
Kiihner, II. 1, p. 335 f. The element of comjparison is the 
relation of time {irpo rov rov Kocrfxov elvat, John xvii. 5), and 
that in respect of origin. But because the latter in the case 
of every Kriat^ is different from what it is in the case of 
Christ, neither irpwro/cTcaTO'i nor TrpcoTOTrXacrrof; is made use 
of,^ — terms which would indicate for Christ, who is withal 
Son of God, a similar mode of origin as for the creature — but the 
term TrpcoTOTOKo^ is chosen, which, in the comparison as to time 
of origin, points to the peculiar nature of the origination in the 
case of Christ, namely, that He was not created by God, like the 
other beings in whom this is implied in the designation KTiac<;, 
but ho7-n, having come forth homogeneous from the nature of 
God. And by this is expressed, not a relation homoge- 
neous with the KTLcri<; (Holtzmann), a relation kindred to the 
world (Beyschlag, Chrisiol. p. 227), but that which is abso- 
lutely exalted above the world and unique. Theodoret justly 
observes : 01)-^ d><i aBeXiprjv e^cov rrju kt'lctlv, oKk aj9 irpo iraarj'i 
KTcaeco'i <yevv7]6eL';. At variance with the words, therefore, is 
the Arian interpretation, that Christ is designated as the first 
creature; so also Usteri, p. 315, Schwegier, Baur, Eeuss. 
With tliis view the sequel also conflicts, which describes Christ 
as the accomplisher and aim of creation ; hence in His case a 
mode of origin higher and different from the Icing created must be 
presupposed, which is, in fact, characteristically indicated in the 
purposely-chosen word irpaTOTOKO'i. The Socinian interpreta- 
tion is also incorrect^ (Grotius, Wetstein, Nosselt, Heinrichs, 
and others), that KTicn^i denotes the oiew ethical creation, along 
with which there is, for the most part, associated the refer- 
ence of TrpwTOTOK. to the highest dignity (Pelagius, Melanch- 

' How miicli, however, the designations vpuroKritTOi, x-rifffjui, xt/^e/v x.t.X., as 
applied to the origin of the Son, were in use among the Alexandrians (following 
Prov. viii. 22, where Wisdom says : xipios ekt/o-e fn, comp. Ecclus. i. 4, xxiv. 8f.), 
may be seen in Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. 1, p. 327, ed. 4. 

' Tlie Socinian doctrine argues thus: " primogenitnm unum ex corum 
numero, quorum primogenitus est, esse necesse est;" but Christ could not be 
" unus e rebus couditis creationis veteris, " — an assumption which Avould be Arian ; 
He must consequently belong to the neiv creation, from which it follows, at the 
same time, that He does not possess a divine nature. See Catech. Racov. 167, 
p. 318, ed. Oeder. 


thon, Cameron, Hammond, Zachariae, and others, including 
Storr and Flatt ; comp. de Wette), which is assumed also by- 
many who understand it of the physical creation. It is 
decisive against this interpretation, that /crtVi? would neces- 
sarily require for the moral notion a more precise definition, 
either by a predicate {Kaivrj, 2 Cor. v. 17; comp. Barnabas, 
ep. c. xvi. : Xa^ovre^; r^jv a(})eaiv twv liyi^aprixav Koi ekTricravre'i 
€7rl TO) ovoixan tov Kvpiov, eyevofjueOa Kaivol, Trakiv ef «/>%^9 
KTi^ofievoi), or at least by a context which admitted of no 
doubt ; also, that nrpoiroTOKo^ never means the most excellent, 
and can only have this sense ex acljuncto (as at Ps. Ixxxix. 2 8 ; 
Eom. viii. 29), which in this passage is not by any means the 
case, as the context (see ver. 16, and mrpo Trdvrcov in ver. 17 ; 
comp. also irpcororoKO'i e/c tcov veKpoov in ver. 18) brings pro- 
minently forward the relation of time. Chrysostom justly says : 
ov-^l a^La<; k. tijxi)^, aXKa ')(^povov fxovov earX ai-JiiavriKov, and 
already Theophilus, ad Auiol. ii. 31, p. 172 : oirore Se rjOeXr^crev 
o ©eo<; irotriaaL oaa i^ovkevcraro, rovrov rov Xvyov i'vevvrjare 
irpot^opiicov, 7rpo)TOTOKOv irdcrrj'^ KTicreco'i. This TrpcoroTOKov 
elvac belongs to the high dignity of Christ (comp. Itev. iii. 14: 
V ^PXV '''V'^ icTLcreco'i rov Oeov), but it does not signify it. Comp. 
Justin, c. Tr. 100 : irpcororoKov /juev rov ©eov k. rrpo irdvrcov rwv 
Krca-fidrcov. The ethicaP interpretation of the passage appears 
all the more mistaken, since according to it, even if rrpa)- 
roroK. is understood temporally (Baumgarten-Crusius : " Krla-a 
is that which is remodelled, and irpcororoKo';, He who has come 
first under this category, has first received this higher spiritual 
dignity"), Christ is made to he included iinder the Krlcn<;, 
which is at variance both with the context in ver. 16 f., 
and with the wliole N. T. Christology, especially the sinless- 
ness of Christ. If, however, in order to obviate this ground 
of objection, 7rp(or6roKo<; is combined as an adjective with 
eiKciov, we not only get a complicated construction, since both 

* Both errors of the Socinians, etc., are already present in TlieoLlore cf Mop- 
suestia, namely, that ■Trpur'oToxo; -rir. ktit. does not stand iri xf''">"> ^''^^ '•''' 
fTpiri/^nirsus, and signifies ■srapi rrarav rhv xt'tii Tifiufiiix:; ; and tliat Ihe following 
i» auTu x.r.\. does not denote tJiv Tfurn^, but riv U Aur^ yitofiivn* ataKTiffiv. 

Comp. also Photius, Amphil. 192. 

CHAP. I. 16. 281 

words have their genitival definition, but irpwroroKo^ (instead 
of TrpcoTOTVTTos:) would be an inappropriate predicate for eUayv. 
This applies against Schlciermacher, who, taking Kricn^i as 
" disposition and arrangement of human things," educes the 
rationalizing interpretation, that Christ is in the whole compass 
of the spiritual world of man the first-born image, the original 
copy of God ; that all believers ought to be formed in the image 
of Christ, and thence the image of God would likewise necessarily 
arise in them — an image of the second order. In the interest 
of opposition to heresy, some, following Isidore of Pelusium, Ep. 
iii. 31, p. 237, and Basil the Great, c. Uunom. iv. p. 104, have 
made the Qrst-horn even into the ^rai-hringcr-forth {nrpcoToroKO'^, 
as paroxytone, according to the classical usage, Hom. II. xvii. 5 ; 
Plat. Thcad. p. 161A, 151C; Valckenaer, Sclwl II. p. 389), as, 
with Erasmus in his Annot. (but only permissively) Erasmus 
Schmid and Michaelis did, although TrpeoToroKo^; in an active 
sense occurs only of the female sex, and the very TrpcoToroKo^ e/c 
T. veKp. of ver. 1 8 ought to have dissuaded from such an idea, to 
say nothing of the unfitness and want of delicacy of the figure^ 
as relating to Christ's agency in the creation of the world, and of 
the want of reference in the irpCirov to the idea of a heinepov — an 
idea which, with the usual interpretation, is implied in Krccreco^. 
— Ver. 1 5 f. is, moreover, strikingly opposed to that assumption 
of a world ivithout hcginning (Schleiermacher, Eothe). 

Ver. 16. For in Him ivere all things created, — the logically 
correct confirmation of irptaroroKa irda. KTia60)<i. For if the 
creation of all things took place in Christ, it is evident that He 
must stand he/ore the series of created things, and be irpwTo- 
T0/C09 trdarrj^ KTiaeaiq. — iv avrui] is not equivalent to hi avrov 
(Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Bleek, 
and many others), but : on Christ depended (causally) the act of 
creation, so that the latter was not done independently of Him — 
in a causal connection apart from Him — but it had in Him the 
ground essentially conditioning it. In Him lay, in fact, the 
potency of life, from which God made the work of creation 
proceed, inasmuch as He was the personal principle of the 
divine self-revelation, and therewith the accomplisher of the 

1 •TfuTov auTot) nraxivai, tout lari •ri^oinxUai t^v xrlfiv, Isidore, I.e. 


divine idea of the world. A well - known classical usage 
to denote the dependence of a state of things, the causality 
of which is contained in any one. See Bernhardy, p. 210 ; 
Ktihner, II. 1, p. 403 f. ; from the K T., Winer, p. 364 [E. T. 
521]. Not as if the " cansa j^'^^^ncijxdis " of the creation 
lay in Christ, but the organic causality of the world's becom- 
ing created was in Him ; hence the following hC avrov 
affirms not a different stcttc of things, but the same thing under 
a varied foriyi of conception and designation, by which it is 
brought out in greater definiteness. The primary ground of 
creation is ever God, Kom. xi. 36 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; Heb. xi. 3. 
The speculative interpretation of scholastic theology, which 
found here the " causa exempkcris," according to which the idea 
omnium rcrum was in Christ, is indeed followed in the main 
again by Beyschlag, as earlier by Kleuker, Bohmer, Bahr, 
Neander, Schleiermacher, Steiger, Julius Mliller, Olshausen (the 
latter saying : " the Son of God is the intelligible world, the 
/foo-ytio? vor]T6<i, that is, things in their very idea ; He bears their 
essence in Himself"), but is destitute of confirmation from 
the modes of conception and expression elsewhere in the 
N. T., and, as eKriadr} denotes the historical fact of tlie having 
been created, it would require not iv avr(2, but ef avTov, by 
which the coming forth of the real from tlie ideal existence in 
Christ might be expressed. Hutlier finds the inward connection 
indicated by iv avru) in the idea, that the eternal essence of 
the universe is the divine essence itself, which in Christ became 
man. This idea in itself has no biblical ground ; and Paul is 
speaking here, not of the existence and essence of the universe 
in Christ, but of the becoming created, which took place in 
Christ (eV auToS ^(arj rjv, John i. 4), consequently of a divine 
act depending on Christ ; comp. John i. 3 : X^pl's avrov 
i<yev€7o ouSe eV o ylyovev ; Heb. i. 2 ; and Bleek in loc. Lastly, 
de Wette finds in iv besides the instrumental agency at 
the same time something of a tclic idea (comp. also Ewald and 
Weiss, Bill. Theol. p. 424 f.); but this blending together of 
two heterogeneous references is iiot justified by the Bl avrov 
Kal ei? avTov that follows. — iKTiadi]] p)hysical act of creation ; 
Schleiermacher ought not to liave called in question the 

CHAP. I. 16. 283 

linguistic usage to this effect, with a view to favour the ethical 
interpretation of the founding of the cJmrch. See Wisd. i. 14, 
X. 1, xi. 18 ; Deut. iv. 32 ; comp. Gen. vi. 7 ; Ecclus. xxiv, 9, 
comp. XV. 1 4 ; Judith xiii. 1 8 ; comp. Gen. i. 1 ; 1 Cor. xi. 9 ; 
Eph. iii. 9 ; Eom. i. 25 ; Eev. x. G, comp. xiv. 7. The word 
way have the meaning adopted by Schleiermacher : to oltain its 
arrangement and constitution (Herod, i. 149, 167, 168 ; Thuc. 
i. 100; Aesch. Chocph. 484; Soph. Ant. 1101; Find. 01. 
vi. 116; 3 Esdr. iv. 53), and that according to the relative 
nature of the notion implied in the word conderc (comp. 
Blomf. Gloss, in Acsch. Pers. 294) ; hut not here, where it is 
correlative with rrdcrrj^; ACTt'creeo?, and where the quite general 
and in no way to be restricted ra iravra follows. Through- 
out the N. T., in general kti^q), Kria-t^, KTiaixa, denote the 
original bringing forth, never merely the arrangement of that 
which exists; and even in such passages as Eph. ii. 10, 15, 
iv. 24, the relation is conceived, only in a popular manner, as 
actual creation. — Observe, moreover, the distinction of the tenses : 
iKTiaOri, which denotes the act that took place; and then 
cKTiaTai, which denotes the creation ivhieh has taken place and 
now suhsists. See Winer, p. 255 [E. T. 340]; Kiihner, II. 1, 
p. 143 f., and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 1. 4, iii. 7. 7. — ra 7rdvTa\ 
the collective whole, namely, of what is created. This is then 
specified in a twofold way, as well in regard to place as in 
regard to nature. — ra iv rot? ovpavoh «.t.X.] the things to he 
found in the heavens and those to he found on ea7ih. This is 
certainly a less exact designation of all created things than 
that in Eev. x. 6 (rov ovpavov koI to, iv avrtp k.t.X. ; comp. 
Neh. ix. 6 ; Gen. ii. 1, et cd.), but does not differ from it, as 
it does not exclude heaven and earth themselves, the consti- 
tuent elements of which, in the popular view, are included in 
these two categories. Comp. 1 Chron. xxx. 11. It is incor- 
rect, therefore, to press this expression in opposition to the 
explanation which refers it to the creation of the world 
(Wetstein : " non dicit o ovpavov koI rj yrj iKTiaOrj sed to. 
Trdvra, etc., quo hahitatorcs significantur, qui reconciliantur," 
comp. Heinrichs and others, also Catcch. Racov. 132, p. 214, 
ed. Oeder), and to think, with Schleiermacher, of the kingdom 


of lieamn ; but it is arbitrary also, especially after to, irdvTa, 
to make the apostle mean primarily the living (Bahr, de 
Wette) or rational creatures. The expression embraces every- 
tJiinr/ ; hence there was neither need for the mention of the 
loiver world, nor, looking at the bipartite form of enumeration, 
occasion for it (it is otherwise in Phil. ii. 10; Eev. v. 3). 
The idea that Paul could not have adduced those under the 
earth as a special class of created beings, because God had not 
created them with the view of their being under the earth (de 
Wette), would imply a reflection alien to the vivid flow of the 
passage before us. — ra opara k. ra dopara] By the latter is 
meant the heavenly world of spirits, the angelic commonwealth, 
as is evident from the more precise enumeration which follows, 
and not the souls of men (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others), 
which, on the contrary, as animating a portion of the opard, 
are included among the latter. Theodoret erroneously asserts 
that even to. opard ajDplies to heavenly things (sun, moon, and 
stars) ; it applies to everything visible, as in Plat. Phaed. p. 79 A : 
6(ofi€v ovv, el (3ov\€C,, €(f)r], Sua elSr) rcov oprcou to jmIv oparov, 
TO Se deihh. — The dopara are now more precisely specified 
disjunctively by elre, sive . . . sive (put more than twice; 
comp. Plat. Eej). p. 612A, 493D; Ecclus. xli. 4). As to the 
four denominations of angels ^\\\\c\\ follow — whose difference of 
rank Hofmann groundlessly denies,-^ understanding thereby 
merely " spirits collectively, of ivhatever name they may he " — see 
on Eph. i. 21; Ptom. viii. 38. In accordance with Eph. i. 21, 
where the grades of angels are mentioned in descending order, 
the arrangement here must be understood so, that the 6p6vot are 
tlie highest and the Kvptorrjre^ the lowest class, the dp')(ai and 
the i^ovalai, being two middle orders lying between these two 
extremes. At Eph. I.e. Paul names also four grades of the 
angelic hierarchy ; but neither tliere nor here has he intended 
to give a eoriip)lete enumeration of them, for in the former case 
lie omits the dpovoi, and in tlie latter the 8vvdfxei<i. The 
BpovoL are not mentioned elsewhere in the N. T. (nor yet in 
Ignat. ad Trail. 5), but they occur in the Test. Levi, p. 548, in 

' See, on the other hand, Hahn, Thenl. d. N. T. I. p. 292 f. ; Philippi, 
Gkiubensl. U. p. 308 f. ; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 559. 

CHAP. I. ic. 285 

•which they are placed in the seventh heaven (iv c5 ael v/xvoc 
TO, 6eu> irpoa^epovrai), also in Dionys. Areop. Hier. cod. 6 ff., 
and in the Eabbins (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1097; Schoettgen, 
Hot. p. 808). As regards the expression, the last three de- 
nominations are to be taken as ahstracts, which represent the 
respective concretes, and analogously the concrete noun Opovot 
is used for tliose to he found on the thrones (for those enthroned) ; 
comp. Klihner, II. 1, p. 11 ; Euhnken, ad Tim. p. 190. 
In this case the very natural supposition that the angels, 
whose designation by the term OpovoL must have been in cur- 
rent use, were, in the imagery which gave sensuous embodi- 
ment to religious ideas, conceived as on thrones, is not to be 
called in question (in opposition to Fritzsche,«(:/ Rom. II. p. 226). 
They were probably conceived as enthroned round the throne 
of God (comp. Eev. iv. 4, xx. 4). It is to be observed, more- 
over, generally that Paul presupposes the various classes of 
angels, which he names, as well hioivn ; although we are un- 
acquainted with the details of the case, this rnueh is neverthe- 
less certain, that the apostle was far removed from the dreamy 
fancies indulged in on this point by the later Eabbins (see 
Eisenmenger, entdecld. Judenth. II. p. 374). But very soon 
after the apostolic age (comp. Hernias, Past. vis. iii. 4), instruc- 
tion as to roTToOealwi ra? djy6\LKd<i was regarded as teaching 
for the morejperfect. See Ignatius, ad Trail. 5. For the Chris- 
tian faith there remains and suffices the testimony as to different 
and 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 
e^ovcrlai is concluded the confirmatory sentence (otl), so that a full 
stop is to be placed after e^ovcr. With rd iravra begins a ncio 
sentence, in which ra irdvra and avTo<; correspond to one another; 
hence a comma only must stand after eKTia-rac. There is no 
reason for placing (with Lachmann) rd vravra down to iKKXrja. 
in a parenthesis. — rd iravra Bi avrov /c.t.X.] cc solemn reca- 
'pitidation} but in such a way that, instead of the act of crea- 

' Ewald well says : "Just at this point the discourse breaks forth as it with 
fresh force, so as once more to express as clearly as possible the whole in all 
conceivable temporal relations." 


tion previously mentioned, there is now presented the finished 
and ready result {eKTiarai) ; the causal relation which was pre- 
viously denoted by eV is now more precisely indicated as a 
relation of mediate agency (Bi avrov, comp. 1 Cor. viii. 6) ; then 
in ek avrov a new element is added, and the emphasis which in 
ver. IG lay on eKTiaOr], is now laid on ra TrdvTa which stands 
at the head of the sentence. We cannot say with Hofmann, 
that by St' avTov and eh avrov the Son comes to stand in con- 
tradistinction to what has been created as Creator, after by iv 
avru) the creative act has been presented as one that had taken 
place only not vnthout the Son. By the latter, ev avra> would 
become too general and indefinite a thought ; while St' avrov 
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 eU avrov predicates the "causa /^lo/ts" of the 
same. — eh avrovl in reference to Him, for Him, as the aim and 
end, "in quo Pater acquiescit," Beza. Comp. Eom. xi. 3 6 ; 1 Cor. 
viii. 6 ; Barnab. Ep. 12 : eV avru) ra irdvra Kal eh avrov. 
The more exact purport of this relation is apparent from all 
that follows down to ver. 20. Everything, namely, is created, 
in order to he dependent on Christ and to serve His ivill and aim} 
Comp. on Eph. i. 23, iv. 10 ; Phil. ii. 9 ff. The final cause 
of the world, referred in Rom. xi. 3 6 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 
Kvpi,6rri<; roov Travrcov 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 tlie world was created not merely 5/ alroZ, but also tU alrov, conse- 
sequently in telic reference to Him, it is certain tliat ■with the counsel of crea- 
tion there was also posited, in prospect of the entry of sin, the counsel of 
redemption. Comp. Thomasius, Christi Pers. u. Werk, I. p. 196 f. ; Julius 
Miiller, Dogm. Ahhand. p. 121 if. 

^ Tliis lU avroM is wrongly found incompatible with 1 Cor. viii. 6 (see, after 
Mayerhoft", Baur, and others, especially Holtzraann, 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 lU a-htov (for God) and of S/' ahrov (through Christ) 
is not the universe, but the V'?- The relation of subordination between Father 
and Son would be only done away with at our j)assage, in the event of its being 

CHAP. I. 17. 287 

special definitions of the meaning of eh avrov 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 ncio moral creation, 
have summoned to their aid all kinds of arbitrary conjectures 
in detail — a remark which applies not merely to Nosselt, 
Heinrichs, and others, but also to Schleiermacher, who holds 
(comp. Baumgarten-Crusius) that ra kv r. ovp. is everything 
that belongs to the kingdom of heaven, and ra iirl r. 7>)9 
everything which belongs to civil order in earthly kingdoms ; 
that ra opard and ra aopara apply only to the latter ; that 
the Opovot K.rX. are magisterial offices, and the like. 

Ver. 17. Kal avro<;'\ 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 (ra Trdvra), the 
subject, the creating self: "and He Himself, on His ^^a?-^, has 
an earlier existence than all things, and the collective whole 
subsists in Him." Never is avr6<; in the nominative ^ the 
mere uneraphatic "he" of the previous subject (de Wette), 
either in Greek authors or in the N. T., not even in 
passages such as Buttmann {Neut. Gr. p. 94 [E. T. 107]) 
brings forward; see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 47; Winer, p. 
141 f. [E. T. 187] ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 563. — tt/jo irdvrccv'] like 
irpwroroKO';, referring to time, not to rank (as the Socinians, 
Nosselt, Heinrichs, Schleiermacher, Baumgarten-Crusius, and 

said of Christ that ra Tayra were created l^ aliTotJ. But by Iv alru, and by the 
more precise definition 2/ airov, it is guarded ; and the subordination remains 
unaffected by the circumstance that the £/'? ulr'o)/ is laid down by God for the 
world as its telic aim. This lU ahrot iKriffrat 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 Fatlier (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). Moreover, what Paul says of the xr<V/,- in Rom. 
viii. is essentially connected with that u; ctlr'ov, which does not go beyond Paul 
or come at all into opposition to him. The resemblance of our passage to « 
•xfwTo; xa) 'i(Tx<^ro:, Rev. 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. 2J7). 

' Ben gel correctly observes on ver. 16": " Ipse hie saepe positum magnam sig- 
nificat majestatem et omnem excludit creaturam." 


others hold) ; Paul thus repeatedly and evrfphatically lays stress 
on the pre-existence of Christ. Instead of ia-ri, he migJii 
have written ^v (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 
on, vv, 16 and 19. On the present, comp. John viii. 58. 
His existence is more ancient than that of all things {Trdvrav, 
not masculine, as the Vulgate and Luther translate). — iv 
avTw] as in ver. 16, referring to the causal dependence of the 
subsistence of all existing things on Christ. — (xvve(nrjKe\ 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. Eeiske, Ind. Bern. ed. 
Schaef. p. 481 : "Corpus unum, integrum, perfectum, secum 
consentiens esse et permanere." Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 5 ; Plat. 
B,eip. p. 530 A : ^vveardvat tm tov ovpavov Brj/jLLovpyu) avrov 
T6 Kol Ta iv avTU), Tim. p. 6 1 A : 77)1/ . . . ^vvea-TrjKviav, Lcgg. 
vii. p. 817 B : 97 'Ko\iTeLa ^uvecrrrjKe pipr]av<i tov KaWiarov . . . 
yStof. Herod, vii. 225 ; Philo, quis rer. div. hacr. p. 489 : 
kvaipo^ 6yfC0<i, ef eavTov 8LaXvT6<i oiv kuI veicpo<i, avvearrjKe 
K. ^(OTTvpelrai Trpovoia Qeov k.tX. 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 
Eaumgarten - Crusius : " in this new world He is Lord in 
recognition and in sway':' 

EemapJ\. — 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-f?c??a'2ir^z'c 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 : " Eunoiam , . . generare angelos et 
potestates, a qiubiis et miindum hunc factum dixit;" comp. 
Epiph. Haer. xxi. 4), Ccrinthus, etc., and especially among the 
Valentinians, while certainly to be recognised as fundamentally 
akin to the Colossian doctrinal errors (comp. Heinrici, Vcdcn- 
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 Zcitschr. 1870, p. 246 f.), and more 
cautiously by Holtzmann. Of Ebionitism only Esscne elements 
are to be found in Colossae, mingled with other Gnostic 
doctrines, which were not held by the later Ebionites. In 
particular, the rrph rrdvrojv ihai, on M'hich Paul lays so much 
stress, must have been doubted in Colossae, although a portion 
of the Ebionites expressly and emphatically taught it {y/iyouaiv 
uvwkv iih hra -^po vavruv ds -/.risShra, Epiph. Haer. XXX. 3). 
jNIoreover, the opinion that Paul derived the appellations of the 
classes of angels in ver. 1 6 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 (Eom. viii. 38; 1 Cor. xv. 24; comp. Eph. i. 20 ff., iii. 
10, vi. 11 ff.). They are rather to be regarded as well-known 
and generally- current appellations, which were derived from 
the terminology of later Judaism, and which heretics made use 
of in common with the orthodox. The anti- Gnostic element is 
contained, not in the technical expressions, but in the doctrinal 
contents of the passage ; and it was strong enough to induce 
Marcion, who took offence at it, to omit vv. 15-17 (Tertullian, 
c. Marcion, v. 19). See, besides, Eiibiger, Christol. Paul. -p. 51 f. ; 
Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 55 f. ; Klopper, I.e. 

Ver. 18. Second part (see on ver. 15) of the exhibition of 
the exaltedness of Christ. To that which Christ is as irpcoro- 
T0/C09 TrdaiTi KTiaew^ (vv. 16, 17) is now added what He is as 
itp(ot6toko<; e/c tmv veKptov, namely, the Head of the Church, 
and thus His irpwreveiv has its consummation {ev iraaiv). The 
latter, namely, iW <^/evT)rai . . . irpcorevcov, cralraccs also a retro- 
spect to that irpoiTOTOKo^ irdarrj'i KTia60}<;, and includes it in 
iv iracTLv, without its being necessary, however, to attach ver. 
18 to the carrying out of the relation to the world expressed 



in TTpcoTOTOK. TT. KTLo: (Hofiiiann, comp. Eich. Sclimidt). 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 Iv 'kcktl irpcorevav. — That ver. 18, with its confir- 
mation in ver. 19 f., has an ajjologetie 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 ivorsJiip 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 aw/xa, but that of 
any other irparevoov, which is excluded. — koI avr6<i\ stands 
again, as k. avro^ in ver. 17, in significant reference to ra 
Trdvra : et ipse, in quo omnia consisttmt, est cainct, etc., so that the 
passage continues to divide itself as into the links of a chain, 
— rov acofiarot; tt]^ eKKXrja:'] to be taken together ; the second 
genitive is that of apposition (Winer, p. 494 [E. T. 6G6]), 
which gives to the word governing it concrete definiteness ; 
comp. Mtiller in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1871, p. 611 ff. On 
the familiar Pauline mode of considering the church of be- 
lievers, livingly and actively ruled by Christ as the head 
(Eph. iii. 10; Phil. iii. 6; Acts ix. 31), as His lody} comp. 
1 Cor. X. 17, xii. 12 ff., 27; Eph. i. 23, iv. 12, v. 23, 30; 
Eom. xii. 5. — o? ea-rtv k.t.X.] epexegetical relative clause (as 
in ver. 15), the contents of which are related by way of confir- 
mation to the preceding statement (Matthiae, p. 1061 f . ; 
Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 64 ; Stallbaum, ad Phil. p. 195 f), 

^ lu whicli is expressed the idea of tlio invisible cliiirch. Comp. Julius 
Mliller, Dorjmat. Abh. p. 316 ff. And this conception and representation belong 
quite to the apostle's general sphere of ideas, not specially to that of the Epistle 
to the Ephesians, into which the interpolator is supposed by Holtzmann again to 
enter here, after he has manifested a comparative independence in vv, 15-lS. 

CHAP. I. 18. 291 

like our : he, ivJio, etc., which mif/Jit he expressed, but not neccs- 
sarihj, by oartf; (or 00-76). Comp. on Eph. i. 14. If Christ 
had not risen, He would not be Head of the church (Acts 
ii. 24-36 ; 1 Cor. xv. ; Eom. 1. 4, et cd). — up-)(rj\ Icginning ; 
which, however, is not to be explained either as " initium 
secundae et novae creationis" (Calvin), progenitor of the re- 
generate (Bisping), or " autlior of the church" (Baunigarten- 
Crusius), or even "ruler of the world" (Storr, Flatt) ; but 
agreeably to the context in such a way, as to make it have 
with the appositional irpcoTOTOKo^ its definition in e/c tmv veKptov, 
just as if the words ran : ap^rj rtov veKpojv, irpcororoKO'; i^ 
avTwv, although Paul did not express himself thus, because at 
once upon his using the predicate ap^q in and by itself the 
exegetical irpwroroKa suggested itself to him. Accordingly 
Christ is called a/3%^ {twv veKpwv), inasmuch as He is among 
all the dead the first arisen to everlasting life. It is arbitrary 
to discover in «/)%/; an allusion to the offering of first-fruits 
sanctifying the whole mass (Chrysostom, Beza, Ewald, and 
others) ; especially as the term aTTap')(f], which is elsewhere used 
for the first portion of a sacrifice (Eom. xi. 16), is not here 
employed, although it has crept in from 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23, in 
a few minusculi and Fathers, as in Clement also. Cor. I. 24, 
Christ is termed aTrapyj) rrj<i avaaTda€0}<;. To assume a re- 
miniscence of 1 Cor. XV. (Holtzmann) is wholly unwarranted, 
especially as aTrapp^?; is not used. On app^?;, used of persons, 
denoting the one who begins the series, as the first in order of 
time, comp. Gen. xlix. 3, where ap-xr) reKvwv fiov is equivalent 
to 7r/ja)TOTo/co9 /jlov, as also Deut. xxi. 1 7. In what respect any 
one is a/3X>; of those concerned, must be yielded by the con- 
text, just as in this case it is yielded by the more precisely 
defining Trpwroro/co? eic r. veKpcov ; hence it has been in suh- 
stance correctly explained, following the Fathers : «p%^, (jirjaiv, 
iaTt T7}9 avaardaeco^, ttoo ttuvtcov ava<Trd<}} Theophylact. 

' The Fathers have already correctly judged tliat even in regard to the isolated 
cases of rising from the dead, which have taken place through Christ and before 
Him, Christ remains the first-risen. Theophylact : il ya.p xu.) cixxoi Tpo Tovmu 
otiAffTrKTUv, aXXa. •jtaXti %'7r''Ja.toi' auTo; as rhv tiXi'ioi.)) kiu.iira.iTiv uviirrri. Comp. On 

1 Cor. XV. 20. 


Only T))? uvaardcrew^ is not to be iiientcdly suioplicd-, nor is 
it to be conjectured (cle Wette) that Paul had intended to 
write apxh r. dvaaTdae(j)<i, but, on account of the word rn-puiro- 
TOKO'i presenting itself to him from ver. 1 5, did not complete 
what he had begun. It follows, moreover, from the use of 
the word TrpcororoKOf;, that "px?? is to be taken in the tcmpoird 
sense, consequently as equivalent to ^jrimais, not in the sense 
of dlfjnity (Wetstein), and not as i^rinciplc (Biihr, Steiger, 
Huther, Dalmer, following earlier expositors). — irpcoroTOKO'i €k 
T. veKp.] eK T. veKp. is conceived in the same way as in dvaarrivai 
eK T. veKp. (Eph. v. 14), so that it is the dead in Hades 
among whom the Eisen One was, but f)vm whom He goes 
forth {separates Himself from them, hence also diro r. veKp., 
Matt. xiv. 2, xxvii. 64, xxviii. V), and returning into the body, 
with the latter rises from the tomb. Comp. irpcoro^ e^ uvaa- 
Tacrew? veKpcov, Acts xxvi. 23, also 1 Cor. xv. 22 f. This 
living exit from the grave is figuratively represented as hirth ; 
comp. Eev. i. 5, where the partitive genitive twi^ veKp. (not €k 
T. V.) yields a form of conceiving the matter not materially 
different. Calvin takes TrpwroTo/co? e'/c. r. v. as specifying the 
ground for ap%?; : " lorinciipiurii (absolutely), quia immogenitiis 
est ex mortuis ; nam in resurrectione est rerum omnium in- 
stauratio." Against this it may be urged, that dp^v bas no more 
precise definition ; Paul must have written either dp'^i] rrjs; 
Katvi]<i KTio-eax;, or at least ^9 instead of 09. Calvin was likewise 
erroneously of opinion (comp. Erasmus, Calovius) that Christ 
is called Frimogenitus ex mortuis, not merely because He was 
the first to rise, but also "quia restituit aliis vitam." This 
idea is not conveyed either by the word or by the context, 
however true may be the thing itself; but a belief in the 
subsequent general resurrection of the dead is the presupposi- 
tion of the expression irpwTOTOKO'i {alvirTejai he \0709 koI 
Tr}v irdvrwv i]/j,(ov dvaaracrcv, Theodoret). This expression is 
imrposely chosen insignificant reference to ver. 15, as is inti- 
mated by Paul himself in the following "va <yevr)TaL iv irdffiv 
k.tX. But it is thus all the more certain, that TrpcoTOTOKci Ik 
T. vGKp. is to be taken independently, and not adjectivally 
together vjith dp-)(fj (Heinrichs, Schleiermacher, Ewald), which 

ciiAr. I. 18. 293 

would only amount to a tautological verboscness (first-lorn 
heginning) ; and, on the otlier hand, that e/c roov veKpuv may 
not be separated from irpwToroKO'i in such a way as to 
emj)hasize the ^/acf , issuing forth from ivhich Chxht is what 
He is, namely, cipxn> "^pdororoKoi; ; the former, " as the personal 
beginning of what commences with Him;" the latter, "in the 
same relation to those who belong to the world therewith 
coming into life as He held to the creation" (Hofmann). 
In this way the specific more precise definition, which is by 
means of e/c r. veKpcov in significant reference to ver. lu 
attached to the predicates of Christ, app^;?; and TrpcororoKO'?, 
would be groundlessly ivithdrawn from them, and these pre- 
dicates would be left in an indefiniteness, in which they would 
simply be open vessels for receiving a gratuitously imported 
supplement. — iva fyevr/Tat k.t.X.] not to be restricted to the 
affirmation e/c rojv veKpcov (Hofmann),^ but to be referred to tlie 
whole sentence that Christ is «/3%';, 7rpojT6TOKo<i e/c r. veKp., 
expressing the divine teleology of this position of Christ as the 
Eisen One : in order that He may become, etc. ; not : in order 
" that He 7nay he held as" (Baumgarten-Crusius), nor yet " that 
He maybe" (Vulgate, and so most expositors), as 'yiyveaOai and 
etvau are never synonymous. The iv iraaiv avro^ irpcoTevet is 
looked upon by Paul as something which is still in course of 
development (comp. Steiger and Huther), and is only to be 
completed in the future, namely, when the Eisen One shall 
have conquered all the power of the enemy (1 Cor. xv. 25 f.) 
and have erected the kingdom of the Messiah — but of this 
result His resurrection itself was the necessary historical basis; 
and hence the future universal Trpcoreveiv is the divinely in- 
tended aim of His being risen. — iv iraaiv] in cdl ijoints, 
without excepting any relation, not, therefore, merely in the 
relation of creation (vv. 15-17). Comp. Phil. iv. 12 ; 1 Tim-, 
iii. 11, iv. 15 ; 2 Tim. ii. 7, iv. 5 ; Tit. ii. 9 ; Heb. xiii. 4, 18. 
'Ev iravrl is more commonly used by Paul (1 Cor. i. 5 ; 
2 Cor. iv. 8, et al.). According to Beza, irdaiv is masadiv 

"inter omnes, videlicet fratrcs, ut Piom. viii. 29." .^ '^- , 

.jj %ts abode. 
' So tliat it would express the design, wliicli Christ Himself h ^ TrK-i^otiiiLa 
forth from the dead. " 


Kypke and Heinrichs. But this would be here, after the 
universal bearing of the whole connection, much too narrow 
an idea, which, besides, is self-evident as to the Head of the 
church. According to Pelagius, it denotes : " tarn in visi- 
bilibus quam in invisibilibus creaturis." At variance with 
the text; this idea was conveyed by vv. 16, 17, but in ver. 
18 another relation is introduced which does not refer to 
created things as such. — avTo^] emphatic, as in w. 17, 18. 
— irpcoTeuav] having the first rank, not used elsewhere in the 
K T., but see Esth. v. 11 ; 2 Mace. vi. 18, xiii. 15 ; Aquila, 
Zech. iv. 7; Plat. Lcgg. iii. p. 692 D, Dem. 1416. 25: 
irpwreveiv iv airaat KpdncrTov. Xen. Cyr. viii. 2. 28 ; 
Mem. ii. 6. 26. This precedence in rank is to be the final 
result of the condition which set in with the irpwroroKov 
elvat iic t. veKp. ; but it is not contained in this TrpcororoKov 
ehat itself, — an idea against which the very tva ^ivrjTai 
is logically decisive (in opposition to de Wette's double 
signification of irpoiToroK.). 

Ver. 19.^ "Ort] Confirmatory of the tW jivTjTat ac.t.X., just 
said : " about which divinely intended ylyvecrOai, iv iracnv aurov 
irpwrevovra there ean he no clouht,for it has pleased, that in Him, 
etc." How could He, who was thus destined to be possessor of 
the divine fulness and reconciler of the world, have been des- 
tined otherwise than to become iv iraaiv Trpoirevcov I This con- 
firmation, therefore, does not refer to the statement that Christ 
is the Head of the church (Steiger, Huther, comp. Calovius), 
which has already its confirmation by means of 09 ia-riv apxh 
K.T.X., nor at all to e/c to)v veKpwv (Hofmann, following up his 
incorrect explanation of these words), as if the reason were 
specified why Christ should have gone to His high dignity as 
beginner of a new world hj the path of deepest abasement — a 
thought which Paul would have known how to express quite 
differently (comp. Phil. ii. 7 f.) than by the bare e'/c rwv veKp., 

' Holtzmaiin, after having rejected vv. H-18 entirely as an interiiolation, 
aiVows to stand as original in vv. 19, 20 only the words: ot< Iv «utiv ti^ixr.inv 
v,a.Ta.x/i d^ai, to which xaraxx. there is then attached in ver. 21, as object, xai 
"fias, also you, with reference to -/ifia; in ver. 13. How daring and violent, and 
yet how paltry (rescuing merely the xai tfi-ai), would the procedure of the author 
thus have been ! ''^ 

CHAP. I. 19. 205 

wliich is currently used everywhere of resurrection from death, 
and without conveying any special significance of humiliation. 
Nor yet does Paul move in a circle, by putting forward iii 
ver. 19 as ground of proof that from which in ver. 15 (09 
ia-Tiv eUoov k.tX.) he had started (de Wette) ; for ver. 19 is a 
historical statement (observe the aorists), whereas ver. 15 ex- 
pressed what Christ is, His habitual being. — iv auru)] although 
belonging to KaToiK., is prefixed in emphatic transposition 
(Klihner, II. 2, p. 1101). — evZoKrjae] He was pleased, jplacuit 
ei, that, etc. As to this use of evhoKuv in the later Greek 
(1 Cor. i. 21 ; Gal. i. 15, et al.), for which, in the classical 
language, toKuv merely was employed, see Fritzsche, ad Rom. 
II. p. 370. On the accusative with infinitive, comp. 2 Mace. 
xiv. 35 ; Polyb. i. 8. 4. The subject, whose pleasure it is, is 
not expressed ; but that it is God, is obvious from the context, 
which in 'iva yevrjTat k.t.X. has just stated the divine purpose. 
Among Greek authors also 6 0eo9 is not unfrequently omitted, 
where it is self-evident as the subject. See Klihner, II. 1, p. 
30 c. According to Ewald and Ellicott (also Weiss, Bibl. 
Thcol. p. 428, ed. 2, and Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 208), 
Trdv TO ifKrjpcDfia is the svibject ; and the whole fulness is anew 
expression for the Godhead, inasmuch as, going as it were out 
of itself, it fills something separate and thus becomes visible 
( = nin'' nna, ho^a, X0709, irvev/jia). Without support from IsT. T. 
usage ; irdv, too, would be unsuitable for the suhjcct of eu8o- 
KT^ae ; and et9 avrov in ver. 29 clearly shows that 0eo9 is 
conceived as subject, to which elp^qvoiroLrjcraf; then refers. 
According to Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbnv. II. 1, p. 
357 f.), Christ is meant to be the subject of evSoK. Ver. 20 
itself, and Eph. i. 9, ought to have precluded this error. 
Throughout the whole of the N. T, it is never Christ, but 
always the Father, who in respect to the work of redemption 
to be executed gives the decree, while Christ executes it as 
obedient to the Father ; hence also Paul, " beneficium Christi 
commemorans, nunquam dimittit memoriam Patris," Bengel. 
Comp. Eeiche, Comment, crit. p. 263. — 'irdv ro 7rX?;/3w/ia 
KUTotK.'] that in Him the ivhole fidness tvas to take up its abode. 
The more precise definition of the absolute irdv to ifkijpoj/ia 


is placed beyond doubt by the subject to be mentally sup- 
plied with evh6Kt)ae} namely, to nXyjpco/j^a tov Geov (Eph. 
iii. 19 ; comp. to TrXijp. tt}? deort^To^, Col. ii. 9). To irXrjpwfxa^ 
the signification of which is not to be defined actively : id quod 
rem implet (in opposition to Storr, Opuse. I. p. 144 ff'., Biihr, 
Steiger), but 2^'^^ssivebj : id quo oxs imijlctur (see generally 
on Eph. i. 10, iii. 19, Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 469), has 
here, as in Eph. iii. 9, the derivative general notion of copia, 
'jrXovro'i, like the German Filllc. What is meant, namely, is 
the whole cliarismatic vielies of God, His whole gracious fulness 
of evXoyia irvev/xaTiKT] (Eph. i. 3), of which Christ became 
permanent (KaToiKrjaaL) possessor and bearer, who was thereby 
capable of fulfilling the divine work of reconciliation (see the 
following Kal Bt' avrov aTTOKaraWd^ai, k.t.X.). The case is 
otherwise in ii. 9, where the divine essence (r?}? ^eoTT^ro?) is 
indicated as the contents of the nXrjpoiixa, and the KaroiKeiv 
of the same in Christ is affirmed as p)rcsent and with reference 
to His state of exaltation. It would be an utterly arbitrary 
course mentally to supply here the t% de6r7]To<;, ii. 9, and to 
regard both passages as an echo of Eph. i. 23, where the 
notion of TrX'/jpco/jia is a very different one (in opposition to 
Holtzmann). Inasmuch as the charismatic irXrjpwfxa of God, 
meant in our passage, dwelt in Clirist, and consequently Christ 
was the possessor and disposer of it, this divine fulness is not 
in substance different from the TrXrjpco/xa Xpia-rov, out of 
which grace passed over to men (John i. 16 ; Eph, iv. 13). 
The thought and expression in 1 Cor. xv. 28 are different 
from cur passage, and different also from Eph. i. 23. Beza 
aptly observes : " cumulatissima omnium divinarum rerum 
copia, quam scholastic! fjratiam hahitiialem . . . appellant, ex 
qua in Christo, tanquam inexhausto fonte, omnes gratiae in nos 
pro cujusque menibri modulo deriventur ;" comp. also Bleek, 
Observe, at the same time, tlie stress lying on the ttuv, in con- 
trast to a merely partial imparting out of this fulness, which 
would have been inadequate to the object of reconciling the 
universe. The cntolorjical interpretation of the " fulness of 

•Hence not: "la io'cdltd de VCire qui doit etre realisee dans le mondc," 
Sabatier, I'apuLre Paul, p. 209. 

CHAP. I. 19. 297 

the nature of God" (Huther, Dalmer, AVeiss ; Oeciimenius, 
and Tlieodoret : the nature of the ©eo? X0709 ; Calovius and 
others : of the communicatio hypostatica, that is, of the ab- 
solute immanence of God in Him, comp. Ernesti, Ursirr. d. 
Sundc, I. p. 222; Kich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 201) 
does not correspond to the idea of evhoKrjaev, for doubtless the 
sending of the Son, and that with the ivholc treasure of divine 
grace, into the world (John iii. 17) for behoof of its recon- 
ciliation and blessedness, was the act of the divine pleasure 
and resolve; but not so the divine nature in Christ, which 
was, on the contrary, neeessary in Him,^ although by His in- 
carnation He emptied Himself of the divine mode of appear- 
ance {So^a or floppy], Phil. ii. 6 ff.). The divine nature is 
presupjjoscd in what is here said of Christ. Comp, Gess, v. d. 
Pers. Christi, p. 85. Some (see especially Steiger, Bahr, and 
Reuss) have regarded to ifX-qpcoixa as derived from the Gnostic 
terminology of the false teachers, who might perhaps, like 
Valentinus, have given this name to the aggregate of the 
Aeons (see Baur, Gnosis, p. 157),^ and in opposition to whom 

' As in the Son of God in the metaphysical sense ; hence the original being of 
God in Him cannot be conceived merely as ideal, which was to develope itself into 
reality, and the realization of which, when it at length became perfect, made Him 
the absolute abode of the fulness of Godhead. SoBcyschlag, CJn-istol. p. 232 f., 
according to whom Christ would be conceived as ^^man drawing dorcn npon 
Idmself" this indwelling of God. He is conceived as the incarnate Son (comp. 
ver. 13 fi.), who, in accordance with the Father's decree, has appeared as bearer 
ot the whole fulness of salvation. For He was its dwelling not merely in j^rinciple, 
but in fact and reality, when He appeared, and He employed it for the work, 
which the Father desired to accomplish by Him (ver. 20). Comp. Gal. iv. 4 ; 
Kom. viii. 3. The indwelling of the era* to •^x-zipui^a He had not, indeed, to achieve 
by his own effort ; but He had, in obedience towards the Father, to preserve 
(comp. Heb. iv. 15), apply, communicate it ; and so this indwelling is — not 
merely in the risen One, but in His very work on the cross — the presupposition 
of the universal reconciliation, ver. 20. 

'^ Baur himself {Paulus, II. p. 12 ff.) likewise explains -^Xripufia from the 
technical language of the Gnostics, especially of the Valentinian doctrine of 
Aeons, but finds the Gnosticism to belong to the (post-apostolic) writer of 
the epistle. According to Baur (see his Neutcst. Tkeol. p. 258), Christ is the 
•rXripi-if^ci of God as He " in luhom that wldch God is in Himself, according to the 
abstract idea of His nature, is filled with its definite concrete contents.'^ Comp. 
also Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1870, p. 247, according to whom our passage is 
intended to affirm that the Pleroma of divine nature is to be sought not in the 
prolix series of the Aeons of the Gnostics, but in Christ alone. Holtzmann, with 


Paul maintains that in Jesus there dwells the totality of all 
divine powers of life, and not merely a single emanated spirit ; 
but this view is all the more unwarranted, because Paul him- 
seK does not intimate any such polemical destination of the 
word ; on the contrary, in Eph. iii. 1 9 also he uses ttolv to 
TrXtjpw/jLa T. ©60V evidently without any reference of the kind. 
And if he had wished to place the whole fulness of the efflux 
of divine power in contrast to an asserted single emana- 
tion, he must have prefixed, not iv avrw {in Him and in oione 
other), but nrav {the tvlwle TrX^jpcojia, not merely a single con- 
stituent clement of it) with the main emphasis, and have logically 
said : on irav to 'rfkr^pcofxa evBoKrjaev tv avTw KaTOCKrjcrat. 
Hofmann (comp. his Schrifthew. p. 29, 359), who in general 
has quite misunderstood ver. 19 f. (comp. above on evZoKifja-ev), 
takes irav to ifKi^pa^ia as "the one-like totality of that tuhich 
is ;" and holds that the will of Christ (to which evBoK. applies) 
can only have been, " that that may come to dwell in Him, which 
otherwise woidd not he in Him, consequently not ivhat is in God, 
hut what is out of God!' This idea of the immanent indwelling 
of the universe in Christ, repeated by Schenkel in the sense of 
Christ being the archetype, would be entirely alien to the N. T. 
view of the relation of Christ to the world, and is not indi- 
cated either at Eph. i, 1 or here in the context by to, iravTa 
ev avTM €rvveaT')]K€v. Christ is not the place for the world, 
so that ultimately all comes to dwell in Him, as all has been 
created in Him and has in Him its subsistence ; but the world 
originated and maintained through Him, which He was to 
redeem, is the place for Him} If Paul had really entertained 
the obscure paradoxical conception attributed to him by Hof- 
mann, he would have known how to express it simply by to 
'jTuv (or TO, iravTO) KaToiKYjo-ai, or by to TrXijpcofia tov 7ravTo<; 
(or TMV TrdvTcov) KaTOLK)](T. Lastly, at utter variance with 
both the word and the context, some have based on Eph. i. 

more caixlion, adlieres to the view that the idea of the ■r\-/ipu[jt.a forms a first step 
towards the extended use which tlie Gnostics make of the word ; wliereas Hilgen- 
fchl {Zeitschr. 1873, p. 195) finds the idea here aheady so firmly established, 
" that the rr\-/ipufia. emerges as in a certain measure holding an indei:)endent posi- 
tion between God and Christ." 

1 Comp. llich. Schmidt, I.e. p. 208. 

CHAP. I. IP. 299 

22 f. the interpretation of TrXjjpw/xa as the clmrcJi. So already 
Theodoret : nrkrjp. rr}v iKKXrjalau iv rfj tt/oo? 'E(pealov<; e/ca- 
Xeaev, co? tu>v 6eicov '^apiafxaTcov ireifKrjpwiievrjv. Tavrrjv e^r) 
evBoKrjaai, tov Qeov iv tu> XpiaTO) KaroiKviaai, TOVTeaTiv avrm 
(Ttwij^dat, and recently in substance Heinriclis, Baumgarten- 
Cnisius, and others ; conip. also Schleiermacher, who, in accord- 
ance with Eom. xi. 12, 25, understands " the fulness of the 
Gentiles and the collective ivhole of Israel" the dwelling of whom 
in Christ is the "definitive abiding state," which the total 
reconciliation (see the sequel) must necessarily have preceded, 
as this reconciliation is conditioned by the fact that both 
parties must have become peaceful. — KaroiKrjaat] The ttXtj- 
pcofia is personified, so that the abiding j?rcscncc, which it was 
to have according to the divine evSoKia in Christ, appears 
conceived under the form of talcing up its abode ; in which, 
however, the idea of the Shechinah would only have to be 
presupposed, in the event of the irXijpcofxa being represented as 
appearance (p^n^ nna). See on Eom. ix. 5. Comp. John i. 14. 
Analogous is the conception of the dwelling of Christ (see 
on Eph. iii. 17) or of the Spirit (see Theile on Jas. iv. 5) 
in behevers, Comp. also 2 Pet. iii. 13. In point of time, 
the indwelling of the divine fulness of grace according to 
God's pleasure in Christ refers to the earthly life of the 
Incarnate One, who was destined by God to fulfil the divine 
work of the airoKaroKKd^ai to, iravra, and was to be 
empowered thereto by the dwelling in Him of that whole 
divine iT\7]po)fj.a. Without having completed the performance 
of this work. He could not become iv iracnv irpwrevaiv ; but 
of this there could be no doubt, for God has caused it to be 
completed through Him (on, ver. 19). Ernesti, Urspr. d. Si'inde, 
I. p. 215 f. (comp. also Weiss, Bihl. Thcol. p. 428, ed. 2), refers 
edhoK'qcre k.tX. to the heavenly state of Christ, in which God, 
by way of reward for the completion of His work, has made 
Him the organ of His glory (Phil. ii. 9) ; he also is of 
opinion that aTroKaraXka^at in ver. 20 does not apply to the 
reconciliation through His blood, but to the reunion of all 
created things through the exalted Lord, as a similar view is 
indicated in Phil. ii. 10. But this idea of the airoKaraWd^ac 


is just the point on which this view breaks down. For vcr. 
21 clearly shows that airoKaraWd^aL is to be taken in the 
usual sense of the work of reconciliation completed through the 
IXaa-rrjpLov of Christ. Moreover, that which Christ received 
through His exaltation was not the divine 'ir\r]p(o/xa, but the 
divine So^a. 

Ver. 20.^ " Haec inhabitatio est fundamentum reconcilia- 
tionis," Bengel. Hence Paul continues : kol Bi avrov airo- 
KaraXku^aL ra iravra, and through Him to reconcile the ■whole. 
As to the double compound airoKajaXK., lororsus rcconciliaref 
see on Eph. ii. 16. The considerations which regulate the 
correct understanding of the passage are : (1) that ra irdvTa 
may not in any way be restricted (this has been appropriately 
urged by Usteri, and especially by Huther) ; that it con- 
sequently cannot be referred either merely to intelligent Icings 
generally (the usual view), or to men (Cornelius a Lapide, 
Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), especially the 
Gentiles (Olshausen), or to the " universam ecclesiam" (Beza), 
but is, according to the context (see ver. 16 ff.), simply to be 

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

* As if we might say in German, ahvcrsohnen, that is : to finish quite the 
reconciliation. Comp. a.(^iXa.<rKi<!(c/.i, Plat. Legrj. ix. p. 873 A. 

CHAP. I. 20. 301 

taken as quite general: the ivholc of that ichich exists (has been 
created) ; (2) that the reconciling sulject is here not Christ 
(Hofmaun, in aceoi-dance with his incorrect reference of evSo- 
K7]cre in ver. 19), but God, who throvgh Christ {ZC avrov) 
reconciled all things ; (3) that consequently aTroKaraWd^at 
cannot be meant of the transforming of the rnisrclation hctwcen 
the world and Christ into a good relation (Hofmann), and just 
as little of the reconciliation of all things toith one another, of 
the removal of mutual hostility among the eonstitucnt elements 
composing ra, irdvTa, but only of the universal reconcilia- 
tion loith the God ivho is hostile to sin} as is clearly evident 
from the application to the readers in ver. 21. The only 
correct sense therefore is, that the entire universe has been re- 
conciled with God. through Christ. But hoiv far ? In answer- 
ing this question, which cannot be disposed of by speculation 
beyond the range of Scripture as to the having entered into 
the finite and having returned again to the infinite (Usteri), nor 
by the idea imported into drrroKaraXK. of gathering ttj) into the 
unity of absolute final aim (Baur, ne^it. Thcol. p. 257), the follow- 
ing considerations are of service : {a) The original harmony, 
which in the state of innocence subsisted between God and 
the whole creation, was annulled by sin, which first obtained 
mastery over a portion of the angels, and in consequence of 
tliis (2 Cor. xi. 3), by means of the transgression of Adam, over 
all mankind (Rom. v. 12). Comp. on Eph. i. 10. (&) Not 
only had sinful mankind now become alienated from God by 
sin and brought upon themselves His hostility (comp. ver. 21), 
but also the whole of the non-rational creation (Piom. viii. 1 9 ff.) 
was affected by this relation, and given rip by God to fiarato- 
T7]f; and BovXela t?)? ^Oopm (see on Eom. l.c). (c) Indeed, 
even the world of heavenly spirits had lost its harmony with 

^ God is the suhject, ivhose hoslUity is removed hy the reconciliation (comp. on 
Eom. v. 10) ; -a. cravra is the oZ'/ec?, which was affected by tliishostilitj'gi'ounded 
of necessity on the holiness and righteousness of God. If the hostile disposition 
of men towards God, which had become removed by the reconciliation, were meant 
(Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 18G3, p. 515), the universal tk -rayra 
would not be suitable ; because the whole universe might, indeed, be affected 
by the hostility of God against sin, but could not itself be hostilely disposed 
towards Him. See, moreover, on ver. 21. 


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

CHAP. I. 20. 303 

Euler and All in All (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). This collective 
reconciliation, although its consummation will not occur until 
the Parousia, is yet justly designated by the aorist infinitive 
airoKaTaXku^ai, because to the telic conception of God in 
the evSoK-rjae it was present as one moment in conception. — 
The angels also are necessarily included in ra iravra (comp, 
subsequently, to. iv rol<; ovpavoU) ; and in tliis case — seeing 
that a reconciliation of the angels who had not fallen, who 
are holy and minister to Christ (Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. T. p. 
269 ff.j, considered in themselves as individuals, cannot be 
spoken of, and is nowhere spoken of in the N. T.^ — it is to 
be observed that the angels are to be conceived according to 
category, in so far, namely, as the hostile relation of God 
towards the fallen angels affected the angelic world viewed 
as a whole. The original normal relation between God and 
this higher order of spirits is no longer existing, so long as 
the kingdom of demons in antagonism to God stiU subsists — 
which has had its powers broken no doubt already by the 
death of Christ (ii. 14 f; Heb. ii. 14), but will undergo at 
length utter separation — a result which is to be expected 
in the new transformation of the world at the Parousia. The 
idea of reconciliation is therefore, in conformity Avith the 
manner of popular discourse, and according to the variety of the 
several objects included in ra Trdvra, meant partly in an imme- 
diate sense (in reference to mankind), partly in a mediate 
sense (in reference to the ktIo-c^ affected by man's sin, Ptom. 
viii., and to the angelic world affected by its partial faU) ;^ 

• According to Ignatius, Smyrn. 6, the angels also, lav //.h -xiffT-Uuffiv us tj 
aTfia Xpia-rcv, incur judgment. But this conception of angels needing reconcilia- 
tion, and possibly even unbelieving, is doubtless merely an abstraction, just as is 
the idea of an angel t aching falsely (Gal. i. 8). It is true that, according to 
1 Cor. vi. 3, angels also are judged ; but this presupposes not believing and 
unbelieving angels, but various stages of moral perfection and purity in the 
angelic world, when confronted with the absolute ethical standard, which in 
Cliiibtianity must present itself even to the angels (Eph. iii. 10). Comp. ou 
1 Cor. vi. 3. 

- The idea of aToxccTaXXulai is not in this view to be altered, but has as its 
necessary presupposition the idea of hostility, as is clear from uptiva-ro!r,<ra; and from 
ix^pous, ver. 21, compared with Eph. ii. 16 ! Compare Fritzsche, ad Bom. I. 
p. 276 ff. ; Eur. Med. 870 : ^ix>.>.ciy?,ycti tUs ix^fccs, Sojjh. Aj. 731 {7U) : 


tlie idea of uTroKaraWd^at, in presence of tlie all-embracing 
Tu Trdvra, is as it were of an clastic nature/ At the same 
time, however, d'TTOKaraW. is not to be made equivalent 
(Melanchthon, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Flatt, Biihr, Bleek, 
and others) to aTroKetpaXaicoaaadaL (Eph. i. 10), which is 
rather the sequel of the former; nor is it to be conceived 
as merely completing the harmony of the good angels (who are 
not to be thought absolutely pure, Job iv. 18, xv. 15 ; Mark 
X. 18 ; 1 Cor. vi. 3) with God (de Wette), and not in the strict 
sense theretore restoring it — an interpretation which violates 
the meaning of the word. Calvin, nevertheless, has already so 
conceived the matter, introducing, moreover, the element — 
foreign to the literal sense — of confirmation in righteousness : 
" quum creaturae sint, extra lapsus pcriculuni non essent, nisi 
Christi gratia fuissent confirmati!' According to EitscM, in 
the Jalirh. f. Deutsche TJieol. 1863, p. 522 f., Paul intends to 
refer to the angels that had been active in the laiv-giving on 
Sinai (Deut. xxxiii. 2 ; Ps. Ixvii. 18, LXX.), to whom he attri- 
butes " a deviation from God's plan of salvation." But this 
latter idea cannot be made good either by ii. 15, or by Gal. 
iii. 19, or by Eph. iii. 10, as, indeed, there is nothing in the 
context to indicate any such reference to the angels of the law 
in particular. The exegetical device traditionally resorted to, 
that what was meant with respect to the angels was their 
reconciliation, not loith God, but loith men, to whom on 

Siilffiv a; xaraXXccx,^^ X'^'^j Plat. liP}'). p. 566 E : vpo; roii; 'i'^eo f.^^pov; toT; fi\v 
xxraXXay^, rov; Vi xa) lM(fS-/iprt. This applies also against Hofmann's enervating 
weakening of the idea into that of transposition from the misrelation into a 
,1,'oodone, or of ^' an action, ivhich makes one, who stands ill to another, stand well 
to him." In such a misrelation (namely, to Christ, according to the erroneous 
view of zhVoxntn) stand, in Hofmann's view, even the "spirits collectively," 
ill so far as they bear sway in the xoorld - life deteriorated by human sin, 
instead of in the realization oj salvation. — Richard Schmidt, I.e. p. 195, also 
l)roceeds to dilute the notion of reconciliation into that of the boinging to Christ, 
inasmuch as he explains tlie xaraWufauM as effected by the fact that Christ has 
become the head of all, and all has been put in dependence on Him. Hilgenfcld, 
I.e. p. 251 f., justly rejects this alteration of the sense, which is at variance with 
the following context, but adheres, for his own part, to the statement that here 
the author in a Gnostic fashion has in view disturbances of peace in the heavenly 
sjiheres (in the -xX-Aftafji.oL). 
' Comp. Philippi, Glaubensl IV. 2, p. 269 f., cd. 2. 

CHAP. I. 20. 305 

account of sin they had been previously inimical (so Chrysos- 
tom, Pelagius, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Zanchius, 
Cameron, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, Michaelis, Bbhmer, and 
others), is an entirely erroneous makeshift, incompatible with 
the language of the passage. — et? avrov] is indeed to be 
written with the spiritus lenis, as narrating the matter from 
the standpoint of the author, and because a reflexive emphasis 
would be without a motive ; but it is to be referred, not to 
Christ, who, as mediate agent of the reconciliation, is at the 
same time its aim (Biihr, Huther, Olshausen, de Wette, Eeiche, 
Hofmann, Holtzmann, and others ; comp. Estius, also Grotius : 
"ut ipsi pareant"), but to God, constituting an instance of 
the abbreviated form of expression very usual among Greek 
^vriters (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 471) and in the K T. (Winer, p. 577 
[E. T. 776]), the constructio praegnans: to reconcile to God- 
ivard, so that they are now no longer separated from God 
(comp. ainjWorp., ver. 21), but cere to he united with Him in 
jpeace. Thus eh air., although identical in reality, is not in 
the mode of conception equivalent to the mere dative (Eph. 
ii. 16; Eom. v. 10; 1 Cor. vii. 11; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 20), 
as Beza, Calvin, and many others take it. The reference to 
Christ must be rejected, because the definition of the aim 
would have been a special element to be added to Bt avrov, 
which, as in ver. 16, would have been expressed by /cat ei? 
avrov, and also because the explanation which follows {elprjvo- 
rroLTja-a'i K.r.X.) concerns and presupposes simply the mediate 
agency of Christ (8t' avrov). — 6lpTjvo7roL7Jaa<;, down to aravpov 
avrov, is a modal definition of he avrov airoKaraKkd^at (not a 
parenthesis): so that He concluded ijcace, etc., inasmuch, namely, 
as the blood of Christ, as the expiatory offering, is meant to 
satisfy the holiness of God, and now His grace is to have free 
course, Piom. v. 1 ; Eph. vi. 15. Tlie aorist participle is, as 
ver. 21 shows, to be understood as contemporary with amoKa- 
raW. (see on Eph. i. 9, and Kiihner, II. 1, p. 161 f.; MiiUer 
in the Luther. Zcitschr. 1872, p. 631 ff.), and not antecedent to 
it (Biihr), as has been incorrectly held by Ernesti in consist- 
ency with liis explanation of ver. 19 (see on ver. 19), who, 
moreover, without any warrant from the context, in accordance 
COL. n 


with Eph. ii. 14-16, thinks of the conclusion of peace hefioeen 
Jeivs and Gentiles. The nominative refers to the subject ; and 
this is, as in the whole sentence since the evSoKrjcrev, not 
Christ (Chrysostom, Theocloret, Oecumenius, Lnther, Storr, 
Heinrichs, Flatt, Steiger, Hofmann, and many others), but God. 
The verb elpi^voTrocelv, occurring only here in the N. T., which 
has elsewhere Troidv elpi)vr}v (Eph. ii. 15 ; Jas. iii. 18), and also 
foreign to the ancient Greek, which has elprjvoTroLo^;, is never- 
theless found in Hermes, aj). Stob. Ecl.ijh. i. 52, and in the LXX. 
Prov. X. 10. — Zia Tov aifi. r. crravpov avrov] that is, hy means 
of the blood to he shed on His cross, which, namely, as the sacri- 
iicial blood reconciling with God (comp. 2 Cor. v. 21), became 
the causa medians which procured the conclusion of peace be- 
tween God and the world. Eom. iii. 25, v. 9 f. ; Eph. i. 7. 
The reason, Avhich historically induced Paul to designate the 
blood of Christ with such specific definiteness as the blood of His 
cross, is to be sought in the spiritualism of the false teachers, 
who ascribed to the angels a mediating ef&cacy with God. 
Hence comes also the designation — so intentionally material — 
of the reconciling sacrificial death, ver. 22, which Hofmann 
seeks to avoid as such, namely, as respects its definite character 
of a satisfaction.'^ — Sl avTov] not with the spirittis asper, 
equivalent to St eauTov, as those take it who refer elpr}voTroLrjaa<i 
to Christ as subject {kavrov iK^ov'i, Theophylact), since this re- 
ference is erroneous. But neither can Bt avrov be in apposition 
to Bia TOV aifiaTO<; r. err. avrov (Castalio, " per ejus sanguinem, 
h. e. 2^'^'^^ ^^"'^ ")> f*^^' ^^^^ latter, and not the former, would be 
the explanatory statement. It is a resumption of the above- 
given Bl avrov, after the intervening definition elprjvoiroL'^aa'i 
K.r.X, in order to complete the discourse thereby interrupted, 

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

CHAP. I. 20. 307 

and that by once more emphatically bringing forward the Bt 
avTov which stood at tlie commencement ; " ihroKf/h Him" I 
say, to reconcile, whether they be things on earth or whether 
they be things in heaven. Comp. on Eph. i. 1 1 ; Eom. viii. 23. 
— eXre ra inl t. 7., etre ra iv t. oi)/?.] divides, without " affected 
tautology " (Holtzmann), but witli a certain solemnity befitting 
the close of this part of the epistle, the to, iravra into its two 
component parts. As to the quite universal description, see 
above on to, iravra; comp. on ver, 16. We have, besides, to 
notice: (1) that Paul here (it is otherwise in ver. 16, where 
the creation was in question, comp. Gen. i. 1) names the 
earthly things first, because the atonement took flace on earth, 
and frimarily affected things earthly ; (2) that the disjunctive, 
expression etre . , . elVe renders impossible the view of a recon- 
ciliation of the two sections one with another (Erasmus, Wet- 
stein, Dalmer, and others). To the category of exegetical 
aberrations belongs the interpretation of Schleiermacher, who 
understands earthly and heavenly things, and includes among 
the latter all the relations of divine worship and the mental 
tendencies of Jews and Gentiles relative thereto : " Jews and 
Gentiles were at variance as to both, as to the heavenly and 
eartlily things, and were now to be brought together in rela- 
tion to God, after He had founded peace through the cross of 
His Son." The view of Baumgarten-Crusius is also an utter 
misexplanation : that the reconciliation of men (Jews and Gen- 
tiles) among themselves, and with the spirit-world, is the thing 
meant ; and that the reconciliation with the latter consists in 
the consciousness given back to men of being worthy of con- 
that we may come to stand lioly Lcfore Him. ITot different in substance are 
Hofmann's utterances in his Hcil. Schr. N. T. But when we find it there stated : 
"how far Christ has hereby (namely, by His having allowed Himself to be put 
to death as a transgressor by men) converted the variance, which subsisted 
between Him and the world created for Him, into its opposite, is not here speci- 
fied in detail," — that is an unwarranted evasion ; for the strict idea of recon- 
ciliation had so definite, clear, firm, and vivid (comp. ver. 14, ii. 13 f.) a place 
in the consciousness of the apostle and of the church, which was a Pauline one, 
that it did not need, especially in express connection with the blood of the cross, 
any more precise mention in detail. Comp. Gal. iii. 13 ; Rom. iii. 25. Calvin well 
says : " Ideo pignus et pretium nostrae cum Deo pacificationis sanguis Christi, 
quia in cruce fusus." 


nection with the higher spirits. — Lastly, against the reference 
to universal restoration, to which, according to Olshansen, at 
least the tcndenmj of Christ's atonement is assumed to have 
pointed, see on Eph. i, 10, remark 2. Comp. also Schmid in 
the Jahrl.f. D. Thcol. 1870, p. 133. 

Ver. 21. As far as ver. 23, an application to the readers of 
what had been said as to the reconciliation, in order to animate 
them, through the consciousness of this blessing, to stedfast- 
ness in the faith (ver. 23). — koX vjjLa<; ac.t.X.] you also, not : and 
you, so that it would have to be separated by a mere comma 
from the preceding verse, and vvvl he . . . Oavdrov would, not- 
withstanding its great importance, come to be taken as paren- 
thetical (Lachmann), or as quite breaking off the discourse, and 
leaving it unfinished (Ewald). It begins a new sentence, comp. 
Eph. ii. 1 ; but observe, at the same time, that Eph. ii. is much 
too rich in its contents to admit of these contents being here 
compressed into vv. 20,21 (in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 1 5 0), 
As to the way in which Holtzmann gains an immediate con- 
nection with what precedes, see on ver. 10. The construction 
(following the reading diroKarrjWd'yTjTe, see the critical notes) 
has become anacoluthic, inasmuch as Paul, when he began the 
sentence, had in his mind the active verb (which stands in the 
Ecccpta), but he does not carry out this formation of the sen- 
tence ; on the contrary, in his versatility of conception, he 
suddenly starts off and continues in a passive form, as if he 
had begun with koX v/x€i<; k.t.X. See Matthiae, p. 1524; 
Winer, p. 527 ff. [E. T. 714] ; and upon the aorist, Buttmann, 
Mitt. Gr. p. 171 [E. T. 107]. — dirriWorp. k.tX] -lohcn yc 
■were once in the state of estranycnicnt, characterizes their heathen 
condition. As to aTnjWorp., see on Eph, ii. 12; from which 
passage avro Trj<; TroXtrela'i r. 'lap. is here as unwarrantably 
supplied (Heinrichs, comp. Flatt), as is from Eph. iv. 14 ri)? 
^(orj^ Tov Qeou (Biihr). In conformity with the context, seeing 
that previously God was the subject as author of reconciliation, 
the being estranged from God (roO Geov), the being excluded 
from His fellowship, is to be understood. Comp, ddeot iv r. 
Koafxo), Eph. ii. 12. On the subject-matter, Eom. i. 21 ff. — 
i^9pov<;'] sc. Tui @€m, in a j3rtssu'C sense (comp. on Eom. v. 10, 

CHAP. I. 21. 309 

xi, 28): invisos Deo} as is required by the idea of having 
become reconciled, through which God's enmity against sinful 
men, who were reKva ^vcret 6py)]<; (Eph. ii. 3), has changed into 
mercy towards them.^ This applies in opposition to the usual 
active interpretation, which Hofmann also justly rejects : hos- 
tile tmoards God, Eom. viii. 7 ; Jas. iv. 4 (so still Huther, de 
Wette, Ewald, Eitschl, Holtzmann), which is not to be com- 
hincd uith the passive sense (Calvin, Bleek). — ry Biavolq and 
iv Tot9 epyoL^i r. ir. belong to hoth the preceding elements ; the 
former as dative of the cause : on account of their disposition of 
mind tliey were once alienated from God and hateful to Him ; 
the latter as specification of the overt, actual sjjho'e of life, 
in which they had been so (in the iviclced ivorJcs, in which their 
godless and God-hated behaviour had exhibited itself). Thus 
information is given, as to airrfW. and i'^0pov<j, of an internal 
and of an external kind. The view which takes rf) Siavoia as 
dative of the resjjcct (comp. Eph. iv, 18) : as respects disjwsitioji 
(so, following older expositors, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Ewald), would no doubt suit the erroneous active 
explanation of ix^P-' ^^^^ would furnish only a superfluous 
definition to it, as it is self-evident that the enmity towards 
God resides in the disposition. Luther incorrectly renders : 
'•' through the o'cason ;" for the hidv. is not the reason itself, but 
its immanent activity (see especially, Plato, Soph. p. 263 E), 
and that here viewed nnder its moral aspect ; comp. on Eph. 
iv. 18. Beza ("mente operibus malis intenta"), Michaelis, 
Storr, and Bahr attach eV Toi<? epyoL<i k.t.X. to rfj Siavoia. 

' Compare the phrase very current in the classical writers, from Homer 
onward, Ix^p's 6io7;, qnem Dii oderunf. 

* See Fritzsche, ad Horn. I. p. 27611, who aptly explains xaraxxd<ra-i<r$a.i 
rivi : in aUaijus favorem venire, qui antea snccensuerit. Comp. Philippi, Glati- 
hensl. IV. 2, p. 265 ff., ed. 2. The reconciliation of men takes place, when God, 
instead of being further angry at them, has become gracious towards them, — 
when, consequently. He Himself is reconciled. Comp. Luke xviii. 13 ; 2 Cor. 
V. 19. So long as His wrath is not changed, and consequently He is not recon- 
ciled, men remain unreconciled. 2 Mace. vii. 33 : o ^*y xCfus . . . fifia^^ius 

i-xufyiaTai xcci "XaXn xaraXXayniriTai raii laurou %<tvXoi;, COmp. viii. 29, i. 5, V. 20 ; 
Clem. Cor. I. 48 : Ixinuoyns alriv (God), 0-rus 'tXtco; ytvo/^iyos IvixmraXXayn 

fi/i','*. In Constt. Apost. viii. 12. 14, it is said ot Christ that He ru xiaftif 
xarrixxa^i God, and § 17, of God : iroZ xaraXXayUTo; auToT; (with believers). 


This is grammatically admissible, since we may say BiavoelaOat 
ev, animo versari in (Ps. Ixxiii. 8 ; Eccliis. vi. 37; Plato, 
Prot. p. 341 E), and therefore the repetition of the article 
was not necessary. But the badness of the disposition was 
so entirely self-evident from the context, that the assumed 
more precise definition by iv rot? epy. t. irovrjp. would appear 
tediously circumstantial. — The articles tj} and roi? denote the 
disposition tvMch they have had, and the works ivhich they have 
done. In the latter case the subjoined attributive furnished 
with the article {joh irovrjpol'i) is not causal (" beeause they 
were bad," Hofmann), but emiohatically brings into prominence 
the quality, as at Eph. vi. 13 ; 1 Cor. vii. 14, and often 
(Winer, p. 126 [E. T. 167]). — vvvl he airoKarrjWd'yrjTe] as 
if previously v/itet? k.t.X. were used (see above) : Ye also . . . 
have nevertheless novj beeoone reconciled. On Be after participles 
which supply the place of the protasis, as here, where the 
thought is : although ye formerly, etc., see Klotz, ad Devar. 
p. 374 ff.; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 136 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. 
Mem. iii. 7. 8, Anab. vi. 6. 16. On vvvl, with the aorist fol- 
lowing, comp. ver. 26 ; Eom. vii. 6 ; Eph. ii. 13 ; Plat. Symjp. 
p. 1 9 3 A : irpo rod . . . ev ^j/xev, vvvl Be Blo, ttjv aBcKiav BiMKca- 
6r}[xev vTTo r. 6eov. Ellendt, Lex Soph. II. p. 176 ; Kiihner, 
II. 2, p. 672. It denotes the present time, which has set in 
with the aTTOKaTrjXk. (comp. Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 171 
[E. T. 1 9 7]) ; and the latter has taken place objectively through 
the death of Christ, ver. 22, although realized subjectively in 
the readers only when they became believers — whereby the 
reconciliation became appropriated to them, and there existed 
now for tliem a decisive contrast of their vvvl with their 
TTOTe} The reconciling subject is, according to the context 
(vv. 19, 20), not Christ (as at Eph. ii. 16), through whom 
(comp. Pom. V. 1 ; 2 Cor. v. 1 8) the reconciliation has taken 
place (see ver. 20), but, as at 2 Cor. v. 19, God (in opposition 
to Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Beza, Calvin, Estius, 
Calovius, Heinrichs, and others, including de Wette and 
Ewald). Eor the reference to Christ even the reading uiroKa- 
rrjWa^ev would by no means furnish a reason, far less a 
' Comp. Luthardt, vomfreien Willen, p. 403. 

CHAP. I. 22. 311 

necessity, since, on the contrary, even this active would have, 
according to the correct explanation of evBoKrjae in ver. 19, 
to be taken as referring to God (in opposition to Hofmann). 

Ver. 22. 'Ev tu atofiaTi /c.t.X.] that, by mearis of which they 
have been reconciled ; corresponding to the Be avrov and Bca, 
Tov a'LfjLaro<i tov aravpov avrov of ver. 2 : in the body of His 
flesh by means of death. Since God is the reconciling subject, 
we are not at liberty, with Elzevir, Scholz, and others, to read 
avrov (with the sjnritics aspcr), which would not be justified, 
even though Christ were the subject. We have further to 
note : (1) Blcl r. Oavdrov informs us whereby the being recon- 
ciled ev T6u aco/xarc r. a. av. loas brought about, namely, by the 
death occurring, without which the reconciliation would not 
have taken place in the body of Christ. (2) Looking to the 
concrete presentation of the matter, and because the procuring 
element is subsequently brought forward specially and on its 
own account by Bid, the ev is not, with Erasmus and many 
others, to be taken as instrumental, but is to be left as local ; 
not, however, in the sense that Christ accomplished the d'Ko- 
KaraWdaa-eiv in His body, which was fashioned materially 
like ours (Hofmann, comp. Calvin and others, including Bleek) 
— which, in fact, would amount to the perfectly self-evident 
point, that it took place in His corporeally-human form of 
being, — but, doubtless, especially as Bm rod Oavdrov follows, in 
the sense, that in the body of Christ, by means of the death 
therein accomplished, our reconciliation was objectively 
realized, which fact of salvation, therefore, inscjparably asso- 
ciated itself with His body; comp. ev rfj aapKi fiov, ver. 24, 
see also 1 Pet. ii. 2 4 and Huther in loc. The conception of 
substitution, however, though involved in the thing (in the 
ikaarrjpiov), is not to be sought in ev (in opposition to Bohmer 
and Baumgarten-Crusius). (3) The reason for the intentional 
use of the material description : " in the body tohich consisted 
of His flesh" (comp. ii. 11 ; Ecclus. xxiii. 16), is to be sought 
in the apologetic interest of antagonism to the false teachers, 
against whom, however, the charge of Doceiism, possibly on 
the ground of ii. 23, can the less be proved (in opposition to 
Beza, Balduin, Bohmer, Steiger, Huther, and Dalmer), as Paul 


nowhere in the epistle expressly treats of the material Incar- 
nation, which he would hardly have omitted to do in contrast 
to Docetism (comp. 1 John). In fact, the apostle found suffi- 
cient occasion for writing about the reconciliation as he has 
done here and in ver. 20, in the faith in angels on the part of 
his opponents, by which they ascribed the reconciling media- 
tion with God in part to those higher sinritual beings (who are 
without crw/ia t?}? aapKo^). Other writers have adopted the 
view, without any ground whatever in the connection, that 
Paul has thus written in order to distinguish the real body 
of Clirist from the spiritual a-wfia of the church (Bengel, 
Michaelis, Storr, Olshausen). The other awfia of Christ, 
which contrasts with His earthly body of flesh (Eom. i. 3, 
viii. 3), is His glorified heavenly body, Phil. iii. 21 ; 1 Cor. 
XV. 47 ff. Preferences, however, such as Calvin, e.g., has dis- 
covered (" humile, terrenum et infirmitatibus multis obnoxium 
corpus"), or Grotius (" tantas res perfecit instrumento adeo 
tenui ;" comp. also Estius and otliers), are forced upon the 
words, in wliich the form of expression is selected simply in 
opposition to spiritualistic erroneous doctrines. Just as little 
may we import into the simple historical statement of the 
means Bia rov Oavarov, with Hofmann, the ignominy of shedding 
His hlood on the cross, since no modal definition to that effect 
is subjoined or indicated. — irapacrTrjaai v/xa,'? /c.t.X.] Ethical 
defuiition of the object aimed at in the aTro/carrjW. : ye have been 
reconciled . . . in order to 2'>resent you, etc. The presenting sid)- 
jcct is therefore the subject of dTroKarTfXX., so that it is to be 
explained : Iva irapaaTr^crrjTe vfxd<;, ut sisterctis vos, and there- 
fore this continuation of the discourse is by no means awkward 
in its relation to tlie reading d7roKaTt]X\.a<y7]T€ (in opposition to 
de Wette). We should be only justified in expecting kavrov^ 
(as Pluther suggests) instead of vfia<i (comp. Eom. xii. 1) if 
(comp. Eom. vi. 13 ; 2 Tim. ii. 15) the connection required a 
reflexive emphasis. According to the reading diroKaTijiWa^ev 
the sense is lU sisteret vos, in which case, however, the subject 
would not be Christ (Hofmann), but, as in every case since evBo- 
Krjae in ver. 19, God. — The^om^ of time at which the irapaar. 
is to take place (observe the aorist) is that of the judgment, in 

CHAP. I. 22. 313 

wliicli they shall come forth holy, etc., hrforc the Judge. Conip. 
ver. 28, and on Epli. v. 27. This reference (comp. Biihr, 
Olshausen, Bleek) is required by the coiAext in ver. 23, where 
the Trapaa-Tijaat k.t.X. is made dependent on continuance in the 
faith as its condition ; consequently there cannot be meant the 
result alrcadij accomplished hy the reconeiliation itself, namely, 
the state of hcKaLoavvt] entered upon through it (so usually, 
including Hofmann). The state of justification sets in at any 
rate, and unconditionally, through the reconciliation ; but it 
may be lost again, and at the Parousia will be found subsist- 
ing only in the event of the reconciled remaining constant 
to the faith, by means of which they have appropriated the 
reconciliation, ver. 23. — ay/ou? /c.t.X.] does not represent the 
subjects as sacrifices (Eom. xii. 1), which Avould not consist 
with the fact that Christ is the sacrifice, and also would not 
be in harmony with dve<yKk. ; it rather describes without figure 
the moral holiness which, after the justification attained by 
means of faith, is wrought by the Holy Spirit (Eom. vii. 6, 
viii. 2, 9, et cd.), and which, on the part of man, is preserved 
and maintained by continuance in the faith (ver. 23). The 
three predicates are not intended to represent the relation 
"erga i?t'2M?i, respectu vestri, and yq^'^qoXxi proximi" (Bengel, 
Biihr), since, in point of fact, dfKOfiovi (blameless, Eph, i. 4, 
V. 27 ; Herod, ii. 177 ; Plat. Ptcj). p. 487 A : ovB' av 6 Mwfxo^ 
TO ye ToiovTov fiifjtylracTo) no less than dv6<yK\. {reproachless, 
1 Cor. i. 8) points to an external judgment: but the moral 
condition is intended to be described with exhaustive emphasis 
positively (dylovi) and negatively (d/xdofji. and dveyxX.), The 
idea of the moral holiness of the ricrhteous through faith 
is thoroughly Pauline ; comp. not only Eph. ii. 1 0, Tit. ii. 
14, iii. 8, but also such passages as Pi,om. vi. 1-23, viii. 4 ff. ; 
Gal. v. 22-25; 1 Cor. ix. 24 If. ; 2 Cor. xi. 2, ct al. — Kare- 
vcoTTiov avTov] refers to Christ} to His judicial appearance at 
the Parousia, just as by the previous avrov after <rap/c6^ Christ 

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


also was meant. The usual reference to God (so Huther, de 
Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek) is connected with 
the reading arroKaWiKka^ev taken as so referring ; comp. Jude 
24; Eph. i. 4. The objection that KarevctiTnov elsewhere 
occurs only in reference to God, is without force ; for that this 
is the case in the few passages where the word is used, seems 
to be purely accidental, since iva>7nov is also applied to Christ 
(2 Tim. ii. 14), and since in the notion itself there is nothing 
opposed to this reference. The frequent use of the expres- 
sion " before God" is traceable to the theocratically national 
currency of this conception, which by no means excludes the 
expression " before Christ^ So efXTrpocrOev is also used of 
Christ in 1 Thess. ii. 19. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 10: einrpoaOev 
Tov /3?7^aT09 Tov XptaTov, which is a commentary on our Kare- 
vcoTTLov avTov; see also Matt. xxv. 32. 

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

Ver. 23. Eequirement, with which is associated not, indeed, 
the being included in the work of reconciliation (Hofmann), 
but the attainment of its blessed final aim, which would 
otherwise be forfeited, namely the TrapaarfjaaL k.t.\. above 
described : so far at any rate as ye, i.e. assuming, naincly, that 
ye, etc. A confidence that the readers will ftdfil this condi- 
tion is not conveyed by the d'ye in itself (see on 2 Cor. v. 3 ; 
Gal. iii. 4 ; Eph. iii. 2), and is not implied here by the con- 
text ; but Paul sets forth the relation purely as a condition 
certainly taking place, which they have to fulfil, in order to 
attain the irapaaTTjaat, k.t.X. — that " fructus in posterum lae- 

CHAP. I. 23. ' 315 

tissimus" of their reconciliation (Bengel). — r^^ jriaTei] 
belonging to eTn/Mev. : abide hy the faith, do not cease from it/ 
See on Eom. vi. 1. The mode of this abiding is indicated by 
what follows positively (reOe/u,. k. iSpaloc), and negatively (/c. (mt) 
fjteraKtv. k.t.X.), under the figurative conception of a huilding, 
in which, and that with reference to the Parousia pointed at by 
Trapaa-TJjaai k.tX, the hope of the gospel is conceived as the 
Joundation, in so far as conti7iuance in the faith is based on 
this, and is in fact not possible without it (ver. 27). " Spe 
amissa perseverantia concidit," Grotius. On rede/j-eX, which 
is not interjected (Holtzmann), comp. Eph. iii. 17; 1 Pet. 
V. 10; and on eBpaloc, 1 Cor. xv. 58. The opposite of 
TeOefieX. is %«/3t9 Oe/xeXiov, Luke vi. 49 ; but it would be a 
contrast to the redefjLek. Kal eSpaloL, if they were fieraKcvoufjuevoi, 
K.T.X. ; concerning ytt?;, see Winer, p. 443 [E. T. 596]; 
Baeumlein, Fart. p. 295. — fxeraKtvov/n.] passively, through 
the influence of false doctrines and other seductive forces. — 
aTTo] azuay . . . from, so as to stand no longer on hope as the 
foundation of perseverance in the faith. Comp. Gal. i. 6. — 
The iXirU rod evayy. (which is proclaimed through the gospel 
by means of its promises, comp. ver. 5, and on Eph. i. 18) is 
the hope of eternal life in the Messianic kingdom, which has 
been imparted to the believer in the gospel. Comp. vv. 4, 
5, 27; Eom. v. 2, viii. 24; Tit. i. 2 f, iii. 7. — ov rjKovaare 
K.tX.'] three definitions rendering the fit) fieraKivelaOaL k.t.X. 
in its universal obligation palpably apparent to the readers ; 
for such a jxeraKLvdadai would, in the case of the Colossians, 
be inexcusable {ov rjKova-are, comp. Pom. x. 18), would set at 
naught the universal proclamation of the gospel {tov K^ipv^O. 

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


k.tX), and would stand in contrast to the personal weight 
of the apostle's position as its servant (ov iyev. k.tX.). If, 
with Hofmann, we join toO K7]pvj(6evTo^ as an adjective to rov 
evayyeXcov, ov rjKoixTare, we withdraw from the ov r^KovaaTe 
that element of practical significance, which it must have, if 
it is not to be superfluons. Nor is justice done to the third 
point, ov iyevofirjv k.t.X., if the words (so Hofmann, comp. de 
Wette) are meant to help the apostle, by enforcing what he 
is thenceforth to write with the weight of his name, to come 
to Ids conditio7i at that time. According to this, they would 
be merely destined as a transition. In accordance with the 
context, however, and without arbitrary tampering, they can 
only have the same aim with the two preceding attributives 
which are annexed to the gospel ; and, with this aim, how 
appropriately and forcibly do they stand at the close !^ Xoittov 
yap fieya rjv to UavXov ovofia, Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom. 
Comp. on iyo) IlavXof;, with a view to urge his personal 
authority, 2 Cor. x. 1 ; Gal. v. 2 ; Eph. iii. 1 ; 1 Thess. ii. 18 ; 
Philem. 19. It is to be observed, moreover, that if Paul 
himself had been the teacher of the Colossians, this relation 
would certainly not have been passed over here in silence. — 
eV Trdarj Kria-ei (without rfj, see the critical remarks) is to 
be taken as : injjrcscnce of (coram., see Ast, Zcx. Plat. I. p. 701 ; 
Winer, p. 360 [E. T. 481]) every creature, before everything 
that is created (Kri(n<i, as in i. 1 5). Tliere is nothing created 
under the heaven, in whose sphere and environment (comp. 
Kiihner, II. 1, p. 401) the gospel had not been proclaimed. 
Tlie sense of the word must be left in this entire generality, 
and not limited to the heathen (Biihr). It is true that the 
popular expression of universality may just as little be pressed 
here as in ver. 6. Comp. Herm. Fast. sim. viii. 3 ; Ignatius, 
liojn. 2. Bat as in i. 15, so also here Traaa KTiafi is not 
all creation, according to which the sense is assumed to be : 
" on a stage emhracinfj the v:hole world" (Hofmann). This Paul 
would properly have expressed by iv 'rrdari rfi Kjlaei, or iv 
ttuvtI tcu Koa-fKp, or ev oXw tw k. ; comp. ver. 6. The expression 

' According to Btiur, indeed, such passages as the present are among those 
M hich betray tlie double personality of the author. 

CHAP. I. 2-1. 317 

is more lofty and poetic than in ver. 6, appropriate to the 
close of the section, not a fanciful reproduction betraying an 
imitator and a later age (Holtzmann), Omitting even ov 
-^Kovaare (because it is not continued by ov koI iyo)), Holtz- 
mann arrives merely at the connection between ver. 23 and 
ver. 25 : firj /xeTaKiv. anb rod evayy. ov iyev. iyo) U. SiaK. 
Kara rrjv oIkov. t. Oeov rrjv Sodeladv fMoc eh vfMd<i, just as he 
then would read further tlius : TrX-qpoJaao r. \6<y. r. Oeov, et9 
o Kal KOTTcS dycjvi^ofi. Kara r. kvepy. avrov ttjv evepyov/j,. iv 
ifioL. — ScuKovo'i] See on Eph. iii. 7. Paul has become such 
through his calling, Gal. i. 15 f.; Eph. iii. 7. Observe the 

Ver. 24.^ A more precise description of this relation of 
service, and that, in the first place, with respect to the si'ffer- 
ings which the apostle is now enduring, ver. 24, and then 
with respect to his important calling generally, vv. 25-29. 
— 09 (see the critical remarks) vvv xaipoi k.t.\. : / wJio 
noio rejoice, etc. How touchingly, so as to win the hearts of 
the readers, does this join itself with the last element of 
encouragement in ver. 23! — vvv] places in contrast with the 
great element of his loast, expressed by ov iyev. k.tX., which 
has imiDosed on the ai^ostle so many sorrows (comp. Acts 
ix. 16), the situation as it now exists with him in that 
relation of service on his part to the gospel. This iri-escnt 
condition, however, he characterizes, in full magnanimous 
appreciation of the sufferings under which he writes, as joyful- 
ness over them, and as a becoming perfect in the fellowship of 
tribulation with Christ, which is accomplished through them. 
It is plain, therefore, that the emphatic vvv is not transitional 
(Biihr) or inferential (Liicke : " quae cum ita sint") ; nor yet 
is it to be defined, with Olshausen, by arbitrary importation of 
the thought : now, after that I looh 'upcn the cJiurch as firmly 
estahlished (comp. Dalmer), or, with Hofmann, to be taken as 
standing in contrast to the apostolic activity/. — iv toi<; iraOrnji.'] 
over the sufferings; see on Phil. i. 18 ; Eom. v. 3. This joy 
in suffering is so entirely in harmony with tlie Pauline spirit, 

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


that its source is not to be sought (in opposition to Holtz- 
mann) in 2 Cor. vii. 4, either for the present passage or for 
Eph. iii. 13 ; comp. also Phil. ii. 17. — virep vficov] joins itself 
to 7ra6/]fjLaaLv so as to form one conception, without connect- 
ing article. Comp. on vv. 1, 4 ; 2 Cor. vii. 7 ; Eph. iii. 13 ; 
Gal. iv. 14. Since virep, according to the context, is not to be 
taken otherwise than as in vnep rod o-co/z. avrov, it can neither 
mean instead of (Steiger, Catholic expositors, but not Cornelius 
a Lapicle or Estius), nor 07i account of (Eosenmiiller, Hein- 
richs, Elatt; comp. Eph. iii. 1; Phil. i. 29), but simply: in 
commoclum} namely, 'iva vjjid<; axpeXijcraL BvprjOo), Oecumenius, 
and that, indeed, hy that honourahle attestatioii and glorifying 
of your Christian state, ivliicli is actually contained in my 
trihidations ; for the latter show forth the faith of the readers, 
for the sake of which the apostle has undertaken and borne 
the suffering, as the holy divine thing which is worthy of 
such a sacrifice. Comp. Phil. i. 12 ff.; Eph. iii. 13. The 
reference to the cxamjjle, which confirms the readers' faith 
(Grotius, Wolf, Bahr, and others), introduces inappropriately 
a reflection, the indirect and tame character of which is not 
at all in keeping with the emotion of the discourse. — The 
vfjLMP, meaning the oxaders, though the relation in question 
concerns Pauline Christians generally, is to be explained by 
the tendency of affectionate sympathy to individualize (comp. 
Phil. i. 25, ii. 17, ct al). It is arbitrary, doubtless, to supply 
rwv edvoiv here from Eph. iii. 1 (Flatt, Huther) ; but that 
Paul, nevertheless, has his readers in view as Gentile Christians, 
and as standing in a special relation to himself as apostle of 
the Gentiles, is shown by vv. 25—27. — Kai\ not equivalent to 
Koi <ydp (Heinrichs, Biihr), but the simple a^id, subjoining to 
the subjective state of feeling the ohjcetive relation of suffer- 
ing, which the apostle sees accomplishing itself in his destiny. 
It therefore carries on, but not from the special {vfiwv) " ad 
totam omnino ecclesiam" (Liicke), since the new point to be 
introduced is contained in the specific avTavairKTjpa, . . . 
Xpca-Tov, and not in virep t, aco/x. avrov. The connection of 

' So also Bisping, who, however, explains it of the mc7'itorioiisness of good 
ivorks availing for others. 

CHAP. I. 24. 319 

ideas is rather : " I rejoice over my sufferings, and what a 
holy 2>osition is theirs ! through them / fulfil" etc. Hence 
the notion of xat'pw is not, with Huther, to be carried over 
also to avTavaTrkrjpcb : and I supplement ivith joy, etc. At 
the same time, however, the statement introduced by Kal 
stands related to %at/5&) as elucidating and giving ivfor- 
maiion regarding it. — avravairXr^pS)] The double compound 
is more greqjliic than the simple avaifKripoi, Phil. ii. 30 ; 
1 Cor. xvi. 1 7 (/ fill iqj), since avri {to fill wp over against) 
indicates what is brought in for the making complete over 
against the still existing vareprjixara. The reference of the avri 
lies therefore in the notion of what is lacking; inasmuch, 
namely, as the incomplete is rendered complete by the very 
fact, that the supplement corresponding to what is lacking is 
introduced in its stead. It is the reference of the correspond- 
ing adjustment} of the supplying of what is still wanting. 
Comp. Dem. 182. 22 : avTava7fKripovvre<i nrpo^ rov eviropcora- 
Tov ael T0U9 aTropMrdrov; (where the idea is, that the poverty 
of the latter is comjjcnsated for by the wealth of the former) ; 
so also avravaTrXrjpcixjL^, Epicur. ap. Diog. L. x. 48 ; Dio Cass, 
xliv. 48 : 6(T0v . . . iveBei, tovto e/c t?^? 'jrapa rwv akXcov avvre- 
X€ta<; dvrava7r\.7]po)df]. Comp. dvTefMTriTrXrjfMi, Xen. Anah. iv. 
5. 28 ; dvTavaTfkrjdeiv, Xen. Sell. ii. 4. 12 ; and dvTLifXrjpovv, 
Xen. Cgr. ii. 2. 26. The distinction of the word from the 
simple dvairX.rjpovv does not consist in this, that the latter is 
said of him, who " vareprj^ia a se relictum ipse explet," and 
avravaifX.. of him, who " alterius vareprj/ia de suo explet " (so 
"Winer, de verhor. c. praepos. in N. T. usu, 1838, III. p. 22) ; 
nor yet in the endurance vieing with Christ, the author of the 
afflictions (Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 275); but in the cir- 
cumstance, that in avravaTrK. the filling up is conceived and 
described as defectui rcspondens, in dvaifk., on the other hand, 

^ Many ideas are arbitrarily introduced by commentators, in order to bring 
out of tbe atri in ttVTata'rx. a reciprocal relation. See e.g. Clericus : " lUe ego, 
qui olim ecclesiam Cbristi vexaveram, nunc vicissim in ejus ntilitatem pcrgo 
multa mala perpeti." Others (see already Oecumenius) have found in it the 
meaning : for requital of that which Christ suffered for us ; comp. also Grimm 
in his iexicon. "Wetstein remarks shoi'tly and rightly : " inri ia-ripr.fiarti; suc- 

Cedit •xXrtfUfi.a^" — or rather avofprkrifufia. 


only in general as completio. See 1 Cor. xvi. 17 ; Phil. ii. 30 ; 
Plat. Lcgg. xii. p. 957 A, Tim. p. 78 D, et cd. Comp. also 
Tittmann, Synon. p. 230. — to, vareptj/xaTo] The plural 
indicates those elements yet wanting in the sufferings of 
Christ in order to completeness. Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 10; 
2 Cor. ix. 1 2. — twv 6\iy^. tou XpLarov] rov X. is the geni- 
tive of the suhjcd. Paul describes, namely, his own sufferings, 
in accordance with the idea of the KOLvwveiv rot? rov Xpiarov 
iraOrjpiaai (1 Pet. iv. 13 ; comp. Matt. xx. 22 ; Heb. xiii. 13), 
as afflictions of Christ, in so far as the apostolic suffering in 
essential character was the same as Christ endured (the same 
cup which Christ drank, the same baptism with which Christ 
was baptized). Comp. on Ptom. viii. 17; 2 Cor. i. 5; Phil, 
iii. 10. The collective mass of these afflictions is conceived 
in the form of a definite measure, just as the phrases ava- 
TrifiifkavaL kuko., avairXfjaaL kukov oItov, and the like, are 
current in classic authors, according to a similar figurative 
conception (Hom. II. viii. 34. 354, xv. 132), Schweigh. Lex. 
Herod. I. p. 42. He only who has suffered all, has filled ttp 
the measure. That Paul is now, in his captivity fraught 
with danger to life, on the point (the present avravaifK. 
indicating the being in the act, see Bernhardy, p. 370) of 
filling up all that still remains behind of this measure of 
affliction, that he is therefore engaged in the final full solution 
of his task of suffering, without leaving a single varepijfia in 
it, — this he regards as something grand and glorious, and 
therefore utters the avravairk'qpw, which bears the emphasis at 
the head of this declaration, with all the sense of triumph 
which the approaching completion of such a work involves. 
" / rejoice on account of the sufferings tvhich I endure for you, 
and — so highly have I to esteem this situation of afflic- 
tion — / am in the course of furnishing the comijlete fulfil- 
ment of what in my case still remains in arrear of fellowship of 
affliction with Christ." This lofty consciousness, this feeling 
of the grandeur of the case, very naturally involved not only 
the selection of the most graphic expression possible, avrava- 
irXrjpo), to be emphatically prefixed, but also the description, 
in the most honourable and sublime manner possible, of the 

CHAP. I. 24. 321 

apostolic afflictions themselves as the 6\i-^a<; rov Xpio-Tov} 
since in their kind and nature they are no other than those 
which Christ Himself has suffered. These sufferings arc, 
indeed, sufferings for Chrisfs sake (so Vatablus, Schoettgen, 
Zachariae, Storr, Eosenniiiller, Flatt, Bohmer, and others ; 
comj). Wetstein), but they are not so designated by the geni- 
tive ; on the contrary, the designation follows the idea of 
ethical identity, which is conveyed in the iaofjuoipov elvac t&J 
XpicrrS, as in Phil. iii. 10. Nor are they to be taken, with 
Liicke (comp. Fritzsche, I.e.), as : " afflictiones, quae Paulo 
apostolo Christo auctore et av.spiee Christo perferendae erant," 
since there is no ground to depart from the primary and most 
natural designation of the suffering subject (^Xti/^i?, with the 
genitive of the person, is alivo.ys so used in the N". T., in 
2 Cor. i. 4, 8, iv. 17 ; Eph. iii. 12 ; Jas. i. 27), considering how 
current is the idea of the Koivcovla of the sufferings of Christ. 
Theodoret's comment is substantially correct, though not 
exhibiting precisely the relation expressed by the genitive : 
XpL(no<i rov virep t?}? iKKXrjaia^ KareSi^aTo ddvarov . . . kuI 
ra aWa oaa vTrefxeLve, Kal o 6eLo<i d7r6(TTo\o<i oiaavrca vTrep 
avrrjii viriarr) ra iroiKcKa iraOrjixara. Ewald imports more, 
when he says that Paul designates his sufferings from the 
point of view of the continuation and further accomplishment 
of the divine aim in the sufferings of Christ. Quite erroneous, 
however, because at variance with the idea that Christ has 
exhausted the suffering appointed to Him in the decree of God 
for the redemption of the world (comp. also John xi. 52, 
xix. :30 ; Luke xxii. 37, xviii. 31 ; Piom. iii. 25 ; 2 Cor. v. 21, 
ct al), is not only the view of Heinrichs : " qualia et Christus 
passurus fuisset, si diutius xixissct " (so substantially also 
Phot. Amphil. 143), but also that of Hofmann, who explains 
it to mean : the supplementary eontinuation of the afflictions 
which Christ suffered in His earthly life — a continuation 
which belonged to the apostle as apostle of the Gentiles, and 
consisted in a suffering which could 7iot have affected Christ, 

1 When de Wette describes our view of ^Xi^f,. t. X. as tame, and Scbenkel as 
tautological, tlie incorrectness of this criticism arises from their not observing 
that the stress of the expression lies on uvrava.'rXnfu, and not on t, 6x. t. X. 


because He was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel. As if 
Christ's suffering were not, throughout the N". T., the one per- 
fect and completely valid sujEfering /or all mankind, but were 
rather to be viewed under the aspect of two quantitative 
halves, one of which He bore Himself as Blukovo^ Treptroyu,^? 
(Eom. XV. 8), leaving the other behind to be borne by Paul 
as the BtBd(TKa\o<; edvcov ; so that the first, namely, that which 
Jesus suffered, consisted in the fact that Israel hrovght Him 
to the cross, because they would not allow Him to be their 
Saviour ; whilst the other, as the complement of the first, con- 
sisted in this, that Paul la)/ in ca'ptivity with his life at stake, 
because Israel would not permit him to proclaim that Saviour 
to the Gentiles. Every explanation, which involves the idea 
of the suffering endured by Christ in the days of His flesh 
having been incomplete and needing supplement, is an anomaly 
which offends against the analogy of faith of the !N". T. 
And how incompatible with the deep humility of the apostle 
(Eph. iii. 8 ; 1 Cor. xv. 9) would be the thought of being 
supposed to supplement that, which the highly exalted One 
(ver. 15 ff.) had suffered for the reconciliation of the universe 
(ver. 20 ff.) ! Only when misinterpreted in this fashion can 
the utterance be regarded as one perfectly foreign to Paul (as 
is asserted by Holtzmann, pp. 21 f, 152, 226); even Eph. 
i. 22 affords no basis for such a view. As head of the Church, 
which is His body, and which He fills. He is in statu gloriae 
in virtue of His kingly office. Others, likewise, holding the 
genitive to be that of the subject, have discovered here the 
conception of the suffering of Christ in the Church, His hody,^ 
so that when the menibers suffer, the head suffers also. So 
Chrysostom and Theophylact (who compare the apostle with 
a lieutenant, who, when the general-in-chief is removed, takes 
the latter's place and receives his wounds), Theodore of Mop- 
suestia, Augustine, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Melanchthon, 
Clarius, Cornelius a Lapide, Vitringa, Bengel, Llichaelis, and 
others, including Steiger, Btihr, Olshausen, de Wette, Schenkel, 
Dalmer ; comp. Grotius and Calovius, and even Bleek. But 
the idea of Christ suffering in the sufferings of His people 

^ Comp. also Sabatier, I'apdtre Paul, p. 213. 

CHAP. I. M. 323 

(Olsliausen : " Christ is the suffering God in the world's 
history !") is nowhere found in the IST. T., not even in Acts 
ix. 4, where Christ, indeed, appears as the One against whom 
the persecution of Christians is directed, but not as affected hy 
it in the sense of suffering. He lives in His people (Gal. ii. 20), 
speaks in them (2 Cor. xiii. 3) ; His heart beats in them 
(PhiL i. 8) ; He is mighty in them (ver. 29), when they are 
weak (2 Cor. xii. 9), their hope, their hfe, their victory ; but 
nowhere is it said that He suffers in them. This idea, more- 
over — which, consistently carried out, would involve even the 
conception of the di/inff of Christ in the martyrs — would be 
entirely opposed to the victoriously reigning life of the Lord 
in glory, with whose death all His sufferings are at an end. 
Acts ii. 34 ff. ; 1 Cor. xv. 24 ; Phil. ii. 9 ff. ; Luke xxiv. 26 ; 
John xix. 30. Crucified e'f aa6eveia<i, He lives iic Bvvdfi€(o<} 
0eov, 2 Cor, xiii. 4, at the right hand of God exalted aboA^e all 
the heavens and filling the universe (Eph. i. 22 f., iv. 10), 
ruling, conquering, and beyond the reach of further suffering 
(Heb. iii. 18 ff.). The application made by Cajetanus, Bellar- 
mine, Salmeron, and others, of this explanation for the pur- 
pose of establishing the treasury of indulgences, which consists 
of the merits not merely of Christ but also of the apostles and 
saints, is a Jewish error (4 Mace. vi. 26, and Grimm in loc), 
historically hardly worthy of being noticed, though still de- 
fended, poorly enough, by Bisping. — iv rfj a-apKc fiov] belongs 
to avravairX., as to which it specifies the more 2^'^''<^cise mode; 
not to Twv OXi'y^. T. X. (so Storr, Flatt, Bahr, Steiger, Bohmer, 
Huther), with which it onight be combined so as to form one 
idea, but it would convey a more precise description of the 
Christ-sufferings experienced by the apostle, for Avhich there 
was no motive, and which was evident of itself Belong- 
ing to avravaifk., it contains with virep rev aco/u,. a. a pointed 
definition (o-dp^ . . , awiia) of the mode and of the aim.^ Paul 
accomplishes that dvTavaTrXrjpovv in his flesh^ which in its 

• Steiger riglitly perceived that iv r. ca^xi fji.. and v-rif r. f. a. belong together ; 
but he erroneously coupled both with ruv ^x. t. X. ("the sufferings which Christ 
endures in my flesh for His body"), owing to his incorrect view of tlie ^xi^pus r. X 

' Hofmann thinks, without reason, that, according to our explanation of 


natural weakness, exposed to suffering and death, receives the 
affliction from without and feels it x^sychically (comp. 2 Cor. 
iv. 11 ; GaL iv. 14 ; 1 Pet. iv. 1), for the benefit of the hody 
of Christ, which is the church (comp. ver. 18), for the con- 
firmation, advancement, and glory of which (comp. above on 
iiirep vfiMv) he endures the Christ - sufferings. Comp. Eph. 
iii. 1 3. The significant purpose of the addition of iv rfj o-apKt 
K.T.X is to bring out more clearly and render palpable, in 
connection with the dvravaTrXrjpw k.t.X., what loft]/ happiness 
he experiences in this very dvravaTfkrjpovv. He is therein 
privileged to step in with his mortal cdp^ for the benefit 
of the holy and eternal body of Christ, which is the church. 

Ver. 25. That He suffers thus, as is stated in ver. 24, for 
the good of the church, is implied in his special relation of 
service to the latter; hence the epexegetical relative clause 
rj<i iyevofiTjv k.t.X. (comp. on ver. 18) : whose servant I have 
become in conformity with my divine appointment as preacher 
to the Gentiles (Kara r. oIkov. k.t.\.). In this way Paul now 
brings this his specific and clistinetivc ccdling into prominence 
after the general description of himself as servant of the gospel 
in ver. 23, and here again he gives expression to the conscious- 
ness of his individual authority by the emphasized e7ct>. The 
relation of the testimony regarding himself in ver. 2 5 to that 
of ver. 23 is climactic, not that of a clumsy duplicate (Holtz- 
mann). — Kara ttjv oiKovopb. k.t.\.'\ in accordance luith the 
stewardship of God, which is given tome loith reference to you. 
The oLKovofiia r. ©eov is in itself nothing else than a charac- 
teristic designation of the apostolic office, in so far as its 
holder is appointed as administrator of the household of God 
(the olKoheairoTTj^), by which, in the theocratic figurative con- 
ception, is denoted the church (comp. 1 Tim. iii. 15). Comp. 
1 Cor. ix. 1 7, iv. 1 ; Tit. i. 7. Hence such an one is, in con- 
sequence of this office conferred upon him, in his relation to 
the church the servant of the latter (2 Cor. iv. 5), to which 

a.}irava-rXt)pu x.r.X., we OUgllt tO joill Iv rjj ffccpxi fiov witll ruv ix'i^. T. X., aS the 

latter would otherwise be without any reierence to the person of tlie apostle. It 
has, in fact, this reference through the very statement, that the avruwrx^pout 
X. T. X. takes places in the flesh of the apostle. 

CHAP. I. 25. 323 

function God has appointed him, just because he is His 
steward. This sacred stewardship then receives its more pre- 
cise distinguishing definition, so far as it is entrusted to Paul, 
by the addition of et9 u/^a? k.t.X. It is purely arbitrary, and 
at variance with the context {t7]v Sod. fMot), to depart from the 
proper signification, and to take it as institution, arrcmrjcmcnt 
(see on Eph. i. 10, iii. 2). So Chrysostom and his successors 
(with much wavering), Beza, Calvin, Estius, Eosemniiller, and 
others. It is w^ell said by Cornelius a Lapide : " in domo Dei, 
quae est ecclesia, sum oeconomus, ut dispensem . . . bona et 
dona Dei domini mei." Comp. on 1 Cor. iv. 1. — ei? u/xa?] 
although the office concerned Gentile Christians generally ; 
a concrete appropriation, as in ver. 24. Comp. on Phil. i. 24. 
It is to be joined with t. Sodetadv fioc, as in Eph. iii. 2 ; not 
with irXrjpwaaL k.tX. (Hofmann), with the comprehensive tenor 
of which the individualizing "for you " is not in harmony, 
when it is properly explained (see below). — 'irX7]pcoaat, k.t.\.] 
telic infinitive, depending on t7]v SoOeiadv fiot et? vfj.a<;, beside 
which it stands (Eom. xv. 15 f ) ; not on ?/? i^yev. Bmk. 
(Huther). PauJ, namely, has received the office of Ajjostlc to 
the Gentiles, in order through the discharge of it to hring to 
co7n]pletion the gospel {tov Xoyov r. Geov, 1 Cor. xiv. 36 ; 
2 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 2; 1 Thess. ii. 13; Acts iv. 29, 31, vi. 2, 
and frequently), obviously not as regards its contents, but 
as regards its universal destination, according to which the 
knowledge of salvation had not yet reached its fulness, so long 
as it was only communicated to the Jews and not to the 
Gentiles also. The latter was accomplished through Paul, who 
thereby made full the gospel — conceived, in respect of its 
proclamation in accordance with its destiny, as a measure to be 
filled — just because the divine stewardship /or the Gc7itilcs ha.d 
been committed to him. The same conception of '7r\'t]pcoaL<; 
occurs in Eom. xv. 19. Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. ; also 
Calovius.^ Similarly Eengel : " ad omnes perducere ; P. ubique 
ad summa tendit." Partly from not attending to the con- 
textual reference to the element, contained in t. ho6. fxoc et? 

' "Who rightly says : " Nimiram impletur ita vcvbum non ratio7ie siti ecu im- 
perfectum, sed ratione hominum, cuin ad plures sese diffundit." 


y/i,a9, of the 7r\t]pci}(n^ of the gospel which was implied in 
the Gentile - ayostolic ministry, and partly from not doing 
justice to the verbal sense of the selected expression TrXrjpco- 
aac, or attributing an arbitrary meaning to it, commentators 
have taken very arbitrary views of the passage, such as, for 
example, Luther : to preach cojnousli/ ; Olshausen, whom 
Dalmer follows : " to proclaim it coinpletcly as respects its 
whole tenor and compass ; " Cornelius a Lapide : " ut com- 
pleam praedicationem ev., qiiam cocpit Christus ; " Vitringa, 
Storr, riatt, Biihr : ifkr^povv has after "iw:) the signification of 
the simple cloccre ; Huther : it means either to diffuse, or (as 
Steiger also takes it) to " realize" to introduce into the life, 
inasmuch as a doctrine not preached is cmpiti/ ; ^ de Wette : to 
" execute" the word of God being regarded either as a commis- 
sion or (comp. Heinrichs) as a decree; Estius and others, 
following Theodoret: "ut omnia loca impleam vcrho Dei" (quite 
at variance with the words here, comp. Acts v. 28); Fritzsche, 
ad Eom. III. p. 275 : to sup)plemcnt, namely, ly continuing the 
instruction of your teacher Epaphras. Others, inconsistently 
with what follows, have explained the X0709 r. ©eov to mean 
the divine promise (" partim de Christo in .genere, partim de 
vocatione gentium," Beza, comp. Vatablus), in accordance with 
which 'TrX.rjp. would mean cxscqui. Chrysostom has rightly 
understood t. X6y. t. ©eov of the gospel, but takes TrXn^pwaai, to 
which he attaches et? v[xa'i, as meaning : to bring to full, firm 
faith (similarly Calvin) — a view justified neither by the word 
in itself nor by the context. 

Ver. 26. Appositional more precise definition of the X070? 
rov ©eov, and that as regards its great contents. — As to to 
(jLvarripLov k.t.X., the decree of redemption, hidden from eternity 
in God, fulfilled through Christ, and made known through the 
gospel, see on Eph. i. 9. It embraces the Gentiles also ; and 
this is a special part of its nature that had been veiled (see 
Eph. iii. 5), which, however, is not brought into prominence till 

' In a similarly artificial iasliion, cmptj-ing the purposely chosen expression of 
its meaning, Hofmann comes ultimately to the bare sense : "to proclaim God's 
word," asserting that the word is a J act, and so he who proclaims the fact 
fulJiU it. 

CHAP. I. 2G. 327 

ver. 27. Considering the so frequent treatment of tliis idea 
in Paul's writings, and its natural correlation with that of the 
7z/wc7i9, an acquaintance with the Gospel of Matthew (xiii. 11) 
is not to he inferred here (Holtzmann).^ — utto twv alcovwv 
K. airo Tcov jevecov] This twofold description, as also the 
repetition of utto, has solemn emphasis : from the ages and 
from the generations. The article indicates the ages that had 
existed (since the beginning), and the generations that have 
lived. As to airo rSiv aicavcov, comp. on Eph. iii. 9. Paul 
could not write Trpo tcov aloov., because while the divine 
decree ^q,s formed prior to all time (1 Cor. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 9), 
its concecdment is not conceivable before the beginning of 
the times and generations of mankind, to ichom it remained 
unknown. Expressions such as Piom. xvi. 25,xpovoi<;alcovLOL^,^ 
and Tit. i. 2 (see Huther in loc), do not conflict with this 
view. aiTo T. ryevewv does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. ; 
but comp. Acts xv. 21. The two ideas are not to be regarded 
as synonymous (in opposition to Huther and others), but are to 
be kept separate (times — men). — vvvl he i(f)avepco6'r]'] A tran- 
sition to the finite tense, occasioned by the importance of the 
contrast. Comp. on i. 6. Eespecting vvvi, see on ver. 21. The 
^avepa)<n<; has taken place differently according to the different 
subjects; partly by a7ro/caXi;'\/ri9 (Eph. iii. 5; 1 Cor. ii. 10), 
as in the case of Paul himself (Gal. i. 12, 15 ; Eph. iii. 3) ; 
partly by preaching (iv. 4 ; Tit. i. 3 ; Eom. xvi. 2 6) ; partly 
by both. The historical realization (de Wette ; comp. 2 Tim. 
i. 10) was the antecedent of the ^avepcoaL<i, but is not here 
this latter itseK, which is, on the contrary, indicated by roh 
dyloci avrov as a special act of clearly manifesting communica- 

' Just as little ground is there for tracing xara. ra hraXfmra, x.r.x., in ii. 22, 
to Matt. XV. 9 ; ob Kfccruv, in ii. 19, to Matt. iii. 3, 4 ; aTam, in ii. 8, to 
Matt. xiii. 22 ; and in other instances. The author, who manifests so much 
lively copiousness of language, was certainly not thus confined and dependent 
in thought and expression. 

2 According to Holtzmann, indeed, p. 309 IT., the close of the Epistle to the 
Eomans is to be held as proceeding from the post-apostolic auctor ad Ephesios, — 
a position which is attempted to be proved by the tones (quite Pauline, how- 
ever) which Rom. xvi. 15-27 has in common with Col. i. 26 f. ; Eph. iii. 20, 
iii. 9, 10, V. 21 ; and in support of it an erroneous interpretation of S/a ypenpZt 
vrfo^nrmui, in Eom. xvi. 26, is invoked. 


Hon. — TOi? dyloa avTov^ i.e. not : to the cqwstles and 2^voiiliets 
of the K T. (Flatt, Biihr, Bohmer, Steiger, Olshausen, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, following Estius and older expositors, and even 
Theodoret, who, however, includes other Christians also), — 
a view which is quite unjustifiably imported from Eph. iii. 5,^ 
whence also the reading iVKoaToKoi'^ (instead of a<yioL<i) in F G 
has arisen. It refers to the Christians generally. The mystery- 
was indeed announced to all (ver. 23), but was made manifest 
only to the believers, who as such are the kXtjtoI ajiot 
belonging to God, Kom. i. 7, viii. 30, ix. 23 f. Huther 
wrongly desires to leave rol<i ayioi<; indefinite, because tlie 
fjLVdTrjpLov, so far as it embraced the Gentiles also, had not 
come to be known to many Jewish-Christians. But, apart from 
the fact that the Judaists did not misapprehend the destina- 
tion of redemption for the Gentiles in itself and generally, 
but only the direct character of that destination (without a 
transition through Judaism, Acts xv. 1, et al), the ecjiavepwOt] 
Tot? dyioi<; avrou is in fact a summary assertion, which is to 
be construed a j^oiiori, and does not cease to be true on 
account of exceptional cases, in which the result was not 
actually realized. 

Ver. 27. Not eD:;posiiion of the i<j)avep. Tot<; dy. avrov, since 
the lyvcopurat has for its object not the [xvan^ptov itself, but the 
glory of the latter among the Gentiles. In reality, oh subjoins 
an onvxird raovement of the discourse, so that to the general 
ro iJLVcnrjpLov icftavepcaOg roL<; d<y. avrov a pa.Ttienlar clement is 
added : " The mystery was made manifest to His saints, — to 
them, to whom {quiirpe quihus) God withal desired especially 
to make known that, which is the riches of the glory of this 
mystery among the Gentiles." Along with the general 
ec^avepoiOr) Tot9 0.7/0^9 avrov God had this special definite 
direction of His will. From this tlie reason is plain why Paul 
has written, not simply oh iyvcopia-ev 6 0eo9, but oh ijdeXecrev 
6 0eo9 yvwpicrat. The meaning that is usually discovered in 

1 Holtzmann also, p. 49, would liave the apostles thouglit of "first of all." 
The resemblances to Eph. iii. 3, 5 do not postulate the similarity of the con- 
ception throughout. This would assume a mechanical process of thought, 
which could not be proved. 

CHAP. I. 27. 329 

rjdekriacv, free grace, and the like (so Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Calvin, Beza, and many others, including Biihr, Bohmer, de 
Wette ; Huther is, with reason, doubtful), is therefore not the 
aim of the word, which is also not intended to express the 
joyfidncss of the announcement (Hofmann), but simply and 
solely the idea : " He had a mind." — ^vcopicrat] to make 
Jcnoivn, like ec^avepuidr}, from which it differs in meaning not 
essentially, but only to this extent, that by k4>avep. the thing 
formerly hidden is designated as openly displayed (Piom. i. 19, 
iii. 21, xvi. 26; Eph. v. 13, et al), and by jvcoplaac that 
which was formerly unknown as hrought to hiowlcdfjc. Comp. 
Eom. xvi. 26, ix. 22 ; Eph. i. 9, iii. 3, 5, 10, vi. 19 ; Luke 
ii. 15, ct al. The latter is not related to i^avep. either as 
a something more (Biihr: the making fully acquainted witli 
the nature) ; or as its result (de Wette) ; or as entering 
more into detail (Baumgarten-Crusius) ; or as mahing aware, 
namely hy cxpei'ience (Hofmann). — rt to irkovro^ tti^ Bo^rj^ 
k.tX.] luhat is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the 
Gentiles, i.e. ichat rich fulness of the glory contcdned in this 
mystery exists among the Gentiles, — since, indeed, this riches 
consists in the fact (09 errrt), that Christ is among yon, in 
whom ye have the hope of glory. In order to a proper inter- 
pretation, let it be observed: (1) tL occupies ivith emphasis 
the place of the indirect o, Tt (see Poppo, ad Xen. Cyrop. i. 2, 
10 ; Kithner, ad Mem. i. 1. 1 ; Winer, p. 158 f. [E. T. 210]), 
and denotes " quax sint divitiae " as regards degree : how great 
and unspeakable the riches, etc. Comp. on Eph. i. 18, 
iii. 18. The text yields this definition of the sense from the 
very connection with the quantitative idea to ttXouto?. (2) 
All the substantives are to be left in their full solemn force, 
without being resolved into adjectives (Erasmus, Luther, and 
many others : the glorious riches ; Beza : " divitiae gloriosi 
hujus niysterii"). Chrysostom aptly remarks: a-e/ivm elire 
Kol oyKOV e7redrjK€v utto ttoWt)? Bta6icr€Ci><;, €7rLTdaei<; ^tjtwv 
eTTLTaaecov. Comp. Calvin : " magniloquus est in extollenda 
evaugelii dignitate." (3) As Tf;? Sof?;? is governed by to 
ttXouto?, so also is rov /MvaTrjpiov governed by rrj^ B6^7)<;, and 
€v ToU edv. belongs to the iari which is to be supplied, comp. 


Epli. i. 18. (4) According to the context, tlie Bo^a cannot 
be anything else (see immediately below, ^ cXttI? tt}? Bo^t]^) 
than the 3Icssianic glory, the glory of the kingdom (Eom. 
viii. 18, 21 ; 2 Cor. iv. 17, et al.), the glorious blessing of the 
K\7}povofj,ia (comp. ver. 12), which before the Parousia (Eom. 
viii. 30 ; Col. iii. 3 f.) is the ideal (eX-Tr/?), but after it is the 
realized, possession of believers. Hence it is neither to be 
taken in the sense of the glorious effects generally, which the 
gospel produces among the Gentiles (Chrysostom, Theophy- 
lact, and many others, including Huther, comp. Dalmer), nor 
in that specially of their conversion from death to life (Hof- 
mann), whereby its glory is unfolded. Just as little, however, 
is the Bo^a of God meant, in particular His wisdom and 
grace, which manifest themselves objectively in the making 
known of the mystery, and realize themselves subjectively 
by moral glorification and by the hope of eternal glory (de 
Wette), or the splendor internus of true Christians, or the bliss 
of the latter combined with their moral dignity (Bohmer). 
(5) The genitive of the siibject, rev fivarrjpLov tovtov, defines the 
Bo^a as that contained in the /xvaWjptov, previously unknown, 
but now become manifest with the mystery that has been 
made known, as the blessed contents of the latter. Comp. 
ver. 23 : eXTri? rov evayyeXLov. To take the Bo^a as attrihute 
of the mystcrg, is forbidden by what immediately follows, 
according to which the idea can be none other than the 
familiar one of that glory, which is the proposed aim of the 
saving revelation and calling, the object of faith and hope (in 
opposition to Hofmann and many others) ; iii. 4. Comp. on 
Rom. V. 2. — ev toI<; eOveacv] ^alverau Be iv eT€poi<i, ttoWoj Be 
TrXeov ev tovtol^ rj nroWr) rov fMvarrjpLov Bo^a, Chrysostom. 
" Qui tot saeculis demersi fuerant in morte, ut viderentur 
penitus desperati," Calvin. — 09 eart Xpiaro'i iv v/xiv] " Christus 
in gentihus, sum mum illis temporibus paradox on," Bengel. 
According to a familiar attraction (Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 2 7]), 
this 09 applies to the previous subject ro ifXovro'i Tr]<; So^;? 
Tov fivar. T., and introduces that, in ivhich this riches consists. 
Namely : Christ among you, — in this it consists, and by this 
information is given at the same time how great it is (rt icrriv). 

CHAP. I. 27. 331 

Formerly they were %c«)/3i<? Xptarov (Epli. ii. 12) ; now Christ, 
"who by His Spirit reigns in the hearts of believers (Eom. 
viii. 10; Eph. iil 17; Gal. ii. 20; 2 Cor. iii. 17, et al), is 
present and active among them. The proper reference of the 
relative to to 7r\ovro<i k.t.X., and also the correct connection of 
€v vfuv with Xpicrro^ (not with 77 eX,7rt9, as Storr and Flatt 
think), are already given by Theodoret and Oecumenius (comp. 
also Theophylact), Valla, Luther, Calovius, and others, includ- 
ing Bohmer and Bleek, whereas Hofmann, instead of closely 
connecting XpcaTo^; iv v/mIv, makes this iv v[uv depend on 
ecrrl, whereby the thoughtful and striking presentation of the 
fact " Christ among the Gentiles " is without reason put in the 
background, and eV vfxlv becomes superfluous. Following the 
Vulgate and Chrysostom, o? is frequently referred to tov 
fivaTTjp. TovTov : " this mystery consists in Christ's being 
among you, the Gentiles," Huther, comp. Ewald. The con- 
text, however, is fatal to this view ; partly in general, because 
it is not the mystery itself, but the riches of its glory, 
that forms the main idea in the foregoing ; and partly, in 
particular, because the way has been significantly prepared 
for 09 earL through rt, while iv vfMtv corresponds^ to the iv 
Tot? edvecTLv referring to the ttXovto^, and the following -q eXTrt? 
T?7? S6^r)<; glances back to the ttXovto'; t^9 B6^7)<;. — Xptcrro?] 
Christ Himself, see above. Neither 77 tov X. yvcoai<i (Theo- 
phylact) is meant, nor the doctrine, either of Christ (Grotius, 
Eosenmiiller, and others), or ahout Christ (Flatt). On the 
individualizing vfuv, although the relation concerns the Gen- 
tiles generally, comp. v/xa? in ver. 25. "Accommodat ipsis 
Colossensibus, ut efiicacius in se aguoscant," Calvin. — rj i\7rU 
tt}? Bo^Tj'i] characteristic apposition (comp. iii. 4) to Xpicrro^, 
giving information how the Xpia-To<; iv vplv forms the great 
riches of the glory, etc. among the Gentiles, since Christ is 
the hope of the Messianic Zo^a, in Him is given the loossession 
in hope of the future glory. The emphasis is on 97 eXTrtV, in 
which the probative element lies. Compare on the subject- 

^ Hence also to be rendered not in vobis (Lutlier, Bohmer, Olshausen), but 
inter vos. Tlie older writers combated tlie rendering in vobis from opposition to 
the Fanatics. 


matter, Eom. viii. 24 : t^ f^ap ekiriht, ia-coOrjixev, and the contrast 
iXTriSa firj e'XpvTe'i in Epli. ii. 12; 1 Tliess. iv. 13; and on 
the concrete expression, 1 Tim. i. 1 ; Ignat. Epli. 2 1 ; Magnes. 
11; Ecchis. xxxi. 14; Thuc. iii. 5 7. 4; Aesch. Cli. 236. 

Ver. 28. Christ was not proclaimed by all in the definite 
character just expressed, namely, as " Christ among the G entiles, 
the hope of glory ;" other teachers preached Him in a Judaistic 
form, as Saviour of the Jews, amidst legal demands and 
with theosophic speculation. Hence the emphasis with which 
not the simply epexegetic oV (Erasmus and others), but the 
r}^et9, which is otherwise superfluous, is brought forward ;^ by 
Avhich Paul has meant himself along with Timothy and other 
like-minded preachers to the Gentiles (ivc, on our imri). This 
emphasizing of »//iet9, however, requires the 6v to be referred 
to Clu-ist regarded in the Gentilc-Mcssianie character, precisely 
as the i7/iet9 make Him known (comp. Phil. i. 17 £), thereby 
distinguishing themselves from others ; not to Christ generally 
(Hofmann), in which case the emphasizing of i^^ei? is hchl 
to obtain its explanation only from the subsequent clause 
of purpose, 'Iva Trapaar. k.t.X. — The specification of the mode 
of announcement vov6eTovvT€<; and B(,Sda-KovTe<;, admonishing 
and teaching, corresponds to the two main elements of the 
evangelical preaching p,€TavoeiTe and Tria-Tevere (Acts xx. 21, 
xxvi. 18; Eom. iii. 3 ff . ; Mark i. 15). Picspectrng the idea 
of vovOerelv, see on Eph. vi. 4. It occurs also joined with 
hih/mK^ in Plato, Legg. viii. p. 845 B, Frot. p. 323 D, Apol. 
p. 20 A; Dem. 130. 2. — eV irdarj a-ocfila] belongs to vovOef. 
and StBdaK. : hy means of every ivisdorn (comp. iii. 1 6) which 
we bring to bear thereon. It is the ttco? of the process of 
warning and teaching, comp. 1 Cor. iii. 10, in which no sort 
of wisdom remains unemployed. The fact that Paul, in 

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

^ In iii. 16 the two words stand in the inverse order, because there it is not 
the /jLtravouy 211'cceding the vitrnt which is the aim of the nouhtria, but mutual 
improvement on the part of believers. 

CHAP. I. 29. 333 

1 Cor. i. 17, comp. ii. 1, 4, repudiates the a-o^ia Xoyov in his 
method of teaching, is not — taking into consideration the sense 
in which o-o(})ia there occurs — at variance, but rather in keeping, 
with the present assertion, which applies, not to the wisdom of 
the iforld, hut to Christian wisdom in its manifold forms. — 
The thrice rqjcated irdvra avdpcoirov (in opposition to the 
Judaizing tendency of the false teachers) " maximam habet 
BeivoTTjra ac vim," Bengel. The proud feeling of the apostle of 
the v/orld expresses itself.^ — iva irapaa-rrja. k.tX."] The pur- 
pose of the ov rjfiei^; KaTayyeWofiev down to ao(f)la. This 
purpose is not in general, that man may so a2')pear (Bleek), or 
come to stand so (Hofmanu), but it refers, as in ver. 22, and 
without mixing up the conception of sacrifice (in opposition to 
Biihr and Baumgarten-Crusius), to the judgment (comp. on 

2 Cor. iv. 14), at which it is the highest aim and glory 
(1 Thess. ii. 19 f.) of the apostolic teachers to mctlcc every man 
come forward rekeiov iv X. 'Ev Xpiaro) contains the distin- 
guishing specialty of the reXetoTT]^, as Christian, which is not 
based on anything outside of Christ, or on any other element 
than just on Him. It is perfection in respect of the ivltole 
Christian nature ; not merely of knowledge (Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, and others, including Bohmer), but also of life. 
]\loreover, this ev X. is so essential to the matter, and so cur- 
rent with the apostle, that there is no ground for finding in it 
an opposition to a doctrine of the law and of angels (Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, and others). Theophylact, however (comp. Chry- 
sostom), rightly observes regarding the entire clause of purpose : 
Tt \eyei<i ; Trdvra dvOpwirov ; vai, ^rjcn, tovto aTrovBd^ofieV et 
he fi7] ryevTjTUi,, ovSev 7rpo<; rj/Ma'i. 

Ver. 29. On the point of now urging upon the readers 
their obligation to fidelity in the faith (ii, 4), and that from 
the platform of the personal relation in which he stood 
towards them as one imknown to them by face (ii. 1), Paul 

' "Which Hofmann groundlessly calls in question, finding in Tayra ccvfpwrov 
the idea: "every one singhj and severally." This is gratuitously introduced, 
and would have been significantly expressed by Paul through hcc iKaffrov (Acts 
XX. 31), or through the addition of xaff Vva, or otherwise ; comp. also 1 Thess. 
ii. 11. Calvin hits the thought properly : "ut sine exceptione totus mundus ex 
vie discat." 


now turns from the form of expression embracing others in 
common ivitli Jiimsclf, into wliich he had glided at ver. 28 in 
harmony with its contents, back to the individual form (the 
first person singidar), and asserts, first of all, in connection 
with ver. 28, that for the purpose of the irapaxTrrjaai, k.t.X. (et? 
o, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 10) he also gives himself even toil {kottlS), 
comp. Eom. xvi. 6, 12 ; 1 Cor, iv. 12), striving, etc. — kul'] 
also, subjoins the KOTriav to the KarayyeWeiv k.t.X., in which 
he subjects himself cdso to the former ; it is therefore aicg- 
mentativc, in harmony with the climactic progress of the dis- 
course ; not a mere equalization of the aim and the stri^dng 
(de Wette). Neither this Kal, nor even the transition to the 
singular of the verb, — especially since the latter is not empha- 
sized by the addition of an ijoo, — can justify the interpretation 
of Hofmann, according to which et? o is, contrary to its position, 
to be attached to dyQivi^6/j.€vo<;, and kottlco is to mean : " / 
hccome weary and faint" (comp. John iv. 6 ; Eev. ii. 3, and 
Diisterdieck in lac). Paul, who has often impressed upon others 
the 117} etcKUKdv, and for himself is certain of being more than 
conqueror in all things (Eom. viii. 37; 2 Cor. iv. 8, et al.), 
can hardly have borne testimony about himself in this sense, 
with which, moreover, the aycovi^eaOac in the strength of Christ 
is not consistent. In his case, as mxich as in that of any one, the 
ovK iKOTTiaaa'i of Eev. ii. 3 holds good. — a'yoivLll,6fMevo<i\ Com- 
pare 1 Tim. iv. 10. Here, however, according to the context, 
ii. 1 ff'., the inivarcl strivmg (comp. Luke xiii. 24) against difi&- 
culties and hostile forces, the striving of solicitude, of watching, 
of mental and emotional exertion, of prayer, etc., is meant ; as 
respects which Paul, like every regenerate person (Gal. v. 17), 
could not be raised above the resistance of the adp^ to the 
TTvevixa ruling in him. Comp. Chrysostom : kclI ov'^ aTrXw? 
airovhd^u), (j)7]cnv, ovSe &)? 6TV)(ev, aXka kottcw dycovi^ofievo'; 
fxera ttoW?}? t?}? (TttouS)}?, fieTa ttoXX?}? t?}? dypv7rvia<i. It is 
not : " tot me periculis ac malis objicere" (Erasmus, comp. 
Grotius, Estius, Heinrichs, Bahr, and others), which outivard 
struggling, according to Flatt, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
and others, should be understood along with that inioard 
striving ; ii, 1 only points to the latter ; comp. iv, 12. — Kara 

CHAP. I. 29. 335 

Trjv ivepyeiav /c.t.X.] for Paul docs not contend, amid the labours 
of his office, according to the measure of his own strength, 
but according to the effectual ivorhing of Christ (avToO is not to 
be referred to God, as is done by Chrysostom, Grotius, Flatt, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), loMch worketh in him. Comp, 
Phil. iv. 13. How must this consciousness, at once so humble 
and confident of victory, have operated upon the readers to 
stir them up and strengthen them for stedfastness in the faith ! 
— rrjv ivepjovfjb.] is middle ; see on 2 Cor. i. G ; Gal. v. 6 ; 
Eph. iii. 20. The modal definition to it, iv hwdfiei, mightily 
(comp. on Eom. i. 4), is placed at the end significantly, as in 
2 Thess. i. 1 1 ; it is groundlessly regarded by Holtzmann as 
probably due to the interpolator. 



Vee. 1. 'TTspl'] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read uts/^, following AB D* 
P N min. But how easily may vTrip have been suggested to the 
copyists by i. 24 and iv. 12! — The form sujpay.av (Lachm. and 
Tisch. 7) or iopazav (Tisch. 8) is more than sufficiently attested 
by A B C D* i<*, etc., to induce its reception in opposition to 
the usage elsewhere. Eespecting this Alexandrian form see 
Winer, p. 73 [E. T. 90] ; and on I6p., Fritzsche, ad Ao'istojoh. Th. 
32. — Ver. 2. Instead of (ru/^/Sz/Sac^Ei/rj 5, Elzevir has (Tu,a/3//3a(r^£i/ri>;i/, 
in opposition to decisive testimony; an emendation. — 'xdvra 
■rXourov] A C min. have crav t-o 'jt'KoZto; (so Lachm. Tisch. 7), and are 
also joined by B K* Clem, with rrav 'jXourog (so Tisch. 8). Here 
also (comp. i. 27) the neuter is the original ; in thinking of the 
more common 6 -xXoZrog the riANTO became IIANTA, in accord- 
ance with which 'xXourov also came to be written. The reading 
of Tisch. 8 is a restoration of the neuter form after the article 
had been lost. — Instead of the simple roD GioxJ (so Griesb. 
Scholz, Tisch. 7, Einck; among modern expositors, Biihr, 
Olshausen, de Wette,Ewald), Elzevir has rou Qsou -/.a) iraTphg xai 
roZ XpicTov, while Lachm. reads rou QtoZ Xpiarou, and Tisch. 8 roij 
Q-ou, Xpiarov. Among the numerous various readings, rou ©soy 
Xpiarov (also adopted by Steiger, Huther, Bleek, Hofmann) is 
certainly strongly enough attested! by B. Hilar, (but without 
vss.), while the simple roZ Gsou has only 37, G7**, 71, 80*, IIG, 
Arm. al. Void, in its favour. A C ii*, 4, Sahid. Vulg. ms. have 
Tou 0IOJ 'xarpog (roZ) X., which Bolimer and Eciche prefer, whilst 
N** Syr. p. have r. ©sou zai -Trarp. roj X., and others still, such as 
Syr. Copt. Chrys. read r. 0. Tarp&j xaJ rod Xpiarou, and conse- 
quently come nearest to the Bcccpta ; but a few authorities, 
after the mention of God, insert h XpiarCj, as Clem. Ambrosiaster : 
Toj ©joD sv X. Eegarding these variations we must judge thus : 
(1) the far too weak attestation of the bare t-oS Qsov is decisive 
against it ; (2) the reading of Lachm. : rov QsoZ Xpiarov, is to be 
regarded as the original, I'rom which have arisen as glosses the 
amplifications roy QsoZ rrarpog to\J X.,^ and roZ QioZ Tarp. xoci ro\J X.^ 

* If this reading, relatively so strongly attested, were the original one, it 
would not be easy to see why it should have been glossed or altered. The 

CHAP. II. 337 

as well as the Eeccpta ; (3) the reading roj QioZ Iv Xpiorui arose 
out of a gloss {iv Xpiarui) written on the margin at iv Z, in accord- 
ance with i. 27, which supplanted the original XpiSTou ; (4) the 
iv xpisruj thus introduced was again subsequently eliminated, 
without, however, the original XpiaroZ being reinserted, and thus 
arose the reading of Griesb. rou Qsou, which therefore — and with 
this accords its late and weak attestation — appears to be merely 
a half completed critical restoration. — Ver. 4. di] is wanting in 
B N*, Tisch, 8 ; but it was readily omitted by the copyists before 
the syllable AE. — ^^ r/s] Lachm, and Tisch. read fir,ds/g, which,, 
following preponderant codd. (A B C D E P N), is to be pre- 
ferred. — Ver. 7. iv TTj T/ffr.] Lachm. and Tisch. have only r^ 
rrldTu, following B D* min. Vulg. It. Archel. Ambrosiast, 
Theophyl. Properly ; the iv was mechanically introduced from 
the adjoining text. — iv aJri^] though suspected by Griesb., and 
rejected by Tisch. 8 (it is wanting in A C N*, min. Copt. Tol. 
Archel.), is to be defended. Its omission was easily occasioned 
by the fact that mpiffff. was found to be already accompanied by 
a more precise definition expressed by iv. The iv avrw read by 
D* K**, 1, Pel. vss., though only a mechanical repetition of the 
preceding iv ahrui, testifies indirectly to the fact that originally 
iv a\irr\ was in the text. — Ver. 10. oc ienv'] Lachm. reads o ioTiv, 
following B D E F G Germ. Hilar. A mistaken correction, 
occasioned by the reference of the preceding iv airw to to 
rrX^puij^a. — Ver. 11. After sujiMarog Elz. liaS rm aiiapriMV, an 

exegetical addition, in opposition to decisive testimony. Comp. 
Eom. vi. 6. — Ver. 13. The second lij^ag is indeed wanting in 
Elz., but receives so sufticient attestation through A C Iv L K*, 
min. vss. and Fathers, that its omission must be explained on 
the ground of its seeming superfluous. B min. Ambr. have 
r,, which is conformed to the following r,ij.vj. Instead of this 
tumTv, Elz. has y/i/'f, in opposition to decisive testimony. — Ver. 
17. a] Lachm. reads '6, following B F G It, Goth. Epiph. Am- 
brosiast. Aug. To be preferred, inasmuch as the plural vras 
naturally suggested to the copyists by the plurality of the 
things previously mentioned. — Ver. 18. a ij.-}] IJjpaziv] iin is 
wanting in A B D* N*, 17, 28, 67**, Copt. Clar. Germ. codd. 
in Aug., Or. ed. Tert. ? Lucif. Ambrosiast., while F G have oh/.. 
The negation is with justice condemned by Griesb., Steiger, 
Olshausen, Huther, Ewald ; deleted by Tisch. 8 (bracketed by 
Lachm.), although defended specially by Eeiche, whom Hof- 

original expression must have given rise to dogmatic scruples, and only the 
description of God as roZ Qtou Kpifrou could have done so. 



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

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

Ver. 1, rdp] The apostle now confirms in concreto the et? o 
K. Koir. aya)vi,^6/jLevo<i K.r.\, which has just been affirmed of 
himself in general : in 'proof of that assertion I would have 
you to know, etc. Hofmann holds erroneously, in consequence 
of his mistaken explanation of kottlw in i. 29, that Paul desires 
to explain why he lias said that he is hccominrj loeary over the 
exertion, etc. — Instead of the more frequent ov 6i\co v/xa<; 
ayvoelv (see on Eom. xi. 25, i. 13), Paul uses the Oekco vfM. 
elBevat, also in 1 Cor. xi. 3 ; comp. Phil. i. 1 2. — rfkUov] 
wh^t a great, vehement conflict. Paul nowhere else uses this 
word, which is classical, but does not occur either in the LXX. 
or in the Apocrypha ; in tlie N". T. it is only found again at Jas. 
iii. 5. That by the confiiet is meant the internal jjressure of 
solicitude ayid apprehension, etc. (comp. i. 2 9, also Eom. xv. 3 0), 
is plain — when we remember the imprisoned condition of the 
apostle, who now could not contend outwardly with the false 
teachers themselves — from ver. 2. It is at the same time self- 
evident that the wrestling of prayer was an eminent way of con- 
ducting this spiritual conflict, without its being necessary to 
regard iv. 12 as a criterion for determining the sense in our 
passage. — koI twv ev AaoBiK.'] The neighbouring Laocliceans 
(Rev. iii. 14 ff.) were without doubt exposed to like heretical 
dangers ; hence also the injunction as to the mutual communi- 
cation of the Epistles, iv. 16. — koX oaot at.t.X] The sense is: 

CHAP. II. 1. 339 

and generally {icai, see Fritzsche, ad Mattli. p. 786. 870) for 
all to whom I am ^personally unknoion. It adds the entio^e 
category, to which the v^ieh and those ev AaoBtKeia, both 
regarded as churches, were reckoned to hclong. Comp. Acts 
iv. 6. It is plain from our passage that Paul had not been 
in Colossae and Laodicea. It is true that Wiggers, in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 176, would have ocrot k.tX. under- 
stood as referring to a portion of the Colossians and Laodiceans, 
in which case /cat would mean even ; but the text itself is deci- 
sively opposed to this view by the following auroov, ver. 2, which, 
if the oaot k.t.X. to which it refers be not the class in which 
the readers and Laodiceans were included, would be altogether 
unsuitable; as, indeed, the bare even does not suffice to give 
special prominence to a particular portion (we should expect 
fiaktara he or the like), and the comprehensive ocoi, withal does 
not seem accounted for. Erroneous also is the view (held 
already by Theodoret in the Hypothes. and in the Commentary, 
though Credner, Einl. § 154, erroneously denies this) of 
Baronius, Lardner, and Da\'id Schultz (in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1829, p. 535 ff.), that the 6<7ol k.t.X. were other than the vfieh 
and ol ev AaoBtK. ; Paul having been personally known to 
both the latter. The subsequent avrcov is fatal to this theory 
likewise ; and how singularly without reason Avould it have 
been, if Paul had designated as the objects of his anxiety, 
along with two churches of the district which are supposed 
to have known him personally, all not knowing him personally, 
without distinction of locality ! With how many of the 
latter were there no such dangers at all existing, as the Colos- 
sians and Laodiceans were exposed to ! To this falls to be 
added the fact, that in the entire Epistle there is not a single 
hint of the apostle having been present in Colossae. See, on 
the contrary, on i. 8 and on i. 23. Comp. Wieseler, Chronol. 
des apost Zeitalt. p. 440. According to Hilgenfeld, in his 
Zeitschr. 1870, p. 245 f., the intimation that Paul was per- 
sonally unknown to the Colossians betrays the comiwsition of 
the Epistle at a later time, when the recollection of his labours 
there had been already superseded and had vanished from the 
memory of the churches. As if such a forgetfulness were 


even conceivable, in presence of the high esteem in which the 
apostle was held ! — That Paul should have been so concerned 
about the Colossians and Laodiceans, as those who did not know 
him pcrsoncdly, is natural enough, seeing that they were not 
in a position to oppose the living impression of the apostle's 
personal ministry, and his direct authority, to the heretical 
seductions. Comp. ver. 5. — ev crapKl] not belonging to 
eoipuKaac — in which case it would be a contrast to seeing ev 
TTvevnari (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Baumgarten-Crusius) — 
joins itself, so as to form one idea, with to irpoawirov fiov 
(Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 169]). See ver. 5. The addition, which 
might in itself be dispensed with (comp. Gal. i. 22 ; 1 Thess. 
ii. 17), serves the purpose of concrete representation, wiihont its 
being necessary to import into it a contrast to the " spiritual 
^physiognomy" (Olshausen), or to the having made acquaintance 
in a spiritual fashion (Hofmann), in connection with which 
Estius even discovers a certain TaTreivcoai^; through a higher 
estimation of the latter; although generally the idea of a 
spiritual mode of intercourse, independent of bodily absence, 
very naturally occasioned the concrete description : my lodily 
face. There is all the less ground for assigning iv aapKi, as 
an anticipation of ver. 5, to the hand of the manipulator, and 
that in such a way as to betray an author who knows the 
apostle to be already snatched away from the flesh and 
present in heaven (Holtzmann). 

Ver. 2. The end aimed at (iva) in this conflict : in order 
that their hearts may lie comforted, viz. practically by the fact, 
that they are united in love, etc. Accordingly, avfi/3i./3aa&. 
K.rX. contains the mode of that comforting, which ensues, 
when through loving union the evil of heretical division, 
whether threatening or already rampant, is removed. Most 
thoughtfully and lovingly Paul designates the concern of his 
solicitude as 7rapdK\'qaL<; twv KapSioov avrcoy, not impeaching 
them on account of the heretical seductions, but making those 
temptations to be felt as a misfortune, in the presence of which 
one requires comfort (Vulgate : " ut consolcniur''). Chrysostom 
remarks aptly (comp. Theophylact) : rjhr] Xonrov cTrevSet kuI 
wBlvec ifx^akuv eh to B6y/xa, ovtc KaTrjyopcov ovTe airaXkdTTWv 

CHAP. n. 2. 341 

avToi/^ KaTr)yopia<;. The explanation which makes irapaKoX. 
mean, like j'cx (LXX. Deut. iii. 28 ; Job iv. 3), to strengthen, 
confirm (so Huther, de "VVette, Baumgarten-Criisius), is quite 
opposed to the Pauline usage, according to which it means to 
exhort (so Luther here), to give consolation (so Hofmann ; comp. 
Bleek), to entreat, to encourage, to comfort ; the latter in par- 
ticular when, as here, it is joined with KapSia. Comp. iv. 8 ; 
Eph. vi. 22 ; 2 Thess. ii. 17 (also Ecclus. xxx. 23). — a-v/ji,- 
^i^aaOevTe'i] referred to the logical subject of the foregoing, 
i.e. to the i^c.'^'sons, of whom al KupBiac avrwv was said. See on 
Eph. iv. 2. It means here not instructi (Vulgate ; comp. 
1 Cor. ii. 16, and the LXX.), nor yet introduced} which lin- 
guistic usage does not permit, but brought together, itnited, 
comjxicti (ver. 19 ; Eph. iv. 16 ; Thuc. ii. 29. 5 ; Herod, i. 74 ; 
and see 'NVetstein and Valckenaer, ^Sc/ioZ. I. p. 453 f.). In con- 
nection therewith, iv dyaTrrj, which denotes Christian brotherly 
love, is the moral clement, in which the union is to subsist ; to 
which is then added the telic reference of avfi^i^aaO. by Kal 
649 K.r.\. : united in love ctnd for behoof of the full richness, 
etc., i.e. in order, by that union, to attain the possession of 
this full richness, which could not be attained, but only 
hindered, by division and variance, /cat et9 is not to be 
joined with TrapuKX. (Storr, Flatt), since the «at rather adds 
to the ei'-relation of the av/j,^L^. its eiV-relation, and is there- 
fore merely the simple and, not ctiam (Bengel, Hofmann) ; 
but not to be explained either as ct quidem (Bilhr, Bohmer), 
or by an eXOaxri to be supplied (Olshausen permits a choice be- 
tween the two). — T?}? 7r\7]po(f). ri}? avvia.] The full certainty 
of Christian insight is the lofty blessing, the ivhole riches of 

' So Hofmann, who couples it in this sense with tU *«» ri rrXoZre;, taking Iv 
aya-rn adverbially, and explaining the Ka'i, which stands in the way, in the sense 
of ^^ even," to the effect that this introduction into all riches of the v.nderstanding 
has as its presupposition another introduction, viz. that into the faith. This is 
a sophistically forced mode of disposing of the xai, suggested by nothing in the 
context, especially since faith by no means, either of itself or in vv. 5-7, falls to 
be considered as a jjreliminary stafje, as if the TXyifioipiifia, x.r.x., like a new 
stadium, had to be entered upon through a second introduction ; on the contrary, 
this -rXyifit^ofla, is the full rich development of faith in the inner life. We may 
add that ff-u^jS/iS«^si» = <o introduce is nothing but a lexicographical Jiction 
invented by Hofmann. Chrysostom already says rightly : »'»« ivuiufi. 


which, i.e. its blissful possession as a whole, they are to attain, 
so that in no element of the avveai'^ and in no mode thereof 
does there remain any lack of completely undouhting convic- 
tion;^ comp. 1 Thess. i. 5 ; Heb. vi. 11, x. 22 ; Eom. iv. 21, 
xiv. 5. On the conception of ifKTjpo^opetv, see Bleek on Hcbr. 
II. 2, p, 233 f. As to avvecn<;, intelligence, both theoretical and 
practical, comp. on i. 9 ; that here also what is specifically 
Christian is meant Kar e^o'x^v, is plain from the context. 
See the sequel. The cumulative fulness of the description 
'iTav TO irX. T. TrXrjp. r. avvecr. is naturally and earnestly called 
forth by the consideration of the dangers which threatened 
the 'jT\7]po(p. T. crvvea: through the attempts of false teachers 
(ver. 4). OlSa, on 'rricrrevere, aXka 7r\T]po<f)opT]6r]vat v/j,a<; 
^ovXofxaf ouK eh rov ttKovtov fxovov, aXV eh irdvra rov 
ifKovrov, 'iva aaX ev Trdcn koI eTrcTeTafievoyi TreTrXripotpoprjfxevot 
^re, Chrysostom. — et? eirrjvwcnv /c.t.X,.] parallel to the pre- 
ceding eh Trdv rb 7r\ovTo<i k.t.\., and destined to bring in with 
emphasis the great ohjcct of the (Tvveai,<i (the divine counsel of 
redemption, to fxva-T'^piov, see on i. 26) ; so that what was 
previously set forth at length by eh 'irdv to 7rXovTo<; r. TrXijpocf). 
T. avvia. is now succinctly summed ^tp for the sake of annex- 
ing the object by eh eirir^voaaiv. Thus the distinction between 
e'7rl^v(o(TL<i and <yv(Joai<; (ver. 3) is brought out clearly.^ Comp. 
on i. 9. But Tov fiuar. t. 0. is not to be attached also to t?}? 
avveaeo)^ (Hofmann), so that the rr]v eirv^vwaiv would occupy an 
interrupting position. — tov ©eou] Genitive of the subject ; it 
is God, whose decree the iivcjT. is. The reading to be approved, 
tov 0eov XpiaTov (see the critical remarks), means : of the God 
of Christ, i.e. to ichom Christ hclongs in a special way, as to 
His Father, Sender, Head, etc. ; see on Eph, i, 17; comp. 

' Neither Greek autliors, nor the LXX., nor the Apocrypha have !rX»/ioipa^;'a. 
In Ptol. Tetr. p. 4. 9, vXnptip'opnm is found. 

2 According to Holtznumn, p. 303, in the frequent mention of yvua-i; and 
tT/yv&KT;;, of (ro(pia and (Tuviri;, of yvedpi^nv and (piyr/^s/v, of fiutrnfioi) a-TroKiKfVfi,//,. 
and (pavipatris mu fiuirr., \ve may detect ah-eady the terminology of the Grecian 
mysteries. As if these ideas and expressions were not sufficiently Pauline, and 
their intentional application were not sufficiently intelligible in the light of 
theosophic aberrations. Comp. also on i. 23 ; and Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 420, 
ed. 2. 

CHAP. II. s. 343 

John XX. 17; Matt, xxvii. 46. The separation of XpLarov, 
however, from t. ©eov, and the taking it as apposition to rov 
fjLvarrjp. tov Qeov, so that Christ Himself appears as the ^3tT- 
sonal secret of God, " because He is personally the truth con- 
tained in God and revealed from God" (Hofmann, comp. 
Holtzmaun, p. 215), must be rejected, because Paul would 
thus have expressed himself in a way as much exposed to mis- 
apprehension as possible. He would either have inserted an 
o eo-Tt after tov Qeov (i. 24; 1 Cor. iii. 11), or have omitted 
rov Qeov, which w^ould have made to fivarypLov Xptarov, 
as in Eph. iii. 4, the mystery contained personally in Christ. 
But as the apostle has actually written, the reader could only 
understand the mystery of the God of Christ. If Christ is 
GocVs (see on 1 Cor. iii. 23 ; comp. Luke ii. 26, ix. 20 ; Acts 
iv. 26), then God is also the God of Christ. After Qeov, 
therefore, no comma is to be inserted. Finally, the view of 
Hilary (" Deus Christus sacramentum est"), that 6 ©eo? is 
Christ Himself (so Steiger and Bisping, also Philippi, Glau- 
hensl IV. 1, p. 460, ed. 2), is wholly without Pauline analogy, 
and is not to be supported by such passages as Piom. ix. 5 ; 
Tit. ii. 13 ; Eph. v. 5 ; in fact, even the lofty predicates em- 
ployed in i. 15 ff., ii. 9, draw the line of distinction between 
God and Christ. Moreover, the expression itself is not harsher 
(de Wette), or even more inconceivable (Olshausen), more 
unsuitable and obscure (Eeiche), than the phrase o ©eo? tov 
Kvpiov rjfi. 'Itjo-ov X. in Eph. i. 17; since in connection with 
the notion " the God of Christ," the designation of the latter 
as our Lord is unessential. The addition Xpta-Tov finds its 
motive in the connection, because it was just in Christ that 
God formed the decree of redemption (the /jLvar/jpcov), and has 
carried it out (Eph. iii. 10 f., ct a!.). Whosoever has known 
God as the God of Christ, has the divine iivart'ipiov therewith 
unveiled to him. 

Ver. 3. ^Ev cS] is to be referred to tov /xvarripLov — a 
remark which applies also in the case of every other reading 
of the foregoing words — not to Christ,^ as is commonly done 

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


with the Bcccpta, and by Bohmer, Dalmer, and Hofmann even 
with our reading. The correct reference is given, in connec- 
tion with the Ecccpta, by Grotius (against whom Calovius 
contends), Hammond, Bengel, and Michaelis ; and in connec- 
tion with our reading, by Huther, Schenkel, and Bleek ; its 
correctness appears from the correlation in which airoKpv^ot 
stands to rov fivarijp. The destination of this relative clause 
is to bring out the high value of the iTriyvcoa-i^ rod fxvarrjpiov 
(since in Him, etc.), and that in contrast to the pretended 
wisdom and knowledge of the false teachers ; hence also the 
emphatic iravTa ol Orjo: k.t.\. — The aocpla and yvwac^ are 
liere conceived objectively, and the genitives indicate wherein 
the treasures consist. The distinction between the two words 
is not, indeed, to be abandoned (Calvin : " duplicatio ad 
augendum valet ;" comp. Huther and others), but yet is not 
to be defined more precisely than that 'yvwai^ is more special, 
hnowledge, and aocpia more general, the whole Christian wisdom, 
by which we with the collective activity of the mind grasp 
divine relations and those of human morality, and apply them 
to right practice. Comp. on i. 9. — On Oijaavpoi, comp. 
Plato, Fhil. p. 1 5 E : C09 riva aocpia^ evpojKto'i 6i]aavp6v, Xen. 
Hfem. iv. 2. 9, i. 6. 14; Wisd. vii. 14; Ecclus. i. 22 ; Bar. 
iii. 1 5. — aTTOKpv^oi] is not the predicate to eiVt (so most 
writers, with Chrysostom and Luther), as if it were aTro/ce- 
Kpvfip.evoi elaiv instead of elalv d-TTOKpv^oL : for, as it stands, 
the unsuitable sense would be conveyed: "in ivliom cdl 
treasures . . . are treasures." But neither is it a descrip- 
tion of the qualitative Iwiv of their Icing in Him} in so far, 
namely, as they do not lie open for ordinary perception (Hof- 
mann) ; for this adveibial use of the adjective (see Klihner, 
ad Xen. Anal. i. 4. 12, ii. 2. 17 ; Kriiger, ^ 57. 5) would be 
without due motive here, seeing that the apostle is concerned, 
not about the mode of the iv w elac, but about the charac- 
terizing of the treasures themselves, whereupon the Jiow 
in question was obvious of itself. We must therefore take 

* In connection with wliicli Biihr, Baumgartcn-Crusius, and Bleek convert 
the notion of being hidden into tliat of being deposited for preservation {ato- 
Kuafai, i. 5). 

CHAP. II. 4. o4y 

d-TTOKpvcjjoc simply as an attributive adjective to ^Tjaavpol, 
placed at the end with emphasis : in ivliom the collective hidden 
treasures . . . are contained. Comp. LXX. Isa. xlv. 3 ; 1 ]\Iacc. 
i. 23 ; Matt. xiii. 44. The treasures, which are to be found 
in the mystery, are not such as lie open to the light, but, in 
harmony with the conception of the secret, hidden (comp. 
Matt, l.c), because unattainable by the power of natural dis- 
cernment in itself, but coming to be found by those who 
attain eU kirv^vwcnv rev fjivaTrjplov, whereby they penetrate 
into the domain of these secret riches and discover and 
appropriate them. The objection to this view of airoKp. as the 
adjective to 67]a:, viz. that there must then have been written 
ol d-TTOKp. (Biihr, Bleek, Hofmann), is erroneous ; the article 
might have been (1 Mace. i. 23), but did not need to be, in- 
serted. AVith the article it would mean : qui^ype qui alsconditi 
sunt; without the article it is simply : "thesauri ahsconditi" 
(Vulgate), i.e. aTroKpvcpoL 6vre<i, not ol ovre^ aTroKpv^oc. 

Yer. 4. After this affecting introduction, testifying to his 
zealous striving for the Christian development of his readers, 
and thereby claiming their faithful adherence to his gospel, 
the warning now follows, for the sake of which Paul has 
prefixed vv. 1—3 (rovro). That tovto does not refer merely 
to ver. 3 (so Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Zanchius, 
Estius, and others, including Bahr and Bohmer ; Huther is 
undecided) is in itself probable, since vv. 1-3 form a con- 
nected sentence admirably preparatory in its entire purport 
for what follows, and is confirmed by ver. 5, which glances 
back to ver. 1. Hence : This contained in vv. 1-3, which ye 
ought to know, I say with the design that, etc. — tW /iT^Se/? 
(s9e the critical remarks); comp. Mark v. 43; Tit. iii. 12; 
Eev. iii. 11, et al. — irapaXoyL^.'] In IST. T., only found else- 
wliere in Jas. i. 22 (see Theile in loc.) ; frequent in the later 
Greek writers since Demosthenes (822. 25, 1037. 15). It 
indicates, by a term borrowed from false reckoning, the 
deception and overreaching that take place through fcdse rea- 
soning. IVJiat particular sophistries the false teachers, whose 
agitations at all events tended (see ver. 8 f.) to the disadvan- 
tage of the Pauline gospel, were guilty of, does not appear. It 


is certain, however, that they were not those suggested by 
Bohmer (nothing good can come out of ISTazareth; one who 
was crucified cannot have possessed divine wisdom), since the 
false teachers were not non-Christians. Hardly did these 
beguiling sophistries affect the ^person of the ajjostle, as if he 
were not concerning himself about the confirming and train- 
ing of churches not planted by himself, as Hofmann thinks. 
In that case we should have in vv. 1-3 only a self-testi- 
mony to the contrary, which, as assertion against assertion, 
would neither have been skilful nor delicate ; nor do w^e in 
what follows find any defence in opposition to personal 
calumniation. This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann, 
p. 177. The yap in ver. 5 by no means requires this inter- 
pretation. — iv in6av6ko<yia\ ty means of 2J(^')'suading speech; 
Luther's " with rational discourses " misapprehends the mean- 
ing. It occurs in this place only in the IST. T. ; but see Plato, 
Thcact. p. 162 E; comp. Dem. 928. 14 : Xoyou? Oavixaa-Lca 
irtOavov^, also TnOavokoyetv, Diog. L. x. 87; Diod. Sic. i. 3 9 ; 
and TTiOavo)^ Xeyetv, Lucian, Amor. 7. Hence the art of per- 
suasion : 7] inOavoXoyLKrj, Arr. E-pict. i. 8. 7. 

Ver. 5. A special reason, having reference to his bodily 
absence, by which his readers are encouraged not to allow 
themselves to be deceived. — t^ crap«t] with respect to the 
flesh, i.e. loclily. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 3. — aXKa\ at, yet am I on 
the other hand, beginning the apodosis ; see on Kom. vi. 5 and 
1 Cor. iv. 15. — Tw TTvevyuari] with respect to the spirit, i.e. 
mentally ; my spirit, translating itself in thought into your 
midst, is along with you. Erroneously Grotius : " Deus 
Paulo revelat, quae Colossis fierent," so that irvevfia would be 
meant of the Holy Spirit. According to Wiggers, in the Stud, 
ti. Krit. 1838, p. 181, and Vaihinger, in Herzog's Encyldop. 
IV. p. 79, aTret/xt takes for granted the apostle's having been 
there previously. A quite groundless assumption; the verb 
expresses (utto) the hciny aivay from, but does not indicate 
whether a person had been previously present or not, which 
can only be gathered from the connection or other circum- 
stances of the case. In this case the context directly indi- 
cates, by ver. 1, that a bodily irapelvai, had not occurred. It 

CHAP. II. 5. 347 

is otherwise in 1 Cor. v. 3 ; 2 Cor. x. 1, 11, xiii. 2, 10; 
Phil. i. 27. From the similar expression in 1 Cor. v. 3. 
Theodoret nevertheless infers that Paul 0)9 0ea(Tdfi€vo<i avTov<i 
eypa^p-ev ttjv iiria-ToXtjv. — (tvu v/xlu] in your society, anion// 
you. Comp. Luke viii. 38, xxii. 56; Phil. i. 23; 1 Thess. 
iv. 17; 2 Pet. i. 18, ct al. — 'xaipcov k. ^\e7ro)v] There is 
here no illogical prefixing of the 'XjoLipwv in the lively feeling 
of joy (Huther, comp. de Wette) ; 'xaLpwv rather expresses 
joy at the fact that he is with them spiritually, and koI ^Xiircov 
vfjb. TTjv rd^iv K.T.X. then adds ivhat at this joyful hcinrj vnth 
the Colossiccns he sees in them, so that the description thus 
advances with k. jSkiir. : in spirit I am along with you, 
rejoicing in this mental presence, and therewith seeing, etc. 
Comp. also Hofmann, who, hoAvever, imports into pkiircov the 
pregnant meaning not conveyed by the simple verb ; it is as 
.plainly present to my soul, as if I saw it with my eyes. This 
would be K. tt)9 p\eir(ov, or k. (u? eV 6<f)6a\fxo2<i /3A,. Penderings 
blending the ideas, such as gaudeo vidcns (Grotius, Wolf, 
Biihr, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and others), or heholding 
with joy (Bengel, Heinrichs, Flatt), are at variance with the 
words as they stand. Some erroneously cite Josephus, Bell. 
iii. 10. 2, where %a//3Ci> koX ^XeTroou (not /SXeVw) means: I 
rejoice, when I even see it. Winer, p. 438 [E. T. 589], and 
Fritzsche, ad Bom. II. p. 425, supply wdth ■x^at'pcov the words: 
concerning you. But the supplying of e'^' vimv is not justified by 
the context, which naturally suggests joy at the heing together 
ivith the readcT^, for %a«p- stands alongside of this as an 
accompanying relation without any other definition of object. 
And according to this view there is no ground at all for an 
expliccdive rendering of Kal, which Winer still admits (so also 
Bohmer and Olshausen). — The testimony, moreover, which is 
given to the readers by ^Xeiroiv k.t.X is not inconsistent with 
the anxious conflict in ver. 1 ; but, on the contrary, makes the 
latter, in a psychological point of view, all the more conceiv- 
able, when the dangers which threatened a state of things 
still even now so good are considered. — vficou r. tu^lv] The 
prefixed pronoun owes this position t > the favourable expec- 
tation which the Colossians, more than many others, have 


awakened in the apostle. The raft? is order, orderly condi- 
tion. Its antithesis is ara^ia, Plato, Tim. p. 30 A. For the 
idea see Plato, Gorg. p. 504 A : rd^ew^ . . , koI Koa-fiov rv^ovcra 
oiKia, Polyb. i. 4. 6 : ?; crvfjuraaa cr'^eai<; k. rd^i^ Trj<; oiKov/jieuT]'?, 
iii. 36. 6 : 17 • • • ^i'Ciipecn<i k. rd^i'i. It is often used of the 
organized condition of the state, Dem. 200. 4, Plat. Crit. 
p. 109 D; elsewhere also (see Sturz, Lex. Xcn. IV. p. 245) 
of the army, sometimes to designate a section of it (a company 
of two \6-)(oi), and sometimes to express its regular arrcmrjc- 
mcnt in rank and file (Thuc. iii. 87. 2, iv. 72. 2, 126. 4, 
viii. 69. 1). Hofmann^ takes both tu^. and arepecofia in a 
military sense. But the two words have not in and of them- 
selves the military sense ; they would receive it from the con- 
text, which is not the case here. Moreover, the meaning 
fortress, militarij lidivarJc, is expressed not by arepecofia 
generally, but by epv/xa or oyypwixa, 2 Cor. x. 4. Hence, if 
we would avoid arbitrariness, we can only abide by the view 
that here Td^i<i means the orderly state of the Christian church, 
which has hitherto not been disturbed by sectarian divisions 
or forsaken by the readers. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 40. To this 
outivard condition Paul then subjoins the inner one, by which 
the former is conditioned : and the solid hold of yonr faith in 
Christ. (TTepeco/jLa, firmamentum, that which has been made 
firm (Arist. "partt. an. ii. 9 ; Theophr. II. i^l. v. 7. 3), a late 
word, often found in LXX., Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, 
and Apocrypha (see Schleusner, Thcs. V. p. 102 f.), represents 
the stedfastness and immoveableness of faith in such a way, 
that the latter appears as protected by a strong work (with 
solid foundation, masonry, etc.) from injury (Ezek. xiii. 5 ; Ps. 
xviii. 2 ; 3 Esdr. viii. 81). On the subject-matter, comp. Acts 
xvi. 5 : iaTepeovvro rrj irlareL, 1 Pet. v. 9 : dvTiarrjTe a-repeol 
rfj TTia-reL. The abstract firmness, however (Huther, de Wette, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and older expositors), which would 
be cTTepeoriTi, is never designated by the w^ord. Chrysostom 
explains rightly : ore ttoWo, avvajajoov crv<yKoWi]a-ei<i ttvkvw 
Kol dhLua'jraarQ)'^, Tore crrepeayfxa fytverai. The genitive t?^? 
7riaT€G)9, finally, is not to be taken in such a way as to make 
' "Whom Holt^mann, p. 177, has too rashly followed. 

CHAP. II. c, 7. 349 

faith the arepew/xa (Hofmann), which protects the readers, as 
if it were to v/mmu aTepicofia ; but as the genitive of the sub- 
ject, in such a way that their faith has the a-Tepecofia securing 
it, wliich Paul spiritually sees. — To call in question the 2insc- 
cliiccclncss here attested (Baumgarten-Crusius, who leaves it a 
question whether the sense is not merely : " if it is so "), or 
to refer it to only a ixirt of the church (Flatt), is a quite 
arbitrary result of unduly pressing the general utterance of 

Yer. 6 f. From the warning given in ver. 4 and having its 
ground assigned in ver. 5, follows (ovv) the positive obligation 
to make Christ, as He had been communicated to them through 
the instruction wliich they had received, the element in which 
(eV avTa>) their conduct of the inner and outer life moves 
(TrepcTTarelre), whereupon the more precise modal definitions 
are subjoined hj ippi^cofxevoL k.t.X. — a)<f\ according as. Observe 
that in the protasis TrapeXd^ere and in the apodosis irepiira- 
reLre (not iv avrco, as Hofmann thinks) have the emphasis, in 
which case the addition of an oi/rw? was not necessary. Their 
^oalJc in Christ is to be in harmony with the instruction, by 
means of which they have through Epaphras received Christ. 
— TrapeXd/Sere] have received (i. 7; Eph. iv. 20), comp. Gal. 
i. 9, 12 ; 1 Thess. ii. 13, iv. 1 ; 2 Thess. iii. 6 ; 1 Cor. xi. 23. 
Christ was covwiunicatcd to them as the clement of life} The 
rendering : have accciJted (Luther, Biihr, Bohmer, Huther, 
Hofmann), is not contrary to Pauline usage (de Wette ; but 
see on Phil, iv, 9 ; 1 Cor. xv. 1) ; but it is opposed to the 
context, in which after ver. 4 (see especially ver. 7 : Ka6oi<; 
iBiBd'^drjTe, and ver. 8 : Kara tyjv Trapdhoa-tv twv dv6p.) the con- 
trast between true and false Christian instruction as regulative 
of the walk, and not the contrast between entrance into the 
fclloivsliip of Christ and the walk therewith given (Hofmann), 
predominates.^ — tov X. 'I. rov Kvpiov] A solemnly complete 

' To this conception Iv alrZ refers subsecLuently. Clirysostom and his followers 
take this Iv so, that Christ is regarded as the way. But this Johannine con- 
ception nowhere occiirs in Paul's writings ; nor does it accord with •xafiXa^m, 
with which, however, the extremely common Pauline idea of the h XftirTui Jva; 
is in harmony. 

- Eph. iii. 17 f., by comparing wliich Holtzmann discovers in our passage the 


designation, a summanj of the whole confession (1 Cor, xii. 3 ; 
Phil. ii. 11), in wliicli rov Kvpiov, conformably with its posi- 
tion and the entire connection, is to be taken in the sense : 
as the Lord, consequently attributively, not as a mere apposition 
(de Wette, Bleek, Ellicott, and others), in which Hofmann 
includes also ^Irjcrovv, a view which is not warranted by Eph. 
iii. 1. — Ver. 7. ippc^cofj,. k. eiroLKoh. iv avrco] introduces the 
ethical hahitus in the case of the required irepLirarelv iv X. 
But the vivid conception, in the urgency of properly exhaust- 
ing the important point, combines very dissimilar elements; 
for the two figures, of a plant and of a building, are incon- 
sistent as such both with TrepiTraretre and with one another. 
Comp. Eph. iii. 17 f. By beginning a new sentence with 
ippi^co/jiivoi K.T.X., and thus construing it in connection with 
ver. 8 (Sclienkel, Hofmann), we should gain nothing in sym- 
metry, and should only lose without sufficient reason in 
simplicity of construction ; while we should leave the iv avra 
TrepiTraTeire in ver. 6 in a disproportionately bald and isolated 
position. This conjunction, moreover, of heterogeneous figures 
might quite as legitimately have been made by the apostle 
himself as by an interpolator, whose hand Holtzmann thinks 
that he here discovers. — Observe further the difference in time 
of the two participles, whereby the stcdfastness of the iv Xpiarm 
etvav (figuratively represented by ippi^wp,.) is denoted as a 
subsistent state, which must be present in the case of the Trepi- 
irarelv iv avTw, while the further development of the Christian 
condition (figuratively represented by iiroiKoh) is set forth as a 
continuing process of training ; comp. Acts xx. 32. — eTrot/coS.] 
becoming built up, in which eVt exhibits the building rising on 
the foundation. Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 10, 12; Eph. ii. 20; Xen. 
Anab. iii. 4. 11 ; Plat. Legg. v. p. 736 E. The building up 
may in itself be also regarded as an act accomplished (through 
conversion), as in Epli. ii. 20 : iTrotKoBofMrjOevTe'i, which, how- 
ever, as modal definition of irepnrar., would not have suited 
here. The progress and finishing of the building (de Wette, 
following Acts xx. 32, wliere, however, the simple form olKoh. 

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

CHAP. II. 6,7. 351 

should be read) are conveyed by the present, not by iiroiKoS. 
in itself (comp. Eph. ii. 22). Nor does the latter represent 
the readers as stones, which are built up on the top of those 
already laid (Hofmann) ; on the contrary, they are in their 
aggregate as a cMtrch (comp. on Eph. I.e.) represented as an 
olKoSofi^ in the course of being built (i.e. of a more and more 
full development of their Christian common life), in regard to 
which the eVt in eVot/coS. presupposes the foundation laid by 
Epaphras, namely, Christ (1 Cor. iii. 11); and the building 
materials, including the stones, are not the persons, but the 
doctrines, by means of which the builders accomplish their 
work (see on 1 Cor, iii. 1 2). — eV avTa>] belongs to both 
participles, so that Christ is to be conceived doubtless as the 
soil for the roots striking downwards (Eph. iii. 17), and as the 
fou7idation (1 Cor. iii. 11) for the building extending upwards ; 
but the expression is determined by the conception of the 
thing signified, namely, the iv Xpiara> elvat, as in iv avrat 
trepLirar., and not by the figures ; hence Paul has not written 
€7r' avTov (1 Cor. iii. 12), or eV avro) (Eph. ii. 20), which 
would have been in harmony with the latter participle, but he 
exhibits Christ as the Person, in lohom that which is meant by 
the being rooted and becoming built up has its specific being 
and nature, and consequently the condition of endurance and 
growth.^ Comp. on Eph. ii. 21. — Kal ^e^aiovfx. Tfj Triar.] 
And to this being rooted and becoming built up there is to be 
added the heiiig staUishcd ly the faith, as the development 
of quality in the case, in order that no loose rooting may 
take place, nor any slack building be formed. The dative rfj 
-TTiarec (see the critical remarks) is to be taken as instrumental, 
not : with respcet to (in opposition to de Wette), since the follow- 
ing modal definition irepiaa: iv avrfj specifies, not how they 
are to be stablished in respect of the faith, but how they are 
to be stablished hy it, by the fact, namely, that they are rich 
in faith ; poverty in faith would not be sufficient to bring 
about that establishment. In like manner we should have to 

* Hofmann inappropriately, siuce in the case of WoikoI. at any rate we have to 
think of th& foundation, takes h alrcf in the sense that Christ surrounds the 


take the reading ev r. iriarei, wliicli Hofmann defends. He, 
however, joins this ev t. irLarec not with ^e^aiovfi., but with 
the following 7repLaaevovTe<;, — a connection which is excluded 
by the genuineness of iu avrfj, but which is, even apart from 
this, to be rejected, because Paul would, in order to be fairly- 
intelligible, have inserted the iv avrw only after ^€/3aiov/j,evot, 
to which it would also refer. — kuOco^ iScSd'^O.'] namely, to 
hccomc stahlishcd ty the faith. For this they have received 
(from Epaphras, i. 7) the instructions which are to guide 
them. — irepva-aevovTe^ ac.t.X.I is subordinate to the /Se^aiovfi., 
and that as specifying the measure of the faith, whicli must 
be- found in them in order that they may be stahlishcd 
through faith ; while at the same time the requisite vital 
expression, consecrated to God, of the piety of the believing 
heart is brought out by eV ev'^ap. : ivhilc ye are abounding 
in the same amidst ihanhsgiviny, i.e. while ye are truly rich in 
faith, and at the same time giving thanks to God for this 
blessing of fulness of faith. The emphasis is upon irepiacr., 
in which lies the more precisely defining element ; TrepLaaeveiv 
ev is nothing else than the usual ahundare aliqua re, to have 
abundance of something (Horn. xv. 13; 1 Cor. viii. 7 ; Phil, 
i. 9, et al.), and iv ev^ap. indicates an accomjyanying circum- 
stance in the case, the ethical consecration of grateful piety, 
with which the richness in faith must be combined ; comp. 
iii. 17, i. 12. It is well explained, in substance, byTheophy- 
lact : irepcaaov rt ivSeiKvvcrOac iv rfj irlarec, ev'^apiaTOvvre'i tm 
06(0, oTt rj^lcoaev '>)fjia<; roLamrj^ ')(apiTO<;, Kal /xtj eavTol<i Tr]v 
irpoKO'irrjv eTTcypdcpovTa-i. Eightly also by Oecumenius, who 
takes iv eu^ap. as equivalent to avv ev'xap. Comp. Castalio, 
Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bahr, 
Steiger, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dalmer, Hofmann, 
and others. Others, however, regard iv ev-^ap. as belonging to 
'jrepLo-a. Such is the view not only of the majority who reject 
iv avrfj on critical grounds (as Ewald), but also of Luther, 
Michaelis, Storr, Elatt, Huther (that the Colossiaus in their 
faith towards God . . . are to show themselves abundantly grate- 
ful). De Wette favours this rendering on the ground that the 
clause is not attached by kuI, which, however, is quite in keep- 

CHAP. ir. 8. 353 

ing with the circumstance that Trepta-a: k.t.X. is subordinate 
to the ^€/3aiovfjt,. k.t.X. In opposition to the combination 
'KcpLcra. iv ^v-)(ap. there may be urged, first, the arranfrenient 
of the words in itself ; secondly, the fact that iv avrfj would 
be superfluous ; and thirdly, that all the other elements of the 
verse refer to the nature of faith, and hence the latter, in 
harmony with the context, is to be regarded also in the last 
participial clause as the object of the discourse, whereas iv 
ev^ctp' is to be treated as a relation associated with the 

Ver. 8. Be upon your guard, lest there shall he some one 
carrying you away as a prey. In that case, how grievously 
would what I have just been impressing upon your hearts, 
in vv. 6, 7, be rendered fruitless ! — The future ecrrai after 
firj (comp. Heb. iii. 1 2) has arisen from the apprehension that 
the case may yet actually occur. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
Bep. p. 451 A; Hartimg, Partikell. 11. p. 139 f . ; Ellendt, 
Lex. Soph. II. p. 104. Comp. also on Gal. iv. 11. — As to 
the participle with the article, comp. on Gal. i. 7 : nvh elaiv 
ol rapdcraovT€<i. — Eespecting a-vXaycoyetv, belonging to the 
later Greek, see Eustath. ad II. v. p. 393, 52. Very inaccu- 
rately rendered by the Vulgate: dccipiat. In Aristaen. ii. 22^ 
joined with oIkov, it means to roh ; and is so taken here by 
Hilary, Chrysostom, Theodoret {airoa-vXav t7]v Trtariv), 
Theophylact (rbv vovv), Luther, Wolf, and many others, 
including Baumgarten-Crusius. But the stronger sense of 
the word praeclam ahigere (Heliod. x. 35 ; Nicet. Ajiu. 5, p. 96 
D) is in keeping with the verb of the previous exhortation, 
TrepLTTajeiTe, as well as with the purposely chosen peculiar 
expression in itself, which is more significant than the classical 
(TvKav or crvkeveiv, and serves vividly to illustrate the idea of 
the seduction, through which one falls under extraneous power, 
as respects its disgracefuhiess. — Bia tt}? ^iXocroi^ia^ k. Kevri<i 
aTrdrr)';] through pihilosophy and empty deceit. It is to be 
observed that neither the preposition nor tlie article is repeated 
before Kevri<i (see Kiihner, II. 1, pp. 476, 528 ; Buttmaun, Neut. 
Gr. p. 86 [E. T. 100]), because with koI Kev. airar. there 
is added no further element different from t^? (f>iXoa-o(f). (in 



opposition to Hofmann), but only that ivhicli the philosophy 
in its essence is ; it is cmijty deception, that is, having no real 
contents ; the TriOavoXoyLa (ver, 4), with which it is presented, 
is a Keveayopla (Plat, i^t^^ p. 607 B), and KevoXor/la (Pint. 
Mor. p. 1069 C). On the idea of Kevo^ (1 Cor. xv. 14 ; Eph. 
V. 6), comp. Dem. 821. 11. : KevcoraTov irdvrcov Xoyoov Xiyovai, 
and on uTraTr], Plat. So2Jh. p. 2 6 C : 6vTo<i Si ye ^jrevSov; ecrrcv 
airdjr} . . ., Kal [xrjv airdrT]^ ovarjq elScoXwv re Kao cIkopcov rjhri 
Kol (jiavTa(Tia<i iravTa dvay/CT] fieard elvat. The ^tXocro^la, 
however, against which Paul utters his warning, is not 'philo- 
sophy generally and in itself, — a view at variance with the 
addition k. Kevrj<; dtrar. closely pertaining to it, however much 
the wisdom of the world in its degeneracy (comp. Herm. 
gottcsd. Altcrth. § 12 ; and Cidturgesch. d. Griech. u. Bom. I. 
p. 236 ff., II. p. 132), as experience was conversant with its 
phenomena in that age,^ may have manifested itself to the 
apostle as foolishness when compared with the wisdom of the 
gospel (1 Cor. i. 18 ff., ii. 6). Puather, he has in view (comp. 
ver. 18) the characteristic speculation, toell Jcnoivn to his 
readers, which engaged attention in Colossae and the surround- 
ing district,^ and consisted of a Gnostic theosophy mixed up 
with Judaism (Essenism). This is, on account of its nature 
directed to the supersensuous and its ontological character, 
correctly designated by the term philosophy in general, apart 
from its relation to the truth, which is signalized by the 
K. Kev7]<i dTrdrrj'i appended.^ (Plat. Dcf. p. 414 C : t?}? twv 

1 Comp. Luther's frequent denunciations of philosophy, under which he had 
present to his mind its degeneracy in the Aristotelian scholasticism. 

• Comp. also Calovius. The latter rightly remarks how u(piXoffo<pus and 
akoxiyu; men would proceed, who should regard philosophical and theological 
truth as opposites ; and points out that if Greek philosophy do not teach the 
doctrine of eternal life and its attainment, it is not a Kivri a-jtaTin, but an 
imperfcdio. Fathers of the Church also, as e.g. Clemens Al. (comp. Spiess, 
Logos ftpermat. p. 341), aptly distingviish philosophy itself from the phenomena 
of its abuse. The latter are philosophy also, but not in accordance with the 
truth of the conception. 

^ These words x. kiv. a.v., characterizing the philosophy meant, are therefore 
all the less to be regarded, with Holtzmaun, as a tautological insertion ; and it 
is mere arbiti-ariness to claim the words xara, r. •rafd'S. ruv avipu*. for the 
Synoptical Gospels (Matt. xv. 2 f.) ; as if vapd^mris (comp. especially Gal. i. 14) 
were not sufficiently current in the apostle's writings. 

CHAP. II. 8. 355 

ovTcav del einaTrjiir)^ ope^L'i' e^i<? OeccprjTLKi-i tov akrjdov^, irui^ 
aXrjdi^;). Possibly it was also put forward by the false 
teachers themselves expressly under this designation (comp. 
the Sophists as the (^da-Kovre^ (f}t\oao(pe2v, 'K&n. Mem. i. 2. 19 ; 
and olofxevot Travr elBivat, in i. 4. 1). The latter is the more 
probable, since Paul uses the word only in this passage. 
Comp. Bengel : " quod adversarii jactabant esse philosophiam 
et sapientiam (ver. 23), id Paulus inanevi frauclcm esse dicit." 
The nature of this philosophy is consequently to be regarded 
as Judaistic-Oriental ; ^ we are under no necessity to infer from 
the word (f)i\oa-o(f)la a reference to Greek wisdom, as Grotius 
did, suggesting tlie Pythagorean (Clemens Alexandrinus thought 
of the Epicureans, and TertuUian of such philosophers as Paul 
had to do with ^t Athens). The idea that the " saerarum liter- 
arum earumque recte interpretandarum scientia " (Tittmann, de 
vestigiis Gnosticor. in N. T. frustra quaesitis, p. 8 6 ff.) is meant, 
is opposed, not to the word in itself, but to the marks of 
heretical doctrine in our Epistle, and to the usage of the 
apostle, who never so designates the 0. T. teaching and 
exposition, however frequently he speaks of it ; although 
Philo gives it this name (see Loesner, Olss. p. 364), and 
Josephus (see Krebs, p. 236) applies it to the systems of 
Jewish sects, and indeed the Fathers themselves apply it to the 
Christian doctrine (Suicer, Thcs. s.v.) ; see Grimm on 2 Mace. 
i. 1, p. 298 f. — Kara r. TrapdS. t. dv9p.~\ might be — and 
this is the common view — closely joined with d7rdr'r)<; (Winer, 
p. 128 f. [E. T. 169J). But the ov Kar'd Xptarov would not 
suit this connection, since dirdrif) is already in itself a definite 
and proper idea, in association with which a Kara Xptarov 
would be inconceivable ; whereas the figiirativc avXaywyelv 
still admits also the negative modal statement (ov Kara X.) 
for greater definiteness. Accordingly Kara r. irapdS. K.r.\. 
(comp. Steiger, Ellicott) is to be taken as definition of mode 
to a-vXaycoyiov. Paul, namely, having previously announced 
wherehj the avXaycoyelv takes place, now adds for the still 
more precise description of that procedure, in order the more 

\ The speculations of Essenism are also designated as philosopliy in Philo. 
Comp. Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 292. 


effectively to warn his readers against it, that in accordance 
loith vjJiich it takes place, i.e. what is the objective regulative 
standard by which they permit themselves to be guided. 
He does this positively (Kara Tr]v .... Koafiou) and negatively 
(k. ov Kara Xpiarov). The genitive rwv av9p. is to be 
explained : rjv 7rape\a(3e Trapa rwv avdp. (comp. 2 Thess. iii. 
6), and twv denotes the category, the traditio humana as such, 
opposed to the divine revelation. Comp. Mark vii. 8. What 
is meant, doubtless, is the ritual Jcivish tradition outside of 
the Mosaic law (comp. on Matt. xv. 2), the latter being 
excluded by rwp avdp. ; but Paul designates the thing quite 
generally, according to the genus to which it belongs, as 
human. — Kara ra o-roi')(e'ia rov Koa/u-ov] Parallel of the fore- 
going : according to the elements of the tvorlcl, i.e. according to 
the religious r^idiments, with which non-Christian hurnanity 
occupies itself. The expression in itself embraces the ritual 
observances^ both of Judaism and heathenism, which, in 
comparison with the perfect religion of Christianity, are only 
" puerilia rudinienta " (Calvin), as it were the A B C of 
religion, so that Paul therefore in this case also, where he 
warns his readers against Judaisiic enticing, characterizes the 
matter according to its category. As to the designation itself 
and its various interpretations, see on Gal. iv. 3. Among the 
latest expositors, Bleek agrees with our view, while Hofmann 
explains : " because it (the philosophy which is described as 
deceit) permits the matcricd things, of ivhich the created world 
consists, to form its standard." See in opposition to this on 
Gal. I.e. Both expressions, r-qv irapdh. r. avOp. and ra o-toi^. 
T. Koa-fiov, have it as their aim to render apparent the worth- 
lessness and unsuitableness for the Christian standpoint 
(comp. Gal. iv. 9). Hence, also, the contrast whicli, though 
obvious of itself, is nevertheless emphatic : Kal ov Kara 
Xpta-Tov. The activity of that a-vXajcoyetv has not Christ for 
its ohjeciive standard; He, in accordance with His divine 
dignity exalted above everything (see ver. 9), was to be the 

'Calvin well says: "Quid vocat cicmenta mundi? l^on dubium quin 
ccremonias ; nam continuo post exempli loco speciem imam adducit, circum- 
cisionem scilicet." 

ciiAr. II. 9. 357 

sole regulative for all activity in Christian teaching, so that 
the standard guiding their woric should be found in the rela- 
tion of dependence upon Him ; but instead of this the pro- 
cedure of the avXajcoywv allows human tradition, and those 
non-Christian rudiments which the Christian is supposed to 
have long since left behind, to serve as his rule of conduct ! 
How unworthy it is, therefore, to follow such seduction ! 

Ver. 9. Since indeed in Him divclls, etc. This is not " a 
peg upon which the interpolator hangs his own thoughts" 
(Holtzmann). On the contrary. Paid assigns a reason for the 
ou Kara Xpcarov just said, with a view more eifectually to 
deter them from the false teachers. The force of the reason 
assigned lies in the fact that, if the case stand so with Christ, 
as is stated in vv. 9 ff, by every other regulative principle of 
doctrine that which is indicated in the w^ords Kara XpiaTov 
is excluded and negatived. Others make the reason assigned 
refer to the learning : ^XeTrere k.t.X., so that oTt- adduces the 
reason why they ought to permit this warning to be addressed 
to them (Hofmann, comp. Huther and Bleek) ; but, in opposi- 
tion to this view, it may be urged that the iv avTu> placed 
emphatically first {in Him and in no other) points back to the 
immediately preceding ov Kara Xpcarov (comp. Chrysostom 
and Calvin) ; there is therefore nothing to show that the 
reference of ore ought to be carried further back (to ySXeVere). 
In Christ the tvhole fulness of Godhead — what a contrast to the 
human 7rapdSoaL<; and the a-roL-^ela of the world ! — /carotKet] 
The present, for it is the excdted Christ, in the state of His 
heavenly ho^a, that is in view, Comp. i. 15. In Him the 
entire TrXijpcDfxa has its KaTOLKrjT'qptov (Eph. ii. 22), so that He 
is the personal bearer of it, the personal seat of its essential 
presence. — ttuv to ifX'i^pwjia (comp. on i. 19) is here more 
precisely defined by the " vocabulum cthstraetum signifeantissi- 
mum" (Bengel) t^9 ^coti^to?, which specifies vjhat dwells in 
Christ in its entire fulness, i.e. not, it may be, partially, but 
in its complete entirety. On the genitive, comp. Eom. xi. 25, 
XV. 29. It is not the genitive auetoris (Nosselt: "universa 
comprehensio eorum, quae Deus per Christum vellet in homines 
transferre") ; the very abstract deoTrjT. should have been a 


sufficient warning against tliis view, as well as against the 
interpretation : " id quod inest OeorrjTt" (Bahr). rj 6e6rr]s\ the 
Godhead (Lucian, Icarom. 9 ; Plut. 3for. p. 415 C), the 
abstract from o 0eo9, is to be distinguished from rj detorr)^, the 
abstract from Oelo^ (Eom. i. 2 ; Wisd. xviii. 1 9 ; Lucian, de 
column. 17). The former is Dcitas, the Icing God, i.e. the 
divine essence, Godliead ; the latter is divinitas, i.e. the divine 
quality, godliheness. See on Eom. i. 20. Accordingly, the 
essence of God, undivided and in its whole fulness, dwells in 
Christ in His exalted state, so that He is the essential and 
adequate image of God (i. 15), which He could not be if He 
were not possessor of the divine essence. The distinction 
between what is here said about Clnist and what is said about 
Him in i. 19 is, that the TrXrjpwfxa is here meant onetajjhysi- 
cally, of the divina essentia, but in the former passage charis- 
matically, of the divina gratia, and that KaroiKeiv is conceived 
here as in present permanence, but in the former passage 
historically (namely, of Christ's historical, earthly appearance). 
See on i. 19. The erroneous attempts that have been made 
to explain away the literal meaning thus definitely and de- 
liberately expressed by Paul, are similar to those in i. 19. 
One of these, in particular, is the mis-explanation referring it 
to the church as the God-filled organ of divine self-revelation 
(Heinrichs, Baumgarten - Crusius, Schenkel) which has its 
dwelling-place in Christ.^ Already Theodoret (comp. xi^e? in 
Chrysostom), indeed, quotes the explanation that Christ sig- 
nifies the church in which the Tfkrjpwixa dwells, but on account 
of (xani^aTiKm hesitates to agree to it, and rather accedes to 
the common view, thereby deviating from his interpretation of 
i. 19. Theophylact is substantially right (comp. Chrysostom 
and Oecumenius) : et tL lariv 6 ©eo? ^.0709, ev avju- olKel, so 
that the fulness of the Godhead in the ontological, and not in 

' Thus, indeed, ihc fulness of the Godl.cad lias 'been removed from Christ, but 
there has only been gained instead of it the unbiblical idea that the church 
dwells in Christ. The church has its support in Christ as tlie corner-stone 
(Eph. ii. 20, 21), but it does not dwell in Him. On the contrary, Christ dwells 
in the church, which is His body, and the -^x-Afu/j-a filled hj JIi7n {see on Eph. i. 
23), namely, in virtue of the Spirit dwelling in the church (see on Eph. ii. 22), 
which is the Spirit of Christ (Kom. viii. 9 ; Gal. iv. 6 ; PhiL i. 19). 

CHAP. II. 9. 359 

the simply mystical or morally religious sense (de Wette) is 
meant. — But liow does it dwell in Christ ? a-co/xaTiKco^, in 
bodily fashion, i.e. in such a way that through this indwelling 
in Christ it is in a bodily form of appearance, clothed with a 
body. Comp. also Hofmann in loc., and Schriftheui. II. 1, p. 
29 ; Weiss, Bihl. TJicol. p. 428, ed. 2. It is not in Christ 
(dcrw/iaTO)?), as before the Incarnation it was in the \6'yo<; (©eo? 
Tjv 6 Xoyo^, John i. 1), but (comp. also Gess, Fers. Chr. p. 
260 ff.) it is in His glorified body (Phil. iii. 21), so that the 
iv i^opcjifi Oeov and laa 0ew elvat, which already existed in the 
X0709 aaapKa (Phil. ii. 6), now in Christ's estate of exaltation 
— which succeeded the state of humiliation, whereby the fiopcprj 
0€ov was affected — have a bodily hame, are in bodily personality} 
Of course the Oeorr)^ does not thereby itself come into the 
ranks of the (xcofiartKal ovalac (Plat. Zocr. p. 96 A), but is 
in the exalted Christ after a real fashion (TcofiaTCKw etSei (Luke 
iii. 22), and therefore Christ HimseK is the visible divine- 
human image of the invisible God (i. 15). In this glory, as 
Possessor of the Godhead dwelling in Him bodily. He will 
also appear at the Parousia — an appearance, therefore, which 
will manifest itself visibly (1 John iii. 2) as the actual €7n<J3dveta 
Tri<i Bo^TTi Tov fxeyaXou Qeov (Tit. ii. 13). The reference of the 
whole statement, however, to the exalted Christ is placed 
beyond question by the use of the present KaroiKei, which 
asserts the presently existing relation, without requiring a vvv 
along with it (in opposition to Huther). The renderings : 
esscntialitcr, ovatcoSm (Cyril, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, and 
others, including TJsteri, Steiger, Olshausen, Huther, Bisping), 
in which case some thought of a contrast to the divine evipyeca 
in the prophets (see Theophylact), and: realiter (Augustine, Eras- 
mus, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Schoettgen, Wolf, 
Nosselt, Bleek, and others), in which was found the opposite of 
TUTTt/cw? (ver. 1 7), are linguistically inappropriate ; for acofiari- 
Ko<i never means anything else than corporeus. Comp. on the 

* It is now only •wortli remarking historically, but is almost incredible, how 
the Socinians have twisted our verse. Its sense in their view is: "quod in 
doctrina ipsius tota Dei voluntas integre et reapse est patefacta," Calech. Bacov. 
194, p. 398, ed. Oeder. Calovius gives a refutation in detail. 


adverb, Pint. 3for. p. 424 D, The less justifiable is the 
hypothesis of Eich. Schmidt (Paul. Christol. p. 191), that in the 
term a-to/xaTCKoJ'i the contrast of ver. 1 7 was already present to 
the apostle's mind. Those who adopt the erroneous explana- 
tion of TrX-qpwfia as referring to the church, assign to acofiarc- 
K(i)<i the meaning : " so that the church stands related to Him 
asHislody" (Baumgarten-Crusius and Schenkel), which issues 
in the absurdity that the body of Christ is held to dwell in 
Christ, whereas conversely Christ could not but dwell in His 
body. It is true that the church is related to Christ as His 
body, not, however, in so far as it dwells in Him (and, accord- 
ing to the context, this must have been the case here, if the 
explanation in question be adopted), but either in so far as 
He, dwells in it, or in so far as He is its Head, which latter 
thought is quite foreign to the connection of the passage ; for 
even in ver. 10 Christ is not called the Head of the church. 
It is, morever, to be observed, that the adverb is placed 
emphatically at the end. The special reason, however, on 
account of which the KaroiKeiv k.tX. is thus prominently set 
forth as bodily, cannot, indeed, be directly shown to have been 
supplied by the circumstances of the Colossians, but is never- 
theless to be recognised in an apologetic interest of opposition 
to the false teachers, who by their doctrines concerning the 
angels (comp. ver. 1 : ap'^rj<; k. i^ovcr.) must have broken up, 
in a spiritualistic sense, the nrXypwfjLa r?}? ^cott/to?. 

Ver. 10. Kai iare iv avraj ireTrXrjp.'^ still depending on 
on : and (since) ye are filled in Him, i.e. and since the ifKn)- 
p6Tr)<; which ye possess rests on Him, the bodily Bearer of the 
divine 7r\7Jp(ofj,a. The two are correlative : from the irXrjpwixa. 
rrj9 deoTTjroq, which dwells in the exalted Christ, flows the 
ireTrXripooixevov elvai of the Christian, which has its basis, there- 
fore, in no other tlian in Christ, and in nothing else than just 
in fellowship with Him. I'illed with lohat ? was self-evident 
to the consciousness of the reader. It is the dynamic, charis- 
matic ttXt^p 0)0-49, which Christians, in virtue of their union of 
life with the Lord, whose Spirit and ^coij are in them, have 
received, and continuously possess, out of the onctajjhysiccd irXr]- 
pcojxa dwelling in Christ, out of the TrXtjpwfia Trj<i de6Ti)To<i. — 

CHAP. II. 10. 361 

The emphasis is not upon eVre, but, as shown by the subse- 
quent relative definitions, upon iu avroi. If the TreTrXrjpcO' 
fxevop elvat depends on Him, on nothing and on no one but 
0)1 Him, then everything else which men may teach you, and 
with which they may wish to seize you and conduct you in 
leading strings, is ov Kara Xpiarov. With due attention to 
this emphasis of iv avTw, we should neither have expected 
v/^et? (in opposition to de Wette ; comp. Estius and others : 
" et vos ") nor have explained eVre in an imperative sense (in 
ojDposition to Grotius, Bos, Heumann) ; which latter view is 
to be rejected, because the entire connection is not paraenetic, 
and generally because, whilst a irXrjpovaOe (Eph. v. 18) 
or tyiveade TreirXijp. may, ea-re TreTrXrjp. cannot, logically be 
enjoined.^ There is, moreover (comp. also Hofmann), nothing 
to be supplied with ireifkrjp. (iisualhj : tP]<; 6e6Tr]T09, see Theo- 
phylact and Huther ; de Wette, Bleek : tov TrXrjpco/j,. t. Oeor), 
since the specifically ontological sense of the purposely-chosen 
^eoTT^To? would not even be consistent with the supposed 
equalization of the Christians with Christ (ovSev eXarrov 
e^ere avrov, dXXa TreTrXrjpcofieuot Kal vfi€i<; e<ne rrj'i 6e6rr)To<;, 
Theophylact), and this equalization does not exist at all, 
because Paul has not written koX vpieh. In what their being 
filled consisted, was known to the readers from their own expe- 
rience, without further explanation ; their thoughts, however, 
were to dwell upon the fact that, since their being full depended 
on Christ, those labours of the false teachers were of quite 
another character than Kara Xptajov. — o? ecmv rj Ke^aXrj 
K.r.X.'] This, as also ver. 11, now snip-plies con Jirinatory informa- 
tion regarding the fact that they have their being filled not 
otherwise than just in Christ ; namely, neither through apyal 
K. k^ovaiai, since Christ is the head of every a/3%?; and e^ovala ; 
nor yet through circumcision, since they have received in 
Christ the real ethical circumcision. — irdar}'; dp^- k. k^ovtrA 
is not more precisely defined as in Eph. iii. 1 ; hence, in 

' Calovius has well said : •' Bencficium Christi, non nostrum officium ;" comp. 
Wolf. In complete opposition to tlie context, Grotius brings out the sense : 
"iVZo conUnli es^o^e," which he supports by the remark: " quia quod plenum 
est, nihil aliud desiderat, " 


virtue of the munus rcgium of the Lord quite generally : emi'y 
2orinciiMlity and power, but with the tacit apologetic reference : 
consequently also of the angelic ^powers (i. 16) belonging to 
these categories and bearing these names, to whose mediation, 
to be attained through OprjcrKeia, the false teachers direct you, 
— a reference which Hofmann, understanding the expressions 
in the sense of spiritual beings ruling arbitrarily and in opposi- 
tion to God especially over the Gentile world (notwithstanding 
the fact that Christ is their Head !), groundlessly denies ; see 
ver. 18. If Christ be the Head of every a/3%^ and e^ovaia, i.e. 
their governing sovereign, the Christian cannot have anything 
to expect from any angelic powers subordinate to Christ, 
— a result involved in the union in which He stands to the 
Higher, to Christ Himself. — With the reading o icmv (see the 
critical remarks), which is also preferred by Ewald,^ Lachmann 
has placed Kai eVre ev avrw 'KeTrkiqp. in a parenthesis. But, 
while this important thought would neither have motive nor 
be appropriate as a mere parenthesis, it would also be improper 
that the neuter subject to 'jfkrjpwixa r. Beor. should be desig- 
nated as rj Ke^aXr) k.tX, which applies rather to the personal 
possessor of the ifKrjpwixa, to Christ. 

Ver. 11. Eespecting the connection and its reference to the 
false teachers, so far as they "legem evangelio miscebant" 
(Calvin), see on ver. 10. — ev cS] like kv auroS in ver. 10: 
on whom it also causally depends that ye, etc. This applies 
to the point of time of their entrance into the union with 
Christ, as is clear from the historical irepier/j,., which took 
place on them through their conversion (comp. ver. 12). — /cat] 
also circumcised were ye. The Kal is the simple also, which, 
however, does not introduce an element included under 
nreirk'qpooiJb. icne (Hofmann), but to the previous relative state- 
ment (o9 ecTTLv K.T.X.) app)ends another; comp. ver. 12. Hof- 
mann's objection, that the foregoing relative statement has 
indeed reference to the readers, but is onade without reference 
to them, is an empty subtlety, which is connected with the 

' Inasmuch as he takes J'So-r/v directly as scilicet, utpote, and regards this usage 
as a linguistic peculiarity of this Epistle. But this rendering is not required 
cither in i. 24 or in iii. 17 ; and respecting i. 27, see the critical remarks. 

CHAP. II. 11. 363 

erroneous rendering of nrdar)^ ^PX^T^ '^- ^^ovcr. — Trepirofxy 
d^eipoTr.] is not supplementary and parentlietical (Ilofmann), 
us if Paul had written TrepiTOfifj 8e d-xeipoir., but appends 
immediately to TrepLer/xijO. its cJiaraderistic, whereby it is dis- 
tinguished from what is elsewhere meant by circumcision ; 
hence the thought is : " in your union with Christ there has 
also tahcn i^lace a circumcision tqjon you (Gentiles), which is not 
(like the Jewish circumcision) the ivorh of hands ;" comiD. Eph. 
ii. 11. On the word dxeipoir. itself (which is similar to 
tf^eipovp'yrjro^, Poll. ii. 154), in analogous antithetical reference, 
comp. Mark xiv. 58 ; 2 Cor. v. 1 ; and on the idea of the 
inner ethical circumcision, of which the bodily is the type, 
comp. Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6 ; Ezek. xliv. 7; Acts vii. 51. See 
Michaelis in loc, and the expositors on Eom. ii. 2 9 ; Schoettgen, 
Hor. I. p. 815. — ev rfj aTreKSvaet /c.r.A-.] This characteristic 
'KepieT ixrjOriTe Trepir. ctx^ip. took place hy means of the ]}utiin() off 
of the body of the flesh, which was accomplished in your case 
(observe the 'passive connection), i.e. in that the hody, lohose 
essence and nature are flesh, ivas talccn off and put aivay from 
you hy God} With reference to ev ttj uTreKSvaec k.t.X., which 
is to be coupled not merely with Trepier/uLijd'qre (Hofmann), but 
with the entire specifically defined conception of circumcision 
Trepier/jb. irepn. dx^ipoir., it is to be noticed: (1) that the geni- 
tive T?}? adpKo<; is the genitivus materiae, as in i. 22 ; (2) that 
the adp^ here is not indifferent, but means the flesh as the seat 
of sin, and of its lusts and strivings (Rom. vii. 23, 25, viii. 3, 13 ; 
Gal. V. 16 ; Eph. ii. 3 ; Col. iii. 5, et cd) ; so that Paul (3) might 
have conveyed the idea of to aco/ia t^9 a-apK. also by to 
aw/ia tt}? d/xaprla^ (Eom. vi. 6), but the description by t^? 
crapK6<; was suggested to him by the thought of the circumcision 
(Eom. ii. 28; Eph. ii. 11). (4) The significant and weighty 
expression direKhva-ei (the substantive used only here, the verb 
also in ver. 15, iii. 9 ; Josephus, Antt. vl 14. 2) is selected in 
contrast to the operation of the legal circumcision, which only 

* Compare Hofmann, Sclmfthew. II. 2, p. 171. The same writer, however, 
now objects that a.v\xhuiris cannot have x)o.ssive significance. But this it is not 
alleged to have ; God is the aTsxSwwv, i.e. He who, as author of regeneration, 
puts off from man the body of flesh. 


■wounded the acofia r. aapKo^; and removed a portion of one 
member of it; whereas the spiritual circumcision, divinely 
performed, consisted in a complete ijarting and doing avjay 
toith this body, in so far as God, by means of this ethical cir- 
cumcision, luis taken off and removed the sinful body from man 
(the two acts are expressed by the double compound), like a 
garment which is drawn off and laid aside. Ethically cir- 
cumcised, i.e. translated by conversion from the estate of sin 
into that of the Christian life of faith and righteousness (see 
ver. 12), consequently born again as Kaivi-j KTiac;,^ as a kulvo^; 
avdpoiiTO'i created after God (Eph. iv. 24), man has no longer 
any crcofia r?}? aapKo^; at all, because the body which he has 
is rid of the sinful adp^ as such, as regards its sinful quality ; 
he is no longer iv rfj aapfci as previously, when lust ivT]pjetTo 
iv Tot? fxeXeaiv (Eom. vii. 5 ; comp. ver. 23) ; he is no longer 
crdpKLvo'i, TreTrpa/xevo^ vtto rrjv afxaprlav (Rom. vii. 14), but is 
dead for sin (Rom. vi. 11); he has crucified the (rdp^ (Gal. 
V. 24), and no longer walks Kara crdpKa, but iv KaivorrjTC 
TTvevfjiaTo^ (Ptora. vii. 6) ; by the law of the Holy Spirit he is 
freed from the law of sin and death (Eom. viii. 2), iv Trvevfiarc 
(Ptom. viii. 9), dead with Christ (Gal. ii. 19 ; 2 Cor. v. 14; 
Col. iii. 3), and risen, so that his members are 07r\a BtKaio- 
cvvr]<i rw Qe^ (Eom. vi. 13). This Christian transformation is 
represented in its ideal aspect, Mdiich disregards the empirical 
imperfection, according to which the crdp^ is still doubtless even 
in the regenerate at variance with the Trvev/xa (Gal. v. 1 7). Our 
dogmatists well describe regeneration as j^ci'fecta a parte Dei, 
but as imjJcrfecta a parte liominuvi reeipicntium. To take acofia 
in the sense of mas&a or aggregate (Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, 
and others, including Steiger and Bahr^), is opposed as well to 

' Tlie epoch of Ibis transformation is lapilsm (see Weiss, Blhl. Thcol. p. 439, 
cJ. 2 ; comp. Iloltzmann, p. 178), by -wliicli, however, the baptism of Christian 
cJdldrcn is by no means assumed as tlie antitype of circumcision (Steiger, 
Philippi). Comp. on 1 Cor. vii. 14; Acts xvi. 15. 

* Comp. also Pliilippi, Glauhensl. V. 2, p. 225, who dechares my explanation 
to be forced, without proof, and contrary to the Scripture ; and Keiche, Comm. 
crit. p. 274, who understands <rufccc of the " toto quasi vitiositatis (t. ffapxo;) 
corpore," so that the putting away of all immorality is denoted. Similarly 

ciiA?. II. 11. 365 

the context, in wliicli the discourse turns upon circumcision and 
(ver. 12) upon hurial and resurrection, as also to the linguistic 
usage of the N. T. In classic authors it expresses the notion 
in question in the ^^//ysfco? sense, e.g. Plat. Tim. p. 32 C : to 
Tov Koa-fxou awjxa (comp. p. 31 B, Hi^j). maj. p. 301 B), and 
in later -writers nmy also denote generally a vjliole consisting 
of parts (comp. Cicero, ad Alt. ii. 1. 4). In opposition to the 
erroneous assumption that a-cofia must have a figurative mean- 
ing here, as Julius Miiller, v. d. SiincU, I. p. 459 £, still in the 
5th ed., thinks,^ see on Rom. vi. 6 ; comp. also Hofmann, 
Schrifthciv. I. p. 560 f. — iv rfj Trepirofifj tov X.] 1)7/ means of 
the circiimcision of Christ, parallel to the previous iv tjj aireK- 
hvaet k.tX., naming specifically (as different from that of the 
Old Testament) the circumcision descri'becl previously according 
to its nature. The genitive tov XptaTov is to he rendered : 
the circumcision, which is ijrochicccl through Christ. The con- 
text requires this by the further explanation of the thing itself 
in ver. 12. Comp. above, eV w. But Christ is not conceived 
of as Himself the circuviciser, in so far, namely, as by la/ptism 
(Theophylact, Beza, and others), or by His Spirit (Bleek), He 
accomplishes the cleansing and sanctification of man (see on 
ver. 1 2) ; but as the One through whom, in virtue of the 
effective living union that takes place in conversion between 
man and Himself, this divine Treptro/x?;, in its character speci- 
fically different from the Israelite circumcision, is practically 
hrought cibout and rendered a reality, and in so far it is based 
on Christ as its atTto9 (Theodoret). It is not, however, &a^> 
tism itself (Hofmann, following older expositors) that is meant 
by the circumcision of Christ, although the predicate a^eipoTr. 
would not be in opposition to this view, but the spiritual trans- 
formation, that consecration of a holy state of life, which takes 
place in hapiism ; see ver. 12: iv T<p PaTTTia/xaTC. According 
to Schneckenburger, in the Theol. Jahrh. 1848, p. 286 ff., the 
d7re/cSfcrt9 r. crco^u.. t. aapK. is meant of the dccdh of Christ, and 
also the TrepiTOfir} tov X. is meant to denote this death, so that 

• Miiller also holds that Paul here conceives the old sinful nature as a bocbj 
which, in regeneration, the Christian puts off; and that <rdfl is to be understood 
only of the earthly-human life. 


the latter is an explanation by way of application of the 
former, in opposition to the heretical recommendation of a 
bodily or mystical irepiTOfir]. It may be decisively urged 
against this view, that after tt}? crapK6<; there is no avrov, 
(comp. i. 22), which was absolutely necessary, if the reader 
was to think of another subject than that of Trepterfi-^OrjTe ; 
further, that tj} uKpo^va-rla Tri<; a-apKo^ vimwv, in ver. 1 3, stands 
in significant retrospective reference to the aireKSvaL'i r. o-m/m. 
T?7? crapKO'^; and that avvTa(f)evTe<i k.t.X. in ver. 12 is synchronous 
with 7repierfjt,rjd7]Te k.tX., and reprc-ients substantially the same 
thing. Moreover, the description of the death of Christ as 
His circumcision would be all the more inappropriate, since, 
in the case of Christ, the actual circumcision was not absent. 
According to Holtzmann, the entire clause : ev r. aTrexS. rov 
awjM. T. aapK., iu r. irepir. r. X., should be deleted as an 
addition of the interpolator, because the expression awfia 
T^9 (TapKo^ has occurred at i. 22 in quite another — namely, 
an indifferent, genuinely Pauline — reference. This reason is 
incorrect, because in i. 22 it is not t^? a-apKO'i, but t?]? aapKo^ 
avTov, and this uvtou makes the great essential difference 
between the expression in that passage and that employed in 
our present one. 

Ver. 12 supplies further information as to how the irepcer- 
jxri6r]r€, SO far as it has taken place by means of the circum- 
cision of Christ, has been accomplished. — cvvra^evre^i /c.t.X.] 
synchronous with TrepteT/u,. (comp. on i. 20, elprjvoTrocqaai;) : in 
that ye hccame buried with Him in haiJlism. The immersion 
in baptism, in accordance with its similarity to burial, is — 
seeing that baptism translates into the fellowship of the death 
of Christ (see on Eom. vi. 3) — a huricd along with Christ, 
Eom. vi. 4. Through that fellowship of death man dies as to 
his sinful nature, so that the a-o)p.a tt}? aapKo^ (ver. 1 1) ceases 
to live, and by means of the fellowship of burial is put off 
(ver. 11). The subject who effects the joint burial is God, as 
in the whole context. In the burial of Christ this joint burial 
of all that confess Him as respects their sinful body was 
objectively completed; but it takes place, as respects each 
individually and in subjective appropriation, by their baptism. 

CHAP. II. 12. 367 

prior to whicli the realization of that fellowship of burial was, 
on the part of individuals, still wanting. — ev u> koI avvrjyip- 
6i}T€] A new benefit, which has accrued to the readers iv 
XpiaTa>, and which in their case must bring still more clearly 
to living consciousness their iv XpcarrS 'TreTrXrjpwfjLevov elvai, ; 
so that iv at here is parallel to the iv w in ver. 11, and refers 
to Christ, as does also avrov subsequently. It is rightly taken 
thus, following Chrysostom and his successors, by Luther and 
most others, including Flatt, Bahr, Huther, Ewald. Others 
have referred it to iv rw ^airr. (Beza, Calixtus, Estius, 
Michaelis, Heinrichs, and others, including Steiger, Bohmer, 
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, Dalmer, Bleek) ; but, 
in opposition to this may be urged, first, the very symmetry 
of the discourse (o? . . . iv at Kai . . . iv w Kai) ; secondly, and 
specially, the fact that, if iv a, refers to baptism, iv could not 
be the proper preposition, since iv ro- (SaTTT., in accordance with 
the meaning of the word and the figure of burial, refers to the 
dipping into (not (yverfioioing, as Hofmann thinks), whilst the 
spiritual awakening to new life, in which sense these exposi- 
tors take avvrj'yipO., would have taken place through the 
emerging again, so that we should expect ef ov, or, at all 
events, the non-local St ov; and, thirdly, the fact that just as 
<TvvTa<^evre<i has its own more precise definition by iv tc3 
^UTTT., so also has avvrjyipd. through Bia t^? Trto-Teo)? k.tX., 
and therefore the text affords no occasion for taking up again 
for (TvvTjyipO. the more precise definition of the previous point, 
viz. iv tS ^aTTTca/xaTi. No, the first benefit received in 
Christ which Paul specifies, viz. the moral circumcision, 
accomplished by God through the joint burial in baptismal 
immersion, has been fully handled in ver. 11 down to ^air- 
TiafjiaTi in ver. 12, and there now follows a second blessing 
received by the readers in Christ {iv c5 /cat) : they have been 
raised up also with Christ, which has taken place through faith, 
etc. The previous joint burial was the necessary moral pre- 
liminary condition of this joint awakening, since through it 
the o-£o/Lta T779 a-apKo^ was put off. This <Tvv7]yip9. is to be 
understood in the sense of the felloicship of th& lodily resurrec- 
tion of Christ, into which fellowship man enters by faith in 


sucli a way that, in virtue of his union of life and destiny 
with Christ brought about by means of faith, he knows his 
own resurrection as having taken place in that of Christ — a 
benefit of joint resurrection, which is, indeed, prior to the 
Parousia, an ideal possession, but through the Parousia 
becomes real (whether its realization be attained by resurrec- 
tion proper in the case of the dead, or by the change that shall 
take place in those who are still alive). Usually awTjryipO. 
is taken in the ethical sense, as referring to the S2nritual 
awakening, viz. from moral death, so that Paul, after the 
negative aspect of the regeneration (ver. 11 ; ^airrlcrfiaTL, 
ver. 12), now describes its positive character; comp. also 
Huther, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann. But in opposition to this 
view is the fact that the fresh commencement ev u> Kai, corre- 
sponding with the similar commencement of ver. 11, and 
referring to Christ, makes us expect the mention of a new 
henefit, and not merely that of another aspect of the 2^'^'<^vious 
one, otherwise there would have been no necessity for repeat- 
ing the iv f' Kal; as also, that the inference of participation in 
the proper resurrection of Christ from death lies at the basis of 
the following rod ijelpavro'; avrov i/c vcKpwv. Comp. on Eph. 
ii. 1, and ii. 5, 6. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Oecumenius 
have already correctly explained it of the proiKr resurrection 
{koli f^ap iyTjyepfieOa rfj hvvd[xei, el koI /xrj ttj evepyeia), but Theo- 
phylact makes it include the ethical awakening also : holding 
that it is to be explained Kara Svo TpoTrov;, of the acttml 
resurrection in spc, and at the same time on TrvevfjcaTiKm rrjv 
veKpcoaiv rwv epyoov r7]<; afjbapria^ aTreppi^jrafjLev. — Bia Trj<j 
Trla-rew'i /c.r.X.] The t?}? iriaTeca is described by Holtzmann, 
p. 70, as syntactically clumsy and offensive ; he regards it as 
an interpolation borrowed from Eph. i. 1 9 f. Groundlessly ; 
Paul is describing the siibjeetive mccliiim, without which the 
joint awakening, though objectively and historically accom- 
plished in the resurrection of Christ, would not be appropriated 
individually, the Xtjittikov for this appropriation being wanting. 
The unbeliever has not the blessing of having risen with 
Christ, because he stands apart from the fellowship of life with 
Christ, just as also he has not the reconciliation, although the 

CHAP. II. 12. 369 

reconciliation of all has been accomplished objectively through 
Christ's death. The genitive t^9 ivepyeLa^ t. 0. is the ohjed 
of faith ; so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Zeger, Grotius, Estius, Cornelius 
a Lapide, Michaelis, Eosenmiiller, and others, including Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, and Hofmann, in the 2d ed. of 
the Schrifthcvj. II. 2, p. 174 f. But others, such as Luther 
(" through the faith luhich God luorks"), Bengel, Flatt, Biihr, 
Steiger, de Wette, Bohmer, Huther, ct al., take r?;? ivepy. r. G. 
as genitivus causae, for which, however, Eph, i. 19 is not to 
be adduced (see in loc), and in opposition to which it is de- 
cisive that in all passages, where the genitive with 7ri(TTi<i is 
not the believing subject, it denotes the object (Mark xi. 22 ; 
Acts iii. 16 ; Eom. iii. 22 ; Gal. ii. 16, 20, iii. 22 ; Eph. iii. 12 ; 
rhil. i. 27, iii. 9 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13 ; Jas. ii. 1 ; Eev. ii. 13, xiv. 12), 
and that the description of God as the Being luJio has raised 
U20 Christ jrorn the dead stands most naturally and directly 
in significant reference to the divine activity which procures, 
not the faith, but the avveyeipeadat, and which is therefore 
set forth in a very appropriate manner as the special object^ 
of faith (comp. iv. 17, 24, vi. 8, x. 9; 2 Cor. iv. 13, 14; 
Eph. i. 19 f. ; 1 Pet. i. 21). At the basis, namely, of the rod 
iyeipavTot; avr. eV veKp. lies the certainty in the believer's 
consciousness : since God has raised up Christ, His activity, 
which has produced this imnciixde and majus, will have 
included therein the consequens and minus, my resurrection 
with Hirii. To the believer the two stand in such essential 
connection, that in the operation of God which raised up Christ 
he beholds, by virtue of his fellowship of life with Christ, 
the assurance of his own resurrection having taken place along 
with that act ; in the former he has the pledge, the Ivk-yypov 
(Theodoret) of the latter. Hofmann now again (as in the first 
ed. of the Schriftheu-cis) explains t?}? ivepy. r. O. as in apposi- 
tion to 7r^9 Trlcrrea}'?, in such a way that Paul, " as if correcting 
himself" makes the former take the place of the latter, in 
order to guard against the danger of his readers conceiving to 

' The efficacy of the divine power shown in the resurrection of Christ is the 
guarantee of the certainty of salvation. 

COL. 2 A 


themselves faith as a conduct on man's 'part making possible 
the participation in the resurrection of Christ by God, while in 
reality it is nothing else than the product of the ivipyeia of 
God. A quite gratuitously invented self-correction, without 
precedent, and undiscoverable by the reader; although the 
thought, if it had entered the mind of Paul, might have been 
indicated with the utmost simplicity and ease (possibly by Sia 
T?7? TTiVrew?, fidWov Be Sea ri}? evepy. t. 0.). 

Ver. 13. Since that a-vvrjyepOTjTe wsis the awaking to eternal 
life, Paul now goes on to give special prominence to tliis great 
blessing, the making alive, and that in reference to the Gentile- 
Christian position of the readers ; and to this he annexes, in 
ver. 14 f , an anti-Judaistic triumphant statement reminding 
them of the cancelling of their debt-bond with the law. — 
To attach koX v/xd^ . . . aapKo'i v/xcov still to ver. 12, and to 
make it depend on iyelpavra (Steiger), is rendered impossible 
by the right explanation of t?}? iriaTeaxi r?}? ivepyelaf; r. 0. 
in ver. 12,^ to say nothing of the abrupt position in which 
avve^cooTT. would thus appear. Kal v/uid<; goes along with 
avve^cooTr., so that vfia'i is then repeated (see Fritzsche, Quaesf. 
Luc. p. 14; Bornemann in the Sachs. Stud. 1846, p. 66; 
Klihner, II. 1, p. 568 ; Winer, p. 139 [E. T. 184]), the repeti- 
tion being here occasioned by the emphasis of the a-vve^cooTr. : 
" You also, when ye were dead . . . He made you alive together 
with Him." The fcal therefore is not the copula cmd, but, in 
harmony with the v/u,d^ placed in the front emphatically : also, 
as in Eph. ii. 1. It has its reference in this, that the readers 
had been Gentiles liable to eternal death, but the (rvve^woTr. 
had been extended, as to all believers, so also to them. The 

' This applies also iu opposition to Hofmann, wlio takes ver. 13 likewise as a 
continuation of the description of God given in rod lyilp. ahrlv Ik vmp., and 
therein makes the apostle gnilty of a clumsy change of construction, viz. that he 
intended to make auZ^omvomiroft'Toi follow, but, because this word would have been 
" mcoHre?M'eni " after vs^^auf mrcm x.r.x., exchanged it for an independent sen- 
tence. But ffvX.uovoiwavro; would have been inserted without any inconvenience 
whatever : on the contrary, it would only have expressed the alleged idea con- 
formably to the construction clearly and definitely. The comparison of i. 26 
is unsuitable. Holtzmann follows substantially the view of Hofmann, but 
regards the change of structure as the result of dictation. There is no change of 
structure in the passage at all. 

CHAP. II. 13. 371 

correctness of tliis reference is shown by the context as well 
through rfj uKpo^va-Tia t/'}? aapK. vjj,., as through the pronoun of 
the f,rst person which is introduced after -^apLadfi. Extremely 
arbitrary is the view of Olshausen, who thinks that in ver. 
1 1 f. the readers are addressed as representatives of the collec- 
tive community/, but by koI vp.a^ in ver. 1 3 'personally ; while 
Baumgarten-Crusius, in complete antagonism to the position 
of the words, joins Kai, not to u/ia?, but to the verb : " also 
He has called you to the ncvj life that ahideth." — To arrive at 
a proper understanding of what follows we must observe: 
(1) That avve^cooTTOLTjo-ev is not to be taken, any more than 
avvr]yep9r]Te previously, in an ethical sense, as referring to 
regeneration (so usually since Oecumenius, as e.g. Grotius : 
" sicut Christo novam contulit vitam ex morte corporis, ita et 
nobis novam ex morte animorum ; " comp. also Bleek and 
Hofmann), but in its proper sense, and that (comp. Kaeuffer, 
de ^wT;? alwv. not. p. 94 f.) as referring to the everlasting life 
to which God^ raised up Christ, and which He has thereby 
also provided for believers in virtue of their fellowship with 
Christ (as an ideal possession now, but to be realized at the 
Parousia). See also Eph. ii. 5. The reconciliation (which de 
Wette understands) is not the ^wovroiT^cri? itself, as is plain 
from the compound a-vue^cooTr., but its precursor and medium. 
The a-v^oiOTTOLelv stands in the same relation to the crvveyeipeiv 
as the nature of the act to its process ; but the reason why 
crvvriyepd. here stands hcfore the av^woiroteiv (it is different in 
Eph. ii. 5) is, that the avvr^r^epOr^re was correlative with the avv- 
ra^6VT€<i in ver. 12, hence that word is used first, while in 
Eph. I.e. the being dead preceded, with which the av^woTrotelv 
primarily corresponds. (2) Like awe^cooir., so also vcKpov^ 
is not to be taken in an ethical sense (so usually both here 

' God is the subject of a-t/vs^s/acrs/jjirsv, not Christ (Ewald and the older exposi- 
tors) ; for God has raised up Christ, and God is, according to the present con- 
text (it is different in iii. 13), the forgivcr of sins, and lias brought about the 
remission of sins through the Ixaffrrifiov of Christ (ver. 14). Hence also it is not 
to be written <r, auru (with the aspirate). Just as God was obviously the act- 
ing subject in 'TfiftiT/ArifnTt, in <ru\iTa<pUTi;, and in ffw/iyi^P., so also He is intro- 
duced in the same character emphatically in ver. 12, and remains so till the 
close of ver. 15. 


and in Epli. ii. 1, as e.g. Calvin, who thinks that the alicnatio 
a Deo is meant), but, with Chiysostom and Theodoret, in its 
proper sense ; the readers have been — this is the conception 
— prior to their conversion to Christ a i^rey of death. This is 
by no means to be understood, however, in the sense of 
physical death (for that comes from Adams sin, see on Eoni. 
V. 1 2), but in that of eternal death, to which they were liable 
through their sins, so that they could not have become par- 
takers of the eternal l^wr] (comp. on Eom. vii. 9 f.). See also 
on Eph. ii. 1. What is meant, therefore, is not a death 
which would have only hecome their eternal death in the 
absence of the quickening (Hofmann), but the eternal death 
itself, in which they already lay, and out of which they would 
not have come without that deliverance, nay, which on 
the contrary — and here we have a prolepsis of the thought — 
would only have completed itself in the future aloov} (3) 
This being dead occurred in the state (iv) of their sins {Tol<i 
indicates the sins which they had committed) and of the 
uncircumcision of their flesh, i.e. when as respects their sinful 
matericdly -psychical nature they were still uncircumcised, and 
had not yet put off by conversion their Gentile fleshly con- 
stitution.^ The aKpo^varla in itself they even now had as 
Gentile Christians, but according to ver. 11 it was no longer 
aKpo^. Tj]<i aapfc6<; in their case, but was now indifferent (iii. 
11 ; 1 Cor. vii. 19 ; Gal. v. 6, vi. 15), since they had been 
provided with the ethical circumcision of Christ and emptied 
of the (T(ofjia rrj^ <TapK6<;. The ethical reference of the expres- 
sion does not lie, therefore, in aKpo^varla itself, but in the 
characteristic r^? aapKo^ vp^wv (genitive of the subject) ; in this 
uncircumcision they were as Gentiles prior to their conversion, 
but were so no longer as Christians. Consequently uKpo^. is 
not to be taken figuratively (Deut. x. 1 6 ; Ezek. xliv. 7 ; Jer. 
iv. 4) as a designation of vitiositas (so Theodoret, Beza, 

1 Quite correlative is tlie conception of the ^w>j as eternal life, which the 
righteous man akeady has, although he has still inj^irospect the glorious perfec- 
tion of it in the future alcJv. 

* The iv is not repeated before t7 axpoli. because the two elements coupled by 
xai are conceived together so as to form the single idea of unconversion ; Kiihner, 
II. 1, p. 476. This applies also in opposition to Holtzmanu, p. 156. 

CHAP. II. 13. 373 

Grotius, Biilir, Bleek, and most expositors), but in its 'pro'pcr 
sense, in which the readers as uKpo^varoL could not but have 
understood it, and therein withal not as a symbol of unclcanncss 
(Huther), or of the alimatio a Deo (Calvin, comp. Hofmann), 
or the like ; on the contrary, the entire ethical stress lies on 
T>}<? aapK. vfi. The idea of original sin (Flacius and other 
dogmatic expositors, comp. Bengel : " exquisita appellatio 
peccati origin.") is likewise involved, and that according to 
its K T. meaning (Eom. vii. 14 ff.), not in aKpo^vcrr., but 
doubtless in T779 (rapK. vfiwv. Nevertheless this tj}? aapK. 
vfxibv belongs only to rf} d/cpo/Svaria, and not to rot? irapa- 
TTTcofiaa-i as well (Hofmann) ; comp. Eph. ii. 11. Otherwise we 
should have, quite unnecessarily, two references heterogeneous 
in sense for the genitive ; besides, the notion of nrapdinwiia 
presupposes not the a-dp^, but the Ego in its relation to the 
divine law as the subject ; hence also the expression Trapdirr. 
T?}9 aapK. (or d/xapTia t. a.) does not occur, while we find epya 
Ty]<; a-apKO'i in Gal. v. 19. Holtzmann, p. 71, ascribes the 
words Kol rf] aKpojS. r. aapKo^ v/x. to the interpolator's love for 
synonyms and tautological expressions, and wishes to condemn 
them also in consequence of what in ver. 11 belongs to the 
latter (p. 155). But they are not at all tautological ; and see on 
ver. 11. — '^(apiadfievo'i /c.t.X..] after having granted to tis, i.e. 
forgiven, etc. This blotting out of our whole debt of sin was 
necessarily prior to the avve^woir. vfia<i aijv avra. By the 
fact, namely, that He remitted to us all the sins which we had 
committed (jrdvTa rd Trapairr.), the cccusa efficiens of the being 
(eternally) dead was done aivay. Comp. Chrysostom : rd 
nrapaTrrco/xaTa, d rrjv veKpor'qra iirolei. This '^apiadfievo^ k.t.\. 
is the ax>pro2yriation of the reconciliation on the part of God, 
which believers experienced ivhen they helicved and were bap- 
tized ; the ohjective expiatory act through the death of Christ 
had preceded, and is described in ver. 14. — '^filv] applies to 
helicvers gencrcdly} This extension, embracing himself in com- 

1 Not specially to Jeioish Christians (Hofmann, who discovers hero the same 
idea that is expressed in Heb. ix. 15, and makes a new period begin with 
•^apKroLfii^tos), since Paul does not express a contrast with the Gentile-Christians, 
but very often passes from the second person, which refers to the readers, to the 


mon with others, is prepared for by koI viu,d<;, but could 
not have been introduced, if 'x^apccrdfz. k.tX. had been con- 
ceived as synchronous with avve^woir., in which case Paul 
must logically have used v/Jilv (not 17/iti/), as the reading 
is in B K""''"" Vulg. Hilary. On 'x^apl^ea-dai, comp. 2 Cor. ii, 
10, xii. 13; Eph. iv. 32. On the subject-matter: 2 Cor. v. 
19 £f. 

Ver. 14. The jparticiple, which is by no means parallel and 
synchronous with '^apiadfxevo'i in ver. 13, or one and the 
same with it (Hofmann), is to be resolved as : after that He 
had Hotted out, etc. For it is the historical divine reconciling 
act of the death of Christ that is meant, with which '^apia-d- 
pievo<i k.tX. cannot coincide, since that work of reconciliation 
had first to be accomplished before the '^apl^eaOai k.tX. could 
take place through its appropriation to believers. — i^aXelcjietv] 
is to be left quite in its piivjMr signification, as in Acts iii. 19, 
Rev. iii. 5, vii. 17, xxi. 4, and frequently in LXX. and 
Apocrypha, since the discourse has reference to something 
loriltcn, the invalidating of which is represented in the sensuous 
form of Uotting out, even more forcibly than by Siaypdcpetv (to 
score out ; see Euhnken, af? Tim. p. 81). Comp. Plat. Ecp. 
p. 386 C, p. 501 B : e^aXei^oLev . . . iraktv iyypdtjiotev, Ep. 
7, p. 342 C : TO ^(oypacpovfievov t6 kov i^aXeicpo/xevov, Dem. 
468. 1 in reference to a laiv : el '^py) tovtov e^aXel^i^at, Xen. 
Hell. ii. 3. 51 ; Lucian, Imag. 26 ; Eur. Iph. A. 1486. Comp. 
Valckenaer, ad Aet. iii. 19. — to KaO' rj/xcov 'xjecpoypacpov] the 
handwriii'iKj existing against v.s. What is thus characterized 
is not the lurdcn of dcht lying upon man, which is, as it were, 
his debt-schedule (Bleek), but the Mosaic km. A ')(€ip6<ypa<^ov, 
namely, is an obligatory document of debt (Tob. v. 3, ix. 5 ; 
Polyb. XXX. 8. 4 ; Dion. Hal. v. 8 ; and the passages in 
Wetstein ; also the passages quoted from the Piabbins in 
Schoettgen), for which the older Greek writers use avyypacpy] 

first, in which he, in accordance Avith the sense and connection, continues the 
discourse from the standpoint of the common Christian consciousness. Comp. 
i. 12 ; Gal. iv. 5, 6 ; Eph. ii. 1, 4, et al. ; Winer, p. 539 [E. T. 725]. Nor does 
the idea of the figurative x^'fhp'^'P'"') which Hofmann urges, by any means 
require such a limitation — which there is nothing to indicate — of the ««r» cm- 
hracing himself and others. 

CHAP. II. 14. 375 

or ypafjL/MaTelov, Dem. 882. 7, 956. 2 ; see also Hermann, 
Privatalterth. § 49, 12. And the laiu is the 'xetp6'ypaj>ov con- 
fronting lis, m so far as men are bound to fulfil it perfectly, 
in order to avoid the threatened penal curse ; and consequently 
because no one renders this fulfilment, it, like a bill of debt, 
proves them deUors (the creditor is God). We are not to 
carry the figure further, in which case we should come to the 
halting point in the comparison, that the man who is bound 
has not himself tv7'itte7i the ^eipoypacpop} Hofmann maintains 
that tliis element also, namely, man's having written it with 
his oivn hoMcly is retained in the conception of the figurative 
■)(^eip6<ypa(J3ov. But the apostle himself precludes this view by 
his having written, not : to rj/ioov ')(eip6'yp. (which would mean : 
the document of debt draion hy lis), but : to kuO' rjfxwv '^etpojp. ; 
which purposely chosen expression does not affirm that we 
have ourselves written the document, but it does affirm that it 
authenticates us as arrested for debt, and is consequently agoAnst 
us. The words rot? Boy/xaaiv appended (see below) also preclude 
the conception of the debt-record being written by man's own 
hand. Moreover, the law is to be understood as an integral 
w'hole, and the various limitations of it, either to the ceremonicd 
law (Calvin, Beza, Schoettgen, and others), or to the moral law 
(Calovius), are altogether in opposition to the connection (see 
above, iravra to, TrapaiTT.), and un- Pauline. The explanation 
referring it to the conscience (Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and 

^ The relation of ohUgation and indebtedness in wMch man stands to the law 
(comp. Gal. iii. 10) is quite snfficient to justify the conception of the latter as 
the ;i(^iifoypa(fo)/, without Seeking this specially in the promise of the people, Ex. 
xxiv. 3 (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others ; also Hofmann) ; 
which the reader could not guess without some more precise indication. Indeed, 
that i>romise of the people in Ex. xxiv. 3 has by no means the mark of being 
self-written, but contains only the seli-olUgation, and would not, therefore, any 
more than the amen in Deut. xxvii. (which Castalio suggests), suffice for the 
idea of the x^ifo'ypcc(pcv, if the latter had to contain the debtor's own handivriting. 
In accordance with the apostle's words {to xxf hfiav z^'p'''yp-j see above), and 
with the type of his doctrine regarding the impossibility of legal righteousness, 
his readers could think only of the ypaftfix of the law itself as that which proves 
man a debtor ; comp. Eom. ii. 27, 29, vii. 6 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6. Wieseler, on Gal. 
p. 258 (appealing to Luke xvi. 5 ff.), BL ek, and Holtzmann, p. 64, also errone- 
ously press the point that the x^if'-yf. must necessarily be written or signed by 
the debtor hirRself. 


otliers) is also at variance botli witli the word and with the 
context.^ Tlie conscience is the medium for the Jcnowlcdqc of 
the law as the handwriting which testifies against ns ; Mdthout 
the activity" of the conscience, this relation, in which the law 
stands to us, would remain unknown. Exception has been 
taken to its being explained of the Mosaic law on account of 
the use of rj/xcov, seeing that this law existed only for the Jeios. 
But without due ground ; for it is in fact also the schedule of 
debt against the Gentiles, in so far, namely, as the latter have 
the knowledge of the BiKalcof^a rov ©eoO (Eom. i. 32), have in 
fact TO epyov rov vo/xov ypairrov iv rat? KapSiai^ avTciov (Ilom. 
ii. 15), and, consequently, fall likewise under the condemning 
sentence of the law, though not directly (Eom. iii. 19, ii. 12), 
but indirectly, because they, having incurred through their 
own fault a darkening of their minds (Eom. i. 20-23), trans- 
gress the " KOivov cLTTavToov dvOpcoTTcov vojxov" (Dem. 639. 22). 
The earnest and graphic description of the abrogation of the 
condemning law in ver. 14 is dictated by an apologetic motive, 
in opposition to the Judaism of the false teachers ; hence it 
is the more inappropriate to understand with Cornelius a 
Lapide and others tlic covenant of God with Adam in Gen. 
ii. 16, as was already proposed by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact (comp. Iren. Ilacr. v. 1 7. 3, and Tertullian). — 
Toh Boyfiaa-Lv] Eespecting Sojfia, command, especially of legal 
decrees, see on Eph. ii. 15 ; "VVetstein on Luke ii. 1 ; the 
dative is closely connected with •^eipoypatpov, and is instru- 
;inental : ivhat is icrittcn ivith the commands (therein given), so 
that the B6y/u.aTa, which form the constituent elements of the 
law, are regarded as that whercv:ith it is written. Thus the 
tenor of the contents of what is written is indicated by the 
dative of the instrument {aUativus modi), just as the external 
constituent elements of writing, e.g. ypdjxjxacn in Gal. vi. 11, 
and TUTTot? in Plat. Up. 7, p. 343 A, are expressed by the 

' Lutlicr's gloss: "Notliing is so hard against us as our own conscience, 
vlieifby we are convinced as by our own handwriting, when the law reveals to 
us our sin." Melanchthon : " scntentia in niente et corde tanquam scrijita lege 
et agnitione lapsus," in connection with which he regards the conscience as 
" syllogisnuis practicus ex lege ductus." 

CHAP. II. 14. 377 

same dative. Observe the vcrhal nature of j(eip6'ypa<^ov, and 
that the dative is joined to it, as to to yeypafifxevov (comp. 
Plat. I.e. : ra yeypa/xfieva rvvoa). This direct combination 
of a verbal substantive with a dative of the instrument is such 
an unquestionable and current phenomenon in classical Greek 
(see Matthiae, II. p. 890 ; Heindorf, ad Flat. Cratyl. p. 131 ; 
and especially Iviihner, II. 1, p. 374), that the connection in 
question cannot in the least degree appear as harsh (Winer, 
Buttmann), or even as unnatural (Hofmann) ; nor should it 
have been regarded as something " welded on " by the inter- 
polator (Holtzmann, p. 74), who had desired thereby to give 
to 'x^eipoyp. its reference to the law. The explanation given by 
many writers (Calvin, Beza, Vitringa, AVolf, Michaelis, Hein- 
richs, and others, comp. Luther), which hits nearly the true 
sense : the ')(eip6'ypa<^ov, consisting in the Soyfiacrt, is to be 
corrected grammatically in accordance with what we have said 
above. It is in complete variance with the arrangement of the 
words to join roU Boy/u,. to tp kuO' ^)/j.cov by supplying an 6v 
(Calovius).^ Biihr, Huther, and Dalmer (comp. de Wette) regard 
it as a more precise definition of the entire ro KaG" r^p,. -^eipoyp., 
so that Paul explains what he means by the ^^ipoyp., and, at 
the same time, how it comes to be a debt-document testifying 
against us. So also Winer, p. 206 [E. T. 275]. This, however, 
would have been expressed by to toc<; Boy/xaat Ka6' r)p.a)v 
X^Lpoyp., or in some other way corresponding grammatically 
with the sense assumed. Ewald joins Tot9 Boyjx. as aji'proiwiat- 
ing dative (see Bernhardy, p. 8 8 f.) to ^(eipoyp. : our bond of 
oUigation to the statutes? But if j(eip6yp. were our bond of 
obligation (subjectively), the expression ro kuO' rjp.cov %ei/>. would 
be inappropriate, and Paul would have said merely to i^fxwv %e<p. 
T. Boyp,. It is incorrect as to sense, though not linguistically 
erroneous, to connect T049 Boy p.. tvith e^aXeL-^a<;, in which case 
it is explained to mean (as by Harless on Eph. ii. 15) that the 

' So also Wieseler in Eosenmiiller's Eep. II. p. 135 fi". : to x^ifoyp. to toI; liy/a. 

X.x6 rifiuv ov. 

- Comp. Wieseler on Gal. p. 258 : "with reference to the statutes." He takes 
Paul's meaning to be, " our testimony with our own hand, that we have trans- 
gressed the statutes of the law of Moses." 


abrogation of the law had taken place either as regards its 
statutes (Steiger) ; or ly the evangelical doctrines of faith (the 
Greek expositors, Estius, Grotius, Hammond, Bengel, and 
others) ; or nova praecepta stdbilicndo (Fritzsche, Diss, in 2 Cor. 
II. p. 168 f.). In opposition to these views, see Eph. ii. 15. 
Erasmus, Storr, Elatt, Olshaiisen, Schenkel, Bleek, and Hof- 
mann have attached it to the following relative clause,^ in 
opposition to the simple order of the words, without any- 
certain precedent in the K T. (with regard to Acts i. 2, Eom. 
xvi. 27, see on those passages), and thereby giving an emphasis 
to the Tot9 ho<yiJb. which is not warranted (for the law as such 
contains, in fact, nothing else than Boy/xara). — o ^v virevavriov 
rjfitv] an emphatic repetition — bringing into more marked pro- 
minence the hostile relation — of the thought already expressed 
by Kaff' t)[x(av, with the view of counteracting the legalistic 
efforts of the false teachers. Bengel's distinction, that there is 
here expressed ipsa pugna, and by kuO^ rj/xMv, statics belli, is 
arbitrary and artificial. It means simply : vjhich was against 
us, not : secretly against ns, as Beza and others, including 
Bohmer, interpret the word, which Paul uses only in this 
place, but which is generally employed in Greek writers, in 
the Apocrypha and LXX., and in the IST. T. again in Heb. x. 
27. The relative attaches itself to the entire to Kaff' rj/j,. 
')(eip6<yp. Tot? S07//-. — KoX avTo rjpKev /c.t.X.] Observe not only 
the emphatic change of structure (see on i. 6) which passes 
from the ixirtieiple, not from the relative (Hofmann), over to 
the further act connected with the former in the finite tense, 
but also (comp. on i. 16) the perfect (Thuc. viii. 100; Dem. 
786. 4): and itself (the bill of debt) he has taken out of the 
way, whereby the abrogation now stands comijlctcd. A gra'phi- 
cally ilhistrative representation : the bill of debt was Hotted 
out, and it has itself hceoi carried avjay and is no longer in 
its place ; rjpKev avro iic rov fieaov firj a(pel<i eVt '^copa'i, 
Oecumenius. avro denotes the handwriting itself, materialiter, 

' So also Thomasms, Chr. Pers. u. Wcrk, III. 1, p. 110. He considers as the 
Xiipoypai^ov not the Mosaic law itself, but tlie hill of debt Avhich tlie broken law 
has drawn up against us. The very parallel in Eph. ii. 15 is decisive against this 

CHAP. II. 14. 379 

in contrast to the just mentioned Hotting out of its contents. 
For He has nailed it, etc. ; see the sequel. Hofmann imports 
the idea : it in this (hostile) quality ; as if, namely, it ran koL 
TOLovTo 6v (Xen. Anah. vi. 5. 13; Philem. 9). — The e/c tou 
/xia-ov is our : " out of the way" said of obstructions which are 
removed. Comp. Plat. Eryx. p. 401 E ; Xen. Anah. i. 5. 14; 
de pracfect. 3. 10, and the passages in Kypke, II. p. 323. 
The opposite: eV fiecxw elvai, to he in the way, Dem. G82. 1 ; 
Aescli. Suppl. 735 ; Dorv. ad Charit. vii. 3, p. 601. Thus 
the law stood in the way of reconciliation to God, of the 
■^api^eadai k.t.X. in ver. 13. — irpoa'tjXcocra^; /c.r.X.] irpoarfkovv 
only found here in the N. T. ; see, however. Plat. Pliaed. p. 
83 D (with Trpo?) ; Lucian, Prom. 2, Dial. D. I. (rw KavKaaw 
irpoarfKcoixevo'^) ; Galen. IV. p. 45, 9 : rw aravpS, 3 Mace, 
iv. 9. Since the law which condemned man lost its punitive 
force through the death of Christ on the cross, inasmuch as 
Christ through this death suffered the curse of the law for 
men (Gal. iii. 13), and became the end of the law (Ptom. x. 
4), at the same time that Christ was nailed as iXaa-rijpcov to 
the cross, the law was nailed to it also, and thus it ceased 
to be iv fiio-w. Observe, moreover, the logical relation of the 
ao7'ist participle to the perfect rjpKev. The latter is the state 
of the matter, which has emerged and exists after God has 
nailed, etc. The k. auTo rjpKev eV jxeaov takes place since that 
nailing. In the strong expression irpocrrfKwaa'i, purposely 
chosen and placed foremost, there is involved an antinomistic 
triumph, which makes the disarming of the law very palpably 
apparent. Chrysostom has aptly observed on the whole passage: 
ovBa/iiov ovroi^ fiejaXocbcovcoq i(f)dey^aTO. 'Opa<; oirovZriv 
Toy d(f)avLa6P]vai to '^(^eipd'ypacpov oarjv eTroLi^aaro ; olov iravre'; 
rj/iev vcf)' afiapriav k. KoXaaiv auT09 KoXa(T6e\<; eXvae Kal rrjv 
dfiapTLav Kal rrjv KoXaaiv. Nevertheless, 7rpoarf\(t}aa<i neither 
figuratively depicts the tearing in piicccs of the x^^P^iP- 
(Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theopliylact), nor is there any 
allusion to an alleged custom of publicly placarding antiquated 
laws (Grotius). According to Hofmann (comp. also his 
Schriftbeiv. II. 1, p. 370 f.), a public placarding icitli a view 
to ohservance is meant; the requirement of Israelitish legal 


ohligation has become changed into the requirement of faith 
in the Crucified One which may be read on the cross, and this 
transformation is also the iiardon of transgressions of the law. 
This is a fanciful pushing further of the apostolic figure, the 
point of which is merely the blotting out and taking away of 
the law, as the debt-document hostile to us, by the death of 
the cross. The entire representation which is presented in this 
sensuous concrete form, and which is not to be expanded into 
the fanciful figure of transformation which we have just re- 
ferred to, is intended, in fact, to illustrate merely the forgive- 
ness of sins introduced by '^apca-ufievo'i k.t.\. in ver. 13, and 
nothing more. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 24. It is to be observed, at 
the same time, that the i^aXelcjieiv and the alpeiv e'/c t. fieaov 
do not represent two acts substantially different, but the same 
thing, the perfect accomplishment of which is explained by 
way of climax with particularising vividness. 

Ver. 15.^ In this doing away of the law was involved the 
victory and triumjjh of God over the devilish 230ivers, since the 
strength of the latter, antagonistic to God, is in sin, and the 
strength of sin is in the law (1 Cor. xv. 56) ; with the law, 
therefore, the power of the devil stands or falls. — If aTre/cSvo-. 
ran parallel, as the majority suppose, with irpoa-rfkwaa'i, there 
must have been a Kai inserted before iSefyfiuT., as in ver. 14 
before the finite verb, because otherwise no connection would 
be established. Hence a full stop (Beza) must be placed before 
aTre/cSucr., or at least a colon (Elzevir, Bleek) ; and without 
any connecting particle the significant verb heads all the 
more forcibly the description of this final result expressed 
with triumphant fulness : Having stripped the lordshipis and 
2)0ivers, he has made a show of them loldly, holding triumph 
over them in the same. Observe the symmetrical emphatic 
prefixing of aireKhva., iBeij/naT., and dpiafi^. The subject is 

' Holtzmann, p. 156 f., rejects this verse because it interrupts the transition of 
thought to ver. 16 (which is not the case) ; because hiyfiaTi^im is un-Pauline 
(but in what sense is it un-Pauline ? it is in any sense a very rare word;) ; because 
ipixf^liiviiv is used here otherwise than in 2 Cor. ii. 14 (this is incorrect) ; but, 
especially, because ver. 15 can only be explained by the circle of ideas of Eph. 
iii. 10 and Col. i. 10 ; Eph. iv. 8, ii. 15 f. (passages which touch our present 
one either not at all, or at the most very indirectly). 

ciLvr. II. 15. 381 

still always God, not Christ} as Baur and Ewakl hold, fol- 
lowing Augustine, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Erasmus, Grotius, 
Calovius, and many others ; hence the reading aTre/cS. tt^v 
adpKa in F G (wliicli omit t. apx- k. t. i^ova.) Syr. Goth. 
Hil. Aug. was an erroneous gloss ; and at the close, not avr^ 
(Syr. Vulg. It. Theodoret, Luther, Melanchthon, Elzevir, 
Griesbach, and Scholz), instead of which G has kavrw, but 
auTft) should be written ; see Wolf in loc. The figurative 
ciTreKSva:, which illustrates the dqirivation of poiver that has 
taken place through the divine work of reconciliation, repre- 
sents the ap'^a'i koI e^ova. as having been elothcd in armour 
(comp. Eoni. xiii. 1 2 ; Eph. vi. 11; 1 Thess. v. 8), which 
God as their conqueror stripped off and took from them ; 
Vulg. : exspolians. Comp. on eKhveiv and airohveiv, used from 
Homer's time in the sense of sjwliare, Dem. 763. 28, 1259. 
11 ; Hesiod, Scut. 447 ; Xen. Aiiah. v. 8. 23 ; 2 Mace. viii. 
27; and on the subject-matter. Matt. xii. 19 ; Luke xi. 22. 
^Moreover, we might expect, in accordance with the common 
usage of the middle, instead of aTreKhvadfxevo'i, which is else- 
where used intransitively (comp. iii. 9), the active aTre/cSyo-a? 
(comp. Matt, xxvii. 28, 31 ; Luke x. 30) ; yet even in Plat. 
Rep. p. 6 1 2 A, the (right) reading dTreSvad/xeda is to taken 
in the sense of nudavimus ; and Xenophon uses the perfect 
uTToSeSuKev, which is likewise intransitive elsewhere (see 
Klihner, I. p. 803), actively, see Anah. I.e. : ttoXXou? rjBr} 
aTToBiBvKev, multos vestc spoliavit ; comp. Dio Cass. xlv. 47. 
Further, the middle, as indicating the victorious self-interest 
of the action {sibi exspoliavit), is here selected even with 
nicety, and by no means conveys (as Hofmann, in order to 
refute this explanation, erroneously lays to its charge) the 
idea : in order to apipropriate to Himself this armour ; see on 
the contrary generally, Kriiger, § 52. 10. 1 ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 
9 3 f. The disarming in itself, and not the possession of the 
enemy's weapons, is the interest of the victor. Lastly, the 
whole connection does not admit of any intransitive inter- 
pretation, such as Hofmann, in his Schrifthciv. I. p. 350 f. 

' Through this erroneous definition of the subject it was possible to discover 
in our passage the descent into hell (Anselm and others). 


(and substantially" also in Lis Hcil. Schr. in loc), has attempted, 
making the sense : God has laid aside from Himself the 
powers ruling in the Gentile world — which were round about 
Him like a veil concealing Him from the Gentiles — by mani- 
festing Himself in unveiled clearness. Something such as 
this, which is held to amount to the meaning that God has 
put an end to the ignorance of the Gentile world and 
revealed Himself to it, Paul must necessarily have said ; no 
reader could unravel it from so strange a mode of veiling 
the conception, the more especially seeing that there is no 
mention at all of the victorious word of Christ ^ converting 
the Gentiles, as Hofmann thinks, but on the contrary of 
what God has effected in reference to the ap')(aX and i^ovaiai 
by the fact of reconciliation accomplished on the cross ; He 
has by it rendered 'powerless the powers which previously held 
sway among mankind ; comp. John xii. 30 f, xvi. 11. — That 
these apyal and l^ovalai are two categories of evil angels 
(comp. Eph. vi. 1 2), corresponding to two classes of good angels 
similarly named (comp. ver. 10), is taught by the context, 
which has nothing to do with mediating beings intervening 
between God and the world (Sabatier), or even with human 
rulers. Eitschl, in the Jalirh. f. Deutsche Thcol. 1863, p. 
522, understands the angels of the laiv-giving (comp. on i. 
20), of whom God has divested Himself (middle), i.e. from 
whose environment He has tviihdraivn Himself. Even apart 
from the singular expression aireKEvcrdfj,. in this sense, this 
explanation is inappropriate, because the cip'^al and e^ovaiai 
appear here as hostile to God, as beings over whom He has 
triumphed ; secondly, because the angels who ministered 
at the law-giving (see on Gal. iii. 19) have no share in the 
contents of the law, which, as the w/io? Qeov, is holy, righteous, 
good, and spiritual (Rom. vii.), and hence no deviation from 
God's plan of salvation can be attributed to the angels of the 
law ; and, finally, because the expression ra? «p%a9 k. Ta<; 

' In which sense also Grotius explained it, though he takes awsxSua-ajM. 
rightly as exarmatos. See, in opposition to him, Calovius. Hofraann's expla- 
nation is also followed by Holtzmann, jx 222 ; it is an unfortunate attemi^t at 

CHAP. II. 15. 383 

i^ovaia<i is so comprehensive that, in the absence of any more 
precise indication in the text, it cannot be specially limited 
to the powers that were active in the law-giving, but must 
denote the collective angelic powers — hostile, however, and 
therefore devilish. Them God has disarmed, jput to shame, 
and triumphed over, through the abrogation of men's legal 
debt-bond that took place by means of the atoning death. 
The emphatic and triumphant prominence given to this 
statement w^as, doubtless, specially occasioned by those specu- 
lations regarding the power of demons, with which the false 
teachers were encroaching on the work of Christ, — BetyfA^ari^eiv, 
preserved only here and in Matt. i. 19 (comp. however, 
TrapaBecyfiaTi^eiv, especially frequent in Polybius ; see Schweig- 
hauser, Zcx. p. 429), denotes, in virtue of its connection with 
the conception of triumph, the making a show (Augustine, ep. 
59 : " exemplavit ; " Hilary, de trin. 9 : " ostentui esse fecit ") 
for the purpose of humiliation and disgrace (comp. Chry- 
sostom), not in order to exhibit the vjcahiess of the conquered 
(Theodoret, Bohmer), but simply their accomplished siihju- 
gation ; comp. Nah. iii. 6 : Orjao^iai ae eh TrapaSeiy/xa. — 
ev Trapprjala] is usually rendered puUicly, before the eyes of all, 
consequently as equivalent to ^avepw in John vii. 10 (the 
opposite : iv KpvrrTw, John vii. 4 ; Matt. vi. 4 ; Eom. ii. 28) ; 
but this the word does not mean (see on John vii. 4) ; 
moreover, the verb already implies this idea ; ^ and the usage 
of Paul elsewhere warrants only the rendering : holdly, freely 
and franldy. Comp. Eph. vi. 19; Phil. i. 20. Hilary: 
" cum fidueia ; " Vulgate : " confidenter palam." The objection 
that tliis sense is not appropriate to the action of God 
(Hofmann), overlooks the fact that God is here represented 
just as a human triumpher, who freely and boldly, with re- 
morseless disposal of the spoils acquired by victory, subjects 

* Hence Hofmann joins it with fipia/^^iuffx;, in which, however, the idea of 
publicity is obviously already contained. Hofmann, indeed, assumes a reference 
of contrast to the invisible tiiuniphs, which God has ever been celebrating over 
those powers. But thus the idea of ^piaf^fitun)! is extended to an unwarranted 
amplitude of metaphorical meaning, while, nevertheless, the entire anthropopathic 
imagery of the passage requires the strict conception of the public ^plafif^s; 
Moreover, the pretended contrast is altogether foreign to the context. 


the conquered to ignominious exhibition.-^ — 6piafi^ev<Ta<i avr. 
iv auru)] synchronous with iSeLy/x. : wJtilc He triumphed over 
them. Kespecting Opca/x^eveLV riva, to triumijh over some one, 
see on 2 Cor. ii. 14. Comp. the passive 6pia/x^6vea6ai, to be 
led in triumph, Plut. CorioL 35. avrov^ refers Kara avvecnv 
to the devils individually, who are conceived as masculine (as 
Saifiove^, Koa-fioKpdrope^, Eph. vi. 12), see generally AViner, 
p. 138 [E. T. 183] ; and ev avrS is referred either to the cross 
(hence, also, the readings iv tw ^vXrp or aravp^) or to 
Christ. The former reference is maintained by the majority 
of the Fathers (Theophylact : iv no aravpca rov<i haipiova'i 
rjTTrjixevov^ Se/fa?), Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and many others, in- 
cluding Bohmer, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald, Weiss, Bill. Theol. 
p. 432, ed. 2 ; and the latter, by Erasmus, Luther, Llelanch- 
thon, Wolf, Estius, Bengel, and many others, including Flatt, 
Eiihr, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, Bleek, 
Hofmann, Eich. Schmidt. The reference to Christ is erroneous, 
because Christ is not mentioned at all in ver. 14, and God 
pervades as subject the entire discourse from ver. 11 onwards. 
We must hold, therefore, by the reference to rw aravpw, so 
that ev auTM once more places the cross significantly before 
our eyes, just as it stood emphatically at the close of the 
previous sentence. At the cross God celebrated His triumpli, 
inasmuch as through the death of Christ on the cross obliter- 
ating and removing out of the w\ay the debt-bill of the law He 
completed the work of redemption, by which the devil and his 
powers were deprived of their strength, which rested on the law 
and its debt-bond. The ascension is not to be here included. 

Ver. 16. Ouv'] since ye, according to vv. 11-15, are raised 
to a far higher platform than that of such a legal system. — 
KpiveTW iv /Spoocrei] No one is to Jorm a judgment (whether ye 
are acting allowably or unallowably, rightly or wrongly) con- 

1 It is an inconsiderate fancy of Hofmann to say, by way of controverting onr 
explanation : Who would be surprised, that the triumpher should make a show of 
the conquered, " luitJiout previously asking their permission" ? As if such a 
thought, no doubt very silly for the victor, were necessarily the contrast to the 
frank daring action, with wliich a general, crowned with victory, is in a position 
to exhibit his captives without any scruple, without sparing or hesitation ! He 

has the l^nvfia, for the ^uyfiari^nv, and uses it Iv TapptKrla. 

CHAP. II. iG. 385 

cerning you in the 2^oint of eating (iv, comp. Piom. ii. 1, xiv. 22 ; 
1 Pet. ii. 1 2). There is hereby asserted at the same time their 
independence of such judgments, to which they have not to yield 
(comp. Eph. V. 6). With Paul, ^pw<TL<; is always actio edcndl, 
and is thus distinct from ^pcofia, cihus (Rom. xiv. 1 7 ; 1 Cor. 
viii. 4; 2 Cor. ix. 10 ; also Heb. xii. 16), although it is also 
current in the sense of /Spwfia with John (iv. 32, vi. 27, 55), and 
with profane authors (Horn. II. xix. 210, Od. i. 191, x, 176, e^ 
al; Plat. Zcgg. vi. p. 783 C; Hesiod, Scut. 396). This we 
remark in opposition to Pritzsche, ad Earn. III. p. 200. The 
case is the same with Troo-t? (Eom. xiv. 17) and 7r6fx,a (1 Cor. 
X. 4 ; Heb. ix. 1 0). — iv Trocret] Since the Mosaic law contained 
prohibitions of oiieats (Lev. vii. 10 £f.), but not also general 
prohibitions of drinhs, it is to be assumed that the false teachers 
in their ascetic strictness (ver. 23) had extended the prohibition 
of the use of wine as given for the Nazarites (Num. vi. 3), 
and for the period of priestly service (Lev. x. 9), to the Chris- 
tians as such (as dyiovsi). Comp. also Eom. xiv. 17, 21. De 
Wette arbitrarily asserts that it was added doubtless in con- 
sideration of this, as well as of the Pharisaic rules as to drinks. 
Matt, xxiii. 24, and of the prohibition of wine offered to idols 
(ovu does not point to such things), but still mainly on account 
of the similarity of sound (Piom. xiv. 17 ; Heb. ix. 10, and 
Bleek m loc). — iv fxepei eopTrj<; k.t.\.] iv p-epet, with the 
genitive, designates the category, as very frequently also in 
classical authors (Plat. Theaet. p. 155 E, Hcjj. p. 424 D; 
Dem. 638. 5, 608. 24); comp. on 2 Cor. iii. 10, and see 
Wyttenbach, ad Plvt. I. p. 65. The three elements: festival, 
new moon, and Sahhath, are placed side by side as a further 
classis rcrum ; in the point {iv) of this category also no judg- 
ment is to be passed upon the readers (if, namely, they do 
not join in observing such days). The elements are arranged, 
according as the days occur, either at longer unequal intervals 
in the year (ioprrj^;), or monthly (vovp,r]v.), or weekly (cra/3/3aT.). 
But they are three, co-ordinated ; there would be only one 
thing with three connected elements, if kul were used instead 
of T] in the two latter places where it occurs. The three are 
given in inverted order in 1 Chron. xxiii. 31 ; 2 Chron. ii. 4, 

COL. 2 B 


xxxi. 3. On the subject-matter, comp. Gal. iv. 10. Eespect- 
ing the Jewish celebration of the Tiew moon, see Keil, Arclidol. 
I. § 78 ; Ewalcl, Alterth. p. 470 f . ; and on a-djS^ara as equi- 
valent to ad^^arov, comp. Matt. xii. 1, xxviii. 1 ; Luke iv. 16, 
et al. iv fxepei, has been erroneously understood by others in 
the sense of a |)a?'^m/ celebration (Chrysostom : i^evTeXl^et 
Xeycov rj iu [xepei iopri]';- ov fyap Srj iravTa KaTel')(pv la irpd- 
repa, Theodoret : they could not have kept all the feasts, on 
account of the long journey to Jerusalem ; comp. Dalmer), or : 
mcihus festorum (Melanchthon, Zanchius), or, that the partici- 
pation in the festival, the taking part in it is expressed (Otto, 
dekalog. Untcrs. p. 9 ff.), or that it denotes the scgrcgatio, " nam 
qui dierum faciunt discrimen, quasi vmum ab alio dividunt" 
(Calvin). Many, moreover inaccurately, hold that eV p,epu 
means merely : in respect to (Beza, "Wolf, and most expositors, 
including Bahr, Huther, and de Wette) ; in 2 Cor. iii. 1 0, 
ix. 3, it also denotes the category. Comp. Aelian. V. H. viii. 3 : 
KpivovTe<i eKacTTOv iv tw /xepec (f>ovov. 

Ver. 17.^ An epexegetical relative sentence, assigning the 
ground for what has just been said. — o, which (see the critical 
remarks), is not to be arbitrarily referred merely to the observ- 
ance of feasts and days (Flatt and Hofmann), but to the things 
of the law mentioned in ver. 16 generally, all of which it 
embraces. — a-Kid^ not an outline (aKiaypa(pla, aKiaypdcprj/xa), 
as in the case of painters, who " non exprimunt primo ductu 
ima^inem vivis coloribus et elicoviKa><i, sed rudes et obscuras 
lineas primum ex carbone ducunt," Calvin (so also Clericus, 
Huther, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), which (XKid does 
not mean even in Heb. viii. 5, x. 1, and which is forbidden 
by the contrast of to o-w^ua, since it would rather be the per- 
fect picture that would be put in opposition to the outline. 

* Holtzmann, without assigning his reasons, regards the entire verse as an 
" extract from theEpistU to thellebrews" (Heb. ix..6, 9 f., 25, x. 1, 11, viii. 5) ; 
he thinks that the whole polemic of vv. 16-23 was intended to introduce the 
more developed features of later heresy into the picture of the apostolic age. 
But the difficulty of ver. 18 (which Holtzmann considers utterly unintelligible) 
and ver. 22 f., as well as the alleged un-Pauline character of some expressions 
in ver. 19, does uot furnish a sufficient basis for such an opinion. Comp. on 
vv. 18, 19, 22, 23. 

CHAP. II. 17. 387 

It means nothing else than shadow. Paul is illustrating, 
namely, the relation of the legal ordinances, such as are adduced 
in ver. 16, to that which is future, i.e. to those relations of the 
Messianic kingdom, which are to be manifested in the amv 
fxeKKcov (neither a'ya6u>v from Heb. x. 1, nor anything else, is 
to be supplied with rwv fieXXovrcov), and in doing so he fol- 
lows the figurative conception, that the ixiXkovra, which there- 
fore, locally considered, are in front, have cast their shadow 
behind, which shadow is the Mosaic ritual constitution, — a 
conception which admirably accords with the typical character 
of the latter (Heb. viii. 5, x. 1), of which the constitution of 
the Messianic kingdom is the antitype. It is to be noted 
further: (1) The emphasis of confirmation lies not on twv 
fieWovTcov (Beza), but on a-Kid, in contrast to to aoSfia. If, 
namely, the things in question are only the shadow of the 
Messianic, and do not belong to the reality thereof, they are 
— in accordance with this relatively non-essential, because 
merely typical natiu^e of theirs — not of such a kind that 
salvation may be made dependent on their observance or non- 
observance, and adjudged or withheld accordingly. (2) The 
passage is not to be explained as if rfv stood in the place of 
eVrt, so that ra fjueXkovra would denote the Christian relations 
already then existing, the Kacvr) htadrjKr], the Christian plan 
of salvation, the Christian life, etc. (so usually since Chrysos- 
tom) ; but, on the contrary, that which is spoken of is 
shadow, not, indeed^ as divinely appointed in the law (Hof- 
mann) — for of this aspect of the elements in question the text 
contains nothing — but in so far as Paul sees it in its actual 
condition still at that time present. The fiiWovra have not 
yet heen manifested at all, and belong altogether (not merely 
as regards their completion, as de Wette thinks, comp. also 
Hofmann) to the al(ov fiiWcov, which will begin with the 
coming again of Christ to set up His kingdom — a coming, how- 
ever, which was expected as very near at hand. The fieK- 
\ovTa could only be viewed as having already set in either in 
whole or in part, if ^u and not eVrt were used previously, and 
thereby the notion of futurity were to be taken relatively, in 
reference to a state 'of things then already past (comp. Gal. 


iii. 23 ; 1 Tim. i. 16), or if ea-rl were meant to be said fiom 
the standpoint of the divine arrangement of those things 
(Hofmann), or if this present tense expressed the logical 
present merely by way of enabling the mind to picture them 
(Rom. V. 14), which, however, is inadmissible here, since tlie 
elements indicated by aKid still continued at this time, long 
after Christ's earthly appearance, and were present really, and 
not merely in legal precepts or in theory. (3) The charac- 
teristic quality, in which the things concerned are meant to be 
presented by the figurative <7Kid, is determined solely by the 
contrast of to (tm/j-u, namely, as unsulstantiality in a Messianic 
aspect : shadow of the future, standing in relation to it, there- 
fore doubtless as typically presignificant, but destitute and 
void of its reality. Tlie reference to transitoriness (Spencer, de 
legit, rit. p. 214 f., Baumgarten-Crusius, and others) is purely 
imported. — to Be crw/ia] scil. rwv fieXkovrwv, bnt the body of 
the future.^ Inasmuch as the legal state of things in ver. 1 6 
stands to the future Messianic state in no other relation than 
that of the shadoio to the living body itself, which casts the 
shadow, Paul thus, remaining faithful to his figure, designates 
as the body of the future that which is real and essential in 
it, which, according to the context, can be nothing else than 
just the fjiiWovTa themselves, their concrete reality as con- 
trasted with the shadowy form which preceded them. Accord- 
ingly, he might have conveyed the idea of the verse, but 
without its figurative garb, in this way : o eVrt tutto? twv 
fieWovrcov, avra Be to. /jbeWovra Xpiarov. — XpicrTov] scil. 
eari, belongs to Christ. The fieXXovra, namely, viewed under 
the figurative aspect of the o-w/jLa which casts the shadow 
referred to, must stand in the same relation to Christ, as the 
body stands in to the Head (ver. 1 9) ; as the body now 
adumbrating itself, they must belong to Christ the Ifead of 
the body, in so far, namely, as He is Zo7'd and ruler of all the 
relations of the future IMessianic constitution, i.e. of the Mes- 

* The explanation of Hilgcnfeld, 1873, ]>. 199: "the mere cu/^a. "KpirraZ, a 
purely somatic Chrislianii;/," is at variance with the antithetical coirelation 
of <rxici and (Tufiot, as well as with the apostle's cherished conception of the 
trSfix of Christ, which is contained immediately in ver. 19. 

CHAP. II. 18. 389 

siauic kingdom, of the jSacriXeia tov Xptcrrov (i. 13; Eph. 
V. 5). Whosoever, therefore, holds to the shadow of the 
future, to the things of the law (as the false teachers do and 
require), and does not strive after the fieWovra themselves, 
after the lochj which has cast that shadow, does not hold to 
Christ, to whom as Head the a-cofia (t?)? <TKLa<i) belongs as His 
ovm. This view, which is far removed from " distorting" the 
thought (as Hofmann objects), is required by the natural 
and obvious correlation of the conception of the hochj and its 
head, as also by ver. 19, There is much inaccuracy and irrele- 
vancy in the views of expositors, because they have not taken 
ra fieWovra in the sense, or not purely in the sense, of the 
relations of the alcov fieWcov, but in that of the then existing 
Christian relations, which in fact still belonged to the alcov 
o5to9, and because, in connection therewith, they do not take 
up with clearness and precision the contextually necessary 
relation of the genitive Xpcarov as denoting Him, whose the 
aw/xa is, but resolve it into what they please, as e.g. Grotius (so 
also Bleck) : " ad Christum pertinet, ab eo solo petenda est ;" 
Huther : " the substance itself, to which those shadowy figures 
point, has ajjpcarcd in Christ ;" Ewald : "so far as there is 
anything really solid, essential, and eternal in the 0. T., it 
belongs to Christ and to His Spirit ;" Hofmann : " the body 
of the future is there, where Christ is, present and given with 
Him" (consequently as if eV Xpta-ro} were used). — On to aoi/ia 
in contrast to aKcd, comp. Josephus, Bell. ii. 2. 5 : a-Kiav 
alTr]a-ojj.evo<; ^aaiXelaf, rj<i rjpTraaev eavTot to cMfia. Philo, dc 
conf. ling. p. 434 : ra pXv prjTa rcov y^prjaixwv crKui<; rtva^ dxravel 
aco/idrcov elvaf ra? S' i/Kpawofxiva^ 8vvdfi€L<; ra vcfjecrTwra dXrj- 
Oeia TrpdyfiaTa. Lucian, Herniot. 29. Observe, however, 
that awfxa invariably retains its strict literal sense of lodg, as 
a sensuous expression for the substantially real, in contrast 
to the unsubstantial shadow of it. 

Ver. 18.-^ Warning against a further danger, with which 
they were threatened on the part of these false teachers. — 
pLTjhel'^;'] not different from yttT^ri? in ver. 16, as if the latter 
emphasized the verb and the former the subject (Hofmann). 

' See upon ver. 18, Eeiche, C'omm. Crit. p. 277 flf. 


This would be correct, if in ver. 1 6 it were firj ovv Kpivira) Tt<j 
v/Aa9. Comp. on /j,rjTi<;, ver. 8, and on /iT^SetV, ver. 4. More- 
over, the words cannot be regarded (with Holtzmann) as a 
duplicate proceeding from the interpolator, especially as they 
contain a naa warning, and in such a peculiar form {icara- 
^pa/3.). — Kara^pa^eveTco] Let no one deprive you of the prize. 
Kara^pa^eveiv, which is not a Cilician word (Jerome ; see, on 
the contrary, Eustath. a^ 7^. i. 93. 33 : Kara^pa^evei avrov, 
CO? (j)aaLv ol TraXatoi), is only now preserved among ancient 
Greek authors in Dem. c. Mid. 544, idt. : eTriarafxeOa Hrpd- 
Tcova viro MeiSiov Kara/3 pa^evOevr a koX irapa iravra ra BLKaca 
aTifjbcoOivra, where it expresses the taking away of victory in 
a judicial suit, and the procuring of a sentence of condemna- 
tion, and that in the form of the conception : to bring it about 
to the injury of some one, that not he, but another, shall receive the 
prize from the ^pa^ev<;. Midias had bi^ibcd the judges. The 
Kara intimates that the prize was due to the person concerned, 
although it has been in a hostUe spirit (not merely un- 
righteously, which would be irapa^pa^eveiv} Plut. Mor. p. 
535 C; Polyb. xxiv. 1, 12) loithdrawn from him and ad- 
judged to another. The right view substantially, though not 
recognising the distinction from irapajSpa/S., is taken by 
Chrysostom (7rapa(3pa^ev6rivat <yap iariv, orav rrap krkpoav 
jjbev r) VLKT], Trap irepcov Be ro ^pa/Selov) and Theophylact, also 
Suidas : to dWov dycovc^ofievov dWov are(^avova6ai Xeyei o 
arroaroko'; Kara/Spa^eveaOat. Comp. also Zonaras, ad Condi. 
Laod. can. 35, p. 351 : to jxi-j rov viKijcravra d^covv rov ^pa- 
jSeiov, dW erepo) BiBovat avro dBiKOVixevov rov vLK')]aavro<;. The 
conception is : (1) To the readers as true believers belongs the 
Messianic prize of victory, — this is the assumption upon which 
the expression is based ; (2) The false teachers desire to 
deprive them of the prize of victory and to give it to others, 
namely, to themselves and their adherents, and that through 
their service of angels, etc. ; (3) Just as little, however, as in 

' With, -vvhicli Theodorct confounds it {ahlxai; Pipafiiviiv) ; he makes it the 
unrighteous awarding of the prize of victory : i-rnlh toIvvv xai ei tu; mfuxxs 
TafitryiprKTiii tu ivayyiX'ito ■rapafiiyyvvrif ccro tuv Kpurrovuv uvtov; iVi to. tXamw 

CHAP. II. IS. 391 

the case of the Kpiveiv in ver. 1 6, ought the readers to give heed 
to, or let tliemsclves be led astray "by, this hostile proceeding 
of the Kara^pa^eveiv, which is based upon subjective vanity 
and is (ver. 19) separation from Christ and His body, — 
this is implied in the imperatives. Consequently, the view 
of Jerome, ad Aglas. p. 10, is not in substance erroneous, 
although only approximately corresponding to the expression : 
" Nemo adversus vos praemium accipiat ;" Erasmus is substan- 
tially con-ect : "praemium, quod sectari coepistis, vobis intcr- 
vertat ;" comp. Calvin, Estius, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Ewald, and others ; while the Vulgate {scducat), Luther (" to 
disijlace the goal"), and others content themselves with a much 
less accurate statement of the sense, and Bengal imports into 
the passage the sense of itsurped false leading and instruction, 
as Beza similarly took it.^ The /3pa^eiov, to which Kura^p. 
refers, is not Christian liberty (Grotius, who explains it prae- 
miuDi exigere), nor yet : " the honour and prize of the true 
worship of God" (de AVette), but, in accordance with the stand- 
ing apostolic conception (comp. Phil. iii. 14: 1 Cor. ix. 24): 
the bliss of the Messianic hingdom, the incorruptible tTTe^ava 
(1 Cor. ix. 25), the are^. rrj<i BiKaLoavvr]^ (2 Tim. iv. 8), r^? 
So^'?79 (1 Pet. V. 4), T^9 ^cofj<; (Jas. i. 12) ; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 5. 
With reference to the ^pa^elov, Eisner, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, 
Steiger, and others, including Bahr, Bohmer, Eeiche, Huther, 
and Bleek, following Pliotius in Oecumenius (fjutjBeh vfxm 
KaraKpivercci), have taken Kara/3paj3. in the sense of to condemn, 
parallel to the Kpivkrco in ver. 16, or to refuse salvation to 
(Hofmann). This rendering is not, indeed, to be rejected on 
linguistic grounds, since Hesychius and Suidas both quote the 
signification KaraKpiveiv in the case of Kara/3 pa/Seveiu ; but 
it cannot be justified by proofs adduced, and it is decidedly in 
opposition to the context through the following OeXcov k.t.X, 
which presupposes not a judgment of the opponents, but an 

^ "Nemo adversum vos rectoris partes sibi iiltro sumat." He starts from the 
common use of (ipafifjiiv in the sense of regere ac moderari (see Dorvill. ad 
Charit. p. 404). Comp. on iii. 15. But neither the passage of Dem. I.e., nor 
the testimony of the Greek Fathers, of Suidas, Eustathius, and Zonaras, nor the 
analogy of vapafipalitviiv, would justify tlie adoption of this sense in the case of 

the compound Kuralipa^. 


action, something 2J'i'<^ciic<^i, which, through their perverse re- 
ligious attitude, they would fain accomplish. — OeXcov] sc. 
Kara^pa^eveiv vfxa'i : while he desires to do this, would willingly 
accomplish it (comp. Dissen, ad Find. 01. ii. 97) by humility, 
etc. So rightly Theodoret (touto tolvuv crvve^ovkevov eKelvot 
^iveaOat Ta'ireLVO(^po(Tvvr] hrjdev Ke^y^prjixevoi), Theophylact (deKov- 
atv vfj,d<i KarajBpa^eveLV Sia raTretvocpp.), Photius in Oecumenius, 
Calvin, Casaubon, and others, including Hutlier and Buttmann, 
Mut. Gr. p. 322 [E. T. 376]. The " languidum ct frigidurn" 
which Eeiche urges against this view, applies at the most 
only in the event of Kara/Spa^, being explained as to con- 
demn ; and the accusation of incorrectness of sense (Hof- 
mann) is only based upon an erroneous explanation of the 
subsequent eV raireLvo^p. k.tX. The interpretation adopted 
" by others : talcijig delight in humility, etc. (Augustine, Cas- 
talio, Vatablus, Estius, Michaelis, Loesner, and others, including 
Storr, Flatt, Bahr, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, Hof- 
mann, and Hilgenfeld), is based upon the extremely unneces- 
sary assumption of an im-Greek imitation of 2 "sn, such as 
occurs, indeed, in the LXX. (1 Sam. xviii. 22 ; 2 Sam. xv. 26 ; 
1 Kings X. 9 ; 2 Chron. ix. 8 ; Ps. cxlvii. 10), but not in the 
N". T. ; for in Matt, xxvii. 43, OeXeiv is used with the accusa- 
tive, comp. on Eom. vii. 21. Moreover, in the 0. T. passages 
the object of the delight is almost invariably (the only excep- 
tion being Ps. cxlvii. 10) a person. Even in the Apocrypha 
that abnormal mode of expression does not occur. Others, 
again, hold that it is to "be joined in an adverbial sense to 
Kura/Sp. It would then (see Erasmus, Annot.) have to be 
rendered cupide or studiosc (Plat. Theact. p. 143 D; and see 
Eeisig, Conjcct. p. 143 f.), or unconstrained, voluntarily, equiva- 
lent to ideXovTL, i6e\ovTt)v, edeXovTrj^ (Plat. Symp. p. 183 A, 
very frequent in Homer, Soph. Phil. 1327, Aesch. Choeph. 
19. 790, and the passages from Xenophon quoted by Sturz, 
Lex. II. p. 21), which sense, here certainly quite unsuitable, 
has been transformed at variance with linguistic usage into the 
idea : " hoe tnumis sihi a nullo tributttm exerccns" (Beza), or : 
■unwarrantably (Bohmer, comp. Steiger), or of his own choice 
(Luther, who, like Ewald, couples it with ifi^arevcov), or : 

CHAP. 11. 18. 393 

arhitrarily (Ewald), or : capriciously (Kciclie), etc. ; conse- 
quently giving it the sense of eKcov, avTo6e\'t]<;, avTOKe\evaTo<;, 
or avroyvcoficov. Even Tittmann, Synon. p. 131, comes at length 
to such an ultro, erroneously quoting Herod, ix. 14, where 
Oekwv must be taken as in Plat. Thcact. I.e. — ev TaiTeLvo<^p. 
K. Oprja-K. Tcov a77e\.] eV is not propter, which is supposed to 
have the meaning : because rwjreLvocfyp. k.t.X. is necessary to 
salvation (Eeiche) ; nor does it denote the condition in which 
the Kara/Spa/Seveiv takes place (Steiger, Huther) ; but, in keep- 
ing lyith the OeXwv, it is the means by which the purpose is 
to be attained : hy virtue of humility and %vorsliip2nng of angels. 
Thereby he wishes to effect that the jBpajBeiov shall be with- 
drawn from you (and given to himself and his followers). 
T. ayyiXcov is the genitive of the object (comp. Wisd. xiv. 2 7 ; 
Herodian, iv. 8. 17; Clem. Cor. I. 45 ; see also Grimm on 
4 Mace. v. 6, and the passages from Josephus in Krebs, p. 339), 
and belongs only to OprjaK., not to ruTreivocpp. That the latter, 
however, is not humility in the proper sense, but is, viewed 
from the perverse personal standpoint of the false teachers, a 
humility in their sense only, is plain from the context (see below, 
eiKrj (^vaLovfjb. k.t.X.), although irony (Steiger, Huther) is not to 
be found in the word. Paul, namely, designates the thing as 
that, for which the false teachers held it themselves and 
desired it to be held by others, and this, indeed, as respects 
the disposition lying at the root of it, which they sought to 
exhibit (eV raireLvoc^p), and as respects the abnormal religious 
phenomenon manifested among them {k. OprjCK. t. uyyeXwv) ; 
and then proceeds to give a deterrent exposure of both of these 
together according to their true character in a theoretical 
(a . . . ifjL^aT.) and in a moral (elKrj cjiua: . . . rrjv KecpaXyv) 
respect. Hoiu far the false teachers bore themselves as 
Ta'ireiv6j>pove<i, is correctly defined by Theodoret : Xeyovre'i, 
0)9 do par 0'; o ru>v oXwv 0eo9, dve^tKTO<: re koX dKaTdXrjTrro^i, 
Kal irpoai^Kei Sta tcuv dyyeXcov ttjv Oeiav eiifxiveiau irpayp.a- 
reveaOat, so that they thus regarded man as too insignificant 
in the presence of the divine majesty to be able to do without^ 

' Compare Augustine, Covf. x. 42 : " Queni invenirem, qui me reconciliaret 
tibi ? Abeundum mihi fuit ad angelos ? Multi conantes ad te rediie, neque per 


the mediation of angels, which they sought to secure through 
Op7}(TKe[a (comp. 4 ]\Iacc. iv. 11), thereby placing the merit of 
Christ (Eom. v. 2) in the background. It is differently ex- 
plained by Chrysostom and Theophylact (comp. also Photius 
in Oecumenius) : the false teachers had declared the majesty of 
the Only-Bcgoitcn to be too exalted for lowly humanity to have 
access through Him to the Father, and hence the need of the 
mediation of angels for that purpose. In opposition to this 
view it may be urged, that the very prominence so frequently 
and intentionally given to the majesty of Christ in our Epistle, 
and especially as above the angels, rather goes to show that 
they had depreciated the dignity of Christ. Eeiche and Ewald 
(comp. Hofmann's interpretation below) find the Taireivo^po- 
avvr\ in the acpeiSia awfiaro^ of ver. 23, where, however, the 
two aberrations are adduced separately from one another, see 
on ver. 23. Proofs of the existence of the worship of angels 
in the post-apostolic church are found in Justin, Ap. I. 6, 
p. 56,^ Athenagoras, and others; among the Gnostic heretics 
(Simonians, Cainites) : Epiph. Haer. xx. 2 ; Tertullian, praescr. 
33 ; Iren. Haer. i. 31. 2 ; and with respect to the worshipping 
of angels in the Colossian region Theodoret testifies : ejuuetve 
Be rovTO TO irdOo^ iv Tjj ^pvyla Kal UicnhLa /JiS'^pi 'TToWov' ov 
Br] X^piv Kol avveXOovcra (tvvoBo<; iv AaoBcKela t>}<? ^pvyia^ 
(a.D. 3G4, can. 35) vofiu) KeKcoXvKe to rot? a'y'yi\oL<; irpoaev- 
'^eaOai, Kal fJ^^XP'' ^^ '^^^ ^^^ evKTijpta tov djLOU Mix^ijX Trap 
eKeivoL'i Kal toI<; 6/x6poi,<; iKelvcov iaTLV ISelv. The Catholic 
expedients for evading the prohibition of angel-worship in 
our passage (as also in the Coneil. Laod., Mansi, II. p. 568) 
may be seen especially in Cornelius a Lapide, who under- 
stands not all angel -worship, but only that which places 
the angels above Christ (comp. also Bisping), and who refers 
the Laodicean prohibition pointing to a " KeKpvfifievq elBco- 
\o\aTpeia " (" otu ov Bel XpicTTLavov'i iyKaTaXecTrecv ti^v eKK^r]- 

se ipsos valentes, sicut audio, tentavenint Iiaec, et inciderunt in dcsidcrium 
curiosarr.m visiomim, et digni liabiti sunt illusionibus. " The (false) ru'riive- 
(ppoiruvii was the subjective source of their going astray to angel-worship. 

' Hasselbach gives substantially the right interpretation of tlie passjige in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 329 ff. 

CHAP. II. 18. 395 

(Tiav rov Qeov koX aiTLevai Kot ayyeXov<; ovofid^etv" k.tX.), in 
accordance with the second Nicene Council, only to the 
cultus latriae, not duliae, consequently to actual adoration, 
not TifjLr}TiKr]v irpoaKvvqcnv. In opposition to the words 
as they stand (for Opr^a-Keta with the genitive of the 
subject would necessarily be the cultus, which the angels 
present to God, 4 Mace. v. 6, 12; Joseph. Antt. xii. 5. 4; 
comp. Acts xxvi. 5), and also in opposition to the context 
(see ver. 19), several have taken twv ayyeXcov as the 
genitive of the subject, and have explained it of a religious 
condition, which desired to be like that of the angels, e.g. 
Luther : " spirituality of the angch" comp. Melanchthon, 
Schoettgen (" habitus aliquis angelicus "), Wolf, Dalmer. 
Nevertheless, Hofmann, attempting a more subtle definition of 
the sense, has again taken twv dyyeXcov as genitive of the suh- 
icct, and joined with it not only OprjaKela, but also Taireivo- 
^pocrvvrj. The Taveivocppocriivr) of the angels, namely, consists 
in their willingly keeping within the hounds assigned to them as 
spirits, and not coveting that which man in this respect has 
heyond them, namely, what belongs to the corporeal world. 
And the dprjaKeia of the angels is a self-devotion to God, in 
which, between them and Him, no other harrier exists than 
that hettveen the Creator and His creatures. That raTrecvocfipo- 
a-vvT] and this OprjcrKeLa man makes into virtue on his part, 
when he, although but partially, renounces that lohieh belongs 
to Him in distinction from the angels (rairetvocpp.), and, as one 
luho has divested himself as much as possible of his corporeality, 
presents himself adoringly to God in such measure as he refrains 
from what was conferred upon him for bodily enjoyment. I 
do not comprehend how, on the one hand, the apostle could 
wrap up the combinations of ideas imputed to him in words 
so enigmatical, nor, on the other, how the readers could, 
without the guidance of Hofmann, extract thern out of these 
words. The entire exposition is a labyrinth of imported sub- 
jective fancies. Paul might at least have written ev iyKpareia 
iirl TOO 6/jL0ca>fiaTL (or kuO' cfxoLcocnv, or Ka9' o/u,oiorr]Ta) t^9 
Ta7r€i,vo<f)pocrvvr]^ Kol 6pr)aK€ia<; rdv dyyeXcov I Even this 
would still have been far enough from clear, but it would at 


least have contained the point and a hint as to its inter- 
pretation. See, besides, in opposition to Hofmann, Eich. 
Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 193 f. — a ecopuKev ifi/Sareucov] Sub- 
ordinate to the OiXcov k.tX as a warning modal definition to 
it : entering ujpon ivhat he has hcheld, i.e. instead of concerning 
himself with what has been objectively given (ver. 19), enter- 
ing the subjective domain of visions with his mental activity, 
— by which is indicated the mystico-theosophic occupation of 
the mind with God and the angels,^ so that ecapaKev (comp. 
Tert. c. Marc. v. 19) denotes not a seeing with the eyes, 
but a mental beholding," which belonged to the domain of 
the (pavrd^eo-dai, in part, doubtless, also to that of visionary 
ecstasy (comp. Acts ii. 17; Eev. ix. 1 7 ; opa/xa in Acts ix. 
10, 12, X. 3 ; 2 Chron. ix. 29, et al.; Luke i. 22). This re- 
ference must have been intelligible to the readers from the 
assertions put forth by the false teachers,'' but the failure to 
observe it induced copyists, at a very early date, to add a 
negative (sometimes fiij and sometimes ov) before ecopuKev. 
'Efi^areveLv (only used here in the K T. ; but see Wetstein, 
also Eeisig, ad Ocd. Col. ijracf. p. xxxix.), with accusative of the 
place conceived as object (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 257), also with the 
genitive, with the dative, and with et?, means to step upon, as 
e.g. vrjo-ov, Aesch. Pers. 441 ; ttoXlv, Eur. PI. 595 ; yfjv, Josh, 
xix. 49 ; also with reference to a mental domain, which is 

' This fanciful habit could not but be fostered and promoted by the Jewish 
view, according to which the appearances of angels were regarded as ^avrair^ara 
(Gieseler, Kircheiif/esch. I. 1, p. 153, cd. 4). 

2 Ewald regards s^^axs* as more precisely defined by iv vaT