St. Paul_s Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon J. B. Lightfoot 3984 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of St. Paul's Epistles to the
Colossians and Philemon
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon

Author: J. B. Lightfoot

Release date: January 6, 2016 [eBook #50857]
Most recently updated: October 22, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50857

Credits: Produced by KD Weeks, Colin Bell and the Online
Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ST. PAUL'S
EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON ***

Transcriber’s Note:

The original text includes annotations on two Greek texts, the
Epistle to the Colossians, and an Epistle to Philemon. On each
page, several lines of Greek are accompanied by a double
column of notations on key words. It was not possible to
follow that convention in this version, given the nature of our
medium.
Any hyphenations in the Greek text that occurred on page
breaks have been removed, and the word's end has been moved
to the previous page. On many occasions, a note appears on an
earlier page than the text it glosses. In this version, the notes
have been arranged so that each follows the text to which it
refers.
The Greek text appears in a larger font and has been fitted with
‘←’ and ‘→’ links which serve as ‘next’ and ‘previous’
buttons, which should aid in navigation across the pages as
printed.
There are Greek inscriptions printed in an uncial font, and
using a lunate sigma (ϲ). These will appear here as μιμηταί
μου γίνεϲθε. The occasional blackletter font appears here as
‘blackletter text’.
Footnotes have been moved to follow the Index, and are
resequenced to be unique across the text. Any internal
references to those notes have been modified as well. Links are
provided for ease of navigation.
The index includes references to both pages and to the verses
of the two Epistles included here. Those references to a verse
may refer to either the Greek itself, or to any of the notes on
that verse.
The links provided in the Index will direct the reader to the
page, or to the Greek verse itself. No attempt was made to link
to the specific note.
Please consult the note at the end of this text for any other
issues that arose during its presentation.

THE EPISTLES OF ST PAUL.
III.

THE FIRST ROMAN CAPTIVITY.
2.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

3.

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

Cambridge:
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

ST PAUL’S
EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS
AND TO

PHILEMON.
A REVISED TEXT

WITH

INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES, AND DISSERTATIONS.

BY

J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D.

CANON OF ST PAUL’S;
HULSEAN PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY,
AND
HONORARY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

London:
MACMILLAN AND CO.
1875.

[All Rights reserved.]

μιμηταί μου γίνεϲθε καθὼϲ κἀγὼ χριϲτοῦ.

Παῦλος γενόμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός.

Clement.

Οὐχ ὡς Παῦλος διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν· ἐκεῖνος ἀπόστολος,
ἐγὼ κατάκριτος· ἐκεῖνος ἐλεύθερος, ἐγὼ δὲ μέχρι νῦν
δοῦλος.

Ignatius.

Οὔτε ἐγὼ οὔτε ἄλλος ὅμοιος ἐμοί δύναται
κατακολουθῆσαι
τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου καὶ ἐνδόξου Παύλου.

Polycarp.

PREFACE.

On the completion of another volume of my commentary, I wish again to
renew my thanks for the assistance received from previous labourers in the
same field. Such obligations must always be great; but it is not easy in a
few words to apportion them fairly, and I shall not make the attempt. I have
not consciously neglected any aid which might render this volume more
complete; but at the same time I venture to hope that my previous
commentaries have established my claim to be regarded as an independent
worker, and in the present instance more especially I have found myself
obliged to diverge widely from the treatment of my predecessors, and to
draw largely from other materials than those which they have collected.
In the preface to a previous volume I expressed an intention of appending to
my commentary on the Colossian Epistle an essay on ‘Christianity and
Gnosis.’ This intention has not been fulfilled in the letter; but the subject
enters largely into the investigation of the Colossian heresy, where it
receives as much attention as, at all events for the present, it seems to
require. It will necessarily come under discussion again, when the Pastoral
Epistles are taken in hand.
The question of the genuineness of the two epistles contained in this
volume has been deliberately deferred. It could not be discussed with any
advantage apart from the Epistle to the Ephesians, for the three letters are
inseparably bound together. Meanwhile however the doctrinal and historical
discussions will, if I mistake not, have furnished answers to the main
objections which have been urged; while the commentary will have shown
how thoroughly natural the language and thoughts are, if conceived as
arising out of an immediate emergency. More especially it will have been
made apparent that the Epistle to the Colossians hangs together as a whole,
and that the phenomena are altogether adverse to any theory of interpolation
such as that recently put forward by Professor Holtzmann.

In the commentary, as well as in the introduction, it has been a chief aim to
illustrate and develope the theological conception of the Person of Christ,
which underlies the Epistle to the Colossians. The Colossian heresy for
instance owes its importance mainly to the fact that it throws out this
conception into bolder relief. To this portion of the subject therefore I
venture to direct special attention.
I cannot conclude without offering my thanks to Mr A. A. VanSittart who,
as on former occasions, has given his aid in correcting the proof sheets of
this volume; and to the Rev. J. J. Scott, of Trinity College, who has prepared
the index. I wish also to express my obligations to Dr Schiller-Szinessy, of
whose Talmudical learning I have freely availed myself in verifying
Frankel’s quotations and in other ways. I should add however that he is not
in any degree responsible for my conclusions and has not even seen what I
have written.
Trinity College,
April 30, 1875.

CONTENTS.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

INTRODUCTION.
PAGE

I. The Churches of the Lycus 1–72

II. The Colossian Heresy 73–113
On some points connected with the Essenes.
1. The name Essene 114–119
2. Origin and Affinities of the Essenes 119–157
3. Essenism and Christianity 158–179

III. Character and Contents of the Epistle 180–194

TEXT AND NOTES 197–311
On some Various Readings in the Epistle 312–322
On the meaning of πλήρωμα 323–339
The Epistle from Laodicea 340–366

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

INTRODUCTION 369–395
TEXT AND NOTES 399–412

INDEX 415–424

I.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.
Lying in, or overhanging, the valley of the Lycus, a
tributary of the Mæander, were three neighbouring Situation of the three
towns, Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossæ[1]. The cities.
river flows, roughly speaking, from east to west; but at this point, which is
some few miles above its junction with the Mæander, its direction is more
nearly from south-east to north-west[2]. Laodicea and Hierapolis stand face
to face, being situated respectively on the southern and northern sides of the
valley, at a distance of six miles[3], and within sight of each other, the river
lying in the open plain between the two. The site of Colossæ is somewhat
higher up the stream, at a distance of perhaps ten or twelve miles[4] from the
point where the road between Laodicea and Hierapolis crosses the Lycus.
Unlike Laodicea and Hierapolis, which overhang the valley on opposite
sides, Colossæ stands immediately on the river-bank, the two parts of the
town being divided by the stream. The three cities lie so near to each other,
that it would be quite possible to visit them all in the course of a single day.
Thus situated, they would necessarily hold constant Their neighbourhood
intercourse with each other. We are not surprised and intercourse.
therefore to find them so closely connected in the earliest ages of
Christianity. It was the consequence of their position that they owed their
knowledge of the Gospel to the same evangelist, that the same phases of
thought prevailed in them, and that they were exposed to the same
temptations, moral as well as intellectual.
The physical features of the neighbourhood are very Physical forces at work.
striking. Two potent forces of nature are actively at work to change the face
of the country, the one destroying old land-marks, the other creating fresh
ground.
On the one hand, the valley of the Lycus was and is Frequent earthquakes.
especially liable to violent earthquakes. The same danger indeed extends

over large portions of Asia Minor, but this district is singled out by ancient
writers[5] (and the testimony of modern travellers confirms the statement[6]),
as the chief theatre of these catastrophes. Not once or twice only in the
history of Laodicea do we read of such visitations laying waste the city
itself or some flourishing town in the neighbourhood[7]. Though the exterior
surface of the earth shows no traces of recent volcanoes, still the cavernous
nature of the soil and the hot springs and mephitic vapours abounding here
indicate the presence of those subterranean fires, which from time to time
have manifested themselves in this work of destruction.
But, while the crust of the earth is constantly broken Deposits of travertine.
up by these forces from beneath, another agency is actively employed
above ground in laying a new surface. If fire has its fitful outbursts of
devastation, water is only less powerful in its gradual work of
reconstruction. The lateral streams which swell the waters of the Lycus are
thickly impregnated with calcareous matter, which they deposit in their
course. The travertine formations of this valley are among the most
remarkable in the world, surpassing even the striking phenomena of Tivoli
and Clermont[8]. Ancient monuments are buried, fertile lands overlaid,
river-beds choked up and streams diverted, fantastic grottos and cascades
and archways of stone formed, by this strange capricious power, at once
destructive and creative, working silently and relentlessly through long
ages. Fatal to vegetation, these incrustations spread like a stony shroud over
the ground. Gleaming like glaciers on the hill-side they attract the eye of the
traveller at a distance of twenty miles[9], and form a singularly striking
feature in scenery of more than common beauty and impressiveness.
At the same time, along with these destructive Produce and
agencies, the fertility of the district was and is manufactures
district.
of the

unusually great. Its rich pastures fed large flocks of
sheep, whose fleeces were of a superior quality; and the trade in dyed
woollen goods was the chief source of prosperity to these towns. For the
bounty of nature was not confined to the production of the material, but
extended also to the preparation of the fabric. The mineral streams had
chemical qualities, which were highly valued by the dyer[10]. Hence we find
that all the three towns, with which we are concerned, were famous in this
branch of trade. At Hierapolis, as at Thyatira, the guild of the dyers appears
in the inscriptions as an important and influential body[11]. Their colours

vied in brilliancy with the richest scarlets and purples of the farther east[12].
Laodicea again was famous for the colour of its fleeces, probably a glossy
black, which was much esteemed[13]. Here also we read of a guild of
dyers[14]. And lastly, Colossæ gave its name to a peculiar dye, which seems
to have been some shade of purple, and from which it derived a
considerable revenue[15].
1. Of these three towns Laodicea, as the most 1. Laodicea.
important, deserves to be considered first. Laodice Its name and history.
was a common name among the ladies of the royal house of the Seleucidæ,
as Antiochus was among the princes. Hence Antiochia and Laodicea occur
frequently as the designations of cities within the dominions of the Syrian
kings. Laodicea on the Lycus[16], as it was surnamed to distinguish it from
other towns so called, and more especially perhaps from its near neighbour
Laodicea Catacecaumene, had borne in succession the names of Diospolis
and Rhoas[17]; but when refounded by Antiochus Theos (B.C. 261–246), it
was newly designated after his wife Laodice[18]. It is situated[19] on an
undulating hill, or group of hills, which overhangs the valley on the south,
being washed on either side by the streams of the Asopus and the Caprus,
tributaries of the Lycus[20]. Behind it rise the snow-capped heights of
Cadmus, the lofty mountain barrier which shuts in the south side of the
main valley[21]. A place of no great importance at Its growing prosperity.
first, it made rapid strides in the last days of the republic and under the
earliest Cæsars, and had become, two or three generations before St Paul
wrote, a populous and thriving city[22]. Among its famous inhabitants are
mentioned the names of some philosophers, sophists, and rhetoricians, men
renowned in their day but forgotten or almost forgotten now[23]. More to
our purpose, as illustrating the boasted wealth and prosperity of the city,
which appeared as a reproach and a stumblingblock in an Apostle’s eyes[24],
are the facts, that one of its citizens, Polemo, became a king and a father of
kings, and that another, Hiero, having accumulated enormous wealth,
bequeathed all his property to the people and adorned the city with costly
gifts[25]. To the good fortune of her principal sons, as well as to the fertility
of the country around, the geographer Strabo ascribes the increase and
prosperity of Laodicea. The ruins of public buildings still bear testimony by
their number and magnificence to the past greatness of the city[26].
Its political rank, as the
capital of a conventus.

Not less important, as throwing light on the Apostolic history, is the
political status of Laodicea. Asia Minor under the Romans was divided into
districts, each comprising several towns and having its chief city, in which
the courts were held from time to time by the proconsul or legate of the
province, and where the taxes from the subordinate towns were
collected[27]. Each of these political aggregates was styled in Latin
conventus, in Greek διοίκησις—a term afterwards borrowed by the
Christian Church, being applied to a similar ecclesiastical aggregate, and
thus naturalised in the languages of Christendom as diocese. At the head of
the most important of these political dioceses, the ‘Cibyratic convention’ or
‘jurisdiction,’ as it was called, comprising not less than twenty-five towns,
stood Laodicea[28]. Here in times past Cicero, as proconsul of Cilicia, had
held his court[29]; hither at stated seasons flocked suitors, advocates, clerks,
sheriffs’-officers, tax-collectors, pleasure-seekers, courtiers—all those
crowds whom business or leisure or policy or curiosity would draw together
from a wealthy and populous district, when the representative of the laws
and the majesty of Rome appeared to receive homage and to hold his
assize[30]. To this position as the chief city of the Cibyratic union the
inscriptions probably refer, when they style Laodicea the ‘metropolis[31].’
And in its metropolitan rank we see an explanation of the fact, that to
Laodicea, as to the centre of a Christian diocese also, whence their letters
would readily be circulated among the neighbouring brotherhoods, two
Apostles address themselves in succession, the one writing from his
captivity in Rome[32], the other from his exile at Patmos[33].
On the religious worship of Laodicea very little Its religious
special information exists. Its tutelary deity was Zeus, worship.
whose guardianship had been recognised in Diospolis, the older name of the
city, and who, having (according to the legend) commanded its rebuilding,
was commemorated on its coins with the surname Laodicenus[34].
Occasionally he is also called Aseis, a title which perhaps reproduces a
Syrian epithet of this deity, ‘the mighty.’ If this interpretation be correct, we
have a link of connexion between Laodicea and the religions of the farther
East—a connexion far from improbable, considering that Laodicea was
refounded by a Syrian king and is not unlikely to have adopted some
features of Syrian worship[35].
2. Hierapolis.

2. On the north of the valley, opposite to the sloping Its situation.
hills which mark the site of Laodicea, is a broad level terrace jutting out
from the mountain side and overhanging the plain with almost precipitous
sides. On this plateau are scattered the vast ruins of Hierapolis[36]. The
mountains upon which it abuts occupy the wedge of ground between the
Mæander and the Lycus; but, as the Mæander above its junction with the
Lycus passes through a narrow ravine, they blend, when seen from a
distance, with the loftier range of the Mesogis which overhangs the right
bank of the Mæander almost from its source to its embouchure, and form
with it the northern barrier to the view, as the Cadmus range does the
southern, the broad valley stretching between. Thus Hierapolis may be said
to lie over against Mesogis, as Laodicea lies over against Cadmus[37].
It is at Hierapolis that the remarkable physical Remarkable physical
features which distinguish the valley of the Lycus features.
display themselves in the fullest perfection. Over the steep cliffs which
support the plateau of the city, tumble cascades of pure white stone, the
deposit of calcareous matter from the streams which, after traversing this
upper level, are precipitated over the ledge into the plain beneath and
assume the most fantastic shapes in their descent. At one time overhanging
in cornices fringed with stalactites, at another hollowed out into basins or
broken up with ridges, they mark the site of the city at a distance, glistening
on the mountain-side like foaming cataracts frozen in the fall.
But for the immediate history of St Paul’s Epistles the Their relation to the
striking beauty of the scenery has no value. It is not Apostolic history.
probable that he had visited this district when the letters to the Colossians
and Laodiceans were written. Were it otherwise, we can hardly suppose,
that educated under widely different influences and occupied with deeper
and more absorbing thoughts, he would have shared the enthusiasm which
this scenery inspires in the modern traveller. Still it will give a reality to our
conceptions, if we try to picture to ourselves the external features of that
city, which was destined before long to become the adopted home of
Apostles and other personal disciples of the Lord, and to play a conspicuous
part—second perhaps only to Ephesus—in the history of the Church during
the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles.
Like Laodicea, Hierapolis was at this time an Hierapolis a famous
watering-place.
important and a growing city, though not like

Laodicea holding metropolitan rank[38]. Besides the trade in dyed wools,
which it shared in common with the neighbouring towns, it had another
source of wealth and prosperity peculiar to itself. The streams to which the
scenery owes the remarkable features already described, are endowed with
valuable medicinal qualities, while at the same time they are so copious that
the ancient city is described as full of self-made baths[39]. An inscription,
still legible among the ruins, celebrates their virtues in heroic verse, thus
apostrophizing the city:
Hail, fairest soil in all broad Asia’s realm;
Hail, golden city, nymph divine, bedeck’d
With flowing rills, thy jewels[40].

Coins of Hierapolis too are extant of various types, on which Æsculapius
and Hygeia appear either singly or together[41]. To this fashionable
watering-place, thus favoured by nature, seekers of pleasure and seekers of
health alike were drawn.
To the ancient magnificence of Hierapolis its extant The magnificence of its
ruins bear ample testimony. More favoured than ruins.
Laodicea, it has not in its immediate neighbourhood any modern town or
village of importance, whose inhabitants have been tempted to quarry
materials for their houses out of the memorials of its former greatness.
Hence the whole plateau is covered with ruins, of which the extent and the
good taste are equally remarkable; and of these the palæstra and the
thermæ, as might be expected, are among the more prominent.
A city, which combined the pursuit of health and of Its religious worship.
gaiety, had fitly chosen as its patron deity Apollo, the god alike of medicine
and of festivity, here worshipped especially as ‘Archegetes,’ the
Founder[42]. But more important, as illustrating the religious temper of this
Phrygian city, is another fact connected with it. In The Plutonium.
Hierapolis was a spot called the Plutonium, a hot well or spring, from
whose narrow mouth issued a mephitic vapour immediately fatal to those
who stood over the opening and inhaled its fumes. To the mutilated priests
of Cybele alone (so it was believed) an immunity was given from heaven,
which freed them from its deadly effects[43]. Indeed this city appears to
have been a chief centre of the passionate mystical devotion of ancient

Phrygia. But indications are not wanting, that in addition to this older
worship religious rites were borrowed also from other parts of the East,
more especially from Egypt[44]. By the multitude of her temples Hierapolis
established her right to the title of the ‘sacred city,’ which she bore[45].
Though at this time we have no record of famous The birth-place of
citizens at Hierapolis, such as graced the annals of Epictetus.
Laodicea, yet a generation or two later she numbered among her sons one
nobler far than the rhetoricians and sophists, the millionaires and princes, of
whom her neighbour could boast. The lame slave Epictetus, the loftiest of
heathen moralists, must have been growing up to manhood when the first
rumours of the Gospel reached his native city. Did any chance throw him
across the path of Epaphras, who first announced the glad-tidings there?
Did he ever meet the great Apostle himself, while Epictetus and
dragging out his long captivity at Rome, or when after Christianity.
his release he paid his long-promised visit to the valley of the Lycus? We
should be glad to think that these two men met together face to face—the
greatest of Christian, and the greatest of heathen preachers. Such a meeting
would solve more than one riddle. A Christian Epictetus certainly was not;
his Stoic doctrine and his Stoic morality are alike apparent: but nevertheless
his language presents some strange coincidences with the Apostolic
writings, which would thus receive an explanation[46]. It must be confessed
however, that of any outward intercourse between the Apostle and the
philosopher history furnishes no hint.
3. While the sites of Laodicea and Hierapolis are 3. Colossæ.
conspicuous, so that they were early identified by their ruins, the same is
not the case with Colossæ. Only within the present Difficulty of
generation has the position of this once famous city determining its site.
been ascertained, and even now it lacks the confirmation of any inscription
found in situ and giving the name[47]. Herodotus Subterranean channel of
states that in Colossæ the river Lycus disappears in a the Lycus.
subterranean cave, emerging again at a distance of about five stades[48]; and
this very singular landmark--the underground passage of a stream for half a
mile—might be thought to have placed the site of the city beyond the reach
of controversy. But this is not the case. In the immediate neighbourhood of
the only ruins which can possibly be identified with Colossæ, no such
subterranean channel has been discovered. But on the other hand the

appearance of the river at this point suggests that at one time the narrow
gorge through which it runs, as it traverses the ruins, was overarched for
some distance with incrustations of travertine, and that this natural bridge
was broken up afterwards by an earthquake, so as to expose the channel of
the stream[49]. This explanation seems satisfactory. If it be rejected, we must
look for the underground channel, not within the city itself, as the words of
Herodotus strictly interpreted require, but at some point higher up the
stream. In either case there can be little doubt that these are the ruins of
Colossæ. The fact mentioned by Pliny[50], that there is Petrifying stream.
in this city a river which turns brick into stone, is satisfied by a side stream
flowing into the Lycus from the north, and laying large deposits of
calcareous matter; though in this region, as we have seen, such a
phenomenon is very far from rare. The site of Colossæ then, as determined
by these considerations, lies two or three miles north of the present town of
Chonos, the mediæval Chonæ, and some twelve miles east of Laodicea. The
Lycus traverses the site of the ruins, dividing the city into two parts, the
necropolis standing on the right or northern bank, and the town itself on the
left.
Commanding the approaches to a pass in the Cadmus Its ancient greatness
range, and standing on a great high-way communicating between Eastern
and Western Asia, Colossæ at an early date appears as a very important
place. Here the mighty host of Xerxes halted on its march against Greece; it
is mentioned on this occasion as ‘a great city of Phrygia[51].’ Here too Cyrus
remained seven days on his daring enterprise which terminated so fatally;
the Greek captain, who records the expedition, speaks of it as ‘a populous
city, prosperous and great[52].’ But after this time its glory seems to wane.
The political supremacy of Laodicea and the growing and later decline.
popularity of Hierapolis gradually drain its strength; and Strabo, writing
about two generations before St Paul, describes it as a ‘small town[53]’ in
the district of which Laodicea was the capital. We shall therefore be
prepared to find that, while Laodicea and Hierapolis both hold important
places in the early records of the Church, Colossæ disappears wholly from
the pages of history. Its comparative insignificance is still attested by its
ruins, which are few and meagre[54], while the vast remains of temples,
baths, theatres, aqueducts, gymnasia, and sepulchres, strewing the extensive
sites of its more fortunate neighbours, still bear witness to their ancient
prosperity and magnificence. It is not even mentioned by Ptolemy, though

his enumeration of towns includes several inconsiderable places[55].
Without doubt Colossæ was the least important Church, to which any
epistle of St Paul was addressed.
And perhaps also we may regard the variation in the Uncertain orthography
orthography of the name as another indication of its of the name.
comparative obscurity and its early extinction. Are we to write Colossæ or
Colassæ? So far as the evidence goes, the conclusion would seem to be that,
while Colossæ alone occurs during the classical period and in St Paul’s
time, it was afterwards supplanted by Colassæ, when the town itself had
either disappeared altogether or was already passing out of notice[56].
Considered ethnologically, these three cities are Ethnological relations of
generally regarded as belonging to Phrygia. But as the three cities.
they are situated on the western border of Phrygia, and as the frontier line
separating Phrygia from Lydia and Caria was not distinctly traced, this
designation is not persistent[57]. Thus Laodicea is sometimes assigned to
Caria, more rarely to Lydia[58]; and again, Hierapolis is described as half
Lydian, half Phrygian[59]. On the other hand I have not observed that
Colossæ is ever regarded as other than Phrygian[60], partly perhaps because
the notices relating to it belong to an earlier date when these several names
denoted political as well as ethnological divisions, and their limits were
definitely marked in consequence, but chiefly because it lies some miles to
the east of the other cities, and therefore farther from the doubtful border
land.
Phrygia however ceased to have any political Their political relations.
significance, when this country came under the dominion of the Romans.
Politically speaking, the three cities with the rest of the Cibyratic union
belonged at this time to Asia, the proconsular province[61]. As an Asiatic
Church accordingly Laodicea is addressed in the Apocalyptic letter. To this
province they had been assigned in the first instance; then they were handed
over to Cilicia[62]; afterwards they were transferred and re-transferred from
the one to the other; till finally, before the Christian era, they became a
permanent part of Asia, their original province. Here they remained, until
the close of the fourth century, when a new distribution of the Roman
empire was made, and the province of Phrygia Pacatiana created with
Laodicea as its capital[63].

The Epistle to the Colossians supposes a powerful Important Jewish
Jewish colony in Laodicea and the neighbourhood. settlement in this
neighbourhood.
We are not however left to draw this inference from
the epistle alone, but the fact is established by ample independent
testimony. When, with the insolent licence characteristic of Oriental kings,
Antiochus the Great transplanted two thousand Jewish families from
Babylonia and Mesopotamia into Lydia and Phrygia[64], we can hardly
doubt that among the principal stations of these new Colony of Antiochus the
colonists would be the two most thriving cities of Great.
Phrygia, which were also the two most important settlements of the Syrian
kings, Apamea and Laodicea, the one founded by his grandfather Antiochus
the First, the other by his father Antiochus the Second. If the commercial
importance of Apamea at this time was greater (for somewhat later it was
reckoned second only to Ephesus among the cities of Asia Minor as a centre
of trade), the political rank of Laodicea stood higher[65]. When mention is
made of Lydia and Phrygia[66], this latter city especially is pointed out by its
position, for it stood near the frontier of the two countries. A Jewish
settlement once established, the influx of their fellow-countrymen would be
rapid and continuous. Accordingly under the Roman domination we find
them gathered here in very large numbers. When Confiscations of
Flaccus the proprætor of Asia (B.C. 62), who was Flaccus.
afterwards accused of maladministration in his province and defended by
Cicero, forbade the contributions of the Jews to the temple-worship and the
consequent exportation of money to Palestine, he seized as contraband not
less than twenty pounds weight in gold in the single district of which
Laodicea was the capital[67]. Calculated at the rate of a half-shekel for each
man, this sum represents a population of more than eleven thousand adult
freemen[68]; for women, children, and slaves were exempted. It must be
remembered however, that this is only the sum which the Roman officers
succeeded in detecting and confiscating; and that therefore the whole
Jewish population would probably be much larger than this partial estimate
implies. The amount seized at Apamea, the other great Phrygian centre, was
five times as large as this[69]. Somewhat later we have Other evidence.
a document purporting to be a decree of the Laodiceans, in which they
thank the Roman Consul for a measure granting to Jews the liberty of
observing their sabbaths and practising other rites of their religion[70]; and
though this decree is probably spurious, yet it serves equally well to show

that at this time Laodicea was regarded as an important centre of the
dispersion in Asia Minor. To the same effect may be quoted the extravagant
hyperbole in the Talmud, that when on a certain occasion an insurrection of
the Jews broke out in Cæsarea the metropolis of Cappadocia, which brought
down upon their heads the cruel vengeance of king Sapor and led to a
massacre of 12,000, ‘the wall of Laodicea was cloven with the sound of the
harpstrings’ in the fatal and premature merriment of the insurgents[71]. This
place was doubtless singled out, because it had a peculiar interest for the
Jews, as one of their chief settlements[72]. It will be remembered also, that
Phrygia is especially mentioned among those countries which furnished
their quota of worshippers at Jerusalem, and were thus represented at the
baptism of the Christian Church on the great day of Pentecost[73].
Mention has already been made of the traffic in dyed Special attractions of
wools, which formed the staple of commerce in the Hierapolis.
valley of the Lycus[74]. It may be inferred from other notices that this
branch of trade had a peculiar attraction for the Jews[75]. If so, their
commercial instincts would constantly bring fresh recruits to a colony
which was already very considerable. But the neighbourhood held out other
inducements besides this. Hierapolis, the gay watering place, the pleasant
resort of idlers, had charms for them, as well as Laodicea the busy
commercial city. At least such was the complaint of stricter patriots at
home. ‘The wines and the baths of Phrygia,’ writes a Talmudist bitterly,
‘have separated the ten tribes from Israel[76].’
There is no ground for supposing that, when St Paul St Paul had not visited
wrote his Epistle to the Colossians, he had ever the district when he
wrote.
visited the church in which he evinces so deep an
interest. Whether we examine the narrative in the Acts, or whether we
gather up the notices in the epistle itself, we find no hint that he had ever
been in this neighbourhood; but on the contrary some expressions indirectly
exclude the supposition of a visit to the district.
It is true that St Luke more than once mentions What is meant by
Phrygia as lying on St Paul’s route or as witnessing Phrygia in St Luke?
his labours. But Phrygia was a vague and comprehensive term; nor can we
assume that the valley of the Lycus was intended, unless the direction of his
route or the context of the narrative distinctly points to this south-western

corner of Phrygia. In neither of the two passages, where St Paul is stated to
have travelled through Phrygia, is this the case.
1. On his second missionary journey, after he has 1. St Paul’s visit to
revisited and confirmed the churches of Pisidia and Phrygia on his second
missionary journey.
Lycaonia founded on his first visit, he passes through
‘the Phrygian and Galatian country[77].’ I have pointed out elsewhere that
this expression must be used to denote the region which might be called
indifferently Phrygia or Galatia—the land which had originally belonged to
the Phrygians and had afterwards been colonised by the Gauls; or the parts
of either country which lay in the immediate neighbourhood of this
debatable ground[78]. This region lies considerably north and east of the
valley of the Lycus. Assuming that the last of the Lycaonian and Pisidian
towns at which St Paul halted was Antioch, he would not on any probable
supposition approach nearer to Colossæ than Apamea Cibotus on his way to
‘the Phrygian and Galatian country’, nor indeed need he have gone nearly
so far westward as this. And again on his departure from this region he
journeys by Mysia to Troas, leaving ‘Asia’ on his left hand and Bithynia on
his right. Thus the notices of his route conspire to show that his path on this
occasion lay far away from the valley of the Lycus.
2. But if he was not brought into the neighbourhood 2. His visit on his third
of Colossæ on his second missionary journey, it is missionary journey.
equally improbable that he visited it on his third. So far as regards Asia
Minor, he seems to have confined himself to revisiting the churches already
founded; the new ground which he broke was in Macedonia and Greece.
Thus when we are told that during this third journey St Paul after leaving
Antioch ‘passed in order through the Galatian country and Phrygia,
confirming all the disciples,’[79] we can hardly doubt that ‘the Galatian
country and Phrygia’ in this latter passage denotes essentially the same
region as ‘the Phrygian and Galatian country’ in the former. The slight
change of expression is explained by the altered direction of his route. In
the first instance his course, as determined by its extreme limits—Antioch
in Pisidia its starting point, and Alexandria Troas its termination—would be
northward for the first part of the way, and thus would lie on the border land
of Phrygia and Galatia; whereas on this second occasion, when he was
travelling from Antioch in Syria to Ephesus, its direction would be
generally from east to west, and the more strictly Galatian district would be

traversed before the Phrygian. If we suppose him to leave Galatia at
Pessinus on its western border, he would pass along the great highway—
formerly a Persian and at this time a Roman road—by Synnada and Sardis
to Ephesus, traversing the heart of Phrygia, but following the valleys of the
Hermus and Cayster, and separated from the Mæander and Lycus by the
high mountain ranges which bound these latter to the north[80].
Thus St Luke’s narrative seems to exclude any visit of The inference from
the Apostle to the Churches of the Lycus before his first Roman captivity.
And this inference is confirmed by St Paul’s own St Luke’s narrative
language to the Colossians.
He represents his knowledge of their continued borne out by St Paul’s
progress, and even of their first initiation, in the truths own language.
of the Gospel, as derived from the report of others. He describes himself as
hearing of their faith in Christ and their love to the saints[81]. He recalls the
day when he first heard of their Christian profession and zeal[82]. .Though
opportunities occur again and again where he would Silence of St Paul.
naturally have referred to his direct personal relations with them, if he had
been their evangelist, he abstains from any such reference. He speaks of
their being instructed in the Gospel, of his own preaching the Gospel,
several times in the course of the letter, but he never places the two in any
direct connexion, though the one reference stands in the immediate
neighbourhood of the other[83]. Moreover, if he had actually visited
Colossæ, it must appear strange that he should not once allude to any
incident occurring during his sojourn there, for this epistle would then be
the single exception to his ordinary practice. And lastly; in one passage at
least, if interpreted in its natural sense, he declares that the Colossians were
personally unknown to him: ‘I would have you know,’ he writes, ‘how great
a conflict I have for you and them that are in Laodicea and as many as have
not seen my face in the flesh’[84].
But, if he was not directly their evangelist, yet to him Epaphras was the
they were indirectly indebted for their knowledge of evangelist
district.
of this

the truth. Epaphras had been his delegate to them, his
representative in Christ. By Epaphras they had been converted to the
Gospel. This is the evident meaning of a passage in the opening of the
epistle, which has been much obscured by misreading and mistranslation,
and which may be paraphrased thus: ‘The Gospel, which has spread and

borne fruit throughout the rest of the world, has been equally successful
among yourselves. This fertile growth has been manifested in you from the
first day when the message of God’s grace was preached to you, and
accepted by you—preached not as now with adulterations by these false
teachers, but in its genuine simplicity by Epaphras our beloved
fellowservant; he has been a faithful minister of Christ and a faithful
representative of us, and from him we have received tidings of your love in
the Spirit’[85].
How or when the conversion of the Colossians took St Paul’s residence at
place, we have no direct information. Yet it can hardly Ephesus instrumental in
their conversion.
be wrong to connect the event with St Paul’s long
sojourn at Ephesus. Here he remained preaching for three whole years. It is
possible indeed that during this period he paid short visits to other
neighbouring cities of Asia: but if so, the notices in A.D. 54–57.
the Acts oblige us to suppose these interruptions to his residence in Ephesus
to have been slight and infrequent[86]. Yet, though the Apostle himself was
stationary in the capital, the Apostle’s influence and teaching spread far
beyond the limits of the city and its immediate neighbourhood. It was
hardly an exaggeration when Demetrius declared that ‘almost throughout all
Asia this Paul had persuaded and turned away much people’[87]. The sacred
historian himself uses equally strong language in describing the effects of
the Apostle’s preaching; ‘All they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the
Lord, both Jews and Greeks’[88]. In accordance with these notices, the
Apostle himself in an epistle written during this sojourn sends salutations to
Corinth, not from the Church of Ephesus specially, as might have been
anticipated, but from the ‘Churches of Asia’ generally[89]. St Luke, it should
be observed, ascribes this dissemination of the Gospel, not to journeys
undertaken by the Apostle, but to his preaching at Ephesus itself[90].
Thither, as to the metropolis of Western Asia, would flock crowds from all
the towns and villages far and near. Thence they would carry away, each to
his own neighbourhood, the spiritual treasure which they had so
unexpectedly found.
Among the places thus represented at the Asiatic Close alliance of these
metropolis would doubtless be the cities lying in the cities with Ephesus.
valley of the Lycus. The bonds of amity between these places and Ephesus
appear to have been unusually strong. The Concord of the Laodiceans and

Ephesians, the Concord of the Hierapolitans and Ephesians, are repeatedly
commemorated on medals struck for the purpose[91]. The work of Philemon
Thus the Colossians, Epaphras and Philemon, the and Nymphas,
latter with his household[92], and perhaps also the Laodicean Nymphas[93],
would fall in with the Apostle of the Gentiles and hear from his lips the first
tidings of a heavenly life.
But, whatever service may have been rendered by but especially Epaphras.
Philemon at Colossæ, or by Nymphas at Laodicea, it was to Epaphras
especially that all the three cities were indebted for their knowledge of the
Gospel. Though he was a Colossian by birth, the fervency of his prayers
and the energy of his love are represented as extending equally to Laodicea
and Hierapolis[94]. It is obvious that he looked upon himself as responsible
for the spiritual well-being of all alike.
We pass over a period of five or six years. St Paul’s St Paul still a stranger to
first captivity in Rome is now drawing to a close. this district.
During this interval he has not once visited the valley of the Lycus. He has,
it is true, skirted the coast and called at Miletus, which lies near the mouth
of the Mæander; but, though the elders of Ephesus were summoned to meet
him there[95], no mention is made of any representatives from these more
distant towns.
I have elsewhere described the Apostle’s His imprisonment at
circumstances during his residence in Rome, so far as Rome.
they are known to us[96]. It is sufficient to say here, that though he is still a
prisoner, friends new and old minister freely to his wants. Meanwhile the
alienation of the Judaic Christians is complete. Three only, remaining
faithful to him, are commemorated as honourable exceptions in the general
desertion[97].
We have seen that Colossæ was an unimportant place, Colossæ brought before
and that it had no direct personal claims on the his notice by two
incidents.
Apostle. We might therefore feel surprise that, thus
doubly disqualified, it should nevertheless attract his special attention at a
critical moment, when severe personal trials were superadded to ‘the care of
all the churches.’ But two circumstances, the one affecting his public duties,
the other private and personal, happening at this time, conspired to bring
Colossæ prominently before his notice.

1. He had received a visit from Epaphras. The 1. The mission of
dangerous condition of the Colossian and Epaphras.
neighbouring churches had filled the mind of their evangelist with alarm. A
strange form of heresy had broken out in these brotherhoods—a
combination of Judaic formalism with Oriental mystic speculation—and
was already spreading rapidly. His distress was extreme. He gratefully
acknowledged and reported their faith in Christ and their works of love[98].
But this only quickened his anxiety. He had ‘much toil for them’; he was
‘ever wrestling in his prayers on their behalf,’ that they might stand fast and
not abandon the simplicity of their earlier faith[99]. He came to Rome, we
may suppose, for the express purpose of laying this state of things before
the Apostle and seeking his counsel and assistance.
2. But at the time when Epaphras paid this visit, St 2. Onesimus a fugitive
Paul was also in communication with another in Rome.
Colossian, who had visited Rome under very different circumstances.
Onesimus, the runaway slave, had sought the metropolis, the common sink
of all nations[100], probably as a convenient hiding place, where he might
escape detection among its crowds and make a livelihood as best he could.
Here, perhaps accidentally, perhaps through the intervention of Epaphras,
he fell in with his master’s old friend. The Apostle interested himself in his
case, instructed him in the Gospel, and transformed him from a good-for-
nothing slave[101] into a ‘faithful and beloved brother[102].’
This combination of circumstances called the The Apostle despatches
Apostle’s attention to the Churches of the Lycus, and three letters
simultaneously.
more especially to Colossæ. His letters, which had
been found ‘weighty and powerful’ in other cases, might not be unavailing
now; and in this hope he took up his pen. Three epistles were written and
despatched at the same time to this district.
1. He addresses a special letter to the Colossians, 1. The Epistle to the
written in the joint names of himself and Timothy, Colossians.
warning them against the errors of the false teachers. He gratefully
acknowledges the report which he has received of their love and zeal[103].
He assures them of the conflict which agitates him on their behalf[104]. He
warns them to be on their guard against the delusive logic of enticing
words, against the vain deceit of a false philosophy[105]. The purity of their
Christianity is endangered by two errors, recommended to them by their

heretical leaders—the one theological, the other The theological and the
practical—but both alike springing from the same practical error of the
Colossians.
source, the conception of matter as the origin and
abode of evil. Thus, regarding God and matter as directly antagonistic and
therefore apart from and having no communication with each other, they
sought to explain the creation and government of the world by interposing a
series of intermediate beings, emanations or angels, to whom accordingly
they offered worship. At the same time, since they held that evil resided, not
in the rebellious spirit of man, but in the innate properties of matter, they
sought to overcome it by a rigid ascetic discipline, which failed after all to
touch the springs of action. As both errors flowed The proper corrective to
from the same source, they must be corrected by the both lies in the Christ of
the Gospel.
application of the same remedy, the Christ of the
Gospel. In the Person of Christ, the one mediator between heaven and earth,
is the true solution of the theological difficulty. Through the Life in Christ,
the purification of the heart through faith and love, is the effectual triumph
over moral evil[106]. St Paul therefore prescribes to References to Epaphras.
the Colossians the true teaching of the Gospel, as the best antidote to the
twofold danger which threatens at once their theological creed and their
moral principles; while at the same time he enforces his lesson by the
claims of personal affection, appealing to the devotion of their evangelist
Epaphras on their behalf[107].
Of Epaphras himself we know nothing beyond the few but significant
notices which connect him with Colossæ[108]. He did not return to Colossæ
as the bearer of the letter, but remained behind with St Paul[109]. As St Paul
in a contemporary epistle designates him his fellow-prisoner[110], it may be
inferred that his zeal and affection had involved him in the Apostle’s
captivity, and that his continuance in Rome was enforced. But however this
may be, the letter was placed in the hands of Tychicus, a native of
proconsular Asia, probably of Ephesus[111], who was Tychicus and Onesimus
entrusted with a wider mission at this time, and in its accompany the letter.
discharge would be obliged to visit the valley of the Lycus[112]. At the same
time he was accompanied by Onesimus, whom the Colossians had only
known hitherto as a worthless slave, but who now returns to them with the
stamp of the Apostle’s warm approval. St Paul says very little about
himself, because Tychicus and Onesimus would be able by word of mouth
to communicate all information to the Colossians[113]. The salutations.

But he sends one or two salutations which deserve a few words of
explanation. Epaphras of course greets his fellow-townsmen and children in
the faith. Other names are those of Aristarchus the Thessalonian, who had
been with the Apostle at Ephesus[114] and may possibly have formed some
personal connexion with the Colossians at that time: Mark, against whom
apparently the Apostle fears that a prejudice may be entertained (perhaps
the fact of his earlier desertion, and of St Paul’s dissatisfaction in
consequence[115], may have been widely known), and for whom therefore
he asks a favourable reception at his approaching visit to Colossæ,
according to instructions which they had already received; and Jesus the
Just, of whose relations with the Colossians we know nothing, and whose
only claim to a mention may have been his singular fidelity to the Apostle
at a critical juncture. Salutations moreover are added from Luke and from
Demas; and here again their close companionship with the Apostle is, so far
as we know, the sole cause of their names appearing[116].
Lastly, the Laodiceans were closely connected with Charge respecting
the Colossians by local and spiritual ties. To the Laodicea.
Church of Laodicea therefore, and to the household of one Nymphas who
was a prominent member of it, he sends greeting. At the same time he
directs them to interchange letters with the Laodiceans; for to Laodicea also
he had written. And he closes his salutations with a message to Archippus, a
resident either at Colossæ or at Laodicea (for on this point we are left to
conjecture), who held some important office in the Church, and respecting
whose zeal he seems to have entertained a misgiving[117].
2. But, while providing for the spiritual welfare of the 2. The Letter to
whole Colossian Church, he did not forget the Philemon.
temporal interests of its humblest member. Having attended to the
solicitations of the evangelist Epaphras, he addressed himself to the troubles
of the runaway slave Onesimus. The mission of Tychicus to Colossæ was a
favourable opportunity of restoring him to Philemon; for Tychicus, well
known as the Apostle’s friend and fellow-labourer, might throw the shield
of his protection over him and avert the worst consequences of Philemon’s
anger. But, not content with this measure of precaution, the Apostle himself
writes to Philemon on the offender’s behalf, recommending him as a
changed man[118], and claiming forgiveness for him as a return due from
Philemon to himself as to his spiritual father[119].

The salutations in this letter are the same as those in the Epistle to the
Colossians with the exception of Jesus Justus, whose name is omitted[120].
Towards the close St Paul declares his hope of release and intention of
visiting Colossæ, and asks Philemon to ‘prepare a lodging’ for him[121].
3. But at the same time with the two letters destined 3. The Circular
especially for Colossæ, the Apostle despatched a Lisetter , of which a copy
sent to Laodicea.
third, which had a wider scope. It has been already
mentioned that Tychicus was charged with a mission to the Asiatic
Churches. It has been noticed also that the Colossians were directed to
procure and read a letter in the possession of the Laodiceans. These two
facts are closely connected. The Apostle wrote at this time a circular letter
to the Asiatic Churches, which got its ultimate designation from the
metropolitan city and is consequently known to us as the Epistle to the
Ephesians[122]. It was the immediate object of Tychicus’ journey to deliver
copies of this letter at all the principal centres of Christianity in the district,
and at the same time to communicate by word of mouth the Apostle’s
special messages to each[123]. Among these centres was Laodicea. Thus his
mission brought him into the immediate neighbourhood of Colossæ. But he
was not charged to deliver another copy of the circular letter at Colossæ
itself, for this Church would be regarded only as a dependency of Laodicea;
and besides he was the bearer of a special letter from the Apostle to them. It
was sufficient therefore to provide that the Laodicean copy should be
circulated and read at Colossæ.
Thus the three letters are closely related. Tychicus is Personal links
connecting the three
the personal link of connexion between the Epistles to letters.
the Ephesians and to the Colossians; Onesimus
between those to the Colossians and to Philemon.
For reasons given elsewhere[124], it would appear that these three letters
were written and despatched towards the close of the Earthquake in the Lycus
Apostle’s captivity, about the year 63. At some time Valley.
not very distant from this date, a great catastrophe overtook the cities of the
Lycus valley. An earthquake was no uncommon occurrence in this
region[125]. But on this occasion the shock had been unusually violent, and
Laodicea, the flourishing and populous, was laid in ruins. Tacitus, who is
our earliest authority for this fact, places it in the year 60 and is silent about
the neighbouring towns[126]. Eusebius however makes it subsequent to the

burning of Rome (A.D. 64), and mentions Hierapolis Its probable date.
and Colossæ also as involved in the disaster[127]; while later writers,
adopting the date of Eusebius and including the three cities with him,
represent it as one of a series of divine judgments on the heathen world for
the persecution of the Christians which followed on the fire[128]. Having no
direct knowledge of the source from which Eusebius derived his
information, we should naturally be disposed to accept the authority of
Tacitus for the date, as more trustworthy. But, as indications occur
elsewhere that Eusebius followed unusually good authorities in recording
these earthquakes[129], it is far from improbable that he gives the correct
date[130]. In this case the catastrophe was subsequent Bearing on the
to the writing of these letters. If on the other hand the chronology
letters.
of these

year named by Tacitus be adopted, we gain a
subsidiary confirmation of the comparatively late date which I have
ventured to assign to these epistles on independent grounds; for, if they had
been written two years earlier, when the blow was recent, we might
reasonably have expected to find some reference to a disaster which had
devastated Laodicea and from which Colossæ cannot have escaped
altogether without injury. The additional fact mentioned by the Roman
historian, that Laodicea was rebuilt from her own resources without the
usual assistance from Rome[131], is valuable as illustrating a later notice in
the Apostolic writings[132].
It has been seen that, when these letters were written, St Mark’s intended visit.
St Mark was intending shortly to visit Colossæ, and that the Apostle
himself, looking forward to his release, hoped at length to make a personal
acquaintance with these Churches, which hitherto he knew only through the
report of others. Whether St Mark’s visit was ever paid or not, we have no
means of determining[133]. Of St Paul himself it is reasonable to assume,
that in the interval between his first and second St Paul probably visits
Roman captivity he found some opportunity of Colossæ.
carrying out his design. At all events we find him at Miletus, near to the
mouth of the Mæander[134]; and the journey between this place and
Laodicea is neither long nor difficult.
At the time of this visit—the first and last, we may St John in Asia Minor.
suppose, which he paid to the valley of the Lycus—St Paul’s direction of
the Asiatic Churches is drawing to a close. With his death they pass into the

hands of St John[135], who takes up his abode in Asia Minor. Of Colossæ
and Hierapolis we hear nothing more in the New Testament: but from his
exile in Patmos the beloved disciple delivers his The message to
Lord’s message to the Church of Laodicea[136]; a Laodicea.
message doubtless intended to be communicated also to the two subordinate
Churches, to which it would apply almost equally well.
The message communicated by St John to Laodicea Correspondences
prolongs the note which was struck by St Paul in the between the Apocalypse
and St Paul’s Epistles.
letter to Colossæ. An interval of a very few years has
not materially altered the character of these Churches. Obviously the same
temper prevails, the same errors are rife, the same correction must be
applied.
1. Thus, while St Paul finds it necessary to enforce 1. The doctrine of the
the truth that Christ is the image of the invisible God, Person of Christ,
that in Him all the divine fulness dwells, that He existed before all things,
that through Him all things were created and in Him all things are
sustained, that He is the primary source (ἀρχή) and has the pre-eminence in
all things[137]; so in almost identical language St John, speaking in the
person of our Lord, declares that He is the Amen, the faithful and true
witness, the primary source (ἀρχή) of the creation of God[138]. Some
lingering shreds of the old heresy, we may suppose, still hung about these
Churches, and instead of ‘holding fast the Head’ they were even yet prone
to substitute intermediate agencies, angelic mediators, as links in the chain
which should bind man to God. They still failed to realise the majesty and
significance, the completeness, of the Person of Christ.
And the practical duty also, which follows from the and practical duties
recognition of the theological truth, is enforced by which follow upon it.
both Apostles in very similar language. If St Paul entreats the Colossians to
seek those things which are above, where Christ is seated on the right hand
of God[139], and in the companion epistle, which also he directs them to
read, reminds the Churches that God raised them with Christ and seated
them with him in heavenly places in Christ Jesus[140]; in like manner St
John gives this promise to the Laodiceans in the name of his Lord: ‘He that
overcometh, I will grant to him to sit with me in my throne, even as I also
overcame and did sit with my Father in His throne[141]’.

2. But again; after a parting salutation to the Church 2. Warning against
of Laodicea St Paul closes with a warning to lukewarmness.
Archippus, apparently its chief pastor, to take heed to his ministry[142].
Some signs of slackened zeal seem to have called forth this rebuke. It may
be an accidental coincidence, but it is at least worthy of notice, that
lukewarmness is the special sin denounced in the angel of the Laodiceans,
and that the necessity of greater earnestness is the burden of the message to
that Church[143]. As with the people, so is it with the priest. The community
takes its colour from and communicates its colour to its spiritual rulers. The
‘be zealous’ of St John is the counterpart to the ‘take heed’ of St Paul.
3. Lastly; in the Apocalyptic message the pride of 3. The pride of wealth
wealth is sternly condemned in the Laodicean denounced.
Church: ‘For that thou sayest I am rich and have gotten me riches and have
need of nothing, and knowest not that thou art utterly wretched and
miserable and beggarly and blind and naked, I counsel thee to buy gold of
me refined with fire, that thou mayest have riches[144].’ This proud vaunt
receives its best illustration from a recent occurrence at Laodicea, to which
allusion has already been made. Only a very few years before this date an
earthquake had laid the city in ruins. Yet from this catastrophe she rose
again with more than her former splendour. This The vaunt of Laodicea.
however was not her chief title to respect. While other cities, prostrated by a
like visitation, had sought relief from the concessions of the Roman senate
or the liberality of the emperor’s purse, it was the glory of Laodicea that she
alone neither courted nor obtained assistance, but recovered by her own
resources. ‘Nullo a nobis remedio,’ says the Roman historian, ‘propriis
opibus revaluit[145].’ Thus she had asserted a proud independence, to which
neither far-famed metropolitan Ephesus, nor old imperial Sardis, nor her
prosperous commercial neighbours, Apamea and Cibyra, could lay
claim[146]. No one would dispute her boast that she ‘had gotten riches and
had need of nothing.’
But is there not a second and subsidiary idea Pride of intellectual
underlying the Apocalyptic rebuke? The pride of wealth.
intellectual wealth, we may well suspect, was a temptation at Laodicea
hardly less strong than the pride of material resources. When St Paul wrote,
the theology of the Gospel and the comprehension of the Church were alike
endangered by a spirit of intellectual exclusiveness[147] in these cities. He

warned them against a vain philosophy, against a show of wisdom, against
an intrusive mystic speculation, which vainly puffed up the fleshly
mind[148]. He tacitly contrasted with this false intellectual wealth ‘the riches
of the glory of God’s mystery revealed in Christ[149],’ the riches of the full
assurance of understanding, the genuine treasures of wisdom and
knowledge[150]. May not the same contrast be discerned in the language of
St John? The Laodiceans boast of their enlightenment, but they are blind,
and to cure their blindness they must seek eye-salve from the hands of the
great Physician. They vaunt their wealth of knowledge, but they are
wretched paupers, and must beg the refined gold of the Gospel to relieve
their wants[151].
This is the last notice in the Apostolic records relating to the Churches in
the valley of the Lycus; but during the succeeding ages the Christian
communities of this district play a conspicuous part in the struggles and the
development of the Church. When after the The early disciples settle
destruction of Jerusalem St John fixed his abode at in proconsular Asia
Ephesus, it would appear that not a few of the oldest surviving members of
the Palestinian Church accompanied him into ‘Asia,’ which henceforward
became the head-quarters of Apostolic authority. In this body of emigrants
Andrew[152] and Philip among the Twelve, Aristion and John the
presbyter[153] among other personal disciples of the Lord, are especially
mentioned.
Among the chief settlements of this Christian and especially at
dispersion was Hierapolis. This fact explains how Hierapolis.
these Phrygian Churches assumed a prominence in the ecclesiastical history
of the second century, for which we are hardly prepared by their
antecedents as they appear in connexion with St Paul, and which they failed
to maintain in the history of the later Church.
Here at all events was settled Philip of Bethsaida[154], the early friend and
fellow-townsman of St John, and the first Apostle Philip the Apostle with
who is recorded to have held communication with the his daughters.
Gentiles[155]. Here he died and was buried; and here after his decease lived
his two virgin daughters, who survived to a very advanced age and thus
handed down to the second century the traditions of the earliest days of the
Church. A third daughter, who was married, had settled in Ephesus, where
her body rested[156]. It was from the two daughters who resided at

Hierapolis, that Papias heard several stories of the Their traditions
collected by Papias.
first preachers of the Gospel, which he transmitted to
posterity in his work[157].
This Papias had conversed not only with the daughters of Philip, but also
with at least two personal disciples of the Lord, Aristion and John the
presbyter. He made it his business to gather traditions respecting the sayings
of the Saviour and His Apostles; and he published a work in five books,
entitled An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, using the information thus
collected to illustrate the discourses, and perhaps the doings, of Christ as
recorded in the Gospels[158]. Among other stories he related, apparently on
the authority of these daughters of Philip, how a certain dead man had been
restored to life in his own day, and how Justus Barsabas, who is mentioned
in the Acts, had drunk a deadly poison and miraculously escaped from any
evil effects[159].
If we may judge by his name, Papias was a native of Life and teaching of
Phrygia, probably of Hierapolis[160], of which he Papias.
afterwards became bishop, and must have grown up to youth or early
manhood before the close of the first century. He is said to have suffered
martyrdom at Pergamum about the year 165; but there is good reason for
distrusting this statement, independently of any chronological difficulty
which it involves[161]. Otherwise he must have lived Account of Eusebius.
to a very advanced age. Eusebius, to whom chiefly we owe our information
respecting him, was repelled by his millennarian views, and describes him
as a man of mean intelligence[162], accusing him of misunderstanding the
Apostolic sayings respecting the kingdom of Christ and thus interpreting in
a material sense expressions which were intended to be mystical and
symbolical. This disparaging account, though one-sided, was indeed not
altogether undeserved, for his love of the marvellous seems to have
overpowered his faculty of discrimination. But the adverse verdict of
Eusebius must be corrected by the more sympathetic language of
Irenæus[163], who possibly may have known him personally, and who
certainly must have been well acquainted with his reputation and character.
Much has been written respecting the relation of this writer to the Canonical
Gospels, but the discussion has no very direct bearing on our special
subject, and may be dismissed here[164]. One question however, which has a

real importance as affecting the progress of the Gospel in these parts, has
been raised by modern criticism and must not be passed over in silence.
It has been supposed that there was an entire A modern hypothesis
dislocation and discontinuity in the history of respecting Christianity
in Asia Minor stated and
Christianity in Asia Minor at a certain epoch; that the discussed.
Apostle of the Gentiles was ignored and his teaching
repudiated, if not anathematized; and that on its ruins was erected the
standard of Judaism, around which with a marvellous unanimity deserters
from the Pauline Gospel rallied. Of this retrograde faith St John is supposed
to have been the great champion, and Papias a typical and important
representative[165].
The subject, as a whole, is too wide for a full investigation here. I must
content myself with occupying a limited area, showing not only the
historical baselessness, but the strong inherent improbability of the theory,
as applied to Hierapolis and the neighbouring churches. As this district is its
chief strong-hold, a repulse at this point must involve its ultimate defeat
along the whole line.
Of St John himself I have already spoken[166]. It has The position of St John
been shown that his language addressed to these Churches is not only not
opposed to St Paul’s teaching, but presents remarkable coincidences with it.
So far at least the theory finds no support; and, when from St John we turn
to Papias, the case is not different. The advocates of and of Papias.
the hypothesis in question lay the chief stress of their argument on the
silence of Papias, or rather of Eusebius. Eusebius quotes a passage from
Papias, in which the bishop of Hierapolis mentions collecting from
trustworthy sources the sayings of certain Apostles and early disciples; but
St Paul is not named among them. He also gives short extracts from Papias
referring to the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark, and mentions that this
writer made use of the first Epistle of St John and the first Epistle of St
Peter; but here again there is no allusion to St Paul’s writings. Whether
referring to the personal testimony or to the Canonical writings of the
Apostles, Papias, we are reminded, is equally silent about St Paul.
On both these points a satisfactory answer can be given; but the two cases
are essentially different, and must be considered apart.

(1) The range of personal testimony which Papias 1. The traditions
would be able to collect depended on his collected by Papias.
opportunities. Before he had grown up to manhood, the personal
reminiscences of St Paul would have almost died out. The Apostle of the
Gentiles had not resided more than three years even at Ephesus, and seems
to have paid only one brief visit to the valley of the Lycus, even if he visited
it at all. Such recollections of St Paul as might once have lingered here
would certainly be overshadowed by and forgotten in the later sojourn of St
John, which, beginning where they ceased, extended over more than a
quarter of a century. To St John, and to those personal disciples of Christ
who surrounded him, Papias and his contemporaries would naturally and
almost inevitably look for the traditions which they so eagerly collected.
This is the case with the leading representative of the Asiatic school in the
next generation, Irenæus, whose traditions are almost wholly derived from
St John and his companions, while at the same time he evinces an entire
sympathy with the work and teaching of St Paul. But indeed, even if it had
been otherwise, the object which Papias had directly in view did not suggest
any appeal to St Paul’s authority. He was writing an ‘Exposition of the
Oracles of the Lord,’ and he sought to supplement and interpret these by
traditions of our Lord’s life, such as eyewitnesses only could give. St Paul
could have no place among those personal disciples of Christ, of whom
alone he is speaking in this preface to his work, which Eusebius quotes.
(2) But, though we have no right to expect any 2. His references to the
mention of St Paul where the appeal is to personal Canonical writings.
testimony, yet with quotations from or references to the Canonical writings
the case, it may be argued, is different. Here at all events we might look for
some recognition of St Paul. To this argument it would perhaps be a
sufficient reply, that St Paul’s Epistles do not furnish any matter which must
necessarily have been introduced into a work such as Papias composed. But
the complete and decisive answer is this; that the silence of Eusebius, so far
from carrying with it the silence of Papias, does not No weight to be attached
even afford a presumption in this direction. Papias to the silence of
Eusebius.
may have quoted St Paul again and again, and yet
Eusebius would see no reason to chronicle the fact. His usage in other cases
is decisive on this point. The Epistle of Polycarp which was read by
Eusebius is the same which we still possess. Not only does it teem with the
most obvious quotations from St Paul, but in one passage it directly

mentions his writing to the Philippians[167]. Yet the historian, describing its
relation to the Canonical Scriptures, contents himself with saying that it
‘employs some testimonies from the former Epistle of Peter[168].’ Exactly
similar is his language respecting Irenæus also. Irenæus, as is well known,
cites by name almost every one of St Paul’s Epistles; yet the description
which Eusebius gives under this same head, after quoting this writer’s
notices respecting the history of the Gospels and the Apocalypse, is that ‘he
mentions also the first Epistle of John, alleging very many testimonies from
it, and in like manner also the former Epistle of Peter[169].’ There is every
reason therefore to suppose that Eusebius would deal with Papias as he has
dealt with Polycarp and Irenæus, and that, unless Papias had introduced
some curious fact relating to St Paul, it would not have occurred to him to
record mere quotations from or references to this Apostle’s letters. It may be
supposed that Eusebius records with a fair amount of attention references to
the Catholic Epistles in early writers, because the limits of the Canon in this
part were not accurately fixed. On the other hand the Epistles of St Paul
were universally received and therefore did not need to be accredited by
any such testimony. But whatever may be the explanation, the fact is patent,
and it furnishes a complete answer to the argument drawn from his silence
in the case of Papias[170].
But, if the assumption has been proved to be baseless, The views of Papias
have we any grounds for saying that it is also highly inferred from his
associates.
improbable? Here it seems fair to argue from the
well-known to the unknown. Of the opinions of Papias respecting St Paul
we know absolutely nothing; of the opinions of Polycarp and Irenæus ample
evidence lies before us. Noscitur a sociis is a sound maxim to apply in such
a case. Papias was a companion of Polycarp, and he is quoted with
deference by Irenæus[171]. Is it probable that his opinions should be
diametrically opposed to those of his friend and contemporary on a cardinal
point affecting the very conception of Christianity (for the rejection of St
Paul must be considered in this light)? or that this vital heterodoxy, if it
existed, should have escaped an intelligent critic of the next generation who
had the five books of his work before him, who himself had passed his early
life in Asia Minor, and who yet appeals to Papias as preserving the doctrinal
tradition which had been handed down from the Apostles themselves to his
own time? I say nothing of Eusebius himself, who, with a distinct prejudice

against Papias, accuses him of no worse heresy in his writings than
entertaining millennarian views.
It may indeed be confessed that a man like Papias, Millennarian views
whose natural bent, assisted by his Phrygian consistent with the
recognition of St Paul.
education, was towards sensuous views of religion,
would not be likely to appreciate the essentially spiritual teaching of St
Paul; but this proves nothing. The difference between unconscious want of
sympathy and conscious rejection is all important for the matter in hand.
The same charge might be brought against numberless theologians, whether
in the middle ages or in more modern times, into whose minds it never
entered to question the authority of the Apostle and who quote his writings
with the utmost reverence. Neither in the primitive days of Christianity nor
in its later stages has the profession of Chiliastic views been found
inconsistent with the fullest recognition of St Paul’s Apostolic claims. In the
early Church Irenæus and Tertullian are notable instances of this
combination; and in our own age and country a tendency to millennarian
speculations has been commonly associated with the staunchest adherence
to the fundamental doctrines of St Paul.
As the successor of Papias and the predecessor of Abercius probably his
Claudius Apollinaris in the see of Hierapolis, we may successor.
perhaps name Abercius or Avircius[172]. His legendary Acts assign his
episcopate to the reign of Marcus Aurelius; and, though they are disfigured
by extravagant fictions, yet the date may perhaps be accepted, as it seems to
be confirmed by other evidence. An inscription on his tombstone recorded
how he had paid one visit to the city of Rome, and His journeys.
another to the banks of the Euphrates. These long journeys are not without
parallels in the lives of contemporary bishops. Polycarp of Smyrna visited
Rome, hoping to adjust the Paschal controversy; Melito of Sardis went as
far as Palestine, desiring to ascertain on the spot the facts relating to the
Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures. These or similar motives may have
influenced Abercius to undertake his distant journeys. If we may assume the
identification of this bishop with one Avircius Marcellus who is mentioned
in a contemporary document, he took an active interest in the Montanist
controversy, as from his position he was likely to do.
The literary character of the see of Hierapolis, which Claudius Apollinaris
bishop of Hierapolis.
had been inaugurated by Papias, was ably sustained

by Claudius Apollinaris. His surname, which seems to have been common
in these parts[173], may have been derived from the patron deity of
Hierapolis[174] and suggests a Gentile origin. His intimate acquaintance
with heathen literature, which is mentioned by more than one ancient writer,
points in the same direction. During the reign of M. Aurelius he had already
made himself a name by his writings, and seems to have been promoted to
the see of Hierapolis before the death of that emperor[175].
Of his works, which were very numerous, only a few His literary works.
scanty fragments have survived[176]. The imperfect lists however, which
have reached us, bear ample testimony both to the literary activity of the
man, and to the prominence of the Church, over which he presided, in the
great theological and ecclesiastical controversies of the age.
The two questions, which especially agitated the He takes part in the two
Churches of Asia Minor during the last thirty years of chief controversies of
the day.
the first century, were the celebration of the Easter
festival and the pretensions of the Montanist prophets. In both disputes
Claudius Apollinaris took an active and conspicuous part.
1. The Paschal controversy, after smouldering long 1. The Paschal question.
both here and elsewhere, first burst into flames in the neighbouring Church
of Laodicea[178]. An able bishop of Hierapolis therefore must necessarily
have been involved in the dispute, even if he had been desirous of avoiding
it. What side Apollinaris took in the controversy the extant fragments of his
work do not by themselves enable us to decide; for they deal merely with a
subsidiary question which does not seriously affect the main issue[179]. But
we can hardly doubt that with Polycarp of Smyrna and Melito of Sardis and
Polycrates of Ephesus he defended the practice which was universal in
Asia[180], observing the Paschal anniversary on the 14th Nisan whether it
fell on a Friday or not, and invoking the authority of St John at Ephesus,
and of St Philip at his own Hierapolis[181], against the divergent usage of
Alexandria and Palestine and the West.
2. His writings on the Montanist controversy were 2. Montanism.
still more famous, and are recommended as an authority on the subject by
Serapion of Antioch a few years after the author’s death[182]. Though later
than many of his works[183], they were written soon after Montanus had
divulged the extravagance of his pretensions and before Montanism had

attained its complete development. If a later notice may be trusted,
Apollinaris was not satisfied with attacking Montanism in writing, but
summoned at Hierapolis a council of twenty-six bishops besides himself,
where this heresy was condemned and sentence of excommunication
pronounced against Montanus together with his adherent the pretended
prophetess Maximilla[184].
Nor were his controversial writings confined to these His other hæresiological
two topics. In one place he refuted the Encratites[185]; writings.
in another he upheld the orthodox teaching respecting the true humanity of
Christ[186]. It is plain that he did not confine himself to questions especially
affecting Asia Minor; but that the doctrine and the practice of the Church
generally found in him a vigorous advocate, who was equally opposed to
the novelties of heretical teaching and the rigours of overstrained
asceticism.
Nor again did Apollinaris restrict himself to controversies carried on
between Christian and Christian. He appears alike as the champion of the
Gospel against attacks from without, and as the promoter of Christian life
and devotion within the pale of the Church. On the His apologetic
one hand he was the author of an apology addressed to M. Aurelius[187], of
a controversial treatise in five books against the Greeks, and of a second in
two books against the Jews[188]; on the other we find mentioned among his
writings a work in two books on Truth, and a second and didactic works.
on Piety, besides several of which the titles have not come down to us[189].
He seems indeed to have written on almost every subject which interested
the Church of his age. He was not only well versed in the Scriptures, but
showed a wide acquaintance with secular literature also[190]. His style is
praised by a competent judge[191], and his orthodoxy was such as to satisfy
the dogmatic precision of the post-Nicene age[192].
These facts are not unimportant in their bearing on Important bearing of
the question which has been already discussed in these facts on the history
of Christianity.
relation to Papias. If there had been such a
discontinuity of doctrine and practice in the Church of Hierapolis as the
theory in question assumes, if the Pauline Gospel was repudiated in the later
years of the first century and rank Judaism adopted in its stead, how can we
explain the position of Apollinaris? Obviously a counter-revolution must
have taken place, which undid the effects of the former. One dislocation

must have been compensated by another. And yet Irenæus knows nothing of
these religious convulsions which must have shaken the doctrine of the
Church to its foundations, but represents the tradition as one, continuous,
unbroken, reaching back through the elders of the Asiatic Churches,
through Papias and Polycarp, to St John himself—Irenæus who received his
Christian education in Asia Minor, who throughout life was in
communication with the churches there, and who had already reached
middle age when this second revolution is supposed to have occurred. The
demands on our credulity, which this theory makes, are enormous. And its
improbability becomes only the more glaring, as we extend our view. For
the solidarity of the Church is the one striking fact Solidarity of the Church
unmistakably revealed to us, as here and there the veil in the second century.
which shrouds the history of the second century is lifted. Anicetus and Soter
and Eleutherus and Victor at Rome, Pantænus and Clement at Alexandria,
Polycrates at Ephesus, Papias and Apollinaris at Hierapolis, Polycarp at
Smyrna, Melito at Sardis, Ignatius and Serapion at Antioch, Primus and
Dionysius at Corinth, Pothinus and Irenæus in Gaul, Philippus and Pinytus
in Crete, Hegesippus and Narcissus in Palestine, all are bound together by
the ties of a common organization and the sympathy of a common creed.
The Paschal controversy is especially valuable, as showing the limits of
divergence consistent with the unity of the Church. The study of this
controversy teaches us to appreciate with ever increasing force the pregnant
saying of Irenæus that the difference of the usage establishes the harmony
of the faith[193].
Though Laodicea cannot show the same intellectual Activity of Laodicea.
activity as Hierapolis during the second century, yet in practical energy she
is not wanting.
The same persecution, which, permitted if not Martyrdom of Sagaris.
encouraged by the imperial Stoic, was fatal to c. A.D. 165.
Polycarp at Smyrna, deprived Laodicea also of her bishop Sagaris[194]. The
exact year in which he fell a martyr is not known; but we can hardly be
wrong in assuming that his death was nearly coincident with those of
Polycarp and his companions. His name appears to have been held in great
honour[195].
But while the Church of Laodicea was thus Outbreak of the Paschal
controversy.
contending against foes without, she was also torn

asunder by feuds within. Coincident with the martyrdom of Sagaris was the
outburst of the Paschal controversy, of which mention has been already
made, and which for more than a century and a half disturbed the peace of
the Church, until it was finally laid at rest by the Council of Nicæa. The
Laodiceans would naturally regulate their festival by the Asiatic or
Quartodeciman usage, strictly observing the day of the month and
disregarding the day of the week. But a great commercial centre like
Laodicea must have attracted large crowds of foreign Christians from
Palestine or Egypt or Rome or Gaul, who were accustomed to
commemorate the Passion always on a Friday and the Resurrection on a
Sunday according to the western practice; and in this way probably the
dispute arose. The treatise on the Paschal Festival by Melito of Sardis was
written on this occasion to defend the Asiatic practice. The fact that
Laodicea became the head-quarters of the controversy is a speaking
testimony to the prominence of this Church in the latter half of the second
century.
At a later date the influence of both Hierapolis and Hierapolis and Laodicea
Laodicea has sensibly declined. In the great in later history.
controversies of the fourth s and fifth centuries they take no conspicuous
part. Among their bishops there is not one who has left his mark on history.
And yet their names appear at most of the great Councils, in which they
bear a silent part. At Nicæa Hierapolis was The Arian heresy.
represented by Flaccus[196], Laodicea by N icæa
A.D. 325.
Nunechius[197]. They both acquiesced in its decrees,
and the latter as metropolitan published them throughout the Phrygian
Churches[198]. Soon after, both sees lapsed into Arianism. At the synod of
Philippopolis, composed of bishops who had seceded Philippopolis A.D. 347.
from the Council of Sardica, the representatives of these two sees were
present and joined in the condemnation of the Athanasians. On this
occasion Hierapolis was still represented by Flaccus, who had thus turned
traitor to his former faith[199]. On the other hand Laodicea had changed its
bishop twice meanwhile. Cecropius had won the imperial favour by his
abuse of the orthodox party, and was first promoted to Laodicea, whence he
was translated to Nicomedia[200]. He was succeeded by Nonnius, who
signed the Arian decree at Philippopolis[201]. When these sees recovered
their orthodoxy we do not know; but it is perhaps a Constantinople. A.D.
significant fact, that neither is represented at the 381.]

second general Council, held at Constantinople (A.D. The Nestorian and
381)[202]. At the third general Council, which met at Eutychian
Ephesus.
heresies.

Ephesus, Laodicea is represented by Aristonicus, A.D. 431.
Hierapolis by Venantius[203]. Both bishops sign the
decrees condemning Nestorius. Again in the next Christological controversy
which agitated the Church the two sees bear their part. At the notorious
Robbers’ Synod, held also at Ephesus, Laodicea was Latrocinium. A.D. 449.
represented by another Nunechius, Hierapolis by Stephanus. Both bishops
committed themselves to the policy of Dioscorus and the opinions of the
heretic Eutyches[204]. Yet with the fickleness which characterized these sees
at an earlier date during the Arian controversy, we find their representatives
two years later at the Council of Chalcedon siding Chalcedon. A.D. 451.
with the orthodox party and condemning the Eutychian heresy which they
had so lately supported[205]. Nunechius is still bishop of Laodicea, and
reverses his former vote. Stephanus has been succeeded at Hierapolis by
Abercius, whose orthodoxy, so far as we know, had not been compromised
by any previous expression of opinion[206].
The history of these churches at a later date is such as Later vacillation of these
might have been anticipated from their attitude during sees.
the period of the first Four General Councils. The sees of Laodicea and
Hierapolis, one or both, are represented at all the more important assemblies
of the Church; and the same vacillation and infirmity of purpose, which had
characterized their holders in the earlier councils, marks the proceedings of
their later successors[207].
But, though the two sees thus continue to bear witness Their comparative
to their existence by the repeated presence of their unimportance.
occupants at councils and synods, yet the real influence of Laodicea and
Hierapolis on the Church at large has terminated with the close of the
second century. On one occasion only did either Council of Laodicea an
community assume a position of prominence. About exception.
the middle of the fourth century a council was held at Laodicea[208]. It was
convened more especially to settle some points of Its decree on the Canon.
ecclesiastical discipline; but incidentally the assembled bishops were led to
make an order respecting the Canon of Scripture[209]. As this was the first
occasion in which the subject had been brought formally before the notice
of an ecclesiastical assembly this Council of Laodicea secured a notoriety

which it would not otherwise have obtained, and to which it was hardly
entitled by its constitution or its proceedings. Its decrees were confirmed
and adopted by later councils both in the East and in the West[210].
More important however for my special purpose, than Its decrees illustrate the
the influence of this synod on the Church at large, is Epistle to the
Colossians.
the light which its canons throw on the heretical
tendencies of this district, and on the warnings of St Paul in the Colossian
Epistle. To illustrate this fact it will only be necessary to write out some of
these canons at length:
29. ‘It is not right for Christians to Judaize and Col. ii. 14, 16, 17.
abstain from labour on the sabbath, but to work on this same day. They
should pay respect rather to the Lord’s day, and, if possible, abstain from
labour on it as Christians. But if they should be found Judaizers, let them be
anathema in the sight of Christ.’
35. ‘It is not right for Christians to abandon the Col. ii. 18.
Church of God and go away and invoke angels (ἀγγέλους ὀνομάζειν)[211]
and hold conventicles (συνάξεις ποιεῖν); for these things are forbidden. If
therefore any one is found devoting himself to this secret idolatry, let him
be anathema, because he abandoned our Lord Jesus Christ and went after
idolatry.’
36. ‘It is not right for priests or clergy to be magicians or enchanters or
mathematicians or astrologers[212], or to make safe-guards (φυλακτήρια) as
they are called, for such things are prisons (δεσμωτήρια) of their souls[213]:
and we have enjoined that they which wear them be cast out of the Church.’
37. ‘It is not right to receive from Jews or heretics the festive offerings
which they send about, nor to join in their festivals.’
38. ‘It is not right to receive unleavened bread from the Jews or to
participate in their impieties.’
It is strange, at this late date, to find still lingering in these churches the
same readiness to be ‘judged in respect of an holiday or a new moon or a
sabbath,’ with the same tendency to relinquish the hold of the Head and to
substitute ‘a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels,’ which three
centuries before had called forth the Apostle’s rebuke and warning in the
Epistle to the Colossians.

During the flourishing period of the Eastern Church, Ecclesiastical status of
Laodicea appears as the metropolis of the province of Laodicea and
Hierapolis.
Phrygia Pacatiana, counting among its suffragan
bishoprics the see of Colossæ[214]. On the other hand Hierapolis, though
only six miles distant, belonged to the neighbouring province of Phrygia
Salutaris[215], whose metropolis was Synnada, and of which it was one of
the most important sees. The stream of the Lycus seems to have formed the
boundary line between the two ecclesiastical provinces. At a later date
Hierapolis itself was raised to metropolitan rank[216].
But while Laodicea and Hierapolis held the foremost Obscurity of Colossæ.
place in the records of the early Church, and continued to bear an active,
though inconspicuous part, in later Christian history, Colossæ was from the
very first a cipher. The town itself, as we have seen, was already waning in
importance, when the Apostle wrote; and its subsequent decline seems to
have been rapid. Not a single event in Christian history is connected with its
name; and its very existence is only rescued from oblivion, when at long
intervals some bishop of Colossæ attaches his signature to the decree of an
ecclesiastical synod. The city ceased to strike coins in the reign of Gordian
(A.D. 238–244)[217]. It fell gradually into decay, being It is supplanted by
supplanted by the neighbouring town Chonæ, the Chonæ.
modern Chonos, so called from the natural funnels by which the streams
here disappear in underground channels formed by the incrustations of
travertine[218]. We may conjecture also that its ruin was hastened by a
renewed assault of its ancient enemy, the earthquake[219]. It is commonly
said that Chonæ is built on the site of the ancient Colossæ; but the later
town stands at some distance from the earlier, as Salisbury does from Old
Sarum. The episcopal see necessarily followed the population; though for
some time after its removal to the new town the bishop still continued to
use the older title, with or without the addition of Chonæ by way of
explanation, till at length the name of this primitive Apostolic Church
passes wholly out of sight[220].
The Turkish conquest pressed with more than Turkish conquest.
common severity on these districts. When the day of visitation came, the
Church was taken by surprise. Occupied with ignoble quarrels and selfish
interests, she had no ear for the voice of Him who demanded admission.
The door was barred and the knock unheeded. The long-impending doom

overtook her, and the golden candlestick was removed for ever from the
Eternal Presence[221].

II.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.
From the language of St Paul, addressed to the
Church of Colossæ, we may infer the presence of two Two elements in the
disturbing elements which threatened the purity of Colossian heresy.
Christian faith and practice in this community. These elements are
distinguishable in themselves, though it does not follow that they present
the teaching of two distinct parties.
1. A mere glance at the epistle suffices to detect the 1. Judaic.
presence of Judaism in the teaching which the Apostle combats. The
observance of sabbaths and new moons is decisive in this respect. The
distinction of meats and drinks points in the same direction[222]. Even the
enforcement of the initiatory rite of Judaism may be inferred from the
contrast implied in St Paul’s recommendation of the spiritual
circumcision[223].
2. On the other hand a closer examination of its 2. Gnostic.
language shows that these Judaic features do not exhaust the portraiture of
the heresy or heresies against which the epistle is directed. We discern an
element of theosophic speculation, which is alien to the spirit of Judaism
proper. We are confronted with a shadowy mysticism, which loses itself in
the contemplation of the unseen world. We discover a tendency to interpose
certain spiritual agencies, intermediate beings, between God and man, as
the instruments of communication and the objects of worship[224].
Anticipating the result which will appear more clearly hereafter, we may
say that along with its Judaism there was a Gnostic element in the false
teaching which prevailed at Colossæ.
Have we then two heresies here, or one only? Were Are these combined or
these elements distinct, or were they fused into the separate?
same system? In other words, Is St Paul controverting a phase of Judaism
on the one hand, and a phase of Gnosticism on the other; or did he find

himself in conflict with a Judæo-Gnostic heresy which combined the
two[225]?
On closer examination we find ourselves compelled General reasons for
to adopt the latter alternative. The epistle itself supposing one heresy
only, in which they are
contains no hint that the Apostle has more than one fused.
set of antagonists in view; and the needless
multiplication of persons or events is always to be deprecated in historical
criticism. Nor indeed does the hypothesis of a single complex heresy
present any real difficulty. If the two elements seem irreconcileable, or at
least incongruous, at first sight, the incongruity disappears on further
examination. It will be shown in the course of this investigation, that some
special tendencies of religious thought among the Jews themselves before
and about this time prepared the way for such a combination in a Christian
community like the Church of Colossæ[226]. Moreover we shall find that the
Christian heresies of the next succeeding ages exhibit in a more developed
form the same complex type, which here appears in its nascent state[227];
this later development not only showing that the combination was
historically possible in itself, but likewise presupposing some earlier stage
of its existence such as confronts us at Colossæ.
But in fact the Apostle’s language hardly leaves the S. Paul’s language is
question open. The two elements are so closely decisive on this point.
interwoven in his refutation, that it is impossible to separate them. He
passes backwards and forwards from the one to the other in such a way as
to show that they are only parts of one complex whole. On this point the
logical connexion of the sentences is decisive: ‘Beware lest any man make
spoil of you through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men,
after the rudiments of the world.... Ye were circumcised with a circumcision
not made with hands.... And you ... did He quicken, ... blotting out the
handwriting of ordinances which was against you.... Let no man therefore
judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of a holy day or a new moon or a
sabbath.... Let no man beguile you of your prize in a self-imposed humility
and service of angels.... If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the
world, why ... are ye subject to ordinances ... which things have a show of
wisdom in self-imposed service and humility and hard treatment of the
body, but are of no value against indulgence of the flesh[228].’ Here the
superior wisdom, the speculative element which is characteristic of

Gnosticism, and the ritual observance, the practical element which was
supplied by Judaism, are regarded not only as springing from the same
stem, but also as intertwined in their growth. And the more carefully we
examine the sequence of the Apostle’s thoughts, the more intimate will the
connexion appear.
Having described the speculative element in this Gnosticism must be
complex heresy provisionally as Gnostic, I purpose defined and described.
enquiring in the first place, how far Judaism prior to and independently of
Christianity had allied itself with Gnostic modes of thought; and afterwards,
whether the description of the Colossian heresy is such as to justify us in
thus classing it as a species of Gnosticism. But, as a preliminary to these
enquiries, some definition of the word, or at least some conception of the
leading ideas which it involves, will be necessary. With its complex
varieties and elaborate developments we have no concern here: for, if
Gnosticism can be found at all in the records of the Apostolic age, it will
obviously appear in a simple and elementary form. Divested of its
accessories and presented in its barest outline, it is not difficult of
delineation[229].
1. As the name attests[230], Gnosticism implies the 1. Intellectual
possession of a superior wisdom, which is hidden exclusiveness
Gnosticism.
of

from others. It makes a distinction between the select
few who have this higher gift, and the vulgar many who are without it.
Faith, blind faith, suffices the latter, while knowledge is the exclusive
possession of the former. Thus it recognises a separation of intellectual
caste in religion, introducing the distinction of an esoteric and an exoteric
doctrine, and interposing an initiation of some kind or other between the
two classes. In short it is animated by the exclusive aristocratic spirit[231],
which distinguishes the ancient religions, and from which it was a main
function of Christianity to deliver mankind.
2. This was its spirit; and the intellectual questions, on Speculative tenets of
which its energies were concentrated and to which it Gnosticism.
professed to hold the key, were mainly twofold. How can the work of
creation be explained? and, How are we to account for the existence of
evil[232]? To reconcile the creation of the world and Creation of the world,
the existence of evil with the conception of God as and existence of evil.
the absolute Being, was the problem which all the Gnostic systems set

themselves to solve. It will be seen that the two questions cannot be treated
independently but have a very close and intimate connexion with each
other.
The Gnostic argument ran as follows: Did God create Existence of evil, how to
the world out of nothing, evolve it from Himself? be explained?
Then, God being perfectly good and creation having resulted from His sole
act without any opposing or modifying influence, evil would have been
impossible; for otherwise we are driven to the conclusion that God created
evil.
This solution being rejected as impossible, the Matter the abode of evil.
Gnostic was obliged to postulate some antagonistic principle independent of
God, by which His creative energy was thwarted and limited. This opposing
principle, the kingdom of evil, he conceived to be the world of matter. The
precise idea of its mode of operation varies in different Gnostic systems. It
is sometimes regarded as a dead passive resistance, sometimes as a
turbulent active power. But, though the exact point of view may shift, the
object contemplated is always the same. In some way or other evil is
regarded as residing in the material, sensible world. Thus Gnostic
speculation on the existence of evil ends in a dualism.
This point being conceded, the ulterior question Creation, how to be
arises: How then is creation possible? How can the explained?
Infinite communicate with the Finite, the Good with the Evil? How can God
act upon matter? God is perfect, absolute, incomprehensible.
This, the Gnostic went on to argue, could only have been possible by some
self-limitation on the part of God. God must express Himself in some way.
There must be some evolution, some effluence, of Deity. Thus the Divine
Being germinates, as it were; and the first Doctrine of emanations.
germination again evolves a second from itself in like manner. In this way
we obtain a series of successive emanations, which may be more or fewer,
as the requirements of any particular system demand. In each successive
evolution the Divine element is feebler. They sink gradually lower and
lower in the scale, as they are farther removed from their source; until at
length contact with matter is possible, and creation ensues. These are the
emanations, æons, spirits, or angels, of Gnosticism, conceived as more or

less concrete and personal according to the different aspects in which they
are regarded in different systems.
3. Such is the bare outline (and nothing more is 3. Practical errors of
needed for my immediate purpose) of the speculative Gnosticism.
views of Gnosticism. But it is obvious that these views must have exerted a
powerful influence on the ethical systems of their advocates, and thus they
would involve important practical consequences. If matter is the principle
of evil, it is of infinite moment for a man to know how he can avoid its
baneful influence and thus keep his higher nature unclogged and unsullied.
To this practical question two directly opposite Two opposite ethical
rules.
answers were given[233]:
(i) On the one hand, it was contended that the desired (i) Rigid asceticism.
end might best be attained by a rigorous abstinence. Thus communication
with matter, if it could not be entirely avoided, might be reduced to a
minimum. Its grosser defilements at all events would be escaped. The
material part of man would be subdued and mortified, if it could not be
annihilated; and the spirit, thus set free, would be sublimated, and rise to its
proper level. Thus the ethics of Gnosticism pointed in the first instance to a
strict asceticism.
(ii) But obviously the results thus attained are very (ii) Unrestrained license.
slight and inadequate. Matter is about us everywhere. We do but touch the
skirts of the evil, when we endeavour to fence ourselves about by
prohibitive ordinances, as for instance, when we enjoin a spare diet or
forbid marriage. Some more comprehensive rule is wanted, which shall
apply to every contingency and every moment of our lives. Arguing in this
way, other Gnostic teachers arrived at an ethical rule directly opposed to the
former. ‘Cultivate an entire indifference,’ they said, ‘to the world of sense.
Do not give it a thought one way or the other, but follow your own
impulses. The ascetic principle assigns a certain importance to matter. The
ascetic fails in consequence to assert his own independence. The true rule of
life is to treat matter as something alien to you, towards which you have no
duties or obligations and which you can use or leave unused as you
like[234].’ In this way the reaction from rigid asceticism led to the opposite
extreme of unrestrained licentiousness, both alike springing from the same
false conception of matter as the principle of evil.

Gnosticism, as defined by these characteristic Original independence
features, has obviously no necessary connexion with of Gnosticism and its
subsequent connexion
Christianity[235]. Christianity would naturally arouse with Christianity.
it to unwonted activity, by leading men to dwell more
earnestly on the nature and power of evil, and thus stimulating more
systematic thought on the theological questions which had already arrested
attention. After no long time Gnosticism would absorb into its system more
or fewer Christian elements, or Christianity in some of its forms would
receive a tinge from Gnosticism. But the thing itself had an independent
root, and seems to have been prior in time. The probabilities of the case,
and the scanty traditions of history, alike point to this independence of the
two[236]. If so, it is a matter of little moment at what precise time the name
‘Gnostic’ was adopted, whether before or after contact with Christianity; for
we are concerned only with the growth and direction of thought which the
name represents[237].

If then Gnosticism was not an offspring of Its alliance with Judaism
Christianity, but a direction of religious speculation before Christianity.
which existed independently, we are at liberty to entertain the question
whether it did not form an alliance with Judaism, contemporaneously with
or prior to its alliance with Christianity. There is at least no obstacle which
bars such an investigation at the outset. If this should prove to be the case,
then we have a combination which prepares the way for the otherwise
strange phenomena presented in the Epistle to the Colossians.
Those, who have sought analogies to the three Jewish The three sects of the
sects among the philosophical schools of Greece and Jews.
Rome, have compared the Sadducees to the Epicureans, the Pharisees to the
Stoics, and the Essenes to the Pythagoreans. Like all historical parallels,
this comparison is open to misapprehension: but, carefully guarded, the
illustration is pertinent and instructive.
With the Sadducees we have no concern here. Sadduceeism, purely
Whatever respect may be due to their attitude in the negative.
earlier stages of their history, at the Christian era at least they have ceased
to deserve our sympathy; for their position has become mainly negative.
They take their stand on denials—the denial of the existence of angels, the
denial of the resurrection of the dead, the denial of a progressive

development in the Jewish Church. In these negative tendencies, in the
materialistic teaching of the sect, and in the moral consequences to which it
led, a very rough resemblance to the Epicureans will appear[238].
The two positive sects were the Pharisees and the Phariseeism and
Essenes. Both alike were strict observers of the ritual Essenism compared.
law; but, while the Pharisee was essentially practical, the tendency of the
Essene was to mysticism; while the Pharisee was a man of the world, the
Essene was a member of a brotherhood. In this respect the Stoic and the
Pythagorean were the nearest counterparts which the history of Greek
philosophy and social life could offer. These analogies indeed are suggested
by Josephus himself[239].
While the portrait of the Pharisee is distinctly traced Elusive features of
and easily recognised, this is not the case with the Essenism.
Essene. The Essene is the great enigma of Hebrew history. Admired alike
by Jew, by Heathen, and by Christian, he yet remains a dim vague outline,
on which the highest subtlety of successive critics has been employed to
supply a substantial form and an adequate colouring. An ascetic mystical
dreamy recluse, he seems too far removed from the hard experience of life
to be capable of realisation.
And yet by careful use of the existing materials the A sufficiently distinct
portrait of this sect may be so far restored, as to portrait of the sect
attainable.
establish with a reasonable amount of probability the
point with which alone we are here concerned. It will appear from the
delineations of ancient writers, more especially of Philo and Josephus, that
the characteristic feature of Essenism was a particular direction of mystic
speculation, involving a rigid asceticism as its practical consequence.
Following the definition of Gnosticism which has been already given, we
may not unfitly call this tendency Gnostic.
Having anticipated the results in this statement, I shall Main features of
now endeavour to develope the main features of Essenism.
Essenism; and, while doing so, I will ask my readers to bear in mind the
portrait of the Colossian heresy in St Paul, and to mark the resemblances, as
the enquiry proceeds[240].
The Judaic element is especially prominent in the life and teaching of the
sect. The Essene was exceptionally rigorous in his observance of the

Mosaic ritual. In his strict abstinence from work on Observance of the
the sabbath he far surpassed all the other Jews. He Mosaic law.
would not light a fire, would not move a vessel, would not perform even the
most ordinary functions of life[241]. The whole day was given up to
religious exercises and to exposition of the Scriptures[242]. His respect for
the law extended also to the law-giver. After God, the name of Moses was
held in the highest reverence. He who blasphemed his name was punished
with death[243]. In all these points the Essene was an exaggeration, almost a
caricature, of the Pharisee.
So far the Essene has not departed from the principles External elements
of normal Judaism; but here the divergence begins. In superadded.
three main points we trace the working of influences, which must have been
derived from external sources.
1. To the legalism of the Pharisee, the Essene added 1. Rigid asceticism, in
an asceticism, which was peculiarly his own, and respect to
which in many respects contradicted the tenets of the other sect. The
honourable, and even exaggerated, estimate of marriage, which was
characteristic of the Jew, and of the Pharisee as the typical Jew, found no
favour with the Essene[244]. Marriage was to him an marriage,
abomination. Those Essenes who lived together as members of an order,
and in whom the principles of the sect were carried to their logical
consequences, eschewed it altogether. To secure the continuance of their
brotherhood they adopted children, whom they brought up in the doctrines
and practices of the community. There were others however who took a
different view. They accepted marriage, as necessary for the preservation of
the race. Yet even with them it seems to have been regarded only as an
inevitable evil. They fenced it off by stringent rules, demanding a three
years’ probation and enjoining various purificatory rites[245]. The
conception of marriage, as quickening and educating the affections and thus
exalting and refining human life, was wholly foreign to their minds. Woman
was a mere instrument of temptation in their eyes, deceitful, faithless,
selfish, jealous, misled and misleading by her passions.
But their ascetic tendencies did not stop here. The meats and drinks,
Pharisee was very careful to observe the distinction of meats lawful and
unlawful, as laid down by the Mosaic code, and even rendered these
ordinances vexatious by minute definitions of his own. But the Essene went

far beyond him. He drank no wine, he did not touch animal food. His meal
consisted of a piece of bread and a single mess of vegetables. Even this
simple fare was prepared for him by special officers consecrated for the
purpose, that it might be free from all contamination[246]. Nay, so stringent
were the rules of the order on this point, that when an Essene was
excommunicated, he often died of starvation, being bound by his oath not to
take food prepared by defiled hands, and thus being reduced to eat the very
grass of the field[247].
Again, in hot climates oil for anointing the body is and oil for anointing.
almost a necessary of life. From this too the Essenes strictly abstained.
Even if they were accidentally smeared, they were careful at once to wash
themselves, holding the mere touch to be a contamination[248].
From these facts it seems clear that Essene abstinence Underlying principle of
was something more than the mere exaggeration of this asceticism.
Pharisaic principles. The rigour of the Pharisee was based on his obligation
of obedience to an absolute external law. The Essene introduced a new
principle. He condemned in any form the gratification of the natural
cravings, nor would he consent to regard it as moral or immoral only
according to the motive which suggested it or the consequences which
flowed from it. It was in itself an absolute evil. He sought to disengage
himself, as far as possible, from the conditions of physical life. In short, in
the asceticism of the Essene we seem to see the germ of that Gnostic
dualism which regards matter as the principle, or at least the abode, of evil.
2. And, when we come to investigate the speculative 2. Speculative tenets.
tenets of the sect, we shall find that the Essenes have diverged appreciably
from the common type of Jewish orthodoxy.
(i) Attention was directed above to their respect for (i) Tendency to sun-
Moses and the Mosaic law, which they shared in worship.
common with the Pharisee. But there was another side to their theological
teaching. Though our information is somewhat defective, still in the scanty
notices which are preserved we find sufficient indications that they had
absorbed some foreign elements of religious thought into their system. Thus
at day-break they addressed certain prayers, which had been handed down
from their forefathers, to the Sun, ‘as if entreating him to rise[249].’ They
were careful also to conceal and bury all polluting substances, so as not ‘to

insult the rays of the god[250].’ We cannot indeed suppose that they regarded
the sun as more than a symbol of the unseen power who gives light and life;
but their outward demonstrations of reverence were sufficiently prominent
to attach to them, or to a sect derived from them, the epithet of ‘Sun-
worshippers[251],’ and some connexion with the characteristic feature of
Parsee devotion at once suggests itself. The practice at all events stands in
strong contrast to the denunciations of worship paid to the ‘hosts of heaven’
in the Hebrew prophets.
(ii) Nor again is it an insignificant fact that, while the (ii) Resurrection of the
Pharisee maintained the resurrection of the body as a body denied.
cardinal article of his faith, the Essene restricted himself to a belief in the
immortality of the soul. The soul, he maintained, was confined in the flesh,
as in a prison-house. Only when disengaged from these fetters would it be
truly free. Then it would soar aloft, rejoicing in its newly attained
liberty[252]. This doctrine accords with the fundamental conception of the
malignity of matter. To those who held this conception a resurrection of the
body would be repulsive, as involving a perpetuation of evil.
(iii) But they also separated themselves from the (iii) Prohibition of
religious belief of the orthodox Jew in another sacrifices.
respect, which would provoke more notice. While they sent gifts to the
temple at Jerusalem, they refused to offer sacrifices there[253]. It would
appear that the slaughter of animals was altogether forbidden by their
creed[254]. It is certain that they were afraid of contracting some ceremonial
impurity by offering victims in the temple. Meanwhile they had sacrifices,
bloodless sacrifices, of their own. They regarded their simple meals with
their accompanying prayers and thanksgiving, not only as devotional but
even as sacrificial rites. Those who prepared and presided over these meals
were their consecrated priests[255].
(iv) In what other respects they may have departed (iv) Esoteric doctrine of
from, or added to, the normal creed of Judaism, we do angels.
not know. But it is expressly stated that, when a novice after passing
through the probationary stages was admitted to the full privileges of the
order, the oath of admission bound him ‘to conceal nothing from the
members of the sect, and to report nothing concerning them to others, even
though threatened with death; not to communicate any of their doctrines to
anyone otherwise than as he himself had received them; but to abstain from

robbery, and in like manner to guard carefully the books of their sect, and
the names of the angels[256].’ It may be reasonably supposed that more lurks
under this last expression than meets the ear. This esoteric doctrine, relating
to angelic beings, may have been another link which attached Essenism to
the religion of Zoroaster[257]. At all events we seem to be justified in
connecting it with the self-imposed service and worshipping of angels at
Colossæ: and we may well suspect that we have here a germ which was
developed into the Gnostic doctrine of æons or emanations.
(v) If so, it is not unconnected with another notice (v) Speculations on God
relating to Essene peculiarities. The Gnostic doctrine and Creation.
of intermediate beings between God and the world, as we have seen, was
intimately connected with speculations respecting creation. Now we are
specially informed that the Essenes, while leaving physical studies in
general to speculative idlers (μετεωρολέσχαις), as being beyond the reach
of human nature, yet excepted from their general condemnation that
philosophy which treats of the existence of God and the generation of the
universe[258].
(vi) Mention has been made incidentally of certain (vi) Magical charms.
secret books peculiar to the sect. The existence of such an apocryphal
literature was a sure token of some abnormal development in doctrine[259].
In the passage quoted it is mentioned in relation to some form of
angelology. Elsewhere their skill in prediction, for which they were
especially famous, is connected with the perusal of certain ‘sacred books,’
which however are not described[260]. But more especially, we are told that
the Essenes studied with extraordinary diligence the writings of the
ancients, selecting those especially which could be turned to profit for soul
and body, and that from these they learnt the qualities of roots and the
properties of stones[261]. This expression, as illustrated by other notices,
points clearly to the study of occult sciences, and recalls the alliance with
the practice of magical arts, which was a distinguishing feature of
Gnosticism, and is condemned by Christian teachers even in the heresies of
the Apostolic age.
3. But the notice to which I have just alluded suggests 3. Exclusive spirit of
a broader affinity with Gnosticism. Not only did the Essenism.
theological speculations of the Essenes take a Gnostic turn, but they
guarded their peculiar tenets with Gnostic reserve. They too had their

esoteric doctrine which they looked upon as the exclusive possession of the
privileged few; their ‘mysteries’ which it was a grievous offence to
communicate to the uninitiated. This doctrine was contained, as we have
seen, in an apocryphal literature. Their whole organisation was arranged so
as to prevent the divulgence of its secrets to those without. The long period
of noviciate, the careful rites of initiation, the distinction of the several
orders[262] in the community, the solemn oaths by which they bound their
members, were so many safeguards against a betrayal of this precious
deposit, which they held to be restricted to the inmost circle of the
brotherhood.
In selecting these details I have not attempted to give The three notes of
a finished portrait of Essenism. From this point of Gnosticism
Essenes.
found in the

view the delineation would be imperfect and
misleading: for I have left out of sight the nobler features of the sect, their
courageous endurance, their simple piety, their brotherly love. My object
was solely to call attention to those features which distinguish it from the
normal type of Judaism, and seem to justify the attribution of Gnostic
influences. And here it has been seen that the three characteristics, which
were singled out above as distinctive of Gnosticism, reappear in the
Essenes; though it has been convenient to consider them in the reversed
order. This Jewish sect exhibits the same exclusiveness in the
communication of its doctrines. Its theological speculations take the same
direction, dwelling on the mysteries of creation, regarding matter as the
abode of evil, and postulating certain intermediate spiritual agencies as
necessary links of communication between heaven and earth. And lastly, its
speculative opinions involve the same ethical conclusions, and lead in like
manner to a rigid asceticism. If the notices relating to these points do not
always explain themselves, yet read in the light of the heresies of the
Apostolic age and in that of subsequent Judæo-Gnostic Christianity, their
bearing seems to be distinct enough; so that we should not be far wrong, if
we were to designate Essenism as Gnostic Judaism[263].
But the Essenes of whom historical notices are How widely were the
preserved were inhabitants of the Holy Land. Their Essenes dispersed?
monasteries were situated on the shores of the Dead Sea. We are told
indeed, that the sect was not confined to any one place, and that members of
the order were found in great numbers in divers cities and villages[264]. But

Judæa in one notice, Palestine and Syria in another, are especially named as
the localities of the Essene settlements[265]. Have we any reason to suppose
that they were represented among the Jews of the Dispersion? In Egypt
indeed we find ourselves confronted with a similar ascetic sect, the
Therapeutes, who may perhaps have had an independent origin, but who
nevertheless exhibit substantially the same type of Jewish thought and
practice[266]. But the Dispersion of Egypt, it may be argued, was
exceptional; and we might expect to find here organisations and
developments of Judaism hardly less marked and various than in the mother
country. What ground have we for assuming the Do they appear in Asia
existence of this type in Asia Minor? Do we meet Minor?
with any traces of it in the cities of the Lycus, or in proconsular Asia
generally, which would justify the opinion that it might make its influence
felt in the Christian communities of that district?
Now it has been shown that the colonies of the Jews How the term Essene is
in this neighbourhood were populous and to be understood.
influential[267]; and it might be argued with great probability that among
these large numbers Essene Judaism could not be unrepresented. But indeed
throughout this investigation, when I speak of the Judaism in the Colossian
Church as Essene, I do not assume a precise identity of origin, but only an
essential affinity of type, with the Essenes of the mother country. As a
matter of history, it may or may not have sprung from the colonies on the
shores of the Dead Sea; but as this can neither be proved nor disproved, so
also it is immaterial to my main purpose. All along its Probabilities of the
frontier, wherever Judaism became enamoured of and case.
was wedded to Oriental mysticism, the same union would produce
substantially the same results. In a country where Phrygia, Persia, Syria, all
in turn had moulded religious thought, it would be strange indeed if
Judaism entirely escaped these influences. Nor, as a matter of fact, are
indications wanting to show that it was not unaffected Direct indications.
by them. If the traces are few, they are at least as numerous and as clear as
with our defective information on the whole subject we have any right to
expect in this particular instance.
When St Paul visits Ephesus, he comes in contact St Paul at Ephesus A.D.
with certain strolling Jews, exorcists, who attempt to 54–57.
cast out evil spirits[268]. Connecting this fact with the notices of Josephus,

from which we infer that exorcisms of this kind were especially practised
by the Essenes[269], we seem to have an indication of Exorcisms and
their presence in the capital of proconsular Asia. If so, it is a significant fact
that in their exorcisms they employed the name of our Lord: for then we
must regard this as the earliest notice of those overtures of alliance on the
part of Essenism, which involved such important consequences in the
subsequent history of the Church[270]. It is also worth observing, that the
next incident in St Luke’s narrative is the burning of magical books.
their magical books by those whom St Paul converted on this occasion[271].
As Jews are especially mentioned among these converts, and as books of
charms are ascribed to the Essenes by Josephus, the two incidents, standing
in this close connexion, throw great light on the type of Judaism which thus
appears at Ephesus[272].
Somewhat later we have another notice which bears Sibylline Oracle A.D. 80.
in the same direction. The Sibylline Oracle, which forms the fourth book in
the existing collection, is discovered by internal evidence to have been
written about A.D. 80[273]. It is plainly a product of Judaism, but its Judaism
does not belong to the normal Pharisaic type. With Essenism it rejects
sacrifices, even regarding the shedding of blood as a pollution[274], and with
Essenism also it inculcates the duty of frequent washings[275]. Yet from
other indications we are led to the conclusion, that this poem was not
written in the interests of Essenism properly so called, but represents some
allied though independent development of Judaism. In some respects at all
events its language seems quite inconsistent with the purer type of
Essenism[276]. But its general tendency is clear: and of its locality there can
hardly be a doubt. The affairs of Asia Minor occupy a disproportionate
space in the poet’s description of the past and vision of the future. The cities
of the Mæander and its neighbourhood, among these Laodicea, are
mentioned with emphasis[277].
And certainly the moral and intellectual atmosphere Phrygia and Asia
would not be unfavourable to the growth of such a congenial
religion.
to this type of

plant. The same district, which in speculative
philosophy had produced a Thales and a Heraclitus[278], had developed in
popular religion the worship of the Phrygian Cybele and Sabazius and of
the Ephesian Artemis[279]. Cosmological speculation, mystic theosophy,
religious fanaticism, all had their home here. Associated with Judaism or

with Christianity the natural temperament and the intellectual bias of the
people would take a new direction; but the old type would not be altogether
obliterated. Phrygia reared the hybrid monstrosities of Ophitism[280]. She
was the mother of Montanist enthusiasm[281], and the foster-mother of
Novatian rigorism[282]. The syncretist, the mystic, the devotee, the puritan,
would find a congenial climate in these regions of Asia Minor.

It has thus been shown first, that Essene Judaism was Previous results summed
Gnostic in its character; and secondly, that this type of up.
Jewish thought and practice had established itself in the Apostolic age in
those parts of Asia Minor with which we are more directly concerned. It
now remains to examine the heresy of the Colossian Is the Colossian heresy
Church more nearly, and to see whether it deserves Gnostic?
the name, which provisionally was given to it, of Gnostic Judaism. Its
Judaism all will allow. Its claim to be regarded as Gnostic will require a
closer scrutiny. And in conducting this examination, it Three notes of
will be convenient to take the three notes of Gnosticism.
Gnosticism which have been already laid down, and to enquire how far it
satisfies these tests.
1. It has been pointed out that Gnosticism strove to 1. Intellectual
establish, or rather to preserve, an intellectual exclusiveness.
oligarchy in religion. It had its hidden wisdom, its exclusive mysteries, its
privileged class.
Now I think it will be evident, that St Paul in this epistle feels himself
challenged to contend for the universality of the St Paul contends for the
Gospel. This indeed is a characteristic feature of the universality
Gospel,
of the

Apostle’s teaching at all times, and holds an equally
prominent place in the epistles of an earlier date. But the point to be
observed is, that the Apostle, in maintaining this doctrine, has changed the
mode of his defence; and this fact suggests that there has been a change in
the direction of the attack. It is no longer against national exclusiveness, but
against intellectual exclusiveness, that he contends. His adversaries do not
now plead ceremonial restrictions, or at least do not plead these alone: but
they erect an artificial barrier of spiritual privilege, even more fatal to the
universal claims of the Gospel, because more specious and more insidious.
It is not now against Jew as such, but against the Jew become Gnostic, that

he fights the battle of liberty. In other words; it is not against Christian
Pharisaism but against Christian Essenism that he defends his position.
Only in the light of such an antagonism can we understand the emphatic
iteration with which he claims to ‘warn every man and teach every man in
every wisdom, that he may present every man perfect against the pretentions
in Christ Jesus[283].’ It will be remembered that of an aristocracy of
intellect.
‘wisdom’ in Gnostic teaching was the exclusive
possession of the few; it will not be forgotten that ‘perfection’ was the term
especially applied in their language to this privileged minority, as
contradistinguished from the common herd of believers; and thus it will be
readily understood why St Paul should go on to say that this universality of
the Gospel is the one object of his contention, to which all the energies of
his life are directed, and having done so, should express his intense anxiety
for the Churches of Colossæ and the neighbourhood, lest they should be led
astray by a spurious wisdom to desert the true knowledge[284]. This danger
also will enable us to appreciate a novel feature in another passage of the
epistle. While dwelling on the obliteration of all distinctions in Christ, he
repeats his earlier contrasts, ‘Greek and Jew,’ ‘circumcision and
uncircumcision,’ ‘bondslave and free’; but to these he adds new words
which at once give a wider scope and a more immediate application to the
lesson. In Christ the existence of ‘barbarian’ and even ‘Scythian,’ the lowest
type of barbarian, is extinguished[285]. As culture, civilisation, philosophy,
knowledge, are no conditions of acceptance, so neither is their absence any
disqualification in the believer. The aristocracy of intellectual discernment,
which Gnosticism upheld in religion, is abhorrent to the first principles of
the Gospel.
Hence also must be explained the frequent occurrence He contrasts the true
of the words ‘wisdom’ (σοφία), ‘intelligence’ wisdom with the false,
(σύνεσις), ‘knowledge’ (γνῶσις), ‘perfect knowledge’ (ἐπίγνωσις), in this
epistle[286]. St Paul takes up the language of his opponents, and translates it
into a higher sphere. The false teachers put forward a ‘philosophy,’ but it
was only an empty deceit, only a plausible display of false-reasoning[287].
They pretended ‘wisdom,’ but it was merely the profession, not the
reality[288]. Against these pretentions the Apostle sets the true wisdom of the
Gospel. On its wealth, its fulness, its perfection, he is never tired of
dwelling[289]. The true wisdom, he would argue, is essentially spiritual and
yet essentially definite; while the false is argumentative, is speculative, is

vague and dreamy[290]. Again they had their rites of and dwells on the
initiation. St Paul contrasts with these the one veritable mystery.
universal, comprehensive mystery[291], the knowledge of God in Christ.
This mystery is complete in itself: it contains ‘all the treasures of wisdom
and of knowledge hidden’ in it[292]. Moreover it is offered to all without
distinction: though once hidden, its revelation is unrestricted, except by the
waywardness and disobedience of men. The esoteric spirit of Gnosticism
finds no countenance in the Apostle’s teaching.
2. From the informing spirit of Gnosticism we turn to 2. Speculative tenets.
Cosmogony and
the speculative tenets—the cosmogony and the theology.
theology of the Gnostic.
And here too the affinities to Gnosticism reveal themselves in the Colossian
heresy. We cannot fail to observe that the Apostle has St Paul attacks the
in view the doctrine of intermediate agencies, doctrine of angelic
mediators,
regarded as instruments in the creation and
government of the world. Though this tenet is not distinctly mentioned, it is
tacitly assumed in the teaching which St Paul opposes to it. Against the
philosophy of successive evolutions from the Divine nature, angelic
mediators forming the successive links in the chain which binds the finite to
the Infinite, he sets the doctrine of the one Eternal setting against it the
Son, the Word of God begotten before the worlds[293]. doctrine of the Word
Incarnate,
The angelology of the heretics had a twofold bearing;
it was intimately connected at once with cosmogony and with religion.
Correspondingly St Paul represents the mediatorial function of Christ as
twofold: it is exercised in the natural creation, and it is exercised in the
spiritual creation. In both these spheres His initiative is absolute, His
control is universal, His action is complete. By His agency the world of
matter was created and is sustained. He is at once the beginning and the end
of the material universe; ‘All things have been created as the reconciler of
through Him and unto Him.’ Nor is His office in the heaven and earth.
spiritual world less complete. In the Church, as in the Universe, He is sole,
absolute, supreme; the primary source from which all life proceeds and the
ultimate arbiter in whom all feuds are reconciled.
On the one hand, in relation to Deity, He is the visible His relations to (1)
Deity; as God
image of the invisible God. He is not only the chief manifested.
manifestation of the Divine nature: He exhausts the

Godhead manifested. In Him resides the totality of the Divine powers and
attributes. For this totality Gnostic teachers had a technical term, the
pleroma or plenitude[294]. From the pleroma they The pleroma resides in
supposed that all those agencies issued, through Him.
which God has at any time exerted His power in creation, or manifested His
will through revelation. These mediatorial beings would retain more or less
of its influence, according as they claimed direct parentage from it or traced
their descent through successive evolutions. But in all cases this pleroma
was distributed, diluted, transformed and darkened by foreign admixture.
They were only partial and blurred images, often deceptive caricatures, of
their original, broken lights of the great central Light. It is not improbable
that, like later speculators of the same school, they found a place
somewhere or other in their genealogy of spiritual beings for the Christ. If
so, St Paul’s language becomes doubly significant. But this hypothesis is
not needed to explain its reference. In contrast to their doctrine, he asserts
and repeats the assertion, that the pleroma abides absolutely and wholly in
Christ as the Word of God[295]. The entire light is concentrated in Him.
Hence it follows that, as regards created things, His (2) Created things; as
supremacy must be absolute. In heaven as in earth, absolute Lord.
over things immaterial as over things material, He is king. Speculations on
the nature of intermediate spiritual agencies—their names, their ranks, their
offices—were rife in the schools of Judæo-Gnostic thought. ‘Thrones,
dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers’–these formed part of the
spiritual nomenclature which they had invented to describe different grades
of angelic mediators. Without entering into these speculations, the Apostle
asserts that Christ is Lord of all, the highest and the lowest, whatever rank
they may hold and by whatever name they are called[296], for they are parts
of creation and He is the source of creation. Through Him they became, and
unto Him they tend.
Hence the worship of angels, which the false teachers Angelolatry is therefore
inculcated, was utterly wrong in principle. The motive condemned
of this angelolatry it is not difficult to imagine. There was a show of
humility[297], for there was a confession of weakness, in this subservience
to inferior mediatorial agencies. It was held feasible to grasp at the lower
links of the chain which bound earth to heaven, when heaven itself seemed
far beyond the reach of man. The successive grades of intermediate beings

were as successive steps, by which man might mount the ladder leading up
to the throne of God. This carefully woven web of sophistry the Apostle
tears to shreds. The doctrine of the false teachers was based on confident
assumptions respecting angelic beings of whom they could know nothing. It
was moreover a denial of Christ’s twofold personality and His mediatorial
office. It follows from the true conception of Christ’s as a denial of His perfect
Person, that He and He alone can bridge over the mediation.
chasm between earth and heaven; for He is at once the lowest and the
highest. He raises up man to God, for He brings down God to man. Thus the
chain is reduced to a single link, this link being the Word made flesh. As the
pleroma resides in Him, so is it communicated to us through Him[298]. To
substitute allegiance to any other spiritual mediator is to sever the
connexion of the limbs with the Head, which is the centre of life and the
mainspring of all energy throughout the body[300].
Hence follows the practical conclusion, that, whatever The Apostle’s practical
is done, must be done in the name of the Lord[301]. inference.
Wives must submit to their husbands ‘in the Lord’: children must obey their
parents ‘in the Lord’: servants must work for the masters as working ‘unto
the Lord[302].’ This iteration, ‘in the Lord,’ ‘unto the Lord,’ is not an
irrelevant form of words; but arises as an immediate inference from the
main idea which underlies the doctrinal portion of the epistle.
3. It has been shown that the speculative tenets of 3. Moral results of
Gnosticism might lead (and as a matter of fact we Gnostic doctrine.
know that they did lead) to either of two practical extremes, to rigid
asceticism or to unbridled license. The latter alternative appears to some
extent in the heresy of the Pastoral Epistles[303], and still more plainly in
those of the Catholic Epistles[304] and the Apocalypse[305]. It is constantly
urged by Catholic writers as a reproach against later Gnostic sects[306].
But the former and nobler extreme was the first Asceticism of the
impulse of the Gnostic. To escape from the infection Colossian heresy
of evil by escaping from the domination of matter was his chief anxiety.
This appears very plainly in the Colossian heresy. Though the prohibitions
to which the Apostle alludes might be explained in part by the ordinances of
the Mosaic ritual, this explanation will not cover all the facts. Thus for
instance drinks are mentioned as well as meats[307], though on the former
the law of Moses is silent. Thus again the rigorous denunciation, ‘Touch

not, taste not, handle not[308],’ seems to go very far beyond the Levitical
enactments. And moreover the motive of these prohibitions is Essene rather
than Pharisaic, Gnostic rather than Jewish. These not explained by its
severities of discipline were intended ‘to check Judaism.
indulgence of the flesh[309].’ They professed to treat the body with entire
disregard, to ignore its cravings and to deny its wants. In short; they betray
a strong ascetic tendency[310], of which normal Judaism, as represented by
the Pharisee, offers no explanation.
And St Paul’s answer points to the same inference. St Paul’s reply shows its
The difference will appear more plainly, if we Gnostic bearing.
compare it with his treatment of Pharisaic Judaism in the Galatian Church.
This epistle offers nothing at all corresponding to his language on that
occasion; ‘If righteousness be by law, then Christ died in vain’; ‘If ye be
circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing’; ‘Christ is nullified for you,
whosoever are justified by law; ye are fallen from grace[311].’ The point of
view in fact is wholly changed. With these Essene or Gnostic Judaizers the
Mosaic law was neither the motive nor the standard, it was only the starting
point, of their austerities. Hence in replying the It is no longer the
Apostle no longer deals with law, as law; he no longer contrast
grace.
of law and

points the contrast of grace and works; but he enters
upon the moral aspects of these ascetic practices. He denounces them, as
concentrating the thoughts on earthly and perishable things[312]. He points
out that they fail in their purpose, and are found valueless against carnal
indulgences[313]. In their place he offers the true and only remedy against
sin—the elevation of the inner life in Christ, the transference of the
affections into a higher sphere[314], where the temptations of the flesh are
powerless. Thus dying with Christ, they will kill all their earthly
members[315]. Thus rising with Christ, they will be renewed in the image of
God their Creator[316].
In attempting to draw a complete portrait of the The truth of the above
Colossian heresy from a few features accidentally result tested by
exhibited in St Paul’s epistle, it has been necessary to supply certain links;
and some assurance may not unreasonably be required that this has not been
done arbitrarily. Nor is this security wanting. In all such cases the test will
be twofold. The result must be consistent with itself: and it must do no
violence to the historical conditions under which the phenomena arose.

1. In the present instance the former of these tests is (1) Its inherent
fully satisfied. The consistency and the symmetry of consistency
symmetry.
and

the result is its great recommendation. The postulate
of a Gnostic type brings the separate parts of the representation into direct
connexion. The speculative opinions and the practical tendencies of the
heresy thus explain, and are explained by, each other. It is analogous to the
hypothesis of the comparative anatomist, who by referring the fossil
remains to their proper type restores the whole skeleton of some unknown
animal from a few bones belonging to different extremities of the body, and
without the intermediate and connecting parts. In the one case, as in the
other, the result is the justification of the postulate.
2. And again; the historical conditions of the problem (2) Its place in a
are carefully observed. It has been shown already, that historical sequence.
Judaism in the preceding age had in one of its developments assumed a
form which was the natural precursor of the Colossian heresy. In order to
complete the argument it will be necessary to show that Christianity in the
generation next succeeding exhibited a perverted type, which was its natural
outgrowth. If this can be done, the Colossian heresy will take its proper
place in a regular historical sequence.

I have already pointed out, that the language of St Continuance of this type
John in the Apocalypse, which was probably written of Judæo-Gnosticism in
the district.
within a few years of this epistle, seems to imply the
continuance in this district of the same type of heresy which is here
denounced by St Paul[317]. But the notices in this book are not more definite
than those of the Epistle to the Colossians itself; and we are led to look
outside the Canonical writings for some more explicit evidence. Has early
Christian history then preserved any record of a distinctly Gnostic school
existing on the confines of the Apostolic age, which may be considered a
legitimate development of the phase of religious speculation that confronts
us here?
We find exactly the phenomenon which we are Heresy of Cerinthus.
seeking in the heresy of Cerinthus[318]. The time, the His date and place.
place, the circumstances, all agree. This heresiarch is said to have been
originally a native of Alexandria[319]; but proconsular Asia is allowed on all
hands to have been the scene of his activity as a teacher[320]. He lived and

taught at the close of the Apostolic age, that is, in the latest decade of the
first century. Some writers indeed make him an antagonist of St Peter and
St Paul[321], but their authority is not trustworthy, nor is this very early date
at all probable. But there can be no reasonable doubt that he was a
contemporary of St John, who was related by Polycarp to have denounced
him face to face on one memorable occasion[322], and is moreover said by
Irenæus to have written his Gospel with the direct object of confuting his
errors[323].
‘Cerinthus,’ writes Neander, ‘is best entitled to be Cerinthus a link between
considered as the intermediate link between the Judaism and
Gnosticism.
Judaizing and the Gnostic sects.’ ‘Even among the
ancients,’ he adds, ‘opposite reports respecting his doctrines have been
given from opposite points of view, according as the Gnostic or the
Judaizing element was exclusively insisted upon: and the dispute on this
point has been kept up even to modern times. In point of chronology too
Cerinthus may be regarded as representing the principle in its transition
from Judaism to Gnosticism[324].’
Of his Judaism no doubt has been or can be Judaism still prominent
entertained. The gross Chiliastic doctrine ascribed to in his system
him[325], even though it may have been exaggerated in the representations
of adverse writers, can only be explained by a Jewish origin. His conception
of the Person of Christ was Ebionite, that is Judaic, in its main features[326].
He is said moreover to have enforced the rite of circumcision and to have
inculcated the observance of sabbaths[327]. It is related also that the
Cerinthians, like the Ebionites, accepted the Gospel of St Matthew
alone[328].’
At the same time, it is said by an ancient writer that though Gnosticism is
his adherence to Judaism was only partial[329]. This already aggressive.
limitation is doubtless correct. As Gnostic principles asserted themselves
more distinctly, pure Judaism necessarily suffered. All or nearly all the early
Gnostic heresies were Judaic; and for a time a compromise was effected
which involved more or less concession on either side. But the ultimate
incompatibility of the two at length became evident, and a precarious
alliance was exchanged for an open antagonism. This final result however
was not reached till the middle of the second century: and meanwhile it was
a question to what extent Judaism was prepared to make concessions for the

sake of this new ally. Even the Jewish Essenes, as we have seen, departed
from the orthodox position in the matter of sacrifices; and if we possessed
fuller information, we should probably find that they made still larger
concessions than this. Of the Colossian heretics we can only form a
conjecture, but the angelology and angelolatry attributed to them point to a
further step in the same direction. As we pass from them to Cerinthus we
are no longer left in doubt; for the Gnostic element Gnostic element in his
has clearly gained the ascendant, though it has not yet teaching.
driven its rival out of the field. Two characteristic features in his teaching
especially deserve consideration, both as evincing the tendency of his
speculations and as throwing back light on the notices in the Colossian
Epistle.
1. His cosmogony is essentially Gnostic. The great 1. His Gnostic
problem of creation presented itself to him in the Cosmogony
same aspect; and the solution which he offered was generically the same.
The world, he asserted, was not made by the highest God, but by an angel
or power far removed from, and ignorant of, this supreme Being[330]. Other
authorities describing his system speak not of a single power, but of powers,
as creating the universe[331]; but all alike represent this demiurge, or these
demiurges, as ignorant of the absolute God. It is moreover stated that he
held the Mosaic law to have been given not by the supreme God Himself,
but by this angel, or one of these angels, who created the world[332].
From these notices it is plain that angelology had an and consequent
important place in his speculations; and that he angelology.
employed it to explain the existence of evil supposed to be inherent in the
physical world, as well as to account for the imperfections of the old
dispensation. The ‘remote distance’ of his angelic demiurge from the
supreme God can hardly be explained except on the hypothesis of
successive generations of these intermediate agencies. Thus his solution is
thoroughly Gnostic. At the same time, as contrasted with later and more
sharply defined Gnostic systems, the Judaic origin and complexion of his
cosmogony is obvious. His intermediate agencies still retain the name and
the personality of angels, and have not yet given way to those vague
idealities which, as emanations or æons, took their Angels of earlier and
place in later speculations. Thus his theory is linked æons of later Gnostics.
on to the angelology of later Judaism founded on the angelic appearances

recorded in the Old Testament narrative. And again: while later Gnostics
represent the demiurge and giver of the law as antagonistic to the supreme
and good God, Cerinthus does not go beyond postulating his ignorance. He
went as far as he could without breaking entirely with the Old Testament
and abandoning his Judaic standing-ground.
In these respects Cerinthus is the proper link between Cerinthus a link between
the incipient gnosis of the Colossian heretics and the the Colossian heresy and
later Gnosticism.
mature gnosis of the second century. In the Colossian
epistle we still breathe the atmosphere of Jewish angelology, nor is there
any trace of the æon of later Gnosticism[333]; while yet speculation is so far
advanced that the angels have an important function in explaining the
mysteries of the creation and government of the world. On the other hand it
has not reached the point at which we find it in Cerinthus. Gnostic
conceptions respecting the relation of the demiurgic agency to the supreme
God would appear to have passed through three stages. This relation was
represented first, as imperfect appreciation; next, as entire ignorance; lastly,
as direct antagonism. The second and third are the standing points of
Cerinthus and of the later Gnostic teachers respectively. The first was
probably the position of the Colossian false teachers. The imperfections of
the natural world, they would urge, were due to the limited capacities of
these angels to whom the demiurgic work was committed, and to their
imperfect sympathy with the supreme God; but at the same time they might
fitly receive worship as mediators between God and man; and indeed
humanity seemed in its weakness to need the intervention of some such
beings less remote from itself than the highest heaven.
2. Again the Christology of Cerinthus deserves 2. His Christology.
attention from this point of view. Here all our authorities are agreed. As a
Judaizer Cerinthus held with the Ebionites that Jesus was only the son of
Joseph and Mary, born in the natural way. As a Gnostic he maintained that
the Christ first descended in the form of a dove on the carpenter’s son at his
baptism; that He revealed to him the unknown Father, and worked miracles
through him: and that at length He took His flight and left him, so that Jesus
alone suffered and rose, while the Christ remained impassible[334]. It would
appear also, though this is not certain, that he described this re-ascension of
the Christ, as a return ‘to His own pleroma[335].’

Now it is not clear from St Paul’s language what Approach towards
opinions the Colossian heretics held respecting the Cerinthian Christology
in the Colossian heresy.
person of our Lord; but we may safely assume that he
regarded them as inadequate and derogatory. The emphasis, with which he
asserts the eternal being and absolute sovereignty of Christ, can hardly be
explained in any other way. But individual expressions tempt us to
conjecture that the same ideas were already floating in the air, which
ultimately took form and consistency in the tenets of Cerinthus. Thus, when
he reiterates the statement that the whole pleroma abides permanently in
Christ[336], he would appear to be tacitly refuting some opinion which
maintained only mutable and imperfect relations between the two. When
again he speaks of the true gospel first taught to the Colossians as the
doctrine of ‘the Christ, even Jesus the Lord[337],’ his language might seem
to be directed against the tendency to separate the heavenly Christ from the
earthly Jesus, as though the connexion were only transient. When lastly he
dwells on the work of reconciliation, as wrought ‘through the blood of
Christ’s cross,’ ‘in the body of His flesh through death[338],’ we may
perhaps infer that he already discerned a disposition to put aside Christ’s
passion as a stumbling-block in the way of philosophical religion. Thus
regarded, the Apostle’s language gains force and point; though no stress can
be laid on explanations which are so largely conjectural.
But if so, the very generality of his language shows The Gnosticism of the
that these speculations were still vague and Colossians being vague
and undeveloped.
fluctuating. The difference which separates these
heretics from Cerinthus may be measured by the greater precision and
directness in the Apostolic counter-statement, as we turn from the Epistle to
the Colossians to the Gospel of St John. In this interval, extending over
nearly a quarter of a century, speculation had taken a definite shape. The
elements of Gnostic theory, which were before held in solution, had
meanwhile crystallized around the facts of the Gospel. Yet still we seem
justified, even at the earlier date, in speaking of these general ideas as
Gnostic, guarding ourselves at the same time against misunderstanding with
the twofold caution, that we here employ the term to express the simplest
and most elementary conceptions of this tendency of thought, and that we
do not postulate its use as a distinct designation of any sect or sects at this
early date. Thus limited, the view that the writer of this epistle is combating
a Gnostic heresy seems free from all objections, while it appears necessary

to explain his language; and certainly it does not, as is sometimes imagined,
place any weapon in the hands of those who would assail the early date and
Apostolic authorship of the epistle.

On some points connected with the Essenes.

I.
THE NAME ESSENE.

The name is variously written in Greek;
1. Ἐσσηνός: Joseph. Ant. xiii. 5. 9, xiii. 10. 6, xv. 10. Various forms of the
name in Greek.
5, xviii. 1. 2, 5, B.J. ii. 8. 2, 13, Vit. 2; Plin. N.H. v.
15. 17 (Essenus); Dion Chrys. in Synes. Dion 3; Hippol. Hær. ix. 18, 28
(MS ἐσηνός); Epiphan. Hær. p. 28 sq, 127 (ed. Pet.).
2. Ἐσσαῖος: Philo II. pp. 457, 471, 632 (ed. Mang.); Hegesippus in Euseb.
H.E. iv. 22; Porphyr. de Abstin. iv. 11. So too Joseph. B.J. ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4,
iii. 2. 1; Ant. xv. 10. 4; though in the immediate context of this last
passage he writes Ἐσσηνός, if the common texts may be trusted.
3. Ὀσσαῖος: Epiphan. Hær. pp. 40 sq., 125, 462. The common texts very
frequently make him write Ὀσσηνός, but see Dindorf’s notes, Epiphan.
Op. 1. pp. 380, 425. With Epiphanius the Essenes are a Samaritan, the
Ossæans a Judaic sect. He has evidently got his information from two
distinct sources, and does not see that the same persons are intended.
4. Ιἐσσαῖος, Epiphan. Hær. p. 117. From the connexion the same sect again
seems to be meant: but owing to the form Epiphanius conjectures (οἶμαι)
that the name is derived from Jesse, the father of David.
If any certain example could be produced where the All etymologies to be
name occurs in any early Hebrew or Aramaic writing, rejected which derive
the name.
the question of its derivation would probably be
settled; but in the absence of a single decisive instance a wide field is
opened for conjecture, and critics have not been backward in availing
themselves of the license. In discussing the claims of the different
etymologies proposed we may reject:
First: derivations from the Greek. Thus Philo (i) From the Greek;
connects the word with ὅσιος ‘holy’: Quod omn. prob. 12, p. 457 Ἐσσαῖοι
... διαλέκτου ἑλληνικῆς παρώνυμοι ὁσιότητος, § 13, p. 459 τῶν Ἐσσαίων ἢ
ὁσίων, Fragm. p. 632 καλοῦνται μὲν Ἐσσαῖοι, παρὰ τὴν ὁσιότητα, μοὶ
δοκῶ [δοκεῖ;], τῆς προσηγορίας ἀξιωθέντες. It is not quite clear whether

Philo is here playing with words after the manner of his master Plato, or
whether he holds a pre-established harmony to exist among different
languages by which similar sounds represent similar things, or whether
lastly he seriously means that the name was directly derived from the Greek
word ὅσιος. The last supposition is the least probable; but he certainly does
not reject this derivation ‘as incorrect’ (Ginsburg Essenes p. 27), nor can
παρώνυμοι ὁσιότητος be rendered ‘from an incorrect derivation from the
Greek homonym hosiotes’ (ib. p. 32), since the word παρώνυμος never
involves the notion of false etymology. The amount of truth which probably
underlies Philo’s statement will be considered hereafter. Another Greek
derivation is ἴσος, ‘companion, associate,’ suggested by Rapoport, Erech
Millin p. 41. Several others again are suggested by Löwy, s.v. Essäer, e.g.
ἔσω from their esoteric doctrine, or αἶσα from their fatalism. All such may
be rejected as instances of ingenious trifling, if indeed they deserve to be
called ingenious.
Secondly: derivations from proper names whether of (ii) From names of
persons or of places. Thus the word has been derived persons or places;
from Jesse the father of David (Epiphan. l.c.), or from one ‫ ישי‬Isai, the
disciple of R. Joshua ben Perachia who migrated to Egypt in the time of
Alexander Jannæus (Löw in Ben Chananja i. p. 352). Again it has been
referred to the town Essa (a doubtful reading in Joseph. Ant. xiii. 15. 3)
beyond the Jordan. And other similar derivations have been suggested.
Thirdly: etymologies from the Hebrew or Aramaic, From Hebrew roots not
supplying the right
which do not supply the right consonants, or do not consonants,
supply them in the right order. Under this head
several must be rejected;
‫ אסר‬āsar ‘to bind,’ Adler Volkslehrer VI. p. 50, referred to by Ginsburg
Essenes p. 29.
‫ חסיד‬chāsīd ‘pious,’ which is represented by Ἀσιδαῖος (1 Macc. ii. 42 (v. l.),
vii. 13, 2 Macc. xiv. 6), and could not possibly assume the form Ἐσσαῖος
or Ἐσσηνός. Yet this derivation appears in Josippon ben Gorion (iv. 6, 7,
v. 24, pp. 274, 278, 451), who substitutes Chasidim in narratives where
the Essenes are mentioned in the original of Josephus; and it has been
adopted by many more recent writers.

‫ סחא‬s’āch ‘to bathe,’ from which with an Aleph prefixed we might get
‫ אסהאי‬as’chai ‘bathers’ (a word however which does not occur): Grätz
Gesch. der Juden iii. pp. 82, 468.
‫ צנוע‬tsanūa‫‘ ع‬retired, modest,’ adopted by Frankel (Zeitschrift 1846, p. 449,
Monatschrift II[. p. 32) after a suggestion by Löw.
To this category must be assigned those etymologies such as those which
which contain a ‫ ו‬as the third consonant of the root; make n part of the root.
since the comparison of the parallel forms Ἐσσαῖος and Ἐσσηνός shows
that in the latter word the ν is only formative. On this ground we must
reject:
‫ חסין‬chāsīn; see below under ‫עשין‬.
‫ חצן‬chōtsen ‘a fold’ of a garment, and so supposed to signify the περίζωμα
or ‘apron’, which was given to every neophyte among the Essenes (Joseph.
B.J. ii. 8. 5, 7): suggested by Jellinek Ben Chananja IV. p. 374.
‫עשין ع‬āshīn ‘strong’: see Cohn in Frankel’s Monatschrift VII. p. 271. This
etymology is suggested to explain Epiphanius Hær. p. 40 τοῦτο δὲ τὸ γένος
τῶν Ὀσσηνῶν ἑρμηνεύεται διὰ τῆς ἐκδόσεως τοῦ ὀνόματος στιβαρὸν γένος
(‘a sturdy race’). The name ‘Essene’ is so interpreted also in Makrisi (de
Sacy, Chrestom. Arab. I. p. 114, 306); but, as he himself writes it with Elif
and not Ain, it is plain that he got this interpretation from some one else,
probably from Epiphanius. The correct reading however in Epiphanius is
Ὀσσαίων, not Ὀσσηνῶν; and it would therefore appear that this father or
his informant derived the word from the Hebrew root ‫ עןו‬rather than from
the Aramaic ‫עשן‬. The Ὀσσαῖοι would then be the ‫עויס‬, and this is so far a
possible derivation, that the n does not enter into the root. Another word
suggested to explain the etymology of Epiphanius is the Aramaic ‫חסין‬
chāsīn ‘powerful, strong’ (from ‫ ;)הסן‬but this is open to the same objections
as ‫עשין‬.
When all such derivations are eliminated as untenable Other derivations
or improbable, considerable uncertainty still remains. considered:
The 1st and 3rd radicals might be any of the gutturals ‫ע‬,‫ח‬,‫ה‬,‫ ;א‬and the
Greek ς, as the 2nd radical, might represent any one of several Shemitic
sibilants.

Thus we have the choice of the following etymologies, which have found
more or less favour.
(1) ‫ אסא‬ăsā ‘to heal,’ whence ‫ אסיא‬asyā, ‘a (1) ‫‘ אסיא‬a physician’;
physician.’ The Essenes are supposed to be so called because Josephus
states (B.J. ii. 8. 6) that they paid great attention to the qualities of herbs and
minerals with a view to the healing of diseases (πρὸς θεραπείαν παθῶν).
This etymology is supported likewise by an appeal to the name θεραπευταί,
which Philo gives to an allied sect in Egypt (de Vit. Cont. § 1, II. p. 471). It
seems highly improbable however, that the ordinary name of the Essenes
should have been derived from a pursuit which was merely secondary and
incidental; while the supposed analogy of the Therapeutæ rests on a wrong
interpretation of the word. Philo indeed (l.c.), bent upon extracting from it
as much moral significance as possible, says, θεραπευταὶ καὶ θεραπευτρίδες
καλοῦνται, ἤτοι παρ’ ὅσον ἰατρικὴν ἐπαγγέλλονται κρείσσονα τῆς κατὰ
πόλεις ἡ μὲν γὰρ σώματα θεραπεύει μόνον, ἐκείνη δὲ καὶ ψυχὰς κ.τ.λ.) ἢ
παρ’ ὅσον ἐκ φύσεως καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν νόμων ἐπαιδεύθησαν θεραπεύειν τὸ ὃν
κ.τ.λ.: but the latter meaning alone accords with the usage of the word; for
θεραπευτής, used absolutely, signifies ‘a worshipper, devotee,’ not ‘a
physician, healer.’ This etymology of Ἐσσαῖος is ascribed, though wrongly,
to Philo by Asaria di Rossi (Meor Enayim 3, fol. 33 a) and has been very
widely received. Among more recent writers, who have adopted or favoured
it, are Bellermann (Ueber Essäer u. Therapeuten p. 7), Gfrörer (Philo II. p.
341), Dähne (Ersch u. Gruber, s.v.), Baur (Christl. Kirche der drei erst.
Jahrh. p. 20), Herzfeld (Gesch. des Judenthums II. p. 371, 395, 397 sq.),
Geiger (Urschrift p. 126), Derenbourg (L’Histoire et la Géographie de la
Palestine pp. 170, 175, notes), Keim (Jesus von Nazara I. p. 284 sq.), and
Hamburger (Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel u. Talmud, s.v.). Several of these
writers identify the Essenes with the Baithusians (‫ )ביהוסין‬of the Talmud,
though in the Talmud the Baithusians are connected with the Sadducees.
This identification was suggested by di Rossi (l.c. fol. 33 b), who interprets
‘Baithusians’ as ‘the school of the Essenes’ (‫)ביח איסיא‬: while subsequent
writers, going a step further, have explained it ‘the school of the physicians’
(‫)ביח איסיא‬.
(2) ‫ חזא‬chăzā ‘to see’, whence ‫ חזיא‬chazyā ‘a seer’, (2) ‫‘ חזיא‬a seer’;
in reference to the prophetic powers which the Essenes claimed, as the
result of ascetic contemplation: Joseph. B.J. ii. 8. 12 εἰσὶ δὲ ἐν αὐτοῖς ὃι καὶ

τὰ μέλλοντα προγινώσκειν ὑπισχνοῦνται κ.τ.λ. For instances of such Essene
prophets see Ant. xiii. II. 2, xv. 10. 5, B.J. I. 3. 5, ii. 7. 3. Suidas, s.v.
Ἐσσαῖοι, says: θεωρίᾳ τὰ πολλὰ παραμένουσιν, ἔνθεν καὶ Ἐσσαῖοι
καλοῦνται, τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ ὀνόματος, τουτέστι, θεωρητικοί. For this
derivation, which was suggested by Baumgarten (see Bellermann p. 10) and
is adopted by Hilgenfeld (Jüd. Apocal. p. 278), there is something to be
said: but ‫ חזא‬is rather ὁρᾶν than θεωρεῖν; and thus it must denote the result
rather than the process, the vision which was the privilege of the few rather
than the contemplation which was the duty of all. Indeed in a later paper
(Zeitschr. XI. p. 346, 1868) Hilgenfeld expresses himself doubtfully about
this derivation, feeling the difficulty of explaining the σς from the ‫ז‬. This is
a real objection. In the transliteration of the LXX the ‫ ז‬is persistently
represented by ζ, and the ‫ צ‬by ς. The exceptions to this rule, where the
manuscript authority is beyond question, are very few, and in every case
they seem capable of explanation by peculiar circumstances.
(3) ‫ع‬āsāh ‘to do,’ so that Ἐσσαῖοι would signify ‘the (3) ‫‘ עשה‬to do’;
doers, the observers of the law,’ thus referring to the strictness of Essene
practices: see Oppenheim in Frankel’s Monatschrift VII. p. 272 sq. It has
been suggested also that, as the Pharisees were especially designated the
teachers, the Essenes were called the ‘doers’ by a sort of antithesis: see an
article in Jost’s Annalen 1839, p. 145. Thus the talmudic phrase ‫אנשי מעשה‬,
interpreted ‘men of practice, of good deeds,’ is supposed to refer to the
Essenes (see Frankel’s Zeitschrift III. p. 458, Monatschrift II. p. 70). In some
passages indeed (see Surenhuis Mishna III. p. 313) it may possibly mean
‘workers of miracles’ (as ἔργον Joh. v. 20, vii. 21, x. 25, etc.); but in this
sense also it might be explained of the thaumaturgic powers claimed by the
Essenes. (See below, p. 126.) On the use which has been made of a passage
in the Aboth of R. Nathan c. 37, as supporting this derivation, I shall have to
speak hereafter. Altogether this etymology has little or nothing to
recommend it.
I have reserved to the last the two derivations which seem to deserve most
consideration.
(4) ‫ ܚܤܝ‬chasi (‫ ܚܣܐ‬ch’sē) or ‫ ܚܣܝܐ‬chasyo, ‘pious,’ in (4) chasyo ‘pious’;
Syriac. This derivation, which is also given by de Sacy (Chrestom. Arab. I.
p. 347), is adopted by Ewald (Gesch. des V. Isr. IV. p. 484, ed. 3, 1864, VII.
pp. 154, 477, ed. 2, 1859), who abandons in its favour another etymology

(‫ הזן‬chazzan ‘watcher, worshipper’ = θεραπευτής) which he had suggested
in an earlier edition of his fourth volume (p. 420). It is recommended by the
fact that it resembles not only in sound, but in meaning, the Greek ὅσιος, of
which it is a common rendering in the Peshito (Acts ii. 27, xiii. 35, Tit. i. 8).
Thus it explains the derivation given by Philo (see above, p. 115), and it
also accounts for the tendency to write Ὀσσαῖος for Ἐσσαῖος in Greek.
Ewald moreover points out how an Essenizing Sibylline poem (Orac. Sib.
iv; see above, p. 96) dwells on the Greek equivalents, εὐσεβής, εὐσεβίη, etc.
(vv. 26, 35, 42 sq., 148 sq., 162, 165 sq., 178 sq., ed. Alexandre), as if they
had a special value for the writer: see Gesch. VII. p. 154, Sibyll. Bücher p.
46. Lipsius (Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexikon, s.v.) also considers this the most
probable etymology.
(5) ‫ חשא‬chāshā (also ‫ )חשה‬Heb., ‘to be silent’; (5) ‫‘ חשאים‬silent ones.’
whence ‫ חשאים‬chashshāīm ‘the silent ones,’ who meditate on mysteries.
Jost (Gesch. d. Judenth. I. p. 207) believes that this was the derivation
accepted by Josephus, since he elsewhere (Ant. iii. 7. 5, iii. 8. 9) writes out
‫חשן‬, chōshen ‘the high-priest’s breast-plate’ (Exod. xxviii. 15 sq), ἐσσήν or
ἐσσήνης in Greek, and explains it σημαίνει, τοῦτο κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλήνων
γλῶτταν λογεῖον (i.e. the ‘place of oracles’ or ‘of reason’: comp. Philo de
Mon. ii. § 5, II. p. 226 καλεῖται λογεῖον ἐτύμως, ἐπειδὴ τὰ ἐν οὐρανῷ πάντα
λόγοις καὶ ἀναλογίαις δεδημιούργηται κ.τ.λ.), as it is translated in the LXX.
Even though modern critics should be right in connecting ‫ חשן‬with the
Arab. ‫‘ ﺣسن‬pulcher fuit, ornavit’ (see Gesen. Thes. p. 535, s.v.), the other
derivation may have prevailed in Josephus’ time. We may illustrate this
derivation by Josephus’ description of the Essenes, B.J. ii. 8. 5 τοῖς ἔξωθεν
ὡς μυστήριόν τι φρικτὸν ἡ τῶν ἔνδον σιωπὴ καταφαίνεται; and perhaps this
will also explain the Greek equivalent θεωρητικοί, which Suidas gives for
Ἐσσαῖοι. The use of the Hebrew word ‫ חשאים‬in Mishna Shekalim v. 6,
though we need not suppose that the Essenes are there meant, will serve to
show how it might be adopted as the name of the sect. On this word see
Levy Chaldäisches Wörterbuch p. 287. On the whole this seems the most
probable etymology of any, though it has not found so much favour as the
last. At all events the rules of transliteration are entirely satisfied, and this
can hardly be said of the other derivations which come into competition
with it.

2.
ORIGIN AND AFFINITIES OF THE ESSENES.

The ruling principle of the Restoration under Ezra
The principle of the
was the isolation of the Jewish people from all restoration.
influences of the surrounding nations. Only by the
rigorous application of this principle was it possible to guard the nationality
of the Hebrews, and thus to preserve the sacred deposit of religious truth of
which this nationality was the husk. Hence the strictest attention was paid to
the Levitical ordinances, and more especially to those which aimed at
ceremonial purity. The principle, which was thus distinctly asserted at the
period of the national revival, gained force and concentration at a later date
from the active antagonism to which the patriotic Jews were driven by the
religious and political aggressions of the Syrian kings. During the
Maccabæan wars we read of a party or sect called the Rise of the Asidæans.
Chasidim or Asidæans (Ἀσιδαῖοι), the ‘pious’ or ‘devout,’ who zealous in
their observance of the ceremonial law stoutly resisted any concession to
the practices of Hellenism, and took their place in the van of the struggle
with their national enemies, the Antiochene monarchs (1 Macc. ii. 42, vii.
13, 2 Macc. xiv. 6). But, though their names appear now for the first time,
they are not mentioned as a newly formed party; and it is probable that they
had their origin at a much earlier date.
The subsequent history of this tendency to exclusiveness and isolation is
wrapt in the same obscurity. At a somewhat later date Pharisaism and
it is exhibited in the Pharisees and the Essenes; but Essenism traced to the
same principle.
whether these were historically connected with the
Chasidim as divergent offshoots of the original sect, or whether they
represent independent developments of the same principle, we are without
the proper data for deciding. The principle itself appears in the name of the
Pharisees, which, as denoting ‘separation,’ points to the avoidance of all
foreign and contaminating influences. On the other hand the meaning of the
name Essene is uncertain, for the attempt to derive it directly from
Chasidim must be abandoned; but the tendency of the sect is unmistakeable.
If with the Pharisees ceremonial purity was a principal aim, with the

Essenes it was an absorbing passion. It was enforced and guarded moreover
by a special organization. While the Pharisees were a sect, the Essenes were
an order. Like the Pythagoreans in Magna Græcia and the Buddhists in
India before them, like the Christian monks of the Egyptian and Syrian
deserts after them, they were formed into a religious brotherhood, fenced
about by minute and rigid rules, and carefully guarded from any
contamination with the outer world.
Thus the sect may have arisen in the heart of Judaism. Foreign elements in
The idea of ceremonial purity was essentially Judaic. Essenism.
But still, when we turn to the representations of Philo and Josephus, it is
impossible to overlook other traits which betoken foreign affinities.
Whatever the Essenes may have been in their origin, at the Christian era at
least and in the Apostolic age they no longer represented the current type of
religious thought and practice among the Jews. This foreign element has
been derived by some from the Pythagoreans, by others from the Syrians or
Persians or even from the farther East; but, whether Greek or Oriental, its
existence has until lately been almost universally allowed.
The investigations of Frankel, published first in 1846 Frankel’s theory well
in his Zeitschrift, and continued in 1853 in his received,
Monatschrift, have given a different direction to current opinion. Frankel
maintains that Essenism was a purely indigenous growth, that it is only
Pharisaism in an exaggerated form, and that it has nothing distinctive and
owes nothing, or next to nothing, to foreign influences. To establish this
point, he disparages the representations of Philo and Josephus as coloured
to suit the tastes of their heathen readers, while in their place he brings
forward as authorities a number of passages from talmudical and rabbinical
writings, in which he discovers references to this sect. In this view he is
followed implicitly by some later writers, and has largely influenced the
opinions of others; while nearly all speak of his investigations as throwing
great light on the subject.
It is perhaps dangerous to dissent from a view which but groundless and
has found so much favour; but nevertheless I am misleading.
obliged to confess my belief that, whatever value Frankel’s investigations
may have as contributions to our knowledge of Jewish religious thought and
practice, they throw little or no light on the Essenes specially; and that the
blind acceptance of his results by later writers has greatly obscured the

distinctive features of this sect. I cannot but think that any one, who will
investigate Frankel’s references and test his results step by step, will arrive
at the conclusion to which I myself have been led, that his talmudical
researches have left our knowledge of this sect where it was before, and that
we must still refer to Josephus and Philo for any precise information
respecting them.
Frankel starts from the etymology of the name. He His double derivation of
supposes that Ἐσσαῖος, Ἐσσηνός, represent two the name.
different Hebrew words, the former ‫ חסיד‬chāsīd, the latter ‫ צנוע‬tsanūa‫ع‬,
both clothed in suitable Greek dresses[339]. Wherever therefore either of
these words occurs, there is, or there may be, a direct reference to the
Essenes.
It is not too much to say that these etymologies are Fatal objections to it.
impossible; and this for several reasons. (1) The two words Ἐσσαῖος,
Ἐσσηνός, are plainly duplicate forms of the same Hebrew or Aramaic
original, like Σαμψαῖος and Σαμψηνός (Epiphan. Hær. pp. 40, 47, 127; and
even Σαμψίτης p. 46), Ναζωραῖος and Ναζαρηνός, Γιτταῖος and Γιττηνός
(Steph. Byz. s.v., Hippol. Hær. vi. 7), with which we may compare
Βοστραῖος and Βοστρηνός, Μελιταῖος and Μελιτηνός, and numberless
other examples. (2) Again; when we consider either word singly, the
derivation offered is attended with the most serious difficulties. There is no
reason why in Ἐσσαῖος the d should have disappeared from chasid, while it
is hardly possible to conceive that tsanua‫ ع‬should have taken such an
incongruous form as Ἐσσηνός. (3) And lastly; the more important of the
two words, chasid, had already a recognised Greek equivalent in Ἀσιδαῖος;
and it seems highly improbable that a form so divergent as Ἐσσαῖος should
have taken its place.
Indeed Frankel’s derivations are generally, if not Dependence of the
universally, abandoned by later writers; and yet these theory on the derivation.
same writers repeat his quotations and accept his results, as if the references
were equally valid, though the name of the sect has disappeared. They seem
to be satisfied with the stability of the edifice, even when the foundation is
undermined. Thus for instance Grätz not only maintains after Frankel that
the Essenes ‘were properly nothing more than stationary or, more strictly
speaking, consistently logical (consequente) Chasidim,’ and ‘that therefore
they were not so far removed from the Pharisees that they can be regarded

as a separate sect,’ and ‘accepts entirely these results’ which, as he says,
‘rest on critical investigation’ (III. p. 463), but even boldly translates
chasiduth ‘the Essene mode of life’ (ib. 84), though he himself gives a
wholly different derivation of the word ‘Essene,’ making it signify
‘washers’ or ‘baptists’ (see above, p. 116). And even those who do not go to
this length of inconsistency, yet avail themselves freely of the passages
where chasid occurs, and interpret it of the Essenes, while distinctly
repudiating the etymology[340].
But, although Ἐσσαῖος or Ἐσσηνός is not a Greek The term chasid not
form of chasid, it might still happen that this word applied specially to the
Essenes.
was applied to them as an epithet, though not as a
proper name. Only in this case the reference ought to be unmistakeable,
before any conclusions are based upon it. But in fact, after going through all
the passages which Frankel gives, it is impossible to feel satisfied that in a
single instance there is a direct allusion to the Essenes. Sometimes the word
seems to refer to the old sect of the Chasidim or Asidæans, as for instance
when Jose ben Joezer, who lived during the Maccabæan war, is called a
chasid[341]. At all events this R. Jose is known to have been a married man,
for he is stated to have disinherited his children (Baba Bathra 133 b); and
therefore he cannot have belonged to the stricter order of Essenes.
Sometimes it is employed quite generally to denote pious observers of the
ceremonial law, as for instance when it is said that with the death of certain
famous teachers the Chasidim ceased[342]. In this latter sense the expression
‫חסידים הראשונים‬, ‘the ancient or primitive Chasidim’ (Monatschr. pp. 31,
62), is perhaps used; for these primitive Chasidim again are mentioned as
having wives and children[343], and it appears also that they were
scrupulously exact in bringing their sacrificial offerings[344]. Thus it is
impossible to identify them with the Essenes, as described by Josephus and
Philo. Even in those passages of which most has been made, the reference is
more than doubtful. Thus great stress is laid on the saying of R. Joshua ben
Chananiah in Mishna Sotah iii. 4, ‘The foolish chasid and the clever villain
(‫)חסיד שוטה ורשע ערום‬, etc., are the ruin of the world.’ But the connexion
points to a much more general meaning of chasid, and the rendering in
Surenhuis, ‘Homo pius qui insipiens, improbus qui astutus,’ gives the
correct antithesis. So we might say that there is no one more mischievous
than the wrong-headed conscientious man. It is true that the Gemaras
illustrate the expression by examples of those who allow an over-

punctilious regard for external forms to stand in the way of deeds of mercy.
And perhaps rightly. But there is no reference to any distinctive Essene
practices in the illustrations given. Again; the saying in Mishna Pirke Aboth
v. 10, ‘He who says Mine is thine and thine is thine is [a] chasid (‫שלי שלך‬
‫)ושלך שלך הסיד‬,’ is quoted by several writers as though it referred to the
Essene community of goods[345]. But in the first place the idea of
community of goods would require ‘Mine is thine and thine is mine’: and in
the second place, the whole context, and especially the clause which
immediately follows (and which these writers do not give), ‘He who says
Thine is mine and mine is mine is wicked (‫)רשע‬,’ show plainly that ‫חסיד‬
must be taken in its general sense ‘pious,’ and the whole expression implies
not reciprocal interchange but individual self-denial.
It might indeed be urged, though this is not Frankel’s Possible connexion of
plea, that supposing the true etymology of the word chasid and chasyo
discussed.
Ἐσσαῖος, Ἐσσηνός, to be the Syriac ‫ ܚܣܝܐ‬,‫ܚܣܐ‬,
ch’sē, chasyo (a possible derivation), chasid might have been its Hebrew
equivalent as being similar in sound and meaning, and perhaps ultimately
connected in derivation, the exactly corresponding triliteral root ‫חסא‬
(comp. ‫ )חום‬not being in use in Hebrew[346]. But before we accept this
explanation we have a right to demand some evidence which, if not
demonstrative, is at least circumstantial, that chasid is used of the Essenes:
and this we have seen is not forthcoming. Moreover, if the Essenes had thus
inherited the name of the Chasidim, we should have expected that its old
Greek equivalent Ἀσιδαῖοι, which is still used later than the Maccabæan
era, would also have gone with it; rather than that a new Greek word
Ἐσσαῖος (or Ἐσσηνός) should have been invented to take its place. But
indeed the Syriac Version of the Old Testament furnishes an argument
against this convertibility of the Hebrew chasid and the Syriac chasyo,
which must be regarded as almost decisive. The Usage is unfavourable to
numerous passages in the Psalms, where the this view.
expressions ‘My chasidim,’ ‘His chasidim,’ occur (xxx. 5, xxxi. 24, xxxvii.
28, lii. 11, lxxix. 2, lxxxv. 9, xcvii. 10, cxvi. 15, cxxxii. 9, cxlix. 9: comp.
xxxii. 6, cxlix. 1, 5) seem to have suggested the assumption of the name to
the original Asidæans. But in such passages ‫ חסיד‬is commonly, if not
universally, rendered in the Peshito not by ‫ ܚܣܝܐ‬,‫ܚܣܐ‬, but by a wholly
different word ‫ ܙܕܝܩ‬zadīk. And again, in the Books of Maccabees the

Syriac rendering for the name Ἀσιδαῖοι, Chasidim, is a word derived from
another quite distinct root. These facts show that the Hebrew chasid and the
Syriac chasyo were not practically equivalents, so that the one would
suggest the other; and thus all presumption in favour of a connexion
between Ἀσιδαῖος and Ἐσσαῖος is removed.
Frankel’s other derivation ‫צנוע‬, tsanūa‫ع‬, suggested as Frankel’s second
an equivalent to Ἐσσηνός, has found no favour with derivation
later writers, and indeed is too far removed from the Greek form to be
tenable. tsanua‫ ع‬considered.

Nor do the passages quoted by him[347] require or suggest any allusion to
this sect. Thus in Mishna Demai, vi. 6, we are told that the school of Hillel
permits a certain license in a particular matter, but it is added, ‘The ‫ צנועי‬of
the school of Hillel followed the precept of the school of Shammai.’ Here,
as Frankel himself confesses, the Jerusalem Talmud knows nothing about
Essenes, but explains the word by ‫בשדי‬, i.e. ‘upright, worthy[348]’; while
elsewhere, as he allows[349], it must have this general sense. Indeed the
mention of the ‘school of Hillel’ here seems to exclude the Essenes. In its
comprehensive meaning it will most naturally be taken also in the other
passage quoted by Frankel, Kiddushin 71 a, where it is stated that the
pronunciation of the sacred name, which formerly was known to all, is now
only to be divulged to the ‫צנועים‬, i.e. the discreet, among the priests; and in
fact it occurs in reference to the communication of the same mystery in the
immediate context also, where it could not possibly be treated as a proper
name; ‫שצנוע ועניו ועומד בחצי ימיו‬, ‘who is discreet and meek and has
reached middle age,’ etc.
Of other etymologies, which have been suggested, Other supposed
and through which it might be supposed the Essenes etymologies in the
Talmud. (1) Asya ‘a
are mentioned by name in the Talmud, ‫איסא‬, asya, ‘a physician,’
physician,’ is the one which has found most favour.
For the reasons given above (p. 117) this derivation seems highly
improbable, and the passages quoted are quite insufficient to overcome the
objections. Of these the strongest is in the Talm. Jerus. Yoma iii. 7, where
we are told that a certain physician
(‫ )אסי‬offered to communicate the sacred name to R. not supported by the
passages quoted in its
Pinchas the son of Chama, and the latter refused on behalf.

the ground that he ate of the tithes—this being regarded as a
disqualification, apparently because it was inconsistent with the highest
degree of ceremonial purity[350]. The same story is told with some
modifications in Midrash Qoheleth iii. 11[351]. Here Frankel, though himself
(as we have seen) adopting a different derivation of the word ‘Essene,’ yet
supposes that this particular physician belonged to the sect, on the sole
ground that ceremonial purity is represented as a qualification for the
initiation into the mystery of the Sacred Name. Löwy (l.c.) denies that the
allusion to the tithes is rightly interpreted: but even supposing it to be
correct, the passage is quite an inadequate basis either for Frankel’s
conclusion that this particular physician was an Essene, or for the derivation
of the word Essene which others maintain. Again, in the statement of Talm.
Jerus. Kethuboth ii. 3, that correct manuscripts were called books of
]352[‫אסי‬, the word Asi is generally taken as a proper name. But even if this
interpretation be false, there is absolutely nothing in the context which
suggests any allusion to the Essenes[353]. In like manner the passage from
Sanhedrin 99 b, where a physician is mentioned[354], supports no such
inference. Indeed, as this last passage relates to the family of the Asi, he
obviously can have had no connexion with the celibate Essenes.
Hitherto our search for the name in the Talmud has (2) ‫ع‬asah ‘to do.’
been unsuccessful. One possibility however still remains. The talmudical
writers speak of certain ‫‘ אנשי מעשה‬men of deeds’; and if (as some
suppose) the name Essene is derived from ‫עשה‬, have we not here the
mention which we are seeking? Frankel rejects the etymology, but presses
the identification[355]. The expression, he urges, is often used in connexion
with chasidim. It signifies ‘miracle workers,’ and therefore aptly describes
the supernatural powers supposed to be exercised by the Essenes[356]. Thus
we are informed in Mishna Sotah ix. 15, that ‘When R. Chaninah ben Dosa
died, the men of deeds ceased; when R. Jose Ketinta died, the chasidim
ceased.’ In the Jerusalem Talmud however this mishna is read, ‘With the
death of R. Chaninah ben Dosa and R. Jose Ketinta the chasidim ceased’;
while the Gemara there explains R. Chaninah to have been one of the ‫מעשה‬
‫אנשי‬. Thus, Frankel concludes, ‘the identity of these with ‫ הסידים‬becomes
still more plain.’ Now it seems clear that this expression ‫ אנשי מעשה‬in
some places cannot refer to miraculous powers, but must mean ‘men of
practical goodness,’ as for instance in Succah 51a, 53a; and being a general
term expressive of moral excellence, it is naturally connected with

chasidim, which is likewise a general term expressive of piety and
goodness. Nor is there any reason why it should not always be taken in this
sense. It is true that stories are told elsewhere of this R. Chaninah, which
ascribe miraculous powers to him[357], and hence there is a temptation to
translate it ‘wonder-worker,’ as applied to him. But the reason is quite
insufficient. Moreover it must be observed that R. Chaninah’s wife is a
prominent person in the legends of his miracles reported in Taanith 24 b;
and thus we need hardly stop to discuss the possible meanings of ‫אנשי‬
‫מעשה‬, since his claims to being considered an Essene are barred at the
outset by this fact[358].
It has been asserted indeed by a recent author, that one very ancient Jewish
writer distinctly adopts this derivation, and as distinctly states that the
Essenes were a class of Pharisees[359]. If this were the case, Frankel’s
theory, though not his etymology, would receive a striking confirmation:
and it is therefore important to enquire on what foundation the assertion
rests.
Dr Ginsburg’s authority for this statement is a passage The authority for this
from the Aboth of Rabbi Nathan, c. 37, which, as he derivation
error.
traced to an

gives it, appears conclusive; ‘There are eight kinds of
Pharisees ... and those Pharisees who live in celibacy are Essenes.’ But what
are the facts of the case? First; This book was certainly not written by its
reputed author, the R. Nathan who was vice-president under the younger
Gamaliel about A. D. 140. It may possibly have been founded on an earlier
treatise by that famous teacher, though even this is very doubtful: but in its
present form it is a comparatively modern work. On this point all or almost
all recent writers on Hebrew literature are agreed[360]. Secondly; Dr
Ginsburg has taken the reading ‫מחופתו עשאני‬, without even mentioning any
alternative. Whether the words so read are capable of the meaning which he
has assigned to them, may be highly questionable; but at all events this
cannot have been the original reading, as the parallel passages, Babl. Sotah
fol. 22b, Jerus. Sotah v. 5, Jerus. Berakhoth ix. 5, (quoted by Buxtorf and
Levy, s.v. ‫)פריש‬, distinctly prove. In Babl. Sotah l.c., the corresponding
expression is ‫‘ מה הובתי ואעשנה‬What is my duty, and I will do it,’ and the
passage in Jerus. Berakhoth l.c. is to the same effect. These parallels show
that the reading ‫ מה הובתי ואעשנה‬must be taken also in Aboth c. 37, so that
the passage will be rendered, ‘The Pharisee who says, What is my duty, and

I will do it.’ Thus the Essenes and celibacy disappear together. Lastly;
Inasmuch as Dr Ginsburg himself takes a wholly different view of the name
Essene, connecting it either with ‫‘ חצן‬an apron,’ or with ‫‘ הסים‬pious[361],’ it
is difficult to see how he could translate ‫‘ עשאני‬Essene’ (from ‫‘ עשא‬to do’)
in this passage, except on the supposition that R. Nathan was entirely
ignorant of the orthography and derivation of the word Essene. Yet, if such
ignorance were conceivable in so ancient a writer, his authority on this
question would be absolutely worthless. But indeed Dr Ginsburg would
appear to have adopted this reference to R. Nathan, with the reading of the
passage and the interpretation of the name, from some other writer[362]. At
all events it is quite inconsistent with his own opinion as expressed
previously.

But, though we have not succeeded in finding any Are the Essenes alluded
direct mention of this sect by name in the Talmud, and to, though not named, in
the Talmud?
all the identifications of the word Essene with diverse
expressions occurring there have failed us on examination, it might still
happen that allusions to them were so frequent as to leave no doubt about the
persons meant. Their organisation or their practices or their tenets might be
precisely described, though their name was suppressed. Such allusions
Frankel finds scattered up and down the Talmud in great profusion.
(1) He sees a reference to the Essenes in the ‫( חבורא‬1) The chaber or
chăbūra or ‘Society,’ which is mentioned several times Associate.
in talmudical writers[363]. The chāber (‫ )הבר‬or ‘Associate’ is, he supposes, a
member of this brotherhood. He is obliged to confess that the word cannot
always have this sense, but still he considers this to be a common
designation of the Essenes. The chaber was bound to observe certain rules of
ceremonial purity, and a period of probation was imposed upon him before
he was admitted. With this fact Frankel connects the passage in Mishna
Chagigah ii. 5, 6, where several degrees of ceremonial purity are specified.
Having done this, he considers that he has the explanation of the statement in
Josephus (B.J. ii. 8. 7, 10), that the Essenes were divided into four different
grades or orders according to the time of their continuance in the ascetic
practices demanded by the sect.
But in the first place there is no reference direct or A passage in Chagigah
indirect to the chaber, or indeed to any organisation of considered.
any kind, in the passage of Chagigah. It simply contemplates different
degrees of purification as qualifying for the performance of certain Levitical
rites in an ascending scale. There is no indication that these lustrations are
more than temporary and immediate in their application; and not the faintest
hint is given of distinct orders of men, each separated from the other by
formal barriers and each demanding a period of probation before admission
from the order below, as was the case with the grades of the Essene
brotherhood described by Josephus. Moreover the orders in Josephus are
four in number[364], while the degrees of ceremonial purity in Chagigah are
five. Frankel indeed is inclined to maintain that only four degrees are
intended in Chagigah, though this interpretation is opposed to the plain sense
of the passage. But, even if he should be obliged to grant that the number of
degrees is five[365], he will not surrender the allusion to the Essenes, but

meets the difficulty by supposing (it is a pure hypothesis) that there was a
fifth and highest degree of purity among the Essenes, to which very few
attained, and which, as I understand him, is not mentioned by Josephus on
this account. But enough has already been said to show, that this passage in
Chagigah can have no connexion with the Essenes and gives no countenance
to Frankel’s views.
As this artificial combination has failed, we are Difference between
compelled to fall back on the notices relating to the chaber, and to ask
whether these suggest any connexion with the account the chaber and the
of the Essenes in Josephus. And the facts oblige us to Essene.
answer this question in the negative. Not only do they not suggest such a
connexion, but they are wholly irreconcilable with the account in the Jewish
historian. This association or confraternity (if indeed the term is applicable to
an organisation so loose and so comprehensive) was maintained for the sake
of securing a more accurate study and a better observance of the ceremonial
law. Two grades of purity are mentioned in connexion with it, designated by
different names and presenting some difficulties[366], into which it is not
necessary to enter here. A chaber, it would appear, was one who had entered
upon the second or higher stage. For this a period of a year’s probation was
necessary. The chaber enrolled himself in the presence of three others who
were already members of the association. This apparently was all the
formality necessary: and in the case of a teacher even this was dispensed
with, for being presumably acquainted with the law of things clean and
unclean he was regarded as ex officio a chaber. The chaber was bound to
keep himself from ceremonial defilements, and was thus distinguished from
the [‫ع‬am haarets or common people[367]; but he was under no external
surveillance and decided for himself as to his own purity. Moreover he was,
or might be a married man: for the doctors disputed whether the wives and
children of an associate were not themselves to be regarded as
associates[368]. In one passage, Sanhedrin 41a, it is even assumed, as a
matter of course, that a woman may be an associate (‫)חברה‬. In another
(Niddah 33b)[369] there is mention of a Sadducee and even of a Samaritan as
a chaber. An organisation so flexible as this has obviously only the most
superficial resemblances with the rigid rules of the Essene order; and in
many points it presents a direct contrast to the characteristic tenets of that
sect.

(2) Having discussed Frankel’s hypothesis respecting (2) The Bene
the chaber, I need hardly follow his speculations on the hakkeneseth.
Bĕnē-hakkĕneseth, ‫בני הכנסח‬, ‘sons of the congregation’ (Zabim iii. 2), in
which expression probably few would discover the reference, which he
finds, to the lowest of the Essene orders[370].
(3) But mention is also made of a ‘holy congregation’ (3) The ‘holy
or ‘assembly’ (‫‘ )עדה קדישה קהלא קדישא‬in congregation Jerusalem’
at

Jerusalem’; and, following Rapoport, Frankel sees in
this expression also an allusion to the Essenes[371]. The grounds for this
identification are, that in one passage (Berakhoth 9b) they are mentioned in
connexion with prayer at day break, and in another (Midrash Qoheleth ix. 9)
two persons are stated to belong to this ‘holy congregation,’ because they
divided their day into three parts, devoting one-third to learning, another to
prayer, and another to work. The first notice would suit the Essenes very
well, though the practice mentioned was not so distinctively Essene as to
afford any safe ground for this hypothesis. Of the second it should be
observed, that no such division of the day is recorded of the Essenes, and
indeed both Josephus (B.J. ii. 8. 5) and Philo (Fragm. p. 633) describe them
as working from morning till night with the single interruption of their mid-
day meal[372]. But in fact the identification is beset with other and more
serious difficulties. For this ‘holy congregation’ at Jerusalem is mentioned
long after the second destruction of the city under not an Essene
Hadrian[373], when on Frankel’s own showing[374] the community.
Essene society had in all probability ceased to exist. And again certain
members of it, e.g. Jose ben Meshullam (Mishna Bekhoroth iii. 3, vi. 1), are
represented as uttering precepts respecting animals fit for sacrifice, though
we have it on the authority of Josephus and Philo that the Essenes avoided
the temple sacrifices altogether. The probability therefore seems to be that
this ‘holy congregation’ was an assemblage of devout Jews who were drawn
to the neighbourhood of the sanctuary after the destruction of the nation, and
whose practices were regarded with peculiar reverence by the later Jews[375].
(4) Neither can we with Frankel[376] discern any (4) The Vethikin.
reference to the Essenes in those ‫ ותיקיו‬Vethikin, ‘pious’ or ‘learned’ men
(whatever may be the exact sense of the word), who are mentioned in
Berakhoth 9b as praying before sunrise; because the word itself seems quite
general, and the practice, though enforced among the Essenes, as we know
from Josephus (B.J. ii. 8. 5), would be common to all devout and earnest

Jews. If we are not justified in saying that these ‫ ותיקיו‬were not Essenes, we
have no sufficient grounds for maintaining that they were.
(5) Nor again can we find any such reference in the (5) The ‘primitive
‫ זקנים‬or ‘primitive elders[377].’ It may readily be elders.’
granted that this term is used synonymously, or nearly so, with ‫הראשונים‬
‫‘ הסידים‬the primitive chasidim’; but, as we failed to see anything more than
a general expression in the one, so we are naturally led to take the other in
the same sense. The passages where the expression occurs (e.g. Shabbath
64b) simply refer to the stricter observances of early times, and do not
indicate any reference to a particular society or body of men.
(6) Again Frankel finds another reference to this sect in (6) The ‘morning
the ‫ טבלי שחרית‬Tōblē-shachărīth, or ‘morning- bathers.’
bathers,’ mentioned in Tosifta Yadayim c. 2[378]. The identity of these with
the ἡμεροβαπτισταὶ of Greek writers seems highly probable. The latter
however, though they may have had some affinities with Essene practices
and tenets, are nevertheless distinguished from this sect wherever they are
mentioned[379]. But the point to be observed is that, even though we should
identify these Toble-shacharith with the Essenes, the passage in Tosifta
Yadayim, so far from favouring, runs directly counter to Frankel’s view
which regards the Essenes as only a branch of Pharisees: for the two are here
represented as in direct antagonism. The Toble-shacharith say, ‘We grieve
over you, Pharisees, because you pronounce the (sacred) Name in the
morning without having bathed.’ The Pharisees retort, ‘We grieve over you,
Toble-shacharith, because you pronounce the Name from this body in which
is impurity.’
(7) In connexion with the Toble-shacharith we may (7) The Banaim.
consider another name, Banāīm (‫)בנאים‬, in which also Frankel discovers an
allusion to the Essenes[380]. In Mishna Mikvaoth ix. 6 the word is opposed to
‫ בור‬bōr, ‘an ignorant or stupid person’; and this points to its proper meaning
‘the builders,’ i.e. the edifiers or teachers, according to the common
metaphor in Biblical language. The word is discussed in Shabbath 114 and
explained to mean ‘learned.’ But, because in Mikvaoth it is mentioned in
connexion with ceremonial purity, and because in Josephus the Essenes are
stated to have carried an ‘axe and shovel’ (B.J. ii. 8. 7, 9), and because
moreover the Jewish historian in another place (Vit. 2) mentions having spent
some time with one Banus a dweller in the wilderness, who lived on

vegetables and fruits and bathed often day and night for the sake of purity,
and who is generally considered to have been an Essene; therefore Frankel
holds these Banaim to have been Essenes. This is a specimen of the
misplaced ingenuity which distinguishes Frankel’s learned speculations on
the Essenes. Josephus does not mention an ‘axe and Josephus
shovel,’ but an axe only (§ 7 ἀξινάριον), which he misinterpreted.
afterwards defines more accurately as a spade (§ 9 τῇ σκαλίδι, τοιοῦτον γάρ
ἐστι τὸ διδόμενον ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ἀξινίδιον τοῖς νεοσυστάτοις) and which, as he
distinctly states, was given them for the purpose of burying impurities out of
sight (comp. Deut. xxiii. 12–14). Thus it has no connexion whatever with
any ‘building’ implement. And again, it is true that Banus has frequently
been regarded as an Essene, but there is absolutely no ground for this
supposition. On the contrary the narrative of Josephus in his Life seems to
exclude it, as I shall have occasion to show Another derivation of
hereafter[381]. I should add that Sachs interprets Banaim.
Banaim ‘the bathers,’ regarding the explanation in Shabbath l.c. as a ‘later
accommodation[382].’ This seems to me very improbable; but, if it were
conceded, the Banaim would then apparently be connected not with the
Essenes, but with the Hemerobaptists.

From the preceding investigation it will have appeared Results of this
how little Frankel has succeeded in establishing his investigation.
thesis that ‘the talmudical sources are acquainted with the Essenes and make
mention of them constantly[383].’ We have seen not only that no instance of
the name Essene has been produced, but that all those passages which are
supposed to refer to them under other designations, or to describe their
practices or tenets, fail us on closer examination. In no case can we feel sure
that there is any direct reference to this sect, while in most cases such
reference seems to be excluded by the language or the attendant
circumstances[384]. Thus we are obliged to fall back Philo and Josephus our
upon the representations of Philo and Josephus. Their main authorities.
accounts are penned by eye-witnesses. They are direct and explicit, if not so
precise or so full as we could have wished. The writers obviously consider
that they are describing a distinct and exceptional phenomenon. And it would
be a reversal of all established rules of historical criticism to desert the solid
standing-ground of contemporary history for the artificial combinations and
shadowy hypotheses, which Frankel would substitute in its place.

But here we are confronted with Frankel’s depreciation Frankel’s depreciation of
of these ancient writers, which has been echoed by them is unreasonable,
and explains nothing.
several later critics. They were interested, it is argued,
in making their accounts attractive to their heathen contemporaries, and they
coloured them highly for this purpose[385]. We may readily allow that they
would not be uninfluenced by such a motive, but the concession does not
touch the main points at issue. This aim might have led Josephus, for
example, to throw into bold relief the coincidences between the Essenes and
Pythagoreans; it might even have induced him to give a semi-pagan tinge to
the Essene doctrine of the future state of the blessed (B.J. ii. 8. 11). But it
entirely fails to explain those peculiarities of the sect, which marked them off
by a sharp line from orthodox Judaism, and which fully justify the term
‘separatists’ as applied to them by a recent writer. In three main features
especially the portrait of the Essenes retains its distinctive character
unaffected by this consideration.
(i) How, for instance, could this principle of (i) The avoidance of
accommodation have led both Philo and Josephus to sacrifices is not
accounted for.
lay so much stress on their divergence from Judaic
orthodoxy in the matter of sacrifices? Yet this is perhaps the most crucial
note of heresy which is recorded of the Essenes. What was the law to the
orthodox Pharisee without the sacrifices, the temple-worship, the hierarchy?
Yet the Essene declined to take any part in the sacrifices; he had priests of his
own independently of the Levitical priesthood. On Frankel’s hypothesis that
Essenism is merely an exaggeration of pure Pharisaism, no explanation of
this abnormal phenomenon can be given. Frankel does indeed attempt to
meet the case by some speculations respecting the red-heifer[386], which are
so obviously inadequate that they have not been repeated by later writers and
may safely be passed over in silence here. On this point indeed the language
of Josephus is not quite explicit. He says (Ant. xviii. 1. The notices of Josephus
5) that, though they send offerings (ἀναθῆματα) to the and Philo considered.
temple, they perform no sacrifices, and he assigns as the reason their greater
strictness as regards ceremonial purity (διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν ἃς νομίζοιεν),
adding that ‘for this reason being excluded from the common sanctuary
(τεμενίσματος) they perform their sacrifices by themselves (ἐφ’ αὑτῶν τὰς
θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσι).’ Frankel therefore supposes that their only reason for
abstaining from the temple sacrifices was that according to their severe
notions the temple itself was profaned and therefore unfit for sacrificial

worship. But if so, why should it not vitiate the offerings, as well as the
sacrifices, and make them also unlawful? And indeed, where Josephus is
vague, Philo is explicit. Philo (II. p. 457) distinctly states that the Essenes
being more scrupulous than any in the worship of God (ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα
θεραπευταὶ θεοῦ) do not sacrifice animals (οὐ ζῶα καταθύοντες), but hold it
right to dedicate their own hearts as a worthy offering (ἀλλ’ ἱεροπρεπεῖς τὰς
ἑαυτῶν διανοίας κατασκευάζειν ἀξιοῦντες). Thus the greater strictness,
which Josephus ascribes to them, consists in the abstention from shedding
blood, as a pollution in itself. And, when he speaks of their substituting
private sacrifices, his own qualifications show that he does not mean the
word to be taken literally. Their simple meals are their sacrifices; their
refectory is their sanctuary; their president is their priest[387]. It should be
added also that, though we once hear of an Essene apparently within the
temple precincts (B.J. i. 3. 5, Ant. xiii. II. 2)[388], no mention is ever made of
one offering sacrifices. Thus it is clear that with the Essene it was the
sacrifices which polluted the temple, and not the Their statements
temple which polluted the sacrifices. And this view is confirmed by the
doctrine of Christian
further recommended by the fact that it alone will Essenes.
explain the position of their descendants, the
Christianized Essenes, who condemned the slaughter of victims on grounds
very different from those alleged in the Epistle to the Hebrews, not because
they have been superseded by the Atonement, but because they are in their
very nature repulsive to God; not because they have ceased to be right, but
because they never were right from the beginning.
It may be said indeed, that such a view could not be maintained without
impugning the authority, or at least disputing the integrity, of the Old
Testament writings. The sacrificial system is so bound up with the Mosaic
law, that it can only be rejected by the most arbitrary excision. This violent
process however, uncritical as it is, was very likely to have been adopted by
the Essenes[389]. As a matter of fact, it did recommend itself to those
Judaizing Christians who reproduced many of the Essene tenets, and who
both theologically and historically may be regarded as the lineal descendants
of this Judaic sect[390]. Thus in the Clementine The Clementine
Homilies, an Ebionite work which exhibits many Homilies justify this
doctrine by arbitrary
Essene features, the chief spokesman St Peter is excision of the
represented as laying great stress on the duty of Scriptures.
distinguishing the true and the false elements in the current Scriptures (ii. 38,

51, iii. 4, 5, 10, 42, 47, 49, 50, comp. xviii. 19). The saying traditionally
ascribed to our Lord, ‘Show yourselves approved money-changers’ (γίνεσθε
τραπεζῖται δόκιμοι), is more than once quoted by the Apostle as enforcing
this duty (ii. 51, iii. 50, xviii. 20). Among these false elements he places all
those passages which represent God as enjoining sacrifices (iii. 45, xviii. 19).
It is plain, so he argues, that God did not desire sacrifices, for did He not kill
those who lusted after the taste of flesh in the wilderness? and, if the
slaughter of animals was thus displeasing to Him, how could He possibly
have commanded victims to be offered to Himself (iii. 45)? It is equally clear
from other considerations that this was no part of God’s genuine law. For
instance, Christ declared that He came to fulfil every tittle of the Law; yet
Christ abolished sacrifices (iii. 51). And again, the saying ‘I will have mercy
and not sacrifice’ is a condemnation of this practice (iii. 56). The true prophet
‘hates sacrifices, bloodshed, libations’; he ‘extinguishes the fire of altars’ (iii.
26). The frenzy of the lying soothsayer is a mere intoxication produced by
the reeking fumes of sacrifice (iii. 13). When in the immediate context of
these denunciations we find it reckoned among the highest achievements of
man ‘to know the names of angels, to drive away demons, to endeavour to
heal diseases by charms (φαρμακίαις), and to find Essene features in this
incantations (ἐπαοιδάς) against venomous serpents (iii. work.
36)’; when again St Peter is made to condemn as false those scriptures which
speak of God swearing, and to set against them Christ’s command ‘Let your
yea be yea’ (iii. 55); we feel how thoroughly this strange production of
Ebionite Christianity is saturated with Essene ideas[391].
(ii) Nor again is Frankel successful in explaining the (ii) The Essene worship
Essene prayers to the sun by rabbinical practices[392]. of the Sun cannot be
explained away.
Following Rapoport, he supposes that Josephus and
Philo refer to the beautiful hymn of praise for the creation of light and the
return of day, which forms part of the morning-prayer of the Jews to the
present time[393], and which seems to be enjoined in the Mishna itself[394];
and this view has been adopted by many subsequent writers. But the
language of Josephus is not satisfied by this explanation. For he says plainly
(B.J. ii. 8. 5) that they addressed prayers to the sun[395], and it is difficult to
suppose that he has wantonly introduced a dash of paganism into his picture;
nor indeed was there any adequate motive for his doing so. Similarly Philo
relates of the Therapeutes (Vit. Cont. II, II. p. 485), that they ‘stand with their
faces and their whole body towards the East, and when they see that the sun

is risen, holding out their hands to heaven they pray for a happy day
(εὐημερίαν) and for truth and for keen vision of reason (ὀξυωπίαν
λογισμοῦ).’ And here again it is impossible to overlook the confirmation
which these accounts receive from the history of certain Christian heretics
deriving their descent from this Judaic sect. Epiphanius The Sampsæans are an
(Hær. xix. 2, xx. 3, pp. 40 sq., 47) speaks of a sect Essene sect,
called the Sampsæans or ‘Sun-worshippers[396],’ as existing in his own time
in Peræa on the borders of Moab and on the shores of the Dead Sea. He
describes them as a remnant of the Ossenes (i.e. Essenes), who have
accepted a spurious form of Christianity and are neither Jews nor Christians.
This debased Christianity which they adopted is embodied, he tells us, in the
pretended revelation of the Book of Elchasai, and dates from the time of
Trajan[397]. Elsewhere (xxx. 3, p. 127) he seems to use the terms Sampsæan,
Ossene, and Elchasaite as synonymous (παρὰ τοῖς Σαμψηνοῖς καὶ Ὀσσηνοῖς
καὶ Ἐλκεσσαίοις καλουμένοις). Now we happen to know something of this
book of Elchasai, not only from Epiphanius himself (xix. 1 sq., p. 40 sq.,
xxx. 17, p. 141), but also from Hippolytus (Hær. ix. 13 as appears from their
sq.) who describes it at considerable length. From sacred book of Elchesai.
these accounts it appears that the principal feature in the book was the
injunction of frequent bathings for the remission of sins (Hipp. Hær. ix. 13,
15 sq.). We are likewise told that it ‘anathematizes immolations and
sacrifices (θυσίας καὶ (ιερουργίας) as being alien to God and certainly not
offered to God by tradition from (ἐκ) the fathers and the law,’ while at the
same time it ‘says that men ought to pray there at Jerusalem, where the altar
was and the sacrifices (were offered), prohibiting the eating of flesh which
exists among the Jews, and the rest (of their customs), and the altar and the
fire, as being alien to God’ (Epiphan. xix. 3, p. 42). Notwithstanding, we are
informed that the sect retained the rite of circumcision, Its Essene peculiarities.
the observance of the sabbath, and other practices of the Mosaic law (Hipp.
Hær. ix. 14; Epiph. Hær. xix. 5, p. 43, comp. xxx. 17, p. 141). This
inconsistency is explained by a further notice in Epiphanius (l.c.) that they
treated the Scriptures in the same way as the Nasaræans[398]; that is, they
submitted them to a process of arbitrary excision, as recommended in the
Clementine Homilies, and thus rejected as falsifications all statements which
did not square with their own theory. Hippolytus also speaks of the
Elchasaites as studying astrology and magic, and as practising charms and
incantations on the sick and the demoniacs (§ 14). Moreover in two
formularies, one of expiation, another of purification, which this father has

extracted from the book, invocation is made to ‘the holy spirits and the
angels of prayer’ (§ 15, comp. Epiph. xix. 1). It should be added that the
word Elchasai probably signifies the ‘hidden power’[399]; while the book
itself directed that its mysteries should be guarded as precious pearls, and
should not be communicated to the world at large, but only to the faithful
few (Hipp. ix. 15, 17). It is hardly necessary to call attention to the number
of Essene features which are here combined[400]. I would only remark that
the value of the notice is not at all diminished, but rather enhanced, by the
uncritical character of Epiphanius’ work; for this very fact prevents us from
ascribing the coincidences, which here reveal themselves, to this father’s
own invention.
In this heresy we have plainly the dregs of Essenism, Doubtful bearing of this
which has only been corrupted from its earlier and Sun-worship.
nobler type by the admixture of a spurious Christianity. But how came the
Essenes to be called Sampsæans? What was the original meaning of this
outward reverence which they paid to the sun? Did they regard it merely as
the symbol of Divine illumination, just as Philo frequently treats it as a type
of God, the centre of all light (e.g. de Somn. i. 13 sq., I. p. 631 sq.), and even
calls the heavenly bodies ‘visible and sensible gods’ (de Mund. Op. 7, I. p. 6)
[401]? Or did they honour the light, as the pure ethereal element in contrast to
gross terrestrial matter, according to a suggestion of a recent writer[402]?
Whatever may have been the motive of this reverence, The practice repugnant
it is strangely repugnant to the spirit of orthodox to Jewish orthodoxy.
Judaism. In Ezek. viii. 16 it is denounced as an abomination, that men shall
turn towards the east and worship the sun; and accordingly in Berakhoth 7a,
a saying of R. Meir is reported to the effect that God is angry when the sun
appears and the kings of the East and the West prostrate themselves before
this luminary[403]. We cannot fail therefore to recognise the action of some
foreign influence in this Essene practice—whether Greek or Syrian or
Persian, it will be time to consider hereafter.
(iii) On the subject of marriage again, talmudical and (iii) The depreciation of
rabbinical notices contribute nothing towards marriage for.
not accounted

elucidating the practices of this sect. Least of all do
they point to any affinity between the Essenes and the Pharisees. The nearest
resemblance, which Frankel can produce, to any approximation in this
respect is an injunction in Mishna Kethuboth v. 8 respecting the duties of the
husband in providing for the wife in case of his separating from her, and this

he ascribes to Essene influences[404]; but this mishna does not express any
approval of such a separation. The direction seems to be framed entirely in
the interests of the wife: nor can I see that it is at all inconsistent, as Frankel
urges, with Mishna Kethuboth vii. 1 which allows her to claim a divorce
under such circumstances. But however this may be, Essene and Pharisaic
opinion stand generally in the sharpest contrast to each other with respect to
marriage. The talmudic writings teem with passages implying not only the
superior sanctity, but even the imperative duty, of marriage. The words ‘Be
fruitful and multiply’ (Gen. i. 28) were regarded not merely as a promise, but
as a command, which was binding on all. It is a maxim of the Talmud that
‘Any Jew who has not a wife is no man’ (‫אינו אדם‬,) Yebamoth 63a. The fact
indeed is so patent, that any accumulation of examples would be superfluous,
and I shall content myself with referring to Pesachim 113a, b, as fairly
illustrating the doctrine of orthodox Judaism on this point[405]. As this
question affects the whole framework not only of religious, but also of social
life, the antagonism between the Essene and the Pharisee in a matter so vital
could not be overlooked.
(iv) Nor again is it probable that the magical rites and (iv) The Essene practice
incantations which are so prominent in the practice of of magic still a
difficulty.
the Essenes would, as a rule, have been received with
any favour by the Pharisaic Jew. In Mishna Pesachim iv. 9 (comp. Berakhoth
10b) it is mentioned with approval that Hezekiah put away a ‘book of
healings’; where doubtless the author of the tradition had in view some
volume of charms ascribed to Solomon, like those which apparently formed
part of the esoteric literature of the Essenes[406]. In the same spirit in Mishna
Sanhedrin xi. 1 R. Akiba shuts out from the hope of eternal life any ‘who
read profane or foreign (i.e. perhaps, apocryphal) books, and who mutter
over a wound’ the words of Exod. xv. 26. On this point of difference
however no great stress can be laid. Though the nobler teachers among the
orthodox Jews set themselves steadfastly against the introduction of magic,
they were unable to resist the inpouring tide of superstition. In the middle of
the second century Justin Martyr alludes to exorcists and magicians among
the Jews, as though they were neither few nor obscure[407]. Whether these
were a remnant of Essene Judaism, or whether such practices had by this
time spread throughout the whole body, it is impossible to say; but the fact of
their existence prevents us from founding an argument on the use of magic,
as an absolutely distinctive feature of Essenism.

Other divergences also have been enumerated[408]; but, General result.
as these do not for the most part involve any great principles, and refer only
to practical details in which much fluctuation was possible, they cannot
under any circumstances be taken as crucial tests, and I have not thought it
worth while to discuss them. But the antagonisms on which I have dwelt will
tell their own tale. In three respects more especially, in the avoidance of
marriage, in the abstention from the temple sacrifices, and (if the view which
I have adopted be correct) in the outward reverence paid to the sun, we have
seen that there is an impassable gulf between the Essenes and the Pharisees.
No known influences within the sphere of Judaism proper will serve to
account for the position of the Essenes in these respects; and we are obliged
to look elsewhere for an explanation.

It was shown above that the investigations of Frankel Frankel has failed in
and others failed to discover in the talmudical writings establishing his point.
a single reference to the Essenes, which is at once direct and indisputable. It
has now appeared that they have also failed (and this is the really important
point) in showing that the ideas and practices generally considered
characteristic of the Essenes are recognised and incorporated in these
representative books of Jewish orthodoxy; and thus the hypothesis that
Essenism was merely a type, though an exaggerated type, of pure Judaism
falls to the ground.
Some affinities indeed have been made out by Frankel Affinities between
and by those who have anticipated or followed him. Essenes and Pharisees
confined to the Judaic
But these are exactly such as we might have expected. side.
Two distinct features combine to make up the portrait
of the Essene. The Judaic element is quite as prominent in this sect as the
non-Judaic. It could not be more strongly emphasized than in the description
given by Josephus himself. In everything therefore which relates to the
strictly Judaic side of their tenets and practices, we should expect to discover
not only affinities, but even close affinities, in talmudic and rabbinic
authorities. And this is exactly what, as a matter of fact, we do find. The
Essene rules respecting the observance of the sabbath, the rites of lustration,
and the like, have often very exact parallels in the writings of more orthodox
Judaism. But I have not thought it necessary to dwell on these coincidences,
because they may well be taken for granted and my immediate purpose did
not require me to emphasize them.

And again; it must be remembered that the separation The divergence of the
between Pharisee and Essene cannot always have been Essenes from the
Pharisees gradual.
so great as it appears in the Apostolic age. Both sects
apparently arose out of one great movement, of which the motive was the
avoidance of pollution[409]. The divergence therefore must have been
gradual. At the same time, it does not seem a very profitable task to write a
hypothetical history of the growth of Essenism, where the data are wanting;
and I shall therefore abstain from the attempt. Frankel indeed has not been
deterred by this difficulty; but he has been obliged to assume his data by
postulating that such and such a person, of whom notices are preserved, was
an Essene, and thence inferring the character of Essenism at the period in
question from his recorded sayings or doings. But without attempting any
such reconstruction of history, we may fairly allow that there must have been
a gradual development; and consequently in the earlier stages of its growth
we should not expect to find that sharp antagonism between the two sects,
which the principles of the Essenes when fully matured would involve. If
therefore it should be shown that the talmudical and Hence the possibility of
rabbinical writings here and there preserve with their appearing in the
records of orthodox
approval the sayings of certain Essenes, this fact would Judaism.
present no difficulty. At present however no decisive
example has been produced; and the discoveries of Jellinek for instance[410],
who traces the influence of this sect in almost every page of Pirke Aboth, can
only be regarded as another illustration of the extravagance with which the
whole subject has been treated by a large section of modern Jewish writers.
More to the point is a notice of an earlier Essene preserved in Josephus
himself. We learn from this historian that one Judas, a member of the sect,
who had prophesied the death of Antigonus, saw this prince ‘passing by
through the temple[411],’ when his prophecy was on the point of fulfilment
(about B.C. 110). At this moment Judas is represented as sitting in the midst
of his disciples, instructing them in the science of prediction. The expression
quoted would seem to imply that he was actually teaching within the temple
area. Thus he would appear not only as mixing in the ordinary life of the
Jews, but also as frequenting the national sanctuary. But even supposing this
to be the right explanation of the passage, it will not present any serious
difficulty. Even at a later date, when (as we may suppose) the principles of
the sect had stiffened, the scruples of the Essene were directed, if I have
rightly interpreted the account of Josephus, rather against the sacrifices than

against the locality[412]. The temple itself, independently of its
accompaniments, would not suggest any offence to his conscience.
Nor again, is it any obstacle to the view which is here The approbation of
maintained, that the Essenes are regarded with so Philo and Josephus is no
evidence of orthodoxy.
much sympathy by Philo and Josephus themselves.
Even though the purity of Judaism might have been somewhat sullied in this
sect by the admixture of foreign elements, this fact would attract rather than
repel an eclectic like Philo, and a latitudinarian like Josephus. The former, as
an Alexandrian, absorbed into his system many and diverse elements of
heathen philosophy, Platonic, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The latter, though
professedly a Pharisee, lost no opportunity of ingratiating himself with his
heathen conquerors, and would not be unwilling to gratify their curiosity
respecting a society with whose fame, as we infer from the notice of Pliny,
they were already acquainted.

But if Essenism owed the features which distinguished What was the foreign
it from Pharisaic Judaism to an alien admixture, element in Essenism?
whence were these foreign influences derived? From the philosophers of
Greece or from the religious mystics of the East? On this point recent writers
are divided.
Those who trace the distinctive characteristics of the Theory of
sect to Greece, regard it as an offshoot of the Neopythagorean
influence.
Neopythagorean School grafted on the stem of
Judaism. This solution is suggested by the statement of Josephus, that ‘they
practise the mode of life which among the Greeks was introduced
(καταδεδειγμένῃ) by Pythagoras[413].’ It is thought to be confirmed by the
strong resemblances which as a matter of fact are found to exist between the
institutions and practices of the two.
This theory, which is maintained also by other writers, Statement of the theory
as for instance by Baur and Herzfeld, has found its by Zeller.
ablest and most persistent advocate in Zeller, who draws out the parallels
with great force and precision. ‘The Essenes,’ he writes, ‘like the
Pythagoreans, desire to attain a higher sanctity by an ascetic life; and the
abstentions, which they impose on themselves for this end, are the same with
both. They reject animal food and bloody sacrifices; they avoid wine, warm
baths, and oil for anointing; they set a high value on celibate life: or, so far as

they allow marriage, they require that it be restricted to the one object of
procreating children. Both wear only white garments and consider linen
purer than wool. Washings and purifications are prescribed by both, though
for the Essenes they have a yet higher significance as religious acts. Both
prohibit oaths and (what is more) on the same grounds. Both find their social
ideal in those institutions, which indeed the Essenes alone set themselves to
realise—in a corporate life with entire community of goods, in sharply
defined orders of rank, in the unconditional submission of all the members to
their superiors, in a society carefully barred from without, into which new
members are received only after a severe probation of several years, and
from which the unworthy are inexorably excluded. Both require a strict
initiation, both desire to maintain a traditional doctrine Zeller’s theory.
inviolable; both pay the highest respect to the men from whom it was
derived, as instruments of the deity: yet both also love figurative clothing for
their doctrines, and treat the old traditions as symbols of deeper truths, which
they must extract from them by means of allegorical explanation. In order to
prove the later form of teaching original, newly-composed writings were
unhesitatingly forged by the one as by the other, and fathered upon illustrious
names of the past. Both parties pay honour to divine powers in the elements,
both invoke the rising sun, both seek to withdraw everything unclean from
his sight, and with this view give special directions, in which they agree as
well with each other as with older Greek superstition, in a remarkable way.
For both the belief in intermediate beings between God and the world has an
importance which is higher in proportion as their own conception of God is
purer; both appear not to have disdained magic; yet both regard the gift of
prophecy as the highest fruit of wisdom and piety, which they pique
themselves on possessing in their most distinguished members. Finally, both
agree (along with the dualistic character of their whole conception of the
world ...) in their tenets respecting the origin of the soul, its relation to the
body, and the life after death[414]....’
This array of coincidences is formidable, and thus Absence of distinctive
skilfully marshalled might appear at first sight Pythagorean the Essenes.
features in

invincible. But a closer examination detracts from its
value. In the first place the two distinctive characteristics of the Pythagorean
philosophy are wanting to the Essenes. The Jewish sect did not believe in the
transmigration of souls; and the doctrine of numbers, at least so far as our
information goes, had no place in their system. Yet these constitute the very

essence of the Pythagorean teaching. In the next place several of the
coincidences are more apparent than real. Thus for The coincidences are in
instance the demons who in the Pythagorean system some cases only
apparent,
held an intermediate place between the Supreme God
and man, and were the result of a compromise between polytheism and
philosophy, have no near relation to the angelology of the Essenes, which
arose out of a wholly different motive. Nor again can we find distinct traces
among the Pythagoreans of any such reverence for the sun as is ascribed to
the Essenes, the only notice which is adduced having no prominence
whatever in its own context, and referring to a rule which would be dictated
by natural decency and certainly was not peculiar to the Pythagoreans[415].
When these imperfect and (for the purpose) valueless resemblances have
been subtracted, the only basis on which the theory of a direct affiliation can
rest is withdrawn. All the remaining coincidences are unimportant. Thus the
respect paid to founders is not confined to any one sect or any one age. The
reverence of the Essenes for Moses, and the reverence of the Pythagoreans
for Pythagoras, are indications of a common humanity, but not of a common
philosophy. And again the forgery of supposititious documents is unhappily
not the badge of any one school. The Solomonian books of the Essenes, so
far as we can judge from the extant notices, were about as unlike the tracts
ascribed to Pythagoras and his disciples by the Neopythagoreans as two such
forgeries could well be. All or nearly all that remains in common to the
Greek school and the Jewish sect after these deductions is a certain similarity
in the type of life. But granted that two bodies of men and in others do not
each held an esoteric teaching of their own, they would suggest any historical
connexion.
secure it independently in a similar way, by a
recognised process of initiation, by a solemn form of oath, by a rigid
distinction of orders. Granted also, that they both maintained the excellence
of an ascetic life, their asceticism would naturally take the same form; they
would avoid wine and flesh; they would abstain from anointing themselves
with oil; they would depreciate, and perhaps altogether prohibit, marriage.
Unless therefore the historical conditions are themselves favourable to a
direct and immediate connexion between the Pythagoreans and the Essenes,
this theory of affiliation has little to recommend it.
And a closer examination must pronounce them to be Twofold objection to
this theory.
most unfavourable. Chronology and geography alike

present serious obstacles to any solution which derives the peculiarities of
the Essenes from the Pythagoreans.
(i) The priority of time, if it can be pleaded on either (i) Chronological facts
side, must be urged in favour of the Essenes. The are adverse.
Pythagoreans as a philosophical school entirely disappear from history
before the middle of the fourth century before Christ. The last Pythagoreans
were scholars of Philolaus and Eurytus, the contemporaries of Socrates and
Plato[416]. For nearly two centuries after their extinction we hear nothing of
them. Here and there persons like Diodorus of Disappearance of the
Aspendus are satirised by the Attic poets of the middle Pythagoreans.
comedy as ‘pythagorizers,’ in other words, as total abstainers and
vegetarians[417]; but the philosophy had wholly died or was fast dying out.
This is the universal testimony of ancient writers. It is not till the first
century before Christ, that we meet with any distinct traces of a revival. In
Alexander Polyhistor[418], a younger contemporary of Sulla, for the first time
we find references to certain writings, which would seem to have emanated
from this incipient Neopythagoreanism, rather than from the elder school of
Pythagoreans. And a little later Cicero commends his friend Nigidius Figulus
as one specially raised up to revive the extinct philosophy[419]. But so slow
or so chequered was its progress, that a whole century after Seneca can still
speak of the school as practically defunct[420]. Yet long Priority of Essenism to
before this the Essenes formed a compact, well- Neopythagoreanism.
organized, numerous society with a peculiar system of doctrine and a definite
rule of life. We have seen that Pliny the elder speaks of this celibate society
as having existed ‘through thousands of ages[421].’ This is a gross
exaggeration, but it must at least be taken to imply that in Pliny’s time the
origin of the Essenes was lost in the obscurity of the past, or at least seemed
so to those who had not access to special sources of information. If, as I have
given reasons for supposing[422], Pliny’s authority in this passage is the same
Alexander Polyhistor to whom I have just referred, and if this particular
statement, however exaggerated in expression, is derived from him, the fact
becomes still more significant. But on any showing the priority in time is
distinctly in favour of the Essenes as against the Neopythagoreans.
And accordingly we find that what is only a tendency The Essene tenets more
in the Neopythagoreans is with the Essenes an avowed developed than the
Neopythagorean.
principle and a definite rule of life. Such for instance is
the case with celibacy, of which Pliny says that it has existed as an institution

among the Essenes per sæculorum millia, and which is a chief corner-stone
of their practical system. The Pythagorean notices (whether truly or not, it is
unimportant for my purpose to enquire) speak of Pythagoras as having a wife
and a daughter[423]. Only at a late date do we find the attempt to represent
their founder in another light; and if virginity is ascribed to Apollonius of
Tyana, the great Pythagorean of the first Christian century, in the fictitious
biography of Philostratus[424], this representation is plainly due to the general
plan of the novelist, whose hero is intended to rival the Founder of
Christianity, and whose work is saturated with Christian ideas. In fact
virginity can never be said to have been a Pythagorean principle, though it
may have been an exalted ideal of some not very early adherents of the
school. And the same remark applies to other resemblances between the
Essene and Neopythagorean teaching. The clearness of conception and the
definiteness of practice are in almost every instance on the side of the
Essenes; so that, looking to the comparative chronology of the two, it will
appear almost inconceivable that they can have derived their principles from
the Neopythagoreans.
(ii) But the geographical difficulty also, which this (ii) Geographical
theory of affiliation involves, must be added to the difficulties in the theory.
chronological. The home of the Essene sect is allowed on all hands to have
been on the eastern borders of Palestine, the shores of the Dead Sea, a region
least of all exposed to the influences of Greek philosophy. It is true that we
find near Alexandria a closely allied school of Jewish recluses, the
Therapeutes; and, as Alexandria may have been the home of
Neopythagoreanism, a possible link of connexion is here disclosed. But, as
Zeller himself has pointed out, it is not among the Therapeutes, but among
the Essenes, that the principles in question appear fully developed and
consistently carried out[425]; and therefore, if there be a relation of paternity
between Essene and Therapeute, the latter must be derived from the former
and not conversely. How then can we suppose this influence of
Neopythagoreanism brought to bear on a Jewish community in the south-
eastern border of Palestine? Zeller’s answer is as follows[426]. Judæa was for
more than a hundred and fifty years before the Maccabean period under the
sovereignty first of the Egyptian and then of the Syrian Greeks. We know
that at this time Hellenizing influences did infuse themselves largely into
Judaism: and what more natural than that among these the Pythagorean
philosophy and discipline should have recommended itself to a section of the

Jewish people? It may be said in reply, that at all events the special locality
of the Essenes is the least favourable to such a solution: but, without pressing
this fact, Zeller’s hypothesis is open to two serious objections which
combined seem fatal to it, unsupported as it is by any historical notice. First,
this influence of Pythagoreanism is assumed to have taken place at the very
time when the Pythagorean school was practically extinct: and secondly, it is
supposed to have acted upon that very section of the Jewish community,
which was the most vigorous advocate of national exclusiveness and the
most averse to Hellenizing influences.
It is not therefore to Greek but to Oriental influences The foreign element of
that considerations of time and place, as well as of Essenism
the East,
to be sought in

internal character, lead us to look for an explanation of
the alien elements in Essene Judaism. And have we not here also the account
of any real coincidences which may exist between Essenism and
Neopythagoreanism? We should perhaps be hardly more justified in tracing
Neopythagoreanism directly to Essenism than conversely (though, if we had
no other alternative, this would appear to be the more probable solution of
the two): but were not both alike due to substantially the same influences
acting in different degrees? I think it will hardly be to which also
denied that the characteristic features of Pythagoreanism may
have been indebted.
Pythagoreanism, and especially of
Neopythagoreanism, which distinguish it from other schools of Greek
philosophy, are much more Oriental in type, than Hellenic. The asceticism,
the magic, the mysticism, of the sect all point in the same direction. And
history moreover contains indications that such was the case. There seems to
be sufficient ground for the statement that Pythagoras himself was indebted
to intercourse with the Egyptians, if not with more strictly Oriental nations,
for some leading ideas of his system. But, however this may be, the fact that
in the legendary accounts, which the Neopythagoreans invented to do honour
to the founder of the school, he is represented as taking lessons from the
Chaldeans, Persians, Brahmins, and others, may be taken as an evidence that
their own philosophy at all events was partially derived from eastern
sources[427].

But, if the alien elements of Essenism were borrowed not so much from
Greek philosophy as from Oriental mysticism, to what nation or what
religion was it chiefly indebted? To this question it is difficult, with our very

imperfect knowledge of the East at the Christian era, to reply with any
confidence. Yet there is one system to which we Resemblances to
naturally look, as furnishing the most probable answer. Parsism.
The Medo-Persian religion supplies just those elements which distinguish the
tenets and practices of the Essenes from the normal type of Judaism. (1)
First; we have here a very definite form of dualism, (i) Dualism.
which exercised the greatest influence on subsequent Gnostic sects, and of
which Manicheism, the most mature development of dualistic doctrine in
connexion with Christianity, was the ultimate fruit. For though dualism may
not represent the oldest theology of the Zend-Avesta in its unadulterated
form, yet long before the era of which we are speaking it had become the
fundamental principle of the Persian religion. (2) (ii) Sun-worship.
Again; the Zoroastrian symbolism of light, and consequent worship of the
sun as the fountain of light, will explain those anomalous notices of the
Essenes in which they are represented as paying reverence to this
luminary[428]. (3) Moreover; the ‘worship of angels’ in (iii) Angelolatry.
the Essene system has a striking parallel in the invocations of spirits, which
form a very prominent feature in the ritual of the Zend-Avesta. And
altogether their angelology is illustrated, and not improbably was suggested,
by the doctrine of intermediate beings concerned in the government of nature
and of man, such as the Amshaspands, which is an integral part of the
Zoroastrian system[429]. (4) And once more; the magic, (iv) Magic.
which was so attractive to the Essene, may have received its impulse from
the priestly caste of Persia, to whose world-wide fame this form of
superstition is indebted for its name. (5) If to these (v) Striving after purity.
parallels I venture also to add the intense striving after purity, which is the
noblest feature in the Persian religion, I do so, not because the Essenes might
not have derived this impulse from a higher source, but because this feature
was very likely to recommend the Zoroastrian system to their favourable
notice, and because also the particular form which the zeal for purity took
among them was at all events congenial to the teaching of the Zend-Avesta,
and may not have been altogether free from its influences.
I have preferred dwelling on these broader Other coincidences
resemblances, because they are much more significant accidental.
than any mere coincidence of details, which may or may not have been
accidental. Thus for instance the magi, like the Essenes, wore white
garments, and eschewed gold and ornaments; they practised frequent

lustrations; they avoided flesh, living on bread and cheese or on herbs and
fruits; they had different orders in their society; and the like[430]. All these, as
I have already remarked, may be the independent out-growth of the same
temper and direction of conduct, and need not imply any direct historical
connexion. Nor is there any temptation to press such resemblances; for even
without their aid the general connexion seems to be sufficiently
established[431].
But it is said, that the history of Persia does not favour The destruction of the
the hypothesis of such an influence as is here assumed. Persian
adverse
empire not

The destruction of the Persian empire by Alexander,
argues Zeller[432], and the subsequent erection of the Parthian domination on
its ruins, must have been fatal to the spread of Zoroastrianism. From the
middle of the third century before Christ, when the Parthian empire was
established, till towards the middle of the third century of our era, when the
Persian monarchy and religion were once more restored[433], its influence
must have been reduced within the narrowest limits. but favourable to the
But does analogy really suggest such an inference? spread of Parsism.
Does not the history of the Jews themselves show that the religious influence
of a people on the world at large may begin just where its national life ends?
The very dispersion of Zoroastrianism, consequent on the fall of the empire,
would impregnate the atmosphere far and wide; and the germs of new
religious developments would thus be implanted in alien soils. For in tracing
Essenism to Persian influences I have not wished to imply that this Jewish
sect consciously incorporated the Zoroastrian philosophy and religion as
such, but only that Zoroastrian ideas were infused into its system by more or
less direct contact. And, as a matter of fact, it seems quite certain that Persian
ideas were widely spread during this very interval, when the Persian
nationality was eclipsed. It was then that Hermippus Indications of its
gave to the Greeks the most detailed account of this influenceperiod.
during this

religion which had ever been laid before them[434]. It
was then that its tenets suggested or moulded the speculations of the various
Gnostic sects. It was then that the worship of the Persian Mithras spread
throughout the Roman Empire. It was then, if not earlier, that the magian
system took root in Asia Minor, making for itself (as it were) a second home
in Cappadocia[435]. It was then, if not earlier, that the Zoroastrian
demonology stamped itself so deeply on the apocryphal literature of the Jews
themselves, which borrowed even the names of evil spirits[436] from the

Persians. There are indeed abundant indications that Palestine was
surrounded by Persian influences during this period, when the Persian
empire was in abeyance.
Thus we seem to have ample ground for the view that certain alien features
in Essene Judaism were derived from the Zoroastrian religion. But are we
justified in going a step further, and attributing other Are Buddhist influences
elements in this eclectic system to the more distant also perceptible?
East? The monasticism of the Buddhist will naturally occur to our minds, as
a precursor of the cenobitic life among the Essenes; and Hilgenfeld
accordingly has not hesitated to ascribe this characteristic of Essenism
directly to Buddhist influences[437]. But at the outset we are obliged to ask
whether history gives any such indication of the presence of Buddhism in the
West as this hypothesis requires. Hilgenfeld answers this question in the
affirmative. He points triumphantly to the fact that as Supposed Buddhist
early as the middle of the second century before Christ establishment
Alexandria.
at

the Buddhist records speak of their faith as flourishing
in Alasanda the chief city of the land of Yavana. The place intended, he
conceives, can be none other than the great Alexandria, the most famous of
the many places bearing the name[438]. In this opinion The authority
however he stands quite alone. Neither Köppen[439], misinterpreted
who is his authority for this statement, nor any other Indian scholar[440], so
far as I am aware, for a moment contemplates this identification. Yavana, or
Yona, was the common Indian name for the Græco-Bactrian kingdom and its
dependencies[441]; and to this region we naturally turn. The Alasanda or
Alasadda therefore, which is here mentioned, will be one of several Eastern
cities bearing the name of the great conqueror, most probably Alexandria ad
Caucasum. But indeed I hardly think that, if Hilgenfeld had referred to the
original authority for the statement, the great Buddhist history Mahawanso,
he would have ventured to lay any stress at all on this notice, as supporting
his theory. The historian, or rather fabulist (for such he and wholly
is in this earlier part of his chronicle), is relating the untrustworthy in itself.
foundation of the Mahá thúpo, or great tope, at Ruanwelli by the king
Dutthagámini in the year B.C. 157. Beyond the fact that this tope was erected
by this king the rest is plainly legendary. All the materials for the
construction of the building, we are told, appeared spontaneously as by
miracle—the bricks, the metals, the precious stones. The dewos, or demons,
lent their aid in the erection. In fact

the fabric huge
Rose like an exhalation.

Priests gathered in enormous numbers from all the great Buddhist
monasteries to do honour to the festival of the foundation. One place alone
sent not less than 96,000. Among the rest it is mentioned that ‘Maha
Dhammarakkito, théro (i.e. senior priest) of Yóna, accompanied by 30,000
priests from the vicinity of Alasaddá, the capital of the Yóna country,
attended[442].’ It is obvious that no weight can be attached to a statement
occurring as part of a story of which the other details are so manifestly false.
An establishment of 30,000 Buddhist priests at Alexandria would indeed be a
phenomenon of which historians have shown a strange neglect.
Nor is the presence of any Buddhist establishment General ignorance of
even on a much smaller scale in this important centre Buddhism in the West.
of western civilization at all reconcilable with the ignorance of this religion,
which the Greeks and Romans betray at a much later date[443]. For some
centuries after the Christian era we find that the information possessed by
western writers was most shadowy and confused; and in almost every
instance we are able to trace it to some other cause than the actual presence
of Buddhists in the Roman Empire[444]. Thus Strabo, Strabo.
who wrote under Augustus and Tiberius, apparently mentions the Buddhist
priests, the sramanas, under the designation sarmanæ, (Σαρμάνας)[445]; but
he avowedly obtains his information from Megasthenes, who travelled in
India somewhere about the year 300 B.C. and wrote a book on Indian affairs.
Thus too Bardesanes at a much later date gives an Bardesanes.
account of these Buddhist ascetics, without however naming the founder of
the religion; but he was indebted for his knowledge of them to conversations
with certain Indian ambassadors who visited Syria on their way westward in
the reign of one of the Antonines[446]. Clement of Clement of Alexandria.
Alexandria, writing in the latest years of the second century or the earliest of
the third, for the first time[447] mentions Buddha by name; and even he
betrays a strange ignorance of this Eastern religion[448].
Still later than this, Hippolytus, while he gives a fairly Hippolytus.
intelligent, though brief, account of the Brahmins[449], says not a word about
the Buddhists, though, if he had been acquainted with their teaching, he
would assuredly have seen in them a fresh support to his theory of the

affinity between Christian heresies and pre-existing heathen philosophies.
With one doubtful exception—an Indian fanatic A Buddhist at Athens.
attached to an embassy sent by king Porus to Augustus, who astonished the
Greeks and Romans by burning himself alive at Athens[450]–there is
apparently no notice in either heathen or Christian writers, which points to
the presence of a Buddhist within the limits of the Roman Empire, till long
after the Essenes had ceased to exist[451].
And, if so, the coincidences must be very precise, The alleged
before we are justified in attributing any peculiarities coincidences
nothing.
prove

of Essenism to Buddhist influences. This however is
far from being the case. They both exhibit a well-organized monastic society:
but the monasticism of the Buddhist priests, with its systematized
mendicancy, has little in common with the Monasticism.
monasticism of the Essene recluse, whose life was largely spent in manual
labour. They both enjoin celibacy, both prohibit the use Asceticism.
of flesh and of wine, both abstain from the slaughter of animals. But, as we
have already seen, such resemblances prove nothing, for they may be
explained by the independent development of the same religious principles.
One coincidence, and one only, is noticed by Hilgenfeld, which at first sight
seems more striking and might suggest a historical connexion. He observes
that the four orders of the Essene community are Four orders and four
derived from the four steps of Buddhism. Against this steps.
it might fairly be argued that such coincidences of numbers are often purely
accidental, and that in the present instance there is no more reason for
connecting the four steps of Buddhism with the four orders of Essenism than
there would be for connecting the ten precepts of Buddha with the Ten
Commandments of Moses. But indeed a nearer examination will show that
the two have nothing whatever in common except the number. The four steps
or paths of Buddhism are not four grades of an external order, but four
degrees of spiritual progress on the way to nirvana or annihilation, the
ultimate goal of the Buddhist’s religious aspirations. They are wholly
unconnected with the Buddhist monastic system, as an organization. A
reference to the Buddhist notices collected in Hardy’s Eastern Monachism
(p. 280 sq.) will at once dispel any suspicion of a resemblance. A man may
attain to the highest of these four stages of Buddhist illumination
instantaneously. He does not need to have passed through the lower grades,
but may even be a layman at the time. Some merit obtained in a previous

state of existence may raise him per saltum to the elevation of a rahat, when
all earthly desires are crushed and no future birth stands between him and
nirvana. There remains therefore no coincidence which Buddhist influences seen
would suggest any historical connexion between first in Manicheism.
Essenism and Buddhism. Indeed it is not till some centuries later, when
Manicheism starts into being, that we find for the first time any traces of the
influence of Buddhism on the religions of the West[452].

3.
ESSENISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
It has become a common practice with a certain class
of writers to call Essenism to their aid in accounting The theory which
explains Christianity as
for any distinctive features of Christianity, which they an outgrowth of
are unable to explain in any other way. Wherever some Essenism,
external power is needed to solve a perplexity, here is
the deus ex machina whose aid they most readily invoke. Constant repetition
is sure to produce its effect, and probably not a few persons, who want either
the leisure or the opportunity to investigate the subject for themselves, have a
lurking suspicion that the Founder of Christianity may have been an Essene,
or at all events that Christianity was largely indebted to Essenism for its
doctrinal and ethical teaching[453]. Indeed, when very confident and
sweeping assertions are made, it is natural to presume that they rest on a
substantial basis of fact. Thus for instance we are told by one writer that
Christianity is ‘Essenism alloyed with foreign elements’[454]: while another,
who however approaches the subject in a different spirit, says; ‘It will hardly
be doubted that our Saviour Himself belonged to this holy brotherhood. This
will especially be apparent, when we remember that the whole Jewish
community at the advent of Christ was divided into three parties, the
Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes, and that every Jew had to belong
to one of these sects. Jesus who in all things conformed to the Jewish law,
and who was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, would
therefore naturally associate Himself with that order of Judaism which was
most congenial to his nature’.[455]I purpose testing tested by facts.
these strong assertions by an appeal to facts.
For the statements involved in those words of the last Our Lord need not have
extract which I have underlined, no authority is given belonged to any sect.
by the writer himself; nor have I been able to find confirmation of them in
any quarter. On the contrary the frequent allusions which we find to the
vulgar herd, the ιδιῶται, the ‫ع‬am haarets, who are distinguished from the
disciples of the schools[456], suggest that a large proportion of the people was
unattached to any sect. If it had been otherwise, we might reasonably
presume that our Lord, as one who ‘in all things conformed to the Jewish

law,’ would have preferred attaching Himself to the Pharisees who ‘sat in
Moses’ seat’ and whose precepts He recommended His disciples to obey[457],
rather than to the Essenes who in one important respect at least—the
repudiation of the temple sacrifices—acted in flagrant violation of the
Mosaic ordinances.
This preliminary barrier being removed, we are free to The argument from the
investigate the evidence for their presumed connexion. silence of the New
Testament answered.
And here we are met first with a negative argument,
which obviously has great weight with many persons. Why, it is asked, does
Jesus, who so unsparingly denounces the vices and the falsehoods of
Pharisees and Sadducees, never once mention the Essenes by way of
condemnation, or indeed mention them by name at all? Why, except that He
himself belonged to this sect and looked favourably on their teaching? This
question is best answered by another. How can we explain the fact, that
throughout the enormous mass of talmudical and early rabbinical literature
this sect is not once mentioned by name, and that even the supposed
allusions to them, which have been discovered for the first time in the
present century, turn out on investigation to be hypothetical and illusory?
The difficulty is much greater in this latter instance; but the answer is the
same in both cases. The silence is explained by the comparative
insignificance of the sect, their small numbers and their retired habits. Their
settlements were far removed from the great centres of political and religious
life. Their recluse habits, as a rule, prevented them from interfering in the
common business of the world. Philo and Josephus have given prominence
to them, because their ascetic practices invested them with the character of
philosophers and interested the Greeks and Romans in their history; but in
the national life of the Jews they bore a very insignificant part[458]. If the
Sadducees, who held the highest offices in the hierarchy, are only mentioned
directly on three occasions in the Gospels[459], it can be no surprise that the
Essenes are not named at all.
As no stress therefore can be laid on the argument for The positive arguments
silence, any hypothesis of connexion between for a connexion may be
twofold.
Essenism and Christianity must make good its claims
by establishing one or both of these two points: first, that there is direct
historical evidence of close intercourse between the two; and secondly, that
the resemblances of doctrine and practice are so striking as to oblige, or at

least to warrant, the belief in such a connexion. If both these lines of
argument fail, the case must be considered to have broken down.
1. On the former point it must be premised that the 1. Absence of direct
Gospel narrative does not suggest any hint of a historical evidence of a
connexion.
connexion. Indeed its general tenor is directly adverse
to such a supposition. From first to last Jesus and his disciples move about
freely, taking part in the common business, even in the common recreations,
of Jewish life. The recluse ascetic brotherhood, which was gathered about
the shores of the Dead Sea, does not once appear above the Evangelists’
horizon. Of this close society, as such, there is not the faintest indication. But
two individuals have been singled out, as holding an Two individual cases
important place either in the Evangelical narrative or in alleged.
the Apostolic Church, who, it is contended, form direct and personal links of
communication with this sect. These are John the Baptist and James the
Lord’s brother. The one is the forerunner of the Gospel, the first herald of the
Kingdom; the other is the most prominent figure in the early Church of
Jerusalem.
(i) John the Baptist was an ascetic. His abode was the (i) John the Baptist
desert; his clothing was rough; his food was spare; he baptized his penitents.
Therefore, it is argued, he was an Essene. Between the premisses and the
conclusion however there is a broad gulf, which cannot very easily be
bridged over. The solitary independent life, which John not an Essene.
led, presents a type wholly different from the cenobitic establishments of the
Essenes, who had common property, common meals, common hours of
labour and of prayer. It may even be questioned whether his food of locusts
would have been permitted by the Essenes, if they really ate nothing which
had life (ἔμψυχον[460]). And again; his baptism as narrated by the
Evangelists, and their lustrations as described in Josephus, have nothing in
common except the use of water for a religious purpose. When therefore we
are told confidently that ‘his manner of life was altogether after the Essene
pattern[461],’ and that ‘he without doubt baptized his converts into the Essene
order,’ we know what value to attach to this bold assertion. If positive
statements are allowable, it would be more true to fact to say that he could
not possibly have been an Essene. The rule of his life was isolation; the
principle of theirs, community[462].
External resemblances
to John in Banus,

In this mode of life John was not singular. It would appear that not a few
devout Jews at this time retired from the world and buried themselves in the
wilderness, that they might devote themselves unmolested to ascetic
discipline and religious meditation. One such instance at all events we have
in Banus the master of Josephus, with whom the Jewish historian, when a
youth, spent three years in the desert. This anchorite was clothed in garments
made of bark or of leaves; his food was the natural produce of the earth; he
bathed day and night in cold water for purposes of purification. To the
careless observer doubtless John and Banus would appear to be men of the
same stamp. In their outward mode of life there was perhaps not very much
difference[463]. The consciousness of a divine mission, the gift of a prophetic
insight, in John was the real and all-important distinction between the two.
But here also the same mistake is made; and we not who was not an Essene.
uncommonly find Banus described as an Essene. It is not too much to say
however, that the whole tenor of Josephus’ narrative is opposed to this
supposition[464]. He says that when sixteen years old he desired to acquire a
knowledge of the three sects of the Jews before making his choice of one;
that accordingly he went through (διῆλθον) all the three at the cost of much
rough discipline and toil; that he was not satisfied with the experience thus
gained, and hearing of this Banus he attached himself to him as his zealous
disciple (ζηλωτὴς ἐγενόμην αὐτοῦ); that having remained three years with
him he returned to Jerusalem; and that then, being nineteen years old, he
gave in his adhesion to the sect of the Pharisees. Thus there is no more
reason for connecting this Banus with the Essenes than with the Pharisees.
The only natural interpretation of the narrative is that he did not belong to
any of the three sects, but represented a distinct type of religious life, of
which Josephus was anxious to gain experience. And his hermit life seems to
demand this solution, which the sequence of the narrative suggests.
Of John himself therefore no traits are handed down General result.
which suggest that he was a member of the Essene community. He was an
ascetic, and the Essenes were ascetics; but this is plainly an inadequate basis
for any such inference. Nor indeed is the relation of his asceticism to theirs a
question of much moment for the matter in hand; since this was the very
point in which Christ’s mode of life was so essentially different from John’s
as to provoke criticism and to point a contrast[465]. But the later history of his
real or supposed disciples has, or may seem to have, some bearing on this
investigation. Towards the close of the first and the The Hemerobaptists.

beginning of the second century we meet with a body of sectarians called in
Greek Hemerobaptists[466], in Hebrew Toble-shacharith[467], ‘day’ or
‘morning bathers.’ What were their relations to John the Baptist on the one
hand, and to the Essenes on the other? Owing to the scantiness of our
information the whole subject is wrapped in obscurity, and any restoration of
their history must be more or less hypothetical; but it will be possible at all
events to suggest an account which is not improbable in itself, and which
does no violence to the extant notices of the sect.
(a) We must not hastily conclude, when we meet with (a) Their relation to
certain persons at Ephesus about the years A.D. 53, 54, John the Baptist.
who are described as ‘knowing only the baptism of John,’ or as having been
‘baptized unto John’s baptism[468],’ that we have here some early
representatives of the Hemerobaptist sect. These were John’s disciples at
Christians, though imperfectly informed Christians. Of Ephesus.
Apollos, who was more fully instructed by Aquila and Priscilla, this is stated
in the most explicit terms[469]. Of the rest, who owed their fuller knowledge
of the Gospel to St Paul, the same appears to be implied, though the
language is not free from ambiguity[470]. But these notices have an important
bearing on our subject; for they show how profoundly the effect of John’s
preaching was felt in districts as remote as proconsular Asia, even after a
lapse of a quarter of a century. With these disciples it was the initial impulse
towards Christianity; but to others it represented a widely different form of
belief and practice. The Gospel of St John was written, Professed followers at a
according to all tradition, at Ephesus in the later years later date.
of the first century. Again and again the Evangelist impresses on his readers,
either directly by his own comments or indirectly by the course of the
narrative, the transient and subordinate character of John’s ministry. He was
not the light, says the Evangelist, but came to bear witness of the light[471].
He was not the sun in the heavens: he was only the waning lamp, which
shines when kindled from without and burns itself away in shining. His light
might well gladden the Jews while it lasted, but this was only ‘for a
season[472].’ John himself lost no opportunity of bearing his testimony to the
loftier claims of Jesus[473]. From such notices it is plain that in the interval
between the preaching of St Paul and the Gospel of St John the memory of
the Baptist at Ephesus had assumed a new attitude towards Christianity. His
name is no longer the sign of imperfect appreciation, but the watchword of
direct antagonism. John had been set up as a rival Messiah to Jesus. In other

words, this Gospel indicates the spread of Hemerobaptist principles, if not
the presence of a Hemerobaptist community, in proconsular Asia, when it
was written. In two respects these Hemerobaptists distorted the facts of
history. They perverted John’s teaching, and they The facts of history
misrepresented his office. His baptism was no more a distorted by them.
single rite, once performed and initiating an amendment of life; it was a daily
recurrence atoning for sin and sanctifying the person[474]. He himself was no
longer the forerunner of the Messiah; he was the very Messiah[475]. In the
latter half of the first century, it would seem, there was Spread of Hemerobaptist
a great movement among large numbers of the Jews in principles.
favour of frequent baptism, as the one purificatory rite essential to salvation.
Of this superstition we have had an instance already in the anchorite Banus
to whom Josephus attached himself as a disciple. Its presence in the western
districts of Asia Minor is shown by a Sibylline poem, dating about A.D. 80,
which I have already had occasion to quote[476]. Some years earlier these
sectarians are mentioned by name as opposing James the Lord’s brother and
the Twelve at Jerusalem[477]. Nor is there any reason for questioning their
existence as a sect in Palestine during the later years of the Apostolic age,
though the source from which our information comes is legendary, and the
story itself a fabrication. But when or how they first connected themselves
with the name of John the Baptist, and whether this assumption was made by
all alike or only by one section of them, we do not know. Such a connexion,
however false to history, was obvious and natural; nor would it be difficult to
accumulate parallels to this false appropriation of an honoured name.
Baptism was the fundamental article of their creed; and John was the Baptist
of world-wide fame. Nothing more than this was A wrong use made of
needed for the choice of an eponym. From St John’s John’s name.
Gospel it seems clear that this appropriation was already contemplated, if not
completed, at Ephesus before the first century had drawn to a close. In the
second century the assumption is recognised as a characteristic of these
Hemerobaptists, or Baptists, as they are once called[478], alike by those who
allow and those who deny its justice[479]. Even in our age the name of
‘John’s disciples’ has been given, though wrongly given, to an obscure sect
in Babylonia, the Mandeans, whose doctrine and practice have some
affinities to the older sect, and of whom perhaps they are the collateral, if not
the direct, descendants[480].
(b) Their relation to the

(b) Of the connexion between this sect and John the Essenes.
Baptist we have been able to give a probable, though necessarily
hypothetical account. But when we attempt to determine its relation to the
Essenes, we find ourselves entangled in a hopeless mesh of perplexities. The
notices are so confused, the affinities so subtle, the ramifications so
numerous, that it becomes a desperate task to distinguish and classify these
abnormal Jewish and Judaizing heresies. One fact They were at first
however seems clear that, whatever affinities they may distinct, if not
antagonistic.
have had originally, and whatever relations they may
have contracted afterwards with one another, the Hemerobaptists, properly
speaking, were not Essenes. The Sibylline poem which may be regarded as
in some respects a Hemerobaptist manifesto contains, as we saw, many traits
inconsistent with pure Essenism[481]. In two several accounts, the memoirs of
Hegesippus and the Apostolic Constitutions, the Hemerobaptists are
expressly distinguished from the Essenes[482]. In an early production of
Judaic Christianity, whose Judaism has a strong Essene tinge, the Clementine
Homilies, they and their eponym are condemned in the strongest language.
The system of syzygies, or pairs of opposites, is a favourite doctrine of this
work, and in these John stands contrasted to Jesus, as Simon Magus to
Simon Peter, as the false to the true; for according to this author’s philosophy
of history the manifestation of the false always precedes the manifestation of
the true[483]. And again, Epiphanius speaks of them as agreeing substantially
in their doctrines, not with the Essenes, but with the Scribes and
Pharisees[484]. His authority on such a point may be worth very little; but
connected with other notices, it should not be passed over in silence. Yet,
whatever may have been their differences, the Hemerobaptists and the
Essenes had one point of direct contact, their belief in the moral efficacy of
lustrations. When the temple and polity were destroyed, the shock vibrated
through the whole fabric of Judaism, loosening and breaking up existing
societies, and preparing the way for new combinations. But after the destruction
More especially the cessation of the sacrificial rites of the Temple
must have produced a profound effect equally on those who, like the
Essenes, had condemned them already, and on those who, as possibly was
the case with the Hemerobaptists, had hitherto remained true to the orthodox
ritual. One grave obstacle to friendly overtures was there may have been a
thus removed; and a fusion, more or less complete, fusion.
may have been the consequence. At all events the relations of the Jewish
sects must have been materially affected by this great national crisis, as

indeed we know to have been the case. In the confusion which follows, it is
impossible to attain any clear view of their history. At the beginning of the
second century however this pseudo-baptist movement received a fresh
impulse from the pretended revelation of Elchesai, which came from the
farther East[485]. Henceforth Elchesai is the prominent name in the history of
those Jewish and Judaizing sects whose proper home is east of the
Jordan[486], and who appear to have reproduced, with various modifications
derived from Christian and Heathen sources, the Gnostic theology and the
pseudo-baptist ritual of their Essene predecessors. It is still preserved in the
records of the only extant people who have any claim to be regarded as the
religious heirs of the Essenes. Elchesai is regarded as the founder of the sect
of Mandeans[487].
(ii) But, if great weight has been attached to the (ii) James the Lord’s
supposed connexion of John the Baptist with the Brother
Essenes, the case of James the Lord’s brother has been alleged with still
more confidence. Here, it is said, we have an indisputable Essene connected
by the closest family ties with the Founder of Christianity. James is reported
to have been holy from his birth; to have drunk no invested with Essene
wine nor strong drink; to have eaten no flesh; to have characteristics.
allowed no razor to touch his head, no oil to anoint his body; to have
abstained from using the bath; and lastly to have worn no wool, but only fine
linen[488]. Here we have a description of Nazarite practices at least and (must
it not be granted) of Essene tendencies also.
But what is our authority for this description? The writer, from whom the
account is immediately taken, is the Jewish-Christian historian Hegesippus,
who flourished about A.D. 170. He cannot therefore have been an eye-witness
of the facts which he relates. And his whole narrative But the account comes
betrays its legendary character. Thus his account of from untrustworthy
sources.
James’s death, which follows immediately on this
description, is highly improbable and melodramatic in itself, and directly
contradicts the contemporary notice of Josephus in its main facts[489]. From
whatever source therefore Hegesippus may have derived his information, it
is wholly untrustworthy. Nor can we doubt that he was indebted to one of
those romances with which the Judaizing Christians of Essene tendencies
loved to gratify the natural curiosity of their disciples respecting the first
founders of the Church[490]. In like manner Essene portraits are elsewhere
preserved of the Apostles Peter[491] and Matthew[492], which represent them

as living on a spare diet of herbs and berries. I believe also that I have
elsewhere pointed out the true source of this description in Hegesippus, and
that it is taken from the ‘Ascents of James[493],’ a Judæo-Christian work
stamped, as we happen to know, with the most distinctive Essene
features[494]. But if we turn from these religious novels of Judaic Christianity
to earlier and more trustworthy sources of information—to the Gospels or
the Acts or the Epistles of St Paul—we fail to discover the faintest traces of
Essenism in James. ‘The historical James,’ says a No Essene features in
recent writer, ‘shows Pharisaic but not Essene the true portraits of
James or of the earliest
sympathies[495].’ This is true of James, as it is true of disciples.
the early disciples in the mother Church of Jerusalem
generally. The temple-ritual, the daily-sacrifices, suggested no scruples to
them. The only distinction of meats, which they recognised, was the
distinction of animals clean and unclean as laid down by the Mosaic law. The
only sacrificial victims, which they abhorred, were victims offered to idols.
They took their part in the religious offices, and mixed freely in the common
life, of their fellow-Israelites, distinguished from them only in this, that to
their Hebrew inheritance they superadded the knowledge of a higher truth
and the joy of a better hope. It was altogether within the sphere of orthodox
Judaism that the Jewish element in the Christian brotherhood found its
scope. Essene peculiarities are the objects neither of sympathy nor of
antipathy. In the history of the infant Church for the first quarter of a century
Essenism is as though it were not.
But a time came, when all this was changed. Even as Essene influences
early as the year 58, when St Paul wrote to the visible before the close
of the Apostolic age.
Romans, we detect practices in the Christian
community of the metropolis, which may possibly have been due to Essene
influences[496]. Five or six years later, the heretical teaching which
threatened the integrity of the Gospel at Colossæ shows that this type of
Judaism was already strong enough within the Church to exert a dangerous
influence on its doctrinal purity. Then came the great convulsion—the
overthrow of the Jewish polity and nation. This was the turning-point in the
relations between Essenism and Christianity, at least in Palestine. The
Essenes were extreme sufferers in the Roman war of Consequences of the
extermination. It seems probable that their organization Jewish war.
was entirely broken up. Thus cast adrift, they were free to enter into other
combinations, while the shock of the recent catastrophe would naturally turn

their thoughts into new channels. At the same time the nearer proximity of
the Christians, who had migrated to Peræa during the war, would bring them
into close contact with the new faith and subject them to its influences, as
they had never been subjected before[497]. But, whatever may be the
explanation, the fact seems certain, that after the destruction of Jerusalem the
Christian body was largely reinforced from their ranks. The Judaizing
tendencies among the Hebrew Christians, which hitherto had been wholly
Pharisaic, are henceforth largely Essene.
2. If then history fails to reveal any such external 2. Do the resemblances
connexion with Essenism in Christ and His Apostles as favour the theory of a
connexion?
to justify the opinion that Essene influences
contributed largely to the characteristic features of the Gospel, such a view, if
tenable at all, must find its support in some striking coincidence between the
doctrines and practices of the Essenes and those which its Founder stamped
upon Christianity. This indeed is the really important point; for without it the
external connexion, even if proved, would be valueless. The question is not
whether Christianity arose amid such and such circumstances, but how far it
was created and moulded by those circumstances.
(i) Now one point which especially strikes us in the (i) Observance of the
Jewish historian’s account of the Essenes, is their strict sabbath.
observance of certain points in the Mosaic ceremonial law, more especially
the ultra-Pharisaic rigour with which they kept the sabbath. How far their
conduct in this respect was consistent with the teaching and practice of
Christ may be seen from the passages quoted in the parallel columns which
follow:

‘Jesus went on the sabbath-day through
the corn fields; and his disciples began to
pluck the ears of corn and to eat[498]....
But when the Pharisees saw it, they said
unto him, ‘Behold, thy disciples do that
which it is not lawful to do upon the
sabbath-day. But he said unto them,
Have ye not read what David did.... The
sabbath was made for man, and not man
for the sabbath. Therefore the Son of
Man is Lord even of the sabbath-day....’
‘It is lawful to do well on the sabbath-
days’ (Matt. xii. 1–12; Mark ii. 23.-iii. 6; ‘And they avoid ... touching any work
Luke vi. 1–11, xiv. 1–6. See also a (ἐφάπτεσθαι ἔργων) on the sabbath-day
similar incident in Luke xiii. 10–17). more scrupulously than any of the Jews
‘The Jews therefore said unto him that (διαφορώτατα Ἰουδαίων ἁπάντων); for
was cured; It is the sabbath-day; it is not they do not venture so much as to move
lawful for thee to carry thy bed. But he a vessel[499], nor to perform the most
answered them, He that made me whole, necessary offices of life (B.J. ii. 8. 9).’
the same said unto me, Take up thy bed
and walk.... Therefore the Jews did
persecute Jesus and sought to slay him,
because he did these things on the
sabbath-day. But Jesus answered them,
My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,
etc. (John v. 10–18; comp. vii. 22, 23).’
‘And it was the sabbath-day when Jesus
made the clay, and opened his eyes....
Therefore said some of the Pharisees,
This man is not of God, because he
keepeth not the sabbath-day (John ix. 14,
16).’

(ii) But there were other points of ceremonial (ii) Lustrations and other
observance, in which the Essenes superadded to the ceremonial observances.
law. Of these the most remarkable was their practice of constant lustrations.
In this respect the Pharisee was sufficiently minute and scrupulous in his
observances; but with the Essene these ablutions were the predominant
feature of his religious ritual. Here again it will be instructive to compare the
practice of Christ and His disciples with the practice of the Essenes.

‘And when they saw some of his
disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to
‘So they wash their whole body
say, unwashen) hands; for the Pharisees
(ἀπολούονται τὸ σῶμα) in cold water;
and all the Jews, except they wash their
and after this purification (ἁγνείαν) ...
hands oft (πυγμῇ), eat not...The
being clean (καθαροὶ) they come to the
Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why
refectory (to dine).... And when they
walk not thy disciples according to the
have returned (from their day’s work)
tradition of the elders.... But he answered
they sup in like manner (B.J. ii. 8. 5).’
... Ye hypocrites, laying aside the
commandment of God, ye hold the ‘After a year’s probation (the novice) is
tradition of men....’ admitted to closer intercourse (πρόσεισιν
ἔγγιον τῇ διαίτῃ), and the lustral waters
‘Not that which goeth into the mouth
in which he participates have a higher
defileth the man; but that which cometh
degree of purity (καὶ καθαρωτέρων τῶν
out of the mouth, this defileth the man....
πρὸς ἁγνείαν ὑδάτων μεταλαμβάνει, §
Let them alone, they be blind leaders of
7).’
the blind....’
‘It is a custom to wash after it, as if
‘To eat with unwashen hands defileth not
polluted by it (§ 9).’
the man (Matt. xv. 1–20, Mark vii. 1–
23).’

‘And when the Pharisee saw it, he ‘Racked and dislocated, burnt and
marvelled that he had not first washed crushed, and subjected to every
before dinner (τοῦ ἀρίστου). And the instrument of torture ... to make them eat
Lord said unto him: Now do ye strange food (τι τῶν ἀσυνήθων) ... they
Pharisees make clean the outside of the were not induced to submit (§ 10).’
cup and the platter.... Ye fools ... behold ‘Exercising themselves in ... divers
all things are clean unto you (Luke xi. lustrations (διαφόροις ἁγνείαις ...
38–41).’ ἐμπαιδοτριβούμενοι, § 12).’

Connected with this idea of external purity is the Avoidance of strangers.
avoidance of contact with strangers, as persons who would communicate
ceremonial defilement. And here too the Essene went much beyond the
Pharisee. The Pharisee avoided Gentiles or aliens, or those whose profession
or character placed them in the category of ‘sinners’; but the Essene shrunk
even from the probationers and inferior grades of his own exclusive
community. Here again we may profitably compare the sayings and doings
of Christ with the principles of this sect.

‘And when the scribes and Pharisees saw
him eat with the publicans and sinners
they said unto the disciples, Why eateth
your Master with the publicans and the ‘And after this purification they
sinners....’ (Mark ii. 15 sq.; Matth. ix. 10 assemble in a private room, where no
sq., Luke v. 30 sq.) person of a different belief (τῶν
‘They say ... a friend of publicans and ἑτεροδόξων, i.e. not an Essene) is
sinners (Matth. xi. 19).’ permitted to enter; and (so) being by
themselves and clean (αὐτοὶ καθαροὶ)
‘The Pharisees and the scribes they present themselves at the refectory
murmured, saying, This man receiveth (δειπνητήριον), as if it were a sacred
sinners and eateth with them (Luke xv. precinct (§ 5).’
2).’
‘They all murmured saying that he was
gone to be a guest with a man that is a
sinner (Luke xix. 7).’ ‘And they are divided into four grades
‘Behold, a woman in the city that was a according to the time passed under the
sinner ... began to wash his feet with her discipline: and the juniors are regarded
tears, and did wipe them with the hairs as so far inferior to the seniors, that, if
of her head and kissed his feet.... Now they touch them, the latter wash their
when the Pharisee which had bidden him bodies clean (ἀπολούεσθαι), as if they
saw it, he spake within himself saying, had come in contact with a foreigner
This man, if he had been a prophet, (καθάπερ ἀλλοφύλῳ συμφυρέντας, §
would have known who and what 10).’
manner of woman this is that toucheth
him; for she is a sinner (Luke vii. 37
sq.).’

In all these minute scruples relating to ceremonial observances, the
denunciations which are hurled against the Pharisees in the Gospels would
apply with tenfold force to the Essenes.
(iii) If the lustrations of the Essenes far outstripped the (iii) Asceticism.
enactments of the Mosaic law, so also did their asceticism. I have given
reasons above for believing that this asceticism was founded on a false
principle, which postulates the malignity of matter and is wholly inconsistent
with the teaching of the Gospel[500]. But without pressing this point, of
which no absolutely demonstrative proof can be given, it will be sufficient to
call attention to the trenchant contrast in practice which Essene habits
present to the life of Christ. He who ‘came eating and drinking’ and was
denounced in consequence as ‘a glutton and a wine-bibber’[501], He whose
first exercise of power is recorded to have been the Eating and drinking.
multiplication of wine at a festive entertainment, and whose last meal was
attended with the drinking of wine and the eating of flesh, could only have

excited the pity, if not the indignation, of these rigid abstainers. And again,
attention should be directed to another kind of abstinence, where the contrast
is all the more speaking, because the matter is so trivial and the scruple so
minute.

‘My head with oil thou didst not anoint ‘And they consider oil a pollution
(Luke vii. 46).’ (κηλῖδα), and though one is smeared
‘Thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy involuntarily, he rubs his body clean
head (Matt. vi. 17).’ (σμήχεται τὸ σῶμα, § 3).’

And yet it has been stated that ‘the Saviour of the world ... showed what is
required for a holy life in the Sermon on the Mount by a description of the
Essenes[502].’
But much stress has been laid on the celibacy of the Celibacy.
Essenes; and our Lord’s saying in Matt. xix. 12 is quoted to establish an
identity of doctrine. Yet there is nothing special in the language there used.
Nor is there any close affinity between the stern invectives against marriage
which Josephus and Philo attribute to the Essene, and the gentle concession
‘He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.’ The best comment on our
Lord’s meaning here is the advice of St Paul[503], who was educated not in
the Essene, but in the Pharisaic school. Moreover this saying must be
balanced by the general tenour of the Gospel narrative. When we find Christ
discussing the relations of man and wife, gracing the marriage festival by His
presence, again and again employing wedding banquets and wedded life as
apt symbols of the highest theological truths, without a word of
disparagement or rebuke, we see plainly that we are confronted with a spirit
very different from the narrow rigour of the Essenes.
(iv) But not only where the Essenes superadded to the (iv) Avoidance of the
ceremonial law, does their teaching present a direct Temple sacrifices.
contrast to the phenomena of the Gospel narrative. The same is true also of
those points in which they fell short of the Mosaic enactments. I have
already discussed at some length the Essene abstention from the temple
sacrifices[504]. There can, I think, be little doubt that they objected to the
slaughter of sacrificial victims altogether. But for my present purpose it
matters nothing whether they avoided the temple on account of the
sacrifices, or the sacrifices on account of the temple. Christ did neither.
Certainly He could not have regarded the temple as unholy; for his whole

time during his sojourns at Jerusalem was spent within its precincts. It was
the scene of His miracles, of His ministrations, of His daily teaching[505].
And in like manner it is the common rendezvous of His disciples after
Him[506]. Nor again does He evince any abhorrence of the sacrifices. On the
contrary He says that the altar consecrates the gifts[507]; He charges the
cleansed lepers to go and fulfil the Mosaic ordinance and offer the sacrificial
offerings to the priests[508]. And His practice also is Practice of Christ and
conformable to His teaching. He comes to Jerusalem His disciples.
regularly to attend the great festivals, where sacrifices formed the most
striking part of the ceremonial, and He himself enjoins preparation to be
made for the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb. If He repeats the inspired warning
of the older prophets, that mercy is better than sacrifice[509], this very
qualification shows approval of the practice in itself. Nor is His silence less
eloquent than His utterances or His actions. Throughout the Gospels there is
not one word which can be construed as condemning the sacrificial system
or as implying a desire for its cessation until everything is fulfilled.
(v) This last contrast refers to the ceremonial law. But (v) Denial of the
not wide is the divergence on an important point of resurrection of the body.
doctrine. The resurrection of the body is a fundamental article in the belief of
the early disciples. This was distinctly denied by the Essenes[510]. However
gross and sensuous may have been the conceptions of the Pharisees on this
point, still they so far agreed with the teaching of Christianity, as against the
Essenes, in that the risen man could not, as they held, be pure soul or spirit,
but must necessarily be body and soul conjoint.
Thus at whatever point we test the teaching and Some supposed
practice of our Lord by the characteristic tenets of coincidences considered.
Essenism, the theory of affinity fails. There are indeed several coincidences
on which much stress has been laid, but they cannot be placed in the
category of distinctive features. They are either exemplifications of a higher
morality, which may indeed have been honourably illustrated in the Essenes,
but is in no sense confined to them, being the natural outgrowth of the moral
sense of mankind whenever circumstances are favourable. Or they are more
special, but still independent developments, which owe their similarity to the
same influences of climate and soil, though they do not spring from the same
root. To this latter class belong such manifestations as are due to the social
conditions of the age or nation, whether they result from sympathy with, or
from repulsion to, those conditions.

Thus, for instance, much stress has been laid on the Simplicity and brotherly
aversion to war and warlike pursuits, on the simplicity love.
of living, and on the feeling of brotherhood which distinguished Christians
and Essenes alike. But what is gained by all this? It is quite plain that Christ
would have approved whatever was pure and lovely in the morality of the
Essenes, just as He approved whatever was true in the doctrine of the
Pharisees, if any occasion had presented itself when His approval was called
for. But it is the merest assumption to postulate direct obligation on such
grounds. It is said however, that the moral resemblances are more particular
than this. There is for instance Christ’s precept ‘Swear Prohibition of oaths.
not at all ... but let your communication be Yea, yea, Nay, nay.’ Have we not
here, it is urged, the very counterpart to the Essene prohibition of oaths[511]?
Yet it would surely be quite as reasonable to say that both alike enforce that
simplicity and truthfulness in conversation which is its own credential and
does not require the support of adjuration, both having the same reason for
laying stress on this duty, because the leaders of religious opinion made
artificial distinctions between oath and oath, as regards their binding force,
and thus sapped the foundations of public and private honesty[512]. And
indeed this avoidance of oaths is anything but a special badge of the Essenes.
It was inculcated by Pythagoreans, by Stoics, by philosophers and moralists
of all schools[513]. When Josephus and Philo called the attention of Greeks
and Romans to this feature in the Essenes, they were simply asking them to
admire in these practical philosophers among the ‘barbarians’ the realisation
of an ideal which their own great men had laid down. Even within the circles
of Pharisaism language is occasionally heard, which meets the Essene
principle half-way[514].
And again; attention has been called to the community Community of goods.
of goods in the infant Church of Christ, as though this were a legacy of
Essenism. But here too the reasonable explanation is, that we have an
independent attempt to realise the idea of brotherhood—an attempt which
naturally suggested itself without any direct imitation, but which was soon
abandoned under the pressure of circumstances. Indeed the communism of
the Christians was from the first wholly unlike the communism of the
Essenes. The surrender of property with the Christians was not a necessary
condition of entrance into an order; it was a purely voluntary act, which
might be withheld without foregoing the privileges of the brotherhood[515].
And the common life too was obviously different in kind, at once more free

and more sociable, unfettered by rigid ordinances, respecting individual
liberty, and altogether unlike a monastic rule.
Not less irrelevant is the stress, which has been laid on another point of
supposed coincidence in the social doctrines of the two communities. The
prohibition of slavery was indeed a highly honourable Prohibition of slavery.
feature in the Essene order[516], but it affords no indication of a direct
connexion with Christianity. It is true that this social institution of antiquity
was not less antagonistic to the spirit of the Gospel, than it was abhorrent to
the feelings of the Essene; and ultimately the influence of Christianity has
triumphed over it. But the immediate treatment of the question was
altogether different in the two cases. The Essene brothers proscribed slavery
wholly; they produced no appreciable results by the proscription. The
Christian Apostles, without attempting an immediate and violent revolution
in society, proclaimed the great principle that all men are equal in Christ, and
left it to work. It did work, like leaven, silently but surely, till the whole lump
was leavened. In the matter of slavery the resemblance to the Stoic is much
closer than to the Essene[517]. The Stoic however began and ended in barren
declamation, and no practical fruits were reaped from his doctrine.

Moreover prominence has been given to the fact, that Respect paid to poverty.
riches are decried, and a preference is given to the poor, in the teaching of
our Lord and His Apostles. Here again, it is urged, we have a distinctly
Essene feature. We need not stop to enquire with what limitations this
prerogative of poverty, which appears in the Gospels, must be interpreted;
but, quite independently of this question, we may fairly decline to lay any
stress on such a coincidence, where all other indications of a direct
connexion have failed. The Essenes, pursuing a simple and ascetic life,
made it their chief aim to reduce their material wants as far as possible, and
in doing so they necessarily exalted poverty. Ascetic philosophers in Greece
and Rome had done the same. Christianity was entrusted with the mission
of proclaiming the equal rights of all men before God, of setting a truer
standard of human worth than the outward conventions of the world, of
protesting against the tyranny of the strong and the luxury of the rich, of
redressing social inequalities, if not always by a present compensation, at
least by a future hope. The needy and oppressed were the special charge of
its preachers. It was the characteristic feature of the ‘Kingdom of Heaven,’
as described by the prophet whose words gave the keynote to the Messianic
hopes of the nation, that the glad-tidings should be preached to the
poor[518]. The exaltation of poverty therefore was an absolute condition of
the Gospel.
The mention of the kingdom of heaven leads to the The preaching of the
last point on which it will be necessary to touch Kingdom wrongly
ascribed to the Essenes.
before leaving this subject. ‘The whole ascetic life of
the Essenes,’ it has been said, ‘aimed only at furthering the Kingdom of
Heaven and the Coming Age.’ Thus John the Baptist was the proper
representative of this sect. ‘From the Essenes went forth the first call that
the Messiah must shortly appear, The kingdom of heaven is at hand’[519].
‘The announcement of the kingdom of heaven unquestionably went forth
from the Essenes’[520]. For this confident assertion there is absolutely no
foundation in fact; and, as a conjectural hypothesis, the assumption is
highly improbable.
As fortune-tellers or soothsayers, the Essenes might The Essenes not
be called prophets; but as preachers of righteousness, prophets,
tellers.
but fortune-

as heralds of the kingdom, they had no claim to the
title. Throughout the notices in Josephus and Philo we cannot trace the

faintest indication of Messianic hopes. Nor indeed was their position at all
likely to foster such hopes[521]. The Messianic idea was built on a belief in
the resurrection of the body. The Essenes entirely denied this doctrine. The
Messianic idea was intimately bound up with the national hopes and
sufferings, with the national life, of the Jews. The Essenes had no interest in
the Jewish polity; they separated themselves almost entirely from public
affairs. The deliverance of the individual is the They had no vivid
shipwreck of the whole, it has been well said, was the Messianic expectations.
plain watchword of Essenism[522]. How entirely the conception of a
Messiah might be obliterated, where Judaism was regarded only from the
side of a mystic philosophy, we see from the case of Philo. Throughout the
works of this voluminous writer only one or two faint and doubtful
allusions to a personal Messiah are found[523]. The philosophical tenets of
the Essenes no doubt differed widely from those of Philo; but in the
substitution of the individual and contemplative aspect of religion for the
national and practical they were united; and the effect in obscuring the
Messianic idea would be the same. When therefore it is said that the
prominence given to the proclamation of the Messiah’s kingdom is a main
link which connects Essenism and Christianity, we may dismiss the
statement as a mere hypothesis, unsupported by evidence and improbable in
itself.

III.
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
Without the preceding investigation the teaching of
this epistle would be very imperfectly understood; for The understanding of
the heresy necessary.
its direction was necessarily determined by the
occasion which gave rise to it. Only when we have once grasped the nature
of the doctrine which St Paul is combating, do we perceive that every
sentence is instinct with life and meaning.
We have seen that the error of the heretical teachers The errors though
was twofold. They had a false conception in theology, twofold
root.
sprang from one

and they had a false basis of morals. It has been
pointed out also, that these two were closely connected together, and had
their root in the same fundamental error, the idea of matter as the abode of
evil and thus antagonistic to God.
As the two elements of the heretical doctrine were So the answer to both is
derived from the same source, so the reply to both in the same truth.
was sought by the Apostle in the same idea, the conception of the Person of
Christ as the one absolute mediator between God and man, the true and
only reconciler of heaven and earth.
But though they are thus ultimately connected, yet it will be necessary for
the fuller understanding of St Paul’s position to take them apart, and to
consider first the theological and then the ethical teaching of the epistle.
1. This Colossian heresy was no coarse and vulgar 1. The theological
development of falsehood. It soared far above the teaching of the heretics.
Pharisaic Judaism which St Paul refutes in the Epistle to the Galatians. The
questions in which it was interested lie at the very root of our religious
consciousness. The impulse was given to its Its lofty motive,
speculations by an overwhelming sense of the unapproachable majesty of
God, by an instinctive recognition of the chasm which separates God from
man, from the world, from matter. Its energy was sustained by the intense
yearning after some mediation which might bridge over this chasm, might

establish inter-communion between the finite and the Infinite. Up to this
point it was deeply religious in the best sense of the term.
The answer which it gave to these questions we have but complete failure.
already seen. In two respects this answer failed signally. On the one hand it
was drawn from the atmosphere of mystical speculation. It had no
foundation in history, and made no appeal to experience. On the other hand,
notwithstanding its complexity, it was unsatisfactory in its results; for in
this plurality of mediators none was competent to meet the requirements of
the case. God here and man there—no angel or spirit, whether one or more,
being neither God nor man, could truly reconcile the two. Thus as regards
credentials it was without a guarantee; while as regards efficiency it was
wholly inadequate.
The Apostle pointed out to the Colossians a more The Apostle’s answer is
excellent way. It was the one purpose of Christianity in the Person of Christ.
to satisfy those very yearnings which were working in their hearts, to solve
that very problem which had exercised their minds. In Christ they would
find the answer which they sought. His life—His cross and resurrection—
was the guarantee; His Person—the Word Incarnate— The mediator in the
was the solution. He alone filled up, He alone could world and in the
Church.
fill up, the void which lay between God and man,
could span the gulf which separated the Creator and creation. This solution
offered by the Gospel is as simple as it is adequate. To their cosmical
speculations, and to their religious yearnings alike, Jesus Christ is the true
answer. In the World, as in the Church, He is the one only mediator, the one
only reconciler. This two-fold idea runs like a double thread through the
fabric of the Apostle’s teaching in those passages of the epistle where he is
describing the Person of Christ.
It will be convenient for the better understanding of St Paul’s teaching to
consider these two aspects of Christ’s mediation apart—its function in the
natural and in the spiritual order respectively.
(i) The heresy of the Colossian teachers took its rise, (i) In the Universe.
as we saw, in their cosmical speculations. It was therefore natural that the
Apostle in replying should lay stress on the function of the Word in the
creation and government of the world. This is the aspect of His work most
prominent in the first of the two distinctly Christological passages. The

Apostle there predicates of the Word, not only prior, but absolute existence.
All things were created through Him, are sustained in Him, are tending
towards Him. Thus He is the beginning, middle, and end, of creation. This
He is, because He is the very image of the Invisible God, because in Him
dwells the plenitude of Deity.
This creative and administrative work of Christ the Importance of this
Word in the natural order of things is always aspect Christ,
of the Person of

emphasized in the writings of the Apostles, when they
touch upon the doctrine of His Person. It stands in the forefront of the
prologue to St John’s Gospel: it is hardly less prominent in the opening of
the Epistle to the Hebrews. His mediatorial function in the Church is
represented as flowing from His mediatorial function in the world. With
ourselves this idea has retired very much into the background. Though in
the creed common to all the Churches we profess our belief in Him, as the
Being ‘through whom all things were created,’ yet in reality this confession
seems to exercise very little influence on our thoughts. And the loss is
serious. How much our theological conceptions suffer in breadth and
fulness by the neglect, a moment’s reflexion will show. How much more
hearty would be the sympathy of theologians with the revelations of science
and the developments of history, if they habitually connected them with the
operation of the same Divine Word who is the centre of all their religious
aspirations, it is needless to say. Through the recognition of this idea with
all the consequences which flow from it, as a living influence, more than in
any other way, may we hope to strike the chords of that ‘vaster music,’
which results only from the harmony of knowledge and faith, of reverence
and research.
It will be said indeed, that this conception leaves notwithstanding
untouched the philosophical difficulties which beset difficulties yet unsolved.
the subject; that creation still remains as much a mystery as before. This
may be allowed. But is there any reason to think that with our present
limited capacities the veil which shrouds it ever will be or can be removed?
The metaphysical speculations of twenty-five centuries have done nothing
to raise it. The physical investigations of our own age from their very nature
can do nothing; for, busied with the evolution of phenomena, they lie
wholly outside this question, and do not even touch the fringe of the
difficulty. But meanwhile revelation has interposed and thrown out the idea,

which, if it leaves many questions unsolved, gives a breadth and unity to
our conceptions, at once satisfying our religious needs and linking our
scientific instincts with our theological beliefs.
(ii) But, if Christ’s mediatorial office in the physical (ii) In the Church.
creation was the starting point of the Apostle’s teaching, His mediatorial
office in the spiritual creation is its principal theme. The cosmogonies of the
false teachers were framed not so much in the interests of philosophy as in
the interests of religion; and the Apostle replies to them in the same spirit
and with the same motive. If the function of Christ is unique in the
Universe, so is it also in the Church. He is the sole Its absolute character.
and absolute link between God and humanity. Nothing short of His
personality would suffice as a medium of reconciliation between the two.
Nothing short of His life and work in the flesh, as consummated in His
passion, would serve as an assurance of God’s love and pardon. His cross is
the atonement of mankind with God. He is the Head with whom all the
living members of the body are in direct and immediate communication,
who suggests their manifold activities to each, who directs their several
functions in subordination to the healthy working of the whole, from whom
they individually receive their inspiration and their strength.
And being all this He cannot consent to share His Hence angelic
prerogative with others. He absorbs in Himself the mediations are
fundamentally wrong.
whole function of mediation. Through Him alone,
without any interposing link of communication, the human soul has access
to the Father. Here was the true answer to those deep yearnings after
spiritual communion with God, which sought, and could not find,
satisfaction in the manifold and fantastic creations of a dreamy mysticism.
The worship of angels might have the semblance of humility; but it was in
fact a contemptuous defiance of the fundamental idea of the Gospel, a flat
denial of the absolute character of Christ’s Person and office. It was a
severance of the proper connexion with the Head, an amputation of the
disordered limb, which was thus disjoined from the source of life and left to
perish for want of spiritual nourishment.
The language of the New Testament writers is beset Christ’s mediation in the
with difficulties, so long as we conceive of our Lord Church justified by His
mediation in the World.
only in connexion with the Gospel revelation: but,
when with the Apostles we realise in Him the same Divine Lord who is and

ever has been the light of the whole world, who before Christianity wrought
first in mankind at large through the avenues of the conscience, and
afterwards more particularly in the Jews through a special though still
imperfect revelation, then all these difficulties fall away. Then we
understand the significance, and we recognise the truth, of such passages as
these: ‘No man cometh unto the Father, but by me’: ‘There is no salvation
in any other’; ‘He that disbelieveth the Son shall not see life, but the wrath
of God abideth upon him[524].’ The exclusive claims advanced in Christ’s
name have their full and perfect justification in the doctrine of the Eternal
Word.
The old dispensation is primarily the revelation of the Relation of the doctrine
absolute sovereignty of God. It vindicates this truth of the Word
against two opposing forms of error, which in their extreme types are
represented by Pantheism and Manicheism respectively. The Pantheist
identifies God with the world: the Manichee attributes to the monotheism of the
to the world an absolute existence, independent of Old Testament.
God. With the Pantheist sin ceases to have any existence: for it is only one
form of God’s working. With the Manichee sin is inherent in matter, which
is antagonistic to God. The teaching of the Old Testament, of which the
key-note is struck in the opening chapters of Genesis, is a refutation of both
these errors. God is distinct from the world, and He is the Creator of the
world. Evil is not inherent in God, but neither is it inherent in the material
world. Sin is the disobedience of intelligent beings whom He has created,
and whom He has endowed with a free-will, which they can use or misuse.
The revelation of the New Testament is the proper The New Testament is
complement to the revelation of the Old. It holds this complementary
Old.
to the

position in two main respects. If the Old Testament
sets forth the absolute unity of God—His distinctness from and sovereignty
over His creatures—the New Testament points out how He holds
communion with the world and with humanity, how man becomes one with
Him. And again, if the Old Testament shows the true character of sin, the
New Testament teaches the appointed means of redemption. On the one
hand the monotheism of the Old Testament is supplemented by the
theanthropism[525] of the New. Thus the theology of revelation is
completed. On the other hand, the hamartiology of the Old Testament has

its counterpart in the soteriology of the New. Thus the economy of
revelation is perfected.
2. When we turn from the theology of these Colossian 2. The ethical error of
heretics to their ethical teaching, we find it the heretics.
characterised by the same earnestness. Of them it might indeed be said that
they did ‘hunger and thirst after righteousness.’ Their practical
Escape from impurity, immunity from evil, was a earnestness,
passion with them. But it was no less true that notwithstanding all their
sincerity they ‘went astray in the wilderness’; ‘hungry and thirsty, their soul
fainted within them.’ By their fatal transference of the abode of sin from the
human heart within to the material world without, they had incapacitated
themselves from finding the true antidote. Where they but fundamental
placed the evil, there they necessarily sought the misconception and
consequent failure.
remedy. Hence they attempted to fence themselves
about, and to purify their lives by a code of rigorous prohibitions. Their
energy was expended on battling with the physical conditions of human life.
Their whole mind was absorbed in the struggle with imaginary forms of
evil. Necessarily their character was moulded by the thoughts which
habitually engaged them. Where the ‘elements of the world,’ the ‘things
which perish in the using[526],’ engrossed all their attention, it could not fail
but that they should be dragged down from the serene heights of the
spiritual life into the cloudy atmosphere which shrouds this lower earth.
St Paul sets himself to combat this false tendency. For St Paul substitutes a
negative prohibitions he substitutes a positive principle for ordinances.
principle; for special enactments, a comprehensive motive. He tells them
that all their scrupulous restrictions are vain, because they fail to touch the
springs of action. If they would overcome the evil, they must strike at the
root of the evil. Their point of view must be entirely changed. They must
transfer themselves into a wholly new sphere of energy. This transference is
nothing less than a migration from earth to heaven—from the region of the
external and transitory to the region of the spiritual and eternal[527]. For a
code of rules they must substitute a principle of life, which is one in its
essence but infinite in its application, which will meet every emergency,
will control every action, will resist every form of evil.
This principle they have in Christ. With Him they This principle is the
heavenly life in Christ.
have died to the world; with Him they have risen to

God. Christ, the revelation of God’s holiness, of God’s righteousness, of
God’s love, is light, is life, is heaven. With Him they have been translated
into a higher sphere, have been brought face to face with the Eternal
Presence. Let them only realise this translation. It involves new insight, new
motives, new energies. They will no more waste themselves upon vexatious
special restrictions: for they will be furnished with a higher inspiration
which will cover all the minute details of action. They will not exhaust their
energies in crushing this or that rising desire but they will kill the whole
body[528] of their earthly passions through the strong arm of this personal
communion with God in Christ.
When we once grasp this idea, which lies at the root St Paul’s doctrine of
of St Paul’s ethical teaching, the moral difficulty faith and works
considered in the light of
which is supposed to attach to his doctrine of faith this principle.
and works has vanished. It is simply an impossibility
that faith should exist without works. Though in form he states his doctrine
as a relation of contrast between the two, in substance it resolves itself into
a question of precedence. Faith and works are related as principle and
practice. Faith—the repose in the unseen, the recognition of eternal
principles of truth and right, the sense of personal obligations to an Eternal
Being who vindicates these principles—must come first. Faith is not an
intellectual assent, nor a sympathetic sentiment merely. It is the absolute
surrender of self to the will of a Being who has a right to command this
surrender. It is this which places men in personal relation to God, which (in
St Paul’s language) justifies them before God. For it touches the springs of
their actions; it fastens not on this or that detail of conduct, but extends
throughout the whole sphere of moral activity; and thus it determines their
character as responsible beings in the sight of God.

From the above account it will have appeared that the The Christology of this
distinctive feature of this epistle is its Christology. epistle
The doctrine of the Person of Christ is here stated with greater precision and
fulness than in any other of St Paul’s epistles. It is therefore pertinent to ask
(even though the answer must necessarily be brief) what relation this
statement bears to certain other enunciations of the same doctrine; to those
for instance which occur elsewhere in St Paul’s own considered in relation to

letters, to those which are found in other Apostolic writings, and to those
which appear in the fathers of the succeeding generations.
1. The Christology of the Colossian Epistle is in no 1. The Christology of St
way different from that of the Apostle’s earlier letters. Paul’s earlier epistles
It may indeed be called a development of his former teaching, but only as
exhibiting the doctrine in fresh relations, as drawing new deductions from
it, as defining what had hitherto been left undefined, not as superadding any
foreign element to it. The doctrine is practically involved in the opening and
closing words of his earliest extant epistle: ‘The Church which is in God the
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’; ‘The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be
with you[529].’ The main conception of the Person of Christ, as enforced in
the Colossian Epistle, alone justifies and explains this language, which
otherwise would be emptied of all significance. And again; it had been
enunciated by the Apostle explicitly, though briefly, in the earliest directly
doctrinal passage which bears on the subject; ‘One Lord Jesus Christ,
through whom are all things and we through Him[530].’ The absolute
universal mediation of the Son is declared as the same in substance
unreservedly in this passage from the First Epistle to but
the Corinthians, as in any later statement of the Apostle: and, if all the
doctrinal and practical inferences which it implicitly less fully developed
involves were not directly emphasized at this early date, it was because the
circumstances did not yet require explicitness on these points. New forms
of error bring into prominence new aspects of the truth. The heresies of
Laodicea and Colossæ have been invaluable to the later Church in this
respect. The Apostle himself, it is not too much to say, realised with ever
increasing force the manifoldness, the adaptability, the completeness of the
Christian idea, notwithstanding its simplicity, as he opposed it to each
successive development of error. The Person of Christ proved the complete
answer to false speculations at Colossæ, as it had been found the sovereign
antidote to false practices at Corinth. All these unforeseen harmonies must
have appeared to him, as they will appear to us, fresh evidences of its truth.
2. And when we turn from St Paul to the other 2. The Christology of
Apostolic writings which dwell on the Person of other Apostolic writings.
Their fundamental
Christ from a doctrinal point of view, we find them identity.
enunciating it in language which implies the same
fundamental conception, though they may not always present it in exactly

the same aspect. More especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews first, and in
the Gospel of St John afterwards, the form of expression is identical with
the statement of St Paul. In both these writings the universe is said to have
been created or to exist by or through Him. This is the crucial expression,
which involves in itself all the higher conceptions of the Person of
Christ[531]. The Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been written by a
disciple of St Paul immediately after the Apostle’s death, and therefore
within some five or six years from the date which has been assigned to the
Colossian letter. The Gospel of St John, if the traditional report may be
accepted, dates about a quarter of a century later; but it is linked with our
epistle by the fact that the readers for whom it was primarily intended
belonged to the neighbouring districts of Proconsular Asia. Thus it
illustrates, and is illustrated by, the teaching of St Paul in this letter. More
especially by the emphatic use of the term Logos, which St Paul for some
reason has suppressed, it supplies the centre round which the ideas gather,
and thus gives unity and directness to the conception.
In the Christology of these Apostolic writings there is Firmness of the
a firmness and precision which leaves no doubt about apostolic idea.
the main conception present to the mind of the writers. The idea of Christ as
an intermediate being, neither God nor man, is absolutely and expressly
excluded. On the one hand His humanity is distinctly emphasized. On the
other He is represented as existing from eternity, as the perfect
manifestation of the Father, as the absolute mediator in the creation and
government of the world.
3. But, when we turn from these Apostolic statements 3. The Christology of
to the writings of succeeding generations, we are the succeeding ages.
struck with the contrast[532]. A vagueness, a flaccidity, of conception betrays
itself in their language.
In the Apostolic Fathers and in the earlier Apologists Its looseness of
we find indeed for the most part a practical conception.
appreciation of the Person of Christ, which leaves nothing to be desired; but
as soon as they venture upon any directly dogmatic statement, we miss at
once the firmness of grasp and clearness of conception which mark the
writings of the Apostles. If they desire to emphasize the majesty of His
Person, they not unfrequently fall into language which savours of
patripassianism[533]. If on the other hand they wish to present Him in His

mediatorial capacity, they use words which seem to imply some divine
being, who is God and yet not quite God, neither Creator nor creature[534].
The Church needed a long education, before she was The Apostolic idea
fitted to be the expositor of the true Apostolic applied in later ages.
doctrine. A conflict of more than two centuries with Gnostics, Ebionites,
Sabellians, Arians, supplied the necessary discipline. The true successors of
the Apostles in this respect are not the fathers of the second century, but the
fathers of the third and fourth centuries. In the expositors of the Nicene age
we find indeed technical terms and systematic definitions, which we do not
find in the Apostles themselves; but, unless I have wholly misconceived the
nature of the heretical teaching at Colossæ and the purport of St Paul’s
reply, the main idea of Christ’s Person, with which he here confronts this
Gnostic Judaism, is essentially the same as that which the fathers of these
later centuries opposed to the Sabellianism and the Arianism of their own
age. If I mistake not, the more distinctly we realise the nature of the heresy,
the more evident will it become that any conception short of the perfect
deity and perfect humanity of Christ would not have furnished a satisfactory
answer; and this is the reason why I have dwelt at such length on the
character of the Colossian false teaching, and why I venture to call especial
attention to this part of my subject.

Of the style of the letter to the Colossians I shall have Style of this epistle.
occasion to speak hereafter, when I come to discuss its genuineness. It is
sufficient to say here, that while the hand of St Paul is unmistakable
throughout this epistle, we miss the flow and the versatility of the Apostle’s
earlier letters.
A comparison with the Epistles to the Corinthians and Its ruggedness and
to the Philippians will show the difference. It is compression,
distinguished from them by a certain ruggedness of expression, a ‘want of
finish’ often bordering on obscurity. What account should be given of this
characteristic, it is impossible to say. The divergence of style is not greater
than will appear in the letters of any active-minded man, written at different
times and under different circumstances. The epistles which I have selected
for contrast suggest that the absence of all personal connexion with the
Colossian Church will partially, if not wholly, explain the diminished
fluency of this letter. At the same time no epistle of St but essential vigour.

Paul is more vigorous in conception or more instinct with meaning. It is the
very compression of the thoughts which creates the difficulty. If there is a
want of fluency, there is no want of force. Feebleness is the last charge
which can be brought against this epistle.

The following is an analysis of the epistle: Analysis.

I. Introductory (i. 1–13).
(1) i. 1, 2. Opening salutation.
(2) i. 3–8. Thanksgiving for the progress of the Colossians hitherto.
(3) i. 9–13. Prayer for their future advance in knowledge and well-doing
through Christ.
[This leads the Apostle to speak of Christ as the only path of
progress.]
II. Doctrinal (i. 13-ii. 3).
The Person and Office of Christ.
(1) i. 13, 14. Through the Son we have our deliverance, our redemption.
(2) i. 15–19. The Preeminence of the Son;
(i) As the Head of the natural Creation, the Universe (i. 15–17);
(ii) As the Head of the new moral Creation, the Church (i. 18).
Thus He is first in all things; and this, because the pleroma has its
abode in Him (i. 19).
(3) i. 20-ii. 3. The Work of the Son—a work of reconciliation;
(i) Described generally (i. 20).
(ii) Applied specially to the Colossians (i. 21–23).
(iii) St Paul’s own part in carrying out this work. His sufferings and
preaching. The ‘mystery’ with which he is charged (i. 24–27).
His anxiety on behalf of all (i. 28, 29): and more especially of the
Colossian and neighbouring Churches (ii. 1–3).

[This expression of anxiety leads him by a direct path to the next
division of the epistle.]
III. Polemical (ii. 4-iii. 4).
Warning against errors.
(1) ii. 4–8. The Colossians charged to abide in the truth of the Gospel as
they received it at first, and not to be led astray by a strange
philosophy which the new teachers offer.
(2) ii. 9–15. The truth stated first positively and then negatively.
[In the passage which follows (ii. 9–23) it will be observed how St Paul
vibrates between the theological and practical bearings of the truth,
marked α, β, respectively.]
(i) Positively.
(α) The pleroma dwells wholly in Christ and is communicated
through Him (ii. 9, 10).
(β) The true circumcision is a spiritual circumcision (ii. 11, 12).
(ii) Negatively. Christ has
(β) annulled the law of ordinances (ii. 14);
(α) triumphed over all spiritual agencies, however powerful (ii. 15).
(3) ii. 16-iii. 4. Obligations following thereupon.
(i) Consequently the Colossians must not
(β) either submit to ritual prohibitions (ii. 16, 17),
(α) or substitute the worship of inferior beings for allegiance to the
Head (ii. 18, 19).
(ii) On the contrary this must henceforth be their rule:
1. They have died with Christ; and with Him they have died to their
old life, to earthly ordinances (ii. 20–23).
2. They have risen with Christ; and with Him they have risen to a
new life, to heavenly principles (iii. 1–4).
IV. Hortatory (iii. 5-iv. 6).

Practical application of this death and this resurrection.
(1) iii. 5–12. Comprehensive rules.
(i) What vices are to be put off, being mortified in this death (iii. 5–
11).
(ii) What graces are to be put on, being quickened through this
resurrection (iii. 12–17).
(2) iii. 13-iv. 6. Special precepts.
(a) The obligations
Of wives and husbands (iii. 18, 19);
Of children and parents (iii. 20, 21);
Of slaves and masters (iii. 22-iv. 1).
(b) The duty of prayer and thanksgiving; with special intercession on
the Apostle’s behalf (iv. 2–4).
(c) The duty of propriety in behaviour towards the unconverted (iv.
5, 6).
V. Personal (iv. 7–18).
(1) iv. 7–9. Explanations relating to the letter itself.
(2) iv. 10–14. Salutations from divers persons.
(3) iv. 15–17. Salutations to divers persons. A message relating to
Laodicea.
(4) iv. 18. Farewell.

ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΑΣΣΑΕΙΣ.

WE SPEAK WISDOM AMONG THEM THAT ARE PERFECT.

YET NOT THE WISDOM OF THIS WORLD.

BUT WE SPEAK THE WISDOM OF GOD IN A MYSTERY.

Iste vas electionis
Vires omnes rationis
Humanæ transgreditur:
Super choros angelorum
Raptus, cœli secretorum
Doctrinis imbuitur.

De hoc vase tam fecundo,
Tam electo et tam mundo,
Tu nos, Christe, complue;
Nos de luto, nos de fæce,
Tua sancta purga prece,
Regno tuo statue.

ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΑΣΣΑΕΙΣ.

I. 1, 2]
ΠΑΥΛΟΣ ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, καὶ
Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφός, 2τοῖς ἐν Κολοσσαῖς >

1, 2. ‘Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by no personal merit but by God’s
gracious will alone, and Timothy, our brother in the faith, to the consecrated
people of God in Colossæ, the brethren who are stedfast in their allegiance
and faithful in Christ. May grace the well-spring of all mercies, and peace
the crown of all blessings, be bestowed upon you from God our Father.’
1. ἀπόστολος] On the exceptional omission of this title in some of St
Paul’s epistles see Phil. i. 1. Though there is no reason for supposing that
his authority was directly impugned in the Colossian Church, yet he
interposes by virtue of his Apostolic commission and therefore uses his
authoritative title.
διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ] As in 1 Cor. i. 1, 2 Cor. i. 1, Ephes. i. 1, 2 Tim. i. 1.
These passages show that the words cannot have a polemical bearing. If
they had been directed against those who questioned his Apostleship, they
would probably have taken a stronger form. The expression must therefore
be regarded as a renunciation of all personal worth, and a declaration of
God’s unmerited grace; comp. Rom. ix. 16 ἄρα οὖν οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος οὐδὲ
τοῦ τρέχοντος ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεῶντος θεοῦ. The same words διὰ θελήματος
θεοῦ are used in other connexions in Rom. xv. 32, 2 Cor. viii. 5, where no
polemical reference is possible.
Τιμόθεος] The name of this disciple is attached to the Apostle’s own in
the heading of the Philippian letter, which was probably written at an earlier
stage in his Roman captivity. It appears also in the same connexion in the
Epistle to Philemon, but not in the Epistle to the Ephesians, though these
two letters were contemporaneous with one another and with the Colossian
letter. For an explanation of the omission, see the introduction to that
epistle.
In the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon the presence of
Timothy is forgotten at once (see Phil. i. 1). In this epistle the plural is
maintained throughout the thanksgiving (vv. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9), but afterwards

dropped, when the Apostle begins to speak in his own person (i. 23, 24),
and so he continues to the end. The exceptions (i. 28, iv. 3) are rather
apparent than real.
ὁ ἀδελφός] Timothy is again designated simply ‘the brother’ in 2 Cor. i.
1, Philem. 1, but not in Heb. xiii. 23, where the right reading is τὸν ἀδελφὸν
ἡμῶν. The same designation is used of Quartus (Rom. xvi. 23), of
Sosthenes (1 Cor. i. 1), of Apollos (1 Cor. xvi. 12); comp. 2 Cor. viii. 18, ix.
3, 5, xii. 18. As some designation seemed to be required, and as Timothy
could not be called an Apostle (see Galatians, p. 96, note 2), this, as the
simplest title, would naturally suggest itself.
2. Κολοσσαῖς] For the reasons why this form is preferred here, while
Κολασσαεῖς is adopted in the heading of the epistle, see above, p. 16 sq.

I. 3]
← ἁγίοις καὶ πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ· χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη
ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν.
3
Εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ Θεῷ [καὶ] πατρὶ τοῦ Κυρίου →

ἁγίοις] ‘saints,’ i.e. the people consecrated to God, the Israel of the new
covenant; see the note on Phil. i. 1. This mode of address marks the later
epistles of St Paul. In his earlier letters (1, 2 Thess., 1, 2 Cor., Gal.) he
writes τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. The change begins with the Epistle to
the Romans, and from that time forward the Apostle always uses ἁγίοις in
various combinations in addressing Churches (Rom., Phil., Col., Ephes.).
For a similar phenomenon, serving as a chronological mark, see the note on
ἡ χάρις, iv. 18. The word ἁγίοις must here be treated as a substantive in
accordance with its usage in parallel passages, and not as an adjective
connected with ἀδελφοῖς. See the next note.
καὶ πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς] This unusual addition is full of meaning. Some
members of the Colossian Church were shaken in their allegiance, even if
they had not fallen from it. The Apostle therefore wishes it to be understood
that, when he speaks of the saints, he means the true and stedfast members
of the brotherhood. In this way he obliquely hints at the defection. Thus the
words καὶ πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς are a supplementary explanation of τοῖς ἁγίοις.
He does not directly exclude any, but he indirectly warns all. The epithet
πιστὸς cannot mean simply ‘believing’; for then it would add nothing which
is not already contained in ἁγίοις and ἀδελφοῖς. Its passive sense,
‘trustworthy, stedfast, unswerving,’ must be prominent here, as in Acts xvi.
15 εἰ κεκρίκατέ με πιστὴν τῷ Κυρίῳ εἶναι. See Galatians p. 155.
ἐν Χριστῷ] most naturally connected with both words πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς,
though referring chiefly to πιστοῖς; comp. Ephes. vi. 21 πιστὸς δίακονος ἐν
Κυρίῳ, 1 Tim. i. 2 γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει. For the expression πιστὸς ἐν
Χριστῷ, ἐν Κυρίῳ, see also 1 Cor. iv. 17, Ephes. i. 1. The Apostle assumes
that the Colossian brethren are ‘stedfast in Christ.’ Their state thus contrasts
with the description of the heretical teacher, who (ii. 19) οὐ κρατεῖ τὴν
κεφαλήν.

χάρις κ.τ.λ.] On this form of salutation see the note to 1 Thess. i. 1.
πατρὸς ἡμῶν] The only instance in St Paul’s epistles, where the name of
the Father stands alone in the opening benediction without the addition of
Jesus Christ. The omission was noticed by Origen (Rom. 1. § 8, IV. p. 467),
and by Chrysostom (ad loc. XI. p. 324, Hom. in 2 Cor. XXX, x. p. 651). But
transcribers naturally aimed at uniformity, and so in many copies we find
the addition καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The only other exception to the
Apostle’s usual form is in 1 Thessalonians, where the benediction is shorter
still, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη, and where likewise the copyists have supplied
words to lengthen it out in accordance with St Paul’s common practice.
3–8. ‘We never cease to pour forth our thanksgiving to God the Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ on your account, whensoever we pray to Him. We are
full of thankfulness for the tidings of the faith which ye have in Christ
Jesus, and the love which ye show towards all the people of God, while ye
look forward to the hope which is stored up for you in heaven as a treasure
for the life to come. This hope was communicated to you in those earlier
lessons, when the Gospel was preached to you in its purity and integrity—
the one universal unchangeable Gospel, which was made known to you,
even as it was carried throughout the world, approving itself by its fruits
wheresoever it is planted. For, as elsewhere, so also in you, these fruits were
manifested from the first day when ye received your lessons in, and
apprehended the power of, the genuine Gospel, which is not a law of
ordinances but a dispensation of grace, not a device of men but a truth of
God. Such was the word preached to you by Epaphras, our beloved fellow-
servant in our Master’s household, who in our absence and on our behalf
has ministered to you the Gospel of Christ, and who now brings back to us
the welcome tidings of the love which ye show in the Spirit.’
3. εὐχαριστοῦμεν] See the notes on 1 Thess. i. 2.
πατρὶ] If the καὶ be omitted, as the balance of authorities appears to
suggest, the form of words here is quite exceptional. Elsewhere it runs ὁ
θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ Κυρίου, Rom. XV. 6, 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31, Ephes. i. 3 (v.l.),
1 Pet. i. 3; comp. Rev. i. 6: and in analogous cases, such as ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ
ἡμῶν, the rule is the same. See the note on Clem. Rom. § 7. In iii. 17
however we have τῷ θεῷ πατρί, where the evidence is more decisive and
the expression quite as unusual. On the authorities for the various readings
here see the detached note.

I. 4, 5]
← ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν προσευχόμενοι· 4
ἀκούσαντες τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην [ἣν
ἔχετε] εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, 5 διὰ τὴν →

πάντοτε κ.τ.λ.] We here meet the same difficulty about the connexion of
the clauses, which confronts us in several of St Paul’s opening
thanksgivings. The words πάντοτε and περὶ ὑμῶν must clearly be taken
together, because the emphasis of περὶ ὑμῶν would be inexplicable, if it
stood at the beginning of a clause. But are they to be attached to the
preceding or to the following sentence? The connexion with the previous
words is favoured by St Paul’s usual conjunction of εὐχαριστεῖν πάντοτε
(see the note on Phil. i. 3), and by the parallel passage οὐ παύομαι
εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν in Ephes. i. 16. Thus the words will mean ‘We give
thanks for you always in our prayers.’ For this absolute use of
προσευχόμενοι see Matt. vi. 7, Acts xvi. 25.
4. ἀκούσαντες] ‘having heard’ from Epaphras (ver. 8); for the Apostle
had no direct personal knowledge of the Colossian Church: see the
introduction, p. 27 sq.
ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] to be connected with τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν. The strict
classical language would require τὴν ἐν Χ. Ἰ., but the omission of the article
is common to the New Testament (e.g. ver. 8); see the note on 1 Thess. i. 1,
and Winer § xx. p. 169 (ed. Moulton). The preposition ἐν here and in the
parallel passage, Ephes. i. 15, denotes the sphere in which their faith moves,
rather than the object to which it is directed (comp. 1 Cor. iii. 5); for, if the
object had been meant, the natural preposition would have been ἐπὶ or εἰς
(e.g. ii. 5). This is probably the case also in the passages where at first sight
it might seem otherwise, e.g. 1 Tim. iii. 13, 2 Tim. iii. 15; for compare 2
Tim. i. 13 ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, where the meaning is
unambiguous. There is however authority in the LXX for the use of ἐν with
πίστις, πιστεύειν, to denote the object, in Jer. xii. 6, Ps. lxxviii. 22, and
perhaps in Mark i. 15, Rom. iii. 25, and (more doubtfully still) in Joh. iii.
15.

ἣν ἔχετε] See the detached note on the various readings.
5. διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα] ‘for the hope,’ i.e. looking to the hope. The following
reasons seem decisive in favour of connecting διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα, not with
εὐχαριστοῦμεν, but with τὴν πίστιν κ.τ.λ., whether ἣν ἔχετε be retained or
not. (1) The great distance of εὐχαριστοῦμεν is against the former
connexion; (2) The following clause, ἣν προηκοῦσατε κ.τ.λ., suggests that
the words διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα describe the motives of the Colossians for well-
doing, rather than the reasons of the Apostle for thanksgiving: (3) The triad
of Christian graces, which St Paul delights to associate together, would
otherwise be broken up. This last argument seems conclusive; see
especially the corresponding thanksgiving in 1 Thess. i. 3, μνημονεῦοντες
ὑμῶν τοῦ ἔργου τῆς π ί σ τ ε ω ς καὶ τοῦ κόπου τῆς ἀ γ ά π η ς καὶ τῆς
ὑπομονῆς τῆς ἐ λ π ί δ ο ς κ.τ.λ., with the note there. The order is the same
here, as there; and it is the natural sequence. Faith rests on the past; love
works in the present; hope looks to the future. They may be regarded as the
efficient, material, and final causes respectively of the spiritual life.
Compare Polycarp Phil. 3 πίστιν ἥτις ἐστὶ μήτηρ πάντων ἡμῶν,
ἐπακολουθούσης τῆς ἐλπίδος, προαγούσης τῆς ἀγάπης.
The hope here is identified with the object of the hope: see the passages
quoted on Gal. v. 5. The sense of ἐλπίς, as of the corresponding words in
any language, oscillates between the subjective feeling and the objective
realisation; comp. Rom. viii. 24 τῇ γὰρ ἐλπίδι ἐσώθημεν· ἐλπὶς δὲ
βλεπομένη οὐκ ἔστιν ἐλπίς· ὃ γὰρ βλέπει τις κ.τ.λ., where it passes abruptly
from the one to the other.

I. 6]
← ἐλπίδα τὴν ἀποκειμένην ὑμῖν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ἣν προηκούσατε
ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 6 τοῦ παρόντος εἰς ὑμᾶς,
καθὼς καὶ ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστιν →

τὴν ἀποκειμένην] ‘which is stored up.’ It is the θησαυρὸς ἐν οὐρανῷ of
the Gospels (Matt. vi. 20, 21, Luke xii. 34, xviii. 22).
προηκούσατε] ‘of which ye were told in time past.’ The preposition seems
intended to contrast their earlier with their later lessons—the true Gospel of
Epaphras with the false gospel of their recent teachers (see the next note).
The expression would gain force, if we might suppose that the heretical
teachers obscured or perverted the doctrine of the resurrection (comp. 2
Tim. ii. 18); and their speculative tenets were not unlikely to lead to such a
result. But this is not necessary; for under any circumstances the false
doctrine, as leading them astray, tended to cheat them of their hope; see ver.
23. The common interpretations, which explain προ- as meaning either
‘before its fulfilment’ or ‘before my writing to you,’ seem neither so natural
in themselves nor so appropriate to the context.
τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου] ‘the truth of the Gospel,’ i.e. the true and
genuine Gospel as taught by Epaphras, and not the spurious substitute of
these later pretenders: comp. ver. 6 ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. See also Gal. ii. 5, 14,
where a similar contrast is implied in the use of ἡ ἀληθεία τοῦ εὐαγγελίου.
6. τοῦ παρόντος εἰς ὑμᾶς ‘which reached you.’ The expression παρεῖναι
εἰς is not uncommon in classical writers; comp. παρεῖναι πρὸς in Acts xii.
20, Gal. iv. 18, 20. So also εὑρεθῆναι εἰς (Acts viii. 40), γενέσθαι εἰς (e.g.
Acts xxv. 15), and even εἶναι εἰς (Luke xi. 7). See Winer § l. p. 516 sq.
ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ] For a similar hyperbole see Rom. i. 8 ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ
κόσμῳ; comp. 1 Thess. i. 8, 2 Cor. ii. 14, ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ. More lurks under
these words than appears on the surface. The true Gospel, the Apostle seems
to say, proclaims its truth by its universality. The false gospels are the
outgrowths of local circumstances, of special idiosyncrasies; the true
Gospel is the same everywhere. The false gospels address themselves to
limited circles; the true Gospel proclaims itself boldly throughout the world.

Heresies are at best ethnic: truth is essentially catholic. See ver. 23 μὴ
μετακινούμενοι ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ὁῦ ἠκούσατε, τ ο ῦ
κηρυχθέντος ἐ ν π ά σ ῃ κ τ ί σ ε ι τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν.

I. 6]
← καρποφορούμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον, καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ἀφ’ ἧς
ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐπέγνωτε τὴν χάριν τοῦ →

ἐστὶν καρποφορούμενον] ‘is constantly bearing fruit.’ The fruit, which
the Gospel bears without fail in all soils and under every climate, is its
credential, its verification, as against the pretensions of spurious
counterfeits. The substantive verb should here be taken with the participle,
so as to express continuity of present action; as in 2 Cor. ix. 12 οὐ μόνον
ἐστὶν προσαναπληροῦσα κ.τ.λ., Phil. ii. 26 ἐπιποθῶν ἦν. It is less common
in St Paul than in some of the Canonical writers, e.g. St Mark and St Luke;
but probably only because he deals less in narrative.
Of the middle καρποφορεῖσθαι no other instance has been found. The
voice is partially illustrated by κωδωνοφορεῖσθαι, σιδηροφορεῖσθαι,
τυμπανοφορεῖσθαι, though, as involving a different sense of -φορεῖσθαι ‘to
wear,’ these words are not exact parallels. Here the use of the middle is the
more marked, inasmuch as the active occurs just below (ver. 10) in the same
connexion, καρποφοροῦντες καὶ αὐξανόμενοι. This fact however points to
the force of the word here. The middle is intensive, the active extensive. The
middle denotes the inherent energy, the active the external diffusion. The
Gospel is essentially a reproductive organism, a plant whose ‘seed is in
itself.’ For this ‘dynamic’ middle see Moulton’s note on Winer § xxxviii. p.
319.
καὶ αὐξανόμενον] The Gospel is not like those plants which exhaust
themselves in bearing fruit and wither away. The external growth keeps
pace with the reproductive energy. While καρποφορούμενον describes the
inner working, αὐξανόμενον gives the outward extension of the Gospel. The
words καὶ αὐξανόμενον are not found in the received text, but the authority
in their favour is overwhelming.
καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν The comparison is thus doubled back, as it were, on
itself. This irregularity disappears in the received text, καὶ ἐστὶν
καρποφορούμενον καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, where the insertion of καὶ before
καρποφορούμενον straightens the construction. For a similar irregularity
see 1 Thess. iv. 1 παρακαλοῦμεν ἐν Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ ἵνα, καθὼς παρελάβετε

παρ’ ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀπέσκειν θεῷ, καθὼς καὶ
περιπατεῖτε, ἵνα περισσεῦητε μᾶλλον, where again the received text
simplifies the construction, though in a different way, by omitting the first
ἵνα and the words καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε. In both cases the explanation of
the irregularity is much the same; the clause reciprocating the comparison
(here καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, there καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε) is an afterthought
springing out of the Apostle’s anxiety not to withhold praise where praise
can be given.
For the appearance of καὶ in both members of the comparison, καὶ ἐν
παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ ... καθὼς καὶ, comp. Rom. i. 13 καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν καθὼς καὶ ἐν
τοῖς λοιποῖς ἕθνεσιν; and in the reversed order below, iii. 13 καθὼς καὶ ὁ
Κύριος ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν, ὅυτως καὶ ὑμεῖς (with the note): see also Winer liii.
p. 549 (ed. Moulton). The correlation of the clauses is thus rendered closer,
and the comparison emphasized.
ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐπέγνωτε] The accusative is governed by both verbs
equally, ‘Ye were instructed in and fully apprehended the grace of God.’ For
this sense of ἀκούειν see below, ver. 23. For ἐπιγινώσκειν as denoting
‘advanced knowledge, thorough appreciation,’ see the note on ἐπίγνωσις,
ver. 9.
τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ] St Paul’s synonyme for the Gospel. In Acts xx. 24
he describes it as his mission to preach τὸ εὐαγγελίοντης χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ.
The true Gospel as taught by Epaphras was an offer of free grace, a
message from God; the false gospel, as superposed by the heretical
teachers, was a code of rigorous prohibitions, a system of human devising.
It was not χάρις but δόγματα (ii. 14); not τοῦ θεοῦ but τοῦ κόσμου, τῶυ
ἀνθρώπων (ii. 8, 20, 22). For God’s power and goodness it substituted self-
mortification and self-exaltation. The Gospel is called ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ
again in 2 Cor. vi. 1, viii. 9, with reference to the same leading
characteristic which the Apostle delights to dwell upon (e.g. Rom. iii. 24, v.
15, Eph. ii. 5, 8), and which he here tacitly contrasts with the doctrine of the
later intruders. The false teachers of Colossæ, like those of Galatia, would
lead their hearers ἀθετεῖν τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ (Gal. ii. 21); to accept their
doctrine was ἐκπίπτειν τῆς χάριτος (Gal. v. 4).

I. 7, 8]
← Θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, 7καθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ Ἐπαφρᾶ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ
συνδούλου ἡμῶν, ὅς ἐστιν πιστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν διάκονος τοῦ
Χριστοῦ, 8 ὁ καὶ δηλώσας ἡμῖν τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην ἐν πνεύματι. →

ἐν ἀληθείᾳ i.e. ‘in its genuine simplicity, without adulteration’: see the
note on τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, ver. 5.
7. καθὼς ἐμάθετε] ‘even as ye were instructed in it,’ the clause being an
explanation of the preceding ἐν ἀληθείᾳ; comp. ii. 7 καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε. On
the insertion of καὶ before ἐμάθετε in the received text, and the consequent
obscuration of the sense, see above, p. 29 sq. The insertion however was
very natural, inasmuch as καθὼς καὶ is an ordinary collocation of particles
and has occurred twice in the preceding verse.
Ἐπαφρᾶ] On the notices of Epaphras, and on his work as the evangelist
of the Colossians, see above, p. 29 sq., p. 34 sq., and the note on iv. 12.
συνδούλου] See iv. 7. The word does not occur elsewhere in St Paul.
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] As the evangelist of Colossæ, Epaphras had represented St
Paul there and preached in his stead; see above, p. 30. The other reading
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν might be interpreted in two ways: either (1) It might describe the
personal ministrations of Epaphras to St Paul as the representative of the
Colossians (see a similar case in Phil. ii. 25, iv. 18), and so it might be
compared with Philem. 13 ἵνα ὑπὲρ σοῦ μοι διακονῇ; but this interpretation
is hardly consistent with τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Or (2) It might refer to the preaching
of Epaphras for the good of the Colossians; but the natural construction in
this case would hardly be ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (of which there is no direct example),
but either ὑμῶν (Rom. xv. 8) or ὑμῖν (1 Pet. i. 12). The balance of external
authority however is against it. Partly by the accidental interchange of
similar sounds, partly by the recurrence of ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν in the context (vv. 3,
9), and partly also from ignorance of the historical circumstances, ὑμῶν
would readily be substituted for ἡμῶν. See the detached note on various
readings.
8. ὁ καὶ δηλώσας] ‘As he preached to you from us, so also he brought
back to us from you the tidings, etc.’

ἐν πνεύματι] to be connected with τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην. ‘The fruit of the
Spirit is love,’ Gal. v. 22. For the omission of the article, τὴν ἐν πνεύματι,
see the note on ver. 4.

I. 9]
← 9Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς, ἀφ’ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσαμεν, οὐ παυόμεθα
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν προσευχόμενοι καὶ αἰτούμενοι ἵνα πληρωθῆτε τὴν
ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ ἐν →

9–14. ‘Hearing then that ye thus abound in works of faith and love, we
on our part have not ceased, from the day when we received the happy
tidings, to pray on your behalf. And this is the purport of our petitions; that
ye may grow more and more in knowledge, till ye attain to the perfect
understanding of God’s will, being endowed with all wisdom to apprehend
His verities and all intelligence to follow His processes, living in the mind
of the Spirit—to the end that knowledge may manifest itself in practice, that
your conduct in life may be worthy of your profession in the Lord, so as in
all ways to win for you the gracious favour of God your King. Thus, while
ye bear fruit in every good work, ye will also grow as the tree grows, being
watered and refreshed by this knowledge, as by the dew of heaven: thus
will ye be strengthened in all strength, according to that power which
centres in and spreads from His glorious manifestation of Himself, and
nerved to all endurance under affliction and all long-suffering under
provocation, not only without complaining, but even with joy: thus finally
(for this is the crown of all), so rejoicing ye will pour forth your
thanksgiving to the Universal Father, who prepared and fitted us all—you
and us alike—to take possession of the portion which His goodness has
allotted to us among the saints in the kingdom of light. Yea, by a strong arm
He rescued us from the lawless tyranny of Darkness, removed us from the
land of our bondage, and settled us as free citizens in our new and glorious
home, where His Son, the offspring and the representative of His love, is
King; even the same, who paid our ransom and thus procured our
redemption from captivity—our redemption, which (be assured) is nothing
else than the remission of our sins.’
9. Διὰ τοῦτο] ‘for this cause,’ i.e. ‘by reason of your progressive faith and
love,’ referring not solely to ὁ καὶ δηλώσας κ.τ.λ. but to the whole of the
preceding description. For διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς in an exactly similar

connexion, see 1 Thess. ii. 13; comp. Ephes. i. 15 διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ κ.τ.λ. In
all these cases the καὶ denotes the response of the Apostle’s personal feeling
to the favourable character of the news; ‘we on our part.’ This idea of
correspondence is still further emphasized by the repetition of the same
words: καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἀφ’ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε (ver. 6), καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφ’ ἧς
ἡμέρας ἠκούσαμεν (ver. 9).
καὶ αἰτούμενοι] The words have an exact parallel in Mark xi. 24 (as
correctly read) πάντα ὅσα προσεύχεσθε καὶ αἰτεῖσθε.
ἵνα] With words like προσεύχεσθαι, αἰτεῖσθαι, etc., the earlier and
stronger force of ἵνα, implying design, glides imperceptibly into its later
and weaker use, signifying merely purport or result, so that the two are
hardly separable, unless one or other is directly indicated by something in
the context. See the notes on Phil. i. 9, and comp. Winer § xliv. p. 420 sq.
τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν] A favourite word in the later epistles of St Paul; see the
note on Phil. i. 9. In all the four epistles of the first Roman captivity it is an
element in the Apostle’s opening prayer for his correspondents’ well-being
(Phil. i. 9, Ephes. i. 17, Philem. 6, and here). The greater stress which is
thus laid on the contemplative aspects of the Gospel may be explained
partly by St Paul’s personal circumstances, partly by the requirements of the
Church. His enforced retirement and comparative leisure would lead his
own thoughts in this direction, while at the same time the fresh dangers
threatening the truth from the side of mystic speculation required to be
confronted by an exposition of the Gospel from a corresponding point of
view.
The compound ἐπίγνωσις is an advance upon γνῶσις, denoting a larger
and more thorough knowledge. So Chrysostom here, ἔγνωτε, ἀλλὰ δεῖ τι
καὶ ἐπιγνῶναι. Comp. Justin Mart. Dial. 3. p. 221 A, ἡ παρέχουσα αὐτῶν
τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων καὶ τῶν θείων γ ν ῶ σ ι ν , ἔπειτα τῆς τούτων θειότητος
καὶ δικαιοσύνης ἐ π ί γ ν ω σ ι ν . So too St Paul himself contrasts
γινώσκειν, γνῶσις, with ἐπιγινώσκειν, ἐπίγνωσις, as the partial with the
complete, in two passages, Rom. i. 21, 38, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. With this last
passage (ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι) compare Clem.
Alex. Strom. i. 17, p. 369, παρὰ τῶν Ἑβραϊκῶν προφητῶν μ έ ρ η τῆς
ἀληθείας οὐ κατ’ ἐ π ί γ ν ω σ ι ν λαβόντες, where κατ’ ἐπίγνωσιν is
commonly but wrongly translated ‘without proper recognition’ (comp.
Tatian ad Græc. 40). Hence also ἐπίγνωσις is used especially of the
knowledge of God and of Christ, as being the perfection of knowledge: e.g.

Prov. ii. 5, Hos. iv. 1, vi. 6, Ephes. i. 17, iv. 13, 2 Pet. i. 2, 8, ii. 20, Clem.
Alex. Pæd. ii. 1, p. 173.

I. 10]
← πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ συνέσει πνευματικῇ, 10περιπατῆσαι ἀξίως τοῦ
Κυρίου εἰς πᾶσαν ἀρέσκειαν· ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ →

σοφίᾳ καὶ συνέσει] ‘wisdom and intelligence.’ The two words are
frequently found together: e.g. Exod. xxxi. 3, Deut. iv. 6, 1 Chron. xxii. 12,
2 Chron. i. 10 sq., Is. xi. 2, xxix. 14, Dan. ii. 20, Baruch iii. 23, 1 Cor. i. 19,
Clem. Rom. 32. So too σοφοὶ καὶ συνετοί, Prov. xvi. 21, Matt. xi. 25, and
elsewhere. In the parallel passage, Eph. i. 8, the words are ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ
καὶ φρονήσει, and the substitution of φρόνησις for σύνεσις there is
instructive. The three words are mentioned together, Arist. Eth. Nic. i. 13, as
constituting the intellectual (διανοητικαὶ) virtues. Σοφία is mental
excellence in its highest and fullest sense; Arist. Eth. Nic. vi. 7 ἡ
ἀκριβεστάτη τῶν ἐπιστημῶν ... ὥσπερ κεφαλὴν ἔχουσα ἐπιστήμη τῶν
τιμιωτάτων (see Waitz on Arist. Organ. II. p. 295 sq.), Cicero de Off. i. 43
‘princeps omnium virtutum,’ Clem. Alex. Pæd. ii. 2, p. 181, τελεία ...
ἐμπεριλαβοῦσα τὰ ὅλα. The Stoic definition of σοφία, as ἐπιστήμη θείων
καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων καὶ τῶν τούτων αἰτιῶν, is repeated by various writers: e.g.
Cic. de Off. ii. 5, Philo. Congr. erud. grat. 14, p. 530, [Joseph.] Macc. 2,
Clem. Alex. Pæd. ii. 2, p. 181, Strom. i. 5, p. 333, Aristob. in Eus. Præp. Ev.
xiii. 12 p. 667). And the glorification of σοφία by heathen writers was even
surpassed by its apotheosis in the Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon.
While σοφία ‘wisdom’ is thus primary and absolute (Eth. Nic. vi. 7 μὴ
μόνον τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἀρχῶν εἰδέναι ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς ἀληθεύειν), both
σύνεσις ‘intelligence’ and φρόνησις ‘prudence’ are derivative and special
(Eth. Nic. vi. 12 τῶν ἐσχάτων καὶ τῶν καθ’ ἕκαστον). They are both
applications of σοφία to details, but they work on different lines; for, while
σύνεσις is critical, φρόνησις is practical; while σύνεσις apprehends the
bearings of things, φρόνησις suggests lines of action: see Arist. Eth. Nic. vi.
11 ἡ μὲν γὰρ φρόνησις ἐπιτακτική ἐστιν ... ἡ δὲ σύνεσις κριτική. For
σύνεσις see 2 Tim. ii. 7 ν ό ε ι ὃ λέγω, δώσει γάρ σοι ὁ Κύριος σ ύ ν ε σ ι ν
ἐν πᾶσιν. This relation of σοφία to σύνεσις explains why in almost every
case σοφία (σοφός) precedes σύνεσις (συνετός), where they are found
together, and also why in Baruch iii. 23 οἱ ἐκζητηταὶ τῆς συνέσεως, ὁδὸν δὲ

σοφίας οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, we find σύνεσις implying a tentative, partial,
approach to σοφία. The relation of σοφία to φρόνησις will be considered
more at length in the note on the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 8.
πνευματικῇ] The word is emphatic from its position. The false teachers
also offered a σοφία, but it had only a show of wisdom (ii. 23); it was an
empty counterfeit calling itself philosophy (ii. 8); it was the offspring of
vanity nurtured by the mind of the flesh (ii. 18). See 2 Cor. i. 12 οὐκ ἐν
σοφίᾳ σαρκικῇ, where a similar contrast is implied, and 1 Cor. i. 20, ii. 5, 6,
13, iii. 19, where it is directly expressed by σοφία τοῦ κόσμου, σοφία
ἀνθρώπων, σοφία τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, ἀνθρωπίνη σοφία, etc.
10. περιπατῆσαι ἀξίως κ.τ.λ.] So 1 Thess. ii. 12, Ephes. iv. i; comp. Phil.
i. 27. The infinitive here denotes the consequence (not necessarily the
purpose) of the spiritual enlightenment described in ἵνα πληρωθῆτε κ.τ.λ.;
see Winer § xliv. p. 399 sq. With the received text τ ο ῦ περιπατῆσαι ὑμᾶς
ἀξίως κ.τ.λ. the connexion might be doubtful; but this reading is condemned
by external evidence. The emphasis of the sentence would be marred by the
insertion of ὑμᾶς. The end of all knowledge, the Apostle would say, is
conduct.
τοῦ Κυρίου] i.e. ‘of Christ.’ In 1 Thess. ii. 12 indeed we have περιπατεῖν
ἀξίως τοῦ Θεοῦ; but St Paul’s common, and apparently universal, usage
requires us to understand ὁ Κύριος of Christ.
ἀρέσκειαν] i.e. ‘to please God in all ways’; comp. 1 Thess. iv. 1 πῶς δεῖ
ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν καὶ αρέσκειν Θεῷ. As this word was commonly used to
describe the proper attitude of men towards God, the addition of τοῦ Θεοῦ
would not be necessary: Philo Quis rer. div. her. 24 (I. p. 490) ὡς
ἀποδεχομένου (τοῦ Θεοὖ τὰς ψυχῆς ἑκουσίου ἀρεσκείας, de Abrah. 25 (II.
p. 20) τὰς πρὸς ἀρέσκειαν ὁρμάς, de Vict. Off. 8 (II. p. 257) διὰ πασῶν ἰέναι
τῶν εἰς ἀρέσκειαν ὁδῶν, with other passages quoted by Loesner. Otherwise
it is used especially of ingratiating oneself with a sovereign or potentate,
e.g. Polyb. vi. 2. 12; and perhaps in the higher connexion, in which it occurs
in the text, the idea of a king is still prominent, as e.g. Philo de Mund. Op.
50 (I. p. 34) πάντα καὶ λέγειν καὶ πράττειν ἐσπούδαζεν εἰς ἀρέσκειαν τοῦ
πατρὸς καὶ βασιλέως. Towards men this complaisance is always dangerous
and most commonly vicious; hence ἀρέσκεια is a bad quality in Aristotle [?]
(Eth. Eud. ii. 3 τὸ λίαν πρὸς ἡδονήν) as also in Theophrastus (Char. 5 οὐκ
ἐπὶ τῷ βελτίστῳ ἡδονῆς παρασκευαστική), but towards the King of kings
no obsequiousness can be excessive. The ἀρέσκεια of Aristotle and

Theophrastus presents the same moral contrast to the ἀρέσκεια here, as
ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν to Θεῷ ἀρέσκειν in such passages as 1 Thess. ii. 4,
Gal. i. 10. Opposed to the ἀρέσκεια commended here is ἀνθρωπαρέσκεια
condemned below, iii. 22.
ἐν παντὶ κ.τ.λ.] i.e. ‘not only showing the fruits of your faith before men
(Matt. vii. 16), but yourselves growing meanwhile in moral stature (Eph. iv.
13).’

I. 11]
← ἀγαθῷ καρποφοροῦντες καὶ αὐξανόμενοι τῇ ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ
Θεοῦ· 11ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει δυναμούμενοι κατὰ τὸ →

τῇ ἐπιγνώσει] ‘by the knowledge.’ The other readings, ἐν τῇ ἐπιγνώσει,
εἰς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν, are unsuccessful attempts to define the construction. The
simple instrumental dative represents the knowledge of God as the dew or
the rain which nurtures the growth of the plant; Deut. xxxii. 2, Hos. xiv. 5.
11. δυναμούμενοι] A word found more than once in the Greek versions of
the Old Testament, Ps. lxvii (lxviii). 29 (LXX), Eccles. x. 10 (LXX), Dan. ix.
27 (Theod.), Ps. lxiv (lxv). 4 (Aq.), Job xxxvi. 9 (Aq.), but not occurring
elsewhere in the New Testament, except in Heb. xi. 34 and as a various
reading in Ephes. vi. 10. The compound ἐνδυναμοῦν however appears
several times in St Paul and elsewhere.
κατὰ τὸ κράτος] The power communicated to the faithful corresponds to,
and is a function of, the Divine might whence it comes. Unlike δύναμις or
ἰσχὺς, the word κράτος in the New Testament is applied solely to God.

I. 12]
← κράτος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ εἰς πᾶσαν ὑπομονὴν καὶ μακροθυμίαν
μετὰ χαρᾶς· 12 εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ πατρὶ τῷ ἱκανώσαντι →

12 τῷ ἱκανώσαντι ὑ μ ᾶ ς .

τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ] The ‘glory’ here, as frequently, stands for the majesty
or the power or the goodness of God, as manifested to men; e.g. Eph. i. 6,
12, 17, iii. 16; comp. ver. 27, below. The δόξα, the bright light over the
mercy-seat (Rom. ix. 4), was a symbol of such manifestations. God’s
revelation of Himself to us, however this revelation may be made, is the one
source of all our highest strength (κατὰ τὸ κράτος κ.τ.λ.).
ὑπομονὴν καὶ μακροθυμίαν] ‘endurance and long-suffering.’ The two
words occur in the same context in 2 Cor. vi. 4, 6, 2 Tim. iii. 10, James v.
10, 11, Clem. Rom. 58, Ign. Ephes. 3. They are distinguished in Trench
Synon. § liii. p. 184 sq. The difference of meaning is best seen in their
opposites. While ὑπομονὴ is the temper which does not easily succumb
under suffering, μακροθυμία is the self-restraint which does not hastily
retaliate a wrong. The one is opposed to cowardice or despondency, the
other to wrath or revenge (Prov. xv. 18, xvi. 32; see also the note on iii. 12).
While ὑπομονὴ is closely allied to hope (1 Thess. i. 3), μακροθυμία is
commonly connected with mercy (e.g. Exod. xxxiv. 6). This distinction
however, though it applies generally, is not true without exception. Thus in
Is. lvii. 15 μακροθυμία is opposed to ὀλιγοψυχία, where we should rather
have expected ὑπομονή; and μακροθυμεῖν is used similarly in James v. 7.
μετὰ χαρᾶς] So James i. 2, 3, πᾶσαν χ α ρ ὰ ν ἡγήσασθε ... ὅταν
πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις, γινώσκοντες ὅτι τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς
πίστεως κατεργάζεται ὑπομονέν κ.τ.λ.: comp. 1 Pet. iv. 13, and see below i.
24. This parallel points to the proper connexion of μετὰ χαρᾶς, which
should be attached to the preceding words. On the other hand some would
connect it with εὐχαριστοῦντες for the sake of preserving the balance of the
three clauses, ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ καρποφοροῦντες, ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει
δυναμούμενοι, μετὰ χαρᾶς εὐχαριστοῦντες; and this seems to be favoured
by Phil. i. 4 μετὰ χαρᾶς τὴν δέησιν ποιούμενος: but when it is so connected,

the emphatic position of μετὰ χαρᾶς cannot be explained; nor indeed would
these words be needed at all, for εὐχαριστία is in itself an act of rejoicing.
12. εὐχαριστοῦντες] most naturally coordinated with the preceding
participles and referred to the Colossians. The duty of thanksgiving is more
than once enforced upon them below, ii. 7, iii. 17, iv. 2; comp. 1 Thess. v.
18. On the other hand the first person ἡμᾶς, which follows, has led others to
connect εὐχαριστοῦντες with the primary verb of the sentence, οὐ παυόμεθα
ver. 9. But the sudden transition from the second to the first person is quite
after St Paul’s manner (see the note on ii. 13, 14, συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς ...
χαρισάμενος ἡμῖν), and cannot create any difficulty.
τῷ ἱκανώσαντι] ‘who made us competent’; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 6. On the
various readings see the detached note.

I. 13]
← ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν μερίδα τοῦ κλήρου τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ φωτί· 13ὃς
ἐρύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ →

τὴν μερίδα τοῦ κλήρου] ‘the parcel of the lot,’ ‘the portion which consists
in the lot,’ τοῦ κλήρου being the genitive of apposition: see Winer § lix. p.
666 sq., and comp. Ps. xv (xvi). 5 Κύριος μερὶς τῆς κληρονομίας μου. In
Acts viii. 21 μερὶς and κλῆρος are coordinated; in Gen. xxxi. 14, Num.
xviii. 20, Is. lvii. 6, μερὶς and κληρονομία. The inheritance of Canaan, the
allotment of the promised land, here presents an analogy to, and supplies a
metaphor for, the higher hopes of the new dispensation, as in Heb. iii. 7-iv.
11. See also below, iii. 24 τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν τῆς κληρονομίας, and Ephes. i.
18. St Chrysostom writes, διὰ τί κ λ ῆ ρ ο ν καλεῖ· δεικνὺς ὅτι οὐδὲις ἀπὸ
κατορθωμάτων οἰκείων βασιλείας τυγχάνει, referring to Luke xvii. 10. It is
not won by us, but allotted to us.
ἐν τῷ φωτί] best taken with the expression τὴν μερίδα κ.τ.λ. For the
omission of the definite article, [τὴν] ἐν τῷ φωτὶ, see above, vv. 2, 4, 8. The
portion of the saints is situated in the kingdom of light. For the whole
context compare St Paul’s narrative in Acts xxvi. 18 τοῦ ἐπιστρέψαι ἀ π ὸ
σ κ ό τ ο υ ς ε ἰ ς φ ῶ ς καὶ τ ῆ ς ἐ ξ ο υ σ ί α ς τοῦ Σατανᾶ ἐπὶ τὸν Θεόν,
τοῦ λαβεῖν αὐτοὺς ἄ φ ε σ ι ν ἁ μ α ρ τ ι ῶ ν καὶ κ λ ῆ ρ ο ν ἐ ν τ ο ῖ ς
ἡ γ ι α σ μ έ ν ο ι ς , where all the ideas and many of the expressions recur.
See also Acts xx. 32, in another of St Paul’s later speeches. As a classical
parallel, Plato Resp. vii. p. 518 A, ἔκ τε φωτὸς εἰς σκότος μεθισταμένων καὶ
ἐκ σκότους εἰς φῶς, is quoted.
13. ‘We were slaves in the land of darkness. God rescued us from this
thraldom. He transplanted us thence, and settled us as free colonists and
citizens in the kingdom of His Son, in the realms of light.’
ἐρύσατο] ‘rescued, delivered us’ by His strong arm, as a mighty
conqueror: comp. ii. 15 θριαμβεύσας. On the form ἐρύσατο see A.
Buttmann, p. 29: comp. Clem. Rom. 55, and see the note on ἐξερίζωσεν, ib.
6.
ἐξουσίας] here ‘arbitrary power, tyranny.’ The word ἐξουσία properly
signifies ‘liberty of action’ (ἔξεστι), and thence, like the corresponding

English word ‘license,’ invokes two secondary ideas, of which either may
be so prominent as to eclipse the other; (1) ‘authority,’ ‘delegated power’
(e.g. Luke xx. 2); or (2) ‘tyranny,’ ‘lawlessness,’ ‘unrestrained or arbitrary
power.’ For this second sense comp. e.g. Demosth. F.L. p. 428 τὴν ἄγαν
ταύτην ἐξουσίαν, Xenoph. Hiero 5 τῆς εἰς τὸ παρὸν ἐξουσίας ἕνεκα
(speaking of tyrants), Plut. Vit. Eum. 13 ἀνάγωγοι ταῖς ἐξουσίαις καὶ
μαλακοὶ ταῖς διαίταις, Vit. Alex. 33 τὴν ἐξουσίαν καὶ τὸν ὄγκον τῆς
Ἀλεξάνδρου δυνάμεως, Herodian ii. 4 καθαίρεσιν τῆς ἀνέτου ἐξουσίας.
This latter idea of a capricious unruly rule is prominent here. The
expression ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους occurs also in Luke xxii. 53, where again
the idea of disorder is involved. The transference from darkness to light is
here represented as a transference from an arbitrary tyranny, an ἐξουσία, to
a well-ordered sovereignty, a βασιλεία. This seems also to be St
Chrysostom’s idea; for he explains τῆς ἐξουσίας by τῆς τυραννίδος, adding
χαλεπὸν καὶ τὸ ἀπλῶς εἶναι ὑπὸ τῷ διαβόλῳ· τὸ δὲ καὶ μετ’ ἐξουσίας, τοῦτο
χαλεπώτερον.
μετέστησεν] ‘removed,’ when they were baptized, when they accepted
Christ. The image of μετέστησεν is supplied by the wholesale transportation
of peoples (ἀναστάτους or ἀνασπάστους ποιεῖν), of which the history of
oriental monarchies supplied so many examples. See Joseph. Ant. ix. 11. 1
τοὺς οἰκήτορας αἰχμαλωτίσας μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν αὐτοῦ βασιλείαν,
speaking of Tiglath-Pileser and the Transjordanic tribes.

I. 13]
← σκότους, καὶ μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς →

τοῦ υἱοῦ] Not of inferior angels, as the false teachers would have it (ii.
18), but of His own Son. The same contrast between a dispensation of
angels and a dispensation of the Son underlies the words here, which is
explicitly brought out in Heb. i. 1-ii. 8; see especially i. 2 ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν
υἱῷ, compared with ii. 5 οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλοις ὑπέταξεν τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν
μέλλουσαν. Severianus has rightly caught the idea underlying τοῦ υἱοῦ
here; ὑπὸ τὸν κληρονόμον ἐσμέν, οὐχ ὑπὸ τοὺς οἰκέτας.
τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ] ‘of His love.’ As love is the essence of the Father (1
Joh. iv. 8, 16), so is it also of the Son. The mission of the Son is the
revelation of the Father’s love; for as He is the μονογενής, the Father’s love
is perfectly represented in Him (see 1 Joh. iv. 9). St Augustine has rightly
interpreted St Paul’s words here, de Trin. XV. 19 (VIII. p. 993) ‘Caritas
quippe Patris ... nihil est quam ejus ipsa natura atque substantia ... ac per
hoc filius caritatis ejus nullus est alius quam qui de ejus substantia est
genitus.’ Thus these words are intimately connected with the expressions
which follow, εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου (ver. 15), and ἐν αὐτῷ
εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι (ver. 19). The loose interpretation,
which makes τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης equivalent to τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου,
destroys the whole force of the expression.
In the preceding verses we have a striking illustration of St Paul’s
teaching in two important respects. First. The reign of Christ has already
begun. His kingdom is a present kingdom. Whatever therefore is essential
in the kingdom of Christ must be capable of realisation now. There may be
some exceptional manifestation in the world to come, but this cannot alter
its inherent character. In other words the sovereignty of Christ is essentially
a moral and spiritual sovereignty, which has begun now and will only be
perfected hereafter. Secondly. Corresponding to this, and equally
significant, is his language in speaking of individual Christians. He regards
them as already rescued from the power of darkness, as already put in
possession of their inheritance as saints. They are potentially saved, because
the knowledge of God is itself salvation, and this knowledge is within their

reach. Such is St Paul’s constant mode of speaking. He uses the language
not of exclusion, but of comprehension. He prefers to dwell on their
potential advantages, rather than on their actual attainments. He hopes to
make them saints by dwelling on their calling as saints. See especially
Ephes. ii. 6 συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ
Ἰησοῦ κ.τ.λ.

I. 14]
← ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ, 14ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν
ἁμαρτιῶν· →

14 ἐν ᾧ ἔ σ χ ο μ ε ν .

14. ἔχομεν] For the reading ἔσχομεν, which is possibly correct here, and
which carries out the idea enforced in the last note, see the detached note on
the various readings. In the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 7, there is the same
variation of reading.
τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν] ‘ransom, redemption.’ The image of a captive and
enslaved people is still continued: Philo Omn. prob. lib. 17 (II. p. 463)
αἰχμάλωτος ἀπήχθη ... ἀπογνοὺς ἀπολύτρωσιν, Plut. Vit. Pomp. 24 πόλεων
αἰχμαλώτων ἀπολυτρώσεις. The metaphor however has changed from the
victor who rescues the captive by force of arms (ver. 13 ἐρύσατο) to the
philanthropist who releases him by the payment of a ransom. The clause
which follows in the received text, διὰ τοῦ ἁίματος αὐτοῦ, is interpolated
from the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 7.
τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν] So in the parallel passage Ephes. i. 7 the
Apostle defines τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν as τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωμάτων. May
not this studied precision point to some false conception of ἀπολύτρωσις
put forward by the heretical teachers? Later Gnostics certainly perverted the
meaning of the term, applying it to their own formularies of initiation. This
is related of the Marcosians by Irenæus i. 13. 6 διὰ τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν
ἀκρατήτους καὶ ἀοράτους γίνεσθαι τῷ κριτῇ κ.τ.λ., i. 21. 1 ὅσοι γάρ εἰσι
ταύτης τῆς γνώμης μυσταγωγοί, τοσαῦται καὶ ἀπολυτρώσεις, ib. § 4 εἶναι
δὲ τελείαν ἀπολύτρωσιν αὐτὴν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ ἀρρήτου μεγέθους (with
the whole context), and Hippolytus Hær. vi. 41 λέγουσί τι φωνῇ ἀρρήτῳ,
ἐπιτιθέντες χεῖρα τῷ τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν λαβόντι κ.τ.λ. (comp. ix. 13). In
support of their nomenclature they perverted such passages as the text, Iren.
i. 21. 2 τὸν Παῦλον ῥητῶς φάσκουσι τὴν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἀπολύτρωσιν
πολλάκις μεμηνυκέναι. It seems not improbable that the
communication of similar mystical secrets, perhaps connected with their
angelology (ii. 18), was put forward by these Colossian false teachers as an

ἀπολύτρωσις. Compare the words in the baptismal formula of the
Marcosians as given in Iren. i. 21. 3 (comp. Theodt. Hær. Fab. i. 9) εἰς
ἕνωσιν καὶ ἀπολύτρωσιν καὶ κοινωνίαν τῶν δυνάμεων, where the last words
(which have been differently interpreted) must surely mean ‘communion
with the (spiritual) powers.’ Thus it is a parallel to εἰς λύτρωσιν ἀγγελικήν,
which appears in an alternative formula of these heretics given likewise by
Irenæus in the context; for this latter is explained in Clem. Alex. Exc.
Theod. p. 974, εἰς λύτρωσιν ἀγγελικήν, τουτέστιν, ἣν καὶ ἄγγελοι ἔχουσιν.
Any direct historical connexion between the Colossian heretics and these
later Gnostics of the Valentinian school is very improbable; but the passages
quoted will serve to show how a false idea of ἀπολύτρωσις would naturally
be associated with an esoteric doctrine of angelic powers. See the note on i.
28 ἵνα παραστήσωμεν πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον.

I. 15]
← 15ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος →

15 sq. In the passage which follows St Paul defines the Person of Christ,
claiming for Him the absolute supremacy,
(1) In relation to the Universe, the Natural Creation (vv. 15–17);
(2) In relation to the Church, the new Moral Creation (ver. 18);
and he then combines the two, ἵνα γένηται ἐ ν π ᾶ σ ι ν αὐτὸς
πρωτεύων, explaining this twofold sovereignty by the absolute indwelling
of the pleroma in Christ, and showing how, as a consequence, the
reconciliation and harmony of all things must be effected in Him (vv. 19,
20).
As the idea of the Logos underlies the whole of this passage, though the
term itself does not appear, a few words explanatory of this term will be
necessary by way of preface. The word λόγος then, denoting both ‘reason’
and ‘speech,’ was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism
before St Paul wrote, to express the manifestation of the Unseen God, the
Absolute Being, in the creation and government of the World. It included all
modes by which God makes himself known to man. As His reason, it
denoted His purpose or design; as His speech, it implied His revelation.
Whether this λόγος was conceived merely as the divine energy personified,
or whether the conception took a more concrete form, I need not stop now
to enquire. A fuller account of the matter will be found in the dissertation at
the end of this volume. It is sufficient for the understanding of what follows
to say that Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and
fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1) ‘The
Word is a Divine Person,’ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος;
and (2) ‘The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ,’ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο.
It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the
significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the
λόγος; and that therefore their use in Alexandrian writers, such as Philo,
cannot be taken to define, though it may be brought to illustrate, their
meaning in St Paul and St John. With these cautions the Alexandrian

phraseology, as a providential preparation for the teaching of the Gospel,
will afford important aid in the understanding of the Apostolic writings.
15–17. ‘He is the perfect image, the visible representation, of the unseen
God. He is the Firstborn, the absolute Heir of the Father, begotten before
the ages; the Lord of the Universe by virtue of primogeniture, and by virtue
also of creative agency. For in and through Him the whole world was
created, things in heaven and things on earth, things visible to the outward
eye and things cognisable by the inward perception. His supremacy is
absolute and universal. All powers in heaven and earth are subject to Him.
This subjection extends even to the most exalted and most potent of angelic
beings, whether they be called Thrones or Dominations or Princedoms or
Powers, or whatever title of dignity men may confer upon them. Yes: He is
first and He is last. Through Him, as the mediatorial Word, the universe has
been created; and unto Him, as the final goal, it is tending. In Him is no
before or after. He is pre-existent and self-existent before all the worlds.
And in Him, as the binding and sustaining power, universal nature coheres
and consists.’
15. ὅς ἐστιν κ.τ.λ.] The Person of Christ is described first in relation more
especially to Deity, as εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, and secondly in
relation more especially to created things, as πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως.
The fundamental conception of the Logos involves the idea of mediation
between God and creation. A perverted view respecting the nature of the
mediation between the two lay, as we have seen, at the root of the heretical
teaching at Colossæ (p. 34, p. 101 sq., p. 181 sq.), and required to be met by
the true doctrine of Christ as the Eternal Logos.
εἰκών] ‘the image.’ This expression is used repeatedly by Philo, as a
description of the Logos; de Mund. Op. 8 (I. p. 6) τὸν ἀόρατον καὶ νοητὸν
θεῖον λόγον εἰκόνα λέγει Θεοῦ, de Confus. ling. 20 (I. p. 419) τὴν εἰκόνα
αὐτοῦ, τὸν ἱερώτατον λόγον, ib. § 28 (I. p. 427) τῆς ἀϊδίου εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ
λόγου τοῦ ἱερωτάτου κ.τ.λ., de Profug. 19 (I. p. 561) ὁ ὑπεράνω τούτων
λόγος θεῖος ... αὐτὸς εἰκὼν ὑπάρχων Θεοῦ, de Monarch. ii. 5 (II. p. 225)
λόγος δέ ἐστιν εἰκὼν Θεοῦ δι’ ὁῦ σύμπας ὁ κόσμος ἐδημιουργεῖτο, de
Somn. i. 41 (I. p. 656), etc. For the use which Philo made of the text Gen. i.
26, 27, κατ’ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν, κατ’ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ, see the note on iii. 10. Still
earlier than Philo, before the idea of the λόγος had assumed such a definite
form, the term was used of the Divine σοφία personified in Wisd. vii. 26
ἀπαύγασμα γάρ ἐστι φωτὸς ἀϊδίου ... καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ. St

Paul himself applies the term to our Lord in an earlier epistle, 2 Cor. iv. 4
τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ (comp. iii. 18 τὴν
αὐτὴνεἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα). Closely allied to εὶκὼν also is χαρακτήρ,
which appears in the same connexion in Heb. i. 3 ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης
καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, a passage illustrated by Philo de
Plant. 5 (I. p. 332) σφραγῖδι Θεοῦ ἧς ὁ χαρακτήρ ἐστιν ἀΐδιος λόγος. See
also Phil. ii. 6 ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων.
Beyond the very obvious notion of likeness, the word εἰκών involves two
other ideas;
(1) Representation. In this respect it is allied to χαρακτήρ, and differs
from (ομοίωμα. In ὁμοίωμα the resemblance may be accidental, as one egg
is like another; but εἱκών implies an archetype of which it is a copy, as
Greg. Naz. Orat. 30 (I. p. 554) says ἅυτη γὰρ εἰκόνος φύσις μ ί μ η μ α
εἶναι τοῦ ἀ ρ χ ε τ ύ π ο υ . So too Io. Damasc. de Imag. i. 9 (I. p. 311) εἰκών
ἐστιν ὁμοίωμα χ α ρ α κ τ η ρ ί ζ ο ν τὸ π ρ ω τ ό τ υ π ο ν ; comp. Philo de
Mund. Op. 23 (I. p. 16). On this difference see Trench N. T. Synon. § xv. p.
47. The εἰκὼν might be the result of direct imitation (μιμητική) like the
head of a sovereign on a coin, or it might be due to natural causes (φυσική)
like the parental features in the child, but in any case it was derived from its
prototype: see Basil. de Spir. Sanct. 18 § 45 (III. p. 38). The word itself
however does not necessarily imply perfect representation. Thus man is said
to be the image of God; 1 Cor. xi. 7 εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, Clem.
Rom. 33 ἄνθρωπον ... τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα. Thus again an early
Judæo-Christian writer so designates the duly appointed bishop, as the
representative of the divine authority; Clem. Hom. iii. 62 ὡς εἰκόνα Θεοῦ
προτιμῶντας. The idea of perfection does not lie in the word itself, but must
be sought from the context (e.g. πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα ver. 19). The use which
was made of this expression, and especially of this passage, in the
Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries may be seen
from the patristic quotations in Petav. Theol. Dogm. de Trin. ii. 11. 9 sq., vi.
5. 6.
(2) Manifestation. This idea comes from the implied contrast to τοῦ
ἀ ο ρ ά τ ο υ Θεοῦ. St Chrysostom indeed maintains the direct opposite,
arguing that, as the archetype is invisible, so the image must be invisible
also, ἡ τοῦ ἀοράτου εἰκὼν καὶ αὐτὴ ἀόρατος καὶ ὁμοίως ἀόρατος. So too
Hilary c. Const. Imp. 21 (II. p. 378) ‘ut imago invisibilis Dei, etiam per id
quod ipse invisibilis est, invisibilis Dei imago esset.’ And this was the view

of the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers generally. But the underlying idea of
the εἰκών, and indeed of the λόγος generally, is the manifestation of the
hidden: comp. Philo de Vit. Moys. ii. 12 (II. p. 144) εἰκὼν τῆς ἀοράτου
φύσεως ἐμφανής. And adopted into Christian theology, the doctrine of the
λόγος expresses this conception still more prominently by reason of the
Incarnation; comp. Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 19 ‘Scientes filium semper retro
visum, si quibus visus est in Dei nomine, ut imaginem ipsius,’ Hippol. c.
Noet. 7 διὰ γὰρ τῆς εἰκόνος ὁμοίας τυγχανούσης ε ὔ γ ν ω σ τ ο ς ὁ πατὴρ
γίνεται, ib. § 12, 13, Orig. in Ioann. vi. § 2 (IV. p. 104). Among the post-
Nicene fathers too St Basil has caught the right idea, Epist. xxxviii. 8 (III. p.
121) ὁ τῆς εἰκόνος κατανοήσας κάλλος ἐν περινοίᾳ τοῦ ἀρχετύπου γίνεται
... βλέπειν διὰ τούτου ἐκεῖνον ... τὸ ἀγέννητον κάλλος ἐν τῷ γεννητῷ
κατοπτεύσας. The Word, whether pre-incarnate or incarnate, is the
revelation of the unseen Father: comp. John i. 18 Θεὸν ο ὐ δ ε ὶ ς
ἑ ώ ρ α κ ε ν πώποτε· μονογενὴς Θεός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός,
ἐκεῖνος ἐ ξ η γ ή σ α τ ο , xiv. 9, 10 ὁ ἑ ω ρ ά κ ω ς ἐ μ ὲ ἑ ώ ρ α κ έ ν
τ ὸ ν π α τ έ ρ α · πῶς σὺ λέγεις, Δ ε ῖ ξ ο ν ἡμῖν τὸν πατέρα; (compared
with vi. 46 οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα ἑώρακέν τις κ.τ.λ.). The epithet ἀοράτου
however must not be confined to the apprehension of the bodily senses, but
will include the cognisance of the inward eye also.
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως] ‘the First-born of all creation.’ The word
πρωτότοκος has a twofold parentage:
(1) Like εἰκών it is closely connected with and taken from the
Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logos. The word however which Philo
applies to the λόγος is not πρωτότοκος but πρωτόγονος: de Agric. 12 (I. p.
308) προστησάμενος τὸν ὀρθὸν αὐτοῦ λόγον πρωτόγονον ὑίον, de Somn. i.
37 (I. p. 653) ὁ πρωτόγονος αὐτοῦ θεῖος λόγος, de Confus. ling. i. 28 (I. p.
427) σπουδαζέτω κοσμεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸν πρωτόγονον αὐτοῦ λόγον: comp. ib.
i. 14 (I. p. 414) τοῦτον πρεσβύτατον υἱὸν ὁ τῶν ὄντων ἀνέτειλε πατήρ, ὃν
ἑτέρωθι πρωτόγονον ὠνόμασε: and this designation πρεσβύτατος υἱὸς is
several times applied to the λόγος. Again in Quis rer. div. her. § 24 (I. p.
489) the language of Exod. xiii. 2 ἁγίασόν μοι πᾶν πρωτότοκον πρωτογενές
κ.τ.λ. is so interpreted as to apply to the Divine Word. These appellations,
‘the first-begotten, the eldest son,’ are given to the Logos by Philo, because
in his philosophy it includes the original conception, the archetypal idea, of
creation, which was afterwards realised in the material world. Among the
early Christian fathers Justin Martyr again and again recognises the

application of the term πρωτότοκος to the Word; Apol. i. 23 (p. 68) λόγος
αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχων καὶ πρωτότοκος καὶ δύναμις, ib. § 46 (p. 83) τὸν Χριστὸν
πρωτότοκον τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι ... λόγον ὄντα οὗ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων μετέσχε,
ib. § 33 (p. 75 C) τὸν λόγον ὃς καὶ πρωτότοκος τῷ Θεῷ ἐστι. So too
Theophilus ad Antol. ii. 22 τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἐγέννησεν προφορικόν,
πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως.
(2) The word πρωτότοκος had also another not less important link of
connexion with the past. The Messianic reference of Ps. lxxxix. 28, ἐγὼ
πρωτότοκον θήσομαι αὐτὸν κ.τ.λ., seems to have been generally allowed.
So at least it is interpreted by R. Nathan in Shemoth Rabba 19, fol. 118. 4,
‘God said, As I made Jacob a first-born (Exod. iv. 22), so also will I make
king Messiah a first-born (Ps. lxxxix. 28).’ Hence ‘the first-born’ ὁ
πρωτότοκος (‫)בכור‬, used absolutely, became a recognised title of Messiah.
The way had been paved for this Messianic reference of πρωτότοκος by its
prior application to the Israelites, as the prerogative race, Exod. iv. 22
‘Israel is my son, my first-born’: comp. Psalm. Salom. xviii. 4 ἡ παιδεία
σου ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς ὡς υἱὸν πρωτότοκον μονογενῆ, 4 Esdr. vi. 58 ‘nos populus
tuus, quem vocasti primogenitum, unigenitum,’ where the combination of
the two titles applied in the New Testament to the Son is striking. Here, as
elsewhere (see the note on Gal. iii. 16 καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν κ.τ.λ.), the terms
are transferred from the race to the Messiah, as the representative, the
embodiment, of the race.
As the Person of Christ was the Divine response alike to the
philosophical questionings of the Alexandrian Jew and to the patriotic
hopes of the Palestinian, these two currents of thought meet in the term
πρωτότοκος as applied to our Lord, who is both the true Logos and the true
Messiah. For this reason, we may suppose, as well as for others, the
Christian Apostles preferred πρωτότοκος to πρωτόγονος, which (as we may
infer from Philo) was the favourite term with the Alexandrians, because the
former alone would include the Messianic reference as well.
The main ideas then which the word involves are twofold; the one more
directly connected with the Alexandrian conception of the Logos, the other
more nearly allied to the Palestinian conception of the Messiah.
(1) Priority to all creation. In other words it declares the absolute pre-
existence of the Son. At first sight it might seem that Christ is here regarded
as one, though the earliest, of created things. This interpretation however is
not required by the expression itself. The fathers of the fourth century

rightly called attention to the fact that the Apostle writes not πρωτόκτιστος,
but πρωτότοκος; e.g. Basil, c. Eunom. iv (p. I. p. 292). Much earlier, in
Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. 10 (p. 970), though without any direct reference to
this passage, the μονογενὴς καὶ πρωτότοκος is contrasted with the
πρωτόκτιστοι, the highest order of angelic beings; and the word
πρωτόκτιστος occurs more than once elsewhere in his writings (e.g. Strom.
v. 14, p. 699). Nor again does the genitive case necessarily imply that the
πρωτότοκος Himself belonged to the κτίσις, as will be shown presently.
And if this sense is not required by the words themselves, it is directly
excluded by the context. It is inconsistent alike with the universal agency in
creation which is ascribed to Him in the words following, ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη
τὰ πάντα, and with the absolute pre-existence and self-existence which is
claimed for Him just below, αὐτὸς ἔστιν πρὸ πάντων. We may add also that
it is irreconcileable with other passages in the Apostolic writings, while it
contradicts the fundamental idea of the Christian consciousness. More
especially the description πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως must be interpreted in
such a way that it is not inconsistent with His other title of μονογενής,
unicus, alone of His kind and therefore distinct from created things. The
two words express the same eternal fact; but while μονογενής states it in
itself, πρωτότοκος places it in relation to the Universe. The correct
interpretation is supplied by Justin Martyr, Dial. § 100 (p. 326 D)
πρωτότοκον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων. He does not indeed
mention this passage, but it was doubtless in his mind, for he elsewhere
uses the very expression πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, Dial. § 85 (p. 311 B),
§ 138 (p. 367 D); comp. also § 84 (p. 310 B), where the words πρωτότοκος
τῶν πάντων ποιημάτων occur.
(2) Sovereignty over all creation. God’s ‘first-born’ is the natural ruler,
the acknowledged head, of God’s household. The right of primogeniture
appertains to Messiah over all created things. Thus in Ps. lxxxix. 28 after
πρωτότοκον θήσομαι αὐτὸν the explanation is added, ὑψηλὸν παρὰ τοῖς
βασιλεῦσιν τῆς γῆς, i.e. (as the original implies) ‘above all the kings of the
earth.’ In its Messianic reference this secondary idea of sovereignty
predominated in the word πρωτότοκος, so that from this point of view
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως would mean ‘Sovereign Lord over all creation
by virtue of primogeniture.’ The ἔθηκεν κληρόνομον πάντων of the
Apostolic writer (Heb. i. 2) exactly corresponds to the θήσομαι πρωτότοκον
of the Psalmist (lxxxix. 28), and doubtless was tacitly intended as a

paraphrase and application of this Messianic passage. So again in Heb. xii.
23, ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων, the most probable explanation of the word is
that which makes it equivalent to ‘heirs of the kingdom,’ all faithful
Christians being ipso facto πρωτότοκοι, because all are kings. Nay, so
completely might this idea of dominion by virtue of priority eclipse the
primary sense of the term ‘first-born’ in some of its uses, that it is given as a
title to God Himself by R. Bechai on the Pentateuch, fol. 124. 4, ‘Who is
primogenitus mundi,’ ‫שהוא בכורי של עולם‬, i.e. ὅς ἐστιν πρωτότοκος τοῦ
κόσμου, as it would be rendered in Greek. In this same work again, fol. 74.
4, Exod. xiii. 2 is falsely interpreted so that God is represented as calling
Himself ‘primogenitus’: see Schöttgen p. 922. For other instances of
secondary uses of ‫ בכור‬in the Old Testament, where the idea of ‘priority of
birth’ is over-shadowed by and lost in the idea of ‘pre-eminence,’ see Job
xviii. 13 ‘the first-born of death,’ Is. xiv. 30 ‘the first-born of the poor’.
πάσης κτίσεως ‘of all creation,’ rather than ‘of every created thing.’ The
three senses of κτίσις in the New Testament; are (1) creation, as the act of
creating, e.g. Rom. i. 20 ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου: (2) creation, as the aggregate
of created things, Mark xiii. 19 ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἣν ἔκτισεν ὁ Θεός
(where the parallel passage, Matt. xxiv. 21, has ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς κόσμου), Rom.
viii. 22 πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει: (3) a creation, a single created thing, a
creature, e.g. Rom. viii. 39 οὔτε τις κτίσις ἑτέρα, Heb. iv. 13 οὐκ ἔστιν
κτίσις ἀφανής. As κτίσις without the definite article is sometimes used of
the created world generally (e.g. Mark xiii. 19), and indeed belongs to the
category of anarthrous nouns like κόσμος, γῆ, οὐρανός, etc. (see Winer §
xix. p. 149 sq.), it is best taken so here. Indeed πάσης κτίσεως, in the sense
of πάντος κτίσματος, would be awkward in this connexion; for πρωτότοκος
seems to require either a collective noun, or a plural πασῶν τῶν κτίσεων. In
ver. 23 the case is different (see the note there). The anarthrous πᾶσα κτίσις
is found in Judith ix. 12 βασιλεῦ πασῆς κτίσεώς σου, while πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις
occurs in Judith xvi. 14, Mark xvi. 15, Rom. viii. 22, Clem. Rom. 19, Mart.
Polyc. 14. For πᾶς, signifying ‘all,’ and not ‘every,’ when attached to this
class of nouns, see Winer § xviii. p. 137.
The genitive case must be interpreted so as to include the full meaning of
πρωτότοκος, as already explained. It will therefore signify: ‘He stands in
the relation of πρωτότοκος to all creation,’ i.e. ‘He is the Firstborn, and, as
the Firstborn, the absolute Heir and sovereign Lord, of all creation.’ The
connexion is the same as in the passage of R. Bechai already quoted, where

God is called primogenitus mundi. Another explanation which would
connect the genitive with the first part of the compound alone (πρωτό-),
comparing Joh. i. 15, 30, πρῶτός μου ἦν, unduly strains the grammar, while
it excludes the idea of ‘heirship, sovereignty.’
The history of the patristic exegesis of this expression is not without a
painful interest. All the fathers of the second and third centuries without
exception, so far as I have noticed, correctly refer it to the Eternal Word and
not to the Incarnate Christ, to the Deity and not to the humanity of our Lord.
So Justin l.c., Theophilus l.c., Clement of Alexandria Exc. Theod. 7, 8, 19
(pp. 967, 973), Tertullian adv. Prax. 7, adv. Marc. v. 19, Hippolytus Hær. x.
33, Origen c. Cels. vi. 47, 63, 64, in Ioann. i. § 22 (IV. p. 21), xix. § 5 (p.
305), xxviii. § 14 (p. 392), Cyprian Test. ii. 1, Novatian de Trin. 16, and the
Synod of Antioch (Routh’s Rel. Sacr. III. pp. 290, 293). The Arian
controversy however gave a different turn to the exegesis of the passage.
The Arians fastened upon the expression πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, and
drew from it the inference that the Son was a created being. The great use
which they made of the text appears from the document in Hilary, Fragm.
Hist. Op. II. p. 644. The right answer to this false interpretation we have
already seen. Many orthodox fathers however, not satisfied with this,
transferred the expression into a new sphere, and maintained that
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως describes the Incarnate Christ. By so doing they
thought to cut up the Arian argument by the roots. As a consequence of this
interpretation, they were obliged to understand the κτίσις and the κτίζεσθαι
in the context of the new spiritual creation, the καινὴ κτίσις of 2 Cor. v. 17,
Gal. vi. 15. Thus interpreted, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως here becomes
nearly equivalent to πρωτότοκος ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς in Rom. viii. 29. The
arguments alleged in favour of this interpretation are mainly twofold: (1)
That, if applied to the Divine nature, πρωτότοκος would contradict
μονογενὴς which elsewhere describes the nature of the Eternal Son. But
those who maintained, and rightly maintained, that πρωτότοκος (Luke ii. 7)
did not necessarily imply that the Lord’s mother had other sons, ought not
to have been led away by this fallacy. (2) That πρωτότοκος in other
passages (e.g. Rom. viii. 29, Rev. i. 5, and just below, ver. 18) is applied to
the humanity of Christ. But elsewhere, in Heb. i. 6 ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ
τὸν πρωτότοκον κ.τ.λ., the term must almost necessarily refer to the pre-
existence of the Son; and moreover the very point of the Apostle’s language
in the text (as will be seen presently) is the parallelism in the two relations

of our Lord—His relation to the natural creation, as the Eternal Word, and
His relation to the spiritual creation, as the Head of the Church—so that the
same word (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως ver. 15, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν
ver. 18) is studiously used of both. A false exegesis is sure to bring a
nemesis on itself. Logical consistency required that this interpretation
should be carried farther; and Marcellus, who was never deterred by any
considerations of prudence, took this bold step. He extended the principle to
the whole context, including even εὶκὼν τοῦ ἀοράτου Θεοῦ, which likewise
he interpreted of our Lord’s humanity. In this way a most important
Christological passage was transferred into an alien sphere; and the
strongest argument against Arianism melted away in the attempt to combat
Arianism on false grounds. The criticisms of Eusebius on Marcellus are
perfectly just: Eccl. Theol. i. 20 (p. 96) ταῦτα περὶ τῆς θεότητος τοῦ υἱοῦ
τοῦ Θεοῦ, κἂν μὴ Μαρκέλλῳ δοκῇ, εἴρηται· οὐ γὰρ ἂν περὶ τῆς σαρκὸς ἂν
εἶπεν τοσαῦτα ὁ θεῖος ἀπόστολος κ.τ.λ.; comp. ib. ii. 9 (p. 67), iii. 6 sq. (p.
175), c. Marcell. i. 1 (p. 6), i. 2 (p. 12), ii. 3 (pp. 43, 46 sq., 48). The
objections to this interpretation are threefold: (1) It disregards the history of
the terms in their connexion with the pre-Christian speculations of
Alexandrian Judaism. These however, though directly or indirectly they
were present to the minds of the earlier fathers and kept them in the right
exegetical path, might very easily have escaped a writer in the fourth
century. (2) It shatters the context. To suppose that such expressions as ἐν
αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα [τὰ] ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ [[τὰ] ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, or τὰ
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ... ἔκτισται, or τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν, refer to the
work of the Incarnation, is to strain language in a way which would reduce
all theological exegesis to chaos; and yet this, as Marcellus truly saw, is a
strictly logical consequence of the interpretation which refers πρωτότοκος
πάσης κτίσεως to Christ’s humanity. (3) It takes no account of the
cosmogony and angelology of the false teachers against which the Apostle’s
exposition here is directed (see above, pp. 101 sq., 110 sq., 181 sq.). This
interpretation is given by St Athanasius c. Arian. ii. 62 sq. (I. p. 419 sq.) and
appears again in Greg. Nyss. c. Eunom. ii (II. pp. 451–453, 492), ib. iii (II. p.
540–545), de Perf. (III. p. 290 sq.), Cyril Alex. Thes. 25, p. 236 sq., de Trin.
Dial. iv. p. 517 sq., vi. p. 625 sq., Anon. Chrysost. Op. VIII. p. 223, appx.
(quoted as Chrysostom by Photius Bibl. 277). So too Cyril expresses
himself at the Council of Ephesus, Labb. Conc. III. p. 652 (ed. Colet.). St
Athanasius indeed does not confine the expression to the condescension

(συγκατάβασις) of the Word in the Incarnation, but includes also a prior
condescension in the Creation of the world (see Bull Def. Fid. Nic. iii. 9. §
1, with the remarks of Newman Select Treatises of S. Athanasius I. pp. 278,
368 sq.). This double reference however only confuses the exegesis of the
passage still further, while theologically it might lead to very serious
difficulties. In another work, Expos. Fid. 3 (I. p. 80), he seems to take a
truer view of its meaning. St Basil, who to an equally clear appreciation of
doctrine generally unites a sounder exegesis than St Athanasius, while
mentioning the interpretation which refers the expression to Christ’s human
nature, himself prefers explaining it of the Eternal Word; c. Eunom. iv (I. p.
292). Of the Greek commentators on this passage, Chrysostom’s view is not
clear; Severianus (Cram. Cat. p. 303) and Theodoret understand it rightly of
the Eternal Word; while Theodore of Mopsuestia (Cram. Cat. pp. 306, 308,
309, Rab. Maur. Op. VI. p. 511 sq. ed. Migne) expresses himself very
strongly on the opposite side. Like Marcellus, he carries the interpretation
consistently into the whole context, explaining ἐν αὐτῷ to refer not to the
original creation (κτίσις) but to the moral re-creation (ἀνάκτισις), and
referring εἰκών to the Incarnation in the same way. At a later date, when the
pressure of an immediate controversy has passed away, the Greek writers
generally concur in the earlier and truer interpretation of the expression.
Thus John Damascene (de Orthod. Fid. iv. 8, I. p. 258 sq.), Theophylact (ad
loc.), and Œcumenius (ad loc.), all explain it of Christ’s Divine Nature.
Among Latin writers, there is more diversity of interpretation. While
Marius Victorinus (adv. Arium i. 24, p. 1058, ed. Migne), Hilary of Poictiers
(Tract. in ii Ps. § 28 sq. I. p. 47 sq. de Trin. viii. 50, II. p. 248 sq.), and
Hilary the commentator (ad loc.), take it of the Divine Nature, Augustine
(Expos. ad Rom. 56, III. p. 914) and Pelagius (ad loc.) understand it of the
Incarnate Christ. This sketch of the history of the interpretation of the
expression would not be complete without a reference to another very
different explanation. Isidore of Pelusium, Epist. iii. 31 (p. 268), would
strike out a new path of interpretation altogether (εἰ καὶ δόξαιμί τισι
καινοτέραν ἑρμηνίας ἀνατέμνειν ὁδόν), and for the passive πρωτότοκος
suggests reading the active πρωτοτόκος, alluding to the use of this latter
word in Homer (Il. xvii. 5 μήτηρ πρωτοτόκος ... οὐ πρὶν εἰδυῖα τόκοιο:
comp. Plat. Theæt. 151 C ὥσπερ αἱ πρωτοτόκοι). Thus St Paul is made to
say that Christ πρῶτον τετοκέναι, τουτέστι, πεποιηκέναι τὴν κτίσιν.

I. 16]
← πάσης κτίσεως· 16 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα, [τὰ] →

16. ὅτι κ.τ.λ.] We have in this sentence the justification of the title given
to the Son in the preceding clause, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. It must
therefore be taken to explain the sense in which this title is used. Thus
connected, it shows that the πρωτότοκος Himself is not included in πᾶσα
κτίσις; for the expression used is not τὰ ἄλλα or τὰ λοιπά, but τὰ πάντα
ἐκτίσθη–words which are absolute and comprehensive, and will admit no
exception.
ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in Him,’ as below ver. 17 ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν. For the
preposition comp. Acts xvii, 28 ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καί
ἐσμεν. All the laws and purposes which guide the creation and government
of the Universe reside in Him, the Eternal Word, as their meeting-point. The
Apostolic doctrine of the Logos teaches us to regard the Eternal Word as
holding the same relation to the Universe which the Incarnate Christ holds
to the Church. He is the source of its life, the centre of all its developments,
the mainspring of all its motions. The use of ἐν to describe His relations to
the Church abounds in St Paul (e.g. Rom. viii. 1, 2, xii. 5, xvi. 3, 7, 9, etc., 1
Cor. i. 30, iv. 15, 17, vii. 39, xv. 18, 22, etc.), and more especially in the
Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians (e.g. below ii. 7, 10). In the
present passage, as in ver. 17, the same preposition is applied also to His
relations to the Universe; comp. Joh. i. 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν (more especially if
we connect the preceding ὃ γέγονεν with it).
Thus it is part of the parallelism which runs through the whole passage,
and to which the occurrence of πρωτότοκος in both relations gives the key.
The Judæo-Alexandrian teachers represented the Logos, which in their view
was nothing more than the Divine mind energizing, as the τόπος where the
eternal ideas, the νοητὸς κόσμος, had their abode; Philo de Mund. Op. 4 (I.
p. 4) ὅσαπερ ἐν ἐκείνῳ νόητα, ib. § 5 (p. 4) οὐδὲ ὁ ἐκ τῶν ἰδεῶν κόσμος
ἄλλον ἂν ἔχοι τόπον ἣ τὸν θεῖον λόγον τὸν ταῦτα διακοσμήσαντα, ib. § 10
(p. 8) ὁ ἀσώματος κόσμος ... ἱδρυθεὶς ἐν τῷ θείῳ λόγῳ; and see especially
de Migr. Abr. I. p. 437) οἶκος ἐν ᾧ διαιτᾶται ... ὅσα ἂν ἐνθυμήματα τέκη,
ὥσπερ ἐν οἴκῳ τῷ λόγῳ διαθείς. The Apostolic teaching is an enlargement

of this conception, inasmuch as the Logos is no longer a philosophical
abstraction but a Divine Person: see Hippol. Hær. x. 33 ἄιτιον τοῖς
γινομένοις Λόγος ἦν, ἐν ἑαυτῷ φέρων τὸ θέλειν τοῦ γεγεννηκότος ... ἔχει ἐν
ἑαυτῷ τὰς ἐν τῷ πατρὶ προεννοηθείσας ἰδέας ὅθεν κελεύοντος πατρὸς
γίνεσθαι κόσμον τὸ κατὰ ἒν Λόγος ἀπετελεῖτο ἀρέσκων Θεῷ: comp. Orig.
in Ioann. i. § 22, IV. p. 21.
ἐκτίσθη] The aorist is used here; the perfect below. Ἐκτίσθη describes the
definite historical act of creation; ἔκτισται the continuous and present
relations of creation to the Creator: comp. Joh. i. 3 χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐ γ έ ν ε τ ο
οὐδὲ ἔν with ib. ὃ ε γ έ ο ν ε ν , 1 Cor. ix. 22 ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἀσθένεσιν
ἀσθενής with ib. τοῖς πᾶσιν γέγονα πάντα, 2 Cor. xii. 17 μή τινα ὧν
ἀπέσταλκα with ver. 18 καὶ συναπέστειλα τὸν ἀδελφόν, 1 Joh. iv. 9 τὸν
μονογενῆ ἀ π έ σ τ α λ κ ε ν ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα ζήσωμεν δι’ αὐτοῦ
with ver. 10 ὅτι αὐτὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς καὶ ἀ π έ σ τ ε ι λ ε ν τὸν ὑιὸν αὐτοῦ.
τὰ πάντα] ‘the universe of things,’ not πάντα ‘all things severally,’ but τὰ
πάντα ‘all things collectively.’ With very few exceptions, wherever this
phrase occurs elsewhere, it stands in a similar connexion; see below, vv. 17,
20, iii. 11, Rom. xi. 36, 1 Cor. viii. 6, xi. 12, xii. 6, xv. 27, 28, 2 Cor. v. 18,
Eph. i. 10, 11, 23, iv. 10, Heb. i. 3, ii. 8, Rev. iv. 11. Compare Rom. viii. 32
τὰ πάντα ἡμῖν χαρίσεται, 2 Cor. iv. 15 τὰ πάντα δι’ ὑμᾶς, with 1 Cor. iii. 22
ἔιτε κόσμος ... ὑμῶν; and Phil. iii. 8 τὰ πάντα εζημιώθην with Matt. xvi. 26
ἐὰ τὸν κόσμον ὅλον κερδήσῃ. Thus it will appear that τὰ πάντα is nearly
equivalent to ‘the universe.’ It stands midway between πάντα and τὸ πᾶν.
The last however is not a scriptural phrase; for, while with τὰ πάντα it
involves the idea of connexion, it suggests also the unscriptural idea of self-
contained unity, the great world-soul of the Stoic pantheist.

I. 16]
← ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ [τὰ] ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τα →

ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, κ.τ.λ.] This division of the universe is not the same with
the following, as if [τὰ] ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς were equivalent to τὰ ἀόρατα and
[τὰ] ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς to τὰ ὁρατά. It should rather be compared with Gen. i. 1
ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, ii. 1 συνετελέσθησαν ὁ οὐρανὸς
καὶ ἡ γῆ καὶ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος αὐτῶν, xiv. 19 ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν
γῆν, Rev. x. 6 ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῳ καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν
αὐτῃ. It is a classification by locality, as the other is a classification by
essences. Heaven and earth together comprehend all space; and all things
whether material or immaterial are conceived for the purposes of the
classification as having their abode in space. Thus the sun and the moon
would belong to ὁρατά, but they would be ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς; while the
human soul would be classed among ἀόρατα but would be regarded as ἐπὶ
τῆς γῆς; see below ver. 20.
It is difficult to say whether τὰ ... τα should be expunged or retained. The
elements in the decision are; (1) The facility either of omission or of
addition in the first clause, owing to the termination of πάντα: (2) The much
greater authority for the omission in the first clause than in the second.
These two combined suggest that τὰ was omitted accidentally in the first
clause, and then expunged purposely in the second for the sake of
uniformity. On the other hand there is (3) The possibility of insertion in
both cases either for the sake of grammatical completeness or owing to the
parallel passages, ver. 20, Ephes. i. 10. On the whole the reasons for their
omission preponderate. At all events we can hardly retain the one without
the other.
τὰ ὀρατὰ κ.τ.λ.] ‘Things material and immaterial,’ or, according to the
language of philosophy, φαινόμενα and νούμενα: comp. Plato Phæd. 79 A
θῶμεν οὖν, εἰ βούλει, ἔφη, δύο εἴδη τῶν ὄντων, τὸ μὲν ὁρατόν, τὸ δὲ ἀειδές,
κ.τ.λ.

← ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες, εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε →

εἴτε κ.τ.λ.] ‘whether they be thrones or lordships, etc.’ The subdivision is
no longer exhaustive. The Apostle singles out those created beings that from
their superior rank had been or might be set in rivalry with the Son.
A comparison with the parallel passage Ephes. i. 21, ὑπεράνω πάσης
ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος καὶ παντὸς κ.τ.λ., brings
out the following points:
(1) No stress can be laid on the sequence of the names, as though St Paul
were enunciating with authority some precise doctrine respecting the grades
of the celestial hierarchy. The names themselves are not the same in the two
passages. While ἀρχή, ἐξουσία, κυριότης, are common to both, θρόνος is
peculiar to the one and δύναμις to the other. Nor again is there any
correspondence in the sequence. Neither does δύναμις take the place of
θρόνος, nor do the three words common to both appear in the same order,
the sequence being ἀρχ. ἐξ. [δύν.] κυρ. in Eph. i. 21, and [θρόν.] κυρ. ἀρχ.
ἐξ. here.
(2) An expression in Eph. i. 21 shows the Apostle’s motive in introducing
these lists of names: for he there adds καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένον
οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι, i.e. ‘of every dignity
or title (whether real or imaginary) which is reverenced,’ etc.; for this is the
force of παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένον (see the notes on Phil. ii. 9, and
Eph. l.c.). Hence it appears that in this catalogue St Paul does not profess to
describe objective realities, but contents himself with repeating subjective
opinions. He brushes away all these speculations without enquiring how
much or how little truth there may be in them, because they are altogether
beside the question. His language here shows the same spirit of impatience
with this elaborate angelology, as in ii. 18.
(3) Some commentators have referred the terms used here solely to
earthly potentates and dignities. There can be little doubt however that their
chief and primary reference is to the orders of the celestial hierarchy, as
conceived by these Gnostic Judaizers. This appears from the context; for the
words τὰ ἀόρατα immediately precede this list of terms, while in the

mention of πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα and in other expressions the Apostle clearly
contemplates the rivalry of spiritual powers with Christ. It is also demanded
by the whole design and purport of the letter, which is written to combat the
worship paid to angels. The names too, more especially θρόνοι, are
especially connected with the speculations of Jewish angelology. But when
this is granted, two questions still remain. First; are evil as well as good
spirits included, demons as well as angels? And next; though the primary
reference is to spiritual powers, is it not possible that the expression was
intended to be comprehensive and to include earthly dignities as well? The
clause added in the parallel passage, οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ κ.τ.λ.,
encourages us thus to extend the Apostle’s meaning; and we are led in the
same direction by the comprehensive words which have preceded here, [τὰ]
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς κ.τ.λ. Nor is there anything in the terms themselves which
bars such an extension; for, as will be seen, the combination ἀπχαὶ καὶ
ἐξουσίαι is applied not only to good angels but to bad, not only to spiritual
powers but to earthly. Compare Ignat. Smyrn. 6 τὰ ἐπουράνια καὶ ἡ δόξα
τῶν ἀγγέλων καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες ὀρατοί τε καὶ ἀόρατοι.
Thus guided, we may paraphrase the Apostle’s meaning as follows: ‘You
dispute much about the successive grades of angels; you distinguish each
grade by its special title; you can tell how each order was generated from
the preceding; you assign to each its proper degree of worship. Meanwhile
you have ignored or you have degraded Christ. I tell you, it is not so. He is
first and foremost, Lord of heaven and earth, far above all thrones or
dominations, all princedoms or powers, far above every dignity and every
potentate—whether earthly or heavenly—whether angel or demon or man
—that evokes your reverence or excites your fear.’ See above, pp. 103 sq.
Jewish and Judæo-Christian speculations respecting the grades of the
celestial hierarchy took various forms. In the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs (Levi 3), which as coming near to the Apostolic age supplies a
valuable illustration (see Galatians p. 307 sq.), these orders are arranged as
follows: (1) θρόνοι, ἐξουσίαι, these two in the highest or seventh heaven;
(2) οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ φέροντες τὰς ἀποκρίσεις τοῖς ἀγγέλοις τοῦ προσώπου in
the sixth heaven; (3) οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ προσώπου in the fifth heaven; (4) οἱ
ἄγιοι in the fourth heaven; (5) αἱ δυνάμεις τῶν παρεμβολῶν in the third
heaven; (6) τὰ πνεύματα τῶν ἐπαγωγῶν (i.e. of visitations, retributions) in
the second heaven: or perhaps the denizens of the sixth and fifth heavens,
(2) and (3), should be transposed. The lowest heaven is not peopled by any

spirits. In Origen de Princ. i. 5. 3, ib. i. 6. 2, I. pp. 66, 70 (comp. i. 8. 1, ib.
p. 74), we have five classes, which are given in an ascending scale in this
order; (1) angels (sancti angeli, τάξις ἀγγελική); (2) princedoms
(principatus, δύναμις ἀρχική, ἀρχαί); (3) powers (potestates, ἐξουσίαι); (4)
thrones (throni vel sedes, θρόνοι); (5) dominations (dominationes,
κυρίοτητες); though elsewhere, in Ioann. i. § 34, IV. p. 34, he seems to have
a somewhat different classification in view. In Ephrem Syrus Op. Syr. I. p.
270 (where the translation of Benedetti is altogether faulty and misleading)
the ranks are these: (1) θεοί, θρόνοι, κυριότητες; (2) ἀρχάγγελοι, ἀρχαί,
ἐξουσίαι; (3) ἄγγελοι, δυνάμεις, χερουβίμ, σεραφίμ; these three great
divisions being represented by the χιλίαρχοι, the ἐκατόνταρχοι, and the
πεντηκόνταρχοι respectively in Deut. i. 15, on which passage he is
commenting. The general agreement between these will be seen at once.
This grouping also seems to underlie the conception of Basil of Seleucia
Orat. 39 (p. 207), who mentions them in this order; θρόνοι, κυριότητες,
ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι, δυνάμεις, χερουβίμ, σεραφίμ. On the other hand the
arrangement of the pseudo-Dionysius, who so largely influenced
subsequent speculations, is quite different and probably later (Dion. Areop.
Op. I. p. 75, ed. Cord.); (1) θρόνοι, χερουβίμ, σεραφίμ; (2) ἐξουσίαι,
κυριότητες, δυνάμεις; (3) ἄγγελοι, ἀρχάγγελοι, ἀρχαι. But the earlier lists
for the most part seem to suggest as their common foundation a
classification in which θρόνοι, κυριότητες, belonged to the highest order,
and ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι to the next below. Thus it would appear that the Apostle
takes as an illustration the titles assigned to the two highest grades in a
system of the celestial hierarchy which he found current, and which
probably was adopted by these Gnostic Judaizers. See also the note on ii.
18.
θρόνοι] In all systems alike these ‘thrones’ belong to the highest grade of
angelic beings, whose place is in the immediate presence of God. The
meaning of the name however is doubtful: (1) It may signify the occupants
of thrones which surround the throne of God; as in the imagery of Rev. iv. 4
κύκλοθεν τοῦ θρόνου θρόνοι εἴκοσι τέσσαρες (comp. xi. 16, xx. 4). The
imagery is there taken from the court of an earthly king: see Jer. lii. 32. This
is the interpretation given by Origen de Princ. i. 5. 3 (p. 66), i. 6. 2 (p. 70)
‘judicandi vel regendi ... habentes officium.’ Or (2) They were so called, as
supporting or forming the throne of God; just as the chariot-seat of the
Almighty is represented as resting on the cherubim in Ezek. i. 26, ix. 3, x. 1

sq., xi. 22, Ps. xviii. 10, 1 Chron. xxviii. 18. So apparently Clem. Alex.
Proph. Ecl. 57 (p. 1003) θρόνοι ἂν εἶεν ... διὰ τὸ ἀναπαύσθαι ἐν αὐτοῖς τὸν
Θεόν. From this same imagery of the prophet the later mysticism of the
Kabbala derived its name ‘wheels,’ which it gave to one of its ten orders of
Sephiroth. Adopting this interpretation, several fathers identify the ‘thrones’
with the cherubim: e.g. Greg. Nyss. ad Eunom. i (II. p. 349 sq.), Chrysost.
de Incompr. Nat. iii. 5 (I. p. 467), Theodoret (ad loc.), August. in Psalm.
xcviii. § 3 (iv. p. 1061). This explanation was adopted also by the pseudo-
Dionysius de Cœl. Hier. 7 (I. p. 80), without however identifying them with
the cherubim; and through his writings it came to be generally adopted. The
former interpretation however is more probable; for (1) This highly
symbolical nomenclature accords better with a later stage of mystic
speculation, like the Kabbala; and (2) It seems natural to treat θρόνοι as
belonging to the same category with κυριότητες, ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι, which are
concrete words borrowed from different grades of human rank and power.
As implying regal dignity, θρόνοι naturally stands at the head of the list.
κυριότητες] ‘dominations,’ as Ephes. i. 21. These appear to have been
regarded as belonging to the first grade, and standing next in dignity to the
θρόνοι. This indeed would be suggested by their name.
ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι as Ephes. i. 21. These two words occur very frequently
together. In some places they refer to human dignities, as Luke xii. 11, Tit.
iii. 1 (comp. Luke xx. 20); in others to a spiritual hierarchy. And here again
there are two different uses: sometimes they designate good angels, e.g.
below ii. 10, Ephes. iii. 10; sometimes evil spirits, e.g. ii. 15, Ephes. vi. 12:
while in one passage at least (1 Cor. xv. 24) both may be included. In Rom.
viii. 38 we have ἀρχαὶ without ἐξουσίαι (except as a v. l.), and in 1 Pet. iii.
22 ἐξουσίαι without ἀρχαί, in connexion with the angelic orders.

I. 16]
← ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται· →

δι’ αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ.] ‘As all creation passed out from Him, so does it all
converge again towards Him.’ For the combination of prepositions see
Rom. xi. 36 ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα. He is not only
the α but also the ω, not only the ἀρχή but also the τέλος of creation, not
only the first but also the last in the history of the Universe: Rev. xxii. 13.
For this double relation of Christ to the Universe, as both the initial and the
final cause, see Heb. ii. 10 δι’ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα, where δι’ ὃν
is nearly equivalent to εἰς αὐτὸν of the text.
In the Judaic philosophy of Alexandria the preposition διὰ with the
genitive was commonly used to describe the function of the Logos in the
creation and government of the world; e.g. de Cherub. 35 (I. p. 162) where
Philo, enumerating the causes which combine in the work of Creation,
describes God as ὑφ’ οὗ, matter as ἐξ οὗ, and the Word as δι’ οὗ; comp. de
Mon. ii. 5 (II. p. 225) λόγος ... δι’ οὗ σύμπας ὁ κόσμος ἐδημιουργεῖτο. The
Christian Apostles accepted this use of διὰ to describe the mediatorial
function of the Word in creation; e.g. John i. 3 πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
κ.τ.λ., ib. ver. 10 ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, Heb. i. 2 δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν
τοὺς αἰῶνας. This mediatorial function however has entirely changed its
character. To the Alexandrian Jew it was the work of a passive tool or
instrument (de Cherub. l.c. δι’ οὗ, τ ὸ ἐ ρ γ α λ ε ῖ ο ν , ὄργανον ... δι’ οὗ);
but to the Christian Apostle it represented a cooperating agent. Hence the
Alexandrian Jew frequently and consistently used the simple instrumental
dative ᾧ to describe the relation of the Word to the Creator, e.g. Quod Deus
immut. 12 (I. p. 281) ᾧ καὶ τὸν κόσμον εἰργάζετο, Leg. All. i. 9 (I. p. 47) τῷ
περιφανεστάτῳ καὶ τηλαυγεστάτῳ ἑαυτοῦ λόγῳ ῥήματι ὁ Θεὸς ἀμφότερα
ποιεῖ, comp. ib. iii. 31 (I. p. 106) ὁ λόγος ... ᾧ καθάπερ ὀργάνῳ
προσχρησάμενος. This mode of speaking is not found in the New
Testament.
εἰς αὐτόν] ‘unto Him.’ As of the Father it is said elsewhere, 1 Cor. viii. 6
ἐξ ὁῦ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, so here of the Son we read τὰ πάντα δι’
αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτόν. All things must find their meeting-point, their

reconciliation, at length in Him from whom they took their rise—in the
Word as the mediatorial agent, and through the Word in the Father as the
primary source. The Word is the final cause as well as the creative agent of
the Universe. This ultimate goal of the present dispensation in time is
similarly stated in several passages. Sometimes it is represented as the
birth-throe and deliverance of all creation through Christ; as Rom. viii. 19
sq. αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις ἐλευθερωθήσεται, πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις ... συνωδίνει. Sometimes
it is the absolute and final subjection of universal nature to Him; as 1 Cor.
xv. 28 ὅταν ὑποταγῇ αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα. Sometimes it is the reconciliation of
all things through Him; as below, ver. 20 δι’ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ
πάντα. Sometimes it is the recapitulation, the gathering up in one head, of
the Universe in Him; as Ephes. i. 10 ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ
Χριστῷ. The image involved in this last passage best illustrates the
particular expression in the text εἰς αὐτόν ... ἔκτισται; but all alike enunciate
the same truth in different terms. The Eternal Word is the goal of the
Universe, as He was the starting-point. It must end in unity, as it proceeded
from unity: and the centre of this unity is Christ. This expression has no
parallel, and could have none, in the Alexandrian phraseology and doctrine.

I. 17]
← 17καὶ αὐτὸς ἔστιν πρὸ πάντων, καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ →

17. καὶ αὐτος κ.τ.λ.] ‘and HE IS before all things’: comp. Joh. viii. 58
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐ γ ὼ ε ἰ μ ὶ (and perhaps also viii. 24, 28, xiii. 19).
The imperfect ἦν might have sufficed (comp. Joh. i. 1), but the present
ἔστιν declares that this pre-existence is absolute existence. The αυτοϲ εϲτιν
here corresponds exactly to the εγω ειμι in St John, and this again is
illustrated by Exod. iii. 14. The verb therefore is not an enclitic, but should
be accentuated ἔστιν. See Basil adv. Eunom. iv (I. p. 294) ὁ ἀπόστολος
εἰπών, Πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, ὤφειλεν εἰπεῖν, Κὰι αὐτὸς
ἐ γ έ ν ε τ ο πρὸ πάντων, εἰπὼν δὲ, Καί αὐτὸς ἔ σ τ ι πρὸ πάντων, ἔδειξε
τον μὲν ἀεὶ ὄντα τὴν δὲ κτίσιν γενομένην. The αὐτός is as necessary for the
completeness of the meaning, as the ἔστιν. The one emphasizes the
personality, as the other declares the pre-existence. For this emphatic αὐτός
see again ver. 18; comp. Ephes. ii. 14, iv. 10, 11, 1 Joh. ii. 2, and esp. Rev.
xix. 15 καὶ αὐτὸς ποιμανεῖ ... καὶ αὐτὸς πατεῖ. The other interpretation
which explains πρὸ πάντων of superiority in rank, and not of priority in
time, is untenable for several reasons. (1) This would most naturally be
expressed otherwise in Biblical language, as ἐπὶ πάντων (e.g. Rom. ix. 5,
Eph. iv. 6), or ὑπὲρ πάντα (Eph. i. 22), or ὑπεράνω πάντων (Eph. i. 21, iv.
10). (2) The key to the interpretation is given by the analogous words in the
context, esp. πρωτότοκος, vv. 15, 18. (3) Nothing short of this declaration
of absolute pre-existence would be adequate to introduce the statement
which follows, καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν.
πρὸ πάντων] ‘before all things.’ In the Latin it was translated ‘ante
omnes,’ i.e. thronos, dominationes, etc.; and so Tertullian adv. Marc. v. 19
‘Quomodo enim ante omnes, si non ante omnia? Quomodo ante omnia, si
non primogenitus conditionis?’ But the neuter τὰ πάντα, standing in the
context before and after, requires the neuter here also.

I. 18]
← συνέστηκεν. 18 καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος, →

συνέστηκεν] ‘hold together, cohere.’ He is the principle of cohesion in
the universe. He impresses upon creation that unity and solidarity which
makes it a cosmos instead of a chaos. Thus (to take one instance) the action
of gravitation, which keeps in their places things fixed and regulates the
motions of things moving, is an expression of His mind. Similarly in Heb. i.
3 Christ the Logos is described as φέρων τὰ πάντα (sustaining the universe)
τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ. Here again the Christian Apostles accept
the language of Alexandrian Judaism, which describes the Logos as the
δεσμὸς of the Universe; e.g. Philo de Profug. 20 (I. p. 562) ὅ τε γὰρ τοῦ
ὄντος λόγος δ ε σ μ ὸ ς ὢ ν τ ῶ ν ἁ π ά ν τ ω ν ... καὶ σ ύ ν ε χ ε ι τὰ μέρη
πάντα καὶ σφίγγει καὶ κωλύει αὐτὰ διαλύεσθαι καὶ διαρτᾶσθαι, de Plant. 2
(I. p. 331) σ υ ν ά γ ω ν τὰ μέρη πάντα καὶ σφίγγων· δ ε σ μ ὸ ν γὰρ αὐτὸν
ἄρρηκτον τοῦ παντὸς ὁ γεννήσας ἐποίει πατήρ, Quis rer. div. her. 38 (I. p.
507) λόγῳ σφίγγεται θείῳ· κόλλα γάρ ἐστι καὶ δ ε σ μ ὸ ς οὗτος τὰ πάντα
τῆς οὐσίας ἐκπεπληρωκώς: and for the word itself see Quis rer. div. her. 12
(I. p. 481) σ υ ν έ σ τ η κ ε καὶ ζωπυρεῖται προνοίᾳ Θεοῦ, Clem. Rom. 27 ἐν
λόγῳ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης αὐτοῦ συνεστήσατο τὰ πάντα. In the same
connexion σύγκειται is used, Ecclus. xliii. 26. The indices to Plato and
Aristotle amply illustrate this use of συνέστηκεν. This mode of expression
was common also with the Stoics.
18. ‘And not only does He hold this position of absolute priority and
sovereignty over the Universe—the natural creation. He stands also in the
same relation to the Church—the new spiritual creation. He is its head, and
it is His body. This is His prerogative, because He is the source and the
beginning of its life, being the First-born from the dead. Thus in all things
—in the spiritual order as in the natural—in the Church as in the World—
He is found to have the pre-eminence.’
The elevating influence of this teaching on the choicest spirits of the
subapostolic age will be seen from a noble passage in the noblest of early
Christian writings, Epist. ad Diogn. § 7 τὸν λόγον τὸν ἅγιον ... ἀνθρώποις
ἐνίδρυσε ... οὐ, καθάπερ ἄν τις εἰκάσειεν, ἀνθρώποις ὑπηρέτην τινὰ πέμψας

ἢ ἄγγελον ἢ ἄρχοντα ἤ τινα τῶν διεπόντων τὰ ἐπίγεια ἤ τινα τῶν
πεπιστευμένων τὰς ἐν οὐρανοῖς διοκήσεις, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸν τὸν τεχνίτην καὶ
δημιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων ... ᾧ πάντα διατέτακται καὶ διώρισται καὶ
ὑποτέτακται, οὐρανοὶ καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ κ.τ.λ. See
the whole context.
καὶ αὐτὸς] ‘and He,’ repeated from the preceding verse, to emphasize the
identity of the Person who unites in Himself these prerogatives: see on ver.
17, and comp. ver. 18 αὐτός, ver. 19 δι’ αὐτοῦ. The Creator of the World is
also the Head of the Church. There is no blind ignorance, no imperfect
sympathy, no latent conflict, in the relation of the demiurgic power to the
Gospel dispensation, as the heretical teachers were disposed consciously or
unconsciously to assume (see above, p. 101 sq., p. 110 sq.), but an absolute
unity of origin.
ἡ κεφαλή] ‘the head,’ the inspiring, ruling, guiding, combining,
sustaining power, the mainspring of its activity, the centre of its unity, and
the seat of its life. In his earlier epistles the relations of the Church to Christ
are described under the same image (1 Cor. xii. 12–27; comp. vi. 15, x. 17,
Rom. xii. 4 sq.); but the Apostle there takes as his starting-point the various
functions of the members, and not, as in these later epistles, the originating
and controlling power of the Head. Comp. i. 24, ii. 19, Eph. i. 22 sq., ii. 16,
iv. 4, 12, 15 sq., v. 23, 30.

I. 18]
← τῆς ἐκκλησίας· ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος →

τῆς ἐκκλησίας] in apposition with τοῦ σώματος: comp. i. 24 τοῦ σώματος
αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία, Eph. i. 23.
ἀρχή] ‘the origin, the beginning.’ The term is here applied to the
Incarnate Christ in relation to the Church, because it is applicable to the
Eternal Word in relation to the Universe, Rev. iii. 14 ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως
τοῦ Θεοῦ. The parallelism of the two relations is kept in view throughout.
The word ἀρχή here involves two ideas: (1) Priority in time; Christ was the
first-fruits of the dead, ἀπαρχή (1 Cor. xv. 20, 23): (2) Originating power;
Christ was also the source of life, Acts iii. 14 ὁ ἀρχηγὸς τῆς ζωῆς; comp.
Acts v. 31, Heb. ii. 10. He is not merely the principium principiatum but the
principium principians (see Trench Epistles to the Seven Churches p. 183
sq.). He rose first from the dead, that others might rise through Him.
The word ἀρχή, like πρῶτος (see the note on Phil. i. 5), being absolute in
itself, does not require the definite article. Indeed the article is most
commonly omitted where ἀρχή occurs as a predicate, as will appear from
several examples to be gathered from the extracts in Plut. Mor. p. 875 sq.,
Stob. Ecl. Phys. i. 10. 12 sq. Comp. also Aristot. Met. x. 7, p. 1064, τὸ θεῖον
... ἂν εἴη πρώτη καὶ κυριωτάτη ἀρχή, Onatas in Stob. Ecl. Phys. i. 2. 39
αὐτὸς γὰρ [θεὸς] ἀρχὰ καὶ πρᾶτον, Tatian. ad Græc. 4 Θεὸς ... μόνος
ἄναρχος ὢν καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τῶν ὅλων ἀρχή, Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 25,
p. 638, ὁ Θεὸς δὲ ἄναρχος, ἀρχὴ τῶν ὅλων παντελής, ἀρχῆς ποιητικός,
Method. de Creat. 3 (p. 100, ed. Jahn) πάσης ἀρετῆς ἀρχὴν καὶ πηγὴν ...
ἡγῇ τὸν Θεόν, pseudo-Dionys. de Div. Nom. v. § 6 ἀρχὴ γάρ ἐστι τῶν
ὄντων, § 10 πάντων οὖν ἀρχὴ καὶ τελευτὴ τῶν ὄντων ὁ προών.
The text is read with the definite article, ἡ ἀρχή, in one or two excellent
authorities at least; but the obvious motive which would lead a scribe to aim
at greater distinctness renders the reading suspicious.
πρωτότοκος] Comp. Rev. i. 5 ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ὁ ἄρχων τῶν
βασιλέων τῆς γῆς. His resurrection from the dead is His title to the headship
of the Church; for ‘the power of His resurrection’ (Phil. iii. 10) is the life of
the Church. Such passages as Gen. xlix. 3, Deut. xxi. 17, where the

πρωτότοκος is called ἀρχὴ τέκνων and superior privileges are claimed for
him as such, must necessarily be only very faint and partial illustrations of
the connexion between ἀρχὴ and πρωτότοκος here, where the subject-
matter and the whole context point to a fuller meaning of the words. The
words πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν here correspond to πρωτότοκος πάσης
κτίσεως ver. 15, so that the parallelism between Christ’s relations to the
Universe and to the Church is thus emphasized.

I. 19]
← ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων· 19 ὅτι ἐν
αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι, →

ἵνα γένηται κ.τ.λ.] As He is first with respect to the Universe, so it was
ordained that He should become first with respect to the Church as well.
The γ έ ν η τ α ι here answers in a manner to the ἔ σ τ ι ν of ver. 17. Thus
ἔστιν and γένηται are contrasted as the absolute being and the historical
manifestation. The relation between Christ’s headship of the Universe by
virtue of His Eternal Godhead and His headship of the Church by virtue of
His Incarnation and Passion and Resurrection is somewhat similarly
represented in Phil. ii. 6 sq. ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὕαρχων ... μορφὴν δούλου
λαβών ... γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου ... δ ι ὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν
ὑπερύψωσεν κ.τ.λ.
ἐν πᾶσιν] ‘in all things’ not in the Universe only but in the Church also.
Καὶ γάρ, writes Theodoret, ὡς Θεὸς, πρὸ πάντων ἐστὶ καὶ σὺν τῷ πατρί
ἐστι, καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ τοῦ σώματος
κεφαλή. Thus ἐν πᾶσιν is neuter and not masculine, as it is sometimes
taken. Either construction is grammatically correct, but the context points to
the former interpretation here; and this is the common use of ἐν πᾶσιν, e.g.
iii. 11, Eph. i. 23, Phil. iv. 12. For the neuter compare Plut. Mor. p. 9
σπεύδοντες τοὺς παῖδας ἐν πᾶσι τάχιον πρωτεῦσαι. On the other hand in
[Demosth.] Amat. p. 1416 κράτιστον εἶναι τὸ πρωτεύειν ἐν ἅπασι the
context shows that ἅπασι is masculine.
αὐτὸς] ‘He Himself’; see the note on καὶ αὐτὸς above.
19, 20. ‘And this absolute supremacy is His, because it was the Father’s
good pleasure that in Him all the plenitude of Deity should have its home;
because He willed through Him to reconcile the Universe once more to
Himself. It was God’s purpose to effect peace and harmony through the
blood of Christ’s cross, and so to restore all things, whatsoever and
wheresoever they be, whether on the earth or in the heavens.’
19. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κ.τ.λ.] The eternal indwelling of the Godhead explains
the headship of the Church, not less than the headship of the Universe. The
resurrection of Christ, whereby He became the ἀρχὴ of the Church, was the

result of and the testimony to His deity; Rom. i. 4 τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ
Θεοῦ ... ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν.
εὐδόκησεν] sc. ὁ Θεός, the nominative being understood; see Winer §
lviii. p. 655 sq., § lxiv. p. 735 sq.; comp. James i. 12 (the right reading), iv.
6. Here the omission is the more easy, because εὐδοκία, εὐδοκεῖν etc. (like
θέλημα) are used absolutely of God’s good purpose, e.g. Luke ii. 14 ἐν
ἀνθρῶποις εὐδοκίας (or εὐδοκία), Phil. ii. 13 ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας, Clem.
Rom. § 40 πάντα τὰ γινόμενα ἐν εὐδοκήσει; see the note in Clem. Rom. § 2.
For the expression generally comp. 2 Macc. xiv. 35 σύ, Κύριε, εὐδόκησας
ναὸν τῆς σῆς κατασκηνώσεως ἐν ἡμῖν γενέσθαι. The alternative is to
consider πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα personified as the nominative; but it is difficult to
conceive St Paul so speaking, more especially as with εὐδόκησεν
personification would suggest personality. The πλήρωμα indeed is
personified in Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. 43 (p. 979) συναινέσαντος καὶ τοῦ
πληρώματος, and in Iren. i. 2. 6 βουλῇ μιᾷ καὶ γνώμῃ τὸ πᾶν πλήρωμα τῶν
αἰώνων κ.τ.λ., i. 12. 4 πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα ηὐδόκησεν [δι’ αὐτοῦ δοξάσαι τὸν
πάτερα]; but the phraseology of the Valentinians, to which these passages
refer, cannot be taken as an indication of St Paul’s usage, since their view of
the πλήρωμα was wholly different. A third interpretation is found in
Tertullian adv. Marc. v. 19, who translates ἐν αὐτῷ in semetipso, taking ὁ
Χριστὸς as the nominative to εὐδόκησεν: and this construction is followed
by some modern critics. But, though grammatically possible, it confuses the
theology of the passage hopelessly.
τὸ πλήρωμα] ‘the plenitude,’ a recognised technical term in theology,
denoting the totality of the Divine powers and attributes; comp. ii. 9. See
the detached note on πλήρωμα. On the relation of this statement to the
speculations of the false teachers at Colossæ see the introduction, pp. 102,
112. Another interpretation, which explains τὸ πλήρωμα as referring to the
Church (comp. Ephes. i. 22), though adopted by several fathers, is unsuited
to the context and has nothing to recommend it.
κατοικῆσαι] ‘should have its permanent abode.’ The word occurs again
in the same connexion, ii. 9. The false teachers probably, like their later
counterparts, maintained only a partial and transient connexion of the
πλήρωμα with the Lord. Hence St Paul declares in these two passages that it
is not a παροικία but a κατοικία. The two words κατοικεῖν, παροικεῖν, occur
in the LXX as the common renderings of ‫ ישב‬and ‫ נור‬respectively, and are
distinguished as the permanent and the transitory; e.g. Gen. xxxvi. 44

(xxxvii. 1) κατῷκει δὲ Ἰακὼβ ἐν τῇ γῇ οὗ παρῴκησεν ὁ πατήρ αὐτοῦ ἐν γῇ
Χαναάν (comp. Hos. x. 5), Philo Sacr. Ab. et Ca. 10 (I. p. 170 M) ὁ τοῖς
ἐγκυκλίοις μόνοις ἐπανέχων παροικεῖ σοφίᾳ, οὐ κατοικεῖ, Greg. Naz. Orat.
xiv. (I. p. 271 ed. Caillau) τίς τὴν κάτω σκηνὴν καὶ τὴν ἄνω πόλιν; τίς
παροικίαν καὶ κατοικίαν; comp. Orat. vii. (I. p. 200). See also the notes on
Ephes. ii. 19, and on Clem. Rom. § 1.

I. 20]
← 20καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς →

20. The false teachers aimed at effecting a partial reconciliation between
God and man through the interposition of angelic mediators. The Apostle
speaks of an absolute and complete reconciliation of universal nature to
God, effected through the mediation of the Incarnate Word. Their mediators
were ineffective, because they were neither human nor divine. The true
mediator must be both human and divine. It was necessary that in Him all
the plenitude of the Godhead should dwell. It was necessary also that He
should be born into the world and should suffer as a man.
δι’ αὐτοῦ] i.e. τοῦ Χριστοῦ, as appears from the preceding ἐν αὐτῷ, and
the following διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ, [δι’ αὐτοῦ]. This
expression δι’ αὐτοῦ has been already applied to the Preincarnate Word in
relation to the Universe (ver. 16); it is now used of the Incarnate Word in
relation to the Church.
ἀποκαταλλάξαι] sc. εὐδόκησεν ὁ Θεός. The personal pronoun αὐτόν,
instead of the reflexive ἑαυτόν, is no real obstacle to this way of connecting
the words (see the next note). The alternative would be to take τὸ πλήρωμα
as governing ἀποκαταλλάξαι, but this mode of expression is harsh and
improbable.
The same double compound ἀποκαταλλάσσειν is used below, ver. 21 and
Ephes. ii. 16, in place of the usual καταλλάσσειν. It may be compared with
ἀποκατάστασις, Acts iii. 21. Tertullian, arguing against the dualism of
Marcion who maintained an antagonism between the demiurge and the
Christ, lays stress on the compound, adv. Marc. v. 19 ‘conciliari extraneo
possent, reconciliari vero non alii quam suo.’ The word ἀποκαταλλάσσειν
corresponds to ἀπηλλοτριωμένους here and in Ephes. ii. 16, implying a
restitution to a state from which they had fallen, or which was potentially
theirs, or for which they were destined. Similarly St Augustine on Gal. iv. 5
remarks that the word used of the υἱοθεσία is not accipere (λαμβάνειν) but
recipere (ἀπολαμβάνειν). See the note there.
τὰ πάντα] The whole universe of things, material as well as spiritual,
shall be restored to harmony with God. How far this restoration of universal

nature maybe subjective, as involved in the changed perceptions of man
thus brought into harmony with God, and how far it may have an objective
and independent existence, it were vain to speculate.

I. 21]
← αὐτόν, εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ ἅιματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ, δι’
αὐτοῦ ἔιτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔιτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, 21καὶ ὑμᾶς ποτὲ
ὄντας ἀπήλλοτριωμένους καὶ > →

εἰς αὐτόν] ‘to Him,’ i.e. ‘to Himself.’ The reconciliation is always
represented as made to the Father. The reconciler is sometimes the Father
Himself (2 Cor. v. 18, 19 ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ καταλλάξαντος ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ διὰ
Χριστοῦ ... Θεὸς ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ), sometimes the
Son (Ephes. ii. 16: comp. Rom. v. 10, 11). Excellent reasons are given
(Bleek Hebr. II. p. 69, A. Buttmann Gramm. p. 97) for supposing that the
reflexive pronoun ἑαυτοῦ etc. is never contracted into αὐτοῦ etc. in the
Greek Testament. But at the same time it is quite clear that the oblique cases
of the personal pronoun αὐτός are there used very widely, and in cases
where we should commonly find the reflexive pronoun in classical authors:
e.g. Ephes. i. 4, 5 ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ... εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους
κατενώπιον α ὐ τ ο ῦ ... προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς ὑιοθεσίαν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
εἰς α ὐ τ ό ν . See also the instances given in A. Buttmann p. 98. It would
seem indeed that αὐτοῦ etc. may be used for ἑαυτοῦ etc. in almost every
connexion, except where it is the direct object of the verb.
εἰρηνοποιήσας] The word occurs in the LXX, Prov. x. 10, and in Hermes
in Stob. Ecl. Phys. xli. 45. The substantive εἰρηνοποιός (see Matt. v. 9) is
found several times in classical writers.
δι’ αὐτοῦ] The external authority for and against these words is nearly
evenly balanced: but there would obviously be a tendency to reject them as
superfluous. They are a resumption of the previous δι’ αὐτοῦ. For other
examples see ii. 13 ὑμᾶς, Rom. viii. 23 καὶ αὐτοὶ, Gal. ii. 15, 16 ἡμεῖς,
Ephes. i. 13 ἐν ᾧ καί, iii. 1, 14 τούτου χάριν, where words are similarly
repeated for the sake of emphasis or distinctness. In 2 Cor. xii. 7 there is a
repetition of ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι, where again it is omitted in several
excellent authorities.
21–23. ‘And ye too—ye Gentiles—are included in the terms of this
peace. In times past ye had estranged yourselves from God. Your hearts

were hostile to Him, while ye lived on in your evil deeds. But now, in
Christ’s body, in Christ’s flesh which died on the Cross for your atonement,
ye are reconciled to Him again. He will present you a living sacrifice, an
acceptable offering unto Himself, free from blemish and free even from
censure, that ye may stand the piercing glance of Him whose scrutiny no
defect can escape. But this can only be, if ye remain true to your old
allegiance, if ye hold fast (as I trust ye are holding fast) by the teaching of
Epaphras, if the edifice of your faith is built on solid foundations and not
reared carelessly on the sands, if ye suffer not yourselves to be shifted or
shaken but rest firmly on the hope which ye have found in the Gospel—the
one universal unchangeable Gospel, which was proclaimed to every
creature under heaven, of which I Paul, unworthy as I am, was called to be
a minister.’
21. ἀπηλλοτριωμένους] ‘estranged,’ not ἀλλοτρίους, ‘strangers’; comp.
Ephes. ii. 12, iv. 18. See the note on ἀποκαταλλάξαι ver. 20.

I. 22]
← ἐχθροὺς τῇ διανοίᾳ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς, νυνὶ δὲ
ἀποκατηλλάγητε 22ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ διὰ →

21 νυνὶ δὲ ἀ π ο κ α τ ή λ λ α ξ ε ν .

ἐχθρούς] ‘hostile to God,’ as the consequence of ἀπηλλοτριωμένους, not
‘hateful to God,’ as it is taken by some. The active rather than the passive
sense of ἐχθρούς is required by the context, which (as commonly in the
New Testament) speaks of the sinner as reconciled to God, not of God as
reconciled to the sinner: comp. Rom. v. 10 εἰ γὰρ ἐχθροὶ ὄντες
κατηλλάγημεν τῷ Θεῷ κ.τ.λ. It is the mind of man, not the mind of God,
which must undergo a change, that a reunion may be effected.
τῇ διανοι|ᾳ] ‘in your mind, intent.’ For the dative of the part affected
compare Ephes. iv. 18 ἐσκοτωμένοι τῇ διανοίᾳ, Luke i. 51 ὑπερηφάνους
διανοίᾳ καρδίας αὐτῶν. So καρδίᾳ, καρδίαις, Matt. v. 8, xi. 29, Acts vii. 51,
2 Cor. ix. 7, 1 Thess. ii. 17; φρεσίν, 1 Cor. xiv. 20.
ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις κ.τ.λ.] ‘in the midst of, in the performance of your wicked
works’; the same use of the preposition as e.g. ii. 23, iv. 2.
νυνί] Here, as frequently, νῦν (νυνί) admits an aorist, because it denotes
not ‘at the present moment,’ but ‘in the present dispensation, the present
order of things’: comp. e.g. ver. 26, Rom. v. 11, vii. 6, xi. 30, 31, xvi. 26,
Ephes. ii. 13, iii. 5, 2 Tim. i. 10, 1 Pet. i. 12, ii. 10, 25. In all these passages
there is a direct contrast between the old dispensation and the new, more
especially as affecting the relation of the Gentiles to God. The aorist is
found also in Classical writers, where a similar contrast is involved; e.g.
Plato Symp. 193 A πρὸ τοῦ, ὥσπερ λέγω, ἓν ἦμεν· νυνὶ δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀδικίαν
διῳκίσθημεν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, Isæus de Cleon. her. 20 τότε μὲν ... νυνὶ δὲ ...
ἐβουλήθη.
ἀποκατηλλάγητε] The reasons for preferring this reading, though the
direct authority for it is so slight, are given in the detached note on the
various readings. But, whether ἀποκατηλλάγητε or ἀποκατήλλαξεν be
preferred, the construction requires explanation. If ἀποκατήλλαξεν be
adopted, it is perhaps best to treat δὲ as introducing the apodosis, the

foregoing participial clause serving as the protasis: ‘And you, though ye
were once estranged ... yet now hath he reconciled,’ in which case the first
ὑμᾶς will be governed directly by ἀποκατήλλαξεν; see Winer Gramm. § liii.
p. 553. If this construction be adopted, παραστῆσαι ὑμᾶς will describe the
result of ἀποκατήλλαξεν, ‘so as to present you’; but ὁ Θεὸς will still be the
nominative to ἀποκατήλλαξεν as in 2 Cor. v. 19. If on the other hand
ἀποκατηλλάγητε be taken, it is best to regard νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατηλλάγητε as a
direct indicative clause substituted for the more regular participial form νυνὶ
δὲ ἀποκαταλλαγέντας for the sake of greater emphasis: see the note on ver.
26 τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον ... νῦν δὲ ἐφανερώθη. In this case παραστῆσαι will
be governed directly by εὐδόκησεν, and will itself govern ὑμας πότε ὄντας
κ.τ.λ., the second ὑμᾶς being a repetition of the first; ‘And you who once
were estranged ... but now ye have been reconciled ... to present you, I say,
holy and without blemish.’ For the repetition of ὑμᾶς, which was needed to
disentangle the construction, see the note on δι’ αὐτοῦ ver. 20.
22. τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ] It has been supposed that St Paul added these
words, which are evidently emphatic, with a polemical aim either; (1) To
combat docetism. Of this form of error however there is no direct evidence
till a somewhat later date: or (2) To combat a false spiritualism which took
offence at the doctrine of an atoning sacrifice. But for this purpose they
would not have been adequate, because not explicit enough. It seems
simpler therefore to suppose that they were added for the sake of greater
clearness, to distinguish the natural body of Christ intended here from the
mystical body mentioned just above ver. 18. Similarly in Ephes. ii. 14 ἐν τῇ
σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ is used rather than ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ, because σῶμα occurs
in the context (ver. 16) of Christ’s mystical body. The same expression, τὸ
σῶμα τῆς σαρκός, which we have here, occurs also below, ii. 11, but with a
different emphasis and meaning. There the emphasis is on τὸ σῶμα, the
contrast lying between the whole body and a single member (see the note);
whereas here τῆς σαρκὸς is the emphatic part of the expression, the
antithesis being between the material and the spiritual. Compare also
Ecclus. xxiii. 16 ἄνθρωπος πόρνος ἐν σώματι σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ.
Marcion omitted τῆς σαρκὸς as inconsistent with his views, and
explained ἐν τῷ σώματι to mean the Church. Hence the comment of
Tertullian adv. Marc. v. 19, ‘utique in eo corpore, in quo mori potuit per
carnem, mortuus est, non per ecclesiam sed propter ecclesiam, corpus
commutando pro corpore, carnale pro spiritali.’

I. 23]
← τοῦ θανάτου [αὐτοῦ], παραστῆσαι ὑμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους καὶ
ἀνεγκλήτους κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ, 23 εἴ γε ἐπιμένετε τῇ πίστει
τεθεμελιωμένοι καὶ ἑδραῖοι καὶ μὴ μετακινούμενοι →

παραστῆσαι] If the construction which I have adopted be correct, this is
said of God Himself, as in 2 Cor. iv. 14 ὁ ἐγέιρας τὸν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ
ἡμᾶς σὺν Ἰησοῦ ἐγερεῖ καὶ π α ρ α σ τ ή σ ε ι σὺν ὑμῖν. This construction
seems in all respects preferable to connecting παραστῆσαι directly with
ἀποκατηλλάγητε and interpreting the words, ‘Ye have been reconciled so
that ye should present yourselves (ὑμᾶς) ... before Him.’ This latter
interpretation leaves the καὶ ὑμᾶς ποτὲ ὄντας κ.τ.λ. without a government,
and it gives to the second ὑμᾶς a reflexive sense (as if ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς or
ἑαυτούς), which is at least harsh.
ἀμώμους] ‘without blemish’ rather than ‘without blame,’ in the language
of the New Testament; see the noteon Ephes. i. 4. It is a sacrificial word,
like τέλειος, ὀλόκληρος, etc. The verb παριστάναι also is used of presenting
a sacrifice in Rom. xii. 1 π α ρ α σ τ ῆ σ α ι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν
ἁγίαν κ.τ.λ., Lev. xvi. 7 (v. l.): comp. Luke ii. 22.
ἀνεγκλήτους] an advance upon ἀμώμους, ‘in whom not only no blemish
is found, but against whom no charge is brought’: comp. 1 Tim. vi. 14
ἄσπιλον, ἀνεπίλημπτον. The word ἀνέγκλητος occurs again in 1 Cor. i. 8, 1
Tim. iii. 10, Tit. i. 6, 7.
κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ] ‘before Him,’ i.e. ‘Himself,’ as in the parallel passage,
Ephes. i. 4; if the construction here adopted be correct. For this use of the
personal pronoun instead of the reflexive see the note on εἰς αὐτόν, ver. 20.
But does κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ refer to God’s future judgment or His present
approbation? The latter seems more probable, both because the expression
certainly has this meaning in the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 4, and because
κατενώπιαν, ἐνώπιον, κατέναντι, etc., are commonly so used; e.g. Rom. xiv.
22, 1 Cor. i. 29, 2 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 2, vii. 12, xii. 19, etc. On the other hand,
where the future judgment is intended, a different expression is found, 2
Cor. v. 10 ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Thus God is here regarded,

not as the judge who tries the accused, but as the μωμοσκόπος who
examines the victims (Polyc. Phil. 4, see the note on Ephes. i. 4). Compare
Heb. iv. 12, 13 for a closely allied metaphor. The passage in Jude 24,
στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώμους ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει, though
perhaps referring to final approval, is too different in expression to
influence the interpretation of Paul’s language here.
23. εἴ γε] On the force of these particles see Gal. iii. 4. They express a
pure hypothesis in themselves, but the indicative mood following converts
the hypothesis into a hope.
ἐπιμένετε] ‘ye abide by, ye adhere to,’ with a dative; the common
construction of ἐπιμένειν in St Paul: see the note on Phil. i. 24. In this
connexion τῇ πίστει is perhaps ‘your faith,’ rather than ‘the faith.’
τεθεμελιωμένοι κ.τ.λ.] ‘built on a foundation and so firm’; not like the
house of the foolish man in the parable who built χωρὶς θεμελίου, Luke vi.
49. For τεθεμελιωμένοι comp. Ephes. iii. 17. The consequence of
τεθεμελιωμένοι is ἑδραῖοι: Clem. Rom. 33 ἥ δ ρ α σ ε ν ἐπὶ τὸν ἀσφαλῆ τοῦ
ἰδίου βουλήματος θ ε μ έ λ ι ο ν . The words ἑδραῖος, ἑδράζω, etc., are not
uncommonly applied to buildings, e.g. ἑδραίωμα 1 Tim. iii. 15. Comp. Ign.
Ephes. 10 ὑμεῖς ἑδραῖοι τῇ πίστει.
μὴ μετακινούμενοι] ‘not constantly shifting,’ a present tense; the same
idea as ἑδραῖοι expressed from the negative side, as in 1 Cor. xv. 58 ἑδραῖοι
γίνεσθε, ἀμετακίνητοι, Polyc. Phil. 10 ‘firmi in fide et immutabiles.’

I. 23]
← ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου οὗ ἠκούσατε, τοῦ κηρυχθέντος
ἐν πάσῃ κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν, οὗ ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ Παῦλος
διάκονος. →

τῆς ἐλπίδος κ.τ.λ.] ‘the hope held out by the Gospel,’ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου
being a subjective genitive, as in Ephes. i. 18 ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς κλήσεως (comp.
iv. 4).
ἐν πάσῃ κτίσει] ‘among every creature,’ in fulfilment of the Lord’s last
command, Mark xvi. 15 κηρύξατε τὸ ευαγγέλιον πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. Here
however the definitive article, though found in the received text, ἐν πάσῃ τῇ
κτίσει, must be omitted in accordance with the best authorities. For the
meanings of πᾶσα κτίσις, πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις, see the note on ver. 15. The
expression πᾶσα κτίσις must not be limited to man. The statement is given
in the broadest form, all creation animate and inanimate being included, as
in Rev. v. 13 π ᾶ ν κ τ ί σ μ α ... καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς π ά ν τ α ἥκουσα λέγοντα
κ.τ.λ. For the hyperbole ἐν πάσῃ κτίσει compare 1 Thess. i. 8 ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ.
To demand statistical exactness in such a context would be to require what
is never required in similar cases. The motive of the Apostle here is at once
to emphasize the universality of the genuine Gospel, which has been offered
without reserve to all alike, and to appeal to its publicity, as the credential
and guarantee of its truth: see the notes on ver. 6 ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ and on
ver. 28 πάντα ἄνθρωπον.
οὖ ἐγενόμην κ.τ.λ.] Why does St Paul introduce this mention of himself
so abruptly? His motive can hardly be the assertion of his Apostolic
authority, for it does not appear that this was questioned; otherwise he
would have declared his commission in stronger terms. We can only answer
that impressed with the dignity of his office, as involving the offer of grace
to the Gentiles, he cannot refrain from magnifying it. At the same time this
mention enables him to link himself in bonds of closer sympathy with the
Colossians, and he passes on at once to his relations with them: comp.
Ephes. iii. 2–9, 1 Tim. i. 11 sq., in which latter passage the introduction of
his own name is equally abrupt.

ἐγὼ Παῦλος] i.e. ‘weak and unworthy as I am’: comp. Ephes. iii. 8 ἐμοὶ
τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέμω πάντων ἁγίων.

I. 24]
← 24Νῦν χαίρω ἐν τοῖς παθήμασιν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, καὶ →

24–27. ‘Now when I see the full extent of God’s mercy, now when I
ponder over His mighty work of reconciliation, I cannot choose but rejoice
in my sufferings. Yes, I Paul the persecutor, I Paul the feeble and sinful, am
permitted to supplement—I do not shrink from the word—to supplement
the afflictions of Christ. Despite all that He underwent, He the Master has
left something still for me the servant to undergo. And so my flesh is
privileged to suffer for His body—His spiritual body, the Church. I was
appointed a minister of the Church, a steward in God’s household, for this
very purpose, that I might administer my office on your behalf, might
dispense to you Gentiles the stores which His bountiful grace has provided.
Thus I was charged to preach without reserve the whole Gospel of God, to
proclaim the great mystery which had remained a secret through all the ages
and all the generations from the beginning, but which now in these last
times was revealed to His holy people. For such was His good pleasure.
God willed to make known to them, in all its inexhaustible wealth thus
displayed through the call of the Gentiles, the glorious revelation of this
mystery—Christ not the Saviour of the Jews only, but Christ dwelling in
you, Christ become to you the hope of glory.’
24. Νῦν χαίρω] A sudden outburst of thanksgiving, that he, who was less
than the least, who was not worthy to be called an Apostle, should be
allowed to share and even to supplement the sufferings of Christ. The
relative ὅς, which is found in some authorities, is doubtless the repetition of
the final syllable of δίακονος; but its insertion would be assisted by the
anxiety of scribes to supply a connecting link between the sentences. The
genuine reading is more characteristic of St Paul. The abruptness, which
dispenses with a connecting particle, has a parallel in Tim. i. 12 χάριν ἔχω
τῷ ἐνδυναμώσαντί με Χριστῷ κ.τ.λ., where also the common text inserts a
link of connexion, καὶ χάριν ἔχω κ.τ.λ. Compare also 2 Cor. vii. 9 νῦν
χαίρω, οὐχ ὅτι κ.τ.λ., where again there is no connecting particle.
The thought underlying νῦν seems to be this: ‘If ever I have been
disposed to repine at my lot, if ever I have felt my cross almost too heavy to

bear, yet now–now, when I contemplate the lavish wealth of God’s mercy—
now when I see all the glory of bearing a part in this magnificent work—my
sorrow is turned to joy.’

I. 24]
← ἀνταναπληρῶ τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ →

ἀνταναπληρῶ] ‘I fill up on my part’, ‘I supplement.’ The single
compound ἀναπληροῦν occurs several times (e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 16, xvi. 17,
Gal. vi. 2); another double compound προσαναπληροῦν twice (2 Cor. ix. 12,
xi. 9; comp. Wisd. xix. 4, v.l.); but ἀνταναπληροῦν only here in the LXX or
New Testament. For this verb compare Demosth. de Symm. p. 182 τούτων
τῶν συμμοριῶν ἑκάστην διελεῖν κελεύω πέντε μέρη κατὰ δώδεκα ἄνδρας,
ἀνταναπληροῦντας π ρ ὸ ς τ ὸ ν ε ὐ π ο ρ ώ τ α τ ο ν ἀεὶ τοὺς ἀπορωτάτους
(where τοὺς ἀπορωτάτους should be taken as the subject to
ἀνταναπληροῦντας), Dion Cass. xliv. 48 ἵν’ ὅσον ... ἐνέδει, τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς
π α ρ ὰ τ ῶ ν ἄ λ λ ω ν συντελείας ἀνταναπληρωθῇ, Clem. Alex. Strom.
vii. 12 p. 878 οὗτος ... τὴν ἀ π ο σ τ ο λ ι κ ὴ ν ἀ π ο υ σ ί α ν ἀνταναπληροῖ,
Apollon. Constr. Or. i. 3 (p. 13 sq.) ἡ ἀντωνυμία ἀνταναπληροῦσα καὶ τὴν
θέσιν τοῦ ὀνόματος καὶ τὴν τάξιν τοῦ ῥήματος, Ptol. Math. Comp. vi. 9 (I.
p. 435 ed. Halma) ἐπεὶ δ’ ἡ μ ὲ ν ἐ λ λ ε ί π ε ι ν ἐποίει τὴν ἀποκατάστασιν
ἡ δ ὲ π λ ε ο ν ά ζ ε ι ν κατά τινα συντυχίαν ἣν ἴσως καὶ ὁ Ἵππαρχος
ἀνταναπληρουμένην πως κατανενοήκει κ.τ.λ. The substantive
ἀνταναπλήρωσις occurs in Diog. Laert. x. 48. So too ἀνταναπλήθειν Xen.
Hell. ii. 4. 11, 12 ξυνετάξαντο, ὥστε ἑ μ π λ ῆ σ α ι τ ὴ ν ὁ δ ό ν ... οἱ δὲ
ἀπὸ τῆς φυλῆς ἀντανέπλησαν ... τὴν ὁδόν. Compare also ἀντανισοῦν
Themist. Paraphr. Arist. 43 B οὐδὲν κωλύει κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἄ λ λ ο θ ί π ο υ
μ ε τ α β ά λ λ ε ι ν ἀέρα εἰς ὕδωρ καὶ ἀντανισοῦσθαι τὸν σύμπαντα ὄγκον,
and ἀντανίσωμα Joseph. Ant. xviii. 9. 7. The meaning of ἀντὶ in this
compound will be plain from the passages quoted. It signifies that the
supply comes from an opposite quarter to the deficiency. This idea is more
or less definitely expressed in the context of all the passages, in the words
which are spaced. The force of ἀνταναπληροῦν in St Paul is often explained
as denoting simply that the supply corresponds in extent to the deficiency.
This interpretation practically deprives ἀντί of any meaning, for
ἀναπληροῦν alone would denote as much. If indeed the supply had been the
subject of the verb, and the sentence had run τὰ παθήματά μου
ἀνταναπληροῖ τὰ ὑστηρήματα κ.τ.λ., this idea might perhaps be reached

without sacrificing the sense of ἀντί; but in such a passage as this, where
one personal agent is mentioned in connexion with the supply and another
in connexion with the deficiency, the one forming the subject and the other
being involved in the object of the verb, the ἀντὶ can only describe the
correspondence of these personal agents. So interpreted, it is eminently
expressive here. The point of the Apostle’s boast is that Christ the sinless
Master should have left something for Paul the unworthy servant to suffer.
The right idea has been seized and is well expressed by Photius Amphil. 121
(I. p. 709 Migne) οὐ γὰρ ἁπλῶς φησιν Ἀναπληρῶ, ἀλλ’ Ἀνταναπληρῶ,
τουτέστιν, Ἀντὶ δεσπότου καὶ διδασκάλου ὁ δοῦλος ἐγὼ καὶ μαθητὴς κ.τ.λ.
Similar in meaning, though not identical, is the expression in 2 Cor. i. 5,
where the sufferings of Christ are said to ‘overflow’ (περισσεύειν) upon the
Apostle. The theological difficulty which this plain and natural
interpretation of ἀνταναπληροῦν is supposed to involve will be considered
in the note on τῶν θλίψεων.
τὰ ὑστερήματα] ‘the things lacking.’ This same word ὑστέρημα
‘deficiency’ occurs with ἀναπληροῦν 1 Cor. xvi. 17, Phil. ii. 30, and with
προσαναπληροῦν 2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9. Its direct opposite is περίσσευμα
‘abundance, superfluity,’ 2 Cor. viii. 13, 14; comp. Luke xxi. 4. Another
interpretation, which makes ὑστέρημα an antithesis to προτέρημα,
explaining it as ‘the later’ as opposed to the earlier ‘sufferings of Christ,’ is
neither supported by the usage of the word nor consistent with
ἀνταναπληρῶ.
τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ] ‘of the afflictions of Christ,’ i.e. which Christ
endured. This seems to be the only natural interpretation of the words.
Others have explained them as meaning ‘the afflictions imposed by Christ,’
or ‘the afflictions endured for Christ’s sake,’ or ‘the afflictions which
resemble those of Christ.’ All such interpretations put a more or less forced
meaning on the genitive. All alike ignore the meaning of ἀντὶ in
ἀνταναπληρῶ which points to a distinction of persons suffering. Others
again suppose the words to describe St Paul’s own afflictions regarded as
Christ’s, because Christ suffers in His suffering Church; e.g. Augustine in
Psalm. cxlii. § 3 (IV. p. 1590) ‘Patitur, inquit, adhuc Christus pressuram, non
in carne sua in qua ascendit in cælum, sed in carne mea quæ adhuc laborat
in terra,’ quoting Gal. ii. 20. This last is a very favourite explanation, and
has much to recommend it. It cannot be charged with wresting the meaning
of αἱ θλίψεις τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Moreover it harmonizes with St Paul’s mode of

speaking elsewhere. But, like the others, it is open to the fatal objection that
it empties the first preposition in ἀνταναπληρῶ of any force. The central
idea in this interpretation is the identification of the suffering Apostle with
the suffering Christ, whereas ἀνταναπληρῶ emphasizes the distinction
between the two. It is therefore inconsistent with this context, however
important may be the truth which it expresses.
The theological difficulty, which these and similar explanations are
intended to remove, is imaginary and not real. There is a sense in which it is
quite legitimate to speak of Christ’s afflictions as incomplete, a sense in
which they may be, and indeed must be, supplemented. For the sufferings of
Christ may be considered from two different points of view. They are either
satisfactoriæ or ædificatoriæ. They have their sacrificial efficacy, and they
have their ministerial utility. (1) From the former point of view the Passion
of Christ was the one full perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and
satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. In this sense there could be no
ὑστέρημα of Christ’s sufferings; for, Christ’s sufferings being different in
kind from those of His servants, the two are incommensurable. But in this
sense the Apostle would surely have used some other expression such as
τοῦ σταυροῦ (i. 20, Eph. ii. 16 etc.), or τοῦ θανάτου (i. 22, Rom. v. 10, Heb.
ii. 14, etc.), but hardly τῶν θλίψεων. Indeed θλίψις, ‘affliction,’ is not
elsewhere applied in the New Testament in any sense to Christ’s sufferings,
and certainly would not suggest a sacrificial act. (2) From the latter point of
view it is a simple matter of fact that the afflictions of every saint and
martyr do supplement the afflictions of Christ. The Church is built up by
repeated acts of self-denial in successive individuals and successive
generations. They continue the work which Christ began. They bear their
part in the sufferings of Christ (2 Cor. i. 7 κοινωνοὶ τῶν παθημάτων, Phil.
iii. 10 κοινωνίαν τῶν παθημάτων); but St Paul would have been the last to
say that they bear their part in the atoning sacrifice of Christ. This being so,
St Paul does not mean to say that his own sufferings filled up all the
ὑστερήματα, but only that they went towards filling them up. The present
tense ἀνταναπληρῶ denotes an inchoate, and not a complete act. These
ὑστερήματα will never be fully supplemented, until the struggle of the
Church with sin and unbelief is brought to a close.
Thus the idea of expiation or satisfaction is wholly absent from this
passage; and with it is removed the twofold temptation which has beset
theologians of opposite schools. (1) On the one hand Protestant

commentators, rightly feeling that any interpretation which infringed the
completeness of the work wrought by Christ’s death must be wrong,
because it would make St Paul contradict himself on a cardinal point of his
teaching, have been tempted to wrest the sense of the words. They have
emptied ἀνταναπληρῶ of its proper force; or they have assigned a false
meaning to ὑστερήματα; or they have attached a non-natural sense to the
genitive τοῦ Χριστοῦ. (2) On the other hand Romanist commentators, while
protesting (as they had a right to do) against these methods of interpretation,
have fallen into the opposite error. They have found in this passage an
assertion of the merits of the saints, and (as a necessary consequence) of the
doctrine of indulgences. They have not observed that, if the idea of
vicarious satisfaction comes into the passage at all, the satisfaction of St
Paul is represented here as the same in kind with the satisfaction of Christ,
however different it may be in degree; and thus they have truly exposed
themselves to the reproach which Estius indignantly repudiates on their
behalf, ‘quasi Christus non satis passus sit ad redemptionem nostram,
ideoque supplemento martyrum opus habeat; quod impium est sentire,
quodque Catholicos dicere non minus impie calumniantur hæretici.’ It is no
part of a commentator here to enquire generally whether the Roman
doctrine of the satisfaction of the saints can in any way be reconciled with
St Paul’s doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ. It is sufficient to say that, so
far as regards this particular passage, the Roman doctrine can only be
imported into it at the cost of a contradiction to the Pauline doctrine. It is
only fair to add however that Estius himself says, ‘quæ quidem doctrina,
etsi Catholica et Apostolica sit, atque aliunde satis probetur, ex hoc tamen
Apostoli loco nobis non videtur admodum solide statui posse.’ But Roman
Catholic commentators generally find this meaning in the text, as may be
seen from the notes of à Lapide.

I. 25]
← ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία·
25
ἧς ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ διάκονος κατὰ τὴν →

τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ An antithesis of the Apostle’s own flesh and Christ’s
body. This antithetical form of expression obliges St Paul to explain what
he means by the body of Christ, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία; comp. ver. 18. Contrast
the explanation in ver. 22 ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, and see the note
there.
25. τὴν οἰκονομίαν κ.τ.λ.] ‘stewardship in the house of God.’ The word
οἰκονομία seems to have two senses: (1) ‘The actual administration of a
household’; (2) ‘The office of the administrator.’ For the former meaning
see the note on Ephes. i. 10; for the latter sense, which it has here, compare
1 Cor. ix. 17 οἰκονομίαν πεπίστευμαι, Luke xvi. 2–4, Isaiah xxii. 19, 21. So
the Apostles and ministers of the Church are called οἰκονόμοι, 1 Cor. iv. 1,
2, Tit. i. 7: comp. 1 Pet. iv. 10.

I.26]
← οἰκονομίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς, πληρῶσαι τὸν
λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, 26 τὸ μυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον →

εἰς ὑμᾶς] ‘to youward,’ i.e. ‘for the benefit of you, the Gentiles’; εἰς ὑμᾶς
being connected with τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, as in Ephes. iii. 2 τὴν οἰκονομίαν
τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς δοθείσης μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς; comp. Rom. xv. 16 διὰ τὴν
χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς τὸ εἶναί με λειτουργὸν Χριστοῦ
Ἰησοῦ ε ἰ ς τ ὰ ἔ θ ν η .
πληρῶσαι] ‘to fulfil,’ i.e. ‘to preach fully,’ ‘to give its complete
development to’; as Rom. xv. 19 ὥστε με ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ κύκλῳ μέχρι
τοῦ Ἰλλυρικοῦ πεπληρωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγελίον τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Thus ‘the word
of God’ here is ‘the Gospel,’ as in most places (1 Cor. xiv. 36, 2 Cor. ii. 17,
iv. 2, etc.), though not always (e.g. Rom. ix. 6), in St Paul, as also in the
Acts. The other interpretation, ‘to accomplish the promise of God,’ though
suggested by such passages as 1 Kings ii. 27 πληρωθῆναι τὸ ῥῆμα Κυρίου,
2 Chron. xxxvi. 21 πληρωθῆναι λόγον Κυρίου, etc., is alien to the context
here.
26. τὸ μυστήριον] This is not the only term borrowed from the ancient
mysteries, which St Paul employs to describe the teaching of the Gospel.
The word τέλειον just below, ver. 28, seems to be an extension of the same
metaphor. In Phil. iv. 12 again we have the verb μεμύημαι: and in Ephes. i.
14 σφραγίζεσθαι is perhaps an image derived from the same source. So too
the Ephesians are addressed as Παύλου συμμύσται in Ign. Ephes. 12. The
Christian teacher is thus regarded as a ἱεροφάντης (see Epict. iii. 21. 13 sq.)
who initiates his disciples into the rites. There is this difference however;
that, whereas the heathen mysteries were strictly confined to a narrow
circle, the Christian mysteries are freely communicated to all. There is
therefore an intentional paradox in the employment of the image by St Paul.
See the notes on πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον below.
Thus the idea of secresy or reserve disappears when μυστήριον is
adopted into the Christian vocabulary by St Paul: and the word signifies
simply ‘a truth which was once hidden but now is revealed,’ ‘a truth which
without special revelation would have been unknown.’ Of the nature of the

truth itself the word says nothing. It may be transcendental,
incomprehensible, mystical, mysterious, in the modern sense of the term (1
Cor. xv. 51, Eph. v. 32): but this idea is quite accidental, and must be
gathered from the special circumstances of the case, for it cannot be
inferred from the word itself. Hence μυστήριον is almost universally found
in connexion with words denoting revelation or publication; e.g.
ἀποκαλύπτειν, ἀποκάλυψις, Rom. xvi. 25, Ephes. iii. 3, 5, 2 Thess. ii. 7;
γνωρίζειν Rom. xvi. 26, Ephes. i. 9, iii. 3, 10, vi. 19; φανεροῦν Col. iv. 3,
Rom. xvi. 26, 1 Tim. iii. 16; λαλεῖν iv. 3, 1 Cor. ii. 7, xiv. 2; λέγειν, 1 Cor.
xv. 51.
But the one special ‘mystery’ which absorbs St Paul’s thoughts in the
Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians is the free admission of the
Gentiles on equal terms to the privileges of the covenant. For this he is a
prisoner; this he is bound to proclaim fearlessly (iv. 3, Ephes. vi. 19); this,
though hidden from all time, was communicated to him by a special
revelation (Ephes. iii. 3 sq.); in this had God most signally displayed the
lavish wealth of His goodness (ver. 27, ii. 2 sq., Ephes. i. 6 sq., iii. 8 sq.). In
one passage only throughout these two epistles is μυστήριον applied to
anything else, Ephes. v. 32. The same idea of the μυστήριον appears very
prominently also in the thanksgiving (added apparently later than the rest of
the letter) at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, xvi. 25 sq. μυστηρίου ...
εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη γνωρισθέντος.

I. 27]
← ἀπὸ τῶν αἴωνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν, νῦν δὲ ἐφανερώθη τοῖς
ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ, 27οἷς ἠθέλησεν ὁ Θεὸς γνωρίσαι τί τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς
δόξης τοῦ μυστηρίου τούτου ἐν τοῖς →

ἀπὸ τῶν αἴωνων κ.τ.λ.] The preposition is doubtless temporal here, being
opposed to νῦν, as in the parallel passage, Ephes. iii. 9: comp. Rom. xvi. 25
κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίωυ χ ρ ό ν ο ι ς α ἰ ω ν ί ο ι ς σεσιγημένου, 1 Cor.
ii. 7 Θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην ἣν προώρισεν ὁ Θεὸς
π ρ ὸ τ ῶ ν α ἰ ώ ν ω ν . So too ἀπ’ αἰῶνος, Acts iii. 21, xv. 18, Ps. xcii. 3,
etc.; ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, Matt. xiii. 35, xxv. 34, etc.
τῶν γενεῶν] An αἲων is made up of many γενεαί; comp. Ephes. iii. 21 εἰς
πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων, Is. li. 9 ὡς γενεὰ αἰῶνος (where
the Hebrew has the plural ‘generations’). Hence the order here. Not only
was this mystery unknown in remote periods of antiquity, but even in recent
generations. It came upon the world as a sudden surprise. The moment of its
revelation was the moment of its fulfilment.
27. ἠθέλησεν] ‘willed,’ ‘was pleased.’ It was God’s grace: it was no merit
of their own. See the note on i. 1 διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ.
νῦν δὲ κ.τ.λ.] An indicative clause is substituted for a participial, which
would otherwise have been more natural, for the sake of emphasizing the
statement; comp. ver. 22 νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατηλλάγητε, and see Winer § lxiii. p.
717.
τὸ πλοῦτος] The ‘wealth of God,’ as manifested in His dispensation of
grace, is a prominent idea in these epistles; comp. ii. 2, Ephes. i. 7, 18, iii. 8,
16; comp. Rom. xi. 33. See above p. 43 sq. St Paul uses the neuter and the
masculine forms indifferently in these epistles (e.g. τὸ πλοῦτος Ephes. i. 7,
ὁ πλοῦτος Ephes. i. 18), as in his other letters (e.g. τὸ πλοῦτος 2 Cor. viii. 2,
ὁ πλοῦτος Rom. ix. 23). In most passages however there are various
readings. On the neuter forms τὸ πλοῦτος, τὸ ζῆλος, etc., see Winer § ix. p.
76.
τῆς δόξης] i.e. ‘of the glorious manifestation.’ This word in Hellenistic
Greek is frequently used of a bright light; e.g. Luke ii. 9 περίελαμψεν, Acts

xxii. 11 τοῦ φωτός, 1 Cor. xv. 41 ἡλίου, σελήνης, etc. 2 Cor. iii. 7 τοῦ
προσώπου [Μωυσέως]. Hence it is applied generally to a divine
manifestation, even where there is no physical accompaniment of light; and
more especially to the revelation of God in Christ (e.g. Joh. i. 14, 2 Cor. iv.
4, etc.). The expression πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης occurs again, Rom. ix. 23,
Ephes. i. 18, iii. 16. See above ver. 11 with the note.

I. 28]
← ἔθνεσιν, ὅ ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης· 28 ὃν ἡμεῖς
καταγγέλλομεν νουθετοῦντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον →
27
ὅς ἐστιν.

ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν] i.e. ‘as exhibited among the Gentiles.’ It was just here
that this ‘mystery,’ this dispensation of grace, achieved its greatest triumphs
and displayed its transcendant glory; φαίνεται μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἐν ἑτεροις, writes
Chrysostom, πολλῷ δὲ πλέον ἐν τούτοις ἡ πολλὴ τοῦ μυστερίου δόξα. Here
too was its wealth; for it overflowed all barriers of caste or race. Judaism
was ‘beggarly’ (Gal. iv. 9) in comparison, since its treasures sufficed only
for a few.
ὅ ἐστιν] The antecedent is probably τοῦ μυστηρίου; comp. ii. 2 τοῦ
μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ ἐν ᾧ εἰσιν πάντες κ.τ.λ.
Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν] ‘Christ in you,’ i.e. ‘you Gentiles.’ Not Christ, but
Christ given freely to the Gentiles, is the ‘mystery’ of which St Paul speaks;
see the note on μυστήριον above. Thus the various reading, ὃς for ὅ, though
highly supported, interferes with the sense. With Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν compare
μεθ’ ἡμῶν Θεός Matt. i. 23. It may be a question however, whether ἐν ὑμῖν
means ‘within you’ or ‘among you.’ The former is perhaps the more
probable interpretation, as suggested by Rom. viii. 10, 2 Cor. xiii. 5, Gal. iv.
19; comp. Ephes. iii. 17 κατοικῆσαι τὸν Χριστὸν διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν ταῖς
καρδίαις ὑμῶν.
ἡ ἐλπίς] comp. 1 Tim. i. 2; so ἡ [κοινὴ] ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν Ign. Eph. 21, Magn.
Philad. 5, etc., applied to our Lord.
28, 29. ‘This Christ we, the Apostles and Evangelists, proclaim without
distinction and without reserve. We know no restriction either of persons or
of topics. We admonish every man and instruct every man. We initiate every
man in all the mysteries of wisdom. It is our single aim to present every
man fully and perfectly taught in Christ. For this end I train myself in the
discipline of self-denial; for this end I commit myself to the arena of
suffering and toil, putting forth in the conflict all that energy which He
inspires, and which works in me so powerfully.’

28. ἡμεῖς] ‘we,’ the preachers; the same opposition as in 1 Cor. iv. 8, 10,
ix. 11, 2 Cor. xiii. 5 sq., 1 Thess. ii. 13 sq., etc. The Apostle hastens, as
usual, to speak of the part which he was privileged to bear in this glorious
dispensation. He is constrained to magnify his office. See the next note, and
comp. ver. 23.

I. 28]
← καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, ἵνα
παραστήσωμεν πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἐν Χριστῷ· →

ὃν ἡμεῖς κ.τ.λ.] as in St Paul’s own language at Thessalonica, Acts xvii. 3
ὃν ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν, and at Athens, Acts xvii. 23 τοῦτο ἐγὼ
καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν, in both which passages, as here, emphasis is laid on the
person of the preacher.
νουθετοῦντες] ‘admonishing.’ The two words νουθετεῖν and διδάσκειν
present complementary aspects of the preacher’s duty, and are related the
one to the other, as μετάνοια to πίστις, ‘warning to repent, instructing in the
faith.’ For the relation of νουθετεῖν to μετάνοια See Plut. Mor. p. 68 ἕνεστι
τὸ νουθετοῦν καὶ μετάνοιαν ἐμποιοῦν, p. 452 ἡ νουθεσία καὶ ὁ ψόγος
ἐμποιεῖ μετάνοιαν καὶ αἰσχύνην. The two verbs νουθετεῖν and διδάσκειν are
connected in Plato Protag. 323 D, Legg. 845 B, Plut. Mor. p. 46 (comp. p.
39), Dion Chrys. Or. xxxiii. p. 369; the substantives διδαχὴ and νουθέτησις
in Plato Resp. 399 B. Similarly νουθετεῖν and πείθειν occur together in
Arist. Rhet. ii. 18. For the two functions of the preacher’s office,
corresponding respectively to the two words, see St Paul’s own language in
Acts xx. 21 διαμαρτυρόμενος ... τὴν εἰς Θεὸν μετάνοιαν καὶ πίστιν εἰς τὸν
Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν.
πάντα ἄνθρωπον] three times repeated for the sake of emphasizing the
universality of the Gospel. This great truth, for which St Paul gave his life,
was now again endangered by the doctrine of an intellectual exclusiveness
taught by the Gnosticizers at Colossæ, as before it had been endangered by
the doctrine of a ceremonial exclusiveness taught by the Judaizers in
Galatia. See above pp. 77, 92, 98 sq. For the repetition of πάντα compare
especially 1 Cor. x. 1 sq., where πάντες is five times, and ib. xii. 29, 30,
where it is seven times repeated; see also Rom. ix. 6, 7, xi. 32, 1 Cor. xii.
13, xiii. 7, xiv. 31, etc. Transcribers have been offended at this characteristic
repetition here, and consequently have omitted πάντα ἄνθρωπον in one
place or other.
ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ] The Gnostic spoke of a blind faith for the many, of a
higher γνῶσις for the few. St Paul declares that the fullest wisdom is offered

to all alike. The character of the teaching is as free from restriction, as are
the qualifications of the recipients. Comp. ii. 2, 3 πᾶν πλοῦτος τῆς
πληροφορίας τῆς συνέσεως ... πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως.
παραστήσωμεν] See the note on παραστῆσαι, ver. 22.
τέλειον] So 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7 σοφίαν δὲ λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις ... Θεοῦ
σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην. In both these passages the
epithet τέλειος is probably a metaphor borrowed from the ancient mysteries,
where it seems to have been applied to the fully instructed, as opposed to
the novices: comp. Plato Phædr. 249 C τελέους ἀεὶ τελετὰς τελούμενος
τέλεος ὄντως μόνος γίγνεται... 250 B, C εἶδόν τε καὶ ἐτελοῦντο τελετῶν ἣν
θέμις λέγειν μακαριωτάτην ... μυούμενοί τε καὶ ἐποπτεύοντες ἐν αὒγῇ
καθαρᾷ, Symp. 209 E ταῦτα ... κἂν σὺ μυηθείης· τὰ δὲ τέλεα καὶ ἐποπτικά ...
οὐκ οἷ δ’ εἰ οἷός τ’ ἂν εἴης, Plut. Fragm. de An. vi. 2 (v. p. 726 Wyttenb.) ὁ
παντελὴς ἤδη καὶ μεμυημένος (with the context), Dion Chrys. Or. xii. p.
203 τὴν ὁλόκληρον καὶ τῷ ὄντι τελείαν τελετὴν μυούμενον; see Valcknaer
on Eurip. Hippol. 25, and Lobeck Aglaoph. p. 33 sq., p. 126 sq. Somewhat
similarly in the LXX 1 Chron. xxv. 8 τελέιων καὶ μανθανόντων stands for
‘the teachers (or the wise) and the scholars.’ So also in 2 Pet. i. 16
ἐ π ό π τ α ι γενηθέντες τῆς ἐκείνου μεγαλειότητος we seem to have the
same metaphor. As an illustration it may be mentioned that Plato and
Aristotle called the higher philosophy ἐποπτικόν, because those who have
transcended the bounds of the material, οἷον ἐντελῆ [l. ἐν τελετῇ] τέλος
ἔχειν φιλοσοφίαν [φιλοσοφίας] νομίζουσι, Plut. Mor. 382 D, E. For other
metaphorical expressions in St Paul, derived from the mysteries, see above
on μυστήριον ver. 26. Influenced probably by this heathen use of τέλειος,
the early Christians applied it to the baptized, as opposed to the
catechumens: e.g. Justin Dial. 8 (p. 225 C) πάρεστιν ἐπιγνόντι σοι τὸν
Χριστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τελείῳ γενομένῳ εὐδαιμονεῖν, Clem. Hom. iii. 29
ὑποχωρεῖν μοι κελεύσας, ὡς μήπω εἰληφότι τὸ πρὸς σωτηρίαν βάπτισμα,
τοῖς ἤδη τελείοις ἔφη κ.τ.λ., xi. 36 βαπτίσας ... ἤδη λοιπὸν τέλειον ὄντα
κ.τ.λ.; and for later writers see Suicer Thes. s. vv. τελειόω, τελείωσις. At all
events we may ascribe to its connexion with the mysteries the fact that it
was adopted by Gnostics at a later date, and most probably by the
Gnosticizers at this time, to distinguish the possessors of the higher γνῶσις
from the vulgar herd of believers: see the passages quoted in the note on
Phil. iii. 15. While employing the favourite Gnostic term, the Apostle
strikes at the root of the Gnostic doctrine. The language descriptive of the

heathen mysteries is transferred by him to the Christian dispensation, that
he may thus more effectively contrast the things signified. The true Gospel
also has its mysteries, its hierophants, its initiation: but these are open to all
alike. In Christ every believer is τέλειος, for he has been admitted as
ἐπόπτης of its most profound, most awful, secrets. See again the note on
ἀπόκρυφοι, ii. 3.

I. 29]
← 29εἰς ὃ καὶ κοπιῶ ἀγωνιζόμενος κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν αὐτοῦ τὴν
ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἑμοὶ ἐν δυνάμει. →

29. εἰς ὃ] i.e. εἰς τὸ παραστῆσαι πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον, ‘that I may
initiate all mankind in the fulness of this mystery,’ ‘that I may preach the
Gospel to all without reserve.’ If St Paul had been content to preach an
exclusive Gospel, he might have saved himself from more than half the
troubles of his life.
κοπιῶ] This word is used especially of the labour undergone by the
athlete in his training, and therefore fitly introduces the metaphor of
ἀγωνιζόμενος: comp. 1 Tim. iv. 10 εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ κοπιῶμεν καὶ ἀγωνιζόμεθα
(the correct reading), and see the passages quoted on Phil. ii. 16.
ἀγωνιζόμενος] ‘contending in the lists,’ the metaphor being continued in
the next verse (ii. 1), ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα; comp. iv. 12. These words ἀγών,
ἀγωνία, ἀγωνίζεσθαι, are only found in St Paul and the Pauline writings
(Luke, Hebrews) in the New Testament. They occur in every group of St
Paul’s Epistles. The use here most resembles 1 Thess. ii. 2 λαλῆσαι πρὸς
ὑμᾶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν πολλῷ ἀγῶνι.
ἐνεργουμένην] Comp. Eph. iii. 20. For the difference between ἐνεργεῖν
and ἐνεργεῖσθαι see the note on Gal. v. 6.

II. 1, 2]
← II. 1 Θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι, ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ
τῶν ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ καὶ ὅσοι οὐχ ἑώρακαν τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί,
2
ἵνα παρακληθῶσιν αἱ καρδίαι →

II. 1–3. ‘I spoke of an arena and a conflict in describing my apostolic
labours. The image was not lightly chosen. I would have you know that my
care is not confined to my own direct and personal disciples. I wish you to
understand the magnitude of the struggle, which my anxiety for you costs
me—for you and for your neighbours of Laodicea and for all who, like
yourselves, have never met me face to face in the flesh. I am constantly
wrestling in spirit, that the hearts of all such may be confirmed and
strengthened in the faith; that they may be united in love; that they may
attain to all the unspeakable wealth which comes from the firm conviction
of an understanding mind, may be brought to the perfect knowledge of
God’s mystery, which is nothing else than Christ—Christ containing in
Himself all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden away.’
1. Θέλω κ.τ.λ.] as in 1 Cor. xi. 3. The corresponding negative form, οὐ
θέλω [θέλομεν] ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, is the more common expression in St Paul;
Rom. i. 13, xi. 25, 1 Cor. x. 1, xii. 1, 2 Cor. i. 8, 1 Thess. iv. 13.
ἀγῶνα] The arena of the contest to which ἀγωνιζόμενος in the preceding
verse refers may be either outward or inward. It will include the ‘fightings
without,’ as well as the ‘fears within.’ Here however the inward struggle,
the wrestling in prayer, is the predominant idea, as in iv. 12 πάντοτε
ἀγωνιζόμενος ὑπὲρ ὑμων ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς ἵνα σταθῆτε κ.τ.λ.
τῶν ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ] The Laodiceans were exposed to the same doctrinal
perils as the Colossians: see above pp. 2, 41 sq. The Hierapolitans are
doubtless included in καὶ ὅσοι κ.τ.λ. (comp. iv. 13), but are not mentioned
here by name, probably because they were less closely connected with
Colossæ (see iv. 15 sq.), and perhaps also because the danger was less
threatening there.
καὶ ὅσοι κ.τ.λ.] ‘and all who, like yourselves, have not seen, etc.’; where
the καὶ ὅσοι introduces the whole class to which the persons previously

enumerated belong; so Acts iv. 6 Ἄννας ὁ ἀρχιερὲυς καὶ Καΐαφας καὶ
Ἴωαννης καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος κ α ὶ ὅ σ ο ι ἦσαν ἐκ γένους ἀρχιερατικοῦ, Rev.
xviii. 17 καὶ πᾶς κυβερνήτης καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἐπὶ τόπον πλέων καὶ ναῦται κ α ὶ
ὅ σ ο ι τὴν θάλασσαν ἐργάζονται. Even a simple καὶ will sometimes
introduce the general after the particular, e.g. Acts v. 29 ὁ Πέτρος καὶ οἱ
ἀπόστολοι, Ar. Nub. 413 ἐν Ἀθηναίοις καὶ τοῖς Ἕλλησι, etc.; see Kühner
Gramm. § 521, II. p. 791. On the other hand καὶ ὅσοι, occurring in an
enumeration, sometimes introduces a different class from those previously
mentioned, as e.g. in Herod, vii. 185. As a pure grammatical question
therefore it is uncertain whether St Paul’s language here implies his
personal acquaintance with his correspondents or the contrary. But in all
such cases the sense of the context must be our guide. In the present
instance καὶ ὅσοι is quite out of place, unless the Colossians and
Laodiceans also were personally unknown to the Apostle. There would be
no meaning in singling out individuals who were known to him, and then
mentioning comprehensively all who were unknown to him: see above p.
28, note 84. Hence we may infer from the expression here, that St Paul had
never visited Colossæ–an inference which has been already shown (p. 23
sq.) to accord both with the incidental language of this epistle elsewhere
and with the direct historical narrative of the Acts.
ἑώρακαν] For this ending of the 3rd pers. plur. perfect in -αν see Winer §
xiii. p. 90. The received text reads ἑωράκασι. In this passage the ω form has
the higher support; but below in ver. 18 the preponderance of authority
favours ἑόρακεν rather than ἑώρακεν. On the use of the form in ο see
Buttmann Ausf. Griech. Sprachl. § 84, I. p. 325.
2. παρακληθῶσιν] ‘encouraged, confirmed,’ i.e. ‘comforted’ in the older
and wider meaning of the word, (‘confortati’), but not with its modern and
restricted sense: see παράκλησις Phil. ii. 1. For παρακαλεῖν τὰς καρδίας
comp. iv. 8, Ephes. vi. 22, 2 Thess. ii. 17.

II. 3]
← αὐτῶν, συμβιβασθέντες ἐν ἀγάπῃ καὶ εἰς πᾶν πλοῦτος τῆς
πληροφορίας τῆς συνέσεως, εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίον τοῦ
Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ 3ἐν ᾧ εἰσὶν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ →

αἱ καρδίαι] They met the Apostle heart to heart, though not face to face.
We have here the same opposition of καρδία and πρόσωπον as in 1 Thess.
ii. 17, though less directly expressed; see ver. 5.
αὐτῶν] where we should expect ὑμῶν, but the substitution of the third
person for the second is suggested by the immediately preceding καὶ ὅσοι.
This substitution confirms the interpretation of καὶ ὅσοι already given.
Unless the Colossians are included in ὅσοι, they must be excluded by
αὐτῶν. Yet this exclusion is hardly conceivable in such a context.
συμβιβασθέντες] ‘they being united, compacted,’ for συμβιβάζειν must
here have its common meaning, as it has elsewhere in this and the
companion epistle: ver. 19 διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων ...
συμβιβαζόμενον, Ephes. iv. 16 πᾶν τὸ σῶμα συναρμολογούμενον καὶ
συμβιβαζόμενον. Otherwise we might be disposed to assign to this verb
here the sense which it always bears in the LXX (e.g. in Is. xl. 13, 14, quoted
in 1 Cor. ii. 16), ‘instructed, taught,’ as it is rendered in the Vulgate. Its
usage in the Acts is connected with this latter sense; e.g. ix. 22 συμβιβάζων
‘proving,’ xvi. 10 συμβιβάζοντες ‘concluding’; and so in xix. 33
συνεβίβασαν Ἀλέξανδρον (the best supported reading) can only mean
‘instructed Alexander.’ For the different sense of the nominative absolute
see the note on iii. 16. The received text substitutes συμβιβασθέντων here. `
ἐν ἀγάπῃ] for love is the σύνδεσμος (iii. 14) of perfection.
καὶ εἰς] ‘and brought unto,’ the thought being supplied from the
preceding συμβιβασθέντες, which involves an idea of motion, comp. Joh.
xx. 7 ἐντετυλιγμένον εἰς ἕνα τόπον.
πᾶν πλοῦτος] This reading is better supported than either πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος
or πάντα πλοῦτον, while, as the intermediate reading, it also explains the
other two.

τῆς πληροφορίας] ‘the full assurance,’ for such seems to be the meaning
of the substantive wherever it occurs in the New Testament; 1 Thess. i. 5 ἐν
πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ, Heb. vi. 11 πρὸς τὴν πληροφορίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος, x. 22 ἐν
πληροφορίᾳ πίστεως, comp. Clem. Rom. 42 μετὰ πληροφορίας πνεύματος
ἁγίου. With the exception of 1 Thess. i. 5 however, all the Biblical passages
might bear the other sense ‘fulness’: see Bleek on Heb. vi. 11. For the verb
see the note on πεπληροφορημένοι below, iv. 12.
ἐπίγνωσιν] See the note on i. 9.
τοῦ μυστηρίου κ.τ.λ.] ‘the mystery of God, even Christ in whom, etc.,’
Χριστοῦ being in apposition with τοῦ μυστηρίου; comp. i. 27 τοῦ
μυστηρίου τούτου ... ὅ ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, 1 Tim. iii. 16 τὸ τῆς
εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, Ὅς ἐφανερώθη κ.τ.λ. The reasons for adopting the
reading τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ are given in the detached note on various
readings. Other interpretations of this reading are; (1) ‘the God Christ,’
taking Χριστοῦ in apposition with Θεοῦ; or (2) ‘the God of Christ,’ making
it the genitive after Θεοῦ: but both expressions are without a parallel in St
Paul. The mystery here is not ‘Christ,’ but ‘Christ as containing in Himself
all the treasures of wisdom’; see the note on i. 27 Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν. For the
form of the sentence comp. Ephes. iv. 15, 16 ἡ κεφαλή, Χριστὸς ἐξ οὗ πᾶν
τὸ σῶμα κ.τ.λ.
3. πάντες] So πᾶν πλοῦτος ver. 2, πάσῃ σοφίᾳ ii. 28. These repetitions
serve to emphasize the character of the Gospel, which is as complete in
itself, as it is universal in its application.

II. 4]
← τῆς σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι. 4τοῦτο →

σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως] The two words occur together again Rom. xi. 33 ὦ
βάθος πλούτου καὶ σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως Θεοῦ, 1 Cor. xii. 8. They are found
in conjunction also several times in the LXX of Eccles. i. 7, 16, 18, ii. 21, 26,
ix. 10, where ‫ חבכוה‬is represented by σοφία and ‫ דעת‬by γνῶσις. While
γνῶσις is simply intuitive, σοφία is ratiocinative also. While γνῶσις applies
chiefly to the apprehension of truths, σοφία superadds the power of
reasoning about them and tracing their relations. When Bengel on 1 Cor.
xii. 8 sq. says, ‘Cognitio [γνῶσις] est quasi visus; sapientia [σοφία] visus
cum sapore,’ he is so far right; but when he adds, ‘cognitio, rerum
agendarum; sapientia, rerum aeternarum,’ he is quite wide of the mark.
Substantially the same, and equally wrong, is St Augustine’s distinction de
Trin. xii. 20, 25 (VIII. pp. 923, 926) ‘intelligendum est ad contemplationem
sapientiam [σοφίαν], ad actionem scientiam [γνῶσιν] pertinere ... quod alia
[σοφία] sit intellectualis cognitio aeternarum rerum, alia [γνῶσις] rationalis
temporalium’ (comp. xiv. 3, p. 948), and again de Div. Quæst. ad Simpl.> ii.
2 § 3 (VI. p. 114) ‘ita discerni probabiliter solent, ut sapientia pertineat ad
intellectum æternorum, scientia vero ad ea quæ sensibus corporis
experimur.’ This is directly opposed to usage. In Aristotle Eth. Nic. i. 1
γνῶσις is opposed to πρᾶξις. In St Paul it is connected with the
apprehension of eternal mysteries, 1 Cor. xiii. 2 εἰδῶ τὰ μυστήρια πάντα καὶ
πᾶσαν τὴν γνῶσιν. On the relation of σοφία to σύνεσις see above, i. 9.
ἀπόκρυφοι] So 1 Cor. ii. 7 λαλοῦμεν Θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ, τὴν
ἀποκεκρυμμένην. As before in τέλειος (i. 28), so here again in ἀπόκρυφοι
the Apostle adopts a favourite term of the Gnostic teachers, only that he
may refute a favourite doctrine. The word apocrypha was especially applied
to those esoteric writings, for which such sectarians claimed an auctoritas
secreta (Aug. c. Faust. xi. 2, VIII. p. 219) and which they carefully guarded
from publication after the manner of their Jewish prototypes the Essenes
(see above p. 89 sq.): comp. Iren. i. 20. 1 ἀμύθητον πλῆθος ἀποκρύφων καὶ
νόθων γραφῶν, Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 15 (p. 357) βίβλους ἀποκρύφους
τἀνδρὸς τοῦδε οἱ τὴν Προδίκου μετιόντες ἅιρεσιν α ὐ χ ο ῦ σ ι κεκτῆσθαι,

ib. iii. 4 (p. 524) ἐρρύη δὲ αὐτοῖς τὸ δόγμα ἔκ τινος ἀποκρύφου. See also
the application of the text Prov. ix. 17 ἄρτων κρυφίων ἡδέως ἅψασθε to
these heretics in Strom. i. 19 (p. 375). Thus the word apocrypha in the first
instance was an honourable appellation applied by the heretics themselves
to their esoteric doctrine and their secret books; but owing to the general
character of these works the term, as adopted by orthodox writers, got to
signify ‘false,’ ‘spurious.’ The early fathers never apply it, as it is now
applied, to deutero-canonical writings, but confine it to supposititious and
heretical works: see Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible s.v. In the text St Paul
uses it καταχρηστικῶς, as he uses μυστήριον. ‘All the richest treasures of
that secret wisdom,’ he would say, ‘on which you lay so much stress, are
buried in Christ, and being buried there are accessible to all alike who seek
Him.’ But, while the term ἀπόκρυφος is adopted because it was used to
designate the secret doctrine and writings of the heretics, it is also entirely
in keeping with the metaphor of the ‘treasure’; e.g. Is. xlv. 3 δώσω σοι
θησαυροὺς σκοτεινοὺς ἀποκρύφους, 1 Macc. i. 23 ἔλαβε τοὺς θησαυροὺς
τοὺς ἀποκρύφους, Dan. xi. 43 ἐν τοῖς ἀποκρύφοις τοῦ χρυσοῦ καὶ τοῦ
αργύρου: comp. Matt. xiii. 44.
The stress thus laid on ἀπόκρυφοι will explain its position. It is not
connected with εἰσιν, but must be taken apart as a secondary predicate:
comp. ver. 10 ἐστὲ ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι, iii. 1 οὗ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν ἐν
δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ καθήμενος, James i. 17 πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνωθέν ἐστιν,
καταβαῖνον κ.τ.λ.
4–7. ‘I do not say this without a purpose. I wish to warn you against any
who would lead you astray by specious argument and persuasive rhetoric.
For I am not an indifferent spectator of your doings. Although I am absent
from you in my flesh, yet I am present with you in my spirit. I rejoice to
behold the orderly array and the solid phalanx which your faith towards
Christ presents against the assaults of the foe. I entreat you therefore not to
abandon the Christ, as you learnt from Epaphras to know Him, even Jesus
the Lord, but to walk still in Him as heretofore. I would have you firmly
rooted once for all in Him. I desire to see you built up higher in Him day by
day, to see you growing ever stronger and stronger through your faith, while
you remain true to the lessons taught you of old, so that you may abound in
it, and thus abounding may pour forth your hearts in gratitude to God the
giver of all.’

II. 5]
← #λέγω, ἵνα μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς παραλογίζηται ἐν πιθανολογίᾳ· 5εἰ γὰρ
καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ ἄπειμι, ἀλλὰ τῷ πνεύματι σὺν →

4. τοῦτο λέγω κ.τ.λ.] ‘I say all this to you, lest you should be led astray
by those false teachers who speak of another knowledge, of other
mysteries.’ In other connexions τοῦτο λέγω will frequently refer to the
words following (e.g. Gal. iii. 17, 1 Cor. i. 12); but with ἵνα it points to what
has gone before, as in Joh. v. 34 ταῦτα λέγω ἵνα ὑμεῖς σωθῆτε.
The reference in τοῦτο λέγω extends over vv. 1–3, and involves two
statements; (1) The declaration that all knowledge is comprehended in
Christ, vv. 2, 3; (2) The expression of his own personal anxiety that they
should remain stedfast in this conviction, vv. 1, 2. This last point explains
the language which follows, εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ κ.τ.λ.
παραλογίζηται] ‘lead you astray by false reasoning’, as in Daniel xiv. 7
μηδέις σε παραλογιζέσθω (LXX): comp. James i. 22, Ign. Magn. 3. It is not
an uncommon word either in the LXX or in classical writers. The system
against which St Paul here contends professed to be a φιλοσοφία (ver. 8)
and had a λόγον σοφίας (ver. 23).
ἐν πιθανολογίᾳ] The words πιθανολογεῖν (Arist. Eth. Nic. i. 1),
πιθανολογία (Plat. Theæt. 162 E), πιθανολογικός (Epictet. i. 8. 7), occur
occasionally in classical writers, but do not bear a bad sense, being most
frequently opposed to ἀπόδειξις, as probable argument to strict
mathematical demonstration. This contrast probably suggested St Paul’s
language in 1 Cor. ii. 4 οὐκ ἐν π ε ι θ ο ῖ ς σοφίας λ ό γ ο ι ς ἀλλ’ ἐν
ἀ π ο δ ε ί ξ ε ι πνεύματος κ.τ.λ., and may possibly have been present to his
mind here.
5. ἀλλὰ] frequently introduces the apodosis after εἰ or εἰ καὶ in St Paul;
e.g. Rom. vi. 5, 1 Cor. ix. 2, 2 Cor. iv. 16, v. 16, xi. 6, xiii. 4 (v. l.).
τῷ πνεύματι] ‘in my spirit’, not ‘by the Spirit’. We have here the common
antithesis of flesh and spirit, or body and spirit: comp. 1 Cor. v. 3 ἀπὼν τῷ
σώματι, παρὼν δὲ τῷ πνεύματι. St Paul elsewhere uses another antithesis,
προσώπῳ and καρδίᾳ, to express this same thing; 1 Thess. ii. 17.

χαίρων καὶ βλέπων] ‘rejoicing and beholding’. This must not be regarded
as a logical inversion. The contemplation of their orderly array, though it
might have been first the cause, was afterwards the consequence, of the
Apostle’s rejoicing. He looked, because it gave him satisfaction to look.

II. 6]
← ὑμῖν εἰμί, χαίρων καὶ βλέπων ὑμῶν τὴν τάξιν καὶ τὸ στερέωμα
τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως ὑμῶν. 6ὡς οὖν παρελάβετε τὸν Χριστόν,
Ἰησοῦν τὸν Κύριον, ἐν αὐτῷ περιπατεῖτε, →

τὴν τάξιν] ‘your orderly array’, a military metaphor: comp. e.g. Xen.
Anab. i. 2. 18 ἰδοῦσα τὴν λαμπρότητα καὶ τὴν τάξιν τοῦ στρατεύματος
ἐθαύμασε, Plut. Vit. Pyrrh. 16 κατιδὼν τάξιν τε καὶ φυλακὰς καὶ κόσμον
αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ σχῆμα τῆς στρατοπεδείας ἐθαύμασε. The enforced
companionship of St Paul with the soldiers of the prætorian guard at this
time (Phil. i. 13) might have suggested this image. At all events in the
contemporary epistle (Ephes. vi. 14 sq.) we have an elaborate metaphor
from the armour of a soldier.
τὸ στερέωμα] ‘solid front, close phalanx’, a continuation of the
metaphor: comp. 1 Macc. ix. 14 εἶδεν Ἰούδας ὅτι Βακχίδης καὶ τὸ
στερέωμα τῆς παρεμβολῆς ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς. Somewhat similar are the
expressions στερεοῦν τὸν πόλεμον 1 Macc. x. 50, κατὰ τὴν στερέωσιν τῆς
μάχης Ecclus. xxviii. 10. For the connexion here compare 1 Pet. v. 9
ἀντίστητε στερεοὶ τῇ πίστει, Acts xvi. 5 ἐστερεοῦντο τῇ πίστει.
6. ὡς οὖν παρελάβετε κ.τ.λ.] i.e. ‘Let your conviction and conduct be in
perfect accordance with the doctrines and precepts of the Gospel as it was
taught to you’. For this use of παρελάβετε ‘ye received from your teachers,
were instructed in’, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1, 3, Gal. i. 9, Phil. iv. 9, 1 Thess. ii.
13, iv. 1, 2 Thess. iii. 6. The word παραλαμβάνειν implies either ‘to receive
as transmitted’, or ‘to receive for transmission’: see the note on Gal. i. 12.
The ὡς of the protasis suggests a οὕτως in the apodosis, which in this case
is unexpressed but must be understood. The meaning of ὡς παρελάβετε here
is explained by the καθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ Ἐπαφρᾶ in i. 7; see the note there,
and comp. below ver. 7 καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε.
τὸν Χριστόν] ‘the Christ’, rather than ‘the Gospel’, because the central
point in the Colossian heresy was the subversion of the true idea of the
Christ.

Ἰησοῦν τὸν Κύριον] ‘even Jesus the Lord’, in whom the true conception
of the Christ is realised: comp. Ephes. iv. 20, 21, ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως
ἐμάθετε τ ὸ ν Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ν , εἴγε αὐτὸν ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐδιδάχθητε,
κ α θ ώ ς ἐ σ τ ι ν ἀ λ ή θ ε ι α ἐ ν τ ῷ Ἰ η σ ο ῦ , where the same idea is
more directly expressed. The genuine doctrine of the Christ consists in (1)
the recognition of the historical person Jesus, and (2) the acceptance of Him
as the Lord. This doctrine was seriously endangered by the mystic
theosophy of the false teachers. The same order which we have here occurs
also in Ephes. iii. 11 ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν (the correct
reading).
7. ἐρριζωμένοι] Two points may be noticed here; (1) The expressive
change of tenses; ἐρριζωμένοι ‘firmly rooted’ once for all,
ἐποικοδομούμενοι, βεβαιούμενοι, ‘built up and strengthened’ from hour to
hour. (2) The rapid transition of metaphor, περιπατεῖτε, ἐρῥιζωμένοι,
ἐποικοδομούμενοι, the path, the tree, the building: comp. Ephes. iii. 17
ἐρριζωμένοι καὶ τεθεμελιωμένοι. The metaphors of the plant and the
building occur together in 1 Cor. iii. 9 Θεοῦ γεώργιον, Θεοῦ οἰκοδομή. The
transition in this passage is made easier by the fact that ῥιζοῦν (Plut. Mor.
321 D), ἐκριζοῦν (Jer. i. 10, 1 Macc. v. 51), πρόρριζος (Jos. B.J. vii. 8. 7),
etc., are not uncommonly used of cities and buildings.

II. 7]
← 7ἐρριζωμένοι καὶ ἐποικοδομούμενοι ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ βεβαιούμενοι
τῇ πίστει, καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε, περισσεύοντες ἐν αὐτῇ ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ.
→

ἐποικοδομούμενοι] ‘being built up,’ as in 1 Cor. iii. 10–14. After this verb
we might have expected ἐπ’ αὐτῷ or ἐπ’ αὐτόν (1 Cor. iii. 12) rather than ἐν
αὐτῷ; but in this and the companion epistle Christ is represented rather as
the binding element than as the foundation of the building: e.g. Ephes. ii. 20
ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν, ὄντος
ἀ κ ρ ο γ ω ν ι α ί ο υ αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἐ ν ᾧ πᾶσα [ἡ] οἰκοδομὴ
αὔξει εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον ἐ ν Κυρίῳ, ἐ ν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς συνοικοδομεῖσθε. The ἐπὶ
in ἐποικοδομεῖν does not necessarily refer to the original foundation, but
may point to the continued progress of the building by successive layers, as
e.g. [Aristot.] Rhet. ad Alex. 4 (p. 1426) ἐποικοδομοῦντα τὸ ἕτερον ὡς ἐπὶ
τὸ ἕτερον αὔξειν. Hence ἐποικοδομεῖν is frequently used absolutely, ‘to
build up’ (e.g. Jude 20, Polyb. iii. 27, 4), as here. The repetition of ἐν αὐτῷ
emphasizes the main idea of the passage, and indeed of the whole epistle.
τῇ πίστει] ‘by your faith’, the dative of the instrument; comp. Heb. xiii. 9
καλὸν γὰρ χάριτι βεβαιοῦσθαι τὴν καρδίαν. Faith is, as it were, the cement
of the building: comp. Clem. Rom. 22 ταῦτα πάντα βεβαιοῖ ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ
πίστις.
καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε] i.e. ‘remaining true to the lessons which you received
from Epaphras, and not led astray by any later pretenders’: comp. i. 6, 7 ἐν
ἀληθείᾳ, καθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ Ἐπαφρᾶ.
ἐν αὐτῇ κ.τ.λ.] The same ending occurs in iv. 2. Thanksgiving is the end
of all human conduct, whether exhibited in words or in works. For the stress
laid on thanksgiving in St Paul’s epistles generally, see the note on Phil. iv.
6. The words εὐχάριστος, εὐχαριστεῖν, εὐχαριστία, occur in St Paul’s
writings alone of the Apostolic epistles. In this epistle especially the duty of
thanksgiving assumes a peculiar prominence by being made a refrain, as
here and in iii. 15, 17, iv. 2: see also i. 12.

II. 8]
← 8 Βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν διὰ →

8. μή τις ἔ σ τ α ι ὑ μ ᾶ ς .

8–15. ‘Be on your guard; do not suffer yourselves to fall a prey to certain
persons who would lead you captive by a hollow and deceitful system,
which they call philosophy. They substitute the traditions of men for the
truth of God. They enforce an elementary discipline of mundane ordinances
fit only for children. Theirs is not the Gospel of Christ. In Christ the entire
fulness of the Godhead abides for ever, having united itself with man by
taking a human body. And so in Him—not in any inferior mediators—ye
have your life, your being, for ye are filled from His fulness. He, I say, is
the Head over all spiritual beings—call them principalities or powers or
what you will. In Him too ye have the true circumcision—the circumcision
which is not made with hands but wrought by the Spirit—the circumcision
which divests not of a part only but of the whole carnal body—the
circumcision which is not of Moses but of Christ. This circumcision ye
have, because ye were buried with Christ to your old selves beneath the
baptismal waters, and were raised with Him from those same waters to a
new and regenerate life, through your faith in the powerful working of God
who raised Him from the dead. Yes, you—you Gentiles who before were
dead, when ye walked in your transgressions and in the uncircumcision of
your unchastened carnal heathen heart—even you did
God quicken into life together with Christ; then and there freely forgiving
all of us—Jews and Gentiles alike—all our transgressions; then and there
cancelling the bond which stood valid against us (for it bore our own
signature), the bond which engaged us to fulfil all the law of ordinances,
which was our stern pitiless tyrant. Ay, this very bond hath Christ put out of
sight for ever, nailing it to His cross and rending it with His body and
killing it in His death. Taking upon Him our human nature, He stripped off
and cast aside all the powers of evil which clung to it like a poisonous
garment. As a mighty conqueror He displayed these His fallen enemies to
an astonished world, leading them in triumph on His cross.’