τῷ Onlyhere αὐτοῦ, 23. εἴ γε ἐπιμένετε τῇ πίστει τεθεμελιωμένοι καὶ ™ ἑδραῖοι
and 1 Cor.
Vii. 37. χν. καὶ μὴ "μετακινούμενοι ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου οὗ ἠκούσατε,
8in N.T.
5 Only here τοῦ κηρυχθέντος ἐν πάσῃ κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν, οὗ ἐγενόμην
ἐγὼ Παῦλος διάκονος.
tinued in ver. 22, where the thought is of the Christian standing of the Colossians before God. It is therefore unlikely that παραστ. should depend on εὐδοκ. Accordingly, with Haupt and Weiss, a comma should be placed at the end of ver. 20, and a full stop at the end of ver. 21. ὑμᾶς in ver. 21 will then depend on ἀποκατ. It might seem an anti-climax after the wide sweep of ver. 20 to narrow down the reference to the Colossians. But we have a similar case in ver. 6, and the personal application of a universal truth is anti-climax only to a rhetorician. The danger of the Colossians makes it peculiarly appropriate here.—xal ὑμᾶς : “you also”.—6vras emphasises that this state was Continuous.—émm)AAotpiw- μένους: '' estranged,"’i.¢., from God, prob- ably not to be taken as counted as aliens by God, but as expressing their attitude to God.—tyOpovs τῇ διανοίᾳ. Meyer takes ἐχθ. as passive, regarded as enemies by God, but the qualification τῇ διαν. and the further addition ἐν. τ. ἔργ. τ. πον. makes this very improbable. It involves the translation of τῇ διαν. “on account of your state of mind,” for which διά with the accusative would have been expected, But it is much simpler to take διαν. as dative of the part affected, and ἐχθ. as active, hostile to God in your mind. διανοία (used only here and Eph. ii. 3, iv. 18 by Paul) means the higher intellectual nature, but specially on the ethical side; it is usually in the LXX the translation of ‘‘heart’’. Cremer defines it as ‘tthe faculty of moral reflexion ”’. ἐν τ. ἔργοις τοῖς πονηρσῖς : to be con- nected with ἀπηλλ. καὶ ἐχθ. The pre- position indicates the. sphere in which they were thus estranged and enemies. Vv. 22, 23. THEIR RECONCILIATION WILL RESULT IN THE PRESENTATION OF THEMSELVES AS BLAMELESS BEFORE Gob, IF THEY ARE STEADFAST IN THE GOSPEL THEY HAVE HEARD, WHICH IS NO OTHER THAN THAT PREACHED THROUGH- OUT THE WORLD.—Ver. 22. νυνὶ in con- trast to ποτὲ : ‘‘ now,’ not “at the present moment," but ‘in the present state of things,” thus, as Lightfoot points out, admitting an aorist, referring to an action lying in the past. ἀποκατηλλάγητε: “γε were reconciled,” but scarcely to be re-
presented in English except by the per- fect. ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ. It is disputed why Paul should add to σώμ. the defining words τ. σαρκὸς a. Bengel, Lightfoot and Moule think they are added to distinguish Christ’s physical from His mystical body, the Church. But this would imply δὴ incredible obtuseness on the part of his readers, for διὰ θαν. sufficiently fixes the refer- ence to the physical body; and, as Meyer points out, the contrast to the body of His flesh is the glorified body, not the Church. Nor is a reference to Docetism probable. We have no evidence that it had appeared so early, and Paul would not have refuted it by a mere aside. Oltramare thinks that they are added because the flesh was the actual seat of suffering. But the addition would have been unnecessary, for ἐν τ, σώμ. was sufficient in itself. The most satisfactory view is that Paul has in mind the false spiritualism which thought reconciliation could be accomplished by spiritual beings only, and hence attached little or no value to the work of Christ in a body composed of flesh (Mey., Alf., Ell., Haupt, Abb.). In opposition to this Paul em- phasises the fact that it was just by the putting to death of this body composed of flesh that reconciliation was effected, and thereby excludes from the work the angels who had no body of flesh. But while this is so, it is hard to avoid the impression that the phrase is also chosen because in the corresponding experience of Christians their death to sin is the removal of the σῶμα. τ. σαρκός (ii. 1 = παραστῆσαι ὑμᾶς: cf. Eph. v. 27. With the reading ἀποκατήλλαξεν the infini- tive expresses purpose, “ He reconciled in order to present”. With ἀποκατηλ- λάγητε, if we adopt Lightfoot’s paren- the,is, the infinitive will depend on εὐδόκ. (ver. 19). But if νυνὶ δὲ begins a new sentence we should translate ‘ye were reconciled to present yourselves”. This presentation is usually taken to be at the judgment, and that is the impression the passage naturally makes. Hofmann, Lightfoot and Haupt refer it to God's present approbation. Haupt thinks the presentation is just the same as the re- conciliation. Reconciliation has not to