Bible Commentaries

Παύλου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς

A B K min. Copt. have the superscription πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς. So Matth. Lachm. and Tisch. Comp. on Colossians 1:2.

CHAPTER 1

Colossians 1:1. The arrangement Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (Lachm. Tisch.) has preponderant testimony in its favour, but not the addition of Ἰησοῦ after Χριστοῦ in Colossians 1:2 (Lachm.).

Colossians 1:2. Κολοσσαῖς] K P, also C and א in the subscription, min. Syr. utr. Copt. Or. Nyss. Amphiloch. Theodoret, Damasc. et. al. have Κολασσαῖς. Approved by Griesb., following Erasm. Steph. Wetst.; adopted by Matth. Lach. Tisch. 7. The Recepta is supported by B D E F G L א, min. Vulg. It. Clem. Chrys. Theophyl. Tert. Ambrosiast. Pelag. The matter is to be judged thus: (1) The name in itself correct is undoubtedly Κολοσσαί, which is supported by coins of the city (Eckhel, Doctr. num. III. p. 107) and confirmed by Herod. vii. 30 (see Wessel. and Valck. in loc.); Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6 (see Bornem. in loc.); Strabo, xii. 8, p. 576; Plin. N. H. v. 32. (2) But since the form Κολασσαί has so old and considerable attestation, and is preserved in Herodotus and Xenophon as a various reading, as also in Polyaen. viii. 16, and therefore a mere copyist’s error cannot be found in the case—the more especially as the copyists, even apart from the analogy which suggested itself to them of the well-known κολοσσός, would naturally be led to the prevalent form of the name Κολοσσαί,—we must assume that, although Κολοσσαί was the more formally correct name, still the name Κολασσαί was also (vulgarly) in use, that this was the name which Paul himself wrote, and that Κολοσσαῖς is an ancient correction. If the latter had originally a place in the text, there would have been no occasion to alter the generally known and correct form of the name.

After πατρὸς ἡμῶν, Elz. (Lachm. in brackets) has καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, in opposition to B D E K L, min. vss. and Fathers. A complementary addition in accordance with the openings of other epistles, especially as no ground for intentional omission suggests itself (in opposition to Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 351 f.).

Colossians 1:3. καὶ πατρί] Lachm. and Tisch. 7: πατρί. So B C*, vss. and Fathers, while D* F G, Chrys. have τῷ πατρί. Since, however, Paul always writes ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου (Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Ephesians 1:3; also 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 5:20), and never ὁ Θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ τ. κ. or ὁ Θεὸς πατὴρ τ. κ., the Recepta, which has in its favour A C** D*** E K L P א, min. Vulg. and Fathers, is with Tisch. 8 to be retained. The καί was readily omitted in a mechanical way after the immediately preceding Θεοῦ πατρός.

Instead of περί, Lachm. reads ὑπέρ, which is also recommended by Griesb., following B D* E* F G, min. Theophyl. Not attested by preponderating evidence, and easily introduced in reference to Colossians 1:9 (where ὑπέρ stands without variation).

Colossians 1:4. Instead of ἣν ἔχετε (which is recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.), Elz. Matth. Scholz have τήν merely, but in opposition to A C D* E* F G P א, min. vss. (including Vulg. It.) Fathers. If τήν were originally written, why should it have been exchanged for ἣν ἔχετε? On the other hand, ἣν ἔχετε, as it could be dispensed with for the sense, might easily drop out, because the word preceding concludes with the syllable HN, and the word following (εἰς), like ἔχετε, begins with E. The grammatical gap would then, following Ephesians 1:15, be filled up by τήν.

Colossians 1:6. καὶ ἔστι] καί is wanting in A B C D* E* P א, min. and some vss. and Fathers; condemned by Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But, not being understood, this καί, which has the most important vss. and Fathers in its favour, was omitted in the interest of simplicity as disturbing the connection.

καὶ αὐξανόμενον] is wanting in Elz. Matth., who is of opinion that Chrys. introduced it from Colossians 1:10. But it is so decisively attested, that the omission must be looked upon as caused by the homoeoteleuton, the more especially as a similar ending and a similar beginning here came together (ONKA).

Ver 7. καθὼς καί] καί is justly condemned by Griesb. on decisive evidence, and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. A mechanical repetition from the preceding.

ὑμῶν] ABDGF א, min.: ἡμῶν; approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. But since the first person both precedes and follows (ἡμῶν … ἡμῖν), it was put here also by careless copyists.

Colossians 1:10. After περιπατῆσαι, Elz. Tisch. 7 have ὑμᾶς, against decisive testimony; a supplementary addition.

εἰς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν] Griesb. Lachm. Scholz. Tisch. 8 have τῇ ἐπιγνώσει. So A B C D* E* F G P א, min. Clem. Cyr. Maxim. But it lacks the support of the vss., which (Vulg. It. in scientia Dei) have read the Recepta εἰς τ. ἐπίγν. attested by D*** E** K L and most min., also Theodoret, Dam. Theophyl. Oec., or with א** and Chrys. ἐν τῇ ἐπιγνώσει. The latter, as well as the mere τῇ ἐπιγν., betrays itself as an explanation of the difficult εἰς τ. ἐπίγν., which, we may add, belongs to the symmetrical structure of the whole discourse, the participial sentences of which all conclude with a destination introduced by εἰς.

Colossians 1:12. ἱκανώσαντι] Lachm.: καλέσαντι καὶ ἱκανώσαντι, according to B, whilst D* F G, min. Arm. Aeth. It. Didym. Ambrosiast. Vigil. have καλέσαντι merely. Looking at the so isolated attestation of καλ. κ. ἱκαν., we must assume that καλέσαντι was written on the margin by way of complement, and then was in some cases inserted with καί, and in others without καί substituted for ἱκανώσ.

Instead of ἡμας, Tisch. 8 has ὑμᾶς; but the latter, too weakly attested by B א, easily slipped in by means of the connection with εὐχαρ.

Colossians 1:14. After ἀπολυτρ. Elz. has διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, against decisive testimony; from Ephesians 1:7.

Colossians 1:16. τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τά] Lachm. has erased the first τά and bracketed the second. In both cases the τά is wanting in B א*, Or.; the first τά only is wanting in D* E* F G P and two min. But how easily might TA be absorbed in the final syllable of πάν TA; and this would then partially involve the omission of the second τά! The assumption that the final syllable of πάντα was written twice would only be warranted, if the omitting witnesses, especially in the case of the second τά, were stronger.

Colossians 1:20. The second δἰ αὐτοῦ is wanting in B D* F G L, min. Vulg. It. Sahid. Or. Cyr. Chrys. Theophyl. and Latin Fathers. Omitted by Lachm. It was passed over as superfluous, obscure, and disturbing the sense.

Colossians 1:21. Instead of the Recepta ἀποκατήλλαξεν, Lachm., following B, has ἀποκατηλλάγητε. D* F G, It. Goth. Ir. Ambrosiast. Sedul. have ἀποκαταλλαγέντες. Since, according to this, the passive is considerably attested, and the active ἀποκατήλλαξεν, although most strongly attested (also by א), may well be suspected to be a syntactic emendation, we must decide, as between the two passive readings ἀποκατηλλάγητε and ἀποκαταλλαγέντες, in favour of the former, because the latter is quite unsuitable. If the Recepta were original, the construction would be so entirely plain, that we could not at all see why the passive should have been introduced.

Colossians 1:22. After θανάτου, A P א, min. vss. Ir. have αὐτοῦ, which Lachm. has admitted in brackets. It is attested so weakly, as to seem nothing more than a familiar addition.

Colossians 1:23. τῇ before κτίσει is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be omitted, following A B C D* F G א, min. Chrys.

Instead of διάκονος, P א have κήρυξ κ. ἀπόστολος. A gloss; comp. 1 Timothy 2:7. In A all the three words κήρυξ κ. ἀπ. κ. δίακ. are given.

Colossians 1:24. νῦν] D* E* F G, Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel. have ὅς νῦν. Rightly; the final syllable of διάκονος in Colossians 1:23, and the beginning of a church-lesson, co-operated to the suppression of ὅς, which, however, is quite in keeping with the connection and the whole progress of the discourse.

After παθήμ. Elz. has μου, against decisive testimony.

ὅ ἐστιν] C D* E, min.: ὅς ἐστιν. So Lachm. in the margin. A copyist’s error.

Colossians 1:27. The neuter τί τὸ πλοῦτος (Matth. Lachm. Tisch.) is attested by codd. and Fathers sufficiently to make the masculine appear as an emendation: comp. on 2 Corinthians 8:2.

ὅς ἐστιν] A B F G P, min. (quod in Vulg. It. leaves the reading uncertain): ὅ ἐστιν. So Lachm. A grammatical alteration, which, after Colossians 1:24, was all the more likely.

Colossians 1:28. After διδάσκ., πάντα ἄνθρωπον is wanting in D* E* F G, min. vss. and Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., but is to be defended. The whole καὶ διδάσκ. πάντα ἄνθρωπ. was omitted owing to the homoeoteleuton (so still in L, min. Clem.), and then the restoration of the words took place incompletely.

After Χριστῷ Elz. has Ἰησοῦ, against decisive testimony.

Colossians 1:1-2. Διὰ θελήμ. Θεοῦ] see on 1 Corinthians 1:1. Comp. 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1.

καὶ Τιμόθ.] see on 2 Corinthians 1:1; Php 1:1. Here also as subordinate joint-author of the letter, who at the same time may have been the amanuensis, but is not here jointly mentioned as such (comp. Romans 16:22). See on Php 1:1.

ὁ ἀδελφός] see on 1 Corinthians 1:1; referring, not to official (Chrys.: οὐκοῦν καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπόστολος), but generally to Christian brotherhood.

τοῖς ἐν Κολ. ἁγ. κ.τ.λ.] to the saints who are in Colossae. To this theocratic designation, which in itself is not as yet more precisely defined (see on Romans 1:7), is then added their distinctively Christian character: and believing brethren in Christ. Comp. on Ephesians 1:1. ἁγίοις is to be understood as a substantive, just as in all the commencements of epistles, where it occurs (Romans 1:7; 1 Cor.; 2 Cor.; Eph.; Phil.); and ἐν Χριστῷ is closely connected with πιστ. ἀδ., with which it blends so as to form one conception (hence it is not τοῖς ἐν Χ.), expressly designating the believing brethren as Christians, so that ἐν Χ. forms the element of demarcation, in which the readers are believing brethren, and outside of which they would not be so in the Christian sense. Comp. on 1 Corinthians 4:17; Ephesians 6:21; in which passages, however, πιστός is faithful,—a meaning which it has not here (in opposition to Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Dalmer), because everywhere in the superscriptions of the Epistles it is only the Christian standing of the readers that is described. No doubt ἐν Χριστῷ was in itself hardly necessary; but the addresses have a certain formal stamp. If ἁγίοις is taken as an adjective: “the holy and believing brethren” (de Wette), ἐν Χριστῷ being made to apply to the whole formula, then πιστοῖς coming after ἁγίοις (which latter word would already have, through ἐν Χ., its definition in a Christian sense, which, according to our view, it still has not) would be simply a superfluous and clumsy addition, because ἁγίοις would already presuppose the πιστοῖς.

The fact that Paul does not expressly describe the church to which he is writing as a church (as in 1 Cor.; 2 Cor.; Galatians 1 and 2 Thess.) has no special motive (comp. Rom., Eph., Phil.), but is purely accidental. If it implied that he had not founded the church and stood in no kind of relation to it as such, and especially to its rulers (de Wette, by way of query), he would not have written of a Λαοδικέων ἐκκλησία (Colossians 4:16). Indeed, the principle of addressing as churches those communities only which he had himself founded, is not one to be expected from the apostle’s disposition of mind and wisdom; and it is excluded by the inscription of the Epistle to the Ephesians (assuming its genuineness and destination for the church at Ephesus), as also by Php 1:1 (where the mention of the bishops and deacons would not compensate for the formal naming of the church). It is also an accidental matter that Paul says ἐν Χριστῷ merely, and not ἐν Χ. Ἰησοῦ (1 Cor.; Eph.; Phil.; 2 Thess.), although Mayerhoff makes use of this, among other things, to impugn the genuineness of the epistle; just as if such a mechanical regularity were to be ascribed to the apostle!

χάρις ὑμῖν κ.τ.λ.] See on Romans 1:7.

Colossians 1:3 f. Thanksgiving for the Christian condition of the readers, down to Colossians 1:8.—εὐχαριστο͂υμεν] I and Timothy; plural and singular alternate in the Epistle (Colossians 1:23-24; Colossians 1:28-29 ff., Colossians 4:3); but not without significant occasion.

καὶ πατρὶ κ.τ.λ.] who is at the same time the Father, etc. See on Ephesians 1:3.

πάντοτε] belongs to εὐχαρ., as in 1 Corinthians 1:4; 1 Thessalonians 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 1:3; Philemon 1:4, and not to περὶ ὑμ. προσευχ. (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and many others, including Böhmer, Olshausen, Dalmer)—a connection opposed to the parallel Ephesians 1:16, as well as to the context, according to which the thanksgiving is the main point here, and the prayer merely a concomitant definition; and it is not till Colossians 1:9 that the latter is brought forward as the object of the discourse, and that as unceasing. This predicate belongs here to the thanking, and in Colossians 1:9 to the praying, and περὶ ὑμῶν προσευχ.—words which are not, with Bähr, to be separated from one another (whereby προσευχ. would unduly stand without relation)—is nothing but a more precise definition of πάντοτε: “always (each time, Php 1:4; Romans 1:10[11]), when we pray for you.”

ἀκούσαντες κ.τ.λ.] with reference to time; after having heard, etc. Comp. Colossians 1:9. In that, which Paul had heard of them, lies the ground of his thanksgiving. The πίστις is faith (Romans 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:3) not faithfulness (Ewald), as at Philemon 1:5, where the position of the words is different. That Paul has heard their faith praised, is self-evident from the context. Comp. Ephesians 1:15; Philemon 1:5.

ἐν Χ. Ἰ.] on Christ, in so far, namely, as the faith has its basis in Christ. See on Mark 1:15; Galatians 3:26; Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 1:15. As to the non-repetition of τήν, see on Galatians 3:26.

ἫΝ ἜΧΕΤΕ] Paul so writes,—not by joining on immediately (ΤῊΝ ἈΓΆΠΗΝ ΕἸς ΠΆΝΤΑς Κ.Τ.Λ.), nor yet by the mere repetition of the article, as in Ephesians 1:15 (so the Recepta, see the critical remarks),—because he has it in view to enter more fully upon this point of ἀγάπη, and indeed definitely upon the reason why they cherished it.

[11] For a like use of ἀεί, see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 360 A.

Colossians 1:5. Διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα κ.τ.λ.] on account of the hope, etc., does not belong to εὐχαρ. Colossians 1:3 (Bengel, “ex spe patet, quanta sit causa gratias agendi pro dono fidei et amoris;” comp. Bullinger, Zanchius, Calovius, Elsner, Michaelis, Zachariae, Storr, Rosenmüller, Hofmann, and others), because the ground for the apostolic thanksgiving at the beginnings of the Epistles, as also here at Colossians 1:4, always consists in the Christian character of the readers (Romans 1:8; 1 Corinthians 1:4 ff.; Ephesians 1:15; Php 1:5; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Timothy 1:5; Philemon 1:5), and that indeed as a ground in itself,[12] and therefore not merely on account of what one has in future to hope from it; and, moreover, because εὐχαριστεῖν with ΔΙΆ and the accusative does not occur anywhere in the N. T. It is connected with ἫΝ ἜΧΕΤΕ Κ.Τ.Λ., and thus specifies the motive ground of the love; for love guarantees the realization of the salvation hoped for. So correctly, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Steiger, Bleek, and others. The more faith is active through love, the richer one becomes εἰς Θεόν (Luke 12:21), and this riches forms the contents of hope. He who does not love remains subject to death (1 John 3:14), and his faith profits him nothing (1 Corinthians 13:1-3). It is erroneous to refer it jointly to πίστις, so as to make the hope appear here as ground of the faith and the love; so Grotius and others, including Bähr, Olshausen, and de Wette; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius and Ewald. For ἣν ἔχετε (or the Rec. τήν) indicates a further statement merely as regards ΤῊΝ ἈΓΆΠΗΝ; and with this accords the close of the whole outburst, which in Colossians 1:8 emphatically reverts to ΤῊΝ ὙΜῶΝ ἈΓΆΠΗΝ.

The ἘΛΠΊς is here conceived objectively (comp. ἐλπ. βλεπομένη, Romans 8:24): our hope as to its objective contents, that which we hope for. Comp. Job 6:8; 2Ma 7:14, and see on Romans 8:24 and Galatians 5:5; Zöckler, de vi ac notione voc. ἐλπίς, Giss. 1856, p. 26 ff.

ΤῊΝ ἈΠΟΚΕΙΜ. ὙΜῖΝ ἘΝ Τ. ΟὐΡ.] What is meant is the Messianic salvation forming the contents of the hope (1 Thessalonians 5:8; Romans 5:2; Romans 8:18 ff.; Colossians 3:3 f.), which remains deposited, that is, preserved, laid up (Luke 19:20), in heaven for the Christian until the Parousia, in order to be then given to him.[13] On ἀποκ. comp. 2 Timothy 4:8; 2Ma 12:45; Kypke, II. p. 320 f.; Loesner, p. 360; Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 678. Used of death, Hebrews 9:27; of punishments, Plat. Locr. p. 104 D, 4Ma 8:10. As to the idea, comp. the conception of the treasure in heaven (Matthew 6:20; Matthew 19:21; 1 Timothy 6:19), of the reward in heaven (see on Matthew 5:12), of the πολίτευμα in heaven (see on Php 3:20), of the κληρονομία τετηρημένη ἐν οὐραν. (1 Peter 1:4), and of the βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως (Php 3:14).

ἣν προηκούσατε κ.τ.λ.] Certainty of this hope, which is not an unwarranted subjective fancy, but is objectively conveyed to them through the word of truth previously announced. The πρό in προηκούσατε (Herod, viii. 79; Plat. Legg vii. p. 797 A; Xen. Mem. ii. 4. 7; Dem. 759. 26, 955. 1; Joseph. Antt. viii. 12. 3) does not denote already formerly, whereby Paul premises se nihil allaturum novi (Calvin and many), but must be said with reference to the future, to which the hope belongs; hence the sense imported by Ewald: where with the word of truth began among you (Mark 1:15), is the less admissible. The conception is rather, that the contents of the ἐλπίς, the heavenly salvation, is the great future blessing, the infallible pre-announcement of which they have heard. As previously announced, it is also previously heard.

τῆς ἀληθείας is the contents of the λόγος (comp. on Ephesians 1:13); and by τοῦ εὐαγ., the ἀλήθεια, that is, the absolute truth, is specifically defined as that of the gospel, that is, as that which is announced in the gospel. Both genitives are therefore to be left in their substantive form (Erasmus, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and many others understand τῆς ἀληθ. as adjectival: sermo verax; comp. on the contrary, on ἀλήθ. τοῦ εὐαγγ., Galatians 2:5; Galatians 2:14), so that the expression advances to greater definiteness. The circumstantiality has something solemn about it (comp. 2 Corinthians 9:4); but this is arbitrarily done away, if we regard τοῦ εὐαγγ. as the genitive of apposition to τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθ. (Calvin, Beza, and many others, including Flatt, Bähr, Steiger, Böhmer, Huther, Olshausen, de Wette, Hofmann); following Ephesians 1:13, Paul would have written τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ.

[12] In opposition to the view of Hofmann, that Paul names the reason why the news of the faith and love of the readers had become to him a cause of thanksgiving.

[13] It is erroneous to say that the Parousia no longer occurs in our Epistle. It is the substratum of the ἐλπὶς ἀποκ. ἐν τ. οὐρ. Comp. Colossians 3:1 ff. (in opposition to Mayerhoff, and Holtzmann, p. 203 f.).

Colossians 1:6. In what he had just said, ἣν προηκούσατε … εὐαγγελίου, Paul now desires to make his readers sensible of the great and blessed fellowship in which, through the gospel, they are placed, in order that they may by this very consciousness feel themselves aroused to faithfulness towards the gospel, in presence of the heretical influences; ἐπειδὴ μάλιστα οἱ πολλοὶ ἐκ τοῦ κοινωνοὺς ἔχειν πολλοὺς τῶν δογμάτων στηρίζονται, Chrysostom. Comp. Oecumenius: προθυμοτέρους αὐτοὺς περὶ τὴν πίστιν ποιεῖ ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν πάντας κοινωνούς.

εἰς ὑμᾶς] not ἐν ὑμῖν, because the conception of the previous arrival predominates; 1Ma 11:63. Often so with παρεῖναι in classical authors (Herod. i. 9, vi. 24, viii. 60; Polyb. xviii. 1.1; comp. Acts 12:20). See Bornemann and Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2. 2; Bremi, ad Aeschin. p. 320; and generally, Nägelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 158 f., ed. 3. Observe, moreover, the emphasis of τοῦ παρόντος: it is there! it has not remained away; and to the presence is then added the bearing fruit.

καθὼς καὶ ἐν παντὶ τ. κόσμῳ] A popular hyperbole. Comp. Romans 1:8; Acts 17:6, and see Colossians 1:23. The expression is neither arbitrarily to be restricted, nor to be used against the genuineness of the Epistle (Hilgenfeld), nor yet to be rationalized by “as regards the idea” (Baumgarten-Crusius) and the like; although, certainly, the idea of the catholicity of Christianity is expressed in the passage (comp. Romans 10:18; Mark 14:9; Mark 16:15; Matthew 24:14).

καὶ ἔστι καρποφ. κ.τ.λ.] Instead of continuing: καὶ καρποφορουμένου κ.τ.λ., Paul carries onward the discourse with the finite verb, and thus causes this element to stand out more independently and forcibly:[14] “and it is fruit-bearing and growing” (see Maetzner, ad Lycurg. Leocr. p. 108; Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 222 B; Winer, p. 533 [E. T. 717]), by which is indicated the fact, that the gospel, wherever it is present, is also in course of living dynamical development, and this state of development is expressed by ἔστι with the participle. This general proposition based on experience: καὶ ἔστι καρποφ. κ. αὐξαν., is then by ΚΑΘῺς Κ. ἘΝ ὙΜῖΝ confirmed through the experience found also among the readers; so that Paul’s view passes, in the first clause (τοῦ παρόντος … κόσμῳ), from the special to the general aspect, and in the second, from the general to the special. With ΚΑΡΠΟΦΟΡ. (not occurring elsewhere in the middle) is depicted the blissful working in the inward and outward life (comp. Galatians 5:22; Ephesians 5:9); and with αὐξανόμ. the continuous diffusion, whereby the gospel is obtaining more and more adherents and local extension. Comp. Theodoret: καρποφορίαν τοῦ εὐαγγ. κέκληκε τὴν ἐπαινουμένην πολιτείαν· αὔξησιν δὲ τῶν πιστευόντων τὸ πλῆθος. Huther and de Wette groundlessly refrain from deciding whether ΑὐΞ. is intended to refer to the outward growth or to the inward (so Steiger), or to both. See Acts 6:7; Acts 12:24; Acts 19:20. Comp. Luke 13:19; Matthew 13:32. The μᾶλλον στηρίζεσθαι, which Chrysostom finds included in αὐξ., is not denoted, but presupposed by the latter. Comp. Theophylact. The figure is taken from a tree, in which the καρποφορία does not exclude the continuance of growth (not so in the case of cereals).

ἈΦʼ Ἧς ἩΜΈΡ. Κ.Τ.Λ.] since the first beginning of your conversion which so happily took place (through true knowledge of the grace of God), that development of the gospel proceeds among you; how could ye now withdraw from it by joining yourselves to false teachers?

ΤῊΝ ΧΆΡΙΝ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ] contents of the gospel, which they have heard; the object of ἠκούσ. is the gospel, and Τ. ΧΆΡΙΝ Τ. ΘΕΟῦ belongs to ἘΠΈΓΝΩΤΕ; and by ἘΝ ἈΛΗΘΕΊᾼ (2 Corinthians 7:14), equivalent to ἈΛΗΘῶς (John 17:8), the qualitative character of this knowledge is affirmed: it was a true knowledge, corresponding to the nature of the χάρις, without Judaistic and other errors. Comp. on John 17:19. Holtzmann hears in ἠκούσατε … ἀληθῶς “the first tones of the foreign theme,” which is then in Colossians 1:9-10 more fully entered upon. But how conceivable and natural is it, that at the very outset the danger which threatens the right knowledge of the readers should be present to his mind!

[14] If καί is not genuine, as Bleek, Hofmann, and others consider (see the critical remarks), the passage is to be translated: as it also in the whole world is fruit-hearing, by which Paul would say that the gospel is present among the readers in the same fruit-bearing quality which it developes on all sides. But in that case the following καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν would necessarily appear as very superfluous. No doubt we might, after the preceding παρόντος, take the ἐστί, with F. Nitzsch, as equivalent to πάρεστι (see Stallb. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 59 B); and to this comes also the punctuation in Tisch. 8, who puts a comma after ἐστίν. But how utterly superfluous would this ἐστί then be!

Colossians 1:7 f. Καθώς] not quandoquidem (Flatt, comp. Bähr), but the as of the manner in which. So, namely, as it had just been affirmed by ἐν ἀληθείᾳ that they had known the divine grace, had they learned it (comp. Php 4:9) from Epaphras. Notwithstanding this appropriate connection, Holtzmann finds in this third καθώς a trace of the interpolator.

Nothing further is known from any other passage as to Epaphras the Colossian (Colossians 4:12); according to Philemon 1:23, he was συναιχμάλωτος of the apostle. That the latter circumstance is not mentioned in our Epistle is not to be attributed to any special design (Estius: that Paul was unwilling to make his readers anxious). See, on the contrary, on Colossians 4:10. Against the identity of Epaphras with Epaphroditus, see on Php 2:25. The names even are not alike (contrary to the view of Grotius and Ewald, who look upon Epaphras as an abbreviation); Ἐπαφρᾶς and the corresponding feminine name Ἐπαφρώ are found on Greek inscriptions.

συνδούλου] namely, of Christ (comp. Php 1:1). The word, of common occurrence, is used elsewhere by Paul in Colossians 4:7 only.

ὅς ἐστιν κ.τ.λ.] This faithfulness towards the readers, and also, in the sequel, the praise of their love, which Epaphras expressed to the apostle, are intended to stir them up “ne a doctrina, quam ab eo didicerant, per novos magistros abduci se patiantur,” Estius. The emphasis is on πιστός.

ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν] for, as their teacher, he is the servant of Christ for them, for their benefit. The interpretation, instead of you (“in prison he serves me in the gospel,” Michaelis, Böhmer), would only be possible in the event of the service being designated as rendered to the apostle (διάκονός μου ἐν Χριστῷ, or something similar). Comp. Philemon 1:13. Even with Lachmann’s reading, ὑπ. ἡμῶν (Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald), it would not be necessary to take ὑπέρ as instead; it might equally well be taken as for in the sense of interest, as opposite of the anti-Pauline working (comp. Luke 9:50). The present ἐστί (Paul does not put ἦν) has its just warrant in the fact, that the merit, which the founder of the church has acquired by its true instruction, is living and continuous, reaching in its efficacy down to the present time. This is an ethical relation, which is quite independent of the circumstance that Epaphras was himself a Colossian (in opposition to Hofmann), but also makes it unnecessary to find in ἐστι an indirect continuance of Epaphras’ work for the Colossians (in opposition to Bleek).

ὁ καὶ δηλώσας κ.τ.λ] who also (in accordance with the interest of this faithful service) has made us to know; comp. 1 Corinthians 1:11. The ἀγάπη is here understood either of the love of the Colossians to Paul (and Timothy), as, following Chrysostom, most, including Huther, Bleek, and Hofmann,[15] explain it, or of the brotherly love already commended in Colossians 1:4 (de Wette, Olshausen, Ellicott, and others). But both these modes of taking it are at variance with the emphatic position of ὑμῶν (comp. 1 Corinthians 9:12; 2 Corinthians 1:6; 2 Corinthians 7:7; 2 Corinthians 8:13, et al.), which betokens the love of the readers to Epaphras as meant. There had just been expressed, to wit, by ὑ̔πὲρ ὑμῶν, the faithful, loving position of this servant of Christ towards the Colossians, and correlative to this is now the love which he met with from them, consequently the counter-love shown to him, of which he has informed the apostle. A delicate addition out of courtesy to the readers.

ἐν πνεύματι] attaches itself closely to ἈΓΆΠΗΝ, so as to form one idea, denoting the love as truly holy—not conditioned by anything outward, but divinely upheld—which is in the Holy Spirit as the element which prompts and animates it; for it is the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22; Romans 15:30), οὐ σαρκικὴ, ἀλλὰ πνευματική (Oecumenius). Comp. ΧΑΡᾺ ἘΝ ΠΝ., Romans 14:17.

[15] Who, at the same time, makes the ἐν πνεύματι suggest the reference, that the ἁγάπη took place in a manner personally unknown—which must have been conveyed in the context.

REMARK.

Since ἀφʼ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε κ.τ.λ., Colossians 1:6, refers the readers back to the first commencement of their Christianity, and καθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ Ἐπαφρᾶ κ.τ.λ., Colossians 1:7, cannot, except by pure arbitrariness, be separated from it as regards time and regarded as something later, it results from our passage that Epaphras is to be considered as the first preacher of the gospel at Colossae, and consequently as founder of the church. This exegetical result remains even if the Recepta καθὼς καί is retained. This καί would not, as Wiggers thinks (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 185), place the preaching of Epaphras in contradistinction to an earlier one, and make it appear as a continuation of the latter (in this case καθὼς καὶ ἀπὸ Ἐπαφρ. ἐμάθετε or καθὼς ἐμάθετε καὶ ἀπὸ Ἐπαφρ. would have been employed); but it is to be taken as also, not otherwise, placing the ἐμάθετε on a parity with the ἐπέγνωτε. This applies also in opposition to Vaihinger, in Herzog’s Encykl. iv. p. 79 f.

Colossians 1:9. Intercession, down to Colossians 1:12.

διὰ τοῦτο] on account of all that has been said from ἀκούσαντες in Colossians 1:4 onward: induced thereby, we also cease not, etc. This reference is required by ἀφʼ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσαμεν, which cannot correspond to the δηλώσας ἡμῖν, belonging as that does merely to an accessory thought, but must take up again (in opposition to Bleek and Hofmann) the ἀκούσαντες which was said in Colossians 1:4. This resumption is emphatic, not tautological (Holtzmann).

καὶ ἡμεῖς] are to be taken together, and it is not allowable to join καί either with διὰ τοῦτο (de Wette), or even with προσευχ. (Baumgarten-Crusius). The words are to be rendered: We also (I and Timothy), like others, who make the same intercession for you, and among whom there is mentioned by name the founder of the church, who stood in closest relation to them.

προσευχ.] “Precum mentionem generatim fecit, Colossians 1:3; nunc exprimit, quid precetur” (Bengel).

καὶ αἰτούμενοι] adds the special (asking) to the general (praying). Comp. 1Ma 3:44; Matthew 21:22; Mark 11:24; Ephesians 6:18; Php 4:6. As to the popular form of hyperbole, οὐ παυόμ., comp. on Ephesians 1:16. On ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, so far as it is also to be taken with κ. αἰτούμ., comp. Lys. c. Alc. p. 141.

ἵνα πληρωθ.] Contents of the asking in the form of its purpose. Comp. on Php 1:9. The emphasis lies not on πληρωθ. (F. Nitzsch, Hofmann), but on the object (comp. Romans 15:14; Romans 1:29, al.), which gives to the further elucidation in Colossians 1:9-10 its specific definition of contents.

τὴν ἐπίγν. τοὺ θελ. αὐτοῦ] with the knowledge of His will, accusative, as in Php 1:11; αὐτοῦ applies to God as the subject, to whom prayer and supplication are addressed. The context in Colossians 1:10 shows that by the θέλημα is meant, not the counsel of redemption (Ephesians 1:9; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and many others, including Huther and Dalmer), but, doubtless (Matthew 6:10), that which God wills in a moral respect (so Theodoret, who makes out a contrast with the νομικαῖς παρατηρήσεσιν). Comp. Romans 2:18; Romans 12:2; Ephesians 5:17; Ephesians 6:6; Colossians 4:12. The distinction between γνῶσις and ἐπίγνωσις, which both here and also in Colossians 1:10; Colossians 2:2; Colossians 3:10, is the knowledge which grasps and penetrates into the object, is incorrectly denied by Olshausen. See on Ephesians 1:17.

ἐν πάσῃ κ.τ.λ.] instrumental definition of manner, how, namely, this πληρωθῆναι τὴν ἐπίγν. τ. θελ. αὐτοῦ (a knowledge which is to be the product not of mere human mental activity, but of objectively divine endowment by the Holy Spirit) must be brought about: by every kind of spiritual wisdom and insight, by the communication of these from God; comp. on Ephesians 1:8. A combination with the following περιπατῆσαι (comp. Colossians 4:5 : ἐν σοφίᾳ περιπ.), such as Hofmann suggests, is inappropriate, because the two parts of the whole intercession stand to one another in the relation of the divine ethical foundation, (Colossians 1:9), and of the corresponding practical conduct of life (Colossians 1:10 f.); hence the latter portion is most naturally and emphatically headed by the expression of this Christian practice, the περιπατῆσαι, to which are then subjoined its modal definitions in detail. Accordingly, περιπατῆσαι is not, with Hofmann, to be made dependent on τοῦ θελήμ. αὐτοῦ and taken as its contents, but τ. θελ. τ. Θ. is to be left as an absolute idea, as in Colossians 4:12. On πνευματικός, proceeding from the Holy Spirit,[16] comp. Romans 1:11; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 12:1; Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 5:19, et al. The σύνεσις is the insight, in a theoretical and (comp. on Mark 12:33) practical respect, depending upon judgment and inference, Ephesians 3:4; 2 Timothy 2:7. For the opposite of the pneumatic σύνεσις, see 1 Corinthians 1:19. It is related to the σοφία as the special to the general, since it is peculiarly the expression of the intelligence in the domain of truth,[17] while the ΣΟΦΊΑ concerns the collective faculties of the mind, the activities of knowledge, willing, and feeling, the tendency and working of which are harmoniously subservient to the recognised highest aim, if the wisdom is πνευματική; its opposite is the ΣΟΦΊΑ ΣΑΡΚΙΚΉ (2 Corinthians 1:12; Jam 3:15), being of man, and not of God, in its aim and efforts. According as ΦΡΌΝΗΣΙς is conceived subjectively or objectivized, the ΣΎΝΕΣΙς may be considered either as synonymous with it (Ephesians 1:8; Daniel 2:21; Plat. Crat. p. 411 A), or as an attribute of it (Sir 1:4 : σύνεσις φρονήσεως).

[16] Hence ἡ ἄνωθεν σοφία, Jam 3:15; Jam 3:17. The predicate, although in the case of divine endowment with σοφία and σύνεσις obvious of itself (as Hofmann objects), was yet all the more apposite for expressly bringing the point into prominence, the greater the danger which threatened Colossae from non-divine, fleshly wisdom; comp. Colossians 2:23.

[17] Comp. Dem. 269. 24: σύνεσις, ᾖ τὰ καλὰ καὶ αἰσχρὰ διαγινώσκεται.

Colossians 1:10. The practical aim[18] which that πληρωθῆναι κ.τ.λ. is to accomplish; ἀεὶ τῇ πίστει σὐζεύγνυσι τὴν πολιτείαν, Chrysostom. The Vulgate renders correctly: ut ambuletis (in opposition to Hofmann, see on Colossians 1:9).

ἀξίως τοῦ κυρίου] so that your behaviour may stand in morally appropriate relation to your belonging to Christ. Comp. Romans 16:2; Ephesians 4:1; Php 1:27; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 3 John 1:6. The genitive (and in the N. T. such is always used with ἀξίως) does not even “perhaps” (Hofmann) belong to the following εἰς π. ἀρεσκ., especially as ἁρεσκεία, in the Greek writers and in Philo (see Loesner, p. 361), stands partly with, partly without, a genitival definition, and the latter is here quite obvious of itself. Such a combination would be an unnecessary artificial device. Comp. Plat. Conv. p. 180 D: ἀξίως τοῦ Θεοῦ.

εἰς πᾶσαν ἀρεσκείαν] on behalf of every kind of pleasing, that is, in order to please Him in every way. The word only occurs here in the N. T., but the apostle is not on that account to be deprived of it (Holtzmann); it is found frequently in Polybius, Philo, et al.; also Theophr. Char. 5; LXX. Proverbs 31:30 (Proverbs 30:30); Symmachus, Psalm 80:12. On πᾶσαν ἀρ. comp. Polybius, xxxi. 26. 5: πᾶν γένος ἀρεσκείας προσφερόμενος. Among the Greeks, ἀρεσκεία (to be accentuated thus, see Winer, p. 50 [E. T. 57]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 11 [E. T. 12]) bears, for the most part, the sense of seeking to please. Comp. Proverbs 31:30 : ψευδεῖς ἀρεσκείαι.

ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ κ.τ.λ.] There now follow three expositions, in order to define more precisely the nature and mode of the περιπατῆσαι ἀξίως κ.τ.λ. We must, in considering these, notice the homogeneous plan of the three clauses, each of which commences with a prepositional relation of the participial idea, viz. (1) ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ κ.τ.λ., (2) ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει, (3) μετὰ χαρᾶς, and ends with a relation expressed by εἰς, viz. (1) εἰς τ. ἐπίγν. τ. Θεοῦ, (2) εἰς πᾶσ. ὑπομ. κ. μακροθυμ., (3) εἰς τὴν μερίδα κ.τ.λ. The construction would be still more symmetrical if, in the third clause, ἐν πάσῃ χαρᾷ (Romans 15:32) had been written instead of μετὰ χαρᾶς—which was easily prevented by the versatility of the apostle’s form of conception.

ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ καρποφ. is to be taken together (and then again, αὐξανόμ. εἰς τὴν ἐπίγν. τ. Θεοῦ), inasmuch as ye by every good work (by your accomplishing every morally good action) bear fruit, as good trees, comp. Matthew 7:17. But not as if the καρποφορεῖν and the σὐξάνεσθαι were separate things; they take place, as in Colossians 1:6, jointly and at the same time, although, after the manner of parallelism, a special more precise definition is annexed to each. Moreover, ἐν παντὶ ἔργ. ἀγ. is not to be connected with εἰς πᾶσαν ἀρεσκ. (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, and others, also Steiger); otherwise we mistake and destroy the symmetrical structure of the passage.

καὶ αὐξανόμ. εἰς τ. ἐπίγν. τ. Θ.] and, inasmuch as with this moral fruit-bearing at the same time ye increase in respect to the knowledge of God, that is, succeed in knowing Him more and more fully. The living, effective knowledge of God, which is meant by ἐπίγν. τ. Θεοῦ (Colossians 1:6; Colossians 3:10; Colossians 2:2), sustains an ethically necessary action and reaction with practical morality. Just as the latter is promoted by the former, so also knowledge grows through moral practice in virtue of the power of inward experience of the divine life (the ζωὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ, Ephesians 4:18), by which God reveals Himself more and more to the inner man. The fact that here τοῦ Θεοῦ generally is said, and not τοῦ θελήματος Θεοῦ repeated, is in keeping with the progressive development set forth; there is something of a climax in it. On εἰς, used of the telic reference, and consequently of the regulative direction of the growth, comp. on Ephesians 4:15; 2 Peter 1:8. The reading τῇ ἐπιγνώσει τ. Θ. would have to be taken as instrumental, with Olshausen, Steiger, Huther, de Wette, Bleek, who follow it, but would yield after Colossians 1:9 something quite self-evident. We may add that αὐξάν., with the dative of spiritual increase by something, is frequent in Plato and classic writers.

As to the nominatives of the participles, which are not to be taken with πληρωθ. (Beza, Bengel, Reiche, and others), but relate to the logical subject of περιπατ. ἀξίως, comp. on Ephesians 4:2; 2 Corinthians 1:7.

[18] Not to be attached as object of the request immediately to προσευχόμενοι, and all that intervenes to be assigned to the interpolator (Holtzmann, p. 85). Yet, according to Holtzmann, p. 123, ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ down τοῦ Θεοῦ is alleged to be simply an interpolated duplicate of ver. 6; in which case, however, it would not be easy to see why καρποφορούμενοι was not written, after the precedent of ver. 6, but on the contrary καρποφοροῦντες.