Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Colossians 1:1 - 1:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS
————
ΠΟ ΚΛΣΑΙ
The spelling of the name is uncertain. In the title the spelling Κλσαι is given by אBc D G L 17 (Κλσες while A B* K P have Κλσαι, which אalso has twice at the top of the page, and so G once (once also Κλσαι). In the subscription אA B* C K 17 agree in Κλσαι, while B2 D G L P have Κλσαι.
In ver. 2 אB D G L have Κλσας K P 17, al. Κλσας(A non liquet).
The versions also vary. Syr. (both) have א with Boh., but Vulg. and Arm. o.
Coins give the spelling with o, and for the name of the people Κλσννor Κλσηω. But the form with a appears in Polyaenus and in some MSS. of Herodotus and Xenophon. The latter may have been a provincial pronunciation and spelling. WH. and Lightfoot adopt a in the title, o in ver. 2; Tregelles has a in both places, as well as in the subscription (which WH. omit). Tischendorf preserves the correct spelling with o, remarking, “videtur Κλσα scriptura sensim in usum abisse. At inde non sequitur iam Paulum ita scripsisse.” As the heading did not proceed from the pen of St. Paul, this conclusion agrees practically with that of WH. and Lightfoot as to the spelling here.
1:1 Salutation. Πῦο ἀότλς κτλ See Eph_1:1.
κὶΤμθο. Timothy’s name is joined with that of Paul also in 2 Cor. 1Th_2 Thess. Philemon. In Phil. and Philemon, however, the apostle proceeds in the singular, whereas here the plural is maintained throughout the thanksgiving.
ὁἀεφς This does not imply any official position (οκῦ κὶἀότλς Chrys.); it is the simplest title that could be employed to express Christian brotherhood. So it is used of Quartus, Rom_16:23; of Sosthenes, 1Co_1:1; and of Apollos, 1Co_16:12; and of an unnamed brother, 2Co_8:18, 2Co_12:18. Compare 2Co_9:3, 2Co_9:5.
2. τῖ ἐ Κ ἁίι κὶπσοςἀεφῖ. ἁίι, as in all similar salutations, must be taken as a substantive. De Wette, however, and apparently Syr. and Vulg., connect it as an adjective with ἀεφῖ. πσοςis more than “believing,” which would add nothing to ἁίι and ἀεφῖ. It is “true, steadfast.” Cf. Act_16:15.
ἐ Χιτ. Closely connected with πσοςἀ., but refers chiefly to πσος Cf. πσὸ δάοο ἐ Κρῳ Eph_6:21. Only in Christ were they “faithful brethren”; the article, therefore, is not required. ἐ Χ. might, indeed, have been dispensed with; but it suits the formality of the introductory greeting.
After ἐ Χιτ, Ἰσῦis added in A D* G 17, Vulg., Boh., not in אB DeK L P, Syr-Harcl., Arm., etc. (Syr-Pesh has Ἰσῦbefore Χιτ).
It is remarkable that St. Paul’s earlier Epistles are addressed τ ἐκηί, τῖ ἐκηίι; whereas here, as in Rom. and Eph., the address is to the saints and brethren. This can hardly be accidental. It certainly gives the address a more personal and less official aspect, and may have been adopted because the apostle had no personal relations with the heads of these Churches, to which he was personally unknown. It has been objected to this, that in 4:16 the Church of the Laodiceans is mentioned; and, again, that the Epistle to the Philippians, to whom St. Paul was personally known, is similarly addressed. As to the former objection, it may be fairly replied that to speak of his Epistle being read in the Church is very different from addressing it to the Church; and as to the second, although the word ἐκηί is not used in the address to the Phil., we have what may be regarded as an equivalent, σνἐικπι κὶδαόος It is hardly satisfactory to say that the disuse of ἐκηί in the address is characteristic of the later Epistles; for, first, this is not an explanation; and, secondly, the word is used in Philemon, τ κτ οκνσυἐκηί.
χρςὑῖ κὶερν ἀὸΘο πτὸ ἡῶ = Eph_1:2, where there follows ΚὶΚρο ἸσῦΧιτῦ
These words are added here also in אA C G and most MSS. Boh., Arm., also P in a different order, ἸσῦΧ. τῦΚρο ἡῶ. The words are absent from B D K L 17, al. Amiat., Fuld.., Syr-Pesh (text). Origen and Chrysostom both expressly attest the absence of the words. The latter, after quoting the preceding words, observes: τνυὸ ἐίηε κὶο ποέηε ὡ ἐ πσι τῖ ἐιτλῖ·κὶΚρο ἸσῦΧιτῦ The addition has plainly come in by assimilation to Eph.
3-8. Thanksgiving for their faith and love, passing on into the assurance that the gospel they were taught by Epaphras was the true universal gospel, which proved its genuineness by the fruit it produced, both among them and in all the world
3. εχρσομν In all St. Paul’s Epistles to Churches, with the exception of that to the Galatians, the Salutation is followed by thanksgiving. In Eph. as in 2 Cor. this is in the form ελγτςὁΘό, elsewhere in some form of εχρσῶ On the verb, see Eph_1:15.
τ Θῷπτί We have the same form of words in 3:15; elsewhere, however, always ὁΘὸ κὶπτρ
Here also κίis inserted by אA C2 Dc K L P, and apparently all other MSS. except those mentioned below; Vulg., Arm., Theodoret, al.
It is wanting in B C* D* G, Chrys. (D* G Chrys. have τ πτί Old Latin, Syr. (both), Boh., Eth.
Tisch. 8th ed. (in deference to א restores κί which he had omitted in 7th ed. (WH. and RV. omit). Lachm. also omits, but reads τ with D* F G. Meyer thinks κίwas omitted in a mechanical way after the preceding Θο πτό.
It is observable that in 3:17, אA agree with B C in omitting κί while D F G, with K L and nearly all others, as well as Syr-Pesh, insert it. The evidence for the omission there is decidedly preponderant. It is less so here, yet perhaps decisive enough when we consider how certainly the scribes would stumble at the unusual form. The reading τ πτίappears to be another attempt to get rid of it. Compare 1:12 below, where א37, with other authorities, have Θῷbefore πτί
εχρσομν…πνοεπρ ὑῶ ποεχμνι It is questioned whether πνοεis to be joined with εχρσομνor with ποεχ The latter connexion is adopted by the Greek commentators, also by Bengel, Olshausen, Alford, Ellicott, etc. But Eph_1:16 is almost decisive for the other connexion, ο πύμιεχρσῶ ὑὲ ὑῶ μεα ὑῶ πιύεο ἐὶτνποεχνμυ Compare 1Co_1:4; 1Th_1:2. ποεχ is, in fact, a nearer definition of πνοε“We give thanks on your account always in our prayers,” or (as Meyer), “always when we pray for you.” “Always praying for you” would require the addition of words specifying the object of the prayer.
The reading varies between πρ and ὑέ. The latter is read by B D* G 17, al., but A C Dc J K, with most MSS., have πρ. ὑέ would readily be introduced from ver. 9, where there is no variant.
4. ἀοσνε τνπσι ὑῶ ἐ χιτ Ἰσῦ Assigns the ground of his thanksgiving. He had heard from Epaphras, ver. 8. The addition of ἐ Χ. Ἰς as a more precise definition of πσι, which of itself expresses only a psychological conception, is quite natural here, where St. Paul is addressing for the first time those who were unknown to him. So in Eph_1:15. In Rom_1:8 the specification of πσι had preceded vv. 2, 3. The article is unnecessary, as πσι ἐ Χ. is one notion. See Eph. l.c.
κὶτνἀάη ἣ ἔεεεςπνα τὺ ἁίυ.
ἣ ἔεεis read in אA C D* G P 17 37 47, al. Old Latin, Vulg., Boh., Syr-Harcl., Arm. But Dc K L and most MSS. Chrys., Theod., Syr-Pesh have τνἀάη τνες while B has τνἀάη ες The reading with ἣ ἔεεmight be a conformation to Phm_1:5, while τνἀάη τνmight be a conformation to Eph_1:15.
5. δὰτνἐπδ. The Greek comm. and most moderns connect this with the words immediately preceding, “the love which ye have to all the saints.” ἀαᾶέ φσ, τὺ ἁίυ ο δάτ ἀθώιο ἀλ δὰτ ἐπζι τ μλοτ ἀαά Theoph. The reasons alleged are—(1) the remoteness of εχρσομν (2) the following clause,ἣ ποκύαε suggests that the words δὰτνἐπδ describe the motives of the Colossians for welldoing, rather than the reasons of the apostle for thanksgiving; (3) in other Epistles the ground of thanksgiving is the spiritual state of the persons addressed; (4) εχρσενis never used with δάin the N.T.; and (5) the connexion with εχ would break up the triad of graces which St. Paul delights in associating together. (So Meyer, Soden, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot.) (1), (2), (5) are considered by Lightfoot decisive. Yet surely there is something strange in assigning the future hope as the motive of Christian love. As Eadie observes, if the apostle had said that they loved one another because of the common hope which they had in heaven, or that this prospect of a joint inheritance deepened their attachments, 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. Of all the graces, love has the least of self in its nature. Such passages as 2Co_9:6, Gal_6:9 f. are not analogous; for what creates a difficulty is not the mention of expected reward as a motive for action, but as a motive for love. As ἐπςhere is not the grace of hope, but the object (τνἀοεμνν reason (5) loses its force; as ἐπςdoes not mean the same thing as in 1Th_1:3, for example, it is quite natural that it should fall into a different connexion. Nor does there seem to be much weight in the second reason. The words ἣ ποκύαε κτλ involve an appeal to the first teaching they had received, which was sound and full. This goes very well with εχρσομν but if the hope were described as the motive of their love, what appropriateness would there be in referring to their former instruction in it? As to (3) and (4), the clause ἀοσνε does imply that the ground of his thanksgiving was their faith and love; but it is consistent with this that what prompted him to feel thankful for these graces was the thought of the hope laid up for them, and hence with this connexion δάis not only admissible, but is alone suitable. The signification of εχρσενὑέ (1Co_10:30; Eph_5:20) is not that required here. There is good reason, then, for Bengel’s interpretation: “ex spe patet, quanta sit causa gratias agendi pro dono fidei et amoris.” If ἣ ἔεεbe omitted the connexion with ἀάη is grammatically harsh.
Estius, De Wette, Olshausen, and others connect δὰτνἐπ with both πσι and ἀάη. This connexion is certainly awkward, and the sentiment not Pauline. Theodore Mops. connects the words with ποεχμνι
ἐπςis clearly objective, as in Rom_8:24; Gal_5:5.
τνἀοεμνν The thought of the “hope,” i.e. the blessing hoped for, being already prepared is not expressed in this form by St. Paul elsewhere, except perhaps 1Ti_6:19, but is clearly put in 1Pe_1:4, κηοοίν…ττρμννἐ ορνῖ. In substance it is involved in Php_3:20, and, indeed, in Mat_6:20.
ἣ ποκύαε The πο has reference, according to Meyer, to the future fulfilment. Bengel understands it simply as “antequam scriberem,” but the context rather suggests that the reference is to their early teaching in contrast to the later errors. The apostle now is not teaching them anything new, but desires to confirm them in the true doctrine which they had already learned. Compare vv. 7, 23 and 5:6. Hence also the mention of the truth of the gospel in the following words:—
ἐ τ λγ τςἀηεα τῦεαγλο. That εαγλο is the principal notion here is shown by the participle πρνο, which agrees with it, and not with ἀηεα. And this is confirmed by the connexion of ἐπςand εαγλο in ver. 23. The genitive ἀηεα then qualifies λγς and this compound notion is explained by εαγ ἡἀ. τῦεαγ Gal_2:5, Gal_2:14, is not exactly parallel, because there the formula has a direct polemical purpose. Here the point is that ὁλγςτῦεαγ is a λγςτςἀηεα in opposition to those false teachers who would fain complete it by their πρδσι, 2:8, which were κν ἀάη
6. τῦπρτςεςὑᾶ. A quite classical use of πρῖα as implying “has come and remains.” ο πργντ κὶἀέτ, ἀλ ἔεν κὶἔτνἐε, Chrys.; cf. Act_12:20. It needs, then, no further addition.
κθςκὶἐ πνὶτ κσῳἐτνκροοομνν πνὶτ κσῳhere is not an insignificant hyperbole, but intimates the catholicity of the true gospel in opposition to the merely local character of false gospels; compare ver. 23.
Tischendorf, Exo_8, places a comma after ἐτν This construction escapes the irregularity involved in the doubling back of the comparison by the second κθς The comparison then may be either as to the mere fact of the presence of the gospel, so that ἐτν= “exists,” or as to the contents of it, which agrees better with the designation of the gospel as λγςτςἀηεα. The readers then are assured that the gospel which has come to and remains with them is the same as in the whole world; they need have no fear that it was imperfect; it is the false teachers that are not in agreement with the universal gospel. So Soden. But most comm. connect ἐτ with κροοομννκὶαξ
κίis prefixed to ἐτνin Dbc G K L, etc. Old Lat., Vulg., Syr. (both), Chyrs.
It is absent from אA B C D* 17, al. Boh., Arm., Eth. The evidence against it, therefore, is quite decisive. It was doubtless added to simplify the construction, and is defended on the ground of this simplicity by Olshausen and Eadie. Ellicott, who had previously hesitated, thinking that it might have been omitted to modify the hyperbole, omitted the word in his 5th ed.
κροοομνν The middle voice is not elsewhere found; its force here is probably intensive, denoting the inherent energy, while the active (which is used below, ver. 10) would rather denote external diffusion (Lightfoot). Verbs like σδρφρῖθι τμαοοεσα are not parallel, since in them φρῖθιmeans “to wear.”
Those comm. who connect ἐτνwith the participles explain this periphrastic present as expressing continuity of action, as in 2Co_9:12, ο μννἐτνποααλρῦα κτλ and Phil: 2:26, ἐιοῶ ῃ.
κὶαξνμννrests on preponderant evidence, אA B C D* G I, Vss. Rec. omits, with Dbc K, etc.
αξνμννdoubtless refers to the outward expansion, as κρο. to the personal, inner working. “The gospel is not like those plants which exhaust themselves in bearing fruit and wither away. The external growth keeps pace with the reproductive energy,” Lightfoot. Observe the order; first the preservation of the gospel amongst those who received it, and after that its extension to new circles. Both are to the Colossians a proof of its truth and sufficiency.
κθςκὶἐ ὑῖ, so that they did not come behind their brethren in this respect.
If we connect the participles with ἐτν the comparison is very curiously doubled back on itself. Moreover, as Olshausen observes (defending the addition of κίafter κσῳ the words κθςκὶἐ ὑῖ do not fit the beginning of the proposition, κθςκὶἐ πνὶτ κσῳ since the Colossians are, of course, included with the rest in the whole world. Lightfoot explains the irregularity thus: “The clause reciprocating the comparison is an afterthought springing out of the apostle’s anxiety not to withhold praise where praise can be given,” and he compares 1Th_4:1 (not Rec.),πρκλῦε ἐ ΚρῳἸσῦἵα κθςπρλβτ πρ ἡῶ τ πςδῖὑᾶ πρπτῖ κὶἀέκι Θῷ κθςκὶπρπτῖε ἵαπρσεηεμλο. But that passage is not really parallel; for κθςκὶπρπτῖεis entirely distinct from κθςπρλβτ, and is a courteous admission that they were actually walking as they had been taught. Here there is nothing of the kind, and the difficulty (apart from that mentioned by Olshausen) is that we have the mere repetition,“in you as also in all the world, as also in you.” The difficulty, of course, disappears in the Rec. Text with the insertion of κί or, since we are compelled to omit κί with the adoption of the construction above referred to, as then the comparison in κθςκὶἐ ὑῖ is with κρο. κὶαξ
ἀʼἧ ἡέα, κτλ To be closely joined with κθςκὶἐ ὑῖ; the fruitfulness and growth began at once, so that it was independent of these later πρδσι.
ἠοστ κὶἐέντ τνχρν There is no occasion to regard τνχρνas the object of the latter verb only (as Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Eadie understanding “it,” i.e. the gospel, as the object of ἠοστ). χρςwas the content of the gospel message, which is called τ εαγλο τς χρτςτῦΘο(Act_20:24), and as such may be said to be heard. We can hardly, indeed, say, with Lightfoot, that St. Paul uses χρςas a “synonyme for the gospel,” of which use he gives as instances 2Co_6:1, 2Co_8:9, γνσεετνχρντῦΚρο ἡῶ ἸσῦΧιτῦ ὅιδʼὑᾶ ἐτχυεποσο ὤ. Here the word suggests a contrast with the false gospel, which was one of δγαα(2:14). Compare Gal_2:21, οκἀεῶτνχρντῦΘο.
ἐέντ implies not so much developed knowledge as active conscious recognition, or taking knowledge of; cf. Act_3:10, Act_3:4:13, Act_3:22:24, 29, 27:39, 28:1; 1Co_14:37; 2Co_1:14 (ἐέντ ἡᾶ ἀὸμρυ).
ἐ ἀηεᾳ Even although the gospel was itself λγςτςἀηεα, there was the possibility that as known by them it was imperfect; hence this is added to guard them against the error of the false teachers, who insisted on supplementing it by their philosophy (2:8, 28).
7. κθςἐάεεἀὸἘαρ. This gives them a further assurance as to the source of their Christianity; the apostle gives his seal to the teaching of Epaphras, which conveyed the full gospel of the grace of God, so that having received this in truth as they did, they had no need to listen to strange teachers.
Epaphras appears from 4:12 to have been a Colossian; either a native, or now reckoned as an inhabitant of Colossae. From the present passage we gather that he was the founder of the Church there (compare the κθςand ἀʼἧ ἡέα.) He was at this time a fellow-prisoner of St. Paul (Phm_1:23): or perhaps σνιμλτςthere only means that he was so constantly with St. Paul as practically to share his captivity. As the name is a shortened form of Epaphroditus, it was natural to conjecture that the Epaphroditus of Php_2:25 was the same person. But the names were common, occurring frequently in inscriptions; and as Epaphroditus appears to be in close connexion with the Philippians (whose ἀότλςhe was), there is no sufficient ground for the identification.
τῦἀαηο σνολυἡῶ. So Tychicus (4:7) is called σνολς the servitude being, of course, to Christ. This designation appears intended to command high respect for Epaphras, who is thus placed as near as possible to the apostle.
ὅ ἐτ πσὸ ὑὲ ἡῶ δάοο τῦΧιτῦ See note on the reading. The reading ἡῶ makes Epaphras a representative of St. Paul in preaching the gospel at Colossae; probably at the time when the apostle was dwelling for two years at Ephesus, at which time “all that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus” (Act_19:10). This would explain the attitude of authority which St. Paul assumes in this Epistle towards a Church which he had not himself seen.
δάοο has clearly its general meaning “minister,” not the special sense “deacon,” as the genitive τῦΧιτῦshows. This designation of him as πσὸ ὑὲ ἡῶ, κτλ serves still further to confirm the confidence of the Colossians in their first teacher. If ὑῶ is read, ὑέ ὑῶ would mean “for your benefit,” not “instead of you,” for there is no personal reference here, as in Phm_1:13, ἵαὑὲ σῦμιδαοῇ The genitive τῦΧιτῦis, indeed, decisive of this, for this implies that his ministry was one of spiritual benefit, which would not be suitable to a messenger from the Colossians to St. Paul.
There are two rather important varieties of reading in ver. 7. The Rec. Text has κίafter κθςon comparatively weak authority, viz. Do 37 47 K L Syr-Harcl., Arm., against אA B C D * G 17 P Vulg., SyrPesh1;, and other Vers. κίwas doubtless added from assimilation to the two preceding κθςκί κθςἐάεεwithout κίcan only mean that Epaphras was their first teacher.
The other important variation is between ὑὲ ἡῶ and ὑὲ ὑῶ, and with respect to this there is a remarkable conflict between MSS. and versions. ἡῶ is read by א A B D * G.
Ambrosiaster (Comm. “qui eis ministravit gratiam Christi vice Apostoli”).
ὐῶ by א C Dbc K L P and most MSS.
The versions, however, are nearly all on the side of ὑῶ, Vulg., Syr. (both), Boh., Arm., Eth., Goth., Chrys. also interprets ὑῶ. The other Greek comm. are silent as to the word in their comments, and the reading in their texts, which is ὑῶ, may be due to editors. Of the old Latin, d (and e) with f have “vobis” (against the Greek D F), while g has “nobis” (agreeing with G).
Internal evidence favours ἡῶ. First, “for your benefit” would hardly be expressed by ὑὲ ὑῶ, but either by ὑῶ, cf. δάοο πρτμς Rom_15:8, or ὑῖ, as in 1Pe_1:12. The form of expression does not indicate that any emphasis on “for your benefit” is intended, as if the apostle meant to impress on the Col. that whatever Epaphars had done was for their good. Secondly, it is easy to understand how ὑῶ might be substituted for ἡῶ partly on account of the recurrence of ὑὲ ὑῶ in the neighbouring context (vv. 3, 9) and in connexion with this, from the significance of ἡῶ not being understood. The two words being pronounced alike, these circumstances would naturally lead to ὑῶ being written by mistake in the first instance, and the second to its preference when both readings were deliberately compared. On the other hand, Meyer thinks that ἡῶ is due to the influence of the preceding ἡῶ and the following ἡῶ. Editors differ in their judgment; Lachm., Treg., WH., Lightfoot, RV., Barry, Moule adopt ἡῶ, ὑῶ being given a place in the margin by WH., RV.
On the other hand, Tisch., Meyer, Ell. Eadie, Soden prefer ὑῶ. Eadie in support of this points out that ἡῶ would include Timothy. But there is no reason why Timothy should be so pointedly excluded, as would have been the case had ἐο been used, any more than with σνολυand δλσς
8. ὁκὶδλσςἡῖ τνὑῶἀάη ἐ πεμτ, viz. their love to St. Paul in particular. This appears clear from ἡῖ τνὑῶ, as well as from the subsequent δὰτῦοΚὶἡες The words may be regarded as a courteous justification of the didactic tone which the apostle adopts, and perhaps also as an indication that Epaphras had not made any complaint of the Colossians. Meyer (reading ὑῶ) understands love to Epaphras; Ellicott, brotherly love.
ἐ πεμτ expresses the ground of their love, which was not individual sympathy, personal acquaintance, or the like, but belonged to the sphere of the Holy Spirit’s influence. It was ο σριή ἀλ πεμτκ, Oecum. Compare ὅο οχἑρκσ τ πόωό μυἐ σρί(2:7).
9-12. Prayer for their advancement in spiritual knowledge, not speculative, but practical
9. Δὰτῦο On account, namely, of all that has preceded from ver. 4; cf. 1Th_2:4. Chrys. strikingly observes: κθπρἐ τῖ ἀῶι ἐενυ μλσαδεερμντὺ ἐγςὄτςτςνκς οτ δ κὶὁΠῦο τύοςμλσαπρκλῖτὺ τ πένκτρωόα. Cf. Eph_1:15. κὶἡες “we also,” by its position emphasises the transition from the conduct of the Colossians to its effect on the apostle and his friends.
ἀʼἧ ἡέα ἠοσμνechoes the similar expression in ver. 6. So the apostle’s prayer was, as it were, an echo of their faith. An encouragement to them to proceed as they had begun.
ο πνμθ ποεχμνι Cf. Eph_1:16. Called by Ellicott an “affectionate hyperbole”; yet it is hardly to be called a hyperbole, for it would at no moment be true to say that he had ceased to pray for them. It is not asserted that the expression of the prayer was uninterrupted. As they did not cease to grow and bear fruit, so he did not cease to pray. Cf. Act_5:42, οκἐαοτ δδσοτς κτλ and contra, Act_13:10, ο πύῃδατέω, and 1Sa_12:23. κὶατύεο, κτλ adds the special request to the more general ποεχμνι Compare Mar_11:24, ὅαποεχσεκὶατῖθ.
ἵαafter words like θλι, ατῖθι signifies merely the purport of the wish or prayer; cf. Php_1:9, where τῦοas object of ποεχμιis explained by ἵαπηωῆετνἐίνσν For the accusative, compare Php_1:11, ππηωέο κρὸ δκισνς “that ye may be perfected in,” Oltramare. ἐίνσν stronger than γῶι: see 1Co_13:12. The difference, however, seems to be rather that the former word implies a more active exercise of a faculty, and hence lends itself better to the expression of practical knowledge. This distinction agrees well with Rom_1:21, Rom_1:28. Compare on the verb, ver. 6. Lightfoot remarks that ἐίνσςis a favourite word in the later Epistles of St. Paul; but, in fact, although it occurs four times in this Epistle and twice in Eph., it is used only once in Phil. (1:9), whereas it is thrice used in Rom. In the later Epistles, however, it is always used in reference to spiritual knowledge. See Trench, Syn. lxxv.
τῦθλμτςατῦ The following context, vv. 10-12, shows that what is meant is the Divine will as to their conduct, as in 4:12; 1Th_4:3, 1Th_4:5:18; Rom_12:2; not the χρςmentioned as the object of their knowledge in ver. 6 (δὰτῦυο ποάεθιἡᾶ ατ, οκτ δʼἀγλν Chrys., etc.). The knowledge which is here meant is, in fact, the consequence of that which is there attributed to them. Knowing the χρς they should know also that what God required of them was nothing but conduct corresponding thereto. This in opposition to the false teachers and the doctrines of their φλσφα
ἐ πσ σφᾳκὶσνσιπεμτκ. “In all spiritual wisdom and understanding,” ἐ introducing the manner in which the πηωῆα is carried out, and πῃand πεμτκ being taken with both substantives. To connect π. with σνσιalone would be to give the inappropriate meaning, “wisdom of all kinds and spiritual understanding.”
On σφαsee Eph_1:8, where the words are ἐ πσ σφᾳκὶφοήε. These three, σφα φόηι, σνσς are reckoned by Aristotle as the three intellectual ἀεα or excellences (Eth. N. i. 13), the first being the most general and thorough, embracing the knowledge of first principles as well as that of particulars; while he distinguishes φόηι as the practical knowledge of particulars from σνσς which is critical; ἡφόηι ἐιατκ ἐτν…ἡδ σνσςκιιή(Eth N. vi. 7. ii). Demosth. (269. 24) defines σνσς ᾗτ κλ κὶασρ δανσεα, which agrees with Aristotle’s κιιή It would appear, therefore, that σνσςwas the faculty of deciding what was right or wrong in particular cases, while σφαapprehended the general principles. But σνσςis used by St. Paul in a more general sense; see Eph_3:4; cf. Luk_2:47. The two words frequently occur together in the O.T., e.g. Exo_31:3; Isa_29:14; Eccles. 14:20; (1Co_1:19 is a quotation), and the corresponding adjectives in Mat_11:25.
πεμτκ, given by the Spirit. Compare 1Co_12:8, ᾧμνδὰτῦπεμτςδδτιλγςσφα.
The word is emphatic in this position, marking the contrast with the false teaching, which had λγνσφα, a pretence of wisdom (2:23) which really proceeded from ὁνῦ τςσρό (2:18). We have the apostle’s σφασριή 2Co_1:12; ἀθωίη 1Co_2:5, 1Co_2:13; τῦκσο τύο, 1Co_2:6, etc.
10. πρπτσιὑᾶ ἀίςτῦΚρο. A similar expression occurs 1Th_2:12, ἀίςτῦΘο: and Eph_4:1, τςκήες “in a manner worthy of,” i.e. befitting your connexion with Him. The infinitive expresses the consequence (and proof) of πηωῆα, ἀὶτ πσε σζύνσ τνπλτίν Chrys.
If ὑᾶ after πρπτσιwere genuine (Text. Rec.), the infinitive might conceivably be regarded as dependent on ποεχμνι but it is certainly spurious, being omitted by א A B C D* G 17, al. Clem., Boh. It is added in א Dc K L P, most MSS. Chrys., Theodoret, Arm.
εςπσνἀεκίν I.e. “so as to please God in every way.” Compare 1Th_4:5, πςδῖὑᾶ πρπτῖ κὶἀέενΘῷ In classical authors ἀεκί has generally an unfavourable sense, “obsequiousness,” and it is so defined both in Eth. Eudem. (τ λα πὸ ἠοή, ii. 3) and by Theophrastus (Char. 5). Polybius uses it especially of trying to gain the favour of a sovereign. Similarly Philo, πνακὶλγι κὶπάτι ἐπύαε εςἀεκίντῦπτὸ κὶβσλω (i. p. 34), but he also uses it of pleasing God. The ἀθώοςἀέκι is disavowed by the apostle in Gal_1:10; 1Th_2:4; compare ch. 3:22. The verb is used, however, without any unfavourable connotation, in Rom_15:2 (τ πηίνἀεκτ) and elsewhere.
ἐ πνὶἔλ ἀαῷqualifies the following, as ἐ πσ δνμιqualifies the following participle. Most commentators separate κροοονε and αξνμνι but then αξ τ ἐινσιbecomes tautologous with πηωῆετνἐίνσν ver. 9. Moreover, the combination κροοομννκὶαξ in ver. 6 seems to require that the two participles here also should be taken together. What is true of the gospel in the world and amongst the Colossians is also to hold good of those whose lives are inspired by its teaching. The participles refer to the logical subject of πρπτσι not to πηωῆε(Beza, Bengel). Cf. Eph_4:2. τ ἐίνσ ιο Θο, “by the knowledge of God,” instrumental dative, a frequent use of the dative with αξν (So Alford, Eadie, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Soden, RV.mg.) The fruitfulness and growth are wrought through the ἐίνσςτῦΘο, and this again results from the practice of his will, ver. 9.
Some commentators take the dative as one of reference, as in Rom_4:20 (?), “increasing in the knowledge of God” (Moule, RV. text), which, after πηωῆετνἐιν ver. 9, would be somewhat of a tautology.
τ ἐινσιis the reading of אA B C D* G P 17, al. Amiat., Arm. al. ἐ is prefixed in א 47, and a few others, Chrys., Old Lat. and Vulg-Clem. have “in scientia Dei,” which is doubtful. Text. Rec. has εςτνἐίνσν with Dc K L most MSS., Theodoret, Theoph. Oec. This appears to be an attempt to simplify the construction. Meyer, on the contrary, regards the dative as an explanation of the more difficult (?) εςτνἐ., which, he thinks, is also confirmed by the parallelism in structure of the other participial clauses, which conclude with a definition introduced by ες He understands it as “in respect of,” that is, always more fully attaining to a knowledge of God, εςindicating the final reference, or direction of the growth, comparing Eph_4:15 and 2Pe_1:8. As to the comparative difficulty of the readings, Alford’s judgment, that the simple dative “is by far the most difficult of the three readings,” is surely more correct than Meyer’s. εςτνἐίν would, in fact, present no difficulty to the ordinary reader.
11. ἐ πσ δνμιδνμύεο. Theodoret takes this ἐ as instrumental, τ θί ῥπ καυόεο, and so Eadie, Ellicott, and Meyer. “Strengthened with all (every form of) strength,” Ell. (a translation which is itself ambiguous).
It is simpler and more natural to understand ἐ π δ as “in (i.e. in the matter of) all strength” (Alford, Lightfoot). It thus corresponds with ἐ πσ σφᾳand ἐ πνὶἔγ, which are both subjective. δνμύεο, present, “becoming strengthened.” The simple verb is not used elsewhere by St. Paul, who, however, employs ἐδνμῦθιseveral times. But δνμῦθιis in Heb_11:34, and B has it in Eph_6:10. It is frequently used by the Greek translators of the O.T., but is not a classical word. The connected virtues here, ὑοοήand μκουί, indicate that what is referred to in this clause is steadfastness under trial, as the former referred to active conduct.
κτ τ κὰο τςδξςατῦ “According to the might of His glory.” Strength is supplied in a manner corespondent with the power which belongs to the glory of God, i.e. His majesty as manifested to men. Compare Eph_1:19. The rendering of AV. (Beza, etc.), “His glorious power,” is sufficiently refuted by ατῦ Thomas Aquinas understands by “His glory,” “His Son Christ Jesus.” But although the Son may be called ἀαγσατςδξςατῦ it would not be intelligible to use ἡδξ ατῦas a substitute for His name. Lightfoot remarks that κάο in N.T. is “applied solely to God”; but see Heb_2:14 τντ κάο ἔοτ τῦθντυ τῦʼἔτ τνδάοο.
εςπσνὑοοῆ κὶμκουίν “To all endurance and longsuffering.” “Patience” is a very inadequate rendering of ὑοοή which includes perseverance or steadfast continuance in a course of action. Thus we have κροοοσνἐ ὑοοῇ Luk_8:15; ὑοοῆἔγυἀαο, Rom_2:7; δʼὑοοῆ τέωε, Heb_12:1. Even the ὑοοήof Job, to which James refers, was by no means the uncomplaining endurance of suffering to which we give the name of “patience.” Job was, in fact, the very reverse of “patient”; but he maintained his faith in God and his uprightness in spite of his sore trials. μκουί comes much nearer to our notion of “patience” (cf. 1Co_13:4); not so much, however, patience under suffering, but “the self-restraint which does not hastily retaliate a wrong.” It is the opposite of ὀυυί. Chrysostom distinguishes the two words thus: μκουε τςπὸ ἐενυ οςδντνκὶἀύαθι ὑοέε δ οςο δντιἀύαθι but this, though correct as to μκουε, is clearly inadequate for ὑοέε.
11, 12. μτ χρςεχρσονε. μτ χρςis joined by many comm. to the preceding (Theodoret, Olsh., De W., Alf., Eadie, Lightfoot, RV.). In defence of this it is said that εχρσενof itself implies joyfulness, so that μτ χ if attached to it would be flat and unmeaning; also that by joining the words with εχ we lose the essential idea of joyful endurance. Lightfoot, quoting Jam_1:2, Jam_1:3, πσνχρνἡήαθ …ὅα πλαμῖ πρπστ πιίοςγνσοτςὅιτ δκμο ὑῶ τςπσέςκτράεα ὑοοή, remarks that this parallel points to the connexion with the preceding, and adds that the emphatic position of the words if connected with εχ cannot be explained. It may be replied that εχρσενdoes not necessarily imply joy. See, for example, 1Co_14:18, “I thank God, I speak with tongues more than you all,” 10:30; Col_3:17. χρςis so far from being flat or unmeaning, that without it εχρσονε would be too weak. The idea of joyful endurance is not lost when the prayer passes from endurance to joyful thanksgiving; and the emphatic position of the words is sufficiently explained by the writer’s desire to emphasise this characteristic of their thanksgiving with special reference to the trials implied in ὑοοήand μκουί. The words thus acquire greater significance than if they slipped in as it were after μκουίν The connexion with εχρσονε is also favoured by the structure of the preceding clauses, each of which commences with a defining adjunct. This connexion is adopted by Chrys., Theoph., Oecum., also Ellicott, Meyer, Soden, Lachm., Tisch.
In any case εχ is not to be connected with ο πυμθ, as Chrys., Theoph., al., which unnaturally separates this clause from the preceding, making them parenthetical. This interpretation was suggested by the reading ἡᾶ: but even if that is correct, the transition from the second person to the first is quite in St. Paul’s manner; cf. 2:12, 2:13.
τ Πτί The designation of God thus absolutely as ὁΠτρ when Christ has not been named immediately before (as in Rom_4:5; Eph_2:18; Act_1:4, Act_1:7, Act_1:2:33), is remarkable. But we have τῦΚπο in ver. 10, and, what is perhaps more to the point, τῦυο τςἀάη ατῦin ver. 13.
א37 (G, Θωτ πτι Vulg-Clem., Boh. al. prefix Θῷπτί
τ ἱαώατ ὑᾶ. “Who qualified you,” or “made you competent.” i.e. given you a title. The same verb occurs 2Co_3:6 (only). ὃ κὶἱάωε ἡᾶ δαόοςκιῆ δαήη, “qualified us to be ministers,” cf. ib. ver. 5. The adjective ἱαό is of frequent occurrence in the N.T., always with the idea of reaching to a certain standard, “sufficient,” and so when time or quantity is in question, “considerable.” See Mar_15:15; Luk_22:38