성경 주석서

CHAPTER 3

Colossians 3:4. Instead of ὑμῶν, which Griesb. approves, and Lachm. puts in the margin, but Tisch. 8 in the text, ἡμῶν is read by Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. 7, in opposition to C D* E* F P G א min. Arm. Slav. ed. Vulg. It. and many Fathers (not Origen). A is defective here. Considering this weighty evidence in favour of ὑμῶν, and seeing that the following καὶ ὑμεῖς suggested the change of person to the copyists, as indeed the beginning of a lesson with Colossians 3:4 could not but have favoured the insertion of the general ἡμῶν, we have stronger grounds for regarding ὑμῶν as original than as a repetition from Colossians 3:3.

Colossians 3:5. ὑμῶν] is wanting, indeed, in B C* א* min. Clem. Or. (five times) Eus., but has all the VSS. in its favour; hence the evidence against it is not sufficient to warrant its rejection, with Tisch. 8, as an inserted supplement.

διʼ ἅ] C* D* E F G Clar. Germ. read διʼ ὅ or διό. Rightly; the Recepta, though strongly attested, is an alteration to correspond with the plurality of the preceding objects under comparison of Ephesians 5:6.

ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τ. ἀπειθείας] is wanting in B D* (?) Sahid. Aeth. Clem. Cypr. Ambrosiast., bracketed by Lachm. and omitted by Tisch. The evidence against it is too weak to justify its rejection, especially in the face of the agreement of the passage otherwise with Ephesians 5:6, and of the incompleteness of the thought which would remain, in case those words were omitted; Reiche properly defends them.

Colossians 3:7. Instead of τούτοις Elz. and Scholz have αὐτοῖς, in opposition to decisive Codd., although defended by Reiche.

Colossians 3:11. Before ἐλεύθ. Lachm. inserts καί; considerably attested, it is true (not by B C א), but nevertheless an addition which crept in easily in consequence of the first two clauses of the verse; nearly all the same authorities (not A) have it also before Σκύθης.

Colossians 3:12. Instead of οἰκτιρμοῦ Elz. has οἰκτιρμῶν, in opposition to decisive testimony.

Colossians 3:13. ὁ Χριστός] Lachm. reads ὁ κύριος, following A B D* F G 213, Vulg. It. Aug. (once) Pel. Rightly; the Recepta is an interpretation, instead of which ὁ Θεός (א) and Deus in Christo (Arm. Aug. once) are also found.

Colossians 3:14. ὅς] A B C F G P Vulg. It. Clem. Chrys. read ὅ, which is approved by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. ὅς (א*) and the Recepta ἥτις (א**) are emendations.

Colossians 3:15. Instead of τοῦ Χριστοῦ Elz. has τοῦ Θεοῦ, in opposition to decisive evidence, from Php 4:7.

Colossians 3:16. The καί before ὕμν. and ᾠδαῖς should in both cases be omitted (Scholz omits only the first), in accordance with preponderating evidence. Borrowed from Ephesians 5:19.

ἐν χάρ.] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἐν τῇ χάρ., which, on the authority of B D* E* F G א** Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, is to be preferred. The article was passed over as superfluous.

Following far preponderant testimony (also א), we must read subsequently with Lachm. and Tisch. 8: ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμ. τῷ Θεῷ, not: ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμ. τῷ κυρίῳ (Elz. Reiche), or: ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμ. τ. Θεῷ (Tisch. 7). Comp. Ephesians 5:19.

Colossians 3:17. κυρίου Ἰησοῦ] Lachm.:Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which is to be adopted on the authority of A C D* F G min. VSS. and Fathers; א has κυρ. Ἰησοῦ Χρ.

καὶ πατρί] καί is to be omitted, with Lachm. and Tisch., following A B C א min. VSS. and Fathers; from Ephesians 5:20.

Colossians 3:18. After τοῖς Elz. reads ἰδίοις, in opposition to decisive evidence; from Ephesians 5:22.

Colossians 3:19. After γυναῖκας Lachm. has ὑμῶν, which, with considerable evidence in its favour, is the more especially to be adopted, as in Ephesians 5:25 ἑαυτῶν is found. The omission easily occurred, because τοῖς ἀνδράσιν previously was also without genitival definition.

Colossians 3:20. Instead of ἐν κυρίῳ Elz. has τῷ κυρίῳ, which is to be regarded on decisive evidence as an omission of the apparently superfluous ἐν.

Colossians 3:21. ἐρεθίζετε] Lachm. and Scholz, as also Griesb, recommend: παροργίζετε, following, it is true, A C D* E* F G K L א (παροργίζεται) min. Vulg. It. Theodoret, ms. Theoph.; but it comes from Ephesians 6:4.

Colossians 3:22. Elz. and Tisch. have ὀφθαλμοδουλείαις, which Reiche approves. But ὀφθαλμοδουλείᾳ (recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. and Scholz) is the reading in A B D E F G min. Damasc. Theoph.; and Chrysostom also by κατʼ ὀφθαλμοδουλείαν testifies in favour of the singular. The singular is to be preferred as preponderantly attested, and because the final syllable AI (ᾳ) might very easily bring about the conversion into the plural. If the singular had come in from Ephesians 6:6, “Chrysostom’s reading, κατʼ ὀφθ., would be more frequent.

Instead of κύριον Elz. has Θεόν, contrary to decisive witnesses.

Colossians 3:23. καὶ πᾶν ὅ, τι ἐάν] The reading ὅ, ἐάν, which Griesb. approves, and Lachm. Scholz and Tisch. have adopted, is decisively attested; the Recepta is from Colossians 3:17.

Colossians 3:24. τῷ γάρ] γάρ has so decisive witnesses against it (also א), that, with Lachm. and Tisch. (Griesb. also condemns it), it is to be deleted as a current connective addition.

Colossians 3:25. ὁ δέ] ὁ γάρ is decisively attested (also by א); it is approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The antithetical δέ crept in from misunderstanding.

κομιεῖται] The form κομίσεται (Lachm.) is found in B D *** E K L א ** min. Fathers. To these may be added F G, which have κομίζεται. The Recepta must give way to the more strongly attested κομίσεται. Comp. on Ephesians 6:8.

CONTENTS.

The generally hortatory second portion of the Epistle, preceded in Colossians 2:6 merely by a special exhortation against the danger of heresy, does not begin with Colossians 2:6 (Hofmann), but only now, and seeks to promote in the readers the essential moral direction of the Christian life (Colossians 3:1-4); after which they are encouraged to lay aside and abandon everything which is contrary to that direction (Colossians 3:5-11), and to adopt and follow all that is good and edifying in a Christian sense (Colossians 3:12-17). Then follow exhortations in reference to the various relations of the household (Colossians 3:18 to Colossians 4:1).

Colossians 3:1 f. Εἰ] does not make the relation problematical any more than in Colossians 2:20, but sets it forth as an undoubted fact (Colossians 2:12), from which the subsequent duty results, in syllogistic form, as is frequently the case in Paul’s writings (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 325), and also in the classics (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 259 f.; Kühner and Herbst, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1). The being risen with Christ, namely, is not meant in the sense of the regenerate moral life (see on Colossians 2:12), but as the relation of real participation in the resurrection of Christ, which involves as its ethical correlate the obligation τὰ ἄνω ζητεῖν. To be risen with Christ and not τὰ ἄνω ζητεῖν, would be a contradiction.

οὖν] therefore, points back to Colossians 3:20, and with logical propriety, since fellowship in the resurrection of Christ is the necessary consequence[138] of fellowship in His death,—a fact which Paul had in view also in Colossians 3:21, in writing ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ. The ΟὖΝ is not intended to be resumptive, namely, of what was said in Colossians 2:12 (Hofmann); otherwise what comes after that verse down to the present one must have had the nature of a parenthesis, or a digression.

τὰ ἄνω] the opposite to ΤᾺ ἘΠῚ Τῆς Γῆς: that which is in heaven (comp. John 8:23; Galatians 4:26; Php 3:14), by which is indicated the Messianic salvation which, with its future blessings (Colossians 2:17), is preserved in heaven to be manifested and communicated at the Parousia (Colossians 3:3-4). Comp. Matthew 6:33, and the conceptions of the treasure in heaven (Matthew 6:20), of the heavenly βραβεῖον (Colossians 2:18; Php 3:14), ΠΟΛΊΤΕΥΜΑ (Php 3:20), Jerusalem (Galatians 4:26). It is substantially the same as ΔΌΞΑΝ Κ. ΤΙΜῊΝ Κ. ἈΦΘΑΡΣΊΑΝ ΖΗΤΕῖΝ in Romans 2:7. As a philosophical analogy, comp. especially the ἌΝΩ ὉΔΌς in the beautiful close of Plato’s Republic, and the farewell of Socrates in the Phaedo. A liturgical colouring, which such expressions as τὰ ἄνω (also ΤᾺ ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ΟὐΡΑΝΟῖς Κ. Τ. Λ. in Colossians 1:16; Colossians 1:20) are alleged to have (Holtzmann), is arbitrarily assumed as a criterion of a later age.

ΟὟ Ὁ Χ. ἘΣΤΙΝ Κ. Τ. Λ.] furnishing a motive encouraging them to perfect the fellowship. “Par est enim illuc tendere studia curasque membrorum, ubi jam versatur caput,” Erasmus. The event of the bodily ascension (but not a definite form of the process) is here, as in every case where the exalted Christ is the subject of discourse, presupposed. Comp. especially Php 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:48. Notwithstanding the local οὗ, Hofmann thinks that Paul has conceived the supramundane existence of Christ not at all locally. Comp., however, on Ephesians 1:20 and Mark 16:19; and see the frequent and significant ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω and ὍΠΟΥ ΕἸΜῚ ἘΓΏ from the lips of Jesus in John.

Colossians 3:2. ΤᾺ ἌΝΩ] repeated with emphasis, and then still further strengthened by the negative contrast. The ΦΡΟΝΕῖΤΕ is more comprehensive than ζητεῖτε, expressing not only the striving (comp. Romans 2:7), but the whole practical bent of thought and disposition (comp. Beck, bibl. Seelenl. p. 62), the moral meditari, Php 2:5.

τὰ ἐπὶ τ. γῆς] e.g. money and estate, honours, comforts, etc. Comp. Php 3:19 : οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες, also 1 John 2:15, et al. Neither the contrast nor the subsequent text warrants us in finding here a further reference to the requirements of the false teachers. So Theophylact: τὰ περὶ βρωμάτων κ. ἡμέρων; Calvin: “adhuc persequitur suam disputationem de ceremoniis, quae similes tricis facit, quae nos humi repere cogant;” comp. Beza, Michaelis, and others. The hortatory portion of the Epistle proceeds no longer at all in the form of statements opposed to the false teachers, but in that of general moral exhortations.

We have to observe, further, that the earthly is not of itself placed under the point of view of the sinful, which would be quite un-Pauline (1 Corinthians 6:12; 1 Corinthians 10:23), but is so as the contents of the striving which is opposed to the τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖν. Comp. the idea in Matthew 6:21.

[138] It is therefore with all the less reason that Hitzig, p. 23 ff., would have vv. 1, 2 regarded as “a portion of the reviser’s work,” at the same time denying the integrity of the text in Colossians 2:22-23, declaring Colossians 2:19 to be an interpolation, and very arbitrarily remodelling Colossians 2:17-18. He thinks that the interpolation of Colossians 3:1 f. betrays times subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem, when earthly grounds of hope had vanished, but not extending beyond the period of Trajan,—which is assumed to result from Colossians 4:17. Combinations such as these are beyond the reach of criticism. According to Holtzmann, vv. 2, 3 presuppose the destruction of all hopes connected with the continuance of the theocracy, and directly allude to Hebrews 12:22; even the “sitting at the right hand” (as in Ephesians 1:20) is withal, notwithstanding Romans 8:34, assailed. Of the entire chapter, Holtzmann only leaves vv. 3, 12, 13, 17 to stand as original.

Colossians 3:3. Assigning a reason for the requirement of Colossians 3:2.

For ye are dead; how then could your mind be directed towards earthly things! and your life does not belong to the realm of the visible world, but it is hidden with Christ in God: how should you not then τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖν! It is a guide to a correct and certain interpretation of the passage, that this statement of a reason must affirm the same thing as was already contained, only without special development, in εἰ συνηγέρθ. τ. Χ. of Colossians 3:1. This special exposition Paul now gives. Whosoever is risen, namely, has died and lives, and these are the two points to which Colossians 3:3 refers.

ἀπεθάνετε] namely, by your having entered into the fellowship of the death of Christ. This being dead has dissolved in the consciousness of the Christian the ties that hitherto bound him to earthly things. He finds himself still in the realm of the earthly, but he no longer lives therein, Colossians 2:21. Comp. Php 3:20; Galatians 2:20.

ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν] must necessarily be the life, which has followed the being dead; consequently the eternal life, comp. Colossians 3:4, which set in through the resurrection (of which Christians, in fact, have become partakers with Christ, Colossians 3:1)—a life which the believer has, prior to the Parousia, as a possession that has not yet been manifested but is still in secret (οὔπω ἐφανερώθη, 1 John 3:2), a treasure in heaven, possessed in hope and still unrevealed, destined to appear in glorious manifestation only at the Parousia.

σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ] For Christ Himself, apart from fellowship with whose life the ζωή of His believers cannot have its being and essence, is hidden till the Parousia; and only then sets in His φανέρωσις (Colossians 3:4), ἀποκάλυψις (1 Corinthians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:7; 1 Peter 1:13; 1 Peter 4:13), ἐπιφάνεια (1 Thessalonians 2:8; 1 Timothy 6:14), with which also the ἀποκάλυψις τῶν υἱῶν τ. Θεοῦ (Romans 8:19) will take place, Colossians 3:4. Comp. 2 Timothy 2:10 f.; 1 John 3:2.

ἐν τῷ Θεῷ] in God, in so far, namely, as Christ, who, according to John (Colossians 1:18), is εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, remains hidden in God till the Parousia, as σύνθρονος of God (Colossians 3:1), living united with God in His glory hitherto unseen, in order thereafter to proceed from God and to manifest Himself with the full divine glory. But, as with Christ, so also with our life, which is hidden σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ, and therefore can only issue forth at His second coming from God, and be received by us in real glorious communication and manifestation through our συνδοξασθῆναι (Romans 8:17, comp. Romans 5:2; Romans 5:10). If the coherence of the relation expressed by κέκρυπται was asserted by σὺν τῷ Χ., so also is its inherence by ἐν τῷ Θεῷ. The essential part of our explanation, viz. that ἡ ζωὴ ἡμ. is eternal life, is held also by Chrysostom, Theodoret (ἐκείνου γὰρ ἀναστάντος πάντες ἠγέρθημεν, ἀλλʼ οὐδέπω ὁρῶμεν τῶν πραγμάτων τὴν ἔκβασιν), Oecumenius (τῶν γὰρ ἀληθῶς Χριστιανῶν ζωὴ ἔστιν μένουσα, ἡ μέν τοι πάρουσα εἰκόνα μᾶλλον θανάτου ἢ ζωῆς ἔχει), Theophylact (Paul wished to show αὐτοὺς καθημένους ἄνω καὶ ἄλλην ζῶντας ζωὴν, τὴν ἐν τῷ Θεῷ, τὴν μὴ φαινομένην), Calvin, Beza, Erasmus Schmid, Grotius, and others, including Baumgarten-Crusius. The accurate contextual connection of this view with what precedes, and with Colossians 3:4 (see above), excludes the explanation adopted by many, of ζωή in the ethical, spiritual sense. So Erasmus, Vatablus, Calovius, Bengel, Flatt (“the inner, new, blissful life of true Christians”), Bähr, Böhmer, Steiger, Olshausen,[139] and others, including Huther,[140] Bleek, and de Wette, who apprehends this life as being hidden in two respects: namely, as regards the disposition and striving, it is, because directed to the heavenly, internal and ideal, whereas the life of worldly men in the common sense is real or manifest; as regards the imputation or recompense, it lacks outward happiness, but enjoys internal peace, and is therefore in this respect also hidden or ideal, whereas the worldly life, in unison with the outer world, leads to external peace or to happiness, and is so far, therefore, real or manifest also; the σὺν τῷ Χ. denotes not merely the spiritual fellowship, but is “at the same time to a certain extent” to be understood in a local sense (comp. Colossians 3:1), and ἘΝ Τῷ ΘΕῷ denotes the sphere of the Christian life, or “its relation to the system of the universe, that it belongs to the invisible world, where God Himself lives.” Of all this there is nothing in the words, the historical sense of which neither requires nor bears such a spiritualistic idealisation with more senses than one, but, on the contrary, excludes it as caprice. The ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν does not refer to the ethical life of Christians at all, neither alone nor along with eternal life (Cornelius a Lapide, Estius; comp. Bleek and Ewald). On the contrary, it is aptly said by Kaeuffer, de ζωῆς αἰων. not. p. 93: “vitam enim piam et honestam, quam homo Christianus in hac terra vivere possit ac debeat, P. dicere non poterat nunc cum Christo in Deo (in coelis puta, in quibus Christus nunc est) reconditam esse, atque olim in splendido Jesu reditu de coelo revelatum iri; haec non nisi vitae coelesti conveniunt.” Hofmann’s distinction is less clear and definite: the ζωή is meant as the blessing, in which Christians have an advantage over the world, by their having participated in the death and resurrection of Christ,—a life, which is indeed life in the full sense of the word, but which does not appear before the world as what it is, so long as Christ is hidden from the world and in God. Notwithstanding, Hofmann properly rejects the explanations referring it to the holy life of the Christian, and to the holy and blissful life together.

Observe, further, the difference in the tenses, the aorist ἀπεθάνετε denoting the accomplished act of dying at conversion, by which they entered into the fellowship of the death of Christ; and the perfect κέκρ., the continuous subsisting relation in reference to the present up to the (near) Parousia.

[139] “The life of believers is said to be hidden, inasmuch as it is internal, and what is external does not harmonize with it;” and in ἐν τῷ Θεῷ God is conceived as the element, “into whose essence believers, like Christ Himself, are assumed and enwrapped.”

[140] In whose view the Christian leads a life in God, and this is a hidden life, because the world knows nothing about it (comp. Erasmus: “juxta judicium mundi”); in fact, to the Christian himself its full glory is not manifest (comp. Bengel); and by σὺν τῷ Χ. it is shown that the Christian leads such a life not of himself, but only in his fellowship with Christ. Dalmer gives an obscure and heterogeneous explanation.

Colossians 3:4. And what a blissful future is connected with the ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν κεκρ. κ.τ.λ.! This bright, favourable side of the previous thought is the continuation of the proof of Colossians 3:2 begun in Colossians 3:3, detaching them thoroughly from earthly pursuits and elevating them to the courage of victory; vividly introduced without connecting particle (καί): “repentina luce percellit,” Bengel, which Hofmann fails to perceive, when he objects to the absence of δέ. The relation is not antithetical at all.

φανερωθῇ] shall have become manifest, have come forth from His present concealment, namely, by His Parousia. See on Colossians 3:3.

ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν] your life. Christ Himself is thus designated (comp. ἡ ἐλπίς in Colossians 1:27), because He is the personal author, possessor, and bearer of the eternal life of His believers (comp. John 14:6; John 11:25), and this, according to the context, inasmuch as they have entered into the fellowship of His resurrection: they are alive[141] with Him (σὺν τ. Χ., Colossians 3:3); His life is their life. The definite object of this apposition, moreover, is argumentative, for the following τότε κ.τ.λ.

καὶ ὑμεῖς] as Christ, so also ye with Him. The two subjects have the emphasis.

φανερωθ. ἐν δόξῃ] Comp. συνδοξασθῶμεν in Romans 3:17. It means nothing else than the glory of the Messianic kingdom, in which believers (also glorified bodily, 1 Corinthians 15:43; 2 Corinthians 5:1 ff.; Php 3:21) shall be manifested visibly. The offence which Holtzmann takes at the use of φανεροῦσθαι (instead of ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι, Romans 3:17 ff.) and ζωή, presupposes a too limited range for Paul’s manipulation of language. Our passage has nothing to do with 2 Corinthians 4:10 f. Nor does it even “almost look” (Holtzmann) as if the author were conceiving the readers as already dead at the Parousia. The φανερωθῆναι ἐν δόξῃ takes place in the case of those still alive through their being changed, as the reader was aware.

[141] Comp. Ignatius, Ephesians 3, where Christ is designated τὸ ἀδιάκριτον ἡμῶν ζῆν, also Magnes. 1, Smyrn. 4.

Colossians 3:5.[142] Οὖν] draws the inference from Colossians 3:3-4, in order now to lead to that which must be done with a view to the carrying out of the μὴ τὰ ἐπὶ τ. γῆς. The inference itself is: “Since, according to Colossians 3:3-4, ye are dead, but have your life hidden with Christ in God and are destined to be glorified with Christ, it would be in contradiction of all this, according to which ye belong no longer to the earth but to the heavenly state of life, to permit your earthly members still to live; no, ye are to put them to death, to make them die” (Romans 4:19; Hebrews 11:12; Plut. Mor. p. 954 D)!

νεκρώσατε] prefixed with emphasis as the point of the inference; the term is selected in significant reference to ἀπεθάνετε and ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν, Colossians 3:3-4.

τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν] means nothing else, and is not to be explained otherwise than: your members (hand, foot, eye, etc.). That these were not to be put to death in the physical sense, but in an ethical respect (comp. Colossians 2:11)—seeing, namely, that they, as the seat and organs of sinful lusts (Romans 7:23), which they still are even in the case of the regenerate (Galatians 5:17; Galatians 5:24), are to lose their vigour of life and activity through the Christian moral will governed by the Holy Spirit, and in so far to experience ethical deadening (comp. Romans 7:5; Romans 7:23; Romans 8:13, and the analogous representation by Jesus as to plucking out the eye, etc., Matthew 5:29 f., Matthew 18:8 f.; comp. also Matthew 19:12)—was self-evident to the reader, as it was, moreover, placed beyond doubt by the following appositions πορνείαν κ.τ.λ. Hence there was neither ground nor warrant in the context to assume already here (see Colossians 3:9) the conception of the old man, whose desires are regarded as members (Beza, Flacius, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Calovius, and others, including Böhmer, Olshausen, and Bleek), although the required putting to death presupposes that the old man is still partially alive. Nor is sin itself, according to its totality, to be thought of as body and its individual parts as members (Hilary, Grotius, Bengel, Bähr, and others; comp. also Julius Müller, v. d. Sünde, I. p. 461, ed. 5, and Flatt),—a conception which does not obtain even in Colossians 2:11 and Romans 6:6, and which is inadmissible here on account of ὑμῶν. The view of Steiger, finally, is erroneous (comp. Baumgarten-Crusius), that the entire human existence is conceived as σῶμα. We may add that the νέκρωσις of the members, etc., is not inconsistent with the death (ἀπεθάνετε, Colossians 3:3) already accomplished through conversion to Christ, but is required by the latter as the necessary, ever new act of the corresponding morality, with which faith lives and works.[143] And in view of the ideal character of this obligation the command νεκρώσατε κ.τ.λ.—this requirement, which is ever repeating itself, of the ethical mortificatio—is never superfluous.

τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς] which are upon the earth, corresponds to the τὰ ἐπὶ τ. γ. in Colossians 3:2; in contrast, not to the glorified human nature of Christ (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 560), but to the life hidden with Christ in God. In this antithetical addition is involved an element which justifies the requirement νεκρώσατε τ. μ. ὑμ., not expressing the activity of the μέλη for what is sinful (de Wette, comp. Flatt and others, in connection with which Grotius would even supply τὰ φρονοῦντα from Colossians 3:2), which the simple words do not affirm, but: that the μέλη, as existing upon earth, have nothing in common with the life which exists in heaven, that their life is of another kind and must not be spared to the prejudice of that heavenly ζωή! Comp. also Hofmann’s present view. The context does not even yield a contrast of heavenly members (Huther), i.e. of a life of activity for what is heavenly pervading the members, or of the members of the new man (Julius Müller), since the ζωή is not to be understood in the sense of the spiritual, ethical life.

πορνείαν κ.τ.λ.] Since Paul would not have the members slain as such absolutely and unreservedly, but only as regards their ethical side, namely, the sinful nature which dwells and works in them (Romans 7:23), he now subjoins detailed instances of this sinful nature, and that with a bold but not readily misunderstood directness of expression appositionally, so that they appear as the forms of immorality cleaving to the members, with respect to which the very members are to be put to death. In these forms of immorality, which constitute no such heterogeneous apposition to τὰ μέλη ὑμ. as Holtzmann thinks, the life of the μέλη, which is to be put to death, is represented by its parts. Paul might have said: λέγω δὲ πορνείαν; but by annexing it directly, he gave to his expression the form of a distributive apposition (see Kühner, II. 1, p. 247), more terse and more compact after the σχῆμα καθʼ ὅλον καὶ μέρος. It is neither a sudden leap of thought nor a metonymy.

ἀκαθαρσ.] in reference to lustful uncleanness; comp. on Romans 1:24; Galatians 5:19; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Ephesians 4:19; Ephesians 5:3. Paul gives, namely, from πορν. to κακήν, four forms of the first Gentile fundamental vice, unchastity, beginning with the special (πορνείαν), and becoming more and more general as he proceeds. Hence follows: πάθος, passion (the ἡττᾶσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς, Plat. Prot. p. 352 A; Dem. 805. 14; Arist. Eth. ii. 4), heat; Romans 1:26; 1 Thessalonians 4:5; and Lünemann in loc. Comp. also Plat. Phaed. p. 265 B: τὸ ἐρωτικὸν πάθος, Phaedr. p. 252 C. And finally: ἐπιθυμ. κακήν (Plat. Legg. ix. p. 854 A), evil desire, referring to unchaste longing. Comp. Matthew 5:28; Breitenbach, ad Xen. Hier. 6. 2. Unnatural unchastity (Romans 1:26 f.; 1 Corinthians 6:9) is included in ἀκαθ., παθ., and ἐπιθ. κακ., but is not expressly denoted (Erasmus, Calovius, Heinrichs, Flatt, Böhmer) by πάθος (comp pathici, Catullus, xvi. 2; παθικεύεσθαι, Nicarch. in Anth. xi. 73), a meaning which neither admits of linguistic proof, nor is, considering the general character of the adjoining terms (ἀκαθαρσ. ἐπιθ. κακ.), in keeping with the context. ἐπιθ. κακ. is to be distinguished from πάθος as the more general conception; the πάθος is always also ἐπιθυμία and relatively ἐπιθ. κακή, but not the converse, since a ἡγεῖσθαι or κρατεῖν τῆς ἐπιθυμίας may also take place.

κ. τὴν πλεονεξίαν] After the vice of uncleanness comes now the second chief vice of the Gentiles (comp. on Ephesians 4:19): covetousness. Hence the connection here by means of καί, which is not even, but (in opposition to Hofmann) the simple and, and the article, which introduces the new category with the description of its disgraceful character,[144] associating this descriptive character as a special stigma with the vice of πλεονεξία. In opposition to the erroneous interpretations: insatiable lust (Estius, Michaelis), or: the gains of prostitution (Storr, Flatt, Bähr), see on Eph. l.c., and Huther. The πλεονεξία is not separated by the article from the appositional definitions of the μέλη, and co-ordinated with τὰ μέλη, so that the latter would only be “the members which minister to unchaste lust” (Huther); for ΤᾺ ΜΈΛΗ ὙΜ. can only denote the members generally, the collective members; and ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ΜΈΛΕΣΙΝ (Romans 7:5; Romans 7:23) understood generically, and not as referring to particular individual members, sin is operating with all its lusts, as, in accordance with this ethical mode of viewing the matter, the collective members form the σῶμα τῆς σαρκός of Colossians 2:11. Bengel remarks aptly that the article indicates totum genus vitii a genere commemoratarum modo specierum diversum.

ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρ.] quippe quae est, etc., further supports the νεκρώσατε specially in reference to this vice, which, as the idolatry of money and possessions, is κατʼ ἐξοχήν of a heathen nature. It has been well said by Theodoret: ἐπειδὴ τὸ μαμωνᾶ κύριον ὁ σωτὴρ προσηγόρενσε, διδάσκων, ὡς ὁ τῷ πάθει τῆς πλεονεξίας δουλεύων ὡς Θεὸν τὸν πλοῦτον τιμᾶ. In 1 Corinthians 5:11, the ΕἸΔΩΛΟΛΑΤΡ. is to be taken differently (in opposition to Holtzmann). Moreover, see on Ephesians 5:5. Observe, further, that the addition of the ΠΛΕΟΝΕΞΊΑ to unchastity (comp. 1 Corinthians 5:11) can afford no ground for supposing that the author of the Ephesians borrowed this combination from 1 Thessalonians 2:3, and that it was taken into our present Epistle from that to the Ephesians (Holtzmann). Comp. also 1 Corinthians 6:9 f.

[142] In the section vv. 5–17, in which Hönig, in relation to Ephesians 4:1-5; Ephesians 4:20, finds the stamp of originality, Holtzmann discovers the concentrating labour of the interpolator, whose second (and better) effort is the passage in Colossians.

[143] Chrysostom illustrates the relation by comparing the converted person to a cleansed and brightened statue, which, however, needs to be afterwards cleansed afresh from new accretions of rust and dirt.

[144] Looking to the so closely marked twofold division of the vices adduced, it is inconsistent with the text to take, with Hofmann, the three elements, ἀκαθαρσ., πάθος, and ἐπιθυμ. κακ., in such a general sense as to make ἀκαθαρσία mean every “action which mars the creaturely honour (?) of man,” πάθος, the passion which enslaves through excitement of the blood, and ἐπιθυμία κακή, all evil desire, which is, as such, a morbid excitement of the blood. The excitement of the blood, thus sanguinely enough invented without any hint whatever from the text, is then held to convert the second and third elements into cases in which one sins against his own body,—a characteristic point, which Paul has not in view at all in connection with the apposition to τὰ μέλη κ.τ.λ., as is plain from the appended κ. τ. πλεονεξίαν belonging to the same apposition.

Colossians 3:6. This relative affirmation stands in a confirmatory reference to the νεκρώσατε κ.τ.λ. above, the omission of which would draw down upon the readers, instead of the φανερωθῆναι ἐν δόξῃ of Colossians 3:4, a fate such as is here described.

διʼ ὅ (see the critical remarks) has the significant stress of the relative clause: on account of this immorality mentioned in Colossians 3:5. The Recepta διʼ ἅ is to be taken just in the same way, and not to be referred to the μέλη (Bähr), since it is not the latter themselves, but their life activities specified by πορνείαν κ.τ.λ., which call forth the wrath of God.

ἔρχεται] namely, at the judgment. Comp. Ephesians 5:6; 1 Thessalonians 1:10 : ἡ ὀργὴ ἡ ἐρχομένη; Matthew 3:7 : ἡ μέλλουσα ὀργή. Hence: ἡμέρα ὀργῆς in Romans 2:5; Revelation 6:17. Chrysostom well says: Paul warns διὰ τῶν μελλόντων ἐξ ὧν ἀπηλλάγημεν κακῶν. See also on Ephesians 5:6. The frequent reference to the manifestation of the divine wrath (comp. Romans 1:18 ff.) in the course of this temporal life (Huther and many others) overlooks the correlation with Colossians 3:4, and the apostle’s conception of the nearness of the Parousia. Hence, also, the combination of the two references (Theophylact and others, also Flatt) is to be rejected.

Respecting the υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθ. (the Jews and Gentiles, who reject the gospel and thereby disobey God), comp. on Ephesians 5:6, and as to this mode of expression generally, Steiger on 1 Peter 1:14.

Colossians 3:7. Transition to the following exhortation; and how touching through the effect of the contrast!

ἐν οἷς] is, with the reading διʼ ὅ in Colossians 3:6, necessarily to be referred to the υἱοὺς τ. ἀπειθ.: among whom ye also walked once, by which is meant, not external association (which in fact was not cancelled by conversion, 1 Corinthians 5:10), but the fellowship of moral conduct. But, even with the reading διʼ ἅ in Colossians 3:6, ἐν οἷς is to be taken (comp. Ephesians 2:2 f.) as inter quos (Vatablus, Rosenmüller, de Wette, Schenkel, Bleek), and not to be referred, as it commonly is (Chrysostom, however, seems to understand it as masculine) to the vices named in Colossians 3:5, because the relative most naturally attaches itself to what immediately precedes, in order to continue the discourse, and because, if ἐν οἷς refer to the sins, then ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοις once more asserts substantially the same thing, so that the discourse gains nothing in thoughtfulness through the two verbs, as in Galatians 5:25, but is unduly amplified. The distinctions which in this case have been attempted between περιπατεῖν and ζῆν still make the one or the other appear as self-evident. See e.g. Calvin: vivere and ambulare are distinguished from each other like potentia (comp. Grotius: “moveri”) and actus, the former preceding and the latter following; Beza (and Estius): vivere denotes naturae habitum, ambulare, ἐνέργειαν ipsam; Bähr (comp. Olshausen and Reiche): the former refers more to the disposition, the latter to the outward conduct; Hofmann: the state of life (ἐζῆτε), with which the conduct in detail (περιεπατ.) harmonized.

ὅτε ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοις] ἐζῆτε stands emphatically and pregnantly first: when ye lived in these, i.e. when ye were alive therein, inasmuch as the ἀπεθάνετε of Colossians 3:3 had not yet set in in your case, the requirement of the νεκροῦν in Colossians 3:5 was still strange to you, and these disgraceful things formed the element and sphere of activity of your life. On ζῆν, to be alive, in contrast to the being dead, comp. Romans 7:9; 2 Corinthians 13:4; also Colossians 2:20; ἐν τούτοις[145] is neuter, grouping together demonstratively, and setting forth contemptuously, the states of vice spoken of. According to Flatt, Böhmer, and Huther, it is masculine: “then, when ye belonged to the children of disobedience,” so that ζῆν ἐν κόσμῳ (Colossians 2:20) and ἀναστρέφειν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ (2 Corinthians 1:11) would have to be compared. In opposition to this view it may be urged that ὅτε ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοις, in this sense, would be a very meaningless and superfluous more precise designation of the ποτέ, whereas, according to the view above adopted, it is thoughtful and characteristic.[146]

On the change from the merely historical aorist to the descriptive imperfect, lending a lively colour to the representation, and claiming the closer attention of the reader who had passed more rapidly over the περιεπατ., comp. Kühner, II. 1, p. 133, and Reisig, ad Soph. O. C. p. 254 f.

[145] With the Recepta αὐτοῖς any other reference than that, which οἷς has, is excluded; hence the origin of μὐτοῖς.

[146] Hence not to be attributed, with Holtzmann, to the tautological style of the author, in remembrance of 1 Corinthians 6:11.

Colossians 3:8. Νυνὶ δέ] In contrast to the past, which has just been described: but now, when ye are no longer alive in those things.

καὶ ὑμεῖς] does not refer to the fact that the Ephesians also are thus exhorted (Ephesians 4:22; Ephesians 4:25; Ephesians 4:31), as Holtzmann here contrives critically to suggest; but as καὶ ὑμ. in Colossians 3:7 reminded the readers of the immoral pre-Christian society, which they also had formerly resembled, so this καὶ ὑμεῖς reminds them of the moral Christian society, which they also ought to resemble now.

τὰ πάντα] the whole of these, i.e. the things indicated by ἐν τούτοις without any exception; ye shall retain nothing of them, “ne quid veneni resideat” (Grotius). To this τὰ πάντα the apostle then annexes directly and in rapid asyndetic continuation yet other sins, which are likewise to be left off. Bleek erroneously takes ὀργὴν κ.τ.λ as in apposition to τὰ πάντα; for the latter can only be retrospective (comp. Hofmann), and cannot, consistently with the text, be taken as meaning, “everything that belongs to the old man.”

ἀπόθεσθε] like garments (see on Ephesians 4:22); a lively change of figures; the conception of members is laid aside.

θυμόν] distinguished from ὀργήν as the ebullition, the effervescing of the latter (Eustath. ad Il. i. p. 7. 17). See on Romans 2:8; comp. Ephesians 4:31; Revelation 16:19; Sir 48:10; 1Ma 2:49; Hom. Il. ix. 629; Plat. Phil. p. 47 E: τοῖς θυμοῖς κ. ταῖς ὀργαῖς.

κακίαν] wickedness, malicious nature. Comp. on Romans 1:29; Ephesians 4:31.

βλασφημίαν] slander, not against God, but against others, as oral outbreak of the evil dispositions mentioned. Comp. Eph. l.c.; 1 Corinthians 4:13; Romans 3:8; Titus 3:2; frequently in classic writers; in Dem. 312. 19 joined with συκοφαντία.

αἰσχρολογίαν] only used here in the N. T.: shameful discourse, which, in accordance with the category of all the sins here named, is not to be understood of unchaste discourse, as, following the Fathers (see Suicer, Thes. I. p. 136), it has commonly been taken (Hofmann: “obscene” discourse); comp. Epictet. Enchir. 33. 16; Xen. de Lac. rep. 5. 6; αἰσχρολογοῦντας in Plat. Rep. p. 395 E; Pollux, iv. 105; and the passages in Wetstein; also αἰσχροεπέω in Athen. xiii. p. 571 A; and respecting the αἰσχρολογία ἐφʼ ἱεροῖς, see Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 689. Rather: railing speech (Polyb. viii. 13. 8, xxxi. 10. 4), forming one genus with βλασφημίαν, but a wider idea. Comp. αἰσχρὰ ἔπεα, Hom. Il. iii. 38, xxiv. 238. All the elements in Colossians 3:8 specify the malevolent and hostile disposition; and the two last, especially the oral manifestation thereof; hence the addition of ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμ., which, without arbitrariness, cannot but be referred to both words (so also Bleek), not to αἰσχρολ. alone, and is, with Grotius, to be conceived as depending on the still operative idea of ἀπόθεσθε, so that it may not be characterized as a “secondary malformation” (Holtzmann). The readers are to lay aside, generally, ὀργὴν, θυμὸν, κακίαν; and to lay aside from their mouth βλασφημίαν, αἰσχρολογίαν. We are not to suppose any special purpose in connection with the addition; it serves merely for the concrete representation; but, if we should regard it as the more precise definition of αἰσχρολ. (Hofmann), or should even, as is often done, by supplying an ἐκπορευομένην, join it with αἰσχρολογ., or with βλασφ. and αἰσχρολογ., it would be utterly void of meaning. The special idea of that which defiles (Chrysostom), or of the opposite of Christian praise to God (Hofmann), does not form the basis of the ἐκ τ. στόμ. ὑμ.; on the contrary, it is the conception in general of what is unsuited and foreign (comp. on νυνὶ δέ) to Christian fellowship and intercourse, which serves as the presupposition for the entire exhortation. Comp. Ephesians 4:29.