.
.
.
事
​,
軍事
​.
.
.
1
事了
​,
一
​畫
​「
..
...',
-
.
,
事
​」
,
,
了
​,
fn:
書庫
​:
::
·,
:
,
「重
​鲁
​::
-
...
-
.
-
“
主
​「
.
.
..
”
”
-
!
事
​-
| |
.
。
重量
​|
“
..
事主
​.
.
.
..
于
​.
-
.
*
。
...
|
|
.
.
..
..
--
,
了
​品​。
:
A 1,228,759
:
.
非常尊重
​重量​,
「..
1.
-
一
​「
,
中​.
重量
​重
​.
-
:
..""
「.
一
​.
.
“
.
車单曲
​”事
​-
一
​:
+
+
事
​,
事
​1.
.
是
​,
.
事​,
我
​(是不是
​--
看準書
​4
「
.
其他
​,看得出
​4
「
非​”.
.
--
一​、售業
​小学举行
​4非是重量​,
"
,
中单​:
"
,
于是​,
43
「
無事​。
-
「
.
有我​,
中​。
起​。
; ;
-单量单单是重重
​,
事
​中華書畫
​,量產​,
-
11
|
「
等​。
.
主要
​其中有一产单1事事者身上​,
是
​事​,
「
鲁鲁在是隆​,
《非
​是事
​中
​* 单​”,也要實事實​“”事
​身價​:
*
ht,
「是是是是是​。
PAL制式是AI
畢書畫
​高中生​,
国善書​,
;」
-
新
​·
..
*
Y
;
事事事
​|;
中毒
​-

-
--+.
Presented
to
۔
ہے
دے رہی
یہ پر کیا گیا سره
ے
س
اسی وجہ
له م
وہ
Rev.A.C. Grançare.
Glass of 21
-
+-
mudy 183
k
um
UBUNTU
SCIENTIA
ARTES
saintis
Eup
LIBRARY RUTAS OF THE
bilhinntil
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII
IMMUUDEN
binimithili
OF MICHIGAN
UNIVERSITY OF MICHE
10.
V
E
PLURIBUS Uxu
yo
PLURIOUS
MishimulinnunumHIIIH
.
Ilmi
ia
x
"
این قال
11.hr
.
..
11. 41
SOS-
/
.
42
.
11
1.
.
ROUTE
WELL
'Shou
QUAERIS.PENINSULAM'AMOENAK:
CIRCUMSPICE
be
.
.
À
w
I
.
.
.
.
:1,
ch
1024
.
+
..
WIRTUDENY YAYAYAYAYAYYOYOYOTT
سنحسنمنعشينسكسعنيفمقدممعمسما
Aanunt.
Halliilliiniliiniinulihilinin
IITTUJINTIIMITUINTITUTI
CABINIMHINIHIN
Someone
2
.
]
MY
COM
BORUT
வாயபபாபாபாபா அபாயமாயயாம்
nuntinitiminutit munimiminikaninunnnil monthnum1!
tit
.
BS
2344
M623
1884
vig
MeyerJO
, Heinrich August Wilhelm...
- Commentary on the New Testament, 1884,
1
ИЛА
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
HAND-BOOK
ΤΟ
•
THE EPISTLES
TO THE
PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS,
AND TO 91432
PHILEMON.
AND TO
BY
HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, TH.D.,
OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER.
TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY
REV. JOHN C. MOORE, B.A.
THE TRANSLATION REVISED, AND EDITL'D BY
WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN TEC UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
TITE A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY
TIMOTHY DWIGHT,
PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN YALE COLLEGE.
NEW YORK:
FUNK & WAGNALLS. PUBLISHERS,
10 AND 12 DEY STREET.
1885
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1885,
By FUNK & WAGNALLS,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.'
PREFACE
TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
THE present volume of Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Hand-
book to the New Testament contains the Commentaries on the Epistles
to the Philippians, the Colossians, and Philemon, by Meyer himself,
and the Commentary on the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, by his
coadjutor, Dr. Gottlieb Lünemann. According to the arrangement
of the New Testament books which is found in the English Version,
and also that of the editions of the Greek text which differ in some
respects from the English Version, the Epistle to Philemon is placed
after the Epistle to Titus. It has been deemed best, however, to insert
the commentary upon this Epistle in the present volume, rather than
in the one which includes the Pastoral Epistles, for two reasons: first,
because the Epistle itself was written at the same time with the Epistle
to the Colossians, and secondly, because the commentary upon it was
prepared by Meyer, while the Pastoral Epistles were assigned by him
to one of his fellow-workers, Dr. Huther. It may be added, that the
superintendence of the English translation of the Hand-book by Dr.
Dickson extended to all the parts of which Meyer himself was the
author, but not to those parts which were written by others.
I The English Editor, Dr. Dickson, has prefixed to the volume on
Philippians and Colossians no formal preface, but only a brief prefatory
note. All that is of any present interest in this note is the following
passage :-“The Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians was
translated from the third edition of the German by the late Mr. G. H.
Venables ; but, as it became necessary to incorporate the numerous
alterations and additions made by Dr. Meyer for the fourth edition,
the work of revising and completing the version of Mr. Venables has
been entrusted to the Rev. John C. Moore, who has also executed
independently the greater portion of the translation, from the fourth
German edition, of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians.
I have myself translated a small portion of the latter, and, as in pre-
vious volumes, have revised the whole with some care, and carried it
through the press. It is stated by Dr. Meyer's son, in the Preface to
iii
.
· · PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
iv
the new edition of this volume, that his father had, before his fatal
illness, despatched the one half of the manuscript of his revision to the
printers, and that the other half was found labelled 'ready for the
press. The book, therefore, although issued subsequently to the
author's death, is entirely his own work.” The Commentary on the
Epistle to Philemon, which was published in the English Edition, as
also in the original German work, in the same volume with that on the
Epistle to the Ephesians, was translated by the Rev. Maurice J.
Evans, B.A.
Of the general characteristics of Meyer's work, and of the few
changes made in the American Edition, in the way of transferring
citations, references to authors, and lists of names from the text to the
footnotes, it will be unnecessary to say anything in this volume, in
addition to what has been fully set forth in the parts of the work
already given to the public. With reference to Dr. Lünemann and
his commentary, the translator, Dr. Gloag, has expressed his views in
his Preface, which will be found at the beginning of that part of the
volume which relates to the Epistles to the Thessalonians. Dr. Gloag's
translation was made from the third edition of Lünemann's work. A
fourth edition has since been published in Germany, but with very few
and unimportant additions. These additions have been incorporated
in the present volume,* so that the reader has before him the trans-
lation of the fourth German edition.
In my own work, as the editor of the American Edition of this
portion of the Commentary, I have been influenced by the same feeling
with that which affected me when I undertook the preparation of the
volume on the Epistle to the Romans—namely, that if additional notes
were to be inserted in the American Edition, they should be of such a
character, and so extended, as to give the edition a value of its own,
and thus a reason for its existence. Within the necessarily limited
number of pages allowed me, I have endeavored, according to my
ability, to do what this feeling prompted me to undertake. Whether
* One or two wholly insignificant additions, of two or three lines each, were
accidently overlooked until the pages of this volume were in press, and, as they
would be of no use to the readers, it was thought unnecessary to record them on an
appended page. The most noticeable of these is the expression of the opinion
that Hofmann's explanation of a certain point connected with 1 Thess. iv. 11 is
without any foundation. As this opinion respecting Hofmann's interpretations is
pronounced in forty or fifty different places in Lünemann's Commentary, indeed
on almost every page of the work-not to mention equally numerous instances in
Meyer's notes,- it is hoped that the editor may be pardoned by the indulgent
reader (indulgent to Hofmann, if not to himself), for having omitted this newly-
added case from the fourth edition ;—especially, as the reader will recall to mind
PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
the task has been successfully accomplished, the scholarly reader will
judge for himself, but I trust that he will not find my annotations
altogether unworthy of a place in connection with those of the authors
of the original work.
The plan of my annotations is slightly different from that which was
followed in the volume on the Epistle to the Romans. Instead of
selecting particular Greek words or sentences, sometimes separated
from one another by a considerable space in the original text, I have,
in the present volume, arranged my notes according to the verses of
each chapter continuously from beginning to end. In this way, I have
covered the ground of the whole Epistle in each case. The reader,
however, will not demand of me an 'examination of every word or
phrase, or even a full presentation of every difficult question. To
meet such a demand required, in the case of Meyer and Lünemann,
more than five times the space which has been given to me, and it
will be readily understood, therefore, that my work could only have
completeness within the limitations imposed. Such completeness in
some measure, at least I have made an effort to secure. I have pur-
posely avoided all discussion of the interesting subjects connected with
the Introduction to the Epistles, and have considered but few points of
textual criticism. It seemed better to do one part of the work more
fully, than all parts less fully, and I confined myself, from the outset,
to the explanation of the text in its thought and meaning.
As in the notes on the Epistle to the Romans, I have made but few
references to commentators, and, in general, only to those who are of
quite recent date, and, on this account, are not often, or not at all,
alluded to by Meyer and Lünemann. For the purpose of saving space,
I have usually abbreviated the names of these writers, but they will be
easily recognized by all who are familiar with their works, and by
others on examining the List of Exegetical Literature at the beginning
of the Commentaries on Philippians and Thessalonians. The occa-
sional references to Winer's and Buttmann's Grammars, in my own
notes, are to the pages of the American translations of those works.
The same is the fact with the references marked [E. T.] in the notes
by Lünemann and Meyer. The letters tr. following the names of
Noyes, Davidson, and one or two others, in my own annotations, will
be understood as referring to the translations of the New Testament by
the persons mentioned.
the fact that Hofmann is now dead, and will realize that, though so unfortunately
misguided in his opinions in his life-time, he may be presumed, in the clearer
light of his present existence, to have brought his views of Paul's meaning, in
every instance, into complete harmony with those expressed by Dr. Lünemann.
PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
I have only to add my commendation of the volume, so far as the
work of Meyer and Lünemann fills its pages, to all theological students
and ministers throughout the country, and the expression of my
hope that all who may examine it will find some help from what I
have myself written. I am sure that the book will have a kindly
reception on the part of those who have, at any time within the past
twenty-seven years, studied the Pauline Epistles with me, in the
Divinity School of Yale College ; and to them I dedicate my own por-
tion of it—as I did my part of the volume on the Epistle to the
Romans—with a renewed assurance of my interest in their work and
welfare.
TIMOTHY DWIGHT.
New Haven, Aug. 15th, 1885.
Th
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLES
TO THE
PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS,
AND TO
PHILEMON.
ΤΤΤΤ ΤΗ
IIILUI
[FOR commentaries or collections of notes embracing the whole New Testament,
see Preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew; for those which
deal with the Pauline, or Apostolic, Epistles generally, see Preface to the Com-
mentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The following list includes only those
which concern the Epistle to the Philippians or the Epistle to the Colossians, or
the Epistle to Philemon, or in which one of these Epistles holds the first place
on the title-page. Works mainly of a popular or practical character have, with a .
few exceptions, been excluded, since, however valuable they may be on their own
account, they have but little affinity with the strictly exegetical character of the
present work. Monographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed by
Meyer in loc. The editions quoted are usually the earliest; al. appended denotes
that the book has been more or less frequently reprinted : { marks the date of the
author's death.]
AIRAY (Henry), † 1616, Provost of Queen's College, Oxford: Lectures upon the
4°, Lond. 1618, al.
ATTERSOLL (William), Minister at Infield, Sussex: A Commentary upon the
Epistle to Philemon.
Lond. 1612, 2d ed. 1633.
AM ENDE (Johann Gottfried), † 1821, Superintendent at Neustadt on the Orla :-
annotatione perpetua illustrata.
8°, Viteb. 1798, al.
BÄHR (Carl Christian Wilhelm Felix), Ministerialrath, Baden: Commentar über
den Brief Pauli an die Colosser, mit stäter Berücksichtigung der ältern
und neuern Ausleger.
8°, Basel, 1833.
BARRY (Alfred D.D.), Principal of Kings College, London: Commentary on
Philippians, on Colossians, and on Philemon (in Ellicott's Commentary
for English Readers).
BAUMGARTEN (Sigmund Jakob). See GALATIANS.
BAUMGARTEN-CRUSIUS (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), † 1843, Prof. Theol. at Jena:
Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Epheser und Kolosser ...8°,
Jena, 1845.--Commentar über die Briefe an die Philipper und Thessa-
lonicher ...
89, Jena, 18-18.
vii
viii
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE,
BAYNE (Paul), † 1617, Min. at Cambridge: A Commentarie upon the I. and II.
chapters of Saint Paul to the Colossians ... 4°, Lond. 1634, al.
BEELEN (Jean-Théodore,) R. C. Prof. Or. Lang. at Louvain: Commentarius in
Epistolam S. Pauli ad Philippenses.
8°, Lovanii, 1852.
BLEEK (Friedrich), † 1859, Prof. Theol. at Bonn: Vorlesungen über die Briefe
an die Kolosser, den Philemon und die Epheser ... 8°, Berl. 1865.
BÖHMER: (Wilhelm), Prof. Theol. at Breslau: Theologische Auslegung des paul-
inischen Sendschreibens an die Colosser.
8°, Breslau, 1835.
BRAUNE (Karl), Superintendent at Altenburg in Saxony: Die Briefe Sti. Pauli
an die Epheser, Kolosser, Philipper. Theologisch-homiletisch bearbei-
tet. [In Lange's Bibelwerk.] 8°, Bielefeld, 1867. [Translated from
the German, with additions (Philippians), by Horatio B. Hackett, D.D.,
and (Colossians) by M. B. Riddle, D.D.] 8°, New York and Edin. 1870.
BREITHAUPT (Joachim Justus), † 1732, Prof. Theol. at Halle: Animadversiones
exegeticae et dogmatico-practicae in Epistolam ad Philippenses.
49, Halae, 1703.
BRENZ (or BRENTIUS] (Johann), † 1570, Provost at Stuttgart: Explicatio Episto-
lae ad Philippenses.
8°, Francof. 1548.
BYFIELD (Nicholas), † 1622, Vicar of Isleworth: An Exposition upon the Epistle
to the Colossians ...
4°, 1617, al.
CALIXTUS (Georg). See ROMANS.
CARTWRIGHT (Thomas), † 1603, Prof. Theol. at Cambridge: Commentary on the
Epistle to the Colossians.
. 4°, Lond. 1612.
DAILLE (Jean), † 1670, Pastor at Paris : Exposition sur la divine Épître de l'apô-
tre S. Paul aux Filippiens.
8°, Genev. 1659.
DALMER (Karl Eduard Franz): Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Colosser.
8°, Gotha, 1858.
DANAEUS [DANAEU] (Lambert), † 1596, Pastor at Orthes : Commentarius in
Epistolam ad Philemonen.
89, Geneva, 1579
DAVENANT (John,) † 1641, Bishop of Salisbury: Expositio Epistolae Pauli ad
Colossenses, 2°, Cantab. 1627, al. [Translated, with notes, by Josiah
Allport. 2 vols...
8°, Lond. 1831.]
DAVIES (JOHN LLEWELYN), Rector of Christ Church, Marylebone: The Epistles
of St. Paul to the Ephesians, the Colossians, and Philemon, with intro-
duction and notes, and an essay on the traces of foreign elements in the
theology of these Epistles.
89, Lond. 1867.
DEMME (Jacob Friedrich Ignaz): Erklärung des Briefes an den Philemon.
8°, Breslau, 1844.
DYKE (Daniel), † c. 1614, Minister at St. Albans: A fruitful Exposition upon
Philemon.
4°, Lond. 1618.
EADIE (John), D.D., † 1876, Prof. Bibl. Lit. to the United Presbyterian Church: A
Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Philip-
pians.
89, Edin. 1859.
A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle to the Colossians.
8°, Lond. and Glasg. 1856.
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
is
·
ELLICOTT (Charles John), D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol: A Critical and
Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Philippians, Colos-
sians, 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), † 1667, Minister at Kilwinning: A Briefe Exposition of the
Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and Colossians. 8°, Edin. 1656, al.
FLATT (Johann Friedrich), † 1821, Prof. Theol. at, Tübingen: Vorlesungen über
die Briefe Pauli an die Philipper, Kolosser, Thessalonicher, und den
Philemon, herausgegeben von Chr. F. Kling. 8º, Tübing. 1829.
GENTILIS (Scipione), † 1616, Prof. Law at Altdorf: Commentarius in Epistolam
ad Philemonem.
4°, Norimb. 1618, [Crit. Sac. vii. 2.]
HAGENBACH (Karl Rudolph), † 1874, Prof. Theol. at Basel: Pauli Epistolam ad
Philemonem interpretatus est C. R. Hagenbach. 4°, Basil, 1829.
HEINRICHS (Johann Heinrich), Superintendent at Burgdorf: Testamentum Novum
Graece perpetuo annotatione illustravit J. P. Koppe. Vol. vii. p. 2. Com-
plectens Pauli Epistolas ad Philippenses et Colossenses. Continuavit
J. H. Heinrichs.
.8°Götting. 1803, ed. II., 1826,
HENGEL (Wessel Albert van), Prof. Theol. at Leyden: Commentarius perpetuus
in Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses.
80, Lugd. Bat. 1839.
HOELEMANN (Hermann Gustav), Teacher in Gymnasium at Zwickau : Commen-
tarius in Epistolam divi Pauli ad Philippenses. (THEILE: Comment.
in N. T., vol. xxii.]
... 80, Lips. 1839.
HOFMANN (Johann Christian Konrad von), Prof. Theol. at Erlangen: Die Heilige
Schrift des N. T. zusammenhängend untersucht. IV. 2. Die Briefe
Pauli an die Kolosser und Philemon. IV. 3. Der Brief Pauli an die
Philipper.
89, Nördlingen, 1870–2.
HOLTZMANN (Heinrich Johann), Prof. Theol. in Strassburg: Kritik der Epheser
und Kolosserbriefe auf Grund einer Analyse ihres Verwandschafts-
verhältnisses.
. 8°, Leipzig, 1872.
HUMMEL (Johann Heinrich), † 1674, Dean at Berne: Explanatio Epistolae ad
Philemonem.
2°, Tiguri, 1670.
HUTHER (Johann Eduard), Pastor at Wittenförden, Schwerin: Commentar über
den Brief Pauli an die Colosser.
8°, Hamb. 1841.
JATHO (Georg Friedrich), Director of Gymnasium at Hildesheim: Pauli Brief
an die Philipper.
80, Hildesheim, 1857.
JONES (William, D.D.): A Commentary on the Epistles to Philemon and the
Hebrews.
2°, Lond. 1635.
JUNKER (Friedrich): Historisch-kritischer und philologischer Commentar über
den Brief Pauli an die Colosser ...
8°, Mannheim, 1828.
KÄHLER (C. R.): Auslegung der Epistel an die Philipper. 8º, Kiel, 1855.
KLOPPER (Albrecht): Der Brief an die Kolosser kritisch untersucht und in
seinem Verhältnisse zum Paulinischen Lehrbegriff exegetisch und bib-
lisch-theologisch erörtert.
89, Berlin, 1882.
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
KOCH (August): Kommentar über den Brief Pauli an den Philemon.
80, Zürich, 1846.
KOPPE. See EPHESIANS.
KRAUSE (Friedrich August Wilhelm), † 1827, Tutor at Vienna : Die Briefe an
die Philipper und Thessalonicher übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen
begleitet.
80, Frankf. 1790.
KRAUSE (Johann Friedrich), † 1820, Superintendent at Weimar: Observationes
critico-exegeticae in Pauli Epistolae ad Philippenses c. i. et ii.
4°, Regimont. [1810].
KÜHNE (Franz Robert): Die Epistel Pauli an Philemon in Bibel-stunden ...
ausgelegt, 2 Bändchen.
8°, Leipzig, 1856.
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.
89, 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.
LUMBY (J. Rawson, D.D.), St. Catharine's College, Cambridge: Commentary on
Philippians, and also on Philemon. (In Schaff's Popular Commentary).
New York, 1882.
MANOURY (A. F.). See PASTORAL EPISTLES.
MATTHIAS (Konrad Stephan), Prof. Theol. at Greifswald: Erklärung des Briefes
Pauli an die Philipper.
89, Greifswald, 1835.
MAYERHOFF (Ernst Theodor): Der Brief an die Kolosser mit vornehmlicher
Berücksichtigung der Pastoralbriefe kritisch geprüft. 89, Berl. 1838.
MELANCHTHON (Philipp), † 1560, Reformer: Enarratio Epistolae Pauli ad
Colossenses.
.
8°, Viteb. 1559, al.
MICHAELIS (Johann David). See GALATIANS.
MÜLLER (Cornelius): Commentatio de locis quibusdam Epistolae ad Philippenses.
4°, Hamburgi, 1844.
MUSCULUS [or MEUSSLIN] (Wolfgang), † 1563, Prof. Theol. at Berne: In Epis-
tolas ad Philippenses, Colossenses, Thessalonicenses ambas et primam ad
Timotheum commentarii.
2°, Basil, 1565, al.
NEANDER (Johann August Wilhelm), † 1850, Prof. Theol. at Berlin: Der Brief
Pauli an die Philipper praktisch erläutert ... 8°, Berl. 1849.
PEIRCE (James), † 1726, Minister at Exeter: A Paraphrase and Notes on the
Epistles of St. Paul to the Colossians, Philippians, and Hebrews, after
the manner of Mr. Locke ...
4°, Lond. 1727, al.
RETTIG (Heinrich Christian Michael), † 1836, Prof. Theol. at Zürich : Quaestiones
Philippenses.
8°, Giessen. 1831.
RHEINWALD (Georg Friedrich Heinrich), † 1849, Prof. Theol. at Bonn: Com-
mentar über den Brief Pauli an die Philipper. 8°, Berl. 1827.
RIDDLE (Matthew B., D.D.), Prof. Exeg. at Hartford: Commentary on Colossians.
(In Schaff's Popular Commentary).
New York, 1882.
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
· RILLIET (Albert), Prof. Theol. at Geneva: Commentaire sur l'épître de l'apôtre
Paul aux Philippiens ...
80, Génève, 1841.
ROELL (Herman Alexander), † 1718, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Brevis Epistolae
Pauli ad Colossenses exegesis.
4°, Traject. 1731.
ROLLOCK (Robert), † 1598, Principal of the Univ. of Edinburgh: In Epistolam
ad Philemonem Commentarius.
8°, Geneva, 1602.
ROTHE (Moritz): Pauli ad Philemonem Epistolae interpretatio historico-exegetica.
89, Bremae, 1844.
SCHENKEL (Daniel), Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg: Die Briefe an die Epheser,
Philipper, Kolosser. Theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet. [In Lange's
Bibelwerk.]
8°, Bielefeld, 1862.
SCHINZ (Wilhelm Heinrich): Die christliche Gemeinde zu Philippi.
80, Zürich, 1833.
SCHMID (Leberecht Christian Gottlieb), † 1836, Pastor at Glösa: Pauli ad Phile-
monem Epistola Graece et Latine illustrata.
8°, Lips. 1786.
SCHMID (Sebastian). See ROMANS.
SCHOTANUS (Meinardus H.), † 1644, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Analysis et Commen-
taria in Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses.
4°, Franek. 1637.
SPEAKER'S (Bible] Commentary: On Philippians, by the very Rev. J. Gwynn,
Dean of Raphoe, with selections from notes by Dean Jeremie. On
Colossians and Philemon, by the Lord Bishop of Derry.
STEIGER (Wilhelm), † 1836, Prof. Theol. at Geneva: Der Brief Pauli an die
Colosser; Uebersetzung, Erklärung, einleitende und epikritische Abhand-
lungen.
89, Erlangen, 1835.
STORR (Gottlob Christian), † 1805, Prof. Theol. at Tübingen: Dissertatio exegetica
in Epistolam ad Philippenses. . . . Dissertatio exegetica in Epistolae ad
Colossenses partem priorem [et posteriorem]...
4°, Tübing. [1783–87].
Expositions of the Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and Colossians by
John Calvin and D. Gottlob Christian Storr. Translated from the orig-
inal by Robert Johnston. [Biblical Cabinet.] 12°, Edin. 1842.
SUICERUS (SCHWEITZER] (Johann Heinrich), Prof. of Greek in Heidelberg: In
Epistolam ad Colossenses commentarius critico-exegeticus.
4°, Tiguri, 1699.
TAYLOR (Thomas), † 1632, Minister in London: Commentarius in Epistolam ad
Philemonem.
2°, Lond. 1659.
TIL (Salomon van). See ROMANS.
VAN OOSTERZEE (Johannes Jacob), Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Die Pastoralbriefe
und der Brief an Philemon Theologisch-Homiletisch bearbeitet, Lange's
Bibelwerk; Vol. XI.
89, Bielefeld, 1861.
On Philemon, translated from the German, with additions, by Prof. H.
B. Hackett, D. D. (In Schaff's Ed. of Lange). 89, New York, 1869.
VAUGHAN (C. J.) Lectures on St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians.
80, Lond. 1882.
xii
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
VELASQUEZ (Juan Antonio), S. J.: In Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses commen-
taria et adnotationes.
2°, Lugd. et Paris. 1628–33.
VICTORINUS (C. Marius), about A.D. 360, teacher of rhetoric at Rome: In Epis-
tolam ad Philippenses liber unicus. [In Mai's Scrip. Vet. Nov. Coll. iii. 1.]
VINCENT (Jean): Explicatio familiaris in Epistolam D. Pauli ad Philemonem.
2°, Paris, 1647.
WEIFFENBACH (Prof. Dr. Wilhelm): Zur Auslegung der Stelle Philipper ii.
5-11.
8°, Karlsruhe, 1884.
WEISS (Bernbard), 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 Nördlingen: Die
Briefe des Apostel Paulus an die Philipper, an Titus, Timotheus und
Philemon erklärt. [In Olshausen's Commentar,] 8°, Königsb. 1850.
[Translated by the Rev. John Fulton, A. M. 89, Edin. 1851. The trans-
lation revised, with additional notes, by Prof. A. C. Kendrick, D.D.
New York, 1858.]
ZACHARIAE (Gotthilf Traugott). See GALATIANS.
THE
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
!
INTRODUCTION.
SEC. I.--THE PHILIPPIAN COMMUNITY.

oo HE fortified city of Philippi” was situated in Macedonia, on
the borders of Thrace; in earlier times, as a Thasian colony, it
was called, from its site abounding in springs, Korvides (Diodor.
S. xvi. 3. 8; Strabo, vii. p. 490), but it changed this name for
that of its enlarger and fortifier, Philip, the son of Amyntas. It was rich
in gold mines (Herod. vi. 46; Appian. Bell. civ. iv. 15; Strabo, vii. p. 511);
and the victory over Brutus and Cassius made it a landmark in the history
of the world. Through this overthrow of Roman freedom it acquired a
high rank as a Roman colony with the Jus Italicum (see on Acts xvi. 11);
but it obtained another and higher historical interest, attended by a greater
gain for the Roman Empire, through the fact that it was the first city in
Europe in which Paul, under the divine direction in a nocturnal vision
(see on Acts xvi. 9 f.), and amid ill-treatment and persecution (Acts xvi.
16 ff.; 1 Thess. ii. 2), planted Christianity. Thus did the city vindicate its
original name, in a higher sense, for the entire West. This event took
place in the year 53, during the second missionary journey of the apostle,
who also, in his third journey, labored among the Macedonian churches
(Acts xx. 1 f.), and especially in Philippi (Acts xx. 6). With what rich
success he there established Christianity is best shown by our epistle itself,
1. See generally, Mynster, Einleit. in d. Br.
an d. Philipper, in his Kl. theol. Schriften,
p. 169 ff.; Hoog, de coetus Christ. Philipp.
conditione, etc., Lugd. Bat. 1825; Rettig,
Quaest. Philipp., Giess. 1831; Schinz, d. christi.
Gem. 2. Phil., Zürich, 1833; J. B. Lightfoot,
St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians, Lond. 1868,
p. 46 ff.
? Now the village of Felibah. On the site
and the ruins, see Cousinéry, Voyage dans la
Macéd., Paris, 1831, II. ch. x. p. 1 ff.; Perrot
in the Revue archéolog. 1860, II. pp. 44 ff., 67 ff.
2
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
.
which exhibits a more cordial, affectionate, and undisturbed relation
between the church and the apostle, and bears a more unalloyed testimony
to the distinction of the church (comp. especially iv. 1), than we find in
any other apostolic letter. This peculiar mutual affection also explains
the fact that Paul, contrary to his usual custom, accepted aid on more than
one occasion from the Philippians. (iv. 10 ff.; 2 Cor. xi. 9); from which,
however, on account of this very love, we are not entitled to infer that they
were specially wealthy. The Jews were so few in number that they had
only a apogeuxń (see on Acts xvi. 13), and the Christian church was one
consisting mostly of those who had been Gentiles. The view which dis-
covers a Judaizing faction (iii. 2) in it (Storr, Flatt, Bertholdt, Eichhorn,
Rheinwald, Guericke, and others), seems all the more unwarrantable,
when we consider how deeply the apostle was concerned to ward off from
his beloved Philippians the danger, at that time everywhere so imminent,
of the intrusion of Judaistic disturbance, and how susceptible the Philip-
pians themselves were to such a danger, owing to a certain spiritual con-
ceit? which had already impaired their unanimity (i. 12-ii. 16, iv. 2).
Comp. i. 28. See, against the view of heretical partisanship, Schinz, p. 48
ff.; Rilliet, Commentaire, Geneva, 1841, p. 352 ff.; Weiss, Introduction to
his Ausleg., Berl. 1859; compare, however, Huther in the Mecklenb. theolog.
Zeitschrift, 1862, p. 623 ff.
2
SEC. 2.-PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION, OCCASION, AND
CONTENTS.
It is justly the universal tradition (Chrysostom; Euthalius, in Zacagni,
Coll. vet. mon. pp. 547, 642, 648; Synopsis of Athanasius, Syrian Church, the
subscriptions), and the almost unanimous view of modern writers, that the
epistle was written in Rome. We are pointed to Rome by the oikia Kaioapos
(iv. 22), and by the crisis between life and death in which Paul was placed,
-a crisis which presupposes his appeal to the emperor, as the ultimate
legal resort (i. 20 ff., ii. 17),—as well as by the entire conformity of his
position and work (i. 12 ff.) to what we find recorded in Acts xxviii. 16 ff.
The epistle must, moreover, have been written during the later period of
the Roman captivity; for the passages, i. 12 ff., ii. 26 ff., betoken that a
somewhat lengthened course of imprisonment had elapsed, and the apostle
was already abandoned by all his more intimate companions (ii. 20), ex-
1 Credner, 2 158 f., represents the conceit of
the Philippians as apparent also in“the servile
courting of the rank of a pútn módes.” But
the statement in Acts xvi. 12, which, besides,
is purely historical, gives no warrant for the
charge of any arbitrary assumption of rank.
INTRODUCTION.
3
.
.
cept Timothy (i. 1). A more precise specification, such as Hofmann in
particular gives (that the apostle had then been transferred from his hired
dwelling to the prison-house), is not deducible either from i. 12 ff., or from
the mention of the Praetorium and the imperial house. We must reject
the isolated attempts to transfer its composition to Corinth (Acts xviii. 12;
Oeder, Progr., Onold. 1731) or to Caesarea (Acts xxiii. 23-xxvi. 32; Paulus,
Progr., Jen. 1799; and Böttger, Beitr. I. p. 47 ff.; favored also by Rilliet,
and Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 212). Concerning and against
these views, see particularly Hoelemann, Commentar, 1839, p. iii. ff.; Nean-
der, Gesch. d. Pflanzung, etc., p. 498 f.
We are to assume, therefore, as the date of composition, not indeed the
full expiration of the Siería öhn of Acts xxviii. 30 (Hofmann), but the latter
portion of that period,—in the year 63 possibly, or the beginning of 64.'
See on Acts, Introd. & 4.
The occasion of the epistle was the fact that the Philippians had sent
Epaphroditus with pecuniary aid to Paul, who, on the return of the former
after his recovery from “a sickness nigh unto death,” made him the bearer
of the letter (ii. 25-28). In the utterances of the epistle, however, there is
nothing to suggest any special change in the situation of the apostle as hav-
ing afforded a motive for this gift on the part of the church; and it is an
uncertain reading between the lines to assume, with Hofmann, not merely
that the apostle was transferred to the prison-house, but that with that
transference the process had reached the stage of its judicial discussion, in
which the Philippians believed that they could not but discern a change
to the worse for Paul, whom they regarded as suffering privations in
prison. Those traces, also, which Hofmann has discovered of a letter of the
church brought-to Paul by Epaphroditus along with the contribution, and
expressing not only the concern of the Philippians for the apostle, but 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 Epa-
phroditus in order to account for the apostle's acquaintance with the cir-
cumstances of the Philippians. And just as the aid tendered by the care-
ful love of the church had furnished the occasion for this letter to them, so
also does its entire tenor breathe forth the heartfelt and touching love,
i Marcion properly assigned to our epistle the last place, in point of time, among his ten
Pauline epistles.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
which the captive apostle cherished towards his Philippians. Not one of
his epistles is so rich as this in hearty effusions of affection and in tender
references; and not one of them is so characteristically epistolary, without
any rigid arrangement, almost without dogmatic discussion, as also with-
out quotations from the Old Testament or dialectic chains of reasoning.
Not one is so eminently an epistle of the feelings, an outburst of the
moment, springing from the deepest inward need of loving fellowship
amidst outward abandonment and tribulation; a model, withal, of the
union of tender love, and at times an almost elegiac impress of courageous
resignation in the prospect of death, with high apostolic dignity and
unbroken holy joy, hope, and victory over the world. “Summa epistolae:
Gaudeo, gaudete,” Bengel; comp. Grotius: “laetior alacriorque et blandior
ceteris."
After the apostolic salutation (i. 1 f.), Paul, with heart-winning fervor,
expresses thanks, intercession, and confidence as regards his readers (i. 3-
11), and then enlarges on his present position, with his hope of a speedy
return (i. 12-26); after which he exhorts them to unanimity and humility,
and generally to the Christian life (i. 27 - ii. 18). He promises to send
Timothy to them soon, yet trusts that he himself shall also soon come
to them (ii. 19–24); in the meantime he sends away to them Epaphro-
ditus, their messenger, who is delicately and touchingly commended to
them (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 salvation, and so to
maintain their Christian standing (iii. 2-iv. 1). After a special exhorta-
tion to, and commendation of, two women (iv. 2, 3), the apostle subjoins
the concluding words of encouragement (iv. 4-9), to which he had
already set himself in ii. 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).
SEC. 3.-GENUINENESS AND UNITY.
The genuineness of this epistle is established externally by the continuous
testimonies of the ancient church from Polycarp, iii. 11, onward; see
Marcion in Epiph. Haer. 42; Canon Murat.; Tertull. C. Marc. v. 19,
de praescr. 36; literal use made of it, as early as the epistle from Vienne
and Lyons, in Eus. V. 2; direct quotations from it in Iren. iv. 18. 4, v. 13.
3; Cypr. Test. iii. 39; Clem. Paed. i. 107; Tert. de resurr. 23, 47,-in the
INTRODUCTION.
5
,
presence of which testimonies it is unnecessary to adduce uncertain
allusions from apostolic Fathers and Apologists. Internally it bears the
seal of genuineness in the thoroughly Pauline character of its 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 Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, p. 196), has'
directed his bold attacks against this epistle also (see his Paulus der Ap.
Jesu Christi, 1845, p. 458 ff., and second ed. II. p. 50 ff.; also in the theol.
Jahrb. 1849, p. 501 ff., 1852, p. 133 ff.); and Schwegler, nachapostol. Zeitalt.
II. p. 133 ff., has adopted the same views. See, against these attacks,
now hardly worth the trouble of refutation, beside the Commentaries
and Introductions, Lünemann, Pauli ad Phil. epist. contra Baurum defend.,
Gött. 1847; Brückner, Ep. ad Phil. Paulo auctori vindicata contra Baur.,
Lips. 1848; Ernesti in the Stud. U. Krit. 1848, p. 858 ff., 1851, p. 595 ff.;
Grimm in the Lit. Bl. of the Allg. K. Z. 1850, No. 149 ff., 1851, No. 6 ff.;
Hilgenfeld in his 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 labors 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 presupposition, and on a
mistaken judgment as to the distinctive epistolary peculiarity of the letter,
and as to the special tone of feeling on the part of the apostle in his pres-
ent position generally and towards his Philippians. Lastly, we must
reckon as wholly fanciful the doubt thrown upon what is said at i. 12,
for which a combination of this passage with iv. 22 is alleged to furnish
ground, and to which the mention of Clement, iv. 3, who is taken to
be Clement of Rome, and is supposed to weave the bond of unity round
Paul and Peter, must supply the key; while the supposed anachronism in
the mention of the bishops and deacons in i. 1, the Euodia and Syntyche
in iv. 2, and the ovšvyos yvholos in iv. 3, are likewise wrongly adduced against
1 Compare also Planck in the same, 1847, p. 181 f.; Köstlin in the same, 1850, p. 263 ff.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
the Pauline authorship. Indeed, even the historical occasion of the
epistle-the aid sent to Paul—is made to appear as a fictitious incident
at variance with 1.Cor. ix. 15. The special arguments of Baur are set
aside by an impartial interpretation of the passages to which they refer,
and the same may be said with regard to the latest attacks of Hitzig
(zur Kritike d. paulin. Briefe, 1870) and of Hinsch (in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift,
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 Zeitschr.
Heinrichs, with whom Paulus in the main concurred, Heidelb. Jahrb.
1817, 7, has sought to do away with the unity of the epistle by the assump-
tion that there were originally two epistles,—one exoteric, addressed to the
whole church, consisting of i. 1-iii. 1, xalpete év kupiw, and the salutations,
iv. 21–23; the other esoteric, to the apostle's more intimate friends, which
contained from ii. 1, rà avrà ypápelv, down to iv. 20. But this idea is noth-
ing but a consequence of misconceiving the free epistolary movement,
which, especially in a letter like this called forth by a special occasion, and
addressed to a community so dear to him, might naturally be most unfet-
tered (see on iii. 1); and in this case, the distinction of exoteric and
esoteric elements is a mistake, which is no less unhistorical than contrary
to all psychological probability.
From iii. 1 we must, moreover, assume that, prior to our epistle, Paul
had addressed another letter to the Philippians, which is not now extant;
and this is confirmed by Polycarp (Phil. 3). See on iii. 1, remark.
i Without any grounds whatever, Weisse
(see his Beiträge 2. 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. onward as the fragment of a second
Epistle to the Philippians.
Παύλου επιστολή προς Φιλιππησίους.
ABDEFG & have merely προς Φιλιππησίους.
CHAPTER I.
Ver. 1. 'Indow Xplotov] Lachm. and Tisch, read Xploto✓ Inoow. The same in
vv. 6 and 8. This is to be preferred on account of the strong attestation of BD
Ex (the latter, however, only in v. 1 and 8), which is reinforced in ver. 8 by
A ; it was readily supplanted by the more usual 'I. X.— Ver. 7. Elz. has merely
tñ ánohoy. without év. Lachm. has év, which Griesb., Matth., Scholz, and Tisch.
adopt, in brackets. It is found in B D** E KLPX, min. Syr. Copt. Arr. Vulg.
It. and some Fathers. Looking at this indecisive attestation, and seeing that év
might more readily be supplementarily or mechanically added than omitted,
it should be deleted.-Ver. 8. Łotív] after pov is defended by Griesb., bracketed
by Lachm., omitted by Tisch., following BFG**, min. Vulg. It. Aeth. Chrys.
An addition made from a reminiscence of Rom. i. 9.- Ver. 9. Teploreun] BDE
have temroneuon. So Lachm., who has placed Teplogeún in the margin, and Tisch.
7. With the considerable testimony which exists in favor of the Recepta, restored
also by Tisch. 8, it should be retained, as teplorevon might very easily originate
in the similarity of sound in the following final syllables: ÉnlyVÓŁEI, TÁEHI,
and aioOnLEI. The Recepta is also supported by the readings TEPLOqevel and
Teplodevol.Ver. 11. Elz. has kaprūv ... twv, against decisive testimony. An
emendation.-Ver. 14. Lach. and Tisch. 8 have ToŨ OkoŨ after hóyov, although,
according to testimony of some weight (such as A B x, Clem.), only an explana-
tory addition, which some Codd. give in a different position, while others change
it into toũ kupíov.-Vv. 16, 17. Elz. reverses their position: oi uÈv & éputelas ...
Lov oi dè ég áyárons . . . KEīual, against decisive testimony. A transposition
intended to produce uniformity with ver. 10.-Instead of yelperv (Griesb.,
Lachm., Tisch.) Elz. has &T COÉPELV, which is defended by Matth. and Scholz, and
vindicated by Reiche. But tyelp. is decisively attested by the preponderance of
uncials (including ) and vss. ; ÉTTLDÉpely, instead of which Theophyl. ms. has
at poopépslv, is an ancient gloss. — Ver. 18. Thív] B has ÖTL; A FGP x, min. some
vss. and Fathers : n v ötl. So Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But the reference of the
ihnu not being understood, it was explained by the Öte written on the margin,
which has in some cases (B) supplanted the ahív, and in others passed into the
text along with it.-Ver. 21. Xplotós] xpnotóv was so isolated and weak in attesta-
tion (Ar. pol.), that it should not have been recommended by Griesb., following
earlier authority.--Ver. 23. Elz. has yáp instead of dè, against decisive testimony.
1 The Philippians are also called PLALTÝOLOL
by Steph. Byz., PLALTTTTTIVOL by Polyb. (accord
ing to Steph. Byz.), Dedintreîs in the Corp.
Inscript.
8
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
The yap after moram is neither critically nor exegetically to be rejected. See
Reiche, Comm. crit.— Ver. 24. év tīj oapki] év is wanting in ACP X, min. Clem. Or.
Petr. alex. Cyr. Chrysost. Wrongly condemned by Griesb. and Tisch. 8; for év
might easily be absorbed by the final syllable of TALLÉVELV, especially as it is fre-
quently used elsewhere with the simple dative.-Ver. 25. oujitupajevā] Lachm.
and Tisch. 8 read rapajeva, which Griesb. also approved of, following A B C D*
F G x, min. A neglect of the doubly compound verb, attested certainly more
weakly, but yet by D*** E KLP, 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 acouow, Lach. and
Tisch. 8 read ákovw, but without a preponderance of testimony in its favor.--Ver.
28. έστιν αυτοίς] Ela. has αυτούς μεν εστίν, against decisive testimony.–υμίν] A B
C** ; min. vss. Aug. read úuāv. So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the dative is
a mechanical alteration in accordance with the preceding avrois and the following
juiv.-Ver. 30. Elz. has idete. But εidete is attested by A C D* E* x, min. and
Fathers, and was supplanted by idete through Itacism.
CONTENTS.---After the greeting to his readers (vv. 1, 2), Paul assures them
of his gratitude towards God on account of their condition as Christians
(vv. 3–5), while as regards the future also he has confidence, in accordance
with his heartfelt love towards them, as to the continued work of God in
their case (vv. 6-8). His prayer is, that their love may increase yet more
and more on behalf of Christian perfection to the glory of God (vv. 9–11).
He then declares how his present position redounds to the furtherance of
the gospel, to which even the preaching of those who are actuated by
impure motives contributes (vv. 12–18), because Christ in fact is preached,
which must tend to his-the apostle's-salvation, since now nothing else
but the glorification of Christ in his case will be the result, whether he
remains alive in the body or not (vv. 19-21). Which of the two he should
prefer, he knows not; since, however, the former is more needful for the
sake of his readers, he is convinced that it will be the case for their fur-
therance and joy (vv. 22–26). Only their conduct should be in conformity
with the gospel, in order that he, if he should come again to them, or
should be absent, might learn their Christian unity and fearlessness
(vv. 27–30).
Vv. 1, 2. Kai Tru60.] [On vv. 1, 2, see Note I. pages 46, 47], not as aman-
uensis, although he may have been so (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 21 ; 2 Thess. iii.
17; Col. iv. 18; and see on Gal. vi. 11), for from Rom. xvi. 22 we must
assume that the amanuensis as such is not included in the superscription;
nor yet merely as taking part in the greeting (Estius, Weiss), for ver. 1 is
the address of the epistle, and as such names those from whom it einanates ;
but as subordinate joint-writer of the letter (comp. on 1 Cor. i. 1; 2 Cor. i. 1;
Col. i. 1; Philem. 1), who, as a distinguished helper of the apostle, and
well known to the readers, adopts the teachings, exhortations, etc. of the
letter, which the apostle had previously discussed with him, as his own.
At the same time, the apostle himself remains so completely the proper
and principal writer of the epistle, that so early as ver. 3 he begins to
speak solely in his own person, and in ii. 19 speaks of Timothy, who was
CHAP. I. 1, 2.
to be sent to them, as a third person. Nevertheless this joint mention of
Timotlıy must have been as accordant with the personal relation existing
between the latter and the readers (Acts xvi. 10 ff., xix. 22), as it was
serviceable in preparing the way for the intended sending of Timothy (ii.
19), and generally edifying and encouraging as a testimony of the inti-
mate fellowship between the apostle and his subordinate fellow-laborer 1.-
Souho. X. 'I] The fact that Paul does not expressly assert his apostolic
dignity by the side of Timothy (as in 2.Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1), may be explained
by the intimate and cordial relation in which he stood to the Philippians;
for in regard to them he saw no external cause, and felt no internal need,
for making this assertion; and we may assume the same thing in Philem.
1. The non-mention of his apostolic dignity in the First and Second
Epistles to the Thessalonians is, considering the early date at which they
were composed, to be similarly explained (see Lünemann on 1 Thess. i. 1).
In their joint designation as dowhou ’I. X. (see on Rom. i. 1),-a designation
resulting from the deep consciousness of the specific vocation of their
lives (1 Cor. iv. 1),—both the apostleship of Paul and the official position
of Timothy (comp. Rom. xvi. 21: Tlu60. ó ovvePyóg uov; Col. iv. 12) are
included. Compare ouvdoulos, Col. i. 7, iv. 7.—Tois áyious šv X. 'I.] see on Rom.
i. 7, and on riylaquévos šv X. 'I., 1 Cor. i. 2.- À ÉTLOK. K. Slakóv.] along with
overseers and decicons. Paul writes to all2 the Christians at Philippi (comp.
Rom. i. 7), bishops and deacons being expressly included (ovv, comp. Acts
xiv. 5). As official designations, the words did not require the article
(Kühner, ad. Xen. Anab. iii. 5.7: otpatnyoù dè kaì hoxayol), although par-
ticular persons are meant (in opposition to Hofmann), who are regarded,
however, just as office-bearers. The reason why the latter are specially
mentioned in the salutation, in a way not found in any other epistle, inust
be sought in the special occasion of the letter, as the aid which had been
1 In general, when Paul names others be-
sides himself in the address, the ground for
it must be sought for in the relation in which
those named-who were then present with
Paul-stood to the churches concerned, and
not in any wish on his part to give by that
means to the epistles an official and public
character (Huther on Col. p. 45, with whom
Corn. Müller agrees, Commentat. de loc.
quibusd. ep. ad Phil., Hamb. 1843, p. 5); for in
that case the Epistles to the Romans and
Ephesians would least of all bear the Apos-
le's name alone. To him, too, with his
rersonal consciousness of his high apostolic
standing (Gal. i. 1), the need of any confirma-
tion or corroboration by others must have
been an idea utterly foreign. Lastly, this
very Epistle to the Philippians bears less
of the official and more of the familiar
character than any of the others.-The fact,
moreover, that in almost all the epistles,
in the superscription of which Paul does
not name himself alone, Timothy is men
tioned with him (Silvanus being named with
the latter in 1 and 2 Thessalonians), is a
proof that Timothy was the apostle's most
intimate companion, and was highly esteemed
among the churches. In 1 Corinthians only,
Sosthenes, and not Timothy, is mentioned
along with Paul in the address.
2 For all had, in fact, by their common
readiness in offering given occasion to the
apostolic letter. Thus the decorum of reply
naturally gave rise to the insertion of the
otherwise superfluous tol, without its imply-
ing any special design of not putting to shame
those who possibly had not contributed (van
Hengel). And when Paul still further in this
Epistle makes mention repeatedly and car-
nestly of all his readers (i. 4, 7 f., 25, ii. 17, 26,
iv. 25), the simple and natural explanation is
to be sought in the feeling of special all-
embracing love, by which he was attached to
this well-constituted church not divided by
any factions. Hence there is no ground for
seeking further explanation, as e. g. de Wetto
10
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
conveyed to Paul could not have been collected without the guidance,
and co-operation otherwise, of these office-bearers. They might even
have transmitted to him the money by means of an accompanying letter in
the name of the church (Ewald; compare Hofmann); there is, however,
no trace elsewhere of this. Arbitrary suggestions are made by Cornelius
a Lapide and Grotius : that he thus arranged the salutation with reference
to Epaphroditus, who was one of the ĚTLOKOTTOL; by Matthias : that the
επίσκοποι and διάκονοι had specially distinguished themselves among the
Philippians by their zeal and energy; by Rilliet and Corn. Müller: that
the intention was to describe the church as a regularly constituted one, or
as an undivided whole (Rheinwald), a collective body organized into unity
(Hofmann) (which, in fact, other churches to whom Paul wrote were
also); or that, with the view of preventing disunion, Paul wished to
suggest to them the recognition of the office as an antidote to self-
exaltation (Wiesinger). Other expositors have given yet other expla-
nations.--The writing of the words as one: OVVETLOKÓTOLS (B** D*** K,
Chrysost. Theophyl. min.) is to be rejected, because oùu would be without
appropriate reference, and the epistle is addressed to the whole community.
See already Theodore of Mopsuestia.-As to the bishops, called from their
official duty ŠTÍOKOTOL (Acts xx. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 7), or figuratively
TOLMÉVES (Eph. iv. 11), and after the Jewish-theocratic analogy apeoßútepot,
see on Acts xx. 28, Eph. iv. 11. And how much the plural is at variance
with the Catholic doctrine of the episcopate, see in Calovius. The absence
also of any mention of presbyters? strikingly shows that the latter were
still at that time identical with the bishops. As to the Slakovía, the care of
the poor, sick, and strangers, comp. on Rom. xii. 7, xvi. 1; 1 Cor. xii. 28.
We may add that the placing of the officials after the church generally,
which is not logically requisite, and the mere subjoining of them by oùv,
are characteristic of the relation between the two, which had not yet
undergone hierarchical dislocation. Comp. Acts xv. 4; Heb. xiii. 24.
Cornelius a Lapide, following Thomas Aquinas, sagely observes, that "the
shepherd who rules goes behind the flock !”—xápis úuiv k. 7.2.] See on Rom.
i. 7.
Ver. 3 f. [On vv. 3-11, see Note II pages 47-50] Comp. Rom.i.9; 1 Cor.
i. 4; Eph. i. 16; 1 Thess. i. 2; Philem. 4; Col. i. 3.—Ểì cáơn Tĩ Lucia Du.]
not: in every recollection, but, as the article requires : in my whole
recollection of you, so that the sense is not: as often as I remember you
(so usually, following Chrysostom and Luther), but: my remembrance of
does, by suggesting erroneously that "Paul
wished to manifest his impartiality with
regard to the dissension in the church."
1 There is therefore the less ground for
Baur bringing forward the mention of bishops
and deacons in this passage to help the proof
of a post-apostolic composition of the epistle,
as is also done by Hinsch in the passage
specified. See, against this, Hilgenfeld in his
Zeitschr. 1873, p. 178 f.
? In the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philip
pians, peoBútepou and diákovou are spoken of
as existing in Philippi, but no ésiOKOTOS. See
especially chap. v. 6. Therefore even at this
later period bishops and presbyters were
identical in Philippi.
3 Comp. particularly Acts xx. 17, 28; and
see Ritschal, altkath. Kirche, p. 400 ff; also J.
B. Lightfoot, p. 93 ff., and Jul. Müller, dogmal.
Abh. p. 581. Mistaken view in Döllinger's
CHAP. I. 3, 4.
11 :
you in its entire tenor and compass is mingled with thankfulness towards
God. On émi with the dative, comp. ii. 17. Maldonatus, Homberg, Peirce,
Michaelis, Bretschneider, Hofmann, are mistaken in making úrūv geni-
tive of the subject (and trì as stating the ground, 1 Cor. i. 4): "that ye are
constantly mindful of me,” or “on account of your collective remembrance"
(Hofmann), which is supposed to imply and include the aid transmitted to
him as a single uveíc. 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.—uvela] is to be rendered in
the usual sense of remembrance (comp. 1 Thess. iii. 6; 2 Tim. i. 3), and
not, as by van Hengel, in that of mention, which it only obtains in the
passages-certainly otherwise corresponding-Rom. i. 9, Eph. i. 16, 1
Thess. i. 2, Philem. 4, by the addition of TOLETOdal. In this case it is the
uvelav ČXELV (1 Thess. iii. 6; 2 Tim. i. 3; Plat. Legg. vii. p. 798 A), and not
the uv. Tolažodal, that is thought of.—— TÁVTOTE] [II 6.] cannot belong to
ευχαριστώ in such a way that the following εν πάση δεήσει κ. τ. λ. should be
separated from it and joined to the participial clause, as Hofmann? desires.
It is true that trávtote down to údāv is closely linked with what precedes ;
but the connection is of such a character that Távtots already finds the
befitting limitation through ÉTÈ Táon T. yvela úpūv, and now by TÁVTOTE K. T. 2.
can be announced, when the evxaplotô 7. O. f. ÉTÈ T. T. jv. ill. takes place,
namely, " at all times, in every request which I make for you all, thanksgiving
towards my God is joined with my entire remembrance of you.” Nega-
tively expressed, the sense up to this point therefore is : "I never (Távtote)
make my intercessory prayer for you all, without always (TTávtote, as in Rom.
i. 10, Col. i. 4) in it associating thanks towards my God with my entire remene-
brance of you.” This does not render the Távrov inappropriate, as
Hofmann objects, the fact being that the apostle constantly bears all his
Philippians upon his heart, and cannot help praying for them all; he feels
this, and expresses it. If we should, with Castalio, Beza, and many others,
including Weiss, connect as follows: " whilst I at all times in all my praying
for you all make the prayer with joy,” the expression év táop deņoel TÌV DÉNOLV
TTOLOÚLevos, as thus linked together, would be only a burdensome tautology.
Instead of perà xap. 7. 8. Toloufl., Paul would have simply and naturally
written the mere xaipwv. This applies also to the view of Huther, who?
substantially agrees with Weiss. Hoelemann incorrectly connects ÚTÈS
Trávt. øll. with evxaplotā (Rom. i. 8; Eph. i. 16; 1 Thess. i. 2; 2 Thess. i. 3).
Against this it may be urged, that the otherwise too general tv ráon deņoel
uov needs an addition more precisely defining it; and the words jerà xap.
Christenthum u. Kirche, p. 308, ed. 2, who
malkes out of σύζυγε γνήσιε the bishop κατ'
è coxýv.
1 According to whom Paul is supposed to say
that “he thanks his God for their collective re-
membrance at all times, in each of his intercessory
prayers making the request for them all with
joy.” Thus, however, the apostle would in
fact have expressed himself in a manner
extravagant even to falsehood, because im-
plying an impossibility.
2 In the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1863, p. 400.
8 This applies also in opposition to Ewald,
who attaches útrèp Távtwy juôv, and to Hof-
mann, who at the same time joins év taon
Señoel, to the participial clause. The partici-
pial clause only begins with the emphatically
prefixed Meta xapas.
12
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
TİV DÉNO, Trolovụ. 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 Tņu dénou points back to a more precisely defined dénois,
the specification of which is contained in this very im. T. . Comp. Col.
i. 3.-As to the distinction between dénous and apogeuxÝ (ver. 9, iv. 6), see on
Eph. vi. 18.—On the emphatic sequence of tháon, Trávtote, Táon, Trávrov,
comp. Lobeck, Paral. p. 56. Paul does not aim at such accumulations,
but the fullness of his heart suggests them to him ; comp. 2 Cor. ix. 8.-
uerà xapās K. 7.2.] His heart urges him, while mentioning his prayer for
them all, to add: “when I make with joy the (mentioned) prayer
(TÀU 8.),”—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
μετά χαρ. onwards, for: ποιούμ. is connected with ευχαριστώ (in opposition to
Heinrichs), as containing the characteristic definition of mode for dénois
ÚT. Távt. øll.
Ver 5 f. 'ERÈ TĨ KOLVWV. Úll. eis tò evayy.] is to be taken together with
ɛv xaplotā, ver. 3 (1 Cor. i. 4), and not with metà xap. K. T. 2. (Calvin, Grotius,
van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann); for in that case, with
the right explanation of επί πάση τ. μν. υμ., the specification of the ground
for thanks would be entirely wanting, or would at all events result only
indirectly, namely, as object of the joy. On account of your fellowship in
respect of the gospel; [II c.] by this Paul means the common brotherly
coherence (Acts ii. 42) which united the Philippians together for the gospel
(as the aim to which the Kolvwvía has reference), that is, for its further-
ance and efficiency. The great cause of the gospel was the end at
which, in their mutual coherence, they aimed; and this, therefore,
gave to their fellowship with one another its specific character of a holy
destination. The correctness of this interpretation is confirmed by the
context in ver. 9, where that which is here expressed by » kolvwvia 'uw is
characterized, under the category of the disposition on which this kolvwvia is
based, as ń ayánn újāv. As this view is in full harmony with both words
and sense, and is not dependent on anything to be supplied, it excludes
divergent interpretations. We must therefore reject not only the expla-
nation which refers 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 Rom. III. p. 81, 287),
although it is never so used in the N.T. (comp. on Rom. xv. 26; Gal. vi. 6;
Philem. 6), but also the view of Theodoret, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius,
Heinrichs, and others: "quod evangelii participes facti estis," as if it ran
TOū evayyahíov (Theodoret : Kolvuviav dÈ TOŬ evayyehíov TÌv TiativĚKáhere). Chry-
sostom and Theophylact, who are followed by most of the recent
interpreters,' understand the fellowship of the Philippians with the apostle,
that is, ÖTL KOLvovoi jov yiveo ε K. OVLueplotaÌ TÕV ÉTTÈ To evayy. Tbvwv, Theophylact;
consequently, their co-operation with him in spreading the gospel, in which
case also a reference to the aid rendered is included. In this case, since
1 Including Schinz, Weiss, Schenkel, Huther, Ellicott, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann.
CHAP. I. 5, 6.
13
the text says nothing about a "service” devoted to the gospel (Hofmann),
an addition like pletěžov (1 John i. 3, et al.), or some other more precise
definition, like that in ver. 7, would be an essential element-not arising (as
in Gal. ii. 9) out of the context—which therefore must have been expressed,
as indeed Paul must have said so, had he wished to be understood
as referring to fellowship with all who had the cause of the gospel at heart
(Wiesinger). The absolute "your fellowship,” if no arbitrary supplement
is allowable, can only mean the mutual fellowship of the members of the
church themselves:--The article is not repeated after üpôv, because koivwvía Eis
tò εvayy.is conceived as forming a single notion.—STÒ mpúrns nju. & Xpe ToŨ VÕV|
is usually connected with rũ koivuvia k. T. 2. This connection is the true one.,
for the coristancy of the Kolvwvia, that has been attested hitherto, is the
very thing which not only supplies the motive for the apostle's thankful-
ness, but forms also the ground of his just confidence for the future. The
connective article (tñ before árò) is not requisite, as étè tỉ kouvwvią ýpāv was
construed as ÉTÈ TV KOLVWVEīvýuās (Winer, p. 128 (E. T. 1357). It cannot be
connected with T. SÉNOLV TOLOúl. (Weiss), unless ÉTÈT. KOLVWV. K. T. 2. is also
made to belong hereto. If joined with Tenoldós (Rilliet, following
Lachmann, ed. min.), it would convey an emphatically prefixed definition
of the apostle's confidence, whereas the whole context concerns the
previous conduct of the readers, which by the connection with TETOLO.
would be but indirectly indicated. If connected with xvxaplotā (Beza,
Wolf, Bengel), the words seeing that the expression TávtoTE ÉV Táon Dendel
has already been used, and then in ÉTÈ Tņ Kolvwvią K. T. 2. 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.--AETOŁOWS] confidence by which Paul
knows his evxaploteīv, vv. 3-5, to be accompanied. [II d.] Without due
ground, Hofmann confuses the matter by making a new prolonged
paragraph begin with πεποιθώς.2 –αυτό τούτο] if talken according to the
common usage as the accusative of the object (comp. ver. 25), would not
point to what follows, as if it were tožto merely (Weiss), but would mean,
being confident of this very thing, which is being spoken of (ii. 18; Gal. ii.
10; 2 Cor. ii. 3). But nothing has been yet said of the contents of the
confidence, which are to follow. It is therefore to be taken as ob il ipsum,
for this very reason,t namely, because your kouvwvía els tò εvayy., from the
KOLVOVELV
1 Comp on kolvwveiv eis, iv. 15; Plato, Rep. winded period would be most of all out of
p. 453 A.
place in this epistle; and what reader would
2 He makes ver. 6, namely, constitute & have been able, without Hofmann's guidance,
protasis, whose apodosis is again divided into to detect it and adjust its several parts ?
the protasis καθώς έστιν δίκαιον έμοί and the 3 Hofmann also adopts this explanation of
.apodosis corresponding thereto. But this outo ToûTO.
capodosis of the apodosis begins with dià tò 42 Pet. i. 5; Plato, Symp. p. 204 A, and
Exelv ue, ver. 7, and yet is only continued after · Stallb. ad loc.; Prot. p. 310 E; Xen. Anab. i.
the words páptus y. ó cós, ús TTLTTOOô ünâs, 9. 21, and Kühner in loc., also his Gramm. II.
which are a parenthesis, in vv. 8, 9. Such & 1, p. 267; see also Winer, p. 135 (E. T. 142],
dialectically involved and complicated, long and comp. on Gal. ii. 10.
14
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.'
first day until now, is that which alone can warrant and justify my con-
fidence for the future, őri Ó évapšúpevog n.7.2. - ó Évapšájevoç K.7.2.] 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 possibility, is not thereby excluded; but Paul has not to fear
this on the part of his Philippian converts, as he formerly had in the case
of the Galatians, Gal. i. 6, iii. 3. [II e.]—év úuiv]. That Paul did not
intend to say among you (as Hoelemann holds), but in you, in animis vestris
(comp. ii. 13; 1 Cor. xii. 6), is shown by ÚTÈp Trávtwv 'Māv following, by
which the language ο έναρξ. εν υμίν κ.τ.λ. expresses a confidence felt in respect
to all individuals. — špyov åyađóv] without article, hence: an excellent worlc,
by which is meant, in conformity with the context, thé koivuvia 'l. Eis TÒ
evayy. — ăxpus huépas 'I. X.] corresponding to the anò aporns quép. äxpı ToŨ
vūv, ver. 5, presupposes the nearness of the mapovola (in opposition to Wies-
inger, Hofmann, and others), as everywhere in the N. T., and especially
in Paul's writings (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 297, cd. 2). Comp. ver. 10, iii.
20. [II f.] The device by which the older expositors (see even Pelagius)
gratuitously introduce qualifying statements, “Perseverat autem in illum
usque diem, quicunque perseverat usque ad morteni suam” (Estius), where-
by is meant not "continuitas usque ad illum diem,” but “terminus et com-
plementum perfectionis, quod habituri isto die erimus” (Calovius), is just as
un-Pauline as Calvin's makeshift, " that the dead are still in profectu,
because they have not yet reached the goal," and as Matthies’ philo-
sophical perverting of it into the continual and eternal Parousia.
Ver. 7. Subjective justification of the confidence expressed in ver. 6.
How should he otherwise than cherish it, and that on the ground of his
objective experience (aiutò TOūTo), since it was to him, through his love to
his readers, a duty and obligation! Not to cherish it would be wrong.
“ Caritas enim omnia sperat," Pelagius.--As to kalás, which, in the con-
ception of the corresponding relation, states the ground, comp. on iii. 17; 1
Cor. i. 6; Eph. i. 4; Matt. vi. 11.—On dikalov, comp. Acts iv. 19; Eph. vi.
1; Phil. iv. 8; Col. iv. 1; 2 Pet. i. 121.--TOŪTO Ppovɛīv] to have this feeling, this
practical bent of mind in favor of you, by which is meant the confidence
expressed in ver. 6, and not his striving in prayer for the perfecting of his
readers' salvation (ver. 4), which the sense of the word $poveīv does not
admit of (in opposition to Weiss), as it is not equivalent to Śnteiv (comp.
on Col. iii. 2). See besides, Huther, 1.c. p. 405 f.-On ůnép, comp. iv. 10; 2
Macc. xiv. 8; Eur. Archel. fr. XXV. 2 f.; Plut. Phil. c. Flam. 3; on ToŰTO Op.,
Gal. v. 10, ovdèv årho op. The special reference of the sense of ppoveīv: to be
mindful about something, must have been suggested by the context, as in
iv. 10; but is here insisted on by Hofmann, and that in connection with
the error, that with kabús the protasis of an apodosis is introduced. The
Opoveīv is here perfectly general, cogitare ac sentire, but is characterized by
TOūTO as a čů Ppoveiv, which Paul feels himself bound to cherish in the inter-
est of the salvation of all his readers (υπέρ πάντων υμών).-διά το έχεις με έν
1 A classical author would have written:
Síkalov čuè toûto Apoveiv (Herod. i. 39 ; Dem.
CHAP. I. 7.
15
Tņi kapdiq újās] An expression 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,
thus making ýmãs the subject; although the sing. kapdiq (comp. Eph. iv.
18, v. 19, vi. 5; Rom. i. 21; 2 Cor. iii. 15, and elsewhere) is not against
this view, the position of the words is opposed to it, as is also the context,
see ver. 8. The readers are present to the apostle in his loving heart. -
ÉV TE Tois deuołç K.T.7.] [II g.] so that, accordingly, this state of suffering,
and the great task which is incumbent on me in it, cannot dislodge you
from my heart. See already Chrysostom and Pelagius. These words,
ĚV TE TOTS dequołç 16.7.2., 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 té ... kaí (as well ... as
also): (1) The position of the apostle, and (2) his employment in this position.
The latter, which, through the non-repetition of the article before ßep., is
taken as a whole (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 294 [E. T. 342]), is both anti-
thetical, the defence of the gospel, and also thetical, the confirmation of it,
that is, the corroboration of its truth by proof, testimony, etc., its verifica-
tion. For an instance of this kind of Beßalwols during the earliest period
of the apostle's captivity at Rome, see Acts xxviii. 23. Hofmann, taking
a groundless objection to our explanation from the use of té ... kai (see,
however, Baeumlein, Partik. p. 225), refuses to connect the té with the fol-
lowing kaí; he prefers to connect with the one-Ě xelv, namely with the Ě XELV
£v til kapsia, another, namely an & Xelv OVYKoivwvous. This is an artificial con-
junction of very different references of the $xelv, yielding the illogical
formalism : I have you (1) in my heart, and (2) for my companions, etc.
The latter would indeed be only a more precise qualitative definition of
the former. The question, moreover, whether in tỉ áron. K. Beß. To evayy.
Paul intended to speak of his judicial examination (Heinrichs, van Hen-
gel), or of his extra-judicial action and ministry during his captivity, can-
not be answered without arbitrariness, except by allowing that both were
meant. For the words do not justify us in excluding the judicial defence
since the arohovia might be addressed not merely to Jews and Judaists,
but also to Gentile judges [II h.]-Towevayy.] belongs to tỉ ảnol. K. Beſalúoel,
and not to ßeß. only; the latter view would make tñ áron. denote the
personal vindication (Chrysostom, Estius, and others), but is decisively
opposed by the non-repetition-closely coupling tie two words—of the
article before βεβ. But to interpret απολογία and βεβαίωσις as synonymous
(Rheinwald), or to assume an êv dià dvoīv for åmoovią eis BeBatwolv (Hein-
richs), is logically incorrect, and without warrant in the connection. It
is also contrary to the context (on account of tñ åroroyia) to understand
the ßeßaiwriç T. evayy. as the actual confirmation afforded by the apostle's
sufferings (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others).-Ovykolvwvous pou
198. 8; Plat. Symp. p. 2.C), or : dikacós cime
TOUTO Op. (Herod. i. 32; Dem. 1469. 18, and
frequently; Thuc. i. 40. 3.)
10eder, Michaelis, Storr, Rosenmüller, am
Eude, Flatt.
2 Comp. Heb. vi. 16; Rom. XV. 8; Mark xvi.
20; Thucyd. i. 140. 6, iv. 87. 1; Plat. Polit. p.
309 C; Wisd. v. 18.
Wieseler, Chronol. d. apostol. Zeitalt. p.
430.
16
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
K.7.2.] characterizes the ópās, and supplies a motive for the ŠXELV ME Èv tî
Kapdiq vuās K.7.2.: since you, etc. This love to you, unalterable even in my
affliction, is based on the real sympathy, which results from all of you being
joint-partalcers with me in the grace. The emphasis is laid, primarily on
συγκ. and then on πάντας, which is correlative with the previous πάντων.
The idea of the grace which the apostle had received (tñs xapitos) is defined
solely from the connection, and that indeed by the two points immediately
preceding, šv TE TOTS DELLOTS Mov and ti áron. K. Beß. Toù 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 amplý suffices, without
the need of any retrospective tautns (as is Hofmann's objection)—had
been vouchsafed not only to himself, but also to all his Philippian con-
verts, who like him had had to suffer for Christ (ver. 29 f.); and thus, in
his bonds, and whilst vindicating and confirming the gospel, conscious of
the holy similarity in this respect between his and their experience,
sympathetically and lovingly he bore them, as his fellow-sharers of this
grace, in his heart. He knew that, whilst he was suffering, and defending
and confirming the gospel, he had all his readers as ovunáO XOVTES, OUVAToho-
yoújévol, ouußeßaloŪVTES Tò evayyéłcov, and that in virtue of the above-named
grace of God, as a manifestation of which he had recognized his bonds,
and his activity for the gospel in these bonds. Others interpret it much
too generally and vaguely, looking at the tender and special references of
the context, as the "gratiosa evangelii donatio” (Hoelemann, comp. Wolf,
Heinrichs, de Wette, and others). Likewise without any more imme-
diate reference to the context, and inappropriate, is its explanation of
the apostolic office (Rom. i. 5, 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, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Hofmann; comp. also Weiss)—which assist-
ance has come to be regarded as a κοινωνία εις το ευαγγέλιον (but see on ver.
5), as Hofmann expresses it. Those who feel dissatisfied that Paul does
not mention at the very beginning of the epistle the assistance rendered
to him, prescribe a certain line for the apostle; which, however, he does
not follow, but gives expression first of all to his love for the Philippians
in subjects of a higher and more general interest, and puts off his expres-
sion of thanks, properly so called, to the end of the epistle. Lastly, the
translation gaudii (Vulgate, Itala, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Primasius,
Sedulius) is derived from another reading (χαράς).-The σύν in ουγκοινωνούς
refers to jov, my joint-partakers (iv. 14) of the grace, thus combining ovyk.
with a double genitive of the person and the thing, of the subject and the
object (Kühner, II. 1, p. 288; Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 191]), and placing it
first with emphasis; for this joint fellowship is the point of the love in
question. As to the repetition of ýmãs, see Matthiæ, p. 1031, and on Col.
ii. 13; comp. Soph. 0. C. 1278, and Reisig in loc.
CHAP. I. 8.
17
* REMARK.—Whether šv të TOTS dequois ... evayy. should be connected with the
preceding dià Tò & XELV ME Év Tņ kapsię úpās (Chrysostom, Erasmus, Castalio, Luther,
and many; also Huther), or with ovyk, K.7.2. which follows (Beza, Calvin, Cal-
ovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Storf, Flatt, Lachmann, van Hengel, Tischendorf, Wies-
inger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and others), cannot be determined. Still the
former, as of a less periodic character, is more in harmony with the fervent tone of
feeling. Besides, the repetition of vuās betrays a break in the flow of thought
after T. evayy.
Ver. 8. A solemn confirmation of the preceding assurance, that he had
his readers in his heart, etc. [II 1.] Comp., on the connection, Rom. i.
9. Theophylact, moreover, strikingly observes : oix ús àTLOTOÚLevos páprupa
καλεί τον Θεόν, αλλά την πολλήν διάθεσιν ουκ έχων παραστήσαι διά λόγου.-ως επιποθώ
6.7.2.] how much I long after you all, etc., which would not be the case if I
did not bear you in my heart (yáp), as announced more precisely in ver.
7. On ćTTLTTOOW, comp. Rom. i. 11 ; Phil. ii. 26; 1 Thess. iii. 6; 2 Tim. i. 4.
The compound denotes the direction, not the strength of the Tolεiv (comp.
on 2 Cor. v. 2), which is .conveyed by ús; comp. Rom. i. 9; 1 Thess. ii. 10.-
šv onháyxvous Xplotoï 'Incov] [II ;.] is not, with Hofmann, to be con-
nected with what follows (see on ver. 9); it is an expression of the hearti-
ness and truth of his longing, uttered in the strongest possible terms. ÉV,
on account of the sensuous expression which follows (oTháyxva, like D'INT,
as seat of the affections, especially of heartfelt love, ii. 1; Col. iii. 12;
Philem. 7, 12, 20; also in classical authors), is to be taken locally: in the
heart of Jesus Christ; that is, so that this longing of mine is not my own
individual emotion, but a longing which I feel in virtue of the dwelling and
working of Christ in me. Paul speaks thus from the consciousness that his
inmost life is not that of his human personality, of himself, but that Christ,
through the medium of the Holy Spirit, is the personal principle and
agent of his thoughts, desires, and feelings. Comp. on Gal. ii. 20. Filled
with the feeling of this holy fellowship of life, which threw his own
individuality into the background, he could, seeing that his whole spiritual
Śwń was thus the life of Christ in him, represent the circumstances of his
ÉTT LTTOOɛīv, as if the viscera Christi were moved in him, as if Christ's heart
throbbed in him for his Philippians. Not doing justice to the Pauline
consciousness of the unio mystica which gives rise to this expression, some
have rendered šv in an instrumental sense, as in Luke i. 78 (Hofmann);
others have taken it of the norma : "according to the pattern of Christ's
love to His people” (Rosenmüller, Rilliet); and some have found the
sense of the norma in the genitival relation : "in animo penitus affecto ut
animus fuit Christi” (van Hengel). The merely approximate statement
1 Plat. Legg. ix. p.855 F; Herod. v.93; Diod.
Sic. xvii. 101; Ecclus. xxv. 20.
2 According to Hofmann, namely, ev ori.
X. 'I asserts with reference to the following
kai TOÛTO spogeux. that Christ's heart towards
those who are His produces such prayer in
the apostle, and manifests itself therein.
Bengel aptly says: "In Paulo non Paulus
vivit sed Jesus Christus; quare Paulus non
in Pauli, sed Jesu Christi movetur visceri-
bus.” Comp. Theodoret: oùr å voportivov TÖ
biarpov, tvevmatikov,
So also Wetstein, Heinrichs, and earlier
expositors; whilst Storr refers év ord. 'I. X.
18
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS...
of the sense, given by Grotius and others: “amore non illo communi, sed
vere Christiano," is in substance correct, but fails to give its full develop-
· ment to the consciousness of the XPLOTÓS Év Muiv (Gal. ii. 20, iv. 19; Rom.
viii. 10; 2 Cor. xiii. 5; Eph. iii. 17); notwithstanding which Hofmann
regards the identification of Paul's own heart with the heart of Christ as
simply impossible; thus, however, applying to the mysticism of deep pious
feeling, and the living immediate plastic form in which it finds expression,
a criterion alien to its character, and drawing around it a literal boundary
which it cannot bear.
Ver. 9. After having stated and discussed, in vv. 3–8, the reason why he
thanks God with respect to his readers, Paul now, till the end of ver. 11,
sets forth what it is that he asks in prayer for them.-kal] the simple and,
[II k.] introducing the new part of?, and thus continuing, the discourse :
And this (which follows) is what I pray, so that the object is placed first in
the progress of the discourse; hence it is kaì TOŪTO apogeuxoual, and not k.
TT pogeux. TOŪTO. Hofmann's explanation of the kaí in the sense of also, and
his attaching év onl. X. ’I. to ver. 9, are the necessary result of his per-
verse metamorphosis of the simple discourse, running on from Tenoldus in
ver. 6, into a lengthened protasis and apodosis,--a construction in which
the apodosis of the apodosis is supposed to begin with Év GT2. X. 'I.; comp.
on ver. 6.-iva] introduces the contents of the prayer conceived of under
the form of its design (Col. i. 9; 1 Thess. i. 11; Matt. xxiv. 20), and thus
explains the preparatory ToūTO. Comp. on John vi. 29. “This I pray,
that your love should more and more," etc.- ayáron tuõv], [II 1.7 not love to
Paul (van Hengel, following Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, Bengel,
and others),-& reference which, especially in connection with šti uālhov k.
uārlov, would be all the more unsuitable on account of the apostle having
just received a practical proof of the love of the Philippians. It would
also be entirely inappropriate to the context which follows (ÉV ÉTT LY VÚTEL
K.7.2.). Nor is it their love generally, without specification of an object for
it, as a proof of faith (Hofmann); but it is, in accordance with the context,
the brotherly love of the Philippians one to another, the common dis-
position and feeling at the bottom of that κοινωνία εις το ευαγγ., for which
Paul has given thanks in ver. 5.3 This previous thanksgiving of his was
based on the confidence, ŐT! ó Évapfáuevos 1.7.2., ver. 6, and the contents of his
even to the readers (sc. õvtas). For many
other interpretations, see Hoelemann and
Weiss.
1“ Redit ad precationem, quam obiter tan-
tum uno verbo attigerat (namely, ver. 4);
exponit igitur summam eorum, quae illis
petebat a Deo" (Calvin).
2 The word Tipoo Euxonal, which now occurs,
points to a new topic, the thanksgiving and
its grounds having been previously spoken
of. Therefore k. T. apogeux. is not to be
attached, with Rilliet and Ewald, to the pre-
ceding verse; and (how I) pray this. Two
different things would thus be joined. The
former portion is concluded by the fervent and
solemn ver. 8. Jatho also (Br. an d. Phil.,
Hildesh. 1857, p. 8) connects it with us, namely
thus: and how I pray for this, namely, to
come to you, in order that I may edify you.
But to extract for TOÛTO, out of TLTTOOô ünâs,
the notion : “my presence with you," is
much too harsh and arbitrary; for Paul's
Words are not even έπιποθώ ιδείν υμάς as in
Rom. i. 11.
8 The idea that "your love" means the
readers themselves (Bullinger), or that this
passage gave rise to the mode of addressing
the hearers that has obtained since the
CHAP. I. 9.'
19
'
prayer now is in full harmony with that confidence. The connection is
misapprehended by Calovius and Rheinwald, who explain it as love to
God and Christ; also by Matthies (comp. Rilliet), who takes it as love to
everything, that is truly Christian ;' comp. Wiesinger: love to the Lord,
and to all that belongs to and serves Him; Weiss': zeal of love for the
cause of the gospel,--an interpretation which fails to define the necessary
personal object of the åyánn, and to do justice to the idea of co-operative
fellowship which is implied in the Kolvwvía in ver. 5.—ět1 pārnov] quite our:
still more. With the reading Teploeun note the sense of progressive develop-
ment.—ĖvĚTLYVÁDel 16. Táon aiodítel (II m.] constitutes that in which-i. e.
respecting which-the love of his readers is to become more and more
abundant. Others take the tv as instrumental : through (Heinrichs, Flatt,
Schinz, and others); or as local: in, i. e. in association with (Oecumenius,
Calvin, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, and others),-— TEPLOo. being supposed to
stand absolutely (may be abundant). But the sequel, which refers to the
ÉTíywwolç and aio nous, and not to the love, shows that Paul had in view not.
the growth in love, but the increase in miyvwols and aioonots, which the love
of the Philippians was more and more to attain. The less the love is
deficient in knowledge and aighnols, it is the more deeply felt, more moral,
effective, and lasting. If émiyvuois is the penetrating (see on 1 Cor. xiii.
12; Eph. i. 17) cognition of divine truth, both theoretical and practical, the
true knowledge of salvation, which is the source, motive power, and
regulator of love (1 John iv. 7 ff.); aicinois (only occurring here in the New
Testament), which denotes perception or feeling operating either through
· the bodily senses * (Xen. Mem. i. 4. 5, Anab. iv. 6. 13, and Krüger in loc.;
Plat. Theaet. p. 156 B),—which are also called aiolnters (Plat. Theaet.
p. 156 B), or spiritually 4 (Plat. Tim. p. 43, C; Dem. 411. 19, 1417,
5), must be, according to the context which follows, the perception
which takes place with the ethical senses, -an activity of moral perception
which apprehends and makes conscious of good and evil as such (comp.
Heb. v. 14). The opposite of this is the dullness and inaction of the inward
sense of ethical feeling (Rom. xi. 8; Matt. xiii. 15, et al.), the stagnation of
the aloonthpia tñs kapsias (Jer. iv. 19), whereby a moral unsusceptibility,
incapacity of judgment, and indifference are brought about. Paul desires
for his readers every (vráon) aio nois, because their inner sense is in no given
relation to remain without the corresponding moral activity of feeling,
which may be very diversified according to the circumstances which form
Fathers (very frequently, e. g. in Augustine)
in the language of the church (Bengel), is
purely fanciful. .
Comp. Homer, Od. i. 322, xviii. 22; Herod.
i. 94; Pind. Pyth. x. SS, Olymp. i. 175; Plat.
Euthyd. p. 283 C; Xen. Anab. vi. 6. 35; Diog.
L. ix. 10. 2. See instances of râdlov kai dâd-
dov in Kypke, II. p. 307.
2 Comp. Rom. xv. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 9 (Elz.),
viii. 7; Col. ii. 7; Ecclus. xix. 20 (24).
8 Not a mere knowledge of the divine will
(Rheinwald), which leads to the right objects,
aims, means, and proofs of love (Weiss; comp.
Hofmann). This, as in Col. i. 9, would have
been expressed by Paul. Neither can curlyv.
be limited to the knowledge of men (Chrysos-
tom, Erasmus, and others).
4" Nam etiam spiritualiter datur visus, audi-
tus, olfactus, gustus, tactus, i. e. sensus inves-
tigativi et fruitivi" (Bengel).
o Comp. LXX. Prov. i. 7; Ex. xxviii. 5; Ec-
clus. xx. 17, Rec. (aioonous opon); 4 Macc. ii. 21
20
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
its ethical conditions. The relation between Émiyvworç and aionois is that
of spontaneity to receptivity, and the former is the nyɛuovikov for the
efficacy of the latter. In the contrast, however, mistaking and misappre-
hending are not correlative to the former, and deception to the latter
(Hofmann); both contrast with both.
Vv. 10, 11. Els tò dokluáčelv K.7..] states the aim of the reploo. ÉV ÉTLYV. K.
ht. aiod., and in iva ňte eihekp. K.T.2. we have the ultimate design [II n.]. Doki-
uáÇelv Tà Slapépovra is to be understood, as in Rom. ii. 18: in order to approve
that which is (morally) excellent. So the Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodore
of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Grotius, Calovius, Estius,
Bengel, Michaelis, Flatt, Rheinwald, Rilliet, Ewald, and others. Others
understand it as a testing of things which are morally different (Theodoret,
Beza, Grotius, Wolf, and others; also Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel,
de Wette, Corn. Müller, Wiesinger, Weiss, Huther). In point of usage,
this is equally correct; see on dokiuas., in both senses, 1 Thess. ii. 4. But
in our view the sense which yields a definition of the aim of the words
TTEPLOO. ÉV ÉTLYV. K. . aic8., as well as the antecedent of the εiackpívala which fol-
tows, seems more consistent with the context. The testing of good and
evil is not the aim, but the expression and function, of the ěníywous and
aionois. Looking at the stage of Christian life which must be assumed
from vv. 5 and 7 (different in Rom. xii. 2), the former, as an aim, does not
go far enough; and the eiackpivela is the result not of that testing, but of
the approbation of the good. Hofmann's view is therefore unsuitable, that
it means the proving of that which is otherwise ; otherwise, namely, than
that towards which the Christian's love is directed. This would amount
merely to the thought of testing what is unworthy of being loved (= Tà étepa)
a thought quite out of keeping with the telic mode of expression.-£ialkpl-
veīs], pure, sincere = kalapós; Plat. Phil. p. 52 1.2-ánpóOKOTOL] practical
proof of the eiackpívela in reference to intercourse with others (2 Cor. vi. 3):
giving no offence; 1 Cor. x. 32; Ignat. Trall. interpol. 7; Suicer, Thes. S. v.
As. Paul decidedly uses this word in an active sense in 1 Cor. I. c. (comp.
Ecclus. xxxv. 21), this meaning is here also to be preferred to the in itself
admissible intransitive, viz. not offending (Acts xxiv. 16; comp. John xi.
9),—in opposition to Ambrosiaster, Beza, Calvin, Hoelemann, de Wette,
Weiss, Huther, Hofmann, and others (II 0.]-eis nuép. X.], to, i. e. for, the
day of Christ, when ye are to appear pure and blameless before the judg-
ment-seat. Comp. ii. 16; Eph. iv. 30; Col. i. 22; 2 Pet. ii. 9, iii. 7; 2 Tim.
i. 12; also Jude 24 f. These passages show that the expression is not
equivalent to the axpis quépaç 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. TETZ, Kapròv Oik.) modal definition of the eiackpiv. K. årpbok.,
and that from the positive side of these attributes, which are manifested
18ee. on Bla$épeiv, praestantiorem esse (Dem.
1466. 22; Polyb. iii. 87. 1; Matt. x. 31), and tà
Slapéporta, praestantiora (Xen. Hier. i. 3;
Dio Cass. xliv. 25). Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. p. 711 f.
Comp. diapepóvtws, eximie (Plat. Prot. p. 349
D, and frequently). For dokimás., comp. Rom.
xiv. 22, el al.
?Comp., on its ethical use, Plat. Phaedr. p.
CHAP. I. 10–12.
21
and tested in this fruitfulness-i. e. in this rich fullness of Christian virtue
in their possessors. KapTÒS SLKaloo. is the fruit which is the product of right-
eousness, which proceeds from a righteous moral state. [II p.]. Comp.
KUPT. TOŨ Tveúuatos, Gal. v. 22; K. TOī pwrós, Eph. v. 9; K, SkaloOÚvns, Jas. iii.
18, Heb. xii. 11, Rom. vi. 21 f., Prov. xi. 30. In no instance is the genitive
with kaprós that of apposition (Hofmann). The Olkalooúvn here meant,
however, is not justitia fidei ( justificatio), as many, even Rilliet and Hoele-
mann, would make it, but, in conformity with ver. 10, a righteous moral
condition, which is the moral consequence, because the necessary vitat
e.cpression, of the righteousness of faith, in which man now kaptopopei TQ
OEQ év kalvÓTNT! TrvEvpatos, Rom. vii. 5 f.; comp. vi. 2, viii. 2; Col. i. 10. We
must observe that the emphasis is laid not on δικαιοσύνης, but on καρπόν,--
which therefore obtains more precise definition afterwards, so that. Sekal-
ooúvns conveys no new idea, but only represents the idea, already conveyed
in ver. 10, of the right moral condition.!--Tòv dià 'I. X.] sc. övra, the more
exact specific definition of this fruit, the peculiar sacred essence and dignity
of which are made apparent, seeing that it is produced, not through
observance of the law, or generally by human power, but through Christ,
who brings it about by virtue of the efficacy of the Holy Spirit (Gal. ii. 20,
iii. 22; Eph. iv. 7 f., 17; John xv. 14, et al.).—eiç sóšav k.7.2.] belongs to
πεπληρ. κ.τ.λ., not specially to τον διά 'I. X. How far this fruitfulness tends
to the honor of God (comp. John xv. 8), see. Eph. i. 6–14. God's 8oša is
His majesty in itself ; talvos is the praise of that majesty. Comp. Eph. i.
6, 12, 14. This šnalvos is based on matter of fact (its opposite is åripáÇELV T.
Okov, Rom. ii. 23), in so far as in the Christian moral perfection of believers
God's work of salvation in them, and consequently His glory, by means
of which it is effected, are manifested. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 20. The whole
work of redemption is the manifestation of the divine doğa. See John xii.
27 f. The glory of God is, however, the ultimate aim and constant refrain
of all Christian perfection, ii. 11; 1 Cor. x. 31; Eph. ii. 31; 1 Pet. iv. 11;
Rom. xi. 36.
Ver. 12. TOn vv. 12–14, see Note III., pages 50-52.] See, on vv.
12–26, Huther in the Meclclenb. Zeitschr. 1864, p. 558 ff.—Paul now pro-
ceeds by the sé of continuation to depict his own position down to ver. 26.
See the summary of contents.—The element of transition in the train of
thought is that of the notification which Paul now desires to bring before
them; yivÚOKELV is therefore placed first : but ye are to know. It is otherwise
in 2 Tim. iii. 1, also 1 Cor. xi. 3, Col. ii. 1.-Tà kat' ějé] my circumstances,
my position.2--uārnov] not to the hindrance, but much the contrary. See
Winer, p. 228 [E. T. 243]. He points in this to the apprehension assumed
66 A, and Stallbaum in loc., 81 C; 2 Pet. iii. 1;
1 Cor. v. 8; 2 Cor. i. 12, ii. 17; Wisd. vii. 25,
and Grimm in loc.
1 Comp. on SLkaLogÚvn, Eph. v. 9; Rom. vi.
13, 19, 20, xiv. 17, et al. On the accusative of
the remote object, comp. Ps. cv. 40, cxlvii. 14;
Ecclus. xvii. 6; Col. i. 9.(not 2 Thess. i. 11);
Winer, p. 215 [E. T. 229). A classical author
would have used the genitive (Elz.) or the
dative.
? As in Eph. vi. 21; Col. iy. 7; Tob. x. 9;
2 Macc. iii. 40, et. al.; Xen. Cyr. vii. 1. 16;
Ael. V. H. ii. 20.
22
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
to exist, and certainly confirmed to him by Epaphroditus as existing, on
the part of his readers, which, before going further, he wishes to relieve.
There is no trace even here of a letter received from them with the con-
tribution (Hofmann; comp. Wiesinger); comp. on ver. 1. , Hoelemann:
“magis, quam antea contigerat ;" but this meaning must have been
intimated by a vūv or non.---TPOkothv] progress, i. e. success. Comp. ver. 25;
1 Tim. iv. 15. In consequence of the apostle's fate, the gospel had
excited more attention, and the courage of its preachers had increased;
see ver. 13 f. As to whether a change had taken place in his condition,
which the readers regarded as a change for the worse, as Hofmann
requires us to assume, we have no specific hint whatever. The situation
of the apostle generally, and in itself, abundantly justified their concern,
especially since it had already lasted so long- haudev] evenit, ¿. e. has
redounded. So the matter stands; note the perfect.
Ver. 13. "Sote K.7.n.] so that my bonds became manifest in Christ, etc. This
Gote introduces the actual result of that a pokor", and consequently a more
precise statement of its nature. [III. 6.]. 'Ev Xplorợ does not belong to !
TOÙS Seouous uov, alongside of which it does not stand; but pavepoùç šv Xplot.
is to be taken together, and the emphasis is laid on pavepous, so that the
deguoi did not remain kpvatoſ or åñókpvpoc év Xploto, as would have been the
case, if their relation to Christ had continued unknown, and if people had
been compelled to look upon the apostle as nothing but an ordinary
prisoner detained for examination. This ignorance, however, did not
exist; on the contrary, his bonds became known in Christ, in so far,
namely, that in their causal relation to Christ in this their specific peculiarity
—was found information and elucidation with respect to his condition of
bondage, and thus the specialty of the case of the prisoner, became noto-
rious. If Paul had been only known generally as Séoulos, his bonds would
have been oủk čupavɛīs šv Xplotû; but now that, as Séoulog tv kupio or Toñ
kupíov (Eph. iv. 1, iii. 1; Philem. 9), as táoxwv 6s Xplotlavós (1 Pet. iv. 16),
he had become the object of public notice, the pavépwors of his state of
bondage, as resting tv Xplota, was thereby brought about,--a pavepòv yiveo-
Dal, consequently, which had its distinctive characteristic quality in the év
Χριστώ. It is arbitrary to supply όντας with εν Χριστώ (Hofmann). Ewald
takes it as: “shining in Christ,” i. e. much sought after and honored as
Christian. But, according to New Testament usage, pavepós does not con-
vey so much as this; in classical usage 5 it may mean conspicuous, eminent.
–εν όλω τώ πραιτωρίω] πραιτώριον is not the imperial place in Rome, which
1 As to the later Greek character of this
word, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 85.
2 Comp. Acts xix. 27; Wisd. xv.5; Herod. i.
120 ; Soph. Aj. 1117 (1138); Plat. Gorg. p. 487 B.
: 36 Rem, qualis sit, addita rei consequentis
significatione definit," Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II.
p. 1012. Hofmann's view, that it stands in
the sense of είς τούτο ώστε, also amounts to
this. But Hoelemann is in error in making
it assert the greatness of the spokoTÝ. Not
the greatness, but the salutary effect, is indi-
cated.
4 Comp. also Calvin, and Wieseler, Chronol.
d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 457.
| 5 Thuc. i. 17. 2, iv. 11. 3; Xen. C. vi. 5. 58,
Anab. vii. 7. 22 and Krüger in loc.
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, The-
ophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Es-
tius, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Bengel, and
many others, also Mynster, Rheinwald, and
CHAP. I. 13.
23
'is denoted in iv. 22 by Kaloapos oikia, but was never called praetorium.1 It
could not well, indeed, be so called, as tò tepaltópiov is the standing appel-
lation for the palaces of the chief governors of provinces (Matt. xxvii. 27;
John xviii. 28, xix. 9; Acts xxiii. 35); hence it might and must have been
explained as the Procurator's palace in Caesarea, if our epistle had been
written there (see especially Böttger, Beitr. I. p. 51 f.). But it is the
Roman castrum praetorianorum, the barracks of the imperial body-guard, 2
whose chief was the praefectus praetorio, the otpaToTÉSWV ŠTapxos, to whom
Paul was given in charge on his arrival in Rome (Acts xxviii. 16). It was
built by Sejanus, and was situated not far from the Porta Viminalis, on
the eastern side of the city.3 Tò apalthplov does not mean the troop of
praetorian cohorts (Hofmann), which would make it equivalent to oi atpalt-
wplavoź (Herodian, viii. 8. 14). “The becoming known in the whole praetorium
is explained by the fact, that a praetorian was always present with Paul as
his guard (Acts xxviii. 16), and Paul, even in his captivitý, continued his
preaching without hindrance (Acts xxviii. 30 f.).—-każ toiç ROLTOTS Tãoi] not
in the sense of locality, dependent on év (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin),
but: and to all the others, besides the praetorians. It is a popular and inex-
act way of putting the fact of its becoming still more widely known among
the (non-Christian) Romans, and therefore it must be left without any
more specific definition. This extensive proclamation of the matter took
place in part directly through Paul himself, since any one might visit
him, and in part indirectly, through the praetorians, officers of justice, dis-
ciples, and friends of the apostle, and the like.5 Van Hengel, moreover,
Schneckenburger in the Deutsch. Zeitschr.
1855, p. 300.
1 Act. Thom.&3, 17, 18, 19, in Tischendorf,
Act. apocr. pp. 192, 204 f., cannot be cited in
favor of this designation (in opposition to
Rheinwald); the pactuspla Baoneká there
spoken of (3) are royal castles, so designated
after the analogy of the residences of the
Roman provincial rulers. Comp. Sueton. Aug.
72; Tib. 39, et al.; Juvenal, x, 161.
2 Camerarius, Perizonius, Clericus, Elsner,
Michaelis, Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt, Matthies,
Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette, Rilliet,
Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot,
[III c.) and others.
3 See Suet. Tib. 37; Tac. Ann. iv. 2; Pitiscus,
Thesaur. antiq. III. 174; and especially Peri-
zonius, de orig., signif. et usu vocc. praetoris et
praetorii, Franeq. 1687, as also his Disquisitio
de praetorio ac vero sensu verborum Phil. i. 13,
Franeq. 1690; also Hoelemann, p. 45, and J. B.
Lightfoot, p. 97 ff. Doubtless there was a
praetorian guard stationed in the inperial
palace itself, on the Mons Palatinus, as in the
time of Augustus (Dio. Cass. liii. 16). See
Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 404,
who understands the station of this palace-
guard to be here referred to. But it cannot
be proved that after the times of Tiberius, in
whose reign the castra praetoriana were built
in front of the Viminal gate (only three
cohorts having previously been stationed in
the city, and that sine castris, Suetonius, Octav.
49), anything else than these castra is to be
understood by the wonted term praetorium,
otpatóredov, when mentioned without any
further definition (as Joseph. Antt. xviii. 6. 7:
Tipo Toù Baoldelov).
- 4 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 ex-
pression (in praetorium, ex praetorio) is always
local.
o This suffices fully to explain the situation.
set forth in ver. 13. The words therefore
afford no ground for the historical combina-
tion which Hofmann here makes: that dur-
ing the two years, Acts xxviii. 30, the apostle's
case was held in abeyance; and that only now
had it been brought up for judicial (liscussion,
whereby first it had become manifest that
his captivity was caused, not by his having
committed any crime against the state, but
by his having preached Christ, which might
not be challenged (?) on the state's account.
As if what is expressly reported in Acts
24
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
understands it incorrectly, as if oi holtoi were specially "homines exteri,"
“Gentiles, "Za limitation which could only be suggested by the context,
and therefore cannot be established by the use of the word in Eph. ii. 3,
iv. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 13. Equally arbitrary is the limitation of Hofmann:
that it refers to those, who already knew about him.
Ver. 14. Toùg Theiovas] the majority, 1 Cor. x. 5, xv. 6, et al. It is not to
be more precisely specified or limited.—¿v kupiw] belongs not to åde2000
(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 TETOLỐótas, along with which, however, it is not to be
rendered : relying upon the Lord with respect to my bonds (Rheinwald, Flatt,
Rilliet, comp. Schneckenburger, p. 301). It means rather: in the Lord
trusting my bonds, so that év kupią is the specific modal definition of Ten010.
Tois 8. H., which trust is based and depends on Christ. (III d.). Comp.ii. 24;
Gal. v. 10; Rom. xiv. 14; 2 Thess. iii. 4. On the dative, comp. 2 Cor. x.
7; Philem. 21, and the ordinary usage in the classics; in the New Testa-
ment mostly with ểní or tv. 'Ev kvpiw is placed first as the correlative of
the tv Xplot., ver. 13. As the apostle's bonds had become generally known
as in Christ, so also in Christ (who will not abandon the work of His
prisoner that had thus become so manifest) may be found the just ground
of the confidence which encourages the brethren, Paul's fellow-Christians
in Rome, ápóßws 7. 2. aaheiv. They trust the bonds of the apostle, [III e.],
inasmuch as these bonds exhibit to them not only an encouraging exam-
ple of patience (Grotius), but also (comp. iii. 8; Col. i. 24 f.; 2 Tim. ii. 8
f.; Matt. v. 11 f., and many other passages) a practical guarantee, highly
honorable to Christ and His gospel, of the complete truth and justice, power
and glory of the word, for the salce of which Paul is in bonds; thereby,
instead of losing their courage, they are only made all the bolder in virtue
of the elevating influence of moral sympathy with this situation of the
apostle in bonds. Weiss explains as if the passage ran tỳ pavepúgal TÜV
dequūv jov (which would tend to the recommendation of the gospel); while
Hofmann thinks that, to guard themselves against the danger of being
criminally prosecuted on account of their preaching, they relied on the apos-
tle's imprisonment, in so far as the latter had now shown itself, in the
judicial process that had at length been commenced, to be solely on account of
Christ, and not for anything culpable. The essential elements, forsooth,
are thus introduced in consequence of the way in which Hofmann has
construed for himself the situation (see on ver. 13).- EplOOOT.] 1. e. in a
higher degree than they had formerly ventured upon, before I lay here in
bonds. Their ápoßia in preaching had increased. This, however, is
xxviii. 31 were not sufficient to have made
the matter known, and as if that duetia év
idiw ucolóvari precluded the judicial prepar-
ation of the case (ver. 7)! As if the increased
courage of the nicioves, ver. 14, were intelli-
gible only on the above assumption! As if,
finally, it were admissible to understand,
with Hofmann, among these leloves all
those who “even now before the conclusion of
the trial were inspired with such courage
by it!"
Oecumerius well says: ei yap un Deiov ñv,
Anoi, tó kúpvyja, oúk äv • Haïdos ņveixeTO
ÚTèp autoll Dedeodaci Comp. ver 16.
CHAP. I. 14, 15.
25
explained by Hofmann, in accordance with the above hypothesis, by the
fact that the political guiltlessness of preaching Christ had now been estab-
lished,—thus referring, in fact, the increase of their fearless boldness to a
sense of legal security. But the reason of the increased apoßia lay deeper,
in the sphere of the moral idea, which manifested itself in the apostle's
bonds, and in accordance with which they trusted those bonds in the Lord,
seeing them borne for the Lord's sake. They animated the brethren to
boldness through that holy confidence, rooted in Christ, with which they
imbued them.--Tòv abyov halεiv] i. e. to let the gospel become known, to
preach, Acts xi. 19, and frequently. On apóßws, comp. Acts iv. 31.
Ver. 15. [On vv. 15–17, see Note IV. pages 52, 53.] This is not indeed
the case with all, that they év kvpio trenOLÓÓTES TOTS deoj. MOV TEPLOOOT, Torf. K.T.N.
No, some in Rome preach with an improper feeling and design; but some
also with a good intention. (Both parties are described in further detail
in yv. 16, 17.) In either case-Christ is preached, wherein I rejoice and
will rejoice (ver. 18).—-TIVÈS MÈv kaì dià poóvov k. špiv]. These do not form a
part of those described in ver. 14 (Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Calvin, and
others, also Weiss, Hofmann, and Hinsch), for these latter are character-
ized by εν κυρίω πεποιθ. τοις δεσμ. μου quite otherwise, and indeed in a way
which excludes the idea of envy and contention (comp. also Huther, I. c.),
and appear as the majority to which these tivés stand in contrast as excep-
tions; but they are the anti-Pauline party, Judaizing preachers, who must
have pursued their practices in Ronie, as in Asia and Greece, and exer-
cised an immoral, hostile opposition to the apostle and his gospel. We
have no details on the subject, but from Rom. xiv. we see that there was
a fruitful field on which this tendency might find a footing and extend its
influence in Rome. The idea that it refers to certain members of the
Pauline school, who nevertheless hated the apostle personally (Wiesinger,
comp. Flatt), or were envious of his high reputation, and impugned his
inode of action (Weiss), is at variance with the previous ¿v kupiw, assumes
a state of things which is in itself improbable, and is not required by the
utterance of ver. 18 (see the remark after ver. 18). See also Schnecken-
burger, p. 301 f.-kai] indicates that, whilst the majority were actuated by
a good disposition (ver. 14), an evil motive also existed in several,-expresses,
therefore, the accession of something else in other subjects, but certainly not
the accession of a subordinate co-operating motive in a portion of the same
persons designated in ver. 14 (Hofmann).-sià poóvov k. špcv] [iv. a. b. page
53] on account of envy and strife, that is, for the sake of satisfying the
strivings of their jealousy in respect to my influence, and of their conten-
tious disposition towards me. Comp. ver. 17.2--Tivès dè kal] But some also;
there also are not wanting such as, etc. Observe that the dè kai joins itself
1 For the person to whom individually their
povos and ēpus (as likewise the subsequent
sudoria) had reference was self-evident to
the readers, and Paul, moreover, 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 apostle's
personal position alone was concerned. See
against this, Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1873,
p. 180 f.
2 On Scà plovov, comp. Matt. xxvii. 18; Mark
XV. 10; Plat. Rep. p. 586 D: 006vw dià Oldoteníay.
26.
THE ÉPISTLE OF PAUL' TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
.
with Tivés, whereas in pè kai previously the kai is attached to the following
διά φθόνον. The τινές here are they who in Ver. 14 were described as πλείο-
ves, but are now brought forward as, in contrast to the TiVÈS fév, the other.
portion of the preachers, without any renewed reference to their prepond-
erance in numbers, which had been already intimated. —di evdokiav] on
account of goodwill, that is, because they entertain a feeling of goodwill
towards me. This interpretation is demanded by the context, both in the
antithesis dià Bóvov K. špcv, and also in ver. 16 : & ayarns. Others take it,
contrary to the context, as: "ex benevolentia, qua, desiderant hominum
salutem” (Estius, comp. already Pelagius); or, “quod ipsi id probarent,"
from conviction (Grotius, Heinrichs, and others), from taking delight in
the matter generally (Huther), or in the cause of the apostle (de Wette), or
in his preaching (Weiss).
Vv. 16, 17. We have here a more detailed description of both parties in
respect to the motives which actuated them in relation to the dequoi of the
apostle.—oi jév ... oi dé] corresponds 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.
15 is again reverted to.-oišč åyámns] [IV. c.] sc. Övtes, a genetic description
of the ethical condition of these people: those who are of love, i. e. of loving
nature and action; comp. Rom. ii. 8; Gal. iii. 7; John xviii. 37, et al. We
must supply what immediately precedes : Tòv XPLOTÒv knpúscovolv, of which
εidóTES K.T.2. then contains the particular moving cause (Rom. v. 3, 6, 9; Gal.
ii. 16; Eph. vi. 8 f., et al.). We might also take oi jév (and then oi dé) abso-
lutely: the one, and then bring up immediately, for č& Syáīns, the sub-
sequent 7. XPLOTÒV katayyé hovoiv (so Hofmann and others). But this would
be less appropriate, because the progress of the discourse does not turn on
the saying that the one preach out of love, and the other out of contention
(for this has been said in substance previously), but on the internal deter-
mining motives which are expressed by EidóTES K.T.2. and oibuevOL K.T.T.;
besides, oux áyvūs would then follow as merely a weak and disturbing
auxiliary clause to ég Épldelas.-Ötleis árton. Tow εvayy. Keilai] that I am destined,
1 Van Hengel has not taken this into ac-
count, when he assumes that in TLÈS dè kai
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 .TIVÈS Sè kai completely harmon-
izes with that, whereby the nicioves generally,
and not merely a portion of them, were
characterized in ver, 14. (év KUP. TET. T. deon.).
This applies also in opposition to Hofmann,
according to whom the two tivés, ver. 15 f.,
belong to the adeloves of ver. 14, whom they
divide into two classes. Hofmann's objection
to our view, viz. that the apostle does not say
that the one party preach solely out of envy
and strife, and the other solely out of good-
will, is irrelevant. He could not, indeed,
have desired to say this, and does not say it;
but he could describe in general, as he has
done, the ethical antitheses which character-
ized the two parties. Moreover, épcs means
everywhere in the N. T., and especially here
in its conjunction with Cóvos (comp. Rom. i.
29; 1 Tim. vi. 4), pot rivalry-the weaker
sense assigned to it here, without a shadow
of justification from the context, by Hofmann
("they wish to ontdo him ")-but strife, con-
tention. Just as little is épcdeia to be reduced
to the general notion of egotism, as is done by
Hofmann; see on ver. 17.
2 As to the linguistic use of eúdoxia in this
sense (ii. 13), see Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p.
372. Comp. on Rom. x. 1.
CHAP. I. 16, 17.
27
.
am ordained of God for (nothing else than) the defence of the gospelma
destination which they on their parts, in consequence of their love to me,
feel themselves impelled to subserve. They labor sympathetically hand
in hand with me.--cưīual] as in Luke ii. 34; 1 Thess. iii. 3. Others render: I
lie in prison (Luther, Piscator, Estius, Wolf, am Ende, Huther, and others);
but the idea of lying under fetters, which kežual would thus convey?, does not
harmonize with the position of the apostle any more than the reference of
its meaning thereby introduced: they know that I am hindered, in my preach-
ing, and therefore they “supplent hoc meum impedimentum sua praedica-
tione;" Estius. See, on the contrary, Acts xxviii. 30, 31; Phil. i. 7. Van
Hengel also imports (comp. Weiss): "me ad causam rei Christianæ, ubi
urgeat necessitas, coram judice defendendam hic in miseria jacere."3_o
SÈ ÉŠ ép10.] sc. ÖVTES, the fuctious, the cabal-makers. See on Rom. ii. 8; 2 Cor.
xii. 20; Gal. v. 20. It corresponds with the păóvov K. &piv, ver. 15.--Tòv X.
katayy. ovx á yvūs] belong together. ' katayy, is, in substance, the same as
imptoosiv, but more precisely defining it as the announcement of the Mes-
siah (Acts xvii. 3, 23; Col. i. 28, et al.). The words t. Xplotòv katayyé dovolv
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 oux ảyvūs, non caste, not in purity of feeling and purpose.
kaðapūç is synonymous (Hom. H. in Apoll. 121), also with a mental refer-
ence (Hesiod. špya, 339). 5-oibuevol K.7.2. [IV d.] thinking to stir up affliction
for my bonds, to make my captivity full of sorrow. This they intend to
do, and that is the immoral moving spring of their unworthy conduct;
but (observe the distinction between oibuevol and kidótes 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 oiual with the present infinitive,
see Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 283. The future infinitive would not convey
that what is meant is even now occurring: How far they thought that
they could effect that injurious result by their preaching, follows from ver.
15 and from éš épubɛías; in so far, namely, that they doubtless, rendered
the more unscrupulous through the captivity of the apostle, sought by
their preaching to prejudice his authority, and to stir up controversial
and partisan- interests of a Judaistic character against him, and thus
thought thoroughly to embitter the prisoner's lot by exciting opponents
to vex and wrong him. This was the cabal in the background of their
dishonest preaching. That by the spread of the gospel they desired to pro-
voke the hostility of the heathen, especially of Nero, against Paul, and
thus to render his captivity more severe, is a groundless conjecture
imported (Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, and others; comp.
1 Comp. Plat. Legg x. p. 909 ; Thuc. iii. 45, 2,
47, 2; Ecclus. xxxviii. 29, and other passages
in which “kelodau tanquam passivum verbi
TTOLELØDa, vel tiévai videtur," Ellendt, Lex.
Soph I. p. 943.
2 Comp. Eur. Phoen. 1633; Aesch. Ag.
1492.
3 Comp. Hom. Od. i. 46; Soph. Aj. 316 (223);
Pfugk, ad Eur. Hec. 496.
4 So also Ignatius, ad Philadelph. 8.
6 Comp. Plat. Legg. viii. p. 840 D; 2 Cor. vii.
11, xi. 2; Phil. iv. S, et al. ; 2 Cor. vi. 6.
See generally Stallbaum, ad Plat. Crit. p.
52 C, comp. Phaed. p. 116 E.
28
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
already Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Pelagius).-On èyeipelv
(see the critical remarks) comp. šy. ádivas, Plat. Theaet. p. 149 C, and
similar passages.
Ver. 18. [On vv. 18–21, see Note V. pages 54, 55.] On ti yáp, scil. toti,
comp. on Rom. iii. 3, where, however, yáp is not, as here, conclusive (see
on 1 Cor. xi. 22"); comp. also Klotz, ad Devar. p. 245. It is rendered
necessary by the many that the mark of interrogation should not be placed
(as it usually is) after tí yáp, but the question goes on to katayyé detal
(comp. Hofmann); and it is to be observed that through thu the
τί γάρ Teceives the sense of τί γαρ άλλο 2 [V α.] Hence: what else talkes
place therefore in such a state of the case) except that, etc., i. e. what
else than that by every sort of preaching, whether it is done in pretence
or in truth, Christ is proclaimed? and therein, that it is always Christ
whom they preach, I rejoice, etc. How magnanimous is this liberality
of judgment as to the existing circumstances in their reference to
Christ! By nepopáoel and åandelę is indicated the characteristic differ-
ence in the two kinds of preachers, vv. 15–17, and thus navti TPÓTQ)
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 airía of their working (see
on the contrast between airía and apopaous, Polyb. iii. 6.6 ff.)—but a matter
of pretence, under the cloak of which they entertained in their hearts envy,
strife, and cabal, as the real objects of their endeavors. For instances of
the antithesis between πρόφασις and αλήθεια οι ταληθές, see Raphel, Polyb. ;
Loesner and Wetstein. To take apopaois as opportunity, occasions,—as, fol-
lowing the Vulgate, Luther, Estius, Grotius (“nam occasione illi Judaei,
dum nocere Paulo student, multos pertrahebant ad evang."), and others
understand it,-is opposed to the context in yy. 15–17, in which the want
of honest disposition is set forth as the characteristic mark of these persons.
On ihnu in the sense of ń, comp. Kühner, II. 2, p. 842.-ÉV Tourw] the
neuter : therein, in accordance with the conception of that in which the
feeling has its basis. (V 6. c.] In the Xplotòg katayyé letal lies the apos-
tle's joy-827 à Kai xaphooual] surpassing the simple xaipw by a plus, and
therefore added in a corrective antithetical form (ino etiam); comp. on 1
Cor. iii. 2; 2 Cor. xi. 1. To begin a new sentence with áraá (Lachmann,
Tischendorf), and to sever xaphoojal from its connection with ảv TOUTŲ
(Hofmann, who makes the apostle only assert generally that he will con-
tinue to rejoice also in the future), interrupts, without sufficient reason, the
flow of the animated discourse, and is also opposed by the proper refer-
1 According to Weiss, yáp is intended to
establish the oibuevou K. To n., so far as the
latter is only an empty imagination. But
this is an unnecessary seeking after a very
obscure reference. The ri yáp draws, as it
were, the result from vv 15–17. Hence also
we cannot, with Huther, adopt as the sense:
"Is it then so, as they think 9"
2 See Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 232 C.
3 Herod. i. 29, 30, iv. 145, vi. 94; Dem. xx. 26;
Antiph. v. 21; Herodian, i. 8. 16, V. 2. 14.
4 Comp. Col. i. 24; Plat. Rep. x. p. 603 C;
Soph. Th 1118; Kühner, II. 1, p. 403.
CHAP. I. 18, 19.
ence of oida yáp in ver. 19. [V d.]
Hinsch, p. 64 f.
This applies also in opposition to
REMARK.—Of course this rejoicing does not refer to the impure intention of
the preachers, but to the objective result. See, already, Augustine, c. Faust. xxii.
48; C. Ep. Parm. ii. 11. Nor does TavTÈ Tportw apply to the doctrinal purport of
the preaching (Gal. i. 8), but to its ethical nature and method, to disposition and
purpose. See Chrysostom and those who follow him. Nevertheless the apostle's
judgment may excite surprise by its mildness (comp. iii. 2), since these opponents
must have taught what in substance was anti-Pauline. But we must consider,
first, the tone of lojty resignation in general which prevails in this passage, and
which might be fitted to raise him more than elsewhere above antagonisms;
secondly, that in this case the danger did not affect as it did in Asia and Greece,
in Galatia and Corinth, his personal sphere of apostolical ministry; thirdly, that
Rome was the very place in which the preaching of Christ might appear to him
in itself of such preponderating importance as to induce him in the meantime,
while his own ministry was impeded and in fact threatened with an imminent
end, to allow-in generous tolerance, the lofty philosophical spirit of which Chry-
sostom has admired-of even un-Pauline admixtures of doctrine, in reliance on
the discriminating power of the truth; lastly, that a comparison of iii. 2 permits
the assumption, as regards the teachers referred to in the present passage, of a less
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 2 employ it, as a weapon of attack against the
genuineness of the epistle. Comp. the appropriate remarks of Hilgenfeld in his
Zeitschr. 1871, p. 314 ff.; in opposition to Hinsch, see on ver. 15. Calvin, more-
over, well says: “Quamquam autem gaudebat Paulus evangelii incrementis, nun-
quam tamen, si fuisset in ejus manu, tales ordinasset ministros."
Ver. 19. Reason assigned not only for the ảnhà kaì xaphoouai, but for the
entire conjoint assertion : év TOUTW zaipw, ánāà k. xap. For both, for his
present joy and for his future joy, the apostle finds the subjective ground
in the certainty now to be expressed.-TOūTO] [V e.] the same thing that
was conveyed by év toutw in ver. 18, this fact of Christ's being preached, from
whatever different motives it may be done-not: my present, tà kar šuá
(Hofmann).-eis ownplav] is, in conformity with the context, not to be
explained of the deliverance from captivity (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Mus-
culus, Heinrichs), or of the preservation of the apostle's life (Oecumenius),
or of the triumph over his enemies (Michaelis), or of the salvation multorum
hominum (Grotius); nor is it to be more precisely defined as the eternal
Messianic redemption (van Hengel, Weiss; comp. Matthies and Hoele-
mann), or as spiritual salvation (Rheinwald, de Wette). On the contrary,
the expression : "it will turn out to my salvation" (comp. Job xiii. 16), will
be salutary for mė, is, without anticipating the sequel, to be left without
1 Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeitalt p. 388.
? Who thinks that he recognizes here an
indistinct shadow of Tacitus, Agro. 41:
" Optinus quisque amore et fide, pessimi malig-
nitate et livore."
30
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
any more precise modal definition ; for Paul himself only announces, as the
discourse proceeds (ver. 20), how far he expects salutary results for him-
self to arise out of the state of things in question. [Ve] Bengel aptly
remarks: "non modo non in pressuram,” ver. 17.—Through the entreaty of
his Philippians, Paul knows, it will be salutary for him (comp. 2 Cor. i. 11;
Rom. xv. 31; 2 Thess. iii. 12; Philem. 22), and through supply of the Spịrit
of Christ, that is, through the Spirit of Christ supplying him with help,
strength, courage, light, etc. (comp. on ÉTlxopny., Eph. iv. 16). [V f.]
The words Sià rīs újūv deņoews ... XPLOTOī, embrace, therefore, two elements
which work together and bring about the amoßho. εis owTnp., one of these
on the part of the redders themselves (hence úpāv is placed first), the other
on the part of the Holy Spirit. After kaí, diá is to be again understood;
the article, however, is not repeated before ÉTlXop., not because the entreaty
and the mixopnyia are to be taken together as one category, which in this
passage would be illogical, but because Paul conceived the second member
of the clause without the article : supply (not the supply) of the Spirit. TOT
Trvavuaros is the genitive of the subject; as genitive of the object (Wiesinger,
in accordance with Gal. iii. 5) the expression would be inappropriate,
since. Paul already has the Spirit (1 Cor. vii. 40), and does not merely
expect it to be supplied, though in his present position he does expect the
help, comfort, etc., which the Spirit supplies.3 [V g.] Respecting the aveīja
XPLOTOū, see on Rom. viii. 9; Gal. iv. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 17. Paul here designates
the Holy Spirit thus, because Jesus Christ forms, in the inmost conscious-
ness of the apostle, the main interest and aim of his entire discourse, ver.
18 ff.
Ver. 20. It will prove salutary for me in conformity with my earnest
expectation (see, regarding årrokapadokia, on Rom. viii. 19) and my hope, that
I, etc. (object of the earnest expectation and hope). Others take öti as
argumentative (Vatablus, Estius, Matthies); but by this interpretation the
katà T. átok. K. ÉT. Ho seems, after the oida already expressed, to be an
addition for which there is no motive, and the flow of the discourse is
interrupted. No, when Paul says with ÖTl K.T.2. what it is that he earnestly
expects and hopes (comp. Rom. viii. 20 f.), he thereby supplies the precise
definition of the former merely general expression eis owenplav.-This is
neither clumsy nor unsuited to the meaning of ảnorapad., as Hofmann
thinks, who goes back with őre to the far distant olda, and finds it convenient
to co-ordinate it with the first ötl. Paul would have made this alleged
conjunction convenient and at the same time intelligible, only in the event
of his having written και ότι.-έν ουδενί αισχυνθήσομαι] that I shall in no point
(2 Cor. vi. 3, vii. 9; Jas. i. 4), in no respect, be put to shame; that is, in no
1 On Stoßnoetai, will turn out, issue, comp.
Luke xxi. 13; Job xiii. 16; 2 Macc. ix. 24;
Plat. Lys. p. 200 A; de virt. p. 379 C; Rep. p.
425 C; Dem. 1412. 10.
2 Bengel well says: “precationem in coclun
ascendenten; exhibitionem de coelo venientem."
If, however, επιχορηγίας is still to be included
in dependence on this úmwv (so Buttmann,
neut. Gr. p. 87 [E. T. p. 100]), the readers
would at all events appear as those com-
municatiog, which would yield an incongru-
ous idea.
3 Comp. Theodoret: Tod delov MOL atveúuatos
χορηγούντος την χάριν.
CHAP. I. 20.
. 31
respect will a result ensue tending to my shame,-a result which would
expose me to the reproach of having failed to accomplish my destiny
(comp. the sequel). Matthies understands it differently: "in nothing
shall I show myself shamefaced and fearful;" comp. van Hengel : “pudore
confusus ab officio deflectam.” But the context, in which Paul desires to
explain more in detail (comp. ver. 21) the words poi åroßhoetal kiç ournplav,
ver. 19, will not harmonize with any other than the above-named purely
passive interpretation; not even with the sense that Paul would not
“stand disgraced” (Weiss, comp. Huther), that is, be found unfaithful to
his office, or deficient in the discharge of its duties to the glorifying of
Christ. The connection requires a description, not of Paul's behavior, but
of the fate in which the touto of ver. 19 would issue for him. Hoelemann
takes év oúdɛví as masculine, of the preachers described in ver. 15 ff., who in
their ministry, though actuated by such various motives, "ita esse versa-
turos, ut inde non oriatur, de quo erubescat et doleat quum ipse, tum
etiam in re sua quasi Christus.” This interpretation is opposed both by
the context, which from ver. 18 onwards brings forward no persons at all;
and also by the sense itself, because Paul, thus understood, would be made
to express a confidence in the labors of those teachers which, as regards
the malicious portion of them (ver. 17, comp. ver. 15), would not be befit-
ting. The aio xúveotal of the apostle was indeed the very object which they
had in view; but, he means to say, oúk aloxúvoual, TOUTÉOTIV OÚ TEPLÉGovtal,
Chrysostom.-ána Šv taon Tapinoią k.7.2.] [V h.] the contrast to šv oúdevi
aio xvvonooual; for the apostle can receive no greater honor and triumph
(the opposite to the aio xúverbal) than to be made the instrument of glorify-
ing Christ (iii. 7 f): but with all freeness, as always, so also now, Christ will be
magnified in my body.—¿v mraon Tapino.] év tráon corresponds to the previous
Èv ovdeví, so that every Icind of freeness, which is no way restrained or
limited (comp. Acts iv. 29, xxviii. 31; 2 Cor. iii. 12), is meant, which
amounts substantially to the idea, "une pleine liberté” (Rilliet and older
expositors)? The subject of the freeness is Paul himself, inasmuch as it
was in his body that the fearless glorifying of Christ was to be manifested
(see below); but he expresses himself in the passive (usyałuvongetal) and
not in the active, because, in the feeling of his being the organ of divine
working, the Mot åroßhoetai eis ownplav (ver. 19) governs his conceptions
and determines his expression. Hofmann's view, that év 1, Tapino means
"in full publicity," as an unmistakable fact before the eyes of all, is lin-
guistically erroneous. See, in opposition to it, on Col. ii. 15.—ÁS TÁTOTE
kaì võv.] [V i.], so that the present circumstances, however inimical they
are in part towards me (vv. 15-18), will therefore bring about no other
result than this most happy one for me, which has always taken place.-
ÉV TẬ owuari uov] instead of saying: šv šuoi, he says: in my body, because
the decision was now close at hand, whether his body should remain alive
i Comp. on aioxúveolau, 2 Cor. x. 8, 1 John
ii. 28, and the passages of the LXX. in
Schleusner, I. p. 98 i.; aiso Xen, Cyr. vi. 4.
6; Plut. Mor. p. 1118 E.
? Comp. Wunder, ad Soph. Phil. 141 f.
32
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
or be put to death. But whichever of these possible alternatives should
come to pass, he earnestly expected and hoped that the glory of Christ.
would be thereby secured (eite dià Guñs εite dià Oavátov), in so far, namely, as
through his remaining in the body his apostolic labors would be continued
to the glory of Christ, and by the slaying of his body there would take place,
not the mere closing of his witness for Christ, as Hofmann, in opposition
to the text (vv. 21-23), refines away. this point, but his union with Christ.
Thus, therefore, he will not be put to shame even by his death; but, on
the contrary, Christ will be freely glorified by it, namely, practically glori-
fied, inasmuch as Paul, conscious of the great gain which he shall acquire
through death (ver. 21), will with unwavering joyfulness—with the frank joy-
ful courage of the martyr who is being perfected—die to the glorifying of
Christ. Comp. John xxi. 19. In any case, accordingly, the result must
ensue, that in his body, just as it has always hitherto been the living per-
sonal instrument of Christ's glory, now also the free glorification of Christ
shall be made manifest, whether this result be secured through its being
preserved alive or being slain. Hoelemann erroneously refers, šv ráon tapp.
to the bold preaching of the various teachers described in vv. 15–18, from
which now, as always, the glory of Christ shall result; and that indeed,
through the influence which such a fearless working would have on the
fate of the apostle, in his body, whether Christ grant to him a longer
course of life or death, in either of which cases the Lord will manifest
Himself to him as augustissimum auxiliatorem. But against this view it
may be urged, that év ovdeví does not refer to the teachers (see above); that
παρρησία is the contrast to αισχυνθήσομαι, so that the subject of the latter
must be also the subject of the former; and lastly, that Paul would thus
be made to say that the fearless working of others had always shown forth
Christ's honor in his body,—an expression which, as regards the last point,
might be suited to the present position of the apostle, but not to the us táv-
TOTE. Rilliet takes heyahvvdnoetai not in the sense of praising (Luke i. 46;
Acts v. 13, x. 46, xix. 17; Thuc. viii. 81; Xen. Hell. vii. 1. 13), but in the
material signification of grandir (Matt. xxiii. 5; Luke i. 58; 2 Cor. x. 15),
making it apply to the mental indwelling of Christ (Gal. ii. 20; Rom. viii.
10; Gal. iv. 19); so that Paul is made to hope that Christ may grow ever
more and more in him, that is, may more and more reveal Himself as the
principle of his life, and that this growth will be perfected whether he
himself live or die. But év tráoņ mapinoia would be an inappropriate defini-
tion of this idea; and ¿v TỘ objatí pov would also be inappropriate, as if
Christ would have, even by the apostle's death, to grow in his body; lastly,
neither the foregoing nor the subsequent context points to the peculiar
mystical idea of a growth of Christ in the human body; while the similar idea
in Gal. iv. 19 is there very peculiarly and clearly suggested by the context.
Ver. 21. Justification not of the joy, ver. 18 (Weissy, which has already
been justified in ver. 19 f., but of the cite dià Śwñs cite dià Oavátov just ex-
pressed : [V.;.] For to me the living is Christ, that is, if I remain alive, my
1“Nam et corpus coquitur et corpus moritur," Grotius.
CHAP. I. 21.
.
33
prolonged life will be nothing but a life of which the whole essential ele-
ment and real tenor is Christ (“ quicquid vivo, vita naturali, Christum
vivo,” Bengel), as the one to whom the whole destination and activity of
my life bear reference (comp. on Gal. ii. 20); and the dying is gain, inas-
much as by death I attain to Christ; see' ver. 23. Whichever, therefore,
of the two may come to pass, will tend to the free glorification of Christ;
the former, inasmuch as I continue to labor freely for Christ's glory; the
latter, inasmuch as in the certainty of that gain I shall suffer death with
joyful courage. Comp. Corn. Müller, who, however, assumes that in the
second clause Paul had the thought: "et si mihi moriendum est, moriar
Christo, ita etiam morte mea Christus celebratur,” but that in the emotion of
the discourse he has not expressed this, allowing himself to be carried
away by the conception of the gain involved in the matter. This assump-
tion is altogether superfluous; for, to the consciousness of the Christian
reader, the reference of the képsos to Christ must of itself have been clear
and certain. But the idea of képdos, 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 Képdos in death, his
own personal wish must have given the preference to the dying (see ver.
23). Others (Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Er. Schmid, Raphel, Knatchbull,
et al.) have, moreover, by the non-mention of Christ in the second clause,
been led to the still more erroneous assumption, in opposition both to the
words and linguistic usage, that in both clauses Christ is the subject
and képdoç the predicate, and that the infinitives with the article are to be
explained by após or katá, so that Christ" tam in vita quam in morte lucrum
esse praedicatur." Lastly, in opposition to the context, Rheinwald and
Rilliet take to šūv as meaning life in the higher, spiritual sense, and kaí as :
and consequently, which latter interpretation does not harmonize with the
preceding alternative eite. . . £ite. This explanation is refuted by the very
TÒ Sív év gapií which follows in ver. 22, since év capki contains not an anti-
thesis to the absolute to bñv, but on the contrary a more precise definition
of it. Although the δια θανάτου and το αποθανείν contrasted with the ζην,
as also ver. 20 generally, afford decisive evidence against the view that
takes tò Šiu in the higher ethical sense, that view has still been adopted by
Hofmann, who, notwithstanding the correlation and parallelism of tò Çñv
and το αποθανείν, oddly supposes that, while το αποθανείν is the subject in
the second clause, Tò 57 v is yet predicate in the first. Like tò åto avɛīv,
TÒ Sñv must be subject also.-époí] is emphatically placed first: to me, as
· regards my own person, though it may be different from others. Comp.
the emphatic ημών, iii. 20.3
1 Not the being dead (Huther, Schenkel). On
the combination of the Inf. pres. (continuing)
and cor. (momentary), comp. Xen. Mem. iv.
4.4: poeideto Mäddov tois vóuous émjeévwv áto-
Daveiv ħ tapavouûv Sîv, Eur. Or. 308: où ooi
karlaveiv aiphoonau kai säv, Epictet. Enchir.
13; 2 Cor. vii. 3. See generally Mätzn. ad
Antiph. p. 153 f.; Kühner, II. 1, p. 159. The
being dead would have been expressed, as in
Herod. i. 31, by telvával.
? For profane paralleis to the idea, though
of course not to the Christian import, of tò
34
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Ver. 22. [On vv. 22-24, see Note VI. pages 55-57.] Ak] carrying onward
the discourse to the comparison between the two cases as regards their
desirability. Weiss understands sé as antithetic, namely to tồ áno aveTv
κέρδος, and Hofmann as in contrast also to the έμοί το ζην Χριστός, but both
proceed on an erroneous view of what follows; as does also Huther. -
According to the tò årobaveīv képdos just expressed, the aroaveīv was put as
the case more desirable for Paul personally; but because the çñv, in which
indeed Christ is his one and all, conditioned the continuance of his official
labors, he expresses this now in the hypothetical protasis and, as con-
sequence thereof, in the apodosis, that thus he is in doubt respecting a choice
between the two.—The structure of the sentence is accordingly this, that the
apodosis sets in with kaì tí aiphoonal, and nothing is to be supplied : “But
if the remaining in my bodily life, and just this, avails for my work, I refrain
from a malcing Icnown what I should choose.” We have to remark in detail:
(1) that εi does not render problematical that which was said of the 5ñv év
oapki, but in accordance with the well-known and, especially in Paul's
writings, frequent (Rom. v. 17, vi. 15, and often) syllogistic usage (Herbst
and Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1), posits the undoubted certainty (Wilke,
Rhetor. p. 258), which would take place in the event of a continuance of
life; (2) that Paul was the more naturally led to add here the specially
defining év gapicí to tò 5ñv (comp. Gal. ii. 20; 2 Cor. x. 3), because, in the
previously mentioned képdos, the idea of life apart from the body (comp.
2 Cor. V. 8) must have been floating in his mind; (3) that TOūTO again
sums up with the emphasis of emotion (comp. Rom. vii. 10) the rò 5ñv Èv
capkí which had just been said, and calls attention to it,' for it was the
remaining in life, just this, this and nothing else (in contrast, to the
árodavęīv), which was necessarily to the apostle kaptos špyov; (4) that
kapós is correlative to the preceding képsos, and embodies the idea emolu-
mentum (Rom. i. 13, vi. 21, et al.; Wisd. iii. 13), which is more precisely
defined by špyov: worlc-fruit, gain of worlc, i. e, advantage which accrues to my
apostolical work; comp. on the idea, Rom. i. 13; (5) that kai, at the com-
mencement of the apodosis, is the subjoining also, showing that if the one
thing takes place, the other also sets in ;? (6) that tí stands in the place of
the more accurate πότερον, 8 and that the future αιρήσομαι (what I should
prefer) is quite in order,4 while also the sense of the middle, to choose for
himself, to prefer for himself, is not to be overlooked ; • (7) that où yvopíšw
is not to be taken, as it usually has been, according to the common Greek
usage with the Vulgate, in the sense of ignoro, but, following the invariable
usage of the N. T., as: I do not make it known, I do not explain myself on
årobaveîv képdos, (compare also Spiess, Logos
Spermaticos, 1871, p. 330 f.) see Wetstein.
Comp. Aelian. V. H. iv. 7; Soph. Ant. 464 f.;
Eur. Med. 145.
1 Bernhardy, p. 283 ; Kühner, II. 1, p. 568 f.;
Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 219.
2 See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 130 f.; Baeum-
lein, Partik. p. 146; Nägelsbach, 2. Ilias, p.
164, ed. 3; comp. on 2 Cor. ii. 2.
3Xen. Cyrop. i. 3. 17; Stallbaum, ad Phileb.
p. 168; Jacobs, ad Del. epigr..p. 219; Winer, p.
159 [E. T. 169.]
4 See Eur. Hel. 631, and Pflugk in loc.; and
Wiver, p. 280 [E. T. 299).
5 Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 13; Xen. Mcm. iv. 2. 29:
oi dè men eidotes Ő TU TOLOūOL, Kaks 8è aipova
llevou, Soph. Ant. 551 : Où mêm yap cüdov Säv.
Comp. also 3 Macc. ii. 6; 3 Esr. vi. 12
CHAP. I. 22.
· 35
the point, give no information upon it." Paul refrains from making and
declaring such a choice, because (see ver. 23 f.) his desire is so situated
between the two alternatives, that it clashes with that which he is com-
pelled to regard as the better.—The conformity to words and context, and
the simplicity, which characterize the whole of this explanation in
which, however, kapr. špyou is not to be taken as operae pretium (Calvin,
Grotius, and others), nor kai. as superfluous (Casaubon, Heinrichs, and
others), nor ov yvwpíšw as equivalent to oủk oida (see above),-exclude decis-
ively all other interpretations, in which toūTO and the kai of the apodosis
have been the special stumbling-blocks. Among these other explanations
are (a) that of Pelagius, Estius, Bengel, Matthies, and others (comp. Lach-
mann, who places a stop after špyov), that łoti is to be understood with
εν σαρκί, that the apodosis begins with τούτο, and that και τί αιρ. κ.τ.λ. is a
proposition by itself::"if the living in the flesh is appointed to me, then this
has no other aim for me than by continuous labor to bring forth fruit,” etc.
(Huther, l.c. p. 581 f.). But how arbitrarily is the simple ésti, thus sup-
plied, interpreted (mihi constitutum est)! The words toŰTÓ MOL kapros špyov,.
taken as an apodosis, are—immediately after the statement époi vào tò sñv
Χριστός, in which the idea of καρπός έργου is substantially conveyed,
already-adapted less for a new emphatic inference than for a supposition
that has been established; and the discourse loses both in flow and force.
Nevertheless Hofmann has in substance followed this explanation.3
(6) Beza's view, that εi is to be taken as whether : "an vero vivere in carne
mihi operae pretium sit, et quid eligam ignoro.” This is linguistically incor-
rect (kapros špyou), awkward (ei ... kaì tí), and in the first member of the
sentence un-Pauline (vv. 24–26). (c) The assumption of an aposiopesis
after špyov: if life, etc., is to me kaptos špyov, "non repugno, 120n aegre fero”
($0 Corn. Müller), or, "je ne dois pas désirer la mort” (Rilliet).* This is
quite arbitrary, and finds no support in the emotional character of the
passage, which is in fact very calm. (c) Hoelemann's explanation—which
supplies kaptós from the sequel after šīv, takes ToŪTO, which applies to the
ároaveiv, as the beginning of the apodosis, and understands kapros špyov as
an actual fruit: "but if life is a fruit in the flesh (an earthly fruit), this (death)
Aesch. Prom. 487; Athen. xii. p. 539 B; Diod.
Sic. i. 6.
Heinrichs, Rheinwald, van Hengel, de Wette,
Wiesinger, Ewald, Ellicott, Hilgenfeld.
Flul
1 Comp. van Hengel, Ewald, Huther, Schen-
kel, also Bengel, who, however, without any
ground, adds mihi. Not as if Paul intended
to say that “he kept it to himself,” a sense
which Hofmann wrongly ascribes to this
declaration. He intends to say rather that
he refrains from a decision regarding what he
should choose. The dilemma in which he
found himself (comp. ver. 23) caused him
to waive the giving of such a decision, in order
not to anticipate in any way the divine pur-
pose by his own choice.
2 So, in substance, also Chrysostom, Theo-
doret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus,
Luther, Calvin, and many others, including
3 If it be life in the flesh, namely, which I
have to expect instead of dying (?), then this,
namely the life in the flesh, is to me produce
of labor, in so far as by living I produce fruit,
and thus then (kai) it is to me unknown, etc.
This interpretation of Hofmann's also is lia-
ble to the objection that, if Paul intended to
say that he produced fruit by his life, logically
he must have predicated of his ζην εν σαρκί,
not that it was to him kaptos žpyov, but rather
that it was špyov kap. Toù, a work (a working)
which produces fruit.
4 See Winer, p. 557 f. (E. T. 599 f.); Meineke,
Menand. p. 238.
36
ANT
AT
THE EPISTLE THE PHILIPPIANS.
OF PAUL TO is also a fruit of (in) fact (a substantial, real fruit)”—is involved, artificial,
and contrary to the genius of the language (kapī. čpyou!). (e) The ex-
planation of Weiss is that, after εν σαρκί, κέρδος is to be again supplied as a
predicate, so that toŬTO, which is made to apply to the entire protasis,
begins the apodosis :.“but if life is a gain, that is a fruit of his labor,
because the successes of his apostolic ministry can alone make his life
worth having to him” (ver. 24). This supplying of képdoç, which was
predicated of the antithesis of the 5ñv, is as arbitrary as it is intolerably
forced; and, indeed, according to ver. 21, not képdos merely would have to
be supplied, but šuoù képdos; and, since Képdos is not to be taken from
árodavęīv, of which it is predicate, we should have to expect an also before.
TÒ Sñv, so that Paul would have written: ei dè (or ára εi) kaà TÒ Sñv év capki
έμοι κέρδος κ.τ.λ.
Ver. 23. Respecting the ri aiphoouai oủ yvwpiów, (VI c. page 56], Paul
expresses himself more fully in vv. 23, 24, proceeding with the explicative
Sé; for dé is not antithetical (Hofmann: “on the contrary”), but, in fact,
the reading yáp is a correct gloss, since the situation now follows, which
necessitates that relinquishment of a choice. But I am held in a strait of
the two points, namely the årolavɛīv and the sñv,of which he has just said,
Ti aip. ov yvwp. These dúo are not conceived in an instrumental sense, which
is expressed with ovvéx., by the dative, but as that from which the ovvé xeodal
proceeds and originates. -NV ÉTedvu. xWV K.7.2.] since my longing is to
die. [See note VI. page 56.] The article denotes, not “votum jam com-
memoratum" (Hoelemann), for Paul has not indeed as yet expressed an
ÉT Lôvuelv, but doubtless the desire, which Paul has. He says that his desire
tends towards dying, etc.,5 but that life is more necessary; and therefore
he knows that not that for which he longs, but that which is the more
necessary, will come to pass, and that he will remain alive (ver. 25).
Augustine aptly observes : "Non patienter moritur, sed patienter vivit et
delectabiliter moritur.”—ávalūoai] comp. 2 Tim. iv. 6; Isa. xxxviii. 12.
Dying is conceived as a breaking up (a figure taken from the camp) for
the departure, namely, from this temporal life to Christ (comp. úráyelv,
Matt. xxvi. 24; ÉKSNueīv, 2 Cor. v. 8 f.; and similar passages); hence the
kaì oùv XPLOTő eival immediately added. 6—1021m y. pā22. kpɛīroov] by much in
a higher degree better; a cumulative expression in the strength and vivid-
i Comp. Luke xii. 50; Acts xviii. 5; 2 Cor.
v. 14; Wisd. xvii. 11; Dem. 396. 22, 1484. 23;
Plat. Legg. vii. p. 791 E, Theaet. p. 165 B;
Heind. ad Plat. Soph. 46.
2 It is therefore more in harmony with the
context to refer ék twy dúo to what precedes
than to what follows (Luther, Rheinwald, Corn.
Müller, and others). Note that the emphasis
is laid on ouvexoual, which is the new climac-
tic point in the continuation of the discourse.
The word ouvex. itself is rightly rendered.
by the Vulgate: coarctor. The mere teneor
(Weiss and earlier expositors) is not sufficient
according to the context. Paul feels him-
self in a dilemma between two opposite alter-
natives.
3 Matt. iv. 24; Luke viii. 37; Acts xviii. 5;
Plat. Soph. p. 250 D; Eur. Heracl.. 634.
4 Bernhardy, p. 227 f.; Schoem. ad Is. p. 348;
Mätzner, ad Antiph. p. 167.
5 It is thus explained why Paul did not
write toù avaduoan (as Origen reads). eis is
not dependent on την επιθ. (επιθ. is never s0
construed; comp. Corn. Müller); but tv
GTLO. is absolute, and cis tò åvar. expresses
the direction of any émiO. čxwv: having my
longing towards dying. Comp. Thuc. vi. 15. 2.
Bengel: “ Decedere sanctis nunquam non
CHAP. I. 23–26.
37
ness of feeling. If here interpreted as potius (ver. 12), it would glance
at the preference usually given to life; but nothing in the context leads
to this. The predicate kpetogov (a much better, i. e. happier lot) refers to
the apostle himself ; comp. below, di juās.?
Ver. 24. 'ET LUÉVELV involves the idea: to remain still (still further), to
stay on, comp. Rom. vi. 1.-Év tīj oapki] in my flesh. Not quite equivalent
to the idea involved in šv capki without the article (ver. 22). The reading
without the év (see the critical remarks) would yield an ethical sense
here unsuitable (Rom. vi. 1, xi. 22; Col. i. 23).— åvaykalór.] namely, than
the for me far happier alternative of the ảvahvoal K. 6. X. εival. The neces-
sity for that is only a subjective want felt by the pious mind. But the
objective necessity of the other alternative has precedence as the greater;
it is more precisely defined by si újās, regarded from the standpoint of
love. Sť úpās] applies to the Philippians, who would naturally understand,
however, that Paul did not intend to refer this point of necessity to them
exclusively. It is the individualizing mode of expression adopted by special
love.
Vv. 25, 26. [On vv. 25, 26, see Note VII. page 57.] TOūTO TETOLO.]
10ŪTO does not belong to oida, but to TETOLO., and refers to the case of neces-
sity just expressed; having which as the object of his confidence, Paul
knows that, etc., so that őrl is dependent on oida alone-in opposition to
Theophylact, Erasmus, Calovius, Heinrichs, Flatt, and others, under whose
view the oida would lack the specification of a reason, which is given in this
very TOŪTO TETOLÓ., as it was practically necessary. 4-uevõ] I shall remain;
contrast to the αναλύσαι, which was before expressed by επιμένειν εν τ. σαρκί.
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 pevū: kai ovutapaļevā tãoLv
juiv, and I shall continue together with all of you; I shall with you all be pre-
served in temporal life. From vv. 6 and 10 there can be no doubt as to
the terminus ad quem which Paul had in view; and the mãou (comp. 1
Cor. xv. 51; Rom. xiii. 11) shows how near he conceived that goal to be
(iv. 5). [VII c.] 'Notwithstanding, Hofmann terms this view, which is
both verbally and textually consistent, quixotic, and invents instead one
which makes Paul mean by llevâ the remaining alive without his co-opera-
tion, and by tapajeva, which should (according to Hofmann) be read (see
the critical remarks), his remaining willingly, and which assumes that the
apostle did not conceive the και παραμενώ πάσιν υμίν as dependent on ότι,
but conveys in these words a promise to remain with those, “from whom he
could withdraw himself.” What a rationalistic, artificial distinction of ideas
optabile fuit, sed cum Christo esse ex novo. 2, p. 24 f., and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 13. 5; Borne-
testamento est.” This Christian longing, mann, ad Cyrop. p. 137, Goth.
therefore, has in view anything rather than a 2 Eur. Hec. 214: Daveiv mov &UUTUxía kpeídowy
“having emerged from the limitation of per- kúpnoev.
sonality” (Schleiermacher).-The translation 3“ Vitae suae adjici nihil desiderat sua
dissolvi (Vulgate, Hilary) is to be referred to causa, sed eorum, quibus utilis est.” Seneca,
another reading (åvadvonva.).
ep. 98; comp. ep. 104.
1 As to mandov with the comparative, see on 4 On the accusative of the object with te-
Mark vii. 36; 2 Cor. vii. 13; and Kühner, II. TOLD., comp. Bernhardy, p. 106; Kühner, II. 1,
38
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
m the cell, but will." If mapa shall not be
and separation of things that belong together! and what a singular
promise from the apostle's lips to a church so dear to him: that he will
not withdraw himself, but will remain faithful to them (Schneider and
Krüger, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 6. 2)! If rapa.uevū is the true reading, Paul says
quite simply: I know that I shall remain (shall not be deprived of life), and
continue with you all, i.e. and that I shall be preserved to you all. apaļevā,
to continue there, just like pevũ in the sense of in vita manere, Herod. i. 30.
Hence GotTapauÉPEun (Thuc. vi. 89. 3; Men in Stob. lxix. 4, 5), to continue
there with, to remain alive along with.2-eis Tv úrūv .:. Tior.] ýuwv, as the
personal subject of the apokoTÝ and xapà tñs tíotews, is placed first, with
the emphasis of loving interést; the latter genitive, however, which is the
real genitive of the subject, belongs to both words, īpOKOTIV K. Zapáv.
Hence: for your faith—furtherance and joy. [VII d.] Both points are to
be advanced by the renewed labors of the apostle among them (ver. 26).
The blending of them together by an êv dià dvoiv (Heinrichs, Flatt) is erro-
neous. Weiss, however, is also in error in urging that rīs riot. cannot
belong to ne pokorth also, because it would be in that case the genitive of
the object; the faith also is to be an increasing and progressive thing,
2 Cor. x. 15.—Ver. 26. įva Tò kaúxqua k.7.2.] [VII e.] the special and con-
crete aim of the general proposition eis tiiv ükõv apok. K. X. T. niot., which is
Consequently represented as the ultimate aim of the μενώ και συμπαραμ.
Trão. Úl. Comp. ver. 10. The kaúxnua, because úpāv 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: HELGÓvws. Ěxw kavxãohal juāv ÉTCSÓVtWv, Ewald:
my pride in you at the last day); nor is it equivalent to kaúxnols, gloriatio
(Flatt and many others), but 'it denotes, as it invariably does, materies
gloriandi (Rom. iv. 2; 1 Cor. v. 6, ix. 15 f.; 2 Cor. i. 14, v. 12; Gal. vi. 4).
Hence: that the matter in which you have to glory, i. e., the bliss as Chris-
tians in which you rejoice (compare previously the xapà tñs miotews), may
increase abundantly (comp. previously the apoko TN tñs niotews). The év
Xplotý 'Ingoũ that is added expresses the sphere in which the replaceverv 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 itePLOGEVELV
took place otherwise, it would be an egotistical, foreign, generally abnor-
mal and aberrant thing; as was the case, for example, with some of the
Corinthians and with Judaistic Christians, whose kavrão bau was based and
grew upon works of the law. The normal TrepLoOevel of the kaúxna of the
Philippians, however, namely, its teploDEVELV ÉV XPLOTÓ 'Incow, shall take
place—and this is specially added as the concrete position of the matter-
p. 267; also Wunder, ad Soph. 0. T. 259 f.
Observe that we may say: TTCTTOLOno LV TÉTOLDA,
2 Kings xviii. 19. Comp. on ii. 18.
Gregory of Nazianzus, I. p. 74 (joined with
ouvolalwvízelv).
1 Comp. Heb. vii. 23; Ecclus. xii. 15; Hom.
Il. xii. 402; Plat. Menes. p. 235 B; Lucian.
Nigr. 30; Herodian. vi. 2. 19.
2 Thus LXX. Ps. Ixxii. 5; Basil, I. p. 49;
This applies also against Huther, l. c. p.
585, who, in support of the signification
gloriatio, appeals to Pind. Isth. v. 65: kaú-
xnua katáßpexe olyą. But in this passago
also kaúxnua means that in which one glories,
CHAP. I. 25, 26.
39
ÉV tuoi dià ins éuñs tapovoías . após újās, that is, it shall have in me by my
coming again to you its procuring cause; inasmuch as through this return
in itself, and in virtue of my renewed ministry among you, I shall be the
occasion, impulse, and furtherance of that rich increase in your kaúxnua,
and thus the TEPLOOEVɛw will rest in- me. Consequently the Év in tv X. ’I.,
and the źv in šv šuoi, are differently conceived; the former is the specific,
essential definition of teploreún, the latter the statement of the personal pro-
curing ground for the reploo. Šv ’I. X., which the apostle has in view in refer-
ence to the kaúxnua of his readers,—a statement of the ground, which is
not surprising for the service of an instrument of Christ (Hofmann), and
which quite accords with the concrete species facti here contemplated, the
personal return and the apostolic position and ministry. The interpreta-
tion of Hofmann is thus all the more erroneous, viz. that the increase of
their glorying is given to the readers in the person of the apostle, in so far
as the having him again among them would be a matter of Christian joy and
pride to them. Thus would the apostle make himself in fact the object
and contents of the kavxãobal, which would neither be consistent with the
logical relation of the iva to the preceding eis T. Úl. TT POKOTİV K.T..., nor with
Paul's own deep humility (1 Cor. iii. 21, xv.9; Eph. iii. 8), which he satis-
fies also in 2 Cor. i. 14 by the mutual nature of the kaúxnua between him-
self and his friends, and in view of the day of Christ. By manyl év X. 'I.,
and by some even év šuoi? are referred, contrary to the position of the
words, to rò kaúxnua úpūv, with various arbitrary definitions of the sense,
6.9. Flatt: "so that ye shall have still more reason, in reference to me, to
glorify Jesus Christ (who hath given me again to you);" Rheinwald: “If
I shall be delivered by the power of Christ, ye will find abundant cause
for praising the Lord, who has done such great things for me.”-iákiv] is
connected, as an adjectival definition, with itapovo. See on 2 Cor. xi. 23;
Gal. i. 13; 1 Cor. viii. 7.
REMARK.–From vv. 20-26 we are not to conclude that Paul at that time was
in doubt whether he should live to see the Parousia (Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 355, and
others). For in ver. 20 he only supposes the case of his death, and that indeed, in
ver. 21, as the case which would be profitable for himself, and for which, therefore,
he protests in ver. 23 that he longs. But on account of the need for his life being
prolonged (ver. 24), he knows (ver. 25) that that case will not come to pass. This
oida (ver. 25) is not to be weakened into a probabiliter sperare or the like (Beza,
Calvin, Estius, and many others, also Heinrichs, Rheinwald; comp. Matthies,
van Hengel, Rilliet), with which Grotius, from connecting oida TETOLO., even
brings out the sense, “scio me haec sperare, i. e. malle ;” whilst others fall back upon
the argumentum a silentio, viz. that Paul says nothing here of any revelation (see
Estius, Matthies, and others), but only expresses an inference in itself liable to
error (Weiss). No, although he has supposed the possibility (comp. ii. 17) of his
being put to death, he nevertheless Inew that he should remain alive; and it
as the Scholiast has appropriately explained
it: ei kai indikaüta cioi Tŵr Aiyevntây tà
katopoúrara, Bpéxe kai é mikádutte TỶ owwny
See Calvin, Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Rilliet,
and others.
2 Storr, Flatt, Huther.
40
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO - THE PHILIPPIANS.
must withal be confessed that the result did not correspond to this definite oida,
which Bengel even goes so far as to 'refer to a dictamen propheticum. By no
means, however, is an imaginary situation to be suspected here (Baur), and just as
little can a second imprisonment at Rome be founded on this passage (Chrysostom,
Oecumenius, Theodoret, Bullinger, Piscator, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, and many
others, also Wiesinger); as to the relation of this passage to Acts xx. 25, see on
Acts.—We have further to notice that Paul, according to ver. 23, assumes that,
in case he should be put to death, he would go not into Hades, but into heaven to
Christ,—a conviction of the bliss attending martyrdom which is found in 2 Cor.
v. 8 and in the history of Stephen, Acts vii. 59, and therefore does not occur for
the first time in the Apocalypse (vi. 9 ff., vii. 9 ff.).2 Wetstein's idea is a mere
empty evasion, that by αναλύσαι is doubtless meant the dying, but by συν Χ, είναι
only the time following the resurrection (comp. also Weitzel, Stud. u. Krit. 1836,
p. 954 ff.); as also is that of Grotius, that gùv X. εival means: “in Christi custodia
esse," and "nihil hinc de loco definiri potest.” It is also altogether at variance with
the context (see vy. 20, 21), if, with Kaeuffer, we interpret ávalvoar as the change
that takes place at the Parousia (“ut quasi eximeretur carne"). Comp. on the
contrary, Polycarp: ad Phil. 9, őri éis TÒV ŠPELA ÓÞevov avtoic TÓTUV cioè mapà rồ
kupiw, w kai gyvéTralov, Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 5, of Peter : uaptupňoas étropeuln eis TÒV
ÖDELHÓLLEVOV TÓTOV TŘS dóš75, and of Paul : eis tòv ä ylov TÓTOV ŠTopeton, 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, Lehrbegr. p. 368, erroneously discovers in our passage a
modification of the New Testament view, dereloped only when the hope of a speedy
Parousia fell into the background. Comp. Neander and Baumgarten Crusius
(whose view amounts to an inconsistency of the conceptions): Opposed to these
views, even apart from 2 Cor. v. 8 and Acts vii. 59, is the fact that the speedy
Parousia appears still to be very distinctly expected in this epistle. See particu-
larly iii. 20 f. But we find nothing said in the New Testament as to an inter-
mediate body between death and resurrection. See remark on 2 Cor. v. 3. There
is a vague fanciful idea in Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 443 f., who in p. 419 ff., however,
forcibly shows the incorrectness of the doctrine of the sleep of the soul.
1 Hirsch even assigns, l. C. p. 71, to the
passage with its vivid emotion the character
of a historico-critical reflection. He represents
the author of the epistle as having in view
the various opinions current in his age
regarding the close of the apostle's life,
in other words, the question, whether his
captivity at that time ended in his being
put to death, or in his being set at liberty
and beginning a new course of labor. The
author adduces the grounds of both views
putting them in the mouth of the apostle, and
in ver. 24 decides in favor of the second;
the original, of which the present passage
is an imitation, is to be found (as Baur also
thinks) in 2 Cor. v. 8, Rom. xiv. 8. See Hil-
genfeld, in opposition to Baur and Hinsch.
2 All we can gather from Rom. viii. 10 f.
is merely that the life of believers remains
unaffected by the death of the body; as at
John xi. 25 f. They remain in fellowship
with Christ; but as to the mode and place of
this fellowship, of which they might indeed
be partakers even in Hades (Paradise, Luke
xvi. 22 ff., xxiii. 43; Phil. ii. 10), as little is
said in that passage as in viii. 38, xiv. 8. But
in the passage we are considering, the words
oùv XPLOTĄ eivai point to an actual being with
the Lord in heaven (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 14, 17;
Acts vii. 59; 2 Cor l. c.), and do not therefore
apply to the state in Hades (in opposition to
Güder, Erschein. Chr. unt. d. Todten, p. 111,
and others); see also 2 Cor. v. 8. This union
with Christ, however, is not the dóša as the
ultimate goal of hope; see iii. 20 f.; Col. iii. 3.
To the latter belongs also the bodily trans-
figuration, which can only take place at the
Parousia, 1 Cor. xv. 23. This applies also in
opposition to Gerlach, d. letzt. Dinge, p. 79 ff.,
whose distinction between corporeality and
CHAP. I. 27.
Ver. 27. [On vv. 27-30, see Note VIII. page 58.] To these accounts
regarding his own present position Paul now subjoins certain exhortations
to right conduct for his readers.--uóvov] [VIII a.] without connecting
particle, as in Gal. ii. 10, v. 13. With the above assurance, namely, that
he shall continue alive, etc., he, in order that the object of this preserving
of his life (ver. 25) may be accomplished in them, needs only to summon
them to be in a way worthy of the gospel members of the Christian commu-
nity (Tohitevegbe); nothing further is needed. Hofmann, in consequence
of his finding previously a promise, finds here, equally erroneously, the
only counter-demand made for it.---TOū Xplotov] of Christ. See on Mark i. 1.
---TOALTevec0€] [VIII 6.] comp. on Acts xxiii. 1. The word, which is not
used elsewhere by Paul in the epistles to express the conduct of life, is
here purposely chosen, because he has in view the moral life, internal and
external, of the Christian commonwealth, corresponding to the purport of
the gospel (Tohlteveo at, to be citizen of a state, to live as citizenz). See the
sequel. It is also selected in Acts xxiii. 1, where the idea of the official
relation of service is involved (Trocteuerdal, to administer an office in the
state). Comp. 2 Macc. vi. 1, xi. 25; 3 Macc. iii. 4. In the absence of such
references as these, Paul says TEPLTATETv (Eph.iv.1; Col. i. 10, with ážíws).
είτε ελθών κ.τ.λ.] a parenthetic definition as far as απών, so that ακούσω then
depends on iva: in order that I-whether it be when I have come and seen you,
or during my absence from youmay hear, etc. The two cases εitɛ ... kite
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 (eite
árów). In either event it is his earnest desire and wish that he may come
to learn the affairs of the church in their excellence as described by ötl
OTÝLCETE K.7.2. It cannot surprise us to find the notion of learning expressed
by the common form of the zeugnia, corresponding to the εite åráv, and
from the åkovow accordingly employed there naturally suggests itself a
word of kindred import to correspond with eitɛ ãoWv K.7.2., such as yvū.
The rash opinion, repeated even by Hofmann, that ákovow only refers to
the second case, does the apostle the injustice of making his discourse
* hiulca” (Calvin), and even grammatically faulty (Hofmann), it being
supposed that he intended to write either: "ut sive veniens videam vos,
sive absens audiam,' or: “sive quum venero et videro vos, sive absens
audiam de statu vestro, intelligam utroque modo," etc. Calvin allows a
materiality (Leiblichkert und Korperlichkeit] is 54: Todetevóuevos tnv åretaMédntov moliteiav
not in harmony with the New Testament, TOŮ Ocoû, ch. 21. åsiws aútoŮ TOALTEVÓMeVol.
which distinguishes rather between owua 3 It is a mistake (notwithstanding Winer, p
and sáps.
578 (E. T. 622]) to suppose that in a zeugma
1 See also 2 Macc. vi. 1, xi. 25; 3 Macc. iii.. the directly appropriate verb must be joined
4; Joseph. Antt. iii. 5. 8, Vit 2; Wetstein to the first member. It can also be joined
ad loc., and Suicer, Thes. II. p. 709. ff.
with the second, as here. Comp. Xen. Anal.
2 Comp. however, Clement, Cor. i. 3: Toleo vii. S. 12, and Kuhner in loc., Plat. Rep. p.
Teveolar katà rò kalnkov TỘ Xplot@, and ch. 589 C, and Stallbaum in loc.; Hom. II. iii. 327,
·
42
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
choice between these two interpretations; the latter is approved of by de
Wette and Weiss (comp. Rilliet and J. B. Lightfoot). Hofmann also
accuses the apostle of the confusion of having written kite ánov árovow tà
Tepi yuūv (which words are to be taken together), as if he had previously
put εite ¿200v opouai úpās; but of having left it to the reader mentally to supply.
the verbs that should have depended on iva, and of which two? would have
been needed! The passage employed for comparison, Rom. iv. 16, with
its close, concise, and clear dialectic, is utterly a stranger to such awkward-
ness. Hoelemann finally interprets the passage in a perfectly arbitrary
way, as if Paul had written : iva, εite 20wv k, idūv vuās, eite đTÒV kaì åkovoas
Tà Trepi vuāv, othKNTE K.T.2., thus making the participles absolute nominatives.
-tà nepi úpwv] the object of ákovow, so that. ŐTL OTNICETE K.T.., that, namely, ye
stand, etc., is a more precise definition arising out of the loving confidence
of the apostle, analogous to the familiar attraction oidá ce tis ei, and the
like; Winer, p. 581 [E. T. 625]. It has been awkwardly explained as
absolute : “ quod attinet ad res vestras” (Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Matthies,
and others), while van Hengel not more skillfully, taking kita åkovow T.
17. Úl. together, afterwards supplies árovow again. Grotius, Estius, and am
Ende take tá even for tavra, and Hoelemann makes Paul express himself
here also by an cinakoluthon (comp. above on kite 20w1 K.T..), so that
either őt should have been omitted and othknTe written, or tá should not
have been inserted.---έν ένα πνεύματι] is to be joined with στήκετε, alongside
of which it stands, although Hofmann, without any reason, takes it abso-
lutely (2 Thess. ii. 15). It is the common element, in which they are to
stand, i. e. to remain steadfast (Rom. v. 2; 1 Cor. xv. 1, xvi. 13), avevjati,
however, refers not to the Holy Spirit, but, as the context shows by uzõ
puxñ, to the human spirit; comp. 1 Thess. V. 23. The perfect accord of
their minds in conviction, volition, and feeling, presents the appearance
of one spirit which the various persons have in common. De Wette well
says: “the practical community of spirit.”. Comp. Acts iv. 32. It is, as a
matter of course, plain to the Christian consciousness that this unity of the
human spirit is brought about by the Holy Spirit (see on Eph. iv. 3 f., 23),
but évì aveul. does not say so. Moreover the emphasis is on this šv Évè TV.,
and therefore peõ 4. is subsequently placed first.—The special mode which
this standing fast in one spirit desired by the apostle is to assume, is con-
tained in the sequel down to åvilkelj.—ucă yuxñ ovva@. K.T.7.] The puxh, as
distinguished from the avɛūpa, is the principle of the individual personal
life, which receives its impressions on the one hand from the avevja as the
principle of the higher divine Śwń, 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.).3
and Faesi in loc.; generally Nägelsbach, a
Ilzas, p, 179, ed, 3; Bremi, ad Lys. p. 13 ff.;
Kühner, II. 2, p. 1075 f.
1 But why two? He would only have needed
to insert nadw or yvū before ötl. This would
have suited both halves of the alternative
discourse, in the confused form in which
Hofmann makes it run, and there would
be no necessity whatever for two verbs.
2 Erasmus, Beza, and others, also Hein-
richs, Rheinwald, Matthies, van Hengel, Weiss.
3 Comp. ivóvuxos ii. 20; ovuyuyor, ii. 2;
CHAP. I. 28.
43
But reç y. does not also belong to othkete (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther,
Er. Schmid, and others), for ovvalla. requires a modal definition in harmony
with the context.---συναθλούντες] in keeping with στήκετε, according to the
conception of a contest (comp. ver. 30), under which the activity of Christian
faithfulness is presented in relation to all hostile powers. The compound,
striving together (comp. iy. 3, and ovvaywvíceolai, Rom. xv. 30), is not to be
overlooked, as if ovvatn., with the dative of the thing expressed merely the
entering or stepping into the lists for it (Hofmann). It does not refer, how-
ever, to the fellowship of the Philippians themselves (“quasi facto agmine
contra hostes evang.," Grotius.)? Paul looks upon himself as a combatant
(ver. 30,.comp. ver. 7), and the Philippians as striving with him, and afford-
ing him assistance (Diod. iii. 4) as his oúvadlo. in defending the faith (object-
ively viewed), protecting it and rendering it victorious. [VIII c.] That
they were to do this with one accord, is stated emphatically by ulą yuxñ, but
is not conveyed by ovva02. in itself. If, however, Paul is the combatant,
the passage cannot be understood in the sense: “adjuvantes decertantem
adversus impios evangelii ficlem,” Erasmus, Paraphr.; 3 even apart from
the fact that such a personification of Tiotis is unprecedented, and must
have been suggested by the text, as in the case of tñ áhnbelą, 1 Cor. xiii. 6.
- Ñ níotel is the dative commodi (comp. Jude 3), [VIII d.] not instru-
menti,4 which plī yuxñ was. As to the genitive of the object with riotis,
see on Rom. iii. 22.
Ver. 28. On stúpeodal, to become frightened (of horses, Diod. ii. 19, xvii: 34;
Plut. Fab. 3; Marc. 6), to be thrown into consternation (Diod. xvii. 37 f. ; Plat.
Ax. p. 370 A; Plut. Mor. p. 800 C), see Kypke, II. p. 312. In Gen. xli. 8
Aquila has katamtúpeodal.-év undevil in no point, nulla ratione, ver. 20; 2
Cor. vi. 3, vii. 9; Jas. i. 4.-The ávalkeilevo(comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 9) are the
non-Christian opponents of the gospel among Jews and Gentiles, and not the
Judaizers and their adherents (Flatt), or the malevolent false teachers (Mat-
thies). This follows from ver. 30, since the whole position and ministry
of the apostle was a conflict with such adversaries, comp. ver. 7.—YTIS ÉOTİV
avtoic K.7..] (VIII e.] which is indeed, etc., refers to the preceding un atúpec-
OaL ÚTÒ Tūv å vTLKELf., to which Paul desires to encourage them. This undaunt-
edness in the ovvaż0€īv, and not the latter itself (Hofmann), is now the lead-
ing idea, with which what has further to be said connects itself; hence
pris 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 ånwhεias úpôv, úuiv dé-avrois] Tois åVT LICELLÉVOLS is to be taken simply as
dative of reference: which is to them an indication of perdition. The ñtus
Herodian. viii. 5. 15: Mcą re yvuun kai yuxn,
Rom. xv. 6, duobuuadóv, 4 Macc. xiv. 20, óóyv-
xos, 1 Pet. iii. 8, duódpwy.
i Comp. Col. ii, 1; 1 Thess, ii, 2; 1 Tim. vi,
12; 2 Tim. iv. 7, et al.; also Soph, O. C. 564;
Eur. Suppl. 317; Aesch, Prom. 95.
8 Comp. Castalio, Michaelis, Mynster, Flatt,
Lightfoot.
.4 Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, Loesner,
Rheinwald, and others.
6"Οταν γάρ ίδωσιν, ότι μυρία τεχναζομενοι
ουδέ πτυραι υμάς δύνανται ου δείγμα τούτο
oapès éfovoLv, öti tà fièv avtûv åtoloûvrai,
τα δε υμέτερα ισχυρά και ανάλωτα και αυτοθεν
exovta tnv owympiav; Theophylact.
VTO
2 Comp. Hoelemann, Rilliet, de Wette, Wie-
singer, Weiss, and others, following Chrysos-
tom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius.
AVTOVO
44
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS..
involving a reason is just as in Eph. iii. 13. See on that passage. This
would be still more emphatically expressed by itis yɛ (Klotz, ad Devar. p.
305). But the fact that the åvilkellevou do not recognize in the undaunted-
ness of those persecuted a proof (not: Causa, as in the Vulgate ; but comp.
Rom. iii. 25 f.; 2 Cor. viii. 24; Plat. Ep. vii. p. 341 E; Legg. xii. p. 966 C)
of their own perdition, and on the other hand of the salvation of the per-
secuted (uuāv dè owinpias), does not alter the state of the case in itself, that
the μη πτύρεσθαι is in reality objectively such an ένδειξις to them. It is,
indeed, the onlletov of the righteous divine cause, and of its necessary final
victory. Perdition and salvation : both without more precise definition;
but the reader knew what reference to assign to each, viz. the Messianic
perdition and salvation.ķai ToŰTO ÅRÒ D800] and that (see on Rom. xiii. 11)
of God, thus certain, therefore, and infallible. It adds force to the
encouragement conveyed by yuāv dè owinpias; for the context shows by the
úuiv which is emphatically placed first in ver. 29,—without making the
reading ýuiv necessary, however, in ver. 28 (Hofmann); see the critical
remarks,—that TOūto refers only to this second and main part of ýtis K.T.N.
(Calvin, Piscator, Calovius, Flatt, and others, also Ewald and Hofmann),
and not to both halves of ýtis (Beza, Grotius, and many others, also Wies-
inger, Weiss, and Ellicott). Entirely foreign to the connection is any
purpose of humiliation (Hoelemann and older expositors, following the
Greek Fathers). Nor are the words to be attached to what follows (öri, that)
(Clemens Alex., Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others, and recently
Rilliet); in which case the (preparative) TOŪTO would receive an uncalled-
for importance, and yet åtò Deoū would be obviously intelligible through
έχαρίσθη.
Ver. 29. "Oti is argumentative. “Kai ToĪTO ÅTÒ Okov," I say, "since indeed
to you it was granted," etc. This grant distinguishing you is the practical
proof, that the just expressed årò Okoũ is indubitably right, and that con-
sequently the ĚVDELŠIS of your final salvation which is afforded to the adver-
saries in your undauntedness is a divine švdaišis, a token given by God.2
Hofmann's view, that ori specifies the reason why God imparts to them
what has been before stated, is based upon the erroneous reading újiv in
ver. 28; and is itself erroneous, because őtt would introduce merely the
self-evident thought that they had not sought out their suffering wilfully, but
had had it given to them by God, and because, for the purpose of marking
the alleged contrast to the wilfulness, not úuiv, but åtò Oegū again would
have been emphatically prefixed, and consequently Paul must have writ-
ten : őri NTÒ Deoũ vuīv špapioon K.7.2. Hofmann curiously explains the
emphasized úuiv, as if Paul meant to say that with respect to their suffer-
ings the case stood exactly as with his own. In that case he must at least
have written, in prospect of ver. 30, kaì úpīv, to you also.--ýjiv] emphatically
put first, corresponding to the previous υμών δε σωτερίας.–έχαρίσθη] donatum
i Comp. op the matter, 2 Thess. i. 5 ff.; Rom.
viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12; Luke xii. 32, et al.
? At the same time it is to be observed here
also (comp. on ver. 28) that this divine point
ing 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.
CHAP. I. 29, 30.
45
est; by whom, is self-evident. 1 Cor. ii. 12.—Ò ÚTÈD Xplotoū] as if the
Táo xelv was immediately to follow. The apostle does not leave this unwrit-
ten purposely, in order to bring into prominence in the first place the idea
of úmép, as Hofmann artificially explains. But here his full heart inter-
poses, after 7. ÚTÈO XPLOTOū, and before he writes táo xely, the fresh thought
ou jóvov Tò els avr. TLOTEVELV, so that å?hà kaì must now be also added; and,
on account of the different prepositional relation (eis) introduced, the rò
υπέρ Χριστού already expressed is again talken up by το υπέρ αυτού. Thus oύ
jóvov ... ÚTÈp autoù appears as a parenthesis of more special definition,
after which the πάσχειν, which had been prepared for by το υπέρ Χριστού, but
is only now introduced, is to be dwelt upon with emphasis : “ to you the
gift of grace is granted, in behalf of Christ-not only to believe on Him, but
also for Him—to suffer." i It is an awkward construction, to take tÒ ÚTIÈD
X. absolutely and (notwithstanding the subsequent úrèp aútov) in the sense:
as to what concerns Christ (Beza, Camerarius, Calovius, and others, includ-
ing Matthies and Rilliet). For the conception of suffering for Christ as a
high divine distinction, see already Acts v. 41; comp. Matt. v. 11 f. Comp.
on ver. 7.
Ver. 30. [VIII f.]. So that ye have the same conflict, etc., serves to charac-
terize the vulv éxap. TÒ ÚTÈP X. Táoxelv just asserted; and Paul's intention
in thus speaking, is to bring home to them the high dignity and distinction
of suffering for Christ, which is involved in the consciousness of fellowship
in conflict with the apostle. It is impossible, in accordance with the true
explanation of what goes before (see on ver. 29), to find in Tòv autóv, that
they have themselves sought their conflict of suffering as little as the apos-
tle had sought his, but, on the contrary, have received it as a gift of grace
from God (Hofmann). The participle might have been put by Paul in the
nominative (instead of the dative), because lleis 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; Kühner, II. 2, p. 661 f.
There is therefore neither a logical nor a grammatical reason, with Ben-
gel, Michaelis, Lachmann, Ewald (comp. also Buttman, Neut. Gr. p. 256
[E. T. 299]), to treat őris ... Táo xelv as a parenthesis,-a construction
which would be only an injurious interruption to the flow of the discourse.
—Tòv ajtóv] namely, in respect of the object; it is the conflict for Christ
(ver. 29) and His gospel (ver. 7).-olov εidete K.7.2.] as ye have seen it in my
person (viz. whilst I was still with you in Philippi; see scenes of this con-
flict in Acts xvi. 16 ff.; comp. 1 Thess. ii. 2), and now (from my epistle
which is read out to you) ye hear in my person. Paul, in his epistle, speaks
to the Philippians as if they were listening to him in person ; thus they
hear in him his conflict, which is made known to them in the statements
of the apostle. This explanation is all the less unfitting, as Hofmann
terms it (comparing the èv juiv in 1 Cor. iv. 6), since Paul must necessarily
have assumed that the statements in the epistle regarding his sufferings
.
1 Plat. Legg. X. p. 802 C: ei dè favňoetai
yuxn mpôtov, où Tüp oủôè anp, yuxń dè év uttpu
TOLS yeyevnuévn. See also Dissen, ad Dem. de
cor. p. 431; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 501.
46
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
would not fail to receive more detailed description in Philippi on the part
of Epaphroditus. The rendering de me for the second év šuoi, adopted by
Peschito, Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and others, including
Flatt, is erroneous.
NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR.
I. Vv. 1, 2.
The salutation of this Epistle corresponds, in its general characteristics, with
those of the other Pauline Epistles. Its only peculiarity, as distinguishing it
from all the rest, is the special mention of the church officers among those who
are addressed. The reason for thus alluding to them may, not improbably, be
the one suggested by Meyer (with wliom Weiss, Ellicott and others agree), but
it may be connected with the particularly intimate relations which the Apostle
sustained to all the membership of this Church, the evidence of which is mani-
fest throughout the Epistle. That these officials are placed in the salutation
after the company of believers, may be due to the fact that the gift sent to
Paul was the result of a general contribution. It would seem, however, that
he could hardly have written thus, if he had not esteemed the believing body
as of more importance than its officers.
The Church is not designated here by the word Škkanoia, as it is not in the
opening words of any of the letters which are later in date than 2 Cor. and Gal.
As the Ep. to the Romans, in which this term first disappears from the saluta-
tion, was probably not separated in time from either of those Epistles by a period
of more than from three to six months, the change in expression must undoubt-
edly have heen accidental, rather than the result of any settled purpose or new
ideas. The natural effect of a progress in church organization, it would seem,
would rather have been in the opposite direction. For this reason, as well as
because the earliest officers of the churches were presbyters and deacons, conclu-
sions as to the date of this Epistle, or as to any peculiar or established church
constitution, can scarcely be founded upon the words here used.
With regard to the absence of the word árbotohos in this salutation, it may,
after the same manner, be said that no altogether satisfactory account can be
given of its insertion or omission. It occurs in letters addressed to individuals
(Tim, and Titus), as well as in those written to churches; and, among the latter,
it is found not only in cases where Paul's apostolic authority was assailed (Gal.,
2 Cor.), but where there is little evidence of any intended reference to such
opposition, (Rom., 1 Cor.). It is omitted, on the other hand, in 1st and 2d
Thess., Phil., and Philem. Perhaps the hest suggestion which can be offered
is that the letters, whether to churches or individuals, whose opening words
contain this term, have a somewhat more official character than those in which
it does not appear.
With respect to the relation of Timothy to the Epistle, the view of Weiss,
Ellicott, Lightfoot and others, seems more probably to be the correct one-that
he simply "takes part in the greeting." No doubt, that if he had not agreed
with Paul in opinions and feelings, his name would not have been inserted.
But there appears to be no sufficient ground for supposing, with Meyer, that
the Apostle had had any special or formal discussion with him as to the exhort-
NOTES.
47
ations and teachings which were to be addressed to the Philippians in the
letter. Timothy was well known to the church and was about to visit it on
behalf of Paul, but the Apostle is apparently in this case, as in all others where
he associates his companions with himself in his words of address, the sole author
of the Epistle in every sense.
II. Vv. 3-11.
With reference to the construction and meaning of these verses, the following
points may be noticed : (c) As εvxaplotā is the leading verb and apparently ex-
presses the feeling which was uppermost in the Apostle's mind, it is most natural
to hold that the words Érì Tộ kouvwvlą are to be connected with it. This view gains
support from the following verses, which set forth the confidence which he has for
the future respecting the continuance of what now constitutes the ground of his
thankfulness. It is also confirmed by the fact that in the beginning of other
epistles where εvxaplotū occurs, it is followed by the same preposition with a
dative, or by clauses of another form, expressing the reason or occasion of his
grateful feeling (1 Cor. i. 4, 5; Rom. i. 8; 2 Thess. i. 3; Col. i. 3, 4; Philem. 4,5).--
(6) The Connection of πάντοτε :κ.τ.λ.-whether with ευχαριστώ or with μετα χ. τ. δ.
TOLOVLEVOS—is more doubtful. Távtote is, in some similar cases in Paul's writings,
evidently to be joined with eúx. (e. g. 1 Thess. i. 2; 2 Thess. i. 3, ii. 13). In other
cases, however (e.g. Col. i. 4; Philem. 4; cf. Rom. i. 9, 10), it may qualify the partici-
pial word, and it is to be observed that the present sentence has peculiarities which
render any conclusions drawn from comparison with kindred passages uncertain.
There is no other instance where the accumulation of phrases conveying the idea
of "all," and the twofold use of démons, are found. The sentence may, therefore,
be properly determined in its construction by the probabilities belonging to itself.
These, on the whole, favor the uniting of Távtotɛ K.7.2. with troLOÚ LEvos. After
the insertion of επί πάση τη μνεία υμών, the addition of these words would seem
unnecessary and antecedently improbable, as connected with εüxaplotā; while, as
modifying coloufl., they are very suitable and natural. The participial clause, if
including these words, is more easily accounted for than if they are separated from
it. If the writer says, that he thanks God in all his remembrance of them always
in every prayer on their behalf, there is little emphasis to be gained by adding,
parenthetically, that he offers these prayers with joy. But, on the other hand, if
his words are, “I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, in every prayer
of mine on behalf of you all making the prayer with joy," the added clause serves
a purpose corresponding in some measure, though not precisely, with that of Rom.
i. 9, 10 as related to evx. in Rom. i. 8. It shows how natural it was—as he was
always joyfully offering prayers for them—to give thanks, when he called them to
mind, for their fellowship in respect to the gospel. -
(c) The determination of the meaning of kolvwvía ülāv (ver. 5) seenis to depend
on two points: 1. The absence of any defining words giving these words a special
application, as e. g. to gifts of money, and also (as Meyer suggests) of any such
words as let'ějoī, which would indicate fellowship on their part with himself,
and this alone; and 2. The fact that in iv. 14, 15, the Apostle, by the use of the
· corresponding verb, refers distinctly to their contributions for his benefit, and
speaks of those contributions, as he does here of the Kolvwvíc, as having been made
also at the beginning of their: Christian life (έν αρχή του ευαγγελίου, iv. 15; από της
48
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Tapútns fuépas, i. 5). In view of these facts, we must hold, with Meyer, that the
words mean the fellowship of the Philippians with one another, but that, in using
the expression, the writer had in mind the thought that, as this fellowship worked
out to the end of furthering the gospel, it directed itself towards the supply of his
wants as a means to the end. Kolvwvia is not, therefore, to be understood here in
the sense of contribution, and it does not, in and of itself, suggest coöperation with
Paul, but only with one another. But, in the outgoing of their mutual coöpera-
tion, their affection for him led them to help the cause which they had at heart
by helping him.
(d) TETOLOūs avtò TOūTO (ver. 6). The participle here appears to be circum-
stantial (as Mey.), rather than causal (as Ell., Lightf., and others). It is not pre-
cisely parallel with moLOÚVEVOS (Alf., de W.), but it denotes the feeling which
accompanies his thanksgiving. Confidence in the future naturally unites itself
with his knowledge of the past and the present, and thus is ever in his mind when
he expresses his gratitude to God. The view of Meyer with regard to avrò TOŰTO
that it means for this very reason-is to be rejected, both because of the order of the
words in the clause (so Lightf.), and because the argument which Meyer urges has
no sufficient basis,-namely, that "nothing has been yet said of the contents of the
confidence, which are to follow." This is true, if we are to understand the state-
ment in the strictest and most precise sense. But the subject respecting which the .
Apostle is confident for the future is so far indicated in the preceding verse as to
justify the use of avtò TOŪTO as it is used in Eph. vi. 22, Col. iv. 8. The “good
work” is the kolvwvia.
(e) With the thought in ťTITERÉGEL K.T.. (ver. 6) as related to the preceding,
we may compare 1 Cor. i. 8 and 6. Passages of this character express confidence
as to the perseverance of the particular persons referred to; whether they can be
regarded as, in themselves, establishing the doctrine of the perseverance of all
Christians is doubtful. This doctrine must find its main support elsewhere.-
(f) The words åxpliquépas 'Incoũ XpioToŰ correspond very nearly with fwS TÉMOUS
. . . v Tēr vquépa 7. k. 7p. 'I. Xp. of 1 Cor. i. 8, and in connection with iv. 5. (comp. 1
Cor. xv. 51, 52, xvi. 22) they favor the view that in his later epistles, as in his
earlier ones, Paul held that the Lord's second coming was near at hand. His ex-
pectation of this event as probably to occur in the early future, if this view is
adopted, did not change as he advanced in life, although lie naturally became more
doubtful as to whether he should himsell live to witness it.—(9) Meyer's view of the
connection of tv te deguois ... εicyyeliov (ver. 7) is favored by De W., Alf., Noyes
tr., and others, but is opposed by. Treg., W. and Hort., Ell., Lightf., Eadie, Bisping,
Lumby, Davidson tr., and others, who join the words, as do A. V. and R. V., with the
following. The consideration which Meyer urges has force. The order of the sen-
tence, also, and the fact that the position of these words, in case of the other ex-
planation, gives them an emphasis which appears almost too great, supports his
view. But the development of thought as related to Kolvwvią (ver. 4), and the
repetition of vuās, which is more easily accounted for if the new clause begins with
ÉV TE Seoul., may be regarded as overbalancing these considerations and rendering
the connection of the words with what follows, on the whole, more probable.
(h) The close connection of dɛou. with áron. and ßeß. makes it almost certain
that the Apostle has in mind only that áron. and Beß. which belonged to his
present period of imprisonment. For this reason it is probable that in tñs zápitos
he refers to that manifestation of the Divine grace which fitted them, as it fitted
NOTES.
49
r
him, for the furtherance of the gospel even in times of trial and suffering, and
which also made them 'ready to help him in his defence and confirmation of the
gospel while a prisoner at Rome. The defence and confirmation are the negative -
and positive side of the same thing. The deſence, therefore, does not mean a
defence at the time of his judicial trial, but that which was a part of the work of
preaching which, according to Acts xxviii. 30, 31, he was permitted to carry for-
ward without hindrance.-(i.) yáp (ver. 8) is, as Meyer intimates, to be connected
with διά το έχειν με εν τη καρδία υμάς--this verse being the confirmation of those
words and not of what precedes them.-6.) The view of Meyer with respect to
ĚV Tháyxvolç Xp. 'Ino. is adopted by Ell., Lightf., Ead., Alf., de W., Bisp., Jatho,
Gwynn, and others, and is doubtless correct.
(1) kai of ver. 9 is rightly explained by Meyer as simply adding the new part
of the discourse. But whether (as he supposes, with Ell., Alf., Lightf., de W., -
and others) the thought is carried back to ver. 4, as if taking up and explaining a
prayer alluded to there, is doubtful. It is more probable that he merely intends
to add to what he has said of his thankfulness and confidence a statement of what
he prays for with reference to their future growth and progress. The emphasis
on TOūTO does not seem to require a reference to ver. 4 of the sort indicated, but is
sufficiently accounted for by the fact that the ayánn and the Kolvovía are so closely
related. That these two words are thus related is proved by the fact, that, other-
wise, the unity of the introductory passage is broken.-(1) The meaning of
àyára is, accordingly, love as connected with Kolvwvia, that love which brought the
Philippians into fellowship for the furtherance of the gospel. The reference does
not seem to be (as. Meyer holds) simply to their love to one another, but to
Christian love which, existing as a power in each individual soul, led them to work
together as the opportunity and call for such working came to them.-(m) “The
intensive preposition (éni) before yvúoel," says Lightfoot, "answers to the adjective
before aionoel.” He appears, thus, to give ráon an intensive force, and with this
view Eacie and some others agree. De W., Ell., Weiss, Alf., Lumby, Harless on
Eph., and many other comm, regard this adjective as extensive, as Meyer also does:
every (“every form of," Ell.). To say the least, it may be affirmed that the writer
has in mind the application of the knowing and perceptive love to the demands
made upon it in the work of carrying forward the gospel, and there can be no
doubt that the extensive sense brings the phrase into closest accord with this
thought. Paul's desire and prayer was that their love might abound in full,
accurate knowledge, and in moral perception in all lines.
(n) eis tÒ SokipáÇELV K.T.). (ver. 10). In respect to this phrase it may be said,
(1) that the original meaning of both the verb and the participle favors the
interpretation of de Wette and others (who understand it of a testing of things
which are morally different), as against that of Meyer; (2) that the function of
the perceptive faculty in the moral sphere is, primarily, that to which this inter-
pretation points; (3) that the two passages which are in nearest parallelism to
this may be best explained in this way: namely, Rom. ji. 18, where the claim of
the Jew which is referred to is, that, inasmuch as he is taught by the law, he is
able to know the will of God (i. e. to distinguish what is right from what is
wrong), and thus to guide others, and Heb. v. 14, where the writer speaks of
mature Christians as having their perceptive faculties exercised by reason of use
to discriminate between what is good and what is bad. It is claimed, indeed, by
many, and by Meyer himself, that in Rom. ii. 18, we must translate "approvest
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
the things that are excellent," on account of a certain climactic character belong-
ing to that passage. But the fact that the phrase is there preceded by the words
knowest ivis will, and followed by ivords which simply point to instruction, and to
the possession of the form or exact outline of truth in the law as qualifying for
so far as the Jew's claim for himself is concerned, referring to the sphere of the
understanding and the capacity to teach others seems to be decisive against this
translation. If these words, therefore, are not to be explained in the present
verse as meaning “ to distinguish the things that differ," it must be for some such
reason as that suggested by Meyer in his note. His suggestion is not without
force, as Alford claims, who calls it “mere trifling;” but it is doubtful whether it
can be properly regarded as having weight enough to over-balance the considera-
tions on the other side.
(0) Grimm and Robinson in their Lexicons, as well as Lightf., Ell., Alf.,
Gwynn, and others among recent commentators, give the passive or intransitive
sense to ampóoKOTOL. Eadie agrees with Meyer. Lumby includes botlı senses.
The objection of Lightf., Ell., and Alf., to Meyer's view, that a reference to their
relation to others is out of place, because, as Lightf. expresses it, the question is
solely of their fitness to appear before the tribunal of Christ, is not conclusive for
the reason that their attitude toward other men is a part of that which is passed
the paragraph, on the other hand, favors, though it does not fully prove, the
transitive sense.—(2) That Sekalooúvns (ver. 11) is here used in its ordinary, not
in its peculiar Pauline sense, is admitted by almost all recent commentators. The
correctness of this view is made apparent by the clauses which precede. This
moral rectitude or conformity to what is right, however, is defined as that which
is by means of Jesus Christ, and thus is that which begins in the soul at its
entrance into the new life through faith. Faith works by love, and the result is
right living. The fruit of righteousness grows more abundantly as the love
abounds more and more in knowledge and all perception, until the man appears
at the tribunal full of this fruit. Sik. may be a genitive of origin, as Meyer, or of
apposition, as Huther on Jas. iii. 18, and Lünemann on Heb. xii. 11 (in Meyer's
Comm.), take it.
III. Vv. 12–14.
(a) The letter being one of friendship, and affection, rather than one written
for the purpose of discussing doctrinal questions or matters of practical life, the
writer naturally turns from his introductory passage, which has reference to the
readers, to a statement of his own condition and success. In giving this state-
ment he very naturally, also, makes prominent the matter which had been
emphasized in the preceding paragraph-namely, the furtherance of the gospel.
The connecting point between the two passages is found in the words solvuvia eis
TÒ εvay. of yy. 3-11 and εis. TT POKOTTV Toù evay. of ver. 12 f. (comp. also £v Tois
Sequois Mov . ... OVYKOLVwvous Mov K.T.2. ver. 7, Toùs deguous Llov pavepous K.T.N.
ver. 13).—(6) Meyer regards üoTË . . . yɛvéodal (ver. 13) as indicating the salutary
effect, and not the greatness, of the te pokorn. May it not be better to include both
ideas? The following words seem to suggest the thought of the wide-reaching
.effect—" in the whole prætorium and to all the rest ;”> “ the majority of the
NOTES.
51
brethren;" “ more abundantly bold.”—(c) Meyer refers to Bp. Lightfoot as
holding that apaltoplov means here the castrum prcetorianorum, but the view of
Lightf. is that the word denotes the prætorian regiments, the imperial guards"
-a body of men, not a place. Grimm, as also, among recent English commen-
tators, Eadie, Ellicott, and, apparently, Lumby, agree with Meyer. Alford wavers
in opinion somewhat, but finally favors Meyer's explanation. Lewin, in his
” Life and Epistles of St. Paul,” regards the explanation of the Auth. Ver. as
most probably the correct one, but prefers that of Lightfoot to that of Meyer.
R. V. apparently adopts Li's view, translating in the text “ throughout the whole
prætorian guard,” with a marginal note, “ Gr. in the whole Prætorium." Among
the recent translations of the N. T., that of Davidson has: “among all the
prætorian guard”; those of the Bible Union, Green, and Darby: "in all the
(or, the whole) Prætorium;" that of Dr. G. R. Noyes : “in the whole camp of the
imperial guards." Meyer claims that the prepositions in the passages cited for
the reference to the prætorian regiments themselves are always local, and seems
thus to deny the propriety of any such reference. The passages quoted by Light-
foot and in Freund's Lexicon (Harper's Ed.) niay, however, be regarded as proving
that the word was used of the regiments, and Lightfoot even goes so far as to
deny that any decisive instance is produced in which the great camp of the præ-
torian soldiers is designated by "prætorium.” L. and S. (7th Ed.) say, “At Rome,
Prætorium generally meant the Castra Prætoriana." Amid this marked · variety
of views, and in a case where certainty seems scarcely attainable, it is difficult to
pronounce a decision with much confidence. But as the Apostle, having now
been in Rome not improbably nearly two years, may be supposed in his employ-
ment of the word to follow the Roman, not the provincial, usage; as this usage
appears to have allowed, if not indeed to have required, the application of the
term to the guards; and as, by general consent, tois RolTois nãouv is taken as desig-
nating persons, not places, the view advocated by Bp. Lightfoot may be considered
as the one best sustained.—(d) ¿V icupių (ver. 14) is connected with tūv ådɛhqöv by
R. V. as well as A. V. Alf. and Lumby agree with the writers mentioned in
Meyer's note, who favor this construction. Eadie, Ell., Lightf., Gwynn, Jatho, v.
Hofm. W. and Wilk., make the words qualify TETOLOótas, as Meyer does. The
order of the words, the fact that in all other cases TÉTOWJa precedes the adverbial
phrase which modifies it, and the unnecessary emphasis which the reverse
arrangement gives in this sentence to šv kupiw, sustain the rendering of the Revisel
Version. It is affirmed, on the other side, that év kvplw is not found elsewhere in
the N. T. with ảdεmpoi (comp. however, Col. i. 2, šv Xploto: Lightf. maintains that
this verse is not parallel with the present one because of the adjective aloTOTS
added there to åd.); that it is thus united with Tel. (e. g. ii. 24); and that ảd.
alone would here mean all that ád, v k. means—ÉV k. being thus superfluous.
The explanation of the emphasis on Év k. as qualifying ren. which Meyer gives in
his note-that it is placed first as the correlative of tv XplotÕ, of ver. 13—is
hardly satisfactory. The same may be said of Ellicott's similar explanation,
that it must have been in Christ, and in Him only, that confidence could be felt.
This may be true, but that it is true in such a sense as to demand the insertion of
¿v kupiw at all as qualifying TeT016., and especially with such marked emphasis, is by
no means evident. The suggestion of the preceding verse was abundantly suflicient
to carry with it this thought into the TeT010., and thus no such additional promi-
nence was required. The construction with ảdengőv appears, on the whole, to be
52
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
simpler and better.—(e) TETOLJÓTas Tois deouois Mov (ver. 14).—The explanation of
his bonds had become manifest in Christ, i. e, as connected witlr and caused by
his relation to Christ, and ver. 16 refers to his defence of the gospel. Ver. 7, in
like manner, connects the ideas of the deſence and the bonds. The reason,
accordingly, for the confidence which the Theloves thus gained, and which strength-
ened them to preach fearlessly, was their knowledge that his imprisonment had
been the means, not of hindering, but of furthering the gospel.
IV. Vv. 15–17.
Tivo important questions present themselves in connection with these 'verses.
The first is, whether the writer divides the Teloves of ver. 14 into two sections
here,—TLVÉS, Tivés, and again, oi uév, oi Sé,-or whether, on the other hand, the
TIVÈS jév (to which words oi dé correspond) are a class quite distinct from the
Theloves. There are considerations which may be urged on both sides. The fact
(1) that Theloves, as united with the words which follow it in ver. 14, implies that
the remainder of the brethren were not active in preaching, whereas the TIVÈS NÉV
evidently were thus active; (2) that ordinarily such divisions (TLVES K.7.2.), when
they are introduced after a more general descriptive word, are naturally referred
by the reader to divisions making up the general class alluded to; and (3) that
TIVÈS dé, while exactly fitted to describe a second section of the TheLoves, is a singu-
lar, if not indeed altogether unsuitable, expression as designating the whole body
of that majority, must be admitted to have weight in favor of the former supposi-
tion. But it must be observed, on the contrary, (1) that ver. 13 apparently
points, in its whole statement, to persons in whose working the Apostle could feel
unalloyed satisfaction ; (2) that, if the TIVÈS Mév were a portion of the TheLoves, we
seem compelled to give a different explanation to πεποιθ. τ. δεσμούς as related to
them (comp. ver. 17) from that which we give in connection with the rivès dé-
whereas these words, as they stand in ver. 13, appear to have but one sense and
application ; (3) that kaí following TIVÈS jév may-not to say, certainly does—indi-
cate a new and independent class of persons as now brought forward. In the case
of a carefully developed argument, or rhetorical treatise, the points favoring the
view that the TIVÈS név and TIVÈS Dé are parts of the TheLoves would be almost decis-
ive. But, in a friendly letter telling of experiences and feelings, the writer might
easily by a sudden and slight turn leave the thought of ver. 13 at its close, and
make a new beginning, and thus he might readily speak of two classes of
preachers—the one already alluded to, and a different one of an opposite charac-
ter. Not improbably, therefore, the correct view is that of Meyer. But it must
be admitted that he and the many modern commentators who agree with him fail
to recognize the full force of the arguments urged by their opponents.
The second question has reference to the persons indicated by the TIVÈS HÉV: Who
or what were they? The answer to this question must be sought primarily in the
passage itself. This presents to us two facts respecting them: namely, that they
preached Christ, and that they did so dià Pobvov kai žpiv and épubleias-ióļevol K.7.2.
As these latter words, according to all the evidence in the case, refer to their atti-
tude or feeling towards the Apostle himself, it follows that they were preachers
of Christ who had bitter personal opposition to Paul. The passage, however, adds
NOTES.
53
another point-the Apostle's declaration that, notwithstanding their envy, etc., he
rejoices and will rejoice that Christ is proclaimed by them, as well as by his own
friends. It is, certainly, difficult to suppose that Judaizers such as those who ap-
pear in the Ep. to the Galatians, or enemies like the ones described in 2d Cor., could
have been here before his mind. Moreover, the language which he uses in iii. 2
is so much stronger and more severe than that of these verses—so much more after
the manner of 2d Cor. and Gal., that we can scarcely believe him to be speaking
in the two chapters of the same persons. And, still further, it seems almost im-
possible that, even at this late period of his life, he could say that he rejoiced in
the preaching of such men. That they were, however, of the Jewish-Christian,
rather than the Pauline party, is rendered probable by their opposition to him.
In doctrine, therefore, we must believe them to have been less anti-Pauline than
the teachers in Galatia, who were preaching a different sort of gospel--a perversion
of the true gospel, and on whom the Apostle pronounces an anathema (Gal. i. 6–8).
Meyer seems to admit this in his “Remark” at the close of ver. 18. With respect
to feeling, on the other hand, they must have had the bitterness of the Judaizing
orthodoxy to such a degree, that jealousy and the desire to trouble the Apostle
became the chief impulse prompting them in their work. The word apogácel, as
contrasted with åandeią, proves that they were neither honorable nor honest ad-
versaries, and gives evidence both of the Apostle's sentiments towards men of this
character and of the expressions which he felt free to use respecting them.
With regard to the words and phrases of this passage, the following remarks
may be added: (a) põóvov not improbably here includes the feelings both of envy
and jealousy in view of the Apostle's fame and success.—(6) The strife, špis, which
is alluded to is evidently, by reason of the corresponding clause in ver. 17, that
which was connected with pločía, that is, with selfish and factious partisanship.
It belonged thus, like the quóvos, to the baser sort of opposition, and was directed
towards the Apostle personally.—(c)ěž åyáīns, ¿š pugelas are joined with the verbs
by R. V., A. V., and some comm. (as Lightf., Alf., Eadie, Gwynn, also by Hofm., as
stated by Meyer). De W., Weiss, El., Lumby appy., v. Heng., and others agree
with Meyer. A. R. V. inserts Meyer's rendering in the margin. The reasons
presented by Meyer may be regarded as justiſying his view. Alf. objects that, if
this construction had been in Paul's mind, "the words Tòv XPLOTÒV katayyé hovoLv
would hardly have been expressed in ver. 17," and Lightf. regards these words, in
this case, as too emphatic. May it not be, however, that there is a designed em-
phasis in placing these words in thịs clause, rather than in the preceding, as con-
nected with ovx áyvūs? The Christ-preaching of these factious adversaries is so
insincere, that the very contrast between their state of mind and their action car-
ries their condemnation with it.--(d) oióuevol ní W LV yeipeiv tois Seouois pov (ver.
17). As these words are closely related to éš špiðɛías, and, through that phrase, to:
Scà phóvov kaì špiv, and as the parallel clause in the preceding verse, eidótes ... KEīpal,
is connected with the suggestion as to aiding him in his work as a preacher, the
thought of "raising up affliction for his bonds" on the part of this hostile party
must, in all probability, have a similar and immediate reference to his work and
influence. They thought to take advantage of the fact of his bonds, and of what-
ever hindrance these occasioned in the unlimited freedom of his preaching, to ad-
vance other doctrines or views, to promote the interests and increase the numbers
of their own party, and to diminish his authority and influence. Thus they ex-
pected to make his bonds more grievous.
54
.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS..
V. Vv. 18-21.
A
(a) With respect to the construction and explanation of the words Tí ydp manu
K.T.N., Meyer gives a different view from that of most other commentators, and
also of his own third edition. The claim which is made by him, and by Hof- .
mann, who in this instance-contrary to what we observe in most otlier cases-
seems to have favorably influenced his mind, that aanv renders it necessary to place
the interrogation-mark after katayyéneråt, and not after yáp, can hardly be sus-
tained. It is evidently possible, however, to give this explanation of the words. The
grounds for adopting the more common view are the frequent occurrence in Paul's
writings of Ti oův and Ti yáp as independent questions; the fact that we find no paral-
lel expression to ti nav ötc in his Epistles as equivalent to ti állò ÖTL; the use of
añv elsewhere (iii. 16, iv. 14, 1 Cor. xi. 11, Eph. v. 33) in the sense of only or never-
theless (comp., however, Paul's words in Acts xx. 23); and the simple and more
natural construction of kaì šv T. Xaipw, if united with thiv... katayy. in one
clause, than if taken as an answer to a question ti ... katayy. In view of these
considerations, it is probably safer to place the interrogation-mark after yáp. With
this construction, the true explanation of Tiv ötl (which is probably the correct
reading), is that which makes it an answer to the question ti yáp, and gives the
meaning “What then, i. e. such being the state of the facts, what follows, so far as
my thought and feeling are concerned ? Nothing except that,” &c.—(b) ÉV TOUTŲ
Zaipw (ver. 18). The thing in which the Apostle rejoices, as inferred from the
context, is not simply the fact that Christ is preached, but that, in that preaching
which goes forward during his imprisonment, and is even furthered by it, Christ
is proclaimed both by the one party and the other, who have been mentioned. His
bonds, thus, do not hinder, but help the work of the gospel.—(c) In connection with
this meaning of Toutw, the following ToŬTO (ver. 19) is to be explained. It refers
to the same thing. This view of toūto is sustained by the fact that the reader's
mind is naturally, and almost necessarily, carried back to the same pronoun in the
next preceding sentence, and also by the fact that, in this way, the thought of the
paragraph moves forward, without a break or parenthesis, from ver. 12 to ver. 21.-
(d) Tisch. and Lachm., as Meyer says, place a period after xaipw, and a comma
after χαρήσομαι, and thus connect oίδα γάρ with the αλλά και χαρήσομαι clause only.
W. and H. have the same punctuation, except that they put a colon after xaipw.
R. V., on the other hand, joins the two clauses, "and therein I rejoice, yea and will
rejoice." Meyer's view is probably correct, because the statement of ver. 19 gives
a reason which applies as fully to his present joy as to that which should be in
the future, and also because the emphatic addition of "yea and,” etc., to “I re-
joice" is thoroughly in accordance with Paul's style. In his third edition Meyer
adopts Tisch.'s punctuation.-(e) In his explanation of ournplav, Meyer diflers
from many of the best recent commentators, and his arguments seem insufficient,
Paul does not elsewhere use the word in the sense which Meyer gives to it here.
He uses it only of the Messianic salvation, either as experienced by the soul in its
beginnings on earth or in its completeness in heaven. The words are not im-
probably a designed or accidental quotation from Job xiii. 16, LXX., where the
meaning is open to questioning. But there is apparently no such reference to that
passage, as to make the interpretation given to it determinative of the interpre-
tation to be adopted here.-(f) Sià trīs ... ĖT[Xopnyias K.T.2.-The union of SÉNOLS
and énix. under one article points towards the uniting of ýpūv with both genitives,
NOTES.
55
)
1
but inasmuch as, in case toŬ TV. ’I. Xp. is a subjective gen., as not improbably it is,
there are two personal agents mentioned coöperating to the same end, this union
cannot be considered as decisive of the question. If, however, we do not connect
úrūv directly with ÉTTLX., we may accept the position of Lightfoot (comp. also
Eadie), who says, “The two clauses are fitly connected by the same article; for the
supply of the Spirit is the answer to their prayer.” The view of Lightf., on the
· other hand, that the gen. ToŨ Tiveupatoç may include both the subjective and ob-
jective relations the Spirit being both the giver and the gift-can hardly be
accepted. The Spirit may, no doubt, be conceived of in both ways, but the N.T.
writers, like other writers, seem to have only one of the two conceptions in any
one passage, according to the suggestions or demands of the subject before their
minds at the particular time.-(9) The supply of the Spirit is probably to be
specially connected in thought with the mappnoia spoken of in ver. 20. The
Apostle's mind seems to be, throughout the entire passage, on "the furtherance
of the gospel” through his own actions or his experiences of whatever kind; and
he is confident that by means of the prayers of the Philippians and the supply of
courage, boldness, freedom, etc., which the Spirit should bestow in answer to those
prayers, Christ will be magnified in his body, whether by life or by death. That
this is his thought, is indicated by the form of his sentence. His confidence, which
gives him joy in the present circumstances, is that the result will be according to
his hope; and his hope is, that in all boldness, etc. As the confidence, therefore,
is founded on the supply to be given by the Spirit, this supply has especial refer-
ence to the boldness.—(h) Tappnoia (ver. 20) seems to pass beyond the strict sense
of freedom of speech to the more general meaning of boldness (courage), but the
thought still moves in the sphere of the Apostle's relation to the gospel as a
preacher.—(i) võv refers to the time which was just upon him, the time wlien his
fate was to be decided, and, as the question was that of life or death, the words
ÉV TẠ obuatı are naturally used.—(j) šuo yáp... Képdos (ver. 21).-The connection
of these words with dià Swiſs K.T.. cannot be doubted, but yáp introduces them, not
in the way of directly proving the statement, “Christ will be magnified,” etc., but
rather, on the other hand, as giving the ground of the Apostle's hope and confi-
dence that He will be thus magnified. The emphasis on tuoi is thus accounted
for: “I have confidence that Christ will be glorified—that I shall honor Him-in
my body whether by life or by death, for to me—to my apprehension and plan of
living--to live is Christ, and to die is gain. The relation of the idea of képdos to
the magnifying of Christ by the Apostle's death is explained in the simplest and
best way by Meyer. W. and H. begin a new half-paragraph with ver. 21, but this
verse seems to be in closest relation to the preceding verses, and the turn of thought
is not at the opening of this verse, but of the next.
VI. Vy. 22–24.
As stated in the preceding note, the new semi-paragraph begins most appro-
priatelŷ with ver. 22. The writer has steadily followed his one main thought
from ver. 12 to ver. 21. He now turns to what is subordinate and secondary as
related to what goes before-namely, to his own feeling and confidence respecting
the issue of his trial (vv. 22–26 ;) and he then passes to another and similar semi-
paragraph in which he gives an exhortation to his readers as to their Christian
56
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
living, both in the period of his absence and, if his hopes shall prove to be realized,
after he is restored to them.
The turn to the thought of the first of these half-paragraphs is very easy and
natural, and in the manner of the transition we may see an indication of the true
construction of ver. 22. In the development of the preceding thought, as has
been already explained, the Apostle has been led to give the ground of his confi-
dence that Christ will be magnified, etc., in the words of ver. 21. He now takes
up these words in their bearing, not upon the honoring of Christ, but upon him-
self and his own happiness. The words tò 517v ¿v oapki, therefore, correspond with
το ζην of ver. 21, and the words καρπός έργου with Χριστός ; and the whole of that
verse is taken up under the particle ei-its entire statement being assumed as a
fact-and the question as to his own preference is raised. The emphatic TOŪTO,
repeating and summing up in itself the words TÒ 5ñv šv oapki, is thus easily
accounted for. As “to live is Christ," it is the continuance of life in the flesh-
this and this only—which will bring the fruit of work. Everything in the
context and connection points to this arrangement of the sentence, which makes
εi . . . xpyov the protasis and kaì ri K.T.. the apodosis.
As to the individual words of this verse, (a) sé may be regarded as equivalent
to however or the logical now; (6) kapróg is prevailingly used of that which
appertains to Christian life and effort, but whether the idea of emolumentum is
necessarily contained in it (Meyer) is doubtful; špyou evidently here refers to
Paul's apostolic labors in Christ's cause; kai is to be explained as Meyer explains
it in his note. Ellicott says, with a kindred statement, " if life certainly serve to
apostolic usefulness, there will also be a difficulty as to choice." (c) Ivwpiów (ver.
25). R. V. and W. & H. place ti aiphoonal with an interrogation mark in the
margin, thus suggesting a construction by which où yvopíšw becomes an answer to
the question, what shall I choose. This construction, though possible, is much
less simple than the ordinary one, which they have in the text. As to the
meaning of yvopicw in this place, the fact that Paul uses this word elsewhere
in seventeen places and in seven of his Epistles—and always in the sense
to make known—and the fact that this is the only meaning of the verb as
found in the N. T. (there are, however, but six passages where it occurs outside
of Paul's writings], favor Meyer's view somewhat strongly. But, on the other
hand, the more common meaning of the verb as employed by Greek authors
is to know; this meaning is found in the LXX.; and it is much the more
natural sense, if ever allowable, in this passage. As Hofmann reinarks, why
should the apostle be limited to the use of the word with a single meaning, when
it had in itself two meanings ? R. V. places I do not make known in the margin
as an alternate rendering. A. R. V. rejects this marginal note. Noyes translates,
I cannot say, Darby, I cannot tell, Deans Jeremie and Gwynn, in Bib. Comm., I
declare not, or make not known; the other recent English translators and commen-
tators, generally, regard the verb here as meaning I do not know.
The intimation of ver. 23, as of 2 Cor. v. 8, is that, in case of his dying at this
time, he would immediately be with Christ, and thus that he would pass at death,
not into a condition of sleep or unconsciousness, but into one of conscious union
with his Lord. Lightf. calls attention to the other conception of death as found
in 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52, and 1 Thess. iv. 14, 16, and says that "the one mode of reprea
sentation must be qualified by the other.” May not the true explanation of the
matter be this:-that, as related to the body, the figure of sleep was before the
NOTES.
57
Apostle's mind, and, inasmuch as the full consummation of blessedness was not, in
his view, to be reached until the resurrection, he sometimes views the whole inter-
mediate period as connected with the condition of the body. At other times--
thinking only of the living spirit-he gives his actual and truer idea, that the life
moves on unbroken into the future, changing its place, indeed, and still waiting
its completeness, but never ceasing in its activity and its powers. (Comp. Rom.
viii. 10, 11, 23).
As we compare this verse with the one cited from 2 Cor., we discover, appar-
ently, a certain change in the Apostle's feelings, which is readily accounted for by
the advance of years. In 2 Cor. v. 1 ff., he seems to contemplate death only as a
possibility, and, in the expression of his desire to be with the Lord, he yet
earnestly longs to live to the end and be "changed.” (1 Cor. xv. 51), so that he
may not pass through the experience which must come to those who die. The
burdens and trials of the time which intervened between the two epistles, the
progress of life towards old age, and the uncertainty of the result of his imprison-
ment, of which he must have often thought during his two years at Rome, may
well have made him welcome more fully the idea of dying, and have carried his
mind more and more towards the future things as very far better. These things
may well have made continued life seem desirable to him, not for himself, but
only in view of the possibility of usefulness to others.
VII. Vv. 25, 26.
(a) Lightfoot apparently regards TETOLO6s as having an adverbial force, and
translates of this I am confidently persuaded.” Alf., Ell., Ead., and most of the
recent comm., agree with Meyer.—(6) The examples given by van Hengel (Iliad
vi. 447f. ; Isoc. Busir. Laud. c. 19; 2 Kings viii. 12; Acts xx. 29;) seem to show
that olda need not be taken as affirming absolute knowledge, as Meyer asserts but
may express strong conviction. That this is the force of the word here is held
by De W., Weiss, Lightf., and others.—(c) That by the word jevā Paul refers to a
remaining alive until the Parousici, and by the introduction of tãowv into the sen-
tence he shows that he thought it was near, is claimed by Meyer as beyond doubt,
Vy.6 and 10 may point to this as possible or probable, but hardly as certain. It does
not appear necessary to extend the continuance of usvā to the time indicated in
those verses, as it is so far separated from them and occurs in an entirely different
paragraph.--(d) a pokorņu (ver. 26) has a certain connection of thought, no doubt,
with the same word in ver. 12. The Apostle's continued life would be for the
furtherance of the faith of the Philippians, as his recent experiences, and indeed
all his working, had been for the furtherance of the gospel.-(e) With reference
to the relation of the iva and εis clauses, the similar construction in ver. 10 may
be compared. iva introduces the final end of his remaining, etc., eis TÌV apok,
K.7.2. The kaúxmua is, as Meyer says, the materies gloriandi. This is, according to
Meyer, “the bliss as Christians which they enjoy” (comp. xapà -:lotews); accord-
ing' to Ell.," their condition as Christians ;" according to Alford, their "profession
of the gospel.” Perhaps we may better say, as suggested by the immediate con-
nection of the thought with the preceding verse, it is the niotis whose advance-
ment was to be secured. The glorying indicated in Paul's use of kavrãodal and
its kindred nouns is, as Weiss and others remark, not a self-glorification in a com-
parison of one's self with other men, but rather an exultation in the blessings and
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
privileges bestowed by Divine grace. Grimm regards kaúxqua, in this place, as
equivalent to kaúxnous.
VIII. Vv. 27–30.
These verses have a connection both with what precedes and what follows. As
related to the preceding context, they constitute a new half-paragraph, in which
the Apostle, still keeping his mind on the prominent thought from ver. 12
onward, urges upon the Philippians, whether he shall himself be able to come
to them or not, to conduct themselves in a manner becoming their heavenly
citizenship, and worthily of the gospel, by striving together for the faith without
fear of enemies, even iſ called to conflict and suffering. He gives them, thus, an
exhortation to move onward, as he himself had done and was doing, with boldness
and with confidence that even the opposition of their eneniies would result
in their own salvation. As related to the following chapter, vv. 1-18, on the
other hand, it is a general exhortation, åšiwo . .. TORTEVEOVE, which is subse-
quently carried out into some of its details.
(a) Móvov, in the connection in which it stands, seems to imply that notwith-
standing his confidence that, through his continued life, he might be of service to
them, there was one exhortation which he would press upon them; but that, in
view of his confidence, there was only one. (6) The force of Tolteverde is prob-
II
may have passed beyond the meaning belonging to it by derivation into the more
general sense, conduct yourselves.(c) EvvalhoĪVTES, means striving together with one
another-uniting in a common earnest effort. Meyer refers it, with less proba-
bility, to a striving together with Paul.—(d) Tỉ thotel is, as Meyer says, the dative
commodi. R. V. reads for the faith in the text, with a marginal note "Gr. with."
This marginal note, which assumes that the dative is to be taken in the original
as meaning with, is hardly to be justified. The most that can be said is that the
Greek may mean with, but it must be admitted, also, that it may not. The prob-
able construction, indeed, is that given by Meyer. Lightf. makes ríotel depend
on ouvaun., and regards the Apostle as personifying faith.-(e) újūv dè owinpias (ver.
28)-If this text is adopted, as it should be according to the weight of authority,
the meaning may be that the intrepidity of the Philippians is a sign to the
enemies of two things:—their own destruction and the salvation of the Philip-
pians; or the thought of the writer may be (as if he had inserted a vuiv before
úuāv), to then of destruction, but to you of your salvation. The first sense answers
most exactly to the words, and is adopted by Meyer and some others.-(f) TÁO XELV
and the 30th verse (Tòv avtòv åyāva-vīv—_v čuoi) make it very clearly manifest
that the writer has especially in mind the furtherance of the gospel by the
Philippians in, and notwithstanding, experiences similar to his own, i. e. persecu-
tion, etc.
CHAP. II.
59
CHAPTER II.
Ver. 1. Instead of ki ti tapap., D* L, min. have: ei Tis napap. Approved by
Griesb., adopted by Matth. It is nothing but a mechanical repetition of the pre-
ceding εί τις. The same judgment must be passed on the reading: εί τις σπλάγχνα,
although this tis (instead of which the Recepta riva is to be restored) has the
greatly preponderant attestation of ABCDEFG KLP &, min. Bas. Chrys. (?)
Damasc. Oec. Theoph., and is adopted by Griesb. Matth. Scholz. Lachm. and
Tisch. Teva (as early as Clem. Al. Strom. iv. p. 604, Pott.; also Theodoret) is,
notwithstanding its small amount of cursive attestation, we do not say absolutely
necessary, but requisite for such an understanding of the entire verse as naturally
offers itself to the reader ; see the exegetical remarks.—Ver. 3. 7] Lachm. and
Tisch. read, and Griesb. also recommended : undè kará, following A B C X, min.
vss. and Fathers. An attempt at interpretation, as are also the readings û katá,
kai katá, undèv katá.—Ver. 4. Elz. Scholz, have ËKaotos in both places, which is
defended also by Reiche. But fKQOTOL, which is confirmed by preponderating testi-
mony even before OKO TOŪVTES (in opposition to Hofmann), was supplanted by the
singular, as only the latter occurs elsewhere in the N. T.-Elz. has OKOTTEīte in-
stead of OKOTOŪVTES, against decisive testimony.-Ver. 5. TOŪTO ráp] A B C***,
min. vss. Fathers, Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have TOīTo only. But what led to the
omission of yáp was, that, opoveite being subsequently read, the preceding EKAOTOL
was looked upon as the beginning of the new sentence (A CX). Moreover, the
commencement of a lesson at TOūto favored the omission.- poveicow] The reading
Ppoveīte appears to have decisive attestation from the uncials, of which only
C*** K L P favor the Recepta Opoveicow. But it is incredible, if the well-known
and very common imperative form opoveite was the original reading, that it
should have been exchanged for the otherwise unusual passive form opoveiolw,
merely for the reason that it was sought to gain a passive form to be supplied
with the following words ó kai év X. 'I. (where the supplying of 11v would have
been sufficient). And as the very ancient testimony of most Greek authorities
since Origen, also of the Goth. Copt. Arm. and nearly all min., is in favor of
opoveiolw, we must retain it as the original, which has been made to give way to
the more current ppoveite. The latter, however, is adopted by Tisch. 8, following
Lachmann.--Ver. 9 Elz. Scholz, Tisch. 7 have ovoua alone instead of tò ovoua,
in opposition to A B C X, 17, and several Fathers. The article has been sup-
pressed by the preceding syllable. — Instead of couooyhontal the future
ššouoroyhoetai is decisively attested.—Ver. 13. The article before Oxós (Elz.
Scholz) is condemned by preponderating testimony.- Ver. 15. yévnodɛ]
1 Reiche, Comment. crit. p. 213, would read
Te instead of Tiva; but the former is found
only in min., and is scarcely susceptible of a
forced explanation (" si qua est vobis," or "si
quid valet").—The old Latin versions, with
their si qua or si quid, leave us uncertain as
to their reading. But the Vulg. Lachm.
has: si quis.
60
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
A D* E* FG, Vulg. It. Cypr. have yte. So also Lachm. But the testimony is
not decisive, and there is the more reason for defending the Recepta, because
yévnodɛ might be more readily glossed by žte than the converse, both in itself,
and also here on account of the following εν οίς φαίνεσθε κ.τ.λ.-αμώμητα] Lachm.
Tisch. 8 have å uwua, following A B C , min. Clem. Cyr. But the latter is the
prevailing form in the N. T., and readily crept in (comp. var. 2 Pet. iii. 14).-
ÉV ułow] A B C D* FGX, min. Clem. have uboov. Approved by Griesb., and
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the Recepta is explanatory.-Ver. 19.
kupiw] Lachmann leads Xploto, upon too weak authority.–Ver. 21. Elz.: Tà ToŨ
XPLOTOŨ 'In007. But Tà 'Incoữ X. (Tisch.: Tà XplotOÙ ’Indow) has the preponderance
of evidence in its favor.--Ver. 26. After újās, A CDEX*, min. vss. and some
later Fathers have idɛīv, which Lachm. places in brackets. To be adopted; be-
cause, after i. 8, its omission would be very probable, and there is no reason why
it should have got in as a gloss here and not at i. 8.-Ver. 27. Elz.: ÉTÈ huan,
against decisive testimony in favor of Tà hútn.-Ver. 30. Tò špyov ToŨ XplotoŨ]
Tisch. 7 reads Tò &pyov merely; following, indeed, only C, but correctly, for the
bare to špyov appeared to need some defining addition, which was given to it by
TOū Splotov or XPLOTOV (Tisch. 8), or even by kupiov (A X).--Tapaſova.] The form
Trapaßor. has preponderant attestation, and is to be preferred. See the exegetical
remarks.
Ver. 1. [On vv. 1-5, see Note IX. pages 106, 107]. Ouv] infers from i.
30 what is, under these circumstances, the most urgent duty of the readers.
[IX a.] If they are engaged in the same conflict as Paul, it is all the more
imperatively required of them by the relation of cordial affection, which
must bind them to the apostle in this fellowship, that they should fulfill
his joy, etc. Consequently, although, connecting what he is about to say
with what goes immediately before (in opposition to Hofmann), he cer-
tainly, after the digression contained from őris in ver. 28 onwards, leads
them back to the exhortation to unanimity already given in ver. 27, to
which is then subjoined in ver. 3 f. the summons to mutual humility.-
Ei TIS K.T.7.] four stimulative elements, the existence of which, assumed by
ei (comp. on Col. iii. 1), could not but forcibly bring home to the readers
the fulfillment of the apostle's joy, ver. 2. [IX 6.] With each éorí simply
is to be supplied (comp. iv. 8): If there be 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 objective
principle of the Christian life (εν Χριστώ and πνεύματος), and the second to
the subjective principle, to the specific disposition of the Christian (ayatins
and othayxva kaì oiktipuoi). Thus the inducements to action, involved in
these four elements, are, in equal measure, at once objectively binding and
inwardly affecting (Tīūs оpodpās, TĀS LLETà cuutaðeias tolañs! Chrysostom).-
Tapaka. év X.] ¢v X. defines the Tapakh. as specifically Christian, having its
1 Hitzig, %. Krit. Paul. Briefe, p. 18, very
erroneously opines that there is here a made
excitement, an emphasis in which not so
much is felt as is put into the words;
and the four times repeated if is to cover
the defect-in connection with which an
utterly alien parallel is adduced from Tacit.
Agric. 46.
CHAP. II. 1.
61
essence and activity in Christ; so that it issues from living fellowship with
Him, being rooted in it, and sustained and determined by it. Thus it is
in Christ, that brother exhorteth brother. Tapáchnous means exhortation," i. e.
persuasive and edifying address; the more special interpretation consolatio,
admissible in itself, anticipates the correct rendering of the tapauúblov
which follows (in opposition to Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecume-
nius, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Heinrichs, and many others;
and recently Hoelemann and Ewald).-—ĉi ti tapap. åyár..] Tapauúblova cor-
responds to the fourth clause (onháyxva K. oikt.), and for this reason, as well
as because it must be different from the preceding element, cannot be
taken generally * as address, exhortation, but definitely as comfort.6 'Ayáans
is the genitive of the subject: a consolation, which love gives, which flows
from the brotherly love of Christians. In order to make out an allusion
to the Trinity in the three first points, dogmatic expositors like Calovius,
and also Wolf, have understood åyánns of the love of God (to us).—-Ei TLS
KOLVWV. Tv.] if any fellowship of the Spirit ( i.e. participation in the Spirit)
exists; comp. on 2 Cor. xiii. 13. This is to be explained of the Holy Spirit,
not of the arrincorun conjunctio,7, which is inconsistent with the relation
of this third clause to the first (év XplotQ), and also with the sequel, in
which (ver. 2) Paul encourages them to fellowship of mind, and cannot
therefore place it in ver. 1 as a motive.--Ei tiva 072. K. oikt.] if there be any
heart and compassion. The former used, as in i. 8, as the seat of cordial
loving affections generally; the latter, specially as misericordia (see on
Rom. ix. 15), which has its seat and life in the heart. It must further be
remarked, with regard to all four points, that the context, by virtue of the
exhortation based upon them ahnpboaté Mov TÌv zapáv in ver. 2, certainly
presupposes their existence in the Philippians, but that the general expres-
sion (if there 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 exhortation 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 fellowship in the Spirit, which
inspires right feelings, and confers the consecration of power; if there is a
heart and compassion, issuing in sympathy with, and compassion for, the
afflicted,-manifest all these towards me, in that ye make full my joy (uov
TÌV xapáv).” Then, namely, I experience practically from you that
11 Cor. xiv. 3; Rom. xii. 8; Acts iv. 36, ix.
31, xiii. 15, xv. 31.
2 See generally Schaefer ad Bos. p. 492;
Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 517; Jacobs ad Ach. Tat.
p. 708.
3 Hofmann erroneously makes the quite
arbitrary distinction that tupaka. refers to
the will, and tapap. to the feelings. The will,
feelings, and intellect are called into exercise
by both. Comp., especially on tapauúl., Stall-
baum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 476 E; Phaed. p. 70 B;
Euthyd. p. 272 B; Thuc. viii. 86, 1.
4 With Calovius, Flatt, Matthies, de Wette,
Hoelemann, van Hengel, Ewald, Weiss, J. B.
Lightfoot, and Hofmann.
6. Plat. Legg. vi. p. 773 E, xi. p. SSO A.
o Thuc. v. 103; Theocr. xxiii. 7; Anth. Pal.
vii. 195, 1; Wisd. iii. 18; Esth. viii. 15; comp.
Tapauvoia, Plat. Azioch. p. 375 A; Luc. Nigr.
7; Ps. Ixv. 12; Wisd. xix. 12; 1 Cor. xiv. 3.
7 Michaelis, Rosenmüller, am Ende, Baum-
garten-Crusius, de Wette, Iloelemann, Wies-
inger, Hofmann, and others; Usteri and
Rilliet mix up the two.
8 See also on Col. iii. 12; comp. Luke i. 28;
Tittmann, Synon, p. 68 f.
2
62
iii
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Christian-brotherly exhortation, and share in your comfort of love, and so
ye put to proof, in my case, the fellowship in the Spirit and the cordial
sympathy, which makes ine not distressed, but glad in my painful posi-
tion.-There is much that is mistaken in the views of those who defend
the reading ris before orth. (see van Hengel and Reiche), which cannot be
got rid of by the assumption of a constructio ad synesin (in opposition to
Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p.71 (E. T. 817). Hofmann is driven by this reading,
which he maintains, to the strange misinterpretation of the whole verse
as if it contained only protases and apodoses, to be thus divided : ei tiç qüv
παράκλησις, εν Χριστώ" εί τι παραμύθιον, αγάπης" εί τις κοινωνία πνεύματος, εί τις,
oTháyxva K. oiktipuot; this last εi tis being a repetition of the previous one with
an emphasizing of the ei. Accordingly the verse is supposed to mean:
“If exhortation, let it be exhortation in Christ; if consolation, let it be a
consolation of love; if fellowship of the Spirit, if any, let it be cordiality
and compassion.” A new sentence would then begin with Tanpuoate.2
Artifices such as this can only serve to recommend the reading ĉi tiva.
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 circum-
stances of the case, comp. i. 9. The uov 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 telic form, as that which is to be striven for in the action
of making full ; and in this aim of the impoūv the regulative standard for
this activity was to consist. Paul might quite as fitly have put the tò avrò
opoveiv in the imperative, and the aanpoūv TÌv yapáv, in the telic form; but
the immediate relation to himself, in which he had conceived the whole
exhortation, induced him to place the aanpoūv 7. X. in the foreground.-
Tò avrò opovîtɛ] denotes generally harmony, and that, indeed, more closely
TY
1 In the application of the general ei tes
napakinous év X., the subjects of this mapakinous
must, following the rule of the other elements,
be the Philippians; Paul (Wiesinger; comp.
Ewald) cannot be conceived as the mapakadóv.
2 From this interpretation of the whole
passage he should have been deterred by the
forlorn position, which is assigned to the ei
Tis before orláyxva as the stone of stum-
bling, as well as by the purposelessness and
even inappropriateness of an oddly empha-
sized problematical sense of this ci tis.-If it
be thought that the reading ei tis Cal. must
be admitted, I would simply suggest the fol-
lowing by way of necessary explanation of
the passage :-Ist, Let the verse be regarded
as consisting of a series of four protascs, on
which the apodosis then follows in ver. 2; 2d,
Let év Xplotu, ayatns, TTVEÚMatos and otrdáy
xva k. Oiktipuoi be taken uniformly as predi-
cative specifications; 3d, Let Kolvwvía be
again understood with the last ei tusi Paul
would accordingly say: “If any exhortation is
exhortation in Christ, if any comfort is comfort
of love, if any fellowship is fellowship of the
Spirit, if any (fellowship) is cordiality and
compassion (that is, full of cordiality and com-
passion) fulfill ye," etc. The apostle would
thus give to the element of the kouvwvia, be-
sides the objective definition of its nature
(Trueúliatos, referring to the Holy Spirit), also
a subjective one (ond. K. OLKTipl.), and mark the
latter specially by the repetition of ei tes SC.
KOLvwvía, as well as designate it the more forci-
bly by the nominative expression (otrdáyxva
K. Oikt., not another genitive), inasmuch as
the latter would set forth the ethical nature of
such a kouvwvia (comp. such passages as Rom.
vii. 7, viii. 10, xiv. 17) in the form of a direct
predicate. The ei, moreover, would remain
uniformly the syllogistic ei in all the four
clarises, and not, as in Hofmann's view, sud-
denly change into the problematic sense in
the fourth clause.
-
63
CHAP. II. 2, 3. .
.
defined by the sequel here as identity of sentiment. Hoelemann interprets
Tò avtó as illud ipsum, that, namely, which was said in ver. 1, the stapáchnous
ÉV X. down to oiktipuoi. This is at variance with the context (see the fol-
lowing 7. avr. áyán, and év opov.), and contrary to the wonted use of the
expression elsewhere (Rom. xii. 16, xv. 5; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Phil. iv. 2).-Ñy
avtùv åy. &X., ovub. TÒ Êv ppov.] Two more precise definitions of that like-
mindedness, so far as it is identity of (mutual) love, and agreement of feeling
and active impulse, sympathy (obu yuxol, only found here in the N. T.; but
see Polemo, ii. 54, and comp. on i. 27, also on loóxvxov, ver. 20): This
accumulation of definitions indicates earnestress; Paul cannot sever himself
from the thought, of which his heart is so full.? The following tò fv opovoĪVTES
is to be closely connected with ouuy., so that ouupuxou has the emphasis
and adds the 110re precise definition of the previously mentioned unity of
mind : with harmony of soul cherishing the one sentiment. There are there-
fore only two, and not three, special explanations of the tò avrò opovñte; and
Év with the article points back to the previous tò avtó, which is now repre-
sented by TÒ Év without any essential difference in sense. Expositors, not
attending to this close connection of oudy. with tò Êv opov. (which Wiesin-
ger, Weiss, Ellicott, and Schenkel have acknowledged), have either made
the apostle say the very same thing twice over (Oecumenius: diahaoláÇêl
το ομοφρονείν), or have drawn entirely arbitrary distinctions between το αυτό
and tò Êv ppov.-e.g. Bengel, who makes the former refer to the same
objects of the sentiment, and the latter to the same sentiment itself; Titt-
mann, l. c., that the former is idenz sentire, velle et quaerere, and the latter
in u720 expetendo consentire; Beza and others, that the former means the
agreement of will, the latter the agreement in doctrine; while others put
it inversely; Hofmann thinks that év with the article means the one
thing, on which a Christian must inwardly be bent (comp. Luke x. 42). It
means, on the contrary, the one thing which has just been designated by
TÒ Aútò opovñte (as in iv. 2; Rom. xii. 16; and other passages); the context
affords no other reference for the article. It is usual, even in classical
authors, for the participle of a verb to stand by the side of the verb itself,
in such a way that one of the two conveys a more precise specification.3
| Ver. 3 f. [IX c.] Moàn Karà ép0. h KevoSo.] sc, (povovies (not motoũnTes,
Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Camerarius, Storr, am Ende, Rheinwald, Flatt,
van Hengel, and others); so that, accordingly, what was excluded by the
previous requirement tò avrò opovíte . . . Ppovoūvtes, is here described. To
take, as in Gal. v. 13, unlèv . . . Kevodošíav as a prohibition by itself, with-
out dependence on OpovoŰVTEC (see on Gal. 1.c.), as J. B. Lightfoot does, is
inappropriate, because the following participial antithesis discloses the
1 See Tittmann, Synon. p. 67; Fritzsche, ad
Rom. III. p. 57 f. ; comp. Herod. i. 60, ix. 54,
and the passages in Wetstein. The opposite :
duocs op., Hom. Il. xiii. 345; ådan op., hymn.
Ap. 469; Sexodpoveiv, Plut. Mor. p. 703 E;
Sixóuntis, Noun. ev. Joh. xx. 29; and similar
forms.
2 Comp. Chrysostom: Babai, irodákis tò aúto
déyel à Tò diadéoews Toddñs! He also well
remarks on T. aút. Syát. ex. : TOUTĖOTL ÒMoiws
φιλείν και φιλεισθαι.
3 See Stallb. ad Plat. Hipp. m. p. 292 A;
Bornemann, ad Cyrop. viii. 4. 9; Lobeck,
Paral. p. 532 f.
64 .
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
dependence of the undèv K.T... on the previous participle; hence also Hof-
mann's view, that there is an intentional leaving the verb open, cannot be
admitted. Hoelemann combines it with you, and takes undèv as neuti-
quam; but incorrectly, for vyoul. K.1.2. affirms the esteeming others better
than oneself, which, therefore, cannot take place in a factious (katà épıOɛlav,
see on i. 17) or in a vainglorious (Kevodošiav) way. The karà denotes that
which is regulative of the state of mind, and consequently its character, and
is exchanged in the antithetic parallel for the dative of the instrument : by
means of humility, the latter being by the article set down as a generic
idea (by means of the virtue of humility). The mutual brotherly humil-
ity (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 liimself, and, on the other hand, Lucius to
pronounce Caius to be of a higher moral rank than himself (i. e.
àñanhous . . . Éavrūv). Hoelemann erroneously refers tŷ TATELvoøp. to ÚTEPÉX.,
so that it "excellentiae designet praesidium,”—a view which the very posi-
tion of the words should have warned him not to adopt. —Kevodočía] ostenta-
tion, only here in the N.T._Ver. 4. Tà éavrūV ËKAOTOL OKOT.] [IX d.] The
humble mind just indicated cannot exist together with selfishness, which
has its own interests in view.” Others consider that the having regard to
gifts and merits is intended (Calvin, Hammond, Raphel, Keil, Commentat.
1803, in his Opusc. p. 172 ff., Hoelemann, Corn. Müller), which, after the
comprehensive Tŷ TafelvoDP. K.T.O., would yield a very insipid limitation,
and one not justified by the context.-ékaoToL] It is usually, and in other
passages of the N. T. invariably, the singular that is used in this distribu-
tive apposition; the plural, however, is not unfrequently found in classical
authors.3-állà kaì k.1.2.] a weaker contrast than we should have expected
from the absolute negation in the first clause; 4 a softening modification
of the idea. In strict consistency the kaí must have been omitted (1 Cor.
x. 24). The second ēkartou might have been dispensed with; it is, how-
ever, an earnest repetition.—The influences disturbing unity in Philippi, dis-
closed in vv. 2-4, are not, according to these exhortations, of a doctrinal
kind, nor do they refer to the strength and weakness of the knowledge and
conviction of individuals, as was the case in Rome (Rom. xiv.) and Corinth
(1 Cor. viii. and x.)-in opposition to Rheinwald and Schinz;—but they
were based upon the jealousy of moral self-estimation, in which Christian
1 Comp. Wisd. xiv. 14; Polyb. iii. 81. 9; Luc-
ian, D. Mort. X. 8, xx. 4; and see on Gal. v. 26.
2 See instances of okoneiv tà tivos, to be
mindful of any one's interests, in Herod. i.
8; Plat. Phaedr. p. 232 D; Thuc. vi. 12. 2;
Eur. Supp. 302. Comp. Lucian, Prom. 14;
TänavToû Móva OKOTÛ. The opposite of tà
CAUTWY OK. may be seen in 2 Macc. iv.5: TÒ Sè
ouupépov KOLVÑ ... OKOTWv. Comp. Snteiv tà
é autoll, 1 Cor. x. 24, 33, xiii. 5; Phil. ii. 21,
where snoeir presents no essential difference
in sense.
3 Hom. Od. ix. 164; Thuc. i. 7. 1; Xen. Hell.
ii. 4, 38; Herodian, iii. 13, 14.
4 In which, in fact, it is not merely the limit.
ation (Hofmann) to one's own that is forbid-
den, as if yóvov stood along with it. What
Hofmann at the same time deduces from the
reading ökaotos (before o KOMOŪVTES), wnich he
follows, as distinguished from the subsequent
EKAOTOL (with a here wholly irrelevant com-
parison of Plat. Apol. p. 39 A), is sophistical,
and falls, moreover, with the reading itself.
5 Comp. Soph. Aj. 1292 (1313): öpa un tounov
ålà kai tò obv; and see Fritzsche, ad Marc.
p. 788; Winer, p. 403 . [E. T. 498.]
CHAP. II. 4, 5.
65
perfection was respectively ascribed and denied to one another (comp.
ver. 12, iii. 12 ff.). Although this necessarily implies a certain difference
of opinion as to the ethical theory, the epistle shows no trace either of any
actual division into factions, or of ascetic jealousy (which de Wette assumes
as coöperating). But the exhortations to unity are too frequent (i. 27,
ii. 2 f., iii. 15, iv. 2 f.) and too urgent to justify us in questioning generally
the existence (Weiss) of those disturbances of harmony, or in regarding
them as mere ill humor and isolation disturbing the cordial fellowship of
life (Hofmann)." [IX page 107.]
Ver. 5. Enforcement of the precept contained in ver. 3 f. by the example
of Jesus (comp. Rom. xv. 3; 1 Pet. ii. 21; Clem. Cor. I. 16), who, full of
humility, kept not His own interest in view, but in self-renunciation and
self-humiliation sacrificed it, even to the endurance of the death of the
cross, and was therefore exalted by God. to the highest glory;2 this ex-
tends to ver. 128- poveiolw év .] sentiatur in animis vestris. The parallel-
ism with the èv which follows prohibits our interpreting it intra vestrum
caetun (Hoelemann, comp. Matthies). The passive mode of expression is
unusual elsewhere, though logically unassailable. Hofmann, rejecting
the passive reading, as also the passive supplement afterwards, has sadly
misunderstood the entire passage. 4kai év X. ’I.] sc. šopovýon. On év,
1 Comp. Futher, in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr.
1862, p. 640 f.
? 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 Kai, that Paul really intended to
adduce the example of Christ in opposition
to Hofmann's view); comp. Rom. xy. 3.
Christ's example is the moral ideal, histori-
cally realized. Comp. Wittke, Sittenl. II. 8
224; Schmid, Sittenl. p.355 ff.; and as early as
Chrysostom.
3 See on this passage Kesler in Thes. nov. ex
mus. Has. et Iken. II. p. 947 f ; Schultens,
Dissertatt. philol. I. p. 443 ff.; Keil, two Com-
mentat. 1$03 (Opusc. p. 172 ff.); Martini, in
Gabler's Journ. f. auserl. theol. Jit. IV. p. 34
ff. ; von Ammon, Magaz. f. Pred. II. 1, p. 7 ff.;
Kraussold in the Annal. d. gesammt. Theol.
1835, II. p. 273 ff.; Stein in the Stull. U. Krit.
1837, p. 165 ff.; Philippi, d. thätige Gehors. Chr.
Berl. 1941, p. 1 ff.; Tholuck, Disp. Christol. de
1. Phil. ii. 6-7, Halle 1848 ; Ernesti in the Stud.
4. Krit. 1848, p. 858 ff., and 1851, p. 595 ff.;
Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 502 ff., and
1852, p. 133 ff., and in his Paulus, II. p. 51 ff.
ed. 2; Liebner, Christol. p. 325 ff.; Raebiger,
Christol. Paulin. p. 76 ff. ; Lechler, Apost. u.
nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 58 ff.; Schneckenburger
in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1855, p. 333 ff.; Wetzel
in the Monatschr. f. d. Luth. Kirche Prcuss.
1857; Kähler in the Stud. W. Krit. 1857, p. 99
ff.; Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, P.
431 ff., and his Christol. d. N. T. 1966, p. 233 ff.;
Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. 1970, p. 163 ff.;
J. B. Lightfoot's Excursus, p. 125 ff.; Piei-
derer in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 1871, p. 519 ff.;
Grimm in the same Zeitschr. 1873, p. 33 ff.
Among the more recent dogmatic writers,
Thomasius, II. p. 148 ff.; Philippi, IV. 1, p.
469 ff.; Kahnis, I. p. 458 ff.
4 Reading opoveite, and subsequently ex-
plaining the ev Xplotý 'Incoû as a frequent
expression with Paul for the ethical Christian
quality (like év kvpiw in iv. 2), Hofmann makes
the apostle say that the readers are to have
their mind so directed within them, that it shall.
not be lacking in this definite quality which
makes it Christian. Thus there would be
evolved, when expressed in simple words, -
merely the thought: “Have in you the mind
which is also the Christian one." As if the
grand outburst, which immediately follows,
would be in harmony with such a general
idea! This outburst has its very ground in
the lofty example of the Lord. And what,
according to Hofmann's view, is the purpose
of the significant kai? It would be entirely
without correlation in the text; for in ev üniv
the ey would have to be taken as local, and in
the ev Xplot@, according to that misinterpre-
tation, it would have to be taken in the sense
of ethical fellowship, and thus reiations not at
all analogous would be marked.
66
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
comp. the Homeric évi opeoi, évì Ovuộ, which often occurs with opovɛīv, Od.
xiv. S2, vi. 313; Il. xxiv. 173. kai is not cum maxime, but the simple also
of the comparison (in opposition to van Hengel), namely, of the pattern
of Christ.
Ver. 6. [On vv. 6–11, see Note X.pages 107-111.] The classical passage
which now follows is like an Epos in calm majestic objectivity; nor does
it lack an epic minuteness of detail.—ős] epexegetical; subject of what
follows; consequently Christ Jesus, but in the pre-human state, in which
He, the Son of God, and therefore according to the Johannine expression
as the hóyos ioapkos, was with God. The human state is first introduced by
the words &avTÒV ÉKÉVwoe in ver. 7.2 It has been objected that the name
Christ Jesus is opposed to this view; also, that in vy. 8–11 it is the exalta-
tion of the earthly Christ that is spoken of (and not the return of the
Logos to the divine soša); and that the earthly Christ only could be held
up as a pattern. But Xplotòg 'Indows, as subject, is all the more justly used
(comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Col. i. 14 ff.; 1 Cor. x. 4), since the sub-
ject not of the pre-human glory alone, but at the same time also of the
human abasements and of the subsequent exaltation, was to be named.
Paul joins on to ös the whole summary of the history of our Lord, includ-
ing His pre-human state (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9 : ÉTTÚXEVOɛ Tihovolos öv); there-
fore vv. 8–11 cannot by themselves regulate our view as regards the defi-
.nition 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
before His human appearance. Moreover, as the context introduces the
incarnation only at ver. 7, and introduces it as that by which the subject
divested Himself of His divine appearance, and as the earthly Jesus
never was in the form of God (comp. Gess, p. 295), it is incorrect, because
at variance with the text and illogical, though in harmony with Lutheran
1 That Christ in His Trinitarian pre-exist-
ence was already the eternal Principle and
Prototype of hunianity (as is urged by Bey-
schlag), is self-evident; for otherwise He
Fould have been one essentially different
from Him who in the fullness of time ap-
peared in the fiesh. But this does not entitle
us to refer the pre-existence to His whole
divine-human person, and to speak of an eternal
humanity,—paradoxes which cannot exegeti-
cally be justified by our passage and other
expressions such as 1 Cor. xv. 47; Rom. v. 12
ff., viii. 29; Col. i. 15. The Logos pre-existed
as the divine principle and divine prototype of
humanity ; còs hv ó dóyos, and this, apart
from the form of expression, is also the
teaching of Paul. Only in time could He
enter upon the human existence; the notion
of eternal humanity would refute itself.
2 So Chrysostom and his successors, Beza,
Zanchius, Vatablus, Castalio, Estius, Clarius,
Calixtus, Semler, Storr, Keil, Usteri, Kraus-
sold, Hoelemann, Rilliet, Corn. Müller, and
most expositors, including Lünemann, Tho-
luck, Liebner, Wiesinger, Ernesti, Thoma-
sius, Raebiger, Ewald, Weiss, Kahnis, Bey-
schlag (1860), Schmid, Bibl. Theol. II. p.
306, Messner, Lehre d. Ap. 233 f., Lechler,
Gess, Person Chr. p. 80 f., Rich. Schmidt,
l.C., J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm; comp. also Hof-
mann and Düsterdieck, Apolog. Beitr. III.
p. 65 ff..
8See especially de Wette and Philippi, also
Beyschlag, 1866, and Dorner in Jahrb. f. D.
Th. 1856, p. 394 f.
4 Hence Philippi's objection, that “poveiv is
elsewhere applied to man only, and not to
God, is devoid of significance. Unfounded
is also Beyschlag's objection (1866) drawn
from the word oxánate; see below.
CHAP. II. 6.
67
orthodoxy and its antagonism to the Kenosis of the Logos, to regard the
incarnate historical Christ, the lóyos švoapkos, as the subject meant by ös.2
Liebner aptly observes that our passage is "the Pauline ó nóyos oàpš ÉyÉVETO;"
comp. on Col. i. 15.-¿v uopon Aenī imápxwv] not to be resolved, as usually,
into “although, etc.," which could only be done in accordance with the
context, if the áprayuòv vyslobal K.T. 2. could be presupposed as something
proper or natural to the being in the form of God; nor does it indicate
the possibility of His divesting Himself of His divine appearance (Hof-
mann), which was self-evident; but it simply narrates the former divinely
glorious position which He afterwards gave up: when He found Himself in
the form of God, by which is characterized Christ's pre-human form of
existence. Then He was forsooth, and that objectively, not merely in
God's self-consciousness—as the not yet incarnate Son (Rom. i. 3, 4, viii. 3;
Gal. iv. 4), according to John as Móyos—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 ίσα Θεώ ών and also εικών θεού-as such also the instra-
ment and aim of the creation of the world, Col. i. 15 f.--and into which,
by means of His exaltation, He again returned; so that this divine doča,
as the possessor of which before the incarnation He had, without a body
and invisible to the eye of man,3 the form of God, is now by means of
His glorified body and His divine-human perfection visibly possessed by
Him, that He may appear at the mapovoia, not again without it, but in and
with it (iii. 20 f.). Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15, iii. 4. Mopoń, therefore,
which is an appropriate concrete expression for the divine doğa (comp.
Justin, Apol. I. 9), as the glory visible at the throne of God, and not a
"fanciful expression” (Ernesti), is neither equivalent to prors or ovoia; 4 nor
to status :5 nor is it the god-like capacity for possible equality with God
(Beyschlag), an interpretation which ought to have been precluded both
by the literal notion of the word μορφή, and by the contrast of μορφή δούλου
in ver. 7. But the μορφή θεού presupposes the divine φύσις as ομόστολος
1 According to which Christ had the full
divine majesty "statim in sua conceptione,
etiam in utero matris" (Form. Conc. p. 767).
But He had it in His state of humiliation
secreto, and only manifested it occasionally,
quoties ipsi visum fuerit. In opposition to
this, Liebner rightly observes, p. 334: “This
is altogether inadequate to express the pow-
erful N. T. feeling of the depth and greatness
of our Lord's humiliation. This feeling
nomistakably extends to the unique per-
sonal essence of the God-man, and in con-
formity with this, to the very heart of the act
of incarnation itself."
2 Novatian, de Torin. 17, Ambrosiaster, Pela-
gius, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Cameron,
Piscator, Hunnius, Grotius, Calovius, Clericus,
Bengel, Zachariae, Kesler, and others, includ-
ing Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hen-
gél, de Wette, Schneckenburger, Philippi,
Beyschlag (1866), Dorner, and others; see the
historical details in Tholuck, p. 2 ff., and J.
B. Lightfoot.
3 Comp. Philo, de Somn. I. p. 655.
4 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, The-
ophylact, Augustine, Chemnitz, and many
others; comp. also Rheinwald and Corn.
Müller. 5 Calovius, Storr, and others.
o Bengel well says: “Ipsa natura divina
decorem habebat infinitum, in se, etiam sine
ulla creatura illum decorem intuente."-
What Paul here designates simply by iv
Mopoñ eoù utrápxwv is pompously expressed
by Clement, Cor. I. 16: Tò oritpov tñs ueya-
dwoúvns Toù coû. The forma mentis aeterna,
however, in Tacitus, Agric. 46, is a conception
utterly foreign to our passage (although ad-
duced here by Hitzig), and of similar import
with Propertius, iii. 1, 64: "ingenio stat sine
morte decus."
68
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
uopoñs (Aesch. Suppl. 496), and more precisely defines the divine status,
namely, as form of being, corresponding to the essence, consequently to
the homoousia, and exhibiting the condition, so that popor Deo✓ finds its
exhaustive explanation in Heb. i. 3: åravyaoua tñs Sóšnis K. Xapaktója
Tñs ÚTOOTAGEWS TOŪ Decī, this, however, being here conceived as predi-
cated of the pre-existent Christ. What is here called Mopor Okoő is
ɛldos Okov in John v. 37,” which the Son also essentially possessed in
His pre-human sófa (John xvii. 5). The explanation of prors was
promoted among the Fathers by the opposition to Arius and a number
of other heretics, as Chrysostom adduces them in triumph; hence,
also, there is much polemical matter in them. For the later controversy
with the Socinians, see Calovius.—itápxww] designating more expressly
than öv the relation of the subsisting state (iii. 20; Luke vii, 25, xvi. 23; 2
divine self-consciousness (Schenkel). The time is that of the pre-human
existence. See above on ős. Those who understand it as referring to His
human existence (comp. John i. 14) think of the divine majesty, which
Jesus manifested both by word and deed (Ambrosiaster, Luther, Erasmus,
Heinrichs, Krause, Opusc. p. 33, and others), especially by His miracles
(Grotius, Clericus); while Wetstein and Michaelis even suggest that the
transfiguration on the mount is intended. It would be more in harmony
with the context to understand the possession of the complete divine image
(without arbitrarily limiting this, by preference possibly, to the moral
· attributes alone, as de Wette and Schneckenburger. do)-a possession
which Jesus (" as the God-pervaded man,” Philippi) had (potenticiliter) from
the very beginning of His earthly life, but in a latent manner, without,
manifesting it. This view, however, would land them in difficulty with
regard to the following εαυτ. έκένωσε κ.τ.λ., and expose them to the risk of
inserting limiting clauses at variance with the literal import of the passage;
see below.--ούχ άρπαγμόν ηγήσατο το είναι ίσα Θεο] In order to the right
explanation, it is to be observed: (1) that the emphasis is placed on ápray-
jóv, and therefore (2) that tò εival ioa OeQ cannot be something essentially
different from έν μορφή Θεού υπάρχειν, but nmust in substance denote the same
thing, namely, the divine habitus of Christ, which is expressed, as to its
form of appearance, by év uopony Osov únápx., and, as to its internal nature, by
Tò elval ioa OeQ; (3) lastly, that áprayuós does not mean praeda, or that which
1 In Plat. Rep. ii. p. 381 C, mopon is also to be
Paul would, instsad of tò eivai ioa
ew, have
not less so in Eur. Bacch. 54; Ael. H. A. iii.
24; Jos. C. Ap. ii. 16, 22. Comp. also Eur.
Bacch. 4: uopony duelyas éx Deoü Bpornoiav,
Xen. Cyr. i. 2. 2: púol MèY S This yuxñs ko'.
Tņs Hopons.
He might have done so, but there was no
necessity for his taking that course, least of
all for Paul! He, on the contrary, distin-
guishes very precisely and suitably between
the two ideas representing the same state, by
1013 C.
3 An entirely groundless objection has been
made (even by Lünemann) against the view
which takes tò civalioa was not essentially
different from έν μορφή Θεού είναι, Yiz. that
form of life, did not venture to use this his God-
equal being for making booty. Both, there-
fore, express the very same divine habitus;
but the cival ioa ew is the general element,
which presents itself in the divine μορφή as
CHAP. II. 6.
69
is seized on (which would be αρπάγιμον, or άρπαγμα or άρπασμα, and might
also be áprayń), or that which one forcibly snatches to himself (Hofmann and
older expositors); but actively: robbing, making booty. In this sense,
which is à priori probable from the termination of the word which usually
serves to indicate an action, it is used, beyond doubt, in the only profane
passage in which it is extant, Plut. de pucror. educ. 15 (Mor. p. 12 A): kai
τους μεν Θήβησι και τους 'Ηλίδι φευκτέον έρωτας και τον εκ Κρήτης καλούμενον άρπαγ-
Móv, where it denotes the Cretan kidnapping of children. It is accordingly
to be explained : Not as a robbing did He consider2 the being equal with 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 what
did not belong to Him. In opposition to Hofmann's earlier logical objec-
tion (Schriftbew. I. p. 149) that one cannot consider the being as a doing,
comp. 1 Tim. vi. 5; and see Hofmann himself, who has now recognized
the linguistically correct explanation of áprayuós, but leaves the object of
the åpnášelv indefinite, though the latter must necessarily be something
that belongs to others, consequently a foreign possession. Not otherwise
than in the active sense, namely raptus, can we explain Cyril, de adorat. I.
p. 25 (in Wetstein): ovx áprayuòvs TÌv Tapaitnou ús čĘ ádpavoūs kai isapeotépas
ÉTOLETTO opevós ; further, Eus. in Lic. vi. in Mai's Nov. Bibl. patr. iv. p. 165,
and the passage in Possini Cat. in Marc. x. 42, p. 233, from the Anonym.
Tolos. : ότι ουκ έστιν άρπαγμός η τιμή ;4 as also the entirely Synonymous form
ápraguós in Plut. Mor. p. 644 A, and ancológ in Byzantine writers; also
okvlevuós in Eustathius; comp. Phryn. App. 36, where áprayuós is quoted as
equivalent to άρπασις. The passages which are adduced for άρπαγμα ηγείσθαι
or Tolelobal T1 (Heliod. vii. 11. 20, viii. 7; Eus. H. E. viii. 12; Vit. C. ii. 31)
-comp. the Latin praedam ducere (Cic. Verr. v. 15; Justin, ii. 5. 9, xiii. 1.
8)—do not fall under the same mode of conception, as they represent the
relation in question as something made ai booty of, and not as the act of
malcing booty. We have still to notice (1) that this oủx áprayuòv riynoato
corresponds exactly to uà tà tavrŪV OKOTOŪVTES (ver. 4), as well as to its con-
trast savròv ÉKÉVwoe in ver. 7 (see on ver. 7); and (2) that the aorist vyhoato,
indicating a definite point of time, undoubtedly, according to the connec-
tion (see the contrast, á22" ÉavTÒV ÉKÉVWOE K.7.2.), transports the reader to that
moment, when the pre-existing Christ was on the point of coming into the world
with the being equal to God. Had He then thought: “When I shall have
come into the world, I will seize to myself, by means of my equality with
God; power and dominion, riches, pleasure, worldly glory," then He would
have acted the part of áprayuòv vyciodai tò &ival ioa O£Q; to which, however,
He did not consent, but consented, on the contrary, to self-renunciation,
etc. It is accordingly self-evident that the supposed case of the áprayuós
its substratum and lies at its basis, so that the
two designations exhaust the idea of divinity.
Comp. also Liebner, p. 328.
1 Callim. Cer. 9; Pallad. ep. 87; Philop. 79.
2 On vyeiola, in this sense of the mode of
regarding, which places the object under the
point of view of a qualitative category, comp.
Krüger on Thuc. ii. 44. 3.
3 Lot did not let the refusal of the angels
be & making of profit to himself.
4 Where, according to the connection, the
sense is: Not a seizing to oneself is the posi-
70
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
is not conceived as an action of the pre-existing Christ (as Richard Schmidt
objects), but is put as connecting itself with His appearance on earth.
The reflection, of which the pre-existent Christ is, according to our passage,
represented as capable, even in presence of the will of God (see below,
yevóul. Úníkoos), although the apostle has only conceived it as an abstract
possibility and expressed it in an anthropopathic mode of presentation, is
decisive in favor of the personal pre-existence; but in this pre-existence
the Son appears as subordinate to the Father, as He does throughout the
entire New Testament, although this is not (as Beyschlag objects) at
variance with the Trinitarian equality of essence in the Biblical sense. By
the sprayuòv vykiolai K.T.., if it had taken place, He would have wished to
relieve Himself from this subordination.—The linguistic correctness and
exact apposite correlation of the whole of this explanation, which harmo-
nizes with 2 Cor. viii. 9, completely exclude the interpretation, which is
traditional but in a linguistic point of view is quite incapable of proof, that
ápraypós, either in itself or by metonymy (in which van Hengel again
appeals quite inappropriately to the analogy of Jas. i. 2, 2 Pet. iii. 15),
means praeda or res rapienda. With this interpretation of áprayuós, the
idea of εival ioa OeQ has either been rightly taken as practically identical
with ểv popon OsoŰ Únápxelv, or not. (A) In the former case, the point of
comparison of the figurative praeda has been very differently defined;
either, that Christ regarded the existence equal with God, not as a some-
thing usurped and illegitimate, but as something natural to Him, and that,
therefore, He did not fear to lose it through His humiliation (Chrysostom,
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine; and other Fathers; see Wetstein
and J. B. Lightfoot); comp. Beza, Calvin, Estius, and others, who, how-
ever, give to the conception a different turn;? or, that He did not desire
tion of honor, as among the heathen, but a
renouncing and serving after the example of
Christ.
1 Räbiger and Wetzel, and also Pfleiderer,
1. C., have lately adopted this view; likewise
Kolbe in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1873, p. 311 f.
Hofmann also now explains the passage in a
way not substantially different. But Grimm,
l. c. p. 38, very unjustly describes the reten-
tion of åprayuós 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
(áprayn, aptayua, äpmaoua, anis, okúlevua,
gulov, dela), but never by Spraypós, or any
other form of word ending with mos. It is
true that various substantives ending in mos
may denote the result of the action; not,
however, as we may be pleased to assume,
but solely in accordance with evidence of
empirical usage, and this is just what is want.
ing for this sense in the case of áprayuós.
Its rejection, therefore, in our passage, is not
pedantic, but is simply linguistically demanded.
Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 4:26, ed. 2, erroneously
objects to our view of áprayuós, that, in that
case, it would be impossible to conceive of
any object, and that thus an utterly empty
antithesis to the giving up of Christ's own
possession is the result. As if there were
not given in the very notion of áprayuós its
object, viz, that which does not belong to the
subject of the action, and this, indeed, in its
unrestricted and full compass, just because
nothing special is added as an object.
2 Beza: “Non ignoravit, se in ea re (i.e.
quod Deo Patri coaequalis esset) nullam in-
juriam cuiquam facere, sed suo jure uti;
nihilominus tamen quasi jure suo cessit." So
also Calvin, substantially, only that he erro-
neously interprets nyńcato as arbitratus esset,
“Non fuisset injuria, si aequalis Deo appar-
uisset." Estius: “that He had not recog-
nized the equality with God as an usurped
possession, and therefore possibly desired to
lay it aside, but had renounced Himself,"
etc.
CHAP. II. 6.
71
pertinaciously to retain for Himself this equality with God, as a robber his
booty, or as an unexpected gain; 1 or, that He did not conceal it, as a
prey;? or, that He did not desire to display it triumphantly, as a con-
queror his spoils 3; whilst others (Wetstein the most strangely, but also
Usteri and several) mix up very various points of comparison. The very
circumstance, however, that there exists so much divergence in these
attempts at explanation, shows how arbitrarily men have endeavored to
supply a modal definition for ápr. nyúo., which is not at all suggested by the
text.-—(B) In the second case, in which a distinction is made between tò
είναι ίσα θεώ and έν μορφή θεού υπάρχειν, it is explained: non rapinam ducit,
i. e. non rapiendum sibi duxit, or directly, non rapuit ; 4 that Christ, namely,
though being έν μορφή θεού, did not desire to seize to Himself the είναι ίσα
De♡, to grasp eagerly the possession of it. In this view expositors have
understood the ioa εival Dell as the divine plenitudinean et altitudinem (Ben-
gel); the sessionem ad dextram (L. Bos); the divine honor (Cocceius, Stein,
de Wette, Grau); the vitam vitae Dei aequalem (van Hengel); the existendi
modum cum Deo aequalem (Lünemann); the coli et beate vivere ut Deus
(Krause); the dominion on earth as a visible God (Ewald); the divine
autonomy (Ernesti); the heavenly dignity and glory entered on after the
ascension (Raebiger, comp. Thomasius, Philippi, Beyschlag, Weiss), cor-
responding to the ovoua tò ÚTTÈD Tãv óvoja in ver. 9 (Rich. Schmidt); the
nova jura divina, consisting in the kupióTNS Távtwv (Brückner); the divine
dóča of universal adoration (Schneckenburger, Lechler, comp. Messner);
the original blessedness of the Father (Kahnis); indeed, even the identity
1 Ambrosiaster, Castalio, Vatablus, Kesler,
and others; and recently, Hoelemann, Tho
luck, Reuss, Liebner, Schmid, Wiesinger,
Gess, Messner, Grimm; comp. also Usteri, p.
314. In this class we must reckon the inter-
pretation of Theodoret (comp. Origen, ad
Rom. v. 2, x. 7, Eusebius, and others); that
Christ, being God by nature; did not hold His
equality with God as something specially
great, as those do who attain to honors Trap
áfiav; but that He, Thv åčiav katakpúyas,
chose humiliation. To this comes also the
view of Theodore of Mopsuestia: μορφήν γάρ
doúdov daßww inn åčiav ékeivnu áttékpUYEV, TOÛTO
Tois opwouv cival voucsóuevos, Trep épaiveTo.-
Tholuck compares the German expression:
als ein gefundenes Essen (einen guten Fund)
ansehen. According to him, the idea of the
whole passage is, “Tantum aberat, ut Christus,
quatenus dóyos est, in gloria atque beatitate
sua acquiescere sibique soli placere vellet, ut
amore erga mortales ductus servi formam
induere ac vel infimam sortem subire sine
ulla haesitatione sustineret.
2 Matthies.
3 Luther, Erasmus, Cameron, Vatablus, Pis-
cator, Grotius, Calovius, Quenstedt, Wolf, and
many others, including Michaelis, Zachariae,
Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, Flatt, Rheinwald.
To this belongs also Pelagius, “Quod erat,
humilitate celavit, dans nobis exemplum, ne
in his glorienur, quae forsitan non habemus."
4 Musculus, Er. Schmidt, Elsner, Clericus,
Bengel, and many others, including am Ende,
Martini, Krause, Opusc. p. 31, Schrader, Stein,
Rilliet, van Hengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, de
Wette, Ernesti, Raebiger, Schneckenburger,
Ewald, Weiss, Schenkel, Philippi, Thomasius,
Beyschlag, Kahnis, Rich. Schmidt, and
others.
6 So also Lünemann, who, in the señse of
the divine pre-existence of Christ, para-
phrases thus: “Christus, etsi ab aeterno inde
dignitate creatoris et domini rerum omnium
frueretur, ideoque divina indutus magnifi-
centia corum patre consideret, nihilo tamen
minus haud arripiendum sibi esse autumabat
existendi modum cum Deo aequalem, sed
ultro se exinanivit.” In a sense opposed to
the divine pre-existence, however, Beyschlag
says, Christol. p. 236 f:: “Christ possessed the
mopon DeoŮ (that is, 'the inner form of God ');
He might have but stretched out His hand
towards the ίσα Θεώ είναι; He disdained,
however, to seize it for Himself, and chose
quite the opposite; therefore it was given
A
72
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
.
with the Father consisting in invisibility (Rilliet), and the like, which is to
sustain to the popoi Okov 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, l'apôtre Paul, 1870, p. 223 ff. In order to meet the
oux ápr. ny. (comparing Matt. iv. 8 ff.), de Wette (comp. Hofmann, Schrift-
bew. p. 151) makes the thought be supplied, that it was not in the aim of
the work of redemption befitting that Christ should at the very outset
receive divine honor, and that, if He had taken it to Himself, it would have
been a seizure, an usurpation. But as šv mopon DEOÙ ún. already involves
the divine essence, and as ioa eival Deð has no distinctive more special
definition in any manner climactic (comp. Pfleiderer), Chrysostom has
estimated this whole mode of explanation very justly : εί ήν θεός, πώς είχεν
αρπάσαι ; και πώς ουκ απερινόητον τούτο; τίς γαρ αν είποι, ότι ο δείνα άνθρωπος ών
ovx ÖpTTAGE Tò εival ăvo puntos; Tūs yàp åv TIS Ő TT E Déotiv, åp TT Á GELEV. Moreover,
in harmony with the thought and the state of the case, Paul must have
expressed himself conversely: ös ioa Dell útápxwv o‘x áprt. vy. TÒ £ival év
Mopon Okoī, so as to add to the idea of the equality of nature (ioa), by way
of climax, that of the same form of appearance (uopoń), of the divine doga
also.-With respect to tò cival ioa. Deợ, it is to be observed, (1) that ioa is
adverbial: in like manner, as we find it, although less frequently, in Attic
writers. This adverbial use has arisen from the frequent employment,
even so early as Homer, 5 of ion as the case of the object or predicate.6
But as εival, as the abstract substantive verb, does not suit the adverbial
goa, pari ratione, therefore (2) Tò εival must be taken in the sense of existere ;
so that tò εivai ioa OeQ does not mean the being equal to God (which would
be tò εival ioov Opm), but the Gocl-equal existence, existence in the way of
parity with God.' Paul might have written ioov (as mascul.) O£Q (John
v. 18), or coóleov; but, as it stands, he has more distinctly expressed the
metaphysical relation, the divine mode of existence,8 of the pre-human Christ.
(3) The article points back to év uoppi Okov útápxwv, denoting the God-equal
Him as the reward of His obedience, etc.”
Hilgenfeld, in his, Zeitschrift, 1871, p. 197 f.,
says: the Pauline Christ is indeed the heav-
enly man, but no divine being; the equality
with God was attained by Him only through
the renunciation, etc.
1 The lead in this mode of considering
the passage was taken by Arius, whose
party, on the ground of the proposition ékeivo
åptásel TuS, ö oùk éxel, declared : ÖT! Ocòs Öv
ελάττων ουχ ήρπασε το είναι ίσα τω Θεώ τω
Meyadw kole i Sovi. See Chrysostom.
2 He thinks that the divine popoň of Christ
stands to the ioa eivai Dew in the relation of
potentia to actus. “ Christ était des l'origine
en puissance ce qu'à la fin il devint en réalité;"
the μορφή Θεού denotes the general form of
being of Christ, but "une forme vide, qui
doit être remplie, c'est-à-dire spirituellement
réalisée.” This higher position He had not
wished to usurp, but had attained to it“ réel
lement par le libre développement de sa vie
morale."
3 Not merely the similarity, from which is
there distinguished the equality by civar ioa.
(in opposition to Martini and others).
4 Thuc. iii. 14; Eur. Or. 880 al.; comp.
duoia, Lennep. ad Phalar. 108, and often in
the later Greek, and in the LXX. Job v. 14, x.
10, xi. 12, xiii. 12; Wisd. vii, 3, according to
the usual reading.
o Il. v. 71, xv. 439; Od. xi. 304, xv. 519 al.
See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 847; Krüger,
11.2 xlvi. 6. 8.
17 The German is: nicht das Gotte gleich
sein, sondern das gottgleiche Sein, das Sein auf
gottgleiche Weise, die gottgleiche Existenz.]
8 Which, therefore, was not essentially dif-
ferent from that of the Father. The ioa ċivau
Θεώ is the Pauline Θεός ην ο λόγος. Hofmann
erroneously, although approved by Thoma-
sius, makes the objection (Schriftbew. p. 150)
CHAP. II. 7.
:: existence manifesting itself in that poppń ; for the popor Orow is the appearance,
the adequate subsisting form, of the God-equal existence. (4) Ernesti (in
controversy with Baur), who is followed by Kähler, Kahnis, Beyschlag,
and Hilgenfeld, entertains the groundless opinion that our passage
alludes to Gen. ii. f., the ioa eival Dev pointing in particular to Gen. iii. 5.
In the text there is no trace? of any comparison of Christ with the first
human beings, not even an echo of like expression; how different
from the equality with God in our passage is the šokole ús Heoi 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.2
Ver. 7. 'Αλλ' εαυτόν έκένωσε] The emphatically prefixed εαυτόν is correla-
tive to the likewise emphatic áprtayuóv in ver. 6. Instead of the spráÇelv,
by which he would have entered upon a foreign domain, He has, on the
contrary, emptied Himself, and that, as the context places beyond doubt,
of the divine uopon, which He possessed but now exchanged for a popor
doúhov; He renounced the divine glorious form which, prior to His incar-
nation, was the form of appearance of His God-equal existence, took
instead of it the form of a servant, and became as a man. Those who
have already taken ver. 6 as referring to the incarnate Christ (see on õs,
ver: 6) are at once placed in a difficulty by ÉKÉVWOE, and explain away its
simple and distinct literal meaning. De Wette, in accordance with his
distinction between μορφή Θεού and είναι ίσα Θεώ (conmp. Schneckenburger,
p. 336), referring it only to the latter (so also Corn. Müller, Philippi, Bey-
schlag, and others), would have this eival ioa Osm meant merely in so far as
it would have stood in Jesus' power, not in so far as He actually possessed it,
So that the εαυτ. έκέν. 24mounts only to a renunciation of the είναι ίσα θεώ,
which He might have appropriated to Himself; while others, like Grotius,
alter the signification of kevoőv itself, some making it mean: He led a life
of poverty (Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius), and others : depressit (van Hen-
gel, Corn. Müller, following Tittmann, Opusc. p. 642 f., Keil, comp.
that an existence equal to divine existence
can only be predicated of Him, who is not
God. It may be predicated also of Him who
is not the very same person, but of equal
divine nature. Thus it might also be asserted
of the Holy Spirit. The appeal by Hofmann
to Thuc. iii. 14 is here without any bearing
whatever.
1 Ritschl indeed also, Altkath. Kirche, p. 80,
requires, for the understanding of our pass-
age, a recognition that Christ, as év mopon
coù útrápxwv, 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, kar
eikóva ., or kal' óuoiwolv ., instead of év
Mopo ñ .? 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 mopon Deoù of the body of man, and
are therefore irrelevant.
2 Comp. also Rich. Schmidt, p. 172; Grimm,
P. 42 f.
. 3 As, for instance, Calvin : "supprimendo ...
deposuit;" Calovius (comp. Form. Conc. pp.
608, 767): “veluti (?) deposuit, quatenus eam
(gloriam div.) non perpetuo manifestavit atque
exscruit;" Clericus: "non magis ea usus est,
quam si ea destitutus fuisset;" comp. Quen-
stedt, Bos, Wolf, Benge!, Rheinwald, and
many others. Beyschlag also finds expressed
here merely the idea of the self-denial exer-
cised on principle hy Christ in His carthly
life, consequently substituting the N. T. idea
of atapveio ai cautóv.
74
THE PHILIPPIANS.
.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others). Augustine: "Non 'amittens quod
erat, sed accipiens quod non erat; forma servi accessit, non forma Dei
discessil.” But ékévwoɛ means nothing but exinanivit (Vulgate), and is
here purposely selected, because it corresponds with the idea of the sprayuós
(ver. 6) all the more, that the latter also falls under the conception of
KEVOŪV (as emptying of that which is affected by the áprayjós; comp. LXX.
Jer. xv. 9; Plat. Rep. p. 560 D; Ecclus. xiii. 5, 7). The specific reference
of the meaning to making poor (Grotius) must have been suggested by the
context (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9; Ecclus. l.c.), as if some such expression as
Év ThouTW Deoù úrápx. had been previously used. Figurcitively, the renun-
ciation of the divine uopoíi might have been described as a putting it off
(ÉKdúEolai).—The more precise, positive definition of the mode in which He
emptied Himself, is supplied by Hopoň v doúhov żaßúy, and the latter
then receives through év ólo čvop. YEVÓLevoç kai ox"u. €úp. ús åvop. its specifica-
tion of mode, correlative to elval ioa OeQ. This specification is not co-or-
dinate (de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Weiss, Schenkel), but subordinate
to uoppiv doúh. 2aßúv, hence no connecting particle is placed before év óll.,
and no punctuation is to be placed before xai oxumati, but a new topic is to
be entered upon with étareivwcev in ver. 8 (comp. Luther). The division, by
which a stop is placed before kai oxýuati . . . åvopwTos, and these words are
joined to ÉTATELVWOEV K.7.2.2 is at variance with the purposely-chosen
expressions σχήματι and ευρεθείς, both of which correspond to the idea of
μορφή, and thereby show that κ. σχ. ευρ. ώς άνθρ. is still a portion of the
modal definition of poppiju doúhov haßúv. Nor is the oxhl. eup. ús åvôp. some-
thing following the kévwois (Grimm), but the empirical appearance, which
was an integral part of the manner in which the act of self-emptying was
completed. Besides, étaTeivwgEv & autóv has its own more precise definition
following; hence by the proposed connection the symmetry of structure
in the two statements, governed respectively by ÉavTÒV ÉKÉVWgE and štáteiv-
woɛv éautóv, would be unnecessarily disturbed. This applies also in oppo-
sition to Hofmann, who (comp. Grotius) even connects év óuocúpatí åvop.
γενόμ. with εταπείνωσεν εαυτόν, whereby no less than three participial defini-
tions are heaped upon the latter. And when Hofmann discovers in év
ομοιώματα κ.τ.λ, a second half of the relative sentence attached to Χριστό
'Indoī, it is at variance with the fact, that Paul does not by the interven-
tion of a particle (or by ôs kai, or even by the bare ös) supply any warrant
for such a division, which is made, therefore, abruptly and arbitrarily,
simply to support the scheme of thought which Hofmann groundlessly
assumes : (1) that Jesus, when He was in the divine uoppn, emptied Himself;
1 See Rom. iv. 14; 1 Cor. i. 17, ix. 15; 2 Cor.
ix. 3; and the passages in the LXX. cited by
Schleusner; Plat. Conv. p. 197 C, Rep. p.560 D,
Phil. p. 35 E; Soph. 0. R. 29; Eur. Rhes. 914;
Thuc. viii. 57. 1; Xen. Oec. 8. 7. Comp. Hasse
in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 394 f.
(in opposition to Dorner's reference of the
idea to that of è sovdeveiv). Dorner, in the
same Jahrb: 1856, p. 395, is likewise driven to
reduce the idea of the kévwois merely to that
of the renunciation of the appearance of ma-
jesty, which would have been befitting the
divine form and parity, this inner greatness
and dignity of Jesus Christ.
2 Castalio, Beza, Bengel, and others; in-
cluding Hoelemann, Rilliet, van Hengel,
Lachmann, Wiesinger, Ewald, Rich. Schmidt,
J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm.
· CHAP. II. 7.
. 75
and (2) when He had become man, humbled Himself.—Mopony doúhov haßúv]
so that He toolc slave-forin, now making this lowly form of existence and
condition His own, instead of the divine form; which He had hitherto pos-
sessed. How this was done, is stated in the sequel. The aorist participle
denotes, not what was previous to the baví. ÉkéV., but what was contemporci-
neous with it. See on Eph. i. 9. So also do the two following participles,
which are, however, subordinated to the Mopoñv Sotlov haßúv, as definitions
of manner. That Paul, in the word soúhov, thought not of the relation of
one serving in general (with reference to God and men, Matthies, Rhein-
wald, Rilliet, de Wette, comp. Calvin and others), or that of a servant of
others, as in Matt. xx. 28 (Schneckenburger, Beyschlag, Christol. p. 236,
following Luther and others), or, indefinitely, that of one subject to the
will of another (Hofmann), but of a slave of God (comp. Acts iii. 13; Isa.
lii.), as is self-evident from the relation to God described in ver. 6, is plain,
partly from the fact that subsequently the assumption of the slave-form is
more precisely defined by év óuotál. åvåp. yevój. (which, regarded in itself,
puts Jesus only on the same line with men, but in the relation of service
towards God), and partly from ÚTýkoos in ver. 8. To generalize the definite
expression, and one which corresponds so well to the connection, into
“miseram sortem, qualis esse servorum solet” (Heinrichs, comp. Hoelemann;
and already, Beza, Piscator, Calovius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others), is pure
caprice, which Erasmus, following Ambrosiaster (comp. Beyschlag, 1860,
p. 471), carries further by the arbitrary paraphrase: “servi nocentis, cum
ipsa esset innocentia,” comp. Rom. viii. 3.-év óuocól, ávøp. yevól. K.T.2.] the
manner of this uopp. doúhov haßeīv: so that He came in the likeness of man,
that is, so that He entered into a form of existence, which was not different
from that which men have. In opposition to Hofmann, who connects &v
óuocóuari K.7.2. with śrame1vwgEV K.7.2. see above.” This entrance into an
existence like that of men was certainly brought about by human birth;
still it would not be appropriate to explain yɛvóų. by natus (Gal. iv. 4; Ril-
liet); 3 or as an expression for the "beginning of existence" (Hofmann),
since this fact, in connection with which the miraculous conception is, not-
withstanding Rom. i. 3, also thought to be included, was really human, as
it is also described in Gal. iv. 4. Paul justly says: šv óuocó uari ávöp.,
because, in fact, Christ, although certainly perfect man (Rom. v. 15; 1
Cor. xv. 21; 1 Tim. ii. 5), was, by reason of the divine nature (the ioa εival
Dem) present in Him, not simply and merely man, not a purus putus homo,
but the incarnate Son of God (comp. Rom. i. 3; Gal. iv. 4; and the Johan-
nine ó qóyoç vàpš šyéveto), ôc épavepúon śv capki (1 Tim. iii. 16), so that the
power of the higher divine nature was united in Him with the human
appearance, which was not the case in other men. The nature of Him
who had become man was, so far, not fully identical with, but substantially
1 Comp. in opposition to this, Grimm, p. 46,
and Kolbe in the Luther. Zeitschr, 1873, p. 374.
2 On yiveobai év, in the sense, to come into a
position, into a state, comp. 2 Cor. iii. 7; 1
Tim. ii. 14; Luke xxii. 44; Acts xxii. 17; 1
Macc. i. 27; 2 Macc. vii. 9; Ecclus. xliv. 20;
and frequently in Greek authors after Homer
(Xen. Anab. i. 9. 1; Herodian, iii. 7. 19, ii. 13.
21); see Nägelsbach, zur Ilias. p. 295 f. ed. 3.
8 Comp. Goss, p. 295; Lechler, p. 66.
76
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
.
.conform (év óuotój.) to, that which belongs to man.' Comp. on Rom. viii.
3, i. 3 f., and respecting the idea of ópoiwna, which does not convey merely
the conception of analogy, see on Rom. i. 23, v. 14, vi. 5, viii. 3. The
expression is based, not upon the conception of a quasi-man, but upon the
fact that in the man Jesus Christ (Rom. v. 15) there was the superhuman
life-basis of divine icórns, the εival ioa Dew not indwelling in other men.
Justice, however, is not done to the intentionally used óuolbuatl (comp.
afterwards oxhuarl); if, with de Wette, we find merely the sense that He
(not appearing as divine Ruler) was found in a human condition, à con-
sequence of the fact that even ver. 6 was referred to the time after the
incarnation. This drove also the ancient dogmatic expositors to adopt
the gloss, which is here out of place, that Christ assumed the accidentales
infirmitates corporis (yet without sin), not ex naturae necessitate, but ex oiko v-
ouias libertate (Calovius). By others, the characteristic of debile et abjectum
(Hoelemann, following older expositors) is obtruded upon the word
åvopółwv, which is here to be taken in a purely generic sense; while Grotius
understood åvop. as referring to the first human beings, and believed that
the sinlessness of Jesus was meant. It is not at all specially this (in oppo-
sition also to Castalio, Liinemann, Schenkel, and others), but the whole
divine nature of Jesus, the uoppu of which He laid aside at His incarnation,
which constitutes the point of difference that lies at the bottom of the
expression šv óuotbuatı (dià Tò è puhòv åv putov čivat, 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.—kai oxíu. εúp. úç ăvopwr.] 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. oxñua, habitus, which
receives its more precise reference from the context, denotes here the
entire outwardly perceptible mode and form, the whole shape of the phe-
nomenon apparent to the senses, 1 Cor. vii. 31.4 Men saw in Christ a
1 Our passage contains no trace of Docetism,
even if Paul had, instead of avopurwv, used
the singular, which he might just as well
have written here as ús ävOpw Tos in the
sequel, in place of which he might also have
used us ävēpw rol. This applies in opposition
to Lange, cipost. Zeitalt. I. p. 131, and Lechler,
p. 66. Even Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 1, p. 472,
is of opinion that the above-named interpre-
tation amounts to Docetism. But Christ was
in fact, although perfect man, nevertheless
something so much more exalted, that the
phrase év óuocúle avep. must have vindicated
itself to the believing consciousness of the
readers without any misconception, and
especially without that of Docetism, which
Baur introduces into it (neutest. Theol. p. 269),
particularly when we consider the thoroughly
ethical occasion and basis of the passage as an
exhibition of the loftiest example of humility
(comp. Rich. Schmidt, p. 178). Nevertheless,
Beyschlag has repeated that objection.
2 To this also amounts the not so precisely
and methodically expressed explanation of
Philippi: Since Christ remained in the divine
form, His assumption of the slave-form con-
sisted " in the withdrawal of the rays of the
divine glory which continued to dwell in H18
flesh, and which He only veiled and subdued with
the curtain of the flesh." Thus also does Calvin
depict it: the carnis humilitas was instar!
veli, quo divina majestas tegebatur.
8 Plugk, ad Eur. Hec. 619.
4 Comp. To rñs Deoù oxñua k. ägadua. Plat.
CHAP. II. 8.
.
77
human form, bearing, language, action, mode of life, wants and their satis-
faction, etc., in general the state and relations of a human being, so that in
the entiſe mode of His appearance He made Himself known and was
recognized (€úpɛ0.) as a man. In His external character, after He had laid
aside the divine form which He had previously had, there was observed
no difference between His appearance and that of a man, although the
subject of His appearance was at the same time essentially divine. The ús
with ăvop. does not simply indicate what He was recognized to be (Weiss);
this would have been expressed by åvep. alone; but He was found as a
man, not invested with other qualities. The Vulgate well renders it, "inventus
ut homo.” This included, in particular, that He presented and manifested
in Himself the human oápě, human weakness and susceptibility of death
(2 Cor. xiii. 4; Rom. vi. 9; Acts xxvi. 23).
Ver. 8. 'Etatɛívwgev] is placed with great emphasis at the head of a new
sentence (see on ver. 7), and without any connecting particle: He has
humbled Himself. 'Eavtóv. 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 ÉKÉVWJE
is climactic, not, however, as if Paul did not regard the self-renunciation
(ver. 7) as being also self-humiliation, but in so far as the former manifested
in the most extreme way the character of tamɛívwois in the shameful death
of Jesus. It is a climactic parallelism (comp. on. iv. 9) in which the two
predicates, although the former in the nature of the case already includes
the latter (in opposition to Hofmann), are kept apart as respects the
essential points of their appearance in historical development. Bengel
well remarks: "Status exinanitionis gradatim profundior.” Hoelemann,
mistaking this, says: “He humbled Himself even below His dignity as
man.”-yevóu. ÚTÝKOOS] The aorist participle is quite, like the participles
in ver. 7, simultaneous with the governing verb: so that He became obedient.
This úrákooç is, however, not to be defined by “capientibus se, damnantibus
et interficientibus" (Grotius); nor is it to be referred to the law, Gal. iv. 4
(Olshausen), but to God (Rom. v. 19; Heb. v. 8 f.), whose will and counsel
(comp. e.g. Matt. xxvi. 42) formed the ground determining the obedience.
Comp. ver. 9: Siò kai ó Orós K.T. 2. The expression itself glances back to
uopo. Sotlov; "obedientia servum decet," Bengel.—uéxpı Gavátov] belongs
to iníc. yɛvóļ., not to éram. Éavr. (Bengel, Hoelemann)—which latter con-
nection is arbitrarily assumed, dismembers the discourse, and would leave
a too vague and feeble definition for étan, Éavr. in the mere ürñk. yevou.
By Méxpı death is pointed out as the culminating point, as the highest degree,
up to which He obeyed, not merely as the temporal goal (van Hengel).
Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 9; Heb. xii. 4; Acts xxii. 4; Matt. xxvi. 38. This extreme
Crit. p. 110 B ; Túpavvov oxha, Soph. Ant. 1154;
Eur. Med. 1039; Plat. Polit. p. 267 C: oxñue
Baoinikov, . 290 D: Tŵv iepéwy oxñua; Dem.
690. 21: 'TOPÉTov oxñua; Lucian, Cyn. 17: TÒ
émòv oxñua tÒ SÚ Métapov; also, in the plural,
Xen. Mem. iii. 10. 7; Lucian, D. M. xx. 5.
Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 644 f.: õueode
eòv ev oxñmati ávopórov. Comp. p. 744: Tèv
βασιλέα των ουρανών, τον επί γης φανέντα εν
Mopo ñ á v pútov TATTELVWOEWS. How these pas-
sages agree with the Nazaraic character of
the book, is not a point for discussion here.
78
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
height reached by His obedience was, however, just the extreme depth of
the humiliation, and thereby at the same time its end; comp. Acts viii.
33; Isa. liii. 8. Hofmann groundlessly takes ÚTÝK. yiveolar in the sense of
showing obedience (comp. on Gal. iv. 12). The obedience of Christ was
an ethical becoming (Heb. v. 8).-avátov dè gravp.] TOUTÉOTI TOÙ ÉTELKATapátov
(comp. Gal. iii. 13; Heb. xii. 2), ToŰ tois åvóuous àowplouévov, Theophylact.
The dé, with the repetition of the same word (comp. Rom. iii. 22, ix. 30),
presents, just like the German aber, the more precisely defined idea in
contradistinction to the idea which is previously left without this special
definition: unto death, but what kind of death? unto the most shameful
and most painful, unto the death of the cross.
REMARK 1.–According to our explanation, vv. 6–8 may be thus paraphrased :
Jesus Christ, when He found Himself in the heavenly mode of existence of divine glory,
did not permit Himself the thought of using His equality with God for the purpose of
seizing possessions and honor for Himself on earth: No, He emptied himself of the
divine glory, inasmuch as, notwithstanding His God-equal nature, He took upon Him
the mode of existence of a slave of God, so that He entered into the likeness of men, and
in His outward bearing and appearance manifested Himself not otherwise than as a
man. He humbled Himself, so that He became obedient unto God, etc. According to
the explanation of our dogmatic writers, who refer vv. 6–8 to the earthly life of
Christ, the sense comes to this: “ Christum jam inde a primo conceptionis nomento
divinam gloriam et majestatem sibi secundum humanam naturam communicatam plena
usurpatione exserere et tanquam Deum se gerere potuisse, sed' abdicasse se plenario ejus
usu et humilem se exhibuisse, patrique suo coelesti obedientem factum esse usque ad
mortem cruciş” (Quenstedt). The most thorough exposition of the passage and
demonstration in this sense, though mixed with much polemical matter against
the Reformed and the Socinians, are given by Calovius. The point of the orthodox
view, in the interest of the full Deity of the God-man, lies in the fact that Paul
is discoursing, not de humiliatione INCARNATIONIS, but de humiliatione INCARNATI.
Among the Reformed theologians, Calvin and Piscator substantially agreed with
our [Lutheran] orthodox expositors.
REMARK 2.-On a difference in the dogmatic understanding of vv. 6-8, when
men sought to explain more precisely the doctrine of the Church (Form. Conc. 8),
was based the well-known controversy carried on since 1616 between the theolo-
gians of Tübingen and those of Giessen. The latter (Feuerborn and Menzer)
assigned to Jesus Christ in His state of humiliation the iñois of the divine attri-
butes, but denied to Him their xpñois, thus making the kévwois a renunciation of
the xpñols. The Tübingen school, on the other hand (Thummius, Luc. Osiander,
and Nicolai), not separating the Koñols. and xpñois, arrived at the conclusion of a
hidden and imperceptible use of the divine attributes, and consequently made the
κένωσις a κρύψις της χρήσεως. See the account of all the points of controversy in
Dorner, II. 2, p. 661 ff., and especially Thomasius, Christi Pers. U. Werk, II. p.
429 ff. The Saxon Decisio, 1624, taking part with the Giessen divines, rejected
the kpúyis, without thoroughly refuting it, and even without avoiding unnecessary
concessions to it according to the Formula Concordiae (pp. 608, 767), so that the !
1 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 361, and Baeumlein,
Partik. p. 97; and the examples in Hartung,
Partikell. I. p. 168 f.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p.
388.
CHAP. II. 6–8.
79
disputed questions remained open and the controversy itself only came to a close
through final weariness. Among the dogmatic writers of the present day,
Philippi is decidedly on the side of the Giessen school. See his Glaubensl. IV. 1,
p. 279 ff. ed. 2. It is certain that, according to our passage, the idea of the kévwOLS
is clearly and decidedly to be maintained, and the reducing of it to a kpúxus
rejected. But, since Paul expressly refers the εαυτόν έκένωσε to the μορφή θεού,
and consequently to the divine mode of appearance, while he makes the eivai ioa
Θεώ to subsist with the assumption of the μορφή δουλου, just as subsequently the
Incarnate One appears only as έν ομοιώματι ανθρ. and as σχήματι ως άνθρ.;
and since, further, in the case of the KTÍOLS 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 KTņOLS and the xpñois must therefore be inseparably kept
together. But, setting aside the conception of the kpúbis as foreign to the N. T.,
this possession and use of the divine attributes are to be conceived as having, by
the renunciation of the popor Okoī in virtue of the incarnation, entered upon a
human development, consequently as conditioned, not as absolute, but as thean-
thropic. At the same time, the self-consciousness of Jesus Christ necessarily
remained the self-consciousness of the Son of God developing Himself humanly,
or (according to the Johannine phrase) of the Logos that had become flesh, who
was the povoyevis zapà matpos; see the numerous testimonies in John's Gospel,
as iii. 13, viii. 58, xvii. 5, v. 26. “Considered from a purely exegetical point of
view, there is no clearer and more certain result of the interpretation of Scripture
than the proposition, that the Eyo of Jesus on earth was identical with the Ego
which was previously in glory with the Father; any division of the Son speaking
on earth into two Egos, one of whom was the eternally glorious Logos, the other
the humanly humble Jesus, is rejected by clear testimonies of Scripture, how-
ever intimate we may seek to conceive the marriage of the two during the earthly
life of Jesus ;" Liebner in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 362. That which
the divine Logos laid aside in the incarnation was, according to our passage, the
uoppi Deoñ, that is, the divine sóša as a form of existence, and not the eival loa
Dew essentially and necessarily constituting His nature, which He retained, and
to which belonged, just as essentially and necessarily, the divine and conse-
quently in Him who had become man the divine-human-self-consciousness.?
But as this cannot find its adequate explanation either in the absolute consciousness
of God, or in the archetypal character which Schleiermacher assigned to Christ, or
in the idea of the religious genius (Al. Schweizer), or in that of the second Adam
created free from original sin, whose personal development proceeds as a gradual
incarnation of God and deification of man (Rothe), so we must by no means say,
with Gess, v. d. Pers. Chr. p. 304 f., that in becoming incarnate the Logos had
laid aside His self-consciousness, in order to get it back again only in the gradual
course of development of a human soul, and that merely in the form of a human
gelf-consciousness. See, in opposition to this, Thomasius, Christi Pers. u. Werk,
Comp. Düsterdieck, 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 inter-
course with Asia, and also from his relation
to Apollos. His conception, however, is just
as little Apollinarian as that of John; comp.
on Rom. i. 3 f.; Col. i. 15.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
II. p. 198 f.; Schoeberlein in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1871, p. 471 ff., comp. the latter's
Geheimnisse des Glaubens, 1872, 3. The various views which have been adopted
on the part of the more recent Lutheran Christologists,' diverging from the
doctrine of the Formula Concordiae in setting forth Christ's lumiliation (Dorner:
a gradual ethical blending into one unother of the divine and human life in immanent
development; Thomasius : self-limitation, i.e. partial self-renunciation of the divine
Logos; Liebner: the entrance of the Logos into a process of becoming, that is, into
a divine-human development), do not fall to be examined here in detail ; they
belong to the province, of Dogmatics. See the discussions on the subject by
Dorner, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, 2, 1857, 2, 1858, 3; Broemel, in the
Kirchl. Zeitschr. of Kliefoth and Mejer, 1857, p. 144 ff.; Liebner, in the Jahrb.f.
Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 349 ff.; Hasse; ibid. p. 336 ff.; Schoeberlein, l. c. p. 459 ff.;
Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, II. pp. 192 ff., 542 ff.; Philippi, Dogmat. IV. 1,
p. 364 ff.—According to Schoeberlein, the Son of God, when He became man, did
not give up His operation in governing the world in conjunction with the Father
and the Holy Spirit, but continued to exercise it with divine consciousness in
heaven. Thus the dilemma cannot be avoided, either of supposing a dual person-
ality oj Christ, or of assuming, with Schoeberlein, that heaven is not local. Not
only the former, however, but the latter view also, would be opposed to the
entire N. T.
Ver. 9. The exaltation of Christ,-by the description of which, grand in
its simplicity, His example becomes all the more encouraging and animat-
ing.S16] for au. recompense, on account of this self-denying renunciation
and humiliation in obedience to God (kaí, also, denotes the accession of
the corresponding consequence, Luke i. 35; Acts x. 29; Rom. i. 24, iv. 22;
Heb. xiii. 12). Comp. Matt. xxiii. 12; Luke xxiv. 26. Nothing but a dog-
matic, anti-heretical assumption could have recourse to the interpretation
which is at variance with linguistic usage: q210 facto (Calvin, Calovius,
Glass, Wolf, and others). The conception of recompense (comp. Heb. ii. 9,
xii. 2) is justified by the voluntariness of what Christ did, vv. 6-8, as well
as by the ethical nature of the obedience with which He did it, and only
excites offence if we misunderstand the Subordinatianism in the Christ-
ology of the Apostle. Augustine well says: "Humilitas claritatis est
meritum, claritas humilitatis praemiuin.” Thus Christ's saying in Matt.
xxiii. 12 was gloriously fulfilled in His own case.-ÜTepúbwoe] comp.
Song of Three Child. 28 ff.; LXX. Ps. xxxvi. 37, xcvi. 10; Dan. iv. 34;
1 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-manifestation like to humanity,
boldly renounces all the results of historical
exegesis during a whole generation, and goes
back to the standpoint of Löffler and others,
and also further, to that of the Socinians.
Comp.on John xvii. 5. Yet even Reyschlag's
Christology leads no further than to an ideal
pre-existence of Christ as archetype of hu-
manity, and that not as a person, but merely
as the principle of a person ;-while Keerl
(Q. Gottmensch. das Ebenbild Gottes, 1866), in
unperceived direct opposition to our passage
and to the entire N. T., puts the Son of God
already as Son of man in absolute (not earthly)
corporeality as pre-existent into the glory of
heaven. From 1 Cor. xv. 47 the conception
of the pre-existence of Christ as a heavenly,
pneumatic man and archetype of humanity
(Holsten, Biedermann, and others) can only
be obtained through misapprehension of the
meaning. See on 1 Cor. 1.c., and Grimm, p.51 ff.
· CHAP. II. 9, 10.
81
Synes. Ep. p. 225 A; it is not found elsewhere among Greek authors, by
whom, however, inepúbnhos, exceedingly high, is used. He made Him very
high, exceedingly exalted, said by way of superlative contrast to the pre-
vious étatsivwoev, of the exaltation to the fellowship of the highest glory and
dominion, Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12; Eph. i. 21, al.; John xii. 32, xvii.
5. This exaltation has taken place by means of the ascension (Eph. iv.
10), by which Jesus Christ attained to the right hand of God (Mark xvi.
19; Acts vii. 55 f.; Rom. viii. 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 úzepúy. It is quite unbiblical (John xvii. 5), and without
lexical authority, to take intép as intimating: more than previously (Grotius,
Beyschlag).-éxapioaro] He granted (i. 29), said from the point of view of
the subordination, on which also what follows (kcúplos ... eis Sogav Osoū
Tatpós) is based. Even Christ receives the recompense as God's gift of
grace, and hence also He prays Him for it, John xvii. 5. The glory of the
exaltation did not stand to that possessed before the incarnation in the rela-
tion of a plus, but it affected the entire divine-human person, that entered
on the regnum gloriae.-TÒ óvopia] 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
the following εν τω ονόματι Ιησού is decisive. The honor and dignity of
the name of Jesus are expressed by Tò. ÚTèp Täv ovoua, but are not implied
in Tò ovoua of itself. Nor is it to be understood of an appellative name, as
some have referred it to Kúplos in ver. 11 (Michaelis, Keil, Baumgarten-
Crusius, van Hengel, Schneckenburger, Weiss, Hofmann, Grimm); others
to viòs Oeoũ (Theophylact, Pelagius, Estius); and some even to Deos (Am-
brosiaster, Oecumenius, and again Schultz; but see on Rom. ix. 5). In
accordance with the context-ver. 11, comp. with ver. 6—the thought is:
“God has, by His exaltation, granted to Him that the name 'Jesus Christ'
surpasses all names in glory.” The expression of this thought in the form:
God has granted to Him the name, etc., cannot seem strange, when we take
into account the highly poetic strain of the passage.
Ver. 10 f. "Iva] This exaltation, ver. 9, was to have, in accordance with
the divine purpose, general adoration and confession as its result,--a con-
tinuation of the contrast with the previous state of self-renunciation and
humiliation. In the mode of expression there may be detected a remin-
iscence of Isa. xlv. 23 (Rom. xiv. 11).—The Év TẬ óvóu. 'I., emphatically
prefixed, affirms that, in the name of Jesus, i. e. in what is involved in that
most glorious name “Jesus Christ," and is present to the conception of
the subjects as they bend their knees, is to be found the moving ground
of this latter action (comp. Ps. lxiii. 5; 1 Kings xviii. 24; 1 Chron. xvi. 10,
1 In the conception of the "exaltation"
Paul agrees with John, but does not convey
expressly the notion of the return to the
Father. This is not an inconsistency in rela
tion to the doctrine of pre-existence (in
opposition to Pfleiderer, l. C. p. 517), but a
consequence of the more dialectically acute
distinction of ideas in Paul, since that change
82
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS...
al.; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Eph. V. 20; Col. iii. 17; 1 Pet. iv. 14, 16; Jas. ï. 14).
The bowing of the knee represents adoration, of which it is the symbol (Isa..
xlv. 23; Rom. xiv. 11, xi. 4; Eph. iii. 14; 3 Esdr. viii. 73; 3 Macc. ii. 1;.
and in Greek writers from Homer onward), and the subject to be adored
is, according to the context (év tö óvól. 'I., and comp. ver. 11), none other
than Jesus, the adoring worship of whom has its warrant in the fellowship
of the divine government and of the divine Sófa. to which He is exalted
(comp. the habitual talkaheiobal tò ovoua kuplov, Rom. x. 12 f.; 1 Cor. i. 2; 2
Tim. ii. 22; Acts vii. 59, ix. 14, 21, xxii. 16), but has also at the same time
its peculiar character, not absolute, but relative, i. e. conditioned by the
relation of the exalted Son to the Father!,-a peculiarity which did not
escape the observation of Pliny (Ep. x. 97 : “ Christo quasi Deo'), and was,
although only very casually and imperfectly, expressed by him. This
adoration (comp. ver. 11, eię dógav Degū tat.pós) does not infringe that strict
monotheism, which could ascribe absolute deity to the Father only (John
xvii. 3; Eph. iv. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 6, viii. 6; 1 Tim. vi. 15 f.); the Father only
is ó ūv ÉTÈ TÁVTWV Oxós, Rom. ix. 5 (comp. Ignat. Tars. interpol. 5), ó Okos
absolutely, God also of Christ (see on Eph. i. 17), the Ocòs ó Tavtokpátwp (2
Cor. vi. 18; Rev. i. 8, iv. 8, al.); and the Son, although of like nature, as
obvo povos and partaker of His Sófa, is subordinate to Him (1 Cor. xi. 3, xv.
27 f.), as in turn the Spirit is to the Son (2 Cor. iii. 18); the honor which
is to be paid to the Son (Rev. v. 8 ff.) has its principle (John v. 22 f.) and
áim (ver. 11) in the Father, and therefore the former is to be honored as
the Father, and God in Christ fills and moves the consciousness of him
who prays to Christ. According to van Hengel, it is not the adoration
of Jesus which is here intended, but that of God under application of the
name of Jesus; and de Wette also thinks it probable that Paul only
intended to state that every prayer should be made in the name of Jesus
as the Mediator (kúplos). Comp. also Hofmann: "the praying to God,
determined in the person praying by the consciousness of his relation to Jesus
as regulating his action.” Instead of this we should rather say: the pray-
ing to Jesus, determined by the consciousness of the relation of Jesus to
God (of the Son to the Father), as regulating the action of the person
praying. All modes of explaining away the adoration as offered to Jesus
Himself are at variance not only with the context generally, which has to
do with the honor of Jesus, making Him the object of the adoration, but
also with the word štoupaviwv which follows, because the mediatorship of
Jesus, which is implied in the atonement, does not affect the angels as its
objects (comp., on the contrary, Heb. i. 4, 6). The two sentences may
not be separated from one another (in opposition to Hofmann); but, on .
the contrary, it must be maintained that the personal object, to whom the
bowing of the knee as well as the confession with the tongue applies, is
Jesus. Linguistically erroneous is the view which makes év TQ óvóu. equiva-
of condition affected the entire Christ, the
God-man, whereas the subject of the pre-
existence was the Logos.
S ee Lücke, de invocat. Jes. Ch. Gott. 1843,
p. 7 f.; comp. Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, I.
p. 218.
CHAP. II. 10.
. 83
lent to εis tò ovoua, for the glorification of His dignity (Heinrichs, Flatt, and
others), or as a paraphrase for ¿v ’Inoow (Estius; Rheinwald leaves either of
the two to be chosen); while others, by the interpretation " quoties auditur
nomen, brought out a sense which is altogether without analogy in the
N. T. See, in opposition to this, Calvin:“quasi vox (the word Jesus) esset
magica, quae totam in sono vim haberet inclusam.”—ěnoupavíwv K.7.2.] 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). ÉTovp. includes
the angels (Eph. i. 20 f., iii. 10; Heb. i. 4, 6; 1 Pet. i. 12, iii. 22); Étly. the
human beings on earth (comp. Plat. Ax. p. 368 B: ÉTiyalog ăvopwtos); and
katax0. the dead in Hades (comp. Hom. Il. ix. 457 : Zeùs katazóbvios, Pluto:
katarhóviol daluovES, the Manes, Anthol. vii. 333). The adoration on the part
of the latter, which Grotius and Hofmann misinterpret, presupposes the
descensus Ch. ad inferos, Eph. iv. 9, in which He presented Himself to the
spirits in Hades as the kúpins. Our passage, however, does not yield any
further particulars regarding the so-called descent into hell, which
Schweizer has far too rashly condemned as “a myth without any foundation
in Scripture." Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and
many others, including Baumgarten-Crusius and Wiesinger, have incor-
rectly understood by katazo. the Daemones, which is an erroneous view,
because Paul does not regard the Daemones as being in Hades (see, on
the contrary, at Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12). There is an arbitrary rationalizing in
Heinrichs, who takes the words as neuters : "omnes rerum creatarum com-
plexus” (comp. Nösselt and J. B. Lightfoot), and already in Beza : "quae-
cunque et supra mundum sunt et in mundo." We meet with the right
view as early as Theodoret. The Catholics referred kataxo. to those who
are in purgatory; so Bisping still, and Döllinger, Christenth. u. Kirche, p.
262, ed. 2.-As regards the realization of the divine purpose expressed in
iva K.7.2., respecting the émiyelwv, it was still in progress of development, but
its completion (Rom. xi. 25) could not but appear to the Apostle near at
hand, in keeping with his expectation of the near end of the aiàv oúros.
1 Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Bretschneider,
and others, arrived at this interpretation
simply by understanding εν τω ονόμ.
nomen (comp. Grotius: "nuncupato nomine");
but Hoelemann, with forced subtilty, by the
analysis: “quasi circumsonitum appellatione
mominis."
2 Comp. Rev. vi 13; Ignat. Trall. 9, and the
similar classical use of inoxCóvios, ünÒ yaiav
(Eur. Hec. 149, and Pfugk in loc.).
s To transfer, with Grotius, Hofmann, and
Grimm, the genuflexion of the dead to the
period after the resurrection, so that, according
to Hofmann, the kataxóvLou "sleep below and
await their resurrection and shall then adore
and confess," would be entirely erroneous,
mixing up with the direct, poetically plastic
description of the apostle & remotely sug-
gested reflection. He views the bowing of the
knee, as it has been done and is continuously
being done, and not as it will be done by an
entire class only in the future, after the Parou-
sia. Wiesinger, however, has also placed the
realization of the iva mâv yovv kányn K.7.d. at
the end of the world, when the knees, which
hitherto had not willingly bent, would be
forced to do so (1 Cor. xv. 25 f.). On this point
he appeals to Rom. xiv. 11, where, however,
the whole text is dealing with the last judg.
ment, which is not the case here. Besides,
εν τω ονόματι is far from leading us to the
idea of an adoration partially forced; it rather
presupposes the faith, of which the bowing
of the knee and the confession which fol.
lows are the free living action; comp. Rom.
X. 9.
84
THE EPİSTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Observe, moreover, how he emphasizes the universality of the divine pur-
pose (iva) with regard to the bowing the knees and confession with the
tongue s0 strongly by παν γόνυ and πάσα γλώσσα, that the arbitrary limitation
which makes him mean only those who desire to give God the glory (Hof-
mann) is out of the question. .
Ver. 11 appends the express confession combined with the adoration in
ver. 10, in doing which the concrete form of representation is continued,
comp. Rom. xiv. 11; Isa. xlv. 23; hence yhwoon is tongue, correlative to the
previous yóvu, not language (Theodoret, Beza, and others).—gouo..] a
-strengthening compound. Comp. on Matt. iii. 6. Respecting the future
(see the critical remarks) depending on iva, see on Gal. ii. 4; Eph. vi. 3; 1
Cor. ix. 18.--kúplos] predicate, placed first with strong emphasis : that Lord
is Jesus Christ. This is the specific confession of the apostolic church (Rom.
x. 9; 2 Cor. iv. 5; Acts ii. 36), whose antithesis is : ává@eua: 'Inoovç 1 Cor.
xii. 3. The kúplov čival 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 (Hoelemann, following Flatt and others), or to the
church (Rheinwald, Schenkel).--eis sóç. DroW Tratp.] may be attached to the
entire bipartite clause of purpose (Hofinann). Since, however, in the
second part a modification of the expression is introduced by the future, it
is more probably to be joined to this portion, of which the telic destination,
i. e. the final cause, is specified. It is not to be connected merely with
kúplos 'I. X., as Bengel wished: "J. Ch. esse dominum, quippe qui sit in
gloria Dei patris,” making eis stand for év, for which the Vulgate, Pelagius,
Estius, and others also took it. Schneckenburger also, p. 341 (comp. Cal-
vin, Rheinwald, Matthies, Hoelemann), joins it with kúplos, but takes eis
idófav rightly: to the honor. But, in accordance with ver. 9, it was self-
evident that the kvpiórns of the Son tends to the honor of the Father; and
the point of importance for the full conclusion was not this, but to bring
into prominence that the universal confessing recognition of the kupiórns of
Jesus Christ glorifies the Father (whose will and work Christ's entire work
of salvation is; see especially Eph. i.; Rom. xv. 7–9; 2 Cor. i. 20); whereby
alone the exaltation, which Christ has received as a recompense from the
Father, appears in its fullest splendor. Comp. John xii. 28, xvii. 1. The
whole contents of ver. I f. is parallel to the tv uoppi Osov, namely, as the
recompensing re-elevation to this original estate, now accorded to the
divine-human person after the completion of the work of humiliation.
Complicated and at variance with the words is the view of van Hengel, that
Écouo2. éis dóžav Osoŭ is equivalent to égouo2. Dew, to praise God (Gen. xxix. 34,
al.; Rom. xv. 9; Matt. xi. 25; Luke x. 21), and that önc is quod; hence: “lau-
dibus celebrarent, quod hunc filium suum principem fecerit regni divini.”
REMARK.-From vv. 6-11, Baur, whom Schwegler follows, derives his argu-
ments for the assertion that our epistle moves in the circle of Gnostic ideas and
expressions, and must therefore. belong to the post-apostolic period of Gnostic
!
1 Its idea is, that Christ "divests Himself,
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
CHAP. II. 6-11.
85
speculation. But with the true explanation of the various points these arguments 1
fall to pieces of themselves. For (1) if tò εival ioa Oew be related to šv popon OsoW
£ival as the essence to its adequate manifestation, and if our explanation of ápray-
pós be the linguistically correct one, then must the Gnostic conception of the Aeon
Sophic—which vehemently desired to penetrate into the essence of the original
Father (Iren. Haer. i. 2. 2), and thus before the close of the world's course (Theol.
Jahrb. 1849, p. 507 ff.) wished to usurp forcibly something not de jure belonging
to it (Paulus, II. p. 51 ff.)-be one entirely alien and dissimilar to the idea of our
passage. But this conception is just as inconsistent with the orthodox explanation
of our passage, as with the one which takes the εival ioa Deq as something future
and greater than the poppii Osoữ; since in the case of the popon, as well as in that
of the coa, the full fellowship in the divine nature is already the relation assumed
as existing. Consequently (2) the taUTÒV ÉKÉVWOE cannot be explained by the idea,
according to which the Gnostics made that Aeon, which desired to place itself in
unwarranted union with the Absolute, fall from the Pleroma to the kévwuamas 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 Grostic view,
that áprayuós indeed actually takes place, but as an unnatural enterprise neutral-
izes itself, and has, as its result, merely something negative, in this case, in virtue
of a moral self-determination, matters cannot come to any such áprayuós; and
the negative, which even in this case occurs, not in consequence of an act that has
failed, but of one which has not taken place at all, is the voluntary self-renuncia-
tion and self-denial by an act of the will, an ÉQUTÒV KEVOūv instead of the yevéolai év
κενώματι”). (3) Thait even the notion of the μορφή Θεού arose from the language
used by the Gnostics, among whonm the expressions μορφή, μορφούν, μόρφωσις, were
very customary, is all the more arbitrarily assumed by Baur, since these expres-
sions were very prevalent generally, and are not specifically Gnostic designations;
indeed, popor Okoũ is not once used by the Gnostics, although it is current among
other authors, including philosophers (e.g. Plat. Rep. p. 381 C: révei dei årlūs šv
Tîl aútow uopoſ, comp. p. 381 B: ÝKLOT' Qv nokāàs Moppàs ioxoló Dɛós). Further,
(4) the erroneousness of the view, which in the phrases év óuolájati ávMpúrwv and
oxhuatl cúpɛlɛiç ús åvôp. discovers a Gnostic Docetism, is self evident from the
explanation of these expressions in accordance with the context (see on the
passage); and Chrysostom and his successors have rightly brought out the essen-
tial difference between what the apostle says in ver. 7 and the Docetic conceptions
(Theophylact: suc hu đề rò pcuuthuevo tócov, namely, man, dan kai deóc, oOK P
ψιλός άνθρωπος. Διά τούτό φησιν εν ομοιώματιανθρώπων ημείς μεν γαρ ψυχή και σώμα,
ÉRETVOS SÊ Wuxo kai oāua kai Orós K.T.N. Theodoret : Tepi Toð hóyou tautá onoiv, ÖTC
Deòs Öv ovx éwpăto Osòs Tūv ávipwreiav TTEPLIKEÍLevos PÚOL K.T.2.). Comp. on Rom.
viii. 3. Lastly, (5) even the three categories étoupaviwv kai ėmrcy. kai katazo., and
also the notion of the descensus ad inferos which the latter recalls, are alleged by
Baur to be genuinely Gnostic. But the idea of the descent to Hades is not dis-
tinctively Gnostic; it belongs to the N. T., and is a necessary presupposition lying
at the root of many passages (see on Luke xxiii. 43; Matt. xii. 40; Acts ii. 27 ff.;
filled with its absolute contents,” Baur, Neu-
test. Theol. p. 265.
1 Hirsch, l.c. p. 76, does not adopt them,
but yet thinks it un-Pauline that the incarna-
tion of Christ is represented detached from its
reference to humanity. This, however, is not
86
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Rom. I. 6 ff.; Eph. iv. 8 ff.); it is, in fact, the premiss of the entire belief in
Christ's resurrection K VEkpāv. That threefold division of all angels and men
(see also Rev. v. 13) was, moreover, so appropriate and natural in the connection
of the passage (comp. the twofold division, kai veicpūv kai Suvrwv, Rom. xiv. 9,
Acts x. 42, 1 Pet. iv. 5 f., where only men are in question), that its derivation
from Gnosticism could only be justified in the event of the Gnostic character of
our passage being demonstrated on other grounds. The whole hypothesis is
engrafted on isolated expressions, which only become violently perverted into
conceptions of this kind by the presupposition of a Gnostic atmosphere. Accord-
ing to the Gnostic view, it would perhaps have been said of the Aeon Sophia: os
έν μορφη Θεού υπάρχων ού προάλλεσθαι ηγήσατο εις το πλήρωμα του θεού κ.τ.λ. The
apostle's expressions agree entirely with the Christology of his other epistles; it is
from these and from his own genuine Gnosis laid down in them, that his words
are to be understood fully and rightly, and not from the theosophic phantasma-
goria of any subsequent Gnosis whatever.
Ver. 12.' [On vv. 12, 13, see Note XI. pages 111, 112.] To this great
example of Jesus Paul now annexes another general admonition, which
essentially corresponds with that given in i. 27, with which he began all
this hortatory portion of the epistle (i. 27-ii. 18).-ÜOTɛ] [XI 6.] itaque;
draws an inference from the example of Christ (vv. 6–11), who by the path
of self-renunciation attained to so glorious a recompense. Following this
example, the readers are, just as they had always been obedient, etc., to
work out their own salvation with the utmost solicitude. Unkovoare is not,
indeed, correlative with yɛvou. ÚTýkoos in ver. 8 (Theophylact, Calovius,
Bengel, and others), as the latter was in what preceded only an accessory
definition; but the owinpia is correlative with the exaltation of Christ
described in ver. 9, of which the future salvation of Christians is the
analogue, and, in fact, the joint participation (Rom. viii. 17; Eph. ii. 6;
Col. ii. 12 f., iii. 3 f.). Since, therefore, come has its logical basis in what
immediately precedes, it must not be looked upon as an inference from all
the previous admonitions, i. 26 ff., from which it draws the general result (de
Wette). It certainly introduces the recapitulation of all the previous
exhortations, and winds them up (on account of the new exhortation
which follows, see on ver. 14) as in iv. 1; 1 Thess. iv. 18; Rom. vii. 12; 1
Cor. iii. 21, iv. 5, v. 8, xi. 33, xiv. 39, xv. 58, but in such a way that it joins
on lo what was last discussed. It is least of all admissible to make, with
Hofmann, ώστε point backwards to πληρώσατέ μου τ. χαράν in ver. 2, so that
this prayer “is repeated in a definitive manner" by the exhortation intro-
duced with COTE. In that case the apostle, in order to be understood, must
the case, as may be gathered from the con-
nection of the passage in its practical bearing
with ver. 4 (Tà Tépsv).
1 Linden, in the Stud. W. Krit. 1860, p. 750,
attempted a new explanation of vv. 12–14.
According to this, μή ως is to stand for ως μή,
katepyás. to be indicative, un ús ... Katepy.
to belong to the protasis, ver. 13 to be treated
as a parenthesis, and, finally, the apodosis to
follow in távta K.T.d. Against this view may
be simply urged the fact, that un ús (2 Thess.
iii. 15; Philem. 14; 2 Cor. ix. 5) cannot be
equivalent to ús in, and that there must have
been used not even ως μή, but, on account of
the negation of a purely actual relation, us
oủk; to say nothing of the involved construc-
CHAP. II. 12.
at least have inserted a resumptive oủv after come, and in the following
exhortation must have again indicated, in some way or other, the element
of the making joy.-kalūs TávtOTE ÚTNKOVOaTE] whom? is neither a question to
be left unanswered (Matthies), nor one which does not require an answer
(Hofmann). The context yields the supplement here, as well as in Rom.
vi. 16, Philem. 21, 1 Pet. i. 14; and the right supplement is the usual one,
viz. mihi, or, more definitely, meo evangelio, as is plain, both from the words
which follow un ús ..,, árovola uov, and also from the whole close personal
relation, in which Paul brings home to the hearts of his readers his admo-
nitions (from i. 27 down till ii. 18) as their teacher and friend. On mártota,
comp. årò apúrns, Quépaç å xpe Toữ vữv (i.5). We cannot infer from it a refer-
ence to earlier cpistles which have been lost (Ewald).-nós... árovoią nou?
belongs not to Únnkovoare (Luther, Wolf, Heumann, Heinrichs, and others),
as is evident from μη ώς and νύν, but to κατεργάζεσθε, so that the comma
before yetà póßov is, with Lachmann, to be deleted. Comp. Grotius.--us
had to be inserted, because Paul would not and could not give an admo-
nition for a time when he would be present. Not perceiving this, B, min.,
VSS., and Fathers have omitted it. If ós were not inserted, Paul would
say: that they should not merely in his presence work out their salvation.
But with áç he says: that they are not to work out their own salvation in such
a way as if they were doing it in His presence? merely (neglecting it, therefore,
in His absence); nay, much more now, during His absence from them, they
are to work it out with fear and trembling. There is nothing to be supplied
along with us, which is the simple modal as, since hi ús is connected with
the governing verb that follows in the antithesis (T. Éavt. 5WT. Katepyášeobe)
as its prefixed negative modal definition : not as in any presence only (not as
limiting it to this only) work out your salvation. And the anná is the anti-
thetic much more, on the contrary, nay. Erasmus, Estius, Hoelemann,
Weiss, Hofmann, and others, incorrectly join uovov with uń, and take ás in
the sense of the degree: not merely so, as ye have done it, or would do it,
in my absence; comp. de Wette, who assumes a blending of two com-
parisons, as does also J. B. Lightfoot. It is arbitrary not to make móvov
belong to év 7. rap. pov, beside which it stands; comp. also Rom. iv. 16
(where tỹ ÉIC TOő vóuov 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 “Takovetɛ after ÚTIKOUGate, and then to
make uerà poßov K.7.2. a sentence by itself (Hofmann). Moreover, in such
a case the arrangement of the words in the alleged apodosis would be
illogical; võy (or, more clearly, kai vīv) must have begun it, and jóvov must
have stood immediately after uń. [XI d.)-Tom pārlov] than if I were
present; for now (vīv), when they were deprived of the personal teaching,
stimulus, guidance, and guardianship of the apostle, moral diligence and
zealous solicitude were necessary for them in a far higher measure, in order
tion, and of the so special tenor of the alleged
apodosis after a preparation of so grand and
general a nature by the alleged protasis.
i The word mapovoia does not contain, any
more than in i. 26, a reference to the Parousia
of Christ, which Kähler ("ye know what this
word would properly tell us ") reads between
the lines.
88 ..
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
i
to fulfill the great personal duty of working out their own salvation. That
Éavtõv, therefore, cannot be equivalent to åríaw (Flatt, Matthies, and
older expositors), is self-evident.—Letà poßov ko. Tpójov] [XI c.] that is, with
such earnest solicitude, that ye shall have a lively fear of not doing enough
in the matter. Awe before the presence of God (Chrysostom, Theophylact,
Oecumenius), before the future Judge (Weiss), the feeling of dependence on
God (de Wette), a reverential devotion to God (Matthies, comp. van Hen-
gel), and similar ideas, must be implied in the case, but do not constitute
the sense of the expression, in which also, according to the context, we are
not to seek a contrast to spiritual pride (Schinz, Rilliet, Hoelemann,
Wiesinger), as Augustine, Calvin, Bengel, and others have done.--katepyá-
Geobɛ] bring about, peragite (Grotius), “ usque ad metam” (Bengel), express-
ing, therefore, more than the simple verb. The summons itself is not at
variance with the principle that salvation is God's gift of grace, and is
prepared for, predestined, and certain to believers; but it justly claims the
exercise of the new moral power bestowed on the regenerate man, with-
out the exertion of which he would fall away again from the state of grace
to which he had attained in faith, and would not actually become partaker
of the salvation appropriated to him by faith, so that the final reception
of salvation is so far the result of his moral activity of faith in the kalvórns
(wñs. See especially Rom. vi. 8, 12 ff., and 2 Cor. vi. 1. Our passage
stands in contrast, not to the certitudo salutis, but to the moral securitas,
into which the converted person might relapse, if he do not stand fast (iv.
1; 1 Cor. x. 12), and labor at his sanctification (1 Thess. iv. 3,7; 2 Cor. vii.
1; 1 Tim. ii. 15), etc. The demand is expressed all the more earnestly, the
more that the readers have conflict and suffering to endure (i. 27-30).
Ver. 13. (XI e. 7 Ground of encouragement to the fulfillment of this pre-
cept, in which it is not their own, but God's power, which works in them,
etc. Here Oeós is placed first as the subject, not as the predicate (Hof-
mann): God is the agent. It is, however, unnecessary and arbitrary to
assume before yáp (with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus,
and others) an unexpressed thought (“be not terrified at my having said:
with fear and trembling"). Bengel gratuitously supplies with Deós the
thought: "praesens vobis etiam absente me” (comp. also van Hengel), while
others, as Calvin, Beza, Hoelemann, Rilliet, Wiesinger, who found in jetà
PÚB. K. Tp. the antithesis of pride (see on ver. 12), see in ver. 13 the motive to
humility; and de Wette is of opinion that what was expressed in ver. 12
under the aspect of fear is here expressed under the aspect of confidence.
In accordance with the unity of the sense we ought rather to say: that
the great moral demand jetà póß. K. Tp. TĪV ÉavrŪV OWT. Katepyáceolat, con-
taining as it did the utmost incentive to personal activity, needed for the
readers the support of a confidence which should be founded not on their
own, but on the divine working. According to Ewald, the metà poßov k.
1 Comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 15; Eph.
vi. 5. Aki yap poßeiobai k. tpéLLELV. év TỨ
èpyáscolai tnv idiav owinpiav ēkaotov, uń TOTE
ÚTTOOKERLOO eis ékméon TaútnS, Oecumenius.
2 Comp. Eph. vi. 13; Dem. 1121. 19; Plat.
Legg. vii. p. 791 A; Eur. Heracl. 1046: módel ow-
Tnpiav katepyácaolal; and see on Rom. i. 26.
3 Comp. Wuttke, Sittenl. II. § 266.
CHAP. II. 13.
89 1
Tpóuov is to be made good by pointing to the fact that they work before God,
who is even already producing in them the right tendency of will. But
the idea of the ÉvÚTLOV TOŨ OsoŐ was so familiar to the apostle, that he
would doubtless have here also directly expressed it. Kähler (comp.
Weiss) imports a hint of the divine punishment, of which, however,
nothing is contained in the text. So also Hofmann: with fear in presence
of Him who is a devouring fire (Heb. xii. 28 f.), who will not leave unpun-
ished him who does not subordinate his own will and working to the
divine. As if Paul had hinted at such thoughts, and had not, on the
contrary, himself excluded them by the 'TÈD Tñs evdokias which is added !
The thought is rather " dulcissima sententia omnibus piis mentibus,” Form.
Conc. p. 659.—Calvin (comp. Calovius) rightly observes on the subject-
matter : “intelligo gratiam supernaturalem, quae provenit ex spiritu regen-
erationis; nam quatenus sumus homines, jam in Deo sumus et vivimus
et movemur, verum hic de alio motu disputat Paulus, quam illo univer-
sali.” Augustine has justly (in opposition to the Pelagian rationalizing
interpretation of a mediate working: "velle operatur suadendo et praemia
promittendo”), in conformity with the words, urged the efficaciter operari,
which Origen, de Princ. iii. 1, had obliterated, and the Greeks who fol-
lowed qualified with synergistic reservations.-ěv úuiv] not intra coetum
vestrum (Hoelemann), but in animis vestris (1 Cor. xii. 6; 2 Cor. iv. 12;
Eph. ii. 2; Col. i. 29; 1 Thess. ii. 13), in which He produces the self-
determination directed to the κατεργάζεσθαι of their own σωτηρία, and the
activity in carrying out this Christian-moral volition. This activity, the
Évepyɛīv, is the inner morcil one, which has the katepyáčegðal as its consequence,
and therefore is not to be taken as equivalent to the latter (Vulgate,
Luther, and others, including Matthies and Hoelemann). Note, on the
contrary, the climactic selection of the two cognate verbs. The regenerate
man brings about his own salvation (katepyášetai) when he does not resist
the divine working (ěvepyāv) of the willing and the working (évepyεiv) in his
soul, but yields steady obedience to it in continual conflict with the oppos-
ing powers (Eph. vi. 10 ff. ; Gal. v. 16; 1 Thess. v. 8, al.); so that he nepe-
Tratɛī, not katà oápka, but Karà Tveðja (Rom. viii. 4), is consequently 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 the human activity, which yields obedience to the divine working of
the Oénelv and évepyɛīv, or from that of the divine activity, which works
the Okrelv and évepYEīv, we may say with equal justice, either that God
accomplishes the good which He has begun in man, up to the day of
Christ; or, that man brings about his own salvation. “Nos ergo volumus,
sed Deus in nobis operatur et velle; nos ergo operamur, sed Deus in nobis
operatur et operari,” Augustine. How wholly is it otherwise with the
unregenerate in Rom. vii. !—The repetition by Paul of the same word,
évepyāv ... TÒ Évepyɛīv, has its ground in the encouraging design which he
1“ Velle quidem, quatenus est actus volun-
tatis, nostrum est ex creatione: bene velle
etiam nostrum est, sed quatenus volentes facti
per conversionem bene volumus," Calovius.
i
has of making God's agency felt distinctly and emphatically; hence, also,
he specifies the two elements of all morality, not merely the évepykiv, but..
also its premiss, the Okhelv, and keeps them apart by using kai twice: God
is the worker in you, as of the willing, so of the working. From His
working comes man's working, just as already his willing. - Èp rís eúdo-
kias] for the sake of goodwill, in order to satisfy His own benignant dispo-
sition. [XI f.]. On' the causal Únép, which is not secundum, comp. Rom.
xv. 8; Köhner, II. 1, p. 421; Winer, p. 359 [E. T. p. 383]; and on evdokia,
which is not, with Ewald, to be taken in a deterministic sense, comp. i. 15;
Rom. x. 1.2 The explanation: "for the sake of the good pleasure, which
He has in such willing and working” (Weiss), would amount to some-
thing self-evident. Hofmann erroneously makes ŮMÈD T. eúdok. belong to
trávra TOLETTE, and convey the sense, that they are to do everything for the
sake of the divine good pleasure, about which they must necessarily be
misunderstanding of the previous words, the fact is decisive, that tñs
evdokias only obtains its reference to God through its belonging to ó évepyāv
marked, and that, on account of the emphasized position which ún. T. eúdok.
would have, with emphasis (as possibly by ÚTÈp Tñs avtoŨ εvdokias).
Ver. 14. [On vv. 14-18, see Note XII. pages 112-114.] With ver. 13 Paul
has closed his exhortations, so far as the matter is concerned. [XII a.]
He now adds a requisition in respect to the mode of carrying out these
admonitions, namely, that they shall do everything (which, according to
the admonitions previously given, and summarily comprised in ver. 12,
they have to do, 1 Cor. x. 31) willingly and without hesitation,-an injunction
for which, amidst the temptations of the present (i. 27-30), there was
sufficient cause.xwpis yoyyvou.] without (far removed from) murmuring.
The yoyyvouós, 4 that fault already prevalent in ancient Israel (Ex. xvi. 7 ff.;
Num. xiv. 2), is to be conceived as directed against God, namely, on
account of what He imposed upon them both to do and to suffer, as
follows from the context in yy. 13 and 15; hence it is not to be referred
to their fellow-Christians (Calvin, Wiesinger, Schneckenburger), or to their
superiors (Estius), as Hoelemann also thinks. Comp. on 1 Cor. x. 10.-
dlahoylouūv] not: without disputes (Erasmus, Beza, and many others,
including Schneckenburger), de imperatis cum imperatoribus (Hoelemann,
comp. Estius), or among themselves (Calvin, Wiesinger), and that upon
irrelevant questions (Grotius), and similar interpretations, which, although
not repugnant to Greek usage generally,5 are at variance with that of the
N. T. (even 1 Tim. ii. 8), and unsuitable to the reference of yoyyvop. to.
1 This is God's creative moral action in sal-
vation, Eph. ii. 10. Comp. Thomasius, Chr.
Pers. U. Werk, I. P. 287. Incorrectly, however,
the Reformed theologians add: "quae pro-
hiberi non potest."
3 Theodoret aptly says : eúdoklav dè tò ayan
bòv to û eo û ttpoonyópevoe 0 édnoua: Dédel
Gè trávtas å v porovs owonval x.r...
3 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.
4 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 358.
6 Plut. Mor. p. 180 C; Ecclus. ix. 15, xiii. 35.
CHAP. II. 14, 15.
91
God. It means: without hesitation, without your first entering upon
Scrupulous considerings as to whether you are under any obligation thereto,
whether it is not too difficult, whether it is prudent, and the like. The
Vulgate renders it rightly, according to the essential sense : “haesitationi-
bus.” The yoyyvouoi would presuppose aversion towards God; the diało-
ylouuoi, uncertainty in the consciousness of duty.
Ver. 15. (XII 6.7 If to their obedience of the admonitions given down
to ver. 13 there is added the manner of obedience prescribed in ver. 14,
they shall be blameless, etc. This, therefore, must be the high air, which
they are to have in view in connection with what is required in ver. 14.-
ă peuTTOL K. åképalol] blameless and sincere; the former represents moral
integrity as manifesting itself to the judgment of others; the latter represents
the same as respects its inner nature (comp. on Matt. x. 16 and Rom. xvi.
19). Tékva Okou šubu.] comprehending epexegetically the two former pre-
dicates. Children of God (in virtue of the violecia that took place in
Christ, Rom. viii. 15, 23; Gal. iv. 5; Eph. i. 5) they are (Rom. viii. 16,
ix. 8). They are to become such children of God, as having nothing with
which fault can be found; which in children of God presupposes the
inward moral åkepalórns; since they are led by the Spirit of God (Rom.
viii. 14). This ethical view of the violecia, 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 being the constant task
of the becoming; and hence the sense of showing themselves is as little to
be given, with Hofmann, to the yévnodɛ here as in Matt. x. 16, John xv. 8,
et al.; comp. also on Gal. iv. 12. ’Aubuntos, qui vituperari non potest, occur-
ring elsewhere in the N. T. only at 2 Pet. iii. 14 (not equivalent to å uwuos
or åpeurtos). Its opposite is : tékva uóunta, Deut. xxxii. 5; the recollection
of this latter passage has suggested the subsequent words, which serve as
a recommendation of the condition to be striven for by contrasting it with
the state of things around.—uégov (see the critical remarks) is adverbial, in
the midst of Sokolāç K. Sleotpajp.] crooked and perverted, a graphic figurative
representation of the great moral abnormity of the generation. 4-év ols]
i. e. among the people of this yeveá ; 5—Palveode] not imperative, but the
existing relation, which constitutes the essential distinctive character of the
Christian state as contrasted with the non-Christian, Eph. v. 8, al. The
aim of the šv ois paíveobɛ k.7.. is, by means of an appeal to the true Chris-
1 Comp. Luke xxiv. 38, and on Rom. xiv. 1;
Plat. Ax. p. 367 A: Opovtides . . . kai slado
glomoi, Tim. p. 59 C: ovdèv Troixílov ēti diado-
yioaobai. Ecclus. xl. 2.
% But see Hom. N. xii, 109; Herod. iii. 82;
frequently in the Anthol.
3 Hom. II. xii. 167; Od. xiv. 300; Eur. Rhes.
531 (uéoa); LXX. Num. Xxxy. 5.
4 Comp. on oroncós, 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 SLEOTP., Matt. xvii.
17; Deut. xxxii. 20; Polyb. viii. 24. 3, v. 41. 1,
ii. 21. 8; also diáotpobos, Soph. Aj. 442.
5 See Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 242 [E. T. p.
282]; Bremi, ad Isocr. I. p. 213 f.; Kühner, II.
1, p. 49 f.
Cyprian, Pelagius, Ambrosiaster, Theo
phylact, Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin, Grotius,
and others, including Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald,
Baumgarten-Crusius.
92
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
tian sense of honor (the consciousness of their high Christian position
towards them that are without), to assist the attainment of the end in
view; this is misunderstood by Bengel, when he suggests the addition of
“servata hac admonitione," a view in which he is followed by Hofmann.
The meaning is not lucetis (so usually), but (comp. also Weiss, Schenkel,
and J. B. Lightfoot) : ye appear,' come into view, apparetis. Lucetis (Vulgate)
would be paivete. 3—owotñpes] light-givers (Rev. xxi. 11), here a designation, not
of torches (Beza, Cornelius a Lapide) or lamps (Hofmann), which would
be too weak for év tớ kóouw, 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. 4-ÉV kóouw] is to be taken in refer-
ence to the physical world, and closely connected with owot. [XII c.]. As
light-bearers in the world (which shine in the world, by day the sun, by night
the moon and stars), the Christians appear in the midst of a perverted genera-
tion. Comp. Matt. v. 14; also classical expressions like rárpas péyyaa (Anthol.
Vi. 614, 2), etc. If φαίνεσθε be rightly interpreted, εν κόσμω cannot be joined
with it (de Wette, Weiss, who takes koouw in the ethical sense), or be supple-
mented by paivovtal (Hoelemann, Rilliet, van Hengel). It is erroneous,
further, to make ţv. Kóguu mean in heaven (Clericus, Rheinwald"), and also
erroneous to attach a pregnant force to“év, making it mean “within the
world,” in contrast to the lights of heaven shining from above; thus Hof-
mann, connecting it with hóyov 5wñs értéX. and bringing out with emphasis
something quite self-evident. On kóquoš without the article, see Winer, p.
117 [E. T. p. 123]. On the whole passage, comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 577 :
υμείς οι φωστήρες του ουρανού ώς ο ήλιος και η σελήνη" τί ποιήσουσι πάντα τα έθνη, εάν
υμείς σκοτισθήσεσθε εν ασεβεία κ.τ.λ. Paul, however, has put φωστήρες without
the article, because he has conceived it qualitatively.
Ver. 16. Λόγον ζωής επέχοντες] a definition giving the reason for φαίνεσθε ώς
Qwot. év k. : since ye possess the word of life. [XII d.]. This is the Gospel,
ÉTT ELSÌ TÌv aibviov tpoševɛī swýv, Theodoret. See Rom. i. 16; comp. John vi.
68; Acts y. 20; it is the divinely efficacious vehicle of the aveõua tñs Swiſs
which frees from sin and death (see on Rom. viii. 2), and therefore not
merely "the word concerning life” (Weiss). Christ Himself is the essential
góyos rñs Swîs (1 John i. 1), His servants are ooun swñs eis Swńv (2 Cor. ii.
16), therefore the word preached by them must be abyos śwns in the sense
. indicated. Paul does not elsewhere use the expression. As to śwń with-
1 So also Homer, I. i. 200, which Hofmann D. D. iv. 3; also Xen. Symp. i. 9, Anab. vii. 4. 16;
compares and brings out for our passage the hence tà palvóleva, the heavenly appearances.
. sense: “stand in the light proper to them." 3 John i. 5, v. 35; 1 John ii. 8; 2 Pet. i. 19;
Comp., however, Il. xix. 16, xxii. 28, and l. C. ; Rev. i. 16, xxi. 23; 1 Macc. iv. 40; Plat. Tim.
Duncan, Lex. ed. Rost. p. 1148 f. In the former p. 39 B; Arist. Nub. 586; Hes. Oper. 528;
passage, i. 200, the sense is: her eyes (Athene's) Theoc. ii. 11.
appeared terrible. Comp. Nägelsbach, p. 87, 4 Wisd. xiii. 2; Ecclus. xliii. 7; Heliod. 87;
ed. 3. The same sense, according to another Anthol. xv. 17; Constant. Rhod. ep. in Para-
explanation, is found in Faesi.
lip. 205.
2 Matt. ii. 7, xxiv. 27; Jas. iv. 14; Rev. xviii. 5 The designation of the heavens by kóduos,
23; Hom. Il. i. 477, xxiv. 785, 788, Od. ii. 1, Il. first'used by Pythagoras (see Bremi, ad Isoc.
ix. 707; Hes. Oper. 600; Plat. Rep. p. 517 B; Paneg. p. 90), did not enter into the Biblical
Xen. Hell. iv. 3. 10; Polyb. ix. 15. 7; Lucian, . usus loquendi.
CHAP. II. 16.
93
out the article, of eternal life in the Messiah's kingdom (iv. 3), see Kaeuffer,
de Sw ñ s ai. not. p. 73 f. As possessors of this word, the Christians appear
like owotñpes in a world otherwise dark; without this possession they would
not so present themselves, but would be homogeneous with the perverted
generation, since the essence of the gospel is light (Eph. V. 8; Col. i. 12; 1
Thess. v. 5; 1 Pet. ii. 9; Luke xvi. 8; Acts xxvi. 18, al.), just as .Christ
Himself is the principal light (John i. 4, 5, iii. 19, viii. 12, xii. 35, al.); but
the element of the unbelieving yevɛá, whose .image is the kóguos 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). 'Etéxelv, to possess, to have in possession, at disposal, and
the like. Not: holding fast (Luther, Estius, Bengel, and others, including
Heinrichs, Hoelemann, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, Schneck-
enburger); nor yet: sustinentes (Calvin), so that the conception is of a light
fixed on a candlestick. Others understand it similarly: holding forth
(Beza, Grotius, and others, including Rheinwald, Matthies, Wiesinger,
Lightfoot), namely, "that those, who have a longing for life, may let it be
the light which shall guide them to life," as Hofmann explains more
particularly; comp. van Hengel. This would be linguistically correct,
but not in harmony with the image, according to which the subjects them-
selves appear as shining, as self-shining. Linguistically incorrect is Theo-
doret's view : @ 2byų apogé XOVTES (attendentes), which would require the
dative of the object. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact take ÉTÉX.
Correctly, but understand λόγον ζωής as equivalent to σπέρμα ζ. Οι ενέχυρα ζ.,
and indicate, as the purpose of the words : őpa, tās ejdéws tíonol. Tà ĚTadha
(Chrysostom). This view is without sanction from the usus loquendi.
Linguistically it would in itself be admissible (see the examples in Wet-
stein), but at variance with the N. T. mode of expression and conception,
to explain with Michaelis, Storr, Zachariae, and Flatt: supplying the place
of life (in the world otherwise dead), so that hóyov ÉTÉ XELV would mean : to
hold the relation. Comp. Syr.-£is kaúxnua k.7.. (XII e.] the result which
the yiveo au ajÉLLTTOVS K.T.2. 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 (öri),
had not labored in vain, of which the excellent quality of his Philippian
converts would afford practical evidence, ÖTL TOLOŪTOUS újās traídevoa, Theo-
phylact. Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 19 f. ; 2 Cor. i. 14. Thus they were to be to
him on that day a créDavos kavxńcewç (1 Thess. I. c.). Paul cannot mean a
present kavxãohai in prospect of the day of Christ (Hofmann), for £is kaúxqua
K.T.2. cannot be the result accruing for him from the évois palveodɛ k.7.2.
1 Hofmann erroneously pronounces against
this, representing that éTTEXELV could only be
thus used in the sense of having under one's
control. Compare, in opposition to this, espe-
cially such passages as Thuc. iii. 107.4, where
the word is quite synonymous with the par-
allel simple exelv; also Anth, Pal vii. 276. 6.
2 See Herod. i. 104, viii. 35; Xen. Symp. 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.
3 Hom. Il. ix. 489, xxii. 43; Plut. Mor. p. 265
A; Pind. 01. ii. 98; Poll. iii. 10.
Acts iii. 5; 1 Tim. iv. 16; Ecclus. xxxi. 2;
2 Macc. ix. 25; Job xxx, 26; Polyb. iii. 43. 2,
xviii. 28. 11.
.
94
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
(since by it the position of the Christians generally is expressed), but only
the result from the ethical development indicated by iva yévnode å ļEļLTTOL K.T.N.
Hence also őtl cannot be a statement of the reason (Hofmann); it is explica-
tive : that.—The twofold, yet climactic, figurative description of his apos-
tolical exertions (on šSpaß., comp. Gal. ii. 2; Acts xx. 24; on škoniaoa, comp.
1 Cor. xv. 10; Gal. iv. 11), as well as the repetition of eiç Kevóv (see on Gal.
ii. 2; 2 Cor. vi. 1; Polyc. Phil. 9), is in keeping with the emotion of joy,
of triumph.
Ver. 17. The connection of ideas is this: What Paul had said in ver. 16:
kis kaúxnua K.7.n., presupposed, in the first place, that he himself would live to
see the further development described in ver. 15: iva yévnode å megetTTOL. Now,
however, he puts the opposite case, so as to elevate his readers to the right
point of view for this also, and says: "But even if I should be put to death
in my vocation dedicated to your faith,” etc. Van Hengel finds in these
words the contrast to the hope of living to see the Parousia. But this hope
is not expressed in what precedes, since the result εiç kaúxnua K.7.2. was
conditioned, not by the apostle's living to see the Parousia, but only by
his living to see the described perfection of his readers; inasmuch as, even
when arisen at the Parousia, he might glory in what he had lived to see
in the Philippians. Many others are satisfied with making these words
express merely a climax (in relation to éconiaca), see especially Heinrichs
and Matthies; but this is erroneous, because koniaoa in the preceding
verse is neither the main idea, nor specially indicative of tribulation.
Arbitrary and entirely unnecessary is, further, the assumption of an oppo-
nent's objection ("at vero imminent tristissima!") to which Paul replies; or
the explanation of arká by the intervening thought: “non, je n'ai pas
travaille en vain, mais au contraire,” etc., Rilliet; comp. also Erasmus,
Paraphr. In a similar but direct way Hofmann gains for årrá the expla-
nation, but on the contrary, by connecting it antithetically with the pre-
ceding negative clauses öti oui £is KEVÓV K.T.7., which, with the right expla-
nation of the following words, is impossible. According to de Wette
(comp. also Storr and Flatt), ver. 17 connects itself with i. 26, so that århá
forms a contrast to ver. 25, and all that intervenes is a digression. But
how could any reader guess at this? The suggestion is the more ground-
less, on account of the xaipw in ver. 17 corresponding so naturally and appo-
sitely with the kaúxmua in ver. 16.-εi kaì k.T.2.] if I even (which I will by
no means call in question) should be poured out, etc. On the concessive
sense of εi kaí (1 Cor. iv. 7; 2 Cor. iv. 3, 16, v. 16, vii. 8, al.), see Herm. ad
Viger. p. 832; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 519. The case supposed is thus rendered
more probable than by the reading of EG, kai εi (even assuming that I).2
The protasis beginning with αλλ' εί και extends to τ. πίστ. υμών. As in ver.
12, so also here Hofmann makes the violent assumption that the apodosis
already begins at επί τ. θυσία κ.τ.λ. with σπένδομαι again to be supplied, whilst
at the same time there is imputed to this Éti T. Ovoią k.1.2., in order to give
1
1 Comp. Anthol. Pal. xi. 56. 2: un Tpéxe, un
koria.
? Stallbaum, ad Plat. Ap. S. p. 32 A; Gorg.
p. 509 A ; Schmalf. Syntax d. Verb. sec. 99 f.
CHAP. II. 17.
.
.
95
an appropriate turn to the assumed antithesis for áriá, a tenor of thought
which the words do not bear; see below.—OTÉVdojual] I become offered as a
libation, poured out as a drink-offering (2 Tim. iv. 6), frequently in all class-
ical writers. The sense stripped of figure is: if even my blood is shed, if
even I should be put to death.2 Paul represents his apostolic exertions for
the faith of the Philippians as an offering (comp. Rom. xv. 16); if he is
therein put to death, he is, by means of the shedding of his blood in this
sacrifice, made a libation, just as among the Jews' in the sacrifices, together
with meat-offerings, libations of wine were made, which were poured upon
the ground from sacred vessels (otovoεia) at the altar. The present tense
is used, because Paul has strongly in view his present danger (i. 20 ff.);
Kühner, II. 1, p. 119 f. Rilliet (comp. Wetstein) takes the passive erro-
neously: I am besprinkled (which also does not correspond with the present
tense), making Paul say, “que la libation préparatoire du sacrifice a
coulé sur sa tête.” Confusion with kataon Évdeoflai. —ÉTÈ T. Ovo. K. TELT. T. .
up.] at the sacrifice and priestly service of your faith, that is, whilst I present
your faith as a sacrifice and perform priestly service in respect to it; the
sense of this, stripped of the figure, is : whilst I, by furtherance of your faith in
Christ, serve God, as by the offering and priestly ministration of a sacrifice.
[XII f.] Tñs níor. is the object which is conceived as sacrificed and under-
going priestly ministration ; θυσία and λειτουργία have one article in com-
mon, and are thereby joined so as to form one conception. But heltoupyla
(priestly function)6 is added by the apostle as a more precise definition, because
the mere Ovoią would leave it uncertain whether he was to be considered
as a priest, whereas Paul desires expressly to describe himself as such.
Ovoią, as always in the N. T., is sacrifice; so that the idea is: at the sacrifice
and priestly service of your faith; hence there is no necessity for taking
it as sacrificing, or the act of sacrifice. The éni, however, is simply to be
taken as at, as in i. 3 and frequently; not as to, in addition to (Beza,
Raphel, Matthies, de Wette, Weiss, and many others; comp. also Hof-
mann), or with the Vulgate as supra (Heinrichs, Hoelemann, van Hen-
gel), in the sense of the (heathen) modes of the libation, an interpretation
which should have been precluded by the addition of the abstract K. ZELT-
1 See also Schleusner, Thes. V. p. 79; Suicer,
Thes. II. p. 993.
2 This (since the time of Chrysostom) unapi.
mous interpretation of the figurative expres-
sion has been abandoned by Otto, Pastoralbr.
p. 214 f., who explains it as referring, not to
tho shedding of blood, but to the severance of
the apostle's life in his vocation from inter-
course with the world by his imprisonment.
An abortive suggestion, the forced result of
incorrect assumptions.
8 Num. xxviii. 7, xv. 4 ff.; Joseph. Antt. iii.
9. 4; see generally, Ewald, Alterth. p. 46 f.;
Saalschütz, M. R. p. 314 f.:
• 4 As to the Hellenic sacrificial libations, see
Hermann, Gottesd. Alterth. $ 25, 15 f. On the
tigurative representation of the shedding of
blood as a OTTOVOń; comp. Anthol. ix. 184..6:
čipos alua tupávvwv ēO TELOEV, Ignatius, Rom. 2;
Otrovdconvau Oem ws ēti dvolaotýplov ÊTOLMÒN
coti.
6 Plut. Alex. 50, de def. orac. 46; Strabo, iv. p.
197; Eur. Or. 1239; Antip. Sid. 73 (Anthol. vii.
27).
Comp. Luke i. 23; Heb. viii. 6; ix. 21, and
frequently in the LXX.; see Schleusner,
Thes.; comp. also Diod. Sic. i. 21, and, for the
figurative use of the word, Rom. xv. 16, 27.
7 Herod. iv. 60, viii. 99; Herodian, viii. 3. 5,
i. 36. 12, al.
8 On this mode of libation rests the expres-
sion & LOTÉVDELV, to pour a libation over some-
thing (Herod. ii. 39, iv. 60, 62, vii. 167 ; Aesch.
Ag. 1395; Plut. Rom. 4).
96
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHIÎIPPIANS.
oupy. Finally, although Paul's official activity concerned the faith of all
his churches, he says iuw with the same right of individualizing reference
as in divuās at i. 24 and many other passages. The passage is peculiarly
misunderstood by Hofmann, who holds that éri has the sense in association
with; that της πίστεως υμ. is the genitive of αρposition to θυσία and λειτουργ.;
that the sacrificing and ministering subject is not the apostle, but the Phil-
ippian church, which, when it became believing, had presented its own
sacrifice to God, and has been constantly honoring Him with its own work
of service. Accordingly Paul says that, even though his labors should end
in a violent death, yet the shedding of his blood would not be an isolated drink-
offering, but would associate itself with their sacrifice. But this would only
make him say, with artificial mysteriousness, something which is perfectly
self-evident (namely: after that ye became believers, and whilst ye are ..
believers). Moreover, éní would thus be made to express two very differ-
ent relations, namely, with tņ Ovoia after, after that, and with the heltoupylą at,
during. And how could a reader discover from the mere śní K..2. the
alleged antithetical reference of an isolated drink-offering, especially as no
antithesis of the persons is even indicated by úžāv being placed first (imme-
diately after éní)? The entire explanation is a forced artificial expedient
in consequence of the mistaken assumption that an apodosis begins after
OTÉVdoual, and a new section sets in with xaipw.1-xaipw] [XII g.] Apodoşis
down to úpīv: I rejoice, not at the Ovoia K. ZELTOupyiş Tas riot. '. (Chrysos-
tom, who connects ÉTÈ T. Ovo. K.7.2. with zaipw; comp. Oecumenius; so also
Rilliet), for it is mere arbitrariness to separate the sacrificial expressions
ofévdoucli and ÉTÈ 7. Ovoią k.1.2. and attach them to different parts of the
sentence, and because xaipw, as the point of the apodosis, would have been
placed before ènì 7. Ovo, K.7.2.; but at the o TÉVdeolar: I rejoice to be employed
for so sacred a destination. The ground of the apostle's joy, assumed by
many (including Flatt, Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette): because my
death will tend to the advantage of the gospel (i. 20), and also the interpre-
tation of Weiss: that joy at the progress of the Philippians towards perfection
is intended, are both quite gratuitously imported into the passage. The
explanation of it as referring generally to inward joyfulness of faith (Wies-
inger) or divine serenity (Ewald), does not correspond with the protasis,
according to which it must be joyfulness in the prospect of death. "Even
if I am compelled to die in this sacrificial service, I rejoice therein," and
that, indeed, now for the case supposed; hence not future.-ai ovyx. Trãouv
juiv] is wrongly explained by most commentators : "and I rejoice with you
all” (so Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Heinrichs, Matthies,
van Hengel, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Schneckenburger, Weiss,
Hofmann, and many others); along with which explanation Chrysostom,
? In which yaipw K. ovyxaipw tãow ùuiv are
supposed to serve merely as an introduction
for the exhortation which foliows; thus Paul
would be made to say, that even for that sup-
posed case of the σπόνδεσθαι he is in a joyful
mood, and he rejoices with any person in the
church whose heart is joyful (all this is sup-
posed to be implied in mãou üniv!).
2 Theophylact appropriately remarks: 'ovx
ws ó árodavoúuevos dutroumai, ad dà Kai taipw
... ότι σπονδή γίνομαι, and Theoloret:
Tauta dè déyer yuxaywyớv autoùs K. Sidáo kwy
CHAP. II. 18.
97
Theophylact, and various of the older expositors, bring forward another
ground for this joint joy than for the χαίρω (Chrysostonm : χαίρω μεν, ότι σπονδή
vívouai ovyxaipw dè ÖTi Ovoiav a poqeveykúv; comp. Schneckenburger). Decisive
against this interpretation is the xaipetɛ which follows in ver. 18,-a sum-
mons which would be absurd, if ovyx. Új. meant: "I rejoice with you." The ·
Vulgate already rightly renders: congratulor,' I congratulate you all,
namely, on the fact that I am poured out in the service of your faith. Such a
martyrdom, namely, for the sake of their faith, how it must have elevated and
honored the readers, their whole church; for such a martyr death con-
cerned them all! Comp. on Eph. iii. 13; it redounds to their glory, if the
apostle sheds his blood on account of their Christian standing established
by him. It is in this light that Paul wishes his oTÉVDeobal, should it occur,
to be regarded by his readers, and therefore gracefully and ingeniously
represents it (though Hofmann holds this to be impossible) as something
on which he must congratulate them all. Pauline linguistic usage is not
to be urged in objection to this view (Weiss), as Paul employs ovyxaipw
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 ovyxaípouar (3 Macc. i. 8). The active as
well as the middle may convey either meaning, to rejoice along with, or
gratularia
Ver. 18. And upon the same (upon my possibly occurring on ÉVdeodal ÉTÈ T.
Avo. K.7.2., ver. 17) rejoice ye also (because it takes place for the sake of your
faith), and congratulate me thereon (on such a sacred destination). The
verbs are imperatives. "Postulat enim Paulus parem ovur ábelav a Philipp.,"
Beza. The ground of the zalpete may not be arbitrarily introduced (Hof-
mann: whatever untowardness may occur), but must by logical necessity
be the same which, in ver. 17, suggested the cvyxaipw ýuiv; and that of the
ovyxaípeté pou must be the same as caused Paul to say xaípw in ver. 17.3
The expositors, who do not take ovyxaípeuv as gratulari, are here placed in
the awkward position of making the apostle summon his readers to a joy
which, according to ver. 17, they would already possess. By this impos-
sibility Weiss, in spite of the tò avró, allows himself to be driven into taking
the joy in ver. 18, not as in ver. 17, but (comp. also Hofmann) quite 'gen-
erally, of a joyful frame of mind.--Tò avt6] in the same (on the accusative,
comp. Matt. ii. 10) rejoice ye also ; see also on i. 25. Hence it is not to be
taken as equivalent to coaútws (Beza, Storr, Flatt, Heinrichs, Rheinwald,
Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann) (comp. on i. 6), in order
thereby to avoid identifying it with the joy mentioned in ver. 17. As to
To û yaptupiov to Méyedos. Comp. Gro-
tius, Heinrichs.
1 Comp. Jerome, Beza, Castalio, Grotius,
Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Bisping,
Ellicott, Lightfoot.
2 Polyb. xxix. 7. 4, xxx. 10.1; Plut. Mor. p.
231 B; 3 Macc. i. 8. See Valckenaer, Schol.
I. p. 54.
8 The difficulty which van Hengel (comp.
Hofmann) urges, that the readers “vix aut
ne vix quidem induci potuerunt de hujus viri
morte violenta gaudentes vel gavisuri,” en-
tirely mistakes the lofty standpoint of the
apostle, who looks death in the face with a
holy joy (comp. the frequent corresponding
sentiments in the epistles of Ignatius), and
also attributes to his readers a corresponding
mode of looking at the possibility of his death.
98
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
xaipalv with the accusative in classical authors, see generally Lobeck, ad
Aj. 131; Kühner, II. 1, p. 255 f.
Ver. 19. [On vv. 19-24, see Note XIII. pages 114, 115.] The apostle now,
down to ver. 24, speaks of sending Timothyl to them, and states that he
himself trusted to visit them shortly. (XIII a.] [chrisw dè K.1.2.] (XIII
6.] The progress of thought attaching itself to ver. 17 (not to ver. 12) is :
However threatening, according to ver. 17 f., and dangerous to life my
situation is, nevertheless I hope soon to send Timothy to you, etc.--He
hopes, therefore, for such a change in his situation, as would enable him
soon to spare that most faithful friend for such a mission. Here also, as
in i. 21–26, there is an immediate change from a presentiment of death
to a confidence of his being preserved in life and even liberated (ver. 24).
The right view of vv. 17, 18 debars us from construing the progress of the
thought thus: for the enhancement of my joy, however, etc. (Weiss). Others
take different views, as e.g. Bengel : although I can write nothing clefinite
regarding the issue of my case,-an imported parenthetic thought, which
is as little suggested in ver. 17 f. as is the antithetical relation to xaipeta
K. Guyxaip. uol discovered by Hofmann, viz. that the apostle is anxious as to
whether all is well in the church.-—v kupią] making the hope causally rest in
Christ. Comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 19.- iv] not equivalent to the local apòs
úpās (van Hengel), nor yet the dative commodi (“vestros in usus, vestra in
gaudia," Hoelemann, comp. de Wette and Hofmann), whereby too special
à sense is introduced; but the dative of reference (1 Cor. iv. 17; Acts xi.
29), indicating the persons concerned as those for whom the mission gen-
erally is intended.-käyú] [XIII c.] I also, as ye through the accounts 2 to
be received of me, namely, those which ye shall receive through this
epistle, through Epaphroditus, and through Timothy.-eitvxeiv] to be of
good courage, occurs here only in the N. T. See Poll. iii. 135; Joseph.
Antt. xi. 6. 9.3_tà nepi úpl.] the things concerning you, quite generally, your
circumstances. Eph. vi. 22; Col. iv. 8.4
Ver. 20. (XIII d.] Reason why Timothy is the person sent. Hof-
mann erroneously takes it as: the reason why he sends no one at the time.
As if vīv yàp or åpri yap ovdéva K.7.2. were written.-icóyu xov] like-minded,
namely, with me; in what respect, is stated in the sequel. Castalio, Beza,
Calvin, Rilliet, Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, wrongly interpret it: no one who
1 Hofmann's hypothesis, that the church
had expressed a desire that the apostle would
send them one who should aid them, with
word and deed, in their affairs, has no hint
of it given at all in the text; least of all in iva
kåyi evyuxô x.t.d. Why should Paul not
have mentioned, in some way or another, the
wish of the church ?-Baur and Ainsch find
no motive mentioned for the mission of Timo-
thy. As if the motive of love conveyed by
iva kayó k.t... were not enough!
2 There is a delicate compliment implied in
this kåyó; 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
ευψυχώ.
8 Comp. the eủyvxel in epitaphs (like xaipe)
in Jacobs, ad Anthol. xii. p. 304.
4 See Heindorf, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 58 A.
CHAP.' II. 19-21.
99
would be so minded as he (Rheinwald combines the two references). As
αυτώ is not added, the text gives no other reference for ίσος (in ισόψυχ.) than
to the subject of šxw (see also ver. 22); as, indeed, Paul could not give a
better reason for the choice of Timothy, and could not more effectively
recommend him to his readers, than by setting forth his likemindedness
with himself; comp. Deut. xiii. 6: píaos ioos tñ puxī uov. (XIII e.] The
word occurs only here in the N. T.; see LXX. Ps. lv. 14; Aesch. Agam.
1470. Comp. on the subject-matter, 1 Cor. xvi. 10.—ÖOTIS K.7.2.] the em-
phasis is laid on yunolws, and Otis, quippe qui, ita comparatum ut, introduces
the character of an icówuxos, such as is not at his disposal.—yunoiws] in gen-
uine, sincere fashion, with one care without guile,' the selfish contrast to
which is described in ver. 21. Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 8.—Mepluvñgel] namely,
when I shall have sent him. The caring is not to be more precisely defined;
it necessarily manifested itself according to the circumstances in watch-
ing, correction, encouragement, counsel, and action. Comp. 1 Cor. xii.
25; 2 Cor. xi. 28.
Ver. 21. Qi Távtes] 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 τα εαυτών ζητούσιν, ου τα Ί.
x., seeing that we are unacquainted with the circle surrounding the
apostle at that particular time, and do not know to what extent the anti-
Pauline tendency, i. 15, 17, had then spread in the immediate neighbor-
hood of the apostle. The only limitation of the general expression,
which is in accordance with the text, lies in the fact that Paul does not
mean' the Christians generally in Rome, but such assistant teachers as
would otherwise, if they had been pure and honest, have been qualified
for such a mission. The trustworthy ones among these otherwise quali-
fied fellow-laborers must have been absent at the time, especially Luke,
who could by no means have been included among oi TrávTES (in opposition
to Wieseler, - Chroriol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 427); hence the Philippians are
not saluted specially either by Luke or by any other, and the omission of
such salutations by name at the end of this epistle receives in part its
explanation from this passage. Consequently, oi távt. cannot be under-
stood as many or the most (Beza, Wolf, Hammond, Drusius, Estius, Gro-
tius, Cornelius a Lapide; and others, including Heinrichs, Rheinwald,
Flatt); nor is it: “all, whom I can spare" (Erasmus), or : " who are known
to you” (van Hengel). Neither is the negation to be taken relatively: they
seek more their own interest, etc. (Erasmus, Calvin, and many others,
also Flatt, Hoelemann, comp. the reservations of Weiss), to which Hof-
mann's view ? also ultimately comes; nor is it to be explained by assum-
ing an intention of distinguishing Timothy (Matthies); nor yet is the judg-
ment to be restricted, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact,
1 Dem. 1482, 14; Polyb. iv. 30. 2; 2 Macc.
xiy. 8.
2 The latter says: they allow themselves to
be influenced in the direction of their activity,
even though it be consecrated to the kingdom of
God (?), by special personal ains, instead of
devoting themselves ALWAYS ONLY (? où Tà 'I. X.)
to that which is MOST ADVANTAGEOUS for the
100
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
to the hardships of the long journey, to which they preferred their own
adds: “subtilissima erat aionois, qua hoc percepit Paulus.” But Baur
erroneously discovers here merely an exaggeration, which arose from the
subjectivity of a later author. What an uncalled-for fiction that would
have been !
Ver. 22. Contrast, not of the person (which would have run rèv dè
avto✓ dok, or avtoŬ SÈ TÌv dok.), but of the qualification, in order further to
recommend him, whom he hopes soon to be able to send; not to make up
for the disadvantage, that they can in the first instance only hope, etc. (as
Hofmann artificially explains). But the approved character (indoles spectata,
comp. Rom. v. 4; 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 13) of him ye konow; for Timothy had
himself been in Philippi (Acts xvi. 1, 3, xvii. 14); hence yivbok. is not the
imperative ——őtl K.7.n.] that he, namely, etc.—us natpi TÉKVOv] Comp. 1 Cor.
iv. 17. The apostle had here édoúhevoɛv before his mind, but alters the con-
longer to him, but with him, in a humble glance at Christ (ver. 21), whom
he himself also serves, so that the apostle's servant is at the same time
his ouvdovkoç.2 Hofmann labors without success to remove the incongru-
ity, which cannot be got rid of unless, with Vatablus, we were at liberty
to supply ovv before tarpí. But, however frequently the Greeks put the
preposition only once in comparisons, its omission does not occur in the
clause placed first. The poetical use of such an omission in the case of
words which are connected by kai, té, or Ý 4 does not concern us here.eis]
in respect to the gospel (comp. i. 5), the serving in question having reference
to the preaching, defence, etc., thereof. [XIII f.]
Ver. 23. Mèv oủv] oův resumes ver. 19, and to the uév corresponds the dè
in ver. 24.-ús åv årísw k.7.1.] when (of the time, see Klotz, ad Devar. p.
759, that is, as soon as, comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 34; Rom. xv. 24) I anyhow (by
av the matter is left to experience) shall have seen to the end (Jonah iv. 5).
The latter, which expresses the perceiving from a distance denotes the
knowledge of the final course of matters to be expected,-only after which
could it be decided whether or not he could spare the faithful Timothy
for a time. The form ápídw (Lachmann and Tischendorf) in A B* D* F
G & is, on account of this weighty evidence, to be considered not as a
copyist's error, but as the original, and to be derived from the pronuncia-
tion of ideiv (with the digamma). Comp. on Acts iv. 29, and see Winer,
p. 44 [E. T. p. 45]; J. B. Lightfoot ad loc.; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 7 [E.
T. p. 7].~tà repà fué] the things about me, that is, the state of my affairs.
Substantially not diferent from τα περί εμού (ver. 19 f.).
cause of Christ (où Tà 'I. X. !). Thus there is
imported into the passage what is not at all
to be found in it.
i Vulgate, Pelagius, Castalio, Cornelius a
Lapide, Clericus, Rheinwald, Hoelemann.
2 See Winer, pp. 393, 537 (E. T. pp. 422, 577.]
8 See Bernhardy, p. 204 f.; Kühner, II. 1,
P. 479.
4 Dissen, ad Pind. Nem. X. 38; Lobeck, ad
Aj. 397 ff.
6 Herod. viii. 37; Dem. 1472. 15; Lucian, D.
D. vi. 2.
See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 20; Winer,
p. 379 LE. T. p. 406).
CHAP. II. 22–25. .
101
Ver. 24. Kai avróc] also myself personally. (XIII g.] What Paul shall
see, therefore, is, as he confidently trusts (not merely hopes), his liberation
(comp. i. 25 f.); that it will make it possible for him to come soon. The
terminus a quo of the taxéwç 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 taxéws as a relative definition of the time is not opposed to
this view. But that kai aúrós includes also the case of his coming at the
same time with. Timothy (Hofmann), is, according to ver. 19 ff., not to be
assumed.
Ver. 25 f. [On vv. 25-30, see Note XIV. pages 115, 116]. About Epa-
phroditus; the sending him home, and recommendation of him, down to
ver. 30-ávayı. dề ýy.] [XIV a. b.] I have, however, judged it necessary, al-
though Epaphroditus, namely, according to vv. 19–24, might have re-
mained here still, in order to have made his return-journey to you later,
either in company with Timothy, or eventually with myself. For the
special reason, which Paul had for not keeping him longer with himself in
Rome, see vv. 26, 28.-'Etaopósitov] otherwise not further known. The
name (signifying Venustus) was a common one,2 also written 'Etappódectos; 3
but to regard the man as identical with 'Etappãs (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 which
follows, has arisen out of loving and grateful regard for Epaphroditus, as
an honorable testimony to him in his relation to the apostle as well as to
the church.-á8€2¢., ovvePY., ovotpat.] [XIV c.] a climactic threefold de-
scription of companionship, advancing from the most general category,
that of Christian brotherhood (adɛ206s), to a twofold more special relation.
On avotpat., which sets forth the joint working (ouvepy.) in relation to the
hostile powers, comp. Philem. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 3.--vuūv de árbot. K. ZELTovPY. T.
χρ. μου.] [XIV d.] still belonging to τόν ; hence υμών, placed in contrast to
the pov, belongs to heltoupy. 7. %.fl. as well (in opposition to de Wette and
others). 'ATOOToros here means delegate (2 Cor. viii. 23), and not apostle, 4
which would necessitate the genitive úpūv being taken as in Rom. xi. 13,
against which the context, by the union with heltoupy. T. X. p., is decisive;
as, indeed, Paul uses åróct. as an official designation only in the sense of the
actual apostolic rank, based upon a direct call by Christ, in its narrower
and wider reference (comp. on Gal. i. 19; Rom. xvi. 7; 1 Cor. xv. 7), and
hence there is no necessity to seek even an allusion to his “quasi”-apos-
tolic position towards the Philippians (Matthies).—K. Reitoupy. T. X. p.] the
sacrificial minister of my need, ώς τα παρ' αυτών αποσταλέντα κομίσαντα χρήματα,
Theodoret. By sending aid they had cared for the apostle's need (iv. 16);
and that gift of love being regarded as a sacrifice offered to God, Epaph-
1 How could this confidence, which the
result did not justify, have been put by any
later author into the apostle's mouth? Only
Paul himself could have written in such a
way as here and in i. 25 f. See, in opposition
to Hinsch, Hilgenfeld, 1873, p. 185 f.
2 Tac. Ann. xv. 55; Suet. Domit, 14; Joseph.
Vit. 76; Wetstein in loc. .
3 Boeckh, Corp. inscr. 1811, 2562.
4 Vulgate, Hilarius, Theodoret, Luther, Eras-
mus, Calovius, Wetstein: "mei muneris vica-
rium apud vos," am Ende, and others.
102
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
roditus, who had been entrusted by them with the conveying of it, was
the RelTovpyós in the matter, that is, he who performed the priestly service
in the bringing of this offering (comp. ver. 17). Such is also the con-
ception in 2 Cor. ix. 12. On tñs xpɛías lo comp. iv. 16; Rom. xii. 13.-
Tréuwai] as also in Greek authors frequently, in the sense of dimittere
domum, to send home, consequently equivalent to STOTTÉLTELV or ávanÉUTTELV
(Philem. 12).
Ver. 26. State of mind (mv with participle) of Epaphroditus, which sup-
plied the motive for the åvayk. vyno. 6.7.2.3—The imperfect is used (mv), .
because Paul transports himself to the time when the readers shall
receive this epistle. (XIV e.] Then is Epaphroditus again among them;
.but he was previously longing, etc.--åsnuovõr] in anxiety. Comp. on
Matt. xxvi. 37.—ői hoo.] that he was sick. How the Philippians received
this information, remains an open question, as also how Epaphroditus
learned that they had heard it.
Ver. 27. Confirmation of that nkovcate, őri Nob.--kaì yap K.1.2.] for he has
also (really, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 132; Baeumlein, p. 150) been sick.
Tapani. Oaváto] adds the specification of the mode : in a way almost equiv-
alent to death. There is neither an ellipsis (de Wette: àdiketo or some such
word is to be understood before tapana.; comp. van Hengel) nor a solecism
(van Hengel); Tapatn. is adverbial (equivalent to taparanoiws, see Polyb.
iv. 40. 10, iii. 33. 17; Lucian, Cyn. 17; comp. mapaninolaitepov, Plat. Polit.
p. 275 C), and the dutivus congruentiae (instead of which the genitive might
also have been used, Bernhardy, p. 148) is governed by it.-AÚTNU ÉTÈ
húmmv] [XIV f.] grief upon grief (superadded). LXX. Ezra vii. 26; Ps.
lxix. 27; Isa. xxviii. 10.4 The first húrny refers to the dreaded death of his
friend; the second, to the apostle's affliction over the painful position in
which he found himself, as a prisoner, and also through the doings of the
adversaries (vér. 20 f., i. 15, 17, 30), not over the sickness of Epaphroditus
(Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Estius, and others, also
Weiss), to which would be added that for his death. 'AIUTTÓTepos in ver.
28 is fatal to the latter view, for it appears that, even after Epaphr. had
been sent away, a Quan still remained, which, therefore, could not be
1 That Paul, however, here writes tér var
Tipos unas, and, on the other hand, 1. únir in
ver. 19, is an accidental and undesigned
variation. Hofmann thinks that by T. únir is
meant the sending of a representative of the
apostle to the Church, and by T. itpos umas 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 υμίν and προς
vjâs. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 17; Eph. vi. 22; Col.
iv. 8; Tit. iii. 12; 2 Cor. xii. 17.
2 Xen. Hell. ii. 7. 9; Soph. O. R. 1518 ; Polyb.
V. 100. 10; and frequently in Homer. See
especially Od. xv. 74: xpñ eivov itapeóvta
φιλείυ, εθέλοντα δε πέμπειν.
8 The supposition that Paul, in specifying
this ground, wished to prevent the so speedy
return of the man from being interpreted to
his disadvantage (Hofmaon), assumes the
existence of a certain distrust, for which
there is no basis in the text. Besides, Epa-
phroditus had in fact accomplished the purpose
of his mission.
4 Comp. expressions with the dative (as
Ecclus. xxvi. 15) in classic Greek, e.g. oyxun
émi õyxvn (Hom. Od. vii. 120), folà éir' colois
(Pind. Ol. viii. 84), dóvos émi pów (Eur. Iph.
T. 197); Polyb. i. 57. 1. See also Eur. Hec. 586:
dúorn tus ädin Sládoxos kakWv kakois, Soph. El.
235: ärav ätaus, Eur. Troad. 175 : évt' änycoi 8'
ådyuvew.
CHAP. II. 26–30.
103
referred to the latter's sickness. Van Hengel errs in understanding the
affliction as pain concerning this sickness, and the first húrn as “cogitatio
anxietatis vestrae.” See, in opposition, on ver. 28. Calvin's remark
suffices to justify the double λύπη: “Non jactat Stoicorum απάθειαν, quasi
ferreus esset et immunis ab humanis affectibus.” Comp. John xi. 35 f.-
oxo] not optative. See Winér, p. 270 [E. T. p. 288].
Ver. 28. The more urgently, therefore in consequence of this sickness
which he had had and recovered from, of which ye received tidings, vv.
26, 27), I have brought about his return, which otherwise I would still
have delayed.-Tállv] belongs to xapîte, as Paul usually places it before the
verb, or, at least, makes it follow immediately after. And the context
affords no ground for departing from the usual mode, and for joining it
with idóvres aútov (Beza, Grotius, and others, also Baumgarten-Crusius and
de Wette).--käyù đautót. ] 'Eàv yàp ýuɛīs xapīra, kai ėyà xaipw, Oecumenius.
He is not åłuTOS, for he is in captivity and surrounded by adversaries;
but the joy which he is aware is already prepared for his beloved Philip-
pians by the return of Epaphroditus, lessens his aúnn. This tender inter-
weaving of his own alleviation with the rejoicing of his readers is lost, if
we. refer áhítot. to the removal of the vexation of seeing the recovered one
so full of longing and so uneasý (Hofmann), which, regarded as luarn,
would be sentimental. According to Weiss, Paul intends to say: still
more ażuros, than I have already become in consequence of Epaphroditus'
recovery. An unsuitable idea, because the comparative necessarily pre-
supposes a certain degree of the Quran still remaining. In the conscious-
ness of this Paul has written álviót.; if it had been otherwise, he would
perhaps have used, as in ver. 19, kåyù εvyuxū or kåyù xaipw.
Ver. 29 f. Oův] Let, then, the reception which he meets with among you
be in accordance with my purpose in accelerating his return (iva idóvres
1.7.2.); receive him with all joy.—ĖV kupiw] denotes, as in Rom. xvi. 2, the
Christian character of the tipoodé xeobal, the nature and action of which
have their distinctive quality in Christ, in whose fellowship Christians live
and move.--jetà táo. xap.] excludes every kind of sullen or indifferent
temper and expression : “ with all joyfulness.”-kai ToùS TOLOÚTOVS K.T.2.] and
the people of such a sort, etc. "Iva ui) Són aútĄ Móv zapíceolat, koivūs mapalvet
trávras ToùS TÌv aútiv åpeTÀU ŠTLDELKVVMÉvous reuāv, Theophylact. But Epa-
phroditus is in his view, as in the given case, the person belonging to the
class thus to be held in honor.?
Ver. 30. olà tò špy.] [XIV g.] emphatically prefixed : on account of
nothing else than for this great sacred aim. The work (see the critical
remarks) is, according to the context (comp. Acts xv. 38), obvious,
namely; that of labor for the gospel; the addition in the Rec. Toũ Xplotov is
a correct gloss, and it is this έργον κατ' εξοχήν (conmp. υπέρ του ονόματος, Acts
1 See Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 491 f., and van
Hengel.
% There is no ground for the reference,
which Hofmann discovers here, to an assumed
inclination, on the part of the Philippians,
to hold in honor people of another sort (such
as are described in chap. iii.) more than the
TOLOÚTOVs. For this assumption there would,
at the most, be occasion only if Paul had
used the comparative instead of evtinovs.
104
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
v. 41) in the service of which Epaphroditus incurred so dangerous an
illness, namely, when he, according to the testimony of the predicates in
ver. 25, as the ouvepyós and ovotpatiórns of the apostle, with devotedness and
self-sacrifice, united his exertions for the gospel and his striving against
the movements of its adversaries (i. 15, 17, 30, ii. 20) with a similar activity
on the part of the apostle. The interpretation which refers špyov to the
business of conveying the bounty (de Wette, following older expositors,
comp. Weiss), does not suffice for the more special characteristic descrip-
tion; and the reference to the enmity of Nero against Paul, the dangers
of which Epaphroditus had shared, in order to reach the apostle and to
serve him, finds no warrant either in the context or in Acts xxviii. (in
opposition to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, comp. Theodoret).
Méxpı Dav. ñyy.] as in Ps. cvii. 18: iyycoav Ēws TūV Tv2ūV toū davátov, Ecclus. li.
6: fws Davátov, Rev. xii. 11. The expression with uéxpc is more definite
than the dative would be (as in Ps. lxxxviii. 3: n /wń Mov tớ ở on nyyle), or
εis dávat. (Job xxxiii. 22); he came near even unto death.—Tapaſova. Tñ yux:]
Such is the Text. Rec., which Bengel, Matthaei (vehement in opposition to
Wetstein and Griesbach), Rinck, van Hengel, Reiche, and others defend,
and Tischendorf still follows in the 7th ed. Justly, however, Scaliger,
Casaubon, Salmasius, Grotius, Mill, Wetstein, and others, including Gries-
bach, Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf, ed. 8, Rheinwald, Matthies, Rilliet,
Winer, Ewald, Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann, and others, have preferred
Tapaßo2. 7. W. The latter has the authority of ABDEFG X, 177, 178, 179
in its favor, as well as the support of the Itala by "parabolatus est de anima
sua," and of Vulgate, Aeth, Pelagius, by “tradens (Ambrosiaster : in
interitum tradens) animam suam.” Since Boreveolar was unknown to the
copyists, whilst Bovheveodal was very current, instead of the one äraš neyóu.
another crept in, the form of which, on account of the prevalence of the
simple word, had nothing offensive. Tapaßoneverdal, which is nowhere
certainly preserved (in opposition to Wetstein's quotations from the
Fathers, see Matthiae, ed. min. p. 341 f., and Reiche, Comment. crit. p. 220
f.), is formed from the very current classical word napáßolos, putting at
stake, venturesome, and is therefore equivalent to trapáßohov čival, to be
venturous, to be an adventurer, as TEPTrepevegðal equivalent to aéprepov εival
(1 Cor. xiii. 4), áãoyeveolal equivalent to åhoyov elva. (Cic. Att. vi. 4),
STOOKOTEVELV and ĚTLOKOTTEVELV (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 591), kwļlkeveobal
(Luc. Philop. 22). Hence the Tapaſożevo áuevoç K.T.N., which is to be
regarded as a modal definition to H. bav. Tyylne, means : so that he was ven-
turesome with his soul (dative of the more definite reference), i.e. he hazarded
his life, in order to supply, etc. In this sense rapaßárkeodal is current
Besides, the emphasis is not on tous TOLOÚTous
(Hofmann), but on évtimovs, correlative to the
preceding ueTà Táơ. Xapas.
1 See more such verbs in Lobeck, ad Phryn.
p. 67, and comp. generally Kühner, I. p. 695,
II. 1, p. 98. .
2 The matter is conceived as staking a price
or forfeit. Comp. napapółcov in Poll. viii. 63,
Phrynich. p. 238. On the subject-matter comp.
also apoteobal tas yuxas (Pausanias, iv. 10.3);
the animae magnae prodigus of Horace (od. i.
12. 37); and the vitam profundere pro patria
of Cicero (de off. i. 24).
CHAP. II. 30.
105
..
among Greek authors, and that not merely with accusative of the object,
but also with dative of reference, in the sense of biyokiVOUveiv (Schol. Thuc.
iv. 57) and tapappírTELV (Soph. fr. 499. Dind.). Hence, also, the name
parabolani for those who waited on the sick (Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. 2, p.
173, ed. 4). Taking the reading of the Text. Rec., Tapaſovneveciai would
have to be explained: male consulere vitae (Luther aptly renders : since
he thought light of his life). See especially Reiche. This verb, also, does
not occur in profane Greek authors; but for instances from the Fathers,
especially Chrysostom, and that in the sense specified, see Matthiae, l.c.;
Hase in Steph. Thes. VI. p. 220.—-íva ávana. K.1..] The object, to attain which
he hazarded his life. We have to notice (1) that úpūv belongs to votépnua;
and (2) that tñs tapós ue deltoupy, can denote nothing else but the function,-
well known and defined by the context (ver. 25), and conceived of as a
sacrificial service --with which Epaphroditus had been commissioned by
the Philippians in respect to Paul (após ue). All explanations are there-
fore to be rejected, which either expressly or insensibly connect ýuwv with
helToUPY., and take the latter in the general sense of rendering service
(Slakoveīv). We must reject, consequently, Chrysostom's explanation (comp.
Theophylact, Theodoret, Pelagius, Castalio, Vatablus, and others): Tò oùv
υστέρημα της υμετέρας λειτουργίας ανεπλήρωσεν ... όπερ έχρήν πάντας ποιήσαι, τούτο
ĚT pašɛv autós ; 4 also the similar view taken by Erasmus and many others
(comp. Grotius, Estius, Heinrichs, Rheinwald, van Hengel, Rilliet): “quo
videlicet pensaret id, quod ob absentiam vestro erga me officio videbatur
deesse ; ” the arbitrary explanation of Matthies : "in order that he might
perfect the readiness of service which you have shown on various occasions ;"
and several other interpretations. Hoelemann, also, in opposition to the
simple literal sense, takes TÒ úmõv úotép. as defectus cui subvenistis, and tñs
atpós uɛ heltoupy, as : rerum necessariarum ad me subministrando deferendarum.
No; of the two genitives, referring to different things (comp. ver. 25, and
see Winer, p. 180 [E. T. p. 191]), by which tò úctépnua is accompanied, the
first conveys who were wanting (úpūv, ye were wanting, ye yourselves were
not there, comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 17), and the second to what this want applied.
Consequently the passage is to be explained: in order to compensate for the
circumstance, that ye have been wanting at the sacrificial service touching me;
that is, for the circumstance, that this sacrificial service, which has been made
through your love-gifts in my support, was completed, not jointly by you, but
without you, so that only your messenger Epaphroditus was here, and not
ye yourselves in person. How delicate and winning, and at the same time
how enlisting their grateful sympathy in the fate of Epaphroditus, was it to
1 Hom. Il. ix. 322; so usually, as in 2 Macc.
xiv. 38.
2 Polyb. ii. 26. 6, iii. 94. 4; Diod. Sic. iii. 35:
έκριναν παραβαλέσθαι ταϊς ψυχαίς.
3 Comp. trapabáldouau tñ travToù kepada in
Phryn. ed. Lob. p. 238.
4 Hofmann substantially reverts to this. He
takes unwr as the subject, which had allowed
something to remain lacking in the service,
namely, in so far as the church had only col-
lected the aid, but not conveyed it. How indeli-
cate would such a thought have been! Be-
sides, it was, in fact, an impossibility for the
church to have come personally. Hence
the church was wanting, indeed, at the
transmission of the bounty, but it did not
thereby allow anything to be wanting in the
latter.
106
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
represent the absence of the Philippians as something that had been lack-
ing in that lectoupyía, and therefore, as something which Paul had missed,
to supply which, as representative of the church, the man had (as his deadly
sickness had actually shown) hazarded his life! He did not therefore con-
tract the illness on his journey to Rome (de Wette, Weiss, and older
expositors), as Hofmann thinks, who represents him as arriving there in
the hot season of the year ; but through his exertions dià tò đpyov 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 ávath. TÒ Úl.
votép., comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 17. The compound verb is appropriately
explained by Erasmus: "accessione implere, quod plenitudini pērfectae
deerat." See on Gal. vi. 2.-It was a foolish blunder of Baur to hold the
entire passage respecting Timothy and Epaphroditus as merely an
imitation of 2 Cor. viii. 23 f. Hinsch very erroneously, because misconceiv-
ing the delicate courtesy of the grateful expression, thinks that in ver. 30
the aid is described as a duty incumbent on the readers,—which would be
un-Pauline; iv. 10 is far from favoring this idea.
NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR.
IX. Vv. 1-5.
(a) oŭv is best understood as connecting this opening passage of the second
chapter with Tohiteveole (i. 27), as related to and modified by the iva ... εvayyehiov
clause. To such a conformity in living to the gospel as would make them strive
together for the faith with one soul, unanimity of sentiment and oneness of heart
were necessary. The Apostle urges this upon them, therefore (ovv), as the first
element of Christian life, of which he would speak. To this unanimity humility,
such as he describes in ver. 3, was essential. He accordingly adds an exhortation
to this virtue also, which, because of the close relation between the two, he joins
with the previous one in an added clause of the same sentence.-(6) The fourfold
conditional portion of the sentence and the fourfold expression of the idea of har-
mony, as, indeed, also the asking the readers to make his joy complete by following
his exhortation, show the urgency and emphasis with which he desired to make
his appeal.--) The clauses from undev to éavtāv incidentally suggest the causes
of want of harmony which the Apostle had in mind. The former word, as Light-
foot remarks, is connected with "the exaltation of party;" the latter, .with "the
exaltation of self.” The fact, however, that the clause Tſ Tartelvw poouvn K.1.2. is
placed in contrast with both épôslav and Kevodošíav, points to the conclusion that
the “exaltation of party" here alluded to is inspired by the spirit of self-exalta-
tion, and the latter idea is, thus, the one that is prominent.—d) The words pi...
OKOTOŪVTES K.T.. (ver. 4) are, by reason of their connection with what precedes, to
be regarded as having reference to the same thing. The looking upon the things
of others is opposed to that exclusive consideration of one's own things which is
characteristic of a self-exalting spirit. That this is the thought is indicated, also,
by the passage (vv. 6-11) which refers to Christ. A very similar phrase to the
one here used is found in 1 Cor. x. 24, and a similar idea to that contained in
NOTES.
107
these words, as viewed in themselves alone, is expressed in other places by the
Apostle; but the special thought and application are suggested, in different cases,
by the context.-(e) The emphasis of the appeal, and the distinctness with which
the thing to be laid aside is brought out, render it probable, that the writer was
giving here, not a general exhortation to harmony as based upon humility, but a
special and personal one to the Philippians, which had reference to some division,
or tendency to division, among them,—at least, to some épwela springing out of
Kevodošía. At the same time, there is no evidence or probability of contending
doctrinal divisions in the Philippian Church, or of parties like those in Corinth.
The divisions, if such they should be called, or the want of harmony (as the lan-
guage employed seems more probably to justify us in describing the condition of
things), was a minor matter in comparison with what was seen in some of the
other churches. They were not so divided as to prevent their fellowship for the
furtherance of the gospel (i. 5), or the Apostle's joy on their behalf (i. 4).
With respect to individual words or minor points in these verses, the following
remarks may be added :-(1) The exhortation of vv. 1, 2, as presented in the form
of the sentence, is fulfill my joy, while the harmony of the church is the end in view
or result of such fulfilling. But, in the writer's mind, the latter was the main thing
which he desired and aimed at. It seems probable, therefore, that the four points
mentioned in the εi clauses are intended by the Apostle to bear upon iva opovíte
tò autó, rather than upon ranpoate fOV T. Xap. If there is any exhortation in
Christ, etc., as there surely is, which may legitimately bear upon your relations to
one another, I beg you, he says, to let it influence you to be thoroughly united.
Meyer connects these clauses somewhat more directly with Tanpwoate.—(2) R. V.
has comfort, A. V., consolation, as the rendering of rapálcanous; but most of the
best recent commentators (including not only Meyer, but Ell., Lightf., Alf., Eadie,
and others), agree with A. R. V. in translating it by exhortation. This is probably
correct.—(3) tapauídlov is regarded by Grimm (Lex. N.T.), as well as by the
writers mentioned by Meyer in his note, and some others, as meaning persuadens
alloquium, persuasion, encouragement, incentive. This, also, seems more in accordance
with the character of the passage than consolation (R. V.) or comfort (Meyer and
many others). The reasons urged by Meyer for the latter meaning do not appear
to be conclusive.-(4) With Meyer's view respecting the supply of opovovytes be-
fore undév (ver. 3) most recent comm. agree. The movement of the whole sentence
in the sphere of thinking, rather than doing, strongly favors this view. The other
participles and the verb opoveite of ver. 5 confirm it. The right state of mind-
harmony of thought and feeling-would make the church ready for united action,
such as that indicated in i. 27.
| X. Vy. 6–11.
(a) These verses are evidently introduced as commending the exercise of hu-
mility. The Apostle presses upon his readers the exhortation just given by pre-
senting before them the example of Christ and bidding them have the same mind
which He had. The setting forth of what Christ was and is, of what He gave up
and has received, is therefore for the purpose of exhibiting His mind and example,
and this for a practical end. But this is only the primary purpose, as related to
the particular line of thought along which he is moving. It is clear that the
verses contain a more detailed statement concerning Him than was necessary for
108.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
the accomplishment of such an object. They must have, by reason of this fact,
something beyond what their subordinate grammatical position would indicate.
In the declarations which they make describing Christ in Himself, they must have
a certain independence. As they go back in these declarations to the past and
forward to the future, they must be designed to set before the readers not merely
in thought which exists between this passage and Eph. i. 20 ff. and Col.i. 15 ff., for,
though the statements of the three passages are occasioned by different causes
and addressed to men exposed to different influences, it cannot be reasonably
doubted that, in the mind of the Apostle, they belonged together as expressing
his view of Christ. . The verses here, as well as those in the other Epistles,
i must be examined in this light. Examining them thus we find—(6) that the
writer traces out a progressive development in the matter of which he is speaking.
His primary object, as connected with his exhortation to the readers, is to show
how Christ by His voluntary humbling of himself reached the exaltation which
He has attained. For the setting forth of this, he tells what He gave up in
thus humbling Himself, what He did while here on earth in the same line of
self-renunciation, and what is the greatness and glory of His reward. This
progressive character of the statements is an important element in the question
of the interpretation.-(c) The progressive development alluded to points, in and of
itself, most naturally to a condition antecedent to what is indicated by ÉKÉVWOEV
of ver. 7; to what took place in and at the time of the act of emptying Himself;
to that humiliation and death which followed upon the Kévwols and completed
the self-renunciation; and to the exaltation at the end, with all that it involved.---
(d) The most natural interpretation of the clauses as related to each other, and
of the individual words and phrases, accords with and confirms the understanding
of the passage which the observation of its general progress would suggest.
In the consideration of these individual words and phrases we may notice the
following points :-(1) The natural interpretation of the words ÉAUTÒV ÉKÉVWOEV
suggests a giving up, not of something which He might assume, but of something
which He already possessed. This is confirmed by the contrast of Únápxwv with
yevóuevos, and of év uopoň Osoñ with haßùv poppiju dobrov, and perhaps, also by
the emphatic position of Éautóv. The indication of these words is that, at a certain
time, the question arose whether He should retain something which He had had
before and still had, or whether He should lay it aside for something else which
was lower, and which even involved an emptying of Himself; and that He volun-
tarily chose the latter course. He could not, either in the strict sense or figura-
tively, empty Himself of what did not previously appertain to Him.—(2) Trat
which thus previously appertained to Him, and of which He emptied Himself, is
indicated by μορφή θεού as contrasted with μορφή δουλου. He emptied Himself by
giving up the former and taking the latter. The condition designated by év uoporſ
DeoŰ must, therefore, be a condition antecedent to ÉKÉVWOEV, and ůstápxwv K.T.A. must
refer to the pre-incarnate state.—(3) The significance of popon in the N. T. and
the writings of Greek authors, as distinguished from oxñua, cannot perhaps be
determined with absolute certainty in all cases. It is in general well established,
however; and, in a case like the present, where the use of the two words shows the
writer's intention, there can be no reasonable doubt that uoppń has its own peculiar
force-denoting that form which is the outward expression of, and is conceived
of as immediately connected with, the inward nature. Exñua, on the other hand,
NOTES.
109
has the sense of fashion, appearance, form, as not thus closely and vitally related
to essence.—(4) It must be noticed, however, that Paul does not use in these verses
ovoia or Diois—that is, words directly expressing the notion of essence or nature, but
that he limits himself to words which relate to form, popoń and oxñua. The con-
trast is one of popon, and not of ovoia, so far as the expressions of the sentence set
it forth. It is also noticeable that, in connection with the idea of assuming the
μορφή δούλου, words of less significance than μορφή are added-namely, ομοίωμα and
oxñua.-(5) The indication as to the Apostle's thought which the facts give is,
that in emptying Himself Christ did not lay aside His divine nature, but that form
which would, of itself, immediately lead the one who beheld it to the belief that
He had this nature. The terms and precision of scientific doctrinal statement are
not to be looked for in a passage where the language employed is intentionally of
another character, i. e., the language of ordinary letters and discourse. Within
the possibilities of the style which he adopts, the Apostle is careful to use words, to
add suggestions of limitation, to repeat, in some measure, with modifying clauses
or expressions, to guard against misunderstanding; and his words and statements,
when taken together, all show that what he intended to declare was this-that
Christ had in the pre-incarnate state the popoň Deo✓ which implied divine nature,
but that, in emptying Himself, He laid aside the form, but not the nature; that
He assumed the human, but did not give up the divine in every sense. The
Pauline idea as to the divine nature of Christ is thus expressed by év popoň Deoū
υπάρχων.
(6) A further expression of the idea is found in tò elval ioa dew, and also in
connection with the word áprayuóv. The phrase tò cival ioa Deð must, from the form
of the sentence, have an immediate relation to έν μορφ. θεού υπ. Ας μορφή implies
divine nature,--only in its exhibition outwardly,—TÒ εival K.1.2. cannot be other-
wise than consistent with this idea. And this, whether ioa be taken, with Meyer
and others, in the simple adverbial sense and εival be understood as equivalent to
existere—so that the meaning is the God-equal existence (existence in the way of
parity with God); or whether, with Lightf. and others, ioa be regarded as a predi-
cate and εival as having its ordinary sense to be on an equality with God. This
phrase conveys the idea, on the more internal side, of that which, on the external
side, is set forth by popon. The two together, as Meyer remarks in his foot-note
(page 69), exhaust the idea of divinity; and, as he also remarks in the foot-note
on page 72, the το είναι ίσα θεώ is the Pauline θεός ήν ο λόγος. As regards the
exact force of the words, the use of the ioa in a predicative way is legitimate, as
proved by Job xi. 12 and other examples. But the connection and progress of
the thought in the verses may be regarded as, on the whole, favoring Meyer's
view, and as showing that Paul had in mind the divine mode of existence.' That
ioa has the sense of equality, and not mere likeness, is made evident by all the in-
dications of the passage.—(7) The word áprayuós must be understood either (2) as
having the active sense of the pos termination of verbal nouns, a robbing; or (y) as
equivalent to the passive form in ua, a thing robbed or seized, prceda, res rapta; or
(x) as holding a sort of intermediate position between the two, a thing to be grasped.,
res rapienda. If either x or y is adopted as the true explanation, the phrase indi-
cates, in itself, that the equality spoken of was a thing already belonging to Him:
He did not look upon it as a thing which was a foreign possession, which He could
only possess by an act of robbing, or as something robbed. If z is adopted, two
suppositions are possible-either He did not count it a thing already in possession,
110
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
which was to be grasped as if he would not let it go; or a thing not already pos-
sessed, which was to be eagerly laid hold of. While both of these are possible,
however, the following verb ÉKÉVWOEV, which is adapted to express the divesting
one's self of what one has, rather than the refusal to seize upon what one has not, and
the preceding words év mopon JeoŰ Únápxov show the former of the two to be the
correct one. In whichever of the three ways áprayuóv is explained, therefore, this
phrase, as well as the other two already considered, sets forth the divinity of Christ.
The explanation designated by z is to be preferred as meeting most satisfactorily
the demands of the strong adversative conjunction alá. Emptying Himself by
taking the form of a servant was the direct opposite to the regarding tò elval ioa
Jew as a thing to be firmly held in possession.—(8) The word doúhov (ver. 7) is
evidently contrasted with θεού, and the words εν όμ. ανθρ. γενόμενος are explanatory
of the way in which He took the popor doúhov. The view of Meyer with respect
to this point must be regarded as correct, as also his explanation of the use of the
word óuoiwua. “Christ, although certainly perfect man, was by reason of the divine
nature present in Him, not simply and merely man, but the incarnate Son of God.”
This is the Pauline ó hóyos càpš ÉyÉVETO. The carefulness in the selection of the
language, within the limits of the figures, etc., which are used, is very striking.
He assumes the nature of man, as suggested by hopon, but not so as to exchange
the divine nature for it and thus divest Himself of the divine nature (év óu. y£v.
(9) This latter idea is still further brought out by kai oxhuari kúpeles ás åvopwTOS.
If there words are, as Meyer holds, to be connected immediately with the preceding
participial clause (a new sentence beginning with Étateivwoev), they must be intro-
duced with this special design. If, on the other hand, the connection is with this
verb, the same suggestion is contained in them, only that it is less direct and
prominent. As regards the question of connection, the natural force of the words,
considered in themselves and in relation to the other participial clauses, favors
Meyer's view–He was not simply a man, but was in the likeness of men (entered
into a form of existence like that of men), and was found in fashion as a man
(there was no observed difference between His appearance and that of a man-the
divine nature in Him was not perceived). The abruptness of the introduction of
ÉTATTELVWoEv with no connecting particle is, however, a serious objection to this view.
A new participial clause seems fitted, also, to the turn of thought from the self-re-
nunciation and humility manifested by Christ in assuming human nature to that
which He showed after He had assumed it (10) sub of ver. 9 introduces the ex-
altation as the reward of the humiliation. The verbs útepúpwoev and éxapioato
are used, thus, from the standpoint of the work of Christ and His condition upon
the earth, and do not carry with them any necessary indication as to His relation
to God the Father in His šoupkos state. The subordination of Christ suggested in
this passage is only that connected with His Messianic position and His carrying
out of the Father's plan of salvation.
(11) The reference of tò óvoja (ver. 9), may be to honor and dignity (comp. Eph.
i. 21); or to a particular name given to Christ. The fact that the article is used
points to the latter as more probable. If some special name is intended, the pass-
age suggests only two-kúplos and ’Incows. The indications of the verses (9–11),
when taken together, favor the view that the name is ’Inoows; because the bowing
is declared to be in the name of Jesus, and because the confession that He is kópios
does not seem to be the recognition by the worshipers of a divinely given name,
but rather the expression of the worship itself. The name Jesus, however, cannot
NOTES.
111
be understood here simply as the name given to Him at the beginning (Matt. i.
21), but as having its final and full significance in the universal honor given to it
and the universal acknowledgment that He is Lord. (12) Vv. 10, 11 set forth
(iva) the purpose of God in thus giving Christ the name which is above every
name. With respect to these two verses, it may be noticed (w) that the expression
ÉV TỘ óv. 'Indow declares that the homage is to move in the sphere of his name, and,
if interpreted most strictly, it would seem to point towards a willing and true wor-
ship. The latter sense, however, cannot be insisted upon as certainly in the words;
(2) that the worship is declared to be on the part of all-either all intelligent be-
ings in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, or all things, i. e. all creation. The
language employed (Ttāv yóvu, Trãoa yhwora), favors the reference to intelligent beings,
but can hardly be said, in a passage of this character, to prove it. This, however,
is probably the true view of the meaning; (y) that kataxooviwv is to be taken as
referring to the dead in Hades, as Meyer and others hold; (x) that éfquohoyngetal
means confess in full or openly, and that it is also a word which may be used of
hearty, willing confession.—(13) The main thought of vv. 10, 11, for the expres-
sion of which they are written, is evidently that of the exaltation of Christ, and
not that of the union of all intelligent beings with Him as willing subjects. This
fact must be borne in mind in the consideration of any points in the verses, which
may appear to indicate such voluntary subjection on the part of all. In view of
this fact, also, the inquirer as to Paul's doctrine of the future should carefully ex-
amine all his statements on the subject, aná should discover in the present passage
only what it clearly affirms. The Pauline view of Christ's exaltation can be
proved from these verses. What the Pauline view of the eternal condition of men
is to be, must be sought for in other passages taken in connection with this one, and
not in this one alone..
XI. Vv. 12, 13.
(a) In relation to troctevegte of i. 27, Vv. 12–18 contain the third point in
which the Apostle would urge the Philippians to conduct themselves, as citizens
of the new kingdom, in a manner worthy of the gospel. Firmness in contending
for the gospel faith, accompanied by unity of spirit; unity of spirit among them-
selves, accompanied by humility and self-renunciation ; self-renunciation, inspired
by and in imitation of the example of Christ, as leading to the most careful and
earnest effort to fail in nothing which might be essential to the attainment of
salvation ;-these are the three things which he presses upon their attention.
They are the things which the readers needed, in their condition and circum-
stances to make them "children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked
and perverse generation,” and thus to give him a ground of glorying in them in
the day of Christ; and for this reason, doubtless, they are the only things which
he mentions as elements of the moneteveolal K.7.2.-(6) The immediate connec-
tion of ver. 12 with what precedes through core is, as Meyer rightly says, with
vv. 6–11. The example of Christ, who reached His glorious reward and exalta-
tion through self-abasement, is urged as the ground of the new exhortation.. As
the Head of the kingdom had 'thus acted, they, as its citizens, should be moved
to earnestness to do everything, and solicitude to leave nothing undone, which the
end in view demanded.-(c) The emphasis of the exhortation in ver. 12, con-
sidered simply as an exhortation, is largely upon the words fietà poßov kaì tpónov,
112.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. ,
and the connection of thought with what goes before is, thus, partly through the
fact that such solicitude would, in one line of its influence, naturally manifest
itself in self-renunciation.
(d) The emphasis on pis ús Év T? Tapovolą jou K.T... is due to the fact that this
is concerned. The explanation which Meyer gives of us and of this entire clause
(with which Ell. and some others also agree), is simpler and better than that
which he mentions as favored by Weiss, de Wette, Lightf., and others.-(e) Ver.
13 is subordinate to ver. 12, tlie main thought moving on in ver. 14. The rela-
tion of ver. 13 to ver. 12 is that of a reason for the carrying out of the exhortation,
Work out, etc., and the reason given is, as Meyer says, in the line of encourage-
ment. Whatever general theological statement may be properly founded upon
the words of this verse, it must be observed that they are directly applied to,
and spoken of, those who have already entered upon the Christian life. The
Apostle in this passage, does what the N. T. writers generally do when they speak
of God's election of men, His predestinating purpose, His working for the accom-
plishment of that purpose, so far as this working lies back of man's working.
He does not allude to the subject in its relation to unbelievers or to men before
their conversion, but solely as a ground of confidence and comfort to those who
have already believed. He tells the Christian that he may have joyful and vic-
torious hope in his living and working, because he can rest upon the eternal
purpose of God.-(f) ÚTTèp tñs evdokias is to be connected with évepyāv. Evdokia,
with its kindred verb čudokeTV; when used of God, seems to tend, in the N. T.,
towards the idea of good pleasure rather than good will, and to refer to free,
unconditioned will, or favoring will. That the meaning in this case may be good
will, as Meyer understands it—that is, “ in order to satisfy His own benignant
disposition," cannot be doubted. But the peculiar character of the statement,
“worketh in you both to will and to work ÚTÈD TñS evd.," as well as the more com-
mon usage, may lead us to believe that the thought of the Divine purpose was in
the writer's mind, and that the word here means benevolent purpose. ÚTTép-on be-
half of, for the advantage of, for, in fulfillment of. Grimm (Lex. N.T.) says
benevolentice (suce) satisfacturus.
XII. Vy. 14-18.
(a) Ver. 14 may be regarded as presenting the opposite side of the exhortation
left undone is directly contrary to murmuring and questioning. Trávra is, thus, to be
determined in its limits of application by κατεργάζεσθε κ.τ.λ., and γογγ. and διαλ. are
to be explained as murmurings, etc. against God, not against other men. There is
nothing in the context which, either certainly or probably, indicates such differ-
ences or parties as would suggest the latter reference. Siamoylo uāv is; accordingly,
to be understood, with Meyer, as meaning questionings (so A. R. V. and many
comm.), and not disputings, as R. V. As Lightf. well says, “yory. is the moral,
Siah. the intellectual rebellion against God.”—(6) iva yévnote K.7.2.-As, in i. 27 ff.,
they were to act worthily of the gospel to the end of standing boldly and without
fear before their enemies, so here they are to do all things to the end of being
examples of the true life, blameless children and light bearers, in the midst of
NOTES.
113
evil men.-(c) εν κόσμω is more probably to be taken as qualifying φαίνεσθε ώς
Quot., than owot. alone, as Meyer takes it.-(d) Meyer differs from most comm. in
giving to ÉTÉ XOVTES (ver. 16) the sense of possessing. It is doubtful whether any
of the passages cited by him fully justify his view; certainly most of them, even
Thuc. iii. 107.4 mentioned in his foot note, do not. Rob. (Lex. N. T.), agreeing
with Luther, de Wette and others, makes it mean holding fast; (so also W. and
Wilk., Gwynn). Grimm (Lex. N. T.), Ell., Alf, Eadie, v. Heng. and others under-
stand it in the sense assigned to it by Beza, Grot., Lightf., etc., holding forth. This
last meaning (given, also, by R. V. and A. V.), is probably correct. Weiss agrees
with Meyer. Lightf. regards tv ois . . . kóduw as a parenthesis, and tréx as un-
Connected with it and belonging to ένα γένησθε κ.τ.λ. But this construction is
unnecessary, and is even less natural than that which joins the participle with paiv
ás owot. The Phil. Christians are luminaries as and because they hold forth, etc.
(e) It can hardly be doubted that in his use of the words eis Kauxnua (ver. 16),
the Apostle had in mind a thought kindred to that of i. 26. As his renewed
presence with them, in case his life should be continued, would be, through its
beneficial influence upon their lives, a cause of glorying on their part, so their
progress and Christian development would be a cause of similar glorying on his
part. We may believe, therefore--for this reason, as well as because of ver. 17–
that he refers here to the probability of his surviving the present uncertainties.
Whether εis riu. Xp. implies a hoped-for continuance of life until the Parousia is
more doubtful. It cannot be regarded as certain that it does, and no inference on
this point can be drawn from this.verse, taken by itself.-($) Lightf. regards the
Philippians as the priests who offer the sacrifice of their own faith, the Apostle's
life-blood being the accompanying libation. This view harmonizes with the pre-
ceding thought. As their becoming blameless, etc., would, in case he lived, be a
ground of glorying for him, so, on the other hand, if, in connection with their
advance in faith and Christian living, his death should occur, he will still rejoice.
It is also favored by the fact that, if Paul presents himself as the priest, we have
the figure of a priest offering his own blood, which is somewhat improbable. But
passages such as Rom. xv. 16, 17 represent the Apostle in the exercise of the
priestly office, making an offering to God of his Gentile converts, and the paral-
lelism of these passages with this one is noticeable. Most recent comm. adopt the
view of Meyer, but that of Lightf., which is advocated by some others, is worthy
of serious consideration.
(9) The progress of the verses shows that the joy which the Apostle speaks of
. in ver. 17 (xaipw), is not joy in the fact that death is gain to hinıself (i. 21), but
in the fact that even his death, if it comes, will be immediately connected with
the development of their faith. His congratulation of the Philippians, therefore,
or uniting of his joy with theirs, is not on account of the honor which "such a
martyrdom for the sake of their faith” would give them (so Meyer), but because
his martyrdom, like his life's labors (ver. 16), was for the furtherance of the
gospel, as related to the furtherance of their faith. Lovxaipo may mean congratu-
late, as Mey., Grimm, Eadie, Lightf., and many others take it, or rejoice with, as
Ell., de W., Weiss, R. V., A. V., and others hold. The objection made by Meyer
to the latter meaning cannot be regarded as conclusive. In the simple, affectionate
style of this Epistle, we may naturally expect expressions of this sort (“I rejoice
and rejoice with you, and do you rejoice and rejoice with me”), without any
thought of the difficulty suggested. Looking at ver. 18 alone, it would seem
114 .
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
more probable that Paul would ask the Philippians to rejoice with him in the joy
which he felt, than to congratulate him on the happiness which is alluded to as
appertainiug to his death. R. V. renders Tò avto in the same manner, A. V. for the
same cause. The tendency of recent comm. is rather towards the latter view, the
words being regarded, grammatically, as a sort of objective accusative depending
on xalpete.
XIII. Vv. 19–24.
(a) The object which the Apostle had in sending Timothy to Philippi was two-
fold:—first, that which is indicated by iva . ; . úpāv of ver. 19, and secondly, the
one referred to in tà nepi újūv jepljivKoel of ver. 20. The same two-fold thought
appears here, therefore, which has appeared in the preceding context and else-
where in the Epistle. The Christian progress of the Philippian Church is viewed
as the thing primarily and earnestly to be desired; but it is thus desired as a
source of joy and comfort to Paul himself. He thinks of the subject in this light
because of his peculiar affectionate interest in them, and because, in his present
condition of uncertainty respecting the future, his mind naturally turns to the
contemplation of the results of his own work.-(6) That there is a connection of
thought between these verses and those which immediately precede (vv. 12-18),
is not to be questioned. As for the particle dé at the beginning of ver. 19, the
explanation given by Meyer (“However threatening my situation is (ver. 17),
nevertheless I hope”), may be satisfactory. But, when the whole passage (19–24)
is considered, we must believe that Paul was thinking, not merely of continued
life, as opposed to the possibility of speedy death, but also, and prominently, of
the growth in Christian character on the part of the Philippians, and of his own
satisfaction in that growth as connected with his own labors.:-(c) cáyú of ver. 19,
however, is not to be explained as if the two ideas just mentioned were in the
Apostle's mind in writing this clause. Had this been the case, he could scarcely
have left one of them, and that so important a one, altogether unnoticed. On the
other hand, the fact that the clause contains but one verb, evyyuxū, which by the
emphatic éyó with its connective kcí is most naturally carried over, in its appro-
priate form, to the “peis to be supplied in thought,-confirms the explanation given
in Meyer's note as the true one. Timotlıy was to comfort Paul by what he should
have to report of the Philippians, and the Philippians by what he should have
to report of Paul. The service which he was to render by ministering to the
faith and life of the church in Philippi is not referred to until the next verse.--
(d) The allusion to this service is brought out in a sentence which gives the
reason why Timothy was chosen by Paul to be the messenger. This reason, how-
ever, presents so emphatically the Apostle's desire to send the most competent
person possible, that the grammatical subordination of the sentence connected
with the yap is more than counterbalanced.
(e) That Meyer's view respecting the word to be supplied with lobyoxov (ver.
20), (namely, yol), is correct, as against the view of those who would supply avtậ, is
proved (1) by the evident intimation (comp. ver. 20 with ver. 24) that Timothy was
sent to fill Paul's place until he should, perhaps, be able to visit the Church himself;
(2) by the us tarpi TÉKVOV oùv Šuoi ésothevosv of ver. 22; and (3) by the fact that
the whole matter is introduced as relating to Paul's own satisfaction in what the
Church should gain.-(f) eis tò evayyéhcov (ver. 22)—comp. the same words in i. 5.
NOTES.
115
1.
The Apostle's thought is evidentlŷ moving, throughout these two chapters, in
the sphere of this "furtherance of the gospel,” and the explanation of many
points must be determined, more or less directly and entirely, by this fact.-(9)
Vv. 23, 24 indicate, once more, the confidence which he felt in his release from
imprisonment. This release was also, as he believed, to come soon. The date
of the Epistle cannot be proved from these indications, but they must be regarded
as strongly favoring the conclusion that it was written not long before the actual
decision of his case.
XIV. Vv. 25-30.
(a) The marked emphasis on kvaykalov points to some connection between this
statement and what has been said about Timothy. Probably a certain contrast to
Šarišw of ver. 19 is intended. The special reason for sending Epaphroditus is
given, as Meyer says, in vv. 26, 28; but, in view of the word ávayk, and the stress
laid upon it, we may believe that there was a necessity, to Paul's feeling, to hear
again from the Philippian Church, and to give them an inspiring message and
helpful aid from himself, for the setting forward of their faith. Though he hoped
to send Timothy soon, and even had confidence that he might, somewhat later, go
to them himself, he felt the weight of this "necessity" so strongly, that he must
„send back Epaphroditus at once.—(6) vyndáuny (ver. 25) and ÉTELỰA (ver. 28) are
quite generally regarded as epistolary aorists. If so, when taken in connection
with ver. 29, they make it probable that Epaphroditus was the bearer of Paul's
letter. As such aorists, they should be translated as presents, rather than as in
A. V. and R. V.; or, as the former verb precedes in time the latter, vynoájn should
perhaps be rendered as a perfect.-(c) In the words ouvepyóv and OUVOTpaTLÁTIV may
be found another indication of the thought underlying the whole development of
these chapters.—d) It is doubtful whether helToUPyóv is to be pressed here to its
sense of sacrificial minister, as Meyer holds. The more general meaning of minister
would seem to meet the demands of the passage. Ell., Alf., and others take it in
the latter sense.-(e) nu of ver. 26 is regarded by Meyer as used from the stand-
point of the time of the reception of the Epistle. Even if this be so, the time of
the beginning of this feeling and of the sickness of Epaphroditus would seem
clearly to have been before the date of writing the letter. May not nv ÉTTLTOOūv,
therefore, be more properly rendered by the perfect—the feeling of longing and
distress having continued to the time when the Apostle takes his resolution here
alluded to ?-(f) The first lúan of ver. 27 evidently refers to the loss of Epaphro-
ditus, from which Paul had now been saved. The second húrinu is more doubtful,
but the view of Meyer seems more probable than that of Weiss and others men-
tioned in Meyer's note. The objection made by Weiss to Meyer's view, that Paul
expresses a feeling of joy elsewhere in connection with the matter of his imprison-
ment, does not seem conclusive, for the reason, first, that the joy was not in the
imprisonment itself, but in the fact that it had resulted in good, and, secondly, that
the limitations and trials of imprisonment could not, in themselves, have been
other than a grief to him. He might have rejoiced in the death of Epaphroditus
in a similar way, if it had been the means of good to the Christian cause, and yet
he would have felt it to be a ground of sorrow, and naturally might have some-
where spoken of it as such. His mind was here upon his own grievous trial; in
the other places to which Weiss alludes, it was upon what had so remarkably been
116
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
effected by it.—(9) If the textual reading dià tò špyov, adopted by Tisch. 7th ed., Alf.,
Mey., Lightf., is correct, žpyov refers undoubtedly to the work of the gospel (called,
absolutely, the work). If, however, Kuplov (W. and H.), Xplotoū (Tisch. Sth ed.), or
TOÙ XplotoŰ (T. R.) is to be added, there may be in this general expression an in-
tended allusion to the bringing of the contribution from the Philippian Church, or
to some special service or attendance given to the Apostle. . The connection of
thought with ovvepyov and ovvotpaTLÓTOV, which is suggested by Meyer, is not im-
probable, if we adopt Meyer's view of the text, and not impossible, though perhaps
less probable, if we read with the majority of the MSS.
CHAP. III.
117
CHAPTER III. '
Ver. 3. Instead of Okov Elz. has ev, against decisive testimony, although
again defended by Reiche. A clumsy emendation in order to complete the hatp.-
Ver. 6. Sihov] Lachm. and Tisch. read Sihos, following A B D* F G **. A
copyist's error; comp. the exeg. remarks on 2 Cor. ix. 2.—Ver. 8. Instead of uÈV
oùv Elz. and Tisch. 8 have MevOūVYE, which, although supported by A P x, is
opposed by very preponderating testimony. The second εival is wanting in B D*
FG **, 17, Arm. Vulg. It. Lucif., et al. Suspected by Griesb., omitted by
· Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But how readily may it, otherwise superfluous, have been
left out before the similar iva !- Ver. 10. The second thv is wanting in A B **;
omitted by Lachm.; overlooked as unnecessary. Instead of ouuuopoesbuevos (so
Lachm. and Tisch.), which Griesb. approves, Elz. and Scholz have ovu poppouuevos.
But the former has in its fapor A B D* P ** min. Or. ms. Bas. Macar., as also
ovvooptišbuevos in F G. It. Lucif. Ir. The Recepta substitutes an analogous form
more familiar.- Ver. 11. Tūv vekp.] A B DEP x, min., and many vss. and
Fathers, have til én verp., which is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by
Scholz, Lachm., and Tisch. But Paul always uses åváoTaois with merely the
genitive των νεκρών, Or only νεκρ. The εκ was written on the nargin here to
explain the word égavaot., which does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and
subsequently the erroneous insertion of this êk after Tūv (so still F G) produced
the reading TIV ÉK Vekp.--Ver. 12. The Xplotoð alone (Elz. gives ToỦ X. 'Indov) has
preponderant evidence.- Ver. 14. Éní] Lachm. and Tisch. read eis, following A B
X, min. Clem. Aeth. Rightly; Émi is explanatory.-Ver. 16. After otolXETV, Elz.,
Scholz have kavóvi, tò avrò opoveīv, which is wanting in A B **, min. Copt.
Sahid. Aeth. Hilar. Aug., et al. There are, besides, several variations, and
differences in the arrangement of the words. The Recepta has arisen from glosses
(following Gal. vi. 16; Phil. ii. 2), and has far too little homogeneousness in a
critical point of view, to enable it to be defended on the ground of homoioteleuton
(so Maith. and Rinck).-Ver. 21. After uā, Elz. has eis tò Yevéodal aúró, which
(although defended by Matth.) is omitted by decisive authorities. An ancient
supplement.—&avt] Following A B D* FG KP **, min. Eus. Theophyl., avto
is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be read ; Éavý is a more precise definition.
In iii. 1 Paul seems already preparing to close his epistle; but at this
point his attention is directed, perhaps by some special momentary
occasion, to the party of anti-Pauline teachers, against which he at
once breaks forth with vehemence and irony in ver. 2, warning his
readers against them; and thereafter, from ver. 4 to 14, he sets forth in
detail his own bearing as contrasted with the character of those false
teachers.
118
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Ver. 1. [On Ver. 1, see Note XV. page 152.] Tò 2017 óv] introduces what
is still to be done by the readers in addition to what has been hitherto com-
municated; see on Eph. vi. 10. Hence it is of frequent occurrence
towards the close of the epistles, as bringing in a further request, exhorta-
tion, etc. To the closing address thus introduced, but at once abandoned
again in ver. 2, Paul would have attached his giving of thanks for the aid
sent to him (comp. iv. 8, 10 ff.). This is contrary to the view of Schinz
and van Hengel, who, from the fact that Paul has not yet expressed his
thanks, conclude that he did not at this point desire to proceed to the
closing of the letter. We need not search for a connection with what
precedes. The preceding topic is closed, and the exhortation beginning
with tò 2017r. which now follows stands by itself; so that we are not even
justified in saying that Paul here passes from the particular to the general
(Schinz, Matthies), but must simply assume that he is proceeding to the
conclusion, which he desired to commence with this general encourage-
ment.-xaípetɛ év kupiq] [XV a.] is a summons to Christian joyfulness,
which is not katà kóquov (see Chrysostom), but has its ground in Christ, and
is thereby specifically defined, inasmuch as Christ-through the Holy Spirit
-rules in the believing heart; hence the xapà Tveúpatoç dyíov (1 Thess. i. 6)
or Év tvebuari áylw (Rom. xiv. 17) are in substance not different from this
(comp. Gal. v. 22). The subsequent double repetition of this encourage-
ment (iv. 4) is the result of the apostle's special love for his readers, and
of the whole tone of feeling pervading the epistle. Moreover, in év kuplu
we are not to seek for a new special element, preparing the way for the
transition to the explanations which follow (Weiss, Hofmann); for Paul
could not in what went before mean any other joy, either on his own part
(i. 18) or on the part of his readers (ii. 17 f., 28), and in other passages also
he does not add to xaípete the self-evident definition év icupiw (2 Cor. xiii.
11; 1 Thess. v. 16). Another joy in the Christian life he knew not at all.-
Tà avrà ypápelv] [XV 6.] “Hic incipit de pseudo-apostolis agere," Calvin.
After zalp. év k. there is a pause ; Paul breaks off. Tà avrá has been erron-
eously referred to xaip. &v K., and in that case the retrospective reference
which Paul had in view is either not explained at all (Bengel, Zachariae),
or is believed to be found in ii. 18 (van Hengel, Wiesinger), or in i. 27 f.
(Matthies, Rilliet), or in i. 27-ii. 16 (Storr). This view is at variance, not
indeed with the plural rà avrá,9 but with the facts, first, that there is no
express summons whatever to Christian joyfulness generally, given in the
previous portion of the epistle (not even in ii. 18); secondly, that so sim-
ple and natural a summons—which, moreover, occurs again twice in iv: 4
would certainly have least of all given rise to an apology for repetition;
and lastly, that áopanés, in accordance with its idea (without danger), points
not to the repetition of a summons of this kind, but to a warning, such as
.
1 Comp. iv. 8 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; 1 Thess. iv. 1;
2 Thess. iii. 1.
2 Chrysostom: exete 'Ena póditov, 8L ôy
nayeite, čxete Tepódcov, čpxouai keyú, Tò evay-
yedcov medidwol ti üniv deirtel doctóv; comp.
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Estius,
Cornelius a Lapide, Michaelis, and others.
See, on the contrary, Stallbaum, ad Plat.
Apol. p. 19 D; Mätzner; ad Antiph. p. 163;
Kühner II. 1, p. 60.
CHAP. III. 1.
119
follows immediately in the context. The accusation of poverty of thought
(Baur) is therefore all the more groundless here. And as the altogether
vague reference of Theodoret and Erasmus (Annotat.) to the numerous
exhortations contained in the epistle generally, or to the fundamental tone of
the letter hitherto (Weiss), is simply at variance with the literal import of
the words, rà avrá cannot be interpreted as applicable to anything but the
subsequent warning against the false teachers. This warning, however, has
not occurred previously, either at i. 15 f., or indirectly in i. 27, as Lüne-
mann thinks, or in i. 27-ii. 18, as Ewald assumes. Hence many have
caught at the explanaiion: "eadem repetere, quae praesens dixeram.” 2
But this quae praesens dixeran is quite gratuitously imported; it must at
least have been indicated by tà avrà kai yp. Úl. or in some other way. The
same objection applies against Wieseler,, who takes tà avrá as contrasted
with the oral communications, which would be made to the readers by
Epaphroditus and especially by Timothy. The only correct explanation,
therefore, that remains is the assumption (which, however, is expressly
rejected already by Theodoret) that Paul had already written what follows
in an earlier epistle to the Philippians 4 which is not preserved, and that he
here repeats the same. It must remain uncertain, however, whether this
repetition covers ver. 2 only, or ver. 3 also, or a still larger portion of the
sequel; as also, how far the repetition is a literal one, which seems to be
the case with ver. 2 from its peculiar character.-ókvmpóv] irksome, matter
of scruple._soparés] safe, so that ye will the more firmly rely thereon for
the deterinination of your conduct.; Hofmann, without any precedent of
usage, assigns to ókunpóv the sense of indolent cowardice, and takes aopahés
as prudent, which linguistically is admissible (Heind. ad Plat. Soph. p. 231
A), but would be unsuitable to the úuiv. The apostle wishes to say, that
the repetition is for himself not irksome (okvos, haesitatio), and is for his
readers an áopahès tekuÝplov (Eur. Rhes. 94.) to be attended to.
NOTE.—This exegetical result, that, previously to our epistle, Paul had already written
another to the Philippians,& is confirmed by Polycarp,9 who, ad Phil. 3, says : ToŨ
1 The expedient to which Wiesinger has
recourse is gratuitously introduced, when he
connects the xaipete év k. more closely with
the warning that follows by imagining that,
in xaip. év k., he detects already the idea on
which the sequel is based, namely the otńKETE
év kupiw, iv. 1.
2 Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, so also
Erasmus, Paraphr., Calvin, Beza, Balduin,
Estius; Calovius, Wolf, Schrader, aud others;
de Wette undecidedly.
3 Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 458 f.
4 Comp. also Credner, Einl. I. p. 333.
6 So Aegidius Hunnius, Haenlein, Bertholdt,
Flatt, Köhler, in the Annal. d. ges. Theol. 1834,
III. 1, p. 18 f.; Feilmoser, Bleek, Jatho,
Schenkel, Bisping, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann; de
Wette undecidedly.
D em. 777.5; Theocr. xxiv. 35; Pind. Nem.
xi. 28; Herodian vi. 3, 7; Soph, O. R. 834,
comp. our ókyntéov, Polyb. i. 14. 7, also Plat.
Ep. II. 310 D: tánon déyelv oŰTE okvow oŭte
aioxuvoûnai.
Comp. Acts xxv, 26; Feb. vi. 19; Wisd.
vii. 23; Plat. Rep. 450 E; Phaed. p. 100 DE;
Dem. 372. 2, 1460. 15.
8 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.
9 I cannot at once accept the view that the
passages in question, ch. iii. and xi., are inter
polated (Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 588 ff.).
The interpolations in the Ignatian epistley
are at any rate of another kind. Besides, wo
have from Polycarp only the one epistle; and
120
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
μακαρίου κ. ενδόξου Παύλου, ός γενόμενος εν υμίν κατά πρόσωπον των τότε ανθρώπων εδί- .
δαξεν ακριβώς κ. βεβαίως τον περί αληθείας λόγον, ός και απών υμίν έγραψεν επιστολές,
kiç âs xàv šYKÚTTNTE, Suvñokolɛ olkodouzcoal K.7.2. It is true that the plur. in this
passage (ÉTTLOTONàs, eis äs) is usually explained as referring to one epistle (see Cote-
lerius in loc.; and Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. II. p. 914 f.; Hilgenfeld, Apost. Väter, p.
210; J. B. Lightfoot, p. 138 f.), just as is it well known that also in profane
authors Énlotohal (comp. literae) is used of one despatch (Thuc. i. 132. 6, viii. 39.
2), sometimes generally in a generic sense as plural of the category, and sometimes
specialiy of commissions and orders. See Schaefer, Plut. VI. p. 446; Blomf. and
Stanl. ad Aesch. Prom. 3; Rettig, Quaest. Phil. II. p. 37 f. But there is the less
ground for assuming this construction here, since doctrinal epistles, both in the N.T.
and also in the apostolic Fathers, are always described by the singular when
only one epistle is intended, and by the plural (as in 1 Cor. xvi. 3; 2 Cor. x. 9–11;
2 Pet. iii. 16 ; comp. Acts ix. 2, xxii. 5) if more than one are meant,--a practice
from which there is no exception (not even in 1 Cor. xvi. 3), as, in fact, Polycarp,
in regard to ÉTUOTORÝ, elsewhere very definitely distinguishes between the singular
and plural. See ch. xiii.: Tàs ¿ TT COTONàs 'Iyvariou Tàs reuoleloas Tv ún' aútoữ
και άλλας όσας είχομεν παρ' ημίν, επέμψαμεν υμίν, καθώς ενετείλασθε· αίτινες υποτεταγ-
jévai cioi Tï'T 10T0hĪ Tautn. In order to prove that Polycarp in ch. iii. did not
mean more than one epistle to the Philippians, an appeal has been made to ch. xi.,
where, in the Latin version, which alone has been preserved, it is said: "Ego
autem nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi, in quibus laboravit beatus Paulus, qui
estis (non-genuine addition : laudati) in principio epistolae ejus; de vobis enim
gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis, quæ Deum solae tunc cognoverant, nos autem non-
dum noverainus.” But epistolae ejus cannot here be the epistle to the Philippians,
for the idea : "ye are in the beginning of his epistle," would be simply absurd;
epistolae is, on the contrary, the nominative plural, and the sense is: “Ye are origi-
nally lis epistles," that is, his letters of recommendation, in which phrase allusion is
made to 2 Cor. iii. 1 ff. The correctness of this explanation, which Wieseler has
substantially adopted, is corroborated by the sequel: de vobis enim gloriatur, etc.-
UUT
we have therefore no sufficient objective
standard of comparison, in the absence of
which a judgment founded on taste is very
uncertain. But even assuming the interpo
lation, we should still have the result that
the interpolator was acquainted with several
epistles of Paul to the Philippians. Other-
wise he would have had no reason for using
the plural, especially as it was already dis-
tinction enough for the church to have had
one epistle addressed to it by the apostle.
1 Hofmann also explains the expression
from 2 Cor. iii. 1 ff., but errs in taking epis-
tolae as the genitive; he makes this epistle to
be the whole of the Christians gathered by Paul,
and thus represents Polycarp as declaring, in
reference to the Philippian church, that it
stands first in this epistle, because it is reckoned
among his earliest acquisitions. According to
this interpretation, a vast aggregate of
churches would be depicted as one epistle, in
which one church would stand written first,
and others after it, each therefore being
marked by name in the order of its date. What
a different picture this would yield from that
presented in 2 Cor. iii., and one, too, deline. :
ated singularly enough! And how unsuitable
would such a precedence, as to time, be for
the church at Philippi! By how long a
period had the establishment of all the
churches of Asia preceded it! Hofmann's
objection to our view, viz. that the present
estis would be unsuitable, does not apply,
since Polycarp realizes the state of inatters as
it stood with the church in principio (év åpxôi
i. e. in the earliest times of the gospel), as
present; hence also he subsequently says
gloriatur (not gloriabatur). The conception
is this: Paul in all the churches of that early
Christian age boasts of the excellent Philip-
pian church, and so this church serves him
as so many letters of recommendation, which
by his yloriari he communicates, and as it
were reads before, those other churches.
CHAP. III. 2.
121
It is, moreover, à priori intelligible and likely enough that Paul should have cor-
responded with this church-which enjoyed his most intimate confidence, and the
founding of which marked his entrance on his European laboris—at an earlier
period than merely now, almost at the close of his life. And Polycarp was suffi-
ciently close to the time of the apostle, not merely to have inferred such a corres-
pondence from our passage, but to have had a historical knowledge of it in opposi-
tion to Hofmann).
Ver. 2. [On Vv. 2 ff., see Note XVI. pages 152, 153.] This is now the tà
avtâ which he had previously written, and probably in the very same
words. At least this seems to be indicated by the peculiar expressions in
themselves; and not only so, but it serves also to explain the relation of
contrast, which this vehement “fervor pii zeli" (Calvin) presents to the
tender and cordial tone of our epistle. That lost epistle had probably
expressed the apostle's mind at length, and with all the warmth of con-
troversy, for the warning of his readers as to the Judaizing false teachers.
How entirely different is the tone in which, in the present epistle, he
speaks (i. 15 ff.) of teachers likewise of an anti-Pauline type, and laboring,
indeed, at that time in his immediate neighborhood! Comp., moreover,
the remark after i. 18. Those who refer τα αυτά to the χαίρετε εν κυρίω,
labor in very different ways to establish a connection of thought with
BRÉTETE K.T.N.; 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 contrario, on what the true Christian joy was, and on what
it was not, based.---Bértetɛ] not: be on your guard against, etc. (which
would be 32. áró, Mark viii. 15, xii. 38), but as a calling attention to : behold!
(1 Cor. i. 26, x. 18), with a view, however, to warn the readers against
these men as pernicious, by pointing to the forbidding shape in which
they present themselves.- TOÙs kóvas] a term of reproach among the Jews
and the Greeks (frequently in Homer, who, however, also uses it without
any dishonorable reference; see Duncan, Lex. ed. Rost. p. 674); used by
the latter specially to denote impudence, furious boldness (Hom. II. viii.
289; Od. xvii. 248; Anth. Pal. ix. 302), snappishness (Pollux, On. V. 65),
low vulgarity (Lucian, Nigr. 22), malice and cunning (Jacobs, ad Anthol.
VI. p. 18), and the like, see generally Wetstein; used also among the
Jews in similar special references (Isa. lvi. 10 f.; Deut. xxiii. 18; Rev.
xxii. 15, et al.), and, because dogs were unclean animals, generally to
denote the profane, impure, unholy (Matt. vii. 6; Ps. xxii. 17 ; Rev. xxii. 15;
Schoettgen, Hor. I. p. 1145); hence the Gentiles were so designated (see
on Matt. xv. 26). In this passage also the profane nature and demeanor
of the false teachers, as contrasted with the holy character of true Chris-
tianity, is to be adhered to as the point of comparison". Any more
special reference of the term-as to shamelessness (Chrysostom and many
others, including Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald), covetousness (both
1 Chrysostom: OÚKéti tékva 'lovdaio ...
ώσπερ οι εθνικοί και του Θεού και του Χρισ-
Toù åldórpiol Boav, Qütw kai oŮtol yeyóvao
νυν.
122
.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
combined by Grotius), snappishness (Rilliet, and older expositors, following
Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and Pelagius), envy, and the like; or to the
disorderly wandering about in selfishness and animosity towards those who
were living peaceably in their Christian calling (Hofmann), to which
Lange fancifully adds a loud howling against Paul,-is not furnished by
the context, which, on the contrary, follows it up with yet another general
designation, subjoining, namely, to that of the low, unholy character
(kuvas) that of the evil working : ToùG Kakoùs épyát. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 13. The
opposite: 2 Tim. ii. 15; Xen. Mem. i. 2. 571. They, in fact, labored in
opposition to the fundamental doctrine of justification by faith.-TĪV
katarounv] the cutting in pieces, a word formed after the analogy of Tepitou",
and, like the latter in ver. 3, used in a concrete sense: those who are cut in
pieces! A bitter paronomasia, because these men were circumcised merely
as regards the body, and placed their confidence in this fleshly circum-
cision, but were wanting in the inner, spiritual circumcision, which that
of the body typified (see ver. 3; Rom. ii. 28 f.; Col. ii. 11; Eph. ii. 11;
Acts vii. 51). Comp. Gal. v. 11 f. In the absence of this, their character-
istic consisted simply in the bodily mutilation, and that, from the ideal
point of view which Paul here occupies, was not circumcision, but cor-
cision ; whilst, on the other hand, circumcision, as respected its moral
idea, was entirely independent of the corporeal operation, ver. 3. Comp.
Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 439, ed. 2. This qualitative distinction between mepit.
and karat. has been misunderstood by Baur, who takes the climax as
quantitative, and hence sees in it a warped and unnatural antithesis, which
is only concocted to give the apostle an opportunity of speaking of his
own person. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact justly lay stress
on the abolition of the legal circumcision as such brought about through
Christ (the end of the law, Rom. x. 4),-a presupposition which gives to
this antinomistic sarcasm its warrant.3 A description of idolatry, with
allusion to Lev. xxi. 5, 1 Kings xviii. 28, et al. (Storr, Flatt, J. B. Lightfoot;
comp. Beza), is quite foreign to the context. It is erroneous also to dis-
cover here any indication of a cutting off of hearts from the faith (Luther's
gloss), or a cutting in pieces of the church (Theodoret, Calvin, Beža, Grotius,
Hammond, Clericus, Michaelis, Zachariae, and others), against which the
necessary (comp. ver. 3) passive signification of the word (not cutters in
pieces, but cut in pieces) is decisive.-The thrice repeated Bérete belongs sim-
ply to the Teluovò of earnest emotion, so that it points to the same dan-
l'Epyásovtal mév, onow, add'émi KQKĄ, kai
åpyias tollồ xeipov čpyov, åvaoWVTES Tà Kadūs
Keileva, Chrysostom; comp. Theodoret, Oecu-
menius, Theophylact.
2 Theophr. H. pl. iv. 8. 12.
3 Luther's works abound in sarcastic paro-
nomasiue. Thus, for instance, in the preface
to his works, instead of Decret and Decretal,
he has written "Drecket” and “Drecketal”
[Germ. Dreck=dregs, filth]; the Legenden
he calls Lügenden, the Jurisperitos he terms
Jurisperditos; also in proper names, such as
Schwenkfeld, whom he called “Stenkfeld.”
In ancient anthors, comp. what Diog. L. vi. 2,
4 relates of Diogenes: Tv Evrdeidov oxodriv
έλεγε χολήν, την δε Πλάτωνος διατριβήν κατατρι-
Buv. Thuc. vi. 76.4: our a&vverwTÉpov, kakov-
VETWTépou dé. See also Ast, ad Plat. Phaedr. p.
276; Jacobs, Delect. epigr. p. 188. For the
Latin, see Kühner, ad Cic. Thisc. p. 291, ed. 3.
4 Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 315; Buttmann,
Neut. Gr. p. 341 [E. T. 398).
CHAP. III. 3.
123
gerous men, and does not, as van Hengel misconceives, denote three
different classes of Jewish opponents, viz. the apostate, the heretical, and the
directly inimical. The passage quoted by him from Philostr., Vit. Soph. ii.
1, does not bear upon the point, because in it the three repetitions of
έβλεψε are divided by μεν ... δε. Weiss also refers the three designations
to three different categories, namely: (1) the unconverted heathen, with
their immoral life; (2) the self-seeking Christian teachers, i. 15–17; and
(3) the unbelieving Jews, with their carnal conceit. But the first and third
categories introduce alien elements, and the third cannot be identified
with those mentioned at i. 15–17, but must mean persons much more
dangerous. In opposition to the whole misinterpretation, see Huther in
the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. p. 626 ff. All the three terms must characterize one
class of men as in three aspects deserving of detestation, namely the
Judaizing false teachers. As is evident from 7. katatouhy and ver. 3 ff., they
belonged to the same fundamentally hostile party against which Paul
contends in the Epistle to the Galatians. At the same time, since the
threefold repetition of the article pointing them out may be founded upon
the very notoriety of these men, and yet does not of necessity presuppose a
personal acquaintance with them, it must be left an open question,
whether they had already come to Philippi itself, or merely threatened
danger from some place in its vicinity. It is certain, however, though
Baur still regards it as doubtful, that Paul did not refer to his opponents
in Ronze 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 righteous-
ness; and also because the earnest, demonstrative BXÉTTETE, as well as
åopahés (ver. 2), can only indicate a danger which was visibly and closely
threatening the readers. It is also certain that these opponents could not
as yet have succeeded in finding adherents among the Philippians; for if
this had been the case, Paul would not have omitted to censure the
readers themselves (as in the Epistle to the Galatians and Second Corin-
thians), and he would have given a very different shape generally to his
epistle, which betrays nothing but a church as yet undịvided in doctrine.
His language directed against the false teachers is therefore merely warn-
ing and precautionary, as is also shown in ver. 3.
Ver. 3. Justification of the preceding 7. katatouýv; 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.- es] with
emphasis : we, not they. The katatou“ being not the unconverted Jews,
but Christian Judaizers, the contrasted queis cannot mean the Christians
generally (Weiss), but only those who, in the apostle's sense, were true and
right Christians, whose more definite characterization immediately fol-
lows. The “quets are the 'Iopara ToŨ Okoð of Gal. vi. 15 f., the members of
the people of God in the sense of the Pauline gospel, and not merely Paul
and the true teachers of the gospel (Hofmann),—a restriction which the
exclusiveness of the predicate, especially furnished as it is with the
124
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
article, does not befit; in iii. 17 the context stands otherwise.— nepiroun]
If this predicate belongs to us, not to those men, then, in regard to the
point of circumcision, nothing remains for the latter but the predicate
katatouń! As the rueis, among whom the readers also were included, were
for the most part uncircumcised (Gal. ii. 9, iii.; Eph. ii. 11), it is clear that
Paul here takes Tepitouh purely in the antitypical spiritual sense, according
to which the circumcised are those who, since the reception of baptism, are
regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and therefore members of the true people of
God'; the investiture with their new moral condition is typically pre-
figured by the legal bodily repitouń of the Jewish, theocracy. Comp. Rom.
ii. 29, iv. 10 f.; Eph. ii. 11; Col. ii. 11; Acts vii. 51. Whether the bodily
circumcision was present or not, and whether, therefore, the subjects were
Jewish or Gentile Christians, was in that case matter of indifference,
1 Cor. vii. 19; Gal. iii. 28, v. 6. Comp. the further amplification of the
thought in Barnab. Ep. 9.-oi Tveirati OEQÜ K.7.2.] IVe who serve through the
Spirit of God, in contrast to the external, legal karpeia (Rom. ix. 4)."
Comp. Heb. ix. 10, 14; Rom. xii. 1 f. With this aatpeia, wrought by the
Holy Spirit, there takes place on the part of man (comp. Rom. i. 9), but
in virtue of that very working of the Holy Spirit, the worship which is
required in John iv. 24. The article oi extends also to the two participles
which follow; and the arthrous participles (quippe qui colimus, etc.) con-
tain the experimental proof that the leis are the repitou“. The dative
Trvevuarı denotes neither the standard (van Hengel) nor the object (Hilgen-
feld), which latter view would amount to the conception, foreign to the
N. T., of a worship of the Holy Spirit-but is instrumental, expressing the
inward agent (Rom. v. 5, viii. 14 f., et al.): vi spiritus divini (Rom. viii. 13,
et al.). On the absolute harpeveiv, to render divine worship, comp. Luke ii.
37; Acts xxvi. 7; Heb. ix. 9, x. 2; Rom. ix. 4; 3 Esdr. iv. 54.-kavzól. ÉV
X. ’I.] and who glory in Christ Jesus (as Him through whom alone we have
attained righteousness, etc., see ver. 9; comp. Gal. vi. 14), not in our own
privileges and legal performances, as those false teachers do, who place
their confidence in what is fleshly, i. e. in that which belongs to material
human nature and has nothing in common with the divine blessings of
the Christian (such as circumcision, descent, outward observance of the
law, comp. vy. 46). Hence the contrast : kal ovi źv capki TTETTOLOÚTes, with
which the disposition of mind contrary to the kavxãoðal év X. ’I. (from which
disposition the καυχάσθαι, opposed to that Christian καυχάσθαι, of itself
results) is negatived; so that this contrast is pregnant, belonging, however,
by way of antithesis, to the second statement, and not containing a separ-
ate third one (Hofmann). If K. OÚK Év O. TET. were merely a more precise
definition of purport added to kavx. év X. I. (Weiss), it must have been
added without kal. As to o'k in the passage, referring to concrete persons
1 True Christianity is, according to Paul
also, the true continuation of Judaism, and
that not merely of the promise given in it,
but also of the law; the latter, however,
according to the idea of the a pwois, Matt.
v. 17, in which the letter has yielded to the
spirit.
? If we adopt the reading trycúpate Dew, TTVEÚ-
mati must be understood as in Rom. i. 9. See
Reiche, Comnient. crit. p. 229 ff.
CHAP. III. 4.
125
and a definite fact, and negativing not merely the év gapki (Hofmann), but
the actual position év O. TETOLO., see Winer, p. 451 f. [E. T. 485]; Baeum-
lein, Partil. p. 276 f.
Ver. 4. [On Vv.4-11, see Note XVII. pages 153–155.] By the o'k év oape
TTET OLO., 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 tend-
ency expressed in ver. 3, and the real object against which the whole con-
flict with it was ultimately directed. Hence, by the words o'k Év Gapki
TTETTOLO. he by no means intends to concede that he is destitute of that
TIETOLONors which was founded on externals;7 no, in this respect also he has
more to show than others, down to ver. 6.2 So no one might say that he
was despising what he himself did not possess. The classical kaitep with
the participle (only used here by Paul; and elsewhere in the N. T. only
in Heb. v. 8, et al.; 2 Pet. i. 12), adds to the adversative sentence a limit-
ing concessive clause (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 201 f.), and that in such a
way, that from the collective subject of the former the apostle now with
emphasis singles out partitively his own person (èyó). If, following the
Homeric usage, he had separated the two particles, he would have written:
kai tyú rep.; if he had expressed himself negatively, he would have said :
OÚSéntep &yó o'šXwv.—The confidence also in flesh, i. e. in such circum-
stances as belong to the sphere of the materially human, is in čxwv (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 renoíonous, his possession of which he in the first instance urges, is not
fiduciae argumentum (Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and others, including
Flatt, Hoelemann, and Weiss); nor is the possession of it to be viewed as
something which he might have (Storr, Rilliet, Matthies, Ewald); nor is it
to be referred to the pre-Christianr period of the apostle's life (van Hengel).
The latter is also the view of Hofmann, who holds š xwv (and then diớKWV
also) as the imperfect participle, and gives to the whole passage the in-
volved misinterpretation : that kaitep introduces a protasis, the apodosis of
which follows with ảaká in ver. 7. In accordance with this view, ver. 4 is
supposed to mean: “Although I possessed a confidence, and that, indeed,
based on such matters as are flesh, if any other ventures to trust in such things,
I for my part possessed confidence in a higher degree.” This is erroneous;
first, because the familiar å dá of the apodosis is used indeed after kaitou
(with finite tense ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 68 E; Parm. p. 128 C), but
I kai év capki, namely, in addition to the
higher Christian relations, on which I place
my confidence.
2 Only a comma is to be placed after TETOL-
Obtes in ver. 3; but after év gapki in ver.4 a
full stop; and after äuell it tos in ver. Ganother
full stop So also Lachmann and Tischen-
dorf. In opposition to Hofmano's confusing.
construction of the sentence, see below. .
8 Comp. Kühner, II. 1, p. 246.8.
126
OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
THE EPISTLE a
not after the conimon kainep with participle, attaching itself to a govern-
ing verb; secondly, because kai before év oapki means nothing else than
also, which does not suit the interpretation of Hofmann, who desires to
force upon it the here inappropriate sense, and that indeed ; thirdly, be-
cause the present dokei presupposes the present sense for čxwv also; and
lastly, because with éyè uārzov the present in accordance with the preced-
ing Sokei), 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 !--TLS... århos] quite generally: any other person, but
the intended application to the above-mentioned Judaizers was obvious to
the reader. See the sequel. The separation by dokɛī lays all the stronger
stress on the rig.--dokei] not: “thinks to be able to confide” (de Wette and
many others); nor yet: “si quis alius videtur” (Vulgate), since it is a
matter depending not upon the judgment of others, but upon his own
fancy, according to the connection. Hence: if any one allows himself to
think, if he presumes. Just in the same way, as in the passage parallel also
in substance, Matt. iii. 9. Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 16.-ěyà uālāov] sc. Sokū ETT. Év
oapki, I for my part presume it still more. This mode of expression im-
plies a certain boldness, defiance; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 21.
Vv. 5, 6. Predicates of the tyú, by which that éyè pārnov is justified.--If
those Judaizers were, as may be inferred from our passage, partly proselytes
(to these the repit. ókranu. stands in contrast), partly persons whose Jewish
descent was not so noble and pure as that implied in ěk yÉVOUS. ... 'Eſpaiwv,
and if they could not boast of any such law-strictress, zealous activity, and
righteousness, as is described in katà vómov ... čijLEJUTTTOS; and if, on the other
hand, there were found conjoined in the case of Paul the elements here
adduced of ancient theocratic legitimacy and perfection; the syù pārnov in
ver. 4 was completely made good.--TEPLTOPÑ Óirani.] in respect to circum-
cision an eighth-day-one, not older, as were the proselytes who were only cir-
cumcised at a later period of life. The cighth-day character in the relation
specified by Teplouais conceived as a quality of the persons concerned,
which distinguishes them from those circumcised later.1. The reading
Trepitouń as nominative (some min. and Fathers, Erasmus, Vatablus, Corne-
lius'a Lapide, Mill, Bengel, Matthies, Heinrichs, and others, also Elz. 1624,
1633, not 1641), so that it would stand in the concrete sense (circumcisus),
is erroneous, because this usage occurs only collectively.--ěk yévous 'Iop.] that
is, a descendant of Jacob, not, therefore, possibly of Idumaean blood. The
theocratic name 'Iop. corresponds entirely with the design of the passage.
Comp. on Eph. ii. 12. On what follows, comp. 2. Cor. xi. 22; Rom. xi. 1.
-quañs Bevcap.] therefore not, possibly, an Ephraimite (Ezra iv. 1); a cli-
Inactic inore precise definition of the evyéVELCI.2 For its fuller exhibition
Paul finally specifies the last feature of his lineage: 'Eſpaios é 'EBp., that
is, a Hebrew born of Hebrew parents, so that his mother also was a Hebrew
>
i For instances of the personal use of such
nomina dialia, see especially Wetstein on
Johu. xi. 39 ; comp. generally Kühner, II. 1,
P. 234 f.
kevyevns yap ń búcis káš evyevūv, Soph. Phil.
862 (874).
CHAP. III. 5, 6.
127
woman. His lineage is not carried further back in respect to both parents,
because it was not the custom to trace back the genealogy of the wives.
Inappropriate to the context is the rendering of Michaelis, following
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact: “one speaking Hebrew, born
of Hebrew-spealcing parents.” It is also erroneous, following the Greek
Fathers, to take és 'EBp. of the tota majorum series, because this was after
the two previously specified points self-evident. If, among his ancestors,
Paul had had one who was a non-Hebrew, he would not have been de-
scended from Jacob and Benjamin, but from the non-Hebrew and his
forefathers. For instances of expressions quite similar to 'Eſp. Ég 'EBp.,
used to denote the identity, as conditioned by birth, of a man's position
with that of his parents, see Wetstein and Kypke; they occur very fre-
quently in classic authors.--κατά νόμον κ.τ.λ.] After his Jewish ευγένεια there
now follows his distinguished. personal position in Judaism, set forth in a
threefold climactic gradation : (1) In respect of the law (of Moses) a Phari-
see. Comp. Acts xxvi. 5, xxii. 6. The Pharisees stood in the closest and
strictest relation to the law, as they with their traditions were regarded as
the most orthodox expositors, defenders, and observers of it. The inter-
pretation of vóuov, not in its habitual historic sense, but generally as regu-
lar rule (Beza) or disciplina (aipeous) (Castalio, Wolf, Grotius, Storr, Hein-
richs, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, and others), is all the more erroneous,
since the validity of the Mosaic law in Christianity was the very principle
upheld by those Judaizers; see also below, OLKALOO, T. Év vóuq. (2) In respect
of zeal (zealous maintenance and championship of the law-religion, 1 Macc:
ii. 58; Acts xxi. 20; Gal. i. 14), a persecutor of the church. Comp. Gal. i.
13 f. The present participle is used as a substantive, comp. on Gal. i. 23.
What Paul, to his deep grief, had been (1 Cor. xv. 8 f.; 1 Tim. i. 13), he,
with a bitter recalling of his former distinction in Judaism, throws, by way
of confronting the Jewish zealots, into the scale, as a characteristic pre-
dicate not yet extinct. And precisely thus, unaccompanied by any moté
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 law [XVII a.] having become blameless [XVII 6.] (ii. 15),
having carried it so far (not: having borne myself so, as Hofmann renders
it; comp. on ii. 15), that human judgment finds nothing in me to blame in
this respect! That which is here denoted by dik. V šv vóuw is not substan-
tially different from dik. ñ ÉK PÓuov in ver. 9; comp. Rom. x. 5. It has its
basis in the law, so far as it consists in the accordance of its nature with
the character and the rules of that institute (Gal. iii. 11, v. 4), and pro-
ceeds from the law, so far as it is produced by the precepts of the latter
which man follows. In opposition to the correlation with ver. 9 de Wette
interprets : "the righteousness valid in the state of law (comp. Rom. ii.
12).” Calvin appropriately observes that Paul means "totam justitiam
legis,” but “ communi hominum existimatione;" that it is not, therefore, the
1 Beza, Grotius, Storr, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others.
128
THE EPISTLÉ OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
real moral fulfillment of the law, but its justitia externa literalis. Comp. J.
Müller, v. d. Sünde, I. p. 59, ed. 5.
Ver. 7. Now, with the antithetic årlá, the apostle comes again to his
real standpoint, far transcending any Tenoldéval ěv capki, and says: No!
everything that was gain to me, etc.—äriva] quaecunque, the category of the
matters specified in vv. 5 and 6. The emphasis is to be placed on this
word; comp. Taðra subsequently.— v pol képon] yol is not the dative of
opinion (Erasmus, Beza, and many others, including Heinrichs, Rhein-
wald, Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette, Hofmann; comp. van Hengel, ..
who takes képon as lucra opinata); but such things were to the apostle in
his pre-Christian state really gain (katà oápka). By means of them he was
within the old theocracy put upon a path which had already brought him
repute and influence, and promised to him yet far greater honors, power,
and wealth in the future; a career rich in gain was opened up to him.
The plural képon denotes the various advantages dependent on such things
as have been mentioned. Frequently used also in the classical writers.-
Taðra] emphatically: these very things.---là Tòv X.] for the sake of Christ, who
had become the highest interest of my life. Paul explains himself more
particularly in vv. 8, 9, explanations which are not to be here anticipated.
--Smuiav] as harm, that is, as disadvantageous (the contrast to képdos);3
because, namely, they had been impediments to the conversion to Christ,
and that owing to the false moral judgment and confidence attaching to
them. This one disadvantage he has seen in everything of which he is
speaking; hence the plural is not again used here as previously in Képon.
The ñynual (perfect), however, has occurred, and is an accomplished fact
since his conversion, to which the apostle here glances back.
Ver. 8. 'Alhá [XVII c.] is the climactic but, still, much more, giving a.
corrective reference of the sense, signifying that with the previous äriva ...
Snuiav there has not yet been enough said. Comp. on 2 Cor. vii. 11. In .
the pèv oŭv it is implied, that“ jèv rem praesentem confirmet, oùv autem con-
clusionem ex rebus ita comparatis conficiat," Klotz, ad Devar. p.663. Hence
αλλά μέν ούν: αt quidem igitur. The και before ηγούμαι (after αλλά μ. ούν)
serves also to help the climactic sense, outbidding what has been said pre-
'viously : etiam, i. e. adeo. It is consequently to be explained : but, accord-
irigly, I am even of opinion that everything (not merely what was meant by
äriva in ver. 7) is a disadvantage. It is clear, withal, from the following
διά το υπερέχον κ.τ.λ. that πάντα is meant indeed αυithout restriction, of all
things, goods, honors, etc. [XVII d.] (comp. also Hofmann), but in so far
as they are not made subordinate to the knowledge of Christ. The explana-
1 The later heretical enemies of the law ap-
pealed to this passage, in which also, in their
view, the law was meant to be included. On
the other hand, Chrysostom and his suc-
cessors asserted that the law was meant only
in comparison with Christ. Estius, however,
justly observes: "non de ipsa lege loquitur,
sed de justitia, quae in lege est."
2 Comp. Plat. de lucri cup. p. 226 E, Leg viii.
p. 835 B.
3 Comp. Form. Conc. p. 708 ; Calvin on ver. 8
4 On nyeiolai Snuiav, comp. Sturz, Lex. Xen.
II. p. 454; Lucian, Lexiph. 24, on the relation
of the singular to the plural répon, Eur, Cycl.
311: Toddolor képôn trovnpå Snuiav ñuelvato.
CHAP, III. 7, 8.
129
tion of others, according to which allà uèv oủv is intended to oppose the
present nyovuar by way of correction to the perfect ñynual (Calvin and others,
including Winer, p. 412 [E. T. 442], and the explanation hitherto given
by me), is incorrect, because nynual, and not the aorist vyndáuny, was em-
ployed previously, and the perfect already involves the continuance of
the opinion in the present, so that no contrast of the tenses would logically
be elicited. The climactic contrast lies rather in the fact that the second
vyetodai Snuíav is a much more comprehensive one than the first, in fact, one
without exception (Távra).–Slà tò ÚTEPÉXov K.T...] on account of the surpass-
ingness of the Icnowledge of Christ; that is, because this knowledge, to
which I have attained, is a possession which excels in value everything
else; the eminent quality of a possession attained is the ground (diá) for
estimating other possessions according to their relation to that one, and
consequently, if they stand to the latter in a relation hindersome to us,
for looking upon them no longer as something advantageous, but as hurt-
ful. As 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. 235]. -XplotÒS ’Inooūs ó Kupiós jov ; this is the
fundamental sum of the whole contents of Christian knowledge. This sav-
ing knowledge is the necessary intelligence of faith (comp. on John viii.
32), and grows with the experience of faith (ver. 10; Eph. iii. 16 ff.).—81 öv]
for the sake of whom, i. e. for the sake of possessing Him; comp. after-
wards iva Xplotòv.. avta.-Tà trávra] the whole, not general like távra pre-
viously (Hofmann), but: which I possessed; vy. 5-7. This more precise
definition by the article results from é courbonv, in connection with which
the aorist is to be noted, by which Paul denotes that great historical turn-
ing-point in his life, the event of his conversion; through that event he
has lost all his (pre-Christian) valued possessions, and thenceforth he has
them no more. Luther erroneously interprets : “considered as harm ;”
and the emotion and force of the expression are only weakened by the
frequently given reflexive sense (see Beza, Calvin, Heinrichs, Flatt, Hoele-
mann, van Hengel, and many): I have made myself lose,--a meaning, be-
sides, which cannot be shown to belong to the passive form of the aorist
of this verb (not even in Luke ix. 25). The future passive form Smulw-
oncoual? is invariably damno afficiar.-Icai iryoõual K.1.2.] 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 di ôv k.7.2. [XVII e.]; hence di ôv T. T. ÉSnue. is not, with van Hengel,
to be put in a parenthesis. Paul had become loser of all these things for
Christ's sake, and he holds them as not worthy of possession, but as
rubbish ! orúßanov,refuse (such as sweepings, dung, husks, and the like);
1 Observe here, also, the shrewdly contrived quem omnium detrimentum (i. e. jacturam)
correspondence of sprecav in ver. 7f, and es nuen passus sum censeoque ea esse quisquilias."
á Onu in ver. 8, in which the former expresses 2 See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iii, 9. 12, Thuc.
the idea of damnum, detrimentum, and the iii, 40. 2.
latter; I have become loser of. It might be re- 8 Not to be derived from toês kvoi Baddecv,
produced in Latin: “etiam censeo omnia det- quod canibus projicitur, but from orwp (okás).
gimentum (i.e. detrimentosa) esse ... propter See Lobeck, Pathol. p. 92.
9
130
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Ecclus. xxvii. 4; Plut. Mor. p. 352 D; and see Wetstein ad loc. Comp. the
similar figurative expressions repurcáðapua and repíwnua, 1 Cor. iv. 13.—iva
X. kepd.] The design in the ńyovual okúß. εival : in order to gain Christ, not
the aim of Tà távra =574cbon (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 képon which he has lost,
and so he looked to this gain in his vyoğual okúßaha εival; 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 kepdaivelv is from its nature a development, the com-
pletion of which still lies before him. Comp. ver. 12 ff.
Ver. 9. Kai εúpɛdū şv avrõ] [XVIIF.] and to be found in Him. The em-
phasis, which previously lay upon Xplotóv, is laid not upon év auto (Hof-
mann), but upon the εúpedā placed first for that reason, and introducing a
new feature of the relation aimed at, annexing to the (subjective) gaining
of Christ the (objective) moulding of life corresponding to it. The apostle
desires to be found in Christ, as in the element of his life; by this he
means (comp. Ignatius, Eph. 11) the whole perceptible manifestation of
his Christian being and nature; so that súp. must neither be limited to the
judicium Dei (Beza, comp. Flatt), nor taken as sim (Grotius and others).
Calvin erroneously makes kúpelã active : Paulum renuntiasse omnibus
quae habebat, ut recuperaret in Christo.--uj čxwv k.1.2.] Specific modal
definition to cúp Év autý: so that I, in accordance with this design, may not
have, etc. Van Hengel erroneously connects (Lachmann, also, and Tisch-
endorf have omitted the comma after avro) un Ě ZWV K.7.2. immediately with
€ÚP. év avtö: et deprehendar in communione ejus non meam qualemcunque
habere probitatem. Thus, indeed, év avtý would be utterly superfluous !
The subjective negation Lý flows from the conception of design (iva), see
Baeumlein, Partik. p. 295; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 302 [E. T. 351]; and
& xwv is the simple habens, possessing, not: holding fast (am Ende, Rhein-
wald, Baumgarten-Crusius).-ějiju SLK. TĪJVĚk vóuou] See on ver. 6; comp.
Rom. x. 3. It is the righteousness acquired as a self-achievement (éuñv),
which proceeds from the law by means of a justifying compliance with it
(Rom. ii. 13). As to the nature of this righteousness, and the impossi-
bility of attaining it, comp. Gal. ii. 16, iii. 10; Rom. iii. 19 f., iv. 4, vii. 7
ff., ix. 31, et al.-Tàu dià riot. Xplotoū] contrast to éjhv: that procured by faith
in Christ? (as the causa apprehendens). The causa efficiens is God (His
grace, see Eph. ii. 8); hence, for the complete exhaustion of the matter,
TİV ŠK OoW Sek. is added, in which śK Deo7, correlative to the preceding ék
vozov, expresses the causal issuing from God. As to the way in which
this ék Osov takes place, namely, by God's imputing faith as righteousness,
'? Frequently in the Anthol., see Jacobs, Ach.
Tat. p. 522, ad Anthol. VII. p. 173, IX. p. 208.
% On the genitive of the object with miotis,
comp. i. 27. Against taking it as the genitive
auctoris, see on Rom. iii. 22.
8 In this passage also, therefore, justification
by faith is the basis and presupposition of
further Christian development up to the
blessed consummation, ver. 11. Comp. Köst-
lin, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 121 f.
CHAP. III. 9, 10.
131
see Rom. i. 17, iii. 24 f., iv. 3 ff.; 2 Cor. v. 19; Gal. iii. 6.-ÉTÈ TĨ Tiotel] on
the ground of faith (Acts iii. 16), added at the end with solemn emphasis,
and dependent on èxwv, which is again to be supplied after åaná. [XVII
g.] So also Weiss. The repetition of ěxwv after ÉTÈ T. Tíotel, which Hof-
mann feels the want of in this explanation, would be simply superfluous
and clumsy. 'ETU.T. . is usually attached to SLKALOOÚVNv (“justitiam super-
structam fidei,” Hoelemann, Wiesinger), some having taken éní as " in
fide” (Vulgate, Calvin), or in fide sitam (Castalio); others as "per fidem”
(Beza, Grotius); others, for the sake of faith (de Wette); others, upon the
condition of faith (Storr, Flatt, Matthies, Rilliet, van Hengel, J. B. Light-
foot). But it inay be urged against this connection, first, that, in accord-
ance with the previous definitions, we could not but expect the repetition
of the article ; secondly, that Sukalowolawith été nowhere occurs in the
N. T.; and lastly, that Olkaloobun in its quality as righteousness of faith was
already distinctly designated by thv dià riot. X., so that the same attribute
of it would be expressed twice, and, on the other hand, the šxwv which is
to be repeated after áraá (the basis of which is still ÉTÈ T. 7.) would be
without any more precise definition. In opposition to Hofmann, who
makes trì T. míotel belong to the following infinitive clause, see on ver. 10.
Ver. 10. Telic definition of the relation expressed by us $XWV 6.1.2. in ver.
9. Paul has not the righteousness of the law, but the righteousness of
faith, in order to know, etc. [XVII h.] This knowledge would fail him if,
on the contrary, instead of the righteousness of faith, he had that of the
law. So he reverts to a more detailed illustration of tò ÚTepé xov TñS yvÚOEWS.
X., ver. 8, expressing, in the first place, again generally the great personal
contents of the knowledge accruing from the righteousness of faith (TOū
yvūvai a tóv), and next, more particularly, the most important—especially
to the apostle in his position infinitely important-matters which were its
objects (Tijv súvapilv K.7.2.), developing them from his own richest experience,
which had thus brought home to his deepest consciousness the tepé Xov
της γνώσεως Χ. The του γνώναι might also be conceived as dependent on
kúpelã év avtý (Wiesinger, Schneckenburger, Schenkel); but the more pre-
cise definition of this ευρεθώ εν αυτώ by μη έχων κ.τ.λ. 1s so important, earnest,
and solemn, that it most naturally carries with it also the statement of
aim which follows. Chrysostom joins επί τη πίστει to ver. 10: τί δέ εστίν επί
τη πίστει του γνώναι αυτόν και άρα διά πίστεως ή γνώσις, και πίστεως άνευ γνώναι
avròv oủk čotl. So also Theodoret and Erasmus, and recently Hofmann,
who, in doing so, takes émi in and by itself correctly as on the ground 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 between article and infinitive; hence Paul
would have written Toù ÉTÈ tñ tiotal yvūval. Comp. Rom. viii. 12; 1 Cor.
xvi. 4. Hofmann improperly appeals, not any longer indeed to Rev. xii.
7, but, doing violence to the position of the words in the LXX., to 2 Sam.
* Comp. also his Schriftbew. I. p. 618.
132
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS,
vi. 2; Isa. x. 32. According to Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and
others, the genitive tow yv. is meant to depend on tị níotel; “describit vim
et naturam fidei, quod scilicet sit Christi cognitio” (Calvin). But tiotis is
never joined with the genitive of the infinitive with the article; and, besides,
not the nature, but the object of the faith (ver. 9) would be denoted by the
genitive (Col. ii. 12; 2 Thess. ii. 13, et al.). Nor is toð yvūval avtóv to be
regarded as parallel with iva X. kepShow K, kúp. év avto, since it is in itself
arbitrary to despise the appropriate dependence on what immediately
precedes, and to go back instead to vyovual grußaha εival; and since in iva
Χριστόν κερδ. κ. ευρεθώ εν αυτώ two elements are given, a subjective and an :
objective one, so that thus there would be presented no parallel corres-
ponding with the subjective ToŰ yvūval K.1.2. Moreover, Paul is in the habit
of introducing two parallel clauses of design with a double 'iva (Rom. vii.
13; Gal. iii. 14; 2 Cor. ix. 3).—The yvūval, which both conditions the faith
and also in fuller development follows it (see on ver. S), is not the discur-
sive, or generally theoretical and speculative knowing, but the inwardly
salutary, experimental becoming-acquainted-with (" qui expertus non fuerit,
non intelliget,” Anselm), as is plain from Tìju dúvajiv K.7.2. Comp. 1 Cor. ii.
8, viii. 2; Gal. iv. 9, et al.; frequently so used in John.kal TÌv dúvajiv tas
ávaot, autoū kai T. KOLVWV. T. Ta0. avr.] and (that is, and especially) the power
of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings. The dúvaj. T. ávaot,
avr. is not the power by which He has been raised (Vatablus, Grotius; comp.
Matthies), which would be quite unsuitable to the context, but the power
which the resurrection of Christ has, its vis et efficacia in respect to believers.
[XVII ¿.] The special point that Paul has in view, is supplied by the
context through what is said immediately before of the righteousness of
faith, to which toð yvūval k.r.2. refers. He means the powerful guarantee
of justification and salvation which the resurrection of Christ affords to
believers; see Rom. iv. 25, v. 10; 1 Cor. xv. 17; Acts xiii. 37, 38. This
power of the resurrection is experienced, not by him that is righteous
through the law, but by him that is righteous through faith, to whom the
resurrection of the Lord brings the constant energetic certainty of his
reconciliation procured by Jesus' death and the completion of eternal life
(Rom. viii. 11; 1 Cor. vi. 14; Col. iii. 1 ff.; Phil. iii. 21). Comp. also Rom.
viii. 34, where this dúvajis rñs ávaot. is triumphant in the apostle. As a
matter of course, this power, in virtue of which the resurrection of Christ,
according to 1 Cor. xv. 17, Rom. iv. 25, might be described as “comple-
mentum redemtionis” (Calvin), is already in regeneration experimentally
known, as is Christ generally (avróv); but Paul speaks from the conscious-
ness that every element of the regenerate life, which has TūV ÉK DEOD Sukaloon
Uvnu ÉTÈ TĨ Tiotel, is an ever new perception of this power. The view which
understands it of the moral power of awakening (Beza and others, also van
Hengel; comp. Rilliet), according to Rom. vi. 4, Col. ii. 12, or the living
power of victory, which lies for the believer in the resurrection of Christ,
1 Estius, Storr, Heinrichs, and others, in-
cluding Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Rilliet, de
Wette, Winer.
2See also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 421, ed. 2.
CHAP. III. 10.
133
according to 2 Cor. iv. 10, Gal. ii. 20, Phil. iv. 13,—by means of which the
Christian," through his glorified Lord, himself also possesses an infinite
new power of acquiring victory over the world and death” (Ewald, comp.
de Wette, Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, Schenkel; substantially also Hof-
mann),--does not accord either with the words themselves (for so under-
stood it would be the power of the risen Christ, not the power of His resur-
rection), or with the following K. TŅU Kolvwvíav tūv Tiaon. autoð, which, in a
logical point of view (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10–12), must either have gone before,
or have been expressed by εν τη κοινωνία κ.τ.λ. The certainty of our own
resurrection and glory! is necessarily included also in the dúvajes, without,
however, being exclusively meant. By the series sermonis Bengel (comp.
Samuel Crell) has allowed himself to be misled into explaining áváoTaois,
not of the resurrection at all, but of the exortus or adventus of the Messiah,
References of various kinds are mixed up by Rheinwald, Flatt, Schinz,
Usteri, and others.--kaÌ TÀI KOLVWV. Tūv radnu. avron] In these words Paul
intends to express—and he does so by the repetition of the article with a
certain solemnity-a second, highly valuable relation, conditioned by the
first, to the experimental knowledge of which the possession of the right-
eousness of faith was destined to lead him, namely, the fellowship of the
sufferings of Christ, in which he sees a high proof of divine grace and dis-
tinction (i. 29, ii. 17 f.). Comp. Col. i. 24. Suffering for the sake of Christ's.
cause is a participation in Christ's sufferings (a couTÁO XELV, Rom. viii. 17),
because, as respects the characteristic kind and way of suffering, one
suffers the same that Christ suffered (according to the ethical category,
drinks of the same cup which Christ drank, Matt. xx. 22).” The expla-
nation which makes it: suffering with such a disposition of mind as He
suffered (as steadfastly, etc.), given by Flatt and others, is imported from
a rationalistic point of view; and the view which takes it in the sense of:
the believing appropriation of the merit of Christ (Calovius, Rheinwald, and
others), is opposed to the words, and at variance with the habitual con-
ception of a real ovttáo XELV with Christ, under which the sufferings of
Christian martyr's were regarded. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact,
have already in substance the correct view. Observe, moreover, that Paul
has not written Tiiv dúva ulv TñS KOLvwvíaç 1.7.2. (Hoelemann: “vim ac pondus;"
de Wette: "all that this fellowship involves ," comp. Corn. a Lapide :
“dulcedinem ac sanctitatem'); the yvūvat, on the contrary, relates to the
matter itself, to the knowledge of which only those righteous by faith can
attain, whilst to those righteous by the law it remains an unknown
element; the subjectivity for it is wanting to the latter, though the object-
ive suffering is present. It was otherwise with the previous element; for
the resurrection of Christ in itself—the fact as such-is known also by him
who is righteous through the law, but not so its Súvauis, of which only the
righteous through faith is aware. The knowledge of this dúvapis, in virtue
1 Estius, Cornelius & Lapide, Storr, Hein-
richs, Hoelemann, and others; comp. Pela-
gius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret,
and Theophylact.
2 Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 13, and see on 2 Cor. i. 5,
Col. i. 24; also on tiny vékpwow Toù 'Incoû, 2
Cor. iv. 10,
134
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
of which he experiences in the resurrection of Christ the abiding divinely
effectual guarantee of his justification and eternal life, makes him capable
also of recognizing in his sufferings for the sake of the gospel a fellowship
in the sufferings of Christ; the latter knowledge is conditioned by the
former; he would not have it without the former, because he would be
driven to look upon his faith as vain and idle, and upon himself, so far as
he suffers, as £mɛelvórepov trávtwv åv púrwv (1 Cor. xv. 14, 17, 19.) The enthu-
siastic feeling of drinking the cup of Christ is not possible, unless a man
bears in his heart the mighty assurance of salvation through the resurrec-
tion of the Lord.-συμμορφιζόμενος τώ θανάτω αυτου] denotes the coresponcling
situation (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10), in which Paul was conscious that he should
know, as one righteous by faith, the couvwvíav tūv na0. XplotoŨ: 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 pro-
gression from the general raðnuátwv to the definite Oavátw. And the sense :
"non detrectando mortem ejus morti similem” (Vatablus; comp. Matthies
and de Wette) is imported into the words, which by Grotius, van Hengel,
Rilliet, Schneckenburger, and others, are interpreted quite in opposition
to the context, as referring to the ethical dying to the world, its lusts, etc.
(Rom. vi.; Gal. ii. 19). The nominative ovjepopp., which is to be explained
as dependent, not in a clumsily complicated fashion on εúpɛdū (Grotius,
Hoelemann, Hofmann, and others), but on to yvūval K.T.., refers to its
logical subject. See Eph. iv. 2.
Ver. 11. Ei tws] if possibly, designating the aim, the attainment of which
is before the apostle's mind in the συμμορφιζόμενος το θαν. αυτού. In this
case, however, the deliberative form of expression (comp. Rom. i. 10; xi.
14; Kühner, II. 2, p. 1034) bears the impress, not of doubt that he will
attain to the resurrection of the dead (in case, namely, he should not live
to see the Parousia), but of humility under the conception of the greatness
of the bliss, and of the moral condition to which, on man's part, it is subject.1
This suffices also in opposition to Baur's doubt (Paulus, II. p. 79 f.) whether
Paul could have expressed himself in this way at all. The expression
excludes moral security, but not the certitudo salutis in itself, as, following
Estius and other Catholic expositors, Bisping still thinks. The certainty
of salvation is founded on God's decree, calling (Rom. viii. 29 f.), promise,
and attestation by the Spirit (Rom. viii. 10), in faith on the saving facts of
redemption (Rom. viii. 32 ff.). Comp. Calovius.—The reader could not
feel any doubt as to what éfaváoTaolç TūV verpūv Paul means, namely,
the first, in which oi Toũ XPLOTOŨ év tñ tapovolą aútoŰ (1 Cor. xv. 23) shall
UVO.
1oº Qapów yáp, onowv, OŬTW. OūTWS ÉTATELVO-
opóvel, öğrep állaxou dével' ó dokûv otávat,
BAETéTW un méon, Theophylact: comp. Chry-
sostom.
CHAP. III. 11, 12.
135
arise.1 Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 16. It is the resurrection of the dead kat éfoxt,
not different from the ảváotaolç TÔV dikaiw. See on Luke xiv. 14. Neverthe-
less, we must not find this resurrection denoted by the double compound
εξανάστ., the εξ in it conveying the idea εκ της γης εις τον αέρα (Theophylact).
This šš is simply to be explained by the conception ék tñs yñs, so that
neither in the substantial meaning nor even in style (Bengel: “Paulinus
enim stylus Christo adscribit ανάστασιν, εξανάστασιν Christianis ”) is εξανάστ.
to be distinguished from áváor.; but the former is to be explained solely
from the more vividly imaginative view of the event which the apostle
has before him. Comp. on 1 Cor. vi. 14. The double compound substan-
tive does not 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.
Compl. We may add, that while it has been explained, at variance with
the context, as referring to the ethical resurrection, Rom. vi. 4 f, it is
also erroneous to find in it the sense: “if perchance I should remain alive
until the resurrection of the dead" (van Hengel, Hilgenfeld); since, on the
contrary, essentially the same meaning is expressed as in Luke xx. 34 by
oi karafıWOÉVTES . . . tñs ávaoTápews, and it is conceived as a possible case
(comp. i. 20 ff., ii. 17) that Paul will not remain alive until the Parousia.
Katavt. eis (comp. Eph. iv. 13) denotes the attaining to a goal,4 which, how-
ever, is here not a point of time, but a bliss which is to be attained. Comp.
Acts xxvi. 7.
Vv. 12–14. [On Vv.12–16, see Note XVIII. pages 155, 156.] Protest, that in
what he had said in vv. 7-11 he had not expressed the fanciful idea of a Chris-
tian perfection already attained; but that, on the contrary, his efforts are
still ever directed forward towards that aim—whereby a mirror for self-con-
templation is held up before the Philippians in respect to the moral conceit
which disturbed their unity (ii. 244), in order to stir them up to a like
humility and diligence as a condition of Christian perfection (ver. 15).
Ver. 12. Oux örl] By this I do not mean to say that, etc. He might
encounter such a misconception on the part of his opponents; but "in
summo fervore sobrietatem spiritualem non dimittit apostolus," Bengel.
ñon šraßov] that I have already grasped it. The object is not named by Paul,
but left to be understood of itself from the context. The latter represents a
prize-runner, who at the goal of the otadiodpouía grasps the ßpaßɛžov (ver. 14).
1 It is incorrect to ascribe to the apostle the
idea that none but believers will rise at the
resurrection, and that unbelievers will re-
main in Hades (Weiss). The resurrection of
all, as Christ Himself unquestionably taught
it (see on John v. 28 f.; Luke xiv. 14), is also
in Paul's view the necessary premiss of the
judgment of all, of believers and also of unbe-
lievers (of the kookos, Rom. iii. 6; 1 Cor. vi.
2, xi. 32). That view, moreover, is at variance
with the apostle's distinct declaration in
Acts xxiv. 15, comp. xvii. 31. Gerlach proper-
ly declares himself (Letzte Dinge, p. 147 ff.)
opposed to Weiss, but still limits the final
judgment, at p. 101 ff., as regards the persons
subjected to it, in a way that is exegetically
altogether unjustifiable.
2 Flacius, Balduin, Coccejus, and others;
comp. Schrader.
3 This also applies against the view of Otto,
Pastoralbr. p. 233, who has altogether misun-
derstood vy. 11 and 12.
Frequently in Polybius, see Schweighāu-
ser, Lex. p. 332; see also the passages from
the LXX. and Apocr. in Schleusner, III. p.
234 f.
6 See on 2 Cor. i. 24, iii. 5; John vi. 46.
Aken, Lehre v. Temp. W. Mod. p. 91 ff.
136
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
This Spaßɛlov typifies the bliss of the Messiah's kingdom (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 24;
2 Tim. iv. 7, 8), which therefore, and that as Bpaßɛlov, is here to be con-.
ceived as the object, the attainment of which is denied to have already
taken place. And accordingly, traßov 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 Bpaßēžov, 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 Bpaßɛlov (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theo-
phylact, Erasmus, Bengel, Heinrichs, Rilliet, and others) is not proleptic;!
on the contrary, it is suggested by the idea of the race just introduced in
ver. 12, and is prepared for by the preceding katavrhow eis TÌV ÉGaváoTaoLV T.
vekp., in which the Messianic owinpía makes its appearance, and the grasp-
ing of the Bpaßɛžov is realized; hence it is so accordant with the context
that all other references are excluded. Accordingly, we must neither supply
metam generally (Beza, comp. Ewald); nor TÌv åváoTaoi (Rheinwald); nor
TÒV Xplotov (Theodoret; comp. Weiss); nor moral perfection (Hoelemann,
following Ambrosiaster and others); nor the right of resurrection (Grotius);
nor even “the Icnowledge of Christ which appropriates, imitates, and strives
to follow Him” (de Wette); 2 nor yet the katavtāv of ver. 11 (Matthies).—
707 Tetehelwual] or-in order to express without a figure that which had been
figuratively denoted by ñón fhaßou-were already perfected. [XVIII 6. c.]
For only the ethically perfected Christian, who has entirely become and is
(observe the perfect) what he was intended to become and be, would be
able to say with truth that he had already grasped the ſpaßɛlov, however
infallibly certain might be to him, looking at his inward moral frame of
life, the future owinpia. He who is not yet perfect has still always to run
after it; see the sequel. The words ñ ñon dedikaiwhai, introduced in con-
siderable authorities before ň, form a correct gloss, when understood in an
ethical sense. For instances of Tekelovoda.—which is not, with Hofmann, to
be here taken in the indefinite generality of being ready-in the sense of
spiritual perfection (comp. Heb. ii. 10, v. 9, xii. 23), see. Ast, Lex. Plat. III.
p. 369; comp. Philo, Alleg. p. 74 C, where the Bpaßεia are adjudged to the
soul, when it is perfected. To be at the goal (Hammond, Woll, Loesner,
Heinrichs, Flatt, Rilliet, and others), is a sense, which Teter, 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 téhecol in ver. 15 is correla-
tive with Tetɛlɛlwual.-StúkW Sé] [XVIII d.] but I pursue it, i.e. I strive after
'
1 As also Hofmann objects, who finds the
notion of the verb alone sufficient for express.
ing what is to be negatived, but yet likewisə
ultimately comes to eternal life as a supple-
ment; for that which is not yet attained is
one and the same with that which is one day
to be attained.
2 Comp. Ambrosiaster, Calvin, Vatablus, van
Hengel, Wiesinger.
3 This being perfected is not the result of
the ēraßov (Wiesinger, Weiss), but the moral
condition of him who can say ēdaßov. Note
that ñ is used, and not kai; kai might have
been taken as annexing the result.
CHAP. III. 12.
137
.
it with strenuous running; see ver. 14. The idea of urgent haste is con-
veyed. The dé has the force of an áaná in the sense of on the other hand;
Baeumlein, Partil. p. 95, and comp. on Eph. iv. 15. We must understand
TÒ Bpaßɛžov as object to diákw, just as in the case of thaſov and karañáßw;
hence stúkw is not to be taken absolutely (Rilliet; comp. Rheinwald, de
Wette, Hofmann), although this in itself would be linguistically admissible
(in opposition to van Hengel), see on ver. 14.2-Ei kai kataháßw] This ei is,
as in ki nwç, ver. 11, deliberative: if. I also, etc., the idea of Koreiv or some
similar word being before his mind; the compound kataráßw is more (in
opposition to Weiss) than thalov, and denotes the apprehension which
takes possession ; : and kaí implies : I not merely grasp. (Eraßov), but also
actually apprehend.4— ♡ kał katehnoOnu ÚTÒ X.] 5 because I was also appre-
hended by Christ. This is the determining ground of the diúkw, and of the
thought thereto annexed, ei kai kataháßw. Theophylact (comp. Chrysostom
and Theodoret) aptly remarks: DECKVÙS, ŐTL ópelan ÉGTi Tò Tipãyua, onoi dióti kai
Kate2100. ÚTÒ X. Otherwise, in fact, this having been apprehended would
not have been responded to on my part. Respecting èo? , on the ground
of this, that, i.e. propterea quod, see on Rom. v. 12; 2 Cor. v. 4. [XVIII e.]
The interpretation : for which, on which behalf (Oecumenius, Beza, Grotius,
Rheinwald, Rilliet, Weiss, and others), just as in iv. 10, is indeed linguis-
tically correct and simple; but it assigns the conversion of Paul, not to
the general object which it had (Gal. i. 16), but to a personal object. In
this case, moreover, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger supply TOŪTo previously,
which is not in accordance with the objectless šraßov. More artificial are
the explanations: whereunto, in the sense of obligation (Hoelemann);
under which condition (Matthies); in so far as (Castalio, Ewald); in the
presupposition, that (Baur); which is certain from the fact, that (subjective
ground of knowledge; so Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, II. p. 217). According
to Hofmann, Paul desires to give the reason why, and for what purpose, he
contemplates an apprehension. But thus the reference of È'W K.7.2. would
be limited to ei k, kataháßw, although the positive leading thought has been
introduced in Sibiu Sé. 'EⓇ' ♡ K.T.2. serves this leading thought along with
that of its accessory definition εi K. Karañáßw.-Kai] also, subjoins to the active
καταλάβω the ingeniously corresponding passive relation κατελήφθην. And
by katełndo. Paul expresses what at his conversion he experienced from
Christ (hence the corist); there is no need for suggesting the idea, foreign
to the context, of an apprehended fugitive (Chrysostom, Theophylact,
1 Abresch, ad Aesch. Sept. 90; Blomfield,
Gloss. Pers. 86.
2 Phavorinus: Stoketv #viore rò arts kara
o tovony édaúvelv; also Eustathius, ad Il.
xxiii. 344.
3 Comp. on Rom. ix. 30, 1 Cor. ix. 24, where
we have the same progression from damß. to
Katadauß.; Herod. ix. 58: SLWKTéou cioè és ô
καταλαμφθέντες.
42 Tim. iv. 7 does not conflict with our
passage, but is the confession at the end of the
course, “exemplum accipientis jam jamque,”
Bengel.
6 Comp. Plat. Tim. p. 38 D: ödev katadaußá-
vovoi te kai katadaußávovrat, 1 Cor. xiii. 12:
&alyvuoouai kalūs kai érreyvúo Onv, Ignatius,
Rom. 8: Bedňoate, iva kai wueis Deanonte, Thall.
5: modda yap vinir deitet, iva coû Men deltrúuela.
Paul is conscious that, being apprehended
by Christ, he may not and cannot do other-"
wise. Comp. Bengel : quoniam; sensus vir-
tutis Christi accendit Christianum.
138
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Theodoret, and others, including Flatt and van Hengel). The fact that at
that time Christ laid hold of him on his pre-Christian career, and took him
into His power and gracious guidance as His own, is vividly illustrated by
the figure, to which the context gave occasion, KateU. ÚTÒ X.
Vv. 13, 14. [XVIII f.] Once more, and with loving earnestness
(ådɛpoi), Paul says what he had already said in ver. 12 with oux ôtc ...
kataráßw; and in doing so, he brings more into relief in the first portion the
element of self-estimation, which in his own case he denies; and, in the
second part, he sets forth more in detail the idea : Siúkw dè ki k. katar.
Ėyù fuautóv] ego me ipsum, an emphatic mode of indicating one's own esti-
mation, in which one is both subject and object of the judgment. Comp.
John v. 30 f., vii. 17, viii. 54; Acts xxvi. 9, et al. A reference to the judg-
ment of others about him (Bengel, Weiss, and others; comp. also Hof-
mann) is here out of place.-oyibouai] I judge, I am of opinion, Rom. iii.
28, viii. 18, xiv. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 5, et al.; Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 13; Dem. lxiii.
12.—Ev dé] Comp. Anthol. Pal. vii. 455 : Êv Šávrà trávrwv, also the frequent
ÈV Móvov; see Stallbaum, ad. Plat. Symp. p. 184 C, Rep. p. 548 C. It is here
usually supplemented by Tolā (Chrysostom appears to have understood
TroLĀv). So also Winer, Buttmann, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ellicott. But
how arbitrarily, seeing that the context by what immediately precedes
suggests simply the supplying of hoyíšouai (XVIII g.] (not hojíš. katechnPÉval,
Oecumenius, Weiss), and this is in perfect harmony with the sense!
Hence we take it thus: “but one thing I think, unum censeo.” This one
thing which Paul thinks regarding the matter in question, in contrast to
the previous negative (dé, as in ver. 12), is then directly expressed by all
that follows from τα μεν οπίσω το εν Χ. Ί. Nearest to this contextual sup-
plement comes the Syriac, which has added vida, and Luther, who has
added λέγω. The supplying of λογίζομαι is confirmed by the cognate
opovõuev, ver. 15. Without supplying anything, ĉv sé has either been con-
nected with diúkw (thus Augustine, Serm. de divers. i. 6, Pierce, Storr, van
Hengel, and others), or has been taken absolutely : "unum contra !” see
Hoelemann, comp. Rheinwald. But the former is to be rejected, because
the subsequent Szórw 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 éori. Hofmann also comes at length in substance
to this latter supplement, mixing up an imaginary contrast to that which
the adversaries imputed to the apostle: over-against this, his conduct sub-
sequently described was the only thing which was quite right (?).-Tà lèv óriow]
what is behind, cannot be referred to what has been mentioned in vv. 5 and
6 and the category of those pre-Christian advantages generally (so in sub-
stance, Pelagius; tivès in Theodoret, Vatablus, Zeger, Wolf, and others,
also Ewald and Hofmann); this would be at variance with the context,
for τα μεν οπίσω επιλανθ. corresponds to the negation of the having already
20
w
1 0ủ belongs to doyisouar. The erroneous
reference to Katelandévai produced the read-
ing oŰTW (ADX min. vss. and Fathers), which
Tischendorf 8. has adopted.
CHAP. III. 13, 14.
139
attained or being perfect in ver. 12, and must therefore apply to the pre-
vious 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.-én chavhav.] forgetting, like the
runner who dismisses from his mind the space already traversed, and fixes
his thoughts only on what still lies before him. This is surely no break in
the internal connection (as Hofinann objects); on the contrary, like the
runner pressing forward, Paul in his continuous restless striving overlooks
the degree of moral perfection already attained, which he would not do,
if he reckoned it already as itself perfection. Érihavõáveo al is joined with
the genitive and accusative; the simple verb, on the contrary, only with
the genitive. See Kühner, II. 1, p. 313. On the use of the word in the
sense of intentional forgetting, comp. Herod. iii. 75, iv. 43; 1 Macc. i. 49.
It thus amounts to the sense of nullam rationem habere. -Tos dè pobDev
ÉTEKTELVÓu.but stretching myself out towards that which is before. The dative
is governed by the verb compounded with śni,? the éní intimating the
direction. In the case of such an one running "prono et quasi praecipiti
corpore” (Beza), “oculus manum, manus pedem praevertit et trahit,"
Bengel.3 Tà šump. represent the higher stages of Christian perfection not
yet attained. Katà OKOTÒV SÚKw] I hasten towards the goal, therefore in a
straight course towards the prize of victory. . The opposite : ÁTÒ GKOTTOV,
Hom. Od. xi. 344, xxii. 6; Plat. Theaet. p. 179 C, Tim. p. 25 E; Xen. Conv.
ii. 10; Lucian, Icarom. 2; and napà okomóv, Pind. Ol. xiii. 144. On diúkw
without an accusative of the object (in opposition to van Hengel), comp. Xen.
Anab. vii. 2. 20, vi. 5. 25 (Spóuw GLÓKELV); Aesch. Sept. 89; Buttmann, Lexil.
p. 219; Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 213. Comp. on ver. 12. The prize of
victory (rò Bpaßɛcov, see on 1 Cor. ix. 24; Clem. Cor. I. 5; Schol. min. ad
Soph. El. 680; Oppian, Cyneg. iv. 196; Lycophr. 1154) represents the sal-
vation of the Messiah's Kingdom (see on ver. 12), to which God has called
man. Hence: tñs åvw Kaņoews, a genitive which is to be taken not as appo-
sitional (de Wette, Schenkel), but as the genitive of the subject : the
Bpaßɛžov, to which the calling relates. Comp. Luther: “which the heavenly
calling holds out.” This is therefore the object of the tic tñs khhoews
(Eph. i. 18, iv. 4).— àvw kañols toŨ Ocov [XVIII .] is the calling which issued
from God above in heaven (on åvw, comp. Col. iii. 2, Gal. iv. 26; and on the
subject-matter, Heb. iii. 1), by which He has called us to the owTnplia of
His kingdom. The general form of expression, not even limited by a
pronoun (such as tējs éjñs), does not allow us to think only of the miracu-
1 Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. p. 294.
2 Krüger, & 48. 11. 5; Nägelsbach, zur Ilias,
p. 30, ed. 3.
8 On the verb, comp. Strabo, xvii. p. 800;
Aristot. Poet. 21; Plut. Mor. p. 1147 A.
4 Tà épe at poolev, is thus conceived by the
apostle as that which still lies further in prospect
after every advance in the ethical course; not as
that which lay before him in consequence of his
conversion (contrasting with his pre-Christian
efforts), as Hofmann thinks. It is the over
new, greater, and loftier task which he sees
before him, step after step.
6 Comp. the Platonic καλόν το άθλον και η
idris meyádn, Phaed. p. 114 C.
140
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
lous calling of the apostle himself ; this is rather included under the general
Category of the άνω κλήσεις του θεού, which in the individual Cases may have
taken historically very different forms. The åvw, which in itself is not
necessary, is added, because Paul is thoroughly filled with the conscious-
ness of the divine nature of the kinoes in its exaltedness above everything
that is earthly. Lastly, the kañois itself is, as always (even in 2 Thess. i.
11), the act of calling; not that whereto one is called (de Wette), or "le
bonheur céleste même” (Rilliet); and the general currency of the idea
and expression forbids us also, since no indication of the kind is given, to
conceive of God as βραβευτής or βραβεύς, as the judge of the contest, who
through the herald summons the runners to the race (Grotius, Wolf,
Rosenmüller, am Ende, Hoelemann, van Hengel, Wiesinger); rñs åvw kł.
T. O. serves to define more accurately that which is figuratively denoted by
Bpaßěžov, but does not itself form a part of the allegory.—Ėv X. 'I.] is rightly
(so also Weiss) joined by Chrysostom to diákw ? [XVIII i.). This thought,
that the diúKELV just described is done by him in Christ, as the great
upholding and impelling element of life in which amidst this activity he
moves, is emphatically placed at the end as that which regulates all his
efforts. The usual connection of these words with T. ăvw kahoews T. Okov, in
which the calling is understood as brought about through Christ (rather:
having its causal ground in Christ), yields a superfluous and self-obvious
definition of the kinous already so accurately defined; although the con-
necting article would not be necessary, since, according to the construc-
tion kahetv év X. (1 Cor. vii. 22; 1 Pet. v. 10), év X. 'I. might be joined with
KANOEws so as to form one idea. A contrast to the calling issued to Israel
to be God's people on earth, is groundlessly suggested by Hofmann.
Ver. 15. Application of the passage vv. 12–14 for the benefit of the
Philippians, down to ver. 17.-TÉNELOL] [XVIII ;.] denotes not perfection,
like tetehelwual in ver. 12, but the moral ripeness which, with differences of
degree in the case of individuals, belongs to the true Christian state that
has advanced beyond the novitiate-that Christian maturity in which one
is no longer výlos év XplorQ; comp, on 1 Cor. ii. 6, iii. 1; Eph. iv. 13.
The τετελείωμαι is the ideal goal of the development of this τέλειον είναι,
contradistinguished from the VITIONS. The special aspect of this maturity,
which Paul had in view in using téhelol, is to be regarded, not as
theoretical knowledge—the doctrine of righteousness by faith being con-
ceived to be specially referred to (Erasmus, Wolf, Rheinwald, and
others),—but as the moral character and striving of believers, as appears
from ver. 13 f., along with which the corresponding relation of practical
insight is self-evident as a necessary presupposition (comp. Col. iv. 12, i.
28); although there is no reason to suppose that particular questions in
this domain (such as those relating to sacrificial flesh, faşts, feasts, and the
like) had arisen in Philippi and occasioned division, of which no trace
1 Pollux, iii. 145; Blomf. Gloss. ad Aesch.
Pers. 307.
3 év XplotŲ 'Ingoû TOÛTO Trocw, pnoiv. oủ yap
évi xwpis oñs ékeivov potñs TogoûTOV Oled deir
Siáornja. Comp. Theodoret and Oecumenius.
8 Comp. Clem. Cor. I. 46.
CHAP. III. 15.
141
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 0001-with
which we are to supply sumus simply, and not volumus esse-Paul leaves
it to the conscientious judgment of every reader whether he, on his part,
belongs to the number of the TémeLOL ; but by including himself in this
predicate, and yet having previously negatived the 70tetemeiwuar in his
own case (ver. 12), the apostle rernoves all idle misunderstanding and
abuse of his words which might tend to moral pride, and then by TOŪTO
opovúuev leaves room only for the consciousness: Ús redelov tò un vouíČElv
ÉCUTÒV TÉNELOV εivat, Chrysostom. A tone of irony (Schenkel) is utterly alien
to the heartfelt character of the whole discourse, which is, moreover, in
this application, ver. 15, so expressed as to include the apostle in common
with his readers. To the Catholic fictions of a state of perfection the pas-
sage is in direct opposition.-TOŪTO opovājuev] [XVIII k.] let us have this
frame of mind, namely, which I, in ver. 13 f., have just expressed as mine;
the frame of humble self-estimation, and at the same time incessant
pressing forward. Grotius holds quite arbitrarily that Paul reverts to
what he had said in ver. 3. But it is also wrong to seek the reference of
TOŪTO Ppov. in the passage from ver. 4 onwards: "renunciandum esse splen-
didis virtutibus Judd. (vv. 4–7), contra in solo Christo acquiescendum
(vv. 8-10) et ad victricem palmam studio indefesso annitendum
(vv. 12-14),” Hoelemann;' similarly Hofmann, who makes it refer to the
entire presentation-joining on to ver. 3—of a frame of mind which is
opposed to the disposition of those against whom they are to be on their
guard. Vv. 4-11 are certainly said by way of warning against the false
teachers, and are opposed to these; but this opposition is of a dogmatic
nature, for the upholding of the Pauline fundamental doctrine against
Judaism, and it is only ver. 12 that begins what has regard to the moral
progress of the Church in the right way pressing onward to the goal, in
which respect Paul desires to serve for their model (ver. 17),-as which he
has sketched himself in ver. 13 f., when he begins with ảdɛapoi and intro-
duces his εγώ. Besides, the φρονώμεν, which is correlative with the λογίζομαι,
does not point back beyond ver. 13 f. Therefore, not even the appropria-
tion of Christ, vy. 8–11, is to be included in the reference of the towTo (in
opposition to de Wette and Wiesinger). Van Hengel is inclined to refer
τούτο το το βραβείον ; but the readers needed the exhortation to the right
mode of striving after the Bpaßɛlov, and not the summons generally, that
they should have the Bpaß. in view. This applies also against the similar,
although more exact, interpretation of Fritzsche (Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 92):
"hac mente simus sc. ut. Tò Bpaß. Tñs åvw xhNoews consectemur.”-każ εi TL ÉTÉOWS
opov.] and if as to any point (Ti, accusative of the object) ye be otherwise
minded, take up another way of thinking, varying, namely, from that
specified in ToĪTO Opovõuev. A man may, forsooth, have in general the
1 Comp. Calvin, Wolf, Heinrichs, and others, including Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Rilliet,
and Reiche.
142
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
same frame of mind which Paul has represented in himself, and to which
he has summoned his readers; but at the same time an isolated concrete
case (vi) may occur, which a man cannot fit into the opoveiv 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 éniyvwois and
aionous eis tò Sokluáčelv K.T.., i. 9, in the moral judgment which deter-
mines the Ppoveīv. Hofmann arbitrarily limits the ti to some matter inde-
pendent of the essential disposition of the Christian life. This sense would
have required a more precise definition, in order to be found. And the
hope which is uttered in the apodosis, is in perfect harmony with the
prayer in i. 9 f.; hence Hofmann's objection, that the readers must have
themselves corrected the fault which according to our view here emerges, is
quite groundless. The subject addressed is the readers generally (see ver.17),
not the výttiol (Hunnius, Wolf, Bengel, Storr, and others, including Flatt,
Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Rilliet, Reiche), whom several expositors have
regarded as those who had not yet raised themselves to the pure right-
eousness of faith excluding the law (see Rheinwald and Reiche), or who
had allowed themselves to be led away by false teachers (see Hunnius,
Grotius, Storr). But setting aside the arbitrariness generally with which
this contrast is introduced, it is opposed by the fact, that Paul does not
assume any thorough and essential diversity in the opovɛīv, but only such
a variation as might affect some one or other isolated point (Tè), and that
not in the doctrinal, but in the moral province of Christian conduct.
Moreover, if persons led astray were here in question, nothing would be
less in harmony with the character of the apostle than the hopeful toler-
ance which is expressed in the words kaì TOūTO ... årokahúyel. Lastly,
the change of person in opposition to Bengel) was necessary, because
Paul, speaking of a partial étépws Opoveiv, could not include himself.-In
ÉTÉpws, otherwise (not occurring elsewhere in the N. T.), there is implied,
according to the context, an unfavorable sense, the notion of incorrectness,
secius quam oportet ;? just as repos (comp. on šaro, Gal. v. 10) may denote
even that which is bad or hostile.” It is here the ÉTEPODOxelv (Plat. Theaet.
pp. 190 E, 193 D), as frame of mind. This has not been attended to by
van Hengel, when he takes with equal unsuitableness ti in an emphatic
sense, and dpoveiv as to strive for: “si quid boni per aliam viam expetitis,
quam ego persequor.”—KaÌ TOūTO Ó Oeds Üll. átok.] Expression of the hope
that such variations will not fail to be rectified, on the part of God, by His
revealing operation. Certainly, therefore, the variations, which Paul so
forbearingly and confidently and without polemical handling commits to
revealing correction on the part of God, were not on matters of principle
or of an anti-Pauline character.--każ toūro] this also, like other things,
which He has already revealed unto you; so that in kaì is contained the
' i Comp. Hom. Od. i. 234; Dem. 298. 22, 597.
3; Eustath. ad Od. p. 1448. 2; Soph. Phil. 503;
Valckenaer, Diatr. p. 112.
2 Wisd. xix. 3; Dissen. ad Pind. Nem. viii. 3,
Pyth. iii. 54; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p.
321.
CHAP. III. 15, 16.
113
1
idea also still (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 135). Hofmann erroneously says
that kai implies : there, where the disposition is present, which I require. It
in fact belongs to TOŪTO. This TOŪTO, however, is not: that ye, but what ye
wrongly think; the frame of mind in question, as it ought to be instead of
the &tépws opoveīv, not: "whether you are right or I” (Ewald). The
passage is very far from betraying uncertainty or want of firmness (Baur).
-The arrokahúpel, which is to be taken as' purely future, is conceived by
Paul as taking place through the Holy Spirit (see Eph. i. 17; Col. i. 10), not
by human instruction (Beza). He might also have written didážel (comp.
Deodidaktol, 1 Thess. iv. 9; also John vi. 45), by which, however, the special
kind of instruction which he means would not have been indicated. This
is the inward divine unveiling of ethical truth, which is needed for the
practical reason of him who in any respect otherwise opoveī than Paul has
shown in his own example: for ou tepi doyuátwv Taūta eipntal, alià tepi
Blov TELELOTITOS kai TOū un vouíçelv ÉAUTOÙS Temelouç elvar, Chrysostom. Where-
ever in this moral respect the right frame of mind is not yet completely
present in one or the other, Paul trusts to the disclosing operation of God
Himself, whose Spirit rules and works in the Church and its individual
members.
Ver. 16. [XVIII e.] A caution added to the precept given in ver. 15,
and the promise coupled with it: Only let there be no deviation in the
prosecution of the development of your Christian life from the point to
which we have attained! Neither to the right nor to the left, but forward
in the same direction! This warning Paul expresses briefly and precisely
thus: “ Only whereto we have attained,-according to the same to direct your
walk !”--that is, "however ye may be in some point otherwise minded
and, therefore, may have to await further revelation, at all events ye ought
not to deviate--this must in every case be your fundamental rule—from
that whereto we have already attained in the Christian life; but, on the con-
trary, should let the further direction of your moral walk be deterinined by that
same.” Such a general precept addressed to the Philippians conveys an
honorable testimony to the state of their moral constitution on the whole,
however different in individuals we may conceive the point to be from
which Paul says εis ő p0., as is evident from the very fact that he includes
himself in the eis ô &go., which could not but honor and stimulate the
readers. On ahv, nisi quod, comp. i. 18; on pdávelv εis, to attain to anything,
comp. Matt. xii. 28; Luke xi. 26; 1 Thess. ii. 16 (ění); Rom. ix. 31; Dan.
iv. 19; Tob. v. 18; Plut. Mor. p. 338 A; Apollod. xii. 242. It denotes the
having come forward, the having advanced. Ewald takes it: if we had the
advantage (see 1 Thess. iv. 15, and the common classical usage), that is :
“in what we already possess much better and higher than Judaism.”
But this reference to Judaism is not given in the text, which aims to
10ecumenius, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide,
Fritzsche, l. c. p. 93.
2 Calvin aptly says: “Nemo ita loqui jure
posset, nisi cui certa constat suae doctrinae
ratio et veritas."
81 Cor. ii. 14, iii. 16; Eph. i. 17, ii. 21 f.; Rom.
viii. 9, 15, 26; Gal. v. 22, 25, et al.
144.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
secure generally their further progress in the development of Christian
life. On otoLxxiv with the dative of the rule: to advance (march) according
to something, that is, to direct oneself in one's constant conduct by some-
thing, see on Gal. v. 16, 25. The infinitive, however, as the expression of
a briefly measured wish or command, without supplying réyw, dei, or the
like (which Buttmann requires, Neut. Gr. p. 233 [E. T. 272]), stands in
place of the imperative, as in Rom. xii. 15;1 Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 86.
Fritzsche, however, Diss. II. 2 Cor. p. 93, has erroneously made the infini-
tive dependent on árokahótel: "praeterea instituet vos, ut, quam ego con-
secutus sum tô Bpaßεiw rīs åvw Kłñoews intentam mentem, ejusdem parti-
cipes fieri ipsi annitamini.” Comp. Oecumenius. Decisive against this
view is the plural épácajiev, which, according to the context (ver. 15), can-
not apply merely to Paul, as well as the fact that the antithesis of persons
(ego ... ipsi) is gratuitously introduced. Michaelis, who is followed by
Rilliet, closely unites ver. 16 with the sequel, but in such a way that only
un awkward arrangement of the sentences is attained, and the nervous
vigor of the concise command is taken away. The siç ô šobáo.-which
cannot in accordance with the context denote the having attained to
Christianity, to the being Christian (Hofmann's view, which yields a mean-
ing much too vague and general)-has been rightly explained by Chry-
sostom and Theophylact as relating to the attainments in the Christian life,
which are to be maintained, and in the further development of which
constant progress is to be made (8 katwpoúrajev, katéxwļev, Theophylact).
Comp. Schinz and van Hengel. This view is corroborated by the sequel,
in which Paul represents himself as model of the wallc; and therefore it
is not to be referred merely to the measure of the right frame of mind
attained (Weiss). Most expositors understand the words as signifying the
measure of Christian knowledge acquired (so also Heinrichs, Flatt, Rhein-
wald, Matthies, Hoelemann, de Wette, Wiesinger), in conformity with
which one ought to live. In connection with this, various arbitrary defi-
nitions of the object of the knowledge have been suggested, as, for instance,
by Grotius: “de circumcisione et ritibus;" Heinrichs and de Wette:
concerning the main substance of the Christian faith apart from secondary
matters; Schneckenburger: "that man is justified by faith, and not by
the works of the law ;” along with which de Wette lays stress on the point
that it is not the individual more or less perfect knowledge (so usually ;
see Flatt, Rheinwald, Matthies) that is meant, but the collective conviction,
the truths generally recognized. But the whole interpretation which
refers it to Icnowledge is not in keeping with the text; for épbáoajev, correl-
ative with otolxeiv, presents together with the latter a unity of figurative
1 See Hom. N. i. 20, and Nägelsbach in loc.;
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 473 A; Pflugk, ad
Eur. Heracl. 314.
2 This is thrown out as a suggestion also by
Hofmann, according to whom the infinitive
clause ought "perhaps more correctly" to be
coupled with oudereuntai k.t.d., and taken as
a prefixed designation of that in doing which
they are to be his imitators and to have their
attention directed to those, etc. Thus the
infinitive would come to stand as infinitive of
the aim. But even thus the whole attempt
would be an artificial twisting of the passage
without reason or use.
CHAP. III. 16, 17.
145
view, the former denoting the point of the way already attained, and tô
avrò OTOLZETV, perseverance in the direction indicated by that attainment.
Therefore, if by OTOlXETV there is clearly (see ver. 17) intended the moral
conduct of life, this also must be denoted by eis ô špo. as respects its
quality attained up to the present time. Moreover, if eis Ô &00. is to be
understood as referring to Icnowledge, there would be no motive for the
prominence given to the identity by τώ αυτό.
REMARK.—What Paul means in ver. 16 may be illustrated thus :
D
.
A
Here B is the point of the development of Christian life εis ô épbáoajev, which,
in the case of different individuals, may be more or less advanced. The tớ avrõ
OTOLXETV 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 tự avtý OTOLXETV. The reproach of uncertainty which Wiesinger
brings against this canon, because a Étépus opovɛīv may take place which does not
lie in the same direction, and generally because the power of sin might hinder
the following out of this direction, would also apply in opposition to every other
explanation of the εis Ô +90., and particularly to that of the knowledge attained;
but it is altogether unfounded, first, because the ÉTÉPWs opoveiv only refers to one
or another concrete single point (Tl), so that the whole of moral attainment–the
collective development-which has been reached is not thereby disturbed ; and,
secondly, because Paul in this case has to do with a church already highly advanced
in a moral point of view (i. 5 ff.), which he might, at all events generally, enjoin
to continue in the same direction as the path in which they had already travelled.
Very groundless is also the objection urged by Hofmann, that the εis ô é 8. must
necessarily be one and the same for all. This is simply to be denied; it is an
utterly arbitrary assumption.
Ver. 17. [On Vv. 17–21, see Note XIX. pages 157, 158.] In carrying out this
command they are to follow his example, which he has previously held
up to their view, especially from ver. 12 onwards.-ovujiuntal] [XIX a.]
co-imitators, is a word not elsewhere preserved. Comp., however, ovull-
Povlevol, Plat. Polit. p. 274 D. otv is neither superfluous (Heinrichs, comp.
Hofmann), nor does it refer to the imitation of Christ in common with the
apostle (Bengel, Ewald),—a reference which cannot be derived from the
remote i. 30-ii. 8, and which would be expressed somewhat as in 1 Cor. xi.
1; 1 Thess. i. 6. Neither does it refer to the obligation of his readers col-
lectively to imitate him (Beza, Grotius, and others, including Matthies,
Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette), so that "omnes uno consensu et una
mente” (Calvin) would be meant; but it means, as is required by the con-
text that follows: "una cum aliis, qui me imitantur (Estius ; comp. Eras-
mus, Annot., Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Wiesinger, Weiss, Ellicott, and
10
146
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
others). Theophylact aptly remarks: ovyko2ağ avtoùs tots kalūs arePLTTATOWOL,
whereby the weight of the exhortation is strengthened.---OKOTEīrɛ] direct your
view to those who, etc., namely, in order to become imitators of me in like
manner as they are. Other Christians, not Philippians, are meant, just as
ver. 18 also applies to those of other places.--kaðús] [XIX 6.] does not
correspond to the outw, as most expositors think, but is the 'argumentative
“as” (see on i. 7), by which the two previous requirements, ovipuluntai K.7.2.
and GKOTTEITE.K.T.2., are established: in measure as ye have us for an example.
This interpretation (which Wiesinger and Weiss adopt) is, notwithstand-
ing the subtle distinction of thought which Hofmann suggests, required
both by the second person έχετε (not έχουσι) and by the plural ημάς (not
été). This juās refers not to the apostle alone [XIX c.] (so many, and still
de Wette; but in this case, as before, the singular would have been lised),
nor yet generally to the apostle and his companions (van Hengel, Baum-
garten-Crusius, Lightfoot), especially Timothy (Hofmann), or to all tried
Christians (Matthies); but to him and those oŰtw (in this manner, imitative
of me) περιπατούντας. This view is not at variance with τύπον in the singu-
lar (de Wette); for the several túto of individuals are conceived collectively
as Tutos. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 7 (Lachmann, Lünemann). This predicative
TUTTOV, which is therefore placed before nuās, is emphatic.
Ver. 18. (XIX d.] Admonitory confirmation of the injunction in ver.
17.- Epilatoñow] is not to be defined by kakās (Oecumenius), or longe aliter
(Grotius; comp. Syr.); nor is it to be taken as circulantur (comp. 1 Pet. v.
8) (Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt), which is at variance with the context in ver,
17. Calvin, unnaturally breaking up the plan of the discourse, makes
the connection: "ambulant terrena cogitantes” (which is prohibited by the
very article before éniy. Apov.), and puts in a parenthesis what intervenes
(so also Erasmus, Schmid, and Wolf); whilst Estius quite arbitrarily over-
leaps the first relative clause, and takes neper. along with GV TÒ TÉRoç 1.7.2.
Erasmus (see his Annot.) and others, including Rheinwald, van Hengel,
Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, and Weiss, consider the discourse as
broken off, the introduction of the relative clauses inducing the writer to
leave out the modai definition of Tepit. Hofmann transforms the simple
Néyelv (comp. Gal. i. 9) into the idea of naming, and takes toùs éxOpouç as its
object-predicate, in which case, however, the mode of the TEPITATEīv would
not be stated. On the contrary, the construction is a genuine Greek mode
of attraction,? so framed, that instead of saying: many wa.llc as the enemies
of the cross, this predicative definition of mode is drawn into the relative
clause oüs Toklákıç k.7.8.9 and assimilated to the relative; comp. Plat. Rep.
p. 402 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 možnákls, emphatically corresponding with the oroi (2
1 See also 2 Thess. iii. 9 ; comp. generally,
Bernhardy, p. 58 f.; Kühner, II. 1, p. 12 f.
2 See Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. 15; Plugk. ad
Eur. Hec. 771; Kühner, II. 2, p. 925; Buttm.
Neut. Gr. p. 68 (E. T. 77).
8 Hence also the conjecture of Laurent
(Neut. Stud. p. 21 f.), that ois toddárces ...
átölela is a supplementary marginal note in-
serted by the apostle, is unwarranted.
CHAP. III, 18, 19.
147
Cor. viii. 22), refers to the apostle's presence in Philippi; whether, at an earlier
date in an epistle (see on iii. 1), he had thus characterized these enemies of
the cross (Flatt, Ewald), must be left undecided. But it is incorrect to make
these words include a reference (Matthies) to ver. 2, as in the two passages
different persons (see below) must be described.--vūv dè kaì khaiwv] dià ri;
ότι επέτεινε το κακόν, ότι δακρύων άξιοι οι τοιούτοι ... ούτως έστι συμπαθ-
NTCKÒS, OűtW ppovtičec trávrwv åv@púrwv, Chrysostom. The deterioration of
these men, which had in the meanwhile increased, now extorts tears from
the apostle on account of their own ruin and of their ruinous influence.
TOÙS & x0p. T. 07. T. X.] The article denotes the class of men characteris-
tically defined. We must explain the designation as referring, not to
enemies of the doctrine of the cross (Theodoret: ús didáckovTAF Ött díza tñc
vouekſs Tolutelaç ásúvatov owinpias Tuxɛīv, so in substance Luther, Erasmus,
Estius, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, and many others; also Hein-
richs, Rheinwald, Matthies), so that passages such as Gal. v. 11, vi. 12,
would have to be compared; but, as required by the context which fol-
lows, to Christians of Epicurean tendencies (év ávével SWVTES K. Truon, Chry-
sostom; comp. Theophylact 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 taðnuata toù Xplotov (2 Cor. i. 5), so that it is hate-
ful to them to suffer with Christ (Rom. viii. 17). Comp. ver. 10, also Gal.
vi. 14. In opposition to the context, Rilliet and Weiss understand non-
Christians, who reject Christianity with hostile disdain, because its founder
was crucified (comp. 1 Cor. i. 18, 23), or because the preaching of the cross
required the crucifixion of their own lusts (Weiss); Calvin interpreted it
generally of hypocritical enemies of the gospel. This misunderstanding
ought to have been precluded by the very use of the tragic Tordoi, the mel-
ancholy force of which lies in the very fact that they are Christians, but
Christians whose conduct is the deterrent contrast to that which is re-
quired in ver. 17. We have still to notice that the persons here depicted
are not the same as those who were described in ver. 2 (contrary to the usual
view, which is also followed by Schinz and Hilgenfeld); for those were
teachers, while these monoi are Christians generally. The former might
indeed be characterized as éxopoi T. otaypoở T. 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 ών ο Θεός ή κοιλία, ver. 19.
Hoelemann, de Wette, Liinemann, Wiesinger, Schenkel, and Hofmann
have justly pronounced against the identity of the two; Weiss, however,
following out his wrong interpretation of kúves in ver. 2 (of the heathen),
maintains the identity to a certain extent by assuming that the conduct
of those kúveç is here described; while Baur makes use of the passage to
deny freshness, naturalness, and objectivity to the polemic attack here
made on the false teachers.
Ver. 19. A more precise deterrent delineation of these persons, having
the most deterrent element put foremost, and then those points by which it
1 See, besides, in opposition to Weiss, Huther in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1862, p. 630 ff.
148
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
was brought about.--Úv TÒ TÉRos anón..] By this is meant Messianic perdi-
tion, eternal condemnation (comp. i. 28), which is the ultimate destiny ap-
pointed (76) for them (Téhoç is not: recompense, see Rom. vi. 21; 2 Cor. xi.
15; Heb. vi. 8). For corresponding Rabbinical passages, see Wetstein
and Schoettgen, Hor. p. 801.-v ó Ogos o kolhía] harpevovor yàp is Osų taut?
Cycl. 334 f. ; Senec. de benef. vii. 26; and the maxim of those whose highest
good is eating and drinking, 1 Cor. xv. 32. It is the yactpepapyía (Plat.
Phaed. p. 81 E; Lucian, Amor. 42) in its godless nature.—Kai Sófa K.7.2.]
also dependent on wv: and whose honor is in their shame, that is, who find
their honor in that which redounds to their shame, as for instance, in
revelling, haughty behavior, and the like, in which the immoral man is
fond of making a show. Ý Soça is subjective, viewed from the opinion
of those men, and tñ aloxúvn is objective, viewed according to the reality of
the ethical relation. On kivai šv, versari in, to be found in, to be contained
in something, comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 470 E : év TOÚTO) Ý Tãoa cúšalpovía totiv,
Eur. Phoe. 1310 : oỦc ép giơ run rà sá. The view, foreign to the context,
which refers the words to circumcision, making alox. signify the genitals
(Schol. Ar. Equ. 364; Ambrosiaster; Hilary; Pelagius; Augustine, de verb.
apost. xv.5; Bengel; Michaelis; Storr), is already rejected by Chrysostom and
his successors.-oi Tà ériyela opovoûvtes] [XIX c.] 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 puts 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 individu-
alizing (ii, qui) article of apposition.3
Ver. 20. After Paul has, by way of confirmation and warning, subjoined
to his exhortation given in ver. 17 the deterrent example of the enemies
of the cross of Christ in ver. 18 f., he now sketches by the side of that
deterrent delineation-in outlines few, but how clear !—the inviling picture
of those whom, in ver. 17, he had proposed as TÚTOS.-~yáp] [XIX f.] The
train of thought runs thus : “ Justly I characterize their whole nature by
the words oι τα επίγεια φρονούντες ; for it is the direct opposite of ours; our
Todítevua, the goal of our aspiration, is not on earth, but in heaven.” yáp
therefore introduces a confirmatory reason, but not for his having said that
the earthly nuind of the rolloi necessarily involves such a walk (Hofmann);
for he has not said this, and what follows would not be a proof of it. The
apostle gives, rather, an experimental proof e contrario, and that for what
immediately precedes, not for the remote Úv TÒ TÉRos år whela (Weiss). põr]
VES
1 They were KOLMlodaijoves (Eupolis in
Athen. iii. p. 100 B), Tàs tñs yaorpos ģdovàs
Tibéjevou métpov cúdaluovias (Lucian, Patr.
enc. 10); Tû yaotpi Metpoûvtes kai tois aioxio-
Tous The Edgatovkav (Dem. 524. 24.)
verbal ka@' ütepBoliv, émri Toúrols ús kadois
oeuvúeolai kai fleyanavyelv, and also Plat.
Theact. p. 176 D; àyállovtal ydp row oveídel.
2. Comp. Polyb. xv. 23. 5: é' ols expñv aloxú.
3 Comp. Winer, p. 172 (E. T. 183]; Buttmann,
Neut. Gr. p. 69 [E. T. 79).
CHAP. III. 20.
149
emphatically placed first; contrast of the persons. These reis, however,
are the same as the nuās in ver. 17, consequently Paul himself and the
ούτω περιπατούντες.-το πολίτευμα] the Commonwealth, which may bear the
sense either of: the state ;? or the state-administration ;? or its principles ; 3 or
the state-constitution. Here, in the first sense : Our cominonwealth, that is,
the state to which we belong, is in heaven. By this is meant the Messiah's
kingdom which had not yet appeared, which will only at Christ's Parousia
(comp. &š oủ k.7.2. which follows) come down from heaven and manifest
itself in its glory on earth. It is the state of the heavenly Jerusalem (see on
Gal. iv. 26; comp. Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 190; Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 59.);
of which true Christians are citizens (Eph. ii. 19) even now before the
Parousia in a proleptic and ideal sense (ËT' ¿anidc tñs Sogns, Rom. v. 2;
comp. viii. 24), in order that one day, at the ĖTLQávela rñs tapovolaç ToŨ kupiou
(2 Thess. ii. 8), they may be so in complete reality (comp. Heb. xii. 22 f.,
xiii. 14), as kolvwvoi tñs uehhovons åtokakut tegðal dóšns (1 Pet. v. 1; Col. iii. 4),
nay, as ouußao NEVOVTES (2 Tim. ii. 12; comp. Rom. viii. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 8).
Hence, according to the necessary psychological relation, “where your
treasure is, there will your heart be also " (Matt. vi. 21), they opovovou, not
T.à émiyela, but tà ävw (Col. iii. 1 f.), which serves to explain the logical cor-
rectness of the γάρ in its relation to oι τα επίγ. φρον. Others, following the
Vulgate (conversatio), render it: our wallc, making the sense, “tota
vita nostra quasi jam nunc apud Deum naturasque coelestes puriores
versatur, longe remota a TOTS Érlykiois eorumque captatione” (Hoelemann).
So Luther (who up till 1528 rendered it " citizenship'), Castalio, Erasmus,
Calvin, Grotius, and many others, including Matthies, van Hengel, de
Wette; while Rheinwald mixes up interpretations of various kinds. This
rendering is not justified by linguistic usage, which indeed vouches for
Tohiteveolal (i. 27) in this sense, and for molteia (Clem. Cor. I.54: Toiteteodal
Tohitelav Osov, Ep. ad Diogn. 5), but not for rohitevua, not even in Eus. H.
E. v. prooem. Nor does linguistic usage even permit the interpretation :
citizenship. So Luther, in the Postil. Epist. D. 3, post f. pasch.: "Here on
earth we are in fact not citizens ...; our citizenship is with Christ in
heaven ..., there we are to remain for ever citizens and lords; " comp.
Beza, Balduin, Erasmus Schmid, Zachariae, Flatt, Wiesinger, Ewald,
Weiss, and others. This would be moreteia. Theophylact's explanation,
Tiv Tarpida (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
(Tòv ovpavòv pavracóuena) and Oecumenius (otpatevóue(a) appear to follow the
rendering conversatio.—où kai k.1.2.] And what a happy change is before
12 Macc. xii. 7; Polyb. i. 13. 12, ii. 41. 6;
Lucian, Prom. 15; Philo, de opif. p. 33 A, de
Jos. p. 536 D.
2 Plat. Legg. 12, p. 945 D; Aristot. Pol. iii. 4;
Polyb. iv. 23. 9; Lucian, Dem. enc. 16.
Dem. 107. 25, 262. 27; Isocr. p. 156 A.
* Plut. Then. 4; Arist. Pol. iii, 4. 1; Polyb.
v. 9. 9, iv. 25.7; see generally Raphel, Polyb.
in loc.; Schweigh, Lex. Polyb. p. 486 ; Schoe-
mann, ad Plut Cleom. p. 208.
6 Acts xxii. 28; Thuc. vi. 10. 3; Dem. 161.
11; Polyb. vi. 2. 12; 3 Macc. iii. 21.
The Gothic Version has: "unsara báucins"
(that is, building, dwelling).
150
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS..
us, in consequence of our thus belonging to the heavenly state! From the
heaven (scil. ñgovta, 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 tohit. (Wolf, Schoettgen, Bengel,
Hofmann); but is correctly rendered by the Vulgate : "unde." Comp.
on ov, Col. ii. 19, and Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2. 20 : quépaç tpeīs, év
♡.--kai, also, denotes the relation corresponding to the foregoing (namely,
that our Tohitevha is to be found in heaven), not a second one to be added
(Hofmann).—owtñpa] [XIX g.] placed first with great emphasis, and that not
as the accusative of the object (Hofinann), 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 arwaela (Weiss), which, indeed, the rueīs have not at all to fear.
Comp. on the subject-matter, Luke xviii. 7 f., xxi. 28; Tit. ii. 13; 2 Tim.
iv. 18.-átterdex.] comp. 1 Cor. 1:7; Tit. ii. 13. As to the signification of
the word : perseveranter expectare, see on Rom. viii. 19; Gal. v. 5.
Ver. 21. As a special feature of the Lord's saving activity at His
Parousia, Paul mentions the bodily transfiguration of the queīs, 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 queīs are in a condition of bodily
humiliation through affliction and persecution. But at the Parousia-
what a change in the state of things! what a glorification of these bodies
now so borne down !—jleTarxmuar.] shall transform. What is meant is the
åłáácoelv 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 rueīs will live to see.
[XIX h.] To understand it at the same time of the resurrection of the
dead (so most expositors, including de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss), is inap-
propriate both to årrekde xóueda and to the definition of the quality of the
body to be remodelled : tñS TATTELV wūv, both these expressions being used
under the conviction of being still alive in the present state when the
change occurs. Moreover, the resurrection is something more than a
LeTao xquations; it is also an investiture with a new body out of the gerni
of the old (1 Cor. xv. 36–38, 42–44.—rîs Tanelváo. hjūv] [XIX 1.] Genitive
of the subject. Instead of saying quâv merely (our body), he expresses it
with more specific definition: the body of our humiliation, that is, the
body which is the vehicle of the state of our humiliation, namely, through
the privations, persecutions, and afflictions which affect the body and are
exhibited in it, thereby reducing us into our present oppressed and lowly
1 As to the nature of this transformation,
see 1 Cor. xv. 53. The older dogmatic exe-
getes maintained in it the identity of sub-
stance. Calovius: “Ille petAOXIMATlouós non
substantialen mutationem, sed accidentalem,
non ratione quidditatis corporis nostri, sed
ratione qualitatum salva quidditate importat."
This is correct only so far as the future body,
although an organism without oápš and alma,
1 Cor. xv. 50, will not only be again specifical-
ly human, but will also belong to the identity
of the persons. See I Cor. xv. 35 ff. Comp.
Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, I. p. 127 f. Moro
precise definitions, such as those in De-
litzsch's Psychol. p. 459 ff., lose themselves in
the misty region of hypothesis. The inap-
propriateness of the expression employed in
the Confession: Resurrection of the flesh, has
been rightly pointed out by Luther in the
Larger Catechism, p. 501.
CHAP. III. 21.
151
position ; Torà ráozel vūv rò cāļa, dequeiral, uaoriçetal, uvpía Táo xel decvá,
Chrysostom. This definite reference of 7. Tamo ju. is required by the context
through the contrast of the ήμείς to the εχθρούς του σταυρού τ. Χ., so that the
sufferings which are meant by the cross of Christ constitute the tareivwois
of the ruɛīs (comp. Acts viii. 33); in which case there is no ground for our
taking TatevwOLS, contrary to Greek usage (Plat. Legg. vii. p. 815 A ; Polyb.
ix. 33. 10; Jas. i. 10), as equivalent to TaTELvótns, lowliness, as in Luke i. 48
(Hofmann). On this account, and also because iſpāv applies to subjects
distinctly defined in comformity with the context, it was incorrect to explain
Tafelv. generally of the constitution of our life (Hofmann), of wealcness and
frailty (Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and many others; including
Rheinwald, Matthies, Hoelemann, Schrader, Rilliet, Wiesinger, Weiss);
comparison being made with such passages as Col. i. 22; Rom. vii. 24; 1
Cor. xv. 44. The contrast.lies in the states, namely, of humiliation on the
one hand and of dóša on the other; hence ruõv and avtoù are neither to be
joined with côua (in opposition of Hoelemann), nor with T. owla 7. tam. and
T. 0. Tīs Sółns 'as ideas forming an unity (Hofmann), which Paul would
necessarily have marked by separating the genitives in position (Winer,
p. 180 [E. T. 192]).--ovjpoppov] Result of the jetaoxnu., so that the reading
eis TÒ Yevéolai autó is a correct gloss. The thing itself forms a part of the
owdošáceodal, Rom. viii. 17. Comp. also 1 Cor. xv. 48 f.; Rom. viii. 29.24
της δόξ. αυτού] to be explained like της ταπ. ήμ. : in which His heavenly glory
is shown forth. Comp. &yeipetal Év dóš?, 1 Cor. xv. 41.-katà 7. Évépy. K.7.2.]
removes every doubt as to the possibility ; according to the working of His
being able (comp. Eph. i. 19) also to subdue all things unto Himself; that is,
in consequence of the energetic efficacy which belongs to His power of also
subduing all things to Himself. Comp. katà 7. évépy. tñs duváțl. 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. 12: Ý TOū
dúvacoal TTOLETV & covoia.-kai ] adds the general element únotáčal avto tà ti to
the letat Xnuar. K.T.@.3 Bengel aptly says: “non modo comforme facere
corpus nostrum suo.”—Tà trávra] all things collectively, is not to be limited;
nothing can withstand His power; a statement which to the Christian
consciousness refers, as a matter of course, to created things and powers,
not to God also, from whom Christ has received that power (Matt. xxviii.
18; 1 Cor. xv. 27), and to whom He will ultimately deliver up again the
dominion (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). Chrysostom and Theophylact have already
with reason noticed the argumentum a majori ad minus.
.
1 See on Matt. xii. 13 and 1 Cor. i. 8; Fritz-
sche, Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 159; Lübcker, gram-
mat. Stud. p. 33 f.
2 We may add Theodoret's appropriate re-
mark: où katà tnv mocórnta tñs Sófns, åndà
κατά την ποιότητα. .
3 Hoelemann takes kai as and, so that the
sense would be," that Christ can do all things,
and subdues all things to Himself." The very
aoristútotáčal should have withheld him from
making this heterogeneous combination, as
it betrays itself to be dependent on δύνασθαι.
152
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR.
XV. Ver. 1.
(a) Tò molt bv evidently indicates that the writer's intention was to close his
epistle shortly, but it is not necessary to infer from this fact, that xalpete means
farewell, as some hold. The addition of šv kupio and the corresponding phrase in
iv. 4 make it more probable that it means rejoice (so R. V.)-(6) Tà avrà K.7.2. —
The things referred to in these words must be things which the Apostle had
already written to the Philippians (ypápelv); they must have such an exact
correspondence with what he had written, as to allow of the application of tà
avrá to them; and they must be of such a character that he could use respecting
the renewed mention of them the expressions “to me, not irksome," " for you, safe.”
The last of these points is fatal to the view that they refer to the exhortation to
Christian joy. Neither of the two adjectives would be expected with such a
reference. The first point is exclusive of the idea that he is repeating what he
had said to the church when personally present with them. As Meyer remarks,
had this been his idea, he must, at least, have placed a kai before ypápelv. We
are compelled, therefore, either to suppose, that he is speaking of some prey-
ious letter to the Philippians (so Meyer), or of something in this letter which can
appropriately suggest the words ókumpov and kopanés. In either case, the reference
must be to some evil connected with the life of the Church. Meyer holds that
this evil is indicated in what follows-ver. 2, or vv 2, 3, or vv. 2 ff. Lightf.
holds that it is the dissensions alluded to in ii. 1 ff., which related to social rather
than doctrinal questions. The former view is favored by the fact that'vv. 2 ff.
immediately follow these words, and might, thus, naturally be explanatory of
them. The latter, by the fact that there seems to be no satisfactory evidence
that the Judaizing party had been active in Philippi. Indeed, if they had been
thus active, so that he was obliged to give a renewed and repeated warning
against them, it is improbable that he would have passed over the subject with
so brief an allusion to it. On the whole, it must be regarded as doubtful whether
this passage proves the existence of an earlier letter.
XVI. Vv. 2 .
(a) The persons alluded to in ver. 2 (comp. ver. 3) are of the Judaizing faction.
This is evident from the word katatoun, as contrasted with repitouń of ver. 3,—see,
also, Gal. v. 12; Gal. vi. 12–14; Rom. ii. 28, 29,—and from the words toùs KakoÙS
épyáras, which, in connection with 2 Cor. xi. 13, can hardly refer to any other
class. As two of the three descriptive phrases have this reference, the third must,
undoubtedly, have the saine.—(6) With respect to the question whether these per-
sons are the only ones alluded to in the chapter, the words of ver. 19 seem to be
decisive. The descriptive phrases, whose god is the belly, and whose glory is in their
shame, point rather to persons of Gentile than Jewish origin.
ence to the one party to the mention of the other is not strongly marked or ah-
transition from the one to the other.
The following points in the development
NOTES.
153
may be noticed :-(1) There is evidently a very close connection between ver. 3
and ver. 4 through the words “confidence in the flesh," common to both. (2) The
suggestion of this as belonging to the Judaizing party leads to a presentation of
the emphatic contrast between righteousness by faith and by the law, and of the
blessed result to be attained through the former. So far we have the direct refer-
ence to the Judaizers, first introduced in ver. 2. (3) In immediate union with the
allusion to the result, the Apostle adds some words, ver. 12 ff., for the purpose of
guarding himself against a misapprehension as to what he claimed to have already
attained—a misapprehension which, he feared, might arise in view of the self-
commendatory expressions of vy. 4 ff. (4) These verses (12 ff.), at the same time,
become, and are intended to become, through their setting forth of his determina-
tion to press forward to the attainment of what lies yet before him, preparatory to,
and a foundation for, the exhortation of ver. 17, to imitate him. (5) This ex-
hortation is then given, but it is urged upon the readers in view of a new and addi-
tional reason (ver. 18), namely, the fact that "many walk," etc. The warning
against the one class (ver. 2), which is designed to lead them to an initation of
himself, passes over thus, naturally and easily, to the call to such imitation of him-
self in contrast with the course and actions of another class.
(nl) In the earlier part of this section the Epistle draws near in its thought to
Gal. and 2 Cor. It is evident, however, that the Apostle neither has it in mind
to enter upon a doctrinal discussion, as in the former of those epistles, nor makes
allusion to his claims as a Jew in the same way and for the same purpose as in
the latter. In 2 Cor. xi. he plunges earnestly into conflict with the Judaizing
teachers who bitterly opposed him, and sets forth his superiority to them even in
the region of their own self-glorying. It is a personal controversy. Here, on the
other hand, his mind is looking forward, from the beginning, to the exhortations
of vv. 15, 17. He has everything every ground of confidence in the flesh-which
any of the Judaizers have, but he has counted these as nothing and sought a bet-
ter course, and he would have the Philippians think with him and follow him.
The peculiar personal element of 2 Cor. is thus wanting, and the passage is free
from the vehemence and irony belonging to the similar verses in that epistle.-
(e) The friendly and loving character of the letter accordingly does not disappear,
even in this section which introduces the adversaries. Here, as elsewhere, he tries
to bring the readers into a union with himself in Christian living; and, to the end
of accomplishing this, he sets before then his own example. His example, more-
over, is presented in a loving and Christian way-with a presentation of what he
had given up for faith and Christ, and yet a renouncing of all claims to an at-
tained perfection. (f) The prominence in his mind of the exhortation, as com-
pared with the mere opposition to the Judaizers, accounts for the fact that he
passes beyond the statement of what he had done (ver. 7) to a setting forth of the
great thought and endeavor of his Christian life (vv. 8–11).
XVII. Vv. 4–11.
With reference to individual words and phrases in this passage, the following
points may be noticed : (a) That vóuos, as here used (ver. 6), means not law, but
the (Mosaic) law, is indicated (1) by the fact that the persons with whom the
Apostle is contrasting himself are Judaizers; (2) by the allusions to circumcision,
concision, confidence in the flesh, etc.; (3) by the fact that in all the words con-
154
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
nected with vóuov of ver. 5 there is an immediate and direct reference to the Jew-
ish race and ideas; (4) by the correspondence of the phrase Sikaloouvnu ťK vóuov
with similar phrases in Gal. and Rom., where the Mosaic law is referred to (e.g.
Gal. iii. 11, 12); (5) by the fact that what Paul had so fully devoted himself to as
to become blameless in it, and what he had abandoned for the righteousness of
faith, was the righteousness of the Mosaic system.—(6) LEUTTOS is determined in
its meaning by the character of the sentence in which it stands. In all the phrases
the Apostle is, evidently, speaking of himself from the Jewish standpoint. He was
blameless as viewed from the same standpoint, i. e. in the more external sense, and
according to the ordinary manner of human judging.—c) ažná of ver. 7 (which is
read by W. and H., and placed in brackets by Lachm., but omitted by Tisch. 8),
presents this verse in a direct contrast to the preceding; anná of ver. 8, on the
other hand, is that which affirms even more than the preceding statement has
contained.
. (d) Meyer justly holds that távra is not limited in its reference to taūta of ver.
7. The contrast in the tenses in ñynual and vyovual, however, can hardly be with-
out emphasis, and the former must, therefore, have an especial, though not, in-
deed, an exclusive, reference to the period of his conversion. Beyond the estimate
which he then put upon what had been gain to him, and which he has continued
to put upon it until the present, the permanent state of his mind as a Christian is
to place a similar estimate on all things, because he has come to see the surpass-
ingness of the knowledge of that Divine Friend for whose sake he gave up all that
he had before. Tà távra is to be referred, with Meyer, to the things mentioned in
vy. 5-7. If we make mtávra equivalent to tavra, and tà távra universal, or if we
make the sole difference between ver. 7 and ver. 8 to lie in Taðrarávra, and not
at all in the different tenses of the verb, we lose the force and progress of the
thought.-(e) A large portion of the recent commentators agree with Meyer that
the words και ηγούμαι σκύβαλα are to be taken as dependent on δι' όν. The sentence
becomes less cumbersome and repetitious, if they are connected with the preceding
και ηγούμαι--«I count all things as loss on account of the excellency of the
knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, for whom, etc.; and I count them as refuse
(worthless and not worthy of a thought) in order that I may gain Him and be
found in Him.” (Comp. Weiss, Farrar, W. and H. appy.).-18) súpevű is, proba-
bly, explained correctly by Meyer as not limited to the time of the final judgment,
because the result at the end seems to be first spoken of in ver. 11.-(9) Meyer's
view of trì T?] Tiotel, on the other hand, is improbable. The reader could not be
expected readily to join these words with a participle which was merely implied in
one so remote as ui è xwV—a repeated & xwv would be almost necessary to make the
connection clear to hiin. Moreover, while, if the words are united with TÌV ÉK
GEOÙ Sek., the doubling of the phrase which describes the righteousness is after the
manner of Paul, such a sentence as “having on the ground of faith the righteous-
ness through faſth” is harsh and unnatural.-(h) Toð yvūval avtov (ver. 10) is
taken up again from tñs yvuoews of ver. 8, but is now set forth, in two of its most
important aspects (kai, as in Gal. iv. 2, being explanatory rather than strictly
additional) as the end in view of kúpevā K.T.. The selection of these two, rather
than others, was probably due to the present experience and hopes of the Apostle,
which are brought before us in the Epistle. His experience of affliction and im-
prisonment suggested the fellowship of Christ's sufferings; his confident hope of the
future, in case the imprisonment should terminate in his death, carried his thought
NOTES.
155
to the power of Christ's resurrection. In the words ovjpopp. T. Jav. aút. may, per-
haps, be found a combining of the two ideas of Rom. vi. 5 and 2 Cor. iv. 10, and
there is, probably, some suggestion in them of the present dangers.
() The resurrection to which Paul desires to attain is so plainly the rising of
the followers of Christ to the perfected life of the future, -as indicated by the
whole context,--that the readers could have had no doubt respecting the meaning.
The element of doubt or uncertainty suggested by rws cannot, therefore, be re-
garded as showing that there is no resurrection of others than Christ's followers.
Nor can this verse, in any view of it, be made to contradict the statement of Acts
xxiv. 15, where Paul declares the resurrection of the wicked as well as the right-
eous. In the epistles he makes no such general statement, and no distinct declara-
tion that the unrighteous will be raised from the dead, except in 1 Cor. XV., and
possibly not even in that passage. But this may be accounted for by the fact that
his allusions to the subject of the resurrection occur, ordinarily, in an incidental
way, and in the course of expressions respecting the Christian life and hopes.
XVIII. Vv. 12-16.
(a) The emphasis and fullness with which the Apostle sets forth, in opposition
to any wrong inference which might be drawn from vv. 4 ff., the fact that he
does not claim to have obtained perfection, but that, on the other hand, he is
ever pressing forward earnestly to attain it, is satisfactorily explained as we see
in these verses a transitional passage, looking forward, also, to the following
context.--().The change of tenses from fraşov to Tetehsiwual is generally regarded
by comm. as of no special significance, or it is explained, as by Winer (Gram. E.T.
p. 276)—the former denoting merely the attaining of the goal as an honorable
achievement, the latter denoting its consequences; or as by Meyer—the latter“
expressing without a figure that which had been figuratively denoted by the
foriner. Lightf., on the contrary, regards the former verb as referring to the
time of Paul's conversion and the latter as describing his present state. The
repeated ñón may be urged as an objection to this view, but it is not a de-
cisive one. The adverb means already; that is, it covers what is before
and up to the present. The former of the two verbs may single out a par-
ticular time within this period, and the latter extend over the whole:-In
what I have said, I do not maintain that the thing is already accomplished,
either by a receiving of the prize at once, at the moment of my entrance
upon the new course, or by a progress which, beginning then, has now reached
its end. This seems to be the most satisfactory explanation.-(0) The object
of thaßov is, probably, tò ßpaßɛžov. He has not obtained this as yet, but he
presses on towards the goal to obtain it.—d) As dibkw of ver. 14 is used abso-
lutely, without an objective word, it is better to take it in the same way in ver. 12,
than to hold that it governs a pronoun referring to tò Bpapežov, as Meyer does.
(€) Meyer admits that the more common explanation of tø' , as meaning for
which or on which behalf, is linguistically simple and correct. He objects to it only
on the ground that it assigns the conversion of Paul, not to the general object
which it had (Gal. i. 16: "that I might preach Him among the Gentiles"), but
to a personal object. This objection, however, has little weight, for (1) it is evi-
dent that his conversion had a personal, as well as a general, object; (2) this being
so, he might naturally, on one occasion, make special allusion to the former, and,
on another, to the latter; (3) the context here deals altogether with what is per-
156
.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
sonal to himself. R. V. places that for which in the text, and gives Meyer's render-
ing in the margin. This course, adopted by the Revisers, recognizes, in the best
manner, both the possibilities and the probabilities of the case.-(1) The turn of
the thought towards the following context is found in the ådehpoi of ver. 13, and
in the emphasis on tyw uautóv. By the repetition of what he had already stated
with sufficient definiteness, and by calling the attention of the readers to himself
as an example, he shows that he is preparing for a new exhortation.-(9) Meyer
holds that hoyíčoual is to be supplied with êv de. But, as what follows is not, like
what precedes, a matter of thinking, but of doing, it is better, with Winer, Buttm.,
and most comm., to supply Tolā.-(h) rīſs åvw KhíCews. The simplest explanation
of these words, grammatically, is as a gen. possess. The prize appertains to the call-
ing in the sense that it is offered when the call comes, and secured when the final
result of the call is reached. As khious everywhere appears to mean (as Meyer
also says), the act of calling on God's part, ăvo is best taken as equivalent to ÉTTOV-
pávios;-it is heavenly, as it comes from God. But, as it offers the prize which it
has in its possession, it summons the man, of course, to press onward earnestly
towards the heavenly life. This heavenly life, viewed in its blessedness and as a
reward, is the βραβείον.-(1) Tlie Connection of εν Χρ. Ίησού With διώκω, which
Meyer favors, seems less probable than that which is more conimonly adopted
(with khoews), both because of the position of the words, and because, if év Xp. ’I.
were intended to indicate "the great upholding and impelling element of life" in
which he presses on (as Mey. holds), it would seem to demand a position of em-
phasis nearer to διώκω.
(0) TéZelol, in accordance with the general usage of Paul, describes those who
are mature in the Christian life, in contrast with výTLO. They are of the class
designated by avevPatikoi in 1 Cor. iii. 1, cf. 1 Cor. ii. 13-16. In 1 Cor., however,
they are spoken of with reference to the possession or comprehension of the Divine
Gooia, as exhibited in the deeper parts of the plan of salvation. Here, on the
other hand, the primary, if not exclusive, reference is to a course of action founded
on the due estimate of the Christian's present attainments.--(1) opovājev, ver. 15.
This verb seems to refer liere, first, to the thought of the mind with respect to the
true view of the Christian life as indicated in the preceding verses, and secondly to
a setting of the mind upon the course of action to which it leads. If the readers,
or any of them-having this state of mind as their prevailing and permanent one-
do not find themselves able to see, and therefore to act, altogether as he does, he
has confidence that God will make the right view and right course plain to them
in due time. It would appear to be almost necessary to hold that the ppovājev
lies, in a certain sense, back of the ypovɛīte, or, in other words, that the Apostle
conceives that every nature Christian must have, in all its essentials, the same view
with himself, and only supposes that there may be cases where, in minor points, a
different one could be held. He can hardly have in mind, therefore, as he writes
this verse, an opposition to his own ideas of so vital a character, as that which
would be involved in adopting the doctrine of salvation by works. Ver. 15 be-
longs with vv. 12–14, and does not bear upon vv. 2, 3. This exhortation of this
verse, with its accompanying word of assurance and the appeal in ver. 16, is ex-
pressed in the gentle and friendly style of the whole Epistle.-(1) The explanation
of the thought and purpose of ver. 16 is given, in the most simple and satisfactory
way, by Meyer in the first twenty lines of his note on the verse. See, also, his
“Remark” at the close of his note.
NOTES.
5
XIX. Vv. 17-21.
(a) Evulpuentai is better taken as meaning, be one and all, unitedly, inilators of me
(so Eadie, Lightf., Alf., De W., v. Heng.), than as Meyer, Weiss, Ell., and others
hold, co-imitators with others who imitate me. Meyer claims that the latter view is
rendered necessary by the following context, but evidently this is not the case, for
it is a perfectly natural and legitimate form of exhortation, to say: Unite together
in imitating me and attentively observe those who walk as you see me walking.-
(6) It is also a much more simple construction of the kalós clause, as well as of the
whule sentence, if that word is made to correspond with oŰTW, than if it is taken,
with Meyer, as having an argumentative force, “establishing the two require-
ments ovul.. and Gron." They were to imitate him and those who lived in ac-
cordance with what they knew, from their long-continued knowledge of him, to
be his example.—(c) juās, if kadás is explained according to Meyer's view, may
not improbably refer to Paul and those who walked as he walked; but, if kadós
is connected with outw, yuās probably refers to his associates, such as Timothy and
Epaphroditus, who were or had been with him in Rome. These associates in his
missionary labors sympathized with his Christian thinking, and naturally modeled
their lives aſter the pattern of his in the great things here alluded to.
(d) The Toani of ver. 18, as apparently indicated by the use of the verb Tepita-
Toñolv, are members of the Christian churches, not persons outside of the Christian
body. The descriptive words which follow are partly consistent with the suppo-
sition that they are of the same general class with those who are spoken of in ver.
2, but partly not so. The view of Meyer and others that they were persons of
Epicurean tendency, and not of the Judaizing party, is, accordingly, to be adopted.
Whether they were of the number of those who abused the Pauline doctrine of
liberty, as Lightf. holds—like those alluded to in 1 Cor., but more extreme in
their antinomianism-is uncertain. Some of this class may have been in Philippi.
The earnestness of feeling manifested in the language used would seem, indeed, to
indicate that this was the fact.-(e) oi Tàétriyela opovoŪVTEC (ver. 19). These words
are intended, as we may believe, to present a marked contrast with that opovÕLLEV
which had been urged upon the readers in ver. 15, and which would lead them
to press on towards the attainment of the prize of their heavenly calling. To
bring out this contrast, as well as to mark them in distinction from the ruāv of the
following verse, the words are put in the nominative. They mind the earthly
things, we the heavenly (rà śniyela, åvw, šv ovpavois).
(f) The use of yáp (ver. 20) is similar to that in Gal. v. 5, proving the state-
ment respecting one party by showing that the other party pursue an opposite
course, or have an opposite character. This peculiarity in the yáp, and the em-
phasis just mentioned as connected with oi T. ÉT. opov., show clearly that Meyer is
correct in making the yáp give the proof of that last preceding clause alone.-
(©) outñpa is better taken as a predicate accusative, as Meyer and others hold, than
as an accusative of the object. The word Saviour is to be explained in its special
reference here, by the suggestions of the context. We may notice with respect to
these, (1) that the next verse concentrates the thought on the change in the body.
This, according to Rom. viii. 23, is the final consummation of the work of redemption.
The verb attendé xouai is, also, used in that passage; (2) that the distinguishing
characteristic of the enemies of the cross alluded to in ver. 19 is their giving them-
selves up to fleshly indulgences. They make a god, as it were, of this fleshly ele-
158
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
ment connected with the body; (3) that the end to which the course of life of these
enemies will bring them, is átálela. The thought of the Apostle, in view of these
facts, would seem to be this: that he is waiting for the appearance of the Lord
Jesus Christ, as one who shall perfect the great work of salvation from sin, and its
consequences, by that wonderful transformation of the body which delivers it from
the fleshly element and carnal passions, and makes it like His own--a spiritual body
fitted for the uses and the abode of the glorified spirit. (h) Meyer holds that ÁTTEKOE-
Xóueda (ver. 20) and the words of ver. 21 are to be understood as implying that
Paul expected the pɛis to live until the Parousia. Alf. holds the same view.
The words are undoubtedly consistent with this view, and they have an especial
fitness (as e.g. TATTELVÚCEWS) if this view is adopted, but they do not, in themselves,
prove beyond question that such was the Apostle's expectation.—(2) tñs TaTELVÚIEWS
is opposed to Tís dófns. It describes the body as appertaining to this earthly con-
dition of humiliation, as contrasted with the future body appertaining to the glori-
fied state of the heavenly life. The change takes the body out of the bondage to
corruption and the law of decay, and brings it into the freedom from that law
which belongs to the glorified state of the children of God (Rom. viii. 21). The
humiliation is not the "fleshly element, and it does not by any means involve the
necessity of coming under the dominion of the fleshly power. But so long as the
body of our humiliation continues, there is an exposure to the assaults of that
power, and we earnestly look for the Saviour who shall transform it.-(j) The
closing words of ver. 21 are added, not improbably, as showing the ground of con-
fidence which the follower of Christ has, in his pressing on towards the reward, and
in his triumphant hope of the final completeness of his redemption. The readers
might well, therefore, stand fast in the Lord.
CHAP. IV.
159
CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 3. Instead of vai Elz, has raí, against decisive witnesses.-Instead of
outvyɛ yvhole, yvñole ovšvys should be written, with Lachm. and Tisch., upon; pre-
ponderating evidence.-On decisive testimony, in ver. 12, instead of oida dè tan.
(Elz.) olda kai tar. is to be received. The dé has taken its rise from the last syl-
lable of oida ; hence we also find the reading dè kal.- Ver. 13. After he Elz. has
Xplorø, in opposition to A B D* X, vss. (also Vulgate) and Fathers. Defended
by Reiche, but it is an addition from 1 Tim. i. 12, from which passage also are
found the amplifications in Or., X. 'Incoñ and X. 'I. TỘ kupiw nuwv.-Ver. 16. εis7
wanting in A D* E**, min. vss. and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm. But after
DIE, XIX might the more readily be omitted, as it seemed superfluous, and might,
indeed, on account of the absence of an object for émréu4., appear offensive.- Ver.
19. With Lachm. and Tisch., the form tò Thoūros is to be adopted upon decisive
testimony. See on 2 Cor. viii. 2.-Ver. 23. Távtwv. údāv] A B D E F G P ***
min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Damasc. Ambrosiast. Pel. have toū
TrvEvpatos ypūv. So Lachm. and Tisch. Taken from Gal. vi. 18, whence also in
Elz. ημών has likewise crept in after κυρίου.
Ver. 1. [On vv.1-3, see Note XX. pages 188, 189.] Conclusion drawn from
what precedes, from ver. 17 onwards. We are not justified in going fur-
ther back (de Wette refers it to the whole exhortation, iii. 2 ff., comp.
also Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann), because the direct address to the
readers in the second person is only introduced at ver. 17, and that with
ådepoi, as in the passage now before us; secondly, because the predicates
ảyatıntoi . . . otábavós pov place the summons in that close personal rela-
tion to the apostle, which entirely corresponds with the words oruuluntai
Mov yiveodɛ in ver. 17; thirdly, because cote finds its logical reference in
that which immediately precedes, and this in its turn is connected with
the exhortation ovipeuntai K.1.2. in ver. 17; and lastly, because oûtw in
ver. 1 is correlative to the cítw in iii. 17. ÜOTɛ] [XX a.] accordingly;
the ethical actual result, which what has been said of the Music in iii. 20 f.
ought to have with the readers. Comp. ii. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 58.-áyarntoi
K.T.2.7" blandis appellationibus in eorum affectus se insinuat, quae tamen
non sunt adulationis, sed sinceri amoris,” Calvin.-How might they dis-
appoint and grieve such love as this by non-compliance !-ÉTTLTTÓONTOL]
longed for, for whom I yearn (comp. i. 8); not occurring elsewhere in the
N. T.; 2-otépavos] comp. 1 Thess. ii. 19; Ecclus. i. 9, vi. 31, xv. 6; Ez. xvi.
3 In opposition to which Hofmann quite
groundlessly urges the objection, that Paul
in that case would have written teputateite
instead of otńkete. As if he must have
thought and spoken thus mechanically! The
OTÝKete is in fact substantially just a reputateix
which maintains its ground.
2 Comp. App. Hisp. 43; Eust. Opusc. p. 357.
.
160
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
12, xxiii. 42; Prov. xvi. 31, r'vii. 6; Job xix. 9. The honor, which accrued
to the apostle from the excellent Christian condition of the church, is
represented by him under the figure of a crown of victory. The reference
of xapá to the present time, and of otéd. to the future judgment (Calvin
and others, comp. Pelagius), introduces arbitrarily a reflective distinction
of ideas, which is not in keeping with the fervor of the emotion.—orw]
[XX 6.] corresponding to the tútos that has just been set forth and re-
commended to you (iii. 17 ff.). Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius,
Erasmus, Calvin, Bengel, and others, interpret : so, as yje stand, so that Paul
"praesentern 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 ovuulu.
Pl. yivecos, iii. 17, which, notwithstanding all the praise of the morally ad-
vanced community, still does not presuppose the existence already of a
normal Christian state.-év kvpiw] Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 8. Christ is to be the
element in which the standing fast required of them is to have its specific
character, so that in no case can the moral life ever act apart from the
fellowship of Christ.-αγαπητοί] «περιπαθής haec vocis hujus αναφορά,” Gro-
tius. In no other epistle so much as in this has Paul multiplied the ex-
pressions of love and praise of his readers; a strong testimony certainly
as to the praiseworthy. condition of the church, from which, however,
Weiss infers too much. Here, as always (Rom. xii. 19; 2 Cor. vii. 1, xii.
19; Phil. ii. 12; 1 Cor. x. 14; Heb. vi. 9, et al.), moreover, ảyanytoí stands as
an address without any more precise self-evident definition, and is not
to be connected (as Hofmann holds) with ły kupio.
Ver. 2 f. [XX c.] After this general exhortation, ver. 1, the apostle,
still deeply concerned for the community that is so dear to him, finds it
requisite to give a special admonition to and for two meritorious women, a
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 bad occurred, and the othkeLV év kvpiw might more or less be im-
perilled. Whether they were deaconesses in Philippi (as many conjecture),
must remain undecided. Grotius has erroneously considered both names,
Hammond and Calmet only the second, to be masculine, and in that case
39; Ag. Ez. xxiii. 11 (ěTTLTónois); Ps. cxxxix.
9 (értettó nua); Ael. N. A. vii. 3 (ToOntós).
1 Comp. otábavov eúkdeias Méyav, Soph. Aj.
465; Eur. Suppl. 313; Iph. A. 193, Herc. F.
1334; Thục, ji. 46 ; Jacobs, ad Amthuot. IX. p.
30; Lobeck ad Aj. l. C.; also otepavoûv (Wes-
seling, ad Diod. Sic. I. p. 684), Otedávwua, Pind.
Pyth. i. 96, xii. 9, otedavnpopeiv, Wisd. iv. 2,
and Grimm in loc.
2 According to Baur, indeed, they are
alleged to be two parties rather than two
women; and tchwegler (nachapostol. Zeitalt.
II. p. 135) makes out that Euodia represents
the Jewish-Christian, and Syntyche the Gen
tile-Christian party, and that yvno los cusuyos
applies to Peter ! On the basis of Constitutt.
ap. vii. 46. 1 (according to which Peter ap-
pointed an Euodius, and Paul Ignatius, as
Bishop of Antiochi), this discovery has been
amplified with further caprice by Volkmar
in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 147 ff. But exe-
getical fiction in connection with the two
feminine names has been pushed to the
utmost by Hitzig, 2. Krit. Paulin. Br. p. 5 ff.,
according to whom they are supposed to have
their origin in Gen. xxx. 9 ff.; he represents
our author as having changed Asher and
Gad into women in order to represent figura-
tively two parties, and both of them Gentile-
Christian.
Theodore of Mopsuestia quotes the opinion
that the two were husband and wife.
CHAP. IV. 2, 3.
161
.
aúraīs in ver. 3 is made to apply to others (viz. ditiveç k.7.2.). For the two
feminine names on inscriptions, see Gruter and Muratori. With Tischen-
dorf and Lipsius (Gramm. Unters. p. 31), Evvivxý is to be treated as oxy-
tone. Comp. generally Kühner, I. p. 256. The twice used tapak. : "quasi
coram adhortans seorsum utramvis, idque summa cum aequitate,” Ben-
gel. An earnestly individualizing Én luovń (Bremi, ad Aeschin. p. 400).-
TÒ avrò ppov.] see on ii. 2.-év kup.] characterizes the specifically Christian
concord, the moral nature and effort of which are grounded on Christ as
their determining vital principle. Paul does not desire a union of minds
apart from Christ. Whether the disunion, which must be assumed, had its
deeper root in moral pride on account of services in the cause of the
gospel (Schinz) is not clear.
Ver. 3. Indeed, I cntreat thee also, etc. This bringing in of a third party
is a confirmation of the previous admonition as regards its necessity and
urgency; hence the vai; comp. Philem. 20. See also on Matt. xv. 27.-
oušzyɛ [XX d.] is erroneously understood by Clemens Alexandrinus, Isido-
rus, Erasmus, Musculus, Cajetanus, Flacius, and others, as referring to the
wife of the apostle; an idea which, according to 1 Cor. vii. 8, compared
with ix. 5, is at variance with history (see, already, Chrysostom, Theodo-
ret, Oecumenius, Theophylact), and at the same time at variance with
grammar, as the adjective must in that case have stood in the feminine.
Others understand the husband of one of the two women (so, although with
hesitation, Chrysostom, also Theophylact, according to whom, however,
he might have been a brother, and Camerarius; not disapproved by Beza);
but what a strangely artificial designation would "genuine 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 women were intended, and that apart from the bond of
matrimony, by the term ovšvyɛ Paul would have expressed himself very
awlkwardly; for the current use of the word σύζυγος, and also of συζυγής, (3
Macc. iv. 8) and outuš (Eur. Alc. 924), in the sense of conjux (comp, ovçevy-
vóval, Xen. Oec. 7. 30; Herodian, iii. 10. 14), must have been well known
to the reader. The usual mode of interpreting this passage? has been to
refer it to some distinguished fellow-laborer of the apostle, well known, as a
matter of course, to the readers of the epistle, who had his abode in Phil-
ippi and deserved well of the church there by special services. Some
have arbitrarily fixed on Silas (Bengel), and others quite unsuitably on
Timothy (Estius), and even on Epaphroditus (Vatablus, Grotius, Calovius,
Michaelis, van Hengel, and Baumgarten-Crusius), whom Hofmann also
would have us understand as referred to, inasmuch as he regards him as
the amanuensis of the epistle, who had therefore heard it dictated by the
apostle, and then heard it again when it came to be read in the church,
so that he knew himself to be the person addressed. What accumulated
invention, in order to fasten upon Epaphroditus the, after all, unsuitable
1 Test. XII. Patr. p.526; Eur. Alc. 314, 342,385.
2 So Flatt, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Mat-
thies, de Wette, following Pelagius and The-
odoret.
11
162
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
confession before the church that he was himself the person thus dis-
tinguished by the apostle! According to Luther's gloss, Paul means "the
most distinguished bishop in Philippi.” Comp. also Ewald, who compares
ovutpeoßúrepos, 1 Pet. v. 1. But how strange would such a nameless desig-
nation be in itself! How easily might the preferential designation by
yvñolos have seemed even to slight other fellow-laborers in Philippi!' Be-
sides, Paul, in describing his official colleagues, never makes use of this
term, ouçuyos, which does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and which
would involve the assumption that the unknown individual stood in quite
a special relation to the apostle corresponding to this purposely-chosen
predicate. Laying aside arbitrariness, and seeing that this address is
surrounded by proper names (vv. 2, 3), we can only find in ovšvye a proper
name, in which case the attribute yvñole corresponds in a delicate and
winning way to the appellative sense of the name (comp. Philem. 11); gen-
uine Syzygus, that is, thou who art in reality and substantially that which
thy name expresses : "fellow-in-yoke," i. e. yolce-fellow, fellow-laborer. We
may assume that Syzygus had rendered considerable services to Christi-
anity in Philippi in joint labor with the apostle, and that Paul, in his
appellative interpretation of the name, followed the figurative conception
of animals in the yoke ploughing or thrashing (1 Cor. ix. 9; 1 Tim. v. 18),
a conception which was suggested to him by the very name itself. The
opposite of young would be: oủk ÖVTWS ŪV (comp. Plat. Polit. p. 293 E),
so that the man with his name Syzygus would not be étávoplos (Eur. Phoen.
1500; Soph. Aj. 430), Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr. p. 272 f. He bore this his
name, however, as övoja ÉTÍTULLOV (Del. Epigr. V. 42). This view of the
word being a proper name to which Wiesinger inclines, which Laurent
decidedly defends? in his Neut. Stud. p. 134 ff. and Grimm approves of in
his Lexicon, and which Hofmann, without reason, rejects? simply on
account of the usus loquerdli of yvíocos not being proved-was already held
by tivés in Chrysostom; comp. Niceph. Call. ii. p. 212 D; Oecumenius
permits a choice between it and the explanation in the sense of the hus-
band of one of the two women. It is true that the name is not preserved
elsewhere; but with how many names is that the case? Hence it was
unwarranted to assume (Storr) a translation of the name Kołanyās
(Joseph. Bell. vii. 3. 4), in connection with which, moreover, it would be
hard to see why Paul should have chosen the word oícuyos elsewhere not
lised by him, and not ouvepyós, or the like. To refer the word to Christ,
1 In doing so, Laurent takes the reference
of oúv contained in the name as general:
"helper of all labor in the vineyard of the
Lord.” More thoughtful, however, is the
reference to the apostle himself, whose true
yoke-fellow is to supply his place with his
former female fellow-striver's (ournon. MOL);
comp. also subsequently ouvepyūv mou.
3 According to our view, yvolos is, in fact,
taken in no other sense than that which is
current in all Greek authors, viz. ådroivos,
verus, as Hofmann himself takes it. Whether
we refer it thus to ousuyo as an appellative
word, or as the appellative contents of a name
is a matter which leaves the linguistic use
of yvnouos altogether untouched. As is well
known, vodos 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).
8 This holds at the same time against the
view of Pelagius: “Germanus dictus est
nomine, qui erat compar officii.” He is fol-
lowed by Lyra.
i
CHAP. IV. 3.
163
i
who helps every one to bear his yoke (Wieseler), was a mistake.-
ovdhauß. avrais] lay hold along with them, that is, assist them," namely, for
their reconciliation and for restoring their harmonious action.--aïtives]
utpote quae, giving the motive, comp. i. 28; see on Rom. i. 25, ii. 15, vi. 2,
et al.--Év to evayy.] the domain, in which they, etc. Comp. Rom. i. 9; 1
Thess. iii. 2. It was among women that the gospel had first struck root in
Philippi (Acts xvi. 13), and it is to be assumed that the two women named
had rendered special service in the spread and confirmation of Christi-
anity among their sex, and therein had shared the conflict of affliction
and persecution with Paul (1 Thess. ii. 2). On ouvýdlnoav, comp. i. 27.-
Metà scał KańLEVTOS K.7.2.] and in what fellowship, so honorable 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 uol; their joint-striving with
Paul had been a fellowship in striving also with Clement, etc.; they had
therein stood side by side with these men also. The connection of metà K..
KI. K.T.2. with ouzhauß avrais (Coccejus, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, J. B.
Lightfoot, Hofmann) is opposed by the facts, that Paul has committed
the service of mediation to an individual, with which the general impress
now given to this commission is not in keeping, and that the subsequent
Úv tà óvójara K.7.2., in the absence of any specification of the churches,
would neither be based on any motive nor intelligible to the readers, and
would be strangest of all in the event of Paul's having intended, as Hof-
mann thinks, to indicate here the presbyters and deacons mentioned in i. 1.
The Courtoi OUVepyoí, as well as generally the more special circumstances of
which Paul here reminds his readers, were--if metà kai k.1.2. be joined
with ouvohnoáv MOL beside which it stands-historically known to these
readers, although unknown to us.—That Clement was a teacher in Philippi
(so most modern expositors; according to Grotius, a presbyter in Philippi,
but “Romanus aliquis in Macedonia negotians”), must be maintained in
accordance with the context, seeing that with him those two Philippian
women labored as sharing the conflict of the apostle; and of a traveling
companion of this name, who had labored with the apostle in Macedonia,
there is no trace to be found; and seeing that the Routro Guvepyol also are
to be regarded as Philippians, because thus only does the laudatory ex-
pression ών τα ονόματα κ.τ.λ. Appear in its vivid and direct set purpose of
bespeaking for the two women the esteem of the church. The more fre-
quent, however, in general the name of Clement was, the more arbitrary
is the old view, although not yet known to Irenaeus (iii. 3. 3), that Cle-
ment of Rome is the person meant.' So most Catholic expositors (not
1 Luke v.7; Herod. vi. 1.25; Xen. Ages. 2.31;
Wunder,ad Soph. Phil. 280; Lex. Plat. III. p. 294.
2 On kai ... kai, the first kai meaning also,
comp. Ellendt, Lcx. Soph. I. p. 891; on its rarer
position, however, between preposition and
noun, see Schaefer, Ind. ad Gregor. Cor. p.
1064; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 143; Kühner,
II. 1, p. 480 f.
8 Nevertheless, upon this hypothesis Baur
builds up a whole fabric of combinations,
which are intended to transfer the date of
our epistle to the post-apostolic age, when the
Flavius Clemens known in Roman history, who
was a patruclis of Domitian (Suet. Dom. 15),
and a Christian (Lami, de crud. apost. p. 104;
Baur, II. p. 68), had already become the well-
known Clement of Roman tradition. Comp.
Volkmar in the Theolog. Jahrb. 1856, p. 309,
164
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Döllinger), following Origen, ad Joh. i. 29; Eusebius, H. E. iii. 15; Epiph-
anius, Haer. xxvii. 6; Jerome, Pelagius, and others; so also Francke, in
the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. 1841, iii. p. 73 ff., and van Hengel, who con-
jectures Euodia and Syntyche to have been Roman women who had
assisted the apostle in Rome, and had traveled with Epaphroditus to
Philippi. See generally, besides Lünemann and Brückner, Lipsius, de
Clem. Rom. ep. p. 167 ff. ; J. B. Lightfoot, p. 166 ff.; and Hilgenfeld, Apost.
Väter, p. 92 ff.—Úv tà óvóu. K.1.2.] refers merely to tūv houTĀV K.T.A., whom
Paul does not adduce by name, but instead of this affirms of their names
something so great and honorable. God has recorded their names in
His book, in which are written down the future partakers of the everlast-
ing Messianic life; so surely and irrevocably is this life assigned to them.
What Paul thus expresses by this solemn figure, he knew from their
whole Christian character and action, in which he recognized by experi-
ence "quasi electionis ? absconditae sigilla” (Calvin). See, moreover, on
Luke x. 20, and Wetstein on our passage; it is different in Heb. xii. 23
(see Lünemann in loc). šoré must be supplied, not the optative, as Bengel
thinks; and it must remain an open question, whether the persons re-
ferred to (among whom Ewald reckons Clement) are to be regarded as
already dead (Bengel, Ewald), which is not to be inferred from ūv tà
óvóuara k.r.2.; see Luke x. 20; Hermas, Pastor i. 1. 3. It is at all events
certain that this predicate, which Paul nowhere else uses, is an especially
honorable one, and does not simply convey what holds true of all Chris-
tians (so Hofmann in connection with his erroneous reference of uetà kai
K.7.2.). At Luke x. 20, and Rev. xiii. 8 also, it is a mark of distinction.
Ver. 4 f. [On vv.4–9, see Note XXI. pages 189, 190.] Without any par-
ticle of transition, we have once more general concluding admonitions,
which begin by taking up again the encouraging address broken off in
iii. 1, and now strengthened by návrota~the key-note of the epistle.
[XXI a.] They extend as far as ver. 9; after which Paul again speaks
of the assistance which he had received.Távtote] not to be connected
with táhev špū (Hofmann), which would make the stádiv very superflu-
ous, is an essential element of the Christian xaipeiv; comp. 1 Thess. v.
16; 2 Cor. vi. 10. Just at the close of his epistle the apostle brings it in
significantly. Paul desires joyfulness at all times on the part of the be-
liever, to whom even tribulation is grace (i. 7, 29) and glory (Rom. v. 3),
and in whom the pain of sin is overcome by the certainty of atonement
(Rom. viii. 1); to whom everything must serve for good (Rom. viii. 28; 1
according to whom the Roman Clement is to
be here already assumed as a martyr. Indeed,
according to Schwegler and Hitzig, 2. Krit.
paulin. Br. p. 13, a first attempt is made here
to connect this Clement also with Peter (for
no other in their view is the oúsuyos). Thus,
no doubt, the way is readily prepared for
bringing down our epistle to the days of
Trajan. Round the welcome name of Clement
all possible fictions crystallize.
The detailed discussion of the question as
to the ground of the divine electio here por-
trayed (the Reformed theologians," the decre-
tum absolutum ;' the Lutherans, "the praevisa
fides ; " the Catholics, "the praevisa opera") is
out of place here. Flacius, Clav. s. v. “liber,"
justly observes that it is not fatalis quaedam
electio which is pointed to, but ob veram jus-
titiam, qualis Christi est, credentes eo referri et
inscribi.
CHAP. IV. 4, 5.
165
Cor. iii. 21 f.), and nothing can separate him from the love of God (Rom.
viii. 38 f.).—-ránev épā] once more I will say. Observe the future, which
exhibits the consideration given to the matter by the writer; consequently
not equivalent to máhev héyw, 2 Cor. xi. 16; Gal. i. 9.LTÒ ÉTT LELKÈS üywv]
[XXI b.] your mildness [Lindigkeit, Luther], that is, your gentle, character,
as opposed to undue sternness. As to the neuter of the adjective taken
as a substantive, see on iii. 8; comp. Soph. 0. C. 1127. It might also
mean : your becoming behavior. But how indefinite would be such a
requirement as this! The general duty of the Christian walk (which
Matthies finds in the words) is not set forth till ver. 8. And in the N. T.
ÉT LELK, always occurs in the above-named special sense.—-yvwoontw Trãow
åvep.] let it be known by all men, through the acquaintance of experi-
ence with your conduct. Comp. Matt. v. 16. The universality of the
expression (which, moreover, is to be taken popularly: “let no man
come to know you in a harsh, rigorous aspect”) prohibits our referring
it to their relation to the enemies of the cross of Christ, against whom they
should not be hatefully disposed (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact),
or to the enemies of Christianity (Pelagius, Theodoret, Erasmus, and
others), or to the Judaists (Rheinwald), although none of these are ex-
cluded, and the motive for the exhortation is in part to be found in the
outward circumstances full of tribulation, face to face with an inclination
to moral pride.—The succession of exhortations without any outward link
may be psychologically explained by the fact, that the disposition of
Christian joyfulness must elevate men quite as much above strict insist-
ing upon rights and claims as above solicitude (ver. 6). Neither with the
former nor with the latter could the Christian fundamental disposition of
the xalpelv £v kvpiw subsist, in which the heart enlarges itself to yielding
love and casts all care upon God.--, kúping éyyús] [XXI C.] points to the
nearness of Christ's Parousia, 1 Cor. xvi. 22. Comp. on šyyus, Matt. xxiv.
32 f. ; Luke xxi. 31; Rev. i. 3, xxii. 10; Rom. xiii. 11. The reference to
God, by which Paul would bring home to their hearts, as Calvin expresses
it," divinae providentiae fiducian," 4 is not suggested in vv. 1, 2, 4 by the
context, which, on the contrary, does not refer to God until ver. 6.
Usually and rightly, following Chrysostom and Erasmus, the words have
been attached to what precedes. If the Lord is at hand, who is coming
as the Vindex of every injustice endured and as the owthp of the faithful,
1 Kadós éduirladiacev, €TTELON TV mpayuátwy
ý púols dúrny ÉTIKTE, Scà Tou Sulaolao Moll
SeikvvoLV, öti Távtws del xaipelv, Chrysostom.
2 Polyb. v. 10.1: Ÿ ÉTLEÍKela kai oldav pw mia,
Lucian Phal. pr. 2: ÉTILELKNS Ko MÉTALOS, Hero-
dian, ii. 14. 5, ix. 12; 1 Tim. iii. 3; Tit. iii. 2;
Jas. iii. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 18; Ps. lxxxv. 5; Add to
Esth. vi. 8; 2 Macc. ix. 27). Comp. on 2 Cor.
x. l. The opposite : expißodikalos, Arist. Eth.
Nic. v. 10. 8, ordnpós.
3 See e. g. the passages from Plato in Ast,
T.ex. I. p. 775.
Comp. Ps. xxxiv. 18, cxix. 151, cxlv. 18; so
also Pelagius, Luther, Calovius, Zanchius,
Wolf, Rheinwald, Matthies, Rilliet, Cornelius
Müller, and others.
They do not belong, by way of introduc-
tion, to what follows, as Hofmann thinks, who
understands “the helpful nearness of the
Lord” (Matt. xxviii. 20; Jas. iv. 8) in the
present, and consequently the assurance of
being heard in the individual case. Comp.,
rather, on the eyyús habitually used of the
future final coming, 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;
166
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. .
now should they not, in this prospect of approaching victory and blessed-
ness (iii. 20), willingly and cheerfully renounce everything opposed to
Christian ŚT LEikela! The words therefore convey an encouragement to the
latter. What follows has its complete reference, and that to God, pointed
out by the antithesis ára év Travti K.7.2.
Ver. 6. The uspijevate 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 threatening future, etc.) are they at all to
give themselves concern, but on the contrary, etc.; undév, which is em-
phatically prefixed, is the accusative of the object (1 Cor. vii. 32 ff., xii.
25; Phil. ii. 20). [XXI d.] 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.--ěv Tavtí] opposed to the
undév; 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, Rheinwald).---T77 TpooevxÝ K. Tņ Señoel] by prayer and supplica-
tion. On the distinction between the two (the former being general, the .
latter supplicating prayer), see on Eph. vi. 18. The article indicates the
prayer, which ye make; and the repetition of the article, otherwise not re-
quired, puts forward the two elements the more emphatically (Kühner,
II. 1, p. 529).—Metà exap.] belongs to yvwpis. K.T.2., which, excluding all
solicitude in the prayer, should never take place (comp. 1 Thess. v. 18;
Col. iii. 17) without thanksgiving for the proofs of divine love already re-
ceived and continually being experienced, of which the Christian is con-
scious under all circumstances (Rom. viii. 28). In the thanksgiving of the
suppliant there is expressed entire surrender to God's will, the very
opposite of solicitude.-Tà aitýuara úp.] what ye desire,” that is, in accord-
ance with the context: your petitions.3-yvwpiségów npòs T. Oεbv] must be
made Icnown towards God; pós, versus; it is the coram of the direction.
The expression is more graphic than the mere dative would be; and the
conception itself (yrwpi5.) is popularly anthropopathic; Matt. vi. 8. Ben-
gel, moreover, aptly remarks on the subject-matter : “ qui desideria sua
praepostero pudore ac diffidenti modestia . . . velant, suffocant ac
retinent, curis anguntur; qui filiali et liberali fiducia erga Deum expro-
munt, expediuntur. Confessionibus ejusmodi scatent Psalmi.”
Ver. 7. The blessed result, which the compliance with ver. 6 will have for
the inner man. How independent is this blessing of the concrete grant-
ing or non-granting of what is prayed for ! ciphun T. Depū] the peace of
soul produced by God (through the Holy Spirit; comp. xapà Év mvɛúuari
áyiy, Rom. xiv. 17), the repose and satisfaction of the mind in God's
Jas. V. 8; 1 Pet. iv. 7; and the epxouai taxó
of the Apocalypse. The simply correct ren-
dering is given after Chrysostom by Erasmus
("instat enim adventus Christi'), Grotius, and
others.
1 Comp. Xen. Cyrop. viii. 7. 12: Tò molla
μεριμνών και το μή δύνασθαι ήσυχίαν έχειν.
2 Plat. Rep. viii. p. 566 B; Dionys. Hal. Antt.
vi. 74; Luke xxiii. 24.
31 John v. 15; Dan, vi. 7, 13; Ps. xix. 6,
xxxvi. 4, et al.; Schleusner, Thes. I. p.
100.
4 Comp. Bernhardy, p. 265; Schoem. ad Is.
iii. 25.
CHAP. IV. 6, 7.
167
.
counsel and love, whereby all inward discord, doubt, and variance are
excluded, such as it is expressed e.g. in Rom. viii. 18, 28. So in substance
most expositors. This view—and not (in opposition to Theodoret and
Pelagius) that explanation of peace in the sense of harmony with the
brethren (Rom. xv. 33, xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; 1 Thess. v. 23; 2 Thess. iii.
16), which corresponds to the ordinary use of the correlative ó Deos rñs
eiphuns in ver. 9—is here required on the part of the context, both by the
Contrast of μεριμνάτε in ver. 6, and by the predicate ή υπερέχουσα πάντα νούν.
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
pépjuva, to which the feeble voûç by itself is liable; as, indeed, in the clas-
sical authors also (Plat. Rep. p. 329 C, p. 372 D), and elsewhere (Wisd.
iii. 3), eipävn denotes the tranquillitas and securitas, the mental yahavn (Plat.
Legg. vii. p. 791 A) and jouxia—a rest, which here is invested by toŨ OEOū
with the consecration of divine life. Comp. εiphun Toù XplotOū, Col. iii. 15;
John xiv. 33; and, on the other hand, the false cipívn K. áopáhela, 1 Thess.
v. 3. It is therefore not to be understood, according to Rom. v. 1, as "pax,
qua reconciliati estis Deo" (Erasmus, Paraphr.);2 which would be too general
and foreign to the context. The peace of reconciliation is the presupposi-
tion of the divinely produced moral feeling which is here meant; the
former is eipnun repòs Tòv Deóv, the latter eipívn Toll Dkov. ÚTepézovoa trávra
voūv] [XXI e.] which surpasses every reason, namely, in regard to its
salutary power and efficacy; that is, which is able more than any reason to
elevate above all solicitude, to comfort and to strengthen. Because the reason
in its moral thinking, willing, and feeling is of itself too weak to confront
the power of the oápš (Rom. vii. 23, 25; Gal. v. 17), 120 reason is in a posi-
tion to give this clear holy elevation and strength against the world and
its afflictions. This can be effected by nothing but the agency of the
divine peace, which is given by means of the Spirit in the believing heart,
when by its prayer and supplication with thanksgiving it has elevated
itself to God and has confided to Him all its concerns, 1 Pet. v. 7. Then,
in virtue of this blessed peace, the heart experiences what it could not have
experienced by means of its own thinking, feeling, and willing. Accord-
ing to de Wette, the doubting and heart-disquieting vows is meant, which is
surpassed by the peace of God, because the latter is based upon faith and
feeling. In opposition to this, however, stands the trávra, according to
which not merely all doubting reason, but every reason is meant. No one,
not even the believer and regenerate, has through his reason and its
action what he has through the peace of God. Others have explained it
in the sense of the incomprehensibleness of the peace of God, "the greatness
of which the understanding cannot even grasp ? (Wiesinger).' Comp.
1 Including Rheinwald, Flatt, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Hoelemann, Rilliet, de Wette, Wies-
inger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and Winer.
2 So Chrysostom, ý katallayn, Ý Nyánt.
Deoû; and Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza,
Estius, Wetstein, and others, including Storr,
Matthies, and van Hengel.
3So Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Erasmus. Luther, Calvin, Grotius, also Hoele-
mann and Weiss.
168
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. :
Eph. iii. 20. But the context, both in the foregoing undèv pepluvāte and in
the opovpnoel K.7.. 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 ÚTEPÉ ZELV T Ñ Ovvá ulet;
Paul had no occasion to bring into prominence the incomprehensibleness
of the ciphun Osov. povpnoel K.7.2.] [XXI f.]not custodiat (Vulgate, Chrysos-
tom, Theodoret, Theophylact: áopahioalto, Luther, Calovius, Cornelius a
Lapide, and others, including Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt), but custodiet (Cas-
talio, Beza, Calvin), whereby protection against all injurious influences
(comp. 1 Pet. i. 5) is promised. This protecting vigilance is more pre-
cisely defined by :v X. ’I., which expresses its specific character, 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 other-
wise realized and carried out than in this its holy sphere of life, which is
Christ. The opovpá which the peace of God exercises implies in Christ, as
it were, the opovpapxía (Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 17). Comp. Col. iii. 15, where the
ɛlphun TO Ŭ XPLOTO Ū Bpaßɛvel in men's hearts. Others consider év X. ’I. as that
which takes place on the part of the readers, wherein the peace of God
would Iceep them, namely “in unity with Christ, in His divinely-blessed,
holy life,” de Wette; or ÜOTE MÉVELV kai un ÉKTTEDETV avtoð Oecumenius, comp.
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Zanchius, and others, including Hein-
richs, Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, van Hengel, Matthies, Rilliet, Wiesinger,
Weiss. But the words do not affirm wherein watchful activity is to keep
or preserve the readers (Paul does not write tnphoei; comp. John xvii. 11),
but wherein it will take place; therefore the inaccurate rendering per
Christum (Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, and others) is so far more correct.
The artificial suggestion of Hoelemann (“Christo fere cinguli instar ràs
kapdias úpūv k.t.2. circumcludente," etc.) is all the less warranted, the more
familiar the idea év Xplotó 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 opovpnoel
K.1.2., are not to be arbitrarily limited, e.g. to opponents (Heinrichs), or to
Satan (Beza, Grotius, and others), or sin (Theophylact), or pravas cogita-
tiones (Calvin), or “omnes insultus et curas” (Bengel), and the like; but to
be left quite general, comprehending all such special aspects. Erasmus
well says (Paraphr.): "adversus omnia, quae hic possunt incidere formi-
danda.”—Tàç kapd. Újl. K. Tà vonpl. epūv.] emphatically kept apart. It is
enough to add Bengel's note: “cor sedes cogitationum.”3 The heart is
the organ of self-consciousness, and therefore the moral seat of the
activity of thought and will. As to the vonuara (2 Cor. iii. 14) as the inter-
nal products of the theoretical and practical reason, and therefore includ-
1 On 'TrepéXely with the accusative (usually
with the genitive, ii. 3), see Valckenaer,
ad Eur. Hippol. 1365; Kühner, II. 1, p.
337.
2 Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 560 B.: oi ... ãplotou
povpoi te kai búhakes év åv&pôv 0eooldwv cioi
Slavoiaus. . Eur. Suppl. 902: époúpel (Troddows)
undevé šauaptávelv. “Animat eos hac fiducia,"
Erasmus, Annot.
3 Comp. Roos, Fundam psychol. ex sacr. script.
III. 26: “causa cogitationum interna eaque
libera."
CHAP. IV. 8, 9.
169
ing purposes and plans (Plat. Polit. p. 260 D; 2 Cor. ii. 11), comp. Beck,
bibl. Seelenl. p. 59, and Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 179. The distinction is an
arbitrary one, which applies t kapd. to the emotions and will, and T. vonu.
to the intelligence (Beza, Calvin).
Ver. 8 f. [XXI g.] A summary closing summons to a Christian mode of
thought and (ver. 9) action, compressing everything closely and succinctly
into a few pregnant words, introduced by tò holtóv, with which Paul had
already, at iii. 1, wished to pass on to the conclusion. See on iii. 1. This
TÒ holt ov is not, however, resumptive (Matthies, Ewald, following the old
expositors), or concluding the exhortation begun in iii. 1 (Hofmann), for in
that passage it introduced quite a different sumnions; but, without any
reference to iii. 1, it conveys the transition of thought: “what over and
above all the foregoing I have to urge upon you in general still is : every-
thing that," etc. According to de Wette, it is intended to bring out what
remained for man to do, in addition to that which God does, ver. 7. But
in that case there must have been expressed, at least by ýetç before ádenpoi
or in some other way, an antithetic statement of that which had to be
done on the part of man.—őca] nothing being excepted, expressed asyn-
detically six times with the emphasis of an earnest ért luovń. Comp. ii. 1,
iii. 2; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 341 [E. T. 398].—à2n0n] The thoroughly
ethical contents of the whole summons requires us to understand, not
theoretical truth (van Hengel), but that which is morally true; that is, that
which is in harmony with the objective standard of morality contained in the
gospel. See 1 John i. 6; John iii. 21; Eph. v. 9; 1 Cor. v. 8. To limit it
to truth in speaking (Theodoret, Bengel) is in itself arbitrary, and not in
keeping with the general character of the predicates which follow, in
accordance with which we must not even understand specially unfeigned
sincerity (Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, and others); 2 though this essentially
belongs to the morally true.-- Elivá] worthy of honor, for it is in accordance
with God._dikala] upright, as it ought to be; not to be limited to the rela-
tions “erga alios" (Bengel, Heumann, and others), so that justice in the
narrower sense would be meant (so Calvin :"ne quem laedamus, ne
quem fraudemus; ” Estius, Grotius, Calovius, and others). Comp., on
the contrary, Theogn. 147 : Év dekaloobvņoukaubony Trão' åpetń Łotl.-áyvá]pure,
unstained, not: chaste in the narrower sense of the word (2 Cor. xi. 2;
Dem. 1371. 22; Plut. Mor. p. 268 E, 438 C, et al.), as Grotius, Calovius,
Estius, Heumann, and others would explain it. Calvin well says: “cas-
timoniam denotat in omnibus vitae partibus.” Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 6, vii.
11; 1 Tim. v. 22; Jas. iii. 17 ; 1 Pet. iii. 2; 1 John iii. 3 ; often so used in
Greek authors. _apoopi277] dear, that which is loved. This is just once more
1 Chrysostom: À åpetń yeüdos Sè ñ Karía.
Oecumenius: ánon dé onou Tà évápeta. Comp.
also Theophylact.
2 Comp. Eph. iv. 21; Plat. Phil. p. 59 C: TÒ
αληθές και ο δή λέγομεν ειλικρινές.
3 Comp. 1 Tim. ii. 2: cuoeßeią kai oeuvÓTITL.
Plat. Soph. p. 249 A: oeuvov kai äycov voûv.
Xen. Oec. vi. 14: Tò oeuvov ovoua tò kalóv tu
kåyalóv. Dem. 385. 11; Herodian, i. 2. 6; Ael.
V. H. ii. 13, viii. 36; Polyb. ix. 36. 6, XV. 22. I,
xxii. 6. 10.
4 Comp. Menand. in Clem. Strom. vii. p.
844: Tâs àyvós éoTLV Ó undèv avto kakov
ouvidúv.
170
.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Christian morality, which, in its whole nature as the ethical kahóv, is worthy
of love. The opposite is the aloxpov, which deserves hate (Rom. vii. 15).
Chrysostonm suggests the supplying τους πιστούς κ. τω Θεώ; Theodoret only
Tŷ OÈQ. Others, as Calovius, Estius, Heinrichs, and many: “amabilia
hominibus.” But there is no necessity for any such supplement. The
word does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., although frequently in clas-
sical authors, and at Ecclus. iv. 8, xx. 13. Others understand kindliness,
benevolence, friendliness, and the like. So Grotius; comp. Erasmus,
Paraphr. : “quaecumque ad alendam concordiam accommoda.” Lin-
guistically faultless (Ecclus. l.c.; Herod. i. 125;. Thuc. vii. 86; Polyb. x.
5. 6), but not in keeping with the context, which does not adduce any special
virtues.-evpnua] not occurring elsewhere either in the N. T., or in the
LXX., or Apocrypha; it does not mean : “ quaecumque bonam famam
conciliant” (Erasmus; comp. Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius,
Heinrichs, and others, also Rheinwald); but: that which sounds well
(Luther) which has an auspicious (faustum) sound, i. e. that which, when it
is named; sounds significant of happiness, as, for instance, brave, honest,
honorable, etc. The opposite would be : dvopnua. Storr, who is followed
by Flatt, renders it: “sermones, qui bene aliis precantur." So used in later
Greek authors (also Symmachus, Ps. Ixji. 6); but this meaning is here too
special.—Ei Tis K.7..] comprehending all the points mentioned : if there be
any virtue, and if there be any praise; not if there be yet another, etc. (de
Wette).—ảperý used by Paul here only, and in the rest of the N. T. only
in 1 Pet. ii. 9, 2 Pet. i. 3, 5,' in the ethical sense: moral aptitude in disposi-
tión, and action (the opposite to it, kakía : Plat. Rep. 444 D, 445 C, 1, p.
348 C). Comp. from the Apocrypha, Wisd. iv. 1, v. 13, and frequent
instances of its use in the books of Macc.—ĚTalvos] not: res laudabilis
(Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Flatt, Matthies, van Hengel, and many others;
comp. Weiss), but praise (Erasmus : "laus virtutis comes "), which the
reader could not understand in the apostle's sense otherwise than of a
laudatory judgment actually corresponding to the moral value of the
object. Thus, for instance, Paul's commendation of love in 1 Cor. xiii. is
an ĚT ALVOS ; or when Christ pronounces a blessing on the humble, the
peacemakers, the merciful, etc., or the like. “Vera laus uni virtuti
debetur," Cic. de orat. ii. 84. 342; virtue is kať aútiv ÉTTALVETń, Plat. Def. p.
1 Plat. Rep. p. 444 E; Soph. El. 972: Aldei yap
tpos Tà xonorà tâs ópây. “Nihil est amabilius
virtute, nihil quod magis alliciat ad diligen-
dum," Cic. Lacl, 28. Comp. ad Famil, ix. 14;
Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 33. Luther well renders it:
“ lieblich," and the Gothic: “liubaleik ;” the
Vulgate: “amabilia."
2 Comp. Soph. Aj. 362; Eur. Iph. T. 687:
cüonua bóvel. Plat. Leg. vii. p. 801 A : TÒ Tņs
wdñs yévos cüdnuov ruir. Aesch. Suppl. 694,
Agam. 1168; Polyb. xxxi. 14. 4; Lucian,
Prom. 3.
8 We are not entitled to assume (with Beza)
as the reason why Paul does not use this
word elsewhere, that it is "verbum nimium
humile, si cum donis Spiritus Sancti com:
paretur." The very passage before us shows
the contrary, as it means no other than Chris-
tian morality. Certainly in Paul's case, as
with the N. T. authors generally and even
Christ Himself, the specific designations of
the idea of virtue, which correspond more
closely to the sphere of theocratic 0. T. ideas,
such as SLKALOO Úvn, utakon, Sycórns, áy.wovun,
OOLOTYS, K.T.d., too necessarily suggested them-
selyes to his mind to allow him to use the
CHAP. IV. 8, 9.
171
411 C. Mistaken, therefore, were such additions as éscothuns (D* E* FG)
or disciplinae (Vulg., It., Ambrosiaster, Pelagius). Taðra hoyi6eo0ɛ] consider
these things, take them to heart, in order (see ver. 9) to determine your
conduct accordingly. “Meditatio praecedit, deinde sequitur opus," Cal-
vin.-Ver. 9. The Christian morality, which Paul in ver. 8 has com-
mended to his readers by a series of predicates, he now again urges upon
them in special reference to their relation to himself, their teacher and
example, as that which they had also learned, etc. The first kaí is therefore
also, prefixing to the subsequent rajta Tipáocete an element corresponding
to this requirement, and imposing an obligation to its fulfillment. “What-
soever also has been the object and purport of your instruction, etc., that
do.” To take the four times repeated kai as a double as well ... as also
(Hofmann and others), would yield an inappropriate formal scheme of
separation. Kaí in the last three cases is the simple and, but so that the
whole is to be looked upon as bipartite : “Duo priora verba ad doctrinam
pertinent, reliqua duo ad exemplum” (Estius).—ä] not öga again; for no
further categories of morality are to be given, but what they are bound to
do generally is to be described under the point of view of what is known
to the readers, as that which they also have learned, etc.—Tapaháſetɛ] have
accepted. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1; John i. 11; Polyb. xxxiii. 16. 9. The inter-
pretation : “have received, which makes it denote the instruction commu-
nicated (1 Thess. ii. 13, iv. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 6; 1 Cor. xi. 23; Gal. i. 9, 12;
Col. ii. 6) would yield a twofold designation for the one element, and on
the other hand would omit the point of the assensus, which is so import-
ant as a motive; moreover, from a logical point of view, we should
necessarily expect to find the position of the two words reversed (comp.
Gal. i. 12).—Kovoare] does not refer to the proper preaching and teaching
of the apostle (Erasmus, Calvin, Elsner, Rheinwald, Matthies), which is
already fully embraced in the two previous points; nor does it denote:
"audistis de me absente” (Estius and others, including Hoelemann, Rilliet,
Hofmann), for all the other points refer to the time of the apostle's pres-
ence, and consequently not merely the “de me," but also the “absente"
would be purely imported. No, by the words nkourate and εidete, to both
of which ¿v čuoi belongs, he represents to his readers his own example of
Christian morality, which he had given them when he was present, in its
two portions, in so far as they had perceived it in him (év šuoi, comp. i. 30)
2
)
Hoelemann, de Wette, Weiss, Hofmann.
general term for morality, åpetń, as familiar,
however worthily and nobly the Platonic
doctrine, in particular, had grasped the idea
of it (eis ögov suratov åvepórw SuoLollobal
@ea, Plat. Rep. p. 613 A, 500 C, et al.).
1 On doyiseolar, comp. Ps. lii. 2; Jer. xxvi.
3; Nah. i. 9; Ps. XXXV. 4; Xxxvi. 4; 3 Macc.
iv. 4; Soph. 0. R. 461; Herod. viii. 53 ; Dem.
63, 12; Sturz, Lex. Xen. III. p. 42; the opposite:
Ovntà doyiseobal, Anthol. Pal. xi. 56. 3.
2 Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, and most
expositors, including Rheinwald, Rilliet,
3 Comp. Plat. Theaet. p. 198 B: rapalane
Bávovta Sè mavávelv.
Real distinctions have, indeed, been made,
but how purely arbitrary they are! Thus
Grotius (comp. Hammond) makes éuál. apply
to the primam institutionem, and mapeláß. to
the exactiorem doctrinam. Rilliet explains it
differently, making the former denote: “son
enseignement direct," and the latter: “les in-
structions, qu'il leur a transmises sous une forme
quelconque."
172
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
'
partly by hearing, in his whole oral behavior and intercourse with them,
partly by seeing, in his manner of action among them; or, in other words,
his example both in word and deed.--Tavta īpáoceTE] these things do, is not
related to taðra hoyi Geode; ver. 8, as excluding it, in such a way that for
what is said in ver. 8 the horiseolai merely would be required, and for
what is indicated in ver. 9 the apácselv; on the contrary, the two opera-
tions, which in substance belong jointly to the contents of both verses, are
formally separated in accordance with the mode of expression of the par-
allelism. Comp. on ii. S and Rom. x. 10.--kai ó oebs K.7.2.] in substance
the same promise as was given in ver. 7. God, who works peace (that holy
peace of soul, ver. 7), will be with you, whereby is meant the help given
through the Holy Spirit; and His special agency, which Paul here has in
view, is unmistakably indicated by the very predicate tñs eiphuns.
REMARK.-It is to be noticed that the predicates in ver. 8, đanañ . . . evonua.
do not denote different individual virtues, but that each represents the Christian
moral character generally, so that in reality the same thing is described, but according
to the various aspects which commended it. Comp. Diog. Laert. ii. 106: @V TÒ Syabòv
Torhois óvójaol kahojuevov. Cic. de fin. ii. 4. 14: “una virtus unum istud, quod
honestum appellas, rectum, laudabile, decorum.” That it is Christian morality which
Paul has in view, is clearly evident from ver. 9 and from the whole preceding
context. Hence the passage cannot avail for placing the morality of the moral
law of nature (Rom. ii. 14 f.) on an equality with the gospel field of duty, which
has its specific definition and consecration--as also, for the reconciled whom it
embraces, the assurance of the divine keeping (vv. 7, 9)--in the revealed word
(ver. 9), and in the enlightening and ethically transforming power of the Spirit
(comp. Rom. xii. 2). .
Ver. 10. [On Vv. 10–19, see Note XXII. pages 190, 191.] Carrying on his
discourse with sé, Paul now in conclusion adds, down to ver. 20, some
courteous expressions, as dignified as they are delicate, concerning the aid
which he had received. Hitherto, indeed, he had only mentioned this work
of love briefly and casually (ii. 25, 30). In the aid itself Baur discovers a
contradiction of 1 Cor. ix. 15, and conjectures that the author of the
epistle had 2 Cor. xi. 9 in view, and had inferred too much from that
passage. But, in fact, Baur himself has inferred too much, and incor-
rectly, from 1 Cor. ix. 15; for in this passage Paul speaks of payment for his
preaching, not of loving gifts from persons at a distance, which in point of
fact put him in the position to preach gratuitously in Achaia, 2 Cor. xi. 8
ff. There is, besides, in our passage no mention of regular sendings of
money.-ěv kvpiw] as in iii. 1, iv. 4. It was, indeed, not a joy felt apart
from Christ ; où kodulkās é zápnu, onoiv, ovdè Blwtikūs, Chrysostom.-jeyáhws]
mightily. Comp. LXX., 1 Chron. xxix. 9; Neh. xii. 42; Polyb. iii. 87.5;
Polyc. Phil. 1. The position at the end is emphatic.—öti ñón TOTÉ K.7.2.] is
to be rendered: “that ye have at length once again come into the flourishing
condition of taking thought for my benefit, in behalf of which ye also TOOK
1 See on Matt. ii. 10; and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 256 E, Monex. p. 235 A.
CHAP. IV. 10.
173
thought, but had no favorable opportunity.”—ñon Troté] taken in itself may
mean : already once; or, as in Rom. i. 10: tandem aliquando. The latter
is the meaning here, as appears from Q? W K.T.2. Chrysostom justly
observes (comp. Oecumenius and Theophylact) that it denotes xpóvov
pakpóv, when namely that bárhelv had not been present, which has now
again (comp. ver. 15 f.) set in.' This view of non troté is the less to be
evaded, seeing that the reproach which some have discovered in the
passage (énetíunois, Chrysostom) is not by any means conveyed in it, as
indeed from the delicate feeling of the apostle we might expect that it
would not, and as is apparent from the correct explanation of the
sequel.—àvedládetɛ] [XXII c.] ye have again become green (refloruistis,
Vulgate), like a tree or an orchard which had been withered, and has
again budded and put forth new shoots (handous).? It cannot be the revival
of their care-taking love which is meant, so that the readers would have
previously been arouapavēévres ÉV TÏ ¿menuosúvn (Oecumenius, also Chrysos-
tom, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius,
Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, Flatt, Wiesinger, Ewald, and most expositors,
who rightly take avettán. 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 ég♡
É poveītɛ K.T.2. which immediately follows, and by which the continuous
care previously exercised is attested! No, it is the flourishing anew of their
prosperity (comp. Rheinwald, Matthies, van Hengel, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Schenkel, Hofmann, and others), the opposite of which is after-
wards expressed by ñkalpełode, that is denoted, as prosperous circum-
stances are so often represented under the figure of becoming green and
blooming 3 It is therefore inconsistent, both with delicate feeling and
with the context, to take kvelán. transitively : “revirescere sivistis solitam
vestram rerum mearum procurationem” (Hoelemann; comp. Coccejus,
Grotius, Heinrichs, Hammond, and others, including Rilliet, de Wette,
Weiss), although the transitive use of åvaðárdeiv in the LXX. and also in
the Apocrypha is unquestionable (Ezek. xvii. 24; Ecclus. i. 16, xi. 20, 1.
10; see generally Schleusner, Thes. I. p. 220 f.); and that of Pálmetv is also
current in classical authors. An unfounded objection is brought against
the view which explains it of the revival of prosperity, that it is inappro-
priate as a subject of joy in the Lord (see Weiss); it is appropriate at all
events, when such a use is made of the revived prosperity.--TÒ ÚTèp šuoő
1 Comp. Baeumlein, Partik. p. 140.
2 The conjecture, on the ground of this
figurative expression, that the Philippians
might have sent to the apostle in spring, and
that nkaupeio de Sé applies to the winter season
(Bengel), is far-fetched and arbitrary. The
figurative kvelán. does not even need to be an
image of spring, as Calvin, Estius, Weiss, and
others understand it.
3 Comp. Ps. Xxviii. 7: ivéeakev cápf uoc,
Wisd. iv. 3 f.; Hes. Op. 231: TéOnde móds, Pind.
Isth. iii. 9 : onßos ... Dádiwy, Pyth. vii. 22:
Oáadovo av eýdatnoviav. Plat. Legg. xii. p. 945 D:
ή πάσα ούτω θάλλει τε και ευδαιμονεί χώρα κ.
Trolls. Of frequent occurrence in the trage-
dians; comp. also Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr. viji.
97.
4 Pind. Ol. iii. 24; Aesch. Pers. 622 (608);
Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. p. 103; Kühner, II. 1,
p. 265.
174
THE EPISTI
PAUL, ANOTHA DITT TDDT
ro THE PHILIPPIANS.
ppoveīv] (XXII d.] is usually, with the correct intransitive rendering of
åvedán.,' so understood that tò is taken together with opoveiv, and this must
be regarded as the accusative of more precise definition, which is only
distinguished by its greater emphasis from the mere epexegetical
infinitive. Comp. van Hengel: “negotium volo mihi consulendi.” But
the whole view which takes 76 with ºpovɛīv is set aside by the following čo?
♡ K. É povɛīta; seeing that ép' , unless it is to be rendered at variance with
linguistic usage by although (Luther, Castalio, Michaelis, Storr), or just as
(Vulgate, van Hengel), could only convey in its the previous tò ÚTÈD.
ểuoŨ Opovɛīv, and would consequently - yield the logically absurd con-
ception : é povęīte ÉTÈ TQ. ÚTÈP ŠuoŨ ppoveiv, whether ćø ♡ be taken as
equivalent to oů čveka (Beza) or qua de re (Rheinwald, Matthies, de Wette,
Wiesinger, Ewald, and others), or in eo quod (Erasmus), in qua re (Cor-
nelius a Lapide, Hoelemann), or et post id (Grotius), and the like.
Recourse has been had, by way of helping the matter, to the suggestion
that opovɛív éní is a thinking without action, and opoveiv útép a thinking with
action (de Wette, Wiesinger; comp. Ewald); but how purely arbitrary is
this view! Less arbitrarily, Calvin and Rilliet (" vous pensiez bien à
moi”) have referred u to šuoū, by which, no doubt, that logical awkward-
ness is avoided; but, on the other hand, the objection arises, that ♡ is
elsewhere invariably used by Paul as neuter only, and that it is difficult to
see why, if he desired to take up ÚTÈp šuow in a relative form, he should
not have written únèp où, since otherwise in ění, if it merely went back to,
Šuoī, 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
(kai è poveīte). Weiss, interpreting ép ý as: about which to take thought,
refers it back to ávelánetama 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 το υπέρ εμού together (comp. τα περί υμών, ii.
20; also tà tap ýuāv, ver. 18;3 and that as the accusative of the object to
ONOVETV (comp. Bengel, Schenkel, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann): "to talce into
consideration that which serves for my good,” to think of my benefit; on
ÚTÈp, comp. i. 7. Only thus does the sequel obtain its literal, logical, and
delicately-turned reference, namely, when ég? ♡ applies to tò ÚTÈDějov.
Taking this view, we have to notice: (1) that éní is used in the sense of
the aim (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 475; Kühner, II. 1, p. 435) : on behalf of
which, for which, comp. Soph. O. R. 569; (2) that Paul has not again written
the mere accusative (ö kai épp.), because šo ♡ is intended to refer not alone
to κ. έφρονείτε, but also to the antithesis σκαιρείσθε δέ, consequently to the
entire k. špp., înaip. Sé ;4 (3) that the emphasis is placed on topov. as the
)
1 In the transitive interpretation (see, against
it, supra) the tò opoveiv, which would likewise
be taken together, would be the accusative
forming the object of åvebát. See Buttmann,
Neut. Gr. p. 226 [E. T. 263]; Kühner, II. 2, p.
603.
2 See Bernhardy, p. 356; Schmalfeld, Syntax
d. Griech. Verb. p. 401 f.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph.
II. p. 222.
3 And see generally, Krüger, 2 50. 5. 12;
Kühner, II. 1, p. 231 f.
4 All the more groundless, therefore, is
CHAP. IV. 11.
175
imperfect, and kai indicates an element to be added to the opoveiv which has
been just expressed; hence kaì łop. intimates: "in behalf of which yė not
only are taking thought (that is, since the aveðáhere), but also were taking
thought (namely, apóclev, before the kvelánɛte);" lastly, (4) that after épp.
there is no uév inserted, because the antithesis is meant to emerge unpre-
pared for, and so all the more vividly.--nkalpaíodɛ] [XXII e.] ye had no
favorable time; a word belonging to the later Greek. Unsuitably and
arbitrarily this is explained : "deerat vobis opportunitas mittendi” (Eras-
mus, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmüller, and others). It refers, in keep-
ing with the åveláete, not without delicacy of description, to the unfavor-
able state of things as regards means (Chrysostom : ouk EizeTE év Xepoiv, oidè v
åplovią ñte; so also Theophylact; while Oecumenius adduces this inter-
pretation alongside of the previous one) which had occurred among the
Philippians, as Paul might have learned from Epaphroditus and
otherwise.2 :
Ver. 11. [XXII f. g.] Obviating of a misunderstanding.-ovx öri] 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 katá, secundum,
in the sense of propter, see Kühner, II. 1, p. 413, and ad Xen. Mem. i. 3.
12. According to van Hengel's interpretation : "ut more receptum est
penuriae, s. hominibus penuria oppressis," katá, could not have been
united with an abstract noun (Rom. iii. 5, et al.).—_yù yàpējadov k.7.2.] for I,
as regards my part (although it may be different with others), have learned
in the circumstances, in which I find myself, to be self-contented, that is, to
have enough independently without desiring aid from others. It is
evident from the reason thus assigned that in oύχ. ότι καθ' υστ. λ. he has
meant not the objective, but the subjective state of need.-—_y6] with noble
self-consciousness, there being no need to supply, with Bengel, - in tot
adversis.”-špalov] signifies the having learned by experience (comp. Plat.
Symp. p. 182 C: špyQ d'È TOŪTo čualov kai oi évêáde Túpavvol), and all that
accordingly he can, he owes to the strengthening influence of Christ, ver.
TLVL
Hofmann's objection, that opoveiv éri TLVL
means: to be proud about something. This
objection, put thus generally, is even in itself
incorrect. For opoveix étrí Tive does not in
itself mean: to be proud about something, but
only receives this signification through the
addition of péya, Meyada, or some similar
more precise definition (Plat. Thenet. p. 149
D, Alc. 1. p. 104 C, Prot. p. 342 D, Sympos. p.
217 A: Dem. 181. 16, 336, 10), either expressly
specified or directly suggested by the con-
text. Very artificial, and for the simple
reader hardly discoverable, is the view under
which Hofmann takes the fact expressed by
kai éppoveite as the ground, "upon, or on account
of, which their re-emergence from an unfavorable
position has been a revival unto care for him."
If the reference of ėd' to TÒ ÚTTÈD CMOû were
not directly given in the text, it would be
much simpler to take è'w as in Rom. v. 12,
Phil. iii. 12, 2 Cor. v. 4, in the sense of propte-
rea quod, and that as a graceful and ingenious
specification of the reason for the great joy of
the apostle, that they had flourished again to
take thought for his benefit; for their pre-
vious omission had been caused not by any
lack of the Opoveiv in question, but by the
unfavorableness of the times.
Diod. exc. Mai. p. 30; Phot., Suid. The
opposite: evkalpcev, Lobeck, nd Phryn. p.
125.
2 Comp. cúraipeiv Tois Bious in Polyb. xv. 21.
2, xxxii. 21.12; and also the mere cúkalpeiv in
the same sense, iv. 60. 10; eúkaipia: xv. 31. 7,
i. 59.7 ; åkarpia: Plat. Legg. iv. p. 709 A; Dem.
16.4; Polyb. iv. 44. 11.
176
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
13.-—v ois ciui] in the situation, in which I find myself. Not merely his
position then, but, generally, every position in which he finds himself, is
meant, although it is not exactly to be taken as : "in quocunque statu sim"
(Raphel, Wetstein, and others), which would be ungrammatically
expressed. In opposition to the context (see ver. 12), Luther: among
whom (ois, masculine) I am. As to avrápkela as applied to persons, the
subjective self-sufficing, by means of which a man does not make the satis-
faction of his needs dependent upon others, but finds it in himself, comp.
Ecclus. xl. 18; Xen. Mem. iv. 7.1; Dem. 450. 14; Stob. v. 43; and see on
2 Cor. ix. 8.
Ver. 12. Paul now specifies this his avrápkela (in Plat. Def. p. 412 B,
termed TERELÓTNS KTHOEWS éyabūv).-oida] I understand how (1 Thess. iv. 4; Col.
iv. 6; 1 Tim. iii. 5; Matt. vii. 11; Soph. Aj. 666 f. ; Anth. Pal. vii. 440. 5
ff.);2 result of the špadov.--kał Tanelv.] also to be abased, namely, by want,
distress, and other alloted circumstances which place the person affected
by them in the condition of abasement. Paul understands this, inasmuch
as he knows how to bear himself in the right attitude to such alloted cir-
cumstances, namely, in such a way that, independently thereof, he finds
his sufficiency in himself, and does not seek it in that which he lacks.
We find a commentary on this in 2 Cor. iv. 8, vi. 9, 10. olda kaì TEPLODEVELV
is to be understood analogously, of the right attitude to the matter, so that
one is not led away by abundance to find his satisfaction in the latter
instead of in himself. Pelagius well says: "ut nec abundantia extollar,
nec frangar inopia.”—The first kai adds to the general tv ois eiuic 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 TEPLODEVELV kaì totepɛiobal, for tanelvoñolal is a more comprehensive idea than
the counterpart of TEPLOGEVELV, and also contains a figurative conception.
Some such expression as úpovobal would have been adequate as the con-
trast of Tafelv. (Matt. xxiii. 12; 2 Cor. xi. 7; Phil. ii. 8, 9; Polyb, v. 26. 12).
There is a lively versatility of conception, from not perceiving which some
have given to this iteploGEVELV (to have a superfluity) the explanation excellere
(Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin), or to Tanel. the meaning to be poor, to be in
pitiful plight, óhíyouç kexpñobal, Theophylact (Estius, and others; comp. also
Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Rheinwald, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius,
de Wette, Hofmann), which even the LXX., Lev. xxv. 39, does not justify.
-In what follows, εν παντί κ. εν πάσι is not to be regarded as belonging to
ταπεινούσθαι and περισσεύειν (Hofmann), but is to be joined with μεμύημαι.
We are dissuaded from the former connection by the very repetition of
the olda; and the latter is recommended by the great emphasis, which
rests upon εν παντί κ. εν πάσι heading the last clause, εις also by the cor-
relative távra at the head of ver. 13. Further, no comma is to be placed
after μεμνημαι, nor is εν παντί... μεμνημαι to be explained as meaning: “ into
1 See examples in Wetstein and Kypke;
comp. also Mätzner, ad Antiph. p. 131.
2 It is the moral understanding, having its
seat in the character. Comp. Ameis, Anh.mm :
Hom. Od. ix. 189.
1
CHAP. IV. 12, 13.
· 177
TI
everything I an initiated," and then kaì xoprášeobal K.7.2. as elucidating the
notion of "everything": "cum re qualicunque omnibusque, tam saturitate
et fame, quam abundantia et penuria, tantam contraxi familiaritatem, ut
rationem teneam iis bene utendi,” van Hengel; comp. de Wette, Rilliet,
Wiesinger; so also, on the whole, Chrysostom, Erasmus, Estius, and many
others, but with different interpretations of mavri and Tiãoiv. This view is at
variance with the fact, that uvežohal has that into which one is initiated
expressed not by means of év, but—and that most usually-in the accusa-
tive (Herod. ii. 51; Plat. Gorg. p. 497 C, Symp. p. 209 E; Aristoph. Plut.
845 (šupvetolai); Lucian, Philop. 14), or in the dative (Lucian, Demon. 11),
or genitive (Heliod. i. 17; Herodian, i. 13. 16); hence itāv k. Távra, or Tavti
K. tão lv, or TavTÒS. K. Trávtwv inust have been written in 3 Macc. ii. 30, it has
katá with the accusative). No; Paul says that in everything and in all, that
is, under every relation that may occur and in all circumstances, he is
initiated into, that is, made completely familiar with, as well the being satis-
fiecl, as the being hungry, as well the having superfluity as want; in all
situations, without exception, he quite understands how to assume and
maintain the right attitude to these different experiences, which in ver.
11 he characterizes by the words avrápkns eival. 'Ev mavri K. Šv mãou is,
accordingly to be taken after the analogy of év ois eiul, ver. 11, and there-
fore as neuter. It was purely arbitrary to render év zavri: 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 tavri correctly as neuter, but make
Trãow (as in 2 Cor. xi. 6) Masculine (Bengel : "respectu omnium homi-
num"). It is not necessary to supply anything to either of the two words;
and as to the alternation of the singular and plural, which only indicates
the total absence of any exception (comp. analogous expressions in
Lobeck, Paral. p. 56 ff.), there is no occasion for artificial explanation.-
In German we say: in Allen und Jedlem (in all and each). Comp. on év
tãou on Col. i. 18. With strange arbitrariness Hofmann makes ¿v Tavti k.
ŠV tãou denote everything that is a necessary of life (in detail and in whole).
In that case certainly the contrast of Xoptás. and telvāv is unsuitable !--
jeu'nuai] the proper word for the various grades of initiation into the
mysteries is here used in a figurative sense, like initiatum esse, of a special,
unusual, not by every one attainable, familiar acquaintance with some-
thing. The opposite is åpuntos.The climax should here be noticed,
žuaov ... oida ... Meuunuar. Ver. 13 places beyond doubt to whom the
apostle owes this lofty spiritual superiority over all outward circum-
stances. As to the later form relvāv instead of relvñv, see Lobeck, ad
Phryn. p. 61 ; Jacobs, ad Ael. II. p. 261.
Ver. 13. After the special statement, the consciousness of the autápkela
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!-ioxów]
1 Casaubon, Exerc. Baron. p. 390 ff.; Lobeck,
Aglaoph. I. p. 38 ff.
2 See Munthe, Obss. p. 383; Jacobs, ad Anthol
III. p. 498.
12
178
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
[XXII h.] of moral strength, homogeneous as to category with fuadov in
ver. 11, and with oida and yeuunuar in ver. 12, because these predicates also
were dynamically meant, of the understanding of ethical practice. There
is therefore the less reason for limiting Távta in any way (van Hengel:
"omnia memorata ;" comp. Weiss); there is nothing for which Paul did
not feel himself morally strong; for every relation he knew himself to be
morally adequate. Távta is the accusative of the object. Gal. v. 6; Jas. V.
16. The opposite to it: undèv loxówow, Plat. Crit. p. 50 B, Ael. V. H. xii.
22, et al.-évtő évow. ple] Not in his own human ability does Paul feel this
power, but it has its basis in Christ, whose dúvauis 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 Év TĄ KPÁTEL TŘns Loxtos
aútov, Eph. vi. 10.
Ver. 14. IIanv] Nevertheless (1 Cor. xi. 11; Eph. v. 33), apart from the
fact that with such moral power I am equal to all emergencies, and there-
fore, as far as want is concerned, do not need aid (comp. ver. 11). “Cavet,
ne fortiter loquendo contemsisse ipsorum beneficium videatur;" Calvin.
Comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact.-karūs] in the moral sense.-ovykov.
Mov Tin Oliv.] characterizes the work according to its high ethical value (öpa
oogiav, tās étaipei Tò apãyua, Theophylact): that ye became partakers with
me in my affliction. [XXII 1.] 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 Olivis. Comp. Rom. xii. 13. It is a practical participation, and not
merely that of feeling and emotion. Comp. Eph. v. 11; Rev. xviii. 4, i. 9.
By tv 0210., Paul means his position at the time as a whole, not: want
(which also in 2 Cor. viii. 13 it does not mean). The dative is governed by
OvykoLV. (Eph. v. 11; Rev. xviii. 4; Rom. xii. 13, xv. 27, et al.); and pov is,
in accordance with the well-known usage, to be taken as if Mol were in the
text (comp. on ii. 2). The aorist participle coincides as to time with étrolhoate
(see on Eph. i. 9); as to the participle with kanūs Trolęīv, see Winer, p. 323 f.
[E. T. 315].
Ver. 15 f. A courteous recalling of the fact, that in the very beginning of
the gospel the Philippians had distinguished themselves by such manifestation
of love towards Paul.---é] carrying the discourse onward: But what ye
have done connects itself with a relation into which, as ye also know, no
other church, but yours only, placed itself to me at the very first !-vidare
dé k.1.2.] but it is Icnown also to you, Philippians, that, etc. Hofmann very
erroneously derives the object of oidate from what precedes, and takes or
in the sense of because. He makes the apostle say, namely, to the Philip-
pians: That they had done well in helpfully taking part in his affliction
they knew also, as other churches knew that it was well done; by experience
they knew it, because it was not the first time that they had sent similar
gifts to him, etc. This explanation is erroneous, because invariably where
olda (oidajev, oïdate, K.7.2.) is accompanied, not with an accusative of the
* And Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p.518 C, Symp. p. 215 C.
CHAP. IV. 14, 15.
179
object, but with őtl, the latter conveys the contents (that), and not the
reason or the cause (because), of the oida (comp. i. 19, 25; Rom. iii. 2; 1
Cor. iii. 16, xii. 2; Gal. iv. 13, and innumerable other passages); secondly,
because the previously attested kalūs énoLMOate, while perfectly suitable to
be expressed by the grateful apostle, was not so suited to be transferred to
the consciousness of the donors, to which it was self-evident, and to be ap-
pealed to by them; thirdly, because the kaí in the alleged reference to
other churches would be very unsuitable, since the question here con-
cerns merely a work of love of the Philippians, but other churches could
only know generally that it was well done to aid the apostle, into which
general idea, therefore, Hofmann insensibly transforms the object of
οίδατε, instead of abiding strictly by the concrete καλώς εποιήσατε as its
object; finally, it would be strange and not in keeping with the thoughtful
manner of the apostle, to furnish the idea: "ye know that ye did well
therein” (which oidate is supposed to convey) with the altogether exter-
nal specification of a ground for it: “because ye have already formerly
and repeatedly supported me." The contents attributed by Hofmann to
oidare needed no assignment of a causal ground, or--if any—one internal,
ethical, and in harmony with the subtle delicacy of the apostle.- Observe,
moreover, in connection with oidate K. vuɛīs, that in that which the
readers also know (consequently in őtl K.T.7.) the stress lies upon the
negative ovdeuía K.7.2.-kaì quɛīs] ye also, as I. LalitholoL] 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
Öte vueīs, øllTT.), but in his increasing earnestness. Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 11.-
Łv åpxı T. 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 relation to
the present and to the wider development of the church now attained, as still
belonging to the period of the beginning of the gospel. Comp. Clement.
Cor. I. 47. An epexegetical more precise definition of this expression-
which does not betray the hand of a later author (Hinsch)—for the date
intended is : öte čñadov åtò Maked., when I departed from Macedonia, Acts
xvii. 14. Paul, therefore, immediately on leaving that country, received aid
from the infant church, when the brethren τον Παύλον εξαπέστειλαν
Tropɛveodai ús ÉTÈ TÌv Oáhacoav and iyayov ëwc 'Aonvūv, Acts 1.c. Doubtless
the money which Paul subsequently received in Corinth (see 2 Cor. xi. 9)
through Macedonian delegates was sent, if not exclusively, at least jointly
by the Philippians, so that they thereby gave continued active proof of the
fellowship eis hóyov $60. K. ant., into which they had entered with the.
apostle at his very departure. But this receipt of money at Corinth is not
the fact meant by εκοινώνησεν κ.τ.λ., in which case εξήλθον would have to
.
1 To express this, Paul was not at all under
the necessity of writing oidate aŭroí, as Hof-
mann objects. The latter would convey a
different conception, namely: ye know with-
out my reminding you (Acts ii. 22; 1 Thess. ii.
1, iii. 3 ; 2 Thess. iii. 7).
180
IN
DY
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
be taken, with Estius, Flatt, van Hengel, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss,
Hofmann, and others, in the sense of the pluperfect (Winer, p. 258 [E. T.
275]; for the latter would be the more unwarranted in the context, see-
ing that Paul himself by εν αρχή του ευαγγ. carries them back to the
earliest time possible, and indeed afterwards (ver. 16) to a period even
antecedent to the őte égñadov. The aorist, however, has its justification in
this purely historical statement of fact, although the imperfect also, but
following a different conception, might-not, however (in opposition to
Hofmann's objection), must-have been used.--ÉKOLVÚvnosv eis hóyov SócewS
K. anv.] [XXII ;.] entered into fellowship with me in reference to account of
giving and receiving,-a euphemistic indication, calculated to meet the
sense of delicacy in the readers, of the thought: “has entered into the rela-
tion of furnishing aid towards me.” On KolvWVETV eis, comp. on i. 5. The
analysis of the figurative description is this: The Philippians keep an
account of expenditure on Paul and income from him; and the apostle like-
wise keeps account of his expenditure on the Philippians and income from
them. This mutual account-keeping, in which the doors on the one part,
agrees with the λήψις on the other, is the κοινωνία είς λόγον κ.τ.λ. It is
true that in this case no money-amount is entered in the account of the
Philippians under the heading of 2īves, or the account of the apostle under
the heading of doois; instead of this, however, comes in the blessing, which
the readers were to receive from their gifts of love, according to ver. 17, as
if it were an income corresponding to this expenditure, and coming in
from it. We are therefore not justified in adopting the view, that sóo. and
añy. apply to Paul alone (Schrader), or that sócews applies to the Philip-
pians and any. to Paul (" Ego sum in vestris expensi tabulis, vos in meis
accepti," Grotius; comp. Erasmus, Camerarius, Casaubon, Castalio, and
others, including Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Matthies, van Hengel, Rilliet,
Ewald); for the words require the idea of an account under both headings
on the side of both parties. Others, maintaining indeed this reciprocity,
but arbitrarily introducing ideas from 1 Cor. xi. 11, comp. Rom. xv. 27,
consider that the doors on the part of the apostle, and the antus on the
part of the Philippians, consisted in the spiritual benefits brought about by
the preaching of the gospel (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Pel-
agius, Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Zanchius, Zeger, Estius, Hammond,
Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann, and others); whilst others, again, import
into the words the thought: “Quae a Philippensibus accepit in rationes
Dei remuneratoris refert Paulus” (Wetstein, Rosenmüller; comp. Wolf,
Schoettgen, and already Ambrosiaster). Rheinwald finds the lñpis of
the Philippians and the dúols of the apostle even in the assumption that
he also had assisted then, namely, out of the sums of money collected in
the churches,-an error which is at variance with the context, and which
ought to have been precluded both by the prominence given to the state-
ment of the date, and also by the exclusion of all other churches, as well
as by the inappropriateness of the mention just in this passage of such a
añuus on the part of the Philippians.-On hóyos, ratio, account, comp. Matt.
xii. 36; Luke xvi. 2; Rom. xiv. 12; 1 Macc. X. 40; Dem. 227. 26; Diod.
CHAP. IV. 16.
181
Sic. i. 49; Polyb. xv. 34. 2. The rendering which takes eis qóyov: in
respect to (Bengel, Heinrichs, Storr, Matthies, van Hengel, Rilliet, Lüne-
mann), would no doubt be linguistically correct, but is to be rejected
on account of the context, as expressions of accounting follow (comp. Cic.
Lael. 16: "ratio acceptorum et datorum"). For instances from Greek
writers of doors kai aņuks (Ecclus. xli. 14, xlii. 7) as expenditure and income,
see Wetstein.” As to the corresponding Di Nun, see Schoettgen, Hor. p.
804.
Ver. 16. "Orl] since, indeed, ye also already in Thessalonica, etc. It is argu-
mentative, namely, outbidding the early definition of date év åpxì ...
Makedovias, in ver. 15, by one even antecedent, and thus serving more amply
to justify that specification of time, for which purpose the őti specifying
the reason was quite sufficient, and in opposition to Hofmann's objec-
tion) no yáp was necessary. The opinion of Wiesinger, that, ötl K.T.2. is
intended to explain that it was only with the aid sent after Paul at a dis-
tance that the readers had entered into such a connection with the
apostle as is previously mentioned, is bound up with the untenable inter-
pretation of éčñaộov as pluperfect. The rendering of orc by that (Rhein-
wald, Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, Rilliet, de Wette, Lünemann,
Weiss) is to be set aside, because, while the emphatic oidatɛ kai úpeīs, ver.
15, accords doubtless with the exclusion of other churches in ver. 15, it
does not accord with ver. 16 (“ye also know that ye have sent ... to me!"),
to which it would stand in an illogical relation, even apart from the un-
called for inversion of the order of time, which would result. Hofmann's ex-
planation, which makes öti in ver. 16 parallel to the otc in ver. 15 and places
it in causal relation to oidate, falls with his erroneous view of ver. 15.—The
kaí before év Osogał., 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;
à climax as regards time.—ěv Oecoan] is not used, in the sense of the
bearers having arrived, for eis, for there is no certain instance of attooTÉN-
Telv or TÉLTTELV with šv in this sense (Thuc. vii. 17 must, with Becker and
Krüger, be read : és TNV Elkehlav); but the preposition is used from the
standpoint of the receiver : "also at Thessalonica (when I was there) ye sent
to me.” Thus this sending took place in Thessalonica.
5każ äraš kaì sis]
Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 18. The conception is: “when the first aid arrived,
the étéuwate had taken place once; when the second arrived, it had taken
place both once and twice." Paul has not written diç merely, nor yet ärag
í Dem. 385. 11; 2 Macc. i. 14; and see Krü-
ger on Thuc. iii. 46. 3. "
2 Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 332 A. B: ñ á módoors
K. ñ dñyes.
8 If Baur had noticed this correct logical
connection, he would not have made an im-
proper use of our passage to fortify his opinion
of the affair of the aid being an invented inci-
dent. The same assistance which is meant in
ver. 15 cannot be meant in ver. 16, as some
not attending to the Kai (comp. Luther, Casta-
lio, and others) have thought. This view is
also at variance with the specification of time
öte é čñadov, 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 traveled to Athens.
4 See Hartung, Partik. I. p. 135; Kühner,
II. 2, p. 797.
6 Comp. on Matt. x. 16; Poppo and Krüger
om Thuc. iv. 27. 1.
182
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
hat had beentisfy it; comp. ii. 16. cik tu xpelav) on bibe praise of his
xi. 29. Whiting in Paul's". The article in beh
K. dis (1 Macc. iii. 30; Xen. Anab. iv. 7. 10), but by kai är, K. diç he sets
forth the repetition of the matter more emphatically, to the praise of his
readers (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 144).-es T. Xpeiav] on behalf of the neces-
sity, in order to satisfy it; comp. ii. 15. The article indicates the neces-
sity that had been existing in Paul's case. On réuwal, used absolutely,
comp. Acts xi. 29. What they sent, they knew.
Ver. 17. Just as in ver. 11 Paul anticipated a possible misunderstand-
ing in respect to ver. 10, so here in reference to the praises contained in
ver. 14 ff. This, he would say, is not the language of material desire,
but, etc.—oux öTL 6.7.2.] 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
doua)—this, namely, taken in and by itself-in which case the article
means the donation accruing to him as the case occurred, and the present
ÉTIÖNTā denotes the constant and characteristic striving after (Bernhardy, p.
370): it is not my business, etc. The compound verb indicates by šmí the
direction. Comp. on ÅTT LTTOBū, i. 8, and on Matt. vi. 33; Rom. xi. 7. The
view which regards it as strengthening the simple verb (studiose quaero, 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 tò sóua as still more gifts.—à22
επιζητώ] The repetition of the verb ειfter αλλά makes the contrast stand
out independently with special emphasis ; comp. Rom. viii. 15; 1 Cor. ii.
7; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 137.--Tòv kapròv K.7.2.] This is what Paul
desires, towards which his wishes and endeavors 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
ŠTISITETV devoid of any selfish aim --which, however, would not be the case,
if the éiriONTŪ TÒ dóua were true. This applies against Hofmann's objec-
tion, that the kaprós must be something which Paul himself desires to
have; the notion of trešntū is anquiro, appeto, and this indeed applies to
personal possession in the negative half of the sentence; but then the
second half expresses the real state of the case, which does away with the
notion of selfishness. The kaprós itself cannot be the fruit of the gospel
(Ewald), or of the labor of the apostle (Weiss); but, in accordance with the
context, only the fruit of the Soua, that is, the blessing which accrues from
the gift to the givers ; comp. on ver. 15. By this is meant? the divine re-
compense at the judgment (2 Cor. ix. 6), which they will then receive, as if
it were the product of their account, for their labor of love (Matt. xxv.
34 ff.). This produce of their sója is figuratively conceived as fruit,
which is largely placed to the credit of their account, in order to be
drawn by them at the day of harvest (comp. also Gal. vi. 7-.ff.). Comp.
IL
1 Comp. kai sis kai tpis, Plat. Phaed. p. 63
D, Phil. p. 59 E; Herod. ii. 121, iii. 148. The
opposite: oux ätat púde sis, Plat. Clit. p.
410 B.
2 Not the active manifestation of the Christian
life (Matthies, Rilliet, Hofmann; comp. Vata-
blus, Musculus, Piscator, Zanchius; Flatt and
Rheinwald mingle together heterogeneous
ideas); for only the fruit of the dóna can be
meant, not the Sója itself as fruit, which is
produced in the shape of the love gift (Hof-
mann).
CHAP. IV. 17, 18.
183
ver. 19. In substance it is the treasure in heaven that is meant (Matt. xix.
21, vi. 20), which will be received at the Parousia. Comp. on Col. i. 5.
The figurative eis hóyov úuwv, which here also is not to be understood,
with Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Rilliet, and others, as equivalent to eis juās, is
the completion of the figure in ver. 15; although there is no need to ex-
plain kapós as interest (Salmasius, Michaelis, who thinks in Theovás. of
compound interest, Zachariae, Heinrichs), because it is difficult to see why
Paul, if he used this figure, should not have applied to it the proper
term (Tókos), and because the idea of interest is quite alien to that of the
dópa (a present).-7. Theovás. eis hóyov úpīv] [XXII k.] to be taken
together (see above); £is states the destination of the theovás. Van Hen-
gel and de Wette needlessly break up the passage by coupling είς λόγ. υμ.
with ŠTIENTÔ, because theová ſelv with eis is not used elsewhere by Paul
(not even 2 Thess. i. 3). The preposition is in fact not determined by the
word in itself, but by its logical reference, and may therefore be any one
which the reference requires.
Ver. 18. [XXII I.] Aé] The train of thought is : “not the gift do I
seek, but the fruit (ver. 17); and as regards, what has been received from
you in the present instance, I have everything already, and need nothing
further." That this refers to the desire of the church to know what he
possibly still needed (Hofmann), is a very unnecessary assumption.-
åréxw Sề távra] not: habeo autem omnia (Vulgate); not a mere acknow-
ledgment of receipt (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs,
and others); nor yet equivalent to replookbw (Rheinwald); but, in keep-
ing with the sense of the compound : I have everything away, so that I
have nothing left to desire at your hands. IIávra, therefore, according
to the context (STISITÔ T. doua, ver. 17), is : everything which I could desire,
although there is no necessity for introducing specially, with Chrysostom
and Oecumenius, rà &aacuºÉTa kv Tm TapeA0ót xpót. The emphasis,
moreover, is laid, not on závra, but on atéxò, in contrast to TL5777€iv.--
kaÌ Teplookúw] and my wants are thus so fully satisfied, that I have over.-
Tretañpwuai] forms a climax to neploo. : I am full, I have abundance. The
gift must have been ample; but gratitude sets this forth in all the
stronger a light. TO TETThKp. is attached dežáuevos K.T.2.- ouiu eiwdias
K.T.n.] This apposition to tà map ýuāv, expressing a judgment as to the
latter (see on Rom. xii. 1), sets forth, to the honor of the givers, the rela-
sweet savor, AN D'? (genitive of quality), which is used of free-will offer-
ings, see on Eph. v. 2. It describes the thing according to its effect on
God, namely, that it is acceptable to Him; Ovoiav K.t.., however, describes
it according to what it is.—PEKTİV, evápeor.] acceptable, well-pleasing, a
· however, applies to the whole apposition bouìv . . . evap. The asyndetic
* Comp. Philem. 15; Matt. vi. 2, 5, 16; Luke
vi. 24; Callim. ep. 22; Arrian. Epict. iii. 2. 13,
iii. 24. 17; Jacobs. ad Anthol. VII. pp. 276,
298. .
..
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
: 184
juxtaposition of several epithets is frequent also in classical authors, from
Homer onward. As to the view, originating in the 0. T., which regards
works well-pleasing to God as ethical sacrifices, see the expositors on.
Rom. xii. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 5; Heb. xiii. 16.2
Ver. 19. The thought starts from tớ OeQ. But God, to whom your
gift stands in the relation of such a sacrifice, will recompense you.—Paul
says ó dè Oɛós uov (comp. i. 3), because he himself had been the recipient
of that which they had brought as a sacrifice pleasing to God; as his God
(to whom he belongs and whom he serves, comp. on Rom. i. 8), therefore,
will God carry out the recompense.—anphoel] used with significant ref-
erence to. Tenhñp., ver. 18, according to the idea of recompense. Not,
however, a wish (hence also in Codd. and in-the Vulgate the reading
teampúoal), as Chrysostom, Luther, and others take it, but a promise.-
πάσαν χρείαν υμών] likewise corresponding to the service which the
readers had rendered ; for they had sent eis tiv xpslav (ver. 16) of the
apostle. To be understood as: every need which ye have, not merely
bodily (so usually, following Chrysostom, who explains it as the fulfillment
of the fourth petition, also van Hengel, de Wette, Wiesinger), and not
merely spiritual (Pelagius, Rilliet, also mainly Weiss), but as it stands :
every need. It is not, however, an earthly recompense which is meant
(Hofmann), but (comp. on ver. 17) the recompense in the Messiah's Icing-
dom, where, in the enjoyment of the owinpía, the highest satisfaction of
every need (comp. on Tamp. xpelav, Thuc. i. 70. 4, and Wetstein in loc.).
shall have set in amidst the full, blessed sufficiency of the eternal 5wń
(comp. Rom. viii. 17 f.; Rev. xxi. .4). There are specifications of this
satisfaction in the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. v.;
comp. especially the topraothoeddɛ and yɛháoete, Luke vi. 21, also the oi .:
μη διψήση εις τον αιώνα in John iv. 14, and the sarcastic κεκορεσμένοι in 1
Cor. iv. 8. That it is the Messianic satisfaction in the hevdepía rñs S6ENS
TūV TÉKVWV TOŬ Okoð (Rom. viii. 21), in the possession of the ThoīTOS Tñs
Sófns TñS Kampovopíaç avtoũ (Eph. i. 18), which is to be thought oſ, Paul
himself states by év Sogn, which is to be taken as instrumental (Eph. i. 23,
v. 18) and dependent on aanp. : with glory, whereby the Messianic is indi-
cated. Hofmann also, though he rejects the instrumental view, comes
ultimately to it: “ Therewith and thus will God fulfill all their need, in that
He gives them glory." 4 Others, who also correctly join the words with
.
.
1 Ameis z. Od. iv., Anh..
2 Comp. Philo, de vit. Mos. II. p. 151: Ý yap
αληθής ιερουργία τίς αν είη πλήν ψυχής θεοφιλούς
ejo éBela; passages from the Rabbins in
Schoettg. Hor. p. 1006.
eternal life, where man even beholds God.and
where He is all in all, is anything but a “mon-
strous thought."
3 Hofmann very irrelevantly objects that it
is out of place to speak of want in that king-
dom. But just, in fact, on that account is the
bliss of the kingdom the complete satisfaction
of every need. Comp. Rev. vii. 16 f.; 2 Tim. iv.
7f. Thus also is the perfect then put in the
place of that which is in part. Consequently
the idea of the satisfaction of every xpeia in
4 In order, however, to bring out of the pas-
sage, notwithstanding this ev sóěn, the idea
of a recompense in this life, Hofmann makes
Sófa mean the glory of the children of God
which is hidden from the world, and which is the
fulfillment of every want only in proportion
"as there is lacking in us what, either corporally
or spiritually, is necessary for the completion of
our divine sonship.” Instead of such arbitrary
inventions, let us keep clearly before us how
CHAP. IV. 19-23.
185
Tramp., take them as a modal definition : in a glorious way, that is, amply,
splèndide, and the like. See Castalio, Beza, Calvin, and many others, in-
cluding Hoelemann; van Hengel, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss.
But what an indefinite yet peculiarly affected, and withal-by its so
habitual reference elsewhere to the final judgment-misleading expres-
sion would this be for so simple an idea !-And how far would it be
from the apostle's mind, considering his expectation of the nearness of
the Parousia (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 29, 31), to promise on this side of it a hearty
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 év
Sóšy with tò ThoVTOS Mýtoð (Grotius, Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, and others) :
"pro amplissimis suis divitiis, id est, potestate sua omnia excedente,"
Heinrichs. It is true that šv Sogn might be attached without a connect-
ing article (according to the combination thoutzīvĚV TIVI, 1 Tim. vi. 8;
comp. 1 Cor. i. 5; 2 Cor. ix. 11); but Paul always connects ahovros with
the genitive of the thing, and ThoūTOS Tís dóšng in particular, said of God,
is so constantly used by him, that it seems altogether unwarranted to as-
sume the expression TOŪTOS ŠV došn in this passage. See Rom. ix. 23;
Eph. i. 18, iii. 16; Col. i. 27. He would have written : Karà tò Thoūros
Tís dóšns avrov, comp. Rom. ix. 23.--katà tò a hovtoç avtov] that is, in con-
formity with His being so rich, and consequently having so much to give.
Comp. Rom. x. 12, xi. 33. This assures what is promised.—_v Xplotý
'Incoð] definition annexed to tanpvoel . . . dóšn; that which is promised
lievers the eternal sófa. Christ is, in fact, ý tis rīs dóšus, Col. i. 27.
Ver. 20. The conception of the superabundant salvation, which Paul
has just promised from God, forces from his heart a doxology.-natpi]
through Christ, in virtue of our viobecía, Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv. 5. As to T.
Deq K. Tarpinu. comp. on Gal. i. 5.—dófa] sc. ein, the befilting glory. See
on Eph. iii. 21; Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27, et al.-£is. Toùs aiūv. tūv aiúv.] Gal. i.
5; 1 Tim. i. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 18; Heb. xiii. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 11, v. 11, and
21.
Vv. 21-23. Távra äylov] every one, no one in the church being excepted,
-a point which is more definitely expressed by the singular. Ėv X. 'I.]
is not to be joined to äylov (so usually, as by Rheinwald, Hoelemann,
Matthies, van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann), but belongs to
konáo. (comp. Rom. xvi. 22; 1 Cor. xvi. 19), denoting the specifically
great a weight in the very word of promise,
which forms the conclusion of the epistle, lies
in the fact that the grand aim of all promise and
hope, i:e. the glory of eternal life (Rom. v. 2,
viii. 18, 21, ix. 23; 1 Cor. xv. 43; 2 Cor. iv. 17;
Col. iii. 4; and many other passages), is once
more presented to the reader's view.
Since Paul does not here express, as in
other cases (Rom. xvi. 17; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2
Cor. xiii. 12), the conception of mutual saluta-
tion (αλλήλους), he has in ασπάσασθε had in
view the immediate recipients of the epistle
(presbyters and deacons, i. 1). So also i
Thess. v. 26.
186
.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. .
Christian salutation, in conveying which the consciousness lives in Christ.
This is the connection adopted by Ambrosiaster, Estius, Heinrichs, Rilliet,
Wiesinger, Schenkel, and J. B. Lightfoot, and it is the right one, since
with äylov it is self-evident that Christians are meant, and there would be
no motive for specially expressing this here, as there was, for instance, in
the address i. 1, where tois: áyious šv X. 'I. bears a certain formal character.
--Oi cùv čuoi å8e26.] is the narrower circle of those Christians who were:
round the apostle in Rome, including also the official colleagues who were
with him, though there is no ground for understanding these alone (Chry-
sostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and many others), Grotius even point-
ing distinctly to Timothy, Linus, and Clement. The difficulty, which has .
been raised in this case by a comparison of ii. 20, is unfounded, since, in
fact, the expression in ii. 20 excludes neither the giving of a salutation
nor the mention of brethren; groundless, therefore, are the attempted
solutions of the difficulty, as, for example, that of Chrysostom, that either
ii. 20 is meant ou repi Tūv Ấv Tñ 62el, or that Paul oú Tapaltaſtal kai TOUTOUS
á de dous kaheīv (comp. Oecumenius, who brings forward the latter as a
proof of the orháyxva of the apostle). Misapprehending this second and
in itself correct remark of Chrysostom, van Hengel insists on a distinction
being drawn between two classes of companions in office, namely, travel-
ing companions, such as Luke, Mark, Titus, Silas, and those who were
resident in the places where the apostle sojourned (among whom van Hengel
reckons in Rome, Clement, Euodia, Syntyche, and even Epaphroditus),
and holds that only the latter class is here meant. The limits of the
narrower circle designated by ol oùv époà åd. are not at all to be definitely
drawn. Estius well says: “Qui ... mihi viricto ministrant, qui me visi-
tant, qui mecum hic in evangelio laborant.”—TTÁVTEC oi äylol] generally,
all Christians who are here; comp. on 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Cor. xvi. 20.-
páncota dé] but most of all, pre-eminently; they have requested the apostle
to give special prominence to their salutation. Whether these persons
stood in any personal relations to the Philippians, remains uncertain. It
is enough to assume that Paul had said to them much that was honor-
able concerning the church to which he was about to write..-Olék tís
Καίσαρος οικίας] sc. άγιοι, as is plain from the connection with the preceding
(in opposition to Hofmann): those from the emperor's house (from the Pala-
tium, see Böttger, Beitr. II. p. 49) who belong to the saints. We have to
think of probably inferior servants of the emperor (according to Grotius,
Hitzig, and others : freedmen), who dwelt, or at least were employed, in the
palace. In this way there is no need for departing from the immediate
meaning of the word, and taking it in the sense of household (Hofmann)..
In no case, however, can we adopt as the direct meaning of oikia 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;a domestic servants
i Comp. Plat. Chitias, p. 108 D: tous te addous
Kanteov kai on kai tà médiota Munuodúvnu. .
2 Where it is said of those who entered the
service of the emperor: “in domum Caesaris
transgressi.” Comp. Herodian, iii. 10. 9:
πρίν εις τον βασίλειον οίκον παρελθείν
CHAP. IV. 21-23.
187
would be olkereia. Others have taken olxía, in accordance with current
usage, as family (1 Cor. xvi. 15, and frequently), and have understood Icins- .
men of the emperor, a meaning which in itself seems by no means shown
by Philo in Flacc. p. 190 A to be at variance with linguistic usagel (in
opposition to Hofmann). So recently Baur, who needed this point for his
combinations against the genuineness of the epistle, and van Hengelº But
apart from the fact that through Nero himself this family was greatly dimin-
ished, and that conversions among those related to the emperor were à
priori (comp. also 1 Cor. i. 26 ff.) very improbable, doubtless some histori-
cal traces of such a striking success would have been preserved in
tradition. Matthies, quite arbitrarily, understands the Praetorians, as if
Paul had written : oi ti toŰ npaltwpiov (i. 13). This also applies, in oppo-
sition to Wieseler, Chronol. d. apostol. Zeitalt. p. 420, who, considering the
Praetorium to be a portion of the palace (see remark on i. 13), thinks the
apostle alludes especially to the Praetorians. Those who transfer the
epistle to Caesarea (see Introduction, & 2), suppose the Praetorium of Herod
in that place to be intended, and consequently also think of Praetorians,
Acts xxiii. 35 (Paulus, Böttger); or (so Rilliet) taking oixia as familia, of
administrators of the imperial private domain, called Caesariani or Pro-
curatores-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 4 among them), is a point just as unknown to us, as it was
1 For in Philo l. c. it is said regarding Herod
Agrippa : “ Even though he were not king, but
only one of the emperor's kinsmen (ex tñs
Kaloapos oikias), it would still be necessary to
prefer and honor him."
2 Whether Chrysostom and his successors
understood here members of the imperial fam-
ily, is a matter of doubt. At all events Chry-
sostom does not take the word itself, oikia, as
family, but explains it by tà Bagidela, paiace,
and finds in the salutation a purpose of en-
courageincnt: ei ydp oi év rois Basileious tráve
των κατεφρόνησαν δια τον βασιλέα των ουρανών,
mondo madlov avtous xpn TOÛTO toleiv. Comp.
Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact.
3 Certainly Baur believes that he has found
these traces in sufficient number. Flavius
Cleniens, namely, was a kinsman of Domitian
(see on ver.3). Now, since out of this Clement
grew the Clemens Romanus of Christian tra-
dition, the latter also must have been a king-
man of the imperial family, as indeed the
Homil. Clement. iv. 7, comp. xiv. 10, designate
him as ανήρ προς γένους Τιβερίου Καίσαρος.
He, therefore, would be exactly the man, in
whom Christianity was represented in the
circle of the imperial house itself. “Con
cluding from one that there were several, the
author of the epistlemight make his apostle write
carnest salutations to the church in Philippi
from believing members of the imperial house in
the plural," etc. Thus does criticism, depart-
ing from the solid ground of history, lose it-
self in the atmosphere of subjective inven.
tions, where hypothesis finds no longer either
support or limit. Indeed, Baur now goes
further beyond all bounds (II. p. 69), and dis-
covers that the mention of Clement even
throws a new light over the whole plan of the
epistle. With this Clement, namely, and the
participation, as attested by him, of the impe-
rial house in the gospel, is given the apokoTN
TOû ejayy. (i. 12), and with the latter the feel-
ing of joyfulncss, which expresses itself
throughout the epistle as the ground-tone of
the apostle (ii. 17 f., comp. iii. 1, iv. 1. 4. 10), and
which is again and again the refrain of each
separate section. Only hy the preponderanco
of this feeling is it to be explained that the
author makes his apostle even express the
hope of a speedy liberation (ii. 24). But with
this joy there is also blended, with a neutral-
izing effect, the idea of a nearly approaching
death, i. 20-24, and this divided state of mind
between life and death betrays an author
"who had already before his cyes as an actual
fact the end of the apostle, which was so far from
harmonizing with all these presuppositions."
4 See generally on “ Paul and Seneca," and
the apocryphal fourteen Latin letters exc
188
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
well known to the Philippians or became known to them through Epaph-
roditus. The general result is, that people from the imperial palace were
Christians, and that those could obtain access to the apostle probably with
special ease and frequency; hence their especial salutation. The question
also, whether one or another of the persons saluted in Rom. xvi. should
be understood as included here (see especially J. B. Lightfoot, p. 173 ff.),
must remain entirely undecided. Calvin, moreover, well points to the
working of the divine mercy, in that the gospel “in illam scelerum
omnium et flagitiorum abyssum penetraverit.” — xápis T. kvp. 'I. X.] see
on Gal. i. 6.—uetà Távrwvú4.7 Comp. Rom. xvi. 24; 1 Cor. xvi. 24; 2 Cor.
xiii. 13; 2 Thess. iii. 18; Tit. iii. 15.
NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR.
XX. Vv. 1-3.
(a) The direct connection of Wote is, evidently, with the verses immediately
preceding, and through them with iii. 17. The exhortation of that verse, how-
ever, is founded, as we must believe, upon the verses which next precede it-at
least, upon vv. 12–16; and as these verses are but the development of what goes
before them, the thought is carried back to the early part of the third chapter.
(0) ούτως στηκετε. The connection being as above, ούτως must refer to a standing
fast in the Lord after the same manner with himself, and thus after the manner
indicated in the preceding chapter, especially vy. 7-11 and 12–16. The allusion
in iii. 20 to the fact that "our moniteuuia is in heaven" as a reason for their imi-
tating him, may possibly suggest that the Apostle had still in his mind the thought
of mohlteucoge åčíws to eva;ychlov (i. 27)—but moritevua probably varies in its
immediate sense here from that found in the verb of i. 27. The same thing may
possibly be suggested, also, by the fact, that, as he turns to individual exhortations
in ver. 2 ff., his first expression is opoveTV Tò avtó (comp. ii. 2).--(C) The fact that
a digression or an inserted passage begins with iii. 2 and extends through the third
chapter, or even includes iv. 1, and the fact that ver. 4 takes up the closing words
of iii. 1 Cl, xalpete èv kuply, point to the conclusion that vv. 2, 3 have a somewhat
closer connection with ver. 1, and thus that the exhortations of these verses are
special ones to the individuals named, which are deemed essential to their stand-
ing in the Lord as they should.--(d) The view of Meyer with regard to the word
oúšvyɛ is adopted by Canon Farrar (Life of St. Paul) and considered favorably by
Alford, who hesitates between it and that which supposes some fellow-laborer of
the Apostle (as Timothy or Epaphroditus) to be referred to. Conyb. and Howson
say it is “not without plausibility.” Grimm (Lex. N. T.), as Meyer states in his
note, adopts it. So also Jatho. W. and H. place the word as a proper name
in their margin. It is not improbably the correct view. The reference of the
word to Epaphroditus seems very improbable, especially if he was the bearer of the
epistle to Philippi. It is difficult to believe that the Apostle would have written
in his letter an exhortation of this character, and in this form, to a person who
changed between them, Baur in Hilgenfeld's
Zeitschr. 1858, 2. 3; Rouss in Herzog's Ency-
klop. XIV. p. 274 ff.; J. B. Lightfoot, Exc. II.
P. 268 ff., 327 ff.; latest edition of the text of
these epistles in the Thcol. Quartalschr. 1867,
p. 609 ff.
NOTES.
189
was with him at the time of writing, and was himself to carry it to the church.
The supposition that there was a chief bishop in Philippi, and that Epaphroditus
held this office, which is favored by some writers, cannot fairly be regarded as finding
any sure support in this verse. If we consider the word as a proper name, every
difficulty is removed, and there is no objection to this view except the fact that
the name is not found elsewhere. This fact must be allowed its proper weight,
but is by no means decisive.
XXI. Vv. 4-9.
(a) R. V. translates xaipete rejoice, in the text, but adds a marginal note, Or
farewell. A. R. V. omits this marginal note. Lightf. combines the two meanings
in the word, regarding it as both a parting benediction and an exhortation.
This view, however, is opposed by the following considerations: (1) the fact that
joy and rejoicing appear as very prominent thoughts in the epistle; (2) the
improbability that, after having once used the expression in the sense of farewell,
and then, under some influence, having been led to add a passage covering a
whole chapter, he should again use it so long before the end of the letter; (3) the
somewhat close connection of v. 6-8, in their fundamental thought, with the
idea of joy in the Lord; (4) the use of the words rejoiced (or, as epist. aorist,
rejoice) in the Lord in ver. 10, where the words, of course, cannot have the sense of
farewell. The ráhev points backward to iji. 1, and so the xaipetɛ of that verse
also has only the meaning rejoice.—(6) TÒ ÉTTLELKÉS (= ÉTlEikela 2 Cor. x. 1; Acts
xxiv. 4) is explained by Trench (Syn. N. T.) as "that yieldingness which recog-
nizes the impossibility which formal law will be in, of anticipating and providing
for all those cases that will emerge and present themselves to it for decision, ...
which therefore urges not its own rights to the uttermost.” He derives it from
εikw to yield. Webster (Syn. N. T.) gives the adjective the sense of making allow-
ance, forbearing, not insisting on, just rights. Grimm, L & S, and others, deriving
from eixos, regard the adj. as meaning fitting, suitable, reasonable, yentle, and the
noun as signifying recisonableness, fairness, equity, gentleness. The word moderation
by which it is translated in this place by A. V., though akin to it, is a more gen-
eral word, and does not answer to its distinctive meaning. In Acts xxiv. 4, it
means clemency; in 2 Cor. x. 1. gentleness. This latter word is given by R. V. as
a marginal rendering here, while forbearance is placed in the text. Possibly the
two ideas may be combined, or possibly the Apostle had in mind the thought of
reasonableness, as contrasted with the strict pressing for, and insisting upon, one's
own rights in one's dealing with others.
(c) Ver. 5 b. In view of the usage of Paul respecting the word kúpos and the
kindred expressions elsewhere (comp. especially Rom. xiii. 11; 1 Cor. xvi. 22),
there can be little doubt that the reference in this sentence is to the second coming,
which Bp. Ellicott says, “ the inspired apostle regards as nigh,” though he adds "yet
not necessarily as immediate, or to happen in his own life-time.” W. and H.
place a period before these words and a colon after them: thus apparently indi-
cating their opinion to be that they belong with the following exhortation.
Tisch., on the other hand, places a colon before the words and a period after them,
and favors a connection with what goes before. Alf., Ell., and some others would
connect with both the preceding and following sentences. This last view may
probably be correct, as, in this way, the words become a sort of uniting link, to
bind the whole passage together. In relation to what precedes—the fact of the
190.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Lord's coming would be a natural'motive for the reasonableness referred to. The
right adjustment of all things would then take place, and, in the intervening time,
the Christian might well be ÉT LELKÝS. With regard to what follows the same
thought would tend to free their minds from anxiety and give them peace in all
circumstances.
(d) The view of Meyer respecting pepluvāte (which he also maintains in Matt.
vi. 25) is inconsistent with the N. T. idea of this word—which is not that of care,
but of anxious care which distracts and harasses the soul. Comm. generally give
the word the latter sense.-(e) Lightf. agrees substantially, though not precisely,
with Meyer as to the meaning of ÚTepé xovoa Trávta vovv. He says "surpassing
every device or counsel of man, i.e. which is far better, which produces a higher
satisfaction, than all punctilious self-assertion, all anxious forethought.” Lumby,
with a similar view, says, “It is better than all that the wit of man or his fore-
thought can devise, and therefore to be preferred before the results which can be
gained by over-anxiety for worldly things.” The explanation of Meyer, if this
general view be adopted, is perhaps nearer to the exact sense of the words:
“which is able more than any [hunan] reason to elevate above all solicitude."
The υπερέχειν according to this view is, as Meyer says, a υπερέχειν τη δυνάμει. The
decision between this explanation of the words and the more common one--"passes
the power of the human understanding to comprehend it”-will depend largely
on the question whether the words “and the peace of God,” &c., are to be regarded
as a ground for the exhortation "be not anxious, but," &c., or simply as an added
assurance or promise. If the latter is what the Apostle intends, as seems probable,
the incomprehensibleness of the Divine peace may most fitly be presented to the
reader's thought.-- (f) opovpňoel is, as Meyer remarks, quite .general in its appli-
cation; and yet we can scarcely doubt, in view of the main idea of the two
verses, that the guarding which should keep the mind tranquil, whatever might
occur, was prominent in the Apostle's thought as he made use of the general ex-
pression which would also cover the whole sphere of life.
(g) That vv. 8, 9 belong to the same passage or paragraph with the preceding
verses is rendered provalble both by το λοιπόν and the closing words of ver. 9. Το λοι- .
nóv, by the position which it holds, must-even if suggested by the same phrase in iii.
1, and looking towards an ending of the epistle—have a certain final relation to
the exhortations just given. The designation of God as the God of peace un-
doubtedly points backward to the peace spoken of in ver. 7. These verses, thus,
contain a concluding and comprehensive exhortation, which most appropriately
gathers up into itself the whole sum of Christian morality-the whole sum of what,
in such an affectionate and personal letter, the writer would urge upon his readers.
To think of and to do these things to meditate upon them as characteristic of
Christian living, and practise them as they had heard them presented in his
teaching, or seen them exemplified in his manner of life-would make them
always rejoice in the Lord, and would make his own joy complete; and this re-
sult-the perfecting of their joy and his—was what he hoped to accomplish by
his letter.
XXII. Vv. 10–19.
(a) Sé (ver. 10) introduces this passage as something which he would not close
his letter without mentioning.–(6) & xápnu may be an epist. aor., or it may refer
to the feeling which he had when the gift arrived.-(e) Meyer's explanation of
NOTES.
191
ável áhere as used intransitively is, undoubtedly, to be adopted. His arguments
for the reference of it to the revival of their prosperity, rather than of their care-
taking love, are strong and render that reference not improbable. But they cannot
be regarded as decisive, inasmuch as the impulse to aid him, which was awakened
into activity by the opportunity offered through the journey of Epaphroditus to
Rome, might suitably be spoken of as a reviving of their interest, and this without
denying the continued existence, during all the past period, of such an interest as
would have been equally active, had a similar opportunity presented itself at any
time.-(d) As to Meyer's view respecting the construction of TÒ ÚTÈp xuoū as re-
lated to opoveiv, there is much more room for question. His explanation of this
point is ingenious, and it must be allowed to be possibly correct. But the separa-
tion of the infinitive from the article is not in accordance with the ordinary usage
in such cases, and, as Ell, remarks, it involves a somewhat undue emphasis on
TÒ ÚTÈS ÉJOū. It is certainly not necessary to adopt Meyer's construction because
of the point which he urges in connection with the relative 0, for this pronoun-
even if tó belongs to ppoveiv—may refer, not indeed grammatically, but accord-
ing to the sense, to that which is suggested in ÚÈPĚuov, namely, Paul's well-
being.-(e) The determination of the reference of Kalpełods—whether to the un-
favorable condition of their means, or to the want of an opportunity for sending a
gift-will be in accordance with the view taken of aveváhere. In itself considered,
the verb nkalp would seem, by its derivation and fundamental meaning, to favor
the latter idea rather than the former.-($) OTÉpnoLv (ver. 11) refers, as Meyer
says, to the subjective state of need, the felt want. This is indicated by the whole
passage from ver. 11 to ver. 13.-(g) ējungov. This verb shows that the result here
mentioned was what his experience and the progress of years had accomplished
for him. He had learned to be in that state of mind which he had just commended
to his readers in vv. 6, 7. He had been fully initiated into the mystery of it
(Meucunuial).-(1) loxiw Trávra is a general expression, starting, no doubt, from the
thought of the things just alluded to, but reaching out beyond these into the whole
range of the Christian life.-(i) Ohipel. The Apostle has learned to be content in
tribulation, but not to regard it as other than it is; to be self-sufficing, so far as
dependence on aid from other men is concerned, but not to be indifferent to the
love shown in such aid, or regardless of the Christian duty and fitness of rendering
it to tliose in distress.—(2) It seems unnecessary to explain Sonews kai anyews as
Meyer does. The giving of money on the part of the Philippians and the re-
ceiving of it on Paul's part make the two sides of the account and sufficiently an-
swer the demands of the figure.—(2) In ver. 17 the words εis hóyov yuāv must be
connected in thought with the same expression in ver. 15. We must explain kap-
TT Óv accordingly. He declares that he does not desire the gift, as placed on the
receiving side of the account between himself and them, but, in the blessing which
it will bring to the giver, as placed on the giving side. Kapróv refers to the recom-
pense to be divinely bestowed at the end; perhaps also, to the blessing which at-
tends and follows benevolence in this life. Ver. 19 makes the former reference
probable, to the exclusion of the latter.-(1) The 18th and 19th verses very
strikingly exhibit the love which the Apostle had for the Philippian Church and
the close relations of friendship in which they stood to each other. The ground
of the doxology in ver. 20, as we may believe, is the joy which he had in the
thought, that such an abundant supply of every want of the hearts of these loved
and generous friends would be given them by God in the glory of the future.
THE
EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
INTRODUCTION.”
SEC. I.-THE CHURCH.
ITH the exception of the Epistle to the Romans, the letter now
before us is the only one of all the epistles of Paul that have
been preserved, which is addressed to a church that was
neither founded by Paul himself nor even subsequently visited
by him in person (see on i. 7, ii. 1), although the Colossian Philemon
was his immediate disciple (Philem. 19), and the Book of Acts relates
that the apostle passed through Phrygia on two occasions (Acts xvi. 6,
xviii. 23). There, in Phrygia Magna on the Lycus, was situate Kolossae,
or Kolassae (see the critical remarks on i. 2). It is designated by Herodo-
tus, vii. 30, as róhis peyáłn, and by Xenophon, Anað. i. 2. 6, as evdaluwv K.
meyáłn; but, subsequently, as compared with the cities of Apamea and
Laodicea which had become great (usyiotal ... TÓNels, Strabo xii. 8, p. 576),
it became so reduced, that it is placed by Strabo, l. C., only in the list of
the Phrygian Toàiquata, and by Pliny, N. H. v. 41, only among the oppida,
although celeberrima. According to the Eusebian Chronicle and Oros. vii.
7, it also was visited by the earthquake which, according to Tacit. Ann. xiv.
27, devastated Laodicea. This took place not so late as the tenth year of
Nero's reign (Eus. Chron.), or even the fourteenth (Orosius), but, accord-
ing to Tacitus, in the seventh-about the same time with the composition
1 See Hofmann, Introduct. in lectionem ep. P.
ad Col. Lips. 1749; Böhmer, Isagoge in ep. ad
Col. Berol. 1829 ; Mayerhoff, Der Brief an d.
Kol. kritisch geprüft, Berlin, 1838; Wiggers, d.
Verh. d. Ap. P. zu d.christl. Gem. in Kol. in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 165 ff.; Leo Montet,
13
Introd. in ep. ad Col. 1841; Klöpper, De orig. ep.
ad Eph. et Col. 1853 ; Weiss in Herzog's Encykl.
XIX. p. 717 ff.; Schenkel in his Bibellex. III.
p. 565 ff.; Holtzmann, Krit. der Epheser- und
Kolosserbriefe, 1872.
193
..
194
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
of our epistle, perhaps shortly afterwards, as the earthquake is not
mentioned in it. In the Middle Ages the city was again flourishing
under the name Chonae (Theophylact and Oecumenius on i. 2; Constant.
Porphyr. Then. i. 3); it is in the present day the village of Chorus (see
Pococke, Morgenl. III. p. 114; and generally, Mannert, Geogr. VI. 1, p.
127 f. ; Böhmer, Isag. p. 21 ff.; Steiger, p. 13 ff.).
By whom the church-which consisted for the most part of Gentile
Christians, i. 21, 27, ii. 13—was founded, is not unknown; Epaphras is
indicated by i. 7 f. as its founder, and not merely as its specially faithful
and zealous teacher. See the remark after i. 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 compared with Acts
xviii. 23, that the time of its being founded was subsequent to the visit to
Phrygia in Acts xviii. 23. From the address (i. 2) we are not warranted
to infer (with Bleek), that the body of Christians there had not yet been
constituted into a formal church; comp. on Rom. i. 7. It was so
numerous, that it had a section assembling in the house of Philemon
(Philem. 2).
SEC. II.—OCCASION, AIM, TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION,
CONTENTS.
The apostle had received through Epaphras, who had come to him (i.
7 f., iv. 12; Philem. 23), detailed accounts of the condition of the church,
and of its perils and needs at that time, whereby he found himself
induced—and the removal of Epaphras from the church at the moment
certainly made the matter appear all the more urgent-to despatch
Tychicus, an inhabitant of Asia Minor (Acts xx. 4), to Colóssae, and to
send with him this epistle (iv. 7 f., comp. Eph. vi. 21 f.). Tychicus was
also to visit the Ephesians, and to convey the letter written at the same
time to them (see on Eph. Introd. & 2). Tychicus was despatched at the
same time with Onesimus, the Colossian slave (iv. 9), who had to deliver
to his master Philemon the well-known letter from the apostle (Philem.
11 f.). Doubtless Onesimus also—who had come, although still as a
heathen, from Colossae to Paul—brought with him accounts as to the
state of matters there, as he had been a servant ina Christian household
amidst lively Christian intercourse (Philem. 2).
In accordance with these circumstances giving occasion to the letter,
the aim of the apostle was not merely to confirm the church generally in
its Christian faith and life, but also to warn it against heretical perils by
!
'INTRODUCTION.
195
0
which it was threatened. The false teachers whom he had in view were
Jewish-Christians ; not, however, such as those who, as in Galatia and in
the neighborhood of Philippi (Phil. iii. 2 ff.), restricting themselves to
the sphere of legal requirement and especially of the necessity of circum-
cision, did away with Christian freedom, the foundation of which is
justification by faith,—but such as had mixed up Christian Judaism with
theosophic speculation. While they likewise adhered to circumcision (ii.
11), and to precepts as to meats and feasts (ii. 16), to the prejudice of
Christ's atoning work (ii. 13 ff.), they at the same time—and this forms
their distinctive character-put forward a philosophy as to the higher spirit-
world, with the fancies and subtleties of which (ii. 18) were combined, as
practical errors, a conceited humility, worship of angels, and unsparing
bodily asceticism (ii. 20—23)-extravagances of an unhealthy Gnosis, that
could not fail to find a fruitful soil in the mystico-fanatical character of
the Phrygian people, which served as an appropriate abode formerly for
the orgiastic cultus of Cybele, and subsequently for Montanism. These
theosophists, however, came most keenly into conflict with the exalted
rank and the redeeming work of Christ, to whom they did not leave His
full divine dignity (as einův ToŨ OEOV K.7.2., i. 15 ff.), but preferred to assign
to Him merely a rank in the higher order of spirits, while they ascribed
to the angels a certain action in bringing about the Messianic salvation,
entertaining, probably, at the same time, demiurgic ideas as to the creation
of the world. We must not conclude from i. 18, ii. 12, that they also
rejected the resurrection of Christ; into such an important point as this Paul
would have entered directly and at length, 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 ascertain more
precisely the historical character of the Colossian false teachers, and on
this point we make the following remarks: (1) They appear as Jewish-
Christians, not as Jews (in opposition to which see ii. 19), which they were
held to be by Schoettgen, Eichhorn, and others, some looking on them as
Pharisees (Schoettgen; comp. Schulthess, Engelwelt, p. 110 f.); others, as
indirect opponents of Christianity through the semblance of more than
x
1 The theosophic tendency, which haunted
Colosse, 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. 7.
The epistle contains no quotation from Scrip-
ture.
196
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
earthly sanctity (Eichhorn); others, as adherents of the Alexandrine Neo-
Platonism (doctrine of the Logos) (so Juncker, Kommentar, Introd. p. 43
ff.); others, as Chaldaeans or Magians (Hug); others, as syncretistic .
universalists, who would have allowed to Christ a subordinate position in
their doctrinal structure and passed Christianity off as a stage of Judaism
(Schneckenburger, last in the Stud. U. Krit. 1832, p. 840 f.; in opposition
to him, Rheinwald, de pseudodoct. Coloss. Bonn, 1834). Just as little were
they adherents of a heathen philosophy, whether they might be looked upon
as of the Epicurean (Clemens Alexandrinus), or of the Pythagorean
(Grotius), or of the Platonic and Stoic (Heumann) school, or of no definite
school at all (Tertullian, Euthalius, Calixtus). (2) The right view of these
false teachers, in accordance with history, necessarily carries us back to
Essenism. In opposition to the opinion that they were Christian Essenes
(so Chemnitz, Zachariae, Storr, Flatt, Credner, Thiersch, histor. Standp.
p. 270 f., Ritschl, Ewald, Holtzmann, et al.), it is not to be urged that the
Essene washings, and various other peculiarities of Essenism, remain
unnoticed in the epistle; or that the secluded and exclusive character
peculiar to this society, and the limitation of their abode to Syria and
Palestine, do not suit the case of the Colossian heretics; or that the
hypocrisy, conceit, and persuasiveness which belonged to the latter do not
harmonize with the character of the Essenes, as it is otherwise attested.
These difficulties are got rid of by comparison with the Roman ascetics
(Rom. xiv.), who likewise were Essene Jewish-Christians, only more
unprejudiced and inoffensive than these Asiatics, whose peculiar character,
which had already received a more Gnostic development and elaboration,
was of a philosophic stamp, addicted to rhetorical art, full of work-piety
and hypocrisy, and therefore fraught with more danger to Pauline Chris-
tianity, the greater the opportunity they had, just then whilst the great
apostle was himself far away and in bonds, of raising their head. Now,
if at that time the Essene influence was not at all unfrequent among the
Jews, and thence also among Jewish-Christians (see Ritschl, altkath Kirche,
p. 232 ff., and in the Theolog. Jabrb. 1855, p. 355), and if, beyond doubt, the
theosophy of the Essenes-kindred with the Alexandrine philosophy,
although in origin Jewish-and their asceticism (see Joseph. Bell. ii. 8;
Philo, Quod omnis probus liber, p. 876 ff.; Euseb. Praep. Ĉu. viii. 11 ff.), as .
well as their adherence to their tradition (Joseph. 1.c. ii. 8. 7; comp.
Credner, Beitr. I. p. 369), are very much in accord with the characteristic
marks of our heretics (comp. generally Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 286 ff.), the i
latter are with justice designated as Jewish-Christian Gnostics, or more
INTRODUCTION.
197
accurately, as Gnostics addicted to an Essene tendency. This designation,
however, is not to be taken in the sense of any subsequently elaborated
system, but must be understood as intimating that in the doctrines of our
theosophists there were apparent the widely-spread, and especially in
Essenism strongly-asserted, elements of Gnosticism, out of which the
formal Gnostic systems were afterwards gradually and variously developed
(comp. Böhmer, Isag. p. 56 ff.; Neander, Gelegenheitsschr. p. 40 ff. ; Schott,
Isag. p. 272; Weiss, l.c. p. 720; Grau, l.c.; Holtzmann, p. 296 ff.; Clemens in
Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 1871, p. 418 ff.). Among the latter, the Cerinthian
doctrine in particular is, in various points, closely allied with that com-
bated in our epistle (comp. F. Nitzsch on Bleek, Vorles. p. 15 f.; Lipsius,
d. Gnosticismus, 1860, p. 81 f.), although we are not justified in
considering with Mayerhoff that this polemic was already directed
against Cerinthus and his adherents, and thence arguing against the
genuineness of the epistle. A similar judgment is to be formed regarding
their relation to the Valentinians, who often appealed to the Epistle to the
Ephesians; and Baur leaps much too rapidly to a conclusion, when he
thinks (Paulus, II. p. 4 ff.) that in the Colossian false teachers are to be
found the Gnostic Ebionites (who no doubt originated from Essenism)-
thereby making our epistle a product of the fermentation of the post-
apostolic age, and connecting it as a spurious twin-letter with that to the
Ephesians. Holtzmann forms a much more cautious judgment, when he
takes his stand at a preliminary stage of Gnosticism ; but even this he
places in the post-apostolic age,-a position which the less admits of proof,
seeing that we have no other letter from the later period of the apostle's
life before the letters of the captivity and subsequent to that to the
Romans, and possess for comparison no letter of Paul at all addressed to
those regions where the Gnostic movements had their seat. The false
teachers have, moreover, been designated as Cabbalistic (Herder, Kleuker,
Osiander in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1834, 3, p. 96 ff.); but this must likewise be
restricted to the effect that the theosophic tendency generally, the special
Essene-Christian shape of which Paul had to combat, may have probably
been at bottom akin to the subsequently developed Cabbala, although
the origin of this Jewish metaphysics is veiled in obscurity. (3) We must
decidedly set aside, were it only on account of the legal strictness of the
men in question, the assumption of Michaelis, that they were disciples of
Apollos, to whom Heinrichs adds also disciples of John, as well as Essenes
1 Comp. Grau, Entwickelungsgesch. d. n. t. Schriftth. II. p. 145 ff.; Lipsius in Schenkel's !
Bibel-Lexic. II. p. 498.
198
YA
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
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 previous attempts to classify the
Colossian false teachers, Hofmann prefers to abide by the position that
they were Jewish Christians, “who, starting from the presupposition that
the Gentile Christians, in their quality as belonging to Ethnicism, were
subject to the spirits antagonistic to God which ruled therein, recom-
.. mendėd—with a view to complete their state of salvation, which, it was
alleged, in this respect needed supplement—à sanctification of the out-
ward life, based partly on the Sinaitic law, partly on dogmas of natural
philosophy.” But this cannot be made good as an adequate theory by
the explanation of the characteristic individual traits, since, on the
contrary, that theosophico-Judaistic false teaching presents sufficient
evidences of its having its historical root in Essenism, and its further
development and diversified elaboration in the later Gnosticism, provided
that with unprejudiced exegesis we follow the apostle's indications in
regard to the point; see especially on ii. 16–23.
In date and place of composition our epistle coincides with that to the
Ephesians, and is, like the latter, to be assigned not, in conformity with
the usual opinion, to the Roman, but to the Caesarean captivity of the
apostle. See on Eph. Introd. § 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 labors for the gospel harmo-
nizes with Acts xxviii. 31, but not with his sojourn in Caesarea, Acts xxiv.
23. But iv. 11 contains no special statement at all as to the labors of the
apostle in captivity, and as to iy. 3 we must observe that he there expresses
the longing for future free working. The latter remark applies also in
opposition to Wieseler (Chronol. des apostol. Zeitalt. p. 420) and Hofmann,
who likewise regard iv. 3 f. as decisive in favor of the Roman captivity,
while Hofmann finds the statement as to Mark and Jesus contained in iv.
11 incompatible with the situation in Caesarea (but see in loc.). In assum-
ing that the conversion of the Gentile Onesimus (Philem. 10) is incom-
patible with the statement in Acts xxiv. 23, Wieseler infers too much from
the words tūv idiwv avtoữ (Acts xxiv. 23), especially as the intention of a
liberal custody is obvious in the arrangement of Felix. 72) That in Rome
Paul might have thought of the journey to Phrygia hoped for at Philem.
1 Which,with Hausrath, Laurent, and others,
Sabatier also (l'apôtre Paul, 1870, p. 193. ff.) pre-
fers, while Weiss leaves the point undecided.
Hofmann rejects our view, and Holtzmann
does not find it the more probalale.
INTRODUCTION.
199
22, but not in: Caesarece (comp. Hofmann, p. 217), where, according to Acts
xix. 21, Rom. i. 13, xv. 23 ff., Acts xxiii. 11, he had the design of going to
Rome, but a return to Asia Minor would have been, after his language in
Acts xx. 25, far froin 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 ás at Rome; indeed more easily, for, if Paul had been
set free at Caesarea, he could combine his intended journey to Rome with
a passage through Asia. There is no doubt that when at Rome he
expressed the hope (Phil. ii. 24) of again visiting the scene of his former
labors; but why should he not have done the same when at Caesarea, so
long, namely, as his appeal to the emperor had not taken place? See also
on Philem. 22.—If our epistle was written in Caesarea, the time of its com-
position was the year 60 or 61, while the procuratorship was still in the
hands of Felix.
As regards the contents of the epistle, after the salutation (i. 1 f.), a
thanksgiving (i. 3–8), and intercessory prayer (i. 9–12), Paul passes on
(ver. 12) to the blessedness of the redemption which his readers had
obtained through Christ, whose dignity and work are earnestly and very
sublimely set before their minds with reference to the dangers arising from
heresy (i. 13-23). Next Paul testifies to, and gives the grounds for, the joy
which he now felt in his sufferings as an apostle (i. 24–29). By way of
preparation for his warnings against the false teachers, he next expresses
his great care for his readers and all other Christians who do not person-
ally know him, as concerns their Christian advancement (ii. 1–3), and
then subjoins the warnings themselves in detail (ii. 4-23). Next follow
moral admonitions (iii. 1-iv. 6); a commendatory mention of Tychicus
and Onesimus (iv. 7–9); salutations with commendations and injunctions
(iv. 10–17); and the conclusion appended by the apostle's own hand (ver.
18).
SEC. III.-GENUINENESS.
Even if it be allowed that the apparent allusions to our Epistle which
one might find in the apostolic Fathers (Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius) are.
uncertain, and that even the mention of TpWTÓTOKOS ráons krioews 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 Valentinus;
Irenaeus, Haer. iii. 14. 1 and v. 14. 2, who first cites it by name; Canon
Murat.; Clem. Al. Strom. i. p. 277, iv. p. 499, v. p. 576, vi. p. 645; Tert.
200
.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Praescr. 7, de resunr. 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 follows. Mayerhoff (d. Brief an
die Kol. mit vornehml. Berücksicht. d. Pastoralbr. kritisch geprüft, Berl. 1838)
assumed the genuineness of the Epistle to the Ephesians, to the prejudice
of our Epistle (de Wette inverts the procedure to the prejudice of the
Ephesian Epistle); Baur, on the other hand (Paulus, II. p. 8 ff.), rejected
both the cognate Epistles; comp. also Schwegler, nachapost. Zeitalt. II. p.
325 ff. According to Weisse (philos. Dogmat. I. p. 146), our Epistle, like
most of the Pauline letters, is pervaded by interpolations. Hitzig also (zur
Kritik paulin. Briefe, 1870, p. 22 ff.) asserts their presence, and ascribes
them to the author of the (un-Pauline) Ephesian Epistle, who, after the
composition of his own work, had manipulated afresh a Pauline letter to
the Colossians, the genuine text of which he misunderstood. In assign-
ing his reasons for this view, Hitzig does not go beyond the bounds of
bare assertions and misunderstandings on his own part. Hoenig (in Hil-
genfeld's 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 be regarded as interpolations, regarding which it can be shown that
the author of the (not genuine) Epistle to the Ephesians did not know
them. But Hoenig has reserved to a future time the exhibition of the
detailed grounds for this bold view, and has consequently for the present
withdrawn it from criticism. After thorough investigation, Holtzmann
(Kritik d. Epheser- 2. 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 Holtz-
mann, somewhere about the year 100, who, with the help of this writing
of his own, had worked up the short and genuinely Pauline letter to the
Colossians, which he found in existence, into a new and amplified form,
and thereby rescued it in a second enlarged edition from oblivion. But
neither can the course of interpolation thus set forth be exegetically
verified, nor can it-seeing that all the witnesses from the beginning prove
only the present shape of the letter, and no trace has been left of any
earlier one-be without arbitrariness rendered critically intelligible, as in
fact such a procedure on the part of an interpolator, who had withal so
much mastery of free movement in the sphere of Pauline thought and
language that he could write the Epistle to the Ephesians, would yield a!
laborious and—as overlaying and obscuring the given nucleus—somewhat
INTRODUCTION.
201
·
clumsy mosaic patchwork, which, from a psychological point of view,
would be hardly conceivable.
Mayerhoff, in order to characterize the Epistle as a production of
possibly the second century epitomized from the Epistle to the Ephesians
with the addition of some controversial matter, lays stress on (a) differ-
ences in language and style, (6) deviations from the Pauline character
both of conception and of representation, (c) the comparison with the
Epistle to the Ephesians, and (cl) 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 (dekalogÚvn K.T.h., owinpía K.7.2., ároká-
avpis, ÜTakoń, åpa, dió, dióti, šti, et al.), or änag neybueva which occur (as évężo-
Opnokría, albavohoyía, et al.), cannot furnish any counter argument, since, in
fact, they are fully outweighed by similar phenomena in epistles which
are indubitably genuine. There is the less ground for urging the occur-
rence only six times of yáp (Text. Rec.), as even in the larger Epistle to the
Ephesians it occurs only eleven times, and in the Second Epistle to the
Thessalonians only five times. And how little are such mechanical stand-
ards of comparison at all compatible with a mind so free in movement
and rich in language as was that of Paul! In his case even the order of
the words "E27:10 kaì 'Iovdažos (iii. 11) cannot seem surprising, nor can the
combining of designations similar in meaning (as i. 6, 10, ii. 18, 23) appear
as á strange hunting after synonyms. See, besides, Huther, Schlussbe-
tracht. p. 420 ff.; Hofmann, p. 179 f. Secondly, un-Pauline conceptions
are only imported into the Epistle by incorrect interpretations; and the .
peculiar developments of doctrine, which Paul gives only here, but which
are in no case without their preliminary conditions and outlines in the
earlier Epistles, were suggested to him by the special occasion of the letter
(as, in particular, the development of the relation of Christ to the angel-
world). And if the Epistle is said to lack in its dogmatic portion the
logical arrangement which is found in the hortatory portion (the reverse
being the case in the genuine Epistles); if Pauline freshness and vigor are
said to be wanting, and poverty of thought to prevail; these are judg-
ments which in some cases are utterly set aside by a right exegesis, and in
others are of a partisan character and aesthetically incorrect. The com-
plaint, in particular, of “poverty of thought” is characteristic of the pro-
cedure of such criticism towards its victims, no matter how precarious a
subjective standard must ever be in such questions, or how various may
be the judgments which are put forth as based on taste (according to .
202
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Böhmer, Isag. p. 160, our Epistle is "viva, pressa, solida, nervis plena, mas-
cula"). Thirdly, the affinity of our Epistle with that to the Ephesians in
style and contents is explained by their composition at the same time,-.
as respects which, however, the priority lies with our letter,—and by the
analogy of the circumstances giving occasion to write, which in either case
the apostle had in view. See on Eph. Introd. & 3. Lastly, the assertion
that Cerinthus is assailed is erroneous—a critical prothysteron ; see & 2.
Baur,? who describes the Epistle to the Ephesians and that to the Col-
ossians, which are held at any rate to stand or fall together, as un-Pauline,
and places the former in a secondary relation to the latter, looks upon
this latter as combating an Ebionitism, which would have nothing to do
with a recognition of the universalism of Christianity at the cost of renoun-
cing everything that was incompatible with the absoluteness of the Chris-
tian principle. He holds, however, that this universalism was not that
based on the Pauline anthropology, but only the external universalism,
which consisted in the coalition between Gentiles and Jews effected by the
death of Christ, and in which, alongside of the forgiveness of sin, the Cle-
mentines placed the aim of Christ's death.. Thus, according to Baur, the
Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians are to be placed in the post-apos-
tolic period of a conciliation between Jewish and Gentile Christianity.
The highest expression of this conciliatory destination is the Christology
of the Epistles, in so far, namely, as Christ appears as the primordial prin-
ciple of all being, and His whole work onward to His exaltation as the self-
realization of this idea, according to which the pre-existence is the main
point of the Christology. The arguments of Baur are mostly derived from
the Epistle to the Ephesians; those that particularly affect our Epistle,
and are supposed to attest a Gnostic stamp impressed on it (such as the
idea of Christ as the central point of the whole kingdom of spirits, the
notion of the apwua, etc.), will be shown by the exposition to be a homo-.
geneous development of elements of doctrine already presented in the
earlier Epistles. Concerning these Christological doubts, see, moreover,
especially Raebiger, Christol. Paul. p. 42 ff., and generally Klöpper, de orig.
1 The assertion is being constantly repeated,
that Paul could not have copied himself. But,
in fact, we have not among the apostle's letters
any other two, which were written so imme-
diately at the same time, and to churches
whose wants were similar. If we had had
two such, who knows but that they would
have presented an analogous resemblance ?
2 Planck, Köstlin, Hilgenfeld, Höckstra (in
the Theolog. Tijdschrift, 1868), as well as
Schwegler, agree in substance with Baur.
3 The exegesis of the Epistle will also dis-
pose of what Hilgenfeld, who rejects the
genuineness of the Ephesian and Colossian
letters, adduces by way of establishing his
assertion, that “the new and characteristic
INTRODUCTION.
203
epp. ad Eph. et Coloss. Gryphisw. 1853; Hofmann, p. 181 ff.; Rich. Schmidt,
Paul. Christol. p. 196 ff.; Sabatier, l'apôtre Paul, p. 207 ff. It may be
observed in general, that if our Epistle (and that to the Ephesians) is
nothing more than a pseudo-apostolic movement of Gnosis against Ebion-
itism, then every other Epistle is so also, since every other writing in the
N. T. may, with almost equal justice, be brought under some such category
of subjective presupposition; and that it is in reality inconsistent, if the
whole N. T. is not (and for the most part it has already been) made out to
be a collection of later books written with some set purpose, which, by
means of their pseudo-epigraphic names, have succeeded in deceiving the
vigilance of centuries. The fabrication of such an epistle as that to the Col-
ossians would be more marvelous than its originality. “Non est cujusvis
hominis, Paulinum pectus effingere; tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas
loquitur Paulus,” Erasmus, Annot. ad iv. 16.
Ewald has modified the theory of its composition by the apostle in a
peculiar way. In his view, the Epistle is indeed planned and carried out
quite after the manner of the apostle; but after the contents had been
settled by preliminary discussion, Paul committed the composition to
Timothy (i. 1), again, however, towards the end, dictating the words more
in person, and adding the final salutation (iv. 18) with his own hand.
But, first, this hypothesis is already rendered doubtful by the fact that it
is not made to extend uniformly to chap. iv. Secondly, it may be urged
against it, that a Timothy himself, even after preliminary discussion with
the apostle, could hardly have appropriated or imitated the completely
Pauline stamp in such measure, as in this Epistle it recurs at every sen-
tence and in every turn. Thirdly, the conjectured course of procedure
does not appear in any other of Paul's Epistles, and yet the present was one
of the shortest and the easiest to be dictated. Fourthly, such a procedure
can scarcely be reconciled with the high value and authority, well under-
stood by the apostle, which an Epistle from him could not but possess for
any Christian church, especially for one not founded by himself.
Fifthly, we cannot but naturally regard the concluding salutation
by his own hand (iv. 18) as simply the token of his own, and
not of a merely indirect, composition (2 Thess. iii. 17). Sixthly,
feature of the Colossian Epistle consists sim-
ply in this, that it represents Paulinism no
longer merely in contradistinction to Jewish
Christianity, but also in contradistinction
to Gnosticism (proper);" see Hilgenfeld's
Zeitschr. 1870, p. 245 f. We see, he says, Paul-
inism in this case not merely repelling, but
even in part adopting, Gnostic elements. For
Baur's Gnostic interpretation of the ardýpwma,
see especially his Paulus, II. p. 12 ff., and
Neutest. Theol. p. 257 ff.
Compare, also generally, in opposition to
204
THE EPÍSTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
according to iv. 16, a similar merely indirect composition on his part
would have to be attributed also to the Epistle to the Laodiceans, since
the two Epistles, as they were to be read in both churches, must have
been, as it were, cast in the same mould, and of essentially the same
import. Lastly, the peculiar dangerous character of the spiritualistic
Judaism, which had to be opposed in the Epistle, was precisely such as to
claim the undivided personal action of the apostle, which was certainly,
even in the enforced leisure of his imprisonment, sufficiently within his
power for the purpose of his epistolary labors. The grounds on which
the foregoing hypothesis is based -and in the main the assailants of the
genuineness have already used them—are in part quite unimportant, in..
part framed after a very subjective standard, and far from adequate in the
case of a letter-writer, who stands so high and great in many-sided wealth
both of thought and diction and in its free handling as Paul, and who,
according to the diversity of the given circumstances and of his own tone
of feeling, was capable of, and had the mastery over, so ample and mani-
fold variety in the presentation of his ideas and the structure of his sen-
tences. Nor do those linguistic difficulties, which Holtzmann, p. 104 ff.,
has brought forward more discreetly than Mayerhoff, and to some extent
in agreement with Ewald, with a view to separate the portions of the
letter pertaining to the genuine Paul from those that belong to the
manipulator and interpolator, suffice for his object. They could only be
the hypothesis of a positive influence of
Gnosis on N. T. doctrinal ideas, Heinrici, d.
Valent. Gnosis U. d. heil. Schr. 1871.
1 Ewald appeals (presupposing, moreover,
the non-genuineness of the Epistle to the
Ephesians) to the longer compound words
such as ávravaninpów, átokatallóoow, dallo
Tpców, napadoyíšovac, éledo Opno reia, oboadro-
δουλεία; to unusual modes of expression,
such as θέλω υμάς είδέναι (ii. 1), ό έστιν for the
explanatory that is (i. 24 (27), ii. 10, iii. 14), in
connections capable of being easily mis-
understood; to the circumstances, that in the
progress of the discourse and in the structure
of sentences we entirely miss "the exceed-
ingly forcible flow and the exultant ebullition,
and then, again, the quick concentration and
the firm collocation of the though is;” that
the words dé, záp, and áddá are less frequently
found, and that the sentences are connected
more by simple little relational words and in
excessively long series, like the links of a
chain, alongside of which is also frequently
found the merely rhetorical accumulation of
sentences left without links of connection
(such as i. 14, 20, 25 f., 27, ii. 8, 11, 23, iii. 5);
that we meet delicate but still perceptible
distinctions of thought, such as the 'non-
mention of δικαιοσύνη and δικαιούν, and the
description of the Logos by the word πλήρωμα
itself (i. 19, ii. 9); that we find a multitude of
words and figures peculiarly Pauline, but that
we miss all the more the whole apostle in his
most vivid idiosyncrasy throughout the main
portions of the Epistle; and that many a
word and figure, in fact, appears imitated
from the Epistles of Paul, especially that to
the Romans.
? When we take fully into account the sin.
gularly ample storehouse of the Greek lan-
INTRODUCTION.
205.
as
of weight, in the event of their exhibiting modes of expression beyond,
doubt un-Pauline, or of the interpolated character of the passages in ques-
tion being already established on other grounds.
STS
guage, from which the apostle knew how to
draw his materials with so much freedom
and variety in all his letters, we shall not be
too hastily ready to hold that such expres-
sions, phrases, or turns, as have no parallels
in the undisputed letters, at once betray
another author; or, on the other hand, to
reckon that such as are characteristic of, and
currently used by, the apostle, are due to an
assumption of the Pauline manner.
i
.: 206
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
CITY Y
i ..
Παύλου επιστολή προς Κολοσσαείς.
A B K min. Copt. have the superscription apòc Kołacoasīs. So Matth. Lachm.
and Tisch. Comp. on ver. 2.
: CHAPTER 1.
Ver. 1. The arrangement XplotoŨ ’InooŰ (Lachm. Tisch.) has preponderant tes-
timony in its favor, but not the addition of 'Indoù after Xplotoñ in ver. 2 (Lachm.).
-Ver. 2. Kohoooais ] K P, also C and X in the subscription, min. Syr. utr. Copt.
Or. Nyss. Amphiloch. Theodoret, Damasc. et. al. have Kohacoais. Approved by
Griesb., following Erasm. Steph. Wetst.; adopted by Matth. Lach. Tisch. 7. The
Recepta is supported by B D EFG L , min. Vulg. It. Clem. Chrys. Theophyl.
Tert. Ambrosiast. Pelag. The matter is to be judged thus: (1) The name in
itself correct is undoubtedly Korocoai, which is supported by coins of the city
(Eckhel, Doctr. num. III. p. 107) and confirmed by Herod. vii. 30 (see Wessel.
and Valck. in loc.); Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6 (see Bornem. in loc.); Strabo, xii. 8, p.
576; Plin. N. H. v. 32. (2) But since the form Kohacoaí has so old and consid-
erable attestation, and is preserved in Herodotus and Xenophon as a various read-
ing, as also in Polyaen. viii. 16, and therefore a mere copyist's error cannot be
found in the case—the more especially as the copyists, even apart from the
analogy which suggested itself to them of the well-known koloogós, would naturally
be led to the prevalent form of the name Koloocai,,we must assume that, although
Korocoal was the more formally correct name, still the name Koraooai was
also (vulgarly) in use, that this was the name which Paul himself wrote,
and that Koloocais 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 Tampos ruāv, Elz. (Lachm. in brackets) has
kai kupiov ’Incoữ XPLOTOū, in opposition to B D EK L, min. vss. and Fathers. A
complementary addition in accordance with the openings of other epistles, espe-
cially as no ground for intentional omission suggests itself (in opposition to Reiche,
Comm. Cril. p. 351 f.).—Ver. 3. kaì tarpi] Lachm. and Tisch. 7: natpi. So B C*
vss. and Fathers, while D* F G, Chrys. have to natpi. Since, however, Paul
always writes ó Deòs kaì ratùp Towakupiov (Rom. xv. 6; 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31; Eph. i.
3; also 1 Cor. xv. 24; Eph. v. 20), and never ó Osòs ó matūP T. K. or ó Oɛòs nathp
T. K., the Recepta, which has in its favor A C** D*** E KLPX, min. Vulg. and
Fathers, is with Tisch. 8 to be retained. The kai was readily omitted in a
mechanical way after the immediately preceding Θεού πατρός.--Instead of περί,
Lachm. reads Ümép, which is also recommended by Griesb., following B D* E* FG,
min. Theophyl. Not attested by preponderating evidence, and easily introduced
in reference to ver. 9 (where tnép stands without variation).-Ver. 4. Instead of
ſu éxete (which is recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.), Elz.
Matth. Scholz have thu merely, but in opposition to A C D* E* FGPX, min.
CHAP. I.
207
yss. (including Vulg. It.) Fathers. If thv were originally written, why should it
have been exchanged for ήν έχετε ? On the other hand, ήν έχετε, as it could be
dispensed with for the sense, might easily drop out, because the word preceding
concludes with the syllable HN, and the word following (eis), like š xete, begins
with E. The grammatical gap would then, following Eph. i. 15, be filled up by
Tv.Ver. 6. kaì šorl] kai is wanting in A B C D* E* PN, min, and some vss. and
Fathers; condemned by Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But, not being
understood, this kai, which has the most important vss. and Fathers in its favor,
was omitted in the interest of simplicity as disturbing the connection.--kai
avšavójevov] 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. kadus kai] kai is justly
condemned by Griesb. on decisive evidence, and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch.
A mechanical repetition from the preceding.-ýpôv] A B D*G F *, min.: 1WV;
approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. But since the first person both precedes
and follows (ņuāv... juiv), it was put here also by careless copyists.—Ver. 10.
After reputatioai, Elz. Tisch. 7 have únās, against decisive testimony; a supple-
mentary addition.—eis Tiju Émiyvwoiv] Griesb. Lachm. Scholz. Tisch. 8 have tā
ÉTTLYVÚgel. So A B C D* E* FGP.x, min. Clem. Cyr. Maxim. But it lacks the
support of the vss., which (Vulg. It. in scientia Dei) have read the Recepta eis T.
śmiyv, attested by D*** E** K L and most min., also Theodoret, Dam. Tlieophyl.
Oec., or with ** and Chrys. ÉV TIÉTIYvável. The latter, as well as the mere tî
ÉTLYV., betrays itself as an explanation of the difficult eis T, śmiyv., which, we may
add, belongs to the symmetrical structure of the whole discourse, the participial
sentences of which all conclude with a destination introduced by εis.-Ver. 12.
ikavóoavri] Lachm. : kahécavti kaì ikavuoavti, according to B, whilst D* F G, min.
Arm. Aeth. It. Didym. Ambrosiast. Vigil. have kahégavtl merely. Looking at the
So isolated attestation καλ. κ. ικαν., we must assume that καλέσαντι was written on
the margin by way of complement, and then was in some cases inserted with kai,
and in others without kai substituted for ikaváo.-Instead of ruas, Tisch. 8 has
úpās; but the latter, too weakly attested by B x, easily slipped in by means of the
connection with evrap.- Ver. 14. After a olurp. Elz. has Sià Toñ aiuatos avtoð,
against decisive testimony; from Eph. i. 7.—Ver. 16. Tà šv toīç oúpavois kai tá]
Lachm. has erased the first tá and bracketed the second. In both cases
the tá is wanting in B x*, Or.; the first tá only is wanting in D*
E* F G P and two min. But how easily might TA be absorbed in the
final syllable of TávTA; and this would then partially involve the omission
of the second rá! The assumption that the final syllable of Távta was
written twice would only be warranted, if the omitting witnesses, especially in
the case of the second rá, were stronger.- Ver. 20. The second di' avroy 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 Recepta árrokatharafev, Lachm.,
following B, has átokatnāáynte. D* F G, It. Goth. Ir. Ambrosiast. Sedul. have
åtokatakayévtes. Since, according to this, the passive is considerably attested,
and the active átokatinhačev, although inost strongly attested (also by x), may
well be suspected to be a syntactic emendation, we must decide, as between the
two passive readings αποκατηλλάγητε and αποκαταλλαγέντες, in favor of the former,
208
THE- EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
because the latter is quite unsuitable. If the Recepta were original, the construc-
tion would be so entirely plain, that we could not at all see why the passive
should have been introduced.— Ver. 22. After Oavátov, A PX, min. vss. Ir. have
aútov, which Lachm. has admitted in brackets. It is attested so weakly, as to
seem nothing more than a familiar addition.-Ver. 23. tņſ before krioel is, with
Lachm. and Tisch., to be omitted, following A B C D* F Gx, min. Chrys.-
Instead of diákovos, Pshave kúpuš k. ATÓTOROS. A gloss; comp. 1 Tim. ii. 7. In A
all the three words kúpuš k. ár, K. diak. are given.-Ver. 24. vũv] D* E* F G,
Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel. have ôg vũv. Rightly; the final syllable of diákovos in
ver 23, and the beginning of a church-lesson, co-operated to the suppression of os,
which, however, is quite in keeping with the connection and the whole progress
of the discourse. After raonu. Elz. has uov, against decisive testimony.-Ö ŠOTIV]
C D* E, min.: ŐS XOTIV. So Lachm. in the margin. A copyist's error.–Ver. 27.
The neuter Tí TÒ ThoðTOS (Matth. Lachm. Tisch.) is attested by codd. and
Fathers sufficiently to make the masculine appear as an emendation: comp. on 2
Cor. viii. 2—ös ÉOTIV] A BFGP, min. (quod in Vulg. It. leaves the reading uncer-
tain): ő Šotiv. So Lachm. A grammatical alteration, which, after ver. 24, was
all the more likely.–Ver. 28. After didáok., návra åvēpurtov is wanting in D* E*
F G, min. vss. and Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., but is to be defended. The whole
kai Sedáok. Távra åvópwr. was omitted owing to the homoeoteleuton (so still in L,
min. Clem.), and then the restoration of the words took place incompletely.-
After Xplotý Elz. has 'Incoñ, against decisive testimony.
Vv.1, 2. [On Vy.1,2, see Note XXIII. pages 263, 264.] Alà bɛanu. Okoū] see
on 1 Cor. i. 1. Comp. 2 Cor. i. 1; Eph. i. 1.-kaÌ T460.] see on 2 Cor. i. 1; Phil.
i.1. Here also as subordinate joint-author of the letter, who at the same time
may have been the amanuensis, but is not here jointly mentioned as such
(comp. Rom. xvi. 22). See on Phil. i. 1. -ó å deloós] see on 1 Cor. i. 1;
referring, not to official (Chrys. : OŃKOWV kai autos ámótoros), but generally to
Christian brotherhood.—Tois év Kor. áy. k.7.2.] to the saints who are in Colos-
sae [XXIII 6. c.]. To this theocratic designation, which in itself is not as
yet more precisely defined (see on Rom. i. 7), is then added their distinc-
tively Christian character: and believing brethren in Christ. Comp. on Eph.
i. 1. syious is to be understood as a substantive, just as in all the com-
mencements of epistles, where it occurs (Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor.; 2 Cor.; Eph.;
Phil.); and év. Xploto is closely connected with lot. ád., with which it blends
so as to form one conception (hence it is not tois šv X.), expressly designat-
ing the believing brethren as Christians, so that év X. forms the element of
demarcation, in which the readers are believing brethren, and outside of
which they would not be so in the Christian sense: Comp. on 1 Cor. iy.
17; Eph. vi. 21; in which passages, however, mlotós is faithful,-a meaning
which it has not here (in opposition to Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Dal-
mer), because everywhere in the superscriptions of the Epistles it is only
the Christian standing of the readers that is described. No doubt šv
XPLOTĄ was in itself hardly necessary; but the addresses have a certain
formal stamp. If dyious is taken as an adjective : "the holy and believing
brethren” (de Wette), Łv XplotỘ being made to apply to the whole
formula, then TiLOTOīs coming after áyious (which latter word would already
CHAP. I. 1-3.
209
have, through év X., its definition in a Christian sense, which, according
to our view, it still has not) would be simply a superfluous and clumsy
addition, because dyious would already presuppose the flotois.—The fact
that Paul does not expressly describe the church to which he is writing as
a church (as in 1 Cor. ; 2 Cor.; Gal.; 1 and 2 Thess.) has no special motive
(comp. Rom., Eph., Phil.), but is purely accidental. If it implied that he
had not founded the church and stood in no kind of relation to it as such,
and especially to its rulers (de Wette, by way of query), he would not have
written of a Aaodikéwi šikanoia (iv. 16). Indeed, the principle of address-
ing as churches those communities only which he had himself founded, is
not one to be expected from the apostle's disposition of mind and wisdom; .
and it is excluded by the inscription of the Epistle to the Ephesians
(assuming its 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 šv Xploto merely, and not év X. 'I7607 (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 !---zápis útiv
K.7.2.] See on Rom. i. 7. [XXIII d.]
Ver. 3 f. [On Vy.3-8, see Note XXIV.pages 264-266.] Thanksgiving for the
Christian condition of the readers, down to ver. 8.-£ů zaplotāvuev] [XXIV a.]
I and Timothy; plural and singular alternate in the Epistle (i. 23, 24, 28, 29 ff.,
iv.3); but not without significant occasion.—kai tarpik.7.2.] whois at the same
time the Father, etc. See on Eph. i. 3.-Távtotɛ] [XXIV 6.] belongs to e'xap.,
as in 1 Cor. i. 4; 1 Thess. i. 2; 2 Thess. i. 3; Philem. 4, and not to repi úko."
Tipogeux, a.connection opposed to the parallel Eph. i. 16, as well as to
the context, according to which the thanksgiving is the main point here,
and the prayer merely a concomitant definition; and it' is not till ver. 9
that the latter is brought forward as the object of the discourse, and that
as unceasing. This predicate belongs here to the thanking, and in ver. 9
to the praying, and repi úrūv apotevX:—words which are not, with Bähr,
to be separated from one another (whereby a poGevx. would unduly stand
without relation-is nothing but a more precise definition of TávtOTE :
“always (each time, Phil. i. 4; Rom. i. 10%), when we pray for you.”—ákovoav-
TES K.T.2.] [XXIV c.] with reference to time; after having heard, etc.
Comp. ver. 9. In that, which Paul had heard of them, lies the ground of
his thanksgiving. The riotis is faith (Rom. i. 8; 1 Thess. i. 3; 2 Thess. i.
3) not faithfulness (Ewald), as at Philem. 5, where the position of the words
is different. That Paul has heard their faith praised, is self-evident from
the context. Comp. Eph. i. 15; Philem. 5.—Ėv 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 rúv, see on Gal. iii. 26.—ñv
1 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Gro-'
tius, Bengel, and many others, including
Böhmer, Olshausen, Dalmer.
2 For å like use of sei, see Stallbaum, ad
Plat. Rep. p. 360 A.
14
210
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
EXETE] Paul so writes,-not by joining on immediately (Tiv ảyátnu eis
trávras K.7.2.), 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 ảyánn, and indeed definitely upon the
reason why they cherished it.
Ver. 5. Alà TÌv & arrida k.7..] [XXIV d.] on account of the hope, etc. does
not belong to εvxap. ver. 3, because the ground for the apostolic thanks-
giving at the beginnings of the Epistles, as also here at ver. 4, always con-
sists in the Christian character of the readers, and that indeed as a
ground in itself,3 and therefore not merely on account of what one has in
future to hope from it; and, moreover, because evxapLOTEĪV with otá and
the accusative does not occur anywhere in the N. T. It is connected with
ūv šzeta K.T.N., and thus specifies the motive ground of the love; for love
guarantees the realization of the salvation hoped for.4 The more faith is
active through love, the richer one becomes eis Oɛóv (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 thotis, so as to make the
hope appear here as ground of the faith and the love; so Grotius and
others, including Bähr, Olshausen, and de Wette; comp. Baumgarten-
Crusius and Ewald. For îv čxete (or the Rec. rv) indicates a further
statement merely as regards tñv åyánnv; and with this accords the close
of the whole outburst, which in ver. 8 emphatically reverts to Tìju úpāv
ảyánnu. - The tanís is here conceived objectively (comp. ła. BRETTOLÉVN,
Rom. viii. 24): our hope as to its objective contents, that which we hope for.5
—TNV ÅTTOKELII. juły šv T. oup.] What is meant is the Messianic salvation
forming the contents of the hope (1 Thess. V. 8; Rom. v. 2, viii. 18 ff.;
Col. iii. 3 f.), which remains deposited, that is, preserved, laid up (Luke xix.
20), in heaven for the Christian until the Parousia, in order to be then
given to him. On ároit. comp. 2 Tim. iv. 8; 2 Macc. xii. 45; Kypke, II.
p. 320 f.; Loesner, p. 360; Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 678. Used of death,
Heb. ix. 27; of punishments, Plat. Locr. p. 104 D, 4 Macc. viii. 10. As to
the idea, comp. the conception of the treasure in heaven (Matt. vi. 20,
xix. 21; 1 Tim. vi. 19), of the reward in heaven (see on Matt. v. 12), of the
Tohitevlla in heaven (see on Phil. iii. 20), of the kampovouía Tetninuévn ěv
oúpav. (1 Pet. i. 4), and of the Bpaßɛcov rñs švw ichhoews (Phil. iii. 14).-- v
#ponkovoate K.7.n.] [XXIV e.] Certainty of this hope, which is not an un-
1 Bengel, “ex spe patet, quanta sit causa
gratias agendi pro dono fidei et amoris;"
comp. Bullinger, Zanchius, Calovius, Elsner,
Michaelis, Zachariae, Storr, Rosenmüller,
· Hofmann, and others.
2 Rom. i. 8; 1 Cor. i. 4 ff.; Eph. i. 15; Phil.
i. 5; 1 Thess. i. 3; 2 Thess. i. 3; 2 Tim. i. 5;
Philem. 5.
3 In opposition to the view of Hofmann, that
Paul names the reason why the news of the
faith and love of the readers had become to
him a cause of thanksgiving.
4So correctly, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecu-
menius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Calvin, Es-
tius, Steiger, Bleek, and others.
6 Comp. Job vi. 8; 2 Macc. vii. 14, and
see on Rom. viii. 24. and Gal. v. 5; Zöck-
ler, de vi ac notione voc, étis, Giss. 1856, p.
26 ff.
It is erroneous to say that the Parousia no
longer occurs in our Epistle. It is the sub-
stratum of the eatis å OK. év q. oup. Comp.
iii. 1 ff. (in opposition to Mayerhoff, and Holtz-
mann, p. 203 f.).
1
CHAP. I. 3-6.
211
warranted subjective fancy, but is objectively conveyed to them
through the word of truth previously announced. The repo in
ne ponkovcatel does not denote already formerly, whereby Paul premises
se nihil allaturum novi (Calvin and many), but must be said with
reference to the future, to which the hope belongs; hence the sense im-
ported by Ewald: wherewith the word of truth began among you (Mark i. 15),
is the less admissible. The conception is rather, that the contents of the
Šiais, the heavenly salvation, is the great future blessing, the infallible pre-
announcement of which they have heard. As previously announced, it is also
previously heard.—Tís áanleias is the contents of the hóyos (comp. on Eph.
i. 13); and by ToŨ evay., the áhöllera, that is, the absolute truth, is specifi-
cally defined as that of the gospel, that is, as that which is announced in the
gospel. [XXIV f.] Both genitives are therefore to be left in their substan-
tive form, so that the expression advances to greater definiteness. The
circumstantiality has something solemn about it (comp. 2 Cor. ix. 4); but
this is arbitrarily done away, if we regard toũ εvayy. as the genitive of
apposition to tý hóyw rís á 276. (Calvin, Beza, and many others, including
Flatt, Bähr, Steiger, Böhmer, Huther, Olshausen, de Wette, Hofmann);
following Eph. i. 13, Paul would have written tộ εvayyehių.
Ver. 6. In what he had just said, fiv aponkovoate . . . evayyehíov, Paul now
desires to make his readers sensible of the great and blessed fellowship in
which, through the gospel, they are placed, in order that they may by this
very consciousness feel themselves aroused to faithfulness towards the
gospel, in presence of the heretical influences ; επειδή μάλιστα οι πολλοί εκ
TOŨ KOLVWVoùS Š XELV Tollows Tūv doyjátwv Otnpíčovtal, Chrysostom. Comp.
Oecumenitus : προθυμοτέρους αυτούς περί την πίστιν ποιεί εκ του έχεις πάντας
Kolvwvouc.-eis vuās] not šv yuīv, because the conception of the previous
arrival predominates; 1 Macc. xi. 63. Often so with mapɛīvau in classical
authors (Herod. i. 9, vi. 24, viii. 60; Polyb. xviii. 1.1; comp. Acts xii. 20).3
Observe, moreover, the emphasis of ToŰ tapóvtoç: it is there ! it has not
remained away; and to the presence is then added the bearing fruit.—Kalòs
kaì év tavrì T. koouw] A popular hyperbole. Comp. Rom. i. 8; Acts xvii.
6, and see ver. 23. The expression is neither arbitrarily to be restricted,
nor to be used against the genuineness of the Epistle (Hilgenfeld), nor
yet to be rationalized by “as regards the idea" (Baumgarten-Crusius) and
the like; although, certainly, the idea of the catholicity of Christianity is ex-
pressed in the passage (comp. Rom. x. 18; Mark xiv. 9, xvi. 15; Matt. xxiv.
14).—Kai žoti kapTop. K.7.2.] [XXIV 9.] Instead of continuing : kai kapto-
popovuévov K.T.A., Paul carries onward the discourse with the finite verb, and
thus causes this element to stand out more independently and forcibly: 4
1 Herod. viii.79 ; Plat. Legg. vii. p. 797 A; Xen.
Mcm. ii. 4. 7; Dem. 759. 26, 955. 1; Joseph.
Antt. viii. 12. 3.
2 Erasmus, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius,
and many others understand tñs dino. as
adjectival: sermo verax ; comp. on the con-
trary, on ådno. Toû evayy., Gal. ii. 5, 14.
See Bornemann and Kühner, ad Xen.
Anab. i. 2. 2; Bremi, ad Aeschin. p. 320; and
generally, Nägelsbach, 2. Ilins, p. 158 f., ed. 3.
4 If kai is not genuine, as Bleek, Hofmann,
and others consider (see the critical remarks),
the passage is to be translated: as it also in
the whole world is fruit-bearing, by which Paul
212
OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
THE EPISTLE TA
"and it is fruit-bearing and growing," i by which is indicated the
fact, that the gospel, wherever it is present, is also in course of living
dynamical development, and this state of development is expressed by toti
with the participle. This general proposition based on experience: kal
ĚCTL kaprop. k. avšav., is then by kaỐws K. év ůpiv confirmed through the
experience found also among the readers; so that Paul's view passes, in the
first clause (Toù tapóvtos . . . KÓouw), from the special to the general aspect,
and in the second, from the general to the special. With kapitooop. (not
occuring elsewhere in the middlle) is depicted the blissful worlding in the
inward and outward life (comp. Gal. v. 22; Eph. v. 9); and with avšavól.
the continuous diffusion, whereby the gospel is obtaining more and more
adherents and local extension.2 Huther and de Wette groundlessly refrain
from deciding whether avš. is intended to refer to the outward growth or to
the inward (so Steiger), or to both. See Acts vi. 7, xii. 24, xix. 20. Comp.
Luke xiii. 19; Matt. xiii. 32. The pārdov otnpíšeobal, which Chrysostom
finds included in aiš., is not denoted, but presupposed by the latter. Comp.
Theophylact. The figure is taken from a tree, in which the kapropopia does
not exclude the continuance of growth (not so in the case of cereals).—áp'
ns quép. K.7..] since the first beginning of your conversion which so
happily took place (through true knowledge of the grace of God), that
development of the gospel proceeds among you; how could ye now with-
draw from it by joining yourselves to false teachers ?-TV xápiv toð Osow]
contents of the gospel, which they have heard; the object of hkovo. is the
gospel, and τ. χάριν τ. Θεού belongs to επέγνωτε; and by εν αληθεία (2 Cor.
vii. 14), equivalent to åhnoās (John xvii. 8), the qualitative character of this
knowledge is affirmed: it was a true knowledge, corresponding to the
nature of the zápis, without Judaistic and other errors. Comp. on Jolin
xvii. 19. Holtzmann hears in nkosoate ... nows "the first tones of the
foreign theme," which is then in vv. 9, 10 more fully entered upon. But
how conceivable and natural is it, that at the very outset the danger which
threatens the right knowledge of the readers should be present to his
mind!
Ver. 7 f. [XXIV h.] Kæ06] not quandoquidem (Flatt, comp. Bähr),
but the as of the manner in which. So, namely, as it had just been
affirmed by év á amfelạ that they had lonown the divine grace, had they
learned it (comp. Phil. iv. 9) from Epaphras. Notwithstanding this appro-
priate connection, Holtzmann finds in this third kallis a trace of the
interpolator.--Nothing further is known from any other passage as to
Epaphras the Colossian (iv. 12); according to Philem. 23, he was ovvalx-
would say that the gospel is present among
the readers in the same fruit-hearing quality
which it developes on all sides. But iö that
case the following kaows kai év üniv would
necessarily appear as very superfluous. No
doubt we might, after the preceding tapóvtos,
take the eoti, with F. Nitzsch, as equivalent
to rápeoti (see Stallb. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 59. B);
and to this comes also the punctuation in
Tisch. 8, who puts a comma after cotiv. But
how utterly superfluous would this corí then
be!
See Maetzner, ad Iycurg. Leocr. p. 108;
Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 222 B; Winer, p.
533 (E. T. 573).
2 Comp. Theodoret: Kaptopopiav Toù evayy.
KékAnke trvé alvovuévnu modcreiar. aŭtnou dè
των πιστευόντων το πλήθος.
CHAP. I. 7, 8.
213
káłwtos of the apostle. That the latter circumstance is not mentioned in
our Epistle is not to be attributed to any special clesign (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 Epaphrus as an abbreviation); 'Etappas and the
corresponding feminine name 'Etappá are found on Greek inscriptions.-
ovvdoúhov] namely, of Christ (comp. Phil.'i. 1). The word, of common
occurrence, is used elsewhere by Paul in iv. 7 only.-ÖS ŠOTIV K.7.2.] This
faithfulness towards the readers, and also, in the sequel, the praise of their
love, which Epaphras expressed to the apostle, are intended to stir them
up “ne a doctrina, quam ab eo didicerant, per novos magistros abduci se
patiantur,” Estius. The emphasis is on LOTÓS.—ÚTÈ úpūv] for, as their
teacher, he is the servant of Christ for them, for their benefit. The inter-
pretation, instead of you (“in prison he serves me in the gospel,” Michae-
lis, Böhmer), would only be possible in the event of the service being
designated as rendered to the apostle (Drákovós Mov šv XplotỘ, or something
similar). Comp. Philem. 13. Even with Lachmann's reading, ún. Yuāv
(Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald), it would not be necessary to take Únép as
instead ; it might equally well be taken as for in the sense of interest, as
opposite of the anti-Pauline working (comp. Luke ix. 50). The present
toti (Paul does not put nv) has its just warrant in the fact, that the merit,
which the founder of the church has acquired by its true instruction, is
living and continuous, reaching in its efficacy down to the present time.
This is an ethical relation, which is quite independent of the circumstance
that Epaphras was himself a Colossian (in opposition to Hofmann), but
also makes it unnecessary to find in éoti an indirect continuance of Epa-
phras' work for the Colossians (in opposition to Bleek).—ó kaì dnaboas
K.7.2.] who also (in accordance with the interest of this faithful service)
has made us to know; comp. 1 Cor. i. 11. The ảyáron 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
i with the emphatic position of vuūv (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 12; 2 Cor. i. 6, vii. 7,
viii. 13, et al.), which betokens the love of the readers to Epaphras as
meant. [XXIV ¿.] There had just been expressed, to wit, by inèp
útāv, the faithful, loving position of this servant of Christ towards the Col-
ossians, and correlative to this is now the love which he met with from
them, consequently the counter-love shown to him, of which he has in-
formed the apostle. A delicate addition out of courtesy to the readers.-
ĖV TvEvpati] attaches itself closely to åyámny, so as to form one idea, de-
noting the love as truly holy—not conditioned by anything outward, but
divinely upheld—which is in the Holy Spirit as the element which
Who, at the same time, makes the èv aveú-
Mati suggest the reference, that the ayán took
place in a manner personally unknown—which
must have been conveyed in the context.
214
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
prompts and animates it; for it is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. v. 22;
Rom. xv. 30), où capilk), ánhà TvEvpatuKÝ (Oecumenius). Comp. xapà év
Tiv., Rom. xiv. 17.
REMARK.Since áo' ñs ruépas ñkovonte K.T.., ver. 6, refers the readers back
to the first commencement of their Christianity, and καθώς εμάθετε από 'Επαφρά
K.T.N., ver. 7, cannot, except by pure arbitrariness, be separated from it as regards
time and regarded as something later, it results from our passage that Epaphras
is to be considered as the first preacher of the gospel at.Colossae, and consequently
as founder of the church. This exegetical result remains even if the Recepta kalws
kai is retained. This kai would not, as Wiggers thinks (in the Stud. U. Krit.
1838, p. 185), place the preaching of Epaphras in contradistinction to an earlier
one, and make it appear as a continuation of the latter (in this case kadus kai
åtò 'Enaop. šuádete or kaows xpádete kai ártó 'Erapp. would have been em-
ployed); but it is to be taken as also, not otherwise, placing the épádetɛ on a parity
with the śréYvWTε. This applies also in opposition to Vaihinger, in Herzog's
Encykl. iv. p. 79 f.
Ver. 9 [On vv. 9–14, see Note XXV. pages 266, 267.] Intercession, down.
to ver. 12.-(là towTo] (XXV a.] on account of all that has been said
from árovoavtes in ver. 4 onward : induced thereby, we also cease 'not, etc.
This reference is required by άφ' ής ημέρας ηκούσαμεν, which cannot corre-
spond to the onboas nuiv, belonging as that does merely to an accessory
thought, but must take up again (in opposition to Bleek and Hofmann)
the åkovoavtes which was said in ver. 4. This resumption is emphatic, not
tautological (Holtzmann).-kaì yleis] are to be taken together, and it is not
allowable to join kai either with dià TowTo (de Wette), or even with
Te poGevx. (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.— pocevx.] "Precum mentionem
generatim fecit, ver. 3; nunc exprimit, quid precetur” (Bengel).—ıcai
airovlevol] adds the special (asking) to the general (praying).—iva Tampwo.]
Contents of the asking in the form of its purpose. Comp. on Phil. i. 9.
The emphasis lies not on timpul. (F. Nitzsch, Hofmann), but on the ob-
ject (comp. Rom. xv. 14, i. 29, al.), which gives to the further elucidation
in vv. 9, 10 its specific definition of contents.--śrriyv. Toù 0e2. avrow]
[XXV 6.] with the knowledge of His will, accusative, as in Phil. i. 11;
avrov applies to God as the subject, to whom prayer and supplication are
addressed. The context in ver. 10 shows that by the teamua is meant, not the
counsel of redemption (Eph. i. 9; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
and many others, including Huther and Dalmer), but, doubtless (Matt. vi.
10), that which God wills in a moral respect (so Theodoret, who makes out
a contrast with the νομικαίς παρατηρήσεσιν).2 The distinction between
1 Comp. 1 Macc. iii. 44; Matt. xxi. 22; Mark
xi. 24; Eph. vi. 18; Phil. iv. 6. As to the
popular form of hyperbole, où mavól., comp.
on Eph. i. 16. Ou úrèp ùMûv; so far as it is also
to be taken with x. aitoúp., comp. Lys. C. Alc.
p. 141.
2 Comp. Rom. ii. 18, xii. 2; Eph. V. 17, vi. 6;
Col. iy. 12.
CHAP. I. 9, 10.
215
yvūors and étríyvoors, which both here and also in ver. 10, ii. 2, iii. 10, is
the knowledge which grasps and penetrates into the object, is incorrectly
denied by Olshausen. See on Eph. i. 17.-—ėv ráon K.7.n.] instrumental
definition of manner, how, namely, this Tanpwoñval TÀU Émiyv. T. 082. avrov
(a knowledge which is to be the product not of mere human mental
activity, but of objectively divine endowment by the Holy Spirit) must
be brought about : by every kind of spiritual wisdom and insight, by the
communication of these from God; comp. on Eph. i. 8. A combination
with the following meditatſoal (comp. iv. 5 : ¿v copią TEPLT.), such as Hof-
mann suggests, is inappropriate, because the two parts of the whole
intercession stand to one another in the relation of the divine ethical
foundation (ver. 9), and of the corresponding practical conduct of life
(ver. 10 f.); hence the latter portion is most naturally and emphatically
headed by the expression of this Christian practice, the trepitiatījoai, to
which are then subjoined its modal definitions in detail. Accordingly,
Trepitarjoai is notwith Hofmann, to be made dependent on to Deanu.
avtoŬ and taken as its contents, but T. 0£2. T. 0. is to be left as an absolute
idea, as in iv. 12. On TvEvpatikos, proceeding from the Holy Spirit, comp.
Rom. i. 11; 1 Cor. ii. 13, xii. 1; Eph. i. 3, v. 19, et al. The cúveois is the
insight, in a theoretical and (comp. on Mark xii. 33) practical respect,
depending upon judgment and inference, Eph. iii. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 7. For
the opposite of the pneumatic ovvedis, see 1 Cor. i. 19. It is related to the
copía as the special to the general, since it is peculiarly the expression of
the intelligence in the domain of truth, while the copia concerns the col-
lective faculties of the mind, the activities of knowledge, willing, and feel-
ing, the tendency and working of which are harmoniously subservient to
the recognized highest aim, if the wisdom is atvevuaTIK; its opposite is the
copía capkuń (2 Cor. i. 12; Jas. iii. 15), being of man, and not of God, in
its aim and efforts. According as opovnois is conceived subjectively or
objectivized, the obveolç may be considered either as synonymous with it
(Eph. i. 8; Dan. ii. 21 ; Plat. Crat. p. 411 A), or as an attribute of it
(Ecclus. i. 4: cúveous opovýoews).
Ver. 10. The practical aim' which that tanpwoñval 6.7.2. is to accom-
plish ; dki rñ míotel OUSEbyvuol TĪV Tohitelav, Chrysostom. The Vulgate
renders correctly : ut ambuletis (in opposition to Hofmann, see on ver. 9).
-ášíws Toũ kuplov] so that your behavior may stand in morally appropri-
ate relation to your belonging to Christ. Comp. Rom. xvi. 2; Eph. iv. 1;
Phil. i. 27 ; 1 Thess. ii. 12; 3 John 6. The genitive (and in the N. T. such
1 Hence ävwelev oopía, Jas. iii. 15, 17. The
predicate, although in the case of divino en
dowment with copia and oúvcois obvious of
itself (as Hofmann objects), was yet all the
more opposite for expressly bringing the
point into prominence, the greater the danger
which threatened Colossac from non-divine,
fleshly wisdom; comp. ii. 23.
2 Comp. Dera. 209. 24: oúveous, ji tà kadà Kai
αισχρά διαγινώσκεται.
8 Not to be attached as object of the request
immediately to apogeuxóuevoi, and all that
intervenes to be assigned to the interpolator
(Holtzmann, p. 85). Yet, according to Holtz-
nmann, p. 123, εν παντί έργω down to του Θεού
is alleged to be simply an interpolated du-
plicate of ver. 6; in which case, however,
it would not be easy to see why καρποφορούμε-
vol was not written, after the precedent of
vor. 6, but on the contrary kaptopopoûvtcs.
TELE
216
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
only occultof it
is always used with åčíws) does not even “ perhaps ” (Hofmann) belong to
the following εις π. αρεσκ., especially as αρεσκεία, in the Greek writers and
in Philo (see Loesner, p. 361), stands partly with, partly without, a geni-
tival 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: átíws Toù Oso7.--eis tãoav åperkeiav] on behalf of every kind
of pleasing, that is, in order to please Him in every way. The word
only occurs here in the N. T., but the apostle is not on that account to be
deprived of it (Holtzmann); it is found frequently in Polybius, Philo,
et al.; also Theophr. Char. 5; LXX. Prov. xxix. 30 (xxx. 30); Symma-
chus, Ps. lxxx. 12. Among the Greeks, åperkela (to be accentuated thus,
see Winer, p. 50 [E. T. 51]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 11 [E. T. 12]) bears,
for the most part, the sense of seeking to please. Comp. Prov. xxix. 30 :
U&vdɛiç åperkeiai.--ěv Tavrà špyw K.1.2.] There now follow three expositions,
in order to define more precisely the nature and mode of the reputatñoal
åčíws K.7.2. We must, in considering these, notice the homogeneous plan
of the three clauses, each of which commences with a prepositional rela-
tion of the participial idea, viz. (1) ÉV Tavrè špyų k.7.2., (2) Év tráon
Suvápel, (3) metà zapās, and ends with a relation expressed by εis, viz. (1)
Eis T. émiyv T. DEOū, (2) eis rão. ÚTO, K. jakpolupo, (3) eis Tiiv jepida K.T.A.
The construction would be still more symmetrical if, in the third clause,
Év Táoy xapą (Rom. xv. 32) had been written instead of perà xapās—which
was easily prevented by the versatility of the apostle's form of concep-
tion.—¿v Tavrì èpyo åyadó kapTop. is to be taken together [XXV c.] (and
then again, avšavófl. eis Tijvěníyv. 7. Devī), inasmuch as ye by every good
work (by your accomplishing every morally good action) bear fruit, as
good trees, comp. Matt. vii. 17. But not as if the kaptopopɛiv and the
avšáveolial were separate things; they take place, as in ver. 6, jointly and at
the sanze time, although, after the manner of parallelism, a special more
precise definition is annexed to each. Moreover, év tavrà špy. sy. is not
to be connected with eis tãoav åperk. (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Eras-
mus, and others, also Steiger); otherwise we mistake and destroy the
symmetrical structure of the passage.--kaì avšavól. eis T. Éríyv. 1.0.7
and, inasmuch as with this moral fruit-bearing at the same time ye in-
crease in respect to the lonowledge of God, that is, succeed in knowing Him
more and more fully. The living, effective knowledge of God, which is
meant by śmiyv. 7. Okov (ver. 6, iii. 10, ii. 2), sustains an ethically necessary
action and reaction with practical morality. Just as the latter is pro-
moted by the former, so also knowledge grows through moral practice in
virtue of the power of inward experience of the divine life (the swi toŨ
Osov, Eph. iv. 18), by which God reveals Himself more and more to the
inner man. The fact that here To✓ Okov generally is said, and not toũ
Ochýjaros Degū repeated, is in keeping with the progressive development
set forth; there is something of a climax in it. On eis, used of the telic
reference, and consequently of the regulative direction of the growth,
1 On trâo av åp. comp. Polybius, xxxi. 26. 5: trâv yévos áporreias mpoo epóuevos.
CHAP. I. 11.
: 217
V
.
d.
1.
comp. on Eph. iv. 15; 2 Pet. i. 8. The reading tñ. ÉncYvWEL . O. would
have to be taken as instrumental,: with Olshausen, Steiger, Huther, de '.
Wette, Bleek, who follow it, but would yield after ver. 9 something quite
self-evident. We may add that aŭzáv., with the dative of spiritual in-
crease by something, is frequent in Plato and classic writers.-As to the
nominatives of the participles, which are not to be taken with thmpwl.
(Beza, Bengel, Reiche, and others), but relate to the logical subject of
TTEpitrat. áčíws, comp. on Eph. iv. 2; 2 Cor. i. 7.
Ver. 11 is co-ordinate with the foregoing šv navti špyw . . . DE07.--ěv
tráon duv. duvam.] [XXV d.] év is instrumental, as in ver. 9 (Eph. vi. 10;
.. 2 Tim. ii. 1); hence not designating that, in the acquiring of which the in-
vigoration is supposed to consist (Hofmann), but: by means of every moral)
power" (by its bestowal on God's part) becoming empowered.-katà tò kpáros
tñs Sóç. avr.] according to the might of His majesty; with this divine might
(see as to kpátos 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 (vatá in
Eph. i. 19 has another sense). Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 9; Phil. iii. 21. And tò
kpátos T. Sóf. avt. is not His glorious power (Luther, Castalio, Beza, and
others; also Flatt and Bähr), against--which avtoñ should have been a
sufficient warning; but tò kpáros is the appropriate attribute of the divine
majesty (of the glorious nature of God). Comp. Eph. iii. 16; Ecclus.
xviii. 5. The kpáros therefore is not the glory of God (Böhmer), but the
latter has the former,-and the Sófa is not to be referred to a single
aspect of the divine greatness (Grotius : power; Huther : love), but to its
glorious whole. Comp. on Rom. vi. 4.-eis irãoаv ÜTOP. K. pakpoo.] in respect
to every endurance (in affliction, persecution, temptation, and the like,
comp. Rom. v. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 6, vi. 4; Jas. i. 3 f. ; Luke viii. 15; Rom. ii. 7,
et al.) and long-suffering (towards the offenders and persecutors), that is, so
as to be able to exercise these virtues in every way by means of that
divine strengthening. The distinction of Chrysostom: pakpodvusi tis apòs
εκείνους ους δυνατόν και αμύνασθαι: υπομένει δε, ούς ου δύναται άμυνασθαι, is
arbitrary. See, on the contrary, for instance, Heb. xii. 2, 3. Others
understand it variously; but it is to be observed, that inopový expresses
the more general idea of endurance, and that pakpodvuía, the opposite of
which is ófuovuin? and očvóóunos 3 always refers in the N. T. to the rela-
tion of patient tolerance towards offenders. Comp. iii. 12; Gal. v. 22;
Rom. ii. 4; Eph. iv. 2; also Heb. vi. 12; Jas. v. 10.—uerà xapàs] [XXV e.]
is joined with tãoаv ÚTTOM. K. Makpod. by Theodoret, Luther, Beza, Castalio,
Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, Bengel, Heinrichs, and many others, including
Olshausen, Bähr, Steiger, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dalmer, so that
the true, joyful patience (comp. ver. 24) is denoted. But the symmetry
of the passage (see on ver. 10), in which the two previous participles are
1 Suvanów (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 605) does not
occur in Greek authors, and is only found
here and at Heb. xi. 34, Lachm. in the N. T.; in
the LXX. at Eccles. X. 10; Dan. ix. 27; Ps.
lxvii. 31; in Aquila; Job xxxvi. 9; Ps. Ixiv.
4. Paul elsewhere uses évovvajoûv.
2 Eur. Andr. 729; Jas. i. 19.
8 Artem. iv. 69.
218
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
also preceded by a prepositional definition, points so naturally to the con-
nection with what follows that it cannot be abandoned without arbitrari-
ness. Even in that case, indeed, the thought of joyful patience, which is
certainly apostolic (Rom. v. 3; 1 Pet. i. 6; Rom. xii. 12; comp. Matt. y.
12), is not lost, when the intercession rises from patience to joyful thanlos-
giving. Observe also the deliberate juxtaposition of metà xapāç küxaplot.
Ver. 12. While ye.give thanks with joyfulness, etc.,-a third accompanying
definition of repetatñoal àčíws k.1.. (ver. 10), co-ordinate with the two
definitions preceding, and not to be connected with oú navóueda k.1.2.
(Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin : "iterum redit ad gratulationem,”
Clovius, Böhmer, Bungarten-Crusius).–Tº Trapi] of Jesus Christ; comp.
ver. 13, and toð Kvplov in ver. 10, not: “the Father absolutely ” (Hofinann).
It is always in Paul's writings to be gathered from the context, whose
Father God is to be understood as being (even at Eph. i. 17); never does
he name God absolutely (in abstracto) ó maríp. Comp. ver. 3, which, how-
ever, is held by Holtzmann to be the original, suggesting a repetition by
the editor at our passage, in spite of the fact that the two passages have
different subjects. Just as little does eis TÌV Mepida k.7.2. 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 kampovouía is so general in the N.T. Comp. espe-
cially Acts xxvi. 18.2-Tð iraváoavtl K..2.] Therein lies the ground of the
thanksgiving, quippe qui, etc. God has made us fit (ruās applies to the
letter-writers and readers, so far as they are Christians) for a share in the
Messianic salvation through the light, inasmuch as, instead of the darkness
which previously prevailed over us, He has by means of the gospel
brought to us the aandela, of which light is the distinctive element and the
quickening and saving principle (Eph. v. 9) of the Christian constitution
both in an intellectual and ethical point of view (Acts xxvi. 18); hence :
Christians are children of the light (Eph. V. 8; 1 Thess. v. 5; Luke xvi. 8).
Comp. Rom. xiii. 12; 2 Cor. vi. 14; 1 Pet. ii. 9. In Christ the light had
attained to personal manifestation (John i. 4 ff., iii. 9, viii. 12; Matt. iv.
16, 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, et al.) to men, who without this enlight-
enment were unfit for the Messianic salvation (Eph. ii. 1 ff., iv. 18, v. 11,
vi. 12; 1 Thess. v. 4, et al.). The instrumental definition ¿v TẬ ourí is
placed at the end, in order that it may stand out with special emphasis ;
hence, also, the relative sentence which follows refers to this very element.
An objection has been wrongly urged against our view (which is already
adopted by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact; comp. Estius and
.
1 Syr., Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy-
lact, Erasmus, Estius, and others, including
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Böhmer, Huther,
Ewald, Ellicott, Bleek, Hofmann.
2 The mode in which Acts xxvi. 18 comes
into contact as regards thought and expreş.
sion with Col. i. 12-14, may be sufficiently ex-
plained by the circumstance that in Acts xxvi.
also Paul is the speaker. Holtzmann justly
advises caution with reference to the apparent
echoes of the Book of Acts in general, as
Luke originally bears the Pauline stamp.
CHAP. I. 12, 13.
219
others, including Flatt and Steiger), that Paul must have used tvɛūpa
instead of būs (see Olshausen). The ikavoïv ¿v TẬ owri is, indeed, nothing
else than the kahεiv eis tò pūs (1 Pet. ii. 9) conceived in respect of its moral
efficacy, and the result thereof on the part of man is the εival Oūs šv kupių
(Eph v. 8), or the civai viòv toŬ Putós (1 Thess. V. 5; John xii. 36), ús
OWOTNPES Év KÓOLLY (Phil. ii. 15). But the light is a power; for it is tò pūs tñs
Swiſs (Jolin viii. 12), has its armor (Rom. xiii. 12), produces its fruit (Eph.
v. 9), effects the Christian éY XELV (Eph. v. 13), endurance in the conflict of
affliction (Heb. x. 32), etc. 'Ev TẬ puri [XXV f.] is usually connected
with του κλήρου των αγίων, so that this κλήρος is described as existing or to be
found in light, as the kingdom of light; in which case we may think either
of its glory (Beza and others, Böhmer, Huther), or of its purity and perfec-
tion (Olshausen, de Wette, and Dalmer) as referred to. But although the
connecting article του might be wanting, and the κλήρος τ. αγ. εν τω φωτί
might thus form a single conception, it may be urged as an objection that
the heritage meant cannot be the temporal position of Christians, but only
the future blessedness of the Messianic glorious kingdom; comp. ver. 13,
Tìm Bao LA. To Dioỡ. Hence not ẻo Tộ (0Ti, but possibly Ép T Só$27, 6v Thị Lum, ép
rois oupavois, or the like, would be a fitting definition of khñpos, which,
however, already has in tūv áyiw its definite description (comp. Eph. i. 18;
Acts xx. 32, xxvi. 18). Just as little—for the same reason, and because 7.
μερίδα ειlready carries with it its own definition (share on the κλήρος)-is εν
τω φωτί to be made dependent on την μερίδα, whether έν be talken locally
(Bengel : "Lux est regnum Dei, habentque fideles in hoc regno parlem
beatam') or as in Acts viii. 21 (Ewald), in which case Hofmann finds the
sphere expressed (comp. also Bleek), where the saints have got their peculiar pos-
session assigned to them, so that the being in light stands related to the future
glory as that which is still in various respects conclitioned stands to plenitude
'-as if khñpos (comp. on Açts xxvi. 18) had not already the definite and full
eschatological sense of the possession of eternal glory. This khípos, of
which the Christians are possessors (rūv åyiwv), ideally before the Parousia,
and thereafter really, is the theocratic designation (177772) of the property
of the Messianic kingdom (see on Gal. iii. 18; Eph. i. 11), and the pepis (257)
TOŨ khípov is the share of individuals 1 in the same. Comp. Ecclus. xliv.: 23.
Ver. 13. A more precise elucidation of the divine benefit previously
expressed by tŷ ikaváoavti ... pwri. This verse forms the transition, by
which Paul is led on to the instructions as to Christ, which he has it in
view to give down to ver. 20.2—ĖK Tňs ėšovo, TOV OKOT.] [XXV g.] TOū okot. is not
1 Comp. also Bleek. Hofmann incorrectly
says that του κλήρου serves only to designate
the Mepis as destined for special possession. In
that case, at least, the qualitative genitive of
the abstract must have been put (rñs kampovo-
mias, as in Ps. xvi. 5). But the concrete toŮ
Kirípov 7. áy. is, as the literal sense of repis,
portio, most naturally suggests, the genitivus
partitivus (G. tolius), so that the individual is
conceived as μερίτης of the κλήρος of the saints,
in which he for his part συμμετέχει.
2 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 Holtz-
mann, the Christology belongs to the compiler ;
the whole passage, vv. 14-20, is forced and with-
out motive, and it is only in ver 21 that we find
220.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
genitive of apposition (Hofmann), but, corresponding to the cis TÌv Baolelav
that follows, genitive of the subject: out of the power, which darkness has.
The latter, as the influential power of non-Christian humanity (of the
KOG JOS, which is ruled by the devil, Eph. ii. 2), is personified; its essence is
the negation of the intellectual and ethical divine åandela, and the affirm-
ation of the opposite. The act of the špproato has taken place by
means of the conversion to Christ, which is the work of God, Rom. viii.
29 f.; Eph. ii. 4 ff. It is to be observed, that the expression ÉK T. &čovo. T.
OKÓTOUS is chosen as the correlative of tv TÔ owri in ver. 12.--kai yeTÉOTNGEV]
The matter is to be conceived locally ( εis étEPOV Tónov, Plat. Legg. vi. p. 762
B), so that the deliverance from the power of darkness appears to be
united with the removing away into the kingdom, etc. --eis TV Baoch K.7.2.,
that is, into the kingdom of the Messiah, (XXV h.] Eph. v. 5; 2 Pet. i. 11;
for this and nothing else is meant by » Baochela Xplotoữ (Toù Okoő, Tūv ovpavāv)
in all passages of the N. T.3 The corist yetért. is to be explained by the
matter being conceived proleptically (Tī vàpartide toáhnjev, Rom. viii. 24),
as something already consummated (comp. on ésófaoe, Rom. viii. 30). Thus
the kingdom which is nigh is, by means of their fellowship of life with
their Lord (Eph. ii. 6), as certain to the redeemed as if they were already
translated into it. The explanation which refers it to the Christian church
(so still Heinrichs, Bähr, Huther, and most expositors) as contrasted with
the kóquos, is just as unhistorical as that which makes it the invisible
inward, ethical kingdom (see especially Olshausen, following an erroneous
view of Luke xvii. 21), to which also Bleek and Hofmann ultimately
come. Certainly all who name Christ their Lord are under this king
(Hofmann); but this is not yet his Baolheia; that belongs to the future aiáv,
Eph. v. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 9 f., xv. 24, 50; Gal. v. 21, et al.; John xviii. 36.-TĪS
ảyámns avrov) in essential meaning, indeed, nothing else than toð vioù avton
TOū å yaanToỦ (Matt. iii. 17, xvii. 5, et al.), or to viov ToŨ å yaTnto avtoŨ
(Matt. xii. 18; Mark xii. 6), but more prominently singling out the attribute
(Buttmann, Neut. 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: viòç ódúvns Mov. Entirely parallel is Eph. i. 6 f.; év tý ryannuévw,
Év Q Xouev K.T.A. Augustine, de Trin. xv. 19, understood it as genitive of
origin, making ảyánn aitov denote the divine substantia. So again Olshau-
sen, in whose view the expression is meant to correspond to the Johan-
nine uovoyevs. This is entirely without analogy in the N. T. mode of con-
ception, according to which not the procreation (ver. 15), but the sending .
of the Son is referred to the divine love as its act; and the love is not the
the direct sequel to ver. 13. The latter state-
ment is incorrect. And why should this ex-
cursus, as a grand basis for all the exhorta-
tions and warnings that follow, be held with-
out due motivey Holtzmann forms too harsh
a judgment as to the whole passage i. 9-23,
when he declares it incompatible with any
strict exegetical treatment.
1 Comp. Luke xxii. 53; Matt. iv. 16; Acts
xxvi. 18; Rom. xiii. 12; Eph. v. 8, vi. 12, et al.
2 Comp. Plat. Rcp. p. 518 A: čk te Owtòs eis
σκότος μεθισταμένων και έκ σκότους είς φως.
3 Comp. iv. 11; and see on Rom. xiv. 17; 1
Cor. iv. 20; Matt. iii. 2, vi. 10.
4 Theodore of Mopsuestia finds in the ex-
pression the contrast that Christ was the Son
of God où púoel, ádl’ayáin rñs violecias.
CHAP. I. 14, 15.
221
essence of God (in the metaphysical sense), but His essential disposition
(the essence in the ethical sense), even in 1 John iv. 8, 16. Consequently
it might be explained : “ of the Son whom His love has sent,” if this were
suggested by the context; so far, however, from this being the case, the
language refers to the exalted Christ who rules (Baorkeſav). The expression
itself, ó viòs tās åyán. avrov, 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 skóros, 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 viofecía (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 ó viòs tñs
àyánns aút. as being thoroughly un-Pauline—as if the linguistic resources
of the apostle could not even extend to an expression which is not
indeed elsewhere used by him, but is in the highest degree appropriate to
a specially vivid sense of the divine act of love; something sentimental
in the best sense.
Ver. 14. Not a preliminary condition of the violecia (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 Baoireia does
not denote the kingdom of the church); nor yet a mark of the deliverance
from darkness having taken place,—since this deliverance necessarily
coincides with the translation into the kingdom; but it is the abiding
(xouev, habemus, not accepimus) relation, in which that transference into the
kingdom of God has its causal basis. The ransoming (from the punishment
of sin, see the explanatory TÀU ădeolv TūV đuapt.) we have in Christ, inas-
much as He, by the shedding of His blood as the purchase-price (see on
1 Cor. vi. 20; Gal. iii. 13, iv. 5), has given Himself as a 2 úrpov (Matt. xx.
28; Mark x. 45; 1 Tim. ii. 6); and this redemption, effected by His:
ihaotýplov (Rom. iii. 21 ff.), remains continually in subsistence and efficacy.
Hence : év , which specifies wherein the subjective Š Xouevis objectively
based, as its causa meritoria (Rom. iii. 24). Comp., moreover, on Eph. i. 7,
whence dià Toñ arpatoç avtoù has found its way hither as a correct gloss.
But the deleting of this addition by no means implies that we should
make tūv å papriūv also belong to Tiiv átrohútpwow (Hofmann), as in Heb. ix.
15, especially as Paul elsewhere only uses árokútpwors either absolutely
(Rom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. 7, iv. 30) or with the genitive of the
subject (Rom. viii. 23; Eph. i. 14). The expression åpeolç T. đuapr. is not
used by him elsewhere in the epistles (comp., however, Rom. iv. 7), but at
Acts xiii. 38, xxvi. 28. Holtzmann too hastily infers that the writer had
read the Synoptics.
Ver. 15.? [On vv.15 ff., see Note XXVI. pages 267, 268.] After having stated,
1 Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol.
1863, p. 513.
: ? As to vv. 15–20, see Schleiermacher in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1832, p. 497 ff. (Werke z. Theol. II.
222
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
.
in ver. 14, what we have in Christ (whose state of exaltation he has in view,
see ver. 13, Tiiv Baochelav), Paul now, continuing his discourse by an epex-;
egetical relative clause, depicts what Christ is, namely, as regards His
divine dignity-having in view the influences of the false teachers, who
with Gnostic tendencies depreciated this dignity. The plan of the dis-
course is not tripartite (originator of the physical creation, ver. 15 f.; main-
tainer of everything created, ver. 17; relation to the new moral creation,
ver. 18 ff., -50 Bähr, while others divide differently)', but bipartite, [XXVI
a.] in such a way that vv. 15–17 set forth the exalted metaphysical rela-'
tion of Christ to God and the world, and then ver. 18 ff., His historical
relation of dignity to the church. This division, which in itself is logically
correct (whereas ver. 17 is not suited, either as regards contents or form,
to be a separate, co-ordinate part), is also externally indicated by the two
confirmatory clauses ötl év avto K.7.2. in ver. 16 and rer. 19, by which the
two preceding : affirmations in ver. 15 and ver. 18 are shown to be the proper
parts of the discourse. [XXVI 6.] Others 4 have looked upon the twice-
expressed ős Éotiv in ver. 15 and ver. 18 as marking the beginning of the
two parts. But this would not be justifiable as respects the second ős ÉOTIV;
for the main idea, which governs the whole effusion, vv. 15–20, is the glory
of the dominion of the Son of God, in the description of which Paul evidently
begins the second part with the words kaì airós, ver. 18, passing over from
the general to the special, namely, to His government over the church to
which He has attained by His resurrection. [XXVI C.] On the details,
see below. [On vv. 15–17, see Note XXVII. pages. 269–271.]—öç ŠOTIV K.7.2.]
It is to be observed that Paul has in view Christ as regards His present
existence, consequently as regards the presence and continuance of His
state of exaltation (comp. on vv. 13, 14); hence he affirms, not what Christ
was, but what He is. On this totiv, comp. vv: 17, 18, and 2 Cor. iv. 4.
Therefore not only the reference to Christ's temporal manifestation (Calvin,
Grotius, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), but also the limit-
ation to Christ's divine nature or the Logos (Calovius, Estius, Wolf, and
many others, including Bähr, Steiger, Olshausen, Huther) is incorrect.
The only correct reference is to His whole person, [XXVII c.], which, in
p. 321 ff.), and, in opposition to his ethical
interpretation (of Christ as the moral Re-
former of the world), Holzhausen in the Tüb.
Zeitschr. 1832, 4, p. 236 ff.; Osiander, ibid.
1833, 1, 2; Bähr, appendix to Komment. p.
321 ff.; Bleek on Heb. i. 2. See generally
also Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 153 ff., II. 1,
p. 357 ff.; Beyschlag in the Stud. U. Krit.
1860, P. 446 f.
le.g. Calovius: “Redemptoris descriptio a
Deitate: ab opere creationis," and " quod caput
ecclesiae sit.” Comp. Schmid, Bibl. Theol. II.
p. 299 f.
2 Olshausen brings the two divisions under
the exegetically erroneous point of view that,
in vy. 15–17, Christ is described without refer-
ence to the incarnation, and in vv. 18-20, with
reference to the same.
3 In conformity with the confirmatory func-
tion of the ori, according to which not the
clause introduced by öti, but the clause which
it is to confirm, contains the leading thought,
to which ÖTL K.T.d. is logically subordinated.
Hence the two parts are not to be begun with
the two clauses OTC &v aúto themselves (so
Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 182), in
which case, moreover, ver. 15 is supposed to
be quite aloof from this connection-a suppo-
sition at variance with its even verbally evi-
dent association with ver. 16.
4 See especially Bengel, Schleiermacher,
Hofmann, comp. also Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 77.
CHAP. I. 15.
223
the divine-human state of its present heavenly existence, is continually
that which its divine nature—this nature considered in and by itself-was
before the incarnation; so that, in virtue of the identity of His divine
nature, the same predicates belong to the exalted Christ as to the Logos.
See Phil. ii. 6; John xvii. 5.—EKÒV TOÙ DEOŬ TOū kopárov] image of God the
invisible. [XXVII 6.] Comp. on 2 Cor. iv. 4. As, namely, Christ in His
pre-existence down to His incarnation already possessed the essential
divine glory, so that He was as to nature ioa OeQ, and as to form of appear-
ance šv uopon Oɛov úrápxwv (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 sófa, 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
sóça 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 απαύγασμα της δόξης και χαρακτήρ της
iTOOTLOEWS OEOū (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 Tow ảopátov, placed as it is in its
characteristically significant attributive position : behind the emphatic toő
Osov, posits for the conception of the exact image visibility (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 4, the less admits of proof, because he is not speaking here
of the pre-existence, but of the exalted Christ, including, therefore, His
human nature; hence, also, the comparison with the angel Metatron of
Jewish theology (comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. III. 2, p. 67) is irrelevant.
The Fathers, moreover, have, in opposition to the Arians, rightly laid
stress upon the fact that, according to the entire context, elKÒV TOŪ Okov is
meant in the eminent sense, namely of the adequate, and consequently
consubstantial, image of God (uóvos ... kaì ảrapałkáktwS elkáv, Theophy-
lact), and not as man (Gen. i. 26; comp. also 1 Cor. xi. 7; Col. iii. 10) or
1 Sabatier, p. 290, without reason represents
the apostle as in a state of indistinct suspense
in regard to his conception of this pre-exist
ence. And Pfleiderer (in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr.
1871, p. 533) sees in the pre-existence a sub-
jective product, the cousequence, namely, of
the fact that Christ is the ideal of the destiny of
the human mind, hypostasized in a single per-
son, to which is transferred the eternity and
unchanged self-equality of the idea.
2 This is the chief point of agreement be-
tween our Epistle and the Epistle to the He-
brews; and it is explained by the Pauline
basis and footing, on which the author of the
latter stood. The subsequent WTÓTOKOS TAO.
Ktío., however, has nothing to do with pwtó-
TOKOS, Heb. i. 6, where the absolute word is
rather to be explained in accordance with
Rom. viii. 29. We make this remark in oppo-
sition to Holtzmann, according to whom "the
autor ad Ephesios as to his Christology walks in
the track opened by the Epistle to the He-
brews.” Other apparent resemblances to this
letter are immaterial, and similar ones can be
gathered from all the Pauline letters.
8 Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. xxxvi.; Bern-
hardy, p. 322 f.
4See Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 308; comp. Bähr,
Olshausen, Steiger, Huther.
6 See Suicer, Thes. I. p. 415.
224
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
the creation (Rom. i. 20) is God's image. In that case, however, the invis-
ibility of the elkáv is not at all to be considered as presupposed (Chrysos-
toin, 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
elkáv; whereas the notion of εikóv necessarily involves perceptibility (see
above); “Dei inaspecti aspectabilis imago,” Grotius. This visibility—and
that not merely mental (Rom. i. 20)-had been experienced by Paul him-
self at his conversion, and at Christ's Parousia will be fully experienced
by all the world. Different from this is thé (discursive) cognoscibility of
God, which Christ has brought about by His appearance and working.
John i. 18, xiv. 9. This applies against the view of Calvin, Clericus, and
many others, including de Wette: “ in His person, appearance, and oper-
ation ... God has made Himself as it were visible.”i Thus the substan-
tiality of the exact image is more or less turned into a quasi or quoclam-
modo, and the text is thus laid open to every kind of rationalizing caprice.
We may add that Christ was already, as hóyos áoapicos, necessarily the
image of God, but év uoppi Okov, in purely divine glory; not, as after His
exaltation, in clivine-human dóša; consequently, the doctrine of an eternal
humanity of Christ (Beyschlag) is not to be based on eikūV TOŪ O env. The
idea, also, of the prototype of humanity, which is held by Beyschlag here to
underlie that of the image of God (comp. his Christol. p. 227), is foreign to
the context. Certainly God has in eternity thought of the humanity which
in the fullness of time was to be assumed by His Son (Acts xv. 18); but
this is simply an ideal pre-existence (comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 41 ff.),
such as belongs to the entire history of salvation, very different from the
- real antemundane existence of the personal Logos.—TPWTÓTOKOS táons kti-
GEWS]. [XXVII c.] After the relation of Christ to God now follows His
relation to what is created, in an apologetic interest of opposition to the
Gnostic false teachers. The false teachers denied to Christ the supreme
unique rank in the order of spirits. But he is first-born of every creature,
that is, born before every creature-having come to personal existence, * entered
upon subsistent being, ere yet anything created was extant (Rom. i. 25, viii. ·
39; Heb. iv. 13). [XXVII d. c.] 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
1 Comp. Grotius: "Adam irnago Dei fuit, sed
valde tenuis; in Christo perfectissime appa-
ruit, quam Deus esset sapiens, potens, bo-
nus;” Baumgarten-Crusius: “the affinity to
God (which is held to consist in the destina-
tion of ruling over the spirit-world) as Christ
showed it upon earth."
% Comp. Wisd. vii. 26, and Grimm, Handb. p.
161 f.
3 βούλεται δείξαι ότι πρό πάσης της κτίσεώς εσ-
Tlv ó viós. Trûs ūv; dià yevňoews oủkoûv kai Tŵy
αγγέλων πρότερος, και ούτως ώστε και αυτός έκ-
TlOeV autous, Theophylact.
4 According to Hofmann (Schriftbew.), the ex-
pression is also intended to imply that the ex-
istence of all created things was brought about
through Him. But this is only stated in what
follows, and is not yet contained in TPWTÓTO-
kos by itself, which only posits the origin of
Christ (as dóyos apodopikós) in His temporal re-
lation to the creature; and this point is the
more purely to be adhered to seeing that
Christ Himself does not belong to the category
of the kriois. Calvin also has understood it
as Hofmann does; comp. also Gess, v. d. Pers.
Chr. p. 79, and Beyschlag, p. 446, according to
CHAP. I. 15.
225,
creation of the world, corresponding to the Johannine expression év ápxn.
Tu ó hóyos, which in substance, although not in form, is also Pauline;
comp. Phil. ii. 6. Philo's term īpwtóyovos, 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 Alexandrian philosophic
view. The mode in which he conceived of the personal pre-existence of
Christ before the world as regards (timeless) origin, is not defined by the
figurative apwrótokoç more precisely than as procession from the divine,
nature (Philo illustrates the relation of the origin of the Logos, by saying
that the Father ávételkev Him), whereby the premundane Christ became
subsistent έν μορφή Θεού ειnd ίσα Θεώ (Phil. ii. 6). The genitive πάσης κτίσεως,
moreover, is not the partitive genitive (although de Wette still, with Usteri,
Reuss, and Baur, holds this to be indubitable), because the anarthrous tãoa
Ktíols does not mean the whole creation, or everything which is created (Hof-
mann), and consequently cannot. affirm the category or collective wholel to
which Christ belongs as its first-born individual (it means: every creature;
comp. on tãoa oiiodou“, Eph. ii. 212); but it is the genitive of comparison,
corresponding to the superlative expression: "the first-born in comparison
with every creature” (see Bernhardy, p. 139), that is, born earlier than every
creature. In Rev. i. 5, TPWTÓTOK. TÕV verpūv, the relation is different, T. VEK-
pôv pointing out the category; comp. ipwrótok. Év Torois åd., Rom. viii.
29. The genitive here is to be taken quite as the comparative genitive
with apūroc; see on John i. 15, and generally, Kühner, II. 1, p. 335 f. The
element of comparison is the relation of time (pò toŨ Tòv koopov čival, John
xvii. 5), and that in respect of origin. But because the latter in the case
of every ktíciç is different from what it is in the case of Christ, neither apuró-
KTLOTOS nor TpWTÓThaotos is made use of,—_terms which would indicate for
whom Christ is at the same time to be desig-
nated as the principle of the creature, whose
origin bears in itself that of the latter.
i Comp. Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 608 C. The
article would necessarily be added, as nãoa
♡ KTÍOLS, Judith xvi. 14, or Ý Tâoa ktious, 3
Macc. vi. 2, or Kriols Tâoa. Comp. also önn
+ Krits, Wisc. xix. 6.
2 Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 156:“In relation
to all that is created, Christ occupies the posi-
tion whicha'first-born has towards the house-
hold of his father.” Essentially similar is his
view in his Heil. Schr. N. T., p. 16, where to.
ktio. is held to mean "all creation," and to
signiſy “all that is created in its unity," which
is also the opinion of Rich. Schmidt, Paul.
Christol. p. 211. The interpretation of Hof-
mann (comp. Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 79) is incorrect,
because there would thereby be necessarily
affirmed a homogeneous relation of origin for
Christ and all the κτίσις. The κτίσις would
stand to Christ in the relation of the Meta
τεχθείς to the πρωτότοκος, of the επίγονος to the
TPwtóyovos. Hofmann indeed (Heil. Schr, in
loc.) opines that tráons krioews is simply geni.
tive" of the definition of relation.” But this,
in fact, explains nothing, because the question
remains, What relation is meant to be defined
by the genitive? The trpWTÓTOKOS Táons KTé-
dows is not at all to be got over so easily as
it is by Hoffmann, namely, with a grammati-
cally erroneous explanation of the anarthrous
Tãou kriols, and with appeal to Ps. lxxxix. 28
(where, in fact, TPWTÓTOKOS stands without
genitive, and 910 in the sense of the first
rank).
3 Comp. Bähr. and Bleek, Ernesti, Urspr. d.
Sünde, I. p. 241 ; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 424;
Philippi, Glaubensl. II. p. 214, ed. 2.
4 How much, however, the designations
TPWTÓKTĮOTOS, KTÍOMO, KTÍSELV K.T.d., as applied
to the origin of the Son, were in use among
the Alexandrians (following Prov. viii. 22,
where Wisdom says: κύριος έκτισέ με, comp.
Ecclus. i. 4, xxiv. S f.), may be seen in Giese.
ler, Kirchengesch. Ι. 1, p. 327, ed. 4.
15
226
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Christ, who is withal Son of God, a similar mode of origin as for the
creature—but the term mpwTÓTOKOS is chosen, which, in the comparison as
to time of origin, points to the peculiar nature of the origination in the.
beings in whom this is implied in the designation ktious, but born, having
come forth homogeneous from the nature of God. And by this is
expressed, not a relation homogeneous with the kricis (Holtzmann), a
relation kindred to the world (Beyschlag, Christol. p. 227), but that which is
absolutely exalted above the world and unique. Theodoret justly observes.
oux ás å deloīju šXWv tììv Ktíowv, á.X'ús tipò rãons KTÍGEWS yavvndeis. At variance.
with the words, therefore, is the Arian interpretation, that Christ is desig-
nated as the first creature; so also Usteri, p. 315, Schwegler, Baur, Reuss.
With this view the sequel also conflicts, which describes Christ as the
accomplisher and aim of creation; hence in His case a mode of origin
higher and different from the being created must be presupposed, which is,
in fact, characteristically indicated in the purposely-chosen word apWTÓTO-
KOS. The Socinian interpretation is also incorrect? (Grotius, Wetstein,
along with which there is, for the most part, associated the reference of
TT PWTótok. to the highest dignity (Pelagius, Melanchthon, Cameron, Ham-
mond, Zachariae, and others, including Storr and Flatt; comp. de Wette),
which is assumed also by many who understand it of the physical creation.
It is decisive against this interpretation, that`ktious would necessarily
require for the moral notion a more precise definition, either by a pre-
dicate (kaivý, 2 Cor. v. 17; comp. Barnabas, ep. C. XVl.: haßóvres TÌV đPeolv
των αμαρτιών και ελπίσαντες επί τω ονόματι του κυρίου, έγενόμεθα καινοι, πάλιν εξ
åpxñs KTISÓLEVol), or at least by a context which admitted of no doubt; also,
that mpwrótokos never means the most excellent, and can only have this sense
not by any means the case, as the context (see ver. 16, and mpò Távrwv in
ver. 17; comp. also ripwTÓTOKOS ÉK TÕV vekpūv in ver. 18) brings prominently
forward the relation of time. This apuróTOKOV εival belongs to the high
dignity of Christ (comp. Rev. iii. 14. ý áp xì tñs KtigeW TOŪ Osov), but it
does not signify it. The ethical4 interpretation of the passage appears all
the more mistaken, since according to it, even if mpwrótok is understood
temporally (Baumgarten-Crusius. “Ktíois is that which is remodelled, and
· 1 The Socinian doctrine argues thus “pri-
.mogenitum unum ex eorum numero, quorum
primogenitus est, esse necesse est," but
Christ could not be "unus e rebus conditis
creationis veteris," – an assumption which
would be Arian , He must consequently belong
to the new creation, from which it follows, at
the same time, that He does not possess a di
vine nature. See Calech Racov 167, p 318, ed
Oeder
2 Chrysostom justly says o'xi åčias x tiuns,
adlá xpóvou uovovéotionMavtikov, and already
Theophilus, ad Autol ii. 31, p 172 OTTOTE DC
ñoéanoev o Ocòs Trocnoac öga éßovdevgato, roútov
Tòv dóyov èyévvnde apodopikov, TPWTÓTokov má.
ons krioews.
3 Comp. Justin, C. Tr. 100: WTÓTOKOV MÈV.
toll coll k npò TávtwV TWV KTLOMÁTwv.
4 Both errors of the Socinians, etc., are al-
ready present in Theodore of Mopsiiestia,
namely, that PWTÓTOKOS Táo krio does pot .
stand επί χρόνου, but επί προτιμήσεως, and sig-
nifies tapà mão ay tinu ktíow TopGuevos, and
that the following év aútų kiti does not de-
note Tv apurnu, hut tnv èv aútû yevouévnu
å váKTIOLN Comp. also Photiuis, Amphil. 192.
CHAP. I. 16.
227
Tepwrótokos, He who has come first under this category, has first received
this higher spiritual dignity ''), Christ is made to be included under the ktious,
which is at variance both with the context in ver. 16 f., and with the whole
N. T. Christology, especially the sinlessness of Christ. If, however, in
order to obviate this ground of objection, TPWTótokoç is combined as an
adjective with elkúv, we not only get a complicated construction, since both
Wordls have their genitival definition, but πρωτότοκος (instead of πρωτότυπος)
would be an inappropriate predicate for elkóv. This applies against Schlei-
ermacher, who, taking krious 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. Eunon. iv. p. 104, have made the first-born even into the first-bringer-forth,
TT PUTOTÓKOS, as paroxytone, according to the classical usage, as, with Erasmus
in his Annot. (but only permissively) Erasmus Schmid and Michaelis did,
although purotókos in an active sense occurs only of the female sex, and
the very mpwrótOKOS ÉK T. vekp. of ver. 18 ought to have dissuaded from such
an idea, to say nothing of the unfitness and want of delicacy of the
figure” as relating to Christ's agency in the creation of the world, and of
the want of reference in the apātov to the idea of a dettepov—an idea which,
with the usual interpretation, is implied in KtigewÇ.Ver. 15 f. is, more-
over, strikingly opposed to that assumption of a world without beginning
(Schleiermacher, Rothe).
Ver: 16. For in Him were all things created, -the logically correct con-
firmation of πρωτότοκος πάσ. κτίσεως. For if the creation of all things took
place in Christ, it is evident that He must stand before the series of created
things, and be TPUTÓTOKOÇ Táons ktídewc.—v avrõ] [XXVII f.] is not eqivalent
to Si' avtoŨ (Chrysoston, 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 con-
nection apart from Him—but it had in Him the ground essentially con-
ditioning it. In Him lay, in fact, the potency of life, from which God
made the work of creation proceed, inasmuch as He was the personal
principle of the divine self-revelation, and therewith the accomplisher of
the divine idea of the world. A well-known classical usage to denote the
dependence of a state of things, the causality of which is contained in any
one. Not as if the "causa principalis” of the creation lay in Christ, but
the organic causality of the world's becoming created was in Him; hence
the following si avtoð affirms not a different state of things, but the same
thing under a varied form of conception and designation, by which it is
1 FIom. Il. xvii 5; Plat. Theaet. p. 161 A,
151 C; Valckenaer, Schol. II. p. 389.
% TPW Toy aútov Tetokévac, TOÛT' ¿OTI TETTOLNKÉ-
Val TÌv ktioiv, Isidore, 1.c.
8 See Bernhardy, p. 210; Kühner, II. 1, p. 403
f.; from the N. T., Winer, p. 364 [E. T. 389).
228
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
brought out in greater definiteness. The primary ground of creation is
ever God, Rom. xi. 36 ; 1 Çor. viii. 6; Heb. xi. 3. The speculative inter-
pretation of scholastic theology, which found here the “causa exemplaris,"
according to which the idea omnium rerum was in Christ, is indeed
followed in the main again by Beyschlag, as earlier by Kleuker, Böhmer,
Bähr, Neander, Schleiermacher, Steiger, Julius Müller, Olshausen (the
latter saying: "the Son of God is the intelligible world, the kóquos vontós,
that is, things in their very idea ; He bears their essence in Himself”),
but is destitute of confirmation from the modes of conception and expres-
sion elsewhere in the N. T., and, as éktícon denotes the historical fact of the
having been created, it would require not év avto, but éš avtov, by which the
coming forth of the real from theideal existence in Christ might be expressed.
Huther finds the inward connection indicated by év avtõ 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 (év avto Śwr nv,
John i. 4), consequently of a divine act depending on Christ; comp. John
1. 3: Xopis autoŰ ÉyÉveto ovdè èv ô yéyovev; Heb. i. 2; and Bleek in loc.
Lastly, de Wette finds in tv besides the instrumental agency at the same
time something of a telic idea (comp. also Ewald and Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p.
424 f.); but this blending together of two heterogeneous references is not
justified by the δι' αυτού και εις αυτόν that follows.-εκτίσθη] physical act of
creation, Schleiermacher ought not to have called in question the linguistic
usage to this effect, with a view to favor the ethical interpretation of the
founding of the church. The word may have the meaning adopted by
Schleiermacher: to obtain its arrangement and constitution, and that
according to the relative nature of the notion implied in the word
condere; 3 but not here, where it is correlative with táons ktídew, and
where the quite general and in no way to be restricted tà trávra follows.
Throughout the N. T., in general kríšw, ktious, ktígua, 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, ás actual creation.-Observe, moreover, the
distinction of the tenses : Éktioon, which denotes the act that took place; and
then školotal, which denotes the creation which has taken place and now
subsists. 4—tà távra] 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.-Tà év Tois ovpavoīs K.7.2.] the things to be found in the heavens and
those to be found on earth. This is certainly a less exact designation of all
created things than that in Rev. x. 6 (ròv oúpavov kaì Tà év avta K.1.2,; comp.
1 See Wisd. i. 14, x. 1, xi. 18; Deut. iv. 32;
comp. Gen. vi. 7; Ecclus xxiv. 9, comp. xv.
14; Judith xiii. 18; comp Gen. i. 1; 1 Cor. xi.
9; Eph. iii. 9; Rom. i. 25; Rev. x. 6, comp.
ziv: 7.
2 Herod. i, 149,167, 168 ; Thue.i. 100; Aesch.
Chocph, 484; Soph Ant. 1101; Pind. 01. vi
116; 3 Esdr iv. 53
3 Comp. Blomf Gloss in Aesch. Pers. 294.
4 See Winer, p. 255 (E.T. 272); Kühner, II.
1, p. 143 f., and ad Xen. Men iii. 1. 4, iii.
7. 7.
.
CHAP. I. 16.
· 229
Neh. ix. 6; Gen. ii. 1, et al.), but does not differ from it, as it does not
exclude heaven and earth themselves, the constituent elements of which,
in the popular view, are included in these two categories. Comp. 1
Chron. Xxx. 11. It is incorrect, therefore, to press this expression in
opposition to the explanation which refers it to the creation of the world
(Wetstein: “non dicit ο ουρανός και η γη εκτίσθη sed τα πάντα, etc., quo
habitatores significantur, qui reconciliantur," comp. Heinrichs and others,
also Catech. Racov. 132, p. 214, ed. Oeder), and to think, with Schleier-
macher, of the kingdom of heaven ; but it is arbitrary also, especially after
Tà trávra, to make the apostle mean primarily the living (Bähr, de Wette)
or rational creatures. The expression embraces everything; hence there ,
was neither need for the mention of the lower world, nor, looking at the
bipartite form of enumeration, occasion for it (it is otherwise in Phil.
ii. 10; Rev. v. 3). The idea that Paul could not have adduced those under
the earth as a special class of created beings, because God had not created
them with the view of their being under the earth (de Wette), would
imply a reflection alien to the vivid flow of the passage before us.-Tà
óparà k. Tà áópata]. 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 opatá, are
included among the latter. Theodoret erroneously asserts that even tà
opatá applies to heavenly things (sun, moon, and stars); it applies to every-
wie wrong the matter : bheodoret erro
thing visible, as.in Plat. Phaed. p. 79 A : 0Ūļev oủv, či Boúhel, šon, dúo eion TūV
ÖVTWV TÒ Mèv opatóv, TÒ dè åeldés.—The áópara are now more precisely specified
disjunctively by εite, sive ... sive (put more than twice ; comp. Plat. Rep. p.
612 A, 493 D; Ecclus. xli. 4). As to the four denominations of angels
which follow [XXVII g.]—whose difference of rank Hofmann ground-
lessly denies, understanding thereby merely "spirits collectively, of what-
ever name they may be”-see on Eph. i. 21; Rom. viii. 38. In accordance
with Eph. i. 21, where the grades of angels are mentioned in descending
order, the arrangement here must be understood so, that the Apóvou are
the highest and the κυριότητες the lowest class, the άρχαι and the εξουσίαι
being two middle orders lying between these two extremes. At Eph. 1.c.
Paul names also four grades of the angelic hierarchy; but neither there
nor here has he intended to give a complete enumeration of them, for in
the former case he omits the Apóvol, and in the latter the duváleiç. The,
Opóvol are not mentioned elsewhere in the N. T. (nor yet in Ignat. ad Trall.
5), but they occur in the Test. Levi, p. 548, in which they are placed in the
seventh heaven (év ♡ åɛì Ülvol TẬ hem poopépovral), also in Dionys. Areop.
Hier. coel. 6. ff., and in the Rabbins. As regards the expression, the last
three denominations are to be taken as abstracts, which represent the
respective concretes, and analogously the concrete noun Apóvol is used for
1 See, on the other hand, Hahn, Theol. d.
N. T. 1. p. 292 f.; Philippi, Glaubensl. II. p.
308 f.; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 559.
3 Buxtorf, Lex. Talm.. p. 1097 ; Schoettgen,
Hor. p. $08.
230
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
those to be found on the thrones (for those enthroned). In this case the very
natural supposition that the angels, whose designation by the term opóvol
must have been in current use, were, in the imagery which gave sensuous
embodiment to religious ideas, conceived as on thrones, is not to be called
in question (in opposition to Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 226). They were
probably conceived as enthroned round the throne of God (comp. Rev. iv.
4, XX. 4). It is to be observed, moreover, generally that Paul presupposes
the various classes of angels, which he names, as well known; although we
are unacquainted with the details of the case, this much is nevertheless
certain, that the apostle was far removed from the dreamy fancies
indulged in on this point by the later Rabbins. But very soon after the
apostolic age (comp. Hermas, Pust. vis. iii. 4), instruction as to Torokoias
Tàç åyyehukás was regarded as teaching for the more perfect. See Ignatius,
ad Trall. 5. For the Christian faith there remains and suffices the
testimony as to different and distinctively designated stages and
categories in the angelic world, while any attempt to ascertain more than
is written in Scripture passes into the fanciful domain of theosophy.-
With govolal is concluded the confirmatory sentence (ŐTl), so that a full stop is
to be placed after éšovo. With tà távta begins a new sentence, in which
Tà trávta and avrós correspond to one another; hence a comma only must
stand after {KTIOTAL. There is no reason for placing (with Lachmann) Tà
Trávra down to miano, in a parenthesis.-Tà távta di autoŨ K.T.2.7. a solennie
recapitulation, but in such a way that, instead of the act of creation
previously mentioned, there is now presented the finished and ready
result (ĚKTIOTAL); the causal relation which was previously denoted by év is
now more precisely indicated as a relation of mediate agency (Si auto,
comp. 1 Cor. viii. 6); then in eis aúróv a new element is added, and the
emphasis which in ver. 16 lay on ěktiotin, is now laid on tà távra which
stands at the head of the sentence. We cannot say with Hofmann, that
by di avtoð and εis autóv the Son comes to stand in contradistinction to
what has been created as Creator, after by év avto the creative act has
been presented as one that had taken place only not without the Son. By the
latter, év avto would become too general and indefinite a thought; while
Si avtoũ 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 εis avrov predicates the “causa finalis” of the same.---εis avt6v7
in reference to Him, for Him, as the aim and end, "in quo Pater acqui-
escit,” Beza. Comp. Rom. xi. 36; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Barnab. Ep. 12: év avtý
Tà áyra kai eis aútóv. The more exact purport of this relation is apparent,
from all that follows down to ver. 20. Everything, namely, is created, in
order to be dependent on Christ and to serve His will and aim. Comp. on
1 Comp. Kühner, II. 1, p. 11; Ruhnken, ad
Tim. p. 190.
2 See Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. II. p.
374.
3 Ewald well says: "Just at this point the
discourse breaks forth as if with fresh force,
so as once more to express as clearly as possi-
ble the whole in all conceivable temporal
relations.”
4 And, if the world was created not merely
SL autou, but also eis aútov, consequently
in telic reference to Him, it is certain that with
CHAP. I. 17.
231
Eph. i. 23, iv. 10; Phil. ii. 9 ff. The final cause of the world, referred in
Rom. xi. 36 to God, is here affirmed of Christ, and with equal right; for
He, as He was the organ of God in creation, is the commissioned ruler to
whom the kupiórns Tūv Távtwv 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 special definitions of the
meaning of eis aúróv are without due warrant, and in particular, the often-
repeated one: to His glorification (Beza, Flatt, Böhmer, and others); it lays
down Christ in general as the legitimus finis (Calvin).-The expositors,
who explain the words as referring to the new moral creation, have sum-
moned to their aid all kinds of arbitrary conjectures in detail-a remark
which applies not merely to Nösselt, Heinrichs, and others, but also to
Schleiermacher, who holds (comp. Baumgarten-Crusius) that tà Év T. oip.
is everything that belongs to the kingdom of heaven, and rà ÉTÈ T. yñs
everything which belongs to civil order in earthly kingdoms; that tà
ορατά and τα αόρατα apply only to the latter; that the Θρόνοι κ.τ.λ. are
magisterial offices, and the like.
Ver. 17. Kai avtóc] [XXVII h.] which is to be separated from the pre-
ceding by a comma only (see on ver. 16), places, in contradistinction to
the created objects in ver. 16 (rà mávra), the subject, the creating self: " and
He Himself, on His part, has an earlier existence than all things, and the
collective whole subsists in Him." Never is aúróg in the nominative? the
mere unemphatic"he" of the previous subject (de Wette), either in Greek
authors or in the N. T., not even in passages such as Buttmann (Neut. Gr.
p. 94 [E. T. 107] brings forward.3—pò Távrwv] like apwróTOKOS, referring to
time, not to rank (as the Socinians, Nösselt, Heinrichs, Schleiermacher,
Baumgarten-Crusius, and others hold); Paul thus repeatedly and emphati-
cally lays stress on the pre-existence of Christ. Instead of sorí, he might
have written 7 (John i. 1); but he makes use of the former, because he
the counsel of creation there was also posited,
in prospect of the entry of sin, the counsel
of redemption. Comp. Thomasius, Christi
Pers. 2. Werk, I, p. 196 f.; Julius Müller, Dogm.
Abhand. p. 121. ff.
iThis eis aúróv is wrongly found incom
patible with 1 Cor. viii. 6 (see, after Mayerhoff,
Baur, and others, especially Holtzmann, p.
219), where, in fact, it is said of the ethical
existence of Christians that they exist for God
through Christ, inasmuch as the subject of
eis autóv (for God) and of Si' aŭroll (through
Christ) is not the universe, but the nucis. The
relation of subordination between Father and
Son would be only done away with at our
passage, in the event of its being said of
Christ that τα πάντα were created εξ αυτού.
But by év a út, and by the more precise
definition l' a úrou, it is guarded; and the
subordination remains unaffected by the cir-
cumstance that the eis aúróv is laid down
by God for the world as its telic aim. This
eis aúróv ēKTIOTAL is the necessary prelimi-
nary condition, on God's part, to the universal
dominion which he has destined for Christ,
and which the latter shall one day, at the
goal of consummation, hand over to the
Father (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). Moreover, what
Paul says of the ktious in. Rom. viii. is essen-
tially connected with that eis autóv, which
does not go beyond Paul or come at all into
opposition to him. The resemblance of our
passage to ó pô TOS kai ó coxaros, Rev.
i. 17, xxii. 13, rests upon the Christological
basis of their common faith, not upon &
dependence of our epistle on the Apoca-
lypse, which would doubtless imply a post-
Pauline date (in opposition to Holtzmann,
p 247).
2 Bengel correctly observes on ver. 16 :
" Ipse hic saepe positum magnam significat
majestatem et omnem excludit creaturam."
8 See Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 47; Winer, p.
141 f. [E. T. 150]; Kühner, II, 1, p. 563.
232
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
.
has in view and sets forth the permanence of Christ's existence, and does
not wish to narrate about Him historically, which is done only in the
auxiliary clauses with őri, vv. 16 and 19. On the present, comp. John viii.
58. His existence is more ancient than that of all things (wávfwv, not
masculine, as the Vulgate and Luther translate).—¿v avrợ] as in ver. 16,
referring to the causal dependence of the subsistence of all existing things
on Christ.—ovvéoTIKɛ] denotes the subsistence of the whole, the state of lasting
. interdependence and order, Lan idea which is not equivalent to that of crea- '
tion, but presupposes it.' It expresses that there is in Christ not merely
the creative cause, but also the cause which brings about organic stability
and continuance in unity (preserving and governing) for the whole of exist-
ing things. .Comp. Heb. i. 3. Of attempts at explanation under the moral
interpretation, we may note that of Schleiermacher: the consolidating of
earthly relations and institutions; and that of Baumgarten-Crusius : "in
this new world He is Lord in recognition and in sway."
REMARK.--The intentional prominence given to the fact of the creation of all
things through Christ, and in particular of the creation of the angels in their
various classes, justifies the supposition that the false teachers disparaged Christ
in this respect, and that they possessed at least elements of the Gnostic-clemiurgic
doctrine which was afterwards systematically elaborated. There is no evidence, how-
ever, of their particular views, and the further forms assumed by the Gnostic ele-
ments, as they showed themselves according to the Fathers in Simon Magus (Iren.
Hacr.i. 20:“Eunoiam ... generare angelos et potestates, a quibus et mundum hunc
factum dixit;" comp. Epiph. Haer. xxi. 4), Cerinthus, etc., and especially among
the Valentinians, while certainly to be recognized as fundamentally akin to the
Colossian doctrinal errors (comp. Heinrici, Valentinian. Gnosis, 1871), are not to
be identified with them; nor are those elements to be made use of as a proof of the
post-apostolic origin of the epistle, as still is done by Hilgenfeld (see his Zeitschr.
1870, p. 246 f.), and more cautiously by Holtzmann. Of Ebionitism only Essene
elements are to be found in Colossae, mingled with other Gnostic doctrines, which
which were not held by the later Ebionites. In particular, the repò TTÁVTWv elvat,
on which Paul lays so much stress, must have been doubted in Colossae, although
a portion of the Ebionites expressly and emphatically taught it (réyovolv å vwllev
MÈv Övta apò TrávtWv dề KTlOévta, Epiph. Haer. XXX. 3). Moreover, the opinion
that Paul derived the appellations of the classes of angels in ver. 16 from the
language of the heretics themselves (Böhmer, comp. Olshausen) is to be rejected,
because in other passages also, where there is no contrast to the Gnostic doctrine
of Aeons, he makes use in substance of these names (Rom. viii. 38; 1 Cor. xv. 24 ;
comp. Eph. i. 20 ff., iii. 10, vi. 11 ff.). They are rather to be regarded as well-
known and generally-current appellations, which were derived from the termin-
ology of later Judaism, and which heretics made use of in common with the
i Reiske, Ind. Dem. ed. Schaef. p. 481 : “Cor-
pus umum, integrum, perfectum, secum con-
sentiens esse et permanere.” Comp. 2 Pet.
iii. 5; Plat. Rcp. p. 530 A : &uvegtával tý Toù
ουρανού δημιουργώ αυτόν τε και τα εν αυτώ, Τim.
p. 61 A : yộv ... UVCotnKviav, Legg. vii. p. 817
B: Toliteia &uvéOTNKE jiunous TOû kalliotov
... Biov. Herod. vii. 225; - Philo, quis rer. div
haer. p. 489 : o čvalvos Õykos, ¢ ¢ ¢avtoll Scadutos
üv kai vecpos, ouvéotnke K. SW T Upeitai apovoia
Θεού κ.τ.λ.
.
233
CHAP. I. 18.
orthodox. The anti-Gnostic element is contained, not in the technical expres-
sions, but in the doctrinal contents of the passage; and it was strong enough to
iniluce Marcion, who took offence at it, to omit vv. 15–17 (Tertullian, c. Marcion,
v. 19). See, besides, Räbiger, Christol. Paul. p. 51 f.; Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 55 f.;
Klöpper, l.C.
Ver. 18. [On vv.18-20, see Note XXVIII. pages 271-275.] Second part (see
on ver. 15) of the exhibition of the exaltedness of Christ. [XXVIII a.]
To that which Christ is as īpWTÓTOKOS Táons KTIOews (vv. 16, 17) is now
added what He is as TWTÓTOKOS ÉK TWV vekpūv, namely, the Head of the
Church, and thus His TPWTEVELV has its consummation (ěv Tāolv). The
latter, namely, iva yévital ... Tputevwv, embraces also a retrospect to that
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, and includes it in εν πάσιν, without its being neces-
sary, however, to attach ver. 18 to the carrying out of the relation to the
world expressed in mpwtótok. T. Ktío. (Hofmann, comp. Rich. Schmidt).
The perspective proceeds from the dignity of the original state of our Lord
to that of His state as Saviour, from His cosmical to His soteriological glory,
and so at length exhibits Him to view as the Ėv Trãou putevwv.—That ver.
· 18, with its confirmation in ver. 19 f., has an apologetic reference to the
Gnostic false teaching, must be assumed from its connection with what
goes before. The passage is to be looked upon as antagonistic to the
worship of angels (ii. 18), which disparaged Christ in His dignity as Head of
the Church, but not (in opposition to Bähr and Huther) as antagonistic to
a theological dogma, such as is found in the Cabbala, according to which
the body of the Messiah (the Adam Kadmon) is the aggregate of the
emanations. For the emphasis of the passage and its essential point of
doctrine lie in the fact that Christ is the Head of the church, and not in
the fact that He is the head of the church; it is not the doctrine of another
σώμα, but that of any other πρωτεύων, which is excluded.-και αυτός stands
again, as k. aúróg in ver. 17, in significant reference to tà távra : et ipse, in
quo omnia consistunt, est caput, etc., so that the passage continues to divide
itself as into the links of a chain.--Toữ cóparos tñS ŠKRĀNO.] to be taken
together; the second genitive is that of apposition (Winer, p. 494 [E. T.
531]), which gives to the word governing it concrete definiteness. On the
familiar Pauline mode of considering the church of believers, livingly and
actively ruled by Christ as the head (Eph. iii. 10; Phil. iii. 6; Acts ix. 31),
as His body," comp. 1 Cor. x. 17, xii. 12 ff., 27; Eph. i. 23, iv. 12, v. 23, 30;
Rom. xii. 5.-ös éoTLV K.7.2.] expexegetical relative clause (as in ver. 15), the
contents of which are related by way of confirmation to the preceding
statement, like our: he, who, etc., which might be expressed, but not neces-
1 Comp. Müller in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1871,
p. 611 ff.
2 In which is expressed the idea of the in
visible church. Comp, Julius Müller, Dog-
mat. Abh. p. 316 ff. And this conception and
representation belong quite to the apostle's
general sphere of ideas, not specially to
that of the Epistle to the Ephesians, into
which the interpolator is supposed by Holtz-
mann again to enter here, after he has mani-
fested a comparative independence in vy.
15–18.
3 Matthiae, p. 1061 f.; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem.
i. 2. 64; Stallbaum, ad Phil. p. 195 f.
234
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
C
sarily, by őotis (or őoye). Comp. on Eph. i. 14. If Christ had not risen, He
would not be Head of the church (Acts ii. 24–36; 1 Cor. xv.; Rom. i. 4, et
al.).—ápxn] beginning; which, however, is not to be explained either as
"initium secundae et novae creationis” (Calvin), progenitor of the regen-
erate (Bisping), or "author of the church” (Baumgarten-Crusius), or even
"ruler of the world” (Storr, Flatt); but agreeably to the context in such a
way, as to make it have with the appositional apurótokoç its definition in ék
TūV vekpūv, [XXVIII 6.1 just as if the words ran : ápxò TWV vekpôv, TPWTÓTOKOS
Ěš avtõv, although Paul did not express himself thus, because at once upon
his using the predicate åpx“ in and by itself the exegetical apWTÓTOKOS sug-
gested itself to him. Accordingly Christ is called åpxà (TWV verpūv), inas-
much as He is among all the dead the first arisen to everlasting life. It is
arbitrary to discover in åpxń an allusion to the offering of first-fruits sancti-
fying the whole mass (Chrysostom; Beza, Ewald, and others); especially
as the term árapxń, which is elsewhere used for the first portion of a sacri-
fice (Rom. xi. 16), is not here employed, although it has crept in from 1
Cor. xv. 20, 23, in a few minusculi and Fathers, as in Clement also, Cor. I.
24, Christ is termed knapxì tñs åvaotáoews. To assume a reminiscence of 1
Cor. xv. (Holtzmann) is wholly unwarranted, especially as åtapxń is not
used. On åpxń, used of persons, denoting the one who begins the series, as
the first in order of time, comp. Gen. xlix. 3, where åpxò TÉKVWV pov is
equivalent to apWTótokos pov, as also Deut. xxi. 17. In what respect any one
is ápxh of those concerned, must be yielded by the context, just as in this
Case it is yielded by the more precisely defining πρωτότοκος εκ τ. νεκρών;
hence it has been in substance correctly explained, following the Fathers :
ápxn, onoiv, łoti tñs ávaotá OEWS, apò Távtwv ávarrás, Theophylact. Only
Tñs åvaoránews is not to be mentally supplied, nor is it to be conjectured (de
Wette) that Paul had intended to write åpxò 1. åvaoránews, but, on account
of the word TPTótokos presenting itself to him from ver. 15, did not com-
plete what he had begun. It follows, moreover, from the use of the word
apwrótokos, that ápxń is to be taken in the temporal sense, consequently as
equivalent to primus, not in the sense of dignity (Wetstein), and not as
principle (Bähr, Steiger, Huther, Dalmer, following earlier expositors).-
TT PWTÓTOKOS ÉK T. vekp.] [XXVIII C.] ÉK T. vekp. is conceived in the same way as in
ávaotņval ék T. verp. (Eph. v. 14), so that it is the dead in Hades among whom
the Risen One was, but from whom He goes forth (separates Himself from
them, hence also åTÒ T. vekp. Matt. xiv. 2, xxvii. 64, xxviii. 7), and returning
into the body, with the latter rises from the tomb. Comp. apūros éçåvaorácews
vekpôv, Acts xxvi. 23, also 1 Cor. xv. 22 f. This living exit from the grave is
figuratively represented as birth; comp. Rev. i. 5, where the partitive
genitive Tūv verp. (not ék T. v.) yields a form of conceiving the matter not
materially different. Calvin takes apwrótOKOS ÉK. T. v. as specifying the
ground for åpxń: "principium (absolutely), quia primogenitus est ex mortuis ;
1
i The Fathers have already correctly judged
that even in regard to the isolated cases of
rising from the dead, which have taken place
through Christ and before Him, Christ re.
mains the first-risen. Theophylact: ei yap
Kai atlou apò TOÚTOV ávéornoav, åldà rádiv
απέθανον αυτός δε την τελείαν ανάστασιν ανέστη.
Comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 20.
CHAP. I. 18.
235
,
nam in resurrectione est rerum omnium instauratio." Against this it
may be urged, that'ápxń has no more precise definition; Paul must have
written either αρχή της καινής κτίσεως, or at least ής instead of ός. Calvin was
likewise erroneously of opinion (comp. Erasmus, Calovius) that Christ is
called Prinzogenitus 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 presupposition of
the expression πρωτότοκος (αινίττεται δε ο λόγος και την πάντων ημών ανάστασιν, ,
Theodoret). This expression is purposely chosen in significant reference to
ver. 15, as is intimated by Paul himself in the following iva yévntal Év Trãow
K.7.n. But it is thus all the more certain, that apwtóTOICOS ÉK T. verp. is to be
taken independently, and not adjectivally together with ápx“ (Heinrichs,
. Schleiermacher, Ewald), which would only amount to a tautological ver-
boseness (first-born beginning); and, on the other hand, that ÉK TÖV VEkpūv
may not be separated from apWTótokos in such a way as to emphasize the
place, issuing forth from which Christ is what He is, namely, ápxń, TPWTÓTOKOS;
the former, "as the personal beginning of what commences with Him;"
the latter, “in the same relation to those who belong to the world there-
with coming into life as He held to the creation” (Hofmann). In this
way the specific more precise definition, which is by means of śK T. Vekpõv
in significant reference to ver. 15 attached to the predicates of Christ, åpxh
and apwtóTOKOS, would be groundlessly withdrawn from them, and these
predicates would be left in an indefiniteness, in which they would simply
be open vessels for receiving a gratuitously imported supplement.-iva
YÉVNTAL K.1.2.] [XXVIII d.] not to be restricted to the affirmation ÉK TÕV
Vekpāv (Hofmann)," but to be referred to the whole sentence that Christ is
åpxń, npwróTOKOS ÉK T. VEKP., expressing the divine teleology of this posi-
tion of Christ as the Risen One: in order that He may become, etc.;
not: in order "that He may be held as” (Baumgarten-Crusius), nor yet
“that He may be” (Vulgate, and so most expositors), as yiyveolai and εivac
are never synonymous. The év tão lv autos reputevel is looked upon by Paul
as something which is still in course of development (comp). Steiger and
Huther), and is only to be completed in the future, namely, when the
Risen One shall have conquered all the power of the enemy (1 Cor. xv.
25 f.) and have erected the kingdom of the Messiah-but of this result His
resurrection itself was the necessary historical basis, and hence the future
universal πρωτεύειν is the divinely intended αλλη of His being risen.-εν πάσιν]
in all points, without excepting any relation, not, therefore, merely in the
relation of creation (vv. 15–17). Comp. Phil. iv. 12; 1 Tim. iii. 11, iv. 15.;
2 Tim. ii. 7, iv. 5; Tit. ii. 9; Heb. xiii. 4, 18. 'Ev mavri is more commonly
used by Paul (1 Cor. i. 5; 2 Cor. iv. 8, et al.). According to Beza, tãow is
masculine : "inter omnes, videlicet fratres, ut Rom. viii. 29.” So also
Kypke and Heinrichs. But this would be here, after the universal bear-
1 So that it would express the design, which Christ Himself had in His coming forth from
the dead.
236
.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
ing of the whole connection, much too narrow an idea, which, besides, is
self-evident as to the Head of the church. According to Pelagius, it
denotes: "tam in visibilibus quam in invisibilibus creaturis.” At variance
with the text; this idea was conveyed by vv. 16, 17, but in ver. 18 another
relation is introduced which does not refer to created things as
such.-avtós] emphatic, as in vv. 17, 18.—- pwTebwv] having the first rank,
not used elsewhere in the N. T. This precedence in rank is to be the final
result of the condition which set in with the mpwrótokov Eivai ÉK T. VEKP.; but
it is not contained in this apWTÓTOKOV εival itself,—an idea against which
the very iva yévntal is logically decisive (in opposition to de Wette's double
signification of πρωτότοκ.).
Ver. 19.2.60Ti] Confirmatory of the 'lva yévNTAL K.T.no, just said: “about
which divinely intended γίγνεσθαι εν πάσιν αυτόν πρωτεύοντα there can be mo
doubt, for it has pleased, that in Him, etc." How could He, who was thus
destined to be possessor of the divine fullness and reconciler of the world,
have been destined otherwise than to become šv tolv TTpWTeuov! This
confirmation, therefore, does not refer to the statement that Christ is the
Head of the church (Steiger, Huther, comp. Calovius), which has already
its confirmation by means of ős éotiv áp xì K.T.., nor at all to śK Tūv vekpūV
(Hofmann, following up his incorrect explanation of these words), as if
the reason were specified why Christ should have gone to His high dig-
nity as beginner of a new world by the path of deepest abasement—a thought
which Paul would have known how to express quite differently (comp.
Phil. ii. 7 f.) than by the bare én tūV vekp., which is currently used every- .
where of resurrection from death, and without conveying any special
significance of humiliation. Nor yet does Paul move in a circle, by put-
ting forward in ver. 19 as ground of proof that from which in ver. 15 ( ös
ÉOTIV ELKÒV K.T.I.) he had started (de Wette); for ver. 19 is a historical state-
ment (observe the corists), whereas ver. 15 expressed what Christ is, His
habitual being.—-v avto] although belonging to katolk., is prefixed in em-
phatic transposition (Kühner, II. 2, p. 1101).—Eudóinoɛ] He was pleased,
placuit ei, that, etc. As to this use of eúdokeiv in the later Greek (1 Cor. i.
21; Gal. i. 15, et al.), for which, in the classical language, dokeiv merely was
employed, see Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 370. On the accusative with infini-
tive, comp. 2 Macc. 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 yévntal K.T.2. has just stated the dirine. purpose. Among Greek
authors also ó oebs is not unfrequently omitted, where it is self-evident as
the subject. See Kühner, II. 1, p. 30 C. According to Ewald and Elli-
cott, Tãv tò tanpwja is the subject; and the whole fullness is a new expres-
1 But see Esth. V. 11; 2 Macc. vi. 18, xiii. 15; there is then attached in ver. 21, as object,
Aquila, Zech. iv. 7; Plat. Lcgg. iii. p. (92 D, kai ùnâs, also you, with reference to ñuas in
Dern. 1416. 25: TPWTevel év äraol kpátlotov. ver. 13. How daring and violent, and yet
Xen. Cyr. viii. 2. 28; Mem. ii. 6. 26.
how paltry (rescuing merely the kai úmas),
2 Holtzmann, after having rejected vv. 14-18 would the procedure of the author thus have
entirely as an interpolation, allows to stand been.
as original in vv. 19, 20 only the words : öt. év 8 Also Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 428, ed. 2, and
auto eúdóknoev katallácal, to which katall., Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 208.
CHAP. I. 237
19i
.
.
19sion for the Godhead, inasmuch as, going as it were out of itself, it fills
something separate and thus becomes visible (=717'712), dóža, hóyos,
TTVEūua). (XXVIII e.] Without support from N. T. usage; Trãv, too,
would be unsuitable for the subject of kúsóknoɛ; and εiç autóv in ver. 29
clearly shows that Osós is conceived as subject, to which eipNvotochoas then
refers. According to Hofmann, Christ is meant to be the subject of eúdók.
Ver. 20 itself, and Eph. i. 9, ought to have precluded this error. Through-
out the whole of the N. T. it is never Christ, but always the Father, who in
respect to the work of redemption to be executed gives the decree, while
Christ executes it as obedient to the Father; hence also Paul," beneficium
Christi commemorans, nunquam dimittit memoriam Patris," Bengel.2—
Ttāv tò thủpwua katolk.] [XXVIII f.] that in Him the whole fullness was to
take up its abocle. The more precise definition of the absolute tãv Tò
Thńpwpa is placed beyond doubt by the subject to be mentally supplied
with cúd6c10e," namely, tò tanpwpa toŨ OkoV (Eph. iii. 19; comp. tò mhñp.
Tñs OEÓTNTOS, Col. ii. 9). Tò ihmpwua, the signification of which is not to be
defined actively: id quod rem implet,* but passively : id quo res impletur (see
generally on Eph. i. 10, iii. 19, Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 469), has here, as
in Eph. iii. 9, the derivative general notion of copia, it hóūros, like the Ger-
man Fülle. What is meant, namely, is the whole charisnratic riches of
God, His whole gracious fullness of εýhoyía avevưatikń (Eph. i. 3), of which
Christ became permanent (katoliñal) possessor and bearer, who was
thereby capable of fulfilling the divine work of reconciliation (see the fol-
lowing kaì di avtoū árokatarháčal K.7.2.). The case is otherwise in ii. 9,
where the divine essence (rñs DeÓTITOS) is indicated as the contents of the
tanpwua, and the KaTOLKETV of the same in Christ is affirmed as present and
with reference to His state of exaltation. It would be an utterly arbitrary
course mentally to supply here the rñs DeÓTNTOS, ii. 9, and to regard both
passages as an echo of Eph. i. 23, where the notion of thñpwua is a very
different one (in opposition to Holtzmann). Inasmuch as the charismatic
tahapwua of God, meant in our passage, dwelt in Christ, and consequently
Christ was the possessor and disposer of it, this divine fullness is not in
substance different from the inpwua Xp10TOū, out of which grace passed
over to men (John i. 16; Eph. iv. 13). The thought and expression in 1
Cor. xv. 28 are different from our passage, and different also from Eph. i.
23. Beza aptly observes; “cumulatissima omnium divinarum rerum
copia, quam scholastici gratiam habitualem . , . appellant, ex qua in
Christo, tanquam inexhausto fonte, omnes gratiae in nos pro cujusque
membri modulo deriventur;" comp. also Bleek. Observe, at the same
time, the stress lying on the tãv, in contrast to a merely partial impart-
ing out of this fullness, which would have been inadequate to the object of
reconciling the universe. The ontological interpretation of the “fullness of
the nature of God” (Huther, Dalmer, Weiss; Oecumenius, and Theodoret :
1 Comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 357 f.
2 Comp. Reiche, Comment. crit. p. 263.
3 Hence not: "la totalité de l'être qui doit
être realisée dans le monde," Sabatier, l'apôtre
Paul, p. 209.
4 In opposition to Storr, Opusc. I. p. 144 ff.,
Bähr, Steiger.
238
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
the nature of the oɛòs hóyos; Calovius and others: of the communicatio
hypostatica, that is, of the absolute immanence of God in Him, comp.:
Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, I. p. 222; Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 201)
does not correspond to the idea of εúsóknoev, for doubtless the sending of
the Son, and that with the whole treasure of divine grace, into the world
(John iii. 17) for behoof of its reconciliation and blessedness, was the act
of the divine pleasure and resolve; but not so the divine nature in Christ,
which was, on the contrary, necessary in Him, although by His incarna-
tion He emptied Himself of the divine mode of appearance (sófa or uopon,
Phil. ii. 6 ff.). The divine nature is presupposed in what is here said of
Christ. Comp. Gess, v. d. Pers. Christi, p. 85. Some (see especially Steiger,
Bähr, and Reuss) have regarded to thpwua as derived from the Gnostic
terminology of the false teachers, who might perhaps, like Valentinus, have
given this name to the aggregate of the Aeons (see Baur, Gnosis, p. 157),
and in opposition to whom Paul maintains that in Jesus there dwells the
totality of all divine powers of life, and not merely a single emanated
spirit; but this view is all the more unwarranted, because Paul himself
does not intimate any such polemical destination of the word; on the
contrary, in Eph. iii. 19 also he uses Trãi tò tanpwua 7. Osoñ evidently
without any reference of the kind. And if he had wished to place the
whole fullness of the efflux of divine power in contrast to an asserted single
emanation, he must have prefixed, not év avtõ (in Him and in none other),
but mãv (the whole thńpoua, not merely a single constituent element of it) with
the main emphasis, and have logically said: ŐTL Tãy tò Thủpwua eúdókNCEV
Èv avtý katoliñoal. Hofinann (comp. his Schriftbew. p. 29, 359), who in gen-
eral has quite misunderstood ver. 19 f. (comp. above on εvdo.cngEV), takes
1 As in the Son of God in the metaphysical
sense ; hence the original being of God in
Him cannot be conceived merely as ideal,
which was to develop itself into reality, and
the realization of which, when it at length
became perfect, made Him the absolute abode
of the fullness of Godhead. So Beyschlag
Christol. p. 232 f., according to whom Christ
would be conceived as “man drawing down
upon himself” this indwelling of God. He is
conceived as the incarnate Son (comp. ver.
13 ff.), who, in accordance with the Father's
decree, has appeared as bearer of the whole
fullness of salvation. For He was its dwelling
not merely in principle, but in fact and reality,
when He appeared, and He employed it for
the work, which the Father desired to accom-
plish by Him (ver. 20). Comp. Gal. iv. 4;
Rom. viii. 3. The indwelling of the mâv TÒ
Tranpwna He had not, indeed, to achieve by
his own effort; but He had, in obedience to-
wards the Father, to preserve (comp. Heb. iv.
15), apply, communicate it; and so this in-
dwelling is not merely in the risen One, but
in His very work on the cross-the presup-
position of the universal reconciliation, ver.
20.
2 Baur himself (Paulus, II. p. 12 ff.) likewise
explains Tanpwna from the technical language
of the Gnostics, especially of the Valentinian
doctrine of Aeons, but finds the. Gnosticism
to belong to the (post-apostolic) writer of the
epistle. According to Baur (see his Neutest.
Theol. p. 258), Christ is the minpuna of God as
He "in whom that which God is in Himself, ac-
cording to the abstract idea of His nature, is
filled with its definite concrete contents." Comp.
also Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1870, p. 247, ac-
cording to whom our passage is intended to
affirm that the Pleroma of divine nature is to
be sought not in the prolix series of the Acons of
the Gnostics, but in Christ alone. Holtzmann,
with more caution, adheres to the view that
the idea of the u pwma forms a first step
towards the extended use which the Gnostics
make of the word; whereas Hilgenfeld
(Zeitschr. 1873, p. 195) finds the idea here al-
ready so firmly established, " that the inpwla
emerges as in a certain measure holding an
independent position between God and Christ.”
CHAP. I. 19.
239
Trāv tò tranpona as "the one-like totality of that which is ;” and holds that
the will of Christ (to which eúdok. applies) can only have been, " that that
may come to dwell in Him, which otherwise would not be in Hin, consequently
not what is in God, but what is out of God.” This idea of the immanent
indwelling' of the universe in Christ, repeated by Schenkel in the sense of
Christ being the archetype, would be entirely alien to the N. T. view of the
relation of Christ to the world, and is not indicated either at Eph. i. 10 or
here in the context by τα πάντα έν αυτό συνέστηκεν. 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
Hinz.? If Paul had really entertained the obscure paradoxical conception
attributed to him by Hofmann, he would have known how to express it
simply by tò trav (or tà trávra) Katolkñoal, or by tờ nhípoja ToŨ Tavròs (or
TĀV TÁVtwv) katolkÑO. Lastly, at utter variance with both the word and the
context, some have based on Eph. i. 22 f. the interpretation of thápoua as
the church. So already Theodoret : a p. TTV &ickanolav ¿v tộ) Tipòs 'Efecious
εκάλεσεν, ώς των θείων χαρισμάτων πεπληρωμένην. Ταύτην έφη ευδοκήσαι τον Θεόν
Év TÔ XPLOTĄ KATOLKñoal, TOUTÉOTIV autý ouvolal, and recently in substance
Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others; comp. also Schleiermacher,
who, in accordance with Rom. xi. 12, 25, understands "the fullness of the
Gentiles cind the collective whole of Israel,” the dwelling of whom in Christ is
the “definitive abiding state,” which the total reconciliation (see the
sequel) must necessarily have preceded, as this reconciliation is condi-
tioned by the fact that both parties must have become peaceful.-KATOL-
kñoai] The aanpwua is personified, so that the abiding presence, which it was to
have according to the divine eúdolía in Christ, appears conceived under
the form of taking up its abode; in which, however, the idea of the Shechi-
nah would only have to be presupposed, in the event of the tanpwua being
represented as appearance (771779 7722). See on Rom, ix. 5. Comp. John
i. 14. Analogous is the conception of the dwelling of Christ (see on Eph.
iii. 17) or of the Spirit (see Theile on Jas. iv. 5) in believers. Comp. also 2
Pet. iii. 13. In point of time, the indwelling of the divine fullness of grace
according to God's pleasure in Christ refers to the earthly life of the Incar-
nate One, who was destined by God to fulfill the divine work of the åroka-
ταλλάξαι τα πάντα, ιnd was to be enmpowered thereto by the dwelling in
Him of that whole divine inpwua. Without having completed the per-
formance of this work, He could not become Év Trãowv Tputevwv; but of
this there could be no doubt, for God has caused it to be completed
through Him (ört, ver. 19). Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, I. p. 215 f. (comp.
also Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 428, ed. 2), refers eúdóknoe K.Tih. 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 åroratarhágai in ver. 20 does not apply to the reconciliation
through His blood, but to the reunion of all created things through the
1 Comp. Rich. Schmidt, l. c. p. 208.
240
: THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
exalted Lord, as a similar view is indicated in Phil. ii. 10. But this idea
of the átokataháfar is just the point on which this view breaks down.
For ver. 21 clearly shows that ártokatarháčal is to be taken in the usual
sense of the work of reconciliation completed through the inactýplov of
Christ. Moreover, that which Christ received through His exaltation
was not the divine πλήρωμα, but the divine δόξα. .
Ver. 20.1“Haec inhabitatio est fundamentum reconciliationis," Ben-
gel. Hence Paul continues: kai di avtoù arrokaranášau tà mávra, and
ihrough Him to reconcile the whole. [XXVIII g.] As to the double com-
pound ánokatakan, prorsus reconciliare, see on Eph. ii. 16. The considera-
tions which regulate the correct understanding of the passage are: (1)
that tà tárta may not in any way be restricted (this has been appropri-
ately urged by Usteri, and especially by Huther); that it consequently
cannot be referred either merely to intelligent beings generally (the usual
view), or to men (Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and
others), especially the Gentiles (Olshausen), or to the "universam ecclesiam”
(Beza), but is, according to the context (see ver. 16 ff.), simply to be taken
as quite general : the whole of that which exists (has been created); (2) that
the reconciling subject is here not Christ (Hofmann, in accordance with
his incorrect reference of eúdóknop in ver. 19), but God, who through Christ
(ol avrov) reconciled all things ; (3) that consequently árokataklášai can-
not be meant of the transforming of the misrelation between the world and
Christ into a good relation (Hofmann), and just as little of the reconcilia-
tion of all things wilh one another, of the removal of mutual hostility
among the constituent elements composing tà távta, but only of the uni-
versal reconciliation with the God who is hostile to sin,y as is clearly evident
from the application to the readers in ver. 21. The only correct sense
therefore is, that the entire universe has been reconciled with God through Christ.
But how far? [XXVIII 1.] In answering this question, which cannot
be disposed of by speculation beyond the range of Scripture as to the
I According to Holtzmann, p. 92, the author
is assumed to have worked primarily with the
elements of the fundamental passage 2 Cor. v.
18 f., which he has taken to apply to the cos-
mical & TokATallayń. But, instead of appre-
hending this as the function of the risen
Christ, he has by dià Toù achatos K,T... occa-
sioned the coincidence of two dissimilar
spheres of conception, of which, moreover,
the one is introduced as form for the other.
The interpolator reproduces and concen.
trates the thought of Eph. i. 7, 10, ii. 13-17,
bringing the idea of a cosmical reconciliation
(Eph. i. 10) into expression in such a way
"that he, led by the sound of the terminology,
takes up at the same time and includes the thought
of the reconciliation of the Jews and Gentiles.”
In opposition to this view, the exegesis of the
details in their joint bearing on the whole will
avail to show that the passage with all its dif-
ficulty is no such confused medley of misun-
derstanding and of heterogeneous ideas, and
contains nothing lin-Pauline. The extension
of the reconciliation to the celestial spheres,
in particular, has been regarded as uin-Paul-
ine (see, especially, Holtzmann, p. 231 ff.).
But even in the epistles whose genuineness
is undisputed it is not difficult to recognize
the presuppositions, from which the sublime
extension of the conception to an universality
of cosmic effect in our passage might ensue.
We may add, that Eph. i. 10 is not "the leac-
ing thought of the interpolation" at ver. 16 ff.
(Holtzmann, p. 151); in ver. 16 ff. much more
is said, and of other import.--
2 As if we mighi say in German, abversohnen,
that is : to finish quite the reconciliation.
Comp. adidaorcobal, Plat. Legg. ix. p. 873 A.
8 God is the subject, whose hostility is re-
moved by the reconciliation (comp. on Rom.
v. 10); Tà távra is the object, which was af-
fected by this hostility grounded of necessity
..
241
:: CHAP. I. 20.
having entered into the finite and having returned again to the infinite
(Usteri), nor by the idea'imported into átokatawa: of gathering up into the
unity of absolute final aim (Baur, neut. Theol. p. 257), the following con-
siderations are of service : (a) The original harmony, which in the state
of innocence subsisted between God and the whole creation, was annulled
by sin, which first obtained mastery over a portion of tlie angels, and in
consequence of this (2 Cor. xi. 3), by ineans of the transgression of Adam,
over all mankind (Rom. v. 12). Comp. on Eph. i. 10. (6) Not only had
sinful mankind now become alienated from God by sin and brought upon
themselves His hostility (comp. ver. 21), but also the whole of the non-
rational creation (Rom. viii. 19 ff.) was affected by this relation, and given
up by God to ματαιότης and δουλεία της φθοράς (see on Rom. . c.). (c) In-
deed, even the world of heavenly spirits had lost its harmony with God
as it originally existed, since a portion of the angels—those that had
fallen-formed the kingdom of the devil, in antagonism to God, and
became forfeited to the wrath of God for the everlasting punishment
which is prepared for the devil and his angels. (c) But in Christ, by
means of His ιλαστήριον, through which God made peace (είρηνοποιήσας
K.T..), 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 causu meritoric taken place, but
the realization of the universal reconciliation itself is also entered upon,
although it is not yet completed, but down to the time of the Parousia is
only in course of development, inasmuch, namely, as in the present aióv
the believing portion of mankind is indeed in possession of the reconcilia-
tion, but the unreconciled unbelievers (the tares among the wheat) are not
yet separated; inasmuch, further, as the non-intelligent creation still re-
mains in its state of corruption occasioned by sin (Rom. viii.); and lastly, in-
asmuch as untilthe Parousia even the angelic world sees the kingdom of the
devil which has issued from itstill-although the demoniac powers have been
already vanquished by the atoning death, and have become the object of di-
vine triumph (ii. 15)--not annulled, and still in dangerous operation (Eph.
vi. 12) against the Christian church. But through the Parousia the recon-
ciliation of the whole which has been effected in Christ will reach its -
consummation, when the unbelieving portion of mankind will be sepa-
rated and consigned to Gehenna, the whole creation in virtue of the
Palingenesia (Matt. xix. 28) will be transformed into its original perfec-
tion, and the new heaven and the new earth will be constituted as the
dwelling of Sikricooun (2 Pet. iii. 13) and of the sófa of the children of
God (Rom. viii. 21); while the demoniac portion of the angelic world
will be removed from the sphere of the new world, and cast into hell.
Accordingly, in the whole creation there will no longer be anything
on the holiness and righteousness of God.
If the hostile disposition of men towards God,
which had become removed by the recon-
ciliation, were meant (Ritschl in the Jahrb.f.
Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 515), the universal Tà
Tarta 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.
16
242
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
alienated from God and object of His hostility, but tà trávra will be in
harmony and reconciled with Him; and God Himself, to whom Christ
gives back the regency which He has hitherto exercised, will become the
only Ruler and All in All (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). This collective reconcilia-
tion, although its consummation will not occur until the Parousia, is yet
justly designated by the aorist infinitive årokaralláčal, because to the
telic conception of God in the kúsóknoe it was present as one moment in
conception.—The angels also are necessarily included in tà trávra (comp.
subsequently, tà év Tois oupavois); and in this case-seeing that a recon-
ciliation of the angels who had not fallen, who are holy and minister to
Christ (Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 269 ff.), considered in themselves as in-
dividuals, cannot be spoken of, and is nowhere spoken of in the N. T._
it is to be observed that the angels are to be conceived according to category,
in so far, namely, as the hostile relation of God towards the fallen angels
affected the angelic world viewed as a whole. The original normal rela-
tion between God and this higher order of spirits is no longer existing, so
long as the kingdom of demons in antagonism to God still subsists—
which has had its powers broken no doubt already by the death of Christ
(ii. 14 f; Heb. ii. 14), but will undergo at length utter separation-a result
which is to be expected in the new transformation of the world at the
Parousia. The idea of reconciliation is therefore, in conformity with the
manner of popular discourse, and according to the variety of the several
objects included in tà trávra, meant partly in an immediate sense (in ref-
erence to mankind), partly in a mediate sense (in reference to the krious
affected by man's sin, Rom. viii., and to the angelic world affected by its
partial fall);the idea of årolarakáčal, in the presence of the all-embrac-
ing Tà Távra, is as it were of an elastic nature. At the same time, how-
!
1 According to Ignatius, Smyrn. 6, the angels
also, é av KN TLOTEVOwoc eis to aina Xplotou, in
curjudgment. But this conception of angels
needing reconciliation, and possibly even un-
believing, is doubtless merely an abstraction,
just as is the idea of an angel teaching falsely
(Gal. i. 8). It is true that, according to I Cor.
vi. 3, angels also are judged; but this presup-
poses not believing and unbelieving angels,
but various stages of moral perfection and
purity in the angelic world, when confronted
with the absolute ethical standard, which in
Christianity must present itself even to the
angels (Eph. iii. 10). Comp. on 1 Cor. vi. 3.
enervating weakening of the idea into that
of transposition from the misrelation into a
good one, or of "an action, which makes one,
who stands ill to another, stand well to him."
In such a misrelation (namely, to Christ, ac-
cording to the erroneous view of cudóknoe)
stand, in Hofmann's view, even the "spirits
collectively," in so far as they bear sway in the
world-life deteriorated by human sin, instead
of in the realization of salvation.-Richard
Schmidt, l. c. p. 195, also proceeds to dilute the
notion of reconciliation into that of the bring-
ing to Christ, inasmuch as he explains the
kataldorelv as effected by the fact that
Christ has become the head of all, and all has
been put in dependence on him. Hilgenfeld,
l.c. p. 251 f., justly rejects this alteration of the
sense, which is at variance with the following
context, but adheres, for his own part, to the
statement that here the author in a Gnostic
fashion has in view disturbances of peace in
the heavenly spheres (in the tranpwua).
2 The idea of αποκαταλλάξαι is not in this
view to be altered, but has as its necessary
presupposition the idea of hostility, as is clear
from eipnuotolňoas and from éxOpoús, ver. 21,
compared with Eph. ii. 16! Compare Fritzsche,
ad Rom. I. p. 276 ff. ; Eur. Med. 870: Saddayn-
val tais ēx@pas, Soph. Aj. 731 (744): Deolow us
karaddaxoſ xódov, Plat. Rep. p.566 E: após rous
is » exopous rois mèv kataldayſ, tous dè xai Slag
Deipn. This applies also against Hofmann's
3 Comp. Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 2, p. 269 f.,
ed. 2.
CHAP. I
243
ever, áokaraha. is not to be made equivalent (Melanchthon, Grotius, Corne-
lius a Lapide, Flatt, Bähr, Bleek, and others) to stokepaħarbonoha. (Eph. i.
10), which is rather the sequel of the former; nor is it to be conceived as
merely completing the harmony of the good angels (who are not to be
thought absolutely pure, Job iv. 18, xv. 15; Mark x. 18; 1 Cor. vi. 3) with
God (de Wette), and not in the strict sense therefore restoring it-an in-
terpretation which violates the meaning of the word. Calvin, neverthe-
less, has already so conceived the matter, introducing, moreover, the ele-
ment-foreign to the literal sense-of confirmation in righteousness :
"quum creaturae sint, extra lapsus periculum non essent, nisi Christi gratia
fuissent confirmati.” According to Ritschl, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol.
1863, p. 522 f., Paul intends to refer to the angels that had been active in
the law-giving on Sinai (Deut. xxxiii. 2; Ps. lxvii. 18, LXX.), to whom he
attributes" a deviation from God's plan of salvation.” But this latter
idea cannot be made good either by ii. 15, or by Gal. iii. 19, or by Eph. iii.
10, as, indeed, there is nothing in the context to indicate any such refer-
ence to the angels of the law in particularThe exegetical device tra-
ditionally resorted to, that what was meant with respect to the angels was
their reconciliation, not with God, but with men, to whom on account of
sin they had been previously inimical (so Chrysostom, Pelagius, Theodo-
ret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Zanchius, Cameron, Calovius, Estius,
Bengel, Michaelis, Bohmer, and others), is an entirely erroneous make-
shift, incompatible with the language of the passage.--Eis autóv] 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 with-
out a motive; but it is to be referred, not to Christ, who, as mediate agent
of the reconciliation, is at the same time its aim (Bähr, Huther, Olshau-
sen, de Wette, Reiche, Hofmann, Holtzmann, and others; comp. Estius,
also Grotius : "ut ipsi pareant”), but to God, constituting an instance of
the abbreviated form of expression very usual among Greek writers
(Kühner, II. 1, p. 471) and in the N. T. (Winer, p. 577 [E. T. 621]), the
constructio praegnans : to reconcile to Godward, so that they are now no
longer separated from God (comp. årnadorp., ver, 21), but are to be united
with Him in peace. Thus eis aút., although identical in reality, is not in
the mode of conception equivalent to the mere dative (Eph. ii. 16, Rom.
v. 10; 1 Cor. vii. 11; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 20), as Beza, Calvin, and many
others take it. The reference to Christ must be rejected, because the
definition of the aim would have been a special element to be added to
Si avtoī, which, as in ver. 16, would have been expressed by kai eis aúróv,
and also because the explanation which follows (eipnvortoiñoas .7.2.) con-
cerns and presupposes simply the mediate agency of Christ (di avtov).---
ειρηνοποιήσας, [XXVIII 1.] down to σταυρου αυτού, is a nmodal definition of
di autoủ ánokatahráčal (not a parenthesis): so that He concluded peace, etc.,
inasmuch, namely, as the blood of Christ, as the expiatory offering, is
meant to satisfy the holiness of God, and now His grace is to have free
course, Rom. v. 1; Eph. vi. 15. The aorist participle is, as ver. 21 shows,
to be understood as contemporary with átokatana. (see on Eph. i. 9, and
244
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. .
Kühner, II. 1, p. 161 f.; Müller in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1872, p. 631 ff.),
and not antecedent to it (Bähr), as has been incorrectly held by Einesti in
consistency with his explanation of ver. 19 (see on ver. 19), who, more-
over, without any warrant from the context, in accordance with Eph. ii.
14-16, thinks of the conclusion of peace between Jews and Gentiles. The
nominative refers to the subject, and this is, as in the whole sentence
since the kúsóknoev, not Christ, but God. The verb eipnvonoleiv, occurring
only here in the N. T., which has elsewhere TOLETV eiphurry (Eph. ii. 15;
Jas. iii. 18), and also foreign to the ancient Greek, which has eipnvonoios, is
nevertheless found in Hermes, ap. Stob. Ecl. ph. i. 52, and in the LXX.
Prov. x. 10.--Scà ToŨ aſbl. T. otavpoù avrov] that is, by means of the blood to
be shed on His cross, which, namely, as the sacrificial blood reconciling
with God (comp. 2 Cor. v. 21), became the causa medians which procured
the conclusion of peace between God and the world. Rom. iii. 25, v. 9 f.;
Eph. i. 7. The reason, which historically induced Paul to designate the
blood of Christ with such specific definiteness as the blood of His cross, is
to be sought in the spiritualism of the false teachers, who ascribed to the
angels a mediating efficacy with God. Hence comes also the designation
-so intentionally material--of the reconciling sacrificial death, ver. 22,
which Hofmann seeks to avoid as such, namely, as respects its definite
character of a satisfaction.” di aútow] not with the spiritus asper, equiva-
lent to δι' εαυτού, as those talke it who refer ειρηνοποιήσας to Christ εις sub-
ject (éavtòv trdous, Theophylact), since this reference is erroneous. But
neither can di autoù be in apposition to dià roù diuatos T, GT. Utoð (Cas-
talio, "per ejus sanguinem, h. e. per eum”), for the latter, and not the'.
former, would be the explanatory statement. It is a resumption of the
above-giver di avtoð, after the intervening definition eipnvoToLoaç k.7.., in
order to complete the discourse thereby interrupted, and that by once
more emphatically bringing forward the di avrow which stood at the com-
mencement; "through Him," I say, to reconcile; whether they be things
1 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Vecumenius, Lu
ther, Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt, Steiger, Hof-
mann, and many others.
? According to Hofmann, Schriftbew II 1, p
362 ff., by the blood of the cross, ver. 20, the
death of Christ is meant to be presented as a
judicial act of violence, and “what befell Him"
as an ignominy, which He allowed to be 11-
flicted on Him with the view of establishing
a peace, which brought everything out of
alienation from Him into fellowship of peace
with Him. Ver. 22 does not affirm the expia..
tion of sin, hut the transition of mankind,
which had once for all been effected in Christ,
from the condition involved in their sin into
that which came into existence with His
death. Christ has, in a body like ours, and by
means of the death to which we are subject,
done that which we have need of in order that
we may come to stand holy before Him Not
different in substance are Hofmann's utter.
ances in his Heil Schr. N T But when we
find it there stated "how far Christ has
hereby (namely, by His having allowed Him-
self to be put to death as a transgressor by
men).converted the variance, which subsisted
between Him and the world created for Him,
into its opposite, is not here specified in detail,"-
that is an unwarranted evasion, for the strict
idea of reconciliation 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 pore-
trum nostrae cum Deo pacificationis sanguis
Christi, quia in cruce fusus."
CHAP. I. 21.
245
i
on earth or whether they be things in heaven. Comp. on Eph. i. 11;
Rom. viii. 23.-—eite Tà ÉTÈ T. Y., EiTa Tà év T. ojo.] divides, without
“affected tautology” (Holtzmann), but with a certain solemnity befitting
the close of this part of the epistle, the tà trávra into its two coinponent
parts. As to the quite universal description, see above on tà távta; comp.
on ver. 16. We have, besides, to notice : (1) that Paul here it is other-
wise in ver. 16, where the creation was in question, comp. Gen. i. 1) names
the earthly things first, because the atonement toolc place on earth, and
primarily affected things earthly; (2) that the disjunctive expression kite
... cita renders impossible the view of a reconciliation of the two sections
one with another (Erasmus, Wetstein, Dalmer, and others). To the cate-
gory of exegetical aberrations belongs the interpretation of Schleier-
macher, who understands earthly and heavenly things, and includes
among the latter all the relations of divine worship and the mental tenden-
cies of Jews and Gentiles relative thereto : “Jews and Gentiles were at
variance as to both, as to the heavenly and earthly things, and were now
to be brought together in relation to God, after He had founded peace
through the cross of His Son.” The view of Baumgarten-Crusius is also
an utter misexplanation : that the reconciliation of men (Jews and Gen-
tiles) among themselves, and with the spirit-world, is the thing meant;
and that the reconciliation with the latter consists in the consciousness
given back to men of being worthy of connection with the higher spirits.
-Lastly, against the reference to universal restoration, to which, according
to. Olshausen, at least the tendency of Christ's atonement is assumed to
have pointed, see on Eph. i. 10, remark 2.'
Ver. 21. (On Vv. 21-23, see Note XXIX. page 275.) As far as ver 23, an
application to the readers of what had been said as to the reconciliation,
in order to animate them, through the consciousness of this blessing, to
stedfastness in the faith (ver. 23).—-każ úpäs k.7.2.] [XXIX a.] you also, not:
and you, so that it would have to be separated by a mere comma from
the preceding verse, and vvvì dầ ... Oavátov would, notwithstanding its
great importance, come to be taken as parenthetical (Lachmann), or as
quite breaking off the discourse, and leaving it unfinished (Ewald). It
begins a new sentence, comp. Eph. ii. 1; but observe, at the same time,
being here compressed into vv. 20, 21 (in opposition to Holtzmann, p.
150). As to the way in which Holtzmann gains an immediate connection
with what precedes, see on ver. 19. The construction (following the read-
ing ámokatndáynte, see the critical notes) has become anacoluthic,
inasmuch as Paul, when he began the sentence, had in his mind the active
verb (which stands in the Recepta), but he does not carry out this formation
of the sentence; on the contrary, in his versatility of conception, he
suddenly starts off and continues in a passive form, as if he had begun
with kaì ýueis K.7.7.2—áanhãoTp. k.1.2.] when ye were once in the state of
1 Comp. also Schmid in the Jahrb. f.d. Theol.
1870, p. 133.
2 See Matthiae, p. 1524; Winer, p. 527 ff. [E.
T. 567 ff]; and upon the aorist, Buttmann,
Neut. Gr. p. 171 [E. T. 197].
246
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
estrangement, characterizes their heathen condition. As to årnhdoto., see
on Eph. ii. 12; from which passage átrò tīs Tohitelas T. 'Iop. is here as
unwarrantably supplied (Heinrichs, comp. Flatt), às is from Eph. iv. 14
Tís Swñs toŨ OkoŨ (Bähr). In conformity with the context, seeing that
previously God was the subject as author of reconciliation, the being
estranged from God (ToŨ Okoū), the being excluded from His fellowship, is
to be understood. Comp. #0e01 ÉV T. Kóouw, Eph. ii. 12. On the subject-
matter, Rom. i. 21 ff.Exopous] sc. Tŷ OeQ, in a passive sense (comp. on Rom.
v. 10, xi. 28): invisos Deo, as is required by the idea of having become
reconciled, through which God's enmity against sinful men, who were
TÉKva qúoel óprīs (Eph. ii. 3), has changed into mercy towards them. This
applies in opposition to the usual active interpretation, which Hofmann
also justly rejects: hostile towards God, Rom. viii. 7; Jas. iv. 4 (so still
Huther, de Wette, Ewald, Ritschl, Holtzmann), which is not to be com-
bined with the passive sense (Calvin, Bleek).- ñ diavolą and év toīs špyolç T.
7. belong to both the preceding elements; the former as dative of the
cause : on account of their disposition of mind they were once alienated
from God and hateful to Him; the latter as specification of the overt, actual
sphere of life, in which they had been so in the wicked works, in which their
godless and God-hated behaviour had exhibited itself). Thus information
is given, as to annan. and éxépous, of an internal and of an external kind.
The view which takes tỉa Slavolą as dative of the respect (comp. Eph. iv. 18):
as respects disposition (so, following older expositors, Huther, de Wette,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald), would no doubt suit the erroneous active
explanation of éxOp., but would furnish only a superfluous definition to it,
as it is self-evident that the enmity towards God resides in the disposition.
Luther incorrectly renders: “through the reason ;" for the dráv. is not the
reason itself, but its immanent activity (see especially, Plato, Soph. p. 263
E), and that here viewed under its moral aspect; comp. on Eph. iv. 18.
Beza ("mente operibus malis intenta"), Michaelis, Storr, and Bähr
attach εν τοις έργοις κ.τ.λ. to τη διανοία. This is grammatically admissible,
since we may say Slavoslodal ěv, animo versari in (Ps. lxxiii. 8; Ecclus. vi.
37; Plato, Prot. p. 341 E), and therefore the repetition of the article was
not necessary. But the badness of the disposition was so entirely self-
evident from the context, that the assumed more precise definition by év
Tois špy. T. Trovnp. would appear tediously circumstantial.--The articles on
and rois denote the disposition which they have had, and the works which
i Compare the phrase very current in the
classical writers, from Homer onward, ex@pos
Deois, quem Dir oderunt.
2 See Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 576 ff., who
aptly explains karandároco dal tiv. In alicu-
Jus favorem venire, qui antea succensucrit.
Comp. Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 2, p. 265 ff, ed.
2. The reconciliation of men takes place
when God, instead of being further angry at
them, has become gracions 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 reconciled; men remain unrecou-
ciled. 2 Macc vii. 33: • Swv kúplos ... Bpaxéws
ETTúpylotal Kal trade karaldaynoetal tois cav-
TOû doulous. comp. viii. 29, i. 5, v 20; Clem
Cor. I. 48: cxeTEVOVTES autóv (God), ortus CNews
yevóuevos émekaraddayn nuiv In Constt Apost.
viii. 12. 14, it is said of Christ that He tŲ xoongo!
Karnalage God, and ? 17, of God: goû karalla-
yévtos avtois (with believers),
CHAP. I. 22.
247
they have done. In the latter case the subjoined attributive furnished with
the article (Tois Tovnpois) is not causal (“ because they were bad,” Hofmann),
but emphatically brings into prominence the quality, as at Eph. vi. 13; 1
Cor. vii. 14, and often (Winer, p. 126 [E. T. 132]).-vuvi 'dè árokatnaháynte]
as if previously jueis K.T.2. were used (see above); Ye also ... have neverthe-
less now become reconciled. On dé after participles which supply the place
of the protasis, as here, where the thought is : although ye formerly, etc,
see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 374 ff.; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 136; Kühner, ad.
Xen. Mem. iii. 7. 8, Anab. vi. 6. 16. On vuví, with the aorist following,
comp. ver. 26; Rom. vii. 6; Eph. ii. 13; Plat. Symp. p. 193 A : Tpò toŨ...
fv nuev, vuvi SÈ Sià tiiv åsiklav diukioOnuev ÚTÒ T. 0907. Ellendt. Lex Soph. II. p.
176; Kühner, II. 2, p. 672. It denotes the present time, which has set in
with the ảrokatna. (comp. Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 171 [E. T. 197]); and
the latter has taken place objectively through the death of Christ, ver. 22,
although realized subjectively in the readers only when they became
believers--whereby the reconciliation became appropriated to them, and
there existed now for them a decisive contrast of their vuvi with their
Troté.The reconciling subject is, according to the context (vv. 19, 20), not
Christ (as at Eph. ii. 16), through whom (comp. Rom. v. 10; 2 Cor. v. 18)
the reconciliation has taken place (see ver. 20), but, as at 2 Cor. v. 19,
God. For the reference to Christ even the reading árokathahačev would
by no means furnish a reason, far less a necessity, since, on the contrary,
even this active would have, according to the correct explanation of
€údóknoe in ver. 19, to be taken as referring to God (in opposition to
Hofmann).
Vev. 22. 'Ev TỘ owuatı k.7.2.] that, by means of which they have been
reconciled; corresponding to the δι' αυτού and δια του αίματος του σταυρου αυτού
of ver. 20: in the body of His flesh by means of death. Since God is the
reconciling subject, we are not at liberty, with Elzevir, Scholz, and others,
to read aútow (with the spiritus asper), which would not be justified, even
though Christ were the subject. We have further to note: (1) Sià 7. Oavátov
informs us whereby the being reconciled εν τω σώματι τ. σ. αυ. τυας 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 diá,
the tv is not, with Erasmus and many others, to be taken as instrumental,
but is to be left as local; not however, in the sense that Christ accom-
plished the drokararnácoelv 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 dià
ToŨ Davárou follows, in the sense, that in the body of Christ, by means of the
1 Comp. Luthardt, vom freien Willen, p.
403.
2 In opposition to Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Oecumenius, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Calovius,
Heinrichs, and others, including de Wette
and Ewald.
248
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
death therein accomplished, our reconciliation was objectively realized,
which fact of salvation, therefore, inseparably associated itself with His
body; comp. Év Tņ capicí pov, ver. 24, see also 1 Pet. ii. 24 and Huther in
loc. The conception of substitution, however, though involved in the
thing (in the ihaothplov), is not to be sought in év (in opposition to Böhmer
and Baumgarten-Crusius). (3) The reason for the intentional use of the
material description : "in the body which consisted of His flesh” (comp. ii.
11; Ecclus. xxiii. 16), is to be sought in the apologetic interest of antago-
nism to the false teachers, against whom, however, the charge of Docetism, .
possibly on the ground of ii. 23, can the less be proved (in opposition to
Beza, Balduin, Böhmer, Steiger, Huther, and Dalmer), as Paul nowhere
in the epistle expressly treats of the material Incarnation, which he would
hardly have omitted to do in contrast to Docetism (comp. 1 John). In
fact, the apostle found sufficient occasion for writing about the reconcilia-
tion as he has done here and in ver. 20, in the faith in angels on the part
of his opponents, by which they ascribed the reconciling mediation with
God in part to those higher spiritual beings (who are without owuz tñs
capkós). Other writers have adopted the view, without any ground what-
ever in the connection, that Paul has thus written in order to distinguish
the real body of Christ from the spiritual oõua of the church (Bengel,
Michaelis, Storr, Olshausen). The other owua of Christ, which contrasts
with His earthly body of flesh (Rom. i. 3, viii. 3), is His glorified heavenly
body, Phil. iii. 21; 1 Cor. xv. 47 ff. References, however, such as Calvin,
e.g., has discovered (“humile, terrenum et infirmitatibus multis obnoxium
corpus ''), or Grotius (“tantas res perfecit instrumento adeo tenui ;" comp.
also Estius and others), are forced upon the words, in which the form of
expression is selected simply in opposition to spiritualistic erroneous doc-
trines. Just as little may we import into the simple historical statement of
the means Suà to✓ Oavátov, with Hofmann, the ignominy of shedding His blood
on the cross, since no modal definition to that effect is subjoined or indicated.
-Tapartñoal újās 6.7.2.] Ethical definition of the object aimed at in the
árokatnak. : ye have been reconciled ... in order to present you, etc. The
presenting subject is therefore the subject of åtokaTnXX., so that it is to be
explained : iva mapaothonte únās, ut sisteretis vos, and therefore this continua-
tion of the discourse is by no means awkward in its relation to the read-
ing árokatnaháynte (in opposition to de Wette). We should be only justified
in expecting Éavtous (as Huther suggests) instead of 'nās (comp. Rom. xii.
1) if (comp. Rom. vi. 13; 2 Tim. ii. 15) the connection required a reflexive
emphasis. According to the reading ámokathahačev the sense is ut sisteret
vos, in which case, however, the subject would not be Christ (Hofmann),
but, as in every case since εúsóknoe in ver. 19, God.—The point of time at
which the papaot. is to take place (observe the aorist) is that of the judg-
ment, in which they shall come forth holy, etc., before the Judge. Comp. ver.
28, and on Eph. v. 27. This reference (comp. Bähr, Olshausen, Bleek) is
required by the context in ver. 23, where the mapaotñoai K.Tâ. is made
dependent on continuance in the faith as its condition : consequently there
cannot be meant the result already accomplished by the reconciliation itself,
CHAP. I.
249
namely, the state of Sikalooúvn entered upon through it (so usually, includ-
ing Hofmann). The state of justification sets in at any rate, and uncon-
ditionally, through the reconciliation; but it may be lost again, and at the
Parousia will be found subsisting only in the event of the reconciled
remaining constant to the faith, by means of which they have appropri-
ated the reconciliation, ver. 23.-áyious K.T.n.] does not represent the sub-
jects as sacrifices (Rom. xii. 1), which would not consist with the fact that
Christ is the sacrifice, and also would not be in harmony with ảveyk..; it
rather describes without figure the moral holiness which, after the justifica-
tion attained by means of faith, is wrought by the Holy Spirit (Rom. vii.
6, viii. 2, 9, et al.), and which, on the part of man, is preserved and main-
tained by continuance in the faith (ver. 23). The three predicates are not
intended to represent the relation “erga Deum, l'espectu vestri, and
respectu proximi” (Bengel, Bähr), since, in point of fact, åpóuous (blameless,
Eph. i. 4, v. 27; Herod. ii. 177 ; Plat. Rep. p. 487 A : oùd åv ó Mājos Tó ye
TOLCÕTOV ubuwaito) no less than åveykh. (reproachless, 1 Cor. i. 8) points to an
external judgment: but the moral condition is intended to be described
with exhaustive emphasis positively (aylous) and negatively (ajúl. and
åveyka.). The idea of the moral holiness of the righteous through faith is
thoroughly Pauline; comp. not only Eph. ii. 10, Tit. ii. 14, iii. 8, but also
such passages as Rom. vi. 1-23, viii. 4 ff.; Gal. v. 22–25; 1 Cor. ix. 24 ff.;
2 Cor. xi. 2, et al.—KATEVÓT LOV aútoū] refers to Christ,to His judicial appear-
ance at the Parousia, just as by the previous avtoũ after capkóç Christ also
was meant. The usual reference to God (so Huther, de Wette, Baumgar-
ten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek) is connected with the reading åtokatýRhačev
taken as so referring;. comp. Jude 24; Eph. i. 4. The objection that
KATEVÕTLOV 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 évÚTLOV is also applied to Christ (2 Tim. ii. 14),
and since in the notion itself there is nothing opposed to this reference.
The frequent use of the expression “before God” is traceable to the theo-
cratically national currency of this conception, which by no means
excludes the expression “before Christ.” So čuttpoolɛv is also used of Christ
in 1 Thess. ii. 19. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 10: člet pochev toù Bhuaros. ToŨ XPLOTOV,
which is a commentary on our katevÚTLOV avtoð; see also Matt. xxv. 32.
REMARK.—The proper reference of mapaotījoal K.T.A. to the judgment, as also
the condition appended in ver. 23, place it beyond doubt that what is meant here
(it is otherwise in Eph. i. 4) is the holiness and blamelessness, which is entered
upon through justification by faith actu judiciali and is positively wrought by the
Holy Spirit, but which, on the other hand, is preserved and maintained up to the
judgment by the self-active perseverance of faith in virtue of the new life of the
reconciled (Rom. vi.) ; so that the justitia inhaerens is therefore neither meant
alone (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, and others), nor excluded
(Theodoret, Erasmus, Beza, and others), but is included. Comp. Calovius.
1 So also Holtzmann, p. 47, though holding
in favor of the priority of Eph. i. 4, that the
sense requires a reference to God, although
syntactically the reference is made to Christ.
But, in fact, the one is just as consistent with
the sense as the other.
250
: THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Ver. 23. [XXIX 6.c.] Requirement, with which is associated not,
indeed, the being included in the work of reconciliation (Hofmann), but
the attainment of its blessed final aim, which would otherwise be for-
feited, namely the tapaorñoal K.7.2. above described : so far at any rate as
ye, i. e. assuming, namely, that ye, etc. A confidence that the readers
will fulfill this condition is not conveyed by the ciye in itself (see on 2
Cor. v. 3; Gal. iii. 4; Eph. iii. 2), and is not implied here by the context;
but Paul sets forth the relation purely as a condition certainly taking place,
which they have to fulfill, in order to attain the Tapaotījoal K...2.-that
“ fructus in posterum laetissimus” of their reconciliation (Bengel).-
Tíotel] belonging to štt lév. : abide by the faith, do not cease from it. See
on Rom. vi. 1. The mode of this abiding is indicated by what follows
positively (tedeu. K. ÉSpaiol), and negatively (K. uw ustakiv. K.T.7.), under the
figurative conception of a building, in which, and that with reference to
the Parousia pointed at by παραστήσαι κ.τ.λ., the hope of the gospel is
conceived as the foundation, in so far as continuance in the faith is based
on this, and is in fact not possible without it (ver. 27). “Spe amissa per-
severantia concidit,” Grotius. On tɛbɛuen., which is not interjected
(Holtzmann), comp. Eph. iii. 17; 1 Pet. v. 10; and on édpaiol, 1 Cor. xv.
58. The opposite of tɛbɛuen. is xwpis deuɛhíov, Luke vi. 49; but it would
be a contrast to the tebeper, kai español, if they were petakvobļevol K.T.2.;
concerning uń, see Winer, p. 443 [E. T. 475]; Baeumlein, Part. p. 295.-
METAkivoúp.] passively, through the influence of false doctrines and other
seductive forces.-ánó] away . . . from, so as to stand no longer on hope
as the foundation of perseverance in the faith. Comp. Gal. i. 6.-The
årig Toù evayy. (which is proclaimed through the gospel by means of its
promises, comp. ver. 5, and on Eph. i. 18) is the hope of eternal life in
the Messianic kingdom, which has been imparted to the believer in the
gospel. Comp. vv. 4, 5, 27 ; Rom. v. 2, viii. 24; Tit. i. 2 f., iii. 7.—o
nkovcata 6.7.2.] three definitions rendering the pen Letakivelobal K.T.N. in its
universal obligation palpably apparent to the readers; for such a meta-
Kivelobal would, in the case of the Colossians, be inexcusable (où nuovoate,
comp. Rom. x. 18), would set at naught the universal proclamation of the
gospel (row knpuxo. K.7.7.), and would stand in contrast to the personal
weight of the apostle's position as its servant (où éyev. K.7.2.). If, with
Hofmann, we join Toũ knpuxoévtos as an adjective to Toñ evayyɛhíov, où
ηκούσατε, we withdraw from the oύ ηκούσατε that element of practical sig-
nificance, which it must have, if it is not to be superfluous. Nor is justice
done to the third point, où éyevóunv K.T.N., if the words (so Hofmann, comp.
1 In our Epistle faith is by no means post
poned to knowing and perceiving (comp. ii.
5, 7, 12); as Baur asserts in his Neut. Theol. p.
272. The frequent emphasis laid upon know-
ledge, insight, comprehension, and the like,
is not to be put to the account of an intel-
lectualism, which forms a fundamental pe-
culiarity betokening the author and age of
this Epistle (and especially of that to the
Ephesians), as Holtzmann conceives, p. 216 ff.;
on the contrary, it was owing to the attitude
of the apostle towards the antagonistic philo-
sophical speculations. Comp. also Grau, Ent-
wickelungsgesch. d. N. T. II. p. 153 ff. It was
owing to the necessary relations, in which the
apostle, with his peculiarity of being all.
things to all men, found himself placed
towards the interests of the time and place.
CHAP. I. 23, 24.
251
de Wette) are meant to help the apostle, by enforcing what he is thence-
forth to write with the weight of his name, to come to his condition at that
time. According to this, they would be merely destined as a transition. -
In accordance with the context, however, and without arbitrary tamper-
ing, they can only have the same aim with the two preceding attributives
which are annexed to the gospel ; and, with this aim, how appropriately
and forcibly do they stand at the close!' ROLTÒV yàp péya nu TÒ Ilavlov
ovoua, Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom. Comp. on èyè llavhos, 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 cer-
tainly not have been passed over here in silence.—v Táon kriget (without
Tň, see the critical remarks) is to be taken as : in presence of (coram, see
Ast, Le.. Plat. I. p. 701; Winer, p. 360 [E. T. 385] every creature, before
everything that is created (ktions, as in i. 15). There is nothing created
under the heaven, in whose sphere and environment (comp. Kühner, II.
1, p. 401) the gospel had not been proclaimed. The sense of the word
must be left in this entire generality, and not limited to the heathen (Bähr).
It is true that the popular expression of universality may just as little be
pressed here as in ver. 6. But as in i. 15, so also here irãoa krious is not
all creation, according to which the sense is assumed to be: “on a stage
embracing the whole world” (Hofmann). This Paul would properly have
expressed by εν πάση τη κτίσει, οι εν παντί τω κόσμω, or εν όλω το κ. ;
comp. ver. 6. The expression is more lofty and poetic than in ver.-6, ap-
propriate to the close of the section, not a fanciful reproduction betray-
ing an imitator and a later age (Holtzmann). Omitting even ou nãouoata
(because it is not continued by ou kai łyú), Holtzmann arrives merely at
the connection between ver. 23 and ver. 25: un meraklv. årò toñ evayy, où
łyev. éyè II. diák. Katà TÌu olkov. T. 8€ov TITU dobɛīgáv pol eis újās, just as he
then would read further thus: Tampãoal T. Róy. T. Beoð, eis ő kaÌ KOTLū
ảywvL564. Katà 7. évépy. avtoŨ TÌNU évepyoull. év šuoi.—drákovos] See on Eph.
iii. 7. Paul has become such through his calling, Gal. i. 15 f. ; Eph. iii. 7.
Observe the aorist.
Ver. 24.3 [On Vv. 24-29, see Note XXX. pages 275-278.] A more precise
description of this relation of service, and that, in the first place, with
respect to the sufferings which the apostle is now enduring, ver. 24, and
then with respect to his important calling generally, vv. 25–29.—ôs (see the
critical remarks) [XXX a.] vūv xaipw k.t.2.: I who now rejoice, etc. How
touchingly, so as to win the hearts of the readers, does this join itself with
the last element of encouragement in ver. 23!-vūv] places in contrast with
the great element of his past, expressed by où éyev. 6.1.2., which has im-
posed on the apostle so many sorrows (comp. Acts ix. 16), the situation as
it now exists with him in that relation of service on his part to the gospel.
1 According to Baur, indeed, such passages
as the present are among those which betray
the double personality of the author.
2 Comp. Herm. Past. sim. viii. 3; Ign. Rom.2.
3 See upon ver. 24, Lücke, Progr. 1833; Hu.
ther in the Stud. u. Krit, 1838, p. 189 ff.
Wur.
252
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
This present condition, however, he characterizes, in full magnanimous
appreciation of the sufferings under which he writes, as joyfulness over
them, and as a becoming perfect in the fellowship of tribulation with
Christ, which is accomplished through them. It is plain, therefore, that
the emphatio vŭv is not transitional (Bähr) or inferential (Lücke: "quae
cum ita sint"); nor yet is it to be defined, with Olshausen, by arbitrary
importation of the thought: now, after that I look upon the church as firmly
established (comp. Dalmer'), or: with Hofmann, to be taken as standing in
contrast to the apostolic activity.--ĖV tots malnu.] [XXX 6.] over the suffer-
ings; see on Phil. i. 18; Rom. v. 3. This joy in suffering is so entirely in
harmony with the Pauline spirit, that its source is not to be sought (in
opposition to Holtzmann) in 2 Cor. vii. 4, either for the present passage or
for Eph. iii. 13; comp. also Phil. ii. 17-ÚTÈD úpūv] joins itself to maðnuaoiv
so as to form one conception, without connecting article. Comp. on vv.
1,4; 2 Cor. vii. 7; Eph. iii. 13; Gal. iv. 14. Since inép, according to the
context, is not to be taken otherwise than as in ÚTÈD Toð oól. avrov, it can
neither mean instead of (Steiger, Catholic expositors, but not Cornelius a
Lapide or Estius), nor on account of (Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, Flatt; comp.
Eph. iii. 1; Phil. i. 29), but simply: in commodum,' namely, iva vuās upen-
ñoal dvvnoā, Oecumenius, and that, indeed, by that honorable attestation and
glorifying of your Christian state, which is actually contained in my tribula-
tions; for the latter show forth the faith of the readers, for the sake of
which the apostle has undertaken and borne the suffering, as the holy
divine thing which is worthy of such a sacrifice. Comp. Phil. i. 12 ff.;
Eph. iii. 13. The reference to the example, which confirms the readers'.
faith (Grotius, Wolf, Bähr, and others), introduces inappropriately a reflec-
tion, the indirect and tame character of which is not at all in keeping with
the emotion of the discourse.—The ýmõv, meaning the readers, though the
relation in question concerns Pauline Christians generally, is to be explained
by the tendency of affectionate sympathy to individualize (comp. Phil. i.
25, ii. 17, et al.). It is arbitrary, doubtless, to supply tūv šovāv here from
Eph. iii. 1 (Flatt, Huther); but that Paul, nevertheless, has his readers in
view cs Gentile Christians, and as standing in a special relation to himself
as apostle of the Gentiles, is shown by vy. 25–27.—Kai] not equivalent to każ
yáp (Heinrichs, Bähr), but the simple and, subjoining to the subjective
state of feeling the ohjective relation of suffering, which the apostle sees
accomplishing itself in his destiny. It therefore carries on, but not from
the special (ýuwv) “ad totam omnino ecclesiam " (Lücke), since the new
point to be introduced is contained in the specific ávravathmpū ... Xplotov,
and not in iTÈD T. oóll. avrov. The connection of ideas is rather: "I rejoice
over my sufferings, and what a holy position is theirs ! through them I
fulfill,” etc. Hence the notion of xaipw is not, with Huther, to be carried
over also to ávravarhnpū: and I supplement with joy, etc. At the same
time, however, the statement introduced by kai stands related to yaipw as
elucidating and giving information regarding it.-ávravan.mpä] [XXX c.].
I Soalso Bisping, who, however, explains it of the meritoriousness of good works availing for others.
CHAP. I. 24.
253
The double compound is more graphic than the simple avatanpū, Phil. ii.
30; 1 Cor. xvi. 17 (I fill up), since ávtí (to fill up over against) indicates what
is brought in for the making complete over against the still existing úgtepñuata.
The reference of the ávti lies therefore in the notion of what is lacking;
inasmuch, namely, as the incomplete is rendered complete by the very
fact, that the supplement corresponding to what is lacking is introduced
in its stead. It is the reference of the corresponding adjustment, of the
supplying of what is still wanting: The distinction of the word from the
simple avatanpoūv does not consist in this, that the latter is said of him,
who “totépnua a se relictum ipse explet,” and ávravath. of him, who "alte-
rius dotépnua de suo explet;"3 nor yet in the endurance vieing with Christ,
the author of the afflictions;4 but in the circumstance, that in ávravan..
the filling up is conceived and described as defectui respondens, in ảvan...,
on the other hand, only in general as completio.-Tà votepñuara] The plural.
indicates those elements yet wanting in the sufferings of Christ in order to
completeness. Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 10; 2 Cor. ix. 12.–Tūv OríŲ. TOū Xplotow]
TOŨ X. is the genitive of the subject. Paul describes, namely, his own suffer-
ings, in accordance with the idea of the KOLVWVELV TOTS ToŨ Xplotov nabíjaol (1
Pet. iv. 13; comp. Matt. xx. 22; Heb. xiii. 13), as afflictions of Christ, in so
far as the apostolic suffering in essential character was the same as Christ
'endured (the same cup which Christ drank, the same baptism with which
Christ was baptized). Comp. on Rom. viii. 17; 2 Cor. i. 5; Phil. iii. 10.
The collective mass of these afflictions is conceived in the form of a definite
measure, just as the phrases åvan luacával kaká, ávanhñoal kakòv oitov, and the
like, are current in classic authors, according to a similar figurative con-
ception (Hom. Il. viii. 34. 354, xv. 132), Schweigh. Lex. Herod. I. p. 42. He
only who has suffered all, has filled up the measure. That Paul is now, in
his captivity fraught with danger to life, on the point (the present ávtavana.
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 votépoua in it,—this he regards as something grand and glorious, and
therefore utters the avtavatanpū, which bears the emphasis at the head of
this declaration, with all the sense of triumph which the approaching com-
pletion of such a work involves. "I rejoice on account of the sufferings
1 Many ideas are arbitrarily introduced by
commentators, in order to bring out of the
avtí in ártavad. a reciprocal relation. See e.g.
Clericus:"Ille ego, qui olim ecclesiam Christi
vexaveram, nunc vicissim in ejus utilitatem
pergo multa mala perpeti." Others (see al-
ready Oecumenius) have found in it the
meaning: for requital of that which Christ
suffered for us; comp. also Grimm in his
Lexicon. Wetstein remarks shortly and
rightly: “ávti jotepňuaros succedit aanpw-
Ma,'-or rather à vatanpwma.
2 Comp. Dem. 182. 22: åvravannpoûvtes apòs'
Tòv eútropútatov åci toùs åtopwTátovs (where
the idea is, that the poverty of the latter is
conipensated for by the wealth of the former);
so also avtavardýpwois, Epicur. ap. Diog. L.
X. 48; Dio Cass. xliv. 48: ögov ...évÉDEL, TOUTO
εκ της παρά των άλλων συντελείας ανταναπλη- -
pwon. Comp. årreu Trittimus, Xen. Anab. iv. 5.
28 ; avtavurindelv, Xen. Hell. ii. 4. 12; and
årtiainpoūv, Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 26..
3 So Winer, de verbor. c. praepos in N. T. usu,
1838, III. p. 22.
1 Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 275.
6 See 1 Cor. xvi. 17: Phil. ii. 30; Plat. Legg.
xii. p. 957 A, Tim. p. 78 I), et al. Comp. also
Tittmann, Synon. p. 230.
254
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
I
which I endure for you, and—so hignly have I to esteem this situation of
affliction-I am in the course of furnishing the complete fulfillment of
what 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, ávravatanpā, to be emphatically prefixed, but also the description,
in the most honorable and sublime manner possible, of the apostolic
aflictions themselves as the θλίψεις του Χριστού, since in their kind and
nature they are no other than those which Christ Himself has suffered.
These sufferings are, indeed, sufferings for Christ's sake, but they are not
so designated by the genitive; on the contrary, the designation follows the
idea of ethical identity, which is conveyed in the ισόμοιρον είναι το Χριστό, εις
in Phil. iii. 10. Nor are they to be taken, with Lücke (comp. Fritzsche,
I.c.), as : "afflictiones, quae Paulo apostolo Christo auctore et auspice Christo
perferendae erant,” since there is no ground to depart from the primary
and most natural designation of the suffering subject (Onīmes, with the geni-
tive of the person, is always so used in the N. T., e.g. in 2 Cor. i. 4, 8, iv.
17; Eph. iii. 12; Jas. i. 27), considering how current is the idea of the
Koivuvia of the sufferings of Christ. Theodoret's comment is substantially
correct, though not exhibiting precisely the relation expressed by the
genitive: XpeoToc Toc Dep Tốc #cocongiac kaTeoé$aro BáºaTop ... Kai Tà Xa
όσα υπέμεινε, και ο θείος απόστολος ώσαύτως υπέρ αυτής υπέστη τα ποικίλα παθή-
uara. Ewald imports more, when he says that Paul designates his suffer-
ings from the point of view of the continuation and further accomplish-
ment of the divine aim in the sufferings of Christ. Quite erroneous, how-
ever, because at variance with the idea that Christ has exhausted the
suffering appointed to Him in the decree of God for the redemption of the
world (comp. also John xi. 52, xix. 30; Luke xxii. 37, xviii. 31; Rom. iii.
25; 2 Cor. v. 21, et al.), is not only the view of Heinrichs: "qualia et Christ-
us passurus fuisset, si diutius vixisset,"3 but also that of Hofmann, who
explains it to mean: the supplementary continuation of the afflictions which
Christ suffered in His earthly life-a continuation which belonged to the
apostle as apostle of the Gentiles, and consisted in a suffering which could
not have affected Christ, because He was only sent to the lost sheep of
Israel. As if Christ's suffering were not, throughout the N. T., the one
perfect and completely valid suffering for all mankind, but were rather to
be viewed under the aspect of two quantitative halves, one of which He
bore Himself as diákovos Tepitouſs (Rom. xv. 8), leaving the other behind to
be borne by Paul as the disáokalos šovūv; so that the first, namely, that
which Jesus suffered, consisted in the fact that Israel brought Him to the
cross, because they would not allow Him to be their Saviour; whilst the
other, as the complement of the first, consisted in this, that Paul lay in cap-
.
1 When de Wette describes our view of
Onių. . X. as tame, and Schenkel as tautologi-
cal, the incorrectness of this criticism arises
from their not observing that the stress of
the expression lies on ávravatanpô, and not
on r. 01. 7. X.
2 So Vatablus, Schoettgen, Zachariae, Storr,
Rosenmüller, Flatt, Böhmer, and others;
comp. Wetstein.
8 So substantially also Phot. Amphil. 143.
CHAP. I. 24.
255
tivity with his life at stake, because Israel would not permit him to proclaim
that Saviour to the Gentiles. Every explanation, which involves the idea
of the suffering endured by Christ in the days of His flesh having been
incomplete and needing supplement, is an anomaly which offends against
the analogy of faith of the N. T. And how incompatible with the deep
humility of the apostle (Eph. iii. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 9) would be the thought of
being supposed to supplement that, which the highly exalted One (ver. 15
ff.) had suffered for the reconciliation of the universe (ver. 20 fl.)! 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 Icingly office. Others, likewise, holding the genitive to be that of the
subject, have discovered here the conception of the suffering of Christ in the
Church, His body, so that when the members suffer, the head suffers also.”
But the idea of Christ suffering in the sufferings of His people (Olzhausen :
“ Christ is the suffering God in the world's history!'') is nowhere found in
the N. T., not even in Acts ix. 4, where Christ, indeed, appears as the One
against whom the persecution of Christians is directed, but not as affected
by it in the sense of suffering. He lives in His people (Gal. ii. 20), speaks in
them (2 Cor. xiii. 3); His heart beats in them (Phil. i. 8); He is mighty in
them (ver. 29), when they are weak (2 Cor. xii. 9), their hope, their life,
their victory; but nowhere is it said that He suffers in them. This idea,
moreover--which, consistently carried out, would involve even the con-
ception of the dying of Christ in the martyrs—would be entirely opposed
to the victoriously reigning life of the Lord in glory, with whose death all
His sufferings are at an end, Acts ii. 34 ff. ; 1 Cor. xv. 24; Phil. ii. 9 ff.;
Luke xxiv. 26; John xix. 30. Crucified š ảobeveias, He lives ék duvá uews
Okov, 2 Cor. xiii. 4, at the right hand of God exalted above all the heavens
and filling the universe (Eph. i. 22 f., iv. 10), ruling, conquering, and
beyond the reach of further suffering (Heb. iii. 18 ff.). The application
made by Cajetanus, Bellarmine, Salmeron, and others, of this explanation
for the purpose of establishing the treasury of indulgences, which consists
of the merits not merely of Christ but also of the apostles and saints, is a
Jewish error (4 Macc. vi. 26, and Grimm in loc.), historically hardly worthy
of being noticed, though still defended, poorly enough, by Bisping:-Ėv ti
capki pov] belongs to åvravath., as to which it specifies the more precise mode;
not to tōv Onix. T. X. (so Storr, Flatt, Bähr, Steiger, Böhmer, Huther), with
which it might be combined so as to form one idea, but it would convey a
more precise description of the Christ-sufferings experienced by the apos-
tle, for which there was no motive, and which'was evident of itself. Belong-
1 Comp. also Sabatier, l'apotre Paul, p.
213.
3So Chrysostom and Theophylact (who
compare the apostle with a lieutenant, who,
when the general-in-chief is removed, takes
the latter's placo and receives his wounds),
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine, Erasmus,
Luther, Beza, Calvin, Melanchthon, Clarius,
Cornelius à Lapide, Vitringa, Bengel, Mi-
chaelis, and others, including Steiger, Bähr,
Olshausen, de Wette, Schenkel, Dalmer;
comp. Grotius and Calovius, and even Bleek.
256
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS..
ing to ανταναπλ., it contains with υπέρ του σώμ. α. a pointed definition (σάρξ
... owua) of the mode and of the aim Paul accomplishes that ávravatan-
poūv in his flesh, which in its natural weakness, exposed to suffering and
death, receives the affliction from without and feels it psychically (comp.
2 Cor. iv. 11; Gal. iv. 14; 1 Pet. iv. 1), for the benefit of the boily of Christ,
which is the church (comp. ver. 18), for the confirmation, advancement,
and glory of which (comp. above on iTT Èp Úlc@v) he endures the Christ-
sufferings. Comp. Eph. iii. 13. The significant purpose of the addition
of év tî capki K.7.2. is to bring out more clearly and render palpable, in
connection with the ávravananpô K.7.2., what lofty happiness he experiences
in this very ávravatanpowv. He is therein privileged to step in with his
mortal oápš 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 ñs šyevóunv K.T.2. (comp. on ver. 18): whose
servant I have become in conformity with my divine appointment as
preacher to the Gentiles (katà 7. olkov. K.7.2.). In this way Paul now brings
this his specific and distinctive calling into prominence after the general
description of himself as servant of the gospel in ver. 23, and here again he
gives expression to the consciousness of his individual authority by the
emphasized šyó. The relation of the testimony regarding himself in ver.
25 to that of ver. 23 is climactic, not that of a clumsy duplicate (Holtz- .
mann).—Katà TÀU Oikovojl. K.7..] [XXX d.] in accordance with the steward-
ship of God, which is given to me with reference to you. The olkovoula T. OsoW
is in itself nothing else than a characteristic designation of the apostolic
office, in so far as its holder is appointed as administrator of the household
of God (the oikosEOTÓTIS), by which, in the theocratic figurative conception,
is denoted the church (comp. 1 Tim. iii. 15). Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 17, iv. 1 ;
Tit. i. 7. Hence such an one is, in consequence of this office conferred upon
him, in his relation to the.church the servant of the latter (2 Cor. iv. 5), to
which function God has appointed him, just because he is His steward.
This sacred stewardship then receives its more precise distinguishing defi-
nition, so far as it is entrusted to Paul, by the addition of eis üpās K.7.2. It
is purely arbitrary, and at variance with the context (roju 800. HOL), to
depart from the proper signification, and to take it as institution, arrange-
ment (see on Eph. i. 10, iii. 2).3-eis übās] although the office concerned Gen-
tile Christians generally; a concrete appropriation as in ver. 24. Comp.on
Phil. i. 24. It is to bejoined with 7. dolžicáv Mol, as in Eph.iii. 2; not with Tanpô-
gal K.T.. (Hofmann), with the comprehensive tenor of which the individual-
.
1 Steiger rightly perceived that εν τ. σαρκί μ.
and UTTèp T. o. 8. belong together; but he er-
Yoneously coupled both with των θλ. τ. Χ.
("the sufferings which Christ endures in my
flesh for His body"), owing to his incorrect
view of the Odivels T. X.
2 Hofmann thinks, without reg
according to our explanation of avtavaranpô
κ.τ.λ., we ought to join εν τη σαρκί μου with
TWv Oxiv. t. X., as the latter would otherwise
be without any reference to the person nf the
apostle. It has, in fact, this reference through
the very statement, that the årtavarinpoux
K.T.d. takes place in the flesh of the apostle.
8 So Chrysostom and his successors (with
much wavering), Beza, Calvin, Estius, Rosen-
Son, that
CHAP. I. 25, 26.
257
izing" for you" is not in harmony, when it is properly explained (see
below).- ampūgai k.7.n.] telic infinitive, depending on Tiju. Dobelcáv poc eis
vpās, beside which it stands (Rom. xv. 15 f.); not on ns éyev. Sták: (Huther).
Paul, namely, has received the office of Apostle to the Gentiles, in order
through the discharge of it to bring to completion the gospel (Tòv hóyov 7.
Okov, 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 fullness, so long as it was only communicated to the
Jews and not to the Gentiles also. The latter was accomplished through
Paul, who thereby made full the gospel-conceived, in respect of its pro-
clamation in accordance with its destiny, as a measure to be filled—just
because the divine stewardship for the Gentiles had been committed to
him. The same conception of nanpwors occurs in Rom. xv. 19.1 Partly
from not attending to the contextual reference to the element, contained
in τ. δοθ. μοι εις υμάς, of the πλήρωσις of the gospel which was implied in the
Gentile-apostolic ministry, and partly from not doing justice to the verbal
sense of the selected expression Tampãoat, or attributing an arbitrary
meaning to it, commentators have taken very arbitrary views of the
passage, such as, for example, Luther: to preach copiously; Olshausen,
whom Dalmer follows: “to proclaim it completely as respects its whole
tenor and compass;" Cornelius a Lapide: “ut compleam praedicationem
ev., quam coepit Christus ;” Vitringa, Storr, Flatt, Bähr: Tampoñv. has
after 70 the signification of the simple docere; Huther: it means either
to diffuse, or (as Steiger also takes it) to "realize," to introduce into the
· life, inasmuch as a doctrine not preached is empty;2 de Wette : to
“ execute,” the word of God being regarded either as a commission or
(comp. Heinrichs) as a decree; Estius and others, following Theodoret:
“ut omnia loca impleam verbo Dei” (quite at variance with the words
here, comp. Acts v. 28); Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 275; to supplement,
namely, by continuing the instruction of your teacher Epaphras. Others,
inconsistently with what follows, have explained the hoyos T. Okoī to
mean the divine promise ("partim de Christo in genere, partim de
vocatione gentium,” Beza, comp. Vatablus), in accordance with which
Tianp. would mean exsequi. Chrysostom has rightly understood t. hoy. T.
θεού of the gospel, but takes πληρώσαι, to which he attaches εις υμάς, ας
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 hoyos ToŨ Okov, and
müller, and others. It is well said by Corne-
lius a Lapide: "in domo Dei, quae est eccle-
sia, sum oeconomus, ut dispensem ... bona
et dona Dei domini mei.” Comp. on 1 Cor.
iv. 1.
1 Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.; also Calovins,
who rightly says: “Nimirum impletur ita
verbum non ratione sui ceu imperfectum, sed
ratione hominum, cum ad plures sese diffun-
dit.” Similarly Bengel: “ad omnes perdu-
cere; P. ubique ad summa tendit."
2 In a similar artificial fashion, emptying
the purposely.chosen expression of its mean-
ing, Hofmann comes ultimately to the bare
sense: “to proclaim God's word," asserting
that the word is a fact, and so he who pro-
claims the fact fulfills it.
17
258
OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
THE EPISTLE T
that as regards its great contents.-As to tÒ UVOTÚplop K.7.2. [XXX e.] the
decree of redemption, hidden from eternity in God, fulfilled through Christ,
and made known through the gospel, see on Eph. i. 9. 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 ver.
27. Considering the so frequent treatment of this idea in Paul's writings,
and its natural correlation with that of the yvūols, an acquaintance with
the Gospel of Matthew (xiii. 11) is not to be inferred here (Holtzmann).
ánò. Tāv aibwv K. ÁTÒ TĒV YEVEūv] This twofold description, as also the repeti-
tion of arró, 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 årò rāv aiúvwv, comp. on Eph. iii..
9. Paul could not write apò tūv aiúv., because while the divine decree
was formed prior to all time (1 Cor. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 9), its concealment is not
conceivable before the beginning of the times and generations of mankind,
to whom it remained unknown. Expressions such as Rom. xvi. 25, xpóvois
aiwviols, and Tit. i. 2 (see Huther in loc.), do not conflict with this view.
ÅTÒ T. yevɛūv does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.; but comp. Acts xv.
21. The two ideas are not to be regarded as synonymous (in opposition
to Huther and others), but are to be kept separate (times—men). [XXX f.]
-vuvi dè épavepúon] A transition to the finite tense, occasioned by the im-
portance of the contrast. Comp. on i. 6. Respecting vuvi, see on ver. 21.
The pavépwors has taken place differently according to the different sub-
jects; partly by árokáâvpis (Eph. iii. 5; 1 Cor. ii. 10), as in the case of
Paul himself (Gal. i. 12, 15; Eph. iii. 3); partly by preaching (iv. 4; Tit. i.
3; Rom. xvi. 26); partly by both. The historical realization (de Wette;
comp. 2 Tim. i. 10) was the antecedent of the pavépwors, but is not here
this latter itself, which is, on the contrary, indicated by Tois áyious avtoŨ as
a special act of clearly manifesting communication.—Tois dyious avtov] 1. e.
not: to the apostles and prophets of the N. T. (Flatt, Bähr, Böhmer, Steiger,
Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, following Estius and older expositors,
and even Theodoret, who, however, includes other Christians also), -a
view which is quite unjustifiably imported from Eph. iii. 5, whence also
the reading ảnooTÓMois (instead of dyíos) 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 khito
I Just as little ground is there for tracing
Karà tà évtánjata K.T.d., in ii. 22, to Matt. xv.
9; où kpatôv, in ii. 19, to Matt. vii. 3, 4; atrárn,
in ii. 8, to Matt. xiii. 22; and in other in-
stances. The author, who manifests so much
lively copiousness of language, was certainly
not thus confined and dependent in thought
and expression.
2 According to Holtzmann, indeed, p. 309 ff.,
the close of the Epistle to the Romans is to
be held as proceeding from the post-apostolic
auctor ad Ephesios,--a position which is at
tempted to be proved by the tones (quite
Pauline, however) which Rom. xvi. 15–27 has
in common with Col. i. 26 f. ; Eph. iii. 20, iii. 9,
10, v. 21; and in support of it an erroneous in-
terpretation of διά γραφών προφητικών, in
Rom. xvi. 26, is invoked.
3 Holtzmann also, p. 49, would have the
apostles thought of "first of all.” The re-
semblances to Eph. iii. 3,5 do not postulate the
similarity of the conception throughout.
This would assume a mechanical process of
thought, which could not be proved.
CHAP. I. 27.
259
äylo belonging to God, Rom. i. 7, viii. 30, ix. 23 f. Huther wrongly desires
to leave rois dyious indefinite, because the uvothplov, 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 desti-
nation of redemption for the Gentiles in itself and generally, but only the
direct character of that destination (without a transition through Judaism,
Acts xv. 1, et al.), the épavepúon Tois dyious arrow is in fact a summary asser-
tion, which is to be construed a potiori, and does not cease to be true on
account of exceptional cases, in which the result was not actually
realized.
Ver. 27. [XXX g.] Not exposition of the épavep. Toiç dy, avtoū, since
the yvwploai has for its object not the uvorPlov itself, but the glory of the
latter among the Gentiles. In reality, ois subjoins an onward movement of
the discourse, so that to the general tò uvothplov épavepúon toig áy. avtoŨ a
particular element is added: "The mystery was made manifest to His
saints,—to them, to whom (quippe quibus) God withal desired especially to
make known that, which is the riches of the glory of this mystery among
the Gentiles.” Along with the general épavepáin toiç dylous avtoŨ God had
this special definite direction of His will. From this the reason is plain why
Paul has written, not simply ois éyvóploev • Oɛóc, but ois no éhegev Ó Deòs
yuwpical. The meaning that is usually discovered in nakanoev, free grace,
· and the like (so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, Beza, and many others,
including Bähr, Böhmer, de Wette; Huther is, with reason, doubtful), is
therefore not the aim of the word, which is also not intended to express
the joyfulness of the announcement (Hofmann), but simply and solely the
idea: “He had a mind.”—yvopioal] to make known, like égavepúon, from
which it differs in meaning not essentially, but only to this extent, that
by épavep. the thing forinerly hidden is designated as openly displayed
(Rom. i. 19, iii. 21, xvi. 26; Eph. v. 13, et al.), and by yvopioal that which
was formerly unknown as brought to lenowledge.l. The latter is not related
to épavep. either as a something more (Bähr: the making fully acquainted
with the nature); or as its result (de Wette); or as entering more into
detail (Baumgarten-Crusius); or as making aware, namely by experience
(Hofmann).—TÍ TÒ TOūros tñs dóšns k..2.] what is the riches of the glory of
this mystery among the Gentiles, i. e. what rich fullness of the glory contained in
this mystery exists among the Gentiles,-since, indeed, this riches consists in
the fact (ös éoti), that Christ is among you, in whom ye have the hope of
glory. In order to a proper interpretation, let it be observed : (1) rí occu-
pies with emphasis the place of the indirect ő, T1, 2 and denotes “ quae sint
divitiae” as regards degree : how great and unspeakable the riches, etc.
Comp. on Eph. i. 18, iii. 18. The text yields this definition of the sense
from the very connection with the quantitative idea TÒ TROūTOS. (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
1 Comp. Rom. xvi. 26, ix. 22; Eph. i. 9, iii. 3,
6, 10, vi. 19; Luke ii. 15, et al.
See Poppo, ad Xen. Cyrop. i. 2. 10; Kühner,
ad Mem. i. 1.1; Winer, p. 158 f. [E. T. 168].
260
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
riches; : Beza: “divitiae gloriosi hujus mysterii ”). (3) As 'tñs dóšng is
governed by το πλούτος, s0 also is του μυστηρίου governed by της δόξης, and
Év Tois čov. belongs to the tori which is to be supplied, comp. Eph. į. 18. (4)
According to the context, the dóğa cannot be anything else (see immedi-
ately below, ý ťanis tñs Sófns) than the Messianic glory, the glory of the
kingdom (Rom. viii. 18, 21; 2 Cor. iv. 17, et al.), the glorious blessing of
the kanpovouía (comp. ver. 12), which before the Parousia (Rom. viii. 30;
Col. iii. 3 f.) is the ideal (tanís), but after it is the realized, possession of
believers. Hence it is neither to be taken in the sense of the glorious
effects generally, which the gospel produces among the Gentiles (Chrysos-
tom, Theophylact, and many others, including Huther, comp. Dalmer),
nor in that specially of their conversion from death to life (Hofmann),
whereby its glory is unfolded. Just as little, however, is the Sófa 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 (Böhmer). (5) The genitive of the sub-
ject, του μυστηρίου τούτου, defines the δόξα as that contained in the μυστήριον,
previously unknown, but now become manifest with the mystery that has
been made known, as the blessed contents of the latter. Comp. ver. 23 :
&aarís Toñ evayyɛhiov. To take the dóža as attribute of the mystery, is forbid-
den by what immediately follows, according to which the idea can be
none other than the familiar one of that glory, which is the proposed aim
of the saving revelation and calling, the object of faith and hope (in oppo-
sition to Hofmann and many others); iii. 4. Comp. on Rom. v.2.-£V TOTS
čoveolv] [XXX h.] palvetal dÈ ÉV ÉTÉPOLS, Tollo dề Théov {v TOUTOLS o Troli
TOŨ jlvotnpſov 86ğa, Chrysostom. “Qui tot saeculis demersi fuerant in
morte, ut viderentur penitus desperati,” Calvin.—ős toru XplotÒS ÉV úpīv]
" Christus in gentibus, summum illis temporibus paradoxon,” Bengel.
According to a familiar attraction (Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 166]), this ös
applies to the previous subject to thūtos TñS SÓšnS TOŨ LUOT. T., and intro-
duces that, in which this riches consists. Namely: Christ among you,-in
this it consists, and by this information is given at the same time how great
it is (rí totiv). Formerly they were xwpis Xploto (Eph. ii. 12); now Christ,
who by His Spirit reigns in the hearts of believers (Rom. viii. 10; Eph.
iii. 17; Gal. ii. 20; 2 Cor. iii. 17, et al.), is present and active among them.
The proper reference of the relative to tò ThOWTOS K.T.N., and also the cor-
rect connection of εν υμίν with Χριστός (not with η ελπίς, as Storr and
Flatt think), are already given by Theodoret and Oecumenius (comp. also
Theophylact), Valla, Luther, Calovius, and others, including Böhmer and
Bleek, whereas Hofmann, instead of closely connecting XplotÒS Év úļīv,
makes this év úuiv depend on xoti, whereby the thoughtful and striking
presentation of the fact “ Christ among the Gentiles” is without reason
1 Chrysostom aptly remarks: oeuvâs elne
kai öykov &TÉONKEV ÅTÒ Tomas diabéoews, étLTá
OELS SnTôvěTritác ewy. Comp. Calvin:“magnilo-
quus est in extollenda evangelii dignitate."
CHAP. I. 28.
261
put in the background, and év juiv becomes superfluous. Following the
Vulgate and Chrysostonm, ός is frequently referred to του μυστηρ. τούτου:
“this mystery consists in Christ's being among you, the Gentiles,” Huther,
comp. Ewald. The context, however, is fatal to this view; partly in gen-
eral, because it is not the mystery itself, but the riches of its glory,
that forms the main idea in the foregoing; and partly, in particular,
because the way has been significantly prepared for ös toti through rí,
while εν υμίν corresponds to the εν τοις έθνεσιν referring to the πλούτος,
and the following aris rīs dófris glances back to the thoĪTOS Tñs dócns.-
Xplotós] Christ Himself, see above. Neither ý toŨ X. yvãous (Theophy-
lact) is meant, nor the doctrine, either of Christ (Grotius, Rosenmüller, and
others), or about Christ (Flatt). On the individualizing juiv, although the
relation concerns the Gentiles generally, comp. úpās in ver. 25. “Accom-
modat ipsis Colossensibus, ut efficacius in se agnoscant,” Calvin.- hnis
tñs Sógns] characteristic apposition (comp. iii. 4) to Xplotós, giving infor-
mation how the Xploròs ¿v úmiv forms the great riches of the glory, etc.
among the Gentiles, since Christ is the hope of the Messianic Sófa, in Him
is given the possession in hope of the future glory. The emphasis is on ý
&aris, in which the probative element lies.”
Ver. 28. Christ was not proclaimed by all in the definite character just
expressed, namely, as“ Christ among the Gentiles, the hope of glory; ” other
teachers preached Him in a Judaistic form, as Saviour of the Jews, amidst
legal demands and with theosophic speculation. Hence the emphasis with
which not the simply epexegetic öv (Erasmus and others), but the Mueis,
which is otherwise superfluous, is brought forward ; 3 by which Paul has
meant himself along with Timothy and other like-minded preachers to
the Gentiles (we, on our part). This emphasizing of nuets, however, requires
the őv to be referred to Christ regarded in the Gentile-Messianic character,
precisely as the queīs make Him known (comp. Phil. i. 17 f.), thereby
distinguishing themselves from others; not to Christ generally (Hofmann),
in which case the emphasizing of nuɛīç is held to obtain its explanation
only from the subsequent clause of purpose, iva tapaot. K.7.8.—The
Specification of the mode of announcement νουθετούντες and διδάσκοντες,
admonishing and teaching, corresponds to the two main elements of the
evangelical preaching hetavoεite and TlOTEVETE (Acts xx. 21, xxvi. 18; Rom.
iii. 3 ff. ; Mark i. 15). Respecting the idea of vovDeteīv, see on Eph. vi. 4.
It occurs also joined with desáok.4 in Plato, Legg. viii. p. 845 B, Piot. p. 323
1 Hence also to be rendered not in vobis
(Luther, Böhmer, Olshausen), but inter vos.
The older writers combated the rendering in
vobis from opposition to the Fanatics.
2 Compare on the subject-matter, Rom. viii.
24: tñ yap entridi dowonuev, and the contrast
édrida un cxovres in Eph. ii. 12; 1 Thess. iv.
13 ; and on the concrete expression, 1 Tim. i.
1; Ignat. Eph. 21; Magnes. 11; Ecclus. xxxi
14; Thuc. iii. 57. 4; Aesch. C. 236. 776.
3 Without due reason, Holtzmann, p. 153,
finds the use of the plural disturbing, and
the whole verse tautological as coming after
ver. 25. It is difficult, however, to mistake
the full and solemn style of the passage, to
which also the thricé repeated távra ävdpw Tov
belongs.
4 In iii. 16 the two words stand in the inverse
order, because there it is not the metavocîv
preceding the riotes, which is the aim of the
vovdegia, but mutual improvement on the
part of believers.
262
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
D, Apol. p. 26 A; Dem. 130. 2.-¿v tráon copia] belongs to vovflet, and eisáok.:.
by means of every wisdom (comp. iii. 16) which we bring to bear thereon.
It is the râs of the process of warning and teaching, comp. 1. Cor. iii. 10,
in which no sort of wisdom remains unemployed. The fact that Paul,
in 1 Cor. i. 17, comp. ii. 1, 4, repudiates the copía abyov in his method of
teaching, is not-taking into consideration the sense in which copía there
occurs--at variance, but rather in keeping, with the present assertion,
which applies, not to the wisdom of the world, but to Christian wisdom in
its manifold forms.-The thrice repeated távra àvôpwntov [XXX 1.] in
opposition to the Judaizing tendency of the false teachers) “maximam
habet Selvórnta ac vim,” Bengel. The proud feeling of the apostle of the
world expresses itself. Siva tapaotho. K.T..] The purpose of the ôv nuleis
καταγγέλλομεν down to σοφία. This purpose is not in general, that man
may so appear (Bleek), or come to stand so (Hofmann), but it refers, as in
ver. 22, and without mixing up the conception of sacrifice (in opposition
to Bähr 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 mculce every man come forward τέλειον εν Χ. 'Εν Χριστώ
contains the distinguishing specialty of the TENELÓTNS, as Christian, which is
not based on anything outside of Christ, or on any other element than
just on Him. It is perfection in respect of the whole Christian nature;
not merely of knowledge (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, including
Böhmer), but also of life.' Moreover, this év X. is so essential to the-
matter, and so current with the apostle, that there is no ground for finding
in it an opposition to a doctrine of the law and of angels (Chrysostom,
Theophylact, and others). Theophylact, however (comp. Chrysostom),
rightly observes regarding the entire clause of purpose: Ti Néyals ; Távta
άνθρωπον; ναί, φησι, τούτο σπουδάζομεν ει δε μη γένηται, ουδέν προς ημάς.
Ver. 29. On the point of now urging upon the readers their obliga-
·tion to fidelity in the faith (ii. 4), and that from the platform of the
personal relation in which he stood towards them as one unknown
to them by face (ii. 1), Paul now turns from the form of expression
embracing others in common with himself, into which he had glided at ver.
28 in harmony with its contents, back to the individual form (the first
person singular), and asserts, first of all, in connection with ver. 28, that
for the purpose of the rapacrñoal K.7.2. ( eis ő, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 10) he also
gives himself even toil (KOTLĀ, comp. Rom. xvi. 6, 12; 1 Cor. iv. 12), striving,
etc.-και αlso, subjoins the κοπιάν to the καταγγέλλειν κ.τ.λ., in which he
subjects himself also to the former ; it is therefore augmentative, in harmony
with the climactic progress of the discourse; not a mere equalization of
the aim and the striving (de Wette). Neither this vai, nor even the
transition to the singular of the verb,-especially since the latter is not
1 Which Hofmann groundlessly calls in
question, finding in Távta ävepw Tov the idea:
“ cvcry one singly and scuerally." This is gra-
tuitously introduced, and would have been sig.
nificantly expressed by Paul through éva
Kartov (Acts xx. 31), or through the addition
of kal'éva, or otherwise ; comp. also 1 Thess.
ii. 11. Calvin hits the thought properly: “ut
sine exceptione totus mundus ex me discut."
CHAP. I. 29.
263
1
emphasized by the addition of an ěyú,-can justify the interpretation of
Hofmann, according to which eis ő is, contrary to its position, to be
attached to ảywvisóuevos, and Kotlõ is to mean: “I become ulary and faint"
(comp. John iv. 6; Rev. ii. 3, and Düsterdieck in loc.). Paul, who has often
impressed upon others the pò &ikakeīv, and for himself is certain of being
more than conqueror in all things (Rom. viii. 37 ; 2 Cor. iv. 8, et al.), can
hardly have borne testimony about himself in this sense, with which,
moreover, the żywvíčkobai in the strength of Christ is not consistent. In his
case, as much as in that of any one, the o'k koniaoas of Rev. ii. 3 holds
good.—ảywvISÓLevos] Compare 1 Tim. iv. 10. Here, however, according
to the context, ii. 1 ff., the inward striving (comp. Luke xiii. 24) against
difficulties and hostile forces, the striving of solicitude, of watching, of
mental and emotional exertion, of prayer, etc., is meant; as respects,
which Paul, like every regenerate person (Gal. v. 17), could not be raised
above the resistance of the oápě to the inveīja ruling in him. It is not:
“tot me periculis ac malis objicere” (Erasmus, comp. Grotius, Estius,
Heinrichs, Bähr, and others), which outward struggling, according to Flatt,
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, should be understood along
with that inward striving; ii. 1 only points to the latter; comp. iv. 12–
xatà TÌv évépyslav K.T..] for Paul does not contend, amid the labors of his
office, according to the measure of his own strength, but according to the
effectual woricing of Christ (avtoũ is not to be referred to God, as is done by
Chrysostom, Grotius, Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), which
worloeth 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 !—TNV
Évepyoup.] is middle; see on 2 Cor. i. 6; Gal. v. 6; Eph. iii. 20. The modal
definition to it, év Suvářel, mightily (comp. on Rom. i. 4), is placed at the
end significantly, as in 2 Thess. i. 11; it is groundlessly regarded by
Holtzmann as probably due to the interpolator,
NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR.
XXIII. Vv. 1-2.
(a) The presence of the word àmbotohoç here, as contrasted with its absence in
the salutation of the letter to the Philippians, may be accounted for in connection
with the fact that Paul had not ever visited Colossae, while with the Philippian
Church he had long been on terms of very close friendship. The use of the simple
word Souhol as including the two names in Phil., and the designation of Timothy
by the word ádɛapós here, may, perhaps, be explained in the same way. (See
also note I. on Phil. i. 1, 2.—(6) That dyious is here used as a substantive, is
rendered probable by the fact that it is evidently thus used in Eph. i. 1-that
Ep. having been written at the same time with this one. As to the meaning of
TrLOTOS—whether believing or faithful, the argument presented by Meyer against the
¿ Comp. Chrysostom: kai oùx åndüs omov
sáśw, prou, oudè us ētuxev, åddå kor@ ảywvisów
Mevos metà moddas TÑS otrovdñs, metà moddñs tñs
sypurt vias.
264
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
latter signification (that it is only the Christian standing of the readers that the
Apostle describes in the superscriptions of the Epistles) is worthy of consideration.
The argument which Lightf. urges against the former meaning, on the other hand,
(that the epithet would add nothing which is not already contained in áy. and ádɛ20.),
is not decisive; for, as Meyer says of the addition of év XP., though hardly neces-
sary in itself, the word is quite in harmony with the formal character of the Pauline
addresses. Certainly, the Apostle does not anywhere, in his other salutations, single
out the stedfast members only, as Lightf. supposes him to do here. If the word
means faithful in this passage, it is, no doubt, applied to all the church. But not
improbably it means believing.(c) In Eph., Paul addresses toīs áyious tois oùolv ÉV
’Ep. kaì Tlotois; in Phil., tois dyious Tois oùolv šv. 9.; here, tois év. K. dylous kai T720-
Toīs åd. We can scarcely doubt that he has the same idea of the kindred words
in the different cases. It is noticeable, also, that év Xploto is connected in Eph.
with lotois, and in Phil. with dylous, which may have some bearing upon the
question of the connection here.-(d) The omission of the words kai kvplov 'I Xp.,
which are found in T. R. and in X A C and some other authorities, is favored by
the best recent comm. and textual critics. If these words are omitted, the saluta-
tory address in this part of it-the prayer for grace and peace to rest upon the
readers—differs not only from the salutations of Eph. and Phil., which are so
similar to it in other respects, but from those of all the other Pauline Epp., in that
the name of God the Father alone is used.
XXIV. Vv. 3-8.
(a) The use of the singular εüxaplotā in Phil. may readily be explained by a
desire on the Apostle's part to express his own thankfulness as a personal friend;
the plural used here is natural, as there was no such peculiar personal relation.
It is doubtful, however, whether we are, in all cases, to ask for a special reason for
such variations of expression in different epistles. Comp. e. g. 1 Cor. and 1 Thess.,
in both of which Paul addresses the church in the name of one or more companions,
as well as in his own, yet employs the singular of this verb in the former and the
plural in the latter. It will be noticed, however,—in this Ep., as in all the others -
that when emphatic exhortations or authoritative directions are given, the singu-
lar is always used.—(6) The position taken by Meyer with regard to the connection
of Trávtotɛ with eux. is probably, yet not certainly, correct. His view respecting
Trepi vpūv is less probable. If, (joining Távtote with eux.), we unite these words with
TT pooevX., it seems to give them an undue emphasis. The participle is, rather, to
be taken absolutely, as by Lightf., and as equivalent to in our prayers. The pro-
gress of the thought from thanksgiving in prayers for what had been attained by
the readers (ver. 3 f.) to prayer on their behalf for future attainments (ver. 9), is
similar to what we find in Phil. (i. 3 f. 9 f.).—(c) đKougavTES TIJU ZLOTIV K.T.N. This
clause eridently contains the ground of the thanksgiving; but whether in such a
way that úkovo. is to be regarded as a causal participle, is doubtful. The fact that
the participle is in the aorist tense, (as contrasted with the present in Philem. 5),
and the words aons auépas akoucajev in ver 9 favor very strongly the view that
the meaning is having heard, i. e. after having heard. Comp. Eph. i. 15.-(d) As to
the construction of dià TÌv érida, the following points may be noticed :-(1) fanida,
because of the participial phrase which follows, is here equivalent to the thing
hoped for. It thus does not stand in that exact parallelism with faith and love,
NOTES.
265
which we find in 1 Cor. xiii. 13; 1 Thess. i. 3 ; (2) this hoped for thing is made
prominent as that which the readers had heard when the gospel was proclaimed to
them; (3) the gospel is referred to (ver. 6) especially in respect to its fruit-bearing
power; (4) this fruit in the lives of the readers, so far as it is presented in these
verses, consists in faith and love; (5) the faith and love, therefore, which are the
fruit of the arís, rather than the ris itself, are the ground of the Apostle's
thankfulness. These considerations are sufficient in themselves to make it prob-
able that the writer intended to connect dià T. &at. K.T.N., with the words immedi-
ately preceding, and not with evx. The reasons given by Meyer, when added to
these, show this construction to be almost certainly the correct one. It seems
better, however, to connect these words with both níotiv and Syánny, than with
áyári alone as Meyer does, because both faith and love are the fruits.-(e) pon-
kovoate is regarded by Ell., Alf., Lightf., Eadie, Rid., and others as meaning heard
formerly or in the earliest proclamation to them of the gospel ; by Huther and
others, as meaning before the writing of the present letter; by Grimm, Blk., de W.,
Olsh., and others, as having a sense similar to that given by Meyer. The verb does
not occur elsewhere in the N.T. The use of the word in other authors favors
Meyer's view.-(1) The description of that which had been preached to them as
the word of the truth of the gospel, and of the gospel as everywhere bearing fruit
and increasing, and the allusion to their having known the grace of God in truth,
are peculiar elements in this earlier part of the introductory passage. The prayer
in the later part (vv. 9-14) refers apparently to the same things-"bearing fruit
and increasing in the knowledge of God," "who delivered us, etc. ... the forgive-
ness of our sins." We may, accordingly, believe that these ideas were suggested
to Paul's mind in connection with the condition of things in Colossae, and that he
intended to contrast the truth of the gospel as related to grace and forgiveness, in
this Epistle as in that to the Galatians, with the doctrines held by persons of whom
he speaks in later chapters. The contrast, however, is not set forth, in these
verses as definitely as in Gal. It is hinted at, rather than expressed. The sug-
gestion of the teachings of the heretics is only incidental, and probably designedly
so, the main purpose being to commend, with thanksgiving, the Christian develop-
ment of the Church.--(9) The kal before Łotiv kapropopoúpevov which Meyer reads
(see his textual note) is rejected, on the authority of the oldest MSS., by Tisch. Sth
ed., Treg., W. & H., Alf., and others, and is an insertion of the copyists, probably,
for the purpose of simplifying the construction of the sentence. The insertion is
more easily accounted for in this way than the omission, though Meyer claims the
opposite. Whether we read kai, however, or not, there can be little doubt that the
substance of the Apostle's thought is this:--that the gospel had come to and was
still abiding with them, with that growing and fruit-bearing power which it had
in all places which it reached,--that it had had this power ever since the day
when they first heard its message. The insertion or omission of the kai will only
affect the question of the particular way in which the thought is set forth, as
Meyer explains in his foot-note page 211.-(h) The correspondence of ver. 7 with
ver. 6 makes it altogether probable that Epaphras was the founder of the Colos-
sian church. If ÚTÈp vuāv (not únāv), which has the weight of MSS. authority in
its favor, is the true text, Epaphras must have been an assistant of Paul, who
preached the gospel in Colossae for him and in his stead. Tisch. agrees with
Meyer in reading úrõv. W. and H., Treg., Alf. read pāv.—() In his 3d ed.,
Meyer says, with de W., Olsh., and others, that tùy ýpāv åyány refers to the love
266
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
mentioned in ver. 4. In his 4th ed. he understands by it the love of the Colossians
towards Epaphras, assigning as his reason for his change of view the emphatic
position of ýpāv. Had the Apostle meant this love for Epaphras, however, he
would hardly have left the expression in so general a form. The English comm.
of recent date generally agree with Meyer's 3d ed. (so Ell., Lightf., Alf., Eadie,
Rid., Farrar (Life of St. P.). W. and Wilk., however, the writer in Ell.'s Comm. for
English Readers, and appy. the Bible (Speaker's) Comm. take the view of Blk., Hof-
mann and Huther. Blk. urges, with some force, that, if the allusion were to ver. 4,
faith, as well as love, would be mentioned. He urges, also, the opening words of
ver. 9, dià Touto kaì ñueis, claiming that dià T. is best explained as referring to this
8th verse. It is better, however, to take dià T. as pointing to all which precedes (vv.
3–8), because the idea of fruit-bearing, which is so prominent in these verses, is
also prominent in the passage beginning with ver. 9. The emphatic position of
juāv may, perhaps, be satisfactorily explained by understanding the words to mean
your love towards me. The general character of the expression and the absence of
such words as εis ňuās favor the reference to Christian love in general.
XXV. Vv. 9–14.
(a) As in Phil. i. 9 ff., the prayer here follows along the line of the thanksgiv-
ing, but it reaches out more widely as the writer thinks of the possibilities of
future growth. The introductory passages of the four epistles written while the
apostle was in Rome, though differing from one another in many points, have
some marked common characteristics. The very close connection of thanksgiv-
ing with prayer (Eph. i. 16; Col. i. 3; Philem. i. 4; Phil. i. 3, 4); the
similarity and yet variety in the forms of expression used in thus connecting the
two; the allusion to the reports which he had heard of the faith and love of the
persons addressed (Eph., Col., Philem.,— love only, in Phil., that church being
peculiarly united in affection and friendship with himself); the designating of
this faith as in the Lord Jesus (Eph. Col. Philem.), and of the love as towards
the saints (Col., Philem.; Eph. T. R., Tisch., Treg.); the prayer for their develop-
ment in knowledge émiyvwOLS (Eph., Col., Philem., Phil.); the desire for their
increase in the fruits of Christian living, and the looking forward to the consum-
mation at the end; all these points indicate the same general thought and feeling
in the author's mind, with which he is so filled that he is impelled to give them
utterance. (6) The apostle prays, in Phil., that the love of the church may
more and more abound εν επιγνώσει και αισθήσει unto the end of distinguishing
between right and wrong; here, that the church may be filled with the Émiyvwols
of God's will in all σοφία και συνέσει. For the Connection of το θέλημα Θεού with
dokluáčelv and Sok. Tà Slapépovra, see Rom. xii. 2; ii. 18. Aiounous and OÚVEGLS
are kindred words, the former denoting intelligence as connected with perception,
the latter, as connected with a putting together in the mind bringing the out-
ward object into connection with the inward sense.” The knowledge is here
spoken of as “in all spiritual wisdom and understanding;" comp. Phil. i. 9, “in
knowledge and all discernment," and Eph. i. 17 “may give you the Spirit of wis-
dom and revelation in the knowledge of him." And all was to be, Phil. i. 10, 11, to
the end that they might be joid of offence, being filled with the fruit of righteous-
ness, while, here, all was to be, that they might walk worthily of the Lord to all
NOTES.
267
pleasing, in every good work bearing fruit.-(e) év Travti špyą åyaló is, with
Meyer, to be joined to what follows. The two participles go together. In their
living worthily of the Lord, they will in the sphere of good works both bear fruit
and increase (grow in the life itself as they bear fruit), by means of their full-
knowledge of God. Tisch. 8th ed., Treg., Lachm., W. & H., Alf., read, with the
best MSS., Tîg tyvúoel, as against Meyer, who reads eis TÌV śniy.-(d) The
position of tv tráon duvápel, together with the use of the adjective all, shows
clearly a designed parallelism with εν παντί έργ. αγ. The strength Or power
referred to is moral power especially with respect to stedfast endurance and long-
suffering, -that-is, to characteristics of Christian living which are emphatically
set forth in the N. T. writings. In the midst of the oppositions and persecutions
to which the churches were, in those days, so much exposed, these virtues needed
peculiar cultivation. The strength from God was largely demanded to this end,
and the prayer might well be for the imparting of it in accordance with, and after
the measure of, the power of God's own glorious majesty.-(e) The connection of
uerà xapas with the preceding words, rather than with those which follow, is to
be preferred, as bringing out the peculiar characteristic of Christian endurance-
it is an enduring with joy, (comp. Rom. v. 3).-(8)The simplest construction of
εν τω φωτί is with κλήρου. The light is the sphere within which the inheritance
of the saints is found, as darkness is the sphere in which those who are outside of
the kingdom of God live. To make the words instrumental, as Meyer does, takes
Oūs out of that relation of contrast to OKÓTOS, which is suggested by the verses.-
(9) Lightf. says that covoias has here the sense of arbitrary power or tyranny, and that
“the transference from darkness to light is represented as a transference from an
absolute tyranny, an & covoia, to a well-ordered sovereignty, a Baolheia." It is doubt-
ful, however, whether this meaning of govoía can here be insisted upon, and this
peculiar sense does not, apparently, belong to the word elsewhere in the N. T.
Whether any such contrast between the two terms employed is intended by the
writer is very questionable.-(h) Whether the “ kingdom” is to be understood
here (as Meyer claims it must be everywhere), as meaning "nothing else than
the Messiah's kingdom, the erection of which begins with the Parousia” (Meyer
on Rom. xiv. 17), or whether this view is to be rejected, vv. 12–14, taken together,
indicate that the apostle has in his thought a present participation in the bless-
ings and life of that kingdom, in some beginning of it, or in an anticipatory way
at least, (comp. the aor. MeTÉOT NOEV and the pres. É XOplev).
XXVI. Vv. 15 ff.
(a) The bipartite arrangement of this passage adopted by Meyer seems to be the
one which Paul had in mind—vv. 15–17, presenting Christ's relation, as Meyer
expresses it, to God and the world; vv. 18–20, his relation to the Church ; or, as
Lightf. says, to the Universe, the Natural Creation, and to the Church, the new
Moral Creation; or, perhaps better, to God, yy. 15–17, as viewed in connection
with the Divine plan and work in the Natural Creation, and yv, 18-20 as viewed
in connection with the Divine plan and work in the Moral Creation. This passage
is kindred with Eph. i. 20-23 and Phil. ii. 6-11, though somewhat more detailed in
its statements than either of these. It is worthy of notice that these more definite
declarations respecting the Person of Christ, in which Paul approaches very
268
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
nearly to the expressions of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of John,
occur in the Epistles of this later epoch in the Apostle's life. This fact is consist-
ent with that progress of Christian thought and discussion which was naturally to
be expected. Questions concerning the time of Christ's second coming and the
of entering into the Kingdom-whether through faith or works of the law,-must
have preceded those which arose from reflections on the Divine-human nature of
Christ, or from philosophical speculating as to the means by which the unseen
God can come into connection with the world. Those who would demand of the
N. T. writers a declaration of the Divinity of Christ on every page mistake the
order of growth in the thought and work of the earliest apostolic days.
(6) As compared with the passages in Phil. and Eph. just alluded to, some
points in these verses may be specially noticed :-(1) In Eph., the reference is
exclusively to the exaltation of Christ in the future and His relation to the Church.
In Phil., the humiliation of Christ in laying aside the uoppo Jeov, and in becoming
a man and suffering death, is presented as preparatory to, and as the ground of, the
future exaltation. His existence in the form of God and equality with God are
thus mentioned only incidentally to the main purpose of the passage. Here, on
the other hand, a more full and, as it were, dogmatic declaration is made, which
finds its end in itself, and is doubtless intended to meet the false views of the
errorists in Colossae. It becomes, in this way, a more definite theological state-
ment in its form, if not in its suggestions.—(2) In accordance with the main
thought in each case, the reference to Christ's exaltation as above thrones, domin-
ions, etc., is connected with the future triumph of His Kingdom, in Eph., but with
His having been their creator, in Col. A corresponding thought may be found,
perhaps, in the words of Phil. ver. 10," that every knee should bow, of things in
heaven, on earth and under the earth." These words are closely related to the
expression “the name above every name," which in Eph. is, in nearly the same
form, attached to "authority, power, dominion” (“and every name that is named,"
etc). The bond uniting the three Epistles can scarcely fail to be observed.—(3)
The headship of Christ as related to the Church as His body is declared both in
Eph. and Col. But here again, as might naturally be suggested by the peculiar
development of thought in the two Epistles, the position of Christ in the moral
creation is connected with, and founded upon, His position in respect to the natural
creation in Col. only.-(4) The connection in thought of Col. i. 20, with Eph. i. 10
(and possibly with Phil. ii. 10 in the words “things in heaven," etc.) is indicated by
the similarity of the expressions used.—(5) The several points of correspondence
suggest that the passages have, each one of them, a light to throw upon the others,
them individually.
(c) The principal statements of this passage in Col., in vv. 15 and 18, who is the
image of God; He is the head of the body, the church ; who is the beginning, etc., are
declarations respecting Christ, which have the form of propositions. Hence the
present tenses. They have a permanent truth, reaching forward and backward as
far as the nature of the case allows with regard to each. The other verhs and
clauses introduce the relations of time and succession. This form of declaration is
connected with the object which the Apostle has in view-to set forth what Christ
is, i. e. what is the true doctrine of Christ.
:
NOTES.
269
XXVII. Vv. 15–17.
. (a) Meyer (as also Weiss, Bib. Theol. N. T. & 103. d. n. 10, and others), sup-
ent Christ. The ground of this supposition is that in vv. 13, 14 Christ is spoken
of in His relation to the work of redemption and the kingdom. This fact, how-
ever, is not a decisive proof that He must be spoken of only in the same way in
all the clauses which follow those verses. At least, it does not prove, that, in
describing the one who is thus related to the work of redemption, no statement
can be made which applies to Him in His personality, and by its suggestion carries
the mind beyond the limits of the present to the past. We are not limited by the
verses which precede, but must consider also the context which immediately
follows, if we are seeking for the true idea of the author in using these words.
The correct view of the present tense here is, probably, that which is given in the
preceding note. It is a permanent and descriptive present. Indeed, Meyer
admits that the proposition is applicable to the past as well as the present, only
His divine nature, the same predicates belong to the exalted Christ as to the
Logos.” If we take his view, therefore, we may still affirm that there is in this
passage an approximation to the Logos doctrine as contained in the Gospel of
John. Lightf. says that the Logos idea "underlies the whole passage, though
the term itself does not appear;" and, in some sense at least, we may hold this to
be true. The difference between these verses (15-20) and the corresponding ones
in Eph. (i. 18 ff.) shows a wider range, in the present passage, in the reference to
Christ's person and work.
(6) If we consider öc ÉOTIV ELKÒV TOŪ JeoŨ in its relation to the Person of
Christ, and not as referring only to Him in His present exalted state, the corres-
pondence of the words of vv. 15–17 with Heb. i. 3 cannot fail to be noticed.
With that verse on the one side and John i. 1-3 on the other, it must be supposed
that Paul was moving near, or in, the same sphere of thought, and that he
declares Christ to be the image of God in some such deep meaning as that which
is indicated by απαύγασμα της δόξης και χαρακτήρ της υποστάσεως (Heb.), or even
by ó 2070s (John). Comp. the reference to the fact of creation through the Son
both in Heb. and John, and the pépwv of Heb. i. 3, which, like ouVÉOTÝKev of ver.
17 in this passage, adds to the idea of creating, that of sustaining the universe.
The inference which may properly be drawn, as bearing upon this passage, from
Phil. ii. 6–8, whatever weight we may be justified in giving to it, tends to con-
firm this interpretation of the words here used. It may be added, that the em-
phatic του αοράτου and the following phrase, πρπτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, which is
also, like cikáv, predicate of os ÉOTIV, point towards the same conclusion; for the
former expression, by its emphasis, suggests the idea of the unseen God as reveal-
ing Himself, and the latter brings out distinctly the idea of pre-existence.
(c) With respect to the words apuTÓTOKOS Táons KTídews, it must be noticed:
(1) that the Son, of whom this descriptive phrase is used, is set apart from created
things by the clause év avtØ ÅKTIOU17 Tà návra; (2) that He is exalted above the
highest created beings by citɛ I povol K.7.2.-(3) that all created things are said
to be εiç avtov, as they are said elsewhere to be for (eis) God the Father. In
view of these points, as well as because the words connected with apwt. are ráons
κτίσεως, and not πάσης της κτίσεως, and because the proof given that He is πρωτ.
270
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
κ.τ.λ. (ότι) is that all things were created εν αυτώ, the genitive κτίσεως cannot be
regarded as a partitive genitive, as if the Son were a part of the creation, but
must be taken, with Meyer, as a genitive of comparison, or as Ell. says, of the
point of view, or as Lighſt. expresses it, “He stands in the relation of PWTŐTOKOS
to all creation.”-() That the primary idea of TPUTŐTOKOS, as here used, is that
of priority in time—"born before every creature," as Meyer says—is clearly indi-
cated by the original sense of the adjective; by the fact that the following őri
with its clause seems to suggest this meaning; and by īpò návrwv of ver. 17.
The evidence that the Apostle designed here to include in the word itself the
additional idea, which according to the 0. T. usage it sometimes has, of exalta-
tion as connected with the privileges and rights of the first-born son, is much less
direct and manifest. That the idea of exaltation is implied in the context,
cannot be doubted; but, in respect to the word, the most that can be confidently
affirmed is, that the sense of priority may be regarded as certainly belonging to
it in this place, while the other sense is only possible or probable.-(e) Wliether
we give the word the former signification only or add the latter also, the thought
of the writer is not so much that of the origin of the Son as contrasted with the
creation, as of His relation to the creation and exaltation above it as its creator.
This adjective, as several writers suggest, is like jovoyevns when applied to the
Son, only it describes Him as existing before, and so able to bring into being,
created things, while povoy, refers to Him as related to the Father. So far as
origin is concerned, the word, if designed to express this idea, would imply a
complete difference between Him and the creation. He was not created. He
was born of God. He is the only begotten Son. But these terms are probably
employed as connected with the idea of His peculiar sonship, and not with refer-
ence to the mode of becoming Son, or to an eternal generation.
(f) On the words šv avto, Lightf. remarks, “The use of įv to describe Christ's
relations to the Church abounds in St. Paul, and more especially in the Epistles
to the Colossians and Ephesians. In the present passage, as in ver. 17, the same
preposition is applied also to His relations to the Universe.” He also says, “The
Apostolic doctrine of the Logos teaches us to regard the Eternal Word as holding
the same relation to the Universe which the Incarnate Christ holds to the Chruch.
He is the source of its life, the centre of all its developments, the mainspring of
all its motions.” In these verses, the truth of this statement is seen in the
earnestness of the Apostle's effort—by means of emphasis, the use of universal
expressions, repeated declarations of similar import, but sliglitly varied forms,
combinations of words tending to set it forth—to express the idea of supremacy
and dignity. All things were created in Him, and through Him, and for Him,
and in Him all things subsist. He is above them all and before them all. The
“all things” cover the earthly and the heavenly, the visible and the invisible,
the thrones and dominions and principalities and powers. He is the image of
God, the invisible one. In and through Him alone, is everything accomplished
which the erroneous teachers believed to be wrought through the intermediate or
angelic beings. Not merely as first or highest among these beings does He have
His place, but beyond them, in a more exalted sphere. They are all dependent
on Him for the beginning and continuance of their life. They have no existence
except as resting upon Him and in Him.
(g) The words eite Ipóvol K.T.). are probably to be connected (as Meyer holds)
with Tà áópara, not with tà dpará, for the following reasons:-(1) The reference
NOTES.
271
of similar combinations of words elsewhere in Paul's Epistles is generally to
angelic, and not to earthly beings. It must be admitted, however, that this is not
always the case, (see below).—(2) The intended allusion to the theories of the
heretical teachers respecting angels, etc., points towards this understanding of the
words.—(3) The emphasis of the setting forth of the exalted position of the Son,
which seems evidently designed by the writer, is most striking, if this view is
adopted. We find combinations of words corresponding with those of this verse
in several places in Paul's writings, but in more or less varied forms. In Eph. i.
21 and this passage, the form is fourfold ; in 1 Cor. xv. 24; Rom. viii. 38 (T. R.),
it is threefold ; in Eph. ïi. 10; Col. ii. 10, 15; Tit. iii. 1, it is twofold. By com-
parison of these passages, we notice that they refer for the most part, to angelic
powers, good (Eph. i. 21; Col. ii. 10; Rom. viii. 38), or bad (Eph. vi. 12; Col. ii.
15); yet in Tit. iii. 1 the reference is to earthly magistrates (comp. dvvá uels Rom.
viii. 38, if the text which reads this word after pérovta be adopted). In 1
Cor. xv. 24, the apostle is, not improbably, speaking of all powers, whether
superhuman or human, including even death conceived of as a power. We may
also notice that the arrangement of the words varies, in different cases, to some
extent. Thus, in Eph. i. 21 we find åpxīs kai Écovoias placed first in the fourfold
list, while in Col. i. 16 these words are placed last. In Eph. vi. 12, again, they
have the first place. Substitutions of one word for another also occur in some
cases, as in Eph. i. 21 Suvánews takes the place of Opovou in Col. i. 16; in Eph. vi. 12
KOO Wokpáropas is possibly used in a similar sense to that of each of the two words just
mentioned, and to that of kvpiórns in both of the other passages. In 1 Cor. xv. 24 we
find ápxiv, éçovolav, dúvaulv; in Rom. viii. 38, å yrehol, åpxai, duvápels (T. R.);
in 1 Pet. iii. 22, áyyéhwr, égovolāv, dvvá jew. It is difficult, under these circum-
stances, to make any definite affirmations as to the precise distinctions in meaning
of the several words, as thus used. The fact should be observed, however, that
wherever åpx" and écovoia occur, the latter word always follows åpxí, and that
duvauis, when occurring with either of the two, follows it, or, when occurring with
both, follows both. There would seem, therefore, to be some definiteness of order,
or something connected with the words, which made it natural for the apostle to
write them in this way. With the exception of 1 Pet. iii. 22, Luke xii. 11, and
the scarcely parallel passage Luke XX. 20, where we find τη αρχή και την εξουσία
TOū nyeubvos, these combinations are peculiar to Paul.
(h) The introduction of the word avros in ver. 17 cannot be satisfactorily
accounted for, unless especial emphasis is laid upon it. Lightf. says that avtós
ÉOTIV of this verse exactly corresponds with éyù elui of John viii. 58 (comp. Exod.
iii. 14). He accordingly affirms that łotiv is not an enclitic in this place, but should
be accented šoTLV. W. & H. give it the accent. Commentators and textual
editors in general, however, regard it as an enclitic, (so Tisch., Treg., Lachm., Ell.,
Mey., de W.). Whatever may be held with regard to this point, the emphatic
αυτός, the προ πάντων, and the τα πάντα... συνέστηκεν, show His pre-existence and
His superiority to created things. Had there not been an intention to make these
ideas peculiarly prominent, no such repetition as that of this verse and ver. 16
could have been given.
XXVIII. Vv. 18–20.
(a) In the second part of the statements with respect to the Son, vv. 18–20, the
connection with Eph. i. 20 ff. is manifest. The forms of expression in the two
272
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
cases, however, are somewhat different because of the fact that, in Eph., the whole
passage is limited to what follows the resurrection of Christ, while here it covers
also the pre-existent state. The declaration that He is the head of the Church is
placed at the beginning here, at the end in Eph. The headship is presented
under different forms of expression. In Eph., where the exaltation above all
authority and power, etc., and the subjecting of all things under Him, are set forth
first, and the mention of the headship follows, the words are such as we might
naturally expect—"and Him He gave as head over all things to the Church which
is His body." Here, on the other hand, the headship is mentioned first, and the
exaltation connected with it afterwards. Accordingly, we have here, as the open-
ing words of the passage, “And He Himself is the head of the body the Church,"
and then the statement "who is the beginning, the first-born," etc. In both
cases, and most distinctly here, the word head is connected with the application of
the word body to the Church. It has, thus, a figurative sense, and the two passages
accord with others in Paul's writings in which the Church is called Christ's body,
and individual Christians members of His body. In Eph. i. 23, this figurative
representation may be extended so far, that the body, the Church, is conceived of
as that by which Christ (TOū ampovuévov K.T.2.) is, as the head, filled up to the
completeness of a man-the head and body making an entire man. Tò manpoua,
in that verse, however, may have a different sense, according to some writers (e.g.
see Meyer on Eph. i. 23), and may mean that which is filled by Christ (TOŪ Tnp-
ovll. being a genitive as if of the agent). Or, as some take it, the plenitude of
Christ's graces being communicated to the Church, the latter becomes, in a certain
sense, His fullness.
(6) The fact of the co-ordinate bipartite arrangement of the entire passage (vv.
15–20) favors the view that åpxh is not simply equivalent to and explained by
a potóTOKOS, as Meyer holds, but that it contains the idea of source or beginning of
the spiritual creation—as, in the earlier verses, the Son is said to be the agent in the
natural creation. If ápxń is understood thus, TPWTÓTOICOS K.7.. indicates the way in
which He becomes the ápx“.-(c) TT PUTÓTOKOS of ver. 18 has a certain parallelism
with the same word in ver. 15, but the parallelism of the whole expression in the
two verses is not complete. This is proved by the form of expression, and also by
the added clauses in the two cases. He is first-born from the dead, as having been
Hinself one of the dead; but He is not first-born of every creature, as being Him-
self created. The writer himself has made the distinction clear by the very careful
ordering of his phraseology.--(d) The final clause iva yévntal Év Trão lv avròs aputeú-
w indicates that the apostle has a progress of development in his mind--a progress
from a beginning to a consummation,—and in this the rising from the dead and
being head of the body, the Church, is an essential step. He moves forward in his
thought from the pre-existent state, before the creation of all things, to the final
result, when the reconciliation of all things shall have taken place. This clause
thus points to the eternal Divine purpose, which is in process of accomplishment.
That this is the Divine purpose is proved by the following őri 2.7.2. (so Meyer).
(e) The arguments presented by Meyer against the view of Ell. and Ewald,
that trav tò típwua is the subject of evdóknoev, are satisfactory. Lightf. urges, in
addition, that, with eúdóknoeV, personification such as would be required by that
view of t. T. 12. would suggest personality.-($) As to the meaning of tò a hípoua, !
it must, from all the indications of the context, refer to God's fullness, i. e. that by
which He is filled. But whether we are to understand by it, with Mey., the
NOTES.
273
fullness of the Divine grace, or the fullness of the Godhead (DEÓTntos ii. 9), it is
more difficult to determine. In favor of the former supposition is the fact that
the clause which is co-ordinated with this (arrokatalážal K.7..) refers to the work
of Divine grace, and the context, as far as ver. 23, deals with this subject. On the
other hand, the latter view is favored by ii. 9, where rñs Jęót. is added; by the
possible or probable allusion to the doctrines of the false teachers; and by what-
ever evidence may exist that this expression was a technical term meaning the
fullness of Deity. There is possibly a sort of parallelism in thought between elkūr
TOÙ DeoŨ of ver. 15, as related to ťktioun év avtø of yer. 16, and this expression
with κατοικήσαι εν αυτώ ειs related to αποκαταλλάξαι δί αυτού, If so, an additional
ground for the second view may be found in this fact. The objection that Paul
would hardly have omitted tñs gebTnTOS when he first uses ihnpwua in the Epistle,
if he had desired to have the expression thus understood, and this particularly in
a passage where the reader's thought might connect it with another idea, is one
of considerable force. It must be borne in mind, however, that this is the only
instance in the Pauline Epistles in which tò aanpuua occurs without a defining
genitive, whatever may be its reference or connection. The absence of such a
genitive here is remarkable on any explanation of the meaning. It must also be
remembered, that this is the Epistle in which the early beginnings of the Gnostic
theories are most clearly indicated. On whichever side the probabilities of the
meaning here may lie, there can be no doubt in respect to ii. 9. The Apostle's
doctrine is, therefore, not dependent on this verse. The view of tò in., in the
present passage, which refers it to the Divine grace is adopted by Meyer, Alf.,
Eadie, de W., and others; that which makes it refer to the fullness of Deity, or
of the nature of God, is maintained by Ell., Weiss, Bib. Theol. N. T., Lightf., Hu-
ther, and others. Meyer's claim that "it would be an utterly arbitrary course men-
tally to supply here tñs JEÓTITOS," cannot be sustained. No such affirmation can:
properly be made on either side.
(0) With respect to drokararlášaul K.7.2. the following points should be con-
sidered :-(1) The fundamental idea of the verb is reconciliation, a changing
from enmity to friendship.—(2) This idea is confirmed in the present case by
EipnuotolioaK.T.R. of this verse; by the evident meaning of the verb in ver.
21 ; and by ővras atnad. kai é x povs (ver. 21) compared with ánájovs K.7.2. (ver.
22).—(3) The things in the heavens must refer to, or at least they must include,
the good angels, as is manifest from ver. 16. There seems, however, to be no
possibility of applying the word reconcile, in its strict and proper sense, to these
angels. The verb ártokatałżáčal must therefore have, so far as it refers to them,
a certain "elasticity” of meaning, as Meyer says.—(4) The end in view of the
reconciliation mentioned in ver. 21 is to perfect holiness in the reconciled per-
sons" to present you holy and without blemish and unreprovable before
him.”—(5) In Eph. i. 10, which, if not altogether parallel to the present passage,
must be regarded as having some immediate connection with it in thought, the
word ανακεφαλαιώσασθαι is used in place of αποκαταλλάξαι. The former Verb is
not, indeed, equivalent in meaning to the latter, but is rather the sequel to it, as
Meyer says. Nevertheless, it may suggest the thought which is to be found in
árok., so far as that verb has reference to the heavenly beings. In connection
with the consumination of the work of Christ in overcoming the power of sin in
this world, there may, not impossibly, be some exaltation in holiness, and, not
improbably, some perfection of blessedness unknown before, secured to thoso
18
274
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
beings who have never sinned.—(6) Whether tà trávra in this connection is to
be understood as limited to intelligent beings, or as extended so as to cover the
whole of that which exists (Meyer), or the totality of created things (Ell.), is
somewhat doubtful. The universality of the neuter and the correspondence of
the phraseology with ver. 16 favor the latter view. Such passages as Rom. viii.
19 ff. ; 2 Pet. iii. 13 may, also, furnish some support for it. On the other hand,
it is clear that the following context refers only to persons (vy. 21 ff.), and it is
also evident that, at ver. 18, the general thought turns, from the natural to the
spiritual creation. The passage in Eph., also, (i. 10) follows upon a line of
thought which has reference to God's purpose and work in redemption.
(h) As to the meaning and extent of the reconciliation here spoken of-how
far it is actually realized in the subjective experience of individuals, and whether
the idea of universal restoration or salvation is suggested-we may remark:-(1)
Meyer claims that God is the subject, whose hostility is removed by the reconcili-
ation, as in Rom. v. 10. He asserts this on the ground of the universal Tà távta
--all things that exist; it being impossible that the whole universe should be
hostilely disposed towards God. This ground would not be sufficient, of course,
if Tà Távta refers to intelligent beings. According to this view the reconcilia-
tion is viewed from the side of God and the Divine plan, as in all probability it
is in Rom. v. 10 and 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. If it be adopted, the universality may be
found in the provisions of the plan, rather than in its realized results. There is
so much in this passage, however, which apparently points towards actual con-
summation, that we can hardly suppose the thought of this to have been absent
from the writer's mind, even if he was looking at the plan. The passages in
Rom. and 2 Cor. are not parallel in this regard.—(2) The realized result seems
evidently to be referred to in yy. 21, 22. It must be admitted, however, that this
result may there be suggested in the other words, while átrokaTana. may point
more particularly towards the Divine side and the plan of redemption.—(3) It is
worthy of notice that in this passage, and in the corresponding one in Eph., the
statement of this universality is connected, in the surrounding context, with allu-
sions to those only who are in the Christian body. The same is true of Phil. i.
10. These declarations do not occur in any passage where the author's primary
purpose is, to show how universally the plan of redemption results in securing the
salvation of individual men.—(4) It is not inconsistent with a reasonable view of
either of the two passages in Eph. and Col., or of the one in Phil., to suppose that
the writer leaves out of consideration the finally unbelieving portion of mankind
and the evil angels. Weiss (Bibl. Theol. N. T. Vol. ii. p. 109, n. 8 (Eng. Tr.)
says, "evil spirits and unbelievers, being incapable of final union to Christ, are,
it is self-evident, left out of account.”—(5) The intimations in the Pauline Epis-
tles, as well as elsewhere in the N. T., in regard to the ultimate fate and loss of
unbelievers, must be allowed their proper influence in connection with these pas-
sages. This is especially true, in view of what has already been said in the fore-
going remarks.—(6) The explanation of Weiss referred to above is more satisfac-
tory than the elaborate one given by Meyer on page 242, because it can hardly
be said with accuracy that, after the demoniac portion of the angelic world and
the unbelieving portion of mankind have been consigned to Gehenna, there will
be no longer anything alienated from God and the object of His hostility. This
view either makes subjection in the case of these angels and men equivalent to
reconciliation, which cannot be affirmed, or limits Tà. Trávra, as Meyer here
NOTES.
275
apparently does, to the new heaven and new earth, which, to say the least, is a
doubtful limitation. Tà trávra in ver. 16, and again as connected with ver. 20,
apparently includes not merely the heaven and the earth, but the intelligent
beings in them. Unless, therefore, the writer is confining his thought either to
the Divine provision of redemption, without regard to individual acceptance of
it, or to those who accept it, as suggested by the surrounding context, it seems
arbitrary to exclude from tà távra, in ver. 20, any of those included in it in ver. 16.
(i) čipnVOTTOLÝoas is connected immediately with the idea of arokatallácal,
and accordingly refers to peace with God. It is noticeable that this suggestion of
peace occurs here before the allusion to the readers as having been called into the
Christian life from among the Gentiles, while in Eph. ii. 11 ff. it is introduced
after a similar allusion. By reason of this fact, in Eph. the word takes hold not
only of the idea of peace with God, but also, and especially, of peace (the destruc-
tion of the enmity) between Gentiles and Jews. In a similar way, the word
årna otpwwuévou in Eph. ii. 12 is connected with “the commonwealth of Israel
and the covenants of the promise," while here the reference is not thus limited.
The genitive, if supplied here, would, as Meyer says, be Okov.
.
XXIX. Vv. 21–23.
(a) The construction of ýuās K.7.2. of ver. 21, as well as the textual reading in
the case of the last word of this verse (whether αποκατήλλαξεν οr αποκατηλλάγητε), is
uncertain. If we read the second person plural of the verb, it seems better, on the
whole, to make the clause from vuvi to Javátov parenthetical, and to connect
παραστήσαι, by the και at the beginning of ver. 21, with αποκαταλλάξαι of ver. 20-
υμάς οf ver. 21 being the object of παραστήσαι, and being repeated in υμάς
of ver. 22. This construction must be regarded as more simple and natural
than that which is given by Meyer, who makes tapaorijoal, the object aimed at in
the reconciliation. With the text åtokathahačev, Meyer's view would apparently be
correct (so Ell. and some others), but Meyer reads the verb in the 2d pers.
W. & H. give the parenthetical character to the sentence commencing with vuvi
dé, even with the verb in the 3d pers. sing., but this is less probable.—(6) The
23d verse does not indeed necessarily, but may quite probably have an incidental
reference to the danger, to which the readers were exposed, of being led away
from the truth by the errorists.—c) The connection of ver. 23 with vv. 5, 6, can
scarcely fail to be observed—rñs énidos, toù evayyeziov où nKovoare, ToŨ KIPUXGÉVTOS
Év taon krioel, (comp. diákovos ver. 7).-(d) Ell. Lightf. Rid., and others agree
with Mey., that tráon krioel means every creature, not the whole creation.
Y
.
V
XXX. Vv. 24–29.
(a) The textual reading ös, which Meyer adopts, is rejected by Tisch., Treg.,
W. & H., Alf., R. V., Hofm., Ell. Lightf. and others. The oldest MSS. omit it,
and its insertion is easily accounted for by the final syllable of diákovos of ver. 23,
and the desire to make an easy transition to ver. 24. Meyer's view, that it fell
out by reason of diákovos, or by the fact that a Church lesson began here, is less
probable.--(6) The sufferings here alluded to, as may be inferred from Eph. ii.
1-13, are especially those connected with his imprisonment. This is indicated
by the similarity in various phrases between the passage in Ephesians and these
276
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
verses. Comp. the use of Shivers in both passages, éyevóumu (nom) diákovos, olkovouía,
TÒ LUOTÝDLOV TÒ ÁTokekp., Arò tūv aióvwv, etc.
· (c) ávravantampū Tà votepñuara Tūv Grévew ToŨ XPLOTOW. With reference to
these words we may observe: (1) The “afflictions” are designated by the word
Oniwels, which, according to the general usage of the N. T., denotes outward
calamities, or troubles. The suffering of Christ for sin, distinctly so called, is
evidently not included in the word ; Talhuata of this verse must, accordingly,
be explained in the same way, and also tauhuara of 2 Cor. i. 5.—(2) In 2 Cor. i.
5 the sufferings of Christ appear to be represented as so abounding that they over-
flow from Him upon His disciples. That verse seems, in a certain sense, to pre-
sent the opposite side of the thought here presented. The argument becomes a
strong one, therefore, that the genitive Xplotoũ in this place, as well as in 2 Cor.,
is a gen. of the subject, and in the strict sense of belonging to Him, being His.-
(3) The reference to the Church, in ver. 24, as Christ's body naturally carries
back the thought to ý kepah) ToŨ obuatos ver. 18, and to the similar expression
in Epli. i. 23. This relation of the body to the head may, therefore, be properly
taken into consideration in the explanation of the words "fill up,” etc. It sug-
gests how the suflerings of the body may be conceived as belonging primarily to
the head, and as "abounding unto” (overflowing from the head to) the body.-
(4) The verb ávravananpă carries in it the idea of filling up or supplying
what belongs to one person by another, as a substitute. It represents the taking
hold, as it were, over against another, and bearing up what he does not or cannot
bear, and thus supplying his place and his want, and in this way filling up what
is lacking:-(5) It will be noticed that, in 2 Cor. i. 3-5, the abounding or over-
flowing of the sufferings of Christ to the apostle is placed in a parallelism with
the passing over of the comfort which the Apostle had received from God, in his
sufferings, to the Corinthian Christians in theirs. The suggestion derived from
this fact may have a bearing on the present verse. In view of these considera-
tions, we may conclude that the Apostle's conception is that all the sufferings and
afflictions which are involved in the carrying on of Christ's work in the world,
whether experienced by Himself or His followers, are His own, and that, as He
was not able, in His earthly life, to bear them all, they overflow to His followers.
As filling up that which remains from Him, His followers, in a certain figurative
sense, supply His place, after His death, so far as these experiences are concerned.
They may rejoice in tribulations, therefore, and the Apostle himself does rejoice,
—not only because they tend (as in Rom. v. 3 ff.) to the confirmation of the hope
of future glory, and not only because they are endured for the welfare of the
Church and the progress of the Gospel (Eph. iii. 1, 13; Phil. i. 12, and other
passages), but also because in the endurance of them the disciple is brought, in
a most intimate way, into fellowship with Christ. Comp. on this whole subject
Matt. xx. 23; Rom. viii. 17 ; Gal. vi. 17; Phil. iii. 10; Heb. xiii. 13; 1 Pet. iy.
13; and on the genitive, as subjective, 2 Cor. iv. 17; Eph. iii. 13; Jas. i. 27, with
Ihips, and 2 Cor. i. 5; Phil. iii. 10; 1 Pet. i. 11, iv. 13, v. 1, with Talmuara.
(d) Oikovoulav—That this word is correctly explained by Meyer is indicated by
a.comparison of the passage with 1 Cor. iv. 1, and Rom. xv. 15 ff. These two pas-
sages, when taken together, present in a striking way the ideas and expressions of
vv. 25, 26:-the olkovouía as connected with the uvothplov (in 1 Cor.), the
entrusting of the office, and the fulfilling of the word with reference to preaching
to the Gentiles (in Ronn.); (comp. also vv. 26, 27 with Rom. xvi. 25, 26). The
LU
!
NOTES.
277
word olkovoulav is found in Eph. i. 10, where it cannot have this sense of steward-
ship. In Eph. iii. 2, in a passage somewhat similar to the one before us, it prob-
ably does not have this meaning. But in Eph. i. 10, the connection and thought
are entirely different, and in Eph. iii. 2 it will be observed that the development
of the subject is more in detail than it is here. The development there proceeds
from the thought of the economy of grace which had been made known to the
apostle (vv. 2–6), to that of the office and commission which had been given to
him to proclaim this economy (vv. 7 ff.). Here, on the other hand, the passage
begins with the latter point, and all that is said is brought into subordination to
this. The fact mentioned by Meyer in his notes on Eph. iii. 2, that the participle
is there connected with xápitos (sotsions), while here it agrees with oikovoulav (80-
Jeioav), shows the different conception in the two cases.-(e) The same peculiar
reference of the fivotplov which we find in these verses is indicated also in Eph.
iii. 1–12. In the latter passage this is more distinctly presented than it is here
that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-
partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. But that the writer
thinks of this bearing of the gospel on the Gentiles here, is sufficiently manifest.
The two passages were, doubtless, written with the same general thoughts in
mind, and should be interpreted in connection with each other. Yet certain indi-
vidual characteristics belong to each. The development of the passage in Eph. is
influenced by the thought of the Divine plan and eternal purpose with which
that Epistle opens, and by that of the removal of the separation between Jews
and Gentiles which does not belong so definitely in the present letter.
(f) It is doubtful, to say the least, whether Meyer's view of yeve@v, that it
refers to men while aiúvwv refers to times, can be affirmed. A comparison with
Eph. iii. 21 favors the reference of both words to time.—(9) With respect to ver.
27, the following points may be noticed :-(1) whether tí means what in the sense
of how great, as Meyer holds, or simply what, the question, as a whole, suggests the
former idea. (2) The antecedent of ö (or Ös, if this is adopted as the true text) is,
probably, uvot piov, and not (as Meyer) TÒ TROŪTOS K.T.N. This may be inferred from
the fact that Christ is spoken of as the mystery in ií. 2; from the fact that uvotnplov
is the most prominent word—it is the mystery, to which the riches of the glory
belong; and from the fact that the idea of the wealth of the glory does not seem to be
exhausted by the hope of the glory. The revelation makes known the mystery
—what had been unknown-that Christ is among or in the Gentiles the hope of
the future heavenly glory, and it opens the knowledge of what the greatness and the
richness of this glory are. (3) Meyer is apparently correct in referring the dofns
before uvotnplov and the dóens after štís to the same thing, i. e. the glory of the
Messianic Kingdom-of the kampovouía—to which the xris points. (h) 'Ev with
Tois šOveolv has, doubtless, the sense of among ; with vuiv it may mean anong or
in. The correspondence in form and the nearness to each other of the two phrases
favor the former meaning for the second év. But as the writer is speaking, in
the first clause, of making known to the saints what is, etc., he naturally uses in
that place the word among i. e. as manifested among. In the second case, on the
other hand, he is giving an explanation of what the mystery is, and he says that
it is Christ, as the hope, etc. The clauses, therefore, are not parallel; and, as
hope is a subjective thing within the individual mind, we should more naturally
expect him to use in here.
(i) The thrice repeated trávra åvų pwntov is noticed by Meyer as emphasizing
1
how
278
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
the idea of universality. Lightf. remarks upon this as follows: "This great truth
[the universality of the Gospel], for which St. Paul gave his life, was now again
endangered by the doctrine of an intellectual exclusiveness taught by the Gnosti-
cizers at Colossae, as before it had been endangered by the doctrine of a ceremo-
nial exclusiveness taught by the Judaizers in Galatia." The apostle had met
with new adversaries, but not in every sense new. They assailed the same great
peculiarity of his teaching the gospel for all nations and all men. The stand-
point of attack changed, but the attack came upon the same doctrine. And the
new errorists were not wholly new, in the sense of being entirely unconnected with
the old ones. They had the old Jewish element, though it was mingled with,
and affected by, new influences, which had come from the Oriental or Greek phi-
losophy. The progress and the growth from the time of the earlier epistles were
a natural advance, and in the natural order. They were not greater, nor was the
state of thought at the end further removed from that at the beginning, than
might have been expected in those earliest days of the Church.
CHAP. II.
279
279
CHAPTER II.
VER. 1. Trepi] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read Útép, following A B C D* P * min.
But how easily may úmép have been suggested to the copyists by i. 24 and iv. 12!-
The form šúpakav (Lachm. and Tisch. 7) or éópakav (Tisch. 8) is more than
sufficiently attested by A B C D* x*, etc., to induce its reception in opposition to
the usage elsewhere. Respecting this Alexandrian form see Winer, p. 73 [E. T.
76]; and on éóp., Fritzsche, ad Aristoph. Th. 32.—Ver. 2. Instead of ovußißaclévTES,
Elzevir has ovußißacl évtwv, in opposition to decisive testimony; an emendation.-
Távta a hovrov? A C min. have mãv TÒ ThowTOS (so Lachm. Tisch. 7), and are also
joined by B ** Clem. with trav ThoūTOS (so Tisch. 8). Here also (comp. i. 27) the
neuter is the original; in thinking of the more common ó nhoūros the IIANTO
became IIANTA, in accordance with which thoutov 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 toù Osoữ (so Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. 7, Rinck; among
modern expositors, Bähr, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald), Elzevir has toŬ OkoŨ kai
Tratpòs kaì ToŨ XPLOTOī, while Lachm. reads ToŬ Okov Xplotov, and Tisch. 8 TOŬ Oɛoi,
Χριστού. Among the numerous various readings, του θεού Χριστού (also adopted by
Steiger, Huther, Bleek, Hofmann) is certainly strongly enough attested by B. Hilar.
(but without vss.), while the simple toù ecoñ has only 37, 67**, 71, 80*, 116, Arm.
ed. Venet. in its favor. A C 3*, 4, Sahid. Vulg. ms. have toð DECŨ Tatpòs (tov) X.,
which Böhmer and Reiche prefer, whilst X** Syr. p. have T. OkoŨ kai Tarp, ToŨ X.,
and others still, such as Syr. Copt. Chrys. read 7. O. Tratpòs kai ToŬ XPLOTOū, and
consequently come nearest to the Recepice; but a few authorities, after the mention
of God, insert šv Xplor@, as Clen. Ambrosiaster : Toù soŬ Év X. Regarding these
variations we must judge thus: (1) the far too weak attestation of the bare noi
Osov is decisive against it; (2) the reading of Lachm. : Toù Okoð Xploroī, is to be
regarded as the original, from which have arisen as glosses the amplifications ToŰ
OEOū tarpòs toũ X.,' and toŬ OsoŨ Tatp. kai toð X., as well as the Recepta; (3) the
reading του Θεού εν Χριστώ arose out of a gloss (εν Χριστώ) written on the nmargin
at év », in accordance with i. 27, which supplanted the original Xplotoð; (4) the
Šv Xplotõ thus introduced was again subsequently eliminated, without, however,
the original Xplotoū being reinserted, and thus arose the reading of Griesb. TOū
Oɛoñ, which therefore—and with this accords its late and weak attestation
appears to be merely a half completed critical restoration.-Ver. 4. dé] is wanting
in B ***, Tisch. 8; but it was readily omitted by the copyists before the syllable
AE.—len tus] Lachm. and Tisch. read undels, which, following preponderant cold.
(ABCDEPx), is to be preferred. Ver. 7. Šv tñ tiot.] Lachm. and Tisch.
1 If this reading, relatively so strongly must have given rise to dogmatic scruples,
attested, were the original one, it would not and only the description of God as toll coll
be easy to see why it should have beenXplotou could have done so.
glossed or altered. The original expression
280
!
; THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
.
have only tŷ niOTEL, following B D* min. Vulg. It. Archel. Ambrosiast. Theophyl. ..
Properly ; the èv was mechanically introduced from the adjoining text.-—Ėv aúrn]
though suspected by Griesb., and rejected by Tisch. 8 (it is wanting in A C y*
min. Copt. Tol. Archel.), is to be defended. Its omission was easily occasioned
by the fact that reploo, was found to be already accompanied by a more precise,
definition expressed by Ėv. The èv avrò read by D* ****, 1, Pel. yss., though only a
mechanical repetition of the preceding év avtơ, testifies indirectly to the fact
that originally šv autņi was in the text.—Ver. 10. Ös ŁOTWV] Lachm. reads ő
ŠOTIV, following B D E F G Germ. Hilar. A mistaken correction, occasioned by
the reference of the preceding εν αυτώ to το πλήρωμα.-Ver. 11. After σώματος Elz.
has thv å uaptiwv; an exegetical addition, in opposition to decisive testimony.
Comp. Rom. vi. 6.—Ver. 13. The second úuās is indeed wanting in Elz., but ...
receives so sufficient attestation through ACK L * min. vss. and Fathers,
that its omission must be explained on the ground of its seeming superfluous. B
min. Ambr. have ňuäs, which is conformed to the following quiv. Instead of this
Muiv, Elz. has 'uiv, in opposition to decisive testimony.-Ver. 17. ä] Lachm. reads
o, following BF G It. Goth. Epiph. Ambrosiast. Aug: To be preferred, inasmuch
as the plural was naturally suggested to the copyists by the plurality of the
things previously mentioned.—Ver. 18. å uì tápakev] un'is wanting in A B D*
**, 17, 28, 6.7**, Copt. Clar. Germ. codd. in Aug.,'Or. ed. Tert.? Lucif. Ambrosiast.,
while F G have ovk. The negation is with justice condemned by Griesb., Steiger,
Olshausen, Huther, Ewald; deleted by Tisch. 8 (bracketed by Lachm.), although
defended specially by Reiche, whom Hofmann also follows. An addition owing
to misapprehension. See the exegetical remarks.—Ver. 20. εi] Elz. reads ei oúv,
in opposition to decisive testimony. An addition for the sake of connecting, after
the analogy of ver. 16 and ii. 1.
Expressing in a heart-winning way his earnest concern for the salva-
tion of the souls of his readers, Paul introduces (vv. 1-3) what he has to
urge upon them in the way of warning against the seduction of false
teachers (vv. 4, 5), of exhortation to faithfulness (vv. 6, 7), and then again,
of warning (ver. 8). He then supports what he has urged by subjoining
the relative soteriological instructions and remindings (vv. 9–15), from
which he finally draws further special warnings as respects the dangers
theatening them on the part of the false teachers (vv. 16-23). .
Vér. 1. [On Vv. 1-5, see Note XXXI. pages 331–334.] Táp] [XXXI a.]
The apostle now confirms in concrèto the eig ô K. KOT: åyovišÓLevoç 1.1.2., 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 con-
sequence of his mistaken explanation of Kotlõ in i. 29, that Paul desires
to explain why he has said that he is becoming weary over the exertion,
etc.--Instead of the more frequent où déw ýmās å yvoεiv (see on Rom. xi. 25,
i. 13), Paul uses the déw ýho židéval, also in 1 Cor. xi. 3; comp. Phil. i. 12.-
hikov] what a great, vehement conflict. Paul nowhere else uses this word,
which is classical, but does not occur either in the LXX. or in the
Apocrypha; in the N. T. it is only found again at Jas. iii. 5. That by the
conflict is meant the internal pressure of solicitude and apprehension, etc.
(comp. i. 29, also Rom. xv. 30), is plain [XXXI 6.]—when we remember
CHAP. II. 1.
281
the imprisoned condition of the apostle, who now could not contend out-
wardly 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 conduct-
ing this spiritual conflict, without its being necessary to regard iv. 12 as a
criterion for determining the sense in our passage.--każ tūv Év Aaoolk.]
The neighboring Laodiceans (Rev. iii. 14 ff.) were without doubt exposed
to like heretical dangers; hence also the injunction as to the mutual
communication of the Epistles, iv. 16.-kai őool K.7.7..] The sense is : and
generally (kai, see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 786. 870) for all to whom I am
personally unknown. It adds the entire category, to which the “neīs and
those év Aaodiketą, both regarded as churches, were reckoned to belong. Comp.
Acts iv. 6. It is plain from our passage that Paul had not been in Colossae
and. Laodicea. It is true that Wiggers, in the Stud. 2. Krit. 1838, p. 176,
would have ögoL K.7.2. understood as referring to a portion of the Colossians
and Laodiceans, in which case kaí would mean even; but the text itself is
decisively opposed to this view by the following avrūv, ver. 2, which, if the
Ögot K.T.N. 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 à particular
portion (we should expect uálcota sé or the like), and the comprehensive
Ögou withal does not seem accounted for. Erroneous also is the view (held
already by Theodoret in the Hypothes, and in the Commentary, though Cred-
ner, Einl. § 154, erroneously denies this) of Baronius, Lardner, and David
Schultz (in the Stud. w. Krit. 1829, p. 535 ff.), that the 600L K.7.2. were other than
the vuɛic and oiểv Aaodik.; Paul having been personally known to both the
latter. The subsequent aútāv is fatal to this theory likewise; and how singu-
larly without reason would it have been, if Paul had designated as the objects
of his anxiety, along with two churches of the district which are supposed
to have known him personally, all not knowing him personally, without
distinction of locality! With how many of the latter were there no such
dangers at all existing, as the Colossians and Laodiceans were exposed to!
To this falls. to be added the fact that in the entire Epistle there is not a
single hint of the apostle having been present in Colossae. See, on the
contrary, on i. 8 and on i. 23.1 According to Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr.
1870, p. 245 f., the intimation that Paul was personally unknown to the
Colossians betrays the composition of the Epistle at a later time, when the
recollection of his labors there had been already superseded and had
vanished from the memory of the churches. As if such a forgetfulness
were even conceivable, in presence of the high esteem in which the
apostle was held !—That Paul should have been so.concerned about the
Colossians and Laodiceans, as those who did not know him personally, is
natural enough, seeing that they were not in a position to oppose the
living impression of the apostle's personal ministry, and his direct
authority, to the heretical seductions. Comp. ver. 5.—_v capki] not
belonging to wpákao-in which case it would be a contrast to seeing év
1 Comp. Wieseler, Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt. p. 140.
282
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
at vehuatl (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Baumgarten-Crusius)—joins itself, so
as to form one idea, with tò apównóv pov (Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 135]). 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, without ;
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 ranteivwols through a higher estimation of the latter; '
although generally the idea of a spiritual mode of intercourse, independent
of bodily absence, very naturally occasioned the concrete description :
my bodily face. There is all the less ground for assigning tv capki, as an
anticipation of ver. 5, to the hand of the manipulator, and that in such a
way as to betray an author who knows the apostle to be already snatched
away from the flesh and present in heaven (Holtzmann).
Ver. 2. The end aimed at (iva) in this conflict: in order that their hearts
may be comforted, viz. practically by the fact, that they are united in love, etc.
Accordingly, ovußißao0. K.T.7. 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 ar apák21 015 TūV
kapdiāv avtõv, not impeaching them on account of the heretical seductions,
but making those temptations to be felt as a misfortune, in the presence
of which one requires comfort (Vulgate : "Ut consolentur."). The explana-
tion which makes aapakah. mean, like yox (LXX. Deut. iii. 28; Job iv. 3),
to strengthen, confirm (so Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius), is
quite opposed to the Pauline usage, according to which it means to exhort
(so Luther here), to give consolation (so Hofmann; comp. Bleek), to
entreat, to encourage, to comfort; the latter in particular when, as here;
it is joined with kapsia. Comp. iv. 8; Eph. vi. 22; 2 Thess. ii. 17 (also
Ecclus. xxx. 23).-ovußeßao ÉVTES ] referred to the logical subject of the fore-
going, i.e. to the persons, of whom ai kapoial avtāv was said. See on Eph.
iv. 2. It means here not instructi (Vulgate; comp. 1 Cor. ii. 16, and the
LXX.), nor yet introduced, which linguistic usage does not permit, but
brought together, united, compacte. In connection therewith, šv åyánn,
which denotes Christian brotherly love, is the moral element, in which the
1 Chrysostom remarks aptly (comp. Theo-
phylact) : ήδη λοιπόν σπεύδει και ωδίνει έμβαλείν
εις το δόγμα, ούτε κατηγορών ούτε απαλλάττων
αυτους κατηγορίας.
2 So Hofmann, who couples it in this sense
with cis trâu rò doûtos, taking év åyámn ad-
verbially, and explaining the rai, which
stands in the way, in the sense of “even,” to
the effect that this introduction into all riches
of the understanding has as its presupposition
another introduction, viz. that into the faith.
This is a sophistically forced mode of dis-
posing of the kai, suggested by nothing in the
context, especially since faith by no means,
either of itself or in vy. 5-7, falls to be con-
sidered as a preliminary stage, εις if the πληρο- .
popia x.t.n., like a new stadium, had to be en-
tered upon througlı a second introduction; on
the contrary, this iinpooopia is the full rich
development of faith in the inner life. We
may add that ouußeßáselveto introduce is
nothing but a lexicographical fiction invented
by Hofmann. Chrysostom already says
rightly: iva cvw bool.
3 Ver. 19; Eph.iv. 16; Thuc. ii. 29. 5; Herod.
j. 74; and see Wetstein and Valckenaer, Schol.
I. p. 453 f.
CHAP. II. 2.
283
union is to subsist; to which is then added the telic reference of ovußeßaco.
by. kaì eis K.7.2.: united in love and 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.
[XXXI c.]-iai eis is not to be joined with trapaka. (Storr, Flatt), since the
kai rather adds to the èv-relation of the ovußiß. its εis-relation, and is there-
fore merely the simple and, not etiam (Bengel, Hofmann); but not to be
explained either as et quidem (Bähr, Böhmer), or by an ěłowol to be
supplied (Olshausen permits a choice between the two).—añs tranpop. rīs
OUVÉO.] The full certainty of Christian insight is the lofty blessing, the whole
riches of which, i.e. its blissful possession as a whole, they are to attain, so
that in no element of the obvious and in no mode thereof does there
remain any lack of completely undoubting conviction ;' comp. 1 Thess.
i. 5; Heb. vi. 11, x. 22; Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5. On the conception of
Tt-Ampopopɛīv, see. Bleek on Hebr. II. 2, p. 233 f. As to obveous, intelligence,
both theoretical and practical, comp. on i. 9; that here also what is
specifically Christian is meant kar' çoxív, is plain from the context. See
the sequel. The cumulative fullness of the description tāv tò m2. T. Tanp. 7.
GUVÉO. is naturally and earnestly called forth by the consideration of the
dangers which threatened the πληροφ. τ. συνέσ. through the attempts of
false teachers (ver. 4). —Eis éníyvwol 6.1.7.] parallel to the preceding eig
Ttāv TÒ TOūTOS K.7.2., and destined to bring in with emphasis the great
object of the ovvedis (the divine counsel of redemption, tò Úvothplov, see on i.
26); so that what was previously set forth at length by εiç trav tÒ TOŪTOS T.
Tanpop. T. ovvéc. is now succinctly summed up for the sake of annexing
the object by εις επίγνωσιν. Thus the distinction between επίγνωσις and
yvūois (ver. 3) is brought out clearly.3 Comp. on i. 9. But toŨ uvot. T. O.
is not to be attached also to ríms ovvégews (Hofmann), so that the Tv
ÉTiyvwolv would occupy an interrupting position.—ToŨ Okov] Genitive of the
subject; it is God, whose decree the uvor. is. The reading to be approved,
TOŨ OECW Xploto [XXXI d.] (see the critical remarks), means.: of the God.
of Christ, i. e. to whom Christ belongs in a special way, as to His Father,
Sender, Head, etc. ; [XXXI e.] see on Eph. i. 17; comp. John xx. 17 ;
Matt. xxvii. 46. The separation of Xplotoñ, however, from 7. Okoữ, and the
talking it as apposition to του μυστηρ. του Θεού, so that Christ Himself appears
as the personal secret of God, “because He is personally the truth con-
tained in God and revealed from God” (Hofmann, comp. Holtzmann, p.
215), must be rejected, because Paul would thus have expressed himself
in a way as much exposed to misapprehension as possible. He would'
1 Neither Greek authors, nor the LΧΧ., nor
the Apocrypha have πληροφορία. In Ptol. Tet.
p. 4, 9, πληροφόρησης is found.
2 Olda, öt! TOTEÚCTE, allà inpodopnoîval
ümas Boudonal' oik els tòx tloûtov Móvov, áll'
eis távta Tovar do útov, iva kai év mãou kai ÉTTLTE-
TAMÉvws tetrampobopnieévou hire, Chrysostom.
8 According to Holtzmann, p. 303, in the fre-
quent mention of yvãous and émiyvwols, of
σοφία and σύνεσις, οf γνωρίζειν aud φωτίζειν,
of μυστήριον αποκεκρυμμ. and φανέρωσις του
fivot., we may detect already the terminology
of the Grecian mysteries. As if these ideas
and expressions were not sufficiently Pauline,
and their intentional application were not
sufficiently intelligible in the light of theo
sophic aberrations. Comp. also on i. 23; and
Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 420, ed. 2.
284
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
ystery contender could only 1 Cor. ii. 23; comter o
either have inserted an ő Ėoti/after tow OkoV (i. 24; 1 Cor. iii. 11), or have
omitted του Θεού, which would have nmade το μυστήριον Χριστού, as in Εph.
iii. 4, the mystery contained personally in Christ. But as the apostle has
actually written, the reader could only understand the mystery of the God
of Christ. If Christ is God's (see on 1 Cor. iii. 23; comp. Luke ii. 26, ix.
20; Acts iv. 26), then God is also the God of Christ. After Okov, therefore,
no comma is to be inserted. Finally, the view of Hilary (" Deus
Christus sacramentum est”), that ó Oɛós is Christ Himself (so Steiger and
Bisping,1) is wholly without Pauline analogy, and is not to be supported
by such passages as Rom. ix. 5; Tit. ii. 13; Eph. v. 5; in fact, even the
lofty predicates employed in i. 15 ff., ii. 9, draw the line of distinction
between God and Christ. Moreover, the expression itself is not harsher
(de Wette), or even more inconceivable (Olshausen), more unsuitable and
obscure (Reiche), than the phrase ó esòs ToŨ kupíov . 'Incoñ X. in Eph. i.
17; since in connection with the notion “the God of Christ,” the designa-
tion of the latter as our Lord is unessential. The addition Xplotov finds its
motive in the connection, because it was just in Christ that God formed the
decree of redemption (the. uvorhplov), and has carried it out (Eph. iii. 10 f.,
et al.). Whosoever has known God as the God of Christ, has the divine
uvorhpiov therewith unveiled to him.
Ver. 3. 'Ev “] [XXXI f.] is to be referred to toï uvotnplov—a remark
which applies also in the case of every other reading of the foregoing
words-not to Christ, 2 as is commonly done with the Recepta, and by
Böhmer, Dalmer, and Hofmann even with our reading. The correct
reference is given, in connection with the Recepta, by Grotius (against
whom Calovius 'contends), Hammond, Bengel, and Michaelis; and in
connection with our reading, by Huther, Schenkel, and Bleek ; its cor-
rectness appears from the correlation in which åtókpupol stands to toŨ
uvotnp. The destination of this relative clause is to bring out the high
value of the émiyvwois TOŨ uvotnplov (since in Him, etc.), and that in con-
trast to the pretended wisdom and knowledge of the false teachers;
hence also the emphatic πάντες οι θησ. κ.τ.λ.-The σοφία and γνώσις are
here conceived objectively, and the genitives indicate wherein the treasures
consist. The clistinction 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 yvūolç is
more special, knowledge, and copía 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. 9.3-áróspupoi] [XXXI g.] is not the predicate to cioi (so
most writers, with Chrysostom and Luther), as if it were ánokeKPYLÉVOL
είσιν instead of εισίν απόκρυφοι; for, as it stands, the unsuitable sense
would be conveyed : “ in whom all treasures . . . are hidden treasures.”
1 Also Philippi, Glaubensl. IV.1, p. 460, ed. 2.
2 Older dogmatic expositors (see especially
Calovius) discover here the omniscience of
Christ.
3 On Angavpoi, comp. Plato, Phil. p. 15 E: üs
Tiva oopias eùpnkus onoavpóv, Xen. Mem. iv. 2.
9, i. 6.14; Wisd. vii. 14; Ecclus. i. 22; Bar. iii.
15.
CHAP. II. 3, 4.
285
But neither is it a description of the qualitative how of their being in Him,.
in so far, namely, as they do not lie open for ordinary perception (Hof-
mann); for this adverbial use of the adjective 2 would be without due
motive here, seeing that the apostle is concerned, not about the mode of
the ểv ♡ ciol, but about the characterizing of the treasures themselves,
whereupon the how in question was obvious of itself. We must therefore
take ártókpupot simply as an attributive adjective to Onoaupoi, placed at
the end with emphasis : in whom the collective hidden treasures . . . are
contained. The treasures, which are to be found in the mystery, are not
such as lie open to the light, but, in harmony with the conception of the
secret, hidden (comp. Matt. I. c.), because unattainable by the power of
natural discernment in itself, but coming to be found by those who attain
εις επίγνωσιν του μυστηρίου, whereby they penetrate into the domain of
these secret riches and discover and appropriate them. The objection to
this view of årtorp, as the adjective to Ans., viz. that there must then
have been written oi ảnoKp. (Bähr, Bleek, Hofmann), is erroneous; the
article might have been (1 Macc. i. 23), but did not need to be, inserted.
With the article it would mean : quippe qui absconditi sunt; without the
article it is simply : "thesauri absconditë” (Vulgate), i. e. árókpupol ÖVTES,
not οι όντες απόκρυφοι.
Ver. 4. After this affecting introduction, testifying to his zealous striv-
ing for the Christian development of his readers, and thereby claiming
their faithful adherence to his gospel, the warning now follows, for the
sake of which Paul has prefixed vv. 1-3 (TOūTO). [XXXI h.] That TOŪTO
does not refer merely to ver. 34 is in itself probable, since vv. 1-3 form a
connected sentence admirably preparatory in its entire purport for what
follows, and is confirmed by ver. 5, which glances back to ver. 1. Hence:
This contained in vv. 1-3, which ye ought to know, I say with the design
that, etc.-riva undeig (see the critical remarks); comp. Mark v. 43; Tit.
iii. 12; Rev. iii. 11, et al. - tapaſoyis.] In N T., only found elsewhere in
Jas. i. 22 (see Theile in loc.); frequent in the later Greek writers since
Demosthenes (822. 25, 1037. 15). It indicates, by a term borrowed from
false reckoning, the deception and overreaching that take place through
false reasoning. What particular sophistries the false teachers, whose
agitations at all events tended (see ver. 8 f.) to the disadvantage of the
Pauline gospel, were guilty of, does not appear. It is certain, however,
that they were not those suggested by Böhmer (nothing good can come
out of Nazareth ; one who was crucified cannot have possessed divine
wisdom), since the false teachers were not non-Christians. Hardly did
these beguiling sophistries affect the person of the cupostle, as if he were
not concerning himself about the confirming and training of churches
Comp. LXX. Isa. xlv. 3; 1 Macc. i. 23;
Matt. xiii. 44.
1 In connection with which Bähr, Baumgar-
ten-Crusius, and Bleek convert the notion of
being hidden into that of being deposited for
preservation (åtokeiodai, i, 5).
2 See Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. iv. 12, ii. 2. 17;
Krüger, 257.5.
4So Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Zan-
chius, Estius, and others, including Bähr and
Böhmer; Huther is undecided
286
::
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS...
not planted by himself, as Hofmann thinks. In that case we should
have in vv. 1-3 only a self-testimony to the contrary, which; as assertion
against assertion, would neither have been skillful nor delicate; nor do
we in what follows find any defence in opposition to personal calumnia-
tion. This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 177. The ráp in
ver: 5 by no means requires this interpretation.—Ěv tilavonoyiq] by means
of persuading speech ; Luther's “ with rutional discourses” misapprehends
the meaning. It occurs in this place only in the N. T.1
Ver. 5. A special reason, having reference to his bodily absence, by
which his readers are encouraged not to allow themselves to be deceived.
-Tņ capki] with respect to the flesh, i. e. bodily. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 3.-árrá]
at, yet am I on the other hand, beginning the apodosis ; see on Rom. vi. 5
and 1 Cor. iv. 15.-TTveúuari] 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
TvEvpa would be meant of the Holy Spirit. According to Wiggers, in the
Stud. w. Krit. 1838, p. 181, and Vaihinger, in Herzog's Encyklop. IV. p. 79,
åTTELUL takes for granted the apostle's having been there previously. A
quite groundless assumption; the verb expresses (ató) the being away
from, but does not indicate whether a person had been previously
present or not, which can only be gathered from the connection or other
circumstances of the case. In this case the context directly indicates, by
ver. 1, that a bodily tapɛīvat had not occurred. It 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 ús Deaoájevoç
avrovs šypapev TÌVĚTLOTONÓV.-oùv quiv] in your society, among you. Comp.
Luke viii. 38, xxii. 56; Phil. i. 23; 1 Thess. iv. 17; 2 Pet. i. 18, et al.-
χαίρων κ. βλέπων] There is here no ological prefixing of the χαίρων in the
lively feeling of joy (Huther, comp. de Wette); xaipwv rather expresses
joy at the fact that he is with them spiritually, and και βλέπων υμ. την
TáĞLV K.T.. then adds what at this joyful being with the Colossians he sees in
them, so that the description thus advances with k. Brét. : in spirit I am
along with you, rejoicing in this mental presence, and therewith seeing, etc.
Comp. also Hofmann, who, however, imports into Bhétwv 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. ús BéTWV, or k. ás év
óplaajois B2. Renderings blending the ideas, such as gaudéo videns (Gro-
tius, Wolf, Bähr, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and others), or beholding
with joy (Bengel, Heinrichs, Flatt), are at variance with the words as they
stand. Some erroneously cite Josephus, Bell. iii. 10. 2, where xaipw kai
BRéTWV (not Brémw) means : I rejoice, when I even see it. Winer, p. 438
[E. T. 469 f.], and Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 425, supply with xaipwv the
words : concerning you. But the supplying of ég útiv is not justified by
1 But see Plato, Theaet. p. 162 E; comp. Dem.
928. 14: doyous Bavuaoiws mavoús, also Tilbavo-
doyeiv, Diog. L. X. 87; Diod. Sic. i. 39; and
Tlavus déyelv, Lucian, Amor. 7. Hence the !
art of persuasion: ~ Tubavodoylan, Arr. Epict.
i. 8. 7.
CHAP. II. 4.
287
the context, which naturally suggests joy at the being together with the
readers, for taip. stands alongside of this as an accompanying relation
without any other definition of object. And according to this view there
is no ground at all for an explicative rendering of kal, which Winer still
admits (so also Böhmer and.Olshausen).—The testimony, moreover, which
is given to the readers by BRÉTTWV 6.1.2. is not inconsistent with the
anxious conflict in ver. 1; but, on the contrary, makes the latter, in a
psychological point of view, all the more conceivable, when the dangers
which threatened a state of things still even now so good are considered.
--ópww.T. Tášiv] The prefixed pronoun owes this position to the favor-
able expectation which the Colossians, more than many others, have
awakened in the apostle. The rážis is order, orderly condition. Its anti-
thesis is árafía, Plato, Tim. p. 30 A. For the idea see Plato, Gorg. p. 504
A : TáčEWS . . . kaì kódulov ToxOvoa oikia, Polyb. i. 4. 6: øj oulmaca oxÉGIS K.
Tá&is tñs oikovuévns, iii. 36. 6:* . . . Siaipeous K. Tášis. It is often used of
the organized condition of the state, Dem. 200. 4, Plat. Crit. p. 109 D; else-
where also (see Sturz, Lex. Xen. IV. p. 245) of the army, sometimes to
designate a section of it (a company of two 26 xol), and sometimes to ex-
press its regular ccrrangement in rank and file (Thuc. iii. 87. 2, iv. 72. 2, 126.
4, viii. 69. 1). Hofmann? takes both ráž. and Grepéwua in a military
sense. But the two words have not in and of themselves the military
sense; they would receive it from the context, which is not the case here.
Moreover, the meaning fortress, military brilwark, is expressed not by
Otepéwua generally, but by špvua or óxúpwua, 2 Cor. x. 4. Hence, if we
would avoid arbitrariness, we can only abide by the view that here rášis
means the orderly state of the Christian church, which has hitherto not been
disturbed by sectarian divisions or forsaken by the readers. Comp. 1 Cor.
xiv. 40. To this outward condition Paul then subjoins the inner one, by
which the former is conditioned: and the solid hold of your faith in Christ.
otepéwua, firmamentum, that which has been made firm (Arist. partt. an. ii. 9;
Theophr. H. pl. v. 7. 3), a late word, often found in LXX., Aquila, The-
odotion, Symmachus, and Apocrypha (see Schleusner, Thes. V. p. 102 f.),
represents the stedfastness and immovableness of faith in such a way,
that the latter appears as protected by a strong work (with solid founda-
tion, masonry, etc.) from injury (Ezek. xiii. 5; Ps. xviii. 2 ; 3 Esdr. viii.
81). On the subject-matter, comp. Acts xvi. 5 : $oTEPEOVVTO TĨ Tiotel, 1 Pet.
v. 9: ávtiotNTE Otepeo tñ niotel. The abstract firmness, however (Huther,
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and older expositors), which would
be otepebTns, is never designated by the word. Chrysostom explains
rightly: ότε πολλά συναγαγών συγκολλήσεις πυκνώς και αδιασπαστώς, τότε στερέωμα
yívetal. The genitive rñs TiotewÇ, finally, is not to to be taken in such a way
as to make faith the stepéwua (Hofmann), which protects the readers, as if
it were rò vuāv otepéwpa ; but as the genitive of the subject, in such a way
that their faith has the otepéwua securing it, which Paul spiritually sees.-
· To call in question the unseducedness here attested (Baumgarten-Crusius,
Whom Holtzmanu, p. 177, has too rashly followed.
288
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
who leaves it a question whether the sense is not merely : “if it is sc'),
or to refer it to only a part of the church (Flatt), is a quite arbitrary result
of unduly pressing the general utterance of commendation.
Ver. 6 f. [XXXI 1.] From the warning given in ver. 4 and having its
ground assigned in ver. 5, follows (nův) the positive obligation to make
Christ, as He had been communicated to them through the instruction
which they had received, the element in which (ěv avto) their conduct of
the inner and outer life moves (nepiTaTEīte), whereupon the more precise
modal definitions are subjoined by šppuswuévOL K.7.2.-Ós] according as.
Observe that in the protasis Tapɛháßere and in the apodosis reputatEīte (not
šv avrõ, as Hofmann thinks) have the emphasis, in which case the addition
of an oőtws was not necessary. Their walk in Christ is to be in harmony
with the instruction, by means of which they have through Epaphras
received Christ.—Tapɛháſetɛ] 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 com-
municated to them as the element of life. The rendering : have accepted
(Luther, Bähr, Böhmer, 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: katùs didáx01te,
and ver. 8: kaTà TTV mapádooi Tūv dvop.) the contrast between true and false
Christian instruction as regulative of the walk, and not the contrast between
entrance into the fellowship of Christ and the walk therewith given (Hof-
mann), predominates.2-TÒv X. ’I. Tòv kúplov] A solemnly complete designa-
tion, a summary of the whole confession (1 Cor. xii. 3; Phil. ii. 11), in which
TÒV Kúplov, conformably with its position and the entire connection, is to be
taken in the sense: asthe Lord, consequently attributively, not as a mere appo-
sition (de Wette, Bleek, Ellicott, and others), in which Hofmann includes
also 'Inoowy, a view which is not warranted by Eph. iii. 1.–Ver. 7. éppiswllo
K. ŠTOLKOD. Ểv avtõ] introduces the ethical habitus in the case of the required
TEPLTATETV v X. But the vivid conception, in the urgency of properly
exhausting the important point, combines very dissimilar elements; for
the two figures, of a plant and of a building, are inconsistent as such both
with repetateīts and with one another. Comp. Eph. iii. 17 f. By beginning
a new sentence with pictwuévou K.7.2., and thus construing it in connection
with ver. 8 (Schenkel, Hofmann), we should gain nothing in symmetry,
and should only lose without sufficient reason in simplicity of construc-
tion; while we should leave the év avto neplatɛīte in ver. 6 in a dispropor-
tionately bald and isolated position. This conjunction, moreover, of heter-
ogeneous figures might quite as legitimately have been made by the
apostle himself as by an interpolator, whose hand Holtzmann thinks that
he here discovers.--Observe further the difference in time of the two par-
LUC
iTo this conception év aúró refers subse-
quently. Chrysostom and his followers take
this év so, that Christ is regarded as the way.
But this Johannine conception nowhere oc-
curs in Paul's writings; nor does it. accord
with rapedáßete, with which, however, the
extremely common Pauline idea of the év
Xploto e var is in harmony.
2 Eph. iii. 17 f., by comparing which Holtz-
mann discovers in our passage the hand of
the interpolator, is both as regards contents
and form too diverse for that purpose.
!
CHAP. II. 6, 7.
ticiples, whereby the stedfastness of the źv Xplotõ elvai (figuratively repre-
sented by potwie) is denoted as a subsistent state, which must be present in
the case of the repetateiv év avtõ, while the further development of the Christian
condition (figuratively represented by ÉTOLKOJ.) is set forth as a continuing
process of training; comp. Acts xx. 32.—ÉTOLKOD.] becoming built up, in
which šní exhibits the building rising on the foundation. The building up
may in itself be also regarded as an act accomplished (through conversion),
as in Eph. ii. 20 : ÉTTOLKODOLNÉVTES, which, however, as modal definition of
Teplitat., would not have suited here. The progress and finishing of the
building (de Wette, following Acts xx. 32, where, however, the simple form
oikod. should be read) are conveyed by the present, not by ÉTTOLKOŠ. in itself
(comp. Eph. ii. 22). Nor does the latter represent the readers as stones,
which are built up on the top of those already laid (Hofmann); on the con-
trary, they are in their aggregate as a church (comp. on Eph. l.c.) represented
as an oikodou“ in the course of being built (i.e. of a more and more full
ÉTOLKOD. presupposes the foundation laid by Epaphras, namely, Christ (1
Cor. iii. 11); and the building materials, including the stones, are not the
persons, but the doctrines, by means of which the builders accomplish their
work (see on 1 Cor. iii. 12).—Ėv avto] belongs to both participles, so that
Christ is to be conceived doubtless as the soil for the roots striking down-
wards (Eph. iii. 17), and as the foundation (1 Cor. iii. 11) for the building
extending upwards; but the expression is determined by the conception of
the thing signited, namely, the εν Χριστώ είναι, as in εν αυτώ περιπατ., and
not by the figures; hence Paul has not written &t' arróv (1 Cor. iii. 12), or
ŠTE' avto (Eph. ii. 20), which would have been in harmony with the latter
participle, but he exhibits Christ as the Person, in whom that which is
and nature, and consequently the condition of endurance and growth.?
Comp. on Eph. ii. 21.--caì ßeßacoblo tñ nior.] And to this being rooted
and becoming built up there is to be added the being stablished by the faith,
as the development of quality in the case, in order that no loose rooting
may take place, nor any slack building be formed. The dative Tĩ TioTel (see
the critical remarks) is to be taken as instrumental, not: with respect to (in
opposition to de Wette), since the following modal definition Teploo. Ŝv
aytī specifies, not how they are to be stablished in respect of the faith, but
how they are to be stablished by it, by the fact, namely, that they are rich
in faith; poverty in faith would not be sufficient to bring about that estab-
lishment. In like manner we should have to take the reading ¿v T. TÍOTEL,
which Hofmann defends. He, however, joins this šv T. Thotel not with
βεβαιούμ., but with the following περισσεύοντες,-a connection which is
excluded by the genuineness of év avtñ, but which is, even apart from this,
to be rejected, because Paul would, in order to be fairly intelligible, have
1 Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 10, 12; Eph. ii. 20; Xen.
Anab. iii. 4. 11; Plat. Legg. v. p. 736 E.
2 Hofmann inappropriately, since in the
case of <TOLKOD. at any rate we have to think
of the foundation, takes év avto in the sense
that Christ surrounds the building.
19
290
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
inserted the εν αυτώ only after βεβαιούμενοι, to which it would also refer.-
katas didáxd.] namely, to become stablished by the faith. For this they have-
received (from Epaphras, i. 7) the instructions which are to guide them.-
TEPLOCEVOVTES K.T.n.] is subordinate to the Beßalovu., and that as specifying
the measure of the faith, which must be found in them in order that they
may be stablished through faith; while at the same time the requisite
vital expression, consecrated to God, of the piety of the believing heart is
brought out by év eüxap. : while ye are abouncing in the same amidst thanks-
giving, i.e. while ye are truly rich in faith, and at the same time giving
thanks to God for this blessing of fullness of faith. The emphasis is upon
περισσ., in which lies the more precisely defining element; περισσεύειν έν is
nothing else than the usual abundare aliqua re, to have abundance of some-
thing (Rom. XV. 13; 1 Cor. viii. 7; Phil. i. 9, et al.), and šv εvxap. indicates
an accompanying circumstance in the case, the ethical consecration of grate-
ful piety, with which the richness in faith must be combined; comp. iii.
17, i. 12. It is well explained, in substance, by Theophylact: nepocóV to
ενδείκνυσθαι εν τη πίστει, ευχαριστούντες τω θεώ, ότι ήξίωσεν ημάς τοιαύτης χάριτος,
και μη εαυτοίς την προκοπήν επιγράφοντας. Rightly also by Oecumenius, who
takes εν ευχαρ. as equivalent to συν ευχαρ! Others, however, regard εν
ευχαρ. as belonging to περισσ. Such is the view not only of the nmajority
who reject év avtñ on critical grounds (as Ewald), but also of Luther,
Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, Huther (that the Colossians in their faith towards
God ... are to show themselves abundantly grateful). De Wette favors
this rendering on the ground that the clause is not attached by iai, which,
however, is quite in keeping with the circumstance that itePLOO. K.7.2. is
subordinate to the βεβαιούμ. κ.τ.λ. In opposition to the conibination περισσ.
Šv evxap. there may be urged, first, the arrangement of the words in itself;
secondly, the fact that év avtñ would be superfluous; and thirdly, that all
the other elements of the verse refer to the nature of faith, and hence the
latter, in harmony with the context, is to be regarded also in the last par-
ticipial clause as the object of the discourse, whereas ĉv ev xap. is to be treated
as a relation associated with the faith.
Ver. 8. [On vv. 8–10, see Note XXXII. pages 334-336.] Be upon your
guard, lest there shall be some one carrying you away as a prey. In that case,
how grievously would what I have just been impressing upon your hearts,
in vy. 6, 7, be rendered fruitless! [XXXII a.] The future total after un
(comp. Heb. iii. 12) has arisen from the apprehension that the case may
yet actually occur. As to the participle with the article, comp. on Gal. i. 7:
τινές εισιν οι ταράσσοντες.-Respecting συλαγωγείν, belonging to the later
Greek, see Eustath. ad Il. v. p. 393, 52. [XXXII 6.] Very inaccurately
rendered by the Vulgate: decipiat. In Aristaen. ii. 22, joined with oikov, it
means to rob; and is so taken here by Hilary, Chrysostom, Theodoret
(aroovžāv Tùy riotv), Theophylact (Tòv vovv), Luther, Wolf, and many others,
i Comp. Castalio, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin,
Estius, Cornelius & Lapide, Bähr, Steiger,
Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dalmer,
Hofmann, and others.
2See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 451 A; Hart-
ung, Partikell. II. p. 139 f.; Ellendt, Lex.
Soph. II. p. 104. Comp. also on Gal. iv. 11.
CHAP. II. 8.
291
including Baumgarten-Crusius. But the stronger sense of the word prae- o
dam abigerel is in keeping with the verb of the previous exhortation, repita-
TEĪTE, as well as with the purposely chosen peculiar expression in itself, which
is more significant than the classical συλάν or συλεύειν, and serves vividly to
illustrate the idea of the seduction, through which one falls under extra-
neous power, as respects its disgracefulness.—Sià tñs pihooopias K. kevñs årárns]
through philosophy and empty deceit. It is to be observed that neither the
preposition nor the article is repeated before kevñs 2 because with kaì KEV
anar, there is added no further element different from tñs olhooop. (in oppo-
sition to Hofmann), but only that which the philosophy in its essence is; it is
enupty deception, that is, having no real contents; the redavoãoyía (ver. 4),
with which it is presented, is a keveayopía (Plat. Rep. p. 607 B), and Kevo2.oyla
(Plut. Mor. p. 1069 C). The chocopía, however, against which Paul utters
his warning, is not philosophy generally and in itself,-a view at variance
with the addition k. kevñs åttat, closely pertaining to it, however much the
wisdom of the world in its degeneracy,4 as experience was conversant with
its phenomena in that age, may have manifested itself to the apostle as
foolishness when compared with the wisdom of the gospel (1 Cor. i. 18 ff.,
ii. 6). Rather, he has in view (comp. ver. 18) the characteristic specula-
tion, well lcnown to his readers, which engaged attention in Colossae and the
surrounding district, and consisted of a Gnostic theosophy mixed up with
Judaism (Essenism). This is, on account of its nature directed to the
supersensuous and its ontological character, correctly designated by the
term philosophy. in general, apart from its relation to the truth, which is
signalized by the K. kevñs árátns appended." (Plat. Def. p. 414 C: qñs TūV
Övrwv åɛì énlothuns õpetus EELS DEWPNTLIÌJ TOũ đandoús, Tūs à noés). Possibly it was
also put forward by the false teachers themselves expressly under this
designation. The latter is the more probable, since Paul uses the word
only in this passage. The nature of this philosophy is consequently to be
1 Heliod. x. 35; Nicet. Ann. 5, p. 96 D.
tainment, it is not a kevn átrárn, but an imper-
3 See Kühner, II. 1, pp. 476, 528; Buttmann, fectio. Fathers of the Church also, as e.g.
Neut. Gr. p. 86 [E. T. 100).
Clemens Al. (comp. Spiess, Logos speriat. p.
3 On the idea of kevós (1 Cor. xv. 14; Eph. V. 341), aptly distinguish philosophy itself from
6), comp. Dem. $21. 11.: KevÚTatov mávrwv dó the phenomena of its abuse. The latter are
you déyovol, and on åtátn, Plat. Soph. p. 260 C: philosophy also, but not in accordance with
ÖVTOS Sé ye yeúdovs Zoti årám..., kai univ the truth of the conception.
åtárns oñons cidółwy te kai eikóvwv ñ on kai 7 These words k. Kev. ått., characterizing the
φαντασίας πάντα ανάγκη μεστά είναι.
philosophy meant, are therefore all the less
4 Comp. Herm. gottesd. Alterth. 212; and to be regarded, with Holtzmann, as a tauto-
Culturgesch, d. Griech. U. Röm. I. p. 236 ff., II. logical insertion; and it is mere arbitrariness
p. 132.
to claim the words katà T. Tapád. twv årepór.
5 Comp. Luther's frequent denunciations for the Synoptical Gospels (Matt. xv. 2 f.); as
of philosophy, under which he had present if napádools (comp. especially Gal. i. 14) were
to his mind its degeneracy in the Aristotelian not sufficiently current in the apostle's
scholasticism.
writings.
6 Comp. also Calovius. The latter rightly 8 Comp. the Sophists as the báokovtes bido-
remarks how αφιλοσόφως and άθεολόγως nmen σοφείν, Χen. Mena. 1. 2. 19; and oιόμενοι πάντ'
would proceed, who should regard philosophie · cidéval, in i. 4. 1).
cal and theological truth as opposites; and Comp. Bengel: "quod adversarii jactabant
points out that if Greek philosophy do not esse philosophiam et sapientiam (ver. 23), id
teach the doctrine of eternal life and its at Paulus inanem fraudem esse dicit."
292
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
regarded as Judaistic-Oriental ;1 we are under no necessity to infer from
the word pihooopia a reference to Greek wisdom, as Grotius did, suggesting
the Pythagorean (Clemens Alexandrinus thought of the Epicureans, and
Tertullian of such philosophers as Paul had to do with at Athens). The
idea that the “sacrarum literarum earumque recte interpretandarum scien-
tia” 2 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, Obss. p.
364), and Josephus (see Krebs, p. 236) applies it to the systems of Jewish
sects, and indeed the Fathers themselves apply it to the Christian doctrine
(Suicer, Thes. s.v.); see Grimm on 2 Macc. i. 1, p. 298 f.—icatà T. mapád. T.
åvop.] might bemand this is the common view-closely joined with árátns
(Winer, p. 128 f. [E. T. 135 f.]) [XXXII c.] But the oú katà Xplotov
would not suit this connection, since årátn is already in itself a definite
and proper idea, in association with which a katà XplotóV would be incon-
ceivable; whereas the figurative ovhaywyɛīv still admits also the negative
modal statement (ou karà X.) for greater definiteness. Accordingly katà T.
Tapád. K.7.2. (comp. Steiger, Ellicott) is to be taken as definition of mode to
ovlaywyāv. Paul, namely, having previously announced whereby the ovay-
wytīv takes place, now adds for the still more precise description of that
procedure, in order the more effectively to warn his readers against it,
that in accordance with which it takes place, i. e. what is the objective regu-
lative standard by which they permit themselves to be guided. He does
this positively (katà TÌv ... . KOOLLOV) and negatively (k. ou katà Xplotóv). The
genitive των ανθρ. 1s to be explained : ήν παρέλαβε παρά των ανθρ. (comp. 2
Thess. iii. 6), and tūv denotes the category, the traditio humana as such,
opposed to the divine revelation. Comp. Mark vii. 8. What is meant,
doubtless, is the ritual Jewish tradition outside of the Mosaic law (comp.
on Matt. xv. 2), the latter being excluded by tūv åvop.; but Paul designates
the thing quite generally, according to the genus to which it belongs, as
human.-katà tà otolxɛTa ToŨ koguov] Parallel of the foregoing : according to
the elements of the world, i. e. according to the religious rudiments, with which
non-Christian humanity occupies itself. The expression in itself embraces
the ritual observances: both of Judaism and heathenism, which, in com-
parison with the perfect religion of Christianity, are only "puerilia rudi-
menta” (Calvin), as it were the A B C of religion, so that Paul therefore in
this case also, where he warns his readers against Judaistic enticing, charac-
terizes the matter according to its category. As to the designation itself
and its various interpretations, see on Gal. iv. 3. Among the latest
expositors, Bleek agrees with our view, while Hofmann explains: “because
it (the philosophy which is described as deceit) permits the material things,
1 The speculations of Essepism are also
designated as philosophy in Philo. Comp.
Keim, Gesch. Jesui, I. p. 292.
3 Tittmann, de vestigiis Gnosticor. in N. T.
frustra quaesitis, p. 86 ff.
8 Calvin well says: "Quid vocat elementa
mundi ? Non dubium quia ceremonias; nam
continuo post exempli loco speciem unam
adducit, circumcisionem scilicet."
CHAP. II. 9.
293
of which the created world consists, to form its standard.” See in opposition
to this on Gal. l.C. Both expressions, TÌv mapád. 7. évop. and Tà TOLX. T.
kóguov, have it as their aim to 'render apparent the worthlessness and
unsuitableness for the Christian standpoint (comp. Gal. iv. 9). Hence,
also, the contrast which, though obvious of itself, is nevertheless emphatic:
kaì où katà Xplotóv. The activity of that ovaywyɛīv has not Christ for its
objective standard; He, in accordance with His divine dignity exalted
above everything (see ver. 9), was to be the sole regulative for all activity
in Christian teaching, so that the standard guiding their work should be
found in the relation of dependence upon Him; but instead of this the
procedure of the ouhaywyāv allows human tradition, and those non-Christian
rudiments which the Christian is supposed to have long since left behind,
to serve as his rule of conduct! How unworthy it is, therefore, to follow
such seduction!
Ver. 9. [XXXII d.] Since indeed in Him dwells, etc. This is not “a
peg upon which the interpolator hangs his own thoughts” (Holtzmann).
On the contrary, Paul assigns C reason for the ou Katà XPLOTÓv just said, with
a view more effectually to deter them from the false teachers. The force
of the reason assigned lies in the fact that, if the case stand so with Christ,
as is stated in vv. 9 ff., by every other regulative principle of doctrine that
which is indicated in the words katà Xplotov is excluded and negatived.
Others make the reason assigned refer to the warning: BRÉTETE K.T.2., SO
that őrc 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 źv avrò placed emphatically
first (in Him and in no other) points back to the immediately preceding
ou katà Xplotov (comp. Chrysostom and Calvin); there is therefore noth-
ing to show that the reference of õti ought to be carried further back (to
BRÉTTETE). In Christ the whole fullness of Godhead—what a contrast to the
human παράδοσις and the στοιχεία of the World !κατοικεί] The present, for
it is the exalted Christ, in the state of His heavenly dóža, that is in view.
Comp. i. 15. In Him the entire nanpwua has its kaTOLKNTÚplov (Eph. ii. 22),
so that He is the personal bearer of it, the personal seat of its essential
presence.-Tāv tò tanpwua [XXXII e.] (comp. on i. 19) is here more pre-
cisely defined by the “vocabulum abstractum significantissimum” (Bengel)
tñs DeÓTNTOS, which specifies what dwells in Christ in its entire fullness, i. e.
not, it may be, partially, but in its complete entirety. [XXXII f.] On
the genitive, comp. Rom. xi. 25, xv. 29. It is not the genitive auctoris ;?
the very abstract debTnt. should have been a sufficient warning against
this view, as well as against the interpretation : "id quod inest Deórnt."
(Bähr). Debrns, the Godhead (Lucian, Icarom. 9; Plut. Mor. p. 415 C),
the abstract from ο Θεός, is to be distinguished from η θειότης, the
abstract from belos (Rom. i. 20; Wisd. xviii. 19; Lucian, de calumn.
17). The former is Deitas, the being God, i.e. the divine essence, Godhead;
1 Nösselt: "universa comprehensio eorum, quae Deus per Christum vellet in homines
transferre."
294
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
the latter is divinitas, i.e. the divine quality, godlikeness. See on Rom. i.
20. Accordingly, the essence of God, undivided and in its whole fullness,
dwells in Christ in His exalted state, so that He is the essential and ade-
quate image of God (i. 15), which He could not be if He were not pos-
sessor of the divine essence. The distinction between what is here said
about Christ and what is said about Him in i. 19 is, that the inpwua is
here meant metaphysically, of the divina essentia, but in the former passage
charismatically, of the divina gratia, and that kaTOLKETV is conceived here
as in present permanence, but in the former passage historically (namely,
of Christ's historical, earthly appearance). See on i. 19. The erroneous
attempts that have been made to explain away the literal meaning thus
definitely and deliberately expressed by Paul, are similar to those in i. 19.
One of these, in particular, is the mis-explanation referring it to the
church as the God-filled organ of divine self-revelation (Heinrichs, Baum-
garten-Crusius, Schenkel) which has its dwelling-place in Christ.? Already
Theodoret (comp. Tivés in Chrysostom), indeed, quotes the explanation
that Christ signifies the church in which the thñpwna dwells, but on account
of owuatikās 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): εi tí ŠOTIV Ó
Osos hoyos, év avtö oikei, so that the fullness of the Godhead in the ontolog-
ical, and not in the simply mystical or morally religious sense (de Wette) is
meant.- But how does it dwell in Christ? owpatikās, 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. It is not in Christ (aowuátws), as
before the Incarnation it was in the hoyos (Osòs nu ó 26yos, John i. 1), but
(comp. also Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 260 ff.) it is in His glorified body (Phil. iii.
21), so that the έν μορφή θεού and ίσα θεώ είναι, which already existed in
the hóyos acapkos (Phil. ii. 6), now in Christ's estate of exaltation--which
succeeded the state of humiliation, whereby the popoň DEOŨ was affected-
have a bodily frame, are in bodily personality. Of course the Deórns does
not thereby itself come into the ranks of the owhatikaż ovolal (Plat. Locr.
p. 96 A), but is in the exalted Christ after a real fashion owuatio eidec
Luke iii. 22), and therefore Christ Himself is the visible divine-human
image of the invisible God (i. 15). In this glory, as Possessor of the God-
head dwelling in Him bodily, He will also appear at the Parousia-an
appearance, therefore, which will manifest itself visibly (1 John iii. 2) as
1 Thus, indeed, the fullness of the Godhead
has been removed from Christ, but there has
only been gained instead of it the unbiblical
idea that the church dwells in Christ. The
church has its support in Christ as the cor-
ner-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 tripwua
filled by Him (see on Eph. i. 23), namely, in
virtue of the Spirit dwelling in the church
(see on Eph. ii. 22), which is the Spirit of
Christ (Rom. viii. 9; Gal. iv. 6; Phil. i. 19).
2 Comp. also Hofmann in loc., and Schriſt-
bew. II. 1, p. 29; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 428,
ed. 2.
3 It is now only worth remarking histori-
cally, but is almost incredible, how the So-
cinians have twisted our verse. Its sense in
their view is: "quod in doctrina ipsius tota
Dei voluntas integre et reapse est patefacta,"
Catech. Racov. 194, p. 398, ed. Oeder. Calovius
gives a refutation in detail.
CHAP. II. 10.
295
the actual επιφάνεια της δόξης του μεγάλου θεού (Tit. ii. 13). The reference
of the whole statement, however, to the exalted Christ is placed beyond
question by the use of the present katolkęł, which asserts the presently
existing relation, without requiring a vīv along with it (in opposition to
Huther). The renderings : essentialiter, ovoudūs, in which case some
thought of a contrast to the divine évépyela in the prophets (see Theophy-
lact), and: realiter,2 in which was found the opposite of TUTTLKÕÇ (ver. 17),
are linguistically inappropriate; for owuatlKÓS never means anything else
than corporeus. Comp. on the adverb, Plut. Mor. p. 424 D. The less
justifiable is the hypothesis of Rich. Schmidt (Paul. Christol. p. 191), that
in the term owpatikās the contrast of ver. 17 was already present to the
apostle's mind. Those who adopt the erroneous explanation of thápoua
as referring to the church, assign to owuatikāç the meaning: "so that the
church stands related to Him as His body” (Baumgarten-Crusius and
Schenkel), which issues in the absurdity that the body of Christ is held to
dwell in Christ, whereas conversely Christ could not but dwell in His
body. It is true that the church is related to Christ as His body, not,
however, in so far as it dwells in Him (and, according to the context, this
must have been the case here, if the explanation in question be adopted),
but either in so far as He dwells in 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, moreover, to
be observed, that the adverb is placed emphatically at the end. The
special reason, however, on account of which the KatolieĪV K.7.. is thus
prominently set forth as bodily, cannot, indeed, be directly shown to have
been supplied by the circumstances of the Colossians, but is nevertheless
to be recognized in an apologetic interest of opposition to the false
teachers, who by their doctrines concerning the angels (comp. ver. 10:
åpxñs K. &čovo.) must have broken up, in a spiritualistic sense, the aanpwua
της θεότητος.
Ver. 10. Kai šote év avto TET Amp.] [XXXII g. h.] still depending on ől:
and (since) ye are filled in Hin, i. e. and since the nampórns which ye pos-
sess rests on Him, the bodily Bearer of the divine tanpwua. [XXXII 1.]
The two are correlative: from the nanpwua rñs 0€ÓTntos, which dwells in the
exalted Christ, flows the renanpwrévov elval of the Christian, which has its
basis, therefore, in no other than in Christ, and in nothing else than just
in fellowship with Him. Filled with what? was self-evident to the con-
sciousness of the reader. It is the dynamic, charismatic alpwors, which
Christians, in virtue of their union of life with the Lord, whose Spirit and
Śwń are in them, have received, and continuously possess, out of the
metaphysical πλήρωμα dwelling in Christ, out of the πλήρωμα της θεότητος:-
The emphasis is not upon érté, but, as shown by the subsequent relative
definitions, upon év avtõ. If the tenanpwuévov filvai depends on Him, on noth-
1 Cyril, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, and
others, including Usteri, Steiger, Olshausen,
Huther, Bisping.
2 Augustine, Erasmus, Vatablus, Cornelius
a Lapide, Grotius, Schoettgen, Wolf, Nösselt,
Bleek, and others,
.
296
UN
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
ing and on no one but on Him, then everything else which men may teach
you, and with which they may wish to seize you and conduct you in leading
strings, is oύ κατά Χριστόν. With due attention to this emphasis of εν αυτώ, we
should neither have expected jueis (in opposition to de Wette; comp. Estiuis
and others: "et vos”) nor have explained łoté, in an imperative sense (in
opposition to Grotius, Bos, Heumann); which latter view is to be
rejected, because the entire connection is not paraenetic, and generally
because, whilst a πληρούσθε (Εph. ν. 18) or γίνεσθε πεπληρ. may, έστε πεπληρ.
cannot, logically be enjoined. There is, moreover (comp. also Hofmann),
nothing to be supplied with πεπληρ. (usually : της θεότητος, see Τheophylact
and Huther; de Wette, Bleek: Toữ tehnpóll. T. D£6t.), since the specifically
ontological sense of the purposely-chosen DɛÓTnToS would not even be con-
sistent with the supposed equalization of the Christians with Christ, and
this equalization does not exist at all, because Paul has not written kai
üveīs. In what their being filled consisted, was known to the readers
from their own experience, without further explanation ; their thoughts,
however, were to dwell upon the fact that, since their being full depended
on Christ, those labors of the false teachers were of quite another charac-
ter than Karà Xplotóv.-ÖS ŠOTIV Ý Kedah, K.7.2.] This, as also ver. 11, now
supplies confirmatory information regarding the fact that they have their
being filled not otherwise than just in Christ; namely, neither through
άρχαι κ. εξουσίαι, since Christ is the head of every αρχή And εξουσία και nor
yet through circumcision, since they have received in Christ the real
ethical circumcision.-- áons åpx. K. éšovo.] is not more precisely defined
as in Eph. iii. 10; hence, in virtue of the munus regium of the Lord quite
generally : every principality and power, but with the tacit apologetić refer-
ence: consequently also of the angelic powers (i. 16) belonging to these
categories and bearing these names, to whose mediation, to be attained
through Opnokeia, the false teachers direct you,--a reference which Hof-
mann, understanding the expressions in the sense of spiritual beings rul-
ing arbitrarily and in opposition to God especially over the Gentile world
(notwithstanding the fact that Christ is their Head !), groundlessly denies;
see ver. 18. If Christ be the Head of every åpxh and ěžovoia, 1. 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
Ő ÉOTLV (see the critical remarks), which is also preferred by Ewald, Lach-
mann has placed kai érte év avtỘ Ten2.np. 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 tò
1 Calovius has well said: “Beneficium
Christi, non nostrum officium;" comp. Wolf.
In complete opposition to the context, Gro-
tius brings out the sense: “illo contenti estote,"
which he supports by the remark: “quia quod
plenum est, nihil aliud desiderat." .
2 où8èv štartov exete autou, állà endnpwué-
vou kai üveis éote tñs DeÓTTITOS, Theophylact.
Inasmuch as he takes ö otw directly as
scilicet, utpote, and regards this usage as a
linguistic peculiarity of this Epistle. But
this rendering is not required either in i. 24
or in iii. 17; and respecting i. 27, see the criti-
cal remarks.
CHAP. II, 11.
297
Tańpwua T. dɛót. should be designated as ń keqahr) K.T.N., which applies
rather to the personal possessor of the tanpwua, to Christ.
Ver. 11. [On Vv. 11-15, see Note XXXIII. pages 336–338.] Respecting the
connection and its reference to the false teachers, so far as they “legem
evangelio miscebant” (Calvin), see on ver. 10. [XXXIII a.]—Ėv ♡] like
Év auto 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 TepleTp., which took place on them through
their conversion (comp. ver. 12).--kai] also circumcised were ye. The kai
is the simple also, which, however, does not introduce an element in-
cluded under TETT Ampwul. ŁOTE (Hofmann), but to the previous relative state-
ment (ös ŠOTIV K.7.2.) appends another; comp. ver. 12. Hofmann's objec-
tion, that the foregoing relative statement has indeed reference to the
readers, but is made without reference to them, is an empty subtlety, which
is connected with the erroneous rendering of ráons åpxñs k. Éžovo.--TEPLTOun
à xelpon.] is not supplementary and parenthetical (Hofmann), as if Paul
had written TepLTOPÍ dè à xelpon., but appends immediately to nepletu1,0.
its characteristic, whereby it is distinguished from what is elsewhere meant
by circumcision; hence the thought is: “in your union with Christ there
has also taken place a circumcision upon you (Gentiles), which is not like the
Jewish circumcision) the work of hands;" comp. Eph. ii. 11. On the word
á xelpon. itself (which is similar to á xelpoupyntos, 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. ĖV tñ ánekduoel K.7.2.]
[XXXIII 6.] This characteristic Treplet ÚŤOnte Tepit. á xelp. took place by
means of the putting off of the body of the flesh, which was accomplished in
your case (observe the passive connection), i.e. in that the body, whose
essence and nature are flesh, was taken off and put away from you by God.?
With reference to šv tñ åTTEKSÚCEL K.T.2., which is to be coupled not merely
with TEPLETUÞOnte (Hofmann), but with the entire specifically defined con-
ception of circumcision TEPLETH. Teplt. á xelpot., it is to be noticed : (1) that
the genitive tñs oápkos is the genitivus materiae, as in i. 22; (2) that the
oápe 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 al.); so that Paul (3) might have conveyed the idea of tò oõua
tñs oapk. also by to owula tñs ágaprías (Rom. vi. 6), but the description by
tñs sapkós was suggested to him by the thought of the circumcision (Rom.
ii. 28; Eph. ii. 11). (4) The significant and weighty expresion ÅTEKSVOEL
(the substantive used only here, the verb also in ver. 15, iii. 9; Josephus,
Antt. vi. 14. 2) is selected in contrast to the operation of the legal circum-
cision, which only wounded the owula T. capkós and removed à por-
tion of one member of it; whereas the spiritual circumcision, divinely
1
.' 1 See Michaelis in loc., and the expositors
on Rom. ii. 29; Schoettgen, Hor. I. p. 815.
2 Compare Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 171.
The same writer, however, now objects that
STTÉK VOLS cannot have passive significance.
But this it is not alleged to have: God is the
Tekdówv, i.e., He whio, as author of regenera-
tion, puts off from man the body of flesh.
298
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
performed, consisted in a complete parting and doing away with this body,
in so far as God, by means of this ethical circumcision, has taken off and
removed the sinful body from man (the two acts are expressed by the
double compound), like a garment which is drawn off and laid aside.
Ethically circumcised, i. e. translated by conversion from the estate of sin
into that of the Christian life of faith and righteousness (see ver. 12), con-
sequently born again as καινή κτίσις, ας & καινος άνθρωπος created after God
(Eph. iv. 24), man has no longer any oõua tñs capkós at all, because the
body which he has is rid of the sinful oáps as such, as regards its sinful
quality ; he is no longer εν τη σαρκί as previously, when lust ενηργείτο εν
Tois Méheolv (Rom. vii. 5; comp. ver. 23); he is no longer cápklvos, Tempa-
jévos ÚTÒ TÌv å papriav (Rom. vii. 14), but is dead for sin (Rom. vi. 11); he
has crucified the cápš (Gal. v. 24), and no longer walks katà oápka, but év
KALVÓTITC Tiveúpatos (Rom. vii. 6); by the law of the Holy Spirit he is freed
from the law of sin and death (Rom. viii. 2), šv avevmati (Rom. viii. 9),
dead with Christ (Gal. ii. 19; 2 Cor. v. 14; Col. iii. 3), and risen, so that
his members are in a Sikalooúvns TẬ OQ (Rom. vi. 13). This Christian
transformation is represented in its ideal aspect, which disregards the
empirical imperfection, according to which the oápf is still doubtless even
in the regenerate at variance with the riveõja (Gal. v. 17). Our dogma-
tists well describe regeneration as perfecta a parte Dei, but as imperfecta a
parte hominum recipientium. To take cõua in the sense of massa or aggre-
gate (Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, and others, including Steiger and Bähr 2),
is opposed as well to the context, in which the discourse turns upon cir-
cumcision and (ver. 12) upon burial and resurrection, as also to the linguis-
tic usage of the N. T. In classic authors it expresses the notion in ques-
tion in the physical sense, and in later writers may also denote generally
a whole consisting of parts (comp. Cicero, ad Att. ii. 1. 4). In opposition
to the erroneous assumption that owua must have a figurative meaning
here, as Julius Müller, v. d. Sünde, I. p. 459 f., still in the 5th ed., thinks,
see on Rom. vi. 6; comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 560 f.-ěv Tņ
TTEPLTOun Tov X.] by means of the circumcision of Christ, parallel to the pre-
vious év tñ árekSioel K.7.2., naming specifically (as different from that of
the Old Testament) the circumcision described previously according to its
nature. The genitive to Xplotoũ is to be rendered: the circumcision,
which is produced through Christ. The context requires this by the further
explanation of the thing itself in ver. 12. Comp. above, šv Q. But Christ
The epoch of this transformation is bap-
tism (see Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 439, ed. 2;
comp. Holtzmann, p. 178), by which, however,
the baptism of Christian children is by no
means assumed as the antitype of circum-
cision (Steiger, Philippi). Comp. on 1 Cor.
vii. 14; Acts xvi. 15.
2 Comp. also Philippi, Glaubensl. V. 2, p. 225,
who declares my explanation to be forced,
without proof, and contrary to the Scripture;
and Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 274, who under.
stands owna of the “toto quasi vitiositatis (T.
apkós) corpore," so that the putting away of
all immorality is denoted. Similarly Dal-
mer.
8 e.g. Plat. Tim. p. 32 C: TÒ TOÙ KÓD MOU owua
(comp. p. 31 B, Hipp. maj. p. 301 B).
4 Müller also holds that Paul here conceives
the old sinful nature as a body which, in re-
generation, the Christian puts off; and that
cápě is to be understood only of the earthly-
human life.
CHAP. II. 12.
299
is not conceived of as Himself the circumciser, in so far, namely, as by bap-
tism (Theophylact, Beza, and others), or by His Spirit (Bleek); He accom-
plishes the cleansing and sanctification of man (see on ver. 12); but as
the One through whom, in virtue of the effective living union that takes
place in conversion between man and Himself, this divine repitouń, in its
character specifically different from the Israelite circumcision, is practi-
cally brought about and rendered a reality, and in so far it is based on Christ
as its aitios (Theodoret). It is not, however, baptism itself (Hofmann, fol-
lowing older expositors) that is meant by the circumcision of Christ,
although the predicate à xelpon. would not be in opposition to this view,
but the spiritual transformation, that consecration of a holy state of life,
which takes place in baptism; see ver. 12: év tỘ Barriouatl. According
to Schneckenburger,' the ATÉKOVOLS T. OWM. T. Gapk. is meant of the death of
Christ, and also the repitou) TOŨ X. is meant to denote this death, so that
the latter is an explanation by way of application of the former, in oppo-
sition to the heretical recommendation of a bodily or mystical Tepitouh.
It may be decisively urged against this view, that after rīs sapkós there is
no avtoī, (comp. i. 22), which was absolutely necessary, if the reader was
to think of another subject than that of tepleTuń0nte ; further, that iſ
åkpoßvotią tñs capkòs úpūv, in ver. 13, stands in significant retrospective
reference to the åTÉKSVOLS T. obu. Tís oapkós; and that ovsTaQÉVTES K.T.2. in
ver. 12 is synchronous with replet uñonte K.7.2., and represents substantially
the same thing. Moreover, the description of the death of Christ as His
circumcision would be all the more inappropriate, since, in the case of
Christ, the actual circumcision was not absent. According to Holtzmann,
the entire clause: év T. &TEKS. TOW obu. T. capk., ÉV T. TEPIT. T. X., should be
deleted as an addition of the interpolator, because the expression oõua rîs
oapkbs has occurred at i. 22 in quite another-namely, an indifferent, gen-
uinely Pauline-reference. This reason is incorrect, because in i. 22 it is
not της σαρκός, but της σαρκός αυτού, and this αυτού nmalkes the great essen-
tial difference between the expression in that passage and that employed
in our present one.
Ver. 12 supplies further information as to how the repletuOnte, so far as
it has taken place by means of the circumcision of Christ, has been accom-
plished.--OVVTAPÉVTES K.7.2.] synchronous with TEPLETfl. (comp. on i. 20,
kipnuotoinoas): in that ye became buried with Him in baptism. The immer-
sion in baptism, in accordance with its similarity to burial, is-seeing that
baptism translates into the fellowship of the death of Christ (see on Rom.
vi. 3)—a burial along with Christ, Rom. vi. 4. Through that fellowship of
death man dies as to his sinful nature, so that the owua rīs sapkós (ver. 11)
ceases to live, and by means of the fellowship of burial is put off (ver. 11).
The subject who effects the joint burial is God, as in the whole context.
In the burial of Christ this joint burial of all that confess Him as respects
their sinful body was objectively completed; but it takes place, as respects
each individually and in subjective appropriation, by their baptism, prior
1 In the Theol. Jahrb. 1848, p. 286 ff.
300
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
to which the realization of that fellowship of burial was, on the part of
fit, which has accrued to the readers šv Xploto, and which in their case
must bring still more clearly to living consciousness their šv XPLOTĄ TTE-
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, Bähr, Huther, Ewald. Others have referred it to ¿v TỘ
Bart.;? but, in opposition to this may be urged, first, the very symmetry
the fact that, if tv ♡ refers to baptism, tv could not be the proper prepo-
sition, since év TỘ Bart., in accordance with the meaning of the word and
the figure of burial, refers to the dipping into (not overflowing, as Hofmann
thinks), whilst the spiritual awakening to new life, in which sense these
expositors take ovvnyépo., would have taken place through the emerging
again, so that we should expect & où, or, at all events, the non-local di oï;
and, thirdly, the fact that just as ouvTAPÉvtes has its own more precise defi-
nition by év tQ Bart., so also has ouvnyépo. through dià rñs TlotewS K.T...,
and therefore the text affords no occasion for taking up again for ournyépe.
the nmore precise definition of the previous point, viz. εν τω βαπτίσματι.
No, the first benefit received in Christ which Paul specifies, viz. tne moral
circumcision, accomplished by God through the joint burial in baptismal
immersion, has been fully handled in ver. 11 down to Bantiouati in ver.
12, and there now follows a second blessing received by the readers in
Christ (év ♡ kai) : they have been raised up also with Christ, which has
taken place through faith, etc. The previous joint burial was the necessary
moral preliminary condition of this joint awakening, since through it the
σώμα της σαρκός was put off. This συνηγέρθ. is to be understood in the
sense of the fellowship of the bodily resurrection of Christ, into which fellow-
ship man enters by faith in such a way that, in virtue of his union of life
and destiny with Christ brought about by means of faith, he knows his
own resurrection as having taken place in that of Christma benefit of
joint resurrection, which is, indeed, prior to the Parousia, an ideal posses-
sion, but through the Parousia becomes real (whether its realization be
attained by resurrection proper in the case of the dead, or by the change
that shall take place in those who are still alive). Usually ovvnyépo. is
taken in the ethical sense, as referring to the spiritual awakening, viz. from
moral death, so that Paul, after the negative aspect of the regeneration
(ver. 11; Bantiouati, 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 év ♡ kaí, corresponding with the
similar commencement of ver. 11, and referring to Christ, makes us expect
the mention of a new benefit, and not merely that of another aspect of the
previous one, otherwise there would have been no necessity for repeating
i Beza, Calixtus, Estius, Michaelis, Hein-
richs, and others, including Steiger, Böhmer,
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann,
Dalmer, Bleek.
CHAP. II. 12.
301 .
the év w icav; as also, that the inference of participation in the proper res-
urrection of Christ from death lies at the basis of the following toŨ éyeipav-
TOÇ avròvěk verpūv. Comp. on Eph. ii. 1, and ii. 5, 6. Chrysostom,
Theodoret, and Oecumenius have already correctly explained it of the
proper resurrection (kai yàpłynyépueda tî duvápel, ei kai un tñ évepyklę), but
Theophylact makes it include the ethical awakening also: holding that
it is to be explained katà dúo Tpóirovs, of the actual resurrection in spe, and
at the same time ÖTL TrvEVMATIKĀS TĪV vékpWOLV TÕV špywv tñs ápaprias átteppi-
ψαμεν.-διά της πίστεως κ.τ.λ.] The της πίστεως is described by Holtzmann,
p. 70, as syntactically clumsy and offensive; he regards it as an interpola-
tion borrowed from Eph. i. 19 f. Groundlessly; Paul is describing the sub-
jective mediun2, without which the joint awakening, though objectively
and historically accomplished in the resurrection of Christ, would not be
appropriated individually, the ante tlkov for this appropriation being want-
ing. The unbeliever has not the blessing of having risen with Christ,
because he stands apart from the fellowship of life with Christ, just as also
he has not the reconciliation, although the reconciliation of all has been
accomplished objectively through Christ's death. The genitive rñs évep-
yelas T. O. is the object of faith; so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Zeger, Grotius, Estius, Cor-
nelius a Lapide, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, and others, including Baumgar-
ten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, and Hofmann, in the 2d ed. of the Schriftbew.
II. 2, p. 174 f. But others, such as Luther (“through the faith which God
works”), Bengel, Flatt, Bähr, Steiger, de Wette, Böhmer, Huther, et al.,
take tñs évepy. T. O. as genitivus causae, for which, however, Eph. i. 19 is
not to be adduced (see in loc.), and in opposition to which it is decisive
that in all passages, where the genitive with riotis is not the believing
subject, it denotes the object, and that the description of God as the Being
who has raised up Christ from the dead stands most naturally and directly
in significant reference to the divine activity which procures, not the
faith, but the ovveyeipegoal, and which is therefore set forth in a very appro-
priate manner as the special object 2 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
TOū éyeipavtos avr. Ék verp. lies the certainty in the believer's consciousness:
since God has raised up Christ, His activity, which has produced this
principale and majus, will have included therein the consequens and minus,
my resurrection with Him. To the believer the two stand in such essential
connection, that in the operation of God which raised up Christ he
beholds, by virtue of his fellowship of life with Christ, the assurance of
his own resurrection having taken place along with that act; in the
former he has the pledge, the évé xupov (Theodoret) of the latter. Hof-
mann now again (as in the first ed. of the Schriftbeweis) explains tís évepy.
T. 6. as in apposition to rñs Tiotews, in such a way that Paul, “as if correct-
ing himself,” makes the former take the place of the latter, in order to
1 Mark xi. 22; Acts iii. 16; Rom. iii. 22; Gal.
ii. 16, 20, iii. 22; Eph. iii. 12; Phil. i. 27, iii. 9;
2 Thess. ii. 13; Jas. ii. 1; Rev. ii. 13, xiv. 12.
2 The efficacy of the divine power shown in
the resurrection of Christ is the guarantee of
the certainty of salvation.
• 302
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
guard against the danger of his readers conceiving to themselves faith as
a conduct on man's part making possible the participation in the resurrec-
tion of Christ by God, while in reality it is nothing else than the product
of the évépyeta of God. A quite gratuitously invented self-correction, with-
out precedent, and undiscoverable by the reader; although the thought,
if it had entered the mind of Paul, might have been indicated with the
utmost simplicity and ease (possibly by διά της πίστεως, μάλλον δε διά της
ÉVEPY. T. O.).
Ver. 13. Since that ovvnyépÔnte was the awaking to eternal life, Paul now
goes on to give special prominence to this great blessing, the making alive,
and that in reference to the Gentile-Christian position of the readers; and
to this he annexes, in ver. 14 f., an anti-Judaistic triumphant statement
reminding them of the cancelling of their debt-bond with the law.—TO
attach kai úpās ... gapicos úpūv still to ver. 12, and to make it depend on
šyelpavros (Steiger), is rendered impossible by the right explanation of tñs
TríoTews rñs évepyelas T. 0. in ver. 12,4 to say nothing of the abrupt position
in which συνεζωοπ. would thus appear. Kαι υμάς goes along with συνεζωοπ.,
so that újās is then repeated, the repetition being here occasioned by the
emphasis of the ovve(woT.: “You also, when ye were dead ... He made
you alive together with Him." The raí therefore is not the copula and, but,
in harmony with the ümās 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 ovvetwor. had been extended, as to all believ-
ers, so also to them. The correctness of this reference is shown by the
context as well through τη ακροβυστία της σαρκ. υμ., as through the pronoun
of the first person which is introduced after zapoáp. Extremely arbitrary
is the view of Olshausen, who thinks that in ver. 11 f. the readers are
addressed as representatives of the collective community, but by kaì ýpās in ver.
13 personally; while Baumgarten-Crusius, in complete antagonism to the
position of the words, joins kaí, not to únās, but to the verb: “also He has
called you to the new life that abideth."-To arrive at a proper understand-
ing of what follows we must observe: (1) That ouveSworoinoev is not to be
taken, any more than ouvnyéponte 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 twñs aiwv. not. p. 94 f.) as
i This applies also in opposition to Hofmann,
who takes ver. 13 likewise as a continuation
of the description of God given in toll éyeip.
aútov ek verp., and therein makes the apostle
guilty of a clumsy change of construction,
viz. that he intended to make ousworonoav-
tos follow, but, because this word would have
been “inconvenient" after vexpoüs övtas k.r.l.,
exchanged it for an independent sentence.
But ouswotolňoavtos would have been in-
serted without any inconvenience whatever:
on the contrary, it would only have expressed
the alleged idea conformably to the con-
Struction clearly and definitely. The compari-
son of i. 26 is unsuitable. Holtzmann follows
substantially the view of Hofmann, but re-
gards the change of structure as the result
of dictation. There is no change of structure
in the passage at all.
2 See Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 14; Borne-
mann in the Sächs. Stud. 1846, p. 66; Kühner,
II. 1, p. 568; Winer, p. 139 (E. T. 148).
CHAP. II. 13.
303
referring to the everlasting life to which God' raised up Christ, and which
He has thereby also provided for believers in virtue of their fellowship
with Christ (as an ideal possession now, but to be realized at the Parousia).
[XXXIII d.] See also Eph. ii. 5. The reconciliation (which de Wette
understands) is not the Sworoinois itself, as is plain from the compound
συνεζωοπ., but its precursor and medium. The συζωοποιείν stands in the
same relation to the ovveyelpelv as the nature of the act to its process; but
the reason why συνηγέρθ. here stands before the συζωοποιείν (it is different in
Eph. ii. 5) is, that the ouvNYÉpOnte was correlative with the ovvTAMÉVTES in ver.
12, hence that word is used first, while in Eph. l.c. the being dead preceded,
with which the ouğwortoceTv primarily corresponds. (2) Like ovve(WOT., SO
also vekpous is not to be taken in an ethical sense (so usually both here and
in Eph. ii. 1, as e.g. Calvin, who thinks that the alienatio a Deo is meant),
but, with Chrysostom and Theodoret, in its proper sense; the readers have
been—this is the conception-prior to their conversion to Christ a prey of
death. This is by no means to be understood, however, in the sense of
physical death (for that comes from Adan's sin, see on Rom. v. 12), but in
that of eternal death, to which they were liable through their sins, so that
they could not have become partakers of the eternal 5wń (comp. on Rom.
vii. 9 f.). See also on Eph. ii. 1. What is meant, therefore, is not a death
which would have only become their eternal death in the absence of the quick-
ening (Hofmann), but the eternal death itself, in which they already lay, and
out of which they would not have come without that deliverance, nay,
which on the contrary—and here we have a prolepsis of the thought-
would only have completed itself in the future aiúv.2 (3) This being dead
occurred in the state (év) of their sins (Tois indicates the sins which they had
committed) and of the uncircumcision of their flesh, 1. e. when as respects their
sinful materially-psychical nature they were still uncircumcised, and had not
yet put off by conversion their Gentile fleshly constitution. The åkpoßvoría
in itself they even now had as Gentile Christians, but according to ver. 11 it
was no longer åkpoß. Tīs sapkós 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 cāla tñs oapkós. The
ethical reference of the expression does not lie, therefore, in åkpoßvoria
itself, but in the characteristic tñs oapkòç úpūv (genitive of the subject); in
this uncircumcision they were as Gentiles prior to their conversion, but
were so no longer as Christians. Consequently åkpoß. is not to be taken
1 God is the subject of ovveſworoingev, not
Christ (Ewald and the older expositors); for
God has raised up Christ, and God is, accord
ing to the present context (it is different in
iii. 13), the forgiver of sins, and has brought
about the remission of sins through the
inaotplov of Christ (ver. 14). Hence also it
is not to be written o. aút (with the aspirate).
Just as God was obviously the acting subject
in trepieruń0nte, in ouvragévtes, and in ourn
gép0., so also Ho is introduced in the same
character emphatically in ver. 12, and re-
mains so till the close of ver. 15.
2 Quite correlative is the conception of the
swń as eternal life, which the righteous man
already has, although he has still in prospect
the glorious perfection of it in the future
aióv.
3 The év is not repeated bəfore tn åkpoß. be-
cause the two elements coupled by kai are
conceived together so as to form the single
idea of unconversion; Kühner, II. 1, p. 476.
This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann,
p. 156.
304
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
figuratively (Deut. x. 16; Ezek. xliv. 7; Jer. iv. 4) as a designation of vit-
iositas (so Theodoret, Beza, Grotius, Bähr, Bleek, and most expositors),
but in its proper sense, in which the readers as åkpóßvotou could not but
have understood it, and therein withal not as a symbol of uncleanness
(Huther), or of the alienatio a Deo (Calvin, comp. Hofmann), or the like;
on the contrary, the entire ethical stress lies on tñs apk. Üle. The idea of
original sin (Flacius and other dogmatic expositors, comp. Bengel : "exqui-
sita appellatio peccati origin.”) is likewise involved, and that according to
its N. T. meaning (Rom. vii. 14 ff.), not in åkpoßvot., but doubtless in rñs
oapk. úuāv. Nevertheless this tñs capk. údāv belongs only to tñ ákpoßvorią,
and not to Tois Tapanthuaol as well (Hofmann); comp. Eph. ii. 11. Other-
wise we should have, quite unnecessarily, two references heterogeneous
in sense for the genitive; besides, the notion of Trapártwua presupposes not
the cáps, but the Ego in its relation to the divine law as the subject; hence
also the expression rapárt. Tñs oapk. (or åjapría T. o.) does not occur, while
we find špya tñs capkós in Gal. v. 19. Holtzmann, p. 71, ascribes the words
kaì rõ å kpoß. 7. capkòs ún. to the interpolator's love for synonyms and tauto-
logical expressions, and wishes to condemn them also in consequence of
what in ver. 11 belongs to the latter (p. 155). But they are not at all tauto-
logical; and see on ver. 11.-xaploá uevos K.T..] [XXXIII e.] after having
granted to us, i. e. forgiven, etc. This blotting out of our whole debt of sin
was necessarily prior to the GUVEGWOT. újās oùv avtý. By the fact, namely,
that He remitted to us all the sins which we had committed (mtávra tà Tapatt.),
the causa efficiens of the being (eternally) dead was done away. Comp.
Chrysoston: Tà Tĩapa Touara, 8 TÌM ĐEcpÓTra #Toác. This waptoáuevos K.T.A.
is the appropriation of the reconciliation on the part of God, which believers
experienced when they believed and were baptized; the objective expiatory act
through the death of Christ had preceded, and is described in ver. 14.-
ipiv] applies to believers generally. This extension, embracing himself in
common with others, is prepared for by kai úpās, but could not have been
introduced, if xaploáu. K.7.2. had been conceived as synchronous with ove-
Swon, in which case Paul must logically have used 'liv (not ópiu), as the
reading is in B *** Vulg. Hilary. On zapíšeobal, comp. 2 Cor. ii. 10, xii.
13; Eph. iv. 32. On the subject-matter: 2 Cor. v. 19 ff.
Ver. 14. [XXXIII e.] The participle, which is by no means parallel and
synchronous with xapcsájevos in ver. 13, or one and the same with it (Hof-
mann), is to be resolved as: after that He had blotted out, etc. For it is the
historical divine reconciling act of the death of Christ that is meant, with
which xapioauevos K.T.2. cannot coincide, since that work of reconciliation
1 Not specially to Jewish Christians (Hof-
mann, who discovers here the same idea
that is expressed in Heb. ix. 15, and makes
a new period begin with xaploánevos), since
Paul does not express a contrast with the
Gentile-Christians, but very often passes
from the second person, which refers to the
readers, to, the first, in which he, in accord-
ance with the sense and connection, contin.
ues the discourse from the standpoint of the
common Christian consciousness. Comp. i.
12; Gal. iv. 5, 6; Eph. ii. 1, 4, et al.; Winer, p.
539 [E. T. 580]. Nor does the idea of the fig-
urative xelpóypasov, which Hofmann urges,
by any means require such a limitation-1
which there is nothing to indicate of the
ruir embracing himself and others..
CHAP. II. 14. -.
305
had first to be accomplished before the xapíšeobal K.7.2. could take place
through its appropriation to believers.—=žañeidelv] is to be left quite in its
proper signification, as in Acts iii. 19, Rev. iii. 5, vii. 17, xxi. 4, and
frequently in LXX. and Apocrypha, since the discourse has reference to
something written, the invalidating of which is represented in the sensuous
form of blotting out, even more forcibly than by Slaypápeuv (to score out; see
Ruhnken, ad Tim. p. 81). —TÒ kalnuāv xelpóypadov] the handwriting existing
against us. What is thus characterized is not the burden of debt lying
upon man, which is, as it were, his debt-schedule (Bleek), but the Mosaic
law. A Xelpóypapov, namely, is an obligatory document of debt, for
which the older Greek writers use συγγραφή οι γραμματείον Dem. 882. 7,
956. 2.3 And the law is the xelpóypapov confronting us, in so far as
men are bound to fulfill it perfectly, in order to avoid the threatened
penal curse; and consequently because no one renders this fulfillment,
it, like a bill of debt, proves them debtors (the creditor is God). We
are not to carry the figure further, in which case we should come to the
halting point in the comparison, that the man who is bound has not him-
self written the xelpóypapuv.4 Hofmann maintains that this element also,
namely, man's having written it with his own hand, is retained in the con-
ception of the figurative xelpóypapov. But the apostle himself precludes
this view by his having written, not: rò ruāv telpóyp. (which would mean:
the document of debt drawn by us), but; tò kaố' juāv xelpoyp.; which purposely
chosen expression does not affirm that we have ourselves written the docu-
ment, but it does affirm that it authenticates us as arrested for debt, and is
consequently against us. The words Tois doyuaoi appended (see below).
also preclude the conception of the debt-record being written by man's
own hand. Moreover, the law is to be understood as an integral whole,
and the various limitations of it, either to the ceremonial law (Calvin, Beza,
Schoettgen, and others), or to the moral law (Calovius), are altogether in
opposition to the connection (see above, távra tà Tapatt.), and un-Pauline.
1 Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 386 C, p. 501 B: ēšadel-
polcv ... Trádivéyypápolev, Ep. 7, p. 342 C:
TÒ Swypapoúpevov te kai é an ecopóuevov, Dem.
468. 1 in reference to a law: ei xpn ToûTOV
é šadeivai, Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 51: Lucian, Imag.
26; Eur. Iph. A. 1486. Comp. Valckenaer,
ad Act. iii. 19.
2 Tob. v. 3, ix. 5; Polyb. XXX. 8. 4; Dion.
Hal. v. 8; and the passages in Wetstein;
also the passages quoted from the Rabbins
in Schoettgen.
3 See also Hermann, Privatalterth. $ 49, 12.
4 The relation of obligation and indebtedness
in which man stands to the law (comp. Gal.
iii. 10) is quite sufficient to justify the con-
ception of the latter as the xelpóypadov, with
out seeking this specially in the promise of
the people, Ex. xxiv. 3 (Chrysostom, Oecu-
menius, Theophylact, and others; also Hof-
mann); which the reader could not guess
without some more precise indication.
Indeed, that promise of the people in Ex.
xxiv. 3 has by no means the mark of being
self-written, but contains only the self-obliga-
tion, and would not, therefore, any more than
the amen in Deut. xxvii. (which Castalio sug-
gests), suffice for the idea of the yelpóypadov,
if the latter had to contain the debtor's own
handwriting. In accordance with the apos-
tle's words (Tò kad nuwv xelpóyp., see above),
and with the type of his doctrine regarding
the impossibility of legal righteousness, his
readers could think only of the ypájena of
the law itself as that which proves man a
debtor; comp. Rom. ii. 27, 29, vii. 6; 2 Cor. iii.
6. Wieseler, on Gal. p. 258 (appealing to Luke
xvi. 5 ff.), Bleek, and Holtzmann, p. 64, also
erroneously press the point that the xelpóyp.
must necessarily be written or signed by the
debtor himself.
20
306
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
The explanation referring it to the conscience (Luther, Zwingli, Melanch-
thon, and others) is also at variance both with the word and with the con-
text. The conscience is the medium for the Icnowledge of the law as the
handwriting which testifies against us; without the activity of the con-
science, this relation, in which the law stands to us, would remain
unknown. Exception has been taken to its being explained of the
Mosaic law on account of the use of ſuāv, seeing that this law existed only
for the Jews. But without due ground; for it is in fact also the schedule
of debt against the Gentiles, in so far, namely, as the latter have the
Iknowledge of the δικαίωμα του θεού (Rom. i. 32), have in fact το έργον του νόμου
ypatTÒV ÉV Tais kapdíacs avtūv (Rom. ii. 15), and, consequently, fall likewise
under the condemning sentence of the law, though not directly (Rom. iii.
19, ii. 12), but indirectly, because they, having incurred through their own
fault a darkening of their minds (Rom. i. 20-23), transgress the “KOLVÒV
årávrwv åvopútwv vóLlov” (Dem. 639. 22). The earnest and graphic descrip-
tion of the abrogation of the condemning law in ver. 14 is dictated by an
apologetic motive, in opposition to the Judaism of the false teachers; hence
it is the more inappropriate to understand with Cornelius a Lapide and
others the covenant of God with Adam in Gen. ii. 16.
2Tois doymaolv] Respect-
ing soyua, command, especially of legal decrees, see on Eph. ii. 15; Wet-
:stein on Luke ii. 1; the dative is closely connected with xelpóypapov, and is
instrumental: what is written with the commands (therein given), so that
the Soyuara, which form the constituent elements of the law, are regarded
as that wherewith it is written. Thus the tenor of the contents of what is
written is indicated by the dative of the instrument (ablativus modi), just
as the external constituent elements of writing, e.g. ypápijaor in Gal. vi. 11,
and Tumols in Plat. Ep. 7, p. 343 A, are expressed by the same dative.
Observe the verbal nature of Xelpóypapov, and that the dative is joined to it,
as to tò yeypaupévov (comp. Plat. l. c. : Tà yeypaupéva TÚTOLS). This direct
combination of a verbal substantive with a dative of the instrument is
such an unquestionable and current phenomenon in classical Greek 3 that
the connection in question cannot in the least degree appear as harsh
(Winer, Buttmann), or even as unnatural (Hofmann); nor should it have
been regarded as something “welded on” by the interpolator (Holtzmann,
p. 74), who had desired thereby to give to Xelpóyp. its reference to the law.
The explanation given by many writers, which hits nearly the true sense:
the χειρόγραφον, consisting in the δόγμασι, is to be corrected grammatically in
accordance with what we have said above. It is in complete variance
with the arrangement of the words to join τοις δόγμ. to το καθ' ημών by
1 Luther's gloss: “Nothing is so hard against
us as our own conscience, whereby we are
convinced as by our own handwriting, when
the law reveals to us our sin.” Melanchthon:
“sententia in mente et corde tanquam scripta
lege et agnitione lapsus," in connection with
which he regards the conscience as “syllo-
gismus practicus ex lege ductus."
? As was already proposed by Chrysostom,
Oecumenius, Theophylact (comp. Iren. Haer.
v. 17. 3, and Tertullian).
3See Matthiae, II. P. 890; Heindorf, nd Plat.
Cratyl. p. 131, and especially Kühner, II. 1, p
374.
4 Calvin, Beza, Vitringa, Wolf, Michaelis,
Heinrichs, and others, comp. Luther.
CHAP. II. 14.
307
supplying an öv (Calovius). Bähr, Huther, and Dalmer (comp. de Wette)
regard it as a more precise definition of the entire tò ką nu. XelpóYP., so
that Paul explains what he means by the xelpóyp., and, at the same time,
how it comes to be a debt-document testifying against us. So also Winer,
p. 206 [E. T. 220]. This, however, would have been expressed by tÒ Tois
Sóypaoi kaỐ nuūv xelpóyp., or in some other way corresponding gramma-
tically with the sense assumed. Ewald joins rois dóyu. as appropriating
dative (see Bernhardy, p. 88 f.) to xelpóyp.: our bond of obligation to the
statutes. But if Xelpóyp. were our bond of obligation (subjectively), the
expression tò kal nuwv Xelp. would be inappropriate, and Paul would
have said merely tò huñv xelp. T. Sóyu. It is incorrect as to sense, though
not linguistically erroneous, to connect tois sóypl. with fancipaç; in which
case it is explained to mean (as by Harless on Eph. ii. 15) that the abro-
gation of the law had taken place either as regards its statutes (Steiger); or
by the evangelical doctrines of faith (the Greek expositors, Estius, Grotius,
Hammond, Bengel, and others); or nova praecepta stabiliendo (Fritzsche,
Diss. in 2 Cor. II. p. 168 f.). In opposition to these views, see Eph. ii. 15.
Erasmus, Storr, Flatt, Olshausen, Schenkel, Bleek, and Hofmann have
attached it to the following relative clause, in opposition to the simple
order of the words, without any certain precedent in the N. T. (with regard
to Acts i. 2, Rom. xvi. 27, see on those passages), and thereby giving an
emphasis to the rois dóyu. which is not warranted (for the law as such con-
tains, in fact, nothing else than doyuara).—ô ņu nevavriov ňuiv] an emphatic
repetition-bringing into more marked prominence the hostile relation-
of the thought already expressed by ka@ ruāv, with the view of counter-
acting the legalistic efforts of the false teachers. Bengel's distinction, that
there is here expressed ipsa pugna, and by ka@juwv, status belli, is arbitrary
and artificial. It means simply: which was against us, not: secretly against
us, as Beza and others, including Böhmer, interpret the word, which Paul
uses only in this place, but which is generally employed in Greek writers,
in the Apocrypha and LXX., and in the N. T. again in Heb. x. 27. The
relative attaches itself to the entire tò kať nu. Xelpóyp. Tois dóyu.-kaì avrò
ñpkev K.7.2.7 Observe not only the emphatic change of structure (see on i.
6) which passes from the participle, not from the relative (Hofmann), over
to the further act connected with the former in the finite tense, but also
(comp. on i. 16) the perfect (Thuc. viii. 100; Dem. 786. 4): and itself (the
bill of debt) he has taken out of the way, whereby the abrogation now stands
completed. A graphically illustrative representation : the bill of debt was
blotted out, and it has itself been carried away and is no longer in ils place;
ñpkev avtò. ÉK TOŰ MÉGov un á eis Étrà xópas, Oecumenius. avro denotes the
1 So also Wieseler in Rosenmüller's Rep.
II. p. 135 ff. : TÒ xelpoyp. TÒ Tois dóyu. Kad
ημών όν.
2 Comp. Wieseler on Gal. p. 258 :“with refer-
ence to the statutes." He takes Paul's mean
ing to be, "our testimony with our own hand,
that we have transgressed the statutes of the
law of Moses."
3So also Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, III.
1, p. 110. He considers as the yelpóypadov pot
the Mosaic law itself, but the bill of debt
which the broken law has drawn up against us.
The very parallel in Eph. ii. 15 is decisive
against this view.
308
;
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS..
handuriting itself, mcîterialiter, in contrast to the just mentioned blotting out
of its contents. For He has nailed it, etc.; see the sequel. Hofmann
imports the idea: it in this (hostile) quality; as if, namely, it ran kaì TOLOūTO
öv (Xen. Anab. vi. 5. 13; Philem. 9).—The ếK TOŨ Mégov is our: “out of the
way,' said of obstructions which are removed. The opposite : ÉV MÉGW εival,
to be in the way, Dem. 682. 1; Aesch. Suppl. 735; Dorv. ad Charit. vii. 3, p.
601. Thus the law stood in the way of reconciliation to God, of the xapi-
Secdal K.7.2. in ver. 13.-apoonacoas K.7.2.] apoonhoov only found here in the
N. T.2 Since the law which condemned man lost its punitive force through
the death of Christ on the cross, inasmuch as Christ through this death
suffered the curse of the law for men (Gal. iii. 13), and became the end of
the law (Rom. x. 4), at the same time that Christ was nailed as ihaothploza
to the cross, the law was nailed to it also, and thus it ceased to be tv ułow.
Observe, moreover, the logical relation of the aorist participle to the perfect
npkev. The latter is the state of the matter, which has emerged and exists
after God has nailed, etc. The k. aútò ñpkev ÉK pécou takes place since that
nailing. In the strong expression ripoonhboas, purposely chosen and placed
foremost, there is involved an antinomistic triumph, which makes the dis-
arming of the law very palpably apparent. Chrysostom has aptly
observed on the whole passage: ovdajo ū oŰTWS Meyahodávws 3 D O by Faro.
“Οράς σπουδών του αφανισθήναι το χειρόγραφον όσην εποιήσατο; οίον πάντες ήμεν
υφ' αμαρτίας κ. κόλασιν αυτός κολασθείς έλυσε και την αμαρτίαν και την κόλασιν.
Nevertheless, ipoonhwoas neither figuratively depicts the tearing in pieces
of the telpóyp. (Chrysostom, Oecuménius, Theophylact), nor is there
any allusion to an alleged custom of publicly placarding antiquated
laws (Grotius). According to Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 1,
p. 370 f.), a public placarding with a view to observance is meant; the
requirement of Israelitish legal obligation has become changed into the
requirement of faith in the Crucified One which may be read on the cross,
and this transformation is also the pardon of transgressions of the law.
This is a fanciful pushing further of the apostolic figure, the point of which
is merely the blotting out and taking away of the law, as the debt-docu-
ment hostile to us, by the death of the cross. The entire representation
which is presented in this sensuous concrete form, and which is not to be
expanded into the fanciful figure of transformation which we have just
referred to, is intended, in fact, to illustrate merely the forgiveness of sins
introduced by xapigájevoç K.7.. in ver. 13, and nothing more. Comp. 1
Pet. ii. 24. It is to be observed, at the same time, that the đšaheidelv ånd
the aipeiv ÉK T. Mégov do not represent two acts substantially different, but
the same thing, the perfect accomplishment of which is explained by way
of climax with particularizing vividness.
Ver. 15.3 In this doing away of the law was involved the victory and
triumph of God over the devilish powers, since the strength of the latter,
1 Comp. Plat. Eryx. p. 401 E; Xen. Anab. i.
5. 14; de praefect. 3. 10, and the passages in
Kypke, II. p. 323.
2 See, however, Plat. Phaed. p. 83 D (with
Tpós); Lucian, Prom. 2, Dial. D. I. (rø Kav.
káow tpoondwuévos); Galen. IV. p. 45, 9: TŲ
oravp, 3 Macc. iv. 9.
3 Holtzmann, p. 156 f., rejects this verse
CHAP. II. 15.
309
antagonistic to God, is in sin, and the strength of sin is in the law (1 Cor.
xv. 56); with the law, therefore, the power of the devil stands or falls.—If
ÅTekdvo. ran parallel, as the majority suppose, with a poonhboas, there must
have been a kaí inserted before édecyját, as in ver. 14 before the finite verb,
because otherwise no connection would be established. Hence a full stop
(Beza) must be placed before ÅTekovo., or at least a colon (Elzevir, Bleek);
and without any connecting particle the significant verb heads all the
more forcibly the description of this final result expressed with triumphant
fullness: Having stripped the lordships and powers, he has made a show of them
boldly, holding triumph over them in the same. Observe the symmetrical
emphatic prefixing of ảnekdvo., decyját., and Oplapß. The subject is still
always God, not Christ, as Baur and Ewald hold, following Augustine,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Erasmus, Grotius, Calovius, and many others;
hence the reading ảnekd. TÌv oápka in F G (which omit 7. ápx k. T. ÉGovo.)
Syr. Goth. Hil. Aug. was an erroneous gloss; and at the close, not aútô
(Syr. Vulg. It. Theodoret, Luther, Melanchthon, Elzevir, Griesbach, and
Scholz), instead of which G has šavrõ, but avto should be written; see
· Wolf in loc. The figurative énekovo., [XXXIII f.] which illustrates the
deprivation of power that has taken place through the divine work of recon-
ciliation, represents the ápxàs kai éžovo. as having been clothed in armour
(comp. Rom. xiii. 12; Eph. vi. 11; 1 Thess. V. 8), which God as their con-
queror stripped off and took from them; Vulg. : erspolians. Moreover,
we might expect, in accordance with the common usage of the middle,
instead of ánekovo á Mevos, which is elsewhere used intransitively (comp. iii. 9),
the active årekovoas (comp. Matt. xxvii. 28, 31; Luke x. 30); yet even in
Plat. Rep. p. 612 A, the (right) reading ảnedvokļeda is to be taken in the
sense of nudavinus; and Xenophon uses the perfect árodéSukeV, which is
likewise intransitive elsewhere (see Kühner, I. p. 803), actively, see Anab.
l.c. : 702200s ñon áTOSÉdukeV, multos veste spoliavit ; comp. Dio Cass. xlv. 47.
Further, the middle, as indicating the victorious self-interest of the action
(sibi exspoliavit), is here selected even with nicety, and by no means con-
veys (as Hofimann, in order to refute this explanation, erroneously lays to
its charge) the idea : in order to appropriate to Himself this armor. The
disarming in itself, and not the possession of the enemy's weapons, is the
interest of the victor. Lastly, the whole connection does not admit of any
intransitive interpretation, such as Hofmann, in his Schriftbew. I. p. 350 f.
(and substantially also in his Heil. Schr. in loc.), has attempted, making
because it interrupts the transition of thought
to ver. 16 (which is not the case); because
delymatisciv is un-Pauline (but in what sense
is it un-Pauline? it is in any sense a very rare
word); because Oplaußevel is used here other
wise 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. S, ii. 15 f. (passages
which touch our present one either not at all,
or at the most very indirectly).
Through this erroneous definition of the
subject it was possible to discover in our
passage the descent into hell (Anselm and
others).
? Comp. on éxdúelv and árodúelv, used from
Homer's time in the sense of spoliare, Dem.
763. 28, 1259. 11; Hesiod, Scut. 447; Xen. Anab.
V. 8. 23; 2 Macc. viii. 27; and on the subject-
matter, Matt. xii. 19; Luke xi. 22.
3 See on the contrary generally, Krüger, &
52. 10. 1; Kühner, II. 1, p. 93 f.
310
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
the sense: God has laid aside from Himself the powers ruling in the Gentile
world-which were round about Him like a veil concealing Him from the
Gentiles-by manifesting Himself in unveiled clearness. Something such
as this, which is held to amount to the meaning that God has put an end
to the ignorance of the Gentile world and revealed Himself to it, Paul
must necessarily have said; no reader could unravel it from so strange a
mode of veiling the conception, the more especially seeing that there is no
mention at all of the victorious word of Christ converting the Gentiles, as
Hofmann thinks, but on the contrary of what God has effected in refer-
ence to the apxai and éçovoial 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
áprai and éfovolal are two categories of evil angels (comp. Eph. vi. 12), corres-
ponding to two classes of good angels similarly named (comp. ver. 10), is
taught by the context, which has nothing to do with mediating beings
intervening between God and the world (Sabatier), or even with human
rulers. Ritschl, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 522, understands
the angels of the law-giving (comp. on i. 20), of whom God has divested Him-
self (middle), i. e. from whose environment He has withdrawn Himself. Even
apart from the singular expression ảnekdvoáp. in this sense, this explana-
tion is inappropriate, because the apxai and éšovoiat 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 vópos Okov, 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 τας αρχάς κ. τάς εξουσίας 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, put to shame, and triumphed over, through the
abrogation of men's legal debt-bond that took place by means of the aton-
ing death. The emphatic and triumphant prominence given to this state-
ment was, doubtless, specially occasioned by those speculations regarding
the power of demons, with which the false teachers were encroaching on
the work of Christ.-decyparišelv, preserved only here and in Matt. i. 19,2
denotes, in virtue of its connection with the conception of triumph, the
making a show for the purpose of humiliation and disgrace (comp. Chry-
sostom), not in order to exhibit the weakness of the conquered (Theodoret,
Böhmer), but simply their accomplished subjugation; comp. Nah. iii. 6 :
Broopai te eis tapádelyja.—Ėv Tapproiq] is usually rendered publicly, before the
1 In which sense also Grotius explained 2 Comp. however, mapadelymatíselv, espe-
it, though he takes áreksvoáll. rightly ascially frequent in Polybius; see Schweig-
exarmatos. See, in opposition to him, Calo- häuser, Lex. p. 429.
vius. Hofmann's explanation is also followed 8 Augustine, cp. 69 : “exemplavit;" Hilary,
by Holtzmann, p. 222; it is an unfortunate de trin. 9: “ostentui esse fecit.''
attempt at rationalizing.
CHAP. II. 16.
311
eyes of all, consequently as equivalent to pavepās in John vii. 10 (the oppo-
site : ÉV KPUTTQ, John vii. 4; Matt. vi. 4; Rom. ii. 28); but this the word
does not mean (see on John vii. 4); moreover, the verb already implies
this idea ;' and the usage of Paul elsewhere warrants only the rendering:
boldly, freely and frankly.? The objection that this sense is not appropri-
ate to the action of God (Hofmann), overlooks the fact that God is here
represented just as a human triumpher, who freely and boldly, with
remorseless disposal of the spoils acquired by victory, subjects the con-
quered to ignominious exhibition.3- θριαμβεύσας αυτ. έν αυτο] synchronous
with decyl. : while He triumphed over them. Respecting Oplapſevelv tiva,
to triumph over some one, see on 2 Cor. ii. 14. Comp. the passive Opraußeveolai,
to be led in triumph, Plut. Coriol. 35. avtoúç refers katà oúveolv to the devils
individually, who are conceived as masculine (as Saiuoves, Koouokpáropes, Eph.
vi. 12), see generally Winer, p. 138 [E. T. 146]; and tv aúró is referred
either to the cross (hence, also, the readings ¿v Tơ Fuhw or otavpõ) or to
Christ. The former reference is maintained by the majority of the Fathers
(Theophylact: Év Tŷ otavpỘ ToùG daimovas ÁTTNLÉVous deigas), Beza, Calvin,
Grotius, and many others, including Böhmer, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald,
Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 432, ed. 2; and the latter, by Erasmus, Luther,
Melanchthon, Wolf, Estius, Bengel, and many others, including Flatt,
Bähr, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, Bleek, Hofmann,
Rich. Schmidt. The reference to Christ is erroneous, because Christ is
not mentioned at all in ver. 14, and God pervades as subject the entire
discourse from ver. 11 onwards. We must hold, therefore, by the refer-
ence to tÕ otavpo, so that év auto once more places the cross significantly
before our eyes, just as it stood emphatically at the close of the previous
sentence. At the cross God celebrated His triumph, inasmuch as through
the death of Christ on the cross obliterating and removing out of the way
the debt-bill of the law He completed the work of redemption, by which
the devil and his powers were deprived of their strength, which rested on
the law and its debt-bond. The ascension is not to be here included.
Ver. 16. [On vv. 16–19, see Note XXXIV. pages 338-340.] Ouv] since ye,
according to vv. 11–15, are raised to a far higher platform than that of
such a legal system. [XXXIV a.]—IpivéTW év-Bpwoel] [XXXIV 6.] No
one is to form a judgment (whether ye are acting allowably or unallowa-
1 Hence Hofmann joins it with Oplaußeúoas,
in which, however, the idea of publicity is
obviously already contained. Hofmann, in-
deed, assumes a reference of contrast to the
invisible triumphs, which God has ever been
celebrating over those powers. But thus the
idea of Oplaußcúelv is extended to an unwar-
ranted amplitude of metaphorical meaning,
while, nevertheless, the entire anthropopathic
imagory of the passage requires the strict
conception of the public Opianßos. Moreover,
tho pretended contrast is altogether foreign
to the context.
2 Comp. Eph. vi. 19; Phil, i. 20. Hilary:
“cum fiducia ;" Vulgate: "confidenter palam."
3 It is an inconsiderato fancy of Hofmann
to say, by way of controverting our expla-
nation : Who would be surprised, that the
triumpher should make a show of the con-
quered, "without previously asking their per-
mission"9 As if such a thought, no doubt
very silly for the victor, were necessarily
the contrast to the frank daring action, with
which a general, crowned with victory, is in
a position to exhibit his captives without any
scruple, without sparing or hesitation! He
has the εξουσία for the δειγματίζειν, and uses
it év tappnoia.
312
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
ably, rightly or wrongly) concerning you in the point of eating (év, comp.
Rom. ii. 1, xiv. 22 ; 1 Pet. ii. 12). There is hereby asserted at the same
time their independence of such judgments, to which they have not to
yield (comp. Eph. v. 6). With Paul, Bpwo:s is always actio edendi, and is
thus distinct from BpWua, cibus (Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Cor. viii. 4; 2 Cor. ix. 10;
also Heb. xii. 16), although it is also current in the sense of Bpõua with
John (iv. 32, vi. 27, 55), and with profane authors.' This we remark in
opposition to Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 200. The case is the same with
TTools (Rom. xiv. 17) and Tróua (1 Cor. x. 4; Heb. ix. 10). ——V T608L] Since
the Mosaic law contained prohibitions of meats (Lev. vii. 10 ff), but not
also general prohibitions of drinks, it is to be assumed that the false
teachers in their ascetic strictness (ver 23) had extended the prohibition
of the use of wine as given for the Nazarites (Num. vi. 3), and for the
period of priestly service (Lev. x. 9), to the Christians as such as dyiovs).
Comp. also Rom. xiv. 17, 21. De Wette arbitrarily asserts that it was
added doubtless in consideration of this, as well as of the Pharisaic rules
as to drinks, Matt. xxiii. 24, and of the prohibition of wine offered to idols
(oùv does not point to such things), but still mainly on account of the simi-
larity of sound (Rom. xiv. 17; Heb. ix. 10, and Bleek in loc.).—év Mépet éoptñS
8.7.2.] év jépel, with the genitive, designates the category, as very frequently
also in classical authors. The three elements: festival, new moon, and
Sabbath, are placed side by side as a further classis rerum ; in the point (ěv)
of this category also no judgment is to be passed upon the readers (if,
namely, they do not join in observing such days). The elements are
arranged, according as the days occur, either at longer unequal intervals
in the year (éoprñs) or monthly (vovunv.), or weekly (oaßßár.). But they are
three, co-ordinated; there would be only one thing with three connected
elements, if kai were used instead of ń in the two latter places where it
occurs. The three are given in inverted order in 1 Chron. xxiii. 31; 2
Chron. ii. 4, xxxi. 3. On the subject-matter, comp. Gal. iy. 10. Respecting
the Jewish celebration of the new moon, see Keil, Archäol, I. $ 78;
Ewald, Alterth. p. 470 f.'; and on oáßßata as equivalent to oáßßatov, comp.
Matt. xii. 1, xxviii. 1; Luke iv. 16, et al. Év pépɛl has been erroneously
understood by others in the sense of a partial celebration (Chrysostom:
εξευτελίζει λέγων" ή εν μέρει εορτής ου γαρ δή πάντα κατείχον τα πρότερα,
Theodoret: they could not have kept all the feasts, on account of the long
journey to Jerusalem; comp. Dalmer), or : vicibus festorum (Melanchthon,
Zanchius), or, that the participation in the festival, the taking part in it is
expressed (Otto, dekalog. Unters. p. 9 ff.), or that it denotes the segregatio,
“nam qui dierum faciunt discrimen, quasi unum ab alio dividunt”
(Calvin). Many, moreover inaccurately, hold that év képet means merely :
in respect to (Beza, Wolf, and most expositors, including Bähr, Huther,
and de Wette); in 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3, it also denotes the category. Comp.
Aelian. V. H. viii. 3 : kpívovTES ĒKAOTOV Év TV pépel povov.
1 Hom. Il. xix. 210, Od. i. 191, x. 176, et al.;
Plat. Legg. vi. p. 783 C; Hesiod, Scut. 396.
2 Plat. Theaet. p. 155 E, Rep. p. 424 D; Dem..
638. 5, 668. 24; comp. on 2 Cor. iii. 10, and see
Wyttenbach, ad Plut. I. p. 65.
CHAP. :
313
Ver. 17.1 An epexegetical relative sentence, assigning the ground for
what has just been said. [XXXIV c.]—ő, which (see the critical remarks),
is not to be arbitrarily referred merely to the observance of feasts and
days (Flatt and Hofmann), but to the things of the law mentioned in ver.
16 generally, all of which it' embraces.--oktá] not an outline (oklaypapia,
ollaypáonua), as in the case of painters, who "non exprimunt primo ductu
imaginem vivis coloribus et εikovikūs, sed rudes et obscuras lineas primum
ex carbone ducunt," Calvin (so also Clericus, Huther, Baumgarten-
Crusius, and others), which oklá does not mean even in Heb. viii. 5, x. 1,
and which is forbidden by the contrast of tò côua, since it would rather be
the perfect picture that would be put in opposition to the outline. It
means nothing else than shadow. Paul is illustrating, namely, the relation
of the legal ordinances, such as are adduced in ver. 16, to that which is future,
i. e. to those relations of the Messianic Icingdom, which are to be manifested
in the aiùv jékwv (neither åyaðūv from Heb. x. 1, nor anything else, is to
be supplied with tūv iełłóvtwv), and in doing so he follows the figurative
conception, that the uékhovta, which therefore, locally considered, are in
front, have cast their shadow behind, which shadow is the Mosaic ritual
constitution,-a conception which admirably accords with the typical
character of the latter (Heb. viii. 5, x. 1), of which the constitution of the
Messianic kingdom is the antitype. It is to be noted further: (1) The
emphasis of confirmation lies not on tūv uɛahóvrwv (Beza), but on cklá, in
contrast to tò Gõua. If, namely, the things in question are only the shadow
of the Messianic, and do not belong to the reality thereof, they are in
accordance with this relatively non-essential, because merely typical
nature of theirs-not of such a kind that salvation may be made depend-
ent on their observance or non-observance, and adjudged or withheld
accordingly. (2) The passage is not to be explained as if hv stood in the
place of tori, so that tà pékhovra would denote the Christian relations
already then existing, the kalvi daoñkn, the Christian plan of salvation, the
Christian life, etc. (so usually since Chrysostom); but, on the contrary,
that which is spoken of is shadow, not, indeed, as divinely appointed in
the law (Hofmann)—for of this aspect of the elements in question the text
contains nothing but in so far as Paul sees it in its actual condition still at
that time present. The ré lovía have not yet been manifested at all, and
belong altogether (not merely as regards their completion, as de Wette
thinks, comp. also Hofmann) to the aiùv jézawv, which will begin with
the coming again of Christ to set up His kingdom—a coming, however,
which was expected as very near at hand. The uérkovra could only be
viewed as having already set in either in whole or in part, if nv and not
1 Holtzmann, without assigning his reasons, difficulty of ver. 18 (which Holtzmann cor-
regards the entire verse as an "extract from siders utterly unintelligible) and ver. 22 f, as
the Epistle to the Hebrews" (Heb. ix. 6, 9 f., well as the alleged un-Pauline character of
25, X. 1, 11, viii. 5); he thinks that the whole some expressions in ver. 19, does not furpish
polemic of vv. 16-23 was intended to introduce a sufficient basis for such an opinion. Comp.
the more developed features of later heresyon vv. 18, 19, 22, 23.
into the picture of the apostolic age. But the
314
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
torí 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; I Tim. i. 16), or if értí were meant to be said from the stand-
point of the divine arrangement of those things (Hofmann), or if this
present tense expressed the logical present merely by way of enabling the
mind to picture them (Rom. v. 14), which, however, is inadmissible here,
since the elements indicated by rkiá 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 characteristic quality in which the
things concerned are meant to be presented by the figurative oklá, is deter-
mined solely by the contrast of tò cõua, namely, as unsubstantiality in a
Messianic aspect: shadow of the future, standing in relation to it, there-
fore doubtless as typically presignificant, but destitute and void of its
reality. The reference to transitor'iness (Spencer, de legit. rit. p. 214 f.,
Baumgarten-Crusius, and others) is purely imported.—TÒ dè sõja] scil. Tūv
uedóvrwv, but the body of the future. Inasmuch as the legal state of
things in ver. 16 stands to the future Messianic state in no other relation
than that of the shadow to the living body itself, which casts the shadow,
Paul thus, remaining faithful to his figure, designates as the body of the
future that which is real and essential in it, which, according to the con-
text, can be nothing else than just the ué Zaovia themselves, their concrete
reality as contrasted with the shadowy form which preceded them.
Accordingly, he might have conveyed the idea of the verse, but without
its figurative garb, in this way: Ő ÉOTI TÚTOS TÜV ME2hóvrwv, avrà dề tà péalovta
Xplotoū.—Xplotoū] scil. tori, belongs to Christ. The jékhovra, namely, viewed
under the figurative aspect of the côua which casts the shadow referred.
to, must stand in the same relation to Christ, as the body stands in to the
Head (ver. 19); as the body now adumbrating itself, they must belong to
Christ the Head of the body, in so far, namely, as He is Lord and ruler of
all the relations of the future Messianic constitution, i, e. of the Messianic
kingdom, of the Baothɛía Toũ Xplotow (i. 13; Eph. v. 5). Whosoever, there-
fore, holds to the shadow of the future, to the things of the law (as the false
teachers do and require), and does not strive after the pékhovta themselves,
after the body which has cast that shadow, does not hold to Christ, to whom
as Head the côja (rñs orclās) belongs as His own. This view, which is far
removed from “distorting" the thought (as Hofmann objects), is required
by the natural and obvious correlation of the conception of the body and
its head, as also by ver. 19. There is much inaccuracy and irrelevancy in
the views of expositors, because they have not taken tá mé dovra in the
sense, or not purely in the sense, of the relations of the aliou utrkwv, but in
that of the then existing Christian relations, which in fact still belonged to
the aiùv oúros, and because, in connection therewith, they do not take up
with clearness and precision the contextually necessary relation of the
1
On of
1 The explanation of Hilgenfeld, 1.873, p.
199: “the mere owua Xplotoù, a purely somatic
Christianity,” is at variance with the anti-
thetical correlation of oriá and owua, as well
as with the apostle's cherished conception of
the owna of Christ, which is contained imme-
diately in ver. 19.
CHAP. II. 18.
315
genitive XplotoŨ as denoting Him, whose the oõua is, but resolve it into
what they please, as e.g. Grotius (so also Bleek): “ad Christum pertinet,
ab eo solo petenda est;” Huther: “the substance itself, to which those
shadowy figures point, has appeared in Christ;" Ewald: “so far as there
is anything really solid, essential, and eternal in the 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 :v Xplotý
were used.)
Ver. 18.2 Warning against a further danger, with which they were
threatened on the part of these false teachers.--undɛís] not different from
uutis in ver. 16, as if the latter emphasized the verb and the former the
subject (Hofmann). This would be correct, if in ver. 16 it were på oův
KPLVÉTW Tis újās. Comp. on pýtis, ver. 8, and on undeis, ver. 4. Moreover,
the words cannot be regarded (with Holtzmann) as a duplicate proceeding
from the interpolator, especially as they contain a new warning, and in
such a peculiar form (kataßpaß.).—Kataßpaßsvétw] [XXXIV d.] Let no one
deprive you of the prize. Kataßpaßɛvelv, which is not a Cilician word (Je-
rome; see, on the contrary, Eustath. ad Il. i. 93. 33 : kataßpaßɛvel autòv, ös
Qaolu oi rahaloi), is only now preserved among ancient Greek authors
in Dem. C. Mid. 544, ult. : Énlotápeda Etpátwva ÚTÒ Meldiov kataßpaßɛvõévta
kai tapà Távta Tà Sikala åteptwfévra, 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 Bpaßɛúc.
Midias had bribed the judges. The ratá intimates that the prize was due
to the person concerned, although it has been in a hostile spirit (not
merely unrighteously, which would be mapaßpaſevelv, Plut. Mor. p. 535 C;
Polyb. xxiv. 1. 12) withdrawn from him and adjudged to another. The
right view substantially, though not recognizing the distinction from
Trapaßpaß., is taken by Chrysostom (Ttapaßpaßɛvañval yáp ÉOTIV, őtav nap
ÉTÉPWW LÈV Ý viin, tap ÉtépWv dè tò ßpaßɛlov) and Theophylact, also Suidas:
το άλλου αγωνιζομένου άλλον στεφανούσθαι λέγει ο απόστολος καταβραβεύεσθαι.4
The conception is : (1) To the readers as true believers belongs the Messi-
anic prize of victory,—this is the assumption upon which the expression
is based; (2) The false teachers desire to deprive them of the prize of
victory and to give it to others, namely, to themselves and their adherents,
X
10n to owua in contrast to oklá, comp. Jose-
phus, Bell. ii. 2.5: okiày airncóuevos Baordelas,
his *ptrage eauTŷ TÒ Côja. Philo, de conf.
ling. p. 434: Tà lèv öntà Twv xpmouwv oriás
Tiyas woavei owuátwv elvai tas séubalvoué-
νας δυνάμεις τα υφεστωτα αληθεία πράγματα.
Lucian, Hermot. 29. Observe, however, that
owua invariably retains its strict literal sense
of body, as a sensuous expression for the sub-
stantially real, in contrast to the unsubstan-
tial shadow of it.
2 See upon ver. 18, Reiche, Comm. Crit. p.
277 ff.
With which Theodoret confounds it (asiaws
BpaBevelv); he makes it the unrighteous
awarding of the prize of victory: επειδή τοίνυν
και οι τάς νομικές παρατηρήσεις τώ ευαγγελία
παραμιγνύντες από των κρειττόνων αυτούς επί
τα ελάττω μετέφερον, είκότως έφη" μηδείς υμάς
καταβραβευέτω.
4 Comp. also Zonaras, ad Concil. Laod. can.
35, p. 351: Tò un tòv vexÝCavta åčioûv toù Bpa-
βείου, αλλ' ετέρω διδόναι αυτό αδικουμένου του
vikńoavtos.
316
THE EPÍSTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
and that through their service of angels, etc. ; (3) Just as little, how-
ever, as in the case of the kpívelv în ver. 16, ought the readers to give heed
to, or let themselves be led astray by, this hostile proceeding of the
kataßpaßɛvelv, which is based upon subjective vanity and is (ver. 19) sepa-
ration from Christ and His body,—this is implied in the imperatives.
Consequently, the view of Jerome, ad Aglas. p. 10, is not in substance erro-
neous, although only approximately corresponding to the expression :
“Nemo adversus vos praemium accipiat;” Erasmus is substantially cor-
rect: "praemium, quod sectari coepistis, vobis intervertat ; ” comp. Calvin,.
Estius, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, and others; while the
Vulgate (seducat), Luther (" to displace the goal”), and others content them-
selves with a much less accurate statement of the sense, and Bengel
imports into the passage the sense of usurped false leading and instruction,
as Beza similarly took it. The Bpapežov, to which kataſp. refers, is not
Christian liberty (Grotius, who explains it praemium exigere), nor yet :
"the honor and prize of the true worship of God" (de Wette), but, in accord-
ance with the standing apostolic conception (comp. Phil. iii. 14; 1 Cor.
ix. 24): the bliss of the Messianic Icingdom, the incorruptible crépavos (1 Cor.
ix. 25), the oted. Tõs OlicaLOCÚVIS (2 Tim. iv. 8), tñs Sółns (1 Pet. v. 4), tñs 5wñs
(Jas. i. 12); comp. 2 Tim. ii. 5. With reference to the Bpaßɛžov, Elsner,
Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, Steiger, and others, including Bähr, Böhmer,
Reiche, Huther, and Bleek, following Photius in Oecumenius (undeis üpāç
KataKpivéTw), have taken kataßpaß. in the sense of to condemn, parallel to the
kplvétw in ver. 16, or to refuse salvation to (Hofmann). This rendering is
not, indeed, to be rejected on linguistic grounds, since Hesychius and
Suidas both quote the signification κατακρίνειν in the case of καταβραβεύειν ;
but it cannot be justified by proofs adduced, and it is decidedly in opposi-
tion to the context through the following Oéhwv K.7.2., which presupposes
not a judgment of the opponents, but an action, something practical, which,
through their perverse religious attitude, they would fain accomplish.-
Bénwr] sc. Kataßpaßɛvelv øjās : while he desires to do this, would willingly
accomplish it (comp. Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. ii. 97) by humility, etc. So
rightly Theodoret (TOŐTO Toivuv ovveßoúhevov ékeīvol yiveodal tateLvoDpooúvn
dñoɛv kexpnuévol), Theophylact (of hovou úpās kataſpaßɛvelv dià Tafelvoợp.),
Photius in Oecumenius, Calvin, Casaubon, and others, including Huther
and Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 322 [E. T. 376]. The “languidum et frigidum,"
which Reiche urges against this view, applies at the most only in the
event of kataßpaß. being explained as to condemn; and the accusation of
incorrectness oj sense (Hofmann) is only based upon an erroneous explana-
tion of the subsequent ¿V TATTELVOPP. K.7.2. The interpretation adopted by
others: taking delight in humility, etc., 2 is based upon the extremely
1“Nemo adversum vos rectoris partes sibi
ultro sumat.” He starts from the common
use of Bpaßevel in the sense of regere ac mo-
dercri (see Dorpill. ad Charit. P. 404). Comp.
on iii. 15. But neither the passage of Dem.
1. c., nor the testimony of the Greek Fathers,
of Suidas, Eustathius, and Zonaras, nor the
analogy of mapaßpapevcev, would justify the
adoption of this sense in the case of the com-
pound kataßpaß.
2 Augustine, Castalio, Vatablus, Estius,
Michaelis, Loesner, and others, including
Storr, Flatt, Bähr, Olshausen, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Bleek, Hofmann, and Hilgenfeld.
CHAP. II. 18.
317
T'YA
unnecessary assumption of an un-Greek imitation of a yon, such as occurs,
indeed, in the LXX, but not in the N. T.; for in Matt. xxvii. 43, Oérelv is
used with the accusative, comp. on Rom. vii. 21. Moreover, in the 0. T.
passages the object of the delight is almost invariably (the only exception
being Ps. cxlvii. 10) a person. Even in the Apocrypha that abnormal
mode of expression does not occur. Others, again, hold that it is to be
joined in an adverbial sense to kataßp. It would then (see Erasmus,
Annot.) have to be rendered cupide or studiose? or unconstrained, volun-
tarily, equivalent to &0&hovtí, č0€hovTÍV, DE 2ovths, which sense, here certainly
quite unsuitable, has been transformed at variance with linguistic usage
· into the idea : "hoc munus sibi à nullo tributum exercens” (Beza), or:
Unwarrantably (Böhmer, comp. Steiger), or of his own choice (Luther,
who, like Ewald, couples it with ểußateuwv), or: arbitrarily (Ewald), or :
capriciously (Reiche), etc.; consequently giving it the sense of KÚV,
avtodelús, autoKÉREVOTOS, or avroyváuwv. Even Tittmann, Synon. p. 131, comes
'
Of?wv must be taken as in Plat. Theaet. l.C.-ÉV TATELVOOP. K. Opnok. Tūv ảyyén.]
Év is not propter, which is supposed to have the meaning: because
TATELVOPP. K.T.2. is necessary to salvation (Reiche); nor does it denote the
condition in which the kataßpaßɛbɛlv takes place (Steiger, Huther); but, in
keeping with the Oénwv, it is the means by which the purpose is to be
attained : by virtue of humility and worshiping of angels. Thereby he wishes
to effect that the ſpaßɛīov shall be withdrawn from you (and given to him-
self and his followers). 7. kyyéhw is the genitive of the object+ and belongs
only to Oprok., not to tattelvopp. That the latter, however, is not humility
in the proper sense, but is, viewed from the perverse personal standpoint
of the false teachers, a humility in their sense only, is plain from the con-
text (see below, Einn quoloúl. K.T.2.), although irony (Steiger, Huther) is not
to be found in the word. Paul, namely, designates the thing as that, for
which the false teachers held it themselves and desired it to be held by
others, and this, indeed, as respects the disposition lying at the root of it,
which they sought to exhibit (év TATELVOPp.), and as respects the abnormal
religious phenomenon manifested among them (16. Opnok. T. áyyénwr); and
then proceeds to give à deterrent exposure of both of these together
according to their true character in a theoretical (à ... Šubar.) and
in a moral (eliñ ovo.. TÌV Kepahn) respect. How far the false
teachers bore themselves as tafelvoppoves, is correctly defined by Theo-
doret : λέγοντες, ώς αόρατος και των όλων Θεός, ανέφικτος τε και ακατάληπτος, και
προσήκει διά των αγγέλων την θείαν ευμένειαν πραγματεύεσθαι, so that they thus
regarded man as too insignificant in the presence of the divine majesty to be
2
. 11 Sam. xviii. 22; 2 Sam. XV. 26; 1 Kings x.
9; 2 Chron. ix. 8; Ps. cxlvii. 10.
by Sturz, Lex. II. p. 21.
2 Plat. Theact. p. 143 D; and see Reisig, Con-
ject. p. 143 f.
8 Plat. Symp. p. 183 A, very frequent in
Homer, Soph. Phil. 1327, Aesch. Choeph. 19.
790, and the passages from Xenophon quoted
4 Comp. Wisd. xiv. 27; Herodian, iv. 8. 17;
Clem. Cor. I. 45; see also Grimm on 4 Macc.
V. 6, and the passages from Josephus in
Krebs, p. 339.
Compare Augustine, Conf. x. 42: "Quem
lavenirem, qui me reconciliaret tibi ? Abe-
318
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
through Opnokela (comp. 4 Macc. iv. 11), thereby placing the merit of
Christ (Rom. v. 2) in the background. It is differently explained by
Chrysostom and Theophylact (comp. also Photius in Oecumenius): the
false teachers had declared the majesty of the Only-Begotten to be too exalted
for lowly humanity to have access through Him to the Father, and hence
the need of the mediation of angels for that purpose. In opposition to
this view it may be urged, that the very prominence so frequently and
intentionally given to the majesty of Christ in our Epistle, and especially
as above the angels, rather goes to show that they had depreciated the
dignity of Christ. Reiche and Ewald (comp. Hofmann's interpretation
below) find the Tamelvoppooúvn in the apedia owuatos of ver. 23, where, how-
ever, the two aberrations are adduced separately from one another, see on
ver. 23. Proofs of the existence of the worship of angels in the post-
apostolic church are found in Justin, Ap. I. 6, p. 56,Athenagoras, and
others; among the Gnostic heretics (Simonians, Cainites): Epiph. Haer.
XX. 2; Tertullian, praescr. 33 ; Iren. Haer. i. 31. 2; and with respect to the
worshiping of angels in the Colossian region Theodoret testifies : élelve dè
τούτο το πάθος εν τη Φρυγία και Πισιδία μέχρι πολλού' ού δη χάριν και συνελθούσα
obvodos Šv Aaodikeią tñs opvyias (A. D. 364, can. 35) vóuw 'KEKÓLUKĖ TÒ TOīs
αγγέλοις προσεύχεσθαι, και μέχρι δε του νυν ευκτήρια του αγίου Μιχαήλ παρ'
εκείνους και τους ομόρους εκείνων έστιν ιδείν. The Catholic erpedients for eυαding
the prohibition of angel-worship in our passage (as also in the Concil.
Laod., Mansi, II. p. 568) may be seen especially in Cornelius a Lapide,
who understands not all angel-worship, but only that which places the
angels above Christ (comp. also Bisping), and who refers the Laodicean
prohibition pointing to a "Kekpvuuévn Eidworatpeia” (“Önc où dei Xplotlavoùs
εγκαταλείπειν την εκκλησίας του Θεού και απιέναι και αγγέλους ονομάζειν" κ.τ.λ.), in
accordance with the second Nicene Council, only to the cultus latriae, not
duliae, consequently to actual adoration, not TIUNT LICÌV apoorvvnoi. In
opposition to the words as they stand (for Opnokkia with the genitive of the
subject would necessarily be the cultus, which the angels present to God,
4 Macc. 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 tūv syyérov as
the genitive of the subject, and have explained it of a religious condition,
which desired to be like that of the angels, e. g. Luther: “spirituality of the
angels," comp. Melanchthon, Schoettgen (“habitus aliquis angelicus”),
Wolf, Dalmer. Nevertheless, Hofmann, attempting a more subtle defini-
tion of the sense, has again taken tūv dyyénov as genitive of the subject, and
joined with it not only θρησκεία, but also ταπεινοφροσύνη. The ταπεινοφροσύνη
of the angels, namely, consists in their willingly Iceeping within the bounds
assigned to them as spirits, and not coveting that which man in this respect
has beyond them, namely, what belongs to the corporeal world. And the
undum mihi fuit ad angelos? Multi conantes
ad te redire, neque per se ipsos valentes,
sicut audio, tentaverunt haec, et inciderunt.
in desiderium curiosarum visionum, et digni
habiti sunt illusionibus." The (false) TATTELVO.
posúvn was the subjective source of their
going astray to angel-worship.
Hasselbach gives substantially the right
interpretation of the passage in the Stud. U.
Krit. 1839, p. 329 ff.
CHAP. II. 18.
319
Opnokela of the angels is a self-devotion to God, in which, between them and
Him, no other barrier exists than that between the Creator and His creatures.
That ταπεινοφροσύνη and this θρησκεία man makes into virtue on his part,
when he, although but partially, renounces that which belongs to Him in dis-
tinction from the angels (Tanelvopp.), and, as one who has divested himself as
much as possible of his corporeality, presents himself adoringly to God in
such measure as he refrains from what was conferred upon him for bodily
enjoyment. I do not comprehend how, on the one hand, the apostle
could wrap up the combinations of ideas imputed to him in words so
enigmatical, nor, on the other, how the readers could, without the guid-
ance of Hofmann, extract them out of these words. The entire exposi-
tion is a labyrinth of imported subjective fancies. Paul might at least
have written &v Šykpateią ÉTÈ TÔ óuocWuatl (or kaópoiwow, or ka óuocórnia) TIS
TATTELvoDpocúvns kaì Opmokėías tõv áyyk2wv! Even this would still have been far
enough from clear, but it would at least have contained the point and a
hint as to its interpretation.å šúpakev šußaretwr] [XXXIV e.]. Subor-
dinate to the Ofw K.7.2. as a warning modal definition to it: entering upon
what he has beheld, i.e. instead of concerning himself with what has been
objectively given (ver. 19), entering the subjective domain of visions with
his mental activity,—by which is indicated the mystico-theosophic occupa-
tion of the mind with God and the angels, so that túpakev (comp. Tert. C.
Marc. v. 19) denotes not a seeing with the eyes, but a mental beholding, 3
which belonged to the domain of the pavráceolai, in part, doubtless, also to
that of visionary ecstasy (comp. Acts ii. 17 ; Rev. ix. 17; opaua in Acts ix.
10, 12, x. 3; 2 Chron. ix. 29, et al.; Luke i. 22). This reference must have
been intelligible to the readers from the assertions put forth by the false
teachers, but the failure to observe it induced copyists, at a very early
date, to add a negative (sometimes uń and sometimes ou) before ćúpakev.
'Eußateverv (only used here in the N. T.; but see Wetstein, also Reisig, ad
Oed. Col. praef. p. xxxix.), with accusative of the place conceived as object
(Kühner, II. 1, p. 257), also with the genitive, with the dative, and with
£is, means to step upon, as e.g. vñoov, Aech. Pers. 441 ; Tóliv, Eur. El. 595;
vñv, Josh. xix. 49; also with reference to a mental domain, which is trod-
den by investigation and other mental activity, as Philo, de plant. Noë, p.
1 See, besides, in opposition to Hofmann,
Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 193 f.
2 This fanciful habit could not but be fost
ered and promoted by the Jewish view,
according to which the appearances of angels
were regarded as partáopata (Gieseler, Kirch-
engesch. I. 1, p. 153, ed. 4).
8 Ewald regards cúpakev as more precisely
defined by εν ταπεινοφρ. κ.τ.λ., as if it ran & έν
TATTELVOPp. K.7.d. cúpaker: "while he enters
arbitrarily upon that, which he has seen in
humility and angel-worship (consequently has
not actually himself experienced and known),
and desires to teach it as something true."
But such a hyperbaton, in the case of the
relative, besides obscuring the sense, is with-
out precedent in the N T. Comp. on ver. 14.
Besides, the thought itself is far from clear;
and respecting Oedwv, see above.
For the sphere of vision of the cúpakey lay
not outside of the subjects, but in the hollow
mirror of their own fancy. This applies also
in opposition to Hilgenfeld, who now (1873, p.
198 f.) properly rejects the uń, but takes à cúp.
éubar. incorrectly: “abiding by the sensuous."
Opposed to this is the very use of the perfect
cúp. and the significant expression tußatevwy.
The apostle does not mean the ópará, but the
åópata (i. 16), into which they ascend by
visions which they profess to have had.
320
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
225 C, et al.; see Loesner, p. 369 f.; 2 Macc. ii. 30; comp. also Nemes. de:
nat. hom. p. 64, ed. Matth. : oúpavòv čußatevɛl Tņ Dewpłą, but not Xen. Conv. iv.
27, where, with Zeunius, xuaorevete ought to be read. Phavorinus: tußat-
EūOAL' TÒ ŠVSON & çepeuvñoal ñ. GKOTņoal. It is frequently used in the sense of
seizing possession. So Budaeus and Calvin (se ingerens), both with the
reading uń, also Huther (establishing himself firmly in the creations of
fancy); still the context does not suggest this, and, when used in this ..
sense, šußat. is usually coupled with eig. In the reading of the Recepta,
à un sósp., the sense amounts either to: entering into the unseen transcendental
sphere, wherein the assumption would be implied that the domain of
sense was the only field legitimately open, which would be unsuitable (2
Cor. v. 7, xiii. 12); or to: entering into things, which (although he dreams
that he has seen them, yet) he has not seen—a concealed antithetical refer-
ence, which Paul, in order to be intelligible, must have indicated. The
thought, in the absence of the negative, is not wealc (de Wette), but true, in
characteristic keeping with the perverseness of theosophic fancies (in oppo-
tion to Hofmann's objection), and representing the actual state of the case,
which Paul could not but know. According to Hofmann, the à un
Éúpaket which he reads is to be taken, not with łußateuwv, but with what
goes before: of which, nevertheless, he has seen nothing (and, consequently,
cannot imitate it). This is disposed of, apart even from the incorrect
inference involved in it,4 by the preposterousness of Hofmann's exposi-
tion of the Tafelvo pocúvn K. Opnokeía Tūv ảyy., with which the connection, hit
upon by him, of £ikñ with;łußateúov (“ an investigation, which results in noth-
ing"), also falls to the ground. —eikň ovocoup. K.T.)., and then kaì ov kparūv, .
κ.τ.λ., are both subordinate to the & εώρακεν εμβατεύων, and contain two
modal definitions of it fraught with the utmost danger.-Elñ quotobu.]
[XXXIV f.] for the entering upon what was seen did not rest upon a real
divine revelation, but upon a conceited, fanciful self-exaggeration. Tò dé
γε φυσιούμενος τη ταπεινοφροσύνη εναντίον ούκ έστι: την μεν γαρ έσκήπτοντο, του
đề Tobot Tò cáoicotgºc TºpicketPro, Theocloret. On gioỡ, tempere, i. e. Coith-
out ground, comp. Matt. v. 22; Rom. xiii. 4; Plat. Mener. p. 234 C; Xen.
Cyrop. ii. 2. 22. It places the vanity, that is, the objective groundlessness
of the pride, in contradistinction to their presumptuous fancies, emphati-
cally in the foreground. Even if tußat. is not taken absolutely with Hof-
mann, we may not join it with elkî (in opposition to Steiger, de Wette,
Reiche; Böhmer is doubtful), since it is not the uselessness (in this sense
elkñ would require to be taken, 1 Cor. xv. 2; Gal. iii. 4, iv. 11) of the éußa-
τεύειν ά εώρ. (or & μη εώρ.), but this έμβατεύειν in and of itself, that forms
the characteristic perversity in the conduct of those people-a perversity
i Dem. 894. 7; Eur. Heracl. 876; Schleusner,
Thes. II. 332; Bloomfield, Gloss. in Aesch. Pers.
p. 146 f.
2 Dem. 894.7; 1085. 24, 1086. 19; Isa. ix. 3, et
al.; 1 Macc. xii. 25.
8 Comp. Chrysostom: they have not seen,
the angels, and yet bear themselves as if they
had seen them.
For even the unseen, which may in any
other way have been brought to our knowl-
edge, we may and under certain circumstan-
ces should imitate (comp. e. g. Eph. V. 1).
And even the angels and their actions have
been included among the objects of the divine
revelation as to the history of salvation and
its accomplishment,
CHAP. II. 19.
321
which is set forth by elkň qvolov. K.7.2., and in ver. 19 as immoral and
antichristian.-ÚTÒ TOŨ voòs tñis oapk. avrow] becoming puffed up by (as opera-
tive principle) the reason of his flesh. This is the morally determined
intellectual faculty in its character and activity as not divinely regulated,
in which ünennobled condition (see on Eph. iv. 23) it is the servant, not
of the divine atveŪua, whose organ it is designed to be, but of the materio- .
physical human nature, of the cápš as the seat of the sin-power, and is
governed by its lusts instead of the divine truth. The vows does not
belong to the essence of the cápě (in opposition to Holsten); but, be it
observed, the matter is so represented that the oápš of the false teacher,
in accordance with its dominant superiority, appears personified (comp.
Rom. viii. 6), as if the vows, influenced by it, and therewith serviceable to
it, were its own. In virtue of this non-free and, in its activity, sinfully-
directed reason, the man, who is guided by it, is åvóntos (Gal. iii. 1, 3; Tit.
iii. 3), loses his moral judgment (Rom. xii. 2), falls into śrt (Ovuias åvontovs
(1 Tim. vi. 9), and withstands Christian truth and purity as kate_dapuévos
TÒV voūv (2 Tim. iii. 8; 2 Cor. xi. 3), and ÉGKOTLOLÉVos ti Slavoia (Eph. iv.
18).—The puffing up of the persons in question consisted in this, that with
all their professed and apparent humility they, as is commonly the case
with mystic tendencies, fancied that they could not be content with the
simple knowledge and obedience of the gospel, but were capable of attain-
ing á special higher wisdom and sanctity. It is well said by Theophylact:
πώς γαρ ου σαρκικού νοός κ. παχέος το άθετήσαι τα υπό Χριστού λεχθέντα, John
iii. 16, 17, 19, x. 26 f., kai pvpía őoa!
Ver. 19. [XXXIV g.] Kai] annexing to εikñ puolObjevoÇ K.7.2. a further,
and that a negative, modal form of the â Éópakev čußateuwv. This tußatɛý-
Elv into what is seen takes place, namely, in such a way, that one is
puffed up by fleshly reason, and does not hold the Head, etc. So much is
it at variance with the nature and success, as respects unity, of the church ! 2
--oº kparūv K.7.2.] not holding fast (but letting it go, comp. Song of Sol. iii.
4: é párnoa aútòv kaì ok åpñía aúróv) the Head, inasmuch, namely, as they
seek angelic mediation. Bengel aptly observes : “Qui non unice Christum
tenet, plane non tenet.”—š oŰ K.7.2.] represents the whole objectionable-
ness of this où kparūV T. Kep., and the absolute necessity of the opposite.
This où is not to be referred to the verbal idea (Bengel's suggestion : “ex
quo sc. tenendo caput”), but applies objectively (comp. Eph. iv. 15 f.) to
that which was designated by TÌv kepak. In this view it may be mascu-
line, according to the construction katà obveolv (Kühner, II. 1, p. 49), as it
is usually taken, but it may also—and this is preferable, because here the
personality is not, as in Eph. iv. 15 f., specially marked-be neuter, so that
it takes up the Head, not personally (though it is Christ), but in accord-
1 Comp. Rom. i. 21, 28, iv. 1, vi. 19, vii. 14, xii.
2; Eph. iv. 17 f.; see also Kluge in the Jahrb.
f. D. Thcol. 1871, p. 329 ff.
2 The conduct of those men is the negation
of this holy relation, a séparation from the
organism of the body of Christ as an unity.
The compressed characterizing of this artic-
ulated organism is therefore as suitable here
as in Eph. iv. 16, and by no means an opus
supererogationis on the part of the author
(Holtzmanı).
322
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
ance with the neuter idea : from which. See Matthiae, p. 988; Kühner, II.
1, p. 55. Comp. Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 201. The T. kepah. might also be
taken attributively: not holding fast as the Head Him, from whom, etc.
(Ewald), which would be, however, less simple and less forcibly descrip-
tive. É denotes the causal issuing forth of the subsequently expressed
relation, comp. Eph. iv. 16.—tāv to owua] consequently no member is ·
excepted, so that no member can expect from any other quarter what is
destined for, and conveyed to, the whole body from the head. The con-
ception of the church as the body of Christ, the Head, is not in our
Epistle and the Ephesian letter different from that of the other Epistles
(in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 239 ff.). Comp. on 1 Cor. xii. 12 f., vi.
15; Rom. xii. 4 f.; also 1 Cor. xi. 3. Any pressing contrary to the
author's design of the thought of a cāļa, which strictly taken is a trunic,
is in this particular case excluded by the graphic delineation of the con-
stantly living and active connection of the members with the Head.
Every comparison, indeed, when pressed, becomes halting.-dià tūv åpāv
K. Ouvdequāv ÉTELXOp. K. ovußiß.] The participial relation to the following
verb is this : from the Head the whole body is furnished and bound
together and grows in this way, so that éš oủ therefore is to be referred
neither to the participles only, nor to the verb only, but to both; and slà
7. áp. K. ouvdeojl. specifies by what means the ĖTlxop. K. ovußiß., proceeding
from the Head, is brought about, viz. through the (bodily) nerve-impulses (not
joints, as it is usually explained; see on Eph. iv. 16), which are conveyed
from the Head to the body, and through the bands, which, proceeding
from the Head, place the whole in organic connection. Observe that
ÉTTLXop. refers to stà T. ápūv, and ovußiß. to k. ouvdou. Theophylact (comp.
Theodoret) has aptly illustrated the former by the action of the nerves
which is diffused from the head through the entire body, so that årò tís
kepalís éott tãoa aio nors k. Tãoa kívnois. As, therefore, the body receives
its efficiency from the head through the contact of inpulses effected by
means of the network of nerves, so would the church, separated from
Christ-from whom the feelings and impulses in a spiritual sense, the
motions and activities of the higher swń, are conveyed to it-be without
the supply in question. Comp. the idea of the figure of the vine.
Further : as, starting from the head, the whole body, by means of the
bands which bind member to member, is bound together into one organic
whole; so also is the entire church, starting from Christ, by means of the
bands of Christian communion (Kolvovía), which give to the union of indi-
viduals the coherence of articulate unity. Faith is the inner ground of the
dpai, not the latter themselves (in opposition to Bengel); so also is love the
inner ground of the ovvdeouoi of the mystical body, not these latter them-
selves (in opposition to Tertullian, Zanchius, Estius, Bengel, and others);
and the operative principle on the part of Christ the Head is the Holy
Spirit (Eph. iv. 4; 1 Cor. xii. 3 f., 7, et al.). Theodoret erroneously (comp.
Ewald) explains the ovvoequoi as the årbotohol Ko Tepooñtal k, fisáokahol, and
Böhmer takes the ápal and ovvool, as the believers. The latter, as also
the teachers, are in fact the members, and share in experiencing what is
CHAP. II. 20.
323
here asserted of the entire body.——ÉTlxopnyovu.] receiving supply, being fur-
nished. Comp. on the passive expression, which is not un-Pauline (Holtz-
mann), but in harmony with the general passive usage, Kühner II. 1.p.109.
The compound, not expressing “in addition besides” (Bleek), denotes that
the yopɛyía is coming to, is being conveyed towards. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 10; Gal.
iii. 5; Dion. Hal. x. 54. But it is not said with what the body is provided,
as zopnyeiv (comp. also trixop., Ecclus. xxv. 22) is often used absolutely
(see e.g. the passages from Polybius in Schweighäuser, Lex. p. 663), and
admits of its more precise definition being supplied from the context,
which, however, here points not to nourishment (Grotius, de Wette), but
to that which is accomplished through the feelings (ápūv), namely, the
vital activity, of which the body would be destitute in the absence of the
different impulses.2 - TÌv avšnolv ToŨ Osoū] denoted by the article as the
divine growth absolutely; ToŬ Deo is the genitive auctoris : which God
confers (1 Cor. iii. 6, 7), with which z où is not at variance (as Bähr
thinks), since God is ranked above Christ (1 Cor. xi. 3), and is the supreme
operating principle in the church (1 Cor. xii. 6; Eph. iv. 6). At once
weak, and suggested by nothing in the text, is the view: "incrementum,
quod Deus probat” (Calvin, Bähr 3). What is meant is the gradual growth
of Christians collectively toward Christian perfection. The circumstance
that aŭgel as an intransitive only occurs again in Eph. ii. 21, comp. iy. 15,
and aufnois only in Eph. iv. 16, cannot prove it to be an un-Pauline mode
of expression (Holtzmann).
Ver. 20 f [On Vv. 20-23, see Note XXXV. pages 340, 341.] After these
warnings, vv. 16–19, which were intended to secure his readers against,
the seduction threatening them, the apostle now returns for the same
purpose once more to the two main foundations of the Christian life, to
the fellowship with Christ in death, (ver. 20), and fellowship with
Him also in resurrection (iii. 1). [XXXV a.] His aim is to show,
in connection with the former, the groundlessness and perversity
of the heretical prohibitions of meats (vv. 20–23), and to attach to the
latter--to the fellowship of resurrection—the essence of Christian
morality in whole and in detail, and therewith the paraenetic portion of
the Epistle (iii. 1-iv. 6), the tenor of which thereby receives the character
of the holiest moral necessity.-e árebúvete K.T..] [XXXV 6.] the legal
abstinence required by the false teachers (see below) stands in contradic-
tion with the fact, that the readers at their conversion had entered into
tite fellowship of the death of Christ, and thereby had become loosed from
the oroixeta toũ koouou (see on ver. 8), i. e. from the ritual religious ele-
ments of non-Christian humanity, among which the legal prohibition of
1 Polyb. iv. 77.2: mollais ápopuais ék duoews
Kexopnynuévos, iii. 75. 3, et al.; Diod. Sic. i.
73; Ecclus. xliv. 6; 3 Macc. vi. 40. . .
2 Comp. Chrysostom: Tò elval kai to kadãs
cival, Theophylact: nãoa aioinois K. Tada
rivnous, and in the application: daußável tò
Sív k. aŭšelv TrvEVMATIK@s.
3 Comp. Chrysostom and Oecumenius, who
explain toll col by Katà Deov.
4 Respecting the connection of the verb
with the more precisely defined cognate noun,
see Winer, p. 210 [E. T. 224]; Lobeck, Paralip.
p. 507 f.; Kühner, II. 2, p. 262 f.
324
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
meats and the traditional regulations founded thereon are included. How
far the man who has died with Christ has passed out of connection with:
these elementary things, is taught by ver. 14, according to which, through
the death of Christ, the law as to its debt-obligation has been abolished.
Consequently, in the case of those who have died with Christ, the law, and
everything belonging to the same category with it, have no further claim
to urge, since Christ has allowed the curse of the law to be accomplished
on Himself, and this has also taken place in believers in virtue of their
fellowship of death with Him, whereby the binding relation of debt which
had hitherto subsisted for them has ceased.-árovýokelv, with ảnó, mean-
ing to die away from something, moriendo liberari a (Porphyr. de abstin. ab
esu anim. i. 41), is only met with here in the N. T.; elsewhere it is used
with the dative, as in Gal. ii. 19, Rom. vi. 2, whereby the same thing is
otherwise conceived in point of form. It is, moreover, to be observed, that
Christ Himself also is by death released from the otolxeia, since He was
made under the law, and, although sinless, was destined to take upon
Himself the curse of it; [XXXV c.] hence it was only by His death in
obedience to the Father (Phil. ii. 8; Rom. v. 19), that He became released
from this relation. Comp. on Gal. iv. 4. Huther erroneously denies that
such an å obavɛiv can be predicated of Christ, and therefore assumes
(comp. Schenkel and Dalmer) the brachylogy: "if, by your dying with
Christ, ye are dead from the otoczeta Toũ koquoï.”—Tí ós 5WVTES K.7.2.] why
are ye, as though ye were still alive in the world, commanded : Touch not, etc.
Such commands are adapted to those who are not, like you, dead, etc.
As árodavóvres oùv X. ÅTÒ T. OTOLX. T. Kboll., ye are no longer alive in the
domain of the non-Christian Kóguos, but are removed from that sphere of
life (belonging to the heavenly nohítevua, Phil. iii. 20). The word soyuari-
ÇELV, [XXXV d.] only found here in the N. T., but frequently in the LXX.
and Apocrypha, and in the Fathers and decrees of Councils (see Suicer,
Thes. I. p. 935), means nothing more than to decree, and soypariçegde is
passive : why are ye prescribed to, why do men make decrees for you (vobis)?
so that it is not a reproach (the censure conveyed by the expression affects
rather the false teachers), but a warning to those readers (comp. vv. 16, 18)
who were not yet led away (i. 4, ii. 5), and who ought not to yield any
compliance to so absurd a demand. That the readers are the passive sub-
ject, is quite according to rule, since the active has the dative along with
it, doymaríČELV TIVE (2 Macc. x. 8); comp. also Hofmann and Beza. The
usual rendering takes doyuar, as midille, and that either as: why do ye
allow commands to be laid down for you (Huther), rules to be imposed upon
you (de Wette), yourselves to be entangled with rules (Luther)? and such
like; 3 or even : why do ye make rules for yourselves (Ewald)? comp. Vul-
gate : decernitis. This, however, would involve a censure of the readers, and
ús GWVTES ÉV KOOLw would express the unsuitableness of their conduct with
I Comp. Gal. ii. 19, iv. 3, 9; Rom. vii. 4, et al.
9 Diod. Sic. iv. 83; Diog. L. iii. 51; Anth. Pal.
ix. 576. 4; Arrian. Epict. iii. 7; Esth. iii. 9; 3
Esdr. Yi. 34; 2 Macc. x. 8, xv.36; 3 Macc. iv. 11.
8 Comp. Chrysostom: mûs rois otolycious
Utó kelole; similarly Theodoret, Beza; and
recently, Bähr, Böhmer, Olshausen, Baum-
garten-Crusius, Bleek, and others.
CHAP. II. 21.
325
their Christian standing--a reproach, which would be altogether out of
harmony with the other contents of the Epistle. On the contrary, ús
SŪVTEÇ ÆV K. indicates the erroneous aspect in which the Christian standing
of the readers was regarded by the false teachers, who took up such an
attitude towards them, as if they were not yet dead from the world, which
nevertheless (comp. ver. 11 f.) they are through their fellowship with
Christ (iii. 3; Gal. ii. 19 f.; 2 Cor. v. 14 f.). The ús SŪVTES ÉV Kbouw, more-
over, is entirely misunderstood by Bähr: “as if one could at all attain to
life and salvation through externals.” Comp., on the contrary, the thought
of the εivai Łv tñ capki in Rom. vii. 5 and Gal. vi. 14. Observe, further,
that this ζην εν κόσμω is not one and the same thing with είναι υπό τα στοι-
xela toŰ KÓGLOV (Hofmann, by way of establishing his explanation of OTOL
xeia in the sense of the material things of the world); but the 57v év k. is
the more general, to which the special elval ÚTÒ T. OTOlXETa T. K. is subordi-
nate. If the former is the case, the latter also takes place by way of con-
sequence.--un äyun K.7.2.] a vivid concrete representation of the doyuara
concerned, in a “compendiaria mimesis” (Flacius). The triple descrip-
tion brings out the urgency of the eager demand for abstinence, and the
relation of the three prohibitions is such, that undé both times means nor
even; in the second instance, however, in the sense of ne quidem, so that
the last point stands to the two former together in the relation of a cli-
max: thou shalt not lay hold of, 120r even taste, nor once touch! What was
meant as object of this enjoined åré xeolar (1 Tim. iv. 3) the reader was
aware, and its omission only renders the description more vivid and terse.
Steiger's view, that the object was suppressed by the false teachers them-
selves from fear and hypocrisy, is quite groundless. From the words
themselves, however (yevon), and from the subsquent context (see ver. 23),
it is plain that the prohibitions concerned certain meats and drinks (comp.
ver. 16); and it is entirely arbitrary to mix up other things, as even de
Wette does, making them refer also to sexual intercourse (@lyyáverv yuvarkós,
Eur. Hipp. 1044, et al.);1 while others distinguish between ayn and diyns
in respect of their objects, e.g. Estius: the former refers to unclean objects,
such as the garments of a menstruous woman, the latter to the buying
and selling of unclean meats ; Erasmus, Zanchius: the former concerns
dead bodies, the latter sacred vessels and the like; Grotius: the former
refers to meats, the latter to the “vitandas feminas," to which Flatt and
Dalmer, following older writers, make äun refer (1 Cor. vii. 1). Others
give other expositions still; Böhmer arbitarily makes Oiyns refer to the
oil, which the Essenes and other theosophists regarded as a labes. That
Paul in än and Diy. had no definite object at all in view, is not even prob-
able (in opposition to Huther), because yɛvon stands between them, and
ver. 23 points to abstinence from meats, and not at the same time to any.
thing else.-Following the more forcible äpin, lay hold of, the more subtle
Qiyns, touch, is in admirable keeping with the climax: the object was to
be even «Olktov (Soph. 0. C. 39). Hofmann erroneously holds that arto-
See Monck, ad Eur. Hipp. 14; Valckenaer, 2 Comp. on the difference between the two
ad Phoen. 903.
words, Xen. Cyrop. i. 3.5: ötav Mev Toü äptov
326
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
ual expresses rather the motion of the subject grasping at something, Ocyyávw
rather his arriving at the object. In opposition to this fiction stands the
testimony of all the passages in the Gospels (Matt. viii. 3, ix. 20; John
xx. 17, and many others), in which ärteobal signifies the actual lajing
hold of, and, in Paul's writings, of 1 Cor. vii. 1, 2 Cor. vi. 17, as also the
quite common Grecian usage in the sense of contrectare (attingere et
inhaerere), and similarly the signification of the active to fasten to, to make
to stick (Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 698; Duncan, Lex. Hom. ed. Rost, p. 150).
The mere stretching out the hand towards something, in order to seize it, is
never ärteobal. Hofmann, moreover, in order to establish a climax of
the three points, arbitrarily makes the subtle gloss upon yeuon, that this
might even happen more unintentionally, and upon liyns, that this might
happen involuntarily.
Ver. 22. We are not to put in a parenthesis un ärn... åroxpňoel (Eras-
mus Schmid, Heinrichs, and others), but merely ä totLV ... ánoxp. (Gries-
bach, Lachmann, Scholz, Ewald); for the construction proceeds uninter-
ruptedly to θίγης, is then only broken by the judgment ά εστι π. είς φθ. τ.
åtoxp., and thereafter runs on with katà Tà évtáhp. K.T.2.—ä tot! . . . åróxp. is
an inserted a judgment of the apostle anent that which the false teachers
interdicted by ui äyn K.T.2.: which all are destined to destructions through the
using,—from which it is to be rendered palpably apparent, how preposter-
ous it is to make such things a condition of eternal bliss by urging absti-
nence from them. We have here a similar line of argument to that in
Matt. xv. 17. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 13. Hence poopá is meant to denote the
perishing which takes place through the natural dissolution (digestion)
of the meats and drinks; and with this conception quite accords the pur-
posely-chosen compound tĩ úroxproel, which, like abusus, indicates the
using up, the consuming (Plut. Mor. p. 267 E; Davis, ad Cic. N. D. iv. 60).
So it is unanimously explained by Chrysostom, Theodoret (eiç kón pov yàp
ätavra metaßázaeral), Oecumenius (poopą yáp, onolv, ÜTŐKELTAL ÉV Tợ đpedpāvi),
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Wolf, Grotius, Michaelis,
and many others, including Bähr, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald, Bleek, Hof-
mann. But, according to others, who likewise regard ä ... ároxp. as a
parenthetical judgment, the ä is to be referred to the prohibitions, ároxp.
to the use, i, e. the following of them, and poopá (comp. Gal. vi. 8) to the
äun, eis oubèy tnv xeipa åtopáuevov (oè òpô),
ötav SÈ TOÚTwv (these dainty dishes) Tivòs diyns,
eúdùs arrokadaipn tnv xelpa eis Tà xelpónaktpa,
also y. 1. 16. In an inverted climax, Eur.
Bacch. 617. our' Ocyev oğo' ñyao nuôv.' Seo
also Ex. xix. 12, where the LXX. delicately
and aptly render 177329 yd, to touch the
outer border of the mountain, by the free trans-
lation θίγειν τι αυτού, but then express the
general 773 yaing by the stronger ò ayáne
νος του όρους.
1 Respecting the aorist Olyeiv (a present
diyelv instead of Olyyávely can nowhere be
accepted as certain), see Schaefer, ad Greg.
Cor. p. 990, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 804; Küh-
ner, I. p. 833.
2 For it is only an incidental observation in
opposition to the above δογματίζεσθαι; the
main ground of opposition to the latter lies in
ei arrebáv. oùv X.
8 ļotiv eis odopáv, it serves for destruction,
i. e. it serves for the purpose of being destroyed.
See generally Winer, p. 173 [E. T. 183]; Butt-
mann, Neut. Gr. p. 131 (E. T. 150 f.). Comp.
Wisd. iv. 18; Ecclus. xxxiv. 10; Judith v. 21,
24, viii. 22.
CHAP. II. 22.
327
destruction of the persons who follow them : all which dóyuara by their use
tend to (eternal) destruction. · So Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Cornelius a
Lapide, Calixtus, Heumann, Junker. Erroneously; because åróxpnous
never means merely use, and even the simple xuñois, in the sense of thpnous,
would be an unsuitable designation ; in fact, the entire addition, " by the
use," would be utterly superfluous. On account of ảnoxp., the expedient
must also be rejected, on linguistic grounds, that ä ... itoxp. are still words
of the false teachers, which Paul repeats with irony: "omnia haec (vetita)
USU suo perniciem. afferunt,” Heinrichs, comp. Schenkel. By others, who,
like Tischendorf, have deleted the marks of parenthesis, the whole down
to ávöpúrwv is taken together: all this, which the false teachers forbid,
tends through the using to ("moral;” de Wette) destruction , “si sc. ex
doctorum Judaicorum praeceptis et doctrinis hac de re judicium feratur,'' ]
Kypke; so also Vatablus, Storr, Flatt, Böhmer, de Wette, Baumgarten-
Crusius (Huther is undecided between this explanation and ours). But
in opposition to this it may be urged, that the compound aroxphost would
be entirely without a motive, since not the consumption, but the use at all
would be soul-destroying according to the maxims of those people. Our
view alone supplies a motive for the use of ảnoxphcel, and that through the
point of its connection with cis poopáv, in which case, however, the object
affected by amoxp. and kis ghop. must be the same (the things forbidden).
De Wette's objections are irrelevant, since the thought of the parenthesis
ä ... úroxp. is expressed not strangely, but with Pauline ingenuity, the
words κατά τα εντάλμ. κ.τ.λ. annexed to δογματίζεσθε are by no means super-
fluous. (see below), nor does this annexation require us to begin the paren-
thesis with už äyn and thereby to include heterogeneous elements together;
for un äqin 1..2. still belongs closely to soyjar., of which it is the contents,
and katà Tà évtáky. K.T.1 is then annexed, after the brief incidentally
inserted remark, to δογματ. αnd its contents (μή άψη κ.τ.λ.).-κατά τα εντάλ-
Mata K.T.7.] [XXXV e.] The article before évtárfl., and extending also to
didaokar., is generic. The un äyn K.1.2. was decreed by the false teachers
confornably to the commandments and doctrines of men, not in consequence
of what God had commanded and taught. This element, annexed to doy-
uarit., is by no means superfluous (in opposition to de Wette), since, in
fact, sóyua in itself is a command generally, and may be one based upon
divine authority; it rather serves to bring out with perfect clearness the
conflicting relation, in which that δογματίζεσθαι stands to the απεθάνετε συν
XPLOTĀ K.7.2. For what the false teachers decreed was not the prohibitions
of meats contained in the law of Moses as such, and these alone (although
they too would have been incompatible with the ámeðáveta OÙv X. K.7.2.), but
such as consisted in the human (Essene) definitions, expansions, and
amplifications of the former (katà Tìv mapádoolv Tāv åv@púrwv, ver. 8). It was
in this, and not in the mere setting up again of the Mosaic law abolished
1 Similarly Dalmer, who, however, takes on
åtoxp. in the sense of abuse, joining it imme-
diately to katà tas Sidack. x.7.d. But while
ároxpñobai (Dem. 215.8; Herodian, . 1. 13) is
found in the sense of abuse (rataxpñois, tapa-
xpñous), åtroxprois is not, though it was so
taken by Erasmus Schmid, Schoettgen, Zach-
ariae, as also by Grimm in his Lexicon.
328
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
through Christ (Chrysostom and many others), that the doyparíčeotal was
regulated by human standard, without the divine authority and warrant.
Moreover, didack. is not synonymous with évtábla, but has a wider sense (in
Matt. xv. 9 and Mark vi. 7, the narrower idea comes after as a more pre-
cise definition), so that the two together specify the preceptive and generally
(kai) the doctrinal standard. Comp. Isà. xxix. 13.
Ver. 23. And of what nature and quality is that, which I have just termed
Tà évtánuara K. didackal tõv ávop. ?—äriva] quippe quae, i. e. ita comparata,
ut (Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 30). The conception was different in ä of
ver. 22, where the thing in question was regarded purely objectively, as
mere object.--cri] belongs to š xovra, without, however, being with this
equivalent to čxel; it introduces what the ativa are as regards their quality.
If it belonged to ovK v TiuņI TIVL (Bähr), or to repòs Tranoll. T. 0. (Bengel), or
to švédɛh00prokeią k.7.2. (that which moves and has its being in toɛ200p. K.7.2.),
as Hofmann thinks, taking abyov po š xovta cop. parenthetically-why
should it not have been actually placed beside that to which it would
belong? Apart from this, Hofmann's connection of it with év beloop.
could alone deserve consideration, since from év tehod p. onwards all that
follows is consecutive. But even this connection must be abandoned,
because the sphere of subsistence indicated by εν εθελοθρ. κ.τ.λ. would be
too wide for such special prohibitions, ver. 21, as are conveyed by äriva,
and because we have no right to put aside from the connection, as a mere
incisum, the important thought (comp. ver. 8) expressed by hóy 7. Šx. oodías,
which comes in with éoti so emphatically at the very head of the judg-
ment, and appropriately, as regards meaning, attaches to itself all that
follows.-óyov šXELV, explained by many since Jerome approximately in
the sense of speciem or praetextum habere (see Kypke, de Wette, Dalmer,
and others; also Köster in the Stud. 26. Krit. 1854, p. 318), may, according
as we adopt for żóyos the signification ratio or sermo, mean either: to have
ground, in which case the ground may certainly be only an apparent one,
a pretext (comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 36); further, to have an insight
into something (often thus in Plato, e.g. Rep. p. 475 C), to have regard to
(Herod. i. 62; Plat. Tim. p. 87 C); or: to have a reputation, so that one is
in any relation the subject of discourse, of legend, of mention, of rumor,
etc. The latter signification is here to be adhered to, because the sub-
sequent oúk év teỊN TIVI, when correctly rendered, accords with it as bear-
ing on the matter in hand, and is in sense appropriately correlative.
Hence: that which has a repute of wisdom, popularly passes for wisdom.
Comp. óvoja Ě XELV (Rev. iii. 1) and óvojásegdal (1 Cor. v. 11).—uév] without a
subsequent dé; there was before the apostle's mind the contrast: repute,
1 So in the passages from Demosth., Dionys,
Hal., and Lesbonax in Kypke; from Plat. in
Ast, Lex. II. p. 257; from Polyb. in Schweig-
häuser, Lex, p. 370. So Hilgenfeld, in his
Zeitschr, 1870, p. 250, holding that what is
rejected in the legal sense in ver. 22 is here
“permitted as voluntary asceticism." See,
however, on the sequel, from which the
impossibility of this interpretation is self-
evident.
2 See e. g. Plat. Epin. p. 987. B: 'Ewopópos
... 'Adpodítns eival oxedov ëxel dóyov (dicitur),
Herod. v. 56: lóyov čxel Tiny IIubinv åvareioa.
comp. ix, 78; Xen, Occ. 11. 4. (the sarne thing
conceived under another form: dóyos éxeu
riva, Herod. vii. 5, and frequently).
CHAP. II. 23.
329
truly, but not the reality, où dúvapilv, ok åhń elav, Chrysostom. He omitted
to express this, however, led aside by the progress of his discourse, so that
instead of bringing in the antithesis of λόγον by δέ, he makes ούκ έν τιμή
τινι follow without δέ, and in contrast not to the λόγον, but to the εν εθελοθρ.
K.T.N.,-from which we are to gather in substance, what in starting with
Nóyov jév it was intended to express. The linguistic phenomenon of this
uév without an adversative word following is so common, that there is no
ground for requiring before oúk év Thun T. an állá (Hofmann), which might
have been used (Baeumlein, p. 170), but not necessarily. Holtzmann also
takes too much offence at the absence of a formal contrast, and finds in apòs
Tanol. 7. capós an ill-inserted remnant of the original.-Év étɛhoupnokela]
[XXXVI f.] instrumental, specifying by what means it is brought about, on
the part of those who lay down the commandments and doctrines referred
to, that the laiter have a repute of wisdom: through self-chosen worship, i. e.
through a cultus, which is not divinely commanded, but is the work of
their own self-determination. What was meant by this, the reader was
aware; and ver. 18 places it beyond doubt that the worship of angels
formed an essential and chief part of it, though it need not, from the
general character of the expression in our passage, have been meant
exclusively; other forms of capricious cultus nay have been included
with it. The substantive č0€200p. does not occur elsewhere except in eccle-
siastical writers; but the verb & Veho0 prokaiv is explained by Suidas : idio
Jeniquati céßelv TÒ dokovv, and Epiph. Haer. i. 16 explains the name Phari-
sees: dià tò áowplouévous εival avtoùs årò tūv århwv dià Tùy & J E ROTTEPL000-
Ipnoksiav tap avtois vevo LOLLÉVITV.2 Hofmann erroneously takes away
from the word in itself the bad sense, and explains (after the analogy of
Édeonovía and Jehovpyía): worship, which one interests himself in. This
view is prohibited by the evident retrospective reference of this word and
the following one to ver. 18, where, according to the right interpretation,
the Ipnokela was certainly something bad. The unfavorable meaning,
according to Hofmann's present explanation (he gave a different but also
erroneous view in his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 72; see, in opposition to it, my
third edition), is only got by the addition of couatos, which belongs to all
the three points, so that Dhoopnokela couatos must be understood as a
worship gladly and earnestly rendered, but which is rendered only with
boclily demeanor. But σώματος does not suit either with εθελοθρ. Οι ταπεινοφρ.3
but only with apelsią. For it is plain from apeedia owuatos that owuatos is
the genitive of the object, from which it follows that Ipnoksia oiuatos would
yield the opposite sense : a Ipnoseía rendered to the body (comp. Ipnok. TÔV
1 See Erasmus, Annot., and generally Winer,
p. 534 f. [E. T. 575]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p.
313(E. 7. 365]; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 656; Maetz-
ner, ac Antiph. p. 153; Baeumlein, Partik. p.
163 f.
2 Comp. ébenodovacia (Plat. Symp. p. 184 C,
Rep. p. 562. D)), Ochokáknots, édedorivduvos,
#06À Topos •0eÀO TpóỆevos (Thac. iii. 70. 2, where
the scholiast explains: ad' autoù yevóuevos
Kai Min Kedevo cis K.T.d.), and various others.
According to Hofmann, namely, TATTELVO-
Oposúvn obMatos is a disposition of self-humil-
ration, which, however, only weakens the body
by abstinences. But it would rather have the
absurd sense: humility of the body ; for TATTEL-
voopooúvn neither means humiliation nor
self-humiliation, but humility, weakness, ver.
18, iii. 12; Phil. ii. 3.
330
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
àyyk2wv in ver. 18), which would come ultimately to the idea of the harpetelv
tñ nisovñ (Lucian, Nigr. 15), comp. Plut. Mor. p. 107 C: hatpeia tou obuatos,
and on the matter conceived as Apnokkia. Phil. iii. 19.-TATTELVoopoo.] from
the point of view of the false teachers (comp. ver. 18), what they thus
designated; although in fact it consisted in this, that, as in all false
humility, they with spiritual conceit (comp. ver. 18, and subsequently ipòs .'
Tanouov, T. capkós) took pleasure in unduly undervaluing themselves-an
ethical self-contempt, which involved in relation to God the étɛhou pnokkia,
and towards the body an unsparingness through mistaken abstinence and
mortifying asceticism, inconsistent with Christian liberty. Sovrc év Tluin
TLVL.] [XXXV g.] Not through anything whatever that is an honor, not
through anything honorable, by which that repute would appear founded
in truth and just. The expression is purposely chosen, in order to make
estimable substratum on the part of the persons concerned. The follow-
ing apòs Tanquoviju tīs sapkós is also purposely chosen; in it aanonov. signifi-
cantly glances back to αφειδία, and της σαρκός tο σώματος, and there is pro-
duced a thoughtful contrast, a striking ethical oxymoron: for the sake of
fully satisfying the flesh. Those commandments and doctrines have a
repute of wisdom, etc., in order to afford thereby full satisfaction to the mate-
rial-psychical human nature. Thus, while the repute of wisdom is procured
among other things by mortifying the body, the flesh is satisfied; the fleshly
sinful lust of these men gets fully satisfying nourishment conveyed to it,
when they see that their doctrines and commandments pass for wise.
What lust of the flesh it is which Paul has in view, is placed beyond doubt
by the case itself and also by ver. 18, namely, that of religious conceit and
pride, which through the hóyov copias š xelv feels itself flattered and gratified
in the fancy of peculiar perfection. This interpretation, which we have
given of oúk šv tipſ tivi, repòs T290 uovju. Tūs оapkós, is held in substance, fol-
lowing Hilary ("sagina carnalis sensus traditio humana est”), by Bengel,
Storr, Flatt, Böhmer, Steiger, Bähr, Huther, Dalmer, Bleek, and others.
Most, however, refer tv Tipi Tive to the honor to be shown to the body (or
the cáps, see Luther), and apòs 72106. T. oapk, to bodily satisfaction, so that
the sense results : not in some esteeming of the body to the satisfying of bodily
wants ; 2 "sentit apost., sapientiam illam aut praecepta talia esse, per quae
corpori debitus honor, pertinens ad expletionem, 2. e. justam refectionem
carnis, subtrahatur," Estius. It is fatal to this view S(1) that év tip TIVI,
as is shown by the repetition of tv, is the contrast not merely to źvåpeldią
odpatos, but to the entire connected év &Uɛhoupnoksię ... owuatos, and hence
the reference to the honor to be shown to the body does not seem justified
10n á eldią, comp. Plat. Defin.p. 412 D; Plut.
Mor. p. 762 D; further, åpecdciu Blou, Thuc. ii.
43. 3 ; yuxñs, Soph. El. 968: owmátwy, Lys. ii.
25, Diod. Sic. xiii. 60.
2“God will have the body honored, i. e. it is
to have its food, clothing, etc., for its neces-
sities, and not to be destroyed with intolerable
fasting, labor, or impossible chastity, as the
doctrine of men would do," Luther's gloss.
8 So, in substance, Chrysostom, Theodore of
Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theo-
phylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Melanch-
thon, Calvin, Musculus, Clarius, Zeger, Eras-
mus Schmid, Zanchius, Vatablus, Calovius,
NOTES..
331
by the context;7 (2) further, that for the designation of the mere satisfac-
tion at this particular place, where Paul could only have had a apóvolav tñs.
capkós in view, as in Rom. xiii. 14, the term ihnouovír would be very inap-
propriate, especially in contradistinction to the mortifications of the false
teachers, since it denotes filling up, satisfying fully, even in Ex. xvi. 3 (see
generally the passages from the LXX. and Apocrypha quoted by Schleus-
ner, Thes. IV. p. 375 f.);2 (3) finally, that the interchange of ovuaros and
capkós, in the event of the latter not being meant in an ethical character,
would seem to be without a motive, while, according to our view, capkós
stands in as ingenious correlation with σώματος, ας πλησμονήν with αφειδία.
These arguments apply also in opposition to Ewald's view; "what seems
very wise, but is in no value whatever, is rather quite useless for the satisfac-
tion of the flesh, which yet also demands its rights, if man would not
wantonly disorganize his earthly life or even destroy it” (2 Cor. x. 3).
Hofmann finally talkes πλησμονή τ. σαρκός rightly, but explains ούκ έν τιμή
Tivi in such a way as to make til masculine, and to attach it as appropriat-
ing dative to Tipi: “not so that honor cuccrues to any one." This is to be
rejected, because Paul, instead of simply and clearly writing tipſ. Tivos,
would only have expressed himself in a way singularly liable to be mis-
understood by Tlví, which every reader was led to join as a feminine with
Tepeña ("in honore aliquo,” Vulgate). Nor is it to be easily seen what sub-
jects, beyond the teacher of the false wisdom himself, we should have to
conceive to ourselves under reví taken as masculine.
NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR.
XXXI. Vv. 1-5.
(a) yap of ver. 1 evidently connects this verse with ii. 29, because of the words
áyūva and åywvisuevos. The “conflict," however, is to the end (eis ő i. 29) of
presenting every man perfect in Christ. We may believe, therefore, that in ver.
1 the Apostle confirms and unfolds the idea of ảywvišÓuevos as bearing upon all, by
calling attention to the great áyúv which he has even for those whom he had never
seen. The connection of the thought, accordingly, as well as the indications of the
verse itself which are pointed out by Meyer, proves that Paul had no personal
acquaintance with the Colossians—that is, that the Colossians and Laodiceans were
of the same class of persons with the ő001.-(6) That áyõva and áywvis. refer promi-
nently to inward struggle anxiety, prayer, etc.—is rendered probable both by the
Apostle's condition at the time and by the words used in iv. 12. But the connec-
tion of thought with the beginning of the paragraph in which these verses should
be included (i. 24-ii. 7), suggests a reference, also, to toīs manuaowv ÚT Èp ýuāv ...
ανταναπληρ κ.τ.λ. of i. 24.- (c) Meyer apparently regards εν αγάπη as suggesting
ti
Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Michaelis, Nösselt,
Rosenmüller, and others, including de Wette
and Baumgarten-Crusius.
1 This applies also in opposition to Olshau-
sen, who in the case of ¢v Teu rive follows the
explanation of respect for the body, but with
regard to mpos ainollo T. Oapx. follows our
view.
2 Comp. Plat. Legg. viii. p. 837: Xen. Mem.
iii. 11. 14, rep. Lac. 2. 5, Cyrop. iv. 2. 40, Ages.
6.1; Lucian. Nigr. 33, Ep. Saturn. 28; Polyb.
ii. 19. 4.
332
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
that union of love which is connected with the removal of heretical division.
That there is a reference in the following words to the mystery of God as contrasted
with the ideas of the heretics, can hardly be doubted, but whether this is intended
in ảyány is more questionable. There seems to be no objection to the under-
standing of this word in its ordinary more general sense. (Comp. iii. 14).
(d) The textual reading at the end of ver. 2 which adopted by most of the recent
critics and commentators is To✓ Jeov XPLOTOV. So Tisch., Treg., W. & H., Lachm.,
R. V., Mey., Blk., Huther, Hofm., Lightf., Ell., and others. That the various
other readings which are found are derived from this one, or from the simple toð
Jeoữ (which Alf. favors), is evident to any one who will observe how easily and
naturally they grow from the shorter into the longer forms. W. & H. claim that
the latter of these two readings, as well as the others, is unquestionably derived
from the former. It must be admitted that the omission of XPLOTOū by copyists is
somewhat more easily accounted for, than its insertion. But whether the omis-
sion can be affirmed as, beyond question, the origin of the reading TOŪ Geoð may be
doubted. Dr. Hort suggests that Toù év Xploto may not improbably have been the
original text, and Dr. Westcott, who apparently does not agree with him in this
view, joins him in excepting the reading toū JERŰ Év Xploto from those which are
clearly derived from Toù Jeoù XpIoTVŨ. This derivation would seem, however, to
be a very natural one-some copyist attempting to explain the difficulty of the
genitive Xp. by év Xp. Dr. Hort's view hardly accounts satisfactorily for the
appearance of Deoũ in the several texts, for, if the original reading had been toữ
μυστηρίου του εν Χριστώ, this expression which is simple and Pauline would not
have been likely to suggest a change, and especially a change to so difficult a
reading as toŨ OkoŨ XplotOÛ. Dr. Scrivener, in his Introd. to the Criticism
of the N. T., 3d Ed., p. 635 f. says, “We may unhesitatingly reject the short-
est form του Θεού ... We would gladly adopt του Θεού Χριστού, SO powerfully
do internal considerations plead in its favor, were it but a little better sup-
ported: the important doctrine which it declares, Scriptural and Catholic as that
is, will naturally make us only the more cautious in receiving it unreservedly.
Yet the more we think over this reading, the more it grows upon us, as the source
from which all the rest are derived. At present, perhaps, ToŨ JɛoŰ tatpòs ToŨ
XPLOTOŨ may be looked upon as the most strongly attested, but in the presence of
so many opposing probabilities, a very small weight might suffice to turn the
critical scale.” This is the reading of 8*AC 1, Sahid. Vulg. am. fu. (* omitting
ToŨ before Xp.), but it is so difficult to suppose that trampós should have been omit-
ted if this were the first text, and so easy to account for its insertion if the original
text were ToŬ Teoù XPLOTOī, that we must agree with W. & H., who would place
this reading among those which are undoubtedly derived fronm του θεού Χριστού.
On the whole, T. 0. Xp. is to be regarded as the true text, though not sustained by
as many authorities as might be desired (B. Hilar.), and involving considerable
difficulties.
(e) If the reading toð JeoŨ XplotoŰ is adopted, what is the construction of the
word XplotoŨ? This question has received three answers, which are mentioned
by Meyer and which seem to exhaust the probabilities of the case. These are (1)
that which makes Xp. appositional with geoð; (2) that which makes it apposi-
tional with uvotnplov; (3) that which makes it depend on Jeo,—the God of Christ.
Huther mentions (4) that which makes it depend on luotplov, in which case
the meaning apparently is, God's mystery belonging to Christ, or the divine mystery
NOTES.
333
of Christ. This fourth explanation is so improbable, however, that it may be set
aside, the form of expression being a strange and unnatural one to set forth the
idea. Of the other three, Meyer adopts the third. That this construction is
allowable must be admitted. That it is in harmony, as to the idea involved, with
the expression the God of our Lord Jesus Christ in Eph. i. 17, must also be
granted. It is to be observed, however, that there is no occasion here for speak-
ing of the God of Christ, whereas, on the other hand, the object which the
Apostle has in view in the preceding and following context is to represent Christ,
in His relation to God, as the exact image of God and as having in Himself the full-
ness of Deity, and, in His relation to Divine truth, as containing in Himself the
completeness of the uvothplov. Everything in the context, therefore, would sug-
gest to the intelligent reader the connection of Xplotoū in the way of apposition
either with Degū or uvotnplov; and the Apostle might well suppose, under the
circumstances, that the reader would not be misled by reason of the possibility,
oras viewed with respect to many sentences—the naturalness, of making it
dependent on teoū. The probabilities of the case, accordingly, are strongly
against Meyer's view. The decision of a question of this sort is peculiarly de-
pendent on the character of the thought which an author is developing in the
passage under consideration.
Assuming, then, that the gen. Xp. is a genitive of apposition, the first and
second explanations already mentioned present themselves. As between thein,
preference inust be given, we think, to the second, for the following reasons: (1)
because the purpose of the Apostle in setting forth the Divine in Christ, in this
Epistle, seems to be to present Him as the one who reveals God, as the image of
the invisible one, as the one by wliom God works in creation and redemption, as
having embodied, as it were, in Himself the treasures of Divine wisdom, as pos-
sessing, indeed, the fullness of Deity, which dwells in Him bodily; but not to pre-
sent Him as ó Deós;—to set Him forth, that is, as having Deity indeed, yet in His
distinction from God the Father. To understand the words of this second verse
as meaning the God Christ seems out of harmony with the particular purpose of
the writer. This purpose was determined, undoubtedly, by the position and
views of the heretical teachers, who thought of a large number of emanations or
angels as the means by which the hidden God comes into contact with the world.
Paul, on the contrary, proclaims the one Divine Son of God's love as the creator
and redeemer, the revealer of God and His truth. To call Him the God Christ was
outside of his line of thought, and might even appear to interfere with its best and
most direct progress; (2) because this expression, the God Christ, is not found else-
where in the Epistles of this period of Paul's life, or, indeed, in any of his Epistles.
The word gebs is applied to Christ, probably, in Rom. ix. 5; possibly or probably,
in Tit. ii. 13; according to some interpreters, in 2 Thess. i. 12; Eph. v. 5;
according to what is not improbably the correct reading, in Acts xx. 28; accord-
ing to some authorities, in 1 Tim. iii. 16; but we do not discover such a phrase as
this--the God Christ, ToŬ Tɛow XplotOū—in use by Paul; (3) because the passage in
the preceding context which apparently draws nearest in thought to the present
verse-namely i. 27-sets before us God as willing to make known the mystery
which is Christ. In view of the fact that the words now under consideration fol-
low so soon after this sentence whose meaning cannot be mistaken, as well as of
the fact that the prominent words in the two verses are the same, and that the pos-
sibilities of construction allow of the same interpretation in the latter as in the
334.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
former, it must be regarded as quite improbable that the writer gives expressioni
here to a different and new idea. The explanation of the genitive Xp. as in appo-
sition with uvotnplov, the mystery of God, even Christ, is favored by R. V., Lightf.,
El., Davies, W. & H. appy., Davidson tr. appy., and others.
(j) 'Ev ♡ is referred by Meyer to uvotnplov. If his view of ToŨ Geoũ XPLOTOū
is adopted, this reference may probably be regarded as correct. But if XPLOTOŨ is
to be taken as appositional with Livornplov, “ in all probability has Xp. as its
antecedent. Christ is the mystery, and in Him all the treasures are hidden.—(9)
Meyer regards åtókpupol as an attributive adjective to Onoaupoi, being placed at
the end simply for emphasis. It is evidently possible to explain it in this way,
but the adjective may be, also, a secondary predicate, as Lightf. and several others
take it.-(1) TOūTO of ver. 4 is to be referred to vv. 1-3 (as Meyer says); iva
denotes the end in view with which those verses were written ; and the following
words may be regarded as having reference to the deceiving and misleading per-
suasive discourse of the Colossian errorists. These errorists were drawing the
members of the church away from faith in Christ to the idea of a Jewish Alex-
andrian or Oriental philosophizing--Worship of angels, mysteries, etc., which
denied the true idea of Christ and the true view of the Divine mystery.-
(0) Vy. 6, 7, press upon the readers, in view of the fact that in Christ are the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and of the danger of their being led astray
by harmful persuasions, the exhortation to continue steadily and firmly in that
knowledge and apprehension of Christ which had been given them at the begin-
ning.-(1) TÒV KÚplov has, apparently, a certain emphasis (whether correctly ex-
plained by Meyer or not) indicative of Christ's exaltation.
XXXII. Vv. 8–10.
(a) It may be regarded as somewhat doubtful whether a new paragraph should
begin at ver. 8 or yer. 6. R. V. makes a paragraph begin with each of these
verses, W. & H. with ver. 6 (though they also make a half-paragraph at ver. 8),
Treg. with ver. 6, Tisch. 8th ed. has no paragraph at either verse, Lightf. makes
one at ver. 8. The view of Lightf. is, on the whole, to be preferred. Vy, 6, 7,
are best explained as an exhortation drawn immediately from the suggestions of
the preceding verses and forming an appropriate conclusion for them. Vv. 8 ff.,
on the other hand, turn more directly and emphatically to warnings against the
false teachers, their' influence and teachings, and at the opening of the 8th ver.
the second part of the Epistle begins.
(6) The very strong word ovhaywyőv carrying off as prey, which is used in the
N. T. only in this place, indicates the spirit and effectiveness of the errorists, and
the completeness of the separation from the Gospel which would result for the
Colossians, if their efforts should not be resisted. It is a stronger expression, if
possible, even than those which we find describing the work of the Judaizing
teachers in Galatia.-(c) The two phrases, after the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the world, occur again, though not precisely in the same form or
connection, in vv. 20, 22. The expression Tà OTOlxeta ToŨ koopov occurs, also,
in Gal. iy. 3. In that passage, as may be inferred from the indications of the
chapter, it has reference both to the Gentile and Jewish religious systems—the
latter, so far as it had been ceremonialized and turned into a mere human system
by the Pharisees or others of the time. Out of the former of those systems the
NOTES.
335
Galatian converts had mainly come into Christianity; into the latter they were
in danger of falling away. But they were going back into the Otolzeia, as they
had come out of them, Gal. iv. 9. In this Epistle, the two elements of Gentil-
ism and Judaism seem to be joined in one, making up the system opposed to the
Christian truth, a Judaico-Gnostic theosophy and asceticism. But the later and
compounded system was κατά τα στοιχεία του κόσμου as truly, and for the same
reason, as either of the earlier and simpler systems. In all the places where the
words occur, OTOlxeta apparently refers to the rudimentary character of the sys-
tems alluded to, as contrasted with the higher and more complete doctrine re-
vealed through Christ, and kóduov refers to the world (i. e, mankind) apart from
God. This meaning of kódulov seeins more probable than that which connects it
with external or sensuous things.-(d) ŐTL of ver. 9 is immediately connected
with oú katà Xplotov, but, at the same time, it introduces that which is the
ground of the warning against the deceitful philosophy.
(e) Whether we take aanpwjia as signifying that by which the person or thing
expressed by the following genitive is made full, (which is the only signification
derived from tanpów in the sense of to fill, that will satisfy the demands of
every passage where the word occurs in the N. T.), or that which is completed, and
declaration of this verse is, that the Divine essence in its fullness is in Christ.
This is proved by every indication and element of the passage-by this word
πλήρωμα as connected with θεότητος ; by θεότης, the full significance of which,
as distinguished from DelhTIS (as in Rom. i. 20), cannot be set aside; by the fact
that, in the following verse, He is said to be the head of every principality and
power, i. e. exalted above the highest angels; by the apparent contrasting of
Christ, as having in Himself the nanpwua, with the angelic mediators as con-
ceived of by the heretics. This indwelling in Him of the ahípwua tñs DebTNTOS
is the very truth from which the false philosophy, (comp. the yvūois falsely so
called, 1 Tim. vi. 20) was endeavoring to draw the Colossians away. To Paul's
received Christ, he would have the readers continue firmly established; and be-
abouovấa mere rudimentary, imperfect, even deceitful, philosophy of the unspir-
itual world.-($) KATOLKET is a continuous present, like éotiv of i. 15. 18. Though
spoken from the standpoint of the present, it extends in its meaning over the
past, and as Lightf. says KATOLKET . . . D€6TITOS answers to John i. 1, and owua-
Tikāc to John i. 14. The approximation of the Pauline thought, in this Epistle,
to that of John, in the Prologue of the Gospel, can scarcely fail to be observed by
the careful student.
(9) R. V. and many commentators agree with Meyer in making éoté of ver.
10 depend on őri, and there can be little doubt that this is the correct view.
Meyer's view with respect to Terampouévou is also correct. This participle is
suggested by and closely connected with típwrea of ver. 9, but it does not re-
quire the supply of a genitive from JebTntos, nor does the connection between
the two words show that a hípwja tñs JEÓTITOs must be understood in such a
sense as to be equally applicable to Christians and Christ. The word geórns is,
on the other hand, exclusive of any supposition of this sort. Indeed, we may
believe that the Apostle has here a similar twofold thought to that which we find
in the first chapter,—Christ being first presented in relation to what He las or is
336
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
in Himself (also what He does in creation,ch. i.), and then in His relation to His
followers and the Church.-(h) The emphasis on év avto of ver. 10, and its
correspondence or parallelism with év avtø of ver. 9 must be noticed (comp.
avrós i. 17, 18). As in Him dwells the Tanp. JEÓT., (and because it dwells in
Him), the Church is in Him made full. It is made full out of His fullness, but does
not, in being made full, exhaust it. It receives only that which it can receive.
not the Divine essence, but that grace and likeness to Himself which He is able
to impart to those who are united with Him.
() As opposed to the errorists and their views of angels, therefore, the Apostle
in every way brings out the exaltation of Christ and His all-sufficiency. In Him
and Him alone is contained and rerealed the whole mystery of God, His great
plan of redemption; through Him is the work of reconciliation to be carried to
its final result, so that all on earth and in heaven are to reach in Him their per-
fected state; He is the possessor and bestower of the divine giſts and grace in
their completeness; He is the head of the Church and the one pre-eminent in all
things; He is the creator of all things, even of the highest angelic powers; He
is before all things and the head of every authority and dominion; He has
abiding in Him the fullness of what God gives forth from Himself and is in Him-
self; He is the image of God, the exact expression and complete revelation of
God. As it was such an One that they had received as Lord, the readers were
exhorted, with all emphasis to be established, rooted, built up in Him, and to take
earnest heed that no one should, through a deceitful philosophy, deprive them of
His fullness, by the outgoing of which they might hope to be made full. The
bearing of what is declared concerning Christ in these passages, in this Epistle,
and of the near approach of the statements made in them to what is found in the
Gospel of John,-on the question of the application of the word tebs to Christ
in Rom. ix. 5, may well be considered.
XXXIII. Vv. 11-15.
(a) In the words of ver. 11, following after táons ápxñs kai éçovolas of ver. 10,
and in tàs ápxàs K.7.. of ver. 15, may be found an allusion to the Jewish element,
combined with the Oriental or Gnostic, in the heresy, as we find the two also
united in yv. 16–19, and again in vv. 20–23. This close combination proves that
the writer was contending, not against two separate and distinct errors, but against
one compounded doctrine. The Jewish element, however, had not only taken
into union with itself what came from a philosophy beyond its own limits; it had
developed within itself, also, into something more than it had been in its
earlier stages. Nevertheless this element preserved its own striking peculiarities,
and thus we have, here as in earlier Epistles, e. g. in Gal. and Rom., circumcision,
the observance of days, the bondage to rules and ordinances.
(6) The correspondence of the underlying thought in vv. 11, 12 with that in
Rom. vi. 2-6, in some of the minor points, is worthy of notice, though the main
thought in the two cases is quite different. Thus the putting off of the body of
the flesh (ToŨ oájaros Tís capkós), which belongs to the true circumcision, leads to
the figure of burial with Christ in baptism and a resurrection to new life, as, in
Rom. vi., the same figure is found in connection with a doing away or destroying
of the body of sin (T) Gõua tñs águaprías). The two expressions, body of the flesh
and of sin, are nearly, but not precisely, equivalent to each other. In the latter,
NOTES.
337
.
the body is conceived of as belonging to a master-so far forth as sin rules over
it, it is destroyed; in the former, capkós denotes the evil principle, carnality, and
this has its dwelling in the body, or the body is conceived of so far forth as it is
fleshly. The figure of burial and resurrection, on the other hand, is precisely
the same in both passages. The reference of ouvrapéutes to baptism by immersion
is not necessary here, as it is not in Rom. vi. 4. At the same time, there is
evidently less to suggest such a figure in the other words of this passage, than in
the surrounding verses in Rom., in which the author, apparently, is endeavoring
to set forth the idea of death by a variety of expressions. This verse, accordingly,
may be regarded as strengthening, in some degree, the probability of such a
reference.—(c) Meyer regards ovvnyéponte as referring to the awaking to eternal
life--a resurrection which is, “prior to the Parousia an ideal possession, but through
the Parousia becomes real.” It seems better, however, to understand it in an
ethical sense, as most others do, because of the connection with baptism, and
because of the clear use of ovveráønte in a figurative sense, and the correspondence
in expression with Rom. vi. 4. In connection with this view of ouvnyép(., Meyer
holds that év u kai of ver. 12 refers to Christ. His reasons, however, seem
insufficient, for, although there is another év ♡ kai, in ver. 11, which evidently
refers to Christ, it is not inconsistent with Paul's style to use a similar form in a
new clause with another reference; and although we might have ěž où to designate
rising out of the baptismal water, this was not necessary in the present case, since
the whole experience, (being buried and rising), is in the sphere of baptism. The
fact that burial and resurrection are parts of one change points strongly to making
Bantiouatl the antecedent of ^.-(d) After the same manner, Meyer's view that
OUVEČWoToimoev and vekpots of ver. 13 have reference to eternal life and eternal
death is to be rejected, and that which explains them of spiritual life and death is
to be preferred. The corresponding passage in Eph. ii. 1 ff. may be compared.
That passage, in all its earlier part, seems to have the spiritual sense; but, in
OUVEKÁVLOEV ÉV TOTS ÉToypavious, it carries the thought, also, forward to the future.
This phrase is wanting in the present passage, and the only suggestion of the
future, if there be any, is in the fact that the spiritual life and death naturally
reach on into the future.
(@) zapuoájevoS denotes the forgiveness which accompanies, and in thought
precedes, the establishment of the new spiritual life in the soul; zahεipas is
really antecedent to xap., having been accomplished by the sacrifice of Christ, but
in its application to ήμίν is contemporaneous with it. το χειρόγραφον τοίς δόγμασιου
is an expression which is founded upon the thought of the Mosaic Law and
suggested by it. This can scarcely be doubtſul, in view of Eph. ii. 15. At the
same time, the writer is speaking here largely of Gentiles (tuās) and the doyuara
are not conceived of, as in Eph., as separating the Jews from them. There is,
therefore, in the present passage, a probable reference to the Jewish element in
the compound heresy which had invaded this Gentile Church. Mpkev and
προσηλώσας are added to έξαλείψας as emphasizing the entire doing away with the
law, after the manner of Paul in opposing the Judaistic errors, yet with more of
repetition and earnestness than in most other places, because of the greater
seriousness or larger development of the error.
(fånekdVOÁ HEVOS—with respect to this word, the following points may be
noticed: (1) The word does not occur in Greek writers before Paul, and the deter-
mination of its meaning from arodów and ékdów is doubtſul. (2) The verb, in itself,
338
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
naturally means to put off from oneself, as clothing, etc. (3) This is the meaning
of the participle in iii. 9, and of the kindred active noun (ÄTTÉKSVOLS) in ver. 11.
These are the only places, except the present verse, in which the noun or verb
occurs in the N. T. (4) On the other hand, the representation, which this mean-
ing would require, of Jesus stripping off from Himself the powers of evil, as if
they had surrounded Him like a garment, involves a figure which is not found
elsewhere in the N. T., and which appears scarcely to be in the line of the thought
in this context. The figure in Oplapſevcaç is that of triumphing over an enemy
or of leading a conquered enenıy in triumph ; ÉDELYPLÁTLoeV is also adapted to the
idea of such a triumph. The combination of so different a figure as that of putting
off a garment with this of triumphing as a conqueror, seems antecedently impro-
bable. (5) If, however, atɛk. can have the sense of spoliare, spoiled of their armor, it
will suit the connection with the other figurative words in a most satisfactory man-
ner. Grimm, Rob., L. & S., A. V., and very many comm. agree with Meyer in
giving this latter meaning to the participle. R. V., Ell., Lightf., Farrar (Life of
St. P.) and some others hold the former view. Alf. gives this meaning to the par-
ticiple, but refers the åpxai, etc., to the angelic powers as connected with the ideas
of the Colossian heretics. A. R. V. reads despoiled in the text, and put off from
hinself in the margin.
XXXIV. 16–19.
(a) At the 16th verse, the Apostle turns to a more particular application of the
exhortation, which had been already set forth in a general form. We have here
again, as was natural because of the relation of the verses which now follow to
those which precede, a reference to each of the two elements in the heresy; vv.
16, 17 and vv. 18, 19.—(6) In connection with the Jewish element, the two points
are mentioned, to which allusion is made in earlier epistles :—the subject of
meats and the observance of days; and the same position is taken with respect to
both which Paul everywhere assumes. The Colossian Christian, like the Roman
and Corinthian, was not to be subject to the condemnation of others in these
matters--he was not to let any one sit in judgment upon him (kplvéta). That Paul
does not here present the obligation of love resting upon the “strong party” in
relation to the weak, and also does not treat the subject on all sides as far as he
does in Rom and 1 Cor., is, probably, owing to the character of the heresy and the
dangers arising from its presence in the Church. As to the general subject,
some suggestions are offered in the Amer. Ed. of Meyer's Comm. on Romans pp.
523-530.-(c) The reason given in ver. 17 for the injunction of ver. 16 is different
from the reasons which are hinted at in the earlier epistles, and the form of
expression is related to what we find in Heb. x. 1. The general thought, however,
that the ordinances of this sort in the law of Moses pass away with the coming of
the Christian dispensation, is abundantly set forth in the N. T. The use of these
words in this verse may be accounted for as showing the exaltation of Christ above
the Mosaic system, just as on the other hand, in connection with the worshiping
of angels, His exaltation above all principalities and powers is declared.
(d) The verb karaſpaſevelv conveys the idea of an unfair judgment against a
person by a judge in the games, which deprives him of the prize that properly
belongs to him. It cannot here have its strict and ſull sense, because the false
teachers, indicated by undeis, were not the awarding judges. With this exception,
7
. 'NOTES.
· 339
however, it would seem that we ought to give the word its legitimate signification.
It will, therefore, suggest the notion of hostility (as Meyer says), and of a certain
unfairness or selfishness. The character of these false teachers was, accordingly,
similar, in this regard, to that of those who appeared in the Galatian churches. The
meaning of the verb, as thus given, favors the explanation of Oéhwv which Meyer
adopts. The use of Dhoopnokela in ver. 23 on the other hand, where the
order of the words worship and humility is transposed, and where the force of the dało
may, not improbably, have been intended by the writer to pass over, also, to
TATTELvoo pooúvn,may be regarded as pointing towards a somewhat more immediate
connection of this participle with εν ταπειν, και θρησκ,--the movement of his will
(desire), as well as of the action kataßp., being in the sphere of humility, etc. This
further explanatory.
(e) The textual reading which omits the negative before èúpakev is adopted
by Tisch., 8th ed., Treg., W. & H., Alf., and undoubtedly has the weight of
evidence in its support. The insertion of uń by a copyist is much more easily
accounted for than its omission. If omitted, the explanation of the words given
by Meyer is the best one. The antecedent probability that Paul would have
spoken of intruding into things not seen, rather than dwelling upon things seen,
which has been affirmed by many, may be questioned. All religious thought
moves in the sphere of ihe unseen, but errors like the one at Colossae are readily
connected with visions and, as Meyer says, "" the mystico-theosophic occupation of
the mind with God and the angels.” The use of the simple éápakev in such a
sentence as descriptive of mental visions presents, however, a certain difficulty or
improbability, which must be allowed. The word ovoloúpievos, with its clause which
follows, would adapt itself easily to either text in this clause.—(f) The connection
of elkî with quoLOCLEVos is to be preferred, as compared with making it qualify
the preceding clause. It sets forth the groundlessness and vanity of the
intellectual pride of the false teachers. The vows of these teachers was not
illuminated by and under the guidance of the divine itveữua, but under the rule
of the capš, the evil principle. It was the cápš which led them not to hold fast
the Head, but to move only in the sphere of the unenlightened vows, and, moving
thus, they became puffed up with self-conceit and pride as they gave themselves
up to speculations and visions—thinking of and dwelling in what they believed
themselves to have seen by means of the vows.
(g) The correspondence of the phraseology in ver. 19 with that of Eph. iv. 16
is very noticeable. At the same time, there are differences to be observed. From
the correspondence we may infer, (1) that the relative in éš où is to be taken as
masculine (keyahń having a certain element of personification in its use); (2)
that αφών belongs more particularly, in the thought, with επιχορηγ., (Epl:. πάσης
áoñs TÕS ÉTeXopnyias), but not so exclusively as. to make it necessary to unite it
in the grammatical construction with that participle alone. More probably there
is here, as in Eph., a combining of the different elements into one compound
phrase or statement. The differences, on the other hand, are seen (1) in the
effect upon the general structure of the verses in each case, which is due to the
difference in the connection and purpose of the passages in the two Epistles. In
Eph., the Apostle is setting forth the object of the gifts and officers appointed by
of the Church, in the persons of all its individual members, towards the perfec-
340
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS..
tion of Him who is its head. Here, on the contrary, he is speaking of the cause
and characteristics of a certain erroneous doctrine. Those who teach it fail to
hold fast the Head. The relation of dependence of the body on the Head for
its true life, is thus, naturally, brought out with more emphasis and with an ex-
clusion of every other thought.—(2) In this way we easily explain the absence,
in this place, of such words as Kat' čvépyklav Šv jetpỘ évòs ékáoTOV Mépous
olkodouijv &autoū—and év ảyány, which are found in Eph.—(3) There is, proba-
bly, a reference in the word Head here (as there is not in Eph.), to Christ as
head, as contrasted with the ideas respecting the angels which the false teachers
had—not such a reference, indeed, as if this were the only occasion of the figure,
but an incidental one.
XXXV. Vv. 20–23.
(a) The passage ii. 20—iii. 4 is correctly arranged by W. & H. in their text, as
one paragraph made up of two half-paragraphs (ii. 20–23; iii. 1-4). The one-
ness of the paragraph is shown by the contrast of the verbs åretávetɛ and
OUVNYÉPunte, which present, in the Pauline figure found in the preceding verses
and elsewhere, the two sides of the change from the unchristian to the Christian
life. The division into half-paragraphs is indicated by the maniſest relation of
the earlier portion to what goes before, and of the later to what follows. The
true account of this passage is, probably, this: that it is designed to be a sum-
mary statement on both sides, forming a transition from the earlier chapters to
the more distinctly practical part of the Epistle, which begins with iii. 5. The
centering of the thought in the two verbs mentioned above, and the element of
repetition in vy. 20-23, as compared with yy. 16-19, are thus explained.
(6) The same kind of argument is used in ver. 20, which we find in Rom. vi.
2 with regard to continuance in sin. How can we still live in a life to which we
have died? There, it is sin, to which the Christian is conceived of as having com-
pletely terminated his relations, by becoming a Christian ; in Rom. vij. 6, it is
the law. Here, on the other hand, it is the orolXETC TOŪ KOOMOV ; but the same
reasoning applies. The fact that the Colossian .Christians had died, at their con-
version, to all religious systems of the world apart from God, made it unsuitable
that they should allow themselves to have any such system again imposed upon
them. How is it that you are turning again to the weak and beggarly elements ?
(Gal. iv. 9).-(c) The idea, which Meyer suggests, that Christ is also conceived
of by the Apostle as dying to the OTOLXεia, since He “was born under the law,"
seems improbable. Indeed, the law, as He lived under it, was scarcely of the
OTOLZETA; it is only of the Mosaic system as transformed by the Pharisees, etc.,
into a mere external system, that this term seems to be applied to it. That be-
cause they are said to have died with Christ from, etc., He also must have died
from, etc., does not necessarily follow. By dying with Him they became sepa-
rated from these “ rudiments of the world.”
(d) doypariterge may be either passive or middle. The objection made by
Meyer to the middle, that it involves a censure of the readers, is not conclusive,
for the earnestness of the Apostle in urging the matter, with so much of repeti-
tion even, may be indicative of an impulse on the part of some of the readers
at least, to yield, and the form of the sentence may be only that of argument,
without implying that they were actually yielding. Apart from this objection,
NOTES.
341
the middle sense is, apparently, more natural: why do you allow commands to
be laid upon you, or, why do you subject yourselves to ordinances the former, as
presenting more prominently the action of the false teachers, is to be preferred.
(e) “The commandments and teachings of men” answer to the “rudiments of
the world.” The OrolXETa are religious systems devised by men, and what they teach
and enjoin is the doctrine and commands of men. The words as here employed,
however, refer only to one section of these commands, etc., namely, those relating
to such matters as meats, and hence, of course, they are not co-extensive in mean-
ing with otolzela.
(f) The év before étɛhou proksia is better taken as in than by-denoting the
sphere in which, rather than the means by which. The noun & Jeopnok, is
here placed before TaTELVO pooúvn, instead of following it as in ver. 18. The
force of the št€20. may go over to the other noun, and thus define it. If this
is not so, the position of the words is, in itself, indicative of the sort of humility
of which the writer is speaking. The compounds with treho, which most nearly
correspond with the one here used (étɛhopchócopos, éd£26copos, would-be philoso-
pher, would-be wise), involve the idea of pretence or falseness. This idea, however,
does not appear to be essential to the U20. element. In some or even most of
the compounds, the voluntary idea is all that is added to the meaning of the
simple word (e. g. ÉV€2000īkos, ŠIERÓKAKOS, EVERÓTovos, voluntarily serving, will-
fully bad, willing to work). The indications of the passage (Róyov copias, oúk ÈV
Tiun Tiví) suggest the former idea as a possibility, but do not render it certain; the
latter idea is beyond question. The word points, thus, to that sort of religious
service which is characterized by self-imposed rules and worship, and a self-im-
posed and; therefore, ostentatious humility, and with reference to the body, by
ápedia. (g) The rendering of the last clause of verse 23 given in R. V.: "but
are not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh” is favored by Lightf.,
Rid., Bib. Comm., Farrar, and is deserving of serious consideration, if, indeed, it
should not be adopted. The apparently intended contrast of oủk év tlum to év
ÉTEN. K.T.n.; the greater probability that tiun means honor, rather than value ;
and the probability that após in such sentences has the sense of with a view to,
as looking towards, the thing expressed by the following substantive as an end,
and not with a view to removing or remedying that thing (Lightf.) or against
(R. V.), are grounds of objection to it.
342
.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS..
CHAPTER III.
VER. 4. Instead of ýuāv, which Griesb. approyes, and Lachm. puts in the
margin, but Tisch. 8 in the text, quwv is read by Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. 7, in
opposition to C D* E* FPGX min. Arm. Slav. ed. Vulg. It. and many Fathers
(not Origen). A is defective here. Considering this weighty evidence in favor
of vuõr, and seeing that the following kai újɛis suggested the change of person to
the copyists, as indeed the beginning of a lesson with ver. 4 could not but have
favored the insertion of the general nuwv, we have stronger grounds for regarding
juāv as original than as a repetition from ver. 3.-Ver. 5. vuwv] is wanting,
indeed, in B C'* ** min. Clem. Or. (five times) Eus., but has all the yss. in its
with Tisch. 8, as an inserted supplement.-di ä] C* D* E F G Clar. Germ. read
Si' ö or dó. Rightly; the Recepta, though strongly attested, is an alteration to
correspond with the plurality of the preceding objects under comparison of Eph.
v. 6.-ÉTÈ Toùs vioùs T. árteldeias] is wanting in B D* (?) Sahid. Aeth. Clem. Cypr.
Ambrosiast., bracketed by Lachm. and omitted by Tisch. The evidence against
it is too weak to justify its rejection, especially in the face of the agreement of the
passage otherwise with Eph. V. 6, and of the incompleteness of the thought which
would remain, in case those words were omitted; Reiche properly defends
them.- Ver. 7. Instead of toutols Elz. and Scholz lave avrois, in opposition to
decisive Codd., although defended by Reiche.- Ver. 11. Beſore ëheúd. Lachm.
inserts kaí; considerably attested, it is true (not by B C X), but nevertheless an
addition which crept in easily in consequence of the first two clauses of the verse;
Instead of oiitipuoī Elz. has olitipuôv, in opposition to decisive testimony.-Ver.
13. ó Xplotós] Lachm. reads ó rýplos, following A B D* F G 213, Vulg. It. Aug.
(once) Pel. Rightly; the Recepta is an interpretation, instead of which ó Debs (*)
and Deus in Christo (Arm. Aug. once) are also found.--Ver. 14. Ös] ABCFGP
Vulg. It. Clem. Chrys. read 0, which is approved by Griesb. and adopted by
Lachm. and Tisch. Ös (***) and the Recepta Tus (***) are emendations.Ver. 15.
Instead of ToŨ XPLOTOŬ Elz. has To✓ Ocow, in opposition to decisive evidence, from
Phil. iv. 7.–Ver 16. The kai before ülv. and wdais should in both cases be
omitted (Scholz omits only the first), in accordance with preponderating evidence.
Borrowed from Eph. v. 19.-Év záp.] Lachm. and Tisch.: ¿v Tř záp., which, on
the authority of B D* E* F G *** Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, is to be preferred.
The article was passed over as superfluous.—Following far preponderant testimony
ül. TW OeQ, not: év tņi kapdiq øll. Tợ kupi» (Elz. Reiche), or: ¿v kapsię úl. T.
DEQ (Tisch. 7). Comp. Eph. V. 19.–Ver. 17. kupiou 'Incov] Lachm.: ’Inoon
XPLOTO], which is to be adopted on the authority of A C D* F G min. vss. and
l'athers; x has kup. 'Incoũ Xp.-kai Tarpi] kai is to be omitted, with Lachm. and
Tisch., following ABC x min. vss. and Fathers; from Eph. V. 20.-Ver. 18.
CHAP. III. 1.
343
After Tois Elz. reads idious, in opposition to decisive evidence; from Eph. v. 22.-
Ver. 19. After yuvaikas Lachm. has juwv, which, with considerable evidence in its
favor, is the more especially to be adopted, as in Eph. v. 25 éautāv is found. The
omission easily occurred, because mois avopáolv previously was also. without
genitival definition.—Ver. 20. Instead of év kupiw Elz. has tỘ kupiw, which is to
be regarded on decisive evidence as an omission of the apparently superfluous
Év.-Ver. 21. épeliGETE] Lachm. and Scholz, as also Griesb., recommend : Tap-
opyičete, following, it is true, A C D* E* FG KL* (trapopyibetal) min. Vulg. It.
Theodoret, ms. Theoph.; but it comes from Eph. vi. 4.--Ver. 22. Elz. and Tisch.
have οφθαλμοδουλείαις, which Reiche approves. But οφθαλμοδουλεία (recommended
by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. and Scholz) is the reading in A B D EFG
min. Damasc. Theoph.; and Chrysostom also by kat' oplahuodovaεlav testifies in
favor of the singular. The singular is to be preferred as preponderantly attested,
and because the final syllable AI (@) might very easily bring about the conversion
into the plural. If the singular had come in from Eph. vi. 6, Chrysostoma's
reading, Kat' 000., would be more frequent. — Instead of kúplov Elz. has ocov,
contrary to decisive witnesses.--Ver. 23. kai tāv Ö, Tl ťáv] The reading ô éáv,
which Griesb. approves, and Lachm. Scholz and Tisch. have adopted, is decisively
attested; the Recepta is from ver. 17.-Ver. 24. .TŲ yap] yáp has so decisive
witnesses against it (also x), that, with Lachm. and Tisch: (Griesb. also condemus
it), it is to be deleted as a current connective addition.-Ver. 25. ó sé ó ráp is
decisively attested (also by x); it is approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm.
and Tisch. The antithetical de crept in from misunderstanding.—KOLLEŽTAL] The
form kouioetal (Lachm.) is found in B D*** E K L *** min. Fathers. To these
may be added F G, which have kouišetal. The Recepta must give way to the
more strongly attested Kouloetal. Comp. on Eph. vi. 8.
CONTENTS.--The generally hortatory second portion of the Epistle,
preceded in ii. 6 merely by a special exhortation against the danger of
heresy, does not begin with ii. 6 (Hofmann), but only now, and seeks to
promote in the readers the essential moral direction of the Christian life (vv.
1-4); after which they are encouraged to lay aside and abandon every-
thing which is contrary to that direction (vv. 5-11), and to adopt and
follow all that is good and edifying in a Christian sense (vy. 12–17). Then
follow exhortations in reference to the various relations of the household
(ver. 18-iv. 1).
Ver. 1. f. [On Vv. 1-4, see Note XXXVI. pages 372, 373.] E7] does not make
the relation problematical any more than in ii. 20, but sets it forth as an
undoubted fact (ii. 12), from which the subsequent duty results, in
syllogistic form, as is frequently the case in Paul's writings (see Fritzsche,
ac Rom. I. p. 325), and also in the classics (Hartung, Parlikell. I. p. 259 f.;
Kühner and Herbst, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1). The being risen with Christ,
namely, is not meant in the sense of the regenerate moral life (see on ii.
12), but as the relation of real participation in the resurrection of Christ,
which involves as its ethical correlate the obligation Tà åvw snteiv.
[XXXVI b, c.] To be risen with Christ and not tà åvw SITEīv, would be a
contradiction.--our] therefore, points back to ver. 20, and with logical
propriety, since fellowship in the resurrection of Christ is the necessary
344
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
consequence 1 of fellowship in His death,—a fact which Paul had in view
also in ver. 21, in writing ás sãVTES Év kogum. The oủv is not intended to
be resumptive, namely, of what was said in ii. 12 (Hofmann); otherwise
what comes after that verse down to the present one must have had the
nature of a parenthesis, or a digression.-à ăvw] [XXXVI d.] the
opposite to tà ÉTTÈ Tñs yns: that which is in heaven (comp. John viii. 23;
Gal. iy. 26; Phil. iii. 14), by which is indicated the Messianic salvation
which, with its future blessings (ii. 17), is preserved in heaven to be
manifested and communicated at the Parousia (vv. 3, 4). Comp. Matt. vi.
33, and the conceptions of the treasure in heaven (Matt. vi. 20), of the
heavenly Bpaßεiov (ii. 18; Phil. iii. 14), rođiterua (Phil. iii. 20), Jerusalem
(Gal. iv. 26). It is substantially the same as sóšav K. TILNY K. åpOapolav SnTEīv
in Rom. ii. 7. As a philosophical analogy, comp. especially the arw osós
in the beautiful close of Plato's Republic, and the farewell of Socrates in
the Phaedo. A liturgical coloring, which such expressions as tà åvw (also
Tà év toiç oúpavoiç k.1.2. in i. 16, 20) are alleged to have (Holtzmann), is
arbitrarily assumed as a criterion of a later age.—oń ó X. ÉOTIV K.T.M.]
furnishing a motive encouraging them to perfect the fellowship. “Par est
enim illuc tendere studia curasque membrorum, ubi jam versatur caput,"
Erasmus. The event of the bodily ascension (but not a definite form of
the process) is here, as in every case where the exalted Christ is the sub-
ject of discourse, presupposed. Comp. especially Phil. iii. 21 ; 1 Cor. xv.
48. Notwithstanding the local ou, Hofmann thinks that Paul has con-
ceived the supramundane existence of Christ not at all locally. Comp.,
however, on Eph. i. 20 and Mark xvi. .19; and see the frequent and
significant όπου εγώ υπάγω and όπου είμι εγώ fironm the lips of Jesus in John.
-Ver. 2. Tà ăvw] repeated with emphasis, and then still further strengthened
by the negative contrast. The φρονείτε is more comprehensive than ζητείτε,
expressing not only the striving (comp. Rom. ii 7), but the whole practical
bent of thought and disposition (comp. Beck, bibl. Seelenl. p. 62), the moral
meditari, Phil. ii. 5.-Tà ÉTÈ T. yis] e.g. money and estate, honors, comforts,
etc. Comp. Phil. iii. 19: oi Tà ériyela ApovoŪVTEÇ, also 1 John ii.
15, et al. Neither the contrast nor the subsequent text warrants us in
finding here a further reference to the requirements of the false teachers.
So Theophylact: Tà nepi Bpwpátwv K. nulépwv; Calvin : "adhuc persequitur
suam disputationem de ceremoniis, quae similes tricis facit, quae nos humi
repere cogant;" comp. Beza, Michaelis, and others. The hortatory
portion of the Epistle proceeds no longer at all in the form of statements
1 It is therefore with all the less reason that
Hitzig, p. 23 ff., would have vv. 1, 2 regarded
as" a portion of the reviser's work," at the same
time denying the integrity of the text in ii.
22, 23, declaring ii. 19 to be an interpolation,
and very arbitrarily remodelling ii. 17, 18.
He thinks that the interpolation of iii. 1 f.
betrays times subsequent to the destruction
of Jerusalem, when earthly grounds of hope
had vanished, but not extending beyond the
period of Trajan,--which is assumed to result
from iv. 17. Combinations such as these are
beyond the reach of criticism. According to
Holtzmann, vv. 2,3 presuppose the destruc-
tion of all hopes connected with the con-
tinuance of the theocracy, and directly
allude to Heb. xii. 22; even the “sitting
at the right hand” (as in Eph. i. 20) is
withal, notwithstanding Rom. viii. 34, as-
sailed. Of the entire chapter, Holtzmann
only leaves vy. 3, 12, 13, 17 to stand as
original.
CHAP. III. 2, 3.
345
opposed to the false teachers, but in that of general moral exhortations.-
We have to observe, further, that the earthly is not of itself placed under
the point of view of the sinful, which would be quite un-Pauline (1 Cor.
vi. 12, x. 23), but is so as the contents of the striving which is opposed to
the tà ávw' ppoveiv. Cornp. the idea in Matt. vi. 21.
Ver. 3. [XXXVI c.] Assigning a reason for the requirement of ver.
2.- For ye are dead; how then could your mind be directed towards
earthly things! and your life does not belong to the realm of the visible
world, but it is hidden with Christ in God: how should you not then tà åvw
øpovɛīv! It is a guide to a correct and certain interpretation of the pas-
sage, that this statement of a reason must affirm the same thing as was
already contained, only without special development, in ei ouvnyépô. T. X.
of ver. 1. This special exposition Paul now gives. Whosoever is risen,
namely, has died and lives, and these are the two points to which ver. 3
refers.—ånedávere] namely, by your having entered into the fellowship of
the death of Christ. This being dead has dissolved in the consciousness
of the Christian the ties that hitherto bound him to earthly things. He
finds himself still in the realm of the earthly, but he no longer lives therein,
ii. 21. Comp. Phil. iii. 20; Gal. ii. 20.--> Swi úrūv] must necessarily be
the life, which has followed the being dead; consequently the eternal life,
comp. ver. 4, which set in through the resurrection (of which Christians,
in fact, have become partakers with Christ, ver. 1)—a life which the
believer has, prior to the Parousia, as a possession that has not yet been
manifested but is still in secret (oënw épavepáon, 1 John iii. 2), à treasure in
heaven, possessed in hope and still unrevealed, destined to appear in
glorious manifestation only at the Parousia.—oùv Tợ Xploto] For Christ
Himself, apart from fellowship with whose life the Swý of His believers
cannot have its being and essence, is hidden till the Parousia ;- and only
then sets in His pavépwors (ver. 4), árokálupis (1 Cor. i. 7; 2 Thess. i. 7; 1
Pet. i. 7, 13, iv. 13), Étrepávela (1 Thess. ii. 8; 1 Tim. vi. 14), with which also
the átoráðubis Tūv viūv T. Oeow (Rom. viii. 19) will take place, ver. 4.
Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 10 f.; 1 John iii. 2.-év tỘ OeQ] in God, in so far, namely,
as Christ, who, according to John (i. 18), is eis Tòv kółTTOV TOŨ Tarpós, remains
hidden in God till the Parousia, as ouvOpovos of God (ver. 1), living united
with God in His glory hitherto unseen, in order thereafter to proceed
from God and to manifest Himself with the full divine glory. But, as
with Christ, so also with our life, which is hidden GùV TỘ Xploto, and there-
fore can only issue forth at His second coming from God, and be received
.by us in real glorious communication and manifestation through our
ovvdošao Oñval (Rom. viii. 17, comp. v. 2, 10). If the coherence of the rela-
tion expressed by kékpUTTaL was asserted by cùV TẬ X., so also is its inherence
by év tỘ OeQ. The essential part of our explanation, viz. that » scn) u. is
eternal life, is held also by Chrysostom, Theodoret (éreivov yàp åvaorávros
TTávteç nyéponjlev ára ovdértw ópūļEV TÛV paypátwv TIJU ÈKBaoiv), Oecumenius
(των γάρ αληθώς Χριστιανών ζωή έστιν μένουσα, ή μέν τοι πάρουσα εικόνα
Māždov Oavátov ģy Świis ěxel), Theophylact (Paul wished to show avtoùs
καθημένους άνω και άλλην ζώντας ζωής, την εν τω Θεώ, την μη φαινομένην),
346
: THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Calvin, Beza, Erasmus, Schmid, Grotius, and others, including Baum-
garten-Crusius. The accurate contextual connection of this view with
what precedes, and with ver. 4 (see above), excludes the explanation
adopted by many, of swn in the ethical, spiritual sense.. So Erasmus,
Vatablus, Calovius, Bengel, Flatt ("the inner, new, blissful life of true
Christians”), Bähr, Böhmer, Steiger, Olshausen, and others, including
Huther, Bleek, and de Wette, who apprehends this life as being hidden
in two respects: namely, as regards the disposition and striving, it is,
because directed to the heavenly, internal and ideal, whereas the life of
worldly men in the common sense is real or manifest; as regards the
imputation or recompense, it lacks outward happiness, but enjoys internal
peace, and is therefore in this respect also hidden or ideal, whereas the
worldly life, in unison with the outer world, leads to external peace or to
happiness, and is so far, therefore, real or manifest also; the oùv TỎ X.
denotes not merely the spiritual fellowship, but is “at the same time to a
certain extent” to be understood in a local sense (comp. ver. 1), and tv TÓ
Dem denotes the sphere of the Christian life, or “its relation to the system
of the universe, that it belongs to the invisible world, where God Himself
lives.” Of all this there is nothing in the words, the historical sense of
which neither requires nor bears such a spiritualistic idealization with
more senses than one, but, on the contrary, excludes it as caprice. The
Swi ülõv does not refer to the ethical life of Christians at all, neither alone
nor along with eternal life (Cornelius a Lapide, Estius; comp. Bleek and
Ewald). On the contrary, it is aptly said by Kaeuffer, de swñs aiwv. not. p.
'93: “ vitam enim piam et honestam, quam homo Christianus in hac terra
vivere possit ac debeat, P. dicere non poterat nunc cum Christo in Deo
(in coelis puta, in quibus Christus nunc est) reconditam esse, atque olim
in splendido Jesu reditu de coelo revelatum iri ; haec non nisi vitae
coelesti conveniunt.” Hofmann's distinction is less clear and definite: the
Çwn is meant as the blessing, in which Christians have an advantage over
the world, by their having participated in the death and resurrection of
Christ,-a life, which is indeed life in the full sense of the word, but which
· does not appear before the world as what it is, so long as Christ is hidden
from the world and in God. Notwithstanding, Hofmann properly rejects
the explanations referring it to the holy life of the Christian, and to the
holy and blissful life together.-Observe, further, the difference in the
tenses, the aorist åredávere denoting the accomplished act of dying at con-
version, by which they entered into the fellowship of the death of Christ;
and the perfect kékp., the continuous subsisting relation in reference to the
present up to the (near) Parousia. .
1«The life of believers is said to be hidden,
inasmuch as it is internal, and what is exter-
nal does not harmonize with it;" and in ev TW
cu God is conceived as the element, “into
whose essence believers, like Christ Himself,
are assumed and enwrapped."
2 In whose view the Christian leads a life in
God, and this is a hidden life, because the
world knows nothing about it (comp. Eras-
mus: "juxta judicium mundi"); in fact, to
the Christian himself its full glory is not
manifest (comp. Bengel); and by oùv Tý X.
it is shown that the Christian leads such a
Jife not of himself, but only in his fellowship
with Christ. Dalmer gives an obscure and
heterogeneous explanation.
CHAP. III. 4, 5.
347
· Ver. 4. And what a blissful future is connected with the n swúpāv kekp.
6.7.2.! This bright, favorable side of the previous thought is the continua-
tion of the proof of ver. 2 begun in ver. 3, detaching them thoroughly
from earthly pursuits and elevating them to the courage of victory;
vividly introduced without connecting particle (kai): “repentina luce
percellit,” Bengel, which Hofmann fails to perceive, when he objects to
the absence of dé. The relation is not antithetical at all.-pavepwan] shall
have become manifest, have come forth from His present concealment,
namely, by His Parousia. See on ver. 3. [wr útūv] your life. Christ
Himself is thus designated (comp. 1 Éanis in i. 27), because He is the per-
sonal author, possessor, and bearer of the eternal life of His believers
(comp. John xiv. 6, xi. 25), and this, according to the context, inasmuch as
they have entered into the fellowship of His resurrection: they are alive 1
with Him (oùy T. X., ver. 3); His life is their life. The definite object of
this apposition, moreover, is argumentative, for the following TÓTe K.T..-
kai úuεis] as Christ, so also ye with Him. The two subjects have the
emphasis.- avepwd. év 86f9] Comp. ovvdóðarOūļev in Rom. viii. 17. It
means nothing else than the glory of the Messianic kingdom, in which
believers (also glorified bodily, 1 Cor. xv. 43; 2 Cor. v. 1 ff.; Phil. iii. 21)
shall be manifested visibly. The offence which Holtzmann takes at the
use of pavepovolal (instead of ảnokahúttečdal, Rom. viii. 17 ff.) and (wń, pre-
supposes a too limited range for Paul's manipulation of language. Our
passage has nothing to do with 2 Cor. iv. 10 f. Nor does it eyen "almost
look” (Holtzmann) as if the author were conceiving the readers as already
dead at the Parousia. The pavepwoñval év fóxy takes place in the case of
those still alive through their being changed, as the reader was aware.
Ver. 5.2 [On ry. 5-11, see Note XXXVII. pages 373-375.7 Ouv] draws the
inference from vv. 3, 4, in order now to lead to that which must be done
with a view to the carrying out of the peño Tà ÉTÈ T. yñs. [XXXVII a.] The
inference itself is: “Since, according to vy. 3, 4, ye are dead, but have
your life hidden with Christ in God and are destined to be glorified with
Christ, it would be in contradiction of all this, according to which ye
belong no longer to the earth but to the heavenly state of life, to permit
your earthly members still to live; no, ye are to put them to death, to make
them die” (Rom. iv. 19; Heb. xi. 12; Plut. Mor. p. 954 D)!-vekpáoate]
[XXXVII 6.] prefixed with emphasis as the point of the inference; the
term is selected in significant reference to απεθάνετε and η ζωή υμών, νν. 3,
4.-Tà péan üpāv] means nothing else, and is not to be explained otherwise
than: your members (hand, foot, eye, etc.). That these were not to be put
to death in the physical sense, but in an ethical respect (comp. ii. 11)—
seeing, namely, that they, as the seat and organs of sinful lusts (Rom. vii.
23), which they still are even in the case of the regenerate (Gal. v. 17, 24),
are to lose their vigor of life and activity through the Christian moral will
1 Comp. Ignatius, Eph. 3, where Christ is
designated το αδιάκριτον ημών ζην, also Μαg-
nes. 1, Smyrnu. 4.
2 In the section vv. 5–17, in which Hönig, in
relation to Eph. iv. 1-5, 20, finds the stamp of
originality, Holtzmann discovers the concen-
trating labor of the interpolator, whose second
(and better) effort is the passage in Colossians.
348
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
-governed by the Holy Spirit, and in so far to experience ethical deadening
(comp. Rom. vii. 5, 23, viii. 13, and the analogous representation by Jesus
as to plucking out the eye, etc., Matt. v. 29 f., xviii. 8 f.; comp. also xix.
12)—was self-evident to the reader, as it was, moreover, placed beyond
doubt by the following appositions Topvelav K.T.h. Hence there was neither
ground nor warrant in the context to assume already here (see ver. 9) the
conception of the old man, whose desires are regarded as members (Beza,
Flacius, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Calovius, and others, includ-
ing Böhmer, Olshausen, and Bleek), although the required putting to
death presupposes that the old man. is still partially alive. Nor is sin
itself, according to its totality, to be thought of as body and its individuali
parts as members (Hilary, Grotius, Bengel, Bähr, and others); a concep-
tion which does not obtain even in ii. 11 and Rom. vi. 6, and which is
inadmissible here on account of ýmõv. The view of Steiger, finally, is
erroneous (comp. Baumgarten-Crusius), that the entire human existence is
conceived as oõua. We may add that the vékpWOLS of the members, etc., is
not inconsistent with the death (arebávete, ver. 3) already accomplished
through conversion to Christ, but is required by the latter as the necessary,
ever new act of the corresponding morality, with which faith lives and
works. And in view of the ideal character of this obligation the com-
mand vekpboatɛ K.T..--this requirement, which is ever repeating itself, of
the ethical mortificatio-is never superfluous.--Tà ÉTÈ tñs yñs] which cre upon
the earth, corresponds to the tà ÉTÈ T. y. in ver. 2; in contrast, not to the
glorified human nature of Christ (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 560), but to
the life hidden with Christ in God. In this antithetical addition is involved
an element which justifies the requirement verpúðate T. M. Úplo, not expressing
the activity of the wéan for what is sinful (de Wette, comp. Flatt and others, in
connection with which Grotius would even supply tà opovoīvta from ver.
2), which the simple words do not affirm, but: that the wéan, as existing
upon earth, have nothing in common with the life which exists in heaven,
that their life is of another kind and must not be spared to the prejudice
of that heavenly Śwń! Comp. also Hofmann's present view. The context
does not even yield a contrast of heavenly members (Huther), i. e. of a life of
activity for what is heavenly pervading the members, or of the members
of the new man (Julius Müller), since the swń is not to be understood in the
sense of the spiritual, ethical life.—-Topvelav k.1.2.] Since Paul would not
have the members slain as such absolutely and unreservedly, but only as
regards their ethical side, namely, the sinful nature which dwells and
works in them (Rom. vii. 23), he now subjoins detailed instances of this
sinful nature, and that with a bold but not readily misunderstood direct-
ness of expression appositionally, so that they appear as the forms of immor-
ality cleaving to the members, with respect to which the very members are
to be put to death. In these forms of immorality, which constitute no
1 Comp. also Julius Müller, v. d. Sünde, I. p.
461, ed. 5, and Flatt.
2 Chrysostom illustrates the relation by
comparing the converted person to a cleansed
and brightened statue, which, however, needs
to be afterwards cleansed afresh from new
accretions of rust and dirt.
CHAP. III. 5.
349
vetan; but bis represented thinks, the
such heterogeneous apposition to tà uban Úpl. as Holtzmann thinks, the
life of the uéan, which is to be put to death, is represented by its parts.
Paul might have said: aéyw dê Topvelav; but by annexing it directly, he
gave to his expression the form of a distributive apposition (see Kühner,
II. 1, p. 247), more terse and more compact after the oxõua ka chov kai
pépos. It is neither a sudden leap of thought nor a metonymy.—ảkabapo.]
in reference to lustful uncleanness; comp. on Rom. i. 24; Gal. v. 19; 2
Cor. xii. 21; Eph. iv. 19, v. 3. Paul gives, namely, from ropy. to kakhv,
four forms of the first Gentile fundamental vice, unchastity, beginning with
the special (Tropvelav), and becoming more and more general as he pro-
ceeds. Hence follows: tábos, passion (the nirãoðal üstò rñs 19 dovñs, Plat.
Prot. p. 352 A; Dem. 805. 14; Arist. Eth. ii. 4), heat; Rom. i. 26; 1 Thess.
iv. 5; and Lünemann in loc.? And finally : ÉTiOvu. Kakhv (Plat. Legg. ix. p.
854 A), evil desire, referring to unchaste longing. Comp. Matt. v. 28;
Breitenbach, ad Xen. Hier. 6. 2. Unnatural unchastity (Rom. i. 26 f.; 1
Cor. vi. 9) is included in åkal., Tal., and ĚTLO. KQK., but is not expressly
denoted (Erasmus, Calovius, Heinrichs, Flatt, Böhmer) by ráðos (comp.
pathici, Catullus, xvi. 2; Tallicetecbai, Nicarch. in Anth. xi. 73), a meaning
which neither admits of linguistic proof, nor is, considering the general
character of the adjoining terms (akaðapo. ÉTLO. Kak.), in keeping with the
context. ÉTELU. Kak. is to be distinguished frorn nádos as the more
general conception; the Táboç is always also ÉTAvuia and relatively
ĚTLO. Kakń, but not the converse, since a jiyeogal or kpatzīv TñS Śniðvías
may also take place.--K. TIJ Tcheovežiav] [XXXVII c.] After the vice
of uncleanness comes now the second chief vice of the Gentiles (comp.
on Eph. iv. 19): covetousness. Hence the connection here by means
of kcí, which is not even, but (in opposition to Hofmann) the simple and,
and the article, which introduces the new category with the description of its
disgraceful character, associating this descriptive character as a special
stigma with the vice of Theověšía. In opposition to the erroneous inter-
pretations : insatiable lust (Estius, Michaelis), or: the gains of prostitution
(Storr, Flatt, Bähr), see on Eph. l. C., and Huther. The theovešía is not
separated by the article from the appositional definitions of the ukan, and
co-ordinated with tà Méhn, so that the latter would only be “the members
which minister to unchaste lust" (Huther); for tà uéann úll. can only denote
the members generally, the collective members; and tv tois Méheolv (Rom.
vii. 5, 23) understood generically, and not as referring to particular indi-
vidual members, sin is operating with all its lusts, as, in accordance with
this ethical mode of viewing the matter, the collective members form the
oõja tñs oapróg of ii. 11. Bengel remarks aptly that the article indicates
1 Comp. also Plat. Phaed. p. 265 B: rò épwtc
xòv tábos, Phaedr. p. 252 C.
2 Looking to the so closely marked twofold
division of the vices adduced, it is inconsist-
ent with the text to take, with Hofmann, the
three elements, ákatapr., Tábos, and éLoud
xax., in such a general sense as to make åka-
Dapoia mean every "action which mars the
creaturely honor (?) of man," Tádos, the passion
which enslaves through excitement of the blood,
and ét loupia kaký, all evil desire, which is, as
such, a morhid excitement of the blood. The
excitement of the blood, thus sanguinely enough
invented without any hint whatever from the
text, is then held to convert the second and
third elements into cases in which one sins
350
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
totum genus vitii a geriere commemoratarum modo specierum diversum.— T25
Xotiv eiswhoratp.] quippe quae est, etc., further supports the vekpácate specially
in reference to this vice, which, as the idolatry of money and possessions,
is kat' ćçoxíu of a heathen nature. In 1 Cor. v. 11, the eidwłodatp. is to be
taken differently in opposition to Holtzmann). Moreover, see on Eph. v.
5. Observe, further, that the addition of the Tasovežia to unchastity (comp.
1 Cor. v. 11) can afford no ground for supposing that the author of the
Ephesians borrowed this combination from 1 Thess. ii. 3, and that it was
taken into our present Epistle from that to the Ephesians (Holtzmann).
Comp. also 1 Cor. vi. 9 f.
Ver. 6. This relative affirmation stands in a confirmatory reference to
the verpáoate K.7.2. above, the omission of which would draw down upon
the readers, instead of the davepwuñval év dóšn of ver. 4, a fate such as is
here described.—1° Ö (see the critical remarks) has the significant stress
of the relative clause : on account of this immorcility mentioned in ver. 5. The
Recepta di ä is to be taken just in the same way, and not to be referred to
the péan (Bähr), since it is not the latter themselves, but their life-activi-
ties specified by πορνείαν κ.τ.λ., which call forth the wrath of God.-έρχεται
namely, at the judgment. Comp. Eph. v. 6; 1 Thess. i. 10: 1 ópyi ý
#pro Lévn ; Matt. iii. 7: % kếAo06a . Hence: huếpa dpYặc in Roni, ii. 5;
Rev. vi. 17. Chrysostom well says: Paul warns dià TūV M€ 22 óvtwv š ūv
å T na 2 á ynu a v kakāv. See also on Eph. v. 6. The frequent reference to
the manifestation of the divine wrath (comp. Rom. i. 18 ff.) in the course
of this temporal lifé (Huther and many others) overlooks the correlation
with ver. 4, and the apostle's conception of the nearness of the Parousia.
Hence, also, the combination of the two references (Theophylact and
others, also Flatt) is to be rejected.--Respecting the vioùs rīs åreld. (the
Jews and Gentiles, whọ reject the gospel and thereby disobey God), comp.
on Eph. v. 6, and as to this mode of expression generally, Steiger on 1
Pet. i. 14. [XXXVII d.].
Ver. 7. Transition to the following exhortation; and how touching
through the effect of the contrast !--év ols] is, with the leading di ö in
ver. 6, necessarily to be referred to the vioùs 7. ÅTel.: anong whom ye also
wallced once, by which is meant, not external association (which in fact was
not cancelled by conversion, 1 Cor. v. 10), but the fellowship of moral con-
duct. But, even with the reading di ä in ver. 6, šv ois is to be taken
(comp. Eph. ii. 2 f.) as inter quos (Vatablus, Rosenmüller, de Wette,
Schenkel, Bleek), and not to be referred, as it commonly is (Chrysostom,
however, seems to understand it as masculine) to the vices named in ver.
5, because the relative most naturally attaches itself to what immediately
precedes, in order to continue the discourse, and because, if év oić refer to
the sins, then šsījte ÉV TOUTOLS once more asserts substantially the same
against his own body,-a characteristic point,
which Paul has not in view at all in connec-
tion with the apposition to τα μέλη κ.τ.λ., as
is plain from the appended K. T. adeovesiav
belonging to the same apposition.
It has been well said by Theodoret: émeldn.
To lauwvà kúplov o owthp poonyópevoe, didá-
σκων, ώς ο τω πάθει της πλεονεξίας δουλεύων ως
Deòv tÒN THOūTOV Tima.
CHAP. III. 6-8.
351
thing, so that the discourse gains nothing in thoughtfulness through the
two verbs, as in Gal. v. 25, but is unduly amplified. The distinctions
which in this case have been attempted between TEPITETETV and Sîv still
make the one or the other appear as self-evident. See e.g. Calvin : vivere
and ambulare are distinguished from each other like potentia (comp.
Grotius : “moveri ”) and actus, the former preceding and the latter fol-
lowing; Beza (and Estius): vivere denotes naturae habitum, ambulare,
Évépyelav ipsam ; Bähr (comp. Olshausen and Reiche): the former refers
more to the disposition, the latter to the outward conduct; Hofmann:
the state of life (=5ñte), with which the conduct in detail (TTEPLETTAT.) harmon-
1zed.–ότε εζήτε εν τούτοις] εζήτε stands emphatically and pregnantly first :
when ye lived in these, i.e. when ye were alive therein, inasmuch as the
ảnelávete of ver. 3 had not yet set in in your case, the requirement of the
-VEkpoñv in ver. 5 was still strange to you, and these disgraceful things
formed the element and sphere of activity of your life. On 5ñv, to be alive,
in contrast to the being dead, comp. Rom. vii. 9; 2 Cor. xiii. 4; also Col.
ii. 20; Év TOUTOLS 1 is neuter, grouping together demonstratively, and setting
forth contemptuously, the states of vice spoken of. According to Flatt,
Böhmer, and Huther, it is masculine : "then, when ye belonged to the chil-
dren of disobedience," so that 5ñv. év kóouw (ii. 20) and ávaotpéPELV Év TŐ KÓGLŲ
(2 Cor. i. 11) would have to be compared. In opposition to this view it
may be urged that őte 51TE ÉV TOÚTols, in this sense, would be a very mean-
ingless and superfluous more precise designation of the TOTÉ, whereas,
according to the view above adopted, it is thoughtful and characteristic.2
On the change from the merely historical aorist to the descriptive imper-
fect, lending a lively color to the representation, and claiming the closer
attention of the reader who had passed more rapidly over the TEPLETAT.,
comp. Kühner, II. 1, p. 133, and Reisig, ad Soph. 0. C. p. 254 f.
Ver. 8. Novè dé] In contrast to the past, which has just been described :
but now, when ye are no longer alive in those things.-kai újeis] does not
refer to the fact that the Ephesians also are thus exhorted (Eph. iv. 22, 25,
31), as Holtzmann here contrives critically to suggest; but as kai ik. in
ver. 7 reminded the readers of the immoral pre-Christian society, which
they also had formerly resembled, so this kai úpɛis reminds them of the
moral Christian society, which they also ought to resemble now.-à trávra]
the whole of these, i.e. the things indicated by év TOÚTois without any
exception; ye shall retain nothing of them, “ne quid veneni resideat”
(Grotius). To this rà távra the apostle then annexes directly and in
rapid asyndetic continuation yet other sins, which are likewise to be left off.
Bleek erroneously takes ópyiv k'.7.2. as in apposition to tà távta; for the
latter can only be retrospective (comp. Hofmann), and cannot, consist-
ently with the text, be taken as meaning, "everything that belongs to the
old man.”—áró€60€] like garments (see on Eph. iv. 22); a lively change
of figures; the conception of members is laid aside.—Ovuóv] distinguished
1 With the Recepta a úto is any other refer.
ence than that, which ois has, is excluded;
hence the origin of αυτοίς.
% Fence not to be attributed, with Holtz-
mann, to the tautological style of the author,
in remembrance of 1 Cor. vi. 11.
352
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
from ópyhu as the ebullition, the effervescing of the latter (Eustath. ad Il.
i.' p. 7. 17). Skaríav] wickedness, malicious nature. Comp. on Rom. 1. 29;
Eph. iv. 31.--Braopnjiav] slander, not against God, but against others, as
oral outbreak of the evil dispositions mentioned.—aio xpołoylav] only used
here in the N. T.: shameful discourse, which, in accordance with the cate-
gory of all the sins here named, is not to be understood of unchaste dis-
course, as following the Fathers 3 it has commonly been taken (Hofmann:
“obscene” discourse). Rather: railing speech (Polyb. viii. 13. 8, xxxi. 10.
4), forming one genus with Braopnuiav, but a wider idea.5 All the ele-
ments in ver. 8 specify the malevolent and hostile disposition ; and the two
last, especially the oral manifestation thereof; hence the addition of śK TOW
OTÓLatos úl., which, without arbitrariness, cannot but be referred to both words,
(so also Bleek), not to aloxpoz. alone, and is, with Grotius, to be conceived
as depending on the still operative idea of år60€obe, so that it may not be
characterized as a “secondary malformation ” (Holtzmann). The readers
are to lay aside, generally, ópynv, Ovuòv, kaklav; and to lay aside from their
mouth Bhao njilav, aloxpoloyiav. We are not to suppose any special pur-
pose in connection with the addition; it serves merely for the concrete
representation ; but, if we should regard it as the more precise definition
of aioxpor. (Hofmann), or should even, as is often done, by supplying an
εκπορευομένην, join it with αισχρολογ., or with βλασφ. ειnd αισχρολογ., it would
be utterly void of meaning. The special idea of that which defiles (Chry-
sostom), or of the opposite of Christian praise to God (Hofmann), does not
form the basis of the ÉK T. GTÓL. Úl.; on the contrary, it is the conception
in general of what is unsuited and foreign (comp. on vuvè dé) to Christian
fellowship and intercourse, which serves as the presupposition for the
entire exhortation. Comp. Eph. iv. 29.
Ver. 9. Mì pɛúdecliɛ eis å 22.] i.e. lie not one to another, so that eis expresses
the direction of the ψεύδεσθαι (conmp. ψ. κατά τινος in the sense of the hostile
direction, Plat. Euthyd. p. 284 A, al.; Jas. iii. 14), like após in Xen. Anab.
i. 3. 5; Plat. Legg. xi. p. 917 A ; Lev. vi. 2. It is different in Susann. 55.
59. It connects itself with what precedes, and hence it is to be separated
only by a comma from ver. 8 (with Lachmann and Tischendorf); the
following απεκδυσάμενοι κ.τ.λ. adds a determining motive for the whole από-
0800€ . . . århnhous: since ye have put off the old man . . . and put on the new,
etc., with which the retaining of wrath, etc., and the further lying (observe
the present peúd.) would not be consistent; on the contrary, this trans-
formation which, in principle, has taken place in and with the conver-
sion to Christ, must manifest itself practically by the laying aside of those
vices. Accordingly, the aorist participles are not synchronous with the
1 See on Rom. ii. 8; comp. Eph. iv. 31; Rev.
xvi. 19; Ecclus. xlviii. 10; 1 Macc. ii. 49;
Hom. I.. ix. 629 : Plat. Phil. p. 47. E: Tois
Ourois k. tais ópyais.
2 Comp. Eph. I. c. ; 1 Cor, iv. 13; Rom. iii. 8;
Tit. iii. 2; frequently in classic writers; in
Dem. 312. 19 joined with ouropaytia.
3 See Suicer, Thcs. I. p. 136.
4 Comp. Epictet Enchir. 33. 16; Xen. de Lac.
rep. 5. 6; aioxpodoyoûvras in Plat. Rep. p. 395
E; Pollur, iv. 105; and the passages in Wet-
stein; also aloxpoentów in Athen. xiii. p. 571
A; and respecting the aioxpodoyia ėøiepois,
see Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 689.
6 Comp. aioxpà érea, Hom. Il. iii. 38, xxiv.
238.
CHAP. III. 9, 10.
353
foregoing (exuentes, etc., so Vulgate, Luther, Calovius, and others, includ-
ing Flatt, Olshausen, Huther, de Wette, Ewald, and. Bleek), but precede it;
they are not included in the exhortation, for which reason 1 Pet. v. 6 f. is
inappropriately appealed to, but assign a ground for it. This is clear, even
in a linguistic point of view, from the fact that wevdeolɛ is the present;
and also, as regards the sense, from the circumstance that if the words be
regarded as part of the exhortation itself, as a definition of the mode of
what is required, the exuentes only, and not the induentes, would correspond
with the requirement to lay aside and to abstain from lying. Besides, ver.
11 is inappropriate as a constituent part of an exhortation, but suits well
as an argumentative enlargement. Finally, the assumed figurative
exhortation only comes in expressly at er. 12, and that by way of infer-
ence (our) from what had been said previously from árekdvoáu. onwards
in the same figure, though not yet in paraenetic form. [XXXVII e.]
Without any sufficient reason, and out of harmony with the simple parae-
netic form of the entire context, Hofmann begins with anekdvoápl. a new
period, whose protasis ends in ver. 11, and whose apodosis begins with oův
in ver. 12 (comp. on Rom. ii. 17 ff.); by this we gain only a more clumsy
complication of the discourse, especially as the supposed apodosis has
again participial definitions. The entire practical part of the Epistle pro-
ceeds in plain sentences, not dialectically joined together. Comp., more-
over, on ver. 12.—Respecting the double compound &TEKSVO., comp. or. ii.
11.—The terminus ante quem for mahalós, is the adoption of Christianity, so
that, by the whole expression ó malalòs åvopwnos generically the collective
pre-Christian condition in a moral respect 1 is presented as personified.2
Comp. on Rom. vi. 6; Eph. iv. 22.-50v tais apágeolv avtov] not generally:
with his doing (Hofmann), but in the bad sense : along with his evil prac-
tices, with his bad tricks. Comp. on Luke xxiii. 51 and Rom. viii. 13.
Ver. 10. The positive aspect of the transformation (regeneration)
wrought by God through conversion to Christ; and since ye have put on,
etc.-TÒv véov] The collective new Christian ethical condition, conceived as
personified and set forth objectively, so that it appears as becoming individu-
ally appropriated by the putting on. It might, with equal propriety, be
designated from the point of view of time as the homo recens in contrast to
the decayed and worn-out nature of the pre-Christian moral, condition
(comp. the véov púpana in 1 Cor. v. 7), as from the point of view of the
new, altogether different, and previously non-existent quality as the homo
novus. It is the former here, the latter in Eph. iv. 23 (comp. also ii. 15),
1 Origiral sir is not denoted by the expres-
sion and the conception to which it is sub-
servient (in opposition to Calvin: "veteris
hominis nomine, intelligi pravitatem nobis
ingenitam;" comp. Calovius: concupiscen-
tiam pravam congenitam"); it is, however,
according to the biblical view (Rom. vii. 14
ff.), its presupposition and the regulative agent
in the moral character of the old man.
2 With the entrance of Christianity.into the
life of humanity, the old has passed away,
and all things have become new (2 Cor. v.
17). But the old man was individually put
off by the several subjects through their own
historical conversion to Christ. The Xplotov
vedúo code of Gal. iii. 27 is not in substance
different from the having put on the new man.
3 In the ethical sense Christians are, as it
were, the veolaia (Blomfield, Gloss. Pers. 674)
of humanity..
23
354
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
where kalvos à vôp. is used. The specification of quality is then further
added by tòv åvakalvoúhl. K.T.2. The notion of not growing old (Chrysostom,
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus) is not implied in véov.-Tòv åvakalvot-
pevov] [XXXVII f.] The homo recens, so far, namely, as the converted person
has appropriated it as his moral individuality, is not something ready-made
and finished, but (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 16) in a state of development (through
the Holy Spirit, Rom. vii. 6, viii. 2; Tit. iii. 5), by means of which there
is produced in him a new character and quality specifically different from
that of the old man. Comp. Rom. xii. 2. Hence the present participle,
which is neither to be taken as imperfect (B.-Crusius), nor as renewing itself
(Bleek); and åva does not refer to the relation of re-establishment,2
namely, of the justitia originalis (since ToŨ ktíoavtos does not directly
mean the first creation), but only to the old constitution, the transforma-
tion and new-moulding (renewal) of which forms the process of develop-
ment of the véns avopumos. Comp. Winer, cle verb. c. praepos. compos. p. 10
f. The καινότης of the νέος άνθρ. is relative. In Greelk authors ανακαινόω is
not found, but åvakalvítw is (Isocr. Areop. 3, App. 2, p. 13, Plut. Marcell.
6), Heb. vi. 6; also in the LXX.-es émiyvvolv] is to be taken along with
the following kat' eik. T. Ktío: autóv, and with this expresses the end aimed
at by the ávakalvovodai. Through the latter there is to be produced a
Icnowledge, which accords with the image of God. Comp. Beza. God, as
its objects, is the model, with which the relative knowledge of the regener-
ate to be attained in the course of their being renewed, i.e. their increas-
ing penetration into divine truth, is to be accordant. And the more it is
so—the more fully it has developed itself in accordance with the divine
ideal—the more is it also the determining power and the living practical
agent of the whole conduct, so that all those vices enumerated in ver. 8
are excluded by it, and even become morally impossible. Hofmann
rightly takes kat' £ik. TOÙ ktío. avrov as the more precise description of
śniyvwolv, though defining the sense to this effect, that the new man
" everywhere lookcs to, and estimates everything by the consideration, whether he
finds the stamp of this image." But, in that case, an object (Trávrwv) would
necessarily stand with ÉTiywwolv, and the idea of ávarpívelv or dokluáÇELV
would be substituted for that of iyuwors. The kat' elkóva k.7.. is usually
connected with åvakalvobl. and els Śríyv. taken by itself, in connection
with which Steiger, Huther, de Wette, and Bleek (comp. also Ewald)
arbitrarily adopt the view, that the prominent mention of the knowledge
1 See regarding the difference between tho
two words, Tittmann, Synon. p. 59 ff.
2“Renovatus autem dicitur novus ille homo,
quia novus quondam fuit in prima creationc,"
Calovius. Comp. Steiger, Huther, de Wette,
Philippi, Dogm. II. p. 375 ff., ed. 2, and many
a new life that the believer is regenerated,
raised up, etc. by God. This new creation
is not the recintegratio of the first, though it
is its antitype, as Christ Himself, so far as in
Him the new creation is founded and begun.
(how, see Rom. v. 15, 17-19, vi. 1 ff.), is the
ã vopumos, not the conception of a nova creatura
(Kalv» KTÍOLS, 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15), but
that of a redintegrata creatura. But it is to
Consequently this passage is only indirectly
probative for the doctrine of the image of
God as innate.
CHAP. III. 10. -
355
was occasioned by a polemic opposition to the false teachers and their
tendencies to false gnosis. But how abrupt, isolated, and indefinite would
the εis ériyv. thus stand! No; the subsequent kateikóva K.7.2. just serves
as a more precise characteristic definition for the–in theory and practice
so extremely important-point of Christian knowledge. [XXXVII g.]
The expression of this definition in this particular way comes very natur-
ally to Paul, because he is speaking of the homo recens creatus, in connec-
tion with which, after the analogy of the creation of Adam, the idea of the
image of God naturally floated before his mind,—the image which that
first-created man had, and which the recens creatus is to attain and present
by way of copy in that towards which he is being developed, in the miyvw-
olç. This development is only completed in the aiùy uériwv, 1 Cor. xiii.
12; for its aim before the Parousia, see Eph. iv. 13 f.-TOŨ KTioavtos autóv]
A description of God, harmonizing with the conception of the véos åvopw-
TTOS, who is God's creature. Comp. on Eph. iv. 24. It is erroneous, with
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ewald, and others, to understand Christi as
referred to; for creating is invariably represented in Scripture as the work
of God (even in i. 16), and especially here where a parallel is instituted
with the creation of Adam after God's image. Comp. Eph. ii. 10, iv. 24.
Olshausen, indeed, understands toũ ktio. avt. to mean God, but would
have the image of God, in accordance with i. 15, taken of Christ, who is
the archetype of man. There is no ground for this view in the context,
which, on the contrary, reminds us simply of Gen. i. 27; comp. katà Oɛóv,
in Eph. iv. 24, a simpler expression, which has found here a significant
more precise definition out of the riches of the apostle's store of ideas
(not a fanciful variation, as Holtzmann thinks) in vivid reproduction.-
αυτόν] must refer to the νέος άνθρωπος, whom God has created by regen-
eration, not to T. åvipunov alone (“which is the substance, on which the
old and new qualities appear as accidents,” de Wette), as the orthodox
explanation is forced to assume contrary to the text; see e.g. Calovius:
“Per imaginem ejus, qui creavit ipsum, imago Dei, quae in prima
creatione nobis concessa vel concreata est, intelligitur, ad quam nos renova-
mur, quaeque in nobis reparatur per Spiritum sanctum, quae ratione
intellectus consistebat in cognitione Dei, ut ratione voluntatis in justitia
et sanctitate, Eph. iv. 24. Per verbum itaque toũ kríoavtos non nova
creatio, sed vetus illa et primaeva intelligitur, quia in Adamo conditi omnes
sumus ad imaginem Dei in cognitione Dei.” Rather, the divine creation
of the new man had that primaevani creationem for its sacred historical
type, and is the work of salvation antitypically corresponding with it,
which the Creator has done in Christ; hence also Paul has not written
kríčovros (as Philippi, l.c. p. 376, thinks might have been expected), but
Krioavtos, comp. iv. 24, ii. 10; 2 Cor. v. 17; also Jas. i. 18.
Ver. 11. (XXXVII h.] Where all the separating diversities have ceased,
by which those phenomena of malevolence and passion mentioned in
ver. 8 were occasioned and nourished. Comp. Gal. iii. 28, of which pass-
1 So also Julius Müller, v. d. Sünde, II. p. 496, ed. 5; see, on the other hand, Ernesti, Urspr.
der Sünde, II. p. 133 ff.
356
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
age Baur indeed sees here only an extended and climactic imilation.-
ŐTTOv] where there is not, etc.; namely there, where the old man has been
put off, and the véos K.7.2. put on, ver. 10. It represents the existing
relation according to local conception, like the Latin ubi, i. e. qua in re,
or in quo rerum statu; like the local iva.? The relation is one objectively
real, historically occurring (comp. Gal. iii. 28; Rom. x. 12; 1 Cor. xii. 13),
present in renewed humanity. Consequently Önov is not to be referred
to the miyvwous, and to be interpreted within which, i. e. in the Christian
consciousness (Schenkel); but just as little is the relative clause to be
joined immediately with cis étríyvwolv Kat'ɛikova K.T.a. so that it affirms
that there, where this image is found, all contrasts, etc., have vanished; 'so
Hofmann in connection with his erroneous explanation of siç Ériyvwolv
KATEikóva K.7.2., see on ver. 10.--Respecting švi, equivalent to ĚVEOTI; see
on Gal. iii. 28.—"E22nV k. 'Iovo.] national diversity, without taking "Elanu,
however, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, in the sense of
proselyte.—Tepit. K. åkpoß.] theocratic diversity.2—Bápßapos K.7.2.] In the
increasing vividness of conception the arrangement by pairs is dropped,
and the nouns are placed beside each other asyndetically. Paul does not
couple with Bápßapos, as he does again in the case of Soūlos, its opposite,
which was already adduced ("Elany, comp. on Rom. i. 14), but proceeds
by way of a climax: Erbons. Bengel (comp. Grotius) well says:
“Scythae ... barbaris barbariores; " they were include, however, among
the barbarians (in opposition to Bengel, who thinks that the latter term
indicates the Numidians). For instances in which the Scythians are
termed Bapßapútatoi (comp. also 2 Macc. iv. 47; 3 Macc. vii. 5), see Wet-
stein. We may infer, moreover, from the passage, that among the
Christians there were even some Scythians, possibly immigrants into Greek
and Roman countries.-αλλά τα πάντα ... Χριστός] the dividing circum-
stances named, which, previous to the putting on of the véos åvų putos,
were so influential and regulative of social interests and conduct, have
now-a fact, which was beyond doubt not recognized by the Jewish prejudice
of the false teachers—since the Christian renovation (comp. 2 Cor. y. 17)
ceased to exist in the fellowship established by the latter (ideal expression
of the thought: their morally separating influence is abolished); whereas
Christ is the sum total of all desires and strivings, and that in all individuals,
without distinction of nations, etc.; He “solus proram et puppim, ut
ạiunt, principium et finem tenet" (Calvin). All are one in Christ, Gal.
iii. 28, v. 15; Rom. x. 12; 1 Cor. xii, 13; Eph. ii. 14.3_Xplorós] the sub-
1 Comp. Kühner. ac Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 1;
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 331 f.
2 For even a "Elanu might be circumcised
and thereby received into the theocracy.
-The fact that'Elnu stands before 'lovd. (it
is otherwise in Gal. iii. 28; 1 Cor. xii. 13;
Rom. x. 12, et al.) ought not to be urged,
with Holtzmann, following Baur and Hök-
stra, against the originality of the passage.
Paul does not arrange the designations
mechanically, as is evident from the second
clause. Holtzmann, however, justly denies,
in opposition to Mayerhoff and Hökstra, that
the arrangement is so inserted in antagonism
to the Jewish people.
8 Comp. on this use of the tà sávra in the
sense of persons, who pass for everything, 1
Cor. xv. 28; Herod. iii. 157, vii. 156; Thuc.
viii. 95. 1; Dem. 660. 7; Hermann, ad Viger.
p. 727.
CHAP. III. 11, 12.
357
ject put at the end with great emphasis. He, in all His believers (Ěv tãou)
the all-determining principle of the new life and activity, is also the con-
stituent of the new sublime unity, in which those old distinctions and
contrasts have become meaningless and as it were no longer exist. The
· Hellene is no longer other than the Jew, etc., but in all it is only Christ,
who gives the same specific character to their being and life..
Ver. 12. [On vv. 12-17, see Note XXXVIII. pages 375, 376.] Ovv] for
these virtues are in keeping with the véos ävo putos, according to what
has been said in ver. 11; it would be a contradiction to have put on the
new man, and not to have put on these virtues. The new moral condition,
into which ye have entered by your conversion, passing thereby into the
fellowship of equality and urity in Christ described in ver. 11, binds you to
this by the necessity of moral consistency. The oŭv therefore serves for
the introduction of the direct summons by way of inference from its fore-
going premises, just like the oùv in ver. 5, but not for the introduction
of the apodosis (Hofmann; see on ver. 9); as if it were resumptive.
[XXXVIII a.]—ěvovoadoɛ] for, although the putting on of the véoc ivup.
has taken place as a fact historically through the conversion to Christ,
nevertheless it has also, in accordance with the ethical nature of the véos
åvip. (comp. ròv ảvakalvoúpevoV K.T.. in ver. 10), its continued acts, which
are to take place, namely, by appropriation of the virtues which the new
man as such must have.-ás ÉKREKTO K.7.2.] as it becomes such ; KR. T.
Okov is the subject, and äy. k. åyan. its predicates. The consciousness of
this distinguished bliss, of being the elect of Godchosen by God from
profane humanity for eternal Messianic salvation (Eph. i. 4; Rom. viii.
33; Tit. i. 2, al.), who as such are holy (through the dylaouos avɛvuaros, 2
Thess. ii. 13), and beloved of God (Rom. v. 5; Eph. i. 6),--how could it
fail to touch the consciences of the readers, and incite them to the very
virtues, corresponding to so high a position,-virtues of that fellowship
described in ver. 11, which are required from them as renewed men !
Observe, moreover, that the Khoyn T. OkoŰ is the presupposition of what
is said by årekovo á levol K.7.2. in vv. 10, 11, and that therefore ws ÉKREKTO
K.7.2. is not inserted without significant connection with what goes before.
It is likewise admissible to take the words äyrol K. iyan. substantively,
either as co-ordinate with the škheKTOì 7. O. and explanatory of this idea
(" as the elect of God, holy and beloved,” Luther, Calvin, Grotius, and
the majority, including Bähr, Böhmer, Huther, de Wette, Hofmann), or
so that ÉKREKT. T. Okoő stands in adjectival relation to them (Bleek :
“elect holy and beloved ones of God”); but it is more in keeping with
the purposely chosen order of the words to concentrate the whole stress
on échEKTO· Oko. Bengel, connecting as we do, aptly observes: “Ordo
verborum exquisite respondet ordini rerum : electio aeterna praecedit
sanctificationem in tempore; sanctificati sentiunt amorem et deinceps
imitantur.” Theophylact (comp. also Steiger) took xylol as the chief
.
i For the act of the divine éxloyń, which in
itself is before time, has come into temporal
realization and manifestation through the
calling (comp. ver. 15). Comp. generally,
Weiss in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theob. 1857, p.
78 ff., and Bibl. Theol. 2 88, ed. 2.
358
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Word, which is more precisely defined by εκλ. τ. θεού ιnd ηγαπ. (εγένοντο
Mèv yàp äyrol, ára oýk škĦEKTOì oudè nyannuévol. Quɛīs dè taðra Trávra). Neither
supported by the position of the words nor by the context, which does
not suggest any contrast.—Ondáyxva oiktipuov] oikt. is the genitive of
quality, and the expression is quite similar to that in Luke i. 78, orháyxva •
ÈRéovs; see in loc. Hence or háyxva is not to be taken here in the abstract
sense (love, so usually), but in its proper sense : viscera, as the seat of
sympathy; consequently: a heart, the moving feeling of which is sym-
pathy. Comp. Ewald and Hofmann. The two are separated in Phil. ii.
1. As to the conception of oikTipH., comp. on Rom. ix. 15—XPNOTótnta]
Icindliness, the opposite is átorquía, Rom. xi. 22. Comp. Eph. iv. 32.".
TATTELVO P., humbleness, which is meant here, however, according to the
entire context, not towards God (Böhmer), but (see ver. 11) in relation to
others, as the opposite of haughtiness (exnhoopovɛīv); Eph. iv. 2; Phil. ii. 3.
-On ipąót., gentleness (opposite: Eph. iv. 31, and ảypiórns, Plat. Conv. p.
197 D), and parpov., long-suffering, bearing with immoral opposition
(comp. Eph. iv. 2, and on Gal. v. 22), ver. 13 throws fuller 'light.
· Ver. 13. Neither the second part of the verse, kadùs . . . uueīs, nor
áve xóuevoL ... Moppuv, is to be parenthesized; for the whole is an uninter-
rupted continuation of the construction. [XXXVIII c.]—ảvexól. à22.]
modal definition of the évovoaotal of the last two virtues, informing us
how the required appropriation of them is to manifest itself in active con-
duct : so that ye, etc. This conduct is conceived as developing itself in
and with the completion of the required ενδύσασθε ; hence ανεχόμενοι
åraña. is not to be regarded as only “loosely appended” (Hofmann) to
parpod.-każ zapisólevol K.7.2.] for the endurance (comp. Eph. iv. 2) is to
advance to positive forgiveness, and not to remain a mere passive attitude.
Observe here the alternation of an annwy (one the other) and éavtoīs (your-
selves each other); the latter is used, because to the xapíšegoal of the Chris-
tians, which they are to show to themselves mutually, there is proposed as
pattern the xapíšeoval which they have experienced from above, from
Christ. Comp. Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 20.—Moupív] blame, reproach,
only here in the N. T., not found at all in the Apocrypha and LXX., but
very common in the classics, especially the poets, also with $ xelv, to find
fault with something, 2-kalus kai k.7..] The duty of the xapíšeobal savr.
is so essentially Christian and important, that Paul goes on further to
hold up before the readers the great motive and incitement for its fulfill-
ment, namely, the forgiveness which they themselves have experienced,
which Christ (ó kúplos, see the critical remarks) has bestowed upon them.
Comp. Eph. iv. 32, where, however, the principal subject of the yapíšeobal
is indicated, namely, God (comp. ii. 13), who has pardoned in Christ. To
the expression in our passage and a consideration of the circumstances
of the Colossian church naturally prompted the emphasizing of the
merit of Christ-corresponds the frequent xápis toũ kuplov ojov, Rom.
xvi. 20, 24; 1 Cor. xvi. 23; 2 Cor. viii. 9, xii. 9, xiii. 13; Gal. i. 6, vi. 18;
1 See generally, Tittmann, Synon. p. 140 ff. Ag. 179, and Schneidewin in loc.; Pind. Isthm.
8 Eur. Phoen. 780, Alc. 1012, Or. 1069; Soph. iv. 61.
CHAP. III. 13, 14.
359
Phil. iv. 23. There is no trace here of "an advanced Christology"
(Holtzmann). The divine pardon obtained for us by Christ in His work
of atonement (Rom. v. 6 f., 15), and continuously procured through His
intercession (Rom. viii. 34), is in so far. His (in the sense that He is the
pardoning subject) as He is the procurer, bearer, and accomplisher of the
divine grace (Eph. ii. 16; Col. i. 19 f.), and God's love is His love (Rom.
viii. 35, 39; Eph. iii. 19; Rom. v. 7 f.). The pardon received from
erally, Rom. viii. 9) to forgive also upon our side ;-anything beyond
this, namely, what is contained in Matt. vi. 12, as de Wette thinks, is not
conveyed in the words, but results as a consequence.---kai veis] sc. tapi-
Góļevol. The context suggests this, and not the imperative; hence the
orderly connection is not broken, and the whole verse contains accom-
panying participial definitions, after which, in ver. 14, the discourse con-
tinues uninterrupted.—Respecting the double kai of the comparison, see
on Rom. i. 13.-It is to be observed, moreover, that kadós refers only to
the pardon itself, and does not concern the service by which Christ has
procured the pardon, the death, namely, which the Christian ought to be
ready to undergo for the brethren, John xiii. 34, as Chrysostom, Theophy-
lact, and others think, but which would be here an irrelevant importation.
Ver. 14. In addition to all this, however, put on love, by which Christian
perfection is knit. In making 7. Syáron dependent on śvdúcards, Paul
abides by his figure : becoming added (Kühner, II. 1, p. 433) to all those
virtues (regarded as garments), love is to be put on like an upper gar-
ment embracing all, because love brings it about, that the moral perfec-
tion is established in its organic unity as an integral whole. Thus love is
the bond of Christian perfection, its owvdeTLKÒV õpyavov; without love, all the
individual virtues, which belong in themselves to that perfection, would
not unite together into that necessary harmonious entirety, in which per-
fection consists. Not as if the latter were already existent without love (as
Schenkel objects to this view), but love is the ouvdequos constituting its per-
fection; apart from love there is no TELELOTIS, which has its conditio sine .
qua non only in the inclusion of its other factors in love; how love ac-
complishes this, no one has better shown than Paul himself in 1 Cor. xiii.
Nor is it as if the genitive would necessarily be a plurality (as Hofmann
objects); on the contrary, the TERELÓTNS according to its nature and to the
context is a collective idea, with which the conception of a ouvdequos well
corresponds. It might, moreover, occasion surprise, that love, which is
withal the principle and presupposition of the virtues enumerated, is
mentioned last, and described as being added; but this was rendered
necessary by the figurative representation, because love, from its nature,
in so far as it includes in principle the collective virtues and comprehends
them in itself, necessarily had assigned to it in the figure of putting on
garments the place of the upper garment, so that Paul rightly proceeds in
his description from the under garments to the upper one which holds
1 Comp. Clem. Cor. I. 49 f.
360
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
all the others together, and with whose function love corresponds. AC-
cordingly the absolute ý ayaan is not to be taken in any other sense than
the general and habitual one of Christian brotherly love (i. 8, ii. 2; 1 Cor.
xiii.; Phil. i. 9); nor yet in any sort of reference limiting it to special
qualities, e. g. as by de Wette : “as active, beneficent, perfecting love.”-Ö
(see the critical remarks), which, namely love, conceived of as neuter, as
in our “that is.” Comp. on èš oŭ, ii. 19.--ouvdeouos tñs teml67.] bond of .
perfection, i. e. what binds together the Christian moral perfection into
the totality of its nature, ovvdeojetel, Polyb. iii. 42. 8; guvdɛi kai fourt Rékel,
Plat. Polit. p. 309 B. The genitive, which is that of the object, denotes
(it is otherwise in Eph. iv. 3; comp. Acts viii. 23; LXX. Isa. lviii.: 6)
that which is held together by the bond. Taken as the genitive of
quality, it would yield the adjective sense : the perfect bond, “animos sc.
conjungens,” Grotius. So also Erasmus, Vatablus, Calovius, Estius, Wolf,
Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Flatt, and others. But how arbitrary this would
be in itself, and especially in view of the fact that, in the event of T.
TelecÓT. being disposed of as an adjective, the more precise definition of
OÚVocopos would have to be gratuitously introduced! Taken as the genitivus
causae (Schenkel), it would not correspond with the figure, though it is in
substance correct that that, which as a hond envelopes perfection, only
thereby brings about its existence (comp. above). According to Huther,
the sense is : "by man's putting on love he is girt with perfection; who-
soever lives in love is perfect.” Thus the genitive would have to be con-
ceived as genitive of apposition, which would yield an incongruous analy-
sis of the figure, induced by the opinion that ő does not refer to the
αγάπη itself, but to the ενδύσασθαι την αγάπην.3 According to Hofmann
(comp. Ellicott), the genitive is meant to be that of the subject, and the
TELELOTOS is to indicate the completeness of the Christian state, of which
love is the bond, inasmuch as it binds Christians toyether among themselves,
wherever that completeness exists (John xiii. 35). This is erroneous ; for if
in some curious fashion the abstract ý TeleLÓTNS (consequently an aggre-
gate of attributes) were to be the acting subject, which makes use of love
as a bond (consequently for the purpose of binding), yet the Christians
ainong themselves could not be conceived as the object of that binding,
but only the návra tavta in accordance with the immediate context (ÉTÈ
Trãou dè toutos). The apostle would have been able to express the tenor
1 Chrysostom (though mingling with it the
foreign figure of the root) aptly says: Ovykpá
mnols TÔ TNV TEACLÓTTA TOLOÚVTWv. Comp.
Theophylact: távta ékeivá, pnoiv, aütn ovo-
φίγγει παρούσα απούσης δε διαλύονται και ελέγ-
χονται υπόκρισις όντα και ουδέν.
2 Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 616 C: cival yàp TOUTO
το φως ξύνδεσμον του ουρανού ... πάσαν ξυνέχον
Tiv Teploopáv, also p. 520 A : Tòv Šúvoco por ons
πόλεως, Polit. p. 310 Α: τον ξύνδεσμον αρετής
μερων φύσεως ανομοίων.
8 gúvdeo uos, namely, would apply to the
girdle, as Clericus, Ewald, and Schenkel make
it do. But to that view the evdugadle to be
supplied would be contextually less suitable
(comp. Eph. vi. 14); while after what has gone
before the reader would most naturally think
of love simply as a garinent, and not as the
girdle, “which holds together all individual
efforts towards perfection" (Ewald). Besides,
it would not at all be easy to see why Paul
should not have used the definite word ζώνη
instead of ouvdeduos.
CHAP. III. 15.
::
361
of thought forced upon him by Hofmann simply and clearly by some
such phrase as ö (or ös, or ŐTLE) OTC OÚvdeopos TūV ¿v XplotỢ Tehelwv (comp.
i. 28). Others take it as the sum of perfection. So Bengel, Zachariae,
Usteri, Böhmer, Steiger, de Wette, Olshausen (“inasmuch as it compre-
hends in itself-bears, as it were, bound up in itself-all the individual
aspects of the perfect life, all virtues”). Comp. on the subject matter,
Rom. xiii. 10. This explanation cannot be justified linguistically (not
even by Simplic. Epictet. p. 208, according to which the Pythagoreans
termed friendship : ouvdeopov macūV Tūv åpetūv, i. e. the bond which knits
all the virtues together), unless we take ouvdeguos in the sense of a bundle,
as Herodian uses it, iv. 12. 11 (Trávra Tòv OÚVdeoMov TūV ÉTTLOTOWūr), which,
however, even apart from the singular form of the conception in itself,
would be unsuitable to the context, since love is to be added to all the
previously enumerated elements of perfection, and may therefore well
be termed the bond that holds them together, but not their brindle, not
the sum of them. The word ouvdequos itself, which except in our two
parallel epistles does not occur in Paul's writings, is too hastily assigned
by Holtzmann "to the range of language of the Auctor ad Ephesios.” As if
we had the whole linguistic range of the copious apostle in the few
epistles which bear his name! Indeed, even trì mãou dÈ TOUTOLS (comp.
Eph. vi. 16) is alleged to betray the auctor in question. In opposition to
the Catholic use of our passage to support the justificatio operum, it is
enough to observe that the entire exhortation has justification as its pre-
supposition (ver. 12), and concerns the moral life of those who are already
justified. Irrelevantly, however, it is urged in the Apol. Conf. Aug. 3, p.
104 f. (comp. Calovius and others), in opposition to the Catholics, that
TERELÓTng is the integritas ecclesiae, and that through love the church is kept
in harmony, as Erasmus, Melanchthon, and others also explained it.
Ver. 15. All these virtues, however, along with the love which binds
them together, must have their deep living foundation in the peace of
Christ, which reigns in the heart, and their abiding incitement in gratitude
towards God for the salvation received in Christ. Hence now the further
summons-appended by the simple kai—to the readers, to let that peace
reign in their hearts and to be thankful. The εiphun toŨ Xplotoũ is the holy
satisfaction of mind wrought by Christ through the Spirit, the blessed inner
rest, of which the atonement and justification appropriated in faith (Rom.
v. 1) are the presupposition and condition. See on Phil. iv. 7. Comp.
Luther, Bengel, and others, including Flatt, Bähr, Olshausen, Huther, de
Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann. To understand
the peace of mutual concord (the Greek Fathers, Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius,
Calovius, and many others, also Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 297), is less in
accordance with the universality of the connection, which here descends
to the deepest ground of the Christian life in the heart; and besides, the
concord in question already follows of itself on the virtues recommended.
Moreover, there is implied in ßpaß. the determining and regulating power,
the supreme authority, which the peace of Christ is to have in the Christian
heart, which suits most fully the above interpretation alone.—Bpaßsvétw]
362
.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Bpaßɛbɛlv only found here in the N. T., but as little un-Pauline as karaßpaß.
in ii. 18 (in opposition to Holtzmann); it means primarily: to arrange and
conduct the contest (Wisd. x. 12, and Grimm in loc.); then: to confer the prize
of victory, to be Bpaßɛús, i. e. umpire (Plut. Mor. p. 960 A; Diod. Sic. xiii.
53); finally: to governl generally. Considering its very frequent occur-
rence in the latter sense, and its appropriateness in that sense to Év T. Kapo.
, and seeing that any reference to the Messianic Bpaßežov (comp. ii. 18)
is foreign to the context, the majority of modern expositors have rightly
interpreted it: the peace of Christ must rule, govern in your hearts. The
conception involves the superintending, arranging, and administering
activity, and that in supreme deciding competence (comp. Ewald and Hof-
mann), as it ought to be exercised by the cipívn T. X. in the heart, quite
like the German verfügen [to dispose of]. Bremi says aptly, ad Dem.Ol. p.
179, Goth. : it is not simply equivalent to dlalkeiv, “sed pleno jure et ex
arbitrio SLOLKETV." Chrysostom and his followers have retained the mean-
ing: to confer the prize of 'victory, but with ideas introduced to which
nothing in the text points. Comp. also Erasmus, Vatablus, and Calvin,
who, however, explain it erroneously: palmam ferat. Grotius: “dijudicet,
nempe si quid est inter vos controversum.” So also, substantially, Ham-
mond, Kypke, and others; similarly, Melanchthon: "gubernet omnia cer-
tanina." Comp. Bpaßsvelv špı (Plut. Rom. 9) and the like. But the con-
text points to deeper matters than disputes, upon which the peace of
Christ in the heart is to decide.—eis iv K. ÉKA. K.7.2.] argumentative, sup-
porting the exhortation just uttered; for which ye also (kai expressing the
corresponding relation) were called, etc.; eis äv, in behalf of which, i. e. to
possess which peace, is not the final aim of the calling, which is rather
participation in the Messianic kingdom, but a mediate cim. Comp. 1 Pet.
ii. 21.---év Švà cópati] not instead of eis êv owua (Grotius, Flatt, and many
others); nor yet: “as growing to be members of a single body” (Hof-
mann, gratuitously importing), but (comp. Ellicott and Bleek) as the result
of ékańUnte, announcing the relation of fellowship, into which the indivi-
duals are translated through their calling, and in which they now find
themselves continuously. This abiding condition was the predominant con-
ception; hence the pregnancy of the expression (Kühner, II. 1, p. 469); so
that ye are in one body, namely, as its members. The element of unity,
added with emphasis, and that quite in Pauline form (Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor.
x. 17; in opposition to Holtzmann), stands in appropriate reference to
the entire requirement. To have become by the calling one body with
1 The Vulgate incorrectly renders: exultet.
So also the Gothic.
2 See for the last signification especially
Dem. 36. 7, 1231. 19; Eur. Hel. 1079; Isocr.
Areop. p. 144B; Polyb. vi. 4. 3, xiii. 1. 5, xxvii.
· 14. 4, et al.; passages from Josephus in Krebs,
and from Philo in Loesner.
3S0 Luther ("let it be master and keep you
in all tribulation"), Castalio, Beza, Bengel,
and many others, including Flatt, Bähr, Ols-
hausen, Steiger, Huther, de Wette, Baum-
garten-Crusius, Dalmer, and Bleek.
4 Theophylact: υβρίσθημεν πολλάκις υπό τι-
νος αγωνίζονται παρ' ημίν λογισμοί δύο, ο μεν
είς άμυναν κινων, ο δε εις μακροθυμίαν. Εάν
η ειρήνη τ. Θεού στη εν ημίν, ώσπερ τις βρα-
βευτής δίκαιος, τουτέστι κριτής και αγωνοθέτης,
Kai Sơ rò Bpaßtiov tñs víans TÔ Keleúorti Makpo-
Ovuciv, taúoetal Ó årtaywvlots.
See Dorville, ad Charit. p. 445.
.
363
:. CHAP. III. 16.
those who share in that calling, and yet not to let the holy moral dis-
position, for the sake of which we are called, be the common ruling
power of life—what a contradiction! In that case there would be want-
ing to the ĉv owuia the êv TvEūpa accordant with the calling (Eph. iv. 4; 1
Cor. xii. 13).—The mention of this calling—the great blessing which makes
everything, that is at variance with what has hitherto been demanded
(ver. 12 ff.), appear as ingratitude towards God-induces the apostle to add
still further the highest motive of all for every Christian virtue (comp. ii.
7, i. 12): K. εvxánuotol yivedte : and become ye thankful (comp. on Eph. iv..
32); in which the yiveole (not equivalent to oté) requires the constant
striving after this exalted aim as something not yet attained; comp. e. g.
John xv. 8. It was nothing but a misconception of that inner connection
and of this significance of γίνεσθε, which led to the talking ευχάρ. ας απα-
biles, friendly, and the like (comp. Eph. iv. 32; Prov. xi. 15). The lin-
guistic use of evzáplotos in this sense in the classical writers is well known
(Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 1, Oec. v. 10), but equally so is also its use in the sense of
thankful (Xen. Cyr. viii. 3. 49; Herodian, ii. 3. 14; Diod. Sic. xviii. 28);
and the N. T., in which, moreover, the adjective is nowhere else found,
has, like the Apocrypha, ev xaplotzīv and evxaplotia only in the latter signi-
fication (comp. ver. 17), the reference of which in our passage to God after
els iju K. KA10. (it is God who calls) is self-evident, but not (in opposition
to Grotius and Calovius) the mutua gratitudo. The ascription of the words
K. Evxáp. yiv. to the interpolator, who is also supposed to have inserted év
xvxaplotia in iv. 2 (Holtzmann), is destitute of ground either in the language
or in the matter of the passage. It is not at all easy to see why ev xápioTOS
should be "as un-Pauline as eŭonhayxvos in Eph. iv. 32."
Ver. 16 f. The series of exhortations begun in ver. 12 is now closed, and
Paul proceeds to give, before going on in ver. 18 to the duties of particular
callings, an encouraging allusion to the Christian means of grace for further-
ing the common life of piety, namely, the word of Christ. This ought to
dwell richly among them, so that they might by means of its operation
(1) instruct and admonish each other in all wisdom with psalms, etc.; (2) by
the divine grace sing to God in their hearts; and (3) let all that they do, in
word or deed, be done in the name of Jesus with thanksgiving to God.
Accordingly, the previous paraenesis by no means ends in a “loose aggre-
gation" (as Hofmann objects), but in a well-weighed, steadily-progressive,
and connected conclusion on the basis of the hóyos of Christ 3 placed at the
1 So Jerome, Erasmus (not in the Paraphr.),
Calvin, Vatablus, Beza, (benefici), Cornelius a
Lapide, Wolf, Krebs, and many others, includ-
ing Bähr, Steiger, Olshausen, and Reiche.
2 Lachmann and Steiger have put ò dóyos
... tovolws in a parenthesis, which just as
arbitrarily sets aside the new and regulative
idea introduced by ò dóyos, as it very unnec-
essarily comes to the help of the construc-
tion.
3 This applies also in opposition to Holtz-
mann, p. 54 f., who finds in ver. 16 an echo of
Eph. v. 19, which at the same time interrupts
the entire connection, and presents some-
thing un-Pauline almost in every word (p.
164). Un-Pauline, in his view, is é dóyos t.
Xplotoü (but see 1 Thess. i. 8, iv. 15); uin-Paul-
ine the juxtaposition of valuois, üuvous, wdais
(the reason why it is so, is not plain); un-
Pauline the adecv itself, and even the adverb
dovolws. How strangely has the apostle, so
rich in diction, become impoverished !
364
OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
A
THE EPISTLE very beginning. According to Hofmann, ver. 16 f. is only meant to be an.
amplification of the evxáplotol yiveste in ver. 15. This would be a dispro-
portioncte amplification-especially as evx: yív. is not the leading thought
in the foregoing-and could only be plausibly upheld by misinterpretations
in the details; see below.—abyos T. Xplotoū] i.e. the gospel. The genitive
is that of the subject; Christ causes it to be proclaimed, He Himself speaks
in the proclaimers (2 Cor. xiii. 3), and has revealed it specially to Paul
(Gal. iv. 11 f.); it is His word. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 8, iv. 15; 2 Thess. iii. 1;
Heb. vi. 1. The designation of it, according to its principal author: ó .
TOÙ Oɛ07, is more current.--ÉVOLKELTW év újiv.] [XXXVIII d.] not: among
you (Luther and many others), which would not be in keeping with the
conception of indwelling; nor yet: in animis vestris (Theodoret, Melanch-
thon, Beza, Zanchius, and others, including Flatt, Böhmer, and Olshausen),
so that the indwelling which depends on knowledge and faith would be
meant, since the subsequent modal definition is of an oral nature: but in
you, i. e. in your church, the uleis, as a whole, being compared to a house, in
which the word has the seat of its abiding operation and rule (comp.
Rom. viii. 11; 2 Tim. i. 5).-- hovoiws] in ample measure. In proportion as
the gospel is recognized much or little in a church as the common living
source and contents of mutual instruction, quickening, discipline, and
edification, its dwelling there is quantitatively various. De Wette explains
it, not comprehensively enough, in accordance with what follows: “so
that many come forward as teachers, and often.”. In another way Hof-
mann limits it arbitrarily: the letting the word of Christ dwell richly in
them is conceived as an act of gratitude. How easy it would have been for
Paul to have indicated this intelligibly! But the new point which he
wishes to urge upon his readers, namely, to let the divinely-powerful means
of Christian life dwell richly in them, is placed by him without any link of
connection, and independently, at the head of his closing exhortation.-
The following εν πάση ... τω Θεώ is the nmodal definition of the foregoing:
so that ye, etc.; construction according to the logical subject, as in ii. 2.-
εν πάση σοφία] Since what precedes has its defining epithet in πλουσίως, and
that with all the emphasis of the adverb put at the end, and since, more-
over, the symmetry of the following participial clauses, each of which
begins with év (év Táon copia . . . £v T. xápıtı), ought not to be abandoned
without some special reason, the ÉV T. Oop. is to be referred to what follows,
and not to what precedes. Comp. i. 28. Every sort of (Christian) wisdom
is to be active in the mutual instruction and admonition. Regarding the
details, see on i. 28.—avtous] mụtually, among yourselves, comp. ver. 13.-
paruoīs K.7.2.] [XXXVIII e.] modal definition of the mutual didácketv and
vovletEīv, which are to take place by means of (see below, tv záp. qdovtes
K.T.2.) psalms, etc. It is all the more arbitrary to refer it merely to volet.
(de Wette), seeing that the position of éavroug binds the two participles
1 So Bos, Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Bähr, Steiger,
Olshausen, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Ewald, Dalmer, Reiche, Bleek, Hof-
mann, and others: Böhmer hesitates, and
Beza permits this reference.
2 So Syriac, Chrysostom, Luther, and many
others.
CHAP. III. 16.
365
together, and seeing that inspired songs by no means exclude a doctrinal
purport. The conceivableness of a didactic activity in mutual singing in
opposition to Schenkel and Hofmann), and that without confounding
things radically different, is still clearly enough recognizable in many of
our best church songs, especially in those born of the fresh spirit of the
Reformation. Storr and Flatt, Schenkel and Hofmann join the words
with ở dovtes, although the latter has already a definition both before and
after it, and although one does not say pahpois k.1.2., ģdelv (dative), but pan-
Moùs K.T.M. (accusative). The dative of the instrument with ģdelv would be
appropriate, if it had along with it an accusative of the object praised (as
e. g. Eur. Ion. 1091). See, moreover, on Eph. v. 19. Concerning the dis-
tinction between paruoí (religious songs after the manner of the Psalms
of the 0. T., to be regarded partly as Christian songs already in use, partly
as improvised effusions, 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26) and üjlvol (songs of praise), to
both of which wsai Ttvevlatlkai (i. e. songs inspired by the Holy Spirit) are
then added as the general category, see on Eph. v. 19. Observe, more-
over, that Paul is here also (comp. Eph. I. c.) speaking not of divine worships
in the proper sense of the term, since the teaching and admonition in
question are required from the readers generally and mutually, and that as
a proof of their abundant possession of the word of Christ, but rather of
the communication one-with another in religious intercourse (e.g. at meals, in
the agapae and other meetings, in family circles, etc.)-in which enthusi-
asm makes the fullness of the heart pass from mouth to mouth, and
brotherly instruction and admonition thus find expression in the higher
form of psalms, etc., whether these may have been songs already well
known, or extemporized according to the peculiar character and produc-
tive capacity of the individual enthusiasm, whether they may have been
sung by individuals alone (especially if they were improvised), or chorally, '
or in the form of alternating chants (Plin. Ep. x. 97). How common
religious singing was in the ancient church, even apart from divine ser-
vice proper, may be seen in Suicer, Thes. II. p. 1568 f. The existence of
a multitude of rhythmic songs, composed år' åpxas by Christians, is
attested by Eus. H. E. ii. 17, v. 28. Regarding singing in the agapae, see
Tertullian, Apol. 39: “post aquam manualem et lumina, ut quisque de
scripturis sanctis vel proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium Deo
canere.” 4 The asyndetic (see the critical remarks) juxtaposition of Wall.,
öjlv., and @dais av. renders the discourse more urgent and animated.-—ěv
Tỹ xápıtı ğSovtec K.7.2.] is commonly regarded as subordinate to what goes
before; as if Paul would say: the heart also is to take part in their singing,
oºx århős tý. OTÓuatı, ała šv tņu kapdię, ő éoTC Metà tipoooxñs, Theophylact.
1 As in Ex. xiv. 32; Plat. Symp. 197 E, Rep.
p. 388 D, and in all Greek authors.
2 Many arbitrary more special distinctions
are to be found in expositors. See Bähr.
Even Steiger distinguishes them very pre-
cariously into (1) songs accompanied by
stringed instruments; (2) solemn church
songs; (3) songs sung in the house and at
work.
This applies also in opposition to Holtze
mann, who discovers here and in Eph. v. 19
an already far advanced stage of worship.
4See generally, Augusti, Denkw. II. p.
110 ff.
366
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
But Paul himself has not in the least expressed any such contrasting refer-
ence; and how superfluous, nay, even inappropriate, would such an
injunction be, seeing that the didácKelv and vovbeteiv takes place in fact by
the pahuo K.T.N., and this is to be the outcome of the abundant indwelling
of the gospel; and seeing, further, that there is no mention at all of a
stated common worship (where, possibly, lip-service might intrude), but,
on the contrary, of mutual edifying intercourse! The entire view is
based upon the unfounded supposition of a degeneracy of worship in the
apostolic age, which, even though it were true in itself, would be totally
inapplicable here. Moreover, we should expect the idea, that the sing-
ing is to be the expression of the emotion of the heart, to be represented
not by Év T. kapd., but by śK TÜV kapd. (comp. 2 Tim. ii. 22; Matt. xii. 34)
or årò T. K. Comp. Wisd. viii. 21, also classical expressions like és opevós
and the like. No, the participial clause is co-ordinate with the preceding
one (as also at Eph. v. 19, see in loc.), and conveys after the audible
singing for the purpose of teaching and admonition, to be done mutually
-as a further element of the pious life in virtue of the rich indwelling of
the word of Christ, the still singing of the heart, which each one must offer
to God for himself inwarilly; i. e. the silent praising of God, which be-
longs to self-edification in the inner man. Chrysostom already indicates
this view, but mixes it up, notwithstanding, with the usual one; Theo-
phylact quotes it as another (anaws), giving to it, moreover, the inappro-
priate antithesis : per repòs ÉTÍSELELV, but adding with Chrysostom the cor-
rect illustration: käv yàp év ảyopě ns, Súvagai katà CEAVTÒV ģdelv undevÒç
ακούοντος. Bengel well describes the two parallel definitions εν πάση σοφία
κ.τ.λ. and έν χάριτι κ.τ.λ. as distributio of the πλουσίως, ιnd that mutuo et
spiritual pleasant songs," also Calvin), but to çdovtes as the parallel ele-
ment to év táon oopia. In the same way, namely, as the teaching and
admonition above mentioned are to take place by means of every wisdom,
which communicates and operates outwardly through them, so the still
singing of the heart now spoken of is to take place by means of the divine
grace, which stirs and inoves and impels men's minds,-a more precise
definition, which is so far from being useless and idle (as Hofmann
objects), that it, on the contrary, excludes everything that is selfish, vain,
fanatical, and the like. Chrysostom says rightly: årò tñs xápitos ToÑ
TveVuatos, pnoiv, «SOVTES 16.7.2.; comp. Oecumenius : dà tñs Tapà toù åyiou
Tiveúpatos SoDelons zápitos, also Estius and Steiger. Hofmann's view is
grace experienced the subject-matter of the songs. This it does not mean
even in the LXX. Ps. cxxxviii. 5, where is taken in a local sense.
The subject matter of the singing would have been expressed by an accu-
sative (as peñuiv ảelde), or with eis? Inappropriate as to sense (since the
1 As in the Vulgate, and by Luther.
9 Nevertheless, Holtzmann, p. 164, adopts
the linguistically quite incorrect explanation
of Hofmann: he thinks that it alone yields a
tolerable sense, but that it is foreign to the
linguistic usage of Paul (no, it is foreign to
all linguistic usage).
CHAP. III. 17.
367
discourse concerns singing in the heart) is the view of others : with grace-
fulness. Even though the singing in public worship were spoken of, the
injunction to sing gracefully, and especially with the emphasis of being
placed first, would touch on too singular an element. Anselm, and in
more modern times Böhmer, Huther, de Wette, and Bleek take it: with
thankfulness, in which case the article, which Bleek rejects (see the critical
remarks), would denote not the gratitude already required in ver. 15 (so
Huther), but that which is due. But the summons to general thanks-
giving towards God (in ver. 15, grateful conduct was meant by eixáp. yiv.)
only follows in ver. 17; and inasmuch as the interpretation which takes
it of the divine grace is highly suitable both to the connection and to the
- use of the article (which sets forth the xápis as a conception formally set
apart), and places an admirably characteristic element in the foreground,
there is no reason for assuming here a call to thanksgiving.–As év tais
kapo. lll. was contrasted with the preceding oral singing, so is' To Dew
contrasted with the destination for others; the still heart-singer sings to
God. It is just for this reason that the otherwise superfluous tŷ oem is
added. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 28.
Ver. 17. The apostle having announced in ver. 16 the first way in which
the abundant indwelling of the word of Christ must manifest itself by šv
taon oodia didáOKOVTES . . . TTVEVļaTikons, and having set forth as the second the
Év tñ rápiti åsovTES K.T.N., now adds the third, and that, indeed, as one
embracing the entire conduct of life; the kai, and, attaches it to the
two participial clauses in ver. 16, not, however, introducing another
participial mode of expression conformed to the foregoing, but leading
over, through the verb to be supplied, into the direct form of discourse :
And whatsoever ye do by, word or by work, do all in the name of Jesus. The
Ttāv ő, T1 åv Trolīte ... špyw is the absolute nominative, placed at the begin-
ning with rhetorical emphasis, and syntactically independent.2-év 26yw û
ểv špyw] Comp. Aesch. Prom. 659 : tí xpSpôvol À Néyovta Saiyoou mpácoelv
piaa. See Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 373: “Dictis factisque omnis continetur
actio.” For instances of abyos and špyov associated in that order and
conversely, see Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 3. 6; Lobeck, Paral. p. 64
f.-návra] again emphatically prefixed, not, however, taking up again the
previous Tāy, but rather: in the case of everything which is done by word
or deed, all is to take place in the name of Jesus ;3 no element of the
doing is to be out of this sphere! The imperative moleſta is to be supplied
from the context. Comp. on Eph. v. 21.-év óvóll.] Not: with invocation
of (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Melanchthon, and others),
but: so that the name is the holy moral element, in which the action
1 So Theophylact (who, however, permits a
choice between this and the true explana-
tion), Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, (“sine
confusione, evoxuóvws"), Castalio, Calvin,
Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Cornelius à Lapide,
Weistein, Bengel, and others, including Bähr,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel, Reiche.
2See Kühner, II. 1, p. 42; Winer, p. 531 [E.
T. 574).
Paul, as is well known, is fond of placing
close beside each other different forms of tas
with different references. See Wilke, Rhetor,
D. 381; comp. also on Phil. iv. 12.
368
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
proceeds, inasmuch, namely, as this name, as the sum of the faith which
moulds the new life, fills the-consciousness, and gives to the action its
specific Christian quality and consecration. 'Ev XplorQ 'InGoñ would not
be substantially different. Comp. on Eph. v. 20; Phil. ii. 10; John xiv.
13. "Illum sapiat, illum sonet, illum spiret omnis vestra vita," Erasmus.
The ideal character of the requirement is misapprehended, when, with
Cornelius a Lapide, it is lowered to a mere consiliun. See, on the con-
trary, Calovius.--Evxap. TÕ OeQ K.7.n.] [XXXVIII f.] accompanying
definition : whilst ye at the same time give thanks, etc. Comp. év ev xaplotia
in ii. 7, iv. 2, i. 12; Phil. iv. 6. In the apostle's view, there belongs
essentially to the devoutness of Christian life the self-expressing piety of
thankfulness for all Christian bliss, in the consciousness, assurance, and
experience of which one does everything in the name of Jesus. Since
ev yap. denotes thanksgiving, Grotius ought not to have taken the participle
in a declaratory sense ("quid sit in nomine Christi omnia facere et loqui”);
a misinterpretation, which Hofmann rightly rejects, but substitutes
another explanation which neglects the verbal import of evxaploteīv:
namely, that Paul declares the doing here required to be a thanksgiving, etc.,
doing, which is practical thanks. Evxaploteīv is never in the N. T.
equivalent to rápiv anodoīvat, graticis referre.-Tarpi] Father of Jesus.-01
avron] For Jesus, as the personal historical mediator of Messianic bliss
through the work of atonement, is therewith for the Christian conscious-
ness the mediator of thanksgiving ; He it is, through whose benefit the Chris-
tian can and does give thanks. Comp. Rom. i. 8, vii. 25, al. Hence in Eph.
v.20: év óvbuatı 16.7.2. Both the thought and expression were so habitually
in use and belonged so essentially to the circumstances of the case, that
the hypothesis of a contrast to the mediation of angels (Theodoret, Bengel,
and many others, including Bähr) is unfounded, more especially seeing
that the entire context has no polemical reference.
Ver. 18 to iv. 1.1 ron Vy. 18–25, see Note XXXIX. page 376.7 In-
structions for the different portions of the household. [XXXIX a.] Why
Paul should have given to the churches such a table of household rules
only in this Epistle and in that to the Ephesians (comp. also 1 Tim. and
Tit.), must be left wholly undecided (Chrysostom exhausts himself in
conjectures). They are not polemical; but possibly, in the presence of a
theosophico-ascetic atmosphere, the practical rules of healthy domestic
life seemed to him the more seasonable. They do not contain traces of a
later development of church-life (Holtzmann). The circumstance that
.
1 This domestic code is held by Holtzmann
to be an insertion of the interpolator from
Eph. V. 21-vi. 9. He groundlessly questions
the genuineness of the expressions evápectos,
á Sukciv, épeliselv, icórns, tò dikalov, átlóns Tris
kapdías, and even appeals to the use of ávēpw
Trápcokos, å vtatódools, and the formula to
kupiw Xplotų dovleverv as direct evidence
against its Pauline origin. Might not, how-
ever, the word åv pw trápeokos have been
sufficiently familiar to Paul from the LXX.
(Ps. liii. 5) and otherwise (Lobeck, ad Phryn.
p. 621), and have been used by him in the two
parallel epistles? Is pot avtatódoors a term
in general use since Thucydides? Is not “to
serve the Lord Christ” a Pauline idea, and even
(conip. Rom. xvi. 18) literal expression? The
danger of a petitio principii only too easily
steals upon even the cautious and sober critic
in such points of detail. He finds what he seeks.
CHAP. III. 18-20.
369
the precepts for the several forms of domestic society uniformly (vv. 18,
20, 22 ff.) begin with the subordinate party, as also at Eph. v. 21 ff., is to be
regarded as having occurred without any set purpose; the idea of obedience
was primarily present to the writer's mind. If Paul's aim had been to
counteract the abuse of Christian freedom and equality, or in other words,
perverse desires for emancipation, he would not have considered so
weighty a purpose sufficiently met by the mere mode of arrangement,
but would have entered upon the matter itself (in opposition to Huther
and de Wette); and this we should have to assume that he would have
done also in the event of his having had in view an attitude of resistance
on the part of those bound to obedience as the thing most to be feared (in
opposition to Hofmann). Just as much might such an attitude be a thing
to be feared from the stronger party. Respecting the nominatives in the
address, see especially Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 172 A.-ás åvñkev] not
the perfect (with present signification), as Huther thinks and Bleek does
not disapprove, but the imperfect, which has its logical reference in the év
kupią to be connected with it: as was fitting in the Lord, i.e. as was becom-
ing in the relation of the ev Xplotó εival (Philem. 8), as was appropriate to
the Christian state, but had not yet been in this way realized. The
imperfect (comp. Acts xxii. 22) denotes, therefore, as also in xpñv and idel,
the incomplete condition, which extends even into the present. We
are not to think of an omission of ăv; see Kühner, lic. The connection
of źv kupią with ÚTÓTagged](Chrysostom, Theophylact, Estius, Rosen-
müller, Hofmann, and others)-in which case Hofmann imparts into ús
åvíkev the abstract idea : as was already in itself fitting—is opposed by the
position of the words themselves, as well as by the parallel in ver. 20 :
ευάρεστόν έστιν εν κυρίω. "
Ver. 19. Conip. Eph. v. 25 ff., where this love is admirably characterized
according to its specifically Christian nature.—Talkpaiveode] become not
embittered, description of a spitefully cross tone and treatment.2
Ver. 20 f. Comp. Eph. vi. 1-4, where likewise is given a characteristic
development in fuller detail of what is here only succinctly stated.--katà
trávta not to be restricted; for Paul is quoting the rule, that which holds
good principaliter in the relation of children, while possible exceptional
cases obviously come under the principle of obeying God rather than man
(Oecumenius : Sixa Tūv eię kobbelav pepóvrwv). Comp. Eph. v. 24.-evápeotóv
ÉOTIV V kupiw] In connection with this reading (see the critical remarks),
to supply tŷ OeQ to εváp. is arbitrary in opposition to de Wette and
Baumgarten-Crusius), since this is not suggested by the context as in
Rom. xii. 1, 2; nor is év kupíw to be taken as instead of the dative (Flatt,
Bähr, Bleek), or in the sense : coran Domino (Böhmer), but rather as in
ver. 18. We have to leave εváp. without any other more precise definition
1 See Kühner, II. 1, p. 176 f.; Bernhardy, p.
373. Similarly, Winer, p. 254 [E. T. 270].
Comp. also Buttmann, p. 187 [E. T. 216].
• 2 Plat. Legg. v. p. 731 D; Dem. 1464. 18: uute
trixpalveo dai rúte uvnokareiv Philo, Vit.
Mos. II. p. 135. Comp. Trekpûs scarciolar após
Tuva, Polyb. iv. 14. 1; LXX. Ex. xvi. 20; Ruth
i. 20; 3 Esdr. iv. 31 ; ¢M TTikpaiveolaí tive,
Herod. v. 62.
24
370!
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
than what is contained in v kup., so that it is affirmed of childlike
obedience, that it is well-pleasing, and that indeed not in a worldly fashion
apart from Christ, ovkº årò tñs Púoews Móvns (Chrysostom), but in a definite
Christian character; consequently the Christian ethical beauty, in which
the Síkalov (Eph. vi. 1) of that virtue manifests itself. Comp. 7 poopiañ in
Phil. iv. 8. It would be a perfectly groundless violence to couple, with
Hofmann, έν κυρίω with υπακούετε τ. γ. κ. π., notwithstanding the clause
which is introduced by ráp.-Ver. 21. oi tatépes] they, and not the mothers,
are addressed as holding the government of the household, also in
reference to education. Comp. on Eph. vi. 4.-ěpɛvíčetɛ] [XXXIX 6.]
imitate, very frequent in the classics and LXX., especially in connection
with anger, as here (comp. Eph. vi. 4). This irritation takes place through
unjust or over-severe (ÉGTĪV ÖTOV kaì ovyxwpɛiv ópelhete, Chrysostom) treat-
ment, which the child, provoked thereby to anger, must bear without
being able to get satisfaction for its injured sense of justice; whereby it
becomes liable to a spiritless and sullen, and therefore immoral, resig-
nation, a despair paralyzing all moral power of will; hence iva pồ áovuõov.
This verb is only found here in the N. T., but frequently in LXX., also
Judith vii. 22; 1 Macc. iv. 27; and in classic writers from the time of
Thucydides (v. 91.1, vii. 21, al.). Its opposite is Oappɛiv. Bengel aptly
says: "fractus animus pestis juventutis."
Ver. 22. [XXXIX c.] Comp. Eph. vi. 5 ff. The minuteness with
which Paul enters into this point in comparison with the others, may
naturally have been caused by the flight and conversion of Onesimus, who
was a Colossian slave.—ruīs katà cápka kupíols] the masters, who are so
after a fleshly manner, i.e. in respect to material-human nature; a'descrip-
tion, which presupposes another relation belonging to the higher pneu-
matic sphere, in which, namely, Christ is (ver. 24) the master. Comp.
Rom. ix. 3.- šv opdaafl. ús åvapunáp.] See on Eph. vi. 6. The obedi-
ence of Christian slaves becomes men-pleasing, and, to appearance, eye-ser-
vice, when it is not subordinated to, and normally conditioned by, the fear
of Christ (2 Cor. v. 11) as the higher Master. See below, where šv år hót.
καρδίας (see on Εph. vi. 5) corresponds to the εν οφθαλμοδουλ., and φοβούμ. τ.
κύριον to the ως άνθρωπάρ. Eye-service presupposes insincerity of heart,
and men-pleasing takes for granted a want of the fear of Christ. Comp.
on the latter, Gal. i. 10.
Ver. 23 f. More precise explanation of the tv ánh67. kapd., poßoull. t. kúp.
just required.-TOLīte] in your service.--ÉK yuxñs] uetà evvolas, pi uerà
Sovalkñs åváykns, ázaà pletà émevdeplas raí poalpétews, Chrysostom. Comp.
on Eph. vi. 6.-épyášeole] execute, carry out, not equivalent to TOLETTE, but
correlative with it, hence also not in the narrower sense : labor (as e.g. in
Xen. Oec. iii. 4 with reference to slaves).—ÓS TĄ KUP.] Point of view of the
èpyás.; this is to be regarded as taking place for Christ, rendered as a ser-
vice to Him. Comp. Eph. vi. 6 f. And the relation to the human
masters, to whom the slaves belong, is in this higher aspect of the service
thrown so much into the background as not to be taken into account at
all, in accordance with the principle that no man can serve two masters;
CHAP. III. 21-25.
371
hence ove is not relatively, but absolutely negative. Respecting the con-
trast of ảvop. and Xplotós, see on Gal. i. 1.-EiSÓTES K.T.M.] Ground of the
obligation in one's own consciousness for the ώς το κυρίω κ. ουκ άνθρ. :
since ye know that ye shall receive from the Lord, etc. On cidétes, comp. iv.
1.-ÚTÒ kuplov, excluding the human recompense, stands first with empha-
sis, and ánó (on the part of) denotes, not expressly the direct giving (apá),
through which the recompense is received, but generally the issuing, pro-
ceeding from the Lord, who is the possessor and bestower, although the
receiving of the recompense at the judgment will be in reality direct (Eph.
vi. 8; 2 Tim. i. 18). Comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 23; Winer, p. 347 (E. T. 370].-
tñs kanpov.] In the Messianic. kampovojía, i. e. in the future possession of
eternal bliss (see on Gal. iii. 18; Eph. i. 11; Col. i. 12; Rom. iv. 13), the
reward consists. The motive for its purposely-chosen designation by this
particular term lies in the fact, that in human relations slaves are not
usually heirs, comp. Gen. xxi. 10. Hence also this closing word, next to
the atò kvp., has special emphasis : from the Lord ye shall receive the
recompense of the inheritance. Comp. as to substance, Ignat. ad Polyc. 4:
iva kpɛlttovOS che vdepías ao OsoŨ túxwoiv.-TV kupią X. dov2€vetɛ] without
.yáp (see the critical remarks) embraces succinctly the whole summary of
the Christian duty of slaves in accordance with the principle already laid
down in the ds to kupių k. ork åvapúntos; Xplota is not to be taken as
appositionally equivalent to og OTC Xplotós (Hofmann), but in accordance
with the quite common usage; hence: to the Lord Christ be serviceable !
It is properly rendered thus imperatively in the Vulgate; also by Ewald,
Dalmer, Schenkel, and Bleek. [XXXIX d.] The whole significant
emphasis lies upon tý kup. Xploto; His slaves they are to be in the rela-
tion of human service. Where the yáp is regarded as not genuine, the
indicative interpretation (the usual one) makes the utterance—which,
moreover, would be superfluous after ver. 23-vapid, especially without
the addition of an ούτως.
Ver. 25. Ground of encouragement (yáp, see the critical remarks) to fulfill
the precept tỘ kup. X. doveveta: for he who does wrong shall carry off (the
penal recompense of) what wrong he has done, ( locus communis, of which
the slaves were to make the application, that the unjust treatment which
they experienced from their masters would not go unpunished ; hence they
could not but feel themselves the more encouraged to be in their relation
of servitude slaves of no other than Christ, and to permit no unjust treat-
ment to make them deviate from that principle. Paul therefore adds for
their further encouragement:3 kaì oủk ŠOTL a poowToanvía, [XXXIX e.] and
i on avtatódoos (only found here in the
N. T.), comp. Thuc. ir. 81. 1 (where, however,
the sease is different); Plut. Mor. p. 72 F;
Polyb. vi. 5. 3, XX. 7. 2, xxxii. 13. 6; passages
from Diod. Sic. in Munthe's Obss. p. 390;
and from the LXX. in Schleusner, I. p. 296;
also ανταπόδομα in Rom, xi. 9.
* 2 The decisive preponderance of the wit-
nesses omitting this yáp renders it quite im
possible to uphold it by subjective criticism
(in opposition to Hofmann), proceeding on the
supposition that its omission may be traced
to an artificial combination of ideas, which is
imputed to the copyists. Just as little is the
Recepta Sé (instead of yáp) in ver. 25 to be de-
feuded.
3 Hofmann finds it incredible that Paul
should have closed the section referring to
372
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS..
there is no partiality, of which likewise general proposition the intended
application' is, that in that requital the impartial Judge (Christ, comp. ver.
24) will not favor the masters, and will not injure the slaves, comp. Eph.
vi. 9. The correct view is held substantially by Theodoret, Beza, Calvin,
Estius, Zachariae, Ewald, and others. Others have understood ó å dukūV
as referring to the slave who violates his duty, in which case á dekeiv is taken
either in the strict sense of the trespass of him who intentionally injures his
master (Hofmann, comp. Philem. 18), or loosely and generally in the
sense of doing wrong, comp. Rev. xxii. 11 (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ben-
gel, Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Steiger, and others). But against this view
the K. oík čoTc Tpoowło. may be decisively urged, which assumes that the
subject to be punished is higher, of superior rank ; for the idea which has
been imported into the passage is purely fanciful: "Tenues saepe putant,
sibi propter tenuitatem ipsorum esse parcendum; id negatur," Bengel, in
connection with which Theophylact appeals to Lev. xix. 15. And if on
account of ovk ŠOTL. TT poowTo.. the unjust masters must be taken as meant
byó á dckõv in the application of the sentence, the reference to both
parties, to the masters currd the slaves (Erasmus, Grotius, and others, includ-
ing Bähr, Huther, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Bleek, following Jerome and
Pelagius), is thereby excluded, since ipoow non. is appropriate only to the
masters.--copioetal] shall.carry off for himself (sibi), refers to the Messianic
judgment, and ydiknoe to that which he, who is now å dekūv (present), has
(shall have) then done. On the expression rouideolal K.7.2., used to express
the idea of a recompense equivalent to the deed in respect of its guilt,
comp. Eph. vi. 8, and on 2 Cor. v. 10.-Respecting a poowTompía, see on.
Gal. ii. 6.
NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR.
XXXVI. Vv. 1-4.
(a) The second part of the transition passage is found at the beginning of this
chapter, vv. 1-4, (see Note xxxv. a.). These verses are introductory to the par-
ticular and special exhortations which follow.—(6) Meyer maintains here, as in
ii. 12, that “the being risen 'with Christ is not meant in the sense of the regener-
ate moral life, but as the relation of real participation in the resurrection of
Christ.” The explanation of the word ovvnyÉPIETE, however, is to be deter-
mined, (1) by its contrast with ảnedáveta (ii. 20); which is declared to be a
dying to the OTOlXETa ; (2) by the fact that ovvirréponte, in ii. 12, is connected
the slaves with a proposition couched in
such general terms as ver. 25, which applies
not to the slaves, but to the masters. This,
however, is an erroneous view. For in vv.
22-24 the apostle has instructed the slaves
regarding their active bearing in service, and
he is now, in the general proposition of ver.
25, suggesting for their reflection and delibe-
rate consideration the proper soothing and
elevating point of view regarding their passive
bearing in service also. Thus ver. 25 also
applies to the slaves, and forms merely the
transition to the precept for the masters
in iv. 1. This applies also in opposition
to the doubts expressed by Holtzmann,
p. 44 f.
NOTES.
373
with faith and with a deliverance from sins ; (3) by the evident reference of the
exhortations which follow to things relating to the development of the regenerate
moral life; (4) by a comparison with the strikingly similar passage in Rom. vi.
2 ff. All these points favor the view that the rising to the new spiritual life is
meant. Alf. speaks of this explanation as "stultifying the sentence"; "for if
the participation were an ethical one,” he says, “what need to exhort them to its
ethical realization ?” The true view of the meaning is—as in Rom. vi. and viii.
that as, according to the idea and doctrine of the Christian life, every believer
is, at his conversion and baptism, raised to a new spiritual liſe-having died to
sin,-he is to be exhorted to conform his actual living, in all respects, to this idea.
So far from stultifying the sentence—this is a mode of exhortation which all
Christian teachers adopt, and which Paul himself uses in several of his Epistles.
--(c) This rising to a new life is here, as in Rom. vi., described as a being raised
with Christ, and the verb is put in the aor. tense, and in the compound form with
oúv, because, by his faith and baptism, the union of the Christian with Christ
becomes so close and complete, that it is as if he had actually died upon the cross
with Him and had been actually raised with Him. The representation is, thus,
a figurative one. The real physical resurrection of the believer, which is the
result of Christ's resurrection, belongs to the future.
(d) The “ things above" are the things which belong to the spiritual, heavenly
liſe. The principles and characteristics of the life of the kingdom of God have
their origin in heaven and descend, as it were, out of heaven into this world.
These things are spoken of here in their perfection and consummation, and in
their widest extent, and thus include all that belongs to the idea of the per-
fected heavenly life, on which the Christian is to set his whole mind, in contrast
to earthly things. He is, accordingly, to lay aside all evil and to put on all good,
to have love, which is the bond of perfectness,—to be a new man in the image
of God, -to look forward to the future glory.-(e) Ver. 3 gives a reason for ver.
2. This reason includes a repeated TEVávete and the statement ý 5w9) K.1.2.
These latter words must therefore set forth, in some sense, a contrast to the idea of
that to which they had died. The old life was an earthly one, related to and occu-
pied with outward things and unspiritual desires and actions. The new life is a
hidden one, having its centre and spring with Christ in God, and only to be man-
ifested in all its glory when Christ Himself shall be manifested at the end. In
view of this fact, the Christian should not give himself to the earthly things, but
the heavenly. Zwń reſers, thus, to the soul-life which rests in Christ and is to be
realized in its consummation hereafter.
XXXVII. Vy. 5–11.
(a) The more detailed development of the exhortation Ppovęīte tà ávw now
follows in a paragraph vv. 5–17, which is divided into two half-paragraphs: vv.
5-11 giving the negative, and vv. 12-17 the positive side : the former passing
over towards the latter in vv. 10, 11.—(6) As they had died with Christ, they
should (on the negative side) put to death all that was inconsistent with the new
life. This is expressed, at the beginning of the half-paragraph, by verpúoate tà
μέλη τα επί της γης. That μέλη here means the menmbers, only so far as they
are used in the service of sin (Rom. vi. 13, 19), is evident from the following
words (Tropvelav 1.7.7.), and also from the fact that Paul never represents the
374
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
owua or the uéan as evil in themselves. It is only when sin, as a master, rules
them, and employs them as its instruments, that evil comes in. From this fact it
seems probable, that in the phrase tà trì tñs yñs there is, at least, an intima-
tion of the idea of this sinful use; and so, that the same idea is, in some degree,
connected with the same words in ver. 2-a point which may be regarded as con-
firming, in its measure, the reference of the "being raised," etc., to the new
spiritual life.
(c) The connection of covetousness and sins of unchastity with each other, and
of both of them with idolatry, is set forth in several places in Paul's writings;
see Eph. V. 5; 1 Cor. v. 10, 11; 1 Thess. iv. 3-6 (?); Rom. i. 20—29. In the
chief passage relating to the whole subject (Rom. i. 20 ff.), the sins of unchastity
are presented as the first and great outgrowth of the idolatry of the heathen.
Here, on the other hand, covetousness is spoken of as idolatry—the word idolatry
having, however, a somewhat more specific sense. Lightf. and some others sepa-
rate the words πορνείαν κ.τ.λ. from τα μέλη, and make them depend on the
idea of á blode of ver. 8, the construction being changed or made irregular by
the intervening of other clauses. But it is more Pauline and, on the whole, more
simple to make them appositional with jéan, as Meyer does.--(d) The words
ÉTÈ tous vioùs tñs åmeldelas at the end of ver. 6, which are found in T. R. and
retained by Meyer, R. V., Rid., Ell., de W., are rejected by Tisch., Treg., Alf., W.
& H., Lightf., and others. If they are omitted, ois is neuter; if retained, it is
masculine. In either case toutous is neuter. Comp. Rom. i. 18 ff., with respect
to όργή Θεού and its coming upon sin.
(e) The view of Meyer with regard to anekdvoájevol K.T.). is strongly sup-
ported by the first and fourth considerations which he presents : namely, the fact
that the verbs weudeote and án ÓJobɛ are present, while the two participles are
in the aorist, and the fact that the exhortation of ver. 12 is introduced by oőv.
It is supported, also, by the correspondence, if the words are understood in this
way, between these participles and εi árováveta, ovvIyéponte, of ii. 20, iii. 1, as
related to the exhortations there given. The comparison with Eph. iv. 22–24
cannot properly be urged against this view and in favor of making these words a
part of the command in Yeudette, or an independent one, because the arrangement
of the sentence in the passage is different in the points which are vital to this
particular question. The participial clauses, accordingly, must be understood as a
ground or motive, as Meyer says, for the whole TODEOVE . . . árañous. They
do not belong to weudeote alone.
(f) The participle ávakalvoúpevov is a descriptive or characteristic participle,
describing the new man with reference to that progressive renewal which is incon-
sistent with the non-laying-aside of all the evils mentioned.-- (g) kat sikóva is
probably to be joined with svakalv., not (as Meyer) with śmiyvwolv. This is in-
dicated by a comparison with Eph. iv. 24, and by the general intimations of the
N. T. respecting the conformity of the new life to God and the Divine life. The
explanation of Meyer seems artificial and is not made necessary by the position
of the words. The full knowledge here spoken of is to be understood in accord-
ance with the suggestions of the several passages in which this word occurs in
this Ep. and in Eph. (Col. i. 10, ii. 2; Eph. i. 17, iv. 13). It is the knowledge of
God and of truth, to which the progress of the new life bears the man onward as the
end to be reached.-(1) In Gal. iii. 28, where the words of ver. 11 are found in
nearly the same form, they occur most naturally in the course of an argument
NOTES.
375
against Judaizers, who would limit the Divine plan by national boundaries.
Here, the reason of their use is less evident. The explanation given by Meyer,
“where all the separating diversities have ceased, by which those phenomena of
malevolence and passion mentioned in ver. 8 were occasioned and nourished," is
hardly satisfactory. The phenomena in question were not occasioned so exclu-
sively by these diversities as to make it natural to bring the latter forward with
so much prominence. It would seem not improbable, that there may be some
special reference to the views of the Colossian errorists, whose system was exclu-
sive-both on its Jewish and Gnostic side-with reference to Gentiles, or to those
of more barbarous and uncultured regions, and in opposition to whom Christ is
now set forth as everything in the new life, just as He is elsewhere declared to be
head of all angelic powers in whom they professed to believe.
XXXVIII. Vv. 12–17.
(a) Vv. 12–17 present (see above) the more special exhortations on the posi-
tive side; the introductory our referring to vy. 10, 11 which thus form, as
already stated, a transition passage. If Meyer's view of TanelVoopootvn is cor-
rect, as it probably is, it will be noticed that all the virtues which the readers are
exhorted to put on are those which have reference to their relations to one
another, until the end of ver. 15a. The šv Évì cúuate of the close of ver. 15
suggests the same thought, and it is again brought out in 166. 17, and also in the
following verses, 18-iv. 1, which set forth the mutual obligations of husbands and
wives, etc. This peculiar prominence given to these relations may, perhaps, in-
dicate a ground of the insertion of the words of ver. 11, additional to the one
referred to in the notes on that verse.—(6) ipaútnta here means gentleness (so
also Meyer), rather than meekness, as it does also in 1 Cor. iv. 21 ; 2 Tim. ii. 25.-
(c) The view of Meyer with respect to the supply of a participle, and not a verb,
after jueig of ver. 13, is hardly to be accepted. It makes the sentence less bur-
densome to supply a verb, and then to add in thought a new vợto before
Thu Nyánnu of ver. 14.-(d). With respect to the word BpaßɛvelV the following
points are worthy of notice: (1) It is a peculiar word, not used in this simple
verbal form elsewhere in Paul's writings or in the N. T. (2) The corresponding
noun Bpaßežov, found in 1 Cor. ix. 24; Phil. iii. 14, has its full and legitimate
meaning in both cases. The compound verb used in ii. 18 has an element of the
same meaning, though not the exactness of the sense which the derivation would
suggest. (3) The reference in the preceding context is to feelings which work
out towards others, and which conflict with each other in the soul. (4) The
words év Évè obuatı point to a unity which would be secured by the exercise of
the one sort of feelings and excluded by the other. These considerations favor
the assigning to Bpaßevétw of its strict sense—act as umpire or judge, as be-
tween conflicting emotions, etc.—(e) èv ůpis (ver. 16) is better understood in the
sense within you, than in you as a church, as Meyer takes it. The įv tais
kapsials, which precedes and follows, suggests the former meaning, though these
words are not, indeed, in the same clause, and èv mraon ooolą favors it. Ŝv üniv,
in such cases, is generally equivalent to in animis vestris.
(f) That the words ψαλμοίς ... πνευματικαίς are to be connected with διδάσκοντες
K.7.2. is indicated by the insertion of év zápite before ádovtes, and also by the
corresponding passage in Eph. v. 19. In Eph., however, they are suggested in a
376
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
more natural connection—the outbreaking of song being the result of the work-
ing of the Divine Spirit upon the emotional nature apparently, (comp. the con-
trast with LEUVOKEOVE civo in that passage). The suggestion here may be, pos-
sibly, of song as accompanying the teaching, etc., with all wisdom ; but such
teaching may even have been conveyed, ai times, by this means. If the word of
Christ dwelt in them richly, all their utterances, even those of emotion and
praise, might become instructive and helpful in their relations to one another.-(9)
evxaploTOŪVTES (ver. 17)—The emphasis which Paul lays upon thankfulness in the ·
Epistle, placing it at the end of his exhortations, etc., is very noticeable. Comp. . .
i. 12; ii. 7 ; iii. 15; iv. 2. It should abound in all their walk and growth in the
Christian life; it should accompany every prayer ; it should attend upon their
actions and their words, as they did their work for Christ; it should go out joy-
fully to God, as He made them fit to share in the inheritance of the saints.
XXXIX. Vv. 18—25.
(a) This passage (iii. 18-iv. 1) sets forth the duties of the Christian life
which have been urged upon the readers comprehensively in iii. 1-4, and more
in detail in ii. 12–17--in particular domestic and social relations. In the similar
passage Eph. y. 21-pi. 9, they follow a similar exhortation with respect to speak-
ing to one another in psalms, etc., and giving thanks to God through Christ, but
the words “subjecting yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ” are placed
after “giving thanks," etc. These duties are, accordingly, made a part of that
general subjection to one another which is the duty of all Christians. This fact
is to be borne in mind in the interpretation of the individual exhortations. The
tendency to excess in pressing the doctrine of Christian liberty and equality at
that early period, so as to interfere with the subordinations to which society had
been accustomed, must also be considered.—(6) In connection with the general
subjection of every one to every other, the exact correspondence in the duties 'of
the two parties in the several cases should be observed. Tlie child, for example,
is no more under obligation to obey the father, than the father is not to provoke
or fret the child. The whole matter is so presented as to remove all mere earthly
and governmental ideas of subjection, and to make all the relations simply rela-
tions of self-surrendering love.-(0) The suggestion made by some writers, that
the case of Onesimus led Paul to speak especially, and so fully, of slaves, seems
improbable when we consider the parallel passage in Eph., the similar one in 1
Pet. ii. 18-iii. 7, and the allusion to slaves in Tit. ii. 9 ff., and also when we ob-
serve the evident intention to refer to the prominent relationships of domestic
life.-(d) Sovheveta (ver. 24), which Meyer takes as an imperative, is perhaps
better regarded as an indicative. Paul reminds the slaves that they are serving
the Lord Christ, that Christ is the master whom they serve—therefore they should
do everything as if to Him, and should know that the reward would come.---(0)
It is noticeable that the words "there is no respect of persons," which are made
a ground of urgency in pressing the obligations of duty upon the slaves, in this
Epistle, are made a similar ground in exhorting masters to fulfill their obliga-
tions in Eph. vi. 9.
CHAP. IV. 1.
377
377
CHAPTER IV.
VER. 1. oúpavois] Lachm. and Tisch. read ovpavõ, following A B C *** min. vss.
Clem. Or. Damasc. The plural is from Eph. vi. 9.--Ver. 3. di 6] Lachm. reads
di öv, following B F G. Not attested strongly enough, especially as after T.
Χριστού the masculine involuntarily suggested itself.--Ver. 8. γνώ τα περί ύμών]
A B D* F G min. Aeth. It., and some Fathers have yvõte Tà Tepi juāv.l Recom-
mended by Griesb., received by Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch. 8, approved also by
Rinck and Reiche; and rightly, because it has preponderant attestation, and is so
necessary as regards the context that is must not be regarded as an alteration
from Eph. vi. 22 (comp. in loc.). The Recepta is to be regarded as having arisen
through the omission of the syllable TE before TA.--Ver. 12. Instead of orñte
Tisch. 8 has otalite, only on the authority of A* B and some min.--Tenanpwjévol]
A B C D* F G x min. have Ten 217po opnuévol. Recommended by Griesb., re-
ceived by Lachm. and Tischi, and justly; the familiar en anpil. crept in invol-
untarily, or by way of gloss.—Ver. 13. 5ñhov Tokúv] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.
Reiche read molùv tovov, following A B C D** x 80, Copt., while D* F G have
Toùv Kónov, and Vulg. It.: multum laborem. Accordingly the Recepta is at any
rate to be rejected, and ToùTrovov to be preferred as having decisive attestation ;
TT Óvov was glossed partly by kónov, partly by Sīkov (róbov and kyāva are also
found in codd.). Neither Sihov nor KÓTOV would have given occasion for a gloss;
and in the N. T. Tóvos only further occurs in the Apocalypse.- Ver. 15. avtoù] A
CPx min. have avrwv; B: autīs. The latter is the reading of Lachm., who
with B** instead of Νυμφάν accents Νύμφαν. The αυτών, which is received by
Tisch. 8, is to be held as original; the plural not being understood was corrected,
according as the name Nouo. was reckoned masculine or feminine, into airow or
avtñs.
Ver. 1. Tìm loótnta] not: equity, for the word signifies aequialitas, not
aequitas, i. C. ÉT LELKELA (in opposition to Steiger, Huther, de Wette, Ewald,
Bleek, and most expositors), but: equality, a so that ye, namely, regard and
treat the slaves as your equals. What is herein required, therefore, is not a
quality of the master, and in particular not the freedom from moral uneven-
ness,3 which is equivalent to Sekalooúvn (Hofmann), but a quality of the rela-
tion, which is to be conceded; it is not at all, however, the equalization
of the outward relation, which would be a de facto abolition of slavery, but
1*** has yow Te Ta Tepi vuwy; *** deletes
the re, and is thus a witness for the Recepta.
22 Cor. viii. 13 f.; very often in Plato, Polyb.
ii. 38. 8, vi. 8. 4; Lucian, Herm. 22, Zeux. 5, also
the passages from Philo in Wetstein, and the
LXX. Job xxxvi. 29 ; Zech. iv. 7.
8 This conception, coincident with Sixalodúvn,
does not pertain to icórns at all; and just as
little to ioos in Soph. Phil. 685, where ioos év
y' ioous åvýp is nothing else than par inter
pares, namely, to his friends a friend, to his
foes a foe. Comp. Schneidewin in loc. At
many other passages ioos denotes the equality
of right, that which is impartial, and is hence
378
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
rather the equality, which, amidst a continued subsistence of all the out-
ward diversity, is brought about in the Christian Koivuvia by kindly treat-
ment. While tò dikalov (what is right) expresses that which, according to
the Christian consciousness of right, belongs as matter of right to the slave,
TÌv loórnta requires the concession of the parity (égalité) implied, in the
Christian ásɛapórns. Paul has in view (in opposition to Hofmann) merely
Christian slaves (whom he has exhorted in iii. 22 f.); otherwise, in fact,
the conception of loórns would be not at all appropriate. It is just by the
Christian status of both parties that he desires to see their inequality in
other respects ethically counterbalanced. A commentary on Tìv ioórnta is
supplied by Philem. 16. At variance with the context, Erasmus,
Melanchthon, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Böhmer, and others under-
stand the equality of impartial treatment, according to which the master
does not prefer one slave to another. This would not in fact yield any defi-
nite moral character of the treatment in itself, nor would it suit all the
cases where there is only one slave. As to the middle napézeota (Tit. ii.
7; Acts xix. 24), observe that it is based simply on the conception of the
self-activity of the subject; Kühner, II. 1, p. 97.-=i86tes] consciousness,
that serves as a motive, as in iii. 24.--kai vuelç k.7.n.] Theophylact says
correctly: @OTTEP ÉKEīvol újās, oŰtw kai úlets &XETE kúplov, and that in heaven,
namely Christ.
Vv. 2-6. [On Vv. 2-6, see Note XL. pages 392, 393.] After having already
concluded the general exhortations at iii. 17, Paul now subjoins some by
way of supplement, and that in aphoristic epistolary fashion, concerning
prayer along with intercession for himself (vv. 21), and demeanor towards
non-Christians (vv. 5, 6). How special was the importance of both under
the circumstances then existing! [XL a.]
Ver. 2. To prayer apply yourselves perseveringly; comp. Rom. xii. 12;
Eph. vi. 18; Acts i. 14; also 1 Thess. v. 17 : ádraheittws apogeuzeole, which
is substantially the same thing. Comp. Luke xviii. 1.-yonyop. év avti]
modal definition of the apookaptepkiv: so that ye are watchful (that is,
alacres, mentally attentive and alert, not weary and distracted, comp. 1.
Thess. v. 6; Eph. vi. 18; 1 Pet. iv. 7, v. 7 f.; Matt. xxvi. 41) in the same.
év, not to be taken as instrumental, is meant of the business, in the execution
of which they are to be vigilant, since it is prayer in itself, as an expression
of the spiritual life, and not as an aid to moral activity, that is spoken of.
Hence we must not interpret it, with Hofmann, as indicating how Chris-
tian watchfulness ought to be (namely, a watching in prayer), but rather
how one ought to be in praying (namely, watchful therein). The point of
the precept is the praying; and hence it is continued by mpocev xoevol.--
Év ev xap.] accompanying attitude, belonging to ypny. év avtī; with thanks-
often combined with Sikalos (righteous in the
narrower sense). But icórns is always (even
in Polyb. ii. 38. 8) equality; see e. g. Plato, Rep.
658 C, where it is said of the democracy: icó
TnTá Tiva omoiwsiools te kai áviools Slavérovoa,
that is, it distributes uniformly to equal and
unequal a certain equality. In such passagos
the conception of égalité comes into view with
special clearness. Hofmann has explained
our passage as ificórns and oralórns, or decórns
(levelness), were identical conceptions.
CHAP. IV. 2, 3.
379
giving, amidst thanksgiving, namely, for the benefits already received.
Comp. i. 12, ii. 7, iii. 17; Phil. iv. 6; 1 Thess. v. 17. This is the essential
elenient of the piety of prayer: ajT7 vào h 42-neuvn) exì ì cỏ xapLanDau xoiGa
υπέρ πάντων ών ισμεν και ών ουκ έσμεν, ών ευ επάθομεν ή έθλίβομεν, υπέρ των
κοινών ευεργεσίων, Theophylact. The combination with τη προσευχή προσκαρτ.
(Böhmer, Hofmann) is without ground in the context, although likewise
suitable as to sense.
Ver. 3. Comp. Eph. vi. 19 f.-äpa kaì nepiņu.] while your prayer takes
place at the same time also (not merely for yourselves, for others, and about
whatever other affairs, but at the same time also) for us, includes us also.
This ruāv, not to be referred to Paul alone, like the singular Sé deual subse-
quently and ver. 4, applies to him and Timothy, i. 1.-iva] contents of the
prayer expressed as its purpose, as in i. 9 and frequently.-lupav t. kóyou]
[XL 6.] is not equivalent to otóua (Beza, Calvin, Zanchius, Estius,
Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, and others. comp. Storr and Böhmer)—a
singular appellation which Eph. vi. 7 does not warrant us to assume—but
is rather a figurative way of indicating the thought: unhindered operation
in the preaching of the gospel. So long as this does not exist, there is not
opened to the preachers a door for the word, through which they may let
it go forth. The Tappnoia of the preaching (Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact), however, lies not in the Cúpa and its opening, but in what
follows. Hofmann incorrectly holds that the closed door is conceived as
being on the side of those, to whom the preachers wished to preach the word,
so that it would not enter in. This conception is decidedly at variance with
the immediately following hahmoal K.1.2., according to which the hindrance
portrayed (the door to be opened) exists on the side of the preachers.
Moreover, in this iva o Osòs x.t.2. the wish of the apostle, as regards his
own person, is certainly directed to liberation from his captivity (comp.
Philem. 22), not, however, to this in itself, but to the free working which
depended on it. It was not the preaching in the prison which Paul nieant, for
that he had; but he longed after the opening of a Oupa toũ hóyov; God was to give
it to him. Perhaps the thought of liberation suggested to himself the choice
of the expression. Nor is the plural 1ſuõv and quiv, embracing others with
himself, at variance with this view (as Hofmann holds); for by the
captivity of the apostle his faithful friend and fellow-laborer Timothy, who
was with him, was, as a matter of course, also hindered in the freedom of
working, to which he might otherwise have devoted himself. This was
involved in the nature of their personal and official fellowship. Observe
how it is only with sédeuar that Paul makes, and must make, a transition
to the singular. This transition by no means betrays (in opposition to
Hitzig and Holtzmann) the words di kai dédeual, iva pav. avro to be an
1 But Olshausen incorrectly says: "the
prayer of the Christian at all times, in the
consciousness of the grace which he has ex-
perienced, can only be a prayer of thanks.
giving." He holds the more general apogeuxń
to be more precisely defined by év evxap. Against
this view the very ver. 3 is decisive, where, in
fact, Paul does not mean a prayer of thanks.
2 Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 9; 2 Cor. ii. 12; Dion.
Hal. de vi Dem. p. 1026. 14: OÚSÈ O úpas isuv dó-
yos, also Pind. Ol. vi. 114; Túdas üdvwv åyamite
válley, Bacchyl. fr. xiv. 2.
380
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
interpolation from Eph. vi. 20. The fact, that Paul elsewhere (Rom. vii.
2; 1 Cor. vii. 27, 39) has Séelv in the figurative sense, cannot inatter;
comp., on the contrary, the deguós and déguios which he so often uses.-
halñoal k.7.2.] infinitive of the aim : in order to speak the mystery of Christ.
The emphasis is on kaìñoal: not to suppress it, but to let it be proclaimed.
Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 6; 2 Cor. iv. 13; 1 Thess. ii. 2.-TOū Xplotov] genitive of
the subject, the divine mystery contained in the appearance and redemp-
tive act of Christ (comp. Eph. iii. 4), in so far, namely, as the divine
counsel of redemption, concealed previously to its being made known by
the gospel, was accomplished in Christ's mission and work (i. 26, ii. 2;
Eph. i. 9; Rom. xvi. 25). Thus the uvotÝPLOV of God in ii. 2 is, because
Christ was the bearer and accomplisher of it, the μυστήριον του Χριστού.
δι' ο και δέδεμαι] δι' ό applies to the μυστήρ. ; and the whole clause serves to
justify the intercession desired. When, namely, Paul wishes hanical tò uvorhp.
7. X., he therewith desires that, which is in such sense his entire destination,
that on account of this mystery_because, namely, he has made it known
-he also bears his fetters. This kaí is consequently the also of the corres-
ponding relation, quite common with relatives (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 152).
Ver. 4. "Iva K.7.2.] cannot, seeing that the preceding iva ó Deos åvolg
K.T.2. means the free preaching outside of the prison, be dependent either
on dédeuat (Bengel, Hofmann, comp. Theodoret) or on tpooevxOuevo!, SO
that it would run parallel with iva in ver. 3 (Beza, Bähr, de Wette, Baum-
garten-Crusius, Dalmer, and others); it is the aim of the hanñoal tò ¡LVOT.
T. X. : in order that I may make it manifest (by preaching) as I must
speak it. Comp. also Bleek, who, however, less simply attaches it already
to iva Ó DEos évoign K.T.N. The significant weight of this clause expressing
the aim lies in the specification of mode ós dat je aanñoal, in which dež
has the emphasis. To give forth his preaching in such measure, as it was
the necessity of his apostolic destiny to do (dɛi)—so frankly and without
reserve, so free from hindrance, so far and wide from land to land, with
such liberty to form churches and to combat erroneous teachings, and so
forth-Paul was unable, so long as he was in captivity, even when others
were allowed access to him. There is a tragic trait in this ás dɛi mɛ hałñoat,
the feeling of the hindered present. [XL C.] The traditional explanation
is that of Chrysostom: MLETà Tobañis tñs raponoias kai undèv ÜTOOTECHájevov,
namely, in captivity, where Paul longed to speak in the right way (de
Wette; so usually), or conformably to higher necessity (Bähr, Huther, comp.
Beza, 1 Cor. ix. 16), or without allowing himself to be disturbed in his preach-
ing as apostle to the Gentiles by his imprisonment occasioned by Jewish-
Christian hostility (Hofmann). But in opposition to the reference of the
whole intercession to the ministry in prison, see on ver. 3. The wish and
the hope of working once more in freedon were so necessarily bound up
in Paul with the consciousness of his comprehensive apostolic task, that
we can least of all suppose him to have given it up already in Caesarea,
where he appealed to the emperor. Even in the Epistle to the Philippi-
ans (i. 25, ii. 24), his expectation is still in fact directed to renewed
freedom of working.
CHAP. IV. 4, 5.
381
Ver. 5 f. Another exhortation, for which Paul must still have had occa-
sion, although we need not seek its link of connection with the preceding
one. Comp. Eph. v. 15 f., where the injunction here given in reference to
the non-Christians is couched in a general form.—¿V copią] Practical
Christian wisdom (not mere prudence; Chrysostom aptly quotes Matt. x.
16) is to be the element, in which their walk amidst their intercourse with
the non-Christians moves. Tpós of the social direction, Bernhardy, p.
205. As to oi ēEW, see on 1 Cor. v. 12. Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 12.-TÒV kalpòv
ÉGayop.] definition of the mode in which that injunction is to be carried
out: so that ye malce the right point of time your own (see on Eph. v. 16),
allow it not to pass unemployed. For what? is to be inferred solely from
the context; namely, for all the activities in which that same wise demeanor
in intercourse with the non-Christians finds expression—which, consequently,
may be according to the circumstances very diversified. Individual limit-
ations of the reference are gratuitously introduced, such as "ad ejusmodi
homines meliora docendos," Heinrichs, comp. Erasmus, Beza, Calovius,
and others, including Flatt and Böhmer; or: "in reference to the fur-
therance of the kingdom of God,” Huther, Hofmann. There is likewise
gratuitously imported the idea of the shortness of time, on account of
which it is to be well applied (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Castalio, and
others, including Bähr), as also the view that the kalpós, which signifies
the aiàv oúros, is not the property of the Christian, but belongs toīs & w,
and is to be made by Christians their own through good deeds (Theodo-.
ret, comp. Oecumenius), or by peaceful demeanor towards the non-Chris-
tians (Theophylact). Lastly, there is also imported the idea of an evil
time from Eph. V. 16, in connection with which expositors have in turn
lighted on very different definitions of the meaning; e.g. Calvin : "in
tanta saeculi corruptela eripiendam esse benefaciendi occasionem et cum
obstaculis luctandum;" Grotius: “effugientes pericula.”_Ver. 6. ó 26y.
Úp.] what ye speak, namely, apòs toùs šęw; the more groundless, therefore,
is the position of Holtzmann, that ver. 6 is a supplement inserted at a
later place, when it should have properly come in at chap. iii. between
vy. 8 and 9. Šotw is to be supplied, as is evident from the preceding im-
perative περιπατείτε.-εν χάριτι] denotes that with which their speech is to
be furnished, with grace, pleasantness. This zaplévtwÇ Eival of speaking
(comp. Plato, Prot. p. 344 B, Rep. p. 331 A) is very different from the
xapitoyhwooεiv of Aesch. Prom. 294.—ärarı aptop.] seasoned with salt, a figu-
rative representation of speech as an article of food, which is communi-
cated. The salt is emblem of wisdom, as is placed beyond doubt by the
context in ver. 5, and is in keeping with the sense of the following Eidéval
K.T.R. (comp. Matt. v. 13; Mark ix. 49, 50). As an article of food seasoned
with salt? is thereby rendered palatable, so what is spoken receives
through wisdom (in contents and form) its morally attracting, exciting, and
0
1 Comp. on Luke iv. 22; Ecclus. xxvi. 16,
xxxvii. 21; Hom. Od. viii. 175; Dem. 51. 9.
2 The poets use áprúelv often of articles of
food or wines, which are prepared in such &
way as to provoke the palate. Soph. Fragm.
601, Dind.; Athen. ii. p. 68 A; Theoph. de
odor. 51; Symm. Cant. viii. 2. Hence õptuja,
spice.
382
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
stimulating quality. Its opposite is the stale, ethically insipid (not the
morally rotter and corrupt, as Beza, Böhmer, and others hold) quality of
speech, the pūpov, uwporoyɛīv, in which the moral stimulus is wanting.
The designation of wit by äls (Ches) among the later Greeks 1 is derived
from the pungent power of salt, and is not relevant here. Moreover, the
relation between the two requirements, έν χάριτι and άλατι ήρτυμένος, is
not to be distinguished in such a way that the former shall mean the good
and the latter the correct impression (so, arbitrarily, Hofmann); but the
former depicts the character of the speech more generally, and the latter
more specially. The good and correct impression is yielded by both.
eidéval k.1.2.] taken groundlessly by Hofmann in an imperative sense (see
on Rom. xii. 15; Phil. iii. 16), is, as if öote stood alongside of it, the
epexegetical infinitive for more precise definition : so that ye know. This
εidéval (to understand how, see on Phil. iv. 12) is, in fact, just an ability,
which would not be found in the absence of the previously-described
quality of speech, but is actually existent through the same.---TWs] which
may be in very different ways, according to the varieties of individuality
in the questioners. Hence: Évi ÉKÁOTW, "nam haec pars est non ultima
prudentiae, singulorum habere respectum,” Calvin.-árokpiveclai] We may
conceive reference to be made to questions as to points of faith and doc-
trine, as to moral principles, topics of constitution and organization, his-
torical matters, and so forth, which, in the intercourse of Christians with
non-Christians, might be put, sometimes innocently, sometimes malici-
ously (comp. 1 Pet. iii. 1), to the former, and required answer. Paul does
not use the word elsewhere. Comp. as to the thing itself, his own exam-
ple at Athens, Acts xvii.; before Felix and Festus; before the Jews in
Rome, Acts xxviii. 20, and so forth; and also his testimony to his own
procedure, 1 Cor. ix. 20–22. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calovius, and others,
inappropriately mix up believers as included in évà &káctw, in opposition to
ver. 5.
Vy. 7-9. Sending of Tychicus, and also of Onesimus. Comp. on Eph.
vi. 21 f.-By ảdɛap. Paul expresses the relation of Tychicus as a Christian
brother generally; by Slákovos, his special relation as the apostle's official
servant, in which very capacity he employs him for such missions; and
by obvdovhos (i. 7) he delicately, as a mark of honor, places him as to
official category on a footing of equality with himself; while źv kvpiw, be-
longing to the two latter predicates, marks the specific definite character,
according to which nothing else than simply Christ—His person, word,
and work—is the sphere in which these relations of service are active.
Comp. Eph. vi. 21.-eis avto TOūTO] for this very object, having a retrospec-
tive reference as in Rom. xiii. 6, 2 Cor. v. 5 (in opposition to Hofmann),
in order, namely, that ye may learn from him all that concerns me. The fol-
1 Plut. Moral. p. 685 A; Athen. ix. p. 366 C.
See Matthiae, 2532 f., p. 1235 f.; Winer, p.
296 [E. T. 316).
8 Slákovos and cúvdovios are also connected
by the common attribute Torós, and sepa-
rated from ádeidós, which has its special ad-
jective. Chrysostom, moreover, aptly re-
marks on the different predicates: Tò a&cón
LOTOV ovvńyayev.
CHAP. IV. 6-10.
383
lowing ίνα γνώτε τα π. υμών (see the critical remarks) is explicative; πάντα
ito yuwp. Tà ūdɛ in ver. 9 then corresponds to both. Comp. on Eph. vi.
22.-rapakan.] may comfort, in your anxiety concerning me, respecting my
position. With the reading yvõ tà tepi üdūv, the reference would be to
the sufferings of the readers; -oùv 'Ovnoiuw] belonging to ÉTTELYA. As to
this slave of Philemon, see Introd. to the Epistle to Philemon. Paul
commends him? as his faithful (TTLOTÓS, as in ver. 7, not: having become a
believer, as Bähr would render it) and beloved brother, and designates him then
as Colossian, not in order to do honor to their city (Chrysostom, Theophy-
lact), but in order to bespeak their special sympathy for Onesimus, the
particulars as to whom, especially as regards his conversion, he leaves to
be communicated orally.--š vuôv] As a Colossian he was from among
them, that is, one belonging to their church. Comp. ver. 12.-Tà woɛ] the
state of matters here, to which tà kat' tué, ver. 7, especially belonged.
Ver. 10. [On vv. 10-18, see Note XLI. pages 393, 394.] Sending of salu-
tations down to ver. 14.—'Apiotapxos] a Thessalonian, known from Acts xix.
29, xx. 4, xxvii. 2, Philem. 24, was with Paul at Caesarea, when the latter
had appealed to the emperor, and travelled with him to Rome, Acts
xxvii. 2.-ó ovvaizuáhwrós pou] [XLI «.] Oidêu TOUTOU TOŨ éykwuiov uzīšov,
Chrysostom. In the contemporary letter to Philemon at ver. 24, the
same Aristarchus is enumerated among the ovvepyoí; and, on the other
hand, at ver. 23 Epaphras, of whose sharing the captivity our Epistle
makes no mention (see i. 7), is designated as ouvalguáhwTos, so that in
Philem. l. c. the ovvalxuálwtoç is expressly distinguished from the mere
ovvepyol, and the former is not affirmed of Aristarchus. Hence various
interpreters have taken it to refer not to a proper, enforced sharing of the
captivity, but to a voluntary one, it being assumed, namely, that friends of
the apostle allowed themselves to be temporarily shut up with him in
prison, in order to be with him and to minister to him not merely as
visitors, but continuously day and night. Comp. Huther, de Wette, and
Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. xxi. According to this view, such friends changed
places from time to time, so that, when the apostle wrote our letter, Aris-
tarchus, and when he wrote that to Philemon, Epaphras, shared his cap-
tivity. But such a relation could the less be gathered by the readers from
the mere ovvalguáhwros (comp. Lucian, As. 27), seeing that Paul himself
was a prisoner, and consequently they could not but find in opvaizuál.
simply the entirely similar position of Aristarchus as a ovdeouárns (Plat.
Rep. p. 516 C: Thuc. vi. 60. 2), and that as being so at the same time, not,
as in Rom. xvi. 7, at some earlier period. Hence we must assume that
now Aristarchus, but when the Epistle to Philemon was written, Epaphras,
lay in prison at the same time with the apostle,-an imprisonment which
is to be regarded as detention for trial, and the change of persons in the
case must have had its explanation in circumstances to us unknown but
1 δείκνυσι και αυτούς έν πειρασμούς όντας και
tapaşaýoews xpýšovtas, Theophylact, comp.
Chrysostom.
2 And how wisely and kindly, after what
had happened with Onesimus! Yet Holtz-
mann holds that of the whole verse only the
name Onesimus is characteristic, and recbras
the verse to owe its existence to that name.
384
21
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
yet, notwithstanding the proximity of the two letters in point of time,
sufficiently conceivable. It is to be observed, moreover, that as aixuán.
always denotes captivity in war (see on Eph. iv. 8; also Luke iv. 18), Paul
by ovvalxj. sets himself forth as a captive warrior (in the service of
Christ). Comp. ovompatiúrns, Phil. ii. 25; Philem. 2. Hofmann (comp.
also on Rom. xvi. 7) is of opinion that we should think “of the war-cap-
tive state of one won by Christ from the kingdom of darkness," so that ovvalx-
uáłwtos would be an appellation for fellow-Christian; but this is an aber-
ration, which ought least of all to have been put forth in the presence of
a letter, which Paul wrote in the very character of a prisoner.—Upon
åveyós, consobrinus, cousin : Herod. vii. 5. 82, ix. 10; Plat. Legg. xi. p.
925 A ; Xen. Anab. vii. 8. 9, Tob. vii. 22, Num. Xxxvi. 11; see Andoc. i.
47 ; Pollux, iii. 28. Not to be confounded either with nephew (ådeholdOŪS
or with ávexládns, cousin's son, in the classical writers, áveycoŨ Tais. See
generally, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 506. To take it in a wider sense, like our
“kinsman, relative "i there is the less reason, seeing that Paul does not
use the word elsewhere. Moreover, as no other Mark at all occurs in the
N. T., there is no sufficient ground for the supposition of Hofmann, that
Paul had by ó ảvey. Bapv. merely wished to signify which Mark he meant.
Chrysostom and Theophylact already rightly perceived that the relation-
ship with the highly-esteemed Barnabas was designed to redound to the
commendation of Mark.-Tepi oủ xhaß. évton.] in respect of whom (Mark) ye
have received injuctions 2-a remark which seems to be made not without
a design of reminding them as to their execution. What injunctions are
meant, by whom and through whom they were given, and whether orally or
in writing, Paul does not say ; but the recalling of them makes it proba-
ble that they proceeded from himself, and were given ảypáows diá TiVwV
(Oecumenius). Ewald conjectures that they were given in the letter to
the Laodiceans, and related to love-offerings for Jerusalem, which Mark
was finally to fetch and attend to. But the work of collection was proba-
bly closed with the last journey of the apostle to Jerusalem. Others hold,
contrary to the notion of évton, that letters of recommendation are meant
from Barnabas (Grotius), or from the Roman church (Estius); while others
think that the following εάν έλθη κ.τ.λ. forms the contents of εντολάς (Calvin
—who, with Syriac, Ambrosiaster, and some codd., reads subsequently
défaodai, --comp. Beza, Castalio, Bengel, Bähr, and Baumgarten-Crusius),
a view against which may be urged the plural čvrolás and the absence of
the article. Hofmann incorrectly maintains that περί ου ελάβ. εντολάς is
to be taken along with éày šron . Új.: respecting 'whom ye have obtained
1 So in Hom. II. ix. 464, who, however, also
uses it in the strict sense as in x. 519.
2 Tepi oº is not to be referred to Barnabas,
as, following Theophylact and Cajetanus (the
former of whom, however, explains as if
trap' où were read), Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 259 ff.,
has again done. The latter understands un-
der the evrodás instructions formerly issued
to the Pauline churches not to receive Barna-
bas, which were now no longer to be applied.
As if the trapo švomós of Acts xv.39 could have
induced the apostle to issue such an anathema
to his churches against the highly-esteemed
Barnabas, who was accounted of apostolic
dignity! Paul did not act so unjustly and
imprudently. Comp., on the contrary, Gal.
fi. 9 and (notwithstanding what is narrated at
Gal. ii. 11) 1 Cor. ix. 6.
:
CHAP. IV. 11.
385
instructions for the case of his coming to you. This the words could not
mean; for &àv žmon T. ún. signifies nothing else than: if he shall have
come to you, and this accords not with ελάβ. εντολ., but only with δέξασθε
avrov, which Hofmann makes an exclamation annexed without connect-
ing link (that is, with singular abruptness).-—àv šron K.1.2.] Parenthesis ;
Mark must therefore have had in view a journey, which was to bring him
to Colossae. dé xeobar of hospitable reception, as often in the N. T. (Matt.
x. 14; John iv. 45) and in classical authors (Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 23). From
the circumstance, however, that défaolɛ stands without special modal defi-
nition, it is not to be inferred that Paul was apprehensive lest the readers
should not, without this summons, have recognized Mark (on account of
Acts xv. 38 f.) as an apostolic associate (Wieseler, Chronol. des apost.
Zeitalt. p. 567). Not the simple défaobe, but a more precise definition,
would have been called for in the event of such an apprehension.
Ver. 11. (XLI 6.] Of this Jesus nothing further is known.-OL ÖVTES ÉK
Tepit. is to be attached, with Lachmann (comp. also Steiger, Huther,
Bleek), to what follows, so that a full stop is not to be inserted (as is
usually done) after imepit. Otherwise oí ÖVTES ÉK Tepit. would be purposeless,
and the following oŭrol jóvol K.T.N. too general to be true, and in fact at
variance with the subsequent mention of Epaphras and Luke (vv. 12–14).
It is accordingly to be explained : Of those, who are from the circumcision,
these alone (simply these three, and no others) are such fellow-laborers for the
kingdom of the Messiah, as have become a comfort to me. The Jewish-Christian
teachers, consequently, worked even at Caesarea to a great extent in an
anti-Pauline sense. Comp. the complaint from Rome, Phil. i. 15, 17. The
nominative oi ÖVTES ÉK Tepit. puts the generic subject at the head; but as
something is to be affirmed not of the genus, but of a special part of it, that
general subject remains without being followed out, and by means of the
μετάβασις εις μέρος the special subject is introduced with oύτoι, so that the
verb (here the cloí to be supplied), now attaches itself to the latter. A
phenomenon of partitive apposition, which is current also in classical
authors. Hence there is the less reason for breaking up the passage,
which runs on simply, after the fashion adopted by Hofmann, who treats
ÉK Tepitouñs ouroi jóvol as inserted parenthetically between oi övres and
ovvepyoi. The complimentary affirmation is to be referred to all the three
previously named, without arbitrary exclusion of Aristarchus (in opposi-
tion to Hofmann). At any rate, Caesarea was a city so important for the
Christian mission, that many teachers, Jewish-Christian and Gentile-
1 In 1 Tim. iii. 14 f., a passage to which Hof-
mann, with very little ground, appeals, the
verb of the chief clanse is, in fact, a present
(ypádw), not, as would be the case here, a
praeterite, which expresses an act of the past
(ědáſete). There the meaning is : In the case
of my departure being delayed, howevcr', this my
letter has the object, etc. But here, if the con-
ditional clause were to be annexed to the
past act éráßere, the circumstance condition-
ing the latter would logically have to be con-
ceived and expressed in oblique form (from
the point of view of the person giving the in-
junction), in some such form, therefore, as :
ei ēd bou após ùuâs (comp. Acts xxiv. 19, xxvii.
39; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 491 f.).
2 See Kühner, II. 1, p. 246; Nägelsbach and
Faesi on Hom. I. iii. 211, Comp. Matthiae, p.
1307.
25
386
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. "
Christian, must have frequented it, especially while Paul was a prisoner
there; and consequently the notice in the passage before us need not point
us to Rome as the place of writing.----Tapnyopía] consolation, comfort, only here
in the N. T.; more frequently in Plutarch; see Kypke. Méylotov ÉYKÓLLOV.
το τώ αποστόλω γενέσθαι θυμηδίας πρόξενον, Theodoret. Bengel imposes an
arbitrary limitation : "in forensi periculo.”
Ver. 12. 'Enappās) See i. 7 and Introd. It is to be observed that, accord-
ing to ver. 11, Epaphras, Luke, and Demas (ver. 14) were no Jewish-
Christians, whereas Tiele in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 765, holding Luke to
be by birth a Jew, has recourse to forced expedients, and wishes arbitrarily
to read between the lines. Hofmann, refining groundlessly (see on ver.
14), but with a view to favor his presupposition that all the N. T. writings
were of Israelite origin, thinks that our passage contributes nothing
towards the solution of the question as to Luke's descent; comp. on Luke,
Introd. 1.Ó Éš úpūv] as in ver. 9, exciting the affectionate special interest
of the Yeaders; υπέρ υμών afterwards thoughtfully corresponds.--δούλος Χ.
is to be taken together with πάντοτε αγωνιζ., but ο εξ υμών is not to be con-
nected with dovãos (Hofmann); on the contrary, it is to be taken by itself
as a special element of recommendation (as in ver. 9): Epaphras, your
own, a servant of Christ who is always striving, etc.—àywv15.] Comp. Rom.
xv. 30. The more fervent the prayer for any one is, the more is it a striv-
ing for him, namely, in opposition to the dangers which threaten him, and
which are present to the vivid conception of him who wrestles in prayer.
Comp. also ii. 1. The striving of Epaphras in prayer certainly had refer-
ence not merely to the heretical temptations to which the Colossians, of
whose church he was a member, were exposed, but as is evident from
iva otĪTE K.7.2. (purpose of the dywvis. K.7.2.)—to everything generally, which
endangered the right Christian frame in them.-orñte] designation of
stedfast perseverance; in which there is neither wavering, nor falling, nor
giving way. To this belongs tv Tavè Jenúpl. . O., [XLI C.] expressing
wherein (comp. 1 Pet. v. 12) they are to maintain stedfastness; in every will
of God, that is, in all that God wills. Comp. on orñval év in this sense,
John viii. 44; Rom. v. 2; 1 Cor. xv. 1, xvi. 13.' This connection
(comp. Bengel and Bleek) recommends itself on account of its frequent
occurrence, and because it completes and rounds off the whole expression;
for orñte now has not merely a modal definition, ré2. K. TTET?:np., but also a
local definition, which admirably corresponds to the figurative conception
of standing. This applies, at the same time, in opposition to the usual,
mode of construction with téh. K. TeTanp., followed also by Hofmann,
according to which év 17. 0£2. 7. O. would be the moral sphere, “ within which
the perfection and firm conviction are to take place,” Huther. 2-TÉMeloć każ
1
1 This postulate, wholly without proof, is
also assumed by Grau, Entwickelungsgesch. d.
neutest. Schriftth. I. p. 54.
2 If we follow the Recepta treninpwuévou (see
the critical remarks), on the other hand, we
must join, as is usually done, following Chry.
sostom and Luther, év Tr. Den. 7. coû to tetin,
pwl.: filled with every will of God, which, in-
stead of being transformed into “voluntatis
divinae verae et integrae cognitio" (Reiche,
comp. Beza), is rather to be linderstood as
denoting that the heart is to be full of all that
CHAP. IV. 12–14.
387
TTET Ampopopnuévoi] perfect and with full conviction (comp. ii. 2; Rom. iv. 21,
xiv. 5; and see on Luke i. 1) obtain through the context (otīte év 17. D€2. .
e.) their more definite meaning; the former as moral perfection, such as
the true Christian ought to have (i. 28); and the latter, as stedfastness of
conscience, which excludes all scruples as to what God's will requires, and
is of decisive importance for the TERELÓTns of the Christian life; comp. Rom.
xiv. 5, 22 f.
Ver. 13. General testimony in confirmation of the particular statement
made regarding Epaphras in Trávtote K.7.2.; on which account there is the
less reason to ascribe to the interpolator the more precise definition of
αγωνιζ. υπ. υμ., which is given by εν ταις προσευχ. (Holtzmann). The γάρ is
sufficiently clear and logical.---Toùv trovov (see the critical remarks); much
toil, which is to be understood of the exertion of mental activity-of earnest
working with its cares, hopes, wishes, fears, temptations, dangers, and so
forth. The word is purposely chosen, in keeping with the conception of the
conflict (ver. 12); for móvoç is formally used of the toil and trouble of con-
flict.—kai Tūv _v Aaod. k. 7. év 'Iepar.] Epaphras had certainly labored in
these adjoining towns, as in Colossae, which was probably his headquarters,
as founder, or, at least, as an eminent teacher of the churches.
· Ver. 14. Luke the physician, the (by me) beloved, is the Evangelista point
which, in presence of the tradition current from Iren. iii. 14. 1 onward, is
as little to be doubted as that the Mark of ver. 10 is the Evangelist. Luke
was with Paul at Caesarea (Philem 24), and traveled with him to Rome
(Acts xxvii. 1), accompanying him, however, not as physician (as if you or
nuāv had been appended), but as an associate in teaching, as ouvepyós,
Philem. 24. Hofmann calls this in question, in order to avoid the infer-
ence from ver. 11, that Luke was a non-Israelite. The addition, moreover,
of o iatpos is simply to be explained after the analogy of all the previous
salutations sent, by assuming that Paul has appended to each of the per-
sons named a special characteristic description by way of recommenda-
tion.” The case of Anuās is the only exception; on which account it is the
more probable that the latter had even at this time (at the date of 2 Tim.
iv. 10 he has abandoned him) seemed to the apostle not quite surely enti-
tled to a commendatory description, although he still, at Philem. 24, adduces
him among his ovvepyoí, to whose number he still belonged. FXLI d.]
Hence the assumption of such a probability is not strange, but is to be
preferred to the altogether precarious opinion of Hofmann, that Demas
God wills, and that in no matter, consequently,
is any other will than the divine to rule in
the believer. Respecting év, comp. on Eph.
v. 18. Bähr incorrectly renders: "by virtue
of the whole counsel of God," which is not
possible on account of the very absence of the
article in the case of mavri. Grotius, Hein-
richs, Flatt, and others, erroneously hold that
év is equivalent to eis.
i See Herod. vi. 114, viii. 89; Plat. Phaedr. p.
247 B; Dem. 637. 18; Eur. Suppl. 317; Soph.
Trach. 21. 169; often so in Homer as II. i. 467,
and Nägelsbach in loc.; comp. Rev. xxi. 4.
2 In the case of Luke, the attachment of the
honorable professional designation , iarpós to
the name suggested itself so naturally and
spontaneously-considering the peculiarity
of his professional position, to which there
was probably nothing similar in the case of
any other ouvepyós that there is no reason to
assume any special purpose in the selection
(Chrysostom, Erasmus, and many, suggest
that the object was to distinguish Luke from
others of the same name).
388
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
was the amanuensis of the letter, and had, with the permission of the
apostle, inserted his name (comp. Bengel's suggestion). Whence was the
reader to know that? How very different is it at Rom. xvi. 22! The name
itself is not Hebrew (in opposition to Schoettgen), but Greek; see Boeckh.
Corp. inscrip. 1085; Becker, Anecd. 714.
Ver. 15. Messages down to ver. 17.—The first kaí is : and especially, and
in particular, so that of the Christians at Laodicea (Toùs Év Aaod. ådɛmo.).
Nymphas is specially singled out for salutation by name. In the follow-
ing kaÌ TÌv kat' oikov avtāv Škich., the church which is in their house, the plural
airūv (see the critical remarks) cannot without violence receive any other
reference than to ToùG Év Aaod. ádɛndows K. Nyupāv. Paul must therefore (and
his readers were more precisely aware how this matter stood) indicate a
church different from the Laodicean church, a foreign one, which, however,
was in filial association with that church, and held its meetings in the
same house wherein the Laodiceans assembled. [XLI e.] If we adopt
the reading autoŨ, we should have to think, not of the family of Nymphas
(Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, and others), but, in accordance with
Rom. xvi. 5, 1 Cor. xvi. 19, Philem. 2, of a portion of the Laodicean church,
which held its separate meetings in the house of Nymphas. In that case,
however, the persons here saluted would have been already included
among τους εν Λαοδικεία αδελφούς. The plural αυτών by no means warrants
the ascribing the origin of ver. 15 to an unseasonable reminiscence of 1
Cor. xvi. 19 and Rom. xvi. 5, perhaps also of Philem. 2 (Holtzmann).
What a mechanical procedure would that be!—The personal name
Nymphas itself, which some with extreme arbitrariness would take as a
symbolic name (Hitzig, comp. Holtzmann), is not elsewhere preserved,
but we find Nymphaeus, Nymphodorus, Nymphodotus, and Nymphius, also
Nymphis.
Ver. 16. This message presupposes essentially similar circumstances
in the two churches.—Y ÉTT LOTOń] is, as a matter of course, the present
Epistle now before us; Winer, p. 102 [E. T. 107]. Comp. Rom. xvi. 22;
1 Thess. v. 27.-TOLņoate, iva] procure, that. The expression rests on the
conception: to be active, in order that something may happen, John xi. 37.3
The following και την εκ Λαοδ. κ.τ.λ. is, with enmphatic prefixing of the
object, likewise dependent on tolícate, not co-ordinated with the latter as
an independent imperative sentence like Eph. v. 33-a forced invention
of Hofmann, which, besides, is quite inappropriate on account of the stern
command which it would yield. TVV ÉK Aaodiceias] not: that written to me
1 Nymphas appears to have been specially
well kuown to the apostle, and on friendly
terms with him; perhaps a ouvepyos, who was
now for a season laboring in tiie church at
Laodicea.
See Anger, Beitr. zur histor. krit. Einl. in d.
A. U. N. T. I.; über den Laodicenerbrief, Leip.
1843; Wieseler, de epistola, Laodicena, Gott.
1844; and Chronol. d. apost. Zeit. p. 450 ff.;
Sartori, Ueber d. Laodicenserbrief, Lüb. 1853.
8 Comp. Herod. i. 8: noiel, őkws K.1.d., i. 209;
Xen. Curop. vi. 3. 18.
4 Hofmann needed, certainly, some such
artificial expedient, wholly without warrant
in the words of the text, to favor his presup-
position that the Epistle to the Ephesians was
meant, and that it was a circular letter. For
& circular letter goes through the circuit
destined for it of itself, and there is no occa-
sion to ask or to send for it in order to pro-
CHAP. IV. 15, 16.
389
from Laodicea. So tivés in Chrysostom, who himself gives no decisive
voice, as also Syriac, Theodoret, Photius in Oecumenius, Erasmus, Beza,
Vatablus, Calvin, Calovius, Wolf, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Storr, and
others, as also again Bauingarten-Crusius. This is at variance with the
context, according to which kaà úneis, pursuant to the parallel of the first
clause of the verse, presupposes the Laodiceans, not as the senders of the
letter, but as the receivers of the letter, by whom it was read. How
unsuitable also would be the form of the message by TOMCATE ! Paul must,
in fact, have sent to them the letter. Lastly, neither the object aimed at
(Theophylact already aptly remarks: 22'ouk oida Tí åv ékkívns-namely,
that alleged letter of the Laodiceans--del avrois repòs Bariwolv), nor even
the propriety of the matter would be manifest. Purely fanciful is the
opinion of Jablonsky, that Paul means a letter of the Laodiceans to the
Colossian overseers, as well as that of Theophylact: após Trubkov zpórn
aütn yàpłk Aaodikelas éypáon. So also a scholion in Matthaei. In accordance
with the context-although Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 211 ff., denounces
the idea as a “fiction,” and Hofmann declares it as excluded by the very
salutations with which the Colossians are charged to the Laodiceans-we
can only understand it to refer to a letter of Paul to the Laodicecris, which
not merely these, to whom it was written, but also the Colossians (kai veis)
were to read, just as the letter to the Colossians was to be read not merely
by the latter, but also in the Laodicean church. The mode of expression, Tùy
ÉK Aaodikelas, is the very usual form of attraction in the case of prepositions
with the article (comp. Matt. xxiv. 17; Luke xi. 13), so that the two
elements are therein comprehended : the letter to be found in Laodicea, and
to be claimed orº fetched from Laodicea to Colossae. This letter written to
the Laodiceans has, like various other letters of the apostle, been lost. In
opposition to the old opinion held by Marcion, and in modern times still
favored especially by such as hold the Epistle to the Ephesians to be a
circular letter (Böhmer, Böttger, Bähr, Steiger, Anger, Reuss, Lange,
Bleek, Dalmer, Sabatier, Hofmann, Hitzig, and others), that the Epistle to
the Ephesians is to be understood as that referred to.3 The hypothesis
cure, that (Touñoate, iva) people may get it to
read. But the effect of the forced separation
of the second iva from togate is, that the
words την έκ Λαοδικείας are supposed only to
affirm that the letter “will come" from Lao-
dicea to Colossae, that it “will reach" them,
and they ought to read it. In this way the
text must be strained to suit what is a priori
put into it. This applies also in opposition to
Sabatier, l'ap Paul, p. 201, who entirely ignores
the connection with trocnoare (“la lettre qui
vous viendra de Laod. ).
1 See generally, Kühner, II. 1, p. 473 f., and
ad Xen. Mem. iii. 6. 11, ad Anab. i. 1. 5; Stall-
baum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 32 B; Winer, p. 584
(E. T. 629).
2 The apocryphal letter to the Laodiceans,
the Greek text of which, we may mention,
originated with Elias Hutter (1599), who trang-
lated it from the Latin, may be seen in Fabri-
cius, Codex: apocr. p. 873 ff., Anger, p. 142 ff.
The whole letter,--highly esteemed, on the
suggestion of Gregory I., during the Middle
Ages in the West, although prohibited in the
second Council of Nice, 787 (to be found also
in pre-Lutherau German Bibles),-which is
doubtless a still later fabrication than that
already rejected in the Canon Muratorianus,
consists only of twenty verses, the author of
which does not even play the part of a definite
situation. Erasmus rightly characterizes it:
"quae nihil habeat Pauli praeter voculas
aliquot ex ceteris ejus epistolis mendicatas."
3See Introd. to Eph. 1; Wieseler, Chronol.
390
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
that the Epistle to Philemon is meant, finds no confirmation either in the
nature and contents of this private letter, or in the expressions of our
passage, which, according to the analogy of the context, presuppose a
letter to the whole church and for it. Even the Epistle to the Hebrews
(Schulthess, Stein, in his Comm. 2. Irik., appendix) has been fallen upon in
the yain search after the lost! According to Holtzmann, the words are
intended to refer to the Epistle to the Ephesians, but kaÌ TÌvék Aaodik.
iva k. úkl. kvayv. is an insertion of the interpolator ;3 comp. Hitzig.
REMARK.-It is to be assumed that the Epistle to the Laodiceans was com-
posed at the same time with that to the Colossians, inasmuch as the injunction that
they should be mutually read in the churches can only have been founded on the
similarity of the circumstances of the two churches as they stood at the time.
Comp. ii. 1, where the kaì Tāv v Aaodikeią, specially added to repi üdāv, expresses
the similar and simultaneous character of the need, and, when compared with our
passage, is to be referred to the consciousness that the apostle was writing to both
churches. And the expression Tìjvěk Aaodikelas produces the impression that,
when the Colossians received their letter, the Laodiceans would already have theirs.
At the same time the expression is such, that Paul does not expressly inform the
Colossians that he had written also to the Laodiceans, but speaks of this letter as
of something known to the readers, evidently reckoning upon the oral communica-
tion of Tychicus. The result, accordingly, seems as follows: Tychicus was the
bearer of both letters, and traveled by way of Laodicea to Colossae, so that the
letter for that church was already in Laodicea when the Colossians got theirs
from the hands of Tychicus, and they were now in a position, according to the
directions given in our passage, to have the Laodicean letter forwarded to
them, and to send their own (after it was publicly read in their own church)
to Laodicea.
Ver. 17. The particular circumstances which lay at the root of this
emphatic admonitory utterance 4 cannot be ascertained, nor do we even
know whether the diakovía is to be understood in the narrower sense
cl. apost. Zeitalt. p. 435 ff.; Sartori, l. C.; Reiche,
Comm. crit. ad Eph. i. 1; Laurent in the Jahrb.
f.D. Theol. 1866, p. 131 ff.
1 So Wieseler, also Thiersch, Hist. Standp.
p. 424; and some older expositors, see in Calo-
vius and in Anger, p. 35.
2 For, although it is in form addressed to
several persons, and even to the church in the
house (see on Philem. 1, 2), it is at any rate in
substance clear, as Jerome already remarks:
“Paulum tantummodo ad Philemonem scri:
bere, et unum cum suo sermocinari.” Besides,
it is to be inferred from the contents of the
Colossian letter, that the Laodicean letter
meant was also doctrinal in contents, and that
the reciprocal use of the two letters had refer-
ence to this, in accordance with the essen-
tially similar needs of the two neighboring
churches.
8 Because, if we annex ίνα το ποιήσατε, an
awkward sense arises,“ seeing that the Col-
ossians can only cause that they get the letter
to read, but not that they read it.” That is a
subtlety, which does injustice to the popular
style of the letter. But if we take iva inde-
pendently (as Hofmann does), then Holtz-
mano is further of opinion that the author of
Eph. iv. 29, v. 27, 33, is immediately betrayed
-an unfounded inference (comp. Winer, p.
295 (E. T. 315]), in which, besides, only the
comparison of Eph. V. 33 would be relevant,
and that would be balanced by 2 Cor.
viii. 7.
Bengel: “vos meis verbis dicite tanquam
testes. Hoc magis movebat, quam si ipsum
Archippum appellaret."
CHAP. IV. 17.
391
of the office of deacon (Primasius), or of any other office relating to
the church (possibly the office of presbyter), or of the calling of an evange-
list, or of some individual business relating to the service of the church.
,. We cannot gather from év kupiw any more precise definition of the Chris-
tian Siakovía. Ewald conjectures that Archippus was a still younger man
(Bengel holds him to have been sick or weak through age), an overseer
of the church, who had been during the absence of Epaphras too indulgent
towards the false teachers. Even Fathers like Jerome and the older
expositors regard him as bishop (so also Döllinger, Christenthum u. Kirche,
ed. 2, p. 308), or as substitute for the bishop during the absence of
Epaphras (similarly Bleek), whose successor he had also become (Cor-
nelius a Lapide and Estius). Comp. further as to this Colossian, on
Philem. 2.—The special motive for this precise form of reminding him of
his duty is not clear. But what merits attention is the relation of dis-
ciplinary admonitive authority, [XLI f.] in which, according to these
words, the church stood to the office-bearers, and which should here be
the less called in question with Hofmann, since Paul in the letter to
Philemon addressed jointly to Archippus would doubtless himself have
given the admonition, if he had not conceded and recognized in the
church that authority of which he invokes the exercise—and that even in
the case, which cannot be proved, of the diarcovia having been the service
of an evangelist. The expedient to which Oecumenius and others have
recourse can only be looked upon as flowing from the later hierarchical
feeling: iva őtav ÉTTLTIMã "AP XLTitoS avtois, un šXwolv éykałɛīvékeivu ús ilkpm...
ÉTɛì åkaws TOTOV Tois paôntais Tepi ToŨ didackáhov drahéyeola. (Theophylact).--
Bréttɛ k.T.2.] Grotius, Wolf, Flatt, Bähr, and many, take the construction
to be: Brémte iva rìu dlak. iv zapén. Év kup., Tampois, from which arbitrary
i Theodoret already with reason declares
himself against the opinion that Archippus
had been a Laodicean teacher (so Theodore of
Mopsuestia, Michaelis, and Storr), just as the
Constitt. apost. vii. 46. 2 make him appointed
by Paul as bishop of Laodicea. Recently it
has been defended by Wieseler, Chronol. des
apost. Zeitalt. p. 452, and Laurent in the Jahrb.
f. D. Th, 1866, p. 130, arguing that, if Arch-
ippus had been a Colossian, it is not easy to
see why Paul, in ver. 17, makes him be
admonished by others; and also that ver. 17
is joined by kai to ver. 15 f., where the Lao-
diceans are spoken of. But the form of ex-
hortation in ver. 17 has a motive not known
to us at all; and the reason based on kai
in ver. 17 would only be relevant in the event
of ver. 17 following immediately after ver. 15.
Lastly, we should expect, after the analogy
of ver. 15, that if Archippus had not dwelt in
Colossae, Paul would have caused a salutation
to be sent to him as to Nymphas. Besides, it
would be altogether very surprising that Paul
should have conveyed the warning admo-
nition to Archippus through a strange church,
the more especially when he had written at
the same time to himself jointly addressed
with Philemon (Philem. 2).
2 Hitzig, p. 31 (who holds also vv. 9, 15, 16 to
be not genuine), gives it as his opinion that
Archippus is indebted for this exhortation,
not to the apostle, but to the manipulator, who
knew the man indeed from Philem. 2, but
probably had in his mind the Flavius Arch-
ippus, well known from Plin. Ep. x. 66-68, and
the proconsul Paulus, when he adjusted for
himself the relation between the Apostle Paul
and his fellow-warrior Archippus (Philem. 2).
I do not understand how any one could
ascribe even to an interpolator so singular an
anachronistic confusion of persons. Yet Holtz-
mann finds the grounds of Hitzig so cogent,
that he ultimately regards vy. 15-17 as the
rivet, “by means of which the Auctor ad Ephe-
sios has made a connected triad out of his
own work, the interpolated Colossian epistle,
and the letter to Philemon."
392
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
view the very auth should have precluded them. The words are not to
be taken otherwise than as they stand: Looks to the service (have it in thy
view), which thou hast undertaken in the Lord, in order that thou mayest
fulfill it, mayest meet its obligations; iva avr. ianp. is the purpose, which is ...,
to be present in the BRÉTTELV T. diak. k.7.1. Comp. 2 John 8. On tranpois,
comp. Acts xii. 25; 1 Macc. ii. 55; Liban. Ep.359; Philo, in Flacc. p. 988:
TNU diakoviav ŠkthMoavtec.---ÉV kvpiw] not: from the Lord (Bähr); not: for
the sake of the Lord (Flatt); not: secundum Domini praecepta (Grotius).
Christ, who is served by the diakovía (1 Cor. xii. 5), is conceived as the
sphere, in which the act of the raparaußávelv TÌv dlakoviav is accomplished
objectively, as well as in the consciousness of the person concerned; he is
in that act not out of Christ, but living and acting in Hin. The év kup. con-
veys the element of holy obligation. The less reason is there for joining
it, with Grotius, Steiger, and Dalmer, to the following iva avt. Tanp.
Ver. 18. [XLI g.] Conclusion written with his own hand; comp. 2
Thess. iii. 17. See on 1 Cor. xvi. 21.--Be mindful for me of my bonds,
[XLI h.] a closing exhortation, deeply touching in its simplicity, in
which there is not a mere request for intercession (ver. 3), or a hint.even
at the giving of aid, but the whole pious affection of grateful love is
claimed, the whole strength of his example for imparting consolation and
stedfastness is asserted, and the whole authority of the martyr is thrown
into the words. Every limitation is unwarranted. Τούτο γάρ ικανόν εις
πάντα αυτούς προτρέψασθαι, και γενναιοτέρους ποιήσαι προς τους αγώνας" άρα και
Oikelomépous avtoùs étoinos kai Tòv póßov šīvoev, Oecumenius, comp. Chrysos-
tom.-- zápıs] kar šxoxhu: the grace of God bestowed in Christ. Comp.
1 Tim. vi. 21 ; 2 Tim. iv. 22; Tit. ii. 5. Comp. on Eph. vi. 24.
*
}
NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR.
XL. Vv. 2-6.
(a) The line of exhortation which has been closely followed as far as iv. 1, is.
now left, and the hortatory section closes with two suggestions of Christian duty
of a different order-both having a bearing upon the success of the Gospel,
though not altogether limited to this. Ver. 2 contains a general exhortation
respecting prayer, such as we find in other places, as mentioned by Meyer; but
the following verses show that, in presenting this general exhortation, the apostle
had in mind the thoughts which those verses express. The readers were to pray for
him and his associates in labor, that success in the Gospel work might be given to
them, and they were themselves to live and act and speak in such a way that a
similar success would follow in their own sphere. The sphere of Paul, however,
was that of a preacher; the sphere of the Colossians, that of private Christians,
whose influence and work were in the ordinary lines of common life. There is,
thus, a point of union in the two cases, and yet a difference. The point of union
accounts for the bringing together of the verses.-(6) That the Oúpa toũ hóyov has
a certain reference to a desired release from imprisonment, as Meyer holds, is
NOTES.
393
probable. It was in this way, especially, that all hindrances in his work would
be removed. The words di ô kai dédepat favor this view; perhaps, also, the words
of ver. 4. But it is not clear that the reference is to be limited to such a release.
The desire for freedom, for the sake of his apostolic work, must, at the time and
under the circuinstances, have been a chief desire, but he would have prayers
offered for the largest opportunities of preaching in every line.-(C) Whether the
reference in ós dei ule nahſoal is as exclusively to the hindrance occasioned by his
imprisonment as Meyer claims, may also be questioned. The parallel passage,
Eph. vi. 19, 20, would indicate something besides this. This idea, however, is a
part, if not the whole, of the thought. dei, in any case, denotes the necessity of
his apostolic mission—the application being in the subjective or the objective
line, or both, according as we interpret,-i. e. referring to his own boldness (itap-
pnoia, Eph. vi. 19), or his release from captivity.-(d) The relation of ver. 5 to
ver. 6 seems to be this:-the former presents the general idea of life and conduct
as having reference to unchristian men around them, and the latter turns this
especially into the line of speaking to such men or with them.
XLI. Vv. 10-18.
(a) Meyer insists that ovval xuáhwtos refers to an imprisonment of Aristarchus
with the Apostle by the authorities and for purposes of judicial trial. The fact that
Epaphras is said to be ovvalx. in Philem., ver. 24, while Aristarchus is not, is
made an objection to this view. It may be remarked with reference to this point,
that the Greek word naturally refers to an involuntary imprisonment or captivity;
that, as Paul was himself now in imprisonment, the readers would naturally un-
derstand him by the use of ouv to mean a captivity like his own; that in Rom.
xvi. 7 (the only other passage in the N. T. where the word is found) it is difficult
to explain it in any other way; that the fact that Epaphras is called thus in
Philem. and Aristarchus not, while here Aristarchus is thus described and Epa-
phras not, does not necessarily occasion a difficulty, by reason of sudden or fre-
quent changes which it would imply, for the absence of the adjective as applied
to Aristarchus in Philem. may be accounted for on other grounds. Epaphras and
Aristarchus were both συναιχμάλωτοι, and both συνεργοί and συνδουλοι. Rea-
sons unknown to us may easily have determined the use of the one adjective or
the other, independently of the question as to the particular time when they
were in imprisonment. The Ep. to Philem. was, probably, written almost on the
same day with that to the Colossians. A release of one of these men and an im-
prisonment of the other in the interval (if any there was) between them, is not
altogether probable. Though Paul was not strictly an aixuáhwtos a prisoner of
war, this fact can hardly be made an objection to the application of the word to
an association with him in his present condition.—(6) All the persons mentioned
here as joining Paul in his salutation to the Colossian Church are, also, mentioned
as saluting Philemon (Philem. ver. 24), except Jesus Justus. Of Mark we learn
three things from this passage, (1) that he was a near relative of Barnabas, which
may partly account for the action of the latter in Acts xv. 36 ff. ; (2) that he was
a Jewish convert ; and (3) that he was, at least at this time, in Rome-facts
which may have a bearing upon the correct view respecting his Gospel. The
other great fact bearing upon his Gospel-namely, his relations to Paul and the
Pauline doctrinemis indicated not only here, but elsewhere.-(c) Meyer is ap-
394
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
parently correct in connecting εν παντί θελήματι of ver. 12 with στήτε (or
oraðīte). The prayer was, that they might stand firmly—be settled without
wavering-in the sphere of what is willed by God, being perfect in their fulfill-
ment of it, and fully persuaded respecting it so as to be beyond doubts or ques-
tionings. To this end Epaphras, he says, earnestly prayed, and had rohův novov,
which, as he was now absent from the Colossians, probably refers wholly, as
Meyer says, or mainly, as Lightf., to internal struggle, desire, prayer, etc.--(d)
The suggestion made by Meyer and several others, that Demas may have already
shown symptoms of his subsequent defection (2 Tim. iv. 10), and that this fact
may have occasioned the omission of any commendatory words respecting him, is
hardly probable. The interval of time between this Epistle and the 2d Epistle
to Timothy was from three to five years. Demas is called, with all the others
here mentioned, ovvepyós in Philem. ver. 24, and his name is there placed before
that of Luke.-(e) The view of Meyer with respect to avrwv~—that it refers to
TOùs Év Aaod. ádelo. K. Nyugāv, and that the allusion is to a foreign church
which met in the same house with the Laodicean Church, but was different from
it-cannot be affirmed with confidence. The reference of avtūv may be to
Nymphas and his family.--($) The remarks made by Meyer respecting the mes-
sage for Archippus, as indicating the “disciplinary admonitive authority” which
Paul recognized the church as having in relation to its officers, are worthy of
notice. The supposition which Lightf. makes, that Archippus lived at Laodicea
(see his Introd. to the Ep. to Philemon, p. 375), if adopted, will hardly explain
the sending of this admonition to the Colossian Church and the omission of all
allusion to any such thing in the Ep. to Philem., in which Archippus is per-
sonally addressed.—(9) The fact that in this late Epistle we have an autograph
salutation, is evidence that, from the time of his beginning to certify his letters
in this way, 2 Thess. iii. 17, Paul continued always to do so (Ö &otiv onuecov v ráon
ÉTLOTOÀN).-(h) The letter closes with an allusion to his imprisonment, which in
all the Epistles of this period is naturally made so prominent. It is interesting
to notice, that it was at this time of his life, and in the midst of this experience,
that he said he had learned in whatsoever state he was to be content (Phil.
iv. 11).
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
INTRODUCTION.

RADHILEMON, who had been converted to Christianity by Paul
himself perhaps during his sojourn at Ephesus (ver. 19), was
a member of the Christian community, not at Laodicea
(Wieseler, Laurent), but-like Archippus, ver. 2 (see on Col.
. iv. 17)—at Colossae (Col. iv. 9), wherein, by his zealous Chris-
tian activity, and more especially by the holding of an érikanoía in his
house (vv. 1-7), he had gained deserved esteem, being described by Chry-
sostom as τις των θαυμαστών και γενναίων. Nothing is known as to his more
definite vocation, although tradition has made him bishop in Colossae
(Constit. apost. vii. 46. 2) or in Gaza (Pseudo-Dorotheus), as it has likewise
placed him among the martyrs (under Nero). It is possible, however,
that he was one of the presbyters of the church (ovvepyö, ver. 1). Of the
house where he dwelt Theodoret relates (Unbedis): MéxpL TOŪ Tapóvros
μεμένηκε.
His slave ONESIMUS 1 had, on account of a misdemeanor (vv. 11, 18),
fled from him through fear of punishment (ver. 15), and had come, cer-
tainly of set purpose and not by mere accident, to the apostle, then a
captive at Caesarea, who converted him to Christ (ver. 10), and conceived
a most cordial affection for him (vv. 12, 13, 16 f.). When, therefore, Paul
was despatching Tychicus to Colossae (Col. iv. 7), he made use of this
1 Tradition in one form of it makes him
subsequently bishop of Beroea in Macedonia
(Constit. apost. vii. 46. 2), and in another iden-
tifies him with the Bishop Onesimus in Ephe.
sus (Ignat. ad Eph. 1 and 6), and makes him
die as a martyr in Rome.
2 In this way the circumstances of the case
find their simplest and most natural expla-
nation. Comp. Bengel on ver. 11: Onesimus
etiam antequam ad frugem veram pervenisset,
tamen bene de Paulo existimarat, et ipsius
flagitii sui occasione ad illum confugit. And
this serves to dispose of the curious question
of Hofmann (p. 217): “What should induce
Onesimus to flee to Caesarea in particular?”
We answer: He fled to the place, where Paul
was. And the reason of this may be the more
readily understood, if he had been possibly
already in Philemon's service, when the latter
was converted by the apostle.
395
396
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. ..
opportunity to send Onesimus--whom he at the same time commended
to the church there (Col. iv. 9)—back to his master, and to procure for.
him at the hands of the latter forgiveness, welcome, and love by means
of this letter—an aim, which is pursued in it with so much Christian love?
and wisdom, with so great psychological tact, and, without sacrifice of the
apostolic authority, in a manner so thoughtfully condescending, adroit,
delicate, and irresistible, that the brief letter—which is in the finest sense
a kóyos ärati npruuévos (Col. iv. 6), as a most precious and characteristic
relic of the great apostle-belongs, even as regards its Attic refinement
and gracefulness, to the epistolary master-pieces of antiquity.”
The Epistle bears so directly and vividly the stamp of genuineness, that
the doubts of Baur (Paulus, II. p. 88 ff.) would appear a whim hardly
meant in earnest, were they not in strict consistency with the assumption
that we should not have any letters of the apostle at all from the
period of his captivity. Baur, who, we may add, acknowledges the
author as profoundly pervaded by Christian consciousness, places the con-
tents of the Epistle upon a parallel with those of the Clementine Homi-
lies, and finds in it the “ embryo of a Christian fiction,” by which the idea
was to be brought home to men's minds, that what we lose temporally in
the world, we regain eternally in Christianity (according to ver. 15).
With equal caprice Baur propounds the view, that even should the writ-
ing be Pauline, what actually took place is set forth under the point of
view of that definite idea, and the bringing of this latter into prominence
is its proper aim and import. The genuineness is externally attested—and
that the more adequately, when we consider that from its brevity' and the
personal, not directly didactic, nature of its contents there was little occa-
sion for citations—by the Canon Muratorianus, Marcion (see Tertullian, C.
Marc. v. 42; Epiph. Haer. xlii. 9), Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome,
etc., though the passages of Ignatius, ad Eph. 2, ad Magnes. 12, ad Polyca.
6, do not serve to prove a reference to ver. 20. Nevertheless, Jerome had
already to controvert those, who wished to infer from the non-dogmatic
character of the contents "aut epistolam non esse Pauli ... aut etiam,
si Pauli sit, nihil habere, quod aedificare nos possit.”
1 Comp. Luther's preface: “This Epistle
presents a masterly and charming example
of Christian love," etc. Ewald: “Nowhere
can the sensibility and warmth of tender
friendship blend more beautifully with the
higher feeling of a superior mind, nay, of a
teacher and apostle, than in this brief and
yet so eminently significant letter."
2 The letters of Pliny (Epp. 9, 21, and 24)
have often been compared with ours; but how
greatly it excels them in point of thoughtful- .
ness, delicacy of plan, and depth of affection!
“Quid festivius etiam dici poterat vel ab ipso
Tullio in hujusmodi argumento?” Erasmus.
INTRODUCTION.
397
Place and time are the same as with the Epistles written from the cap-
tivity in Caesarea (not, as is usually supposed, at Rome) to the Ephesians
and Colossians, and with the lost Epistle to the Laodiceans, which how-
ever, is not to be found in the one now before us; see on Col. iv. 16.
Whether Paul wrote our Epistle before that to the Colossians (Otto), or
the converse, remains an undetermined question.
Ver. 2. Instead of à de no1, Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have ảyannth. But the
former, which is approved by Griesb. and Reiche, is attested by A D* E* FGX,
and some min. vss. Hesych. Jerome, and was easily supplanted by the ayar. writ-
ten on the margin in conformity with ver. 1 (vss. Ambrosiast. and Pelag. have
ådɛnon ảyan.).—Ver. 5. após] Lachm.: eis, following A C D* E, 17, 137. An
alteration, occasioned by TiOTIV.—Ver. 6. Instead of nuīv, Elz. has úuiv, in opposi-
tion to A C D EK L, min. vss. and Fathers. The latter reading is to be traced
to the mechanical copyists, who, as in the opening of the Epistle, had in view
Philemon and those around him (ver. 3). The preceding to Ŭ is deleted by
Lachm. on too weak counter-evidence (A C, 17); how easily might it be passed
over after the final syllable of ảyadov !—Ver. 7. Instead of xapáv, Elz. Tisch.
have xápiv, in opposition to decisive evidence; the latter found its way into the
text through reference to evxaplotā, ver. 4. Comp. Reiche.-ě XOplev] Lachm, has
šo xov, which was also recommended by Griesb., in accordance with A CFGx,
min. vss. Fathers. The other witnesses are divided between ěxouev and foxouev,
but remain too weak to warrant either of these two readings. The plural appears
an inappropriate following up of év ulv in ver. 6, and do Xouev also tells indi-
rectly in favor of Lachm. The position after mond. is decidedly attested (Lachm.).
-Ver. 10. Before éyévvnoa Lachm. ed. min. had & zó, following A, min. Syr. p.
Slav. ms. Chrys. Rightly; the emphasis resting upon éyú, in accordance with
the context, was overlooked; and it is more likely to have been dropped out on
occasion of the following ETE, than to have been introduced by the writing of
ET twice.—After dejl. Elz. Scholz have rov, in opposition to decisive testimony.
-Ver. 11. After åvéteuwa we have, with Lachm., on preponderating evidence (A
CD* E * 57), to take in ooi, the omission of which is to be explained from the
following ou.--Ver. 12. où dé] is wanting in A C y* 17. Lachm., who, like Tisch.,
has deleted also προσλαβού after σπλάγχνα. This προσλαβού is wanting in A F
G** 17, while some min. place it immediately after où dé; Arm. Boern. Theo-
doret, on the other hand, after avtóv. It is, though afresh defended by Reiche,
to be looked upon as a supplement from ver. 17; the absence of the verb, how-
ever, involved, by way of redressing the construction, the omission of où.dé, so
that αυτόν was regarded as governed by ανέπεμψα (comp. Lachm. : όν ανέπεμψά
001, avtov, TOUTÉOTIV Tà éjà anháyxva).-Ver. 13. The position of you before diak.
(Elz. in reverse order) is decisively attested.–Ver. 18. The form : 22óya is to
be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., in conformity with A C D* (éva.) FGX, 17,
31 ; &ndbyɛl was imported from the familiar passage, Rom. v. 13.-Ver. 20. Instead
of X PLOTO, Elz. has kupiw. Repetition from what precedes, in opposition to
decisive evidence.—Ver. 21. ÚÈD ö] Lachm. : ÚTèp ä, in accordance with A CX,
398
DI U
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
Copt. We have no means of deciding the point.- Ver. 23. Instead of don á 5€-
Tai, Elz. has donášovral, which has decisive witnesses against it. An emenda-
tion.
CONTENTS.—After the address and apostolic greeting (vv. 1-3), there fol-
lows a glorious testimony to the Christian character of Philemon (vv. 47);
then the proper object of the Epistle, intercession for Onesimus (vv. 8–21);
and finally, the bespeaking of a lodging, in the hope of being liberated
(ver. 22). Salutations and concluding wish, vv. 23–25.
Ver. 1. [On vv. 1-3, see Note XLII. pages 415, 416.] Aéculos Xp. ’I.] i.e.
whom Christ has placed in bonds. See on Eph. iii. 1. This self-designation
(not ámótolos, or the like) at the head of the letter is in keeping with its
confidential tone and its purpose of moving and winning the heart, UTÈD
TOÙ TÌv rápiv ŠTOLJÓTepov habɛiv, Chrysostom.-K. Tlu60.] See on Phil. i. 1;
Col. i. 1.-ovvepyộ] The particular historic relations, on which this predi-
cate is based, are unknown to us; yet comp. ver. 2: Tỳ kar' olKÓv Gov
ÉKKANO.; perhaps he was an elder of the church.-ijāv] namely, of Paul
and Timothy. It belongs to dyan. and ovvEPYÓ. Although, we may add,
the Epistle is, as to its design and contents, a private letter, yet the associ-.
ating of Timothy with it, and especially the addressing it to more than
one (ver. 2), are suitably calculated with a view to the greater certainty of
a successful result (comp. already Chrysostom). Hofmann incorrectly
holds that in the directing of the letter also to the relatives and to the
church in the house the design was, that they should, by the communica-
tion of the letter to them, become aware of what had induced Philemon to do
that which was asked of him. This they would in fact have learned other-
wise from Philemon, and would have believed his account of the matter.
Ver. 2. [XLII 6.] That Appia was the wife of Philemon (Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Theophylact, and many) does not indeed admit of proof, but
is the more probable, in proportion as the intercession for the slave was a
matter of household concern, in which case the mistress of the house came
into view. On the form of the name with no instead of tim (Acts xxviii.
15), comp. ’Arplavós in Mionnet, Description des médailles, III. 179, IV. 65,
67, and the forms απφύς and απφώ.1τη αδελφή] in the sense of Christian
sisterhood, like ådepós, ver. 1.–Archippus, too (see on Col. iv. 17), must
have belonged to the family circle of Philemon. [XLII c.] But whether
he was precisely son of Philemon, we cannot determine. Chrysostom
and Theophylact take him to be a friend of the household; Theodoret, to
be the teacher to the household.-TV cuotpat. 01.] As in Phil. ii. 25. The
relation cannot be more precisely ascertained. He may have been deacon
(according to Ambrosiaster and Jerome, he was even bishop), but must
have endured conflict and trouble for the gospel. Comp. likewise 2 Tiin.
ii. 3.-kaÌ T. Kar' olk. O. ÉKK).] not to be understood of the family of Philemon,
1 See also Lobeck, Paral. p. 33.
2 Michaelis, Eichhorn, Rosenmüller, Ols-
hausen, Hofmann, and already Theodore of
Mopsuestia.
8 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact: Táv-
tas tous év tñ oikia mlo TOUS layer, Ovu itapala-
Busy kai doúdovs, comp. Calvin and Storr.
VERS. 1-4.
399
but of the section of the Christians at Colossae, which met in his house.!
See on Col. iv. 15. Wisely (see on ver. 1) does Paul—although otherwise
in vy. 424 he only speaks to Philemon-enlist the interest not merely of
Appia and Archippus, but also of the church in the house, and therewith
embrace the whole circle, in which there was to be prepared for the con-
verted fugitive a sanctuary of pardon and affection. But farther than this
he does not go; not beyond the limits of the house, since the matter, as a
household-affair, was not one suited to be laid before the Christian com-
munity collectively. To the latter, however, he at the same time (Col. iv. 9)
commended his protégé, though without touching upon the particular cir-
cumstances of his case. Correct tact on the part of the apostle.
Ver. 4 f. [On vv. 4-7, see Note XLIII. pages 416-418.] Comp. Rom. i. 8; 1
Cor. i. 4; Phil. i. 3; Col. i. 3; Eph. i. 16.—Távtotɛ] [XLIII. a.] belongs not to
uvelav k.7.. (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius, and
many others), but to evxaplotā K. 7.2. (comp. on Col. i. 3; 1 Thess. i. 2), as
the main element, for the completeness and emphasis of which it serves.
The participial definition uvelav k.7.7. specifies whereupon Paul sees him-
self always moved to give thanks to God, namely, when he makes men-
tion of Philemon in his prayers; and the following å kouwv K.T.2. is like-
wise an accompanying definition to evxaplotā K.T.2., stating whereby he
finds himself induced to such thanksgiving, namely, because he hears, etc.
It is not the intercession that has its motive explained by ảkotwv (de Wette,
Koch), otherwise the logically necessary statement, for what Paul gives
thanks to God, would be entirely wanting, whereas the mention of Phile-
mon in the prayer had no need of a motive assigned for it, and would
have taken place even without the àKotelV K.T.T. Moreover, Paul does not
by yvelav 1.7.2. express the intercession, but in general the mention in prayer,
which is a much wider notion and also may be other than intercessory
(in opposition to Hofmann).—ákoúwr] continually, through Onesimus in
particular. It is otherwise with ákovoavtes, Col. i. 4.- Tv ảyánnv] the stand-
ing notion of Christian love to the brethren, as in Col. iii. 14.-K. TNV Tíotlv]
is more precisely defined by the following ήν έχεις ... αγίους, and hence
is not specially to be understood of faith in the dogmatic sense, to which
kis távrac tous dyious would not be suitable. It is faithfulness; comp. Gal.
v. 22; Rom. iii. 3; 1 Thess. i. 8; Matt. xxiii. 23; Tit. ii. 10; often in the
LXX., Apocrypha, and Greek authors. So Michaelis and Hagenbach
(Flatt with hesitation), also Winer, p. 383 [E. T. 410 f.]. But usually (see
already Theodoret, and especially Grotius) expositors assume a chiasmus,
so that apòs To kúp. ’I. is to be referred to T. Tlotiv, and eis T. T. dylove to
Tàu ảyán. (de Wette, Wilke, Rhetor. p. 372; Demme, Koch, Wiesinger,
Ewald), to which also Bleek and Hofmann come in the end. Against this
may be decisively urged, iv š xels, whereby repòs T. Kúplov . . . dylouç is
attached as one whole to την πίστιν. With την αγάπην the ήν έχεις has noth-
i Perhaps it is to this part of the address,
which directed the letter to a congregational
circle, that we are indebted for the preserva-
tion of the document—the only one of the
certainly very numerous private letters, which
the apostle wrote in the prosecution of his
mauy-sided labors.
400
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
ing whatever to do; the former has, on the contrary, its own definition of
subject by means of gov, which again does not stand in any connection
with TÌv míotiv. [XLIII 6.] Comp. Col. i. 4. The usual objection to the
interpretation faithfulness, namely, that the dogmatic sense of miotiç is the
stated one when it goes along with áyánn, does not hold good, inasmuch as
àyáan stands first (comp. also Gal. v. 22); in the stated combination of
faith and love the faith precedes (in accordance with the inner genetic
relation, Gal. v. 6), as 1 Cor. xiii. 13; Eph. i. 15; Col. i. 4; 1 Thess. i. 3, iii.
6; 1 Tim. i. 14; 2 Tim. i. 13, al.; hence the transposition T. TÍOTIV K. T.
áyárny is found here too in D Е, min. vss. and Ambrosiaster. The inter-
change of após and εis can occasion no surprise, inasmuch as Paul is
fond of varying the prepositions (see on Rom. iii. 20; Gal. ii. 16; Eph. i.
7), as this is also of frequent occurrence with classical writers, without the
design of expressing a different relation. On após, comp. 1 Thess. i. 8;
4 Macc. xv. 21, xvi. 22; Dem. 656, 19; Lucian, Tox. 41. It is to be
observed withal, that the stated notion : faith in Christ, is never indicated
by após, a fact which likewise tells against the ordinary interpretation.
Ver. 6. "OTWS K.T.7.] [XLIII c.] cannot, as is usually held (also by Winer,
de Wette, Demme, Koch, Ellicott, Bleek, and Hofmann), introduce the
aim of the intercession, ver. 4, since uvelav GOV TOLOÚM. 1.7.2. was only an'
accompanying definition, and ákovwv K.T.2. already pointed back to εvxaplotā
K.T.2. (see on ver. 5). It attaches itself (so rightly, Grotius, Bengel, Wie-
singer, Ewald) in its telic sense (not in the sense of so that, as Flatt and
older expositors would have it taken) to ver. 5, specifying the tendency of
ñ v Ě XELS. For the salce of making this attachment Paul has put the iv & XELS,
which would be otherwise superfluous.— kolvwvía tñs ríoteus oov]
[XLIII d.] is by no means to be explained as if ý koivuvia oov rñs TioTEWS
(or coveis Tiv Tlotiv) stood in the text, which would have to be the case,
if we take the rendering of Hofmann (“the fellowship of faith, in which
Philemon stands with his fellow-believers ”). In order to the right interpre-
tation observe further, on the one hand, that kouvwvía is with Paul, as
mostly also with classical writers, when it is not accompanied by the geni-
tive of the personal pronoun (Phil. i. 5), always so employed, that the
genitive therewith connected denotes that with which the fellowship, or in
which the participation, takes place (1 Cor. i. 9, X. 16; 2 Cor. viii. 4, xiii.
13; Phil. ii. 1, iii. 10; Eph. iii. 9, Elz.), consequently is the genitive not
subjecti, but objecti; and, on the other hand, that koivuvia signifies not com-
municatio, but communio, consortium. Accordingly there is at once set
aside—(1) the traditional interpretation since the time of Chrysostom and
Theophylact : "fides tua, quam communem nobiscum habes,” Bengel,
comp. Luther, Wetstein, and many; in which case the genitive has been
taken subjectively, as by Wiesinger: thy faith-fellowship with all saints ;
and by Ewald: “that thou believest in Christ not merely for thyself.”
And there fall also (2) all interpretations, which transform the
notion of kolvwvia into communicatio, such as that of Beza :“officia
1 Comp. Castalio, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Hammond, Heinrichs.
VERS. 5, 6.
401
.
benignitatis in sanctos, promanantia ex fide efficaci." Similarly also
Calvin : "fidei communicationem appellat, quum intus non latet otiosa,
sed per veros effectus se profert ad homines ;” he is followed substantially by
de Wette (and Koch): "the communion of thy fạith (genitivus subjecti),
as well in the display of love towards individuals as in the advancement of the
gospel,” which latter element cannot be brought hither from ouvepy., ver.
1, and is out of place (comp. ver. 7). As the correct interpretation there
remains only this, keeping the notion of riotic in consistency with ver. 5:
the fellowship entered into with thy Christian fidelity. So faithful a Christian
as Philemon draws all other saints (ver. 5), who come into relations of
experience with him, sympathetically to himself, so that they form with
him the bond of association unto like effort, and therewith become
Koivwvoi of his riotis.--Évepyns yévntal K.T.n.] [XLIII e.] This fellowship
with his fidelity is not to be an idle sympathy, but to become effective, to
express itself in vigorous action-this is what Philemon wishes and aims
at-and that by virtue of the knowledge of every Christian saving-blessing,
a knowledge which, in such pious fellowship, unfolds itself ever more
fully and vividly, and which must be the means of powerfully prompting
all Christian activity (Eph. i. 17 f.; Col. ii. 2, iii. 10). And the final aim
of this activity? Toward Christ Jesus it is to take place, i.e. εis Xp. 'I.,
which is neither, with Calvin, Estius, and others, to be annexed to toŨ év
ņuiv, nor, with Hofmann, to åyaloī, nor even, with Grotius, to ríotewç, but
to évepy. YÉVntai, in which case alone it has the significance: Christ Jesus'
will, work, kingdom, honor, and so forth, are to be their holy destination
and relative aim. Consequently the whole passage might be paraphrased
something in this way: And with this thy Christian fidelity thou hast the
sacred goal of fellowship in view, that whoever enters into the participation
of the same, may malce this partaking through knowledge of every Christian
blessing effective for Christ Jesus. An appeal to the profound Christian
consciousness of Philemon, by way of preparation for the designed inter-
cession on behalf of Onesimus, whom Paul in fact was now on the point
of introducing to that Kolvwvía tñs TioTews of his friend! Respecting the
manifold other explanations of Ėvepyns yévntal K.7.2., it is to be observed, on
the one hand, that we have not, with many (including Wiesinger and Hof-
mann), arbitrarily to restrict the notion of évepyns to the exercise of love,
but to extend it to the collective activity of the Christian life; and, on the other
hand, that as the subject of the koivuvia is not Philemon, but others (comp.
also Bleek), the latter, namely the kolvwvoi rís nioteús cov, must also be the
subject of éniyvwols; by which all expositions, according to which Philemon
is held to be this knowing subject, are set aside, whether zavròs Syatov be
taken in the moral sense, of every virtue (Chrysostom), of good works and
the like, or (although in itself correctly) of the Christian blessings of
1 The translation of the Vulgate, evidens, is
based upon the reading evapońs; so codd.
Lat. in Jerome, Pelagius (Clar. Germ.: mani-
festa).
"Such blessings, by which Christ has
enriched us (comp.on 2 Cor. viii. 9), are faith,
hope, love, patience, peace, joy in the Holy
Spirit, etc. In devout fellowship these become
ever more fully, vividly, and experimentally
known as regards their nature and value.
402
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
salvation, which are to be known. Hence we have to reject the interpre-
tation of Oecumenius : dià ToŰ Éir lyvūvai op kaì a páTTELV Tãv ảyalóv, in
which case the doing is arbitrarily imported, as is also done by Theophy-
lact, according to whom én cylváoKelv is held to be equivalent to ảyatrāv kai
Metaxelpicsodai. So likewise in substance de Wette, who mixes up moral
action as keeping equal pace with moral knowledge, and takes tò ŝv nuiv
as : the good which is as to principle and spirit in us Christians; he is
followed by Demme and Koch. We have further to reject the explana-
tion of Flatt (so in substance also Osiander, Calovius, Bengel): “thy faith
shows itself active through love, by means of a grateful recognition of all the
benefits," etc., or (as Wiesinger puts it): “inasmuch as it (namely, thy
fellowship of faith) recognizes—which is possible only for love in the other
the good which is in him.” We have to set aside, lastly, the explanation of
Hofmann, who, after the example of Michaelis, retaining the reading év
υμίν, and taking παντός αγαθού as masculine, finds in εν επιγνώσει κ.τ.λ. the
meaning, that every one in the Christian sense good, every true Christian among
the Colossians, Philemon should know as being that which he is; only by
virtue of such knowing would his fellowship of faith show itself effectively
operative through the exercise of Christian love-which would not be the
case with those “whose Christian virtuousness he failed to Icnow." Erasmus,
Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Pricaeus, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, and
others, have done rightly in not referring the émiyvwols to Philemon as the
knowing subject, but wrongly in understanding niyv: of becoming Icnown, ase.g.
Erasmus, Paraphr. : "adeo ut nullum sit officium Christianae caritatis, in
quo non sis et notus et probatus." Beza: “ut hac ratione omnes agnoscant
et experiantur, quam divites sitis in Christo,” etc.-áyadoū] Comp. Rom. xiv.
16; Gal. vi. 6; Luke i. 53, xii. 18, 19; Heb. ix. 11, x. 1; Ecclus. xii. 1, xiv.
25, αι. ; πάν αγαθόν το εν ημίν really expresses quite the same thing ειs is
expressed at Eph. i. 3 by tãoa cúhoyía TveVMATIK".--TOū év duiv] applies to
the Christians generally, these being regarded as a whole. The blessings
are in the Christian community.
Ver. 7. [XLIII f.] Not the assigning of a reason for the intercession (de
Wette and others; see in opposition thereto, on ver. 6), but a statement of
the subjective ground (the objective one was contained in ver. 5 f.) of the
thanksgiving, ver. 4. Jerome already aptly remarks: ."plenius inculcat
et edocet, quare dixerit: gratias ago," etc.--Xapáv] emphatically prefixed.
The aorist ě o xov (see the critical remarks) relates to the point of time,
at which the åsovelv, ver. 5, had hitherto taken place.--02anv] applies
to both substantives.- apák nowv] for Paul is Séoulos, vv. 1, 9. Comp.
Trapnyopía, Col. iv. 11.-—ÖTc tà ot2. 1.7.2.] More precise explanation to éti
tñ áyánn gov: because, namely, the hearts (comp. ver. 20, as also 2 Cor. vi.
12, vii. 15; Phil. i. 8, al.) of the saints are refreshed by thee. There is no
more particular information as to the work of love referred to; and it
1 Who interprets: "as ofl.en as thou comest
to know a good man among the Colossians !".
2 If the reading év üniv were genuine, it
could only, in accordance with the context,
be referred to Philemon himself and to those
adduced along with him in ver. 2. The Col-
ossian church is brought in after a purely arbi-
trary way by Michaelis and Hofmann.
.
.: VERS. 7-9.
403
is quite arbitrary to refer tūv dy. specially to the poor Christians (Grotius,
Rosenmüller, and others), or even still more specially to "the mother-
church of Christendom” (Hofmann), which is not to be made good either
by 1 Cor. xvi. 1 or by Rom. xii. 13.-ádɛ206] not emphatic (" brother
in truth,” de Wette, whom Koch follows; comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.),
but touching affection. Comp. Gal. vi. 18.
Ver. 8. [On Vv. 8-17, see Note XLIV. pages 418, 419.] A16] explains the
ground for the following dià T. Syár, vārdov napakahớ: Wherefore (because
I have so much joy and solace from thee), although I am by no means
wanting in great boldness (1 Tim. iii. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 12; Phil. i. 20) to
enjoin upon thee what is becoming, I will rather for love's sake exhort, will
make exhortation take the place of injunction. Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact (comp. also Theodoret), Erasmus, Michaelis, Zachariae, and
others attach Sió to the participial assertion. This is unpsychological;
what Paul has said in ver. 5 [7] accords not with commanding, but with
entreaty.-év Xploto] In Christ, as the element of his inner life, Paul
knows that his great confidence has its basis. But this fellowship of his
with Christ is not merely the general Christian, but the apostolic, fellow-
ship.-TÒ ávíſkov] that which is fitting, that is, the ethically suitable; Suidas:
TÒ Tapértov; not used in this sense by Greek writers. Comp. however, Eph.
V. 4; Col. iii. 18; 1 Macc. x. 40, 42, xi. 35; 2 Macc. xiv. 8. Thus Paul
makes that, which he desires to obtain from Philemon, already to be felt
as his duty.-Olà tùy ảyánnv] is understood by some of the love of Philemon
(Calvin and others, Cornelius à Lapide: “ut scilicet solitam tuam
caritatem in servum tuum poenitentem ostendas”); by others, of the love of
the apostle to Philemon (Estius and others); by others again, iiv kåyù š xw após
te, kaì où repòs éjé (Theophylact; comp. Oecumenius and others; Grotius:
"per necessitatem amicitiae nostrae'). But all these limitations not
expressed in the text are arbitrary; it is to be left general: on account of
love, in order not to check the influence of the same (which, experience
shows, is so great also over thee), but to allow it free course. It is the
Christian brotherly love in abstracto, conceived of as a power ; 1 Cor. xiii.
Ver. 9 f. [XLIV 6.] Before TOLOŪTOS we have to place a full stop; the
participial predication TOLOŪTOÇ Öv sums up the quality which was expressed
in ver. 8 by mohliv... pārnov zapakahā; and lastly, ás IIaūkos ... Xplotoū
supports the mapaka?ū qe K.7.2. of ver. 10, from a consideration of the
personal position of the apostle in such a way, that the granting of the
request could not but appear to Philemon as a matter of dutiful affection.
Consequently: Seeing that I am so constituted, since such is my manner
of thinking and dealing, that, namely, in place of commanding thee, I
rather for love's sake betake myself to the rapakalɛīv, I exhort thee as Paul,
etc. A very mistaken objection to this view of TOLOŪTOS úv is that Paul
would not have said at all that he was so constituted, but only that he did
80 in the given case (Hofmann, following Wiesinger). He, in fact, says even
now with TOLOŪTOS ův itself that such is his nature. Observe, moreover, that
1 The Vulgate erroneously referred ūv to Philemon: "cum sis talis," which Cornelius a
Lapide unsuccessfully defeuds.
404
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
the supporting elements, as Iaūlos .1.., are prefixed with all the emphasis
of urgency to the rapakarā, since in them lies the progress of the repre-
sentation, namely, that which comes in as additional to the napakala,
already said before. Usually TOLOŪTOS is taken as preparative, so that ós
Ilavos k.7.2. is the more precise explanation of it: in which case some (as
Luther, Calvin, and others, including Flatt, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald)
find only two elements, taking ás II. mpeoßúrns together; others (most
expositors since the time of Chrysostom, including Bleek and Hofmann),
three elements-Ilavaos, apsolutns, Séoulos. Expositors have differed in
defining the significance of the particulars in their bearing on the matter in
hand, while recognizing on the whole the "pondus ad movendum
Philemonis animum” (Estius). According to de Wette (comp. Wetstein),
TOLOŪTOS ÚV K.T.A. is to be held parallel to the participial clause of ver. 8, in
accordance with which the participle would thus have to be resolved
by although. But the whole mode of interpretation, which takes
TOLOŪTOS as preparative, is untenable. It must of necessity point back,
summing up under the notion of personal quality what was said by
Tokanu ... napakalā in ver. 8; for if TOLOūTOS is not already defined (as is
here the case by reference to ver. 8), it may, doubtless, become defined
either by an adjective immediately following, or by a following oiosor öss
or όσος,4 or by ώστε with the infinitive 5 but never by ώς, which neither
actually occurs (the usually cited passage from Andocides in Wetstein, de
Wette has rightly described as not here relevant6) nor can take place
logically, since ús, that is, as (not like, which it means after rolóvdɛ in Aesch.
Pers. 180), already presupposes the definiteness of TOLOŪTOS. This more
precise definiteness is not, however, to be relegated to the mere conception
or mode of view of the writer (Wiesinger: “I, in my circumstances”),
according to which ús is then held to introduce an appositional definition,
to which also Bieek and Hofmann ultimately come; but it is to be taken
from what Paul has previously said, because it results from that quite
simply and suitably. Comp. on TOLOŪTOS ÖV, which always in classical
writers also—where it is not followed by a corresponding olos, ős, ő005, or
Hote-summarily denotes the quality, disposition, demeanor, or the like,
180 e. g. Erasmus, Paraphr.: “Quid enim
neges roganti? primum Paulo: cum Paulum
dico non paulum rerum tibi significo; deinde
seni: nonnihil tribui solet et aetati ... nunc
etiam vincto: in precibus nonnihil ponderis.
habet et calamitas obtestantis; postremo vinc-
to Jesu Christi: sic vincto favere debent, qui
drofitentur Christi doctrinam." Similarly
Grotius and others; while, according to Hein-
richs, by Ilawlos there was to be awakened
gratitude; by peoß. the readiness to oblige,
natural towards the aged; and by déoulos 'I.
Xp. compassion. Hofmann holds that “the
name Paul puts Philemon in mind of all that
makes it a historical one," and that the im-
pression of this becomes thereupon confirmed
by the other two elements.
.? Plato, Conv. p. 199 D; Dem. 41, 3.
3Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 2; Plat. Phaed. p. 92 B;
Heb. viii. 1.
4 Isocr. Paneg. 21.
6 Plato, Conv. p. 175 D, al.
The passage runs: ô dê távTWV SELVÓTATÓv
éOTI, TOLOÛTOS üv ús eŭVOUS Tý sýuw toùs dóyovs
TOLETTaL. Here, precisely as in our passage,
ως εύνους belongs not to τοιούτος ών, but to
what follows, and TOLOÛTOS ūv sums up what
had been said before. The comparison of
TOLÓOde, Hom. Od. xvi. 205 (Hofmann), where
besides no ús follows, is unsuitable, partly
on the general ground of the well-known
diversity of meaning of the two words (comp.
Kühner, ad Xen: Mem. i. 7.5), which is not to
be abandoned without special reason, partly
VERS. 10, 11.
405
more precisely indicated before. It is further to be noted, (1) that the
true explanation of TOLOŪTOS ÔV K.T.A. of itself imperatively requires that we
connect these words with the following napakahā (Flatt, Lachmann, who,
however, parenthesizes ós Ilavhos, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Bleek,
Hofmann), not with that which precedes (as formerly was usual), in which
case the second tapakalā is understood as resumptive, an oùv (Theophy-
lact), inquam, or the like, being supplied in thought (so Castalio, Beza,
Hagenbach, and many). (2) The elements expressed by ús Ilaūlos ...
Xplotoð stand-seeing that appoßúrns is a substantive and has not the
article-in such relation to each other, that πρεσβύτης and νυνι δε και δέσμιος
K.T.. are two attributive statements attaching themselves to Ilaūlos; con-
sequently: as Paul, who is an old man, and now also a prisoner, etc. (3)
The (flexible) notion of peaBurns must by no means have its meaning
altered, as is done e.g. by Calvin, who makes it denote “non aetatem, sed
officium ; " but, at the same time, may not be rigidly pressed in so con-
fidential a private writing, in which "lepos mixtus gravitate” (Bengel)
prevails, especially if Philemon was much younger than Paul. Observe,
withal, that the apostle does not use some such expression as yépwv, but
the more relative term mpeoß.; comp. Tit. ii. 2 with the contrast tous
VEWTépous in ver. 6. He sets himself down as a veteran in contradistinction
to the younger friend, who was once his disciple. At the stoning of
Stephen, and so some twenty-six or twenty-seven years earlier, Paul was
still veavias (Acts vii. 58); he might thus be now somewhere about fifty
years of age. [XLIV c.]-Séoulog 'I. x.] as in ver. 1.-tékvov] tenderly
affectionate designation of his convert (comp. 1 Cor. iv. 14 f. ; Gal. iv. 19;
1 Pet. v. 13), in connection with which the conception of his own child is
brought more vividly into prominence by the prefixed flow and by łyó
(see the critical remarks), and é v rois de ouois? makes the recommenda-
tion yet more affecting and urgent.—'Ovñoluov] Accusative, in accordance
with a well-known attraction; see Winer, p. 155 [E. T. 164]; Buttmann, p.
68 (E. T. 78].
Ver. 11. Ingenious allusion to the literal signification of the name (cur-
rent also among the Greeks) ’Ovñolicos, useful. The objection of Estius, that
Paul expresses himself in words derived from another stem (not from
óvívnul), presupposes a mechanical procedure, with which Paul is least of
all to be charged. We may add that, while there were not such forms as
ανονήσιμος and ευονήσιμος, doubtless he might, had he wished to retain the stenm
of the name, have employed ανόνητος and oνητός (Suidas), or oνήτωρ (Pindar),
or óvnocobpos (Plutarch, Lucian). An allusion, however, at the same time
to the name of Christian, as sometimes in the Fathers Xplotlavóç is brought
because in that passage eyus Tolbode stands
absolutely and CELKTLKWS (hicce ego talis), so
that the following mabwe K... belongs to
ñavbov.
1 Plato, Rcp. p. 493 C; Xen. Anab. iii. 1. 30;
Hellen. iv. 1. 38; Cyrop. i. 5, 8; Soph. Aj. 1277
(1298); Lucian, Cont. 20, and many other
places.
2 That the expression: in the bonds, was
suitable only to Rome and not to Caesarea, is
incorrectly inferred by Wieseler, p. 420, from
Acts xxiv. 23. See on that passage. It was
likewise incorrect to assign the Epistle, on
account of mpeoßúrns, to the alleged second
imprisonment at Rome (Calovius).
406
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
into relation with xpnotós, is arbitrarily assumed by Cornelius a Lapide,
Koch, and others, and the more so, as the expressions have already their
occasion in the name Onesimus, and, moreover, by means of ooi and šuoi
an individually definite reference.-= xpnotov] Unserviceable, only here in
the N. T. (comp. however, doñaos áxpeños, Matt. xxv. 30; Luke xvii. 10).
A definition, wherein the uselessness of Onesimus in his service consisted
(the usual view from the time of Chrysostom: that he had robbed his mas-
ter) does not appear more precisely than in the hint ver. 18 f.--vvvì dè ...
€ůxprotov] [XLIV d.] Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv. 11; Plato, Pol. iii, p. 411 B:
xpholuov Ě Ě å XPNOTOV ÉToincev. The usefulness, which now belongs to Onesimus,
is based simply on his conversion which had taken place, ver. 10, and
consequently consists for Philemon in the fact, that his slave now will ren-
der his service in a far other way than before, namely, in a distinctively
Christian frame of mind and activity (consequently without eye-service and
man-pleasing, ÁS TẬ kupio k.7.2., as it is expressed, at Col. iii. 29 ff.), and for
Paul himself in the fact that, because the conversion of Onesimus is his
work (ver. 10), in that transformation of the previously useless slave there
has accrued to the apostle, as the latter's spiritual father, gain and recom-
pense of his labor (Phil. i. 22), the joy and honor of not having striven in
vain (Phil. ii. 16). Thus the benefits, which Philemon and Paul have
respectively to enjoy from Onesimus as now constituted, are brought into
contact and union. What a weighty and persuasive appeal was urged in
the ingenious kai tuoi (comp. Rom. xvi. 13; 1 Cor. xvi. 18) is at once felt.
Ver. 12. The rectified text is : ôv åvéTeppá Cocº où lè avròv, TOUTÉOTI Tà
šuà ott máyxva (without a poohaßoü). [XLIV e.]-On événeupa, remisi, comp.
Luke xxiii. 11.-TOUTÉOTL Tà ổuà Tháyxva] that is, my heart, by which Onesi-
mus is designated as an object of the most cordial affection. So Oecumenius,
Theophylact, and many. éjà has an ingeniously-turned emphasis, in con-
trast to avróv. According to others, the thought would be : ¿pós Éotiv viòs,
ÉK TÜV uāv yɛY ÉVV17 al Orháyxvwv, Theodoret (comp. also Chrysostom).*
But in this way the relation already expressed in ver. 10 would be only
repeated, and that in a form, which would be less in keeping with that
spiritual fatherhood. Paul, moreover, statedly uses oTháyxva for the seat
of the affection of love (2 Cor. vi. 12, vii. 15; Phil. i. 8, ii. 1; Col. iii. 12; !
Philem. 7, 20; comp. also Luke i. 78; 1 John iii. 17), and so also here,
where the person to whom one feels himself attached with tender love
(which, according to ver. 10, is certainly felt as paternal; comp. Wisd. x.
5; 4 Macc. xvi. 20, 26) is designated by the lover as his very heart, because
its feelings and inclinations are filled by this object. When we set aside
1 Plato, Injs. p. 204 B: paudos kai āxpnotos, 3
Macc. iii. 29; Ecclus. xxxvii. 19.
2 Comp. Theodore of Mopsuestia : ooi kata
την υπηρεσίαν, εμοί κατά την βελτίωσιν του
Tpórov.
8 See the critical remarks. The text of
Lachmann, öv å ven. 001, aútov, TOÛT' COTLV Tà
éjà omn., is followed by Hofmann, so that
autóv is in apposition to öv (see, on the other
hand, Winer, p. 140 (E. T. 148]).
4 So too Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs,
and others, following the Syriac. See in-
stances in Pricaeus and Wetstein, and comp.
the Latin viscera.
5 Comp. on this expression of feeling, the
Plautine meum corculum (Cas. iv. 4. 14), meum
cor (Poen. 1. 2. 151).
VERS. 12, 13.
407
te pooha ßo ū as not genuine (see the critical remarks), the verb is wanting,
so that the passage is anacoluthic; the apostle is involuntarily withheld by
the following relative clause presenting itself, and by what he, in the
lively flow of his thoughts, further subjoins (ver. 13 ff.) from adding the
governing verb thought of with où dè ajtóv, until at length, after beginning
a new sentence with ver. 17, he introduces it in another independent con-
nection, leaving the sentence which he had begun with où dè avtóv in ver.
12 unclosed. Comp. on Rom. v. 12 ff.; Gal. ii. 16.1 With classic writers,
too, such anacoluthic sentences broken off by the influence of intervening
thoughts are not rare, specially in excited or pathetic discourse.?
Ver. 13 f. 'Ey6] I for my part.—¿Boułóunv] I was of the mind. Comp.
hokanoa, ver. 14, and observe not merely the diversity of notion (Bothojai:
deliberate self-determination, see on Matt. i. 19), but also the distinction
of the tenses. The apostle formerly cherished the design and the wish
(imperfect éßour.) of retaining Onesimus with himself, instead of sending
him back to Philemon, but has become of the mind (historical aorist
noéanoa), etc. Thus noén. denotes that which supervened on the previous
occurrence of the Boun., and hindered the realization of the latter.
Observe that Paul has not used xßovaóunv åv; that would be vellem.-ÜTÈP
ooū] for thee, i.e. in gratiam tuam, that thou mightest not need thyself to
serve me. [XLIV F.] Únép accordingly is not here, any more than in any
other passage of the N. T., used as a precise equivalent to avri, although the
actual relation of representation lies at the bottom of the conception in
gratiam ; for Paul would have taken the service of the slave as rendered
by the master, to whom the slave belonged. Comp. Hofinann. This mode
of regarding and representing the matter has nothing harsh about it, nor
does it convey any obligation, which Philemon, had he been on the spot,
would have fulfilled (Bleek), but simply the trustful presupposition, that
Philemon himself would, if Paul had desired it, have ministered to him
in the prison. Of this, however, Philemon was relieved by the service of
the slave, which in this way stood him in good stead. Schweizer, in the
Stud. 2. Krit. 1858, p. 430, explains likewise correctly : for thy benefit, but
takes this in the sense : “so that it would be a service rendered to thee,
imputed to thee, so that I would be under obligation to thee." But this
would only have the delicacy and tenderness which are found in it, if the
thought: “in order that he might serve me, with a view to place me
under obligation to thee,” contained the design of Onesimus ; if, accordingly,
Paul had written something after this manner: δς έβούλετο προς εμαυτόν
Ņévelv, iva K.1.., which, however, would have asserted a self-determination
incompetent to the position of a slave. No; as the passage is written,
there is delicately and tenderly implied in the inèp ooũ the same thought,
which, in accordance with Phil. ii. 30, he might have expressed by iva
iSee generally, Winer, p. 528 ff. (E. T. 567
ff.]; Wilke, Rhetor. p. 217 f.
2 E. g. Plat. Symp. p. 218 A; Xen. Anab. ii. 5.
13; and Krüger in loc.; Aeschin. adv. Ctesiph.
256, and Wunderlich in loc.; Bremi, ad Lys.
p. 442 f., 222, who rightly observes: “Hoc
anacoluthiae genus inter scriptores sacros
nulli frequentius excidit quam Paulo ap.,
epistolas suas dictanti.”
408
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
deaTanpow To Goũ bơiếpmua; comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 17. Thusingeniously does
Paul know how to justify his šßovaóunu K.T.2.-seeing that he would, in fact,
otherwise have had no claim at all upon another's bondsman-by the
specification of design ίνα υπερ σού κ.τ.λ.-διακονή] direct representation by
the subjunctive, “ita quidem, ut praeteriti temporis cogitatio tanquam
praesens efferatur," Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 2.-ÉV rois deguołç Toû
evayy.] in the bonds, into which the gospel has brought me-in a position
therefore (comp. ver. 9) which makes me as needful as deserving of such
loving service.-xwpis dè K.7.2.] but without thy consent, that is, independent
of it, I have wished to do nothing, and so have left that wish unexecuted, in
order that thy good may be not cus from constraint, but from free will. The
thought of the apostle accordingly is: But as I knew not thine own
opinion, and thus must have acted without it, I was disposed to abstain
from the retention of thy slave, which I had in view : for the good, which
thou showest, is not to be as if forced, but voluntary. If I had retained
Onesimus for my service, without having thy consent to that effect, the
good, which I should have had to derive from thee through the service
rendered to me by thy servant úrèp cow, would have been shown not from
free will,--that is, not in virtue of thine own self-determination,—but as if.
compulsorily, just because independently of thy yvóun (“non enim potuisset
refragari Philemon,” Bengel'). Observe at the same time that tò ayadóv
cov, thy good, that is, the good which thou showest to others, is to be left quite
in its generalily, so that not the serviceable employment of the slave
specially and in concreto is meant, but rather the category in general, under
which, in the intended application, there falls that special åyaľov, which is
indicated in ver. 13. The restriction to the given case is impracticable on
account of αλλά κατά εκούσιον, since Paul in fact did not at all intend to pro-
cure the consent of Philemon and to retain Onesimus. This in opposition
to the usual interpretation : “Tò ảyadóv, i.e. beneficium tuum hocce, quo
afficior a te, si hunc mihi servum concedis," Heinrichs; comp. Bleek. But
it is an error also, with de Wette, following Estius (who describes it as
probable), to understand under tò åyao. Gov the manumission? of the slave,
or to understand it at least as "also included” (Bleek), of which even in
ver. 16 there is no mention, and for suggesting which in so covert and
enigmatic i fashion there would not have been any reason, if he had
desired it at all (but see on 1 Cor. vii. 21). According to Hofmann (comp.
his Schiftbeweis, II. 2, p. 412), Tò cya0ó G00 is, like Tò xongTòn Toũ Đeoũ at
Rom. ii. 4, thy goodness, and that the goodness, which Philemon will show to
Onesimus when he had returned into his position as a slave; this only then
becomes an undoubtedly spontaneous goodness, when the apostle refrains
from any injunction of his own, whereas Philemon could not have done
otherwise than refrain from punishing the slave for his escape, if Paul
had retained him to himself, in which case, therefore, Philemon might
1 Seneca, De Benef. ii. 4: "Si vis scire an
velim, effice ut possim nolle.” Luther aptly
remarks: a constrained will is not voluntas,
but noluntar.
2 That the manumission did take place, has
been inferred from the tradition that One-
simus became a bishop. It may have taken
place, but it is not meant here.
VERS. 14, 15.
409
have seemed to be kind compulsorily. This explanation, brought out by
the insertion of thoughts between the lines, is to be set aside as at variance
with the context, since there is nothing in the connection to point to the
definition of the notion of tò ảyalóv gou as goodness towards Onesimus;
but on the contrary this expression can only acquire its import through
the delicately thoughtful iva Únè GoŨ pol Slakovñ K.7.2.-ás katà áváyknu]
emphatically prefixed, and as expresses the idea : “So that it appears
as constrained.” Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 360.1
Ver. 15. Paul now supports his course of procedure in having given up
his previous plan of retaining Onesimus with him, and in sending the lat-
ter back, by the consideration that the brief separation of the slave from
his master may perhaps have had the Providential destined aim, etc.
This destined aim would have been in fact counteracted by the ulterior
keeping apart of the slave from Philemon.--Táxa] easily, perhaps, Rom. v.
7. So also in classical writers, but more frequently conjoined with ăv.
Comp. for a similar use of iows, Luke xx. 13, and Buttmann, ad Soph.
Phil. p. 180. A categoric assertion, although appropriate to the expres-
sion of a firm confidence, would have been less sparing of the feelings in
the relation of the injured master to the fugitive slave, than the problem-
atic mode of expression; it may readily be, that the way of the joipa Osov
has been such, etc.—¿xwpioon] evońuws kaì TIJU quyiv xwplouòv kahεi, iva len
TỘ óvóuati tñs ovyñs Tapočúvị tòv SEOTÓTIV, Theophylact. The aim of sooth-
ing underlies also the choice of the passive expression, as Chrysostom
says: ουκ είπεν εχώρισεν εαυτόν ... ου γαρ αυτου το κατασκεύασμα το επί
TOÚTW ávaxwpñoal K.7.2.- pòs üpav] Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8; Gal. ii. 5; 1 Thess.
ii. 17. This relative statement of time leaves it entirely undefined, how
long the brief stay of Onesiímus with Paul lasted.—iva] divine destined
aim therein. Chrysostom and Jerome already refer to Gen. xlv. 5.-
aibviov] not adverb, which is aiwviws, but accusative, so that the adverbial
notion is expressed by way of predicate. [XLIV g.] Winer, p. 433 [E.
T. 464]: Kühner, II. 1, p. 234 f. Erasmus aptly observes: “ipsum jam
non temporarium ministrum, sed perpetuo tecum victurum.” The notion
itself, however, is not to be taken as the indefinite perpetuo (Calvin, Gro-
tius, and many), or more precisely per omnem tuam vitam (Drusius, Hein-
richs, Flatt, Demme, and others), in connection with which Beza and
Michaelis point to the ordinances of the law with regard to the perpetua
mancipia (Ex. xxi. 6; Deut. xv. 17); but—as is alone consonant with the
N. T. use of the word concerning the future, and the Pauline doctrine of
the approaching establishment of the kingdom—in the definite sense : for
ever, embracing the expiring αιών ούτος and the αιών μέλλων attaching itself
thereto, and presupposing the Parousia, which is still to be expected
within the lifetime of both parties; but not, that the Christian brotherly
union reaches into eternity (Erasmus, Estius, de Wette, and others); so
10n xatà å váyk., by way of constraint (in
the passive sense), by compulsion, comp.
Thucyd. vi. 10. 1; Polyb. iii. 67. 5; 2 Macc.
xv. 2; on the contrast, comp. 1 Pet. v. 2: un
avaykadtws, adl'èxcvoiws; Thucyd. viii. 27.3:
malékovoiav û trávu ye åváykn, Plat. Prot. p.
346 B.
? Chrysostom aptly remarks: kadūs tò máxa,
410
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
in the main also Hofmann: "as one who remains to him for ever, not
merely for lifetime;" comp. Bleek.-ánéxs] Comp. Phil. iv. 18; Matt. vi.
2. The compound expression (mayest have away) denotes the definitive
final possession.
Ver. 16. Altered relation which with the aibvlov avròv áméxelv was to
take effect, and thenceforth to subsist, between Philemon and Onesimus.'
--O'Kéti ús dovmor] in this is implied not a hint of manumission, but the
fact that, while the external relation of slavery remains in itself unchanged,
the ethical relation has become another, a higher one (ütèp dovnov), a
brotherly relation of affection (ኣão. ảyan..). Christianity does not abolish
the distinctions of rank and station, but morally equalizes them (comp. on
Loótnta, Col. iv. 1; 1 Tim. vi. 2), inasmuch as it pervades them with the
unifying consecration of the life in Christ, 1 Cor. vii. 21 f., xii. 13; Gal.
iii. 28; Col. iii. 11. To the ós the following ÚTép is correlative: not
further in the quality of a slave, but in a higher manner than as a slave;
å denpòv åyar., as a beloved brother, is then the epexegesis of inèp ooūlov.
And the latter is conceived of thus: so that he is beyond and above a
dowhos, is more than such.—uárlota époà K.1.2.] belongs to ådɛ2. åyar. In
that view já 260 ta has its reference in the relation of Onesimus to his
fellow-Christians, with whom he has hitherto beer brought into connection;
among these it was Paul, to whom he stood most of all—that is, in higher
degree than to any other-in the relation of a beloved brother.-60w lè
Mãrãov coi] since he is thy property, and does not enter into merely tem-
porary connection with thee, such as that in which he stood with me;
see ver. 15.-kai év aapki kaì év kup.] specifies the two domains, in which Onesi-
mus will be to him yet far more a beloved brother than to the apostle,
namely, in the flesh, e. e. in the sphere pertaining to the material nature of
man, in things consequently that concern the bodily life and needs, and in
the Lord, i. e. in the higher spiritual life-sphere of fellowship with Christ.
Accordingly, šv capki Philemon has the brother as a slave, and év kupio
the slave as a brother; how greatly, therefore, must he, in view of the
mutual connection and interpenetration of the two relations, have him,
as well εν σαρκί ας έν κυρίω, as a beloved brother ! How much more still
(TT60w dè pārdov) must Onesimus thus be such an one to Philemon, than
to the apostle! The two domains of life designated by év gapi and tv kuplu
--which, connected by kai . . . kal, exclude the conception of ethical con-
trast --are to be left in all their comprehensiveness. Influenced by the
erroneous presupposition of manumission (see on ver. 15), de Wette
thinks in év gapki of the family-relation into which the manumitted one
enters.
Ver. 17. Oův] resuming ; see on ver. 12, where the request, to which utter-
DI
iva ciśn ò SCOTÓTYS êtreld yàp åtò aùdadeias
γέγονεν η φυγή και διεστραμμένης διανοίας, και
ουκ από προαιρέσεως, λέγει τάχα.
mentally supplied (Grotius, Storr, Flatt);
comp. on Col. iii. 23.
1 In accordance with this Christian-ideal
mode of view we have to leave oúkéti abso-
lute, and not to weaken it by móvov to be
% Comp. Plato, Rep. p. 488 A; Legg. viii. p.
839 D; oúk ēOTIV ÜTèp av pw Tov; 2 Macc. ix. 8.
3 Comp. Eklund, cápě vocabulum ap. Paul.,
Lund 1872, p. 47 f.
VERS. 16–18.
411
ance is only now finally given after the moving digressions vv. 13-16, was
already to be expressed.—The emphasis, and that in the way of furnish-
- ing a motive, lies upon KOLVwvóv: [XLIV h.] if thou hast me as a partner,
if thou standest in this relation to me,-according to which consequently
the refusal of the request would appear as proof of the contrary. As to
this use of čxelv, comp. on Matt. xiv. 4. The notion of the kouvwvía is not
to be restricted more narrowly than is implied in the idea of Christian
fellowship, and so of common believing, loving, hoping, disposition, work-
ing, and so forth; while Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and
others bring out only the partnership of the ppoveiv and the striving;
whereas others, as Estius, Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, Flatt, et al., explain
KOLVwvóv as friend, and Beza and Bengel refer it to the community of
property : “Si mecum habere te putas communia bona, ut inter socios
esse soleat” (Beza); comp. Grotius. The ds is : so as if thou receivedst
me, as if I now came to thee; for see ver. 12. On apooraßoü, comp. Rom.
xiv. 1, xv. 7.
Ver. 18. [On Vv. 18–25, see Note XLV. pages 419, 420.] And herein the
offence against thee, with which Onesimus is chargeable, is not to present
an obstacle.—εi] indication in a hypothetic form, so as to spare the feel-
ings: Attic politeness, see Herbst, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5.1; Bornem. ad Con-
viv. iv. 3; Winer, p. 418 [E. T. 448]. —TL idiknoé ge] Comp. Col. iii. 25;
Gal. iv. 12; Acts xxy. 10. In what the wrong done to Philemon by Onesi-
mus, and without doubt confessed to the apostle by the latter, actually
consisted, is hinted in what follows.—' ópɛíhɛl] or more precisely to
describe this ñSirenosoweth (anything). This applies to a monėy-debt (see
ver. 19). Accordingly the slave had probably been guilty, not merely in
general of a fault in service which injured his master (Hofmann), but in
reality (comp. already Chrysostom) of purloining or of embezzlement,
which Paul here knows how to indicate euphemistically. The referring
it merely to the running away itself, and the neglect of service therewith
connected, would not be (in opposition to Bleek) in keeping with the
hypothetical form of expression.--TOŬTO] the Tl, which he ndiknoé ge Ñ opei-
2ɛl; hence we have not, with Grotius, Flatt, and others, to explain these
two verbs of different offences (the former as referring to theft at his run-
ning away, the latter to defalcation).-—čuo šakóya] set it down to my
account ; "me debitorem habe,” Bengel. Friendly pleasantry, which in
ver. 19 becomes even jocular (età zápitos tñs tvevlatlañs, Chrysostom),
with which the subsequent īva un Réyw 001 K.7.2. is very compatible (in
opposition to Hofmann), if it is correctly apprehended. On the form
tadoyáw we have not, with Fritzsche, ad Rom. v. 13, at once to pronounce
against it: "nulla est” (comp. Matthies : “stultum est”), since šloyéw
likewise is only with certainty preserved in Rom. I. c., and in Boeckh,
Inscr. I. p. 850. It is true hoyáw, in Lucian, Lexiph. 15, means to be fond
of speaking; but this single passage, in which the simple form is pre-
1 Theophylact: Tíva o'x äv kateSVO ÚToe;
Tis yàp oủk ävědéanoe llaudov ipoodétagbar,
Erasmus: "recipias oportet velut alterun
me."
412
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
.
served, does not suffice to negative the use of the word in the sense of.
reckoning.
Ver. 19. (XLV 6.] Promissory note under his own hand, in which by the
elsewhere so weighty éyè Ilaūkos (Gal. v. 2; 2 Cor. x. 1, al.). the friendly
humor of the connection is rendered the more palpable through force of
contrast. Whether Paul wrote the whole Epistle with his own hand (the
usual view; see already Jerome, Chrysostom, and Theodoret), or only
from this point onward, cannot be determined. In the latter case the
raillery comes out the more prominently.miva in Néyw gol K.T.2.] Comp.
2 Cor. ii. 5, and the Latin ne dicam : “est oxñua napaolwTYCEws sive reti-
centiae, cum dicimus omittere nos velle, quod maxime dicimus,” Grotius.
The ίνα denotes the design which Paul has in the έγραψα ... αποτίσω;
he will, so he represents the matter, by this his note of hand avoid saying
to Philemon-what he withal might in strictness have to say to him-
that he was yet far more indebted to the apostle. (XLV c.7 Without
sufficient reason, Wiesinger after a harsh and involved fashion attaches
iva, notwithstanding the intervening clause, to TOŪTO tuoi taróya, and then
takes the ooi, which according to the usual view belongs without empha-
sis to réyw, as emphatic (sc. Ėmóya); “that reckon. to me, not to say: to
thee." So too Hofmann, according to whose arbitrary discovery in the
repetition of the èyw the emphatic xuoi is held “to continue sounding,"
until it finds in the emphatic coś its antithesis, which cancels it. Why
should not Paul, instead of this alleged “making it sound on,” have put
the words iva un héyw ooi, ötl K.7.2. (because, according to Hofmann) imme-
diately after TOUTO &uoi ťahóya, in order thereupon to conclude this passage
with the weighty éyè Ilavhos k.1.2.? Besides, there would be implied in
that emphasizing and antithetic reference of the ooi a pungent turn so
directly and incisively putting him to shame, that it would not be in
keeping with the whole friendly humorous tone of this part of the letter,
which does not warrant us in presupposing a displeasure on Philemon's part
meriting so deeply earnest a putting him to shame (Hofmann). The very
shaming hint, which the passage gives, is affectionately veiled in an appar-
ent reticence by iva un aéyw 001 K.T.). Chrysostom already says aptly:
& VT PETTITIKŪS äua kaì xapcévTWS.--The ooi added to aéyw is in keeping
with the confidential tone of the Epistle. Paul would not willingly
remind his friend of his debt.-—kaì geavtóv] also thine own self, si éjow yàp,
φησί, της σωτηρίας απήλαυσας και εντεύθεν δήλον ώς της αποστολικής ήξιώθη
didapkahías ó piañuwv, Theodoret. Through his conversion he was indebted
to the apostle for his own self, namely, as subject of the swñ aibvios. The
same view is found at Luke ix. 25. See on that passage.-—pocopeinels]
insuper debes. The conception, namely, is: “not to say to thee, that thou
(namely, because I have made thee a Christian) owest to me not merely that,
which I have just declared my wish to pay to thee, but also (rcaí) thine own self
besides.". With due attention to the correlation of kai and apos, the force
. 1 Herod. vi. 59 ; Dem. 650, 23; Thucyd. vii. 48. 6; Xen. Cyrop. iii. 2. 16, Dec. 20. 1; Polyb. v. 88.
4. 8, viii. 25. 4; Lucian. Sacrif. 4.
VERS. 19-21.
413
of the compound would not have been overlooked (Vulgate, Luther, Flatt,
and others).
| Ver. 20. Yea, brother, I would fair have profit of thee in the Lord.—val]
not beseeching (Grotius and many), but confirmatory (comp. on Matt. xv.
27), as always : verily, certainly. It confirms, however, not the preceding
c. geavt. LOL Tpooopelhaus (de Wette and Hofmann, following Elsner),
against which may be urged the emphatically prefixed łyó (it must in
that case logically have run: GoŨ šyù óvaip.),—but the whole intercession for
Onesimus, in which Paul has made the cause of the latter his own. He,
he himself, would fain have joy at the hands of his friend Philemon in the
granting of this request; himself (not, it might be, merely Onesimus) is
Philemon to make happy by this compliance.-óvaljenv] Expression of the
wish, that this might talce place (Kühner, II. 1, p. 193); hence the counter-
remark of Hofmann that it is not " I would fain,” but “may 1,” is un-
meaning: On the expression very current from Homer's time (Odyss.
xix. 68, ii. 33), óvivapai Tivos, to have advantage from a thing or person, to
profit thereby, comp. Wetstein; on the different verbal forms of the word,
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 12 f.; Kühner, I. p. 879 f. In the N. T. it is äras
Qeybu.; but the very choice of the peculiar word supports the usual hypo-
thesis (although not recognized by de Wette, Bleek, and Hofmann) that
Paul intended an allusion to the name Onesimus. There is the additional
circumstance that the emphatic syó ingeniously gives point to the anti-
thetic glance back at him, for whom he has made request; comp. also
Wiesinger, Ellicott, Winer.—Ėv kupiw] gives to the notion of the óvalunu its
definite Christian character. Just so the following tv XPLOTĄ. Neither
means: for the sake of (Beza, Grotius, Flatt, and others). No profit of
any other kind whatever does Paul wish for himself from Philemon, but
that, the enjoyment of which has its ground in Christ as the ethical ele-
ment. Comp. xaipɛlv év kupiw, and the like.-ávánavoov k.7.n.] [XLV d.]
let me not wish in vain this èyb cov óvaip. év kup. ! Refresh (by a forgiv-
ing and loving reception of Onesimus) my heart: Tà on a á y xva, seat of
loving emotion, of the love concerned for Onesimus, comp. ver. 7; not an
expression of love to Philemon (Oecumenius, Theophylact), nor yet a
designation of Onesimus (ver. 12), as is maintained by Jerome, Estius,
Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt, and others.
Ver. 21. Conclusion of the whole matter of request, and that" as if for
a last precaution” (Ewald), with the expression of the confidence, to
which his apostolic dignity entitled him (utakon), although in accordance
with ver. 8 he has abstained from enjoining. This, as well as the cidòç ÖTL
1
EVT
1L
i With this val, åsenbé the humorous tone
has died away, and, when Paul now inserts
the need of his own heart and his hearty
confidence as to the compliance of his friend,
the intercession receives the seal of its trust
ful assurance of success, and therewith its
close. Chrysostom already aptly observes
that the vaí, ádeidé applies generally to the
Trpoodaßoü requested, so that the apostle
"abeis Tov xaplevTLOMòv tráliv čxetai
TV a potépwv TÔ V OTTOVÉ aí wv."
2 Comp. Eur. Hec. 997: * Klot' óvainny roll
Tapóvtos, Ignat. Eph. 2: óvainny juwv dià
TavTÓS, Rom. 5: óvainnu Tŷ Anpiwv ...
evxouac K.T..
8 The allusion would have been more easily
seized, if Paul had written in some such way
as: val, áseloé, évoi où óvoluos eins. But, as
414
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
K.T.., appended by way of climax as an accompanying definition to the "
TETOHòs ÖTL K.T.A., could not but entirely remove any possible hesitation
on the part of Philemon and complete the effect of the letter. Comp.
already Chrysostom and Jerome.--kaì ÚTèp Ô Téyw] what, i. e. what further
deeds of Icindness over and above the receiving back which was asked for,
the apostle leaves absolutely to his friend, without, however, wishing to
hint in particular at the manumission of Onesimus (Bleek and Hofmann,
following older expositors); comp. on ver. 13 f. The certainty, however,
that his friend will do still more, makes him the less doubt that at the least
what is requested will be done. Thus there is contained in this eidus K.T.2.
a thoughtfully contrived incitement.-héyw] namely, in that which I have
written. Observe the different tenses.-Kai] not merely that which I say,
but also.
Ver. 22. This further commission too—what a welcome, and wisely
closing, indirect support to the intercession for Onesimus! Toñan yèp
zápis kaì ý tlun IIaúhov švon uOŪVTOS, Chrysostom; and so the apostle, in fact,
wished soon himself to see what effect his intercession had had.äua dè kai]
[XLV e.] that is, simultaneously with that, which thou wilt do in the case
of Onesimus. This is the sense of the adverbial äjua in all passages, even
Col. iv. 3; Acts xxiv. 26; and 1 Tim. v. 13 (in opposition to Hofmann),
and among the Greek writers, so that it by no means expresses merely
the conception of being joined, that the one is to associate itself with the
other (Hofmann), but the contemporary connection of the one action with
the other; Suidas: ÉTÈ TOŨ Katà Tòv avtòv kalpóv. Bleek erroneously
renders: at the same time also I entreat thee; so, too, de Wette, as if äța dè
και παρακαλώ or the lilke were in the text.-ετοίμαζέ μοι ξενίαν] Paul hoped
at that time for a speedy liberation ; his ulterior goal was Rome; the
journey thither, however, he thought of making through Asia Minor, where
he also desired to come to Colossae and to take up his quarters (Acts xxviii.
23) as a guest with Philemon. Comp. Introd. to Colossians, & 2. Observe,
moreover, that äța dè kai presupposes so near a use of the gevía, as doubt-
less tallies with the shorter distance between Caesarea and Phrygia, but
not with the distance from Rome to Phrygia, specially since, according to
Phil. i. 25 f., ii. 24, Paul thought of journeying from Rome to Macedonia;
hence it would have been inappropiate and strange on his part, if, start-
ing from Rome, he had already bespoken a lodging in Colossae, and that,
too, one to be made ready so without delay.-iuwu and ů jī v apply to
the persons already named, vv. 1, 2. To extend the reference further,
namely, to "the body of Christians amidst which Philemon lives ” (Hof-
mann), is unwarranted. The expression is individualizing. On xap.co.,
may be granted, i.e. liberated in favor of you, comp. on Acts iii. 14, xxvii.
24; on dià T. TT podevy. Úgl., Phil. i. 19. This hope was not fulfilled.
Calvin leaves this doubtful, but aptly adds: “Nihil tamen est absurdi, si
!
he has expressed it, it is more delicate and
yet palpable enough, especially for the friend
of whom he makes the request.
1 Where, namely, there is mention of the
combination of two expressions of activity,
which takes place or ought to take place (as
here). What oμού is as τοπικόν, άμα is as
Xpovikov (Ammonius, p. 13).
· NOTES.
415
spes, qualem de temporali Dei beneficio conceperit, eum frustrata
fuerit."
Ver. 23 f. Salutations from the same persons, Col. iv. 10–14.—, ovvaix-
uáawróg pov] See on Col. iy. 10. Here it further has expressly the
specifically Christian character. Comp. Séouloç ¿v kupiw, Eph. iv. 1. --The
Jesus Justus mentioned at Col. iv. 11 does not here join in the greeting.
The reason for this cannot be ascertained. It is possible that this man
was absent just at the moment of Paul's writing the brief letter to
Philemon. According to Wieseler, p. 417, he was not among those in
the abode of the apostle under surveillance (in Rome).
Ver. 25. See on Gal. vi. 18.
NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR.
XLII. Vv. 1-3.
. (a) The use of the word dégulos in the salutation, instead of a botonos as in the
other Epp. addressed to individuals (1 Tim., 2 Tim., and Tit.), may be explained, as
Meyer also suggests, in connection with the peculiarly personal and private character
of this letter. Its use instead of dovhos is not improbably designed to affect the mind
and feeling of Philemon, as he should read the request which the letter conveyed.
That the union of Timothy with himself belongs to the salutation only (see
Note I. on the Ep. to the Philippians), is made evident in this Epistle, by the fact
that the urgency of the appeal in the following verses is founded on what Paul,
not Timothy, had done, and on Paul's friendship alone. Moreover, the Apostle
speaks only in the first person singular, not at all in the first person plural. The
word Séoulos, which applies to Paul alone, may also, so far as it is correctly
explained above as employed rather than sovhos, indicate the same thing. We
may thus get from this Epistle a certain degree of confirmation of the view, that,
in all the Pauline Epistles, the companions who are associated with the Apostle
in the opening address have little share in anything beyond this.—(6) That Phile-
mon. lived in Colossae is made probable, if not certain, by Col. iv. 9, where Onesi-
mus is spoken of as & š vuāv. By the word ovvepyo he is put into the same class
with Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke (ver. 24); and, as he had a church at
his house, we must believe him to have been a prominent worker in the Christian
cause, who had co-operated with Paul himself. Lightf. says, "it is a safe infer-
ence from the connection of the names that Apphia was the wife of Philemon."
He adds: “With less confidence, but still with a reasonable degree of probability,
we may infer that Archippus was a son of Philemon and Apphia." All that can
be said upon this point is, that they are very closely united with the principal
person addressed, in a letter which had reference to one of his slaves. They must,
therefore, have been persons in such near relationship or friendship as to be asso-
ciated with him in a letter of this altogether private character. The insertion of
the name of Apphia before that of Archippus, who was a church officer, may be
1 Yet év XPLOTŲ 'Incoû might also be con-
ceived as connected with dotáseta. (Bleek)
Comp. Phil. iv. 21; Rom. xvi. 22; 1 Cor. xvi.
19. There is, however, no reason for sepa-
rating it from the nearest word, with which
even Chrysostom in' his day expressly con-
nected it.
416
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
considered as favoring the view that she was Philemon's wife.-(e) Lightf. sup-
poses Archippus to have been connected with the church in Laodicea-his name,
in Col. iv. 17, follows immediately after the allusion to the letter to that church-
and that he was a presbyter, or perhaps an evangelist having a missionary charge.
Wieseler, also, supposes him to have belonged to that church. Ell., Koch, Lumby,
Meyer, and others, oppose this view, and regard him as of the church at Colossae.
Meyer, in his notes on Col. iv. 17 (foot-note, page 391), says we should expect that
if Archippus had not lived at Colossae, Paul would have sent him a salutation, as
he does to Nymphas, Col. iv. 15, in connection with the Laodicean church, and
would not have asked another church, but rather his own, to admonish him. How
far the words in Col. iv. 17 are to be regarded as implying failure in the full dis-
charge of duty on the part of Archippus, is uncertain. Certainly, the Apostle so
far approved of him as to call him in this Epistle, which was written at the same
time with that to the Colossians, his ovvotpatutns.
XLIII. Vy. 47.
(a) The comm. of recent date generally agree with Meyer in connecting TrávTOTE-
with evraplotā. So Lightf. Alf., Lumby, Koch, de W., van Oost., Hackett, Wies-
inger, and others. Ell., however, favors the connection with molovuevos. R. V.
joins with the verb; A. V. with the participle. The close correspondence of the
phraseology with that in Col. i. 3, 4, and the fact that the two letters were written
at the same time, make it altogether probable that the construction here accords
with that which we find there. See note by Am. Ed. on that verse. «Kouwv
suggests the ground of the thanksgiving; but, of course, the thing heard of, rather
than the hearing itself, (that is, the love and faith of Philemon), are the real cause
of Paul's gratitude to God.-() The explanation of Tiv ayánny...áyious by assuming
a chiasmus, to which Meyer strongly objects, is supported by Alf., Hackett, Lightf.,
v. Oost, and others, in addition to those whom Meyer mentions. The correspond-
ing passage in Col. i. 3, 4 favors this view. The suggestion of Lumby is worthy
of notice, and may perhaps give the best solution of the difficulty. He says, “The
love was displayed towards the Christian congregation, the faith toward the Lord
Jesus Christ. But they are so knit together where they truly exist, that St. Paul
speaks of them as both exhibited alike toward Christ and toward His people.” The
interpretation of TiotiV as meaning faithfulness (Meyer) is contrary to all the pro-
babilities of such a passage as this. Davies thinks that “we may understand faith
towards all the saints, in the light of the phrase which follows, Koivwvia tīS TOTEÁS
gov, as meaning a readiness to acknowledge the community of faith with all other
believers." This, however, can hardly be regarded as a satisfactory explanation.
Ell. suggests that, connecting TioTiv with both of the prepositional phrases, faith
may be understood as having a purely spiritual reference as directed towards the
Lord, and a more practical reference as directed towards the saints.—(c) örtws of
ver. 6 is joined by Meyer immediately with iv & Xels, as specifying the tendency
of what is suggested by these words. This construction Alf. regards as "perfectly
inconceivable in a piece of Paul's writing." He also considers the sentence as
thus interpreted “flat in the extreme.” Ell. thinks it “utterly pointless.” Lightf.
declares the construction to be “altogether harsh and improbable." Van Oost., with
a milder form of expression, says, “It seems to us by no means necessary and
affords a sense least clear and simple.” The more common view is that it is to be
02
NOTES.
417
connected with yvelav cov TroLOWMEvos. So, in addition to the writers mentioned by
Meyer in his note, Lightf., Alf., Davies, v. Oost., Hackett, and others. Hackett
claims that Eph. i. 16 furnishes an exact parallel to the present case, and shows
that ŐTTWS belongs with Toloum. But this can hardly be maintained, because the
insertion of the clause ακούων κ.τ.λ. here, which gives the ground of the ευχαριστώ,
separates the ÖWS clause from coloul (which is not the case in Eph.), and thus
throws the Trolovu into a much more subordinate position-making it appear, as
Meyer says, as “only an accompanying definition.” The question as to the con-
struction is one of much difficulty. As, however, in case the onws clause is joined
with fv š xels, the sentence becomes very peculiar in its form; as the letter is of
that purely private and personal character which, more easily than other letters
or writings, allows such irregularities as the carrying over of a thought through
an intervening clause to one that follows; and as in each of the three other letters
(Eph., Phil., Col.), which belong to the same period of Paul's life with this one
addressed to Philemon, the declaration is made, after the words expressing thank-
fulness, that the writer prays for the readers, and then a final particle introducing
a clause is added-it seems probable, notwithstanding the cbjections urged by
Meyer, that the Ortos clause is to be united with uvelav TroLOVIL. ÉTÈ TÔV TT pocevxūv.
(d) With respect to the words introduced by CTWS, the following points may be
noticed ;-1. If the clause depends on hvelav TOLOÚllK.7.2., the fact that Paul's
prayers at the opening of his Epistles generally have reference to the individuals
addressed, and, in the case of the Epistles of this section, refer to the attainment
of ÉTiyvwols on their part, points strongly towards the same understanding of this
verse. 2. The probability that this verse is, in its thought, introductory to the
request which is made on behalf of Onesimus in the following verses, favors the
reference of the words to Philemon himself. The action and feeling towards
Onesimus which are asked of him will be an example of what is prayed for in this
clause. 3. The fact that in ver. 7 the thought passes again to ảyáan seems to
show that, in the uniting of faith and love here, the Apostle h25 prominently in
mind the active power of faith in the individual as going out, through love, from
the individual towards others. 4. These considerations, which favor the reference
of Kolvwvía, as well as all the other words, to Philemon, are opposed by the fact
that where a genitive corresponding with rīs diotews, as found here, occurs in the
Pauline Epistles, it always, apparently, is objective. According to the analogy of
other cases, therefore, the phrase means here the participation [of others] in thy
faith-unless indeed, with Hofmann, " KOLV. T. riot, is regarded as a compound
notion, cov depending on the whole phrase, thy participation in faith, which is hardly
to be allowed. The things which point in opposite directions may, perhaps, be
reconciled, either (20) by adopting communication as the meaning of Kolvuvia, after
the analogy of Heb. xiii. 16—the communication of thy faith in the way of acts
of love, or (y) by understanding coliwvia as having the sense of sharing with others,
and rñs riot. as a gen. of possession or of source—the participation with others which
appertains to, or springs from, thy faith.-(e) éveſyns indicates the effective working
of this κοινωνία in its outgoing towards others, and εν επιγ. κ.τ.λ. denotes the sphere
in which this effectiveness has its life:-in the full knowledge of every good thing
which belongs to Christians as looking towards Christ—for His honor, and having
Him as its end. The man whose κοινωνία is thus εν επιγ. ... εις Χρ. will treat
others with Christian love, as Paul would have Philemon treat Onesimus.---(f)
yáp of ver. 7 gives the reason for the Apostle's expression of thankfulness as he
27
418
TO PHILEMON.
THE EPISTLE ANY
hears of Philemon's love, etc., and on the ground of that love, etc. He is thus
thankful for this love always, as he had had much joy in view of the fact that the
hearts of the saints were refreshed by it. There can be but little doubt that xoxov
and xapáv are to be accepted as the correct readings in this verse, instead of
έσχομεν οι έχομεν and χάριν.
.
XLIV. Vv. 8–17.
(a) Auó, which refers to the thought expressed in ver. 7, and thus to the joy and
thankfulness filling Paul's heart for Philemon's love which goes out towards the
saints, shows that the request with regard to Onesimus, which now begins, is so.
immediately connected with the introductory words as to determine the question
of their interpretation.—(0) As to the connection of TOLOŪTOS öv, the passages cited
by Lightf. (Plato Symp. 181 E, Alexis, in Meineke Fragm. Com. iii. p. 99), seem
to show, in opposition to what is affirmed by Meyer, that TOLOŪTOS can be followed
by us, and the fact, also mentioned by Lightf., that all the Greek commentators
connect the words in this way, must be allowed much weight. If this construc-
tion is aliowable, it is more natural and simple than that for which Meyer con-
tends, wlio begins a new sentence with TOLOŪTOS, and translates, “Seeing that I am
so constituted, since such is my manner of thinking and dealing, I exhort thee as
Paul, etc.” On Meyer's view, the TOLOŪTOS öv becomes substantially a new taking
i up of Tokaiv .... ayánny, and the whole sentence as far as tapakarā ce is a
repetition of what has just been said. As to the question whether (if TOLOŪTOS is to
be joined with ws) the clause is to be united with the preceding or the following
Trapakahw,--the close connection in idea of this clause with that of love, and the
fact that the second hapakahū has a very natural emphasis if it begins the new
sentence, favor the view that it belongs with the preceding verb.-(c) Lightf.
conjectures that the word apeolútns is either a form inserted in the text in place
of peoßevrns, or a forin which, in the common dialect of Paul's time, was often
used as equivalent to it. The only reasons for supposing that Paul refers to him-
self as an ambassador here, are the fact that he speaks of himself as such in Eph.
vi. 20, (in that passage, however, he uses the verb apkoßeów), and the difficulty,
whatever it may be, in the application to him of the term “aged man” at this
time. These reasons have no serious weight. His age at the date of this letter
may, not improbably, have been beyond sixty, and his many labors and trials, as
all admit, máy naturally have led him, at times, to feel that he was growing old,
even more rapidly than the years themselves would imply. That Paul was under
sixty at the time of writing the Epistles of this period, is hardly consistent with
the language which he makes use of in them, and also in the Past. Epp. The
conjectural reading or meaning which Lightf. suggests is to be admitted as possible,
but scarcely as that which is most probable. It is recognized by R. V. in the mar-
gin.—d) The emphatic repetition of his feeling of interest in Onesimus under
different forms of expression—TÉKVOV, Šyévvnoa šv Tois Sequois, šuoi εůxonotov, tà
čuà orháyxva, öv ... . KATÉ XELVshows that he must have become very deeply
attached to him, and also that he was desirous of urging Philemon by reason of
this fact to give him a kindly reception.—(e) Tisch. 8, Treg.,. W. and H., Alf., R.
V., agree with Lachm., in omitting où dé of the text as given by Meyer at the
beginning of his note on ver. 12. If this is the correct text, that translation is
best which is given in R. V., whom I have sent (or, as åvéTeuựa is probably an epist-
NOTES.
| 419
olary aorist, I send) back to thee in his own person, that is, my very heart. Lightf., on
the contrary, supposes that a new sentence begins with autóv (even with this text),
and that it depends on the idea of the verb ttpoohaßow, which, however, is, by
reason of inserted clauses, deferred until it appears in another construction in ver.
17. The omission of topograßov in immediate connection with autóv, if this were
the idea in his mind, would seem remarkable even in Paul's writings. If Gù dé
· is to be read, pooraßow, or some such verb, is almost necessarily supplied in
thought, but this is not the case, if these words are omitted.-(f) intèp cow (ver.
13) is, as Meyer says, not equivalent to avrà goû. What Onesimus might be able
to do, in case he remained with "Paul, is conceived of as a service rendered on
behalf of Philemon, since, being a servant of his, he would, in a sense, represent
him in helping and comforting the Apostle. Tò éyadov gov refers to this same
service regarded as good or benefit coming from Philemon. Meyer, Ell., Alf., and
others, give a more general meaning to tò áy, oov. Meyer ohjects to "the restric-
tion of the expression to the given case," because “ Paul did not at all intend to
procure the consent of Philemon and to retain Onesimus.” But Paul is speaking
of the reason why he was unwilling to act without the consent of Philémon, and
the fact that he did not intend to procure Philemon's consent does not prevent his
alluding to the service, in this way, in connection with the setting forth of that
reason.--(9) That aibulov means for eternity is held by most of the recent commen-
tators. That this is not necessarily the signification of the word in such a case is
admitted by Bleek, and is proved by such passages as Exod. xxi. 6. But, not
improbably, this may be the correct view here, because of the contrast with a pòs
öpav, and because the change in Onesimus had given him an entrance into the
Christian life, which endures εις ζωήν αιώνιον. The word αιώνιον in this verse is,
as Meyer says, not an adverb, but an adjective.-(1) KOLvwvóv of ver. 17 can hardly
mean here merely a comrade or intimate friend, as Lightf. explains it. It rather
has a sense connected with Korvwvia. If thou holdest me to be (this is probably the
meaning of š xels, rather than simply hast) a participator, sharer, partner with thy-
self in the Christian faith, etc. If » KOLvwvía k.7.d. of ver. 6 means the sharing
with others which appertains to or springs from thy faith (as it is suggested in
Note XLIII d that it may mean), the connection between the two kindred words
of that verse and the present one is very close.
XLV. Vv. 18–25.
(a) It would seem probable, though not certain, from the use of the word
opɛíhɛl, that Onesimus had robbed Philemon before running away, and it is possible
that this verb serves to define and specify the particular sense in which the more
general word ndiinoev is used here,—showing that the wrong was a taking of
money, which was still due (opeihel, in the present tense).-(6) The verb šypaya
(ver. 19) is clearly a case of the epistolary use of the aorist. There can be no
doubt that it refers exclusively to the words šyà ánocíow, and this verse, accord-
ingly, furnishes a proof that this aor. can thus apply to a passage which wholly
follows it. Not improbably the whole letter may have been written by Paul with
his own hand. But this verb does not prove this to be the fact, nor does it have
any bearing upon the question. It does not even prove that he wrote with his
own hand all the following verses.—(0) Meyer makes īva un héyw depend on
šypapa, éyè anotiow—I write this in order that I may not say, etc. This is pro-
420
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
bably the correct explanation of the present verse. But, as Hackett says, there
may be an omission of some such words as “accept this pledge” (which might
easily suggest themselves) before iva piñ, and it may have been left to the reader
to supply them.—d) The connection of ảváravoóv Mov Tà orháyxva with the
similar words in ver. 7 cannot be doubted. This fact suggests that the whole
letter is closely related to the introductory passage, and thus may have a bearing
upon the interpretation of the difficult sentence in ver. 6, so far as the meaning of
that sentence can be affected by the following context.-(e) Ver. 22 indicates a
similar hope of release from imprisonment to that which we find expressed in
Phil. i. 24. Meyer regards the äua as implying a speedy liberation—"at the
same time with the fulfillment of my request respecting Onesimus (which Paul
must have expected would take place very soon after the receipt of the Epistle],
prepare me also a lodging.” He finds in this aua, also, an argument to show that
the Apostle was at Caesarea when he wrote Eph., Col., and Philem. This view,
however, is not made necessary by this word. The intercourse between Rome and
Colossae may have been as easy and frequent, if not indeed more so, than that
between the latter place and Caesarea. The arguments in favor of the view
that Rome was the place where the three Epistles were written are, on the whole,
-satisfactory, and they are also sufficient to lead to the adoption of that view.
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
HAND-BOOK
TO THE
EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS.
BY
DR. GOTTLIEB LÜNEMANN,
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN BY
REV. PATON J. GLOAG, D. D.
WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES BY
TIMOTHY DWIGHT,
PROFISSOR OF SACRED LITERATURI IN YALE COLLEGIL.
TTT
PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR.
The modern school of exegesis had its rise in Germany. Its excel-
lence and peculiarity consisted in a rigid adherence to the philological
characteristics of the sacred text, and its sole aim was to reproduce the
exact meaning of the original, unbiased by preconceived views,
Among modern exegetes, Meyer undoubtedly holds the first place.
His peculiar excellences, his profound learning, his unrivalled know-
ledge of Hellenistic Greek, his exegetical tact, his philological precision,
his clear and almost intuitive insight into the meaning of the passage
commented on, and his deep reverential spirit, all qualified him for being
an exegete of the first order. Indeed, for the ascertainment of the mean-
ing of the sacred text his commentaries are, and we believe will long con-
tinue to be, unrivalled. These qualifications and acquirements of the
great exegete are well stated by Dr. Dickson, the general editor of this
series, in the general preface affixed to the first volume of the Epistle to
the Romans. The similar commentaries of de Wette are certainly of
very high merit, and have their peculiar excellences; but I do not think
that there can be any hesitation among Biblical scholars in affirming the
superiority of those of Meyer. Perhaps the constant reference to the
opinions of others inserted in the text, the long lists of names of theo-
logians who agree or disagree in certain explanations, and the con-
sequent necessity of the breaking up of sentences by means of parenthetic
clauses, are to the English reader a disadvantage as interrupting the
sense of the passage. Much is inserted into the text which in English
works would be attached as footnotes. Still, however, it has been judged
proper by the general editor to make as little change in the form of the
original as possible.
Meyer himself wrote and published the Commentaries on the Gospels,
on the Acts, and on the Pauline Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon in ten
volumes—a monument of gigantic industry and immense erudition.
Indeed, the treatment of each of these volumes is so thorough, so exhaust-
ive, and so satisfactory, that its composition would be regarded as suf-
HUU
1 [According to the plan of the American Edition, many references, etc., have been
transferred to the foot-notes.]
423
424
PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR.
ficient work for the life of an ordinary man; what, then, must we think
of the labors and learning of the man who wrote these ten volumes ?
The other books of the New Testament in the series were undertaken by
able coadjutors. Dr. Lünemann wrote the Commentaries on the Epistles
to the Thessalonians and Hebrews, Dr. Huther on the Pastoral and
Catholic Epistles, and Dr. Düsterdieck on the Apocalypse. .
The Commentaries of Lünemann, Huther, and Düsterdieck are
undeniably inferior to those of Meyer. We feel the want of that undefin-
able spiritual insight into the meaning of the passage which is so charac-
teristic of all that Meyer has written, and, accordingly, we do not place
the same reliance on the interpretations given. But still the exegetical
acumen and learning of these commentators are of a very high order,
and will bear no unfavorable comparison with other writers on the
same books of the New Testament. Indeed, in this Commentary on the
Epistles to the Thessalonians, by Dr. Lünemann, with which we are at
present concerned, its inferiority to the writings of Meyer is not very
sensibly felt; there is here ample evidence of profound learning, sound
exegesis, sober reasoning and a power of discrimination among various
opinions. The style also is remarkably clear for a German exegete; and
although there is often difficulty in finding out the exact meaning of
those whose opinions he states, there is no difficulty in discovering his
own views. Occasionally there is a tedious minuteness, but this is refer-
able to the thoroughness with which the work is executed. Of course, in
these translations the same caveat has to be made that was made in regard
to Meyer's Commentaries, that the translators are not to be held as
concurring with the opinions given ; at the same time, in this Comment-
ary there is little which one who is bound to the most confessional views
can find fault with. The first edition of this Commentary was published
in 1850, the second in 1859, and the third, from which this translation
is made, in 1867.1
We have, in conformity with the other volumes, attempted to give a
list of the exegetical literature of the Epistles to the Thessalonians.
For commentaries and collections of notes embracing the New Testament,
see the preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew; and for
commentaries on the Pauline Epistles, see the preface to the Comment-
ary on the Epistle to the Romans. The literature restricted to the
Epistles to the Thessalonians is somewhat meagre. Articles and mono-
graphs on chapters or sections are noticed by Dr. Lünemann in the places
to which they refer; and especially a list of the monographs on the cele-
brated passage concerning "the Man of Sin” (2 Thess. ii. 1-12), as given
by Dr. Lünemann, is to be found in p. 203 of this translation. The
1[The fourth edition was published in 1878.]
PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR.
425
10
reader is also referred to Alford's Greek Testament as being peculiarly
full on these Epistles, and as following the same track as Dr. Lüne-
mann. I would only further observe that the remarks made in this
Commentary on the Schriftbeweis of the late von Hofmann of Erlangen
appear to be too severe. Hofmann is certainly often guilty of arbitrary
criticism, and introduces into the sacred text his own fancied interpreta-
tions; but the Schriftbeweis is a work of great learning and ingenuity, and
may be read with advantage by every scholar.
PATON J. GLOAG.
GALASHIELS, November 1880.
NAT
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
ARETIUS (Benedictus), † 1574: Commentarius in utramque Pauli Epistolam ad
Thessalonicenses. .
1580.
AUBERLEN (Karl August), † 1864, and RIGGENBACH (C. J.): Lange's Bibelwerk
N. T. Thessalonicher.
Bielefeld, 1859–73.
Translated from the German by John Lillie, D. D. New York, 1869.
BAUMGARTEN-CRUSIUS (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), † 1843: Commentar uber d.
Philipper- u. Thessalonicherbriefe.
Jena, 1848.
BRADSHAW (W.): Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians.
London, 1620.
CASE (Thomas): Exposition of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. 1670.
CHANDLER (Samuel), † 1766: A critical and practical commentary on First
and Second Thessalonians.
London, 1777.
CRELLIUS (Joannes), † 1633 : Commentarius in utramque ad Thessalonicenses
.. Epistolam. Opera I.
1636.
CROCIUS (Joannes), † 1659: In Epistolas ad Thessalonicenses.
DIEDRICH: Die Briefe St. Pauli an die Eph. Phil. Koloss. und Thess. 1858.
DoDs (Marcus, D.D.), of Glasgow: First and Second Thessalonians; Schaff's
Popular Commentary.
New York, 1883.
EADIE (John, D. D.), † 1877, of Glasgow: A commentary on the Greek text of
the Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians.
London, 1877.
ELLICOTT (Charles J.), Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol: St. Paul's Epistles to
the Thessalonians.
London, 1858, 3d ed. 1866.
FERGUSON (James), † 1667, Minister at Kilwinning: Exposition of First and
Second Epistles to the Thessalonians.
1674.
FLATT (Johann Friedrich von), † 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tübingen: Vorlesun-
gen in die Briefe Pauli. .
Tübingen, 1829.
HOFMANN (Christopher): Commentarius in posteriorem Epistolam ad Thessa-
lonicenses.
Frankfurt, 1545.
HOFMANN (Johann Christian Konrad von), † 1878, Prof. Theol. at Erlangen:
Die heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zasummenhängend untersucht.
I. Theil Thessalonicherbriefe.
Nördlingen, 1869.
HUNNIUS (Aegilius), † 1603: Expositio epistolarum ad Thessalonicenses.
Frankfurt, 1603.
JACKSON: Exposition on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. London, 1621.
427
428
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
JEWELL (John), † 1571, Bishop of Salisbury: An exposition of the two Epistles
to the Thessalonians.
London, 1583.
JOWETT (Benjamin), Master of Balliol College, Oxford: The Epistles of St. Paul
to the Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans, with critical notes and
dissertations.
London, 1855.
KOCH (A.): Commentar über d. 1 Thessalonicherbrief.
Berlin, 1869.
KRAUSE (Friedrich August Wilhelm), † 1827, Tutor at Vienna: Die Briefe an
die Philipper und Thessalonicher übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen
begleitet.
Frankfurt, 1790.
LANDREBEN (Arnold): Erklärung über d. zwei Briefe an die Thess.
Frankfurt, 1707.
LILLIE (John, D. D.): Revised version, with notes, of the Epistles of Paul to the
Thessalonians.
New York, 1856.
MASON (A. J.), Cambridge: First and Second Thessalonians and First Peter:
Ellicott's New Testament Commentary.
1879.
MÖLLER (J. A.): De Wette's Exeget. Hanbuch z. N. T. Galater- u. Thessalon-
icherbriefe. 3d Aufl. v. Möller. -
Leipsic, 1864.
MUSCULUS (or MEUSSLIN] (Wolfgang), † 1563, Prof. Theol. in Berne: In Epist.
ad Thessalonicenses ambas commentarii.
Basil, 1565.
OLSHAUSEN (Hermann), † 1839: Biblisher Commentar ü. d. N. T. Theil IV.
Galater, Epheser, Colesser, u. Thessalon.
Königsberg, 1840.
Translated by a clergyman of the Church of England.
T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1851.
PATERSON (Alexander S., D. D.), of Glasgow : Commentary, expository and
practical, on First Thessalonians.
Edinburgh, 1857.
PELT (Anton Friedrich Ludwig), † 1861: Pauli Epist. ad Thess.
Gryphiswaldiae, 1829.
PHILLIPS (John): The Greek of the First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
explained.
London, 1751.
mino
REICHE (Johann Georg): Authentiae posteris ad Thessalonicenses Epistolae
yindiciae.
Göttingen, 1830.
ROLLOCK (Robert): In Epistolam Paulo ad Thess. priorem comm. In Epistolam
posteriorem comm.
Edin. 1598.
Lectures upon First and Second Thessalonians. Edinburgh, 1606.
SCHLEIERMACHER (Friedrich Daniel Ernest), † 1834: Pauli Epistolae ad Thessa-
lonicenses.
Berlin, 1823.
SCHLICHTING (Jonas), † 1564: In Epistolas ad Thessalonicenses Commentaria.
1656.
SCHMID (Sebastian), † 1696, Prof. Theol. at Strasburg: Paraphrasis utriusque
Epist. ad Thess.
Hamburg, 1691.
SCHMIDT (Prof. Paul.), Der erste Thessalonicherbrief, neu erklärt; Neben einem
Excurs über den zweiten gleichnahmigen Brief.
1884.
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
429:
SCHOTT (Heinrich August), t. 1835, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Epistclae Pauli ad
. Thess. et Gal.
Leipsic, 1834.
SCLATER (Dr. W.): A brief exposition, with notes on First and Second
- Thessalonians.
London, 1629.
SPEAKER'S [BIBLE] Commentary: First and Second Thessalonians; Introduction
and Commentary by the Lord Bishop of Derry.
London and New York, 1882.
TURRETINI (Jean Alphonse), Prof. Theol. at Geneva: Commentarius theoretico-
practicus in Ep. ad Thess. Opera II.
Basil, 1739.
WELLERUS (Hieronymus), † 1572: Commentarius in Epistolas Pauli ad Phil. et
ad Thess.
Noribergae, 1561
WILLICHIUS (Iodicus): Commentarius in utramque Epistolam ad Thessaloni-
censes.
Argentorati, 1545.
ZACHARIAE (Gotthilf Traugott), † 1777, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Paraphrastische
Erklärung der Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., Phil., Col. und Thess.
Göttingen (1771], 1787.
ZANCHIUS (Hieronymus), † 1590: Commentarius in D. Pauli 1 et 2 Thessaloni-
censes Epist. Opera VI.
1595.
ZUINGLIUS (Ulricus), † 1531 : Annotationes ad 1 Thessalonicenses. Opera IV.
!
THE
FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
LAT
DTC
ULUD
INTRODUCTION.'
SEC. I.—THE CHURCH.
so HESSALONICA, the ancient Oépun (Herod. vii. 121'; Thuc. i.
61, al.), the Salneck celebrated by the German poets of the
Middle Ages, now Saloniki, situated in the form of an amphi-
S theatre on the slope of a hill at the north-east corner of the
Thermaic gulf, was in the time of Christ the capital of the second
district of the Roman province of Macedonia (Liv. xlv. 29), and the
seat of a Roman praetor and questor (Cic. Planc. 41). The city was
rebuilt, embellished, and peopled by the settlement of the inhabitants
of the surrounding districts by Cassandra, who called it Thessalonica
(first. mentioned among the Greeks by Polybius), in honor of his
wife Thessalonica, the daughter of the elder Philip. So we are informed
in Dionys. Halicarn. Antiq. Rom. i. 49; Strabo, vii. fin. vol. i. p. 480,
ed. Falconer; Zonaras, Annal. xii. 26, vol. i. p. 635, ed. Du Fresne.
Their account is more credible than the statement given by Stephan.
Byzant. de urb. et popul. s. V. Deocahovíkn, Tzetza, chil. x. 174 ff. (yet with
both along with the above view), and the emperor Julian (Oratio iii. p.
200; Opp. Par. 1630, 4), that the change of name proceeded from Philip
of Macedon to perpetuate his victory over the Thessalians (Oeccałāv...
vírn). By its situation on the Thermaic gulf, and on the great commercial
road (the so-called via Ignatia) which led from Dyrrachium, traversed
Macedonia, extended to Thrace to the mouth of the Hebrus (Strabo, vii.
vol. i. p. 467), and accordingly united Italy with Asia, Thessalonica became
a flourishing commercial town,—great, rich, and populous by its trade
(Strabo, vii. vol. i. p. 468: ñ vữv páncota Tõv anawv ε'avopɛi), luxurious and
1 See Burgerhoudt, de coetus Christianorum
Thessalonicensis ortu fatisquc et prioris Pauli
iis scriptae epistolae consilio atque argumento,
Lugd. Bat. 1825.
2 See Tafel, de Thessalonica ejusque agro
dissertio geographica, Berol. 1839. Cousinéry,
voyaye dans la Macédoine, vol. I. Par. 1831, p.
23 ff.
431
432
. THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
licentious by its riches. Greeks formed the stock of its inhabitants; 'next
in number were the Roman colonists; and there was also a considerable
Jewish population, who had been attracted by the briskness of trade, and
were so considerable that, instead of a mere s potevxý (see Meyer on Acts
xvi. 13), they possessed a synagogue proper (Acts xvii. 1).? Already in the
time of Christ Thessalonica was named by Antipater uñimp . . . Táons
Makedovins (comp. Anthol. gr., ed Jacobs, vol. II. Lips. 1794, p. 98); in the
fifth century it was the metropolis of Thessaly, Achaia, and other prov-
inces which were under the praefectus praetorio of Illyricum, who
resided at Thessalonica. Many wars in subsequent ages oppressed the
city; but as often as it was conquered and destroyed by the barbarians, it
always rose to new greatness and power. Its union with the Venetians,
to whom, on the weakness of the Greek empire, the Thessalonians sold
. their city—was at length the occasion of its becoming, in the year 1430, a
prey to the Turks. Even at this day Thessalonica, after Constantinople,
is one of the most flourishing cities of European Turkey.
Paul reached Thessalonica, so peculiarly favorable for a rapid and wide
diffusion of Christianity, on his second great missionary journey (see
Meyer on Rom., ed. iv. p. 8 f.), when for the first time he came into
Europe, in the year 53. He journeyed thither from Philippi by Amphi-
polis and Apollonia (Acts xvii. 1), accompanied by two apostolic assistants,
Silas (Silvanus) and Timotheus (see Acts xvii. 4, comp. with xvi. 3 and
xvii. 14; see also Phil. ii. 22 comp. with Acts xvi. 3, 12 ff.). Paul, faithful
to his custom, first turned himself to the Jews, but of them he gained only
a few converts for the gospel. He found greater access among the prose-
lytes and Gentiles (Acts xvii. 4). There arose, after the lapse of a few
weeks (comp. also Phil. iv. 16), a mixed Christian congregation in Thes-
salonica, composed of Jews and Gentiles, but the latter much more
numerous (i. 9 and Acts xvii. 4, according to Lachmann's correct reading).
The Jews, embittered by this success among the Gentiles, raised a tumult,
in consequence of which the apostle was forced to forsake Thessalonica
(Acts xvii. 5 ff.). Conducted by night to the neighboring Macedonian
city of Berea, Paul found there, among Jews and Gentiles, the most ready
reception for the gospel. But scarcely had the news of this reached his
opponents in Thessalonica than they hastened to Berea, and, stirring up
the multitude, expelled the apostle from that city also. Yet Silas and
Timotheus remained behind, for the confirmation and further instruction
of the church at Berea. Paul himself directed his steps to Athens, and
1 At present there are about 22,000 Jews in Saloniki.
INTRODUCTION.
433
from thence, after a short residence, to Corinth, where he remained more
than a year and a half (Acts xvii. 10 ff., xviii.). At a later period, the
third great missionary journey of the apostle led him repeatedly back to
Thessalonica (Acts xx. 1 ff.)
SEC II.—OCCASION, DESIGN, AND CONTENTS.
The persecution which had driven the apostle from Thessalonica soon
also broke out against the church (ii. 14, iii. 3, i. 6). Thus it was not the
mere yearning of personal love and attachment (ii. 17 ff.), but also care
and anxiety (iii. 5) that urged him to hasten back to Thessalonica. Twice
he resolved to do so, but circumstances prevented him (ii. 18). Accord-
ingly, no longer able to master his anxiety, he sent Timotheus, who had
not suffered in the earlier persecution, from Athens (see on iii. 1, 2), in
order to receive from him information concerning the state of the church,
and to strengthen the Thessalonians by exhortation, and encourage them
to faithful endurance. The return of Timotheus (iii. 6), and the message -
which he brought, were the occasion of the Epistle. This message was in
the main consolatory. The church, in spite of persecution and trial, con-
tinued stedfast and unshaken in the faith (i. 6, ii. 14), so that its members
could be named as examples for Christians in all Macedonia and Achaia
(i. 7), and their heroic faith was everywhere spread abroad (i. 8). They
were also distinguished by their active brotherly love (i. 3, iv. 9, 10), and,
upon the whole, by their faithful adherence to those rules of conduct
pointed out to them by the apostle (iv. 1). Moreover, they had an affec-
tionate remembrance of the apostle (iii. 6), and their congregational life
had so flourished that the gifts of the Holy Spirit (v. 19) and prophecy (v.
20) were manifested among them. But Timotheus had also to tell of
defect and incompleteness (iii. 10). The church had not yet succeeded in
preserving itself unstained by the two cardinal vices of heathenism–sen-
suality and covetousness (iv. 3 ff.); they had not everywhere shown to the
presbyters due respect and obedience (v. 12); and in consequence of their
thought and feeling being inordinately directed to the advent of Christ, an
unsettled and excited habit prevailed, which led to the neglect of the duties
of their earthly calling, and to idleness (iv. 11 ff.). Lastly, the church was
in great perplexity concerning the fate of their deceased Christian friends,
being uncertain whether only those who were then alive, or whether also
deceased Christians, participated in the blessings of the advent (iv. 13 ff.).
Concerning this subject, it would appear, to judge from the introductory
words of iv. 13, that the Thessalonians had requested information from
the apostle.
434
.
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
The design of the Epistle accordingly was threefold. 1. The apostle,
whilst testifying his joy for their conduct hitherto, would strengthen and
encourage the church to persevering stedfastness in the confession of
Christianity. 2. He would exhort them to relinquish those moral weak-
nesses by which they were still 'enfeebled. 3. He would calm and con-
sole them concerning the fate of the deceased by a more minute instruc-
tion in reference to the advent.
REMARK.—The opinion of Lipsius (Theol. Stud. 2. Krit. 1854, 4, p. 905 ff.),
that the design of the Epistle is to be sought for in considering it as a polemic
directed against Judaistic opponents, is to be rejected as entirely erroneous. The
supposed traces indicating this, which the Epistle is made to contain in rich
abundance, are only forcibly pressed into the service. From i. 4-ii. 12, Lipsius
infers that the apostolical dignity of Paul had been attacked, or at least threatened,
in Thessalonica; for it must have been for reasons of a personal nature that Paul
so repeatedly and designedly puts stress upon his mode of preaching the gospel,
his personal relation to the Thessalonians, the reception and entrance which he
had found among them. But such an inference is wholly inadmissible, as every-
thing that Paul says concerning himself and his conduct has in the context its
express counterpart—its express correlative. In the whole section, i. 2-ii. 16 (for
the whole, and not merely i. 4-ii. 12, according to Lipsius, is closely connected
together), the corresponding conduct of the Thessalonians is placed over against the
conduct of Paul and his companions. There is therefore no room for the suppo-
sition, that in what Paul remarks concerning himself there is a tacit polemical
reference to third persons, namely, to Judaistic opponents; rather the apostle's
design in the section i. 2-ii. 16 is to bring vividly before the Thessalonians the
facts of their conversion, in order to encourage them to stedfastness in Christianity
by the representation of the grace of God, which was abundantly manifested amid
those troubles and persecutions which had broken out upon them. Besides, the
opinion of Lipsius, if we are to measure it according to the standard of his own
suppositions, must appear unfounded. According to Lipsius, the opponents, with
whom the apostle had to do in Thessalonica, were unconverted Jews, and only as a
later effect of their machinations Paul was afraid of the formation of a Judaizing
Christian party at Thessalonica, so that his labor was only directed to prevent and
to make the attempt while yet there was time, whether the formation of a Jewish-
Christian faction could not be suppressed in its first germs. But where in early
Christianity is there any example of the apostolical dignity of Paul being dis-
puted by the unconverted Jews ? Such attacks, in the nature of the case, were
raised against Paul only by the Jewish Christians; whereas the unconverted Jews
naturally labored only to hinder him in the diffusion of the gospel, and accord-
ingly manifested their hostility by acts of external violence, by opposition to his
preaching, by laying snares for his life, etc. Comp. Acts ix. 23 ff., xiii. 45, xvii.
5, 13, xxii. 22, al.–From what has been said it follows how arbitrary it is when
Lipsius further makes a selection from the account in ii. 3 ff., that the mention of
Trávn, ákalapola, 86hos, avopatois åpéokety, 26yos kohakelas, apóbaris Theovešias, and
ζητείν εξ ανθρώπων δόξαν, was designed to defend the apostle from the reproaches
which, in point of fact, had been raised against him, on the part of the Jews, at
INTRODUCTION.
435
Thessalonica; that, according to ii. 7 ff., the purity of his motives was doubted;
and that, according to ii. 13, it had been contended from a Judaistic point of view
that his word was a human ordinance, and not founded on divine truth. Every-
thing there adduced is explained simply and without any violence from the speci-
fied design of the apostle, without our being constrained to think on any polemical
subsidiary references. Where do we find a similar polemic in Paul, in which
everything is veiled in mysterious darkness, and what is really intended never
openly and decidedly brought forward ? For no unprejudiced reader would
maintain that the passage ii. 14–16, which Lipsius, entirely mistaking the whole
plan of the Epistle, calls its most characteristic section, warrants, on account of
the violent outburst against the Jews contained in it, the inferences which he
deduces from it. Further, when Lipsius makes the yearning of the apostle after
the Thessalonians expressed in ii. 17–20, and his twofold resolution to return to
them, occasioned because he saw in spirit the church perverted and distracted by
the same hateful Judaistic opponents who caused him so much grief in Galatia, so
that he wished to be personally present in Thessalonica in order to baffle the
attacks of those enemies, all that he would here prove is forcibly introduced into
the text. Paul himsell, in iii. 1 ff., states the reason of his anxiety and twofold
proposed journey quite differently. Certainly what Paul himself here says has
little authority for Lipsius. He thinks that only a "slight power of combina-
tion" (!) is requisite in order to perceive that it is not here only the effect of
external trials that Paul feared; certainly it is only of this that the apostle
directly speaks, but surely the confirmation and encouragement in the faith was a
yet deeper reason, namely, the reason given by Lipsius (!).-When, further, Lip-
sius refers telpáčelv, iii. 5, to "the machinations of the Judaists,” this is a violence
done to iii. 3 ; when, in fine, he discovers in v. 21, "an exhortation to caution in
reference to those teachers who—to obtain for themselves an undisturbed entrance
under the pretext of the free Christian xápioua of prophecy-might aim at the
subversion of the faith planted by Paul," and in v. 22 a reference to “ Judaistic
machinations,” these special explanations are nothing else than the vagaries of
the imagination, which are not able to stand before a pure and thoughtful inter-
pretation
The same remark, moreover, holds good of the opinion recently advanced by
Hofmann (Die heil. Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhängend untersucht, part 1,
Nördl. 1862, p. 270 f.), that the first part of the Epistle was occasioned by the
news brought by Timotheus to the apostle, that the Christians in Thessalonica
had been persuaded by their heathen countrymen that they had become the prey
of self-interested and crafty men, been involved by them in their Jewish machina-
tions, and then given up to the misery occasioned thereby; and also that the
Thessalonians could not understand why, during the whole time of their distress,
Paul remained at a distance from them, and on this account they felt their dis-
tress the more severely. To all this the contents of the first three chapters were
an answer. They were designed to deliver the church from their depressed frame
of mind, to meet the suspicions they entertained of their teachers and founders,
and to efface the evil impression which their, and especially Paul's absence, made
on them. This threefold design was sufficiently satisfied by the three sections, i.
2-10, ii. 1-12, ii. 13-iii. 13.
According to its contents, the Epistle is divided into two parts.
After
436
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
the salutation (i. 1) in the first or historical part, taken up with personal
references (i. 2-iii. 13), Paul declares first, in general terms, his joy,
expressed in thanksgiving, for the Christian soundness of the church (i. 2,
3); and then in separate particulars, in an impressive and eloquent de-
scription, he asserts the operation of the grace of God manifested in their
conversion to Christianity; whilst the gospel had been preached by him,
the apostle, with energy and confidence, with undaunted, pure, and self-
sacrificing love to his divine calling, and had been received by them, the
Thessalonians, with eager desire, and stedfastly maintained amid suffering
and persecution (i. 4-ii. 16). Paul then speaks of the longing which came
upon him, of the mission of Timotheus, and of the consolation which the
return of Timotheus had now imparted to him (ii. 17-iii. 13). In the
second or ethical-dogmatic párt (iv. 1-v. 28) the apostle beseeches and exhorts
the Thessalonians to make progress in holiness, to renounce fornication
and covetousness (iv. 1-8), to increase yet more and more in brotherly
love (iv. 9, 10), and, instead of surrendering themselves to an unsettled
disposition and to excitement, to be diligent and laborious in their worldly
business (iv. 11, 12). The apostle then comforts them concerning the
fate of their friends who had died before the advent, and exhorts them to
be ever watchful and prepared for the coming of the Lord (iv. 13-v. 11).
Then follow divers exhortations, and the wish that God would sanctify
the Thessalonians wholly for the coming of Christ (v. 12-24). Concluding
remarks succeed (v. 25–27), and the usual benediction (v. 28).
,
oldly
SEC. 3.-TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION...
When Paul composed this Epistle a long time could not have elapsed
since the founding of the church of Thessalonica. The apostle is as yet
entirely full of the impression which his residence in Thessalonica had
made upon him; he lives and moves so entirely in the facts of the con-
version of the Thessalonians and of his personal conduct to them, that
only events can be here described which belong to the recent past. To
this also points the fact that the longing after the Thessalonians which
came over the apostle soon after his separation from them (ii. 17), still
endures at the moment when he is composing this Epistle (iii. 11).
And lastly, the whole second or moral-dogmatic portion of the Epistle
shows that the Thessalonian Church, although in many respects already
eminent and flourishing, as yet consisted only of novices in Christianity.
Moreover, when Paul composed this Epistle, according to i. 7, 8, he had
already preached the gospel in Achaia. According to iii. 6 (åpti), the
INTRODUCTION.
437
Epistle was written immediately after the return of Timothéus from Thes-
salonica. But from Acts xviii. 5, 6, we learn that Timotheus and Silas,
returning from Macedonia, rejoined Paul at Corinth at a time when he
had not long sojourned there; as until then the gospel was preached by
him chiefly to the Jews. Thus, then, there can exist no reason to doubt
that the composition of this Epistle is to be assigned to the commencement
of Paul's residence at Corinth, thus in the year 53, perhaps half a year after
the arrival of the apostle in Macedonia, or after his flight from Thessa-
lonica (comp. Wieseler's Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, Göttingen
1848, p. 40 ft).
The subscription of the Epistle: εγράφη από 'Αθηνών, is consequently
erroneous, arising from a careless inference drawn from iii. 1. Not only
the modification of this view .by Theodoret, followed by Hemming, Bul-
linger, Balduin, and Aretius, that the first visit of the apostle to Athens
(Acts xvii. 15 ff.) is here to be thought of,' is to be rejected; but also the
suppositions of others, differing among themselves, according to which a
later residence of the apostle at Athens is referred to. According to Calo-
vius and Böttger (Beitr. zur hist.-krit. Einleit. in die Paulin. Br., Gött. 1837,
Part III. p. 18 ff.), our Epistle was written at Athens on a subsequent
excursion which Paul made to that city during his first residence at Cor-
inth (against Böttger, see Wieseler's Chron. p. 247); according to Wurm
(Tübing. Zeitschr. f. Theologie, 1833, Part I. p. 73 ff.), on a journey which
Paul undertook at the time indicated in Acts xviii. 22 from Antioch to
Greece (see against him Schneckenburger in the Studien der ev. Geistlich-
keit Würtembergs, 1834, vol. VII. Part I. p. 137 ff.); according to Schrader
(Apostel Paulus, Part I. p. 90 ff., p. 162 ff.), at the time indicated in Acts
XX. 2, 3, after a third (?) visit of the apostle to the Thessalonians (see
against him Schneckenburger, Beit. zur Einleit. in's N. T. p. 165 ff. ; Schott,
proleg. p. 14 ff.); according to Köhler (Ueber die Abfassungszeit der epistolis-
chen Schriften in N. T. p. 112 f.) and Whiston (Primitive Christianity Revived,
vol. III., Lond. 1711, p. 46 f., p. 110), at a residence in Athens at a period
beyond the history contained in the Acts, Köhler assuming the year 66,
and Whiston the yeår 67 after Christ as the period of composition (see
against the former, Schott, proleg. p. 21 ff.; and against the latter, Ben-
son's Paraphrase and Notes, 2d ed. p. 9 ff.).
1 Euthalius (in Zacagn. Collectan. monument.
vet. t. I. p. 650), and Oecumenius following
him verbatim, do not judge so. For although
they assume the place of composition to be
Athens, yet they must have thought on a
later residence in Athens than Acts xvii. 15
ff. For after the words : Taúrny & LOTÉRIEL
&Ò 'Anvūv, in giving the occasion of the
Epistle, they add:'0 åóctonos moldás Odivels
madàv ¿v Bepoią kai év DIMÍTOLS TÑS Makedovias
kai év Kopívou ... &rootéiel Temódcov após
autoùs metà rîs ¿T LOTOdñs taúrns.
438
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
408
SEC. 4.-GENUINENESS.
The historical attestation of the Epistle, although there are no sure indi-
cations of it found in the apostolic Fathers,' is yet so old, continuous, and
universal (Iren. Haer. v. 6.1; Clein. Al. Paedag. i. p. 88 D, ed. Sylb.; Ter-
cion [in Tert. adv. Marc. v. 15, and Epiph. Haer. xlii. 9], etc., see van
Manen, 1.c. pp. 5–21), that a justifiable reason for doubting its authen-
ticity from external grounds is inconceivable.
Schrader was the first to call in question the genuineness from internal
grounds (Apostel Paulus, Part V., Leipz. 1836, p. 23 ff.). In his paraphrase
on iii. 13, iv. 2, 3,6,9, 10, 14, 17, v. 8, 10, 19, 23, 26, 27, he thought that he had
discovered suspicious abnormal expressions (see exposition of these pas-
sages). Baur (Paulus der Ap. Jesu.Chr. Stuttg. 1845, p. 480 ff., see against
him, W. Grimm in den Stud. U. Krit. 1850, IV. p. 753 ff.; J. P. Lange, das
apost. Zeitalter, vol. 1., 1853, p. 108 ff. Davidson, Introd., N. T., London, 1868,
vol. I., p. 20 ff.), in a detailed justification of his formerly cherished doubts
(see Baur, die sogen. Pastoralbriefe des Ap. P., Stuttg. u. Tüb. 1835), but until
then only merely asserted, questions the genuineness of the Epistle. Ata
still later period he has maintained its spuriousness in his and Zeller's Theol.
Jahrb. 1855, Part II. p. 141 ff.? A. B., van der Vriess alone has agreed with
him (De beide Brieven aan de Thessalonicensen, historisch-Kritisch onderzoek
naar hunnen oorsprung, Leyden, 1865, see in opposition to him: Hilgen-
feld, in his Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1866, 2, p. 295 ff.).
The arguments insisted upon by Baur in his Apostel Paulus are the fol-
lowing :-1. In the whole collection of Pauline Epistles there is none so
inferior in the character and importance of its contents as 1 Thessalo-
nians; with the exception of the view contained in iv. 13–18, no dogmatic
general instructions, exhortations, wishes, such as are in the other Epistles
mere adjuncts to the principal contents; but here what is in other cases
only an accessory is converted into the principal matter. This insignifi-
cánce of contents, the want of any special aim and of any definite occa-
1 See W. C. van Manen, Onderzoek naar de
echtheid van Paulus' eersten brief aan de Thes-
salonicensen (De echtheid van Paulus' brieven
aan de Thess. onderzocht. I.), Weesp. 1865.
2 Such references are erropeously supposed
to be found in Clem. Rom. ep. I. ad Corinth.
38. Ignat. ad Polyc. I. Polyc. ad Philipp. ii. 4.
8 The difference of Baur's views in reference
to the First Epistle in this last-mentioned
place consists in this :-1. That the presumed
dependence of our Epistle on the Corinthian
Epistles is more emphatically stated and
supported by some further parallels forcibly
brought together; 2. Not, as formerly (comp.
Baur's Apost. Paulus, p. 488), the First, but
the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, is
regarded as having been written first; and
from its spuriousness, as it was not composed
until the death of Nero, the spuriousness of
our Epistle is inferred.
INTRODUCTION.
439
sion, is a mark of un-Pauline origin. 2. The Epistle betrays a depend-
ence on the Acts of the Apostles and on the other Pauline Epistles,
especially those to the Corinthians. 3. The Epistle professes to have
been written only a few months after the apostle's first visit to Thessa-
lonica, and yet there is a description of the condition of the church which
evidently only suits a church already existing for a considerable time.
4. What the Epistle in iv. 14–18 contains concerning the resurrection of
the dead, and the relation of the departed and the living to the advent of
Christ, seems to agree very well with 1 Cor. xv. 52; but it goes farther, and
gives such a concrete representation of those transcendent matters as we
never elsewhere find with the apostle.
As to the first objection, according to Baur's view, our Epistle "arose
from the same interest in the advent, which is still more decidedly ex-
pressed in the second Epistle.” Baur, then, must have considered all the
other contents of the Epistle only as a foil for this one idea; and as in his
representation of the Pauline doctrine (p. 507 ff.) he judged the escha-
tology of Paul not worth an explanation, it is not to be wondered at that he
considered it impossible that Paul could have made the advent the chief
subject of a whole Epistle. But apart from this, that, according to other
testimonies of the Pauline Epistles, the idea of an impending advent had
a great practical weight with the apostle; that, further, the expectation
of it and of the end of the world in connection with it, was well fitted to
produce the greatest excitement in a church the majority of which con-
sisted of converted heathens, so that it was necessary to calm them con-
cerning it; that, lastly, the explanation concerning the advent in so many
special points, as, for example, concerning the relation of unbelievers, etc.,
is left entirely untouched, so that the interest in the advent in and for
itself cannot have been the reason for this instruction, but only a peculiar
want of the church : apart from all these considerations, the disorder exist-
ing among the Thessalonians on account of the advent does not form the
chief contents of the Epistle, but only one point along with others which
gave occasion to its composition. Add to this, that all the further cir-
cumstances, which were the occasion of our Epistle, present themselves
before us in it, united together with such clearness and in so living a
character, as to form a distinct general picture of the Thessalonian
church, so that it cannot be asserted that there is a want of a definite
exciting occasion (comp. sec. 2). It is admitted that the didactic and dog-
matic element in our Epistle recedes before the hortatory, and generally
before the many personal references of the apostle's love and care for the
440
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
church; but the amount more or less of dogmatic explanations can never
decide whether an epistle belongs to Paul or not. The Epistles of the
apostle are not the products of Christian learning in the study, but were
called forth by the urgency of circumstances, and thus are always the
products of historical necessity. We have then only to inquire whether
our Epistle corresponds to the relations of the church, which it presup-
poses; if it does correspond with the relations and wants of the church, as
is evident to every unprejudiced mind, its contents receive thereby the
importance and special interest which Baur misses. Lastly, it is not true
that the instructions, exhortations, and wishes in our Epistle are of so
general a nature, that what is elsewhere a mere accessory is here raised
into an essential. Rather an exhortation is never found in our Epistle,
which had not a special reference to the peculiar condition of the Thessa-
lonian church.
As regards the second argument, a use of the Acts of the Apostles by the
author of the Epistle is inferred chiefly from the fact that the Epistle is
nothing else than an extended statement, reminding the Thessalonians of
what was already well known to them, of the history of their conversion,
known to us from the Acts. Thus i. 4 ff. merely states how the apostle
preached the gospel to them, and how they received it; ii. 1 ff. points
more distinctly to the circumstances of the apostle's coming to Thessa-
lonica, and the way in which he labored among them; iii. 1 ff. relates only
what happened a short time before, and what the Thessalonians already
knew. Everywhere (comp. already Schrader, supra, p. 24) only such
things are spoken of as the readers knew well already, as the writer him-
self admits by the perpetually recurring eidotes (i. 4), avtoì yap oïdate (ii. 1),
kabùs vidare (ii. 2), uvnLovevete yáp (ii. 9), kallámtep oidare (ii. 11), avtoi yàp
oidate (iii. 3), kadws kai šyéveto kai oidate (iii. 4), oidate yáp (iv. 2). In answer
to-this objection, it is to be observed : (1) Apart from the inconsistency
that what, according to Baur, should be only a foil is here converted into
the chief contents; the history of the conversion of the Thessalonians does
not form the chief contents of the Epistle, but only the contents of a por-
tion of the first or historical half. (2) The remembrance of the founding
of the church was not useless, nor a mere effusion of the heart (de Wette),
but an essential part of the design of the apostle, serving as it did to
strengthen and invigorate the church in stedfastness in the faith. (3)
The often repeated appeal to the consciousness of the readers is so much
the more natural as it refers to facts which happened during the apostle's
recent visit to Thessalonica, and with which his mind was completely
INTRODUCTION.
441
Coccupied. (4) The supposed lengthiness is only the fullness and inspirited
liveliness of the discourse. (5) If the account of the conversion of the
Thessalonians as described in the Epistle is in agreement with the narra-
tive in the Acts, this circumstance is not a point against, but for the
authenticity of our Epistle, inasmuch as Baur's view that the Acts is a
patched work of the second century, ransacking Christian history for a
definite purpose, and accordingly designedly altering it (see Baur, Ap.
Paulus, p. 180), merits no respect on account of its arbitrariness and want
of consistency. (6). Lastly, the harmony between the Acts and our
Epistle is so free, so unforced, and so slightly pervading (comp. iii. 1, 2,
with Acts xvii. 15, xviii. 5), that a literary use of the one by the other is
absolutely inconceivable.—The passage ii. 14-16, on which Baur lays
peculiar stress, is neither dependent on the Acts nor un-Pauline (see
Commentary).
It is also asserted that there are evident reminiscences more or
less of other Pauline Epistles, especially of the Epistles to the Corin-
thians. Thus i. 5 is manifestly an imitation of 1 Cor. ii. 4; i. 6
is taken from 1 Cor. xi. 1, and i. 8 from Rom. i. 8; the passage
ii. 4 ff. briefly condenses the principles enunciated in 1 Cor. ii. 4,
iv. 3 f., ix. 15 f., and especially 2 Cor. ii. 17, v. 11. Besides Theovečía,
ii. 5, points to 2 Cor. vii. 2, duválevol év Bápel eival, ii. 6, and pò éroßapñoal,
ii. 9, to 2 Cor. xi. 9, and ii. 7 to 1 Cor. iii. 2. A simple comparison of these
passages suffices to show the worthlessness of the inferences derived from
them. Verbal similarities of so trifling and harmless a nature as those
adduced might easily be discerned between the. Epistles to the Romans
and Galatians, both of which Baur regards as genuine. Besides, the cir-
cumstances of the Thessalonian and Corinthian churches, as well as the
history of their founding, were in many respects similar; but similar
thoughts in the same writer clothe themselves easily in a certain similar-
ity of expression.
Baur supports his third argument on i. 7, 8, ii. 18, iii. 10, iv. 9 f., 11 f.
But these passages do not prove what is intended (see exposition).
Lastly, in reference to the fourth argument, Baur himself confesses that
the section iv. 14–18 can only be made valid against the authenticity of
the Epistle, provided its spuriousness is already proved on other grounds.
But as such other grounds do not exist, and as Baur has not explained
himself further on the subject, we might dismiss this argument, were it
not that it might be turned into a sharp weapon against himself. For,
according to iv. 15, 17, the author of the Epistle regards the advent of
442
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Christ as so near that he himself hopes to survive (comp. v. 1 ff.). What a
foolish and indeed inconceivable proceeding would it be, if a forger of the
second century were to put into the mouth of the Apostle Paul a prophetic
expression concerning himself, the erroneousness of which facts had long
since demonstrated! Moreover, it necessarily follows from 2 Thess. ii. 4 .
(see on passage) that the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians at least, and,
as this (see sec. 2 of the Introduction to 2 Thess.) was composed later than
the first, our Epistle also were written before the destruction of Jerusalem.
CHAP. I.
443
Παύλου προς Θεσσαλονικείς επιστολή πρώτη.
A B K, X, 3, 37, 80, et al. pler. Copt. Damasc. have IIpòs Deocahovikɛīç á, the
shortest and apparently the oldest title. It is also found in D Е, but prefix-
ing 'ApXeral.
CHAPTER I.
VER. 1. After ciphun, Elz. Matth. Scholz, Bloomfield (The Greek Testament, with
English notes, 9th edit. vol. II., London 1855) add : árò DEOū matpos nuāv kai
kupiou 'Incoð XplotOW. Bracketed by Lachm. Correctly erased by Tisch., Alford
and Ellicott, according to BF G 47, 73, 115, et al. Syr. Baschn. Aeth. Arm. Vulg.
Or. lat. seu Ruf. (dis.) Chrys. (comm.) Theoph. Ambrosiast. Pel. An interpola-
tion, for the sake of completion, taken from the usual commencement of Paul's
Epistles. Recently the addition : áno DeoŨ tarpòs i uāv kai kuplov ’Incoũ XPLOTOī,
is defended by Bouman (Chartae theologicae, lib. i., Traj. ad Rhen. 1853, p. 61) and
Reiche (Commentar. criticus in N. T. tom. II. p. 321 sqq.), but on insufficient
grounds. For that the addition might easily have been erroneously overlooked
by scribes, on account of the similar preceding words: šv OEQ Tarpi kai kupiw
'Indoữ XPLOTĄ, is very improbable on account of the difference in the prepositions
and cases of the two forms; that it might have been erased as an inelegant repe-
tition has 2 Thess. i. 2 against it, for then there also traces of similar corrections
in the critical testimonies would appear; and lastly, that the bare zápis úuiv kai
čipnun, without any further definition, is not elsewhere found in any of Paul's
writings, would only occasion a doubt, were it in itself unsuitable; but this is not
the case here, as, from the directly preceding words év OEQ natpi kai kupiw 'Indoñ
Xplotậ, the specific Christian sense of the formula is self-apparent.-Ver. 2. útūv,
in the Receptus, after uvelav, is wanting in A B x* 17, et al. It is found in C D
E F G K L *****, in almost all min., as well as in many Greek and Latin
Fathers. Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8, erroneously erase it. How easily might
υμών after μνείαν be overlooked on account of υμών before μνείαν! Comp. Εph. 1.
16, where, in a similar case, there is the same uncertainty of MSS.—Ver. 3. Elz.
has úpūv toũ špyou rīs riotews. Instead of this, D E F G, Syr. Arr. Aeth. Vulg.
It. Ambrosiast. have toũ špyou [F. G. Tò &pyov] rīs miotews úuāv. An interpre-
tation from misunderstanding.--Ver. 5. repòs juās] Elz. Griesb. Matth. Scholz,
Tisch. 2, 7 and 8, Alford, Reiche, Ellicott have eis vuãs. Against A C** DEF
G, min. Copt. Chrys. ed. Theoph. ed.-Instead of the Receptus év üliv, A CX,
min. Vulg. MS. hape úuiv; but év was absorbed by the last syllable of éyevíðnuev.
-Ver. 7, Tónov] recommended to consideration by Griesb., received by Lachm.
Tisch., Alford and Ellicott, according to B D* min. Syr. Erp. Copt. Sahid.
Baschm. Aeth. Slav. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast. Pel. Elz. Matth. Scholz,
444
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Reiche, read the plural TÚTOUÇ (from which tútos, in D** E 49, proceed, which
Mill takes for a neuter form, as ahūTOS), according to A CF G K L X, most
min. and many Gr. vss.; but it is a correction the better to adapt the predicate
to the collective subject, and thus apparently to strengthen the expressed
praise; whilst the plural transfers to individual members of the church what the
singular predicates of them in general, considered as a unity. Otherwise Bou-
man (1. c. p. 62 f.), according to whom TÚTOVS of the Receptus is the original, from
which TUTOS was erroneously formed, and from it TÚTOV proceeded, being regarded
as an error of the nom. sing., and it was considered the easiest method to correct
the mistake by changing the nominative singular into the accusative singular.-
każ év tñ is to be received, according to A B C D E F Gx, min. Vulg. It. Syr.
utr. Theodoret, Ambrosiast. Pel., instead of the Receptus kaì rñ; so Lachm.
Scholz (with whom it has been omitted by an error of the press), Tisch, Ellicott.-
Ver. 8. Elz. has kai 'A yaia. So also Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Alford, and Ellicott.
But Griesb. Matth. Lachm. Scholz and Tisch. 8, have kaì šv tỉ 'Ayatą, according
to CDEFG KLX, min. plur. Syr. Slav. MS. Vulg. It. Cyr. Damasc. Oec. Am-
brosiast. Pelag. Correctly; for the repetition of the preposition and the article is
necessary, as Macedonia and Achaia were to be distinguished as separate provinces.
- The kai of the Receptus before tv TAVTÈ TÓTW (defended by Matth. and Scholz,
suspected by Griesb.) is to be erased, according to A B C D* F G x, 17, 37, et al.
mult. Syr. utr. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. It. Ambrosiast. ed. ; so Lachm. Tisch. and
Alford. Because, being usually after où uovov ... århá, it was easily inserted.-
ñuās š xelv] correctly changed by Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Alford and Ellicott into
É XELV ňuās, according to A BCDEFGx, min. perm. Theodoret. The Receptus
is an alteration, for emphasis, to contrast nuās, ver. 8, and aútoi, ver. 9.-Ver. 9.
ŠO Xojlev] Elz. has & Xoplev ägainst preponderating evidence, and devoid of meaning.
On account of the similar form with ε in uncial MSS., o might easily be omitted.
-Ver. 10. ĚK TūV vekpūv] Elz. has ik verpūv, against B D E F G L x, min. plur.
and Fathers. The article tūv was lost in the last syllable of verpūv.
CONTENTS.—After the address and salutation (ver. 1), Paul testifies to his
readers how in his prayers he constantly thanks God for them all, men-
tioning without ceasing their faith, love, and hope, being firmly convinced
of their election; for, on the one hand, the gospel was preached to them
with power and much confidence; and, on the other hand, they, amid
many trials, had received it with joyfulness, so that they had become
examples to all believers in Macedonia and Achaia : for from them the
word of the Lord had spread, and the knowledge of their faith had pene-
trated everywhere, so that he had not to relate anything about it, but, on
the contrary, he hears it mentioned by others what manner of entrance
he had to them, and how they had turned from idols to the living and
true God (vv. 2-10).
Ver. 1. [See Note XLVI. pages 458-460.] It is a mark of the very early
composition of the Epistle, and consequently of its authenticity, that Paul
does not call himself årbotohoç. For it was very natural that Paul, in
regard to the first Christian churches to whom he wrote, whom he had
recently left, and who had attached themselves with devoted love to him
and his preaching, did not feel constrained to indicate himself more defi-
CHAP. I. 1.
445
nitely by an official title, as the simple mention of his name must have
been perfectly sufficient. It was otherwise in his later life. With refer-
ence to the Galatians and Corinthians, in consequence of the actual oppo-
sition to his apostolic authority in these churches, Paul felt himself
constrained to vindicate his full official dignity at the commencement of
his Epistles. And so the addition åróctoÃOS, occasioned at first by imper-
ative circumstances, became at a later period a usual designation, espe-
cially to those churches which were personally unknown to the apostle
(Epistles to Rom. Col. Eph.), among whom, even without any existing
opposition, such a designation was necessary in reference to the future.
An exception was only natural where, as with the Philippians and with
Philemon, the closest and most tried love and attachment united the
apostle with the recipients of his Epistles. The supposition of Chrysos-
tom, whom Oecumenius and Theophylact follow, is accordingly to be
rejected, that the apostolic title was suppressed dià Tò veokATNXÝTOUS Elvai
Toùs åvdpas kai undétiw avtoŨ TEīpav ciandéval, for then it ought not to be
found in the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians. Further, the view
of Zwingli, Estius, Pelt, and others is to be rejected, that Paul omitted his
apostolic title out of modesty, as the same title could not be assigned to
Silvanus (and Timotheus); for, not to mention that this reason is founded
on a distorted view of the Pauline character, and that the two companions
of the apostle would hardly lay claim to his apostolic rank, such a suppo-
sition is contradicted by 2 Cor. i. 1; Col. i. 1.-każ Echovavos kaì Truódeos 7
Both are associated with Paul in the address, not to testify their agree-
ment in the contents of the Epistle, and thereby to confer on it so much
greater authority (Zanchius, Hunnius, Piscator, Pelt), or to testify that the
contents were communicated to the apostle by the Holy Ghost (Macknight),
but simply because they had assisted the apostle in preaching the gospel
at Thessalonica. The simple mention of their names, without any addi-
tion, was sufficient on account of their being personally known. By
being included in the address, they are represented as joint-authors of the
Epistle, although they were so only in name. It is possible, but not cer-
tain, that Paul dictated the Epistle to one of them. (According to Berth-
old, they translated the letter conceived in Aramaic into Greek, and
shared in the work.)—Silvanus (as in 2 Cor. i. 19) is placed before Timo-
theus, not perhaps because Timotheus was the amanuensis, and from
modesty placed his name last (Zanchius), but because Silvanus was older
and had been longer with Paul.-Εν θεώ πατρι ... Χριστώ is to be closely
united with τη εκκλησία Θεσσαλονικέων: to the church of the Thessalonicons
God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ,--that is, whose being, whose
characteristic peculiarity, consists in fellowship with God the Father (by
which they are distinguished from heather &KKAnoial) and with the Lord
Jesus Christ (by which they are distinguished from the Jewish śkkanoia).
Erroneously, Grotius: quae exstitit, id agente Deo Patre et Christo. The
article tſ is neither to be repeated before év Dem nor is tovon to be sup-
plied (Olshausen, de Wette, and Bloomfield erroneously supply oion by
itself, without the article; this could not be the construction, as it would
446
LU:
THE FIRST EPISTLE ..
TO THE THESSALONIANS.
contain a causal statement), because the words are blended together in
the unity of the idea of the Christian church (see Winer's Grammar, p. 128
[E. T. 136]). Schott arbitrarily refers šv OeQ K.T.a. to zalpelv Néyovou, to
be supplied before χάρις υμίν ; for χάρις υμίν και ειρ. talkes the place of the
usual Greek salutation xalpelv Réyovoiv. Hofmann's view l amounts to
the same as Schott's, when he finds in šv OEQ K.T. 2. “ a Christian extension
of the usual epistolary address," imiporting that it is in God the Father
and in the Lord Jesus Christ that the writers address themselves by letter
to the churchés. Still more arbitrarily Ambrosiaster (not Theophylact)
and Koppe, who erase the concluding words : ánò OEOV K.T.N. (see critical
note), have placed a point after Oeccahovikówv, and united év OeQ . . . Xpl-
OTć with xápis juiv kaì eipnvn. For (1) the thought: zápis újív (ĚSTW) Łv
O£Q K.T.N., instead of årò OEOW K.7.2., is entirely un-Pauline; (2) the placing
of év OeQ K.T... first in so calm a writing as the address of the Epistle, and
without any special reason, is inconceivable; (3) 2 Thess. i. 1, 2. contra-
dicts the idea.--xápis úuiv kaì εlphun] See Otto, Ueber den cupostolischen
Segensgruss (Jahrb. für Deutsche Theol. 1867, p. 678 ff.) and Meyer on
Rom. i. 7. As a Christian transformation of the heathen form of saluta-
tion, the words, grammatically considered, should properly be conjoined
with the preceding in a single sentence: Ilavhos kai E... TŘ Ěkkanóía e.
... xápiv kaì eiphviv (sc. Néyovolv).
Ver. 2. [On verses 2-10, see Note XLVII. pages 460,461.] Etxaplotoūļev]
The plural, which Koppe, Pelt, Koch, Jowett, and others refer to Paul
only, is most naturally to be understood of Paul, Silvanus, and Timo-
theus, on account of ver. 1 compared with ii. 18, where the apostle, to
obviate a mistaken conception of the plural, expressly distinguishes himself
from his apostolic helpers.-TĄ Dew] Thanks is rendered to God, because
Paul in his piety recognizes only His appointment as the first cause of
the good which he has to celebrate.-πάντοτε] even if υμών after μνείαν (see
critical note) is omitted, belongs to εvzaploTOūLLEV, not to uvelav Toloúl., as
the expression: uvelav TOLETOOal Tepi Tivos, instead of Tivos,-although not
unknown to the classical writers, (Plato Protag. 317 E.)-is un-Pauline.
It is not to be weakened (with Koppe) in the sense of tokhánis, certainly
also not (with Zanchius and Pelt) to be limited to the feelings of the
apostle, that the evxaplotiv took place "non actu sed affectu” (comp.
already Nicholas de Lyra : semper in habitu, etsi non semper in actu);
but to be understood absolutely always ; certainly, according to the nature
of the case, hyperbolically. Moreover, not without emphasis does Paul
say : Tepi Trávtwv úpūv, in order emphatically to declare that his thanks-
giving to God referred to all the members of the Thessalonian church
without exception. ---- juvelav újūv TOLOV. ÉTÈ Tūv apogeuxūv juāv] These
words are conjoined, and to be separated from the preceding by a comma.
The clause is no limitation of cúxaplotOWMEV TÁVTOTE : when, or as often
as we make mention of you (Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping;
on éní, see Meyer on Rom. i. 10); but the statement of the manner
1 Die h. Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhängend untersucht, Part I. Nördl. 1862.
•
447
CHAP. I. 2, 3,
of xüxap.: whilst we, etc. Only by the addition of this participial clause
is the statement of his thanks and prayer for the Thessalonians
completed.
Ver. 3. As the apostle hás first stated the personal object of his thanks-
giving, so now follows a further statement of its material object. Ver. 3 is
therefore a parallel clause to μνείαν ... ημών (ver. 2), in which μνημονεύοντες
corresponds to uvelav Tolo“Mevol, úpūv toő špyou ... XplotoŨ to úpāv after
uvelav, and lastly, žutt poolev ... nuôv to šTTÈ Tūv a pooevxõv nuāv. · Schott,
Koch, and Auberlen (in Lange's Bibelwerk, Th. X., Bielef. 1864, 2 Ed. 1867)
incorrectly understand ver. 3 as causal; the statement of the cause follows
in ver. 4.-αδιαλείπτως] unceasingly does not belong to the preceding μνείαν
TOLOÚLevol, for, as an addition inserted afterwards, it would drag, but to
uvnjovevovres (Calvin, Ellicott and others), so that it begins the new clause
with emphasis.--uvnovešelv is not intransitive: to be mindful of (Er.
Schmid: memoria repetentes; Fromond : memores non tam in orationi-
bus sed ubique; Auberlen), but transitive, referring to the making men-
tion of them in prayer. [XLVII a.)-ýpūv] is, by Oecumenius, Erasmus
(undecidedly), Vatablus, Calvin, Zwingli, Musculus, Hemming, Bullinger,
Hunnius, Balduin, regarded as the object of uvnuovevovres standing alone,
whilst ένεκα is to be supplied before the genitives του έργου της πίστ. κ.τ.λ.
But this union is artificial, and the supposed ellipsis without grammatical
justification. It would be better to regard tov špyou K.T.2, as a develop-
ment of ýuāv in apposition; but neither is this in itself nor in relation to
ver. 2 to be commended. Accordingly, úpūv is to be joined to the follow-
ing substantives, so that its force extends to all the three following points.
What Paul approvingly mentions in his prayers are the three Christian
cardinal virtues, faith, love, and hope, in which his readers were dis-
tinguished, see v. 8; Col. i. 4, 5; 1 Cor. xiii. 13. But Paul does not praise
them simply in and for themselves, but a peculiar quality of each-each
according to a special potency. First their mioris, and that their špyov tñs
mlotews. IIioris is faith subjectively. That Tò špyov tñas Tiotews is not to be
understood periphrastically for tñs mioTewS? (Koppe), nor does it corres-
pond with the pleonastic use of the Hebrew 727, is evident, as (1) such a
use of the Greek špyov is not demonstrable (see Winer's Grammar, p. 571
[E. T. 615]); and (2) špyov tñs niorenç must be similarly understood as the
two following double expressions, but in them the additions Kórov and
ÚTouovñs are by no means devoid of import. Also Kypke's explanation,
according to which ëpyov ziotews denotes veritas fidei, is to be rejected, as
this meaning proceeds from the contrast of špyov and hóyos, of which there
is no trace in the passage. Not less erroneous is it, with Calvin, Wolf,
and others, to take špyov rñs Tiotews absolutely as faith wrought, i.e.
wrought by the Holy Ghost or by God. An addition for this purpose
would be requisite; besides, in the parallel expressions (ver. 3) it is the
1 Luther, Bullinger, Balduin, Er. Schrid,
Harduin, Benson, Moldenhauer, Koch, Bloom-
field, Alford, Ewald, Hofmann, Auberlen.
2 So in essentials Hofmann, who considers
ñs Tiotews as an epexegetical genitive, and
converts the double expression into the
unimportant saying: “Their doing or con-
duct consists in this, that they believed.”
448
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
self-activity of the readers that is spoken of. In a spiritless manner Flatt
and others reader épyov as an adjective: your active faith. Similarly, but
with a more correct appreciation of the substantive, Estius, Grotius,
Schott, Koch, Bloomfield, and others : operis, quod ex fide proficiscitur;
according to which, however, the words would naturally be replaced by
Triotic évepyovuévn (Gal. v. 6). So also de Wette: your moral working pro-
ceeding from faith. Hardly correct, as—(1) Tò špyov can only denote work,
not working. (2) The moral working proceeding from faith, according to
Paul, is love, so that there would here be a tautology with what follows.
Clericus refers to ĚPyov tñs ríotews to the acceptance of the gospel (Opus ...
erat, ethnicismo abdicato mutatoque prorsus vivendi instituto, christianam
religionem profiteri atque ad ejusdem normam vitam in posterum institu-
ere; quae non poterant fieri nisi a credentibus, Jesum vere a Deo missum
atque ab eo mandata accepisse apostolos, ideoque veram esse universam
evangelii doctrinam); so also Macknight, according to whom the accept-
ance of the gospel is called an čpyov on account of the victory over the
prejudices in which the Thessalonians were nourished, and on account of
the dangers to which they were exposed by their acceptance of Christianity.
But this reason is remote from the context. Chrysostom,' Theodoret, Oecu-
menius, Theophylact, Calovius, Bisping, and others understand the words
of the verification of faith by stedfastness under persecution. This mean-
ing underlying the words appears to come nearest to the correct sense.
úplūV To✓ špyou tñs níotews denotes your work of faith ; but as špyov has the
emphasis (not ríotewc, as Hofmann thinks), it is accordingly best
explained: the work which is peculiar to your faith-by which it is
characterized, inasmuch as your faith is something begun with energy,
and held fast with resoluteness, in spite of all obstacles and oppositions.
This meaning strikingly suits the circumstances of the Epistle.--Kai ToŬ
KOTOV tñs áyánns] the second point of the apostle's thanksgiving. 'Ayánn is
not love to God, or to God and our neighbor (Nicol. Lyr.), also not to
Christ, as if toŬ kupíoy vill. 'I. x. belonged to åyárons (Cornelius a Lapide),
still less love to the apostle and his companions (Natal. Alexander :
labores charitatis vestrae, quibus nos ex Judaeorum seditione et insidiis
eripuistis, quum apud vos evangelium praedicaremus; Estius, Benson),
but love to fellow-Christians (comp. Col. i. 4). Kóros rñs åyárins denotes
the active labor of love, which shuns no toil or sacrifice, in order to
minister to the wants of our neighbors : not a ſorbearing love which bears
with the faults and weaknesses of others (Theodoret); nor is the genitive
the genitive of origin, the work which proceeds from love (so Clericus,
Schott, de Wette, Koch, Bloomfield, and most critics); but the genitive
of possession, the work which is peculiar to love, by which it is
characterized. According to de Wette, kóros rñs ayárons might refer also to
the labor of rulers and teachers (v. 12). Contrary to the context, as ver.
3 contains only the further exposition of ver. 2; but according to ver. 2,
1Τι εστι του έργου της πίστεως και ότι ουδεν
υμών παρέκλινε την ένστασιν τούτο γάρ έργον
πίστεως. Εί πιστεύεις, πάντα πάσχε' ει δε μη
πάσχεις, ου πιστεύεις.
CHAP. I. 3, 4.
449
the apostle's thanksgiving extends to all the members of the church (Treç?
TrávtWV úpāv), not merely to individuals among them.-The third point of the
apostle's thanksgiving is the idoris of his readers, and this also not in and
for itself, but in its property of ÚTouovń. únopovú is not the patient waiting
which precedes fulfillment (Vatablus), but the constancy which suffers not
itself to be overcome by obstacles and oppositions (Chrysostom, Oecu-
menius, Theophylact). The genitive here also is not the genitive of
origin (Clericus, Schott, de Wette, Koch, Bloomfield), but of possession :
your endurance of hope; that endurance which belongs to your hope, by
which hope is characterized. ěhnis is here as usual subjective: hoping
(otherwise, Col. i. 5).-TOū kupiov nuāv 'I. X.] does not refer to all the three
above-mentioned virtues, “in order to show that they are one and all
derived from Christ, and instilled into mąn by the Holy Spirit” (Olshau-
sen), or are directed to Christ as their object (Cornelius a Lapide, Hof-
man'n), but is the object only of xaridos. The hope refers to Christ, that is,
to His advent, because the judgment and retribution will then take place,
and the divine kingdom completed in all its glory will commence.
έμπροσθεν του Θεού και πατρός ημών] belongs not to ειδότες (ver. 4), which
Musculus thinks possible, and as little to tow kupiov ňu. 'I. X.; for—(1) the
article toð before čun poolev must then have been omitted, and (2) an entire
abnormal representation of Christ would occur; also not to tñs ÜTouovñs
'tñs aridos, or to all the three ideas, to indicate thereby these three virtues
as existing before the eyes and according to the judgment of God, and
thus as true and genuine (Theodoret, Oecumenius, Aretius, Fromond,
Cornelius a Lapide, Baumgarten-Crusius, Jowett, Auberlen), for in this
case the repetition of the article would be expected, and besides, ÉVÚTLOV
TOŨ Okov and similar expressions have, in the above sense, always an
adjective or corresponding clause; but it belongs—which only is
grammatically correct-to jevnuovejovtes, so that uvnjovevovres ějte poolev k.1..
corresponds to uvelav ToLEībai ÉTÈ TÕV TT pooEvxūv (ver. 2).—TOW Okoī kai tarpòs
ollow] inay mean Him, who is our God and our Father; or Him, who is
God, and likewise our Father. [XLVII b. c.]
Ver. 4. EiSbtes is incorrectly referred by many (thus Baur) to the
Thessalonians, either as the nominative absolute in the sense of pidatɛ yap
(Erasmus), or cidétes ŁOTÉ (Homberg, Baumgarten-Crusius); or (Grotius)
as the beginning of a new sentence which has its tempus finit. in šyevñonte
(ver. 6), “knowing that ye became followers of us." Rather, the subject
of vv. 2 and 3, thus Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus, is continued in cidótes.
It is further erroneous to supply kaí before εidótes (Flatt), as this participle
is by no means similar to the two preceding. Lastly, it is erroneous to
make ειδότες dependent on μνείαν ποιούμενοι (Pelt). Eιδότες is only cor-
rectly joined to the principal verb cúxaplotoūLEV (ver. 2), and adduces
the reason of the apostle's thanksgiving, whilst the preceding par-
ticiples state only the modle of ευχαριστούμεν.-υπό Θεού cannot be con-
joined with kidores (scientes a deo, i.e. ex dei revelatione), which Estius
thinks possible, against which únó instead of napá is decisive. Nor
does it belong to την εκλογήν υμών, so that είναι would require to be
29
450.
.
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
.
supplied, and αδελφοί ηγαπημένοι to be taken by itself, but to ηγαπημέ-
you. For-(1) this union is grammatically the most' natural (see 2
Thess. ii. 13, the Hebrew 77117? '?'??, 2 Chron. xx. 7, and kyarentoi Degū,
Rom. i. 7). (2) By the union of ÚTÒ DEOD TÌV škhoynu úrūv, a peculiar
stress would be put on ÚTÒ DeoŨ; but such an emphasis is inadmissible,
as another ékhoyń than by God is in Paul's view a nonentity, and therefore
the addition υπό Θεού would be idle. Moreover, αδελφοί ηγαπημένοι υπό θεού
is a pure address, and not the statement of the cause of Thu Khoyìv úuwv
(Estius).-ékhoyń] election or choice, denotes the action of God, according to
which He has predetermined from eternity individuals to be believers in
Christ. Kañolç is related to échoyh as the subsequent realization to the pre-
ceding determination. Erroneously Pelt: Ékhoyis electorum illa innova-
tio, qua per spiritum divinum mutatur interna hominem conditio; and
still more arbitrarily Baumgarten-Crusius: échoyn is not “choice among
others (church election), but out of the world, with Paul equivalent to
Kors, and exactly here as in 1 Cor. i. 26; not being elected, but the mode
or condition of the election” (!), so that the sense would be: “Ye know
how ye have become Christians” (!!).---újūv the objective genitive to
ÉKhoyhu: the election of you.
Ver. 5. [XLVII d.] Bengel, Schott, Hofmann, and others unite ver.
5 by a simple conima to the preceding, understanding őri in the sense
of " that," or "namely that,” and thus the further analysis or explication
of ékhoyń, ż.e. the statement wherein èkhoyń consists. But evidently vv. 5, 6
· are not a statement wherein škhoyń consists, but of the historical facts from
which it may be inferred. Accordingly, őtl (if one will not understand it
with most interpreters as quic, which has little to recommend it) is to be
separated from ver. 4 by a colon, and to be taken in the sense of for,
introducing the reason on which the apostle grounds his own conviction
of the ik hoyń of his readers. This reason is twofold (1) The power and
confidence by which the gospel was preached by him and his companions
in Thessalonica (ver. 5); and (2) The eagerness and joy with which it was
embraced by the Thessalonians (ver. 6 ff.). Both are proofs of grace,
attestations of the Khoyń of the Thessalonians on the part of God. Tò evay-
yéhcov pôv] our gospel, i.e. our evangelical preaching.-ovi èyevýon apòs üpās]
was not carried into effect among you, i. e. when it was brought to you.
The passive from éyevýón, alien to the Attic, and originally Doric, but
common in the koivý," characterizes the being carried into effect as some-
thing effected by divine grace, and the additions with év following indicate
the form and manner in which the apostolic preaching was carried into
effect. From this it follows how erroneous it is with Koppe, Pelt, and
others to refer εν λόγω... πολλή to the qualities of the Thessalonians
which resulted from the preaching of the apostle. According to Koppe,
the meaning is " quantam enim mea apud vos doctrina in animos vestros
7
i Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Mus-
culus, Hemming, Zanchius, Justinian, Vors-
tius, Calixtus, Clericus.
? See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 108 ff.; Kühner,
I. 193; Winer's Grammar, p. 80 [E. T. 84.].
CHA P.
451
vim habuerit, non ore tantum sed facto declaravistis.” That the conclud-
ing words of ver. 5, kalwg oidate . . . úpás, which apparently treats of the
manner of the apostle's entrance, contains only a recapitulatory statement
of tv abyą... Tolīt, appealing to the testimony of the Thessalonians, is a
sufficient condemnation of this strange and artificial explanation.--ểv 2byw
wóvov] [XLVII e.] in word only, i. e. not that it was a bare announce-
ment, a bare communication in human words, which so easily fade away..
Grotius : Non stetit intra verba. But the apostle says où kovov, because
human speech was the necessary instrument of communication.---årlà kai
Év Svvá jiet k.7..] By Sývapis is not to be understood miracles by which the
power of the preached gospel was attested; for if so, the plural would
have been necessary. Nor is the gospel denoted as a miraculous power
(Benson), which meaning in itself is possible. Nor is the efficacy of the
preached word among the Thessalonians indicated (Bullinger: Per
virtutem intellexit efficaciam et vim agentem in cordibus fidelium). But
it forms simply the contrast to róyos, and denotes the impressive power
accompanying the entrance of Paul and his followers.—ÉV zevetuarı dyim]
Theodoret, Musculus, Cornelius a Lapide, Fromond, B. a Piconius, Natalis
Alexander, Benson, Macknight interpret this of the communication of
the Holy Spirit to the readers. But the communication of the Holy
Spirit is beyond the power of the apostles, as being only possible on the
part of God. Besides, ¿v Tvelluati can only contain a statement of the
manner in which Paul and his assistants preached the gospel. Accord-
ingly, the meaning is : our preaching of the gospel was carried on among
you in the Holy Ghost, that is, in a manner which could only be ascribed
to the operation of the Holy Ghost. Év Tiveúuarı dyiw serves, therefore, not
only for the further amplification, but also for the intensification of the
idea év duvápel. It is therefore incompetent to consider év dvváļiec kai év
Ttveúl. dylw as a êv dià dvoīv instead of šv dvvá uel aveúpl. dylov (Calvin,
Piscator, Turretine, Bloomfield, and others).--Tampopopía] comp. Col. ii. 2;
Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5) denotes neither the fullness of spiritual gifts which
were imparted to the Thessalonians (Lombard, Cornelius a Lapide,
"Turretine), nor the completeness of the apostolic instruction (Thomasius),
nor the completeness with which Paul performed his duty (Estius), nor
the proofs combined with his instructions, giving complete certainty
(Fromond, Michaelis), nor generally "certitudo, qua Thessalonicenses
certi de veritate evangelii ac salute sua redditi fuerant” (Musculus,
Benson, Macknight); but the fullness and certainty of conviction, i.e. the
inward confidence of faith with which Paul and his assistants appeared
preaching at Thessalonica.--kaflùs oïdatɛ K.T..] a strengthening of 776 ...
mohin by an appeal to the knowledge of his readers.? Pelt, entirely per-
verting the meaning, thinks that the apostle in these concluding words
would hold forth his example for the emulation of his readers. This view
1
i Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Nata-
lis Alexander, Turretine, etc.
Oecum.: kai ri, onoi, Marpnyopw; aŭtou
jucis ráptvpés érte, olou eyevňonuev após juās.
452
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
could only claim indulgence if Koppe's connection, which, however, Pelt
rejects, were correct. Koppe begins a new sentence with kaðós, consider-
ing καθώς οίδατε as the protasis and και υμείς εs the apodosis, and gives the
sense: qualem me vidistis, quum apud vos essem ... tales etiam vos,
nunc estis. But this connection is impossible. (1) Because oidate cannot
mean me vidistis, but has a purely present signification-ye know. (2)
Because if there were such an emphatic contrast of persons (qualem
me ... tales etiam vos), then, instead of the simple &yevnanulev, queīç łyevñonuev
would necessarily be put. (3) Because éyevíonte does not mean nunc estis,
but facti estis. (4) Instead of the asyndeton kadùs cidate, we would expect a
connection with the preceding by some particle added to kalús. (5) And
lastly, the apodosis would not be introduced by kai veīs, but by oőtwç ürecs
(comp. 2 Cor. i. 5, viii. 6, x. 7), Pelt's assertion is also erroneous, that
instead of καθώς οίδατε οίοι εγενήθημεν, the more correct Greek phrase would
have been oίoυς οίδατε ημάς γεγονότας. For the greatest emphasis is put
on oloi éyevñonuev, but this emphasis would have been lost by the sub-
stitution of the above construction.-olol éyevñonuev] [XLVII f.] recapitu-
lates the preceding tò evayy.... Toran, but with this difference, that what
was before said of the act of preaching is here predicated of the preachers.
olol éyevñonuev does not denote the privations which Paul imposed upon.
himself when he preached the gospel, as Pelagius, Estius, Macknight,
Pelt, and others think, making an arbitrary comparison of ii. 7, 9; 2
Thess. iii. 8, 9; also not kivdivovs, oüs ÚTèp avtõv ÚTÉOTNOAV, Tò owthplov avtois
te poopépovtec kupuyua (Theodoret), nor both together (Natal. Alexander). It
also does not mean quales fuerimus (so de Wette, Hofmann, and others),
but can only denote the being made for some purpose (proved to be,
Ellicott). It thus contains the indication that the emphatic element in
the preaching of the gospel at Thessalonica was a work of divine appoint-
ment-of divine grace. Accordingly, si úpās, for your sake, that is, in
order to gain you for the kingdom of Christ, is to be understood not of
the purpose of the apostle and his assistants, but of the purpose of God.
Ver. 6 contains the other side of the proof for the škoyn of the Thessa-
lonians, namely, their receptivity for the preaching of the gospel demon-
strated by facts. Ver. 6 may either be separated by a point from the
preceding (then the proof of ver. 6, in relation to ver. 4, lies only in
thought, without being actually expressed), or it may be made to depend
on őri in ver.5 (provided this be translated by for, as it ought) [XLVII g.].
In this latter case kalūs оidate ...di vpās, ver. 5, is a parenthesis. This
latter view is to be preferred, because vv. 5 and 6 appear more evidently
to be internally connected, and, accordingly, the twofold division of the
argument, adduced for the ékhoyń of the readers, is more clearly brought
forward.--eluntal] See 1 Cor. iv. 16, xi. 1; Phil. iii. 17; Eph. v. 1; Gal. iv.
12.-éyevhonte denotes here also the having become as a having been made,
i.e. effected by the agency of God.-kai toũ kvpíov is for the sake of climax.
L
1 Erroneously Bullinger: Veluti correctione
subiecta addit: et domini. Eatenus enim
apostolorum imitatores esse debemus, quate-
nus illi Christi imitatores sunt.
CHAP. I. 6, 7.
453
The Thessalonians became imitators of the apostle and of Christ, not in
δύναμις, in πνεύμα άγιον, and in πληροφορία, ας Koppe thinks ; but because
they received the evangelical preaching (Tòv hóyov, comp. Gal. vi. 6, equiva-
lent to kúpuyua), allowed it an entrance among them, in much affliction,
with joy of the Holy Ghost, i.e. not merely that they received the âóyos
(here the tertium comparationis would be wanting), but that they received
it év Oliyel moaan metà zapās tiveúl. dylov.--dešá ļevol Tòv hóyov] [XLVII 1.] The
reception of the gospel corresponds to its announcement brought to the
readers (ver. 5), whilst μίμησις is explained by εν θλίψει ... αγίου. The chief
emphasis is on the concluding words : petà zapās tveúpatos dyiov, containing
in themselves the proper tertium comparationis between Christ and the
apostle on the one hand, and the Thessalonians on the other; but šv
Oriyel Tomaž is placed first to strengthen it, and for the sake of contrast,
inasmuch as δέχεσθαι τον λόγον μετά χαράς πν. αγ. is something high and sub-
lime, but it is something far higher and more sublime when this joy is
neither disturbed nor weakened by the trials and sufferings which have
been brought upon believers on account of their faith in Christmév Ohipel
Toan] Erroneously Clericus : Subintelligendum övra, quum acceperitis
verbum, quod erat in afflictione multa, h. e cujus praecones graviter
affligebantur. The Oaxis of the Thessalonians had already begun during
the presence of the apostle among them (Acts xvii. 6 ff.), but after his
expulsion it had greatly increased (ii. 14, iii. 2, 3, 5). The apostle has in
view both the commencement and the continuance of the persecution (comp.
ver. 7, and the adjective moman attached to Ohiwel), against which değápevol
is no objection, as the two points of time are united as the spring-time of
the Christian church.--xapà atveúpatog dylov] is not joy in the Holy Ghost,
but a joy or joyfulness which proceeds from the Holy Ghost, is produced
by Him (comp. Rom. xiv. 17 ; Gal. v. 22; Acts v. 41). In reality, it is not
to be distinguished from xalpelv év kuplw (see Meyer on Phil. iii. 1).
Ver. 7. The Thessalonians had so far advanced that they who were
formerly imitators had now become a model and an example to others.-
Tútov.] The singular is regular, as the apostle considers the church as a
unity.
LTOL TOTS TOTEVOVOLV] not to all believers (de Wette), but to the
whole boclay of believers.2 πάσιν augments the praise given. οι πιστεύοντες
are believers, Christians (comp. Eph. i. 19). Chrysostom, whom Oecu-
menius, Theophylact, and most interpreters (also Pelt and Schott) follow,
takes îlotevovoiv in the sense of Tlotevoaoiv, finding in ver. 7 the idea that
the Thessalonians converted at a later period were further advanced in the
intensity of their faith than those who had been earlier believers : Kai vñv
εν υστέρω ήλθε προς αυτούς αλλ' ούτως ελάμψατε, φησίν, ώς των προλαβόντων γενέσθαι
διδασκάλους ... Ου γαρ είπεν, ώστε τύπους γενέσθαι προς το πιστεύσαι, αλλά τοίς ήδη
TT LOTEUovol TÚTOS ÉyÉVEGDE. But this view would contain a historical untruth.
For in Europe, according to the Acts (comp. also 1 Thess. ii. 2), only the
Philippians were believers before the Thessalonians; all the other churches
1 See Winer's Grammar, p. 164 [E. T. 175];
Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 60; Kühner, II. p. 27.
? See Winer, p. 105 [E. T. 110).
454.
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
of Macedonia and Achaia were formed afterwards. The present participle
is rather to be understood from the standpoint of the apostle, so that all
Christians then present in Macedonia and Achaia, that is, all Christians
actually existing there at the time of the composition of the Epistle, are
to be understood.-Ėv tîn Makedovią kai šv tñ 'Axatą] Comp. Roin. xv. 26; Acts
xix. 21 : the twofold division of Greece usually made after its subjection
to the Romans (comp. Winer, Realwörterb. 2d ed. vol. I. p. 21). The emphasis
which Theodoret puts on the words (Hypnoɛ TÌv evønuiav, åpxétuma autous
Evgeßelas yeyevñoðal dñoas šovbol meyiotolç kaì ÉTÈ oopía davuašojévols) is not con-
tained in it. Baur's (p. 484) assertion, that what is said in ver. 7 is only
suitable for a church already existing for a longer time, is without any
justification. For to be an example to others depends on the behavior;
the idea of duration is entirely indifferent.
Ver. 8. [XLVII 1.] Proof of the praise in ver. 7.1 Baumgarten-Crusius
arbitrarily assumes in ver. 8 ff. an address, not only to the Thessalonians,
but also to the Philippians, in short, to "the first converts in Macedonia."
For újūv (ver. 8) can have no further extension than quãs (ver. 7).-á$'
vuôv] does not import vestra opera, so that a missionary activity was attri-
buted to the Thessalonians (Rückert), also not per vos, ope consilioque
vestro, so that the sense would be: that the gospel might be preached by
me in other parts of Macedonia and Achaia, has been effected by your :
advice and co-operation, inasmuch as, when in imminent danger, my life
and that of Silvanus was rescued by you (Schott, Flatt). For in the first
case úp' vuāv would be required, and in the second case si úrūv, not to
mention that the entire occasion of the last interpretation is invented and
artificially introduced. Rather å$' úpūv is purely local (Schott and Bloom-.
field erroneously unite the local import with the instrumental), and
denotes: out from you, forth from you, comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 36. Yet this can-
not be referred, with Koppe and Krause, to Paul: from you, that is, when
I left Thessalonica, I found in the other cities of Macedonia and Achaia a
favorable opportunity for preaching the gospel. For (1) this would have
been otherwise grammatically expressed, perhaps by ám úpūv ydp åte206vti
Oupa pol ávéyyɛ eis tò KNPUOJELV Tòv abyov toữ kupiov; add to this (2), which is
the chief point, that the logical relation of ver. 8 to ver. 7 (yáp) does not
perinit our seeking in ver. 8 a reference to the conduct of the apostle, but
indicates that a further praise of the Thessalonians is contained in it.
ÉFKxntal] Comp. Sir. xl. 13; Joel iii. 14; an ätaf reyó levov in N. T., is
sounded out, like the tone of some far-sounding instrument, i. c. without a
figure: was made known with power.-ó qóyos TOū kupiov] is not the word
from the Lord, or the report of what the Lord has done to you, but the
word of the Lord which He caused to be preached (subjective genitive),
2
1 See on the verse, Storr, Opus. III. p. 317 ff.;
Rückert, locorum Paulinorum 1 Thess. i. 8 et
1 Thess. iii. 1-3, explanatio, Jen. 1844.
% So, as it seems, Theodore Mopsuest. [in
N. T. commentariorum, quae reperiri potuerunt.
Colleg., Fritzsche, Turici 1847, p. 145]: Abyov
κυρίου ενταύθα ου την πίστιν λέγει, ου γαρ η
πίστις απ' αυτών έλαβε την αρχήν, αλλ' αντί
του πάντες έγνωσαν όσα υπέρ της πίστεως
επάθετε, και πάντες υμών το βέβαιον θαυμάζουσι
This motews, Cote kai apotpotnv ÉTépous yevéolac
Tà ùrétepa.
CHAP. I. 8.
455
i.e. the gospel (comp. 2 Thess. iii. 1; Col. iii. 16); thus similar to the more
usual expression of Paul: o hoyos ToŨ Okoữ. But the meaning is not: The
report of the gospel, that it was embraced by you, went forth from you, and
made a favorable impression upon others (de Wette); but the knowledge
of the gospel itself spread from you, so that the power and the eclat which
was displayed at the conversion of the Thessalonians directed attention to
the gospel, and gained friends for it. The words où uovov have given much
trouble to interpreters. According to their position they evidently belong
to év tņ Makedovią każ év tñ 'Axatą, and form a contrast to év tavrì TÓW. But
it does not agree with this view that a new subject and predicate are found
in the contrast introduced with áraá, because the emphasis lies (as the
position of ou uovov . . . århú appears to demand) only on the two local
statements, so that only áo' únūv . . . Tów should have been written, and
WOTE UT K..2. should have been directly connected with them. This double
subject and predicate could only be permissible provided the phrases :
εξήχηται ο λόγος του κυρίου, and : η πίστις υμών ή προς τ. Θεόν εξελήλυθεν were
equivalent, as de Wette (also Olshausen and Koch) assumes ("the fame
of your acceptance of the gospel sounded forth not only in Macedonia and
Achaia, but also in every place the fame of your faith in God is spread
abroad”); but, as is remarked above, de Wette does not correctly trans-
late the first member of the sentence. Zanchius, Piscator, Vorstius, Beza,
Grotius, Koppe, Storr, Flatt, Schrader, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, and
others have felt themselves obliged to assume a trajection, uniting ou
Móvov not with év tí Makedovia kai šv TĨ Axaię, but with EMXNTAL, and thus
explain it as if the words stood : đơ vuôv yàp où jóvov échxntal K.T.). But
this trajection is a grammatical impossibility. Bloomfield has understood
the words as a mingling of two different forms of expression. According to
him, it is to be analyzed : “For from you sounded the word of the Lord
over all Macedonia and Achaia; and not only has your faith in God been
well known there, but the report of it has been disseminated everywhere
else." But that which is united by Paul is thus forcibly severed, and
arbitrarily moulded into an entirely new form. Lastly, Rückert has
attempted another expedient. According to him, the apostle, after having
written the greater part of the sentence, was led by the desire of making
a forcible climax so to alter the originally intended form of the
thought that the conclusion no longer corresponded with the announce-
ment. So also Ellicott essentially. Thus, then, the sense would be:
Vestra opera factum est, ut domini sermo propagaretur non solum in
Macedonia et Achaja, sed etiam-immo amplius quid, ipsa vestra fides
ita per famam sparsa est, ut nullus jam sit locus, quem ejus nulla dum
notitia attigerit. But against this is—(1) that ii mioris úpūv, on account of
its position after év navti TÓW, cannot have the principal accent; on the
contrary, to preserve the meaning maintained by Rückert, it ought to
have been written, αλλ' αυτή η πίστις υμών ή προς τον Θεόν εν παντί τόπο
εξελήλυθεν ; (2) that the wide extension of the report of the πίστις of the
readers is not appropriate to form a climax to their supposed missionary
activity expressed in the first clause of the sentence. However, to give
456
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
O
où jóvov ... århá its proper force, and thereby to avoid the objection of the
double subject and predicate, there is a very simple expedient (now
adopted by Hofmann and Auberlen), namely, another punctuation; to
put a colon after kuplov, and to take together all that follows. According
to this, ver. S is divided into two parts, of which the first part, (ᢠjuāv ...
κυρίου), in which αφ' υμών and εξήχηται have the emphasis, contains the
reason of ver. 7, and of which the second part (ou jóvov ... Zanelv tl) takes
up the preceding &šíxntal, and works it out according to its locality.-
From the fact that ou uóvov ... århá serves to contrast the local designations,
it follows that évezavti tórw is not to be limited (with Koppe, Storr, Flatt,
Schott, and others) to Macedonia and Achaia (év tavrì TÓTW Tâs Makedoviaç
kai tñs ’Axatas), but must denote every place outside of Macedonia and
Achaia, entirely apart from the consideration whether Paul and his com-
panions had already come in contact with those places or not (against
Hofmann), thus the whole known world (Chrysostom : Tiv oikovuévNw; Oecu-
menius: Tavta TÒV koouov); by which it is to be conceded that Paul here,
as in Rom. i. 8, Col. i. 6, 23, expresses himself in a popular hyperbolical
manner.— Tlotis įpūv oj nepòs Tòv Deóv] your faith, that is, your believing or
becoming believers in God (Triotis thus subjective); the unusual preposi-
tion após instead of es is also found in Philem. 5. That here God, and not
Christ, is named as the object of faith does not alter the case, because God
is the Father of Christ and the Author of the salvation contained in Him.
But the unusual form apòs Tòv @ɛóv is designedly chosen, in order to bring
prominently forward the monotheistic faith to which the Thessalonians had
turned, in contrast to their former idolatry.—ěšehhaudlev] has gone forth, has
spread forth, namely, as a report. Comp. on ěšép xeobal in this sense, Matt.
ix. 26; Luke viii. 17, etc. Probably the report had spread particularly by
means of Christian merchants (Zanchius, Grotius, Joach. Lange, Baum-
garten, de Wette), and the apostle might easily have learned it in the
great commercial city of Corinth, where there was a constant influx of
strangers. Possibly also Aquila and Priscilla, who had lately come from
Rome (Acts xviii. 2), brought with them such a report (Wieseler, p. 42).
At all events, neither a longer existence of the Thessalonian church fol-
lows from this passage (Schrader, Baur), nor that Paul had in the inter-
val been in far distant places (Wurm). As, moreover, éšenhavõɛv is con-
strued not with eis but with év, so not only the arrival of the report in those
regions is represented, but its permanence after its arrival. Wote lì xpelav
É XELV rijās naheiv ti] so that we have no need to say anything of it (sc. of your
Triotis; erroneously Michaelis, "of the gospel;" erroneously also Koch,
“something considerable "), because we have been already instructed
concerning it by its report; although this is contained in ėšɛanavlev, yet it
is impressively brought forward and explained in what follows.
Ver. 9. Avtoi] not: sponte, avropaðūs, of themselves (Pelt), but emphat-
ically opposed to the preceding ruās: not we, nay they themselves, that is,
according to the well-known constructio ad sensum (comp. Gal. ii. 2): oí év
2
1 See Winer, p. 385 [E. T. 413]; Bernhardy, Synt. p. 208.
CHAP. I. 9, 10.
457
tñ Marcedovią kaù év tĩ 'Axaią kai év tavtà tów. Beza erroneously (though
undecidedly) refers αυτοί to πάντες οι πιστεύοντες (ver. 7).-περί ημών] is not
equivalent to únèp ruāv, in our stead (Koppe), but means : concerning us,
de nobis; and, indeed, tepi ruāv is the general introductory object of
απαγγέλλουσιν, which is afterwards more definitely expressed by οποίαν
K.7.2.-vuāv, however, refers not only to the apostle and his assistants, (so
also Ellicott and Hofmann) but also to the Thessalonians, because other-
wise kai trūS ÉTTEOTPÉWare in relation to ruāv would be inappropriate. This
twofold nature of the subject may be already contained in ý niotis juāv
Tipòs Tòv Osóv (ver. 8); as, on the one hand, the producing of niotis by the
labors of the apostle is expressed, and, on the other hand, its acceptance
on the part of the Thessalonians.-óolaj £ioodov Šo Xojev nepòs újās] what
sort of entrance we had to you, namely, with the preaching of the gospel,
i. e. (comp. ver. 5) with what power and fullness of the Holy Spirit, with
what inward conviction and contempt of external dangers (Chrysostom,
Oecumenius, Theophylact erroneously limit ónoiav to danger), we preached
the gospel to you. Most understand ónoiav kioodov (led astray by the Ger-
man Eingang) of the friendly reception, which Paul and his companions
found among the Thessalonians (indeed, according to Pelt, cioosos in itself
without ónoia denotes facilen aditum); and accordingly.some (Schott,
Hofmann) think of the eager reception of the gospel, or of its entrance
into the hearts of the Thessalonians (Olshausen). The first view is against
linguistic usage, as eioodov & XELV TPOS tiva can only have an active sense, can
only denote the coming to one, the entrance (comp. ii. 1); as also in the
classics eirodos is particularly used of the entrance of the chorus into the
orchestra (comp. Passow on the word). The latter view is against the
context, as in TŪS ÉTTEOTPÉpate k.1.2. the effect of the apostle's preaching is
first referred to.-rūs] now, that is, how joyfully and energetically.-
ÈT LOTPÉDELV] to turn from the false way to the truempos tòv ©£óv] to be
converted to God: a well-known biblical figure. It can also denote to
return to God; for although this is spoken of those who once were Gen-
tiles, yet their idolatry was only an apostasy from God (comp. Rom. i. 19
ff.).—Jovlevelv] the infinitive of design. See Winer, p. 298 [E. T. 324].—0EU
Sõvrl] the living God (comp. 'n D?, 2 Kings xix. 4, 16, and Acts xiv. 15),
in contrast to dead idols (Hab. ii. 19).-ándevós] true, real (comp. NON Visa,
2 Chron. xv. 3; John xvii. 3; 1 John v. 20), in contrast to idols, which are
υαλ and unreal. The design intended by δουλεύειν Θεώ ζώντι και αληθινό
contains as yet nothing specifically Christian; it is rather dovkɛía conse-
crated to the living and true God, common to Christians and Jews. The
specific Christian mark, that which distinguishes Christians also from Jews,
is added in what immediately follows.
Ver. 10. It may surprise us that this characteristic mark is given not as
faith in Christ (comp. Acts xx. 21; also John xvii. 3), but the hope of His
advent. But, on the one hand, this hope of the returning Christ presup-
poses faith in Him, as also þvólevov clearly points to faith as its necessary
I WILL
1 See Bernhardy, Syntar, p. 288; Winer, p. 137 [E. T. 145.]
458 ,
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
condition and presupposition; and, on the other hand, in the circumstances
which occasioned the composition of this Epistle, the apostle must have
been already led to touch in a preliminary manner upon the question,
whose more express discussion was reserved to a later portion of his
Epistle.—avauévelv] here only in the N. T.; in 1 Cor. i. 7, Phil. iii. 30, etc.,
árekdézeoðal stands for it. Erroneously Flatt: to expect with joy. The
idea of the nearness of the advent as an event, whose coming the church
might hope to live to see, is contained in avauévelv. [XLVII ;.] --ÉK TūV
ουρανών] belongs to αναμένειν. A brachylogy, in the sense of αναμένειν εκ των
ovpavāv ép xóuevov, see Winer, p. 577 [E. T. 621].--ôv yelpEVĚK Tūv vekpūv] is
emphatically placed before 'Incoñv, as God by the resurrection declared
Christ to be His viós (comp. Rom. i. 4). Hofmann strangely perverts the
passage, that Paul by oν ήγειρεν εκ των νεκρών ειssigns a reason for εκ των
oúpavāv, because “the coming of the man Jesus from where He is with
God to the world where His saints are, has for its supposition that He has
risen from where He was with the dead." There is no emphasis on ék
των ουρανών, its only purpose is for completing the idea of αναμένειν.-τον
Þróuevov] The present participle does not stand for ròv øvrhuevov (Grotius,
Pelt); it serves to show that preodai is not begun only at the judgment,
but already here, on earth, inasmuch as the inward conviction resides in
the believer that he, by means of his fellowship with Christ, the owrhp, is
delivered from all fears of a future judgment.--Tòv Øvóuevov] stands there-
fore as a substantive. See Winer, p. 331 [E. T. 353].-ópyn] wrath, then the
activity of wrath, punishment. It has also this meaning among classical
writers. —Also rūs épxquévns] is not equivalent to revoouévns (Grot., Pelt,
and others), but refers to the certain coming of the wrath at the judgment,
which Christ will hold at His advent (comp. Col. iii. 6).
NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR...
VAN UDITOLU.
XLVI.
The similarity in some of the leading characteristics of the First Epistle to the
Thessalonians and the Epistle to the Philippians the earliest and latest of the
letters addressed by Paul to the churches-is especially worthy of notice. As
distinguished from the other epistles, they are both letters of friendly interest, of
general practical suggestion or admonition, with no great subject occupying the
main portion of the space or of the thought, with little definiteness of plan, with
no setting forth, at the beginning, of his apostolic office. The first and last
messages to the churches are messages of affection. Controversies, rebuke of
enemies, discussions of great doctrines or grave errors, defense of his official
claims against those who denied them, all these things arise after the first, and
pass away mainly before the last. And yet it is equally interesting to notice the
differences between the two epistles, which are naturally connected with the
passing of the years that separated them, and with the progress of the writer's
thought and life. The former letter is that of a teacher in the vigor of his
working age to a small Christian community having recently entered the new life
and needing admonitions and encouragements in fundamental things. The
See Kypke, in den Obss. sacr., on Rom. ii.5.
NOTES.
459
readers were not in the conflict of doctrine, but were raising the first questions of
the early convert, When will the kingdom be established; when will the Lord
come? The writer was hopeful for future activity, and confident that life would
continue. The latter epistle is the work of a man who views the end as possibly
in the near future, and gives his exhortations on a higher plain of Christian
development. The Church has been in existence for a long period. It has done
continuous and fruitful work. It has considered other questions, and is ready for
wider or deeper thoughts.
The principal subject treated in both of the epistles to the Thessalonians, is
the coming of the Lord. As a subject of thought or discussion, this was naturally
the first one which would arise in the churches and in individual minds, whether
the members of the churches came out of Judaism or heathenism. Jewish
thought was peculiarly occupied with the matter of the Messianic kingdom and
its establishment. As the Jewish convert to Christianity centered his belief on
Jesus as the Messiah, no question could have greater or more immediate interest
for him, than this of His second appearance to consum mate His work. The
Gentile convert, also, though having previously had no such ideas, found himself,
by his new faith, connected with a kingdom the promise of whose future triumph
was the encouragement of all his hopes, He must have looked with earnest
expectation to the coming fulfillment, and have asked, with intensity of desire, for
the time when it should be realized. It will be observed, however, that, in 1st
Thessalonians, this subject is introduced only incidentally, and not as Justification
by Faith is in the Epistle to the Romans. It is presented simply in the way of
correcting a misapprehension, and of affording comfort to the members of the
church with reference to the condition of certain fellow-Christians, who had
recently died. It belongs, therefore, with other words of counsel and exhortation
which precede and follow it, to the practical and friendly suggestions of a letter
to recent converts.
The Epistle is made up of expressions of interest in the readers—including words
of thankfulness for their reception of the Gospel and their progress in the Chris-
tian life, of commendation for their virtues and labors, of interest in their prosperity,
of anxiety to know of their condition in view of persecutions which had befallen them
since his departure from their city-and instructions and exhortations respecting
duties or questions of their Christian life. The first of these divisions covers the
first three chapters; the second, the last two chapters. The subject of the Lord's
Coming is only a part of the second section, introduced incidentally, as remarked
above. The entire letter has, thus, a unity, but not so much the unity of a
carefully arranged plan, as that of a message of interest and affection from an
absent teacher to a church in whose early growth he is deeply interested.
It is, no doubt, because of this character of the Epistle, that it has so much of
simplicity and tenderness. The absence, not only of the word åróctonos in ver. 1,
but of any descriptive word with his own name; the close union of Silvanus and
Timothy with himself, both in the salutation and in all the remainder of the
Epistle, as if on an equality; the calling attention to his example as that of a
father to children, which is hinted at in vv. 5, 6 (comp. ii. 11); and the recognition
of their Christian work and growth in the brief period since their conversion,
with the generous, almost unbounded, praise which a father might give (vv. 3, 8),
may be thus explained. It is worthy of notice that the plural we, instead of the
singular I, is used in this Epistle far more than in the later ones I occurring in
460
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
only two or three places (ii. 18, iii. 5, v. 27). It is evident, however, from these
passages—as it is in the other epistles—that, while in the use of the plural be
associates his companions in labor with himself in a certain sense, he still intends
to send his message, commands, instructions, warnings, etc., with his own
authority, which is different from theirs and of a higher order. The salutation
of this Epistle---if the text which omits årò... XPLOtoū at the end of ver. 1 be
adopted, as it probably should be—is the briefest that we find in Paul's writings.
XLVII. Vv. 2-10.
(a) uynuovevovTES, (ver. 3), which Lünemann understands as meaning maiting
mention of, is better taken in the intransitive sense, remembering. The more com-
mon meaning of the word in the N. T., is the latter, and, as uvelav ToLOUM, has
already presented the former idea, it is improbable that a repetition of it would
be given. A. V., R. V., Grimm, Ell., Noyes tr., and others take the latter view;
Alf., de W., and others, the former.-(b) The explanations, on the other hand,
which are given by Lünem. of vuāv of ver. 3, of the relations of ríorews, áyánns,
ελπίδος to the nouns on which they depend, of the Connection of του κυρίου κ.τ.λ.
with ελπίδος only, and of the connection of έμπροσθεν with μνημονέυοντες must be
accepted as correct. The word ÚTO LOVÝ has here, as everywhere, the sense of
stedfast endurance, which is the evidence and the characteristic of a living hope.
The two words, coming together here, make it evident that the Apostle has in
mind the hope of the Lord's coming, of which he speaks afterwards, ii. 19, etc.
Faith works—it is a working, not an inactive force; love toils for these towards
whom it goes forth; hope perseveres, notwithstanding all that may come to try or
dishearten the soul. The three great principles of the Christian life are all active.
The trials and persecutions to which the Thessalonians had already been exposed
since they became Christians, had given evidence that they had these active
principles working appropriately, each in its own way, in their lives. (C) The
relation of the several participial clauses in vv. 2-4 to evxapioTOŪMEV may be
determined by noticing, (1) that, everywhere, Paul seems to present the fact of
his constant habit of prayer for his converts as making it natural that he should
give thanks when he called to mind their Christian life and development; (2)
that £idotes introduces what must, almost necessarily, contain a ground of his
thankfulness; and (3) that, if this be so, uvnuovevovres, not being connected with
Eid., can hardly set forth another ground. The meaning, therefore, seems to be:
I give thanks always for you-making mention, as I ever do, in my prayers-
when I remember your faith, etc., for the reason that I know your election.—(d)
R. V. renders őte (ver. 5) by how that in the text, and because in the margin. That
the marginal rendering becausc (or for), is the correct one, is proved by the con-
sideration presented by Lünem. The success of the gospel, as he had preached it
among them, and the results of it in their lives were the proofs that they had been
divinely elected, and the Apostle gives thanks because he knows from this evidence
that they are thus chosen. The reference to election here is accordingly intro-
duced, as it is uniformly in Paul's writings, in connection with the joy which comes
from it to the thought of the Christian believer, who may have his hope and con-
fidence made sure hy reason of this fact.-(e) The combination of hoyo, duváțel and
atvejuatı suggests the similar combinations in 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5, and iv. 20. From the
passages considered in their resemblances, and apart from their differences, we
NOTES.
461
may infer that by dúvajis is meant, both here and in 1 Cor., that power of God
which accompanies the preaching, and in the sphere of which its effectiveness
lies; that by hóyos is liere meant, as contrasted with the more particular reference
given by the genitive copias in 1 Cor., the mere human word or utterance, of
whatever sort it may be, in which the gospel message is set forth; and that év av.
áy, is kindred to év åmodeifel tavejuatos, and is intended to signify the energizing force
which fills the truth declared by the preacher, and carries it to the heart of the
hearer. The whole working of the Apostle and his companions, as they had pro-
claimed Jesus Christ and Him crucified to the Thessalonians, had, accordingly, been
in the sphere of words, indeed, but not only in this—in the sphere, also, of power
and of the Holy Spirit. And now he adds ě v aanpopopia rola. This full
assurance or conviction on the part of the preachers is connected with their con-
sciousness of the presence of the δύναμις and the πνεύμα άγιον, or more imme-
diately with the latter, if év before Tamp. is omitted with * B 17 Sahid. Copt. W.
& H. and Tisch. Sth ed. omit év; Treg. brackets it. As Ell. says, tanp. presents
the “subjective, corresponding to the more objective side presented in the preced-
ing” words.-(f) šyevňonuEv ver. 5 refers to what they had shown themselves to
be, not in their character as exhibited in their entire life, but in their character
as preachers. It is doubtful whether the view of Lünem., that éyev. has so much
of the passive sense as to indicate divine agency, and to imply divine purpose in
di quãs, can be insisted upon. He maintains the same view with regard to éyev
Onte of ver. 64_" were made by the agency of God," where became or showed your-
selves would seem to be the more natural rendering. The fact that these sentences
are connected by Önt with Khoynu does not demand this assigning of a passive
sense to the verb.-(9) The placing of ver. 6 under the ti of ver. 5 (so Lünem.)
is favored by the correspondence of the verbs εγενήθημεν–εγενήθητε, as well as by
the evident intention of the writer to present in the two verses the twofold reason
for eidotas K.T.2. If a period is placed after ver. 5, as is done by Tisch., R. V.,
Alſ., and many others, the connection is unnecessarily broken.-(h) If the point
in which they showed themselves imitators of the Lord is to be found in the
words of the verse, Heb. xii. 2, 3, may be compared. But may not the partici-
pial clause δεξάμενοι .... αγίου stand simply in an evidential relation to έγεν.
Pellentai, and the latter expression have a more indefinite and general reference?-
(i) yap of ver. 8 gives the ground justifying the statement of ver. 7; but it intro-
duces, at the same time, the explanation of the way in which they thus became
an example, etc. By reason of the impression produced by their reception of the
word and their turning from idols to the service of God, they arrested the atten-
tion of all the believers in the upper and lower sections of Greece, and became
objects of admiration and imitation. The gospel, in this way, had sounded forth
from them, and their faith had gone out in its influence in every direction—and
this to such a degree that, instead of having to tell the story of it to other
churches, Paul found these other churches ready to tell it to him.-6) Lünem.
finds in ávalléVELV Ver. 10 the idea of the nearness of the coming of the Lord. So
Alf. and others. Ell. and others, assign to the word simply the notion of patience
and confidence. There can be little doubt that the waiting for His Son from
heaven" is here spoken of as the prominent thing in the new Christian life of
the readers, because this was the great thought occupying their minds. That they
supposed the advent to be near is evident. Whether the apostle had this view can
be hardly determined from this verb, but must be decided from other passages.
162
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
CHAPTER II.
VER: 2. nepotaðbvtec] Elz. has kai tpoTaJÓVTES. Against A B C D E F G
LX, min. plur. vss. and Fathers. Kai is a gloss for the sake of strengthening.
-Ver. 3. Elz. has oïtɛ év Sów. So also Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7,
Bloomfield, Alford. But it is to be read oudè šv dółw, with Lachm., Tisch. 1
and 8 and Ellicott after A B C D* F G. X, min., which also the gradation of
the language requires (see exposition).-Ver. 4. Instead of the Receptus TQ OEQ,
B C D* X* 67** 114, et al., Clem. Bas. Oecum. require oew. The article is
erased by Tisch., Alford and Ellicott, bracketed by Lachmann. The omission is
not sufficiently attested. Opposed to this omission are the weighty authorities of
A D*** E F G K L **** min. and many,Fathers. The article might easily
have been omitted, on account of the similarity of sound with the two following
words.Ver. 7. B C* D* F G * min. vss. (also Vulg. and It.) Orig. (once)
Cyr. et al. have výttiol, instead of the Receptus *TLOL. Received by Lachm. But
against the unity of the figure, and arisen from attaching the v of the preceding
Word εγενήθημεν.-Verr. 8. ομειρόμενοι] Elz. has έμειρόμενοι. Against A B C D
EF G K L X, min. plur. edd. Chrys. (alic.) Damasc. MS. Theophyl. dis.
Reiche, I. 1, p. 326 ff., indeed, recognizes ójelpólevol as primitiva scriptura ; but
he thinks that inelpóuevol was the word designed to be written by Paul, whilst
Ouslpóſevol owed its origin to an error in dictation—to a mistake of the amanuen-
sis in hearing or in writing:-yeyévnobɛ] A B C D E F G L x, min. plur.
Bas. al. read éyevýlnte. Recommended by Griesbach. Rightly received by
Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott. The Receptus yeyévnode is a
correction, from erroneously imagining eúdocoĪJLEV to be in the present.— Ver. 9.
VUKTOS] Elz. Matth. have vukTÒS yap. But yáp is rightly erased by Griesb.
Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Alford, Ellicott, according to A B D* F G 23, 71,
et al. perm. Syr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Chrys. (comm.) Theophyl. Ambrosiast.
Aug. An explanatory.correction.—Ver. 12. Instead of the Receptus raptupové
MEVOL, B D*** (also D**?) E (?) K L x, min. plur. Chrys. Damasc. Oec. have
MapTUPÓLLEVOL. Rejected by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 1. Correctly approved by
Matth., Fritzsche (de conforin. N. T. critica, quam Lachm. edidit, comment. I., Giessen
1841, p. 38), de Wette, Tisch. 2, 7 and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott and Reiche,
as laptvpetobal is everywhere used only in a passive sense (see Meyer on Acts
xxvi. 22, and Rinck, lucubr. crit. p. 95), so that uaprupoúpevol would be without
meaning. Also paprupóuevOL by a careless scribe might easily have been formed
into μαρτυρούμενοι, οn account of the preceding παραμυθούμενοι as the similarity
of termination gave occasion to the entire omission of kaì uaptvp. in A.-Instead
of the Rec. TEPLTatījou is, with Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Alford and Ellicott, to be
read repetateīv, according to A B D* F G X, min. Recommended to consid-
eration by Griesb.—Ver. 13. Instead of the Receptus dià ToĪTO, Lachm. Tisch.
and Alford, according to A B X, Copt. Syr. p. al. Theodoret (cd.) Ambrosiast.
read kai dià ToĪTO, which, as the more unusual reading, merits the preference.-
CHAP. II. 1.
463
Ver. 15. TOùG Te pophtas] Elz. Matth. Bloomfield, Reiche read Toùs idious reportas.
Against A B D* E* F G x, min. vss. (also It. and Vulg.) and Fathers. A
gloss from ver. 14 for the sake of strengthening.–Ver. 16. žohatev] Lachm. and
Tisch. 1 read špakev, which is only attested by B D*, whilst the Receptus has
the important authority of A C D** and *** EFGKL X, and as it appears of
all min., of Orig. (twice) Chrys. Theodoret, Dam. et al.-Instead of the Receptus
ópyh D E F G, Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel. Sedul. have y ópyò TOĎ OɛOū; an
explanatory addition.-Ver. 18. AlbŢl] Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2, Bloomfield,
Reiche have dió. Against preponderating testimonies (A B D* F G *, al.).
Suspected also by Griesbach.--Ver. 19. 'Incoû] Elz. Matth. Scholz have: 'Incoû
Xplotoũ. Xplotoū is doubted by Griesb., correctly erased by Lachm. Tisch.
Alford and Ellicott, according to A BDEK , min. plur. Syr. utr. al. Theodoret,
Damasc. Oec. Ambrosiast. ed.
CONTENTS.—The readers themselves know that the apostle's entrance
among them was not without effect: although he had just been mal-
treated at Philippi, yet he has the courage to preach the gospel at Thes-
salonica amid contentions and dangers; for God Himself has called him
to preach the gospel. It is accordingly solely and entirely the approval
of God which he seeks; impure motives for preaching the gospel, such as
vanity, covetousness, desire of honor, are far removed from him; he has,
full of love, interested himself for the Thessalonians; he himself day and
night worked for his maintenance, that he might not be burdensome to
them; he then, in a paternal manner, exhorts and beseeches every one of
them to show themselves worthy in their life of the call to eternal blessed-
ness, which had been brought to them (vv. 1-12). He then thanks God
that the Thessalonians had actually received the gospel as the word of
God, which it really is, and that it had already been so mighty in them,
that they shunned not to endure sufferings for its sake (vv. 13–16). Here-
upon the apostle testifies to his readers how he, full of longing toward
them, who are no less than other Christian churches his hope, his .praise,
and his joy, had wished twice to return to them, but had been hindered
by the devil (vv. 17-20).
Ver. 1. [On Vv.1-12, see Note XLVIII. pages 491-493] is referred by Grotius
to a thought to be supplied after i. 10: Merito illam spem vitae aeternae
retinetis. Vera enim sunt, quae vobis 'annuntiavimus. Arbitrarily, as
avto záp, emphatically placed first, yea, you yourselves, must contain a
contrast of the readers to other persons; and, besides, this view is founded
on a false interpretation of où kevN YÉyovev (see below). Also ver. 1 can-
not, with Bengel, Flatt (who, besides, will consider i. 8–10 as a parenthe-
sis), Pelt, Schott, and others, be referred to i. 5, 6; nor, with Hofmann,
“extending over £iSbTES TĪVěkkoyiv üpūr" (i. 4) to cúxaplotOūLLEV TV 'BEQ
(i. 2), the thought being now developed, "what justification the apostle
had for making the election of his readers the special object of thanks-
giving to God;" but must, with Zanchius, Balduin, Turretin, de Wette, -
Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott and others, be referred back to i. 9. For to
i. 9 points-(1) avro vàp oïdata, by which the 'Thessalonians themselves are
464
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
contrasted to the strangers who reported their praise; (2) Tiv εioodov pôv
την προς υμάς, even by its similarity of sound refers to οποίας είσοδος
ÈO XOLEV após újās (i. 9); (3) the greater naturalness of referring yáp (ii. 1)
to the preceding last independent sentence. The relation of this reference
is as follows : in chap. ii. 1 the apostle refers to i. 9, in order to develop
the thought expressed there--which certainly was already contained
in i. 5, 6–by an appeal to the consciousness of the readers. But the
thought expressed in i. 9 was twofold—(1) a statement concerning
Paul and his assistants, namely, with what energy they preached the
gospel at Thessalonica (órolav εioodov ÈO XOLEV após úpās); and (2) a state-
ment concerning the Thessalonians, namely, with what eagerness they
received the gospel (raż Tās K.T.A.). Both circumstances the apostle
further develops in chap. ii. : first, and most circumstantially, the man-
ner in which he and his assistants appeared in Thessalonica (ii. 1-12);
and, secondly, the corresponding conduct of his readers (ii. 13–16).
But the description of himself (vv. 1-12) was not occasioned by the calum-
niations of the apostle, and a diminution of confidence in him occasioned
thereby (Benson, Ritschl, Hall. A. Lit. Z. 1847, No. 125; Auberlen); also,
not so much by the heartfelt gratitude for the great blessings which God
had conferred on his ministry at Thessalonica, as by the definite design'
of strengthening and confirming, in the way of life on which they had
entered, the Christian Church at Thessalonica,—which, notwithstanding
their exemplary faith, yet consisted only of novices,--by a vivid repre-
sentation of the circumstances of their conversion. How entirely appro-
priate was the courageous, unselfish, self-sacrificing, and unwearied
preaching of the apostle to exhibit the high value of the gospel itself, seeing
it was capable of inspiring such a conduct as Paul and his compan-
ions had exhibited !-yáp] yea, or indeed. See Hartung, Partikellehre, I. p.
463 ff.—The construction : oidate Tīju tioodov, 076—where we, according to
our idiom, would expect idate, őtc kioodoç K.7.2.-is not only, as Schott
and others say, “not unknown” to classical writers, but is a regulcir con-
struction among the Greeks.' See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 466.--£ioodos ♡
repòs újās] denotes here nothing more than our entrance among you.--
KEVÓS] is the opposite of thápns, and denotes empty, void of contents, null.
—oº kevù véyovev] Grotius (whom Hammond follows) translates this by
mendax, fallac, ( !"), and gives the sense : non decepturi ad vos venimus.
But although KEVÒS often forms the contrast to anons (see also Eph. v. 6),
yet it obtains only thereby the meaning falsus, never the meaning fallax ;
also ver. 2 would not suit to the meaning fallax, because then the idea of
uprightness would be expected as a contrast. Oecumenius finds in vv. 1,
2 the contrast of truth and falsehood: OÚ KEVì yéyovevº TOUTÉOTIV où pataia ou
uvou yàp Yevdɛīç kai hñpou tà quétepa impúyjata. But he obtains this mean-
ing only by incorrectly laying the chief stress in ver. 2 on tò evayyé lov toŨ
Deo (ovdè nueīs avepór lv6V TL impúšaulev eis únās à22à OkoŨ abyovs). Simi-
larly to Grotius, but equally erroneously, Koppe (veni ad vos eo consilio
et studio, ut vobis prodessem, non ut otiose inter vos viverem) and Rosen-
müller (vani honoris vel opum acquirendarum studio) refer oú kevÒ yÉYOVEV
.
CHAP. II. 2.
465
to the design of the apostle, interpretations which are rendered impossi-
ble by the perfect yéyovev. With a more correct appreciation of yéyovev,
Estius, Piscator, Vorstius, Turretin, Flatt, and others give the meaning
inutilis, fruclu carens, appealing to the Hebrew p'?. This meaning is in
itself not untenable, but it becomes so in our passage by the contrast in
ver. 2; for ver. 2. does not speak of the result or effect of the apostle's
preaching at Thessalonica, but of the character of that preaching itself.
For the sake of this contrast, therefore, où kev“ is equivalent to ovvath,
SELVÝ (Chrys. : oủk ávipwnívn Oudề tuxovoa), and the meaning is : the
apostle's eioodos, entrance, among the Thessalonians was not weak, power-
less, but mighty and energetic. Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, and
Bloomfield erroneously unite with this idea of oú kevò the idea of the
success of the apostle's citodos, which is first spoken of in ii. 13 ff.
Ver. 2. Calvin makes ver. 2 still dependent on őri of ver. 1; but with-
out grammatical justification. TporaObvtes] although we suffered before..
προπάσχειν in the N. T., an άπαξ λεγόμενον, denotes the sufferings previous
to the time spoken of (comp. Thucyd. iii. 67; Herod. vii. 11). As, how-
ever, the compound as well as the simple verb is a vox media, and so may
denote the experience of something good (comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 5), Paul
fitly adds kaì üßploGÉVTES, and were insolently treated (comp. Demosth. adv.
Phil. iii., ed. Reisk, p. 126; Matt. xxii. 6; Acts xiv. 5), by which aporta-
ObvTES is converted in malam partem, and likewise the idea of háo xelv
strengthened. [XLVIII 6.] (For the circumstance, see Acts xvi.)—kaðàç
oidate] [XLVIII c.] although avto yàp oïdate had just preceded, is invol-
untarily added by Paul, by reason of the lively feeling with which he
places himself, in thought, in the time whereof. he speaks.---ěnapinola-
búuela] is not, with de Wette, to be referred to the bold preaching of
the gospel, and to be translated : “we appeared with boldness," but is to
be rendered : "we had confidence.” Tappnotáceolal, indeed, primarily de-
notes speaking with boldness (Eph. vi. 20), then, also, acting with boldness
and confidence.--Ėv TẬ Oem igpwv] in our God, by means of fellowship and
union with Him, belongs to étaponoiáoajela, and indicates wherein this
confidence was founded-in what it had its ground. Nuār does not de-
note : eundem ipsis, idolorum quondam cultoribus, deum esse ac ipsi
(Pelt), but is the involuntary expression of the internal bond which unites
the speakers with God, with their God; comp. Rom. i. 8; 1 Cor. i. 4; Phil.
i. 3, iv. 19; Philem. 4.-ahīsai] cannot be united with štapinolaoá ueda in
the sense of jetà tappiolas traNoWļLEV (Koppe, Flatt, Pelt); nor is it the
statement of design ?; nor is it an epexegetical infinitive 3; but it is the
statement of the object attached to étapónolao áueda, as this gives to our
f
1 Oecum.; Slà tòy év8vvajoûvta Deòy TOÛTO
ποιήσαι τεθαρρήκαμεν.
Scott: summa dicendi libertate usi sumus,
ut vobis traderemus doctrinam divinam laeta
nuntiantem.
8 Ambrosiaster: exerta libertate usi sumus
in deo nostro, loquendo ad vos evangelium dei
in magno certamine; Fritzsche, ad 2 Cor. diss.
II. p. 102: non frustra vos adii (ver. 1), sed ...
libere deo fretus doctrinam div. tradidi, ut
vel magnis cum aerumnis conflictans evan-
gelium apud vos docerem; de Wette: "So
that we preached the gospel to you amid
much contention;" Koch; Ellicott: we were
bold of speech in our God, so as to speak unto
you the gospel of God in much conflict.
30
466
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
passage a dependent sense, and only introduces the infinitive clause, thus:
we had the confidence to preach to you the gospel of God amid much contention.
From this it follows that the chief stress is not to be laid on étapónolacáueda
(ver. 2); and thus the unbroken boldness of the apostle does not form the
contrast to oυ κενή γέγονεν, as de Wette thinks, but ου κενή γέγονεν has its con-
trast in añoal tò εý. ŠV tokra áyāvu. It is only thus that a real relation
exists between the thought in vv. 1 and 2 (and also only thus a real rela-
tion of ver. 3 to ver. 2; see below); for that the preaching of the apostle
in Thessalonica was so powerful and energetic (ou kev“), was by no means
proved by the boldness of his preaching at Thessalonica, though a bold-
ness unbroken by the persecutions which he suffered elsewhere shortly
before ; but rather this was something great, and demonstrated the power
and energy of the apostle's preaching, that he and his companions,
though they had just undergone suffering and persecution at Philippi,
nevertheless had the courage and confidence even in Thessalonica to
preach the gospel amid sufferings and persecutions.—evayyériov TOÙ DEOū]
The genitive denotes not the object of the gospel, but its author; comp.
Rom. i. 1. Moreover, evayyércov ToŨ Okoũ is the usual form; and there-
fore, although Θεώ precedes, ευαγγέλιον αυτού is not put.-εν πολλή αγώνι]
in much contention. áráv is to be understood neither of the cares and
anxieties of the apostle (Fritzsche), nor of his diligence and zeal (Molden-
hauer), but of external conflicts and dangers.
Vv. 3, 4 explain what enables and obliges the apostle to preach the gos-
pel in sufferings and trials. The objective and subjective truth of his
preaching enables him, and the apostolic call with which God had en-
trusted him obliges him. yáp, ver. 3, accordingly does not refer to tò
evayyérLOV TOŪ OsoŨ (Moldenhauer, Flatt), nor to é apenolacéllela (Olshau-
sen, de Wette, Koch), but to hahñoai šv Tokhô áyūvi. yàp mapáchnous
nuõv oúk ék Thávns K.T.2.] sc. &otiv, not ñv (Bloomfield), for Paul establishes
(vv. 3, 4) the manner of his entrance in Thessalonica (as the present
rakovjev proves) by qualities which were habitual to him; and not until
ver. 5 does he return to the special manifestation of those general quali-
ties during his residence in Thessalonica.--tapákanois] denotes exhortation,
address. The meaning of this word is modified according to the differ-
ent circumstances of those to whom the address is directed. If the ad-
dress is made to a sufferer or mourner, then it is naturally consolatory,
and mapákanois denotes comfort, consolation; but if it is directed to a
moral or intellectual want, then rapákanois is to be translated exhortation,
admonition. Now the first evangelical preaching naturally consists in
exhortation and admonition,--namely, in a demand to put away their
sins, and to lay hold on the salvation offered by God through the mission
of His Son (comp. 2 Cor. v. 20). Accordingly, tapákanois might be used
to denote the preaching of the gospel generally. So here, where to ad-;
here to the meaning consolatio, with Zwingli, would be unsuitable. Yet
it is erroneous to replace zapákanois with sidaxń (Chrysostom, Oecunie-
nius, Theophylact, de Wette) or with didackalía (Theodoret); for, accord-
ing to the above, more is contained in zapáchnous than in these ideas.
CHAP. II. 3, 4.
467
Pelt explains tapákanois erroneously by docendi ratio. But mapákanois,
understood as an exhortative address, or as the preaching of the gospel,
may be taken either in an objective or subjective meaning: in the first
case, it denotes the contents or subject of the preaching; in the second
case, the preaching itself. The latter meaning is to be preferred on ac-
count of ver. 4.—The rapákanols of the apostle and his assistants had its
origin not ék Távns. Távn, error, is used in a transitive and intransitive
sense. In the former case it denotes deceitfulness (Matt. xxvii. 64) or
seduction (Eph. iv. 14); in the latter, which is the more usual meaning,
delusion. In both cases távn is the contrast of ảangela (1 John iv. 6): in
the former case, of ảantelci in a subjective sense, truthfulness; in the
latter, of årñtela in án objective sense, truth (thus in Rom. i. 27, where
a hávn refers to the idolatrous perversion of Monotheistic worship). Also,
here Távn (on account of the succeeding ¿v dóhw) is best rendered not
imposturu (Erasmus, Calvin, Hemming, Estius, Beza, Turretin) or sedu-
cendi studium (Vorstius, Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius), but delusion.
Accordingly the sense is : the apostle and his associates avoided not
sufferings and trials in the preaching of the gospel, because their preach-
ing rested not on a fiction, a whim, a dream, a delusion, --consequently it
had not such as these for its object and contents; but it is founded on
reality,—that is to say, it has divine truth as its source.--oudè & åkaðapoias]
a second reason different from the first, and heightening it. Paul turns
from the objective side of the origin of his preaching to its subjective
side,—that is, to the motive which lay at the foundation of the gospel
preaching of himself and his assistants. This motive is not akatapoia
(see Tittmann, de synonym. in N. T. I. p. 150 f.), uncleanness, i.e. impurity
of sentiment, as would be the case were the apostle to preach the gospel
from covetousness, vanity, or similar reasons.--oudè Šv dów7 nor also (does
it consist or realize itself) in guile or deceit (contrast to cihlkpívela, 2 Cor.
ii. 17); a new emphasis, as it was something still worse, if not only an
impure purpose lay at the foundation of a transaction, but also reprehen-
sible means (e. g. korakɛía, ver. 5) were employed for the attainment of
that purpose.
Ver. 4. The contrast.-—kabús] not equivalent to because, quoniam (Flatt),
but according as, or in conformity with this.—dokluágelv] denotes to prove, to
try, then to esteem worthy, so that it corresponds to the verb åčlovv, 2 Thess.
i. 11. -dedokluáqueda [XLVIII. d.] denotes, accordingly, not the divine act of
the purification of the human character (Moldenhauer), but the being
esteemed worthy on the part of God; not, however, as a reward of human
merit, or a recognition of a disposition not taken up with earthly things
(Chrysostom : ει μή είδε παντός απηλλαγμένους βιωτικού, ουκ αν ημάς είλετο;
Theophylact: our àv & fehéfato, ai un åčious éyivwoke); also, not as an antici-
pation that Paul and his associates would preach the gospel without pleas-
ing men (Oecumenius : ' Oeòs édokiuagev juās undèv repòs sófav hanεiv ávApó-
TWV pé dovras), but as a manifestation of the free and gracious counsel of
1 Comp. Plut. Thes. 12: 'Enow oův ó noeùs éni tò ãplotov OỦk edokinase opáselv ajtóv, őOTIS ein.
468
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
God (Theodoret, Grotius, Pelt, Ellicott). The chief idea, however, is not
δεδοκιμάσμεθα (so Hofmann), but πιστευθήναι το ευαγγέλιον.--The passive
form: TULOTEVOñvai Tò evayyéhlov, is according to the well-known Greek
idiom, of using in the passive the nominative of the person, even in verbs
which in the active govern the genitive or dative. Comp. Rom. iii. 2; 1
Cor. ix. 17; Gal. ii. 7; Kühner, II. p. 34; Winer, p. 215 [E. T. 229].-
OŰTws] emphatically: even in this condition, even according to this rule. It
does not refer to the following us (Flatt), but to the preceding kabús, and
denotes that the gospel preaching of the apostle and his associates was in
correspondence with the grace and obligation imparted to them.-ovx üs
K.T.2.] explains and defines the whole preceding sentence: kaows . . . OŰTWS
λαλούμεν.-αρέσκειν] is here, on account of the concluding words αλλά το
DeQ K.1.2., not to please, to find approbation, but to seek to please. For, in
reference to God, the apostle, according to his whole religious views and
habits of thought, could only predicate of himself an endeavor to please,
but not the actual fact that he pleased Him. It would, however, be erron-
eous to put this meaning into the verb itself ; 1 it arises only when the
present or imperfect is employed, because these tenses may be used de
conatu2_-“s] may either be—(1) a pure particle of comparison: not as
men-pleasers, but as such who seek to please God; or (2) may mark the
condition : not as such who, etc.; or lastly, (3) may emphasize the per-
versity which would exist, if the apostle was accused of avapúrols åpkokelv:
not as if we sought to please men. In the two first cases ás extends over
the second member of the sentence: ánhà tớ OeQ K.T.N., in the last only
over ανθρώπους αρέσκοντες. The second meaning is to be preferred, as
according to it oux ós K.1.2. corresponds best to the qualifying words
expressive of the apostle's mode of preaching (ver. 3).---TẬ dokiuá Sovti Tàs
kapdías nuāv] who proves, searches our hearts. Muuõv refers to the speaker.
To understand it generally, with Koppe, Pelt, Koch, and Bloomfield, is
indeed possible, but not to be commended, as the general form tớ doklusá-
GOVTL Tàç kapdías, without the addition of nuūv, would be expected. Comp.
Rom. viii. 27; Rev. ii. 23; Ps. vii. 10. Moreover, Paul speaks neither
here nor in ver. 7 ff. of himself only, as de Wette thinks “very probable"
in vv. 3, 4, but "certain”in ver. 7, but includes his associates mentioned
in i. 1. If the apostle spoke only of himself, he would not have put tàs
kapsias huūv (ver. 4) and ràs éautāv buxáç (ver. 8), but would have written
both times the singular, thu kapsiav ruõv and Tìu fuxiv opāv.
Ver. 5. Proof of the habitual character of the gospel preaching by an
appeal to the character which it specially had in Thessalonica.--yáp] refers
to oux ús ávöpótols åpéo KOVTEC ánhà tớ oɛw.—ĖyevýdnjLEV év] we proved our-
selves in, or we appeared as of such a character. The passive form éyevno-
nuev (see on i.5) denotes here also that the mode of appearance mentioned
lay in the plan of God, was something appointed by Him.--kohakela] comp.
1S0 Wieseler on Gal. i. 10, who, however, ex.
plains it not "to seek to please,” but “to live
to please;" and after him, Hofmann and Möh-
ler in the 3d ed. of de Wette's Commentary.
2 See PAugk, ad Eur. Hel. V. 1085; Stallb.
ad Plat. Gorg. p. 185, and ad Protag. p. 46;
Kühner, II. p. 67.
. CHAP. II. 5.
469
Theophrast. charact. c. 2: Thu dè kohakelav únoráßol åv tiç óuchiav aio xpày
eival, ouudépovoav dề TQ KONAKEÚOVTI. The word is not again found in the
N.T. év hóyw kohakelaç cannot denote in a rumor (report) of flattery, accord-
ing to which the sense would be: for never has one blamed us of flattery
(so Heinsius, Hammond, Clericus, Michaelis). Against this is the con-
text, for the point here is not what others said of the apostle's conduct, but
what it was in reality. Also it is inadmissible to take év loyw kohaseias,
according to the analogy of the Hebrew 777 with the following substan-
tive, as a circumlocution for év korakelą (so Pelt, who, however, when he
renders the clause : in assentationis crimen incurri, involuntarily falls into
the afore-mentioned explanation). For—(1) the Hebrew use of 777 is
foreign to the N. T.; (2) it is overlooked that lóyos romakeias finds in the
context its full import and reference, inasmuch as the apostle, in com-
plete conformity to the contents of the preceding verses (comp. hannoat,
ver. 2; trapákanois, ver. 3; haloījev, ver. 4), in the beginning of ver. 5 still
speaks of a quality of his discourse, and only in ver. 6 passes to describe
his conduct in Thessalonica in general. Accordingly, the apostle denies
that he appeared in Thessalonica with a mode of speech whose nature or
contents was flattery (Schott falsely takes kohakelas as the genitive of origin),
or that he showed himself infected with it. In Thessalonica, for this limi-
tation of oi . . . Troté is demanded by the accessory appeal to the actual
knowledge of the readers-kabūs оidate, as ye know.—OÛTE ÉV te popáoel The0-
večias] sc. éyevñonjev. Tpóbaois, from apopaivw (not from apóonul), denotes
that which one puts on for appearance, and with the definite design to
color or to cloak something else. It therefore denotes pretext, the out-
ward show, and has its contrast (comp. Phil. i. 18) in aandela. The mean-
ing accordingly is: we appeared not in a pretext for covetousness, i.e. our
gospel preaching was not of this nature, that it was only a pretext or
cloak to conceal our proper design, namely, covetousness. Without
linguistic reason, and against the context, Heinsius and Hammond
understand apopaois as accusatio; Pelt, weakening the idea, and not
exhausting the fundamental import of apó aois (see below), nunquam
ostendi avaritiam; Wolf also unsatisfactorily considers apópaols as equiv-
alent to species ; similarly Ewald, “even in an appearance of covetous-
ness;" for the emphatic even (by which that interpretation is at all
suitable, and by means of which there would be a reference to a supple-
mentary clause, “to say nothing of its being really covetousness”) is
interpolated, and the question at issue is not whether Paul and his associ-
ates avoided the appearance of Theovežia, but whether they actually kept
themselves at a distance from theovečía. Lastly, erroneously Clericus (so
also the Vulg.): in occasione avaritiae, ita ut velit apostolus se nullam
unquam occasionem praebuisse, ob quam posset insimulari avaritiae.—oeòs
uáptus] comp. Rom. i. 9; Phil. i. 8. Paul having just now appealed to the
testimony of his readers that he was removed from Kołakɛía, now takes
God for witness that the motive of his behavior was not Theovešia.
See proofs in Raphel, Polyb. p. 354.
470
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Naturally and rightly; for man can only judge of the character of an
action when externally manifested, but God only knows the internal
motives of acting.
Ver. 6. Nor have the apostle and his associates had to do in the publi-
cation of the gospel with external honor and distinction. Comp. John v.
41, 44.-5NTOŪVTES] SC. éyevnOnLEV.-ėš åvopónwr] emphatic.—According to
Schott and Bloomfield, the preposition ék refers to the direct and amó to
the indirect origin,--a distinction in our passage impossible, as ég ávöpú-
πων is the general expression which is by ούτε ... ούτε divided into sub-
ordinate members, or specialized. See Winer, p. 383 [E. T. 411].2-A new
sentence is not to be begun with ovvápevol, so that either, with Flatt, Nuev
would have to be supplied; or, with Calvin, Koppe, and others, duvápevol
K.T.2. would have to be considered as the protasis, and ałałyevñonuev (ver.
7) as the apodosis belonging to it; or, with Hofmann, ána éyevñonuev ÝTT LOL
ÉV MÉow úuāv as an exclamatory interruption of the discourse in its pro-
gress, distinctions chiefly occasioned by the misunderstanding of šv Bápel.
But δυνάμενοι is subordinate to ζητούντες (sc. εγενήθημεν) and limits it, on
account of which it is inappropriate to enclose δυνάμενοι ... απόστολοι,
with Schöttgen and Griesbach, in a parenthesis. The meaning is : Also
in our entrance to you our motive was not in anywise to be honored or
distinguished by men, although we certainly might have demanded external
honor. Theodoret, Musculus, Camerarius, Estius, Beza, Grotius, Calixtus,
Calovius, Clericus, Turretin, Whitby, Baumgarten, Koppe, Flatt, Ewald,
Hofmann, and others take Év Bápal elval in the sense of being burdensome
(sc. by a demand of maintenance from the church), and thus equivalent
to étißapɛiv (ver. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8; and kataßapɛīv, 2 Cor. xii. 16; comp.
åßapa {uavTòv étapnoa, 2 Cor. xi. 9); but this is an arbitrary assumption
from ver. 9-arbitrary, because ζητούντες δόξαν 2nd εν βάρει είναι must
correspond; but in the first half of ver. 6 Paul's custom of not suffering
himself to be supported by the church, but gaining his maintenance by
working with his own hands, is not indicated by a single syllable. On
account of this correspondence of év Bápel with sočav, the explanation of
Lipsius (Stud W. Krit. 1854, 4, p. 912) is wholly untenable: “As the
apostles of Christ we did not at all need glory among men, but were
rather in a position to endure trouble and burden,--that is, to endure
with equanimity persecutions and trials of all kinds which men inflict
upon us,” not to mention that the idea of “not at all needing,” and the
emphatic “rather,” are first arbitrarily interpolated. Heinsius, after the
example of Piscator (who, however, wavers), understands év Bápel εival of
severitas apostolica : Se igitur, šv Bápel εival Suvájevov, quum severitatem
exercere apostolicam posset, lenem fuisse, eo fere modo, quo év páßsw
1 Oecumenius: kad@s 8è £ áv pátrwy Thu
yàpex coll (sc. Sótav) kai ésńToUv kai édáußavov,
8 If a distinction between the two preposi-
tions is to be assumed, we can only say, with
Bouman (Charact. theolog. I. p. 78): "8oča é
av pútwy universe est à vopw tivn, quae huo
manam originem habet, ex hominibus exsistit:
sofa á¢' vuôv, quae singulatim a vobis, vestro
ab ore manatac proficiscitur;" or, with Alford,
“ék belongs to the abstract ground of the
sófa, åtó to the concrete object, from which it
was in each case to accrue,"
CHAP. II. 6–8.
471
ÉRDEīv kai év ảyárņ tvevuari të mpaŰTNTOS, 1 Cor. iv. 21, opponit. But thus
ểv Bápal and natioL will be erroneously opposed to each other. (See on
ver. 7.) Bápos, heaviness, weight, occurs even among classical writers, as
the Latin gravitas, in the sense of distinction, dignity (see Wesseling, ad
Diodor. Sicul. IV. 61). Év Bápel εival [XLVIII e.] accordingly means to be
of weight, to be of importance, i.e. to be deserving of outward honor and
distinction. —Paul annexes the justification of such an śv Bápel elva. by
the words as XPLOtoñ árbotoho,] i. e. not sicut apostoli alii faciunt (1 Cor.
ix. 6; Grotius), but in virtue of our character as the apostles of Christ.
åtotohol is, however, to be used in its wider sense, as Paul not only
speaks of himself, but also of Silvanus and Timotheus, as in Acts xiv. 14.
Ver. 7. Paul begins in this verse the positive description of his appear-
ance and conduct in Thessalonica.--årašyɛvñonuev ňIT LOLT (XLVIII f.7 a
contrast not to duvápevol év Bápel Eival (Heinsius, Turretin, and others),
but to the principal idea of ver. 6. The apostle's conduct is not that of
one δόξαν εξ ανθρώπων ζητών, but of one who was ήπιος ; God had made
him show himself (éyevñonuev) not as master, but as servant. Oecumenius :
ós kis ég úūv šyevñonuev.—ÝTLOS] mild, kindly, is used of an amiable dispo-
sition or conduct of a higher toward a lower, i. e. of a prince to his subjects,
of a judge to the accused, of a father to his children.2-év ułow v pôv] in
your midst, i. e. in intercourse with you. Erroneously Calovius, it denotes:
erga omnes pariter. Non erga hos blandi, erga illos morosi. There is,
however, no emphasis on ópūv; the apostle does not indicate that he
behaved otherwise in other places.-A colon is to be put after ¿v ułow
juāv, so that ós . . . OŰTWS are connected as protasis and apodosis, and
describe the intensity of Paul's love to the Thessalonians; whilst in éyevn-
Onuev . . . yuāv this love only in and for itself, or according to its general
nature, was stated as a feature of the apostle's behavior. [XLVIII g.]
- popós] a nurse ( ?) here, as is evident from tà avtñs réuva, the
suckling mother herself. Under the image of a mother Paul represents
himself also, in Gal. iv. 19, as elsewhere, under the image of a father; see
ver. 11; 1 Cor. iv. 15; Philem. 10.-ántelv] originally to warm, of birds
which cover and warm their young with their feathers : (see Deut. xxii.
6); consequently an image of protecting love and anxious care generally,
our cherishing; see Eph. v. 29.
Ver 8. 'Oueipeodai] occurs, besides LXX. Job iii. 21, and Symmachus,
Ps. lxii. 2 (yet even in these two places MSS. differ), only in the glossaries.
Hesychius, Phavorinus, and Photius explain it by ÉTT LØVLETV. Theophy-
lact derives it from ouov and cipɛlv; and corresponding to this, Photius
explains it by oμού ήρμόσθαι. Accordingly, ομειρόμενοι υμών would denote
bound with you, attached to you. Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 792 f., Schott,
and others agree. But this is questionable-(1) Because the verb is here
construed with the genitive, and not with the dative; (2) because there is
1 Thus Chrysostom, Oecumenius and Theo-
phylact (both, however, undecidedly), Am-
brosiaster, Erasmus, Calvin, Hunnius, Wolf,
Moldenhauer, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, de
Wette, Koch, Bisping, Alford, Ellicott, Auber-
len, and others.
2 Comp. Hom. Od. ii. 47; Herodian, ii. 4,
init.; Pausan. Eliuc. ii. 18.
472
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
no instance of a similar verb compounded with ónoð or óuós ; see Winer,
p. 95 f. [E. T. 101]. Now, as in Nicander (Theriaca, ver. 402) the simple
form meipsoval Occurs in the sense of ſusipeoval, it can hardly be doubted
that μείρεσθαι is the original root to which εμείρεσθαι and oμείρεσθαι (hay-
ing the same meaning) are related, having a syllable prefixed for euphony.
Compare the analogous forms of kérhw and ókéniw, dúpojal and ódýpoual,
Préw and odaéw, aŭw and iaów, and see Kühner, I. p. 27. Accordingly, as
ipeippoval Tlvóc denotes primarily the yearning love, the yearning desire
for union with an absent friend, and secondarily is; according to the testi-
mony of Hesychius, synonymous with εράν, ομειρόμενοι υμών receives here
the suitable meaning of filled with love to you. Beza unnecessarily, and
against the context (because the word is a verbum ¿pwrikov), supplies :
videlicet vos ad Christum tanquam sponsam ad sponsum adducendi.-
ούτως] belongs not to oμειρόμενοι (Schrader), but to ευδοκούμεν; thus it is
not intensifying: so much, but a simple particle of comparison : thus, in
this manner.-—EUDOKOịuev] not present, but imperfect with the augment
omitted. See Winer, p. 69 [E. T. 71]. cüdokeiv, to esteem good, here, to be
willing, denotes that what took place was from a free determination of
will. Thus it is used both of the eternal, gracious, and free counsels of
God (Col. i. 19; Gal. i. 15; 1 Cor. i. 21), and of the free determination of
men (Rom. xv. 26; 2 Cor. v. 8).-Tàç tavrov yuxas] not a Hebraism in the
sense of nosmet ipsos (Koppe, Flatt), but our lives (Hom. Od. iii. 74;
Aristoph. Plut. 524); the plural prixás proves that Paul thinks not of him.
self only, but also of Silvanus and Timotheus.-On éavtūv, comp. Bern-
hardy, Syntax, p. 272; Winer, p. 142 [E. T. 150]. However, the verb
μεταδούναι does not strictly apply to τας εαυτών ψυχάς, as the idea of importing
is here transformed into that of offering up, devoting. (Erroneously Bengel :
anima nostra cupiebat quasi immeare in animam vestram. Hofmann:
In the word preached, which Paul and his companions imparted to the
Thessalonians even to the exhaustion of their vital power, this as it were
passed over to them, just as the vital power of the mother passes over to
the child, whom she is not content with nourishing generally, but, from
the longings of love to it, desires to nourish it by suckling.) From the
compound verb jetadoīvat the idea of the simple verb dowval is accord-
ingly to be extracted (a zeugma; see Kühner, II. 606).—The thought
contained in ás . . . OUTWS is accordingly: As a mother not only nourishes
her new-born child with her milk, but also cherishes and shelters it, yea,
is ready to sacrifice her life for its preservation, so has the apostle not
merely nourished his spiritual child, the Thessalonian church, with the
milk of the gospel, but has been also ready, in order to preserve it in the
newly begun life, to sacrifice his own life.--The inducement to such a con-
duct was love, which the apostle, although he had already mentioned it,
again definitely states in the words διότι αγαπητοί ημίν εγενήθητε, because ye
were dear and valuable to us.
Ver. 9. Táp [XLVIII h.] refers not to drvápevol év Bápal elval, ver. 6 (Flatt),
but either to εγενήθημεν ήπιοι (ver. 7), or to ευδοκούμεν μεταδούναι, or, finally,
to ayarntoi huiv éyevhönte (ver. 8). For the first reference (Ėyevñonuev ŤA LOL), it
CHAP. II. 9.
473
.
.
U
may be argued that éyevñonuev ñaLOL is the chief idea, the theme as it were,
of vv. 7 and 8; but against this is, that the same thought which was
expressed in éyevýdnjev ifall is repeated and more definitely developed in
in a much more vivid and special manner by means of the parallel
sentence, attached without a copula, and thus complete. In such a
case a causal conjunction following refers rather to the more vivid and
concrete expression than to the more general and abstract. Accordingly,
we are referred to the connection with ευδοκούμεν μεταδούναι. Neither can
this, however, be the correct connection; for then must ver. 9 have
proved the readiness of the apostle when at Thessalonica to sacrifice his
own life for the Thessalonians, as is expressed in ver. 8. But this is not
the case, for in ver. 9 Paul speaks indeed of his self-sacrificing love, but
not of the danger of his life which arose from it. Also Auberlen, who
recently has maintained a reference to eúdokoŨ Lev jeta dowval, can only
support this meaning, that Paul has adduced his manual labor mentioned
in ver. 9 as a "risking of his health and life.” In the same manner;
Ellicott: “the Apostle and his followers practically gave up their
existence to these converts, when they spent night and day in toil rather
than be a burden to any of them.” But how forced is this idea of the
context, and how arbitrarily is the idea of the sacrifice of life, supposed to
be expressed therein, contorted and softened down! It is best, therefore,
to unite γάρ with διότι αγαπητοί ημίν εγενήθητε, a union which, besides, is
recommended by the direct proximity of the words.-μνημονεύετε] as γάρ
proves, is indicative, not imperative.-Kótos and jóxhos] labor and pains :
placed together also in 2 Thess. iii. 8 and 2 Cor. xi. 27. Musculus :
Significat se haud leviter et obiter, sed ad fatigationem usque incubuisse
laboribus. Arbitrarily separating and mixing the gradation, Balduin
interprets kóros “de spirtuali labore, qui consistebat in praedicatione
evangelii ;” and uóxtos "de manuario labore scenopegiae."-VUKTÒS kai
puépas] a concrete and proverbial circumlocution of the abstract
ådlaheintus. But Vuktóc, as usual (Acts ix. 24 is an exception), is placed
first, because the Jews (as also the Athenians, see Plin. Nat. Hist. ii. 79;
Funke, Real-Schullex. II. p. 132) reckoned the civil day from sunset to
sunset (see Winer's bibl. Realwörterb. 2d ed. vol. II. p. 650). Pelagius,
Faber Stapulensis, Hemming, Balduin, and Aretius arbitrarily limit
VUKTÓS to špyasbuevol, and ňuépas to impúšajev.—&pyáčeodai] (comp. 1 Cor.
ix. 6; 2 Thess. iii. 10, 12; Acts xviii. 13) the usual word also among the
classics (comp. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 57) to denote working for wages, especially
manual labor or working by means of a trade (therefore the addition tais
xepoi, 1 Cor. iv. 12; Eph. iv. 28). Paul means his working as a tent-cloth
maker, Acts xviii. 3.—APÒS TÒ ) śnißapſoai tiva vuūv] in order not to be
burdensome to any, sc. by a demand of maintenance. Incorrectly, Chry-
sostom, Theophylact, Pelt, and others infer from this that the converted
Thessalonians were poor. Evidently this unselfish conduct of the apostle
had its ultimate reason in an endeavor that there should be no hindrance
on his part to the diffusion of the gospel.--eis úmãs] represents the readers
as the local objects of knpvoorwv; comp. Mark xiii. 10; Luke xxiv. 47.
474
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Therefore, according to the general sense, it is true that εis úuāç and úuiv
do not differ, but the mode of looking at it is somewhat different. See
Winer, p. 200 [E. T. 212].
Ver. 10. This verse is designed to represent in a summary manner the
conduct of the apostle among the Thessalonians, which was hitherto only
represented by special features; but as thereby not merely what was
patent to external observation, that is, the visible action on which man
can pronounce a judgment, but likewise the internal disposition, which is
the source of that action, was to be emphasized; so Paul naturally
appeals for the truth of his assertion not only to his readers, but to God.
The apostle, however, proceeds without a particle of transition, on account
of the warmth of emotion with which he speaks.- "s] how very.—dows
kaì Sikaiws] (comp. Eph. iv. 24; Luke i. 75; Wisd. ix. 3, OoLÓTns and
SlkalorúvN) is put entirely in accordance with classical usage; the first
denotes dutiful conduct toward God, and the latter toward our neighbor.
å ukuttwS] unblameably. Turretin, Bengel, Moldenhauer interpret this of
dutiful conduct toward oneself, evidently from the desire of a logical division
of love, in order to obtain a sharply marked threefold division of the idea.
Flacius refers it to the reliqui mores besides justitia, that is, to castitas,
sobrietas, and moderatio in omnibus; but this is without any reason. It is
the genercil negative designation, comprehending the two preceding more
special and positive expressions, thus to be understood of a dutiful con-
duct toward God and man. Too narrowly Olshausen: that it is the
negative expression of the positive δικαίως.–υμίν τοίς πιστεύουσιν] belongs
not only to αμέμπτως, but to the whole sentence: ώς οσίως και δικ. και άμ.
Śyevío. It is not dat. commodi ; 2 “ to your, the believers', behoof;" so that
it would be identical with δι' υμάς τους πιστεύοντας. Νor does it mean
toward you believers (de Wette: “This, his conduct, had believers for its
object with whom he came into contact;" Hofmann, Auberlen), for (1)
οσίως does not suit this meaning; (2) as υμίν τοίς πιστεύουσιν is not without
emphasis, the unsuitable contrast would arise, that in reference to others
the apostle did not esteem the upright conduct necessary. For, with
Hammond, to apply úpiv toīS TELOtevovoiv, in contrast to the time when
those addressed had not yet been brought to the faith, is grammatically
impossible, as then the participle of the aorist without the article must be
used; (3) éyevn nuev does not obtain its due force, as the passive form
cannot denote pure self-activity. [XLVIII ¿.]. üliv Tois TTLOTEVOVOLV is, as
already Oecumenius and Theophylact (and recently Alford) explain it,
the dative of opinion or judgment (see Winer, p. 199 [E. T. 212]; Butt-
mann Gramm., des neutest. Sprachgebrauchs, p. 176 [E. T. 1797; Bern-
hardy, Syntax, p. 83): for you, believers, so that this was the character, the
light in which we appeared to you. Thus an appropriate limitation arises
by this addition. For the hostility raised against the apostle, and his
1 Comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 507: kai unn Tepi Mèv
åvopónovs Tà a poońkovta pártwv Sikai äy
Trpártol, tepi sè Deoùs cola; Polyb. xxxiii. 10.
8; Schol. ad Eurip. Hec. 788.
. 2 So also the Reviewer of the first edition in
the Darmstadt Literat-Bl. zur Darmst. Allg.
Kirchenzeit. 1851, No. 131, p. 1051 (Wilib.
Grimm [?]) and Ellicott.
CHAP. II. 10-12,
475
expulsion from Thessalonica, clearly showed how far from being general
was the recognition that God had enabled the apostle to behave dowę kai
ducaíws kaì å péļTTTWG. Moreover, og ooiwg K.1.2. éyev. is not equivalent to os
őoloK..2. ¿yev. (Schott). The adverbs bring prominently forward the
mode and manner, the condition of yɛvnoñvar.?
Vv. 11, 12 are not a mere further digression into particulars, which we
can scarcely assume after the general concluding words in ver. 10, with-
out blaming the author, notwithstanding the freedom of epistolary
composition, of great logical arbitrariness and looseness, but are a proof
of the general concluding sentence ver. 10, ex analogia. As in all that has
hitherto been said the twofold reference to the apostle and his two
associates on the one hand, and to the readers on the other, has
predominated, so is this also the case in vv. 10–12. The circumstance
that he has anxiously and earnestly exhorted his readers to a similar
conduct in οσιότης, δικαιοσύνη, and άμεμψία, is asserted by the apostle as a
proof that he himself behaved in the most perfect manner (us) among the
Thessalonians ooiwg kaì Sikalwç kai újéult TWG. For if any one be truly
desirous that others walk virtuously, this presupposes the endeavor after
virtue in himself. It is thus erroneous when de Wette and Koch, p. 172,
think that the apostle in ver. 10 speaks of his conduct generally, and in
vv. 11, 12 of his ministerial conduct particularly. In vv. 11, 12 Paul does not
speak wholly of his ministerial conduct, for the participles TapakałowVTES,
παραμυθούμενοι, ειnd μαρτυρόμενοι are not to be talken independently, but
receive their full Sense only in union with εις το περιπατείν κ.τ.λ.,
so that the chief stress in the sentence rests on eis TÒ .7.2., and the
accumulation of participles serves only to bring vividly forward the
earnestness and urgency of the apostle's exhortation to TEPLTATETV. Entirely
erroneous, therefore, is Pelt's idea of the connection : Redit P. ad amorem,
quo eos amplectatur, iterum profitendum; for the attestation of love, in
the conduct described in vv. 11, 12, is only expressed by the addition: ús
TaThp Tékva ÉAUTOV, and is thus Only subsidiary to the main thought.-
kabátep] as then, denotes the conformity of what follows to what precedes.
As regards the construction : didate üç K.T.N., we miss a finite terse. Koppe
considers that the participles are put instead of the finite tenses, os
Traperahégaflev kaì rapeuvonoáueda kai ļuaptupnoájeda, an assertion which we
can in the present day the less accept, as it is of itself self-evident that
the participles of the present must have another meaning than that which
could have been expressed by the finite forms of the aorist, i.e. of the
purely historical tense. Others, objecting to the two accusatives, žva
ËKaotov"and vuās, have united újās with the participle, and suggested a
1 See Winer, p. 434 [E. T. 465;] Bernhardy,
Syntax, p. 337 ff.
2 Certainly otherwise Schrader, who regards
καθάπερ οίδατε as “a mere parenthesis which
refers to what goes before and what follows,"
so that then is mapakaloûvres kai mapan. kai
wapr., vv. 11, 12, would be only parallel to ús
ooiws kai Sex. xai amélirt., ver. 10. So recently
also Auberlen. But this construction is
impossible, because kadámep oidare is not a
complete repetition of the preceding jueis
náprupes kai ở eos, but only of its first part
(üucis ráptupes), and thus can in no wise be
considered as a meaningless addition.
476
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
finite tense to ëva fkaotov, which, at the beginning of the period, must have
been in Paul's mind, but which he forgot to add when dictating to his
amanuensis. Vatablus, Er. Schmid, Ostermann would supply to žva
É KAOTOV, hyarhoquev; Whitby, špianoajev, or yanjoajev, or xoányajev, from
ver. 7 ; Pelt, ovx áońkalev (?); Schott, a verb containing the “notio curandi
sive tractandi sive educandi.” But (1) the two accusatives do not at all
justify supplying a special verb to žva ë Kaotov, as not only among the
classics is the twofold use of personal determinations not rare (see
Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 275), but also in Paul's Epistles there are similar
repetitions of the personal object (comp. Col. ii. 13.; Eph. ii. 1,5). (2) To
supply nyarinoajev, or a similar idea, is in contradiction with the design
and contents of yy. 11, 12, as the chief point in these verses is to be sought
in the recollection of the impressive exhortations addressed to the Thess-
alonians to aim at a conduct similar to that of the apostle. Not only the
simplest, but the only correct method, is, with Musculus, Wolf, Turretin,
Bengel, Alford, and Hofmann, to supply éyevñonuev, which has just pre-
ceded ver. 10, to ús... TiapakahoWVTES K.7.2. And just because éyevýānuev
precedes, the supplying of nuev, which Beza, Grotius, Flatt, and others
assume, and which otherwise would be the most natural word, is to be
rejected. Accordingly, there is no anacoluthon in vv.:11, 12, but šyevý-
Onuev to be supplied in thought is designedly suppressed by the apostle in
order to put the greater emphasis on the verbal ideas, παρακαλείν, παραμυ-
diodal, and uaptúpeoðal. The circumlocutionary form, éyevñonuev tapak. K.7.2.,
has this in common with the form ņuev tapak. K.7.2., that it denotes duration
in the past, but it is distinguished from it by this, that it does not refer
the action of the verb simply as something actually done, and which has
had duration in the past; but this action, enduring in the past (and
effected by God), is described in its process of completion, i.e. in the
phase of its self-development.–ëva Ë KAOTUV úuñv ús Taip Tékva éavtoū] The
thought, according to Flatt, consists in this: the apostle has exhorted
and charged, “with a view to the special wants of each, just as a father
gives heed to the individual wants of his children.” But šva & KAOTOV únāv
denotes only the carefulness of the exhortation which is addressed to each
individual without distinction (of rank, endowment, Chrysostom: Babai šv
τοσούτω πλήθει μηδένα παραλιπείν, μή μικρόν, μη μέγαν, μή πλούσιον, μη πένητα), and
the addition ús Tatip TéKVA Éautoð denotes only paternal love (in contrast
to the severity of a taskmaster) as the disposition from which the exhorta-
tions proceeded. But in a fitting manner Paul changes the image
formerly used of a mother and her children into that of a father and his
children, because in the context the point insisted on is not so much that
of tender love, which finds its satisfaction in itself, as that of educating love;
for the apostle, by his exhortation, would educate the Thessalonians for
the heavenly kindom. That the apostle resided a long time in Thes-
salonica (Calovius) does not follow from 'ëva ëkaoTOV.-- Tapakaheiv] to exhort
by direct address. Erroneously Chrysostom, Theophylact : após tò PÉPELV
1 Erasmus completes the clause: complexi & "balbuties apostolicae charitatis, quae se
fuerimus, and finds in the double accusatives verbis humanis seu temulenta non explicat."
CHAP. II. 12, 13.
477
távta.-quãs] resumes Éva fkaoTov vuôv; but whilst that emphatically
precedes, this is placed after mapakahowVTEs, because here the verb tapak, has
the emphasis (comp. Col. ii. 13). Paul adds vpås, which certainly might be
omitted, not so much from carelessness or from inadvertence, but for the
sake of perspicuity, in order to express the personal object belonging to
the participles in immediate connection with them.-Also Tapquvdeiola,
does not mean here to comfort (Wolf, Schott, and others), but to address,
to exhort, to encourage; yet not to encourage to stedfastness, to exhort.to
moral courage (Oecumenius, Theophylact, de Wette), for the object of
παραμυθούμενοι does not follow until ver. 12.
Ver. 12. Maptúpegðal] (comp. Eph. iv. 17) in the sense of slauaptúpeodal (1
Tim. v. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1), earnestly conjuring ; comp. also Thucyd. vi.
80; Deóueda dè kai uaptupóueva apa, and viii. 53: MapTupouévwv kaì ŠTcelaSÓVTWV
uw katayelv, which later passage is peculiarly interesting on this account,
because there (as in our verse, see critical notes) most Mss. read the mean-
ingless μαρτυρουμένων. μαρτυρόμενοι strengthens the two former participles.
Eis TÒ TEPITTATELV úuās K.7.2.] contains not the design (de Wette, Koch, Elli-
cott), also not the design and effect of the exhortation (Schott), but is the
object to all three preceding participles. The meaning is : Calling on you,
and exhorting, and adjuring you to a walk worthy of God, i. e. to make
such a walk yours. But Christians walk åčíws ToŬ Okov (comp. Col. i. 10;
Eph. iv. 1; Rom. xvi. 2; Phil. i. 27 ; 3 John 6), when they actually prove
by their conduct and behavior that they are mindful of those blessings,
which the grace of God has vouchsafed to them, and of the undisturbed
blessedness which He promises them in the future.—TOŬ kahoðvtos] The
present occurs, because the call already indeed made to the Thessalonians
is uninterruptedly continued, until the completion succeeds to the call and
invitation, namely, at Christ's return. The meaning of Hofmann is wide
of the mark : that by the present, the call is indicated as such that would
become wholly in vain for those who walk unworthily.-Baocheiav kai
86ðav] not an ev dià Svoiv; to the kingdom of His glory, or to the glory of
His kingdom (Turretin, Benson, Bolten, Koppe, Olsh. et al.). Both sub-
stantives have the same rank and the same emphasis. Baumgarten-
Crusius erroneously distinguishes Baochela and dóža as the earthly and
heavenly kingdom of God. Further, dóža is not the glory of the Messianic
kingdom, which is specially brought forward after the general Baoinelav (de
Wette); but God calls the readers to participate in His kingdom (i.e. the
Messianic) and in His:(God's) glory, for Christians are destined to enter
upon the joint possession of the Sófa which God Himself has; comp. Rom.
v. 2; Eph. iii. 19.
Ver. 13. [On vv.13-16, see Note XLIX.pages 493,494.] Paulin ver. 13 passes
from the earnest and self-sacrificing publication of the gospel to the earnest
and self-sacrificing reception of the gospel. Erroneously Baumgarten-
Crusius: Paul, having taught in what manner he has been among the
Thessalonians, shows in vv. 13-16 what he has given to them, namely, a
divine thing.-Kai dià ToĪTO] And even on this account. Kai, being placed
first, connects the more closely what follows with what precedes. Comp.
478
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
as we have preambo mal toy you the cospem in
2 Thess. ii. 11.--dià Touro] not: “ quoniam tam felici successu apud vos
evangelium praedicavimus” (Pelt, Bloomfield): for (1) from ver. 1 and
onwards the subject spoken of is not the success, or effect, but only the char-
acter of the apostle's preaching ; (2) the intolerable tautology would arise,
as we have preached to you the gospel with such happy success, so we
thank God for the happy success of our ministry; (3) lastly, if Paul wished
to indicate a reference of ver. 13 to the whole preceding description, he
would perhaps have written dià taŭra, though certainly dià TOūTo might be
justified, as vy. 1-12 may be taken together as one idea. According to
Schott, dià TOUT0 refers back to εis TÒ TEPLTT ateiv: “Quum haec opera in
animis vestris ad vitam divina invitatione dignam impellendis minime
frustra fuerit collocata, quam vos ejusmodi vitam exhibueritis, ego vicissim
cum sociis deo gratias ago assiduas, őri ff.” But still a tautology remains,
which Schott himself appears to have felt, since he takes kai nueis in sharp
contrast to úpās, ver. 12; besides, the ground of this explanation gives
way, inasmuch as εis tÒ Teplitateiv can only denote the object, but in no way
the result of the exhortations. Also de Wette refers dià tovro to eis tò
TEPLTATɛiv, but explains it thus : Therefore, because it was so important
an object for us (so already Flatt, but who unites what is incapable of
being united) to exhort you to a worthy walk. But there is in the pre-
ceding no mention of the importance of the object of the apostle's exhor-
tations. Accordingly there remains for dià TOūto only two connections of
thought possible, namely, either to refer to the earnestness and real
described in vv. 11, 12, with which the exhortations of the apostle were
enforced. Then the thought would be: because we have so much applied
ourselves to exhort you to walk worthy (Flatt, Ellicott), so we thank God
for the blessed result of our endeavors. Or dià TOūto may be referred to the
concluding words of ver. 12: Toũ KaAoũ Toc suat cig caoTo Bao Leav Kai
Sočav, so that the meaning is: Because God calls you to such a glorious
goal, so we thank God continually that you have understood this call of
God which has come to you, and that you have obeyed it. Evidently this
last reference, which is found in Zanchius, Balduin, and Olshausen, is to
be preferred as the nearest and simplest. So recently also Alford and
Auberlen.-kai nueis] to be taken together, we also. For not only Pauland
his companions, but every true Christian who hears' of the conduct of
the Thessalonians, must be induced to thankfulness to God. Comp. Eph.
i. 15. Hardly correctly, Zanchius, whom Bald. and Ell. follow, places kai in
contrast to the Thessalonians : non solum vos propter hanc vocationem
debetis agere gratias, sed etiam nos. Erroneously also de Wette; kai
belongs to the whole clause : therefore also, which would require dià kai
τούτο. -ευχαριστούμεν τω θεώ] For although the spontaneous conduct of the
readers is here spoken of, yet thanks is due to God, who has ordained this
spontaneous conduct.-ÖTL Tapaha BóvTES 26yov K.7.2.] The object of evxapio-
TOūpev, because that when ye received, etc.--Tapahaußávelv] which Baumgarten-
Crusius erroneously considers as equivalent to Séxeodai, indicates the
1 So specially Alford: We as well as távtes oi TTLOTEÚOVTES év Makedovią kai ey on Axaią, i. 7.
CHAP. II. 13.
479
objective reception-the obtaining (comp. Col. ii. 6; Gal. i. 9); déxeogal, on
the other hand, is the subjective reception--the acceptance (comp. i. 6; 2
Cor. viii. 17).-ákon] is used in a passive sense, that which is heard, i. e. the
preaching, the message (comp. Rom. x. 16; Gal. iii. 2; John xii. 38). Arbi-
trarily Pelt; it is that to which one at once shows obedience. Tap nuôv
[XLIX 6.7 is to be closely connected with åkons (Estius, Aretius, Beza,
Calixtus, Koppe, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Alford, Hofmann, and others),
and to the whole idea λόγον ακοής παρ' ημών is added the more definite
characteristic toŨ Okoû. Thus: the word of God which ye have heard of
us, the word of God preached by us. We must not, with Musculus, Piscator,
Er. Schmid, Turretin, Fritzsche (on 2 Cor. diss. I. p. 3) de Wette, Koch,
Ellicott and Auberlen, unite trap ruāv with mapałaßóvres.; for against this
is not only the order of the words, as we would expect tapałaßbvTES Tap
ημών λόγον ακοής του Θεού, whereas in the passage there exists no reason for
the separation of the natural connection; but also chiefly the addition of
ακοής would be strange, as along with παραλαβόντες παρ' ημών it would be
superfluous. It is otherwise with our interpretation, in which an impor-
tant contrast exists, Paul contrasting himself as the mere publisher to the
proper author of the gospel; and in which also the construction is unob-
jectionable (against de Wette), as árovelv itapá tivOS (see John i. 41) is used,
substantives and adjectives often retaining the construction of verbs from
which they are derived. See Kühner, II. pp. 217, 245.—TOW Oɛnv] not the
objective genitive, the word preached by us which treats of God, i. e. of
His purposes of salvation (Erasmus, Vatablus, Musculus, Hunnius, Bal-
duin, Er. Schmid, Grotius), against which the following ou 26yov åvo purwV
... aaaà nóyov Okow is decisive; but the word which proceeds from God,
whose author is God Himself.—ědéçaode] ye have received it, sc. the word of
God preached.-ov 26yov k.7.2.7 [XLIX c.] not as the word of man. The
addition of a ús (oux ós kóyov ávop. årāà ... ús hóyov Oson), dispensable in
itself (see Kühner, II. p. 226), is here the rather left out, because the apos-
tle would not only express what the preaching of the word was in the
estimation of the Thessalonians, but likewise what it was in point of fact, on
which account the parenthesis kaybc éotiv đandūs, according as it is in truth,
is emphatically added.—The Thessalonians received the kóyos OkoŨ as the
word of God, seeing they believed it, and were zealous for it.-ös] is not to
be referred to Ocov,but to 2byov OkoV ;? for (1) in what immediately precedes,
the subject is not oεbs, but abyos Deoữ. (2) Paul uses always the active
ểvepyćTv of God (comp 1 Cor. xii. 6; Gal. ii. 8, iii. 5; Eph. i. 11; Phil. ii.
13), and of things the middle évepyɛcoðal (comp. Gal. v. 6; Eph. iii. 20; Col.
i. 29).—&vpyɛīrai is middle (which is active), not passive (which is made
active), as Estius, Hammond, Schulthess, Schott, Bloomfield, and others
think. [XLIX d.]—ěv úuiv Tois Talotevovoiv] does not mean:"ex quo tempore
religionem suscepistis” (Koppe); for then év yuiv lotevoWolv would have to
be put. Also not: "quum susceperitis” (Pelt), or “propterea quod fidem
1 Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, Koppe, Flatt,
Auberlen, and others.
3 Syr., Ambrose, Erasmus, Estius, Balduin,
Aretius, Wolf, Turretin. Benson, Fritzsche,
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Koch, Alford,
Ellicott, Hofmann.
480
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
habetis” (Schott), because or in so far as, ye believe and continue believ--
ing (Olsh. Koch); for if it were a causal statement, the participle Lotebov-
olv without the addition of the article would be put. TOTS TLOTEVOVOLV
rather serves only for the more precise definition of juiv, thus indicating ·
that mlotevelv belongs to the Thessalonians.
Ver. 14 is not designed, as Oecumenius, Calvin, and Pelt think, to prove
the sincerity with which the Thessalonians received the gospel, but is a
proof of ôg kaì évepycītal, ver. 13. [XLIX e.) In not shunning to endure
sufferings for the sake of the gospel, the Thessalonians had demonstrated
that the word of God had already manifested its activity among them, had
already become a life-power, a moving principle in them.—queīs yáp] an
emphatic resumption of the previous υμίν τοίς πιστεύουσιν-μιμηται] imitators,
certainly not in intention or design, but in actual fact or result.--åde2.pok] The
frequent repetition of this address (comp. i. 4, ii. 1, 9, 17) is significant of
the ardent love of Paul toward the church. That Paul compares the con-
duct of the Thessalonians with that of the Palestinian churches is,
according to Calvin, whom Calixtus follows, designed to remove the
objection which might easily arise to his readers. As the Jews were
the only worshipers of the true God outside of Christianity, so the
attack on Christianity by the Jews might give rise to a doubt whether
it were actually the true religion. For the removal of this doubt,
the apostle, in the first place, shows that the same fate which had
at an earlier period befallen the Palestinian churches had happened to
the Thessalonians; and then, that the Jews were the hardened enemies
of God and of all sound doctrine. But evidently such a design of the
apostle is indicated by nothing, and its supposition is entirely superfluous,
as every Christian must with admiration recognize the heroism of Chris-
tian resistance to persecution with which the Palestinian churches had
distinguished themselves. Accordingly, it was a great commendation of
the Thessalonians if the same heroic Christian stedfastness could be
predicated of them. This holds good against the much more arbitrary
and visionary opinion of Hofmann, that Paul, by the mention of the
Palestinian churches, and the expression concerning the Jews therewith
connected, designed to meet the erroneous notion or representation of
what happened to the readers. As the conversion of the Thessalonians
might in an intelligible manner appear in the eyes of their countrymen as
a capture of them in the net of a Jewish doctrine, and hence on that side
the reproach might be raised that, on account of this strange matter, they
had become hostile to their own people; so it was entirely in keeping to
show that the apostolic doctrine was anything but an affair of the Jewish
people, that, on the contrary, the Jews were its bitterest enemies! Gro-
tius would understand the present participle Tūv ovoőv in the sense of the
participle of the preterite; whilst, appealing to Acts viii. 4, xi. 19, he
thinks that the Palestinian churches had by persecutions ceased to exist
as such, only a few members remaining. But neither do the Acts justify
such an opinion, nor is it in accordance with the words of Paul in Gal. i.
22. The further supposition which Grotius adds is strange and unhis-
1
CHAP. II. 14.
481
torical, that some Christians expelled from Palestine had betaken them-
selves to Thessalonica, and that to them mainly a reference in our passage
is made.--v Xplor 'Incoñ] Oecumenius : evovās Oleihevº ÉTTELON yàp kai ai
συναγωγαί των Ιουδαίων εν θεώ είναι δοκούσι, τας των πιστών εκκλησίας και εν τω
OeQ xaż Łv tū vių avtoũ héyêu člvai.~őrl] for.-Tà avrá] the like things, denotes
the general similarity of the sufferings endured. Grotius precariously
specifies them by res vestras amisistis, pars fuistis ejecti.--ovu uhémns]
[XLIX f.] of the same quan, belonging to the same natural stock, contri-
bulis, then generally countryman, fellow-countryman, ouoedvís (Hesychius).
By ovuqunétal we are naturally not to understand the Jews (Cornelius a
Lapide, Hammond, Joachim Lange); for that the expression is best suited
to them, as Braun (with Wolf) thinks, whilst possibly Jews of a particular
tribe (perhaps of the tribe of Juda or Benjamin) were resident in Thessa-
lonica, only merits to be mentioned on account of its curiosity. Also
ovuqurétar is not, with Calvin, Piscator, Bengel, and others, to be under-
stood both of Jews and Gentiles, but can only be understood of Gentiles.
To this we are forced--(1) by the sharp contrast of ovuqvaetŪV and 'Ioudaiwv,
which must be considered as excluding each other; (2) by the addition of
ιδίων το συμφυλετών, as the great nmajority of the Thessalonian church con-
sisted of Gentiles; comp. i. 9. However, although Paul in the expression
ovuovetūv speaks only of Gentiles as persecutors, yet the strong invective
against the Jews which immediately follows (vv. 15, 16) constrains us to
assume that the apostle in ver. 14 had more in his mind than he expressed
in words. As we learn from the Acts, it was, indeed, the heathen magis-
trates by whose authority the persecutions against the Christian church at
Thessalonica proceeded, but the proper originators and instigators were
here also the Jews; only they could not excite the persecution of the
Christians directly, as the Jews in Palestine, but, hemmed in by the exist-
ing laws, could only do so indirectly, namely, by stirring up the heathen
mob. This circumstance, united with the repeated experience of the
inveterate spirit of opposition of the Jews, which Paul had in Asia at a
period directly preceding this Epistle (perhaps also shortly before its com-
position at Corinth), is the natural and easily psychologically explanatory
occasion of the polemic in yy. 15, 16. Erroneously Olshausen gives the
reason; he thinks it added in order to turn the attention of the Christians
in Thessalonica to the intrigues of those men with whom the Judaizing
Christians stood on a level, as it was to be foreseen that they would not
leave this church also undisturbed ; against which view de Wette correctly
remarks, that there is no trace of such a warning, and that the Thessa-
lonians did not require it, as they had learned sufficiently to know the
enmity of the Jews against the gospel.--Kabws] Instead of this, properly a
or antep should have been put, corresponding to tà avrá (comp. Phil. i. 30, Tòv
autòv . . . olov). However, even in the classics such inexact connections
are very frequently found. The double kai (kaì ýueīs . .kaì avroi) brings
1 Comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 172, 471. '
2See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 426 f.; Bremi, ad
Demosth. adv. Phil. I. p. 137; Kühner, II. p..
571.
31
482
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
out the comparison.---avtoi] denotes not the apostle and his assistants
(Erasmus, Musculus, Er. Schmid), as such a prominent incongruity in
the comparison is inconceivable; but the masculine as a recognized free
construction (comp. Gal. i. 22, 23; Winer, p. 586 [E. T. 631]) refers to
TūV ÉKKANOLĪV TOù Deo, thus denotes the Palestinian Christians.
Vv. 15, 16. As to the occasion of this invective, see on ver. 14.--kai] not
signifying even ; also not to be connected with the next kai, both . . . and
(Ellicott); but tõv kai means who also, and proves the propriety of the
preceding statement from the analogous conduct in ver. 15. Grotius
(comp. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Pelagius): Quid mirum
est, si in nos saeviunt, qui dominum nostrum interfecerunt ...?...
Non debent discipuli meliorem sortem exspectare quam magistri fuit.-
Moreover, Tòv Kúplov emphatically precedes, and is separated from 'Inoobv
in order to enhance the enormity of the deed.--każ toùs apophtas] De
Wette and Koch unite this with éxoğávTwv; Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Calvin, Musculus, Bengel, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Baum-
garten-Crusius, Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott, Hofmann, Auberlen, and
most critics, more correctly refer it to åTTOKTELVávrov. In the catalogue of
the sins of the Jews which Paul here adduces, he begins directly with that
deed which formed the climax of their wickedness the murder of the
Son of God, of Jesus the Messiah. In order to cut off all excuses for this
atrocious deed of the Jews, as that they had done it in ignorance, not
recognizing Jesus as the Son of God, Paul adds, going backwards in time,
that they had already done the same to the Old Testament prophets,
whom, in like manner, they had murdered against their better knowledge
and conscience. Christ Himself accuses the Jews of the murder of the
prophets, Matt. xxiii. 31, 37, Luke xi. 47 ff., xiii. 34; and Stephen does
the same, Acts vii. 52; with which passages comp. 1 Kings xix. 10, 14 (see
Rom. xi. 3); Jer. ii. 30; Neh. ix. 26.-każ nuās érdwžávrwv] [XLIX g.] and
have persecuted us. ñuās refers not to Paul only (Calvin), also not to Paul
and Silas only (de Wette, Koch, Alford), or to Paul and the companions
who happened to be with him at Thessalonica (Auberlen); but to Paul
and the apostles generally (Estius, Aretius, Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt,
Schott, Ellicott). The preposition ěk in školuçávrov strengthens the verbal
idea. According to Bengel, Alford, Ellicott and Hofmann, the word has
the semi-local sense: qui persequendo ejecerunt. In an unjustifiable man-
ner, Koppe and de Wette (the latter appealing to Luke xi. 49 and Ps. cxix.
157, LXX.) make it stand for the simple verb.-kaì Aem leiápɛokóvTWV]
[XLIX h.] and please not God. Erroneously Wieseler on Gal. i. 10, p. 41,
note, and Hofmann : live not to please God; similarly Bengel, Koppe, Flatt,
and Baumgarten-Crusius: placere non quaerentium ; for after the pre-
ceding strong expressions that would be flat. Rather the result is inferred
from the two preceding statements, namely, the consequences of the
obstinacy of the Jews, with which they persecute the messengers of God, is
that they please not God, that is, are hateful to Him (cootvyɛīs, Meiosis).
--kaì mãowv ávOpúrous évavríur] and are hostile to all men. Grotius, Turretin,
Michaelis, Koppe, Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Koch,
CHAP. II. 14–16.
483
Bloomfield, Jowett, and others, erroneously find here expressed the nar-
row exclusiveness, by means of which the Jews strictly separated them-
selves from all other nations, and about which Tacit. Hist. v. 5 ("adversus
omnes alios hostile odium”); Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 103 ff.; Diod. Sic. xxxiv.
p. 524; Philosti. Apollon. v. 33; Joseph. C. Apion. N. 10, 14, wrote. For
(1) that hostile odium and desire of separation among the Jews was noth-
ing else than a shrinking from staining themselves and their monotheistic
worship by contact with idolaters. But Paul would certainly not have
blamed such a shrinking, which was only a fruit of their strict observance
of their ancestral religion. (2) If ver. 16 begins with an independent
assertion, kalvóvrwv ... owwolv would denote nothing essentially new,
but would only repeat what was already expressed in ημάς εκδιωξάντων,
ver. 15. (3) It is grammatically inadmissible to understand the words kai
Tiãouv åvopóTOLS Évavríwv as an independent assertion, and thus to be con-
sidered as a general truth. For the participle kwłvóvtwv (ver. 16) must
contain a causal statement, as it is neither united with kai, nor by an
article (και κωλυόντων κ.τ.λ. Or των κωλυόντων κ.τ.λ., Or τών και κωλυόντων
K.T.7.), and thus is closely and directly connected with the preceding, and
giving a reason for it, i. e. explaining wherefore or in what relation the Jews
are to be considered as tãow ảv@pórois évavríol. Thus the thought neces-
sarily is : And who actually proved themselves to be hostilely disposed
to all men since they hindered us from publishing the gospel to the Gen-
tiles, and thus leading them to salvation. That is to say, the gospel offers
salvation to every one, without distinction, who will surrender himself
to it. But the Jews, in opposing themselves with all their might to the
publication of this free and universal gospel, prove themselves, in point
of fact, as enemies to the whole human race, in so far as they will not suffer
the gospel, which alone can save men, to reach them. So Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calovius, Bern. a Piconio, Schott,
Alford, Ellicott, Hofmann, and others correctly interpret the words; also
Wieseler on Gal. i. 10, p. 49, note, and Auberlen, only that he would incor-
rectly unite και Θεώ μη αρεσκόντων with κωλυόντων, which would only be
tenable if, instead of the simple connected clause και θεώ μη αρεσκόντων,
the more definitely separating form TūV DEQ K.7.2. had been put. w.vóv-
Top quāc] hindlering us, namely, by contradictions, calumnies, laying snares
for our life, etc. Comp. Acts ix. 23 ff., xiii. 45, xvii. 5, 13, xxii. 22.
Unnecessarily, Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Koch, seeking to hinder; for the
intrigues of the Jews are an actual hindrance to the preaching of the
apostle,--certainly not an absolute, but a partial hindrance, conditioned
by opportunity of place and influence. uās] as above, us the apostles.-
Tołç ŠOveoL ] to the Gentiles, with emphasis; for it was the preaching to the
Gentiles that enraged the Jews. τοις έθνεσιν resumes the previous πάσιν
åvopórols, as that expression comprehended the non-Jewish humanity, i. e.
the Gentile world.-ałñoal] is not to be taken absolutely, so that it would
i The article twy, wanting before kai new un
åpeokóvtwy, makes it likewise impossible to
make the two last kaí in ver. 15 to sigpify,
with Hofmann, "both ... and.” .
484.
VS
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
;
be equivalent to docere (Koppe, Flatt), or would require ròv hóyov toj OsoŨ
for its completion (Piscator), but is to be conjoined with iva owowow in
one idea, and the whole is then another expression for evayyeniçerdal, but
in a more impressive form.-eis tò avatampūçal K.7.2.] to fill up their sins
always. eis does not denote the result=uote or quo fit ut (Musculus, Estius,
Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt, Schott, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Koch, Bloomfield), but the object, the design ; and that not of
kwłvóvtwv (Hofmann), as this is a dependent clause, but of the whole
description. But it expresses not the ultimate design which the Jews
themselves, in their so acting, had either consciously (Oecumenius: pnoi ráp,
ότι πάντα και εποίησαν οι Ιουδαίοι, σκοπό του αμαρτάνειν εποίουν, τουτέστιν ήδεισαν,
öri ápapTávovol kai vuaptavov) or unconsciously (de Wette : they do it, though
unconsciously, to the end, etc.; Auberlen), so that an ironical expression
would have to be assumed (Schott). But in entire conformity
with the Pauline mode of thought, which delights to dive into the eternal
and secret counsels of God, it expresses the design which God has with this
sinfulness of the Jews. So, correctly, Piscator. God's counsel was to
make the Jews reach in their hardness even to the extreme point of their
sinfulness, and then, instead of the past long-suffering and patience, the
severity of anger and punishment was to commence.- ávananpoal Tàs
duaprías] to fill up their sins, i.e. to fill up the measure destined for them,
to bring them to the prescribed point; comp. LXX. Gen. xv. 16; 2 Macc. vi.
14.-avtwv] refers to the subject of the preceding verses—the Jews.—Távtote]
emphatically placed at the end, is not equivalent to Távtwę or havterūs (Bret-
schneider, Olshausen), on all sides, in every way (Baumgarten-Crusius),
but merely involves the notion of time, always, that is, the Jews before
Christ, at the time of Christ, and after Christ, have opposed themselves to
the divine truth, and thus have been always engaged in filling up the
measure of their iniquities. When, however, the apostle says that this
αναπληρούν τας αμαρτίας is practised by the Jewς πάντοτε, at all tinnes, his
meaning cannot be that the Jews had at any given moment, thus already
repeatedly, filled up the measure of their sins (Musculus), but he intends
to say that at every division of time the conduct of the Jews was of such
a nature that the general tendency of this continued sinful conduct was
the filling up of the measure of their sins. Paul thus conceives that the
Jews, at every renewed obstinate rejection of the truth, approached a step
nearer to the complete measure of their sinfulness.-έφθασε δε επ' αυτούς ή
ópyn eis témos] but the wrath has come upon them even to the end. The Vul-
gate, Luther, Beza, Wolf, erroneously take dé in the sense of yáp. Rather,
SÉ forms the contrast to åvaranpõoal Távtote (not to the whole preceding
description), in so far as the increase of the divine wrath is contrasted to
the continued wicked conduct of the Jews.-pávelv] contains, in classical
usage, the idea of priority in time. Schott thinks that this idea must also
be here preserved, whilst he finds indicated therein the ópyń breaking
10ecumenius: Tallra 8è kai trádat étè Tôv
προφητών και νυν επί του Χριστού και εφ' ημών
črpaçav, iva trávrote ávatrinpwowow ai drap-
τιαι αυτών.
CHAP. II. 15, 16.
.: 485
.
forth upon the Jews citius quam exspectaverint vel omnino praeter opin-
ionem eorum. Incorrectly; for when plávelv is united not with the accu-
sative of the person (comp. iv. 15), but with prepositions (poável eis tl,
Rom. ix. 31 (see Fritzsche in loco]; Phil. iii. 16; pdávelv å xpi tiVÓS, 2 Cor.
ix. 14; pláv. Éní Tiva, Matt. xii. 28; Dan. iv. 25), then, in the later Greek,
the meaning of the verb "to anticipate ”is softened into the general
meaning of reaching the intended end. The aorist špdage is not here to
be taken in the sense of the present (Grotius, Pelt), also not prophetically
instead of the future (Koppe: mox eveniet iis ; Flatt: it will certainly
befall then, and also it will soon befall thena; and so also Schott, Bloom-
field, Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol., Halle 1862, p. 239), but re-
ports in quite a usual manner a fact which already belongs to the past. -
Ý ópyń] [XLIX c.] sc. Osoñ, does not mean the divine punishment, which
certainly in itself it may denote (Erasmus, Musculus, Cornelius a Lapide,
Flatt, Schott, de W., Ewald et al.), but the divine wrath. The article
denotes either the wrath predicted by the prophets (Theophylact, Schott),
or generally the wrath which is merited (Oecumenius).—Eiç téłos] belongs
to the whole sentence špoate .... ópyn, and denotes even to its (the wrath's)
end, i. e. the wrath of God has reached its extreme limits, so that it must
now discharge itself,—now, in the place of hitherto long-suffering and
patience, punishment must step in. The actual outbreak of the wrath, the
punishment itself, has thus not yet occurred at the composition of this
Epistle. To interpret the words of the destruction of Jerusalem as already
happened, would be contrary to the context. On the other hand, it is to
be assumed that Paul, from the by no means dark signs of the times, had
by presentiment foreseen the impending' catastrophe of the Jewish people,
and by means of this foresight had expressed the concluding words of this
verse. It is accordingly an unnecessary arbitrariness when Ritschl (Hall.
A. Lit. Z. 1847, No. 126) explains the words ëpë. . . . Téños as a gloss.
Incorrectly, Camerarius, Er. Schnid, Homberg, Koch, and Hofmann
understand eis téños in the sense of Tɛhéwç, penitus. Also incorrectly,
Heinsius, Michaelis, Bolten, Wahl: postremo, tandem. Others erroneously
unite είς τέλος with η οργή, whilst they supply oύσα, and then either ex-
plain it: the wrath which will endure eternally or to the end of the world
(Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Fab. Stapulens.,
Hunnius, Seb. Schmid, and others); or: the wrath which will continue
to work until its full manifestation (Olshausen); or lastly: the wrath
which shall end with their (the Jews') destruction (Flatt). In all these
suppositions the article ý must be repeated before eis télos. Erroneously,
moreover, de Wette refers eis téhos to the Jews, although he unites it with
the verb: "so as to make an end of them.” So also Bloomfield and
Ewald: “even to complete eradication.” The apostle rather preserves
the figure used in ảvatanpūoal; namely, as there is a definite measure for
the sins of the Jews, at the filling up of which the divine wrath must dis-
charge itself; so also there exists a definite measure for the long-suffering
patience of God, whose fullness provokes divine punishment. Comp. also
Rom. ii. 5.
486
TO THE THESSALONIANS.
THE FIRST EPISTLE NY
REMARK.-In vv. 14–16, Baur (see Introd. & 4) finds a “particularly noticeable"
criterion for the spuriousness of the Epistle. "The description has a thoroughly
un-Pauline stamp," and, besides, betrays a dependence on the Acts. First of all,
the comparison of the Thessalonian church with the Palestinian churches is "far-
fetched," although nothing is more simple, more natural, and more unforced than
these very parallels, since the tertium comparationis consists simply in this, that
both were persecuted by their own countrymen, and both endured their persecutions
with similar heroic courage. The parallels are further "inappropriate” to Paul,
as he does not elsewhere hold up the Jewish-Christians as a pattern to the Gen-
tile-Christians. As if the repeated collections which the apostle undertook for
the poor churches of Palestine had not demonstrated by fact that his love ex-
tended itself equally to the Jewish as to the Gentile churches! As if the words of
the apostle, in 2 Cor. viii. 13-15, did not express a high esteem for the Pales-
tinian Jewish-Christians! As if, in Rom. xv. 27, the Gentile churches are not
called debtors to the Jewish-Christians, because the spiritual blessings of Chris-
tianity reached the Gentiles only from the mother church of Jerusalem! As if
Paul himself, aſter the fiercest persecutions, and after openly manifested obstinacy,
did not always cleave to his people with such unselfish and solicitous love, that
he could wish in his own person to be banished and driven from Christ, who was
his all in all, in order by such an exchange to make his hardened and always
resisting fellow-countrymen partakers of salvation in Christ! But if such were
his feelings toward the unconverted among his people, why should he not have
been proud of those among them who believed? Why should he not have recog-
nized the heroic faith of the Palestinian brethren, and recognized and praised the
stedfastness of a Gentile church as an imitation and emulation of the pattern given
by these ?-Further, the mention of the persecutions of the Palestinian Christians
was inappropriate, because Paul could not speak of them "without thinking of
himself as the person principally concerned in the only persecution which can
have come properly into consideration.” But how little importance there is in
such an inference is evident from this, that Paul elsewhere does not shun openly
to confess his share in the persecutions of the Christians, although with a sorrow-
ful heart (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9; Gal. i. 13); and, besides, this very participation in
the persecution was for him the occasion that, from being the bitterest enemy of
Christianity, he became its most unwearied promoter and the greatest apostle of
Christ. If, further, “the apostle unites his own sufferings for the sake of the gos-
pel with the misdeeds of the Jews against Jesus and the prophets,” this serves
strikingly to represent the continuation of Jewish perversity.-Baur may be right
when he asserts that we could not expect from the apostle “a polemic against the
Jews so general and vague, that he knew not how to characterize the enmity of the
Jews against the gospel otherwise than by the well-known charge brought against
them by the Gentiles, the odium generis humani ;” only it is a pity that this odium
generis humani is an abortion of false exegesis.-Baur infers a dependence upon the
Acts from “the expressions : ŠKOLÁKELV, kWhúelv, etc., which correspond accurately
with the incidents described in Acts xvii. 5 ff. and elsewhere ;" likewise from the
verb hanεiv, which "elsewhere is never used by Paul of his own preaching of the
gospel, but is quite after the manner of the Acts (xiv. 1, xyi. 6, 32, xviii. 9).”
But that the expressions : ÉKOLÁKELV, KWVelv, etc., cannot be borrowed from Acts xvii.
5 ff. is evident enough, as they are not even found there; that, moreover, the cir-
cumstances of the persecution itself are narrated in both writings, is only a proof
CHAP. II. 17.
487
of its actual occurrence; also there is notizing objectionable in naheiv, as it is so
used by Paul in 2 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 13; Col. iv. 4; Eph. vi. 20, and elsewhere.-
Lastly, if Baur, in špdage dè én' aútoùs o ópyn eic tếhos (so also Schrader on ü.
13), finds the destruction of Jerusalem denoted as an event that has already
occurred, this is only the result of an interpretation contrary to the context.
· Ver. 17 begins a new section of the Epistle. [On Vv. 17–20, see Note
L. pages 494, 495.]—'Huets sé] [L b.] is not in contrast to újeīs, ver. 14 (de
Wette, Koch, Hofmann); for ver. 14 is only an explanation of the main
thought in ver. 13, and, besides, the invective against the Jews given in
vv. 15, 16 is too marked and detailed, that sé passing over it could be
referred to úpɛīs in ver. 14. It is therefore best to assume that nueis sé,
whilst it contrasts the writer to the Jews whose machinations have just
been described, and accordingly breaks off the polemic against the Jews,
refers to ver. 13 as the preceding main thought, and accordingly resumes
the rueís in ver. 13. To the attestation of his thanksgiving to God on
account of the earnest acceptance of the gospel on the part of the
Thessalonians, the apostle joins the attestation of his longing for his
readers, and his repeatedly formed resolution to return to them. The
view of Calvin, which Musculus, Zanchius, Hunnius, Piscator, Vorstius,
Gomarus, Benson, Macknight, Pelt, Hofmann, and Auberlen maintain,
is erroneous, that vv. 17 ff. were added by Paul as an excusatio “ne se a
Paulo desertos esse putarent Thessalonicenses, quum tanta necessitas ejus
praesentiam flagitaret." For evidently in the circumstances that con-
strained the apostle to depart from Thessalonica, such a suspicion could
not arise, especially as, according to Acts xvii. 10, the Thessalonians them-
selves had arranged the departure of the apostle. Accordingly no justifica-
tion was requisite. The explanation has rather its origin only in the fullness
of the apostolic Christian love, which cared and labored for the salvation
of these recent disciples of Christ.-απορφανισθέντες] bereased. ορφανίζεσθαι
is originally used of children who are deprived of their parents by death.
It is however used, even by the classics, in a wider sense, expressing in a
figurative and vivid manner the deprivation of an object, or the distance,
the separation from a person or thing. Thus the adjective oppavós occurs
in Pindar (see Passow) in a wider sense (e.g. opp. Étaipwv, Isthm. vii. 16);
also of parents, óppavoi yeyeãs, childless, 01. ix. 92.1 Here also åroppavodÉVTEC
expresses the idea of distance, of separation, but is not exhausted by this
idea. We would accordingly err, if we were to find nothing further in it
than is expressed by xwpLOT ÉVTES; for the verb, in union with the feeling
of tender love which pervades the whole passage, vividly describes the
feeling of emptiness and solitude which by the separation came over the
apostlema feeling of solitude, such as befalls children when they are
placed in a condition of orphanage.-áo vụūv] away from you. The
apostle repeats the preposition áró, instead of putting the simple genitive
üxūv after the participle, in order to give prominence to the idea of local
1 Comp. Hesych.: oppavos • yovėwv értepnuévos Kai TékvWv.
488
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
severance, which was already expressed in áropoaviolévres, here once more
specified by itself.— pòç kalpòv üpas] not subito (Balduin, Turretin), literally,
for the space of an hour; but as an hour is relatively only a short space,
generally "for the space of an instant,” i.e. for a very short period. It is a
more definite expression for the simple após üpav, Gal. ii. 5, 2 Cor. vii. 8,
Philem. 15, John v. 35, or mpos kalpóv, 1 Cor. vii. 5, Luke viii. 13, and corres-
ponds to the Latin horae momentum. The expression does not import that
the apostle even now hopes soon to return to the Thessalonians (Flatt;
and appealing to iii. 10, de Wette and Koch). This is forbidden by the
grammatical relation of απορφανισθέντες to the preterite εσπουδάσαμεν,
according to which apòs kalpòv äpaç can only be the time indicated by the
participle. Thus the sense is : After we were separated from you for
scarcely an instant, that is, for a very short season, our longing to return
to you commenced.—apooúru ou kapsię] comp. 2 Cor. v. 12, in presence, not
in heart, for the severance refers only to our bodies; but love is not bound
in the fetters of place or time; comp. Col. ii. 5.-TEPLOGOTÉPWS to Továoquev] we
endeavored so much the more. Tovdáčelv, to show diligence to reach some-
thing, implies in itself that the apostle had already taken steps to realize
his resolution to return, and thus proves the earnestness of the design.
περισσοτέρως is not to be referred to oύ καρδία, “more than if I had been
separated from you in heart” (de Wette, Koch), for then there could
have been no mention of a olovdá Selv at all;3 but is, with Schott, to be
referred to Tipòs kaipòv üpas, so much the more, as the separation has only
recently occurred. For it is a matter of universal experience, that the
pain of separation from friends, and the desire to return to them, are
more vivid, the more freshly the remembrance of the parting works in
the spirit, i.e. the less time has elapsed since the parting. Therefore the
explanation of Oecumenius and Theophylact, after Chrysostom, is
unpsychological : TEPLOOOTÉpWS ¿onovdáoallev û ws EikÒS v toùs após üpav
åt ohelpfévras. Winer's view (Gran. p. 228 [E. T. 243]) is also inappro-
priate, because without support in the context: The loss of their personal
intercourse for a time had made his longing greater than it would have
been, if he had stood with them in no such relation. Further, arbitrarily, -
because the proximate reference of TEPLOCOTÉpws can only result from the
directly preceding participial sentence, but not from ver. 14, Fromond.:
"magis et ardentius conati sumus, quum sciremus pericula, in quibus
versaremini; " and Hofmann: “for the readers the time after their con-
i The assertion of Hofm., that arpos kalpov
üpas “cannot possibly denote how long it was
since Paul had been separated from the Thess.
but only how long this was to happen: as he
was obliged to be separated from them, yet this
separation was not for ever,” etc., could only
have a meaning if instead of the passive form
åtopbavlod évres a participle had been put,
which denoted the free action of the apostle.
2 Comp. Hor. Sat. 1.1.7,8: "horae | momen-
to aut cita mors venit aut victoria laeta."
Plin. Nat. Hist. vii. 52: “Eidem (sc. Mae-
cenati) triennio supremo nullo horae mo-
mento contigit somnus."
This reference is in a positive form ex-
pressed logically more correctly by Mus-
culus: "quo magis corde praesens vobiscum
fui, hoc abundantius faciem vestram videre
studui;" and B-Crus: with so much the
greater desire, because I was sincere with
you. Ell.: because our heart was with you,
and our longing consequently greater.
CHAP. II. 17, 18.
489
version is a time of trouble; for their teachers it is on that account a time
of so much the more anxious endeavor to see them again.” Lastly,
grammatically incorrect Turretin, Olshausen, and de Wette, ed. 1, more
than usual, i. e. very earnestly.-Schott discovers an elegance and force in
Paul, not having written υμάς ιδείν, but the fuller form το πρόσωπον υμών
išeiv, with reference to the preceding a poobny; but hardly correct, as tò
Tapóowrov ideiv is a usual form with Paul. Comp. iii. 10; Col. ii. 1.—V rokan
It cOvuia] with much desire (longing). A statement of manner added to
ÉonovDáoaļev, for the sake of strengthening.
Ver. 18. Alóri] on which account, that is, on account of this great longing
for you (drà TÒ Év toran Én louia otoUSáSELV tò apóownov új. idɛīv).--Mennoauev]
[L c, d] Paul uses Oéhɛlv in agreement with cotovSáca plev (ver. 17), not
Boúlsoñal, as the latter word expresses only the wish, the inclination to
something; but the former the active will, the definite purpose. See
Meyer on Philem. 13 f., and Tittm. Synon. p. 124 ff. But whether this
purpose was already formed at Berea (Fromond., Baumgarten-Crusius),
or elsewhere, cannot be determined.—ěyù Mèv IIaūhos] a restriction of the
subject contained in yhɛhñoajev, as the apostle in this section intends only
to speak of himself. But that he considered the addition yw uèv Ilavos
here necessary, whilst he omitted it in what preceded, is a proof that he
there regarded what was said as spoken likewise in the name of his two
associates. Moreover, šyo uè llavhos is an actual parenthesis, and is not
to be connected with ka äraç kai dis, as Hofmann thinks, from the
insufficient reason, because otherwise éyù uèv Ilavhos must have stood after
• noeañoquev (!); and as we find also with Grotius, who makes a suppressed
dé correspond to the uév, in the sense: “nempe Timotheus et Silas
semel.” I_Mév7 serves only to bring the subject into prominence. See
Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 413.-kai äraš kaì ois] both once and twice, a definite
expression for twice (comp. Phil. iv. 16); not in the general sense of
saepius (Grotius, Joachim Lange, Turretin, Koppe, Pelt), for then äraš kai
dis would have been written. Calvin : "Quum dicit semel et bis voluimus,
testatur non subitum fuisse fervorem, qui statim refrixerit, sed hujus pro-
positi se fuisse tenacem.” A longer continuance of the church (Baur) is not
to be assumed from this expression, as the interval of probably half a
year, which is to be assumed between the departure of Paul from
Thessalonica and the composition of this Epistle (see Introd. & 3), was a
period sufficiently long to give rise to the twice formed resolution to re-
turn.-każ ÉvÉKOWev vuās ó gatavās] and Satan hindered us. kaí, not equivalent
with dé, by which certainly this new sentence might have been introduced
(Vorstius, Grotius, Benson, Koppe, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Koch,
Bloomfield), mentions simply the result of the apostle's resolution in the
form of juxtaposition. In an unnatural and forced manner Hofmann
subordinates ήθελήσαμεν ελθείν προς υμάς as the antecedent to και ενέκοψεν
Quas o oaravās as the principal sentence, whilst dióti denotes while, and év
1 Comp. also Warm; Tib. Zeitschr. 1833, 1, p.
75 f., ėyw kai Ilajlos is to be united directly
with και άπαξ και δις. All three had resolved
to visit the Thessalonians, but Paul particu-
larly more than once..
490
: THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Trokañ lovvią (ver. 17) is “ in intention added to the sentence introduced
by dióti.” Accordingly the sense would be: Therefore the anxiety to
visit the church became so strong, that when it came to the intention to
go to Thessalonica, Satan hindering prevented it (!).-On ŠYKÓTTELV, comp.
Rom. XV. 22; Gal. v. 7; 1 Pet. ii. 7.-) gatavās? denotes not“ the oppo-
nents of Christianity, the enemies of God and men" (Schrader), but,
according to the Pauline view, the personal author of evil, the devil, who,
as he is the author of all hindrances in the kingdom of God, has brought
about the circumstances which prevented the apostle from carrying out
his purpose. But whether, under these preventive circumstances
occasioned by the devil, are to be understood the wickedness of the
Thessalonian Jews (Fromond., Schott, de Wette, Bisping), “ qui insidias
apostolo in itinere struebant” (Quistorp and, though wavering, Zanchius),
or the contentions of the church where Paul was, and which prevented
his leaving them (Musculus), or even the “injecta ei necessitas disputandi
saepius cum Stoicis et Epicureis, qui Athenis erant” (Grotius), or what
else, must be left unexplained, as Paul himself has given no explanation.
Ver. 19. [L e.] A reason not for rep. ŠOTOVO. K.T.2. ver. 17 and also, on
the other hand, of unk. OTEY. K.T.A., iii. 1 (Hofm.), but of the twice formed
resolution of the apostle to return to Thess., ver. 18. This earnest desire to
return is founded on the esteem of the apostle for his readers, on account
of their promising Christian qualities. Grotius: Construi haec sic debent:
Túc vào muũ &Acic ... & TT pose 100 copio0 ... à om xì cai jusĩg ; Certainly
correct as regards the matter and the thought, as žjit poolev . . . Tapovolą is
to be referred to the preceding predicates, but ought not to be connected
with û ovxi kai yuzīs, as a second independent question. So also Olshau-
sen, who renders it thus: “ or do not ye also (as I myself and all the rest
of the faithful) appear before Christ at His coming, i. e. without hesitation,
without any doubt, ye will surely be also recognized by Christ as His, and
therefore will not fall away again at any time from the faith.” But the
reason and justification for this strange position of the words consist in
this, that Paul originally conjoined the words rís yàp... llueis in thought,
and originally wrote them by themselves ; but then to present the predi-
cates already put down as considered not in a worldly, but in a specifically
Christian sense, he introduces, as a closer definition and explanation of
the whole clause ris . . . quɛīs, the words šjettprobev . . . Tapovoiç. There
is, accordingly, no need for the supposition of Laurent (Neutestam. Studien,
Gotha 1866, p. 28 f.), that Paul only at a later period, after he had read
through the whole Epistle once, placed these words in the margin, or
ordered them to be inserted. Accordingly, the apostle says: For who is
our hope or joy or crown of rejoicing, or are not even ye this? before our Lord
Jesus at His coming; i. e., if any one deserves to be called our hope,
etc., ye deserve it. As the addition tuet poc ev K.1.2. proves, the apostle
thinks on the judgment connected with the coming of Christ.-Paul, how-
ever, calls the Thessalonians émotis ruāv (comp. Liv. xxviii. 39), not
because he anticipates a reward for himself on account of the conversion
of the Thessalonians effected by him (Estius, Fromond., Joachim Lange,
CHAP. II. 19. 20.
491
Hofmann, and most critics), or at least a remission of the punishment for
his early persecution of the Christian church (for the emphasis rests not
on nuôv, but on the predicates &notis K.T.7.), but because he has the confi-
dent hope that the Thessalonians will not be put to shame at the trial to
be expected at the advent, but will rather be found pure and blameless,
as those who embraced the faith with eagerness, and heroically persevered
in it in spite of all contentions.-- zapá] or joy, as by the conversion and
Christian conduct of the Thessalonians the kingdom of God has been
promoted.—H OTéDavos kavxňoews] or crown of glory (comp. 6709 nov
Ezek. xvi. 12, xxiii. 42; Prov. xvi. 31, and also the LXX.; Phil. iv. 1;
Soph. Aj. 460; Macrob. in somn. Scip. i. 1), inasmuch as this greatness and
glory, occasioned by the labors of the apostle for the church, is, as it were,
the victorious reward of his strivings.-ñ ouxíl not nonne (Erasmus, Schott,
and others), but an non, for ń here introduces the second member of a
double question.—kaì vjeīs] also ye: for, besides the Thessalonians, there
were other churches planted by Paul worthy of the same praise. Accord-
ing to de Wette, to whom Koch and Bisping attach themselves, À quels
should properly have followed otég. Kavxho.: “no one is more our hope
than you;” but with kai the apostle corrects himself, not to say too much,
and not to offend other churches. But just because û quɛīs imports too
much, why should not the apostle have designed to put ñ ouzi kaì vụeīs
from the very first !—Év TĨ avtoŰ napovoia] at his coming (return) to estab-
lish the Messianic kingdom (comp. iii. 13, iv. 15, v. 23, et al.; Usteri,
Lehrbegr. p. 341 ff.); an epexegesis to xunpochev toũ kupiov viuāv 'Incov.
Ver. 20. An impassioned answer to the question in ver. 19. Thus
yáp is not causal, but confirmatory, you or truly ye are (vuɛīs érté, em-
phatic) our glory and our joy. [L f.] Comp. Winer, p. 416 [E. T. 446];
Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 473. Flatt and Hofmann refer ver. 19 to the
future, to the mapovolą Xplotoī, and ver. 20 to the present: “Ye are now
our glory and our joy, therefore I hope that ye will be yet more," etc.
Without justification, as this distinction of time would have been marked
by Paul.
NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR.
XLVIII. Vv. 1-12.
(a) The second chapter, vv. 1-12, states in a more detailed form, what has been
briefly set forth in i. 5. The word sioodov is taken up from i. 9, but the thought
goes back to the earlier verse, as is proved (1) by the fact, that vv. 1-12 refer to
the preaching and conduct of the Apostle and his companions, while i. 9 f. has
reference only to the conversion of the Thessalonians (except so far, possibly, as
the word sioodov itself is concerned); and (2) by the fact, that Kevý and étap-
prolaoáueda are naturally connected with <yevýon ... év duvájiet K.T.. of i. 5.
In this second and more detailed development of the thought, however, we find a
more full reference to the matter of persecution, etc., not only with respect to the
members of the church, vv. 14 ff., but also to the preachers, ver. 2. We also find
a setting forth of the truth of the niessage, the sincerity and unselfishness of the
492
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
preachers, and their devotion to the welfare of the hearers.—(6) Lünem. regards
ußpicévtes (ver. 2) as added to TT portadóvtes, because the latter word is a voz media.
But it potað. in such a connection as this could hardly be understood in any sense
but that of suffering, and it is more probable that úßpuod. is added for the purpose
of definiteness or emphasis.—(c) kalūs оidata-comp. i. 4, 5 and vv. 1, 5, 9, 10, 11
of this chapter. This repeated appeal to their own knowledge is not to be
regarded as indicating any doubt or opposition, but, in this early epistle, as
belonging to the style and character of a friendly letter.—(d) Sedoklukoueda K.T.2.
(ver. 4) answers to OVK ÉK Thávns, which is to be interpreted as Lünem. under-
stands it, and outɛ . . . Kohakelas K.7.2., of ver. 5, corresponds with oudè & š aka-
Japoias K.7... The two meanings of Sokljáów, which occur in the N. T., prove
and approve, are found in ver. 4. Ver. 5 is introduced, however, according to the
grammatical construction and immediate connection of thought, as the proof of
ver. 4.-(e) R. V. renders duvápevol év Bápel elval (ver. 6) might have been burden-
some; with a marginal note, or claimed honor. A. R. V. reads claimed authority
in the text, and been burdensome in the margin. The question is a nearly evenly
balanced one, but, for the reasons given by Lünem., the rendering of A. R. V. is,
on the whole, to be preferred. Grimm, Lex. N. T., gives this meaning.-(f) W.
& H. defend the textual reading viacol against řTLOL (ver. 7), on the ground, (1)
that “the change from the bold image to the tame and facile adjective is charac-
teristic of the difference between St. Paul and the Syrian revisers ;" (2) that "it
is not of harshness that St. Paul here declares himself innocent, but of flattery
and the rhetorical arts by which gain or repute is procured;" (3) that we have
ŠV ułow juāv which suits the former word, and not eis vuãs which would be
adapted to the latter. A reference to himself, however, under the two figures of
the infant and the nursing mother, in two successive clauses, seems quite improb-
able. The contrast, moreover, does not seem to be with flattery, etc., but with
seeking glory and claiming authority; and, with respect to év MÉOW, it seems not
difficult to explain its use with all. R. V., Tisch., Treg., Alf., read #401.—(9)
Lünem. places a colon before ús áv of ver. 7, and a comma after tékva; but it
seems better to place a comma before the former words, and a colon after the
latter (so W. & H.). In either case, oŰTWS refers to the same general idea, but, if
Lünem.'s punctuation is adopted, it introduces the apodosis to us táv;-if that of
W. & H., it takes up the whole preceding statement with its figure, and unfolds
or explains it by referring to his readiness to sacrifice himself for them in his
work among them as a preacher.—(h) yáp of ver. 9 is connected by Lünem. with
the immediately preceding clause (OLÓTC K.T.2.). As this clause, however, is evi-
dently very subordinate in its character, it seems better to connect this verse with
the main idea of the passage which precedes. This labor and toil which he took
upon himself was a proof of that kindly disposition towards them which made
him like a nursing-mother to her children and ready, not only to preach the
gospel, but to sacrifice himself wholly for their sake. We have here, however,
only one evidence of this kindly feeling; the next verses give a full and general
survey of his whole life and conduct as proving it.- ) Lünem. presses in ver. 10,
as in other cases, the passive force of éyevño nuev, affirming that it “cannot denote
pure self-activity.” This position with regard to this aorist passive in the N. T.
is quite doubtful in all cases, and here all the surrounding words indicate the
opposite. In connection with this view of éyevýnilev, as well as because of the
use of ooiws and the position of vuīv T. TILOT., Lünem. holds that these last words
NOTES.
493
are the dative of opinion—the light in which we appeared to you, as contrasted
with those who were hostile to us. But this contrast appears antecedently improba-
ble, and, as he calls attention to their knowledge in páptypes and oidats, a refer-
ence in this additional expression to their opinion would hardly be called for, or
be likely to be introduced. It is better to regard it either as the dative commodi,
or the dative of interest. R. V; renders "behaved ourselves toward you."
XLIX. Vv. 13-16.
(a) These verses answer to i. 6, as vv. 1-12 to i. 5. dià ToĪTO may be explained,
with Lünem., Alf., Auberlen, Olsh., and others, as referring to toŨ kahoĪTOS K.7.2.
As this, however, is a mere subordinate and descriptive clause, it is more probable
that the thought of the writer goes back to the general suggestion, in the earlier
verses, of his sense of the value of the gospel to the hearers, which is connected
with the earnestness of his labor and zeal in preaching it to them. The view of
Vaughan, and Dods in Schaff's Pop. Comm., that it refers to what follows, is con-
trary to the ordinary usage respecting this phrase. Ell., Mason, in Ell.'s Comm.
for Eng. Readers, Koch, W. & Wilk., and others, agree partly or wholly with the
view favored in this note.—(6) The construction of Tapuőv is doubtful, but, on
the whole, the considerations mentioned by Lünem. make it probable that his view
is correct, and that these words belong with åkons—the word preached by us ; TOū
Okoī being an added, and by its position somewhat emphatic, genitive, and indica-
ting that God is the author and source of the word of which we are the preachers.
R. V. Ell., W. & Wilk, Auberlen, agree with Koch, de W., and others in con-
necting map suāv with Tapahaßbutes. Noyes tr., T. S. Green tr., Bib. Un. tr., A. V.,
Olsh., Hofm., and others agree with Lünem. Tapahaßóvres has evidently the sense
of passive reception (i.e. through hearing), dégaođe, that of active reception (e. e. into
the mind and heart, accepting it voluntarily). The thought is apparently this:
When the Thess. heard the word as it was preached by the Apostle, they willingly
received it into their hearts, not as a word coming from him, but from God. The
thought is, accordingly, such as favors the connection of hap yuāv with ảkoñs.-
(c) Alf. holds that no as is to be supplied with hóyov after défaqge, and that Paul
is not speaking of the Thessalonians' estimate of the word. Lünem. more properly
says, that ás is omitted because the Apostle would not only express what it was in
their estimation, but also what it was in fact. But is not the true view of the
matter this, that they received it as--what it is in truth-the word of God; kóyov
being appositional with the objective pronoun (referring to the preceding noyov)
which is to be supplied after dégagge, and thus expressing their estimate of it, and
the kadás clause being added to show that this estimate was in accordance with
the fact.-—(d) It is not, perhaps, absolutely certain that Èvepyeloval is always mid-
dle (never passive) in the N. T., but this is probably the usage of the writers.
Here, at least, there can be little doubt that the verb is middle, and that ős refers
to nóyos.---(e) yáp (ver. 14) is evidently explained correctly by Lünem., and pipintai
ŠyɛvýUntɛ carries back the thought to i. 6. In i. 6, however, the imitation is
spoken of as an imitating of the Apostle and his companions, and of the Lord;
here, of the Christian churches in Judea. In the former passage, also, the idea
of meeting tribulation with joy in the Holy Spirit is suggested, while here the
matter of persecution only is more distinctly set forth.-(f) That OVLOURETĀV of
ver. 14 is to be understood as referring to Gentiles, is rendered altogether probable
494
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
by wliat Lünem. says. But, as he also intimates, we can hardly account for the
severity of the language respecting the Jews in what follows, unless they had had
somne relation to what had occurred in Thessalonica. So far, therefore, from
finding any want of harmony with the account in Acts xvii. in this passage, we
may discover, rather, an incidental confirmation of what is there said.—(9) ŠKOLW-
çávrwv is rendered by R. V., Noyes tr., Davidson tr., and others, drove out, and this
seems to be its meaning in the Greek outside of the N. T. (comp. Thuc. i. 24).
Grimm (Lex. N. T.) gives it this meaning in Luke xi. 49, but renders it here by
persequor, calamitatibus premo. Rob. agrees with Grimm.-(h) The participles in
the earlier part of ver. 15 refer to definite past acts (aor.); un åper KÓVTWV (pres.)
and the adjective évavriwv denote the permanent condition illustrated by and con-
sequent upon those acts; kwÃvóvtov of ver. 16 is probably causal, introduced as
proving the declaration contained in the next preceding words. This last par-
ticiple, however, is not improbably intended to carry with it, also, the idea of that
continuous hindering of the preachers of the gospel among the Gentiles, which
was the last step in the development of opposition to God and men, making the sin
of the Jews finally complete, and opening the door, at last, for the breaking forth
upon them of Divine punishment.—() The possibilities of signification of opyń
(ver. 16) (whether wrath or punishment), and of eis téhos, are such that it is difficult
to inake any positive assertion respecting the precise shade of meaning belonging
to the last clause of the verse. But in view of the aorist tense in špage,—of the
fact that eis téhoç may naturally mean to the end, the utmost limit, of the thing
spoken of,—and of the fact that the peculiar calamities which might specially be
called the divine punishment had not yet been inflicted on the Jews, the expla-
nation given by Lünem. may be regarded as most satisfactorily meeting the
demands of the sentence.
L. Vy. 17–20.
(a) These verses are immediately connected with those of the third chapter, the
new sub-section of the Epistle covering ii. 17-iii. 13. The letter being so largely
an expression of friendly feeling, the ordinary introduction of the Pauline Epistles
(thanksgiving, etc., for the Christian life and progress of the Church) unites itself
closely with, and forms a part of, the first main division, which ends with the close
of chap. iii. This division has two principal subdivisions : i. 2-ii. 16, referring
to his preaching among them and their reception of his message; ii. 17-iii. 13,
relating to his anxiety, in his absence from them, to learn of their well-being (for
which purpose he had sent Timothy, that he might bring information concerning
them), and his joy and satisfaction at the tidings which Timothy brought.
(6) 'Huets of ver. 17 is best explained by the general contrast between himself
and his companions on the one side, and the Thessalonians on the other, which is
manifest throughout the whole of this first portion of the Epistle. This contrast
and the emphasis connected with it,—as well as the strong and peculiar expres-
sions απορφανισθέντες-πρός καιρός ώρας- ου καρδία-έσπουδάσαμεν εν πολλή επι-
Juuia, belong to the tenderness of the writer's feeling towards the church, and
his desire to give utterance to it in the most hearty manner.-—(c) Lünem. holds that
noeañoajev of ver. 18 is used, instead of the corresponding form of Bobleoval, as better
answering to éonovDáoaliev, we endeavored (“implying that he had taken steps to real-
ize his resolution"),—-giving thus to Védelv the sense of the active will, definite pur-
NOTES.
495
pose, and to Bousovai, that of mere wish or inclination. The reverse of this view
respecting the two verbs is held by some to be more correct. Comp. on this subject
Meyer on Matt. i. 19 and Philem. 13 f., Ell. on 1 Tim. v. 14, Buttm. Lexil. I. p.
26, Grimm (Lex. N. T.) sub verb. Jéhw, Webster, Syntax and Syn. of the Gr. Test., -
p. 197 f.-(d) Šióti, which Lünem., Alf., Ell., and others regard as meaning on
which account, and thus as nearly equivalent to dió (T. R.), is rendered by R. V.
because. If éotrovdáoajev is to be understood in the sense mentioned above, as it
probably should be, and nten. means wished simply, the rendering of R. V. may be
regarded with favor. The fact that stó follows in iii. 1 also favors this rendering
of Sióti.-(e) The explanation (ver. 19) given by Lünem., or that indicated by
W. and H., who arrange the text as follows: tis ... kavxhoews—ň ouxì kai “neica
ŠUTT POOdev K.7.2., is the simplest and best that can be offered. The reference to the
rapovoia here is to be accounted for in the same way as in i. 10 and elsewhere.
(f) váp of ver. 20 is best rendered by for, as in ordinary cases. It gives the
affirmation of the fact as the ground of the answer implied in ή ουχί και υμείς.
496
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
CHAPTER III.
1
VER. 1. Elz. has dió. Alóri, found in B, is a mere error of the transcriber, occa-
sioned by the following unkét1.- Ver. 2. After Tòv ådenpòv ňuūv the Receptus has
kai diákovov Toù Okov kaì ovvepyòv ruñv. Defended by Bouman (Charlae theol.
Lib. I. p. 63 f.) and Reiche. But instead of this, Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 2 and 7,
Alford and Ellicott, after D* Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast., have correctly received
into the text kaì ovvEPYÒV TOŬ Deo7, from which all variations are explained.
In order to remove the objectionable character which the expression ovvepyòs ToŨ
Okoð appeared to have, sometimes toŨ DeoŨ was suppressed (so the reading re-
ceived by Tisch. 1 kaì ovvepyóv, in B, Arm.), at other times ovvepyóv was changed
into diákovov (kai diákovov toð OEO, A X, 67** 71, et al., Copt. Aeth. Vulg. Bas.
Pel. [in textu]; approved by Scholz. and Tisch. 8), from which further grew, by
blending with the original wording, diákovov kaì ovvepyÒV TOÙ DEOū, F G, Boern.,
and και διάκ. και συνεργών του Θεού in E 17 ; lastly, there was interpolated και
Slárcovov kaì ovvepyòv duwv (Sahid.), or diákovov to✓ OsoW kaì ovvepyov ripūv (Syr, ed.
Erp.), or kai diákovov Toữ OeoŨ kaì ouvepyov (87).-Instead of the Receptus tapa-
kahégal vuās, only napakaréoal is to be read, with Lachm. Tisch. Alford and
Ellicott, according to A B D* FGx, min. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. Arm. Slav. ant.
Vulg. It. Chrys. Theodoret (alic.) Damasc. Ambrosiast. Pelag.-ÚTTèp Tñs Tiotews]
Elz. has nepi rñs TOTEMS. Against A B D* E* F G KX, 17, 31, et al., Bas.
Chrys. Theodoret (alic.).-Ver. 3. Elz. has rõ undeva. But A B D E K L X,
min. plur. edd. Bas. Oecum. have tò undéva. Correctly accepted by. Matth.
Lachm. (in the stereotype edition ; in his larger edition Lachm. writes tò und av
aouiveotar!) Tischendorf, Alford and Ellicott. Preferred also by Reiche. In the
place of the misunderstood TÓ, TỘ of the Receptus was put (although this is im-
possible from grammatical considerations ; see notes on passage), or toŨ (67, 87,
al.), or iva (F G, 73).–Ver. 7. Elz. has Olímel kai áváyın. According to the
preponderating testimony of A B D E F G x, min. edd. Syr. utr. Copt. Arm.
Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel., to be transposed áváykņ kaì Animel. Ver. 11. Instead
of the Recept. 'Indows Xplotós, A B D** (in D* 'Incoñç is wanting) *, 3, 17, et al.,
Aeth. Vulg. ms. Ambr. al., Lachm. Tisch. Alford, Ellicott have ’Inooys, which is
to be preferred.-Ver. 12. Elz. has ó Kúplos. This is wanting in Syr. Erp. Sus-
pected by Mill. Apparently spurious, as in A, 73, et al., ó oeos, and in D* E*
F G, It. Ó kúpios ’Inoows is found. If Paul added no subject in ver. 12, but
caused the same to be continued from ver. 11, the early insertion of additions as
glosses was natural.--Ver. 13. 'Incoû] Elz. has ’Inooû XplotoŰ. Against it A B
DE K X, 37, 39, et al., Aeth. Germ. Vulg. ms. Damasc. Ambr.-After the Recept.
áyiwv avrov, A D* E ** min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. al. add áuñv. Bracketed by
Lachm. ; received by Tisch. 8. But áut was inserted, as an ecclesiastical lection
ended with ver. 13.
CHAP. III. 1.
497
CONTENTS.-No longer the master of his longing and anxiety for his
readers, Paul has sent Timotheus from Athens to them, to exhort them
to endurance under persecutions, and to bring him exact information
concerning their conduct. Timotheus has just returned, and by his mes-
sage has comforted and calmed the apostle. He entreats God that he
might soon be permitted to reach Thessalonica to assist the church in its
remaining deficiencies, and that God might cause the Thessalonians so to
abound in Christian excellence, that they may be blameless at the com-
ing of Christ (vv. 1-13).
Vv. 1 ff. are most closely connected with the preceding;? it is therefore
to be regretted that a new chapter should commence here. On vv. 1-3,
comp. the treatise of Rückert alluded to in comment on i. S.
Ver. 1. Adó] [On Vv. 1-10, see Note LI. pages 509, 510.] Therefore, i. e.
Quà Tò Eleau Duặc TP cóẸao huỗ Kai Tạp capáp (ii. 20).<u7KẾT GTẾyo Tek] o
longer bearing it, i. e. incapable of mastering our longing for you any
longer (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 12, xiii. 7; Philo, in Flacc. p. 974, Opp. Lut. Par.
1640, fol.: LIKÉTC OTÉYELV Suvápevol Tàs Évdelas). So Erasmus, Vorstius, Cor-
nelius a Lapide, Wolf, Pelt, de Wette, only the latter conjoins with the
idea of longing, that of anxiety for the Thessalonians, which, indeed, is in
accordance with fact, but anticipates the representation, as the idea of anxiety
on the part of the apostle is first added in what follows.—unkéri] is not here
instead of oủkéri, as Rückert thinks, appealing to an abusils of the later
Greek, which abusus we should be cautious in recognizing (see Winer, p.
443 [E. T. 486]), but as spoken from a subjective standpoint: as those who,
etc. Moreover, to take the participle oréYOUTes in the sense of occultantes,
to which Wolf and Baumgarten are inclined: “no longer concealing my
longing," i. e. no longer observing a silence concerning it, would be flat,
and contrary to the context. —Evdokhoauev] as well as ÉTÉuwajev, ver. 2, and
ĚTteuwa, ver.,5, is a simple historical statement of a fact belonging to the
past. Grotius and Pelt erroneously take the aorists in the sense of the
pluperfect. Evdokñoajev does not denote a mere promptam animi inclina-
tionem (Calvin, Pelt); also not acting gladly (Grotius : Triste hoc, sed
tamen hoc libenter feceramus), but the freely formed resolution of the
will : accordingly we resolved. Nicolas Lyrencis, Hunnius, Grotius, Calo-
vius, Turretin, Whitby, Bengel, Michaelis, Wurm,2 Hofmann, consider
Paul and Silas as the subjects of eúdokhoaļev; that kåyú (ver. 5), I also,
is a proof of this, for it contains it itself the reference to a wider
subject, so that from a plurality of the subject in ver. 1, a single indi-
vidual was, in ver. 5, brought forward. However, this view cannot
be the correct one. By the insertion of éyè Mèv Ilavhos, ii. 18, the
subject of ii. 17-20 is expressly restricted to Paul himself; and, as
chap. iii. is most closely connected with ii. 17-19, the subject here
must be the same as there. Eudokhoajev must therefore, with Calvin, Hem-
iStrikingly, Calvin: Hac narratione, quae
sequitur, desiderii illius sui fidem facit.
2 In the strange interpretation : “We re-
solved that one of us should go to Thessalo-
nica, accordingly we two remained behind at
Athens, and sent Timotheus." As an analogy
to this, the form should be οι περι τον Παύλον.
Comp. Tüb. Zertschr. 1833, 1, p. 76.
32
498
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
ming, Estius, Fromond., Koppe, Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Alford, Ellicott, Riggenbach (in J. P. Lange's Bibelwerk, Part X.,
Bielef. 1864), and others, be referred to Paul only, to which kåyó, ver. 5, is
no .objection (see below).-katahelgoñval év ’Adhvale uovor] [LI 6.] Zacha-
riae, Koppe, Hug, Hemsen, also Wieseler (Chronologie des apost. Zeitalters,
p. 249) and Alford (Proleg. p. 45), understand this of Paul's being left alone
at Athens, Timotheus not having been previously there with the apostle.
They assume that Timotheus, left behind at Berea (Acts xvii. 14), either
at the time of his being left behind, or at some later period, received the
direction from the apostle, countermanding the charge given in Acts xvii.
15, that before proceeding to Athens, he should return from Berea to Thes-
salonica to strengthen the church there. This view is brought forward
from a desire of reconciling our passage with the narrative in the Acts of
the Apostles. Acts xvii. 16 informs us only of a waiting for Timotheus at
Athens, but not of his arrival there; on the contrary, it is stated that
Silas and Timotheus did not return from Macedonia until the residence
of the apostle at Corinth (Acts xviii. 5). But this view does not correspond
with the natural wording of our passage, as karalelpañval, to be left behind, to
remain behind, evidently presupposes the previous presence of Timotheus.
We must therefore, with Zanchius, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Beza,
Wolf, Benson, Macknight, Eichhorn, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Koch,
Ellicott, Hofmann, and others, suppose that Timotheus actually came from
Berea to Athens, and was sent from it by the apostle to Thessalonica. To
this interpretation we appear constrained by επέμψαμεν, ver. 2, and έπεμψα,
ver. 5, as hardly anything else can be denoted with these words than a
commission given directly by Paul to one present.
Ver. 2. Tòv å dɛpòv Muõv kai ouvepyòv to✓ OsoŰ Év T. εvayy. Toũ Xplotoū] our
brother (Christian brother) and fellow-laborer of God in the Gospel of Christ.
The owv in ovvepyòv tov Okoő refers not to man, but to God, the chief ruler
of the church; comp. Meyer on 1 Cor. iii. 9. In this apposition attached to
Tlubdeov, Theophylact, Musculus, and most critics (comp. already Chrysos-
tom) discover the design, that Paul wished thereby to indicate what a
great sacrifice he put himself to for the sake of the Thessalonians, as he
surrendered to them at once his faithful assistant, whom he himself so
much required, in order that he might minister to their wants. Such a
view is remote from the apostle. The epithets which he gives to Timo-
theus are nothing more than a commendation of his apostolic associate,
which the apostle felt himself constrained spontaneously to express, on
account of the faithfulness and zeal which he displayed for the sake of the
gospel; and we are the less to look for any ulterior design, as it was the
constant practice of the apostle, when he had occasion specially to men-
tion his faithful associates, to designate them by some honorable appella-
tion.-εν τώ ευαγγελίω] Statement of the sphere in which he was a συνεργός.
Comp. Rom. i. 9; Phil. iv. 3.–Eiç tò ornpigal úpās] not that we (the senders)
1 Thus also Hofmann, only he finds the
"reason of the honorable appellation in this:
"" that the Christians of Thessalonica who
longed for the apostle himself might be
tempted to undervalue this mission of a sub-
ordinate associate!”
CHAP. III. 2, 3.
499
might (by the instrumentality of Timotheus) strengthen you (Cornelius a
Lapide, Grotius), but that he' (Timotheus) might strengthen you. But
erroneously (comp. already Chrysostom) Oecumenius, whom Theophy-
phylact, Estius, Luc. Osiander, Fromond., Nat. Alexander, Macknight,
and others follow : ás oalevouévous, &$' ois mu ó diskokalos év Telpaquois péyas
γαρ όντως θόρυβος τους μαθηταίς το είναι τον διδάσκαλον έν πειρασμούς.-Grotius and
others understand napakaréoal in the sense of to comfort. More correctly
(on account of ver. 3), it is to be taken in the meaning of to exhort or
encourage. Schott erroneously unites both ideas. Also, arbitrarily separating
thewords, Olshausen refers ornpiçal to patience in persecution, and Tapakahégal
to growth in faith.-υπέρ της πίστεως υμών] not equivalent to περί της πίστεως
úpāv (de Wette and others), as if it were a mere statement of the object,
but: for the good of your faith i. e. in order that you might preserve it.1
Ver. 3. Eaivelv] related to celelv,—only here in the N. T.,—means, to
shake, to swing hither and thither. It is used specially of dogs who wag
their tails (comp. Hom. Od. xvi. 4 ff., x. 217; Arist. Eq. 1031), from which
the wider acceptation of fawning or caressing is derived. Then the verb
stands generally for any act of shaking, passing from the sphere of sense
to that of mind. Thus here oaivertai denotes a being disquieted, becom-
ing wavering in the faith. Chrysostom correctly explains it by lopußełodal
kaì rapártela. With unnecessary harshness Faber Stapulensis, to whom
also Beza (adblandiri, adversariis videlicet evangelii) is inclined, Elsner,
Observ. sacr. II. p. 275 f., Wolf, and Tittmann, de synonym. in N. T. p. 189,
think to preserve the meaning fawning (and alluring), giving the sense:
that they should not permit themselves, by "adulationes et illicitamenta
carnis” (Faber Stapulensis), to apostatize from Christianity, and relapse
into heathenism. or Judaism. Also Rückert, whom Koch follows, adopts
this view, as he will not acknowledge the meaning Popußeodal in the verb:
he thinks, rather, that from the meaning to fawn, the meaning blanditiis
corrumpi in the passive is formed; and from that, in consequence of the
toning down of the meaning, the general idea of corrumpi arose. Hof-
mann explains oaivelv directly by to delude, a meaning which the word
never has.—ěv Tais Chimeokv tabtals] in these afflictions. Év is purely temporal,
not instrumental, although, in regard to the subject in hand, it cannot be
doubted that it was the the Chéveus to whose influence the possibility of a
σαίνεσθαι is attributed. ταύταις is δεικτικώς, ondicative, denoting the aflictions
which both the Thessalonians and Paul (so Calixtus, Flatt, Schott, and
others; Oecumenius, Theophylact, Estius, Osiander, Nat. Alexander,
Benson, Macknight, erroneously refer the Animals to Paul only) have just
experienced, and which are here considered as belonging to the present,
since a renewed outbreak of them was every instant to be feared. The
first part of ver. 3, accordingly, contains the warning not to suffer them-
i That Calvin here speaks of a fides Pauli
ubique adversus Satanam et mundum victrix,
is because, in the oldest Greek editions of the
N. T., tiotews nuwr was put in place of miotews
2 Comp. Diog. Laert. viii. 41: oi dè galvóue-
vol mois de youévous ė8áxpvóv te kai ģuošov.-
Sophocl. Antig. 1214: taidós pe oaivel peóyyos.
(Other proofs in Wetstein).
tuv.
500
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
selves to apostatize from the faith in Christ in the time of trouble and of
need.But it is asked how ver. 3 is to be connected with the preceding.
Those who read, with the Receptus, tớ undeva galveolac (see critical note),
regard tŷ as the Dativus commodi, which, as the Hebrew ? placed before
an infinitive, serves for the statement of the object; thus tŷ would be
equivalent to εis tó (Grotius, Turretin, Benson, Koppe, Pelt, Olshausen).
But to with the infinitive is used exclusively to denote the reason or the
inducing cause, never to denote the design ; comp. 2 Cor. ii. 12, and Winer,
p. 308 [E. T. 328]. Rückert, indeed, retaining this grammatical use of
TQ, makes it denote: “unde nascituran TNV napákanowv speraverat, quum
Timotheum misit, apostolus;" and although he does not decide positively,
prefers the reading tõ, in order that he may find expressed therein a two-
fold object in sending Timotheus, in conformity with the longing of the
apostle previously stated: (1) in respect to the readers, and (2) in respect
to himself. Timotheus, Paul intends to say, is sent " fratres ut firmaret,
sibi ut afferret ex bona illorum conditione solatium." But this interpre-
tation is simply impossible, as, in referring Tapakahéoal to the apostle, it
would be indispensably necessary, on account of the preceding úpās, to
subjoin nuās. Accordingly, even from internal reasons, criticism requires
us to read tò undéva oalveoval. But here, also, a different view is con-
ceivable :-(1) We might, with Matthaei, supply a second εis to tò undeva
σαίνεσθαι from the preceding εις το στηρίξαι. But in this case we cannot
understand why the second εis has been suppressed by Paul, as elsewhere
he does not avoid the repetition of the form eis tó; comp. e.g. Rom. iv. 11.
Or (2) with Schott, Koch, and Bisping, we might take tò undéva oaiveodal as an
absolute accusative, in the sense of quod attinet ad. But, considering the
rarity of this construction, and the misuse which is practised with its
assumption (comp. Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 132 f.; also Phil. iv. 10, on which
Schott founds, is no analogy, as there tÒ ÚT ÈP Šuoữ ppoveīv is the usual objec-
tive accusative to svetálete, used transitively), this shift should only be
resorted to when no other expedient presents itself. (3) Winer, 5th ed. p.
375 whom de Wette, Reiche, Ellicott, Buttmann, Granm. des neutestan.
Sprachgebrauchs, p. 226 [E. T. 263 f.], Hofmann, and Riggenbach follow,
makes το μηδένα σαίνεσθαι dependent on παρακαλέσαι, and considers it as a
further explanation of ÚTÈD TŘS miotews, namely, to exhort that none should
become wavering. [LI C.] But if tò undéva oaivertai depended on tapa-
καλέσαι, then παρακαλείν, in the sense of to enhort, would be construed
with the simple accusative of the thing, an assumption the possibility of
which is to be absolutely denied. The passages on which Reiche sup-
ports the opposite view are without force. In Luke iii. 18 both accusatives
are not governed by tapakałūv, but, in agreement with Acts xiii. 32, by
evnyyahíeto; in 1 Tim. vi. 2, taðra depends on sidaoke, and kai tapakárɛc is
annexed only in a loose manner to taūta sidaoke; so also in Tit. ii. 15
Taõta belongs only to hádel, but not also to the following verbs; further, in
Mark v. 23 molhá does not depend on mapakahei, but is the adverbial much,
very; lastly, Mark v. 17 and Acts viii. 31 are not analogous, as there
Tapakareiv is put with the accusative of the person, to which a simple
ULUI
CHAP. III. 3, 4.
501
infinitive, but not an infinitive with the article ró, follows.) Besides, if tò
μηδένα σαίν. were a further explanation Or epexegesis of υπέρ της πίστεως
υμών, then not the accusative το μηδένα σαίνεσθαι would have been put, but
the genitive tou undéva oaiv., in agreement with ÚTÈp tñs Tiotewg ýuāv.
Accordingly, this interpretation is also to be rejected. There consequently ·
remains only (4) to consider tò undeva oalveolai év tais 02. Taútals as an appo-
sition to the whole preceding sentence eis tò ornpiçal üpās kaì rapakahécal ÜTÈP
της πίστεως υμών, so that το μηδένα σαίν. serves only to repeat the same
thought which was before positively expressed in a negative but better
defined form ; thus, instead of TÒ, TOUTÉOTI might have been written. Thus
the sense is: to strengthen you and to exhort you on behalf of your faith-that
is, that no one may be shaken in these troubles; or, to strengthen and exhort
you on account of your faith, particularly on one point, which is con-
tained in one requirement: that no one may be shaken, etc. Accord-
ingly, tò undéva oalveobal certainly depends on the preceding éis; but our
interpretation is entirely different from that adduced in (1), as no second
£iç can be inserted before tò undéva oaiverdal without injuring the indis-
soluble unity which combines tò undéva saiv. K.T.. with what precedes.-
avtoi yàp oid. ... kaì oidate, ver. 4, is not, with Moldenhauer, Griesbach,
Vater, Flatt, to be included in a parenthesis, as dià TOūTO, ver. 5, is con-
nected with what directly precedes.-yáp] proves the legitimacy of the
demand undéva caívegfai.—oidate] ver. 4, explains whence they knew it,-
namely, partly from previous definite intimations of the apostle, and
partly from their own experience. Contrary to the text, Theodoret : from
the previous intimation of Christ.-—őti eis TOŪTO Kelueda] that we were
appointed thereto. Comp. Phil. i. 17 ; Luke ii. 34. Eiç TOŪTO, 1. e. not eic tò
μηδένα σαίνεσθαι, but εις το θλίβεσθαι (comp. ver. 4), in connection with
Oliyeolv. Moreover, kelueda refers not only to Paul (Oecumenius, Estius,
Osiander, and others), or to Paul and his companions (Hofmann), nor
also to Paul and the Thessalonians (Koppe), but to Christians in general.
Ver. 4. Reason of avtoi yàp oidate.-T pòs únās] The accusative, as in Gal. i.
18, ii. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 7, etc.—Also pé hojev is neither to be restricted to Paul
(Oecumenius, Estius, Osiander, Nat. Alexander, Macknight), nor to Paul and
his companions (Hofmann), nor to Paul and the Thessalonians (Grotius,
Koppe); but, as keiueda, ver. 3, to be taken generally : we Christians in
general. Méx2oplev Orißeodai, however, is distinguished from the simple
future-it characterizes the sufferings as inevitable, as predetermined in
the counsels of God.-oidate] from your own experience. Baumgarten-
Crusius incorrectly refers it to προελέγομεν.
1 Alford accedes to this interpretation. Bou-
man (Chartae theolog. I. p. 79 ff.) assumes a
middle position between this view and that
adopted by Winer, de Wette, and Reiche:
Ego ... ita de Wettium sequor ac Winerum,
αι μηδένα σαίνεσθαι cum proxime praecedente
Infinitivo mapakadécal connectendum existi-
mem. Verum toto tertiae hujus sectionis
dicto: undeva . . . xeijeda, illius, quam Timo-
thei ministerio ad Thessalonicenses perfer-
endam curabat Apostolus, trapakińceus prae-
cipuuni argumentum ac summa contineri mihi
videtur. Cujus rei, ni fallor, indicium est
dictumque adeo acuit et a caeteris distinguit
praemissus ille articulus tó. Quem ibi po.
nere Graecos, ubi nos signa citationis vulgo
notum est. Veluti postmodum, chap. iv. 1:
Tò três del x.t.d.
502
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Ver. 5. Acà TowTo] on this account, i. e. on account of the actual com-
mencement of trouble. But, incorrectly, Fromond. : ne tribulationibus
meis turbaremini.—The kaí in kảyó does not belong to the whole sentence:
" therefore also, no longer forbearing, I sent” (de Wette, Koch, Bisping),
for then dià kai TOŪTO would have been written (the passages adduced by
de Wette to the contrary do not prove what is designed); rather kaí
impressively gives prominence to the person of the éyé : therefore I also.
Thus a relation must be contained in it to other persons. Schott, whom
Olsh. and Ell. follow, supposes these other the Thessalonians, finding the
thought expressed : “as ye, in consequence of the troubles which befell
me, were anxious for me, so I also could no longer bear to be without
information concerning you.” But, according to the connection (każ
έγένετο και οίδατε, ver. 4), a relation must be contained in κάγώ to others,
of whom, as of Paul, a MIKÉTI OTéyelv in respect of the Thessalonians is
asserted. These others are the Christian circle with the apostle in
Athens (Acts xvii. 34), including Timotheus sent from it to Thessalonica.
Events such as befell the Thessalonians must have awakened lively sym-
pathy in every Christian who heard of them. Entirely perverted is the
view of Hofmann, who takes the singular, ver. 5, as a contrast to the
plural, ver. 1. In ver. 5. only Paul is spoken of, whereas in ver. 1 Paul
and Silvanus are referred to. He accordingly infers, that besides Timo-
theus, sent by Paul and Silvanus jointly to Thessalonica, there was
another sent specially by Paul. After Timotheus was on his journey to
strengthen the Thessalonian Church against the persecution which had
broken out upon them, Paul, at a time when Silvanus was also absent,
sent a second, this time for his own sake; his own troubled condition
making the want of news from Thessalonica insupportable, lest perhaps
the fruit of his labors among them might be entirely lost. Yet before the
return of this unknown messenger Silvanus and also Timotheus had rejoined
the apostle !—eç Tò yvūvai] in order to learn, belongs to the subject of the verb
ÉTTEMWA ; thus: "in order that I, the sender, might learn;” not; in order
that he (Timotheus) might learn (Pelt, Olshausen, and others).—Tìv míotiv
úpūv] your faith, i.e. how it is with it, how it stands.-ýrws] [LI. d.]
depends on yvūval, not on Taupa, and is the introductory particle of an
indirect question : whether perhaps the tempter has tempted you. So Wahl,
Schott, and de Wette; also Bouman, Chartae theolog. I. p. 80. Without
reason, Beza, Grotius, Turretin, Benson, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt, Winer, p.
470 [E. T. 505], supply poßovuevos before uñows: "filled with anxiety lest
the tempter should have tempted you.”—ó Telpácwv] another expression
for ó gatavās, ii. 18. Comp. Matt. iv. 3.-eig kevóv] see Meyer on Gal. ii. 2.
—ĖTreipajev . . . yévntac] correctly, Schott: ut cognoscerem, quomodo se
haberet persuasio vestra, num forte tentator vos tentaverit, adeo ut (quod
1 It might otherwise be assumed that Paul
here anticipates what he first, in ver. 6,
observes of the Thessalonians, namely, that
they also had a longing for him; and thus
κάγώ, which belongs to μηκέτι στέγων, not to
čteuwa, is explained. But this is an expedient
which is artificial, and is to be rejected be-
cause MDKÉTL OTEYELV, ver. 5, and ÉTTLTTO Deiv,
ver. 6, are not co-extensive ideas.
CHAP. III. 5–7.
503
deus avertat!) labor meus irritus fieri possit. The aorist indicative refers
to a fact which possibly may have already happened; but the conjunctive
yévntal refers to a fact which belongs to the future, and is conceived as a
consequence of the first fact. Fritzsche (Opusc. Fritzschiorum, p. 176), to
whom de Wette and Koch adhere, explains it: ut . . . cognoscerem, an
forte Satanas vos tentasset et ne forte labores mei irriti essent. He thus
takes uñows in the first clause as an interrogative particle, and in the
second clause' as an expression of fear; an explanation which Winer
rightly designates as harsh. Moreover, incorrectly, Whitby, Macknight,
Baumgarten-Crusius: in śreipaoɛv is implied “tempted with success,"
"seduced.” The idea of seduction exists only by the addition of eis KEVÒV
γένηται.
Ver. 6. 'Apti dé] [LI -] but now, belongs not to émbóvros (Grotius,
Pelt, Schott, Alford, Ewald, Ellicott, Hofmann, Riggenbach), but is to be
separated from it by a comma, and belongs to tapekañonuev, ver. 7. For
(1) not the mission of Timotheus and his return, but the mission and the
consolation obtained from his return, is the main point on which it
depends; (2) If Paul Would connect άρτι δε ελθόντος, διά τούτο would
scarcely be inserted in ver. 7 for the recapitulation of ver. 6; (3) ăptı dé
emphatically opposes the present to the past, to Teuba (ver. 5); but špti
would be flat if we referred it to $20Óvtos, and that whether it was to be
understood in its temporal or in its logical sense; (4) Lastly, we would
expect napakeich“peda (which certainly is found in A and some minusculi),
but not mapesañonuev, in ver. 7.—ĚZOÓvtoç K..2.] not after, but because; dià
TOŪTO requires this. The joyful message which Timotheus brought' refers
(1) to the Christian condition of the Thessalonian Church generally (TÀv.
TriOTIV kai tīju ảyárnu ýpāv), and (2) to the personal relation of the Thessa-
lonians to the apostle (kai őt. ÉXETE K.7.2.).%-każ ÖTL ÉXETɛ uvelav njuāv ảyaðhv]
and that ye have us in good remembrance. Arbitrarily Grotius: Est METWVV-
uía, nam per memoriam intelligit mentionem, et bonam intelligit, in
bonam partem, i. e. honorificam. For then tolažoval must be put instead
of Š xelv.--Távtote] belongs to the foregoing, not, as Koch and Hofmann
suppose, to what follows.---ÉTTLTOJOWVTES] Comp. Rom. i. 11; Phil. i. 8, ii.
26; 2 Cor. ix. 14.-Strikingly Musculus (also Bengel): Non modo amoris
hoc erat indicium, sed et bonae conscientiae. The compound verb, how-
ever, makes prominent the direction, not the intensity, of toleiv. Comp.
Fritzsche on Rom. i. 11.-Kačátep kai nueis újās] sc. idɛTV ÉTTLTTO DOWLLEV.
Ver. 7. Alà TOŪTO] is added in consequence of the preceding long parti-
cipial sentence, and as its recapitulation. But Paul says dià Toñto, not dià
Taðra, as we would naturaily expect, because he here regards the joyful
message of Timotheus as a whole or in its unity, but does not think on
01
1 Chrysostom: 'Opas TNV Tepexpelay IIaúdov;: Belas tò Bébalový dè åyán any mpaktiKNU
ουκ είπεν απαγγείλαντος αλλ’ ευαγγελισαμένου: αρετήν ή δε του διδασκάλου μνήμη και ο περί
τοσούτον αγαθόν ηγείτο την εκείνων βεβαίωσιν αυτόν πόθος μαρτυρεί τη περί την διδασκαλίαν
kai tu ayatny. Comp. also Luke i. 19, and otopyn. Hammond incorrectly understauds
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 266 ff.
αγάπην of love to God.
2 Theodoret: Andol i mèy miotis Tös evoe.
504
THE FIRST EPIŚTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
the separate points enumerated above.- Tapekaho nuev] the aorist, in con-
nection with ăpit, ver. 6, proves that this Epistle was composed immedi-
ately after the return of Timotheus.--ÉD? úpīv] in reference to you (comp. 2
Cor. vii. 7), is not superfluous on account of the following dià rñs úpūv
THOTEWS (Koppe, Pelt), but puts the personal object first in regard to whom
the consolation of the apostle occurred, whilst dià tñs úpūv Triotewo brings
in afterwards the actual circumstances, by which the consolation was
called forth._-ÉTÈ máоn áváykŋ kaì Chipec nuôv] on (or in) all our necessity
and tribulation. Étrà is not a causal, but a temporal statement. Comp. 2 Cor.
vii. 4; Winer, p. 367 [E. T. 392]. Erroneously Schott, in every necessity
and tribulation which we endure; this would be expressed by étrì tráon
åváykn K.7.2. (without an article). By Olíuis Schott understands the tribu-
lation caused by the Corinthian adversaries of the apostle; and by áváykn,
either sickness or (so also Macknight) pecuniary indigence, combined
with hard labor; whilst Bouman (Chartae theolog. I. p. 80) considers
“áváyknu vocabulum generale esse, quod nullum non calamitatum genus
contineat; Oliyiv de oppressionibus singulatim dici ac persecutionibus, quibus
Christianos vel Ethnici vexarent vel Judaei.” These special determina-
tions or limitations are certainly precarious; still so much is certain, that
åváykn and Ohípus cannot here be interpreted, with de Wette and Koch, of
care and anxiety, but are to be understood of external necessity and tribula-
tion. For the care and anxiety of the apostle could only, according to
the context, refer to the Thessalonians, and must have been removed by
the message of Timotheus. But énti imports that the åváykn and Onipis of
the apostle continued in spite of the glad message of Timotheus; on the
other hand, by reason of it they were no longer esteemed or felt by the
apostle as an evil (comp. ver. 8). For the thought can only be: We
were comforted during, or in spite of, the heavy burden of necessity and
tribulation which weighs upon us, consequently still rests upon us. With
this interpretation what follows in ver. 8 must suitably agree.
Ver. 8. Paul considers the áváykn and Chips which lay upon him as a
dávatos, but he does not feel this evil; the Oávatos is converted to him into
Śwn, when he learns how the churches which he had founded cleave to
the Lord. External matters are, in general, indifferent to the apostle,
provided he reaches his life-aim, to lead souls to Christ; every success in
reference to this imparts strength and fullness of life to him.-vīv] is not
to be understood in contrast to the pre-Christian life of the apostle, when
his thought and aim were entirely different; whereby a thought entirely
foreign to the context would be introduced. The force of vūv as an adverb
of time, at present, is not to be too greatly pressed (Marloratus : Sub
adverbio nunc repetit, quod prius dixerat, se afflictione et necessitate
graviter fuisse oppressum), but has here (on account of tàv) a causal refer-
ence; now, serving as an introduction to what follows: ėàv úteis OTÁKETE ÉV
1 The opinion of Hofmann, that Sià tñs uuãy
miotews is to be combined with oti vûv Suev,
ver. 8, whilst with the emphasis on üzwv it
must be translated : "because it is your faith
by which we now live,” is so monstrous that
it requires no refutation.
CHAP. III. 8-10..
505
.
Kupíw.sõuev] [LI f.] not to be referred, with Chrysostom, to the future,
eternal life, nor weakened to “we are happy” (Pelt and others), or
“satisfied” (Grotius, Moldenhauer), but the meaning is: For now we
live, i. e. we are in full strength and freshness of life, we do not feel the
sorrows and tribulations which the outer world prepares for us.-¿àv ülets
OTÝKITE Šv kupiw] when, or so soon as ye stand fast in the Lord, hold fast to
His fellowship.—ýpeis] applies specially to the Thessalonians what holds.
good of Christians generally.---ěáv] makes the fact of the stedfastness of
the readers appear as a well-grounded supposition. But the hypothetical
form of the sentence includes, indirectly, the exhortation to hold fast to the
Lord for the future.
Ver. 9. Reason of Guev, ver. 8; yáp, consequently, is not“mera particula
transeundi” (Koppe, Pelt). In a truly monstrous construction, Hof-
mann, with a renunciation of all exegetical tact, pulls to pieces the simple
and clear structure of the words, talking τίνα γαρ ευχαριστίαν δυνάμεθα το
Deð ávtarodowval Tepi úxūv (ver. 9) as a parenthetic clause, the object of
which is to give beforehand the reason of debuevol (ver. 10), referring trì
raon xapã, zaipoulev di ýmās to dɛÓLEVOL "as a statement of what he
joined to his request; " considering dɛópevol, which is "a participle of the
imperfect," as an apodosis, which, passing over the parenthesis, is annexed
to παρεκλήθημεν (ver. 7), and to which δια της υμών πίστεως ότι νύν ζώμεν (νν.
7,8) forms the protasis !--Tíva vào tú zaplotiav k.1,7.] for what thanks can we
give in return to God on behalf of you for all the joy we feel for your sakes
before our God? i. e., What expression of thanks can be sufficiently great
to be an equivalent for the fullness and super-abundance of our joy?
Theophylact: Togaúrn, pnoiv, ý si újās xapá, ôti ovdè xaplotñoal TÛ D£Q
κατ' αξίαν δυνάμεθα υπέρ υμών. God has brought about and arranged this
joy by His higher guidance; therefore to Him belongs the thanks; there-
fore is this thanks a return for the proof of His grace (ávtarodowval).-tāca
ý xapá] cannot denote joy of every kind; accordingly, cannot indicate the
multiplicity of objects which the joy for the Thessalonians has (which
Schott thinks possible). It means, as the article added requires, the whole
joy-joy in its sum total. See Winer, p. 105 (E. T. 110]. A joy in its
totality is certainly the greatest conceivable joy; so that it may be said
that tãoa ń zapá denotes laetitia maxima (Flatt, Pelt, Schott).-zaipouev]
by attraction instead of iv xaipoulev; comp. Matt. ii. 10.---šume pochev ToŨ
Okoũ vuāv] belongs not to the following (Ewald, Hofmann), but to the pre-
ceding; but not to xapă (Koppe, Pelt, Bloomfield), but to zaipouev. The
addition serves to bring forward the purity of this joy, to which nothing
earthly cleaves. Erroneously Oecumenius and Bloomfield : “Paul would
think on God as the Author of the joy."-On nuôv, comp. on ii. 2.
Ver. 10. A£6_evol[ [LI g.] is not used absolutely instead of debueda or
touÈv dɛóļevol, which Cornelius a Lapide and Baumgarten-Crusius assume,
and Flatt thinks possible, but neither is it to be united with xaipojev
11
1 Comp. Kühner, II. p. 385; Hartung, Par-
tikell. II. p. 25.
2See Schmalfeld, Syntax des Griech. Vera
bums, p. 201.
506.
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
(Schott, de Wette, Koch, Riggenbach), but belongs to the main thought
riva . . . ávtarodowval, and assigns the reason for it by the fervent longing
for the readers, and anxiety for their Christian character: What sufficient
thanks are we able to give to God for our joy over you, as we (cleaving to you
with such paternal love that we), without ceasing, pray to see you again, and
complete the defects of your faith ?-VUKTÓS] See on ii. 9. Erroneously Fro-
mond.: it is placed first, quia nocte praecipue propter solitudinem et silen-
tium sancti se orationi dare solent.—The accumulation of expressions
νυκτός και ημέρας υπερεκπερισσού, is the natural outflow of the strength of his
feeling; comp. Phil. i. 23.—ÚTEPKITEPLO000] above measure, is found only in
v. 13, Eph. iii. 20, and Theodoton, ad Daniel. iii. 22. Erroneously—because
grammatically impossible-Clericus insists on referring it by means of a
trajection not to dɛóuevol, but to ideiv, defending his opinion on the ground
that ÜTEPEKTED. denotes something not strictly necessary, whereas prayer is
a duty, a necessity: orantes ut videamus vultum vestrum, quasi cumulum
laetitiae nostrae. Non satis erat Paulo scire Thessalonicenses constanter
evangelio adhaerere, quamvis summam laetitiam ex eo nuntio perciperit,
volebat ÚT EPEKTTEPLOOOū, ex abundanti, eos videre.---£is TÒ K.7.2.] the design of
deóuevot: praying to this end, in order by means of prayer (by the answer
to it) to attain the ιδείν and καταρτίσαι.---καταρτίζειν] is to place in the condi-
tion of perfectness, of completeness. Thus katapTÍSELV Tà votepúuata tñS TÍCTEWS
signifies : to render complete the defects of faith, that is, in order to make per-
fect that which is wanting in faith (Theodoret : Tà +2delnovra Tampãoai). By
this totepñuara tñs míotews Paul understands partly defects of faith as
regards insight (particularly in respect of the impending advent; comp.
iv. 13 ff); partly defects of faith as regards its practical verification in the
Christian life (comp. iv. 1 ff.). It follows, moreover, from kataprísal tà
jotepņuara, with what inconsiderate arbitrariness Baur misuses even this
passage in support of his assertion that the Thessalonian church had
already existed for a long time.
Ver. 11. [On vv. 11–13, see Note LII. pages 510, 511.] Aúrós] is not a
general introductory subject to which the special designations are annexed
as an apposition : "but He, God our Father," etc. (Luther, de Wette,
Hofmann, Riggenbach. According to de Wette, whom Koch and Bisping
follow, avtós serves for bringing forward the contrast with the petitioner).
But the whole designation of the subject Αυτός ... 'Ιησούς is most closely
connected : But God Himself, our Father and our Lord Jesus. It has its
contrast in reference to katevdívelv TÌv ósóv. Paul thinks on a KaTEVOÚVELV TÀU
ósóv, both on his (man's) side and on the side of God. . The first does not
conduct certainly to the end, as in reference to it the power of éykóTitel is
given to the devil (comp. ii. 18). Only when the katevOvvelv is undertaken
by God Himself and Christ is its success assured, for then the hindrances
of the devil are without power. Thus Paul contrasts simply and naturally
God and Christ to himself.-uāv] may be referred both to Oɛós and to
mathe (Hofmann, Riggenbach), so that God is called our (the Christians')
God and our Father : but it is best to restrict it to tatíp, so that God is first
considered in His existence as God simply, and then afterwards in refer-
CHAP. III. 11, 12.
507
ence to us as our Father.-kaì ó kúpos vuāv 'Incows] [LII 6.] This addi-
tion (coinp. 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17), particularly with the following katevóúval,
which is to be understood as the third person singular optative aorist, not
as the infinitive (see Winer, ed. 5, p. 383), might appear strange. But,
according to the Pauline view (comp. Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 301), Christ,
exalted to the right hand of the Father, takes part in the government of
the world, and orders everything for the promotion of His kingdom. And,
inasmuch as His will is not different from the will of God, but identical
with it, the verb in the singular is suitable.--katevõtvai] make straight, plain,
so in order that it can be trod. · Without' a figure : may cause it to be
. . realized.-πρός υμάς] belongs not to την οδόν ημών, but to κατευθύναι.
Ver. 12. To the wish as regards himself, Paul adds a further wish as
regards his readers. -ývás dé] Bengel puts it well : sive nos veniemus, sive
minus.-If ó kúplos (see critical note) is genuine, it may grammatically
refer either to God or to Christ (although the latter is the more usual);
also šupoolev ToŰ DEOū, ver. 13, instead of avtoñ, is no objection to the ref-
erence to God, as the repetition of the name in full shortly after its men-
tion is not rare; comp. ii. 2; Eph. iy. 12, 16; Winer, p. 136 [E. T. 144].-
The optatives (not infinitives, as Bretschneider thinks, who without justi-
fcation stipplies δώη υμίν) πλεονάσαι and περισσεύσαι are in a transitive sense:
but the Lord make you to become rich and abound in love. On theová (elv, comp.
LXX. Num. xxvi. 54; Ps. lxxi. 21 ; on teploevelv, comp. Eph. i. 8; 2 Cor.
ix. 8, etc. Erroneously Theodoret, whom Cornelius a Lapide follows,
takes Theováoal by itself, of the external increase of the church : čixetal
τοίνυν αυτούς και το αριθμό πλεονάσαι και τη αγάπη περισσεύσαι, τουτέστι τελείαν
auriju kthoachai, ūote undèv ÉRZELTelv avtī). So also Olshausen and Koch erro-
neously distinguish theováčelv and TEPLODEVELV as cause and effect : to increase,
and arising from this increase, abundance. Similarly Fromond. as extensio
and intensio charitatis, ---£is åaanhovs] towards fellow-Christians.-eis távras?
is not an explication of eis. århnous : erga vos invicem et quidem omnes,
which Koppe thinks possible, but means toward all men generally.
Estius: etiam infideles et vestrae salutis inimicos. Theodoret, without
reason, liinits it to fellow-Christians of all places; whilst he interprets eis
åakinous of fellow-Christians in Thessalonica.--kadátep kai nusis eis quas]
SC. tñ áyám? Theová šouev kaÌ Teplootvojev, as we also are rich in love and abound
towards you. Only this completion of the ellipsis corresponds to the con-
text, and the objection to it, that theováčelv and TEPLOOEVELV is used first in a
transitive and then in an intransitive sense, is of no force, as the passage
of the one into the other here is so insensible and easy, that no reader
could take objection to it. Arbitrary are the completions of Calvin : affecti
sumus; Nösselt: animati sumus; Baumgarten-Crusius : & Xouev (?); Pelt
and Schott: toranv åyátnu & xouev; Wolf (and so essentially already Mus-
culus): Teplodeuoal, abundare nos in vos faciat; in which latter case the
accusative ruās (as certainly Laurent, Neutestam. Studien, Gotha 1866, p.
1 Entirely erroneously, Piscator begins with this verse the second or exhortative portion of
the Epistle.
508
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
188, actually reads, but without justification) must be put in place of the
nominative rueīs. Also, supplying the simple copula sumus (Grotius) is to
be rejected, which would suppose a form of speech entirely un-Grecian.
Correctly, according to the sense, Theophylact: ŠXeTe yàp uétpov kaì napá-
δειγμα της αγάπης ημάς.
Ver. 13. The final aim is derived from the wish, ver. 12, because love is
the fulfilling of the law (Rom. xüi. 10), and the band of perfection
(Col. iii. 14).-eis tò ornpišai] [LII c, d.] not so that (Pelt, Baumgarten-
Crusius); also, not so much as kaì ornpišal (Koppe), by which the words
would only annex a new wish to the preceding. It is designed to intro-
duce a majus, a greater, specifying the higher or final aim to which theová-
ζειν and περισσεύειν are to conduct. . But the subject in στηρίξαι is not την
åyámnv (Oecumenius), but tòv kúplov (which, however, is not, with Theophy-
lact and Schrader, to be converted into the idea tÒ Te veūma), or, with the
contingent spuriousness of ó kúpcos in ver. 12: God and Christ, ver. 11. -
ornpiçal denotes confirming, strengthening generally, not confirming in the
faith (Flatt, Pelt), against which is the context.-Tàs kapdías] Chrysos-
tom : ουκ είπεν υμάς στηρίξαι, αλλά τας καρδίας υμών. 'Εκ γαρ της καρδίας εξέρχον-
Tal diahoylouo movnpoi.-àuéu TTTOUS] proleptic: so that you will be blameless.
Comp. 1 Cor. i. 8; Phil. iii. 21 (according to the correct reading); Winer,
p. 579 [E. T. 624]; Kühner, II. p. 121.—źv dy.woúvn] belongs not to othpiçal,
but to åpéļLTTOUS, specifying the sphere in which the blamelessness is to be
shown. The expression denotes the condition of holiness, comp. Rom. i.
4; 2 Cor. vii. 1; erroneously Koppe: alias dylaquós, and Olshausen :
àywotvn is the process of becoming holy, the result of which is sylaouós.-
žjn poobɛv To✓ DEоū] before God, according to His judgment, His judicial ser-
tence, belongs neither to sylwoúvn [Koppe, Pelt), nor to åpéuttovs (de Wette,
Koch), but to the whole à péLTTOUS ÉV áy.wouvm.-Metà trávtwv tūv dyiwv avtow]
Flatt, with whom Hofmann, in his Schriftbeweis, II. 2, ed. 1, p. 595, agrees
(he construes the passage differently in ed. 2, p. 649, and in his H. Schr.
N. T., without altering his interpretation of oi äyloi), unites the clause with
å ubject TOUS ÉV dy.woúvn: "in order that ye may appear blameless on that day
with all who are consecrated to God, who are the genuine members of
His people, who truly honor God and Christ.” So also Musculus; and
also Benson and Olshausen (comp. also Bouman, Chartae theol. I. p. 81
ff.), although they do not construe with Musculus and Flatt, understand by
äylol the earlier perfected believers. But the difficulty which impelled
Flatt to this interpretation (and in which Schrader finds even an objection
against the authenticity of the Epistle), namely, that äycol in the New Tes-
tament never denotes the angels when it is by itself, that is, without the
addition of ayyɛhoc, vanishes, as—(1) The advent is considered as glorified
by the appearance of angels; comp. 2 Thess. i. 7; Matt. xvi. 27, xxv. 31;
Mark viii. 38; Luke ix. 26. (2) In the Old Testament without any further
addition D'º7?, and in the LXX. oi äyroi, is a designation of the angels :
1 Baumgarten-Crusius, Alford and Ellicott refer the words to the glorified believers and the
angels.
NOTES.
509
comp. e.g. Zech. xiv. 5; Dan. iv. 10; and therefore this current designa-
tion cannot surprise us in Paul. Also, what Hofmann in the above-
mentioned place urges in favor of Flatt's interpretation is without force.
For to "the probability of the three prepositions žutt pootev, év, and yetá
being used in a similar connection,” is opposed the greater naturalness
and easiness of the connection of μετά πάντων των αγίων αυτού with the
directly preceding εν τη παρουσία του κυρίου ημών Ιησού. «And that also the
connection” supports Flatt's explanation, “since the brotherly love in
which the Thessalonians are to grow finds its suitable reward in sharing at
length the blessed fellowship of all the saints of God," so that hereby is
already introduced “what the apostle has particularly to teach the Chris-
tians of Thessalonica for their comfort, that those believers who fell asleep
before the Advent of the Lord will not be wanting at it,” can only be
maintained without arbitrariness, if not only the explanation in iv. 1-12,
but the section iv. 13 ff., be directly joined to iii. 13; and then this section
would be introduced with Oυ θέλομεν γαρ υμάς αγνοείν, instead of with Ού
θέλομεν δε υμάς αγνοείν.-Moreover, the concluding word αυτού is more cor-
rectly referred to to✓ Osov, than, with Pelt, Riggenbach, and others, to ToŨ
kupiov ruāv ’Inooû.
NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR.
LI. Vv. 1-10.
(a) 846, which Lünem. connects with iii. 20, is probably in thought, if not gram-
matically, to be connected with the general idea of iii. 17-20.-(6) As to the in-
consistency between Acts xvii. 14, xviii. 5. and what is stated in vv. 1, 2 of this
chapter, it depends on two things: (1) the meaning of katahelbuñval; (2) the
question as to whether the statements of the Acts exclude the supposition of a
journey of Timothy to Athens, and thence to Thessalonica, in the interval be-
tween Acts xvii. 14 and xviii. 5. With reference to the latter point, it seems
quite improbable that Timothy should have gone thus to Athens, without any al-
lusion being made to it by Luke, and even with intimations in his narrative which
would convey an opposite impression. If Paul had desired Timothy to go to
Thessalonica, it would seem more natural that he should have sent him a request
to do so, while he was yet in Berca. With reference to the former point, it must
be admitted that the verb, more naturally and according to its strict sense, means
to be left behind, as if by other persons who had been in the same place. But,
considering that. Paul had requested Silas and Timothy (Acts xvii. 15) to come to
him with all speed, when he went from Bercea to Athens, and must accordingly
have waited for them with earnest desiremit is questionable whether he
might not use this verb to express the idea of being left still longer alone in
Athens, as he would be if Timothy were sent from Bercea to Thessalonica. The
possibilities of explanation in the case are such, at all events, that the difference
between Paul and Luke cannot be justly said to be irreconcilable. As for the
words érté uwajev ver. 2 and Étte uma ver. 5, they can be interpreted consistently with
either a sending from Athens, or a request communicated from Athens to Timothy
at Berea, though, if there were nothing to suggest the opposite, they would
doubtless be naturally understood in the former way.—(c) The explanation of de
510
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
W., Buttm., Ell., and others, which makes tò undéva oaiveodal of ver. 3 depend on
Trapakahéjat, does not seem to be "absolutely impossible," as Lünem. maintains- .
his position with regard to 1 Tim. vi. 2 is doubtful, to say the least;--and if this
construction is allowable, it is, on the whole, the simplest and most natural. No
serious objection, however, can be made to the construction which Lünem. him-
self proposes, making the words appositional to the whole preceding sentence. -
(d) Grimm (Lex. N. T.) and Meyer on Gal. ii. 2 agree with Lünem. and de W.
in giving to paus (ver. 5) the interrogative force. The ordinary use of this par-
ticle in Paul's writings is against this view, and there are strong arguments against
it in Gal. i. 2. Here, it may have this sense, but not improbably it should be
rendered, with R. V. and many comm., lest by any means, lest haply.-(e) The con-
nection of åpti (ver. 6) with mapekhin Unuev, which Lünem. favors, is opposed by
two considerations: (1) the remoteness of the verb from the adverb, and (2) the
fact that the verb is introduced by διά τούτο.. The emphasis on άρτι, if connected
with €216vros, can be accounted for, by the desire to point to the arrival of Timo-
thy (and thus of the tidings concerning the church) as very recent, and by the
contrast of Timothy's present arrival with his past mission. The insertion of dià
TOŪTO is not unnatural, if åpti is connected with the participle. Whether con-
nected thus or not, dià TOŪTO refers to the same thing the news which Timothy
had brought. And, as for the use of the perfect, napakekānueva, instead of the.
aorist, which Lünem. claims would be expected of ăptl was intended to qualify
#2Jóvros, all that can be properly affirmed is that the perfect might have been
used, but, when we consider the uses of the aorist by the N.T. writers, and the
comparative infrequency of the perfect, the absence of the latter tense here cannot
be pressed as an argument of weight. R. V. renders: “But when Timothy came
even now unto us." Whether špti is connectect with the participle or the verb,
the indication of the passage is that the letter was written (as Lünem. also holds),
immediately after the arrival of Timothy, and, as there is no indication that
Timothy went to Athens after visiting Thessalonica, and as he is stated in the Acts
(xviii. 5) to have rejoined Paul in Corinth, this verse answers to that passage and
thus harmonizes with Luke's account. There can be no reasonable doubt, there-
fore, that the Epistle was written at Corinth.-(f) Sõlev (ver. 8) is a strong
rhetorical expression, showing how dependent he was for his peace and happiness
on the condition of his converts—as if his very life rested upon their standing
firm. Whether there is a suggestion in the verb of a Jávatos as figuratively in-
volved in thius and aváykn, as Lünem., Alf., Ell., and others suppose, is more
doubtful. The answer to this question will depend on whether one is to be con-
.nected solely with TapakahOmulev ? ýuiv dià rîs Tíotews, and ÉTÈ Táo9 k.7.2. is a
mere clause setting forth the circumstances, or whether, on the other hand, these
last-mentioned words are made an essential and prominent part of that to which
Örl refers.-(9) The explanation of debuevou (ver. 10) which Lünem. gives is to be
adopted—the relation of thanksgiving to prayer corresponding, thus, with that
in i. 2 and elsewhere.
LII. Vv. 11–13.
(a) The section closes with a prayer, which, following the course of all that
precedes, refers, first, to Paul himself in relation to his work for the readers, and,
secondly, to their personal growth in the Christian life and virtues. The request
NOTES.
511
11
with regard to himself is in the direct line of that expression of feeling which has
occupied the earlier verses. He desires that his way to them may be made
straight.—(6) The union of ó kúplos "ju. 'Ino. with ó dɛós, as the subject of a common
verb in the singular number, is pressed by Ell. as "asserting simply and plainly,
that the Eternal Son is here distinguished from the Father in respect of His per-
sonality, but mystically united with Him in respect of His Godhead.” It must be
admitted that this is one of the more striking among the passages in which the
two are thus placed together, and that this peculiar union in so many cases is a
fact worthy of serious consideration in the discussion of the doctrine of the Divinity
of Christ.-(c) ornpiçal (ver. 13)-comp. ver. 2. The apostle had sent Timothy
for this purpose, and now prays that he may be enabled to go himself for the same
end. The establishing them thus has reference to their appearing blameless in
holiness before God at the coming of the Lord Jesus.-(d) Though only a message
of friendly affection, and that of a somewhat repetitious character, these chapters,
as the careful reader will observe, are not without a rhetorical plan. The parts
answer to one another accurately; they move forward from his life among them,
and its effects, to his anxiety for them in his absence, the means which he adopted
to learn of their condition, and the joy which he felt as he heard of the growth
and strength of their faith. He places, in every part, his relation to them in
parallelism with their love to him and their relation to the gospel. And he
closes each chapter with the thought which is uppermost in his own mind and in
theirs the Lord's coming, which they were waiting for. They had turned from
their old worshiping of idols to serve the living God and to wait for this coming.
He hoped to find in the time of this coming the crown of his glorying. And that
they might then appear before the God whom they served—his Father and
theirs—in the perfection of holiness, is his earnest prayer.
512
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
CHAPTER IV.
VER. 1. AOLTÓv] Elz. Matth. read Tò moltbv. Correctly rejected, according to
overwhelming testimony (A B* D E F G K L x, min. Chrys. cod. Damasc.), by
Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Alford and Ellicott. Tó arose from the last syl-
lable of the preceding αυτού.--ούν in the Recepίus after λοιπόν is erased by
Tisch. 1. But the omission is only attested by B* some min. Copt. Chrys. and
Theoph., and might easily have been occasioned by the preceding ov.—After
Ιησού Elz. has καθώς παρελάβετε παρ' ημών το πώς δεί υμάς περιπατείν και αρέσκειν
DeQ (va teplodeunte vãnhov. Defended by Reiche. But iva is to be inserted before
katws paperáßere, with Lachm. Tisch. 1, 7 and 8, Alford and Ellicott (after B
D* E* F G, 17, 37, al., Arm. Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel.), and the parenthesis kaows
και περιπατείτε is to be inserted before ένα περισσεύητε (after ABDEFG 8, min.
Copt. Aeth. Arm. Syr. p. Slav. ed. Vulg. ms. It. Harl. Ambrosiast.). Internal
criticism also requires this. For iva TEPLOCEVNTE presupposes the earlier mention
of a prior commencement (comp. ver. 10), and such a commencement would not
be implied in the preceding text without καθώς και περιπατείτε. Evidently the
apostle would originally have written iva, kadàs Traperáßete trap nuôv TÒ TŪS K.T...,
OŰTWS kaÌ TepetaTĪTE; but, while writing, altered this his intended expression, that
he might not say too little, wishing to notice the good beginning already made by
the Thessalonians. The repetition of 'íva after so long an intervening clause was
too natural, so that it might excite suspicion.- Ver. 6. Te pocitojev. So Griesbach
and Schott, after A KL, most min. (as it appears) Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, al.;
whilst Elz. Matth. Lachm. Tisch., Alford, Ellicott, after B (e sil.) D E F G X, al.
read προείπαμεν.--Ver. 8. Ela. has τον και δόντα. και is wanting in A B D*** Ε,
min. edd. Syr. Arr, al., Ath. Chrys. al. Erased by Lachm. and Tisch. 1. How-
ever, it might easily have been omitted, the eye of the translator passing from tov
to dovra.--Instead of Sovra, B D E F G 8* 67* et al., mult. edd. Ath. Didym. have
Sidóvra. Preferred by Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8. But didóvta appears to be a
correction from a dogmatic point of view, in order, instead of the objectionable
preterite, to obtain the statement that the Holy Spirit is permanently communicated
to believers.—ýpās] Elz. has ruās. Against B DEFG KLX, min. plur. edd.
Syr. Arr. Arm. Syr. p. in m. It. al. Didym. Ambrosiast. An alteration in con-
formity with a reference to the apostle himself implied in the preceding åvo putov.
-Ver. 9. Instead of the meaningless Rec. & XETE (comp. commentary on ver. 9),
& Xouev is to be received, after B [εi xouev] D* F G ***** min. Vulg. It. Chrys
Theoph. Ambrosiast. Recommended by Griesbach. Received by Lachm. and
Tisch. 1. 'Exete is taken from v. 1.-Ver. 11. Tais xepoiv] Elz. has taīç isiais
xepoiv. 'Idíacs, defended by Reiche, suspected by Griesb., and erased by Lachm.
Tisch. Alford, and Ellicott, after B D* E? F G & **** 31, 46, al., Aeth. Arm.
Vulg. It. Bas. Chrys. Theoph. Ambrosiast. Pel. Gloss for the sake of strengthen-
ing, arising from Tà idia.- Ver. 13. Jéhouev] Elz. has Jéhw. Against preponder-
ating testimonies (A B D E F G L X, min. pl. vss. (also It. and Vulg.] and
CHAP. IV. 1.
513
Fathers). Instead of the Receptus KeKolunuévwv, A B X, 39, al., Or. Damasc. Chrys.
ms. (alic.) have KoluwuévwV. So Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, 8, Alford and Ellicott.
Ver. 16. Elz. has atpūTOV. D* F G, Vulg. It. Cyr. Theoph. ed. Tert. Ambrosiast.
al.-read mpūtol.-Ver. 17. Elz. bas árávTNOI. D* E*? F G read ÚTávTNOLV.-Elz.
has To✓ Kvplov. D* EX ? FG, Vulg. It. Tert. al. read tô XPLOTĄ.
CONTENTS.—The apostle entreats and exhorts his readers to progress
with the greatest earnestness in the Christian life, which they had begun,
according to the instructions and commandments which they had
received. God desires holiness; they should therefore abstain from for-
nication, covetousness, and overreaching their neighbors (vv. 1-8). He
has no necessity to exhort them to active brotherly love; they practise
this already far and wide; but he exhorts them to increase therein, and to
seek honor in distinguishing themselves by a quiet and busy life (vv.
9–12). With regard to their anxiety for the fate of their fellow-Christians
who had fallen asleep before the commencement of the advent, it may
serve for their information and comfort that those who are then alive
would receive no preference over those who are already asleep; Christ
will descend from heaven; then will the dead rise first, and afterward the
living also will be uplifted with them to eternal fellowship with the Lord
(vy. 13-18).
Ver.1. [On vv. 1-12, see Note LIII. pages 538, 539.] Tò holtóv (see critical
remark) would now directly oppose what follows with what precedes :
“ for the rest," "what is yet besides to be said;" whereas hoitov is a less
prominent particle of transition" besides." Both furms, however, intro-
duce something different from what precedes, and serve properly to intro-
duce the concluding remarks of an Epistle; comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Phil.
iv. 8; Eph. vi. 10; 2 Thess. iii. 1. Here holttov introduces the second por-
tion of the Epistle, and that in an entirely natural and usual manner, as
this second portion is the concluding portion of the Epistle.-(Tò) 201Ttóv is
incorrectly explained by Chrysostom, Theophylact: åεi Mèv kaì εiç tò dinveIÉS ;
Theodoret, to whom Oecumenius, though wavering, adheres : ánoxpbvows;
Luther: "furthermore;' Baumgarten-Crusius : "generally, what is the
main thing."-oºv] therefore, represents what follows as an inference from
the preceding, and especially from iii. 13. As it is the final destination
of Christians to be özeuTTOL ÉV áywoúvn, in order to reach this end prayer
directed to God does not suffice, but also man's own striving is requisite;
so the apostle beseeches and exhorts his readers to increase in striving
after a holy walk. Comp. Theodoret : ToutW KEXPNJÉVOL TØ GKOT V T Poopépoulev
ÚlTv Tijv tapalveolv. Calixtus refers oŭv to the idea of the judgment taken
from iii. 13: Ergo, . . . . quum sciatis non stare res nostras fine tempo-
rali aut terreno, sed exspectari adventum domini a coelis ad judicium,
precamur vos et obtestamur, etc. Incorrectly Musculus : Quum igitur
gratiam hanc acceperitis a domino, ut in fide illius firmi persistatis, quem-
admodum ex relatione Timothei cum ingenti gaudio accepi: quod jam
reliquum est, rogo et hortor, etc.—¿pwrãv] in the classics is used only in
the sense of to inquire (see the Lexicons); here, as in v. 12, 2 Thess. ii. 1,
33
514
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
.
Phil. iv. 3, John iv. 40, xiv. 16, Acts xxiii. 20, etc., in the sense of to request,
to beseech, analogous to the Hebrew 7 (so also the English to ask), which
unites both meanings. 'Epwtõuev denotes the entreating address of a
friend to a friend ; Tapakałoğjlev šv kupio, the exhortation in virtue of the
apostolic office, thus the exhortation of a superior to subordinates.--ěv
kupiw] in the Lord, belongs only to mapakałoquev (against Hofmann), and
means, as in Rom. ix. 1, 2 Cor. ii. 17, xii. 19, Eph. iv. 17, as found in
Christ, by means of life-fellowship with Him, Paul being only the organ
of Christ; not for the sake of the Lord (Flatt), which would require dià
Tòv kúplov; also not per dominum Jesum, as a form of oath (Estius, Grotius,
and others), against which is the Greek usage; comp. Fritzsche on Rom.
ix. 1; Kühner, II. p. 307. iva] the contents of the request and exhorta-
tion in the form of its purpose.---Tapeáßetɛ] see on ii. 13. Oecumenius,
after Chrysostom (and so also Theophylact, also Pelt): rò rapeñáßere ojxi .
ρημάτων μόνον εστίν, αλλά και πραγμάτων εξ ών γάρ αυτός έβίου, τύπος τους μαθηταίς
Łyiveto. But this extension of the idea is arbitrarily inserted against the
natural meaning of the word, and against ver. 2.-76] is not superfluous,
(Grotius), but specifies in a substantive sense the following words, in order
to collect them into one idea, as in Rom. iv. 13, viii. 26, xiii. 9; Gal. v. 14;
Phil. iv. 10; Luke i. 62. Comp. Winer, p. 103. [E. T. 108]; Bremi, ad
Demosth. de Cherson. p 236.--kaì ápéokeiv DeW) and (thereby) to please God, is
co-ordinate to Teplitateīv, although logically considered it is the consequence
of Teplttateiv; TEPitateiv can only be the means of ápéckeLV.~TTEPLOGEÚNTɛ] sc.
év TV OŰTWS TEPLTatzīv. Falsely Theophylact, adhering to Chrysostom: iva
πλέον τι της εντολής φιλοτιμήσθε ποιείν και υπερβαίνητε τα επιτάγματα.-μάλλον] a
further intensification, as is a favorite custom with Paul; comp. iv. 10;
Phil. i. 23; 2 Cor. vii. 13, etc.
Ver. 2. A strengthening of tapɛhábete rap Muāv, ver. 1, by appealing to
the knowledge of the readers : for it is well known to you, ye will thus be
the more willing to TEPLODEVELV. This appeal to their own knowledge is
accordingly by no means useless, and still less un-Pauline (Schrader,
Baur), as it is elsewhere not rare with Paul; comp. Gal. iv. 13; 1 Cor. xv.
1 ff., etc., - apayyɛhíal] not evangelii praedicatio, in qua singula praecepta
semine quasi inclusa latitant (Pelt), against which is the context and the
plural form; but commands (comp. Acts y. 28, xvi. 24; 1 Tim. i. 5, 18), and
that to a Christian life. The stress is on tivas, to which toūto, ver. 3, cor-
responds.—à Toũ kupiou 'Incoū] through the Lord Jesus, by means of Him,
i. e. Paul did not command St ÉavtoŨ, but Christ Himself was represented
by him as the Giver of the rapayyɛhial. Comp. Bernhardy, Syntax, p.
235 f. Schott blends the ideas in a strange manner: Auxilio sive benefi-
cio Christi, siquidem Paulus, ab ipso domino ad provinciam apostoli
obeundam vocatus, δι' αποκαλύψεως Χριστού inter illos docuerat. So also de
Wette : by means of the revelation given in the Lord, so that the general
divine truth is communicated through Him. Falsely Pelt, sá is equiva-
lent to év; and Grotius, accepta is to be supplied.
1 Falsely, moreover, Theophylact: opa 8è FLÓTLOTOV ÈAUTÓv elvar o now, állà Tòv Xplor
ταπεινοφροσύνην, όπως ούδε προς το παρακαλείν τον παραλαμβάνει κ.τ.λ.
CHAP. IV. 2-4.
515
Ver. 3. Further specification of túraç Tapayyenías, according to its con-
· tents. TOŬTO Yáp Éotiv déanua to✓ Okool for this (the following) is the will of
God.--TOŬTO] not the predicate (de Wette, 2d ed.), but the subject (comp.
Rom. ix. 8; Gal. iií. 7; Winer, 5th ed. p. 130) is emphatically placed first,
accordingly not superfluous (Pelt).--I ianua row Osov without the article, as
the will of God is not exhausted with what is afterwards adduced. The
words are without emphasis; they resume only the idea already expressed
in ver. 2, although in another form. For a command given à ton kupiou
'Inooù is nothing else than Dénue toŬ Oɛ00.-ó áylaouos únöv] namely, your
sanctification, in apposition to TowTo and the subject-matter, whereas TOUTO
was only a preliminary and nominal subject. dyladuós has an active
meaning, your sanctification, (újūv, the genitive of the object), i.e. that you
sanctify yourselves, not passive (Est., Koppe, Usteri, p. 236; Olsh., B.-Crus),
also Huther on 1 Pet.i.1, 2.3d ed., so that it would be identical with áy.woúvn,
iii. 13. Calov., Wolf, Flatt, de W., Koch, Alford, and others také áyraguós as
a "quite general” idea, under which not only åréxeol al K.t.1., but also
ver. 6, are specified as particulars. This view, in itself entirely suitable,
becomes impossible by the article tó before útepBaívelv, ver. 6. This does
not permit us to consider ver. 6 as a parallel statement to åréXEodai, ver. 3,
and είδέναι, ver. 4, but places the statement το μη υπερβαίνειν κ.τ.λ. evidently
on the same level with ó dylaquos vuāv. Accordingly Toūto receives a double
specification of the subject-matter in the form of apposition—(1) in ó
dylaquòs ülõv, and (2) in tò lì ÚTepßaívelv, ver. 6. Thus the meaning is :
For the following is the will of God, first, that ye sanctify yourselves, and
then that ye overreach not, etc. But from this relation of the sentences it
follows that dylaouós must denote holiness in a special sense, i. e, must be
considered in special reference to sins of lust, thus must be used of striv-
ing after chastity (Turretin, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Bloomfield, and
others).—ó dylaoliòs úrūv is further epexegetically explained-(1) negatively
by απέχεσθαι υμάς από της πορνείας, and (2) positively by είδέναι κ.τ.λ., ver. 4.
In an entirely erroneous manner by Hofmann, according to whom the
stress is to be laid on Géanja Toữ OkoŨ, TOŪTO is to indicate årétegval K.T.N.,
and o dylaguós is a parenthetic apposition. Moreover, "a contradiction"
to the praise of the church, expressed elsewhere in the Epistle, is
not contained in the exhortation, ver. 3 ff. (Schrader), as the reception
of Christianity never delivers, as with the stroke of a magician, from
the wickedness and lusts of the heathen world which have become
habitual; rather a long and constant fight is necessary for vanquishing
them.
Ver. 4. (LIII c.] That every one of you may know (understand, be
capable; comp. Col. iv. 6; Phil. iv. 12) to acquire his own vessel in sanctifi-
cation and honor. By ouevos, Chrysostom, Theodoret, John Damascenus,
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Tertullian, Pelagius, Haimo, Calvin, Zeger, Mus-
culus, Hemming, Bullinger, Zanchius, Hunnius, Drusius, Piscator, Gom-
arus, Aretius, Vorstius, Cornelius a Lapide, Beza, Grotius, Calixt, Calovius,
Hammond, Turretin, Benson, Bengel, Macknight, Zachar., Flatt, Olsh.,
B.-Crus., Bloomfield, Linder, St. u. Kr., 1867, Meyer (Rom. 5th ed. p. 84), and
516
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. '
1
others, understand the body (tò owua). But—(1) Krāobal cannot in any
way be reconciled with this interpretation. For that can only denote to
gain, to acquire, but not to own, to possess (for which one in vain appeals to
Luke xxi. 19; Sir. vi. 7, xxii. 23, li. 20). If one would, with Olshausen
(comp. also Chrysostom), retain the idea of acquiring, and then find the
sense : "to guide and master his body as the true instrument of the soul,"
yet, as de Wette remarks, the contrast ui Év rá el ériovuías, ver. 5, which
likewise belongs to ktãobal, would be irreconcilable with it. (2) The body
may be compared with a OKEÑOS, or, when the context points to it, may be
figuratively so called, but okeñoś by itself can hardly be put in the sense of
oõua. All the passages which are usually brought forward do not prove
the contrary; e.g. Barnabas, Ep. vii. and xi.: TÒ OKEVOS TOÙ Tveúpatos
(avtov), where okeños has its usual meaning, and only the full expression
serves as a circumlocution for the body of Christ.? How different also
from our passage is 2 Cor. iv. 7, by the addition botpakívous, according to
which the oõja is only compared with a okevog óotpákivov! (3) The position
of the words το εαυτού σκεύος is against it. For εαυτού can only be placed
first, because the emphasis rests on it; but a reference to the body of an
individual cannot be emphatic; it would require to be written TÒ OKEVOS
ÉavtoŨ. Olshausen certainly finds in XavtoŨ a support for the opposite view;
but how arbitrary is his assertion, that by the genitive“ the subjectivity,
the yoxh, is distinguished from the okeños," as only the belonging, the private
possession, can be designated by éavrov! (4) The context also does not lead
us to understand okevos of the body. Paul, namely, has brought forward the
dylaquós of his readers as the will of God, and has further explained
this áylaouós, first, negatively as an abstinence from fornication. If, now,
this negative specification is still further explained by a positive one, this
further positive addition can only contain the reverse, that is, the require-
ment to satisfy the sexual inpulse in chastity and honor. The words import
this, if okevoç is understood in its original meaning, “retain a vessel," and
the expression as a figurative designation of wife. How suitable does the
emphatic Éavto✓ become through this interpretation, the apostle, in con-
trast to the topveía, the Venus vulgivaga, urging that every one should
acquire his own vessel or means to appease the sexual impulse—that is,
should enter into marriage, ordained by God for the regulation of fleshly
lusts; comp. 1 Cor. vii. 2, where the same principle is expressed. To
1 In a special manner Ernest Schmid ex-
plains it; Suum vas i. e. suum corpus et in
specie sua membra, quibus ad árabapoiav
homo abuti potest. So also Majus, Observat.
sacr. III. p. 75. Schomer, Woken, and Triller
(comp. Wolf in loc.). Bolten, entirely con-
trary to the context; rò éavtoŮ Okellos is "his
means, his vessels, or singularis pro plurali,
his goods, his utensils."
2 Philo, quod deter: pot. ins. p. 186: Tò cñs
yuxas ayyelov tº OWMQ, and de migr. Abrah.
p. 418: Tois dyycious añs yuxñs oumate kai
aiolňoel. Cicero, disput. Tusc. i. 22: corpus
quidem quasi vas est aut aliquod animi recep-
taculum. Lucretius, iii. 441: corpus, quod
vas quasi constitit ejus (sc. animae).
8So, in essentials, Theodore Mopsuestius
(ed. Fritzsche, p. 145: {kellos tnv idiav ekáotou
yajletny óvojásel); cives in Theodoret (rnu
ouósuya); Augustin, contra Julian, iv. 10, v. 9;
de nupt. et concup. i. 8; Thomas Aquinas,
Zwingli, Estius, Balduin, Heinsius, Seb.
Schmid, Wetstein, Schoettgen, Michaelis,
Koppe, Schott, de Wette, Koch, Bisping,
Ewald, Alford, Ellicott, Hofmann, Riggen-
bach, and others.
CHAP. IV. 5, 6.
517
regard the expression okeños as a figurative designation of wife is the less
objectionable, as this figurative designation is besides supported by Jewish
usage. ËKaotov úpāv] every one of you, sc. who does not possess the gift of
continence; comp. 1 Cor. vii. 1, 2.--ěv dylaouo kai tiun] in chastity and
honor, belongs not to fkaoTOV, so that óvta would require to be supplied
(Koppe, Schott), but to ktãobal, and is an epexegesis to éavtov, so that after
κτάσθαι a comma is to be put. In το εαυτού σκεύος κτάσθαι there is contained
ktãojai év éycaoua 6.7.2. already implicitly included. Accordingly, by this
addition there is by no means expressed in what way one should marry,
which, as a too special prescription, would certainly be unsuitable; but
ver. 4 contains only the general prescription, instead of giving oneself up
to fornication, to marry, and this is opposed as honorable and sanctified to
what is dishonorable and unsanctified.
Ver. 5 brings forward the prescription ¿v dylaouo kai tiun once more on
account of its importance, but now in a negative form.-un év trádel śn lOv-
uías] not in the passion of desire. Accordingly, Paul does not here forbid
śrcovuía, for this in itself, as a natural impulse, rests on the holy ordinance
of God, but a ráðos émi@vuías, that is, a condition where 'sense has been
converted into the ruling principle or into passion.2-kai] after kalátep is
not added for the sake of elegance (Pelt), but is the usual kai after particles
of comparison; see ii. 14, iii. 6, 12, iv. 6, 13; Rom. iv. 6, etc.; Hartung,
Partikell. I. p. 126.-Tà len Eidóra Tòv Oɛóv] of whom nothing better is to be
expected. Comp. on the expression, Gal. iv. 8; 2 Thess. i. 8.
Ver. 6. The second chief point which the apostle subordinates to the
Abanua ton Okoī (ver. 3), adding to the prohibition of unchastity the further
prohibition of covetousness and overreaching our neighbor (Nicolas Lyrensis,
Faber Stapulus, Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, Zanchius, Hunnius, Luc.
Osiander, Balduin, Aretius, Vorstius, Gomarus, Grotius, Calovius, Clericus,
Wolf, Koppe, Flatt, de Wette, Koch, Bouman, supra, p. 82, Bisping,
Ewald, Hofmann, Riggenbach, and others). It is true Chrysostom, Theo-
doret, John Damascenus, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Jerome on Eph. V.
5, Erasmus, Clarius, Zeger, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Heinsius, Whitby,
Benson, Wetstein, Kypke, Bengel, Baumgarten, Zachar., Michaelis, Pelt,
Schott, Olshausen, Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott, and others, refer it still to
the prohibition of unchastity given in vv. 4, 5, whilst they find in ver: 6 a
particular form of it designated, namely, adultery, and consider the sen-
tence as dependent on εidéval (Pelt), or as in apposition to vv. 4, 5. But
this is without justification. For-(1) the expressions útepBaivelv and
TERVEKTEīv most naturally denote a covetous, deceitful conduct in common
1 Thus it is said in Megilla Esther, i. 11: In
convivio illius impii aliqui dixerunt:mulieres
Medicae sunt pulchriores, alii vero: Persicae
sunt pulchriores. Dixit ad eos Ahasverus:
vas mcum, quo ego utor (1) wpnon IXV
]), neque Medicum neque Persicum est,
sed Chaldaicum. Comp. Sohar Levit. fol. 38,
col. 152; Quicunque enim semen suum im-
mittit in vas non bonum, ille semen suum
deturpat. See Schoettgen, Hor. hebr. p. $27.
Lastly, add to this that the expression ktão-
Dal yuvaira, in the sense of ducere uxorem,
is usual; comp. Xenoph. Conviv. ii. 10: TAÚTNY
(Zavoitinv) KÉKTIMAL; LXX. Ruth iv. 10; Sir.
xxxvi. 24.
2 Theodore Mopsuestius (ed. Fritzsche, p.
518
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
social intercourse. (2) If the discourse had been only of Tropveia, the words
περί πάντων τούτων would scarcely have been put. . Different cinds of πορνεία
must at least have been previously enumerated. But not even this could
be the case, as then to the dissuasion from topveía in general, the dissuasion
from a special kind of topvela would be united. (3) Lastly, the article
imperatively requires us to consider το ... αυτού as parallel to ο αγιασμός
újūv, ver. 3, and, accordingly, as a second object different from the first.
If Pelt objects against our view that a mention of covetousness (ver. 6)
would occur "plane inexspectato,” he does not consider that lust and
covetousness were the two cardinal vices of the heathen world, and that
Paul was accustomed elsewhere to mention them together; comp. Eph.
iv. 19, v. 3,5; Col. iii. 5. Also, the further objection which is insisted on,
that on account of ver. 7 an exhortation to chastity must be contained in
ver. 6, is not convincing, as there is nothing to prevent us taking åkatlapoia
and áyladuós, ver. 7 (see on passage), in the wider sense.-76] not equiva-
lent to bote (Baumgarten-Crusius), but a second exponent of the object-
matter of Okamua Tov OkoŨ (ver. 3).—ÚTepBaivelv] here only in the N. T.,
stands absolutely : justos fines migrare, to grasp too far (Luther). What
Paul particularly understood by the entirely general un ÚTepBaiver he
himself indicates by και πλεονεκτείν... αυτού, which letter Worls, εις μή is
not repeated before TheoveKTEīv, can contain no independent requirement,
but must be an explanatory specification of υπερβαίνειν, και is accordingly
to be understood in the sense of “and indeed.” Others, as Beza, Koppe,
Pelt, Baumgarten-Crusius, Alford, Ellicott, Hofmann, Riggenbach, have
united both verbs with τον αδελφόν. But the union of υπερβαίνειν with a per-
sonal object is objectionable, and also in the two passages adduced for it
by Kypke (Plut., de amore prolis, p. 496, and Dem., adv. Aristocrat. p. 439)
the meaning opprimere is at least not demonstrable. Moreover, not
ËKAOTOV, from ver. 4 (B.-Crus., Alford), but tivá, is to be considered as the
subject to tò útepBaivelv k.1.2.--TREOVEKTEīv] expresses the overreaching,
the fraudulent pursuit of our own gain springing from covetousness (comp.
2 Cor. vii. 2, xii. 17, 18), not the covetous encroaching upon the posses-
sion of a brother, as a figurative expression for adultery.-ĖV TẬ a páyuari]
is not verecunde pro concubitu (Estius and those mentioned above), but
means in the business (now, or at any time in hand). See Winer p. 109 f. [E.
T. 1157. Too narrow a sense, Piscator: in emendo et vendendo. Rittershus.'
Polyc. Leyser (in Wolf), and Koppe consider the article as enclitic (ĚV TW
instead of šv TIVI); unnecessary, and without any analogy in the New
Testament. Comp. Winer, p. 52 [E. T. 53]. But also erroneously, Mack-
night, Schott, Olshausen, and others, ÉV TẠ a páyuarı is equivalent to év
TOUTW TẬ a páyuati.-Tòv ádenpòv avton] is not equivalent to Tòv tehnolov (Schott,
165); woày TOUTO TOLOÚVTOS OÚKÉTL TallTn ws
yuvalki ovvóvros ålda dià mišuv Móvny átlws,
όπερ πάθος επιθυμίας εκάλεσεν.
1 Comp. Eurip. Alc. 1077; un vũv ÚnépBarv,
åll' évaloiuws Oépe; Il. ix. 501: ÖTE KÉV TLS
ümeplýn kai ánáprn. The idea of an "oppres.
sio violenti, qualis tyrannorum et potentium
est, qui inferiores injustis exactionibus aut
aliis illicitis modis premunt," (Hemming) is
inserted, and every supplement, as that of
Piscator, “excedere modum in augendis
rerum pretiis," is to be rejected.
CHAP. IV. 7, 8.
519
Koch, and others), but denotes fellow-Christians; comp. ver. 10. This
limitation of the prohibition to Christians is not surprising (Schrader), as
there is no emphasis on Tòv ådenpòv avrov (for otherwise it must have been
written TÒ Tòv å deloòv avtoŨ un K.7.2.), and accordingly the misinterpreta-
tion that the conduct of Christians to those who are not Christians is to
be different, could not possibly arise. Paul simply names the circle
which stood nearest to the Christians, but without intending to exclude
thereby the wider circles.—ĚKOLKOS] an avenger ; comp. Rom. xiii. 4. The
same reason for prohibition in Eph. V. 5, 6; Col. iii. 6; Gal. v. 21. Com-
pare the saying: šXEL DEÒS ŠKOLKOV õjja (Homer, Batrachom.), which has
become a proverb.-kaðàç kal] refers back to diótb.--* poeimojev] foretold; the
Te po refers to the time preceding the future judgment, and the preterite to
the time of the apostle's presence among the Thessalonians.- Lauaptupá- ,
jeda] an intensifying of a pocitojev.
Ver. 7. Reason of $KLKOÇ Ó kúpos tepi TrávtWV TOUTWV.——ÉKáhegev] the fuller
form in ii. 12.—ÉTÈ åkalapoią] on condition of, or for the purpose of unclean-
ness; comp. Gal. v. 13; Eph. ii. 10; Winer, p. 368 [E. T. 394]. —ảkalapoia]
is uncleanness, moral impurity generally (comp. ii. 3), and thus includes
covetousness as well as lust.-ánk év dylaouw] gives, by means of an abbre-
viation (comp. Kühner, II. p. 316), instead of the purpose, the result of the
calling: but in holiness, i.e. so that complete holiness of life has become a
characteristic property of us Christians. Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 15; Gal. i. 6;
Eph. iv. 4. But dyraouós, as it forms the counterpart to ákaðapolą, must
denote moral holiness in its entire compass, and is accordingly here taken
in a wider sense than in ver. 3.
Ver. 8. An inference from ver. 7 (not likewise from ver. 3, Flatt), and
thereby the conclusion of the matter treated of from ver. 3 and onwards.
--Tolyapowv] (Heb. xii. 1) therefore, not; atqui (Koppe, Pelt). See Hartung,
Partikcell. II. p. 354.-ó áfɛtāv] the rejecter (Gal. ii. 21, iii. 15; 1 Cor. i. 19),
stands absolutely (used as a substantive). Comp. Winer, p. 331 [E. T.
353]. What is rejected by him is evident from the context, namely, the
above exhortations to chastity and disinterestedness. So already Beza.
But the rejection of these exhortations is actual and practical, manifest-
ing itself by the transgression of them. To ó áðɛtāv Koppe erroneously
supplies : istam roð dylaquoù legem, ver. 7; Pelt and Bloomfield : TÀU TOŬ
áyiao uoũ Khñow, Ernest Schmid : TÒV Tolajta Tapayyéalovta; Flatt: éuè TÒV
Tapakañoñvta. It is decisive against the last two supplements, that hitherto
not the person who gave the exhortations to the Thessalonians, but only
the contents of those exhortations themselves, are emphatically brought for-
ward (even on è Oɛós, ver. 7, there is no emphasis). To seek to determine
more definitely đùɛtúv from the following oủk åvo putov åJerai were arbi-
trary, as the course of thought in ver. 8 would be interfered with.-ouk
åvų pwrov åtetɛī årlà tòv Oɛóv] rejecteth not man (this may be excused) but
God, inasmuch as he who enjoins the readers to avoid lust and covetous-
ness, impresses on them not his own human opinion, accordingly not a
1 Erasmus: Non vocavit nos hac lege, ut ditio vocationis erat, ut desineremus esse,
ossemus immundi, siquidem causa et con- quod eramus.
520
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
mere arbitrary command of man, but delivers to them the solemn and
unchangeable will of God.--ovk . . . árgá] is here, as always, an absolute
contrast, therefore not to be weakened into “not, but especially," or, “not
only, but also” (Macknight, Flatt, and others). Comp. 1 Cor. i. 17; Acts
V. 4; Winer, p. 462 [E. T. 497]; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 9 f. In the anarthrous
singular åvopwntov, moreover, Paul expresses not merely the general idea
man in contrast to ó Debs, but there is likewise contained therein an (un-
translatable) subsidiary reference to himself, as the person from whose
mouth the Thessalonians have heard these commandments. Others
incorrectly understand by ăvo pwros the defrauded brother (ver. 6); so
Oecumenius: τοιγαρούν και παρά την κλήσιν πράττων (ούτος γαρ ο αθετών) τον
καλέσαντα υβρισε μάλλον ή τον πλεονεκτηθέντα τούτο δε είπε, δεικνύς ως ου
μόνον, ένθα ο αδελφός ο αδικούμενος ή, δεί φεύγειν την μοιχείαν, αλλά κάν άπιστος
ņ K.7.2.; and Pelt: Vestrum igitur quicunque vocationem suam spernit
fratremque laedit, quem diligere potius debuisset, is sane non hominem
contemnit, sed, etc.; also Alford. In a manner still more mistaken,
Hofmann, referring to the whole section vv. 3-6, makes åvų pwrov denote
humanity; against which he sins who misuses the woman for the sake of
lust, or injures his brother for the sake of gain; whilst with an entirely
inadmissible comparison of the Hebrew 727, he arbitrarily inserts into
åJetzīv the idea of an “act of sin which is a breach of peace, a violation
of a holy or righteous relation," and finds in ver. 8 the impossible and
wholly abstract thought expressed, that every action which treats man as
if there were no duty towards man as such, will accordingly be esteemed
as having not man, but God for its object.-τον και δόντα το πνεύμα αυτού το
äy. εis úpās] who besides, etc., an emphatic representation of the greatness
of the crime which the Thessalonians would commit, were they to dis-
obey these exhortations. In such a case they would not only set at
nought the eternal will of God, but also repay the great grace which God
had shown to them with shameful ingratitude. Kai has an intensifying
force, and brings prominently forward, by an appeal to the conscience of
the readers, the inexcusableness of such conduct.-TÒ TTVEữua avtoŨ TÒ
äycov] is the Holy Spirit proceeding from God, who transforms the believer
into a new personality, and produces extraordinary capabilities and gifts
(v. 19 f.; 1 Cor. xii.-xiv.).-£is újās] is not precisely equivalent to úuiv
(Koppe, Flatt, Pelt), but denotes, instead of the mere logical relation
which the dative expresses, the communication under the form of locality;
accordingly, unto you.
REMARK.-If the present tense sidóvra is read, the communication of the Holy
Spirit is represented as something continuing in the present. If, along with
Sidóvta, the reading of the Receptus, eis nuās, is retained, this may be either taken
in a wide sense, as nuas in ver. 7, “to us, Christians;” or, in a narrow sense, “ to
us (me) the apostle.” In the first case, the addition on account of its generality
would be somewhat aimless. In the second case, the following thought might be
found therein: "but God, who not only commissions us to utter such exhorta-
tions, but who has also imparted to us His Holy Spirit, put us in a position to
CHAP. IV. 9.
521
speak every moment the correct thing;" comp. 1 Cor. vii. 40.-But (1) this view
is objectionable on account of the many additions and supplements which it
requires; (2) Tòv kai didovra would introduce no new thought which is not already
contained in the contrast ork åvopwnov . . . århà Tòv Obv; for, being commis-
sioned by God to give such exhortations, speaking in His name is one and the
same with being qualified for this purpose by God's Holy Spirit; (3) Lastly, it is
generally improbable that the addition Tòv kaì K.7.2. should contain a statement
concerning the apostle, as such a statement is too little occasioned by the pre-
ceding. For, in the contrast ovi avêpwntov . . . årāà Tòv Osóv, the general idea
not man is contained in åv porov as the main point, whilst the reference to the
apostle's own person in avopumov is very slight, and forms only a subsidiary point.
-If, on the other hand, eis juās be received along with the present participle, this
might be explained with de Wette, whom Koch follows, that the apostle for the
sake of strengthening his words reminds the Thessalonians how God still con-
tinues to communicate to them His Holy Spirit; how this communicated Holy
Spirit, partly by inspired persons, partly by the voice of conscience, gives the
same exhortations which he, Paul, now enforces. But who does not see that here
also the chief matter, by which the addition becomes appropriate, must first be
introduced and supplied ?
Ver. 9. Aé] introduces a new requirement.--oihadełpía] brotherly love, i. e.
love to fellow-Christians; Rom. xii. 10; Heb. xiii. 1; 1 Pet. i. 22; 2 Pet.
i. 7. But the apostle thinks on this not only as a disposition, but also as
verifying itself by action, that is to say, as liberality toward needy com-
panions in the faith (comp. TOLETTE . . . εis, ver. 10). It is self-evident that
this brotherly love does not exclude love to man in general, comp. Gal.
vi. 10; 2 Pet. i. 7.—When, moreover, the apostle says that he has no
need to exhort the Thessalonians to brotherly love, as they practise this
already, but nevertheless requires them to increase in it, this is a touch
of delicate rhetoric (praeteritio, napáhelyes, see Wilke, neutestamentliche
Rhetoric, p. 365), not unusual to Paul (comp. v. 1; 2 Cor. ix. 1; Philem.
19), in order to gain willing hearts for the fulfillment of an exhortation
whose necessity was evident._avroí] not equivalent to sponte (Schott),
which would not suit θεοδίδακτοι, but αυτοί γαρ υμείς are to be taken together,
and form the contrast to the person of the writer formerly named (how-
ever without further emphasis).—Geodidaktol] an änag heyóuevov in the N. T.,
but analogous to SidakToà Okov, John vi. 45 (Isa. liv. 13), and by no means
un-Pauline, because Paul elsewhere uses TTVEVMATlkoi in this sense
(Schrader); for TTVEYmatikoi could not here have been put. The
expression is not to be taken absolutely in the sense of JEÓTTVEVOTOL,
according to which εις το αγαπάν αλλήλους would only be a more
definite epexegesis of it, so that ye, in consequence of this theopneustia,
love one another;” but it contains a blending of two ideas, as properly
i Chrysostom: Oủ xpelavēxou ev ypádelv univ.
'Expîv oův olwangal kai undèu eiteiv, ei un
xosia hv. Nûv Sè TW elmeiv, ou Xpeia cori,
jeiçou émoindev ñ ei elitev. Erroneously
Estius, to whom Benson assents: Tacite signi-
ficat, eos omnino opus habuisse admonitione
superiori, quae erat de sanctimonia seu mun-
ditia vitae; difficile enim erat, homines gen-
tiles immunditiae peccatis assuetos a talibus
subito revocare.
522
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
only didaktoi łote is expected, but now the source of this instruction is
iminediately united with the word (without any one exhorting you, you
yourselves know, namely, being taught of God, etc.). The knowledge or
the instruction is not theoretical, not a knowledge from the Old Testa-
ment, not a knowledge from a word of the Lord (John xiii. 34; Baum-
garten-Crusius), also not a knowledge from the instructions of the pro-
phets, such as actually were, according to v. 20, among the Thessalonians
(Zachariae), but a practical knowledge which has its ground and origin
in the purified conscience of the inner man, effected by God through the
communication of the Holy Spirit; consequently a knowledge or instruc-
tion of the heart. Moreover, incorrectly Olshausen: "where God teaches,
there, the apostle says, I may be silent.” For the stress lies not on the
first, but on the second half of geodidakt01.-es Tò ảyattāv. ålanhovs] is de-
pendent on the διδακτοί in θεοδίδακτοι, and denotes, under the form of the
design at which that instruction aims, its object. Incorrectly Flatt, és
denotes quod attinet ad.
REMARK.-Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Ellicott, Hofmann, also Winer, p. 313 [E.
T. 339], and Buttmann, Gram. d. neut. Sprachgebr., Berlin 1859, p. 223 [E. T. 259],
Consider the reading of the Recepίus : ου χρείαν έχετε γράφειν υμίν (see critical
remark), as correct Greek, appealing to the frequent use of the infinitive active,
where one would expect the infinitive passive (see Kühner, II. p. 339). I cannot
agree with this; on the contrary, most decidedly deny the applicability of that
use to our passage. For, in the instances given, the characteristic distinction is
throughout observable, that the infinitive active expresses the verbal idea in a
vague generality, entirely free from any personal reference, so that this active infinitive,
in its import and value, can scarcely be distinguished from an absolute accusa-
tive. Comp. for example, Sophocles, Oed. Col. 37 : fehl'. Ěxels yàp xūpov oịx áyvòv
TateĪV.—Thucydides, i. 38: 'Hv ... Ó DELILOTOKłñS . . . ăžios Javuáoal.—Euri-
pides, Med. 318: héyels ákvūgal Maldár'.—Comp. also Heb. v. 11: hóyos dvospuhvev-
tos aéyelv. Entirely different from these is our passage, where ypápelv, by means
of úuiv, instead of forming an absolute statement, is put in a special personal refer-
ence to the readers; indeed, as the subject of ypápeuv can only be the apostle, in a
special personal reciprocal reference to Paul and the Thessalonians, and accord-
ingly the whole expression acquires an individual concrete form. If & xere is not to
be without meaning, it would require accordingly either èjè ypápelv, or, as in v.1,
the passive ypápeod ai to be written. For that, as Bouman, Chartae theolog. I. p. 65,
and Reiche, p. 339, think, šué or nuās, or rather the indefinite Tivá, readily sug-
gest themselves to be supplied, and that the more so, as the necessity of some such
supplement is obvious from the following deodídaktou (Bouman), can hardly be
maintained. Also Heb. v. 12, to which an appeal is made, proves nothing, for
here from a similar reason rivá is to be accented (with Lachmann) instead of Tiva;
whereby the reference and the relation of the words are entirely transformed.
Comp. my commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Ver. 10. An explanatory confirmation of the statement Deodídaktoi Łotɛ
kiç tò ayatāv åaanhoug by an actual historical instance. Calvin finds in ver.
10 an argumentum a majore ad minus : "nam quum eorum caritas per
totam Macedoniam se diffundat, colligit non esse dubitandum, quin ipsi
CHAP. IV. 10, 11.
i 523
mutuo inter se ament.” But the emphasis rests not on áranhors and tous
ådɛmpoùs Toù év őrn tñ Makedovią, but on ảyatāv and TrolɛTTE. Also the opin-
ion of de Wette, whom Koch follows, that an additional reason is here
adduced why the Thessalonians require no further exhortation, is to be
rejected, as then kaì TOLETTE would require to be written instead of kaì yàp
ποιείτε, because γάρ cannot be co-ordinate with the preceding γάρ.-και γάρ]
not equivalent to simple yáp (so most critics), and also not quin etiam, or
imo (Calvin), but for also : comp. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 137 f. Whilst
γάρ is a justification of αγαπάν, the idea of διδαχθήναι is carried on to the idea
of ποιείν by means of the corresponding καί.-ποιείτε] has the chief accent;
it denotes the actual practice.-αυτό] scilicet, το αγαπάν, not το της φιλαδελφίας
(Baumgarten-Crusius and Koch).-TEPLOGEVELV pārkov] to increase yet more,
scilicet, in brotherly love. Musculus, appealing to Phil. iv. 12, arbitrarily
takes teploGevelv absolutely, whilst he makes a new train of thought com-
mence with trapakahoquev: “qua eos l'edigat in ordinem, qui doctrina
charitatis ad ignaviae suae, desidiei, curiositatis et quaestus occasionem
abutebantur, nihil operis facientes, sed otiose ac curiose circumeundo ex
aliorum laboribus victitantes," and finds the meaning: "ut abundetis
magis, h. é. ut magis in eo sitis, ut copiam eorum, quae ad vitae hujus
sunt sustentationem necessaria, habeatis, quam ut penuriam patientes
fratribus sitis oneri.” Equally erroneously, because unnatural, Ewald
thinlks that as the following φιλοτιμείσθαι, s0 also even περισσεύειν μάλλον,
is to be included in the unity of idea with rouxáŠELV K.T..., ver. 11: “to
keep quiet still more, and zealously,” etc. Besides, the construction of
TEPLODEVELv, with a simple infinitive following, would be wholly without
example.Sparkov] The same intensification as in iv. 1.
REMARK.—After the example of Schrader, Baur (p. 484) finds also vv. 9, 10
only suitable for a church which had already existed for a considerable time.
How otherwise could the brotherly love of the Thessalonians, which they showed
to all the brethren in all Macedonia, be praised as a virtue already so generally
proved? Certainly Paul recognizes the brotherly love of the Thessalonians as a
“virtue already proved ;" but Baur, no less than Schrader, overlooks (1) that not
eis távras tous dyiovs, but eis trávras toùs åderooùs év 0277 tņ Makesovia is written;
consequently, the exercise of that virtue is limited to the Christian circle nearest to
the Thessalonians; (2) that Paul yet desires an increase in that virtue, thus
indicating that the exercise of it had only shortly before commenced. An interval
of half a year (see. Introduction, & 3) was accordingly a sufficient time for the
Thessalonians to make themselves worthy of a praise restricted within such bounds.
Ver. 11 is attached to the preceding in the loosest grammatical con-
nection. [LIII d.] It has been thought that ver. 11 is only a further
development of the preceding exhortation. So Olshausen, who finds in
the whole section, vv. 9-12, only an exhortation to love, and in such a
,1 Ewald in vain endeavors anew to defend
the above construction of the words in his
Jahrb. d. bibl. Wissenschaft, 10 Jahrb. Gött.
1860, p. 241 ff.: That the apostle, after he had
before said that it was not necessary to write
to the Thessalonians concerning brotherly
love, because they sufficiently practised it,
could not, without self-contradiction, proceed
524
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
manner that vv. 9, 10 refer to love to fellow-Christians, and yv. 11, 12 to
löve to man in general. To the latter in particular, inasmuch as the
Thessalonians were required to give no occasion to those who were not
Christians to blame anything in the professors of the gospel. But evi-
dently the apostle, when he exhorts his readers to give no offence by their
conduct to those who were not Christians, considers this not as the ful-
fillment of the commandment of love to man in general, but as a matter
of prudence and discretion, in order in such a manner to counteract the
prejudices against Christianity, and so to pave the way for its diffusion in
wider circles. Comp. also Col. iv. 5, 6. Others suppose that to the exhor-
tation to piaadehoia a warning against its abuse is attached; as some in the
church practised liberality, so others made use of this liberality as an occa-.
sion of leading an idle life. So already Theodoret,' and after him Estius,
Benson, Flatt, Schott, de Wette (wavering), and Koch. But against this view
is decisive.--(1) That such a sharp division of the church into two clifferent
classes is not justified by the context; for, on account of the close connection
of ver. 11 with the preceding, those of whom tepigoetelv Mārkov is required are
the same with those to whom the exhortation to φιλοτιμείσθαι ήσυχάζειν κ.τ.λ.
is addressed. It accordingly follows, that as the church as such was distin-
guished by active brotherly love, so also the church as such (not a mere
fraction of it) did not possess the qualities mentioned in ver. 11. (2)
According to this view, the stress is placed only on épyáčeodal tais xepoiv
υμών, whereas the demand to ήσυχάζειν and πράσσειν τα ίδια is entirely left
out of consideration. And yet it apparently follows, from piaotlueToMa
ησυχάζειν και πράσσειν τα ίδια being placed first, that the main point lies on
these, whilst the idleness blamed in the readers is evidently described only
as a consequence or result of the neglected ήσυχάζειν και πράσσειν τα ίδια.--
Accordingly, as a closer connection of ideas, than that which the form of
the grammatical construction appears to indicate, is not without force
demonstrable, we must, mindful of the rapid transitions which are pecu-
liar to the Apostle Paul, especially in the practical parts of his Epistles,
consider vv. 11, 12 as a new exhortation, internally distinct from that in
vv. 9, 10, and which only happens to be united with it, as both refer to the
moral furtherance of the Christian life.-PLOTlplecolai rouxáčelv] is to be
taken together : to make it your ambition to live quietly, and the juxtaposi-
tion of the two verbs is an o.ymoron, as in the usual course of things every
pirotluía is properly an impulse to shine by actions. Calvin takes pihoti-
jelovar by itself, referring it back to the command to brotherly love: Post-
to say, but we exhort you yet to increase in
brotherly love. In this Ewald is certainly
right. But Paul only declared before that
the Thessalonians practised brotherly love-
that they already practised it sufficiently we
do not read; this, on the contrary, is only
arbitrarily introduced by Ewald.
1Ουκ εναντία τους προρρηθείσιν επαίνους ή
tapalveois' ouvéßaive yáp, tous mèv Dedoriuws
χορηγείν τοις δεομένοις τήν χρείαν, τους δε διά
την τούτων φιλοτιμίαν αμελείν της εργασίας:
είκότως τοίνυν κάκείνους επήνεσε και τούτοις τα
mpóo popa ouveßovlevoe.
2 Hac eorum liberalitate quidam pauperiores
abutentes, otio et inertiae vacabant, discur-
rentes per domos et inhiantes mensis divitum
atque in res alienas curiosi, adeo ut hoc no-
mine etiam apιιd in fideles nmale alidirrent.”
Bengel: Oldotiuia politica erubescitnouxá-
ζειν.
CHAP. IV. 11.
525
.
quam enim admonuit, ut crescant in caritate, sanctam aemulationem illis
commendat, ut mutuo inter se amore certent, vel (?) certe praecipit, ut.
se ipsum unusquisque vincere contendat, atque hoc posterius magis
amplector. Ergo ut perfecta sit eorum caritas, contentionem in illis
requirit. So also Hemming, and already Theophylact, leave this and the
usual construction a matter of choice. But the omission of kai before
hovxáčely would be harsh. On pihotluccotal, comp. Rom. xv. 20; 2 Cor. v.
9; Kypke, II. p. 189. The counterpart of novxášelv is replepyášeodal, 2 Thess.
iii. 11, and mołumpayuovɛīv, Plat. Gorg. 526 C.-The disquiet or unsteadiness
which prevailed in the church is not to be sought for in the political (so
Zwingli : Nemo tumultuetur, nemo motum excitet; and, but undecidedly,
Koppe: seditiones adversus magistratus Romanos; comp. also Schott, p.
121), but in the religious sphere. It was, as it appears, an excitement of
mind which had been called forth by the new world of thought produced
by Christianity; but an excitement, on the one hand, risen to such an
unnatural height that worldly business was neglected, and idleness stepped
into the place of a regular laborious life; and, on the other hand mani-
festing itself by such a fanatical spiritual zeal that the Christians by such
a line of conduct must fall into discredit with those who are not Chris-
tians. It is not improbable that the thought of the impending advent of
Christ formed the centre part of this excitement. At least this, by a
natural association of ideas, would give the reason why Paul after vv. 11, 12
suddenly interrupts the course of his admonitions, in order, exactly at
this place, to attach instructions concerning the advent, whilst v. 12 ff.
shows that he intended to give various other admonitions.—The exhorta-
tion of the apostle in v. 6, 8, to be prepared for the unexpected entrance
of the advent, which might be abused in favor of such an excitement, is
not decisive against the reference to an apocalyptic fanaticism (against de
Wette, who for this reason supposes only "pious excitement in general'),
because that exhortation intervenes between preceding (v. 4, 5) and suc-
ceeding (v., 9 ff.) consolatory expressions, and, accordingly, loses all that is
alarming about it; the addition of that exhortation was too naturally and
necessarily required by the explanation of the circumstance itself, that
Paul should have suppressed it from mere fear of a possible abuse.-
πράσσειν τα ίδια] same as ιδιοπραγείν, to be nmindful of one's own concerns,
without wishing to take the oversight of the concerns of our neighbor.
If the above remarks are not incorrect, Paul thinks on the unauthorized
zeal, by which they had used the advent as a means of terror, in order to
draw before their tribunal what was a matter of individual conscience,
and by which a care for the salvation of their neighbor was assumed with
an objectionable curiosity. Tà Ćavtoo mpáocel would be more correct Greek
than tà idra mpáočelv.épyášeodai] means nothing else than to work. In-
correctly, Flatt: to gain one's maintenance by work; Baumgarten-
Crusius : not to be ashamed of work. From the addition tais xepoìv yuāv,
it follows that the Thessalonian church was mostly composed of the work-
1 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 441 f.; Kypke, II. p. 338 f. Comp. Dio Cass. Ix. 27: Thv sè din
ήσυχίαν άγων και τα εαυτού πράττων έσώζετο.
.......,
526
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
.......
ing class. Comp. also 1 Cor. i. 26. Calixt, Pelt, Schott, Hofmann, and
others erroneously find expressed in the words any imaginable business.
Paul mentions only the business of hand labor, and to apply this to regu-
lar business of any form or kind is entirely to sever it from this meaning
of the expression.--katws ùuiv napnyyethajev] refers not only to épyáseodal,
but to the whole of ver. 11. It would seem from this that these disorders
already prevailed in their beginnings during the apostle's personal resi-
dence in Thessalonica. There is nothing objectionable in this inference,
as (1) from 2 Thess. ii. 5 it appears that at the publication of the gospel in
Thessalonica the advent had been the subject of very special explanations;
and (2) the effect of such explanations on the minds of Gentiles anxious
about salvation must have been overwhelming. Baur, p. 484, therefore is
entirely mistaken when he maintains that exhortations, such as those given
in vv. 11, 12, could not have been necessary for a church recently founded.
Ver. 12 is not the statement of an inference (Baumgarten-Crusius), but
of a purpose; dependent, however, neither on tapnyyeihajev, nor on what
has hitherto been said, including the precept to olhadɛndía, ver. 10 (Flatt),
but on ver. 11, and in such a manner that the first half of ver. 12 refers to
piho TlueToVai nouxášelv kaì a pácoEL Tàidla, and the second half to spyáfeodal
Tais xepoìv úuāv.--Evo xnuóvws] well-becoming, honorably, Rom. xiii. 13; 1 Cor.
vii. 35, xiv. 40. The opposite is átáktus, 2 Thess. iii. 6.— pós] not coram
(Flatt, Schott, Koch), but in relation to, or in reference to those who are
ēšW. Comp. Bernhardy, Syntat, p. 265.-oiĚğw] those who are without (sc.
the Christian community), those who are not Christians, whether Jews or
Gentiles. Comp. Col. iv. 5; 1 Cor. V. 12, 13; 1 Tim. iii. 7. Already
among the Jews oi čFW (D']13'77) was the usual designation of Gentiles. See
Meyer on 1 Cor. v. 12--undevós] is by most considered as masculine, being
understood partly of Christians only (so Flatt), partly of unbelievers only
(Luther, Camerarius, Ernest Schmid, Wolf, Moldenhauer, Pelt), partly
both of Christians and unbelievers (Schott, de Wette,—who, however,
along with Koch and Ellicott, thinks that there is a chief reference to
Christians,—Hofmann, Riggenbach). But to stand in need of no man, is
for man an impossibility. It is better therefore, with Calvin, Estius, Gro-
tius, Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, Alford, to take undevós as neuter, so
that a further purpose is given, whose attainment is to be the motive for
fulfilling the exhortations in ver. 10: to have need of nothing, inasmuch
as labor leads to the possession of all that is necessary for life, whereas
idleness has as its inevitable consequence, want and need.
Ver. 13-v. 11. A comforting instruction concerning the advent. This
is divided into three sections—(1) iv. 13-18 removes an objection or a
doubt; (2) v. 1-3 reminds them of the sudden and unexpected entrance
of the advent; and lastly, in consequence of this, v. 4-11 is an exhorta-
tion to be ready and prepared for the entrance of the advent.
(1) Vv. 13–18. A removal of an objection. The painful uneasiness,
which had seized on the Thessalonians concerning the fate of their
deceased Christian friends, consisted not, as Zachariae, Olshausen, de
Wette, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, 2d ed. p. 649 f., and in his H. Schr. N.
CHAP. IV. 12, 13.
527
T.; Luthardt, die Lehre von den letzten Dingen, Leipz. 1861, p. 138 f., and ?
others assume, in anxiety lest the deceased should only be raised at the
general resurrection of the dead, and would thus forfeit the blessedness
of communion with the Lord in the interval between the advent and this
general resurrection (“the so-called reign of a thousand years," Olshau-
sen). There is no trace in our section of a distinction between a first and
a second resurrection; and the idea of a long interval of time between
the resurrection of believers and the resurrection of the rest of mankind
(Rev. xx.) is, moreover, entirely strange to the Apostle Paul, as it is evi-
dent from 1 Cor. xv. 22 ff. correctly understood that the resurrection of
unbelievers takes place in immediate connection with the resurrection of
Christians. Rather it was feared that those already dead, as they would no
more be found alive at the advent of Christ, would receive no share in the
blessedness of the advent, and accordingly would be placed in irreparable
disadvantage to those who are then alive. See exposition of particulars.
On vv. 13-18 [On vv. 13 ff., see Note LIV. a, b, c, páges 539-541] see von
Zezschwitz in the Zeitschr. f. Protestantismus und Kirche, new series, Erlangen
1863, p. 88 ff. R. Stähelin, Zur Paulinischen Eschatologie. 1 Thess. iv. 13-17
im Zusammenhang mit der Jüdischen Eschatologie untersucht (Jahrb. für d.
Theol. Bd. 19. Gotha, 1874, pt. 2. 177 ff)
Ver. 13. Oj Jéhojev dè vuās áyvoeīv] but we wish not that ye be in ignorance.
A recognized Pauline formula of transition to new and important com-
munications; comp. Rom. i. 13, xi. 25; 1 Cor. x. 1, xii. 1; 2 Cor. i. 8. In an
analogous manner, Paul uses also positive turns of expression : Géaw juāçi
Eidéval, Col. ii. 1, 1 Cor. xi. 3, and yıváokelv úpās Boúhoual, Phil. i. 12.—Tepi Tūv
KEKOLUMLÉVWv] [On vv. 13-18, see Note LV. pages 541, 542] concerning those that
are asleep, that is, by means of euphemism, “concerning the dead;" comp.
1 Cor. xi. 30, xv. 6, 18, 20; John xi. 11; 2 Pet. iii. 4; Sophocles, Electr. 509.
The selection of the word is the more appropriate, as the discourse in
what follows is concerning a revivification. But not the dead generally are
meant, which Lipsius (Theolog. Stud. 4. Krit. 1854, p. 924), with an arbi-
trary appeal to 1 Cor. xv. 29, considers possible, but the dead members of
the Thessalonian Christian church.-This is evident from all that follows,
particularly from the confirmatory proposition in ver. 14, and from the
expression oí vekpoi év XPLOTĄ, ver. 16.–After the example of Weizel (Stud.
2. Krit. 1836, p. 916 ff.), de Wette (though in a hesitating manner) finds in
KEKOLunévwv the idea indicated “of an intermediate state, 2. e. of an imper-
fect and, as it were, a slumbering continuance of life of the departed
soul;” whereas Zwingli, Calvin, Hemming, Zanchius, in express contra-
diction to the idea of the sleep of the soul, insist on referring this state of
being asleep to the body exclusively. But neither, according to the one
side, nor according to the other, are we justified in such a limitation, as
oi KEKOLỊLN LÉVOL only denotes those who are asleep as such, i. e. according to
their whole personality.-The article in nepi TÜV KEKOLLIN LÉVwv represents the
question, to the solution of which the apostle now passes, as one well
1 Calvin: Vitam aeternam ad eos solos pertinere imaginabantur, quos Christus ultimo
adventu vivos adhuc in terris deprehenderet
528
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
known to the readers, and discussed by them. The brevity and generality
of the statement of the subject, combined with the solemn formula of
transition ou Jéhovev dè vuās ayvoɛīv, renders it not improbable that a request
was directly made to Paul for explanation on the subject.iva yi avrnovɛ]
SC. concerning those who are asleep.-kalūs kai oi RolTOí] sc. AUTOūvTAI.
Woken (in Wolf) gives the directly opposite meaning to the words: Absit
a vobis tristitia, quemadmodum etiam abest a reliquis illis, qui nempe
non tristantur ob mortuos et tamen spem nullam certam habent de felici-
tate. Erroneously, because then katùs kai où ZUTTOŪVTAL OL Qoctroi, un Ě YOVTES
(instead of oi un ēx.) 2rida would require to have been written: not to
mention that Paul would hardly propose unbelievers as an example to
Christians.—Theodoret, Calvin, Hemming, Zanchius, Piscator, Cornelius
a Lapide, Calovius, Nat Alexander, Benson, Flatt, Pelt, Koch, Bisping,
Bloomfield, Hofmann, Riggenbach find in iva in Iurnote kadusik.7.. the
thought that the Thessalonians should not mourn in the same degree, not so
excessively as oi hoitoi, because the apostle could not possibly forbid every
mourning for the dead. Incorrectly; for then iva un aurğOVE TOOOŪTOV ÚS icai
oi holttoí would require to have been written. kalós is only a particle of
comparison, but never a statement of gradation. The apostle forbids
2Utklodai altogether. Naturally; for death has no more any sting for the
Christian. He does not see in it annihilation, but only the transition to
an eternal and blessed fellowship with the Lord. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 54 ff.
-oi 201Toll the others, that is, the Gentiles; comp. Eph. ii. 3. It is, how-
ever, possible that Paul may also have thought on a portion of the Jews,
namely, the sect of the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection. Since,
as Josephus reports, the Sadducees, together with the resurrection, denied
all continued existence of the soul after death, and on the contrary made
the soul of man die at the same time with the body. Comp. Antiq. xviii. 1.4:
Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14.-oi un ēXOVTES &haid] namely, of an eternal life of bless-
edness. From this comparison with those who do not believe in a future
life in general, it inevitably follows that also the Thessalonians feared for
their deceased Christian friends, not merely a temporary deprivation of the
eternal life of bliss to be revealed at the advent, but an entire exclusion
from it. If the comparison is to have any meaning (which Hofmann with
great arbitrariness denies), the blessing for whose loss the Gentiles mourn
must be the same as the blessing for whose loss the Christians are not to
mourn. The solution of the theme tepi TÕV KEKOlunuévwv is therefore already
indicated by the objective sentence, and what follows has only the pur-
pose of further explaining this solution.
i Comp. Theocrit. Idyll. iv. 42: 'Entides év
Swołow, åvédLOTOL Sė Davóvres. Aeschyl.
Eumenid. 638: ätas Davóvtos OŬTIS SOT' áváota-
ols. Catull. v. 4 ff. : Soles occidere et redire
possunt. | Nobis quum semel occidit brevis
lux, | Nox est perpetua una dormienda.
Lucret. iii. 942 f.: Nec quisquam expergitus
exstat, | Frigida quem semel est vitae pausa
secuta.
% Stähelin l. C. p. 185 f., improperly objects
that such a comparison with those who do not
believe in a future life in general would be in-
correctin itself, because the regarding of death
as annihilation and not believing in a con-
tinued life of the soul after death was even in
ancient times always the sad privilege of only
a few. For the view of the Apostle Paul only
comes into consideration here. According to
CHAP. IV. 14.
529
Ver. 14. Reason not of ov Ikhoulev ýpās ayvoɛīv, but of iva un aurñone. The
Thessalonians were not to mourn, for Christ has risen from the dead; but
if this fact be certain, then it follows that they also who are fallen asleep,
about whom the Thessalonians were so troubled, will be raised. There
lies at the foundation of this proof, which Paul uses as a supposition, the
idea that Christ and believers form together an organism of indissoluble
unity, of which Christ is the Head and Christians are the members ; con-
sequently what happens to the Head must likewise happen to the mem-
bers; where that is, there these must also be. Comp. already Pelagius :
Qui caput suscitavit, etiam caetera membra suscitaturum se promittit.
From the nature of this argument it is evident (1) that those who are
asleep, about whom the Thessalonians grieved, must already have been
Christians: (2) that their complete exclusion from the blessed fellowship
with Christ was dreaded. -£i yàp TlOTEÚQuev] for if we believe. ei is not so
much as “quum, since, because” (Flatt), also not equivalent to quodsi :
“for as we believe" (Baumgarten-Crusius), but is here, as always, hypo-
thetical. But since Paul from the hypothetical protasis, without further
demonstrating it, immediately draws the inference in question, it is clear
that he supposes the fact of the death and resurrection of Christ as an
absolute recognized truth, as, indeed, among the early Christians gener-
ally no doubt was raised concerning the reality of this fact. For even in
reference to the Corinthian church, among whom doubts prevailed con-
cerning the resurrection of the dead, Paul, in combating this view, could
appeal to the resurrection of Christ as an actual recognized truth; comp,
1 Cor. xv. 12–23.-The apodosis, ver. 14, does not exactly correspond with
the protasis. Instead of oŰTwS K.T.. we should expect ka mloteVELV Dei, őt!
ώσαύτως οι εν Χριστώ κοιμηθέντες αναστήσονται, Or ότι ούτως ο θεός και τους
KOLLIG évtas dià Toữ XPLOTOū šyepɛi.--Oőtws] is not pleonastic as the mere sign
of the apodosis (Schott, Olshausen); also not, with Flatt, to be referred
to ávéon, and then to be translated “in such a condition, i, e. raised, re-
vived;" or to be interpreted as "then under these circumstances, ¿, e. in
case we have faith” (Koch, Hofmann), but denotes “even so," and,
strengthened by the following kai, is designed to bring forward the agree-
ment of the fate of Christians with Christ; comp. Winer, p. 504 [E. T.
541].—Sià ToŨ 'Incoū] is (by Chrys., Ambrosiast., Calv., Hemming, Zanch.,
Est., Balduin, Vorstius, Corn. a Lapide, Beza, Grot., Calixt, Calov, Wolf,
Whitby, Benson, Bengel, Mackn., Koppe, Jowett, Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. f.
wissensch. Theol., Halle 1862, 3. p. 239, Einl. in das N. T. p. 244), Riggenbach,
Paul, however, a life in the world to come
apart from the case of those who are alive at
the Parousia-is brought about only through
the resurrection. He therefore who, like the
heathen, does not believe in the latter, also
does not believe in the former; his hopelimits
itself to the earthly life; in death he can see
only the absolute end and annihilation. Comp.
tror. xv. 19. 32.
I Hofmann's views are very distorted and
perverted. He will not acknowledge that
from the fact of the resurrection of Christ, the
resurrection of those fallen asleepin Thessalo-
nica is deduced; and-against which the oŰTWS
sai of the apodosis should have guarded him
-he deduces the aimless platitude, that" the
apostle with the words: • eos Toùs Kolunév-
tas dià Toù 'Incoû ä feu où auto, gives an
assurance which avails is in the case of our
death, if we believe on the death and resur-
34
530
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
and others, comp. also Ellicott) connected with toùç koluntévras, and then
the sense is given: "those who have fallen asleep in Christ.”. [LV c.] But
this would be expressed by év tý 'Indoī, as oi dià ToŨ 'IncoŇ KOLUTIÉVTES
would at most contain a designation of those whom Christ had brought to
death, consequently of the Christian martyrs.. Salmeron, Hammond,
Joseph Mede, Opp. p. 519, and Thiersch (clie Kirche im ap. Zeitalt.,
Frankf. u. Erlang. 1852, p. 138) actually interpret the words in this sense.
Yet how contrary to the apostle's design such a' mention of the martyrs
would be is evident, as according to it the resurrection and participation
in the glory of the returning Christ would be most inappropriately limited
to a very small portion of Christians; not to mention that, first, the indi-
cations in both Epistles do not afford the slightest justification of the idea
of persecutions, which ended in bloody death; and, secondly, the formula
κοιμηθήναι διά τινός would be much too weals to express the idea of mar-
tyrdom. Also in the fact that Paul does not speak of the dead in general,
but specially of the Christian dead (Estius), there is no reason to unite tous
KOLUNGértaç with dià ToŨ 'Inooù; for the extent of the idea of oi KollmÉVTES
in our passage is understood from the relation of the apodosis, ver. 14, to
the protasis εi LOTEVOLEV K.T.N. We are accordingly constrained to unite
διά του Ιησού with άξει.-Christ is elsewhere by Paul and in the New Testa-
ment generally considered as the instrument by which the almighty act
of God, the resurrection of the dead, is effected; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 21 ;
John v. 28, vi. 39, 44, 54.-ášel] will bring with Him, is a pregnant expres-
sion, whilst, instead of the act of resuscitation, that which follows the act
in time is given. And, indeed, the further clause oùv avtų, i. e. oùv 'Iņooő
(incorrectly Zachariae aud Koppa=us avrov), is united in a pregnant
form with ašel. God will through Christ bring with Him those who are
asleep, that is, so that they are then united with Christ, and have a com-
plete share in the benefits of His appearance. Hofmann arbitrarily
transforms the words into the thought: “that Jesus will not appear, God.
will not introduce Him again into the world, without their deceased
brethren coming with Him.” For the words instruct us not con-
cerning Jesus, but concerning the Kolun I ÉVTES; it is not expressed in
what manner the return of Christ will take place, but what will be
the final fate of those who have fallen asleep. The apostle selects
this pregnant form of expression instead of the simple éyepɛī, because
the thought of a separation of deceased Christians from Christ was
that which so greatly troubled the Thessalonians, and therefore it was
rection of Jesus." As Hofmann misinterprets
the words, so also do Luthardt, supra, p. 140
f. and Stähelin.
1 Also Alford connects διά του Ιησού with
KOLUNDévras; but then arbitrarily (comp. oi
.vekpoi év XplotĄ, ver. 16) pressing the expres-
·sion Kolunévras (oi kolunévtes are dis-
itinguished from the merely Davóvtes. What
makes this distinction? Why are they
:asleep and not dead? By whom have they
been thus privileged? Certainly Sià Toû
'Incoû), and inappropriately regarding the
constructions eüxaploteîv dià 'Ingoû Xplctoll,
Rom. i. 8; cipnunv ēxelv oià 'Inooû, Rom. v. 1;
kavgaolai Slà ’Inooû, Rom. v. 11, as analogous
expressions, he brings out the following
grammatically impossible meaning: If we
believe that Jesus died and rose again, then
even thus also those, of whom we say that they
sleep just because of Jesus, will God, etc.
CHAP. IV. 15.
: 531
.
.
his endeavor to remove this anxiety, this doubting uncertainty, as soon
as possible.
Ver. 15. A solemn confirmation of the comforting truth ToùG KOLUNU évtaç
åžel oùv avtõ, by bringing forward the equality between those living at the
advent and those already asleep. Koppe, Flatt, and Koch erroneously
assume a reference to ver. 13, making the yáp in ver. 14 parallel to the
yáp in ver. 15, and finding in ver. 15 a new reason for comfort.-TOŪTO]
refers not to the preceding, but is an emphatic introduction to what fol-
lows the first őri: this, namely, we say to you, šv hóyw kupiov, that we, the liv-
ing, etc.—¿v 26yQ kvpiou] in or by means of a word of the Lord (comp.
??7 1273, Esth. i. 12; 77777 1273, 1 Kings xx. 35), that is, the following
statement on the relation of the living to those who are asleep at the
advent does not rest on my (the apostle's) subjective opinion, but on the
infallible authority of Christ. Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 10, 12, 25.—Pelagius,
Musculus, Bolten, Pelt, and others have regarded this aóyos kvplov, to
which Paul appeals, as the words of Christ in Matt. xxiv. 31 (comp. Mark
xiii. 27); whereas Hofmann is of opinion that Paul might have inferred
it from the promises of Christ in Matt. xxvi. 25 ff.; John vi. 39 f. But the
expressions found there are too general to be identified with the special
thought in our passage. Schott's statement, that Paul might justly appeal
to the prophecy in Matt. xxiv. 31, because it contained nothing of a pre-
rogative of the living before the dead, but on the contrary represents
simply an assembling of believing confessors with a view to the participa-
tion of the Messianic kingdom, is subtle, and does not correspond to the
expression év hóyo kvpiov, which points to positive information concerning
the definite subject in question. Also Luthardts (l. C. pp. 141, 57) view,
that in hóyos kupiou a reference is made to the parable of the virgins who
went out to meet the bridegroom (Matt. XXV.), and for which view eis
ånávanou (ver. 17) is most arbitrarily appealed to, is evidently erroneous.
Just as little can the abyos kvplov be found (with Stähelin l.c. p. 193 f.) in
this place, i.e. in the first half of ver. 16, so that the word of the Lord,
on which Paul rests his assereration, consists in this, that Jesus, according
to His own declaration (Matt. xxiv. 29–31) will descend from heaven év
Keheuouati, &v ouvñ ápxayyéhov and šv oážalyyc Oɛcũ. For the first words of
ver. 16 picture only the mode in which the entrance of the advent will be
accomplished, but they leave the central point of the question before us
untouched. Others, as Calvin and Koch, have thought that Paul referred to
· a saying of Christ not preserved in the Gospels, but transmitted by tradition.
(So, recently, also v. Zezschwitz, 1.c. p. 121, according to whom the apostle
thought“ on a word " which is “to be sought for in the peculiar and inti-
mate communications of our Lord to His disciples, such as He would
have given them during the forty days, when He spoke with them con-
cerning the Baothčía tov DE07.") This supposition may certainly be sup-
i The idea of "a general ascension of all
Christians," which Schrader finds in this
verse, and in which he perceives a mark
of un-Pauline composition, because Paul
thought" only on a kingdom of God on earth,"
is, according to the above, introduced by him
into the passage.
532
.
SS
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANSported by the analogy of Acts xx. 35; but it must always remain
precarious, the more so as there was no inducement to Christ, in His
intimations concerning the period of the fulfillment of the Messianic king-
dom, to make such special questions, arising only in consequence of con-
crete circumstances, the subject of an anticipated instruction. It is best,
therefore, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Hunnius, Piscator (who, however,
arbitrarily supposes the fact described in 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4), Aretius, Turretin,
Benson, Moldenhauer, Koppe, Olshausen, de Wette, Gess (die Lehre von
der Person Christi, Basel 1856, p. 69 f.), Alford, Ellicott, Riggenbach, and
others, to suppose that Paul appeals to information concerning the mat-
ter in hand which had been communicated to him in a direct revelation
by the heavenly Christ; comp. Gal. i. 12, ii. 2; Eph. iii. 3 ; 2 Cor. xii. 1.-
Musīs oi SWVTES oi TEPLÀELTÓļevol eis Tiu tapovolav ToŨ kvplov] we, the living, who
remain unto the presence (or return) of the Lord. From the construction of
these words it undoubtedly follows, that Paul reckoned himself with those
who would survive till the commencement of the advent, as indeed the
same expectation is also expressed in 1 Cor. xv. 51 f. Comp. besides, 1
Cor. vii. 26, 29–31, i. 7, 8; Rom. xiii. 11, 12; Phil. iv. 5. See also Dähne,
Entwickel. des Paulin. Lehrbegr. pp. 175 f., 190; Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbegr. p.
355; Messner, Die Lehre der Apostel, Leipz. 1856, p. 282. This expectation
is not confirmed by history : Paul and all his contemporaries fell a prey
to death. What wonder, then, if from an early period of the Christian
church this plain meaning of the word was resisted, and in its place the
most artificial and distorted interpretations were substituted ? For that
Paul could be capable of error was regarded as an objectionable conces-
sion, as an infringement upon the divine authority of the apostle. It has
therefore almost universallybeen maintained by interpreters, that Paul
speaks neither of himself nor of his contemporaries, but of a later period
of Christianity. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, John Damascenus, Oecu-
menius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Musculus, Bullinger,
Zanchius, Hunnius, Balduin, Vorstius, Cornelius a Lapide, Jac. Lauren-
tius, Calixt, Calov, Joach. Lange, Whitby, Benson, Bengel, Flatt, and
many others. Whilst Calvin and Cornelius a Lapide, in order to remove
difficulties, do not scruple to charge the apostle with a pious fraud; sup-
posing that he, although he was convinced of the distance of the advent,
nevertheless represented himself as surviving, in order in this way to stim-
ulate believers to be in a state of spiritual readiness at every instant;
Oecumenius, after the example of Methodius, interprets oi ÇūvTes K.1.2. of
the souls, and oi kolunévres of the bodies of Christians. Usually, however,
in order to remove the objectionableness of the words, an appeal is made
1 Exceptions in early times are very rare. ai yuxai, âs kai Tepiej tráveolai onou dià tò
They are found in Piscator (yet even he åbávarovº oủ yap äv, ei niño Trepi yuxây ëleyev,
hesitates), Grotius, and Moldenhauer. To cite to nucis oi SWVTES Oi epidelTÓMevol, telev-
bring the correct view to more general recog. τήσειν μέλλων λέγει ούν, ότι οι ζώντες αι
nition was reserved for recent times.
ψυχαί ουκ άν τα σώματα προφθάσωμεν εν τη
2 ζώντας τας ψυχάς, κοιμηθέντα δε τα σώματα αναστάσει, αλλά μετ' αυτών της αναστάσεως
λέγει· ουκ άν ούν προλάβωσιν αι ψυχαι: πρώτον, τευξώμεθα.
γαρ εγείρεται τα σώματα, ίνα αυτά απολάβωσιν
CHAP. IV. 15.
533
to the fact that by means of an “enallage personae,” or an ávakoivwols,
something is often said of a collective body which, accurately taken, is
only suited to a part. Then the sense would be: we Christiails, namely,
those of us who are alive at the commencement of the advent, i. e. the
later generation of Christians who will survive the advent. But however
often ruɛīs or queīç is used in a communicative form, yet in this passage
such an interpretation is impossible, because here nueis oi SŪVTES K.T.A., as a
peculiar class of Christians, are placed in sharp distinction from Kolunévtes,
as a second class. Accordingly, in order to obtain the sense assumed, the
words would require to have been written : Öte yuāv oi GĀVTES K.7.2. ou ui)
poárovtal ToùG KolunOévras, apart altogether from the fact that also in v. 4
the possibility is expressed, that the day of the Lord might break in upon
the presently existing Thessalonian church. Not less arbitrary is it, with
Joachim Lange, to explain the words: “we who live in our posterity," for
which an additional clause would be necessary. Or, with Turretin, Pelt,
and others, to understand o SŪVTES Oi nepiheLTÓuevou in a hypothetical
sense: we, provided we are then alive, provided we still remain. (So, in
essentials, Hofmann: by those who are alive are meant those who had
not already died.) For then, instead of reis oi Sūvtes, oi Teplhelm6uevol, it
would necessarily require ημείς ζώντες, περιλειπόμενοι (without an article).
The same also is valid against J. P. Lange (Das apostol. Zeitalter, I., Braun-
schw. 1853, p. 113): “The words, the living, the surviving' are for the pur-
pose of making the contrast a variable one, whilst they condition and limit
the ručīs in the sense : we, so many of us (!) who yet live and have survived ;
or (?) rather, we in so far as we temporarily represent the living and
remaining, in contrast to our dead.” Lastly, the view of Hoelemann (Die
Stellung St. Pauli zu der Frage un die Zeit der Wiederkunft Christi, Leipz.
1858, p. 29 and in a more extended form in his Neue Bibel-Studien, Leipz. 1866,
p. 232 ft.) is not less refuted by the article before ζώντες and περιλειπόμενοι:
“The discourse, starting from the nuɛcs and rising more and more beyond
this concrete beginning, by forming, with the next two notions oi JūVTES, oi
TepiheLTT OLEvol, always wider (!) and softer circles, strives to a generic (!)
thought-namely, to this, that Paul and the contemporary Thessalonians,
while in the changing state of Tepihelmeogal (being left behind), might be
indeed personally taken away beforehand; although the opposite possi-
bility, that they themselves might yet be the surviving generation, is
included in the ruleis oi ÇūvteG with which the thought begins, and which
always echoes through it.” Every unprejudiced person must, even from
those dogmatic suppositions, recognize that Paul here includes himself,
along with the Thessalonians, among those who will be alive at the advent
of Christ. Certainly this can only have been a hope, only a subjective
expectation on the part of the apostle; as likewise, in the fifth chapter,
although he there considers the advent as impending and coming sud-
denly, yet he supposes the indefiniteness of the proper period of its com-
mencement (comp. also Acts i. 7; Mark xiii. 32). That the apostle here
states his surviving only as a supposition or a hope, is not nullified by
the fact that he imparts the information (ver. 15) év abyų kvpiov. For the
534
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
hoyos kupiov can, according to the context, only refer to the relation of
those who are asleep to the living; but does not refer to the fact who will
belong to the one or to the other class at the commencement of the
advent. [LV d.] Only on the first point was the comforting information
contained which the Thessalonians required. The present participles
GWVtec and TepiaeLTÓLEVOL are not to be taken as futures (Calvin, Flatt, Pelt),
but denote the condition as it exists in the present, and stretches itself to
the advent.--OÚ un obáoWLEV TOÙS KOLuntévras] [LV e, f.] shall by no means
precede those who are asleep, so that we would reach the end (the blessed-
ness of the advent), but they would be left behind us, and accordingly lose
the prize. The apostle speaks in the figure usual to him of a race, in
which no one obtained the prize who was forced half way to interrupt his
running.-On the emphatic où uń, see Winer, p. 471 f. [E. T. 506].
Vv. 16, 17. Proof of the truth of ου μή φθάσωμεν τους κοιμηθέντας by a
description of the particulars in which the advent will be realized.
Ver. 16. Comp. Flatt, Opusc. acad. p. 411 ff.—örl] not that, as Koch and
Hofmann think, so that yv. 16 and 17 (according to Hofmann, only ver.
16!) still depend on réyouev év aby♡ kvpiov, ver. 15; but for.-avròs ó kúplos] -
the Lord Himself. aúrós is neither a mere introductory subject (“He, the
Lord,” de Wette, Hofmann); nor added with the design to refer "the
coming of Christ expressly to His holy personality and corporality,"
accordingly designed to exclude “every manifestation of Him by mere
instruments,” or by angels (so Olshausen and Bisping, and already Mus-
culus, Estius, and Fromond."); also is not inserted here “for solemnity's
sake, and to show that it will not be a mere gathering to Him, but He
Himself will descend, and we shall be summoned before Him” (Alford)
and also does not affirm “that the Lord Himself will descend amid occur-
rences which form an essential part of God's final revelation of judgment of
the world, that His coming will be attended by such manifestations as usher
in the aiùv uéliwv and cause Him to appear as the one who introduces
it and is its Lord,” Stähelin p. 222;-but it represents Christ as the
chief Person and actor at the advent, emphatically opposed to His faith-
ful ones—both those already asleep (ol verpoi év Xploto) and those still
living—as they who are acted upon.--éhevoua] in the N. T. an ätag
heyójevov, denotes an imperative call, e.g. of a commander to his host to
exhort them to the conflict or to warn them to decamp, of a driver to
excite his horses to greater speed, of a huntsman to encourage his hounds
to the pursuit of the prey, of sailors to excite themselves to vigorous
rowing, etc. Comp. Thucyd. ii. 92; Xen. de venat. vi. 20; Lucian, Catapl.
19. Here the kéhevoua might be referred to God. Only then we must not,
as Hunnius does, identify it with the oáhtlyš Oe07, and find represented
in the two expressions the "horribilis fragor inclarescentium tonitruum;"
but, in conjunction with the statement that God only knows beforehand
the time and hour of the advent (Matt. xxiv. 3), it must refer to the
1 Koch accepts both de Wette's interpre-
tation and the meaning of Olshausen, and
thus falls into the contradiction of making
autós at the same time unaccented and
emphatic.
CHAP. IV. 16. .
535
imperative call to bring about the advent. So recently Bisping and
Stähelin. This interpretation is, however, to be rejected, because the three
sentences introduced with év are evidently similar, i.e. all three are a
statement of the mode of kataßaivelv, accordingly contain the description
of the circumstances with which the descent during the course of its com-
pletion will be accompanied. But, understood in the above manner, év
κελεύσματι would denote an act preceding the καταβαίνειν, and thus another
preposition instead of év would necessarily be chosen. Others, as Theo-
doret, Oecumenius, Grotius, and Olshausen, refer év kelevouate to Christ. But
in this case we would be puzzled so to define the contents of the kéhevoua,
as to prevent them coming into collision with the φωνείν of the άρχάγγελος.
For that we are not justified, with Theodoret, in distinguishing the Ké-
devoua and the owań by a prius and post (ó kúplos ... kehevoel yềv åpxáyyehov
Boñoal) is evident, as both are simultaneous—both in a similar manner are
represented as accompanying the kataBaivelý. It is accordingly most pro-
bable that Paul places év kehebouatı first as a primary, and on that account
absolute expression, and then, in an epexegetical manner, more fully
develops it by év pwvn åpxayyémov kai év várniyyı Okov. If this is the correct
interpretation, the apostle considers the kéżevoua as given by the archangel,
directly afterwards mentioned, who for the publication of it uses partly his
voice and partly a trumpet; and, as the contents of the kéłevoua, the impera-
tive call which reaches the sleeping Christians to summon them from their
graves (comp. also the following kai oi vekpoà k.7.2.), consequently the resur-
rection-call (Theodoret, John Damascenus, Calixt, Stähelin and others).-
Év pwví ápxayyk2ov kai év gálmiyy! Osov) with the call, namely, of an archangel,
and with (the sound) of the trumpet of God. Christ will return surrounded
by hosts of angels; comp. iii. 13; 2 Thess. i. 7; Matt. xvi. 27, xxiv. 30 f.,
xxv. 31; Mark viii. 38, xiii. 26 f.; Luke ix. 26. According to the post-
exile Jewish notion, the angels were distinguished into different orders and
classes, over each of which presided an åpxáyyehos. (See Winer's bibl. Real-
wörterb.2d. ed. vol. I. p. 386 f.) One of these ápxáyyɛhoi (????)—whom Nicolas
de Lyra, Hunnius, Estius (appealing to Jude 9 and Rev. xii.), Bern, a Picon.,
Bisping and Stähelin suppose to be the archangel Michael; and Corne-
lius a Lapide, Michael or Gabriel; whilst Ambrosiaster and Olshausen,
as well as Alphen and Honert (in Wolf), understand no angel at all, but
the two first understand Christ (!), and the two last the Holy Ghost (!)-is
considered as the herald at the commencement of the advent, who with a
loud voice calls upon the dead, and arouses them by the sound of a
trumpet. The Jews used trumpets for summoning the people together;
comp. Num. x. 2, xxxi. 6, Joel ii. 1. Also the manifestations of God were
considered as accompanied by the sound of a trumpet; comp. Ex. xix.
16; Ps. xlvii. 6; Zech. ix. 14; Isa. xxvii. 13 ;-—and as it was the opinion
of the later Jews that God will use a powerful and far-sounding trumpet
1 Macknight incorrectly refers the kélevoua
to the whole of the attendantangelic host, and
finds therein "the loud acclamation which
the whole angelic hosts will utter to express
their joy at the advent of Christ to judge the
world,"man interpretation which finds no
support in the context, and militates against
the meaning of kélevoua.
536
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
to raise the dead (comp. Eisenmenger's entdecktes Judenthum, II. p. 929 f.),
so in the N. T. mention is made of a cárniyš in reference to Christ's
advent; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 52; Matt. xxiv. 31. The trumpet is called
oánlyš Deow, either because it excels all human or earthly trumpets in the
power of its sound (so Cornelius a Lapide, Calov.,Wolf, Benson, Bengel,
Baumgarten, Bolten, and several); or because it will be blown at the
command of God (so Balduin, Jac. Laurentius, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, and
others); or, lastly, because it belongs to God and is used in His service (su
de Wette, who refers to the expression “harps of God," 1 Chron. xvi. 42;
Rev. xv. 2 (see also Winer, p. 232, E. T. 247], Koch, Alford, Ellicott and
Stähelin).-án' oúpavov] down from heaven. For the crucified and risen
Christ is enthroned in heaven at the right hand of God; comp. Rom. viii.
34; Eph. i. 20; Col. iii. 1; Phil. iii. 20.-ai oi vekpoà K.7..) a consequence
of év keheuouatl K.T.2. kataßhostal.-év Xplorợ] is not to be connected with
åvaorhoovtal (Pelt, Schott), but with oi vekpoi; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 18; Winer,
p. 128 [E. T. 135]. For if connected with ávaoThoovtal, then śv XPLOTO
would receive an enphasis which, according to the context, it cannot
have; as the apostle does not intend to bring forward the person by whom
the resurrection is effected, which is evident of itself, but designs to show
what relation it will have to those who sleep on the one hand, and to those
who are alive on the other. Theodoret has arbitrarily inserted into the
text: Νεκρούς τους πιστούς λέγει, ου μόνον τους το ευαγγελίω πεπιστευκότας, αλλά και
TOÙS Év vóươ kai toùG apò vóuov drahájpavras; and Musculus, that there are also
to be reclkoned among the νεκροί εν Χριστώ the dead children of Christians
before they believed on Christ, and the “patres priorum saeculorum qui
ante tempora Christi vixerunt. Nam et illi cum semine ipsorum propter
fidem venturi servatoris in Christo fuerunt.”pūTov] does not denote, as
Oecumenius (oi év XPLOTQ TOUTÉOTIV OL Tlotoi, TPūtov ávaoshoovtal, oi dè holttoà xoxa-
rection,—the so-called resurrection of the just, --in contrast to the resurrec-
tion of all men following ata much later period; a distinction which is left en-
tirely unnoticed in our passage, and in the form stated would be un-Pauline.
Rather apūrov is in contrast to ÉT ELTA, ver. 17, and denotes that the first act of
Christ at His reappearance'will be the resurrection of the Christian dead,
and then the dotáceoval of the living, ver. 17, will follow as the second act.
Ver. 17. Eùv avtois] i.e. with the raised vekpoi év Xploto.-ápraynobueda]
we will be snatched away. The expression (comp. 2 Cor. xii. 4; Acts viii.
39) depicts the swiftness and irresistible force with which believers
will be caught up. But, according to 1 Cor. xv. 50-53, the apostle
must have conceived this ápráceolai as only occurring after a change
has taken place in their former earthly bodies into heavenly, to
qualify them for a participation in the eternal kingdom of the Messiah.
ŠV vebéhaus) not instead of εis vepéras (Moldenhauer), but either in clouds, 2. e.
enveloped in clouds, or better, on clouds, i.e. enthroned in their midst.
According to the Old Testament representation (Ps. civ. 3), God rides on
clouds as on a triumphal chariot. Also the Messiah appears on clouds
(Dan. vii. 13). According to Acts i. 9, Christ ascended to heaven on a
CHAP. IV. 17, 18.
537
cloud; and according to Acts i. 11, Matt. xxiv. 30, He will return on a
cloud. eis á máVTNOLV TOŨ kupiov] to the meeting of the Lord. i. e. in order to be
led towards the Lord. eis átrávinou, corresponding to the Hebrew 18???
is united both with the genitive (Matt. xxv. 1, 6), as here, and with the
dative (Acts xxviii. 15). From the words it follows that the apostle did
not think of Christ descending completely down to the earth.-eig åépa]
into the air, belongs to sprayncóueda, and can as little be considered as
equivalent to eis tous oúpavoús (Flatt) as it can denote through the air, z. e.
through the air to the higher regions (Flatt). Nor, on the other hand, can
it be the apostle's meaning-although Pelt, Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbegr. pp.
356, 359 (hesitatingly), and Weizel in the Theol. Stud. 2. Krit. 1836, p. 935 f.,
also Stähelin p. 229 f. assume it—that the Christian host would be caught
upinto the air, in order to have their permanent abode with Christ in the air.
For, according to 2 Cor. v. 1, the future eternal abode of Christians is. év
Tois oúpavoīs? Nevertheless the apostle was constrained to express himself as
he has done. For when Christ descends down from heaven, and Christians
are caught up to meet Him, the place of meeting can only be a space between
heaven and earth, i.e. the air. Comp. Augustine, de civit. Dei, xx. 20, 2: Quod
enim ait ... non sic accipiendum est, tanquam in aëre nos dixerit semper
cum domino esse mansuros; quia nec ipse utique ibi manebit, quia veniens
transiturus est. Venienti quippe ibitur obviam, non manenti. But that Paul
adds nothing concerning the removal of the glorified Christian host to
heaven, following their being caught up with Christ, and of the resurrection
of all men connected with the advent along with the judgment of the
world, is naturally explained, because the description of the advent as such
is not here his object, but his design is wholly and entirely to satisfy the
doubts raised by the Thessalonians in respect of the advent. But to effect
this purpose it was perfectly sufficient that he now, specifying the result of
the points described, proceeds: kaì oŰtws Távtote oùV kvplw tobulega] and so
shall we ever be united with the Lord.-oőrws] so, that is, after that we have
actually met with Him. It refers back to eis ånávinou.- obv] imports more
than yetá. It expresses intimate union, not mere companionship.-écóueva]
comprehends as its subject both the νεκροί εν Χριστώ and the ζώντες. [LV g.]
Ver. 18. A concluding exhortation.-aapakareiv] not to exhort (Muscu-
lus) but to comfort ; comp. 'iva jen hunñode, ver. 13.-26yoij denotes nothing
more than words. Erroneously Aretius, Flatt, Pelt, Olshausen, and
others : principles or doctrines (of faith). And év rois hóyouç toutols denotes
on the ground of these or the above words.
ES
1 Theodoret: 'ESELÉE Tò méyedos tñs Truñs
ώσπερ γαρ αυτός ο δεσπότης επί νεφελής φω-
τεινής ανελήφθη, ούτω και οι εις αυτόν πεπισ-
TEUKOTES K.T.A.
% Also on this account Paul cannot have
thought on a permanent residence on the
glorified earth (Georgii in Zeller's theol. Jahrb.
1845, I. p. 6, and Hilgenfeld in the Zeitsch. f.
wiss. Theol., Halle 1862, p. 240).
8 For the same reason also the silence con-
cerning the change of believers who happened
to be alive at the advent is justified. Against
Schrader, who thinks on account of this
silence that the author must have conceived
the circumstances of the advent “in an
entirely sensible manner;" "the incon-
gruities of this representation, if it is under-
stood sensibly," cannot be Pauline, because
with Paul the doctrine of the last things has
& "purely (?) spiritual character."
538
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR.
LIII. Vv. 1–12.
(a) In the second division of the Epistle, which begins with ver. 1 of this
chapter, and extends as far as ver. 25 of chap. v., the Apostle gives certain direc-
tions and exhortations respecting the Christian life of the readers, and meets, at
length, certain questionings or difficulties which occupied their minds. These
exhortations and questionings, however, indicate the early, stages of development
and thought, and belong in the line of friendly suggestion--answering, thus, to
the preceding chapters. The word NOLTTÓV is suggestive of the same thing. The
writer turns from his friendly review of the past, and his expressions of hope for
the future, to the brief counsels which he has to give, as if these were only the
accidental closing remarks in a letter, which had been begun for the purpose of
simply assuring them of his deep interest in their welfare and warm affection for
themselves. The character of the first exhortation (vv. 1, 2), which, both in its
general form and through the oủv pointing backward to iii. 13, is closely con-
nected with what has been already set forth in the earlier section, is also indica-
tive of this plan and design as in the Apostle's mind.—(6) The exhortation of vv.
1, 2 evidently follows immediately upon the thought of iii. 11–13. In the former
passage, he prays that God would cause them to abound in love to the end of
confirming them in holiness, etc., and here he asks them, in the way of reaching
this result, to abound yet more in obeying and following the instructions which he
had himself given them, as he had been taught by Christ. These verses, accord-
ingly, form a most natural transition from iii. 12, 13 to iv. 3 ff., where he enters
into some particular details. We may observe the closely connecting link, also,
which is found in the words τούτο γάρ έστιν θέλημα του θεού of ver. 3.
(c) The principal questions in vv. 3–6 are connected with the meaning of okevos
and the construction and reference of το υπερβαίνειν κ.τ.λ. As to the former of
these two points, the arguments presented by Lünem., in his note, may be regarded
as satisfactorily establishing his view. As to the latter, the following suggestions
may be offered : (1) The designation of adultery by the verbs used in ver. 6 is
antecedently improbable; while, as referring to covetousness, etc., they are most
appropriately used. (2) The close connection of the sin of covetousness with that
of unchastity elsewhere in Paul's writings, makes it very natural that he should
refer to both of the two here. (3) As these two sins were chief outgrowths of
idolatry, according to his view, the combination of the two affords the most satis- --
factory contrast to that sanctification which he presents as the will of God for the
Christian. (4) The idea of krãow al, modified by the words which follow, finds its
full and complete contrast in απέχεσθαι. Το refrain from πορνεία is the opposite
of "acquiring for oneself one's own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in the
passion of lust." To introduce a further expression, relating indeed to adultery,
but viewing it prominently in the light of overreaching or defrauding a brother,
involves an addition to a contrast already fully presented, and an addition which
would scarcely seem necessary in the connection. On the other hand, the con-
nection of TÒ ÚTepBaivetv with what precedes without any separating particle ;
the difficulty of accounting for Tŷ apáyuatı as referring to business (the business
or matter on hand at any time); and the use of ákaðapoia in ver. 7,-are points
NOTES.
539
of importance as bearing in favor of the application of the words to adultery. It
must be observed, however, that the absence of any particle before tò ÚTep-
Baiver and the use of tŷ Tpáypati are not altogether easy of explanation, if the
reference to adultery is accepted. The peculiarity of the language is such that no
confident affirmation can be made, as between the two views. Not improbably,
however, the reference of TREOVÉKTELV to covetousness is in accordance with the
meaning of the Apostle. It does not seem necessary, if we adopt this view, to
make Tò už ÚTTEPB. parallel to ó áylaguós, as Lünem. does-thus giving to ảy, the
sense of holiness in the special line of chastity. More probably, the view of de
W., Koch and others, is correct that the parallelism is with ATÉ Xeoval, and that
àylaouós is a general word covering the two particulars.--(d) In respect to ver.
11, the simplest explanation is, that itePLODEvelv refers backward to the idea of
αγαπάν and φιλαδελφία, yet only in a passing way and by a single word (comp. oύ
Xpeiav & XETE), and that then the exhortation immediately turns to a new point.
The section (vv. 1-12) accordingly contains, (1) a general exhortation to walk in a
way pleasing to God, vv. 1, 2; (2) an exhortation to lay aside the two great sins
of their past idolatrous lives—unchastity and covetousness, vv. 3-8; (3) a remind-
ing them of the virtue of brotherly love, vv. 9, 10; (4) an exhortation to live, in
their individual lives, quietly, in the way of attending to their own affairs and
working for their own support—that is, in a way opposite to that of persons who
might think the new life upon which they had entered, or possibly the supposed
Dearness of the end, released them from the ordinary duties of their old life, (vv.
11, 12). The directions belong, all of them, near the beginnings of Christian
development, or are such as might naturally be given to a church recently
founded.-(e) The objection made by Lünem. against regarding undévos of ver.
12 as masculine-that it is an impossibility for man to stand in need of no man-
is of no force in a sentence of this sort, when understood correctly. The writer is
not speaking of need in every possible sense, but of dependence for support on
the exertions of others, rather than our own. But, although this objection is not
well taken, undévos is quite probably neuter. So R. V.
LIV. Vv. 13 ff.
(a) The following points with regard to these verses may be especially ob-
served :-(1) The deceased persons who are here particularly alluded to had been
friends of the readers and fellow-members of their church. This is evident from
the fact that Paul desires to prevent the readers' grief, and to enable them to com-
fort one another. (2) These persons must have died since the founding of the
church in Thessalonica, and probably since the Apostle had left that city. They
must have been persons, therefore, who had died within a few months. (3) This
being the case, the number of these persons must have been small. The church
itself could not have been, at this time, a large one, and the number in the mem-
bership of such a church, who had died within such a period, could not have been
large. (4) These first deaths in the little community occasioned to the survivors
not merely grief, but grief of a peculiar sort. It was feared that, by dying so
early, they had lost the future blessedness which the Christian believers hoped for
at the Lord's coming. They had died too soon. (5) The Thessalonians, who had
this distress at the supposed fate of their friends, expected the Lord's coming at an
540
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
.
early time. They thought that they should live to see it-otherwise their pecu-
liar grief respecting these deceased persons, and their views as indicated in the 2d
Ep., cannot be explained. (6) It is to persons under these circumstances, in this
state of feeling, and with these views, that the Apostle is writing. He writes for
the purpose of correcting their misapprehension (oi Démouev ýuās ayvoɛīv, ver. 13),
and in order that, by this means, he might keep them from losing hope for those
who had died. These points must be borne in mind in considering the questions
connected with the passage.
· (6) In his attempt thus to comfort their hearts and correct their mistake, he
classes himself and his readers, by the use of the emphatic yuεis and the contrast
of the nuɛīs (as "the living,” “the survivors to the coming of the Lord”) with the
dead (Toùs Kolund évtas, ver. 15, oi vekpoi, ver. 16), among those who will be alive at
the end. The quiestion necessarily arises whether he does this because he thought
that the Parousia was so near that the readers and himself might, not improbably,
live to see it, or whether, on the other hand, he merely unites himself by what is
sometimes called the "communicative we" with the persons, who may be alive at
the end, whenever in the indefinite and distant future (after many centuries, as it
has proved) the end shall come. With respect to this question, the following
points must be noticed :-(1) Paul nowhere else uses the communicative we in the
way of uniting himself with persons who belong exclusively, or may belong ex-
clusively, to a remote future. The passages which are sometimes cited, and in
which he thus associates himself with other Christians, or with a certain party of
whom he does not altogether approve, or in which he places himself with those
of Jewish views or with sinful men, are not in point; for, in all these cases, a pos-
sibility of common experience can easily be thought of, since the persons alluded
to, or representatives of the classes to which they belong, are contemporaries with
himself. (2) The proper limits of this communicative "we" seem to be passed, when
the persons referred to other than the writer or speaker, belong to a future age.
There must be some probability of a participation by the person using this we in
the experience of those whom he has to associate with himself in using it, or it
does not occur to the mind to adopt this form of expression. (3) It would seem
especially difficult for the Apostle to have made this use of we in the present case
for three reasons, namely (2) because the readers, inasmuch as they believed that
they would live to the Parousia, would almost necessarily understand ripets as re-
ferring to the writer and themselves; (y) because the contrast which they made
between themselves and the Kolunt évtes, in this regard, would seem to them to be
confirmed by the contrast which they found him making; (2) because there was
nothing to suggest the use of viueīs, if there was no expectation in his mind that
the readers and himself might be among the repchELTTÓLevot.-- (4) The correction
which Paul makes of their error indicates his state of mind. He does not declare
their error to consist in the fact that they were expecting the Parousia in the
near future, whereas that event was to be looked for only in the remote future ; he
does not say to them, that they need not be troubled with reference to the dying
of these friends so early, for death had come to them only a little earlier than it
would come to themselves; and that they had fallen into a mistake as to the
whole matter. On the other hand, he says, in substance, They have not lost the
future blessedness by dying before the Lord comes. When He cornes, they will
rise, and we who survive, (you, who are grieving for them, and I), shall be caught
up to meet them. As he says to the Corinthians five years later, The dead will be
NOTES.
.541
raised, and we shall be changed (1 Cor. xy. 52).—(5) It is doubtful whether any
preacher of the present day-whether believing that the Parousia is at an indefi-
nite remove in the distant future, or that, though wholly uncertain as to its date,
it may possibly come within a few years—would use this form of expression to
persons having the views on the subject which the Thessalonians had, and being
in just the state of mind, in which they were, respecting those of their number
who had recently died. The language seems to be adapted to a state of expecta-
tion which borders more nearly on confidence, than that which is in the minds of
either of the classes alluded to.
(c) The following facts are to be remarked in connection with the passages in
Paul's writings which bear upon this subject :-(1) None of them are in their ex-
pressions inconsistent with the expectation of the coming of the Lord at an early
period. · (2) Some of them (as e. g. Rom. xiii. 11 f., 1 Cor. i. 7, 8), although not
necessarily carrying with them this idea, gain a special force and emphasis, if they
are interpreted as involving it. Others (as 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52 and the present
verses) indicate, by the peculiar language employed, such an expectation, if the
language is to be interpreted naturally and strictly. (3) If, however, the Apostle
had such an expectation, he did not have it in such a way as to involve necessarily
a belief that none of his readers would die before the Parousia, or a feeling that it
was absolutely certain that he should not himself die. Writers who affirm, that,
if jɛīs refers to the Apostle and his readers, the verse must be understood as in-
volving a declaration that not a single one of them would die, affirm what this
reference of usīs does not, by any means, necessitate.-(4) We find statements in
his writings which show that he thought that certain things were to take place
before the end-the filling up of the times of the Gentiles, the conversion of the
Jews, the manifestation of the man of sin, Rom. xi. 25 f.; 2 Thess. ii. 2 ff. The
date of the Parousia, accordingly, must have been, to his view, so far removed
from the date of the writing of these Epistles as to allow time for the accomplish-
ment of these things before it should arrive.-(5) As the time of the end is ex-
pressly excluded by Christ (Acts i. 7) from the subjects on which Divine revela-
tion is made, the apostles may naturally not have been enlightened in regard to
this matter, as they were with reference to other subjects.
LV. Vv. 13-18.
As to the individual words and phrases of this passage, we may notice the
following points :-(a) That TūV KEKOLÜNuévwv refers to the Christians who had
died in Thessalonica, and not to deceased Christians generally, is evident from the
use of the aorist koluntévras, which is substituted for it in vv. 14, 15; from the
verb avanoda; from the 18th verse; and from the general character and impres-
sion of the passage. The same reference to the Thess. church is probably to be
understood, for the reasons mentioned, if the reading TūV KOLLWLLÉVWV is adopted.
-(6) The exact state of mind of the survivors with regard to these persons is
indicated by the reference to the heathen, who have no hope, and by the 14th
verse. They were in grief because they feared that these friends, whom they had
known as fellow-members of their church, would not be with Jesus in the
kingdom.-(c) The objection made by many writers against connecting dià tow
’Inooū (ver. 14) with åžel—that this verb would, thus, have two modifying phrases
(through Jesus—with Him), can hardly be regarded as of weight, for the former
542
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
connects the resurrection of the dead with Jesus, as by means of Him (1 Cor. xv.
22), and the latter unites itself closely with the verb, as expressing, by the com-
pound phrase, the thought which was designed to meet the need of the readers.
The somewhat "dragging” character of the expression, if this construction is
adopted, --which is urged as an objection by Alf. and others,—is worthy of consid-
eration. R. V. reads as above in the margin, but connects with KOLUTIÉVTAS (are
fallen asleep in Jesus) in the text.—d) Alf., who agrees with Lünem. in supposing
that Paul expected to live to the time of the Parousia, says of ver. 15, “It must
be borne in mind, that this inclusion of himself and his hearers among the
* SÕVTES does not in any way enter into the fact revealed and here announced-
which is respecting that class of persons only as they are, and must be, one portion
of the faithful at the Lord's coming; not respecting the question, who shall and
who shall not be among them in that day.” The word "uɛīs, that is, is not a part of
the hóyos kuplov. Comp. Lünem.'s remark, that the context shows that the hóyas
κυρίου is to be thus limited and explained.-(e) φθάσωμεν seems to imply such a
"getting before" them as involves the idea of their losing the blessedness. This
is the suggestion of the preceding context, so that the verb is not merely equiva-
lent to being first, in contrast to the dead being first (in ver. 16).-(f) As com-
pared with 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52, the order of the facts is the same--the rising of the
dead first, afterwards the translation of the living. In 1 Cor., however, the
bodily change which comes to the living is made prominent; here, on the other
hand, it is the removal from the earth to meet the Lord. In 1 Cor., also, the
appearance of the Lord is not set forth, as it does not come within the sphere of
the thought. The trumpet sound is there alluded to only as an indication of time,
and as connected with the other expressions (a, moment, the twinkling of an eye)
which refer to the instantaneousness of the change.-(g) The passage does not, in
its statements, go beyond the fact of the meeting with the Lord and the subse-
quent union with Him. This was all that the Thessalonians needed in order to
meet their error and consequent grief. This was the word by which they might
comfort one another. But—so far as the passage offers any suggestion at all on
the subject—the intimation of what is here said is unfavorable to the idea of a
personal reign of Christ as physically present on earth, and favorable to that of
an abiding of His people with Him elsewhere. Theý. go to Him, and are to be
ever with Him.
CHAP. V.
543
CHAPTER V
IN ver. 2. Lachm. Tisch. and Ellicott, after B D E F GX, 17, 67** et al., read
only ημέρα. But the Receptus ή ημέρα is to be retained. The article was omitted
in consequence of the similar letter at the beginning of the following word. ---Ver.
3. "Οταν λέγωσιν] Elz. Matth. read "Οταν γαρ λέγωσιν. But γάρ is wanting in AF
G** 17, 44, al., m. Syr. It. Tert. Cypr. Ambrosiaster, ed., and instead of it BD
EX**** Copt. Syr. p. Chrys. Theodoret have dé (bracketed by Lachm.). This
diversity of authorities makes it highly probable that Paul wrote only " Orav
(received by Griesb. Scholz, Tisch., Alford and Ellicott), but that at a later period,
after the relation of ideas was defined, a yáp or a dé was inserted for explanation.
Ver. 4. Elz. has Ý nuépa juās. Instead of this Lachm. Tisch. 1 and Ellicott
have juās ñuépa. Correctly; for this position is not only required by predomi-
nant attestation (A DEF G, al., Vulg. It. Chrys. in comm.), but also by the
internal design of the discourse.-Elz. has ós KéTTIS. ús Khéttas, accepted by
Lachm. (not Tisch.), is not sufficiently attested by À B, Copt., and unsuitable by
the change of the image without any reason.-Ver. 5. Távtes yap] Elz. Matth.
read távtes. Against A B D E F GLX 17, 23, al., perm. edd. Syr. utr. Arr.
Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. ed. Vulg. It. Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, Theoph. Ambro-
siast. Aug. Pel.-Elz. has oúk éouév. OÚK &oté, found in D* F G, Syr. It. Harl.**
Marian, Ambrosiast., is a correction for the sake of conformity with the preced-
ing.–Ver. 6 Elz. has ás kai ol holtoi. Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8 read ós oi holtoi.
But the omission of kai is not sufficiently attested by A (B?) N* 17, al., Syr. Arr.
Aeth. Vulg. ms. Clem. (bis) Antioch. According to Schott, kai is a gloss from iv.
13 (?). - Ver. 13. Instead of the Receptus ÚTEPEKTTEPLOGOV, B D* F G, al. have
ÚTTEPEKTeplodās. Preferred by Lachm. Tisch., Alford and Ellicott. Probably
original : ÚTTEPEKTTEPLOOūs, not occurring elsewhere, being corrected according to
iii. 10 and Eph. iii. 20.- Instead of év avtoīs, which D* FG , 47, al., pl. edd. Syr.
Erp. Aeth. Slav. ms. Vulg. It. Chrys. Theodoret, Codd. ap. Theophl. Ambrosiast.
ed. Pelag. require, Tisch. 8 has received, and Griesb. has commended to special con-
sideration, év Éavroīs of the Receptus is to be retained, with Matth. Lachm. Scholz,
Tisch. 7 Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott and Reiche. 'Ev avtoīs arose because eipnvevete
Év ťautois was not considered an independent exhortation (on which account a kaí
is inserted by ** before tip veteta), since these few words are found inserted between
two exhortations, of which the first was introduced by the formula épwtāuev SÈ
vuās, and the second by Tapakaloğuev dè vuās.-Ver. 15. kai eis ananhovs] so Elz.
Matth. Tisch. 2 and 7, and Alford. Ka is disputed by Griesb. Correctly erased
by Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. 1 and 8, and Ellicott after A B E F G ** min.
perm. Syr. Arr. Copt. Vulg. ed. It. Ambrosiast. ed. Pelag.–Ver. 18. Elz. has TOUTO
yåp Téanua Deo7. Lachm. reads Tovro yap łoti géanua Oegū. Although éotiv is
found in D* E* F G, 37, al., Vulg. It. Slav. Ambrosiast. Pel., yet the change of
its position (sometimes after γάρ, sometimes after θέλημα, sometimes after θεού)
544 .
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS,
betrays it to be an insertion.-Ver. 21. távra dé] Elz. Tisch. 2, Bloomfield read
Trávra. But Sé (B DEFG KLX**** min. plur. edd. Aeth. Slav. Vulg. It. Clem.
[bis) Bas. Chrys. [in textu] Damasc. Theoph. Ambrosiast. ed. Pel., recommended
by Griesb., received by Matth. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. 1, 7 and 8, Alford and
Ellicott also preferred by Reiche) was easily absorbed by the first syllable of the
following word, dokluáçete.-Ver. 27. Instead of the Receptus ópkišw, Lachm. Tisch.
Alford and Ellicott have correctly accepted čvopkifw, after A B D* E, 71, 80, al.,
Auct. Synops. Euthal. (in hypoth.) Damasc. Tois ádɛ2¢ois] Elz. Matth. Scholz,
Bloomfield, Ellicott, Reiche, Tisch. 7, read tois ávious ådeäpois. But áyious is want-
ing in B D E F GN* min. Aeth. It. Damasc. Ambrosiast. Cassiod. Suspected
by Griesb. Correctly erased by Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, 8, and Alford.
CONTENTS.—Concerning the period of the commencement of the advent
the readers require no instruction. They themselves well knew that the
day of the Lord will suddenly break in, as a thief in the night. Therefore
as children of the light they are to be watchful, and to arm themselves
with the spiritual armor of faith, love, and hope, comforted with the assur-
ance that God has not appointed them to destruction, but to eternal sal-
vation through Jesus Christ who died for us, that we, whether living or
dead, may receive a share in His glory. Therefore they are to comfort
and edify one another (vv. 1-11). They are to esteem those who had the
rule over them, to be peaceful among themselves, to admonish the unruly,
to encourage the faint-hearted, to assist the weak, and to be forbearing
toward all men. No one is to repay evil with evil. They are always to
retain Christian joyfulness, to pray continually, to thank God for all
things. They are not to quench the Spirit, nor to despise prophecy, but
to prove all things, and to preserve the good. May God sanctify them
thoroughly, in order that they may be blameless at the coming of Christ
(vv. 12-24). After an exhortation to the readers to pray for him, to salute
all the brethren, and to read the Epistle to the whole assembled congre-
gation (vv. 25–27), the apostle concludes with a Christian benediction
(ver. 28).
(2) Vv. 1-3. A reminder of the sudden and unexpected entrance of the
advent.
Ver. 1. [On vv. 1-11, see Note LVI. pages 560-561.] IIepi dè Tūv xpóvwv kai
TūV kalpūv] but concerning the times and periods, i.e. concerning the time and
hour, sc. of the advent. [LVI 6.] The conjunction of these two words
frequently occurs; comp. e. g. Acts i. 7; Dan. ii. 21; Eccles. iii. 1. xpóvos
denotes time in general; kalpós, the definite point of time (therefore
usually the favorable moment for a transaction). See Tittmann, de
synonym. I. p. 39 ff. Paul puts the plural, because he thinks on a plurality
of acts or incidents, in which partly preparation is made for the advent
(2 Thess. ii. 3 ff.), and partly it is accomplished. That, moreover, the
apostle, although he has not treated of the advent in itself, but only of an
entirely special objection regarding it, feels necessitated also to make the
commencement of the advent a subject of explanation, is an evident inti-
mation that this point also formed the subject of frequent discussion
CHAP. v. 1, 2.
545
among the Thessalonians. Yet on account of the relation of the second
Epistle to the first, the opinion that the return of Christ was immediately
to be expected was not yet diffused-ov xpelav & XETɛ] a praeteritio, as in iv.
9. The reason why the readers did not require instruction on the time
and hour of the advent, is neither because instruction concerning it would
not be useful to them (Oecumenius: ás áovjpopove o sé ya Ilavhos lowç ñdel
autó, ék Tūv åppúrur kaÌ TOŪTO kadáv, Theophylact, and others), nor also
because no instruction can be given concerning it (Zwingli, Hunnius,
Estius, Fromond., Flatt, Pelt, Baumg.-Crusius, Koch, and many others), but
because the Thessalonians were already sufficiently acquainted with it from
the oral instruction of the apostle. Accordingly the apostle adds
Ver. 2. Avtoi yap] For ye yourselves, emphatically contrasted with the
person of the writer, as in iv. 9.-áxpißūs] exactly, i. e. very well. By the
oquépa kupiov, Hammond, Schoettgen, and Harduin arbitrarily understand
the time of the destruction of Jerusalem ; Nicolas de Lyra, Bloomfield,
and others, the day of each man's death; Oecumenius, Theophylact, and
Zwingli, the death of the individual and the end of everything earthly.
ημέρα κυρίου can only be another expression for παρουσία του κυρίου, iv. 15,
and denotes, as everywhere else, the near impending period, when the
present order of the world will come to an end, and Christ in His glory
will return to the earth for the resurrection of the dead, the general judg-
ment, and the completion of the kingdom of God; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2; 1
Cor. i. 8, v. 5; 2 Cor. i. 14; Phil. i. 6, 10, ii. 16. Besides, the corresponding.
expression 777 Di, is used in the Old Testament to denote a time in
which God will manifest in a conspicuous manner His penal justice, or also
His power and goodness; comp. Joel i. 15, ii. 11; Ezek. xiii. 5; Isa. ii.
12.-ús kāÉTTIS Év vuktí] as a thief in the night, sc. špxetal; comp. 2 Pet. iii. 10.
The figure is designed to depict the suddenness and unexpectedness of the
coming; comp. Matt. xxiv. 43; Luke xii. 39. Others, as Flatt, Schott,
and Alford (similarly also Hofmann and Riggenbach), find expressed
therein the further reference that the day of the Lord will also be terrible
to all those who are not properly prepared for it. But this further idea is
not contained in ver. 2, but only meets us in what follows. The compari-
son ús KéTTNS ŠV Vukti was undoubtedly the chief reason of the opinion in
the ancient church, that the advent is to be expected at night (more spe-
cifically, on an Easter-eve), which gave rise to the vigils, as one wished to
be overtaken in a waking condition by the return of Christ. OÜTwS] even
so, a strong resumption of the preceding ós. The present fpxete is not
here used instead of the future žrebcetal (Vorstius, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt), but
1
1 Comp. Lactantius, Institt. vii. 19: “Haec
est nox, quae a nobis propter adventum regis
ac Dei nostri pervigilio celebratur; cujus
noctis duplex ratio est, quod in ea et vitam
tum recepit, quum passus est, et postea orbis
terrae regnum recepturus est.” Jerome on
Matt. xxv. 6 (vol. vii. p. 203): “Traditio Judae
orum est, Christum media nocte venturum in
similitudinem Aegyptii temporis, quando
pascha celebratum est et exterminator venit,
et dominus super tabernacula transiit. ...
Unde reor et traditionem apostolicam per-
mansisse, ut in die vigiliarum paschae ante
noctis dimidium populos dimittere non liceat,
exspectantes adventum Christi."
35
546.
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
is designed to characterize the coming thus taking place as an absolute
and certain truth. See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 371; Winer, p. 249 [E. T.
265].
Ver. 3. Paul carries on in a vivid manner (therefore asyndetically) the
description of the sudden and unexpected nature in which the advent is
to break in, whilst he indicates that precisely at the time when man fan-
cies himself in the greatest security, the advent will occur. But with this
thought is the wider and more special thought blended, that they who dream
of security and serve earthly things will reap the fruit of their carelessness,
namely, destruction.-—őrav réywolv] when they shall say, when it is said. As
the subject of the verb, the apostle naturally thinks not on the inhabitants
of Jerusalem (Harduin), but, as is evident from the nature of the expres-
sion of opinion added, and from the apodosis, unbelievers and merely
nominal Christians, the children of this world; comp. Matt. xxiv. 38 ff.;
Luke xvii. 26 ff. For the pious and true Christian never abandons him-
self to the feeling of security, but is always mindful of his salvation with
fear and trembling; comp. Phil. ii. 12.-Eiphun kaì áopáhela] sc. Éotiv; comp.
Ezek. xiii. 10.-épiotatai] imminet, or it surprises them.—¿icoúywolv] stands
absolutely. Camerarius and others unnecessarily supply tòv öhepov.
Moreover, de Wette justly remarks, that in the comparison of the pangs
of a pregnant woman, the supposition is contained that the advent is close
at hand; for although the day and the hour, indeed, is not known to her,
yet the period of her bearing is proximately known.
.
REMARK.-If örav sé (see critical remark) is read, we might, with Schott, .
whom Koch follows, find the following contrast with avtoi in ver. 2 expressed : ye
indeed know certainly that the day of the Lord will infallibly and suddenly arrive;
but the day of the Lord, bringing destruction, will surprise the unbelieving and
ungodly, who live in carelessness and security. But were such an emphatic oppo-
sition of persons the intention of the apostle, he would have attached to the simple
verb ötav dè héywow a particular personal designation. Besides, aútoi, ver. 2,
already forms a contrast with the person of the writer, ver. 1 ; accordingly, it is
improbable that avtoi, ver. 2, should be so emphatically placed first, in order at
the same time to introduce a contrast to third persons who are not mentioned
until ver. 3. Lastly, it is evident from the context that it is by no means the
design of the apostle to explain that the day of the Lord will befall Christians pre-
pared, but unbelievers unprepared ; but he purposes to remind them only of the
sudden and unexpected entrance of the advent itself.
(3) Vv. 411. Exhortation to be ready and prepared for the coming of
the advent, occasioned and also softened by the previous indication of
their character as “of the light,” which the readers by reason of their
peculiarity as Christians possessed.
1 Comp. Theodoret: cóốpa Tourpopov To
παράδειγμα και γάρ ή κύουσα οίδεν ότι φέρει
το έμβρυον, αγνοεί δε τον των ωδίνων καιρόν.
ούτω και ημείς, ότι μεν επιφανήσεται των όλων
ο κύριος, ίσμεν, σαφώς δε αυτόν τον καιρόν ούδα-
Los estoáx nuev. Oecumenius: KaAs 8ề Tò
υπόδειγμα τέθεικε της εν γαστρί έχούσης και
γάρ και αύτη σημεία μεν έχει του τόκου πολλά,
αυτής δε της ώρας ή της ημέρας ουκ έτι.
CHAP. V. 3–7.
547
Ver. 4. 'Yučīç dé] but ye, in contrast to the unbelieving and worldly-
minded described in ver. 3.-!0Té] indicative, not imperative; for other-
wise uì ŠOTE would require to be written instead of ovk érté (see Schmalfeld
Syntax des Griech. Verb. p. 143), not to mention that, according to the
Pauline view, Christians as such, i. e. in their ideas and principles, are no
more okótos, but pūs év kupio; comp. Eph. v. 8; 2 Cor. vi. 14; Col. i. 12.
The expression GKóros, darkness, [LVI d.] here occasioned by the compari-
son ás khéTTIS Év vokti, ver. 2, is a designation of the ruined condition of
the sinful and unredeemed world, which in its estrangement from God is
neither enlightened concerning the divine will, nor possesses power to
fulfill it.-iva újāç ý nuépa k.1.2.] By juās placed first the readers are fit-
tingly and emphatically brought forward in opposition to those described
in ver. 3.--iva is not ékbatikās in the sense of so that (Flatt, Pelt, Olshausen,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, and others), but Teherāc: that, or in order
that. But the design contained in iva is to be referred to God. Paul
intends to say: Ye are not among the unbelieving world alienated from
God, and thus the design which God has in view in reference to that unbe-
lieving and alienated world, namely, to surprise them by the day of the
Lord, can have no application to you. Why this design of God can have
no application to the readers, the apostle accordingly states.-
Ver. 5, first positively, and then negatively with a general reference to
all Christians.-vio Qwtós] sons of the light, and vioi ruépas, sons of the day,
are Hebraisms: being a concrete mode of expression, in order to repre-
sent“ belonging to." Comp. Eph. ii. 2, 3, v. 8; Luke xvi. 8; 1 Pet. i. 14,
and other passages. See Winer, p. 223 [E. T. 238]. quépa is here used as a
synonym for pūs. The transition from the notion of the day of the Lord
to the notion of day generally, in contrast to the darkness, was so much
the more natural, inasmuch as the day of the Lord is according to its
nature light, before which no darkness can exist, or rather by which every
impurity of the darkness will be discovered and judged. An entirely
similar transition from the ημέρα του κυρίου to ημέρα generally is found in
Rom. xiii. 12, 13.-To our touÈv VuktÒS oudè GKÓTOUS, Estius, Pelt, Schott, and
others incorrectly again supply viol; for cival, with the simple genitive, is
the genuine Greek mode of expressing the idea of a possessive relation.
See Kühner, II. p. 167; Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 165.
Ver. 6 infers from the Christians' character as children of the light, the
duty to behave comformably to it, i.e. to be watchful and sober, that they
might not be taken unprepared by the day of the Lord.-kaðɛúdelv] denotes,
under the image of sleep, carelessness about the eternal salvation of the
soul. In Eph. v. 14 it is of the sleep of sin.-i holtoi] the others (comp.iv..
13; Eph. ii. 3), i.e. the unbelievers.-yonyopɛīv and vñgelv are also con-
joined in 1 Pet. V. 8. vñmelv is the opposite of Medvokeriai, ver. 7.
Ver. 7. A reason for the exhortation in ver. 6 by a reference to the
práctice of the outward life.—VUKTÒS METúovolv] refers to the known custom
i
1 Oecumenius: επίτασις εγρηγόρσεως το νήφειν ένι γάρ και εγρηγορέναι και μηδεν διαφέρειν
καθεύδοντος.
548
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
of devoting the evening and the night for debauchery.—ueduokeobar is
entirely synonymous with Medvelv. It is not to be assumed that the
change of the verb is intentional, in order to denote with the first “the
act of getting drunk,” and with the second “the state of being so ” (Mack-
night); since, as also the analogy of the first half of the sentence proves,
the progress of the discourse is contained in the addition of VUKTÓS, and
accordingly only the idea already expressed in jedvokóuevol is again taken
up by peovovoiv. The view of Baumgarten-Crusius, repeated by Koch and
Hofmann, that ver. 7 is to be understood in a figurative sense (comp.
already Chrysostom and Oecumenius), and that Paul intends to say:"A
want of spiritual life (καθεύδειν), and inamorality (μεθύσκεσθαι) belong to the
state of darkness (vuitós,) thus not to you,” is logically and grammatically
impossible, since vuitós, on account of the same verbs as subjects and .
predicates, can only contain a designation of time. In order to justify the
above interpretation, oi yàp kateúdovtec kai (ol) je IvOKÓPEVOL VUITÓS ciow would
require to have been written.
Ver. 8. [LVI e, f.] The apostle passes over to a new image, whilst he,
as the proper preparation for watchfulness and sobriety, requires the put-
ting on of the Christians' spiritual armor, with the help of which they are
in a condition victoriously to repel all the assaults of internal and exter-
nal enemies. The apostle delights to represent the Christian under the
image of a warrior; comp. 2 Cor. x. 4 ff.; Rom. vi. 13, xiii. 12; and espe-
cially Eph. vi. 11 ff. Here the transition to this new image was very
easily occasioned either by the expression ňuépa, ver. 5, inasmuch as in
the day one is not only watchful, but also completely clothed; or by the
idea of yonyopɛīv, ver. 6, inasmuch as whoever watches must also be pro-
vided with weapons. Whilst in Eph. vi. 11 ff. not only weapons of defence,
but also of offence are mentioned, the apostle here names only weapons
of the first description. He designates as weapons the three principal
parts of the Christian life—faith, love, and hope; comp. i. 3 and 1 Cor.
xiii. 13.- πίστεως και αγάπης] are genitives of apposition. πίστις and αγάπη
do not import “trust in God and Christ, and in connection with it
love to Him and to our fellow-men and to our fellow-Christians” (Flatt); but
the first is faith in Christ as the Redeemer, and the latter love to our
neighbor. The riotis and the ayáin are a lópaß, a coat of mail (comp. Isa.
lix. 17; Wisd. v. 19), i. e. they protect the Christian's heart against the
influences of evil, even as a coat of mail protects the breast of the earthly
warrior.-kai nepikepanaſav &arrida owTnpias] and as a helmet the hope of salva-
tion. This hope of eternal salvation is so much the more a powerful
protection against all the attacks and allurements to evil, as it by means
of a reference to a future better world sustains our courage amidst trial
and tribulation, and communicates strength to stedfast endurance. The
helmet is already in Isa. lix. 17 represented as a symbol of victory.
1 This design of the armor is evident from
the context. Schrader's objection to the
words, that "Paul elsewhere only speaks of
an arming against evil in order to overcome
it,” is therefore without meaning. .
CHAP. V. 8–10.
549
Ver. 9. In this verse does not follow a new reason for the duty of watch-
fulness and sobriety (Musculus), but a confirmation of the concluding
words of ver. 8: šarida owonpías. Hofmann strangely perverts the passage:
Öte is to be translated by that (not by for), and depends on htida,--a con-
struction which is plainly impossible by the addition of σωτηρίας tο ελπίδα, on
account of which the passage Rom. viii. 21, which Hofmann insists on as
an alleged analogy, cannot be compared. The construction Tchéval or
Tídeovai tlva eię ti, to appoint one for a purpose, to destine one to some-
thing, is conformable with the Hebrew Diw, nw, or jn) with 5 following;
comp. Acts xiii. 47; 1 Pet. ii. 8; 1 Tim. i. 12.-eis ópyhu] to wrath, i. e., to
be subject to it, to become its prey; comp. i. 10.—eis replTTOLMOLV
oornpias] but to the acquisition of salvation. TTEPLTTOLETV means to cause some-
thing to remain, to save, to acquire. The middle TeplnoleTotal signifies to
save for oneself. Therefore repitoinois denotes the acquisition, and par-
ticularly the possession of a people; comp. Eph. i. 14; 1 Pet. ii. 9; Acts
XX. 28, corresponding to the Hebrew, 7770, by which the people of Israel
were denominated God's holy property; comp. Ex. xix. 5; Deut. vii. 6,
etc. Here as in 2 Thess. ii. 14 repitoinois has the meaning of acquisition
generally.—oià TOŨ kupiov ňuāv ’Incoû Xplotov] belongs to the pitcoinolv, not to
šū€To (Estius). Even by this grammatical relation of the words, Hof-
mann's opinion, that by dià ToŨ kupiov yuūv ’Inooù Xplotoū the pledge of sal-
vation is prominently brought forward, is refuted. But the meaning is
not: per doctrinam eam, quam Christus nobis attulit, non rabbini, non
philosophi (Grotius), and also not: through the atoning death of our Lord
Jesus Christ (Ellicott), by which what is contained in ver. 10 would be
anticipated, but: by faith on Him.
Ver. 10. That by which the acquisition of salvation is rendered objec-
tively possible is the death of Christ for our redemption. However, this
objective reason of Teplioinois ournpiac appears, according to the verbal
expression, here not in causal connection with the preceding; for other-
wise ver. 10 would have been attached with the simple participle árodavóv-
Toc without the article. Rather Paul adds in ver. 10 simply the fact of
the death of Christ for our redemption as an independent expression, in
order, by the addition of the final end of His death, to return to the
chief reason which led him to this whole explanation concerning the
advent, namely, to the comforting assurance that Christians who have
already fallen asleep at the entrance of the advent will, as well as those
who are alive, be partakers in Christ's glory.—ÜTÈ suāv] for our benefit,
not in our stead (Baumgarten-Crusius). See Meyer on Rom. v. 6.--
ypnyopɛīv and kalkudelv cannot here, as formerly, be taken in an ethical
sense; for in what precedes kaJebdecv was represented as a mark of the
unbelieving, of the children of this world, something incompatible with
Christians in their character as children of the light. But to understand
the words in their literal sense, with Musculus, Aretius, and Whitby, that
is, to interpret them of day and night: “whether the advent happens in
the day-time or at night,” would be feeble and trifling. It only remains
that waking and sleeping here is to be regarded as a figurative designation
550
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
of life and death, whether we are yet alive at the advent, or whether we
are already dead. [LVI g.] Accordingly the same thought is expressed
in the sentence with iva, generally considered, which is contained in the
concluding words of Rom. xiv. 8 (éáv Tɛ oủv SūLlev ťáv te átolvño KwuEV, TOū
kupiov couév). On kateudelv of death, comp. LXX. Dan. xii. 2; 2 Sam. vii.
12; Ps. lxxxviii. 5.—On site . . . £ite, with the conjunctive, see Winer, p.
276 [E. T. 294] Buttm. p. 191 [E. T. 221.]—äļa] does not belong to cùv avta
(Hofmann, Riggenbach), but to chowuey. It here corresponds to the
Hebrew 707', altogether (Rom. iii. 12), so that it emphatically brings for-
ward the similar share in the sñu oùn Xplotý for all Christians, whether
living or dead.—Showev] more specific than écóueda, iv. 17; for being
united with the Lord is a partaking of His glory. According to Hof-
mann (comp. also Möller on de Wette), Showuev is designed to denote
only a state of life-fellowship with Christ, so that there is indicated by it
not something future but the present condition of Christians. But this
weakening of the verbal idea militates against the context of our passage,
as it has for its contents questions respecting the advent, and we are re-
minded of the period of the advent by είς οργήν and εις περιποίησιν σωτηρίας
directly preceding. Besides, Paul, if he would have expressed nothing
more than" a fellowship of life with Christ, for which the distinction of
corporeal life and death is indifferent,” would much more naturally have
written αυτού ώμεν (comp. Rom. xiv. 8) instead of συν αυτώ ζήσωμεν:
Ver. 11. A16] therefore, sc. because we will undoubtedly be made par-
takers of the glory of Christ, brings the preceding explanation to a conclu-
sion; comp. bote, iv. 18.--Tapakañeiv] [LVI h.] Grotius, Turretin, Flatt,
Pelt, de Wette, Koch, Hofmann, and others interpret it as “to exhort.”
More correctly, it is to be taken, as in iv. 18, “to comfort.” For (1) the
exhortation begun in ver. 6 has already, in vy. 9, 10, been changed into
words of comfort and consolation; (2) vv. 10, 11 stand in evident parallelism
with chap. iv. 17, 18.-kaì oikodoucīte εis Tòv ëva] and edify one the other.
Paul considers the Christian church, as also the individual Christian, as a
holy building, a holy temple of God which is in the course of construc-
tion; comp. Eph. ii. 20 ff.; 1 Cor. iii. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16. Accordingly
Olkodouetv is a figurative designation of Christian progress generally; comp.
1 Cor. viii. 1, x. 23, xiv. 4.–Eis Tòv žva. equivalent to åaanhous, see Kypke,
Observ, sacr. II. p. 339. Comp. ol ka@ëva, Eph. v. 33. Faber Stapulensis,
Whitby, and Rückert (Romerbr. II. p. 249) read éic Tòv éva, but differ from
one another in their renderings. Faber Stapulensis finds the thought:
"aedificate vos mutuo ad unum usque, h. e. nullum omittendo;" Whitby
explains it: “edify yourselves into one body;" lastly, Rückert maintains
oikodoueğv eis tòV Êva is used "in order to denote the One, Christ, as the
1 By this parallel with Rom. xiv. 8, 9, the
objections of Schrader against our passage
are settled, who thinks that “the manner in
which the death of Christ and His coming
again are spoken of, is not similar to what is
found elsewhere in Paul, but rather to what
Mark and Luke say concerning it. We do
not find here the words taught by the Holy
Spirit as we are accustomed to hear from
Paul, but the words from tradition, such
as were at a later period prevalent among
Christians!”
CHAP. v. 11, 12.
551
foundation on whom the building should be reared.” But in the first
case Paul would have written fws Évós (comp. Rom. iii. 12), in the
second εis šv (comp. Eph. ii. 14), and in the third ÉTÈ TỚ Éví (comp. Eph.
ii. 19).—kadus kaì TOLETTɛ] a laudatory recognition, that the olkodqueiv had
Vy. 12–24. Miscellaneous exhortations, and the wish that God would
sanctify the Thessalonians completely for the coming of Christ.
Ver. 12. Ton vv. 12-24, see Note LVII. page 561.] The apostle.com-
mences with an exhortation to a dutiful conduct toward the rulers of the
church.-06] can only be a particle of transition to a new subject. It
ver. 11: Certainly I have praised you, because you seek to edify one
another ; but this by no means excludes the duty of treating those who
are appointed for the government of the church with becoming esteem
and respect. At all events, it appears from this that Paul considered this
exhortation in respect to the rulers of the church necessary, to prevent the
Thessalonians failing in any way in the respect due to them.--Eidéval] to
recognize, sc. what they are, according to their nature and position, i.e. in
other words, highly to value, highly to esteem. Comp. ÉTCYLVÓC KELV, 1 Cor.
xvi. 18, and y?, Prov. xxvii. 23; Ps. cxliv. 3; Nah. i. 7–Paul does not by
KOTLõvras, repożotauévous, and vovGeToûvraç indicate different classes of persons
(Bernard a Picon and others), for otherwise the article tous would have
been repeated before the two last predicates; but the same men, namely,
the peoBútɛpol, whom the apostles were accustomed to place in newly
founded churches, and who in apostolic times were not different from the
ŠTÍGKOTOL; comp. Tit. i. 5, 7; Acts xx. 17, 28; Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 2d
ed. vol. I. p. 217 f. These presbyters are at first named generally KOTLWVTAS
¿v juiv] those who labor among you, i. e. in your midst (Musculus. Zanch.,
Flatt, Pelt, Hofm. et al. erroneously explain it: on you, in vobis sc. docendis,
monendis, consolandis, aedificandis), in order to make it appear before-
hand that the cidéval, the esteeming highly, was a corresponding duty due
to the presbyters on account of their labor for the church. The expres-
sion Kotlovras might, on account of its generality, have been understood
of any member of the church they liked; therefore, in order with KorlūVTAS
to make them think definitely on presbyters, Paul adds by way of expla-
nation, και προϊσταμένους και νουθετούντας, by which presbyters are more
particularly described, according to the diversity of their official functions,
namely, as such to whom it belongs, first, to direct the general and exter-
nal concerns of the church; and to whom, secondly, the office of teaching
and exhortation is assigned. 2—v kupiw] in the sphere of the Lord, a limita-
tion of apoiotaļévous. Theophylact: ovk év TOTS koo ulkoiç apoiotatai oov, áza
1 Already Chrysostom closely unites ver.
déywv, öri kai üniv ététpeya oixodoueîv åldra
in the following form not much to be com-
mended: Επειδή είπεν οικοδομείτε εις τον ένα,
ένα μη νομίσωσιν, ότι εις το των διδασκάλων αξί-
ωμα αυτούς ανήγαγε, τούτο επήγαγε, μονονουχί
2 Incorrectly Theodoret: TÒ de apoiotauÉ
νους υμών έν κυρίω αντί του υπερευχομένους
υμών και τω Θεώ την υπέρ υμών πρεσβείαν
προσφέροντας.
552
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
εν τοϊς κατά κύριον.---νουθετείν] to lay to heart, then generally to instruct and
· admonish. It refers particularly to the management of Christian disci-
pline, yet Christian instruction generally is not excluded from it. Comp.
also Kypke, Obs. II. p. 339 f.
Ver. 13. Kai nyežotai avtoús] is by Theodoret, Estius, Grotius, Wolf, Baum-
garten, Koppe, de Wette, Koch, Bloomfield, and others, connected with
ÚT EPEKTEPLOGWS, "and to esteem very highly, to value much,” to which ¿v
ảyáron is added as a supplementary statement, to express that this esteem
is not to be founded on fear, but on love, or is to express itself in love.
But the requirement to esteem highly is already, ver. 12, expressed by
είδέναι. Add to this that ηγείσθαι, in order to denote the idea of high
esteem or regard, requires an additional clause, as repi Telovos, or repi.
πλείστου; but the adverb υπερεκπερισσώς cannot represent that additional
clause. We must therefore, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Beza, Flatt, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Alford, Ellicott, Hofmann, Riggen-
bach, and others, unite ryzcoðal with év ảyány, by which, along with the
duty of high esteem, ver. 12, the duty of love toward the rulers of the church
is specially brought forward. The formula vyetobal tivà év åyárì, to hold a
person in love, to cherish toward him a loving disposition, is not without
harshness, but has its analogy in the genuine Greek construction, Š XELV
TIVà év ópyn (Thucyd. ii. 18). Others less suitably compare niyetolaí tl ÉV
kpítel, LXX. Job xxxv. 2.-oià tò špyov avtūV] for their works' (office) sake,
i. e. first, on account of the labor which is connected with it; but secondly
and chiefly, because it is an office in the service of Christ. ----eipnvevete év
Éavtois] preserve peace among yourselves, comp. Rom. xii. 18; 2 Cor. xiii.
11; Mark ix. 50. év éavrois is equivalent to év årinhocs, see Kühner, II.
p. 325; Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 273. The words contain an independent
exhortation to be separated from the preceding, the apostle passing from
the conduct enjoined respecting rulers, to the conduct enjoined generally
of the readers to one another. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Faber Stapulensis,
Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, Balduin, Cornelius a Lapide, Ernest Schmid,
Fromond., and others, adopting the reading év avtois (see critical note),
have indeed explained it: "preserve peace with them, the presbyters,"
but without grammatical justification, because for this eipnvevete MET' aútāv
would be required, comp. Rom. xii. 18.
Ver. 14. 'ATAKTos] is especially said of the soldier who does not remain
in his rank and file (so inordinatus in Livy); then of people who will not
conform to civil regulations; then generally disorderly. Here the apostle
alludes to those members of the Thessalonian church who, instead of
applying themselves to the duties of their calling, had given themselves
up to an unregulated and unsteady nature and to idleness, comp. iv. 11;
2 Thess. iii. 6, 11. We are not to understand, with Chrysostom, Oecu-
menius, Theophylact, Estius, Fromond., Turretin, Benson, Bolten, Bloom-
field, and others, the presbyters as the subject of vouletɛīte, but, as is
already evident from the addition of ádchool, and generally from the
similarity of the introductory words of ver. 14 with those of ver. 12, the
members of the church in their totality. Paul thus here puts it out of the
CHAP. V. 13–16. .
553
question that the church as such had fallen into áračía (see on iv. 11). But
it also follows from these words that the apostle was far removed from all
hierarchical notions in regard to rulers (Olshausen).—Further, they were
to comfort, to calm tous óreyovúxovs] the faint-hearted, the desponding. Paul
here thinks particularly on those who, according to iv. 13 ff., were pain-
fully agitated concerning their deceased friends. Yet this does not pre-
vent us from extending the expression also to such who failed in endur-
ance in persecution, or who, conscious of some great sin, despaired of the
attainment of divine grace, etc.-The šoleveis] the weak, whom the church
is to assist, are not the bodily sick, but fellow-Christians who still cling to
prejudices, and were more imperfect than others in faith, in knowledge, or
in reference to a Christian life; comp. Rom. xiv. 1, 2; 1 Cor. viii. 7, 11, 12.
-Makpo@vueīv] to be long-suffering, denotes the disposition by which we do
not fly into a passion at injuries inflicted, but bear them with patience and
forbearance, comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 4; Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii. 12.- tpos távras] to
all, is not to be limited to άτακτοι, ολιγόψυχοι, and ασθενείς (Koppe), nor to
fellow-Christians (Riggenbach), but is to be understood of all men gener-
ally; comp. eis åranovs kai eis távras, ver. 15.
Ver. 15. Prohibition of revenge. This is easily and fitly added to the
command of uakpoovula.-ópātɛ] take care, take heed. The apostle speaks
thus, because man is only too ready to gratify his natural inclination to
revenge. Watchfulness, struggle, and self-conquest are necessary to offer
resistance to it.uń ris] sc. údāv. Erroneously Fromond: "subditorum
vestrorum.” Also incorrectly de Wette: "Since revenge is entirely
unworthy of the Christian, so all are not warned against it, but the better
disposed are exhorted to watch that no outbreaks of it should occur
(among others).” For (1) the prohibition of revenge is peculiarly Chris-
tian, corresponding neither to the spirit of heathenism (see Hermann, ad
Sophocl. Philoct. 679; Jacobs, ad Delect. Epigr. p. 144; in opposition to the
objections of Jowett, see Ellicott on this passage) nor to that of Judaism
(comp. Matt. v. 38, 43). But de Wette's reason makes the prohibition
appear as if it were something long known, something evident of itself.
(2) Also the better disposed are not free from momentary thoughts of
revenge; accordingly also upon them was that prohibition to be pressed.
(3) The fulfilling of that command appertains to the individual life of
every one; whereas to guard against the outbreaks of revenge among
others is only rarely possible.-κακόν αντί κακού τινι αποδούναι] to render to
any one evil for evil, comp. Rom. xii. 17; 1 Pet. iii. 9; Matt. v. 44.-Ò
ảyadóv] denotes not the useful or agreeable (Koppe, Flatt, Schott, Olshau-
sen, and others), or “what is good to one" (Ell., Hofm., Möller), nor does it
contain an exhortation to benevolence (Piscator, Beza, Calixt, Pelt, Baum-
garten-Crusius, and others), but denotes the moral good; see Meyer on
Gal. vi. 10.—OLÓKEIV TI] to pursue something, to seek to reach it in the race
(Phil. iii. 12, 14), then generally a figurative expression for striving after a
thing, comp. Rom. ix. 30, 31, xii. 13, xiv. 19; 1 Cor. xiv. 1.
Ver. 16. Comp. Phil. iv. 4. Also this exhortation is closely connected
with the preceding. The readers are to be always joyfully inclined, even
*554
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS..
when the case indicated in ver. 15 occurs—that sufferings are prepared
for them. The Christian can always feel inspired and elevated with
internal joy, as he has the assured confidence that all things promote the
good of the children of God; comp. Rom. viii. 28; 2 Cor. vi. 10; Rom.
v. 3. In a forced manner Chrysostom, whom Theophylact and others
follow, refers ver. 16 to the clisposition required in ver. 15: "Otav yàp
τοιαύτην έχωμεν ψυχήν, ώστε μηδένα αμύνεσθαι, αλλά πάντας ευεργετείν, πόθεν, είπε
MOL, Tò tñs húrins KÉVT pov Trapecoe20εiv duvňoetal ; --Also it deserves to be men-
tioned as a curiosity that Koppe and Bolten hold it possible to consider
TávTote zaipɛte as a concluding salutation (intended, but afterwards over-
looked amid further additions): "Semper bene valere vos jubeat deus !”.
(Koppe). “Farewell always !" (Bolten).
Ver. 17. One' means of promoting Christian joyfulness is prayer. Paul
also exhorts to continued prayer in Eph. vi. 18, and to perseverance in
prayer in Col. iv. 2; Rom. xii. 12.
Ver. 18. Christians ought not only to pray to God, but also to give
thanks to Him, and that ¿v Tavri] in everything i.e. under every circum-
stance, in joy as well as in sorrow; which is different only in form, but
not in meaning, from Tepi Tavtós, for everything. Incorrectly Estius : in
omnibus sc. bonis; and Flatt: Év Tavri, sc. kalpo.—TOūTU] SC. TÒ év mavri
evxaplotɛīv. This is the most natural meaning. Yet it were not incorrect,
with Grotius, Schott, and Bloomfield, to refer toūto to ver. 17, as prayer
and thanksgiving form a closely connected unity; comp. Phil. iv. 6; Col.
iv. 2. Also to refer it even to ver. 16 (Cornelius a Lapide, Alford) may
be justified from the same reason. On the contrary, there is no reason to
refer it to the whole passage from ver. 14 onwards (Musculus, Calovius,
and others), as then taūta would require to have been written.-06anual
(sc. Éotív) denotes will, requirement, as in iv. 3: the article is here wanting,
because the will of God comprehends more than εüxaplotEIV: this is only
one requirement among many. Otherwise Schott, who finds in Ofanua Deoû
the divine decree of salvation indicated. According to him, the meaning
is : “ Huc pertinet sive hoc secum fert decretum divinum (de vobis cap-
tum, itemque in Christo positum), ut gratias deo pro omnibus agere
debeatis. Vos enim, huic servatori addictos, latere amplius non potest,
quaecunque Christianis acciderint, deo volente, eorum saluti consulere
aeternae, Rom. viii. 28 ff.” But (1) the totiv to be supplied cannot denote:
huc pertinet or hoc secum fert; (2) the article tó would not be wanting
either before déanua or before šv XplotỘ ; (3) the reason alleged is intro-
duced contrary to the context, and so much the more arbitrarily, as TOŪTO
yàp Ofanua k.7.2. is a dependent clause which is founded on the preceding,
not an independent point which requires a reason of its own. Storr also
takes Géanua as the decree of redemption, but he understands toūro in the
Sense of τοιούτο, which is contrary to the Greelk.-εν Χριστώ Ιησού] Christ
1 Theophylact: Thv ö8òv čSELŜe Toll áci xalpely,
την αδιάλειπτον προσευχής και ευχαριστίαν" ο
γαρ εθισθείς ομιλείν τω Θεώ και ευχαριστείς
aŭto étè mãouv ús ovudepóvtws ovußaivovou,
πρόδηλον, ότι χαράν έξει διηνεκή.
0
CHAP. V. 17-21.
555
is, as it were, the vehicle of this requirement, inasmuch as it is made
known through Him.
Ver. 19. Comp. Noesselt, in locum P. ap. 1. Thess. v. 19-22 disputatio
(Exercit. p. 255 ff.).---Lasch, de sententia atque ratione verborum Pauli, távra
dè dokli, tò kakòv kat., 1 Thess. v. 19-22, Lips. 1834.—The prayer of the
Christian is an outflow of the Holy Spirit dwelling and working in him;
comp. Rom. viii. 16, 26. Accordingly the new admonition, ver. 19, is united
in a natural manner to the exhortations, vv. 17, 18. Schrader's view
requires no contradiction. He, indeed, finds in this admonition a genuine
Pauline reminiscence; but also an objection against the composition of this
Epistle by Paul, because “if such an admonition had been necessary for
the Thessalonians, it is not elsewhere noticed in the whole Epistle."--Ò
TEVEữua] is the Holy Spirit, and that as the source of extraordinary gifts-
speaking with tongues, prophecy, etc., as they are more fully described in
1 Cor. xii. 7 ff. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Oecumenius will have to
Tveīja to indicate either spiritual illumination which fits us for the exer-
cise of Christian virtues, but may be lost by immoral living, or specially
prophecy (so also Michaelis and others). Both are erroneous on account
of ver. 20.—.) oßÉVVUTE ] extinguish not, quench not. The aveõua is conceived
as a flame, whilst there is particular reference to the strained and inspired
speech in which those who were seized by the Spirit expressed themselves.?
Ver. 20. Paul passes from the genus to a species.— poonteia] denotes
prophetic discourse. Its nature consisted not so much in the prediction
of future events, although that was not excluded, as in energetic, soul-
captivating, and intelligent expression of what was directly communi-
cated by the Holy Ghost to the speaker for the edification and moral ele-
vation of the church. See Meyer on Acts xi. 27; Rückert on 1 Cor. p.
448 f. ; Fritzsche on Rom. xii. 6. The Thessalonians were not to despise
these prophetic utterances; they were rather to value them as a form of
the revelation of the Holy Spirit; comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 5. The undervaluing
of the gifts of the Spirit, of which some members of the church must at
least have been guilty, had its reason probably in their abuse, whilst partly
deceivers who pursued impure designs under the pretext of having
received divine revelations, and partly self-deceivers who considered the
deceptions of their own fancy as divine suggestions, appeared (see 2 Thess.
ii. 2), and thus spiritual gifts in general might have been brought into dis-
credit among discerning and calmer characters.
Ver. 21. The apostle therefore adds to the prescription, to prove all
things, whether they have their origin from God or not, and to retain the
good.--távra dé] but all things, namely, what is brought forward in inspired
| 1Similarly Nowsselt: TveŨua denotes “vim
divinam, Christianis propriam, h. e. quidquid
rerum divinarum, deo ita providente, cogno-
vissent."
2 On the figurative expression, comp. Galen.
ad Pison. de Ther. i. 17 (Opp. T. xiii. p. 956,
Lut. Par. 1639 fol.): ÉTÈ Sè ty taldiwy tartá.
Taơpota Tò papuakov uc Cov ráp
Sotiv aúrns rñs Suvánews tò méyedos Toû bap-
Máxqu kai sladúer padiws to owua kai tò ēnov-
τον πνεύμα ταχέως σβέννυσιν, ώσπερ δή και την
λυχναίαν φλόγα το έλαιον, του πυρός πλέον
revóuevov, eúkólws åtooßévvvolv,
556
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
discourse.—dokluáčetɛ] Paul expresses the same requirement of testing in
1 Cor. xiv. 29, and according to 1 Cor. xii. 10 there was a peculiar gift of
testing spirits, the diákpiOLS Tvevuárw. That, moreover, this testing can
only proceed from those who are themselves illuminated by the Holy
Spirit was evident to the apostle. The fundamental principle of ration-
alism, that the reason as such is the judge of revelation, is not contained
in these words.-Tò kahóv] the good, namely, that is found in the Távta.
Hofinann arbitrarily thinks that “the good generally” is meant, which
the Thessalonians "as Christians already have, and do not now merely
seek or expect.”
Ver. 22. With ver. 22 the discourse again reverts to what is general,
whilst the requirement to hold fast that which is good in the discourses of
the inspired very naturally required the transition to the further require-
ment to keep at a distance from every kind of evil, accordingly also from
that which was perhaps intermixed in these discourses. Usually ver. 22
is referred exclusively to the discourses of the inspired, so that távra dè
dokluáčete contains the chief point which is then unfolded according to its
two sides, first positively (Tò kahòv kaTÉZETE), and then negatively (ver. 22).
But από παντός είδους πονηρού is against this view : από του πονηρού would
require to have been written. Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Drusius, Pisca-
tor, Grotius, Calixt, Calovius, Seb. Schmid, Michaelis, and others find in
ver. 22 the meaning : avoid all evil appearance. But (1) eidos never signifies
appearance. (2) A distorted thought would arise. For as the apostle has
required the holding fast not that which has the appearance of good, but
that which is actually good; so also in ver. 22, on account of the close
reference of rovnpoū to the preceding karów, the discourse must also be of
an abstinence from that which is actually evil. (3) To preserve oneself
from all appearance of evil is not within the power of man.-Eldos denotes
very often the particular Icind of a class (the species of a genus).'-movnpow]
is not to be taken, with Bengel, Pelt, Schott, and others, as an adjective (ab
omni mala specie), but as a substantive (ab omni specie mali). What
Bengel, Schott and Lasch object against this meaning, that the article Tow
would be required before trovnpow, would be correct if the discourse were
specially of the rovnpóv contained in the trávra, ver. 21 ; but is erroneous,
as rovnpoũ is taken in abstract generality. See Kühner, II. pp. 129, 141.
Comp. Heb. v. 14; Joseph. Ant. vii. 4. 2: trāv eldos uérovs; ibid. x. 3.1:
Ttāv εldos Trovnplaç.-Ver. 22, as well as ver. 21, is peculiarly interpreted by
Hänsel (Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1836, Part 1, p. 170 ff.). Vv. 21, 22 are
repeatedly cited by Cyril Alexandrinus as an expression of the Apostle
Paul, in such a manner that with this citation, and indeed as its contents,
the words yíveo € Sókluoc TpaTecital are united. Also these words are else-
where frequently by the Fathers united with our passage, being quoted
.
1 Comp. Porphyry, isagoge de quinque vocibus oxń Matos eldos.
2: Néyeta. Se eidos kai tò ÚTÒ TÒ årrododèv 2 Baumgarten-Crusius accedes to the inter-
yévos: kad' ö eiwbarev déyelv TÒV Mèv av pw Tovpretation of Hänsel; Koch strangely rejects,
eidos Toll Scov, yévous ÖvTOS TOÙ Súov. To se it for ver. 22, but adopts it for ver. 23.
λευκόν του χρώματος είδος το δε τρίγωνον του
CHAP. V. 22, 23.
* 557
sometimes as a saying of Christ, sometimes generally as a say-
ing of Scripture, and sometimes specially as a saying of the
Apostle Paul. On this Hänsel supports his opinion. He regards
the words γίνεσθε δόκιμοι τραπεζίται as a saying of Christ, and thinks
and in consequence of this the expressions in vv. 21, 22 were selected by
him, which were usual in the money terms employed by antiquity. So
that the sense would be: “Act as experienced exchangers; everything
which is presented to you as good coin, that test; preserve the good coin
(what actually is divine truth), but guard against every false coin (reject
all false doctrine).” But evidently only the expression dokiuášete was the
occasion for the Fathers uniting the dictum åypadov of Christ, handed
down by tradition, with our passage. Paul, on the contrary, could not
have thought of it, even supposing it to have been known to him. For
although the verb dokluáSELV would well suit, if otherwise the refer-
ence was to the figure of exchangers, yet in an actual reference to the
same the words tò każòv eldos katéXETE, STÒ dề TOW Trovnpoñ ártéxede would
have been written. Lastly, add to this that εldos cannot import in itself a
coin, voulouatos must be added, or money must have been spoken of in what
goes before.
Ver. 23. If what the apostle requires in ver. 22 is to be actually realized,
God's assistance must supervene. Accordingly, this benediction is fitly
added to the preceding.—avròs dè ó Deos rīſs εiphuns] the God of peace Him-
self; an emphatic contrast to the efforts of man.-Ö Osòs tñs cipávns] the
God of peace, i. e. who communicates Christian peace. Neither the con-
nection with ver. 22 nor the contents of the benediction itself will permit
us to understand eipóun of harmony. To refer to eipnvevete, ver. 13, for this
meaning is far-fetched.—ohoreańs] here only in the N. T. spoken of what
is perfect, to which nothing belonging to its nature is wanting. Jerome,
ad Hedib. 12, Ambrosiaster, Koppe, Pelt, and others understand 02.0TEdiç
in an ethical sense, as an accusative of result: “so that ye be entire, that
is, pure and blameless." But it is better, on account of what follows, to
take ołotɛɛīs as an adverb of quantity, uniting it closely with juās, and
finding the whole personality of the Thessalonians denoted as if the simple
öhovç were written : "in your entire extent, through and through.”—Kai
ólókanpov . . . Tpndkín) a fuller repetition of the wish already expressed.
-Kal] and indeed.-ohókanpos] means, as dhotens, perfectly, consisting of all
its parts. ολόκληρον refers not only to το πνεύμα, although it is governed by
it, as the nearest noun, in respect of its gender, but also to puxń and owua.
Comp. Winer, p. 490 [E. T. 527]. The totality of man is here divided into
trichotomy has a purely rhetorical signification, as elsewhere Paul also
definitely distinguishes aveūpa and pux" (1 Cor. ii. 14, 15, xv. 44, 46). The
1 See Suicer, Thesaurus, II. p. 1281 ff. (Sacr.
Observ. p. 140 ff.); Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T.
I. p. 330 ff., III. p. 524.
2 See Olshausen, de naturae hum. trichotomia
N. T. scriptoribus recepta in s. Opusc. theol.,
Berol. 1834, p. 143 ff.; Messner, die Lehre der
Apostel, Leipz. 1856, p. 207.
558
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
twofold division, which elsewhere occurs with Paul (1 Cor. vii. 34; 2 Cor.
vii. 1), is a popular form of representation. The origin of the trichotomy is
Platonic; but Paul has it not from the writings of Plato and his scholars,
but from the current language of society, into which it had passed from
the narrow circle of the schools.-T võua denotes the higher and purely
spiritual side of the inner life, what is elsewhere called by Paul vows
(reason); yux" is the lower side, which comes in contact with the region
of the senses. The spirit is preserved blameless in its totality at the
advent, i. e. so that it approves itself blameless at the advent (à pé urtws is a
more exact definition of óókanpov inpndein), when the voice of truth always
rules in it; the soul, when it strives against all the charms of the senses;
and, lastly, the body, when it is not abused as the instrument of shameful
actions.
Ver. 24. Paul knows that he does not implore God in vain. For God is
faithful; He keeps what He promises; if He has called the Thessalonians
to a participation in His kingdom, He will preserve them pure and fault-
less even to its commencement.--10TÓs] comp. 2 Thess. iii. 3; 1 Cor. i. 9,
x. 13. TÒ TOTÒG ávti toï áhnuns, Theodoret.—ó kahūv úmãs] not equivalent
to ó kahéoas úpās (Koppe and others), but the present participle used as a
substantive, and therefore without regard to time: Your Caller. See
Winer, p. 331 [E. T. 353].—Ô5 kaì Toljoel] who also will perform it, sc. Tò
αμέμπτως υμάς τηρηθήναι.
Vv. 25–27. Concluding exhortations of the Epistle.
Ver. 25. Comp. Rom. xv. 30; Eph. vi. 19; Col. iv. 3 ; 2 Thess. iii. 1.-
Tepi ujuāv] for us, namely, that our apostolic work may be successful.
Ver. 26. 'Aoráðaoge Tous édehooùs távras] That here individuals” are
exhorted to salute the other members of the church, whilst in the parallel
passages, Ron. xvi. 16, 1 Cor. xvi. 20, 2 Cor. xiii. 12, it is korácardɛ aran-
hous, is a proof that this Epistle was to be received by the rulers of the
church. (So also Phil. iv. 21.) By them it was to be read to the
assembled church (ver. 27). Erroneously, because in contradiction with
the entire character of the Epistle, Schrader infers from tows åsɛapows
trávras that “the writer of the Epistle wished to impart to it a general des-
tination.”—ÉV olañuatı dyiw] with a holy kiss. Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor.
xiii. 12; Rom. xvi. 16; also 1 Pet. v. 14 (píanua' ảyárons); Constit. ap. ii. 57
(TÒ Év kvpiw píanua); Tertullian, de orat. 14 (osculum pacis). The brotherly
kiss, the usual salutation of Christians, proceeded from the custom of
antiquity, particularly in the East, to unite a salutation with a kiss. But
Paul calls it äylov, as a symbol of the holy Christian fellowship. In the
Greek church it is still used at Easter.
1 According to Schrader, ver. 23 contains an
un-Pauline thought, because when Paul dis-
tinguishes the yuxń from the spirit, the latter
is considered as something “divine," as
“unutterably good," as "eternally opposed to
every perversity.” Paul, accordingly, could
not have assumed, “besides the soul in man,
a mutable spirit which must be preserved from
blemish." But the discourse is not of the holy
Divine Spirit which rules in man, but of a part
of man, himself, of the vous; but the volls may
fall into patalórns (Eph. iv. 17), may be adókiuos
(Rom. i. 28), Melleaguévos (Tit. i. 15), katedBap-
révos (2 Tim. iii. 8), etc.
2 Contrary to the sense, Hofmann. whom
Riggenbach follows, makes the whole church,
CHAP. V. 24–28.
559
Ver. 27. This command has not its reason in any distrust of the rulers
of the church; nor, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact think,
in the yearning love of the apostle, who, in compensation of his bodily
absence, wished this letter read to all; nor, as Hofmann supposes, in the
anxiety of the apostle lest they should not properly value a mere epistle
which he sent, instead of coming in person to Thessalonica: but simply
because Paul regarded the contents of his Epistle of importance for all
without exception. How, moreover, Schrader can infer from ver. 27 that
the composition of the Epistle belongs to a time when already a clerus
presided in the churches, surpasses comprehension. Completely ground-
less and untenable is also Baur's opinion (p. 491), that “the admonition
so emphatically given in 1 Thess. v. 27 was written from the opinions of
a time which no longer saw in the apostolic Epistles the natural means of
spiritual communication, but regarded them as sacred objects, to which
due reverence was to be shown by making their contents known as accu-
rately as possible, particularly by public reading. How could the apostle
himself have judged it necessary so solemnly to adjure the churches, to
which his Epistles were directed, not to leave them unread ? An author
could only say this who did not write from the natural pressure of exist-
ing circumstances, but in writing placed himself in an imagined situation,
and sought to vindicate for his pretended apostolic Epistle the considera-
tion which the apostolic Epistles received in the practice of a later age.”
But does the author adjure the church to leave his Epistle not unread ?
What a mighty difference is there between such a command and his
urgent desire that the contents of the Epistle should be maile known to all
the members of the church! If the former were objectionable, the latter
is natural and unobjectionable. And further, how is it possible that ver.
27 is the reflex of a time in which the apostolic Epistles were valued as
sacred objects, and to which due honor must be paid by public reading,
since évayvwcdñval is in the corist, and accordingly a single and exclusive
act of reading is referred to! And what a wrong method would the post-
apostolic author have employed to secure for his letter the consideration
of an apostolic Epistle, when he did not select the infinitive of the present,
and did not fail to add Trãolv ! ÒV kúpcov] Comp. Mark v. 7: Acts xix. 13;
LXX. Gen. xxiv. 3.—åvayvwoonvai] that it be read to (Luke iv. 16; 2 Cor.
iii. 15; Col. iv. 16), not that it be read by. Incorrectly also Michaelis,
appealing to 2 Thess. ii. 2 (!): there is here intended the recognition of the
Epistle as a genuine Pauline Epistle, by means of a conclusion added by
his own hand.---TV ÉTTLOTOhýv] comp. Rom. xvi. 22; Col. iv. 16.—TrãoIV Tos
ådenpois] to the whole of the brethren, sc. in Thessalonica; not also in all
Macedonia (Bengel, Flatt); still less also in neighboring Asia (Grotius), or
even the churches of all Christendom (Seb. Schmid).
Ver. 28. Paul concludes with the usual benediction.-- zápis toũ kuplov
ņu. 'I. Xp.] See Meyer on Gal. i. 6.---Let' imūv] sc. εin.,
the ádeidoi Távtes, be addressed in dotá
caobe; thus the church is to salute itself.
See Matthiae, p. 756. On the Greek idiom
évoprisw, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. P. 360 ff.
:560
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR.
LYI. Vv. 1–11.
(a) These verses are evidently connected with iv. 13-18, but they form a new
paragraph, and, as they move forward, the thought turns more and more away
from the direct line of the former passage, and towards exhortation to that moral
life which is in accordance with their eternal hopes.—(6) The words xpóvol kai kalpoi
(ver. 1) are the same with those found in Acts i. 7, where Jesus declares that the
time of the end is reserved by God the Father within His own knowledge. They
have, doubtless, a similar reference here. Two points may here be noticed: (1)
that, in iv. 13-18, not the time, but only certain circumstances connected
with the Parousia, are set forth; and (2) that in this passage, not the time, but
the suddenness of the coming of the day, is mentioned. The reason why they did
not need to have him write to them on this matter of the time, was not because
they already knew it, but because they knew that, when it should come, the day
would come as a thief in the night. The suggestions and exhortations which
follow, however, seem to imply that both he and they looked for it as near at hand,
though uncertain as to its exact date.-(c) Ver. 3 stands in a causal relation to
ver. 2, explaining and justifying the expression as a thief in the night. It is intro-
duced, however, abruptly and without any causal particle. yáp of T. R. is
undoubtedly to be rejected.-(d) The word GKÓTEL (ver. 4) is a transitional word
in the development of the thought of the passage. Its connection with what goes
before seems to be this:-—that they are not in that darkness of the night season,
when the thief surprises the sleeper. The connection with what follows is in the
figurative use of darkness as applied to the evil moral condition. The full
meaning of ouk ŠOTÈ ÉV okótel is, therefore: you are not in that evil moral condi-
tion in which the day can come upon you with terrible surprise. The positive
side of this idea is then presented in ver. 5, with a repeated setting forth of the
negative also—ťouév being in the latter substituted for šote of the former, and
thus including with the readers the Apostle himself. By this means, the hortatory
verses 6 ff. are easily introduced.-(e) The turn of the thought to the new figure
of armor belongs to the hortatory part of the passage, but the limitation to the
breastplate and helmet (i. e. defensive armor) is probably connected with the idea
of guarding against sudden surprise, and of watching.-(f) The only two places
in the N. T. where the word Tepikebahala is used are ver. 8 and Eph. vi. 17. In
the latter verse, the helmet is spoken of as salvation; here, as the hope of salva-
tion. The expression here used seems to be the more exact one.--(9) The refer-
ence of γρηγορώμεν and καθεύδωμεν, of ver. 10, to life and death is undoubtedly
correct. Whether the words are intended simply to express an idea similar to
that of Rom. xiv. 8—that we may be the Lord's, whether we live or die; or
whether the reference is to the day of the Lord—that, whether we are among the
living or the dead at that time, we may thereafter live with Him, is somewhat
doubtful. It does not appear necessary to understand the words in the latter way.
That view is favored, however, by the prominence in the passage of the day of
the Lord ; by the correspondence of ζήσωμεν συν αυτώ, with εσόμεθα συν αυτώ of
iv. 17; and perhaps by the use of äua, in both verses, in the sense of “all together.”
This sense of äpa seems probable in v. 10, but somewhat more doubtful in iv. 17.
-(h) If Tapakaheīte is taken as meaning comfort (as Lünem. takes it), this word
· NOTES.
561
.
would favor the understanding of the 10th verse as referring to the time of the
Parousia. This sense of the verb gives an appropriate close to the whole passage
iv. 13-v. 11, and, as it corresponds with the meaning in iv. 18, it is quite prob-
ably to be adopted.
LVII. Vv. 12–24.
.
(a) The miscellaneous exhortations which are now introduced and with which
the Epistle closes are, like all that precedes, of a character adapted to a friendly
letter and to a church in its earliest history. The exhortations are also, as we
might naturally anticipate in such a letter, given very briefly. In connection with
them we may observe: (1) That they move in the first section, vv. 12–15, in a
natural order,—to esteem and love their church leaders and teachers; to be at
peace among themselves; in order to this end, to treat each class according to their
needs; to have no spirit of revenge, but seek moral good for all. (2) That the
second section (vv. 16–18) corresponds with Phil. iv. 4,6. The earliest exhorta-
tion addressed to the churches by the Apostle was, thus, the same with the latest-
to rejoice always, to pray always, to give thanks always and in everything. (3)
That the third section (vv. 19-22) opens with an apparent reference to the remark-
able spiritual gifts (comp. 1 Cor. xiv.), but closes with what is more general—the
transition being possibly through trávra dorciuáÇETE, T. Kah. KaTÉX. which may take
hold upon both what precedes and what follows.—(6) Eidovs (ver. 22) undoubtedly
means form, not appearance, and the latter meaning should hardly have been recog-
nized in the margin of R. V. The points mentioned by Lünem. are decisive with
respect to this word.—(c) The allusion to the Parousia in ver. 23—in the closing
prayer of the Epistle, and almost its closing sentence is very striking, in connec-
tion with what has been already noticed in earlier parts of the letter, as showing
how prominent this subject was in the thoughts of the readers and the writer at
this time. It was the subject which, as a matter of inquiry and discussion, most
interested the mind of the church.
THE
SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
INTRODUCTION.
SEC. 1.–OCCASION, DESIGN, CONTENTS.
JAUL, after having sent away his first Epistle, received fur-
ther information concerning the state of the Thessalonian
church. The church had actively progressed on the path
of Christianity; their faith had been confirmed; their
brotherly love had gained in extent and intensity; and their
enduring stedfastness under persecution, which had broken out
afresh, had been anew gloriously displayed (i. 3, 4). But along
with this the thought of the advent had given rise to new
disquietude and perplexity. The question concerning this Christian
article of faith had advanced another stage. The former anxiety concern-
ing the fate of their Christian friends who were already asleep at the time
of the commencement of the advent had disappeared; on this point the
instructions of the apostle had imparted complete consolation. But the
opinion now prevailed, that the advent of the Lord was immediately at
hand, that it might daily, hourly be expected. Accordingly, on the one
hand fear and consternation, and on the other hand an impatient and
fanatical longing for the instant when by the coming of the Lord the
kingdom of God would be completed, had taken possession of their spirits;
and it was no wonder that in consequence of this the unsteadiness and
excitement, which at an earlier period had afflicted the church, and its
result, the neglect of their worldly business, had increased to an alarming
extent. This opinion, that the commencement of the advent was close
at hand, had seized upon them the more readily, as men had arisen
among them who maintained that they had received divine revelations
concerning it, and they had even proceeded so far as to forge an epistle in
the name of the apostle, in order by its contents to establish the truth of
that doctrine (ii. 2). An appeal was also made to the alleged oral state-
563
564
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
ment of the apostle (ii. 2), and it is not inconceivable that even the expla-
nations which the genuine Epistle of the apostle contained concerning the
advent may have promoted that view. It is true that there nothing is
expressly said concerning the immediateness of the advent, but on the
one hand it is described as sudden and unexpected (1 Thess. v. 2, 4), and
on the other hand it is so characterized as if Paul himself, and his con-
temporaries, might hope still to survive (1 Thess. iv. 15, 17).
Such was the state of matters which gave occasion for the composition
of the second Epistle. Its design is threefold. First, The apostle wished
--and this is the chief point-to oppose the disturbing and exciting error
as if the advent of Christ was even at the door, by further instructions.
Secondly, He wished strongly and emphatically to dissuade from that
unsettled, disorderly, and idle disposition into which the church had
fallen. Thirilly, He wished by a laudatory recognition of their progres-
sive goodness to encourage them to stedfast perseverance.
The Epistle is divided, according to its contents, after a salutation (i. 1,2)
and introduction (i. 3-12), into a dogmatic (ii. 1-12) and a hortative por-
tion (ii. 13-iii. 15). In the introduction the apostle thanks God for the
great increase of the church in faith and love, praises their endurance
under fresh persecutions, comforts them with the recompense to be
expected at the coming of Christ, and testifies that the progress and com-
pletion of the Thessalonians in Christianity was the constant object of
his prayer. In the dogmatic portion, for the refutation of the fancy that
the day of the Lord already dawns, the apostle directs attention to the
historical pre-conditions of its commencement. Christ cannot return
until the power of evil, which certainly already begins to develop itself,
is consolidated and has attained to its maximum by the appearance of
Antichrist. Lastly, In the hortative portion Paul exhorts his readers to
hold fast to the Christianity delivered to them (ii. 13-17), claims their
prayers for his apostolic work (iii. 1 ff.), earnestly and decidedly warns
them against unsteadiness and idleness (iii. 6–15), and then the Epistle is
closed with a salutation by his own hand, and a twofold benediction (iii.
16–18).
SEC. 2.-TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION.
Interpreters and chronologists agree that this so-called Second Epistle
was composed shortly after the First, with the exceptions of Grotius,
Ewald (Jahrb. d. bibl. Wissenschaft. Gött. 1851, p. 250; Die Sendschreiben des
Ap. Paulus, Gött. 1857, p. 17; Geschichte des apost. Zeitalters, Gött. 1858, p.
455; Jahrb. d. bibl. Wiss., Gött. 1860, p. 241), Baur (Theol. Jahrb., Tüb.
INTRODUCTION.
565
an
LI
1855, 2, p. 165), Laurent (Theol. Stud. 26. Krit. 1864, 3, p. 497 ff.; Neutest.
Stud., Gotha 1866, p. 49 ff.), A. B. van der Vriess (De beide brieven aan de
Thessalonicensen, historisch-kritisch onderzoek naar hunnen vorsprung, Leyden,
1865), and Davidson (An introduction to the study of the New Testament, .
London, 1868, vol. I. p. 30 ff.), who hold that the Second Epistle was the
first composed. This view has nothing for it, but much against it. Grotius
relies chiefly on the following reason : that in iii. 17 a mark is given by
which the genuineness of the Epistles of Paul may be recognized, but
such a mark belongs properly to the first Epistle, not to a second ; and
that ii. 1-12 is to be referred to the Emperor Caius Caligula. But there
is not the slightest reason for the reference of ii. 1-12 to Caligula (see on
passage), entirely apart from the fact that on such an assumption, as
Caligula was already dead in the beginning of the year 41 after Christ, the
Epistlę must have been composed more than ten years before Paul,
according to the narrative of the Acts, arrived at Thessalonica! The
mark of authenticity in 2 Thess. iii. 17 was not required until, as we learn
from ii. 2, attempts had occurred to forge epistles in the name of the
apostle. According to Ewald, the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
was placed after the First “on account of its brevity.” He thinks that it
is manifestly a first Epistle written to a church which Paul had shortly
before founded. It has indeed been attempted to show that, according to
ii. 2, Paul had previously written an epistle to the church; but this
might easily have been possible in the number of letters which the apos-
tle had indisputably already then written ; on the other hand, however,
Paul for the first time directs them in this Epistle to give heed to his act-
ually genuine letters to them as to his living word (ii. 15, iii. 17). Further,
with regard to the advent, the error as if it were close at hand-and this,
according to the existing state of matters and of doctrine generally,
would be the first error which would have arisen-had then broken
out in the church, which was the chief occasion of this Epistle. The
very correction of it might easily have given rise to a second error, that
the fate of the many who had died previously. was sad, which the fol-
lowing Epistle corrects (1 Thess. iv. 13 ff.). Also it would not at that
time have been necessary to send Timotheus to the church, in order to
1 Baur has not entered upon the reasons of
his subsequent opinion. He judged differ-
ently in his Paulus der Ap. Jesu Christi, p.
488. He only remarks that there is no
difficulty (1) in considering those passages in
which the Second Epistle is regarded as
dependent on the First, as marks of an oppo-
site relationship. Laurent in all essentials
agrees with Ewald. The peculiarity of his
view is so manifestly erroneous, that it does
not need a special refutation.
566
THE SECOND. EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
.correct the increasing disorders within it; this would only happen in the
interval between this and the larger Epistle, which might be about four
or six months. Lastly, 1 Thess. iv. 10, 11 contains a reference to 2 Thess.
iii. 6-11. Accordingly Ewald makes the Second Epistle to the Thessalo-
nians to have been composed during the residence of Paul at Berea, suc-
ceeding his residence at Thessalonica.
But that in the smaller compass of the Second Epistle a definite reason
is to be sought for its position after the First, is historically completely
undemonstrable, and not even probable, because—just as with the Second
Epistle to the Corinthians--the internal relation of the lesser Epistle to
the greater necessarily required that position. Ewald's assertion, that our
Second Epistle manifestly declares itself to be a first Epistle written by
Paul to a church recently founded, is thoroughly erroneous. On the con-
trary, our Second Epistle undoubtedly and evidently refers back to the
First, serves for its completion, and makes known a progress from an
earlier condition to one partially more advanced. If the First Epistle
describes the eager desire of salvation with which the Thessalonians
received the publication of the gospel, and dwells in vivid and detailed
recollection of the facts of their conversion belonging to the immediate
past,-contents which are suitable only for the Epistle composed first
according to time; in the Second Epistle, i. 3 ff., mention is made of a
blessed progress in their Christian life. If in the First Epistle the proc-
imity of the advent is presupposed without anticipation of a possible mis-
understanding, in the Second Epistle the correction and the further
explanation in respect of this truth was necessary, namely, that the
advent was not to be expected in the immediate present. So also the
exhortation to a quiet and industrious life, which was already contained
in the First Epistle, was more strongly and categorically expressed in the
Second. Add to this, that the words kaì 1juāv ért lovvaywyñs ém' avt6v, 2 Thess.
ii. 1, are apparently to be referred to 1 Thess. iv. 17; whereas to obtain,
with Ewald, a reference in 1 Thess. iv. 10, 11, to 2 Thess. iii. 6–16, you
must first have recourse to an ungrammatical and in the highest degree
unnatural construction (see commentary on 1 Thess. iv. 10, p. 119).
1 Otherwise Baur. According to him, the
larger Epistle was not written shortly after
the lesser. On the supposition of the authen-
ticity of the Epistle, taking into consider-
ation the church of Thessalonica scarcely
founded, and the Epistle of the apostle
written only a few months after its founding,
how many KEKOLMnuévous—already deceased
members of the church—could there be ?
The question as regards the deceased Chris-
tians was naturally only then () an object of
lively interest the greater the number of the
dead, perhaps after a whole generation had
passed away from the midst of Christendom.
INTRODUCTION.
,
567
Lastly, over and above, it'follows from ii. 15 that Paul before our Second
Epistle had already sent another letter to the Thessalonians; and thus to
maintain that the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians manifestly shows
itself as a first epistle of Paul to a church recently founded, is in contra-
diction with the apostle's own testimony. To explain the epistle to the
Thessalonians preceding our Second Epistle as not identical with our First
Epistle, but as having been lost, would be in the controverted circum-
stances of the case a mere shift justified by nothing. Moreover, it is not
even correct that the apostle in 2 Thess. ii. 15 " for the first time directed
the church to give heed to his genuine letters written to them as to his
living word.” For only the exhortation is there given to hold fast the
instructions in Christianity, which Paul had already at an earlier period
given to his readers both orally and in an epistle. A direction how to
recognize the genuineness of epistles written at a later period to the
Thessalonians only follows from iii. 17. But this notice has in the fact
recorded in 2 Thess. ii. 2 its sufficient explanation. Further, as regards
the eschatological explanations in both Epistles, the possibility of such a
development as Ewald assumes is not to be denied, but its necessity is by
no means to be proved. The actual fact that individual instances of
death-for there is no mention " of many dying before the advent”-had
occurred within the church might very well form the point of departure
for the eschatological discussions of the apostle; and then to it the refu-
tation of the error, that the advent was in the immediate present, might
be added, as the later form of error, especially as the apostle's own expres-
sions in 1 Thess. v. 2, 3 were so framed that they might have contributed to
the origin of that error. Lastly, “increasing disorders” within the church
are by no means supposed in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians.
Timotheus was not sent to Thessalonica "to correct increasing disorders,"
but to exhort the Thessalonians to stedfastness in persecution. Comp. 1
Thess. iii. 1 ff. But even supposing that the "correction of increasing
disorders” was the reason for the mission of Timotheus, yet nothing can
be inferred from this regarding the priority of the one Epistle to the
other. For with the same truth with which it might be said it was not yet
necessary to send Timotheus to the church, it might be affirmed that it
was no longer necessary to send him thither.
The following reasons prove that the Second Epistle was composed not
long after the sending away of the First. Silas and Timotheus are still in
the company of the apostle (i. 1), but the Acts of the Apostles at least
never inform us that after Paul left Corinth (Acts xviii. 18) these two
.
worlds
568
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
apostolic assistants were again together with him. We find Timotheus
again in the apostle's company, first at Ephesus (Acts xix. 22); whilst
Corinthian residence. Besides, the relations and wants of the church are
throughout analogous to those which are presupposed in the First Epistle.
The same circle of thought occupies the apostle; similar instructions;
similar praises, similar exhortations, warnings, and wishes are found
throughout in both Epistles. It is accordingly to be assumed that also
the Second Epistle was composed during the first residence of the apostle at
Corinth, but, according to iii. 2, at a time when he had already suffered
hostility on the part of the Jews, and, according to i. 4 (rais šikanoiais,
comp. 1 Cor. i. 2;1 2 Cor. ii. 1; Rom. xvi. 1), when branch churches had
already been founded from Corinth-probably at the commencement of
the year 54.
SEC. 3.-GENUINENESS.
With respect to the external attestation of Christian antiquity, the
authenticity of the Epistle is completely unassailable. Polyc. ad Phil. 11
fin.; Just. Mart. dial. C. Tryph. Col. 1686, p. 336 E, p. 250 A ; Iren. adv.
Haer. iii. 7. 2;. Clem. Alex. Strom. v. p. 554, ed. Sylb.; Tertull. de resurr.
carn. c. xxiv.; Can. Murat., Peschito, Marcion, etc. Doubts from internal
grounds did not arise until the beginning of the nineteenth century. The
f. Kritik und Exegese des N. T., Hadamar 1801, vol. II. p. 380 ff., he con-
tests the genuineness of 2 Thess. ii. 1-12, and then in his Einleit in’s N. T.,
Giess. 1804, Part 2, p. 256 f., he proceeds to call in question the authenti-
city of the whole Epistle. De Wette, in the earlier éditions of his Intro-
duction to the New Testament, assented to the adduced objections; but
latterly, in the first edition of his Commentary to the Thessalonian Epis-
tles, in the year 1841, and in the fourth edition of his Introduction to the
New Testament (1842), he withdrew them. See against these objections,
Heydenreich in the Neuen krit. Journal der theol. Literatur, by Winer and
TO
1 The words oùy mãowy toes &Trikadovuévous
K.7.1., 1 Cor. i. 2, I take as a continuation of
the address of the Epistle, avrôY te kai nuwe
as dependent on εν παντί τόπω, ιnd εν παντί
TÓW as closely connected with Toû kupiou
juewv 'Inooû Xp., "Jesus Christ who is our (sc.
Christians') Lord in every place, both in theirs
and ours." Only with this explanation,
which is in itself so simple and unforced that
1)
it is marvellous that it is not to be found in
any interpretation—the addition, otherwise
entirely inexplicable, év tavri TÓTW, aitwy
τε και ήμών, receives its full import and pro-
priety, whilst the words obtain a suitable
reference to the Corinthian factions, by
means of which Christ, who is everywhere
the only and the same Lord of Christianity,
is divided; comp. 1 Cor. i. 13.
INTRODUCTION.
569
Engelhardt, Sulzb. 1828, vol. viii. p. 129 ff.; Guerike, Beitr. zur historisch
kcrit. Einl. in's N. T., Halle 1828, p. 92 ff. ; Hemsen, der Ap. Paulus, Gött.
1830, p. 175. ff.; and especially Reiche, authentiae posterioris ad Thess.
epistolae vindiciae, Gött. 1829.
The following reasons are chiefly insisted on :-1. The Second Epistle
contradicts the First, inasmuch as it disputes the opinion of the nearness
of the advent which is presupposed in the First Epistle. But the Second
Epistle does not dispute that opinion,-it rather presupposes it --whilst
only the view of the directly immediate nearness of the advent is contested
as erroneous. 2. When the author lays down, in iii. 17, a mark of authen-
ticity for the Pauline Epistles in general, which yet is found neither in
the First Epistle to the Thessalonians nor elsewhere, he seems thereby to
wish to cast suspicions on the First Epistle as un-Pauline. But it is
entirely a mistake to find in iii. 17 a mark which Paul would affix to all
his Epistles generally; the meaning of these words can only be, that in all
those epistles which he would afterwards write to the Thessalonians he
would add a salutation by his own hand as an attestation of genuineness.
3. The doctrine of Antichrist, ii. 3 ff., is un-Pauline; it points to a Mon-
tanist, as the author. But this idea is by no means peculiar to the Mon-
tanists. It has its root already in Jewish Christology (see Bertholdt,
christologia Judaeorum Jesu apostolorumque aetate, p. 69 ff. ; Gesenius in
Ersch and Gruber's allg. Encyclop. vol. iv. p. 292 ff.), and is elsewhere not
foreign to the N. T.; 'comp. 1 John ii. 18, 22, iv. 3; 2 John 7; Rev. xii. 13.
Accordingly we are not entitled, because this view does not occur else-
where with Paul, to maintain that it is un-Pauline, the less so as it neither
contradicts the other statements of the apostle concerning the advent, nor
did an occasion occur to Paul in his other Epistles, as in this, to describe
it more minutely. 4. The Epistle is defective in peculiar historical refer-
ences. But, according to sections 1, 2, the state of matters which the
Second Epistle supposes was throughout a more developed state, and con-
sequently, of course, a peculiar one. 5. The author carefully seeks to
represent himself as the Apostle Paul. But the personal references which
are contained in the Second Epistle do not make this impression, as they
are analogous to those in the First Epistle, and the words, ii. 2, 15, iii. 17,
are fully explained by the actual abuse which occurred of the apostle's
name.
In more recent times the authenticity of the Epistle has again been
disputed, first by Schrader in scattered remarks in his paraphrase to the
Epistle (see the exposition), then by Kern in the Tübing. Zeitschr. f. Theol.
570
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
1829, Part 2, p. 145 ff.; further, by Baur in his Paulus der Ap. Jesus
Christi, Stuttg. 1845, p. 480 ff., and in his and Zeller's Theol. Jahrbücher,
1855, Part 2, p. 141 ff.; likewise by Hilgenfeld in his Ztschr. fur wiss.
Theol., 5th year, Halle 1862, p. 242 ff., also 1866, p. 299 ff., as well as
in his Einleitung in das N. Test. Leipzig. 1875, p. 642 ff.; by van der
Vries, 1.c.; and lastly, by W. C. van Manen, Onderzoek naar de echtheid
van Paulus' tweeden brief aan de Thessalonicensen (De echtheid van Paulus'
brieven aan de Thess. onderzocht, II.), Utrecht 1865, whose chief argument,
however, that the opinion contested in 2 Thess. ii. 2, namely, that the
advent was to be expected in the immediate present, was the opinion of the
Apostle Paul himself, evidently rests on an error.' Against Kern, see
Pelt in the Theolog. Mitarbeiten, 4th year, Kiel 1841, Part 2, p. 74
ff.; against Baur, in the place first mentioned, see Wilibald Grimm in
the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1850, Part 4, p. 780 ff.; J. P. Lange, das apost.
Zeital. vol. i., Braunschw. 1853, p. 111 ff.
The reasons on which Kern relies are the following: -
1. From the section 2 Thess. ii. 1-12 it follows that the Epistle could
not have been composed until after the death of Paul. For even if it be
not granted, what yet is most probable, that Paul perished in the Neronian
persecution, during the imprisonment recorded in the Acts, in the year
64,-even if a second Roman imprisonment be maintained, -yet all the
traditions of antiquity agree on this point, that Paul suffered martyrdom
under Nero (p. 207). But the author of the Epistle makes his announce-
ment of Antichrist and its adjuncts from the state of the world as it was
immediately after the overthrow of Nero, when Nero was believed to be still
alive, and a speedy return of him to the throne was expected, and that
from the East, or more precisely from Jerusalem (Tacit. Hist. ii. 8; Sueton.
Nero, c. 57, compared with c. 40). The Antichrist whose appearance is
described as impending, is Nero ; that which withholdeth him are the
existing circumstances of the world; the withholder is Vespasian with his
son Titus, who then besieged Jerusalem; and what is said of the apostasy
is a reflection of the horrid wickedness which broke out among the Jewish
people in their war against the Romans (p. 200). Accordingly the Epistle
could not have been composed about the year 53 or 54, but only between
the years 68–70 (p. 270). Moreover, Kern thinks that “the Epistle might
1 Also Weiss (Philosophische Dogmatik oder
Philosophie des Christenthums, vol. I., Leipz.
1855, p. 146) has declared that the Second
Epistle to the Thessalonians, with perhaps
the exception of the conclusion, is through-
out "unapostolic in its verbal construction,"
without, however, entering into a justification
of this judgment.
INTRODUCTION.
571
be called Pauline in the wider sense”—that a Paulinist was its author.
For in general the Epistle agrees with the Pauline mode of thought. A
Paulinist, affected with a view of the present, that is, of the circumstances
of the times between the years 68–70, saw in spirit the apocalyptic picture
which he describes in ii. 1-12. In order to impart it to his Christian
brethren, he has drawn it up in a letter to which he has given the form
of a Pauline Epistle. As the already existing Epistle to the Thessalonians
was of such a nature that to carry out that purpose a second could be
attached to it, the author of the second Epistle has presupposed the first.
He has surrounded his apocalyptic picture, ii. 1-12, the proper germ of
the whole, with a border which he has formed from what he has sketched
from the genuine Pauline Epistle, so that he has made the first part serve
as an introduction to the section chiefly intended by him (ii. 1-12), and
the second part as a continuation of his thoughts passing over into the
hortative (ii. p. 214).
This view of Kern, which is certainly carried out with acuteness, falls
into pieces of itself, as it proceeds on an entirely mistaken interpretation
of ii. 1-12. It is entirely erroneous to seek the Antichrist, who belongs to
the purely religious sphere, in the political-among the number of the
Roman emperors. Accordingly ii. 1-12 contains nothing which in any
way transcended the circle of the Apostle Paul's vision (see the interpre-
tation).
The additional arguments, which Kern insists on as marks of the
spuriousness of the Epistle, are sought by him only in consequence of the
result which to him followed from the passage ii. 1-12; they would even
to himself, were it not for that first argument, have been of hardly any
weight. They are the following:
2. The suspicion resulting from 2 Thess. iii. 17, as if by the addition of
Ő ÉOTL on feīov a safer reception was designed to be procured for the spurious
Epistle, arises from the fact that Paul could not possibly have appealed
to tãoav ÉTLOTO.hu, especially if we consider the Second Epistle to the
Thessalonians as one of the earliest of his Epistles. But we have already
adverted to the correct meaning of tv ráon ÉTlotoàñ and the addition ở
Łoti onuecov is, moreover, sufficiently occasioned by the notice in ii. 2,
which Kern, without right, denies, understanding the ÉnloTOR) US di nuôv,
ii. 2, entirely arbitrarily, not of a forged epistle, but of the First Epistle of
Paul to the Thessalonians, which was only falsely interpreted.
3. The Second Epistle betrays an intentional imitation of the First.
The whole first chapter of the Second Epistle rests on the groundwork of
}
572
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
the First Epistle; its beginning corresponds to the beginning of the First
Epistle; what is said concerning the Olimpus for the sake of the gospel, has
many parallels in 1 Thess. ii. and iü.; ver. 6 ff. entirely depends on 1
Thess. iv. 13 ff. (!); lastly, vv. 11, 12 are similar to 1 Thess. iii. 12 f., v. 23
ff. Also what follows the section ii. 1–12 (which is peculiar to the Second
Epistle) is also dependent on the First Epistle. Thus ii. 13–17 is depend-
ent on 1 Thess. i. 4, 5, iii. 11 ff. The address : áde poè nyatnuévol ÜTÒ
kupiov, ver. 13, is borrowed from 1 Thess. i. 4. Further, 2 Thess. iii. 1, 2 is an
extension of 1 Thess. v. 25, but where in ver. 2 an additional clause is
added, which neither as regards ένα ρυσθώμεν κ.τ.λ., nor as regards ου γαρ
Trávtwv niotis, can properly be explained from the condition which Paul
was supposed at that time to be in, when he was thought to have written
the second Epistle soon after the first (!). Vv. 3-5 point back to 1 Thess.
v. 24, iii. 11–13; vv. 6–12 rest entirely on 1 Thess. ii. 6–12, iv. 11, 12, v. 14;
and ver. 16 is borrowed from 1 Thess. v. 23. However, on a more exact
examination, a great diversity will be seen in many of those compared
passages; and the resemblance and similarity remaining—which, more-
over, is not greater than that between the Epistles to the Colossians and
Ephesians, and between many passages in the Epistles to the Galatians
and the Romans-has its complete explanation in the analogous circum-
stances of the church which occasioned both Epistles, and in the short
interval which intervened between their composition.
4. Lastly, much that is un-Pauline is seen in the Epistle. To this
belongs eixaploteīv ópeiſojev, i. 3, which is repeated in ii. 13, and in the
first passage, moreover, is the more prominently brought forward by
kaðùs åčióv éOTIV; whilst Paul elsewhere, out of the fullness of his Christian
consciousness, simply says: “We thank God.” Directly following it
ÚTepavçável Tiotis úpā is surprising, which does not rightly agree with 1
Thess. iii. 10 (kataprioal Tà jotephuata tñs Triotews); and évòs ÉKÁOTOV TÁVTWV
úpāv, which agrees not with what they are reminded of in the second
Epistle itself (iii. 11) (!). Ver. 6 reminds us not so much of Faul as of
Rev. vi. 9, 10. In ver. 10 the expression ÉLOTEÚ Un tò paprúplov ruār šm?
úpās is un-Pauline; in ver. 11 the phrase tãoa eúdoicía ảyadwotvns, and still
more špyov riotews, is remarkable. In the section ii. 1-12, kaì dià TOūTO,
which never elsewhere occurs, is placed instead of dià tonto, elsewhere
constantly used by Paul. In the same section, ver. 8, éttlpávela rñs tapov-
cías, and ver. 10, déxeodal tìv åyátny tñs åandelas, instead of the simple
dé xeobac Tòv abyov, Tìv árnoelav, are peculiar. The idea of election is
entirely Pauline, but it is never (?) otherwise expressed than by ékhoyń,
INTRODUCTION.
573
škréyodai; but in ii. 13 aipɛżobal is found for it. In chap. iii. 13, kahoroteīv,
not found elsewhere in the N. T., is a transformation of the Pauline tò
kahờv proteīv, Gal. vi. 9. Lastly, the addition dià rîs & LOTONñs; in ver. 14, is
remarkable, as it purposely directs attention to the present Epistle. But
these expressions partly have their analogies elsewhere with Paul, partly
they belong to those peculiarities which are found in every Pauline Epistle
blended with the general fundamental type of Pauline diction, which this
Epistle also possesses ; and lastly, partly they are deviations so unim-
portant, that the reproach of being un-Pauline can in no way be proved
by them.
Further, as regards Baur's objections to this Epistle, these, in the first-
mentioned place (Apostel Paulus), consist essentially only in a repetition
of those already made by Kern. Only the assertion (p. 487) is peculiar to
him, that the representation of Antichrist given in 2 Thess. ii. directly
conflicts with the expectation of the apostle in 1 Cor. xv. For in 1 Cor.
xv. 52 the apostle supposes that he himself will be alive at the advent,
and will be changed with the living. In 2 Thess. ii., on the contrary, it is
attempted by means of a certain theory to give the reason why the advent
cannot so soon take place. Christ, according to that passage, cannot
that continued which must precede the commencement of the last epoch.
How far is one thereby removed, not only beyond the standpoint, but
also beyond the time of the apostle!
The wantonness and superficiality of such an opinion is evident. Even
ÉVÉOTNK EV (ii. 2) suffices to show its worthlessness. For that by means of
this expression “the day of the Lord is only removed from the most
immediate present, but by no means from being near at hand; and that
accordingly he also could have thus expressed himself who expected the
day of the Lord as near, as very near, only not precisely as in the present,"
Baur, already from the treatise of Kern (p. 151), which he indeed else-
where so carefully follows, might have learned. Indeed, it inevitably
follows from the emphatic position of ÉvÉOTNKEV, that not only also he, but
rather only he, who considered the advent as near could thus express him-
self as to how it should take place. If the author had wished to refute
the error that the day of the Lord has dawned, whereas he himself con-
sidered the circumstances preceding it, instead of occurring in a short
space of time and rapidly succeeding one another, only developing themselves
in long periods, he would not have put the chief stress of the sentence on
ÉVÉOTNKEV, and would have required to have written ás őri ñ ñuépa toũ kuplov
574
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
ενέστηκεν instead of ώς ότι ενέστηκεν η ημέρα του κυρίου. And, only to men-
tion one other particular, might not one with the same argument of Baur
call in question the authenticity of the Epistle to the Romans ? For,
'according to the Romans, the return of Christ was not to be expected
until the completion of the kingdom of God, until all' Israel will be con-
verted (Rom. xi. 26); but all Israel cannot be converted until the fullness
of the Gentiles be come in (Rom. xi. 25). "How far is one thereby
removed, not only from the standpoint, but also from the time of the
apostle!”
Moreover, whilst Baur in the first-mentioned place (Apostel Paulus, p.
485), differing from Kern, had assumed that the representation of Anti-
christ given in 2 Thess. ii. rested entirely on Jewish ground, and contained
only a repetition of the thoughts which were already expressed in their
chief points, particularly according to the type of the prophecies of Daniel,
and that accordingly the author moved only in the sphere of Jewish
eschatology, and that even the Apostle Paul might have shared these
views; in the last-mentioned place (Baur and Zeller's Tüb. Jahrbüch. p.
151 ff.) he maintains, in agreement with Kern, that in the section 2 Thess. ii.
such a representation of Antichrist occurs as could only have been formed
on the soil of Christian ideas, and also on the ground of events which
belong to a later period than that of the Apostle Paul. According to
Baur's subsequent opinion, the author borrowed the colors for his picture
of Antichrist from the Apocalypse, and accordingly has imparted to the
image of Antichrist features which are evidently borrowed from the his-
tory and person of Nero. But to think of the dependence of the author
on the Apocalypse is so much the more erroneous, as the description in
the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, compared with that in the
Apocalypse, is one very simple and slightly developed. The Apocalypse,
therefore, can only have been written at a period later than the Second
Epistle to the Thessalonians. So also Baur's argument from 2 Thess. ii.
2 is destitute of any foundation. For it is manifestly an exegetical impos-
sibility to find, with Baur, in the expression eis to len taxéws całeviņval an
indication “ of an historical circumstance,” such as that which most
naturally presents itself, the “pseudo-Nero disturbances” mentioned by
Tacitus, Hist. ii. 8. For the author himself expressly tells us, by the three
clauses commencing with μήτε, by what this σαλευθήναι and θροείσθαι of the
readers was historically occasioned. Therefore no place remains in the
context for Such a historical reason of σαλευθήναι and θροείσθαι εις Baur
demands.
INTRODUCTION.
575
Kern and Biur. According to Hilgenfeld—who, however, holds fast to
the genuineness of the First Epistle-it was not composed until the time
of Trajan. The Epistle is a clear monument of the progress of the primi-
tive Christian eschatology at the beginning of the second century. But
his reasons for this view are extremely weak. · Exactly taken, they are
only the following :-(1) The first rise of the Gnostic heresies falls to the
time of Trajan; (2) The continued persecution mentioned in 2 Thess. i.
4 ff. suits the time of Trajan; (3) Also to this time the prophetical
announcement in 2 Thess. ii. 2, that the day of the Lord had already
commenced, agrees. But the opinion, that by the already working mys-
tery of iniquity, 2 Thess. ii. 7, the rise of the Gnostic heresies is meant, is
entirely untenable, as it has elsewhere no support in the Epistle; it is as
arbitrary as is the further assertion of Hilgenfeld, that the expression: ó
åvo pwmos tñs å paprias, 2 Thess. ii. 3, refers back to the blood-stained life of
additional arguments can only lay claim to respect, provided the new
outbreak of persecution presupposed in chap. i., and the opinion discussed
in chap. ii. 2, that the advent was in the immediate present, were not
sufficiently explicable from the natural development of the historical
situation of the First Epistle, or provided it could otherwise have been
proved that Paul could not be the author of the Epistle. But neither of
these is the case. Also the notion, preserved to us in Hippolytus, refut.
omn. haeres. ix. 13, p. 292, ix. 16, p. 296, that the Elxai-book, in the third
year of Trajan, proclaimed the eschatological catastrophe as occurring
after other three years of this emperor, is, in reference to ds @TL ÉVÉOTNKEV
şi nuépa toő kupiov, 2 Thess. ii. 2, wholly without value.
576
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Παύλου προς Θεσσαλονικείς επιστολή δευτέρα.
A B K *, Copt. 80, 87 have only: IIpòs Oegoalovikeis ß'. The simplest and
apparently oldest title.
CHAPTER I.
VER. 2. Elz. Tisch. 8, have ratpòs dināv. But nuôv is wanting in B D E, 17,
49, 71, al., Clar. Germ. Theophyl. Ambrosiast, ed. Pel. Bracketed by Lachm.
epistolary commencements of the apostle.--Ver. 4. Kavxã¢bal] So Elz. Griesb.
Matt. and Scholz, after D EK L, min. vers. But in the diversity of testimonies
(F G have kavxnoastal), šykavxão:gal, after A B X, 17 al., received by Lachm.
Tisch. 1, 2, Alford and Ellicott (in the 7th and 8th edd. Tisch. writes évkavxãojai),
merits the preference as the best accredited and the rarer form.-Ver. 8. Instead
of the Receptus rupi dhoyós (approved by Tisch. 2, 7 and 8, Bloomfield, Alford,
and Reiche), Scholz, Lachm., Tisch. 1 and Ellicott read proyà Tupóc. For the
latter overwhelming authorities decide (B D* E F G, 71, Syr, utr. Copt. Aeth.
Arm. Vulg. It. Sen. ap. Iren. Macar. Theodoret [in comm.), Theophyl. [in
comm.] Oec. Tert. Aug. Pel.).—'Ingow] Elz. Matth. Scholz read 'Inooù XPLOTOV.
Against B D EK L, min. plur. Copt. Aeth. Syr. p. Ar. pol. Theodoret, Damasc.
Theophyl, Oec. XPLOTOū is impugned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., and
rejected by Tischendorf, Alford and Ellicott.-Ver. 9. Instead of the Receptus
02€ pov, Lachm., after A, 17, 73, al., Slay. ms. Chrys. ms. Ephr. Tert., reads
Ólé U plov. But óhét plov is simply an error of the scribe, occasioned by the follow-
ing aióviov.-TOū of the Receptus before kupiov is wanting in D E F G, 3, 39, al.,
Chrys. (in textu) Theoph. It was absorbed in the last syllable of pooúTOV.
Ver. 10. évavuacuñvai, found in D* E* F G, instead of the Receptus Javao díval,
is an error of the scribe, occasioned by the two preceding and the following év.-
TLOTEUgaow] Elz. reads TTLOTEVOVOLV, against A B D E F Ggr. LX, 31, al., plur. edd.
Syr. p. Slav. Vulg. It. Sen. ap. Iren. Ephr. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Theoph. Oec.
Ambrosiast. Pel.-Ver. 12. TOŪ kvplov yuõv 'Incoū] Elz. Matth. have toŨ kuplov
nuāv 'Indoũ XPLOTOV. But XPLOTOW is wanting in B DE KLX, 37, al., plur. Copt.
Sahid. Aeth, Clar. Germ. Theodoret, ms. Oec. Doubted by Griesb., bracketed by .
Lachm., and rightly erased by Tisch., Alford and Ellicott.
Vy. 1, 2. Address and salutation. See on 1 Thess. i. 1.-STÒ DEOŐ matpòs
kai kupiov I. Xp.] from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ; not:
from God who is the Father and Lord of Jesus Christ. For, according to
the Pauline custom, the fullness of Christian blessings is derived in com-
mon from God and Christ. The absolute natpós (comp. Gal. i. 3; 1 Tim.
i. 2; 2 Tim. i. 2; Tit. i. 4) is equivalent to matpos nuôv, more frequently
used elsewhere in similar places; comp. Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 3; 2 Cor. i,
2; Eph. i. 2; Phil. i. 2; Col. i. 2; Philem. 3.
CHAP. I. 1-3.
577
Vv. 3-12. [On vv. 1-12, see Note LIV. pages 588-590.] Introduction of the
Epistle. Commendatory recognition of the progress of the church in faith
and love, as well as in the stedfastness which proved itself anew under
persecution (vv. 3, 4), a comforting and encouraging reference to the
recompense commencing at the advent of Christ (vv. 5–10), and an assur-
ance that the progress and completion of the Thessalonians in Christianity
was continually the subject of the apostle's prayer (vv. 11, 12).
Ver. 3. 'Opelhouev] namely, I Paul, together with Silvanus and Timo-
theus.-Kadàs åžióv ŁOTIV] as it is meet, as it is right and proper, is usually
considered as a mere parenthesis, resuming opelhouev, so that one is con-
sidered in the sense of that dependent on evxaplotaiv. However, as the
discourse afterwards follows quickly on 071, SO kadus åčióv XOTIV would sink
into a mere entirely meaningless interjection and parenthesis; but as
such, on account of the preceding ópelhouev, it would be aimless and super-
fluous. In direct contrast to this view, Schott places the chief emphasis
on καθώς άξιόν έστιν, which he rightly refers back to ευχαριστείν instead of
to opelhouev. According to Schott, kalós is designed to denote "modum
eximium, quo animus gratus declarari debeat," and the thought to be
expressed is "oportet nos deo gratias agere, quales conveniant praestantiae
beneficii, i. e. eximicis."! But neither can this interpretation be the correct
one. For (1) kavuç is never used as a statement of gradation ; (2) it is hardly
conceivable that Paul should have concentrated the emphasis of the sen-
tence on katws åčlóv oTLV. If he had wished to do so, he would at least
have written Evxaplotɛiv ópelhoulev TØ OeQ Tepi úuñv, kalinç å flóv šoTLV, but
would not have inserted πάντοτε and αδελφοί. Talking this insertion into
consideration, we are obliged to decide that after ådɛapoi a certain pause
in the discourse commences, so that Evxaplotiv . . . ådɛapoí is placed first
as an independent general expression, to which katws åčlóv éotiv is added
as a connecting clause, for the explanation and development of the pre-
ceding by what follows. But from this it follows that ötc belongs not to
evxaploteīv, but to kalùs àçlóvŁOTIV, and denotes not that, but because. The
meaning is: We ought to thank God always on your behalf, as it (sc. the
evxaploteīv) is right and proper, because, etc. As by this interpretation
kalùs à flóv ŁOTW is neither unduly brought forward nor unduly placed in
the shade, so also every appearance of pleonasm vanishes. For opelhouev
expresses the duty of thanksgiving from its subjective side, as an internal
conviction; kalòs åčióv éotiv, on the other hand, from the objective side, as
something answering to the state of circumstances, since it is meet, since
it is fit and proper, to give thanks to God for the divine proof of His
grace.Ürepavšávɛl] grows above measure, exceedingly. The compound
verb is an ätag heyóuevov in the N. T. But Paul loves such intensifying
compounds with útép. They are an involuntary expression of his over-
T
OVO
1 Comp. already Ambrosiaster: ut non qua-
lecumque esse debitum ostenderet, sicut dig.
num est, ait, ut pro tam infinito dono magnas
gratias referendas deo testarentur.-Oecume
nius: , öti onoi dikalov doti, vońcels' Ñ TÒ
deyálws ēšakovotéov, iva i veyádws katùs āšlov
Tŷ Meyada trapéxovtl.-Theophylact: i, oti kai
dià dóywy kai di' épywrº aüm yap asía eúxa.
plotia. Comp. also Erasmus' paraphrase, and
Fromond.
37
578
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
flowing feelings. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 351. Olshausen cer-
tainly represents it otherwise. He finds in the compound verb a forbear-
ing allusion to the fact that the Thessalonians were guilty of extravagance
in their religious zeal,--an allusion which, as at all events it would con-
tain a certain degree of irony, it is impossible to assume here, where Paul
speaks of the reasons of his thanksgiving to God. Such an interpretation
is not ingenious, as Baumgarten-Crusius judges, but meaningless.--ÉVÒS
εκάστου πάντων υμών] instead of the simple υμών, enmphatically strengthens
the praise bestowed. Fromond. : non tam totius ecclesiastici corporis, sed
uniuscujusque membri, quod mirum est et rarissimae laudis. But-Hof-
mann, in a strangely erroneous manner, thinks that Távtwv yuāv does not
depend on Évòs ékátov, but is in apposition to it.--eis árníhous] does not
belong to πλεονάζει. It is the further objective specification of αγάπη, εις ενός
ÉK, návr. üll. is the subjective. årañous denotes the fellow-Christians in
Thessalonica. Therefore erroneously, Pelt: Nec vero sine causa Paulus
tam multus est in commendanda eorum caritate in omnes effusa ; quum
enim sciret, quam facile tum temporis accideret, ut Christiani se invicem
diligerent, exteros vero aspernarentur, hac potissimum laude ad omnium
hominum amorem eos excitare studuit.?
Ver. 4. The progress of the Thessalonians in Christianity so rejoiced the
heart of the apostle, that he expresses this joy not only in thanksgiving
before God, but also in praises before men.—űOTE] refers back to Útep-
avžável . . . árannous.-juās autous]. This emphatic designation of the subject
might be thus explained, that otherwise such praise was not the usual
custom of the speakers, but that the glorious success of the gospel in
Thessalonica caused them to forget the usual limits of moderation and
reserve. This opinion is, however, to be rejected, because it would then
without any reason be supposed that Paul had inaccurately written ruās
avrovs (we ourselves) instead of avtoùs ruās (even we). It is therefore more
correct to see in nuas aurous, that although it was true that the praise of
the Thessalonians was already sufficiently spread abroad by others, yet
that they themselves, the writers of the Epistle, in the fullness of their joy.
could not forbear to glory in their spiritual offspring. A reference to 1
Thess. i. 8 (de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius) is not to be assumed. Schott
erroneously attempts to justify the emphasis on ruās avroús, by under-
standing the same of Paul only in contrast to Silvanus and Timotheus,
the subjects along with Paul of the verb ópelhouer, ver. 3; for to
maintain such a change of subject between ver. 3 and ver. 4 is
impossible. Equally incorrect is also the notion of Hofmann, that autous
added to nuās denotes “ of ourselves" "unprompted.” For it is absurd to
attempt to deny that nuās autous must at all events contain a contrast to
others.-εν υμίν έγκαυχάσθαι] boast of you. εν υμίν is a preliminary object to
έγκαυχάσθαι, which is then more completely unfolded in υπέρ της υπομονής
1 So also arbitrarily Schrader: from the
limitation of love to Christians is to be inferred
an abhorrence of Gentiles.
2 The latter, however, is actually found in B
and some min.
CHAP. I. 4.
579
κ.τ.λ.---εν ταις εκκλησίαις του θεού] in Corinth and its filiated churches. The
cause which gave occasion to Paul's boasting of his readers is more spec-
ially expressed, being what was formerly represented as the motive of the
apostolic thanksgiving; whilst formerly faith in Christ and brotherly love
were mentioned (ver. 4), the latter is here left entirely unmentioned,
whilst the first is named in its special operation as Christian stedfastness
under persecution.--úè ñs inopovñs úpūv kai Tiotews] [LIV c.] is not,
with Grotius, Pelt, and others, to be understood as a êv dià dvoīv, in the sense-
of υπέρ της υπομονής υμών εν πίστει, or υπέρ της πίστεως υμών υπομενούσης. Nor
is stedfastness, as Calvin, Hemming, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Bouman, Chártae theol. Lib. I. p. 83 ff., Alford, and others think, particu-
larly brought forward by the niotis mentioned in ver. 3; and then, in
addition, tiotis is once more insisted on as the foundation on which
ÚTouov“ rests, which would indeed be a strange proceeding, and would
greatly interfere with the clearness of thought. But niotis is here used in
a different sense from that in ver. 3. Whilst tiotis in ver. 3 denoted faith
in Christ, the expression here, as the article rñs only placed once proves,
is of a similar nature with 'Touovh; whilst the reference to Christ as the
object of faith steps into the background, and the idea of "faith” is trans-
formed into the idea of " fidelity.". This rendering is the less objectionable
as Paul elsewhere undoubtedly uses niotis in the sense of fidelity (comp.
Gal. v. 22; Rom. iii. 3; Tit. ii. 10; comp. also the adjective alotós, 1 Thess.
v. 24; 2 Thess. iii. 3; 1 Cor. i. 9, X. 13; 2 Cor. i. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 13); and,
besides, the notion of fidelity in this passage implies the more general
notion of faith in Christ; Tiotis here denoting nothing else than faith in
Christ standing in a special and concrete relation, i. e. proving itself under
persecutions and trials.-πάσιν] belongs only to διωγμοίς υμών. This is
shown by the article repeated before Iripeolv, and by the additional clause
αις ανέχεσθε, which is parallel with υμών.-Clearer distinctions between
dwypoi and Phimpels (as “pericula, quae totum coetum concernunt” and
“singulorum privata infortunia," Aretius; or “open and hidden distress,"
Baumgarten-Crusius) are precarious. Only so much is certain that
διωγμοί is speciale momen, θλίψεις generalius (Zanchius).-αις ανέχεσθε] an
attraction for óv ávé xeole (so, correctly, also Buttmann, Granm. des neutest.
Sprachgebr. p. 140 [E. T. 161]),-not, as Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, and
Hofmann maintain, instead of ας ανέχεσθε; for ανέχομαι always governs
the genitive in the N. T., never the accusative; comp. Matt. xvii. 17;
Mark ix. 19; Luke ix. 41; Acts xviii. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 1, 19; Eph. iv. 2; Col.
iii. 13; 2 Tim. iv. 3; Heb. xiii. 22. Fritzsche's opinion (on 2 Cor. diss. II.
p. 53 ff.), that there is no attraction at all, and that ávé xeobal is here (as in
1 But Bouman ultimately adds (p. 85):
“Cujus (sc. dicti Paulini) intacta vulgari
utriusque substantivi significatione, expli-
candi alia etiam in promptu est, ab illa, quam
memoravimus, paullo diversa via ac ratio.
Etenim optimis quibusque scriptoribus non
raro placuisse novimus, ut & singularibus
ad generaliora nuncupanda progrederentur.
Quidni igitur primum singularem útonovns
constantiae, virtutem celebrare potuit aposto-
lus, atque hinc ad universae vitae Christianae
moderatricem fidem, Domino habitam, prae-
dicandam gressum facere? But also against
this the non-repetition of the article before
tiotews decides.
580
THE SECOND ÉPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Eurip. Androm. 981, oyupopais hvelyóunv) construed with the dative, and
denotes "sustinendo premi calamitatibus h. e. perferre mala," is contra-
dicted by the above N. T. usage.—The present ávézete represents the per-
secutions and the trials as belonging to the present. Accordingly a new
outbreak of persecution must be meant, as the First Epistle describes the
persecutions as past."
Ver. 5. Judgment of the apostle concerning the conduct of his readers
described in ver. 4. Their stedfastness in the sufferings of the present is
a guarantee of future glory. Ver. 5 is a sentence in apposition, which
is united to the preceding in the nominative, not in the accusative, to
which Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 134 SE. T. 1537, is
inclined. See Winer, p. 496 [E. T. 533]. But čvdecyua refers not to the
subject of ảvé xeote, that is, to the Thessalonians, as if ais ávé xeGDE, ÖVTES
ÉVOElyua were written (comp. Erasmus, Annot., Camerarius, Estius); for
however simple and easy such a connection might be grammatically, yet
logically it is objectionable. Besides, Paul. would hardly have put katas-
woñval juās instead of the simple infinitive, if he thought on no differ-
ence of subject in švdelyua and katafiwoñvar. But also Evdelyua is not to be
referred to tãolv Tois dwypożç . . . åvé xeole (Ambrosiaster, Zwingli, Calvin,
Bullinger, Aretius, Wolf, Koppe, Pelt, Schrader, Ewald, Bisping, and
others), but to the whole preceding principal and collective idea ÚTÈp tñs
ÚTOLOvñs . . . åvé xeode. Accordingly it is to be analyzed as follows: ő (that
is to say, kaì rotto, ŐTT Év ÚTouovî kai Tiotel Trávtwv Tūv Swypūv ůjūv kai
των θλίψεων ανέχεσθε) εστιν ένδειγμα της δικαίας κρίσεως του Θεού.-ένδειγμα] is
found here only in the N. T. It denotes a sign, guarantee, proof (comp.
the active ĚVDELELS, Phil. i. 28); here, according to the context, a prognostic.
-Tñs dikalas Kpioews TOĎ O800] cannot, with Olshausen and Riggenbach, (in
opposition to them: Linder in d. Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1867, 3, p. 522 ff.),
be understood of the present judgments executed on the earth, and
which befall believers in order to perfect them and to make them worthy
of the kingdom of God. Not only the article tñs, pointing to the judg-
ment kat éfoxnv, but also the explanation in ver. 6 ff., decides against
this view. The future judgment is meant which God will execute by
Christ at the advent.-Els tò katašiwoñval úuās k.t..] whose result will be that ye
will be esteemed worthy of the Icingdom of God, depends not on ais åvé xeo0€,
so that žvdelyua tñs Sikalas Kpioews TOĎ OɛoŨ would become a parenthetic
exclamation (Bengel, Zachariae, Bisping, Hofmann 1st ed., and others), nor
does it also belong to the whole sentence čvdelyua ... Ocov : in refer-
i That a critic such as Baur knows how to
convert this deviation from the First Epistle
into a dependence upon it is not strange (see
Apostel Paulus, p. 488). “This present tense
evidently shows how the author transfers
what had been said in 1 Thess. to his own
time.” Also Schrader draws from ver. 4 an
objection against the authenticity of the
Epistle, but for this reason: “because later
in the course of the Epistle the writer appears
to have forgotten that at that instant the
Thessalonians were in great tribulation."
But Paul dwells on this subject throughout
the whole of the first chapter. Why should
he tarry longer on it, or recur to it anew,
since it referred to a virtue of the Thessa-
lonians already proved, whereas the chief
object of his Epistle consisted in supplying
the actual and considerable wants of the
church in knowledge and conduct?
CHAP. I. 5–7.
581
ence to which ye, etc., but only to της δικαίας κρίσεως. Accordingly εις το
Karačio. K.7.2. is not a statement of purpose (thus Alford, Ewald, Linder,
as above, Hofmann 2d ed.), but, for which view Ellicott has recently
decided, an epexegetical statement of result. eis tó, with the infinitive,
also stands for the result in 2 Cor. viii. 6, etc. Comp. Winer, p. 309 [E. T.
3287.--The infinitive aorist katašiwñvar expresses the verbal idea simply,
without any regard to time. See Kühner, II. p. 80.—ÜTè ñs kaÌ Táoxers]
for striving to obtain which ye suffer, an additional statement of the cause
whose corresponding result will be karaciwiñval. The Thessalonians, by
their enduring stedfastness, the motive of which was striving after the
kingdom of God, made themselves worthy of participation in this king-
dom, for they thereby showed how precious and dear Christ is to them; it
is thus certain that the judgment of God to be expected at the return of
Christ will recognize this worthiness, and will exalt the Thessalonians to be
fellow-citizens of His kingdom. Comp. Phil.i. 28; Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim.ii.12.
Ver 6. The suitableness and naturalness of this result to be expected
from the righteousness of God, the mention of which was to comfort the
Thessalonians and encourage them to continued endurance, is further car-
ried out by an intimation of the retribution to be expected at the return
of Christ. To assume a parenthesis from ver. 6 to ueu ņuõv, ver. 7 (Gro-
tius), or to ver. 10 inclusive (Moldenhauer), is unnecessary arbitrariness.
-Einep] provided, does not express any doubt, but introduces by means of
an elegant expression, under the form of suspense, a saying whose truth
is fully acknowledged. Comp. viii. 9, 17. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 834;
Hartung, Partikellehre, I. p. 343; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 528.—Sikalov] right-
eous, joined to dikalas kploews, ver. 5. The apostle here places himself upon
the standpoint of the strict righteousness of God, which is conceived
according to the analogy of human jus talionis, and is also so asserted in
Rom. ii. 5 ff.; 2 Cor. y. 10; Eph. vi. 8, 9; Col. iii. 24, 25. It is accordingly
inadmissible to interpret dikalov, with Pelt and others, of the manifesta-
tion of divine grace. The idea that one may obtain eternal salvation by
his own merits, which rccently Bisping finds here expressed, is removed
from the Pauline mode of thought generally, and also from this passage.
Certainly, as all men are subject to sin as a ruling power, the possibility
of obtaining salvation can only be contained in Christ; and that God
revealed this possibility of salvation, and by the mission of Christ invited
us into His kingdom, is a pure contrivance of His free grace; but with
this grace His holiness and righteousness are not abolished. There remains
room for the exercise of the strict righteousness of God, as only he can
enter into His eternal kingdom who, with the desire of salvation, accepts
the call; whereas whoever closes himself against it, or rises up in enmity
against it, must incur righteous punishment at the last day.
Ver. 7. Ohißouévolg is passive. Bengel erroneously considers it as mid-
dle.—aveols] from ávíne, denotes the relaxing which follows exertion, the
Émitaois,' passing over to the idea: comfort, refreshment, rest. Comp. 2 Cor.
1 Plat. Rep. i. p. 349 E: ev TÔ ÉLTágei kai ávéo EL TWv Xopowy. Plutarch, Lyc. 29 : oux aveous hy
åld' étrítanis tîs Toitteias.
582
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. .
ii. 13, vii. 5, viii. 13, and the analogous expression ảvápušis, Acts iii. 19.
Here åveois characterizes the glory of the kingdom of God according to
its negative side as freedom from earthly affliction and trouble.--ued? nuov]
along with us. From this it follows that the apostle and his companions
belonged to the hißóuevol. LEN nuāv accordingly contains a confirma-
tion of the notice contained in iii. 2. Others (as Turretin, comp. also de
Wette) understand je ruāv entirely generally: with us Christians in gen-
eral. But the åveols which will likewise be imparted to the ouets presup-
poses a preceding thípis, that is, according to the context, persecution by
those who are not Christians. But such persecutions do not befall Chris-
tians everywhere. Strangely, Bengel (and also Macknight), MEN ouwv
denotes: "nobiscum i.e. cum sanctis Israelitis." Ewald: “with us, i.e.
with the apostles and other converted genuine Jews of the Holy Land, so
that they shall have no preference.”—-_v tñ ártokaſível TOŨ kupiov 'Indow] a
statement of the time when ávtarodowval will take place, equivalent to
ötav ártokalupun ó kúpos 'Indonç. árokálvuus (1 Cor. i. 7) is a more definite
expression for mapovola. The return of Christ is the period at which He,
so long hitherto concealed, will as Ruler and Judge be manifested, will
publicly appear.-án' ovpavoŰ LET' áyyénwv dvvájiews avtov.] a specification
of the mode of the arokahópel.-ánoúpavov] see on 1 Thess. iv. 16.-Let'
áyyk2wv duvá uews avrov] with the angels of His power, i.e. through whom His
power manifests itself, inasmuch as the angels are the executors of His
commands, by their instrumentality e.g. the resurrection-call to the dead
is issued (1 Thess. iv. 16). Calvin : Angelos potentiale vocat, in quibus suam
potentiam exseret. Angelos enim secum adducet ad illustrandam regni
sui gloriam. 'Oecumenius, Theophylact, Piscator, Benson, Flatt, and
others erroneously explain it: “with His mighty angels;” still more
erroneously Drusius, Michaelis, Krause, Hofmann, and others: “with His
angelic host.” For this the Hebrew *$ is appealed to. But Súvapis never
occurs in this sense in the N. T.; the proofs to the contrary, which Hof-
mann finds in Luke x. 19, Matt. xxiv. 29, Mark xiii. 35, Luke xxi. 26, are
entirely inappropriate. It would then require to have been written jetà
duvánews áryéhwv avtoữ. It is a wanton error, proceeding from a want of
philological tact, when Hofmann separates avrow from the words Met'
αγγέλων δυνάμεως, refers this pronoun to God, and joins it with διδόντος
εκδίκησιν into a participial clause, of which εν τη αποκαλύψει κ.τ.λ. forms the
commencement. Granted that let' Syyérov dvvatlews, without the addi-
tional avtoő, might denote with an angelic host, yet Paul, in order to express
the thought assigned to him by Hofmann, if he would be at all under-
stood, would at least have entirely omitted avtov, and would have put the
dative διδόντι instead of the genitive διδόντος.
Ver. 8. 'Ev Proyi qrupós] is not, as Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Seb. Schmid,
Harduin, Moldenhauer, Macknight, Hilgenfeld (Zeitsch. f. wissensch. Theol.
1862, Part 3, p. 245), Hofmann, and others ? assume, a statement declaring
i That also we are not here to think, with
Hammond, on the destruction of Jerusalem
is evident.
2 Thus also Theodoret must have united the
words. For although he does not clearly
express hirnself concerning this union, yet
CHAP. I. 7-9.
583
the instrument of SidbvTOS ÉKDÍKNow, but is a further specification of the ..
mode of åtokahúpel, ver. 7: in flaming fire (Us 377??, Isa. xxix. 6, xxx. 30,
etc.). In the 0. T. God is described as appearing in flames of fire, and
especially His coming to judgment is described as a coming in fire ; comp.
Ex. iii. 2 ff., xix. 18; Dan. vii. 9, 10, etc. What is there asserted of God
is here transferred to Christ. . (Comp. also 1. Cor. iii. 13, where of the day
of Christ, i. e. of His advent, it is said : Év Trupi ánokahúateTal.) The addi-
tional clause accordingly serves for a further exaltation of the majesty and
glory in which Christ will return. More special statements, that Paul
thought on thunder and lightning (Zachariae, Koppe, Bolten), on a fire
Consuming the ungodly, or the world, or both together (Zwingli, Hemming,
Aretius, Cornelius a Lapide, Fromond., Sebastian Schmid, and others), are
to be discarded, from want of data to decide on.—Sidóvros] is joined, not to
itupós, but to ToŨ kupiov ’Inooû, ver. 7. The formula didóval ékdíknOiv tivi, to
impart vengeance, that is, punishment, to any one, is only found here in
the N. T. But comp. the LXX. Ezek. XXV. 14; Num. xxxi. 3 (777?? 19).
Paul does not mention only one class of persons who are to be punished
(Calvin, Hemming, Turretin, Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Riggenbach), but two
classes of persons. This is required by the article repeated before un
ÚTakoVovoly. These were the two classes of persons from whom the church
of Thessalonica had to suffer persecution-Gentiles and Jews. By Tois un
kidów Osóv. Paul means the former, and by roīs ÚTAKOVOVOLV TẠ evayy.
K.7.2. the latter, so that the general tois Gribovoiv juās, ver. 6, is now special-
ized. The correctness of this interpretation is further evident from the
fact that elsewhere un eidotes Deóv is with Paul a characteristic designation
of the Gentiles (1 Thess. iv. 5; Gal. iv. 8; comp. Rom. i. 28; Eph. ii. 12);
whereas the characteristic of the theocratic nation of the Jews, as shown
by experience, was disobedience to God and His plan of salvation; comp.
Rom. x. 3, 16, 21, etc. This reference to Gentiles and Jews is already
found in Ambrosiaster, Grotius, Quistorp, Benson, Bengel, Koppe, Baum-
garten-Crusius; and also recently, in Alford, Ewald, Ellicott, and Bisping.
On the other hand, Harduin and Hofmann interpret the first clause of
Gentiles, and the second of Jews and Gentiles ; Schrader, the first of Gen-
tiles, and the second of Christians ; Aretius, the first of “manifesti Christi
hostes, sive Judaei sint sive ethnici," and the second of " pestes in sinu
ecclesiae latitantes.” But with the first view the division, which the
article repeated requires, becomes illusory; and the context decides
against the last two views. For when, as here, Christians are comforted
on account of the afflictions which they suffer from those who are not
Christians by an intimation of a future retribution, the discourse cannot
possibly have reference to a punishment which is impending on Chris-
tians.—Toð kvplov huwv 'Incoñ] a repetition of the subject already con-
tained in Didóvros in a fuller form, on account of the preceding Osóv.
Ver. 9. Paul names eternal destruction as the punishment which those
ungodly ones will have to endure. [LIV c.]-Oitives] nimirum qui, refers
he finds in @doyi trupós expressed: tñs teuwpias tò eidos, and adds: Odoyi yap tupòs trapadidovrai.
-
-
584
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
back to the characteristics of the two classes named in ver. 8, and accord-
ingly recapitulates the reason for diknu rioovoiv.-årò apogÚTOV TOŨ kupiou
K.7.2.] has received a threefold interpretation. Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Erasmus, Vatablus, Estius, Fromond., and others interpret
åró of time : immediately after the appearance of the apbowTOV TOŬ kuplov
and of the Soča rñs loxvos avtoū. The swiftness and facility of the punish-
ment are thereby described, inasmuch as it required Christ merely to
become visible. The artificialness of this interpretation is evident. For
however often áró denotes the point of commencement of a period, yet
the bare årò nepoobrou cannot possibly be considered as parallel with such
constructions as árò KTÍgewS Koopov, Rom. i. 20; árò tñs apółns quépas, Phil.
i.5, and the like. At least án átorahúYEWS TOũ TPOOÁTOV or something simi-
lar would require to have been written. Add to this that árò mpOGÁTOV
K.1.2., on account of its position at the end of the sentence, cannot have
such an emphasis, that the idea of the swiftness and facility of the punish-
ment can be derived from it. áró is understood as a statement of the
operating cause by Grotius, Harduin, Benson, Bengel, Moldenhauer, Flatt,
Pelt, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, and Hofmann: "from the
presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power" (comp. Acts iii.
19). Pelt (and so also Castalio, Koppe, Bolten, and others) arbitrarily
considers από προσώπου του κυρίου ας equivalent to the simple από του
kupiov; and equally arbitrarily Harduin, Benson, and Moldenhauer (comp.
also Hofinann) understand mpóowTov of a wrathful or gloomy countenance.
But there is an essential inconvenience to this second mode of interpre-
tation, inasmuch as by its assumption without the introduction of a new
idea there is only a repetition in other words of what has already been
said in νν. 7, 8 from εν τη αποκαλύψει το διδόντος εκδίκησιν ; the whole of the
9th verse would only contain aiøvlov as a new point. Accordingly the
third inode of explanation, adopted by Piscator, Ernest Schmid, Beza,
Calixt, Koppe, Krause, Schott, Bloomfield, Alford, Bisping, Ellicott, and
Riggenbach, is decidedly to be preferred, according to which ånó expresses
the idea of separation, of severance from something. Comp. ii. 2; Rom. ix.
3; Gal. v. 4. According to Flatt and de Wette, the expression loxios is
opposed to this explanation, which directly points to an operating cause.
But tñs ioxvoç is to be rendered the genitive of origin, and the doga is to
be understood, not of the glory of Christ, but of the glory which is to be
imparted to believers. The meaning is: apart or separated from the face of
the Lord, and apart from the glory which is a creation of His power. By this
explanation mpóowTov receives its full import; “to see the face of the
Lord” is a well-known biblical expression to denote blessedness (comp.
Ps. xi. 7, xvii. 5; Matt. v. 8, xviii. 10; Heb. xii. 14; Rev. xxii. 4), whereas
distance from it is an expression of misery.
Ver. 10. Further, with this explanation ver. 10 agrees best, since in it,
as the counterpart to ver. 9, the discourse is not so much of a glorification
of Christ as of a glorification of Christians—a glorification certainly which
1 See Hermann, ad Soph. Oed. R. 688.
CHAP. I. 10.
585
necessarily reflects on Christ Himself as its producer.—örav žmon] when
He shall have come, a statement of the time of dirnu tícovoiv, ver. 9. Schott
less simply unites it with διδόντος εκδίκησιν, ver. 8.-ένδοξασθήναι] the infini-
tive of design. See Winer, p. 298 [E. T. 318]. The äylou are not the
attending angels (Macknight, Schrader), but Christians. Šo Tois dyíocs aútoū
does not, however, import through His saints (Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Kypke, II. p. 341, Vater, Pelt, Schott, and others), nor among
them, but in them, so that the glorification of Christians becomes a
glorification of Christ Himself. So also Christ is admired in all believers,
because the admiration of the blessedness to which believers have been
exalted has as its consequence an admiration of Christ as the Creator of
that blessedness.—ŐTL ÉTELOTEÚJn ... čo úpās] is a parenthesis : 1 for our tes-
timony brought to you has been believed. This is occasioned by TicoTEÚDAGI.
It is designed to bring forward the certainty that also the Thessalonians
belong to the TlOTEVOLVTES. In a peculiar-intermixing much that is
strange—and unnatural manner Ewald: “As the subject particularly
treats of the truth of the apostolic testimony concerning divine things (!),
or whether the gospel, as the apostles and first witnesses proclaimed it,
will or will not one day be confirmed in its entire contents and promises
by God Himself at the last judgment (?), so Paul summarizes the chief
contents (?) of that glory and admiration in a lively reference to his im-
mediate readers directly in words in which one might almost then exclaim:
Our testimony among you was verified (?).' And it is as if the apostle had
put here this somewhat strange short expression, the rather because he
has said directly before that God (?) will be admired in those who believed,
as if a verification or complete confirmation (?) of the contents of faith must
at last justly correspond to the human faith regarding them.”—ò Maptuplov
nuūv] our testimony, i. e. the testimony proclaimed by us. Really different,
neither from papTúplov toð Xplotov, 1 Cor. i. 6: the testimony whose subject
is Christ; nor from uaptvplov TOW OsoW, 1 Cor. ii. 1: the testimony which
God published through the apostles concerning Christ. To limit, with
Bretschneider, juaptúplov to the instructions of the apostle concerning the
advent of Christ contained in the First Epistle, instead of taking it entirely
generally in the sense of κήρυγμα οι ευαγγέλιον, is rendered impossible by
the relation of ŐTA ŠTE LOTEÚUn to itloteioNoiv.-D' jās] is connected with tò
uaptvplov juāv into one idea; and hence the article Tó, whose repetition
before ø ýpāç might have been expected, is omitted. See Winer, p. 128
[E. T. 135]. Comp. on éní with raptúplov, Luke ix. 5. Ingenious, but
erroneous, Bengel : d' úpās denotes : ad vos usque, in occidente.—-v tî
quépą ékeivŋ] [LVIII c.] belongs not to člon (Zeger, Pelt, Olshausen), but to
i Certainly otherwise Hofmann. According
to him, ÖT ÉTLOTEÚOn TÒ Maptúpcov nu@véd
υμάς is to be added as a reason to ανταποδούναι
juiv äveolv uco nuwv, ver. 6 f. (!). But this
is not yet enough. Besides the statement of
design, iva vuas á ŝicon K.T.A., ver. 11, is made
also to depend on ěTLOTEÚOn tò mapTúplov hl@
v
¢¢'umas; to this statement of design also ev
tñ nuépa exeiun belongs; this is placed before
ένα for the salse of emphasis, and εις ο και
Trpooevxóueba TÁVTOTE Trepi vuwy forms a mere
parenthesis-suppositions which are cer-
tainly worthy of an exegesis like that of Hof-
mann, but are only possible to it.
586
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Javuaounval, whilst by it the indication of time, őtav člun, is resumed. The
Peshito, likewise Pelagius, John Damascenus, Estius, Lucius Osiander,
Menochius, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Harduin, Storr, Koppe, Krause,
Rosenmüller, Nüsselt, Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, not assum-
ing a parenthesis, unite év tộng huépą ékeivm with the directly preceding, either
with paprúplov or with ÉTLOTEVU 1. The interpretations resulting from this
mode of connection vary much from each other; but are all arbitrary,
inasmuch as, on the one hand, in order to preserve the statement of time
in εν τη ημέρα εκείνη, one feels himself constrained to consider the aorist
ÉT LOTEÚOn as placed for the future, and thus to alter the import of the verb
(will be authenticated); or, on the other hand, in order to preserve éco-
Teún, in the sense of the aorist, one has recourse to the expedient of con-
struing εν τη ημέρα εκείνη as the objective statement belonging to μαρτύριον,
in the sense of περί της ημέρας εκείνης.-But wherefore did Paul add εν τη
nuépą ékeivn, after the sentence beginning with otc? Perhaps only for the
sake of parallelism. But possibly also Calvin is correct when he says:
“repetit in die illa ., . . Ideo autem repetit, ut fidelium vota cohibeat, ne
ultra modum festinent.”.
Ver. 11. Eis 6] in reference to which, namely, that such a glori-
fication of Christ in His people is to be expected. Comp. Bernhardy,
Syntax, p. 220;-Kühner, II. p. 279. Philologically incorrect, Grotius,
Flatt, Pelt, Baumgarten-Crusius take eis ő as equivalent with qua-
propter, and Koppe as “mera particula transeundi,” equivalent with
itaque. Logically incorrect, de Wette, Bloomfield, Hofmann, and Riggen-
bach: “to which end.” For, since eig ő must refer to the chief thought in
ver. 10, this could only be analyzed by: "in order that the év&ošaounval
and the Javịaodhval of Christ may be realized in believers.” But this fact
in itself is clear to the apostle as a settled truth; he cannot think on it as
dependent on his prayer; he can only have it in view in his prayers, that
the Thessalonians also may find themselves in the number of those among
whom Christ will be glorified.-kal] belongs not to eis ő, so that the suita-
bleness of this (supposed) design was denoted (de Wette), but to a poo-
EVXÓueda. It imports that the prayer of the apostle was added on behalf of
the Thessalonians to the frict of the évdošaovñval.-iva] The contents of the
prayer in the form of a purpose. åčloőv tñs Khoews is that to which Paul
would attain through his prayer. Comp. Meyer on Phil. i. 9.-áčlovv]
means to judge worthy; comp. 1 Tim. v. 17; Heb. iii. 3, x. 29. It never
has the meaning to make worthy, which Luther, Grotius, Flatt, Olshausen,
Ewald attribute to it. From this it follows that khñois cannot express the
act? of the divine calling, already belonging to the past, but must denote
something future. Kañois is accordingly to be understood, as in Phil. iii.
14, in a passive sense, as the good thing to which we are called, i.e. the
1 So also Meyer on Phil. iii. 14; likewise
Grimm in the Theol. Stud. U. Krit. 1850, Part
4, p. 806 f. : “ The Christians are declared
worthy of the call already promulgated to
them, or the kinous Toll coû may be in refer-
ence to them a metaméntos (Rom. xi. 29),
because the Christian can again make him-
self unworthy of the divine grace which he
has received (Rom. xi. 20 ff.; 2 Cor. vi. 1;
Gal. v. 4)."
CHAP. I. 11, 12.
587
..
future heavenly blessedness of the children of God. Col. i. 5 (see Meyer
on that passage) is entirely analogous, where anís, elsewhere active, is
used in a passive or objective sense.-With kai tampuon K.T.), which is
grammatically subordinate to åžićson, Paul adds, logically considered, the
means which is to lead to the result of being judged worthy. [LVIII c.] -
Tehnpowv] to bring to completion or perfection.-- ãgav eúdoriav åyaywoúvns] can-
not be referred to God, as if it meant all His good pleasure, and denoted
the divine decree of election (Oecumenius, Zwingli, Calvin, Estius, Justi-
nian, Beza, Calixt, Wolf, Benson, Bengel, Macknight, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt,
Bisping, and others). It is against this that épyov TÍCTEWS, which forms an
additional accusative to tampoon, is undoubtedly to be referred to the
Thessalonians; that ảyabwoúvn is never used by Paul of God; and lastly,
that πάσαν την ευδοκίαν would require to have been written instead of πάσαν
evdokiav. Others refer tão av čudokiav partly to God and partly to the Thes-
salonians. This second explanation is even more inadmissible than the
first. It is not even supported by the appearance of justification, as at
least tãoav åyabwoúvnu evdokias must be put, in order to afford a point of con,
nection for it. The exclusively correct meaning is to understand both
ευδοκίαν and αγαθωσύνης of the Thessalonians. But αγαθωσύνη does not denote
benevolence (Chandler, Moldenhauer, Nösselt, Schott), but moral goodness
generally. Comp. Rom. xv. 14; Gal. v. 22; Eph. v. 9. Accordingly, with
Trãoa evdokia ảyalwoúvns is expressed every satisfaction in moral goodness.--
špyov TiOTews] here, as in 1 Thess. i. 3, represents faith as an špyov, i. e. as
something begun with energy, and persevered in amid persecution.-v
duvállal] belongs to tranpoon, and takes the place of an adverb. See Bern-
hardy, Syntax, p. 209. Comp. Rom. i. 4; Col. i. 29. Thus powerfully.
• Ver. 12. Tò óvoua Toũ kupiov niyo 'Incov] The name of our Lord Jesus, i. e.
so far as He is the kúplos, the Lord; comp. Phil. ii. 9 ff. Arbitrarily, de
Wette: Christ, so far as He is recognized and known. Still more arbi-
trarily Turretin, Moldenhauer, Koppe, and others : Övoua kupiov is a mere
circumlocution for κύριος.-εν αυτώ] refers not to Ιησού (so Alford and
Ellicott), but to tò ovoua ; and the giving prominence to the mutual recip-
rocity, év újiv kaì queīs šv avrò, is an exhaustive representation. Comp. Gal.
vi. 14; 1 Cor. vi. 13.--katà Tìv zápu toŨ OEOū idūv kaì kupiou ’Incoū] [LVIII c.]
according to the grace of our God and of the (see Winer, p. 118 [E. T. 124)]
Lord Jesus. According to Hofmann and Riggenbach, Christ is here
1 Alford incorrectly objects to the passive
interpretation adopted by me, that the
position of the words would require to be tñs
κλήσεως αξιώση. For the emphasis rests on
åśccon placed first, whilst with ons kinoews
the idea, already supposed as well known by
Katačuwenvac úmâs tñs Baoldeias Toll epû, ver.
6, as well as by the contents of ver. 10, is only
resumed, although under a different form.
Alford, appealing to 1 Cor. vii. 20, understands
kiñous "not merely as the first act of God, but
as the enduring state produced by that act,
the normal termination of which is glory."
2Thus Theophylact: iva mãou eúdoria Toll
coû, TOUTÉOTL âoa åpéokela, tanpw oị év juin
kai tây ảyatov SlampátTNO BE, kai oŰtws YTE Ûs
Boudetal ò eós, undevós üniv deimovros. Gro-
tius: Omnem bonitatem sibi gratam ...
dyalwoúvnv, ¢OTIV aütoü eúdoxia. Olshausen,
with whom Bloomfield agrees: May God fill
you with all the good which is pleasing to
Him. In an excess of arbitrariness, Olshau-
sen besides talkes ευδοκίαν and έργον as:
absolute accusatives, whilst he unites juâs
not only with aśccon, but likewise with
Tampúon.
588
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
named both our God and our Lord,-an interpretation which, indeed,
grammatically is no less allowable than the interpretation of the doxology,
ó ÚVĚTÈ Távrwv Oeòs evhoyntos. eis tous aiāvas, Rom. ix. 5, as an apposition
to ó Xplotós, but is equally inadmissible, as it would contain an un-Pauline
thought; on account of which also Hilgenfeld, Ztschr. f. d. wiss. Theol.,
Halle 1862, p. 264, in the interest of the supposed spuriousness of the
Epistle, has forth with appropriated to himself this discovery of Hofmann.
NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR.
LVIII. Vv. 1-12.
(a) The Second Epistle has the same general character as the First, both in re-
spect to the fact that it is a letter of friendly feeling and suggestion, and in respect
to the main subject which is treated of. It differs from the former Epistle, how-
ever, in that it was apparently written for the purpose of correcting a single error,
into which the Thessalonians had been led since Paul had written to them, and
perhaps in connection with some misapprehension as to the meaning of what he
had written. It is thus a letter of explanation and correction on a single point, to
which, both at the beginning and end, certain exhortations or expressions of
friendly sentiment are added. The centre and substance of the Epistle are, thus,
in the second chapter, and the other parts are united with this in a subordinate
way.
(6) In the expression of thankfulness, with which the letter opens, we find evi-
dence of progress in the church, even since the date of the former epistle. This
is indicated by the stronger words used (as compared with 1 Thess. i. 2 ff.):
ÚTepavçável, TheováŠEL, éykavxão Jal. We also find evidence that the church had
met with still further persecutions, as seen in the addition to ÚTouovñs übūv kai
TOTEWS (ver. 4) of the words év Tāol. ... åvé xeote-and in the long passage re-
lating to the subject (vv. 5-10). A careful comparison of the expressions in the
two letters, however, will show that there is only such a progress indicated as
might easily have been seen within a brief period. Indeed, the movement of the
thought, in chap. i., in the line of faith, love and stedfastness; in chap. ii., in
the line of the Parousia; and in chap. iii. in the line of similar exhortations,
makes it clear that the two letters could not have been widely separated in
time.
(c) As to individual words and phrases, the following points may be noticed:-
(1) While the possibility of using niotis in the sense of fidelity may be allowed, it
seems altogether improbable that it is to be understood in this sense in ver. 4 (as
Lünem. takes it), because of the natural and easy connection of the ideas of
stedfastness and faith, and because riotis of ver. 3 undoubtedly means faith.—
(2) With xvdelyua of ver. 5 we may compare švdelžis of Phil. i. 28. The suggestion
of the passage in Phil. points to the active, not the mere passive element, con-
tained in υπομονή as that which constituted the ένδειγμα. The fact that the
Christians endured persecutions, etc., not terrified or overpowered by any thing
which their adversaries could do, was a token or proof (prognostic, Lünem.) of the
righteous judgment of God. The idea of justice in God, as thus recompensing,
seems to be connected with two ideas, which we find presented in the New Testa-
NOTES.
589
ment: the legal principle of reward according to works, which belongs to the
legal system, and that justice or righteousness which consists in the fulfillment of
promises and covenants-God has promised His people a blessed reward (comp.
Heb. vi. 10).—(3) The connection of the idea of suffering with that of being
counted worthy of the kingdom, which we find here and elsewhere in Paul's
writings (comp. Rom. viii. 17 and other passages), seems to show, not only how
inseparable from the Christian life such suffering (which was then largely in the
line of persecution, etc.) appeared to the apostolic mind, but also how the mind
of that age turned to the recompenses of the future as a sustaining and encouraging
fact.-(4) This Epistle opens, as also 1 Thess., with the thought of the Parousia,
as seen in the word ártokáhvpis of ver. 7.—(5) The words added to anakahúyel ani
oúpavov here, as compared with those added in 1 Thess. iv. 16. are apparently de-
termined by the particular thought which the writer has in mind. There, it is
the summoning of the Christians at the end, whether living or dead, to meet Him
in their new life. Here, it is the execution of His purposes of judgment with re-
gard to enemies and friends. The words here employed (šv trupi chorós, let' ayyé-
awv duváțews avrov) do not, however, apparently refer to the idea of punishment.
They set forth majesty and power, which may secure either glory to obedient sub-
jects or destruction to enemies.—(6) Ver. 9 is the only passage in Paul's writings
in which the phrase o EU pos aibvios occurs, and the only one in which the word
aiúvios occurs as applied to the future of unbelieving men. This particular phrase
is not found elsewhere in the N.T., but the adjective aiúvlos is connected with rūp
Matt. xviii. 8, xxv. 41, Jude 7, with kóhaois Matt. XXV. 46, with kpions (T. R.) or
ápápanua Mark iii. 29, and with kpłua Heb. vi. 2. The adjective is found forty-
four times in the N. T. qualifying the word life, and twenty times (including those
just mentioned) with other words-generally, as connected either with the idea
of salvation, or with God, His Spirit, purpose, etc. That the adjective carries with
it the idea of duration, and is not a mere qualitative word, is indicated by its use
in many cases. The argument in proof that it has this idea of duration in the
phrases which refer to the penalty of the future life, is a strong one, and one not
easily set aside. The declaration here given by Paul in respect to this penalty is
the most definite one which he makes, in his Epistles, in a positive form; but there
are statements in a negative form (as e. g. 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10), which may be regarded
as conveying the same idea.—(7) The preposition áró (ver. 9), for the reasons
given by Lünem., contains the idea of separation from; and, this being the case,
doça is to be interpreted as meaning that glory which is connected with the mani-
festation of His person when he accomplishes the complete triumph of His king-
dom. This is indicated as the meaning, also, by the following words, ötav K.7.2.-
(8) εν τη ημέρα εκείνη (ver. 10), which is to be connected with θαυμασθήναι ιnd the
words which precede it, refers to the ártokáłubis, and thus to the Parousia. There
is, apparently, nothing either here, or in any statement of either of the two
Epistles, to indicate that Paul had in mind an Advent which was to be separated
by a long interval from the day of Final Judgment, or that the idea of Farrar
(Life of St. Paul, Vol. I., p. 607)--that this "æonian exclusion” takes place at the
time of the former, and not of the latter, is to be found in the passage.--(9) The
explanation of eis ö of ver. 11, which is given by Lünem., is the most satisfactory
one-these words referring to the fact that the glorification of Christ in His people
is to be expected, and the following part of the verse relating to the worthiness
of the readers to participate in the blessedness connected with it.—(10) The rela-
590
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS..
tion of inpbon to åživon, which Lünem. makes that of means leading to the result
of being judged worthy, is to be thus understood, if Kajoews is taken, as he takes
it, in the sense of the good thing to which we are called the future blessedness.
This is probably the correct view. If, on the other hand, Kāņoews is referred, with
Alf., to "the enduring state produced by the first act” of calling, Tanp. may be re-
garded as that which accompanies the åžiuon.—(11) Most of the recent comm.
agree with Lünem. that ver. 12 is not to be interpreted as if both Jɛov and kuptov
were intended by the writer to describe Christ-Christ receiving, thus, the name
of God. As kúplos seems evidently to have somewhat of the character of a proper
name in its N. T. use, the two words do not fall under the ordinary rule of appella-
tire words united by kai under a single article. Accordingly, the phrase only unites
God and Christ in a common relation to grace, and does not give to Christ the name
Geós. The passage, however, is not parallel with Rom. ix. 5, as Lünem.'s remark
might seem to imply. In that passage, all the indications of the sentence and its
construction point to the connection of ó Öv K.T.2, with Xplotós, and the supposed
"un-Pauline thought” is the only argument of weight against it. Here, on the
other hand, the grammatical usage with regard to proper names favors the dis-
tinction between θεός and Χριστός.
CHAP. II.
591
CHAPTER II.
VER. 2. Elz. has árò TOŨ voós. Instead of it, D E 43, al., Syr. Erp. Syr. p. C.
ast. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast. Hier. Pel. have årò TOŨ voos
úpāv. An interpretation.—Instead of the Receptus uñta Oposlobal, A B D* F GX
Or. require undè Oposlodal. Correctly preferred by Lachm. Tisch. Bloomfield,
Alford and Ellicott, for I poslodal contains a new point, intensifying the dis-
course.--Kupiov] Elz. Matth. read XplotoŨ. Against the preponderating authority
of A B D* E (?) FGL , min. plur. vers. and Fathers.—Ver. 3. Instead of the
Receptus ápaprias, B X 3, al., perm. Copt. Sahid. Slav. ed. Or. ms. (bis et in edd.
qu.) Cyr. hieros. Damasc. Nicephor. Tert. Ambrosiast. ed. Ambr. have dvouías.
Adopted by Tisch. 8. But ανομίας is taken from ανομίας, ver. 7, and άνομος, ver.
8.-Ver. 4. Instead of the Receptus únepalpóuevos, FG, Or. (semel) Prosop. (ap.
Niceph. semel) demand étaLpólsvos. But the directly followingění decides
against its genuineness. Before kazioa. Elz. Matth. add us Osóv. A gloss for the
sake of strengthening. Correctly erased by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.,
Alford and Ellicott, to whom also Reiche agrees, after A B D*%, min. perm. Erp.
Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Or. (ter.) Hippol. Cyr. utr. Severus,
Chrys. ms. Theodoret (alic.) Polychronius, Methodius jun., Damasc. Ir. Tert. Cypr.
Aug. Ambrosiast. Ruf. Primas. Cassiod. al.-Instead of the Receptus à Todelkvívta,
AFG, 3, 23, al., edd. Or. (semel) Cyr. utr. Theodoret (ter.) Damasc. (semel) have
Todelkvúovta.–Ver. 8. Ó Kúplos ’Inooūs] Elz. Matth. Tisch. 2, Bloomfield, and
Reiche read only ó kúpios, after B (e sil.) D*** E** K L* min. pl. Arab. in
polygl. Sl. ms. Or. (semel vel bis) Macar. Cyr. hier. Theodoret (sem.) Damasc.
(sem.) Oec. Vig. al. But • Kúplos 'Indows (received by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm.
Tisch. 1, 7 and 8, Alford, Ellicott) is required by A D* E* F GL**, 17, 31, al.,
perm. Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Slav. ed. Vulg. It. Or. (semcl vel.
bis) Hippol. Constitut. Ath. Bas. Cyr. Ephr. Chrys. Theodoret (saepe), Damasc.,
Theoph. Ir. (semel) Tert. Hier (saepe) Fulgent. Hilar. Ambros. Aug. Rufin. Am-
brosiast. Primas. Pelag.Elz. has ávalúoel. Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8 read ávelei,
after A B D* 17, 23, al., mult. Or. (semel) Hipp. Macar. Method. jun., Andreas
caesar. Cyr. hieros. Chrys. ms. Damasc. Theophylact. But ávarboel is the more
unusual form, and ávɛɛi is taken from the LXX. Isa. xi. 4.-Ver. 10. åsikias]
Elz. Griesb. Matth. Scholz read rīs ádurias. The article is wanting in A BFGN*
min. Or. (sexies) Cyr. hieros. The last syllable of the preceding årát? gave occa-
sion to this addition.—Tois árožavuévols] Elz. Griesbach, Matth. Bloomfield read
ÉV Tois áronVuéVOLS. Against A B D* FG** 17, 71, al., Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg.
It. Or. (quinquies) Cyr. hieros. Damasc. (semel) Ir. Tert. Aug. Ambrosiast. al.-
Ver. 11. Instead of the Receptus TÉLYEL, A B D* FGN* 67** al., Vulg. ins. Or.
(bis vel ter) Bas. Cyr. hieros. Damasc. Ir. Ambrosiast. ed. require réuttel. Recom-
mended by Griesb. Received by Lachm. Scholz, Tisch., Alford and Ellicott. Cor-
rectly. The present only suits ver. 7, according to which the wickedness had
already begun to work.-Ver. 12. Tỉ ádekią] Elz. Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2 and
592
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
7, Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott read év tñ ádekią, after A D***E K L ***** min. pl.
Copt. Syr. utr. al., m. Or. (bis) Chrys. Theodoret (semel) Damasc. (semel) al., Cypr.
Hier. Lachm. has bracketed év. It is wanting in B D* F G&* min. perm. edd.
Sahid. Vulg. It. Or. (bis) Hippol. Cyr. utr. Theodoret (alic.), Damasc. Ir. Tert.
Aug. Ambrosiast. al. Erased by Tisch. 1 and 8. But the addition was most
natural for a N. T. writer, on account of its agreement with the Hebrew, whilst at
a later period the parallel member in the first half of the verse might easily have
been the occasion of its omission.—Ver. 13. At' ápxñs] BFG 35, al., Didym.
Damasc. (comm.) Vulg. Ambr. Pel. read amapxav. So Lachm. and Tisch. 1. Not
only do A DE K 4X, almost all min., many vers. and Fathers attest the reading
of the Receptus απ' αρχής, but Paul could not possibly have written απαρχήν, as
the Thessalonians were not the first who became believers, either generally or
even in Macedonia.-Ver. 17. ornpišal] Elz. Matth. read ornpiçal újās. Butvuās is
wanting in A B D* E* FGX, min. mult. Syr. utr. Arm. Vulg. It. Chrys. Oec.
Ambrosiast. al., and is a supplementary addition.-Instead of špyw kaì 26yo, Elz.
and Matth. have abyw każ špya. Against decisive testimony (A BD ELX, min.
mult. Copt. Aeth Syr. p. Slav. ms. Vulg. It. Chrys. Theophyl. Theodoret, Oec.
Ambrosiast. Vigil. al.). .
Vv. 1-12. [On vv.1 ff., see Note LV. pages 541, 542.] Dogmatic portion of the
Epistle. Information, by way of correction concerning the commence-
ment of the advent. The day of the Lord is not yet. It will only then
occur when Antichrist, whom now a preventing power hinders from
appearing, will be manifested.
Ver. 1. 'Epurāļev dé] passing from what the apostle prays for the
Thessalonians (i. 11, 12) to what he requires of them. On épwrãv,
see on 1 Thess. iv. 1. [LV a.]–^dɛzpol] an affectionate and winning ad-
dress.--Ünép] is in the Vulgate? understood as a form of adjuration (per
adventum); and then the meaning attributed to it is either : si vobis dies
ille tremendus est ... obtestor vos per illum (Zwingli), or: si vobis animo
carus est adventus domini, si desiderabile est vobis ad ipsum dominum
i See on vv. 1-12, Noesselt, Opusc. ad inter-
pretationem sacrarum scriptur. fascic. II., Hal.
1787, p. 257 ff.; Seger, Diss. philol. ad locum 2
Thess. ii. 1-12, Hal. 1791; Tychsen in Henke's
Magazin f. Religionsphilos., Exeges. und Kirch-
engesch. vol. VI., Helmst. 1796, p. 171 ff.; Storr,
Opusc. acad. vol. III., Tüb. 1803, p. 323 ff.;
Nitzsch, De revelatione religionis externa eailem-
que publicce, Lips. 1808, p. 223 ff.; Heydenreich
in the Neue Krit. Journal der theol. Litera-
tur, by Winer and Engelhardt, Bd. 8, Sulzb.
1828; Kern in the Tübing. Zeitschr. f. theol.
1839, Part 2, p. 145 ff.; Wieseler, Chronologie
des apost. Zeitalters, Gött. 1848, p. 257 ff.; Baum-
garten, die Apostelgeschichte oder der Entwickel-
ungsgang der Kirche von Jerusalem bis Rom.,
2d ed. vol. i., Braunschw. 1859, p. 603 ff.;
Schneckenburger on the Lehre vom Antichrist.
Treated of by Ed. Böhmer in the Jahrb. f.
Deutsche Theol. von Liebner, etc., Gotha 1859,
P. 420 ff.; v. Döllinger, Christenthum U. Kirche
in der Zeit der Grundlegung, Regensb. 1860, p.
277 ff., 422 ff.; Luthardt, die Lehre von den
letzten Dingen, Leipz. 1861, p. 145 ff.; J. Arm-
strong, The Apocalypse and St. Paul's prophecy
of the Man of Sin (2 Thess. II.), critically
examined and historically illustrated. Dublin,
1868; Weiss, in d. Theol. Stud. U. Krit., 1869, 1,
p. 20 ff.; W. Engelhardt, der Antichrist. Eine
Studie über 2 Thess. 2. 1-12; in d. Zeitschr. für
d. gesammte luth. Theol. u. Kirche von Delitzsch
und Guericke. 1877, 1, p. 52 ff.; older literature
in Wolf.
% As well as by Pelagius, Faber Stapulensis,
Bugenhagen, Clarius, Erasmus, Zwingli, Cal-
vin, Hemming, Hunnius, Justinian, Estius,
Piscator, Balduin, Aretius, Cornelius a Lapide,
Beza, Fromond., Calixt, Bern. & Piconius,
Nat. Alexander, and many others.
CHAP. II. 1, 2.
593
colligi, etc. (Hemming), or lastly: quam vere exspectatis domini adventum,
etc. (Beza). Certainly inép, as elsewhere após, sometimes occurs in pro-
testations with the genitive; comp. Hom. Il. xxiv. 466 f.—Kai ulv ÚTÈD
πατρός και μητέρος ήϋκόμοιο Λίσσεο και τέκεος, ίνα οι συν θυμόν ορίνης, Bern-
hardy, Syntax, p. 244. But (1) such a usage is entirely foreign to the N.
T. (2) It is hardly conceivable that Paul should have chosen that as an
object of adjuration, concerning which he was about to instruct them in
what follows. Therefore Zeger, Vorstius, Grotius, Hammond, Wolf,
Noesselt, Koppe, Storr, Heydenreich, Flatt, Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Winer
(p. 359 [E. T. 383]), Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, Bloomfield, Alford,
Ewald, Bisping, Riggenbach, and others more correctly take inép in the
sense of repi, in respect of. Comp. Rom. ix. 27; 2 Cor. i. 8; Passow, A 3;
Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 244; Kühner, II. p. 288. Yet this does not prevent
the maintenance of the special import of the preposition also here. The
meaning is in the interest of the advent, namely, in order to preserve it
from everything that is erroneous. When, then, the apostle says : we
entreat you in the interest of the advent, the meaning of this abbreviated
form of expression is: we entreat you in the interest of the advent,
namely, to guard it against all misrepresentations, not to deviate from the
correct view concerning it.-napovola Toũ kvpiov] here also, as everywhere
with Paul, is nothing else than the personal coming (return) of Christ at
the completion of the kingdom of God.--ÉTTLOvvaywyn] points back to 1
Thess. iv. 17, denoting the act by which all believers are caught up to
Christ, or gathered together to Him, to be then eternally united to Him,
following the resurrection and change.-juāv] is placed first in order to
obtain a more direct contrast to kupiov.--én autóv] up to Him. Incorrectly
Grotius, Koppe, Heydenreich, Pelt, Alford, and others, that it is equiva-
lent to repòs ajtóv.
Ver. 2. A statement of the object of the whole sentence, ver. 1.-oareve-
obal] from oáhos, which is especially used of the sea agitated by a storm
(comp. Luke xxi. 25), denotes being placed in a state of commotion and
vacillation. It is spoken both in a natural sense of circumstances in the
external world (comp. Matt. xi. 7; Acts iv. 31, xvi. 26; Heb. xii. 26, etc.),
and also transferred to mental conditions (comp. Acts xvii. 13). całevonval
ÅTÒ Toữ voós is a pregnant construction, including two ideas : to be put in
a state of mental commotion away from the vows, i. e. so that the vows goes
astray, does not attain to its proper function. Comp. Rom. ix. 3: ávál eua
kivat ÅTÒ TOŬ Xplotov.-vous] is to be taken quite generally. It denotes the
reasonable, sober, and considerate state of mind, mentis tranquillitas (Turre-
tin). Others, contrary to the meaning of the word, understand by vous
the more correct view or conviction, received by the personal instruction
of the apostle concerning the advent, from which the Thessalonians were
not to suffer themselves to be removed. So Hemming, Bullinger, Estius,
Lucius Osiander, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Fromond., Bern.
a Piconius, Nat. Alexander, Moldenhauer, Flatt, Heydenreich, and many
others; whilst, in an equally erroneous manner, Wolf interprets the
expression of the “sensus verborum Pauli, de hoc argumento in superiore
38 :
594
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
epistola traditorum.”—taxéws] not suddenly. This does not import,
“so soon after my departure” (Joachim Lange), or so shortly after the
instructions received from us (Piscator, Calovius, Olshausen, and others),
but: suddenly, so soon after the matter in question was spoken of.—undè
Opočiojal] nor yet be frightened. A new and stronger point, which is more
definitely described or divided by the following uýte, according to a three-
fold statement of the cause. See on this distinction between undé and
uhte, Winer, p. 454 [E. T. 488].—uýte dià avevpatos] [LV c.] neither by
inspiration. Falsely-understood prophecies of the 0. T. (Krause), or signa
quasi per spiritum facta (Pelagius), or deceitful revelations by spiritual
appearances (Ernest Schmid, Schrader), or by dreams (Schrader), are not
meant; but inspired prophetical discourses, delivered by the members of
the church in Christian assemblies, and whose contents were falsely given
out as divine revelations. To understand, with Chrysostom, Bugenhagen,
Vatablus, Koppe, Storr, Bolten, Heydenreich, and others (Flatt and de
Wette give the alternative), aveõua as an abstract noun, instead of the.
concrete itvevMatikos, so that the persons who delivered the inspired dis-
courses are to be understood, although not without analogy, is yet objection-
able in itself, and has the want of harmony occasioned by it with the
following λόγου and επιστολής against it.-μήτε διά λόγου] is by Baumgar-
ten-Crusius referred to a traditional (falsified) word of Jesus, more specifi-
cally by Noesselt to the prophecy of Christ in Matt. xxiv., Mark xiii., Luke
.xxi. But if Paul had in view a saying of Christ, he would have indicated
it:(perhaps by pñte dià abyov ás kupiov, or something similar). Others, as
Michaelis and Tychsen, translate kóyos by "reckoning," and suppose
that one made a reckoning of the times on the ground of the
Book of Daniel, and in consequence inferred that the advent of Christ
was directly at hand. But hóyou by itself certainly does not justify such
an artificial hypothesis. Lastly, others, in distinction from prophecy
delivered by inspiration, take hoyos in the sense of a calm and didactic
discourse, whether aiming at conviction or seduction. So, after the
example of Chrysostom, Oecumenius (dià mlavożoylas), Theophylact (oà
Sidaokahías súon ouvñ ylvouévns), Clarius (oratione persuasoria), Zeger (per
doctrinam viva voce prolatam), Ewald (“by word ; that is, by discourse
and doctrine [didaxń, 1 Cor. xiv. 26]; whilst one sought to prove the error
in a learned manner by a clever discourse, perhaps from the Holy Scrip-
tures "), Hofmann, Riggenbach, and many others. However, from the
parallel arrangement in ver. 15, which opposes the true to the false
expressed in ver. 2, it is evident that dià abyov and diĚTLOtoñs are closely
connected ideas, of which the first denotes the oral, and the second the
written statement. It is accordingly most natural to construe Slà hóyov
not by itself, but to unite ás di nuāv, as proceeding from us, both with dià
λόγου εnd with δι' επιστολής ; and to understand the first of oral expressions
which were imputed to the apostle, and the latter of written expressions
1 But not, as Macknight (comp. also Bloom- explains it, of "rumores de nobis, quasi aliud
field) thinks, of a pretended oral message of nunc diceremus, quam antehac diximus."
.tho apostie. to his creaders; nor, as Grotius
CHAP. II. 3, 4.
595
which were imputed to him by means of a forged epistle. On the other
hand, with Erasmus, to refer ús di uāv also to dià aveúuatos is impossi-
ble; as, although abyou and ĖTcotohai may be placed in the category of
those things which proceed from one absent, yet this cannot be the case
with inspired prophetical discourses, as with these the personal presence
of the speaker was requisite.lmus di guav] simply denies that such a say-
ing or letter, containing such an assertion, arose from Paul and his two com-
panions, or proceeded from them. The apostle accordingly supposes, that as
there were actually in Thessalonica prophetical announcements (itveva)
which had the assertion which follows as their contents, so there were also
actually present a hóyos and an ÉTTLOTOTń containing the contents here stated.
Accordingly, it is a completely arbitrary assumption when Kern, p. 149
f. ; Reuss, Gesch. der heil. Schriften N. T., 4th edit., Braunschw. 1864, p. 71;
Bleek, Einleit. in d. N. T., Ber. 1862, p. 385 f.; and Hilgenfeld, in d. Ztschr.
f. wiss. Theol., Halle 1862, p. 249, after the example of Beza (but he not
decidedly), Hammond, and Krause, refer the ÉTLOTONń to the apostle's First
Epistle to the Thessalonians, which was wrongly understood, or, ás Hil-
genfeld thinks, from which an inference suggested by it was drawn.mus
ÖTC ÉVÉOTNKEV Ý nuépa ToŨ kuplov] [LV d.] as if, or, like as if the day of the
Lord is already present, or, is even on the point of commencing” (comp. Rom.
viii. 38; 1 Cor. iii. 22, vii. 26; Gal. i. 4), gives the contents of the communi-
cations unsettling and terrifying them. ós placed before őtt brings into
prominence the fact that this notion was completely unfounded and
purely imaginary. Comp. also 2 Cor. xi. 31, and Winer, p. 574 [E. T. 618].
Completely erroneous Hofmann: úç örc is equivalent to ós táv, 1 Thess. ii.
7.-When, moreover, the apostle says that these illusions unsettled and
terrified the Thessalonians, this effect might be produced both on those
who regarded the advent with longing desire and on those who regarded
it with fear. For what is eagerly expected puts a man in a state of excite-
ment, and if it is something decisive of his fate, into a state of fear, as
soon as he believes that the moment of its realization has come.
Vv. 3, 4. [See Note LV e-k.] An emphatically-repeated exhortation,
and the reason of it. The readers were by no means to be misled into
the fancy, that the day of the Lord was now to dawn; for the apostasy
and the appearance of Antichrist must precede it.—¿ganatāv] does not
precisely convey the idea of a deceit occurring from wicked intention,
whilst it may be correctly imagined that nothing evil was seen in the
mode of deception mentioned in ver. 2—rather it was considered as an
excusable vehicle for the diffusion of views which were believed to be
recognized as true; only the idea of delusion, i. e. of being misled into a
false and incorrect mode of contemplation, is expressed by the verb.-
1 Correctly Theodoret: mapeyyvą rolvvv •
θείος απόστολος, μη πιστεύειν τοις λέγουσιν
ÉVEOTNKÉva. Tòv tñs ouvrencias kalpov, kai tap
avtika TÒY Kúplov etibavňocolat, unte el poo-
TOLOCVTo xenouwdeiv kai tpoonTeUELV TOÛTo yap
Néyeu urte Otà inveúuatos uute ei sao áuevo
ws ėš avtoü ypadeioav értOTody mpo époley,
μήτε ει άγράφως αυτόν ειρηκέναι λέγοιεν.
2 Incorrectly Hoelemann, Die Stellung St.
Pauli zu der Frage um die Zeit der Wiederkunft
C hristi, Leipz. 1858, p. 14: “as if the day of
the Lord was at hand."
596
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
When, then, the apostle says, Let no man befool you, it is, similar to a
form of representation usual to him, in the meaning of suffer yourselves
to be befooled by no one. Comp. Eph. v. 6; Col. ii. 16, 18.--karà undéva
Tpórov] not only recapitulates the three modes of misleading mentioned
in ver. 2 (Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius), but is an absolute expression, so
that accordingly it may be supposed that some other mode of deception
might be employed.—The sentence vv. 3, 4 is grammatically incomplete.
The finite verb to őrl is wanting, which Paul intended to accompany the
conjunction, but easily forgot as he added to ó å vă putos rñs äpaprias a
longer description. It is perfectly clear from the connection that ovk
ενέστηκεν η ημέρα του κυρίου from ver. 2 is to be supplied to ότι. In a very
forced manner Knatchbull attempts to remove the incompleteness of the
construction by placing a comma after öti, supplying ÉVÉOTNKEV to őrl, and
uniting it with uń Tis . . . Tpónov into one sentence. “Suffer yourselves
to be deceived by no one that (the day of the Lord is at the door), unless
first there shall have come,” etc. To maintain this meaning ÉVÉOTNKEV
must necessarily be added to őtl. But still more arbitrary is the attempt
of Storr and Flatt to remove the ellipsis by explaining éàv uń as analo-
gous (!) to the Hebrew X5 Dx, in the sense of most certainly, most positively:
- Ti] is to be separated from the preceding by a colon, and does not
denote indeed (Baumgarten-Crusius), but for.-ánootagia] a later Greek
form for the older årboTaois. The expression is to be left in its absolute-
ness, not, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Augustin (de civitate
dei, xx. 21), and Bolten, to be taken as abstractum pro concreto, so that
Antichrist himself is to be understood. But no apostasy in the political
sense, but entirely religious apostasy—that is, a falling away from God and
true religion—can have been meant by iTootacía. (1) What is said of
the ăv@pwrog tñs ápaprias in direct internal connection with the apostasy,
(2) the characteristic of the atooraoia, ver. 3, by ảvojía, ver. 7, and (3) the
constant biblical usage, constrain us to this view. Comp. LXX. 2 Chron.
xxix. 19; Jer. ii. 19; 1 Macc. ii. 15, etc.; Acts xxi. 21; 1 Tim. iv. 1.
Accordingly, also, Kern's view (comp. already Aretius and Vorstius) is to
be rejected as inadmissible, that we are to think of a mixture of political
and religious apostasy.-Moreover, the apostle speaks of r åtootaoía (with
readers had already been orally instructed concerning it (comp. ver. 5), or
because the Old Testament prophets had already foretold the apostasy
and the appearance of Antichrist. But the apostasy is not the consequence
of the appearance of Antichrist, so that Paul by kaì átokalupun K.1.2. goes
backwards from a statement of its effect to a specification of its author (so
Pelt and de Wette, appealing to vv. 9, 10); but it precedes the appearance
of antichrist, so that this is the historical climax of the atooraoia, and
serves for its completion (vv. 7-10).—The apostle considers Antichrist as
a parallel to Christ; therefore he here speaks of an attorádupis (comp. i.
7), a revelation of what was hitherto concealed, as well as, in ver. 9, of an
1 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 528.
CHAP. II. 4.
597
1. advent of the same. [On vv. 3-12, see Note LX. page 622.]—ó åvo putos Tas
duaprias] the man of sin, i.e. in whom sin is the principal matter, and is, as
it were, incorporated—who thus forms the climax of wickedness.-ó viòs
tñs árwheias] the son of perdition, i. e. who on account of his wickedness
falls a prey to perdition. Comp. John xvii. 12. See Winer, p. 223 f. [E.
T. 238 f.]. Schleusner and Pelt erroneously take the expression as tran-
sitive: “who will be the cause of perdition to others." Equally errone-
ously Theodoret, Oecumenius, and others; also Heydenreich, Schott and
Engelhardt: the transitive sense is to be united with the intransitive.
Ver. 4. 'O ávilkeljevos] is not to be united by zeugma with inepalpóuevos,
so that out of ÉTÈ Trávta ic.t.2. the dative tavrà aeyouévy DEQ ñ oeßáguari is to
be taken (Benson, Koppe, Krause, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Pelt, Bloomfield,
Hofmann, Riggenbach), but is absolute, in the sense of a substantive—the
opposer. It has been erroneously maintained by Pelt, that the article
being only put once necessitates the assumption of a zeugma. But all that
follows from the single insertion of the article is only that the two state-
ments, αντικείσθαι and υπεραίρεσθαι, must contain something related to each
other, which is summed up in a common general idea. This general idea is
extremely evident from what follows. Accordingly, the person of whom
Paul speaks was designated according to his internal nature by ó ăvo putos
της αμαρτίας, then characterized according to his ultimate fate by ο υιός της
årweias, and now-whilst Paul in his delineation takes a step backward
(comp. ver. 8 and ver. 9)—the mode and manner of his public external appear-
ance and conduct is described.-But if ó ávalkeijlevos denotes simply and
absolutely the opposer, the question is asked, whom does he oppose ? Baum-
garten and Michaelis erroneously answer: the human race; for this inter-
pretation has no point of contact in the context, and would explain away
the form so definitely brought before us by Paul by a vague generality.
De Wette and others more definitely answer: God and Christ. And cer-
tainly the description that immediately follows shows that the opposer
opposes himself in the highest degree to God. But this fact does not
justify such a wide meaning, if another is opposed to it in the context.
Now the context specially points to the opposer of Christ (thus Heyden-
reich, Schott, and Kern). For the inan of sin stands in the closest and
strictest parallelism with Christ. He is the forerunner of Christ's advent,
and has, as the caricature of Christ, like Him an advent and a manifesta-
tion : he raises the power of evil, which exalts itself in a hostile manner
against Christ and His kingdom, to the highest point; his working is
diametrically the opposite of the working of Christ, and it is Christ's
appearance which destroys him. Accordingly, the opponent can be none
other than the Antichrist (ó ávríxplotos, 1 John ii. 18). This Antichrist is
not the devil himself (Pelagius and others), for he is distinguished from
him (ver. 9); but according to ver. 9 he is an instrument of the devil.-In
kaì ÚTepalpólevoç K.7.2. he is further described as he who, in frivolous arro-
gance, exalts himself above all that is called God. With this description
the delineation of Antiochus Epiphanes, in Dan. xi. 36, 37, was before the
mind of the apostle, where it is said: kai ó Baoikeùs úpwonoetal kai jeyal.vv.
598
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
θήσεται επί πάντα θεόν, και λαλήσει υπέρογκα ... και επί πάντας θεούς των πατέρων
αυτού ου συνήσει ... και επί πάν θεόν ου συνήσει, ότι επί πάντας μεγαλυνθήσεται.
Comp. Dan. vii. 25: kai Joyous npòs TÒV OLOTOV Tarnoel.-ÉTÈ Trávta reyouevov
Osóv] includes the true God as well as the false gods worshipped by the
heathen; but reyóuevov is a natural addition from Christian caution, as
trávra Osóv would have been a senseless and indeed blasphemous expres-
sion for a Christian - oéßaoua] serves for a generalization of the idea
Oɛóv. Accordingly the meaning is : or whatever else is an object of adora-
tion, sc. of divine adoration (=numen).—ÜOTE K.7.1.] The arrogant wicked-
ness of Antichrist proceeds so far that he claims divine adoration for him-
self.—kalical] intransitive, seats himself; accordingly not ajtóv (Grotius,
Koppe, Pelt), but autóv is to be written. avtón is placed for the sake of
emphasis: he, who has lost all reverence for the divine, in whose form he
wishes to appear.—ó vaòs TOV Dcoñ] is not, as Theodoret, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Calvin, Musculus, Hunnius, Estius, Lucius and Andrew
Osiander, Aretius, Vorstius, Calixt, Calovius, Wolf, Benson, Moldenhauer,
Bolten, and others, also Heydenreich, Pelt, Olshausen, Bloomfield, Alford,
Bisping, and Hilgenfeld (1.c. p. 253) assume, a figurative representation of
the Christian church, but, on account of the definite expression kalioal,
cannot be otherwise understood than in its proper sense. But on account
of the repetition of the article can only one definite temple of one definite
true God—that is, the temple of Jerusalem-be meant (Grotius, Clericus,
Schöttgen, Whitby, Kern, de Wette, Wieseler, v. Döllinger, l.c. p. 282,
Davidson, Introduction to the study of the N. Test. vol. I., p. 13).-
àTodelkvÚVTA ÉavròV őtt Éotiv Deós] exhibiting himself that he is a god, i. e.
whilst he not only actually takes possession of the temple of the only true
God as his own, as a dwelling-place belonging to him, but also publicly
predicates of himself divine dignity, and accordingly requires to be adored.
The interpretation of Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others,
also Heydenreich, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Bisping, and Riggenbach :
“who shows himself or seeks to show himself as a god by deceitful mira-
cles” (ver. 9), agrees not with the preceding kabioal.
· Ver. 5. Estius: “Est ... tacita objurgatio, quasi dicat: quum haec vobis
praesens dixerim, non debebatis commoveri rumoribus aliquorum dicen-
tium instare diem domini.”—On após úpās] see on 1 Thess. iii. 4.-raðra]
namely, the contents of vv. 3, 4. To assume, however, a parenthesis from
ver. 5 to oïdate in ver. 6 (so Heinsius) is arbitrary.
Ver. 6. Tò katéxov] is that which keeps back, that which hinders (rò kwasov,
Chrysostom). But it does not denote, as Heinsius thinks (here and in ver.
7), that which hinders the apostle from speaking freely of Antichrist;2 also
not that which hinders the commencement of the advent of Christ
(Noack, der Ursprung des Christenthums, Bd. 2, Leipz. 1857, p. 315), but
1 Schrader certainly finds in ó vaós a
heathen temple; and by the addition toll coll
its interior is denoted, the place where the
god had its seat!
3“ Neque ignoratis, quid sit, quod me nunc
aperte vetat loqui;” and on ver. 7: “ille, qui
nunc obstat, quo minus aperte loquar.”
Heinsius makes the words refer to the apos-
tle's fear of offending Nero!
CHAP. II. 5, 6.
599
that which hinders the appearance of Antichrist. This follows from the
additional sentence ɛic Tò K.T.N., in which (1) avróv can only be referred to
the avopumos tñs duaprías, and (2) árokahuovñval ¿V TỘ ÉAVTOŨ Kalpó forms a
contrast to the idea of keeping back contained in κατέχον. το κατέχον is
therefore, according to its objective side, to be completed by TÒ Tòv åvopwTov
tñs á paprias katé xov. What, on the other hand, the apostle supposes to be
the subject of this preventing power can only be explained at the conclu-
sion of this section.—eis tò k.7..] not donec, usque dum, but in order that
(the aim of God in the katé XELV).—ÉV TQ ÉAUTOū kaipõ] in his time, i. e. in the
time appointed for him by God. More difficult than these determina-
tions is the solution of the question, In what connection this verse is con-
joined to the preceding by means of kaì vvv. Storr, with whomi Flatt
agrees, finds in vīv a contrast to šti, ver. 5. The thought would then be,
that the advent cannot commence until Antichrist appears, this I have
told you by word of mouth; but now, after my written declaration (ver.
3), you know also why the appearance of Antichrist is still delayed, namely,
by the circumstance that the atootajia must precede his appearance. But
if Paul had actually wished to have expressed this contrast, he would
have been obliged to - write in ver. 5, ÖTC TAŪTa MèvěTC ÜV tipòs úuās šneyov
juiv, and in ver. 6, vūv Sề kaì TÒ katé xov oidate. Related to Storr's view is
the interpretation of Kern, with whom Hilgenfeld (l.c. p. 247) agrees :
“That the advent of Christ does not take place until the man of sin be
revealed, is already known to you: and now, in reference to what the present
presents to you, ye know also that which hinders.” The same objection is
decisive against this view. Further, according to Hofmann, who consid-
ers vv. 5, 6 as “two halves of one question united with kai” vīv stands not,
indeed, in opposition to šti, ver. 5, but must express “the present in refer-
ence to that future which was known to the readers,” that they know that
in the present by which its commencement is still hindered. But the
temporal võv can never form a contrast to taūta in ver. 5; and to assume
that the words in ver. 6 are still contained in the question in ver. 5 is
entirely erroneous, because in this case kaì vūv k.1.2. could only be consid-
ered as dependent on őrl, but it is not necessary to recall to mind what is
actually known in the present.--vūv is also understood as a particle of
time, by Whitby, Macknight, Heydenreich, Schrader, Olshausen, Baum-
garten-Crusius, Wieseler, and Bisping, but they do not connect it with
oidate, but with tò katéxov: “and ye know that which at present hinders.”
But only a grammatical impropriety would be expressed thereby, as kai
TÒ vīv katézov would be required. For it is inconceivable that an adverb,
whose proper place is between the article and the participle, should by a hyper-
baton be placed first, because it has already in its natural position the same
emphasis which it would receive by its being placed first. The passages
appealed to, as ver. 7, 1 Cor. vii. 17, Rom. xii. 3, etc., are not analogous.
And as little do the temporal particles apre and non, ver. 7, decide for this
1For if in the presumed question, not οίδατε
and έλεγον, but οίδατε and μνημονεύετε were to
correspond, και ουκ οίδατε νύν το κατέχον
would require to have been written.
600
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
construction. For the emphasis lies not on åpti, but on katéxwv, so that
åpte might be omitted without injury to the sense; and ñon is not put in
exchange for vīv, but for év tĄ ŁAUTOų Kalpą. Likewise võv is understood
by Schott as a temporal and consecutive particle, but kai is then taken in the
sense of also: "For ye know also now (not only have ye learned it at that
time when I was with you), why the appearance of Antichrist is still
delayed.” But (1) το ούν κατέχον οίδατε και νυν would require to have been
written; (2) Tò katéxov must refer to a point formerly already explained;
but it is entirely a new point, as in what goes before what hindered the
appearance of Christ, but not what hindered the appearance of Antichrist,
was spoken of; (3) lastly, to what an idle, dragging, and trivial addition
would ver. 6 be degraded! The only correct view is to take kaì võv in a
logical sense, but not, with Koppe and Krause, as an inferential particle
(“and accordingly), but with de Wette, Alford, Ewald, and Ellicott, as a
particle of transition to a new communication : and now, comp. Acts vii. 34,
x. 5, xiii. 11, xx. 25, etc.; Hartung, Partikellehre, II. p. 26. Accordingly,
the emphasis does not lie on vīv, but on katéxov. The meaning is: and
now—to pass on to a further point-ye know what hindereth, namely, wherein
it consists, and why the appearance of Antichrist is still prevented, that
it should be revealed in its appointed time, marked out by God. The
Thessalonians knew this point from the apostle's oral instructions, so that
they required only to be reminded of it.
Ver. 7. An explanatory justification of eig tò árokahvpuñval avròv év tý
Éavtoő kalpo, but not a parenthesis (Hemming). The mystery of wicked-
ness is certainly even now active, but Antichrist cannot be manifest until
the power preventing him be overcome.----|IVOTÍpcov] is contrasted with
αποκαλυφθήναι, and ήδη with εν τω εαυτού καιρώ. But the chief emphasis of
the sentence lies on uvot“plov, which on that account is not only placed
first, but is besides separated from its further definition rīs åvopías by the
verb and adverb.åvouía] means lawlessness, then ungodliness or wicked-
ness generally.-The expression corresponds to årootasía, ver. 3. For the
åvopwTos tñs duaprías was mentioned in ver. 3 as the historical crown of
the atootaoía; whilst here, in like manner, åvouía appears as its forerun-
ner (von). The genitive tñs åvouías is not a genitive of the working cause-
wickedness, which lays its concealed snares (Theodoret), or which works
under the appearance of good intentions, but uses secret unworthy means
for its object (Flatt); or the plan of ungodliness (Baumgarten-Crusius);
or the secret counsel of the supernatural power of darkness (kar' &vépyelav ToŨ
Gatavā, ver. 9), which is placed in parallelism with God's eternal counsel
or juvorýplov in reference to Christ and His kingdom (Kern); but is the
genitive of apposition. But neither is Antichrist himself meant, who, as
Christ, because God manifest in the flesh, is called in 1 Tim. iii. 16 : TÒ TñS
ευσεβείας μυστήριον, is likewise named το μυστήριον της ανομίας, because he is
1 Comp. C. Th. Beyer, de katexovti TNv åvo-
piav, 2 Thess. ii. 7, commentatio, Lips. 1824.-
J. Grimm, the κατέχων of the Second Epistle
to the Thessalonians (Regensburger Lyceal-
Programm), 1861.
2 Comp. Gal. ii. 6, 9; Arrian, Exp. Al. i. 7. 16:
και ευρέσθαι συγγνώμην το πλήθει των Θηβαίων
tñs åtootádews.
CHAP II. 7.
601
.
Tensif
an incarnation of the devil (Olshausen); nor is uvothplov a mere intensifi-
cation of the idea åvojía; so that a hitherto unheard of, unexampled godless-
ness was designated (Krebs, Hofmann, comp. also Heydenreich, p. 41,
and Schott, p. 22). Rather, taking into consideration the emphatic anti-
thesis which μυστήριον forms to αποκαλυφθήναι, the natural meaning of the
words can only be the mystery of wickedness, 1. e. wickedness in so far as it
is still a mystery, something concealed, not yet publicly brought to light.
Paul thinks on the detached traces of wickedness, recognizable in their
true import only to a few as to himself, which already appeared, but
which only at a later period will concentrate themselves, and reach their
climax in Antichrist.-—ėvɛpyɛītai] is not passive, as Estius, Grotius, Kypke,
Nösselt, Storr, Schott, Bloomfield, and others assume, but middle, is active,
begins to bestir itself or to develop its activity. The subject of évepyεiral is tò
hvor“plov, not Antichrist, as Zeger thinks-jóvov] is still by Heinsius? and
Kypke connected with the preceding, and separated from what follows by
a comma. Erroneously, as jóvov is irreconcilable with ion in the same
introduces the apodosis (Koppe). Rather a comma is to be put after
åvojías, and a colon after yévNTAL. Accordingly ver. 7 is divided into two
halves, of which the first forms a concession, and the second a limitation.
The meaning is : as a mystery wickedness certainly works even now, only,
before Antichrist can be manifested, we must wait until, etc.—ws] until that,
should properly stand before ó katéxwv; but it is placed after, in order to
bring forward more emphatically • katéxwv as the chief idea. Comp. Gal.
ii. 10: jóvov TÚV TTTWXWv iva uvnuovevwuxv. See Winer, p. 511 f. [E. T. 550].
Erroneously Tychsen: the construction is “somewhat distorted;" it
should have been uóvov ó katézov fws apti. Others, equally erroneously,
assume that for the completion of the sentence an additional verb is to
be taken from the participle ó katéxw. Thus, in conformity with the Vul-
gate (tantum ut qui tenet nunc, teneat, donec de medio fiat), Nicolas de
Osiander, Balduin, Menochius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, who sup-
ply kate XétW; Jac. Cappellus, Beza, Calixt, Joachim Lange, Whitby, who
supply kadéšel; Bengel, Storr, Pelt, who supply katéxel. Not less arbitra-
rily do Knatchbull, Benson, and Baumgarten proceed, who would add
totiv after póvov. For not the mere copula cotív, but the emphatic and inde-
pendent forly, would warrant the sense assumed by them; but a word
which has the emphasis cannot be left out.—ó katéxwv] must be essentially
the same as what was designated in ver. 6 by the neuter Tò katéxov. For
the same function is ascribed to both, whilst in a similar manner as tò karé-
xov formerly, so now also ó katéxwv (comp. ver. 8) appears as that by which
the ároláhvrbis of Antichrist is still delayed. The restraining power, on
which Paul thought, must accordingly have been so constituted that it
2 For this meaning an appeal is made to 2 Heinsius finds the thought expressed:
Joseph. de bello Jud. i. 24. 1: kai Tòv 'Autio · what was only begun in the time of Nero,
πάτρου βίον ούκ άν αμάρτοι τις είπών κακίας Antichrist will at a later period bring to a
μυστήριον.
conclusion.
602
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
can be brought under a twofold form of description, and be represented
both as a thing and as a person. To make o katéxwv denote the ruling power
(qui obtinet, i.e. rerum potitur, Beza, and so also Whitby, Noesselt, and
others) is as contrary to the context as it would be to supply fidem as an
accusative to it (Nicolas de Lyra: " qui tenet nunc fidem catholicam, teneat
eam firmiter”), or fidem atque caritatem (Zeger), or Christum et veram
ejus religionem (Estius), or Christi adventum (Vatablus), or rru ávoulav
(Flatt, Heydenreich, Schott), and the like.—ėpti] is closely connected with
ó katéxwv, and brings specially forward the reference already contained in
the present participle to the immediate present time of the writer. Schott,
after Flatt and Pelt, thinks that if ápri is to be limited to the time of the
speaker, it is not suitable to the view of the apostle (see on 1 Thess. iv.
15); that it may accordingly be understood generally: “tempus efficient-
iae Toù KATÉ XOVTOS opportunum, quod porro elapsurum sit ad initium usqe
temporis illi oppositi i. e. donec, remoto tỘ Katéxovti, palam sit proditura
♡ ámooracia.”—ÉK pérov yivecoai] is not necessarily to be considered of death
or violence (Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius). It can denote any removal
or being taken out of the way, however it may happen. The opposite
of ék pécov yiveolai or aipeodal is év ubow elvai, to be in the way, or to be
obstructive.2
Ver. 8. What was left to the readers themselves to supply to jóvov,
ver. 7, from the conclusion of ver. 6, is now, in its essence, although in an
altered form, expressly indicated by kai móte årokażuouņoetal ó ăvouos.-—-kai
TÓTE] and then, namely, as soon as the catéxwv is taken out of the way.
The emphasis is on και τότε, not on ο άνομος (Grotius), nor on αποκαλυφθήσε-
Tal.---ó ăvouos] the lawless one, is not a different person from åvựpuntos tñs
ápciprias (Grotius), but identical with him. For kaì tóte årrokahupuntetal
points back to Móvov, ver. 7, and by this to útokahvpañvai autóv, ver. 6. The
expression ávojía, just used, afforded the easily explained occasion for
calling Antichrist åvopos.—With the relative sentence öv ó kúpios . ... Tapov-
cías avron (which is incorrectly enclosed in a parenthesis by Benson,
Moldenhauer, Schott, and Kern) the apostle immediately adds the ultimate
fate which Antichrist has to expect. That Paul so directly passes over
to this, although he has it yet in view to speak of the worlding of Anti-
christ before his destruction (comp. vv. 9, 10), is an involuntary impulse of
his Christian heart which causes him immediately to resolve the horror
which the announcement of such an event as the dokáhvpig to✓ ávóuov has
into comfort and consolation, as a discord into harmony, comp. vv. 3, 4.-
In a soaring and poetical form of expression, the members of which have
their Hebrew parallels, Paul describes the fate of Antichrist. Not im-
probably Isa. xi. 4 was present to his mind, where it is declared of the
promised Deliverer of the seed of Jesse : kai Tatáčel yÑV TØ 26yŲ TOV OTÓLATOS
avtoī, kai év tavebuatl dià xechéwv ávereč áoeßñ.-ávakiokelv] to consume, to
1 Comp. 1 Cor. V. 2; Col. ii. 14; Plutarch,
Timol. p. 238: #yeu nu cao caoTòe ek Accou
γενόμενος.
2 Comp. Xenoph. Cyrop. v. 2. 26: kai opó&p'
äv ei my ye Súvalvto ovunifal. Tí év néow,
eộn, Toũ UILíỆat; A úpot, av, Tò
αυτό έθνος, δι' ούπερ νύν πορεύη.
CHAP. II. 8–10.
603
destroy.τω πνεύματι του στόματος αυτού] describes the power and irresistible
might of the reappearing Christ, the breath of whose mouth suffices to bring
His opponents to nothing. More definite interpretations, as the sentence
of condemnation? or a command or address are to be rejected; for they
destroy or weaken the picturesque directness and strength of the figure.3_
katapyɛīv] to overthrow, to annihilate. On account of Rev. xix. 20, Calovius
and Olshausen interpret the verb of a mere "rendering inefficient,"
depriving Antichrist of his influence; but the parallel ávarúgel decides
against this meaning, and a comparison of the Pauline form of expression
with that of the Apocalypse is useless labor.-τη επιφανεία της παρουσίας
avrov] by the appearance of His presence. The majestic brightness of the
advent is not described by επιφάνεια also παρουσία and επιφάνεια are not to be
distinguished, as Olshausen strangely thinks, as objective and subjective, i. e.
as “the actual fact of the appearance of Christ," and "the contemplation
of it on the part of man, the consciousness of His presence;" but the
placing the two together has the same design as formerly, TØ Tivevate TOW
otbuatos avtov, namely, vividly to represent the power of Christ, inasmuch
as the mere aclvent of His presence suffices to annihilate His adversaries.
Comp. Bengel: "apparitio adventus ipso adventu prior est, vel certe prima
ipsius adventus emicatio, uti śmigávela rīs yuépas.'
Vv. 9, 10. The apostle has in ver. 8 not only said when Antichrist will
appear, but he has also immediately added what fate awaits him. He now
goes backward in point of time, whilst in addition he describes the char-
acter of the working which Antichrist will develope before his destruction,
brought about by the appearance of Christ.-00] sc. ToŨ ávóuov. Parallel
with öv, ver. 8.--Ėotív] the present describes the certainty of the coming in
the future. See Winer, p. 249 [E. T. 265] Incorrectly Koppe, it imports:
"jam agit et mox apertius majoreque cum vi aget."-kat' ěvépyelav ToŨ
gatavā] does not belong as an independent statement to totiv (so Hofm. as
before him already Georgii, in Zeller's theol. Jahrb. 1845, 1, p. 8, who gives
the meaning that the act of the appearing of the avouoc will itself be a
work of Satan; Engelhardt), but is a subsidiary statement to the principal
clause totiv Łv K.T.., assigning the reason of it. It does not import"after
the example of the working of the devil” (similiter ac si satanas ageret,
Michaelis), but in conformity with it, that an Évépyela row oatavā is its char-
acteristic, that is, that the devil works in and through him.--elval ĚV TIVI] to
consist in something, to prove or make itself known in something. Against
Hofmann, who arbitrarily denies this use of the phrase, comp. Winer, p.
361 [E. T. 386].--Suváței kai onuciozs kai tépaow] a rhetorical enumeration,
as in Acts ii. 2, for the exhaustion of the idea. But as táon (see Winer, p.
i Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide.
2 Theodoret: Odéyšetal Móvov; Theodore
Mopsuestia, ed. Fritzsche, p. 148: MóvovéTTC
βοήσας... τούτο γάρ λέγει το τω πνεύματι του
στόματος αυτού αντί του τη φωνή, από του παρ'
ημίν αυτό είρηκώς, επειδή ήμείς το πνεύματι
ouvepyự kexpñueda apòs Tv ēvapopov ladíay.
8 Comp. moreover, Eurip. Med. 588 : ev yap
ουν κτενεί σ' έπος.
Musculus, Hemming, Bullinger, Heinsius,
Andrew Osiander, Cornelius a Lapide, Eras-
mus Schmid, Calixt, Clericus, Bernard a
Piconius, Sebastian Schmid, Schcettgen, Tur-
retin, Whitby, Benson, Macknight, Koppe,
Krause, Bolten, Heydenreich, Pelt, Schott,
Kern, Wieseler, and others.
604
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
490 [E. T. 527]), so also weúdovc] belongs to all three substantives. The
genitive may import: in every kind of power, and in all signs and won-
ders whose nature is falsehood, or which proceed from falsehood, or which
lead to falsehood, whose aim is falsehood. The last meaning is, with
Aretius, de Wette, Ellicott, and others, to be preferred, as Antichrist is
indeed the first to bring evil to its climax.- Eūdos falsehood, belongs to
the essential nature of the devil (comp. John viii. 44). It represents evil
as the counterpart of divine truth (the árnyala).
Ver. 10. Kai šv tráon árárn ádekias] and in every deceit. which leads to or
advances unrighteousness, i.e. ungodliness (Estius, Aretius, Grotius, de
Wette, and others).—But this energetic working of Antichrist by no means
describes his power as irresistible; only the ározhvuevoc succumb under
it. Toiç årokavuévols] is dativus incommodi, and belongs not only to lv ráon
årátn åsikias (Heydenreich, Flatt, Hofmann), but to the whole sentence
from ver. 9 onwards.—oi dron múpevoi] are they who perish, who fall into eter-
nal árbhela (comp. 1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. ii. 15, xiv. 3), and the present par-
ticiple characterizes this future fate as already decided.' Comp. Bern-
hardy, Syntax, p. 371. But the addition áva úv 1.7.2. denotes that this was
occasioned by their own fault.-ává úv TÌv åyátnu tñs ångelas oúk édéfavto] in
requital for this,” that they have not received in themselves the love of the truth.
To interpret, with Bolten : Tiju áyárnu tñs åandelas, "the lovable and true
religion,” is naturally as impossible as, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, a
Oecumenius, and Theophylact, to find therein a circumlocution for Christ
Himself. århela denotes moral and religious truth generally, not, as is
usually supposed, Christian truth specially. Thus every objection which
Kern (p. 212) takes to it vanishes, that tņu ayári tñs áhnoelaç o'k ÉSÉFAVTO
was written instead of the simple την αλήθειαν ουκ εδέξαντο. For in a simi-
lar manner, as the apostle in Gal. v. 5, instead of the simple Olkalooúvnu
ÅTeikde,xóueda, which one would expect, put the apparently strange &anida
Olkalorúvns ÅTekde xóueva, but did so designedly, in order to oppose to the
arrogant feeling of the legally righteous the humble feeling of the true
Christian ; so here the expression την αγάπην της αληθείας ούκ εδέξαντο is
designedly chosen to bring forward the high degree of guilt. Not only have
they not received the Christian truth presented to them; for it might be
still conceivable that they highly esteemed the truth itself and felt themselves
drawn to it, although in consequence of spiritual blindness they had not
known and recognized Christianity as an embodiment and full expression
of the truth; but they have not even received into their hearts the love of
the truth under whatever form it may be presented to them; they have
rendered themselves entirely unsusceptible of the truth, they have hardened
themselves against it. —Eiç tò owiñval avtovs] in order that they might be saved,
brings still more prominently forward this hardness. They ought to have
received that αγάπη της αληθείας, to the end that they might receive σωτηρία,
1 Theodoret: Oủ yap návrwv kpatňoel, állà
Tv å trwdeias ášiwv, oi kai dixa Tas TOUTOU
παρουσίας σφάς αυτούς της σωτηρίας έστέρησαν.
LXX. 1 Kings xi. 11; Joel iii. 5; Xen. Anab.
i. 3. 4, ibid. v. 5. 14.
2 Comp. Luke i. 20, xix. 44; Acts xii. 23;
8 'Αγάπην αληθείας τον κύριον κέκληκεν, ώς
adnews nuas kai yunoiws åyaroavta.
CHAP. II. 11, 12.
605
eternal salvation. But the attainment of such an end did not trouble them,
was something indifferent to them.
Ver. 11. Kai dià TowTo] and on this account, refers to avo ūv Tin ảyámnu TñS
à Anbelas oúk ÉSÉGavto, ver. 10, and kai serves to bring forward the reciprocal
relation between cause and effect.—TÉLTɛl avrois ó Osóc] the present is
chosen, because according to ver. 7 the beginnings of lawlessness even now
appeared. But the verbal idea is not to be weakened into the idea of the
divine permission, but must be taken in its proper sense. For according to
the Pauline view it is a holy ordinance of God that the wicked by their
wickedness should lose themselves always the more in wickedness, and
thus sin is punished by sin. But what is an ordinance of God is also
accomplished by God Himself. See Meyer on Rom. i. 24.—&Vépyelav Trávns]
active power of seduction. On Thávn, see on 1 Thess. ii. 3.-Eiç tÒ TloteīOAL
K.7.2.] not a statement of the consequence (Macknight and others), but of
the design of God. In a forced manner, Hofmann: els tò TLOTEõoal belongs
to švépyelav.
Ver. 12. "Iva] dependent on eic tò TILOTEūOAL K.7.2., not on réunei, as Hof-
mann thinks. A statement of the further or higher design.—iva kpıdwoi] in
order that they may be judged, i. e. according to the context, condemned.--
The truth is the Christian truth, and the unbelief, shown against it, is the
consequence of the love for the truth in general being wanting (ver. 10).
CONCLUDING REMARKS ON CHAP. II. 1-12.
The apocalyptic teaching of the apostle in chap. ii. 1-12 has occupied
Christians of all times, and has been very variously interpreted. A chief
distinction in the interpretations consists in this, that this Pauline pre-
diction may be considered either as that which will be fulfilled in the
near or more distant future, or as having already received its fulfillment.
I. The Church Fathers belong to the representatives of the first view
(Irenaeus, adv. haer. v. 25, 29, 30; Tertullian, de resur. carn. C. 24; Chry-
sostom in loco; Cyril. Hierosolym. Catech. 15; Augustine, de civit. dei,
XX. 19; Theodoret in loco, and epit. decret. div. C. 23; Theodorus Mopsues-
tius, and others). They correctly agree in considering that by the advent
(vv. 1, 8), or the day of the Lord (ver. 2), is to be understood the personal
advent of Christ for the last judgment and for the completion of the Messianic
kingdom. Also it is correctly regarded as proved, that the Antichrist here
described is to be considered as an individual person, in whom sin will
embody itself. Yet Augustin already remarks, that“nonnulli non ipsum
principem, sed universum quodam modo corpus ejus i. e. ad eum perti-
1 With Theodoret, John Damascenus, Theo
dore Mopsuestius, p. 148, Oecumevius, Theo
phylact, Pelagius, Nicolas de Lyra, Hunnius,
Justinian, Wolf, Tarretin, Whithy, Molden-
hauer, Koppe, Heydenreich, Flatt, and others.
606
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
nentem hominum multitudinem simul cum ipso suo principe hoc loco
intelligi Antichristum volunt.” The restraining power by which the
appearance of Antichrist is delayed, is usually considered to be the con-
tinuance of the Roman Empire (Tò katé xov) and its representative the
Roman emperor (ó katéxwv). Some, however, as Theodorus Mopsuestius
and Theodoret, understand by it to✓ DEVŰ Tòv őpov, i. e. more exactly, the
counsel of God to keep back the appearance of Antichrist until the gospel
is proclaimed throughout the earth. This latter interpretation is cer-
tainly unsuitable enough. For although the difference of gender tò katé-
xov and ó katéxwv may be to distinguish God's counsel and God Himself,
yet εκ μέσου γίνεσθαι is not reconcilable with the masculine και κατέχων.
Chrysostom chooses a third interpretation, that by the restraining power
is meant the continuance of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. But he
directly refutes this by the fact that if so, Antichrist must have already
appeared, as those gifts have long since disappeared in the Christian
church. The temple of God, in which Antichrist will place himself, is
referred either to the Christian church (so Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Augustin), the expression being taken figuratively, or to the actual temple
of Jerusalem (so Irenaeus and Cyril); in which latter case the objection,
that this temple was already destroyed, is met by the shift that a new
temple rebuilt in place of the old one by Antichrist is to be thought on.
Lastly, some, as Chrysostom, -although in contradiction to the chronol-
ogy of the Epistle,-interpret the uvorýplov tñs åvojías, which already
begins to work, of Nero, the forerunner and type of Antichrist in St.
Paul's time; and others, as Theodoret, of the outbreak of heresies.
The common and grave error in the explanations of the Fathers, by
means of which they run counter to the Pauline representation, consisted
in their not doing sufficient justice to the point of nearness of the event
predicted by Paul. It is incontestable, as the result of correct exegesis,
that Paul not only considered Antichrist as directly preceding the advent,
but also regarded the advent as so near, that he himself might then be
alive. It was natural that the Fathers, as the prophecy of the apostle had
not been fulfilled in their times, should disregard this point; but they
held that in this prophecy a picture of the last things, fully correspond-
ing to the reality in the future, must have been given. They therefore
satisfied themselves with the consideration that the prediction had already
begun to be fulfilled in the apostolic times, but that the apostle could not
possibly give an exact statement of time, as he only says that Antichrist
will be revealed in his appointed time.?
The view of the Fathers remained in the following ages the prevalent
one in the Christian church. It was necessary, however partially to
1 Népwva évtavlá onowv, woavei tútov ovta 2 Comp. Augustin, Epist. 80 (Ep. 199, ed. Be-
ToŮ 'Avtexpiotovº kai yàp oůtos ébouleto vomi- ned.):... ita sane obscure sunt et mystice
SeoBau cós. Kai kadás eitte TÒ MUOTÁPLOvi oủ dicta, ut tamen appareat, eum nihil de statu-
γάρ φανερώς ως εκείνος, ουδε απορυθριασμένως. tis dixisse temporibus, nullumque eorum in-
Ei yập npò toû xpóvov ékeivov åvevpéon, proiv, tervallum spatiumque aperuisse. Ait enim:
ös où tolů toŮ 'Avtexplotov édelmeto kaTà Thu ut reveletur in suo tempore, nec dixit, post
kariav, tí davuaotóv, ei non ērtat;
quantum temporis hoc futurum sit.
CHAP. II. 1-12.
607
change and transform it, the relation of Christianity to the Roman
state having altered, as the Christian church, instead of being exposed
to renewed hostilities from the secular power, had obtained the sovereignty
of the state, and, penetrating larger portions of the world, represented
itself as the kingdom of God on earth, and an imposing hierarchy
was placed at its head. Whilst, accordingly, the idea of the advent
stepped more and more into the background in the church gener-
ally, and especially with the hierarchy, on the other hand, those who had
placed themselves in opposition to the hierarchy believed themselves
obliged to apply to it the description of the apostle, as well as the figures
in the Apocalypse of St. John. Thus arose—whilst the early view con-
cerning the rapovola thū kvplov was held with only the modification that
its entrance was to be expected in the distant future the view, first in the
eleventh century, that the establishment and growing power of the Papacy is
to be considered as the Antichrist predicted by Paul. At first this view
was expressed in the conflict between the emperors and the popes by the
partisans of the imperial power ; but was then repeated by all those who
had placed themselves in opposition with the hierarchy, because they
wished, instead of the rigid ecclesiastical power, a freer spirit of Christian-
ity to rule; thus by the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the followers of
Wickliffe and Huss. The empire—which was regarded as nothing else
than a revival and renewal of the old Roman Empire—was considered as
the restraining power which still delayed the destruction of the Papacy.
This reference of Antichrist to the papal hierarchy became specially
prevalent toward the time of the Reformation, and after that event was
almost regarded as a dogma in the evangelical church. It is found in
Bugenhagen, Zwingli, Calvin, Victorin Strigel, Hemming, Hunnius,
Lucius and Andrew Osiander, Camero, Balduin, Aretius, Er. Schmid,
Beza, Quistorp, Calixt, Calovius, Newton, Wolf, Joachim Lange, Turretin,
Benson, Beng., Mackn., Zacha., Michaelis, Engelhardt, and others. Accord-
ingly it is expressed in the Lutheran symbolical books; comp. Articul.
Smalcald. II. 4 (ed. Meyer, p. 189 f.): Haec doctrina praeclare ostendit,
papam esse ipsum verum Antichristum, qui supra et contra Christum sese
extulit et evexit, quandoquidem Christianos non vult esse salvos sine sua
potestate, quae tamen nihil est, et adeo nec ordinata nec mandata est. Hoc
proprie loquendo est se efferre supra et contra deum, sicut Paulus 2 Thess.
ii. loquitur.—De pot. et prim. pap. (p. 210): Constat autem, Romanos ponti-
fices cum suis membris defendere impiam doctrinam et impios cultus.
Ac plane notae Antichristi competunt in regnum papae et sua membra.
Paulus enim ad Thessalonicenses describens Antichristum, vocat eum
adversarium Christi, extollentem se super omne, quod dicitur aut colitur
deus, sedentem in templo dei tanquam deum. Also Luther's powerful
treatise against the papal bull bore the title: "Adversus exsecrabilem
bullam Antichristi.” It was thought that the Papacy would go on more
and more developing what was anti-Christian in it, and that then the last
1 See against this view, Koppe, Excurs. II. p. 120 ff.
608
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
judgment would overtake it. The atooraoia was the falling away from the
pure gospel to the traditions of men. The singular é ăv@pwroç TŘS dpaprias
16.7.2. is to be understood collectively as a series et successio hominum, inas-
much as the question is concerning an imperiumi monarchicum which
remains one and the same, although its temporal head may be changed.
The godlessness of Antichrist, described in ver. 4, is historically proved
by the pope placing himself above all human and divine authority, 1 the
words távra heyóuevov DEÒV K.T.N., in accordance to biblical usage, being
referred to the princes and great men of the world, and an allusion being
discovered in σέβασμα to the Roman imperial title Σεβαστός. The objec-
tion, that there have been pious popes, is removed by the proverb: "a
potiori fit denominatio.” vaòs To✓ Okoũ is referred to the Christian church,
• and the rabioal to the tyrannical power usurped over it. By tò katéxov is
nearly universally understood the Roman Empire, and by ó katéxwv the
Roman emperor, for which proof is deduced from history, that the papal
power sprang from the ruins of the Roman Empire, whilst in reference
to the continuation of the empire in Germany, it is observed that praeter
titulum nihil fere remains. The declaration tò uvothplov non évepyeiral tñs
ávouías, ver. 7, is considered as justified by the fact that at least the semina
erroris et ambitionis, which paved the way for the Papacy, were present in
the time of the apostle; for which Camero appeals to Gal. i., ii., and
others to other proofs. For an enumeration of répara peúdovs, ver. 9,
relics, transubstantiation, purgatory, etc., afford rich material. The
annihilation of Antichrist by the avevja ToŨ otópatos of the Lord, is under-
stood to denote the annihilation of his importance in the minds of men
by the divine word of Scripture being again opened up and diffused in its
purity by means of the Reformation; whilst the katapyhoei tſe Éripaveią rūs
napovolas auto denotes the final and material destruction of Antichrist by
the coming of Christ to judgment.
certainly not to be blamed that in retaliation they interpreted áfootagia as
the defection from the Roman church and from the pope, and Antichrist
as the heretics, especially Luther and the evangelical church. Comp.
Estius, Fromond., Bern. a Piconio.
Yet even before the reference of Antichrist to Popery was maintained,
Mohammed? was already regarded by the divines of the Greek church
(latterly by Faber Stapulensis and others) as the Antichrist predicted by
Paul, and in the atootacía was seen the defection of several Oriental and
Greek churches from Christianity to Mohammedanism. This interpreta-
tion at least so far exercised an influence on the evangelical church, that
some of its theologians have assumed a double Antichrist-one Oriental,
1 Engelhardt recently, in the article referred
to above, p. 60, finds the movement towards the
final and extreme point, that at last a pope will
appear who makes himself God, already
having become manifest in the dogma of
infallibility. He holds that the significant
remnant of truth which the Romish Church
still possesses is veiled in an impenetrable
cloud of fiction; that there remains in fact
but a single further step to the last and most
blasphemous proclamation of the Dogma:
The Pope is God.
2 See against this view, Turretin, p. 515 ff.
CHAP. II. 1-12.
609
viz. Mohammed and the Turkish power, and the other Western, viz. the
pope and his power. So Melanchthon, Bucer, Musculus, Bullinger, Pisca-
tor, and Vorstius.
Related to this whole method of interpretation is the assumption,
made in our own century, that by the apostasy is to be understood the
enormities of the French Revolution; by Antichrist, Napoleon; and by
him that restraineth, the continuation of the German Empire an inter-
pretation which the extinction of the German Empire in 1806 has already
condemned.
In recent times it has often been considered as objectionable to deter-
mine exactly the individual traits of the imagery used by Paul. Accord-
ingly the representation of the apostle has been interpreted in a general,
ideal, or symbolical sense. To this class of interpreters belongs Koppe,
according to whom Paul, founding on an old national Jewish oracle, sup-
ported especially by Daniel, would describe the ungodliness preceding the
last day, which already worked, but whose full outbreak was only to take
place after the death of the apostle; so that Paul himself was the katéxwv.?
1 See Leutwein, das Thier war und ist nicht,
und wird wiederkonimen aus dem Abgrunde.
Eine Abhandlung für nachdenkende Leser, Lud-
wigsb. 1825.
2 To prove this view of the katéxwy by
Koppe as the correct one by a closer exposi-
tion, is the object of the above-mentioned
treatise of Beyer (on II. 7). Also Heyden-
reich, Schott, and Grimm (Stud. u. Krit. 1850,
Part 4, p. 790 ff.) so far agrec with Koppe, that
they understand the neuter as the multitude
of the truly pious and believers (Heyden-
reich), or as the veri religionis doctores (Schott),
or as the apostolorum chorus (Grimm). For
the removal of the objection, that Paul hoped
to survive the advent, and that accordingly
Šx uérov yiveolau would be unsuitable, Schott
out the whole passage 2 Thess. ii. 5-7 Paul
refers apparently to the visions of Daniel, he
must have spoken to the Thessalonians of
that which hinders the man of sin from com-
ing sooner than his proper time with refer-
ence to these prophecies of Daniel. There-
fore, in agreement with Daniel, a spiritual
power is to be thought of which rules in the
secular world and in the various governments
in agreement with the divine will, and opposes
the influences of the spirit of nations and
kingdoms working contrary to the divine will.
This power may be designated both as neuter
and as masculine, εις κυριότης and as κύριος,
and the words Móvov • katéxwv apri ëws éx
pérov yévntal kai TóTE & ToKadudonoetal •
ởvouos are sufficiently similar to those of
.Dan) וַאֲנִי יוֹצֵא וְהִנֵּה שָׂר־יָיִן בָּא :and Grimm considler it probable that by this Daniel
expression we are to think not on death, but X. 20), in order to be recognized as a transfer
on "alia res externa, e.g. captivitas dura." of the same to those last times when the
Akin to this interpretation of the Karéxwv is spiritual power which now preserves the
Wieseler's view (Chronologie des apost. Zeitalt., earthly commonwealth in agreement with
Götting. 1848, p. 272 f.), that Paul would denote the kingdom of God entirely recedes, in order
with it the pious in Jerusalem, particularly that every form of secular power may enter
the Christians, or in case katéxwy necessarily , which will allow no more place for the church
denoted an individual, the Apostle James the of God on earth. Still differently, Ewald,
Just. Comp. also Böhme, de spe messiana Jahrb. der bibl. IFisse?schaft, Jahr. 3, Gött.
apostolica, Hal. 1826, p. 30, according to whom 1851, p. 250 f. (comp. Sendschreiben des Ap.
the apostolic circle are denoted in general, Paulus, Gött. 1857, p. 27): “We have here a
and in particular the most prominent mem- . mystery before us which in the early apostolic
ber, perhaps the Apostle James. Hofmann times only believers loved to talk over and to
judges differently upon TÒ KATéxov and ò diffuse among themselves, so that Paul may
Katéxwv, Schriftbeweis, Part 1, 2d ed. Nörd have been unwilling to speak openly upon it.
ling. 1857, p. 352 f., and in his h. Schr. N. T. The appearance of Antichrist was expected
Part 1, p. 318 ff., with whom Baumgarten, 1.c. according to Matt. xxiv. 15 (?), and Paul here
p. 609, Luthardt, 1.c. p. 159 f., and Riggenbach describes it, only more openly and freely
coincide. According to Hofmann, as through than it is there indicated in the prophecy of
39
610
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Similarly Storr (l. c.), who understands by the åvý pwntos tñs duaprias "po-
testas aliqua, deo omnique religioni adversaria, quae penitus incognita et
futuro demum tempore se proditura sit," and by the preventing power
the " copia hominum verissimo amore inflammatorum in christianam
religionem.”—Further, Nitzsch (l. c.) thinks on the power of atheism first
come to have public authority, or the contempt of all religion generally.
Further, the opinion of Pelt is entirely peculiar, who in his Commentary,
p. 204,1 sums up his views in the following words : “Mihi ... adversarius
illi principium esse videtur sive vis spiritualis evangelio contraria, quae
huc usque tamen in Pontificiorum Romanorum operibus ac serie luculen-
tissime sese prodidit, ita tamen, ut omnia etiam mala, quae in ecclesia
compareant, ad eandem Antichristi švépyelav sint referenda. Ejus vero
tapovola, i.e. summum fastigium, quod Christi reditum qui nihil aliud est,
nisi regni divini victoria, antecedet, futurum adhuc esse videtur, quum
illud tempus procul etiamnum abesse putemus, ubi omnes terrae incolae
in eo erunt, ut ad Christi sacra transeant. Katéxov vero cum Theodoreto
putarim esse dei voluntatem illud Satanae regnum cohibentem, ne erum-
pat, et, si mediae spectantur causae, apostolorum tempore maxime
imperii Romani vis, et quovis aevo illa resistentia, quam malis artibus,
quae religionem subvertere student, privati commodi et honoris augen-
dorum cupiditas opponere solet.” Pelt thinks that the symptoms of the
future corruption of the Christian church were already present in the
apostolic age in the danger of falling away from Christian freedom into
Jewish legalism, in the mingling of heathenism with Christianity, in the
false gnosis and asceticism, in the worship of angels, and in the fastus a
religione Christiana omnino alienus. To the same class belongs Ols-
hausen, who considers the Pauline description only as a typical repre-
sentation of future events. According to him, the chief stress lies on tò
uvothplov non èvepyEītai tñs åvouías. Antichrist is a union of the individu-
Christ; but an opinion must have been formed
in the bosom of the mother church at Jeru-
salem why Antichrist had not as yet appeared,
which was imparted only to believers. We
may, however, pretty nearly guess what it
was from other signs. If we reflect that,
according to Rev. xi. 3 ff., Antichrist was not
to be considered as coming until tho two
martyrs of the old covenant had appeared,
and their destruction was the true beginning
of his extreme rage; further, that instead of
these two assumed martyrs, it was also, or
rather originally, still more commonly slip-
posed that only Elijah must return before
Christ, and accordingly also before Anti-
christ. Elijah's return is not actually denied
in that passage, where this expectation is
treated of in the freest manner (Matt. xvii.
11 f., comp. xi. 13 f.), so it is most probable
that by that which hindereth the appearance
of Antichrist the coming of Elijah is meant
(Sendschr. des Ap. Paulus, p. 27: the tarrying
of Elijah in heaven); and by him who hith-
erto hindered, and who must be taken out of
the way before the last atrocious wickedness
of Antichrist, is meant Elijah himself." Still
otherwise Noack (Der Ursprung des Christen-
thums, vol. II., Leipz. 1857, p. 313 ff.), who by
him that hindereth-arbitrarily identifying
the same with the man of sin-understands
Simon Magus and his machinations. Still
differently Jowett, according to whom (after
the suggestion of Ewald, Jahrb. X., Gött.
1860, p. 235) το κατέχον is designed to indicate
the Mosaic law.
1 In only an unessentially modified form
Pelt has later maintained the same view
in the Theolog. Mitarbeiten. Jahrg. 4, Kiel 1841,
H. 2, p. 114 fT.
2 Comp. Pelt, p. 185: ...“tenentes, illum
Christi adventum a Paulo non visibilem hab-
itum."
8 Bisping follows him in all essential points.
CHAP. II. 1-12.
611
.
ality and spiritual tendency in masses of individuals. The revolt of the
Jews from the Romans, and the fearful divine punishment in the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem, Nero, Mohammed and his spiritual devastating power,
the development of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, the French Revolu-
tion of 1789, with the abrogation of Christianity, and the setting up of
prostitutes on altars for worship, in the external world, as well as the con-
stantly spreading denial of the fundamentals of all religious truth and
morality, of the doctrines of God, freedom, and immortality, and like-
wise the self-deification of the ego in the internal world -all these phe-
nomena are the real precursors of Antichrist; but they contain only some
of his characteristics, not all; it is the union of all these characteristics
which shall make the full Antichrist. The preventing power is to be
understood of the preponderance of the Christian world in its German
and Roman constituents over the earth; i. e. of the whole political condi-
tion of order, with which, on the one hand, there is the constant repres-
sion of all arooracía and åvojía, and on the other hand, the continued and
peaceful development of Christianity. Of this condition the Roman
Empire, as the strongest and most orderly secular organization which
history knows, is the natural type. Baumgarten-Crusius is also here to be
named. According to him, the Pauline prediction contains no new
teachings peculiar to the apostle, but only representations from the old
· Messianic pictures in the prophets, especially in Daniel. The apostle's
design is practical, to make the Thessalonians calmly observant, attentive
to the times, prepared and strong for the future; the passage has a per-
manent value in this reference, and in the chief thought that the devel-
opment and determination of these things can only gradually take place.
The passage is indeed historical and for the near future, but Paul has no
definite or personal manifestations, whether present or future, in view, at
least not in ảvTiKELlevos, which he describes as still entirely concealed; and
it is even doubtful whether he understood by it an individual person.
Only tò katéxov has a definite reference, but not to a person ; on the con-
trary, the new spirit of Christianity is meant. The difference in gender,
ó katéxwv and Tò katé xov, is used either only to correspond with ảvilkeíuevos,
or Paul thinks on Xplotós év avtois, Col. i. 27! Lastly, to the same class
belong Bloomfield and Alford. According to the former, the uvorhplov
1 Comp. also Düsterdieck, die drei johan-
neischen Briefe, Bd. I., Gött. 1952, p. 306: “John,
as Paul (2 Thess. ii. 1-12), in conformity to the
instruction of the Lord, recognizes in the
powerful errors of the present the signs of an
approaching decision. The last hour is
present, the advent is at hand. The last hour
is the concluding period of aiw ouros, the
period of travail, which continues in an unbroken
connection from its commencement, the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem, even to the end, to which the
advent directly succeeds." John has not erred
in that he soon expected the real commence-
ment of the crisis, continually carried on
throughout the whole historical development
of the kingdom of Christ; for that generation,
as our Lord had predicted, survived the
destruction of the holy city, an event of whose
importance in the history and judgment of
the world there can be no doubt. · Moreover,
in reference to 1 Thess. iv. 15 (nueis oi S@UTES
x...), Düsterdieck (l.c. p. 308) recognizes
that there Paul has shortened the chrono-
logical perspective too much; but then he
thinks, referring to 2 Thess. ii. 1 ff. and Rom.
xi. 25 ff., that this is an imperfection which
was gradually overcome in the apostle by the
moral development of his life in God, and
612
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
.
añs åvouíac is something still continuing; the prediction of the apostle will
obtain its complete fulfillment only at the end of time, when only then
the preventing power—which is most probably to be understood, with
Theodoret, of the counsel of divine Providence—will be removed. Accord-
ing to the latter (see Proleg. p. 67 ff.), we stand, though 1800 years later,
with regard to the avouos where the apostle stood; the day of the Lord not
present, and not to arrive until the man of sin be manifested; the uvothplov
tñs åvouíaç still working, and much advanced in his working; the pre-
venting power not yet taken out of the way. · All this points to a state in
which the ảvouía is working on underground, under the surface of things,
gaining an expansion and power, although still hidden and unconcen-
trated. It has already partially embodied itself in Popery, in Nero and
every Christian persecutor, in Mohammed and Napoleon, in Mormonism,
and such like. The katéxov and the katéxwv are to be understood of the
fabric of human polity and those who rule that polity, by which hitherto all
outbursts of godlessness have been suppressed and hindered in their
course and devastations.
It is evident that all these explanations are arbitrary. The Pauline
description is so definitely and sharply marked, and has for its whole
compass so much the idea of nearness for its supposition, that it can by no
means be taken generally, and in this manner explained away.
II. Others have regarded the apocalyptic instruction of the apostle as a
prophecy already fulfilled. Thus Grotius, Wetstein, Hammond, Clericus,
Whitby, Schoettgen, Noesselt, Krause, and Harduin. The reference of
the παρουσία του κυρίου to the coming of the Lord in judgment at the
destruction of Jerusalem, is common to all these writers. In reference to
the other chief points of the Pauline representation they differ as
follows:
Grotiusunderstands by Antichrist the Emperor Caius Caligula, notor-
that it was changed for the real truth. But it
is assumed, without right, that an entirely
different view of things lies at the foundation
of the section 2 Thess. ii. 1–12 than of the
section 1 Thess. iv. 13 ff., as the Second
Epistle to the Thessalonians was written only
a few months after the First; and besides, 2
Thess. ii. 5 points to the agreement of the
written explanations there given with the oral
instructions to the Thessalonians given even
previously to the First Epistle. Further on,
Düsterdieck (p. 330) concedes that because
Paul in 1 Thess. iv. 13 ff. has abbreviated the
interval to the advent, he was also in 2 Thess.
ii. 1 ff. constrained to represent the personal
appearance of the opponent incorrectly in
point of chronology.
1 What is necessary to be said on Kern's
view has already been observed in the Intro-
duction, sec. 3. Döllinger (l. c.), who like
Kern understands by Antichrist Nero, thinks,
however, that with this assumption the
authenticity of the Epistle, and even its com-
position in the year 53, are perfectly recon-
cilable. According to Döllinger, the pro-
phecy in all its essentials was fulfilled close
upon the apostle's days, although a partial
fulfillment at the end of time is not excluded
by this assumption. Already Paul has recog.
nized the youthful Nero as the future Anti-
christ, whose public appearance was already
prepared, but was yet prevented by Claudius
as the then possessor of the imperial throne.
The coming of Christ is His coming to exe-
cute judgmenton Jerusalem. Nero, although
he personally undertook nothing against the
temple of Jerusalem yet entrusted Vespasian
with the guidance of the war, and accord-
ingly brought-certainly only after his death
--the abomination of desolation into the
holy city. Lastly, the apostasy is the being
led astray into the false doctrines of the
Gnostics.
2 See against him, Turretin, p. 483 ff.
CHAP. II, 1-12.
613
ious for his ungodliness, who, according to Suetonius, Caligul. xxii. 33,
ordered universal supplication to himself as the supreme God, and accord-
ing to Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 8, and Philo, legat. ad Caj. p. 1022, wished to
set up his colossal statue in the temple of Jerusalem; by the katéxwv, L.
Vitellius, the proconsul of Syria and Judea, who dissuaded from the erec-
tion of the statue; and by the avouos, Simon Magus.—This opinion is suffi-
ciently contradicted, partly by the impossibility of distinguishing the
άνομος from άνθρωπος της αμαρτίας as a separate person, and partly by its
incongruity with the period of the composition of the Epistle. See sec. 2
of the Introduction.
According to Wetstein, the ivopuros tñs duaprías is Titus, whose army,
according to Joseph. de bello Jud. vi. 6. 1, brought idols into the captured
temple of Jerusalem, sacrificed there, and saluted Titus as imperator.
The katéxwv is Nero, whose death must precede the rule of Titus; and the
áriotaría is the rebellion and murder of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. But
how can Titus, the ornament of the Roman emperors, pass for Antichrist;
and Nero, that monster in human form, the power which hinders the out-
burst of Antichrist?
Hammond understands by the man of sin Simon Magus and the Gnos-
tics, whose head he was. The én lovvaywyn śn' autóv, ver. 1, is the “major
libertas coeundi in ecclesiasticos coetus ad colendum Christum;” the
&Tootagla is the falling away of Christians to the Gnostics (1 Tim. iv. 1);
ámokavooſval denotes the casting off the mask of Christianity ; ver. 4refers
to the fact that Simon Magus "se dictitaret summum patrem omnium
rerum, et qui ipsum Judaeorum deum creaverat.” Tò katéxov is the cir-
cumstance that the apostles and orthodox Christians still preserved union
with the Jews, and had not yet turned themselves to the Gentiles. The
neuter katéxov and the masculine katéxwv are equivalent; or if a distinc-
tion is to be maintained, ó katéxw must be regarded as the same as é
νόμος. The μυστήριον της ανομίας is the “duplicis generis scelera horum
hominum, libidines nefariae et odium in Christianos.” Ver. 8 refers to
the contest of Peter and Paul with Simon Magus in Rome, which ended
in the death of the latter.—The exegetical and historical monstrosity of
this interpretation is at present universally acknowledged.
The interpretations of Clericus, Whitby, Schoettgen, Noësselt, Krause,
and Harduin have a greater resemblance between them.
According to Clericus," the apostasy is the rebellion of the Jews against
the Roman yoke; the man of sin is the rebellious Jews, and especially
their leader, Simon the son of Giora, of whose atrocities Josephus informs
us. Tās reyouevos Deòs K.7.n. denotes the government. TÒ katéxov is
whatever hindered the open outbreak of the rebellion, partly the fear of
the proceres Judaeae gentis, who mistrusted the war because they expected
no favorable result, partly the fear of the Roman army; ó katéxav on the
one side "praeses Romanus," on the other side "gentis proceres, rex
Agrippa et pontifices plurimi.” The uvorhplov tñs åvoulas which already
1 Comp. against him, Turretin, p. 493 ff.
2 See against him, Turretin, p. 501 ff.
614
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
..
works consists in the rebellious ambition which conceals itself under the
pretext of the independence of the Jewish people, yea, under the cloak of
a careful observance of the Mosaic law, until at length what strives in
secret is openly manifested.
Whitbył considers the Jewish people as Antichrist, and finds in the
apostasy the rebellion against the Romans, or also the falling away from
the faith; and in the katéxwv the Emperor Claudius, during whose life the
Jews could not possibly think of a rebellion, as he had shown himself
favorable to them.
According to Schoettgen, the Jewish Pharisees and Rabbis are Anti-
christ. The rootaría is the rebellion excited by them, of the Jews against
the Romans ; πάς λεγόμενος θεός refers likewise to the rulers και το κατέχον
and ó katéxwv are probably the Christians who by their prayers effected a
respite from the catastrophe, until, in consequence of a 'divine oracle, they
left Jerusalem, and betook themselves to Pella; uvor“pcov rīs åvoulaç
denotes ipsa doctrina perversa.
Noesselt, whom Krause follows, understands Antichrist of the Jewish
zecilots; but interprets the preventing power, as Whitby does, of the Em-
peror Claudius.
Lastly, Harduin explains the stocracia of the falling off of the Jews to
heathenism. He considers the high priest Ananias (Acts xxiii. 2). as the
άνθρωπος της αμαρτίας, and his predecessor in office as the κατέχων, who nmust
first be removed by death in order to make place for Ananias. At the
beginning of his high-priesthood the åvopwntos tñs ápaprías will appear as a
deceitful prophet, and be destroyed at the destruction of Jerusalem by
Titus.
All these interpretations of the second class avoid, it is true, the com-
mon error of the interpretations of the first class, as they give due promi-
nence to the point of the nearness of the catastrophe described by Paul;
but, apart from many and strong objections which may be brought against
each, they are all exposed to this fatal objection, the impossibility of
understanding the coming of the Lord, mentioned by Paul, of the period
of the destruction of Jerusalem.
Tychsen (1.c.) has endeavored to divest the Pauline representation of
its prophetic character, by assuming that the apostle follows step by step
the course of an Epistle received from Thessalonica, from which he per-
ceived that the church had been led astray into the erroneous notion that
the advent of Christ was already at hand. The apostle cites passages
from that writing, and adds each time his refutation. For the state-
ment of this opinion, which only claims attention on account of its
strangeness, it will be sufficient to give the translation from ver. 3
and onwards, in which Tychsen (p. 184 f.) sums up the view he has already
stated at length. It is as follows: "You certainly wrote to me, 'This day
1 See against him, Turretin, p. 508 ff.
CHAP. II. 1-12.
615
cannot come until the great apostasy will occur; when a thoroughly law-
less and corrupt man will publicly appear, who in hostile pride exalts
himself above all that man calls divine and honorable, who also intrudes
even into the temple of God, and gives himself out as a god.' But do you
not remember that I, when I was with you, told you something of this ?
and besides, you know what is in the way of that lawless one, so that he
can only appear in his time, not yet at present. This wickedness,' you
say further, 'even now secretly works. Only that hindrance must first
be removed out of the way! And when this is removed,' ye think, the
wicked one will soon fearlessly show himself.' Now let him do it! The
Lord Jesus will annihilate him with His divine power, and destroy him
by His solemn appearance. "When this lawless one comes,' ye continue,
'so will his appearance be accompanied by the assistance of Satan with
deceiving miracles, delusions, and everything which can lead to blas-
phemy. Yet all this cannot seduce you, but only those unhappy per-
sons who have no love for true religion, and accordingly are helplessly
lost by their own fault. God for a punishment to them permitted seducers
to rise up, that they might believe the lie. A merited punishment for all
friends of vice who are prepossessed against true doctrine!”
For a correct judgment of the apocalyptic instruction of the apostle, it
is firmly to be maintained that Paul could not possibly wish to give a
representation of the distant future. On the contrary, the events which
he predicted were for him so near, that he himself even thought that he
would survive them. He hoped to survive even to the personal return
of the Lord for judgment and for the completion of His kingdom ; His
return shall be preceded by the appearance of Antichrist, whom he con-
sidered not as a collective idea, but as an individual person, and not in
the political, but in the religious sphere, and specially as a caricature of
Christ and the culmination of ungodliness; but Antichrist can only
appear when the preventing powe, which at present hinders his appear-
ance, will be removed. As, now, these circumstances, which Paul thinks
were to be realized in the immediate future, have not actually taken place,
so it is completely arbitrary to expect the fulfillment of the prophecy only
in a distant future; rather it is to be admitted, that although, as the very
kernel of Paul's representation, the perfectly true idea lay at the bottom,
that the return of the Lord for the completion of the kingdom of God
was not to be expected until the moral process of the world had reached
its close by the complete separation of the susceptible and the unsuscept-
ible, and accordingly also until the opposition to Christ had reached its
climax, yet Paul was mistaken concerning the nearness of the final catas-
trophe, and, carried along by his idiosyncrasy, had wished to settle more
exactly concerning its circumstances and moral conditions than is allotted
to man in general to know, even although he should be the apostle, the
most filled with the Spirit of Christ. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 36; Mark xiii.
32; Acts i. 7.—We can thus only determine the meaning and interpreta-
616
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
tion which Paul himself connected with his prophecy, and how he came
to the assertion of such a prophecy. It rests on the apocalyptic views of
the Jews. It was a prevalent opinion of the Jews in the time of Christ,
that a time of tribulation and travail and an Antichrist were to precede
the appearance of the Messiah. Comp. Gfrörer, das Jahrhundert des
Heils, Part 2, p. 256 ff., 300 ff., 405 ff. The description of Antiochus
Epiphanes in Dan. viii. 23 ff., xi. 36 ff., and the apocalyptic representation
of Gog and Magog in Ezek. Xxxviii. 39, were esteemed as types of Anti-
christ. From these passages it is further explicable bow Paul conceived
Antichrist as a personality, as an individual.
Accordingly, it remains only still to determine, for the explication of the
Pauline prophecy, what is to be understood by the preventing power,
which still delayed the appearance of Antichrist. Without doubt, the
Fathers have already correctly recognized by tò katéžov the Roman Em-
pire, and—in another form of expression for it-by ó katéxwv the Roman
emperor, as the representative of the empire. This is the more probable
as, according to the Book of Daniel, the whole history of the world was
to fall within the four monarchies of the world, but the fourth was by
Josephus and others regarded as the Roman Empire, whose impending
ruin the apostle might not without reason think himself justified in infer-
ring from many symptoms.
Ver. 13–iii. 15. Hortatory portion of the Epistle.
Vv. 13–17. Exhortation to the readers to hold fast to the Christianity
delivered to them (ver. 15), grounded on the comfortable fact that they
belonged not to those who perish, but were fore-ordained by God to salva-
tion, and called to it by the gospel (vv. 13, 14), and united with a pious
wish that Christ and God Himself would comfort their minds, and
strengthen them to all goodness (vv. 16, 17).
Ver. 13. [On vv.'13–17, see Note LXI. pages 622, 623.] 'Huets dé] but we;
namely, I, Paul, together with Silvanus and Timotheus, in contrast to the
persons described in vy. 10–12.-_opelhouev] denotes here, as in i. 13, the
subjective obligation, an internal impulse.—ảdenpoi nyannuévol ÜTTÒ kupiou]
comp. 1 Thess. i. 4. The kuplos here is Christ, because tõ oed directly pre-
cedes and ó Debs directly follows, consequently another subject was evi-
dently thought on by the apostle.—őtt eirato úvāç k.7.n.] the material object
of εúxaploteīv for the purpose of a further statement of the personal
object tepi ýuāv, that, namely, etc.—aipɛcodai] in the sense of divine election
(Deut. xxvi. 18, vii. 6, 7, x. 15), does not elsewhere occur with Paul. He
uses ékméyeolai (Eph. i. 4; 1 Cor. i. 27, 28), or apoylvbokeLV (Rom. viii. 29,
xi. 2), or a poopičelv (Rom. viii. 29 ; Eph. i. 11). aipɛcolai is found in Phil. i.
22 in the related sense of "to choose between two objects the preferable."
-án ápxñs] from the beginning, i. e. from eternity. Comp. 1 John i. 1, ii.
13. The following forms are analogous: årò tūv aibvwv, Eph. iii. 9 ; ATÒ
tāv aibvwv kaì ánò TÕV yɛveõv, Col. i. 26; Tpò Tūv aibvwv, 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; apò icata-
Boañs koouov, Eph. i. 4; Tpò xpbvwv alwviwv, 2 Tim. i. 9. Others, as Vorstius
CHAP. II. 13, 14.
617
and Krause, interpret år' ápxñs of the beginning of the publication of the
gospel, so that the Thessalonians were reckoned as the first who embraced
the gospel in Macedonia. But this does not suit echato, for the election on
the part of God belongs to the region of eternity; the calling (ver. 14) is
its realization in time. Besides, an addition would be necessary to ån'
åpxñs, as Phil. iv. 15 proves, šv åpxì toŨ evayyeríov. Lastly, the objection of
Vorstius : "absurdum est, per principium intelligere aeternitatem, quippe
in qua nullum est principium,” overlooks the fact that án ápxñs is noth-
ing more than a popular expression. eis owinplav] is by Flatt referred to
salvation in this life, whilst he considers included therein the forgiveness
of sins, the assurance of God's peculiar love, and the freedom from the
dominion of sinful inclinations. Incorrect on this account, because the
ournpia of the Thessalonians is in undeniable contrast with the condemnation
of the ungodly (ver. 12), and thus likewise must be referred to the result to
be expected at the advent of Christ, accordingly must denote eternal sal-
vation.—ěv dylaouộ ttveúpatos kai Tlotel. åandeias] belongs neither to owinplav
alone (Koppe, Flatt, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, Riggenbach),
nor to etharo alone (de Wette), but to the whole idea εihato eis ournplav, and.
states the means by which the election, which has taken place to eternal
salvation, was to be realized. To assume, with de Wette, that év is placed
for εis, and to find the next aim denoted by év dylaouw K.T.2., is unmaintain-
able. For if εις σωτηρίαν And εν αγιασμό were co-ordinates, then (1) εις
owTnplav, because the highest aim, would be put not in the first, but in the
second place; and (2) the sudden transition from a preposition of motion
to one of rest would be inexplicable. TvEūpa is not the spirit of man, to
which the being sanctified was to be referred (genitive of the object : "by
the improvement of the spirit,” Koppe, Krause, Schott), but the Holy
Spirit, from whom the sanctification of the whole man is to proceed, or
by whom it is to be effected (genitive of origin). Accordingly it is also
evident wherefore the apostle mentions the belief in the Christian truth
only after dylucuós, although otherwise the sanctification of man follows
only on his reception of the divine word. For Paul considers a twofold
means of the realization of the divine election-first, the influence of the
Holy Spirit upon man, and secondly, man's own reception. But the
former already precedes the latter.
Ver. 14. Eiç ö] to which. Incorrectly, Olshausen: therefore. Eis ő does
not refer to thotel (Aretius), also not to šv åylaquộ kai tiotal (Estius, Cor-
nelius a Lapide, Fromond., Nat. Alexander, Moldenhauer, Koppe, Flatt,
Schott, Schrader, de Wette, Hofman 1st ed.), still less to the “electio” and
the “ animus, quo eadem digni evadimus” (Pelt), or to chato juās ó Deos,
as “the historical act of God, through which the readers have become
1 Also Schrader's assertion, that the author
(the pseudo-Paul) betrays by åt åpxñs "that
he considered the time when the gospel was
first preached in Thessalonica as already long
past,” has no meaning according to the above
2 In a manner entirely incorrect, and with
a mistake of the actual use of the preposition
év narrowing its meaning, Hofmann objects-
and Möller should not have followed him-
against the above interpretation, that then
the means would be taken for the act of the
election itself.
618
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
partakers of salvation,” (Hofmann 2d ed.) but to eis owrnplav év åylaouem
K.T... (Theophylact, Ellicott); whilst to the aim of the election, and to the
means by which it was to be realized according to God's eternal counsel,
is added the actual call of the readers occurring in time. Accordingly,
eig ő is to be completed by eis tò owīvai vpās ' dylaouon avevuaroç kaì tíorewÇ
årnbelas.-slà toñ evayyeríov ni uāv] through our publication of the gospel. Comp.
1 Thess. i. 5. The historical condition of miotis.--eis trepitoinoiv dóšnS TOū
κυρίου] an appositional resumption of εις σωτηρίαν, in order further to
characterize the salvation, whose reception God had predetermined to the
readers, as an acquisition (see on 1 Thess. V. 9) of the glory which Christ
possesses. So in essentials, Pelagius, Musculus, Hunnius, Piscator, Vors-
tius, Grotius, Wolf, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Alford, Ewald, Bisping,
Ellicott, Riggenbach, and others. Less suitably, because weakening the
force and the important contents of the expression, Luc. Osiander, Ben-
son, Moldenhauer, and Pelt explain sóša toŨ kvplov of the glory, of which
Christ is the source or bestower. Against the reference to God as the sub-
ject in trepitoinoiv, and to Christ as the receiver of the dóža (Oecumenius :
iva sóðav TepLTOLÍOn ta viġ avrov; Theophylact, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide),
is the circumstance that although eis repertoinoiv might stand instead of
εις το with the infinitive, yet the dative το κυρίω ημών would require to be
placed instead of the genitive Tow kupiov ruāv. Lastly, the passive signifi-
cation of repitoinois: “ut essetis gloriosa possessio domini nostri Jesu
Christi” (Menochius, Harduin; also Luther: “to the glorious inherit-
ance," and Calvin), has against it the weakening of the substantive dóns
into an adjective, and the parallel passage in 1 Thess. v. 9. Besides, the
context decides against the two last-mentioned views. For the object of vv.
13, 14 is to bring forward the glory of the lot which is assigned to the
Thessalonians, in order thereby to lead to the exhortation in ver. 15.
Ver. 15. "Apa oủv] wherefore then, as such an end awaits you.-OTÝKETE]
stand fast, comp. 1 Thess. iii. 8. The opposite of oalevēñval, ver. 2.-każ
Kpateite Tàç rapadóoels] and hold fast to the traditions, instructions in Chris-
tianity. As kpateiv here (comp. Mark vii. 3), so does kaTÉ XELV Tàs Tapadóceis
stand in 1 Cor. xi. 2.-ás ÉSedáxuntɛ] See Winer, p. 214 f, [E. T. 229].- £ite
dià abyov] whether by oral discourSC.--LÉTTLOtoñs] refers to the First Epistle
to the Thessalonians.
Vv. 16, 17. The apostle rises from his evangelical activity (ver. 15) up
to Christ, the Lord and Ruler of the Christian church, and concludes with
the mention of God, who is the final reason and contriver of the Christian
salvation. The unusual (2 Cor. xiii. 13) naming of Christ first and of
God second, is sufficiently explained from the fact that Christ is the Medi-
ator between God and man.-On the union of the two nominatives, Christ
and God, with a verb in the singular, see on 1 Thess. iii. 11.-ó ayannoas
nuās kaì doùs trapákm. K.7.2.] a fittingly-selected characteristic, in order to
mark the confidence with which Paul expects the hearing of his suppli-
cations.-ο αγαπήσας ημάς και δούς] refers exclusively to ο Θεός και πατήρ
ņuāv. Baumgarten-Crusius incorrectly refers only the second participle
to God, and the first to Christ. But the participle aorist ảyarhoas must not
NOTES.
.619
be weakened into " qui nos amat et quovis tempore amavit” (sc Schott,
after Flatt and Pelt), but refers to the divine proof of love already belong-
ing to the past,--accomplished, i. e. to the fact by which the love of God to
mankind is kat éfoxúv proved, to the mission of His Son in order to rescue
sinners from destruction.--ai dous] and has thereby communicated to us.-
Trapákhnolv] comfort. This is called eternal, not, perhaps, on account of the
blessings of eternal life which Christians have to expect (Chrysostom,
Estius, Vorstius, Grotius, Fromond., and others), but because Christians
have become the sons of God, and as such are filled with indestructible
confidence that all things, even the severest affliction which may befall
them, infallibly serves for their good, because God has so ordained, and
that nothing in the world will be able to separate them from the love of
God in Christ; comp. Rom. viii. 28, 38 f. The opposite of this eternal
consolation is the fleeting and deceptive consolation of the world (Olsh.,
Ellicott). Tapakanois accordingly refers to the present. On the other hand
(vv. 13, 14), étis ayaơn refers to the blessedness and glory to be expected
in the future..—Łv xá,olTi] in grace, i.e. by means of a gracious appointment,
belongs not to rida, but to the participles. The opposite is man's
own merit.--tapakażécai] may comfort or calm, refers particularly to the
disquiet of the readers in reference to the advent (ii. 2).--każ oinpišal] sc.
ůjās (see critical remarks), which is in itself evident from the preceding
újūv.—¿v Tavti èpyy kai nóyo ảyalo] in every good work and word. Grotius
incorrectly takes it in the sense of eis Tāv špyov kai távra hóyov åyadóv.
But, with Chrysostom, Calvin, Turretin, Bolten, Flatt, and others, to limit
2óyos to teaching is erroneous, on account of the universal mavri and its
being placed along with špyw. The apostle rather wishes an establish-
ment in every good thing, whether manifested in works or in words. .
NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR.
LIX. Vv. 1 ff.
(a) Lünem., in his note on 1 Thess. iv. 1, distinguishes épwTÕLLEV as an address
of a friend to a friend, from mapakahoWuEv V kvpiw as an exhortation in virtue of
the apostolic office; and it will be noticed, on examination of the passages in which
the former verb occurs in the N. T., that it can very commonly be taken in this
sense. Assuming this to be the sense of the verb here, we easily account for the
force of Útép, as distinguished from trepi: We present to you our friendly request
or entreaty on behalf of that great event in which the Lord is to consummate His
work for us—that you should not be led away by any misrepresentation respecting
it.—(0) ŠTlOvvaywyns undoubtedly refers to that meeting with the Lord which is
spoken of in 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17. Whether én avrov' is to be insisted upon as
meaning up to Him, as distinguished from repòs avrov (so Lünem.), is doubtful.-
(C) That atvejuatos refers to some prophetic, i. e. supposed prophetic, utterance in
the presence of the church, can hardly be questioned. That Nóyou may mean
some word in the way of teaching in the presence of the church, as distinguished
1 The feminine form aiwvia is found only here in the N. T. and in Heb. ix. 12.
620
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS..
:
from prophecy, is possible. But, as we should more naturally expect didaxñs, if
this were the meaning, and as aóyou is apparently united with ÉTTLOTOAño ñuñv in
ver. 15, it is probable that the latter connection is intended here. As to the word
ÉTT LOTONñs, the possibilities of reference seem to be the following: (1) to the First
Epistle; (2) to some forged letter; (3) to some letter "which professed to report
his exact opinions, while in reality it misunderstood them," but yet not forged
in his name (Farrar). The objections to (1) are that there is no article with
ÉTTLOTOīs; that there is no statement in 1 Thess., which implies that the Parousia
ÉVÉOTNKEV ; and that, if such a reference had been intended, there would probably
have been some distinct intimation that that letter contained no declaration of
this kind. The objections to (2), on the other hand, are the improbability that
such a forged letter would have been written at this early period, so soon after the
first epistle, and to a church in such close relations with himself, and the improb-
ability that, if such a letter had been written, he would have passed over the fact
with no rebuke. The objection to (3) is that iii. 17 would seem to imply that a
forgery had occurred. Either (2) or (3) is the more probable view. If we adopt
(3), it is possible to account for iii. 17, and the difficulty in the supposition of a
forged letter is removed. Some word or letter, however, must have been brought
to their notice which professed to give Paul's view as set forth in ÉVÉOTNKEV K.T.N.,
and which, either purposely or through misunderstanding, misrepresented him.
The us which precedes di ruāv here, and is wanting in ver. 15, makes it probable
that it was not a letter (like the first epistle) written by himself.
(d) The verb évÉOTNKEV evidently means either “is now present” (R. V.), or
“is just at hand” (A. R. V.). In either case, it denotes not near, as contrasted
with in the remote or uncertain future, but already come or in the time immediately at
hand. The Thessalonians had fallen into an error-supposing that the end was
just upon them—which might naturally have led some of them to believe that it
was useless to think of earthly business any longer. It was an error of this sort
which the Apostle corrected. He makes his statements to show them that the
Parousia was not to come, as they supposed, perhaps within a year or two, but
only after the occurrence of- certain developments of evil, which were to be
expected. The question whether the Apostle himself thought of the Parousia as
probably to take place within twenty or thirty years or not, must be determined,
so far as this passage is concerned, not from the fact of his denying the ÉVÉOTNKEV,
for the negative of this would only prove its non-occurrence within a very much
briefer period, but by the length of time which must be allowed for the occurrence
of what he declares is to take place before the day of the Lord.—(e) The things,
which are mentioned as to occur before the end are the apostasy and the revela-
tion of the man of sin. The former of these, apparently, is to precede, or at
least to be consummated in, the latter. The apostasy seems to stand in the rela-
tion to the mystery of lawlessness, spoken of in ver. 7, of an effect to a cause; or
this lawlessness is that which, when reaching its full development, becomes the
apostasy. The mystery of lawlessness is already in operation, but is restrained as
to the outbreaking of its full force by an outside power. The progress of things,
therefore, is, first, the partial, perhaps in some measure hidden, working of the evil
forces, which has begun already, and is to go on until the restraining power is
removed; then, their development in the apostasy; then, the consummation of
the apostasy in the revelation of the man of sin; and then, the Parousia.—(f) In
regard to the length of time which is to be allowed, two points may be noticed in
NOTES.
621
the passage :-(1) that the mystery of lawlessness is said to be already working,
and (2) that the restraining power is spoken of as already exercising its force, at
the time when the words were written. Beyond these indications, the passage
affords nothing definite respecting this question.—(g) The designations of the man
of sin are so marked and distinct, that there can be no reasonable doubt that the
Apostle is speaking of the Antichrist. This is proved (1) by the connection with
Stooraoia, (2) by the genitive úvouías, comp. åvouos (ver. 8), (3) by the words
ó viòs tīs árwhɛías, (4) by ó ávtlickiLEVOS K.7.2., (5) by the reference to sitting in
the temple of God, etc., (6) by the the connection of his coming with the working
of Satan, (7) by the application to him of the word Tapovoia, and other words
which are used of Christ's coming, (8) by the contrast of the deceit of unrighteous-
ness with the truth. The combination of all these things, when compared with
what is said in other parts of the N. T. respecting the Antichrist, establishes this
reference as in the Apostle's mind.-(1) By the use of the words tapovoia, áro-
Kahupun, Éripaveią, etc., which are to be accounted for primarily by the desire to
present a striking contrast of Antichrist to Christ, the Apostle intends, no doubt,
to suggest the idea of some sudden and wonderful manifestation of evil power.
(i) The view which is to be held with regard to what the Apostle had in mind
in this passage can hardly be determined from the passage in itself alone. The
other passages in the N: T. where this and kindred subjects are alluded to must be
considered, and by an examination of them all we must ascertain, as we best may,
the general thought of the Apostolic mind on such questions. The conclusions
thus derived will have an important bearing here. As for the passage itself, its
indications are (1) that the error of the Thessalonians consisted in supposing the
end to be in the very nearest future-just upon them; (2) that that which was to
precede the end had already begun its work; (3) that this was an evil develop-
ment in the religious, not in the political sphere; (4) that the restraining force,
evidently not being the true religion or the Divine power (see the closing words
of ver. 7), was probably political or governinental; (5) that the final extreme de-
velopment of the evil, which was to follow the removal of the restraining force, was
such that it could be described as the revelation of the man of sin, i.e. the descrip-
tion involves either striking personification or definite personality; (6) that the
man of sin was to continue in the exercise of his power until the Parousia, when
he was to be destroyed by the manifested power of Christ. These indications point
towards a continuous development of evil from the time which was present to the
writer and readers (but in a somewhat hidden way, or under special limitations
from a power beyond itself), and towards a subsequent sudden outburst of its force,
which outburst was to be in the form of an apostasy, i.e. a falling away within the
Christian body itself. There is evidently here somewhat of a kindred conception
to that which we discover in certain parts of the book of Revelation, and which is
hinted at in I. John, II. Peter, and elsewhere.—(j) The Apostle speaks of the
temple of God, which may refer to the temple at Jerusalem. He also uses the
two phrases, το κατέχον and ο κατέχων, which may refer to the Roman government
and the Roman emperor. He also refers to the restraining power as known to
the readers, which fact may easily find an explanation for itself—and may, at the
same time, furnish an explanation for the indefinite character of the expression
used to describe it—if it be taken as meaning the Roman government. It can
hardly be affirmed, however, that these different expressions must have the refer-
ence mentioned.—(k) If the Apostles expected the Parousia in their own life-time,
622
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
or thought of it as possibly coming within a short period, it would be very natural
for them to think of, and picture before their readers, the approaching evils and
calamities by means of words which were applicable to powers or developments
of their own age. This would, also, be natural-at least, to some degree-even
if they regarded the Parousia as belonging to the remoter and altogether uncertain
future.
LX. 3–12.
With reference to the words and phrases in these verses, the following points
may be noticed :-(1) ápaprias (ver. 3) is a characteristic, arwhelas, a possessive
genitive.—(2) The text-reading avquias is placed in the text by W. and H., Treg.,
Tisch. 8, with the authorities mentioned in Lünem.'s textual note.—(3) Tòv vaờv
TOÙ JEOū is referred by Lünem. to the temple at Jerusalem, and he regards this
reference as proved by the repetition of the article. Alf. claims that there is no
force in this, and cites 1 Cor. iii. 17, where he alleges that ó vaos TOV JEOV is used
in a figurative sense. It may be questioned, however, whether the use is figura-
tive in 1 Cor. iii. 17,—whether the statement of that verse is not made with regard
to the actual temple as a holy building, and the application added in oirives įueīs
OTé, of which (holy) character you are—therefore one cannot injure or destroy your
Christian life without being exposed to Divine punishment. The cases in which
vabs or vads Iecñ are used without the article, in a figurative sense, are not in point
against Lünen.'s position. The form of expression is favorable to the definite
reference given by Lünem., but whether this reference can be absolutely affirmed
may be considered doubtful.---(4) The change from tò katézov to ó katéxwv is in-
dicative of a person as exercising the restraining power. Like the ăvouós and the
Lord, this third power is presented as a person. The conception of the writer is
after this manner; but, while this conception may accord with reality, the repre-
sentation may perhaps, on the other hand, be figurative, i. e. personification only.
—(5) In ver. 7, R. V. supplies toti after uovov, in the text, (“only there is one
that restraineth until,” etc.), but adopts, in the margin, the other construction
(“the mystery of lawlessness doth already work, only until,” etc.). The latter in-
terpretation, which is probably correct, recognizes a special emphasis in the word
uvorhplov. It is working as a mystery; it will afterwards come to a revelation.-
(6) Evidently vy. 9, 10 relate to what follows the mapovoia of the lawless one and
precedes that of Christ. There is a period of open working of avouía, after the
working as a mystery is ended and the restraining power has been taken out of the
way. What is to be the length of this period is not stated, but the first impression
upon the reader would naturally be that it was not to be very long-continued. The
parallelism between the working of the avouos and Christ, is still kept up in these
verses by σημείοις, etc.---ψεύδους and απάτη αδικίας mark the contrast.
LXI. Vv. 13-17.
(a) The connection of the Hortatory Section of the Epistle, ii. 13-iii. 15, with
what precedes is only through the contrast between the persons alluded to in vv.
11, 12, and the Apostle and his readers that which befalls the former and that
for which the latter have been chosen of God. There is no exhortation which
connects itself immediately with the suggestions of vv. 2 ff.,-at the most, only a
general one, such as we find in ver. 15.—(6) The hortatory section opens with
NOTES.
623
thanksgiving in its form precisely like that of i. 3; and the mingling of thanks
and exhortation is similar to what may be observed in 1 Thess. This inter-
mingling of the two belongs, in both alike, to the character of the letters. The
use of opiło juev with evxaploteīv, here and in i. 3, is peculiar, being found in no
other Epistle. It expresses, with friendly feeling, his sense of the fitness and
duty of giving thanks on their behalf; (comp. Kalùs åčlóv Éotiv i. 3). (c)
That kihato án ápxñs (ver. 13), though Paul does not use these words elsewhere
in this sense, refers to God's election from eternity, is put beyond any considerable
doubt, by the fact that it is a choice to salvation (eis owinplav), and by the fact
that the divine call follows it (els ô škámecev). The ground of thankfulness in
the Apostle's mind probably included both the choice and the call. The choice of
God is said to move in the sphere of sanctification, etc., as, in 1 Cor. vii. 15, His
call is said to move in the sphere of peace (comp. also 1 Thess. iy. 7, called in
sanctification), because there is no divine purpose of salvation except as the sancti-
fying power of the Spirit and belief of the truth have their true influence in the
soul. 'Ev of this verse is, thus, rather the common év denoting the sphere in
which, than an instrumental preposition.(d) In view of this divine election to
salvation in the sphere of sanctification and faith, the exhortation of ver. 15 is given
to stand fast, and also to hold fast the mapadboels which they had been taught.
As these instructions include those which were siĚTLOTONñs, that is, the First
Epistle, and as that epistle contains suggestions with regard to the Parousia, it
may be that there is some reference to the errors into which they had fallen on
this subject, and which he was writing this letter especially to correct. But such a
reference, if this be the fact, is only incidental, and the exhortation is intended to
cover all the instructions which he had given them. Comp. anpišal v Tavti
žpy® kai kóyo åyabộ (ver. 17).-(d) The union of God and Christ as the subject
of a verb in the singular number, which has been already noticed in Note LII.
(1 Thess. iii. 11), is found again in ver. 16 of this chapter; and here it will be
observed that Christ is placed first. In the uniting of Christ with God, in
sentences which refer to the divine work in the soul and in redemption, the Apostle
thus, in these earliest letters, goes as far as is possible. It is interesting to notice
how, under the influence of circumstances which more fully called forth the
expression of his thought in the latest letters addressed to the churches, he rises
in his statements to the highest limits which epistolary and popular language
allowed. The movement of expression from the one to the other is in the line of
the setting forth of the same idea of Christ's relation to the Father. The line
begins with the close union of the Father and Christ as the common subject of one
verb; it ends with the declaration that the fullness of Jeórns dwells in Christ.
The union of the two in the words, at the beginning, may not necessarily involve
their oneness in essence. But the declaration, at the end, may lead us to the con-
viction, that, in thus uniting them at the beginning, Paul-did so because he
believed them to be one.--(e) The word alwvíav (ver. 16) is used, probably,
because the consolation or comfort of the Christian life takes hold upon the
eternal life.
624
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
CHAPTER III.
VER. 3. Instead of the Receptus ó kúpios, A D* F G 71, Vulg. It. Copt. Arm. in
marg. and some Latin Fathers have ó εbs. Accepted by Lachm. But TTLOTÒS dé
έστιν ο κύριος does not elsewhere occur, whilst πιστός ο Θεός is a usual form.
Comp. 1 Cor. i. 9, x. 13; 2 Cor. i. 13. Therefore the former might have been
corrected according to the latter. • vuplos is attested by B (e sil.) D*** É KL
$, almost all min., most versions, many Greek Fathers, and Hier.–Ver. 5. TÌN
ÚTOLOVÁv] The Elz. reads ÚTOPLOVÍ. Against all uncial Mss. (also k), most min.,
and many Greek Fathers. Ver. 6. Instead of rapéhaßov (D** D*** E K L *****
23, 31, al., pl. edd. Aeth. Syr. p. Slav. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Bas. [alicubi] al., Cypr.
[ter] Lucif. Aug. Ambrosiast. ed. Pelag. received by Matth. and Scholz, preferred
also by Reiche), Elz. reads Tapéraße (very weakly attested, namely, only by 3, 49,
57, 71, Syr.); Lachm. reads zupenáßete (after BF G 43, al., Copt. Arm. Antonius,
Theodoret [sem.], Ambrosiast. ed. Auct. de sing. cler.); Griesbach, Tisch. Alford
and Ellicott read rapeháßooav (after A N* Bas.; D* has for it the simple verb
tháßocav). Tapéłaße and Tapɛráßere are corrections, and not so well attested as the
third person plural. But the Alexandrian form rapɛáſooav merits the prefer-
ence before rapéraßov, as the less usual form in the N. T., which on that account
might easily have led to an alteration.-Ver. 8. Instead of the Receptus vúkta kai
jpépav, B F G X 17, al., Chrys. ms. Damasc. (sem.) have VUKTÒS kai népas. Re-
ceived by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Against the preponderating authority of A DE
KL, the great majority of .min., and many Fathers, and the probable conformity
to 1 Thess. ii. 9, iii. 10.-Ver. 12. Elz. Tisch. 2 read dià Toũ kvplov juāv 'InOOū
XPLOTOV. Lachin. Tisch., 1, 7 and 8, Alford and Ellicott read év Kupiw 'Indoñ
Xplorø. The latter is required by A B D* E* F G ** 17, 31, al., Vulg. It. Goth.
Copt. al., Damasc. (sem.) Ambrosiast. Aug. Pel.-Ver. 13. Elz, reads un ékkakíonte.
Instead of this, Lachm. Schott, Tisch., Alford and Ellicott have preferred un'
ÉYKAKKONTE, after A B D* * (Tisch. 7: PÒ ÉVKAKKONTE). But the latter is a probable
correction, as the writing Ékkakeīv, instead of Eykakeīv, never occurs with certainty else-
where than in the N. T. and in the writings of the Fathers. Comp. Meyer on 2
Cor. iv. 1.-Ver. 16. Elz. Tisch. 2, 7 and 8, and Ellicott read TPÓTW. Lachm. and
Tisch. 1 read TOTW, after A* D* F G, 17, 49, Vulg. It. Goth. Chrys. Ambrosiast.
Pel. Commended to attention by Griesb.; already preferred by Piscator, Beza,
and Grotius. But tporu (attested by A** B [e. sil.] D*** EKLX, almost all
min. Syr. utr. Copt. al. m. Theodoret, Damasc. al.) decidedly merits the prefer-
ence on account of the sense, and might, on account of the more frequent form év
TAVTÈ TÓTU (1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Cor. ii. 14; 1 Tim. ii. 8), be easily transformed into
TÓTŲ. Also Bouman (Chartae theolngicae, lib. I. p. 67) considers tpbmw as the
original; but then he advances the following supposition for the origin of the
false reading TÓW: "Proxime cum praecessisset dià avros omni tempore, dictionis
elegantiam ac concinnitatem hoc requirere putarunt librarii, ut nihil potius adji-
ceretur quam šv TaVTÈ TOTQ omni loco; quippe qui temporis ac spatii notiones fre-
quentissime conjungi, pro sua scilicet sapientia, optime novissent.”
:
625
CHAP. III. 1, 2.
Vv. 1-5. Paul requests the Thessalonians to pray that the gospel may
be more widely diffused, and that he himself (and his companions) might
be delivered from the persecutions to which he was exposed. He then
expresses his trust that the Lord will assist the Thessalonians, and also
declares his confidence that they will obey his (the apostle's) command-
ments, and he unites therewith an additional benediction.
Ver. 1. [On vv. 1-5, See Note LXII. page 632.] Tò holttóv] see on 1
Thess. iv. 1.—epi Muāv] on our behalf. But the apostle's wish is com-
pletely unselfish, as he refers to the promotion of Christianity, and to him-
self only so far as he stands in connection with that object.-iva] comp. on
i. 11.-ó hóyoç ToŨ kupiov] Genitivus subjectivus ; see on 1 Thess. i. 8.--ipéx?]
may run. A representation of quick and unimpeded advancing.-došácntai]
is passive : may be glorified. Pelt erroneously understands it as middle.
But the gospel is only glorified when it is recognized as what it is,
namely, as a dúvapis Osoï els owinplav ſtavrì Tộ TTLOTEVOVTi (Rom. i. 16).
Nicolas de Lyra arbitrarily limits the verb to the miracula, veritatem
ejus declarantia."—kadus kai apòs vuās] even as it is among you. A lauda-
tory recognition of the eager desire for salvation, with which the Thessa-
lonians surrendered themselves to the preaching of the gospel. Comp. 1
Thess. i. 6 ff. The words are closely connected with kai došácntal. Accord-
ing to Hofmann, with whom Möller, although wavering, coincides, the
words are to be united with Tpéx?, passing over kai dočášntal. Incorrectly,
because dočášntal is a higher idea than tpéx?, whilst it adduces that point
by which the external act of Tpé xelv can only receive its internal value.
Accordingly kaì dočasntal is too important to be considered only as a sub-
sidiary point " appended” to Tpéx9.-Após ýuās] see on 1 Thess. iii. 4.
Ver. 2. In deliverance from his adversaries lay the condition that he,
the apostle, could work the more effectively for the diffusion of the gos- i
pel. Tonos] is used of that which is not in its right place. Used of per-
sons, it denotes one who does or says that which is inappropriate under
the circumstances. Thus it is equivalent to ineptus (Cic. de orat. ii. 4).
From "propriety” it passes to its wider ethical meaning, and is used of
men who act contrary to human or divine laws. Thus it receives the
general signification of bad or godless. 4—But the Thessalonian Jews are
not to be understood by the άτοποι και πονηροι άνθρωποι, from whose perse-
cution the apostle had already, at an earlier period, frequently suffered
Corinth. Persons must be meant who were then present in Corinth itself.
But we are not to think on Christians who were only so in name (Zwingli,
Musculus, Hemming, Flatt, Schrader, and others), and particularly on false
Acts xviii. 6, 12 ff. That the adversaries of the apostle could not have
been already Christians, follows from the inferential clause setting forth
1 Theodoret: Altin Mèv n aimons cival dokei,
tia sẻ $us enTv. Tôi vào Tovnpt avport
ήττωμένων, ακωλύτως και ο του κηρύγματος
συντρέχει λόγος.
2See examples in Kypke, Observ. II. p. 145
f.; Loesner, and Wetstein.
3 Hammond also finds here another refer-
ence to the Gnostics!:
40
626
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS..
the naturalness of the existence of such people, ου γαρ πάντων η πίστις, for
faith is not an affair of all, i.e. it finds not a place among all, all have not a
susceptible heart for it. Tiotis] on account of the article, can only
denote the Christian faith simply and generally. To understand the expres-
sion of fidelity or honesty, with Schoettgen, Moldenhauer, Koppe, Bolten,
Krause, Flatt, and others, is as incorrect as to interpret it of true faith,
with Schott. For in the first case ou yào TáVTES TTLOTOI would require to
have been written, and in the second case où vào TrávtWV ý triotis annons.
Ver. 3. A contrast to ou yàp Távtwv Ý Tiotis, with a play upon the word
riotis, and a return to the statement in ii. 16, 17.—ó kúplos] not a designa-
tion of God (Schott, Schrader, Olshausen, and Hilgenfeld, Ztschr. f. wiss.
Theol., Halle 1862, p. 261), but of Christ. His faithfulness consists in this,
that He, as Protector of the church, watches over the continuance of the
faith, and effects its diffusion in spite of all åtorol and Trovnpoí. Strikingly,
Calvin : "Ceterum de aliis magis quam de se anxium fuisse Paulum,
ostendunt haec ipsa verba. In eum maligni homines improbitatis suae
aculeos dirigebant, in eum totus impetus irruebat: curam interea suam ad
Thessalonicenses convertit.”--TOŨ trovnpow] is, by Calvin, Musculus, Estius,
Piscator, Menochius, Nat. Alexander, Benson, Bengel, Baumgarten, Mol-
denhauer, Macknight, Olshausen, Hofmann and Ellicott, also Cornelius a
Lapide, Er. Schmid, and Beza, though not decidedly held by the latter,
understood as masculine, accordingly as a designation of the devil. In
itself nothing can be objected against this interpretation, as in Matt. xiii.
19 and elsewhere frequently in the N. T., also with Paul in Eph. vi. 16,
ó tovupós is found in this sense. But here this interpretation is untenable,
because ôc ornpišel újās kaì quháčel átÒ TOŨ Trovnpoñ evidently resumes
otrpíčal év tavrì špyo kaì 26yº kyatý, ii. 17, and only arranges it positively
and negatively. But if toŨ Trovnpow corresponds to the negation of the
position šv Tavrà Épyw kai kóyw Syalõ, it must be neuter, and denote moral
evil generally. But it would be arbitrary to make this neuter equivalent
to TÕV zrovnpūv ávopbrwv, to which Koppe and Flatt give their countenance.
Ver. 4. The apostle has confidence in Christ that He will come to the
assistance of the Thessalonians, promoting their faith and protecting them;
but he is likewise confident in them, that they on their part will not fail in
obedience to the apostle's commands. Thus the apostle paves the way for a
suitable transition to the exhortation in ver. 6 ff.—V kupiw] a state-
ment of the element of his confidence annexed to πεποίθαμεν εφ' υμάς, in
order to express that the apostle's confidence in his readers was one
founded on Christ, caused by the participation of Christianity. Comp.
Gal. v. 10; Phil. ii. 24; Rom. xiv. 14.-ép' đãs] see Meyer on 2 Cor. ii. 3.--
kaÌ ToleīTɛ] does not still belong to the protasis (see Erasmus on the pas-
sage), but begins the apodosis.
Ver. 5. A fresh involuntary effusion of piety on the part of the apostle,
by means of which he calls down the divine blessing on every action of
On the form of the expression, compare
the well-known proverb: Où tartós áropos és
Kópivóóv čo' ó ardous (Strabo, viii. 6. 20, ed.
Siebenk.; Suidas, T. 2, p. 739).
CHAP. II. 3–6.
627
man as a condition of its success. To assume that ver. 5 was added by
Paul, because he could not yet entirely trust the Thessalonians (de Wette),
is without foundation.-ó kúplos] Christ, as in vv. 3, 4.—Katavflúval juāv Tàs
kapsias eis tịu ảyánu toŬ Oɛow] direct your hearts to the love of God, namely,
in order to be filled and pervaded by it, not in order to remain contem-,
plating it (Koppe, Olshausen).- dyann TOŨ Oɛoñ] is not"amor a deo prae-
ceptus” (Clericus), or “amor, quem deus hominum quasi infundit ani-
mis” (Pelt), also not the love of God to men, which was to be the pattern
for Christian brotherly love (Macknight, Koppe), or, more specially, the
manifestation of the love of God in Christ and in His work of redemp-
tion (Olshausen, Riggenbach); but love toward God (Gen. object.). Paul
wishes the Thessalonians to be inspired with it, because it is the centre
uniting all commandments; comp. Matt. xxii. 37 ff.—KaÌ eis. TTU ÚTOPOVÍv
TOŨ Xplotoū]. Oecumenius, Ambrose, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Vata-
blus, Cornelius a Lapide, Beza, Bernard a Piconio, and Benson, to whom
recently Hofmann has attached himself, understand by this the patient
waiting for Christ, that is, for His coming. Erroneous, because-(1)
åvauový (comp. 1 Thess. i. 10) would require to be written instead of
ÚTouovhv; and (2) the idea of patient waiting, by which addition the state-
ment becomes only suitable, would require to be expressly brought forward
by an additional clause. The stedfastness of Christ (Gen. possessiv.) is meant,
inasmuch as the endurance which the Christian manifests in tribulation
for the sake of the gospel is in its nature nothing else than the stedfastness
which was peculiar to Christ Himself in His sufferings. Comp. the analo-
gous expression tà mavýuara ToŨ XPLOTOV, 2 Cor. i. 5, and Meyer in loco.
The simple genitive cannot express stedfastness for the sake of Christ, as it is
usually explained.
Vy. 6–15. Dehortation from a disorderly and idle life in the church. Paul
had already touched upon this subject in his First Epistle (iv. 11, 12, v.
14). But here it is more expressly treated, and also with greater severity,
because, without doubt, in the restless and fanatical excitement of spirits
on account of the advent, this evil had greatly increased instead of dimin-
ishing. Paul represents the core of the church as free from this fault;
he exhorts them to withdraw themselves from every Christian brother
living disorderly, in order to bring him to shame and amendment. Only
in ver. 12 does he direct his apostolic word to the erring brethren them-
selves.
Ver. 6. [On vy. 6–18, see Note LXIII. pages 632, 633.] Iapayyézhouev dé]
An application of the general å rapayyénãouev, ver. 4, to a special case.--év
ονόματι του κυρίου ημών Ι. Χρ.] belongs to παραγγέλλομεν, not to what follows.
A solemn reference to the high authority for this injunction. Comp. 1
Cor. v. 4.-otézkeghai ÅTÓ TIVOS] to withdraw himself from every one, to avoid
his company. Comp. ÚTOOTÉNZELV Éavtóv, Gal. ii. 12, and 'TOOTÉX2Eodal, Heb.
x. 38.-åráktws] see on 1 Thess. v. 14.--karà tìv mapádooiv, îv k.1.2.] refers
not to instruction by the example of the apostle (Chrysostom, Theodoret,
1 Theodoret: 'Aubotépwv nuir xpela, kai apodégews ayadñs kai tñs ävwbev ovvepyelas.
628 -
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Hofmann), which is first mentioned in what
follows, but to the definite instruction which the apostle had given to them
orally, during his presence at Thessalonica (comp. ver. 10; 1 Thess. iv.
11), and then confirmed by writing 1 Thess. iv. 11, 12).--Tapɛráſogav] A
well-known constructio ad sensum adapted to the collective form årò TAVTÒS
ådendoữ. See Kühner, II. p. 42.1
Ver. 7. Confirmation of katà Titu zapádoolv, iv trapenáßosav. The instruc-
tion imparted was sufficiently known to the readers : what Paul com-
manded, he practically exhibited by his own conduct.--avtoi] ye yourselves,
without it being necessary for me to speak much about it.-TĀS dei fllflei-
odal juās] a concise expression, meaning: What is your incumbent walk,
and how, in consequence of it, ye will be my imitators.—örl] for. Unnatur-
ally, Hofmann : ötl is to be translated by that, and is added as a parallel
expression to Tās de feluleiodai ruās, in which also ver. 9 is absorbed.-
átakteiv] equal to årákFWS TEPLTATEīv, ver. 6. Only here in the N. T.
Ver. 8. See on 1 Thess. ii. 9.—owpɛáv] by way of gift.—ăptov payčiv] to eat
bread (Mark iii. 20; Luke xiv. 1; ăptov ÉG0leLv, Matt. xv. 2), has as the
Hebrew On?? 3$ (Gen. xliii. 25; 2 Sam. ix. 7; Prov. xxiii. 6, etc.) the
idea of eating generally, so that it is not to be distinguished from the simple
φαγείν (Marls vi. 31) or εσθίειν (ver. 10). άρτον φαγείν παρά τινος denotes : to
have maintenance from any one, without care on our part.-épyasóuevol] is
not to be taken in the sense of temp. finit. (Flatt and others), but év KÓTTQ
. . . špyaçóuevou is to be taken together, and forms a statement of mode
attached to ăptov špayouev in contrast to dwpkáv. Yet we may, with Winer,
p. 329 f. [E. T. 351], de Wette, Ellicott, and Hofm., assume that to špá youev,
as a contrast to δωρεάν, are added first εν κόπο και μόχθω talking the place of
an adverb, and then to this vúkta kai vuépav épyaçópevol as a parallel clause.
Ver. 9. Paul has indeed the right to be maintained by the churches, but
he freely renounces this right, in order to present believers with a good
example. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 4 ff.—oºx örl] My meaning is by no means
that; by no means as if. A restriction of the previous statement, in order
to prevent a possible inisunderstanding. Comp. 2 Cor. i. 24, iii. 5; Phil.
iii. 12, iv. 11, 17; Hartung, Partikellehre, II. p. 153 f.-ěšovoiav] power or
authority, sc. To swpeàv payeiv åptov.—à22] sc. év kórą kai jóxow vúkta ka
ñuépav épyasólevou ăptov écíojev.—On éavtous, comp. Bernhardy, Syntax, p.
272; Winer, p. 142 (E. T. 150].
Ver. 10. A further reason, along with the example of the apostle, which
should preserve them from ατάκτως περιπατείν.-γάρ] co-ordinate with the
γάρ in ver. 7. και cannot serve to bring out ότε ήμεν προς υμάς (so. Hof-
mann), so that it would be explained, with Theodoret : Oudèv Kalvòv úuiv
γράφομεν, άλλ' άπερ εξ αρχής υμάς εδιδάξαμεν. For ότε ήμεν προς υμάς is no
new additional idea, but only again resumes what was at least already
implied in yv. 7 and 8. Kaí must accordingly be taken with ToŬTO Tapny-
yé hojev ýmiv, and the emphasis lies on Toño, which is placed first. The
meaning is : for even when we were with you, this we commanded you.—TOWTO)
TO
1 On the verbal form, comp. Sturz, de dial. Alex. p. 60; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 349.
CHAP. III. 7–14.
629
namely, what follows: ŐTL ĉi tiç K.T..-Ei tis où dénel épyášerdal, undè és@c-
ÉTw] was a Jewish proverb; see Schoettgen and Wetstein in loco. It has
its root in the expression in Gen. iii. 19, that man in the sweat of his brow
shall eat his bread.—où démɛl] Bengel : Nolle vitium est.
Ver. 11. The reason for reminding them of this saying, ver. 10. Arbi-
trarily, Hofmann: yáp refers to the whole section vv. 6–10. The verb
Treplepyáčerbal is only found here in the N. T. (but comp. teplepyoc, 1 Tim.
v.13, and Tà nepiepya mpáovelv, Acts xix. 19). It denotes a bustling disposition
busy in useless and superfluous things, about which one should not trouble
himself. Paul thinks on the fanatical excitement, on account of which
one busied himself about everything except the fulfillment of the duties
of his earthly calling. Teplepyačouévous forms a paronomasia with undèv
ëpyaçouévous. Comp. Quintilian, inst. orat. vi. 3. 54: Afer enim venuste
Mallium Suram, multum in agendo discursantem, salientem, manus
jactantem, togam dejicientein et reponentem, non agere dixit sed satagere.
Ver. 12. Kai mapakahoījuev] SC. avtoùs:-METà rouxías épyaçópevol] with quiet-
ness, i. e. applying yourself to your earthly calling, subjectively with a quiet
and collected mind, and objectively with noiseless modesty. Contrast to
undèv špyášeobal årà Teplepyášeobal. Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 11.-éavimv] em-
phatic, their own bread, that is to say, their self-earned sustenance, avoid-
ing a maintenance which depends on the charity of others.
Ver. 13. The apostle again turns himself to those who had kept them-
selves free from this fault.-—Erkakeīv] with the following participle (see
Kühner, II. p. 369) denotes to be weary in doing something.-kaROTOLETV]
cannot signify" to be charitable” (Calvin, Estius, Flatt, Pelt, de Wette,
Bloomfield, Ewald, Bisping, and most critics), so that the sense would be:
But suffer not yourselves, through those who abuse your charity, to be
restrained from exercising charity in general. The verb can only denote,
so act as is right and proper. Comp. Gal. vi. 9. As Paul still speaks, even
in vv. 14, 15, of the special matter which he treated of in the preceding
words, kahOTTOLETV cannot be understood in its most general sense, but must
be referred to the matter in question. Accordingly, the apostle requires
that those who had kept themselves free from this fault should not be
weary in doing what is right and proper, that is to say, that they should not
suffer themselves to be infected with the evil example given.2
Ver. 14. Alà TĩS ÉTLOTOñs] is, by Nicolas de Lyra, Luther, Calvin, Musculus,
Hemming, Bullinger, Lucius Osiander, Balduin, Grotius, Calovius, Clericus,
Sebastian Schmid, Bengel, Moldenhauer, Zachariae, Koppe, Krause, Pelt,
Winer, p. 113 [E. T. 119], and others, united with what follows. It is
usually explained: If any obey not my word, note that man to me in
writing, sc. in order that I may direct what punishment is to be inflicted
on him. But this interpretation is to be rejected—(1) on account of the
article rñs, which, if unforced, can only denote a definite epistle lying
1 Ewald translates it: “nicht Arbeit trei-
bend, sonderu sich herumtreibend."
2 Also Olshausen understands KadotroLEîv
only of doing good in general, but arbitrarily
refers it–because anticipating the contents
of ver. 15—to the loving and forbearing treat-
ment of the brethren.
630
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
before them, not an epistle to be written only at a later period; (2) as the
- inversion of the words : dià TñS ÉTLOTONñS TOŪTOV ONLELOVOUɛ, instead of the
natural order : τούτον διά της επιστολής σημειούσθε, would not be justified;
(3) lastly, because it is very improbable that Paul should still have
retained for himself a statement of the punishment, as he has already in
ver. 6 stated the mode of punishment, and again repeated it in this verse,
commanding them to withdraw from the society of every brother acting
contrary to his admonitions. But interpretations in this connection, as
that of Bengel: "notate notâ censoriâ, hanc epistolam, ejus admonendi
causa, adhibentes eique inculcantes, ut, aliorum judicio perspecto, se
demittat,” or that of Pelt:"eum hac epistola freti severius tractate," alter
the idea of the verb σημειούσθαι. We are obliged to unite δια της επιστολής
with to abyw ňuõv. It was not necessary to repeat the article to before
dià tñS ÉT LOTOAñs, because tŷ hóyo juāv dià tñs ÉTTLOTONñs is blended into the
unity of the idea of a written command. Comp. Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 135].
✓ ÉTTLOTOan denotes the definite Epistle, i. e. our Second Epistle to the
Thessalonians (comp. 1 Thess. V. 27; Rom. xvi. 22; Col. iv. 16); and the
command expressed by that Epistle is the admonition in ver. 12. The
meaning is : But if any one acts contrary to my prohibition repeated in
this Epistle, note that man, i. e. marli him, sc. in order to avoid intercourse
with him (comp. 1 Cor. v. 9, 11), and thereby to bring him to shame (and
amendment); as Paul, explaining himself, expressly adds : kai pū ovvava-
uíyvuole avrõ iva évtparſ. This meaning also remains, if, instead of the
Receptus kai un ouvavajiyvvooɛ, we read, with Lachmann and Tischendorf
1, after A B D*x, the infinitive ui ouvavajiyvuobal, only the form of expres-
sion being changed.---évtpann] is passive, not middle (Pelt). Comp. Tit. ii.
8; 1 Cor. iv. 14, vi. 5, xv. 24..
Ver. 15. But no hostile feeling against the erring was to be conjoined with
this avoidance of social intercourse; on the contrary, as he is a Christian
brother, advice and admonition are not to be omitted in order to convert
him from his error by convincing reasons.-s] united with nyetodai, other-
wise unusual, brings still more prominently forward the subjective notion
or representation implied in the verb. In a corresponding manner ÜOTTEP
occurs with nyeolar in the LXX. Comp. Job xix. 11, xxxiii. 10.
Ver. 16. The apostle, hastening to a conclusion, annexes a benediction
to the exhortation. By ó kúplos tñs ciphuns is meant not God, but. Christ,
and the genitive designates Him as the Creator and Producer of eliphun.-
της ειρήνης and την ειρήνην] are usually interpreted, either of mutual har-
mony or of peace of mind (or even, as e.g. by Schott, of both together, exter-
nal and internal peace). The first-mentioned interpretation is untenable,
because there is in the Epistle not the slightest trace of dissensions in the
church; and the shift that the fanatical excitement in the church, and
1 So, correctly, Chrysostom, Clarius, Estius,
Piscator, Andrew Osiander, Aretius, Meno
chius, Vorstius, Cornelius a Lapide, Beza,
Fromond., Hammond, Nat. Alexander, Joa-
chim Lange, Harduin, Whitby, Benson,
Bolten, Flatt, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Bloomfield, Alford,
Ewald, Bisping, Ellicott, Buttmann, Gramm.
des neutest Sprachgebr. p. 80 [E. T. 92]; Hof-
mann, Riggepbach, and others.
CHAP. III. 15–18.
631
the idleness consequent upon it, might lead to external disquiet, and
accordingly the wish of the apostle was occasioned with a view to the
future, is far-fetched and arbitrary, because Paul prays for what was
immediately to occur. There is nothing against the second interpretation,
as calmness of mind or peace of soul is undoubtedly indicated by cipíun
(Phil. iv. 7). See Meyer and Weiss in loco. Yet it is also admissible to
understand eiphun both times (corresponding to the Hebrew Dilw; see
Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 22 ff.) in the sense of salvation or blessing, and,
indeed, on account of the article rñs and rñv, of the definite,—that is to
say, the specifically Christian blessing or salvation. This interpretation is
also supported by the fact, that as zápıç kaì εiphron at the commencement of
the apostolic Epistles corresponds to the Salutem or εű mpártelv of profane
writers, so the apostolic benediction at the conclusion of the Epistles is
nothing else than the Christian transformation of the usual Valete or
špowote.-olà navTóc] always, Rom. xi. 10; Matt. xviii. 10; Acts ii. 25.-
jetà trávrwv úpūv] accordingly even with the áráKTWS TEPLTATOŪVTES.
Vv. 17, 18. Autographic salutation, with a repeated benediction. Paul
had not written the letter with his own hand, but dictated it. Comp. Rom.
xvi. 22; 1 Cor. xvi. 21 ; Col. iv. 18.—ö] does not stand by attraction for
ös, nor also does it bring forward a simple special point from the foregoing
(so Wieseler on Gal. vi. 11; and Laurent in the Stud. 26. Krit. 1864, p. 639;
Neutestam. Studien, Gotha 1866, p. 5: " which, namely, the autographic
writing ”), but it refers to the whole preceding idea : which circumstance of
the salutation now written.-onježov] a sign, i.e. a maric of authenticity. Comp.
ii. 2. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Bullinger, Estius, Piscator,
Menochius, Cornelius a Lapide, Er. Schmid, Beza, Joachim Lange, Har-
duin, Benson, Bengel, Moldenhauer, Zachariae, Baur .(Paulus, p. 489),
Hofmann, Riggenbach, and most critics, incorrectly find this mark in the
addition of the words following in ver. 18; for the autographic salutation
is expressly designated as this mark. But a salutation and a benediction are
different from each other.-év TáoN ÉTLOTONñ] in every Epistle, can only be
referred to all the Epistles which the apostle has, perhaps, at a later
period, still to write to the Thessalonians. For only for the Thessalonians,
who had already been actually deceived by a false Pauline Epistle, and
led into error, was such a precaution of practical importance against a new
deception. Besides, if év táon ÉTLOTOÀN is to be understood absolutely
instead of relatively, the autographic salutation would be found in all the
Epistles of the apostle. But it is only found in 1 Cor. xvi. 21 and Col. iv. 18.-
OŰtws ypáow] thus that is to say, in such characters as are given in vv. 17
and 18—I write. The handwriting of the apostle was accordingly still
unknown to the readers. From this it follows, that also the First Epistle
to the Thessalonians was not written by the apostle's own hand. More-
over, Zeltner (de monogrammate Pauli, Altorfii 1721), Bengel, and Molden-
hauer erroneously—because transferring a modern custom into antiquity-
consider that we are here to think on characters artificially twisted into a
monogram by the apostle and rendered incapable of imitation. Against Zelt-
ner, see Wolf, p. 402 ff.
632 · THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR.
LXII. Vy. 1-5.
(a) In 1 Thess. 2oLTóv (iv. 1) introduces thé Hortatory section. It follows a
passage of a kindred sort to that in ii. 16, 17 of this epistle. The similarity in the
two cases is noticeable. It is worthy of remark, however, that, in the first epistle,
the passage answering to ii. 16, 17 contains the prayer that God would open the
way for the Apostle's return to them, and would establish and confirm them in
holiness, and holtóV opens an exhortation to walk according to what he had taught
them. Here, on the other hand, the exhortation to hold fast his instructions, and
the prayer for their confirmation, both precede tò 20LTTÓv, while this adverbial ex-
pression introduces a request for their prayers that he might have freedom in
preaching everywhere, and might be delivered from those who would hinder his
work. And then, by a sort of repetition, thoughts corresponding with those of ii.
16, 17 are added in ii. 3-5.—(6) The request which he makes, in asking for their
prayers for himself, is that the word of the Lord may have free course and be
glorified. He undoubtedly has in mind, however, the preaching of the word by
himself and his companions, as the prominent thought.-(c) From the suggestions
of both epistles we must believe the persons alluded to in ver. 2 to be Jewish
enemies, to whom the word áTÓTWV would seem peculiarly applicable.--(d) The
question as to whether ToŨ Trovnpow of ver. 3 is masculine or neuter, is hardly to be
answered with confidence. The argument in favor of the neuter, which is urged
by Lünem. and Alf.—that ii. 17 suggests it—is of quite doubtful force, because
TÒ MOLT bv makes a new paragraph and allows a new thought. The argument de-
rived from a supposed reference to the Lord's prayer (Ell. and some others) is not
to be pressed, because this reference is very questionable. The similarity in the
two passages may be merely fanciful. The fact that there has been no reference
to Satan in the context, and that the following verse, which seems to be in a cer-
tain connection with this verse, speaks of confidence that the readers both were
doing and would do the things which had been enjoined as Christian duty, may be
considered as favoring the neuter. Rob., Grimm., A. V., Noves tr., de W., All.,
Lünem. and others hold that it is neuter. R. V., Ell., Davidson tr., Bib. Comm.,
Mason, Words., Hofm., Olsh., Calv., and others regard it as masculine.-(e) With
ver. 4, ii. 15 and 1 Thess. iv. 1 may be compared. In the last-mentioned verse, he
prays that, as they are now walking according to what he had taught, they may
do so in the future; here, he expresses confidence that they will do so.
LXIII. Vv. 6-18.
(a) With ver. 6 comp. 1 Thess. y. 14 and iv. 11. The exhortation with regard
to these disorderly persons is presented here more in detail. It would appear
from this fact, that some increase of the evil indicated may have taken place since
the first letter, or that he may have received more definite information concerning
it. The latter seems to be clearly indicated in ver. 11. He recalls his own course
of action and example when he was in their city, which in 1 Thess. ii. he had
mentioned by way of reminiscence, and urges it as an example which they should
imitate. The correspondence in expressions with the first epistle is very striking.
NOTES.
633
-(6) Ver. 10 seems to show that this tendency to give up this world's work was
an attendant, in many cases, upon the entrance into the Christian life—the new
thoughts, the spiritual atmosphere, the future, making the daily duties in earthly
things seem unnecessary. Warnings against tendencies to such errors in different
lines are given in the N.T., and must have been found needful by the Apostolic
preachers.-(C) Teplepyasquévous (ver. 11) as contrasted with špyašouévous, implies
a busying themselves with things belonging to the sphere of others, and neglect-
ing those of their own sphere. The very strong word å hotploeTÍOKOTOS used in 1
Pet. iv. 15 may be compared.—d) The fact that the exhortation and suggestion
of vv. 6 ff. and the exhortation in ver. 12 (iva metà rouxíao k.7.2.) are in each of
the two Epistles so closely connected with the passage which relates to the Parou-
sia—that of ver. 12 following it in this Ep., and immediately preceding it in 1
Thess. (iv. 11)-is, not improbably, indicative of a connection between the mis-
taken notions, which members of the Thess. church had respecting the time of that
great event, and their neglect of their earthly business. These mistaken notions
may have been a cause of this neglect. But the most that can be affirmed with
respect to such a connection is a possibility or probability, not a certainty.-(e) The
reference of Sià TĩS ÉTTLOTO277s (ver. 14) to the present letter is satisfactorily proved
by the considerations which Lünem. sets forth. The reference of kúplos (ver. 16)
which he gives is, also, to be adopted as probably correct. Elsewhere, when re-
ferring to God in such a phrase, the Apostle uses the words ó Geòs tñs elpávns, as
Alf. remarks.—(f) The addition of the autograph passage yy. 17, 18 is perhaps
connected with the fact that a letter had been received by the church which
claimed to be his, but was not actually so (see ii. 2). It is probable that such
autograph additions were made in his subsequent epistles generally or always, and
not merely in letters to this church. That he has special reference, however, in
the words as here used, to what he might have occasion to write to the Thess., is
not improbable.
TOPICAL INDEX.
214, 217, 218, 226, 244, 247, 255, 260,
262, 263, 282, 288, 301, 308, 323, 330,
Abstinence from meats and drinks, 325.
345, 348, 350, 352, 359, 362, 367, 370,
Advent, Second. See Second Coming 372, 380, 389, 398, 400, 403, 409, 445,
and Parousia.
446, 449, 459, 471, 472, 497, 498, 502,
American Editor, Notes by. See Notes 504, 509, 510, 584, 585, 594, 598, 605,
by American Editor.
606, 619, 627, 630, 631.
Angels, Worship of, 233, 318; to be
Circumcision, Christian, 297-299.
judged, 241, 242.
Clement, 5, 163, 164, 186.
Antichrist, 595–616, 621.
Clement of Alexandria, 4, 44, 161, 196,
Antiochus Epiphanes, 597, 598, 616.
199, 246, 291, 438, 568.'
Apostasy, before the Lord comes, 595, Clement of Rome, 40, 41, 163, 164, 187,
596, 613, 614.
199, 438.
Apostolic Constitutions, 246.
Colossae, city of, in Phrygia, 193, 194.
Appearing, or Appearance of the Lord. Colossians, Epistle to, 193, et seqq.; occa-
See Parousia.
sion and aim of writing, 194–198;
Appia, 398, 415.
date of, and where written, 198, 199;
Aquila and Priscilla, 456.
genuineness of, 199–205; exegesis of
Archippus, 391, 394, 395, 398, 415.. Chap. I., 208-263; notes, by American
Aristarchus, 383, 385, 393.
Editor, 263–278; exegesis of Chapter
Arius, 68, 72.
II., 280-331 ; notes by American Edi-
Athanasius, referred to, 2.
tor, 331-341 ; exegesis of Chapter
Augustine, referred to.or quoted, 29, 67, III., 343–372; notes by American
70, 74, 80, 88, 89, 122, 138, 148, 255, Editor, 372–376; exegesis of Chapter
295, 310, 316, 317, 327, 537, 605, 606. IV., 377-392; notes by American
Editor, 392-394.
B
Covetousness, warned against asidolatry,
349, 350.
Baptism, buried with Christ in, 299, 300.
Barnabas, and Epistle of, 199, 230, 384,
516.
Daniel, prophecies of, 609, 616.
Bishops and Deacons, in Philippi, 9, 10. Deaconesses, 160.
Demas, 386, 387, 394.
Devil, ruler of the Cosmos, 220.
Docetism, 76, 85, 248.
Casarea, 385, 386.
Caius, 64.
Caligula, 565; as Antichrist, 612, 613.
Christ Jesus, example of, 65; his Epaphras, 101; founder of the Church in
humiliation in the incarnation, 66–78, Colossaé, 194, 212, 213, 265, 290, 383–
107-110; the Saviour, 157; Head of 387, 393.
the Church, 233-236, 272; eternal | Epaphroditus, 3, 4, 10, 22, 101-105, 115,
sonship, 511.
157, 161, 175, 186, 188, 189, 191.
Christology, 219, et seqq.
Epicurean corruption among Christians,
Chrysostom, referred to or quoted, 2, 8, 146, 147.
10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 29, 35, 40, Epiphanius, 232, 396, 438.
43, 44, 60, 61, 63, 66, 68, 74, 76, 83, Episcopate, doctrine of the, 10.
88, 93-96, 99, 102, 105, 121, 122, 147, Essenes, 196, 232.
149, 151, 160, 161, 165, 169, 170, 172, Euodia and Syntache, 5, 164, 186.
177, 178, 180, 183, 184, 208, 209, 210, | Exegetical literature, 427-429.

635
636
TOPICAL INDEX.
612.
Marcion, 3, 4, 199, 396, 568.
Mark, 186, 385, 393.
Fathers, and their children, 370, 376.
Masters, duties of toward slaves, 377,
Felix, imperial freedman, 187.
378.
Fellowship, 47, 48, 50.
Messianic salvation and kingdom, 218–.
Flavius Clemens, 187.
220, 344, 347.
Freedmen of the emperor at Rome, | Millennial reign of Christ, 527, 542.
186, 187.
Mohammed, as Antichrist, 606, 609.
" G
Gain (to die is), 32, 33, 35.
N.
Glory of the Messianic kingdom, 218–
Napoleon as Antichrist, 609.
220.
Gnostic ideas charged upon the Epistle
Nero, 187,193, 570, 606 ; as Antichrist,
to the Philippians, 84-86.
Gnosticism in Colossae, 195–198.
Notes, by American Editor, 46-58;
106–116; 152-158; 188-191; 263–
278; 331-341; 372–376; 392–394;
H .
415-420; 458-461; 491-495; 509–
511; 538–542; 566, 561; 588–590 ;
Hades, 40, 56; the dead in, 83 ; descent 619-623; 632, 633.
of Christ into, 83.
Nymphas, 388.
Hermas, Shepherd of, 230, 251.
Hippolytus, 575.
Holy Spirit. See Spirit, Holy.
Onesimus, 194, 199, 376, 382, 383, 395,
405, 406-408, 412, 413, 419.
Ontology, 237, 238.
Origen, 89, 200, 396, 438.
Ignatius, referred to or quoted, 27, 83,
Original sin, 353.
119, 130, 229, 242, 261, 347, 371, 438.
Incarnation, the, 75–77.
Intermediate state, 40, 56, 83.
Irenaeus, referred to or quoted, 4, 85,
199, 232, 438, 568, 605.
Papal hierarchy and Protestants, 607,
608.
Paradise, 40, 56, 57.
Parousia of the Lord, 14, 20, 39, 57, 67,
87, 94, 150, 158, 165, 210, 241, 249,
Jesus Justus, 385, 393, 415.
Judaizing false teachers, in Philippi,
250, 300, 344-347, 355, 491, 529, 540,
119-124, 152, 153; in Colossae, 195–
541, 545, 561, 582, 588, 589, 612, 621.
Paul, the Apostle, visits Philippi, 1;
198, 232, 317.
writes from Rome Epistle to the
Philippians, 2, 3; strong feeling ex-
Kingdom, the Messianic, 218–220.
pressed, 4; another Epistle by to the
Philippians, 6, 119–121, 152; posi-
tion of at time of writing, 21-24;
L
factious opposition to, 25-27; spirit of
Lactantius, 545.
under this trial, 29, 30; expectation
Laodiceans, Epistle to, 204, 281, 388– and hope of, 30–32; confidence in re-
90.
sult of trial, 32-38; exhortations, etc.,
Life, hidden with Christ, 345–347. 41–46, 58; on the second coming of
Linus, 186.
the Lord, 48; claim of as to origin,
Logos, doctrine of the, 79, 80, 110, 223– position, character, etc., 126, 127; the
226, 269.
prize, the race, the contest, the strug-
Lucius, 64.
gle, 136–140, 155; supposed letters of
Luke, 186, 386, 387.
to Seneca, 187, 188; sufferings of for
Lying, to be put off and away, 352, 353. Christ, 253–256, 276; on the resur-
rection of believers and unbelievers,
526-537; expectation of being alive
at the parousia of the Lord, 532-534,
Macedonia and Achaia; 454–456.
539-542; martyrdom of, 570; auto-
Man of sin, 597. See Antichrist.
graphic salutation in Epistles, 631.
P.
§
.
M
TOPICAL INDEX.
637
Seneca, the philosopher, letters of to
Paul, 187, 188.
Silas (Silvanus), 161, 186, 432, 437,
445, 446, 449, 459, 470, 472, 496, 502,
567, 568, 577.
Singing by Christians, 365-367.
Socinian errors, 226, 231.
Socrates and Plato, referred to, 344.
Spirit of Christ, 30, 54, 55, 294.
Spirit, Holy, 36, 42, 55, 61, 118, 124,
*166, 213, 215, 322, 365, 520, 521.
Syntache, 5. See Euodia.
Syzygus, 162, 188.
T.
Pauline and anti-Pauline parties in
Philippi, 25-29, 53, 117.
Pelagius, 14, 15, 35, 81, 84, 119, 138,
148, 161, 162, 165, 167, 176, 186, 184,
236, 592, 594, 618.
Perseverance of saints, 48.
Philemon, 194, 383, 415; Epistle of
Paul to, 395-420 ; genuineness, date,
etc., 396, 397; contents of Epistle,
398 ; exegesis, 398–415; notes by
American Editor, 415-420.
Philippi, in Macedonia, Roman colony,
1 ; first city in Europe visited by
Paul, 1; the church planted there, 1,
2.
Philippians, Epistle to, written in
Rome, 2; date of composition, 2, 3;
occasion of writing the Epistle, 3;
exhibits Paul's love towards the Phil-
ippians, 3, 4; synopsis of contents, 4;
genuineness and unity, 4, 5; attacks
on by rationalists, 5, 6; another Epis-
tle written belore by Paul not now
extant, 6, 119-121 ; contents of chapter
I., and exegesis, 8-46 ; notes by Amer-
ican Editor, 46-58; exegesis of chap-
ter II., 60–106; notes by American
Editor, 106–116; the classical passage
or epos, 66, 78; exegesis of chapter
III., 117–151; notes by American
Editor, 152-158; exegesis of chapter
IV., 159–188; notes by American
Editor, 188–191.
Polycarp, Epistle of to Philippians, 4,
6, 10, 40, 119-121, 438, 568.
Pope of Rome as Antichrist, 607, 608.
Praetorium, 22, 23, 51, 186, 187.
Praetorium of Herod, 187.
Prayer, perseverance in, 378, 379.
Preaching through envy, etc., 52-55.
Psalms and hymns, Christian songs,
365, 375, 376.

Teleology, 235.
Temperance commended and urged, 325.
Tertullian, referred to or quoted, 4, 196,
199, 200, 322, 365, 396, 438, 568, 605.
Thankfulness, duty and privilege of,
368, 376.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, referred to or
quoted, 10, 10, 20, 22, 71, 133, 220,
330, 517, 518, 605.
Theodoret, referred to or quoted, 12, 15,
17, 20–23, 30, 35, 40, 43, 44, 61, 67,
71, 74, 84, 85, 101, 105, 119, 122, 131,
133, 136, 137, 147, 149, 151, 161, 165,
167, 168, 170, 210, 212, 217, 243, 247,
255, 258, 281, 301, 315, 318, 330, 345,
350, 364, 372, 391, 398, 448, 449, 451,
452, 454, 468, 470, 483, 503, 507, 513,
515, 517, 524, 528, 532, 535, 536, 537,
546, 552, 558, 582, 595, 597, 600, 603,
604, 605, 606, 615, 625, 627, 631.
Theophylact, referred to or quoted, 12,
17, 18, 29, 35, 37, 43, 67, 70, 71, 76,
81, 83, 88, 93, 96, 118, 119, 122, 133,
136, 137, 144, 146, 151, 160, 161, 165,
168, 173, 176, 177, 178, 180, 186, 209,
214, 218, 223, 227, 234, 243, 249, 255,
260, 262, 295, 296, 301, 311, 321, 323,
326, 330, 344, 345, 350,357, 359, 362,
365, 367, 372, 383, 389, 391, 398, 400,
403, 411, 445, 448, 449, 450, 451, 453,
457, 466, 467, 471, 473, 474, 476, 482,
483, 498, 499, 513, 514, 517, 551, 552,
554, 555, 582, 584, 585, 587, 594, 598,
612, 628, 631.
Thessalonians, First Epistle to, Intro-
duction, 431–442; occasion, design,
contents, 433–436; date and place of
writing, 436, 437; genuineness, 438–
442; exegesis, chapter I., 444-458;
notes by American Editor, 458–461 ;
contents, chapter II., 463; exegesis,
463-491; notes by American Editor,
491-495 ; contents, chapter III., 497;
exegesis, 497-509; notes by American
Editor, 509-511; contents, chapter

R.
Reconciliation, 240–243, 273–275.
Regeneration, new life in Christ, 353–
357.
Resurrection, the general, 134, 135,
155; resurrection of believers and
unbelievers, 527.
Resurrection body, the, 150, 151.
S.
Salutation, apostolic, 631.
Salvation, 31, 54.
Saviour, the, 157, 165, 166.
Second coming of the Lord, 48, 459.
See Parousia.
638
TOPICAL INDEX.
IV., 513; exegesis, 513-537; notes | Timothy, 3, 8, 9, 46, 98-101, 106; 114,
by American Editor, 538-542; con 131, 136, 140, 141, 144, 157, 161, 181,
tents, chapter V., 544; exegesis, 544 213, 214, 263, 398, 432, 437, 445, 446,
559; notes by American Editor, 560, 449, 459, 471, 472, 497, 498, 502, 504,
561.
509, 510, 565, 567, 568, 577.
Thessalonians, Second Epistle to, Intro Titus, 186.
duction, 563–575; occasion, design, Trichotomy (spirit, soul, body), 557, 558.
contents, 563, 564, date and place of Tychicus, 194, 199, 382, 395.
writing, 564-568; genuineness, 568–
575; exegesis, chapter I., 576-588;
U
notes by American Editor, 588–590;
exegesis, chapter II., 592-605; fur Uncleanness, Christians warned against,
ther remarks on chaper II., 1-12, 348, 349.
605-616; hortatory portion, 616-619;
W :
notes by American Editor, 619-623;
exegesis, chapter III., 625-631; notes Women, holy, in Philippi, 160, 163.
by American Editor, 632, 633.. Worship in the primitive Church, 365.
Thessalonica, city of, 431, 432; church Wrath of God at the day of judg-
in, planted by Paul, 432, 433.
ment, 350.

-
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
TIL
DI
1
11111
1111111
11111111
11
DILDI
U11
11
LU
II
III
111
III
11
1
3 9015 08171 7822
M
DO NOT REMOVE
OR
MUTILATE CARD

•
ة
م
م
دی
با
۱
در
:
.
"
.
"
ما
التالية
4
'
F
مل
11 ف
فر
ا
: هو
ه
هه
1
د هند
م
.
،
"
اه
:
.۱۰.
. ۱
وم
*
*
*
اد
1
نة
ما
.
اد
;
الو
ا :
وز
هوا
I
بان
* وی * 1
الا
,و
T
*
-ر
_
ور
:
1::. :
:
:
::1
1
.
.
?
پر دو
نر
:
: ر
به اند
ها
:
:
تی
او
*
.
.
لا
در .
..
تد
.
هو:
:
"،
: ::
،
من
::
:
ج
ا
|
مه به
.
ا *
یافتند
سی
"
ماه ::
يا
10
جو مرد و زن و
."
-
.
درا
,
,
و و
:
:
از
وه
او را
دی ۱۴
!
.:.:.:
ابو
:
وه
.
.
.
"
|