πρὸς ὑμᾶς δέξασθε αὐτόν,) 11. καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος ᾿Ιοῦστος, of ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς οὗτοι μόνοι συνεργοὶ εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ,
οἵτινες ἐγενήθησάν μοι ‘ παρηγορία.
12. ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ᾿Επαφρᾶς
ὁ ἐξ ὑμῶν, δοῦλος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, πάντοτε ἀγωνιζόμενος ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν g Only here ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς, ἵνα σταθήτε] τέλειοι καὶ πεπληροφορημένοι ἐν
and Rev. a“ - xvi. 10,11, παντὶ θελήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ.
xxi. 4 in Ν.Τ.
;πόνον ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ καὶ τῶν ἐν Ἱεραπόλει.
13. μαρτυρῶ γὰρ αὐτῷ ὅτι ἔχει πολὺν
14.
1 So T., Tr., W.H., Ws. with ΔΝ Β 23,71. στητε: Ln., Κ.Υ, with NcACDGKLP,
this kind. Μᾶρκος (so accented by Blass and Haupt, who refers to Dittenberger in confirmation), the cousin (ἀνεψιὸς) of Barnabas, who may by this time have been dead. He is no doubt the John Mark of the Acts and the evangelist.— ἐλάβετε ἐντολάς. We do not know what these commands were. ἐλάβ. cannot be an epistolary aorist (2nd person), there- fore the or hare -- been sent
reviously. ἐὰν κ.τ.λ. may express the substance of μα... Paul may have feared that Mark's defection from him, which led to the sharp quarrel between him and Barnabas, might pre- judice the Colossians against him. The mention of his relationship to Barna- bas was probably intended as a recom- mendation to their kindness. He seems to have been unknown to the Colossians.
Ver. 11. ᾿Ιησοῦς : otherwise unknown tous. Zahn has well pointed out that the mention of this name, in addition to those mentioned in Philemon, creates difficulties for the impugners of the authenticity. If Philemon was authentic why should an imitator venture to add an unknown person, and especially to give him the name Jesus, that so soon became sacred among Christians? If not authentic, why should he not have copied himself ?—ol ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς: to be taken with the following words, in spite of the awkwardness of the construc- tion. What is meant is that these are the only ones of the circumcision who have been a help to him. If a stop is placed at περ., we get the sense that these who have just been mentioned are his only fellow-workers, which is not true. Aristarchus is probably not included, for he went as one of the deputation sent by the Gentile Christians with the collection for the Church at Jerusalem.—otrot μόνοι: for the attitude of Jewish Christians in Rome towards Paul cf. Phil. i. 15-17, ii. ig-24. This is more natural in a letter
from Rome than from Ca#sarea.—Bact- λείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. The phrase is inten- tionally chosen; the Jews were devoted to the kingdom; Paul should have found in the Jewish Christians his best helpers. ---ἐγενήθησαν: the aorist seems to point to some special incident,
Ver. 12. ᾿Επαφρᾶς: see oni.7. He was either a native of Colosse or had settled there.—800A05 Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ. Paul uses this term often of himself, but of no one else except here and Phil, i. 1, where he calls himself and Timothy δοῦλοι X. "I. Meyer and Alford connect with ὁ ἐξ ὑμ., but it is better to place a comma after ὑμῶν.---πεπληροφορημένοι: see on ii, 2. Usuaily it is translated here “fully assured", Haupt thinks that after τέλειοι this is unsuitable. But if we translate “‘complete"’ or “ filled,” this is tautological, and it is not clear that τέλ. covers full assurance.—4dv παντὶ θελή- ματι Θεοῦ: “in everything that God wills". Meyer and Alford connect with σταθῆτε (or as they read στῆτε), but it is better to connect with the two participles,
Ver. 13. The anxiety of Epaphras for these Churches was probably due to his connexion with them, either as founder or teacher. pre
Ver. 14. Λουκᾶς ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς : “Luke the physician, the beloved.” no doubt to be identified with the evangelist Luke. His writings have been shown to exhibit a considerable use of medical terms. The name was originally Luca- nus. He was clearly not one ‘of the circumcision” (ver. 11), and this, as often pointed out, seems to exclude the possibility that he wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.—Anpas: mentioned last and without commendation. This iscom- monly explained as due to a foreboding of Paul that he would turn out badly, suggested by the reference to him in 2 Tim. iv. το as having left him. But in Philm. 24 he is placed before Luke and numbered among Paul’s fellow-workers.