Colossians 3

Colossians 3:2-3

² τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖτε, μὴ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. ³ ἀπεθάνετε γάρ, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν κέκρυπται σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ ἐν τῷ Θεῷ· in the change typified by the rite they are two aspects of the same thing, ’like the concave and convex in a circle,’ to use an old simile. The negative side—the death and burial— implies the positive side—the resurrection. Hence the form of the Apostle’s resumption, εἰ ἀπεθάνετε, εἰ οὖν συνηγέρθητε.

The change involved in baptism, if truly realised, must pervade a man’s whole nature. It affects not only his practical conduct, but his intellectual conceptions also. It is nothing less than a removal into a new sphere of being. He is translated from earth to heaven; and with this translation his point of view is altered, his standard of judgment is wholly changed. Matter is to him no longer the great enemy; his position towards it is one of absolute neutrality. Ascetic rules, ritual ordinances, have ceased to have any absolute value, irrespective of their effects. All these things are of the earth, earthy. The material, the transitory, the mundane, has given place to the moral, the eternal, the heavenly.

τὰ ἄνω ζητεῖτε κ.τ.λ.] ‘Cease to

concentrate your energies, your thoughts on mundane ordinances, and realise your new and heavenly life, of which Christ is the pole-star.’ ἐν δεξιᾷ κ.τ.λ.] ‘being seated on the right hand of God,’ where καθήμενος must not be connected with ἐστιν; see the note on ἀπόκρυφοι, ii. 3. This participial clause is pertinent and emphatic, for the session of Christ implies the session of the believer also; Ephes. ii. 4—6 ὁ δὲ Θεός…ἡμᾶς… συνεζωπούησεν…καὶ συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ κ.τ.λ.; comp. Irov. iii. 21 ὁ νικῶν, δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ μου, ὡς κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ, in the message addressed to the principal church of this district: see above, p. 42. Βαβαί, says Chrysostom, ποῦ τὸν νοῦν ἀπήγαγε τὸν ἡμέτερον; πῶς φρονήματος αὐτούς ἐπλήρωσε μεγάλου; οὐκ ἦρκει Τὰ ἄνω εἰπεῖν, οὐδὲ, Οὐ ὁ Χριστὸς ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ τί; Ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ καθήμενος· ἐκεῖθεν λοιπὸν τὴν γῆν ὁρῶν παρεσκεύαζε. 2. τὰ ἄνω] The same expression

repeated for emphasis; ‘You must not only seek heaven; you must also think heaven.’ For the opposition of τὰ ἄνω and τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς in connexion with φρονεῖν, comp. P. ii. iii. 19, 20 οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες, ἡμῶν γὰρ τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρχει; see also Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 17. Extremes meet. Here the Apostle points the antithesis to controvert a Gnostic asceticism: in the Philippian letter he uses the same contrast to denounce an Epicurean sensualism. Both alike are guilty of the same fundamental error; both alike concentrate their thoughts on material, mundane things.

3. ἀπεθάνετε] ‘ye died’ in baptism. The aorist ἀπεθάνετε denotes the past act; the perfect κέκρυπται the permanent effects. For ἀπεθάνετε see the notes on ii. 12, 20.

κέκρυπται] ‘is hidden, is buried out of sight, to the world.’ The Apostle’s argument is this: ‘When you sank under the baptismal water, you disappeared for ever to the world. You rose again, it is true, but you rose only to God. The world henceforth knows nothing of your new life, and (as a consequence) your new life must know nothing of the world.’

‘Neque Christum,’ says Bengel, ’neque Christianos novit mundus; ac ne Christiani quidem planescipsos’; comp. Joh. xiv. 17—19 τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὁ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει

COL.

Colossians 3:4

ὅταν ὁ Χριστὸς φανερωθῇ, ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν, τότε καὶ ὑμεῖς σὺν αὐτῷ φανερωθήσεσθε ἐν δόξῃ. 4. ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν.

αὐτὸ, ὑμεῖς [δὲ] γινώσκετε αὐτό…ὁ κόσμος με οὐκ ἔτι θεωρεῖ, ὑμεῖς δὲ θεωρεῖτέ με’ ὅτι ἐγὼ ζῶ, καὶ ὑμεῖς ζήσετε.

4. ὁ Χριστός] A fourth occurrence of the name of Christ in this context; comp. ver. 2 τῷ Χριστῷ, ὁ Χριστός, ver. 3 σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ. A pronoun would have been more natural, but less emphatic.

ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν] This is an advance on the previous statement, ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν κέκρυπται σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ, in two respects: (1) It is not enough to have said that the life is shared with Christ. The Apostle declares that the life is Christ. Comp. 1 Joh. v. 12 ὁ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει τὴν ζωήν, Ign. Ephes. 7 ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινή (of Christ), Siayrn. 4 Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἡμῶν ζῆν, Ephes. 3 Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τὸ ἀδιακριτὸν ἡμῶν ζῆν, Magn. 1 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ dιαπαντὸς ἡμῶν ζῆν. (2) For ὑμῶν is substituted ἡμῶν. The Apostle hastens to include himself among the recipients of the bounty. For this characteristic transition from the second person to the first see the note on ii. 13. The reading ὑμῶν here has very high support, and on this account I have given it as an alternative; but it is most probably a transcriber’s correction, for the sake of uniformity with the preceding.

τότε καὶ ὑμεῖς κ.τ.λ.] ‘The veil which now shrouds your higher life from others, and even partly from yourselves, will then be withdrawn. The world which persecutes, despises, ignores now, will then be blinded with the dazzling glory of the revelation.’ Comp. 1 Joh. iii. 1, 2 ὁ κόσμος οὐ γινώσκει ἡμᾶς, ὅτι οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτόν. ἀγαπητοί, νῦν τέκνα Θεοῦ ἐσμὲν, καὶ οὔπω ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσόμεθα’ οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα κ.τ.λ., Clem. Rom. 50 οἱ φανερωθήσονται ἐν τῇ ἐπισκοπῇ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

ἐν δόξῃ] Joh. xvii. 22 τὴν δόξαν ἦν dέδωκάς μαι, δέδωκα αὐτοῖς, Rom. viii. 17 ἵνα καὶ συνδοξασθῶμεν.

5—11. ‘So then realise this death to the world; kill all your earthly members. Is it fornication, impurity of whatever kind, passion, evil desire? Or again, is it that covetousness which makes a religion, an idolatry, of greed? Do not deceive yourselves. For all these things God’s wrath will surely come. In these sins ye, like other Gentiles, indulged in times past, when your life was spent amidst them. But now everything is changed. Now you also must put away not this or that desire, but all sins whatsoever. Anger, wrath, malice, slander, filthy abuse; banish it from your lips. Be not false one to another in word or deed; but cast off for ever the old man with his actions, and put on the new, who is renewed from day to day, growing unto perfect knowledge and refashioned after the image of his Creator. In this new life, in this regenerate man, there is not, there cannot be, any distinction of Greek or Jew, of circumcision or uncircumcision; there is no room for barbarian, for Scythian, for bond or free. Christ has displaced, has annihilated, all these; Christ is Himself all things and in all things.’

5. The false doctrine of the Gnostics had failed to check sensual indulgence (ii. 23). The true doctrine of the Apostle has power to kill the whole carnal man. The substitution of a comprehensive principle for special precepts—of the heavenly life in Christ for a code of minute ordinances—at length attains the end after which the Gnostic teachers have striven, and striven in vain.

Colossians 3:5

⁵Νεκρώσατε οὖν τὰ μέλη τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς· πορνείαν, ἀκαθαρσίαν, πάθος, ἐπιθυμίαν κακὴν, καὶ τὴν πλεον-

Νεκρώσατε οὖν] i.e. ‘Carry out this principle of death to the world (ii. 20 ἀπεθάνετε, iii. 3 ἀπεθάνετε), and kill everything that is mundane and carnal in your being.’ τὰ μέλη κ.τ.λ.] Each person has a twofold moral personality. There is in him the ‘old man,’ and there is in him also ’the new’ (vv. 9, 10). The old man with all his members must be pitilessly slain. It is plain that τὰ μέλη here is used, like ἄνθρωπος in ver. 9, not physically, but morally. Our actual limbs may be either τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς or τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐράνοις, according as they are made instruments for the world or for Christ: just as we—our whole being—may identify ourselves with the παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος or with the νέος ἄνθρωπος of our twofold potentiality. For this use of the physical, as a symbol of the moral of which it is the potential instrument, compare Matt. v. 29 sq. εἰ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ὁ δεξιὸς σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔξελε αὐτόν κ.τ.λ.

I have ventured to punctuate after τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Thus πορνείαν κ.τ.λ. are prospective accusatives, which should be governed directly by some such word as ἀπόθεσθε. But several dependent clauses interpose; the last of these incidentally suggests a contrast between the past and the present; and this contrast, predominating in the Apostle’s mind, leads to an abrupt recasting of the sentence, νυνὶ δὲ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα, in disregard of the original construction. This opposition of ποτέ and νῦν has a tendency to dislocate the construction in St Paul, as in i. 22 νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατηλλάγητε (or ἀποκατήλλαξεν), i. 26 νῦν δὲ ἐφανερώθη: see the note on this latter passage. For the whole run of the sentence (the parenthetic relative clauses, the contrast of past and present, and the broken construction)

compare Ephes. ii. 1—5 καὶ ὑμᾶς…ἐν αἴς ποτέ…ἐν οἷς καὶ…ποτε…ὁ δὲ Θεός… καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς συνεζωοποίησεν.

With the common punctuation the interpretation is equally awkward, whether we treat τὰ μέλη and πορνείαν κ.τ.λ. as in direct apposition, or as double accusatives, or in any other way. The case is best put by Severianus, σάρκα καλεῖ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἧς καὶ τὰ μέλη καταριθμεῖ…ὁ παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν τὸ φρύνημα τὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, μέλη δὲ αὐτοῦ αἱ πράξεις τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων; but this is an evasion of the difficulty, which consists in the direct apposition of the instruments and the activities, from whatever point they are viewed.

πορνείαν κ.τ.λ.] The general order is from the less comprehensive to the more comprehensive. Thus πορνεία is a special kind of uncleanness, while ἀκαθαρσία is uncleanness in any form, Ephes. v. 3 πορνεία δὲ καὶ ἀκαθαρσία πᾶσα; comp. Gal. v. 19 πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀσέλγεια, with the note there. Thus again πάθος, though frequently referring to this class of sins (Rom. i. 26, 1 Thess. iv. 5), would include other base passions which do not fall under the category of ἀκαθαρσία, as for instance gluttony and intemperance.

πάθος, ἐπιθυμίαν] The two words occur together in 1 Thess. iv. 5 μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας. So in a passage closely resembling the text, Gal. v. 24 οἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις. The same vice may be viewed as a πάθος from its passive and an ἐπιθυμία from its active side. The word ἐπιθυμία is not used here in the restricted sense which it has e.g. in Arist. Eth. Nic. ii. 4, where it ranges with anger, fear, etc., being related to πάθος as the species to the genus (see Gal. l. c. note). In the Greek Testament ἐπιθυμία has a much more

14—2

Colossians 3:6

εξίαν, ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρεία, 6δί ἃ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ comprehensive sense; e.g. Joh. viii. 44 tὰς ἐπιθυμίας τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν θέλετε ποιεῖν. Here, if anything, ἐπιθυμία is wider than πάθος. While πάθος includes all ungovernable affections, ἐπιθυμία κακῇ reaches to all evil longings. Ἰδοὺ, says Chrysostom, γενικῶς τὸ πᾶν eἶπε· πάντα γὰρ ἐπιθυμία κακῇ, βασκανία, ὀργή, λύπη. The epithet is added because ἐπιθυμία is capable of a good sense: comp. 1 Cor. x. 6 ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν.

καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν! ‘and especially covetousness.’ Impurity and covetousness may be said to divide between them nearly the whole domain of human selfishness and vice: ‘Si avaritia prostrata est, exsurgit libido’ (Cypr. de Mort. 3). The one has been already dealt with; the other needs now to be specially denounced; comp. Ephes.

v. 3 πορνεία δὲ καὶ ἀκαθαρσία πᾶσα ἢ πλεονεξία. ‘Homo extra Deum,’ says Bengel (on Rom. i. 29), ‘quærit pabulum in creatura materiali vel per voluptatem vel per avaritiam.’ Comp. Test. xii Patr. Jud. 18 φυλάξασθε

οὖν, τέκνα μου, ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας καὶ τῆς φιλαργυρίας…ὅτι ταῖτα ἀφιστῷ νόμου Θεοῦ. Similarly Lysis Pythag. 4 (Epistol. Grace. p. 602, ed. Hercher) ὡνομάξαμι δ’ ἂν αὐτῶν [i.e. the vices] πράτειν ἐπελθῶν τὰς ματέρας ἀκρασίαν τε καὶ πλεονεξίαν· ἄμφω δὲ πολύγονοι πεφύκοντι. It must be remembered

that πλεονεξία is much wider than φιλαργυρία [see Trench N. T. Syn.

xxiv. p. 77 sq.], which itself is called ῥύμι πάντων τῶν κακῶν (1 Tim. vi. 10). The attempt to give πλεονεξία here and in other passages the sense of ‘impurity’ (see e.g. Hammond on Rom.

i. 29) is founded on a misconception. The words πλεονεκτεῖν, πλεονεξία, will sometimes be used in relation to sins of uncleanness, because such may be acts of injustice also. Thus adultery is not only impurity, but it is robbery also: hence 1 Thess. iv. 6 τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαινειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν ἐν τῷ πράγματι τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ (see the note there). In other passages again there will be an accidental connexion; e.g. Ephes. iv. 19 εἰς ἐργασίαν ἀκαθαρσίας πάσης ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ, i.e. ‘with greediness,’ ‘with entire disregard for the rights of others.’ But nowhere do the words in themselves suggest this meaning. Here the particles καὶ τὴν show that a new type of sin is introduced with πλεονεξίαν: and in the parallel passage Ephes. v. 3 (quoted above) the same distinction is indicated by the change from the conjunctive particle καὶ to the disjunctive ἢ. It is an error to suppose that this sense of πλεονεξία is supported by Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 12 (p. 551 sq.) ὡς γὰρ ἡ πλεονεξία πορνεία λέγεται, τῇ αὐτορκίᾳ ἐναντιουμένη. On the converse error of explaining ἀκαθαρσία to mean ‘greediness,’ ‘covetousness,’ see the note on 1 Thess. ii. 3.

ἥτις κ.τλ.] ‘for it is idolatry’:

comp. Ephes. v. 5 πλεονέκτης, ὃ (or ὃς) ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, Polyc. Phil. 11 ‘Si quis non abstinuerit se ab avaritia, ab idololatria coinquinabitur’ (see Philippians p. 63 on the misunderstanding of this passage). The covetous man sets up another object of worship besides God. There is a sort of religious purpose, a devotion of the soul, to greed, which makes the sin of the misorse so hateful. The idea of avarice as a religion may have been suggested to St Paul by our Lord’s words, Matt. vi. 24 οὐ δένασθε Θεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ μαμωνᾷ, though it is a mistake to suppose that Mammon was the name of a Syrian deity. It appears however elsewhere in Jewish

writers of this and later ages: e.g. Philo de Mon. i. 2 (ii. p. 214 sq.) πανταχύθεν μὲν ἀργύριον καὶ χρυσίον ἐκπορίζεισι, τὸ δὲ πορισθὲν ὡς ἄγαλμα θεῖον ἐν ἀδότοις θησαυροφυλακοῦσιν (with the whole context), and Shemoth Rabba

fol. 121. 3 ‘Qui opes suas multiplicat per foenus, ille est idolatra’ (with

Colossians 3:7-8

τοῦ Θεοῦ· ⁷ἐν οἷς καὶ ὑμεῖς περιεπατήσατέ ποτε, ὅτε ἐξῆτε ἐν τούτοις· ⁸νυνὶ δὲ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα, other passages quoted by Wetstein

and Schöttgen on Ephes. v. 5). St

Chrysostom, Hom. in Joann. lxx

(VIII. p. 392 sq.), enlarges on the cult of wealth—the consecration of it, the worship paid to it, the sacrifices demanded by it: ἡ δὲ φιλαργυρία λέγει, Θῦσόν μοι τὴν σαντοῦ ψυχήν, καὶ πείθει· ὄρᾳ οἷους ἔχει βωμούς, οἷα δέχεται θύματα (p. 393). The passage in Test. xii Patr. Jud. 18 ἡ φιλαργυρία πρὸς eἴδωλα ὁδηγεῖ is no real parallel to St Paul’s language, though at first sight it seems to resemble it. For ἥτις, ‘seeing that it,’ see the note on Phil. iv. 3.

6, 7. δι’ ἃ κ.τ.λ.] The received text requires correction in two points. (1) It inserts the words ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας after τοῦ Θεοῦ. Though this insertion has preponderating support, yet the words are evidently interpolated from the parallel passage, Ephes. v. 6 διὰ ταῦτα γὰρ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας. We are therefore justified in rejecting them with other authorities, few in number but excellent in character. See the detached note on various readings. When the sentence is thus corrected, the parallelism of δι’ ἃ…ἐν οἷς καὶ…may be compared with Ephes. i. 11 ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐκληρώθημεν…ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς…ἐν ᾧ καὶ πιστεύσαντες ἐσφραγίσθητε, and ii. 21, 22 ἐν ᾧ πᾶσα [ἡ] οἰκοδομῆ…ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς συνοικοδομεῖσθε. (2) The vast preponder-

ance of authority obliges us to substitute τούτοις for αὐτοῖς.

6. ἔρχεται] This may refer either to the present and continuous dispensation, or to the future and final judgment. The present ἔρχεσθαι is frequently used to denote the certainty of a future event, e.g. Matt. xvii. 11, Joh. iv. 21, xiv. 3, whence ὁ ἐρχόμενος is a designation of the Messiah: see Winer § xl. p. 332.

7. ἐν οἷς κ.τ.λ.] The clause ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας having been struck out, ἐν οἷς must necessarily be neuter and refer to the same as δι’ ἃ. Independently of the rejection of the clause, this neuter seems more probable in itself than the masculine: for (1) The expression περιπατεῖν ἐν is most commonly used of things, not of persons, especially in this and the companion epistle: iv. 5, Ephes. ii. 2, 10, iv. 17, v. 2; (2) The Apostle would hardly denounce it as a sin in his Colossian converts that they ‘walked among the sons of disobedience’; for the Christian, though not of the world, is necessarily in the world: comp. 1 Cor. v. 10. The apparent parallel, Ephes. ii. 3 ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστραφημὲν ποτε ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν (where οἷς seems to be masculine), does not hold, because the addition ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις κ.τ.λ. makes all the difference. Thus the rejection of the clause, which was decided by textual considerations, is confirmed by exegetical reasons.

καὶ ὑμεῖς] ‘ye, like the other heathen’ (i. 6 καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν), but in the next verse καὶ ὑμεῖς is rather ‘ye yourselves,’ ‘ye notwithstanding your former lives.’ ὅτε ἐξῆτε κ.τ.λ.] ‘When ye lived in this atmosphere of sin, when ye had not yet died to the world.’ ἐν τούτοις] ‘in these things.’ We should have expected αὐτοῖς, but toύτοις is substituted as more emphatic and condemnatory: comp. Ephes. v. 6 διὰ ταῦτα γὰρ ἔρχεται κ.τ.λ. The two expressions ζῆν ἐν and περιπατεῖν ἐν involve two distinct ideas, denoting the condition of their life and the character of their practice respectively. Their conduct was conformable to

their circumstances. Comp. Gal. v. 25 eἱ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν.

Colossians 3:9

ὀργήν, θυμόν, κακίαν, βλασφημίαν, αἰσχρολογίαν ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν· ⁹ μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους· ἀπεκ8. The errors of the past suggest

the obligations of the present. Thus the Apostle returns to the topic with which the sentence commenced. But the violence of the contrast has broken up the grammar of the sentence; see the note on ver. 5.

τὰ πάντα] ’not only those vices which have been specially named before

(ver. 5), but all of whatever kind.’ The Apostle accordingly goes on to specify sins of a wholly different type from those already mentioned, sins of uncharitableness, such as anger, detraction, malice, and the like.

ὀργήν, θυμόν] ‘anger, wrath.’ The one denotes a more or less settled feeling of hatred, the other a tumultuous outburst of passion. This distinction of the two words was fixed chiefly by the definitions of the Stoics: Diog. Laert. vii. 114 ὁ δὲ θυμὸς ἐστιν ὀργὴ ἀρχομένη. So Ammonius θυμὸς

μὲν ἐστι πρόσκαιρος, ὀργὴ δὲ πολυχρόνιος μνησικακία, Greg. Naz. Carm. 34 (II. p. 612) θυμὸς μὲν ἐστιν ἀθρόος ξέσις φρενές, ὀργὴ δὲ θυμὸς ἐμμένων. They may be represented in Latin by ira and furor; Sence. de Ira ii. 36 ‘Ajacem in mortem egit furor, in furorem ira,’ and Jerome in Ephes. iv. 31 ‘Furor incipiens ira est’: see Trench N. T. Syn. § xxxvii, p. 123 sq. On other synonymes connected with θυμὸς and ὀργὴ see the note on Ephes. iv. 31.

κακίαν] ‘malice,’ or ‘malignity,’ as it may be translated in default of a better word. It is not (at least in the New Testament) vice generally, but the vicious nature which is bent on doing harm to others, and is well defined by Calvin (on Ephes. iv. 31) ‘animi pravitas, quae humanitati et aequitati est opposita.’ This will be evident from the connexion in which it appears, e.g. Rom. i. 29, Eph. iv. 31, Tit. iii. 3. Thus κακία and πονηρία (which frequently occur together, e.g. 1 Cor. v. 8) only differ in so far as the one denotes rather the vicious disposition, the other the active exercise of it. The word is carefully investigated in Trench N. T. Syn. § xi. p. 35 sq. βλασφημίαν] ’evil speaking, railing, slandering,’ as frequently, e.g. Rom. iii. 8, xiv. 16, 1 Cor. iv. 13 (v. l.), x. 30, Ephes. iv. 31, Tit. iii. 2. The word has the same twofold sense, ’evil speaking’ and ‘blasphemy,’ in classical writers, which it has in the New Testament.

αἰσχρολογίαν] ‘foul-mouthed abuse.’ The word, as used elsewhere, has two meanings: (1) ‘Filthy-talking,’ as defined in Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 6 (p. 189 sq.), where it is denounced at length: comp. Arist. Pol. vii. 17, Epict. Man. 33, Plut. Mor. 9, and so commonly; (2) ‘Abusive language,’ as e.g. Polyb. viii. 13. 8, xii. 13. 3, xxxi. 10. 4. If the two senses of the word had been quite distinct, we might have had some difficulty in choosing between them here. The former sense is suggested by the parallel passage Ephes. v. 4 αἰσχρότης καὶ μωρολογία ἢ eὐτραπελία; the second by the connexion with βλασφημία here. But the second sense is derived from the first. The word can only mean ‘abuse,’ when the abuse is ‘foul-mouthed.’

And thus we may suppose that both ideas, ‘filthiness’ and ’evil-speaking,’ are included here.

9. ἀπεκδυσάμενοι κ.τ.λ.] ‘putting

off.’ Do these aorist participles describe an action coincident with or prior to the ψεύδεσθε? In other words are they part of the command, or do they assign the reason for the command? Must they be rendered

‘putting off,’ or ‘seeing that ye did (at your baptism) put off’? The former seems the more probable interpretation; for (1) Though both ideas are

Colossians 3:10-11

δυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ, ¹⁰καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον, τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ’ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν· ¹¹ὅπου found in St Paul, the imperative is the more usual; e.g. Rom. xiii. 12 sq. ἀποθώμεθα οὖν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ σκότους, ἐνδυσώμεθα δὲ τὰ ὅπλα τοῦ φωτός… ἐνδύσασθε τὸν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, Ephes. vi. 11 ἐνδύσασθε τὴν πανοπλίαν with ver. 14 στῆτε οὖν… ἐνδυσάμενοι κ.τ.λ., 1 Thess. v. 8 νήφωμεν ἐνδυσάμενοι κ.τ.λ. The one exception is Gal. iii. 27 ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνδύσασθε. (2) The ‘putting on’ in the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 24, is imperative, not affirmative, whether we read ἐνδύσασθαι or ἐνδύσασθε. (3) The participles here are followed immediately by an imperative in the context, ver. 12 ἐνδύσασθε οὖν, where the idea seems to be the same. For the synchronous aorist participle see Winer § xlv. p. 430. St Paul uses ἀπεκδυσάμενοι, ἐνδυσάμενοι (not ἀπεκδύσασθαι, ἐνδύσασθε), for the same reason for which he uses ἐνδύσασθε (not ἐνδύσασθε), because it is a thing to be done once for all. For the double compound ἀπεκδύσασθαι see the notes on ii. 11, 15.

παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον] as Rom. vi. 6, Ephes. iv. 22. With this expression compare ὁ ἔξω, ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος, Rom. vii. 22, 2 Cor. iv. 16, Ephes. iii. 16; ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος, 1 Pet. iii. 4; ὁ μικρὸς μου ἄνθρωπος, ‘my insignificance,’ Polycr. in Euseb. H. E. v. 24.

10. τὸν νέον κ.τ.λ.] In Ephes. iv. 24 it is ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον. Of the two words νέος and καινός, the former refers solely to time, the other denotes quality also; the one is new as being young, the other new as being fresh: the one is opposed to long duration, the other to effeteness; see Trench N. T. Syn. § lx. p. 206. Here the idea which is wanting to νέος, and which καινός gives in the parallel passage, is more than supplied by the addition τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον κ.τ.λ.

The νέος or καινὸς ἄνθρωπος in these passages is not Christ Himself, as the parallel expression Χριστὸν ἐνδύσασθαι might suggest, and as it is actually used in Ign. Ephes. 20 εἰς τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, but the regenerate man formed after Christ. The idea here is the same as in καινὴ κτίσις, 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15: comp. Rom. vi. 4 καινότης ζωῆς, Barnab. 16 ἐγενόμεθα καινοί, πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς κτιζόμενοι.

τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον] ‘which is ever being renewed.’ The force of the present tense is explained by 2 Cor. iv. 16 ὁ ἔσω ἡμῶν [ἄνθρωπος] ἀνακαινοῦται ἡμέρα καὶ ἡμέρα. Compare also the use of the tenses in the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 22 sq. ἀποθίσθαι, ἀνανεοῦσθαι, ἐνδύσασθαι. For the opposite see Ephes. iv. 22 τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν φθειρόμενον κ.τ.λ.

εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν] ‘unto perfect knowledge,’ the true knowledge in Christ, as opposed to the false knowledge of the heretical teachers. For the implied contrast see above, pp. 44, 99 sq. (comp. the notes on i. 9, ii. 3), and for the word ἐπίγνωσις the note on i. 9. The words here are to be connected closely with ἀνακαινούμενον: comp. Heb. vi. 6 πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν.

κατ’ εἰκόνα κ.τ.λ.] The reference is to Gen. i. 26 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεός, Ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ’ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν κ.τ.λ.; comp. ver. 28 κατ’ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν. See also Ephes. iv. 24 τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθέντα. This reference however does not imply an identity of the creation here mentioned with the creation of Genesis, but only an analogy between

Colossians 3:11

οὐκ ἔνι Ἕλλην καὶ Ἰουδαῖος, περιτομὴ καὶ ἀκροβυστία,

the two. The spiritual man in each believer’s heart, like the primal man in the beginning of the world, was created after God’s image. The καινὴ κτίσις in this respect resembles the ἀρχαία κτίσις. The pronoun αὐτὸν cannot be referred to anything else but the νέος ἄνθρωπος, the regenerate man; and the aorist κτίσαντος (compare κτισθέντα in the parallel passage Ephes. iv. 24) refers to the time of this ἀναγέννησις in Christ. See Barnab. 6 ἀνακαινίσας ἡμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀφέσει τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς ἄλλον τύπον…ὡσάν δὴ ἀναπλάσσοντος αὐτοῦ ἡμᾶς, after which Gen. i. 26 is quoted. The new birth was a recreation in God’s image; the subsequent life must be a deepening of this image thus stamped upon the man.

The allusion to Genesis therefore requires us to understand τοῦ κτίσαντος of God, and not of Christ, as it is taken by St Chrysostom and others; and this seems to be demanded also by the common use of ὁ κτίσας. But if Christ is not ὁ κτίσας, may He not be intended by the εἰκὼν τοῦ κτίσαντος! In favour of this interpretation it may be urged (1) That Christ elsewhere is called the εἰκὼν of God, i. 15, 2 Cor. iv. 4; (2) That the Alexandrian school interpreted the term in Gen. i. 26 as denoting the Logos; thus Philo de Mund. Op. 6 (i. p. 5 M) τὸ ἀρχέτυπον παράδειγμα, ἰδεῖα τῶν ἰδεῶν ὁ Θεοῦ λόγος (comp. ib. §§ 7, 23, 24, 48), Fragm. II. p. 625 M θητὸν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἀπεικονισθῆναι πρὸς τὸν ἀνωτάτω καὶ πατέρα τῶν ὅλων ἐδύνατο, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸν δεύτερον Θεὸν ὃς ἐστιν ἐκείνου λόγος κ.τ.λ. Leg. Alleg. i. 31, 32 (i. p. 106 sq.). Hence Philo speaks of the first man as εἰκὼν εἰκόνος (de Mund. Op. 6), and as παγκάλου παραδείγματος πάγκαλον μίμημα (ib. § 48). A pregnant meaning is thus given to κατά, and κατ’ εἰκόνα is rendered ‘after the fashion (or pattern) of the Image.’ But this interpretation seems very improbable in

St Paul; for (1) In the parallel passage Ephes. iv. 24 the expression is simply κατά Θεόν, which may be regarded as equivalent to κατ’ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος here; (2) The Alexandrian explanation of Gen. i. 26 just quoted is very closely allied to the Platonic doctrine of ideas (for the εἰκών, so interpreted, is the archetype or ideal pattern of the sensible world), and thus it lies outside the range of those conceptions which specially recommended the Alexandrian terminology of the Logos to the Apostles, as a fit vehicle for communicating the truths of Christianity.

11. ὅπου] i.e. ‘in this regenerate life, in this spiritual region into which the believer is transferred in Christ.’ οὐκ ἔνι] ‘Not only does the distinction not exist, but it cannot exist.’ It is a mundane distinction, and therefore it has disappeared. For the sense of ἔνι, negating not merely the fact, but the possibility, see the note on Gal. iii. 28.

Ἕλλην κ.τ.λ.] Comparing the enumeration here with the parallel passage Gal. iii. 28, we mark this difference. In Galatians the abolition of all distinctions is stated in the broadest way by the selection of three typical instances; religious prerogative (Ἰουδαῖος, Ἕλλην), social caste (δοῦλος, ἐλεύθερος), natural sex (ἔρσεν, θῆλυ). Here on the other hand the examples are chosen with special reference to the immediate circumstances of the Colossian Church. (1) The Judaism of the Colossian heretics is met by Ἕλλην καὶ Ἰουδαῖος, and as it manifested itself especially in enforcing circumcision, this is further emphasized by περιτομὴ καὶ ἀκροβυστία (see above, p. 73). (2) Their Gnosticism again is met by βάρβαρος, Σκύθης. They laid special stress on intelligence, penetration, gnosis. The Apostle offers the full privileges of the Gospel to barbarians and even barbarians of the low-

βάρβαρος, Σκύθης, δοῦλος, ἐλεύθερος, ἀλλὰ τὰ πάντα

est type (see p. 99 sq.). In Rom. i. 14 the division Ἑλλησίν τε καὶ βαρβάροις is almost synonymous with σοφοῖς τε καὶ ἀνοήτοις. (3) Special circumstances, connected with an eminent member of the Church of Colossae, had directed his attention at this moment to the relation of masters and slaves. Hence he cannot leave the subject without adding δοῦλος, ἐλεύθερος, though this has no special bearing on the Colossian heresy. See above, p. 33, and the note on iii. 22, together with the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon.

περιτομὴ κ.τ.λ.] Enforcing and extending the lesson of the previous clause. This abolition of distinctions applies to religious privilege, not only as inherited by birth (Ἑλλην καὶ Ἰουδαῖος), but also as assumed by adoption (περιτομὴ καὶ ἀκροβυστία). If it is no advantage to be born a Jew, it is none to become as a Jew; comp. 1 Cor. vii. 19, Gal. v. 6, vi. 15.

βάρβαρος] To the Jew the whole world was divided into Ἰουδαῖοι and Ἑλληνες, the privileged and unprivileged portions of mankind, religious prerogative being taken as the line of demarcation (see notes Gal. ii. 3). To the Greek and Roman it was similarly divided into Ἑλληνες and βάρβαροι, again the privileged and unprivileged portion of the human race, civilisation and culture being now the criterion of distinction. Thus from the one point of view the Ἑλλην is contrasted disadvantageously with the Ἰουδαῖος, while from the other he is contrasted advantageously with the βάρβαρος. Both distinctions are equally antagonistic to the Spirit of the Gospel. The Apostle declares both alike null and void in Christ. The twofold character of the Colossian heresy enables him to strike at these two opposite forms of error with one blow.

The word βάρβαρος properly denoted one who spoke an inarticulate, stammering, unintelligible language; see Max Müller Lectures on the Science of Language 1st ser. p. 81 sq., 114 sq., Farrar Families of Speech p. 21: comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 11. Hence it was adopted by Greek exclusiveness and pride to stigmatize the rest of mankind, a feeling embodied in the proverb πᾶς μὴ Ἑλλην βάρβαρος (Servius on Verg. Acn. ii. 504); comp. Plato Polit. 262 Ἐ τὸ μὲν Ἑλληνικὸν ὡς ἐν ἀπὸ πάντων ἀφαιροῦντες χωρὶς, σύμπασι δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις γένεσιν…βάρβαρον μιᾷ κλήσει προσεῖποντες αὐτὸ κ.τ.λ., Dionys. Hal. Rhei. xi. 5 δοπλοῦν δὲ τὸ ἔθνος, Ἑλλην ἢ βάρβαρος κ.τ.λ. So Philo Vit. Moys. ii. 5 (II. p. 138) speaks of τὸ ἥμισυ τμῆμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπων γένοις, τὸ βαρβαρικόν, as opposed to τὸ Ἑλληνικόν. It is not necessary to suppose that they adopted it from the Egyptians, who seem to have called non-Egyptian peoples herber (see Sir G. Wilkinson in Rawlinson’s Herod. ii. 158); for the onomatopœia will explain its origin independently, Strabo xiv. 2. 28 (p. 662) οἶμαι δὲ τὸ βάρβαρον κατ’ ἀρχὰς ἐκπεφωνῆσθαι οὕτως κατ’ ὀνοματοποίαν ἐπὶ τῶν δυσεκφόρως καὶ σκληρῶς καὶ τραχέως λαλούντων, ὡς τὸ βατταρίζειν κ.τ.λ. The Latins, adopting the Greek culture, adopted the Greek distinction also, e.g. Cic. de Fin. ii. 15 ‘Non solum Graecia et Italia, sed etiam omnis barbaria’: and accordingly Dionysius, Ant. Rom. i. 69, classes the Romans with the Greeks as distinguished from the ‘barbarians’—this twofold division of the human race being taken for granted as absolute and final. So too in v. 8, having mentioned the Romans, he goes on to speak of οἱ ἄλλοι Ἑλληνες. The older Roman poets however, writing from a Greek point of view, (more than half in irony) speak of themselves as barbari and of their country as barbaria; e.g. Plant. Mil. Glor. ii. 2. 58 ‘poetae barbaro’ (of Naevins), Asin. Prol. 11.

Colossians 3:12

καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν Χριστός. $^(12)$ἐνδύσασθε οὖν, ὡς ἐκλεκτοί

‘Maccus vortit barbare,’ Poen. iii. 2. 21 ‘in barbaria boves.’

In this classification the Jews necessarily ranked as ‘barbarians’; Orig. c. Cels. i. 2. At times Philo seems tacitly to accept this designation (Vit. Moys. l. c.); but elsewhere he resents it, Leg. ad Gai. 31 (II. p. 578) ὑπὸ φρονήματος, ὡς μὲν ἔνιοι τῶν διαβαλλόντων εἴποιεν ἂν, βαρβαρικοῦ, ὡς δ’ ἔχει τὸ ἀληθές, ἐλευθερίου καὶ εὐγενοῦς. On the other hand the Christian Apologists with a true instinct glory in the ‘barbarous’ origin of their religion: Justin Apol. i. 5 (p. 56 λ) ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν βαρβάροις ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Λόγου μορφωθέντος καὶ ἀνθρώπου γενομένου, ib. § 46 (p. 83 υ) ἐν βαρβάροις δὲ Ἀβραάμ κ.τ.λ., Tatian. ad Graec. 29 γραφαῖς τισὶν ἐντυχεῖν βαρβαρικαῖς, ib. 31 τὸν δὲ (Μωυσῆν) πάσης βαρβάρου σοφίας ἀρχηγόν, ib. 35 τῆς καθ’ ἡμᾶς βαρβάρου φιλοσοφίας. By glorying in the name they gave a practical comment on the Apostle’s declaration that the distinction of Greek and barbarian was abolished in Christ. In a similar spirit Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 16 (p. 361) endeavours to prove that οὐ μόνον φιλοσοφίας ἀλλὰ καὶ πάσης σχεδὸν τέχνης εὑρεταὶ βάρβαροι.

‘Not till that word barbarian,’ writes Prof. Max Müller (l. c. p. 118), ‘was struck out of the dictionary of mankind and replaced by brother, not till the right of all nations of the world to be classed as members of one genus or kind was recognised, can we look even for the first beginnings of our science. This change was effected by Christianity… Humanity is a word which you look for in vain in Plato or Aristotle; the idea of mankind as one family, as the children of one God, is an idea of Christian growth: and the science of mankind, and of the languages of mankind, is a science which, without Christianity, would never have sprung into life. When people had been taught to look upon all men as brethren, then and then only, did the variety of human speech present itself as a problem that called for a solution in the eyes of thoughtful observers: and I therefore date the real beginning of the science of language from the first day of Pentecost… The common origin of mankind, the differences of race and language, the susceptibility of all nations of the highest mental culture, these become, in the new world in which we live, problems of scientific, because of more than scientific interest.’ St Paul was the great exponent of the fundamental principle in the Christian Church which was symbolized on the day of Pentecost, when he declared, as here, that in Christ there is neither Ἕλλην nor βάρβαρος, or as in Rom. i. 14 that he himself was a debtor equally Ἕλλησίν τε καὶ βαρβάροις.

The only other passage in the New Testament (besides those quoted) in which βάρβαρος occurs is Acts xxviii. 2, 4, where it is used of the people of Melita. If this Melita be Malta, they would be of Phoenician descent.

Σκύθης) The lowest type of barbarian. There is the same collocation of words in Dionys. Halic. Rhet. xi. 5, 6 πατήρ, βάρβαρος, Σκύθης, νέος, Aesch. c. Ctes. 172 Σκύθης, βάρβαρος, Ἑλληνίζων τῇ φωνῇ (of Demosthenes). The savageness of the Scythians was proverbial. The earlier Greek writers indeed, to whom omne ignotum was pro magnifico, had frequently spoken of them otherwise (see Strabo vii. 3. 7 sq., p. 300 sq.). Aeschylus for instance called them εὔνομοι Σκύθαι, Fragm. 189 (comp. Eum. 703). Like the other Hyperboreans, they were a simple, righteous people, living beyond the vices and the miseries of civilisation. But the common estimate was far different, and probably far more true: e.g. 3 Macc. vii. 5 νόμου Σκυθῶν ἀγριωτέραν…ὠμότητα (comp. 2 Macc. iv. 47), Joseph.

τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἅγιοι [καὶ] ἠγαπημένοι, σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ, c. Ap. ii. 37 Σκύθαι…βραχὺ τῶν θηρίων διαφέροντες, Philo Leg. ad Gai. 2 (II. p. 547) Σαρματῶν γένη καὶ Σκυθῶν, ἄπερ οὐχ ἦττον ἐξηγρίωται τῶν Γερμανικῶν, Tertuli. ado. Marc. i. 1 ‘Scytha tetrior,’ Orig. c. Cels. i. 1 Σκυθῶν, καὶ εἴ τι Σκυθῶν ἀσεβέστερον. In Vit. Moys. ii. 4 (I. p. 137) Philo seems to place the Egyptians and the Scythians at the two extremes in the scale of barbarian nations. The passages given in Wetstein from classical writers are hardly less strong in the same direction. Anacharsis the Scythian is said to have retorted ἐμοὶ δὲ πάντες Ἕλληνες σκυθίζουσιν, Clem. Strom. i. 16 (p. 364).

The Jews had a special reason for their unfavourable estimate of the Scythians. In the reign of Josiah hordes of these northern barbarians had deluged Palestine and a great part of Western Asia (Herod. i. 103—106). The incident indeed is passed over in silence in the historical books; but the terror inspired by these invaders has found expression in the prophets (Ezek. xxviii, xxxix, Jer. i. 13 sq., vi. 1 sq.), and they left behind them a memorial in the Greek name of Beth-shean, Σκυθῶν πόλις (Judith iii. 10, 2 Macc. xii. 29: comp. Judges i. 27 LXX) or Σκυθόπολις, which seems to have been derived from a settlement on this occasion (Pliu. N. II. v. 16; see Ewald Gesch. III. p. 689 sq., Grove s.v. Scythopolis in Smith’s Bibl. Dict.).

Hence Justin, Dial. § 28 (p. 246 A), describing the largeness of the new dispensation, says κᾶν Σκύθης ᾖ τις ἢ Πέρσης, ἔχει δὲ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ γνῶσιν καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ φυλάσσει τὰ αἰώνια δίκαια…φίλος ἐστὶ τῷ Θεῷ, where he singles out two different but equally low types of barbarians, the Scythians being notorious for their ferocity, the Persians for their licentiousness (Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 7, p. 131, Strom. iii. 2, p. 515, and the Apologists generally). So too the Pseudo-Lucian, Philopatris 17, satirising Christianity, KP. τόξε εἶπε, εἰ καὶ τὰ τῶν Σκυθῶν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἐγχαράττουσι. TP. πάντα, εἰ τύχοι γε χρηστός καὶ ἐν ἔθνεσι. From a misconception of this passage in the Colossians, heresiologers distinguished four main forms of heresy in the pre-Christian world, βαρβαρισμός, σκυθισμός, ἑλληνισμός, ἰουδαϊσμός; so Epiphan. Epist. ad Acac. 2 σαφῶς γὰρ περὶ τούτων τῶν τεσσάρων αἰρέσεων ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐπιτεμὼν ἔφη, Ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ οὐ βάρβαρος, οὐ Σκύθης, οὐχ Ἕλλην, οὐκ Ἰουδαῖος, ἀλλὰ καινῇ κτίσις: comp. Haec. i. 4, 7 sq., I. pp. 5, 8 sq., Anaceph. II. pp. 127, 129 sq.

τὰ πάντα κ.τ.λ.] ‘Christ is all things and in all things.’ Christ has dispossessed and obliterated all distinctions of religious prerogative and intellectual preeminence and social caste; Christ has substituted Himself for all these; Christ occupies the whole sphere of human life and permeates all its developments: comp. Ephes. i. 23 τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου. For τὰ πάντα, which is stronger than οἱ πάντες, see Gal. iii. 22 συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραφὴ τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν with the note. In this passage ἐν πᾶσιν is probably neuter, as in 2 Cor. xi. 6, Phil. iv. 12, 1 Tim. iii. 11, 2 Tim. ii. 7, iv. 5, Ephes. iv. 6, vi. 16.

In the parallel passage Gal. iii. 28 the corresponding clause is πάντες ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστὲ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. The inversion here accords with a chief motive of the epistle, which is to assert the absolute and universal supremacy of Christ; comp. i. 17 sq., ii. 10 sq., 19. The two parts of the antithesis are combined in our Lord’s saying, Joh. xiv. 20 ὑμεῖς ἐν ἐμοί, κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν.

12—15. ‘Therefore, as the elect of God, as a people consecrated to His service and specially endowed with His love, array yourselves in hearts of compassion, in kindness and humi-

χρηστότητα, ταπεινοφρόσυνην, πραΰτητα, μακροθυ-

lity, in a gentle and yielding spirit. Bear with one another, forgive freely among yourselves. As your Master forgave you His servants, so ought ye to forgive your fellow-servants. And over all these robe yourselves in love; for this is the garment which binds together all the graces of perfection. And let the one supreme umpire in your hearts, the one referee amidst all your difficulties, be the peace of Christ, which is the destined goal of your Christian calling, in which is realised the unity belonging to members of one body. Lastly of all; show your gratitude by your thanksgiving.

12. ἐνδύσασθε οὖν] ‘Put on therefore,’ as men to whom Christ has become all in all. The incidental mention of Christ as superseding all other relations gives occasion to this argumentative οὖν: comp. iii. 1, 5.

ὡς ἐκλεκτοί τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘as elect ones of God.’ Comp. Rom. viii. 3, Tit. i. 1. In the Gospels κλητοί and ἐκλεκτοί are distinguished as an outer and an inner circle (Matt. xxii. 14 πολλοὶ γὰρ εἰσιν κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί), κλητοί being those summoned to the privileges of the Gospel and ἐκλεκτοί those appointed to final salvation (Matt. xxiv. 22, 24, 31, Mark xiii. 20, 22, 27, Luke xviii. 7). But in St Paul no such distinction can be traced. With him the two terms seem to be coextensive, as two aspects of the same process, κλητοί having special reference to the goal and ἐκλεκτοί to the starting-point. The same persons are ‘called’ to Christ, and ‘chosen out’ from the world. Thus in 1 Thess. i. 4 εἰδότες τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν κ.τ.λ. the word clearly denotes election to Church-membership. Thus also in 2 Tim. ii. 10, where St Paul says that he endures all things διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς, adding ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ σωτηρίας τύχωσιν κ.τ.λ., the uncertainty implied in these last words clearly shows that election to final salvation is not meant. In the same sense he speaks of an individual Christian as ’elect,’ Rom. xvi. 13. And again in 1 Cor. i. 26, 27 βλέπετε τὴν κλῆσιν ὑμῶν…τὰ μῶρα τοῦ κόσμου ἐξελέξατο, the words appear as synonyms. The same is also the usage of St Peter. Thus in an opening salutation he addresses whole Christian communities as ἐκλεκτοί (1 Pet. i. 1; comp. v. 13 ἡ συνεκλεκτὴ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι, i.e. probably ἐκκλησία), as St Paul under similar circumstances (Rom. i. 6, 7, 1 Cor. i. 2) designates them κλητοί; and in another passage (2 Pet. i. 10) he appeals to his readers to make their κλῆσις and ἐκλογή sure. The use of ἐκλεκτός in 2 Joh. 1, 13, is apparently the same; and in Apoc. xvii. 14 οἱ μετ’ αὐτοῦ κλητοὶ καὶ ἐκλεκτοὶ καὶ πιστοί this is also the case, as we may infer from the addition of πιστοί, which points to those who have been true to their ‘calling and election.’ Thus the Gospels stand alone in this respect. In fact ἐκλογή denotes election by God not only to final salvation, but to any special privilege or work, whether it be (1) Church-membership, as in the passages cited from the epistles; or (2) The work of preaching, as when St Paul (Acts ix. 15) is called σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς, the object of the ’election’ being defined in the words following, τοῦ βυστάσαι τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐνώπιον [τῶν] ἐθνῶν τε καὶ βασιλέων κ.τ.λ.; or (3) The Messiahship, 1 Pet. ii. 4, 6; or (4) The fatherhood of the chosen people, as in the case of Isaac and Jacob, Rom. ix. 11; or (5) The faithful remnant under the theocracy, Rom. xi. 5, 7, 28. This last application presents the closest analogy to the idea of final salvation: but even here St Paul treats κλῆσις and ἐκλογή as co-extensive, Rom. xi. 28, 29 κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκλογὴν ἀγαπητοὶ διὰ τοὺς πατέρας ἀμεταμέλητα γὰρ τὰ χαρίσματα καὶ ἡ κλῆσις τοῦ Θεοῦ.

ἅγιοι κ.τ.λ.] These are not to be taken as vocatives, but as predicates

Colossians 3:13

μίαν· ¹³ ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων, καὶ χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς,

further defining the meaning of ἐκλεκτοί. All the three terms ἐκλεκτοί, ἅγιοι, ἠγαπημένοι, are transferred from the Old Covenant to the New, from the Israel after the flesh to the Israel after the Spirit. For the two former comp. 1 Pet. ii. 9 γένος ἐκλεκτὸν … ἔθνος ἅγιον; and for the sense of ἅγιοι, ’the consecrated people of God,’ see the note on Phil. i. 1. For the third word, ἠγαπημένοι, see Is. v. 1 Ἄσω δὴ τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ κ.τ.λ., Hos. ii. 25 τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην ἠγαπημένην (as quoted in Rom. ix. 25). In the New Testament it seems to be used always of the objects of God’s love; e.g. 1 Thess. i. 4 εἰδότες, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν, 2 Thess. ii. 13 ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ Κυρίου (comp. Jude 1); and so probably Rev. xx. 9 τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἠγαπημένην. For the connexion of God’s election and God’s love see Rom. xi. 28 (quoted above), 1 Thess. l. c. The καὶ is omitted in one or two excellent copies (though it has the great preponderance of authorities in its favour), and it is impossible not to feel how much the sentence gains in force by the omission, ἐκλεκτὰ Θεοῦ, ἅγιοι, ἠγαπημένοι; comp. 1 Pet. ii. 6.

ἀπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ] ‘a heart of pity.’ For the meaning of ἀπλάγχνα see the note on Phil. i. 8, and for the whole expression comp. ἀπλάγχνα ἐλέους Luke i. 78, Test. et Pat. Zab. 7. 8.

χρηστότητα κ.τ.λ.] The two words χρηστότης and ταπεινοφροσύνη, ‘kindliness’ and ‘humility,’ describe the Christian temper of mind generally, and this in two aspects, as it affects either (1) our relation to others (χρηστότης), or (2) our estimate of self (ταπεινοφροσύνη). For χρηστότης see the note on Gal. v. 22: for ταπεινοφροσύνη, the note on Phil. ii. 3.

πραΰτητα κ.τ.λ.] These next two words, πραΰτης and μακροθυμία, denote the exercise of the Christian temper in its outward bearing towards others. They are best distinguished by their opposites. πραΰτης is opposed to ‘rudeness, harshness,’ ἀγριζόμενοι (Plato Symp. 197 D), χαλεπύτης (Arist. H. A. ix. 1); μακροθυμία to ‘resentment, revenge, wrath,’ ὀργή (Prov. xvi. 32), ὀξυχολία (Herm. Mand. v. 1, 2). For the meaning of μακροθυμία see above, on i. 11; for the form of πραΰτης (πραΰτης), on Gal. v. 23. The words are discussed in Trench N. T. Syn. § xlii. p. 140 sq., § xliii. p. 145 sq., § liii. p. 184 sq. They appear in connexion Ephes. iv. 2, Ign. Polyc. 6 μακροθυμήσατε οὖν μετ’ ἀλλήλων ἐν πραΰτητι.

13. ἀλλήλων, ἑαυτοῖς] The pronoun is varied, as in Ephes. iv. 32 γίνεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους χρηστοί… χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς κ.τ.λ., 1 Pet. iv. 8—10 τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες … φιλόξενοι εἰς ἀλλήλους… εἰς ἑαυτοὺς αὐτὸ [τὸ χάρισμα] διακονοῦντες. The reciprocal ἑαυτῶν differs from the reciprocal ἀλλήλων in emphasizing the idea of corporate unity: hence it is more appropriate here comp. Ephes. iv. 2, 32: with χαριζόμενοι than with ἀνεχόμενοι: comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 16 ἀντὶ μὲν τοῦ συνεργεῖν ἑαυτοῖς τὰ συμφέροντα, ἐπηρεάζουσιν ἀλλήλοις, καὶ φθονοῦσιν ἑαυτοῖς μᾶλλον ἢ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀνθρώποις… καὶ προαιροῦνται μᾶλλον οὕτω κερδαίνειν ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων ἢ συναφελοῦντες αὐτούς, where the propriety of the two words in their respective places will be evident: and in. ii. 7. 12 ἀντὶ ὑφρορωμένων ἑαυτὰς ἠξέως ἀλλήλας ἑώρων, where the variation is more subtle but not less appropriate. For instances of this use of ἑαυτῶν see Bleck Hebräerbrief iii. 13 (p. 453 sq.), Kühner Griech. Gramm. § 455 (II. p. 497 sq.).

χαριζόμενοι] i.e. ‘forgiving’; see the note on ii. 13. An a fortiori argument lurks under the use of ἑαυτοῖς (rather than ἀλλήλοις): if Christ forgave them, much more should they forgive themselves.

Colossians 3:14

ἐάν τις πρὸς τινα ἔχῃ μομφήν· καθὼς καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν, οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς· ¹⁴ἐπὶ πᾶσιν δὲ τούτοις μομφήν] ‘a complaint.’ As μέμ-

φεσθαι is ’to find fault with,’ referring most commonly to errors of omission, so μομφή here is regarded as a debt, which needs to be remitted. The rendering of the A. V. ‘a quarrel’ (=querela) is only wrong as being an archaism. The phrase μομφὴν ἔχειν occurs several times in classical Greek, but generally in poetry: e.g. Eur. Orest. 1069, Arist. Pax 664.

καθὼς καὶ κ.τ.λ.] This must not be connected with the preceding words, but treated as an independent sentence, the καθὼς καὶ being answered by the οὕτως καὶ. For the presence of καὶ in both clauses of the comparison see the note on i. 6. The phenomenon is common in the best classical writers, e.g. Xen. Mem. i. 6. 3 ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἔργων οἱ διδάσκαλοι…οὕτω καὶ σὺ κ.τ.λ.; see the references in Heindorf on Plato Phaedo 64 c, Sophist. 217 B, and Kühner Griech. Gramm.

§ 524 (II. p. 799).

ὁ Κύριος] This reading, which is better supported than ὁ Χριστός, is also more expressive. It recalls more directly the lesson of the parable which enforces the duty of fellowservant to fellow-servant; Matt. xviii. 27 σπλαγχνισθεὶς δὲ ὁ κύριος τοῦ

δούλου ἐκεῖνον ἀπέλυσεν αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ δάνειον ἀφήκεν αὐτῷ κ.τ.λ.: comp. below iv. 1 εἰδότες ὅτι καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔχετε κύριον ἐνούρανῳ. The reading Χριστὸς perhaps comes from the parallel passage Ephes. iv. 32 χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἐν Χριστῷ ἐχαρίσατο ἡμῖν (or ὑμῖν). οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς] sc. χαρίζεσθε ἑαυτοῖς.

14. ἐπὶ πᾶσιν] ‘over and above all these,’ comp. Luke iii. 20 προσέθηκεν καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ πᾶσιν. In Luke xvi. 26, Ephes. vi. 16, the correct reading is probably ἐν πᾶσιν. Love is the outer garment which holds the others in their places.

τὴν ἀγάπην] sc. ἐνδύσασθε, from ver. 12.

ὅ] ‘which thing,’ i.e. ’love’; comp. Ephes. v. 5 πλεονέκτης, ὃ ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, Ign. Rom. 7 ἄρτον Θεοῦ θέλω, ὃ ἐστιν σάρξ Χριστοῦ, Magn. 10 μεταβόλεσθε εἰς νέαν ζύμην ὃ ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Trall. 8 ἀνακτήσασθε ἑαυτοὺς ἐν πίστει ὃ ἐστιν σάρξ τοῦ Κυρίου. Though there are various readings in the passages of the Ignatian Epistles, the ὃ seems to be generally right. These instances will show that ὃ may be referred to τὴν ἀγάπην alone. Otherwise we might suppose the antecedent to be τὸ ἐνδύσασθαι τὴν ἀγάπην, but this hardly suits the sense. The common reading ἥτις is obviously a scribe’s correction.

σύνδεσμος κ.τ.λ.] ’the bond of perfection,’ i.e. the power, which unites and holds together all those graces and virtues, which together make up perfection. Πάντα ἐκεῖνα, says Chryssostom, αὕτη συσφίγγει· ὅπερ ὃν εἴπης ἀγαθόν, ταύτης ἀπούσης οὐδὲν ἐστιν ἀλλὰ διαρρεῖ: comp. Clem. Rom. 49

τὸν δεσμὸν τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Θεοῦ τίς δύναται ἐξηγήσασθαι; Thus the Pythagoreans (Simplic. in Epictet. p. 208 A) περισσῶς τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν τὴν φιλίαν ἐτίμων καὶ σύνδεσμον αὐτὴν πασῶν τῶν ἀρετῶν ἔλεγον. So too Themist. Orat. i. (p. 5 c) βασιλικὴ (ἀρετὴ) παρὰ τὰς ἄλλας εἰς ἣν ξυνδοῦνται καὶ αἱ λοιπαί, ὥσπερ εἰς μίαν κορυφὴν ἀνημμέναι.

The word will take a genitive either of the object bound or of the binding force: e.g. Plato Polit. 310 A τοῦτον θειότερον εἶναι τὸν ξύνδεσμον ἀρετῆς μερῶν φύσεως ἀνομοίων καὶ ἐπὶ τἀναντία φερομένων, where the ἀρετὴ ξυνδεῖ and the μέρη· φύσεως ξυνδεῖται. We have an instance of the one genitive (the objective) here, of the other (the subjective) in Ephes. iv. 3 ἐν τῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης (see the note there).

Another explanation makes σύνδεσ-

Colossians 3:15

τὴν ἀγάπην, ὁ ἐστιν σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος. ¹⁵καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Χριστοῦ βραβευέτω ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, εἰς ἦν καὶ ἐκλήθητε ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι. καὶ εὐχάριστοι μος=σύνθεσις here, ’the bundle, the totality,’ as e.g. Herodian. iv. 12 πάντα τὸν σύνδεσμον τῶν ἐπιστολῶν (comp. Ign. Trall. 3 σύνδεσμον ἀποστόλων); but this unusual metaphor is highly improbable and inappropriate here, not to mention that we should expect the definite article ὁ σύνδεσμος in this case. With either interpretation, the function assigned to ἀγάπη here is the same as when it is declared to be πλήρωμα νόμου, Rom. xiii. 10 (comp. Gal. v. 14). See also the all-embracing office which is assigned to it in 1 Cor. xiii.

15. ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Χριστοῦ] ‘Christ’s peace,’ which He left as a legacy to His disciples: Joh. xiv. 27 εἰρήνην ἀφίημι ὑμῖν, εἰρήνην τὴν ἐμὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν; comp. Ephes. ii. 14 αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐστιν ἡ eἰρήνη ἡμῶν with the context. The common reading ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ has a parallel in Phil. iv. 7.

βραβευέτω] ‘be umpire,’ for the idea of a contest is only less prominent here, than in βραβείον 1 Cor. ix. 24, Phil. iii. 14 (see the note there). Στάδιον ἐνδον ἐποίησεν ἐν τοῖς λογισμοῖς, writes Chrysostom, καὶ ἀγῶνα καὶ ἄθλησιν καὶ βραβευτήν. Wherever there is a conflict of motives or impulses or reasons, the peace of Christ must stop in and decide which is to prevail: Μὴ θυμὸς βραβευέτω, says Chrysostom

again, μὴ φιλονεικία, μὴ ἀνθρωπίνη eἰρήνη· ἡ γὰρ ἀνθρωπίνη εἰρήνη ἐκ τοῦ ἀμύνεσθαι γίνεται, ἐκ τοῦ μηδὲν πάσχειν δεινόν.

For this metaphor of some one paramount consideration acting as umpire, where there is a conflict of internal motives, see Polyb. ii. 35. 3 ἅπαν τὸ γιγνόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν Γαλάτων θυμῷ μᾶλλον ἢ λογισμῷ βραβεύε-

σθαι, Philo de Migr. Abr. 12 (i. p. 446) πορεύεται ὁ ἄφρων δι’ ἀμφοτέρων θυμοῦ τε καὶ ἐπιθυμίας ἀεὶ…τὸν ἠνίαχον καὶ βραβευτὴν λόγον ἀποβαλῶν

(comp. de Ebriet. 19, i. p. 368), Jos. B. J. vi. 2. 6 ἐβράβευε τὰς τόλμας ὁ… φόβος. Somewhat similarly τύχη

(Polyb. xxvii. 14. 4) or φύσις (Athen. xv. p. 670 A) are made βραβεύειν. In other passages, where ὁ Θεός or τὸ θεῖον is said βραβεύειν, this implies that, while man proposes, God disposes. In Philo ἀλήθεια βραβεύουσα (Qui ver. die. her. 19, i. p. 486) is a rough synonyme for ἀλήθεια δικάζουσα (de Abrah. 14, ii. p. 10, etc.): and in Josephus (Ant. vi. 3. 1) δικάζειν and βραβεύειν are used together of the same action. In all such cases it appears that the idea of a decision and an award is prominent in the word, and that it must not be taken to denote simply rule or power.

εἰς ἦν κ.τ.λ.] Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 15 ἐν δὲ εἰρήνη κέκληκεν ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεός. ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι] ‘As ye were called as members of one body, so let there be one spirit animating that body’: Ephes. iv. 4 ἓν σῶμα καὶ ἓν πνεῖμα. This passage strikes the keynote of the companion Epistle to the Ephesians (see esp. ii. 16 sq., iv. 3 sq.). εὐχάριστοι] ‘And to crown all forget yourselves in thanksgiving towards God’: see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7. The adjective εὐχάριστος, though not occurring elsewhere in the Greek Bible, is not uncommon in classical writers, and like the English ‘grateful,’ has two meanings; either (1) ‘pleasurable’ (e.g. Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 1); or (2) ’thankful’ (e.g. Boeckh C. I. no. 1625), as here.

16, 17. ‘Let the inspiring word of Christ dwell in your hearts, enriching you with its boundless wealth and endowing you with all wisdom. Teach and admonish one another with psalms, with hymns of praise, with spiritual songs of all kinds. Only let them be

Colossians 3:16

γίνεσθε. ¹⁶ Ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμῖν πλουσίως ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ· διδάσκοντες καὶ νουθετοῦντες

pervaded with grace from heaven. Sing to God in your hearts and not with your lips only. And generally; whatever ye do, whether in word or in deed, let everything be done in the name of Jesus Christ. And (again I repeat it) pour out your thanksgiving to God the Father through Him.’

16. Ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ | ’the word of Christ,’ τοῦ Χριστοῦ being the subjective genitive, so that Christ is the speaker. Though ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ and ὁ λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου occur frequently, ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ is found here only. There seems to be no direct reference in this expression to any definite body of truths either written or oral, but ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ denotes the presence of Christ in the heart, as an inward monitor: comp. 1 Joh. ii. 14 ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μίνει, with ib. i. 10 ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν, and so perhaps Acts xviii. 5 συνέχετο τῷ λόγῳ (the correct reading).

ἐν ὑμῖν | ‘in your hearts,’ not ‘among you’; comp. Rom. viii. 9, 11 τὸ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα ἐν ὑμῖν, 2 Tim. i. 5, 14, and Lev. xxvi. 12, as quoted in 2 Cor. vi. 16, ἐνοικῆσω ἐν αὐτοῖς.

πλουσίως] See above, p. 43 sq., and the note on i. 27.

ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ | ‘in every kind of wisdom.’ It seems best to take these words with the preceding clause, though Clem. Alex. Pard. ii. 4 (p. 194) attaches them to what follows. For this position of ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, at the end of the sentence to which it refers, comp. i. 9, Ephes. i. 8. The connexion here adopted is also favoured by the parallel passage Ephes. v. 18, 19 (see the note below). Another passage i. 28 νουθετοῦντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ has a double bearing: while the connexion favours our taking ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ here with the following words, the order suggests their being attached to the preceding clause.

διδάσκοντες κ.τ.λ.] The participles are here used for imperatives, as frequently in hortatory passages, e.g. Rom. xii. 9 sq., 16 sq., Ephes. iv. 2, 3, Hebr. xiii. 5, 1 Pet. ii. 12¹, iii. 1, 7, 9, 15. 16. It is not, as some insist, that the participle itself has any imperative force; nor, as maintained by others, that the construction should be explained by the hypothesis of a preceding parenthesis or of a verb substantive understood or by any other expedient to obtain a regular grammatical structure (see Winer, § xlv. p. 441 sq., § lxii. p. 707, § lxiii. p. 716, § lxiv. p. 732). But the absolute participle, being (so far as regards mood) neutral in itself, takes its colour from the general complexion of the sentence. Thus it is sometimes indicative (e.g. 2 Cor. vii. 5, and frequently), sometimes imperative (as in the passages quoted), sometimes optative (as above, ii. 2, 2 Cor. ix. 11, comp. Ephes. iii. 17). On the distinction of διδάσκειν and νουθετεῖν see the note on i. 28; they describe respectively the positive and the negative side of instruction. On the reciprocal ἑαυτοῦς see the note on iii. 13.

ψαλμοῖς κ.τ.λ.] To be connected with the preceding sentence, as suggested by Ephes. v. 18 sq. ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι, λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς [ἐν] ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ῥδαῖς [πνευματικαῖς], ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ. The datives describe the instruments of the διδαχὴ and νουθεσία.

The three words ψαλμός, ὕμνος, ῥδῆ, are distinguished, so far as they are distinguishable, in Trench N.T. Syn. § lxxviii. p. 279 sq. They are correctly defined by Gregory Nyssen in Psalm. c. iii (i. p. 295) ψαλμὸς μὲν ἔστιν ἢ διὰ τοῦ ὀργάνου τοῦ μουσικοῦ

ἑαυτοὺς ψαλμοῖς ὕμνοις ῥδαῖς πνευματικαῖς ἐν τῇ μελωδία, ῥδὴ δὲ ἡ διὰ στόματος γενομένη τοῦ μέλους μετὰ ῥημάτων ἐπιφώνησις…ὕμνος δὲ ἡ ἐπὶ τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν ἡμῖν ἀγαθοῖς ἀνατιθεμένη τῷ Θεῷ εὐφημία; see also Hippol. p. 191 sq. (ed. de Lagarde). In other words, while the leading idea of ψαλμός is a musical accompaniment and that of ὕμνος praise to God, ῥδή is the general word for a song, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, whether of praise or on any other subject. Thus it was quite possible for the same song to be at once ψαλμός, ὕμνος, and ῥδή. In the text the reference in ψαλμοῖς, we may suppose, is specially, though not exclusively (1 Cor. xiv. 26), to the Psalms of David, which would early form part of the religious worship of the Christian brotherhood. On the other hand ὕμνοις would more appropriately designate those hymns of praise which were composed by the Christians themselves on distinctly Christian themes, being either set forms of words or spontaneous effusions of the moment. The third word ῥδαῖς gathers up the other two, and extends the precept to all forms of song, with the limitation however that they must be πνευματικαί. St Chrysostom treats ὕμνοι here as an advance upon ψαλμοί, which in one aspect they are; οἱ ψαλμοί, he says, πάντα ἔχουσιν, οἱ δὲ ὕμνοι πάλιν οὐδὲν ἀνθρώπινον ὅταν ἐν τοῖς ψαλμοῖς μάθῃ, τότε καὶ ὕμνους εἴσεται, ἄτε θεῖοτερον πρᾶγμα.

Psalmody and hymnody were highly developed in the religious services of the Jews at this time: see Philo in Flacc. 14 (II. p. 535) πάννυχοι δὲ διατελέσαντες ἐν ὕμνοις καὶ ῥδαῖς, de Vit. Cont. § 3 (II. p. 476) ποιοῦσιν ἄσματα καὶ ὕμνους εἰς Θεὸν διὰ παντοίων μέτρων καὶ μελῶν, ἃ ῥυθμοῖς σεμνοτέροις ἀναγκαίως χαράττουσι, § 10 (p. 484) ὁ ἀναστὰς ὕμνον ᾅδει πεποιημένον εἰς τὸν Θεόν, ἢ καινὸν αὐτὸς πεποιηκὼς ἢ ἀρχαῖόν τινα τῶν πάλαι ποιητῶν· μέτρα γὰρ καὶ μέλη καταλελοίπασι πολλὰ ἐπῶν τριμέτρων, προσοδίων, ὕμνων, παρασπονδείων, παραβωμίων, στασίμων, χορικῶν, στροφοῖς πολυστρόφοις εὖ διαμεμετρημένων κ.τ.λ., § 11 (p. 485) ᾅδουσι πεποιημένους εἰς τὸν Θεὸν ὕμνους πολλοῖς μέτροις καὶ μέλεσι κ.τ.λ., with the whole context. They would thus find their way into the Christian Church from the very beginning. For instances of singing hymns or psalms in the Apostolic age see Acts iv. 24, xvi. 25, 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26. Hence even in St Paul’s epistles, more especially his later epistles, fragments of such hymns appear to be quoted; e.g. Ephes. v. 14 (see the note there). For the use of hymnody in the early Church of the succeeding generations see Plin. Epist. x. 97 ‘Ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem,’ Anon. [Hippolytus] in Euseb. II. E. v. 28 ψαλμοὶ δὲ ὅσοι καὶ ῥδαὶ ἀδελφῶν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ πιστῶν γραφεῖσαι τὸν Λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Χριστὸν ὕμνοῦσι θεολογοῦντες. The reference in the text is not solely or chiefly to public worship as such. Clem. Alex. Pacd. ii. 4 (p. 194) treats it as applying to social gatherings; and again Tertullian says of the agape, Apol. 39 ‘Ut quisque de scripturis sanctis vel de proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium Deo canere,’ and of the society of husband and wife, Ad Uxor. ii. 8 ‘Sonant inter duos psalmi et hymni, et mutuo provocant quis melius Domino suo cantet.’ On the psalmody etc. of the early Christians see Bingham Antiq. xiv. c. 1, and especially Probst Lehre und Gebet p. 256 sq.

ἐν τῇ χάριτι] ‘in God’s grace’; comp. 2 Cor. i. 12 οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ σαρκικῇ ἀλλ’ ἐν χάριτι Θεοῦ. These words are perhaps best connected with the preceding clause, as by Chrysostom. Thus the parallelism with ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ is preserved. The correct reading is ἐν τῇ χάριτι, not ἐν χάριτι. For ἡ χάρις, ‘Divine grace’

COL.

Colossians 3:17-18

χάριτι, ᾅδοντες ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν τῷ Θεῷ· ¹⁷καὶ πᾶν ὃ τι ἐὰν ποιῆτε ἐν λόγῳ ἢ ἐν ἔργῳ, πάντα ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ Θεῷ πατρὶ δὶ αὐτοῦ. ¹⁸ Αἱ γυναῖκες, ὑποτάσσεσθε τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, ὡς ἀνῆseo Phil. i. 7 συνκοινωνοὺς μου τῆς χάριτος with the note. The definite article seems to exclude all lower senses of χάρις here, such as ‘acceptableness,’ ‘sweetness’ (see iv. 6). The interpretation ‘with gratitude,’ if otherwise tenable (comp. 1 Cor. x. 30), seems inappropriate here, because the idea of thanksgiving is introduced in the following verse.

ἅδοντες κ.τ.λ.] This external manifestation must be accompanied by the inward emotion. There must be the thanksgiving of the heart, as well as of the lips; comp. Ephes. v. 19 ᾅδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ (probably the correct reading), where τῇ καρδίᾳ

‘with the heart’ brings out the sense more distinctly.

17. πᾶν ὃ τι κ.τ.λ.] This is probably a nominative absolute, as Matt. x. 32 πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ὁμολογήσει… ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ (comp. Luke xii. 8), Luke xii. 10 πᾶς ὃς ἐμεῖ λόγον …ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ, John xvii. 2 πᾶν ὁ δέδωκας αὐτῷ, δώσῃ αὐτοῖς κ.τ.λ.; comp. Matt. vii. 24 (v. l.).

πάντα] sc. ποιεῖτε, as the following eὐχαριστοῦντες suggests; comp. ver. 23.

ἐν ὀνόματι κ.τ.λ.] This is the great practical lesson which flows from the theological teaching of the epistle. Hence the reiteration of Κυρίῳ, ἐν Κυρίῳ, etc., vv. 18, 20, 22, 23, 24. See above p. 104.

εὐχαριστοῦντες] On this refrain see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7.

τῷ Θεῷ πατρὶ] This, which is quite the best authenticated reading, gives a very unusual, if not unique, collocation of words, the usual form being either ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ or Θεὸς πατήρ. The καὶ before πατρὶ in the received text is an obvious emendation. See the note on i. 3, and the appendix on various readings.

18-21. ‘Ye wives, be subject to your husbands, for so it becomes you in Christ. Ye husbands, love and cherish your wives, and use no harshness towards them. Ye children, be obedient to your parents in all things; for this is commendable and lovely in Christ. Ye parents, vex not your children, lest they lose heart and grow sullen.’

18 sq. These precepts, providing for the conduct of Christians in private households, should be compared with Ephes. v. 22-vi. 9, 1 Pet. ii. 18-iii. 7, Tit. ii. 1 sq.; see also Clem. Rom. 1, Polye. Phil. 4 sq.

Αἱ γυναῖκες] ‘Ye wives,’ the nominative with the definite article being used for a vocative, as frequently in the New Testament, e.g. Matt. xi. 26, Mark v. 41, Luke viii. 54; see Winer § xxix. p. 227 sq. The frequency of this use is doubtless due to the fact that it is a reproduction of the Hebrew idiom. In the instances quoted from classical writers (see Bernhardy Syntax p. 67) the address is not so directly vocative, the nominative being used rather to define or select than to summon the person in question.

τοῖς ἀνδράσιν] The ἰδίοις of the

received text may have been inserted (as it is inserted also in Ephes. v. 24) from Ephes. v. 22, Tit. ii. 5, 1 Pet. iii. 1, 5, in all which passages this same injunction occurs. The scribes however show a general fondness for this adjective; e.g. Mark xv. 20, Luke ii. 3, Acts i. 19, Ephes. iv. 28, 1 Thess. ii. 15, iv. 11.

Colossians 3:19-22

κεν ἐν Κυρίῳ. ¹⁹Οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ μὴ πικραίνεσθε πρὸς αὐτάς. ²⁰Τὰ τέκνα, ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν κατὰ πάντα· τοῦτο γὰρ εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν ἐν Κυρίῳ. ²¹Οἱ πατέρες, μὴ ἐρεθίζετε τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν, ἵνα μὴ ἀθυμῶσιν. ²²Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε κατὰ πάντα ἀνήκεν] The imperfect, as Ephes. v. 4 ὁ οὐκ ἀνήκεν (the correct reading); comp. Clem. Hom. Contest. 3 τοῦδε μὴ μεταδοῦναι χάριν, ὡς οὐ προσῆκεν, Xen. de Re Equestr. xii. 14 ὁ ἱππάρχῳ προσῆκεν εἰδέναι τε καὶ πράττειν; and see D’Orville on Charito viii. 2 (p. 699 sq.). The common uses of the imperfect ἔδει, ἕπρεπεν, etc., in classical writers do not present a very exact parallel; for they imply that the thing which ought to have been done has been left undone. And so we might interpret Acts xxii. 22 οὐ γὰρ καθῆκεν αὐτὸν ζῆν (the correct reading). Here however there can hardly be any such reference; and the best illustration is the English past tense ‘ought’ (= ‘owed’), which is used in the same way. The past tense perhaps implies an essential a priori obligation. The use of χρῆν, ἔχρην, occasionally approximates to this; e.g. Eur. Andr. 423.

The idea of ‘propriety’ is the link which connects the primary meaning of such words as ἀνήκειν, προσήκειν, καθήκειν, ‘aiming at or pertaining to,’ with their ultimate meaning of moral obligation. The word ἀνήκειν occurs in the New Testament only here and in the contemporary epistles, Ephes. v. 4, Philem. 8.

ἐν Κυρίῳ] Probably to be connected with ὡς ἀνήκεν, rather than with ὑποτάσσεσθε; comp. ver. 20 εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν ἐν Κυρίῳ.

19. μὴ πικραίνεσθε κ.τ.λ.] ‘show no bitterness, behave not harshly’; comp. Lynceus in Athen. vi. p. 242 ὁ πικρανθείη πρὸς τινα τῶν συζώντων, Joseph. Ant. v. 7. 1 δεινῶς πρὸς τοὺς τοῦ δικαίου προϊσταμένους ἐκπικραινόμενος, Plut. Mor. p. 457 Δ πρὸς γύναια δια-

πικραίνονται. So also πικραίνεσθαι ἐπί τινα in the LXX, Jerem. xliv (xxxvii). 15, 3 Esdr. iv. 31. This verb πικραίνεσθαι and its compounds occur frequently in classical writers.

20. κατὰ πάντα] As in ver. 22. The rule is stated absolutely, because the exceptions are so few that they may be disregarded.

εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν] ‘is well pleasing, commendable.’ The received text supplies this adjective with a dative of reference τῷ Κυρίῳ (from Ephes. v. 10), but ἐν Κυρίῳ is unquestionably the right reading. With the reading thus corrected εὐάρεστον, like ἀνήκεν ver. 18, must be taken absolutely, as perhaps in Rom. xii. 2 τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον: comp. Phil. iv. 8 ὅσα σεμνά …ὅσα προσφιλῆ. The qualification ἐν Κυρίῳ implies ‘as judged by a Christian standard,’ ‘as judged by those who are members of Christ’s body.’

21. ἐρεθίζετε] ‘provoke, irritate.’ The other reading παροργίζετε has higher support, but is doubtless taken from the parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 4. ‘Irritation’ is the first consequence of being too exacting with children, and irritation leads to moroseness (ἀθυμία). In 2 Cor. ix. 2 ἐρεθίζειν is used in a good sense and produces the opposite result, not despondency but energy.

ἀθυμῶσιν] ’lose heart, become spiritless,’ i.e. ‘go about their task in a listless, moody, sullen frame of mind.’ ‘Fractus animus,’ says Bengel, ‘pestis juventutis.’ In Xen. Cyr. i. 6. 13 ἀθυμία is opposed to προθυμία, and in Thuc. ii. 88 and elsewhere ἀθυμεῖν is opposed to θαρσεῖν.

15-2

Colossians 3:23

τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις, μὴ ἐν ὀφθαλμοδουλείᾳ ὡς ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας, φοβούμενοι τὸν Κύριον. ²³ὁ ἐὰν ποιῆτε, ἐκ ψυχῆς ἐργάζεσθε ὡς 22. ἐν ὀφθαλμοδουλείαις.

22—iv. 1. ‘Ye slaves, be obedient in all things to the masters set over you in the flesh, not rendering them service only when their eyes are upon you, as aiming merely to please men, but serving in all sincerity of heart, as living in the sight of your Heavenly Master and standing in awe of Him. And in everything that ye do, work faithfully and with all your soul, as labouring not for men, but for the great Lord and Master Himself; knowing that ye have a Master, from whom ye will receive the glorious inheritance as your recompense, whether or not ye may be defrauded of your due by men. Yes, Christ is your Master and ye are his slaves. He that does a wrong shall be requited for his wrongdoing. I say not this of slaves only, but of masters also. There is no partiality, no respect of persons, in God’s distribution of rewards and punishments. Therefore, ye masters, do ye also on your part deal justly and equitably by your slaves, knowing that ye too have a Master in heaven.’

22. Οἱ δοῦλοι] The relations of masters and slaves, both here and in the companion epistle (Ephes. vi.

5—9), are treated at greater length than is usual with St Paul. Here especially the expansion of this topic, compared with the brief space assigned to the duties of wives and husbands (vv. 18, 19), or of children and parents (vv. 20, 21), deserves to be noticed. The fact is explained by a contemporary incident in the Apostle’s private life. His intercourse with Onesimus had turned his thoughts in this direction. See above, p.33, and the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon: comp. also the note on ver. 11.

ὀφθαλμοδουλείᾳ] ’eye-service,’ as

Ephes. vi. 6: comp. Apost. Const. iv. 12 μὴ ὡς ὀφθαλμοδουλος ἀλλ’ ὡς φιλοδίσποτος. This happy expression would seem to be the Apostle’s own coinage. At least there are no traces of it earlier. Compare ἐθελοθρησκεία ii. 23. The reading ὀφθαλμοδουλείᾳ is better supported than ὀφθαλμοδουλείαις, though the plural is rendered slightly more probable in itself by its greater difficulty.

ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι] Again in Ephes. vi. 6. It is a LXX word, Ps. lii. 6, where the Greek entirely departs from the Hebrew: comp. also ἀνθρωπαρεσκεῖν

Ign. Rom. 2, ἀνθρωπαρέσκεία Justin Apol. i. 2 (p. 53 ε). So ὀχλοαρέσκης or ὀχλοάρεσκος, Timo Phlias. in Diog. Laert. iv. 42 (vv. ll.).

ἁπλότητι καρδίας] As in Ephes. vi. 5, i. e. ‘with undicided service’; a LXX expression, 1 Chron. xxix. 17, Wisd. i. 1. τὸν Κύριον] ’the one Lord and

Master,’ as contrasted with τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις: the idea being carried out in the following verses. The received text, by substituting τὸν Θεόν, blunts the edge of the contrast.

23. ἐργάζεσθε] i. e. ‘do it diligently,’ an advance upon ποιῆτε.

οὐκ ἀνθρώποις] For the use of οὐ

rather than μὴ in antitheses, see Winer § lv. p. 601 sq. The negative here is wholly unconnected with the imperative, and refers solely to τῷ Κυρίῳ.

24. ἀπὸ Κυρίου] ‘However you may be treated by your earthly masters, you have still a Master who will recompense you.’ The absence of the definite article here (comp. iv. 1) is the more remarkable, because it is studiously inserted in the context, vv. 22—24, τὸν Κύριον, τῷ Κυρίῳ, τῷ Κυρίῳ. In the parallel passage Ephes. vi. 8 it is παρὰ Κυρίου: for the difference between the two see Gal. i. 12.

Colossians 3:24-25

τῷ Κυρίῳ, καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις, ²⁴ εἰδότες ὅτι ἀπὸ Κυρίου ἀπολήμψεσθε τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν τῆς κληρονομίας· τῷ Κυρίῳ Χριστῷ δουλεύετε· ²⁵ ὁ γὰρ ἀδικῶν κομίσεται ὁ τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν] ’the just recom-

pence,’ a common word both in the

LXX and in classical writers, though not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament; comp. ἀνταπόδομα Luke xiv. 12, Rom. xi. 9. The double compound involves the idea of ’exact requital.’ τῆς κληρονομίας] ‘which consists in the inheritance,’ the genitive of apposition: see the note on τὴν μερίδα τοῦ κλήρου, i. 12. There is a paradox involved in this word: elsewhere the δοῦλος and the κληρονόμος are contrasted (Matt. xxi. 35-38, etc., Rom. viii. 15-17, Gal. iv. 1, 7), but here the δοῦλος is the κληρονόμος. This he is because, though δοῦλος ἀνθρώπων, he is ἀπελεύθερος Κυρίου (1 Cor. vii. 22) and thus κληρονόμος διὰ Θεοῦ (Gal. iv. 7); comp. Herinas Sim. v. 2 ἵνα συγκληρονόμος γένηται ὁ δοῦλος τῷ υἱῷ (with the context).

τῷ Κυρίῳ κ.τ.λ.] i. e. ‘you serve as your master the great Master Christ.’ This clause is added to explain how is meant by the preceding ἀπὸ Κυρίου. For this application of Κύριος compare (besides the parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 6-9) 1 Cor. vii. 22 ὁ γὰρ ἐν Κυρίῳ κληθεὶς δοῦλος ἀπελεύθερος Κυρίου ἐστίν κ.τ.λ. It seems best to take δουλεύετε here as an indicative, rather than as an imperative; for (1) The indicative is wanted to explain the previous ἀπὸ Κυρίου; (2) The imperative would seem to require ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ, as in Ephes. vi. 7 (the correct text). On the other hand see Rom.

xii. 11.

25. ὁ γὰρ ἀδικῶν κ.τ.λ.] Who is

this unrighteous person? The slave who defrauds his master of his service, or the master who defrauds his slave of his reward? Some interpreters confine it exclusively to the former; others to the latter. It seems best to suppose that both are included. The connexion of the sentence ὁ γὰρ ἀδικῶν (where γάρ, not δέ, is certainly the right reading) points to the slave. On the other hand the expression which follows, τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὴν ἰσότητα κ.τ.λ., suggests the master. Thus there seems to be a twofold reference; the warning is suggested by the case of the slave, but it is extended to the case of the master; and this accords with the parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 8 ἕκαστος ὁ ἂν ποιήσῃ ἀγαθὸν τοῦτο κομίσεται παρὰ Κυρίου, εἴτε δοῦλος εἴτε ἐλεύθερος.

The recent fault of Onesimus would make the Apostle doubly anxious to emphasize the duties of the slave towards the master, lest in his love for the offender he should seem to condone the offence. This same word ἠδίκησεν is used by St Paul to describe the crime of Onesimus in Philem. 18. But on the other hand it is the Apostle’s business to show that justice has a double edge. There must be a reciprocity between the master and the slave. The philosophers of Greece taught, and the laws of Rome assumed, that the slave was a chattel. But a chattel could have no rights. It would be absurd to talk of treating a chattel with justice. St Paul places the relations of the master and the slave in a wholly different light. Justice and equity are the expression of the Divine mind: and with God there is no προσωπολημψία. With Him the claims of the slave are as real as the claims of the master.

κομίσεται] For this sense of the middle, ’to recover,’ ’to get back,’ and so (with an accusative of the thing to be recompensed), ’to be requited for’, see e.g. Lev. xx. 17 ἀμαρτίαν κομιοῦνται, 2 Cor. v. 10 κομίσηται ἕκαστος τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος; comp. Barnab.