. aV.
>YALE«¥IMII¥IEI&SinnT«'

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

COMMENTARY

THE COLOSSIANS.

Uniform with this Volume, price 14*. cloth,
A COMMENTARY ON THE GrKEEK TEXT OF THE
EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TEE EPHESIANS.
Bt JOHN EADIE, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Biblical Literature to the United Presbyterian Church.

COMMENTARY

ON THE GKEEK TEXT

OF THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO

THE COLOSSIANS.

JOHN EADIE, D.D., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR OP BIBLICAL LITERATURE TO THE TOTITED PRESBTT BRIAN ffl]

NEW YORK:
ROBERT CARTER AND BROTHERS,
285 BROADWAY. 1856.

ITAYAOS — ptyet: t'h? etXqBtieis rrj ecya>vto-T%s no.) 5iSa^««Aoj. — rPHrOPIOS
o ©toXoyes. Non est cujusvis hominis Panlinum pectus efflngera. Tonat, fulgurat, meras
flammas loquitur.— Erasmus, AnnoL ad Colos. iv. 16.
Omnis bonus Theologus et fidelis inteipres doctrinac coelestis, necessario esse
debet, primum graromaticus, deinde dialecticus, deniqu.e testis.— Mel ancthon.

PREFACE.

This volume has been composed on the same principles
as those which guided me in my previous Commentary on
the Epistle to the Ephesians. My aim- has again been to trace
and illustrate the thoughts of the inspired writer; to arrive
at a knowledge of the truths which he has communicated, by
an analysis of the words which he has employed. I have
used every means in my power to ascertain the mind of the
Spirit ; and my eye being single, if I have not enjoyed ful
ness of light, my hope is that some at least of its beams have
been diffused over my pages. As the purity of exegesis
depends on the soundness of grammatical investigation, I
have spared no pains in the prior process, so that I might
arrive at a satisfactory result. One may, indeed, compile a
series of grammatical annotations without intruding far into
the province of exegesis* but it is impossible to write an
exegetical commentary without basing it on a thorough
grammatical inquiry. . The foundation must be of sufficient
depth and breadth to support the structure. Nay, after the
expositor has discovered what meaning the word or clause
may bear by itself, and as the Grammar or Lexicon may
warrant, he has then to determine how far the connection

vi PREFACE.
and development of ideas may modify the possible significa
tion, and finally determine the actual or genuine sense.1 For
the only true sense is that which the author intended his
words should bear. Now there is ample wealth of gram
matical assistance. Apart from formal grammatical trea
tises and dictionaries, one might almost compile a Gram
mar and Lexicon from such works as Schweighauser on
Herodotus, Stallbaum on Plato, Poppo on Thucydides, Kuhner
on Xenophon, and other productions of similar scholarship.
Still, when all this labour has been gone through, the higher
art of the exeget must be brought into requisition. The
dry bones must not only be knitted, but they must live.
Successful exposition demands, on the part of its writer, such
a psychological oneness with the author expounded, as that
his spirit is felt, his modes of conception mastered, and his
style of presenting consecutive thought penetrated and
realized. And there is need, too, of that Divine illumi
nation which the "Interpreter, one among a thousand," so
rejoices to confer on him who works in the spirit of the
1 In making these remarks, I refer to, but certainly find no fault with, the following
two treatises, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle io the
Galatians, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the
Ephesians, by C. J. Ellicott, M.A., Eector of Pilton, Eutland, and late Fellow of
St. John's College, Cambridge. London, 1854-55. Mr. Ellicott is an excellent Greek
scholar, but in many of his corrections of myself, and on points of Greek Grammar too,
I cannot acquiesce, though in a few I admit his modifications. I hope he is aware, at
the same time, that in Scotland every Greek scholar is and must be self-taught, since
at our northern Universities we get little Latin and less Greek, and enjoy no leisurely
Fellowships. Yet with all the necessary apparatus of German scholarship in onr
hands, why should we really be behind England, save in the privilege of early and
minute tuition? Indeed, English scholarship, in two of its latest efforts in this
direction, does but give an English dress to continental erudition. Jelf has not
absorbed the individuality of Kuhner in his improved translation. Liddell and Scott
have modestly avowed the sources out of which, to a great extent, their very useful
Lexicon has been wrought out. However, we wait hopefully for the New Testament
of Tregelles, and for the Lexicon believed to be in preparation by the Master of
Balliol. Mr. Ellicott has unconsciously misnamed our last work, in a point of view
against which we protested in our preface, and somewhat extraordinarily and in
opposition to what Prof. John Brown himself has said, he hastily ascribes his Ex
position of Galatians to a collegiate authorship.

PREFACE.

prayer — " Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold won
drous things out of thy law." May I venture to hope that,
to some extent, I have come up to my own theory ?
What others have written before me on the epistle I have
carefully studied. Neither ancient nor modern commentators
in any language have been neglected. But I have not been
so lavish, as on my last appearance, in the citation of names,
except in cases of momentous difficulty, or where some
peculiar interpretation has been adduced. Names, I well
know, are not authorities ; and such a complete enumeration
of them as I attempted has, I find, been sometimes mis
understood in its principle, and sometimes misrepresented
in its purpose.
If my labours shall contribute to a clearer understanding
of this portion of the New Testament, I shall be amply
rewarded. I believe that the writings of the apostle,
whatever their immediate occasion and primary purpose,
were intended to be of permanent and universal utility ; and
that the purity and prosperity of the church of Christ are inti
mately bound up with an accurate knowledge of, and a solid
faith, in, the Pauline theology. I dare not, therefore, in the
spirit of modern rationalism, say in one breath what the
apostle means, and then say, in another breath, that such
an acknowledged meaning, though fitted for the meridian of
the first century, is not equally fitted for that of the nine
teenth ; but must be modified and softened down, according
to each one's predilections and views. The privilege of
individual deduction from inspired statement is not questioned
— the attempt to glean and gather general principles from
counsels and descriptions of a temporary and special phasis
is not disallowed ; but this procedure is totally different from
that ingenious rationalism which contrives to explain away
those distinctive truths which an honest interpretation of the
apostle's language admits, that he actually loved and taught.

viii PREFACE.
I have still to bespeak indulgence, on account of the con
tinuous and absorbing duties of a numerous city charge ; and
for a careful revisal of the sheets, and the compilation of
.the useful index which accompanies this volume, I am in
debted to my esteemed friend, the Rev. John Russell, Buch-
lyvie, Stirlingshire.

13 Lansdowne Crescent, Glasgow,
October, 1855.

THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

I- — COLOSSE, LAODICEA, AND HIERAPOLIS.
Colosse was a city of the greater Phrygia, or that province
which, under Constantius, was ealled Phrygia Pacatiana, and
was situated on the river Lycus, about five furlongs above the
¦ point where it joins the Maeander. The spelling of the name
has been disputed. The common appellation, Ko\o<ro-a£, has,
in the inscription of the epistle, the support of Codices D, E, F,
G, the Vulgate, and several of the Fathers, among whom are
the Greek Chrysostom and Theophylact, and the Latin Tertul
lian and Ambrosiaster. Some ancient coins exhibit the same
spelling,1 and it oecurs also in Herodotus,2 Xenophon,3 Strabo,4,
Diodorus Siculus,5 and Pliny* It appears to be the correct
and original form of the word. On the other hand, KoXao-oxu
has the high authority of A, B, C, of the Syriac and Coptic
Versions, and not a few of the Fathers and classical writers.7
Lachmann and Tischendorf adopt it. This form, therefore,
was also a current one. It seems to have been in common
use among the people, and was probably the spelling em
ployed by the apostle himself. Among the subscriptions to
the Acts ofthe Council of Chalcedon, held in A.D. 451, occurs
that of the metropolitan of Laodicea, who, speaking of the
bishops under him, mentions — 'E7r«0av(oi; TroXtu)^ KoXacro-aiv.
The city was of some note in its early days. Herodotus calls
1 Eckhel, Doctr. Numis. iii. p. 147, who cites the terms Kokonrnva! and Ssi/m; Kn-
XoffavivZv. 2 vii. 30.
3 Anabasis, p. 6, ed. Hutchinson, Glasgow, 1817.
* Geographia, voL ii. p. 580, ed. Kramer, Berlin, 1847.
5 Histor. vol. ii. p.- 888, ed. Dindorf, Lipsiae, 1829. e Eist. Nat. 1—32.
7 It stands as a various reading in Xenophon and Herodotus, and also in Pol-
vaenns, viii. 16. b

X THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
it fisyaXn ttoXiq; and Xenophon bestows upon it the epithet
svSat/jiojv. Strabo, however, while he classes Apameia and
Laodicea among the greatest cities of Phrygia, ranks Colosse
only among the woXiaixara, as if its ancient greatness had
already been eclipsed by the prosperity of the neighbouring
towns. Ptolemy takes no notice of it. Laodicea and
Hierapolis, mentioned in the second chapter _of the epistle,
were but a few miles from it, and all three in the year 60
a.d., suffered terribly from an earthquake.1 Indeed, as Strabo
observes, xthe whole district or valley of the Maeander was
volcanic, and liable to earthquakes — tvauaroc;.
In the middle ages, Colosse was known by the name of
Chonae, as is stated by Theophylact2 in the commencement
of his commentary, and by the Byzantine Nicetas,3 who, after
his birthplace, surnamed himself Choniates. A village named
Chonas still remains, and the ruins of the ancient city have
been discovered and identified by the modern travellers,
Hamiltpn and Arundel. The lofty range of mount Cadmus
rises abruptly behind the village, presenting that remarkable
phenomenon4 which seems to have given its second name to
the town, and was connected with one of its singular super
stitions. The legend is, that, during a period of sudden and
resistless inundation, Michael, descending from heaven, opened
a chasm, into which the waters at once disappeared, and the
fact is, that a church was built in honour of the archangel, in
which he received Divine honours. This subsequent idolatry
affords a curious illustration of the tendency which, under the
clause "worshipping of angels," the apostle formally notices
and rebukes in the 18th verse of the second chapter of his
epistle. The other towns mentioned in the epistle are Laodicea and
Hierapolis. The former had often attached to it the appella
tion — ?| iwl A«Kt[), or ?/ ttjooc t$ Auko^ — that is, " Laodicea on
the Lycus," to distinguish it from other towns of similar name,
1 The statement of Orosius on this subject must not be taken as correct in all points.
Orosius, Sist. vii. 7. Winer, sub voce. Tacitus, Annal. xiv. 27. Wieseler, Chronot.
455. TloXlf tp^vyiug ttl KoXotrffet) at vuy Xlyofilvixi Xuitat.
3 X»m . . . rraXm t!,.; KoXxirird;. Chron. p. 230, Bonn.
4 Herodotus, loc cit.

LAODICEA AND HIERAPOLIS. Xl
one in the same region, another forming the port of Aleppo,
and a third close to Mount Lebanon. Its original name was
Diospolis, and it received its later designation from Laodice,
the wife of Antiochus IL, by whom it was patronized and
considerably enlarged. As the metropolis of the Greater
Phrygia, it was a city of some size, splendour, and trade,
covering several hills with its buildings, having a rich and
active population within it, and a fertile country round about it,
watered by the Lycus, and two other and smaller streams.1 But
the scourge of the place was the frequency and severity of
the earthquakes. On being devastated by the earthquake
referred to, it soon rose to its former grandeur — prqpriis
viribus revaluit;2 but after many a convulsion and overthrow,
the place was at length abandoned. Its ruins attest its
ancient grandeur. Remains of two theatres may yet be seen,
with many of their marble seats ; temples may be traced by
their foundations ; but of the architecture and ornaments of
churches almost no trace can be found. " Vast silent walls,"
about the purpose of which there is considerable doubt, are
striking objects amidst the desolation. The Turks now call
it Eski-hissa, or old castle, a translation of the common Greek
term applied to old sites, Paleo-castro.3
East of Colosse, and to the north of Laodicea and
visible from its theatre, lay Hierapolis. It was famous for
its mineral springs, which produced beautiful stalactites,
and all forms of encrustations, and for the mephitic va
pours which filled a cavern on the hill side.4 These pecu
liarities may have originated its sacred name. It has been
visited and described by several travellers, such as Smith,
Pococke, Chander, Arundell, Leake, and Fellows. The
remains of three Christian churches are visible, and the theatre
and gymnasium are prominent among the ruins. Fellows
has the following entry in his Journal? pp. 283, 284 : — " Up
1 Strabo speaks of vi <rr,s x&'g.s age-rsj, and adds also w voXiruy rtvts ihrv^-
wxiiris, xii. 8, 16. Eev. iii. 17.
2 Tacitus, Armal. xiv. 27.
3 Kitto's Cyclop, sub voce.
4 Called the Plutoneum. Strabo, lib. xiii. Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 29.
s Journal written during an Excursion to Asia Minor, London, 1839.

Xli THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
the valley towards the south-east stands Mount Cadmus, and I
heard that at its foot, about twelve miles from Laodiceia,
there were considerable ruins, probably of the ancient city of
Colossse. Descending rapidly into the flat and swampy valley
of the Lycus, we crosssd in a diagonal line to the city of
Hierapolis, six or seven miles from Laodiceia. My attention
had been attracted at twenty miles' distance by the singular
appearance of its hill, upon which there appeared to be
perfectly white streams poured down its sides ; and this
peculiarity may have been the attraction which first led to the
city being built there. The waters, which rise in copious
streams from several deep springs among the ruins, and are
also to be found in small rivulets for twenty miles around, are
tepid, and to appearance perfectly pure. This pure and warm
water is no sooner exposed to the air, than it rapidly deposits
a pearly white substance upon the channel through which it
flows, and on every blade of grass in its course ; and thus,
after filling its bed, it flows over, leaving a substance which I
can only compare to the brain-coral, a kind of crust or feeble
crystallization ; again it is flooded by a fresh stream, and again
is formed another perfectly white coat. The streams of
water, thus leaving a deposit by which they are choked up,
and over which they "again flow, have raised the whole surface
of the ground fifteen or twenty feet, forming masses of this
shelly stone in ridges, which impede the paths, as well as
conceal and render it difficult to trace out the foundations of
buildings. The deposit has the appearance of a salt, but it is
tasteless, and to the touch is like the shell of the cuttle-fish.
These streams have flowed on for ages, and the hills are coated
over with their deposit of a filmy semi-transparent appearance,
looking like half-melted snow suddenly frozen." From this
whiteness of the southern and western declivities of the
rocky terrace on which the city stands, a whiteness consisting
probably of a deposit of carbonate of lime, it is now called
Pambuk-Kaleh, or Cotton Castle.
The inhabitants of Phrygia boasted of a high antiquity, and
the Egyptians confessed their own posteriority. Herodotus
tells at length the absurd story of the experiment of King
Psammetichus, by which was discovered the priority of the

RELIGIOUS CHARACTERISTICS OF PHRYGIA. Xlll
Phrygian language.1 It is certain that they were inclined to
wild superstitions. Their religious worship was a species of
delirious fanaticism. The self-mutilated Corybantes were the
priests of Cybele, who, under the sacred paroxysm cut and
gashed themselves, as they reeled, whirled, and danced in
frantic glee to the braying of horns and clashing of cymbals,
while the forests and mountains echoed the wild clamour of
their orgies. The national propensity of the Phrygians was
towards the dark and mystical, and they were specially
attracted to any mania or extravagance that claimed a near
knowledge of, or a maddening fellowship with the spirit-
world. Ravings and convulsions were the sure tokens to them
of inspiration. Deficiency of intellectual culture left them the
more the creatures' of whim and impulse, so that the errors
mentioned by the apostle in his letter to the Colossians, and
characterized as " intruding into those things he hath not
seen, will-worship, and neglecting of the body," were pecu
liarly fitted to such a temperament, and calculated to exert a
strong fascination upon it. The knowledge of this correspon
dence between the errors propounded and the eccentric
propensities of the people, must have deepened the fears and
anxieties of the apostle, and led to that stern and thorough
exposure which characterizes the second chapter of the epistle.
We know that at a subsequent period similar delusions pre
vailed in the province. The reveries of Montanus originated
there about the middle ofthe second century, and spread rapidly
and extensively. The leading features of Montanism were a
claim to ecstatic inspiration, the gift of prophecy, the adoption
of a transcendental code of morality, and the exercise of an
austere discipline. Its votaries were often named Kataphry-
gians, from the region of their popularity. The heresiarch
himself was born on the confines of Phrygia, and his first
disciples, as might be expected, were natives of that country,
nay, two of its towns were fondly supposed to be the New
Jerusalem predicted in the Apocalypse. 1 ii. 2.

XIV THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
II. — THE CHURCH IN COLOSSE.
But who originated the Christian community' at Colosse?
Was it the apostle himself, or some other missionary ? The
question has not yet been answered beyond dispute. The
early Greek commentator Theodoret held that the apostle
planted the church, though he indicates that even in his day
there was a diversity of opinion on the subject. In later
times, Dr. Lardner has formally stated sixteen arguments in
defence of his belief, that the author of the epistle was the
founder of the church. Dr. Wiggers, in the Studien und
Kritihen for 1838, has espoused the theory of Lardner, and
it had been previously advocated by the reviewer of Junker's
Commentary, in the ninth volume of Bohr's Kritiseher Predi-
ger-Bibliothek. In express opposition to these views, Dr.
Davidson has written at length with great candour and pre
cision.1 The arguments for and against the Pauline origin of the
church are of two kinds — inferential and critical.
1. It is stated in the Acts of the Apostles, xvi. 6, that Paul
and his companion " had gone throughout Phrygia," and
then, xviii. 23, that " he went over all the country of Galatia
and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples." There
arises a strong presumption from these accounts, that during
this first or second visit the apostle must surely have reached
Colosse. This is Theodoret's argument — that as Colosse was
in Phrygia, and Laodicea the capital of the province was
in its vicinity, it could scarcely happen that the apostle should
not visit both places. Dr. Lardner endorses this judgment,
and says, " this argument alone appears to me to be con
clusive." Now, it is beyond doubt that the apostle made
extensive journeys in the province of Phrygia, but it is no
where stated that he was either in Colosse, or even near it.
In the first instance referred to, the route was from Antioch to
Syria, Cilicia, Derbe, Lystra, Phrygia, Galatia, Mysia, Troas,
and thence over to Europe. The record of the tour is vague.
True, indeed, Colosse lay on the great road from Iconium to
1 Introduction, vol. ii. p. 396, &c.

JOURNEYS OF THE APOSTLE. XV
Ephesus, but the apostle did not visit Ephesus till after his
return from Europe, and then he sailed to it directly from the
port of Cenchrea, and after a brief visit took shipping again
for Caesarea. The term Phrygia, as has been remarked by
Conybeare and Howson (i. 291) — "was merely a geogra
phical expression, denoting a debatable country of doubtful
extent." The journey performed in reaching Mysia, for the
purpose of going into Bithynia, and then through Mysia down
to the coast at Troas, would seem to indicate that the apostle's
route lay greatly to the north of the city of Colosse.
With regard to the apostle's second journey, the language
is also indeterminate. Only it was a journey of visitation,
and if there was no previous sojourn in Colosse, and no
existing church in it, then the apostle was under no induce
ment to turn his steps towards it. He came from Antioch
. into Phrygia and Galatia, and thence down to Ephesus.
If he had taken the great road to the iEgean, through the
valley of the Maeander, he must have come near Colosse ;
but the probability is, that he passed again farther to the
north — for he passed, in fact, through " the upper coasts,"
or table land.
The apostle was for more than three years at Ephesus, and
we may be assured, that evangelizing influence would be
diffused through the surrounding country. Qualified preachers
would visit the various districts, proclaim the gospel, and gather
together small communities. Probably, by one of such disciples
micht the truth be carried a hundred miles eastward to Colosse,
during the period "when all they which dwelt in Asia heard the
word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks." There is nothing in
the brief allusions in the Acts of the Apostles to warrant the
supposition that Paul himself had preached in Colosse. His
apostolic journeys never approached it. We know not his
proximate reasons for not visiting it, nor can we tell from
what, or how many motives, apart from direct revelation, his
route, in any case, was orginally chalked out, and afterwards
modified or departed from altogether. The course we may
venture to propose for him might, for anything we can know,
have presented insuperable difficulties, even though we should
be able to defend it by a reference to geography and itine-

XVI THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
raries, based on the researches and discoveries of modern
travel. And we are sure that if, when in Phrygia, the apostle
did not visit Laodicea — its capital, it was because there was
more pressing work for him elsewhere, while a higher power
and wisdom were guiding him in all the points of his busy
and sublime career.
The second class of arguments in favour of the notion that
Paul himself founded the church in Colosse, is drawn from a
critical estimate of the general spirit and occasional sentiments
of the epistle itself.
Dr. Lardner adduces the apostle's earnest belief, that the
Colossians rightly knew the truth (i. 6), as evidence that pro
bably himself had taught them. But the inference is strained,
and the context disallows it; for the proper translation is —
" which bringing forth fruit, as it does also in you, from the
day ye heard it, and knew the grace of God in truth, just as
ye learned it from Epaphras." The proof based upon Kal,
in the phrase KaOtog Kai i/xaOere cnrb 'Eiraiftpa, is not valid, for
the best MSS. exclude Kai, though Wiggers contends that the
theory we espouse and are now defending, may have led to
its exclusion. See our commentary on the place.
Nor is there tangible evidence in the declaration made in
i. 8, where the apostle tells how Epaphras had declared to
him and his companions their love in the spirit. Even taking
Dr. Lardner's interpretation of the phrase as meaning their
affection for the apostle himself, how can it prove a prior and
personal acquaintance? For surely Christian love does not
depend on personal interview or recognition, else it would be
impossible for any one to love the whole " household of faith."
Nor can the presence of Epaphras at Bome, his intimacy with
the apostle, and the accounts which he brought of the spiritual
condition of the Colossian believers, be any presumption that
they were the apostle's own converts ; for who that has seen
the workings of his large heart would limit Paul's interest to.
those churches gathered by his own preaching?
The apostle, indeed, says to the Colossian church, — "If
ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not
moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have
heard, and which was preached to every creature which is

LARDNER'S ARGUMENTS. XVll
under heaven ; whereof I Paul am made a minister : who now
rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is
behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's
sake, which is the church ; whereof I am made a minister,
according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for
you, to fulfil the word of God." But no part of this language
will warrant the inference which some would put upon it.
He does not say that he had ever preached to the Colossians,
he only says that he was suffering for them. And those
sufferings arose purely from his being the apostle of the
Gentiles, as indeed he indicates in a subsequent clause. There
he intimates to them that the persecutions which harassed
him arose from his special relation to the Gentile churches.
In no other sense than in this general one, could he be suffer
ing for the Colossians, for personally they were in no way
instrumental in causing his incarceration and appeal. The
charges against him involved nothing said or done at Colosse,
the church there was not implicated in the least degree. But
for their evangelical liberty and that of all the churches of.
heathendom the apostle was bound in fetters.
No stress can be laid on the use of the word atrufii in
ii. 5, though Lardner, and Wiggers after him, appeal to it, as
implying that the apostle had once been present in Colosse.
His language simply is, — " For though I be absent in the
flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding
your order, and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ." "
The apostle, however, does not say I am now absent, as if he
referred by such a contrast to a previous period. The con
trast is of another nature. It is such an absence as brings out
the idea of presence in spirit — " I am away from you, and yet
I am with you — -personally at a great distance, but still in
spirit in the very midst of you."
It is also said, iii. 16, — "Let the word of Christ dwell in
you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one
another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing
with grace in your hearts to the Lord." It puzzles us to
understand how Dr. Lardner could extract from this admoni
tion any proof " that the Colossians were endued with spiritual
gifts." The descriptive counsel refers not to any extra-

XV1U THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
ordinary endowment, nor yet to the composition of sacred
melodies; but merely tb the chanting of them. That "grace"
which was in their hearts is the gift of God to all believers.
Again, if, as we have seen, the record of the affection which
the Colossian believers bore to the apostle be no evidence of
personal intimacy, neither can any " full proof" of it be dis
covered in the brief note — " all my state shall Tychicus
declare unto you." If, as the apostle of the Gentiles, Paul
encountered such persecutions, would not they for whom he
so nobly suffered be deeply interested in him, and would not
he respond to such natural anxiety, and inform them, through
Tychicus, of many things with which he did not choose to
cumber an epistle ?
The salutations sent by him to Colosse are neither in num
ber nor familiarity any additional argument, and certainly do
not bear out Lardner's affirmation, that " Paul was well
acquainted with the state of the churches in Colosse and
Laodicea." For might not the names of the six men who
send their Christian greetings be well known to the Colos
sians ? The apostle might know that Nymphas had a church
in his house without his ever being in it himself; and
being " such an one as Paul the aged," he surely needed
not the formality of a personal introduction to Archippus, in
order to take the liberty of sending him the brief and emphatic
charge — " take heed to the ministry which thou hast received
in the Lord, that thou fulfil it." On the other hand, how
many, various, tender, and special are his salutations sent to
the church in Rome, where he had never been.
Dr. Lardner argues, again, for a personal intimacy from Col.
iv. 3, 4, a passage which contains the apostle's earnest request
for the prayers of the Colossian believers, and that they would
remember his bonds ; but Dr. Lardner also supplies the answer
himself when he admits, that " such demands may be made
of strangers." Nor can his theory be sustained by his appeal
to the Epistle to Philemon. Philemon was a convert of the
apostle's own, but Dr. Lardner candidly allows that his con
version, though " it might as well have been done at home,"
yet " might have been done at some other place." It is cer
tainly a very slender ground of argument which Wiggers

THEODORET'S ARGUMENT. x}x
adopts, when he appeals to the conjunction of Timothy's name
with the apostle's in the inscription of the epistle. For surely
as a special companion of the apostle, and engaged so often
in missionary work and travel, Timothy must have been well
known at Colosse ; and, as Dr, Davidson well remarks, " among
the various disciples of the apostle who were at Colosse, it is
not improbable that Timothy had a part in instructing the
church." Indeed, some regard him as probably its founder.
But, lastly, a principal ground of dispute is the passage
occurring in Col. ii. 1, 2, — " For I would that ye knew
what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodi
cea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the
flesh ; that their hearts might be comforted, being knit
together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance
of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery
of God, and of the Father, and of Christ." Theodoret based
his theory upon one interpretation of the words. " Some,"
says he, " are of the opinion, that when the divine apostle
wrote this epistle he had not seen the Colossians. And they
attempt to support their arguments by those words  But
they should reflect, that the meaning of the words is this — I
have not only a concern for you, but I have likewise great
concern for those who have not seen me.1 And if he is not
understood in this sense, he expresses no concern for those
who had seen him and been taught by him." That is to say,
Theodoret supposes two classes of persons to be referred to —
the Colossians and Laodiceans who had seen the apostle's face,
and another indiscriminate class who had never enjoyed his
personal ministry. The words may of themselves bear such
an interpretation. But it is objectionable on various grounds.
The adjective ootoj may refer back to the persons mentioned,
and may thus introduce a common characteristic — for you
and them in Laodicea, and indeed not only you, but all in the
same category, who have never seen my face in the flesh.
The clause — " and for as many as have not seen my face in
the flesh," has no harmonious connection, if it stand so dis
joined from the previous clause as to point Out in sharp con-
1 "On ov fiovov v/ieuv o\\\a x,m rwv pvo'iwu, rtSntfLivajv pi araXX^v %%&, (p^ovr'&u.

XX THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
trast other believing communities. With this exegesis one
might infer from the language of the following verses, that all
who had not seen the apostle's face in the flesh were beset
with the same dangers as the church in Colosse. For the
virtual prayer is, that they might be fortified against that false
philosophy which was raising its head in Phrygia, by the full-
assured understanding of that gospel in which are deposited
" all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." But surely
among the many churches who had not seen Paul, there
must have been many to whom the prayer in its specialty
was not and could not be adapted, and for whom this " con
flict" was not necessary. That "conflict" was excited by the
danger which menaced Colosse ; but all the churches unvisited
by the apostle could not be in similar jeopardy, so as to create
a similar solicitude and prayer. It is true that the care of
all the churches came upon him daily, and all of them
shared in his intense and prayerful anxiety. Yet it was his
pride (if the expression may be pardoned) to originate Christ
ian societies. He thus speaks — " not boasting of things with
out our measure, that is, of other men's labours;"1 "yea," says
he again, " so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where
Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's
foundation."2 This distinction, so boldly drawn by the apostle,
brought the churches founded by himself into a very special
relationship with him. Is it at all likely then, that if he had
founded the churches of Colosse and Laodicea, and had occa
sion to tell them what a conflict he had for them, he would
modify and weaken the statement, by adding, that his feeling
for them was quite the same with that he entertained for
churches with which he had never had any personal connec
tion ? Would not the sentiment just quoted from the epistles
to Rome and Corinth be somewhat at variance with that sup
posed to be so expressed to Colosse ? Would it have been a
source of peculiar comfort to the churches of Colosse and Laodi
cea, if Paul had founded them, to tell them, that notwith
standing his personal intimacy with them and their imminent
danger, they were not a whit nearer his heart than the remotest
1 2 Cor. x. 15. 2 Rom. xv. 20.

CHURCH IN COLOSSE NOT FOUNDED BY PAUL. xxi
Christian community of which he had but the slightest intelli
gence ? The apostle possessed too much of our common nature
thus to dissipate his friendships in vagueness, and he had too
much knowledge of human nature to attempt to create a re
sponse to his own anxieties by so expressing himself. No, he
had not visited these churches ; but special circumstances gave
him a tender interest in them. His peculiar interest in the
churches planted by himself might be matter of notoriety in
the district, and they of Colosse and Laodicea might be dis
posed to feel that they had not such a claim on the apostle as
the churches of Galatia in their vicinity. But the crisis which
had occurred roused the apostle to a sense of their danger ; that
danger gave them a wdrm place in his bosom, and to assure
them of this, he declares his anxiety that they knew what a
conflict he had for them, and for all around them, indeed, as
many as had not seen his face in the flesh. The reference in
octoi is plainly to their own neighbourhood, particularly includ
ing Hierapolis, which is afterwards mentioned, and which might
be menaced by the same form of error. They had not enjoyed
his teaching, and they had the more need of his prayers. If
he had seen them in the flesh he might have warned them ; or,
as in the case of Ephesus, uttered his presentiment of danger,
and endeavoured to fortify them against it. The translation of
Wiggers, " also for them, to wit in Colosse and Laodicea, who
have not seen my face in the flesh," is too restrictive, and takes
for granted that Paul had been in both those places, but had
not been brought into personal contact with all the members
of the churches. We give the words a wider significance.
We doubt not that several members of those churches may
have seen the apostle during his long stay at Ephesus. The
apostle, however, does not contrast them with others who had
not enjoyed the same precious opportunity. He speaks not to
individuals but to communities, and classes with them others
around them similarly circumstanced. In the following verse,
he mentions all the parties in the third person, as if they all
stood in the same category.
It is also to be specially observed that the apostle, though
he combats error, never refers to his own personal teaching, or
hints at what himself had delivered on those subjects of con-

XXU THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
troversy at Colosse. Though the introduction of the gospel
seems to be referred to, the apostle in no sense or shape con
nects it with himself. Very different is his style in the other
epistles when he recalls the scenes and circumstances in which
the churches had been planted or watered by his personal
ministrations. The probability is that the church in Colosse was founded by
Epaphras, of whom the apostle says, "who is for you a faithful
minister of Christ ;" and of whom he also testifies : " Epaphras,
who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always
labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand per
fect and complete in all the will of God. For I bear him
record, that he hath a great zeal for you, and them that are
in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis."
In conclusion, the view which we have advocated i3 gen
erally that of the writers of Introduction, with the exception
of Schott, Borger, and Neudecker ; and with the exception of
Theodoret, Macknight, Adam Clarke, Barnes, and Koch on
Philemon, it is also the view of the great body of commen
tators upon the epistle, such as Calvin, Suicer, Flatt, Bahr,
Huther, De Wette, Junker, Steiger, Olshausen, Bohmer,
Meyer, Schrader, Bloomfield, and Baumgarten-Crusius.
III. — THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE.
In the early church the genuineness of this epistle was
universally acknowledged. No misconception of its contents,
or prejudice against them, led to any suspicions about its
authorship. No inquisitive spirit found anything in it un
worthy of the apostle, or unlike his usual modes of thought
and style. No heretic seems to have been bold enough to
exclude it from his canon, though in the first centuries it must
have often confronted some prevalent forms of error and super
stition. Eusebius therefore placed it among the 'OfjtoXoyov-
fisva, or books which were confessed on all sides to be of
apostolical origin. Tertullian has quoted this epistle about
thirty times, and in such a way as clearly to evince his belief
in its Pauline origin. The nineteenth chapter of his fifth book
against Marcion, is a summary of its contents, so far as they

PROOFS FROM THE FATHERS. XX111
served his polemical purpose.1 His great authority throughout
is Paul, whom he simply names apostolus.
At a prior date Clement of Alexandria has also many allusions
to it. For example, in the sixth book of his Stromata, after main
taining that Paul does not condemn all philosophy, he quotes
Col. ii. 8, with the preface — dxrduroje apa Kai rote KoXaaaatiKji.2
In the fourth book of the same Miscellany he quotes that section
of this epistle3 which enjoins the duties of domestic life, and
ascribes it to Paul, who was the prime authority to him as to
Tertullian. It is found also in the anonymous canon pub
lished by Muratori,4 — a document of the beginning of the
third century. The Syrian churches had it in their collection,
as is evident from the old Syrian translation. Origen, in the
eighth chapter of the fifth book of his reply to Celsus, has a
quotation from Col. ii. 18, 19, prefaced by the remark — irapa.
Ss TtjJ TIavXif) aKpifiwg ra 'lovSalwg naioevdevTi  roiavr iv
ry Trpbg KoAoororaEie XiXeierai.
In Justin's dialogue with Trypho, no less than four times is
Col. i. 15, 16 referred to or quoted, the point of the quotation
being the term 7Tjoa»ToroKO(,'.e The same term is also cited by
Theophilus7 of Antioch, who wrote toward the latter end ofthe
second century, and is found in his three books to Autolycus.
Many distinct and lengthened quotations are found in
Irenaeus, who flourished about the same period as Theo
philus.8 Thus, in the fourth chapter of his first book "Against
Heresies," he says the following things are spoken plainly by
Paul — {nrb tov UavXov Bk <j>avspwQ, and he cites first Col. iii.
11, and then Col. ii. 9. Or, again, the quotation of Col. i. 21,
22, is introduced with the words — et propter hoc apostolus in
epistola quae est ad Colossenses ait. Indisputable citations or
allusions cannot be brought from the apostolical Fathers. Mar
cion included the book in his canon, giving it the eighth place
in his catalogue. There can be no doubt at all of the unani-
1 Opera, ed. Oehler, vol. ii. p. 330, &c.
2 Opera, p. 645, ed. Coloniae, 1688. * Do. p. 499.
* Antiq. Ital. Med. Mvi. torn. iii. p. 854.
* P. 236, ed. Spencer, Cantab. 1677.
« Opera, ed. Otto, vol. ii. p. 268, 336, 418, 452.
t Lib. ii. p. 100, ed. Coloniae, 1686.
8 Adver. Eaereses, xlii. Opera, vol. i. p. 41, ed. Stieren, 1853. Do. p. 756.

XXIV The LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
mous opinion of the primitive church on the subject; in Italy,
Africa, Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt, there was no conflicting
testimony. Through the intervening centuries, and up to a very recent
period, the genuineness ofthe epistle was also acknowledged to
be beyond dispute. Indeed, when B'ahr wrote his commentary
on it in 1832, he says, in his Introduction, " it has been
hitherto universally acknowledged, and has been called in
question by nobody, not even by De Wette." A few years
later, however, Germany began to present an exception.
Schrader, in his note on Col. iv. 10, took occasion, from
the message sent by the apostle about Mark, to find a
difficulty, and out of it to raise a suspicion that the epistle
might not be Paul's, as it wants the individuality found in
some other of his epistolary compositions.1 Mayerhoff, in
1838, made a bold and formal assault, and he has been fol
lowed up by Baur and his disciple, Schwegler. Mayerhoff's2
posthumous treatise, edited by his brother, is certainly far
from being conclusive. Proceeding on very vague and unsatis
factory principles, it abounds with a somewhat mechanical
selection of words and phrases, picks out aira^ Xeyofieva, and
gives prominence to what are reckoned un-Pauline forms of
expression and thought.
But the course of criticism is thoroughly defective. For if
the apostle have a special end in view he must employ special
diction. If that end be peculiar, the style must necessarily
share in the peculiarity. If in one epistle he explain his
system and in another defend it, the expository style may
surely be expected to differ from the polemical style. If in
one composition he combats one form of error, and one set of
adversaries, can you anticipate identical phraseology in another
letter in which he assaults a very different shape of heresy,
patronized by a wholly diverse band of opponents ? Individu
ality would be lost in proportion to such sameness, and the
absence of it would be the surest proof of spuriousness. No
sound critic would test the style of Colossians by that of 1st
1 Ser Apostel Paulus, vol. iv. p. 176, Leipzig, 1836.
2 Der Brief an die Colosser, mil vornchmlicher Beriicksichtigung der drei Pastoral-
brief e; kritisch gepruft von Dr. Ernst Theodor Mayerhoff, Berlin, 1838.

MAYERHOFF'S OBJECTIONS. XXV
Thessalonians, or throw suspicion on the former because it does
not reveal the same aspects of thought and allusion. Nor
would he place it side by side with Galatians, and roughly
say, that both are polemical, and that therefore the same
topics of controversy and trains of thought should be found in
both. Who would reject 1st Corinthians because the favourite
and almost essential term awrtipia is not to be found in it, or
throw Philippians out of the canon because words so significant
and Pauline as oroi^Etv and KaXtiv do not occur in it ?
Mayerhoff's first argument is that of lexical difference, and
he instances the want of o-c£>£&> and its derivatives, and of koXeoj
and its derivatives used with reference to the Divine kingdom.
But in this epistle the apostle has no occasion to employ these
terms, for his primary object is not to expound salvation or
our calling to it, but to defend the personal and official glory
of its great author and finisher — Christ. No wonder that
the expressive term, XpitrroQ, oceurs by itself at least twenty
times in the epistle. Again, the words v6)xoq and ttio-t^c do
not occupy a prominent place; and no wonder, for the object
of the writer is not, as in Romans and Galatians, to explain the
nature and relations of faith and law. " The particle yap," says
Mayerhoff, " oecurs only six times ; but in Philippians seven
teen, and in Eomans one hundred and fifty times.'* But surely,
if the adverb be so prominent a feature of the apostle's other
writings, he must be a very bungling forger who would not
plentifully sprinkle his pages with it. An imitator would not
venture a eopy with so few instances of the characteristic yap.
The use of sueh a term would rather lead a forger to multi
plication, till its very frequency detected him. We agree
with Olshausen, who says, in the first section of the Introduc
tion to his Commentary, " he that can take account of such
mere accidents, and that so seriously (ernstlicK), that he
reckons how often yap oecurs in each epistle, decides his own
incapacity for judging on similarity and difference of style."
In opposition to the scantiness of ydp, Mayerhoff produces the
frequency of ev, which oecurs in the first two chapters sixty
times ; and in the whole Epistle to the Philippians only fifty
times. But would an impostor hazard such a profusion, of this
monosyllable ? Besides, a very large number of the instances
o

XXVI THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
refer formally or by implication to union with Christ — a dar
ling idea of the apostle, and one which in this epistle he is so
naturally led to insert. When the apostle combats a system
of proud and false philosophy, need we wonder at the re
currence of yvuxriQ, or the emphatic form, hrlyvwaiQ ?
And then as to aira% Xeyofieva. Where now should one
expect them ? Certainly when a writer is busied with some
unusual theme. And so it is in Colossians. Out of above
thirty distinct airaZ, Xeyofieva which we have noted in the
course of our study of this epistle, no less than eighteen occur
in the second chapter, where the novel form of error is dis
cussed and refuted, and the majority of them are characteristic
terms. Such are the distinctive words, iridavoXoyia — <j>iXo-
troQia, x£ip6ypa<j>ov, 0eotjjc, awjuartKwc, ugr\voiroiih), eOsXo-
flprjoTKEia, vov/xrivia, airo\pr]<jig, afeiSia, TrXr)crfjtovri ; with other
terms associated with them, as oTtpiiofia, aireKSvcrig, crvXXayh)-
ywv, Karaj3paj3EV&), trpoa"r]X(t)uag, Scy^ar^w, IfifiaTsviti. Now,
if the apostle be under the necessity of describing a system of
error which he has described nowhere else, may we not expect
words which occur nowhere else, or must his free spirit limit
itself to vocables already employed by him on former oc
casions? Is the new conception to be deprived of a new
expression? Must the apostle, for the purpose of authenti
cating his writings, bind himself to a meagre and worn-out
vocabulary ? Shall we refuse to this master of language what we
freely yield to every other author ? If, in a writing of one age
we discover some terms which belonged to an earlier one, but
had faded into disuse, or some which came into currency only
during a later epoch, we justly look upon it with suspicion.
But every author has surely liberty to range among the terms
of his own period, and to employ the most fitting of them to
embody his thoughts. If he never wrote so before, you infer
that he never thought so before. If Mayerhoff had set him
self to describe the symbols of the Apocalypse, he must have
used many phrases not found in this treatise, and therefore
with equal propriety, and on the same evidence, might some
reviewer argue that the author of such a production could not
be the author of this attack on the genuineness of the Epistle
to the Colossians and the three pastoral epistles.

ACCIDENTAL IRREGULARITIES NO OBJECTION. XXVII
Nor is there any greater force in Mayerhoff's objections,
based on grammatical differences. Of his charge of tautology
we find no proof When he stumbles on phrases very like
the apostle's usual style, he affirms they are not really resem
blances at all. He complains of the absence of anakolutha ;
and when he does meet them, he detects something wrong
or un-Pauline in them. Some connective particles are absent
in this epistle ; but apa, one of them referred to by him, is not
found in Philippians, nor does $fo, another of them, occur in
Galatians ; while oi»y_«j which occurs fourteen times in 1st Corin
thians, is not found in Philippians, nor here, nor in Galatians.
On such irregularities no argument can be founded. Thus,
the particle te, which occurs often in Romans, is found neither
in Galatians nor 1st Thessalonians. The conjunction iav, occur-^
ring twenty times in Romans, is found forty-five times in 1st Cor
inthians, but is absent from Philippians ; and, again, tj is met with
fifty-two times in 1st Corinthians, but only twice in Philippians.1
There is nothing peculiar in the forms of construction
adduced by Mayerhoff. He next accuses the writer of this
epistle of hunting after synonyms, but the examples which he
selects are in no case synonymous.2 Who but Mayerhoff
1 Huther, Commentar, p. 423.
2- We present those which he has given out of the first and third chapters, and we
refer to the following exposition for the distinctive meaning of the terms : — I., 6. xxg-
<xo<bopovpivov xxi ati^avapsvov — I., 6. axoueiv xxi itfiyivutrxttv — I., 7. avvoovXo; et
o'idxovos — I., 9. vrgeirev%op.svoi xai alrovpivot — ev tratrri ffatpia xai trvvltrit — I., 10. xag-
vfotyopovvrls xm av^avopsvoi — I., 11. tU vraifav vtfopovbv xai paxpt&upixv — I., 18.
xpyvi et •ffpuroroxos ruv vixpuv — I., 21. vpas, tfor\ ovras d-7mX.Xorpiupzvovz xai
Iv&oovs — I., 22. uyiovs xai oip.wp.ovs xai dviyxXvjrovs — I., 23. r&ips\luptvol xxi
'CSaxioi xxi ph pirxxivovptvoi — I., 24. -ra^pxra et Sxtyt's — I., 26. airo «i x'ulivuv
xai airo rwv yevsav  I., 28. vovQstovvtss vravra avSpuvrov xai o*todtrxovres irdvra
avS-pwvrov  III., 2. ra avu purlin, ra aval f^oviin — III., 5. nopviia et axaSaptr'm
— -sr«9-os et IvrtS-vpix xaxn — III., 8. o^yh xai 9-vpos — fiXao-tpripia et alrxpokoyla —
III., 10. ivhvexplvoi rov viov (av&gutfov) xai avaxatvovpivov — III., 12. XxXlxroi rov
9-say ZLytot xai nyavrfipivoi — fvrXxyxvx otxrtppov et fflwrorn; — ra^zivoip^oe-vvrt et
irpx'orm — pxxooSvpix et avs%opivoi aXXfaov — III., 16. iv vrddy iroipia "Otao-xovris xai
vovSurovvrts—^aXpiTis, vpvoTs, il>«"i, etc — Mayerhoff, pp. 35, 36. Huther, in reply,
presents the following similarities out of Philippians i. : — V. 3. Isrl ordo-y ry pviix ipSv
.  \v trdir« %iinrii pov itrl( vpuv  ri)v tiwriv •xatovpivcs; v. 7. lv r» xitoXoy'ix xai
(itdxiutru rev ibxyyikiov, V. 9. lv Wiyve&irsv xx) ffdffy xio&vio'si ; V. 10. ufaxptviis xai
avrtfiirxoiriin V. 11. til t'o^av xxi txaivev Stov ; v. 15. iia tpS-ovov xai 'Ipiv; V. 20.
xara r\v airexxcaioxiav xa\ XXtr'Ha pov; v. 24. ptvu xai avpitapapivu ; V. 25. tis
rvv vpuv *^oxo«h xai x^C" r*i x'">™°>s- — Buther, pp. 427, 428.

XXV111 THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
would lay any stress on the various diction in the formula of
salutation ? If the apostle, in such a prominent place, had
been in the habit of using a uniform formula, then the least
cunning of impostors would have been sure to copy it with
slavish correctness.
Not less futile are Mayerhoff's criticisms on differences of
idea or expression to be found in the epistle. He discovers a
host of parallel repetitions, which in reality are either not re
petitions at all, or repetitions for an avowed object. Col. i. 1,
9, 10, 13, 14; I. 18, &c.
Another objection, based on a gross misconception, takes up
the very different aspect under which the vofiog is viewed
here, from the representations given of it in the other epistles.
Now, not to say that vo/xoc does not occur in this epistle at
all, it may be replied, that it is not law as a Divine institute
which is here referred to, or the law which is spoken of so
often in the Epistle to the Romans. What is spoken of here
is the ceremonial law, which was abrogated by being fulfilled
in the death of Christ, and not the moral law, which is as
immutable as the legislator. What total ignorance of the
object of the apostle to say, that because he speaks of " ele
ments of the world," " commandments and doctrines of men,"
and " traditions of men," he gives these names to the Divine
law, and then to infer that such doctrine cannot be Paul's, since
he always looks upon the law as Divine, holy, and spiritual.
It is surely one thing to speak thus of the law, and quite
another thing to reprobate human additions to it.
There is no doubt, as Mayerhoff says, that in Colossians
some acts, which are often ascribed to Christ, are ascribed to
God ; but such a variation not being confined to the epistle
is no mark of un-Pauline peculiarity. And lastly, Mayerhoff's
objection to its Christology cannot be sustained. For the
form which it has assumed has most evidently a reference to
such shapes of errors as were propounded at Colosse, and the
terms which the errorists used may have been selected by the
apostle and sanctified by their legitimate application to the
Divine Eedeemer. Baur and Schwegler3 also adduce the
i Der Apostel Paulus, p 421. 2 Nachap. Zeit. ii. p. 289.

COMPARISON OF THE TWO EPISTLES. XXIX
doctrine of Christ's pre-existence taught in Ephesians and
Colossians, as proof that the two epistles were not written
by Paul. The objection carries its own refutation.
In fact this whole process of assault is one- of capricious sub
jectivity. One writer decides that the Epistle to the Ephesians
is spurious, because it is only a verbose expansion of that to the
Colossians ; and another, with equal taste and correctness,
affirms that the Epistle to the Colossians is spurious, because
it is an unskilful abstract of that to the Ephesians ; while,
according to the judgment of Baur, both epistles must stand
or fall together.
To gain his purpose, Mayerhoff has compared throughout
the two epistles of Colossians and Ephesians. But surely the
real similarity which they present may be easily accounted
for, — that similarity being found chiefly in the concluding
and practical portions. Schneckenburger has pronounced
this similarity — a similarity in unimportant things — to be
" a mechanical use of materials." But the one epistle is very
far from being a copy of the other. There is distinctness of
aim with occasional identity of thought. The great body of
each epistle is different, nor do they slavishly agree even in
what may be termed common-places. There is, indeed, far less
similarity than is commonly supposed — all that is special
about each of them is wholly different, and even in the para
graphs where there is similarity, there is seldom or never
sameness, some new turn being mingled with the thought, or
some new edge being given to the admonition. As is noticed
in our Commentary, even where the apostle addresses spouses,
children, and slaves, and refers to the same duties, there is
yet variety in the form and reasons of advice. The one letter
is general, the other is special ; the one is didactic, the other
controversial. The one presents truth in itself, the other
developes the truth in conflict with parallel error. And there
is no servile imitation, no want of life and freshness.
Mayerhoff's last argument is based on the date of the errors
which he imagines to be refuted in this epistle. He holds that
the heresy of Cerinthus is aimed at and exposed by the writer,
and he infers that as the false doctrine of Cerinthus was not
developed till after the apostle's time, therefore the apostle

XXX the LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
could not be the writer. The truth of his chronological state
ment it i3 impossible for him to prove. It would seem that Cerin
thus was soon after this in Ephesus, and in antagonism with the
Apostle John; so that, even though it could be proved that
Cerinthus was the person the writer had in his eye, it would
not follow that he could not be the apostle of the Gentiles.
Mayerhoff's view of the nature of the false doctrines con
demned is not very different from our own, but there is no
necessity to identify them thus with Cerinthus, and then to
assign his era to post-Pauline times. Olshausen says that
Cerinthus may have been by this time in Colosse, though he
adds, that he could hardly have that influence which should
mark him out as the leader of a formidable party.
Baur and Schwegler subscribe to not a few of Mayerhoff's
critical objections based upon the style of the epistle. But
Baur holds it to have had its origin in the Gnosticism of the
second century. Mayerhoff admits that Baumgarten has
shown that such a hypothesis is untenable against the pastoral
epistles, though himself is bold enough to attack them on
other grounds. But the Gnosticism of the second century in its
theosophy and angelology presupposes, in fact, the existence
of those apostolic documents. The citations from Hippolytus
have sadly perplexed those critics of Tubingen — as they show
that books of the New Testament are quoted by him fully haff
a century before those German scholars allowed their existence.
(See our Introduction to Commentary on Ephesians, p. xxxii.)
The attacks on this epistle are therefore of no formidable
nature, and the opinion of the church of Christ, in so many
countries and for so -many centuries, may be acquiesced in
without hesitation. IV. — THE FALSE TEACHERS IN COLOSSE.
There has been no small amount of erudition and research
expended upon the question, as to what party or parties in
Colosse held the errors condemned by the apostle. The
attempt has often been made to identify these errorists with
some formed and well-known sect. But there is not sufficient
foundation for such minuteness. All that we know of the
false teachers is contained in the few and brief allusions to

ERRORISTS IN COLOSSE, NOT JEWS. xxxi
their heresies. And these allusions are not systematically
given as an analysis of their system, but only as occasion
required, and for the purpose of confirming the opposite
truths. The probability is, that the false teachers had at that
period no fully developed system — that they held only a few
prominent tenets, such as those which the apostle condemns ;
and that they were rather the exponents of certain prevailing
tendencies, than the originators of a defined and formal heresy.
They were thrown up by the current, and they indicated at
once its direction and its strength. Many ages in the church
have exhibited a similar phenomenon, when the errors which
certain men promulgate appear, from their seductive power
and immediate success, to be but the expression of those
sentiments which had already taken a deep and latent hold of
the general mind.
The errors in Colosse rose within the church, and were
produced by a combination of influences. Had they grown up
without the church, they would have appeared with a hostile
front, inviting an instant and a sturdy resistance. If Jew
or heathen had announced his creed, none would have listened
to it, save as to the challenge of an avowed enemy. It is
only when error is nursed in the bosom of the church itself,
not like a poisonous weed transplanted from the desert, but
like the tares among the wheat, that truth is in the greatest
danger. If we reflect for a moment on the mental tendencies
of those early times, as seen both in the Phrygian tempera
ment and in the Jewish characteristics ; if we remember how
strongly the Oriental spirit was leavened with the desire to
enter the spirit-world by theosophic speculation, and attain to
sanctity by ascetic penance, we need not wonder at the indi
cations of error contained in the epistle to the church in
Colosse. Our inference, therefore, is, that the theory which holds that
those false teachers were Jews without even a profession of
Christianity, is utterly untenable. The arguments of Eichhorn,1
Schultess, and Schoettgen, in vindication of this view, are very
unsatisfactory. Nowhere in the epistle are they branded as
1 Einleit. vol. iii. p. 288.

XXXll THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
unbelievers, or spoken of as unconverted antagonists of the
gospel. Their error was not in denying, but in dethroning
Christ — not in refusing, but in undervaluing his death, and in
seeking peace and purity by means of ceremonial distinctions
and rigid mortifications. Such a nimbus of external sanctity
as Eichhorn ascribes to them would not have dazzled the
Colossians, if it had surrounded a Jewish brow; nor would ritual
observances have possessed any seductive power, if inculcated
by Jewish doctors, as Schoettgen names them. Neither
Pharisaic nor Essenic rigorists would have been spoken of by
the apostle in the style in which he describes the false teachers
at Colosse. Stern denunciations would have been heaped
upon them as the rejecters of the Messiah, and disturbers of
the church. But the errors promulgated in Colosse were
wrapt up with important truths, and were therefore possessed
of dangerous attractions. They were not a refutation of the
gospel, but a sublimation of it. The Colossian errorists did
not wish to subvert the new religion, but only to perfect it ;
did not even under the mere mantle of a Christian profession
strive to win the church over to Judaism, as Schneckenburger '
and Feilmoser2 think ; but to introduce into the church cer
tain mystic views, and certain forms of a supereminent pietism,
which had grown up with a spiritualized and theosophic system.
In other words, they were not traitors, but they were fanatics.
They did not counterfeit so as to surrender the citadel, but
only strove to alter its discipline and supplant its present
armour. In the Apocalyptic epistles, the pseudo-apostles at
Ephesus, the synagogue of Satan at Smyrna, the woman Jez
ebel the prophetess in Thyatira, and the Nicolaitans or Ba-
laamites in Pergamos, whatever their errors and immoralities,
were all within the church, and wore at least the mask of
Christianity. Neither could the errorists at Colosse be the
mere disciples of Apollos, or of John the Baptist, as extra-
ecclesiastical sects. Heinrichs and Michaelis want a historical
basis for such an assertion, for we cannot tell how long Apollos
taught ere the apostle imparted to him full instruction ; and
1 Beitr. Zur Einl. p. 146.
2 Einl. p. 149. See, on the other hand, the well-known treatise of Rheinwald,
De Pseudo-Doctoribus Coloss. Bonn., 1834.

SPECIAL FORMS OF ERROR. XXXlll
there is no doubt that he would at once communicate his more
perfect knowledge to all his brethren. His teaching was but
a preparatory step to Christianity. The false teaching at
Colosse is not spoken of by the apostle as a rude and unde
veloped scheme which stopped short of Christianity; but a
system which brought into Christianity elementary practices,
vain superstitions, and attempts at an unearthly and sancti
monious life. If it was pleased with the unfinished, it also
soared, by means of it, into the transcendental. Apollos was
indeed a Jew of Alexandria, and there is little doubt that
some elements of Alexandrian or Philonic Judaism were to be
found in Colosse, but found in connection with Christian
belief, or were combined with such views, feelings, and pro
fessions, as had warranted admission into the church.
These errors did not involve of themselves, though they
might soon lead to, immoral practices. It was not, as in
Corinth, where debauchery prevailed, and impurity had been
associated with the pagan worship, where the Lord's Supper
had been profaned, and the idea of a resurrection had been
more than called in question. Nor was it as in Thessalonica,
where a vital doctrine had been seriously misunderstood, and
sundry minor evils had begun to show themselves. In Galatia
there had been a bold and open attempt to uphold systematic- ,
ally the authority of the Mosaic law, and enforce its observ
ance on the churches as essential to salvation ; but the apostle
meets the crisis with a stern and uncompromising opposition.
And there was in Bome, too, a proud and self-righteous
Jewish spirit, that relied on illustrious Abrahamic descent and
conformity to the letter of the law for justification. Therefore
the apostle formally proves by a lengthened argument, that to
guilty and helpless humanity the only refuge is in the grace
of God and the righteousness of Christ.
But the case was somewhat different at Colosse. The
teaching was of a more refined nature. It does nbt seem to
have insisted on circumcision as a positive Mosaic rite, but
as the means of securing spiritual benefit. It was not dog
matically said, " Except ye be circumcised and keep the
whole law of Moses, ye cannot be saved ;" but circumcision
appears to have been connected with those ascetic austeri-

XXXIV THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
ties by which purity of heart was sought for, symbolized,
and expected to be reached. The apostle's argument is, ye
are circumcised already — ye have, through faith in Jesus, all
the blessings which that ordinance typifies — ye have been
circumcised with the circumcision of Christ. Distinctions in
meats and drinks, the observance of holidays, " the show of
wisdom in humility, will-worship, and neglecting of the
body," were not haughtily imposed as a Pharisaic yoke, but
were regarded and cherished as elements of a discipline which
hoped to attain religious elevation by a surer and speedier
way than that which the gospel presented. The theoretic
portion of the error was somewhat similar in origin and pur
pose. Its object was to secure spiritual protection, by com
muning with the world of spirits. It aimed to have what
the gospel promised, but without the assistance of the Christ
which that gospel revealed. It took Christ out of His central
Headship, and dethroned Him from His mediatorial emin
ence. It was a philosophy which longed to uncover the
unseen and climb to heaven by homage done to the angelic
hierarchy. That such tendencies should coalesce in one and
the same party is not strange, for self-emaciation has been
usually connected with reverie and visions.
We may scarcely put the question whether those errors had
a heathen or a Jewish source. That they sprang up within
the church we have seen already, but some suppose them
traceable to a foreign influence. Clement ascribed them to
Epicureanism ; but indulgence and not self-restraint was its
character. It might indeed covet festivals, that it might
enjoy a surfeit ; but if it made a distinction among meats and
drinks, it would be only to abstain from some of them, not
for sanctity's sake but for palate's sake, and to prefer others
not as lean and scanty fare to the neglect of the body, but as
luxuries to revel in under the motto " let us eat and drink, for
to-morrow we die." Tertullian again vaguely thought that
philosophy in general with its theory and ethics was con
demned. But the apostle needed to guard the Colossians
only against such forms of philosophic falsehood as were
taught among them, and most likely to enthral them. See our
comment on ii. 8. Grotius has contended that the Pythagorean

PAUL AND PHILO. XXXV
system is referred to, and Macknight has found it in the
maxims "touch not, taste and handle not," (that is, as he
means,) anything the eating of which involves the previous
taking away of its life. But Pythagoreanism could only in
Colosse have an indirect influence through Plato and his
Alexandrian imitators. That the language of Paul has some
resemblance to that of Philo is well known, for modes of
expression which at length were common among the Hellen
istic Jews may have originated in the studies and speculations
of Alexandria. Yet any one who carefully reads Gfrorer's
Essay on this subject, or the virtual review of it by Jowett,1-
cannot fail to perceive, that with many features of likeness,
there are very numerous points of dissimilarity. The spirit of
the two writers is in perfect contrast ; nay, the same words
even have a difference of meaning in their respective produc
tions. Yet with all his mysticism, Philo has much that every
intelligent and pious Jew must have believed — forms of
thought and faith that Paul did not need to renounce when he
became a Christian. But to build much on mere verbal
similarity is very unsatisfactory,'for Koster has shown, in an
ingenious Essay,2 how much the apostle's diction resembles
that of Demosthenes ; and Bauer and Baphelius had before him
pointed out similar instances from Thucydides and Xenophon.
Heumann, again, pleads for the Stoic and Platonic philo
sophies as the object of apostolic warning, but with no pro
bability. When we remember the numbers of Jews colonized
in those portions of Asia Minor, and how so many of them
that passed over into the church were still zealous for the law,
and when we see what nomenclature the apostle employs in
describing these errors — " circumcision," " hand-writing of
ordinances," "festivals, new moons and Sabbaths," " a shadow
of things to come," — we are forced to the conclusion, that the
false teaching pointed out and reprobated must have had a
Jewish source, having grown up among those who had once
observed the Levitical ritual, and who carried with them
1 Tlie Epistles of St. Paul to Hie Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans, with Criti
cal Notes and Dissertations. By Benjamin Jowett, Fellow and Tutor of Balliol
College, Oxford, vol. ,i. p. 363.
3 Studien und Krilikm, 1854.

XXXVI THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
into the church many of those predilections and tendencies
which the idealized Mosaism of that age had originated and
ripened. The application of the term "philosophy" to these
errors, and the accusation of the " worshipping of angels,"
form no argument against our hypothesis, for the Jewish
writers apply the name to their own religious system, and
traces of the strange idolatry may be found in later Jewish
books.1 The tendencies or teachings described by the apostle seem to
be allied fully as much to the Essenic as to the Pharisaic school.
Formality, ostentation, censoriousness, hypocrisy, and a right
eousness satisfied with obeying the mere letter of the law, are
not hinted at by the apostle — the demure face on the day of
fast, prayer in stentorian voice at the corner of the streets, and
the trumpet which heralded alms-giving, are no portion of the
picture. Bather does the description harmonize with what we
know of the Essenes, and with what they might be if they em
braced Christianity. If the Christianized Pharisees were apt to
become Judaizers, the Christianized Essenes were as likely to
become mystics in doctrine and ascetics in practice. Recoiling
from the precise formality of Pharisaism, they glided into im
palpable speculations. The Pharisee might boast of his sanctity
in the outer court, but the Essene strove to pass the vail into
the inner chamber and commune with its invisible inhabitant.
What the Pharisee laboured to attain by the punctilious minu
tiae of a cumbrous ritual, the Essene hoped to reach by severe
meditation and self-denying discipline. In short, the Essenes
were philosophic Jews, who in trying to get at the spirit of
their system, and to reach its hidden nature and esoteric teach
ings, wandered as far from its real purpose as did the sensual
and pompous Pharisee. The Pharisee overlaid the law with
traditions, so that it grew into an unshapen mass, and this ten
dency may be described under the phrases " elements of the
world," and " tradition of men." The Essene, on the other hand,
was noted for his mystic aspirations, theosophic studies, and
self-subduing modes of life, and these characteristics appear
to be marked in the clauses, " philosophy and vain deceit,"
' See our Commentary on ii. 8, 18.

ESSENIC JUDAISM. XXXVll
" worshipping of angels," and intruding into the invisible ;
while both the Pharisaic and Essenic leanings combined may
be thus glanced at: " Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of an holidaj', or of the new-moon, or of the
sabbath days ; which are a shadow of things to come ; but the
body" is of Christ," — ii. 16, 17. Now, while the Jews remained
in Palestine, the two rival sects might maintain their separate
creeds with proverbial tenacity ; but when they were thrown
together in foreign countries, their change of position must
have brought them into more familiar contact, and led to the
modification of their more distinctive tenets. Away from the
hallowed soil and the temple, Pharisaism, unable to obey the
ritual, must have lost somewhat of its love of externals, and be
more ready to yield to the quiet speculations and self-restric
tions of the Essene. Such modifications we may not be able
to trace, though we cannot doubt of their existence, and there
fore we need not wonder that a form of Christianized Judaism
at Colosse should exhibit in combination some of those features
which in Palestine characterized respectively Pharisee and
Sadducee. Nor is it to be forgotten that while their pecu
liarities were mutually modified between themselves, both
might receive another modification from the external world.
The Jewish mind had come into contact with the East
during the Babylonish captivity, and probably retained some
permanent impressions. We may therefore surmise that it
was infected with the atmosphere of Phrygia, and that as it
met in that province with -speculations kindred to its own, it
would both impart and borrow. This appears then to be the
true state of the case. While the errors seem to have sprung
up with the Jewish converts, and to have retained not a little
that belonged to the Mosaic ceremonial, they were at the same
time in harmony with feelings and practices widely spread
over the Ea3t, and of special attraction to the province of
Phrygia. One might almost thus describe the heresy, that it
was Essenic Judaism modified by introduction to the church ;
widening itself from a national into an Oriental system through
sympathy with similar views around it; in the act of identifying
its angels with Emanations, and placing Christ among them;
and admitting or preparing to admit the sinfulness of what is

XXXVIII THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
material in man. We need not, therefore, with Hug,1 ascribe the
origin of the Colossian errors to the Magian philosophy directly:
for it was rather the Jewish spirit influenced to some extent by
this and other forms of theosophy with which it has been
placed in juxtaposition. Nor should we, with Osiander, Kleu-
ker, and Herder, deem the false teaching wholly Kabbalistic,
though the germ of what was afterwards found in the Kabbala
may be here detected. It is also a one-sided view of Chem
nitz, Storr, Credner, and Thiersch to regard the errorist3 simply
as Christian Essenes, though in the Essene there was a strong
and similar tendency. Nor can we, with Hammond and others,
simply call them Gnostics, though there is no doubt that what
was afterwards called Gnosticism appears here in its rudiments
— especially that aspect of it which may be ealled Cerinthian
Gnosticism. Similar errors are referred to in the Epistles to
Timothy, who laboured in a neighbouring region. Cerinthus
was but the creature of his age, bringing together into
shape and system errors which were already showing them
selves in the various Christian communities, so that he soon
became identified with them, and now stands out as an early
and great heresiarch. But it would seem to be beyond historic
evidence to fix on any precise party as holding those tenets.
For the parties which afterwards did hold them were not then
organized ; nor were they known then by the names which
they afterwards bore in the annals of the church. The errors
which in a century became so prominent as elements of an
organized system, were at this time only in germ. The winged
seeds were floating in the atmosphere, and falling into a soil
adapted to them, and waiting as if to receive them; in course
of years they produced an -ample harvest.
The apostle in the second chapter uniformly employs the
singular number in speaking of the party holding the errors
condemned by him. Either he marks out one noted leader,
or he merely individualizes for the sake of emphasis. The
apostle in Galatians generally uses the plural ; but in v. 10
he employs the singular 6 rapdo-a-wv, " he that troubleth you,"
where the reference may not be to some special heretic, but
1 Einleit. Part ii. § 130. 4th edit

CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. XXXIX
to any of those whom the apostle's imagination singles out for
the moment as engaged in the act of disturbing the church.
But the plural is never employed in the epistle before us ;
though the invariable use of the singular may not fully or
grammatically warrant the idea of one person being specially
before the apostle's mind, since the singular occurs in admo
nitions, and these are rendered yet more pointed by its use.

V. — CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
We present the contents of the epistle in the form of a
translation, arranged under separate heads. Our translation
is simply an easy rendering, claiming neither the exegetical
lucidness of a free version nor the grammatical accuracy and
purity of a literal one. Tlie Salutation.
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and
Timothy the brother, to the saints in Colosse, and believing
brethren in Christ: Grace to you, and peace from God our
Father. The Introduction.
Having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and the love
which ye have to all the saints, we thank God, the Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ always, when we pray for you ; on
account of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which
ye heard already in the word of the truth of the gospel,
which has come to you, as it has also in all the world ; and is
bearing fruit, and growing, as indeed among you, from the
day ye heard it and knew the grace of God in truth, just as
ye learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow-servant, who
is for your sakes a faithful minister of Christ, who has besides
reported to us your love in the Spirit. ,
The Prayer.
On this account we indeed, since the day we heard (such
a report,) cease not praying for you and asking that ye may
be filled with the full knowledge of His will in all wisdom

xl THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
and spiritual insight, so as to walk worthy of the Lord in
order to all well-pleasing1 — being fruitful in every good work,
and growing by means ofthe knowledge of God; strengthened
with all strength after the measure of the might of His glory,
in order to the possession of patience and long-suffering with
joy; giving thanks to the Father, who has fitted us for shar
ing the inheritance of the saints in the light ; who rescued
us out of the power of darkness and transported us into the
kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have this
redemption, — the forgiveness of sins.
Doctrine introduced. — The Glory of Christ.
Who is the image ofthe Invisible God, the First-born ofthe
whole creation. For in Him were created all things — those in
the heavens and those on the earth, the seen and the unseen,
whether thrones or lordships, principalities or powers, the
WHOLE by Him and for Him was created, and He is before
all things, and all things in Him are upheld. And He is the
Head of the Body, the church ; He who is the Source, the
First-begotten from the dead ; in order that in all things He
might show himself the First. Yea, God was pleased that
all fulness should dwell in Him ; and by Him having made
peace by the blood of His cross ; by Him (I repeat) to recon
cile all things to himself, whether the things on earth, or the
things in the heavens. The Application of it.
And you, who were formerly alienated and enemies in your
mind by wicked works, yet now has He reconciled in the body
of His (Christ's) flesh through death, so as to present you holy,
and blameless, and unreprovable before Him. If, as is the
case, ye continue in the faith grounded and fast, and not moved
away from the hope of the gospel which you have heard,
which has been preached to every creature under heaven, of
which I, Paul, was made a minister.
The Apostle's own feelings and functions towards them.
I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up what is
1 " For general conciliation ! " Turnbull's translation. London, 1854.

CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. xli
wanting of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His Body's
sake, which is the church ; of which I was made a minister
according to the dispensation of God committed to me for you,
to fulfil the word of God ; to wit, the mystery which has been
hid from ages and generations, but it is now revealed to his
saints, to whom God wished to make known what are the
riches of the glory of this mystery in the Gentiles, which
is Christ in you, the hope of glory; whom we preach,
reminding every man and teaching every man in all wisdom ;
in order that we may present every man perfect in Christ.
To attain which end, I indeed labour, intensely struggling
according to His inworking, which works mightily within me.
For I would that ye knew what a struggle I have about you and
those in Laodicea, and as many as have not seen my face in the
flesh ; that their hearts might be comforted, being knit together
in love and unto the whole wealth of the full assurance of
understanding, to the full knowledge of the mystery of God ; in
which all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are laid up.
First and General Advice.
Now this I say, lest any one should beguile you with entic
ing words. For though, indeed, in the flesh I am absent, yet
in the spirit with you am I, joying and beholding your order
and the steadiness of your faith on Christ. As then, ye have
received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in Him, having been
rooted in Him, and being built up in Him, and established
in the faith as ye were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.
Second and Special Warning and Argument.
Beware lest there be any one who may make a prey of you
through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men,
after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in
Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily ; and ye are
filled up in Him, who is the Head of all principality and
power. In whom also ye were circumcised with a circum
cision not made with hands in the off-putting of the body
of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ ; having been buried
with Him in baptism, in. whom too you have been raised
together by faith in the operation of God, who raised Him

xlii THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
from the dead. And you being dead in the trespasses and the
uncircumcision of your flesh, you hath He brought to life to
gether with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses ; having
blotted out the hand-writing of ordinances which was against
us, which was hostile to us, and He has taken it out of the
way, having nailed it to the cross ; having spoiled principalities
and powers, He made a show of them openly, having triumphed
over them in it. Let no one, therefore, judge you in eating or
in drinking, or in the particular of a festival, or of a new-moon,
or of Sabbath-days, which are a shadow of the things to come,
but the body is Christ's. Let no one rob you of your reward,
wishing to do it by his humility and worshipping of angels,
penetrating into things which he has not seen, puffed up with
out reason by his fleshly mind, and not holding the Head, from
whom the whole body through joints and bands supplied and
compacted groweth the growth of God.
The consequent Reproof.
Since with Christ ye have died off from the rudiments of
the world, why, as yet living in the world, do ye suffer such
ordinances to be published among you as " touch not, taste not,
handle not," in reference to things which are meant to perish in
the use — ordinances which have no higher authority than the
commandments and the doctrines of men ; which procedure,
indeed, having a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility,
and neglecting of the body, not in any thing of value, only
ministers to the gratification of the flesh1 (or corrupt human
nature). Practical Portion. — Their Position and its Lessons.
If, then, ye have been raised together with Christ, seek
those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting on the
right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on
things on the earth ; for you died, and your life has been
hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, our Life, shall be
manifested, then ye too shall be manifested with Him in glory.
1 " Not to the credit of any one for personal appearance !" — Turnbull.

INCULCATION OF DUTIES. xliii
Sins to be Abandoned.
Mortify, therefore, your members which are upon the earth,
fornication, impurity, lust, evil concupiscence, and covetousness,
which, indeed, is idolatry, on account of which sins cometh
the wrath of God, in which sins ye verily once walked, when
ye lived in them. But now ye have even put off all these —
anger, rage, malice, calumny, scurrility — out of your mouth.
Lie not to one another, having put off the old man with his
deeds, and having put on the new man, who is renewed unto
knowledge, after the image of Him who created him ; where
(in which sphere of renewal) there is not Greek and Jew,
circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, bond and
free, but Christ is all and in all.
Virtues to be Assumed.
Put on, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of
mercy, obligingness, humility, meekness, long-suffering, for
bearing one another and forgiving one another, if any one has
a fault against any, like as indeed Christ forgave you, so also
do ye ; and over and above all these, put on that love which
is the bond of perfection.
What should be the tenor of the Christian life.
And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which too
ye were called in one body, and be thankful. Let the word
of Christ dwell in you richly ; in all wisdom teaching and coun
selling one another ; in psalms, hymns, spiritual songs, singing
with grace in your heart to God ; and whatever ye do in word
or deed, do all of it in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving
thanks to God the Father by Him.
Inculcation of Domestic Duties.
Wives, submit you to your husbands, as is fitting in the
Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against
them. Children, obey your parents in all things, for^this is
well-pleasing in the Lord. Fathers, chafe not your children,
lest they be disheartened.- Servants, in^all things obey your
masters according to the flesh, not with eye-service as men-
pleasers, but with simplicity of heart, fearing the Lord.

xliv THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
Whatever you are engaged in, work at it from the soul as to
the Lord, and not to men, knowing that from the Lord you
shall receive the reward of the inheritance : the Lord Christ
serve ye : for the wrong-doer shall receive what he has
wronged ; and there is no respect of persons. Masters, afford
ye on your part what is right and equal to your servants,
in the knowledge that ye too have a master in heaven.
Parting Counsels.
Continue in grayer, and watch in it with thanksgiving;
praying at the same time also for us, that God would open to
us a door of discourse to speak the mystery of Christ, for
which yea I am bound, in order that I may make it manifest
as it becomes me to speak it. Walk in wisdom toward those
without, redeeming the time. Let your conversation be always
with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how you
ought to answer every one. Private Matters.
Of all that concerns me, Tychicus shall inform you, the
beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow-servant in the
Lord, whom I have sent unto you for this very purpose, that
ye might know our affairs, and that he might comfort your
hearts ; along with Onesimus, the faithful and beloved brother,
one of yourselves ; they shall inform you of all matters here.
Concluding Salutations and Signature.
There salutes you Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner, and Mark,
the cousin of Barnabas, (about whom ye received instruction ;)
if he come to you, receive him ; and Jesus, surnamed Justus
— who are of the circumcision : these alone (of their race)
are my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, who have
been an encouragement to me. Epaphras, one of yourselves,
a servant of Christ, salutes you, always striving for you in his
prayers, that ye may stand perfect and full assured in the whole
will of God. For I bear him record that he has a great travail
for you and them in Laodicea and them in Hierapolis. There
salutes you Luke the beloved physician, and Demas. Salute
the brethren in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church in his

WORKS ON THE EPISTLE. xiv
house. And when this epistle has been read among you,
arrange that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans,
and that ye read too the epistle from Laodicea. And say to
Archippus, See to the ministry which thou hast received in the
Lord that thou fulfil it. ®be salutation bg mine ofon fianrj of
$aul. UUnumbrr mg bonfcs. ffirart br fioftb gou.
VI. — TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING THE EPISTLE.
What we have already said in Chapter V. of our Introduc?
tion to Ephesians may suffice. The arguments of Schulz,
Bottger, Wiggers, Thiersch, and Meyer, do not convince us
that the old and general opinion is wrong, and that this epistle
was written at Csesarea, not at Rome. Peter Lombard and
others dream of an imprisonment at Ephesus, at which place
they suppose that this epistle was written. The probability is
that it was composed in Rome, and about the year 62. On
its relation to the Epistle to the Ephesians the reader may also
consult the fifth chapter of our Introduction to Commentary on
the latter Epistle. VII. — WORKS ON THE EPISTLE.
The patristic and mediaeval commentaries on Colossians are,
with the exception of Jerome, the same as those we have
enumerated under Ephesians. So it is with the expositors of
the Reformation period and that which succeeded it. So it is
too with the editors of the New Testament, and the collectors
of illustrations from the classics, Philo and Josephus. Among
the more characteristic expositions, we have the French dis
course of Daille' and the more academic Latin prelections of
Davenant, the paraphrase and notes of Pierce, the sermons of
Byfield (1615), Elton (1620), and the more recent popular
volumes of Bishop Wilson, Gisborne, and Watson.
Among continental writers we may refer to Calvin, Melanc-
thon, Beza, Erasmus, Janchius Zwingle, Crocius, Piscator, Hun-
nius, Baldwin, the Catholic Estius and a-Lapide (van Stein),
and to Grotius, Heumann, Suicer, Roell, Bengel, Storr, Flatt,
and Heinrichs.

xlvi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
Among later expositors we have the following : —
Historisch-hritischer und philologischer Commentar uber den
Brief Pauli an die Colosser; bearbeitet von Dr. Friederich
Junker; Mannheim, 1828. Commentar uber den Brief Pauli
an die Kolosser, mit steter Beruclcsichtigung der altem und
neuern Ausleger ; von Karl C. W. F. B'ahr ; Easel, 1833.
Theologische Auslegung des paulinischen Sendschreibens an die
Colosser; herausgegeben von Wilhelm Bohmer ; Breslau, 1835.
Der Brief Pauli an die Kolosser; Uebersetzung, Erklarung,
einleitende und epikritische Abhandlungen von Wilhelm Stei-
ger ; Erlangen, 1835. Commentar uber den Brief Pauli an
die Colosser ; von Joh. Ed. Huther; Hamburg, 1841. Kurze
Erklarung der Briefe an die Colosser, an Philemon, an die
Ephesie'r und Philipper ; von Dr. W. M. L. de Wette ;
Leipzig, 1843. Biblischer Commentar uber sdmmtliche Schrif-
ten des Neuen Testaments zundchst fur Predigerund Studirende;
von Dr. Hermann Olshausen; Vierter Band; Konigsberg,
1844. Commentar ilber den Brief Pauli an die Epheset und
Kolosser ; von L. F. 0. Baumgarten-Crusius ; Jena, 1847.
Kritisch exegetisches BTandbuch uber den Brief an die Kolos
ser und an Philemon ; von Hein. A. W. Meyer ; Gottingen,
1848. Auslegung der Epistel Pauli an die Colosser in 36
Betrachtungen.; von C. N. Kahler; Eisleben, 1853.

NOTE.
In the following pages, when Buttmann, Matthiae, Kuhner,
Winer, Rost, Alt, Stuart, Green, Trollope, and Jelf are
simply quoted, the reference is to their respective Greek gram
mars j and when Suidas, Passow, Robinson, Pape, Wilke,
Wahl, Bretschneider, Liddell and Scott, are named, the refer
ence is to their respective lexicons. If Hartung be found
without any addition, we mean his Lehre von den Partikeln
der griechischen Sprache, 2 vols.; Erlangen, 1832. In the same
way, the mention of Bernhardy without any supplement re
presents his Wissenschaftliche Syntax der griechischen Sprache;
Berlin, 1829. The majority of the other names are those of
the commentators or philologists enumerated in the previous
chapter. The references to Tischendorf's New Testament are
to the second edition.

COMMENTARY ON COLOSSIANS.

CHAPTER I.

The Epistle begins according to ancient custom. The
writer introduces himself by name, and then salutes those to
whom his letter is addressed, thus —
(Ver. 1.) Ila5Aoe, a7rooTroAoc 'Iijotou XpiaTOV Sta OsXrifiaTog
Beov koi Tifiodeoc; 6 aStX^oc — "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ
by the will of God, and Timothy the brother." [Ephes. i. 1 ;
iv. 11.] Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ, as he bore His
commission, enjoyed His inspiration, did His work, and in all
things sought His acceptance. His call to the apostleship
was by a signal and unmistakeable summons of the Divine
will. Since he uses similar phraseology in so niany of his
epistles, there is no foundation for the conjecture of Chrysostom,
and some of his Greek imitators, that the apostle in here assert
ing his relation to Christ so decidedly, disclaims all mission from
the inferior spirits that occupied so prominent place in the
angelology of the false teachers who attempted to corrupt the
Colossian church. The addition of the name of Timothy is
found in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, in that to the
Philippians, and to Philemon, while it stands along with that
of Silvanus in the salutations of both letters addressed to the
church in Thessalonica. Though Timothy may have been the
writer of this epistle, neither his name nor his pen gave any
warrant or authority to the document, for he is only joined
with the apostle in brotherly, but unofficial congratulations
and prayers over the welfare of the Colossian believers. It is
certainly rash on the part of Chrysostom and Theophylact1 to
infer that Timothy was to be honoured as an apostle, because
1 The conclusion of Theophylact ia apa oSv xai avrif anieroXos.
B

* COLOSSIANS I. 2.
his name stands in this connection. Were such an argument
tenable, then Sosthenes and Silvanus might both be elevated
to the apostolate. Paul styles him, however, " a minister of
God, and our fellow-labourer in the gospel of Christ," 1 Thess.
iii. 2.
Timothy, who received this Greek name from his father,
though his mother was a Jewess, was in all probability a
native of Lystra.1 That he was one of the apostle's own
converts is highly probable, as he has so fondly named
him " son," " my own son," " my beloved son," " my dearly
beloved son," 1 Tim. i. 18 ; i. 2 ; 1 Cor. iv. 17 ; 2 Tim. i. 2.
The young disciple was " well reported of by the brethren,"
had enjoyed an early and sound religious education, the result
of maternal, and grand-maternal anxiety, and he possessed a
" gift," so that Paul, after circumcising him, in order to allay
Jewish prejudice, selected him to be his colleague, fellow-
traveller, and work-fellow. At a later period the apostle bore
him this high testimony — " he worketh the work of the Lord
as I also do " 2 — affirms at another time that both of them
preached the same gospel of the Son of God ;* nay, so much
of a kindred spirit reigned within them, that he says to the
church in Philippi, "I have no man like-minded, who will
naturally care for your state," Philip, ii. 19, 20. Indications
of Timothy's busy and ubiquitous career occur again and
again, and he received himself, from his spiritual father, two
solemn epistolary communications. In short, so well known
was he as "the Brother," doing the apostle's work, carrying
his messages, bringing correspondence to him, endeared to
him in so many ways, and representing him in his absence,
that the church of Colosse could not wonder at his name
being associated with that of Paul.
(Ver. 2.) To?e iv KoXocraatg ayloig Kai ttkttoiq aSsX^oic iv
Xpio-Ttjj — " to the saints in Colosse and believing brethren in
Christ." For the various forms of spelling the name of the
city, see Introduction. According to the versions of Chrysos
tom, CEcumenius, De Wette, and others, the apostle thus
addresses his letter : " to those in Colosse who are saints and
1 Acts xvi. 1. 2 1 Cor. xvi. 10. 3 2 Cor. i. 19.

COLOSSIANS I. 2.

believing brethren in Christ;" but, according to Meyer, "to
the saints in Colosse, to wit, the believing brethren in Christ."
We incline to the latter interpretation, as the epithet fiytoc
came to have something of the force of a proper name, and did
not need ev X. to qualify it. It, indeed, often stands by itself,
as in Acts ix. 13, 32, 41 ; xxvi. 10 ; in Rom. i. 7 ; xii. 13 ;
xv. 25, 26, 31, and in a great variety of instances in the other
epistles. True, in Philippians i. 1, the words iv X. I. are
added to it, and that probably because no other epithet is
there subjoined. When these early disciples are named, or
referred to, the term ayiog, like the English "saint," was
almost invariably used, not as an adjective, but as a noun.
For the meaning of the word, and its application to members
of the church, see under Ephes. i. 1. The other terms of the
clause are explanatory and supplemental. The adjective
wi(TTotg, which occurs by itself in the twin epistle, is here
joined to aSeXfotg, and has the sense of believing, as we have
shown it to have in the similar salutation, Ephes. i. 1. The
concluding words, iv Xpto-r^!, belonging to the entire clause,
describe the origin and circuit of the believing brotherhood.
Their union to Him created this tender and reciprocal con
nection in Him. Out of Him there was neither faith nor
fraternity, for He is the object ofthe one and the centre ofthe
other. Thus ttkttoTg is not superfluous, as Steiger erroneously
says, if it mean "believing;" for this faith was the very
means of bringing them into a filial relation to God, and
therefore into a brotherly relation with one another. (Gal. iii.
26.) Children of one Father by belief in Christ, the entire
family are rightly named " believing brethren " in Him.
Xapic v/xiv Kal slprivri awb Qeov TiaTpbg rifiwv — " grace to
you and peace, from God our Father." The additional clause
ofthe Received Text, Kai Kvpiov I. X. is not fully sustained by
good authority, as it is wanting in B, D, E, J, K, while it is
found in A, C, F, G. Many of the old versions also want it
— as the Syriac, Ethiopic, and Vulgate. Chrysostom formally
says : Kalroi iv ravrjj to tov X. ov TiOrimv ovo/ia — " yet in this
place he does not insert the name of Christ." Theophylact, on
repeating the sentiment, adds — Kafrot tlwObg airtji ov —
" although it is his usual way to insert it ; " but he subjoins a

4 COLOSSIANS I. 3.
silly reason for the omission, to wit, " Lest the apostle should
revolt them at the outset, and turn their minds from his forth
coming argument." The clause is common in the other
Opening benedictions. We can account for its insertion in
some Codices as being taken from these corresponding pas
sages, but we cannot so well give a reason for its general
omission, except on the suspicion that it was no portion of the
original salutation. We dare not dictate to the apostle how
he shall greet a church, nor insist that he shall send all his
greetings in uniform terms. [Ephes. i. 2.]
The apostle now expresses his thanks to God for the
Colossian church, for their faith, love, and hope — the fruits of
that gospel which Epaphras had so successfully taught them.
Then he repeats the substance of that prayer which he had
been wont to offer for them, a prayer that designedly cul
minates in a statement of their obligation to Christ, and their
connection with Him. But that Blessed Name suggests a
magnificent description of the majesty of His person, and the
glory of His work as Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, and
Governor. The paragraph is without any formal polemical
aspect, but under its broad and glowing statement of the truth
error was detected and refuted. It was so placed in sunshine,
that its hideousness was fully exposed, and it was seen to be
" a profane medley " '
(Ver. 3.) Ei^aptorovyuev T<j> 0£tj> Kai Ilarpi row Kvpiov
Vfiwv \r\aov XjOiarov ttclvtote, irspl ifiiov wpo(TEV^ofiEvoi-_ —
" We bless God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ always,
when praying for you." There are variations in the text,
some of which may be noted. Some read t$ irarpl on no
great authority, and the Received Text inserts Kal without
conclusive evidence. Other MSS. read as if by correction
evxaptarTw in the singular, and irtpl, found in A, C, D" , E8 , J,
K, appears to have higher warrant than virtp, which is pre
ferred by Lachmann and Griesbach. The distinctive meaning
of virtp and wtpl in such a connection may be seen under Ephes.
vi. 19. We cannot agree with B'ahr, Steiger, Baumgarten-
Crusius, and Conybeare, who imagine that Paul simply means
1 " Me'langc profane." — DaiHe-.

COLOSSIANS I. 3. 5
himself in the plural tvxapiaTovpisv. That he may occasionally
use this style we do not deny. The apostle in the First
Epistle to the Corinthians joins Sosthenes with himself in the
salutation, but formally excludes him from any share in the
communication, for he immediately subjoins the singular Ev-%ap-
htt<o. The same avowed distinction is made with regard to
Timothy, himself in the Epistle to the Philippians i. 1 — 3.
May we not infer, that if Paul had wished to exclude Timothy
here, he would have done so by a similar use of the singular ;
and as he does afterwards employ the singular in sharp con
trast, may not the plural here have been chosen to represent the
share which Timothy had in those good reports, and the con
sequent prayers ? There is no sentiment in the verses in which
the plural is used, peculiar to inspiration. And we are the
more confirmed in this view, because Paul formally disconnects
himself from Timothy in verse 23, and by the emphatic words,
iyu IlauAoc ; and again a similar distinction occurs in verse
29, and in iv. 3. The phraseology of these three verses implies,
that when he says " we," he means himself and Timothy, but
that in cases where he states something special to himself, and
not common to him and his colleague, he says "I," to prevent
mistake. If the plural simply represented himself, he did not
need to change the idiom. [EvxapiaTov/xtv, Ephes. i. 16].
Under Ephes. i. 3 we have shown that the genitive Kvpiov I.
is governed as well by Oeog as by 7rarr/p. And if we read
t<$ 6e$ koX Trarpi, as in the Textus Receptus, the same con
struction would be vindicated here. But as the reading is
either rt£ Qetji t$ iraTpl, or rather r<£ Bet^ Trarpl, it would seem
that Trarpi alone governs the following genitive. We thank
God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, [riar/oi rov k.
Ephes. i. 3.] Beza well says, neque vero aliter a nobis con-
siderari potest Deus in salutem nisi quatenus est Pater Christi.
It is God, in the character of the Father of Christ, that we
thank, for He is in this relation our Father-God. The grateful
heart pours itself forth in praises. Paul and Timothy, on
hearing of the spiritual progress of the Colossians, did not
congratulate one another, but both gave the glory to God.
So much had Timothy of Paul's own spirit, that the apostle
had no hesitation in saying, " We thank God."

*-> COLOSSIANS I. 3.
It is a matter of dispute whether ttcivtote should be joined
to EvyapiaTovfiEv, or to TrpoatvxojXEvoi. Chrysostom, Theo
phylact, Grotius, Piscator, Beza, Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Suicer,
Grotius, Bohmer, and Olshausen, hold the second view, and
render with the English version, " praying always for you."
But if we follow the analogy of 1 Cor. i. 4, 1 Thess. i. 2,
2 Thess. i. 3, Philem. 4, Ephes. i. 16, we shall join ttcivtote
to the first verb. So think Bahr, Pierce, Meyer, De Wette,
and Baumgarten-Crusius. The Syriac version follows the
same exegesis — for it reads, " we give thanks for you always,
and pray for you ; " and Cranmer's Bible of 1539 — " we
give thanks to God alwayes for you in oure prayers." Be
sides, the declaration is, that the intelligence which he had
received filled his heart with gratitude, and impelled him
to give thanks. The Colossians did not need to be told
that he prayed for them, but it was some comfort to be
assured by him, that when he did pray for them such was his
opinion of them, based on reports which he had received
about them, that he gave thanks to God for them. He would
have prayed for them, whatever their spiritual state, and the
worse it was, the more importunate would have been his
supplications, but he would not have given thanks for them
unless he had been persuaded of their spiritual purity and
progress. Therefore he adduces these reports as the grounds
of his thanksgivings ; and the spirit of his language is —
" whenever we pray about you, we always give thanks for
you." So cheering was the intelligence communicated by
Epaphras, that thanksgiving was uniformly mingled with his
prayers for them, and the special contents of those prayers
are mentioned for the first time in verse 9. This exegesis is
far more natural than that of Olshausen, who says that the
" thanksgiving is offered at the moment, but the intercession is
supposed to be going on, and to be based on the tidings which
he had received. Now, those tidings did not create the
prayer, but being so good, they naturally induced the thanks
giving. " We always give thanks to God, the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, as often as we pray for you, because we
have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and love to all the
saints."

COLOSSIANS I. 4. 7
Hapl vfiwv irpoasvxofuvoi — "praying for you." The
apostle prayed for them — such was his interest in them,
and sympathy with them, that he bore their names on his
heart to the throne of grace. Nor could such an " effectual
fervent prayer of a righteous man " be without its rich results.
The suppliant in his far off prison was like the prophet on
Carmel, and as he prayed, the "little cloud" might be descried,
which, as it gradually filled and darkened the horizon, brought
with it the " sound of abundance of rain."
(Ver. 4.) 'AKOuoTavTEc tt/v irlariv i/iQv iv Xptarij) 'Irjcrow, Kai
Triv ayawr\v riv £X«"£ elg iravTag Tovg aylovg. The words fjv
EXaT£ are introduced into the text on the concurrent authority
of A, C, D1 , E1 , F, G, the Vulgate, and other versions, with
many of the Fathers. The apostle now expresses the reason
why he gave thanks, the participle having a causal sense,
Kuhner, § 667 ; Stuart, § 169. Similar phraseology occurs
in Ephes. i. 15. The article is omitted before the proper
names X. I. Winer, § 19, 2. In Ephesians, the apostle adds
Kvpiog, and prefixes the article to the official epithet ; but
here the simple name X. I. from common usage, occurs without
it. Gal. iii. 26. A different form of construction, inserting the
article before the preposition — ttIotei Ty iv X. I. — occurs 1
Tim. iii. 13, and similarly 2 Tim. i. 13. That faith reposed in
Christ Jesus — fixed and immovable — for it felt satisfied in
Him as a Divine Saviour. [Ephes. i. l.J Paul's heart had been
gladdened by the news of their consistency and spiritual
advancement, and in the fulness of his joy he offered thanks
to God. It is not necessary, with Locke and Pierce, to take
irioTig in the sense of fidelity, " sticking to the grace of God."
And their lpve was universal in its sweep, not toward all men,
but toward all the saints, [ay toe, Ephes. i. 1]. In itself, this
love is really only a form, or manifestation of love, to the
Divine object of their faith, for it is affection to Christ's image
in the saints. As though a mirror is broken, each fragment
will still throw out the same reflection in miniature, and that
perfectly, so the saints, as a body, and individually, exhibit the
same blessed and divine image of Christ enshrined with them,
and are therefore the objects of Christian love. Who is not
acquainted with the language of Tertullian ? — Sed ejusmodi vel

8 COLOSSIANS I. 5.
maxime dilectionis operatio notam nobis inurit penes quosdam,
vide, inquiunt, ut invicem se diligant.1
(Ver. 5.) Am tjjv iXwiSa Trtv airoKEifiivtfv ifiiv iv roie
ovpavolg — " On account of the hope laid up for you in
heaven," It is not easy to fix precisely on the connection
between this clause and the preceding statement. It is a lame
and superficial exegesis simply to say that the apostle merely
alludes to his three favourite graces, faith, love, and hope.
But 1. Grotius, Wolf, Davenant, Estius, Pierce, Olshausen,
De Wette, Bahr, Heinrichs, and the Socinian expositors,
Crellius and Slichting, connect it with the two preceding
clauses, as if it told the reason why faith and love were
formed and cherished within them — your faith in Christ, and
love to all the saints — graces possessed and nurtured "in con
sequence of the hope laid up for you in heaven." With such
a view, the connection appears to be elliptical, and not very
clearly expressed in the language before us. Nor do we think
it a Pauline sentiment. The apostle's references to future glory
, are not of this nature, and we cannot regard him as placing
faith and love on so selfish a basis as the mere hope of a
coming recompense ; for Christ is worthy of that faith, and
saints, from their very character, elicit that love. The evan
gelical expositors who hold this view have to maintain a stout
protest against the idea that they favour the Popish doctrine
of merit. Davenant formally proposes the question, " whether
it be lawful to do good works with a view to, or for the reward
laid up in heaven ? "
2. A modified and more tenable view is held by Chrysos
tom, and some of the Greek Fathers, as well as Estius, Calvin,
Macknight, Meyer, and Steiger, who refer Sia t?jv iXirlSa
solely to ayaTrriv, as if the meaning were, this love is not
cherished under the expectation of any immediate return,
but in the hope of ultimate remuneration. Still, under
this hypothesis, the connection appears strained. If the
apostle had said that they loved one another on account
of the common hope which they had in heaven, or that"
the prospect of a joint inheritance deepened their attach-
1 Apologeticum, xxxix. p. 260, Opera, Tom. 1 ; ed. Oehler, Lipsiae, 1853.

COLOSSIANS I. 5. 9
ments on their journey towards it, then the meaning might
have been easily apprehended. But why the hope in itself
should be selected as the prop of such love, we know not.
Was their love to all the saints so selfish, that it could live
only in. expectation of a future reward? We do not deny
the Christian doctrine of rewards, but we cannot put so selfish
a valuation on Christian love as this exegesis implies, for of all
the graces, it has the least of self in its nature, and its instinc
tive gratification is its own disinterested reward.
3. We incline, then, to take the words Siti rrjv iXwlSa with
the initial verb EvxapKn-ov/isv. " Having heard of your faith
in Christ Jesus, and the love which ye have to all the saints,
as often as we pray for you, we thank God, the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, on account of the hope laid up for you in
heaven." That is to say, the- report of their faith and love
prompted him to give thanks, but as he gave thanks, the final
issue and crown of those graces rose into prominence before
him, and he adds, " on account of the hope laid up for you in
heaven." Their faith and love, viewed not merely in present
exercise, but also in their ultimate consummation and bliss,
were the grounds of his thanksgiving. The hope, as Bengel
suggests, shows quanta sit causa gratias agendi pro dono fidei
et amoris. The fourth verse can scarcely be called a paren
thesis. This view is, generally, that of Athanasius, Bullinger,
Calixtus, Eisner, Cocceius, Storr, Zanchius, Bengel, Schrader,
Peile, and Conybeare. Meyer objects that in the other
epistles the foundations of thanksgiving are subjective in their
nature. Nor is this phraseology, when properly viewed, any
exception. For faith and love are not excluded from the
grounds of thanksgiving, and hope laid up is not wholly
objective, as it signifies a blessing so sure and attainable that it
creates hope. Had the apostle said, " for the happiness laid
up," the objection of Meyer might have applied, but he calls
it " hope laid up " — a reality which excites and sustains the
emotion of hope in the present state. It is further argued
that Ev^apio-rEiv is never used in the New Testament with Sia
to express the ground of thanksgiving. It is so ; but unless
the objector can produce a parallel place to this, there is really
no difficulty. If a writer means to express a different shade

10 COLOSSIANS I. S.
of idea, he will use a different preposition. Neither iirip nor
iwi conveyed the precise idea of the clause before us. These
prepositions would have denoted that the hope was in itself
the great ground of gratitude ; but the apostle, in using Sid,
says, that the hope, while it is so noble and promising, has a
special and ultimate connection with the faith and love, the
report of which so cheered his heart The hope was present
to his mind when he said EvxapiaTovfisv, but other and sub
ordinate thoughts intervene, and his idea is so far modified,
that when he came to write iXiriBa, he prefixes Sid.
'EXirig is the object hoped for — to iXiriZofiEvov. [Ephes. i.
18.] In tjjv cnroKEifiEvriv is the idea of reservation and security.
(Luke xix. 20 ; 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; 1 Pet. i. 4.)1 It is not enjoyed
now — but it exists now ; it is kept in store, and will certainly
be possessed. And it is laid up iv To'ig ovpavoig " in the
heavens " — in that high region of felicity and splendour- — at
God's right hand, which guards it, and in the presence of
Christ, who won it, and will bestow it. And this heavenly,
glory is an object of hope to them who possess this faith and
love for these good reasons : — 1. It is future — as it is not yet
enjoyed, but it is lying over; "hope that is seen is not hope."
2. It is future good, for it is in heaven, the scene of all that is
fair and satisfying. Coming evil excites terror, but distant
good creates hopeful desire and anticipation. For it is the
unimagined glory of spiritual perfection, of living in the
unshaded radiance of God's face, and in uninterrupted fellow
ship with Him, and the thronging myriads round about Him
— the signet of eternity stamped on every enjoyment. 3.
Such future good is attainable. Were it completely beyond
reach, it might excite a romantic wish in one heart, and
cover another with despair. But the apostle says it is laid
up for you. It will therefore be enjoyed, for Christ has
given His pledge. This faith, too, will elevate the spirit to
heaven, and that love will prepare it for those supreme enjoy
ments, "For love is heaven, and heaven is love."
"Hv TrporiKOvaaTE iv t$ Xoyio Trje dXriOslag tov EvayysXlov —
1 Loesner, Observ. ad N. T. p. 360.

COLOSSIANS I. 6. 11
" Of which ye have already heard in the word of the truth of
the gospel." The verb occurs only in this, place of the New
Testament, but it is found in Herodotus, Xenophon, and Jose
phus.1 In the 7rpo compounded with the verb, De Wette and
Olshausen think that the meaning is — they had heard of the
hope in promise before the enjoyment of it. Such an exegesis
is a species of truism, since they must have heard before they
could cherish it. Therefore the interpretation of Meyer is
equally objectionable — before ye had this hope, it was made
known to you, it was communicated to you as a novelty. Nor
can we say, generally, that the sense is — ye have heard of it
before I now write it. But the meaning seems to be — that the
hope laid up in heaven was, and had been, a prominent topic of
preaching, and therefore an invariable topic of hearing in the
Christian church. That vpo has the sense of "already" we have
shown fully under Ephes. i. 12. It is as if he meant to say — I
need not expatiate on this hope, bright and glorious though it
be ; you are not unacquainted with it, for in the earliest
teachings of the gospel when it came to you, ye heard of it —
heard of hv—
'Ev r(£ Xoyy T^g a.Xr)0Eiag. We cannot agree with Chrysos
tom, Erasmus, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, Storr, and others,
in giving the genitive an adjectival sense, as if the meaning
were " the true and genuine gospel." The noun aXriOElag is
made prominent by the article prefixed to it, and the idiom de
notes that "the truth" was the sum and substance of the Xoyoc,
or oral communication made to them by the first teachers of
Christianity. Aoyoc refers to the fact that their first teaching
was oral, and not epistolary, or by inspired manuscript ; and
this " word," or verbal tuition, had the truth for its pith and
marrow. But the form of truth which had been presented to
their minds was no common aspect of it. It belonged, not to
philosophy or human speculation — it was the truth tov
EvayyEXiov " of the gospel." This genitive is not in apposition
with Trjg aXriOalag, as Calvin, Beza, Olshausen, De Wette,
Bohmer, and Huther suppose, but it has its distinctive meaning
— the truth which belongs to the gospel, or is its peculiar and
' Robinson, Lexicon, sub voce. Raphelius, Annot. Sac. vol. ii. p. 525.

12 COLOSSIANS I. 6.
characteristic message. [aXrjfls/a, svayyiXiov, Ephes. i. 13.]
" The word of the truth of the gospel " could alone reveal the
nature and the certainty of future and celestial blessedness.
The idea and expectation of spiritual felicity and glory in
heaven are not connected with the sciences of earth, which
deal so subtly with the properties and relations of mind and
matter. These forms of knowledge and discovery lead but to
the lip of the grave, and desert us amidst the dreary wail of
dust to dust and ashes to ashes, but the truth contained in the
gospel throws its radiance beyond the sepulchre, unvails the
portals of eternity, and discloses the reality, magnitude, and
character of "the hope laid up in heaven." And, therefore,
every blessing which the gospel makes known has futurity in
its eye— an eye that pierces beyond the present horizon ; and
the Christian life, in the meantime, is one as much of expec
tation as of positive enjoyment.
(Ver. 6.) Tov wapovTog Eig i/xag, KaOwg Kal iv travTi Ttf
Koafuff — " Which has come to you, as it has come in all the
world." ' The participle is used with 7rpoc in Acts xii. 20 ; 2
Cor. xi. 8 ; Gal. iv. 18, 20, in which instances the presence
of persons is referred to, both in subject and object. Here it
is followed by etc in the first clause, and iv in the second
clause. In the one, by tig the idea of travel prior to ad
vent is implied ; in the other, by iv, the notion of simple pre
sence is affirmed, Kuhner, § 622. The gospel had come to
them, was brought to them, and was now with them, or
in their possession. (2 Pet. i. 9.) Or, as Theophylact says, ov
TtapEy&vETO, <^r\aiv, wpbg vfiag, ko.1 airicrrjj, aXXa TidpEari Kai
KparEt iv xifuv. This idea suggested the Coptic rendering
<£<£.* eTCJJCJUn — " which abideth or dwelleth." And surely
such a gift they would keep as their own, prize highly,
love dearly, and never suffer it to be contaminated with
popular errors, or exchange it for those mystical reveries
which were broached among them. For while the errors
which the apostle is about to reprobate were limited in their
origin and popularity, this gospel was "in all the world."
1 Raphelius, Anmotat. ii. 525, 526 ; Ki-ebs, Observat. 333 : the former showing
from the classics, and the latter from Josephus, that in rdpsipi is the notion of
arrival. Passow, sub voce.

COLOSSIANS I. 6. 13
We see no necessity for choosing a new verb, and supplying
the simple ectiv, while irdpEGTi is suggested at once by the
preceding clause. It was in all the world, because it had
come to it. It was not indigenous in any country, but was
there, merely because it had been carried there. This expres
sion is not to be scanned with narrow minuteness. We cannot,
with Olshausen and Baumgarten-Crusius, look upon it as a pro
phetic or ideal statement ; nor can we, with Michaelis, limit
it to the Roman empire. The phrase is similarly used by
Paul in Romans i. 8. That world which lay all round about
them — those countries which to them were the world, and
were by them so named, had been brought into contact with
the gospel. It arose in Judaea, but burst its narrow barriers,
and came forth with world-wide adaptation, offers, and enter
prise. The labours of the other apostles in so many countries
of the East and West warranted the phraseology.
Kai egtiv Kapirofopovfiavov Kal avf£av6p.Evov.
Kai is omitted by Lachmann, and Griesbach is virtually of
the same opinion. It is wanting in A, B, C, D1, E1, in several
Minuscules, and in the Coptic and Sahidic versions ; but it is
found in Ds, E2, F, G, J, K, the Vulgate, and Syriac, and in the
Greek Fathers. The authority of Codices against it is almost
balanced by that of Codices in its favour. ' The words Kai
al)%av. are added to the Stephanie text on the evidence of A,
B, C, D1, E1, F, G, J, and many other concurrent witnesses,
such as almost all the Versions. Were the first Kai not gen
uine, there would be a vital change of syntax. But with it
there is only a common change. Kuhner, § 863; Winer, § 64.'
1 Olshausen thus states the case : — " Here the connection of the words is disputable,
in consequence of the different readings ; St. Paul's discourse proceeds with Xa(Ss
xxi thrice repeated: it is true, the xu.) is wanting in the third, in very many and
important MSS., but the omission is far more explicable, because it had already been
put twice before, than the addition of it. But then A, C, D, read in the beginning
of verse 6 xaltus xai lv vravri ru xoepu ten xapwo^ofavpevov. By that reading the
proposition xaDus — x'oepu is separated from what precedes, and joined with what
follows, which brings with it the great inconvenience that then the words xxius xai
lv vpiv do not fit the beginning of the proposition xxius xai iv vravri ru xiepu, since
the Colossians are to be conceived as included of course with the rest in the whole
world. It is with reason, therefore, that Steiger, Bahr, and others, have retained xxi
'iari xdp*ofopoipivov, and supplied Irm at xaSus x«) lv vravri rif xoepu."

14 COLOSSIANS I. 6.
The reading we adopt frees the text from much entan
glement of thought and diction. That gospel in all the
world was no idle and barren speculation — a tinted cloud
without rain, or a polished cistern without water. Or rather,
it was as a tree — yielding his fruit in his season : whose leaf
never fadeth. The gospel bore choice and noble clusters of
fruit. It is not a ceremonial to be gazed at, or a congeries
of opinions to be discussed. It is essentially a practical
system, for its ethics are involved in its creed and worship.
It makes the heart its home, and diffuses its control and its
impulses over thought and action, over motive and life. That
fruit is the assemblage of graces which adorn the Christian
character. The reference in Kai av%av. is variously understood. Gro
tius, Olshausen, and Steiger, refer it to internal growth, or the
growing and ripening of the fruits themselves. We prefer
the idea of the Greek Fathers, for Theodoret explains it thus
— av%r)<nv Be tCjv ttkttevovtwv to TrXriOog, that is, the growth
is the external diffusion of the gospel. That fruit-bearing
gospel was extending itself. To keep the figure of the apostle,
it was like a tree, whose fruit, falling to the earth, germinated,
so that there sprang up a youthful and healthy forest on all
sides of it, or like the Eastern banian, whose tall boughs, as
they bend themselves in a graceful curve to the ground,
enter it,, and fastening in it a new root, rise up again in ver
dure, and on reaching the requisite height, stoop as before
and repeat the same process of self-plantation, till field upon
field is covered with the progeny of its arches and alcoves.
Thus did the gospel make progress — the disciples preached it
around them, and their converts becoming preachers in turn,
widened the circle of its influence and conquests. Acts xii.
24 ; xix. 20. Ka&wg Kal iv ifiiv — " as indeed among you."
What the gospel produced and achieved in the world, it pro
duces and achieves among you. It exhibited the same
vitality, fruitfulness, and power of self-diffusion in Colosse,
as in the regions round about it. And those elements
ofthe gospel had not been of slow production, or of periodical
manifestation — it, says Paul, had been so among you —
'A0' f/e i?jU^pac riKOixraTE Kai iiriyvwTE rrjv xdpiv tov Qeov

COLOSSIANS I. 6. 15
iv aXr)0tlq — " From the day ye heard it, and knew the
grace of God in truth." This peculiar form of elliptical
construction by the incorporation of the noun into the rela
tive clause is not uncommon ; Winer, § 24 ; Bernhardy,
p. 302. The accusative to the first verb ijKowarE, is Evayyi-
Xiov. It was the gospel which they had heard. This was the
external and audible form of that grace which they had been
privileged tp know. It was by hearing it, or by verbal in
struction about it that they had become acquainted with it.
The preposition iirl, with yivwaKw, has an intensive sense, as
has been proved by us under Ephes. i. 17. By hearing the
gospel they had come to know fully the grace of God — for the
grace of God is the essence of the gospel, or the glorious fact
which it communicates. It is the good news that God has in
His sovereign favour pitied and blessed the world, and con
ferred upon it an unmerited and unexpected salvation — that
while He might have punished, He resolved to pardon — that
when he might have permitted the law to take its course, He
has founded an economy of grace which man had no right to
anticipate, and Himself was under no obligation to introduce.
In every element of the gospel, in its pardon and purity, in
its hope and life, in its means as well as in its offers of de
liverance, in its application no less than its provision of
saving blessings, in its precepts as much as in its privileges,
there is felt and known in its peculiar ascendancy and fulness,
" the grace of God." [xdpig, Ephes. ii. 8.]
The last words, iv dXi]0. are connected in various ways. 1.
Some give the phrase the force of an~adjectival epithet, and join
it to %aptc — "the true grace" of God. Such is the view of Storr,
Homberg, Pierce, Barnes, and Baumgarten-Crusius. This in
terpretation is without point. . 2. Grotius and Musculus depart
still farther from the true syntax by their paraphrase — " the
grace of God revealed in the word of truth." 3. Beza,
Crocius, Olshausen, Steiger, Huther, De Wette, Meyer, and
Winer, join the phrase to the verb, "and truly or really"
knew the grace of God. The knowledge possessed by the
Colossians is thus supposed to be distinguished from a false
or fictitious knowledge of the Divine grace. 4. We prefer,
with Bahr and Calvin, a different shade of the same exegesis,

16 COLOSSIANS I. 7.
giving to the phrase an objective meaning, as if the apostle
meant to say — the grace which they knew had been presented
to them " in its truth," for they had learned it from Epaphras.
The preceding forms of exegesis are inferences from this. It
was a correct interpretation of the scheme of grace which they
had learned, or they possessed a true knowledge of the plan of
mercy, because, as the next verse shows, Epaphras had taught
them the gospel in its fulness and purity. This is also the
idea of CEcumenius, though Theophylact and Chrysostom
erroneously include the notion of miracles as confirming the
truth. We understand the apostle to write thus — since the
day ye heard it, and fully knew the grace of God in truth, as
indeed in that true and complete form ye learned it from
Epaphras ; or, as Calvin explains, testatus est sincere illis fuisse
traditum. The words lv aXrj0. describe the teaching of Epa
phras, or represent that genuine form, in which, by his preach
ing, the grace of God had been exhibited at Colosse. It is
probable that in this statement there are various points of
implied contrast with those corrupt representations which are
mentioned and refuted in the subsequent chapter. Thus —
the grace of God had been taught them without mutilation
or admixture, but false philosophy shaded or curtailed
its doctrines. The gospel was oecumenical, but the error
which menaced them was only provincial in its sphere.
The truth exhibited the basis and objects of a blessed hope,
but falsehood darkened the horizon, and while the gospel
yielded great abundance, such fictitious dogmas were barren
and empty — a tree with leaves, but without fruit.
The apostle says — "since ye knew the grace of God in
truth," or in its true form, "just as ye learned it from
Epaphras " —
(Ver. 7.) KaO&g s^ete otto 'Eira^pS. The Kal found
in the Received Text after KaOwg, is justly excluded on the
authority of A, B, C, D1, F, G 17, 23, &c. Tt may have come
into the text from its frequent employment in such an idiom
by the apostle. It might be replied, however, that as, from
an old tradition, Epaphras was supposed to be the only
founder of the church, the Kal was omitted, as seeming to
militate against such a belief. Wiggers, indeed, has formally

COLOSSIANS I. 7. 17
raised such an argument.1 But even were Kal genuine, might
it not mean " really," or " indeed " — " as ye indeed learned of
Epaphras?" The teaching of Epaphras is thus sealed and
sanctioned by inspired authority. The apostle had no mean
jealousy of a colleague who is further characterized as " our
beloved fellow-servant " —
ToO dyairiyrov crvvSoiXov^/iiov. Thenoun occurs againiniv. 7.
Like ojudSouXoc, the old Attic form, it signifies "fellow-servant."
Conybeare and Macknight are found at opposite extremes
about the term ; the former rendering it " fellow-bondsman,"
with unnecessary emphasis, and the latter uttering the senti
mental conjecture that Paul used the word because he did
not wish to grieve the Colossian chureh by telling them that
their Epaphras was in prison with him. Timothy, Paul, and
Epaphras, not only served a common master, but were en
gaged in the same service ; and therefore this community of
labour begat a special attachment. The heart of the apostle
was knit in cordial affection to all his fellow-labourers. He had
none of that ignoble rivalry which just " hints a fault and hesi
tates dislike." He felt no envy at their success, but was so
identified with their work, that whatever gladdened them
gladdened him ; he shared in their triumphs and was saddened
at their reverses. Still more, it is testified of Epaphras —
''Og i<sTi maTbg viTEp vfiHiv oiaKOvag tov KpiGTov — "who is for
you a faithful minister of Christ." The noun Sidmvog is used
in a general sense, as may be seen under Ephes. iii. 7. [ttkjtoc
SiaKovog, Ephes. vi. 21.] The reading itrlp ifiuv has been
called in question, and virtp Vjjuwv is adopted by Lachmann,
Bengel, Olshausen, and Steiger. In favour of this last reading
are A, B1, D, G;' and in favour of the former are .C, Ds, E, F,
G, K, and others, with almost all the versions and Fathers.
Where external testimony is so decided, we cannot accede to
Olshausen's pleading of any internal evidence. And the
meaning attached to uttejo ijjuwv — vice apostoli, in our stead — can
scarcely be correct, since Epaphras was not simply an apos
tolical representative, for in r)f.iwv Timothy is included along
with Paul. Nor is it necessary to give vtrip the sense of " in
room of," in Luke ix. 50, for there the phrase means " on our
1 Studien und Kritiken, 1838, p. 185.
C

18 COLOSSIANS I. 8.
side." The phrase then virep v/mwv means " for your behalf."
2 Cor. iv. 5. The faithful labours of Epaphras were directed
to the spiritual benefit of the Colossian church. For them he
served, and served faithfully in the gospel of Christ. A brief
but noble eulogy. As he had devoted to them every energy,
kept among them, and prayed with and for them, as he had
presented to them a complete and symmetrical view of the
gospel, and as their correct knowledge of Divine grace was
based upon his teaching, and their spiritual eminence and
fertility were the result of his patient and painstaking efforts,
therefore were they to love him in his absence, and surely they
would allow no false teacher to supplant him in their affection.
Probably the encomium was a virtual warning, for, as Theo
doret says, 7roXXo7c St ai)TOv eko/liktev iyKO/iloig — Iva avrotg
irXelovog alSovg dS,iwTEpwg yivryrai. It is a faint view of
Chrysostom to imagine that the faithful service here referred
to, is but the truthful report of the spiritual condition of the
Colossians, which Epaphras had brought to Rome. Such a
slight message could scarce be called a service, and it is there
fore to fidelity of ministerial labour at Colosse to which the
apostle refers. It is wholly a caricature of the words to
suppose with Calixtus, Michaelis, and Bohmer, that as Epa
phras was the apostle's fellow-prisoner, he alludes to personal
services done by the Colossian pastor to himself, as if he had
said — " who is, in your room, a faithful servant of Christ to me."
(Ver. 8.) '0 Kai SriXuxrag i7jutv tt)v vjuwv aya7rijv ev irvsvfiaTi
— "Who has besides made known to us your love in the
Spirit." It narrows the meaning too much to restrict this love
to the apostle himself and Timothy — " your love to us." Yet
this is the view ofthe great majority of expositors, from Chry
sostom in early times, and Erasmus and Grotius in later days,
down to Bahr, Bohmer, Steiger, Huther, and Baumgarten-
Crusius. But the language of the apostle does not warrant
such a sense except by inference. Nor may the phrase be
applied solely to brother-love, but, with Meyer, Theodoret,
Heinrichs, and De Wette, we take it in a general sense as
denoting the Christian grace of love. And the reason why
this grace is selected and eulogized is evident from the con
cluding words — it was love "in the Spirit" —

COLOSSIANS I. 8. 19
'Ev irvEvfiari. To give this phrase, as in the opinion of
Rosenmiiller, a-Lapide, Trollope, and others, the mere sense
of true Christian love, is a weak dilution. Nor can we with
Wolf and others regard it as in tacit contrast to ev aapKl, a
love based on domestic or national ties ; or as if the mean
ing were — a love to the absent apostle which must be spiritual,
as they had never seen his face in the flesh. The words, as in
Pauline usage, refer to the Holy Spirit, and point out the
source and sphere of this gracious affection. Thus, Rom. xiv.
17, xaPa *v TvEWjuart. Gal. v. 22 ; Rom. xv. 13. 'Ev will
not stand for Sid as Grotius renders it. Not as if Epaphras
had spoken only of their love, and had made no mention of
their other spiritual attainments. But love is regarded as the
crown and consequence of all the other graces, and the men
tion of it presupposed their lively and effective exercise. For
this love is no affection based on common relations — such as
human friendship or social instincts. It is the offspring of
spiritual influence in a heart so full of antagonism by nature
to what is good and pure. The Spirit of Him who is Love
takes possession of the believing bosom, and exerts upon it
His own assimilating power. And as love is at the same time
the combined product or resulting fervour of the other graces
—as it gives man his closest resemblance to God, as it is the
life and glory of heaven; and as it is the great object ofthe
gospel to create and perfect it in the church, it may be safely
taken as the index of spiritual advancement. The more it is
seen in its vivid sympathies with all that is fair and God-like
— the more its genial harmonies pervade the churches — the
more its chivalrous impulses are felt, the more token is there
that the Spirit of God has been in powerful and characteristic
operation, and therefore as the true summation or totality of its
various spiritual gifts — a Christian community may be con
gratulated on its love. When Epaphras declared their " love
in the Spirit," he spoke of the result, and from such a result
it was at once inferred what a Divine change had been
wrought, and how the elements of that change had been
surely and successively developed and matured. "He that
dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him."
The reader will easily mark the course of thought. In

20 COLOSSIANS I. 9.
verse 3, the apostle intimates that as he prayed, he gave thanks
for them. Then naturally he tells the reason, but the telling
of the reason in full prevents him from recording at once what
formed the theme of his prayer. Now, however, in verse 9,
he reverts to the contents of his supplications, and he says that
he asked from God, for the Colossians, blessings fitted for
mind, heart, and conduct, — a higher degree of knowledge,
holiness, usefulness, persistence, and strength — all of them at
once gifts of present possession, and elements of preparation
too for future blessedness — all of them provided by the Father,
and enjoyed by those who have been translated into the king
dom of His Son.
(Ver. 9.) Aid tovto ko.1 17/iEic, d<f rig rjfilpag riKovaafXEV, ov
iravofxtQa virip vfiwv irpocrEoxo/HEVoi, Kal alrovfievoi — " On this
account, we too, since the day we hedrd of it, cease not
praying and asking." Aid tovto — on this account, because ye
know the grace of God in truth — because such are your con
dition and prospects — because of the faith which sustains you,
the love which glows within you, the blessed hope laid up for
you, and the verdant fertility which characterizes you, and sets
its seal on the genuineness of your Christianity. Kai ri/ieig —
" we too," we on our part. There is no reason, with De Wette,
for subjoining the Kal to Sid tovto and rendering "on this
account, indeed." The phrase a^' r)g r)fiipag not only refers to
verse 8, but carries us back to verse 4. The receipt of the
intelligence produced immediate result, and led to prayer.
The report did not lie in dormancy, or slowly wake up the
reciprocal love of Paul and Timothy. The effect was instant
— and it was not spent with a single impulse. From the day
we heard it down to the period of our writing this letter — " we
cease not." This continuous prayer is explained by the beauti
ful remark of Augustine on Psalm xxxvii. — ipsum desiderium
tuum oratio tua est, si continuum est desiderium — continua est
oratio. The verb iravofiEOa is here followed by a participle,
irpooEvxofJiEvoi ko.1 alrov/jiEvoi, and not by the infinitive.
There is indeed a difference of meaning in the two usages,
as the participle expresses an action which already exists.
Winer, § 46 ; Bernhardy, p. 477. [Ephes, i. 1 6.] The dis-

COLOSSIANS I. 9. 21
tinction between the two participles has been variously
understood. But the best mode of characterizing the dif
ference is to regard the one as generalK and the other as
special ; the first is prayer in its ordinary aspect, and the
second is direct request. But it is an error on the part of
Baumgarten-Crusius to say that "va depends upon the last
participle — for irpoaEvxofiai is followed by the conjunction in
Matt. xxiv. 20; Mark xiii. 18 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 13. The phrase
virlp ujuwv belongs also to both participles. What the
special object of supplication was is now made known.
Praying— Iva irXripioOriTE Trjv iirlyvwmv tov BsXrifiarog avTOv —
" that ye may be filled with the knowledge of His will."
[As to this use of i'va, see Ephes. i. 17.] The verb irXnpovv,
like the correspondent term in Hebrew, governs two accusa
tives in the active conjugation, and may therefore govern one
of them in the passive. The genitive is the case oftenest
employed in the New Testament to denote the complement
— that with which the action of the verb is realized. In this
use of the accusative there is no need, with Beza and
Erasmus, to supply Kara. Winer, § 32-5. We cannot agree
with Olshausen, that yvwaig and hriyvtumg have no distinction
in the diction of the apostle Paul. We have shown the true
difference under Ephes. i. 17. The vague definition of Steiger
cannot be sustained ; it is wrapt in uncertainty, and is at best
but a metaphysical subtlety. The idea of Bahr, that iirlyviocrig
is subjective, and yvCiaig is also objective, is only a partial
view. 'Eirlyv. is full knowledge exhaustive of its object, and
is especially meant for those who have already some little
yviotrig. The Colossians had yvwaig, but the apostle wished
them to be filled with additional and supplemental knowledge,
not new knowledge, or a different form or section of Chris
tian science, but a fuller development of the partial theo
logical information which they already possessed. Had he
gently wished them somewhat more of knowledge, he might
have used yviomg, but as he prayed that they might be filled
with more of that insight which they already enjoyed, such an
accumulation was naturally expressed by iirlyviomg.
That augmentation of knowledge had for its theme the Divine

22

COLOSSIANS I. 9.

will. We apprehend that the principal fault of commentators
has been to restrict too much the meaning of the phrase, " His
will." Chrysostom, and the Greek Fathers (Ecumenius and
Theophylact, followed by Huther, refer it to the plan of
redemption — especially salvation by Christ, not by angels —
tovte(iti to tov vibv SoOrjvai virlp 17/xwv. Others refer it to
the secret purpose of God — such as Suicer and Bahr, and that
because it is elsewhere accompanied by juvarjjptov. A third
and numerous party understand the legislative will of God —
the ethical feature of the Divine counsel, such as Theodoret,
De Wette, and Meyer. We are inclined to take the phrase
without any restriction — the Divine will as well in creed as in
moral obligation ; the one basis alike of what we ought to
believe and of what we ought to do ; the only rule of faith
and manners. 1 Cor. i. 4, 5, 7 ; ii. 12 ; xii. 8 ; Ephes. i. 17.
The apostle implored for them a complete knowledge of the
Divine Will in all its revealed aspects and elements —
'Ev 7rao^j <TO(f>lq, Kal avviaEi WEVfiaTiKy — "In all wisdom
and spiritual insight." Some join the clause to the follow
ing verse, but without any necessity. The preposition does
not signify " along with," nor does it, as Boehmer thinks,
define the result. Nor does it mean, as Bahr takes it, "by
means of;" nor does it, as Huther supposes, point out the
quality of the knowledge. It seems to refer us to the mode
of its acquisition — " in all wisdom and understanding." The
prayer was not one for plenary inspiration — nor that God
would by some dazzling self-discovery imbue them with a
knowledge of His will, but that He would give them this
higher spiritual science in the way of giving them all spiritual
wisdom and understanding. These two nouns are not easily
comprehended in their specific shades of difference. As a
specimen of the scholastic forms of definition, we present that
of Peter Lombard — Sapientia est habitus infusus ad solius
aetemae veritatis contemplationem et delectationem. Intelligentsia
ad Creatoris et creaturarum invisibilium speculationem.' But, —
1. Not a few, such as Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, and Heinrichs,
regard them as synonymous ; a mode of interpretation too
1 Lib. iii. Distiiictio, xxxv. 2, p. 318. Opera, ed. Migne, Paris, 1841.

COLOSSIANS I. 9. 23
easy to be correct — too slovenly to be in accordance with
accurate philology.
2. Many give <ro<j>la the sense of theoretic wisdom, and
o-vvEaig, the meaning of practical discernment — such as Bahr,
Heinsius, and Calvin.
3. Bengel, Meyer, and Baumgarten-Crusius, think the
nouns related in the sense of general and special, while De
Wette thinks the first term to be practical and general, and
the second, theoretical and special. We are inclined to take
aotjtla in a general sense, and to regard avvEaig irvEvfiaTiKr) as
its characteristic form or peculiarity. For if God fill men with
the knowledge of His will, it is usually by clearing their
spiritual apprehension, and enlarging the sphere of their
spiritual vision. The mind is trained and tutored to the study
of Divine things ; and as the horizon of its view is gradually
expanded in such an exercise, it gathers in "wisdom" — and what
is this wisdom but " spiritual insight? " Let there be intense
practical application of the mental powers ; prolonged reflec
tion ; devout and pensive contemplation ; the inspection and
comparison of premises ; the solution of doubts ; the ascent,
step by step, slowly and surely, to first principles ; the glimpse
of ulterior relations based upon present realities, and conclu
sions drawn from recognized truths ; and surely the mind so
interested and occupied must feel all such acquisitions to be
wisdom — wisdom, and not mere theory to be tested — wisdom,
and not simple hypothesis that may be dismissed. And those
fruits of diligent investigation are not like the coloured
glimpses of a distant reverie which may be dimmed or
exchanged, or may wholly fade away, as the whim of such
imaginational pastime may lazily will it; but they bear at
once upon the nearest of interests, and evince their immediate
connection with the most momentous of relations. Of all
forms of intellectual operation and enlightenment, this is the
most practical — it is " wisdom." God fills the mind, not by
the passive inpouring of transcendental truths, but by directing
and upholding its energies, and so enabling it to work out the
result which it makes its own, and recognizes as "all wisdom."
And this wisdom is really avvsmg irvEVfxaTiKri — spiritual
insight. As we have shown at length under Ephes. i. 3, the

24 COLOSSIANS 1. 10.
prevailing meaning of irvEv/iaTiKog in the New Testament, is
" of, or belonging to the Holy Spirit." Spiritual is not
opposed to carnal, and means not — in connection with the
human spirit, but the phrase signifies discernment conferred
and quickened by the Holy Ghost. This enjoyment of the
Spirit of Light is the special privilege of believers. He dispels
the mists which obscure the inner vision, fills the soul with an
ardent relish for Divine truth and a fuller perception of it,
enables it to see through a perfect medium, and thus confers
upon it that power and perspicacity termed by the apostle
" spiritual understanding." And where this purity and pene
tration of discernment are possessed, and the fruits of such
wisdom are gleaned and garnered up, the mind, in the use of
such a faculty, and the enjoyment of such acquisitions, cannot
but be conscious that it has risen to an ampler knowledge of
the Divine will. The apostle prefixes 7rao-^ — "all." This
wisdom and spiritual understanding are not limited or shri
velled, but may be enjoyed to their utmost bounds.
(Ver. 10.) Il£jOJ7raTijorai vfidg dJZ'ioyg tov Kvpiov — " So that
ye walk worthy of the Lord." 'Yudg appears to be a spurious
but natural supplement, and is omitted by A, B, C, D1, F, G,
though the authorities for it are of no mean value. The
Syriac has a peculiar rendering. It reads in the first clause of
the preceding verse wO»J? y), that ye walk "according to
what is just," and then adds — that ye may please God in all
good works. The apostle, after the verb of prayer, first uses
i'va with the subjunctive, as indicating the prime petition;
then follows TTEpnraTriaai as denoting a contemporaneous
result, and this infinitive is succeeded by a series of dependent
and explanatory participles. The figure implied in the verb
is a common one, and is of Hebrew origin. It describes the
general tenor of one's life, his peculiar gait and progress in his
spiritual journey, what are his companions, and what are his
haunts ; whether he hold on his way with steady step, or is
seduced into occasional aberrations. By Kvpiog is meant
Christ, and not God, as Anselm and Erasmus imagine ; and the
meaning and reasons of the name are fully detailed under
Ephes. i. 2. The adverb d^wc signifies " becomingly." [Ephes.
iv. l.J Rom. xvi. 2 ; Phil. i. 27 ; 1 Thess. ii. 12. To walk

COLOSSIANS I. 10. 25
worthy of the Lord, is to feel the solemn bond of redeeming
blood, to enshrine the image of Him who shed it, to breathe
His spirit and act in harmony with His example, to exhibit
His temperament in its elements of purity, piety, and love, to
be in the world as He was in the world, to be good and to do
good, and to show by the whole demeanour that His law is
the rule which governs, and His glory the aim which elevates
and directs. No meritum condigni can be inferred from the
passage, as Cameron shows against Bellarmine.1
Eic 7rao-av dpiaKEiav — "In order to all-pleasing." The
noun ajOEo-KEta, has, in classic Greek, a bad sense, and means
obsequiousness, but it has a purified meaning in Philo and in
the New Testament.2 The Lord is to be pleased and highly
pleased in everything, for again the apostle prefixes 7ra<rav.
This well-pleasing is not to be sectional, but uniform and
unbounded ; and it is not difficult to please Him. Men are
not left in uncertainty to study the best .. method of insuring
His complacency, nor are there any moods or forms of caprice
with Him. His highest pleasure is to see His own likeness in
those who own His Lordship : in all their thoughts, purposes,
and actions, there should be a pervading and paramount
desire to walk so worthily of Him, as to secure his approval.
Nor does this statement involve any subtle casuistry. What
ever is good in design, generous in sentiment, or noble in
result, meets at once with His approbation. Whatever
proximate motive leads the heart, this should be its pole star,
the bright, prominent, and ultimate guide and director.
'Ev 7ravri ipyi^ dyadq KapiroQopovvTEg. The participles are
in the nominative, and not accusative, as in Ephes. iii. 18.
Kuhner, § 863 ; Winer, § 64 ; Vigerus De Idiotismis, p. 340.
"Fruit-bearing in every good work." This clause is joined
by Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Steiger, to slg irdaav dpia
KEiav. But such a view is too narrow. It is an element of the
worthy walk — and the first of four elements, each specified
by a participle, Kapiro<j>opovvTEg — av^avofisvoi — SvvafiovfiEvoi
— EvxapiaTovvTEg ; two of the participles preceded by a
qualifying noun with iv ; and two of them followed by eic,
1 Myrothecium, p. 263. 2 Athenaeus, Deipnos., lib. vi.

26

COLOSSIANS I. 10.

denoting purpose or result. The first two participles occur
together in verse 6. Spiritual fruitfulness is the first char
acteristic. And those fruits are good works. 2 Cor. ix.
8 ; 2 Thess. ii. 17 ; Heb. xiii. 21 ; Gal. v. 22 ; Phil. i. 11.
[Epya dyaOd, Ephes. ii. 10.] Barrenness is deadness. The
tree with sapless trunk and leafless branches is a melancholy
object. The figure before us is that of a tree covered with
dense foliage, and laden with goodly produce — its boughs
bent with heavy clusters, its crops perennial — buds always
bursting into blossoms, and blossoms forming into fruit. But
the apostle says " every good work." For a third time he
employs iravrl. It is the want of this universality that is the
chief mark of imperfection. This unique tree is omniferous.
Other trees produce each only after its kind, unless altered by
the artificial process of grafting. But this tree presents every
variety of spiritual fruit without confusion or rivalry, as if it
contained the stateliness of the palm, the fatness of the olive,
and the exuberant fecundity of the vine. The graces of
Christianity are, each in its place, adorning and adorned —
none absent and none sickly, but the entire assemblage in
perfect order and symmetry. Superabundance of one kind of
fruit is no compensation for the absence of another. " Every
good work " is inculcated and anticipated. It may be noble
philanthropy, or more lowly beneficence — it may be the self-
denial of a martyr, or the gift of a cup of water to the humble
wayfarer — it may be a deed of magnanimity which startles the
nations, or it may be the washing of a beggar's feet — teaching
its first letters to a ragged orphan, or repeating the story of the
cross in the hovel of poverty and distress. There is no excep
tion — " every good work " which Christ did, and in which any
of His disciples may imitate Him — every good work which
the age needs, or circumstances warrant, or would benefit the
church or the world. Such fruitfulness is not exhaustive.
The tree grows healthfully while its fertility is so great. Its
life is not spent, and its wealth is not impoverished in a single
autumn, but other twigs are preparing for their burden, and
other shoots are evincing the vitality of the parent stock — for
the apostle adds —
Kai av%av6fitvoi eic rrjv iiriyvwaiv toxi Beov — "And growing

COLOSSIANS I. 11. 27
up to the knowledge of God." Other forms of reading are —
lv ry iiriyvwasi and ry iiriyvwaEi. The last seems to be the
best supported by MSS. ; the Versions seem to countenance the
second ; but the first is the most difficult form, and therefore
has been preferred by Tischendorf. Meyer says that elg is
necessary, because each of the two succeeding participles is fol
lowed by this preposition, and analogy demands it here. But
what if we should reply — that to secure uniformity some have
been tempted to write Elg where another preposition originally
stood? A, B, C, D1, E, F, G, and some Minuscules with the
Syriac and Coptic versions, support the simple dative ry iiriy
vwaEi. If the accusative, with elg, be retained, various forms
of exegesis may be proposed. Meyer renders tig hinsichtlich,
in regard to. Theophylact paraphrases Kara to fierpov —
"according to the measure" of the knowledge of God, an
interpretation virtually adopted by Heinrichs and Bohmer. If
the dative, with ev, be received, then the meaning may be as
Theodoret, the Peschito and Vulgate, Beza, Luther, and
Junker, intimate — growing in the knowledge of God, that is,
acquiring more and more of the knowledge of God. But
with Olshausen, De Wette, and Huther, we regard the simple
dative as instrumental — growing "by means of the knowledge
of God," — the knowledge of His essence, character, will, and
dispensations. [See under Ephes. i. 17.] This knowledge of
God, the purest and loftiest of human acquisitions, is the
only pabulum of spiritual growth. A God in shadow creates
superstition, and the view of Him in only one phasis of His
character, will, according to its colour, lead either to fanaticism
or to mysticism. The more we know of His tenderness and
majesty, the more conversant we are with His Divine pro
cedure, either as we find Him in creation, or meet Him in
providence ; and especially the deeper the experience we have
ofthe might of His arm and sympathy of His bosom in redemp
tion, the more will the spirit confide in Him, and the more
will it love the object of its living trust — in short, the more.
spiritual growth will it enjoy. This fruit-bearing and increase
are the first features ofthe worthy and pleasing walk.
(Ver. 11.) The first clause, though its purpose is designated
by the following Elg, has a close connection with the preceding.

28 COLOSSIANS 1. 11.
It describes that peculiar spiritual condition in which believers
bring forth fruit, and grow, and thus walk worthy of Christ.
The power is not indigenous ; the fertility is not the outburst
of innate and essential vitality. It comes from imparted
strength — the might of God lodged within us. As His own
nature is for ever outworking in ceaseless acts of beneficence,
so His strength, lodged in a believer, loses not its original and
distinctive energy.
'Ev irday SvvdfiEi SwafioifiEvoi. This verb occurs only
here in the New Testament, though it is found in the Septua
gint as the representative of two Hebrew verbs, Ps. Ixviii. 29 ;
Ecc. x. 10. Neither does it occur in the classical,1 though it
is used by the ecclesiastical writers. The common form in
the New Testament is ivSwa/iow. The use of the correlate
noun and participle intensifies the meaning. The apostle
refers to the impartation of the Divine strength to believers.
Fallen humanity is feeble, but rises under this gift into prowess
and majesty. The semblance of moral omnipotence is com
municated to it, and it easily surmounts frailty, pain, sorrow,
and death, for the apostle a fourth time employs irday. Philip.
iv. 13. And the measure of this gift is —
Kara rb Kparog Ttjg Bo^rig avrov — "according to the might of
His glory," that is, the might which is characteristic of His glory.
Retaining with Meyer and others the full force of the syntax, we
cannot, with Luther, Junker, Beza, Storr, Flatt, Bahr, and Dave
nant, resolve the idiom thus — His glorious or highest might ;
nor can we with Bohmer make the clause mean — that might
which is His glory ; nor can we with Grotius and Valpy
identify rfje So£r/e with the tF/c laxvog of Ephes. i. 19 ; nor,
finally, can we with Thomas Aquinas and Peter Lombard
understand by His glory " His Son Christ Jesus." The glory
of God possesses a peculiar might, and that might is not
love simply, as Huther imagines. [Ephes. i. 19.] If we
survey the glory of God in creation, the immensity of its
architectural power overwhelms us ; or in providence, its ex-
haustless and versatile energy perplexes us ; or in redemption,
its moral achievements delight and amaze us. If the spiritual
1 Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, Parerga, p. 605.

COLOSSIANS I. 11. 29
strength given to believers be after the measure of the might
of this glory, with what courage and ability shall they be
armed ? Will they not, with so much of God in them, realize
the God-like in spiritual heroism, so as to resist evil, overcome
temptation, banish fear, surmount difficulties, embrace oppor
tunities of well-doing, obtain victory over death, and prove
that they are able to rise above everything before which
unaided humanity sinks and succumbs. " Strengthened " —
Eic iraorav virop.ovr)v Kal fxaKpoOvfilav — "In order to all
patience and long-suffering." These two nouns have been
variously distinguished. The early definition of Chrysostom
is fanciful — fiaKpodv/iEi ydg Tig irpbg EKElvovg ovg Svvarbv Kal
dfjivvaadai, {iirofiivEi Se ovg ov Svvarai dftvvaaOai — " Long-
suffering is exercised toward those whom we can punish,
patience toward those whom we are unable to punish," where
fore, he adds, "patience is never ascribed to God, but long-
suffering often." Others refer the first noun to feeling under
what God sends ; and the second, to feeling under what man
inflicts. A third class understand by the one term the state
of temper under difficulties ; and, by the other, mental
calmness under suffering. But, not to notice other varieties
of opinion,1 we incline to give the words a more extended
signification than to resignation, or quietness under injury.
Both of them and their correspondent verbs are used not
simply in reference to the pressure of present evil, but also to
the prospect of coming deliverance, and as adjuncts or quali
ties of faith, or the life of faith. The following examples may
suffice : — " Bring forth fruit," lv virofisvy, Luke viii. 15 ; " Pos
sess ye your souls," iv iiro/j.. Luke xxi. 19 ;' "Well-doing," ko0'
iirofi. Rom. ii. 7 ; "Let us run the race," Si iirofi. Heb. xii. 1 ;
or again, Heb. x. 36, " Ye have need of patience." The word
in such places denotes that tenacity of spirit which still holds
on, and perseveres, and waits God's time for reward or dis
missal. There is similar usage also of the second noun. Its
verb is used to denote the same exercise of mind, Matt, xviii.
26, 29 ; Heb. vi. 15 ; James v. 7, 8 ; and the substantive in
Heb. vi. 12 ; 2 Tim. iv. 2. There is no reference in this
1 Tittmann, De Synon. N. T. p. 194,

30

COLOSSIANS 1. 11.

epistle either to persecution or to coming calamity. _But
believers in the present state are not perfect, they have not
arrived at the ultimate goal. Impatience would lead to defec
tion, and fretfulness to apostacy. There is rest set before
them, but they have not reached it ; hopes held out, but their
fruition has not come. It is more trying to virtue to bear
than to act ; or, as a-Lapide says, fortia agere Romanum est,
aiebat Scaevola, sed fortia pati Christianum est. Now, Chris
tians are apt to faint under such discouragements, to lose heart
and despond. Therefore do they need " patience and long-
mindedness;" and because these graces dwell not in their
unassisted nature, the apostle prays that the strength of God
be for this purpose imparted to them. Even in their beneficent
fruitfulness there may be a long and trying process ere the
result be witnessed. In the midst of apparent anomaly and con
tradiction, with so much to distress and disappoint, so much to
try and provoke, so much to tempt a prayer for the immediate
substitution of sight for faith, there is surely great necessity
for perseverance and unruffled equanimity ; and because
temper fails under such irritation, as it did with Moses and
Elisha, and there are dark and inconsistent questionings and
surmises, as if He were " slack concerning His promise," a
higher power is vouchsafed, even the strength of Him whose
patience and long-suffering transcend all measurement and
description. And thus " all patience and long-suffering " are
possessed, and for a fifth time, in the fulness of his heart, the
apostle writes irdaav. As the Colossian church was pestered
with insidious errorists, whose speculations might occasionally
perplex and confound them, immobility was the more requi
site for them ; and such, therefore, is the apostle's supplication
in common with the sentiment ofthe prophet — "In quiet
ness and confidence shall be your strength."
Meto. xaP<*g — " With joy." A large number of expositors
join these words to the following participle — EvxaptarovvrEg.
Of this opinion are Chrysostom, (Ecumenius, and Theophylact,
Estius, Bohmer, Huther, and Meyer, the Syriac version, and
the editors Lachmann and Tischendorf. But we do not see
any propriety in such a connection, for the participle carries
the idea of joy along with it. The preposition, moreover,

COLOSSIANS I. 12. 31
indicates a connection with the preceding nouns, or shows the
concomitant of this imparted power ; and therefore, with
Luther, Grotius, Zanchius, Hyperius, Gomarus, De Wette,
Bahr, Baumgarten-Crusius, Junker, Steiger, and Olshausen,
we keep the words as they stand in the Received Text. This
joy characterizes, or rather accompanies, as the preposition
implies,1 the graces of patience and long-suffering. That
peculiar position which necessitates the exercise of patience
and long-suffering should not induce despondency, or cast a
gloom over the heart as if it were inevitable fate, to be sul
lenly submitted to, but rather should there be joy that this
Divine power is communicated, and that the mind is upborne
in triumph, and enabled to hope and wait in quiet expectation.
And there are abundant reasons of joy.
(Ver. 12.) EvxapiarovvTEg r$ irarpl. There are some
variations of reading which need not be noted or analyzed.
Codices, D1, and G, read KaXio-avrt, instead of 'iKavwaavrt,
perhaps from 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; while B reads KaXlaavri ko.1
iKavwaavn, a form erroneously adopted by Lachmann.
But with what portion of the previous context should this
verse be connected? Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, Calo-
vius, Bohmer, and Baumgarten-Crusius, refer the connection
to ou iravofiEOa, as if £vxal°- referred to Paul and Timothy, the
writers of this epistle and the offerers of this prayer. " Since
the day we heard it we cease not to pray for you .... giving
thanks to the Father." But such a connection is wholly
capricious and unwarranted, and would make the two preced
ing verses a species of parenthesis. The natural order is to
regard EvxapiarovvrEg as co-ordinate with the preceding par
ticiples KapirofopovvrEg, av^avofiEvoi, SwafiovfiEvoi, and as all
four dependent on the infinitive irEpnrarriaat — that ye may
walk, fruit-bearing, growing, strengthened, and giving thanks.
And there is a beautiful sequence of thought. The apostle
prayed that they might walk in immediate spiritual fertility
and growth; amidst difficulties, strengthened into patience
with joy.; and such joy is no romantic enthusiasm, for itis
based upon experience, inasmuch as even during this imper-
1 Commentary on Ephesians, p. 464, note.

32 COLOSSIANS I. 12.
feet and unsatisfactory state, they were warranted to thank
Him who was qualifying them all the while for the heavenly
inheritance. From the visible and outward manifestation of
fruit as a present and characteristic duty, the apostle ascends
to internal and sustaining sentiment, and rises yet higher to
that gratitude, which, based upon a growing maturity for
heavenly blessedness, expresses its ardour in thanksgiving to
the Father. The future is thus linked with the present, and
sheds its lustre over it ; and though the believer be now in a
condition whose intermediate nature necessitates the possession
of patience and long-suffering, his mind feels at the same
time within it the elements of accelerating preparation for a
nobler and purer state of existence.
In the participle iKavwaavri, connected with Ikw — " I reach,
or arrive at," is the idea of fitness — " who hath fitted us," 2
Cor. iii. 6. The pronoun rifidg includes the writer of the epistle
and his readers, and the aorist may denote repeated action,
continued during a past period. The object to which this
fitness relates is described —
Etc Tr)v p&piSa rov KXr)pov rwv dylwv iv r(j> tpaiA — "For
the share of the inheritance of the saints in light." The noun
pisplg, denotes a portion or share which one is to enjoy, and
that share is in the kXjjjooc, or inheritance, so designated from
an allusion to the division and allotment of the land of
Canaan. [Ephes. i. ll.J Both words represent a Hebrew
phrase — $n, %r;, Deut. xxxii. 9. That inheritance has a
peculiar proprietary, or population — it belongs to the saints.1
The saints are neither Jews nor believers of an early date, but
the company of those who are Christ's. [Ephes. ii. 19 ; iii. 18.]
The meaning and connection of the remaining phrase have
been variously understood. We merely notice, without dwell
ing on it, the opinion of some of the Fathers, that by <jiwg is
meant baptism; that of Aretius, that Christ Himself is in
dicated by the term; that of Grotius, that the syntax may be
thus filled — dylwv rwv . ev 0a>ri ; that of Bengel, that ev t$
1 As specimens of eccentric etymology may be quoted two attempts to theologize
upon Syios and sanctus — the former, according to Adam Clarke, being compounded
of a, privative, and yn, " the earth," and of the latter, Isidore the Pelusiot says —
sanctum dici quasi sanguine tinctum.

COLOSSIANS I. 12. 33
iptorl should be joined to fiEplSa — participation in the kingdom
of light, in hoc regno partem beatam.
1. Meyer, and others after Chrysostom, fficumenius, and
Theophylact, with Vatablus, and Schrader, take lv as instru
mental, and join it to iKavojo-avn, and then the meaning will
be — who fits us by means of the light — the illumination of the
gospel, ry yvwaEi.
2. Others, as Macknight, give the same meaning to the
term <(>wg, but with a different connection, the inheritance of
the saints which consists of light, to wit, their present evan
gelical state as in contrast with the darkness of their previous
condition. To both these forms of exegesis we have objections. 1.
The position of ev t$ tj>wrl at the end of the verse seems
to connect it with the KXrjpog, as descriptive of it. 2. The
language of the next verse speaks of a kingdom of darkness,
out of which the Colossians had been translated. Now, the
appropriate contrast is, out of a kingdom of darkness into one
of light — light not being the instrument of translation, but the
special property of the second realm. 3. KXrjpog is often fol
lowed by iv to signify what it consists in. Thus, in the Sep
tuagint — Wisdom, v. 5, 6 KXrjpog iv dyioig; also Job xxx. 19,
¦r) fisplg iv yy ; and in the New Testament, Acts viii. 21; xxvi.
18; Rev. xx. 6. This "light," however, though enjoyed here,
is not meant to describe their present, but their future state-
For the inheritance, though given on earth, is finally enjoyed
in heaven, and therefore, in Ephes. i. 14, the Holy Ghost is
called the "earnest of our inheritance ;" and in the same chapter,
the apostle prays that the Ephesians may comprehend the
riches of the glory of God's inheritance among his saints.
Again he specifies, in the same epistle, v. 5, certain classes of
men who have no inheritance in the kingdom of _ Christ and
God. In Acts xx. 32 ; xxvi. 18 ; 1 Pet. i. 4, the inheritance
is future glory. We apprehend, then, that the apostle means
to say, that God has fitted them for the future inheritance of
the saints, which consists in light. It is too restricted a view
of Bohmer and Huther, to find in Qwg, simply the glory
of heaven — and of Beza and Storr to confine it to the happi
ness of heaven. The expressive epithet suggests both thej>ng ..

34

COLOSSIANS I. 12.

and the other, suggests that knowledge is the concomitant of
happiness, and purity the basis of glory.
For heaven is a region of light. The radiance of Him who
is Light streams through it and envelops all the children of the
light who live and walk in its lustre. A happy and unfailing
intuition, sustained by its vicinity to the Uncreated mind, is
the source of unchequered and perfect knowledge. Intel
lectual refinement is robed " in the beauty of holiness." The
brilliancy of the Divine image is reflected from every stainless
heart, and the material glory of the residence is only sur
passed by its spiritual splendour. That " light" is liable to no
revolution and suffers no eclipse ; it glows with unchanging
permanence, and meeting with no obstruction creates no
shadow. For they are " saints " who dwell in this kingdom —
adorned with purity and perfection. Now such being the nature
of the inheritance, it is not difficult to discover what are the
elements of meetness for it. Man is incapable of enjoying it
by nature; for darkness covers his mind, and impurity has
seized upon his heart, and he must needs be changed. John
iii. 3. He has no loyalty to its God, no love to its Saviour, no
relish for its pursuits, and no sympathy with its inhabitants.
His nature must be brought into harmony with the scene, and
into congeniality with the occupations of such a world of light.
So that every element of mental obscurity, all that tends to the
dark and dismal in temperament, and all that vails the nobility
of an heir of God is dissolved, and fades away in the superior
glory. The "saints" possess it — therefore, their sanctification is
complete. No taint of sin remains, no trace of previous cor
ruption can be discerned. The language of prayer is super
seded by that of praise, and the tongue shall be a stranger for
ever to moaning and confession. None but the saints, as
being " light in the Lord," can dwell in that light. An unre-
generate spirit would feel itself so solitary and so unhappy,
especially as it saw its hideousness mirrored in that sea of
glass which sleeps before the throne, that it would rather
plunge for relief into the gloom of hell, and there for a moment
feel itself at ease among others so like it in punishment and crime.
Again, the one inheritance is shared by many participants,
and they who are to enjoy it are made meet for social inter-

COLOSSIANS I. 12. 35
course. Selfishness vanishes before universal love, the intense
yearnings of a spiritual brotherhood are developed and per
fected, for the entire assemblage is so united as if only one
heart thrilled in their bosom, while one song bursts from
their lips.
In fine, all this moral fitness is a paternal process, the work
of the Father, qualifying his children for their patrimony.
They do not infuse this maturity into themselves — this trans
formation is not a natural process, nor do they ripen of
necessity into purity and love. The Father meetens them:
and from Him are the blood that pardons, the Spirit that
purifies, the truth which nourishes, the hope which sustains, the
charter which secures — the whole preparation which meetens
for the heavenly inheritance. He, therefore, is to be thanked,
by all whose experience assures them of this auspicious train
ing. If they are sensible of growth in truth, holiness, and affec
tion — if they feel that they are travelling from stage to stage of
spiritual assimilation — if their sanctified instincts and suscepti
bilities are finding congruous satisfaction and luxury in spiritual
exercises, then, in spite of every drawback which is inseparable
from their present condition in its trials and wants — they are
only giving utterance to irrepressible emotion when they are
giving thanks "unto the Father."1 Nay, more, the very fact
that a renewal is requisite, and that the present state, by its
ills and emptiness, renders imperative the exercise of patience
and long-suffering, gives a purer relish to celestial enjoyments.
So sudden and vast is the change from expectation to enjoy
ment, and from pain to rapture, that the translated saint will
feel a zest on entering heaven which cannot be tasted by those
who have never had experience of any other state or sphere
of existence. Nor do we deny that in the present state the
inheritance of light is partially enjoyed, for heaven begins on
earth, or as Chrysostom says, the apostle speaks " of things
present and things to come." The translation out of darkness
is effected here, and the dawning of the perfect day is
already enjoyed, though cloud and gloom are often inter
mingled with it, and vail its beams. And when the inheritance
1 Chrysostom well says — Ov povov vpiv ffiuxt rm ripv)v, aWa xai itrxvpovs vrpos ro
Xa/isTv Ivroitttrs.

36 COLOSSIANS I. 13.
is reached, the spirit of this thanksgiving shall still rule the
heart. Conscious of its meetness, it shall pour itself out in
hearty and prolonged halleluiahs. The world of perfection is
a world of universal happiness and song, for no tongue is ever
mute, no harp ever unstrung, and the harmony is never dis
turbed by the mournful echo of a plaintive strain.
The apostle glides insensibly out of the language of prayer
into that of direct theological statement. Still, the statement
is virtually a portion of the prayer, as it describes Him who
in His redeeming love and power imparts the knowledge
of Himself and His revealed will, who confers His own
might upon His people, and prepares them for glory —
the very God who has delivered us out of the kingdom of
darkness. (Ver. 13.) ''Oe ippvaaro t'lfidg iK rrjg i^ovalag rov otko-
roue — " Who rescued us out of the kingdom of darkness."
This verse does not describe . the entire process of prepara
tion, as Meyer seems to think ; it rather gives us a vivid
glance of the two termini — the one of departure, and the other
of arrival. The unregenerate state is described as the king
dom of darkness.1 It is one of spiritual gloom in its
government, essence, pursuits, and subjects. In its adminis
tration it is named — " the power of Satan," in itself it is
darkness — its actions are " works of darkness," and its popula
tion are " children of disobedience and wrath." Luke xxii. 53;
Acts xxvi. 18. It is needless, with Augustine,2 Zanchius,
Bloomfield, and others, to regard i%ovala as personified, and as
meaning Satan. [SkoVoc, Ephes. iv. 18 ; v. 8.] This princi
pality is named " darkness " on account of its prevailing
ethical element. Above it the heaven is shrouded in dismal
eclipse, around it lies dense and impervious gloom, and before
it stretches out the shadow of death. What men should
believe and what they should do, what they should rest on
1 Blackwall, Sacred Classics, vol. ii. 134, proposes to read verses 9 — 12 in a par
enthesis, and as the result of such arrangement, he exclaims— " How round the
period, how vigorous and Divine the sense ! " But such a parenthesis would be a
miserable invention, as it leaves it without an antecedent at all, or absurdly gives it
vrviipan in verse 8.
2 Vol. ii. p. 1216, Op. ed. Bened. Paris, 1836.

COLOSSIANS I. 13. 37
and what they should hope for, what the mind should fasten
on as truth and what the heart should gather in upon itself as
a portion, what the spirit should present as acceptable worship
and what the conscience should venerate as a rule of duty —
all had been matter of deep perplexity or hopeless uncertainty
to the Colossians prior to their spiritual translation. There
were occasionally in the heathen world shrewd guesses
at truth — incidental approximations, when some brighter
intellect unfolded its cogitations and longings. But the
masses were involved in obscurity, and scarcely observed
the fitful glimmer of the meteor which had shot over them.
Ignorance, vice, and misery, the triple shades of this darkness,
held possession of them. This "kingdom of darkness" stands in
contrast to the sainted heritage- in light. The deponent verb,
from an obsolete form,1 signifies, first, to draw to one's self, then
to rescue, to pluck out of danger. The act of deliverance is
still ascribed to the Father, for He alone can achieve the
spiritual transportation described in the following clause.
Kai jU£teotj}(tev slg rrjv fdaaiXElav tov viov rrjg dydirrig
avrov — "And translated us into the kingdom of the Son
of His love." The verb is often employed by the classical
writers to signify the deportation of a body of men, or the
removal of them to form a colony.2 The term is therefore an
expressive one. The Colossians had been lifted out of the
realm of darkness, their original seat and habitation, and they
had been carried into the kingdom of His Son, and colonized
in it. They were not as emigrants in search of a home, nor
as a company of dissatisfied exiles, but they were marched
out of the- one territory and settled in the other expressly by
Divine guidance. /3ao-iXEia stands in contrast with i%ovala,
but there appears to be no ground for Wetstein's affirmation,
that in such a contrast, the latter word means a tyranny,3 for
in Rev. xii. 10, the one term is referred to God, and the other
to Christ. "The kingdom of His Son" is plainly that kingdom
which has Christ for its Head and Founder — which is partially
developed on earth, and shall be finally perfected in heaven.
[Ephes. v. 5.] The word "kingdom" is used in harmony with
1 Passow, sub voce; Buttman, Lexilogus, p. 305, ed. Fishlake, London, 1840.
2 Josephus, Antiq. ix. 2, 1. 3 Baphel. Annot. ii. p. 257.

38

COLOSSIANS I. 13.

the action indicated by the verb. As a church, men meet
together in its sacred assemblies ; as a kingdom, they are
located as citizens in it. It belongs of right to "His Son." He
founded it, organized it, and rules over it — prescribes its laws,
regulates its usages, protects its subjects, and crowns them
with blessings. It is therefore a kingdom of light, whose
prismatic rays are truth, purity, and happiness. We cannot
say, with Olshausen, that the kingdom is regarded in its sub
jective aspect, for the language is that of objective transference
— change of condition, implying, however, change of character.
This kingdom is one in which the Colossians were, at the
period of Paul's writing to them. It is not the future heaven,
ideally, as Meyer takes it, and in which they were placed only
spe et jure, as Gesner, Keil, Koppe, and others have it. It is
a present state — but one which is intimately connected with
futurity. The one kingdom of God has an earthly and a
celestial phasis. It resembles a city divided by a river,
but still under the same municipal administration, and
having one common franchise. The head of this kingdom is
named —
Tov vlov rrjg aydirrig avrov — " The Son of His love." This
is a solitary appellation. The apostle is about to descant upon
the glory of the Saviour, and therefore he here introduces Him
as the Son. [Ephes. i. 3.] The phrase itself does not really
differ from vlbg dyairrirog, Matthew iii. 17 ; xii. 18 ; xvii. 5 ;
or from the similar idiom in Ephes. i. 6, vlbg dyairrifiEvog. It
signifies the Son who possesses His love — or who excites it in
the Divine heart. The meaning is the same in either case, for
He who possesses the love is the cause of it toward Himself
Sustaining such a relation to the Father, He is the object of
boundless and unchanging affection. This love corresponds to
the nature at once of Him who manifests it and Him who
enjoys it. The love of God to one who is His own Image
will be in harmony with the Divine nature of both — infinite as its
object, and eternal and majestic as the bosom in which it
dwells. This love of the Father to the Son prompted Him to
give that Son as Saviour, and then to exalt Him to Universal
Empire. John iii. 35. Two metaphysical and antagonistic
deductions from this clause may be noted. The first extreme

COLOSSIANS I. 14. 39
is that of Theodore of Mopsuestia,1 who affirms that we are
here taught that Christ is Son, not by nature, but by adoption.
But the apostle is not speaking of the essential relation of the
Son to the Father, but of the emotion which such a relation
ship has created. He does not say how He became the Son,
he only says, that as the Son, He is the object of intense
affection on the part of the Father. The other extreme is that
of Augustine,2 who argues that love indicates the essence or
substance of Deity, out of which the Son sprang. But Love is
an attribute, and not an essence ; it belongs to character, and
not to substance ; it prompts, and does not produce. It is the
radiance of the sun, but not the orb itself- — the current of the
stream, but not the water which forms it. Olshausen's modi
fication of the same hypothesis is liable to similar objections.
Nor do we find sufficient grounds for the inference deduced
by Huther and De Wette, that the phrase, " kingdom of His
Son " implies that the blessing of sonship, or adoption, is con
ferred on all its members, or that they become sons ; for
believers are, in the context, and in harmony with its imagery,
regarded as subjects, and not as children. Nor is God named
our Father in verse 12. Lastly, our rescue and subsequent
settlement are ascribed to God the Father, for His sovereign
grace and power alone are equal to the enterprise — and thanks
again are due to Him.
(Ver. 14.) 'Ev <£ e^OjUEv rrjv diroXvrpwaiv, rr)v dfeaiv tcjv
dfjLapriwv — " In whom we have redemption — the forgiveness
of sins." The words Sid tov a'ifiarog avrov of the Received
Text rest on no good authority, for the entire preponderance
of authorities, manuscripts, versions, and quotations, is against
them. The phrase is an imitation of Ephes. i. 7. Lachmann
reads eo-^ojuev in the aorist, without sufficient grounds. The
apostle could not speak of the Son without a reference to His
redeeming work. The work of the Father has its own aspect,
1 <rOhv xai " vtov aydvrtis " avrov l««Xs<rev* us ov tpvirit rov Tlarpos ovra viov aX&'
ayd-jrn rm vlofaeias d^tuhvra rovruv. — Catena, ed. Cramer, p. 302.
1 Quod autem dictum est filii caritatis suae, nihil aliud intelligatur, quam filii sui
dilecti quam filii postremo substantias suse. Caritas quippe patris, quae in natura
ejus est ineffabiliter simplici, nihil aliud est, quam ejus ipsa natura, atque substantia.
Ac per hoc Alius caritatis ejus nullus alius est, quam qui de substantia est genitus.
— Opera, ed. Bened. vol. viii. p. 1501, Paris, 1836.

40 COLOSSIANS I. 14.
and so has the work of the Son. Our direct change of condi
tion is ascribed to the Father, as the almighty and powerful
dispenser of blessing; but we are said to be united to the
Son, and so to be in Him as to obtain redemption in the union
— for by the price He paid forgiveness of sins is secured and
conferred. This verse, then, does not merely describe a
blessing — the enjoyment of which is indispensable to our
preparation for heaven, and our removal from the realm of
darkness, but it also and especially characterizes a continuous
gift enjoyed by those who are settled in the kingdom of the
Son. The subjects of His kingdom are in vital union with
Him^in Him they are having redemption. Their translation
out of the tyranny of darkness — their place in the new king
dom, and their growing maturity for heavenly bliss are im
plied in this redemption, though its special element is the
forgiveness of sins. Their first condition was one of guilt as
well as gloom, and forgiveness was enjoyed in their emigra
tion from it. Nor are they perfect under the benign reign of
the Son, and as a state of imperfection is so far one of sin, it is
in daily need of repeated pardon. The results of Christ's
work are fully enjoyed only in heaven — the process of re
demption is there completed, and thus we are said still to be
having it as long as we are on earth. The entire verse has
been fully illustrated under Ephes. i. 7. The difference of
diction is unessential, dfiapriwv being employed in Colossians,
and irapairrwjxaTwv in the Epistle to the Ephesians. One
question not alluded to there may be here noticed, and that
is, why forgiveness occupies in both places so prominent
a place ? It stands as an explanation of redemption, not as if
it included the whole of it, but because —
1. It is a first and prominent blessing. So soon as faith springs
up in the heart the pardon of sin is enjoyed — the results of ex
piation are conferred. This doctrine was placed in the front of
apostolic preaching: Acts v. 31 ; xiii. 38; xxvi. 18; and among
the Divine declarations and promises of the Old Testament, it
occurs with cheering emphasis and repetition : Exodus xxxiv.
7 ; Isaiah xl. 2 ; lv. 7 ; Jer. xxxiii. 8 ; Micah vii. 18 ; Psalm
lxxxv. 2 ; ciii. 3 ; and again and again it is announced as the
result of accepted sacrifice in the Levitical law. And no

COLOSSIANS 1. 14. 41
wonder. So deep is man's guilt, and so tremendous is the
penalty : so agonized is his conscience, and so terrible are his
forebodings ; so utterly helpless and hopeless is his awful
state without Divine interposition, that a free and perfect
absolution from the sentence stands out not only as a blessing
of indescribable grandeur and necessity, but as the first and
welcome offer and characteristic of the gospel of Christ. And
it is no sectional or partial blessing. It makes no distinction
among sins, no discrimination among transgressors. Its cir
cuit is complete, for every sin is included, and it is offered
with unbounded freedom and invitation. No previous qualifi
cation is requisite, and no subsequent merit is anticipated.
And as it is the act of the sovereign judge, who shall arraign
its equity, or by what other authority can it be revoked or
cancelled? Rom. viii. 33, 34.
2. Forgiveness is more closely connected with redemption
than any other blessing, as it is the only blessing enjoyed
immediately from Christ, and as the direct result of His expia
tion. It springs at once from that Xvrpov which forms the
centre and basis of the awoXirpwaig. Other blessings
obtained for Christ's sake are given through some appointed
and dependent medium. Thus, peace is the effect of pardon ;
and holiness is the product of the Spirit and the word, as
agent and instrument. But forgiveness passes through no inter
vention — it comes at once from the cross to the believing soul.
3. It is essentially bound up with subsequent gifts. For
giveness precedes purity — there is change of state before there
is change of heart. The Holy Ghost did not come down till
Christ was glorified — till His expiatory oblation had been
accepted. Being justified, believers are sanctified. The
imputation of righteousness is a necessary pre-requisite to the
infusion of holiness. The Spirit will not take up His abode
in an unpardoned soul, and the sinner's relation to the law
must be changed ere his nature be renovated. At the same
time, pardon and holiness are inseparably associated, and the
remission of trespasses is the precursor of peace and joy, hope
and life. So that, such being its nature, origin, and results,
the apostle naturally places " forgiveness of sins " in apposition
with redemption in Christ Jesus.

42 COLOSSIANS 1. 14.
Haying now spoken of Christ and the blessings secured by
union to Him, the apostle, for obvious reasons, lingers on that
Name, round which crystallized all the doctrines he taught
— all the truths of that theology which it was the one business
of his life to proclaim.
The next verse begins a lofty and comprehensive paragraph,
in which the dignity and rank of Christ are described in
linked clauses of marvellous terseness and harmony. The
apostle introduces the name of the Son on purpose, and then
details in sweeping completeness the glory of His person and
work. There is no doubt that the verses were composed in
reference to modes of error prevalent at Colosse, and the
forms of expression have their special origin, shape, and edge
in this polemical reference. While the writer states absolute
truth in rich and glowing accumulation of sentences, still, the
thought and diction are so moulded as to bear against false
dogmas which were in circulation. It is strange that in any
system of theology the person of Christ should be depreciated,
and His mediatorial work vailed and slighted. The spectacle,
however, is not an uncommon one. Yet the apostles can
scarcely find language of sufficient energy and lustre to tell in
it the honour and majesty of the Redeemer. The sentences
in which Paul describes the rank and prerogative of Christ
are like a bursting torrent, dashing away every barrier in its
impetuous race. How he exults in the precious theme, and
how his soul swells into impassioned panegyric !
We do not know in what precise way the dignity of Jesus
was vilified by the Colossian errorists. It would seem, indeed,
that the germs of Gnosticism and Ebionitism were to be found
in Colosse — denial of Christ's actual humanity, and of His su
preme divinity. The apostle, therefore, holds Him out as the
one Supreme Creator, not only of the world, but of the uni
verse, and declares that reconciliation is secured in the body
of His flesh, through death. Confused notions of the spirit-
world appear also to have prevailed. Jesus was discrowned.
The Lord of the angels was placed among the angels, as if
he had been a selected delegate out of many illustrious com
peers. That He was superhuman may not have been
denied — but that He was truly human was more than

COLOSSIANS 1. 15. 43
questioned. That there had been a being of superior order
upon earth was allowed, but whether as a veritable man he
had blood to shed, and a soul and body to be severed in death
and re-united in resurrection, appears to have been doubted
or denied. Ascetic austerities, and mystical speculations,
took the place of reliance on an objective atonement.1 The
gospel was shorn of its simplicity, and mutilated in its
adaptations, in order to be fitted in to the dogmas, and
announced in the specious nomenclature of a vain theo
sophy. That Jesus, as a celestial being, stood in a certain
relation to God, and bore some similitude to Him, might
be granted — but the likeness was thought to be faint and
distant. The apostle affirms of Him in choice and expres
sive terms, on the other hand, "Who is the image of the
invisible God" —
(Ver. 15.) "Oc iariv eikwv tov Qeov tov dopdrov. 2 Cor.
iv. 4. The clause dazzles by its brightness, and awes by its
mystery. We feel the warning — " Draw not nigh hither, for
the plac*e is holy ground." One trembles to subject such a de
claration to the scrutiny of human reason, and feels as if he
were rudely profaning it by the appliances of earthly erudi
tion. The invisible God — how dark and dreadful the impene
trable vail ! Christ His image — how perfect in its resemblance,
and overpowering in its brilliance ! We must worship whilst
we construe ; and our exegesis must be penetrated by a pro
found devotion.
The relative Se carries us back at once to tiioe, in verse 13,
and in its connection with the intermediate verse it may bear
a causal signification, " inasmuch as He is," &c. Bernhardy, p.
292. The noun eikwv does not require the article, being
clearly defined by the following genitive. Winer, § 18, 2, b.
That this term was a current one in the Jewish theosophy, is
plain from many citations.2 Hesychius defines eikwv by
1 See Introduction.
2 Philo, De Opificio, Xoyov iixova hov, p. 12, Opera i. ed. Pfeiffer, Xoyos tern
tixm hov, De Monarch. Similar expressions are found among the Kabbalists, and
among oriental theosophists, and seem to embody in various forms of disguise and
error a truth which appears to have descended with other fragments of an early
patriarchal time. Kleuker, Zendavesta, i. p. 4. Usteri, Pamlm Lehrb. p. 308.

44 COLOSSIANS I. 15.
XapaKTr/p and rvirog. Chrysostom speaks of it as rb Kara
irdv 'iaov koI 8/ioiov, " a faithful likeness in every thing ; "
and Theophylact describes it as aTrajoaXXoKroc, " without
change." The epithet doparog, as applied to God, refers not, perhaps, to
the fact that He is and has been unseen, but to His invisibility,
or to the fact that He cannot and will not be seen. John i.
18; Rom. i. 20; 1 Tim. i. 17. Perhaps the Great God remains
concealed for ever in the unfathomable depths of His own
essence, which, to every created vision is so dazzling as to be
"dark with excess of light." There needs, therefore, a me
dium of representation, which must be His exact similitude.
But where shall this be found ? Can any creature bear upon
him the full impress of Divinity, and shine out in God's stead
to the universe without contraction of person or diminution of
splendour ? Could the Infinite dwarf itself into the finite, or
the Eternal shrink into a limited cycle ? May we not, there
fore, anticipate a medium in harmony with the original ? The
lunar reflection is but a feeble resemblance of the solar glory.
So that the image of God must be Divine as well as visible —
must be bfioovaiog — of the same essence with the original. A
visible God can alone be the image of God, possessing all the
elements and attributes of His nature. The Divine can be
fully pictured only in the Divine. The universe mirrors the
glory of "God, but does not circumscribe it. His " invisible
things " assume a palpable form and aspect in the objects and
laws of creation. Man is made in the image of God — in. his
headship over the earth around him, he is "the image and
glory of God " — but he was only a faint and fractional minia
ture, even in his first and best estate, and now it is sadly
dimmed and effaced. But Christ is the image of God — not
aKia — a shadowy or evanescent sketch which cannot be
caught or copied, but eikwv, a real and perfect likeness — no
feature absent, none misplaced, and none impaired in fulness
or dimmed in lustre. The very counterpart of God He is.
Now, this Image of God is not Christ in His Divine nature,
or as the eternal Logos, as Olshausen, Huther, Bahr, Usteri,
and Adam Clarke, and many of the Fathers, suppose, for the
apostle is speaking of the Son, and of that Son as the author

COLOSSIANS I. 15. 45
of redemption and forgiveness of sin. It is, therefore, Jesus
in His mediatorial person, that the apostle characterizes as
being the image of God. For it is a strange notion of Chry
sostom, and some of his followers, such as Clarius, that as
invisibility is a property of God, it must also be a property of
His image, if that image be an undeviating similitude.1 Our
Lord Himself said, even when He dwelt upon earth robed in
no mantle of light, and with no nimbus surrounding His
brow, " he who hath seen me hath seen the Father." Visibility
is implied iii the very notion of an image. The spirit of the
statement is, that our only vision or knowledge of the Father
is in His Son. " No man knoweth the Father but the Son,
and he to whom the Son shall reveal Him." The Socinian
hypothesis, advocated even by Grotius and Heinrichs, that
only because He revealed so fully the will of God is He
called the image of God, is far short of the full meaning,2
though as the "image" shines upon us we look and learn. To
Him, as " Angel of the Presence," we are indebted for those
glimpses of the " eternal power and Godhead " which creation
discloses — those glimpses of sovereignty throned upon bound
less power, fathomless wisdom, and unwearying goodness,
which are presented by the universe above us and around us.
The elements of the Divine nature and character which are
mirrored out to us in providence are derived from the same
source. Christ, as Creator and Preserver, is the palpable
image of God. In this aspect, it is not visibility of person
that can be maintained, but the embodiment of attribute in
visible result, as in Rom. i. 20, where it is said, " the invisible
things " of the Creator are " clearly seen."
But especially in Himself and as Redeemer is He the repre
sentative of God. His prophetic epithet was "Immanuel, God
with us." In His incarnate state He brought God so near us as
to place Him under the cognizance of our very senses — men saw,
and heard, and handled him — a speaking, acting, weeping, and
1 Bengel says — Invisibilis imago secundum naturam divinam ; visibilis secundum
humamm. 2 Dr. Owen says — " Were He not the essential image of the Father in His own
Divine person, He conld not be the representative image of God unto us as He is
incarnate." — Christologia, p. 78, Works, vol. i. Edin. 1850.

46

COLOSSIANS I. 15.

suffering God; He was, as Basil terms it, eikwv Zwaa,1 a living
image. He held out an image of God in the love He displayed,
which was too tender and fervent, too noble and self-denying, to
have had its home in any created bosom — in the power He put
forth, which was too vast to be lodged in other than a Divine
arm, and also in His wisdom and holiness, and in those blessed
results which sprang from His presence. When he moved on
the surface of the billows, did not the disciples see a realiza
tion of the unapproachable prerogative of Him " who treadeth
upon the waves of the sea ? " When the crested waves were
hushed into quiet, as He looked out upon the storm and
spoke to it, His fellow-voyagers felt that they had heard the
voice of Divinity. When the dead were evoked by His touch
and word from their slumbers, the spectators beheld the energy
and prerogative of Him who says of Himself, " I kill and I
make alive ; I wound, and I heal." When the hungry were
satisfied with an immediate banquet in the desert, the abun
dance proved the presence of the Lord of the Seasons, who,
in the process of vegetation, multiplies the seed cast into the
furrow " in some thirty, in some sixty, and in some an hun
dred fold." In those daily miracles of healing was there not
manifest the soft and effective hand of Him who is "abundant in
goodness ?" and in those words of wondrous penetration which
touched the heart of the auditor was there not an irresistible
demonstration of the Divine omniscience ? Still, too, at the
right hand ofthe Majesty on high, is He the visible administrator
and object of worship. Thus, "the Son of His love" is a visible
image of the invisible Father, not the " copy of an image "2 —
distinct from Him, and yet so like Him, making God in all His
glorious fulness apparent to us — showing us in Himself and
His works the bright contour and likeness of the invisible
Jehovah. This glory is not merely official, but it is also essen
tial, not won, but possessed from eternity. 0 the grandeur of
that redemption of which He is the author, and the magni
ficence of that kingdom of which He is head ! Not only is
He the image of God — but the apostle adds —
1 Contra Eunom, p. 28.
2 Tlapdhiypa elxovos, Epiphanius, Haeres, Ixv. See also Dorner, Lehre von der
Person Christi, &c. Berlin, 1852.

COLOSSIANS I. 15. 47
IIpwtotokoc irdarig Krlaswg — " The first-born of every
creature." [7ra<rric, Ephes. ii. 21.J The meaning of this
remarkable phrase is not easily discovered to our entire
satisfaction. Only, it is clear, from the previous clause, and
from the succeeding verse, that the apostle cannot mean to class
Jesus Himself among created things. It is an awkward
expedient on the part of Isidore,1 Erasmus, Fleming,2 and
Michaelis, to propose to change the accentuation irpwro-
roKog, and by making it a paroxyton, to give it the sense of
first-producer. But the term, with such a meaning, has only
a feminine application,3 and it cannot bear such a sense in the
eighteenth verse.
1. Many of the Fathers, and not a few of the moderns under
stand the epithet as denotive of the generation of the Logos, or
Divine Son. Thus, in GScumenius occurs the phrase yEvvrj&ie
avvdiSlog, "begotten co-eternally," and Chrysostom says of
Him — Osbg yap Kal Beov vlbg. Athanasius describes Him —
drpEiTTog iS, drpEirrov, "the unchangeable from the unchange
able," a statement preceded by another to this effect — 6 Se vlbg
fiovog ek roti irarpbg 'at'Stoc iyEvvr)Bri.i Theophylact puts the
question — " first-born of every creature, how ? " and Siu
yEvviiaEwg is his reply. Tertullian, too, uses similar phrase
ology — primogenitus ut ante omnia genitus ; and again, primo-
genitus conditionis, i.e. conditorum a Deo.5 Ambrose writes —
primogenitus, quia nemo ante ipsum, unigenitus, quia nemo post
ipsum.6 We cannot readily accept the interpretation, though
defended by Calovius, Aretius, Bahr, Bohmer, von Gerlach,
and Bloomfield, &c. As Bengel admits, it makes the genitive
irdarig KrlaEo)g depend on irpwrog in composition. The syntax
is not impossible, as with the simple adjective, Johni. 15, 30, but
the following similar phrase— 7rpwroroKoe Ik rwv vEKpwv, shows
l Ep. iii. 31 — Ov orpurov rtjs xriesas . . . akka orpurov nroxivat .... 'Iva
% rpirvis evWafins o^vpsvm, us Trpuroxriervs-
2 Christology, i. p. 216.
8 Homer, Iliad, xvii. 5. So Thomas Magister — Wpuroroxos a vpurus rixhis,
vrpurorbxog- Se pvtrn^, « trpurus rt^xea. #
4 Expositio fdei, i. p. 242. Vide Suicer's Thesaurus, sub voce, orpuroroxos.
5 Adversus Prax. u. 7. Adversus Marc. v. 19, pp. 660, 330, vol. ii. Opera, ed.
Oehler, Lipsiae, 1854.
8 De Fide, xiv. 89, Opera, vol. ii. p. 550, ed. Migne, Paris, 1845.

48 COLOSSIANS I. 15.
that such an exegesis cannot here be adopted, for it is plain that
it cannot mean " begotten before all the dead." The compari
son there is not one of time even, as Meyer erroneously takes it
— but one of rank. The sense assigned by this class of critics is,
that Christ was the begotten of the Father, and became His
Son prior to the work of creation. But we doubt if this be
the form of truth intended by the apostle, for we should have
expected the noun vlog, or some other term denoting relation
ship to have occurred in the clause. Christ is called irpwro-
roKog, in reference to His mother, but never in connection
with His Divine Father, in any place where any semblance of
the doctrine of eternal filiation is referred to, and in such a
word derived from tIktw, the reference is to maternal, not to
paternal origin.
2. The antagonist exegesis is that of the Arians and Socin
ians, which presumes that Christ is, in this phrase, classed
as a portion of creation. Even Athanasius, in his second
discourse against the Arians, admits that Christ has got the
name Sid rr)v 7roXXwv aS£X<j>oiro(riaiv. A common argument
in favour of this exegesis is, that where this epithet is used,
it is implied that he who bears it is not only compared with
others, but is one of them. Thus, in the phrase "first-born
among many brethren," the inference is, that the first-born is
one of the family, though his rank be pre-eminent ; and in
the phrase " first-born from the dead," Jesus is plainly re
garded as having been one of the dead Himself, though
He now be exalted abbve them. So that the deduction is, if
He is called the "first-born of every creature," then He is,
in the comparison, and from a necessary bfxoyivEia, regarded
as one of the creatures. Why then, is it confidently asked,
shrink from such a conclusion ?
We might give the reply of Basil to Eunomius,1 who had
adopted such an exegesis — " if He be called the first-born of
the dead, because He is the cause of their resurrection, then,
by parity of argument, he is the First-born of the whole
creation, because He is the cause of its existence." Theodoret
1 'Ei Se ftpororoxos vsxpSv tfpnrxi, hot ro a'irios stvui rUs lx vixpuv avasrdesus,
olru xai orpuroroxos xrteius, tta ro x'lrios Civm rov IS; ovx ovruv sis to sTvai vrapa-
yayilv rr)v xrieiv. — Lib. iv. Opera ii. p. 204.

COLOSSIANS I. 15. 49
puts the question — if He is only-begotten, how can He be
first-begotten ; and if first-begotten, how can He be only-
begotten? And he guards against the Arian inference by
adding — 7T|Owr6YoKOc ovx wg dSEXtjtrjv e;(wv rr)v Krlaiv, that is,
He cannot have a brotherly relation to the creation, and be at
the same time its maker. The ancient critics also observe
that the epithet employed by the apostle is not 7rpwroKrto-roc,
first-created. Besides, in the cases in which the term 7rpwro-
tokoc marks him who bears it, as one of a class referred to, such
a class is usually expressed in the plural number, as in the
18th verse, and Rom. viii. 29 ; Rev. i. 5, but the apostle does
not here say rwv Kriafidrwv.
Yet, even assuming for a moment the Socinian hypothesis,
we would not be nonplussed. We reckon it very wrong on
the part of Usteri1 to translate the Pauline term by Erstge-
schaffene, "first-created," and it is easy to see what must be the
theological conclusions drawn from such a rendering. An-
selm explains that the words apply to Jesus only as man,
for as God he is unigenitus non primogenitus. Now, we
have shown that the preceding clause, "image of the in
visible God," implies Christ's divinity, and we might say with
Anselm that this refers to His humanity. That body was
created by the Holy Ghost — it was a creature, and still is so, as
we believe. Though on the throne, it is not deified — is not so
covered nor interpenetrated with divinity as to cease to be a
humanity. Nay, the last and loftiest prerogative is to be
exercised by the "man whom He hath ordained," so that
even with this construction we are under no necessity to
adopt the Arian or Socinian hypothesis. If in the former
clause, there is express proof of Christ's divinity, in the
latter there is no less assertion of his real humanity, a
humanity which stands out in special pre-eminence over the
entire creation, as its Lord and proprietor.
3. Our own view is a modified form of that which takes irpw-
roroKog in its figurative meaning of chief or Lord — " begotten
before all creation." This view is held by Melancthon,
Cameron, Piscator, Hammond, Rb'ell, Suicer, Cocceius, Storr,
1 Lehrb. p. 315. Holzhausen, in his reply to Schleiermacher in the Tvibimg.
Zeitschrift, 1833, uses similar unguarded language. E

50

COLOSSIANS 1. 15.

Flatt, De Wette, Pye Smith, Robinson, and Whitby. Theo
dore of Mopsuestia1 held the same opinion — ovk iirl xp°vov
XiyErai fiovov dXXd yap Kal iirl irporifiriaEwg — but he under
stood by Krlaig, the new creation. The famous Photius, of the
ninth century, in the 192d question of his Amphilochia, has
given a similar view, referring, however, the phrase to His
human nature, and His resurrection from the dead.2 Some
critics conjoin both the first and second views. We apprehend
that the apostle selects the unusual word for a special reason.
It seems to have been a prime term in the nomenclature of
the Colossian errorists, and the apostle takes the epithet and
gives it to Him to whom alone it rightfully belongs. Traces
of the same idiom are found in the Jewish Kabbala — in which
Jehovah himself is called the " first-born of the world," that
is in all probability, the Divine representative of essential and
immanent perfection to the world.3 Thus the first heavenly
man was called Adam Kadmon — the first-begotten of God —
He who is Messiah and the Metatron of the burning bush.
Not that Paul merely borrowed his language, but the terms
which the errorists were perverting, he refers to Jesus in
their full truth and legitimate application. In a similar theo
logical dialect, Philo names the Xoyoc by the epithet irpwro-
yovog.4. The diction of the Old Testament in reference to the
Hebrew iia? is in harmony, and is based upon the familiar
rights and prerogatives of human primogeniture. The Hebrew
adjective is applied to what is primary, prominent, and the
most illustrious of its classus, Job xviii. 13 ; " first-born of
death " — alarming and fatal malady, Isaiah xiv. 30, " first-born
of the poor " — a pauper of paupers. Still more, we find the
term in the Messianic oracle ofthe 89th Psalm — "I will make
him my first-born" — will invest him with royal dignity, and
clothe him with pre-eminent splendour, so as that he shall tower
in majesty above all his kingly compeers. Israel elevated
above the other nations, brought into a covenant relation, and
reflecting so much of the Divine glory, is Jehovah's first-born,
Exodus iv. 22, Jeremiah xxxi. 9. The church of Christ,
1 Catena, ed. Cramer, p. 306. 2 Wolf, Ourae, vol. v. 800.
3 Schoettgen, Horae Heb. i. 922.
* De Confusione Limg. p. 881, vol. ii. opera, ed. Pfeiffer.

COLOSSIANS I. 15. 51
blessed and beloved, and placed nearer the throne than angels,
is the " church of the first-bom," Heb. xii. 23. And when
believers are regarded as sons — as a vast and happy brother
hood — He who loved them, and died for them, who has won
for Himself special renown in their adoption, and has im
printed his image on all the children, stands out as chief in
the family, and is "the first-bom among many brethren,"
Rom. viii. 29. Again in Heb. i. 6, Jesus receives the same
appellation, inasmuch as the spirits of the heavenly world are
solemnly summoned to do Him homage as his Father's repre
sentative.1 Moreover, when He is styled, as in the 18th verse,
and in Rev. i. 5, " the first-born of the dead," the reference is not
to mere time or priority, but to prerogative, for He is not
simply the first who rose, " no more to return to corruption,"
but his immortal primogeniture secures the resurrection of his
people, and is at once the pledge and the pattern of it. The
genitive then' may be taken as that of reference. Bernhardy,
p. 139. The meaning therefore is, "first-born in reference to the
whole creation." The phrase so understood is only another
aspect of the former clause. The first-born was his father's
representative, and acted in his father's name. Christ stands
out as the First-born, all transactions are with Him, and they
are equivalent to transactions with the Sovereign Father.
The Father is invisible, but the universe is not left without
a palpable God. Its existence and arrangements are His,
and the supervision of it belongs to Him. He is the God who
busies Himself in its affairs, and with whom it has to do. He
is its First-born, its chief and governor. As the first-bom of
the house is he to whom its management is entrusted, so the
First-born of the whole creation is He who is its governor and
Lord, and whose prerogative it is to exhioit to the universe
the image and attributes of the unseen Jehovah. He is
manifested Deity, appearing, speaking, working, ruling, as in
patriarchal times when he descended in a temporary humanity,
and held familiar discourse with the world's "grey fathers,"
1 Bleek, m loc. Der Brief an die Eebraer erlautert, Berlin, 1836. It may
be added that under the Eoman law, haeres and dominus were interchangeable terms,
and to compare great things with small, in one of the Hebrides it was the custom for
the head of the clan to abdicate when his son came of age. — Boswell's Tour, p. 261.

52

COLOSSIANS I. 16.

and as under the Mosaic economy, of whose theocracy He was
the head, of whose temple He was the God, and of whose
oracles He was the inspirer. Now He is exalted to unbounded
sovereignty, as " Lord of all," rolling onwards the mighty and
mysterious wheels of a universal providence, without halting
or confusion; seated as His Father's deputy on a throne of
unbounded dominion, which to this world is its tribunal of judg
ment — wearing the name at which every knee bows, "of things
in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth "
— the acting President of the universe, and, therefore, " the
First-born of every creature." His Father's love to Him has
given Him this pre-eminence, this " double portion,"1 " Thou
art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." It is plainly
implied at the same time that He existed before all creatures,
for he has never stood in any other or secondary relation to
the universe — to the many mansions of His Father's house.
(Ver. 16.) On ev avrcj! iKrlaBri rd irdvra, ra iv roig
ovpavotg Kal ra iirl rrjg yijc- The conjunction on assigns the
reason of the preceding statement. He is first-born of the whole
creation, for by Him "all things" were created — and He is the
image of God, for as Creator he shines out in the "bright
ness of His Father's glory," so that we apprehend it to be a
narrow and confined view to restrict the reference of oti to
the last clause of the previous verse. The phrase rd irdvra,
means " the all " — the universe, the whole that exists. Winer,
§ xvii. 4. The aorist characterizes creation as a past and
perfect work. Creation is here in the fullest and most
unqualified sense ascribed to Christ, and the doctrine is in
perfect harmony with the theology of the beloved disciple,
John i. 3. The work of the six days displayed vast creative
energy, but it was to a great extent the inbringing of furniture
and population to a planet already made and in diurnal
revolution, for it comprehended the formation of a balanced
atmosphere, the enclosure' of the ocean within proper limits,
the clothing of the soil with verdure, shrubs, trees, and cereal
grasses — the exhibition of sun, moon, and stars, as lights in
the firmament — the introduction of bird, beast, reptile, and fish,
1 Deut. xxi. 17.

COLOSSIANS I. 16 53
into their appropriate haunts and elements — and the organiza
tion and endowment of man, with Eden for his heritage, and
the world for his home. But this demiurgical process implied
the previous exercise of Divine omnipotence, for " in the begin
ning God created the heaven and the earth." It is not,
therefore, the wise and tasteful arrangement of pre-existent
materials or the reduction of chaos to order, beauty, and
life, which is here ascribed to Jesus, but the summoning of
universal nature into original existence. What had no being
before was brought into being by Him. The universe was not
till He commanded it to be. " He spake and it was done."
Every form of matter and life owes its origin to the Son of God,
no matter in what sphere it may be found, or with what qualities
it may be invested. " In heaven or on earth." Christ's creative
work was no local or limited operation ; it was not bounded by
this little orb ; its sweep surrounds the universe which is named
in Jewish diction and according to a natural division — "heaven
and earth." Every form and kind of matter, simple or complex
— the atom and the star, the sun and the clod — every grade of
life from the worm to the angel — every order of intellect and
being around and above us, the splendours of heaven and the
nearer phenomena of earth, are the product of the First-born.1
Ta opara Kai rd dopara — "The visible and the invisible."
This distinction seems to have been common in the Eastern
philosophy :z the latter epithet being referred to the abode of
angels and blessed spirits. The meaning is greatly lowered by
some of the Greek Fathers, who thought the term was appli
cable to the souls of men, and by not a few of the moderns,
who include under it the souls of the dead. The meaning is,
what exists within the reach of vision, and what exists beyond
it. The object of which the eye can take cognizance, and the
glory which "eye hath not seen," are equally the "handi
work" of Jesus. The assertion is true, not only in reference
to the limited conceptions of the universe current in the
apostle's days, but true in the widest sense. The visible
portion of the creation consisting of some myriads of stars, is
but a mere section or stratum of the great fabric. In propor-
1 See also on p. 55. 2 Gesenius, de Theolog. Samaritana, p. 20.

54

COLOSSIANS I. 16.

tion as power is given to the telescopic glass, are new bodies
brought into view. Nothing like a limit to creation can be
descried. The farther we penetrate into space, the luminaries
are neither dimmer nor scarcer, but worlds of singular
beauty and variety burst upon us, and the distant star-
dust is found to consist of orbs so dense and crowded as
to appear one blended mass of sparkling radiance. Rays of
light from the remotest nebulae must have been two millions of
years on their inconceivably swift journey to our world. The
nearest fixed star is twenty-one billions of miles from us, so that
between it and us there is room in one straight line for 12,000
solar systems, each as large as our own. From the seraph that
bums nearest the throne, through the innumerable suns and
planets which are so thickly strewn in the firmament, and out
wards to the unseen orbs which sentinel the verge of space —
all is the result of Christ's omnipotence and love.
It is probable, however, that the apostle thought of heaven
proper when he spoke of things invisible, for he adds, as if in
special reference to its population — " whether they be thrones,
or dominions, or principalities, or powers " —
Eite dpovoi e'ite KvpiorriTEg e'ite dpxal e'ite i^ovalai. These
epithets refer to celestial dignities. In Ephes. i. 21, he says
— virspdvw irdarig dpxyg Kal i^ovalag Kal SvvdfiEwg Kal Kvpio-
rrirog. The arrangement is different — the two last terms of
the one are the two first in the other, and KvptoTTji-oe, which
is last here, is second in Ephesians. Gpovoi occurs here, but
SvvdfiEwg is excluded. The "thrones" appear to be the highest,
— chairs of state in humble and distant imitation of the Divine
imperial throne. We need not repeat our remarks made on
this subject under Ephes. i. 21. If we may credit Irenaeus,1
the Gnostics held that another power than Divine created
the celestial hierarchy. Simon Magus said — Ennoian generare
angelos et potestates, a quibus et mundum hunc factum. The
object of the apostle is to show that Jesus is the creator, not
simply of lower modes of being, but of the higher Essences
of the Universe. Yes, those Beings, so illustrious as to be
seated on "thrones;" so noble as to be styled "dominions;"
1 Cont. Eaer. i. 23, § 2 ; vol. i. 238, ed. Stieren.

COLOSSIANS I. 16. 55
so elevated as to be greeted with the title of " principalities ; "
and so mighty as to merit the appellation of "powers:" these,
so like God as to be called " gods " themselves,1 bow to the
Son of God as the one author of their existence, position, and
prerogative. As no atom is too minute, so no creature is too
gigantic for His plastie hand. What a reproof to that
" worshipping of angels " afterwards reprobated by the apostle
— beings who are only creatures, and who themselves are
summoned to do suit and service to the First-born. The sen
tence is, at this point, concluded, but the apostle reiterates —
Ta Travra St' avrov Kal Elg avrov EKrtarai — "All things by
Him and for Him were created." Already the apostle had
said — ev airy iia-laBn rd irdvra. The change of preposition
and tense can scarcely be regarded as accidental, or as intro
duced for the mere sake of varied diction. Chrysostom,
indeed, and many after him, regard iv and Sid as synonymous.
Indeed, the Father says, rb iv avrq, Si avrov iari ; and Usteri
repeats the blunder; while De Wette finds compacted into
iv the double sense of Si avrov and slg avrov. The old school
of Jewish interpretation, represented by Philo and some of the
Kabbalists, held a theory which was adopted by several of the
Fathers, as Origen, Athanasius, and Hilary ; by the mediaeval
divines ; and virtually by Neander, Bahr, Bohmer, Kleuker,
Olshausen, and Kahler. Their notion is, that in the Logos,
and by Him, was the world created — the idea was in Him,
and its working out was by Him. He is both causa exem-
plaris and causa effectiva. " In Him," says Olshausen,
" are all things created, i.e. the Son of God is the intelligible
world, the Koa/iog voijroc, i-e. things themselves according to
the idea of them, He carries their essentiality in Himself;
in the creation they come forth from Him to an indepen
dent existence, in the completion of all things they return to
Him." We cannot, with Cocceius, and others, take ev as
bringing out the idea that the universe was created by the
Father, in the Son. No mention is made of the Father in the
context. We rather hold, with Meyer, "that the act of
creation rests in Christ originally, and its completion is
1 Psalm xcvii. 7.

56

COLOSSIANS I. 16.

grounded in Him." He is not simply instrumental cause, but
He is also primary cause. The impulse to create came upon
Him from no co-ordinate power of which He was either the
conscious or the passive organ. All things were created in Him
— the source of motive, desire, and energy was in Him. He
was not, as a builder, working out the plans of an architect —
but the design is His own conception, and the execution is
His own unaided enterprise. He did not need to go beyond
Himself, either to find space on which to lay the foundation
of the fabric, or to receive assistance in its erection. On
the other hand, the extrinsic aspect is represented by Sid
— the universe is the result of the exercise of His omnipo
tence, or as the Syriac renders, " by His hand." It still stands
out as having been brought into existence by Him. The
aorist carries us back to the act of creation, which had all its
elements in Him, and the perfect tense exhibits the universe
as still remaining the monument and proof of His creative
might. The first clause depicts creation in its origin, and
the second refers to it as an existing effect. In the former, it
is an act embodying plan and power, which are alike "in
Him" — in the latter, it is a phenomenon caused and still
continued " by Him." Winer, § 54 ; 6.
Kai Etc avrov. Not in ipso, as the Vulgate renders, but
" and for Him." This clause marks out His final purpose in
creation. It means not "for Him" as the middle point of
creation, as Bahr and Huther imagine ; nor simply " for His
plan," as Baumgarten-Crusius holds ; nor merely " for His
glory," as Bohmer explains it ; nor with a main view to His
Incarnation, as Melancthon regards it ; nor yet with an
express reference to His Universal Headship, as Grotius and
Storr have maintained. The phrase " for Him " seems to
mean for Him in every aspect of His Being, and every pur
pose of His Heart. He is, as Clement of Alexandria says,
rlXoc, as well as dpxv- Not only is the universe His sole and
unhelped work, but it is a work done by Himself, and especially
for Himself, — for every end contemplated in His infinite wis
dom and love. A man of taste and skill may construct a
magnificent palace, but it is for His sovereign as a royal habi
tation. On the contrary, Christ is uncontrolled, meeting

COLOSSIANS I. 17. 57
with no interference, for His is no subordinate agency defined
and guided by a superior power for which it labours and to
which it is responsible. No license of this nature could be
permitted to any creature, for it would be ruinous to the
universe and fatal to himself. Such a path of uncurbed
operation would astonish all heaven, and soon surprise all hell.
He only " of whom, to whom, and for whom are all things,"
can have this freedom of action in Himself and for Himself.
Had the Divine Being remained alone, His glory would have
been unseen and His praises unsung. But He longed to
impart of His own happiness to creatures fitted to possess it — to
fill so many vessels out of that "fountain of life" which wells out
from His bosom. Therefore Christ fitted up these "all things"
" for Himself," in order that He might exhibit His glory while
He diffused happiness through creatures of innumerable
worlds, and enabled them to behold His mirrored brightness
and reflect it ; that He might occupy a throne of supreme and
unapproachable sovereignty ; and show to the universe His
indescribable grace, which, in stooping to save one of its
worlds, has thrown a new lustre over the Divine holiness,- and
proved the unshaken harmony and stability of the Divine
administration. For this Creator is He "in whom we have
redemption," and this noblest of His works was in certain
prospect when for Himself all things were created — a platform
of no stinted proportions prepared for Him and by Him.
Creation in itself presents an imperfect aspect of God, opens
up a glimpse of only one side of His nature — His brightest and
holiest phase lying under an eclipse ; but redemption exhibits
Him in His fulness of essence and symmetry of character.
And did not Christ contemplate such a manifestation when He
brought into existence so vast an empire to enjoy and adore
the august and ennobling spectacle? Thus His all-sided relation
to the universe is depicted — it is "in Him," "by Him," and
" for Him." Let no one say, He is an inferior agent — the uni
verse was created "in Him ;" let no one surmise, He is but a latent
source — it is " by Him ; " let no one look on Him as another's
deputy — it is " for Him." In every sense He is the sovereign
creator — His is the conception, and Himself the agent and end.
(Ver. 17.) Kai avTOc iariv irpb irdvrwv — "And He is

58 COLOSSIANS I. 17.
before all." The pronoun in the nominative has an emphatic
sense — "and this one" — the creator of all, is before all. Two
meanings have been assigned to the preposition 7rpd.
1. Many take it in the sense of order, or eminence — such
as Noesselt, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schleiermacher,
and, of necessity, the Socinian expositors. There is no need
of this secondary meaning, and the phrase as it occurs in
James v. 12, 1 Pet. iv. 8, does not warrant such an exegesis,
for it occurs in those places as a kind of adverbial emphasis.
2. It naturally means " before all" in point of time — as
Bohmer, Meyer, De Wette, and Huther take it. John i. 30.
When connected with persons, 7Tjoo bears such a primary
meaning always in the New Testament, John v. 7; Rom.
xvi. 7 ; Gal. i. 17. Priority of existence belongs to the
great First Cause. He who made all necessarily existed
before all. Prior to His creative work, He had filled the
unmeasured periods of an unbeginning eternity. Matter is
not eternal — is not the dark and necessary circumference of
His bright Essence. He pre-existed it, and called it into being.
Everything is posterior to Him, and nothing coeval with Him.
And the present tense is employed — " He is," not " He was."
John viii. 58. His is unchanging being. At every point of
His existence it may be said of Him, He is. He is all that He
was, and all that He will be — and comprises in Him the birth
and end of time. Were His existence measured by human
epochs, you might say of Him at some bygone period " He
was " — but the apostle, glancing at His immutability of nature,
simply says, " He is." OEcumenius rightly remarks, that the
apostle writes not iyivEro irpb irdvrwv, aXX' 'ian irpb irdvrwv.
Kal ra irdvra iv avr<j> (tuveotjjke — " And all things in Him
are upheld." Not only is He the creator, but He is also
preserver. Heb. i. 3. The verb sometimes signifies to
arrange, to constitute, to create, but it also denotes to main
tain in existence what has been created. 2 Pet. iii. 5.1 Such
1 Thus we find — Eerodotus, vii. 225, erpxnupa evvserttxos, a standing army; ™
evvtemx'orx, things as at present. Again, Aristotle, de Mund. 6, ix rov hou ra
vravra xxi Sia hov bpiv evviernxt. So also Plato, Pol. 7, &c; Timaeus, p. 29. In
Philo, too, the same meaning is often found, as may be seen in the collected examples
of Eisner, Krebs, Loesner, and Kypke.

COLOSSIANS I. 17. 59
is the view of the Fathers; as GCcumenius paraphrases — Si
avrov rrjv yivsatv Kal rrjv Siafiovt)v £X£t- IlpojUJ}0EiTat wv
iirolriaE. The perfect tense seems to point us to this signifi
cation. What has been created has still been preserved. The
two meanings of the verb meet and merge in its perfect tense.
The ra Travra, in this verse, are those of the preceding clauses,
and not simply the church, as some in timidity and error
restrict it. All things were brought together, and are still
held together in Him. The energy which created is alone
competent to sustain, every successive moment of providence
being, as it were, a successive act of creation. In Him this
sustentation of all things reposes. He is the condition of their
primary and prolonged being. What a vast view of Christ's
dignity ! His arm upholds the universe, and if it were with
drawn, all things would fade into their original non-existence.
His great empire depends upon Him in all its provinces —
life, mind, sensation, and matter ; atoms beneath us to which
geology has not descended, and stars beyond us to which
astronomy has never penetrated. He feeds the sun with fuel,
and vails the moon in beauty. He guides the planets on their
journey, and keeps them from collision and disorder. Those
secret forms of existence which the unaided eye cannot detect
are receiving from Him "their meat in due season." The rain
out of His reservoirs nourishes " grass for the cattle, and herb
for the service of man." The vitiated atmosphere discharged
from animal lungs becomes in His laboratory the source of
special nutrition to vegetable life, and the foul breathings of
forges and manufactories supply with strength and colour the
tall and gorgeous plants of the torrid zone. Thus that universal
balance is preserved, the derangement of which would throw
around the globe the pall of death. Order is never violated,
the tree yields fruit " after his kind," and according to the
original edict. Evening and morning alternate in sure and
swift succession. The mighty and minute are alike to Him
whose supervision embraces the extinction of a world and the
fall of a sparrow. The " creeping things innumerable in the
great and wide sea " look up to Him, and He opens His hand
and " they are filled with good ; " as well the leviathan who is
"made to play therein," as the insect that. builds its coral cell —

60

COLOSSIANS T. 17.

first its dwelling and then its tomb. Every pulsation of our
hearts depends on His sovereign beneficence who feeds us
and clothes us." The intellect of the cherub reflects His light,
and the fire of the seraph is but the glow of His love. All
things which He has evoked into being have their continued
subsistence in Him.
Are we not entranced with the dignity of our Redeemer, and
are we not amazed at His condescension and love ? That the
creator and upholder of the universe should come down to
such a world as this, and clothe Himself in the inferior nature
of its race, and in that nature die to forgive and save it, is the
most amazing of revelations. Dare we lift our hearts to con
template and credit it ? And yet it is truth, most glorious truth;
truth sealed with the blood of Calvary. What sublimity is
shed around the gospel ! The God of the first chapter of Genesis
is the babe of the first chapter of Matthew. He whom Isaiah
depicts as "the Lord God, the creator ofthe ends ofthe earth,"
" who hath measured the waters in the hollow of His hand,
and meted out heaven with the span," is the Christ crucified
of evangelical story and apostolic preaching. He who, in the
pages of Jeremiah, is " the true God, the living God, and an
everlasting king," is in the pages of John the Word made flesh
— the weeping Jesus — the master girded with a towel and
washing His disciples' feet — the sufferer crowned with thorns
and nailed in nakedness to the cross. He who is depicted in
Ezekiel as seated on the sapphire throne, with the rainbow for
its canopy, and the cherubim for its bearers and guardians, is
none other than He whose garments were divided by His
executioners, yea, whose corpse was pierced by the barbarous
arm of a Roman soldier, and probed to the very heart to prove
the reality of His death. He who warned the ancient people
that they " saw no manner of similitude in the day when He
spake to them in Horeb," says at length to a group standing
around Him, "behold my hands and my feet, that it is I
myself, handle me and see." He by whom all things were
made had not " where to lay His head." What faith in power
and ¦ extent should not be reposed in such a Saviour-God !
Surely He who made and who sustains the universe is able to
keep that we "have committed to Him," and will not, from

COLOSSIANS I. 17. 61
inability or oversight, suffer a confiding spirit to sink into
perdition. We have not chosen to interrupt the course of exegesis by
taking notice of the non-natural interpretation which has been
sometimes put upon these verses. The deniers of the Redeem
er's deity, and of necessity such as Crellius, Slichting, and the
editors of the " Improved Version,"1 hold that the creation re
ferred to is not the physical, but a moral creation, — an exegesis
acquiesced in, in some of its parts, by Grotius, Wetstein,
Ernesti, Noesselt, Heinrichs, Schrader, Baumgarten-Crusius,
and Schleiermacher. But, as Whitby remarks, it is a " flat and
mean" exposition; or, as Daille calls it, "chicaneuse glosse."
For— 1. It is contradicted by the paragraph which afterwards,
and that formally, introduces the new or spiritual creation, and
connects it as a sequel with, that other creation which in these
verses the apostle ascribes to Christ. This mode of connection
is a plain proof that two distinct acts, or provinces of operation
and government, are referred to Christ.
2. The obvious meaning of the terms employed is against
the Socinian hypothesis. Had the words occurred in any
common paragraph, their meaning would never have been
doubted. Had the Father been spoken of, the reference to
creation, in its proper sense, would never have been impugned.
Why then, when the reference is to the Son, should not the
first and most natural interpretation be put upon the lan
guage ? Pierce remarks, that the exegesis which adopts the
notion of a spiritual creation would never have been espoused
"but for the sake of an hypothesis." The language in its
words and spirit — its minuteness and universality — leads us to
the first or physical creation. It is a miserable shift of the
editors of the Improved Version to argue " the apostle does not
say by Him were created heaven and earth, but things in
heaven and things on earth." The inspired language is, the
universe — "the all" was created by Him without exception;
1 The views of Photinus, a disciple of Marcellus, in the fourth century, were simi
lar, and were condemned even by an Arian Council at Sirmium, in 351. It is strange
to find Lampe adopting the Socinian exegesis, as in his Commentary on the 45th
Psalm, p. 573.

62 COLOSSIANS I. 17.
" things in heaven," comprising heaven and its population ; and
" things on earth," meaning earth and all that it contains. One
is apt to wonder at the hardihood of such an exegesis, and to
pause and ask with Whitby, " do the angels need this moral
creation, or are they a part of this spiritual creation?" And
how jejune to say, that by "things in heaven" are meant the
Jews, and by " things on earth," the Gentiles. Besides, if we
adopt the hypothesis, that a moral renovation is described by
these words, the paragraph would lead us to suppose that it
had been already effected, and that it still subsisted, whereas
in reality it had only commenced.
3. Such phraseology cannot signify a moral creation. The
verb ktIZ,w has sometimes a secondary sense, and refers to
the new creation. In such cases not only is the meaning
obvious from the context, as in Ephes. ii. 10, 2 Cor. v. 17,
Eph. iv. 24, Col. iii. 10, but also the subjects of the renova
tion are living men already in physical existence ; and there
can be therefore no mistake in calling the mighty moral change
that passes over them a creation. In the paragraph before us,
on the other hand, no such previous condition exists ; all things
are said to be created, — that is, brought into existence by
Christ Jesus. The passages of similar meaning in the Old Tes
tament, as Ps. li. 10, Isaiah xiv. 8, Jeremiah xxxi. 22, &c.
&c, present no difficulty, for they carry with them the prin
ciple of their own solution. Such phraseology as that before us
occurs not in any of these places ; and in one of them where
there is similar diction, ambiguity is guarded against by the
addition ofthe epithet "new," — "I create new heavens and a
new earth."
Lastly, as Whitby,1 Dr. Pye Smith,2 and Burton3 have shown,
the early Greek Fathers unanimously understood the passage
of a " proper and physical creation." The Socinian interpreta
tion, in short, is as repugnant to sound exegesis as the trans
parent trick of Marcion was to ordinary honesty, when, ac
cording to Tertullian, he omitted in his edition the verses
1 See also Pearson on the Creed, p. 166, vol. i. ed. Oxford, 1847.
2 Scripture Testimony, iii. 273.
3 Testimony of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ. (Passim), Oxford,
1837.

COLOSSIANS I. 18. 63
altogether. The perversion of them is not better than the ex
clusion of them; nay, the latter has the merit of a direct avowal
of inability or reluctance to explain them. They, however,
survive as a bright and glorious testimony to Him who is the
" True God and eternal life."
A similar assault upon the natural meaning of the paragraph,
and which created no small stir, was made by Schleiermacher1
in the third number of the Studien und Kritiken, 1832. His
exegesis in its general principles and minute details is opposed
alike to sound philology and to the context. His affirmation
that ktIZeiv is never used in Hellenistic Greek of creation pro
per, is contradicted by Wisdom 114, &c. ; Rev. iv. 11 ; x. 6.
His attempt to connect 7rporoYoKOc as an adjective with the
preceding eikwv is another failure clearly proved, by the verbal
arrangement. How frigid to confine the phrase, " visible and
invisible," to the last half of the previous clause — " things on
earth." Somewhat more spiritual and ingenious than the
Socinian hypothesis, this exegesis of Schleiermacher leads to
the same unsatisfactory result. It was answered by Osiander
in the same journal, 1833 ; and by Holzhausen in the Tubing.
Zeitschrift, 1833 ; by Bahr in an appendix to his Commentary;
and by Bleek in his Exposition of Hebrews i. 3.
(Ver. 18.) Kai avrog iariv r) KE(jtaXr) tov awfiarog, rrjg ek-
KXrjo-iac- — " And He is the head of the body, — the Church."
The latter genitive is in apposition. The apostle now com
mences the second portion of the paragraph, and pourtrays
Christ's relation to the Church. As Theodoret says, He passes
airo rrjg BsoXoylag kg rr)v oiKOVofilav. Still He stands out su
preme — the one guardian and benefactor — the one Saviour and
president — Kai avrac — He and none other. The meaning of
the phrase, "head of the body — the church," has been given
under Ephesians i. 22, 23 ; and iv. 15, 16. The probability is
that Christ's headship was impugned by the false teachers,
in consequence of their theory of emanations and other
1 Thus he says, " Christus ist in dem gesammten Umfang der geistigen Menschen-
welt das erstgeborne Bild Gottes, das urspriingliche Abbild Gottes ; alle Glaubigen
sollten in das Bild Christi gestaltet werden, woraus ebenfalls das Bild Gottes in
ihnen entstehen miisse, ein Bild zweiter Ordnung." — Stud. u. Erit. 1832, 3, S.
521 ff.

64

COLOSSIANS I. 18.

fantastic reveries about the spirit- world. The church is not,
as Noesselt1 says, the whole family in heaven and in earth,
— nor yet the human race, one of whom Christ became ; —
but the company of the redeemed, the body of the faithful
in Christ Jesus. The previous verses show His qualification
for such a headship, — His possession of a Divine nature — His
supremacy over the universe, and His creation and support of
all things. Any creature would be deified were he so highly
exalted ; for he would, from his position, become the god of
the Christian people, as their blesser, protector, and object
of worship. But the church and the universe are under one
administration, that of Him who is " King of kings and Lord
of lords." The king of the universe is able to be Head of the
church, and He has won the Headship in His blood. It is no
eminence to which He is not entitled, no function which He
cannot worthily discharge. For the apostle subjoins the fol
lowing statement as proof —
"Op eo-tjv dpxn — "Who is the beginning." This term has been
variously understood. Storr and Flatt reduce its significance by
making it mean governor of the world ; Calvin comes near the
true view in his paraphrase — initium secundae et novae creationis;
Baumgarten, nearer still, when he defines it by Urheber, origi
nator. Meyer, De Wette, Huther, Bahr, Steiger, and others,
join it to the following words, as if the full clause were —
apxr)-"Twv vEKpwv. Meyer and De Wette take it simply in a
temporal sense (irpb irdvrwv avaardg as Theophylact has it),
and as if it were equivalent to dirapxv> which some MSS.
even have,2 while the other expositors give the sense of prin-
cipium. Such a construction is certainly very strange, especi
ally when we consider that ek precedes rwv vek/owv. We incline
to keep the word by itself, and to regard it as being much the
same as in the phrase, Rev. iii. 14 — r) dpxn Tvg KrlaEwg tov
Beov — the cause or source of the creation of God. Wisdom of
Solomon, xii. 16; xiv. 27. The noun, standing by itself,
would seem to point out Christ in His solitary grandeur as the
prime source of all the blessings and honours detailed in the
subsequent verses. The relative has plainly a causal sense,
1 Opuscula, vol. ii. p. 231.
2 Such as 17, 46, 63 ; Chrysostom's text, and that of (Ecumenius.

COLOSSIANS I. 18. 65
so that the connection- is " He is Head of the body, — the
church, — inasmuch as He is the one source of its existence
and blessings ;" and He is so, as being "the first-begotten from
the dead," and, as verse 20 shows, the Reconciler of men to
God'by the blood of His cross. This exegesis gives a special
dignity to the epithet — Christ, the First source of existence
and blessing. But for His gracious intervention, no church
had ever existed, and no salvation been ever enjoyed. Having
ransomed the church by His blood, may He not rule it by His
power, and be "the Head?"
And no matter what blessing is enjoyed, what its kind or
amount, He is its author. There may be subordinate supplies
— wells of water ; but His rain from heaven fills them. Con
viction of sin and repentance unto life are produced by a
glimpse of Christ. " They shall look on Me whom they have
pierced, and mourn." The pardon of guilt comes directly from
Him ; and His death provides for the sanctification of the heart;
His Spirit the agent, and His word the instrument. Every
grace may be traced to Him, and it bears the heart away to
Him as the source of saving influence. He has originated
salvation, and He gives it. He is in the most unlimited sense
— dpxv — " the beginning." And we are the more confirmed in
this view of keeping dpxo separated from the following clause
and giving it an absolute meaning, from the fact that, in the
Philonic vocabulary,1 it is a name of the Logos, and was pro
bably introduced by the apostle with a special reference to
current and insidious errors. The description .proceeds —
1 Kai yag dgx*1 • • • • KC" **Y'S' &e Confus. Zmg. p. 380, vol. iii. ed. Pfeiffer.
The first source of all was also named by Cerinthus, -as in the Latin of Irenaeus,
prmcipalitas. Adver. Haeres. p. 253, Opera, vol. i. ed. Stieren, 1853. As to the
question whether the Logos of Philo be a person, or only the personification of an
attribute, a question, both sides of which are discussed by Gfrorrer, Liicke, Dorner,
Dahne, Pye Smith, and other distinguished scholars, we quite agree with the view
of Schaff {Church History, i. p. 213), that Philo himself vibrated between the two
opinions, and took each as it served his turn. There is no doubt, that when he calls
his Logos, archangel, interpreter, High Priest, the first-born Son of God, he seems
to give Him a personal existence ; and there is little doubt that he appears to regard
Him only as a species of personification, when he names Him the reflection of God,
the ideal world, the medium of the sensible world, the summation of those ideas
which are the archetypes of all being. — Dorner, Entwickelungs geschichte der Lehre
von der Person Christi, 2 ed. vol. i. pp. 24, 25. Also, Liicke, Commentar iiber das
Evang. Johamnis, i. p. 249, et seq. Bonn, 1840. V

66

COLOSSIANS 1. 18.

IIpwroroKoc ek twv vEKpwv — " First-begotten from the
dead." In Rev. i. 5, we find but the simple genitive. It is
out of the question, on the part of Bullinger, Keuchenius,
Aretius, Erasmus, and Schleiermacher to connect dpxv with
TrpwroVoKoe — an abstract with a concrete. We must take this
word as in the former clause — "first-begotten of every
creature," and regard it as referring, not to priority of time,
but to dignity and station. He was not the first that rose in
absolute priority, nor simply the first who rose, no more to die.
But He was among the dead ; and as He rose from the midst
of them, He became their chief, or Lord — "the first-fruits
of them that sleep." From Him the dead will get deliverance,
for He rose in their name, and came — ek — out from among
them as their representative. In this character He destroyed
" him that had the power of death." Not only when He was
"cut off, but not for Himself," did He "finish transgression, and
make an end of sin," but He " abolished death." Nay, He
has the keys of death and Hades. His people rise in virtue
of His power. The instances of resurrection prior to His own
were only proofs that the dead might be raised, but His
resurrection was a pledge that they should be raised. The
Lord Himself shall descend ; the trump shall sound, and
myriads of sleepers shall start into life ; no soul shall lose, and
none mistake its partner ; neither earth nor sea shall retain one
occupant. But He is not only the pledge, He is also the
pattern. His people shall be raised in immortal youth and
beauty ; their vile bodies fashioned like unto His glorious
body, and therefore no longer animal frames, but so ethe-
realized and attempered as to be able to dwell in a world which
" flesh and blood cannot inherit " — to see God and yet Hve,
to bear upon them without exhaustion the exceeding weight
of glory, and to serve, love, and enjoy, the unvailed Divinity
without end.
"Iva yivrirai iv irdaiv aiirbg irpwrEvwv — "In order that in
all things He should have the pre-eminence." The conjunc
tion appears to be telic, and not merely ecbatic, as Bahr
supposes. It indicates, not the result, but the final purpose
of the entire economy. And we cannot, with Meyer and
others, connect this clause solely with the one that goes before

COLOSSIANS I. 18. 67
it, as if His pre-eminence rested merely upon the fact that He
was the first-bom from the dead. The clause has its root in the
entire paragraph, as we shall immediately endeavour to show.
The emphatic verb trpwrEvw does not occur anywhere else in
the New Testament, but we find it in the Septuagint, 2 Mace.
vi. 18 ; Est. v. 2 ; Xenophon, Cyrop. 8, 2, 28 ; Joseph. Antiq.
9, 8, 3 ; Plutarch, de Educat. lib. c. 13, where this very phrase
occurs ; ' Plato, Leges, 692, p. 54, vol. vii. opera, ed. Bekker,
1826. Two distinct meanings have been assigned to ev 7racw.
1. It may be taken as masculine, " among all persons," as is
the opinion of Anselm, Beza, Cocceius, Heinrichs, Piscator,
and Usteri. If the clause referred simply to the vEKpol, of
which Jesus is the first-born, then we should have expected
the article — iv roig waaiv. That lv following irpwrEvw may
refer to persons, Kypke has shown in his note on this verse,
though irapd is the preposition as frequently employed, and more
usually the simple genitive. 2. The phrase iv -rrdaiv is more
naturally taken by the majority in a neuter sense, "in every
thing," or " in all respects." This is the ordinary meaning of
the phrase in the New Testament. 2 Cor. xi. 6 ; Ephes. i.
23 ; 1 Tim. iii. 11 ; 2 Tim. ii. 7 ; Titus ii. 9 ; 1 Pet. iv. 11.
The usus loquendi is therefore in favour of this interpretation,
" first in all points ; " or as Theophylact says, in all things — roig
WEpi aiirbv BEwpovfiivoig — " in all things which have refer
ence to Himself;" as Chrysostom has it, iravraxov irpwrog.
The verb ylvrjrai is not to be confounded with the verb of
simple existence. The meaning is not, that He might be, but
that "He might become." Acts x. 4; Rom. iii. 19; Heb.
v. 12. The verb in such cases denotes the manifestation
of result — that He may show Himself to be in all things First.
We do not say, with Meyer and Huther, that this pre-eminence
is looked upon as wholly future, and as only to be realized
at the resurrection. If we held the close and sole connection
of irpwrEvwv with irpwroroKog, we should be obliged to keep
this view partially, but not to its full extent ; for, in respect
to the dead, as now dead, Jesus stands out as the First who
has so risen from a similar state. The meaning, then,
1 See Wetstein, m loc.

68

COLOSSIANS I. 18.

is, that in consequence of His being what the apostle has just
described Him to be, He has in all things the primacy ; that
He stands out as Fiest to the universe, for He is its visible
God, its Creator and Preserver ; and He is the Head of the
Church, the fount of spiritual blessing, the " Resurrection and
the Life."
As the image — eIkwv — of the invisible God He has the pre
eminence. For He is without date of origin or epoch of
conclusion. No eclipse shall sully the splendours of His
nature. What He has been, He is, and He shall be. Nor is
His Essence bounded by any circumference, but it is every
where, undiluted by boundless extension. His mind com
prises all probabilities, and has decided all certainties. His
power knows no limit of operation, and is unexhausted by
effort. His truth is pure as the solar beam, and the fulness of in
finite love dwells in His heart. But such Divine glory is common
to the Godhead, and He shares it equally with Father and
Spirit. Even here, however, He is First ; for He has visi
bility, which the Father and Spirit have not ; and He is the
God of the universe, whom it sees, recognizes, and adores.
Nay, more, He has cast a new lustre over His original glory
by His incarnation and death. He has won for Himself an
imperishable renown. This dignity so earned by Him is
specially called His own, in contradistinction from His prior
and essential glory, and it is His peculiar and valued posses
sion. Bobed in His native majesty, which has been aug
mented by the mediatorial crown, is He not the most glorious
being in the universe ? Matt. xxv. 31 ; John xvii. 24.
And He has pre-eminence as Creator, for creation is His
special work. It existed in idea in the mind of God, but it
was brought into existence by the power of Christ. These
worlds on worlds, which in their number and vastness con
found us, have Him as artificer, for He " telleth the number of
the stars, and calleth them by their names." Creation owns
Him as Lord. The natural impulse is to reason from effect
upwards to cause — "from nature up to nature's God:" but the
God whom such instinctive logic discovers, and whose might
and wisdom, science and philosophy illustrate with rich,
varied, profound, and increasing, nay, interminable examples, is

COLOSSIANS I. 19. 69
none other than this " First-born of every creature." On His
arm hangs the universe, and He receives its homage. Above
all, there is matchless grandeur in the constitution of His
person as the Head of the Church. The Father is pure
Divinity, and so is the Spirit : the wisest, greatest, and best ;
infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in essence, attributes, and
character. But the Son has another nature, one in person
with His Deity. The divine is not dwarfed into the human,
nor has the human been absorbed into the divine, but both
co-exist without mixture or confusion. The incarnation of
Jesus illuminates the Old Testament as a promise, and fills the
New Testament as a fact. Possessed of this composite nature,
Christ is distinguished from every being : none hke Him in
unapproachable mystery — as the God-man who has gained
His capital supremacy by His agony and cross. Was ever
suffering like His in origin, intensity, nature, or design ?
Again, as the source. of blessing, has He not primal rank?
These spiritual gifts possess a special value, as springing
from His blood, and as being applied by His Spirit. He is
seated in eminence as the dispenser of common gifts to His
universe, but He is throned in pre-eminence as the provider
and bestower of spiritual blessings to His Church. Are not
His instructions without a rival in adaptation, amount, and
power? What parallel can be found to His example, so
perfect and so fascinating, that of a man that men may see,
and admire, and imitate ; while it contains in itself, at the
same time, the secret might of Divinity to mould into its
blessed resemblance the heart of all His followers who are
"changed into the same image from glory to glory?" In
short, there is such wondrous singularity in the glory of
Christ's person and work, so much that gives Him a radiance
all His own, and an elevation high and apart, that it may be
truly said, that in all things He has the pre-eminence. None
like Christ is the decision of faith : none but Christ is the motto
of love. The apostle assigns another or additional reason —
(Ver. 19.) "On iv airy eiiSokt)<tev. A different spelling of
the word is exhibited in some of the MSS. such as A, D, E, —
rivSoKyaEv, but without authority. Schmid supposes that irXr\-
pw/ua is the nominative ; and he understands it thus — the entire

70 COLOSSIANS 1. 19.
Godhead was pleased to dwell in Christ. We believe, with
the majority of expositors, that 6 &Eog is to be supplied as the
nominative, and not rd} Be$, in the dative. Matt. iii. 17 ;
Luke iii. 22. The full syntax is found in 1 Cor. i. 21 ; Gal.
i. 15. But we cannot hold, with some, that the pronoun avr$,
refers to God, for we take it as still pointing to Him who has
been the prime subject of discourse. To make 6 xpiar6e the
nominative, as Conybeare does, implies the sense that Christ
is not only the means, but the end in this reconciliation, for the
reading would plainly be in the next verse — " and by Himself
to reconcile all things unto Himself," a mode of speech not in
accordance with Pauline usage. Christ reconciles, not to
Himself, but to God. We incline also to connect the clause
immediately with the preceding one, and not generally with
the previous paragraph. " That in all things He might have
the pre-eminence ; " for, in order to this, " it pleased God — it
was His good purpose — that in Him should all fulness dwell."
The pre-eminence, therefore, could not but be His. The verb
does not mean that it was God's desire that all fulness should
dwell in Christ, but that it was His resolve, as being His
pleasure.1 Yldv to irXripwua KaroiKriaai. On the meaning of irXripw^ia
we have spoken at length under Ephes. i. 23. In the verb
the idea of past and continued residence is presented. We
see no reason to deviate here from the meaning assigned to
the noun in the place referred to, so that we must hold, against
Bahr and Steiger, that the word has a passive, and not an
active signification, denoting, not that which fills up, but the
state of fulness, or the contents of it. But to what does this
fulness refer ?
1. It is a most extraordinary exegesis of Theodoret and
Severianus,2 followed by Baumgarten-Crusius, Heinrichs, Wahl,
and Schleiermacher, that irXr)pw/jia signifies the multitude
which compose the church. This view has been exposed by
us under Ephes. i. 23. Here it would yield no tolerable
' In reference to the meaning and derivation of the verb, there is an elaborate note
of Fritzsche, Comment, in Ep. ad Roman, ii. 36n. See also Sturz, p. 168; Lobeck
nd Phryn. p. 456.
3 Catena, p. 310.

COLOSSIANS 1. 19. 71
meaning, and would not be in harmony at all with the context.
Pierce follows the rendering of Castalio — " it seemed good to
God the Father to inhabit all fulness by Christ."
2. Some limit the meaning of the clause by basing their
interpretation of it on a following verse in ii. 9, "all the
fulness of the Godhead." But there is no reason to subjoin
the genitive rrjg BsorriTog, in this place, the meaning here
being more general and sweeping in its nature.
3. This fulness is referred by QJcumenius, Huther, and
others, to the Divine essence. Servetus based, according to
Beza, a species of Pantheism on this declaration. But such
an idea cannot be entertained, because the Divine essence
dwelt in Christ unchangeably, and not by the Father's con
sent or purpose. It is His in His own right, and not by
paternal pleasure. Whatever dwells in Christ by the Father's
pleasure is official, and not essential ; relational, and not ab
solute in its nature.
4. The proper exegesis, then, is, that all fulness of grace, or
saving blessings, dwells in Christ — a species of fulness, the
contents of which are described in the following verse. John
i. 14 — 16. We do not exclude the work of creation as a
result of this fulness laid up in the Image and First-born, but
the apostle seems to connect it more with the process and
results of redemption. Whatever is needed to save a fallen
world, and restore harmony to the universe, is treasured
up in Him — is in Him. It was indispensable that the
law should be magnified while its violators were forgiven,
lest the circuit of the Divine jurisdiction should be nar
rowed, or its influence counteracted ; and there is a fulness
of merit in the sufferings of Jesus which has shed an im
perishable lustre on the nature and government of God.
That copious variety of gifts connected with the Christian
economy has its source in Jesus. Knowledge and faith,
pardon and life, purity and hope, comfort and strength, im
pulse and check, all that quickens and all that sustains, each
in its place and connection is but an emanation of this unex
hausted plenty. And there is "all" fulness; abundance of
blessing, and of every species of blessing, in proper time and
order. As the bounties of providence are scattered around us

72

COLOSSIANS 1. 19.

with rich munificence, and consist not of one kind of gift
which might become fatal in its monotony, but of an immense
variety, which is essential, singly and in combination, to the
sustenance of life ; so the blessings which spring out of this
fulness are not only vast in number arid special in adaptation,
by themselves, but in their mutual relations and dependence
they supply every necessity, and fill the entire nature with
increasing satisfaction and delight. The impartation of know
ledge, though it grew to the " riches of the full assurance of
understanding," could not of itself minister to every want;
nor yet could the pardon of sin severed from the benefits
which flow from it. Therefore, there is secured for us peace
as well as enlightenment ; renovation along; with forgiveness :
condition and character are equally changed ; the tear of
penitence glistens in the radiance of spiritual joy, and the
germs of perfection ingrafted now are destined for ever to
mature and expand. Provision moreover would be inade
quate without application. Man is not merely informed that
God is merciful, and that he may come to Him and live ; or
that Christ has died, and that he may believe and be saved ;
or that heaven is open, and that he may enter and be happy.
Not only is provision ample, but in this fulness appliance is
secured. Not only has salvation been purchased, but it is
placed within an available reach, for while the cross is
erected, the eye is opened, and the vision carried towards
its bleeding victim ; not only has atoning blood been shed,
but it is sprinkled upon the heart ; not only is there the
promise of a heavenly inheritance, but the soul is purified,
yea, and " kept by the power of God through faith." In short,
every grace, as it is needed, and when it is needed, in every
variety of phasis and operation ; every grace, either to nurse
the babe or sustain the perfect man, to excite the new life or
to foster it, to give pardon and the sense of it, faith and the
full assurance of it, purity and the felt possession of it ; every
blessing, in short, for health or sickness, for duty or trial, for
life or death, for body or soul, for earth or heaven, for time or
eternity, is wrapt up in that fulness which dwells in Christ.
It may be that irXr'ipwfia was a term employed by'the heretics
who disturbed the Colossian church, but we cannot lay such

COLOSSIANS I. 20. 73
stress upon this circumstance as is done by Bahr and Steiger,
nor safely deduce from it an inevitable exegesis. There is no
doubt that irXnpwfxa was a distinctive epithet in the vocab
ulary of the heretics of a later age, such as Valentinus, and in
the teaching ascribed to Cerinthus. It is found also amonw
the pecuhar terms of the Kabbalists. But it would be rash to
affirm that the apostle used the word because these heretics
abused it, for in his days the germ of that theosophy and
mysticism had only found existence, and neither the system
nor the nomenclature was fully developed.
(Ver. 20.) Kai Si avrov diroKaraXXd^ai rd irdvra slg
avrov — "And by Him to reconcile all things to Himself."
This sentence still hangs upon the verb evSokt/ote. Etpjjvo-
n-OMja-ae agrees with 0eoc, the understood nominative to
EvSoKriaE. God having made peace by the blood of His cross
(Christ's), was pleased to reconcile by Him (Christ) all things
to Himself. If the participle Eipjjvo. referred to Jesus, we
should have expected it to be in the accusative before the
infinitive. The instances adduced by Steiger, who holds this
view, to prove the occurrence here of a species of anacoluthon,
are not in point. On the meaning of a7roicaraX. we have
spoken under Ephes. ii. 16, and need not repeat our remarks.
The phrase rd irdvra, in this verse, must be identical in
meaning with rd irdvra in the 16th verse — created by Jesus
and for Him ; and ra irdvra in the 17th verse — preserved
by Him. The meaning is further developed and specified in
the last clause — e'ite rd iirl rijg yijc, e'ite rd iv rotg ovpavoig —
all things " whether they be things on earth, or things in
heaven." The apostle seems thus to refer to the universe —
specially the intelligent universe. The reconciliation is effected
through Christ, an idea repeated by the apostle in the 22d
and 23d verses.
1. It is surely a low and pointless interpretation of the
words to refer them, with Junker, Heinrichs, Schleusner, and
others, to Jew and Gentile, for the passage is widely different
from the paragraph in the 2d chapter of Ephesians ; or with
Beza, Crocius, and Wolf, to understand "things in heaven"
of the happy souls of the departed ; or with Schleiermacher,
to suppose the apostle to refer to earthly and ecclesiastical

74 COLOSSIANS I. 20.
relationships. The previous context plainly condemns .such a
narrow and groundless interpretation.
2. On the other hand, it is going beyond the record to base
upon the words the dogma of universal restoration. Evil
spirits, and finally impenitent men are left in unrelieved gloom.
Those who reject this reconciliation, and depart from the
world in unbeHef, fall into the hands of a God " who is clear
when He judges."
On this passage, Davenant says truly — torquet interpretes et
vicissim ab illis torquetur. De Wette, indeed, referring to Job
iv. 18, and xv. 15, imagines that angels need some process
of peacemaking, or rather of perfecting — a notion akin to
Calvin's,1 that they were in want of confirmation.
But supposing that by " things in heaven " we understand
angels and all other holy intelligences, in what sense can it be
said that they need or receive reconciliation? Some elude the
difficulty, and argue that the reconciliation is not between
God and perfect spirits, but between them and redeemed
humanity. Thus, Theodoret — avvrfips roig iiriyElotg rd iirov-
pdvia : and such is the view of Chrysostom, Augustine, and Pe-
lagius, of Cameron, Dickson, and perhaps the majority. This
is a truth, but perhaps not the whole truth intended. The
language implies more than this exegesis contains, for all things
in heaven are not merely reconciled to all things on earth,
but both are at the same time reconciled to God. And we
cannot espouse the opinion of Huther, Bahr, and Olshausen,
who make the reference in eic airov to Christ, regarding Him
as both means and end. The idea is not in unison with
1 Inter Deum et Angelos longe diversa ratio, illic enim nulla defectio, nullum pec-
catum, ideoque nullum divortium. Sed tamen duabus de causis Angelos quoque
opportuit cum Deo pacificari : nam quum creaturae sint, extra lapsus periculum non
erant, nisi Christi gratia fuissent confirmati. Hoc autem non parvum est momentum
ad pacis cum Deo perpetuitatem, fixum habere statum in iustitia, ne casum aut
defectionem amplius timeat. Deinde in hac ipsa obedicutia, quam praestant Deo, non
est tam exquisita perfectio, ut Deo omni ex parte et citra veniam satisfaciat. Atque
hue procul dubio spectat sententia ista ex libro lob (4, 18.), In Angelis suis reperiet
iniquitatem : nam si de diabolo exponitur, quid magnum ? prouuntiat autem illic
Spiritus summam puritatem sordere, si ad Dei iustitiam exigatur. Constituendum
igitur, non esse tantum in Angelis iustitiae, quod at plenam cum Deo coniunctionem
sufficiat, itaque pacificatore opus habent, per cuius gratiam penitus Deo adhaereant.
In loc.

COLOSSIANS I. 20. 75
Pauline phraseology, for God is usually regarded as the ulti
mate end. But the idea in this case would -be, that all beings
are brought by the death of Christ to obey Him, and to find
in Him their common centre. The dative, indeed, is com
monly employed, as in Ephes. ii. 16; Rom. v. 10; but the
employment here of the accusative with e!c may indicate some
thing unusual in the verb — may denote to reconcile for, or
in reference to Himself, that is, God, He being regarded gen
erally as the end of this reconciliation. Reconciliation to God
is thus predicated of the " things in heaven," though they had
never revolted. Nor can we simply declare, with Melancthon,
Cameron, and Bahr, that the sentiment of this verse is identical
with that found in Ephes. i. 10, and that a7TOKaTaXXaI;ai is of
the same meaning as avaKEfaXaauaaaBai. Indeed, as Meyer
well suggests, the bringing together under one head is the
result of the reconciliation which is here described. The verb
diroKar. is defined by Suidas as meaning <piXoiroir)aai — to
make friends; and Fritzsche renders it prorsus reconciliare.1
The diro, in composition, does not signify " again," as Passow
erroneously gives it. [Ephes. ii. 16.] This reconciliation we
understand in its result — Etc — and as denoting unalterable union,
— that he might reconcile all things and unite them so reconciled
to Himself. Such a pregnant meaning of verbs is no uncom
mon occurrence. 2 Tim. iv. 18 — awasi slg rr)v (iaaiXslav,
will save and translate us to His kingdom. Mark viii. 19 —
6Ye roiig ttevte dprovg EKXaaa eic rove 7TEvraKto-^iXiouc, when
I broke and distributed the five loaves to the five thousand.
Acts xxiii. 24, &c. ; Winer, § 66, e ; Xenophon, Anab. 11, 3,
11 ; Polyb. 8, 11; Odyss. ii. 14. There needed no atonement
for innocent creatures, but they must have felt the disruption
of sin, and seen the terrible anger of God against it. May
they not have trembled at the bare idea of apostacy, and may
not the very suspicion of it have made them stand before God
with more of awe than love ? When the angels beheld their
fellows sin so grievously, when they mourned over the tar
nished brightness of their lost and exiled natures, might not
the memory of the melancholy spectacle fill them with terror,
1 Comment, in Ep. ad Rom. i. 278.

76

COLOSSIANS I. 20.

and as they felt themselves placed in a jeopardous crisis,
might they not shrink as they gazed upon the unsullied justice
and inexorable vengeance of Jehovah-king ? Might not holi
ness unrelieved by an act of grace, be ever impressing the
conviction that "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of
the living God?" For sin was possible to them, and what had
happened might again take place, while the penalty of sin was
as swift in its descent as it was unspeakable in its burden, and
irremediable in its effects. The flashing majesty ofthe throne
might still the pulse of the universe, or cause it to throb in
subdued and solemn alarm. The radiance of grace had not been
seen to play upon the sceptre of righteousness. Acquiescence
in the Divine rectitude might not conquer trepidation, and the
love which encircled them might not cast out all fear of lapse
and punishment. But when they found out the ineffable
stores of the Divine benignity towards man — in the mission
and death of Jesus, in the untold abundance and fulness of
blessings conferred upon him, in a vast salvation secured at a
vast expense, and in a happy alliance concluded between them
and the ransomed church — did they not share in the same
reconciliation and feel themselves drawn nearer a God of
grace, whom they can now love with a higher thrill and praise
with a more rapturous hallelujah? In being re-united with
man they feel themselves brought closer to God, and though
they sing of a salvation which they did not require, still they
experience the Saviour's tenderness, and are charmed with the
reign of His crowned humanity. The gloom that sin had
thrown over them is dispelled; and creation as one united
whole rejoices in the presence of God. The one Reconciler is
the head of these vast dominions, and in Him meet and merge
the discordant elements which sin had introduced. The
breach is healed. Gabriel embraces Adam, and both enjoy a
vicinity to God, which but for the reconciliation of the cross
would never have been vouchsafed to either. The humanity
of Jesus bringing all creatures around it, unites them to
God in a bond which never before existed — a bond which
has its origin in the mystery of redemption. Thus all things
in heaven and earth feel the effect of man's renovation ;
unnumbered worlds, so thickly strewn as to appear but

COLOSSIANS I. 20. 77
dim and nebulous masses, are pervaded by-its harmonizing
influence ; a new attraction binds them to the throne. Bless
ings which naked Deity might not be able to bestow are
poured out upon them by the incarnate Lord " who filleth all
in all;" and the exhibition of love in the agonies of Christ
may have secured what unalloyed equity could not, may have
placed the universe for ever beyond the reach of apostacy and
revolt. Then at length starts into view the blessed kingdom
— "the new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth right
eousness." Nor need we wonder at the infinite results of the death of
Christ, when we reflect, that," as the apostle has described Him,
He is Creator, Preserver, and End of all things. Creation,
to its farthest verge, could not but be affected by the grace
and the death of Him who gave to it its original being and
still supplies the means of its continued existence. When He
laid aside the splendours of the Godhead, and walked a man
upon the footstool, and died on a world and for a world which
He had made, to satisfy Divine justice, and glorify the prin
ciples of the Divine administration, it might be anticipated
that the effect of that stupendous enterprise should be felt
everywhere, diffusing the attractive power of a new spiritual
gravitation among all things, "whether they be things on
earth or things in heaven."
Eij07]voTroi»)crac $'<* tov a"ifiarog rov aravpov avrov — " Hav
ing made peace by the blood of His cross." We understand
the participle to be in agreement with Bsog, as the nominative
to EvSoKrias, and not with ^pto-roc, as the Greek Fathers, and
even Storr and Steiger, construe the clause. The aorist par
ticiple here is of the same tense with the aorist infinitive in
the preceding clause, and it points out the method by which
reconciliation has been secured. The blood of His, that is,
Christ's cross, was the source of peace — the reference being
to the atoning sacrifice presented on Calvary. Blood shed on
earth creates feuds to be extinguished only by other blood;
it calls up the avenging kinsman to wait, watch, pursue, and
retaliate ; but the blood of Christ's violent and vicarious death
brings peace, restores alliance between heaven and earth.
While we look on the paternal aspect of God's character, we

78

COLOSSIANS I. 20.

must not overlook His position as moral governor — bound to
inflict the penalty annexed to the violation of His statutes.
[Ephes. ii. 16.] He must visit the sinner with His judicial
displeasure ; or as the scholastic theology of Bede phrased it,
" in every one of us He hated what we had done, He loved
what He Himself had done." The justice of God, as Nitzsch1
says, is a necessary and inseparable idea of His love. The
antithesis of mercy and justice is no longer unresolved, nor do
they neutralize one another. Sin at the same time creates
enmity in the human heart toward God, an enmity removed also
by faith in the great propitiation. Thus the cross is the sym
bol of peace. He who died on it possessed God's nature, the
offended party, and man's nature, the offending party ; and thus
being qualified to mediate between them, His blood was
poured out as a peace-offering. The law is satisfied, and
guilty sinners are freed from the curse : an amnesty is pro
claimed ; God reconciles the world unto Himseff, and justified
man has peace with God.
The apostle repeats Si avrov to give prominence to the
efficacious agency of His Son. " By Him," that is, by His
blood, and by all the work which His mediatorial person is so
well fitted to carry on and consummate. The last clause
explains the preceding 7ravra. As if there might be doubt in
some minds ; or as if some ascribed a limited influence to a
Jewish death upon Jewish soil, the apostle exclaims " all " —
" whether they be things in earth," which is first and specially
interested ; or whether they be " things in heaven." Chrysos
tom, to support his view, erroneously and ungrammatically
connects this clause with the one immediately before it, as if
the peace made by the blood of the cross was simply and
solely peace between things in heaven and things on earth.
In fine, the entire process, as the connection of this verse with
the preceding one shows, springs from the Divine pleasure —
it so " pleased " Him.
Now, if there was a tendency among the false teachers in
Colosse to depreciate Jesus, lower the value, and restrict the
extent of His saving work ; if they derogated either from His
1 System der Christlichen Lehre, § 80, 5th Auflage, Bonn, 1844.

COLOSSIANS I. 21. 79
personal dignity or official prerogative, the apostle applies a
mighty and sufficient counteractive. That Saviour whom the
apostles preached was no creature, but Himself the Creator ;
was invested with no provincial government, but ruled and
preserved the wide realms of space ; was no subordinate spirit
in the celestial crowd, but one who is the end as well as author
of all things ; is supreme Lord of His Church, as is most due ;
and as He possesses all fulness within Himself, and has by the
shedding of His blood restored harmony to the universe,
therefore, now, in every point He has an unchallenged pre
eminence. On the dark background of an old theosophic
heresy there shines out this starry halo of mediatorial merit
and renown.
(Ver. 21.) Kai vfidg, ttote ovrag dirr]XXoTpiwfJiEvovg Kai
ixBpoiig ry Stavolq. iv rotg 'ipyoig roig irovripoig, vvvl Si
diroKarfiXXa^Ev — " And yet now He has reconciled you who
were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked
works." The apostle turns directly to the Colossians, and
applies to their experience the results of these more general
statements. And he does not disguise the truth when he
describes their past condition — 7tote. Kai i/nag, " you even."
Hartung, p. 125. The participle ovrag occurs before aVrjXX.
Jelf, § 375, 4. £Airr,XXoT. Ephes. ii. 12 ; iv. 18.] It
here denotes that spiritual alienation from God which char
acterized the heathen world. Though the term God is not
expressed, the idea is plainly implied. They had strayed so far
from God that they had lost all view of His unity and spirit
uality, His holiness and His love, and felt no longer the hal
lowing influence of His existence, majesty, and government.
This severance from God was the early fruit of sin, for when
the Divine Being descended to paradise, as was His wont, the
guilty Adam acknowledged the impulse of this alienation
when he attempted to hide " himself from the presence of the
Lord God among the trees of the garden." So severed, they
needed re-union. Nay, not only were they aliens, but enemies
— ixBpovg. We see no reason to adopt Meyer's view, and take
the adjective in a passive sense — objects of the Divine enmity,
a meaning which it does not bear in Rom. v. 10. We prefer
the usual and active sense, as seen in the common phrase

80

COLOSSIANS 1.21.

6 ix&pog ; and it is superfluous on the part of Calovius to unite
both acceptations. That enmity had its seat ry Stavola which
Meyer is obliged to render, with Luther, " on account of your
mind " — hated on account of your corrupt mind. This enmity
toward God was in the mind. [Sidvoia, Ephes. ii. 3.] The
noun represents the seat of thought, or rather of disposition.
Luke i. 51 ; 1 Chron. xxix. 18.
The connection of this with the next clause has been
variously understood. Michaelis gratuitously renders "en
mity in consequence of pre-eminence in evil works." Eras
mus is as wide of the mark in his explanation — inimici,
cuif mentis etenim qui carni servit, repugnat rationi. Bahr,
relying on the usage of SiavoEtv being followed by lv, con
nects the two clauses very closely — operibus malis intenta,
peccatorum studiosa. We incline to take the clauses as
separate statements in order, the first as describing the seat
of enmity, and the second as marking the sphere of its
development. It is lodged in the mind, but it embodies itself
in deeds ; and those deeds are " wicked," are in harmony with
the source of activity. The apostle charges them not merely
with spiritual and latent hostility to God, but with the mani
festation of that hostility in open acts of unnatural rebellion.
It is not a neutral alienation, but one characterized by posi
tive enmity. The charge may be easily substantiated. No
thoughts are more unwelcome to men, none less frequently in
their mind, than God. Men may like an ideal God of their
own creation, such an one as themselves have invested with
a fictitious divinity, but the God of the gospel stirs up opposi
tion ; His holiness alarms them ; and their heart is filled with
prejudice against His scheme of salvation, because it so
humbles the creature by pressing on him as a ruined and help
less sinner a gratuitous pardon which he could never win ; and
because, in urging him to the possession of holiness, it neces
sitates a total revolution in all his habits and desires. It is a
melancholy indictment : antagonism to infinite purity and love:
sins committed in violation of a law "holy, and just, and
good." It was true of the heathen world, and it is true gen
erally of fallen humanity, that there is alienation, that such
alienation creates enmity, and that this enmity proves its

COLOSSIANS I. 21. 81
virulence and disloyalty in repeated transgressions.1 Some
of the Fathers, such as Tertullian, Ambrose, and Jerome,
following an unwarranted reading found in D,1 E,1 Trjg Sia-
voiag avrov, render — enemies to His, that is, God's mind.
Nvvi Se aVoKarriXXalJEv. This reading of the verb has the
high authority of A, C, Dm, E, J, K, almost all the Ver
sions, and many ofthe Fathers. Codex B has d7roKaTrjXXayrjrE,
a form which Lachmann follows ; while D1, F, G, and some of
the Latin Fathers, have the participle aVoKaraXXayEvrEc. The
peculiarity of construction has apparently given rise to these
various lections, but the Textus Receptus is best supported.
The order adopted by Lachmann gives us this connection
— "It pleased God that in Him should all fulness dwell, and that
He should reconcile all things to Himself; and even you, once
aliens and enemies (but ye are now reconciled), even you it
pleased Him to present, holy and perfect, before Him." The
same parenthetical connection might be maintained by keep
ing the verb in the active. Or the first clause may form a
pendant to thepreceding verse — "It pleased Him to reconcile
all things to Himself, and you too, though ye were enemies in
your mind by wicked works." But these forms of construction
are intricate and needless. We prefer beginning a new sen
tence with Kai vudg irori, and then irapaarriaai, in the follow
ing verse, becomes the infinitive of design. Nor do we
perceive any grounds for changing the nominative, God
being still the subject, as is the view of Zanchius, Ben
gel, Bahr, Boehmer, Huther, Meyer, against that of the
Greek Fathers, with Beza, Calvin, Crocius, Estius, Heinrichs,
arid De Wette, which refers the nominative to Christ. The
work of reconciliation is God's. Man does not win his
way back to the Divine favour by either costly offering or
profound penitence. God reunites him to Himself; has
not only provided for such an alliance, but actually forms and
cements it.
The apostle has dwelt at length on the dignity and majesty
of Jesus, but without hesitation he speaks here of His incar
nate state, for in Him there was a union of extremes, of God
1 As Photius says, they were enemies, for they were seen — rx Ixlpuv trpdrrovrts.
Apud CEcumen. m loc. G

82

COLOSSIANS I. 22.

and man — of earth and heaven. Indeed, the incarnation,
rightly understood, enhances the Redeemer's greatness. The
spiritually sublime is truly seen in His condescension and
death. So, he adds —
(Ver. 22.) 'Ev ti£ awfiari rrjg aapK.bg avrov Sid tov Bavdrov
— " In the body of His (Christ's) flesh through death."
Sirach xxiii. 16. The clause has a remarkable distinctness.
Reconciliation is effected in His body ; that body is a genuine
physical frame, for it is the body of His flesh ; and there was
an actual decease, as by His death peace was secured. They
were reconciled in His body and by His death, a difference of
relation being indicated by the prepositions iv and Sid ; the
latter pointing out the instrumental cause, and the former
describing the inner sphere of uniting operation which pre
ceded that death. Without that fleshly body there could have
been no death, and the assumption of humanity brought Jesus
into a fraternal relationship with all His people. The apostle
thus cautions against a spurious spiritualism, which seems to
have endangered the Colossian church — as if without an
atonement man could be redeemed. Marcion, in his quotation
of the verse, omitted the words rrjg aapKog.
We need not say, with Bengel, Schrader, and Olshausen, that
the apostle writes " the body of His flesh," lest any one should
imagine that He might mean His body, the church;1 nor need
we suppose, with Beza, Huther, Bohmer, and Steiger, that
there is an express polemical reference to Doketism, or the
denial of a real humanity to our Lord, though the germs of such
a heresy might be in existence. Jerome, in one of his letters
to Pammachius, says of the apostle and the language of this
verse — apostolus volens corpus Christi carneum et non spirit
uals, aereum, tenue, demonstrare. There is no such emphasis
in the phrase as Estius and Grotius find when they speak of
such vast results flowing from so feeble an instrument, nor is
there - that contrast between the earthly and glorified body of
Christ as is suggested by Flatt, Roell, and von Gerlach. The
purpose of reconciliation is next described.
Hapaarrjaai v/udg aylovg Kal dfiwfiovg Kal dvsyKXr)TOvg kote-
' Yet Pierce inclines to such a notion, though he says, " I am not positive in this
interpretation."

COLOSSIANS I. 22. 83
vw7nov avrov- — " To present you holy and blameless, and unre-
proveable before Him." This is the infinitive of design. Winer,
§ 45, 3; Matthiae ii. p. 1234. [Ephes. i. 3.] The three adjectives
express generally the same idea, but in different and consecu
tive aspects. ['Ay(ovc Kal d/iiwfiovg KarEvwtriov avrov, Ephes.
i. 4.] There is no ground for the hypothesis of Bahr and
Bengel, that the three epithets may be thus characterized —
the first as having reference to God, the second to ourselves, and
the third to our fellow-men. The first term refers to inner
consecration, and the purity which it creates and fosters ; the
second shows the development of this purity in the life ; and
the third expresses the result, that heart and life are therefore
alike unchallengeable, and that neither against the one nor the
other can any charge be preferred. It cannot be alleged against
the hfe that its holiness is but hypocrisy, since that has its
root in the sanctified spirit; neither can the sanctity of the
heart be arraigned as inoperative and dead, for it exhibits
itself in actions of heavenly worth and resemblance. God
presents them before Himself, not before Christ, as Meyer
supposes, avrov not being required. This we take to be
the connection, though some connect the words KarEvwiriov
avrov with the three epithets, as if it described their genuine
ness or reality. Such is the connection in Ephes. i. 4, but
here the phrase seems most naturally connected with the verb
— to present before Him. The allusion is to the ultimate
consummation : to no period on earth, but to final acceptance
before the throne — when the saint shall have come to maturity,
and his spiritual development shall have been crowned and
perfected. [Ephes. v. 27.] The question has been raised,
whether the apostle refers, in this last clause, to the righteous
ness of justification, or the holiness of sanctification ; to jus-
titia imputata, as Huther supposes ; or to justitia inhaerens, as
Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Calvin maintain; or to both,
as is held by Theodoret, Zanchius, Crocius, Calovius, De
Wette, and Meyer. [Ephes. i. 4.] Besides that, the terms
employed by the apostle are inapplicable to justifying right
eousness : it may be remarked that the reconciliation which
the apostle represents as having already taken place, is but
another form of expressing the blessing of justification — ¦

84

COLOSSIANS I. 23.

pardon, and acceptance with God. This privilege was past, but
the ultimate result which flows from it was still to come.
Therefore, as this change of state is only a prelude to a change
of character — as this justification is a step towards such an
end, it follows, that the holiness realized in that end is that of
sanctification, the maturity of whieh is acknowledged in the
presentation of the saint to God. 1 Cor. i. 8 ; 1 Thess. iii.
13; v.23.
(Ver. 23.) Ei y£ iirifiivETE ry tr'iarEi teBepeXiwpevoi Kal
kSpaloi, Kal pr) psraKivovpEvoi dirb Trig iXirlSog rov EvayyEXlov
oil T/Kovo-arE1 — " If ye continue in the faith, grounded and fast,
and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye
have heard." The clause depends, not, as Bengel intimates,
on aVoKarijXXa^Ev, but on the nearer verb irapaarriaai. The
attainment of spiritual perfection, and the honour of presen
tation to God, are dependent on the fact specified in this
verse. Etys does not imply doubt [Ephes. iii. 2], and so far
differs from E'iirsp, but there is no reason to render it, with
Pierce, "because." "If, as is the case, ye continue in the faith ;"
for rf irlarsi is connected with iiripivETE, as in Rom. vi. 1 ; xi.
23; 1 Tim. iv. 16 ;2 whereas teBepeX. would require £7r£, as
in Matt. vii. 25 ; or iv, as in Ephes. iii. 18. Continuance in
the faith is essential to salvation : loss of faith would be for
feiture of life. The blessings of Christianity are given without
interruption only to continuous belief. And that perpetuity of
faith was not to be a vibratory and superficial state. They
were to remain in the faith, or saving belief of the truth,
iSpaioi Kal teBepeXiw^evoi — " grounded and settled." [Ephesr
iii. 18.] 1 Pet. v. 10; 1 Cor. vii. 37; xv. 58. The first
epithet alludes to the cause, and the second to its effect, for
what is founded becomes fixed: while the third clause depicts a
general result — -Kal pri pEraKivoipEvoi, " and therefore not shaken
away," as the use of pr) seems to indicate. The adverb pr)
has such a connection of dependence, Kuhner, § 708 ; Hartung
ii. pp. 113, 114; Winer, § 59, 1. If they were founded, they
were fixed, and if both, they could not be moved — dirb
1 'Hxovean is spelt, by an oversight, with a spiritus asper in Tischendorf's second
edition. 2 Aelian, Eist. var. x. 15. Joseph. Antiq. viii. 7, 5.

COLOSSIANS I. 23. 85
rijc iXiriSog rov EvayysXfov ov rjKOvtrars. [Ephes. i. 18.]
See also verse fifth of this chapter. The hope is that blessed
life revealed by the gospel as its distinctive prospect. That
gospel is further characterized as " having been preached to
every creature which is under heaven " —
Tov KripvxBsvTog iv irday KriaEi rf virb r6v ovpavbv. The
article rf before irday is probably to be expunged, on the
authority of A, B, C, D1, F, G. The general meaning of this
hyperbole will be found under verse 6. Thomas Aquinas was
so hard pressed, as to propose a future rendering — praedica-
bitur. Perhaps, as Meyer proposes, these words are a species
of confirmation. Apostacy was all the more blameable, for
they had heard the gospel — a gospel of no narrow diffusion
and value — a gospel, also, which numbered among its ad
herents and preachers, the great name of Paul. There is thus
a warning in those words of coming danger and seductive
influence. It i3 an extraordinary reason which Anselm,
after Gregory, proposes — that every creature must mean man,
because man has something in common with every creature ;
existence with stones, living growth with trees, sense and
motion with the lower animals, and reason and intellect with
the angels.
Thus a life of faith is one of hope, and leads to glory.
This behef has a conservative power ; for it keeps in a jus
tified state, and it secures augmenting holiness. While,
therefore, the perseverance of the saints is a prominent doc
trine of Scripture, and a perennial source of consolation, it is
not inconsistent with exhortations to permanence of faith, and
warnings of the sad results of deviation and apostacy. He
who stops short in the race, and does not reach the goal, can
not obtain the prize. He who abandons the refuge into which
he fled for a season, is swept away when the hurricane breaks
upon him. The loss of faith is the knell of hope. "There is
a way to hell even from the gate of heaven." As Tertullian
says : " While the straws of light faith fly away, the mass of
com is laid up the purer in the garden of God." For man is
not acted on mechanically by the grace of God, but his whole
1 De Praescrip. Eaer. iii. vol. ii. p. 5, Opera, ed. Oebler, 1854.

86

COLOSSIANS I. 24.

spiritual nature is excited to earnest prayer, and anxious
effort. Its continuance in the faith is not the unconscious
impress of an irresistible law, but the result of a diligent use of
every means by which belief may be fostered and deepened.
The fact that God keeps believers makes them, therefore, dis
trustful of themselves, and dependent upon Him. And the
confidence of success inspirits them. "Many a man, from
having been persuaded that he is destined to attain some great
object, instead of being lulled into carelessness by this belief,
has been excited to the most laborious and unwearied efforts,
such as, perhaps, otherwise, he would not have thought of
making, for the attainment of his object."1 Thus, as ra
tional beings are wrought upon by motives, so warnings and
appeals are addressed to them, and these appliances form
a special feature of God's plan of preserving them. The
apostle thus shows them how much is suspended on their
perseverance. Ov iyEvopriv iyw IlavXoe SiaKovog — " Of which I Paul am
constituted a minister." [Ephes. iii. 7.] The apostle reverts to
his solemn inauguration, his past course of active service, and
the authority under which he had acted. This brief and dis
tinct intimation forms a special introduction to the second
section of the epistle, and the warning against seduction by
false teachers.
(Ver. 24.) Nvv xa'lPw tv r0'C naBripaaiv virlp vpwv — "Now
I rejoice in my sufferings for you." The MSS. D1, E1, F, G,
with the Vulgate, and many of the Latin Fathers, prefix oc-
The reading probably arose from a homoioteleuton, or repe
tition of the last syllable of the previous word — Siokov og og.
Nvv is not & particle of transition, as Bahr and Liicke 2 make
it, but means " at the present time ;" with the chain upon my
wrist, I rejoice ; not, however, as if he had been sorrowful at a
previous period. The apostle felt that his sufferings had their
source in his diaconate, and therefore he gloried in them.
The simple dative, or a participial nominative, is more fre
quently used to express the cause of joy; the preposition E7r/is
sometimes employed, and occasionally ev, as in Philip, i. 18,
1 Whately, quoted in Wood's Theology, iii. 238. 3 Programm, 1833.

COLOSSIANS I. 24. 87
Luke x. 20, and in the clause before us. To rejoice in them is
not very different from to rejoice over, or upon, or for them,
only, that in the latter case, the afflictions are regarded as
external causes of joy, whereas, in the former case, the writer
represents himself as immersed in them, and rejoicing in
them. The Stephanie Text adds pov after iraBi)paaiv, but on
no great authority. The words virip vpwv, which we connect
with lv iraB. and not with xa'Pw' flave been variously inter
preted. They cannot mean "in your stead," though Steiger
adopts such a view ; and yet, in some sense Paul might be
regarded as the representative of the churches in heathendom.
Nor can the words mean, on the other hand, merely "for
your good," as Meyer, De Wette, and Huther suppose ; or as
CEcumenius gives it, 'iva vpdg w<j>EXr~iaai Svvr)Bw, for this was
an ultimate effect, and not the immediate cause of the apostle's
sufferings. We prefer, with Heinrichs and Stolz, the ordinary
sense of " on your account," as we may suppose the apostle
to refer especially to the Gentile portion of the church. His
preaching to the Gentiles was the real and proximate cause of
his incarceration. He had, in Jerusalem, declared his mission
to the Gentiles, but the mob broke upon him in fury. He was
confined for safety, and having on his trial appealed to Csesar,
he was carried to Rome, and pending the investigation kept a
prisoner there. Paul does sometimes refer to the good results
of his sufferings, as in Philip, i. 12, but he here alludes to the
cause of them.
Kal avravairXripw ra varEpr'ipara rwv SXIJjewv tov Xpiarov
— "And fill up what is wanting of the afflictions of Christ."
Kai is simply connective, not aXXa, as Bengel imagines ; nor
Kal yap, as Bahr explains it. It does not render a reason, as
Calvin supposes, but simply begins an explanatory statement.
This is peculiar language, and its peculiarity has given rise
to many forms of exegesis. Chrysostom says: — "It appears
a great thing which he utters, but not one of arrogance "
— aXX' ovk a7rovo£ac- The noun varipripa, denotes what is
yet lacking ; 1 Cor. xvi. 17 ; 1 Thess. iii. 10 ; Philip, ii.
30 ; and is rendered by Theodoret Xeotojuevov ; and BXtyig
is pressure from evil, violent suffering. The general sense
of the verb is to fill up ; and the question is, in what sense

88

COLOSSIANS I. 24.

did the apostle fill up what was wanting of the sufferings of
Christ? 1. Many of the mediseval Catholic interpreters understood
the clause as referring to the atonement, and that its defects
may be supplied by the sufferings of the saints. This was a
proof-text for the doctrine of indulgences which Bellarmine,
Cajetan, Salmeron, Suarez, the Rhemish annotators, and others,
laid hold of, as if the merits of Paul's sufferings supplemented
those of Christ, and were to be dispensed so as to procure the
remission of penalty. This inference which a-Lapide character
izes as non male", is in direct antagonism to the whole tenor of
Scripture, which represents the sacrifice of Jesus as perfect in
obedience and suffering, so perfect as to need neither supple
ment nor repetition.
2. Not a few get rid of the difficulty by giving the genitive
Xjotorrov, an unwonted and unwarrantable meaning, and render
ing the phrase — " sufferings on account of Christ." The idea
may be in itself a correct one, but it is not the shade of idea
which the genitive expresses. This exegesis is supported by Ter
tullian, Schoettgen, Eisner, Storr, Pierce, RosenmuUer, Flatt,
Bohmer, Burton, and Trollope, but it cannot be grammatically
defended. 3. Calovius, Carpzovus, and Seb. Schmid, understand the
phrase as signifying "sufferings meted out to His people by
Christ ; " a meaning not very different from that adopted by
Liicke — afflictiones, quae Paulo apostolo, Christo auctore et
auspice Christo, perferendae erant. This mode of explanation
does not fix upon the pointed meaning of the genitive, which,
when following BXiipig, denotes the suffering person ; Ephes.
iii. 13; 2 Cor. i. 4; James i. 27.
4. Yet more remote is the view of Photius, adopted by
Junker and Heinrichs, that the clause denotes such sufferings
as Christ would have endured, had He remained longer on the
earth. The words of Photius are — aXX' oo-a .... 'iiraBsv dv
ko.1 viriarri, KaB' ov rpowov Kal 7Tjoiv Kripvaaow Kal EuayysXr
ZopEvog rriv jiaaiXiiav rwv ovjoavwv.1
5. Some able and accomplished scholars take this view —
1 Amphilochia, 113.

COLOSSIANS I. 24. 89
that the sufferings of Paul are styled by him the afflictions of
Christ, because they were similar in nature. Such is the view
of Theodoret, Meyer, Schleiermacher, Huther, and Winer.
Fergusson says — " the great wave of affliction did first beat on
Him, and being thereby broken, some small sparks of it only
do light upon us." The idea is a striking one, yet it is not
universally true. The distinctive element in Christ's suffer
ings had and could have no parallel in those of the apostle —
to wit, vicarious agony : Divine infliction and desertion — en
durance of penalty to free others from bearing it. There
were general points of similarity, indeed, between the suffer
ings of Christ and those of the apostle, so that he might,
though at an awful distance, compare his afflictions to those
of his Divine Master. Both suffered at the hand of man,
and both suffered in innocence. Rom. viii. 17 ; 1 Peter
iv. 13. But though such a thought may occur in other
parts of Scripture, it does not occur in connection with such
phraseology as is found in the clause before us. An apostle
may say that he endures afflictions Hke those of Christ ; but
here Paul says that he supplements the afflictions of Christ.
There is an idea in the phrase above and beyond that of mere
similarity. Similarity is not of itself supplement, nor does it
of necessity imply it.
And thus, in the last place, we are brought to the common
interpretation — that these sufferings are named the afflictions
of Christ because He really endured them ; they were His, for
He really felt them. The genitive is naturally that of posses
sion. Such is the view of Chrysostom and Theophylact,
Augustine and Anselm, of Calvin and Beza, Luther and
Melancthon, Zanchius and Grotius, Vitringa1 and Michaelis,
of Bahr and Steiger, of the Catholics Estius and a-Lapide,
Davenant, Whitby, Conybeare, Doddridge, De Wette and Ols
hausen. Thus, Augustine, on Ps. lxi. exclaims of Christ —
qui passus est in capite nostro et patitur in membris suis, id est
nobis ipsis. And Leo, quoted by Bohmer, says — passio
Christi perducitur ad finem mundi, in omnibus qui pro justitia
adversa tolerant, ipse compatitur. Christ's personal sufferings,
1 Observat. Sacrae, p. 144.

90

COLOSSIANS I. 24.

which are past, and his sympathetic sufferings, which are still
endured, have been distinguished thus in the old Lutheran
theology of Gerhard ; that the former are suffered viroara-
riKwg, the latter axtriKwg. The Rabbins, in their special
dialect, attached a similar meaning to the phrase rrraD 'tan ' —
sufferings of Messiah — distributing them through various gener
ations. The church is in the next clause called the body of
Christ : and the Head suffers in all his members. The
apostle's sufferings were those of Christ, for Christ is identi
fied with all His people. The scene of the apostle's conver
sion impressed this truth upon his mind too deeply ever to
be forgotten by him : the startling challenge yet rang in his
ear — " Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ? " The Redeemer
was one with the poor flock at Damascus, so soon, in Saul's
imagination, to be " scattered and peeled ;" for the errand of
blood was directed against Him as really as against them.
On the other hand, but in accordance with this truth, apostates
who resile from their profession, and virtually proclaim that
they have discovered faith in Christ to be a dream and a
delusion, are said to " crucify to themselves the Son of God
afresh, and put Him to an open shame." Again, in 2 Cor. i.
5, the apostle says — " The sufferings of Christ abound in us,"
that is, sufferings endured by Christ in us; and therefore,
such being the sympathetic affinity between us, our consola
tion also aboundeth by Christ.2 Again, in Heb. xiii. 13,
Christians are exhorted to " go forth unto Him without the
camp, bearing His reproach ; " not reproach on His account,
but the reproach which is His, and which He still bears in us,
through our hving connection with Him. 2 Cor. ii. 10. Nay,
more, we are informed in Heb. xi. 26, that Moses esteemed
" the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in
Egypt." Now, according to the Old Testament, the God of the
theocracy, the Jehovah of the burning bush, the Angel of the
covenant, is none other than He who became incarnate ; so
that, while Moses, as His representative, incurred special and
ungrateful obloquy, that obloquy is termed the reproach of
Christ, of Him who sent him, and who was personated by
1 Buxtorf, Lex. Tal. p. 700. 2 Alford, in loc.

COLOSSIANS I. 24. 91
him. And there is ample foundation laid for the language
before us in our Lord's pathetic and solemn discourse, recorded
in Matthew, in which He declares His oneness with His
people, that He hves in them, endures in them the pangs of
hunger and thirst, and in them is fed and refreshed, is shut up
when they are imprisoned, and welcomes the step of benevo
lence — is conscious, with them, when they are in a foreign
land, of the desolation and solitude of a stranger, and is thank
ful for the shelter and fellowship of hospitality — feels the
shame of their nakedness when they are bereft of clothing,
and accepts with joy the proffered gift of a compassionate
friend — suffers in them in their sickness, and enjoys a kind
look and deed.
The personal sufferings of Jesus are over, but His sufferings
in His people still continue. They are still defective; for
much remains to be endured in this world. The apostle, in
suffering for the sake of the church, felt that he was filling up
the measure of those afflictions.
The double compound verb avravan-Xr/pw, denotes to fill
" up in relation to." Some, like Olshausen1 and Eisner, lay no
peculiar stress on the preposition ; but we cannot suppose it to
be used without some special purpose. The verb a'va7rXrjpw
has a simple sense, but dvrava7rXr)pw has a relative one.
What the relation is, has been disputed. Winer explains the
first compound — qui variptipa a se relictum, ipse explet; and
the second — qui alterius varipr\pa de suo explet. Robinson
and Schrader give dvrl a reference to the Colossians — who
" in your room fill up ; " while Fritzsche, in a note under
Romans xv. 19, suggests the notion of accumulation — in malis
perferendis aemulans. Some give the first preposition the
sense of vicissim — " in turn," as is done by E. Schmid, Beza,
Macknight, and Le Clerk,2 who render — ille ego qui olim
ecclesiam Christi vexaveram, nunc vicissim in ejus utilitatem
pergo multa mala perpeti Others, as CEcumenius, give it the
sense of equivalent repayment for the sufferings which Jesus
endured for us ; or, as Gerhard has it, quoted in Bahr — " as
Christ suffered for my redemption, it is but fitting that I
1 Fischer, Animadver. ad Welleri Gram. p. 369.
3 Ars Crit. p. 134, London, 1698.

92

COLOSSIANS I. 24.

should, in my turn, vicissim, suffer for the advancement of his
glory. This view is also held by Bahr, Bohmer, and Titt
mann.1 We cannot adopt this view, for we do not see it fully
sustained by the passages adduced in support of it. The
passages from Dio Cassius, Apollonius Alexandrinus, and
Demosthenes, do not bear it out ; for in them the dvrl
of the verb may bear an objective sense — may denote the
correspondence between the supplement and the defect. So
Conybeare, in the passage before us — " the dvrl is introduced
into dvrava7rXr/pw, by the antithesis between the notions of
wXripovaBai and varEptiaBai." Meyer's view is similar, and
it is, we believe, the correct one. The verb denotes to fill
up with something which meets the exigence, or is equivalent
to the want. The apostle filled up the sufferings of Christ
not with some foreign agony that had no relation to the
defect ; but the process of supplement consisted of sufferings
which met the deficiency, in quality and amount. It was not
a piece of new cloth on an old garment, or new wine in old
bottles — an antagonism which would have happened had Paul
suffered "as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evil-doer, or
as a busybody in other men's matters ;" but the apostle filled
up what was yet wanting in the Saviour's sympathetic sorrows,
for he adds, they were endured —
'Ev ry aapKi pov virEp rov awparog avTov — " In my flesh
for his body's sake." Storr, Bahr, Bohmer, Steiger, and
Huther, connect the first clause with rwv BXiipswv rov X. —
sufferings which are in my flesh. But more naturally, with
Meyer and De Wette, we join the words to the verb, and
believe them to represent the mode or circumstances in which
the apostle filled up what was left of the afflictions of Christ.
It was in his present fleshly state, and as a suffering man.
2 Cor. iv. 11 ; Gal. iv. 14. The next clause points out the
cause of suffering — " for his body's sake ;" and this fact gave
his sufferings their mysterious and supplemental value. Suffer
ing for His body, implies the fellow-suffering of the Head.
Steiger and Liicke's connection — " sufferings of Christ for
His body's sake" — is wholly against the spirit of the inter-
1 De Synon. p. 230.

COLOSSIANS I. 25. 93
pretation. [Tov awparog avrov 6 iariv i) EKKXriala. Ephes.
i. 23.] (Ver. 25.) *Hc EyEvdjurjv iyw SiaKovog — " Of which church
I was made a minister." [Aiokovoc, Eph. iii. 7.] In the
passage in the epistle to the Ephesians, the apostle speaks of
his diaconate in reference to the gospel ; but here in connec
tion with the church. And truly the church never had such
a servant as Paul — of such industry and heroism — such
enthusiasm and perseverance — such sufferings and travels —
such opposition and success. He had no leisure even when
in chains. The artistic beauties of Athens served but to give
point to his orations ; and the Prastorium at Rome furnished
him with occasion to describe the armour and weapons of the
sacramental host of God's elect. His service stands out in
superlative eminence, whether you measure it by the miles
he journeyed, by the sermons he preached, by the stripes
and stonings he endured, by the privations he encountered, —
"in hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness," and by the ship
wrecks he suffered, or by the souls he converted, the churches
he planted or watered, the epistles he wrote, and the death
which crowned a life of such earnestness and triumph.
Kara rrjv oiKOvoplav tov Qeov, rr)v SoBsiadv poi slg vpdg —
" According to the dispensation of God committed to me for
you." [O'tKovojuia, &c, Eph. i. 10 ; iii. 2.] In the Divine
arrangement of the spiritual house, the apostle held a function
which had special reference to the members of the Gentile
churches. Paul regarded this as his distinctive office, and
how he gloried in it! It had a breadth which suited his
mighty mind, and it necessitated the preaching of an uncon
ditioned gospel, which specially delighted his ample heart.
He would not be confined within the narrow circuit of
Judaism ; the field on which his soul set itself was the world.
HXripwaat rbv Xoyov tov Beov — " To fulfil the word of
God." Rom. xv. 19. The meaning is not altered, whether
you connect these words with the first or second clause of the
verse, either — " of which I was made a servant, to fulfil the
word of God," or — " according to the dispensation given in
charge to me, to fulfil the word of God." The last is the
more natural, and is in accordance with the usual style of the

94

COLOSSIANS I. 25.

apostle. In either case wXripwaai is the infinitive of design.
The verb has various meanings in the New Testament, and
has therefore been variously understood here.
Vitringa,1 as was natural to such a Hebraist, seeks the
meaning of the term from Jewish usage, and compares
irXripow to ipa, which signified to teach. Flatt and Bahr
follow him in their exegesis ; but such a method has no
warrant, and we are not forced to it by the impossibihty of
discovering another. Cornelius a-Lapide ekes out a meaning
in this way — to fulfil what Christ began ; Steiger, following
Tholuck,2 adopts the subjective idea — to realize and experi
ence its fulness. One class of interpreters, represented by
Calixtus and Heinrichs, apply it to the fulfilment of the Divine
promises and prophecies of the admission of Gentiles into the
church ; and another class, headed by Theodoret, regard the
clause as pointing out the diffusion of the gospel — the filling
of all places with its preaching. Calvin takes the special idea
of fulfilling or giving effect to the gospel — ut ejficax sit Dei
sermo, virtually the interpretation of some of the Greek
Fathers ; while Luther renders reichlich predigen, to preach
fully — a notion adopted by Olshausen, that is, to declare the
gospel in all its fulness and extent. Fritzsche has a con
jecture of his own — that the apostle uses this term as if his
instructions were a supplementary continuation of those of
their teacher Epaphras;* and De Wette, by a metonymy,
regards the gospel as a service or decree which Paul wrought
out, a notion also held by some of the Lexicographers. In
assigning a meaning to the verb, much depends on the signifi
cation given to the noun. Now, we regard the following verse
as explanatory — the Xoyoc being the mystery hid from ages
and generations — not the gospel in itself, but that gospel in
its adaptation to the Gentiles, and its reception by them. The
apostle says of himself that he did not preach, but that he
fulfilled the gospel. He carried out its design — held it up as
the balm of the world — proclaimed it without distinction of
blood or race. He did not narrow its purpose, or confine it
to a limited sphere of influence ; but, as the apostle of the
1 Observat. i. p. 207. 2 Berg-pred. p. 135.
a Comment, in Ep. ad Rom. vol. iii. 257.

COLOSSIANS I. 26. 95
Gentiles, he opened for it a sweep and circuit adapted to its
magnificence of aim, and its universality of fitness arid suffi
ciency. He carried it beyond the frontiers of Judaea, lifted
it above the walls of the synagogue, and held it up to the
nations. The gospel, since the apostle's time, has received
no fuller expansion, nor have any wider susceptibilities been
detected or developed in it. As an instrument of human
regeneration, he brought it to perfection. Whether you
regard the purpose of its author, its own genius or adequacy,
its unlimited offers, indiscriminate invitations, and tested
efficacy ; the apostle, in preaching it everywhere, and to all
classes without reserve, laboured " to fulfil the word of God."
Luke vii. 1 ; ix. 31 ; Acts xiii. 25 ; xiv. 26.
(Ver. 26.) T6 pvarriptov rb airoKEKpvppivdv dwb rwv alwvwv
ko.1 airb rwv yEVEwv, vvvl os1 iabavEpwBri roig ayloit; avrov.
This verse, as we have said, defines what is meant by the
" word" which Paul fulfilled. The meaning of "the mystery
hid from ages and from generations," has been explained under
Eph. iii. 3, 6. \jwarr)piov, Eph. i. 9, alwv, yEvsa, Eph. iii. 9,
21.] Alwv is age or lifetime, and y*v«a is the space of one
generation. In all past time, this mystery was concealed.
The apostle does not say, as has been remarked — 7rp6 rwv
alwvwv, as if the mystery had been hidden from eternity;
but only that it was wrapt in obscurity during the entire past
historical epoch. It is a strange conceit of Bengel — Aeones
referuntur ad angelos, generationes ad homines. The mystery
is not the gospel generally, as Calvin and Davenant errone
ously suppose ; but the preaching of it to the Gentiles, and
their incorporation into the church, or, as the apostle here
describes it — "Christ in you, the hope of glory." Nay, so httle
was it understood, that it required a special revelation to
make it known to the reluctant mind ofthe apostle Peter.
In the next clause the syntax is changed, and, therefore, as
might naturally be expected, we find various readings devised
to amend the grammar, such as ijtavspwBiv in D and E, and §
vvv i<t>avEpwBr) in other Codices. The participial construc
tion is suddenly departed from, and the verb is employed.
The anacoluthon gives a sharpness to the contrast. Winer,
§ 64; Bernhardy, p. 473. [Eph. i. 20.] The adverb vwl,

96

COLOSSIANS I. 27.

supported by A, D, E, J, K, is the strengthened form of vvv.
Buttmann, § 80, and Se points out the contrast. The verb
employed to denote the disclosure of a mystery is a7roKaXv7rrw
in Eph. iii. 5 ; but this verb occurs in a similar connection,
Rom. xvi. 26 ; Titus i. 3 ; Mark iv. 22. The word denotes
manifestation by Divine power, as the inspired history so
plainly relates. But what is meant by rote dyioig ? Because
the apostle, in the parallel passage in the epistle to the Ephe
sians, adds dVoaToXotc Kal irpofyryraig, many think that the
same addition is to be understood here. Such is the view of
Theodoret, Estius, Bahr, Bohmer, Steiger, Olshausen, and
others. F, G, add, without warrant, d7ro<7rdXo(c to the text.
There is no reason to depart from the meaning which the
epithet bears in the first verse of the epistle ; and so Chrysos
tom, Calvin, Meyer, and De Wette, rightly take it.
(Ver. 27.) Olg riBiXriaEV 6 Qibg yvwpiaai, rig 6 irXovrog rrjg
Sofirig rov pvarrfplov rovrov ev rote tBvsaiv — "To whom," or,
as being persons, " to whom God wished to make known
what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the
Gentiles." Some suppose that yvwpiaai has a broader and
more definite meaning than i<j>avEpwBri, though without good
foundation, [yvwpiaai, Eph. i. 9.] It is wrong on the part of
many expositors to press a theological meaning upon the verb
¦nBiXriaEv, as if it contained a special reference to free grace.
It merely intimates that the Divine intention was not neces
sitated, and that it was God's pleasure to instruct his people
in the full bearings and adaptation of the gospel. The saints
did not discover the mystery : the development of Christianity
sprang neither from their philanthropy nor their ingenuity,
but it was God who unfolded the mystery in all wisdom and
prudence. The apostle now illustrates the character of the
disclosure — rt rb 7rXovroc rfje So^tic, (for such seems to be
the preferable reading) — " what is the wealth of the glory "
of this mystery. There is no ground for resolving the phrase
into a Hebraism, and rendering it with Chrysostom, 7roXX)j
Sd£a; nor with Erasmus, gloriosa opulentia; or with Beza
and Davenant, gloriosae divitiae. [Ephes. i. 6.] Both terms,
7rXovroe and S6%a, are favourites of the apostle, and are
employed to represent what is bright, substantial, and per-

COLOSSIANS I. 27. 97
manent. That mystery is enveloped in glory, and that glory
has at once a solid basis and an unfading lustre. It is no halo
which glimmers and disappears — no gilding which is easily
effaced ; but it is rich, having the weight, value, and brilliancy
of gold. There is no authority for rendering, with Vatablus
and Heinrichs, the interrogative by quantus. And that such
wealth of glory may be appreciated, the apostle adds, in
explanation —
''Oc eottiv Xpioroc iv vplv, 17 eXttIc rije SofZyg — " Which is
Christ in you, the hope of glory." There are various readings
— the neuter o being found in A, B, F, G, the Vulgate,
and Latin Fathers — a reading suggested by the gender of
the preceding noun. The masculine is preferable — the
gender being caused by that of the following substantive
Xpto-ro'c- Winer, § 24; Kuhner, § 786, 3; Mark xv. 16;
Gal. iii. 16. The meaning depends very much on precision
of view as to the antecedent. It is not pvarr)piov, as Chry
sostom, a-Lapide, Kistmacher, Junker, and others, suppose
— a supposition which yields but a bald interpretation ; for it
is not the mystery in itself, but the wealth of the glory of
the mystery which God had disclosed to the saints. It is not
the fact that Christ was among the Gentiles, but the character
and relations of that fact that the apostle dwells on. Nor is
the antecedent merely srXovroe, as many maintain, among
whom are Theodoret and GCcumenius, Meyer and Bohmer;
nor simply oo£a, as Schmid holds ; for the reference is
not to the riches of the glory by themselves, but to those
riches possessed and enjoyed by the Gentile converts. The
one idea is at the same time involved in the other ; the glory
is not an abstraction, for it resides in the mystery, and the
mystery cannot appear in nakedness, for it always exhibits
this pure and imperishable lustre. The antecedent is rather
the complex idea of the entire clause — not Christ in Himself,
but in His novel and gracious relation to the Gentile world,
as a developed and illustrious mystery. The term Christ is
not to be explained away, as if it merely meant the doctrine
of Christ, as is proved by the subsequent clause — " whom we
preach." The words lv vjutv, are rendered by many " among
you," that is, in the midst of you, as in the preceding clause

98

COLOSSIANS I. 27.

and in the margin of our English Bibles. But the meaning
" in you," is virtually implied ; for Christ, as the hope of glory,
was not contemplated merely, but possessed. He was not
merely before them to be beheld, but in them to be felt.
Pierce and Macknight render, loosely and incorrectly — Christ
to you the hope of glory. This frequent allusion to the
Redeemer by name — to His power and work, as the Divine
source of blessing, seems to have had a reference to the views
of some among the Colossians, who would have had a church
without a Christ, and salvation without a Saviour.
The clause ij !X7r!e rrjg oo£tjc, is in apposition with Xpiarog.
It is out of all rule, on the, part of Erasmus, Menochius, and
others, apparently following Theophylact, to render rf;e So£tjc
by the adjective evSo^oc- Nor is this glory simply that of
God, nor is it the moral worth and dignity of Christians, nor
yet the glory 'obtained in disclosing the mystery. The
" glory " is the future blessedness of behevers, as in Rom. ii.
7, 10 ; viii. 18 ; 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; 2 Cor. iv. 17 ; 1 Thess. ii. 12 ;
Heb. ii. 10 ; Rom. v. 2. The noun eX^Ci Is n°t hope as an
emotion, but the foundation of it, as in 1 Tim. i. 1, and it is
followed by the genitive of the thing hoped for, or the object
of hope. The clause is well explained by Theophylact — Sion
Si avrov iXirl%opsv Trjg So^tig rvY^Eiv alwviov. The life of
glory rests on Christ as its author and basis — such is the
blessed statement of the apostle. Let us pause for a moment
over this glory, and its connection with Christ, and then we
shall be able to know with the saints — "what are the riches
of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles."
The glory of Christians is yet to come, but it is certain.
What they so earnestly pray for, and so heartily long and
labour for, shall be revealed over and beyond their anticipa
tions. Deliverance from all evil is followed by introduction
into all good. What is partially and progressively enjoyed
in time, is fully and for ever possessed in heaven. The spirit
in its present feebleness would bow and faint beneath the
pressure of it, nay, it might die in delirious agony ; but then,
it shall have power and stateliness not only to bear, but to
enjoy the "far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory."
Now, no man can see Him and live — our frail humanity

COLOSSIANS I. 27. 99
would be consumed by the terrible vision ; but the saint is
prepared to gaze with unmingled rapture on His majesty, and
to live, walk, and be happy in its lustre. The mind shall be
filled with light from the face of God, and the heart shall
pulsate with love in eternal and undivided empire. The
image of God, in all its loveliness and brilliance, shall be
restored to every heart, and that heart shall enjoy uninter
rupted fellowship with Him who sits upon the throne.
Nothing can happen to mar or modify this communion ; for
though an angel 'were to pass between him and the throne,
he could cast no shadow upon the rapt and adoring saint.
Every man shall be as perfect as Christ — in soul, body, and
spirit, and beyond the possibility of forfeit or relapse. The
burden of sin is removed, and to the sense of oppression there
shall succeed the consciousness of spiritual buoyancy and eleva
tion ; the taint of depravity is wiped away, and the joy of salva
tion shall mingle its aromatic fragrance with the "new wine"
in the kingdom of our Father. The body, too, shall be raised
an ethereal vehicle, no longer the prey of disease, languor,
and death, but clothed in immortal youth and vigour, and so
assimilated to the blessed spirit within it, as neither to cramp
its movements nor confine its energies. No pain there — no
throbbing brow there — no tear on the cheek there — no
sepulchre there — no symbol of mourning there — no spectacle
hke the apparition of Rachel weeping for her children — or
like the widow of Nain following the bier of a lost and loved
one. "Death is swallowed up of life" — the graves have been
opened — they that dwell in the dust have awakened to endless
minstrelsy. Nor do they dwell in a paradise restored
amidst the lovely bowers, shady groves, and exuberant fruits
of a second Eden. Such glory is too bright for earth, and is
therefore to be enjoyed in a scene which shall be in harmony
with it. See under verse 12.
Now, Christ is the hope of this glory. Glory had been
forfeited, but Jesus interposed for its restoration. When the
Saviour is received by faith, the hope of glory springs up in
the bosom — a hope as strange aforetime to it as " the pine and
the box tree " in the desert. Christians are by nature sinners
doomed to die, yet, through Christ, they exult in the promise

100

COLOSSIANS I. 27.

of life. Though, in their physical frame, they are of the earth
earthy, their treasure is in heaven. They can look on the
Divine Judge, who must, but for Christ, have condemned
them, and call him, in Jesus, their Father-God ; and they can
gaze on the home of angels, so far above them, and say of it,
in confidence — that, too, is our home. The basis of this life
is Jesus. If it be asked, why have his sins not borne down
the evil-doer, and crushed him beneath the intolerable load ?
why has the lightning slumbered beneath the throne, and not
swiftly descended on his head? why are the angry passions
within him hushed, and his gloomy thoughts dissipated?
whence such a change in relation and character? — the pro
blem is solved by the statement — " Christ within you." This
hope rests on his objective work — for " it was Christ that
died." Who shall reverse the sentence of our justification,
or pronounce it inconsistent with sovereign equity? And
who shall condemn us? Shall sin raise its head? — He has
made an end of it. Shall Satan accuse ? — he has been cast
out. Shall conscience alarm? — it has been purged from dead
works. Or, shall death frown horribly on us ? — even it has
been abolished. The basis of this hope of glory is also the
subjective work of Christ — by His Spirit within the saint. Not
only has he the title to heaven, but he gets maturity for it.
The process of sanctification begets at once the idea and the
hope of perfection. If one sees the block of marble assuming
gradually, under the chisel, the semblance of humanity, he
infers at once what form of sculpture the artist intends. So
if there be felt within us the transforming influence of the
Holy Ghost, bringing out the Divine image with more and
more fulness and distinctness, can we doubt the ultimate
result ? Rom. xv. 13. Such consciousness inspires vivid
expectation. In short, in whatever aspect the saints view their
hope, they see it in connection with Christ. If they look
behind them, the earliest dawning of it sprang from faith in
His cross ; if they look around them, it is sustained by the
promises of Him who sealed these pledges in His blood ; if
they look forward and upward, it is strengthened by the
nearing proximity of realization in Him who is " in the midst
of the throne." What a blessed change to the Gentile world !

COLOSSIANS I. 28. 101
They had been described as once " without Christ," but now
Christ was in them ; once they had no hope, but now, they
had in them Him who was the hope of glory. No wonder
that the apostle rejoiced in suffering for the Gentile churches,
and thanked God for that arrangement which enabled him to
carry out the gospel to its widest susceptibility of application,
and thus develop a doctrine which had been concealed for
ages. Is his language too gorgeous, when surveying the
wondrous process and the stupendous results, he speaks of
the " riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles
— " Christ in you, the hope of glory ?" And that glory is not
to be under eclipse — that Saviour is not to be selfishly con
cealed. No ; the apostle adds, as characteristic of his grand
commission and daily labour —
(Ver. 28.) "Ov r)pslg KarayyiXXopEv — " Whom we preach."
Acts xvii. 3 ; Philip, i. 17. Chrysostom and Theophylact lay
undue stress on the Kara, as if the idea of down — deorsum, were
implied in the verb, and the inference were, that they delivered
a message which had descended from heaven. This Christ, so
glorious in person and perfect in work — the incarnate God —
the bleeding peacemaker — the imperial governor of the uni
verse — it is He, none else, and none besides Him, whom we
preach. Not simply His doctrine, but Himself; and He was
preached, not by Paul alone, but by all his colleagues. This
Christ is the one and undivided obj ect of proclamation ; and
if He be the hope of glory, no wonder that they rejoice to pro
claim Him wide and far, and on every possible pccasion. The
apostolic preaching was precise and definite. It contained no
reveries about the heavenly hierarchy. It was overlaid by no
tasteless and tawdry declamation about invisible and worthless
mysteries. It dealt not in ascetic distinctions of meats and
drinks. There was about it none of those abstruse transcen
dentalisms in which the Colossian heresiarchs seem to have
indulged. It did not gratify the morbid and curious, by pry
ing into celestial arcana. It did not nourish a carnal pride
under the delusion of a "voluntary humility." Nor did it de
throne a Saviour-God, and substitute the worshipping of angels
for the faith, love, and homage due to Him. The one theme
was Christ — " Him first, Him last, Him midst." Christ, as the

102

COLOSSIANS I. 28.

one deliverer, conferring pardon by His blood, purity by His
Spirit, and perfection by His pledge and presence, securing
defence by His power, comfort by His sympathy, and the
hope of glory by His residence in the believing heart ; this
Christ, as the only source of such, multifarious and connected
gifts, we preach, and we preach with special tenderness and
anxiety. For he characterizes his preaching thus —
NovflsrovvrEc irdvra dvBpwirov, Kal SiSdaKovrEg irdvra
dvBpwirov iv irday ao<j>la — " Reminding every man, and
teaching every man in all wisdom." iii. 16. The two parti
ciples, as [might be expected, have been variously distin
guished. [Nov0Eo-ta, Ephes. vi. 4.] There is no warrant in
the context for translating this first term by the Latin corri-
pientes — as in the Vulgate ; as if the apostle meant to say,
either that men in sin needed to be rebuked, or that false
teachers were subjected by himself to severe and merited
castigation. Theophylact, • followed by De Wette and Ols
hausen, refers the first term to practice — iirl rije irpd^Ewg,
and the second to doctrine — iirl Soypdrwv. According to
Steiger, the one marks the early communication of Christian
truth, and the latter characterizes fuller instruction. By
Huther ^the heart is supposed to be concerned in vov0e-
rovvrse, and the intellect in SiSao-Kovrse- Meyer affirms that
the two words correspond to the cardinal injunction of the
gospel — /uEravoEirs and 7no-rEv£r£ — repent and believe. We
are inclined to be somewhat eclectic among these opinions,
and to regard the first term as the more general, and the
second as the more special — the one as describing the means
employed to arouse the soul and stimulate it to reflection,
and the other as the definite form of instruction which was
communicated to the anxious and inquiring spirit.1 The
apostle warned every man — any one, every one, — urged him
as a sinner to bethink himself, to consider his danger, as the
victim of a broken law — and apprehending the certainty of
safety alone in Christ, to look at the adaptation of the gospel
and the glory of its evidence, and to submit to its paramount
1 Thus Clements says, — n vovhrtteis ofiv oiovti Ytaira len voeovevxs $v%*is, &c. —
" Counsel is the prescribed diet of a diseased soul, advising itto take what is salu-
tary, and warning it against what is pernicious."

COLOSSIANS I. 28. 103
claims. And he taught " every man" — gave him full instruction
— left him in no dubiety, but presented him with a correct
and glowing sketch of redemption by the cross. And this
was done —
'Ev irday aoflq. — "In all wisdom." Estius and Rosen-
miiller, Pierce and A. Clarke, following the Latin Fathers,
blunder when they take these words to denote the object of
the teaching; for in the New Testament that object is
governed in the accusative. Mark vi. 30 ; xii. 14 ; Luke xx.
21; John xiv. 26; 1 Tim. iv. 11; Titus i. 11. Roell com
bines both this view and the following one. Chrysostom
rightly renders ev by pErd. See the phrase explained under
Ephes. i. 8. It is probably to be joined to the latter or
principal participle, and points out the mode or spirit of the
apostle's teaching. 1 Cor. iii. 10. The apostle rejects, indeed,
one species of wisdom — that which so often assumed the self-
satisfied name of philosophy ; but still he felt the necessity of
employing the highest skill and prudence in discharging the
duties of his office. 1 Cor. ii. 4. To preach the gospel so as
to guide the wandering sinner to Christ — to drive him from
all refuges of lies, and urge him to embrace a free and full
salvation — to enlighten, comfort, strengthen, and refresh the
children of God, is seen to be a task demanding consummate
wisdom, when we consider the endless varieties of character
and temperament, the innumerable sophistries of the human
heart, and the ever-changing condition and events of our brief
existence. Yet while Christ crucified is the theme of every
address, such uniformity of doctrine does not imply sameness
of argument or tedious monotony of imagery and illustration.
There may be, and there will be, in this wisdom, circum
stantial variety in the midst of essential oneness — for the truth
though old is ever new.
And the apostle dwells on the individualizing character of
the gospel, and repeats the words " every man." There is in
this probably a special reference to the partial views of those
who were disturbing the Colossian church. The apostle
felt an undying interest in every man, whatever his character
or creed — every man, whatever his race or lineage — every
man, whatever his colour or language — every man, whatever

104

COLOSSIANS I. 29.

his class or station ; every living man on earth shared in his
sympathies, had a place in his prayers, and, so far as the
sphere of his personal teaching extended, might receive the
impress of his counsels, and the benefit of his instructions.
The motive of his effort is then described —
"Iva irapaarr)awpEV irdvra dvBpwirov teXeiov iv Xpiarip —
" In order that we may present every man perfect in Christ."
A glorious aim — "va — the noblest that can stimulate enthu
siasm, or sustain perseverance in suffering or toil. The 'Itjotou
of the Textus Receptus is not supported by full authority.
The phrase " perfect in Christ," does not simply mean perfect
in knowlege, because of this previous teaching, as Chrysostom
and Calvin supposed; for the effect of such knowledge is
moral in its nature, and sanctifying in its effect. John xvii. 3.
Such perfection is "in Christ," in fellowship with Him, is
derived from Him, and consists in likeness to Him. The
verb occurs in verse 22, and in a clause of similar import.
The time of presentation is described under Ephes. v. 27.
The object of his preaching was to save every man. He was
contented with nothing less than this, and nothing* else than
this was his absorbing motive. Not that every man was
perfected whom he had endeavoured to instruct, but such was
his avowed object. Theophylact thus writes — ri XiyEig ; 7rdvra
dvBpwirov ', val, <j>riai, tovto airov$d%opEv. e'i Se pr) yivrrrai,
ovSlv irpbg r)pdg. Clement of Alexandria takes Travra in the
sense of 6Xov — -the man entire — soul, body, and spirit. And
the gaining of that object cost the apostle no small pains and
labour, for he adds —
(Ver. 29.) Eic o Kal kottiw — " For which I also labour."
To attain this blessed end, I also toil — dywviZ,6pEvog —
"intensely struggling," or as Wycliffe renders — / traueile
in stryuynge. It was no light work, no pastime ; it made a
demand upon every faculty and every moment. 1 Tim. iv. 10.
Since the apostle had many adversaries to contend with, as is
evident from numerous allusions in his epistles, Philip, i. 29,
30 ; 1 Tim. vi. 5 ; 2 Thess. iii. 2, many suppose that such
struggles are either prominently alluded to here, or at least
are distinctly implied in the use of the participle. But the
context does not favour such a hypothesis. It would seem

COLOSSIANS I. 29. 105
from the following verses, that it is to an agony of spiritual
earnestness that the apostle refers — to that profound yearning
which occasioned so many wrestlings in prayer, and drew
from him so many tears ; pErd ttoXXjjc rijc o-7rovSije, as Chry
sostom paraphrases it. When we reflect upon the motive —
the presentation of perfect men to God, and upon the
instrument^the preaching of the cross, we cease to wonder
at the apostle's zeal and toils. For there is no function so
momentous, — not that which studies the constitution of man,
in order to ascertain his diseases and remove them ; nor that
which labours for social improvement, and the promotion of
science and civilization ; nor that which unfolds the resources
of a nation, and secures it a free and patriotic government —
far more important than all, is the function of the Christian
ministry. What in other spheres is enthusiasm, is in it but
sobriety. Barnes well says — " In such a work it is a privilege
to exhaust our strength ; in the performance of the duties of
such an office, it is an honour to be permitted to wear out life
itself." It was, indeed, no sluggish heart that beat in the apostle's
bosom. His was no torpid temperament. There was such a
keenness in all its emotions and anxieties, that its resolve and
action were simultaneous movements. But though he laboured
so industriously, and suffered so bravely in the aim of winning
souls to Christ and glory, still he owned that all was owing
to Divine power lodged within him —
The work to be perform'd is ours,
The strength is all His own ;
'Tis He that works to will,
"Pis He that works to do ;
His is the power by which we act,
His be the glory too.
Therefore, the apostle thus concludes —
Kara rrjv ivipyuav avrov rrjv ivEpyovpivriv iv ipol iv
Swdpsi — "According to His working, that worketh in me
with might." The preposition Kara expresses the measure of
Paul's apostolical labour. He laboured not only under the
prompting of the Divine energy, but he laboured just so far
as that imparted energy enabled him. 1 Cor. xv. 10. "By

106 COLOSSIANS I. 29.
the grace of God I am what I am : and His grace which was
bestowed upon me was not in vain ; but I laboured more abun
dantly than they all : yet not I, but the grace of God which
was with me." The pronoun avrov refers not to God, as many
imagine, but to Christ. The participle is not in the passive,
but the middle voice, as in Gal. v. 6. [Ephes. iii. 20.] Winer,
§ 39, 6. The phrase lv Svvdpsi does not, as Vatablus and
Michaelis suggest, refer to miracles, but has an adverbial
sense, specifying the mode of operation. Rom. i. 4 ; 2 Thess.
i. 11. The occurrence ofthe noun and a correlate verb inten
sifies the meaning. Winer, § 32, 6. [Ephes. i. 5, 6.] It
was no feeble manifestation of Divine power that showed
itself in the great apostle of the Gentiles. Its ample energies
clothed him with a species of moral omnipotence. Philip.
iv. 13. The sublime motive to present every man perfect in
Christ, through the preaching of Christ, could only be realized
by the conferment of Divine qualification and assistance.
Mere human influence cannot reach it, though the faculties
be kept in full tension, and the mind be disciplined into
symmetrical operation. Learning, industry, and genius, are of
httle avail, without piety and spiritual support. " Our suffi
ciency is of God." 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6.

CHAPTER II.

The apostle had just spoken of his sufferings for the church,
and his conflicts for the realization of the one grand aim of
the Christian ministry. That aim filled his spirit and nerved
his energies. It made him what he was — a preacher, and at
length a martyr. The value of souls and the glory of Christ
wrapt themselves up in one burning thought, and created and
sustained one dominant and living impulse within him. It
was his heart's desire that the gospel should be preserved in
its purity and simplicity, free from all admixtures of Judaism
and false philosophy. He knew that the introduction of error
imperiUed the salvation of sinners, hindered the diffusion of
the word, and robbed the cross of its special adaptations to a
lost world. And his affection was not wholly set upon
churches where he had preached in person. He had no Httle
jealousies and no favouritism, but all the believing communi
ties, whatever their age, place, or origin, found in him imme
diate sympathy and co-operation. The churches which he
had not visited in person might scarcely be inclined to beheve
this fully, and might naturally imagine that their neighbours
which had been honoured by his presence had a deeper hold
on his affection. But the apostle- seeks to dispel this illusion,
and says in earnest exhortitude1 —
(Ver. 1.) 0eXw yap vpdg siSivai, r)XlKOv dywva e^w TTEpl
vpwv Kal rwv ev AaoSiKElq, Kal oaoi ovx iwpaKaai rb irpoawirov
pov iv trapKi — " For I wish that you knew what a great con
flict I have about you and them in Laodicea, and as many as
have not seen my face in the flesh." It is disputed whether
1 " Prom the construction of this Exordium I venture to assert, that there is no rule
laid down by Aristotle, Cicero, and other masters of eloquence, concerning the framing
of introductions, which is not adhered to in this brief opening. For three things are
required by them in a legitimate Exordium: That it be adapted to render the
hearer attentive, and docile, and to conciliate his affection." — Davenant, m he.

108

COLOSSIANS II. 1.

irEp'i or v7TEp be the better reading — A, B, C, D™, declare for
the latter ; while the former is supported by D1, E, F, G, J, K,
and the Greek Fathers, Lachmann and Tischendorf, are
divided. Perhaps 7teoi is the right reading, and v7TEp was
suggested from iv. 12 ; and i. 24. The reading swpamv — the
Alexandrian form — -is also preferable to that of the Textus
Receptus — iwpaKaai. Winer, § 13, 2.
The division of chapters is here unhappy, for this verse is
but a supplementary explanation of the preceding one. " I
am in an agony " he had said, and now he adds, " I would ye
knew what an agony I am in about you." The noun aywv
means deep and earnest solicitude,1 accompanied with toil and
peril. Philip, i. 30 ; 1 Thess. ii. 2 ; 1- Tim. vi. 12. It points
out that intense and painful anxiety, which preyed upon
him, now in occasional terror, and now in reviving hopes —
that ceaseless conflict which filled his waking hours with
effort, and relieved with prayer the watches of the night. His
soul was in a perpetual distress for them : every suspicion
about them left a pang behind it — the bare possibility of their
relapse or apostacy brought with it unutterable dismay and
sorrow. Therefore, he says, tjXikov dywva — "How great a
struggle." Hesychius gives, as synonyms for the adjective,
birolov, irorairov. James iii. 5. It was no easy or supine
struggle. He knew what was at stake. They were in dan
ger, and he could not be in the midst of them. The seducer
might have been pictured out to him, but he was not privileged
to confront him. How the Colossians stood he knew not.
He was aware of the hazard they were in generally — but the
shiftings of the crisis and its individual results could only be
faintly apprehended. Like the caged bird beating its bared and
bleeding breast against the wires of its prison, as it hears the
repeated cry of its unseen young ones, the apostle turned ever
and anon toward those churches, painted to himself their danger
and their need of help, and strained his eager spirit to the ut
most as he sighed over the possible desolation which might come
upon them. Nor did he idly chafe in his confinement, — but
he wrote this letter, and he wished them to know the depth of
1 noXX« Qpavrts —as Theodoret explains it.

COLOSSIANS II. 2. 109
the love which he cherished toward them. " I would that ye
knew." Similar construction is found in 1 Cor. xi. 3 ; Philip.
i. 12 ; Rom. xi. 25. If they knew it, they would listen all the
more readily to his suggestions and counsels. Laodicea is
also mentioned, from its proximity to Colosse, and perhaps
because it was exposed to similar seductions. A few Codices,
with the Philoxenian Syriac, add Kal rwv ev cIspa7roXEt, a gloss
evidently taken from iv. 13. The apostle says, besides, " and
as many as have not seen my face in the flesh." This mode of
expression is a popular one, and is not therefore to be pressed
as if " in the flesh " was opposed to " in the Spirit," or as if,
as Olshausen suggests, it put " the bodily countenance in con
trast to the spiritual physiognomy." The reference in 6aoi
has been keenly disputed — whether it alludes to a class dif
ferent from the Christians in Colosse and Laodicea; or whether
it characterizes them also as persons unknown to the apostle,
and unvisited by him. This question has been fully treated in
the Introduction, to which the reader is referred. The point
ofthe apostle's agony is thus described —
(Ver. 2.) "Iva irapaKXriBwaiv al KapSlai avrwv — "That their
hearts might be comforted." In the violent effort described
in dywv, there is implied a definite design expressed by 'iva.
The pronoun avrwv, in the third person, comprehends all the
classes of persons mentioned in the preceding verse. We
agree with Meyer that there is no reason to depart from the
ordinary sense of the verb, which plainly means to comfort, in
1 Thess. iii. 2 ; 2 Thess. ii. 17 ; Ephes. vi. 22 ; Matt. ii. 18 ;
v. 4; 2 Cor. i. 4. The addition of KapSia renders such a
meaning more certain. It appears to us that there is in this
earnest wish an allusion to that discomfort which the intro
duction of error creates, as indeed is more plainly shown by
the concluding phraseology of the verse. The conflict of error
with truth could not but lead to distraction and mental tur
moil ; and in proportion to their misconception of the gospel,
or their confusion of idea with regard to its spirit, contents,
and aim, would be their loss of that peace and solace, which
the new rehgion had imparted to them.
2,vp(3ifiaaBivrEg iv ay airy — "United together in love."
[Ephes. iv. 16.] The Elzevir Text reads avpfiifiaaBlvrwv on

110

COLOSSIANS II. 2.

very slight authority. The reading is an evident emendation
with reference to the preceding avrwv. The masculine form
and nominative case of the participle presents no real diffi
culty. [Ephes. iv. 2.] The Vulgate translation — instructi —
is based upon the usage of .the Septuagint, in which this verb
represents several Hebrew verbs, the principal of which are
portions of either vv or rn; , and signifying to instruct.1 Isaiah
xl. 13; Exodus xviii. 16; Jer. x. 11, &c. It is used with a
similar secondary sense in Acts xvi. 10; ix. 22, where it
means to gather up the lessons presented, and knit them
together in the form of inference or demonstration. Hesy-
chius defines avpf3t(3d%Ei by eic (piXiav dysi ; and the Scholiast,
quoted by Wetstein, has it, avp(3if3aaB£vrEg, olov kvwBivrEg ;
this last term being that also employed in explanation by
Theophylact.2 But the natural sense here is, "being com
pacted together," love being the element of union ; ev point
ing not simply to its bond, as if it were Sid. In the peculiar
condition of the Colossian church, this virtual prayer was very
necessary. The entrance of error naturally begets suspicion
and alienation. One wonders if his neighbour be infected,
and how far ; and that neighbour reciprocates similar curiosity
and doubts. Expressions are too carefully weighed, and a
man is made " an offender for a word." A sinister construction
is apt to be put upon the slightest actions; nay, caution defeats
its very purpose, and fails to secure good understanding. But
the apostle was anxious that these churches should feel no
such disaster, should be shivered into repellent fragments by
none of those evil influences, but that they should remain in
mutual and affectionate oneness — bound together in love —
proof alike against the invasion of heresy, and the secret
upspringing of internal mistrusts and dislikes.
Kal ejc irdvra irXovrov rrjg irXiipoipoplag rijc avviaEwg —
" And unto the whole wealth of the full assurance of under
standing." But with which of the preceding clauses is this
one to be joined? It seems preferable to connect it with the
1 So also Ambrosiaster and Hilary, as well as Bretschneider, who, in his Lexicon,
sub voce, renders this clause bene edocti ad amorem mutuum.
2 Herodotus, i. 74, and Thucydides, ii. 29, where it is said of Nymphodorus, that
he reconciled Perdiccas to the Athenians — gt/>></3/j3a<rs.

COLOSSIANS II. 2. Ill
last — "knit together" — ev . . . ko! Etc — "in love and in
order to the wealth." The two prepositions are closely united
by Kal — lv pointing out the element of union, and Etc denoting
its purpose. This syntax seems preferable to connecting the
phrase with the ijXtKov dywva of the first verse, as is done by
Calovius, or even with irapaKXriBwaiv of the first clause of
this verse, as is proposed by Storr and Flatt ; for in this last
connection Kai would seem to be superfluous, or it must
begin a new clause and receive another than its merely
copulative signification. Luther, in his version, wrongly
omits Kal, and renders — in der IAebe zu allem Reichthum ; and
this is also the rendering of the Peschito ofl|ji£/?. \t r&m\t\
The two things '_ have, indeed, a close connection. Pascal'
remarks, " in order to love human things, it is necessary to
know them; in order to know those that are divine, it is
necessary- to love them." The conjunction koi is simply copula
tive, and eic points out the purpose or design, which might
have been expressed by 'iva, with a verb. The noun 7rX»jpo-
(jtopla is full certainty or assurance. 1 Thess. i. 5 ; Heb. vi.
11; x. 22. "The full assurance of understanding," is the
fixed persuasion that you comprehend the truth, and that it is
the truth which you comprehend. It is not merely the
vivid behef, that what occupies the mind is the Divine
verity, but that this verity is fully understood. The mind
which has reached this elevation, is confident that it does not
misconceive the statements of the gospel, or attach to them
a meaning which they do not bear. Believing them to be of
God, it is certain that it apprehends the mind of God in His
message. If a man possesses not this certainty — if the view
he now cherishes differ from that adopted by him again — if
what he holds to-day be modified or explained away to
morrow — if new impressions chase away other convictions,
and are themselves as rapidly exiled in turn — if, in short, he
is " ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge
ofthe truth," then such dubiety and fluctuation present a soil
most propitious to the growth and progress of error. And
as the mental energy is frittered away by such indecision, the
mind becomes specially susceptible of foreign influence and
impression. It was the apostle's earnest desire that the

112

COLOSSIANS II. 2.

Colossian church, and the members of the other churches
referred to, should assuredly understand the new religion —
its facts and their evidence — its doctrines and their connec
tions — its promises and their basis — its precepts and their
adaptation — its ordinances and their simplicity and power.
The fixed knowledge of those things would fortify their
minds against the seductive insinuations of false teachers, who
mix just so much truth with their fallacies as often to give
them the fascinations of honesty and candour, and who impose
them as the result of superior enlightenment, and of an
extended and advantageous research. The mind most liable
to be seduced is that which, having reached only an imperfect
and one-sided view, is continually disturbed and perplexed by
opposite and conflicting ideas which from its position it is
unable to reconcile, but is forced to wonder whether really
it has attained to just conceptions of the truth. The* traveller
who has already made some progress, but who begins gra
dually to doubt and debate, to lose faith in himself, and
wonder whether he be" in the right way after all, is prepared
to listen to the suggestions of any one who, under semblance
of disinterested friendship, may advise to a path of danger and
ruin. No wonder that the apostle describes the value of the
full assurance of understanding by his favourite term — -"riches"
— for it is a precious form of intellectual wealth, and no
wonder that he yearns for the Colossian Christians to possess
it in no scanty measure, but in all its opulence. Svveotic has
been explained under i. 9.
E£c iiriyvwaiv tov pvarrjpiov tov Qeov ko.1 Ilarpbg Kal tov
Xpto-rbv — " To the full knowledge of the mystery of God, and
of the Father, and of Christ." So reads the Received Text.
The connection of this clause has been variously understood.
It is needless to make the preceding clause a parenthesis, and
join this one to irapaK.Xr)Bwaiv. Bahr takes it as denoting the
end, while the clause before it specifies the means — " unto all
riches of the full assurance of understanding, so that ye may
know the mystery." But, perhaps, the clause is merely par
allel with the preceding one, or, rather is a farther development
of it. The noun iirlyvwaig is plainly shown here to mean
" full knowledge," as, indeed, we have argued under Ephes.

COLOSSIANS II. 3. 113
i. 18, and in this epistle i. 9. The idea of a mystery is taken
from verses 26 and 27 of the former chapter. The mystery,
he says, had been long hid ; but God had chosen to reveal
the riches of its glory, and therefore he desires that his
readers should not only distinctly recognize it, and highly
value it, but specially, that they should fully comprehend its
contents and lessons. The reading of the concluding portion
of the clause is sadly perplexed and uncertain. The difficulty
relates to the words of the Received Text — Kal ?rarpQC Kal rov
Xpiarov. These have on their side D111, E, J, K, and several
of the Fathers ; Codices 47, 73, with Chrysostom and Pela-
gius, who have^-irarpoc Kal rov Xpiarov, followed by the
Syriac, Vulgate, and Coptic Versions. Codices A, C, 4, read
— rov Geov irarpbg tov Xpiarov, while Codices 41 and 61
have — rov Geov Kal 7rarp6e rov Xpttrrov. The word 7rarpoe
is omitted by some MSS., while Codex 17 reads — tov Geov
rov ev Xpiariji. D1 presents the clause thus — -rov Qeov o iari
Xpiarog, but B has— rov Geov Xptorov. Hilary follows the
last reading, but Clement and Ambrosiaster quote — rov Geov
lv Xpto-rtj). The shorter reading, ending with Geov, is found
in 37, 672, 71, 80\ and 116. For the short reading without the
clause, Tischendorf, in his second edition, Griesbach, Scholz,
Heinrichs, Bahr, Olshausen, De Wette, and Rinck, have de
clared themselves. The reading — rov Geov Xptorrov has advo
cates in Lachmann, Meyer, and Steiger. It is plain, on the
one hand, that many of these readings are nothing but glosses
to escape or solve a difficulty ; and it is as clear, on the other,
that none of them possesses preponderating authority. For A,
B, and D read differently, and the older Fathers and Versions
agree with none of them, since Cyril has, for example— rov Geov
Kal Xptorrov, and Theophylact cites — rov Geov irarpbg EvXptorfjI,
while Hilary explains, by adding, Deus Christus sacramentum est.
(Ver. 3.) 'Ev w slai irdvrsg ol Sqaavpol rrjg aotjtiag ko! rjje
yvwaswg diroKpv<j)oi — " In which are hidden all the treasures
of wisdom and knowledge." The reference in the relative is
supposed, by the great majority of interpreters, from Chry
sostom down to Baumgarten-Crusius, to be to Christ. The
margin of our English version gives " wherein," that is, in
which mystery ; and this, we apprehend, is the right construc-
i

114

COLOSSIANS II. 3.

tion. Such is the view of Suicer, Cocceius, Bb'el, Lange,
Grotius, Bengel, Huther, Bahr, Bohmer, De Wette, &c. If
the short reading of the previous clause be adopted, then
there is no mention of Christ in the last verse at all. But
especially the apostle is speaking of the mystery, and he here
eulogizes it as worthy of fuller and farther insight. Nay, he
places it in sharp contrast with the false and hollow error
which was insinuating itself among them. That system which
was "not after Christ,'' might boast of its stores of philosophy,
but they were not to be captivated by its pretences. They
needed not to go in quest of higher truth and loftier science ;
for in that mystery proclaimed among them were deposited
all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. The nouns aoipia
and yvwaig are, perhaps, not to be carefully distinguished,
as the words seem to be used in reference to the terminology
of the false teachers. The words appear to have been favourite.
epithets with them — were, in fact, a sample of the enticing
words referred to in the next verse, for they imagined them
selves in possession of the only genuine wisdom and knowledge.
But the apostle affirms, in opposition, that only in this mystery
are they to be discovered in reality, and that all else bearing
the name is but hollow semblance and counterfeit. Whatever
distinction may be made, as in Rom. xi. 33 ; 1 Cor. xii. 8,
such seems to us the preferable exegesis in the verse before
us. Augustine makes a distinction, by referring to the Vul
gate translation of Job xxviii. 28 — " Behold piety is wisdom
— sapientia, and to abstain from evil is knowledge — scientia."1
Calvin says — inter sapientiam et intelligentiam non porro
magnum discrimen, quia duplicatio ad augendum valet ; but this
statement is scarcely correct. The two substantives may refer
to the same thing, but under different aspects. Not that the
first comprehends res humanae, and the other res divinae; or,
that the one is practical sagacity, and the other theoretic
knowledge of God. This latter distinction, though it be com
monly held, and may be true of the English terms wisdom
and knowledge, is not warranted by Scripture usage. Col.
i. 9; 1 Cor. i. 17, 21; ii. 6; viii. 1. Meyer says aofyla
Enarratio in Psal. cxxxv. Op. vol. 4, ed. Paris, 1835.

COLOSSIANS II. 3. 115
is the more general, and yvwaig the more special. The
latter term is divine science, and the first is that enlighten
ment which springs from it. So that the first noun is subjec
tive, and the second objective. The study of the yvwo-tc
brings the aofla. Wisdom results from penetration into this
knowledge. Knowledge is the study, and wisdom its fruit.
The verse before us is thus a high encomium on the mystery^
and an inducement to the apostle's readers to value it, to cling
to it, to study it, and to enthrone it in a niche so lofty and
inaccessible, that it could neither be rivalled nor dethroned.
We quite agree, with Robinson, that dwoKpvtyoi does not
denote " hid " in its literal sense, for the apostle says that God
had made known the mystery; but "hid" in the secondary
sense of being laid or treasured up, as in Septuagint, Isa. xiv.
3 ; 1 Mace. i. 23. So that there is no need to adopt the
suggestion of Bengel and Meyer, which denies that diroKpv<j>oi
is the predicate, and would render — " in whom all the hidden
treasures are laid up." Bahr objects to the same mode of
construction, that the artiele should precede diroKpvfyoi ; but
the objection is not based upon an invariable rule or practice.
And we are also, by the exegesis which we propose, saved all
the perplexity which the idea of concealment originates. For
those treasures are hidden, according to Bohmer and Dave
nant, from the unbelieving world; according to Olshausen,
from the unassisted intellect; and, according to Calvin, they
are said to be .hidden because the preaching of the cross is
always foolishness to the world. Abditam sapientiam, says
Melancthon, quia mundus non eam intelligit, as is said in 1 Cor.
ii. 7, 8; Matt. xi. 25; 2 Cor. iv. 3, 4. Qriaavpog has a
similar tropical meaning, as well in the classics as in the New
Testament. ""Xenophon, Mentor, i. 6 — 14 ; Hesiod, Op. 715 ;
Eurip. Jou. 923; Plato, Phil. 15, e; Matt. vi. 20; Mark x.
21 ; 2 Cor. iv. 7. The meaning of the apostle then is, that in
this mystery are stored up all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge ; not a few scanty fragments of faded wealth, but
the entire amount without alloy or defalcation. Here, and
not in the vaunted theosophy of the false teachers, might a
man become wise, by being initiated into the true knowledge.
Let it .be the knowledge of God which he yearns after — the

116

COLOSSIANS II. 3.

comprehension of the essence, character, attributes, and
works of the invisible Majesty — then he will obtain full satis
faction neither from the palpable limnings of nature — for they
present but a shaded profile, nor yet from the subtleties of a
spiritualistic philosophy — for it can only bring out a dim
and impersonal abstraction. But God as He is — in every
element and relation — in the fulness of His being and glory —
is revealed in the gospel, and there may we find Him out, not
by searching, but by looking on Him as pourtrayed not only in
His power and wisdom, His eternity and infinitude, but also
in His grace and love, His condescension and mercy — those
properties of His nature which creation could not have dis
closed, nor human ingenuity have either imagined or anticipated.
The highest conceptions of the Divine polity are to be
learned, also, from this mystery. By means of the atonement,
it achieves what to human administration is utter impos
sibility. It pardons without weakening the authority of law,
or bringing prerogative in conflict with enactment. Earthly
governments proclaim the ordinance, and then apprehend,
convict, and punish offenders ; and when they do commute
a sentence or grant a respite, they are usually prompted
to such clemency because the penalty is felt to be too severe
in the circumstances, and then so-called mercy is only equity
correcting the inequalities of law. Were they not to punish,
they would dissolve the bonds of society and speed their own
extinction. The sphere of the tribunal is that of indictment
and proof, and according to the evidence so are the verdict
and sentence. But God, the Legislator, is not under such
restraint, for while he proclaims a universal amnesty to all
who will avail themselves of it, He neither by this anomaly
repeals the code, nor declares it superseded for the crisis,
nor suffers it to fall into contempt ; but, charging sinners with
their atrocious guilt, and convincing them that they are most
justly liable to the menaced punishment, He at once absolves
them, without encouraging them to sin with hope of impunity,
or weakening the allegiance of the universe by the apparent
reversal of those righteous principles which are the habitation
of His throne, and which have guided and glorified His past
procedure. By the dignity of His nature and the extent of

COLOSSIANS II. 3. 117
His humiliation, the perfection of His obedience and the sub
stitutionary efficacy of His death, that Christ whom the false
teachers depreciated, had glorified the law more than if man
had never sinned, or having fallen, had himself suffered the
unmitigated penalty. No philosophy ever dreamed of such
an awful expedient as God robed in humanity, and in that
nature dying to redeem His guilty creatures — whose name,
nature, and legal liabilities he had assumed ; and such a scheme
never found a place in any system of jurisprudence. Such
knowledge was too wonderful for them, it was high, they
could not attain unto it.
On the other hand, the false preachers laboured in incul
cating asceticism, penance, and neglect of the body, as a
means of weaning the spirit from earth, and bringing it into
fellowship with God. They also gave unwarranted functions
to angels and higher spirits, as if they could shield the soul
from guilt, and as if contact with them spiritualized it, and
helped to raise it to blessedness. They put mysticism in room
of the atonement, and ascribed to the hosts of God that guar
dian power which belongs to faith and the Divine Spirit.
Theirs was a temple without an altar or a propitiation, though
it was crowded with genii and tutelar subordinates. It was
vain philosophy and out of place ; for it fell short of heaven,
and could secure no benefit upon earth. It was wrong about
God, and erring about man — it gave him a stone for bread.
But " wisdom and knowledge " were in the evangelical
mystery — the veritable and coveted yvwaig was there. There
might be discovered the truest theosophy — no gaudy vision,
but blessed fact — God in Christ, and our God; there would
also be found the richest philosophy, in which antagonisms
were reconciled, and all the relations of the universe were
harmonized by the cross, the mystery of man's origin,
nature, and destiny, cleared up ; while the noblest ethics were
propounded, in unison with all our aspirations and spiritual
instincts — plainly showing what man may be, ought to be,
and will be, through the influence and operations of the Holy
Ghost — the crowning and permanent gift of the Christian
dispensation. What men have sought in deep and perplexing
speculations on the order and origin of all things, 'they will

118

COLOSSIANS II. 4.

find in this mystery. What they have striven in daring
adventure to reach about the existence and issue of evil, they
will get here laid to their hand. The intricacies and anomalies
of their own mental and moral nature, on which they have
constructed so many conflicting and self-destructive theories —
which still have repeated themselves in successive generations,
are here solved by Him who knows our frame. The inter
minable discussions on man's chief end, which ended only in
fatigue and disappointment, are silenced here by the "still small
voice." "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the
disputer of this world ? " Let them come and see, and learn,
and they will find that, in the Divine plan of redemption are
manifested the noblest elements of reflection, and the purest
objects of spiritual faith and attachment. For theology trans
cends all the sciences in circuit and splendour. It brings us
into immediate communion with Infinitude and Eternity. Its
theme is the Essence and Attributes of Jehovah, with the
truth He has published, and the works He has wrought. It
tells us ofthe unity and spirituality of His nature, the majesty
of His law, the infinitude of His love, and the might and
triumph of his Son, as the conqueror of sin and death. The
intellect is unable to comprehend all its mysteries by superior
subtlety and penetration, and the imagination only fatigues
itself in the attempt to grasp and realize its destiny. Its fields
of thought can never be exhausted, even though the slower
processes of understanding were superseded by the eager and
rapid discoveries of unwearied intuition. " Who can, by
searching, find out God ; who can find out the Almighty unto
perfection ?" And after those combinations of wisdom, power,
and love, which characterize the counsels and government of
God, have attracted and engaged the inquiring soul through
innumerable ages, there will still remain heights to be scanned,
and depths to be explored, facts to be weighed, and wonders
to be admired. [Ephes. iii. 10.]
The apostle approaches nearer and nearer his subject — the
seductions of a false and pretentious philosophy.
(Ver. 4.) Tovro Se Xly w— " Now, this I say." This present
tense some regard as future in its look, as if the apostle meant
— " what I am about to utter is intended to prevent your being

COLOSSIANS II. 4. 119
led astray." But the clause has evidently a retrospective
reference to the preceding statement, and not exclusively
either to the first or third verse. "What I am saying, or
have just said, as to my anxiety for you, and as to the treasury
of genuine science in the gospel, has this purpose — to put you
on your guard. Do not listen to those specious harangues
about their boasted possession of the only or the inner aoijtia
and yvwortc- It is all a delusion intended to impose upon you.
Purest wisdom and loftiest knowledge are not in their keeping,
but in yours ; for in that mystery into which you have been
now so fully initiated, are hidden all the treasures of wisdom
and of knowledge." Quaerendum est, says Tertullian, donee
inveniat, et credendum ubi inveneris, et nihil amplius, nisi cus-
todiendum quod credidisti.'
"Iva pi") rig vpag irapaXoylZrirai iv iriBavoXoyia — " Lest any
man should beguile you with enticing words." The reading
priSslg, though unusual, is supported by A, B, C, D, E, while
the reading pr) rig of the Stephanie Text, rests on inferior
authorities. The deponent verb used by the apostle occurs
only again in James i. 22 ; but is found in the Seventy.
1 Sam. xix. 17. It is found also in Demosthenes,2 where
it signifies to miscount. Here it denotes to delude by
false reasoning, as in iEschines, p. 53, (ed. Dobson, vol. xii.
53); Polyb. 16, 10, 3; Gen. xxix. 25; Josh. ix. 22, (28).
The means of deception are characterized by one pithy and
expressive compound — irtBavoXoyla. The word occurs only
in this place. The cognate verb which is found in the classical
writers,3 is defined by Passow to mean — to bring forward
reasons in order to prove anything likely or probable ; or, as
we might say in English — " to talk so as to talk one over."
The substantive occurs in Plato f and the word, in its separate
parts, iriQavol Xoyot, is found in Josephus and Philo.5 The
1 De Praescrip. Eaeret. cap. ix. Opera, vol. ii. p. 12, ed. Oehler.
2 822, 25 ; 1037, 15, ed. Eeisk. ; or vol. vii. p. 413 ; vol. viii. p. 43, of Oratores
Attici. ed. Dobson.
3 Arist. Eth. i. 1. Diodorus Sic. i. 39 ; xiii. 95. Diogenes, L. 10, 87, ed.
Hiibner. 4 Theaet. § 52, vol. iii. p. 440, ed. Bekker, London. In this place it is joined with
iix'os, and denotes deception ; probability being opposed to xvriiu^iv xxi avdyxnv —
conclusive demonstration. Fabric. Cod. Apoc. iii. 694.
5 Joseph. Antiq. viii. 9. Philo, de Migratione Ab. vol. iii. p. 490, ed. Pfeiffer.j

120

COLOSSIANS II. 5.

term is here employed in a bad sense, — to characterize that
teaching which aimed to fascinate their mind and debauch
their conscience, by its specious sophistry. This is a com
mon accompaniment of heretical novelty. It professes, by a
process of dilution or elimination, to simplify what is obscure,
unravel what is intricate, reconcile what is involved in dis
crepancy, or adapt to reason what seems to be above it. Or it
deals in mystery, and seeks to charm by a pretence of occult
wisdom, and the discovery of recondite senses and harmonies.
It was a form of similar mysticism, priding itself in inti
mate communion with the invisible and the spiritual, that
seems to have been introduced at Colosse. How much need,
therefore, they had of that " full assurance of understanding "
which the apostle so earnestly wished them to possess. Such
illumination was a perfect shield against this delusive rhetoric,
with which they might be so artfully and vigorously plied.
(Ver. 5.) Et yap Kal ry aapKi airsipi, dXXd ti$ irvEvpan ovv
vplv Eipi — " For though indeed in the flesh I be absent, yet in
the spirit with you am I." Tap gives the reason why the
writer so warns them. It is refinement on the part of
Theophylact to make the sense — " I see in spirit the false
teachers, and therefore bid you be on your guard." The
meaning is very plain. Personally the apostle was not, and
could not be, at Colosse ; but mentally he was there. In
1 Cor. v. 3, 4, the apostle employs rw awpan — a more Hel
lenic phrase. It is in opposition to the plain sense to refer
irvsvpa, with Ambrosiaster, Grotius, and Lord Barrington,
to the Holy Spirit ; as if a special inspiration had kept the
apostle cognizant of what was transacting at Colosse. When
one takes a very deep and continuous interest in a distant
community, he is not only ever picturing them to his imagina
tion, but he so transports himself, in idea, to their locality,
that he walks and speaks with them, is an inmate of their
dwellings and a guest at their table, is engaged in all their
occupations, and feels himself for the moment to be one of
themselves. So it was with the apostle, and the absent church
in Asia Minor. 2vv is similarly employed in Philip, i. 23 ;
1 Thess. iv. 17. That this language does not by any means
imply a previous residence in Colosse, as Wiggers supposes,

COLOSSIANS II. 5. 121
has'been shown in the Introduction to this volume. The par
ticle dXXd is rendered "yet" — doch, by Huther; attamen, by
Bahr — a translation which it may often bear after ei or Eav.1
There is no need at all for supposing such an ellipsis as
the following, — I am absent, still not wholly ignorant of you,
or uninterested in you, dXXd, but I am with you in spirit.
Hartung, ii. p. 40; Kuhner, § 741, 13; Klotz, ad Devarius,
vol. ii. 18 ; and Devarius, vol. i. 7.
Xafpwv Kal fiXiirwv vpwv rr/v rd%iv — " Joying and behold
ing your order." One would naturally expect the apostle to
say — seeing and rejoicing ; that is, rejoicing because he saw.
Bahr adduces Josephus as expressing himself similarly — vpdg
ev Exovrag xaip"> Ka* /3XeVw. But the German commentator
misquotes the Jewish historian, or rather the best MSS. show
that he uses the participle /3XeVwv, as does the apostle, and
not the verb. De Wette adopts this form — " with joy seeing
your order." Calvin and Estius have it — " rejoicing because
I see your order," and others — " guadeo videns." Winer, fol
lowed by Olshausen, takes Kat in the sense of scilicet — " I am
with you rejoicing, inasmuch as I see your order."2 Fritzsche
is nearer our view when he solves the difficulty thus — rejoicing
over you, i<j> vplv — laetans de vobis — and seeing your array.*
Dismissing the idea of a hendiadys and a zeugma — taking Kat
in its ordinary sense, and neither as causal nor explicative ;
and seeing rd%,iv can belong only to one of the verbs ]3XeVw, .
we come to the conclusion of Meyer, that the first participle
qualifies the clause — " present with you." The meaning is —
I am present with you in spirit, rejoicing in this ideal fellow
ship, and viewing your order. His spiritual presence with
them was a source of joy, and it enabled him fo see their
orderly array and consistency. The sentiment is somewhat
similar to that contained in i. 3, 4. There he says, that the
accounts which he had received about them prompted him, as
often as he prayed, to thank God for them ; here he tells them
that his being with them in spirit was a source of joy, and
neither of doubt, disquietude, nor sorrow. And the verb
/3Xe7twv is used with special appropriateness, as the apostle
1 See Bahr, in loc. Kypke, apud 1 Cor. iv. 15. 2 § 58, 5,
8 Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. ii. p. 425.

122

COLOSSIANS II. 5.

supposes himself to be among them, looking around him and
taking a survey of their condition. 2 Cor. vii. 8 ; Rom. vii.
23. Schleusner, referring to a common trope, indeed says
quaintly, of the verb — de omnibus reliquis sensibus corporis
usurpatur, ut adeo fiXiirEiv saepe sit audire, as in Matt. xv. 31,
where it is said, that the people saw the dumb speak. But
the meaning there is not, that they heard them speak, but that
they saw the whole phenomenon of the restoration of hearing.
The Lexicographer instances also the verse before us, as if
the apostle meant to say, that he knew of their order from
hearing the reports of others. But such an exegesis is truly
bathos, and robs the sentiment of its spirit and beauty.
While the noun rd^ig, among its other uses, is often found
as a military term,1 denoting the result of that discipline to
which an army is subjected, and also sometimes describing the
symmetry and arrangement of society ;2 it has besides the em
phatic signification of good order.3 Thus Chrysostom uses, in
explanation, Evra^ia. In the latter significant sense, the. apostle
here employs the term — " seeing your good order." What
the writer refers to, we may learn from his own usage. And
first, the apostle accuses certain members of the church of
Thessalonica of a breach of order — that they walked ctrdicrwc —
"disorderly;" whereas of himself and coadjutors he says — ort
ovk riraKTriaopEv iv vplv — " for we were not disorderly among
you," and again, he adds — aKoiopsv yap nvag irEpnrarovvrag
iv vplv araKTwg — " for we hear that some among you walk
disorderly." 2 Thess. iii. 6, 7, 11. The disorder referred to
in this passage, was the strong and vicious tendency to idle
ness which had been manifested in Thessalonica — some refusing
to work and earn a subsistence, and aiming to throw them
selves on the hberality of the richer brethren in the church.
This breach of order was private and personal. 1 Thess. v. 14.
And secondly, after rebuking the church in Corinth, for the
turbulence and confusion caused by the display of spiritual gifts,
he sums up by saying — " let all things be done decently and
in order, — ko! Kara rd%iv." There had been a social or ecclesi-
1 Suidas, sub voce. Josephus, B. Jud. iii. 9, 2. Xen. Cyrop. viii. 3, 6.
a Dem. 200, Orat. At. vol. v. p. 308, ed. Dobson. Plato, Crit. 109.
n Plato, Gorg. 504, Leg. 875. Polybius, i. 4.

COLOSSIANS II. 5. 123
astical breach of order. Perhaps to both kinds of order does
the apostle here refer. In their individual consistency and
purity of character, in their unshaken attachment to the truth
in midst of seduction, and in all the arrangements and forms of
their worship and discipline, such good order was observed,
as that error was excluded, unity preserved, and edification
promoted. It is a meagre explanation of Michaelis and
Heinrichs, to represent this order in the vulgar sense of sub
jection to the office-bearers, and as opposed to insubordination.
Theophylact and Huther are more correct in referring it to
love, which, at least, was the bond of union, and one principal
support of order.
Kal ro arspEwpa rrjg elg X.piarbv iriarEwg ipwv — " And the
solidity of your faith in Christ." The noun arEpiwpa is not
found elsewhere in the New Testament. Representing, in the
first chapter of Genesis, the Hebrew v^n, and rendered in the
Vulgate firmamentum, it signifies something solid or compact,
such as the foundation of a building. It naturally came to
signify not the object, but the quality which characterizes it —
firmness or hardness. Ps. lxxiii. 4. So that it here points
out that feature in the faith of the Colossians which specially
commended it to the notice and eulogy of the apostle, to wit,
its unyielding nature, or the stiffness of its adherence to its
one object — Christ. In such a crisis as that, when fluctuation
would have been incipient ruin, it was not the elevation of
their faith, nor its growth, nor any of its fruits, but this one
feature of it — its unshaken constancy — which the watchful eye
of the apostle so carefully noted, and so joyously recorded.
Acts xvi. 5 ; 1 Pet. v. 9. The very position of the words is
emphatic — rfjc dg Xptorrov ttiotewc, as if eic X. distinguished
and glorified the faith. [Ephes. i. 1.] It reposed on Christ
— as unshaken as its object. His love never wavers, His
power never fails, His fidelity never resiles from its pledge.
And those unseen blessings which faith surveys are unchang
ing in their certainty and glory. The portals of heaven are
never barred — its living stream is never dried up ; the pearls
of its gates are unsoiled, nor is the gold of its pavement ever
worn through. Surely, then, faith ought to be as steadfast as
the foundation on which it rests, and the object which it

124

COLOSSIANS II. 6.

contemplates and secures. It is out of place, with Bengel and
others, to make this noun a species of adjective to iriarEwg, as
if the meaning were firma fides non patitur quicquam ex ordine
suo moveri. Nor is it warrantable on the part of Olshausen
and Meyer, to take rd\ig in its military sense, and to make
arEpiwpa the power which strengthens for the fight, or a
species of fortification by which they were defended. 2.rtp-
iwpa is, indeed, employed to represent the Hebrew sto, in Ps.
xviii. 2, but the Greek translation is according to the general
sense of the Hebrew term, — the proverbial firmness of a rock.
In 1 Mace. ix. 14, quoted by Meyer, arEpiwpa rrjg irapEpjioXrjg,
is not the fortification of the camp, but the strength of the
army, that portion which could be relied upon for its prowess.
In the Version of Symmachus, Isaiah xxvi. 1, it represents the
Hebrew Vi, which the Seventy render irEplrEixog ; the prin
cipal idea of the original term being strength, while bulwark,
antemurale, is only a secondary and technical application. It is
a curious reading of the clause which occurs in Augustine
and Ambrosiaster — the former having id quod deest fidei ves-
trae in Christo, and the latter, supplens id quod deest utilitati
fidei vestrae in Christum — implying that they both read vote-
pripa for arEpiwpa.
(Ver. 6.) 'Q,g ovv irapEXdjitTE rbv Xpiarov 'Iijcovv r6v
KVptov, ev avri£ irEpiirarEiTE — " As then ye have received
Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in Him." The particle ovv turns
us to the preceding verse, and to the fact of their order and
steadfast faith. Calvin rightly says — laudi attexit exhorta-
tionem. He has commended them for their order and stead
fast faith, and he now adds a word of warning and counsel.
Gradually does he approach the main end of his writing.
Ever as he comes near it does he utter some sentiment which
delays his full admonition. He wishes by his previous allu
sions and warnings to prepare their minds for the final and
thorough exposure and condemnation. And thus he has
intimated — what thanks he offers for them, what prayers he
presents for their deeper illumination and persistency in the
truth — what sufferings he has endured for them, and what sym
pathies he has with them — what joy he felt in being mentally
present with them, and surveying their good order and un-

COLOSSIANS II. 6. 125
swerving faith. And he has eulogized that gospel which they
had received — as the truth — as a fruit-bearing principle — as a
disclosure of the Divine person, exalted dignity, and saving
work of the Son of God ; and as a mystery long hidden, but
at length revealed, and comprising in it the deep and inex
haustible treasures of all spiritual science. Since, therefore,
they had received Christ Jesus, the Lord, the giver and sub
ject of that gospel, it surely became them to walk in Him.
The verb irapaXapfidvw, signifying to take to one's self, is
used emphatically to appropriate wisdom or instruction —
much as in Scotland the faculty of acquiring knowledge is
termed uptake. 1 Cor. xi. 23 ; xv. 1 — 3 ; Gal. i. 9 — 12 ;
Philip, iv. 9 ; 1 Thess. ii. 13. They had received Him, in the
way of being taught about Him — verse 7. They had been in
structed, and they had apprehended the lesson. It is a super
ficial exegesis on the part of Theophylact, Grotius, and others,
to make the proper name X. I. mean merely the doctrine of
Christ. For it was Christ Himself whom they had received —
the sum and life of all evangelical instruction. Nay, more,
the repetition and structure of the sentence show that the full
meaning is — ye have received Christ Jesus as the Lord. In
the character of Lord they had accepted Him. This was the
testing element of their reception. The Anointed Jesus is
now "Lord of all," and to acknowledge His Lordship is to
own the success of His atoning work as well as to bow to His
sovereign authority. Thus we understand the apostle when
he says, 1 Cor. xii. 3, " Wherefore I give you to understand,
that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus
accursed ; and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord,
but by the Holy Ghost." On the special meaning and use of
the terms see Ephes. i. 2. The form of error introduced
among them which would rob the Saviour of His dignity, led
to the denial of the Messiahship in its true sense ; and in its
spiritualism, it would, at the same time, explain away His
humanity. These expressive terms are thus the symbols of a vast
amount of instruction. Whatever men receive in the gospel,
it is Christ. He is the soul of doctrine — for prophets foretold
Him, and apostles preached Him ; and the oracles of the one

126

COLOSSIANS II. 6.

and the sermons of the other had no splendour but from Him,
and no vitality but in Him. Ethical teaching has as close a
connection with Him, for it expounds His law, defers to
His authority, and exhibits the means of obedience and fer
tility in His imparted Spirit and strength. Promise is based upon
His veracity, and sealed in His blood, and suffering looks for
sympathy to Him who bled and wept. The great mystery ofthe
Divine government is solved in Him, and in Him alone is the
enigma of man's history and destiny comprehended. Spiritual
life has its root in Him — the growth of the Divine image, and
the repose of the soul in the bosom of Him who made it. In
believing the gospel, men receive no impersonal abstraction,
but Christ Himself — light, safety, love, pattern, power, and
life. And they receive Him as " the Lord." He won the Lord
ship by His' death. He rose from the sepulchre to the throne.
To Him the universe bends in awful homage, and the church
worships Him in grateful allegiance. The Colossians had
received Him as the Lord, and surely no seduction woidd ever
lead them to discrown Him, and transfer their fealty to one of
the crowded and spectral myriads which composed the celes
tial hierarchy — one of a dim and cloudy mass which was
indistinct from its very number, surrounding the throne, but
never daring to depute any of its members to ascend it.
"As ye have received Him, walk in Him." The particle wc
denotes something more than a reason, for it indicates manner
— " according as." Matt. viii. 13 ; Luke xiv. 22 ; 1 Cor. iii. 5 ;
Titus i. 5. The demonstrative adverb which follows we, in sense,
is here as often omitted. 'Ev avrd} irEpiirarElrE — "Walk in
Him." The verb is often used to describe manner of life, or
visible conduct ; and that life is to be enjoyed in union with
Christ. If reception of Christ the Lord refer to inner life,
then this walk refers to its outer manifestation. It was to be
no inert or latent principle. Christ was not merely a theme
to be idly contemplated or admired in a supine and listless
reverie ; nor a creed to be carelessly laid up as in a distant
and inaccessible deposit ; nor an impulse which might produce
a passing and periodical vibration, and then sink into abeyance
and exhaustion ; but a power, which, in diffusing itself over
mind and heart, provided for its own palpable manifestation

COLOSSIANS II. 6. 127
and recognition in the daily life. For there could be no
walking in Him, without the previous reception of Him. The
outer hfe is but the expression of the inner. Ability to walk
is the result of communicated animation. Nay, more, if they
received Him, they could not but walk in Him The recep
tion of such truth necessitates a change of heart. It is a
behef, which, from its very nature, produces immediate results.
In Him, and in Him according to the character in which they
had received Him were they to walk. And they would not
walk in Him as they received Him, if they were tempted to
reject His functions and qualifications as the Christ, or in any
form, or on any pretext, to modify, depreciate, or set aside
His claims ; or if they were prompted to deny or explain
away His true humanity as Jesus — taking from His life its
reality, and from His death its atoning value ; or if they were
induced to withhold their allegiance from Him as Lord, the
one rightful governor, proprietor, and judge. There must,
therefore, be faith in Him as the Christ, the consciousness of
a near and living relation to Him as Jesus, the kinsman, the
brother-man ; and deep and loyal obedience to Him as Lord.
" He is thy Lord, worship thou Him." " In Him " pre-supposes
the reception of Him ; and to " walk in Him," is to have life in
Him and from Him, with thought and emotion shaped and
inspired by His presence. The hallowed sphere of walk is in
Him, but beyond this barrier are sin and danger, false philo
sophies, and mazy entanglements. If they walked in Christ,
they would be fortified against those doubts which the perni
cious teachings of error, with their show of wisdom, were so
apt to superinduce.
(Ver. 7.) 'EpptZopivoi ko.1 iirotKoSopovptvoi iv avrq —
" Having been rooted, and being built up in Him." ^Eppi-
Zopivoi, Ephes. iii. 17. 'EttoikoS. Ephes. ii. 20.] The par
ticiples are used in a tropical sense, and are connected with
the preceding clause — " walk in Him." The figures, as Meyer
remarks, neither agree with the preceding verb, nor with one
another. But the main ideas are stability and growth — the
root, " in Him," beyond the possibility of eradication ; and the
growth that of a symmetrical structure, which, "in Him," has
its unshaken foundation. The first participle, by its tense,

128

COLOSSIANS II. 6.

indicates a previous state, and the second a present condition.
They had already been rooted, but they were still to be
making progress. Were such their character, were they
rooted in Christ, and not simply adhering to Him by some
superficial tie, and were they being built up, or growing in
gracious attainment, then might they defy all the efforts of the
false teachers to detach them from the truth.
Kal /3Ej3aiovjUEVOi ev rp irlarEi KaBwg iSiSdxBriTE — " And
stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught." The prepo
sition is omitted in some Codices, and by Lachmann and
Tischendorf. If this reading be adopted, we should be in
clined, with Meyer, to take the dative in an instrumental
sense — " stablished by means of the faith ; " but if iv be
retained, perhaps the common rendering is preferable. See
under i. 7. They were to be confirmed in the faith which had
been taught them — that system of behef which Epaphras had
preached to them. We should agree with Olshausen, against
Meyer, that irlang is faith in the objective sense, were it not
for lv airy in the following clause, which we beheve to be
genuine, though it is wanting in A and C. For the apostle says
— TTEpiaaEvovTEg iv airy. This abounding bids us take faith
in a subjective sense — the conscious belief of the truth — and
in that belief they were not to be stinted, cautious, or timid,
but they were to abound. Their faith was not to be scanty as
a rivulet in summer, but like the Jordan in harvest, overflow
ing its banks. And they were to abound in it —
'Ev Evxapiarla — " With thanksgiving." A similar con
struction is found in Rom. xv. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 9; viii. 7. They
could not but be thankful that the truth had been brought to
them, and that by the Divine grace they had been induced
fully and unreservedly to believe it. Two other and opposing
forms of construction have been proposed. Grotius renders —
per gratiarum actionem crescentes in fide, as if the thanks were
the means of abounding in faith ; while Storr, Flatt, Bohmer,
and Huther take it thus — abounding by means of the same in
thanksgiving, as if faith were the means of thanksgiving. But
the connection, as we have first given it, is more in harmony
with the sequence and position of the words. The entire
verse is at once a precept and a warning, and were the pre-

COLOSSIANS II. 7. 129
cept obeyed and the warning listened to, then " philosophy
and vain deceit " would ply their machinations in vain.
Having again and again approached his subject by indirect
allusions, the apostle now boldly and fully brings it out.
" Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain
deceit." And we may remark in introduction, that the senti
ment of the verse has been sometimes greatly abused. The
apostle has been quoted in condemnation of philosophy in
general, though he expressly identifies the philosophy which
he reprobates with "vain deceit." Philosophy, science, or
the pursuit and love of wisdom, cannot be stigmatized as in
itself hostile to faith. The apostle himself has employed
philosophy to prove the existence of the Creator, and show
the sin and folly of polytheism and idolatry. Rom. i. 19 — 23.
The attributes of the Divine nature — not in themselves cog
nizable by the senses — have assumed a visible embodiment in
the works of creation, and he who fails to discover the one
God in His productions is " without excuse."1 So that the
teaching of Natural Theology is not erroneous, but defective
— it needs not to be corrected, but only to be supplemented.
Why should the love of wisdom be reckoned vanity, when the
page on which man is invited to study is wide as the universe,
and rolls back to creation? Wherever he turns his eye, on
himself or beyond himself — above, around, or beneath him,
1 " God, whom the wisest men acknowledge to bee a Power uneffable, and Vertue
infinite, a Light by abundant claritie invisible ; and Understanding which it selfe can
onely comprehend, an Essence eternall and spirituall, of absolute purenesse and sim
plicity ; was, and is pleased to make himselfe knowne by the worke of the World : in
the wonderfull magnitude whereof, (all which He imbraceth, filleth and sustaineth)
we behold the Image of that glory, which cannot be measured, and withall that one,
and yet universall Nature, which cannot be defined. In the glorious Lights of
Heaven, we perceive a shadow of his divine Countenance ; in his mercifull provision
for all that live, his manifold goodnesse : and lastly, in creating and making existent
the World universall, by the absolute Art of his owne Word, his Power and Almighti-
nesse ; which Power, Light, Vertue, Wisdome, and Goodnesse, being all but attri
butes of one simple Essence, and one God, we in all admire, and in part disceme per
speculum creaturarum, that is, in the disposition, order, and variety of Celestiall and
Terrestriall bodies : Terrestriall, in their strange and manifold diversities ; Celestiall,
in their beauty and magnitude ; which in their continuall and contrary motions, are
neither repugnant, intermix}, nor confounded. By these potent effects, we approch
to the knowledge of the Omnipotent cause, and by these motions, their Almighty
Mover." — Sir Walter Raleigh, p. 1, Eistory ofthe World, London, 1614.
K

130

COLOSSIANS II. 7.

ten thousand things invite his examination. Earth and
heaven, mind and matter, past and present, summon him to
wake up his faculties, and scrutinize and reflect on the uni
verse around him. Let him look down on the sands and
rocks of his home, and he enters into Geology. Let him
know this ball to be one of many similar orbs in the sky, and
Astronomy entrances him. Let him gaze at the munificent
plenty around him, spread over zone and continent in the
shape of trees, flowers, and animals, and he is intro
duced into Geography, Botany, and Zoology. Let him
survey the relations of matter — its forms, quantities, and laws
of mixture and motion, and at once he finds himself among
Mathematics, Optics, Mechanics, and Chemistry. Let him
turn his vision upon himself, and observe the attributes and
functions of his physical hfe, and he dips into the mysteries of
Anatomy and Physiology. Let him strive to leam what has
happened before him, and in what connection he stands to
brethren of other tongues and countries, and he is brought
into acquaintanceship with History, Philology, and Pohtical
Economy. And, in fine, let his own conscious mind make
itself the theme of reflection — in its powers and aspirations,
its faculties and emotions, its obhgations and destiny, and he
is initiated into the subtleties and wonders of Metaphysics
and Morals, Legislation and Theology. Thus, Strabo, in the
first chapter of his Geography, x says — " That acquaintance with
Divine and human things constitute what is called philosophy."
Again, not only is philosophy a necessary result of our being
and condition, but it is full of benefit, for the more a man
knows his own nature, the more will he feel the adaptation of
Christianity to it, and be persuaded of its Divine origin. The
inner nature has its religious instincts and susceptibilities,
which are not grafted upon it, but are of its very essence.
As the eye is fitted for the reception of light, and light alone
can enable it to fulfil its functions — as it is made for the light
and the light for it — so religious truth alone is fitted to satisfy
1 H rov ra Sua xai ra uvfyuvrua Xvri^Xlrrovros uvorsp rr)v QiXoeoQlav Ivriert^piiv
ipaeiv. Vol. i. p. 4, ed. Cramer, Berlin, 1844. Justin also characterizes philoso
phers thus — Kai oi Qikoeoipoi ol rnv aXnt>i xai hizv siiivxi IvrxyysXXopivoi yvueiv.
Cohort, ad Graecos, p. 14, vol. i. Opera, ed. Otto, 1842.

COLOSSIANS II. 7. 131
those yearnings and aspirations. There is a perfect harmony
between God's inner revelation of Himself in man, and His
external revelation of Himself in Scripture. Wrong belief
may be against reason, but unbelief is against nature. A
sound philosophy comes to this conclusion — that Christianity
fulfils every condition — that in its God and its incarnate Jesus
— its revelation and its atonement — its sanctifying agency and
its future heaven — it responds to every want and hope of
humanity. Man must have some God — it gives him the true
one. He seeks to some revelation, and it sends him the
genuine oracle. He relies on some sacrifice, and it shows the
perfect atonement. He anticipates a heaven, and it provides
him with such a home, and enables him to reach it. This
philosophy develops what Tertulhan has happily called testi
monium animae naturaliter Christianae.
But it is not such philosophy, or such use of philosophy, that
the apostle condemns — " Philosophy was, in its first descent, a
generous, noble, thing ; a virgin beauty, a pure light, born of
the Father of lights."1 At the same time, it is not to be denied
that the greater portion of heresies have been allied to a false
philosophy. Tertullian, in the seventh chapter of his De
Praescriptione Haereticorum, says — ipsae denique haereses a
philosophia subornantur? Platonism and Aristotelianism had
1 Gale, Court ofthe Gentiles, part ii. Preface. Clement. Strom, i. p. 282.
2 The Father justifies his accusation in the following strains : — " Inde aeones,
et fbrmae nescio quae infinitae, et trinitas hominis apud Valentinum; Pla-
tonicus fuerat : inde Marcionis deus melior de tranquillitate ; a Stoicis venerat :
et ut anima interire dicatur, ab Epicureis observatur : et ut carnis restitutio
negetur, de una omnium philosophorum schola sumitur: et ubi materia cum deo
aequatur, Zenonis disciplina est: et ubi aliquid de igneo deo allegata-, Heracletus
intervenit. Eadem materia apud haereticos et philosophos volutatur, idem retracta-
tus implicantur: unde malum, et quare? et unde homo, et quomodo? et, quod
proxime Valentinus proposuit, unde deus? scilicet de enthymesi et ectromate.
Miserum Aristotelem ! qui illis dialecticam instituit, artificem struendi et destruendi,
versipellem in sententiis, coactam in coniecturis, duram in argumentis, operariam
contentionum, molestam etiam sibi ipsi, omnia retractantem, ne quid omnino tracta-
verit. Hinc illae fabulae et genealogiae interminabiles, et quaestiones infructuosae,
et sermones serpentes velut cancer, a quibus nos apostolus refrenans nominatim philo-
sophiam contestatur caveri oportere, scribens ad Colossenses, Videte, ne qui sit cir-
cumveniens vos per philosophiam et hianem seductionem, secundum traditionem
hominum, praeter providentiam spiritus sancti. Fuerat Athenis, et istam sapientiam
humanum, afFectatricem et interpolatricem veritatis, de congressibus noverat, ipsam

132

COLOSSIANS II. 7.

each in turn the ascendency, and Christianity has suffered
from the four great forms of philosophy — Sensationalism,
Ideahsm, Scepticism, and Mysticism, the error of each of
which lies in pushing to extravagance some important truth.
And in modern times, has not Hegehan Pantheism clothed
itself in bibhcal phraseology ? Its doctrine, that " the con
sciousness which man has of himself is the consciousness
which God has of Himself," finds its appropriate mythical
representation in the mediatorial person ofthe God-man; while
" eternal , life " is but the symbol of an immortality without
individual existence. Have not men in their wildness invoked
"the stars in their course" to fight against Him who enthroned
above them has not forgotten that distant and insignificant
planet on which sin and misery dwell ? Have they not called
to them the rocks and fossils of the early infancy of the
globe to prove that the record of creation was not furnished
by the Creator ? Are there not those at the present time who
regard inspiration as but the "fine frenzy" of an Oriental
temperament, or look upon it as being " as wide as the world,
as common as God," and who, therefore, take from the bibh
cal records their sole, infallible, and supreme authority,
leaving us an Old Testament without prophecies, and a New
Testament without miracles and redemption? These are,
verily, abuses of philosophy — " oppositions of science, falsely
so called." We do not, therefore, object to philosophy, or to
the philosophical treatment of Christianity. We can have no
horror at free thoughts and bold inquiry, so long as men
indicate their desire to submit to the decisions of Evidence.
There is a legitimate province for philosophy to work in,
and "faith is the synthesis of reason and the individual
will."1quoque in suas haereses multipartitam varietate sectarum invicem repugnantiuin.
Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis ? quid academiae et ecclesiae ? quid haereticis et
Christianis? Nostra institutio de porticu Sdlomonis est, qui et ipse, tradiderat
dominum in simplicitate cordis esse quaerendum. Viderint qui Stoicum et Platoni-
cum et dialecticum Chnstianisraum protulerunt. Nobis curiositate opus non est post
Christum lesum, nee inquishaone post evangelium. Cum credimus, nihil desideramus
ultra credere. Hoc enim prius credimus, non esse quod ultra credere debeamus. —
De Praescr. Haeret. p. 8, Opera, vol. ii. Lipsiae, 1864.
' " Essay on Faith," in Coleridge's Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit, p 120.

COLOSSIANS II. 7. 133
But the system condemned by the apostle was something
which assumed the name of philosophy, yet had nothing of
its spirit. It sprang from a wrong motive. So far from being
the love of wisdom, it was the fondness of folly. It was
nursed in a fantastic imagination, and intruded into a super-
sensuous sphere. It did not deal with nature around it, but
with the supernatural beyond it. It did not investigate its
own constitution, but it pryed into the arcana of the spirit-
world. It was wholly spectral and baseless. It developed
superstition and crossed the path of the gospel. It lived in a
cloud-land which it had created, and withdrew itself from the
influence and faith of apostolical Christianity. The plain
truths of redemption did not satisfy its prurient appetite, nor
could it content itself with the "manifold wisdom" ofthe cross.
It longed for something more ethereal than historical facts,
something more recondite than the mystery of godliness. It
forestalled the Rosicrucian vanities. It peopled the spheres
with imaginary Essences, to which it assigned both name and
functions. It laboured to purge itself from the vulgarities of
physical hfe, in order to enter this spiritual circle. It battled
with the flesh, till the crazy nerves gave it such sights and
sounds as it longed to enjoy. The ordinances of the New
Testament were too tame for it, and it created a new and
emaciating ritual for itself. It was, in short, an eccentric
union of Judaism with the Gnostic Theosophy — a mixture
of Jewish ritualism with Oriental mysticism. It took from
Moses those special parts of his economy, which "sancti
fied to the purifying of the flesh," and it seems to have
deepened and exaggerated them. It selected from the Eastern
Theosophy its armies of iEons, its array of principalities and
powers, whom it marshaUed as its mediators, and to whom it
inculcated homage. It was smitten with the disease of him
who will look into the sun, and who soon mistakes for realities
the gaudy images that float before him. Such was the
visionary science whieh had special charms for the inhabitants
of Phrygia, and which in after years produced unmistakeable
results. That the apostle means such philosophy is evident,
for in no other way could his warning be appropriate. It was
of a present, and not a future danger — a real, and not an

134

COLOSSIANS II. 8.

imaginary jeopardy about which he so earnestly cautioned
them. It was not, as Tertullian imagines, the whole Greek
philosophy, for that lay not in his way ; nor yet any special
form of it, as Grotius and others have held, for the philosophy
of the Academy and the Porch, of Epicurus and Pythagoras,
was not the source of immediate danger to the Colossian -
church. (Ver. 8.) BXl7T£r£, pr) rig vpdg 'iarai 6 avXaywywv Sid
rijg cj>iXoaoij)lag Kal kevt/c a7rdrijc — "Be on your guard lest
any one make a spoil of you through philosophy and
vain deceit." The verb j3XeVw, in this sense, is sometimes
followed by the accusative of the persons to be guarded
against, occasionally by the genitive preceded by <x7ro,
sometimes also by tva; but most usually by pi), and its
compounds with the aorist subjunctive. Here, however, we
have the future indicative 'iarai, as in Heb. iii. 12. The
apostle, therefore, does not say that the evil had happened,
but he expresses his fear that it would happen — his misgiving,
that what he apprehended would take place. Winer, §
60, 2 ; Bernhardy, p. 402 ; Hartung, vol. ii. 139. He
saw the attractive subtlety, and he could not withhold the
warning and preintimation. The expression, too, is pointed
and emphatic — rtc b avXaywywv — more so than if he had
employed the subjunctive, avXaywyy. It individualizes the
spoiler — represents him as at his work — associates vividly the
actor with the action. Gal. i. 7. When some infer from
the language that the apostle had only one person specially in
his eye — one restless and attractive heresiarch, we would not
contradict, though we are not prepared to come decidedly
to the same conclusion. The participle, which occurs only
here, belongs to the later Greek,1 and denotes — making a prey
of — driving off as a booty, though it is finical on the part of
Meyer to base the latter signification upon the expression of
the 6th verse, walk in Him, as if they might be caught when
not in that walk, and forced away as a spoil. The expression
shows the strong feeling of the apostle, and how he regarded
their capture by that philosophy as fatal, almost beyond
1 Heliodorus, 10, p. 512. Aristaenet. ii. ep. 22.

COLOSSIANS II. 8. 135
recovery, to their faith and peace. It is not in accordance
with the language to think of the false teacher or teachers
taking faith, mind, or purity, or anything else as a prey from
the Colossians, for the Colossians themselves are the booty.
The means employed were —
Ata rijc (jiiXoaoQiag Kal kevtjc a7rarjjc — " By philosophy and
empty delusion." This philosophy is none other than the
theme of the ^16^0X07 ta of verse 4, and is nothing else in
essence than "vain deceit." For the second clause, where
neither preposition nor article is repeated, explains the first —
philosophy which was expressed in " vain words," is identical
with " vain deceit." There is no reality about it. It is out
and out a delusion, a tissue of airy figments. The term
philosophy was a favourite one in the Greek world, but it was
extended in course of time to portions and objects of Jewish
study by the affectation of Philo1 and Josephus.2 Tittmann,
in his very one-sided essay,3 restricts the term solely to Jewish
doctrine, and Heinrichs no less narrowly to Jewish worship.
Perhaps the apostle would not have given any mere Jewish
system such an appellation, but he uses the term because
there might be in it some mixture of Gentile lore, and
especially because the false teachers dignified their views by
such a title.
Kara rr)v 7rapaoWiv rwv dvBpwirwv — " After the tradition
of men." The preposition does not connect this with the first
clause of the verse, as Meyer construes, and as if it showed
the direction in which they were seduced, but it is to be
joined with the immediately preceding words. It points out,
not so much, as Storr supposes, the authority of that philo
sophy, as its general source and character. It is according to
the tradition of men, and not according to Divine revelation.
In 2 Thess iii. 6, the construction is fully expressed. Ele
ments of the tradition here referred to are found in Matt. xv.
2 ; Mark vii. 3 — 5 ; viii. 9 — 13 ; Gal. i. 14. It is not simply
1 De Somniis, Opera, vol. v. p. 160, ed. Pfeiffer. 3 Cant. Ap. ii. 4.
3 De Vestigiis Gnost. in N. T. frustra quaesitis, &c. Lipsiae, 1773. Compare, on
the other hand, Neander, Geschiclite der Pfanzung, &c. vol. i. p. 512. Vaughan's
Causes of the Coriiiplio'n of Christianity, p. 167, &c. Brucker, Eistor. Crit. Phil.
ii. p. 40, &c

136

COLOSSIANS II. 8.

doctrine, as Olshausen and Huther take it ; nor perhaps
Grseco-Jewish doctrine, as others suppose. It was, to a
great extent, that tangled mass of oral teaching, which, age
after age, the Jews had unwarrantably engrafted on the
written law. That farrago of unwritten statute and ritual is
contrasted by Jesus with the " commands of God." It was
solely of man, and partook largely of his vanity and weakness.
As in the instance adduced by Christ, it explained away the
obligation of the fifth commandment by a mean quibble,
which added impiety to filial neglect, and permitted a son to
starve his parent under a pretence of superior liberality to
God. It taught the payment " of mint, anise, and cummin,"
but forgot "the weightier matters of the law, judgment,
mercy, and faith." It scrupled to eat with unwashed hands,
but was forward to worship with an unregenerate heart. It
was eloquent and precise about cleaning of cups, but vague
and dumb about the purifying of conscience. It converted
religion into a complicated routine, with a superstitious and
perplexing ritual, as if man were to be saved by the ob
servance of ceremonies as puerile as they were cumbrous —
a series of postures, ablutions, amulets, and vain repetitions.
It lost sight of the spirituality of worship, but enjoined a
careful genuflexion. It buried ethics under a system of
miserable and tedious casuistry. It attempted to place every
thing under formal regulation, and was now busied in solemn
trifling, and now lost in utter indecency. It was mighty
about the letter, and oblivious of the spirit. It rejoiced in the
oblation of a ram, but had no sympathy with the " sacrifice of
a broken and contrite heart." It drew water every year from
the well of Siloam with a pompous procession, but had no
thirst for the living stream which its prophets had predicted
and described. It would drill man into a fatiguing devotion.
It trained to the mere mummery of worship when it prescribed
the movement of eye and foot, of head and arm. It intruded
its precepts into every relation, and attempted to fill out the
Divine law by laying down direction for every supposable
case. It was not content with leading principles, but added
innumerable supplements. It surrounded the rite of circum
cision with many ridiculous minutiae. It professed to guard

COLOSSIANS II. 8. 137
the sanctity of the Sabbath by a host of trifling injunctions,
descending to the needle of the tailor, the pen of the scribe,
and the wallet of the beggar. The craftsman was told that he
was guilty if he tied a camel-driver's knot, or a sailor's knot,
on that day, but not guilty if he merely tied a knot which he
could loose with one of his hands ; and that he might leap
over a ditch, but not wade through the water that lay in it.
It declared by what instrument the paschal lamb should be
roasted, and how a jar of wine must be carried during a festival;
with what gestures a phylactery was to be put on, and with
what scrupulous order it was to be laid aside. It left nothing
to the impulse of a hving piety. It was ignorant that a
sanctified spirit needed no such prescriptions ; that the " due
order " could only be learned from the inner oracle ; and that
obedience to all its ramified code, apart from the spirit of
genuine faith and devotion, was only acting a part in a heart
less pantomime.
And these traditions proved that they were from man, not
only from their character, but from their verbiage' and ap
pended sanctions. If the Mishna be, as we believe it to be,
on the whole a faithful record of many such traditions, then,
that they were of men is a fact inscribed on their very front.
The recurring formula is — Rabbi Eleazar said this, but Rabbi
Gamaliel said that ; this was the opinion of Rabbi Meir, but
that of Rabbi Jehudah ; Hillel was of this mind, but Beth
Shammai of that ; Rabbi Tarphon pronounced in this way,
but Rabbi Akivah in that; thus thought Ben Azai on the
one hand, but thus thought Rabbi Nathan on the other ;
such was the decision of Jochanan Ben Sacchai, but such was
the opposite conclusion of Mathias Ben Harash. It never
rose above a mere human dictum, and it armed its jurists with
supreme authority. It never shook the mire off its wings, or
soared into that pure and lofty empyrean which envelops the
Divine tribunal, so that in His light it might see light. What
had been thus conceived in the dry frivolity of one age, was
handed down to another, and the mass was swiftly multiplied
in its long descent. The Pharisee selected one portion and
practised it, and the Essene chose another and made it his rule
of life. It was carried in one or other of these shapes to other

138

COLOSSIANS II. 8.

lands, and though it commingled with other opinions of
similar source and tendency, it never belied its parentage as
the TEADITIONS OF MEN.
Kara rd aroixtla rov Koapov — " After the rudiments of the
world." The reference is somewhat obscure. The noun
aroixsiov, is employed in 2 Pet. iii. 10, 12,1 to denote the
elements of physical nature, while in Heb. v. 12, it signifies the
simple lessons and truths of Christianity, and is opposed to
TEXEiorrig. In the former sense it frequently occurs in the
ancient philosophy, as comprising fire, air, earth, and water.
It is amusing to observe with what ingenuity some of the
Greek Fathers2 give it such a sense in the passage before us,
because, forsooth, all the elements are employed in the
Jewish service — water for purification and fire for sacrifice,
earth for the erection of altars, and the revolution ofthe
aerial bodies for the determination of the sacred festivals.
The noun sometimes signifies an elementary sound, or a letter,
and so came to denote what is rudimentary — what is suited to
the tuition of infancy. In this sense we understand the
apostle to use it in Gal. iv. 3, 9, and with special reference to
the Jewish ritual and worship. The churches in Galatia had
a strong and wayward tendency to revert to Judaism, or at
least to incorporate it, or a portion of it, into the new rehgion.
And as they had embraced a system which was spiritual and
mature — which was not embodied in types and ceremonies,
but in pure, simple, universal truths — the apostle wonders
why, with their higher and manly privilege, they should go
back to " the weak and beggarly elements ; " why, when they
had been reading the book of Divine instruction with its com
plete and lasting lessons, they should revert and descend again
to the mere alphabet. It was as if one who was able to sweep
the heavens, and tell the sizes, distances, and revolutions of
its luminaries, should forswear this noble exercise, and seat
himself in an infant school, and find the highest pleasure
among the first and trite axioms and diagrams of geometry.
The term Koapog, marks the nature of these elements. It is
said that the Jewish economy had dyiov KoapiKov — " a worldly
1 Wisdom, vii. 17 ; xix. 18. Plato, Timaeus, 48. Vitruvius, 1 — 4.
2 Especially Gonadius, quoted by CEcumenius, in loc.

COLOSSIANS II. 8. 139
sanctuary," an epithet placed in contrast with ra inovpdvia,
and with <tkt|V7/ ov ^£ipo7rotj)roe. Our opinion is, that in the
clause under discussion, the apostle refers to the Jewish wor
ship. Some interpreters, such as Meyer and Bohmer, think
this exposition too restricted, and . give the meaning as refer
ring both to the ritual of the Jewish and heathen world, sup
posing the "world" to signify, as it often does, the non-
Christian portion of its population. Huther also gives it a
similar extension of meaning — elemente des Ethischen Lebens
in der Welt. His objections to the common interpretation
are fully set aside by De Wette, and are not in themselves of
any weight. But the phrase before us has a definite meaning
affixed to it in the Epistle to the Galatians, and there it denotes
simply the Jewish system. There was in the Galatian churches
no attempt to heathenize, but only to Judaize; no endeavour to
engraft heathenism, but only Judaism on the new dispensation.
That the Mosaic economy should receive the name of ele
ments is easily understood, but why should such a genitive
as Koapov be added ? It belonged to the world in a special
sense, not to the world or age in the Jewish sense of the term,
as if, as Wahl supposes, the meaning were — adapted to the
men of this age. It was of the world, as being like it, evident
to the senses, visible, and material, in contrast with what is
spiritual and invisible. In this sense, the whole economy was
mundane, for it was sensuous : it pictured itself to the eye in
the stones of its edifice, the robes of its priests, the victims of
its altars, its restrictions on diet, its frequent washings, the
blood of its initiatory rite, and the periods of its sacred festi
vals. It was a worldly panorama, and it pourtrayed but the
elements of spiritual truth. It set before its votaries the
merest first principles, which were indeed often expounded
and developed by its prophets. It was " a shadow of things
to come," not even a full and vivid picture. Under the 17th
verse the exposition will be more fully given. The party at
Colosse, who attempted to seduce, presented some elements of
the Mosaic ritual and worship as a special instrument of
spiritual elevation and ascetic discipline. They inculcated a
philosophy, which, whatever might be its mysticism or its
metaphysical or heathen features, was in essence an adaptation

140

COLOSSIANS II. 8.

of Judaism, not as found in the Mosaic writings, but as over
laid and disfigured by a mass of accumulated traditions.
Kal ov Kara Xpiarov — " And not after Christ." That
philosophy was not according to Christ. It is a needless
dilution of the sense, on the part of Erasmus and Roell, &c,
to render — " not according to the doctrine of Christ." It was
not based upon Christ, but was in contrariety to His person
and work. It depreciated Him, and undervalued His media
tion. But true Christian science has Him for its centre, and
Him for its object. It bows to His authority, and ever seeks to
exalt Him. Any new doctrine may be safely tested by the
estimation in which it holds Christ ; for all that is false and
dangerous in speculation, invariably strives to lower His rank
and official dignity, and therefore is neither in source, spirit,
substance, nor tendency, according to Him.1 And they were
to be on their guard against such dangerous deceptions, which
were not according to Christ. Though the apostle says —
"not after Christ" — it must not be inferred that the errorist or
errorists made no profession of Christianity, or were openly
hostile to it. Had this been the case, their non-Christian
character would have been boldly and distinctly pointed out
by the apostle. They seem to have been disciples in name.
Nor did they come like mere Judaizers and make an open
assault, or insist in plain terms that Christian Gentiles should
be circumcised and keep the law. Then they would have
been confronted like the Judaizers in Galatia. But they were
more insidious in their attack — boasted the possession of an
inner and a higher knowledge, and preached an ideal system
of specious pretensions, and made up apparently of Judaism
and Gnosticism,2 — or Judaism deeply imbued with that mysti
cism whieh distinguished the Essenes, and that kind of
theosophy which is found in Philo.3
1 " My design all alongst this discourse, butts at this one principle, that specula
tions in religion are not so necessary, and are more dangerous than sincere practice.
It is in rehgion as in heraldry, the simpler the bearing be, it is so much the purer and
ancienter."— Sir George Mackenzie's Religio Stoici, p. 141, Edinburgh, 1665.
2 See also Matter, Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme, &c, Paris, 1828 ; Burton,
An Inquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic Age, Works, vol. iii. ; tlie Bampton
Lecture for 1829.
s Davidson, Introduction, vol. ii. p. 411.

COLOSSIANS II. 9. 141
(Ver. 9.) "Oti ev avrtjj KaroiKEt irdv to irXr'ipwpa rf;c Bsorri-
rog awpariKwg. This is an irresistible argument. Any system
not after Christ must be human and wrong — "for in Him
dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." The noun
TrXrjpwjua, has been fully explained under Ephes. i. 23. The
substantive Bsorrig is an abstract term, like Deity, in which
God is viewed in essence rather than personahty. The word
is quite different in meaning from Bslorrig, Rom. i. 20 — a term
which describes quality rather than being. The words differ
as divinitas and deitas — divineness and Deity ; or, as the
Germans express it — Gottlichkeit and Gottheit. The Syriac
uses the expressive term JLooO>}|. The fulness of the
Godhead, is a fulness filled up by it — is that Godhead in
all its native attributes and prerogatives. And it is the whole
fulness — not one cycle of Divine perfections — a single cluster
of Divine properties — not a partial possession of isolated
glories — nor a handful of meted and fractional resources ; but
the entire assemblage of all in existence and character that
constitutes the Divinity. What He is, and as He is, in being,
mode, and manifestation, dwells in Christ. See under i. 15.
One blushes to mention the Socinian misinterpretation, which
so reduces this sublime statement as to make it signify merely,
that the whole will of God was manifested by Him — an attempt
which Calovius well names detorsio mera. Nor are we less
confounded with the capricious and baseless exposition of
Heinrichs, Baumgarten - Crusius, Schleusner, Gerhard, and
Junker, that irXr)pwpa can mean the church gathered without
distinction from all nations, and that the apostle intends to
say — that the whole church has its existence, well-being, or
instruction in Christ. Nor is the singularly ungrammatical exe
gesis of some early expositors less wonderful — that " in Him "
means in the church, and that in this church dwells the fulness
of the Godhead. Bahr ably refutes the view of Noesselt, which
though a little more ingenious than the Socinian hypothesis,
does not essentially differ from it in result. The sense natu
rally suggested by the terms is the correct one. Nor are we
to search for any recondite meaning, as if irXripwpa must be
taken in a Gnostic sense; or, as if in the verb KarotKEt, there
were a necessary allusion to the so-named Shechinah — in which

142

COLOSSIANS II. 9.

dwelt the Divinity. Whatever be the polemical reference, the
ordinary meaning of the verb cannot be set aside, as denoting
actual and prolonged habitation.
The mode of this mysterious inhabitation is declared to be
awpariKwg — " in a bodily form," for such is the first and plain
meaning of the adverb. Other and vaguer ideas have been
attached to it. It is a necessary result of the interpretation
which takes irXr)pwpa to signify the church, that it must
regard awpariKwg as intense and hyperbohcal, and therefore
we have the dilution of a quasi. The church dwells in Christ,
as if in a bodily form — as if it formed His body. But —
1. The least plausible hypothesis is that of Capellus and
Heuman, who look upon the term as equivalent to SXwc, and
as signifying " altogether." Such a translation makes the
clause tautological, for irdv is already employed, and besides
it cannot be borne out by any legitimate examples. Why
resort to a rare and technical use of the word, as peculiar as
in our familiar phrase, a body of divinity, meaning a full course
of theological instruction?
2. Others, again, under the influence of the previous con
trast between the law and the gospel, imagine an antithesis in
the word, as if it stood in antagonism to ru7rtKwc. There was a
symbolical residence in the temple, but an actual one in Christ
Jesus. The polemical Augustine first broached the idea.
Non ideo corporaliter quia corporeus est Deus, sed aut verbo
translato usus est, tanquam in templo manufacto non corporaliter,
sed umbratilitor habitaverit, id est, praefiguraiitibus signis, nam
illas omnes observationes umbras futurorum vocat, etiam ipso
translato vocabulo, .... aut certe corporaliter dictum est, quia
et in Christi corpore, quod assumpsit ex virgine, tanquam in
templo habitat Deus} Augustine has been followed by
Vatablus, a-Lapide, Grotius, Glassius, Hackspann, Vitringa,
Rb'ell, Crellius, Schoettgen, Noesselt, Michaelis, Bengel, and
Bretschneider. But there is no such imphed contrast in this
verse as between awpa and aKla in verse 17, and there is
therefore no just ground of departure from the common and
absolute signification. Christ is held up as the grand centre
1 Ep. 187, vol. ii. p. 1036, ed. Ben. Paris, 1836.

COLOSSIANS II. 9. 143
and source of true philosophy, and the reason is that Godhead
was incarnate in Him, and that therefore His claims are para
mount, both in person and function. He is not only the
Wonder of wonders in Himself, but creation and redemption
— the two prime books of study — trace themselves to Him
as their one author.
3. A large number of critics give to awpariKwg the meaning
of essentialiter, that is, the Godhead dwells in Christ really, or
in substance — ova-twSwc- Names of high authority are leagued
in favour of this interpretation. Theophylact and Gllcumenius,
and Isidore the Pelusiot, among the Fathers ; Calvin, Beza,
and Melancthon, among the reformers ; with Steiger, Huther,
Olshausen, and Usteri,1 among the more recent expositors.
The ground of this interpretation lies again in a supposed
polemical contrast, which certainly does not appear in the
context. Melancthon says — est oppositum inhabitationi separ-
abili ut habitat Deus in Sanctis, that is, the union of Divinity
with Christ is a personal union — not like the influential in
dwelling of God in a beheving heart. Huther supposes such
a contrast as this, that the Deity did not dwell in Christ as it
dwelt in the old prophets who preceded Him. Olshausen
again gives prominence to a Gnostic antagonism, as if the
apostle meant to distinguish between a merely temporary
influence of a higher spirit, and a permanent union of the
Godhead — an idea as naturally brought out by giving to the
adverb its usual signification. To fall back for defence upon
any uses of the Hebrew word os», is all but to surrender the
cause. The Hebrew noun does signify ipse, but never in con
nection with persons — de rebus tantummodo, as Gesenius, sub
voce, remarks. The noun awpa does signify person in the
New Testament, though Bahr denies it. Davenant says —
" the Hebrew put souls for persons, and the Greek put
bodies ;" but the instances of the latter usage adduced by him
will not bear him out ; for in them there is usually distinct
reference to the corporeal part of the person. In those
instances in the New Testament in which awpa appear to
signify person, it is not only followed with a genitive of
1 Lehrb. p. 234. See also Hammond, m he.

144

COLOSSIANS II. 9.

person, but there is always some special reason why the term
should be so employed— some implied contrast, some con
textual point, or some tacit reference to the body or external
person. Thus, among the classics, it is appropriately used of
soldiers and slaves, whose bodies are in special request. As
in the New Testament it is used in connection with the eye,
Matt. vi. 22 ; with marriage — a union characterized as " one
flesh," Ephes. v. 28 ; with the idea of death, Philip, i. 20; and
the notion of a living sacrifice, in which the dead bodies of
victims were offered, Rom. xii. 1. Indeed, in Homeric usage
awpa always denotes a corpse. So that, absolutely, the noun
does not signify person ; and such a sense is never given to
the" cognate adjective or adverb. This exegesis seems to have
arisen from an attempt to define by it the nature of that union
which subsisted between Divinity and humanity, in the person
of Christ.
4. The last and best interpretation is that which takes
awpariKwg in its literal and only meaning — in a bodily
shape, and not as Theodoret paraphrases — we iv awpari.
Such is also the view of Calovius, Estius, Storr, De' Wette,
Bahr, Bohmer, and Meyer. Yet Steiger calls it — abgeschmackt
—insipid, and Olshausen regards it as tautological, because
the words " in Him " occur in the same clause. But the
words " in Him " are the general reference, and the adverb
specifies the mode in which He possessed the Divine fulness.
The fulness of the Godhead was embodied in Him, or dwelt
in Him — in no invisible shape, and by no unappreciable con
tact. It assumed a bodily form. It abode in Him as a man.
It made its residence the humanity of Jesus. Divinity was
incarnated in Christ. It shrunk not from taking upon it
our nature, and realizing the prophetic title — " Immanuel,
God with us." The same idea is contained John i. 14 — " the
Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." The Logos, yet
unfleshed, was God, and was with God, Divine and yet distinct
from the Father; but the fulness of Godhead was only spiritually
within Him. Now, it has made its abode in his humanity with
out consuming it or deifying it, or changing any of its essential
properties. It hungered and it ate, it thirsted and it drank, it
grieved and it wept, it watched and prayed, it wearied itself

COLOSSIANS II. 9. 145
and it lay down, it was exhausted and it slept, it bled and it
died. That body so filled and honoured was no phantom, as
many even in the apostolic age imagined, for it had "flesh and
bones," and, after its resurrection, it bore the scar of its recent
wounds. It was, therefore, no vehicle which Divinity assumed
by any singular process, but in the same way as the children
become "partakers of flesh and blood," so did Christ partake of
them. He was born as children are born, and the infant was
wrapt " in swaddling bands." He was nursed as children are
nursed, for " butter and honey should he eat." His young
soul grew in wisdom as His physical frame grew in stature.
It was easily seen that Godhead dwelt in that humanity, for
glimpses of its glory flashed again and again through its
earthly covering. The radiance was vailed, but never entirely
echpsed. His disciples "beheld His glory, the glory indeed of
the only begotten of the Father." Peter felt impressed by it,
and urged his own sinfulness as the reason why intercourse
should be suspended; while Thomas, under the impulse of
wonder and faith, cried out — " My Lord, and my God."
Jesus prayed for others, and bade others pray on their own
behalf; but He never solicited their prayers for Himself.
When suppliants bowed the knee to Him, He never said-—
" See thou do it not ;" never thought it to be idolatry on
their part to offer Him homage, or felt it to be " robbery " on
His part to accept it. His second coming is " the glorious
appearing of the great God." At His baptism and transfigura
tion, the voice from the excellent glory hailed Him as God's
beloved Son. He detected the inmost thoughts and enmities
of the multitude, for he possessed a species of intuition
which lies far above humanity. " He knew what was in man."
" The wind bloweth where it listeth," but it listened to Him ;
and He who trod upon the waves of the Sea of Galilee, made
them a path which God marks as His own. He wrought miracles
at discretion, and wielded at pleasure the prerogative of forgiv
ing sins. He assumed a co-ordinate power with the Father, and
claimed with Him an equal right of dispensing with those obliga
tions of the sabbatic law, which had been enacted for men by
Divine authority. The most ordinary eye discovered something
extraordinary about Him. The crowd that heard Him said —

146

COLOSSIANS II. 10.

"He speaketh as one having authority; " for he spoke in the tones
of conscious Divinity. "We have seen strange things to-day,"
shouted the spectators ; and no wonder, those strange things
were the characteristic acts of the strangest of Beings — the
only Being who is God-man. A perfection, not of earth, be
longed to His nature; for "the prince of this world," who finds
so much to work upon in common humanity, could find
nothing in Him; and the demons, whose appetite for evil leads
them ever to detect it and vaunt over it, acknowledged Him
to be " the Holy One of God." Referring to His death as
the destruction of a temple, He asserted Himself able in three
days to raise it again — a task that could be achieved only by
the Divine Creator and Life-giver. While He walked on
earth, He spoke of Himself as one " who is in heaven."
Born centuries after Abraham, He yet pre-existed the great
father of His nation. Lowly and humble — the son of Mary,
He was the Image of the invisible God ; and so close was His
likeness to Him who sent Him, that He said — " He who hath
seen me, hath seen the Father." And the apostle uses the
present tense — the Divine fulness still " dwells " in Him. It
was no temporary union, but an abiding possession. His
glorious body has in it the same fulness of the Godhead, as
had the body of His humiliation. The mode of inhabitation
the apostle does not specify. What may be inferred is, that
the union is a personal union of His natures — not a simple
concord of will, so that there are two persons ; nor such
an absorption of the one element into the other, that there
is only one nature. We know not whether Docetic views
prevailed at that early period in the Colossian church, but it
is certain that Christ was undervalued and His person mis
understood, in the false philosophy. Therefore, the apostle af
firms, in this brief but weighty clause, the great mystery of His
mediatorial nature — the personal union in Him of Divinity
and manhood. Any philosophy not " after Christ," must be
earthly and delusive. It has missed the central truth — is
amused with the stars, but forgetful of the sun. " For in Him
dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;" and, with
singular congruity, the apostle adds —
(Ver. 10.) Kal iars iv airy irEirXripwpEvoi — " And ye are

COLOSSIANS II. 10. 147
made full in Him." The clause is still in continuation of the
warning, and crowns the argument. It is in entire opposition
to the usus loquendi of the New Testament, on the part of
Grotius, Bos, and Heumann, to make eote an imperative, for
it emphasizes their present state. The phrase iv avT$ has
a meaning found with peculiar frequency — in Him — in union
with Him ; and it is wrong in Erasmus to render it — " by, or
by means of Him." The participle wEirXripwpEvoi is evidently
used with a reference to the irXr)pwpa of the preceding verse
— ye are filled out of Christ's fulness, or are full in His fulness.
Opinions on the sense or reference of the participle are
modified by the view entertained of the meaning of the pre
ceding verse. Schoettgen narrows the meaning by far too
much, and gives but one aspect of the sense, when he ren
ders — per istum estis perfecti edocti; for though the apostle
has been referring to instruction, yet far more is here implied.
The exegesis of Grotius is rather an inference — illo contenti
estote; for if they were complete in Jesus, it followed that
they needed no supplemental endowments from any other
quarter. The meaning of the clause is much the same as that
found in Ephes. iii. 19, to the exposition of which the reader
may turn. Meyer says that nothing is to be supplied after
irEirXrip. neither rr/c 0Eor7jroe with Theophylact, nor rov
irXripwpaTog rrjg BsorriTog with De Wette. But the question
recurs, of what elements is this fulness composed? or, if the
participle be rendered " perfect " — " ye are perfect in Him,"
of what elements is this perfection made up? The clause
bears a very close connection to the foregoing verse, and to
the phrase — " all the fulness of the Godhead." It is because
that fulness dwells in Christ that they are filled up in Him.
Being in Him, they are brought into contact with what is in
Him ; and that fulness of God contains a life whose pulsations
create a responsive throbbing within them. There is in Christ
complete provision, and what is so furnished is pledged to be
conferred. There needs, therefore, be no want, and no cast
ing about for any other source of supply. Believers have
actual and present completeness of provided blessing, and
there is the guaranteed completeness of prospective gifts.
" Ye aee complete in Him," for the scriptural view of Christ's

148

COLOSSIANS II. 10.

person meets the deepest necessities of our spiritual nature.
"What does it mean?" asks Chrysostom, "that you have
nothing less than Him" — r! ovv iortv; on ovSlv EXarrov
e'XErE avrov. The apostle adds another and striking clause —
Oc iortv r) KEipaXr) irdarig dpxyg Kal i%ovalag — " Who is
the head of all principality and power." On the authority of
B, D, E, F, G, Lachmann reads o, but 6c is retained on the
authority of A, C, J, K, and that of the Greek Fathers. Lach-
mann's choice is vindicated by Steiger and Bohmer, though
it appears to have sprung from a grammatical fondness for
irXripwpa as the principal preceding noun. If this reading be
adopted, the foregoing clause must be placed in a parenthesis.
" In Him, and that bodily, dwells all the Godhead's fulness,
. . . which is the Head of all principalities and powers." The
authorities are nearly balanced, but the reading oc is most
in analogy with the apostle's style of thought and expression.
Besides, with the reading 6, the words iv $ in verse 11 must
refer also to irXripwpa, and no tolerable sense could be extracted
from such a connection. The terms apxv and iXovala are ab
stract ones, having reference to celestial dignities, and to such
as were unfallen. The relative, as in i. 18, may be rendered
— "as being He who is;" or, perhaps, "inasmuch as He is."
J elf, § 836, 3. The Head of principalities and powers. Ephes.
i. 21. There is no exception; the entire hierarchy, even its
mightiest and noblest chieftains and dignities, own submission
to Christ, and form a portion of His spiritual dominions, i. 16.
There was some special reason why he intimates Christ's head
ship not generally over the church or the universe, but specially
over the angelic hosts. If we can rely on accounts ofthe teach
ing ascribed to Simon Magus, we might find in them an illustra
tion of the apostle's statement. Epiphanius relates, that Simon
Magus invented names of principalities and powers, and insisted
that the learning of such names was essential to salvation. Similar
bizarrerie is ascribed to Cerinthus. See Whitby, in he. What
ever be its source, there is no doubt that the apostle alludes
to some prevalent error — which interposed angels, in some
sense, as mediators — and so far derogated from the personal
glory and saving merit of Christ. That theosophy which was
invading them seems to have dealt largely in idle and delusive

COLOSSIANS II. 11. 149
speculation on the rank and office of angels — assigning to
them provinces of operation which belong to the Son of God
— looking td them as guardians or saviours, and forgetting that
they are but His servants, executing His commission and
doing Him homage. Why rely upon the courtiers, when
access may be had at once to the King ? why be taken up with
our fellow-servants, who are only stewards of limited resources,
when the Master has not only the fulness of Divinity, but has
it in a human shape — has the heart of a brother to love you,
and the arm of a God to protect and bless you ? Alas ! that
saints so-called have taken the usurped place of principalities
and powers in the Church of Rome.
If they were complete in Christ, they had no need to go
beyond Christ, and to resort to any ceremonies imposed upon
them by the Judaizers. They had everything whieh it was
alleged they wanted, and everything already in Christ. The
heretical preceptors had enjoined upon them the rite ofcir-'
cumcision, but the apostle shows that it would be really a
superfluous ceremony, since they had already experienced a
nobler circumcision than that of the knife — for it was executed
by no material hand. They were, in short, the " true circum
cision " — for the apostle proceeds —
(Ver. 11.) 'Ev ($> Kal irEpiErpr)BriTE trEpiropy a^Etpo7rotrjrw — "In
whom, too, ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made
with hands." There is no need to suppose, with Olshausen,
that in these words there is expressed an ideal unity of all His
people in Christ in His death and resurrection. Though such an
idea may be found in other parts of Scripture, it cannot be found
here — save in the exercise of a refined ingenuity. For, first,
the formula iv $ has its usual significance — union with Him
— union created by the Spirit, and effected by faith; and,
secondly, the blessing described in the verse had been already
enjoyed, for they were and had been behevers in Him in
whom they are complete. Through their living union with
Christ, they had enjoyed the privilege, and were enjoying the
results of a spiritual circumcision. Why then should they
suffer the incision of a sharp flint or a glittering knife — in
itself, at best, but a sign — when they had already experienced
the blessing of a circumcision that drew no blood, and gave

150

COLOSSIANS II. 11.

no pain — a circumcision " not made with hands ?" The mean
ing of the adjective dxupoirolnirog is very apparent. Mark
xiv. 58, and 2 Cor. v. 1. The circumcision made without
hands is plainly opposed to that which is made with hands —
XEtpoirot7)roc- [Ephes. ii. 11.] This idea of a spiritual cir
cumcision was no novel one, for it occurs in the Old Testament
in different forms.1 When Israel was yet in the wilderness,
the Divine command was given — " Circumcise the foreskin
of your heart," and at the same period the Divine promise
was made — " And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine
heart and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God
with all thine heart and with all thy soul, that thou mayest
hve." The prophet Jeremiah repeats the injunction — " Cir
cumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins
of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem."
He also describes a part of the population thus — " Behold,
their ear is uncircumcised;" nay, he declares that the whole
house of Israel are "uncircumcised in the heart." Ezekiel speaks
of men " uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh."
Stephen, in his address, used this ancient phraseology, and
calls his audience " uncircumcised in hearts and ears."2 The
apostle Paul in other places has similar ideas and language.3
Schoettgen has adduced hke quotations from the Rabbis,
and Philo, as is his wont, spiritualizes the ordinance4 — as
i'joovwv iKTopr)v ; iraBwv irdvrwv EKrojurjv. So that the kind
of circumcision referred to was easily understood, and could
not be misinterpreted. It was besides an invaluable blessing,
for it lay —
'Ev ry aTTEKovo-Et tov awparog rije aapKog — " In the putting
dff of the body of the flesh." The noun a7riKoWte occurs only
here — the verb is found in the 15th verse. The MSS. A, B,
C, D1, E1, F, G, &c, omit the words rwv apapnwv, found in
the Received Text. Flesh is corrupted humanity, Rom. vii.
23 ; Gal v. 16. [Ephes. ii. 2.] We cannot take awpa in
any other than its usual signification, though Calvin, Grotius,
Zanchius, Crocius, Bahr, and Steiger, take it in the sense of
1 Deut. x. 16 ; xxx. 6 ; Jer. iv. 4 ; vi. 10 ; ix. 26 ; Ezek. xliv. 7.
2 Acts vii. 51. s Rom. ji. 29.
* De Migrat. Abr. Oper. vol. iii, p. 454. 6 i<n*Wu erroneously in Tischendorf.

COLOSSIANS II. 11. 151
totahty or mass. See under verse 9. But the spirit of this
exegesis is plainly implied. It is in harmony with the idea of
circumcision, that the peculiar phrase — " body of the flesh,"
is used ; and the contrast seems to be this, that in the manual
circumcision only a portion of one member of the material
body was cut off, but in the spiritual circumcision, the whole
flesh which is the seat and habitation of sin is cast away and
laid aside. The entire slough which encircles the spirit and
enslaves it is rolled off, newness of life is felt, and the believer
walks no longer after the flesh, is no longer carnal, or does its
deeds. As Meyer well says, " He who is so circumcised is no
more iv r^f o-apK^, as heretofore, when concupiscence ivijpyEtro
iv rote piXEaiv ; he is no longer ffapKtvoc, irEirpapivog virb rrjv
dpaprlav, and walks no longer Kara aapKa, but in newness of
spirit." It is plain that the spiritual circumcision is not
different from regeneration, or the putting off the old man
and putting on the new man. The apostle adds a further
explanation of this marvellous change, when he says —
'Ev ry irspiTopy tov Xpiarov — " In the circumcision of
Christ." Some have regarded the genitive as that of agent,
as if the apostle meant — the circumcision which Christ per
forms. Such is the virtual view of Theophylact, when he
says of Christ — oXov dvBpwirov irEpirkpvEi. Schoettgen,
again, regards the phrase as an allusion to the personal
circumcision of Jesus, as if that sufficed for all His people.
Neither view is in harmony with the language and context.
The circumcision of Christ is that circumcision which be
longs to Him, in contradistinction to that which belonged
to Moses or to the law. The spiritual circumcision is a
blessing which specially belongs to Christ — is of His pro
viding, and is to be enjoyed only in fellowship with Him.
That of Moses was made with hands, and was a seal of the
Abrahamic or national covenant — that of Christ is no chirur-
gical process, but is spiritual and effectual in its nature. The
mark in the foreskin was the token of being a Jew, but the
off-thrown body of the flesh was the index of one's being a
Christian. Though the scar of circumcision might attest a
nationality, it was no certificate of personal character — " all
are not Israel who are of Israel ;" but, wherever " the flesh "

152 COLOSSIANS II. 12.
was parted with, there was the guarantee of individual purity
and progress. The charter of Canaan was limited to the
manual circumcision, but the "true circumcision ".are thereby
infefted in a heavenly inheritance. The Hebrew statute was
for the man-child eight days old, but the Christian privilege
has no distinction of age, or sex, or nation ; for it belongs to
every one in Christ. And it was, and is, a chief blessing — the
death of sinful principle and the infusion of a higher life — the
possession of a new nature, which has Christ for its source,
ay, and Christ for its pattern. Thus the flesh is thrown off, and
the spirit assumes the predominance, with its quickened sus
ceptibilities, its healthful activities, and its intense aspirations
— thinking, feeling, and acting, in harmony with its sphere
and destiny. And if such a collection of spiritual blessings
has been received, why be subjected to a legal ceremony
which could be at best but a faint type of them ? Surely if
they had received the thing signified, they need not now
degrade themselves by submitting to a sign, which was in
itself only a painful and bloody symbol of the Hebrew nation
ality and covenant. For a new sign has been appointed —
(Ver. 12.) Svvrao^EvrEe avrtji iv rto fiairrlapari — " Having
been buried with Him in baptism." The state described in
this past participle precedes or is coincident with the action
of the verb irEpiETpr)BriTE. " Having been buried, they were
circumcised." The burial and the circumcision only differ in
form and circumstance. The circumcision was seen to be
effected when the burial was completed. Burial implies a
previous death ; and what is that death, but the off-casting of
the body of the flesh ? The reality of death is evinced by burial,
for this body of sin which once lived with us is slain and
sepulchred. This ' point of burial they had reached — when
they were baptized — for then they personally professed a faith
which implied the death of sin within them. Why then does
the apostle use the figure of a burial? for the burial is as
really without hands as is the circumcision — since no knife
was employed at the one, and no bier or shroud was deposited
in the other. The apostle employs the figure, first, to show
the reahty of the death which the old man had undergone ;
and, secondly, to connect the process by harmony of symbol

COLOSSIANS II. 12. 153
or parallel with the resurrection of Christ, which was at once
a sign and pledge of the resuscitation. Those two ideas, the ex
cision ofthe body ofthe flesh, which is equivalent to its death,
and the raising of Christ as the typal life and the Lifegiver,
seem to have suggested to the apostle the notion of an inter
vening process — a burial with Christ. When you were baptized,
you were so placed as if you had been laid with Christ in His
tomb — " all old things passed away ;" you were in respect to
the old man what the dead Christ was in respect to His first
physical life — dead to it and done with it. Only, He died for
sin, and you die to it ; He died for it in His body, while you
die to it in your souls. But this burial is not a final state, it is
simply one of transition — "In whom also ye are raised by faith."
The reference is plainly to the ordinance of baptism, and
to its spiritual meaning. We scarcely suppose that there is
any reference to the mode of it ; for whatever may be other
wise said in favour of immersion, it is plain that here the
burial is wholly ideal — not a scenic and visible descent into
an earthy or a watery tomb, but of such a nature entirely as
the circumcision with which it is identified, and the resurrec
tion which invariably succeeds it. Thus, in the apostolic
conception, men may be buried in baptism without being sub
merged in water, in the same way as they may be circum
cised^ without the spilling of blood. The entire statement is
spiritual in its nature — the death, the burial, and the resurrec
tion ; the circumcision, and the off-putting of the body of the
flesh. The apostle looks on circumcision and baptism as being
closely connected — the spiritual blessing symbolized by both
being of a similar nature ; though, probably, it would be
straining this connection to allege it as a proof that baptism
has been in all points ordained for the church in room of
circumcision. It is not within our province to enter on the question whether
apostohcal baptism was by immersion, sprinkling, or affusion.
What we only say is, granting that immersion had been the
early and authorized form of baptism, we are not prepared to
admit of any allusion to that form in the clause before us. It
does not advance the opposite argument to say, that the
immersion of a believer resembles a burial. This has been a

154

COLOSSIANS II. 12.

favourite idea from very early times. And not only so, but
trine immersion was often practised — one reason assigned
being a reference to the Trinity, but another argument being
that it was a symbolic allusion to the three days — rrjv
rpii)pEpov — of Christ's abode in the tomb.1 Still, to many
minds there is manifest incongruity in the symbol. Where, in
Scripture, is water the symbol of the world of death, or of the
grave ? It is always the means of washing — the instrument
of purification. At what point of baptism is death symbol
ized — for it precedes burial ? Means of imitating the death
and resurrection of Jesus could be easily devised — for they
were physical facts that could with no difficulty be pictured
out. But a believer's death and resurrection with Christ are
spiritual events ; and the same process cannot surely be the
emblem of both classes of truths — cannot be at the same
time the figure of a fact, and the figure of a figure. Death,
burial, and resurrection, are truths not pourtrayed by gesture
and position in baptism, but only recognized in it — not acted
out, or represented in visible form, but only experienced and
professed. Believers are buried in baptism, but even in im
mersion they do not go through a process having any resem
blance to the burial and resurrection of Christ. The Colos
sians did not personate death and burial in baptism any more
than they imitated the circumcision of Moses. In a similar
sense, though without reference to any sacramental institute,
behevers are crucified with Christ, though no nail pierce their
hands ; they are enthroned with Him, while they wear no
symbol of royalty ; and they have an unction from the Holy
One, but no material oil is poured upon their heads.
'Ev $ Kal awriyipBriTE — "In whom too ye were raised
together." Beza, and after him Calixtus, Suicer, Steiger, Boh
mer, De Wette, and Baumgarten-Crusius, refer the relative to
fiairrlapari. But the language would, in such a case, be
inapt, as " out of baptism " would appear to be the natural
expression. There appears to be no formal resemblance
between baptism and burial in the apostle's mind, and so he
1 Gregor. Nyss. Opera, vol. iii. p. 372. Cyril. Hieros. Cateck ii. 4. Joannes
Dainas. Expositio fidei Ortho. 10. The works of Vossius, Gale, Wall, Carson, Wilson,
Beecher, and Halley, may also be referred to.

COLOSSIANS II. 12. 155
says not i£ ov, but simply ev $ — " in whom," that is, in Christ.
Justinian and Davenant, Meyer and Huther,** thus refer the
pronoun — " With Him " they are buried — " in Him " they rise
again ; for union with Him is the one efficacious principle.
The verb is explained and its meaning defended under Ephes.
ii. 6. It is not an ideal or potential spiritual resurrection
secured for them, but one now and actually enjoyed by behevers.
The vivification of the soul involves in it, as a necessary result,
the resurrection of the body — a result essential to the develop
ment of the new life in its highest sphere ; but it is wrong in
Theophylact to give this aorist verb a future meaning, or
rather to mix up the two significations. While union with
Christ is the bond of security, the instrumental cause is next
described —
Aid rrjg irlarEwg — " By the faith." A similar use of iv and Sid
is found in Ephes. i. 7, each preposition retaining its distinctive
signification. It is faith which achieves this spiritual resurrec
tion — behef in the Divine testimony is the vehicle which the
Divine resurrectionary power employs. The apostle, Ephes.
i. 19, 20, prays that the Ephesians might know " what is the
exceeding greatness of God's power to usward who believe,"
and the kind of power referred to is, as here, that which
raised Christ from the dead, and which also quickens and
raises up believers who had been " dead in trespasses and
sins." Thus it is faith —
Tijc ivspyalag rov Oeov tov iyiipavrog avrbv ek VEKpwv
— "Of the operation of God who raised Him from the
dead." Many interpreters take the genitive as that of
agency — "faith inwrought by God." Such is the view of
Flacius, Calixtus, the older interpreters, Luther, Melancthon;
as also of Storr, Flatt, Bengel, Bahr, Bohmer, De Wette,
Huther, Olshausen, and Conybeare. Luther renders — den Gott
wir&et; and Melancthon draws the lesson — non igitur potest
suis viribus ratio fidem in nobis efificere. Whatever truth may
be in this doctrine, and whatever may be the proof of it in
other parts of Scripture, it is not the doctrine which the
apostle here delivers. For according to usage in such a case,
the genitive is that of object. So with regard to Geov, Mark
xi. 22 : 'Ovoparog, Acts iii. 16 : 'Itjo-ov X. &c. Rom. iii. 22 ;

156

COLOSSIANS II. 12.

Gal. ii. 16, 20 ; iii. 22 ; Ephes. iii. 12 ; Philip, iii. 9 ; Jas. ii.
1; Rev. ii. 13: EvayysXfov, Philip, i. 27: 'AXrj0Efac, 2
Thess. ii. 13. The genitive thus denotes the object of faith,
or the thing believed. Such is the view of the mass of
interpreters, of the Greek Fathers, of Calvin and Beza, of
Grotius and Erasmus, of Meyer, Bloomfield, &c. The object
of this vivifying faith is the Divine power which raised up
Christ from the dead. The construction which the apostle
employs in Ephes. i. 19 — Etc r)pag rovg iriarEvovrag Kara rr)v
ivipyEiav k-t-o, is no argument against this view, for, as we
have there said, Kara does not point out the source of faith,
but turns attention to the model after which the Divine power
operates in quickening the spiritually dead. A description
of the Divine power, as showing itself in the resurrection of
Christ, more naturally alhes itself with the idea of spiritual
resuscitation, which it resembles, than with that of the pro
duction of faith.
The sinner is raised out of death. United to Christ by the
Spirit, and exercising a belief in God, he is justified and
obtains legal life — exemption from the penalty of law ; and
he is also sanctified, or is endowed with spiritual hfe — comes to
the conscious enjoyment of God's favour, and the possession of
His image. This faith has special reference to the Divine
power in one of its~manifestations, the raising of Jesus Christ
from the dead. Power is evinced most strikingly in a resur
rection — the restoration of a dead body to life is the work of
Omnipotence. Love may pity, but power restores — a power
which the apostle calls exceeding great and mighty. Ephes. i.
19. Faith lays hold on this phasis of omnipotence, and on
this act of its achievement, because it feels that spiritual
quickening is at once the result which springs from the one
and is pledged by the other. The nature of this power and
its relation to believers have been fully explained under a
similar passage — Ephes. i. 20. The resurrection of Christ
proves the acceptance of his atonement on the part of the
Father, " who raised His Son from the dead, and gave Him
glory that our faith and hope might be in God." It therefore
showed that the way of salvation was open, that the majesty
of the law had been vindicated, and that the blessings of

COLOSSIANS II. 13. 157
redemption might therefore be conferred in all their fulness and
without restraint. Blood had been shed, and might now be
sprinkled; and the Saviour being glorified, the Spirit might
now descend. If I beheve in that power which raised Jesus
Christ from the dead, I believe in a power which might
righteously have crushed me, but is now mercifully wielded to
save me ; which has set its seal on the work of Christ, and will
now distribute and apply its rich results ; and which, having
exalted the Redeemer, has placed itself under a solemn stipu
lation to reward Him with a numerous seed, so that He shall
"see of the travail of His soul and shall be satisfied." Thus,
this power working out the purposes of Divine Love and the
devices of Infinite Wisdom, stands out so employed as the
object of saving faith.
But the apostle now appeals to the Colossian believers.
(Ver. 13.) Kal vpdg vEKpoiig ovrag iv roig irapairrwpaaiv
Kal ry aKpofivarlq rrjg aapKog vpwv orvv£^wo7rotJ)<TEV vpdg
abv avT$ — " And you, being dead in trespasses and the uncir-
cumcision of your flesh, you He quickened with Him." Any
differences of reading are too trivial to be noted, save that
which repeats vpdg on the authority of A, C, J, K. The
apostle still continues the general thought without any formal
and specific connection. The connection proposed by Steiger,
namely, to join the first clause to the participle i'VEtpavroe, is
utterly untenable. It would create tautology, and the repeti
tion of vpdg does not render it necessary. Bernhardy, p. 275.
We far prefer connecting. vsKpovg with the verb ovveZwo-
iroiriaEv. Though we admire the acuteness and general
soundness of Meyer, yet we wonder how here, and in Ephes.
ii. 1, he comes to the conclusion that vEKpoc refers to physical
death. For the dead condition was one of reality, though it
be past. It was not a liability to death ; they were not, as he
phrases it — so gut wie todt — certo morturi, they were mortui.
Besides, the liability to physical death is not removed by faith
in Christ. And the quickening and upraising are already
experienced, they are not blessings to be enjoyed uncounted
years afterwards. The apostle does not surely say — that
believers were soon and certainly to die, and that when the
Saviour came again, they should all be summoned out of their

158 COLOSSIANS II. 13.
graves to the possession of eternal life. But he appeals to
present enjoyments already conferred — to a death which had
bound them, and a life which the Divine energy had infused
into them. Meyer argues for the ideal possession of life now,
and its full realization at the second coming. But if such
ideal possession leave the dreadful reahty untouched, it brings
with it no good. If, instead of ideal possession, he had said
partial possession, he would have come nearer the truth. For
the hfe now enjoyed is, alas, too often faint and languid in its
pulsations, and the fulness of its strength is a future bestow-
ment. We therefore take the tenses in their simple signifi
cance, and not in any proleptic sense, as even Chrysostom
takes them, and we regard the preposition lv before irapair-
rwpaaiv, as denoting that condition in which spiritual death
exists. When Meyer insists that the hfe to which behevers
are raised is eternal life, and that nothing less can be meant
by the apostle, he forgets that present spiritual life precedes
— that glory is only the consummation of grace, and that
eternal hfe is but the crown and perfect development of emo
tions already felt, occupations already begun, and pleasures
already experienced. The hfe implanted now is brought to
maturity in a sphere where all is congenial to its tastes and
instincts, its susceptibilities and powers. The Colossians had
been reaUy and spiritually dead, they were now as really and
spirituaUy ahve. They had been not only exposed to death on
account of sin, but had been dead in sin. Now they are not
simply gifted with the charter of a hfe yet to be reached, but
they are actually living in faith and holiness. The nature of
this death, and its connection with sin ; along with the meaning
of irapairrwpaaiv will be found explained in the parallel
place, Ephes. ii. 1, &c. There is no ground for Olshausen's
notion, that the' prior clause has a general meaning, and that
this verse begins a practical application ; for the same appeal
runs throughout, only it may be more pointed and intense in
the verse before us
Kal ry aKpofivarlq rije a-apKoc vpwv — " And in the uncir-
cumcision of your flesh." The apostle here alludes to their
Gentile extraction. They wanted in their flesh the seal of the
Abrahamic covenant. We incline to take the words in their

COLOSSIANS II. 13. 159
literal sense. Uncircumcision had, indeed, sometimes a spiritual
meaning. Deut. x. 16 ; Jer. iv. 4. Theodoret adopts such a
sense here — aKpoj3.r.oTapKoc rrjv irovriplav sKaXsasv ; so also
Beza, Grotius, Bahr, Steiger. But such an interpretation rather
takes up the result, than gives the meaning. Thus, the Gen
tiles were uncircumcised, and in consequence, were " aliens
from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the
covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God."
Their degraded, miserable, idolatrous, and dead state, was the
effect of their uncircumcision. Calvin says — sed tamen Paulus
hie loqeretur de contumacia cordis humani adversus Deum,
et natura pravis affectionibus inquinata. But there is no
occasion to take adp% in other than its physical meaning.
Beza takes the genitive as one of apposition — flesh, which is
uncircumcision, a thing abominable to God ; while others
render it — praeputium nempe vitiositas. That "uncircumcision"
and " flesh " are to be taken in their ordinary physical sense,
is also apparent from the change of person in the last clause.
Did the term simply signify natural corruption, then the
apostle himself was once in such a state. But he does not
feel or say so. On the contrary, he makes the distinction you
Gentiles were dead in the uncircumcision of your flesh— but
we, Jew and Gentile ahke, are forgiven our trespasses. See
under next clause. Uncircumcision of the flesh was the
physical mark of a heathen state, and that heathen state was
in consequence of this want, and in itself one of degradation,
impurity and death. The flesh which had not the seal was
truly corrupted and sinful. It is pressing the clause too
much to bring out of it a proof of original sin, as is done by
Zanchius and Bengel ; the latter calls it — exquisita appellatio
peccati originalis. The false teachers insisted strenuously on
the necessity of circumcision — a theory very common in those
times, for beheving Jews were zealous of the law.1 But
the apostle naturally says — True, ye were uncircumcised;
1 In a pamphlet named Israel's Ordinances, the late Charlotte Elizabeth, address
ing a Jewish convert, Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem, rebukes him for not circum
cising his sons — " Call- you what we will, my Lord, you are a Jew — a circumcised
Jew. My dear Lord, bear with me, while I respectfully and affectionately put once
more the query — why are not your sons also Jews f "

160 COLOSSIANS II. 13.
your flesh had not been wounded so as to bear the sign of the
Divine covenant, but ye have been circumcised, not with a
manual operation, but with the circumcision of Christ. The
apostle admits that they were uncircumcised, for they did not
belong to Israel, but he has already contended that such a circum
cision as that which of old disabled the Shechemites from self-
defence, and kept the Israelites after they crossed the Jordan
from commencing the conquest, did not become them, and was
in their case wholly superfluous, for fhey had been spiritually
initiated, and had put off the body of flesh. They had been
dead in sins — this was their real moral state ; dead too in the
uncircumcision of their flesh, and this was their external and
heathen condition. Looking at them as men, they were dead
in sins — looking at them as heathen men, they were dead
also in the uncircumcision of their flesh.
SvvE?wo7rotjjorEv vpdg aiiv avrw — " You He brought to life
together with Him." The nominative is still God — not Christ,
as Heinrichs would have it. The work of quickening is God's
prerogative. This process of life-giving is not simply redemp
tion, as De Wette gives it, but rather one special aspect or
blessing of it. It is used with perfect propriety, for hfe is the
blessing appropriate to the dead. Some wonder why orvvrj-
ycpBriTE should have occurred before it, since the idea of resur
rection so naturally follows that of hfe-giving. But in both
places the verbs are in harmony with the figure ; the apostle,
in verse 12, speaks of burial, and therefore he employs the
term resurrection, while here he speaks simply of death, and
so he places life in correspondence and contrast with it. But
not only so, there is also a difference of allusion and meaning.
The burial there is a voluntary renunciation of sin, and off-
casting of its body — the completing point of the process of
death to sin ; but here it is a death in sin which the apostle
describes, and out of which the Colossians had been raised by
the power of God, and through their union with Christ. The
former is a series of acts in which the believer in the enjoy
ment of vivifying energy dies unto sin — and puts off the
flesh. Nay, the more he lives, the more he dies ; and in pro
portion to the growth and development of life are the extent
and progress of death. It is a special view of the work of

COLOSSIANS II. 13. 161
sanctification, in which, according to the measure of life to
God, there is death to sin. But the death described in this
verse is very different. It is a death which pre-exists life, and
does not co-exist with it — death in sin — in consequence of its
fatal reign and power. The one is dying — a conscious state ;
the other is death — a condition of insensibility and danger.
In the one, the decay of love to sin may be registered ; in the
other, the mastery of sin is spiritual paralysis and death. The
nature of this life, and its connection with Christ, are illus
trated under Ephes. ii. 5.
Xapiadpsvog riplv irdvra ra irapairrwfiara — " Having forgiven
us all our trespasses." The reading i)plv is on largely prepon
derant authority preferred to the vplv of the Received Text.
It is easy to see how vplv should have been inserted, as vpdg
precedes. Nor is it difficult to apprehend why the apostle
should say " us " instead of " you." He speaks in one clause
of a distinctive feature of their past spiritual state — " dead in
the uncircumcision of your flesh." That was peculiar to them,
but death in sin was common both to him and to them, and they
were now both partakers of the " common salvation." They
both had enjoyed forgiveness, and so he says — " having for
given ms our trespasses." The aorist participle points to
forgiveness as something past, and yet preceding the act of
life-giving. Having forgiven your trespasses, He has quickened
you. The pardoning and life-giving are scarcely synonymous,
as some would argue. But this dead state is a guilty state,
for it is a sinful state, and all sin brings down upon itself the
Divine displeasure and penalty. Having forgiven them these
trespasses, which were the source and means of death, He
brings them out of it. To have given them spiritual life, and
yet kept them under the penalty of sin, which is legal death,
would have been a process in which one gift neutralized its
fellow. The restoration to life is thus the token and result of
a prior forgiveness. The welcome to the prodigal son was a
proof that he had been pardoned. The death was one in
trespasses ; and those very trespasses, yea " all " of them, are
blotted out. The reader is requested to turn to what is said
under chap. i. 14, and under Ephes. i. 7. The life is not, as
Bohmer imagines, subsequent to this forgiveness, because the
M

162

COLOSSIANS II. 14.

pardon is God's special act, whereas the life originates in
man's co-operation and response. This doctrine is neither
stated nor implied. Nor is it true. For all life is God's im
mediate gift, from its lowest to its highest forms. No human
chemistry can produce it beneath us — no suasion nor art can
create it within us. It is a drop out of the Fountain of Life.
[Ephes. i. 20.] The apostle proceeds to describe the process
through which sin was forgiven — or that work which God
had done, the result of which had been to them life and for
giveness. (Ver. 14.) 'mZaXslipag rb KaB' r)pwv ^Etpoypa^ov — " Having
blotted out the handwriting against us." This verse is so curt
and compact, that its analysis is not without difficulty. It is
to be borne in mind that " God" is still the subject, and the
alteration for which Heinrichs contends cannot for a moment
be admitted. It will not do to say, with Trollope, that " the
apostle, in the ardour of his mind, has not attended to the
syntax." What in other places is ascribed to Christ, may be
here without any impropriety ascribed to God ; for Christ's
suffering and death were of His sanction, and with His
co-operation. What Christ did, God did by Him. Nor is
there any argument here, as Bahr insinuates, against the
satisfactio vicaria. For the satisfaction was offered by Christ,
and God, having accepted it, did the act described in the
participle iZaXstyag. This verb1 signifies to smear, or
plaster over, and then it is used to denote the act by which
a law or deed of obligation is canceUed. It is found with
another signification Rev. vii. 17 ; xxi. 4. It occurs also
in Rev. iii. 5; but it is used in a sense not very dif
ferent from what it bears in this verse in Acts iii. 19; and
in Sept. Ps. li. 1, 9 ; cix. 13 ; Isaiah xliii. 25. In these places
it describes the forgiveness of sins, where sin as a debt is
supposed to be wiped out. The word occurs in Demosthenes2
— 0TKO7rEicrf?£ ei xQ^) roDrov [vtJjuov] i^aXElipai. Its technical
1 From the root X/<r that runs through so many of the Indo-Germanic tongues.
— Benfey, Wurzel-Lex. ii. 122.
2 Oratores Atlici, vol. vi. p. 429, ed. Dobson; also vol. vii. p. 378; viii. p. 15,
&c. Also Lysias, do. vol. ii. p. 182, and p. 588. "Avxi(uv is more frequently used
with X"(°V- or 'vyy^afrl.

COLOSSIANS II. 14. 163
signification may be gathered from the fact that it stands
opposed sometimes to uvaypdfw, and sometimes to iyypdQw.
Liddell and Scott, sub voce. The word, then, means here, to
expunge. That to which the process of obliteration is applied
is appropriately termed a handwriting — xuP°ypa<l>0Vi a n°te
of hand, a written bond. The term occurs only here in the
New Testament, but is found in Tobit v. 3 ; ix. 5 ; Josephus
xvii. 14, 2 ; Polybius, Excerpta Legat. 98. Schoettgen and
Vitringa take it as corresponding to the Hebrew airr ibid, and
as denoting tabula debiti. But as it signifies a claim of unpaid
debt, it is therefore also one of punishment, for it was koA'
r)pwv — " against us."
Both the connection and meaning of roig Soypaaiv have
been variously taken. That it is to be joined with x^-poypafov
we have no manner of doubt.
1. Some, such as Erasmus, Storr, Flatt, Conybeare, and
Olshausen, divide the verse thus — to Kafl' r^wv xslP°7- T0'C
Soypaaiv, o rjv virsvavrlov i)plv — "The handwriting, which,
by its ordinances, was against us." Olshausen admits that,
with such a construction, the position of the dative is not
quite natural, and he quotes, along with Winer, Acts i. 3,
with which this verse has little analogy. The admittedly
natural reference of the dative is to xElpoypafov.
2. Others attach ooYjuao-tv to the participle iZaXtlipag,
and understand it as describing the means by which the blot
ting has been effected. This is the view of the Greek ex
positors, of Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Fritzsche,1 and Bohmer.
The explanation of Soypaaiv, by Theodoret, ' is r) EvayyEXiKr)
SiSaaKaXla ; and by Theophylact — rrovrlari ry iriarEt. To this
we answer as we have done to the similar exegesis of Ephes.
ii. 15, that such a sense given to Soypa is wholly unbiblical —
that the declaration of Scripture is, that the handwriting
against man, which we here understand to be the Mosaic law,
is abrogated, not by any opposing or modifying enactments,
but by the death of Christ. Besides, and more convincingly
still, we learn from verse 20, that these Soy para are no longer
law, for the apostle says — rf Soypari^saBt ; why do ye suffer
1 Dissert, ii. p. 168.

164

COLOSSIANS II. 14.

such Soypara to be published or imposed ? That is —
these ordinances are abolished, and it is now the height of
folly for others to re-enact them, or for you to observe them.
The cognate verb of the 20th verse is used with special re
ference to the noun of this verse. Whatever these ordinances
are, they belong to an obsolete economy, and are no longer
of any obligation, for they were on the handwriting which
has been wiped out.
3. Steiger joins Soypaaiv with the participle in this verse.
He understands the phrase as defining one special phase of
the handwriting — "the handwriting in respect of its ordi
nances." Having blotted out the handwriting in this aspect
of it, viz., its enactments — plainly implying that in some other
aspect of it it still stands unrepealed. See on this view, also,
our comment on Ephes. ii. 15.
4. Bahr, Huther, and De Wette, understand iv Soypaaiv as
belonging to the whole clause, or rather as explaining how it
came that the handwriting was against us. It is because of
its Soypara, that is, against us ; De Wette renders — durch die
Satzungen. Calovius and Gieseler supply the participle ov —
the handwriting which is, or being in its ordinances against us.
5. But keeping the words in their natural position and con
nection with ^Etpoypa^ov, there is variety of view. Calvin,
Beza, Vitringa, Wolf, Camerarius, and Heinsius, and others,
eke out the construction from the parallel passage of the
Epistle to the Ephesians, and would supply at discretion either
iv or crvv1 — the handwriting consisting in ordinances, or the
handwriting along with its ordinances ; or, taking the dative
for the genitive, the handwriting of ordinances.
6. Meyer takes the dative as that of instrument. The
Soypara, in his view, as a constituent portion of the law, are
that with which the handwriting is made out. We prefer
calling the simple dative that of form, that distinctive and
well known form which the handwriting assumed. In this
way, the dative is governed by the verbal portion ofthe noun,
ypdfyov — that is, yEypapplvov. The apostle thus describes
the handwriting as of a special shape, it assumed the form of
1 Bishop Middleton on Greek article, in loc.

COLOSSIANS II. 14. 165
ordinances. Had the apostle said iv Soypaaiv, the meaning
would have been — which consisted of ordinances ; a meaning,
which, however, is not materially different from that to which
we incline, as the form is but the index to the substance. Our
view also embraces inferentially that given under No. 4. We
do not say that the handwriting is against us because of its Soy
para, but we say more largely, that the handwriting whose form
of structure was that of Soypara, is against us. For the meaning
of Soypara, see under Ephes. ii. 15. This handwriting was
ko0' i7^twv — " directed against us." After verbs, and in
phrases implying hostility in word or action, Kara denotes
against, and points out the direction of the hostility. And to
explain more- fully his meaning, the apostle adds —
"O r)v virEvavrlov yplv — " Which was inimical to us." It is
a needless refinement on the part of Beza, Bohmer, and Ro
binson, to lay stress upon the vjto, as if a covert or underhand
hostility were implied, or as if it had been unnoticed, or as if,
as Suicer and Witsius think, it is only in some sense contrary to
us, because, in another sense, it was a symbol of coming grace.
None of these meanings are sustained by biblical usage.
Sept. Gen. xxii. 17 ; Lev. xxvi. 16 ; Exod. xxiii. 27 ; Num.
x. 9 ; Deut. xxxii. 27 ; Jos. v. 13 ; in which places it repre
sents one or other of the two Hebrew terms — :ns, or is. The
word is one of those frequent compounds which characterize
the later Greek, and mark it as a period of decay. Thus we
do not, hke many expositors, take Ka6" r)pwv, and KarEvavrlov
vplv, as synonyms, or the latter as explanatory of the former,
but we regard the two statements as giving two distinct ideas.
Bengel compares the first to a status belli, and the second to
ipsa pugna. It has a hostile attitude — it has also in it a deep
and active antagonism. The question then recurs, what is
the hostile handwriting?
1. A strange exposition is found in ancient times — that the
handwriting is man's corporeal frame. Theodoret expressly
says — fiyovpm rolvvv Kal rb awpa r)pwv KaXslaBai x^poypa^ov.
That is, probably, our body, as represented by Christ's
humanity, which was nailed to the cross. This is, to some
extent, the view of Steiger, given both in his Commentary on
1 Pet. ii. 24, and in this place. In the first comment referred

166

COLOSSIANS II. 14.

to, he says — " Our sin adhered to Him until it was legally
destroyed in His body, and His body was in this respect like
a handwriting over our guilt." Again, he adds, " That by the
appointment of His Son to be our sacrifice, God set out a
corporeal document of our guilt." On the verse before us
he writes: — "The body of Christ, as a body, is no hand
writing ; but it is that body, destined to be a sin-offering,
which is at once a document exhibiting our guilt, and repre
senting the law, in so far as the latter serves the purpose of an
indictment." The image, however, is not very distinct, and
the sacrificial body of the Lord was rather a witness of our sin,
than a handwriting against us. But the idea is, that some
thing different from Christ, and yet closely associated with
Him, was obliterated in His death. Steiger's notion is evi
dently based upon a hteral interpretation of the last clause of
the verse, yet it is wholly out of harmony with the entire
phraseology. And in what sense does a body resemble a
handwriting ? or how could it be hostile to us ? or how has it
been taken out of the way ?
2. An opinion as ancient as the preceding supposes the hand
writing to be the broken covenant which God originally made
with Adam. This opinion is found in Chrysostom, Theophy
lact and OJcumenius, Ambrose and Anselm. Bahr, and others,
trace this opinion to Irenaeus. Speaking of the handwriting
of our debt as affixed to the cross, he says — quemadmodum per
lignutn facti sumus debitores Deo, per lignum accipiamus nostri
debiti remissionem? The use of this fanciful analogy can
scarce, perhaps, be taken as a formal exegesis, though he
regards the handwriting generally as sin. Tertullian is said to
hold a similar notion, but his opinion will be seen to be more in
unison with our own. Bahr well objects to this view, that
errors on this subject are not among those alleged to be held
by the false teachers, and that this Adamic covenant, contain
ing principally one prohibition, could in no appropriate sense
have such a descriptive plural noun as Soypara attached to it.
The whole paragraph refers to a later transaction altogether,
than the covenant of Eden.
1 Adversus Eaeres. v. 17, 3.

COLOSSIANS II. 14. 167
0
3. The reformers. Melancthon, Luther, and Zuingli, thought
the reference to be to the accusations of conscience. The
guilty conscience resembles a guilt-book, or an indictment.1
Besides replying, with Bahr, that this exegesis does not tally
with the purpose of the paragraph, nor with the idea implied
in Soyjuara, we may add, that the notion of the Reformers is
wholly of a subjective nature, whereas the verse presents an
objective view of the work of God in Christ. It tells us what
God has done as the means of enabling Him to forgive sins,
but their interpretation points to a blessing which follows only
from the forgiveness of sin. The act of God is prior to for
giveness — is external in its nature; while pardon, with a quieted
conscience, is one of the results of the believing reception of
it. An inner conviction, also, cannot be well figured as an
outer and written record of many heads against us. .These
critics confound what follows from faith in the cross, with what
was done upon the cross that faith might secure such a result.
It is one thing to expunge an indictment, and quite another
thing to have the blessed consciousness that we actually share
in the indemnity.
4. Not a few understand the apostle to refer to the cere
monial law, or the Mosaic law in its ritual part or aspect.
Such is the view of Calvin, Beza, Crocius, van Till, Gomar,
Vorstius, Grotius, Deyling, Schoettgen, Wolf, Bahr, and
others. This is, no doubt, the common view, and it is true so
far as it goes. The entire ritual, with its lustrations and sacri
fices, had a close and constant connection with sin — "in them
was a remembrance of sin every year." It is true that it was
abrogated by the death of Christ on the cross, and it is also
true that one special error of the false teachers was the incul
cation of ceremonial distinctions and observances, and that the
apostle has such mischievous teaching specially in view. But
it is not the less true that the apostle makes no such distinc
tion between one part of the Mosaic law and another. In the
parallel passage in the twin epistle the apostle speaks of the
" enmity " produced by the ceremonial law, but that was an
enmity of races — between Israel who possessed it, and Non-
1 Vnser Gewissen glekh als ein Schuldbuch ist. — Luther.

168

COLOSSIANS II. 14.

Israel which wanted it. So that, in order to their union, the
cause of separation and mutual dislike must be taken out of
the way. But here the apostle speaks not of race and race —
nor of Jew and Gentile as separated in blood and creed, but
of both as being in the same condition-: — having a handwriting
against them. He does not specify separate parties, he says
" us," whether Jew or Gentile. Nay, more, it is to Gentiles,
distinguished by the uncircumcision of their flesh, and never
placed under the ceremonial law, that the apostle is speaking.
That law spoke, indeed, of sin, but it spoke intelligibly only
to those who understood its symbols, and obeyed its prescrip
tions. Still the ceremonial law was against the Gentiles, as it
kept them out of the Divine covenant. Moreover, the apostle
is writing of a blessing not determined in its distribution by
race or blood, but enjoyed by all the members ofthe church —
the forgiveness of sin. But the forgiveness of sin was not
secured by the simple abrogation of the Levitical law, for its
abrogation is only one, though an important one, of the many
results of the death on Calvary.
5. Therefore, we are inclined with Meyer, De Wette, Dave
nant, Neander, Bohmer, Huther, and others, to understand the
reference of the apostle to the entire Mosaic law. That law
presents a condemnation of the whole human race — " that all
the world may become guilty before God." Davenant says —
" I accordingly explain the handwriting in ordinances to mean
the force of the moral law binding to perfect obedience, and
condemning for any defect in it, laden with the ceremonial
rites as skirts and appendages." But lest this opinion should
imply that the moral law was abolished, he adds — " the law as
to the power of binding and condemning is abrogated, and
its rites and ceremonies are at the same time abolished."
But whatever the handwriting, with its ordinances, is, it
undergoes only one process — it is blotted out. The distinc
tion referred to, however true in result, cannot therefore be
sustained as an interpretation. So that we take ^Etpoypaoiov,
not as denoting the Mosaic law, absolutely, and in itself, but
rather in its indictment. It is against us, at once in direction
and operation. It is the finding of the law which is against
us, as well as its dogmatic form. And this, especially, is a

COLOSSIANS II. 14. 169
bond, a writing which pronounces our sentence of death. This
is Chrysostom's view in its result, and also that of Tertullian,
who writes — chirographum mortis,1 symbolum mortis.2 Schoett
gen, in loc, adduces a similar rabbinical expression ; when one
sins, God dooms him to die, but when he repents, the hand
writing is abolished — tana iron.3 It is not, therefore, so much
the law with the authority of legislation, as the law with its
power of punishment. It is not the code prescribing duty, but
rather as at the same time authorizing the infliction of merited
penalty, which becomes the xtlP°7Pa<t'0V- J-n ^is view, the
Soypara are a handwriting, or a bond which exhibits and
warrants our hability to punishment. But the liability to
penalty is expunged, the handwriting is wiped out. The law
in itself is not, and cannot be contrary to men, but it has
become so because they have failed to obey it. Its precepts
are not hostile to them, for obedience to them, would secure
our welfare. The law has been given, both moral and cere
monial ; the first has been universally broken, and therefore
every man is exposed to its curse ; the second presents this
melancholy truth in its ritual bloodshedding and expiation ;
but what the one charged, and the other confessed,4 has been
obliterated. The claim of condemnation exhibited by the
moral law, and traced in the blood and read by the fires of the
Levitical law has now been blotted out ; not the moral law
itself, as it must be eternal and immutable — having its ori
gin in the Divine nature, and forming an obligation under
which every creature is placed by the fact of his existence.
" Do we make void the law through faith ? " asks the apostle,
and his reply is, " nay, God forbid, we estabhsh the law."
If the death of Christ was necessary to cancel the indict
ment which the law presented, it only strengthens and
ratifies its preceptive authority. It follows, however, that
if the special purpose of the ceremonial law was to con
fess the fact of man's exposure to the curse, and pourtrays
the mode of his deliverance from it, then, surety, the curse
being borne, and the condemning sentence expunged,
1 Depudicitia, xix. 2 De poenitentia, vi. s Tanchwma, fol. 44, 2.
4 The xupoy. bore upon it the signature or acknowledgment of the debtor, and so
differed from evyyiaipj, which contained the signatures of both contracting parties.

170

COLOSSIANS II. 14.

the Levitical code has served its purpose, and ceases to
exist. What it taught in symbol, is now enforced in re
ality ; what it foreshadowed in type, has now become matter
of history. And this it is the special object of the apostle
to show as a lesson and caution to the Colossians.
This handwriting had assumed the form of "ordinances." In
Ephes. ii. 14, the apostle uses the term expressly of the cere
monial law and its positive institutions. But the two places
are not entirely analogous. There the apostle describes the
ceremonial code as a hedge between Jew and Gentile, and
shows how, through its abolition by Christ in his death, the
union of the two races was secured, both being, at the same
time,- and by the same event, reconciled to God. Here, how
ever, as the apostle speaks specially of the spiritual results of
Christ's death, and of these as effected by God the Father, he
seems, as we have said, to refer to the entire Mosaic Institute,.
but especially to the ceremonial law, as it was so palpable and
prominent a portion of the system, and contained such a num
ber of minute and peremptory enactments.
Kal airo JjpKsv iK rov piaov — " And He has taken
it out of the way." The use of the perfect tense adds em
phasis to the verb — he took it out of the way, and still it
remains out of the way. The apostle says, Kal avro — this
very document, terrible as it is ; that is to say, He not only
blotted out the writing upon it, but He has taken out of
the way the parchment itself; or, as Theophylact says —
lirolriaE priSi <j>alvEaBai. The idiom iK rov piaov (the contrast
being iv rtjl piaio) is no uncommon one. On the change of
construction from participle to verb marking emphasis, see
under i. 6. Winer, § 64, ii. 2, b. How God has taken it so
effectually out of the way is next told us —
IlpoorriXwo-ac avrb r$ aravpd} — " Having nailed it to the
cross." The participle occurs only here in the New Testa
ment, but is similarly found in 3 Mace. iv. 9.' The allusion
is not to the tablet nailed to the cross above the sufferer, as
Gieseler assumes, but to the crucifixion of the Redeemer Him
self. There seems to be no historical ground for the illustra-
1 Also Lucian, Prometh. Opera, vol. ii. p. 2, ed. Bipont. — roeoirov xflvov rS
Kxvx&eop vT^oeYi^upitos-

COLOSSIANS II. 15.

171

tion of Grotius, that it was customary to thrust a nail through
papers — declaring them old and obsolete, much in the same
way as a Bank of England note is punched through the centre
when declared to be no longer of value, and no longer to be
put into circulation. The idea of the apostle is, that when
Christ was nailed to the cross, the condemning power of the
law was nailed along with Him, and died with Him — " Now
we are delivered from the law, that being dead in which we
were held." Rom. vii. 6. In other words, God exempts.
sinners from the sentence which they merit, through the
sufferings and death of Jesus. The implied doctrine is, that
the guilt of men was borne by Christ when He died — was
laid on Him by that God who by this method took the hand.
writing out of the way. Jesus bore the sentence of the hand
writing in Himself, and God now remits its penalty; having
forgiven you aU your trespasses, inasmuch as He has blotted
out the hostile handwriting and taken it out of the way, for He
nailed it to the cross of His Son. Meyer remarks, that
i%aXEi<j>Eiv and a'ipEtv ek rov piaov are not two really distinct
acts, but represent the same thing. We should rather say,
that the first term characterizes the act, and the second refers to
the completed result ; while the third participle — irpoorrjXwa-ae,
defines the external mode of accomplishment.
(Ver. 15.) 'ATT£K§vorajUEVoc rag apxdg Kal rag i^ovalag
— " Having spoiled the principalities and powers." We
should have expected Kat to be placed between the two
clauses ; but its absence indicates the close connection, nay,
the identity of the two acts; or, perhaps, of the process in
which the two acts were completed. In blotting out the
handwriting, God at the same time vanquished Satan. If
ever there was bathos in exegesis, it is in that of Rosenmiiller
— that when Jesus rose again from the dead, it was seen how
vain were the efforts of the Jewish magistrates against Him.
Suicer, Junker, and others, take a similar view. The terms
have been explained under i. 16, and under Ephes. i. 21 ;
vi. 12. We cannot agree with Pierce that good angels are
meant; they needed not to be spoiled or triumphed over
openly. Hostile spiritual powers are plainly designated.
Their reign over man had its origin in his sin; and their

172

COLOSSIANS II. 15.

usurpation lasted till sin was atoned for, and its power
destroyed. Hence Satan is called the " god " and " prince of
this world." [Ephes. ii. 2;] Luke xi. 22.
The verb dirEKSvopai, which means literally to cast off any
thing, such as clothing, has been taken by many as referring
to Christ's own death, as if he had cast off the flesh in dying
— an idea which seems to have originated the reading rr/v
adpKa,.in F, G, seen too in the Syriac, and followed by some
of the Latin Fathers. Augustine has — spolians se came.
So that the figure has been supposed to be that of a naked
wrestler. But the diction of the verse is that of avowed and
open warfare, and the participle oVerS. must have the sense
of spoiling ; conquering, and then making tbe vanquished a
spoil, as is done when a fallen foe is stript of his armour.
This last is the idea and image of Meyer, which perhaps is
too minute, for the general figure is, that He stript them of
all power and authority. The compound form of the verb
indicates how completely this was done ; iKovEtv1 is used in
the sense of spoliare, and the Vulgate here renders exspolians.
'EoEiyjudrtffEv iv irappriaiq — "He made a show of them
openly." The allusion is plainly to the triumph which is
celebrated after a battle. His spiritual foes, on being van
quished, were exhibited as a public spectacle. The meaning
is not that He exposed their weakness — rfiv daBivEiav eSei^e,
as Theodoret understands it. That is certainly imphed, but
the idea is, He has shown the fact of their complete subjuga
tion in His triumph over them. There is no ground to give
the simple verb the sense of the compound — irapaSEiyparlZuv,
and add the idea of shame, as is done by Theophylact, Beza,
Ro'ell, Storr, and Conybeare. Such an idea, as well as that
of weakness, may be indeed inferred from the humiliating
exposure. And it was no private parade, it was done iv
irappriaiq — " openly." John vii. 4. Theophylact gives it
rightly — Sripoalq, irdvrwv bpwvrwv — " openly, in the eyes of
all;" — kuhnlich, frei und frank, as Meyer paraphrases it.
Qpiapfisiaag iv aiirql — " Having triumphed over them
in it." The participle is used in 2 Cor. ii. 14, with a hiphil
^Joseph. Bel. Jud. ii. 24.

COLOSSIANS II. 15. 173
sense, and it here occurs with the accusative, hke the Latin —
triumphare aliquem. Adhering to the hiphil sense — " maketh
or causeth to triumph," some would supply iipdg — maketh
us to triumph over them. Such an idea only encumbers the
sense. The three verbs in the verse do not form a climax. But
the spiritual foes are spoiled, and then they are exposed ; while
the last participle defines the manner and purpose of the
exposure — it formed a pubhc triumph. The truth expressed is,
that there has been complete and irretrievable subjugation.
But the meaning and reference of the last words iv aitTd} are
doubtful. The Syriac and Vulgate, with Theodoret, and the
editors Griesbach and Scholz, read iv avrd} — " in Him." If the
reference be made to Christ, then it is wrong, for God is the
nominative ; and if to God, then the phrase is not very intelli
gible. Meyer takes the reference to be to the principal noun
of the preceding verse — Y_£tpdypa$ov. His meaning is, that
the expunged and perforated handwriting was a proof of
Satan's overthrow. This exegesis, however, gives a fulness of
meaning to iv avr<£, which the words will not bear. They
simply mean " in it," that is, in the handwriting. Now it was
not in the handwriting simply that God obtained his victory,
but in obliterating it, and naihng it to the cross — an idea that
could not be expressed by the bare iv airy. " In the cheiro-
graph," and in what he did with the cheirograph, are very
different ideas, requiring very different forms of diction.
Opinions are nearly divided as to whether iv avr<£ refers
to Christ or to the cross. Wolf, Musculus, Bengel, Stofr,
Flatt, RosenmuUer, Bahr, Huther, and De Wette, hold the
first view. Our objection to this view is, that in the two
verses no mention is made of Christ. The work is wholly
ascribed to God — not formally to God in Christ.
And, therefore, we incline to the other opinion, that iv avrw
carries us back to aravpi^. Such is the opinion of the Greek
Fathers, Theophylact and Gilcumenius, of Calvin, Beza, Gro
tius, Crocius, Steiger, Bohmer, and Olshausen. Origen has no
less than eight times for iv avry the phrase iv r£ gvXw.
Epiphanius, Macarius, and Athanasius, read either so, or iv
aravpd}. The reading is a gloss, but it shows the general
opinion. In the cross God achieved His victory over the

174

COLOSSIANS II. 15.

infernal powers — " through death," he " that had the power
of death" was destroyed. Through the agency of fallen
spirits sin was introduced, and it was the sphere of their do
minion; they could rule in a condemned world, but not in a re
deemed one ; and when that world was released from death
by the death of Christ, the instrument of His death was
the weapon of conquest and symbol of victory over them.
Most strong is the prevailing opinion of the mediaeval Latin
church, as seen in Aquinas, Anselm, and others, that this
spoihng was in the nether world, and over the daemons who
held the souls of the patriarchs in captivity, and that the
triumphal procession was the march of the imprisoned spirits
out of the limbus patrum. [Ephes. iv. 8, 9.] The subject
throughout the previous context is God, not Christ ; and the
whole notion is an idle chimera.
Most glorious is the thought that the church is released
from the bond that held it, and delivered from the hellish
powers that tyrannized over humanity — a dehverance achieved
for it by Him alone "whose right hand and holy arm" could get
Him the victory. Redemption is a work at once of price and
power, of expiation and conquest. On the cross was the
purchase made; on the cross was the victory gained. The
blood that wipes out the sentence was there shed, and the
death which was the death-blow of Satan's kingdom was there
endured. Those nails which killed Christ pierced the sentence
of doom — gave egress to the blood which cancelled it, and
inflicted at the same time a mortal wound on the hosts of
darkness. That power which Satan had exercised was so
prostrated, that every one believing on Christ is freed from
his vassalage. Christ's death was a battle, and in it God
achieved an immortal victory. The conflict was a furious
one, mighty and mysterious in its struggle. The combatant
died ; but in dying He conquered. Hell might be congratu
lating itself that it had gained the mastery, and might be
wondering what should be the most fitting commemoration
and trophy, when He who died arose the victor — no enemy
again daring to dispute His power or challenge His right, and
then God exhibited his foes in open triumph. " The prince of
this world is cast out."

COLOSSIANS II. 16. 175
All this teaching bore upon the Colossian church and its
crisis. Let not the ritual law — which exhibits the condemn
ing power of the whole law — be enacted among you, for it
has been fully and formally abrogated. Let not your minds
be dazzled or overawed by esoteric teaching about the spirit-
world. All those spirits are beneath the Divine Master ; if
good, they are His servants ; if evil, they are conquered
vassals. Now follows the pointed and practical lesson. Already had
they been warned against one phasis of error — " philosophy
and vain deceit," and a sufficient reason is given. Next is
rehearsed their privilege of circumcision and baptism, their
death to sin and their life to God. Here their forgiveness is
stated along with the means which had been taken to secure
it; and this process, so decided and characteristic, lays the
foundation for the warning in the verse which we are now to
consider. (Ver. 16.) Mr) ovv rtg vpdg Kpivirai iv j3pwati rj iv iroaei
— " Let no one, therefore, judge you in eating or in drink
ing," — test your piety by such a criterion. The participle ovv
refers back to the preceding statement, especially to the first
clause of the 14th verse. The verb may be followed by the
accusative, intimating who are the objects of judgment, while
iv accompanying it, sometimes specifies its period, as in John
xii. 48, and sometimes its quality, as in Acts xvii. 31, but
here it denotes the basis on which judgment is passed, or
rather, the sphere in which it is exercised. According to
Meyer, fipwaig, in the writings of the apostle Paul, is uni
formly actio edendi, and so distinct from fipwpa — cibus, though
in other portions of the New Testament, and among the
classics, that distinction is not observed. Some of the lexico
graphers do not admit the statement, as is manifest by their
citations, neither does Fritzsche — but we believe Meyer to be
correct. Iloo-ie is also the act of drinking, in contrast with
iropa, the draught. Though the Mosaic law did not dwell so
much on drinks as meats, yet as we shall see, it included some
statutes about drinks and drinking vessels, and, therefore, we
cannot agree with De Wette that iroaig was inserted " for the
sake of the alliteration "— des Gleichklanges wegen. The

176

COLOSSIANS II. 16.

eating and drinking are, therefore, a reference to the dietetic
injunctions ofthe Mosaic law. Lev. vii. 20 — 27 ; xi. Certain
kinds of animal food were prohibited. The Jews were
allowed the flesh of ruminant quadrupeds with a cloven hoof,
of fishes with scales and fins, and of such insects as the locust,
while unclean birds were specified in a separate catalogue.
The priests on the eve of ministration were solemnly for
bidden the use of wine. Certain kinds of vessels that had
contained water, and been defiled, were to be broken, but
others were only to be rinsed. The Nazarites did not taste any
product of the vine. No doubt the pride of sanctity was
strong in the Jewish mind, and the tendency was, both in
Essenes and Pharisees, to multiply such prohibitions, and to
place around meats and drinks a finical array of minute and
complex regulations. The party at Colosse had strong ascetic
tendencies, and were apt to sit in judgment upon those who
felt that " every creature of God is good, and nothing to be
refused." The errorists forgot that the spirituality of Christ
ianity rose far above such physical restraints and distinctions,
and that the new kingdom was "not meat and drink, but
righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
"H iv pipEi ioprijc r) vovpriviag rj ora/3j3drwv — "Either in the
particular of a festival, or of a new moon, or of sabbath-days."
The phrase, iv pipsi, as in classic use,1 signifies not simply
in respect of, as Beza, Flatt, Bahr, and Huther, give it. It
gives a specialty to the theme or sphere of judgment, by
individualizing the topic or occasion. Melancthon and Zan
chius render — vicibus festorum. The Greek Fathers Chry
sostom and Theophylact, take it as denoting a partial ob
servance, as if the heretics did not retain the whole of the
original rule; and Calvin supposes iv pipsi to intimate that
they made unwarranted distinctions between one day and
another. "Feast," or Festival, refers, as is plain from the
contrast, • to the three great annual feasts of the Passover,
Pentecost, and Tabernacles. The "new moon" ushered in
certain monthly celebrations, while the sabbaths were weekly
in their periods. Some, indeed, such as Neumann, suppose
1 See Wetstein, » loc. Aelian, v. 8, 3. Krebs regards Iv pipi, as an elegant re
dundancy, but his examples do not sustain his opinion.

COLOSSIANS II. 16. 177
the allusion to be to the grand sabbatic periods of the seventh
day, the seventh year, and the fiftieth year. But there is no
warrant or necessity for such a reference here, though the
apostle says, to the Galatians, " ye observe days and months,
and times and years." Rom. xiv. 5, 6. The term o-d/3-
fiarov often occurs in a plural form in the New Testament, as
if, as Winer supposes, the Syro-Chaldaic form— am* had been"
transferred into the Greek tongue. Matt. xii. 1 ; Luke iv. 16 ;
Acts xiii. 14 ; xvi. 13. Allusions to these feasts, collectively,
will be found in 1 Chron. xxiii. 31 ; 2 Chron. ii. 4 ; xxxi. 3.
The observances of the Jewish rubric, whether in its original
form, or with the multiplied and ascetic additions which it
presented in those days, laid believers no longer under obliga
tion. They belonged to an obsolete system, which had
"decayed and waxed old." Christianity inculcated no such
periodical holidays. For it did not bid men meet thrice
a-year to feast themselves, but each day to " eat their bread
with gladness and singleness of heart." It did not sum
mon them to any tumultuous demonstration with " trum
pets at new moon," since every division of the month was a
testimony of Divine goodness, and the whole kalendar was
marked by Divine benefactions — every day alike a season
of prayer and joy. Nor were they to hallow the " sabbaths,"
for these had served their purpose, and the Lord's day was now
to be a season of loftier joy, as it commemorates a more august
event than either the creation ofthe universe, or the exodus from
Egypt. Every period is sanctified — " day unto day uttereth
speech, and night unto night teacheth knowledge." Sensations
of spiritual joy are not to be restricted to holy days, for they
thriU the spirit every moment, and need not wait for expression
till there be a solemn gathering, for every instant awakes to the
claims and the raptures of religion. The new religion is too
free and exuberant to be trained down to " times and seasons "
hke its tame and rudimental predecessor. Its feast is daily, for
every day is holy ; its moon never wanes, and its serene tran
quillity is an unbroken Sabbath. The Jewish Sabbath was kept,
however, by the early Christians along with their own Lord's
day for a considerable period ; till at length, in 364, a.d. the
Council of Laodicea condemned the practice as Judaizing.
* N

178

COLOSSIANS II. 17.

(Ver. 17.) "A iariv aKid rwv yusXXovrwv — " Which are a
shadow of things to come." The plural form of the relative
has higher authority than the singular, which is adopted by
Lachmann, and is found in B, F, G, and in several of the
Latin Fathers. The relative is not to be restricted to <raj3-
/3arwv, as Richter argues ; nor does it simply connect itself
with those festive days, as Flatt takes it. The entire ritual is
alluded to — the ritual as God appointed it, and not as over
loaded by its self-willed votaries.
The noun o-Kta may bear two different meanings. It may
either signify a shadow projected from a body by its intercep;
tion of the light ; or it may signify as here a dim and shadowy
sketch of an object, in contrast not only with a full and
coloured likeness, but with the object itself. Meyer contends
strenuously for the former, viz. that o-Kta is not aKiaypafla,
but simply " shadow," as if the Christian economy threw its
shadow back, and this shadow was ritual Mosaism. This
idea brings out, indeed, the typical relation which Judaism
bore to Christianity. But, perhaps, the apostle had the figure
before his mind which he has elsewhere employed ; "the law,"
he says, " had a shadow of good things to come," and not the
" very image of the things." In this expression he distin
guishes o-Ktd and eikwv, as being both likenesses, though of a
different kind ; and in the passage before us, he distinguishes
o-Kta from the reality or substance — awpa — which it represents.
The nouns aKid and awpa are thus also contrasted by Jose
phus, when he makes Antipater say of Archelaus — aKidv
alrrjaopEvog f3aaiXEiag, r/g ijpiraaEv iavrtj) rb awpa.1 Photius
vaguely renders awpa by aXjjvW. The "things to come"
are the spiritual blessings of the Christian dispensation, not as
Meyer, in accordance with his favourite theory, supposes,
blessings to be enjoyed at the Parousia, or second coming.
Heb. x. 1. The apostle employs io-rt in the present, not
because, as Meyer argues, the blessings are yet future to the
present point of time ; but either because, as Davenant sup
poses, he gives a definition, or because the apostle transports
himself ideally to a period when ritual Judaism was of
1 Da Bel. Jtid. ii. -2, 6. Also Cicero, de Qfficiis, 3, 17.

COLOSSIANS II. 17.

179

Divine obligation, and when it was really the shadow of
things yet to come. The connection of maa with the genitive
rwv jueX. forbids the notion of Zanchius and Suicer, that the
reference may be to the comparative darkness of the former
economy. To Si awpa Xpiarov— "But the body is Christ's." A few
Codices change the passage by a glaring amendment, and
read 6 Xpto-roe, while A, B, C, prefix the article rov, a read
ing which Lachmann prefers. "But the body is Christ's,"
that is, of Christ's provision and possession. Meyer taking
awpa in the sense of body, that is, the concrete reahty of those
things to come, supposes that Christ is here supposed to
be its head. But the term body, with its correlative organ
— head, invariably refers in Paul's writings to the church — a
meaning which cannot in this place be admitted. Chrysostom
adopted this sense, and to support it, altered the connection,
and clumsily joined this clause to the following verse — " You
who are the body of Christ, let no man deceive you of your
reward." The same construction is approved by Photius, and
also by Augustine who has, corpus autem Christi, nemo vos
convincat. The meaning is not that Christ is the body, but
that He possesses it. The realities so long shadowed out are
His — all that composes them belongs to Him.
The clause then contains the great truth that the Mosaic
economy was no empty congeries of useless and meaningless
observances — infantine in character- and design; but an or
ganism at once Divine in its origin, and fraught with lessons of
striking form. It was a dim outline — owa — of those substantial
blessings which are of Christ, and it served a gracious purpose
during its existence. It was a rudimentary sketch. Its temple
with its apartments, vessels, and furniture; its priesthood, in
their imposing robes and duties ; its altar, with the fire on its
hearth, and the cloud of smoke resting over it ; its victims, in
their age, kind, and qualifications; its rubrie, with its holidays,
and their special observances ; its minute ritual in reference
to diet, dress, and disease — all were the faint lines of a sketch
which was limned by the Divine pencil for the guidance and go
vernment of Hebrew faith and worship. The eye of faith might,
as it gazed, be able to fill in the picture, and see in distant

180

COLOSSIANS II. 17.

perspective the sublime group of a tabernacle filled and inhabited
by the Great Spirit; a Priest offering the most costly of victims
— the God-man presenting Himself; an altar consecrated by
blood precious beyond all parallel ; and a sabbatism not only
serene and joyous on earth, but stretching away into eternity
as a " rest remaining to the people of God." Thus, the hiero
glyph and substance exactly correspond, though the former be
only an adumbration and a miniature.
But not only was there this close and pre-ordained relation
between the shadow and the substance, there was also a
predictive correspondence. The sketch is taken from the
reality, and implies the existence of it. The shadow is the
intended likeness of the substance. In other words, Christ
ianity was not fashioned to resemble Judaism, but Judaism
was fashioned to resemble Christianity. The antitype is
not constructed to bear a likeness to the type, but the
type is constructed to bear a likeness to the antitype. It
is, in short, because of the antitype that the type exists.
The Mosaic economy, being a rude draught of Christianity,
presupposed' its future existence. If it had been an institute
without ulterior object, if its rites had contained no prospec
tive delineations, or if its whole design had terminated in present
observance, then it could not have received the apostohc
designation. But it was a typical system. Now, a type not
only pictured out the nature of a future reality, but it foretold
its certainty. It showed, and it foreshowed. The sacrifice
not only showed that the offerer was under sentence of
death, and that only by the substitutionary shedding of
blood the awful sentence could be repealed ; but it also
foreshowed that the great and final oblation of infinite efficacy
would assuredly be presented in " the fulness of the time." It
not only pourtrayed the mode, but it gave assurance of the
fact — it was at once a symbol and a prophecy. The entire
Jewish ritual was so organized, as not only to exhibit a faint
and distant likeness to Christianity, but it established the
certainty that the new dispensation of which it was an early
and elementary copy should be at length organized in perfec
tion and symmetry. The " figure for the time then present "
guaranteed the introduction of the figured reality in the time

COLOSSIANS II. 17. 181
to come. The sign not only preceded, but certified the
advent of the thing signified.
Still, the shadow is in itself nothing — it is empty, baseless,
and indistinct. The Hebrew ceremonial could not give full
instruction by its symbols, and it could only purge " as per
taining to the flesh." It had no power to enter into the con
science, and impart peace and the sense of forgiveness. The
blood of an animal could not secure Divine favour. The thief,
after restoring fourfold to the man whom he had wronged, and
so satisfying him, must also offer a victim on the altar to God,
in order that the penalty incurred from Him might be remitted.
The man who had been contaminated by any ceremonial impurity,
who had touched a corpse, or come into accidental contact with
a leper, was by means of an appointed ordeal of ablution and
sacrifice restored to his previous status. But the whole appa
ratus was wanting in spiritual power, and its only virtue was
in its connection with the substance to come. That it was a
shadow so designed, and not a fortuitous and unmeaning sys
tem, is plain from its correspondence with the body which is
Christ's, and its consequent fulfilment in Him. The harmony
is universal and complete. The great High Priest has come
and clothed Himself in humanity — a living vestment far more
costly than the robes of Aaron "made for glory and for
beauty;" and all other victims have been superseded by His
oblation of Himself. Omniscience is His, and therefore no
formal Urim and Thummim glitters on His breast. The Self-
sacrifice He presented was pure as the fire from God by which
it was consumed and it has been visibly accepted. He has
gone through the starry vail, and into heaven itself, with the
names of all His clients inscribed upon His heart ; and He
pleads the merit of His blood before a mercy seat not cano
pied by a cloud, but enveloped in the Majesty of Him who sits
upon it. The woven and metallic cherubim disappear in the
reality, for the angels having performed their allotted parts
in the mystery of redemption, are "ministering spirits to
them who shall be heirs /)f salvation." There is no need
now that the law be engraved on stone, for it is written in
delibly on "the fleshly tables of the heart." It is no longer
required that there be a bath, or a "sea of brass," for believers

182

COLOSSIANS II. 18.

are washed in the laver of regeneration. The golden lamp-
stand has been extinguished, for the lustre of the Enhghtening
Spirit fills the House of God. Nay, the entire church on
earth is a spiritual priesthood, engaged in appropriate minis
trations, serving now, indeed, in the outer court, but soon to
be called up into the inner sanctuary.
The argument of the apostle then, is — why go down to
" the weak and beggarly elements ?" Who would hsten to any
sophistry urging him to prefer the shadow to the substance ?
Such a relapse would be an attempt to roll back the Divine
purpose, and impede that religious progress which Christ
ianity had introduced ; an effort to restore an intolerable
yoke, and rob the new religion of its spirituality and vigour.
The result would be to stifle devotion by a periodical mechan
ism, and degrade obedience into a service of trifles. And
therefore the apostle solemnly warns the Colossians not to be
imposed upon by such pretences, and not for a moment to sub
mit to teaching which would supplant the real by the ritual,
and give them a religion of obsolete externalities for one of
vital freedom and spiritual jurisdiction.
(Ver. 18.) MtjSeIc vpdg Karaj3paj3EVErw — " Let no man rob
you of your reward." Theodoret explains the pecuhar verb
as meaning rb dSiKwg J3pa/3£v£tv — to confer a reward unjustly.
Zonaras, on the 35th canon of the Laodicean Council, has
usually been adduced, and he says that the action of the verb is
done when this takes place — ro pr) rbv viKrjaavra d^iovv rov
<3paj3£iov, dXX' hipw SiSovai avrb, " not to reckon one who has
conquered worthy of the prize, but to give it to another."
Suidas says more distinctly — ro aXXov aywvj^o/tivov dXXov
arsibavovaBai XiyEi 6 aVoaroXoc KarafipaflEVEaBai. The other
figure, adopted by Beza, from one of the exceptional meanings
of [ipafiEvw, is not sustained by any certain examples. His
idea is, let no one usurp the office of a /3paj3Evr»/c against you;
while in a similar way a-Lapide, Crocius, and Bengel, gen
erally adopt this meaning — let no one assuming such an office
domineer over you, and so prescribe to you how you are to
act in order to obtain the prize. Such an interpretation has
more in derivation to recommend it than the notion of
Luther, Castalio, and Calvin — let no one intercept the prize,

COLOSSIANS II. 18. 183
or get it before you. The apostle warns them to listen to
none of these instructors, for their design was to rob them of
that prize, which, as the result of their spiritual victory, Christ
ianity set before them. If they yielded to any ofthe practices
referred to in this verse, then they followed the solicitation of one
who would rob them of that " prize of their high calling " for
which they had been pressing forward. It is thus a term of
far deeper import than the preceding Kpivlrw, though Photius,
Hesychius, Eisner, Storr, Huther, Bahr, and Olshausen, vir
tually identify them. For there is in it not merely the giving
of a wrong judgment, but a judgment which involves in it the
loss of all that the gospel promises to the winner, a life of
glory on high. It is a tame idea of De Wette, to suppose that
the prize is the true worship of God, for it is here looked upon
not as a prize, but as the means of obtaining the prize. It
may be remarked in passing, that Jerome regards the verb
as a Cilicism, or a provincialism ofthe apostle, but others have
shown that the word occurs among the classics, as in Demos
thenes and Polybius.
The true connection and meaning of the following word,
BiXwv, are not easily ascertained. The agitated question is,
whether it should be joined to Karaj3paj3£vlrw, or to the follow
ing words, iv ra7r£ivo<f>poa-vv^. If it be joined to the former,
the meaning will be "willingly ;" let no one willingly seduce you ;
but this would be a counsel to the false teachers as well as to
the Colossians. Or it may be, as Grotius gives it — etiamsi id
maxime velit, "let no one, although he should set his heart
upon it, rob you of your reward." Beza finds in the term a
support to the sense which he attached to the verb — let no one
assume voluntarily the office of a prize-distributor over you,
and thus wrong you. Erasmus gives the term an adverbial
sense of cupide, studiose ; and others render it ultro. Steiger
inchnes to a similar opinion, and Tittmann translates  consulto
vel ultro} But the usage is not well sustained in the New Tes
tament, and the participle is, as Bengel remarks, the first of a
series, 0eAwv, ipfiarEvwv, <j>vaiovpEvog, Kparwv, and each of
the participles has its independent construction. It must
1 De Synon. p. 130.

184

COLOSSIANS II. 18.

therefore, be joined to iv rairsiv. — but how? Olshausen, Wahl,
Bahr, Bohmer, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Bretschneider, pre
ceded by Hesychius, Phavorinus, Augustine, Estius, Eisner,
Storr, and Flatt, take BeXwv in the sense of evookwv, " delight
ing in " — affectans humilitatem. Thus they regard it as a
Hebraism formed upon the usage a ssrr — 1 Sam. xviii. 22 ;
2 Sam. xv. 26 ; 2 Chron. ix. 8 ; Ps. cxi. 2 ; cxlvii. 10.
Though this usage may be regarded as established in the
Septuagint, yet it is not found in the New Testament, nor
does it suit here. For the apostle is not wishing to paint the
character of the false teacher, but to warn against his wiles.
He does not mean to say that the false teacher has a special
pride in his own humility, but he means to say, that the Colos
sians must be on their guard against him, for he will seek to
entrap them by means of that humility.
We give 0eXwv its common meaning. Let no man beguile
you — wishing to do it by his humihty. This is the natural
view of the Greek Fathers, of Theodoret, and of Theophylact
who says — on BiXovaiv vpdg Kara/3paj3EV£tv Sid ratrEiv. So-
kovctjjc. So Photius, Calvin, Huther, Meyer, and De Wette.
The preposition iv denotes the means of deception, or the
sphere in which the deceiver moves. The humihty referred
to, as may be seen from the last verse of the chapter, is a
spurious humility. Fanatical pride is often associated with
this humility, as when, for show, the beggar's feet are washed ;
and the friar in his coarse rags walks barefooted and begs.
And men become proud of their humihty — glory in the feel
ing of self-annihilation. The spirit of the false teacher, with
all its professed lowhness, would not bend to the Divine reve
lation, but nursed its fallacies with a haughty tenacity, and
preached them with an impious daring, for he was "vainly
puffed by his fleshly mind."
Kal BpriaKElq rwv dyyiXwv — "And adoration of angels."
This is another of the instruments of seduction. The genitive
rwv dy-yEXwv cannot be that of subject, as if the meaning
were, a worship like that which angels present, or such as man
may learn from them — BpriaKsla dyyEXmr). Such a view is held
by Schoettgen and Wolf, and in its spirit by Noesselt, Rosen
muUer, Luther, and Schrader. Tertullian says — aliquos taxat,

COLOSSIANS II. 18.

185

qui ex visionibus angelicis, dicebant, cibis abstinendum, &c.
Adver. Marcion, v. 19.
The genitive is that of object. The attempt of the false
teacher was not to get them into an ecstasy such as that felt
by the "rapt seraph, who adores and burns," but it was a
positive inculcation of angel-worship. Gpi»o-K£fa is often
Mowed by the genitive of object.1 Winer, § 30, 1. The
term, whatever its derivation, denotes devotional service.
How angels came to be worshipped we may not precisely
know, though, certainly, it might not be difficult to account
for it, when one sees how saint-worship has spread itself so
extensively in one section of Christendom. The angels
occupied the highest place which creatures could occupy
under the Theocracy. They held lofty station and dis
charged important functions. The law was " ordained by
angels, in the hands of a mediator," nay, the apostle calls
it " the word spoken by angels." Jehovah descended
with ten thousand of his holy, ones, when "from His right
hand went a fiery law." The Jews, said Stephen, in his
address, "received the law by the disposition of angels."
Whatever be the meaning of these declarations, there is
no doubt that they indicate some special and important
province of angelic operation. Josephus expresses the
same opinion — the current one of his nation.2 No wonder
that those beings, so sublimely commissioned by God> and
burning in the reflection of His majesty, command human
reverence, and are, therefore, themselves called " gods." Ps.
xcvii. 7, compared with Heb. i. 6.
Now, the step from respect to worship is at once short and
easy, for it is but an exaggeration. The heart, not content
with feeling that a being so near God and so like Him
should be held in esteem and admiration, passes into excess,
and worships where it had honoured. And to fortify itself
in the practice, it perverted the angelic office. It raised
those creatures from attendants to mediators  from mes
sengers to interested protectors. It would seem that in
1 Herodian, v. Joseph. Antiq. iv. 4, 1; iv. 8, 44, &c. &c. Wisdom, 14, 27;
Clement, Strom, vi. 566. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 4.
3 Antiq. xv. 5. Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Jud. vol. i. p. 808.

186

COLOSSIANS II. 18.

the days of the patriarch Job ' such a feeling existed in the
early world. " Call now," is the challenge of Eliphaz, " if
there be any that will answer thee ; and to which of the saints
wilt thou turn?" and in another chapter mention is made of
an angel interpreter. In the book of Tobit,3 the Jewish
behef is incidentally brought out — that angels formally pre
sent prayers to God. In the imagery of the Apocalypse, we
find an angel at the altar, having in his hand a golden censer
and much incense, that he should offer it with "the prayers of
all saints." In the Testimony of the twelve Patriarchs, and in
the book of Enoch, the same notion is prominently exhibited.
And thus the prayer offered through the angel, was by and by
presented to him. It was first offered to him that he might
carry it to God, and then it was offered to him without such
ulterior reference or prospect. Again, that angels were en
trusted with the presidency of various countries and nations,
was another Jewish opinion ; and it was with a superstitious
people a matter of extreme facility to pass from that obeisance,
which might be yielded to a representative of Divinity, to that
veneration which is due to Jehovah alone. If a man bent one
knee in loyalty, he soon bent both knees in worship ; and asked
from the substitute what should be solicited from the principal.
That the worship of created spirits was wide-spread, thus
admits of no doubt. The Fathers abundantly testify to it.
Origen affirms it of the Jews, and Clement makes the same
assertion; both of them, as well as the treatise called the
" Preaching of Peter," describing the Jews as XarpsvovrEc
dyyiXoig. An old Jewish liturgy distinctly contains angel-wor
ship, and exhibits one form of it. Celsus also avers it. The
Platonic idea of demons — itself, in all probability, a relic of
Eastern Theosophy — spread itself in Asia Minor, and combined
with the Jewish superstition. That such practices should
take root in Phrygia is no marvel, for there they found a
congenial soil. Theodoret testifies to their existence, and that
they remained in Phrygia and Pisidia for a long time. The
thirty-fifth canon of the Council of Laodicea, a city in the
1 v. 1 ; xxxiii. 23. Hirzel and Prof. Lee on Job, in loc.
2 xii. 12. Bohmer, Isagoge in Epist. ad Coloss. p. 281. Neander, Geschichte
der Pflamimg, &c, p. 508. Suicer, sub voce SyysXos.

COLOSSIANS II. 18. 187
vicinity, solemnly interdicted the practice, but did not wholly
eradicate it. In the days of Theodoret, the archangel Michael
was worshipped at Colosse ; and a vabg dpxayyeXiKog was built
in his honour, and for a miracle alleged to be wrought by him.
Though those historical quotations refer to post-apostohc periods,
still they appear to describe the remnants of earlier practices,
and they afford at least some analogies that help us to judge
of the superstitions which the apostle mentions and reprobates.
The Catholic interpreters, Estius and a- Lapide, make a strong
effort to exclude this passage, from such as might be brought
against the worship of saints.
The two nouns, "humihty and worship of angels," are closely
connected, and mean a species of humihty connected with
angel-worship. It was out of a fanatical humility that service
was offered to angels. It was thought that the great God was
too majestic and distant to be addressed, and they therefore
invented these internuncii. That the heretical party thought
the glory of the Only-Begotten too dazzling for approach, and
therefore took refuge in angel-worship, is an opinion of Chry
sostom and Theophylact, but in opposition to the whole tenor
of the rebuke generally, and of the following clause particu
larly, for it contains the accusation of " not holding the Head."
The true reason and connection are given as we have given
them by Theodoret.
°A jut) kwpaKEv ipfiarsvwv. This clause presents a very
strange difference of reading, for the negative is omitted in
some MSS. of high authority, such as A, B, D,1 and by several
of the Latin Fathers. It is therefore rejected by Lachmann,
and his reading is approved by Olshausen, Steiger, Huther,
and Meyer. Olshausen says, that pf) was added because
critics thought that they were obliged to insert a negative.
His assertion may be turned against himself; for, we might
reply that the copyists could not discover the propriety of pi)
according to their finical notions of grammar ; since some, as
in F, G, changed it into ovk, and others omitted it altogether.
The meaning of the clause is not materially different which
ever reading be adopted. If the negative be omitted, the
clause must be an ironical description. The words "which
he has seen," will mean, visions which he professes or imagines

188

COLOSSIANS II. 18.

to have seen — visions which are the result of a morbid ima
gination or a distempered brain. We prefer the common
reading found in C, D111, E, J, K, in the Vulgate, Gothic, and
Syriac Versions, and in so many of the Greek Fathers. The
negative py, and not ovk, is rightly employed. Winer, § 59, 5.
The participle ip(5arEvwv, found only here in the New Testa
ment, but occurring several times in the Apocrypha, and alhed
in origin to the similar term ipjialvw, is wrongly supposed
by some, such as Erasmus, to signify, to walk in state — as if
the expression were taken a tragicis cothurnis. It sometimes
denotes, to go into the possession of, as in Josh. xix. 49. And
then it is usually followed by eic- Buddaeus, Zanchius, and
Huther, assign it such a meaning here. It also has the sense
of — to go into, to penetrate into, or to intrude. It is so
used of God,1 and often of man, both in a literal and tropical
sense, and is followed sometimes by the dative and soinetimes,
as here, by the accusative.2 Phavorinus defines it — to evSov
i^EpEvvrjaai t^ a-K07rfj<rat, and Hesychius explains it by the less
intense term Zvrvaag. The compound KEvEpfdarsvEiv is em
ployed, in Plato, to denote senseless speculation. From the
verb iwpaKEv, there is no need to deduce the idea of mental
perception or knowledge, as Heinrichs and Flatt incline to do
— quae intellectu percipere nemo potest. The word is often
used of visions and visionary representations — Acts xi. 17;
ix. 10 — 12 ; x. 3 ; Rev. ix. 17 ; and of a supersensuous view
of God— John i. 18 ; vi. 46 ; xiv. 7 ; 1 John. iv. 12.
The reference in the clause — " intruding into what he has
not seen " — appears to be the worship of angels. The current
theosophy spent no little of its ingenuity upon the spirit- world.
It wandered not only beyond the regions of sense, but even that
of Scripture. It mustered into troops the heavenly orders.
[Ephes. i. 2 l.J This oriental propensity was a prevalent one.
The inquisitive spirit pryed into the invisible world around it
and above it. It loved such phantasms, and lost itself in
transcendental reveries. The creed of the Zendavesta had its
Ormuzd, its six Amshaspands, its eight-and-twenty Izeds, and
1 Chrysos. 2 Eom. in Philip.
2 Philo, de Plant. Noe, vol. iii. p. 120, ed Pfeiffer. .<Eschylus, Persae, 441. Eurip.
Electra, 595. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 1.

COLOSSIANS II. 18. 189
hosts of Feruers — all of them objects of worship and prayer.
Augustine says, with justice, that many had tried the interces
sion of angels, but had failed; and not only so, but — inciderunt
in desiderium curiosarum visionum.* How the Jewish fancy
strove to penetrate the curtain that conceals the unseen, may
be learned from the following quotation from a rabbinical
treatise.2 " As there are ten Sephiroth, so there are ten troops
of angels, as follows: — the Erellim, Ishim, Benei-haelohim,
Malachim, Hashmalim, Tarshishim, Shinanim, Cherubim,
Ophanim, and the Seraphim. Captains are set over each of
them — Michael over the Erellim, Zephaniah over the Ishim,
Hophniel over the Benei-haelohim, Uzziel over the Malachim,
Hashmal over" the Hashmalim, Tarshish over the Tarshishim,
Zadkiel over the Shinanim, Cherub over the Cherubim,
Raphael over the Ophanim, and Jehuel over the Seraphim."
Tertullian mentions some who professed to divine their asceti
cism from angelic revelation,8 a remark which serves at least
for illustration.
Some, such as Steiger, have proposed to join the follow
ing adverb eikt/ to ipfiarEvwv, and give it the sense of
" rashly " or " uselessly." This notion, however, is already
contained in the reproof. But the idea with our exegesis is,
that the mental inflation of the errorist, which co-exists with
his humihty and his angel-worship, and prompts him to pry
into what is concealed from him, is eikJj — it is without ground.
It has no warrant. Matt. v. 22 ; Rom. xiii. 4.
The following clause discovers one prime ground of the
heresy, and shows the principal reason why the gospel
was not cordially received. It was not intricate enough,
it did not deal in any vain speculations, but it claimed
and commanded attention to the real and practical, and it
showed not the way into the abstruse and recondite. It
did not harmonize with current notions of angelology and
asceticism, and it was outdone in those respects by Essene
Gnosticism. It did not forbid the humble spirit to raise
itself to the Divine throne ; for it taught that the inter
vening distance was spanned by the mediatorial nature of
1 Confess, x. 42. 2 Berith menucha in Eisenmenger, Enid. Jud. vii. p. 374.
3 Adversus Marc. v.

190

COLOSSIANS II. 18.

Christ. It exhibited the angels as "ministering spirits," or
fellow-servants ; but it held up no eccentric array of visions
and phantasms, which might beguile men into fanatical wor
ship and conceited contrition. In the fulness of its revelation
it left to no man the claim of discovery, or the merit of inven
tion. He, then, who did not receive it as presented to him,
but wished to change its nature and supplement its oracles,
so that it might have the- air and the aspect of a transcendental
theosophy, was " puffed up by his fleshly mind," — thought
himself possessed of a higher knowledge, and favoured with
profounder instruction than our Lord and His apostles.
The participle QvaiovpEvog, — not from <j>vatg, which, in the
classical writers, makes <j>vaidw; but from fvw-, — signifies
inflated. 1 Cor. iv. 6, 18, 19 ; v. 2 ; viii. 1. The heretic
was blown up with his delusion, verifying the remark —
r) yvwatg Qvaiol — "knowledge puffeth up." He was too
proud to learn — too wise to acknowledge any instruction
beyond himself. The source of inflation was a "fleshly mind,"
" he was puffed up "
'Y7r6 rov vooe rrig aapmg avrov — " By the mind of his
flesh." The expression is peculiar, but darkly emphatic.
Nove is mind — not simply intellect, but mind as the region
of thought and susceptibility ; while adp% is, as in so many
other places, the name of unregenerate humanity. The ex
pression denotes something more than mens imbecilla. Nor
is it enough to resolve the two genitives into the phrase —
trapKfKrjc Siavolag, or with Usteri, into voiipara aapKiKa. The
genitive is not a mere predicate, but is the genitive of pos
session. The " flesh" possesses and governs the " mind." The
mind did not struggle with the carnal principle, but succumbed
to it. It was wholly under the sway of a nature unchanged
by the grace of God, and which therefore exercised its pre
dominance to serve and please itself. In all these mental
efforts and sentiments concerning Christianity, the false
teacher was guided not by any pure regard to the Divine
revelation, or by a simple desire to bow to the Divine will ;
but his " mind " was influenced by motives, and determined
by reasonings, which sprung from a nature wholly under the
empire of sense and fancy ; a nature which was satisfied with

COLOSSIANS II. 19. 191
an array of external puerilities — which preferred ascetic dis
tinctions to spiritual self-denial — revelled in imaginations
that at once sprung from it and lorded over it — and, in
short, acting like itself and for itself, coveted and set up a
rehgion of man, but spurned and thrust away that religion
which is of God. And thus, in a later century, and in the
same country, it was beheved that the Holy Spirit communi
cated to Montanus more and nobler revelations than Christ
had delivered in the gospel. The "flesh " could not but have a
sensuous system — one resembling itself; and the "mind," acting
under its sway, could not but devise a scheme in keeping
with such" governing and prompting influence. 1 Cor. ii. 14.
And, by this means, the abettor of error was " vainly puffed
up"1 that he possessed a deeper enlightenment than the apostles,
and a purer sanctity than the churches ; and, in his vanity, he
dreamed of being able, by his unhallowed reveries, to supply
the defects, and multiply the attractions of the gospel. The
three participles of this verse, and that of the first clause of
the following verse, have a close connection — BeXwv express
ing the desire of the heresiarch to make converts by a spe
cious snare — ijuj3ar£vwv pourtraying one special source and
feature of his system — -fyvaiovpEvog indicating his moral tem
perament — and, lastly, Kparwv pointing to the lamentable ac
companiment and necessary result — " not holding the Head " —
(Ver. 19.) Kal ov Kparwv ryv KEcj>aXr)v. The participle
describes a firm grasp — a tenacious hold. Song of Sol. iii. 4 ;
Acts iii. 11 ; Matt. xiv. 3 ; Mark ix. 27. The term ke^oX//,
applied to Christ as Head of His church, has been explained
under Ephes. i. 22, and alluded to Coloss. i.T8. Those error
ists did not hold the Head, and, indeed, the greater portion
of their errors tended to this result. If they worshipped
angels, they could not adore His person. If they insisted on
circumcision and ascetic penances, they depreciated the merit
of His work. If they preached the permanence of Mosaic
ceremonies, they mistook the spirit and lost the benefit of the
system which He had founded. They did not hold the truth
as to His person or His work, His government or His dispen-
1 Miiller renders — der von seinem ungottlichen Weltsinne aufgebhsene  Lehre von
der Su'nde, p. 452.

192 COLOSSIANS II. 19.
sation. Those errors on vital points were fatal. So long as
cardinal truths are held, many minor misconceptions may
be tolerated; but when the former are lost, Christianity
becomes a worthless and nominal profession. Bengel says
truly, qui non unice Christum tenet, plane non tenet.
'E% ov irdv rb awpa, Sid rwv d(j>wv Kal avvSiapwv, iirixopri-
yovpsvov Kal avp(3ifia%6pEVOv, av^Ei ri)v av^yaiv rov Oeov —
" From whom the whole body, through joints and bands
supplied and compacted, groweth the growth of God." The
similar passage is Ephes. iv. 16. The first words — il; ov, mean,
from which Head as the source of life and growth. We
should expect the relative in such a case to agree in gender
with its antecedent — i£ rjg, and for this reason some copies
add Xpiarov. The words are taken by some as masculine,
the pronoun being supposed to refer to Him who is the Head
— Christ. But though this be the common interpretation, as
of Bahr, Huther, and De Wette, we cannot agree with it. It
would destroy the harmony of the figure, which has its basis
not in Christ as person, but in Christ as Head. Some take
the relative as neuter, and in a special sense. Thus Ben
gel — ex quo, sc. tenendo caput. We agree, however, with
Meyer, that the neuter form refers to the Head — not person
ally as Jesus, but really or objectively — nicht personlich sondern
sachlich. Kuhner, ii. § 704 ; Jelf, § 820.
Udv rb awpa . . . av^Et rrjv av£?jcrtv rov ©eov. Such is
the construction and ending of the sentence — " groweth the
growth of God." The form av%Ei occurs only elsewhere in
Ephes. ii. 21. There is no ellipse here needing the supply of
Kara, as Piscator and others suppose ; but the verb governs its
correlate noun — no uncommon form of syntax. Ephes. i. 3,
20; ii. 4; iv. 1; John xvii. 26; § Jelf, 552; § Buttmann,
§ 131, 4, 5 ; Kuhner, § 547, a. There is in such an idiom an
extension of the meaning of the verb. Often, in such a case,
when a relative does not intervene, the accusative has a dis
tinctive or intensive epithet connected with it. John. vii. 24 ;
1 Tim. i. 18 ; Bernhardy, p. 106 ; Winer, § 32, 2. Here we
have a genitive for a similar purpose. Luke ii. 8. Now
this genitive is not to be explained away as a mere Hebrew
superlative, as in Storr's paraphrase — mirifice crescit. Nor is

COLOSSIANS II. 19. 193
the exegesis of Calvin, Bahr, and Winer in the third edition
of his grammar, up to the full sense — incrementum quod Deus
vult et probat; nor yet is Kara Beov correct, as Chrysostom
renders it. It means, as Winer gives it, in his fifth edition —
" an increase wrought by God." Winer, § 37, 3. The growth
of that spiritual body corresponds with its nature — is the
result of Divine influence and power. And the means of
growth are stated in the intermediate clause. For the body
is not only connected with the head, but is also —
Atct rwv d<j>wv Kal avvSiapwv irnxopriyovpEvov Kal avpfBi-
/3a£o;U£vov. The first participle iirixopriy. is in the middle
voice, and, in an absolute sense, means, " furnished with re
ciprocal aid." 2 Cor. ix. 10 ; Gal. iii. 5. 'S.vvappoXoyovpEvov
is the word used in the parallel verse of the Epistle to the
Ephesians, but the substantive iirixopriyia oecurs in the same
verse. The next participle avpfitfi. signifies " brought
and held together in mutual adaptation." (See under the
second verse.) And this is done Sid rwv dipwv Kal avvSia
pwv— "by joints and ligatures." The noun d<j>r) signifies a
joint, and so it is generally understood. Meyer supposes
it to mean nervous energy or sensibility — lebensthatigkeit
— what the Greek Fathers understand by a'iaBriaig. We
may, perhaps, understand it not merely of joints in the strict
anatomical sense, but generally of all those means, by which
none of the parts or organs of the body are found in isola
tion. The other anarthrous noun, avvSsapog, has a mean
ing not dissimilar, and perhaps refers to those visible and
palpable ligatures of flesh and sinew which give to the body
unity of organization.1 Dan. v. 6. Some would assign a
noun to each participle — "furnished by the joints and com
pacted by the ligatures." There appears, however, to be no
necessity for this refinement. The apostle describes that
unity of the body which is dependent upon its head, and is
essential to its growth.. The expression i£ ov, is neither to
be confined to the participles nor restricted to the verb ; for
the apostle has said, emphatically, " the whole body." It is
not this or that organ that grows from its vital connection with
1 'E£ oerov iii oerovv IpQvepiva evvbiepos aptyoTv yiyvsrai xoivos. Galen, quoted
by Bahr, m loc. Theodoret says — Sice ruv vzvpm %xu T*> xieHeus ro eupa.
O

194 COLOSSIANS II. 19.
the head, while others unconnected perish and die ; but the
living energy of the head pervades the entire body — pervades
it because it is an organic unity, supplied with conductors,
and bound together by joints. Means are provided for dis
tributing through it this vitality ; there is no barrier to impede
it — no point at which it stops. The body, so connected with
the head, and so supplied and knit by internal structure and
external bands, grows, and all grows, by Divine influence
and blessing. The whole church of Christ depends on Him
as its head — " out of Him " are derived organization, hfe, and
growth. The idea is well expanded by Theophylact.
The "joints and bands" have been differently understood, and
so have the supply and the symmetry. Bengel understands
the first noun and participle of faith, and the second noun and
participle of love and peace ; this last view being held also
by Zanchius, who gives it as — charitas inter membra. This is
also Davenant's notion — " the first substantive represents what
unites us to Christ, and the second what binds us to one
another." It is a strange idea of Theodoret, that the "joints
and bands " are prophets, apostles, and teachers. Bohmer
adds, in modification, " but yet as little do we exclude the
laity" — " aber eben so wenig excludiren wie die laien." Such
an idea destroys the harmony of the figure. For teachers and
taught compose the church, or the body and its organs, and
they are held together by what the apostle calls joints and
bands. To characterize minutely the spiritual elements of
unity represented by these terms, would be pressing too
much on the figure. The question is, what power gives
vitality and union to the mystical body of Christ ? The reply
must be, Divine influence communicated by the Spirit, and
using as its instruments faith and love. The last grace is
specially mentioned in the correspondent passage of the twin
epistle. The whole body, so pervaded and united, grows —
all grows in perfect symmetry, and in connection with its
Head. Without the head it dies — without "joints and bands "
it falls into pieces, and each dissevered organ wastes away.
The application is obvious. The church can enjoy neither
life nor growth, if, misunderstanding Christ's person or under
valuing His work, it have no vital union with Him. If the

COLOSSIANS II 20. 195
creed of any community supplant His mediatorship, and find
no atoning merit in His blood; if its worship look up to
angels, and not to Him to whom " all power is given in heaven
and in earth ;" if it place its trust in ritual observances and
bodily service, it cannot be one either with Him or with other
portions of His church. Severed alike from head and trunk —
from the vitality of the one and the support and sympathies
of the other — it dies in isolation. So it was or would be
with him or with them who threatened to disturb the Colos
sian church. The entire figure and description are more fully
presented in Ephesians iv. 15, 16, where we have given a
lengthened exegesis.
The apostle still presses home his doctrine. Tt was no
abstract truth which he had enunciated, and he winds up the
paragraph by a reference to its pervading lesson — exhibiting
the care and caution which should prevent any ordinances of
an aseetic nature — such as those which belonged to the Jewish
ritual — from being superinduced on Christianity.
(Ver. 20.) El a7TE0avEr£ <r»v Xptcrrw dtrb rwv arot^Efwv row
Koapov. The ovw of the Received Text has no authority,
neither has the article rdj before the proper name. " Since ye
died off with Christ from the rudiments of the world," or, have
been separated by sueh a death from the rudiments of the world.
The phrase "rudiments ofthe world," has been already explained
under the eighth verse. To be dead to them is to be done with
them, or, to be in sueh a state that they have no longer any au
thority over us. Thus in Rom. vii. 3, 4, the wife by the death of
her husband is said to be so free from conjugal law, that she
may marry another man. In Gal. ii. 19, the apostle speaks of
being "dead to the law." The dative is used in those two cases,
as if there was a consciousness of complete deliverance. The
preposition airo is here employed to intensify the idea, as if
death were followed by distance or removal. Winer, § 51,
p. 443. They had nothing more to do with the rudiments of
the world — and the, rudiments of the world had nothing more
to do with them. The apostle' again introduces his favourite idea
of union with Christ. The death of Christ abrogated the
ritual law ; and being one with Him in that death, they had
died to that law — the airo denoting consequent separation. We

196

COLOSSIANS II. 20.

cannot agree with Huther, in inferring from this passage, that
the phrase "rudiments of the world," expresses something
more than the Mosaic law, and denotes the ethical life of the
heathen world. He says — " the language implies that the
Colossians had served the elements of the world ; and if so,
then, if you mean the ritual institute by these elements, you
must hold what you can never prove, that the majority in this
church were of Jewish extraction."1 But the argument is not
conclusive. In Gal. iv. 9, the apostle may refer to heathen
elements, so far as they had a ceremonial and sensuous aspect;
but the rites of the heathen world — its aroixua, never had any
Divine claim or obligation, so that the death of Christ did not
formally annul them ; whereas, the Mosaic law was an ordin
ance of God's appointment, and only by yielding to it could
religious privilege and blessing be enjoyed prior to the
death on Calvary. It was by initiation into this rudimentary
and worldly system, that the worship of the one God could be
engaged in. Hep'tnenism never had any authority over them,
whatever might be its actual power. If its ordinances be meant,
then the apostle warns against a return to them. This is not
the case, for the ordinances against which he cautions were
remnants of a system not wholly unlawful like Gentilism, but
of one which had enjoyed Divine sanction. In short, the whole
paragraph has special reference to Jewish customs. After
speaking, in the eighth verse, of the rudiments of the world, he
describes the glory of Christ, and affirms that the Colossian
behevers are circumcised in Him — a reference to the Jewish
ritual. Then having said that the handwriting of ordinances
had been blotted out, he adds, as a warranted inference from,
and application of the doctrine — let no man judge you in
eating and drinking, or in respect of new moons and Sabbath
days — another direct allusion to Mosaic institutions. And in
fine, as a sample of those rudiments of the world, he quotes —
" touch not, taste not, handle not." There were among them, it
is true, other practices than such as had been originally Jewish ;
— an asceticism which was foreign to the Mosaic system, and an
angel- worship which was, perhaps, based upon a misrepresenta-
1 On the other hand, see Baur, Paulus, p. 694.

COLOSSIANS II. 20. 197
tion of traditions connected with it ; but still the central error
of the false teachers was an attempt to impose the ceremonial
yoke, in some of its aspects; on the members of the Christian
church, as something which would insure them a transcen
dental purity, and bring them into a magical connection with
the powers of the spirit-world. The apostle then asks —
TI we ZwvrEg iv Koapw SoyparlZzaBs, prj d\py, priSl ysiay,
juijoe Blyyg; — " Why, as living in the world, do ye suffer such
ordinances to be published among you as ' touch not, taste not,
handle not?'" Bahr is wrong in saying that ri stands for Sid
rl, though the one phrase may explain the other. The word
Koapog cannot here mean the physical world, as Schnecken-
burger maintains,1 for it must have the ethical meaning which
it bears in the previous clause and in verse eighth. It is the
sphere of the " weak and beggarly elements." But the Colos
sians had been translated into the kingdom of God's dear
Son, therefore the code of the realm which they had left
had no more force upon them. A Russian naturalized in
Britain need not trouble himself about any imperial ukase, as
if he yet lived under the Autocrat.
The verb SoypariZuv, which occurs only here in the New
Testament, but sometimes in the Septuagint and Apocrypha,
signifies in the classics to pronounce an opinion, as well as
to enforce or publish a decree. The latter meaning prevails
in the Septuagint, Esther iii. 9, &c. ; 2 Mace. x. 8; xv. 36.
Some look on the verb as active. Thus Melancthon, has de-
creta facitis ; Ambrosiaster, decernitis, and Olshausen, " why
do ye again set up worldly ordinances?" The majority of
commentators take the word in a middle sense, though Beza,
Wolf, and Meyer, give it a passive significance. Buttmann,
§ 135, 8. But we cannot see how the use of the middle
would imply a censure, any more than the employment of the
passive. The middle brings out rather a pointed caution —
" why should ye permit the preaching of dogmas ? or why
should ye allow such dogmas to be imposed on you ?" They
could not suppress the teaching of the errorists, but they
needed not to listen to it, and far less to yield to it.
1 Theolng. Jahrb. 1848.

198 COLOSSIANS 11.20.
The strong form of the verb almost says, that the apostle
suspected a latent tendency in their temperament to listen
and be charmed. The apostle, in Ephes. ii. 15, calls the
Mosaic law, in one aspect of it, by the name Soypara, and he
here uses the cognate verb referring to the same institute.
The argument is a cogent one. They were dead to such
ordinances — why then should they act as if they lived under
them ? They did not belong to that Koapog, of the character
of which such ordinances partook. They belied . their entire
position, and reversed all their relations, if, after being freed
by Christ, they again sunk themselves into bondage — if they
allowed the handwriting to be reinscribed, and taking the nail
out of it, laid it up among their solemn archives as an instru
ment of revived and extended authority. To submit to the
ritual which they had believed to be obsolete, was in direct
antagonism to all that Jesus had done for them, and to all
which they had willingly acknowledged as His achievement
on their behalf. Some of the Soypara to which the apostle
alludes are now given, and they are ascetic in nature. But
ere we advance to them, we shall take up the clause which we
believe to be joined closely with SoyparlZEaBs, viz., the last
clause of verse 22.
Kara ra ivrdXpara Kal SiSaaKaXlag rwv dvBpwirwv. Matt.
xv. 9 ; Mark vii. 7 ; Isa. xxix. 13. Our reasons for adopting
this view will be afterwards stated. This clause describes the
source of such Soypara, and virtually contains another reason
why they should not be submitted to. The prime reason is, that
believers are dead with Christ to them ; but the subordinate
reason is, that the edicts are wholly human in their origin. "Why
should ye for a moment suffer them to be imposed upon you
according to — Kara — or having no higher authority than, the
commandments and doctrines of men?" The two nouns differ
not, as Grotius supposes, that the former is enacted by law,
and the latter enjoined by philosophers; but rather, as
Olshausen says, the first is enactment — the second, the prin
ciples on which it is based. The first— ivraX. is the dogma
in its preceptive and practical form, of which there is a
specimen in the preceding part of the verse — "touch not,
taste not, handle not;" and the second— StoWaXta, is the

COLOSSIANS II. 21. 199
doctrine out of which it arises — the convictions and theories
by which it is illustrated and defended. The same general
idea has been stated under the eighth verse. Christ is Head,
and to Him alone do we owe subjection. Whatever autho
rity ordinances had when the Mosaic economy stood, they
have none now — the institute being abolished in the death of
Him who is the one Legislator. And all extra-biblical addi
tions to it were human in their very origin.
(Ver. 21.) Mi) a\fiy, priSi yEvay jurjSE Blyyg—U Touch not,
taste not, handle not." These curt dogmas are not the
apostle's own teaching, but the mottoes, or prominent lessons,
or watchwords of the false teachers.1 In all probability, the
three terms refer to the same general object — abstinence from
certain meats and drinks. It is, therefore, excessive refinement
to distribute them according to certain distinctions, either
with Flatt, Bohmer, Hammond, and Homberg, referring the
first verb, — or, with Grotius, the last verb, — to marriage ; or,
with Estius, Zanchius, and Erasmus, giving the first verb an
allusion to Levitical uncleanness, special or general. The two
critics last named refer the last term to Levitical sacred things,
but Michaelis and Storr refer it to impurities. Bohmer, with
a strange caprice, finds a reference in Blyyg to the holy oil
which the Essenes speciaUy regarded as labes. But though
the words refer generally to diet, and are so used by the
classics,2 there may be a distinction among them, as they
seem to be repeated, along with the negative, for the sake of
emphasis. The first and last verbs are somewhat similar, and
both represent in the Septuagint the Hebrew — »::. But the
first term may here denote that handling which is necessary
to eating — the touch which precedes taste ; while the last, a
sister-term with tango and touch, may signify the slightest
contact. In Heb. xii. 20, the contrast seems to be this — a
beast was not only not to graze on Sinai, but not even for
a moment to set a hoof upon it. Thus in Eurip. Bacchae, 617,
where a similar contrast obtains — " he did not come in contact,
far less handle me" — there was neither touch nor grasp." The
1 The words would, in modern usage, have the marks of quotation assigned to
them. 2 Xenophon, Cyrop. i. 3, 5 ; i. 11.
8 Ovr efaytv ovff flipae*' fipuv.

200

COLOSSIANS II. 22.

last verb is the most dogmatic — you are not to take certain
meats into your hand, nor are you to taste them ; nay, you
are not even to touch them, though in the slightest degree —
you are to keep from. them hand, tongue, and even finger-tip.
The apostle does not specify the objects to be abstained from,
for they were so well known to his readers.
The connection and meaning of the next clause are matter
of various opinion.
(Ver. 22.) "A iariv irdvra tig ipBopdv ry diroxprjaEi. The
idea of Macknight is altogether unsupported. He supposes
the reference of the apostle to be to Pythagorean abstinence
from animal food, and he connects this and the previous verse
in the following way. Touch not, taste not, handle not what
ever things tend to the destruction of hfe in the using. He
takes the maxim of the false teachers condemned by the
apostle to be this — abstain from everything the eating of
which involves the taking away of life. The idea itself is
foreign to the argument, nor can it be supported by the
apostle's diction.
The question turns upon the meaning assigned to fBopd,
and the supposed antecedent to the relative.
I. A large party take ipBopd in a spiritual sense, and sup
pose the relative to refer to the precepts contained in the
preceding verse, as if the warning were — all which maxims
tend by their observance to spiritual ruin — lead to the eternal
destruction of such as are influenced by them. Some of those
who hold this view, give diroxpnaig the sense of abuse, as if
the apostle wished to say — the law did make distinctions of
meats and drinks, but the unwarranted abuse of such a dis
tinction is a fatal course. Others, again, connect the last
clause of the verse with the first — all which precepts tend to
your own ruin, by your observance of them, for they are an
observance based upon the doctrines and commandments of
men. Such, generally, are the views of Ambrosiaster and
Augustine, a-Lapide, Heumann, Suicer, and Junker.
II. Others suppose the antecedent to be not the maxims,
but the things forbidden in them, and among such critics there
are two classes.
1. Some suppose the apostle to be still further showing the

COLOSSIANS II. 22. 201
opinion of the false "teachers. According to them, the mean
ing is, either, all which meats and drinks lead to ruin in the
use of them, according to the commandments and teachings
of those men ; or, all these meats and drinks to be abstained
from, tend to destruction by the use of them, if you are to be
judged by their opinions and doctrines. The verse, then,
would contain this idea — the false teachers forbade the touch
ing and tasting of certain things, because, in their opinion,
the use of them brought certain pernicious results. This
opinion is concurred in by Kypke, Storr, De Wette, Bohmer,
and Baumgarten-Crusius. There is nothing in the words
themselves to contradict it ; it may be grammatically defended,
and the noun <j>Bopd may bear the meaning of spiritual hurt,
as in Gal. vi. 8. But it does not appear to us to be in so
complete harmony with the context as is the following
exegesis. 2. The opinion which we prefer is that which gives the
same antecedent to the relative, but understands the clause
to be an exposure of the absurdity of such asceticism — " all
which things are meant for destruction through the use of
them." The meats and drinks about which the errorist ex
claimed — " touch not, taste not, handle not," are meant to be
consumed by use. They perish or cease to exist, because
they are eaten and drunk for the support of life. They are
intended for this destiny — io-rlv eic — exist for it ; God created
them to be consumed, and they meet this destiny by being
used to the full — airo — used to the complete satisfaction of
appetite. The verb iariv is more than a copula. It means —
exist — which things exist. The noun (j>Bopd is often used in
a physical sense — in the Seventy, Exod. xviii. 18 ; Isa. xxiv.
3 ; Jonah ii. 7 ; and in the New Testament, 1 Cor. xv. 42,
50 ; 2 Peter ii. 12 ; Josephus, Antiq. vii. 13, 3. The term
diroxpnaig is not abuse in the English sense of the word — but,
"full use." The Latin abutor has this meaning also — to use
up; as often in Cicero, and also in Terence "and Suetonius. It is
this using up or consuming of a thing by use contained in the
airo and ab, that gave the term in Latin, Greek, and Eno-lish,
the secondary signification of misuse.
The apostle thus states two objections to the Colossian

202

COLOSSIANS II. 22

asceticism. First. It contradicts the design of Providence,
which created such meats and drinks for man's use and satis
faction. The apostle, as we have said, uses aTroY_pr)o-tc, which
does not signify abuse, but full use. The maxims of the
false teacher are — ¦" touch not, taste not, handle not ;" but the
things from which he sternly enjoins this abstinence are, in
their own nature, utterly harmless, and not only is the use of
them unaccompanied with spiritual damage, but that use is
enjoined by Him whose providence has so liberally furnished
them for the stay and support of life. The meats and drinks
so frowned upon have been created for the very purpose of
being consumed, and having served their purpose in this con
sumption they perish. A religion of asceticism is, therefore, a
libel upon Providence — a surly and superstitious refusal of the
Divine benignity. It believes that the eating and drinking of
some gifts of Divine goodness is fraught with unspeakable dan
ger, and, therefore, it makes its selections among them in its
" show of wisdom." Strange conviction, that what is physically
nutritious may be spiritually poisonous ; and that what gives
strength to the body may send " leanness to the soul !" No
wonder that such a self-righteous and ungrateful practice led
by a swift path to a dark and Manichaean theology.
And, secondly~things which are meant to perish in being
used up, can have little connection with genuine piety ; it does
not, and cannot depend on abstinence from them. Our Lord
Himself said — " not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a
man;" and the apostle declares — "every creature of God is
good, and nothing to be refused ;" and he speaks of meats
" which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving."
1 Cor. vi. 13. It degrades Christianity to make it a system
of physical or ascetic distinctions. Spirituality is not based
on such external and ceremonial forms. The error, as Ols
hausen says, " was in looking for holiness in the outward
rather than the inward." Such an error has been, alas ! too
common in the church, and is the result of superstitious
indolence and vanity. Men seek to be acted on from with
out, and to be sanctified as if by the secret and unconscious
charm of an amulet; misunderstanding, forgetting, or shun
ning the mighty work or change which should be going on

COLOSSIANS II. 22. 203
within. That change is from the centre to the outer life, not
from the outer life to the seat of motive and thought. What
the lips receive or refuse from " cup and platter," has neither
propitiatory merit nor demerit, nor can it exercise a hidden
power over heart and mind. The palate may be ungratified
and yet the conscience, be defiled; the anchorite, while he
starves himself, may roll many a vice, as a sweet morsel,
under his tongue ; for self-denial in corporeal appetite usually
takes ample revenge or compensation in spiritual indulgence
and pride. And thus it has been often found, that men attach
a higher sanctity to abstinence from certain kinds of food
and physical refreshment, than to abstinence from sin; and
would rather violate a Divine statute, than break a self-in
flicted fast. What mean they ? Canst thou dream there is a power
In lighter diet at a later hour
To charm to sleep the threatenings of the skies,
And hide past folly from all-seeing eyes ? 1
Several things concur in justifying the view we have taken,
which is that of the Greek Fathers, of Luther, Calvin, and Beza,
of Grotius, Meyer, Steiger, and Bahr. The apostle is speaking
of physical things, as eating and drinking, and it is natural to
understand <j>Bopd and diroxpwig m their physical sense, and
in connection with those elements of forbidden sustenance.
Again, the writer places no substantive after the three verbs,
and the ellipse imparts a certain emphasis The objects to be
abstained from were yet present to his mind, and it was
natural for him to allude to them, and to show that they were
designed for use, nay were of so httle permanence and value
that they perished in this use. The mimetic clause — "touch
not," &o, is inserted, or rather rapidly interjected, as the
apostle passes on. It will therefore be best read in a paren
thesis. The swiftness of the apostle's thoughts interferes so far
with the order of them. He first shows the inconsistency of
yielding to ordinances after they had become dead to them ;
and he meant to point out the source of such ordinances, but
the mention of them suggests the pointed quotation of some
1 Cowper.

.204 COLOSSIANS II. 23.
of them, and then he cannot refrain, in a brief underthought,
from exposing their absurdity, ere he formally carries out his
purpose of showing their origin and inutility. Lastly, the
Greek Fathers understand the phrase in this way. They do
not mince the matter, but give <j>Bopd its coarsest meaning.
Chrysostom, followed by Theodoret, says — ate Koirpov yap
diravra pErafidXXErai. OScumenius uses this language —
v7roKEtrat iv rw dipsSpwvi; while Theophylact is yet more
explicit — ipBEipopEva ydp iv ry yaarpl Sid rov d^ESpwvog
r /it
viroppEi. (Ver. 23.) ''Artva iariv Xoyov plv E^ovra ao<j>lag — "Which
things indeed having a show of wisdom." The antecedent to
artva is the preceding clause — " doctrines and commandments
of men." Kuhner, § 431, 2. The peculiar form dnva, repre
sents this idea — all which things, that is, the entire class of
them. Kuhner, § 782, 4, 5. We do not connect iariv with
the participle E^ovra, as some do ; but specially with the
concluding clause of the verse. Aoyoe signifies sometimes
report or rumour — then mere rumour — then mere talk or
pretext — words and only words — X070V ov irpaypara. It is
thus opposed to dXrjBEia. Diodorus Siculus, 13, 4; Poly-
bius, 17, 13. The word thus means a certain kind of sem
blance, which in Scotch is called a sough — sound without
reality. These precepts and commandments had the air,
aspect, nomenclature, and pretensions of wisdom. The par
ticle piv might imply the contrast, the apodosis not being
formally expressed. Kuhner, § 734, 2 ; Winer, § 64, e.
This last critic says — the parallel member of the sentence is
included in the one with piv. Thus, Heb. vi. 16,^-men,
indeed — piv — swear by the greater, and the implied contrast
is, but God can only swear by Himself. These teachings
have a show of wisdom, juev — but none in reality. Or, Rom.
iii. 2, " What advantage, then, hath the Jew ? — much every
way " — irpwrov piv — " chiefly indeed," but not wholly,
" because that unto them were committed the oracles of
God." Thus Acts xix. 4. 'Iwavvijc plv IfidirnaEv — "John
indeed baptized " the baptism of repentance ; the implied
contrast being — but not so Jesus. So, in the clause before
us, the same construction has "been found by some, — there

COLOSSIANS II. 23.

205

is the semblance, indeed, of wisdom, but not the reality.
We are inclined, however, to regard the apodosis as ex
isting in ovk ev npy nvi ; but 81 is not expressed, because
the construction is changed into the dative, following up the
case of the preceding nouns, and because the word ovk, to
which SI would be attached, has in it a palpable adversative
power. Kuhner, § 734. It was worse than hypercriticism
on the part of Jerome to say, that the particle was omitted —
propter imperitiam artis grammatical. The apostle particu
larizes and adds, this verbiage of wisdom consists " in will-
worship " —
'Ev iBEXoBpriaKEtq. This is worship not enjoined by God,
but springing out of man's own ingenuity — unauthorized
devotion, BpriaKEla being religious service — the outer mani-
testation of inner feeling. Thus, iflsXoSovXoc, is one who is
wilfully a slave ; ifleXoKi'vovvoe, is one who is wilfully in
danger. The worship referred to is unsolicited and unaccepted.
It is superstition, and probably is the homage paid to angels.
Such worship had the feint of wisdom, as it professed to base
itself on invisible arcana; and to ask and reeeive blessings
and protection from creatures, whose agency comes not within
the range of observation, but who were supposed to be the
patrons and defenders of those who could name them in
erring and extravagant devotion.
Kal rairuvoippoavvy — " And humility." This has been
already explained under the 18th verse. The humility re
ferred to is plainly of that spurious kind, that, in its excess
and affectation, could not look up to God, but deemed it won
drous wisdom to invoke angels on its behalf.
Kal afsiSlq awparog. The term di^EiS'ia is unsparingness,
and here unsparingness in the form pf severity, or that austere
asceticism which the apostle has already reprimanded. In
this sense it often occurs among the elassieal writers.1
The body is not only kept under, that is, kept in its proper
and subordinate position, but it is hated, lacerated, and tor
mented into debility. The appetites are looked upon as sinful,
and are checked — not supplied in healthful moderation.
1 Diodorus Sic 13, 60. Thucyd. vi. S.

206

COLOSSIANS II. 23.

Every species of support is grudged — "to back and belly too."
The physical constitution is thus enervated and sickened.
Yet its sinful tendencies are only beaten down, not eradicated.
Job made a covenant with his eyes, but those fanatics would
dim theirs by fasting. The whole process was a cardinal mis
take, for it was a system of externals, both in cere
monial and ethics. The body might be reduced, but the evil
bias might remain unchecked. A man might whip and fast
himself into a walking skeleton, and yet the spirit within him
might have all its lusts un conquered, for all it had lost was
only the ability to gratify them. To place a fetter on a
robber's hand will not cure him of covetousness, though it
may disqualify him from actual theft. To seal up a swearer's
mouth will not pluck profanity out of his heart, though it may
for the time prevent him from taking God's name in vain.
To lacerate the flesh almost to suicide, merely incapacitates it
for indulgence, but does not extirpate sinful desire. Its air of
superior sanctity1 is only pride in disguise — it has but "a show
of wisdom," and is not —
Ovk iv ripy rivl, irpbg irXriapovriv rrjg aapKog. There is
difficulty at arriving at a correct interpretation of these clauses,
and one reason is, that we have first to solve whether they
should be joined or disconnected. It is quite plain that the
apostle intends a contrast, and the preposition iv is repeated.
1. Very many interpreters supply awparog to ripy. The
Greek interpreters held this view, followed by Pelagius,
1 Car je vous prie quelle ombre de sagesse y a-il en ce caresme par exemple, qu'ils
coinmencerent l'autre jour, apres la preface ordinaire de leur carneval ? Oil est la
raison ? oh le sens commun, qui puisse avoiier, s'il est libre, que ce soit sagesse, apre"s
s'estre licemtie Ji toute sorte de deTiauches, and de folies, de penser effacer tout cela
avec une poignee de cendres ? Que ce soit sagesse de croire, que c'est jeusner, de
manger du poisson? Que ce soit sagesse d'estimer, que c'est se sanctifier, de manger
des herbes, ou dn saumon, ou de la mourue ? and que c'est souiller son ame d'un
peche mortel, and digne du feu eternel, de gouter d'un morceau de beuf, ou de mouton,
ces quarante jours durant? commc si toute la nature des choses s'etoit changee en vn
moment, and que les animaux de la terre fussent tous devenus contagieux, and mor-
tels, de bons and salutaires, qu'ils e'toyent, il n'y a que quatre jours? Est-ce sagesse
d'attacher le Christianisnie a. vne observation si peu raisonnable, and de dire, comme
ils font, que ceux, qui mangent de la chair en ce temps, ne sont pas Chretiens ? II
n'y a point d'esprit si mediocre, qui ne juge aisement, qu'il n'y a nulle apparence de
sagesse en tout cela ; pour ne rien dire de pis. — Dailld, pp. 548 — 550.

COLOSSIANS II 23. 207
Calvin, Luther, and other reformers ; by Estius, and a-Lapide
in the Popish Church ; by Daille, Davenant, and Mac-
knight; and in later times by the lately deceased critics,
De Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius. The meaning then, is —
"which things have a show of wisdom in will-worship,
humility, and neglecting ofthe body, not in any honour shown
to the body in reference to such things as satisfy corporeal
appetite." This is a favourite interpretation, but we cannot
receive it. For, as Meyer remarks, it gives" adp% the meaning
of awpa, which had just been previously used — a meaning
which it cannot bear. Then, too, this exegesis supplies
awparog without any reason, and it restricts the contrast
introduced by ovk to only one member of the sentence.
That contrast seems to refer to all the manifestations of this
specious -wisdom, and not simply to one of them. Besides,
this interpretation gives a very feeble ending to the verse ;
austerity toward the body, is weakly characterized as not
giving honour to the body in things which satisfy its physical
appetites, as if the Colossians needed such a definition. And
lastly, this irXriapovr) is something more than the gratification
of corporeal desire, for in the Pauline vocabulary, awpa is
only a portion of crap!;.
2. Another view, which holds the same connection, is that
which gives npr) the sense of value, and brings out this exegesis
— which are not of any value, inasmuch as they are concerned
with things which serve only to the gratification of the
flesh. These are useless prohibitions, and have but a show of
wisdom, for they are concerned with matters which minister
only to appetite — quum ad ea spectent quibus farcitur caro.
The participle ovra is thus supposed to stand before n-pde.
This is the idea of Beza and Crocius, and that of Heinrichs is
only a worse modification of it. It restricts the meaning of
o-ap£, and needs considerable eking out in its construction.
3. Others take the word adp% in its full sense, and suppose
the apostle to mean that all prohibitions which bear especially
against the body are of little worth, for they minister all , the
while to the pride of corrupted humanity. The last clause is
thus nearly equivalent to an earlier one — " vainly puffed up
by his fleshly mind." With some varieties, this is the exegesis

208

COLOSSIANS II. 23.

of Hilary, Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Bohmer, Steiger, Biihr, and
Huther. Meyer, in taking the same view, places o-apKoc in
contrast with awparog, and irXriapovr) with d(j>EiSia. He also
lays the principal stress ofthe contrast on the words ovk iv riprj
rivl, as if they stood in antagonism to the Xoyov aoiplag.
That wisdom is all a pretence — it has no honour in reality
or basis. Still with this otherwise good interpretation, the
connection of the last clause appears to be hard, for 7rpoe must
signify um dadurch, or " all of them tend to." A modification
of this view is adopted -by Conybeare, who gives the clause
a pregnant sense — "not of any value to check the indulgence
of the flesh." His reviewer in the North British Review
applauds the exegesis.1 We do not accept the sense of fleshly
passion for adp%, and we cannot believe 7rpoc to be so utterly
indifferent in its meaning. In the proposed exegesis, 7rpoc
must signify " against." It sometimes is so translated, still
the idea of hostility is found, not in the particle, but in its
adjuncts, as pdxeaBai, {HoXXeiv, or as in the New Testament, Acts
vi. 1, where the idea of antagonism is found in yoyyvapog,
Acts xxiv. 19, where the clause is preceded by KarijyopEtv,
and in Ephes. vi. 11, where there- is the idea of combat. In
all such cases the idea of hostility is implied in the clause,
and the preposition only expresses the reference — but there is
no such idea implied in the verse before us. The same
principle explains the array of classical instances adduced by
Peile. 4. While we take this general view, we are inclined to
regard the verse, from Xoyov to rivl, as participial ; and with
Bahr, closely to connect iariv with 7rpoc- " Which things
having, indeed, a show of wisdom in superstition, humility,
and corporeal austerity, not in any thing of value, are for, or
minister to the gratification of the flesh." Ilpoc after slpi,
denotes result. John xi. 4. There needs, with this view, the
insertion of no explanatory terms, or connecting ideas taken
for granted. The verb stands at a distance from the preposi
tion, but is not on that account the less emphatic. The apostle
1 Vol. xx. p. 336. "There Is really no difficulty in the vrpos. As a jocose phil-
ologer of our acquaintance observed — ' Poor vrpos is morally indifferent, and flexible
either to checking or promoting.' "

COLOSSIANS II. 23.

209

means to condemn those precepts and teachings, and he is about
to pronounce the sentence; but to make it the more emphatic he
briefly enumerates what they chiefly consist of, and then his
censure is, that they produce an effect directly the opposite to
their professed design. Their avowed purpose is to lower and
abase humWty, and he gives them epithets all showing this
object; while he adds with sternness and force, that their
only result is to rouse up and inflate unregenerate humanity.
That irXriapovr) can bear this tropical meaning there is no
doubt, as in Hab. ii. 16, where the word occurs with driplag;
Sirach i. 16, where it is used with ao<j>lag; and Isaiah Ixv. 15,
where it stands absolutely, but with a spiritual sense. The
phrase ovk ev ripy rivl, then brings out this contrast-^hose
doctrines have in sooth a show of wisdom, in their will-wor
ship, humihty, and corporeal austerity, but they have really
nothing of value.
The paragraph therefore reprobates superstitious asceticism.
The religious history of the world shows what fascination there
is to many minds in voluntary suffering. Such asceticism
threw its eclipse over the bright and lovely spirit of Pascal.
The oriental temperament feels powerfully the fatal charm.
As if the Divine Being might fail to subject them to a suf
ficient amount of discipline, men assume the labour of dis
ciplining themselves, but choose a mode very unlike that
which God usually employs.
The Brahmin kindles on his own bare head
The sacred fires, self-torturing his trade.
Which is the saintlier worthy of the two ?
Past all dispute yon anchorite, say you.
Your sentence and mine differ. What's a name ?
I say the Brahmin has the fairer claim,
If sufferings, Scripture nowhere recommends,
Devised by self to answer selfish ends
Give saintship, then, all Europe must agree
Ten starveling hermits suffer less than he.
Such delusions are not confined to religious follies, for their
origin lies deep in human nature. Men glory in being what
their fellows dare not aspire to, and there is no little self-aggran
dizement in this self-annihilation. When Diogenes lifted his
foot on Plato's velvet cushion and shouted, " thus I trample on
p

210

COLOSSIANS II. 23.

Plato's pride," the Athenian sage justly replied, " but with still
greater pride." The apostle utters a similar sentiment; the
carnal nature is all the while gratified, even though the body,
wan and wasted, is reduced to the point of bare existence.
There is more pride in cells and cloisters than in courts and
palaces, and oftentimes as gross sensuality. The devotee
deifies himself, is more to himself than the object of his
homage. The whole of these fanatical processes, so far from
accomplishing their ostensible object, really produce the
reverse ; siich will-worship is an impious invention ; such
humility is pride in its most sullen and offensive form ; and
these corporeal macerations, so far from subduing and sancti
fying, only gratify to satiety the coarse and selfish passions ;
nay, as history has shown, tend to nurse licentiousness in one
age, and a ferocious fanaticism in another. The entire phe
nomenon, whatever its special aspect, is a huge self-deception,
and a reversal of that moral order which God has established.
In the course of expounding this chapter, we have found
several illustrations in post-apostolic times. We now present
another, which shows how the practices described in this sec
tion were viewed in themselves, and condemned at a very early
period. The unknown author of that very precious document,
the letter to Diognetus, and now rightly included by Hefele
among the remains of the apostolical Fathers, speaks in a style
worthy of an apostle. He says of the Jews, "But indeed
I think that you have no need to learn from me their
ridiculous and senseless alarms about their food, their super
stition about the Sabbath, their boasting of circumcision,
and their pretexts of fasting, and the observance of new
moons. How is it right to receive some of the things which
God has created for the use of man as fitly 1 created, and to
reject others of them as useless and superfluous ? How can it
be else than impious to libel God, as if He had forbidden any
good action to be done on the Sabbath-day ? How worthy of
ridicule their exultation about the curtailment of the flesh as a
witness of their election, as though on this account they were
the peculiar objects of God's complacency ! Who will regard
1 KakSf.

COLOSSIANS II. 23. 211
as a sign of piety, and will not much more regard as a mark
of folly their scrupulous study ofthe1 stars, and their watching
of the moon, in order to procure the observance of months
and days, and to arrange the Divine dispensations and changes
of the seasons — some into feasts and others into fasts, according
to their inclination ? I imagine that you are sufficiently in
formed, that the Christians rightly abstain from the prevail
ing emptiness of worship and delusion, and from the fussiness2
and vain-glory of the Jews."

Our readers will pardon us for inserting in a note a modern instance of this pride
of sanctity covered with a robe of revolting humility. Last year (1854), a new saint
was added to the Popish calendar, by name Benedetto Guiseppe Labre, who had
made his residence in the Coliseo for many years, and was noted by travellers for his
craziness and filth. At the usual mock trial which takes place at a canonization,
the pleading of the so-called Devil's advocate against him was rebutted by the so-
called God's advocate in the following terms, literally translated from the paper : —
" He was a model of humility, abstinence, and mortification, taking only for food
remains of cabbage, lemon peel, or lettuce leaves, which he picked up in the streets.
He even ate, once, some spoiled soup which he found on a dunghill, where it had
been thrown. All these facts are fully proved by the juridical documents laid before
the tribunal." .... Having spoken at length of the wooden cup, all broken
and rotten, in which he received his soup at the door of the houses, " eternal monu
ment of his voluntary privations," the advocate proceeds : " What more shall I say ?
A glance cast upon him was sufficient to discover in him a perfect model of poverty.
His hair and beard were neglected, his face pale, his garments ragged, his body
livid ; a rosary hung from his neck ; he wore no stockings ; his shirt was dirty and
disgusting ; and to give of him a full idea, let us add, that he was so completely
covered with vermin (jiiddochi), that in the churches many persons kept away from
him for fear of catching them! " 1 Ilagio'givovras.
2 nokvTpaypoevvns. Opera, Justini Mart. vol. ii. p. 474—6, ed. Otto,

CHAPTER III.
The apostle leaves his scornful flagellation of the false
teachers, and comes to a more congenial occupation. For
though it is needful to refute error, it is more pleasant to
inculcate truth. If the Colossian believers should act in
accordance with their privileges — if they understood how the
charge preferred against them by the law had been met with a
discharge on the cross of Calvary — if the process of sanc
tification beginning in their hearts should work outward, and
hallow and adorn their lives — if they felt that whatever bless
ings they enjoyed in part, or anticipated in fulness, sprang
from union with Christ, then should they be fortified against
every effort to induce them to sever themselves from the
Head, and against every attempt to substitute reveries for
truth, or human inventions for Divine enactments. Then,
too, should they learn that worship does not consist of
superstitious invocations, and that sanctification is not identi
cal with fanatical austerities. Let them move in a spiritual
region lifted far above those earthly vanities, and let them
look down on them as the offspring of a morbid and self-
deceived imagination, or the craving and the nutriment of a
self-satisfied pride.
(Ver. 1.) Et ovv avvnyipBriTE rcji XptortJI — " If, then, ye have
been raised together with Christ," or are in a risen state. The
particle ovv is illative, and eI does not mean "if," as if it be
tokened uncertainty, but it introduces a premiss on which a
conclusion is to be based. It is somewhat of a syllogistic form,
as Fritzsche, Kuhner, and Meyer suppose, but the notion
appears to be a needless refinement. There are few forms of
reasoning or inference based upon fact or hypothesis, which
cannot be moulded into a syllogism. There is no doubtful
ness in the statement, it asserts an actual condition, as in
many parts of the New Testament too numerous to quote.

COLOSSIANS III. 1. 213
Hartung, ii. p. 202. The same meaning must be given to
it as in ii. 20. They had been dead in sins, but they had
been quickened together with Christ. There may be a refer
ence, as many suppose, to the phrase, "buried in baptism,"
though there the allusion is to death to sin, not death in it.
Now, the restoration of hfe implies resurrection, for the dead on
being quickened do not lie in their sepulchres. The power
that reanimated Lazarus immediately cried to him, " come
forth." The nature and results of this spiritual resurrection
are detailed under Ephes. ii. 6. Union with Christ enjoys a
peculiar and merited prominence — " risen with Christ." Their
new position laid them under a special obligation, and they
are thus enjoined — " seek those things which are above " —
Ta avw ?r)r£trE. The reference in avw is here, as is proved
by the concluding clause, to heaven — " seek things in heaven."
There is no occasion to supply dyaBd, for it is implied. The
expression is used in contrast with kotw, and with rd iirl rijg
yrjg in the following verse. The same idea is often expressed,
as in Philip, iii. 14, 20; Matt. vi. 20, 33; Gal. iv. 26. The
region of spiritual death is a nether-world, that of life is an
elevated realm — the hving not only rise, but they sit with
Christ "in the heavenly places." The precise locality is now
indicated — -
Ov 6 Xpiarog iariv iv Ss^iq rov Geov KaBrjpEvog — " Where
Christ is, sitting at the* right hand of God." The ideas of
honour, power, and felicity, implied in the declaration will be -
found under Ephes. i. 20. Illustrations or allusions occur in
1 Kings ii. 19 ; 1 Sam. xx. 25 ; Ps. ex. 1 ; Rev. iii. 21 ; Rom.
viii. 34 ; Heb. vii. 25 ; Philip, ii. 9.
The clause presents inducements to obey the injunction,
" Seek those things which are above." And these inducements
lie in the statement of two facts. First, they have been raised
up with Christ, and therefore they ought to seek things above.
Any other search or desire would be very inconsistent. The
image seems to be — the region of the dead is beneath ; they
are let down to their final resting-place. Should, then, a man
rise from this dark and deep receptacle, and ascend to the
living world, would he set his desires on the gloom, and chill,
and rottenness, he had left behind him ? Would he place the

214

COLOSSIANS III. 1.

objects of his search among the coffins, and the mean and creep
ing things that live on putrefaction ? Would he still seek for
things below ? At the very idea and memory of that locality
would not his spirit shudder? And if the Christians at
Colosse had been raised from a yet lower condition, and by a
still nobler resurrection, should not similar feelings and
associations rule their minds ? Why should they be gazing
downwards from their position, and groping amidst things so far
beneath them? Their past state, with its sin and guilt, its
degradation and misery, could surely have no attractions for
them. Having been brought up, they must still look up ; and
what they seek must be in harmony with their own pure and
elevated position — Sursum corda. And, secondly, Christ is above
in a station of glory. Their union with Him will lead their
thoughts to Him. Whatever the character of the things to be
sought may be, they are to be found with Christ. Truth and
blessing are from Him — promise and hope centre in Him.
Whether the " things above " be a fuller glimpse of heaven, a
higher preparation for it, or a sweeter foretaste of it ; whether
it be to learn its songs, reach a deeper sympathy with its
enjoyments, or realize a hving unity with its population ; still,
Christ at God's right hand enjoys a special pre-eminence, as
those attainments are from Him, and the song, the service,
and the inhabitants of heaven, have Him as object, or as Lord.
As the salvation which they experience comes from that
blood by the shedding of which He rose to His glorious posi
tion — as there He intercedes so effectually, and governs so
graciously, by word, providence, and Spirit — as there He
holds heaven in their name, and prepares them for it — as their
present life and peace originate in union with Him — a union
to be realized yet more vividly when He shall bid them " come
up hither;" therefore should their desires stretch away up
ward and onward towards Him and the scene he occupies " on
the right hand ofthe glorious majesty." "An high look," though
it be sin in ordinary things, and be the index of a proud
heart, is yet the true aspect of an humble believer.
The form of expression, " things above," while it has a dis
tinctive meaning in Christianity, and is not a mere image, is
one that is also based on our moral nature. Local elevation

COLOSSIANS III. 2. 215
is the instinctive symbol of spiritual aspiration and refinement.
Hence the origin of the phrases collected by some commen
tators from the classics.
(Ver. 2.) Ta avw typovEirE, prj rd iirl rrjg yrig — " Set your
mind on things above, not on things on the earth." The verb
in this verse differs so far from that employed in the preceding,
that it refers more to inner disposition, while the former is
rather practical pursuit. The sure safeguard against seek
ing things below, is not to set the mind upon them. The
" things above " have been already glanced at. The things
" on the earth " are not, as Huther and Schrader suppose, the
meat and drinks and other elements of the ascetic system
which the apostle condemns, but such things as are the objects
of usual and intense search among men. Philip, iii. 18. The
apostle does not urge any transcendental contempt of things
below, but simply asks that the heart be not set upon them
in the same way, and to the same, extent, in which it is set
upon things above. The pilgrim is not to despise the com
forts which he may meet with by (the way, but he is not to
tarry among them, or leave them with regret. " Things on
earth" are only subordinate and instrumental — " things above "
are supreme and final. Attachment to things on the earth is
unworthy of one who has risen with Christ, for they are beneath
him, and the love of them is not at all in harmony with his
position and prospects. What can wealth achieve for him
who has treasure laid up in heaven ? Or honour for him who
is already enthroned in the heavenly places? Or pleasure for
him who revels in " newness of hfe ?" Or power for him who
is endowed with a moral omnipotence ? Or fame for him who
enjoys the approval of God? Nay, too often when the "things
on earth," are possessed, they concentrate the heart upon them,
and the " look and thoughts are downward bent." Bishop Wil
son on this place observes — " for things on earth too naturally
draw us down, attract us, fix us. Esau's red pottage prevails over
the birthright. The guests in the parable turn away to their
land, or oxen, or families. The Gadarene mind wishes Christ
to depart from its coasts."1 The things on earth are seen,
1 Lectures on Colossians, p. 282, 3d ed.

216

COLOSSIANS III. 3.

therefore they are temporal ; the things in heaven are unseen,
and therefore they are eternal. If the mind be fully occupied
with things above, things on earth will be barred out. The
apostle adduces another reason, not indeed essentially different,
but exhibiting another phasis of the argument —
(Ver. 3.) 'AirEBdvETE ydp — " For ye died." The expression
is general, and the apostle does not simply say ye died to the
world — rote Karw,1 or mundo2 — and should have no more con
cern with it, but he says, ye died, that is, with Christ, and all
that is out of Christ, or hostile to Him, should cease to excite
your attention, or engross your industry. The apostle had
said in the first verse that they had risen with Christ, here he
resorts to a previous point in their spiritual career, and says
they had already died. ii. 20. Neither " seek nor savour " the
things of earth, for having died, and having been even buried
with Christ, your sphere of being, action, and enjoyment, is
totally different from your former state. As Luther says —
Wer lebew nicht im Fleisch, sondern wir wohnen im Fleisch —
" we live not in the flesh, but we dwell in the flesh." When
they did die, their death was but a birth into a new hfe, for
he adds —
Kal tj Zwff vpwv KEKpvirrai ovv rip Xpiarw iv rtji 0£<ji — " And
your life has been hidden with Christ in God." The death is
past and over, but the life has been hid, and still is in that
hidden state — KEKpvirrai. The peculiar phraseology of the
clause has suggested a variety of interpretations. There are
many who regard this life as future or eternal life, laid up for
Christians with Christ in God. So the Greek Fathers, and
many who partly follow them, such as Erasmus, Rosenmuller,
Barnes, and Meyer. We apprehend that the apostle speaks
not of the resurrection, as Theodoret supposes, but of a spi
ritual life enjoyed now, though not in the meantime fully
developed. That life which we now hve in the flesh has a
hidden source with Christ in God — its infinite fountain. The
idea of Olshausen is somewhat different, for he places the
notion of concealment in the nature of the life more than
in its source. He says — " the life of believers is called hidden,
1 Theophylact. * Bengel.

COLOSSIANS III. S. 217
inasmuch as it is inward, and the outward does not correspond
with it." Von Gerlach says — " his hfe is not in him, but it is
in Christ." The exegesis of De Wette is similar. This life,
he says, is hidden, being inner as opposed to being visible
— innerlich nicht auf das sichtbare gerichtet ist — and as being
ideal, not — real oder offenbar. Barnes, again, lays too much stress
on the idea of security: eternal life is "safely deposited"1 with
Christ in God. A-Lapide finds his choicest illustration of the
phrase in the seclusion of monastic hfe. We cannot agree
with such as hold that the apostle calls this a hidden life, as
being concealed from the world, inasmuch as he counsels
them to make the results of it more apparent, and to show
their vitality in their modes of action. The mortification
of the members which is enjoined in the following verse, is
but the fruit and expansion of this life. As it diffuses itself,
it carries death with it to all sinful propensities. Now, of this
life God is the source, and Christ the channel ; and when it is
said to be hid " with Christ in God," the meaning is not only
that channel and fountain are both supersensuous and in
visible, but that our connection with them is also a matter of
inner experience — not as yet of full and open manifestation.
This life is hidden ovv rd} Xpiard} — " with Christ," for He is
its medium, and our union with Him gives us life ; and it is
hidden with Him iv rd) Qe$ — " in God," not merely as He is
now removed from view and exalted to God's right hand, but
as He enjoys supreme repose and fellowship in the bosom of
His Father. Bohmer's connection of £w<j at once with «rvv
rd} Xpiartf is forbidden by the position of the words ; and the
eccentric and baseless interpretation of Calixtus and Heinrichs
needs not be mentioned. The idea of concealment, and not

1 ii

' Ac ne molesta sit exspectatio, notemus istas particulas, in. Deo, et cum Christo:
quae significant, extra periculum esse vitam nostram, tametsi non appareat. Nam
et Dens fidelis est, ideoque non abnegabit depositum, nee fallet in suscepta custodia :
et Christi societas maiorem etiamnum securitatem affert. Quid enim magis expeten-
dum, quam vitam nostram manere cum ipso vitae fonte? Quarenon est, quod ter-
reamur, si undique circumspicientes vitam nusquam cernamus. Spe enim salvi
sumus. Ea vero, quae iam patent oculis, non sperantur. Neque vero tantum mundi
opinione vitam absconditam esse docflt, sed etiam quoad sensum nostrum : quia hoc
verum et nccessarium est spei nostrae experimentum, ut tanquam morte circumdati
vitam alibi quaeramns quam in mundo." — Calvin in loc.

218

COLOSSIANS III. 3.

that of security, seems to be principally contained in the verb,
for it is placed in contrast with open manifestation at Christ's
appearance. If the apostle had meant our future hfe, then the
idea of security might naturally be found in this concealment.
But he speaks of present life — life really, though partiaUy
enjoyed, life giving a palpable, though feeble, demonstration of
its health and vigour. The prepositions avv and iv express, as
Meyer remarks, the first, coherence, and the second, inherence.
This life is at once divine and mediatorial — God's gift to
believers through Christ ; and the gift, along with its medium
and its destiny, are hidden in the Giver, as the infinite source.
But this concealment is no argument against present and par
tial enjoyment ; for one may drink of the stream and be un
able either to detect its source, which hides itself far away
and high among the mountains, or conjecture at what distant
point its deepening current pours itself into the ocean. The
life is not said, by the . apostle, to be hidden in itself, either
from the world or from believers themselves, as so many com
mentators suppose. True, indeed, it is mysterious. . It is not
among things of vulgar gaze. It is a strange experience;
none can know it save he who has it. For Christians die and
yet live; nay, the moment of death is that of life — the instant
of expiry is that of birth. Yet this life is now enjoyed — is
therefore now a matter of secret consciousness, though much
about it is beyond inquiry and analysis. No one can lay bare
the principle of physical life ; the knife of the anatomist can
not uncover the cord which binds the conscious thinking
essence to its material organ and habitation. But the special
thought of the apostle is, that the ethereal nature of spiritual
life eludes research, ahke in its origin and destiny. Its source
is too high for us to climb to it, and its destiny is too noble to
be written in human language. As to the former, it is hidden
with Christ in God ; and as to the latter, it shall not be fully
revealed till Christ come the second time in glory. But it
shall be ultimately disclosed. For Christ, with whom our life
is hidden, shall reveal Himself, and we whose life is so hidden
with Him shall also appear with Him in glory. When its
medium is revealed, its character and destiny shall also bo
laid bare.

COLOSSIANS III. 4. 219
(Ver. 4.) "Orav 6 Xptaroc ^avEpwfl^j tj Zwr) i)pwv, tote Kal
ipElg avv avrijj (j>avEpwBr)aEaBE iv S6%y — "" When Christ, who
is our life, shall appear, then, too, shall ye with Him be
revealed in glory." The form r)pwv appears, on good authority,
to be preferable to the vjuwv of the Received Text. The verb
fyavEpwBy is opposed to the K£Kpv7rrat of the previous verse.
There is concealment now, but there shall be ultimate and
glorious disclosure. 1 John i. 2 ; iii. 2, 5 ; Rom. viii. 18 ; 1 Tim.
iii. 16 ; 1 Peter v. 4. Christ is termed " our life ;" and in the
former verse our life is said to be hid with Him. He is our
hfe, not simply because he reveals it, and He alone has " the
words of eternal life ;" nor yet because coming that we "might
have life, and that we might have it more abundantly," He
" died that we might live,'' and has given us this blessed
pledge — " as I live, ye shall live also ;" but specially, because
by His Spirit, as His representative, He enters into the heart
and gives it life — fans and fosters it by his continuous abode
— gratifies all its instincts, and evokes all its susceptibilities
by His word and His presence. " If Christ be in you, the
body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of
righteousness." When it is said — " Christ our life shall appear," the mean
ing is, that He shall appear in the character of our life. In
this pecuhar aspect of His operation shall He make Himself
manifest. To appear as our life, implies our relation to Him
as His hving ones ; and the unvailing of the Fountain shall
allow the eye to discover the myriads of rivulets which issue
out of it ; or, as our life is hid with Christ, so when Christ
comes out of hi3 hiding-place, our life shall accompany Him
into openness and light. Nay more, as our life, He appears
to perfect it, and to give it fulness and finahty of development.
At present it is checked by a variety of causes. It exists in
a body "dead because of sin," and it feels the chill of a
mortality that so closely envelops it. The distance, too,
imphed in the fact — that it is hidden with Christ in God —
keeps it from its perfect strength, and induces occasional debility
and lassitude ; but the revelation of Christ brings it into near
ness and vigour. Nay more, at that period, the body is to be
brought into harmony with it, and " mortality shall be swal-

220

COLOSSIANS III. 4.

lowed up of hfe." For He who is our hfe shall diffuse hfe
through us — "change our vile body, and fashion it like unto His
own glorious body." The physical frame then to be raised,
spirituahzed, and imbued with life, shall be a fit receptacle for
the living soul within it, which shall then indulge its tastes
without hindrance, feeling no barrier to activity in any
of its occupations — no stint to capacity in any of its enjoy
ments. Hiems nostra, says Augustine, Christi occultatio,
aestas nostra, Christi revelatio. Suicer remarks — gloria capitis
est gloria corporis et membrorum. For the apostle describes,
as the consequence of the appearance of Christ our life, that
" we, too, shall appear with Him in glory." Rom. viii. 17 ; 1
John iii. 2. Since He appears as our life, so to appear with
Him is, on our part, to appear as partakers of His life. The
source, progress, and maturity of our life shall then be fully
apparent — how it originated, and how it was sustained — what
course it took, and what obstacles it encountered — how it was
still supported, and still maintained its hold — how it was felt
in our own consciousness, and yet had its hidden spring " with
Christ in God " — and what shall be now its high crown and
its magnificent destiny — all shall be seen in the Hving and
life-filling brightness of " Christ our life." The followers of
Christ shall surround Him in triumph, a dense and glorious
retinue — " ye, too, shall appear with Him," and that — iv S6%y.
It would be wrong to restrict this "glory" to any special as
pect of final perfection. It consists, as Davenant, after the school
men, says, ofthe " robe ofthe soul and the robe ofthe body."
It is here the result of life — vita ghriosa,x of life in its highest
form and fullest manifestation — life diffused through " spirit,
soul, and body." Nor is our appearance in glory with Christ
a momentary gleam ; it is rather the first burst of unending
splendour. And it has, or shall have, for its elements — final
freedom from the sins and sorrows of earth ; perfect hohness
beyond the possibility of loss, with unmingled felicity beyond
the reach of forfeit ; an endless abode in heaven, and in the
brightest province of it ; the rapturous adoration of God, and
unbroken fellowship with Christ; the exalted companionship

Beza.

COLOSSIANS III. 5. 221
of angels and genial spirits of human kindred; and the successful
pursuit of Divine knowledge in a realm where no shadow ever
falls, but where is chaunted the high halleluiah, welling out
of the consciousness that all this ecstasy is of sovereign grace,
ay, all of it sealed to us for eternity, in connection with
" Christ our life."
The apostle now descends to particularize certain forms of
sins which were very prevalent in heathendom — in which they
themselves had revelled during their prior state of gloom and
degradation, but which they must now and for ever abandon.
(Ver. 5.) NEKpworarE ovv ra juIXtj vpwv rd iirl rrjg yrjg —
" Mortify, therefore, your members whieh are upon the earth."
" Therefore," since such are the peculiarities and prospects of
your spiritual state, act in harmony with them ; and since you
have died, diffuse the process of death through all your mem
bers. If the heart is dead, let all the organs which it once
vivified and moved die too — nay, put them to death. Let
them be killed from want of nutriment and exercise. Similar
language is found in Rom. viii. 13, where Bavarovrs is em
ployed ; and in Gal. v. 24, where occurs the modal verb arav-
pwo-arE. In rd jueXtj, the allusion is to members of the body,
taken, not in a physical, but in a spiritual sense. Hilary,
Grotius, Bengel, and others, destroy the point of the allusion
in regarding sin itself as a body, and its special parts as
members. The apostle had strongly condemned asceticism,
and declared it in the conclusion of the preceding chapter,
to be an absolute failure, and he now shows how the end it
contemplated is to be secured. There is no reason for Meyer
to deny that the apostle regards " the old man " as the body
to which such members belong. It is not, indeed, the eye,
foot, and hand, as these are in themselves, or as they belong
to the physical frame, but as they belong to, and are in
subjection to the " old man." The phrase is to be understood
in the same spirit as our Lord's emphatic declaration about
the plucking out of the right eye, and the cutting off of the
right arm. Matt. v. 29. The lust that uses and debases these
organs or members as its instruments, is to be extirpated.
And the "members" are characterized as being ra iirl rrjg yfjc
— " upon the earth." The allusion is to the previous phraseology

222

COLOSSIANS III. 5.

— " set your affections not on things on the earth." That is to
say, earth is the sphere of their existence and operation; and as
they belong to it, they are to be killed, for they are in utter
antagonism with that higher life which is hid with Christ in
God. They are "ofthe earth, earthy" — their essence is earthy,
and so are their temptations, sources, and forms of enjoyment.
The man who possesses a life that has its spring in heaven, and
seeks and relishes things above, will not stoop to gratifications
which are so far beneath him in nature, so utterly opposed to
that new and spiritual existence which he cherishes within him,
and which grows in power and health in proportion to the
thoroughness and universahty of the death which is executed
on the " members which are on the earth." The apostle then
enumerates some of these forms of sensuality.
IlopvEiav, aKaBapalav, irdBog, iiriBvplav koktjv — "Fornica
tion, impurity, lust, and evil concupiscence." These accusatives
are in apposition to ra /ueXt/. The first two terms are found
in Ephes. v. 3, and denote fornication and lewdness. 2 Cor.
xii. 21 ; Gal. v. 19. See especially under Ephes. iv. 19,
where the second occurs, and is described. But, in fact, the
shapes and kinds of lewdness, to be found not only in the pa
gan woYship, and in the symbols carried in religious processions,
but also in common life, as depicted on tables and furniture,
are beyond description.1 The term irdBog is too lightly under
stood by Grotius and Chrysostom, as signifying — motus vitiosi,
such as anger and hatred ; and perhaps too darkly by such as
refer it wholly to unnatural lust. The noun does not seem of
itself to have this last sense, but it occurs with a special
adjunct in Rom. i. 26; and the adjective, iraBiKog, has an
indescribable baseness. It seems here to denote the state of
mind that urges and excites to impurity — rb ipwriKov irdBog,2
that condition in which man is mastered by unchastity, and the
imagination being defiled, is wholly at the mercy of obscene
associations. It is morbus libidinis, as Bengel says. The
next term, iiriBvpla koktj, refers to the same circle of vices,
and is more general in its nature. The four words may be
regarded as in two pairs. The prior pair refers to act, the first
1 Juvenal, Sat. ii. a Plato, Phaedrus, vol. i. p. 153, Op. ed. Bekker.

COLOSSIANS III. 6. 223
term more particular, and the second more comprehensive ;
the second pair to impulse, the first, again, more special, and the
second more sweeping in its nature. They were no longer to
be guilty of fornication, or any similar deed of lewdness ; they
were no longer to be filled with libidinous thoughts, or any
other prurient feelings, having their issue in lecherous indul
gences. Kal rrjv irXsovE^iav rjrte iariv ElSwXoXarpsla — "And that
covetousness which is idolatry." The form rjng, may corres
pond to the Latin quippe quae — since indeed. The reader
may turn for the meaning of 7tXeov. and its occurrence in this
connection, to our comment on Ephes. iv. 19 ; v. 3 — 5. The
noun 7tXeov. has the article, which none of the preceding sub
stantives have, and it alone is the antecedent to Tjrte. Winer,
§ 17, i. 4. We believe that it does not characterize any form
of sensuality, or quaestum meretricium, as the Greek expositors,
and others after them, suppose, though it denotes a vice that
has its origin in the same selfish or self-seeking depravity.
Trench, in his New Testament Synonyms, § 24, has some
excellent observations on this word, remarking that the 7tXe-
ovEKrrje is as free in scattering and squandering as he was
eager and unscrupulous in getting ; that monsters of covet
ousness have been also monsters of lust : and that 7rX£ov£?ta
is a far deeper passion than mere miserliness or avarice, as
being "the fierce and ever fiercer longing of the creature
which has turned from God to fill itself with the inferior
objects of sense." This desire of having more, and yet more,
is idolatry. What it craves it worships, what it worships it
makes its portion. To such a god there is given the first
thought of the morning, the last wish of the evening, and the
action of every waking hour.
(Ver. 6.) At' a 'ipxtrai tj bpyr) rov Qsov — " On account of
which sins cometh the wrath of God." The reading Si 6 has
also several authorities in its favour. On the meaning of the
clause see our exposition of Ephes. v. 5. This special wrath
is often suffered on earth, and it is not wholly reserved for the
other world. Meyer, as in the correspondent place in the
Epistle to the Ephesians, denies that the bpyr) is manifested
here, and justifies his opinion by pointing to Paul's certain

224 COLOSSIANS III. 7.
conviction ofthe near approach ofthe day of judgment The
sins mentioned in the previous verse are, as we have shown
on Ephes. v. 6, often visited by penalty on earth. The next
clause of the Textus Receptus — £7rl roiig vlovg rF/e dirEiBElag —
is excluded by Tischendorf, but without sufficient authority.
It is wanting in B, certainly, but this is a solitary MS. witness.
The clause occurs in Ephes. v. 6, and is there explained, as
also under Ephes. ii. 2, 3. They who indulge in such vices,
not only disobey the Divine statute, but also violate the laws
of their own constitution. This bpyi) is more than chastise
ment, or KoXao-ie, it is direct and punitive indignation fre
quently inflicted here in the form of physical debility and
disease, remorse and stupefaction.
(Ver. 7.) 'Ev otc Kal vpElg irEpiEirarrjaari itote ote eZvte iv
rovroig. The relative olg may be either masculine or neuter,
as it is referred to vlovg, or to the a of the previous verse.
Each construction has been vindicated. With Olshausen and
Bahr, we prefer the neuter, not only because irEpiirarElv is
usually employed in connection with things, and not persons, but
because the believers in Colosse are said, in the next clause,
to have lived in them, and in the 8th verse, to have thrown
them all off. Calvin says — male Erasmus vertit, inter quos.
Meyer prefers the masculine in this first clause, but is obliged
to change the gender in reference to rovrotc in the second
clause. "In which lusts ye too once walked;" "walked" having,
of course, its common tropical meaning. But that period was
now over — a new era had dawned ; and their walk was in a
widely different sphere, one in which, by the assistance of the
Spirit, they copied the example of Jesus, and sought, and
were acquiring a growing preparation for the purity and bliss
of heaven.
"OrE iZrJTE iv rovrotc- TovroTc, and not avrolg, on the
evidence of A, B, C, D1 E,1 though avrote has in its
favour D , E2, F, G, J, K. Flatt, Bohmer, Huther, and others,
take rovroig to be masculine; an exegesis which does not
give any tolerable meaning. In i£fjr£, there is an allusion by
contrast to the a7rE0«v£r£. They once lived in such sins.
Life is here used in a spiritual, and not in its physical sense,
as in 1 Thess. iii. 8. Other instances may be found in the

COLOSSIANS III. 8. 225
classics — possemne vivere, says Cicero, nisi in Ktteris viverem ? '
Libanius describes Alexander as iv 'OSvaasiq £wv ; Aelian
(Hist. Var. iii. 13) speaks of a people so fond of wine — wote
Zyv avrovg iv o'ivw ; and we have the phrase ol Zwvrsg — they
who enjoy life. They had felt supreme enjoyment in such
indulgences. So much had they been engrossed with them,
and such fancied gratification did they find in them, that they
might be said to "live in them." The difference of meaning
between the two verbs has been variously understood, but there
needs no special definition. They once walked in such lusts,
when they lived in them ; that is, they were utterly addicted to
them, for they believed that life or happiness was to be found
in them. Calvin says the verbs differ, as do potentia et actus.
(Ver. 8.) Nvv! Se diroBEaBE Kal vpEig tu irdvra — " But now
ye too have put off the whole." The words Kal v/me here
correspond to Kal vpEig in the preceding verse, and wvt
stands out in contrast with ttote. The verb is found in Ephes.
iv. 25. Wolf is wrong in referring irdvra to jueXtj, which is so
far distant from it. The phrase ra 7ravra is the entire circle of
vices ; not, as Winer says, this or that all (intensive), but " the
all which is immediately adduced," § 20, 3. A radical and
extensive change had taken place ; but (Se adversative) they
had " cast off" that slough in which were lodged all those
degrading sins. The catalogue, or class of sins is subjoined.
'Opyrjv, Svpbv, KaKiav, f3Xaa<j>ripla.v, alaxpoXoylav iK rov oro-
parog vpwv — "Anger, indignation, malice, calumny, abusive
discourse out of your mouth." The apostle observes a different
order, and uses some other terms in Ephes. iv. 31. Under that
place the first four terms repeated here have been explained.
Bahr and Trench take opyf) in distinction from Ovpog, as
denoting settled indignation bordering on revenge. This is the
Stoical definition — imOvpla ripwplag; and it is also the opin
ion of Origen, as brought out in his exposition of the second
Psalm. Still, we think that though bpyr) characterizes a habit
or state, the idea of visible display is usually associated with
it, as indeed the phrase opyr/ Bvpov often found in the Septu
agint, plainly imphes ; and, as is manifest from the diction of
1 Ep. 9, 26.
Q

226 COLOSSIANS III. 9.
the previous verse, " the wrath of God cometh." 'Opyr) is the
outburst, or the vice in a palpable form ; Bvpog is the violent
emotion that boils within ; while KaKta points to the state of
heart in which malice originates, and (3Xaa(j>ripla is that
calumnious denunciation to which anger so often prompts.
As regards alaxpoXoyla, which occurs only here, we agree
with De Wette and Trench, that its meaning is not to be con
fined to obscene speech. That it has this express meaning is
beyond any doubt, but it also often denotes generaUy foul or
abusive language,1 and as it is so closely connected with the
passion of anger, such may be its meaning here. It is, there
fore, a more comprehensive term than f3Xaa<j>ripia, as the first
refers to what especially injures character, and the second to
what offends in any sense, not only to what hurts the ear of
modesty, but to whatever in any form is scurrilous and inde
cent — that mixture of ribaldry and profanity which too often
escapes from the burning lips of passion. The addition ek tov
aroparog vpwv may belong to both /3Xaor0. and alaxp- with the
verb diroBEaBE mentally repeated. Nor can we give the words
the emphasis which Theophylact attaches to them. "See,"
says he, " how he recounts the members of the old man," that
is, shows how each sins, as " the mind by falsehood, the heart
by anger, the mouth by blasphemy, eyes and hidden members
by fornication, the hver by evil concupiscence, the hands by
covetousness." From sins of malignity-, the apostle passes to sins of falsehood.
(Ver. 9.) Mr) t//ev§eo-0e eic oXXtjXXovc — " Do not he to one
another." As one of the Greek Fathers says, falsehood ill
became them who avowed themselves disciples of Him who
said " I am the truth." The apostle, in writing to the Ephe
sians, adds as a reason why they should adhere to the truth —
" we are members one of another." He does not here say, as
some suppose, lie not against or about one another, that is, to
the damage of one another; but his meaning is, in all your com
munications among yourselves never depart from the truth.
The connection of the following clause is best ascertained
by adherence to the literal meaning of the participle, a7T£K-
1 Polybius, viii. 13, 8 ; Plut. de lib. Educ. 14.

COLOSSIANS III. 9. 227
Svadptvoi — " having put off the old man with his deeds."
The Vulgate gives exuentes in the present time, and is fol
lowed by Luther, Bengel, Storr, De Wette, and Huther. The
putting off of the old man, as described by the aorist, cannot
be contemporary with the foregoing imperatives, but it pre
cedes them. It is a process consummated, and so Calvin, Bahr,
Bohmer, and Meyer, rightly understand it. Beza says cor
rectly, that the participles are used alnoXoyiKwg. These par
ticiples are not to be taken in the sense of imperatives, as the
first class of expositors virtually regards them, but they unfold
a reason why the sins condemned should be uniformly
abstained from. Lie not one to another, as being persons who
have put off the old man ; or, as the participle has often a
causal sense — since ye have put off the old man with his
deeds. De Wette says that such an argument is superfluous,
but surely the paragraph may conclude as it began, with an
argument. The first argument is, ye are dead; and the second
contains one of the results of that spiritual death with Christ.
'AirEKoWajUEvot r6v iraXaibv dvBpwirov aiiv ralg irpd^Eaiv
avrov — " Since ye have put off the old man with his deeds."
The expressive personality — "old man" — has been explained
under Ephes. iv. 22. It is a bold personification of our first
1 We had forgot to mention an extraordinary interpretation of this verb, avrixSvopai,
as it occurs in ii. 15. Dr. Donaldson, in his book of capricious and destructive criti
cism, called " Jashar " (London, 1855), in vindication of certain views which he enter
tains of the character of humanity in general, and of Christ in particular, to wit, His
liability to temptation, justifies his theology by quoting the verse referred to. pp. 70, 71.
After affirming, with no little vaunt, that all interpreters up to himself have misunder
stood it, he says, that it must have the same meaning as in iii. 9. He gives the fol
lowing exegesis — "the principalities and powers" are the potent lords of lust — duces
libidinum — which rule in our members, and stuck to Christ like the poisoned shirt of
Nessus, and these He conquered and led in triumph." Not to say, with Mr. Perrowne,
that the exegesis is " sheer nonsense," and contrary to the entire meaning of the
terms, the strain and spirit of the context, and to Paul's theology, we simply reply,
that the acute and learned author of the New Cratylus may see that God, and not
Christ, is the subject, and that if atrtxo'v'opai must there denote "the putting off from
himself" something which clings to the agent, the affirmation of the verse is at utter
variance with the purity and spirituality of the Divine Being. Nay, more, Dr.
Donaldson says, that " the principalities and powers," those lords of lust which so
clung to Christ that they were only flung off by Him when He died, were and must
have been in Christ, for they were "created in Him," according to Col. i. 16. Is
there any wonder that previous commentators never came to such conclusion ?

228

COLOSSIANS III. 10.

nature as derived from Adam, the source and seat of original
and actual transgression, and called " old," as existing prior to
our converted state. This ethical person is to be put off from us
as one puts off clothes, and with all his deeds — all the practices
which characterized him, and the sins to which he excited.
This was a change deeper by far than asceticism could ever
reach. For it was a total revolution. Self-denial in meats
and drinks, while it prunes the excrescence, really helps the
growth of the plant, but this uproots it.
(Ver. 10.) Kal ivcvadpEvoi rbv viov, rbv dvaKaivovpEvov.
As the old man is thrown off the new man is assumed. In
the Epistle to the Ephesians, the apostle inserts between the
off-putting and the on-putting a clause in reference to renewal
" in the spirit of the mind," and there using a different adjective
he calls the new man rbv kuivov dvBpwirov, but he had pre
viously used the verb avavEovo-flat. Here, he says r6v viov
[dvBpwirov], but he adds rbv dvaKaivovpEvov. So that though
it be in different forms, both terms are employed in both
places. If the verbal term from veoc be followed by the epi
thet Katvoe in Ephesians, and if in Colossians. the epithet veoc
be followed by the verbal term from koivoc, it is plain that the
same general meaning is intended by the apostle. Though veoc
and Katvoe may be distinguished, their meaning is thus blended.
If veoc be " recent," and in this sense be opposed to 7raXatoc,
then this recency springs from renewal. The one man is old,
for he belonged to a past and former state ; and the other is
new, for his assumption was to them but a novelty, a matter
of yesterday in their spiritual experience.
This man is new not only in point of time, but of quality or
character, for he is renewed — eic E7rfyvwcrtv. It is not the idea
of Paul in this expression, that the new man, still renewing,
never grows old, rjrte ov iraXaiovrai — as the Greek expositors
imagine. Rather would we say, with Calovius, that he is called
"re-novatus, because he was once novus at his first creation,"
and as the preposition dva would fairly seem to imply. Man
must be brought back to his original purity, but the process of
renovation is continuous, as the use of the present participle in
dicates. Bahr quotes Augustine as saying — in ipso animo renati
non est perfecta novitas. We cannot take the participle to be

COLOSSIANS III. in. 229
simply a predicate of dvBpwirov, for the construction points out
its connection with veov. The new man (the present participle
being used) is renewing, as the apostle affirms — vpipq Kal
iipipq — in 2 Cor. iv. 16; or, as Theophylact says, dsl ku! dsl.
In the phrase Etc iiriyvwaiv, the preposition cannot signify
the instrumental cause of the renewal, but it denotes the final
purpose. The new man is renewed " unto knowledge." The
meaning of iirlyvwaig may be seen under Ephes. i. 17 ; and
in this epistle, i. 9 ; ii. 2. And that perfect knowledge has a
close connection with God, for it is characterized as being —
Kar' EtKova rov Krlaavrog avrov — "After the image of Him
who created him." A large number of expositors connect the
clause directly with the participle dvaKatvov/iiEvov, the image
of God being the pattern after which the believer is renewed.
Meyer joins it more closely to eic iiriyvwaiv, but the meaning
is not materially different. The likeness is renewed after the
image of God, and the special feature of that image selected
by the apostle is knowledge. The knowledge of the renewed
man corresponds in certain elements to that of God. Other
features of resemblance of a moral nature are referred to in
the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 24. That image is said to
belong to God the creator, not Christ, as was supposed in the
early church, and as is understood by Miiller. A peculiar
exegesis is adopted by a-Lapide and Schleiermacher, the
former making rov Krlaavrog the object of the knowledge ;
and the latter thus explaining the image — so erneuet, dass
man an ihm das Ebe'nbild Gottes erkennen kann.
But what creation is referred to? Is it the first or the
second creation? Many incline to the first view, as if the
apostle meant that man is brought back to that likeness which
God gave him on the day of creation. So Calovius, Heinsius,
Estius, Schoettgen, and De Wette. But though this be a truth,
it is riot that precise form of truth conveyed by the apostle's
language. It is not of man, generally, but of the new man
that he speaks — the new man renewed unto knowledge after
the image of Him who created him, to wit, the new man.
The apostle does not say — who created you. The new man
is the converted spiritual nature, not the man himself in pro
per person. It is this creation of the new man, not that of the

230 COLOSSIANS III. 10.
man himself, which is ascribed to God. Thus, the parallel
passage in Ephes. iv. 24, says expressly — " the new man
which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."
This new nature is of God, and not of self-development. All
creation is indeed from God, and this new creation is no ex
ception. The new man is not the ethical symbol of a mere
reformation which a strong will may achieve ; nor is it any
change of creed, party, or opinions, which is the result of
personal examination and conviction. These are but as
statuary, compared with hving humanity, for however close
the resemblance, there is always, in spite of highest art, the
still eye and the motionless lip. Yes, God's work is a living
power, something so compact and richly endowed, so fitted
to our nature, and so much a part of us as to be called a man,
but at the same time so foreign to all previous powers and
enjoyments as to be called the new man.
As the first man was made by God, and in His image, so is
this new man. The special point of resemblance stated is
knowledge. This may have been selected, as an allusion to
the boasted knowledge and proud philosophy of the false
teachers in Colosse. ii. 2. There are, it is true, many points
in which our relative knowledge shaU never, and can never,
resemble the absolute Divine omniscience. But as the Spirit-
is the source of our knowledge, no one can predict what
amount of it, or what forms of it He may communicate when
the mind is freed from every shadow and bias, and is sur
rounded with an atmosphere of universal truth. Human lan
guage is necessarily an imperfect vehicle of thought, and it
may then be dispensed with. " Now we see through a glass
darkly, but then face to face," — our conceptions shall resemble
God's in fulness and truth ; for no dim medium of intellectual
vision shall shade or disturb our views. Immediate cognition
shall also be our privilege — " now we know in part, but then
shall we know, even as we are known."
In accordance with that strange theory by which Miiller
would account for the origin of sin — a theory at once above
the domain of consciousness and beyond the limits of Scrip
ture, he denies that there is any biblical warrrant for the idea
that man, having lost the image of God by the fall, has it

COLOSSIANS III. 10. 231
restored to him under the gospel by the renovating influence
of the Spirit of God. His notion of a pre-temporal state, in
which man fell, when, how, or where, he does not say, neces
sitates him to the conclusion, that when Adam fell, man
lost nothing, but that there was only awakened in him
the consciousness of a previous want and deficiency, so that
sinful principles already within him acquired universal domin
ion over the human race. A transition, on the part of Adam,
from an absolutely pure state into one of sin, is not, he holds,
necessarily contained in the inspired record. " The narrative
of the first sin, as well as the description of that condition
which preceded it, does not of necessity lead us to any further
idea than that of an initial state in which sin has not yet made
its appearance," and does not imply, " that Adam through his
faU implanted in human nature a principle previously foreign
to it."1 Miiller's inference, of course, is, that it cannot be
properly said that the Divine image is restored to man, seeing
that on earth, at least, he never possessed it. The passage
before us, and the parallel passage in Ephes. iv. 24, certainly
affirm that the new man is the reflection of the Divine image
in some of its features. They do not, indeed, affirm, in as
many words, that he becomes possessed of the same Divine
imao-e which he once enjoyed. But the statement is virtually
implied. Had man never this Divine image, and does he
enjoy it for the first time through faith in Christ ? " The new
man," Miiller says, " is the holy form of human life which
results from redemption." Now, not to say that the very idea
of redemption, reconciliation, or renewal, imphes a restoration
to some previous state in which none of them was needed,
there being in that state no penalty to be ransomed from, no
enmity to be subdued, and no impurity to be cleansed away
— let us see what revelation teaches as to man's primeval con
dition and his possession of the Divine image.
The idea of " non-temporal sinfulness " we must discard as a
speculation about which Scripture is completely silent, and.
which, shifting the lapse of ideal humanity beyond the period
of paradise, only shifts back the difficulty in proportion, but
1 Lehre von der Siinde, vol. ii. p. 483, Asc. 3d ed. Breslau, 1849.

232

COLOSSIANS III. 10.

does not explain it. In Gen. i. 26, 27 ; and v. 1, we are
told that man was created in the image and likeness of God,
but no formal explanation of the phraseology is attached.
Opinions have varied as to the meaning of the pecuhar phrase ;
some, like Pott, Rosenmiiller, and von Bohlen, placing it
almost in physical form, rising scarcely as high as the heathen
Ovid -,1 some regarding it as a general expression of the dignity
of the race, like Herder, Schumann, Dehtzsch, and Knobel ;2
others, finding in it the idea of dominion over the lower crea
tures — like Ephrem, Grotius, and Tuch; and others, as Calvin,
and the majority of the Reformers and Theologians, regarding it
too exclusively as the symbol of spiritual capacities and powers.
But what do we gather from Scripture ? In the edict against
murder, Gen. ix. 6, the atrocity of the crime is taught by the
doctrine, that " in the image of God made He man." On this
express account the life of animals formally delivered into
man's hand for meat, has not the sacredness of human life.
Further, the apostle James (hi. 9) exposes the rashness and
inconsistency of sins of the tongue, blessing God in one breath,
and in another cursing man "made after the simihtude of
God." If man did not still retain this image of God, there
would be no sin either in killing or cursing him. Therefore, this
image referred to is something altogether independent of the
fact or development of sin in man's nature, for it is still pos
sessed, and ought to shield him from violence and anathema.
This image, so unaffected by the fall, plainly results from
man's position as a creature. His physical formation is not
only noble and supreme, but as a rational and immortal
creature, and as God's representative to the lower creation, he
bears the image of God. These endowments yet remain to him.
He has not been degraded from the erectness of his mien, nor
have reason and immortality been penally wrested from him.
And thus through himself he still learns what God is, or rather,
is enabled to comprehend lessons on the nature and attributes
1 Animal mentisque capacius altae, et qucd dominari in caetera posset. Also Cicero,
De natura Deorum, i. 32. Pythagoras could say, as reported by Diogenes Laertius,
that there is a relationship between men and the gods, because men are partakers
of the Divine principle. Dio. L. p. 584, ed. Is. Casaubon. Xenophon, Mem. i. 4, 14.
a Als beseelte Eeinheit. Knobel, die Genesis erhlart, p. 18.

COLOSSIANS III. 10. 233
of God by the analogies of his own mental and spiritual con
stitution. For, when he is told that God knows or loves, he
naturally and necessarily forms his ideas of the Divine know
ledge or affection, by feeling what these properties are within
himself, and by inferring what they must be when resident
in an infinite and unchanging essence. Or if he be informed
that God is a person, his own conscious and unmerging in
dividuality leads him at once to attach a correct and definite
meaning to the term, and he is in himself a living witness
against Pantheistic folly and delusion.
But is this all that is meant by the Divine image ? Miiller
says, that it simply consists in " personal essence," ' and that
man is thereby distinguished from other classes of existences.
But we apprehend that the expression reaches deeper than this.
There are certain properties or privileges which man has for
feited by the fall, and which are affirmed to have been ori
ginally possessed or enjoyed by him. Ignorance and spiritual
death now characterize him. But is not spiritual intelligence
a portion of the Divine image — the reflection of God's own
hght? There is also what the apostle, Ephes. iv. 18, calls "the
life of God," and from that we are now alienated ; but would
that mere personal essence on which Miiller insists, bear any
resemblance to God at all, if such vitality did not fill it ? A
personal essence with the gloom of ignorance within it, and
the eclipse of death upon it, could not be recognized as bear
ing the Divine image. Therefore, a mere personality devoid
of such intelligence and life, could scarcely be called the image
of God, or regarded as constituting the whole of it. And yet,
though they formed a portion of that image, they have been
lost by the fall, and are reconferred only in Christ. Besides, can
any one bear the moral image of God and not be happy — not
be a partaker of His immortal blessedness ? But dissatisfaction
and misery are the doom of fallen humanity, everywhere, and
at all times.
That man was once filled with wisdom, purity, life, and
happiness, appears to be the repeated statement of Scripture.
The theory of Miiller consistently says, man never had these on
1 Perstinliches Wesen.

234

COLOSSIANS III. 10.

earth, and therefore could not lose them. But the narrative
of Genesis, though it do not treat the subject dogmatically,
presents the picture of an innocent creature, tempted by the
serpent, and doomed for his apostacy to toil and death. Does
Prof. Muller believe that the sin of man in an ideal ante-
creational state was followed by no penalty? Or was the
penalty of this kind, that the sinner was only subjected to
another trial in another sphere, with the sad certainty that the
germs of evil would ripen into fatal action ? The narrative in
Genesis must be interpreted in the hght of the other and sub
sequent Scriptures, and they plainly teach that Adam's trans
gression is the primary source of prodigious spiritual loss.
Our belief, therefore, is, that the Divine image, in which
man was made, consists of more than personal essence, or
dominion over the inferior creatures. These, indeed, belong
to it, and are still retained by man. The gospel, therefore, has
no effect upon them save to hallow them. Man did not forfeit
manhood by his fall, and of necessity, what is essential to his
manhood and his position still belongs to him. For his crea-
tional relationship to the God above him and the existences
beneath him, could not be impaired, or his annihilation or meta
morphosis would have been the result. But while manhood
has not been lost, its nobler characteristics, without which the
original image would have been imperfect, have been obliter
ated. What belongs to constitution, fallen man has retained ;
what belongs to quality and character has gone from him.
The latter is a portion of the image as much as the former ;
the image, not of a Divine essence, but of an intelligent, holy,
and blessed Divine person. And those features of the image
which have been lost through the fall, are given back to the
disciples of Christ.
We do not base any argument on the statement that the fallen
Adam begat a son in his own image, whereas the Creator made
man in His image. Nor do we imagine that any such notion of
a double image of God, one essential and incapable of loss, and
another moral and liable to be erased, can be found at all in
the use of the two terms nVs and mn-i, as they are both sepa
rated and interchanged in the sacred record. Nor have we
begged the question by arguing back from the verse before us,

COLOSSIANS III. 11. 235
and assuming from the image ofthe new man created by God,
what the image ofthe first man created by Him must have been.
For the apostle does not say that the new man is renewed
in knowledge after Him who originally created humanity, but
after the image of Him who creates himself — the new man.
Indeed, the image conferred in renovation, though generically
the same, cannot be in all points identical with that given in
creation. It is fuller and lovelier, a richer intelligence with
nobler objects of cognition ; a higher form of life, having its
type in the normal man — the second Adam ; both reaching
forward to a development to which neither means nor scope
could have been found in Eden, or in simple connection with
the first man, who is " of the earth, earthy." In fine, we are
not sure, if Miiller's theory does not contain, by implication,
what we have advanced. In illustrating the declaration of
- Paul" that " in God we hve, move, and have our being," he says
— " God has willed man to be like Himself, in order that there
might be a being which should be capable of fellowship with
Him." But surely mere personality could not of itself consti
tute such a likeness, or lead inherently to such a communion.
It must possess other qualities than simple consciousness to
give it this resemblance, and .fit it for this enjoyment of Him.
Therefore, these qualities, as we have contended, did, and
must belong to this first image, and being lost in the fall, are,
and must be restored to the second image, which characterizes
and beautifies the "new man."
(Ver. 11.) "Ottov ovk evi"EXXtjv ko! 'IovSatoe — "Where there
is neither Greek nor Jew." The first adverb refers to the pre
ceding clause, "in which sphere of renewal," or simply, the idea
of locality being so far sunk, "in which thing;" as in 2 Pet.
ii. 11 ; Prov. xxvi. 20. The peculiar term, evi, is supposed by
many to be the contracted form of EVEor t. Phavorinus defines it
by io-n'v, vTrapx61- Others regard it as the simple preposition
in the Ionic form ; "the notion of the verb," as Kuhner says,
"being so subordinate that it is dropt." Such is the view of
Robinson, Buttmann, and Winer, &c. But in this place the
idea of the preposition is already expressed by ottov. There
is also the analogy of other prepositions similarly used, such
as Iiri and irdpa. Perhaps the supposition of the Etymologicum

236

COLOSSIANS III. 11.

Magnum is correct, that evi is elliptical, leaving the reader to
supply what part of the verb the syntax requires. In all the
places of the New Testament where it is used it is preceded
by ovk, and expresses a strong negation. Gal. iii. 28 ; Jas. i.
17. There is, probably, in the phrase, the idea also of inner
existence — where there does exist any inner distinction of
Greek or Jew.
The apostle now specifies various mundane distinctions.
"EXXtjv Kal 'iovSatoe, iTEpiroprj Kal aKpofivarla, j3apj3apoe,
SkvAtjc, oovXoe, iXEvBspog. The first pair is the natural dis
tinction of " Greek and Jew." The noun eXXtjv, as opposed
to /3ap/3apoe, means a Greek proper, and as opposed to
'Iovoatoc, signifies one belonging to the Greek world, and
perhaps viewing that world as the representative of that
civilized heathenism which was brought into close and ex
tensive correspondence with Palestine. Rom. i. 14, 16 ;
ii. 9 ; Gal. iii. 28. The noun 'IovSatoe means a Jew, origi
nally and merely one of the tribe of Judah ; but latterly
as that tribe on its return from Babylon was so ascendant, it
came to denote any one of the Hebrew race. There is no
ground for the idea of the Greek expositors that tXXrjv means
a proselyte; and 'IovSaToe a native Jew — iK Trpdyovwv, as
Chrysostom has it. The second couple of epithets points out
a religious distinction — iripiropr) Kal dKpoj3vorr£a, "circumcision
and uncircumcision." The "circumcision" is the Jewish world,
as Abraham's progeny, with the seal of the covenant in its
flesh, and distinguished by its theocratic privileges, while
the "uncircumcision" is non-Israel, or all the world beyond
the chosen seed, and destitute of religious blessing. It has
been said that the apostle uses four pairs of terms, but he drops
the use of the Kat, and there is no contrast between ]3apj3apoc
— 2kv0tjc — " barbarian — Scythian." While the epithet aKpo-
fivaria applied to the whole world beyond Israel — there
were various distinctions in that world itself. The Hellenic
section was elevated by refinement and culture, but other
portions were debased and wretched. The two terms noAV
under review appear to differ only in intensity. The Scythian
is one at the lowest point of barbarism — as we might say —
a negro, or even a Hottentot — a savage, or even a Bushman.

COLOSSIANS III. 11. 237
The Scythian races, represented by the modern Tartar or Cos
sack races of Asia and Eastern Europe, were regarded as at
the bottom of the scale. Scythians, according to Josephus,
were j3pa^v rwv Brjplwv SiaipipovrEg* — while Herodotus calls
them cannibals — dvBpwiroipdyoi. Cicero against Piso uses a
similar climax — quod nullus in Barbaria, quis hoc facit ulla in
Scythia tyrannus ? The next two terms represent a social
distinction, SovXog, iXsvBEpog — "bond, free," a distinction
very common in those countries and times. Some manu
scripts, and those of high authority, insert a Kat before iXsv-
Ospog, such as A, D1, E, F, G. It might be used as in the two
first couplets, for there is a contrast. There are thus three
forms of distinction expressed, and one implied — national dis
tinction, religious distinction, and social distinction ; and there
is also imphed the secular distinction between civilization and
savagism. The apostle completes his thoughts by adding —
'AXXa rd irdvra Kal iv irdaiv Xpiarog — "But Christ is all
and in all." The phrase is idiomatic. Christ is everything
to all of them having the new man. To one and all of them
He is everything, so far as the sufficiency, offer, and enjoy
ment of salvation are concerned, or as the apostle says in the
similar passage in Galatians, "ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Now, the meaning of the apostle is not that a man loses na
tionality on becoming a Christian; or that social rank is obliter
ated by admission into the church. The blood of Javan was
not changed in a Greek, nor the blood of Abraham in a Jew,
when both met in the spiritual kingdom. The rude manners of
the Scythian might be refined by his faith, but he did not lose
his peculiarity of colour or configuration. The chain of the
slave was not broken by his rehgion any more than the cir
cumcision of the Jew was erased. But the meaning of the
apostle is —
First, That. such distinctions do not prevent the on- putting
of the new man. In other words, such differences of nation,
religion, culture, and social position, do not interfere with the
adaptation, the offer, or the reception and the results of the
gospel. It is fettered by no geographical limits, by no local
1 Contra Ap. 2, 37.

238 COLOSSIANS III. 11.
or lineal peculiarities. The Greek is not nearer Christ for his
philosophy, nor the Scythian more distant for his want of it.
The incision of the ceremonial knife gave no preference to the
Jew, nor was the absence of it any drawback to the Gentile.
The slave was as welcome as the^reeman — the wandering no-
made as the polished citizen. Whatever a man's descent or
race, his creed or rites ; whatever his language or pursuits, his
colour or climate, his dwelling or usages, his position or
character — the gospel comes to him with special offer, and
adaptation, and completeness, and having embraced it he wiU
feel its renewing power. It does not insist on the Gentile
submitting to the Abrahamic rite, nor require the Jew to be
initiated into the wisdom of the Greek ; it does not stand aloof
from the slave till he burst his chain, nor does it command the
barbarian, to master an alphabet or win the civic franchise ere
it can save and change him. No ; it comes alike to the
synagogue and to the temple, with equal fitness to freedom
and to servitude ; with equal fulness, freeness, and tenderness
to the citizen in the forum and to the wanderer on the wide
and solitary steppe. All adventitious distinctions are levelled
at its just and loving glance.
Secondly, It is taught by the apostle, that in the church,
the sphere of the new man's activity and enjoyments, prior
and external distinctions do not modify the possession of
spiritual privilege and blessing. In the spiritual common
wealth, no partition is erected between Jew and Greek ; the
barbarian is not degraded to a lower seat, nor is any outer
court appropriated for the Scythian. The slave does not
obtrude though he mingle his voice in the same song of
spiritual freedom with his master, and drink out of the same
sacramental cup. The Tartar in his sheepskin may kneel with
the citizen in his mantle, and each break with the other that
bread which is " the communion of the body of Christ." Nay,
the faith of the untutored savage may be more earnest, child
like, and fearless in its reliance ; may be a fuller source of
gladness and triumph than the faith of him whose philosophy
may have prompted him to ask other reasons than Scripture
may have given, and to fortify his belief with arguments which
the simple disciple did not want, and could not understand.

COLOSSIANS III. 12. . 239
0 it needs not that one enjoy the erudition of the schools
in order to be taught of God ! The graces of civilization
are not the necessary soil for the graces of the Spirit.
Secular enfranchisement is not indispensable to fellow-
citizenship with the saints. In the sphere of the new
man, those distinctions which obtain in the world exercise
no disturbing or preventive influence. That new man has
broken all the ties of the old man, and is not more akin to
one race than to another, has no affinities of blood, is not cir
cumscribed by national boundaries, or forbidden by the
inequahties of social rank, and by whomsoever assumed, he
may be fully possessed. This is the glory of Christianity,
that as it is developed in the church, it has none of the
barriers or predilections which the epithets of this verse indi
cate as obtaining in the world, and dividing it into jealous and
exclusive ranks and castes, but is at once and fully enjoyed by
all the believing possessors of our common humanity. The
idea of Theophylact, that the verse refers to the absence of
distinctions in the other world, is wholly opposed to the scope
and context.
The apostle now particularizes certain graces which they
were to assume. He had specified the sins which marked the
old man, and now he signalizes those virtues which are con
nected with the new man. Ye have put on the new man,
and ye enjoy the all-sufficiency of Christ — therefore, ovv, ye'
must manifest your possession of the following elements of
Christian character —
(Ver. 12.) 'EvSvo-ao-0E ovv, we iKXEKrol rov Geov, dyioi Kal
riyairripivoi — " Put on, therefore, as the chosen of God, holy
and beloved." While ovv refers back to one argument, we
carries the mind forward to another. In the epithet iKXEKrof"
we recognize the fact of their separation from the world, or
the realization in their present state of God's eternal and
gracious choice. We incline, with Meyer and Lachmann, to
regard EKXEKrot as the substantive, and the other two epithets
as its predicates. Others, as Luther, Calvin, Bahr, Huther,
and De Wette, reverse this exegesis, and take the two follow
ing words as co-ordinate substantives. - But it is better to take
EKXEKrof as describing their present position, and ayioi and

240

COLOSSIANS III. 12.

riyairripivoi as specifying its character, for election is not deter
mined by character, but determines it. [Ephes. i. 4, 5.] The
meaning of dyioi is consecrated, set apart to God, this consecra
tion necessarily producing holiness of life. This is an appeal to
their character, and not simply to their position in the visible
church. [Ephes. i. 1.] They were also the objects of God's
special complacency — "beloved." His eternal and sovereign
love did elect them, and now, that election having taken
effect, He has special complacency in them. Their assump
tion of these graces would certify to themselves their election,
would be a happy development of their consecration, as well
as a proof of its genuineness, and would also endear them yet
more to Him, who in love had predestinated them to the
adoption of children. These thoughts formed a convincing
appeal to them, and could not but - induce them to feel and
act as the apostle recommends. And so they are enjoined
to put on —
ILirXdyxva o'lKrippov. The singular of the last word is
preferred to the plural on the authority of A, C, Ds, E, F, G.
The singular is also found in several places of the Septuagint.
Dan. ix. 18 ; Zech. i. 16. The phrase is a Hebraism, corres
ponding to the Hebrew — aw. Gesen. Lehrg. pp. 671. The
following genitive, otKripjuov, gives a specific intensity to
the clause ; it makes it ipfariKOTEpov, as Chrysostom says ;
since the first word of itself might denote kind or merciful
emotion. Luke i. 78. The Colossians were not to cherish a
hard and unrelenting disposition, that was slow to remit
punishment, but forward ever to inflict it.
OiKTippog, from o'i — otKroc has more reference to feeling, or
commiseration ; while the second term, xpvarorriTa, kindness,
is, as the word really implies, that form of kindness which is
serviceable to others. Jerome describes it as — invitans ad
familiaritatem sui, dulcis alloquio, moribus temperata.1 " To do
good " is the injunction, and disciples are to cherish the habit,
and to create opportunities for it. Christians are to be oblig
ing in their general demeanour. The last three terms are
found in the same order in Ephes. iv. 2. Ta7r£ivo0poovvrj is
1 Com. in Ep. ad. Gal. v. 22.

COLOSSIANS III 12. 241
lowliness of mind, opposed to haughtiness and conceit. The
adjective, ra7TEtvo*ei is used often in the classics to denote
"mean-spirited." Trench has the excellent remark, that "Chry
sostom is bringing pride under the disguise of humility, when
he characterizes humility as the making of ourselves small
when we are great, for it is the esteeming of ourselves small
because we are so."1 As the same writer well remarks, "the
idea of such a grace is wholly Christian,2 for the gospel leads
man to a feeling of entire and unalterable dependence upon
God." Augustine eulogizes this grace by saying, that if
asked quae via sit ad obtinendam veritatem ? he will reply
primum est humilitas, quid secundum, humilitas, quid tertium,
humilitas, &c. Calvin remarks on the connection, that the
graces previously mentioned cannot be cherished without it.
The next term is irpaorrig, meekness. We cannot fully
acquiesce in Mr. Trench's idea, that this word describes
" exercises of mind which are first and chiefly toward God, or
is that temper of spirit in which we accept His dealings with
us without disputing or resisting." Neither he, nor Ellicott,3
who follows him, has produced any direct scriptural instance of
such a sense, though certainly he who is truly meek will
always bow to God in serene resignation. He who, under the
influence of Divine grace, does not resent a human injury, will
not quarrel with any Divine allotment But irpaorrig is here
ranked among graees whieh have specially human relations,
such as mercy and long-suffering. Even in ran-Eivooipoa-vvTj,
the idea is man-ward fully as much as God-ward. In the place
1 New Testament Synonyms, § 42.
2. The statement may not at first sight appear to be correct to its full extent.
.aSschylus, Prometh. Vinct. makes Oceanus bring the following charge against Pro
metheus— ev $' oviivru raoruv'os— -not even yet are you humble ; that is, thou hast
not learned submission by thy punishment. A similar result, viz. that of submis-
siveness, is said by Plutarch to be, in fact, the end of Divine chastisement— ravruvos
xxi xxrxfoflos *p°s f»v «»» — De sera numinis vmdicatione, cap. iii. Instances also
may be found in Plato— gt/vstrsTOi ravr.ivis xai xsxoepnpivos— Leges, iv. p. 113, vol.
viii. ed. Bekker, and in other places, Ast, Lex. Platon. sub voce. Still, the idea in
these places seems to be that of a sense of lowliness inwrought by some depressing
event, and forced upon the mind by some painful contrast. This is not the habitual
grace of Christian humility, for a man who may feel himself to be deeply humiliated,
will yet only recoil into a fiercer pride, and be far, far, indeed, from being humble.
3 Grammatical Commentary on Ephesians, iv. 2. London, 1855.
E

242

COLOSSIANS III. 13.

it here occupies in the range of virtues, it denotes that want of
arrogance or insolence in reference to our fellow-men, which
lowliness before God ever tends to produce and increase.
MaKpoBvpla is literally " long-mindedness," and is opposed to
what we often call shortness of temper. The whole terms of
the text receive further illustration in the subsequent clauses.
Now, these virtues certainly suit — wg — " the elect of God,
holy and beloved." They are in source and essence an imita
tion on the part of the saint of what God has felt toward him
self, and they indicate a consciousness ofthe relation which he
sustains to the Divine benefactor. For he has experienced the
Divine mercy in its sweep and fulness — there was no frown on
the Divine countenance, when he so abject, insignificant, and
withal so provoking and guilty, drew near. God has crowned
him "with loving-kindness and tender mercy ;" and though he
be daily sinning, daily coming short of duty, nay ever com
mitting positive faults, he is borne with, and he has been long
borne with, as " sentence against an evil work has not been
speedily executed." Must he not therefore act toward his'
fellows on the same level with himself, as God from the heights
of His glory has acted towards him ? And there is need for
the exercise of such virtues, for " offences must come;" or, as
the apostle intimates in the next clause —
(Ver. 13.) 'AvEY^OjitEVOt dXX/jXXwv, Kal ^api^o/uvot iavrote,
iav rig irpog nva 'ixy pop<j>r)v — " Forbearing one another, and
forgiving one another, if any one have a complaint against
any other." The meaning of the first participle has been
illustrated under Ephes. iv. 2, and we need not in this place
repeat the illustration. The sense is, having patience with
one another — waiting with composure under injury or pro
vocation, till those who so offend may come to a better
mind. The other participle, ^api^o/iEvot, carries forward
the sense — not only are we to forbear, but we are also to
forgive. Not only are we to show humility, meekness, and
long-suffering as we forbear, but we are also to manifest
bowels of mercy and goodness in forgiving. The second par
ticiple, xaPlZ°f**voi, is found in a passage almost parallel, in
Ephes. iv. 32, and it also occurs in the same sense in ii. 13 of
this epistle. The pronoun, iavrolg, is simply for aXX/jXote ;

COLOSSIANS III. 13. 243
and the noun pop<f>r) denotes " ground of offence or complaint,"
explained in some of the Codices by the substitution of opyy.
There may be just ground of offence, but it is not to excite to
resentment or retaliation. And the apostle proposes for
imitation the highest of examples.
KaBwg Kal 6 Xptarbg ixaplaaro vplv, ovrwg Kal vpEig. Xap-
iZopEvoi is to be supplied, and not the imperative, xap^aBE,
with some, nor yet rrotEtrE, as is found in some MSS. such
as D", El, F, G. The conjunction occurs twice, for the sake
of intensity (Klotz, ad Devar. 635), and KaBwg ko.1 introduces
an argumentative illustration. In a correspbnding passage in
the Epistle to the Ephesians, the apostle makes reference to
God — "forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake
has forgiven you." iv. 32. This difference of person in the
two places seems to have suggested the various readings
which occur in the old copies. Not a few of them have Kvpiog,
such as A, B, D1, F, G, and those appear to be almost equal
in authority to C, D*, E, J, K, which have Xptaroc, a reading
supported, however, by many of the Versions and Fathers.
But here forgiveness is specially ascribed to Christ. If Christ
forgive sin, the inference is, that He is Divine. Pardon is a
Divine prerogative, yet Christ exercises it. And it is not on
His part a venturesome act, nor one which is provisional, and
cannot take effect till it receive the sanction of the Father,
but it is at once full, decided, and final. The Saviour gave the
paralytic patient a complex benefit in a single act, when he
said to him as he lay helpless on a couch at His feet, " Thy
sins be forgiven thee." And if Christ forgive sin, he is en
titled to do so, for He has made provision for it in His suffer
ings and death. May He not Himself dispense the fruits of
His atonement and pardon those for whom He died ? The
general idea is the same as that of Ephes. iv. 32. Christians
are to forgive one another because Christ has forgiven them,
for His example has all the force of a formal command. They
are also to forgive one another as He has forgiven them — fully
and freely, at once and for ever ; not pardoning seven times,
but demurring to the seventy times seven ; not insulting him
who has injured them by the rigid exaction of a humiliating
apology, or stinging him by a sharp and unexpected allusion

244

COLOSSIANS III. 14.

to his fault ; not harbouring antipathy, but forgetting as well
as forgiving ; not indulging a secret feeling of offence, and
waiting for a moment of quiet retaliation ; but expelling every
grudge from their hearts by an honest and thorough recon
ciliation. Meyer expressly condemns the reference, found by
Chrysostom and Theophylact, to the medium by which Christ
forgives, to wit, his own death, their inference being, that we
ought to lay down our lives for others. We should also demur
to this full form of expression on the part of these Fathers as
being a necessary deduction here. The doctrine is found,
however, in other parts of Scripture, as in 1 John iii. 16.
But perhaps we may be warranted to say, that as in the case
of Christ's pardoning us, there was a self-denial even unto
death — so with us, there should be self-denial too. There may
be a painful effort, but it should be made — the forgiveness
may cost us no little sacrifice, but we must not shrink from it.
Such a doctrine seems to be implied, though we cannot say as
firmly as Chrysostom, that the proper interpretation of KaBwg
demands it — rb yap KaBwg, ravra airairsi.
(Ver. 14.) 'Eirl irdai Se rovroig rrjv dydirriv. The con
struction still depends on ivSvaaaBE of the 12th verse. Look
ing at the figure implied in the verb, some, such as Gataker
and Meyer, give to iirl the sense of " over," as if the meaning
were — on those other parts of spiritual raiment throw this, as
an over-dress. But such an exegesis appears to press the
figure. Nor can the preposition bear the sense which Calvin
puts upon it of propter, that is, ye cannot exhibit these graces
unless ye have love. 'E7rt means " in addition to," with the
idea implied, that what follows is chief or best. Luke xvi. 26.
In addition to all these, as last and best, "put on love."
'AyaTnj is the grace of love, on the beauty, propriety, and
excellence of which the apostle so often insists. [Ephes. i.
1, 4.] We take the next clause in its plain sense —
''O io-rt avvSEapog rrjg rsXEiorrirog — " Which is the bond of
perfectness," that bond which unites all the graces into com
pleteness and symmetry. "Hrte is the reading of the Received
Text, but 6 is found in such high authorities as A, B, C, F, G.
It weakens the sense to regard the clause as a species of
Hebraism, as if it meant " a perfect bond ; " or as Erasmus

COLOSSIANS III. 14. 245
renders it in his paraphrase — perfectum et indissolubile vinculum.
Such is the view of Melancthon, Vatablus, Balduin, Michaelis,
Calovius, Estius, Grotius, Wolf, RosenmuUer, and Flatt. The
apostle here calls love, not perfection, but its bond, or that
which holds together all the graces which constitute it. Some,
indeed, as Bretschneider, Bengel, Usteri, Bohmer, De Wette,
and Olshausen, take the term in the sense of fasciculus, inbe-
griff — not that which binds, but that which is bound up. In a
similar sense, Calvin and Bohmer take it for summa. The two
interpretations differ, as do the German words band and bund —
bundel, or the English bond and bundle. There is one passage
of Herodian appealed to, where the word has such a meaning
— 7ravra rbv avvSsapov rwv iiriaroXwv, the whole package or
bundle of letters. But that is not the common meaning ofthe
term, either in the classics or the New Testament. The noun
rEXEtorTjc, as an abstract term with the article, describes moral
perfection as a whole. Perfection consists of many graces,
each in its own place and relations, each in its own circle
and sphere — but they are held together by love. Did they
exist singly, or in separate clusters, perfection would not be
enjoyed ; were they fragmentary, and not coalescent, sym
metry of character would be lost.
For love is the product of the other graces, the fruit of their
ripe development, so that in their perfect state they should
throw around them this preserving cincture. Love itself is,
at the same time, the highest element of this perfection, and
forms the nearest resemblance to Him of whom it is said —
" God is love." It creates perfection, but here it is specially
represented as a bond which sustains it. No grace is com
plete without it. Without it knowledge is but a selfish
acquisition, purity an attempted personal gain, and zeal
a defective struggle; uninspired by it faith is but an abor
tive and monopolizing grasp, and hope an exclusive antici
pation. Sin is essentially selfishness in a variety of forms,
and not till such selfishness be fully put down, can the sem
blance of perfection be enjoyed. Love to God and to every
one that bears His image, as the fulfilment of the law,
imparting fervour and breadth to every grace, giving odour
to the blossom, and being itself the fruit, is the bond of

246

COLOSSIANS III. 14.

perfectness. A heart replete with this love maintains all its
spiritual acquirements in health and vigour. Bound up in this
zone, every Christian excellence fills its own place, and keeps
it, and the whole character is sound, does not distort itself
by excess, nor enfeeble itself by defect. [Ephes. iv. 15 ; v. 2.]
Love is thus regarded here, not as a congeries of graces,
which make up perfection — as Bengel says — amor com-
plectitur virtutum universitatem. It is more its office than
itself which the apostle regards. It is not looked upon here
as containing perfection within itself, but as so uniting the
other graces that it gives them perfection, and keeps them in it.
Meyer shrewdly says, that if love, as a bundle, contained all
the other graces in it already, how could the- apostle bid them
assume love in addition to them ? — ett! Troon rovroig. If they
were to put on all its parts, how could they assume it as some
thing still distinct ? Huther takes the neuter o as referring to
tiie preceding clause, — love, the putting on of which is the
bond of perfection. But the apostle's idea is,, not that the
putting on of the love, but that the love when put on, is the
bond of perfectness. Our view is not unlike that of Chrysos
tom and Theodoret. Some of the older interpreters labour to
reconcile the statement of the apostle with his doctrine of
justification by faith, and Romish writers pressed them hard
on the subject. Crocius and Schmid refer this perfection
simply to the unity or integrity of the church, which love
creates and preserves. But though this be not the precise
meaning of the apostle, it is certainly included under his
statement, and this idea, coupled with the phraseology of
Ephes iv. 3, may have led one of the copyists to insert IvorTjroe.
What is the bond of perfectness to an individual is also
the bond of perfectness to a church.1 [Ephes. iv. 3, 14, 15 ;
v. 2.] 1 Peter iii. 8.
1 " Let us consider that charity is a right noble and worthy thing ; greatly perfec
tive of our nature; much dignifying and beautifying our soul. It rendereth a man
truly great, enlarging his mind unto a vast circumference, and to a capacity near
infinite ; so that it by a general care doth reach all things, by an universal affection
doth embrace and grasp the world. By it our reason obtameth a field or scope of
employment worthy of it. not confined to the slender interests of one person or one
place, but extending to the concerns of all men. Charity is the imitation and copy

COLOSSIANS III. 15. 247
The apostle still continues his exhortation —
(Ver. 15.) Kal tj EtpTjvrj rov Xpiarov /3paj3EVErw iv rale
KapSlaig vpwv — "And let the peace of Christ rule in your
hearts." The reading, Xptorov, is preferred to the common
one of Geov, on good authority, such as A, B, C1, D1, F, G,
and various Versions and Fathers. Some regard this peace as
the result of the preceding admonitions — the peace of mutual
concord. Such is the view of no less distinguished critics
than the Greek expositors, and of Calvin, Grotius, Vatablus,
Calovius, and Meyer. Chrysostom's illustration is as follows: —
" Suppose a man to have been unjustly insulted, two thoughts
are born of the insult, the one urging him to vengeance, and
the other to patience, and these wrestle with one another. If
the peace of God stand as umpire, it bestows the prize on that
which calls to endurance, and puts the other to shame." We
cannot embrace this exegesis, for we regard it as narrow and
unusual. " Peace " is commonly with the apostle a far higher
blessing than mere harmony with others, or the study of
Christian union. It is with him synonymous with happiness,
that calm of mind which is not ruffled by- adversity, over
clouded by sin or a remorseful conscience, or disturbed by the
fear and the approach of death. Isaiah xxvi. 3. This view
is, generally, that of Luther, Bengel, De Wette, Bahr, Ols
hausen, and Huther. Nor is it out of harmony with the
context. For nothing is more fatal to such " peace " than the
of that immense love, which is the fountain of all being and all good ; which made all
things, which preser veth the world, which sustaineth every creature ; nothing advanceth
us so near to a resemblance of Him, who is essential love and goodness ; who freely and
purely, without any regard to his own advantage or capacity of finding any beneficial
return, doth bear and express the highest good-will, with a liberal hand pouring down
showers of bounty and mercy on all his creatures ; who daily putteth up numberless
indignities and injuries, upholding and maintaining those who offend and provoke him.
Charity rendereth us as angels, or peers to those glorious and blessed creatures,
who, without receiving or expecting any requital from us, do heartily desire and
delight in our good, are ready to promote it, do willingly serve and labour for it.
Nothing is more amiable, more admirable, more venerable, even in the common eye
and opinion of men ; it hath in it a beauty and a majesty apt to ravish every heart ;
even a spark of it in generosity of dealing breedeth admiration, a glimpse of it in
formal courtesy of behaviour procureth much esteem, being deemed to accomplish and
adorn a man: how lovely, therefore, and truly gallant, is an entire, sincere, constant,
and uniform practice thereof, issuing from pure good-will and affection."— Barrow's
Works, vol. i. pp. 250, 251, Edinburgh, 1841.

248

COLOSSIANS III. 15.

indulgence of those foul and angry passions which the apostle
warns them to abandon in the preceding verses, (5 to 9,)
and there is nothing so conducive to its purity and permanence
as the cultivation of those serene and genial graces which are
enjoined in verses 12, 13, and 14. It is almost as if he had
said — those vices being dropt, and those virtues being
assumed, the peace of Christ shall therefore reign within you,
and its happy sensations you will be led naturaUy to express
" in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs."
It is called " the peace of Christ," a phrase not essentially
different in meaning from the common one, " peace of God."
It is given by Christ, or produced and perpetuated by His
Spirit. It is the Redeemer's own legacy — John xiv. 27,
" My peace I give unto you ; let not your hearts be troubled,
neither let them be dismayed." Christ has secured this peace
in His blood as Mediator, and He has the right to dispense it
as the result of the reconciliation or atonement.
And such tranquillity, which in its highest aspect is Christian
felicity, was not simply to be in their hearts, but it was to
" rule " in them ; it was not merely to have existence, but it
was to exercise supreme command. For such is the meaning
of fipafiEVETO, as it naturally comes from its original and hteral
signification of presiding at the games, and then of distribut
ing the rewards of victory. Both senses have, however, been
separately maintained by critics ; Chrysostom adhering to the
idea of adjudication — Kpiriig Kal dywvoBirrig ; and fficumenius
employing in explanation the verb juEo-trEvstv. Calvin, Erasmus,
and Vatablus, look upon it as the figure of a wrestler who him
self wins the prize — let this peace obtain the prize and keep
it ; but the view is against sound philology, for the word is
never used of the combatant, but only of the umpire. Nor
can we accept the view of Huther, Wahl, and Bretschneider,
who refer generally to the idea of |3paj3Etov imphed in ii. 18,
and understand the apostle to say " let the peace of God confer
its rewards upon you." Nor is there more foundation for the
opposite idea of Kypke, who supposes it to mean specially,
" let the peace of God distribute the prize of love in your
hearts." The general and very frequent sense we have already
assigned to the verb is preferable, and such is the opinion of

COLOSSIANS III. 15. 249
many commentators, supported by numerous examples. Dio
dorus Sic. 13, 53, &c. ; Wisdom, x. 12. Loesner has collected
many examples from Philo. This peace was to possess un
disputed supremacy — was to be uncontrolled president in
their hearts.
'Ev ralg KapSlaig vpwv. Let it not be a state of mind
admired or envied, but one actually possessed ; let it not be
hovering as a hoped for blessing on the outskirts of your
spirits, but let it be within you ; let it not be an occasional
visitant, often scared away by dominant and usurping pas
sion, but a central power, exercising a full and unlimited
administration. Let it so govern, and happiness will be the
result, every source of disquietude and element of turbulence
being destroyed. The apostle thus wished the Colossians
highest spiritual welfare, that their souls might enjoy unbroken
quiet. A peace, which is not the peace of Christ, is often rudely
disturbed, for it is but a dream and a slumber in the midst of
volcanic powers, which are employing the time in gathering up
their energies for a more awful conflict. There is no question,
if a man possessed and cherished the ripe consciousness of
his interest in Christ, if he had full assurance, and felt that
God was for him — if the elements of sinful passion, either in
its fouler forms of sensuality, or its darker aspects of malignity,
were subdued; and if "the gentleness of Christ" were at home
within him, and all the graces which possess a kindred char'
acter were around him, bound and held together by that "love
which is the bond of perfectness," that then he would enjoy
a peace or a bliss second only to the elevation and felicity of
heaven. Philip, iv. 7. And it was no audacity in them to
seek or cultivate that peace, for to it they had been called.
Etc rjv Kal IkXtJoVe — " To which ye were also, or indeed
were called." This verb is often used by the apostle. Ephes.
iv. 1. The possession of this peace was a prime end of their
Christianity. The gospel summons a man, not to misery, but
to happiness — not to internal discord, but to ultimate peace.
And they were called to the possession of it —
'Ev ev! awpan — " In one body ;" not Etc ev o-wjua — "into one
body," that is, so as to form one body. But the meaning is,
that they already formed one body, or that unitedly they had

250 COLOSSIANS III. 16.
been called to the possession of peace. And the apostle
adds —
Kal ivxdpiaroi ylvsaBs — "And be ye thankful." [Ephes.
v. 4, 20.] Not a few take the adjective in the sense of
friendly, as if the apostle bade them cherish amicable feehngs
to one another. This is the view of Jerome, of Calvin,
Suicer, a-Lapide, Bahr, Steiger, and Olshausen, who give sv^a-
piaroi the sense of ^prjarot in Ephes. iv. 32. Calvin renders
amabiles sitis ; and Conybeare " be thankful one to another."
With Huther, Olshausen, De Wette, and Meyer, we prefer the
meaning "thankful" — that is, towards God. The former sense
abounds in the classics, and though the latter is found there too,
yet it seems to be wholly contrary to the usage of the kindred
terms in the New Testament. For there is every cause of
thankfulness to Him who had called them to the possession of
suchpeace^ If that peace dwelt within them, and reigned within
them — if Christ had at once provided it for them, and sum
moned them unitedly to its enjoyment, surely profound grati
tude was due to such a benefactor.
(Ver. 16.) 'O Xoyoe rov Xpiarov ivotKEtrw iv vplv ttXov-
o-iwe — " Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly.'' Lach
mann and Steiger propose to read this clause parenthetically,
and to join the previous ylvEaBs to the following participles —
Stoao-KovrEe, &c. But nothing is gained by such a distribu
tion. For Xpiarov, a few authorities and Fathers read it Beov ;
and the Coptic and Clement read Kvpiov. "The word of
Christ " is the gospel, the doctrine of Christ, or the truth which
has Christ for its subject. In fact, Christ is both the giver of
the oracle and its theme. By iv vplv is meant, not simply
among you — unter euch, as Luther translates, or as De Wette
contends. Let the Christian truth have its enduring abode
"within you" — let it be no stranger or occasional guest in your
hearts. Let it not be without you, as a lesson to be learned,
but within you, as the source of cherished and permanent
illumination. Let it stay within you — 7rXovo£we — abundantly.
That is, let it be completely understood, or let the soul be
fully under its influence. Let it dwell not with a scanty
foothold, but with a large and liberal occupancy.
Different ideas have been formed of the best mode of

COLOSSIANS 111. 16. 251
dividing the following clauses of the verse. Our translators,
foUowing the Peschito, Chrysostom and Luther, Calvin, and
Beza, add the words " in all wisdom " to the clause which we
have already considered. But the idea of wisdom is better
joined to the following clause, which refers to mutual teaching
— "in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another."
Our translators, too, so point the verse as to make psalms and
hymns the material of instruction, whereas, it seems better, and
more appropriate, to keep the clause distinct, thus — " Let the
word of Christ dwell in you richly ; in all wisdom teaching and
admonishing one another : in psalms, hymns, and 'spiritual
songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto the Lord."1
The words iv irday aofylq, are thus connected as they are in
i. 28, and such is the view, among others, of Bengel, Storr,
Bahr, Steiger, Olshausen, and Baumgarten-Crusius. See under
i. 28, where the participles — StSao-KOvrEc, Kal vovferovvrEe
— occur, though in reverse order, and where they are also
explained. The anakoluthon which occurs in the construc
tion, is almost necessary, and gives special prominence to the
ideas expressed by the participles. The duty enjoined in this
clause has a very close connection with that enjoined in the
preceding one. Unless the word of Christ dwelt richly
within them, they could not fulfil this duty ; for they could not
teach and admonish unless they knew what lessons to impart,
and in what spirit to communicate them ; but the lessons and
the spirit alike were to be found in the gospel. Mutual
TlS Xertv 0 Xoyos rov 'X.^ierov ; ra Xoyia fiei rov ayiov ivayyiXlov xai ruv 610-
ipopuv aoroeroXuv xai ruv Quuv vrpopnruv Tiu; ol Ivotxu lv vipTv 0 Xoyos rov Qiov lv
vraey eotpix; om rris axpoaeius xai avayvueius xai piXtrv)s ruv Siiuv ypatpuv "Orav
ravra evxvus rl xai IvripiXus piXtruplv, rort xai h pvqpvi vTXvjpovrai, xai 0 vovs
vXovri^trai, xai 7) xafiia l^svysrai, xai ro eritpx Ixxiu vrXoveia tjj; Unas o'to'ae-
xaXlas ra vapara- 'EoreiSvl 5s nvss p:ra vvrtPTifavuas xai io'toyvupoevvvls piXiruvris
ras Hias ypatyas. vivroveiv us ruv aipseeuv ra (iapxQpa, aXXoi Ss apar&us xai
avrspiex'-vrrus xvras oovayivuexovrts, xai pii diaxpivovns rbv IvroXhv avro rns evp€ovXr,s,
yivovrai Sueidaipoye; xai xixavrnpiaeplvot " Tr)v toiav evveiSneiv" oia rovro itvrt ro,
u'Ev vraei\ eoty'ia" viyovv, 'iva pzra ff vros uoovs eotpiae, xxi rns orvivpanx.~,s on-
Xov'ort xai rvts exoXaerixns, xai rri; evXaStirixns o'ladieius xai rr,s opHs ttan^eius
xai avayivuexwpiv, xxi piXiruu.lv ra; 4:ias ypatpa$, xai o'ib'aexuptv 2s Si avruv xai
lavroi; xai rois aXXovs- NIKHSOPOT 6EOTOKOT TOT ASTPAXANIOT KAI
STATFOrnOAEfiS APXIEniSKOnOT KTPIAKOAPOMION, TOMOS nPOTOS,
p. 155, EN A0HNAI2, 1840.

252

COLOSSIANS III. 16.

exhortation must depend for its fitness and utility on mutual
knowledge of the Christian doctrine. Sparing acquaintance
with Divine revelation would lead to scanty counsel and
ineffective tuition.
WaXpolg vpvoig i^Salg irvEvpariKolg ev r^f X"-PlTL qoovTEg ev
ralg KapSlaig vpwv rq Be$. Both the conjunctions (koi) which
appear in the Received Text seem, on good authority, to be
mere euphonistic insertions. Some take the words down to
Xapin, as connected with the preceding participles — " admon
ishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs."
Our objection is, that while metrical or musical compositions
are not the common vehicle of instruction or admonition, they
are specially connected with sacred song. The datives,
without the preposition, denote the materials of song. The
phrase, iv r$ x^PLTh according to Huther and De Wette,
means " with a grateful spirit." 1 Cor. x. 30. It appears to us
wholly out of the question on the part of Calvin, Beza, a-Lapide,
Bahr, and many others, to take the words as denoting Evaxo-
povwg, "gracefully" — sine confusione. We prefer, with Estius,
Steiger, and Meyer, to regard the phrase as meaning by the
influence of grace, given, as Chrysostom remarks, by the Spirit.
Luther joins the phrase erroneously to the preceding term.
The following dative, rt£> Bei^, indicates Him in honour of
whom this sacred minstrelsy is raised, and the formula, iv ralg
KapSlaig, describes the sincerity of the service, — the silent sym
phony of the heart. Tischendorf appears to us to have for
saken his own critical principles in retaining the singular form,
ry KapSlq, for he has confessedly against him A, B, C1, D1, F, G,
the Syriac which reads ^aiJL&.SuiO, and the Vulgate, which has
— in cordibus vestris. For remarks on the different terms, and
their distinction, the reader is referred to what has been said
by us under Ephes. v. 19. We have there said that probably
by Psalms may be understood the Hebrew book of that name,
so commonly used in the synagogues ; that the hymns might
be other compositions divested of Jewish imagery and theo
cratic allusions, and more adapted to the heathen mind ; while
the spiritual odes were freer forms of song, the effusion of per
sonal experience and piety, and do not simply point out the
genus to which the entire class of such compositions belonged.

COLOSSIANS III. 17. 253
Still the sentiment hangs on the first clause — " let the word
of Christ dwell within you nobly." These sacred songs,
whether in the language of Scripture, or based upon it, could
be sung in the right spirit only when the indwelling " word "
pressed for grateful utterance. When the gospel so possessed
the heart as to fill it with a sense of blessing, then the lips
might be tuned to song. Experimental acquaintance with Christ
ianity could only warrant the chaunting of the sacred ode.1
(Ver. 1 7.) Kal irdv b,ri dv iroirjrE, iv Xoyw rj iv Epydjj, irdvra
iv ovopari Kvpiov 'Irjo-ov — " And whatever ye do in word or
in deed, do all of it in the name of the Lord Jesus," or " What
ever ye are in the custom of doing," &c. On the use of dv with
the present, see Winer, § 43, 3, b. This concluding precept is
general in its nature. Some take irdv, with Flatt and Bahr,
1 The following is a portion of Basil's encomium on the Psalms, referred to by us in
Ephesians : — " Psalmody is the calm of the soul, the repose of the spirit, the arbiter of
peace : it silences the wave, and conciliates the whirlwind of our passions, soothing that
which is impetuous, and tempering that which is unchaste. Psalmody is an engen-
derer of friendship, a healer of dissension, a reconciler of those who were inimical ; for
who can longer account that man his enemy, with whom to the throne of God he
hath raised the strain ? Wherefore that first of blessings, Christian love, is diffused
by psalmody, which devises the harmonious concert as a bond of union, and connects
the people in choral symphonies. Psalmody repels the daemons ; it lures the ministry
of angels ; a weapon of defence in nightly terrors, a respite from daily toil ; to the
infant a presiding genius, to manhood a resplendent crown, a balm of comfort to the
aged, a congenial ornament to women. It renders the desert populous, and appeases
the forum's tumult ; to the initiated an elementary instruction, to proficients a mighty
increase, a bulwark unto those who are perfected in knowledge. It is the church's
voice. This exhilarates the banquet ; this awakens that pious sorrow which has
reference to God. Psalmody, from a heart of adamant can excite the tear: psalmody
is the employment of angels, the delight of Heaven, and spiritual frankincense. Oh !
the sapient design of our Instructor, appointing that at once we should be recreated
by song, and informed by wisdom. Thus, the precepts of instruction are more
deeply engraven on our hearts : for the lessons which we receive unwillingly have a
transient continuance ; but those which charm and captivate in the hearing, are
permanently impressed upon our souls  From hence may not everything be acquired ?
Hence mayest thou not be taught whatever is dignified in fortitude, whatever is con
summate in justice, whatever is venerable in temperance, whatever is sublime in
wisdom ? Here the nature of penitence is unfolded ; patience is here exemplified.
Is there a blessing to be named, which here resides not? The splendours of theology
beam effulgent ; Jesus is predicted ; the resurrection is announced ; judgment is pro
claimed ; the sword of vengeance is unsheathed ; crowns of glory glitter ; speakless
mysteries astonish. All these are treasured up in the book of Psalms, as in a com
mon treasury of the soul." — Boyd's translation, London, 1834.

254

COLOSSIANS III. 17.

in an absolute case, others think it better to regard it as
repeated in the plural form Travra. Meyer takes the whole
clause, as far as 'ipyw, as an absolute nominative. There is an
earnest rapidity in the composition which may easily excuse
any rhetorical anomaly. The rule laid down by Kuhner is,
that a word of special importance is placed at the beginning of
a sentence in the nominative, to represent it emphatically as the
fundamental subject of the whole sentence, § 508. No doubt,
special emphasis is laid on irdv, for the apostle's idea is, that
while some things are done formally in the name of the Lord
Jesus, everything should be done really in it. The imperative
ttoieIte is to be supplied. The plural Travra individualizes
what has been put collectively under the singular irdv. As
for the whole of what you do in word or in act, let every part or
separate element of it be done in the name of the Lord Jesus.
The apostle has just spoken of formal religious service, and
surely it is to be done in the name of the Lord Jesus. But
not it alone — all speech and action must be imbued with the
same spirit.
But what is meant by the phrase— "in the name of?"
[Ephes. v. 20.] The Greek Fathers explain it widely —
avrov koXeIv /3or)0ov. Jerome is farther in error when he
renders it — ad honorem, for that would represent Etc with the
accusative. Vitringa, Observat. Sac. p. 327, says that the
phrase corresponds to a<£h. It rather corresponds to era, and
strictly means — by his authority, or generally, in recognition
of it. To speak in His name, or to act in His name, is to
speak and act not to His honour, but under His sanction and
with the conviction of His approval. This is the highest
Christian morality, a vivid and practical recognition of Christ
in everything said or done. Not simply in religious service,
but in the business of daily life ; not merely in psalms, hymns,
and spiritual songs, but in the language of friendship and of
bargain, of the forum and the fireside ; not simply in deeds
which, in their very aspect, are a Christian compliance, such
as almsgiving, or sacramental communion, but in every act, in
solitude and in society, in daily toil, in the occupations of
trade, or negotiations of commerce. This is a high test.
It is comparatively easy to engage in religious discourse, but

COLOSSIANS III. 17. 255
far more difficult to discourse on everything in a religious
spirit ; comparatively easy to do a professedly Christian act,
but far more difficult to do every act in a Christian spirit.
In the one case the mind sets a watch upon itself, and speaks
and acts under the immediate consciousness of its theme and
purpose, but in the other, the heart is so influenced by reli
gious feeling, that without an effort it acknowledges the name
of Christ. Men may for the occasion solemnize themselves,
and word and act may be in direct homage to Christ, but the
season of such necessity passes away, and the sensations it had
created lose their hold. Thus, the associations of the S.abbath
fade during the week, and the emotions of the sanctuary lose
themselves in the market-place.
Still, the apostle does not inculcate any familiar or fanatical
use of Christ's name, it is not to be mixed up with the
phrases of colloquial life. A man is not to say, in Christ's
name I salute thee, or in Christ's name I buy this article
or sell that one, charter this vessel, or engage in that specu
lation. But the apostle means, that such ought to be the
habitual respect to Christ's authority, such the constant and
practical influence of His word within us, that even without
reference to Him, or express consultation of Him, all we say
and do should be said and done in His spirit, and with
the persuasion that He approves. Christianity should ever
guard and regulate amidst all secular engagements, and its
influence should hallow all the relations and engagements of
life. This is the grand desideratum, the universal reign of the
Christian spirit. The senator may not discuss Christian
dogmas in the midst of national interests, but his whole pro
cedure must be regulated, not by faction or ambition, but by
that enlightened patriotism, which, based on justice, is wise
enough to know that true policy can never contravene
morality, and is benignant enough to admit that other states
are interlinked with our progress, and that the world is one
vast brotherhood. The merchant is not to digress into a
polemical dispute while he is concluding a sale, but love of
profit is not to supersede rectitude, nor is the maxim, that
there is no friendship in trade, ever to lead him to take undue
advantage, or accomplish by dexterity what equity would

256

COLOSSIANS III. 17.

scarcely permit. The tradesman, as he lifts his tool, is not to
say, in Christ's name I strike ; but in the spirit of Him who
was among His disciples, " as one that serveth " is he faithfully
to finish the labour assigned him, ever feeling himself to be
under the " great taskmaster's eye." Art, science, literature,
politics and business, should be all baptized into the spirit of
Christ. Ev^aptcrrovvrEe rq> GecJi Kal Ilarpi Si avrov — " Giving
thanks to God even the Father by Him." The sentiment is
found in Ephes. v. 20, more pointedly and fully expressed,
and in almost the same connection. As ye give thanks to
God by Christ, so think all and speak all in Christ's name, who
is the medium of thanksgiving. Blessings come through Him,
and through Him thanks are to be rendered. With this clause,
Kypke wrongly connects the previous one, thus — "always
in the name of the Lord Jesus giving thanks to God."
The apostle now comes to the inculcation of some special
duties belonging to social and domestic life. Steiger, after
Chrysostom and Theophylact, has remarked, that only in
Epistles addressed to Asiatic churches do such formal exhorta
tions occur, and he endeavours to account for it by the sup
position that the liberty proclaimed by the false teachers had
developed a dangerous licentiousness, and taught a kind of
Antinomian exemption from the rules and obligations of mo
rality. It is true, as Meyer replies, that no direct polemical
tendency is discernible in this section: still there must have
been some reason why, in his letters to Asiatic communities,
Paul dwells so strongly on this important branch of ethics.
We -may have little more than conjecture, yet we know that
the apostle penned no paragraph in vain, and that there must
have been more than accident in the fact that conjugal duty is
not mentioned in the Epistles to Rome, Philippi, and Thes
salonica, but is specially dwelt upon in those to Ephesus and
Colosse, as also in the apostle Peter's epistles to churches
in the same region. The exhortations tendered by Paul to
Titus as a Cretan pastor, when he touches on the same subject,
have more of a general character, and those found in the
epistle to the church in Corinth were called forth by pecuhar
queries. But here, and in the twin epistle, the apostle places

COLOSSIANS III. 18. 257
special stress on the conjugal relationship, and its reciprocal
obhgations ; as also on the relative duties of parents and
children, of masters and slaves. Chrysostom gives, as the
reason, that in such respects these churches were deficient,
though he does not specify the source of such deficiency. His
own homilies supply one form of illustration, for they abound
in severest reproofs against the indecencies, luxuries, and
immoralities of wedded life, and the picture is evidently
taken from the state of manners that prevailed in the Byzantine
capital, in which the discourses seem to have been delivered.
It would thus appear that in the Asiatic cities there was great
need to enforce the duties originated by the marriage tie, and
it may be, that forms of false doctrine had a tendency to
excite spurious notions of so-called Christian liberty. It is
easy to conceive how a creed of boastful freedom would
speedily work its way among slaves. The reader will not
forget how, at the period of the Reformation, the principles
of a hcentious liberty were not only received, but to a great
extent acted out by the Anabaptists of Munster.
(Ver. 18.) At yvvaiKEc, virordaaEaBE rote dvSpdaiv — "Wives,
submit yourselves to your husbands." The iStote of the
Received Text has no good authority, and some manuscripts,
such as Dx, E', F, G, add ipwv, an evident gloss. The injunc
tion has been fully considered under Ephes. v. 25 — 33, where
it is enforced by a special argument, and a tender analogy
derived from the conjugal relation of Christ and His church.
The submission which is inculcated on the part of the wife is
wholly different in source and form from that slavery which is
found in heathen lands, for it is the willing acquiescence which
springs out of social position and wedded love, and is dictated at
once by a wife's affection, and by her instinctive tendency to lean
on her husband for support. The very satire which is heaped
upon a wife who governs, or who attempts it, is a proof that
society expects that fitting harmony of the hearth which the
gospel recommends. The early and biblical idea of a wife as
that of a " help meet," implies that she was to be auxiliary —
second, and not principal in the household. Thus unity of
domestic administration by oneness of headship.
The apostle subjoins as a reason — we avfjKEv iv Kvptw.

258

COLOSSIANS III. 19.

Adopting a different punctuation, many, from Chrysostom to
Winer and Schrader, join iv Kvpt'w to the verb virordaaEaBE,
as if the meaning were — " be submissive in the Lord." The
order of the words seems to forbid such an exegesis, and iv
Kvpt'w is united by its position to avfJKEv — " as is fitting in the
Lord." In the imperfect form or time of the verb, is implied,
according to Winer, an appropriate hint that it had not been
so with them at all times. § 41, 3 ; Bernhardy, 373. The trans
lation then is — " as it should be in the Lord." This obliga
tion of submission commenced with their union to the Lord,
sprang out of it, and had not yet been fully discharged. It is,
therefore, not a duty which had only newly devolved upon
them, but its propriety reached back to the point of their con
version. Their union with the Lord not only expounded the
obligation, but also enforced it. Though the general strain of
these exhortations be the same as in the Epistle to the
Ephesians, there is usually some specific difference. In the
other epistle he says, " wives be obedient to your own husbands
as to the Lord," where we points out the nature, and not
simply, as Ellicott thinks, the aspect ofthe obedience enjoined.
The spirit of the obedience is referred to in Ephesians, and the
becomingness of that spirit in the clause before us. How
different from heathen principles, either that of Aristotle —
mores viri lex vitae; or of Cato, as repeated by Livy, that
wives are simply in manu virorum.
(Ver. 19.) Ot dvSpsg, dyatrdrE rag yvvaiKag, Kal jut) iriKpal-
veo-0e Trpoe avrdg — " Ye husbands, love your wives." The duty
is touchingly illustrated in Ephes. v. 25, 26. The implication
is, that the submission of the wife is gained by the love of the
husband. Though the husband is to govern, he must govern in
kindness. This duty is so plain that it needs no enforcement.
The apostle then specifies one form in which the want of this
love must have often shown itself — " and be not bitter against
them." The tropical use ofthe verb is as obvious as is that of
the noun in Ephes. iv. 31. The verb, which is sometimes
followed by iirl in the Septuagint, is here followed by Trpoe-'
There is no doubt that the inconsistency here condemned was
1 The verb occurs in the same sense in Philo, and is to some extent explained by
Plutarch. See Kypke, in he.

COLOSSTANS III. 19. 259
a common occurrence in heathen life, where a wife was but a
legal concubine, and matrimony was not hallowed and enno
bled by the Spirit of Him who wrought His first miracle to
supply the means of enjoyment at a marriage feast. The
apostle forbids that' sour and surly objurgation which want of
love will necessarily create ; all that hard treatment in look,
and word, that unkind and churlish temper which defective
attachment so often leads to. Wives are to submit, not
indeed to guard against a frown or a chiding, but to insure a
deeper love. So that if this love is absent, such obedience
will not be secured by perpetual irritation and fault-finding,
followed by the free use of opprobrious and degrading epithets.
In Ephesians, the apostle proposes as the example Christ's
love to the church in its fervour, self-sacrifice, and holy purpose,
and also enjoins the husband to love his wife as himself, as being
in truth a portion of himself (wc containing in it a species of
argumentative comparison), but here the injunction is curt
and unillustrated, followed only by the prohibition of a sin
which a husband's indifference will most certainly induce. It
would almost seem, however, as if the phrase, " as is fitting in
the Lord," enforced both the duty recorded before it, and that
which stands after it. Tertullian, in his address to his wife,
written before he became a Montanist, describes the hap
piness of a marriage in the Lord in the following glowing
terms :— " How can we find words to express the happiness
of that marriage which the ehurch effects, and the oblation
confirms, and the blessing seals, and angels report, and the
Father ratifies. What a union of two believers, with one
hope, one discipline, one service, one spirit, and one flesh !
Together they pray, together they prostrate themselves, and
together keep their fasts, teaching and exhorting one another,
and sustaining one another. They are together at the church
and at the Lord's supper; they are together in straits, in
persecutions, and refreshments. Neither conceals anything
from the other ; neither avoids the other ; neither is a burden
to the other; freely the sick are visited, and the needy re
lieved ; alms without torture ; sacrifices without scruple ; daily
diligence without hindrance ; no using of the sign by stealth ;
no hurried salutation; no silent benediction; psalms and hymns

260

COLOSSIANS III. 20.

resound between the two, and they vie with each other which
shall sing best to their God. Christ rejoices on hearing and
beholding such things ; to such persons He sends His peace.
Where the two are, he is Himself; and where He is, there the
Evil One is not." '
From conjugal the apostle naturally passes to parental duty.
(Ver. 20.) Ta TEKva, vTraKOVErE roig yovEvai Kara irdvra —
" Children, obey your parents in all things." The wife is
generally to be submissive, but children are to be obedient, to
hsten and execute parental commands, and to exemphfy a
special form of submission for which the filial relation affords
so many opportunities. [Ephes. vi. 1 — 3 ] The love of the
child's heart naturally leads it to obedience. Only an unna
tural child can be a domestic rebel. Where the parents are
Christians, and govern their children in a Christian spirit,
obedience should be without exception, or — Kara irdvra. The
apostle, speaking in reference to Christian parents, for his
epistle could reach none but children of that class, takes no
heed of any exception. The principle involved in his admoni
tion is, that children are not the judges of what they should
or should not obey in parental precepts.
The best reading of the following clause is rovro yap iariv
EvdpEarov iv icvplw — " For this is well- pleasing in the Lord,"
not as the older form had it, "well-pleasing to the Lord."
The construction is similar to that of the 19th verse, the
specific difference of thought being, that in the former case,
submission is an appropriate thing in the Lord ; while in this
case filial obedience is marked with special approbation, as
being well-pleasing in the Lord. Resting on Christian prin-
1 " Quale jugum fidelium duorum unius spei, unius discipline, ejusdem servitutis !
Ambo fratres, ambo conservi, nulla spiritus camisve discretio. Atque vero duo in
carne una ; ubi caro una, unus et spiritus. Simul orant, simul volutantur, et simul
jpjunia transigunt, alterutro docentes, alterutro hortantes, alterutro sustinentes. In
ecclesia Dei pariter utrique, pariter in convivio Dei, pariter in angustiis, in persecu-
tionibus, in refrigeriis ; neuter alteram celat, neuter alteram vitat, neuter alter!
gravis est; Iibere a?ger visitatur, indigens sustentatur; eleemosina? sine tormento,
Bacrjficia sine scrupulo, quotidiana diligentia sine impedimenta ; non furtiva signatio,
non trepida gratulatio, non muta benedictio ; sonant inter duos psalmi et hymni, et
mutuo provocant, quis melius Deo suo cantet. Talia Christus videns et audiens
gaudet, his pacem suam mittit ; ubi duo, ibi et ipse ; ubi et ipse, ibi et malus non
est— Tertull. ad Uxorem, ii. 9.

COLOSSIANS III. 21. 261
ciple and motive, it meets Divine approbation. In Ephes. vi.
1, the apostle calls it — SIkoiov, a thing right in itself, and then
he quotes the fifth commandment to show that such a duty is
also inculcated in Scripture, but here he regards it simply in a
religious aspect, and awards to it Christ's approval.
(Ver. 21.) Ot iraripEg pi) ipsBiZtrE rd TEKva vpwv — "Ye
fathers, do not provoke your children." [Ephes. vi. 4.]
Authorities of no mean note give us irapopylZETE, a reading
adopted by Griesbach, Scholz, and Lachmann, but which
might shp into the text from Ephes. vi. 4, though, certainly,
it is found in A, C, D1, E1, F, G. The verb, as in 1 Mace. xv.
40 ; Deut. xxi. 20, is to irritate, to fret, to rouse to anger, and
not, as in 2 Cor. ix. 2, to stir up to emulation. Fathers are
spoken to since training is their duty, and because this
peculiar sin which the apostle condemns is one to which they,
and not mothers, are pecuharly hable. The paternal govern
ment must be one of kindness, without caprice ; and of equity,
without favouritism. The term includes greatly more than
what Burton understands by it — " do not carry their punish^
ment too far." The child, when chastised, should feel that
the punishment is not the result of fretful anger ; and when it
obeys, its obedience should not be prompted, or rather, forced,
by menaced infliction. If children, let them do what they
can, never please their father, if they are teazed and irritated
by perpetual censure, if they are kept apart by uniform stern
ness, if other children around them are continually held up as
immeasurably their superiors, if their best efforts can only
moderate the parental frown, but never are greeted with the
parental smile, then their spirit is broken, and they are
discouraged. Against this sad result the apostle warns —
"Iva pr) aBvpwaiv — " Lest they be disheartened." The com
position of the verb shows its strong signification. Children
teazed and irritated lose heart, renounce every endeavour to
please, or render at best but a soulless obedience. The verb
occurs only here in the New Testament, but is found in the
Septuagint; 1 Kings i. 7, &c. and in several ofthe classical au
thors. What the apostle guards against has been often witnessed,
with its deplorable consequences. In the Epistle to the Ephes-

262

COLOSSIANS III. 21.

ians, he speaks more fully, and enjoins the positive mode of
tuition — " but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of
the Lord." The young spirit is to be carefully and tenderly
developed, and not crushed by harsh and ungenerous treatment.
Too much is neither to be demanded nor expected. The twig
is to be bent with caution, not broken in the efforts of a rude
and hasty zeal. - Approbation is as necessary to the child as
counsel, and promise as indispensable as warning and reproof.
Gisborne on this place well says — " To train up children as ser
vants of God, as soldiers of Jesus Christ, for a future existence
in preference to the present life ; to instruct and habituate
them, in conformity with their baptismal vow, to renounce the
world, the flesh, and the devil, and to live not unto themselves
but to that Redeemer who died for them ; this is universally
the grand duty of a parent. This well-known duty the
apostle, though he does not name it, presupposes as acknow
ledged and felt by the Colossians. In the discharge of this
duty, and in every step of 'their proceedings, he directs them
to beware, as parents, of provoking their children to anger ;
that is to say, as the original term evidently implies, of exer
cising their own authority with irritating unkindness, with
needless and vexatious severity ; of harassing their children
by capricious commands and restrictions ; of showing ground
less dissatisfaction, and scattering unmerited reproof. To act
thus, the apostle declares, would be so far from advancing the
religious improvement of children, that it would discourage
them. It would not only deaden their affections towards their
parents, but would dispirit their exertions, and check their
desires after holiness." '
Following the same order of thought as in the Epistle to the
Ephesians, the apostle next turns him to the other members of
the household, the slaves. It is probable that the false philo
sophy inculcated, with regard to them, certain notions of
freedom which were not merely unattainable, but the belief of
which might only aggravate the essential hardness of their lot.
Steiger has referred to the fact that the Pharisees gave a
special prominence to political freedom, (John viii. 33), and
he says, drawing his authority from Philo, that the Essenes
1 Familiar Exposition ofthe Epistle of Paul to the Colossians, London, 1816.

COLOSSIANS 111. 22. 263
held a doctrine, which would, if carried out to practice, lead
to a philanthropic revolution. At all events, they condemned
slave-masters as not only unjust, but impious, and destroyers
of a law of nature — Bsapbv fyvaEwg avaipovvrwv. The false
teachers, if they held similar views, might inculcate this
abstract doctrine, which, whatever its inherent truth, could
not in those days lead to anything but discord and blood
shed. The apostle, on the other hand, applied himself to
things as they were, and while he attempted to moderate an
evil which he could not subvert, he laid down those principles,
by the spread of which social bondage first was shorn of its
grievances, and then lost its very existence. We have already
stated, under Ephes. vi. 5 — 8, the relation in which the
gospel stood to the slaves, how it raised them to spiritual
brotherhood, and gave them a conscious freedom which chains
and oppression could not subvert. It so trained them, and so
tutored their Christian masters, that slavery in a Christian
household must have existed only in name, and the name
itself was ready to disappear as soon as society was leavened
with the spirit of Christianity.
The injunctions here delivered are much the same as those
in the Epistle to the Ephesians. The reader is invited to turn
to the prefatory remarks to our comment on Ephes. vi. 5.
The apostle does not speak vaguely, but hits upon those vices
which slavery is so apt to engender — indolence, eye-service,
and reluctance in labour.
(Ver. 22.) Ot SovXot viraKOVETE Kara irdvra roig Kara adpKa
Kvplotg. [Ephes vi. 5.] The master of the slave is only so —
Kara adpKa, the relationship is but corporeal and external,
the contrast being — the real master is the Lord Christ. No
distinction can be estabhshed between Kvpiog and oWTrorTje in
the New Testament, either in their Divine or human applica
tion. The principle of the obedience is Kara irdvra, as in
verse 20. Refractoriness on the part of the slave would at
once have embittered his life, and brought discredit on the
new rehgion which he professed, but active and cheerful dis
charge of all duty would both benefit himself, promote his
comfort, and recommend Christianity.
Mt) iv ofBaXpoSooXslq we dvBpwirdpEaKoi — " Not with eye-

264 COLOSSIANS III. 23.
service, as men-pleasers." [Ephes, vi. 6.] The plural form'
of the first noun is preferred by some, as being the more diffi
cult reading, but the singular has A, B, D, E, F, G, in its
favour. Yet Tischendorf has rejected- it in spite of all this testi
mony. The Codices D, E, F, G, have another, and perhaps
more correct spelling — dip&aXpoSovXlq. In Ephes. vi. 6, the
apostle uses Kara, but here iv. In the former place they are
enjoined to obey in singleness of heart, as unto Christ — " not
according to eye-service'' — that is, not in the style of eye-
service ; here they are asked not to serve in eye-service,
that is, in the spirit of it. Slaves have usually but the one
motive; and that is, to avoid punishment, and therefore they
only labour to please the master when his eye is on them.
They are disposed to trifle when he is absent, in the hope that
their indolence may not be detected. But Christian slaves
were to work on principle, were to do their duty at all times,
and from a higher motive, conscious that another eye was
upon them, and that their service was really rendered to
another master. Such a conviction would prevent them being
avflpwTrapEo-Koi. See under Ephes. vi. 6, where we have
noticed the necessary connection of this vice with slavery.
'AXX' ev aTrXorrjrt KapSlag <j>o^oipEvoi rbv Kvpiov — " But
in singleness of heart fearing the Lord " — (Christ). Kvpiov is
preferred to Geov on undoubted authority. [Ephes. vi. 5.]
Singleness of heart (1 Chron. xxix. 17,) is that sincerity which
the heathen slave could scarcely possess, for he would often
seem to work, and yet, contrive to enjoy his ease under the
semblance of activity. Duplicity is the vice which the slave
uses as his shield. He professes anxiety when he feels none,
and he exhibits a show of industry without the reality. For
this singleness of heart could only be secured by such a
motive as the gospel presents — " fearing the Lord " — standing
in awe of His authority over them. They would not be men-
pleasers if they bowed to Christ's authority, for then their aim
would be to please Him, nor would there be eye-service, if
they wrought in singleness of heart, for such a feeling would
lead them to conclude the task in hand, irrespectively of every
minor and personal consideration.
(Ver. 23.) In this verse, the common reading is ko! irdv li,

COLOSSIANS III. 24. 265
ti iav TroifjrE, but the better reading is o iav iroirjrs, iK \[/vx>jg
ipydZta&E, wg roj) Kvpt'w Kal ovk avOpwiroig — " Whatever ye are
in the way of doing, work it heartily as to the Lord, and not to
men." They were, in any task that might be assigned them,
to labour at it, to work it out, and that without grumbling or
reluctance, not only doing it honestly but cheerfully, as Chry
sostom says — pi) psra oovXtKije ava-yoje. [Ephes. vi. 6.] The
heathen slave might do everything with a grudge, for he had
no interest in his labour, but the believing slave was to act
with cordiality, plying his toil with alacrity, for he was serving
in all this industry no human master, but the Lord, who had
bought him with His precious blood. Let this be the feeling,
and there would be no temptation to fall into eye-service, men-
pleasing, and duplicity of heart or conduct. The apostle says
without reservation — " as to the Lord, and not to men." There
is no necessity to take ovk as meaning ov povov. The imme
diate object of the service must be man, but the ultimate
object is the Lord; the negative, though absolute in form,
being relative in sense. Winer, § 59, 7. The service, what
ever its nature, or its relation to man, was ever to be felt and
viewed as an act of obedience done to Christ. See under verse
17. In doing it to others, they did it to Him ; and to Him,
with such claims upon their love and fealty, they could not
but give suit and service heartily. As usual, in the parallel
place in Ephesians, the thought is given more fully, and the
relationship of the slave's labour to Christ is twice noted.
Besides, not only was the servant to work as here — ek ^v^fje —
"from the heart," pointing out his relation to his work, but
he is enjoined also to labour — psr Evvoiag — that is, "with
good will " to his master. The apostle adds yet further —
(Ver. 24.) EiooYec on airb Kvpiov airoXf)ipEaBE rfiv avrairo-
Soaiv rfjc KXvpovoplag — "Knowing that from the Lord ye
shall receive the reward of the inheritance." With this per
suasion within them, they should be able to follow out the
inspired admonition, and such knowledge would form a motive
of sufficient energy and life. Serving the Lord in serving
man, they would receive their reward from Him. Winer, §
51, 5, represents dir'6 as denoting that the recompense comes
immediately from Christ, its possessor. Their masters are in

266

COLOSSIANS III. 25.

no sense to be the dispensers of that reward. Christ Himself
shall bestow it. The compound noun, dvraTrooocrte, is found
only here in the New Testament.1 That remuneration is the
" inheritance." [Ephes. i. 11 — 14.] Also Col. i. 12. The geni
tive is that of apposition, such as is found in Ephes. iv. 9 ; 2
Cor. v. 5. See our Commentary on Ephesians, p. 278. The
inheritance is heavenly glory, 1 Pet. i. 4, and that is their
prospective blessing. They had no inheritance on earth,
nothing which they could call their own; they could not even
realize property in themselves — but an inheritance rich and
glorious awaited them. In the hope of it — and the enjoyment
of it could not be very distant — they were to work, and
suffer, and wait, and in the possession of it they^ would find
immediate and ample compensation. [Ephes. vi. 8.] iThere
is no room here for the Popish doctrine of merit. Nota hoc,
says arLapide, pro meritis bonorum operum, contra Novantes ;
but Bahr adduces the terse reply of Calovius — -filiisjiaereditas
non confertur ex obedientiae merito, sed jure filiationis.
The ydp of the next clause, as found in the Textus Receptus,
cannot be received, as it is only an interpolated^gloss^-r<^
Kvptw XplarCp SovXevete — which the Vulgate renders, Domino
Christo servite, " serve ye the Lord Christ." Perhaps, 4 as
Meyer says, the imperative is preferable, ydp being spurious.
It is thus a summation of the whole — " the master, Christ, serve
ye." The use of the indicative is foreign to the passage, which
is injunctive. Since the Lord gives such a reward so rich and
blessed, serve ye Him. Look above and beyond. human
service, and with such a bright prospect in view, serve the
Lord Christ. Your masters on earth have no absolute right
over you : the shekels they may have paid for you can only
give them power over your bodies, your time and your
labour, but the Lord has bought you with His blood, and has
therefore an indefeasible claim to your homage and service.
(Ver. 25.) 'O •ydp dSiKwv Koplasrai 6 tjcYktjctev. The Se of
the Stephanie is rightly replaced by ydp, on, the evidence of
A, B, C, D', F, G, and many of the Versions. The construc
tion of the clause is idiomatic — " the wrong doer shall receive
1 But sometimes in the classics. Eisner, in he. ¦

COLOSSIANS III. 25. 267
what he has wronged." Winer, § 66, iii. b, says it can scarcely
be called a brachylogy, for it is somewhat, as is said in Ger
man, — er wird das Unrecht erndtet — that is, he does not receive
the wrong itself, but the fruit of it, or the wrong in the form
of punishment. He shall be paid, as we say, in his own coin.
The wrong doer shall bear the penalty ofthe wrong.
The question is, to whom does the apostle refer. 1. Some
suppose him to mean the slave, as if to warn him, that if he failed
in his duty he must expect to be punished. This is the notion
of Theophylact, Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Heinrichs, and De Wette.
This exegesis may have the support of the mere words, but it
does not tally with the concluding clause — " there is no respect
of persons with Him." Is the fact that the Judge has no respect
of persons an argument that an unjust slave shall not escape
punishment? The phrase, "respect of persons," usually implies
that an offender, simply for his rank and station, escapes the
penalty — a mode of partiahty not at all applicable to slaves.
The argument of Bengel is only ingenious — tenues saepe
putant, sibi propter tenuitatem ipsorum esse parcendum.
2. Others regard the verse as indicating a great general prin
ciple, applicable alike to the master and his slave. Such is the
view of Jerome and Pelagius, Bahr, Huther, Baumgarten-
Crusius, and Trollope. Jerome says — quicwmque injuriam
intulerit, sive dominus sive serous, uterque..  But the same
objection applies to this view as to the former. So that we
incline to the third opinion, which is, that the words refer to
the master, the view of Theodoret, Anselm, Aquinas, Erasmus,
Beza, Calvin, Estius, and Meyer, while De Wette allows its
possibility. The connection of the thought seems to be — " you
are Christ's servants, and you shall receive the reward from
Him. Injustice you may in the meantime receive from your
earthly masters, but they shall be judged for it, not at a human
tribunal, where their rank may protect them, but before Him
who in His decisions has no respect of persons. Therefore,
ye masters, give your slaves what is just and equal." There is,
besides, a strong tendency in any one who owns slaves, and
exercises irresponsible power over them, to treat them with
capricious and heedless tyranny. The statement ofthe apostle,
then, contains a general truth, with a special application to the

268

COLOSSIANS IV. 1.

proprietors of slaves, and is therefore the basis of the following
admonition. Meyer rests another argument on the current
meaning ofthe participle dSiKwv in the New Testament, which,
he says, with the exception of Rev. xxii. 11, denotes Unrecht
zufugen, not Unrecht thun. We should be inclined to except
also Philem. 18, and perhaps 1 Cor. vi. 8. In fact, our
translators have given the word at least eight different render
ings. Ten times have they rendered it "hurt," eight times
have they rendered by " do wrong," as in the case before us,
twice simply by " wrong," twice by " suffer wrong," once by
"injure," once by "take wrong," once by "offender," and once
by " unjust." The predominant idea is not, to act unjustly,
but to injure, and refers therefore more probably not to the
slave forgetting his duty, but to his master, tempted by his
station and power, to do an act of injury toward his servile
and helpless dependents.
Kal ovk iari irpoawiroXriJjla — "And there is no respect of
persons." [Ephes. vi. 9.] Rom. ii. 11; Acts x. 34; Jas. ii.
1, 9. ...
(Chap. IV. Ver. 1.) The division of chapters is here very
unfortunate. The apostle while he stooped to counsel the
slave, was not afraid to speak to his master.
'Ot Kvpioi, rb SlKaiov Kai rrjv laorriar roig SovXoig irapixsaBs
— "Ye masters, afford for your part to your servants what is
just and equal," or rather " reciprocal." [Ephes. vi. 9.] The
verb in the middle voice, has in it the idea, " as far as you are
concerned." Acts xix. 24. The principal term, and the one
about which there is any dispute, is to-orijra. What does the
apostle mean precisely by it ? Not a few understand by it
equity in general. Such is the view of Robinson, Wahl,
Bretschneider, and Wilke, in their respective lexicons, and
also of Steiger, Huther, and De Wette, in their respective
commentaries. Others, again, like Erasmus, a-Lapide, and
Bohmer, look on the words as denoting impartiality — do not
in your treatment of your slaves prefer one to another, give
them the like usage. In the only other passage of the New
Testament where the word occurs, it denotes not equity, but
equahty. 2 Cor. viii. 14: "But by an equality, that now
at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want,

COLOSSIANS IV. 1. 269
that their abundance also may be a supply for your want ;
that there may be equality." In this verse equahty is the
idea — your abundance and their want, their abundance and
your want being in reciprocal adjustment. In the passage
before us, we incline to follow the older expositors, Calvin,
Zanchius, Crocius, as also Meyer, who give it such a sense.
The meaning is not very different from that of the correspond
ing passage in Ephes. vi. 9 — " ye masters, do the same things
unto them," which we have explained as meaning what Calvin
has called the jus analogum. While we agree with the
general view of Meyer, we think him wrong in his special
application of it. He regards the to-orTjra as involving that
spiritual parity which Christian brotherhood creates. Slaves
are your equals, and they should be treated with such equality.
This exegesis is based on the supposition that Christian slaves
only are meant, a supposition which, we think, cannot be
admitted. The slaves are told how to behave toward their
masters, whether these masters are Christians or not ; and the
master is admonished how to conduct himself toward his slaves,
whether these slaves -be Christians or not. The apostle speaks
to Christian slaves and Christian masters ; but such slaves
might have heathen masters, and such masters might have
unconverted slaves. There is no warrant, then, for saying,
that the apostle only teaches the duty of masters towards
Christian servants. Whatever the religious creeds of their
serfs, they were to give them what is just and equal. The
equahty lay in reciprocal duty ; if the slave is bound to serve
the master, the master is bound equally to certain duties to
the slave. The elements of service have a claim on equal
elements of mastership. Equality demands this, that he shall
give the slave all to which he is entitled, not with a view
to please men, but to please God — " doing it heartily as unto
the Lord." Such property had its duties as well as its rights,
and the equality lay between the exercise of such duties and
the enforcement of such rights. The phrase rb SlKaiov means
what is right, irrespective of all considerations, that is, what
the position of the slave as a man and a servant plainly
involves. Right and duty should be of equal measurement.
The apostle did not bid the masters demit their mastership,

270

COLOSSIANS IV. 1.

for he does not mean by io-oYtjc, equality of rank with them
selves, for such an elevation would imply greatly more than
the bestowal of personal freedom. Masters are still called so,
as they still stood in that relationship, but Christianity was to
regulate all their transactions with those placed .under them
and owned by them. And with regard to their Christian
slaves — the equality which Meyer contends for was certainly
to guide them — the equality so well explained in the Epistle
to Philemon.
One powerful reason the apostle adds —
EtSorse, oti Kal vpslg ex*TS Kvpiov iv ovpavolg — "Knowing
that ye too have a master in heaven." The participle has its
common causal sense. It is not material to our purpose
whether the reading be ovpavy or ovpavolg. The sense is —
ye are under law yourselves to the highest of masters — you
are in the position of "servants to the heavenly Lord. As ye
would that your Master should treat you, so do you as masters
treat them. Let the great Master's treatment of you be the
model of your treatment of them. If the masters realized
this fact, that in this higher service their slaves, if Christ
ians, and themselves were colleagues, ransomed by the
same price, the same service appointed to them, and the
same prospect set before them, a tribunal before which they
should stand on the same level, and an inheritance in which
they should equally share, irrespective of difference in social
rank upon earth, then would they be kept from all temptations
to harshness and injury towards their dependents. Who does
not recollect the touching language of Job? "If I did
despise the cause of my man-servant, or of my maid-servant,
when they contended with me ; what then shall I do when
God riseth up? and when He visiteth, what shall I answer
Him ? Did not He that made me in the womb make him ?
and did not one fashion us in the womb?" xxxi. 13 — 15.
That the apostle in such admonitions pursued the wisest
course, the Servile wars of Rome are abundant evidence. The
principles inculcated by him lightened the burden, and their
practical development in course of time removed it. So
numerous were the slaves, that in very many cases they far
outnumbered the freemen — as in Attica, where the propor-

COLOSSIANS IV. 1. 271
tion was at least four to one. Probably very many of them
were to be found in all the early churches.
The apostle lays down three positions fatal to slavery.
First, he denies a common theory of the times, which
seems to have regarded slaves as an inferior caste, either
born so, as Aristotle affirms, or brought into servitude, as
Homer sings, from mental imbecility.1 For he pleads for
reciprocity, and thereby admits no distinction but the one of
accidental rank. And, secondly, he declares that certain duties
to slaves spring from natural right, an idea, the admission of
which would not only at once have put an end to the in
credible cruelties of Spartan and Roman slave owners, but
which did also, by and by, as it leavened society, prompt
Christian men to give liberty to their servants; made like
themselves in God's image, and as entitled as themselves to a
free personality. Thirdly, he avows that in the Christian
church there is neither "bond nor free," and thus provides
and opens a spiritual asylum, within which equality of the
highest kind was enjoyed, and master and slave were not in
such a relationship recognized. For master and slave were
alike the free servants of a common Lord in heaven. In the
meantime, as Chrysostom says, Christianity gave freedom in
slavery, and this was its special distinction.2 The same
Father tells what spiritual benefit Christian servants had often
imparted to their masters' households, and Neander states
that a Christian female slave was the means of bringing the
province of ancient Georgia to the knowledge of Christ.3
1 Euripides, too, says ofthe slave race — obx opips oeov xaxov.
2 Totovrev o xSieriaviepos. In loc. 1 Cor. xix.
3 Memorials, p. 306. Bonn, London.

CHAPTER IV.
The apostle now passes to more general admonitions. But
he places prayer in front, and he delights to contemplate it as
the " ladder " which connects earth with heaven, by which the
soul rises to highest communion, and spiritual blessings, like
descending angels, come down to our world.
(Ver. 2.) Ttj irpoaEvxy irpoaKapTEpEiTE — " Continue in
prayer." The apostle knew the benefit of prayer from his
own experience, and he is therefore anxious that they should
pray with persevering energy, and give himself a prominent
place in their intercessions. [Ephes. vi. 18.] Rom. xii. 12 ;
1 Thess. v. 17. They prayed, and the apostle was well aware of
it, but he exhorts them to " continue in prayer." They were
never to suppose that prayer was needless, either because
their desires had been gratified, or God had bestowed upon them
all His gifts. But as they were still needing, and God was
still promising, they were still to persist in asking. This per
severance was a prime element of successful prayer, as it
proved their sincerity, and evinced the power of their faith.
They were to pray and wait, not to be discouraged, but still
to hold on — wrestling in the spirit of him who said, " I will
not let thee go except thou bless me."
rpTj-yopovvrEe iv avry iv EVY_apt(xrta. The phrase iv Ev^ap-
larla is not connected with the preceding ry irpoaEvxy irpoa-
KaprEpEirE, but with the words last quoted — "watching in it with
thanksgiving." The present form belongs only to the later
Greek. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, pp. 118, 119 — iyprjyopa perfect
of iyslpw being employed. Eustathius, ad Odyss. 1880; Sturz,
p. 157 ; Buttmann, § 343. It would be an unworthy view to
refer this language to the practice of ancient Christianity, which
was compelled by persecution to spend so many hours of the
night in devotional exercises. Such tame formality is not
involved, but it still clings to humanity, and is found not only

COLOSSIANS IV. 8. 273
" in the confusion of Paternoster and Ave Marias among the
Catholics," but also " in the no less pious babbling of many a
pietist keeper ofthe hours."1 The apostle enjoins, not physical,
but spiritual wakefulness, as in Ephes. vi. 18, where he em
ploys aypvTTvovvrEe. They were to be ever on their guard
against remissness. If a man refuses to sleep that his attention
may not be interrupted, his watching argues the value he places
on the end desired. To prayer, Christians are to give themselves
with sleepless anxiety, and are ever to watch against all slack
ness or supineness in it, and against all formality and unbelief.
1 Thess. v. 6 ; 1 Pet. v. 8. They were not to become torpid
or careless, but were to beware of spiritual sleepiness in their
devotions. And along with prayer, they were to be wakeful
"in thanksgiving." ii. 7. Olshausen lays too great stress
upon the phrase when he says that by iv Evxapiarla the more
general Trpocr£VY_Tj is more accurately defined. He adds, "that
the prayer of a Christian, in the consciousness of his expe
rienced grace can never be anything else than a thanksgiving."
But the apostle in no sense nor form identifies prayer with
thanksgiving, he only classes thanksgiving along with prayer.
See under ii. 7. Still there are so many grounds for thanks
giving that it cannot be omitted in any approach to the throne
of grace. While we ask for so much, there is also much for
which we ought to give thanks. We must give Him credit
for what He has done already, while we ask Him to do more.
There are many reasons of thanksgiving, and not the least of
them is the privilege of prayer itself. Prayer and thanks
giving co-exist only on earth. They shall be separated in the
other world, for in the region of woe there is only wailing,
and in that of glory there is only melody.
(Ver. 3.) The apostle wished himself to be specially in
cluded in their supplications.
TlpoaEvxopevoiapa Kal TTEpl tj/jwv — "Praying at the same time
also for us." We cannot suppose, with some critics, that Paul
means only himself, when he uses r)pwv. True, indeed, he
immediately uses the singular, still he seems first to include
others with himself. But we cannot say that Timothy is the

Stier, Reden Jesu, Matt. vi. 7.
T

274

COLOSSIANS IV. 3.

only person meant besides himself. These others may have
been persons circumstanced like the apostle, and probably
comprised at least those whose names are mentioned in the
concluding salutations. The Greek expositors dwell on the
apostle's humility in asking the prayers of the Colossian
church, Theophylact adding that the circumstance also shows
— rrjv Svvdpiv rrjg fiXaSiX(j>bv Ev^fje. Yes, and it also shows
that the apostle was no Stoic, that he felt the need of those
prayers, and set a high value on them. For the circumstances
in which he was placed had a depressing tendency, and he
seems, not indeed to have lost confidence in himself, but to
have had some apprehension that from age and infirmity he
might yield, or appear to yield before them. But he knew
the power of prayer. " Human entreaty has shut up heaven,
and has again opened it. At the voice of a man the sun
stood still. Prayer has sweetened the bitter fountain, divided
the sea, and stilled its waves. It has disbanded armies, and
prevented conflict ; it has shortened battle, and given victory
to right. It has conferred temporal abundance, as in the case
of Jabez ; and given effect to medical appliances, as in the
case of Hezekiah. It has quenched the mouths of lions, and
opened the gates of the prison-house. As Jesus prayed by
the river, the dove alighted on Him ; and as He prayed on
the hill, He was transfigured. The glory of God was mani
fested to Moses when he asked it, and the grace of Christ to
Paul when he besought it. Not a moment elapsed between
the petition of the crucified thief, and its glorious answer.
Ere Daniel concluded his devotion, the celestial messenger
stood at his side. The praying church brought down upon
itself the Pentecostal effusion."1 The prayer which he wished
to be offered for them was this —
"Iva 6 Geoc dvol^y iiplv Bvpav rov Xoyov — "That God would
open to us a door of discourse " — that is, an opportunity of
preaching. Mr. Ellicott, on Ephes. i. 17, assigns to "iva three
meanings in the New Testament — a telic, hypotelic, and
ecbatic meaning, and he adds, that " our criticism, admitting
the third and denying the second after verbs of entreaty is
Eadie, The Divine Love, &c. p. 184, 1855.

COLOSSIANS IV. 3. 275
somewhat illogical." He prefers the second, or covert telic
sense. But surely our admission of an ecbatic sense of "va
in the New Testament, does not compel us to admit in such a
construction as the one before us, a hypotelic sense. Nor do
we feel the harshness which Winer alleges to be in the telic
sense of "va after verbs of entreating. In short, the hypotelic
sense is more ingenious than sound. The result, as future,
and as the, effect of conscious instrumentality, is subjectively
regarded under the aspect of design. The subject of a prayer is
rarely so blended with its design as occasionally to obscure it
when it is prefaced by 'iva, for that subject still assumes to
the writer's mind the idea of purpose, and therefore there is
no need to drop or modify the proper telic sense of the con
junction. Here the opening of a door of utterance was to be
the subject of prayer, and they were to pray in order that it
might be granted. While the theme was on their tongue, the
prompting of a final purpose was felt in their hearts. The
suppliants naturally looked at the end, while they repeated
the theme, and thus the apostle proposes this theme to them
under the aspect of an end whieh they were to keep steadily
before them at a throne of grace.
We cannot agree with those who think that by Bvpav
rov Xoyov is meant simply " the mouth," as the medium of
speech. Yet, a great number hold this view, such as Thomas
Aquinas and Anselm, Calvin and Beza, Cajetan and Estius,
a-Lapide, Zanchius, and Bengel. In the New Testament
we find Bvpa used in the secondary sense of occasion, or op
portunity. Acts xiv. 27 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 9 ; 2 Cor. ii. 12 ; Rev.
iii. 8. The figure is so natural and apparent, that it occurs
frequently among classical writers, both Greek and Latin.
While the exegesis referred to does not come up to the mean
ing of the words, that of Chrysostom and his followers goes
beyond it, when they thus explain Bvpav as— AaoSov Kal irap-
pTjo-tav, an idea borrowed from Ephes. vi. 19. The apostle
longed for liberty, not for itself, but for the opportunity which
it gave him of preaching the gospel. He might, indeed, in
his captivity, find some opportunity of preaching, but he longed
for uninterrupted license. Nay, his own personal liberty was
nothing to him but in so far as it gave him an unhampered

276

COLOSSIANS IV. 3.

sphere of evangelical labour. The opening of the door of
his prison would be the opening of a door of discourse to
them, and specially to him, for his design was —
AaXfjo-at to pvarr)piov tov Xpiarov — " To speak the mystery
of Christ." The infinitive is that of result. Winer, § 45. On
the meaning of pvarr)piov, see under Ephes. i. 9 ; iii. 4, and
especially vi. 19. Christ is the subject of that mystery, it has
Him for its theme. See also under i. 26. It was the apostle's
special function to act as a hierophant, or to make it known. It
was by the proclamation of it that its blessings were to be
enjoyed, and the apostle longed to speak it. His attachment
to the mystery was in no way weakened by the persecution
which for his disclosure of it had come upon him.
At' S Kal SiSspai — " For which yea I am bound." Winer,
§ 57, 2. The form 6 is preferred to ov, as being the reading of
A, C, D, E, J, K, &c. See under i. 24. These chains lay
upon him because he unvailed the mystery in its full extent.
He had been imprisoned for preaching it, but still, if hberated,
would he preach it again. Thus, at length, the apostle con
verges those prayers upon himself. In praying for the others,
as he requested them, particular reference was to be made
to himself, and his inability, through his bonds, to proclaim
the mystery of Christ. These bonds had not deadened his
love to it, and he longed to proclaim it in this aspect of it as
a mystery, viz. its adaptation to the Gentile races. Ephes. iii. 8.
The special cause of his imprisonment was his proclamation of
the gospel to the Gentiles, and his admission of Converted
heathens into the church without respect to the Mosaic law.
They had, therefore, special reason to remember him in their
prayers. Hallet1 says well, " that we Gentiles are indebted
inconceivably more to the apostle Paul than we are to any
man that ever lived in the world. He was the apostle of the
Gentiles, and gloried in that character. While Peter went too
far toward betraying our privileges, our apostle Paul stood up
with a courage and zeal becoming himself. For us in par
ticular, as for the Gentiles in general, our invaluable friend
laboured more abundantly than all the apostles. For ms he
1 Notes, &c. vol. i. p. 382.

COLOSSIANS IV. 4. 277
suffered. He was persecuted for this very reason, because he
laboured to turn us from darkness to light, and to give to ms
the knowledge of salvation upon our repentance towards God,
and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. How dear, then, should
his memory ever be to us !"
(Ver. 4.) ''Iva (pavspwaw avrb, we SeI ps XaXijorat — " That I
may make it manifest as I ought to speak." Quite peculiar is
the connection invented by Bengel — " SiSspai, 'iva favEpwaw,
vinctus sum ut patefaciam. Paradoxon." We do not agree with
Beza, Biihr, and De Wette, that the two conjunctions (^iva) are
parallel, and both depending on irpoaE\>xopEvoi, f°r tne last
one appears simply to develop the order of thought. They
were to pray in order that God would open a door of utterance
for him, and this in order that he might preach the gospel
with all his original boldness and freedom. The one 'iva, there
fore, depends upon the other — " praying in order that God
would open a door of utterance for me to speak the mystery
of Christ, in order that this being granted I may make it
manifest as I ought to speak." Some understand by the
phrase, "as 1 ought to speak," the moral qualities of preaching
— but Meyer thinks that the apostle refers simply to freedom of
speech, to absence of physical restraint, or to unlimited power
of travel from land to land. But the comprehensive phrase,
" as I ought to speak," may comprehend both sets of ideas, and
certainly the context does not limit it to the latter. It is true
that imprisonment deprived the apostle of the power of
preaching at all, but when he says, " as I ought," the pregnant
phrase refers not simply to his commission, as the world's
apostle, and to the license of travel which it involved, but
also to the spirit in which such duty should be discharged.
For it might be surmised that what Paul had suffered for the
gospel had lessened his love for it, or modified his views of
the office which he held. And may we not suppose that the
apostle wished the world to understand, that if he were
liberated, there would be no abatement of his zeal, no sub-
duedness of tone in his speech, no mutilation of his message,
and no accommodation of it so as to avoid a recurrence of the
penalty, but all his old fervour and power, all his former
breadth of view, and all his uncompromising hostility to

278 COLOSSIANS IV. 5.
Jewish narrowness and bigotry — "that I may make it manifest
as I ought to speak." The form of request presented to the
Ephesians is more pointed. He twice asks them to pray for
him, that he may speak with boldness, and he graphically
depicts himself as an ambassador in chains.
The exhortations of the two following verses refer to the
outer aspects of Christian conduct, or such aspects of it as
present themselves to the world. While they were to set
their affections on thing3 above, and mortify their "members
which are upon the earth ; " while they were to put off certain
vices, and assume certain virtues, culminating in love ; while
they were to be exemplary in every social relation — as hus
bands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants ;
and while they were to be instant in prayer for themselves
and for the apostle, all this ethical code referred to personal
and mutual spiritual duties within the church. They must,
however, in ordinary circumstances, come in contact with
unbelieving heathenism around them. If they shrank entirely
from such company, the inference of the apostle would be
realized — " for then must ye needs go out of the world." But
they were not to go out of the world because it was bad, they
• were to remain in it for the purpose of making it better.
And that their conduct might exercise such a beneficial influ
ence they were thus enjoined —
(Ver. 5.) 'Ev aoflq irEpiirarElrE irpbg rovg e£oj — "Walk in
wisdom towards them which are without." The verb TTEpt-
TrarEtv, when, as here, it has an ethical sense, is sometimes
followed by Kara, as in Rom. viii. 4 ; xiv. 15 ; 1 Cor. iii. 3,
but more usually by iv ; the shade of difference being, that in
the former case, the ideas of source and similarity are imphed,
and in the latter the character or sphere of walk is principally
indicated. The phrase ot e£w — " those who are without," is
found in 1 Cor. v. 12, and in 1 Thess. iv. 12, and points to
persons beyond the pale of the church, and not simply or pro
minently the false teachers, as Junker supposes. Those with
out should be surrounded with every inducement to come in.
No barrier should be thrown in their way, but the attractive
nature of Christianity should be wisely exhibited to them.
And as the hfe and practice of those within the church is

COLOSSIANS IV. 5. 279
what they especially look at and learn from, so the apostle
says, " walk in wisdom — irpog," in reference to them. The
admonition, as contained in Ephes. v. 15, is more general, and
wants the pointed application which it bears here.
The "wisdom" here enforced is more than mere pru
dence. [Ephes. v. 15.] It means that while Christians are to
abstain from such sins as disgrace their profession, and are
to preserve a holy consistency, adorning the doctrine of God
their Saviour; they are also to exhibit, at the same time, not
only the purity of the gospel, but its amiability, its strictness
of principle in union with its loveliness of temper, its gener
osity as well as its rectitude, and its charity no less than its
devoutness and zeal. Let "those without" not be told of
Christian self-possession in a tone of irritation, or of Christian
happiness while uneasiness sits on the brow of the speaker-
Let no one wrangle about the duty of peacemaking, or bow
his face to the earth as he tries to expatiate on the hope of the
gospel. The world's Bible is the daily life of the church,
every page of which its quick eye minutely scans, and every
blot on which it detects with gleeful and malicious exactness.
The same wisdom will assume the form of discretion in
reference to time and place. Unwise efforts at proselytism
defeat their own purpose ; zeal without knowledge is as the
thunder shower that drenches and injures, not the rain that
with noiseless and gentle descent softens and fertilizes. The
great Teacher Himself has said, " Give not that which is holy
unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and
rend you." Matt. vii. 6.
T6v Katpov i^ayopaZopEvoi — "Redeeming the time." Cony
beare renders — " and forestall opportunity." The clause has
been explaimed under Ephes. v. 16. The general meaning is
"purchasing, or seizing on the opportunity." The preposition
ek, in composition, according to Ellicott, directs the thought to
the undefined times or circumstances out of which, in each
particular case, the Katpoc was to be bought; a notion different
only in aspect from our view given under Ephes. v. 17, which
takes iK to represent "out of another's possession," a view
which appears to us to be more in harmony with the spirit of

280

COLOSSIANS IV. 6.

the figure. The immediate reference is to the injunction ofthe
preceding clause. Every season for exercising such wisdom is
to be eagerly improved, or no opportunity for its display is to
be trifled with or lost. The idea of the Greek expositors is
foreign to the purpose — " the time is not yours, but belongs to
those who are without, for whose good you must employ it."
So Theodoret — ovk Eanv ipirEpog 6 irapwv alwv, ^pTjo-acr^E
avrtj! eic to Seov. Not less away from the point is the defini
tion of Augustine — Quid est redimere tempus, nisi cum opus
est, etiam detrimento temporalium commodorum, ad aeterna
quaerenda et capessenda, spatia temporis comparare. The
reason annexed in the Epistle to the Ephesians, " because the
days are evil," is not found in the passage before us.
The next verse, though it contains a sentiment, which is of
great moment by itself, is yet closely connected with this
which goes before it.
(Ver. 6.) 'O Xoyoe vpwv iravrorE iv x<*plTi> dXari riprv-
pivog — "Let your conversation be always with grace, sea
soned with salt." The phrase Xoyog iv X"l°'" ^s> according to
Robinson, equivalent to Xoyoe xaP^u^- But ^e noun X"l°££
signifies, perhaps, that gracious spirit which rules the tongue,
and prompts it both to select the fittest themes, and to clothe
them in the most agreeable and impressive form. Sirach xxi.
16 ; Luke iv. 22 ; Sept. Ps. xiv. 3. It is not that x«P'£ TOV
Xoyov which Plutarch ascribes to the courtly Alcibiades, or
that graciousness or blandness of tongue which is but mere
politeness. It is vastly higher than what Bloomfield under
stands by it — " terseness of thought and smartness of expres
sion." Chrysostom says well, "it is possible to be simply
agreeable — xaPievT^£a^ai — ^ut we are to beware that this
agreeableness fall not into indifference." In Ephes. v. 29, the
apostle gives a different and negative form of advice, but adds
as the needed characteristic of Christian conversation — " that
which is good to the use of edifying."
To show his meaning yet more fully, the apostle employs a
strong metaphor — " seasoned with salt." The participle em
ployed is the ordinary culinary term. The figure represents
speech as liable to become insipid, or to lose spiritual piquancy
unless it be seasoned with salt. The form SXart, from SXac,

COLOSSIANS IV. 6. 281
seems to have belonged to the popular speech.1 Salt has various
applications in Scripture, such as the salt of the covenant and
the salt of the sacrifice, and appears to be the symbol of what
is quickening and conservative in its nature. We therefore
demur to the notion of many commentators, that the term here
refers principally, if not wholly, to wisdom. The Attic salt,
indeed, was that wit which gave zest and sparkle to Athenian
conversation. But it was not wisdom in any special sense.
Nor can we agree with Meyer and Bohmer, that salt is, in
Matt. v. 13 ; Mark ix. 49, 50 ; or Luke xiv. 34 ; the symbol
of wisdom. It is rather the symbol of that spiritual conserva
tive power which Christianity exerts on society and the world.
Here it stands in explanation of X"!0'?' n0^ specifically of
aofla. True, indeed, x°P'S involves aofia, gracious words
must be always wise words, but wisdom is here employed to
characterize the walk, and grace to describe the " fruit of the
lips'." The conversation which Xoyog denotes is to be
seasoned with this condiment, that it may be in itself free
from every pernicious taint and quality, that it may be
relished by those who hear it, and that on them it may exercise
a beneficial influence.2 In Ephes. v. 29, the apostle says,
" let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth." Christ
ian speech is not to be insipid, far less to be corrupt, but it is
to possess that hallowed pungency which shall excite interest
in the inquirer, and that preservative flavour which may
influence for good the mind and heart of those who, being
1 Suidas affirms that it is used only in the phrase aXaeiv va. Buttmann, however,
says that the word is only a euphonious form for Sxeiv, § 58. See also Suicer,
sub voce, where there is much curious information.
2 Baldwin (Professor Witebergensis, 1624) has a most extraordinary comment on
this place. He understands the apostle to 'refer to wit — " De salibus, et jocis in
sermone hie est quaestio." And he subjoins the following permissions and regula
tions : — " Modus tamen in jocis homine gravi ac prudenti, multo magis Christiano
dignus est, qui et si prsecise et secundum omnes circumstantias praescribi non potest,
ex his tamen regulis dignosci potest. 1. Joci sint docti qui moralia qusedam sua
urbanitate tacite instillant. 2. Ad jocandum non abutamur sacris scripturis. 3.
Jocantes omnes seipsos tanthm sed et alioram salis libenter audiant. 4. Obscura si
qua forte excidunt, ambitu verborum tegenda sunt. 5. Non jocemur semper in
alioram gratiam, ne nos ipsos prostituamus. 6. Jocemur in tempore : nam -apud
tristes jocari intempestivum est, ut et in re seria. 7. Joci non sint affectati."
P. 240.

282

COLOSSIANS IV. 6.

without, are disposed to put questions to the members of the
church. For, the apostle subjoins as a reason —
'Etoivai irwg SeI vpdg kvl ekootw diroKplvsaBai — " That ye
may know how it becomes you to answer each one." Though,
in certain cases the infinitive may stand for the imperative
among the classical writers, there is no reason to adopt such
a supposition here. Winer, § 45, 7. Tremellius and Storr,
however, translate by scitote, while Grotius, Bengel, and
Huther, regard the verb as a kind of ablative gerund, sciendo.
But the infinitive, as in other places, denotes the object,
Matthiae, § 532. The Greek expositors commit a blunder, we
think, in giving the phrase "every one" too extensive a
meaning, and including in it the members of the church.
Thus Theodoret, aXXwc ^ap rijp airlarw Kal aXXwc r<j» iriarCj,
&c. Clirysostom lays too much stress on external condition,
for he says " a prince must be answered in one way, and a
subject in another, a rich man in one way, and a poor man in
another," and he adds a sarcastic reason, that the minds of
rich and powerful men are feebler, more inflammable, and
undecided — dcr0£VEar£pat, juaXXov <j>XEypalvovaai, pdXXov
Siappiovaai. Ambrosiaster has a similar train of illustration.
That of Primasius is better — aliter paganis, aliter Judaeis, aliter
haereticis, aliter astrologis, et caeteris est respondendum.
For it is of those without that the apostle speaks, and each,
as he puts his question, is to have a gracious and effective
answer. " Death and life are in the power of the tongue."1
Prov. xviii. 21. One kind of answer will not suffice for all, but
each one is to be answered as he should be. Therefore the
1 " And we may generally observe, that men of the weakest minds are ofttimes the
most garrulous ; they unconsciously try to make up in number of words what is
obviously wanting in weight and wisdom : whereas men of much grace and sound
intellect try to say much in few words : they bring massive thoughts within small
compass : there is hardly anything they dread more than to seem to be talking much,
and yet to be really saying nothing. And it is well worthy of remark also, that he
never speaks much to edification who knows not when to cease to speak. It is one
thing to speak much, and another to speak with effect Much talkativeness and
much grace seldom go together. Speaking and thinking aright are widely different
operations of the mind ; and the one is often possessed in an eminent degree, while
the other is almost entirely wanting. We may generally lay it down as a rule, that
there is far the most depth viltere there is the least noise." — Watson's Discourses on
the Colossians, pp. 370, 371.

COLOSSIANS IV. 6. 283
necessity of the "grace" and of the "salt." The question
might refer to various things. It might refer to evidence or
to doctrine, to ritual or to ethics. It might embody an objec
tion, suggest a difficulty, or contain a pecuhar solution. It might
be a query, in which lurked a satire, or one that argued an
humble and inquiring mind. It might be as aimless as Pilate's
interrogation, "what is truth?" or it might be the result of
such an idle curiosity as that which moved the Athenian
gossips on Mar's hill to say, " we would know therefore what
those things mean." Or it might indicate a state of mind in
which mingled feelings were in operation, as when the Jews
at Rome came to the apostle's lodging to hear of him what
he thought. The tone of one querist might be that of
scorn, of another that of earnest inquiry. One, as he asked
information, might show that conviction had made some pro
gress ; another, that his previous thoughts had been gross
misconceptions. But each was to be answered as was becom
ing — according to the contents, the spirit, and the object of
his question — answered so that he might at once receive
enlightenment and impression, be charmed out of his hostility,
reasoned out of his misunderstanding, guided out of his diffi
culty, awakened out of his indifference, and won over to the
new religion under the solemn persuasion that it was foolish
to trifle any longer with Christianity, and dangerous any more
to oppose the claims of a Divine revelation, enriched with
such materials, fortified with such proofs, and commended by
such results to universal reason and reception. 1 Pet. iii. I ;
i. 15; 2 Tim. ii. 25, 26. According to those passages meek
ness is one special element of the Christian answer.
In fine, wholly out of place is the notion of Pierce, that the
answer here referred to is that which Christians were often
obhged to make to heathen rulers when summoned to appear
before them. Elton, in his exposition of this epistle (1620,
London), makes the following pithy application : — " Wouldest
thou then be able to speake fitly, and to good purpose on*
euery occasion, as in one particular case, in time of distresse,
in time of trouble, and vexation of body or minde, wouldest
thou be able to speake a word of comfort, and as the Prophet
saith, Isai. 1. 4, know to minister a word in time to him that

284

COLOSSIANS IV. 7.

is weary ? Oh then let thy tong be euer poudred with the
salt of grace, haue in thy mouth at all other times gracious
speeches, and certainly then thou shalt not be to seeke of
sweete and comfortable words in time of neede. Many come
to their friends whom they loue well, and wish well vnto, in
time of their trouble, haply lying on their sicke beds, and are
not able to affoord them one word of spirituall comfort, onely
they can vse a common forme of speech, aske them how they
doe, and say, they are sorry to see them so, and then they
haue done : here is one speciall cause of it, their mouthes are
not seasoned with gracious speaches at other times ; they vse
not to season their speech with grace at other times, and so it
comes to passe that when they should, and (it may bee) would
vse gracious and comfortable words, they cannot frame them-
selues to them, but euen then also, they are out of season with
them ; learne thou therefore to acquaint thy selfe with holy
and religious speeches, let thy mouth at other times be ex
ercised in speaking graciously, and then (doubtlesse) though
thou canst not speake so eloquently, as some that foame out
nothing but goodly speaches, yet thou shalt be able to speake
to better purpose, because (indeede) it is not mans wit, but
Gods grace, that seasons speach, and makes it profitable and
comfortable." The apostle did not wish to burden the epistle with any
lengthened or minute account of his private affairs. There was
much which all interested in him would naturally wish to know
— his health, his means, his prospects, and plans. But the
bearer of the epistle would make all necessary communications,
and one so recommended as Tychicus was, would be eagerly
listened to as he spoke to them of the aged prisoner at Rome.
(Ver. 7.) Ta Kar' ipi irdvra yvwplasi iplv TvxtK°e 6 dya-
irrirbg oSeX^oc, Kal iriarog SiaKOVOg, Kal crvvSovXoe iv Kvplw
— " Of all that concerns me Tychicus shall inform you — the
beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow-servant in the
" Lord." The phrase ret Kar' ipi is a common one in Greek,
as Eisner and Wetstein have abundantly shown. Tychicus is
honoured with three appellations. First, he is called "the
beloved brother," one of the sacred brotherhood, bound
together by the tie of a common fatherhood in God. His

COLOSSIANS IV. 8. 285
apostolic dignity did not fill Paul with reserve toward any
fellow-believer, but he owned and loved as a brother every
one who was with himself in Christ. Besides this common
spiritual relationship, Tychicus must have endeared himself
to the apostle, and therefore possessed his entire confi
dence. See under Ephes. vi. 21. He was, secondly, "a
trusty servant," and as such carried this epistle, and was
charged with these oral messages to Colosse and to Ephesus.
The term SiaKovog may mean, generaUy, one who spent his
time and energies in connection with the church and that
apostle who was one of its ornaments and bulwarks. In
Ephes. vi. 21, he is called as here, " the beloved brother and
trusty servant," but the apostle adds in this place a third
epithet — ko! o-vvoovXoc — " and fellow-servant." Official
service of a general nature is implied in StaKovoe, but under
this term the apostle speaks of him as a colleague. See under
i. 7. The words iv Kvptw are referred by De Wette to all the
three epithets, and by Meyer to the last two of them. The
meaning is not different whichever view be adopted. But as
the first two names have distinct and characteristic epithets
attached to them, and the last has none, perhaps iv icvplw is
to be specially joined to it, for the fellowship in service is
marked by the common object and sphere of it — "the Lord."
(Ver. 8.) There are in this verse two marked differences of
reading. The Textus Receptus, followed by Tischendorf, reads
Iva yvd} rd iTEpl vpwv — "That he might know your affairs;"
but the other reading is "iva yvwrE ra TTEpl tjjuwv — " That ye
might know our affairs." The last appears to be the most
natural. The apostle had just said, "All about me shall Ty
chicus tell you, whom I have sent for this purpose, that ye
might know how it fares with us," and then he adds of him
and Onesimus, " they will inform you of all things here."
Whereas, if the reading of the Received Text be adopted, a
new idea is introduced — " that he might know your affairs " —
and one out of harmony with the twice expressed design of
the mission. The common reading has the support of C, D3,
E, J, Kr the Syriac and Vulgate Versions, and many of the
Fathers. The other reading has, however, A, B, Dl, F, G,
the text of Theodoret and Jerome. The phrase, eic avrb

286

COLOSSIANS IV. 9.

rovro, refers to what has been said, viz. "all my state shall
Tychicus declare unto you ;" and he adds, " I have sent him for
this very purpose." Is it conceivable that now the apostle
should introduce another and very different purpose after this
strong assertion ? It is objected to this reading that it is copied
from Ephes. vi. 22. But surely, in two epistles written at the
same time, and carried by the same bearer, might not the
same commission be given to him for both churches, and in
the same words ? If the other clauses of the commission are
the same, why should this clause vary ? The declared result
is the same in both places, and for both churches — " that he
might comfort your hearts" — and there is no reason to suppose
any difference in the process, for their hearts were to be com
forted by a direct and full knowledge of the apostle's condition.
The various lections may have arisen from omitting the syl
lable rs before ra, from their resemblance. One ancient
Father has yvtj) te ra. Bengel "takes yvw for the first person.
The new reading is adopted by Scholz and Lachmann as
editors, recommended by Griesbach, vindicated by Rinck, and
followed by Meyer, Baumgarten-Crusius, Olshausen, and
Huther. The reading then is —
r,Ov Eirspipa irpbg vpdg slg aiirb rovro 'iva yvwrE ra irEpl
ripwv — "Whom I have sent unto you for this very purpose
that ye might know our affairs." In the verb EirspTpa is a
common idiom. Tychicus could not be sent off till the letter
was finished, and yet he says, forestalling the act, "I have
sent him." The Colossians were in distress at the apostle's
condition, and in sorrow for his imprisonment, but when
Tychicus should tell them how he was circumstanced, and
what his views and feelings were, how his mind was unruffled
and his courage unsubdued, he would comfort their hearts
— Kal irapaKaXiay rag KapSlag vpwv.
Tychicus was not to be despatched on this errand by himself.
He had a companion whose history and change had been
striking and peculiar in their nature.
(Ver 9.) 2vv 'Ovrialpw r<£ TTtcrrtJ! Kal a'ya7rrjr^» a§EX$(£ —
" Along with Onesimus, the faithful and beloved brother."
Onesimus carried with him another and more special testi
monial and introduction to his master, Philemon. Onesimus

COLOSSIANS IV. 10. 287
had been a slave — had fled from his owner, and had, durino-
his exile, been converted by the apostle. He was sent back
in his new character, "not now as a servant, but above a
servant — a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much
more to thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord." On being
converted he had become, and is now eulogized as, "a brother ;"
and whatever may have been his delinquencies as a slave of
Philemon, he is now commended as a faithful brother  one
the genuineness of whose Christianity might be safely trusted.
He was also " one of themselves " — 'Eg vpwv, Colosse being
either the place of his birth or his ordinary abode.
Ilavra vplv yvwpiovai rd w§e — " They shall inform you of
all matters here." The phrase is of much the same meaning
as ra Kar' i,uE Travra, in verse 7, only the last is more per
sonal, and the one before us more general in its nature. The
apostle knew well the anxiety of the Colossians about him,
and he wished them to be amply gratified.
The epistle is now brought to a conclusion by the introduc
tion of a few salutations. Those who send their greetings to
Colosse, were either personally, or at least by name, known to
the church. The Syriac translator, in rendering the Greek
term " salute," reverts to the old Hebrew form, and makes it
— " ask for the peace of."
(Ver. 10.) 'Ao-7ra?£rat vpdg 'Aplarapxog 6 avvaiXpdXwrog
pov — "Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you." Aris
tarchus was a Macedonian, and a native of Thessalonica.
Acts xix. 29 ; xx. 4 ; xxvii. 2 ; Phil. 24. He had been much
in Paul's society — was with him during the riot at Ephesus,
and several of his journeys in Syria and Greece — was with
him too when he sailed for Italy, in order to follow out his
appeal to Csesar, and seems to have remained with him in
Rome. He is here termed a " fellow-prisoner," but in Phile
mon only a fellow-labourer; whereas in this epistle Epaphras
is named a fellow-servant, but in Philemon a fellow-prisoner.
From such an exchange of those epithets, it has been inferred
that the imprisonment of Aristarchus was not compelled but
voluntary. There was no charge against him, and no prosecu
tion. He seems to have attached himself to Paul, and he will
ingly shared his imprisonment, that the apostle might enjoy

288 COLOSSIANS IV. 10.
his service and sympathy. Probably, as Meyer suggests, his
friends shared in his confinement by turns. It was Aris
tarchus who was with him when he wrote to the Colossians ;
but Epaphras had taken his place when, about the same
period, he wrote to Philemon.
Kal MapKoe 6 dvEipibg Bapvaj3a. By dvEipiog, allied to
nepos — nephew — is to be understood not nephew but cousin
— geschivisterkind — " sister's son," by which term our trans
lators themselves probably meant cousin. Numb, xxxvi. 11.
Hesychius defines it thus — dvE\fiol, aSsXoiwv viol.' There seems
no good reason to doubt that Mark is the John Mark referred
to in Acts xii. 12, 25 ; xiii. 5, 13 ; xv. 37 — 39. He was the
occasion of the well known dispute and separation between
Paul and Barnabas. On a former missionary tour, he had left
them, and " went not with them to the work." Paul, there
fore, thought it not good to take him, — " and the contention
was so sharp between them, that they parted asunder the one
from the other." Whether Paul or Barnabas was right in his
opinion about Mark, we know not. His desertion of a former
enterprise seemed to justify Paul's opinion, and perhaps Bar-"
nabas thought too kindly of a near relation. Yet his sub
sequent conduct seems to warrant the substantial soundness of
the judgment of Barnabas. Mark was apparently reconciled to
Paul afterwards, and may have given the apostle ample reason
to retract his censure. It may be, too, that the very dispute
about him awakened within him renewed energy and perse
verance. Again does Paul mention him with high commenda
tion, 2 Tim. iv. 11, — " Only Luke is with me. Take Mark,
and bring him with thee : for he is profitable to me for the
ministry." The name of Barnabas seems to be presented by Paul as a
kind of passport to Mark. Barnabas must have been a name
familiar to the .Colossian church. His character must have
endeared him to all who knew him, or had heard of his hearty
' Loheck, ad Phrynich. says, — " Pollux dicit filios fdiasque fratrum et sororum
did avi^ioCss ex his prognatos avt^iao'ovs, avupiabas." It is thus the same with
i%a$tXe/os — " first-cousin." The word rendered " nephews," 1 Tim. v. 4, as the
translation of 'ixyova signifies, as it often does in old English, not brothers' and
sisters' children, but nepotes — descendants generally, and especially rixva rixvuv.

COLOSSIANS IV. 10. 289
evangelical labours. By birth a Levite, of the island of
Cyprus, he was at a very early stage of its history converted
to Christianity. At once he disincumbered himself of his
worldly possessions, and devoted himself to the spread of the
gospel. It was he who introduced Paul to the church in
Jerusalem, and such was the confidence reposed in him, that
he was sent as the deputy of the mother-church to Antioch,
to bring back a faithful report of the progress of the gospel in
that city. On his visit to the Syrian capital, the sacred his
torian says of him, Acts xi. 23, 24, " Who, when he came,
and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them
all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the
Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost
and of faith : and much people was added unto the Lord." Bar
nabas, finding the field so ample and so inviting, went at once
to Tarsus, and brought Saul with him to Antioch, and such was
the great success of their joint labours in preaching Christ, that
"the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Bar
nabas next went up to Jerusalem with funds to relieve the poor
saints, and then Paul and he visited many places in company.
He is found soon again at Antioch, and he was delegated to
go up to Jerusalem to secure a settlement of the angry con
troversy as to the observance by Christians of the Mosaic law.
Returning to Antioch with the apostolic finding, he continued
some time there "teaching and preaching the word of the
Lord." It was after this period that Paul and he had the
sharp contention about the fitness of Mark for the missionary
tour which they had sketched for themselves. The last
account of him is in these words— "and so Barnabas took
Mark and sailed unto Cyprus." There seems every reason to
beheve that the society of Barnabas had a salutary effect on
the mind of Paul, and at a period, too, when he might not be
fully conscious of his powers and qualifications, nor be able to
realize the high destiny which lay before him. Barnabas thus
stood on the confines of the apostolic college, though he was
not within it, and next to its members, he occupies a distin
guished place in the early church. Such, in fine, was the
zeal and success of this " Son of Consolation," such his pro
minence among the brethren, and so identified was he with the
TJ

290

COLOSSIANS IV. 10.

apostles, that he seems to be classed among them. Acts xiv.
4. So that we are disposed to infer that the mention of him
here was not simply to point out Mark from others bearing
the same name, but also to secure for him, through his
relationship to Barnabas, a cordial welcome and reception at
Colosse. IlEpl ov iXdfiETE ivroXdg — " Concerning whom ye received
instructions." The antecedent is not Barnabas, as Theophy
lact supposes, but Mark. What these commands were,
or by whom enjoined, what they contained, or when they
were delivered, we know not. Some suppose that they were
sent at this period by Tychicus — a supposition which the
tense of the verb will not warrant. Vain is all conjecture,
such as that of Anselm and Schrader, who think that the
apostle alludes to previous advices of an opposite nature,
which are here recalled ; or that of Grotius, who refers the
missive to Barnabas; or Huther, who ascribes it to some
Christian community — von irgend einer Gemeinde ; or Estius,
who so naturally assigns its origin to the Church of Rome.1
Not a few imagine that the following clause contains the
institutions —
'Eav EXBy irpbg vpdg, Si%aaBE avrov — " If he come to you,
receive him.'' But against this view is to be noticed the
plural form ivroXae, implying that there was a variety of
commands ; and the omission of the article shows that it has
no reference to what follows. This view, adopted by Calvin
and Baumgarten-Crusius, seems, however, to have originated
a various reading — Si%aaBai, found in D1, F, G, and in the
Syriac Version and Ambrosiaster — " concerning whom ye
have received commandment to receive him, should he come
to you." Such a reading at once betrays its exegetical origin.
The present reading cannot be disturbed. We are therefore
ignorant of these ivroXal, in their origin and purpose. But
the apostle adds, parenthetically, for himself, concerning Mark,
" if he come to you, receive him." Mark evidently purposed
a journey which might lead him to Colosse, and the Colos-
1 The view of Eeuss, in his Geschichte der Neutest. Schriften, is both unnecessary
and extreme, for he supposes by this language that there had been sent a previous
epistle to the Colossians, which has been iost.

COLOSSIANS IV. 11. 291
sians were to give him, should he come among them, a kind
reception. The verb Sfyopai is used, both in the classics and
New Testament, to denote the welcome which one gives to
an honoured guest — a guest-friend, as the Germans translate
the Greek Zivog. Matt. x. 14 ; ix. 5, 48. The apostle con
tinues the list of salutations —
(Ver. 11.) Kal 'Itjo-ovc 6 Xsyopsvog 'lovarog — " And Jesus,
who is named Justus." Of this Jesus Justus we know
nothing. Chrysostom and others would identify him with
the Justus mentioned in Acts xviii. 7. That appears to have
been a proselyte — this was a born Jew.
The proper punctuation of the remaining clause is matter
of doubt. It has been commonly read — ol ovrEg iK irEpi-
roprjg, with a stop, " who were of the circumcision," namely,
Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus Justus. And then the apostle
adds — " these only are my fellow-workers to the kingdom
of God." But it is plain that the apostle had many other
feUow-workers, and that he means, that among the believ
ing Jews these only had co-operated with him. Such a
necessary limitation of meaning has suggested another form
of punctuation, which puts a stop after 'Iovoroe, and com
mences with ot ovrse ek TTEpiroprig a new sentence — -"these
being ofthe circumcision, they alone were my fellow- workers ;"
or, " of them of the circumcision, these alone were my fellow-
workers." This construction is adopted by Lachmann,
Steiger, Huther, and Meyer. In such a case the phrase ot
ovrEe i« irEpiroprjg, is a species of anacoluthon. Such a
construction, however, seems awkward. Indeed, by the first
form of construction, the same result is obtained; for it is
plain that in ovroi p6voi, the writer hmits himself to the cir
cumcision. By " the kingdom of God," the apostle means the
church — as a divine institute ; and they were his colleagues
not in the kingdom, but "unto the kingdom," that is, unto its
furtherance and consolidation. The preposition eic, has often
such a signification. To consolidate and extend this king
dom was the end of his apostolical mission. These three Jews
were the only parties of their race who lent him any assist
ance for this purpose at Rome, and of whom therefore he
adds —

292

COLOSSIANS IV. 12.

OtrtvEe iyEvr)Briaav juot irapriyopia — " Who indeed have
been an encouragement to me." The Syriac renders — " and
these only," ^jjNift ^JOTO The noun occurs only here.
It signifies originally an address or exhortation, then it came
to denote the result of such exhortation — comfort.1 StiU we
apprehend it is comfort in the form of encouragement. The
other believing Jews plagued the apostle, and he complains
of them in the epistle to the Philippians, that they preached
Christ " even of envy and strife — of contention, not sincerely,
supposing to add affliction to my bonds." Philip, i. 15, 16. As
the apostle of the Gentiles, and the zealous maintainer of the
free and unconditioned admission of men to the church, with
out any reference to the law, Paul was an object of bitter
prejudice to many Christian Hebrews. The names which
follow are, therefore, those of persons of heathen birth.
(Ver. 12.) 'AairdZtrai vpdg 'Eiraippdg 6 i% vpwv — " There
salutes you Epaphras, one of you." i. 7. As a Colossian himself,
Epaphras had a deep interest in them, and sends them his affec
tionate greeting. The apostle further characterizes Epaphras
as a servant of Christ — SovXoe Xpiarov. Some insist on put
ting no comma between vpwv and SovXog. The reading of
highest authority seems to be Xpiorov 'Itjoov — " a servant of
Christ Jesus." This good man, probably the founder of the
Colossian church, could not forget them — for he was one of
them by birth ; and, as a servant of Christ Jesus, and one of
their pastors, he had also a deep spiritual affinity with them.
And not only so, but the apostle describes him further — as
IlavrorE dywvt^OjUEvoe vrrlp vpwv iv ralg TrpooEvxate —
"Always striving for you in his prayers." Though he was
absent, he did not forget them. The best scene of memory is
at the throne of grace. In proportion to the fervour of one's
affection will be the importunity of his petition. Love so
pure and spiritual as that of Epaphras will produce an agony
of earnestness. There will be no listless or fitful asking — but
a mighty and continual wrestling of heart. And the apostle
witnesses that for this end Epaphras supplicated —
"Iva orfjrE teXeioi Kal TrETrXTjpo^oprjjuEvot iv Travrl BsXripaTi
1 Kypke, in loc.

COLOSSIANS IV. 13. 293
rov Qeov — " That ye may stand perfect and full-assured in all
the will of God."1 The Stephanie reading TrETrXTjpw/ilvot, is
not based on sufficient authority. The language of the clause
is very expressive. Epaphras prayed that they might stand,
and neither wander nor fall — stand perfect and full-assured —
every grace of the Spirit within them, and their minds pos
sessing an undoubting and imperturbable persuasion on every
point of Divine instruction, or of "the whole will of God."
It is a needless refinement on the part of Meyer to connect iv
iravrl BsXripati so closely with orijrE, as the local-bestimmung ;
and to take teX. ko.1 ttettX. as the modal-bestimmung. For
the words iv BsXripari are, in our view, closely allied to
teXeioi Kal ttettXtj. — that they might be perfect and fully
assured in the whole will of God. And we are the more con
firmed in our view when we turn to ii. 2, where the noun
irXripofopla occurs in the phrase — " full assurance of under
standing." And the allusion is plainly to the dangers which
beset the Colossian church, and against which they are warned
in the second chapter, — dangers in the form of seductive
spiritualism and false philosophy, and against which the grand
preservative was a perfect and full assured knowledge of the
whole will of God. An imperfect or dubious acquaintance
ship with that will would at once lay them open to the strata
gems of the false teachers, who headed their errors with the
title and varnished them with the semblance, of the " Divine
will," and claimed for their theosophic dreams and ascetic
statutes Divine authority. See under ii. 2. The preposition
iv is not to be taken as eic, with Grotius ; nor secundum, with
Storr ; nor yet durch — through, with Bahr. The apostle sub
joins a further testimony to Epaphras in the following verse.
But there is no little variety of reading as to the quality or
virtue ascribed to him. The Received Text reads —
(Ver. 13.) Maprvpw ydp avrtjj on EX£t ?fjXov ttoXvv vTrip
vpwv — " For I certify, in his favour, that he has great zeal for
you." This verse is confirmatory (yap) of the preceding.
Instead of £fjXov ttoXvv, A, B, C, &c, have ttoXvv ttovov ;
while D1, F, G, have ttoXvv kottov. Some, again, read iroBov,
1 Ulphilas has here the expressive term allavawrstvans — all-doing — omnoperantes, .

294

COLOSSIANS IV. 14.

and some dywva. The best reading appears to be ttovov —
the Vulgate rendering it multum laborem. The other readings
— ZvXov, iroBov, and dywva — may have been so many glosses
on the more difficult term ttovov, which occurs only else
where in the Apocalypse. Ilovoe is toil or travail — such as
that which attends a combat.i Hesychius defines it by o-ttovotj,
iirlraatg. It occurs several times in the Septuagint. This
7rovoe led to the previous prayerful dywv. This stress of
spirit begat the anxious solicitude in prayer which the apostle
has described in the former verse. But the pains and prayers
of Epaphras were not confined to Colosse, for the apostle
adds —
Kal rwv Iv AaoSiKEiq ko.1 rwv iv IspairoXEi — " And for them
in Laodicea, and for them in Hierapolis." Laodicea and
Hierapolis were cities of the same region as Colosse. See
Introduction, chap. i. All the three towns were in Phrygia,
and Epaphras was well known to the churches in them. He
bore their names on his heart before the Lord in fervent and
uninterrupted intercession.
(Ver. 14.) 'AoTra^Erat vpdg AovKag 6 tarp&e 6 dyaTrrjroc,
Kal Aripdg — " There salutes you Luke, the beloved physician,
and Demas." That this Luke was Paul's companion does
not appear to admit of any doubt ; nor is there any reason for
denying the old opinion, that he was -the author of the third
gospel. He is styled "the beloved physician," either to
distinguish him from others of the same name, or to specify
1 An old commentator on Colossians thus defines right zeal: — " 1. Let it not be a
pretended zeale as in Ioask. 2. Nor a superstitious zeale as in Paule. 3. Nor a
passionate zeale, only for a fit, as in lohn at his first entrance. 4. Nor a malitious
zeale as in persecutors, that thinke they doe God good seruice in vexing men wrong
fully. 5. Nor a wrong intended zeale, such as is the zeale of merit-mongers. 6. Nor
a contentious zeale, such as theirs that make needlesse rents in the church. 7. Nor a
secure zeale that is a zeale not raised by godly sorrow, or that is carried without care
or feare of falling away. 8. Nor an idle zeale that is all words without workes : the
word is rendred labour sometimes, and it is certaine true zeale is spent about good
workes. 9. Nor an ouercurious zeale, shewed either by sticking too much to the
letter of scripture, or by prying into or harsh censureing of the lesser faults of others.
10. Or a bitter zeale, that spends it selfe in rayling and fiery reproches, railers sel-
dome stand long. 11. Or an ignorant bold zeale such as was in the lewes. Or
lastly a selfe conceited zeale, when men trust too much to themselues, and their
owne iudgements." — Byfield. London, 1615.

COLOSSIANS IV. 15. 295
the peculiar office in which he had endeared himself to the
apostle. The health of the apostle, as they might know, had
been signally benefited by his medical skill, and that this
might be at all times available to his patient, Luke attached
himself to his person, accompanied him in several of his mis
sionary tours, was with him in his voyage to Rome, and
remained with him in the Italian metropolis. Luke is men
tioned in Philemon 24 ; in 2 Tim. iv. 11. It is said in Ecclesi-
asticus xxxviii. 1, 2, "Honour a physician with the honour
due unto him for the uses which ye may have of him, for the
Lord hath created him, for of the Most High cometh healing."
Sir Thomas Browne, however, in the first chapter of his Religio
Medici, says, that " several circumstances might persuade the
world he had no religion," and among them he mentions— -
" the general scandal of my profession.'' It was, indeed, a
common saying, — ubi tres medici, duo athei. Luke might have
been an example to the profession. His physico-spiritual
character is happily delineated in the following epigram :
" Pandit evangelii et medecinse munera Lucas
Artibus hinc, illinc relligione valens.
TJtilis ille labor, per quem vixere tot aegri
Utilior per quem tot didicere mori."1
Who Demas was, we know not. He seems to have been the
person who afterwards left the apostle on account of his love
of the world ; and the name has no distinctive or eulogistic
epithet added to it, as if the apostle had suspected this future
estrangement — an estrangement which we are perhaps not
warranted to identify with absolute apostacy. 2 Tim. iv. 10.
The word itself, as has been remarked, is Greek, and not
Hebrew, as Schoettgen thought; for he supposes it to be a Greek
form of 'on, ending in ag, and not tog — as Sr)ptog would mean
carnifex. It is probably a contraction of Aripr)rpiog.
(Ver. 15.) 'AairdaaaBs rove iv AaoStKEta dofX^ove, Kal
Nvjtt^av, Kal ttjv Kar oikov avrov iKKXTjofav. The various
readings in the verse are not very important. Some read
Nvjuoiav as a female name, and write avrije, like B, in agreement
of gender. Others, for the opposite reason, support the form
1 Webster and Wilkinson's New Testament, p. 206.

296

COLOSSIANS IV. 16.

avrov ; while A, C, and others, read avrwv, but avrov seems
to have highest authority. " Salute the brethren in Laodicea,
and Nymphas, and the church in his house." The Colossian
church was, in the apostle's name, to salute the sister church
in Laodicea, especiaUy not forgetting in such a greeting
Nymphas, and the church in his house. The first kai points
out Nymphas as worthy of distinction, and probably the last
Kal introduces the explanation. The church in his house
could not, as Bahr supposes, be the whole Laodicean church ;
nor can the words, as some of the Greek Fathers opine, mean
simply the family of Nymphas, all of whom were Christians.
Some portion of the Laodicean believers, for what reason we
know not, statedly met for worship in the house of Nymphas ;
and Meyer has shown that if avrwv were the right reading, as he
thinks it is, such a use of the plural is not' against Greek usage.
(Ver. 16.) Kal brav dvayvwaBy Trap' vplv tj iTTtoroXTj,
TroiTjoarE 'iva Kal Iv ry. AaoSiKEwv IkkXtjoici dvayvwaBy, Kal
njv iK AaoSiKElag 'iva Kal vpslg dvayvwrE — " And when this
epistle has been read among you, cause that it be read also
in the church of the Laodiceans ; and that ye too read that
from Laodicea." ' The construction TrotTjorarE, 'iva belongs to
the later Greek. Matthiae, § 531, 1. Nor should we say that
in suGh a case 'iva is ecbatic, for though result be described
in the clause which follows it, design is clearly expressed by
the verb which precedes it. The apostle alludes to the public
reading of his letter in the churches, and recommends an
exchange of epistles. The epistle sent to Colosse and read
there, was to be sent to Laodicea, and read there too. The
words Trap' iplv signify " among you," not by you ; and
tj ETrtoroXij is the one which the apostle was at that moment
writing. But the difficulty lies in determining what the
Colossians were to read in turn, or what document is meant
by the phrase rrjv ek AaoSiKslag — " that from Laodicea." The
apostle's language is not explicit, inasmuch as the Colossians
would understand at once the reference made by him. But
the question is, does Ik point to the origin or authorship of the
epistle, or only to its present locality ? Was it an epistle
which had come to Paul from Laodicea, or would it need only
to be brought out of Laodicea in order to be read at Colosse ?

COLOSSIANS IV. 16. 297
The expression is pregnant and idiomatic.
1. Many have taken it to mean a letter which Paul himself
had received from the church in Laodicea. Theodoret, Pho
tius, Calvin, Estius, Erasmus, Beza, van Til, Baumgarten-
Crusius, and others, hold this view, though they can only con
jecture as to the nature and contents of such a document.
But the principal support of such a view is the assumed
meaning of Ik, in the phrase Ik AaoSiKEtae- It is argued that
Ik denotes origin. True, but the texture of the verse shows
that the epistle is supposed to be in Laodicea, when they
were to try and get it out of that city. It was to be brought
from Laodicea to them, and by their own endeavour.
Besides, as Dr. Davidson remarks, " It is difficult to con
ceive of the mode in which the apostle's injunction could
have been carried into effect. It is very unlikely that the
Laodiceans kept a copy, or that Paul knew of it. Or if
it be conjectured that Tychicus and Onesimus, the bearers
of the Colossian letter, carried that which the apostle
had- received from the Laodiceans, the idea is inconsistent
with TrotTjoarE 'iva Kal vpEig avayvwrs rr)v iK AaoSiKElag ;
implying endeavour to get the Laodicean epistle."1 Nor is
there any hint in the epistle to the Colossians, that it is a
reply to any queries or communications, the reading of which
might cast light on those of its statements which served the
purpose of an answer.
2. Others take it for some epistle written at Laodicea, either
supposing it, hke Theophylact, to be the First Epistle to
Timothy, according to the common subscription ; or hke
Lightfoot, the First Epistle of John ; or as Jablonsky opined,
an epistle written to the Colossian pastors generally ; or as
Storr and Flatt would think, one specially addressed to
Epaphras. Such suppositions are as easily refuted as they are
made. Philastrius of Brescia, Schultess, Stein, in his appendix
to his commentary on Luke, and Schneckenburger, suppose
the Epistle to the Hebrews to be intended. It cannot be the
early uncanonical production now known by the title of the
Epistle of Laodicea, a document which Hutter translated out
1 Introduction, vol. ii. p. 134.

298

COLOSSIANS IV. 16.

of Latin into Greek, and of which Jerome said — ab omnibus
exploditur. Marcion, in his canon, according to Tertullian,
gave the Epistle to the EphSsians the title of the Epistle to the
Laodiceans. [Commentary on Ephesians, Introduction, p. xx.]
3. The more probable opinion is, that it is an epistle sent
by Paul to Laodicea at this very period. The epistles were
to be interchanged. And the interchange is naturally this —
that the Laodiceans read the epistle which had been sent to
Colosse, and the Colossians the epistle which had been sent to
Laodicea.1 Wieseler argues that the epistle meant is that to
Philemon. But it is hard to prove that either Archippus or
Philemon was a Laodicean. It would certainly be strange for
the Colossian church to send Paul's charge to the minister of
another church, when, according to Wieseler, there was an
epistle destined for individuals in the same community. Then,
again, as has been observed, what is there in the private letter
to Philemon to make it of general use at Colosse ? Again,
many, as Bahr, Steiger, Bohmer, and Anger, who hold that
the Epistle to the Ephesians is a circular letter, believe it to
be here meant, while some maintain that its original destina
tion was Laodicea. But how, it might be asked, how did
the apostle know that the encychcal epistle should have
reached Laodicea just at the time when his letter should
arrive at Colosse ? The spirit of the injunction in verse 16,
seems plainly to imply that both letters were despatched at
once, and the same might be inferred from the apostle's desire
expressed in ii. 1, that the Laodiceans as well as the Colos
sians, should be aware of his intense sohcitude for them.
Tychicus, as Meyer suggests, would travel through Laodicea to
Colosse, and he would there impart the oral confirmation that
the letter referred to by the apostle was lying at Laodicea.
This arrangement being known to the apostle gave precision
to his language. One difficulty in our way is the fact that
Paul bids the Colossian church salute the brethren in Lao
dicea. Why do so, it is asked, if himself despatched a letter
at the same time to Laodicea ? But the salutation sent through
the Colossians would manifest the apostle's desire that both
1 Chronologie des Apost. Zeitalters, p. 452.

COLOSSIANS IV. 16. 299
churches should cherish a sisterly attachment, and the trans
mission of the apostle's salutation to Laodicea would be a
fitting occasion for the interchange of epistles.
But will the phrase rrjv Ik AaoStKEtac bear such a meaning ?
There is no doubt that it may, the preposition showing that
the letter was there, and to be brought out of that city. The
idiom means that the letter was there, or would be found
there, and was to be carried thence. Thus, Bahr refers to
Luke xi. 13 — 6 TrarTjp 6 1? ovpavov Swasi irvEvpa dyiov —
where the particle i% characterizes the descent of a gift out
of heaven, and from One who is in heaven. Matt. xxiv. 17
has also been referred to — apat ra iK rfje otKtac avrov — but
the similarity of construction is not so close. The case
of otto, in Heb. xiii. 24, and the reverse one of sie in Luke
ix. 61, come under a similar law. Compare 2 Cor. ix. 2 ;
Philip, iv. 22. The law is based on what is called the
attraction of prepositions, when, for example, instead of a
preposition denoting rest being used, the idea of motion
is attracted from the verb, which either expresses it or implies it,
and a preposition signifying such motion is employed.
Kuhner, § 623; Winer, § 63, 6. The idea of fetching the
epistle out of the city of Colosse was present to the writer's
mind, and so he says Ik — the epistle to be gotten out, and not
iv — the epistle now lying in Laodicea. This ascertained usage
puts an end to the objections of the Greek expositors, who
affirm that this view would necessitate such a phrase as ttjv
Trpoe AaoStKEac-
The inference, of course, is that this epistle is lost, like many
others of the apostle's writings. Probably it was wholly of a
temporary and local nature, and therefore has not been pre
served.1 An inspired writing is not necessarily a canonical one.
We subjoin a copy of the spurious epistle referred to at bottom of p. 297 : —
1. Paulus apostolus, non ab hominibus, 1. Paul an apostle, not of men, neither
neque per hominem, sed per Jesum Chris- by man, but by Jesus Christ, to the
turn, fratribus qui estis Laodicese. brethren which are at Laodicea.
2. Gratia vobis, et pax a Deo Patre 2. Grace be to you, and peace from
et Domino nostro Jesu Christo. God the Father, and our Lord Jesus
Christ.
3. Gratias ago Christo per omnem 3. I thank Christ in every prayer of
orationem meam, quod permanentes estis mine, because ye continue and persevere

300

COLOSSIANS IV. 17.

This interchange of epistles was a salutary custom; it made
an epistle sent to one church to become, in reality, the com
mon property of all the churches, and it led in no very long
period to the formation of the canon of the New Testament.
(Ver. 17.) Kal stirare 'Apxlirirw. BXette rrjv SiaKOvlav r)v
irapLXa^Eg iv Kvplw, "iva avrrjv irXnpolg — " And say to
Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast re
ceived in the Lord, that thou fulfil it." Archippus is men
tioned also in Philemon. There is no ground for the opinion
of Michaelis, Storr, Wieseler, and Theodoret, based on the Apos
tolic Constitutions, vii. 46,1 that Archippus was a Laodicean.

et perseverantes in operibus bonis, pro-
missionem expectantes in die judicii.
4. Neque disturbent vos quorundam
vaniloquia insimulantium veritatem, ut
vos avertant a veritate Evangelii, quod a
me prffidicatur.
5. Et nunc faciet Deus, ut qui sunt ex
me, perveniant ad perfectum veritatis
Evangelii, sint deservientes, et benigni-
tatem operum facientes, quae sunt salutis
vita? a?ternse.
6. Et nunc palam sunt vincula mea,
quse patior in Christo, in quibus Isetor et
gaudeo. 7. Scio enim quod hoc mini est ad sa-
lutem perpetuam, quod factum est ora-
tionibus vestris, administrante Spiritu
Sancto. 8. Sive per vitam, sive per mortem,
est mihi vivere vita in Christo, et mori
gaudium. 9. Et ipse Dominus noster in nobis
faciet misericordiam suam, ut eandem
dilectionem habeatis et sitis unanimes.
10. Ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis prse-
sentiam Domini, ita sentite, et facite in
timore ; et erit vobis vita in astcrnum.
11. Est enim Deus, qui operator in
vobis ;
12. Et facite sine peccato qtuecunque
facitis.

in good works, looking for that which is
promised in the day of judgment.
4. Let not the vain speeches of any
trouble you, who pervert the truth, that
they seduce you from the truth of the
gospel which is preached by me.
5. And now may God effect it, that
my converts may attain to a perfect
knowledge of the truth of the gospel, be
beneficent, and doing good works which
are connected with the salvation of eter
nal life.
6. And now my bonds which I suffer
in Christ, are manifest, in which I re
joice and am glad.
7. For I know that this shall turn to
my salvation for ever, which is secured
through your prayer, and the supply of
the Holy Spirit.
8. Whether by life or by death ; [for]
to me shall be a life in Christ, to die will
be joy.
9. And our Lord Himself will grant
us His mercy, that ye may have the
same love and be likeminded.
10. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have
heard of the coming of the Lord, so think
and act in fear, and it shall be to you
life eternal ;
11. For it is God, who worketh in
you; 12. And do without sin whatever
things ye do.

Ttis Ss h Qpvyla Aaohx\!as "Ap-^mros, p. 187, ed. Ueltzen, 1852.

COLOSSIANS IV. 17. 301
Philem. 2. What the motive of the apostle in sending him this
exhortation was, we do not know. It would be an un
warranted suspicion, on the one hand, to suppose that Archip
pus was in danger of proving unfaithful ; and it is no less a
baseless notion of Bengel, on the other hand, that he was
either in sickness or old age, and not far from the end of
his career. The form EtTrarE is pecuhar. Winer, § 15. In
construing the exhortation, it serves no purpose to take back
'iva from its place, and read j3Xette "va, for what then should
come of avrjjv? 2 John 8. The phrase "in the Lord" has
not the same meaning as " from the Lord," with which some
would identify it. It points out the source of the ministry, not
simply, but by describing the sphere in which it was given
and received. It was "in the Lord" — the recipient was in
union with the Lord himself, and the ministerial function was
conferred upon him, and accepted by him under no foreign
influence, obligation, or motive. Whatever this ministry was,
and we cannot determine its nature, whether it be the diaconate
specially or the pastorate generally, it was therefore a divine
office which Archippus held. He had "received it in the Lord,"
and the charge was, that he was to see to it " that he fulfilled
it." Acts xii. 25. This was to be his sohcitude, to discharge
all the duties which such an office laid upon him, and to fill
up with holy activity that sphere which the Lord had marked
13. Et quod optimum est, dilectissimi, 13. And what is best, my beloved, re-
gaudete in Domino Jesu Christo, et cavete joice in the Lord Jesus Christ, and avoid
omnes sordes in omni lucro. ail filthy lucre.
14. Omnes petitiones vestra? sint palam 14. Let all your requests be made
apud Deum; estote firmi in sensu Christi. known before God, and be firm in the
doctrine of Christ.
15. Et qua? Integra, et vera, et pudica, 15. And whatsoever things are sound,
et casta, et justa, et amabilia sunt, facite. and true, and of good report, and chaste,
and just, and lovely, these things do.
16. Et qua? audiistis et accepistis, in 16. And those things which ye have
corde retinete, et erit vobis pax. heard, and received, keep in your hearts,
and peace shall be with you.
17. Salutant vos omnes sancti. 17. All the saints salute you.
18. Gratia Domini nostri Jesu Christi 18. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ
cum spiritu vestro. Amen. be with your spirit. Amen.
19. Hanc facite legi Colossensibus, et 19. Cause that this Epistle be read
eam, quae est Colossensium, vobis. among the Colossians, and the Epistle of
the Colossians to be read among you.

302

COLOSSIANS IV. 18.

out for him. There is no occasion to adopt the idea of
Grotius, that the verb TrXrjpoTe is any imitation of the Hebrew
Nte, as applied to the consecration of a priest, for the word is found
with a similar sense in the classics and in Philo. Some suppose
that Archippus was holding office in the absence of Epaphras,
others that he was a son of Philemon, and deacon under his
father as pastor. It has been said, that it marks the free inter
course of the early churches, when such an address should be
made by a church to one of its ministers. Only, it should be
borne in mind, that the church was simply the vehicle of com
munication. It was an admonition of Paul to Archippus
through the church. The idea of Theophylact is, that Paul
sends him the admonition so openly, for this purpose, that
when he had occasion to rebuke any members of the church,
they might not deem him bitter or censorious, for they would
recaU the apostle's charge to him, and esteem him for so
faithfully obeying it.
(Ver. 18.) 'O do-Trao-jUoe ry ipy x«pl EfavXov — " ©fie saluta
tion of |Jaul faitf) mine Obim fianfi." Having employed an
amanuensis in writing the previous portion of the epistle, the
apostle authenticates it by adding his salutation in his own
hand. 1 Cor. xvi. 21 ; 2 Thess. iii. 17. What associations
and feelings that handwriting would excite ! Many an eye
would be moistened as it gazed upon it. Not only does
he write the salutation himself, but he adds, with his own
hand too, the remaining clauses.
MvTjyuovEVEr! pov rwv SEapwv — " Mcvncmhcr mg bon&s," a
brief but pathetic request. The alternative view of Heinrichs
is a very miserable one — stipendio mihi mittendo. Nor can
we, with Olshausen and others, confine the mode of remem
brance craved by the apostle simply to supphcation for him.
As Meyer says — jede Beschrdnkung ist unbefugt — " every
limitation is unwarranted," Every possible form of remem
brance they were besought to cherish. With every mention
of his name, or allusion to his work, his chain was to be
associated. Every picture which their mind's eye formed of
him was to be that of a prisoner. When they felt their obliga
tions to him as an apostle, they were to think of his captivity.
Their freedom of religious observance was to suggest to them,

COLOSSIANS IV. 18. 303
by the contrast, his incarceration. When they asked a blessing
on their spiritual benefactors, they were not to forget the
fetters of him — the apostle of the Gentiles. " Bemember my
bonds." When his right hand penned the salutation of the
previous clause, no wonder he felt his bonds so keenly, and
spoke of them, for at the same moment his left hand was
chained to the right arm of the Boman soldier who kept him.
And now he bids them farewell —
'H x"Pie r1*^ vr">>v — " ©rate be tnttfi gOU." The adieu is
brief, but expressive. The apostle concludes as he began,
with an earnest benediction, a prayer for fulness of blessing,
alike for their present and eternal welfare. The 'Apr)v of the
Received Text is not well authenticated, and the subscription,
though correct, is necessarily spurious.

ERRATA IN THE WORK.
Page 20, line 14 from the top, for vori^ read iorlg.
55, ... 17  the Father read this Father.
64, ... 18 ... ... is read og.
... 127, ... 30 and 31 ... 'EpptZopivos read'Epfi^upive;.
... 242, ... 9  himself read him.

INDEX.

"Absent in the flesh but present in the
spirit," meaning of, 120.
Abstinence from meats and drinks no test
of genuine piety, 202.
Acting " in the name of Christ " the high
est morality, 254.
Aim of the preacher should he to reach
every individual, 102.
Alienation from God characteristic of man
kind, 80.
Angels drawn nearer to God and man by
the work of redemption, 75.
" Answering every one " illustrated, 282.
, Asceticism a libel on Providence, 201.
Assurance, the blessedness of, 247.
Atoning sacrifice of Christ the source of
peace, 77.
Barnabas, notices of his history, 288.--
Basil's encomium on the Psalms, 253.
" Beholding your order " explained, 122.
Believers " complete in Christ," 147.
Benefits of " full assurance of understand
ing," 111, 293.
Blessedness of heaven, 98.
Blessing, Divine forgiveness, a first and
prominent, 40.
" Blotting out the handwriting against us,"
meaningof the phrase, 162.
Bonds of Paul suffered for the sake of the
Gentiles, 276, 302.
"Buried in baptism" no allusion to the
mode of that ordinance, 153.
" Circumcision of Christ " spiritual, 151.
 , the, "not made with hands," 149.
Children, duties of, to their parents, 260.
Christ the Creator of "thrones, and do
minions, and principalities, and powers,"
54.
 pre-eminent as Creator, 68.
 pre-eminent as the fountain of bless
ing, 69.
 pre-eminent in the constitution of
His person, 69.
•¦  the image of God " in His Divine
works, 45.
"  the image of God " in His media
torial person, 44.
"  the image of God" in perfection,
44.
 the essence of the gospel, 125.
 the hope of glory subjectively and
objectively, 99.
 the pattern after which His followers
are to forgive one another, 243.
' •  our life " explained, 219.
 not simply the instrumental, but
primary, cause of creation, 56.

Christ's body, though on the throne, not
deified, 49.
 qualifications for being head of the
church, 64.
Christian truth in the heart the source of
comfort and guidance, 250.
 union, love the prime element of, 110.
Christian's hfe u hidden," the, because on
earth not openly manifested, 216.
Church defined, 64.
- — , Christ the source of its existence
and blessing, 64.
Colosse, city of, ix.
 , church of, xiv.
 , Epistle to, its genuineness, xxii.
 , contents of, xxxix.
 , time and place, xiv.
 , works On, xiv.
 , errorists in, xxx.
" Commandments and doctrines of men,"
of no authority in religion, 198.
" Conversation seasoned with salt," ex
plained, 280.
Covetousness, how styled idolatry, 223.
Creation, work of, ascribed in its fullest
sense to Christ, 52, 60.
 universally affected by the death of
Christ, 77.
Cross, the symbol of peace, 78.
" Dead in trespasses " death spiritual, 157.
"  with Christ," infers mortification of
the sensuous members, 221.
Death to sin, and death in sin, distin
guished, 160.
 to the world, separation from the
elements of the world, 197.
Dietetic regulations of the law laid aside
under the gospel, 176.
Dignity and rank of Christ described, 42.
Divine forgiveness daily needed, 40.
 polity, highest conceptions of, in the
gospel, 116.
Divinity and humanity personally united
in Christ, 144.
Divinity of Christ proved by His forgiving
sin, 243. 8 8
Doctrine, to be tested by the estimation in
which it holds Christ, 140.
Dogmas of the false teachers of Colosse,
42, 117.
"Door of utterance," meaning of the
phrase, 275.
Efficacy of prayer, 274.
Election not determined by character, but
determines it, 237.
Epaphras, earnest prayers of, for the Co
lossians, 292.

306

INDEX.

Epaphras, teaching of, sanctioned by apos
tolic authority, 17, 292.
" Epistle from Laodicea," what it was, 296.
Epistles, interchange of, among the early
Christians useful, 300.
Errors existing in Colosse, 42.
Errorists of Colosse did not "hold the
head," 191.
Eternity of Christ, 58.
"Faith established and abounding"," 128.
Faith the instrumental means in Sie spirit
ual resurrection, 155.
Falsehood unworthy of men spiritually
renewed, 226.
Fellow-labourers, Jewish, present with
Paul, 291.
" Fining up what is wanting of the afflic
tions of Christ," meaning of the phrase,
Final glory illustrated, 34, 98, 220.
 purpose contemplated by Christ in
creation, 56.
"First-born of every creature," meaning
of the phrase, 47.
 , probably a fundamental term with
the Colossian errorists, 50.
Forgiveness bound up with subsequent
Divine gifts, 41.
— — more closely connected with redemp
tion than any other blessing, 41.
 of sin a necessary accompaniment of
spiritual life, 161.
Formal allusions to religion in daily busi
ness, abuse of piety, 255.
Fountain of every blessing is in Christ, 65.
Fruitbearing in the believer illustrated, 26.
" Full assurance of understanding," mean
ing of the expression, 111.
" Fulfilling the Word of God," meaning of
the phrase, 94.
" Fulness of the Godhead dwelling bodily "
in Christ, 141.
Fulness of saving blessing in Christ, 71.
Gentiles especially indebted to Paul, 276,
292.
 , Paul specially a minister of the, 93.
God the source of meetness for the inheri
tance of the saints, 35.
" God's glory," the phrase explained, 28.
God's love to the Son, 38.
— — — pleasure that "all fulness should
dwell in Christ," 70.
Gospel, the, fruitbearing and diffusive, 14.
"Grace in truth," grace in its genuine
form, 16.
Graces becoming the "elect of God," 240.
Grace the grand characteristic of the gos
pel, 15.
Gratitude, profound, due to Christ, 2f 0.
 , why a duty of believers, 32.
Grounds of thanksgiving on behalf of the
Colossians, 9.
" Head of principality and power," Christ
the, 148.
Heavenly glory, why an object of hope, 10.

Hebrew ceremonial wanting in spiritual
power, 181.
Heresies, allied to false philosophy, 131.
" Hope of glory," the future blessedness of
behevers, 98.
Hierapolis, xi.
Humility necessary in considering the rela
tions of the Divine nature, 43.
 , spurious, 184.
Husbands, duties of, to their wives, 258.
" Image of God " marks Christ's pre-emi
nence, 68.
" Image of God" the model of man spirit
ually renewed, 229.
Inducements to seek "the things which
are above," 213.
" Inheritance of the saints " allusion to the
allotment of Canaan, 32.
Intense earnestness of Paul, 104.
Joy accompanying patience and long-
suffering, 81.
 of the apostle from being present with
the Colossians in spirit, 121.
Judaism fashioned to resemble Christianity,
180.
Kalendar, Jewish, abrogated under Christ
ianity, 176.
"Kingdom of Christ" is present as well
as future, 38.
"Kingdom of darkness," why so desig
nated, 36.
Knowledge of God, aliment of spiritual
growth, 27.
 possessed by man may be indefinitely
enlarged, 230.
Labours of ,Paul on behalf of the church
unceasing, 93.
Laodicea, city of, x.
Law, the moral, in its condemnation, and
the ceremonial in its rites, expunged by
Christ's death, 168.
Life, God's immediate gift, 161.
"  of faith" the, a life of hope, 85.
 , spiritual, as it shall be developed at
Christ's second coming, 219.
Light characteristic of the heavenly glory,
33.
"Likeness to God" in regeneration, higher
than that in creation, 235.
Love exhibited by the Colossians, 18.
"  in the Spirit " is love in the Holy
Spirit, 19.
 ofthe Father toward the Son, 38.
 the perfection of the Christian char
acter, 245.
 the crown and result of the other
graces, 19.
 to the saints, love to Christ, 7.
Luke a companion of the apostle, 294.
Mark, from whom Paul separated, recon
ciled to him, 288.
Masters and servants are alike under
Christ, 270.

INDEX.

307

Masters, duties of, to their servants, 268.
Medium of spiritual life, union with Christ,
217.
"Meetness for the inheritance of the
saints," why necessary, 34.
" Mind, the fleshly," capacitated only for
sensuous objects, 189.
Mosaic economy, the, only rudimental,
139.
 observances full of meaning, 179.
"Mystery hid from ages and generations,"
meaning of, 95.
" Name of the Lord Jesus," everything to
be done in the, 253.
National distinctions immaterial in regen
eration, 235.
"New man," descriptive of humanity re
newed, 228.
Nouns with correlative verbs intensify the
meaning, 28, 106.
" Old man," personification of depraved
humanity, 227.
Onesimus, a converted slave, sent back to
Colosse, 286.
Origin of sin, Muller's theory, 230.
Parental training, quotation from Gisborne,
262.
Paternal kindness enjoined, 261.
"Patience and long-suffering" adjuncts of
faith, 29.
Paul, why named an apostle of Jesus
Christ, 1.
" Peace of Christ," what it is, 247. .
Peace resulting from Christ's sacrifice, 77.
" Perfect in Christ," meaning of the phrase,
104.
Perseverance in faith essential to salva
tion, 84.
 of the saints a distinct doctrine of
Scripture, 85.
Personal essence not the image of God in
man, 233.
Philosophy, advantages of true, in study
ing religion, 130.
Prayer, efficacy of, 274.
 , false, prevalent among the Colos
sians, 133.
 on behalf of himself besought by
Paul, 274.
 of the apostle on behalf of the Colos
sians, 7.
 on behalf of the Colossians unceas
ing, 20.
 and thanksgiving not to be con
founded, 273.
Preaching, subject of, Christ, 101.
 , wisdom needed in, 103.
Pre-eminence in all things belongs to
Christ, 66.
Pride in disguise the natural result of
asceticism, 205, 209.
"Principalities and powers spoiled" in
Christ's death, 171.
" Putting off the body of the flesh," regen
eration, 150.

" Quickened with Christ," a blessing en
joyed even on earth, 158.
Race and social rank not lost on professing
Christianity, 237.
Reality and fulness of the gospel the cause
why it is often rejected, 189.
" Receiving Christ Jesus the Lord," is to
receive Christ as Lord, 125.
Reconciliation, final design of, 83.
 , work of God, 81.
"Reconciling all things," meaning and
reference of the expression, 73.
Redemption exhibits Christ in the fulness
of his essence, 57.
 obtained by virtue of union with
Christ, 40.
Regeneration not restricted to class, rank,
or nation, 237.
Resurrection of Christ, results of the, 66.
Ritual of Moses a shadow of future bless
ings, 178.
" Rudiments of the world," meaning of the
expression, 138, 195.
Reward of faithful service, 265.
Salutation of Paul peculiarly affecting, 302.
Satan vanquished by the death of Christ,
173.
Science and philosophy not hostile to faith,
129.
Science, the highest, found in the gospel,
117. . "
Sensuality often visited with its appro
priate penalty on earth, 223.
Servants, duties of, to their masters, 268.
Sinners exempted from condemnation
through the cross, 171.
Sins of malignity defined, 225.
Social duties specially urged on the Asiatic
churches, 256.
Socinian hypothesis of Christ as creator
unnatural and contradictory, 61.
Spiritual characteristics of the heathen
world, 79.
"  knowledge " conferred by the Holy
Ghost, 24.
Steadfast faith, its advantages and reason
ableness, 123.
Success in winning souls to be traced to
Divine power, 105.
Thanksgiving on behalf of the Colossians,
4.
 rendered to God as the Father of
Christ, 5.
" Things above " supreme, " things below "
subordinate, 215.
Timothy, how associated with Paul in writ
ing the epistle, 2.
 joined with Paul in expressing the
sentiments of the epistle, 5.
Traditions of men, 135, 198.
Translation into the kingdom of Christ
described, 37.
Tychicus, the bearer of the epistle to the
Colossians, 284.

308

INDEX

Unceasing thanksgiving on behalf of the
Colossians, 6.
Union to Christ, the efficacious principle in
the spiritual resurrection, 154.
Unity and nourishment of the church,
Christ the source of, 193.
Universal being, Christ the preserver of,
59.
" Visible and invisible," a common expres
sion in Eastern philosophy, 53.
 , meaning of the expression, S3.
Voluntary suffering, intensely fascinating
to many minds, 209.
"Walking," figuratively descriptive of a
person's tenor of life, 24, 224.
"  in Christ," the result of receiving
Him, 126.
"  worthy of the Lord" explained, 25.

" Walking in wisdom toward them that are
without " meaning of, 278.
Warnings against being misled by false
teachers, 119.
Watchwords of the errorists of Colosse,
199.
" Will of God," often too much restricted,
22.
"Wisdom and knowledge," genuine, re
vealed in the gospel, 114.
 needed in preaching, 103.
Wives, duties of, to their husbands, 257.
"Word of the gospel," the oral communi
cations of the first Christian teachers, 11.
" World, all the," meaning of the phrase,
13.
"Worshipping of angels," origin ofthe, 185.
Wrong doing will be requited at the final
judgment, 266.

INDEX OF GREEK TERMS MORE PARTICULARLY REFERRED TO.

" Ayios, 3.
'AXnGtix evayysXiov, 11.
' AvravavrXvjpu, 91.
' Aor'oxpvtyos, 115.
' ' AvraXXorpi'ou, 79.
'Apxi, 64.
Vvueis, Ivriyvueis, 21, 112, 114, 228.
Aoypara, 163.
Aaypari^u, 193.
'Etxuv, 43.
'Ex, 299.
'EXiris, 10-
"Evi, 235.
'Ev avru, Ai abrov, 55, 56.
'Evriytvurxu, 15.
e'tXu, 96.
'Iva, 274.
Karafipafiivu, 182.
Krigu, 62.
Aoyos, 204.
Aoyos xXntiiixs, 11.
Miv, 204.

HJovhruv, AjSaexuv, 102.
TiaHpara vvrip vpuv, 85.
TLapaXapfixvu, 125.
Xlapuv its, Uapuv lv, 12.
HXngou, 93.
UXtipupa, 70, 141.
TIgoaxovu, 11.
Xlpuroroxos, 47.
Sofia, evvieis, 22, 114.
Srspiupa, 123.
2rotx^iov, 138.
tvXayuyuv, 134.
1vpP,l$a£u, 109.
2vvo*ovXos, 17.
Supa, 2a{|, 82.
Suparixus, 142.
Talis, 122.
'OCVfif VfiSv Htdxovo;, 17.
'T&epovh xai ^cck^o^^U, 29.
•bavsgoa), 95.
XE/gayga^av, 162.

BELL AMD BAIN, PRINTERS, GLASGOW.

YALE UNIVERSITY t

3 9002 05106 1209

r^^Wt-w

.r Y*

\V**"- i

>$v

'.': "«**'

'f~&t