Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Colossians 4:1 - 4:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
4:1 τ δκινκὶτνἰόηα “Justice and fairness.” ἰόη differs from τ δκινnearly as our “fair” from “just,” denoting what cannot be brought under positive rules, but is in accordance with the judgment of a fair mind. Compare Philo, De Creat. Princ. ii. p. 401, ἰόη μνοντνἐ τνὑηόνενινκὶἠφλίνἀοβςδκίςἀτκιότνἀεγστι Meyer and others suppose the meaning to be that slaves are to be treated as equals, not as regards the outward relation, but as regards the Christian brotherhood (see Phm_1:16). It would be a very obscure way of expressing this thought to say τ δκ κὶτνἰόηαπρχσε nor does it agree well with the following clause, κὶὑεςἔεεΚρο, not as in Eph., ατνκὶὑῶ. Perhaps, indeed, we may regard τ ατ in Eph. (ο κρο, τ ατ πιῖεπὸ ατύ) as illustrating ἰόη here. The same moral principles were to govern both. ἰόηαο τνἰοιίνἐάεε, ἀλ τνποήοσνἐιέεα,ἧ πρ τνδσοῶ ἀοαενχὴτὺ οκτς Theodoret. Erasmus, Corn. a Lapide understand the word of impartiality, not treating one slave differently from others; but this would be consistent with harsh treatment of all.
πρχσε. “Supply on your side.”
2-6. Exhortation to constant prayer and thanksgiving, to which is added the apostle’s request that they would pray for himself in his work. Practical advice as to, wisdom in action and speech.
2. τ ποεχ ποκρεετ = Rom_12:12; cf. 1Th_5:17. We have the same verb similarly used in Act_1:14, Act_2:46, Act_6:4.
γηοονε ἐ ατ. “Being watchful in it,” i.e. not careless in the act. ἐεδ γρτ κρεενἐ τῖ εχῖ ῥθμῖ πλαι πιῖδὰτῦόφσ γηοονε τύετ νφνε, μ ῥμόεο (wandering), Chrys.
ἐ εχρσί With thanksgiving (as an accompaniment; cf. 2:7). ατ γρἡἀηιὴεχ ἡεχρσίνἔοσ ὑὲ πνω ὧ ἴμνκὶὧ οκἴμν ὧ ε ἐάοε ἢἐλβμν ὑὲ τνκιῶ εεγσῶ, Theophylact.
3. ποεχμνιἅακὶπρ ἡῶ.“Praying at the same time also for us,” including, namely, Timothy, named with St. Paul as sending the Epistle, but also, no doubt, including all who helped him in his work (vv. 10-14).
ἵα. The prayer is not for the personal benefit of the apostle and his companions, but for the promotion of their work.
θρντῦλγυ. A door of admission for the word of the gospel, i.e. the removal of any hindrance which might be in the way. The same figure is employed 1Co_16:9; 2Co_2:12.
Corn. a Lapide, Beza, Bengel, and others interpret θρντῦλγυas “the door of our speech,” i.e. our mouth,—an interpretation suggested by Eph_6:19, ἵαμιδθ λγςἐ ἀοξιτῦσόαό μυ but certainly not consistent with τῦλγυ which must mean “the word.”
λλσι, infinitive of the end or object, “so as to speak” τ μσήιν κτλ, 1:26, 2:2; see Eph_1:9.
δʼὅκὶδδμι. For it was his preaching the free admission of the Gentiles that led to his imprisonment.
This is the only place in which St. Paul uses δενin the literal sense; but he uses δσο, Php_1:7, Php_1:13, and elsewhere, as well as δσιςThe transition to the singular was inevitable when he passed from what was common to himself with others to what was peculiar to himself.
4. ἵαφνρσ,κτλ. Generally taken as dependent on the previous clause, “that God may open a door …in order that,”etc. Beza, De Wette, al., however, make it dependent on ποεχμνι which, on account of the change from plural to singular, is improbable. Bengel joins it with δδμι “vinctus sum ut patefaciam; paradoxon.” In this he follows Chrysostom, τ δσὰφνρῖατν ο σσιζι but this is quite untenable. V. Soden, who also makes the clause dependent on δδμι proposes a different interpretation. He observes that φνρῦ is never used of St. Paul’s preaching, nor does the notion of μσήινaccount for its use here. It must therefore have a special significance, and this is to be found in its immediate reference to δδμι St. Paul, as a prisoner awaiting trial, had to explain what his preaching was. How this turned out, he relates in Php_1:12 ff. The sense then, according to v. Soden, is: “in order that I may make it manifest, how I am bound to speak,” the emphasis being on δῖ not ὡ. He desires to make clear to his judges, not only what he preaches, but that he cannot do otherwise; compare 1Co_9:16; Act_4:20.
δʼὅ is the reading of א nearly all MSS., d e f Vulg., Goth., Clem., Chrys., etc. But B G, g have δʼὅ, apparently a correction to suit Χιτῦ but destroying the point of the sentence.
5. ἐ σφᾳ = practical Christian wisdom; cf. Mat_10:16.
πό. “With respect to,” or “in relation to,” i.e. your behaviour towards them.
τὺ ἔω. Those outside the Church; compare 1Co_5:12, 1Co_5:13; 1Th_4:12. The expression is borrowed from the Jews, who so designated the heathen. On the precept Chrys. says, πὸ τ μλ τ οκῖ ο τσύη ἡῖ δῖἀφλίς ὅη πὸ τὺ ἔωἔθ γρἀεφί εσ κὶσγνμιπλα κὶἀαα.
τνκιὸ ἐαοάοτς. See Eph_5:16, where is added a reason for the injunction, viz. ὅια ἡέα πνρίεσν
6. ὁλγςὑῶ πνοεἐ Χρτ. Still referring to behaviour, πὸ τὺ ἔω χρς= pleasingness, see above, 3:16. χρςλγνis frequent in classical writers.
ἅαιἠτμνς. “Seasoned with salt”; cf. Mar_9:49, Mar_9:50; pleasant but not insipid, nor yet coarse. Compare Plut. p. Mor. 514 F, χρντν πρσεάοτςἀλλι ὥπρἁσ τῖ λγι ἐηδνυιτνδαρβν and again, p. 669 A, ἡδ τνἁῶ δνμς χρνατ κὶἡοὴ ποτθσ.ἅα is a later form.
εδνι infinitive of object, as in ver. 3, πςδῖἑὶἑάτ ἀορνσα, “to each one,” according, namely, to the character, purpose, spirit, etc., of the inquirer. Compare the apostle’s description of his own behaviour, 1Co_9:22, τῖ πσ γγν πναἵαπνω τνςσσ. His discourses and answers at Athens, and before Felix, Festus, and the Jews at Rome, supply the best illustrations.
7-18. Personal commendations and salutations.
7. τ κτ ἐέ = Php_1:12, “my matters”; cf. Act_25:14. Not a noun absolute, but the object of γωίε.
On Tychicus, see Eph_6:21, and compare Lightfoot’s very full note here.
ὁἀαηὸ ἀεφς = Eph. l.c.
κὶπσὸ δάοο κὶσνολςἐ Κρῳ ἐ Κρῳ is probably to be taken with both substantives, as both require some specifically Christian definition, which ἀεφςdoes not; and, moreover, in Eph. l.c. we have πσὸ δάοο ἐ Κρῳ σνολςis perhaps added in order to place Tychicus on a level with Epaphras, who is so designated 1:7, and who was in high repute at Colossae. πσό probably covers both substantives.
8. ὃ ἔεψ, κτλ = Eph_6:22.
As to the reading, the Rec. Text has ἵαγῷτ πρ ὑῶ, with אc C Dbc K L and most MSS., f Vulg., Goth., Syr. (both), Boh., Chrys. (expressly), Jerome (on Philemon), Ambrosiaster, al.
ἵαγῶετ πρ ἡῶ, A B D* G P a few cursives, d e g Arm., Eth., Theodore Mops., Theodoret, Jerome (on Eph_6:21), Euthalius (cod. Tisch. ).
א has γῶεwith ὑῶ. אo at first corrected ὑῶ to ἡῶ to suit γῶεbut afterwards deleted this correction and substituted γῷfor γῶε The context, with the emphatic εςατ τῦο so obviously requires γῶε ἡῶ, that, considering the weight of authority, we cannot regard this as an alteration made in conformity with Eph_6:22. Besides, it is very unlikely that the writer himself should, to the Ephesians, say, εςατ τῦοἵαγῶε κτλ , and to the Colossians of the same messenger, εςατ τῦοἵαγῷ κτλOn the hypothesis that Eph. is not by the author of Col., it is equally improbable that the former should be written instead of the latter. The error may have arisen from τ accidentally dropping out before τ, or, as Lightfoot suggests, when ύῶ had once been written in error for ἡῶ (as in א γῶεwould be read γῷτ, as in 111 and John Dam. op. ii. p. 214, and then the superfluous τ would be dropped. These authorities, however, seem too late to be used to explain so early a corruption.
Alford defends the Rec. Text, in which he is followed by Klö but most critics and commentators adopt the other reading.
9. σνὈηίῳτ πσῷκὶἀαηῷἀεφ. Observe the delicacy with which Onesimus is given, as far as possible, the same predicates as Tychicus and Epaphras, he and Tychicus being, moreover, associated as subject of γωιῦι. He was not δάοο or σνολς but as a faithful and beloved brother he is not placed below them. Compare Rom_16:6, Rom_16:12.
ὅ ἐτνἐ ὑῶ, who is of you, i.e. belongs to Colossae; hitherto, indeed, only a slave, but now a brother beloved, Phm_1:16. It deserves notice how St. Paul assumes that Onesimus will be welcomed as such by his former master and by the Church. Calvin’s very natural remark, “Vix est credibile hunc esse servum illum Philemonis, quia furis et fugitivi nomen dedecori subjectum fuisset,” serves to put in strong relief this confidence of the apostle in the Colossians.
πναὑῖ γωιῦι τ ὧε. This is not a formal restatement of τ κτ ἐέ but includes more than that phrase, and τ πρ ἡῶ, namely, all that concerned the Church at Rome. This would naturally include an account of the conversion of Onesimus, who would be to them a living illustration of the success of St. Paul’s preaching in Rome. Note the change from γωίε to γωιῦι, in order more expressly to commend Onesimus to their confidence.
G d e f g Vulg. Jerome, Ambrosiaster add after ὧε πατμν, a gloss which looks as if it originated in the Latin, which could not literally render τ ὧε
10. Ἀπζτιὑᾶ Ἀίτρο. Of Aristarchus we know that he was a Macedonian of Thessalonica, Act_19:20, Act_19:20:4; a member of the deputation to Jerusalem (ib.), and a companion of St. Paul in the first part, at least, of his journey to Rome, Act_27:2. Lightfoot (Philippians, p. 35) thought it probable that he parted from St. Paul at Myra, having accompanied him at first only because he was on his way home to Macedonia. If the centurion in whose charge St. Paul was had not accidentally fallen in at Myra with a ship sailing to Italy, their route would have taken them through Philippi. If this view is correct, Aristarchus must have rejoined St. Paul at Rome at a later date. In any case, the notices in Acts show that he would be well known in proconsular Asia.
ὁσνιμλτςμυ. αχάωο properly means a captive taken in war, and hence it has been supposed that it may here have reference to spiritual captivity; cf. Rom_7:23; 2Co_10:5; Eph_4:8. But none of these passages justify such an interpretation. In Rom. the verb is used of captivity to sin; in Eph. it is in a quotation from a Psalm; while in Cor. it is the thoughts that are brought into captivity so as to be obedient to Christ. There is no analogy to support the supposed use of αχάωο absolutely in the sense supposed. It would be particularly unlikely to be so used in a letter actually written from prison.
On the other hand, St. Paul speaks of the service of Christ in terms of military service; cf. 2Ti_2:3, and σσρτώη, Php_2:25; Phm_1:2. It is in accordance with this that he should use the term σνιμλτςhere (and of Epaphras in Phm_1:23). It has been conjectured that St. Paul’s helpers may have voluntarily shared his imprisonment in turn; for Epaphras, who is here a σνρό, is in Philemon a σνιμ and Aristarchus here σνιμ is there a σνρό.
Μρο ὁἀειςΒράα, “cousin,” so defined by Pollux, iii. 28, ἀεφνπῖε ἀειί ετ ἐ πταέφνεσ, ετ ἐ μταέφνετ ἐ ἀεφῦκὶἀεφς ετ ἐ δονἀρννἀεφνετ ἐ δονθλιν use of it for “nephew” is very late.
The relationship explains why Barnabas was more ready than Paul to condone Mark’s defection, Act_15:37-39. At the same time, the passage throws light in turn on the rather remarkable form of commendation here, “if he comes unto you, receive him.” The Pauline Churches, which were aware of the estrangement, might not be very ready to give a very hearty welcome to Mark. Comp. 2Ti_4:11. δχσα is a regular term for hospitable reception. See, for example, Mat_10:14; Joh_4:45; often also in classical writers.
πρ ο, κτλ These injunctions probably had reference to the friendly reception of Mark, so that their purport is repeated in the following words.
11. Ἰσῦ ὁλγμνςἸῦτς. Not mentioned elsewhere.
The surname Justus is applied to two other persons in the N.T., namely, Joseph Barsabbas, Act_1:23, and a proselyte at Corinth, Act_18:7. It was a frequent surname amongstom Jews.
ο ὄτςἐ πρτμς. These words are best connected with the following, οτιμνι κτλ The sense then is, “of those of the circumcision, these alone are,” etc. Otherwise, οτιμνιwould not be true (see vv. 12-14), and ο ὄτςἐ π would have no significance. This construction, in which the more general notion stands first as in a nominative absolute, and the particular notion follows with the verb, is used by classical writers.
On this οτιμνιcomp. Php_2:20, οδν ἔωἰόυο.
σνρο is the predicate, so that the apostle does not apply the term to the opponents.
οτνς as usual specifies, not the individuals, but the character, “men that proved.” See on Luk_2:4. The aorist ἐεήηα seems to refer to some definite recent occasion.
πργρα, “comfort,” only here in N.T., frequent in Plutarch. There is no ground for Bengel’s distinction, that πρμθαrefers to domestic, and πργραto forensic trouble. So far as the latter word has a technical sense, it is medical (cf. “paregoric”); but it is commonly used of consolation in general.
12. Ἐαρς, see 1:7.
ὁἐ ὑῶ. “Who is one of you.”
δῦο χιτῦἸσῦ. A title frequently used by St. Paul of himself, once of Timothy in conjunction with himself, Php_1:1, but not elsewhere of any other.
πνοεἀωιόεο, κτλ Compare 1:29.
ἵασῆετλιικὶππηοοηέο. “That ye may stand fast, perfect and fully assured.” σῆα, as in Eph_6:11, Eph_6:13, al., conveys the idea of standing firm; hence τλιικὶππ. are secondary predicates, the first expressing the objective moment, the second the subjective; they were not only to be τλιιἐ Χιτ, 1:28, but to have full assurance; cf. 2:2. πηοοενin N.T. means either “to fulfil,” as in 2Ti_4:5, 2Ti_4:17, or, “to persuade fully,” as in Rom_4:21, πηοοηεςὅι…δντςἐτν 14:5, ἐ τ ἰί νῒπηοοετ. It is read in Rom_15:13, in B F G, where the sense is “fill”; but the better attested reading is πηώα.The Rec. Text here has ππηωέο. See on Luk_1:1.
ἐ πνὶθλμτ τῦΘο. “In all the will of God” is not quite correct, yet we cannot say “every will of God.” Lightfoot renders “in everything willed by God.” The words are best connected with τλ κὶππ., not with σῆε as the order of the words shows. πνιprobably has reference to the variety of circumstances in which the Christian may find himself, with perhaps a hint at the contrast with the definite external precepts of the false teachers.
σῆεis the reading of אc A C D G K L P and most MSS., Chrys., Theodoret.
σαῆε א B 23 71 al., Euthal. (cod. Tisch.). Comp. Mat_2:9, Mat_27:11, in both which passages B C 1 33 have ἐτθ for the Rec. ἔτ. The passive is adopted by the critical editors in all three places.
ππηοοηέο, אA B C D* G al., Syr-Harcl. marg., Euthal. (cod. Tisch.).
ππηωέο, Dc K L P most MSS., Syr-Harcl., text. and Pesh., Arm., Chrys., Theodoret. As, however, πηοοενis sometimes used with the meaning “fill,” the versions cannot be quoted with certainty for the latter reading, which probably slipped in as the more familiar and simpler word.
13. μρυῶγρατ. The apostle confirms by his testimony what he has just said of Epaphras.
ὅιἔε πλνπνν. “That he has much labour.” πνςis not found elsewhere in N.T. except in the Apocalypse. It is, however, a common word for struggle in battle, and hence corresponds with the ἀώ, of the apostle himself, 2:1, and with the ἀωιόεο Of ver. 12. The two words occur in juxtaposition in Plato, Phaedr. 247 B, ἔθ δ πνςτ κὶἀὼ ἔχτςψχ πόετι
πλνπνν א B C P, 80, Euthal. (cod. Tisch.), Old Lat., Vulg., Goth, Boh., Arm.
ζλνπλν Rec., with K L most MSS., Syr. (both), Chrys., Theodoret., Dbe al. have πλνζλν D* G, πλνκπν
Five cursives have πθν and two (6, 672) ἀῶα
No doubt the rarity of πνςin the N.T. is responsible for the variety of reading. It is found in the Apocalypse only.
ὑὲ ὑῶ κὶτνἐ Λοιεᾳκὶτ ἐ Ἰρπλι. Laodicea and Hierapolis stood on opposite sides of the valley at a distance of about six miles from one another, and twice as far from Colossae. From the conjunction of the three names here i. appears probable that Epaphras stood in the same relation, as evangelist, to the three, and also that they were threatened by the same dangers; as, indeed, their near neighbourhood and consequent frequent intercourse would suggest. Compare 2:2.
14. ἀπζτιὑᾶ Λυᾶ ὁἰτὸ ὁἀαηό. “Luke the physician, the beloved.” Beyond question the evangelist, named also 2Ti_4:11 as well as Phm_1:24. It is interesting to find two of the evangelists in St. Paul’s company here. The reason of his calling being specified may be that he was attending on St. Paul in his professional capacity. It has been observed that his first appearance in company with St. Paul, Act_16:10, “nearly synchronises with an attack of the apostle’s constitutional malady (Gal_4:13, Gal_4:14), so that he may have joined him partly in a professional capacity” (Lightfoot). From the manner in which he is separated from the group in ver. 10 it is clear that he was a Gentile. This is fatal, not only to the tradition that he was one of the Seventy (which, indeed, is hardly consistent with the preface to his Gospel), but also to the conjecture that he was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. See on Luk_1:2, Luk_10:1-16, Luk_24:13-32.
κὶΔμς. Probably a contraction for Demetrius. It is remarkable that he is named without any epithet of commendation, which is the more striking as coming after ὁἀαηό. In Phm_1:24 he is named with Mark, Aristarchus, and Luke as a σνρό of St. Paul. But in 2Ti_4:10 he is mentioned as having deserted St. Paul, ἀαήα τννναῶα Perhaps the curt mention here foreshadows that desertion.
15. ἀπσσετὺ ἐ Λοιεᾳἀεφύ, κὶΝμᾶ, κὶτνκτ οκνατν (or ατῦ) ἐκηίν. Nymphas (if this reading is correct) is probably a short form of Nymphodorus; cf. Artemas for Artemidorus, Zenas for Zenodorus (Tit_3:12, Tit_3:13), Olympas for Olympiodorus (Rom_16:15), and perhaps Lucas for Lucanus.
τνκτ οκν κτλ i.e. the Church that assembled in their house. The same expression occurs, Rom_16:5 and 1Co_16:19, of the home of Prisca and Aquila at Rome and at Ephesus respectively; also Phm_1:2. Compare Act_12:12. Separate buildings for the purpose of Christian worship seem not to be traced earlier than the third century. Bingham, Antiq. viii. 1. 13, shows that special rooms were so set apart, but gives no instances of separate buildings. Probst (Kirchliche Disciplin, p. 181 f.) is referred to by Lightfoot as affording similar negative evidence. It is curious that Chrysostom understands the expression to refer only to the household of Nymphas. ὅαγῦ πςδίνσ μγντνἄδα ε γ ἡοκαατῦἐκηί.
ατνis difficult. Afford, Lightfoot, al., understand it as referring to ο πρ Νμᾶ. Alford compares Xen. Mem. i. 2. 62, ἐντςφνρςγντικέτν…τύοςθντςἐτνἡζμα which is clearly not parallel, for τςis one of a class, and τύοςall those belonging to that class. Lightfoot compares Xen. Anab. iii. 3. 7, ποῄι(Μθιάη) πὸ τὺ Ἕλνς ἐε δ ἐγςἐέοτ, κτλ and iv. 5. 33, ἐε δ ἦθνπὸ Χιίοο, κτλμαο κὶἐενυ σηονα. These also are not parallel, since here, as in other languages, the force is called by the name of its commander. Hence Meyer says that the plural cannot without violence be referred to anything but “the brethren in Laodicea and Nymphas.” He thinks, then, that by these brethren is meant a Church distinct from that of Laodicea, but in filial relation to it, and meeting in the same house. Lightfoot also suggests (as an alternative to his first-mentioned view) that the “brethren in Laodicea” may refer to a family of Colossians settled in Laodicea.
The reading varies between ατν ατῦ and ατς
For the plural, אA C P 5 9 17 23 34 39 47 73, Boh. (wrongly quoted by Tinch. al. for ατῦ see Lightfoot), Arab. (Leipz.), Euthalius (cod. Tisch.).
For ατῦare D G K L 37 (cod. Leic,) nearly all cursives, Goth., Chrys., Theodoret (expressly), Ambrosiaster.
For ατς B 672.
The Latin versions have the singular “ejus,” and so both Syriac. In the latter the gender would be indicated only by a point. The Pesh. is pointed inconsistently, making Nympha feminine (Numphē and the suffix (corresponding to ατῦor ατς masculine. The Harclean, again, has the suffix feminine in the text, masculine in the margin. How the translator intended the proper name to be taken is uncertain; it may be either masc. or fem. Lightfoot thinks probably the latter. The Greek name is accented as feminine (Νμα) in Bc and Euthalius (cod. Tisch.).
Νμα as a feminine name would be Doric, and the occurrence of such a form here is highly improbable. ατς then, is probably a correction suggested by this misunderstanding of Νμα. But it seems more probable that the scribe who made the correction had ατῦbefore him than ατν ατν again, might readily have been suggested to the mind of a copyist by his recollection of Rom_16:5 and 1Co_16:19 assisted by the occurrence of ἀεφύ just before.
ατςis adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles (margin), WH., v. Soden, Weiss. Νμα being accentuated accordingly.
ατν by Tischendorf, Alford, Meyer, Tregelles (text).
ατῦ by De Wette (who designates ατν“false and unmeaning”), Ellicott.
16. κὶὅα ἀανσῇπρ ὑῖ ἡἐιτλ. Obviously the present Epistle, as Rom_16:22, Τριςὁγάα τνἐιτλν 1Th_5:27, ἀανσῆα τνἐιτλν 2Th_3:14, δὰτςἐιτλς these latter verses being of the nature of a postscript.
πιστ ἵα. Cf. Joh_11:37. πιῖ, in the sense “take care,” is sometimes followed by ὅω, as in Herod. i. 8, πίεὅω ἐεννθήειγμή: ib. 209, πίεὅω ἐεν…ὥ μικτσήῃ τνπῖα So with ὡ, Xen. Cyrop. vi. 3. 18.
ἵακὶἐ τ Λοιένἐκηί ἀανσῇ. See the similar direction 1Th_5:27, ἀανσῆα τνἐ. πσ τῖ ἀεφῖ. The present Ep. was to be read in the assembly of the Church, and a copy sent to Laodicea and similarly read there. Compare the address 2Co_1:1, which implies the sending of copies to neighbouring Churches.
κὶτνἐ Λοιεα. Chrysostom says that some understood this of a letter written from Laodicea to St. Paul. The SyriacPesh. also renders “written from L.”; and so Theodore Mops., Theodoret, and many others, including Beza, a Lapide, Estius, and some recent commentators. But why should St. Paul direct the Colossians to get from Laodicea the letter written to him, of which he could not assume even that the Laodiceans had retained a copy? and how would the letter of the Laodiceans edify the Colossians? Moreover, κὶὑεςobviously implies that the Laodiceans were the receivers of the letter. Theophylact supposes the first Epistle to Timothy to be meant, which, according to the subscription, was written from Laodicea. This subscription, indeed, probably owes its origin to the theory, which was earlier than Theophylact, and appears in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac. Other Epistles of St. Paul have been similarly said in some of the Versions to be “written from Laodicea” (see Lightfoot). It is fatal to all such hypotheses that St. Paul had not been at Laodicea before this time (2:1), and, even had he been there, had now been some time in prison, and therefore could not have written any letter recently from Laodicea.
These hypotheses are obviously founded on the error that ἡἐ Λ must mean “the letter written from ‘L.’ ” But this is not so. When the article with a preposition expresses a substantival notion, it is often proleptic, a construction which is called the attraction of prepositions (Jelf, §647), Thucyd, ii. 34, θποσ τὺ ἐ τνπλμν iii. 22, ἤθνοο ἐ τνπρω φλκς vi. 32, ξνπύοτ δ κὶὁἄλςὅιο ὁἐ τςγς Most of the instances, indeed, cited by Jelf, l.c., and others are with verbs implying motion, as in Luk_11:13, Luk_16:26.
Assuming, then, as certain that the Epistle was one written by St. Paul to Laodicea, we have three alternatives to choose from. First, there is extant an Epistle actually bearing the title “To the Laodiceans.” It is extant only in Latin, but must have been originally written in Greek. Of it Jerome says (Vir. Ill. 5): “legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur.” It is, indeed, abundantly condemned by internal evidence. It is a mere cento of Pauline phrases put together with no definite connexion or purpose, and absolutely destitute of any local allusion, except in the last line, which is obviously borrowed from the verse before us, viz.: “et facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis.” As Erasmus truly and strikingly expresses it: “nihil habet Pauli praeter voculas aliquot ex caeteris ejus epistolis mendicatas. …Non est cujusvis hominis Paulinum pectus effingere. Tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paul s. At haec, praeterquam quod brevissima est (about as long as this ch. 4.), quam friget, quam jacet! …Nullum argumentum efficacius persuaserit eam non esse Pauli quam ipsa epistola.” It is found, however, in many copies of the Latin Bible from the sixth to the fifteenth century, and, as Lightfoot observes, for more than nine centuries it “hovered about the doors of the sacred canon, without either finding admission or being peremptorily excluded,” until at the revival of learning it was finally condemned on all sides. The Latin text of the Epistle will be found on p. 308. A full account of its history with a collation of the principal MSS., also a translation into Greek, will be found in Lightfoot.
Secondly, it may be a lost Epistle. We have no reason to question the possibility of St. Paul having written letters which have not come down to us (compare, perhaps, 1Co_5:9); but in the present case we may observe, first, that the Epistle referred to was one to which some importance was attached by St. Paul himself, so that he himself directs that it be read publicly in two distinct Churches (for the passage justifies us in assuming that it was publicly read in Laodicea as well as Colossae); and, secondly, that in consequence of this direction not only must it have been copied, but great publicity was, in fact, assured to it. The Epistle to Philemon, which was in itself unimportant, and private, was not allowed by the Colossians to be lost, how much less an important public letter? Again, we know of three Epistles sent at this time to Asia Minor, namely, those to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, and to Philemon. It is best not to assume a fourth unless we are compelled to do so, which it will be seen we are not. In any case it could hardly have been an Epistle addressed to the Laodiceans, since if it had been we should not have salutations to the Laodiceans in this Epistle, not to say that it would be called τνπὸ Λοιέςrather than τνἐ Λ
The third alternative is that the Epistle is one of those that we possess under another title. As early as the fourth century the claim was put forward on the part of the Epistle to the Hebrews by Philastrius, apparently from conjecture only, and one or two modern writers have adopted the same hypothesis. But in spite of some partial coincidences, it is really impossible to suppose these two Epistles to have been written at the same time by the same author to the same neighbourhood.
The Epistle to Philemon has also been suggested, and Wieseler (Chronol. des Apost. Zeitalter, p. 450 ff.) speaks of this identification as scarcely open to doubt; but that Epistle is entirely private, and the delicacy of its appeal would be destroyed if St. Paul directed it to be read in public.
There remains the Epistle to the Ephesians, which we know to have been written about the same time as the Epistle to the Colossians, and conveyed by the same messenger, and which, on quite distinct grounds, is, with high probability, regarded as a circular letter (see Introduction).
ἵακὶὑεςἀαντ. “See that ye also read.” It would be rather awkward to make this ἵαdepend directly on πιστ. It may be taken independently, as in Gal_2:10, μνντνπωῶ ἵαμηοεωε: 2Co_8:7, ἵακὶἐ τύῃτ χρτ πρσεηε(Joh_9:3; 2Th_3:9; 1Jn_2:19 are not quite parallel).
ὅω is frequently used by classical writers in a similar manner. Here, however, as πιστ has just preceded followed by ἵα it is perhaps more natural to understand before this ἵα “see that,” taken out of πιστ by a sort of zeugma.
17. κὶεπτ Ἀχπῳ. Archippus, called by St. Paul his σσρτώη (Phm_1:2), was probably a son of Philemon, and a leading presbyter at Colossae (to suppose him to be a regular bishop would be an anachronism), or perhaps an “evangelist” (Eph_4:11). Lightfoot thinks it more probable that he resided at Laodicea (of which place the Apostolic Constitutions make him bishop), and accounts thus for St. Paul not addressing him directly. Contrast the direct address, Php_4:3. But there the request addressed to the “true yokefellow” is a special one; here it is general, and the form adopted gives it an official character which is natural and suitable; in fact, a direct address would have the appearance of harshness and discourtesy to the Colossians, and this the more the greater the authority he possessed. Would not this be the impression inevitably produced, if after animadverting on the heretical teaching in Colossae, the apostle had added, “and thou, see that thou fulfil thy office”?
βέε, “look to”; compare 1Co_1:26, βέεετνκῆι ὑῶ: 10:18, βέεετνἸρὴ κτ σρα In Php_3:2, βέεετὺ κνς κτλ the idea is of being on one’s watch (against).
τνδαοίν. Clearly some office more important than the diaconate, properly so called, is intended here. So 2Ti_4:5, τνδαοίνσυπηοόηο: compare Act_12:25, πηώατςτνδαοίν(of a special mission to Jerusalem).
ἣ πρλβςἐ Κρῳ. The qualification ἐ Κρῳprobably belongs both to the person and to the reception of the office; as living in the Lord, he received it, and he received it as committed to him in the service of the Lord.
ἵαατνπηος. For the construction, compare 2Jn_1:8 and for the sense, 2Ti_4:5 quoted above.
The admonition reminds us, indeed, of the admonitions to Timothy and Titus. If Archippus was a young man, and recently appointed to his office, it would be a natural reminder of its greatness and its difficulty; and there is no need to suppose that a covert censure on his previous laxity is implied.
18. ὁἀπσὸ τ ἐῇχιὶΠύο = 1Co_16:21; 2Th_3:17. In the latter passage St. Paul states that this was his usual custom.
μηοεεέμυτνδσῶ. An appeal, touching in its brevity, and one which could not proceed from an imitator. He does not ask specially for their prayers, their sympathy, that they should spare him further anxiety, or the like; but all these are included in the request that they “were ever to keep before them the fact that one who so deeply cared for them, and loved them, and to whom their perils of the doctrine occasioned such anxiety, was a prisoner in chains,” Afford; who adds, “when we read of ‘his chains’ we should not forget that they moved over the paper as he wrote. His hand was chained to the soldier that kept him.” This circumstance perhaps explains the singular abruptness of the request.
ἡχρςμθ ὑῶ. This short form of benediction is used also in 1Ti_6:21 and 2Ti_4:22. ἡχρςused thus absolutely occurs only in the later Epistles. In the earlier it is defined by the addition of τῦΚρο [ἡῶ] Ἰσῦ[Χιτῦ
Ἀή is added in אc D K L P and most MSS., d e f Vulg., Goth., Syr. (both), Boh., etc.
Omitted in א A B C F G 17 672, g al.
For the subscription, אA B C D G L P al. have πὸ Κλσαι (or Κλσαι, Bcor D F G L P, etc.), to which A Bo add ἀὸῥμςῥμ Α and so Syr. (both); but Boh. has “scripta Athenis.”
Some later authorities, K L and many cursives, add δὰΤχκῦκὶὈηίο. For other varieties and additions, see Tischnendorf.
Here follows the text of the spurious Epistle from a MS. in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin.
————
AD LAODICENSES
Paulus Apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem; sed per Jhesum Christum fratribus qui sunt Laodicie. Gratia vobis et pax a Deo patre nostro et Domino Jhesu Christo.
Gratias ago Deo meo per omnem orationem meam quod permanentes estis in eo et perseverantes in operibus eius, promissum expectantes in die iudicii. Neque destituant vos quorundam vaniloquia insinuantium, ut vos avertant a veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur etsi faciet Deus ut qui sunt ex me ad perfectum veritatis evangelii et servientes et facientes benignitatem operum salutis vite eterne. Et nunc palam sunt vobis vincla mea quae patior in Christo quibus laetor et gaudeo et hoc mihi est ad salutem perpetuam quod ipsum factum orationibus vestris et administrante Spiritu Sancto, sive per vitam sive per mortem, est enim michi vivere vita in Christo et mori gaudium et in id ipsum vobis faciet misericordiam. suam ut eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unanimes. Ergo dilectissimi ut audistis praesentia mei, ita retinete et facite in timore Dei et erit vobis vita eterna, est enim Deus qui operatur in vobis et facite sine retractu quecumque facitis et quod est [reliquum] dilectissimi gaudete in Christo et praecavete sordidos in lucro. Omnes sint petitiones vestre palam apud Deum et estote firmi in sensu Christi et quae integra sunt et vera et pudica et iusta et amabilia facite, et quae audistis et accepistis in corde retinete et erat [sic] vobis pax. Salutant vos sancti. Gratia Domini nostri Jhesu cum spiritu vestro. Et facite legi epistolam colosencium vobis.
Boh Bohairic. Cited by Tisch. as “Coptic,” by Tregelles as “Memphitic,” by WH. as “me.”
Arm Armenian.
Eth Ethiopic.
Tisch. Tischendorf.
Syr-Harcl. The Harclean Syriac.
WH Westcott and Hort.