Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER 4

Colossians 4:1. οὐρανοῖς] Lachm. and Tisch. read οὐρανῷ, following A B C א* min. vss. Clem. Or. Damasc. The plural is from Ephesians 6:9.

Colossians 4:3. δἰ ὅ] Lachm. reads διʼ ὅν, following B F G. Not attested strongly enough, especially as after τ. Χριστοῦ the masculine involuntarily suggested itself.

Colossians 4:8. γνῷ τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν] A B D* F G min. Aeth. It., and some Fathers have γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν.1[167] Recommended by Griesb., received by Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch. 8, approved also by Rinck and Reiche; and rightly, because it has preponderant attestation, and is so necessary as regards the context that it must not be regarded as an alteration from Ephesians 6:22 (comp. in loc.). The Recepta is to be regarded as having arisen through the omission of the syllable TE before TA.

Colossians 4:12. Instead of ΣΤῆΤΕ Tisch. 8 has ΣΤΑΘῆΤΕ, only on the authority of A* B and some min.

ΠΕΠΛΗΡΩΜΈΝΟΙ] A B C D* F G א min. have ΠΕΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΗΜΈΝΟΙ. Recommended by Griesb., received by Lachm. and Tisch., and justly; the familiar ΠΕΠΛΗΡΩΜ. crept in involuntarily, or by way of gloss.

Colossians 4:13. ΖῆΛΟΝ ΠΟΛΎΝ] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. Reiche read ΠΟΛῪΝ ΠΌΝΟΝ, following A B C D** א 80, Copt., while D* F G have ΠΟΛῪΝ ΚΌΠΟΝ, and Vulg. It.: multum laborem. Accordingly the Recepta is at any rate to be rejected, and ΠΟΛῪΝ ΠΌΝΟΝ to be preferred as having decisive attestation; ΠΌΝΟΝ was glossed partly by ΚΌΠΟΝ, partly by ΖῆΛΟΝ (ΠΌΘΟΝ and ἈΓῶΝΑ are also found in codd.). Neither ΖῆΛΟΝ nor ΚΌΠΟΝ would have given occasion for a gloss; and in the N. T. ΠΌΝΟς only further occurs in the Apocalypse.

Colossians 4:15. ΑὐΤΟῦ] A C P א min. have ΑὐΤῶΝ; B: ΑὐΤῆς. The latter is the reading of Lachm., who with B** instead of ΝΥΜΦᾶΝ accents ΝΎΜΦΑΝ. The ΑὐΤῶΝ, which is received by Tisch. 8, is to be held as original; the plural not being understood was corrected, according as the name ΝΥΜΦ. was reckoned masculine or feminine, into ΑὐΤΟῦ or ΑὐΤῆς.

[167] 1 א* has γνω τε τα περι υμων; א** deletes the τε, and is thus a witness for the Recepta.

Colossians 4:1. Τὴν ἰσότητα] not: equity, for the word signifies aequalitas, not aequitas, i.e. ἐπιείκεια (in opposition to Steiger, Huther, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, and most expositors), but: equality (2 Corinthians 8:13 f.; very often in Plato, Polyb. ii. 38. 8, vi. 8. 4; Lucian, Herm. 22, Zeux. 5, also the passages from Philo in Wetstein, and the LXX. Job 36:29; Zechariah 4:7), so that ye, namely, regard and treat the slaves as your equals. What is herein required, therefore, is not a quality of the master, and in particular not the freedom from moral unevenness,[168] which is equivalent to δικαιοσύνη (Hofmann), but a quality of the relation, which is to be conceded; it is not at all, however, the equalization of the outward relation, which would be a de facto abolition of slavery, but rather the equality, which, amidst a continued subsistence of all the outward diversity, is brought about in the Christian κοινωνία by kindly treatment. While ΤῸ ΔΊΚΑΙΟΝ (what is right) expresses that which, according to the Christian consciousness of right, belongs as matter of right to the slave, τὴν ἰσότητα requires the concession of the parity (égalité) implied in the Christian ἀδελφότης. Paul has in view (in opposition to Hofmann) merely Christian slaves (whom he has exhorted in Colossians 3:22 f.); otherwise, in fact, the conception of ἰσότης would be not at all appropriate. It is just by the Christian status of both parties that he desires to see their inequality in other respects ethically counterbalanced. A commentary on τὴν ἰσότητα is supplied by Philemon 1:16. At variance with the context, Erasmus, Melanchthon, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Böhmer, and others understand the equality of impartial treatment, according to which the master does not prefer one slave to another. This would not in fact yield any definite moral character of the treatment in itself, nor would it suit all the cases where there is only one slave. As to the middle παρέχεσθε (Titus 2:7; Acts 19:24), observe that it is based simply on the conception of the self-activity of the subject; Kühner, II 1, p. 97.

ΕἸΔΌΤΕς] consciousness, that serves as a motive, as in Colossians 3:24.

ΚΑῚ ὙΜΕῖς Κ.Τ.Λ.] Theophylact says correctly: ὭΣΠΕΡ ἘΚΕῖΝΟΙ ὙΜᾶς, ΟὝΤΩ ΚΑῚ ὙΜΕῖς ἜΧΕΤΕ ΚΎΡΙΟΝ, and that in heaven, namely Christ.

[168] This conception, coincident with δικαιοσύνη, does not pertain to ἰσότης at all; and just as little to ἴσος in Soph. Phil. 685, where ἴσος ἐν γʼ ἴσοις ἀνήρ is nothing else than par inter pares, namely, to his friends a friend, to his foes a foe. Comp. Schneidewin in loc. At many other passages ἴσος denotes the equality of right, that which is impartial, and is hence often combined with δίκαιος (righteous in the narrower sense). But ἰσότης is always (even in Polyb. ii. 38. 8) equality; see e.g. Plato, Rep. 658 C, where it is said of the democracy: ἰσότητά τινα ὁμοίως ἴσοις τε καὶ ἀνίσοις διανέμουσα, that is, it distributes uniformly to equal and unequal a certain equality. In such passages the conception of égalité comes into view with special clearness. Hofmann has explained our passage as if ἰσότης and ὁμαλότης or λειότης (levelness), were identical conceptions.

Colossians 4:2. To prayer apply yourselves perseveringly; comp. Romans 12:12; Ephesians 6:18; Acts 1:14; also 1 Thessalonians 5:17 : ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθε, which is substantially the same thing. Comp. Luke 18:1.

γρηγορ. ἐν αὐτῇ] modal definition of the προσκαρτερεῖν: so that ye are watchful (that is, alacres, mentally attentive and alert, not weary and distracted, comp. 1 Thessalonians 5:6; Ephesians 6:18; 1 Peter 4:7; 1 Peter 5:7 f.; Matthew 26:41) in the same. ἐν, not to be taken as instrumental, is meant of the business, in the execution of which they are to be vigilant, since it is prayer in itself, as an expression of the spiritual life, and not as an aid to moral activity, that is spoken of. Hence we must not interpret it, with Hofmann, as indicating how Christian watchfulness ought to be (namely, a watching in prayer), but rather how one ought to be in praying (namely, watchful therein). The point of the precept is the praying; and hence it is continued by προσεύχομενοι.

ἐν εὐχαρ.] accompanying attitude, belonging to γρηγ. ἐν αὐτῇ; with thanksgiving, amidst thanksgiving, namely, for the benefits already received. Comp. Colossians 1:12, Colossians 2:7, Colossians 3:17; Php 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:17. This is the essential element of the piety of prayer:[169] αὕτη γὰρ ἡ ἀληθινὴ εὐχὴ Ἡ ΕὐΧΑΡΙΣΤΊΑΝ ἜΧΟΥΣΑ ὙΠῈΡ ΠΆΝΤΩΝ ὯΝ ἼΣΜΕΝ ΚΑῚ ὯΝ ΟὐΚ ἼΣΜΕΝ, ὯΝ Εὖ ἘΠΆΘΟΜΕΝ Ἢ ἘΘΛΊΒΟΜΕΝ, ὙΠῈΡ ΤῶΝ ΚΟΙΝῶΝ ΕὐΕΡΓΕΣΊΩΝ, Theophylact. The combination with Τῇ ΠΡΟΣΕΥΧῇ ΠΡΟΣΚΑΡΤ. (Böhmer, Hofmann) is without ground in the context, although likewise suitable as to sense.

[169] But Olshausen incorrectly says: “the prayer of the Christian at all times, in the consciousness of the grace which he has experienced, can only be a prayer of thanksgiving.” He holds the more general προσευχή to be more precisely defined by ἐν εὐχαρ. Against this view the very ver. 3 is decisive, where, in fact, Paul does not mean a prayer of thanks.

Colossians 4:2-6. After having already concluded the general exhortations at Colossians 3:17, Paul now subjoins some by way of supplement, and that in aphoristic epistolary fashion, concerning prayer along with intercession for himself (Colossians 4:2-4), and demeanour towards non-Christians (Colossians 4:5-6). How special was the importance of both under the circumstances then existing!

Colossians 4:3. Comp. Ephesians 6:19 f.

ἅμα καὶ περὶ ἡμ.] while your prayer takes place at the same time also (not merely for yourselves, for others, and about whatever other affairs, but at the same time also) for us, includes us also. This ἡμῶν, not to be referred to Paul alone, like the singular δέδεμαι subsequently and Colossians 4:4, applies to him and Timothy, Colossians 1:1.

ἵνα] contents of the prayer ἵνα] contents of the prayer expressed as its purpose, as in Colossians 1:9 and frequently.

θύραν τ. λόγου] is not equivalent to στόμα (Beza, Calvin, Zanchius, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, and others, comp. Storr and Böhmer)—a singular appellation which Ephesians 6:7 does not warrant us to assume—but is rather a figurative way of indicating the thought: unhindered operation in the preaching of the gospel. So long as this does not exist, there is not opened to the preachers a door for the word, through which they may let it go forth. Comp. 1 Corinthians 16:9; 2 Corinthians 2:12; Dion. Hal. de vi Dem. p. 1026. 14: οὐδὲ θύρας ἰδὼν λόγος, also Pind. Ol. vi. 44; πύλας ὕμνων ἀναπιτνάμεν, Bacchyl. fr. xiv. 2. The παῤῥησία of the preaching (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact), however, lies not in the θύρα and its opening, but in what follows. Hofmann incorrectly holds that the closed door is conceived as being on the side of those, to whom the preachers wished to preach the word, so that it could not enter in. This conception is decidedly at variance with the immediately following λαλῆσαι κ.τ.λ., according to which the hindrance portrayed (the door to be opened) exists on the side of the preachers. Moreover, in this ἵνα ὁ Θεὸς κ.τ.λ. the wish of the apostle, as regards his own person, is certainly directed to liberation from his captivity (comp. Philemon 1:22), not, however, to this in itself, but to the free working which depended on it. It was not the preaching in the prison which Paul meant, for that he had; but he longed after the opening of a θύρα τοῦ λόγου; God was to give it to him. Perhaps the thought of liberation suggested to himself the choice of the expression. Nor is the plural ἡμῶν and ἡμῖν, embracing others with himself, at variance with this view (as Hofmann holds); for by the captivity of the apostle his faithful friend and fellow-labourer Timothy, who was with him, was, as a matter of course, also hindered in the freedom of working, to which he might otherwise have devoted himself. This was involved in the nature of their personal and official fellowship. Observe how it is only with δέδεμαι that Paul makes, and must make, a transition to the singular. This transition by no means betrays (in opposition to Hitzig and Holtzmann) the words διʼ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι, ἵνα φαν. αὐτό to be an interpolation from Ephesians 6:20. The fact, that Paul elsewhere (Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:27; 1 Corinthians 7:39) has δέειν in the figurative sense, cannot matter; comp., on the contrary, the δεσμός and δέσμιος which he so often uses.

λαλῆσαι κ.τ.λ.] infinitive of the aim: in order to speak the mystery of Christ. The emphasis is on λαλῆσαι: not to suppress it, but to let it be proclaimed. Comp. 1 Corinthians 2:6; 2 Corinthians 4:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:2.

τοῦ Χριστοῦ] genitive of the subject, the divine mystery contained in the appearance and redemptive act of Christ (comp. Ephesians 3:4), in so far, namely, as the divine counsel of redemption, concealed previously to its being made known by the gospel, was accomplished in Christ’s mission and work (Colossians 1:26, Colossians 2:2; Ephesians 1:9; Romans 16:25). Thus the μυστήριον of God in Colossians 2:2 is, because Christ was the bearer and accomplisher of it, the μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

διʼ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι] διʼ ὅ applies to the μυστήρ.; and the whole clause serves to justify the intercession desired. When, namely, Paul wishes λαλῆσαι τὸ μυστήρ. τ. Χ., he therewith desires that, which is in such sense his entire destination, that on account of this mystery—because, namely, he has made it known—he also bears his fetters. This καί is consequently the also of the corresponding relation, quite common with relatives (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 152).

Colossians 4:4. Ἵνα κ.τ.λ.] cannot, seeing that the preceding ἵνα ὁ Θεὸς ἀνοίξῃ κ.τ.λ. means the free preaching outside of the prison, be dependent either on δέδεμαι (Bengel, Hofmann, comp. Theodoret) or on προσευχόμενοι, so that it would run parallel with ἵνα in Colossians 4:3 (Beza, Bähr, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dalmer, and others); it is the aim of the λαλῆσαι τὸ μυστ. τ. Χ.: in order that I may make it manifest (by preaching) as I must speak it. Comp. also Bleek, who, however, less simply attaches it already to ἵνα ὁ Θεὸς ἀνοίξῃ κ.τ.λ. The significant weight of this clause expressing the aim lies in the specification of mode ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι, in which δεῖ has the emphasis. To give forth his preaching in such measure, as it was the necessity of his apostolic destiny to do (δεῖ)—so frankly and without reserve, so free from hindrance, so far and wide from land to land, with such liberty to form churches and to combat erroneous teachings, and so forth

Paul was unable, so long as he was in captivity, even when others were allowed access to him. There is a tragic trait in this ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι, the feeling of the hindered present. The traditional explanation is that of Chrysostom: μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς παῤῥησίας καὶ μηδὲν ὑποστειλάμενον, namely, in captivity, where Paul longed to speak in the right way (de Wette; so usually), or conformably to higher necessity (Bähr, Huther, comp. Beza, 1 Corinthians 9:16), or without allowing himself to be disturbed in his preaching as apostle to the Gentiles by his imprisonment occasioned by Jewish-Christian hostility (Hofmann). But in opposition to the reference of the whole intercession to the ministry in prison, see on Colossians 4:3. The wish and the hope of working once more in freedom were so necessarily bound up in Paul with the consciousness of his comprehensive apostolic task, that we can least of all suppose him to have given it up already in Caesarea, where he appealed to the emperor. Even in the Epistle to the Philippians (Php 1:25, Php 2:24), his expectation is still in fact directed to renewed freedom of working.

Colossians 4:5 f. Another exhortation, for which Paul must still have had occasion, although we need not seek its link of connection with the preceding one. Comp. Ephesians 5:15 f., where the injunction here given in reference to the non-Christians is couched in a general form.

ἐν σοφίᾳ] Practical Christian wisdom (not mere prudence; Chrysostom aptly quotes Matthew 10:16) is to be the element, in which their walk amidst their intercourse with the non-Christians moves, πρός of the social direction, Bernhardy, p. 205. As to οἱ ἔξω, see on 1 Corinthians 5:12. Comp. 1 Thessalonians 4:12.

τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγορ.] definition of the mode in which that injunction is to be carried out: so that ye make the right point of time your own (see on Ephesians 5:16), allow it not to pass unemployed. For what? is to be inferred solely from the context; namely, for all the activities in which that same wise demeanour in intercourse with the non-Christians finds expression—which, consequently, may be according to the circumstances very diversified. Individual limitations of the reference are gratuitously introduced, such as “ad ejusmodi homines meliora docendos,” Heinrichs, comp. Erasmus, Beza, Calovius, and others, including Flatt and Böhmer; or: “in reference to the furtherance of the kingdom of God,” Huther, Hofmann. There is likewise gratuitously imported the idea of the shortness of time, on account of which it is to be well applied (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Castalio, and others, including Bähr), as also the view that the καιρός, which signifies the αἰὼν οὗτος, is not the property of the Christian, but belongs τοῖς ἔξω, and is to be made by Christians their own through good deeds (Theodoret, comp. Oecumenius), or by peaceful demeanour towards the non-Christians (Theophylact). Lastly, there is also imported the idea of an evil time from Ephesians 5:16, in connection with which expositors have in turn lighted on very different definitions of the meaning; e.g. Calvin: “in tanta saeculi corruptela eripiendam esse benefaciendi occasionem et cum obstaculis luctandum;” Grotius: “effugientes pericula.”

Colossians 4:6. ὁ λόγ. ὑμ.] what ye speak, namely, πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω; the more groundless, therefore, is the position of Holtzmann, that Colossians 4:6 is a supplement inserted at a later place, when it should have properly come in at chap. 3 between Colossians 4:8-9. ἔστω is to be supplied, as is evident from the preceding imperative περιπατεῖτε.

ἐν χάριτι] denotes that with which their speech is to be furnished, with grace, pleasantness. Comp. on Luke 4:22; Sir 26:16; Sir 37:21; Hom. Od. viii. 175; Dem. 51. 9. This χαριέντως εἶναι of speaking (comp. Plato, Prot. p. 344 B, Rep. p. 331 A) is very different from the χαριτογλωσσεῖν of Aesch. Prom. 294.

ἅλατι ἠρτυμ.] seasoned with salt, a figurative representation of speech as an article of food, which is communicated. The salt is emblem of wisdom, as is placed beyond doubt by the context in Colossians 4:5, and is in keeping with the sense of the following εἰδέναι κ. τ. λ. (comp. Matthew 5:13; Mark 9:49-50). As an article of food seasoned with salt[170] is thereby rendered palatable, so what is spoken receives through wisdom (in contents and form) its morally attracting, exciting, and stimulating quality. Its opposite is the stale, ethically insipid (not the morally rotten and corrupt, as Beza, Böhmer, and others hold) quality of speech, the μῶρον, μωρολογεῖν, in which the moral stimulus is wanting. The designation of wit by ἅλς (ἍΛΕς) among the later Greeks (Plut. Moral. p. 685 A; Athen. ix. p. 366 C) is derived from the pungent power of salt, and is not relevant here. Moreover, the relation between the two requirements, ἐν χάριτι and ἍΛΑΤΙ ἨΡΤΥΜΈΝΟς, is not to be distinguished in such a way that the former shall mean the good and the latter the correct impression (so, arbitrarily, Hofmann); but the former depicts the character of the speech more generally, and the latter more specially. The good and correct impression is yielded by both.

εἰδέναι κ.τ.λ.] taken groundlessly by Hofmann in an imperative sense (see on Romans 12:15; Php 3:16), is, as if ὥστε stood alongside of it, the epexegetical infinitive for more precise definition: so that ye know; see Matthiae, § 532 f, p. 1235 f.; Winer, p. 296 [E. T. 398]. This εἰδέναι (to understand how, see on Php 4:12) is, in fact, just an ability, which would not be found in the absence of the previously-described quality of speech, but is actually existent through the same.

πῶς] which may be in very different ways, according to the varieties of individuality in the questioners. Hence: ἙΝῚ ἙΚΆΣΤῼ, “nam haec pars est non ultima prudentiae, singulorum habere respectum,” Calvin.

ἀποκρίνεσθαι] We may conceive reference to be made to questions as to points of faith and doctrine, as to moral principles, topics of constitution and organization, historical matters, and so forth, which, in the intercourse of Christians with non-Christians, might be put, sometimes innocently, sometimes maliciously (comp. 1 Peter 3:1), to the former, and required answer. Paul does not use the word elsewhere. Comp. as to the thing itself, his own example at Athens, Acts 17; before Felix and Festus; before the Jews in Rome, Acts 28:20, and so forth; and also his testimony to his own procedure, 1 Corinthians 9:20-22. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calovius, and others, inappropriately mix up believers as included in ἐνὶ ἑκάστῳ, in opposition to Colossians 4:5.

[170] The poets use ἀρτύειν often of articles of food or wines, which are prepared in such a way as to provoke the palate. Soph. Fragm. 601, Dind.; Athen. ii. p. 68 A; Theoph. de odor. 51; Symm. Cant. viii. 2. Hence ἄρτυμα, spice.

Colossians 4:7-9. Sending of Tychicus, and also of Onesimus. Comp. on Ephesians 6:21 f.

By ἀδελφ. Paul expresses the relation of Tychicus as a Christian brother generally; by διάκονος, his special relation as the apostle’s official servant, in which very capacity he employs him for such missions; and by σύνδουλος (Colossians 1:7) he delicately, as a mark of honour, places him as to official category on a footing of equality with himself; while ἐν κυρίῳ, belonging to the two latter predicates,[171] marks the specific definite character, according to which nothing else than simply Christ

His person, word, and work—is the sphere in which these relations of service are active. Comp. Ephesians 6:21.

εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο] for this very object, having a retrospective reference as in Romans 13:6, 2 Corinthians 5:5 (in opposition to Hofmann), in order, namely, that ye may learn from him all that concerns me. The following ἵνα γνῶτε τὰ π. ὑμῶν (see the critical remarks) is explicative; πάντα ὑμ. γνωρ. τὰ ὧδε in Colossians 4:9 then corresponds to both. Comp. on Ephesians 6:22.

παρακαλ.] may comfort, in your anxiety concerning me, respecting my position. With the reading γνῷ τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν, the reference would be to the sufferings of the readers; δείκνυσι καὶ αὐτοὺς ἐν πειρασμοῖς ὄντας καὶ παρακλήσεως χρήζοντας, Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom.

σὺν Ὀνησίμῳ] belonging to ἔπεμψα. As to this slave of Philemon, see Introd. to the Epistle to Philemon. Paul commends him[172] as his faithful (πιστός, as in Colossians 4:7, not: having become a believer, as Bähr would render it) and beloved brother, and designates him then as Colossian, not in order to do honour to their city (Chrysostom, Theophylact), but in order to bespeak their special sympathy for Onesimus, the particulars as to whom, especially as regards his conversion, he leaves to be communicated orally.

ἐξ ὑμῶν] As a Colossian he was from among them, that is, one belonging to their church. Comp. Colossians 4:12.

τὰ ὧδε] the state of matters here, to which τὰ κατʼ ἐμέ, Colossians 4:7, especially belonged.

[171] διάκονος and σύνδουλος are also connected by the common attribute πιστός, and separated from ἀδελφός, which has its special adjective. Chrysostom, moreover, aptly remarks on the different predicates: τὸ ἀξιόπιστον συνήγαγεν.

[172] And how wisely and kindly, after what had happened with Onesimus! Yet Holtzmann holds that of the whole verse only the name Onesimus is characteristic, and reckons the verse to owe its existence to that name.

Colossians 4:10. Sending of salutations down to Colossians 4:14.

Ἀρίσταρχος] a Thessalonian, known from Acts 19:29; Acts 20:4; Acts 27:2, Philemon 1:24, was with Paul at Caesarea, when the latter had appealed to the emperor, and travelled with him to Rome, Acts 27:2.

ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου] Οὐδὲν τούτου τοῦ ἐγκωμίου μεῖζον, Chrysostom. In the contemporary letter to Philemon at Phlemon Colossians 1:24, the same Aristarchus is enumerated among the συνεργοί; and, on the other hand, at Philemon 1:23 Epaphras, of whose sharing the captivity our Epistle makes no mention (see Colossians 1:7), is designated as συναιχμάλωτος, so that in Philem. l.c. the συναιχμάλωτος is expressly distinguished from the mere συνεργοί, and the former is not affirmed of Aristarchus. Hence various interpreters have taken it to refer not to a proper, enforced sharing of the captivity, but to a voluntary one, it being assumed, namely, that friends of the apostle allowed themselves to be temporarily shut up with him in prison, in order to be with him and to minister to him not merely as visitors, but continuously day and night. Comp. Huther, de Wette, and Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. xxi. According to this view, such friends changed places from time to time, so that, when the apostle wrote our letter, Aristarchus, and when he wrote that to Philemon, Epaphras, shared his captivity. But such a relation could the less be gathered by the readers from the mere συναιχμάλωτος (comp. Lucian, As. 27), seeing that Paul himself was a prisoner, and consequently they could not but find in συναιχμάλ. simply the entirely similar position of Aristarchus as a συνδεσμώτης (Plat Rep. p. 516 C; Thuc. vi. 60. 2), and that as being so at the same time, not, as in Romans 16:7, at some earlier period. Hence we must assume that now Aristarchus, but when the Epistle to Philemon was written, Epaphras, lay in prison at the same time with the apostle,—an imprisonment which is to be regarded as detention for trial, and the change of persons in the case must have had its explanation in circumstances to us unknown but yet, notwithstanding the proximity of the two letters in point of time, sufficiently conceivable. It is to be observed, moreover, that as αἰχμάλ. always denotes captivity in war (see on Ephesians 4:8; also Luke 4:18), Paul by συναιχμ. sets himself forth as a captive warrior (in the service of Christ). Comp. συστρατιώτης, Php 2:25; Philemon 1:2. Hofmann (comp. also on Romans 16:7) is of opinion that we should think “of the war-captive state of one won by Christ from the kingdom of darkness,” so that συναιχμάλωτος would be an appellation for fellow-Christian; but this is an aberration, which ought least of all to have been put forth in the presence of a letter, which Paul wrote in the very character of a prisoner.

Upon ἀνεψιός, consobrinus, cousin: Herod, vii. 5, 82, ix. 10; Plat. Legg. xi p. 925 A; Xen. Anab. vii. 8. 9, Tob 7:12, Numbers 36:11; see Andoc. i. 47; Pollux, iii. 28. Not to be confounded either with nephew (ἀδελφιδοῦς) or with ἀνεψιάδης, cousin’s son, in the classical writers, ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς. See generally, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 506. To take it in a wider sense, like our “kinsman, relative” (so in Hom. Il. ix. 464, who, however, also uses it in the strict sense as in x. 519), there is the less reason, seeing that Paul does not use the word elsewhere. Moreover, as no other Mark at all occurs in the N. T., there is no sufficient ground for the supposition of Hofmann, that Paul had by ὁ ἀνεψ. Βαρν. merely wished to signify which Mark he meant Chrysostom and Theophylact already rightly perceived that the relationship with the highly-esteemed Barnabas was designed to redound to the commendation of Mark.

περὶ οὗ ἐλαβ. ἐντολ.] in respect of whom (Mark) ye have received, injunctions[173]—a remark which seems to be made not without a design of reminding them as to their execution. What injunctions are meant, by whom and through whom, they were given, and whether orally or in writing, Paul does not say; but the recalling of them makes it probable that they proceeded from himself, and were given ἀγράφως διά τινων (Oecumenius). Ewald conjectures that they were given in the letter to the Laodiceans, and related to love-offerings for Jerusalem, which Mark was finally to fetch and attend to. But the work of collection was probably closed with the last journey of the apostle to Jerusalem. Others hold, contrary to the notion of ἐντολή, that letters of recommendation are meant from Barnabas (Grotius), or from the Roman church (Estius); while others think that the following ἐὰν ἔλθῃ κ. τ. λ. forms the contents of ἐντολάς (Calvin—who, with Syriac, Ambrosiaster, and some codd., reads subsequently δέξασθαι,—comp. Beza, Castalio, Bengel, Bähr, and Baumgarten-Crusius),—a view against which may be urged the plural ἐντολάς and the absence of the article. Hofmann incorrectly maintains that περὶ οὗ ἐλάβ. ἐντολάς is to be taken along with ἐὰν ἔλθῃ π. ὑμ.: respecting whom ye have obtained instructions for the case of his coming to you. This the words could not mean; for ἐὰν ἔλθῃ π. ὑμ. signifies nothing else than: if he shall have come to you, and this accords not with ἐλάβ. ἐντολ., but only with δέξασθε αὐτόν,[174] which Hofmann makes an exclamation annexed without connecting link (that is, with singular abruptness).

ἐὰν ἔλθῃ κ. τ. λ.] Parenthesis; Mark must therefore have had in view a journey, which was to bring him to Colossae. δέχεσθαι of hospitable reception, as often in the N. T. (Matthew 10:14; John 4:45) and in classical authors (Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 23). From the circumstance, however, that δέξασθε stands without special modal definition, it is not to be inferred that Paul was apprehensive lest the readers should not, without this summons, have recognised Mark (on account of Acts 15:38 f.) as an apostolic associate (Wieseler, Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt. p. 567). Not the simple δέξασθε, but a more precise definition, would have been called for in the event of such an apprehension.

[173] περὶ οὗ is not to be referred to Barnabas, as, following Theophylact and Cajetanus (the former of whom, however, explains as if παρʼ οὗ were read), Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 259 ff., has again done. The latter understands under the ἐντολάς instructions formerly issued to the Pauline churches not to receive Barnabas, which were now no longer to be applied. As if the παροξυσμός of Acts 15:39 could have induced the apostle to issue such an anathema to his churches against the highly-esteemed Barnabas, who was accounted of apostolic dignity! Paul did not act so unjustly and imprudently. Comp., on the contrary, Galatians 2:9 and (notwithstanding what is narrated at Galatians 2:11) 1 Corinthians 9:6.

[174] In 1 Timothy 3:14 f., a passage to which Hofmann, with very little ground, appeals, the verb of the chief clause is, in fact, a present (γράφω), not, as would be the case here, a praeterite, which expresses an act of the past (ἐλάβετε). There the meaning is: In the case of my departure being delayed, however, this my letter has the object, etc. But here, if the conditional clause were to be annexed to the past act ἐλάβετε, the circumstance conditioning the latter would logically have to be conceived and expressed in oblique form (from the point of view of the person giving the injunction), in some such form, therefore, as: εἰ ἔλθοι πρὸς ὑμᾶς (comp. Acts 24:19; Acts 27:39; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 491 f.).