Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Colossians 3:1 - 3:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
3:1-4. Ye must have a loftier aim; ye have risen with Christ and your life is hid with Christ in God. Seek therefore those things that are above, where He is, seated at God’s right hand
1. ε ονσνγρηετ Χιτ. Not “if ye be risen,” AV., but “if ye were raised,” viz. at the definite point of time when they became Christians, and were in baptism symbolically buried and raised again with Him, ch. 2:12. The death as a death from τ σοχῖ τῦκσο is mentioned in ii. 20. ε does not express a doubt, but, as in ii. 20, the ground of an inference.
τ ἄωζτῖε κτλ There is no longer any direct reference to the precepts of the false teachers (as if τ ἐὶτςγς ver. 2, were τ πρ βωάω κὶἡέω, Theoph.). These have been cast aside as concerning only those living in the world, and the apostle rises into a higher region. Your thoughts should be on things above, on spiritual things, and the precepts you have to follow concern moral conduct. Compare “treasure in heaven,” Mat_6:20; τ βαεο τςἄωκήες Php_3:14.
ο ὁΧιτςἐτν κτλ ἐτνis not the copula: “where Christ is, seated,” etc. “Par enim illuc tendere studia curasque membrorum, ubi jam versator caput,” Erasm.
2. τ ἄωφοετ. “Set your mind on the things above,” RV., an advance on ζτῖε In the AV. “set your affection,” etc. The word “affection” was doubtless intended to bear the sense of “affectus,” “tendency or bias of the mind.” The bishops’ Bible had “affections.” The Vulgate has “sapite,” “savour,” as Wyclif renders. We have the opposite state of mind in Php_3:19, ο τ ἐίεαφοονε. Compare Rom_8:5.
3. ἀεάεεγρ Not “ye are dead,” as AV., but “ye died.” Conybeare, indeed, urges that the associated κκυτιshows that the aorist is here used for the perfect; but this is erroneous. The aorist expresses what occurred at a particular moment in the past, while the perfect κκυτιexpresses the resulting and now existing state. Nor does the nature of the verb θήκ preclude a rigorous translation, as even Ellicott suggests. True, in ordinary narrative, ἀέαε “died,” implies, though it does not express, “is dead”; but not so when there is reference to a possible afterlife. Accordingly, Plato in the Phaedo never confounds θήκι or ἀοαενwith τθάα. For example, p. 72 C, ε ἀονσο μνπνα ὅατῦζνμτλβι ἐεδ δ ἀοάο, μνιἐ τύῳτ σήαιτ τθετ κὶμ πλνἀαισοτ ἆʼο πλὴἀάκ τλυῶτ πνατθάα κὶμδνζν τ τθάα having been defined in 71 C as the opposite of τ ζν while ἀονσενwas the opposite of ἀαισεθι ib. E.
So Homer, Il. ψ 365, uses τθαιwith critical accuracy, not “die,” but “lie dead.”
Here “are dead” would contradict σνγρηε They died, indeed, but at the same time rose again, and that to a life spiritual and heavenly. They were, indeed, νκο τ ἁατᾳ but ζνε τ Θῷ Rom_6:11.
ἡζὴὑῶ, your true life, not merely your resurrection life. They are seated ἐ τῖ ἐορνος Eph_2:4-6.
κκυτι “Neque Christum neque Christianos novit mundus; ac ne Christiani quidem plane seipsos,” Bengel. Compare Rom_2:29, ὁἐ τ κυτ Ἰυαο.
4. ὅα ὁΧιτςφνρθ, ἡζὴἡῶ. “When Christ shall be manifested, who is our life,” not “shall be manifested in the character of our life,” as Bengel and Eadie. Compare ὁἔω τνυὸ ἔε ζή, 1Jn_5:12. He is Himself the essence of the life; cf. Gal_2:20; Php_1:21. The absence of δ or κίmakes the expression more striking and vivid. Bengel observes on this: “Sermo absolutus lectorem totum …repentina luce percellit.” For the transition to the first person cf. 2:13.
φνρῦθιis used here with propriety instead of ἀοαύτσα, which does not so distinctly imply actual present existence.
ττ κὶὑεςσνατ φνρθσσεἐ δξ. Compare 1Jn_3:2, οδμνὅιἐνφνρθ ὅοο ατ ἐόεα and Rom_8:19, τνἀοάυι τνυῶ τῦΘο ἀεδχτι and on ἐ δξ, Rom_8:17, ἵακὶσνοαθμν and 18, τνμλοσνδξνἀοαυθνιεςἡᾶ.
For the reading; ἡῶ is read in B Dbe K L most MSS., Syr. (both), Boh., Origen.
ὑῶ in אC D* G P 17 47, Vulg., Goth., Arm., Eth.
ὑῶ was very likely to be substituted for ἡῶ on account of the preceeding ὑῶ and the following ὑες Tischendorf and Tregelles prefer ὑῶ; WH. and Lightfoot ἡῶ; and so Weiss.
5-11. Sins to be destroyed, as well the more subtle sins of temper as the grosser ones of appetite
5. Νκώαεον “Make dead, therefore.” As ye died, and your true life is hidden, carry out this death to the world, and kill whatever is carnal in you.
τ μλ τ ἐὶτςγς Meyer understands by μλ the literal members, hand, foot, eye, etc. (Mat_5:29), of course, taking the verb in an ethical sense. But this would be too strong a figure, and is not sufficiently supported by the passage in St. Matt., where the precept is not, as here, unqualified and absolute, and the verbs, moreover, are used in as literal a sense as the substantives. The whole precept there is symbolical, but the words have their natural sense. Besides, this interpretation of μλ makes the connexion with the following more difficult. It is more natural to explain the word by the idea of the “old man,” “In the σμ τςσρό.” And this is suggested by the added qualification τ ἐὶτςγς The members spoken of are those which belong to the body as the instrument of the carnal mind.
With the whole precept compare θντῦε Rom_8:13, ε δ πεμτ τςπάεςτῦσμτςθντῦεζστ: and Gal_5:24, ο τῦΧιτῦτνσραἐτύωα σντῖ πθμσ κὶτῖ ἐιυίι.
πρεα, κτλ Usually taken in apposition with μλ, either directly, as if πρεα etc., were themselves called μλ, “membra quibus vetus homo, i. e. ratio ac voluntas hominis depravata perinde utitur ac corpus membris,” Beza; “naturam nostram quasi massam ex diversis vitiis conflatam imaginatur,” Calvin; or indirectly, i.e. “when I say νκώαετ μλ, I mean νκώαεπρεα, κτλ of which τ μλ are instruments.” On either view the apposition of the instruments and the activities is extremely harsh. Severianus (followed by many moderns) regards sin as the body of which the special sins enumerated are the members: σμ κλῖτνἁατα, ἧ κὶτ μλ κτρθε; but this only evades the difficulty. Alford regards the construction as an instance of that form of the double accusative where the first denotes the whole, the second a part of it, as in πῖνσ ἔο φγνἕκςὀότν—an explanation which does not touch the difficulty. Braune thinks the body in question is the body of the Church.
Lightfoot proposes to meet the difficulty by placing a colon after γς Then πρεα, κτλ will be viewed as prospective accusatives, which should be governed directly by some such word as ἀόεθ: but several dependent clauses interpose, and the last of these suggests incidentally a contrast between the past and the present, the thought of which predominating in the apostle’s mind leads to a recasting of the sentence, νν δ ἀόεθ κὶὑεςτ πνα Lightfoot illustrates this dislocation of the construction occasioned by the contrast of πτ and ννby reference to 1:22, νν δ ἀοαηλγτ (or ἀοαήλξν and 26, ννδ ἐαεώη and to Eph_2:1-5, κὶὑᾶ …ἐ αςπτ …ἐ οςκί …πτ …ὁδ Θό …κὶὄτςἡᾶ …σνζοοηε. This construction has been characterised as “extremely difficult”; but the difficulty is only of the same kind as that in the passages cited.
After ὑῶ the Rec. Text adds ὑῶ, with א A C3 D G H K L P most MSS., Vulg., Goth., other versions, Chrys., al.
It is omitted by אB C* 17 672 71, Clem. al.
πθςis used by classical writers of any passive emotion. Thus, Aristotle distinguishes these three ἐ τ ψχ γνμν: πθ, ἕες δνμι. πθ he defines as οςἕεα ἡοὴἢλπ, including ἐιυί, ὀγ, etc. But it is specially used of a violent emotion or “passion.”
In the other two places in which the word occurs in St. Paul it is defined by a genitive (πθ ἀιίς Rom_1:26; ἐ πθιἐιυίς 1Th_4:5). Here the enumeration appears to proceed from the more special to the more general, so that πθςprobably means not specially “lustfulness.” Still less the πθ ἀιίςof Rom_1:26,—an interpretation which has no linguistic justification,—but generally “passion,” as RV.
ἐιυίνκκν This includes all evil longings, and so is wider than πθς ἰο, γνκςτ πνεπ·πναγρἐιυί κκ, βσαί, ὀγ, λπ, Chrys. ἐιυί in the N.T. has a wide sense; cf. Joh_8:44; hence the necessity for κκν
κὶτνπενξα, κτλ See on Eph_4:19, Eph_5:5.
ἥι ἐτν “Seeing it is.”
6. δʼἅ This is undoubtedly the correct reading, but a few authorities (C* D* G) read δʼὅ
ἔχτιἡὀγ τῦΘο. After Θο, Rec. adds: ἐὶτὺ υοςτςἀεθίς as in Eph. v. 6.
The evidence for the addition is extremely strong, as they are contained in all manuscripts except B. In D, however, the words are written in a smaller character at the end of the line, an indication apparently that they were not present in its archetype. Of Versions the Sahidic omits them, and the Roman ed. of the Ethiopic. Clement 294 (MSS.) and 531 quotes from νκώαεto Θο: but it would be unsafe to infer that his copy did not contain the addition; he may well have stopped short of it as not necessary for his purpose.
Ambrosiaster omits them in his text, but his comment appears to recognise them.
With these exceptions the addition is supported by all MSS., Versions, and Fathers. Its genuineness would be certain were it not that the same words occur in the parallel passage Eph_5:6. It is very credible that they were added from that place at a very early period. On the other hand, they seem required to complete the sense; certainly without them the thought is not the same as in the parallel in Eph. In the one case the words are a general warning as to the consequence of these sins; in the other a lesson is drawn from the example of others. The κὶὑες ver. 7, seems to assume a previous mention of the unbelieving Gentiles.
The evidence in favour of the omission being so slight, it may be considered equally probable that the omission was accidental. The words are omitted by Tischndorf, Tregelles, WH., Alford, Weiss, and bracketed by Lachm. They are retained by Ellicott, Meyer, RV. (om. marg.).
7. ἐ οςκὶὑεςπρεαήαέπτ, ὅεἐῆεἐ τύος The reading τύοςis certain, being that of אA B C D* al. ατῖ is read in Dc G K L, most MSS., Chrys., Theodoret, al.
If the doubtful words in ver. 6 are omitted, οςand τύοςare of necessity both neuter, and refer to the vices mentioned. If the words are retained, the pronouns may be both neuter, or the first masculine and the second neuter, or the first neuter, and the second masculine. To the last view, which is that of Huther and others, it may be objected, that ζνἐ is never used in the N.T. of living amongst persons, while it is frequently used with things, ἐ ἁατᾳ Rom_6:2; ἐ κσῳ 2:20; ἐ σρί Php_1:22. So in classical writers, ἐ ἀεῇ ἐ φλσφᾳ etc. Meyer, De Wette, Braune, and Ellicott take οςas masc., τύοςneuter. In favour of this seems to be the partial parallel, Eph_2:2, Eph_2:3, ε τῖ υοςτςἀεθίςἐ οςκὶἡεςπνε ἀετάηέ πτ, a parallel which Ellicott thinks leaves no room for doubt. Of course, πρπτῖ ἐ would then be understood to denote not mere outward living amongst, but participation in a course of life. Alford and Lightfoot argue that, independently of the rejection of the doubtful words, it is better to take οςas neuter, since πρπτῖ ἐ is most commonly used of things, not of persons, especially in this and the companion Epistle, 4:5, Eph_2:2, Eph_2:10, Eph_2:4:17, Eph_2:5:2. In 2Th_3:11, indeed, we have τνςπρπτῦτςἐ ὑῖ ἀάτς but the addition of ἀάτςthere makes the expression not quite parallel. So Eph_2:3 Lightfoot regards as not parallel on account of the addition ἐ τῖ ἐιυίι τςσρὸ ἡῶ. But this addition does not affect the connexion of ἐ οςἀετ. And Alford admits that, if the clause ἐὶτ υ. τ ἁ. is retained, this parallel goes far to decide the matter.
ὅεἐῆεἐ τύος i.e. before ye died to the world; ἐῆεbeing in contrast with ἀεάεε The change of tense is to be observed. πρεαήαε aorist, because denoting single acts, ἐῆεexpressing the containing state. For the difference in sense, compare Gal_5:25, ε ζμνπεμτ, πεμτ κὶσοχμν “Vivere et ambulare inter se differunt, quemadmodum potentia et actus; vivere praecedit, ambulare sequitur,” Calvin.
8. νν δ, in contrast to the πτ above. κὶὑες “ye also,” as well as other Christians. As in the former verse they were compared with the heathen society from which they had separated, so here with the Christian society which they had joined. Holtzmann strangely supposes the Κίto refer to the Christians addressed in Eph_2:22.
τ πνα “all of them,” everything that belongs to the old man. The asyndeton is thus less harsh than if τ πναbe understood to be only retrospective (as Meyer, al.).
ἀόεθ, “put ye away.”
ὀγν κτλ See on Eph_4:31.
ασρλγαoccurs in the N.T. here only. The connexion here shows that it means “abusive” rather than “filthy” language. It denotes the form in which the injurious βαφμαfinds expression. Chrysostom takes it in the sense of “obscene talk” (which he calls ὄηαπρεα), and so many moderns; but the sins of uncleanness have been dealt within ver. 5, and the other substantives here regard want of charity. The word is used by Polybius, viii, 13. 8, in this sense of “abusive language,” ἡκτ τνφλνασρλγα cf. xxxi. 10, 4. The verb has a similar meaning in Plato, Rep. iii. p. 395 E, κκγρῦτςτ κὶκμδῦτςἀλλυ κὶασρλγῦτς Compare ασρ ἔε, Hom. Il. γ 38.
ἐ τῦσόαο ὑῶ, not “proceeding from,” but dependent on ἀόεθ, and belonging to both βαφ and ασρ
9. μ ψύεθ εςἀλλυ. “Do not lie towards one another.” εςdoes not express hostility, but direction. In Hist. Sus. 55 we have ἔεσιεςτνσατῦψχν but this is clearly not parallel.
ἀεδσμνι κτλ This may be understood either as “putting off,” “exuentes,” Vulg., so as to form part of the exhortation, or “seeing that ye have put off” The former view is adopted by Olshausen, De Wetter, etc. Lightfoot also defends it, observing (1) that though both ideas are found in St. Paul, the imperative is the more usual; cf. Rom_13:12; Eph_6:2, with ver. 14; 1Th_5:8, νφμνἐδσμνι κτλ (2) that in the parallel, Eph_4:24, the “putting on” is imperative; and (3) that the participles here are followed by an imperative, ver. 12. Grammatically, there is no difficulty in thus understanding the aorist participle as synchronous with the present imperative. The aorist would, in fact, express a thing done once for all, and would be better represented in Latin by an ablative absolute than by a present participle. Nevertheless, the other view (adopted by Theodoret, and amongst moderns by Meyer, Alford, Ellicott), according to which the participles contain the motive for the preceding exhortation (from ἀόεθ), seems the more probable, first, because in what precedes there is nothing to correspond with ἐδσμνι as the Christian graces are not referred to; secondly, because ver. 11 does not fit in so well with an exhortation as with an argument; and thirdly, because the imperative in ver. 12 is introduced by ον On ἀεδσμνιsee 2:11, 15.
τνπλινἄθωο. See Eph_4:22.
10. κὶἐδσμνιτννο. In the parallel, Eph_4:24, it is ἐδσσα τνκιὸ ἄθ. νο, unlike κιό only expresses newness in point of time, but the idea of κιόη is supplied by the participle.
As the result of ἐδσσα τννο ἄθ is that Christ is τ πνακὶἐ πσν and as the apostle speaks elsewhere of Χιτνἐδσσα, Gal_3:27, Rom_13:14, some commentators infer that the νο ἄθ. here is Christ; and hence, again, that ὁπλιςἄθ. is Adam, whose image men bear, 1Co_15:49. Ignatius, Eph. 20, has the expression εςτνκιὸ ἄθωο Ἰσῦ Χιτν If this had been the thought in St. Paul’s mind here, he would probably have expressed it more distinctly. It seems better, then, to rest satisfied with the interpretation of the “new man” as “the regenerate man formed after Christ.” The ultimate meaning is the same.
ἀαανύεο, present participle, because although “created” once for all (κιθνα Eph_4:24), its growth and development are continually going on. Compare 2Co_4:16, ὁἔωἡῶ [ἄθωο] ἀαανῦα ἡέᾳκὶἡέᾳ and the opposite, τνπλινἄθ. τνφερμνν Eph_4:22. The ἀαdoes not suggest the restoration of the original state, but the contrast to that which has lately existed.
ἀαανωis not used by Greek authors, nor by the Sept., but ἀαανζ. The substantive ἀαανσς(Rom_12:2; Tit_3:5) is also peculiar to the N.T.
εςἐίνσν “Unto thorough knowledge.” Meyer connects this with the following words: “unto a knowledge which accords with the image of God,” i.e. which is in accordance with the Divine knowledge. But the Divine knowledge would hardly be set forth in this general way as an ideal to be attained; we should expect some limitation to moral or spiritual knowledge. It is more natural to connect κτ εκν with ἀααν and to supply the object of ἐίνσςfrom the context, viz. the knowledge of God and the mystery of the gospel; Cf. 1:9, ἵαπηωῆετνἐίνσντῦθλμτςατῦ and 2:2, εςἐίνσντῦμσηίυ κτλ
κτ εκν, κτλ To be connected with ἀαανύεο as above. An allusion to Gen_1:26, Gen_1:28.
τῦκίατςατν ὁκία according to Chrysostom, al. is Christ; but ὁκία is always God, and so here especially, where the passage in Genesis is alluded to. ατνis the new man, not τνἄθωο generally. Compare κιθναin Eph_4:24, and κιὴκίι, 2Co_5:17. Soden, who interprets the “new man” of Christ, refers ατνto τνἀαανύεο. As Christ is the εκνof God, 2Co_4:4, Col_1:15, so Christians, when Christ is formed in them, become renewed after the image of God.
Olshausen presses the designation of Christ as the εκνof God, and accordingly interprets, “after the pattern of Him who is the Image of God.” But this does not agree with the allusion to Genesis. It is true the Alexandrian school interpreted the expression in Genesis of the Logos, but only in a sense borrowed from the Platonic doctrine of ideas as τ ἀχτπνπρδιμ, ἰέ τνἰένὁΘο λγς and this conception is certainly not in the spirit of St. Paul. Besides, the absence of the definite article before εκν obliges us to take κτ εκν in its natural sense as “after the likeness of.” Those commentators who understand κτ Θό, Eph_4:24, as = “after the likeness of,” of course understand the expression here as only a more precise definition.
11. ὅο οκἔι Compare Gal_3:28. This ἔιis not, as formerly used to be stated, a contraction of ἔετ, although it is often used in that sense; it is simply the longer form of the preposition ἐ, with ἐτ understood, as in πρ, ἄα The fact that ἐ is used with it in 1Co_6:5 is not inconsistent with this, since the word came to be looked upon as equivalent to ἔετ. That passage, however, shows that we are not to press here the idea of “impossibility,” οκἔιἐ ὑῖ οδὶ σφς The word here simply states the objective fact.
The distinctions enumerated as abolished are first those of birth, involving national privileges; secondly, of legal or ceremonial standing (which might be gained by adoption); thirdly, those of culture; and fourthly, of social caste.
ἝλνκὶἸυαο. In contrast with Ἰυαο, Ἕλνmeans simply “Gentile”; and, indeed, even to the present day the Jews sometimes speak of other nations as Greeks.
πρτμ κὶἀρβσί. Abstract for concrete. This clause and the former have special reference to the Judaising tendency of the heretical teachers.
βραο, properly one who did not speak Greek (probably with the idea of talking “gibberish.” Strabo explains it as onomatopoetic.) Hence the Greeks applied the term to all other nations. Even the older Roman poets (as Plautus) used the term of themselves; but later writers excluded the Romans from the class “barbari,” and even included them under the term Ἕλνς(Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. v. 8).
Lightfoot quotes a striking passage from Professor Max Mü “Not till that word barbarian was struck out of the dictionary of mankind, and replaced by brother, not till the right of all nations of the world to be classed as members of one genus or kind was recognised, can we look even for the first beginnings of our science (of language). …This change was effected by Christianity” (Lectures on the Science of Language, Ist Ser. p. 81. The whole passage is too long to cite).
Σύη. The natural antithesis to βραο would be ῞λη (cf. Rom_1:14); but as that has already been used the apostle substitutes for an antithesis a climax, for the Scythians were regarded as “barbaris barbariores,” Bengel. The earlier Greek writers, indeed, on the principle “omne ignotum pro magnifico,” described them as ενμι(Aesch. Frag. 189); but Josephus says they are βαὺτνθρω δαέοτς(contra Ap. ii. 37). Cicero uses a climax similar to that before us, “quod nullus in barbaria, Quis hoc facit ulla in Scythia tyrannus?” (In Pisonem, viii.). The word Σύη was used of any rough person, like our “Goth.” This clause has reference, perhaps, to the stress laid by the Gnostic teachers on their γῶι.
δῦο, ἐεθρς There was a special reason for St. Paul’s thoughts being directed to the relation of master and slave, in the incident of Onesimus’ conversion and return to his master.
πναand τ πναare very frequently used by classical writers as predicates of persons. Wetstein on 1Co_15:28 quotes many examples. One or two may suffice here. Dem. De Cor. p. 240, πνʼἐενςἦ ατῖ: cont. Ariston, p. 66o, πναἦ Ἀέαδο; Lucian, De Morte Peregr. 11, ποήη κὶξνγγύ, κὶτ πναμνςατςὤ.
12-17. Virtues to be cultivated, kindness, love, forgiveness, in Which God’s forgiveness of us is to be the pattern; mutual teaching and admonition, and in everything thankfulness, everything being done in the name of Jesus Christ
12. ἐδσθ ον having put on the new man, put on also these virtues.
ὡ ἐλκο τῦΘο. cf. Rom_8:33; Tit_1:1. In St. Paul κηο and ἐλκο, κῆι and ἐλγ (Rom_9:28, Rom_9:29), are coextensive, as indeed they seem to be in other N.T. writers (cf. Rev_17:14) except the Gospels, where κηο and ἐλκο are distinguished (Mat_24:22, Mat_24:24, Mat_24:31 al.). ὡ ἐλκο has a significant connexion with what precedes, since the ἐλγ is presupposed in what is said in vv. 10, 11.
ἅιικὶἠαηέο are best taken as predicates of ἐλκο which with and without τῦΘο is used in several places as a substantive.
κίis om. by B 17 Sah., and Lightfoot brackets it, thinking that the sentence gains in force by the omission; cf. 1Pe_2:6.
σλγν οκιμῦ “A heart of compassion.” σλγν, like “viscera,” denoted especially the nobler inward parts, heart, liver, and lungs, and figuratively the seat of the emotion, as we use the word “heart.”
The singular οκιμῦis supported by very preponderant authority.
χητττ, cf. Eph_2:7.
τπιορσν. Eph_4:2, παττ μκουίν ibid.
13. ἀεόεο ἀλλν ibid.
κὶχρζμνιἑυος For the variation from ἀλλνto ἑυος see Eph_4:32. The latter word marks more strikingly than ἀλλι would the correspondence with ὁκρο ἐαίαοὑῖ.
μμή not found elsewhere in the N.T. nor in Sept. or Apocr. In classical writers ἔενμμή is frequent. “Quarrel” of the AV. is an archaism.
κθςκὶὁΚρο ἐαίαοὑῖ. To be connected with the following words, οτ κὶὑες(as RV.), supplying, therefore, not χρζμνι but χρζσε(ἑυος Assuming, as is probable, that ὁΚρο = ὁΧιτς this is the only place where Christ is directly said to forgive (see on 2:13). In the parallel in Eph_4:32, the subject is ὁΘὸ ἐ Χιτ. Meyer remarks that the very frequent ἡχρςτῦκρο ἡῶ corresponds with the present expression. It is perhaps pressing the technical sense of Κρο too much to suppose, with Lightfoot, that it suggests the duty of fellow-servant to fellow-servant, recalling the lesson of the parable of the Unforgiving Servant, Mat_18:27; compare below, 4:1. It must be observed that the κθςhas reference only to the fact of forgiveness, not to the manner of its exhibition in the death. of Christ (as Chrys., Theoph. al.).
The reading cannot be regarded as certain. For ὁκρο are A B D* G 213 d e f g Vulg. Pelag.
For ὁΧιτς א C Dbe K L P almost all MSS. Syr. (both), Sah., Boh., Eth., Arab. (Bedwell), Clem., Chrys., Euthal., (cod. Tisch.), Theodoret, al. א has ὁΘό, while 17 Arm. have ὁΘὸ ἐ Χιτ. Augustine also has the latter reading in one place (Ep. 148), but in another ὁΚρο.
It is suggested, on the one hand, that Χιτςhas been substituted (as in other places) as an interpretation of Κρο, especially as it occurs in Eph_5:32 (but not in the same connexion); and, on the other side, it has been suggested that Κρο originated in an attempt at conformation with the passage in Eph.
Lachmann, Treg., WH., Afford, Meyer, Lightfoot, RV. Weiss read Κρο. Tisch., Ellicott read Χιτς to which RV and WH. give a place in the margin.
14. ἐὶπσ δ τύος “And over all these,” the figure of clothing being retained, as the verb ἐδσσεhas still to be carried on.
ὅἐτν The pronoun is not without difficulty. The illustrations cited by Lightfoot from Ignatius are hardly parallel, Rom_7, ἄτνΘο θλ, ὅἐτνσρ Χιτῦ Magn. 10, να ζμνὅἐτνἸσῦ Χιτς In these cases the words following ὅἐτνare an explanation of the words preceding, and ὅἐτν= “idest,” or “by which is to be understood.” So in Mar_12:42, λπὰδο ὅἐτ κδάτς 15:42, πρσεή ὅἐτ ποάβτν In none of these cases does ὅἐτν κτλ predicate a property or character of the antecedent. In order that the present instance should be parallel, τ ἀάη and σν. κτλ should change places. Eph_5:5 is nearer, πενκη, ὅἐτνεδλλτη, and Ign. Trall. 7, ἀατσσεἑυοςἐ πσε ὅἐτνσρ τῦΚρο: yet neither are these quite parallel. εδλλτη is not, indeed, an explanation of the word πενκη, but it expresses his true character. Probably the form of expression is to be accounted for by the figure. σνεμς κτλ explains the view taken of ἀάη when ἐὶπσ τύοςis applied to it. An alternative is to suppose the antecedent to be τ ἐύαθιτνἀάη: and so Huther and Soden. But this certainly does not suit the sense so well.
σνεμςτςτλιττς Love binds the virtues into a harmonious whole, not as if they could exist without it, for It might be called by a different figure—the root of all; but the figure of clothing here adopted required that its relation to the other virtues should be put in a different aspect. πναἐεν, says Chrysostom, ατ σσίλι ὅε ἂ επςἀαό,τύη ἀοσςοδνἐτν ἀλ δαρῖ to which Theoph. adds ὑόρσςὄτ.
τςτλιττς As it is the σνεμςhere that makes all perfect, the genitive comes rather under the head of the possessive than of the objective. Lightfoot seems to take the latter view, explaining “the power which unites and holds together all those graces and virtues which together make up perfection.” This not only involves a very questionable meaning of τλιτς as if = τ τντλιττ πιῦτ, Chrys., but gives an inadequate representation of the function of ἀάη
Wetstein quotes from Simplicius, in Epict. p. 208 A, a strikingly parallel expression of the Pythagoreans: κλςο Πθγρῖιπρσῶ τνἄλνἀεῶ τνφλα ἐίω κὶσνεμνατνπσντνἀεῶ ἔεο.
Grotius, Erasmus, Estius and many others take the genitive to be one of quality, “the perfect bond,” which is not only feeble, but leaves σνεμςundefined. Bengel, De Wette, Olshausen, al. understand by σνεμςthe “totality,” as in Herodian, iv. 12, 11, πνατνς τνἐιτλν “the whole bundle of letters.” But there is no instance of σνεμςbeing used figuratively in this sense; nor does it agree with the context, in which ἀάηis represented as put on ἐὶπσ, not to say that it would require the article. In Eph_4:3 the gen. after σνεμςis one of apposition.
For τλιττςD* G d e g and Ambrosiaster have ἐόηο.
15. κὶἡερν τῦΧιτῦ The peace of Christ is the peace which He gives and has left to His Church, ερνντνἐὴ δδμ ὑῖ, Joh_14:27. But it is Christ’s peace in another sense, as the peace which belongs to His kingdom by virtue of His sovereignty; compare the expression, “the King’s peace.” The immediate reference here is not to the inward peace of the soul, but to peace one with another, as the context shows. But it cannot be limited to this, the moment the words are uttered or heard they suggest the other reference.
βαετ, only here in N.T.; see on κτβαεέω 2:18. As there observed, βαεωhad dropped, for the most part, the reference to a contest, and was used of deciding or governing in general. Josephus, Ant. iv. 3. 2, uses it as synonymous with δοκῖ; Moses, in his prayer, says: πνασ ποοᾳδοκῖα, κὶμδνατμτς ἀλ κτ βύηι βαεόεο τνσνεςτλςἔχτι Again, ib. βαεω ὁοοα κὶερνν Philo, Quis Rer. Div. 1. p. 494 A, ο θυατνδ πρ ἀηεᾳβαεοσ.
The transition of meaning is exactly parallel to that of the Latin “arbitrium,” which from meaning the sentence of an arbitrator comes to signify “will and pleasure.” “Jovis nutu et arbitrio caelum terra mariaque reguntur,” Cic. pro Rosc. Amer. c. 45. Obtinere arbitrium rei Romanae,” Tac. Ann. vi. c. ult.
Hence there is no necessity to insist on the idea of a contest of opposing parties, and the attempt to introduce it by reference to a conflict of motives, etc., really forces on the text more than is suggested by it. Chrysostom carries this to an extreme, σάινἔδνἐοηε ἐ τῖ λγσος κὶἀῶακὶἄλσνκὶβαετν
The sense then appears to be, “let the peace of Christ be the ruling principle in your hearts.”
ἐ τῖ κρίι ὑῶ. In order that this principle may govern your actions and your words, it must first govern in your hearts.
Χιτῦis the reading of א B C* D* G P 37 47, Vulg., Syr. (both), Boh., Sah, Arm., Eth.
Θο is in א C2 Dc K L 17, Goth. As ἡερν τῦΘο occurs in Php_4:7, the substitution of Θο for Χιτῦis readily accounted for. The latter is clearly more suitable to the present context, since ερν τῦΘο could not well be understood of anything but our peace with God. In Php_4:7, A has Χιτῦ Bengel and others who defend the reading Θο here, suppose Χιτῦto have come in from 13 or 16.
εςἡκὶἐλθτ. This is nearly equivalent to “for to that we were also called.” Comp. 1Co_7:15, ἐ ερν κκηε ἡᾶ ὁΘό.
ἐ ἑὶσμτ. Not = εςἓ σμ, but expressing the result of their calling; they are so called that they are in one body. It is on the fact that this is their present condition that the stress is placed. As there is one body, there should be one spirit; cf. Eph_4:3, Eph_4:4, τρῖ τνἑόηατῦπεμτςἐ τ σνέμ τςερνς Ἕ σμ κὶἓ πεμ, κτλ
κὶεΧρσο γνσε “And become thankful.” Thankfulness for this calling is the strongest motive for the preservation of the peace to which they were called. The mention of this leads on to what follows. γεθ is used because the ideal is not yet reached. εχρσο does not occur elsewhere in N.T. It is not uncommon in classical writers, both in the sense “thankful” and “pleasant” (so usually of things). It occurs once in Sept., and then in the latter sense, Pro_11:16, γν εχρσο. Some commentators take it here in the latter sense (cf. Eph_4:32, χητί So Jerome, Beza, a Lapide, Olshausen, Reiche; “in mutuo vestro commercio estote gratiosi, amabiles, comes …qua virtute pax et concordia saepe servantur,” Reiche. This sense is certainly not inappropriate; and in favour of it it may be observed that the duty of thankfulness is brought in as the final exhortation in ver. 17.
16. ὁλγςτῦΧιτῦ In 1Th_1:8, 1Th_4:15 St. Paul has ὁλγςτῦΚρο, but more usually ὁλ τῦΘο. The change here is probably owing to the apostle’s purpose of exalting the position of Christ, which is characteristic of this Epistle. The gen. may be either objective, as in εαγλο Χιτῦ or subjective (as most comm.), “the word delivered by Christ.” It is generally understood as = the gospel, but Lightfoot interprets it as denoting “the presence of Christ in the heart as an inward monitor. Comp. 1Jn_2:14, ὁλγςτῦΘο ἐ ὑῖ μνι with ib. 1:10, ὁλγςατῦοκἔτνἐ ὑῖ: and so perhaps Act_18:5, σνίεοτ λγ (the correct reading).” Probably the “teaching of Christ” generally is meant; and so apparently Chrysostom, τύετν ἡδδσαί, τ δγαα ἡπρίει. See on Luk_8:11.
ἐ ὑῖ. Not “among you,” which would not agree with the idea of “indwelling”. Yet it cannot well be understood of each in dividual, as if referring to the faith and knowledge of each. Since the context speaks of oral communication one with another, ἐ ὑῖ then means, probably, “in you as a collective body.” This is not the same as “among you.”
ποσω. The fulness of this indwelling exhibits itself in the following words.
ἐ πσ σφα Lightfoot joins these words with the foregoing, comparing for their position ch. 1:9 and Eph_1:8, which, however, determine nothing. He thinks this connexion is favoured by the parallel in Eph_5:18, Eph_5:19; but this only decides that ψλος κτλ are to be connected with the preceding words. On the other hand, it may be observed that ἐοκίωis already qualified by ποσω, which emphatically stands at the end. Ch. 1:28 is strongly in favour of the connexion with the following, νυεονε πναἄθωο κὶδδσοτςπναἄθωο ἐ πσ σφᾳ the correspondence in meaning is surely of more weight than the position of the words, which precede in the one case as appropriately as they follow in the other.
On δδσοτςand νυεονε comp. 1:28; and on ψλος κτλ Eph_5:18. Here as there the reference does not appear to be exclusively or chiefly to public worship, for mutual instruction is what is prescribed.
κίboth before and after ὕνι is omitted by אA B C*D*F G, d e f g Vulg. (best MSS.) Syr-Pesh, Goth., al.
It was much more likely to be added than omitted erroneously, and the omission is quite Pauline.
ἐ[τ] χρτ.
τ is inserted in א B D G 672, Chrys. comm.
Omitted in אA K L (to which we may perhaps add C, in which ε χρ is written but expunged by dots above and below), Chrys. text.
The reading with the article is adopted by critical editors generally, but Reiche argues strongly in favour of the omission. If it is read there are two interpretations possible, for χρςmay mean either the Divine grace, or thanksgiving. The former meaning is adopted by Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, etc. For ἡχρς= the grace of God, compare ch. 4:18, ἡχρςμθ ὑῶ: Act_18:27, τῖ ππσεκσ δὰτςχρτς 2Co_4:15; Ga