Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Colossians 4:10
Aristarchus my fellow prisoner saluteth you, and Mark, sister’s son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)
10 14. Salutations
10. Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner ] My fellow-captive (Latin Versions, concaptivus), fellow-prisoner- of-war. So Epaphras is called, Phm 1:23 (where see note). And so Andronicus and Junias, Rom 16:7. The word indicates either that Aristarchus was, or had been, in prison with St Paul in the course of his missionary warfare, or that he was now in such close attendance on him that St Paul lovingly calls it an imprisonment.
The name Aristarchus occurs here, in Philemon, and Act 19:29; Act 20:4; Act 27:2; and it is morally certain that we have one man in all these places. He was a Thessalonian; he accompanied St Paul on his third journey, and was, with Gaius, seized at Ephesus, when the riot broke out. (Just possibly, the word fellow-captive may be a free allusion to that terrible hour.) He was with St Paul later when he returned from Greece to Asia, and either accompanied or followed him on to Syria, for he sails with him from Syria for Rome. We know no more of him; tradition makes him bishop of Apamea, in Asia Minor, east of Coloss.
Marcus ] The name occurs also Act 12:12; Act 12:25; Act 15:37; Act 15:39 ; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24; 1Pe 5:13. We may assume the identity of the man in all the places, and that he is the “John” of Act 13:5; Act 13:13. We gather from these mentions that Marcus was also called Johannes; the latter, probably, as his Hebrew home-name, the former as his alternative name for Gentile intercourse. So Saul was Paul, and Jesus (Col 4:11) was Justus; and so it is often now with Jews in Europe. (It is noticeable that the Jewish name drops away as the narrative proceeds; “ John Mark,” or “ John,” is only “ Mark ” in Acts 15 and in the Epistles.) His father is not mentioned; his mother was a Mary (Miriam), who lived at Jerusalem, whose house was a rendezvous of the disciples a.d. 44, to which Peter, released from prison, went as to a familiar place. He was cousin (see next note) to Barnabas. Peter calls him “ my son ”; spiritually, of course, assuming the identity of person in all the mentions of Marcus. Perhaps Peter, in the house of Mary, met her son and drew him to the Lord, thus “begetting him again.” With Paul and Barnabas, as their “helper,” he set out on their mission-journey (a.d. 45), but left them at Perga for Jerusalem, for a reason not known, but not approved of by Paul. Some seven years later he accompanied Barnabas on a second mission to Cyprus, after the “sharp contention” of the two Apostles. But that difference was not permanent (see 1Co 9:6); and now, nine or ten years later again, we find him with St Paul at Rome, and perhaps about to return (see this verse), with his blessing, to Asia. Later again, probably (but see Appendix B), he is with his spiritual father, Peter, at Babylon (probably the literal Chaldean Babylon, not the mystical, Rome). And then, again later, probably, he is with or near Timothy in Asia; and Paul, a second time imprisoned, sends for him, as “useful for him for personal service.” Here end our certain notices. In Scripture, he may be the “certain young man” of Mar 14:51-52. Tradition, from early cent. 2 onwards, makes him the writer of the Second Gospel, and to have compiled it as in some sense Peter’s exponent. (Cp. Eusebius, History, 111. 39; and see Salmon, Introd. to N. T. p. 110, etc.) Later tradition (first recorded cent. 4) makes him founder and first bishop of the Alexandrian church.
sister’s son ] Rather, cousin. Latin versions, consobrinus; Wyclif, “ cosyn.” The Greek, anepsios, bears the meaning “ sister’s son ” in later Greek, but its derivation and earlier usage fix it here to mean a cousin-german, the child of the other’s own aunt or uncle. Etymologically, it is remotely akin to our “ nephew ”; but that word also has varied its reference. In the A.V. of 1Ti 5:4 it means “ descendants,” such as grandchildren; representing a different Greek word. This kinship explains no doubt, in part, the wish of the loving Barnabas to retain Marcus as his helper (Acts 15).
ye received commandments ] No doubt through some previous emissary from Rome to Asia.
if he come ] An intended visit of Marcus to Asia is implied. Perhaps he was on his way to the residence there which later brought him into connexion with Peter in Chaldea. See note on Marcus, just above.
receive him ] It is implied that some misgiving about Marcus lingered among the followers of St Paul. The “commandments” had announced Marcus’ full restoration to St Paul’s confidence, and so to that of his converts; now they were to act upon them.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner – Aristarchus was of Thessalonica, and is mentioned in Act 19:29; Act 20:4, as Pauls companion in his travels. In Act 27:2, it is said that he accompanied him in his voyage to Rome, and from the passage before us it appears that he was there imprisoned with him. As he held the same sentiments as Paul, and was united with him in his travels and labors, it was natural that he should be treated in the same manner. He, together with Gaius, had been seized in the tumult at Ephesus and treated with violence, but he adhered to the apostle in all his troubles, and attended him all his perils. Nothing further is certainly known of him, though the Greeks say that he was bishop of Assamea in Syria, and was beheaded with Paul at Rome, under Nero – Calmet.
And Marcus, sisters son to Barnabas – John Mark, in relation to whom Paul and Barnabas had formerly disagreed so much as to cause a separation between Barnabas and Paul. The ground of the disagreement was, that Barnabas wished to take him, probably on account of relationship, with them in their travels; Paul was unwilling to take him, because he had, on one occasion, departed from them; Notes, Act 15:37-39. They afterward became reconciled, and Paul mentions Mark here with affection. He sent for him when he sent Tychicus to Ephesus, and it seems that he had come to him in obedience to his request; 2Ti 4:11. Mark had probably become more decided, and Paul did not harbor unkind and unforgiving feelings toward anyone.
Touching whom ye received commandments – What these directions were, and how they were communicated, whether verbally or by writing, is now unknown. It was, not improbably, on some occasion when Paul was with them. He refers to it here in order that they might know distinctly whom he meant.
If he come to you, receive him – In Phm 1:24, Mark is mentioned as a fellow-laborer of Paul. It would seem probable, therefore, that he was not a prisoner. Paul here intimates that he was about to leave Rome, and he enjoins it on the Colossians to receive him kindly. This injunction may have been necessary, as the Colossians may have been aware of the breach between him and Paul, and may have been disposed to regard him with suspicion. Paul retained no malice, and now commended, in the warmest manner, one from whom he was formerly constrained to separate.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Col 4:10-11
Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoner, saluteth you.
The salutations
I. The duty of salutation. The Greek word signifies either to embrace, as we are accustomed to do one who has been long absent, or to salute by word of mouth or letter. This salutation is the auspicious prayer of health and happiness from God the Author of all good. That this duty is not to be neglected by the Christian appears–
1. From the command of Christ (Mat 10:12).
2. From the uniform example of St. Paul.
3. From its manifold utility. For such a habit
(1) not only expresses the mutual happiness which ought to flourish among Christians, but promotes it.
(2) When flowing from a heart purified by faith and inflamed by love, brings down the wished-for blessing.
II. Inferences and lessons. Observe–
1. That the external duties of humanity, of which salutation is one, are diligently to be performed by pious men. Augustine says, If any one should not salute him whom he may meet, he will not be accounted a man by the traveller, but a post.
2. That they are to be performed not only in conformity with custom, but from love and pure charity. For he incurs the guilt of hypocrisy who salutes him whom he does not wish health and prosperity. So Judas saluted Christ (Mat 26:49).
3. That they sin who would have this duty of Christian charity to serve their pride and ambition. So the Pharisees loved salutations in the market places.
4. That they act basely who instead of saluting perform an act of adulation. (Bishop Davenant.)
Aristarchus
was a Thessalonian, and so perhaps one of Pauls early European converts (Act 20:4)
. He was a Jew, but like so many of his brethren of the dispersion, bore a Greek name. He was with Paul in Ephesus at the time of the riot, and was one of the two whom the excited mob dragged into the theatre to the peril of their lives. We next find him a member of the deputation which joined Paul on his voyage to Jerusalem. He was in Palestine with Paul, and sailed with him thence (Act 27:2). Probably he went home to Thessalonica at some point of the journey, rejoining Paul subsequently. At any rate, here he is standing by Paul and enthusiastically devoted to his work. He receives here an honourable and remarkable title, my fellow-prisoner. Now it is to be noted that in the Epistle to Philemon, where almost all these names reappear, it is not Aristarchus but Epaphras who is honoured by this epithet, and that interchange has been explained by a supposition that Pauls friends took it in turn to keep him company, and were allowed to live with him on condition of submitting to the same restrictions and military guardianship. There is no positive evidence in favour of this, but it is not improbable, and helps to give an interesting glimpse of Pauls prison life, and of the loyal devotion which surrounded him. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
Marcus–the John Mark of the Acts. He was once the subject of a sharp contention between Paul and Barnabas, which issued in the separation of these good men (Act 15:37-39)
. On a missionary tour previous to that painful occasion, Mark had left them, perhaps unhandsomely (Act 13:13); and Paul, to indicate his sense of Marks conduct, refused to take him with them on a subsequent occasion. Barnabas, being a near kinsman, may have been prejudiced in favour of his relative. What were the commands regarding him which the Colossians had already received it is in vain for us to conjecture. Mark evidently contemplated a journey which would lead him to Colossae, and the Colossians are here enjoined to give him a cordial reception. The apostle thereby intimates the restoration of Mark to his full confidence. The cloud under which his character for zeal had lain seems to have quite passed away. A single error, even in one engaged in the public ministry, is not enough to warrant the entire withdrawal of confidence. But why this mention of Mark in relation to a Church with which he had no special connection? It was at Perga in Pamphylia that Mark left the apostle, and as Colossae was not far away from the sphere of the subsequent labours of the missionaries, Marks defection and Pauls displeasure could not fail to be generally known. It was beautiful and proper, therefore, that having in the interval seen reason to receive Mark again into favour, the apostle should make this change known, and give the Churches of Phrygia a charge to receive him with due confidence and cordiality as a faithful evangelist for Christ. (J. Spence, D. D.)
Jesus which is called Justus.
How startling to come across that name borne by this obscure Christian! How it helps us to feel the humble manhood of Christ, by showing us that many another Jewish boy bore the same name: common and undistinguished then, though too holy to be given to any since. His surname Justus, may perhaps, like the same name given to James, hint his rigorous adherence to Judaism, and so may indicate that like Paul himself, he came from the straitest sect of their religion into the large liberty in which he now rejoiced. He seems to have been of no importance in the Church, for his name is the only one in this context which does not re-appear in Philemon, and we never hear of him again. A strange fate his! to be made immortal by three words, and because he wanted to send a loving message to Colossae! Why men have striven and schemed and broken their hearts, and flung away their lives to grasp the bubble of posthumous fame; and how easily this good Jesus which is called Justus has got it! He has his name written for ever on the worlds memory, and he very likely never knew it, and does not know it, and was never a bit the better for it! What a satire on the last infirmity of noble minds! (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
Who are of the circumcision.–These three men, the only three Jewish Christians in Rome who had the least sympathy with Paul and his work, give us in their isolation a vivid illustration of the antagonism which he had to face from that portion of the Early Church. The bulk of the Palistinian Jewish Christians held that the Gentiles must pass through Judaism on their road to Christianity, and as the champion of Gentile liberty Paul was worried and hindered by them all his life. They had next to no missionary zeal, but they followed him and made mischief wherever they could. If we can fancy some modern sect that sends out no missionaries of its own, but delights to come in where better men have forced a passage, and upset their work by preaching their own crotchets, we get precisely the thing which dogged St. Paul. There was evidently a considerable body of these men in Rome. They preached Christ of envy and strife, and only these three were large-hearted enough to take their stand by his side. It was a brave thing to do. Only those who have lived in an atmosphere of misconstruc tion can understand what a cordial the clasp of a hand or the word of sympathy is. These men were like the old soldier who clapped Luther on the shoulder on his way to the Diet of Worms with Little monk! little monk! you are about to make a nobler stand to-day than we in all our battles have ever done. If your cause is just, and you are sure of it, go forward in Gods name, and fear nothing. But the best comfort Paul could have was help in his work. He did not go about the world whimpering for sympathy. He was much too strong a man for that. He wanted men to come down into the trench with him, and shovel and wheel there till they had made in the desert a highway for the King. This is what these men did, and so were a comfort to him. He uses a half medical term, which, perhaps, he had caught from the physician at his elbow, which we might perhaps parallel by saying they had been a cordial to him–like a refreshing draught to a weary man, or some whiff of pure air stealing into a close chamber and lifting the curls from some hot brow. The true cordial for a true worker is that others get into the traces and pull by his side. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Fellow-workers.—
Co-operation in work for Christ
Jesus sent out His disciples by twos, for He knew that each would cheer his fellow. Service is usually best in companionships: he who works altogether alone will be in his temper either too high or too low, censorious or desponding. Two are better far than one; they not only accomplish twice the work, as we might have expected, but they frequently multiply their power seven times by their co operation. Happy are those wedded souls whose life of love to their Lord and one another is like the cluster on the staff, which they joyfully bear along! Happy those Christian companions who share each others joys and sorrows, and so pass onward to the skies knit together as one man. Communication enriches, reticence impoverishes. Communion is strength, solitude is weakness. Alone, the fine old beech yields to the blast, and lies prone upon the sward; in the forest, supporting each other, the trees laugh at the hurricane. The sheep of Jesus flock together; the social element is the genius of Christianity. To find a brother is to find a pearl of great price; to retain a friend is to treasure up the purest gold. Between two upon a staff we find happiness. The monastic or hermit death-life is not our Masters beau ideal, but holy companionship is His chosen means for affording us help in service and advance in joy. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The power of combination
The house martin (Chelidon urbica)
, our common summer visitor to all parts of Europe, seems quite to understand that combination is strength. These birds possess some sort of intelligence with each other which enables them to combine their efforts to effect some desired purpose. Dupont de Nemours says–I once saw a martin which had unfortunately, I know not how, caught its foot in the running knot of a thread, the other end of which was attached to a gutter of the College des Quatre Nations. Its strength being exhausted, it hung and cried at the end of the thread, which it raised sometimes by trying to fly away. All the martins of the great basin between the bridge of the Tuilleries and the Pont Neuf, and perhaps from a still greater distance, collected to the number of several thousands. They formed a cloud, all emitting cries of alarm and pity. After much hesitation and a tumultuous consultation, one of them invented a mode of delivering their companion, made the others understand it, and commenced its execution. All those that were within reach came in turn, as if running at the ring, and gave a peck to the thread in passing. These blows, all directed upon the same point, succeeded each other every second, or even still more frequently. Half an hour of this work was sufficient to cut through the thread, and set the captive at liberty. No union of men for a common purpose could more completely illustrate the truth that combination is strength. (Scientific Illustrations.)
Valise of a faithful friend
One of the company despatched a servant for a lute, and on its being brought it had lost tune, as happens to these instruments when exposed to the changes of the atmosphere. While he was tightening the strings, Gottholds thoughts ran thus, What is sweeter than a well-tuned lute, and what more delightful than a faithful friend who can cheer us in sorrow with affectionate discourse? Nothing, however, is sooner untuned than a late, and nothing is more fickle than a friend. The tone of the one changes with the weather, that of the other with fortune. With a clear sky and a bright sun you will have friends in plenty; but let fortune frown and the firmament be overcast, then they will prove like the strings of the lute, of which you tighten ten before you find one which will bear the tension or keep the pitch.
How Christians may comfort others
When this church was being built I became acquainted with one of the carpenters–a plain man–who worked upon it, and I had many chats with him afterwards. That day, being a Christian (sometimes I am not one)
, when I met him, as he came down the street, I stopped and spoke to him, and shook hands with him. And giving me, as I noticed, a peculiar look, and keeping hold of my hand, he said, Now, sir, you do not know how much good this does me. What? said
I. Well, your speaking to me and shaking hands with me. Said he, I shall go home to-night, and say to my wife, I met Mr. Beecher to-day: Ah! she will say, what did he say? and the children will look up too. And I will tell them, He stopped me and shook hands with me, and asked if I was getting along well:And they will talk about that for a week. You have no idea how much good it does a plain man to be noticed, and to be made to feel that he is not a nobody. (H. W. Beecher. )
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 10. Aristarchus my fellow prisoner] Concerning Aristarchus, see Ac 19:29; Ac 20:4; Ac 27:2; and see the note on this latter place (Ac 27:2). Aristarchus and Epaphras are mentioned as saluters in this epistle, and in that to Philemon written at the same time; but here he is said to be a prisoner, and Epaphras not. In that to Philemon, Epaphras is called a prisoner, and Aristarchus not. One of them is wrong, though it is uncertain which; unless both were prisoners. See Wall’s Crit. Notes. As Aristarchus had been a zealous and affectionate adherent to St. Paul, and followed him in all his journeys, ministering to him in prison, and assisting him in preaching the Gospel in Rome, he might have been imprisoned on this account. We need not suppose that both he and Epaphras were imprisoned at the same time; about the same time they might be imprisoned, but it might be so ordered by the providence of God that when Aristarchus was imprisoned Epaphras was at liberty, and while Epaphras was in prison Aristarchus was at liberty. This is a very possible and easily to be conceived case.
Marcus] See the account of this person, Ac 15:39. Though there had been some difference between the apostle and this Mark, yet from this, and 2Ti 4:11, we find that they were fully reconciled, and that Mark was very useful to St. Paul in the work of the ministry.
Touching whom ye received commandments] What these were we cannot tell; it was some private communication which had been previously sent to the Colossian Church.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Aristarchus my fellow prisoner saluteth you: here he doth wish prosperity to them, Luk 10:5, in the name of others, beginning with those of the circumcision, viz.
Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, who had been his fellow traveller, Act 19:29; 20:4; 27:2; yea, and now his fellow prisoner, and fellow labourer, Phm 1:24.
And Marcus, sisters son to Barnabas; and John Mark, who was nephew to Barnabas, Act 12:12; 13:13; and having sometime displeased Paul by his departure and accompanying his uncle Barnabas, Act 15:37,39, yet afterwards repented, and was reconciled to Paul, 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24; being profitable to him for the ministry as an evangelist.
Touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him: concerning this same Mark, Paul had given orders to them, as well as to other churches, (who otherwise, likely, might be prejudiced against him for leaving Paul and his company in Pamphylia, Act 13:13), that if he came amongst them, they should entertain him kindly, who as Peters spiritual son, 1Pe 5:13, did elsewhere also salute those who were scattered. Some conceive from the commandments here they had received, that Barnabas had written to the Colossians in commendation of his cousin Mark.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
10. Aristarchusa Macedonianof Thessalonica (Ac 27:2), whowas dragged into the theater at Ephesus, during the tumult withGaius, they being “Paul’s companions in travel.” Heaccompanied Paul to Asia (Ac 20:4),and subsequently (Ac 27:2) toRome. He was now at Rome with Paul (compare Phm 1:23;Phm 1:24). As he is here spokenof as Paul’s “fellow prisoner,” but in Phm24 as Paul’s “fellow laborer”; and vice versa, Epaphrasin Phm 23, as his “fellowprisoner,” but here (Col 1:7)”fellow servant,” MEYERin ALFORD, conjecturesthat Paul’s friends voluntarily shared his imprisonment by turns,Aristarchus being his fellow prisoner when he wrote to theColossians, Epaphras when he wrote to Philemon. The Greek for”fellow prisoner” is literally, fellow captive, animage from prisoners taken in warfare, Christians being “fellowsoldiers” (Phi 2:25;Phm 1:2), whose warfare is “thegood fight of faith.”
MarkJohn Mark (Act 12:12;Act 12:25); the Evangelistaccording to tradition.
sister’s sonrather,”cousin,” or “kinsman to Barnabas”; the latterbeing the better known is introduced to designate Mark. Therelationship naturally accounts for Barnabas’ selection of Mark ashis companion when otherwise qualified; and also for Mark’s mother’shouse at Jerusalem being the place of resort of Christians there (Ac12:12). The family belonged to Cyprus (Ac4:36); this accounts for Barnabas’ choice of Cyprus as the firststation on their journey (Ac 13:4),and for Mark’s accompanying them readily so far, it being the countryof his family; and for Paul’s rejecting him at the second journey fornot having gone further than Perga, in Pamphylia, but having gonethence home to his mother at Jerusalem (Mt10:37) on the first journey (Ac13:13).
touching whomnamely,Mark.
ye receivedcommandmentspossibly before the writing of thisEpistle; or the “commandments” were verbal byTychicus, and accompanying this letter, since the pasttense was used by the ancients (where we use the present) in relationto the time which it would be when the letter was read by theColossians. Thus (Phm 19), “Ihave written,” for “I write.” The substance of themwas, “If he come unto you, receive him.” Paul’s rejectionof him on his second missionary journey, because he had turned backat Perga on the first journey (Act 13:13;Act 15:37-39), had causedan alienation between himself and Barnabas. Christian love soonhealed the breach; for here he implies his restored confidence inMark, makes honorable allusion to Barnabas, and desires that those atColosse who had regarded Mark in consequence of that past error withsuspicion, should now “receive” him with kindness. Colosseis only about one hundred ten miles from Perga, and less than twentyfrom the confines of Pisidia, through which province Paul andBarnabas preached on their return during the same journey. Hence,though Paul had not personally visited the Colossian Church, theyknew of the past unfaithfulness of Mark; and needed thisrecommendation of him, after the temporary cloud on him, so as toreceive him, now that he was about to visit them as an evangelist.Again, in Paul’s last imprisonment, he, for the last time, speaks ofMark (2Ti 4:11).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Aristarchus my fellow prisoner saluteth you,…. This man was a man of Macedonia, and a Thessalonian; Ac 19:29 which hinders not but that he might be of the circumcision, or a Jew, as is suggested in the following verse; for he might be born at Thessalonica, and yet be of Jewish parents; nor is his Greek name any objection to it, for the Jews themselves say, that the greatest part of the Israelites that were out of the land, their names are as the names of strangers l: he was a constant companion of the apostle, and one of his fellow labourers, as in Phm 1:24 and now a prisoner with him at Rome; and who having some knowledge of the members of the church at Colosse, takes this opportunity of sending his Christian salutation to them:
and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas; the same with John Mark, whose mother’s name was Mary, said here to be sister to Barnabas, Ac 12:12 concerning whom there was a difference between Paul and Barnabas, Ac 15:37, and is the same Mark that wrote the Gospel, and was converted by the Apostle Peter, 1Pe 5:13 and who is said to have received his Gospel from him; he is also mentioned 2Ti 4:11
#Phm 24. The Arabic version calls him here, the “brother’s son of Barnabas”: and the Syriac version, , “his uncle’s son”: however, Barnabas being so great a man as he was, and so well known, it added some credit to Mark, that he was a relation of his:
touching whom ye received commandments; not concerning Barnabas, but Mark, concerning whom they had had letters of commendation, either from Barnabas or from Paul, to this purpose:
if he come unto you, receive him; for this was either the substance of those letters, or what the apostle now adds of his own, for the further confirmation of them; and that they might more readily and honourably receive him, when he should come unto them.
l T. Bab. Gittin, fol. 11. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Aristarchus (). He was from Thessalonica and accompanied Paul to Jerusalem with the collection (Acts 19:29; Acts 20:4) and started with Paul to Rome (Acts 27:2; Phlm 1:24). Whether he has been with Paul all the time in Rome we do not know, but he is here now.
My fellow-prisoner ( ). One of Paul’s compounds, found elsewhere only in Lucian. Paul uses it of Epaphras in Phm 1:23, but whether of actual voluntary imprisonment or of spiritual imprisonment like (fellow-soldier) in Phil 2:25; Phlm 1:2 we do not know. Abbott argues for a literal imprisonment and it is possible that some of Paul’s co-workers (–) voluntarily shared imprisonment with him by turns.
Mark (). Once rejected by Paul for his defection in the work (Ac 15:36-39), but now cordially commended because he had made good again.
The cousin of Barnabas ( ). It was used for “nephew” very late, clearly “cousin” here and common so in the papyri. This kinship explains the interest of Barnabas in Mark (Acts 12:25; Acts 13:5; Acts 15:36-39).
If he come unto you, receive him ( ). This third class conditional sentence ( and second aorist active subjunctive of ) gives the substance of the commands () about Mark already sent, how we do not know. But Paul’s commendation of Mark is hearty and unreserved as he does later in 2Ti 4:11. The verb is the usual one for hospitable reception (Matt 10:14; John 4:45) like (Php 2:29) and (Lu 10:38).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Aristarchus, my fellow – prisoner. See on Phl 1:23, 24.
Unnecessary difficulty is made over the fact that the term fellow – prisoner is applied to Epaphras in Phl 1:23, and not to Aristarchus; while here the case is reversed. It is not necessary to suppose that the two had changed places, or that the captivity was voluntary, if a literal captivity was meant. All the three terms fellow – prisoner, fellow – servant, fellow – worker – might be applied to both; and, as Dwight remarks, “Reasons unknown to us may easily have determined the use of one word or the other, independently of the question as to the particular time when they were in imprisonment.”
Mark. See on Philemon 24.
Sister’s son [] . Only here in the New Testament. Rev., correctly, cousin. The sense of nephew did not attach to the word until very late. Lightfoot remains that this incidental notice explains why Barnabas should have taken a more favorable view of Mark’s defection than Paul, Act 14:37, 39.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you’ (aspazetai humas Aristarchos ho sunaichmalotos mou) ‘Aristarchus my fellow-captive greets you.” This is the third friend and fellow prisoner of Paul whose introduction and greetings are sent; He is said to have been one of the 70 apostles, Act 19:29; Act 20:4; Act 27:2; He was of the Church of Thessalonica of the Macedonia Association.
2) “And Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas” (Kai Markos ho anepsios Barnaba) “and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas,” (greets you). This is the John Mark who on Paul’s first Missionary journey deserted Paul and Barnabas to stay among his relatives at Salamis on the Island of Cyprus, Act 12:12; Act 13:5; Act 15:37; Act 15:39.
3) “Touching whom ye received commandments” (peri hou elabete entolas) concerning whom you all received commandments,” of which nothing is known; Though John Mark was once a person of contention with Paul, he became a profitable helper to him in later life so that Paul desired his company in Rome, 2Ti 4:11.
4) “If he come unto you receive him” (ean elthe pros humas) “if he should come to you, of his own accord, receive him.” Paul endorsed John Mark’s later ministry and desired that the Church at Colosse hear, receive, and help him. Gal 6:2; 2Co 2:7-11; Gal 6:6.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
10. Fellow-prisoner. From this it appears that there were others that were associated with Paul, (477) after he was brought to Rome. It is also probable that his enemies exerted themselves, in the outset, to deter all pious persons from giving him help, by threatening them with the like danger, and that this for a time had the desired effect; but that afterwards some, gathering up courage, despised everything that was held out to them in the way of terror.
That ye receive him. Some manuscripts have receive in the imperative mood; but it is a mistake, for he expresses the nature of the charge which the Colossians had received — that it was a commendation of either Barnabas, or of Marcus. The latter is the more probable. In the Greek it is the infinitive mood, (478) but it may be rendered in the way I have done. Let us, however, observe, that they were careful in furnishing attestations, that they might distinguish good men from false brethren — from pretenders, from impostors, and multitudes of vagrants. The same care is more than simply necessary at the present day, both because good teachers are coldly received, and because credulous and foolish men lay themselves too open to be deceived by impostors.
(477) “ D’autres furent mis prisonniers auec sainct Paul;” — “Some others were made prisoners along with St. Paul.”
(478) Excipite δέξασθε, vel δέξασθαι, ut excipiatis, si conjungas cum ἐλάβετε, ut habet Syrus interpres, ut exprimatur quod fuerit illud mandatum;” — “Receive ye, δέξασθε, or δέξασθαι, that ye may receive, if you connect it with ἐλάβετε, (ye received,) as the Syrian interpreter has it, so as to express what the charge was.” — Beza. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
10. Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you, and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas (touching whom ye received commandments; if he come unto you, receive him), 11. and Jesus that is called Justus, who are of the circumcision: these only are my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, men that have been a comfort unto me.
Translation and Paraphrase
10. Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner greets you; also Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, (greets you). You have received instructions concerning him (Mark). If he comes to you, receive him (as you should).
11. Also Jesus (sends greetings), the one called Justus. These (men I have named are) the only fellow workers (now with me) for the kingdom of God from the circumcision, (they are Jews; and I assure you that they are brethren) who have been a comfort to me.
Notes
1.
Col. 4:10-11 lists three Jewish companions of Paul who were with him at that time; Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus called Justus. These three men sent greetings to the Colossian church. The verb salute in Col. 4:10; Col. 4:12; Col. 4:14, etc., means to greet.
2.
Aristarchus is mentioned in Act. 19:29; Act. 20:4; Act. 27:2; and Phm. 1:24. He was a Thessalonian. He was in Ephesus during Pauls long stay there, and was seized by Ephesian rioters looking for Paul. He was one of the bearers of the offering Paul collected for the poor Judeans. He travelled with Paul on his last ship journey to Rome. In Rome he was a fellow-prisoner with Paul. He seems to have had a bravery and valor about him that was unusual. Paul had several such companions about whom we know little. We look forward to getting better acquainted with them in the new heaven and earth.
3.
The reference to Mark here in Colossians comes as a pleasure to us. Mark (also called John, or John Mark) had once been a disappointment to Paul, because he had abandoned Paul and Barnabas midway during their first missionary trip. (Act. 13:5; Act. 13:13). This so disturbed Paul that he would not take Mark on his second trip. (Act. 15:37-39). But now Paul is reconciled to Mark, and has given him a special important mission. We do not know what Paul had assigned him to do. But Paul had sent instructions to the Colossians concerning Mark, and here urges them to welcome him if he came to them.
4.
The Mark referred to here in undoubtedly the same person who wrote the gospel of Mark in later years. In the gospel Mark never names himself, but seems to be the one referred to as a certain young man. (Mar. 14:51-52). In the book of Acts Mark is usually called John, or John Mark. His mothers name was Mary. We discover here in Colossians that Mark was a cousin of Barnabas. (Act. 12:12). (The Gr. word anepsios translated cousin here in Colossians is used in Num. 33:11 in LXX to refer to fathers brothers sons.) Perhaps the relationship between Barnabas and Mark explains why Barnabas was willing to take Mark on the second missionary trip when Paul was not.
For information regarding Barnabas, see Act. 4:36-37; Act. 11:22-26; Act. 13:1-3.
5.
Paul mentions another Jewish associate (the expression of the circumcision refers to Jews) who was with him, one Jesus called Justus. He was a Jew with a Roman name. We know nothing more about him.
6.
The statement of Paul that only three men of his Jewish associates were with him in Rome has a sadness in it. See Act. 28:25; They departed. Others had been no comfort to Paul, but these three had truly been a comfort to him. Paul calls them workers unto (or for: Gr. eis) the kingdom of God.
Study and Review
8.
Who is called Pauls fellow-prisoner? (Col. 4:10)
9.
What else do we know about the one who is called Pauls fellow-prisoner? (See Act. 19:29; Act. 20:4; Act. 27:2)
10.
To whom was Mark related?
11.
What previous dealings had Paul had with Mark? (Act. 13:5; Act. 13:13; Act. 15:37-40)
12.
What special instructions were given to the Colossians about Mark?
13.
What group of people are those of the circumcision?
14.
What companions of Paul were of the circumcision? (Give names)
15.
What had Pauls fellow-workers been unto him? (Col. 4:11)
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(10) Aristarchus my fellowprisoner.Apparently a Jew, one of the circumcision But he is of Thessalonica, and is first named (in Act. 19:22) as dragged with Gaius into the theatre in the tumult at Ephesus; thence he accompanied St. Paul (Act. 20:4), at any rate as far as Asia, on his journey to Jerusalem. When, after two years captivity, the Apostle starts from Csarea on his voyage to Rome, Aristarchus is again named by St. Luke as being with us (Act. 27:2). From this fact, and from his being called here my fellow-prisoner (a name which there seems no adequate reason to consider as metaphorical), it would appear that, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, Aristarchus really shared his captivity. It is certainly not a little curious that in the Epistle to Philemon (Phm. 1:23-24), sent at the same time, it is Epaphras who is called the fellow-prisoner, while Aristarchus is simply classed among the fellow-labourers. This variation is interesting to us as one of the characteristic marks of independence and genuineness in the Epistles; but it can only be accounted for by mere conjecture, such as that of their alternately sharing the Apostles captivity.
Marcus, sisters son to Barnabas.The notices of John Mark in the New Testament are full of interest. This is the first notice of him since the day when St. Paul rejected him from his function of ministration, because on the former journey he had deserted them at Perga, and had not gone with them to the work (Act. 15:38). Then he had gone with Barnabas to Cyprus, to take part in an easier work, nearer home and under the kindly guardianship of his uncle. Now the formal charge to the Colossian Church to receive hima kind of letter of commendation (2Co. 3:1)evidently shows that they had known of him as under St. Pauls displeasure, and were now to learn that he had seen reason to restore him to his confidence. In the Epistle to Philemon Mark is named, as of course (Phm. 1:24), among his fellow-labourers. In St. Pauls last Epistle, written almost with a dying hand (2Ti. 4:11), there is a touch of peculiar pathos in the charge which he, left alone in prison with his old companion St. Luke, gives to Timothy to bring Mark, as now being right serviceable for the ministration from which he had once rejected him. Evidently St. Pauls old rebuke had done its work, and, if Mark did join him in his last hours, he probably thanked him for nothing so much as for the loving sternness of days gone by. Before this, if (as seems likely) he is the Marcus, my son of 1Pe. 5:13, he was with St. Peter, and must be identified with St. Mark the Evangelist, subsequently, as tradition has it, bishop and martyr at Alexandria.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
10. Aristarchus A Thessalonian, first mentioned in Act 19:29, as a companion of the apostle on his third missionary tour, and seized by the mob at Ephesus. He seems to have continued with him until the decision of the present appeal to Nero.
Marcus John Mark, the author of the second gospel, who had been the occasion of the difference between Paul and Barnabas, and their separation. (Act 12:12.) He afterward recovered the good opinion of the apostle, and is now warmly commended by him to the kind hospitality of the Colossian brethren.
Sister’s son ’ , a name given to the sons and daughters of brothers and sisters. Barnabas and Mark were, therefore, cousins.
Commandments What these were, and who sent them, we cannot know, though presumably they proceeded from St. Paul.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoner salutes you, and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, about whom you received firm instructions. If he comes to you, receive him. And Jesus who is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These alone are my fellow-workers to the kingdom of God, men that have been a comfort to me.’
These first three who are mentioned are Jewish Christians. It would seem that they were the only members of the Jewish church in Rome that had much close contact with Paul so as to be his ‘fellow-workers’. This need not mean antagonism by the remainder, only a lack of enthusiasm to be involved in his ministry. It may have been by mutual agreement to prevent the stigma of his imprisonment affecting the Jewish church in Rome in the eyes of the authorities. He was after all there on charges relating to Jewish matters.
‘Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoner.’ Literally ‘fellow prisoner-of-war.’ This indicates that Paul sees himself as such too, as a soldier of Christ. Not just a prisoner but a prisoner-of-war. If Aristarchus shared Paul’s imprisonment voluntarily, as seems very possible, this would be a suitable title for him. Not a prisoner, but by choice a prisoner-of-war.
In the letter to Philemon Epaphras is the one who is called ‘my fellow prisoner-of-war’, while there Aristarchus is described as a fellow-worker. But we must remember that Epaphras is a Colossian (‘one of you’) and there he is writing to a Colossian.
It would seem therefore that it may be an honourable title not to be applied too literally. However, the fact that Epaphras is not taking the letters may indicate some kind of legal restraint, even if only temporary, so it might suggest a literal situation. Either way the use of the title here of Aristarchus has the purpose of highly commending him to the church of Laodicea. But it may or may not mean that he was himself under legal restraint.
Aristarchus was a native of Thessalonica (Act 20:4), and at times a companion of Paul (Act 19:29; Act 20:4; Act 27:2).
‘And Mark, the cousin of Barnabas.’ The word translated ‘cousin’ (anepsios) strictly means cousin. It was only later that its meaning extended to include a nephew. Mark was therefore the cousin of Barnabas, not his nephew. He was “John, whose surname was Mark” (Act 12:12; Act 12:25). Markos was clearly his Greek name, which gradually came to supersede his Jewish name John. He is called John in Act 12:25; Act 13:5; Act 13:13; Act 15:37, and Mark here and in Act 15:39; Phm 1:23; 2Ti 4:11. He was the son of Mary, a woman apparently of some means and influence, and was probably born in Jerusalem, where his mother resided (Act 12:12). Of his father we know nothing.
It was in Mark’s mother’s house that Peter found “many gathered together praying” when he was released from prison, and it is probable that it was here that he was converted by Peter, who calls him his “son” (1Pe 5:13). It is quite probable that the “young man” spoken of in Mar 14:51-52 was Mark himself.
He went with Paul and Barnabas on their first journey (about A.D. 47), but from some cause turned back when they reached Perga in Pamphylia (Act 12:25; Act 13:13). Three years later a “sharp contention” arose between Paul and Barnabas (Act 15:36-40), because Paul would not take Mark with him and this caused them to divide their ministries. It is clear, however from his mention here that he has been restored to Paul’s good favour. At a later period he would be with Peter in ‘Babylon’ (1Pe 5:13). It is possible that this was Babylon itself, then, and for some centuries afterwards, one of the chief seats of Jewish learning, but it may be a disguised name for Rome. And he was with Timothy in Ephesus when Paul wrote to him during his second imprisonment (2Ti 4:11). He then disappears from view apart from the writing of his Gospel.
‘Touching whom you received firm instructions. If he comes to you receive him.’ The latter sentence may be the firm instructions given, that Mark is to be received as a faithful witness and reliable minister. Or Paul may just be adding his commendation to instructions already given by another.
‘Jesus who is called Justus.’ Only mentioned here (and not to Philemon). Probably mentioned here because of his personal devotion to Paul and because with Aristarchus and Mark he is the only Jewish Christian in Rome to give him firm support at this stage.
‘Who are of the circumcision.’ Jewish Christians.
‘These only are my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, men who have been a consolation to me.’ The Jewish Christians in Rome were seemingly holding aloof from Paul. There would be many churches in Rome and on the whole it was only the leaders who might be expected to have taken some interest in Paul’s position. But the Jewish Christian leaders were lacking in their attention.
As suggested above the Jewish Christian leaders may have been, with his agreement, chary of getting involved with someone being arraigned for anti-Jewish behaviour which might draw Roman wrath down on them. But these words here suggest that he felt that they might have offered a little more help than they did, and demonstrates how deeply he felt the faithfulness of these three. Was this one of the things that restored his relationship with Mark, who might have been seen as having some excuse for neglecting him?
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Greetings from Paul’s Co-workers In Col 4:10-14 Paul sends greetings to the Colossians from his co-workers.
Col 4:10 Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)
Col 4:10
Act 27:2, “And entering into a ship of Adramyttium, we launched, meaning to sail by the coasts of Asia; one Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica , being with us.”
Paul uses the words “fellowprisoners,” “fellowlabourers,” and “fellowhelpers” in a number of his epistles. These words go deeper in meaning than just describing their personal relationships with Paul. It also describes their spiritual relationship with him in the sense that they were partners and partakers of Paul’s sufferings as well as his heavenly rewards. In other words, these words describe people would receive the same rewards in heaven that Paul would receive because they stood with him during these difficult times.
Col 4:10 “and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas” – Comments Mark was the nephew of Barnabas (Act 15:39).
Act 15:39, “And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;”
Evidently, Barnabas sided with Mark because he was a relative. Blood relationships are very important in many cultures, more so than in the American culture.
Col 4:12 “that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God” Comments The epistle of Colossians opens and closes with a prayer for them to fulfill the will of God in their lives.
Col 1:9, “For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding ;”
Col 4:14 “Luke, the beloved physician” Comments I am sure that Paul had a reason for calling this dedicated travel companion “beloved.” My experience with Christian physicians in the mission field is that when they minister with a pure heart and treat an illness of someone I love, I feel a strong bond of love for such a servant of God who is reaching out to humanity in love. As I watch their hands at work after having been trained by years of study, I feel a deep respect for such person. Assisting in healing of the body is one of the most divine services to mankind besides ministering to their spiritual soul. I am sure that Luke attended to Paul’s health on occasions and Paul responded with a deep love in his heart for this man’s service.
Illustration In 5-6 April 2012 I travelled with Matthew Crouch, and his team, which included Dr. R. J. Gosselin, the beloved physician of Paul Crouch, founder of Trinity Broadcasting Network. We travelled together in Nairobi, Kenya, and Juba, South Sudan, flying on the TBN private jet. This medical doctor’s presence with the team of TBN as personal physician of Paul Crouch was touching to see as he played a leading role in the health of such a great man of God. He was dearly beloved by the Crouch family, having helped Paul Crouch properly diagnose the condition congestive heart failure during his later years after a season of misdiagnosis and personal health struggles. [100]
[100] Information gathered from a personal conversation with Matthew Crouch on 5 April 2012.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Greetings from various persons in Rome:
v. 10. Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoner, salutes you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him,)
v. 11. and Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me.
v. 12. Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, salutes you, always laboring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God.
v. 13. For I bear him record that he hath a great zeal for you, and them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis.
v. 14. Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.
v. 15. Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. The greetings of the Pauline epistles are most interesting, affording, as they do, an insight into the cordiality and intimacy which obtained among the Christians in the early days. Timothy had been mentioned in the superscription of the letter. The first greeting recorded by Paul is that from Aristarchus, whom he calls a fellow-captive. He hailed from Thessalonica, Act 19:29; Act 20:4; Act 27:2; Phm 1:24, and was brought to Rome at the same time that Paul was brought there to stand trial before the emperor. The apostle names next Mark, the nephew of Barnabas, Act 12:12-25; Act 15:37-39; 2Ti 4:11. Evidently Mark had redeemed himself in the eyes of the apostle since his defection in Perga, Act 13:13, for he was now again a companion of the apostle. Mark had been recommended to the congregation at Colossae by others, and Paul here adds his own commendation to show that he had full confidence in his young assistant. He next names Jesus, with the surname Justus, who is otherwise unknown. These two men, Mark and Jesus Justus, were the only companions of Paul that were Jews by birth. Paul speaks very highly of them, saying that they were his fellow-workers in the interest of the kingdom of God, the Church, and that they had been a comfort to him, brought solace to him upon some special occasion.
A very important greeting was that of Epaphras, who indeed was one of the Colossians, a disciple of the apostle and the founder, not only of the congregation at Colossae, but probably also of the congregations at Hierapolis and Laodicea. Paul calls him a minister of Christ Jesus, who is spending all his time in striving for his Colossian Christians in prayers that they might stand perfected and fully assured in all the will of God. Herein Epaphras proved himself a true pastor, for his intercessory prayers were rising without ceasing to the Throne of Mercy, and his one thought was that God might give to the Colossian Christians the power to be perfected in their faith and sanctification. Only through the fullness of the assurance from on high are Christians enabled to stand perfected in the will of God, in everything that God wills. The will of God finds its expression in the life of the Christians, and that the more and more perfectly as they grow in its knowledge and in the willingness to perform such things as are well-pleasing to their heavenly Father. Paul testifies also of Epaphras that he was still most anxiously solicitous for their welfare, and not only for theirs, but also for that of the congregations at Laodicea and Hierapolis in the neighborhood, probably originally preaching-stations that were established from Colossae.
The apostle sends greetings also from Luke, whom he terms the beloved physician. Luke, or Lucanus, the author of the third gospel, had joined Paul on his second missionary journey and had since accompanied him as often as he could. At this time he was his companion in the imprisonment at Rome, a beloved brother in the Lord. Demas was at this time still a brother in Christ, but later, unfortunately, left the Church and denied the faith, 2Ti 4:10. Paul finally asks the Colossians to send greetings to the congregation at Laodicea, with which that of Colossae was united in intimate fellowship. He singles out one Nymphas for a special greeting, since he was the host of a house-congregation as found so frequently in the early days. Note: The early Christians were not only distinguished for the soundness of their faith and for the fervor of their brotherly love, but they were also willing to offer themselves and all they had in the interest of the Gospel.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Col 4:10. Aristarchus, See Act 15:37-38; Act 19:29; Act 20:4. Aristarchus and Epaphras are mentioned as saluters in this epistle, and in that to Philemon written at the same time. Instead of, Ye received commandments, &c. Doddridge reads, Ye have received instructions; and Heylin, letters of recommendation; adding, If he come, do you give him a kind reception. See Act 17:15. The original word, rendered commandments, has doubtless that meaning; but as civility teaches us to esteem the reasonable desires of friends, as carrying in them the force of commands, though they pretend not to use any authority; hence the same mode of speech is familiar, not only in ancient, but in modern languages; by which the word commands is used for recommendation.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Col 4:10 . Sending of salutations down to Col 4:14 .
] a Thessalonian, known from Act 19:29 ; Act 20:4 ; Act 27:2 , Phm 1:24 , was with Paul at Caesarea , when the latter had appealed to the emperor, and travelled with him to Rome, Act 27:2 .
] , Chrysostom. In the contemporary letter to Philemon at Phlemon Col 1:24 , the same Aristarchus is enumerated among the ; and, on the other hand, at Phm 1:23 Epaphras , of whose sharing the captivity our Epistle makes no mention (see Col 1:7 ), is designated as , so that in Philem. l.c . the is expressly distinguished from the mere , and the former is not affirmed of Aristarchus. Hence various interpreters have taken it to refer not to a proper, enforced sharing of the captivity, but to a voluntary one, it being assumed, namely, that friends of the apostle allowed themselves to be temporarily shut up with him in prison, in order to be with him and to minister to him not merely as visitors, but continuously day and night. Comp. Huther, de Wette, and Fritzsche, ad Rom . I. p. xxi. According to this view, such friends changed places from time to time, so that, when the apostle wrote our letter, Aristarchus , and when he wrote that to Philemon, Epaphras , shared his captivity. But such a relation could the less be gathered by the readers from the mere (comp. Lucian, As . 27), seeing that Paul himself was a prisoner, and consequently they could not but find in . simply the entirely similar position of Aristarchus as a (Plat Rep . p. 516 C; Thuc. vi. 60. 2), and that as being so at the same time, not, as in Rom 16:7 , at some earlier period. Hence we must assume that now Aristarchus, but when the Epistle to Philemon was written, Epaphras, lay in prison at the same time with the apostle, an imprisonment which is to be regarded as detention for trial, and the change of persons in the case must have had its explanation in circumstances to us unknown but yet, notwithstanding the proximity of the two letters in point of time, sufficiently conceivable. It is to be observed, moreover, that as . always denotes captivity in war (see on Eph 4:8 ; also Luk 4:18 ), Paul by . sets himself forth as a captive warrior (in the service of Christ). Comp. , Phi 2:25 ; Phm 1:2 . Hofmann (comp. also on Rom 16:7 ) is of opinion that we should think “of the war-captive state of one won by Christ from the kingdom of darkness ,” so that would be an appellation for fellow-Christian; but this is an aberration, which ought least of all to have been put forth in the presence of a letter, which Paul wrote in the very character of a prisoner .
Upon , consobrinus, cousin: Herod, vii. 5, 82, ix. 10; Plat. Legg . xi p. 925 A; Xen. Anab . vii. 8. 9, Tob 7:12 , Num 36:11 ; see Andoc. i. 47; Pollux, iii. 28. Not to be confounded either with nephew ( ) or with , cousin’s son, in the classical writers , . See generally, Lobeck, ad Phryn . p. 506. To take it in a wider sense, like our “kinsman, relative” (so in Hom. Il . ix. 464, who, however, also uses it in the strict sense as in x. 519), there is the less reason, seeing that Paul does not use the word elsewhere. Moreover, as no other Mark at all occurs in the N. T., there is no sufficient ground for the supposition of Hofmann, that Paul had by . . merely wished to signify which Mark he meant Chrysostom and Theophylact already rightly perceived that the relationship with the highly-esteemed Barnabas was designed to redound to the commendation of Mark.
. .] in respect of whom (Mark) ye have received, injunctions [173] a remark which seems to be made not without a design of reminding them as to their execution. What injunctions are meant, by whom and through whom , they were given, and whether orally or in writing , Paul does not say; but the recalling of them makes it probable that they proceeded from himself , and were given (Oecumenius). Ewald conjectures that they were given in the letter to the Laodiceans, and related to love-offerings for Jerusalem, which Mark was finally to fetch and attend to. But the work of collection was probably closed with the last journey of the apostle to Jerusalem. Others hold, contrary to the notion of , that letters of recommendation are meant from Barnabas (Grotius), or from the Roman church (Estius); while others think that the following . . . forms the contents of (Calvin who, with Syriac, Ambrosiaster, and some codd., reads subsequently , comp. Beza, Castalio, Bengel, Bhr, and Baumgarten-Crusius), a view against which may be urged the plural and the absence of the article. Hofmann incorrectly maintains that . is to be taken along with . .: respecting whom ye have obtained instructions for the case of his coming to you . This the words could not mean; for . . signifies nothing else than: if he shall have come to you , and this accords not with . ., but only with , [174] which Hofmann makes an exclamation annexed without connecting link (that is, with singular abruptness).
. . .] Parenthesis; Mark must therefore have had in view a journey, which was to bring him to Colossae. of hospitable reception, as often in the N. T. (Mat 10:14 ; Joh 4:45 ) and in classical authors (Xen. Anab . iv. 8. 23). From the circumstance, however, that stands without special modal definition, it is not to be inferred that Paul was apprehensive lest the readers should not, without this summons, have recognised Mark (on account of Act 15:38 f.) as an apostolic associate (Wieseler, Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt . p. 567). Not the simple , but a more precise definition, would have been called for in the event of such an apprehension.
[173] is not to be referred to Barnabas, as, following Theophylact and Cajetanus (the former of whom, however, explains as if were read), Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 259 ff., has again done. The latter understands under the instructions formerly issued to the Pauline churches not to receive Barnabas, which were now no longer to be applied. As if the of Act 15:39 could have induced the apostle to issue such an anathema to his churches against the highly-esteemed Barnabas, who was accounted of apostolic dignity! Paul did not act so unjustly and imprudently. Comp., on the contrary, Gal 2:9 and (notwithstanding what is narrated at Gal 2:11 ) 1Co 9:6 .
[174] In 1Ti 3:14 f., a passage to which Hofmann, with very little ground, appeals, the verb of the chief clause is, in fact, a present ( ), not, as would be the case here, a praeterite, which expresses an act of the past ( ). There the meaning is: In the case of my departure being delayed, however, this my letter has the object, etc. But here, if the conditional clause were to be annexed to the past act , the circumstance conditioning the latter would logically have to be conceived and expressed in oblique form ( from the point of view of the person giving the injunction ), in some such form, therefore, as: (comp. Act 24:19 ; Act 27:39 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 491 f.).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
2. Greetings and messages
(Col 4:10-17.)
10Aristarchus my fellow prisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sisters son [cousin]5 to Barnabas, touching whom ye received commandments: (if he come unto you, receive him;)6 11And Jesus, which [who] is called Justus, [.] who are of the circumcision. These only [Of those who are of the circumcision, only these] are my fellow workers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me. 12Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, [Christ Jesus]7 saluteth you, always labouring fervently [, striving] for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete [fully assured]8 in all the will of God. 13For I bear him record, that he hath a great zeal [much labor]9 for you, and them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis. 14Luke, the beloved physician, [or the physician, the beloved], and Demas, greet you. 15Salute the brethren which [who] are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his10 house. 16And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. 17And say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The greetings, Col 4:10-14.
Col 4:10. Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you.According to Act 19:29; Act 20:4; Act 27:2, he was a Macedonian from Thessalonica, who had not shared the imprisonment in Csesarea, but seems to have joined Paul on his departure for Italy, since when first mentioned again, according to Phm 1:24, he was a fellow-laborer with the Apostle, hence not exactly in bonds (Chrysostom and others), but a voluntary companion of Paul in his imprisonment, as Epaphras is there called fellow-prisoner, but not here.Both seemed to have shared alternately the imprisonment of Paul. The word is further applied to captives in war, and corresponds with fellow soldier (Php 2:25; Phm 1:2). Nothing better than this encomium (Chrysostom). [This conjecture of Meyer respecting voluntary imprisonment is the most probable one. They may have undergone actual trial and thus exchanged places, but the reference to a bygone imprisonment (Steiger) is unsatisfactory.R.]
And Marcus, cousin to Barnabas.This was the Evangelist; is Geschwisterkind [the relation between children of brothers and sisters], hence not cousin in the most extended sense, nor nephew (Luther). Bengel: Barnabas was better known than Mark; hence the latter is named from the former. [Perhaps better esteemed also.R.] Theophylact: he praises this one from his kindred; for Barnabas was great. On Mark, See Langes Comm. Mark, [p. 47, Am. ed., where he is represented as the nephew of Barnabas, however.R.]Touching whom ye received commandments.Touching whom, Mark, not Barnabas (Theophylact): ye received commandments refers to a fact of earlier date, of which they are reminded. What, from whom, when and how? is and remains undetermined. Bengel incorrectly takes as meaning accipetis after the manner of letter writing, and supposes it took place with this letter through Tychicus and Onesimus; forbids our referring it to letters of commendation (Grotius) [from Paul (Davenant) or the church of Rome (Estius).P]; the plural and the omission of the article forbid our finding the command in what follows (Calvin, Bengel, and others). It is possible that there is a reference to the collections for the church at Jerusalem. We cannot infer from this, that there was art Epistle of Paul, since lost (Reuss). [In all probability these commandments had been written, and were of a commendatory nature, yet this is only conjecture.R.]
If he come unto you, receive him.A parenthesis, referring to a journey of Mark from Rome to Asia [ implying that he would come.R.], agreeable intelligence to the Colossians. We cannot accept the view of Wieseler, that Paul had anxiety lest Mark might not be well received on account of Act 15:38-39, since all closer definition which would support this, is wanting. [Yet the thought is naturally suggested and is adopted by most English commentators. Wordsworth: There would be something very graceful and affecting to their minds, on St. Pauls part, to St. Barnabas and to St. Mark. It would seem to say, Barnabas was tender-hearted to St. Mark his kinsman; he did for him a kinsmans part; and Mark, though he faltered for a time, has profited by his kinsmans kindness, and by my severity; and he has now returned to me, and to the service which he quitted for a time; never to leave it more. You may have heard of the separation which took place between Barnabas and me; you may have heard of Marks dereliction of me. You will therefore rejoice to hear that now he is with me; I send you his greetings. I have given you commandments concerning him; and if he comes to you, I desire you to receive him.-R.]
Col 4:11. And Jesus, who is called Justus: unknown, not the one mentioned Act 18:7 (Theophylact), who being described as one that worshipped God could not have belonged to the Jews.Of those who are of the circumcision.These three were Jews, who were attached to the Apostle to the Gentiles.Only these are my fellow workers unto the kingdom of God.He thus gives a motive for the last clause; Jewish Christian teachers were mostly anti-Pauline in their labors (Php 1:15; Php 1:17), hence he adds as a result for himself, and to distinguish them from such as were indeed fellow laborers for the kingdom of God, but not such as he could find comfort in: which have been a comfort unto me.[Alford and Ellicott render: which have proved a comfort unto me.R.] , comfort, is found only here in the New Testament. He did not need a confirmation of the correctness of his doctrine; but comfort thus came to him. Bengel: is in private grief, is in public danger. [Ellicott objects, intimating that the latter admits of physical references, while the former is more ethical. There is some difference of opinion as to the punctuation of this verse, whether the stop should come after circumcision as in E. V. or after Justus (Meyer, Lachmann, Alford). The meaning plainly is: that these three were Jews, and that these three alone of the Jewish Christians co-operated with him. Braune implies that others are here called fellow-workers, but these three, distinguished by the last clause as having been a comfort, while Eadie, Alford and others think that he means to distinguish these alone as fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, i. e., in its wide sense, as including the bringing in of the Gentiles. The former is preferable. Wordsworth remarks: Therefore it does not seem probable that St. Peter Was now at Rome.R.]
Col 4:12. Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ Jesus, saluteth you.See Col 1:7; also above, Col 4:9. Affection and sympathy were demanded by his place of nativity, recognition and regard by his office. Then follows the description of his devoted activity: always striving for you in prayers.Comp. Rom 15:30. For you answers to of you, the external union is not without internal sympathy. The verb denotes the ardor and zeal of Epaphras, as well as the danger of the Church.
That ye may stand perfect and fully assured in all the will of GodThat marks the purpose of the prayer; stand renders prominent the constancy and firmness (Eph 6:11; Php 1:27). Perfect, more fully defined by and fully assured [perfect participle] as a fact of experience and continued efficiency, and by in all the will of God i.e., in all directions (Winers Gram. p. 105), as the vital sphere in which the perfectness and fulness were to move, limits. the standing fast to the ethical department of the Christians life. [On ., see Col 2:2, ; also 1Th 1:6.R.] In all etc., is not to be joined with stand (Bengel, Meyer, Bleek); nor does mean in virtue of, and will the decree of God (Baehr).
Col 4:13. For I bear him record.Attesting witnessThat he hath much labor for you.This refers to the trouble which he had in spirit, as striving (Col 4:12), and also to the time and vital energy consumed for them. Hence not merely labor of the spirit (Bleek), though proceeding from this. [Ellicott: labor, not such as attends a combat (Eadie) but such as implies a putting forth all ones strength. Wordsworth: The sentence is like a reply to those at Colosse who might have misinterpreted the absence of Epaphras from his flock, into a sign of indifference to their welfare. This absence was not voluntary. Phm 1:23.R.]And them that are in Laodicea and them in HierapolisOn Laodicea, see Introd. 4, 1. Hierapolis, also a Phrygian city on the Meander, near to and east of Colosse, famous for its warm baths. The place is now called Pambuk Kulasi. The activity of Epaphras was wide-reaching. [Meyer: Certainly Epaphras had labored also in these neighboring cities as founder of the churches, or at least as an eminent teacher.R.]
Col 4:14. Luke, the physician, the beloved.This was the Evangelist; the first phrase defines his station, the second his relation to Paul and to the Church. He attended the Apostle from Cesarea to Rome (Act 27:1, Winers Realwrterbuch, II p. 34), but must not be confounded with Lucius (Act 13:1). Lucas from Lucanus (Winers Gram. p. 97). [Wordsworth: It would seem that St. Luke was known to the Colossians as a Physician. The neighboring city of Laodicea was a great medical school (Strabo. 12. p. 580). It may have had professional attractions for him. The suggestion that he may have been known through his Gospel implies that it had been already written, a point which cannot be discussed here. See Langes Commentary, Luke p. 6, where Schaff favors the view that it was written during Pauls imprisonment at Csarea.R.]
And Demas (Phm 1:24; 2Ti 4:10), who had not yet forsaken him. On account of the absence of any further description, Bengel groundlessly supposes that the Epistle was dictated to him, and Schenkel, that the Apostle had already some disagreement with him, although in the cotemporaneous Epistle to Philemon (Phm 1:24) he is reckoned before Luke as a fellow laborer. [Meyer also deems this probable.R.]
Messages. Col 4:15-17.
Col 4:15. Salute the brethren who are in Laodicea.This shows the proximity and close union of the two Churches.And Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.And joins one person of Laodicea, giving him prominence, viz., Nymhas, adding also, as the motive, this distinction: and the church which is in his house. Comp. Phm 1:2; Rom 16:6; 1Co 16:19. Such churches included not only the members of the family and intimate acquaintances (Greek fathers, Erasmus and others), as if the reading were , but all those who assembled together there for worship. It is incorrect to understand by this the whole Church at Laodicea (Baehr)=which are in Laodicea. Grotius improperly places Nymphas and his house in the neighborhood of Laodicea.
Col 4:16. And when this epistle is read among you.Undoubtedly he means the Epistle to the Colossians lying before them (see Winers Gram. p. 102). The verb () marks the reading as an understanding on the part of the readers answering to that of the author, referring to the meaning of what was written, while legere refers merely to the form, the letters taken together. Reading it aloud to others (vorlesen) is not implied in the word, but in the circumstances, as 1Th 5:27, in the dative; 2Co 3:15; Act 15:21, in the times and the object.Cause that it be read also in the church of the LaodiceansCause that gives prominence to the purpose as in Joh 11:27. This injunction grows out of the similar circumstances, explained and conditioned by the proximity and connection of the two Churches.
And that ye likewise read that from Laodicea.That from Laodicea is placed first for emphasis to mark the antithesis. See Winers Gram. p. 511. Ye likewise places the Colossians beside the Laodiceans, after whom they also should read the Epistle. Evidently-then a letter written to the Laodiceans is meant, which the Colossians should cause to be forwarded to them from Laodicea. See Winers Gram. p. 584. The context indicates that Paul had written it, since otherwise he would not have known that the Laodiceans had one, and what its contents were. He had probably written and sent it at the same time, counting upon the oral information of Tychicus (Col 4:9), and was certainly induced to do so by Epaphras (Col 4:13). But nothing further is known save the admission that it is lost, as indeed the Canon of Muratori cites an Epistle to the Laodiceans (comp. Introd. to Ephesians, 5, 1). [As usual, where nothing is known, conjectures are abundant.R.] The following opinions are inadmissible: that it was a letter written from Laodicea to Paul (Erasmus, Calvin) [so A. Alexander, Canon, p. 296R.]; or one written thence by Paul, as 1 Tim. (Theophylact); or the Epistles to Philemon (Wieseler, Thiersch); that it was a purely private letter without appropriate doctrinal contents, a mere note, though of great value for the social relations and personal apprehension of those receiving it; that it was 1 John (Lightfoot), or Hebrews (Stein), or even Ephesians (Baehr, Meyer, Bleek) [Conybeare and Howson, I., 3948, where this view is advocated at lengthR,.]. The Apocryphal Latin Epistle to the Laodiceans, first translated into Greek by Elias Huther (1699), and inserted in German Bibles before that of Luther, a poor bungling affair of twenty verses, cannot be the one referred to. [Macknights conjecture, deemed probable by Middleton, Blunt and Wordsworth, is that the Apostle sent the Ephesians word by Tychicus, who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans, with an order to them to communicate it to the Colossians. Wordsworth remarks: that all St. Pauls Epistles were designed for general circulation. Ellicott in loco, after a clear statement, inclines to the view that an actual Epistle to the Laodiceans is here alluded to, which possibly, from its similarity to its sister Epistle, it has not pleased God to preserve to us. Eadie: Probably it was wholly of a temporary and local nature. An inspired writing is not necessarily a canonical one. The two leading hypotheses are: a) That it was the Epistle to the Ephesians , 1) regarded as an encyclical letter; 2) or, as addressed to the Laodiceans originally; 3) or circulating as Macknight suggests; all of which are open to great objections11). b) An Epistle now lost, for on exegetical grounds we must believe that it was a letter which the Laodiceans had or would have received, to come to Colosse from them. The latter is most probable, and does not involve the loss of a canonical book. (So Barnes.)R.]
Col 4:17. And say to Archippus.(Phm 1:2, our fellow soldier). He was doubtless a Colossian.Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord.An exhortation corresponding with the recognition in the other Epistle (Phm 1:2), hence not a reproof, as though great attention were needful (Schenkel). Comp. 1Co 1:26; 1Co 10:18 Php 3:2. Which thou hast received in the Lord describes the kind of ministry meant; as to its origin, it was delivered to him (Bengel: vocatione mediata), for the Church indeed, but not more closely described. It is arbitrary to regard it as the diaconate or administration of the episcopate during the absence of Epaphras (Estius) [Ellicott and Wordsworth deem this not improbableR.]; so also the opinion that he was a young man (Ewald), or now feeble from age (Bengel). In the Lord is not=from the Lord (Baehr), nor for the sake of the Lord (Flatt), not according to the precepts of the Lord (Grotius, who joins it with fulfil); it simply denotes the sphere in which the ministry moved, marking a responsible position. Comp. Act 20:24. [Alford: The sphere of the reception of the ministry; in which the recipient lived and moved and promised at his ordination; not of the ministry itself. This is more accurate.R.]
The purpose of taking heed to the ministry that thou fulfil it.It is not trajection: that thou fulfil the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord (Grotius and others). See 2Jn 1:8. Comp. Act 12:25; 2Ti 4:5. Nor is there any reproof here, only exhortation, the circumstances of the Church being a motive for it; the service must be fully rendered to guard the Church from corruption. It must be noticed that the Church should thus speak to Archippus, in the words of the Apostle, however. [Eadie: It was an admonition of Paul to Archippus through the Church. Theophylact finds in it also a command to the flock, to recognize and obey the Pastor. This may be implied, but this interpretation belongs to a later age. See Alford, Meyer. Also Wordsworth, who quotes Theophylact with approval.R.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Men may be against us, yet not against Christ. In the various apprehensions of the all-important matter, affecting and effecting the salvation of the soul, viz., Christianity and the Person of Christ, and amid all contrary and trying experiences, the clear view and impartial judgment should and will yet discover, that some are fellow-laborers, even if very few occupy precisely the same stand-point, and share the same views and methods. Only these three Jewish Christian teachers are comforting helpers and friends, yet he recognizes others still as his fellow workers unto the kingdom of God, and Paul does not regard anti-pauline Christians as anti-christian people. As little as anti-catholic is anti-christian, so little is all and every thing anti-Lutheran anti-christian also, or whatever and whoever is against you, against God and Christ.
2. Hospitality has now an entirely different form from that of earlier times, owing to the total change in circumstances. The character of this duty and custom remains unchanged in this respect, that to the poor and distressed as well as to friends and brethren, our house offers a place of friendly reception and hospitable help, according to the circumstances and needs of the case. Our house should not at times become a public house, but in the privacy of home we should still be good hosts for Christian sociality and Christian beneficence.
3. Firmness and constancy are, naturally, fundamental traits of the character of the Christian and the Christian Church, but their foundation and element must be the will of God in the various relations of life. The Christian should yield to no human opinion, to no thought of time, not to worldly wisdom or to the lust of his flesh and self-will. In Gods Will we find our Ought, and to this our Can must reach. [In Gottes Wollen liegt unser Sollen, und darauf muss unser Knnen gehen.]
4. Fervent supplication is a duty and important work, not without labor. In it not only is the heart elevated with its love, but it extends itself, it strengthens and nerves itself for skilful action. Epaphras, who approached God in supplication for his Colossians, journeyed also to Rome to see Paul, and was interested in the neighboring churches.
5. Every Church has its heads and leaders, as well as its members, those known and esteemed and of wide reputation, and those unknown, un thought of, hidden ones. The former are not without the latter, are for them, and these too are with the former and for them also.
6. What was then said to one Church was of value to another, is of value to all, to the whole Church. The form of a servant in which single writings of the Bible appear, as occasional letters, as shared by the whole Scripture; in this we perceive the glory of the Lord, for such means suffice for His work.
7. Independency. Paul does not address his words to an Independent congregation of Christians. He places three congregations: Colosse, Laodicea and Hierapolis, together in union with himself and with each other.
8. Nor does Paul foster the hierarchical spirit of the clergy: the latter constitute a member of the body of the Church, to which the whole should furnish the impulse. The Apostle points from the Romish or Jewish Church of the clergy, to the evangelical Church of the people.
9. The ministerial office has a great responsibility on account of Him who imparts it, on account of Him in whom it is to be accomplished and on account of those for whom it is to be fulfilled.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
It is of great value to know that good men think kindly of us. A greeting has in it something very beneficent. Do not forget to deliver it; do not consider such negligence a small matter. Be as careful about it as the Apostle.Delight especially in those who gather others about them and serve the Church.Do your part in helping every one to the conscientious performance of their ministry; show them especially their responsibility; remember, it is not enough that thou hast received, thou must fulfil, what thou hast received.
Starke:Every father should have and hold in his family a proper household church. That brings edification and blessing. Whoever tries it will find it so.Reading the Word of God is not an especial privilege for this and that one alone, but for each and every Christian.Rieger:We have children, households, entangling connections; and we ever say: to these too we must take heed. But to the ministry, however, first and foremost.Schleiermacher:All associations of Christians in a society of personal friendship, which involve a dissimilarity to others, should end in such an understanding that each one, in his own place and in his own spirit, but joined in common love to the others, will forward the great work of blessing men through Christ.
Passavant:
Col 4:10. Mark had struggled through and out of the old nature, and become a faithful servant in the gospel; we never go further in Gods ways in vain.
Col 4:15. It was no slight evidence of the faith and love of this householder to Christ and His cause, that he received into his house the assembly of first Christians, these heathen converted out of darkness into light; such an one must assuredly anticipate many a pain and persecution.
[Henry:
Col 4:10. We must forget as well as forgive.
Col 4:12. They who would succeed in prayer, must take pains in prayer.
Col 4:14. Luke was both a physician and an evangelist. Christ Himself both taught and healed, and was the great Physician as well as Prophet of the Church.R.]
[Eadie:
Col 4:12. Love so pure and spiritual as that of Epaphras will produce an agony of earnestness.
Col 4:14. Honor a physician with the honor due unto him for the uses which ye may have of him, for the Lord hath created him, for of the Most High cometh healing (Sir 38:1-2). It was indeed a common saying,ubi tres medici, duo athei. Luke might have been an example to the profession.R.]
[Wordsworth:
Col 4:14. This special mention (the beloved) may have been designed by St. Paul to impart a Christian dignity to the medical profession, which was not held in high repute by the polite nations of antiquity; and to remind its practitioners, particularly those of Laodicea, to whom this Epistle was to be sent (Col 4:16), of the honor and holiness of the medical calling, as ministering to the human body, which had been ennobled and consecrated by the Incarnation of Christ. Though special and supernatural gifts of healing were vouchsafed to the Church in those days, even then the ordinary means were not superseded, which were provided and bestowed by Almighty God for alleviating the sufferings of humanity through the art and skill of the Physician.R.]
Footnotes:
[5]Col 4:10.[, cousin. Edie and Ellicott suggest that the E. V. probably means this, i.e., Geschwisterkind. See Exeg. Notes.R.]
[6]Col 4:10.[The clause immediately following Barnabas is included in the parenthesis of the E. V., this is unnecessary.R.]
[7]Col 4:12.[. A. B. C. L. insert ; Lachmann, Tischendorf, most modern editors.R.]
[8]Col 4:12.. A. B. C. and others read instead of . [So modern editors, Lachmann, Tischendorf and other. Braune renders it erfilt; Eadie, Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth: fully assured or fully persuades.R.]
[9]Col 4:13.. A. B. C. and other read instead of . [Others , , . Modern editors have generally adopted , multum laborem. The word is rare in New Testament. hence the variety of readings.R.]
[10]Col 4:15. is well attested by D. E. F. G. K. L. and other; . [A. C.] have . B. reads . The context requires the first, since , the masculine name, is to be retained, and the explanation that the plural refers to Nymphas and family, is unnatural. [Lachmann follows B.; Meyer, Alford adopt the plural; Rec. Tischendorf, Eadie, Ellicott, Wordsworth: . The variation is of little importance, has probably arisen from a desire to identify the whole church of Laodicea with that in the house of Nymphas (Ellicott).R.]
[11][Comp. Alford III. Prolegg. pp. 17, 18, against 1) and 2), and Ellicott in loco against 3), which is by far the least improbable conjecture.R.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Prisoners of War
“Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ.” Phm 1:1 .
“There salute thee Epaphras, my fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus.” Phm 1:23 “Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you.” Col 4:10 “Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners.” Rom 16:7
WE have only one word where Paul had two. In all these cases we say “prisoner”; Paul did not use the same word in all cases. Paul used two perfectly distinct words; he had therefore two perfectly distinct meanings. “Paul, a prisoner, a of Jesus Christ”: this was literal. There was not any doubt that Paul was oftentimes in the most literal sense a prisoner, a man locked up, a bondsman in chains, and his address was the city gaol. “My fellow-prisoner,” “my fellow-prisoners”: the word which he used in the first instance is not used in these later examples; it is a larger, tenderer, sweeter word, fuller altogether as to thought and music and blessedness of experience. This is the infirmity of language: we speak roughly, we lose much for want of critical discrimination. There are persons, we are told, who are colour-blind, to whom, therefore, the rainbow is nothing; there are others who are indeed word-blind or word-deaf, they do not distinguish between terms, and all voices are alike to them; if they hear the mere sound it is enough, without studying its quality and its suggestiveness. Let there be no doubt about the literal imprisonment of Paul. As a simple matter of fact he was often in gaol. There is no need to disguise that fact. Paul rather magnified it, dwelt upon it with singular complacency, and got out of its bitterness something sweeter than the honeycomb. But Paul never consented to live within the literal meaning of the word “prison.” To that term he added others, and thus he glorified it. It is not “Paul, a prisoner,” it is “Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ” where is the gaol now? “My fellow-prisoner in Jesus Christ”; “I Paul, the prisoner of the Lord.” How much richer we might be, if we drew more heavily upon the bank of the riches of Christ! There would be those who called themselves mere prisoners; they saw nothing but the prison walls, they felt nothing but the prison chains, they spoke of nothing but the prison diet and deprivation of companionship and many of the advantages of civilisation. Paul never talked in a whining tone. He enlarged the gaol by taking Christ into it, and when they were both together, though in prison, they were in heaven. The Apostle Paul always looked beyond the gaoler; he said to him in effect, You are but an instrument; you carry the keys, and yet you are only a key yourself; you do not know what you are doing; I bear you no resentment or animosity, you are in the hands of the king. Men do not come to that high estate of spiritual interpretation and spiritual comfort without undergoing many a drilling process, many a stripping and laceration, many a disappointment, and without much experience of the subtlety and strength of the vanquished enemy. Young Christians need not suppose that they can leap into this high and ennobling ecstasy; it is only to be attained by patience, suffering, sanctified disappointment, and battle.
What was the effect of this magnifying of the prison by associating it with the name of Jesus Christ? It gave Paul all strength. Even his weakness became an element of power. Turning over his chains in the prison, he said, I can do all things through Christ which strengthened me: these are not chains, they are feathers in wings; these are not bonds when properly interpreted; these outside people, Csars and kings and rulers and procurators and magistrates, they are only so many pieces which the King himself is moving: all this is educational, it is to have an effect upon myself, and it is to have an effect upon after ages: I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me: I even sang at Philippi, and sang, not in the morning dawn, but at the midnight hour. It filled the Apostle with joy. On one occasion his rapture was so great that he said, Yea, we exceedingly glory in tribulations also: we would not be without them; those elements of blackness greatly help the picture: we could not have a complete year without the winter: we have gone so far in the spiritual life that even tribulation itself is one of the black servants in our Father’s household.
Then Paul never looked at anything in its simple individuality and solitariness. He did not deal in bonds but in horizons; he said, All things work together for good to them that love God: this prison is one of the “all things”; without this prison experience my education would not be complete: this will sweeten me, this will soften me, this will give me mellowness: I am conscious of a kind of rude strength to be obtained in the schools, but I did want the suppleness, the exquisiteness of humility, and the beauty of chastening which such afflictions alone can give, and now my education is being perfected. No man’s education is perfected who has not been stripped naked and left in the wilderness to do the best he could for himself. You cannot pamper a man up to the completeness of his education; he must be left out all night among the rocks, and in the morning you will discover a new tone in the gamut of his utterance. “I have learned,” said Paul, making long emphasis upon the word “learned,” as if it were a seventy years school-time, “in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.” It was not an inspiration, it was a learning; it was not a triumph of genius, it was a result of experience. This is the royal road to contentment, repose, and triumph.
But this is not the only meaning of the word “prisoner.” There is a larger word. Paul, by dwelling in the larger prison, made no account of the smaller gaol. What then, is the higher and wider meaning? See a Roman general going forth to war: are his victories counted only by his slain? By no means. His victories are also counted by his prisoners of war. Watch him returning home: see how vast a procession is formed with himself at the head. Who are these men constituting this procession? They are prisoners of war, men who have been taken at the point of the spear. That is the literal meaning: they are not slain men, they are not necessarily wounded men, but they are men who have felt the point of the spear, and have said, We yield: the battle, the victory, is yours. Watch them marching after the great conqueror: he is proud of them, he exhibits them in the city as trophies of war, spoils of a mighty hand. Thus we come to the larger meaning of the term prisoner. Always remember the first and vulgar meaning of a man being haled to prison and shut up with criminals, and chained as if he were a wild beast; that fact must never be lost sight of as one element in the experience of the apostles: but sometimes Paul calls himself a man taken at the point of the spear. Saul was breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the Lord, and the Lord held his lightning spear to his breast, and he said, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” He was a prisoner of war, he was captured by the Lord.
Jesus Christ is represented as going forth to war and bringing back his spoils. Imagine the scene: Paul was mad against the Lord, and he went forth to war; there was a tremendous shock of battle, but the Lord conquered at the gate of Damascus, and he who but yesternight was full of storm and fury and tumult was led to-day by the hand into the city, a prisoner of war, one who had fallen beneath the spear of the Saviour. Paul therefore delighted to speak about his fellow-prisoners, not men and women who had necessarily been in gaol with him; they might have been in the literal prison with him, but he uses a totally different word in speaking about this imprisonment, and he says to his fellow-pilgrims on this journey, Brethren, we are fellow-prisoners, we were taken at the point of the spear, we were rebelling against Christ, and defying him, and he conquered. We are fond of speaking about our fellow-students, and our fellow-passengers, and our fellow-travellers: Paul was fond of speaking about his fellow-prisoners, and they went on behind the triumphant Christ, calling him Lord and Master; for in fair fight he had vanquished them, and they were now prisoners of war, spoils of battle. Unless we take in this element we shall lose a great deal of instruction, and shall fall far short of the right conception of Christian relationship and Christian responsibility. Where are the prisoners of war now? Men walk into church supposedly through the gay, brightly coloured door of reason, custom, hereditary habit; men now in a conceited intellectuality accept the Cross. We do not want such acceptance, and the Cross will not take it; it is a battle question, it is a question of man against God, creature against the Creator, self against sacrifice; and every man who is in the right church, and, by right of Christ’s sovereignty and permission, was captured at the point of the spear. Here is the heroic element in Christian experience. True Christians are conquered men. They do not walk in with high port and patronising dignity, as who should say, We are willing to accept certain propositions, and to sustain certain relationships. They come in broken-down, captured bound hand and foot, not a limb their own, not a breath their own, spoils of war. If you could have conquered Christ, why did you not carry on the fight to the point of victory? No man can overwhelm omnipotence: everything goes down before the weakness of the Cross, for it is the power of God. So we must relieve the Church of an infinite pile of patronage, and intellectual assent, and respectable endorsement; we must strengthen the Church by thinning its numbers; by reducing the quantity we must get at the reality of the true nature of the Church: quality will conquer. If we have not been conquered by Christ we are not Christians: if we have one pulsation of our own will left in us we are as bad as we ever were. We never can tell whether we are Christ’s or not until we have come to the point of absolute bankruptcy of self-trust. If we can utter one wish or will, or signal of desire, and make a point of it, as who should say, Beyond that we cannot go, we know nothing about the Cross. If a man should say to Christ, “I accept the Cross because it is the way to heaven,” he does not accept the Cross. There is no bribery in this holy sanctuary of truth. If a man should say, “I will be a Christian, because, if the worst should come to the worst, I have nothing to lose, and if Christianity should be true, I have all to gain,” he knows nothing about Christianity: what he says is a fact, but must not be used as a reason; this is trading with heaven, this is proceeding upon the principle of equivalents. A man who says, “I will give you my heart if you will give me your heaven,” has no right to speak, and his vain words are not heard, his abominable prayer either dies among the clouds or falls back into his own heart as a burden that will distress him.
If we are prisoners of the Lord in the true sense of the term we are prisoners of love. That is to say, we want to be the Lord’s bondsmen, we say, This captivity is freedom; we never knew what it was to be free until we were the slaves of Christ; this is glorious liberty; we have been introduced into the realm and music of the Divine movement; we are now no longer outcast, and alien, and rebellious, and self-idolatrous, we are part of the great scheme of God, let him put us in our places that we may fulfil his decree, and his sovereignty. He who is a prisoner against his will will suffer night and day; the darkness will be oppressive to him, the silence will be an added punishment, his withdrawment from social routine will weigh heavily upon his soul, but he who takes Christ with him into the innermost prison into which Paul and Silas were thrust will sing at midnight. Any man can sing at noonday; he who sings with the soul at midnight is always in summer noontide.
If we are prisoners of the Lord we are no longer our own. The cry of Saul must be the cry of man to the end of his experience “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” The very utterance was a sign of conversion; such words were not natural to such lips. Saul was not the man to give himself over to any other man in heaven or in earth: Saul was a man who relied upon himself; he issued fiats, he did not obey them; he gave orders; when he breathed he breathed out threatenings and slaughter. We must contrast the two utterances if we would know the reality, the depth, and the grandeur of the change: Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter Saul, who said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? When the spear of this Infinite Csar was pointed at his heart, when the next stroke meant death, Saul said Lord, Thou hast conquered, I am thine. There is so little of this conquest-experience now; let me repeat, there is far too much intellectual assent, and acceptance of propositions, and endorsements of written orthodoxies: what we should desire is that we should be overwhelmed, overpowered, conquered, and one print of that spear should be the only order of dignity we ask for. Our prisonership in Christ is attested by our scars, and not by our opinions; by our wounds, and not by our intellectual conceits.
Prisoners taken by the great Roman generals had no will of their own which they dared express: prisoners taken by Jesus Christ have no will of their own; it is not a suppression wrought by fear, but a suppression, an annihilation, wrought by supremest, sublimest love. We must in all things consult the Captain of our salvation. He has written his law “He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me, and he shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself unto him.” What are the commands of the Captain? What does the conquering Captain want us to be, and to do? Read his Book, study his spirit, invoke his inspiration, and then go forth and fight on the side we once opposed. This is what Saul did; he was no sooner taken captive by Christ and instructed in the Divine way than he began to fight on the other side, and people heard only this about him, that he who once persecuted the Church was now preaching the gospel. A glorious inconsistency! Not an inconsistency representative of intellectual pedantry, but inconsistency equivalent to transformation, conversion, resurrection. There will be great inconsistency between the risen body and the flesh that was laid in the ground, but we must accept some inconsistencies as necessary developments in education, and in spiritual progress. Are we fighting for Christ? Not, Are we talking over him? Are we disputing about him? but, Are we really fighters? Are our blows battles half-won? Do we strike timidly? Do we whisper where we ought to speak in thunder? We are called upon to be soldiers of Christ “Endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ”; “Take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye should be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” The image is military “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world,” wherefore God’s panoply be yours. Go out in no leathern armour of your own, but in the solid steel of heaven. The world would then soon become aware of the higher military element that never yet was vanquished, but ever yet came home at night laden with spoil. Christ has never been worsted. He has been in gaol, he has been in hunger and thirst and nakedness, in cold, and weariness; he has not had where to lay his head; he has been houseless when the foxes went home, and the bird nestled in its little house in the tree: but he has never been conquered, he never gave in. Not once did he say, The world is stronger than I am, and I must be overwhelmed by it, and I resign my trust as infinitely beyond my strength. He must reign till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. The one great voice that brake upon the attentive ear of the listening seer was a voice of thunder and tempest, whirlwinds, and oceans pouring out their thunder-music, crying, Hallelujah! the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth; the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ. There is no craven tone in all the Christian statement. When Christianity has gone back it was but the refluence of the wave that it might return in prouder strength, and assert the sovereignty of God.
Prayer
Almighty God, we thank thee that thou hast spoken unto us a little at a time. Thou hast given us portions of thy Word in different ways, as we have been able to bear them. Thus hast thou broken bread for our souls, and thus hast thou prevented or satisfied the hunger of our Divinity. We thank thee for all thy music; it is all thine, the great solemnity and the tender whisper are both the Lord’s. Give us the listening heart; forbid that thy music should die in our ears; may that music find its way into the soul, and redouble itself according to our necessity and growth. We bless thee for thy Word, a lamp, a glory round about us, a sweet voice within us, a friend, a companion, a counsellor, an angel; all blessings in one great benefaction. May we read thy Word eagerly, may we fix our eyes upon it intently, looking steadfastly, pryingly, penetratingly, into the law of liberty, lest anything should escape our attention. May ours be the steadfast look, the eager expectant glance; then thou wilt show us thy goodness, and that shall be in itself meanwhile as thy glory, thy mercy shall be the pledge of thy majesty. We thank thee that since we have known thy Word we have cared for none other; thou dost fill our souls, yea thy presence doth overflow the vessel of our life, so that we have no more room to contain thee: Lord, withdraw not thyself; increase our capacity. We gather always at the Cross, for there alone may men pray the great prayer of confession and sorrow and self-renunciation and expectancy of redemption. At the Cross we have liberty in our prayer; at the Cross the heart may make its greatest speeches; at the Cross thou didst never deny pardon to any broken heart. We have done the things we ought not to have done; we ask thee to forgive our lawlessness: we have left undone the things that we ought to have done; we ask thee to forgive our neglect. We have sinned against thee thus with both hands: we have broken thy law and we have left it a dead letter: the Lord pity us, the Lord behold us at the Cross, and by the power of the priesthood of Christ come to us and say to each contrite soul, Thy sins which are many are all forgiven thee. Thus shall we have new childhood, new youth, a new glad summer morning, alive with light and music, and we shall run life’s race hopefully and successfully. Teach us the meaning of thy providences: we are always misunderstanding God; we affix our interpretations to thy providences and mistake the one for the other: save us from annotating the way of God; may we wait for it, rest in it, be thankful for it, commit ourselves wholly unto it, and save ourselves from the destructiveness of our own opinion. Thou hast done great things for us whereof we are glad. Thou knowest the treachery of the heart; it would count the little things, the adversaries, the disappointments, and add them up to a great charge against the love of God: may we beware of the enemy when he would thus tempt us, and may we turn ourselves to the bright things of life our reason, our health, our friendship, the rivers of life that flow through the meadows of our experience: and thus may we say the Lord hath done great things for us whereof we are glad. Teach us that gratitude is the secret of joy; show us that if we be trustful we shall be successful; teach us that disappointment is an angel of God sent to bring the soul into closer friendship with heaven. Thus give us dominion over the things that should be under our feet; may we keep them there, when our heads are lifted up in the modesty of perfect faith, whilst we see the dawning light which is the beginning of heaven. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
10 Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)
Ver. 10. Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas ] Hence Barnabas stood so stiff for him against Paul his faithful fellow traveller, Act 15:37 . See Trapp on “ Act 15:37 “ Natural affection sways overly much with some good men, as it did with Eli, and perhaps with Samuel, 1Sa 8:1 ; 1Sa 8:3 .
If he come unto you, receive him ] St Paul had now a better opinion of him than once, when he broke with Barnabas about him. He was not of the Novatian opinion, never to think well again of those that had fallen through infirmity, albeit they repented. They are not to be liked, that say, I never liked him since, &c.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
10 14 .] Various greetings from brethren .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
10 .] Aristarchus was a Thessalonian ( Act 20:4 ), first mentioned Act 19:29 , as dragged into the theatre at Ephesus during the tumult, together with Gaius, both being . He accompanied Paul to Asia (ib. Act 22:4 ), and was with him in the voyage to Rome ( Act 27:2 ). In Phm 1:24 , he sends greeting, with Marcus, Demas, and Lucas, as here. On , Meyer (after Fritzsche, Rom. vol. i. prolegg. p. xxi) suggests an idea, which may without any straining of probability be adopted, and which would explain why Aristarchus is here ., and in Phm 1:24 , , whereas Epaphras is here, ch. Col 1:7 , merely a , and in Phm 1:23 a . His view is, that the Apostle’s friends may have voluntarily shared his imprisonment by turns: and that Aristarchus may have been his fellow-prisoner when he wrote this Epistle, Epaphras when he wrote that to Philemon. belongs to the same image of warfare as , Phi 2:25 ; Phm 1:2 .
] can hardly be other than John Mark, cf. Act 12:12 ; Act 12:25 , who accompanied Paul and Barnabas in part of their first missionary journey, and because he turned back from their at Perga (ib. Act 13:13 ; Act 15:38 ), was the subject of dispute between them on their second journey. That he was also the Evangelist, is matter of pure tradition, but not therefore to be rejected.
] not ‘ sister’s son :’ this rendering has arisen from mistaking the definition given by Hesych., , , meaning that are sons of brothers , i.e. cousins . (Ellic. in notes on his translation of the Epistle, suggests that ‘ sister’s-son ’ may after all be no mistake, but an archaism to express, as the German Geschwisterkind , a cousin .) “Pollux dicit, filios filiasque fratrum et sororum, dici , ex his prognatos , , tertio gradu , a Menandro dici.” Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 306. This is decisively shewn in Herod. vii. 5, , . It is also used in a wider sense (see Hom. Il. . 464): but there is no need to depart here from the strict meaning.
] What these commands were, must be left in entire uncertainty. They had been sent previous to the writing of our Epistle ( ): but from, or by whom, we know not. They concerned Marcus, not Barnabas (as Thl., al.): and one can hardly help connecting them, associated as they are with , , with the dispute of Act 15:38 . It is very possible, that in consequence of the rejection of John Mark on that occasion by St. Paul, the Pauline portion of the churches may have looked upon him with suspicion.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Col 4:10 . : a native of Thessalonica, mentioned in Act 19:29 ; Act 20:4 ; Act 27:2 , Phm 1:24 . In Philm. Epaphras is mentioned as Paul’s fellow-prisoner. Fritzsche suggested that his friends took turns in voluntarily sharing his captivity, and explained the difference between the two Epistles in this way. The divergence between the two Epistles testifies to authenticity, for an imitator would not have created a difficulty of this kind. (so accented by Blass and Haupt, who refers to Dittenberger in confirmation), the cousin ( ) of Barnabas, who may by this time have been dead. He is no doubt the John Mark of the Acts and the evangelist. . We do not know what these commands were. . cannot be an epistolary aorist (2nd person), therefore the commands must have been sent previously. . . . may express the substance of them. . Paul may have feared that Mark’s defection from him, which led to the sharp quarrel between him and Barnabas, might prejudice the Colossians against him. The mention of his relationship to Barnabas was probably intended as a recommendation to their kindness. He seems to have been unknown to the Colossians.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Col 4:10-17
10Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas’ cousin Mark (about whom you received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him); 11and also Jesus who is called Justus; these are the only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are from the circumcision, and they have proved to be an encouragement to me. 12Epaphras, who is one of your number, a bond slave of Jesus Christ, sends you his greetings, always laboring earnestly for you in his prayers, that you may stand perfect and fully assured in all the will of God. 13For I testify for him that he has a deep concern for you and for those who are in Laodicea and Hierapolis. 14Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings, and also Demas. 15Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house. 16When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea. 17Say to Archippus, “Take heed to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, that you may fulfill it.”
Col 4:10-14 Timothy and six other co-workers sent their personal greetings to the church. Six of these seven co-workers are also mentioned in Philemon. Tychicus was probably the bearer of the letters of Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon to Asia Minor.
Col 4:10 “Aristarchus” A Jewish Christian about whom we know little (cf. Act 19:29; Act 20:4; Act 27:2).
“my fellow prisoner” This refers either metaphorically to Christian service or literally to imprisonment (cf. Rom 16:7; Phm 1:23).
“Mark, the cousin of Barnabas” John Mark’s home may have been the site of the Lord’s Supper and Upper Room post-resurrection appearances of Jesus (cf. Act 12:12). He was the writer of the Gospel of Mark and the friend and scribe of Peter (cf. 1Pe 5:13). He was the cause of a great disagreement between Barnabas and Paul after their first missionary journey (cf. Act 12:25; Act 13:5; Act 15:36-39).
“if he comes to you, welcome him” This is a third class conditional sentence. Paul was very angry with John Mark for leaving the first mission team. However, they apparently reconciled (cf. 2Ti 4:11).
Col 4:11 “Jesus who is called Justus” The TEV has “Joshua.” “Jesus” and “Joshua” are derived from the Hebrew terms “YHWH” and “salvation” and are the same in Hebrew (cf. Mat 1:21). This Justus is known to God, but unknown to us.
“the kingdom of God” This is such a key phrase in the Synoptic Gospels (see Special Topic at Eph 5:5). Jesus’ first and last sermons, and most of His parables, dealt with this topic. It refers to the reign of God in human hearts now. It is surprising that John uses this phrase only twice (and never in Jesus’ parables). In John’s Gospel “eternal life” is a key term and metaphor.
The phrase relates to the eschatological (end-time) thrust of Jesus’ teachings. This “already, but not yet” theological paradox relates to the Jewish concept of two ages, the current evil age and the righteous age to come, which will be inaugurated by the Messiah. The Jews expected only one coming of a Spirit-empowered military leader (like the Judges in the OT). The two comings of Jesus caused an overlapping of the two ages. The Kingdom of God has broken into human history with the incarnation at Bethlehem. However, Jesus came, not as the military conqueror of Revelation 19, but as the Suffering Servant (cf. Isaiah 53) and humble leader (cf. Zec 9:9). The Kingdom, therefore, is inaugurated (cf. Mat 3:2; Mat 4:17; Mat 10:7; Mat 11:12; Mat 12:28; Mar 1:15; Luk 9:9; Luk 9:11; Luk 11:20; Luk 21:31-32), but not consummated (cf. Mat 6:10; Mat 16:28; Mat 26:64).
Believers live in the tension between these two ages. They have resurrection life, but they still are dying physically. They are freed from the power of sin, yet they still sin. They live in the eschatological tension of the already and the not yet!
“from the circumcision” The men listed in Col 4:7-11 were all Jewish believers (according to their names).
“they have proved to be an encouragement to me” The term literally means “relief of pain.” This Greek word is the source of the English medicine “paregoric.”
Col 4:12 “Epaphras” He was founder of the church at Colossae (cf. Col 1:7 and introduction).
“always laboring earnestly for you” This is a strong athletic term which comes into English as “agony.” Epaphras was a prayer warrior (cf. Col 4:13). His prayer for these believers was that they (1) stand, (2) mature, and (3) be assured in all the will of God.
Col 4:13 “Laodicea and Hierapolis” These were the other two towns (along with Colossae) of the Lycus valley in which Epaphras had started three churches.
Col 4:14 “Luke” He was Paul’s close missionary companion and physician. He was a Gentile and the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts.
“Demas” Later he would desert Paul (cf. 2Ti 4:10).
Col 4:15 “Nympha” This can be either masculine or feminine. Notice the early church met in private homes (cf. Rom 16:5; 1Co 16:19; Phm 1:2).
Col 4:16 “when this letter is read among you” All of Paul’s letters, not just Ephesians (a circular letter), were passed around from church to church and read aloud to the whole congregation. The churches believed that the Apostles had a unique, inspired word from God. Their desire to hear all of Paul’s letters written to other churches, and on other occasions, shows how the Bible relates to everyone and every age.
“read my letter that is coming from Laodicea” This letter was probably “Ephesians” which was a circular letter. In Marcion’s Canon, Ephesians was called “the letter to the Laodiceans.” No early church father ever quotes from a letter known as the letter to the Laodiceans.
Col 4:17 “Archippas” Archippas was the pastor of the house-church (Phm 1:2). The early leadership positions were functions performed by local gifted believers, not vocations or offices.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Aristarchus. See Act 19:29.
Marcus. See Act 12:12.
sister’s son = cousin. Greek anepsios. Only here.
Barnabas. See Act 4:36.
touching. App-104.
if. Greek. ean. App-118.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
10-14.] Various greetings from brethren.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Col 4:10. , my fellow-prisoner) This was the state of Aristarchus (viz. that of a prisoner), not so Epaphras, Col 4:12 : but it is Epaphras, not Aristarchus, that is spoken of as his fellow-prisoner in Philem. 123, 24. Perhaps Epaphras, when he came to Rome, was imprisoned, and presently after liberated. Paul might have so called Aristarchus, because he had been formerly imprisoned.- , [sisters son, Engl. Vers.] kinsman to Barnabas) Barnabas was better known than Mark; therefore the latter is designated from the former.- , concerning whom) namely Mark; the refers to the nominative, not to the oblique case, of Barnabas [though immediately precedes].-) ye have received. Tychicus and Onesimus seem to have borne these commandments to the Colossians, along with this epistle. Ye have received, he says, not, you will receive; for the ancients suited their language to the time when the epistle was read, not to the time when it was written, as we should do. Thus, I have written, for I write, Phm 1:19.-, commandments) These are put in antithesis to the writing.-, if) This is the sum of those commandments.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Col 4:10
Col 4:10
Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you,-Aristarchus was a Macedonian, had accompanied Paul in his return from Macedonia, (Act 19:29). He accompanied Paul on his return to Jerusalem, as one chosen to go with him to carry the bounty of the Macedonian churches to the poor saints in Judea. (Act 20:4). He was with Paul when taken prisoner, and was either himself sent as a prisoner, or voluntarily accompanied him to Rome and remained with him during his imprisonment. (Act 27:2). He was with Paul in his imprisonment, and sent salutations and expressions of good will to the Colossian brethren. [We know nothing more of his services in behalf of the cause of Christ beyond this record of his assiduous and self-sacrificing attendance on Paul. How much Paul, with his physical infirmities, owed to such friendship, and how much the church owes on his account, we cannot tell. Those who may not have great gifts for public service may serve Christ most effectually often-time by serving his servants, by their private friendship and aid cheering the hearts and strengthening the hands of those on whom fall the heavier responsibilities of the churches care and strife, and who but for such timely assistance might haply sink beneath their burdens.]
and Mark,-Mark, like Onesimus, who once was unprofitable to his master (Phm 1:11), had been aforetime unfaithful to Paul (Act 13:13; Act 15:36-41); which caused a serious breach between Paul and Barnabas. But now, and again at a later time, he is marked out by Paul as useful for ministering (2Ti 4:11). Pauls firmness and fidelity in refusing, at whatever cost, to take with him an untrustworthy man, had, we may presume, helped to arouse Mark to a better spirit. [Notwithstanding all Pauls uncompromising sternness and the intenseness of his passionate nature, there was no bitterness or suspiciousness, no cherishing resentment in his heart. Some men will never trust again a friend or servant who once, under any circumstances had failed them. But Paul shows a more Christian and wiser disposition. As he bids others do, so he acts himself, forbearing one another, and forgiving each other. (Col 3:13). As the Lord forgave Peter who denied him, so Paul forgave Mark who had deserted him. And by the way in which he commends him to the Colossian church, he shows how entirely Mark now has his approval and confidence.]
the cousin of Barnabas-[Mark is called the cousin of Barnabas by way of commendation. (1Co 9:6; Gal 2:1; Gal 2:9; Gal 2:13). Mary the mother of John Mark was highly esteemed in the church at Jerusalem (Act 12:12), and through her he may have been related to Barnabas.]
(touching whom, ye received commandments; if he come unto you, receive him),-[The formal charge to the Colossian church to receive him-a kind of letter of commendation (2Co 3:1)-evidently shows that they had known of him as under Pauls displeasure, and were now to learn that he had seen reason to restore him to his confidence. In the epistle to Philemon, Mark is named, as of course, among his fellow-workers. (Verse 24). In Pauls last epistle, written just a short while before his death, there is a touch of peculiar pathos in the charge to Timothy: Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is useful to me for ministering (2Ti 4:11), from which he had once rejected him.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Christian Greetings
Col 4:10-18
What a noble group had gathered round the Apostle in his enforced residence in Rome! That hired room of his must have been filled time after time with most interesting groups; and each friend was dear to the lion-heart, and intent on some act of loving devotion. Aristarchus had been with him in the Ephesian riot; Mark was endeavoring to make good his former lapse of courage; Epaphras, who had come from Colosse, was remarkable for his soul-agony and prayer-labor on his friends behalf; Luke, the beloved physician, always on the alert to minister to the malaria or other malady that afflicted him; and Demas, of whom perhaps he had begun to have suspicions, 2Ti 4:10. Archippus is believed to have been a son of Philemon, and chief presbyter of Laodicea. Does the injunction, Col 4:16, imply that already the church there had begun to grow cold, Rev 3:15? The closing words were probably written in autograph. The clumsy handwriting was accounted for by the weight of the fetters on the poor wrists, yet his heart was full of love and joy.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Aristarchus: Act 19:29, Act 20:4, Act 27:2, Phm 1:24
saluteth: Rom 16:21-23
and Marcus: Act 12:12, Act 13:5, Act 13:13, Act 15:37-39, 2Ti 4:11, 1Pe 5:13
receive: Rom 16:2, 2Jo 1:8, 2Jo 1:9
Reciprocal: Act 15:4 – received Act 18:27 – exhorting Rom 16:7 – kinsmen 2Co 7:2 – Receive Gal 2:1 – Barnabas Phi 2:29 – Receive Phi 4:21 – The Phm 1:23 – my fellowprisoner
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
(Col 4:10.) -Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you. Aristarchus was a Macedonian, and a native of Thessalonica. Act 19:29; Act 20:4; Act 27:2; Phm 1:24. He had been much in Paul’s society-was with him during the riot at Ephesus, and several of his journeys in Syria and Greece-was with him too when he sailed for Italy, in order to follow out his appeal to Caesar, and seems to have remained with him in Rome. He is here termed a fellow-prisoner, but in Philemon only a fellow-labourer; whereas in this epistle Epaphras is named a fellow-servant, but in Philemon a fellow-prisoner. From such an exchange of those epithets, it has been inferred that the imprisonment of Aristarchus was not compelled but voluntary. There was no charge against him, and no prosecution. He seems to have attached himself to Paul, and he willingly shared his imprisonment, that the apostle might enjoy his service and sympathy. Probably, as Meyer suggests, his friends shared in his confinement by turns. It was Aristarchus who was with him when he wrote to the Colossians; but Epaphras had taken his place when, about the same period, he wrote to Philemon.
. By , allied to nepos-nephew-is to be understood not nephew but cousin-geschwisterkind-sister’s son, by which term our translators themselves probably meant cousin. Num 36:11. Hesychius defines it thus-, . There seems no good reason to doubt that Mark is the John Mark referred to in Act 12:12; Act 12:25; Act 13:5; Act 13:13; Act 15:37-39. He was the occasion of the well-known dispute and separation between Paul and Barnabas. On a former missionary tour, he had left them, and went not with them to the work. Paul, therefore, thought it not good to take him,-and the contention was so sharp between them, that they parted asunder the one from the other. Whether Paul or Barnabas was right in his opinion about Mark we know not. His desertion of a former enterprise seemed to justify Paul’s opinion, and perhaps Barnabas thought too kindly of a near relation. Yet his subsequent conduct seems to warrant the substantial soundness of the judgment of Barnabas. Mark was apparently reconciled to Paul afterwards, and may have given the apostle ample reason to retract his censure. It may be, too, that the very dispute about him awakened within him renewed energy and perseverance. Again does Paul Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians (Eadie), Pradis CD-ROM:Commentary/Chapter 4, Book Version: 5.1.50
mention him with high commendation, 2Ti 4:11,-Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
The name of Barnabas seems to be presented by Paul as a kind of passport to Mark. Barnabas must have been a name familiar to the Colossian church. His character must have endeared him to all who knew him, or had heard of his hearty evangelical labours. By birth a Levite, of the island of Cyprus, he was at a very early stage of its history converted to Christianity. At once he disencumbered himself of his worldly possessions, and devoted himself to the spread of the gospel. It was he who introduced Paul to the church in Jerusalem, and such was the confidence reposed in him, that he was sent as the deputy of the mother-church to Antioch, to bring back a faithful report of the progress of the gospel in that city. On his visit to the Syrian capital, the sacred historian says of him, Act 11:23-24, Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. Barnabas, finding the field so ample and so inviting, went at once to Tarsus, and brought Saul with him to Antioch, and such was the great success of their joint labours in preaching Christ, that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. Barnabas next went up to Jerusalem with funds to relieve the poor saints, and then Paul and he visited many places in company. He is found soon again at Antioch, and he was delegated to go up to Jerusalem to secure a settlement of the angry controversy as to the observance by Christians of the Mosaic law. Returning to Antioch with the apostolic finding, he continued some time there teaching and preaching the word of the Lord. It was after this period that Paul and he had the sharp contention about the fitness of Mark for the missionary tour which they had sketched for themselves. The last account of him is in these words-& l dquo;and so Barnabas took Mark and sailed unto Cyprus. There seems every reason to believe that the society of Barnabas had a salutary effect on the mind of Paul, and at a period, too, when he might not be fully conscious of his powers and qualifications, nor be able to realize the high destiny which lay before him. Barnabas thus stood on the confines of the apostolic college, though he was not within it, and next to its members, he occupies a distinguished place in the early church. Such, in fine, was the zeal and success of this Son of Consolation, such his prominence among the brethren, and so identified was he with the apostles, that he seems to be classed among them. Act 14:4. So that we are disposed to infer that the mention of him here was not simply to point out Mark from others bearing the same name, but also to secure for him, through his relationship to Barnabas, a cordial welcome and reception at Colosse.
-Concerning whom ye received instructions. The antecedent is not Barnabas, as Theophylact supposes, but Mark. What these commands were, or by whom enjoined, what they contained, or when they were delivered, we know not. Some suppose that they were sent at this period by Tychicus-a supposition which the tense of the verb will not warrant. Vain is all conjecture, such as that of Anselm and Schrader, who think that the apostle alludes to previous advices of an opposite nature, which are here recalled; or that of Grotius, who refers the missive to Barnabas; or Huther, who ascribes it to some Christian community-von irgend einer Gemeinde; or Estius, who so naturally assigns its origin to the Church of Rome. Not a few imagine that the following clause contains the instructions-
, -If he come to you, receive him. But against this view is to be noticed the plural form , implying that there was a variety of commands; and the omission of the article shows that it has no reference to what follows. This view, adopted by Calvin and Baumgarten-Crusius, seems, however, to have originated a various reading-, found in D1, F, G, and in the Syriac Version and Ambrosiaster-concerning whom ye have received commandment to receive him, should he come to you. Such a reading at once betrays its exegetical origin. The present reading cannot be disturbed. We are therefore ignorant of these , in their origin and purpose. But the apostle adds, parenthetically, for himself, concerning Mark, if he come to you, receive him. Mark evidently purposed a journey which might lead him to Colosse, and the Colossians were to give him, should he come among them, a kind reception. The verb is used, both in the classics and New Testament, to denote the welcome which one gives to an honoured guest-a guest-friend, as the Germans translate the Greek . Mat 10:14; Mat 10:40-41; Luk 9:5; Luk 9:48. The apostle continues the list of salutations-
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Col 4:10. A number of brethren were in Rome when Paul composed this epistle, and many of them joined in sending friendly greetings to the Colossians. Aristarchus was a citizen of Thessalonica (Act 27:2), who became a traveling companion of the apostle (Act 19:29 Act 20:4). He became a fellow-laborer with Paul (Phm 1:24), and because of his zeal in the work he was finally taken captive by the authorities and made his fellow-prisoner as our verse states. Marcus is another form for Mark, who was in Rome, having been restored to the confidence of the apostle (2Ti 4:11). Sister’s son is from ANEPSIOS, which Thayer defines, “a cousin.” The Englishman’s Greek New Testament renders the phrase, “Mark, the cousin of Barnabas.” Ye received commandments. We are not told what those orders were, but the necessary inference is that they pertained to the attitude that was to be shown toward Mark. That accounts for the instruction to receive him if he came to Colosse.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Col 4:10. Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you. A Macedonian from Thessalonica (Act 19:29; Act 20:4; Act 27:2), who was with Paul in Asia Minor, and probably not unknown at Coloss. He afterwards accompanied the Apostle to Jerusalem, and sailed with him to Rome, where, according to Phm 1:24, he was a fellow-worker with the Apostle, Epaphras being there termed fellow prisoner. As the word means a prisoner of war, it may have here a figurative sense. He might have voluntarily shared the Apostles captivity, or been temporarily confined in consequence of his intimacy with the latter.
And Mark. Doubtless the Evangelist; also named in Phm 1:24. The name in all the New Testament passages seems to refer to the same person.
the cousin of Barnabas Cousin is doubtless the proper rendering, referring to the relation between children of brothers or of sisters, or of brother and sister. Barnabas was better known than Mark; hence the latter is named from the former (Bengel). Notice the affectionate reference of Paul to Barnabas, here and Gal 2:13, after the collision and separation (Gal 2:11; Act 15:34).
Touching whom (i.e., Mark, not Barnabas) ye received commandments. Probably written commendations (but this can only be conjectured), in any case received before this Epistle readied them.
If he come unto you, receive him. The Gentile churches may have regarded Mark with suspicion in view of the separation of Paul and Barnabas occasioned by him. This command, rendered the more forcible by the change of construction, bespeaks for him a friendly welcome. The past failure was forgiven by the Apostle, he would have it forgotten by the churches.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Our apostle coming now to the conclusion of his excellent letter, sendeth (as his manner was) particular salutations to those he wrote to. These salutations were both from others and himself. Here we have three of St. Pauls companions sending salutations to the church at Colosse, namely, Aristrachus, a fellow prisoner; Mark, sister’s son to Barnabas, who, though he did desert St. Paul and Barnabas, and went not with them to the work, yet returning to is duty, he is recommended to the church’s reception; and Jesus, who was called Justus, possibly from his just conversation. Jesus is the same with Joshua, signifying a Saviour: However, we do not find that any Christians, since their Lord’s resurrection, did ever give their children the name of Jesus, out of a due reverence to their Lord and Master, who is God-man, blessed for evermore.
Now we learn, That neither distance of place, nor length of time, ought to cool that love and good-will, that hearty and sincere affection, which Christians should bear to one another.
Note farther, That, as in the large catalogue of salutations which St. Paul wrote to the saints at Rome, Romans 16 in which particular persons are mentioned, St. Peter’s name is not once named: So here, in this catalogue of salutations sent from Rome, no mention is made of Peter’s name neither; doubtless had he been now at Rome, he had sent salutations as well as the rest; here are salutations from Aristrachus, Mark, and others, none from Peter. Behold here the weak ground which the Pope builds his pretended supremacy and headship upon, namely, that he is St. Peter’s successor, who was bishop of Rome; nor is there any word in scripture to prove that he ever was at Rome when St. Paul wrote this epistle, there being only these, he says, whom he mentions, who are his fellow-labourers unto the kingdom of God.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Aristarchus was from Macedonia and had traveled with Paul as he went to take the collection to Jerusalem for the needy saints ( Act 19:29 ; Act 20:4 ; Act 27:2 ). He was also with the apostle as he journeyed toward his Roman imprisonment. It is impossible to know if he voluntarily joined Paul in that imprisonment or was also bound involuntarily. Certainly, Paul counted him as a friend. Paul’s directions for a hospitable reception for John Mark appear to show that he has now realized his value in service ( Act 15:36-41 ; 2Ti 4:11 ; 1Pe 5:13 )
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Col 4:10-11. Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoner Such was Epaphras likewise for a time, Phm 1:23; saluteth you This excellent person was a Jew, (Col 4:11,) though born in Thessalonica, Act 20:4. He, with his countryman Caius, was hurried into the theatre at Ephesus, by Demetrius and the craftsmen, Act 19:29. Also he was one of those who accompanied Paul from Greece, when he carried the collections for the saints to Jerusalem, (Act 20:4,) being appointed to that service by the church at Thessalonica, agreeably to the apostles direction, 1Co 16:3. Aristarchus, therefore, was a person of great note, and highly respected by the church of the Thessalonians, of which he was a member. And his whole conduct showed that he merited the good opinion they entertained of him. For when Paul was imprisoned in Judea, that good man abode with him, and ministered to him all the time of his imprisonment, both at Jerusalem and Cesarea, attended him at his trials, and comforted him with his company and conversation. And when it was determined to send Paul into Italy, he went along with him, (Act 27:2,) and remained with him during his confinement there, and zealously assisted him in preaching the gospel, as the apostle informs us in Col 4:11 of this chapter, till at length, becoming obnoxious to the magistrates, he was imprisoned, Col 4:10. Macknight. And Marcus, touching whom ye received commandments Or directions, by Tychicus bringing this letter. It is not improbable they might have scrupled to receive him without this fresh direction, after he had left Paul and departed from the work. And Jesus, who is called Justus Justus being a Latin surname, we may suppose it was given to this person by the Roman brethren, on account of his known integrity, and that it was adopted by the Greeks when they had occasion to mention him: for the Greeks had now adopted many Latin words. These three (Aristarchus, Marcus, and Justus) are the only persons, who, being of the circumcision, are, or have been, my fellow-labourers unto the kingdom of God That is, in preaching the gospel; and who have been a comfort to me What then can we expect? That all our fellow- workers should be a comfort to us? The apostle, therefore, having in this passage mentioned the names of all the Jews who sincerely preached Christ in Rome at that time, it is certain Peter was not there then; otherwise his name would have been in the list of those labourers who had been a consolation to St. Paul. For we cannot suppose that Peter was one of those, mentioned Php 1:14-15, who preached the gospel from strife, to add affliction to Pauls bonds. Yet the Papists contend that Peter presided over the church at Rome twenty-five years successively.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 10
Aristarchus. In Acts 19:29,20:4, Aristarchus is mentioned as Paul’s companion and fellow-sufferer. He accompanied Paul to Rome, as is stated Acts 27:2.–Marcus; Mark John, in regard to whom Paul and Barnabas disagreed, as related Acts 15:37-39. Paul had become afterwards reconciled to him, and had sent for him to come to Rome. (2 Timothy 4:11.)
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
SECTION 16. SUNDRY GREETINGS.
CH. 4:10-18.
There greets you Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoner; and Mark the cousin of Barnabas, about whom ye have received commands, if he come to you receive him; and Jesus who is called Justus. Of those who are of the circumcision, these only are fellow-workers for the kingdom of God, men who have become a help to me.
There greets you Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ Jesus, always wrestling on your behalf in his prayers, that ye may stand mature and fully assured in every will of God. For I bear him witness that he has much labour on behalf of you and of those in Laodicea and those in Hierapolis.
There greets you Luke, the beloved physician; and Demas.
Greet ye the brethren in Laodicea, and Nymphas and the Church in their house. And when the letter has been read among you, cause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans, and that ye read the letter from Laodicea. And say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.
The greeting of me Paul by my own hand Remember my bonds. Grace be with you.
Col 4:10-11 a. Aristarchus: another companion of Paul, a Macedonian from Thessalonica. He was with Paul in the tumult at Ephesus, and on the return journey from Corinth through Macedonia to Jerusalem, and on his voyage as prisoner to Rome: Act 19:29; Act 20:4; Act 27:2. He sends a greeting to Philemon: Phm 1:24. He is here called a fellow-prisoner, a title given in Phm 1:23 to Epaphras, while Aristarchus is called only a fellow-worker. Similarly in Rom 16:7 two kinsmen of Paul are called his fellow-prisoners. The word thus used means accurately a prisoner of war. (Cp. Php 2:25, fellow-worker and fellow-soldier.) Its precise significance here would be explained by Tychicus: but it is unknown to us. The transference of the title from Aristarchus to Epaphras is specially puzzling, the more so as the letters seem to have been written at the same time. Whether these men voluntarily shared in turn the discomfort of Pauls prison, or through loyalty to him were themselves actually imprisoned, we have no means of knowing. But in any case this term is a title of high honour. Little did these faithful friends of Paul dream that their imprisonment, of whatever kind it was, would be to them on the imperishable page of Holy Scripture a title of honour as wide as the world and more lasting than time. This cursory mention of Aristarchus reminds us of the great multitude, not thus recorded, whose record is with God.
Mark: Phm 1:24 : another link connecting the Epistles. Evidently the same man as in 2Ti 4:1, where be has a commendation similar to that in Col 4:11. There is no reason to doubt that he was the man referred to by Peter (1Pe 5:13) as Mark, my son. Apparently he was John, surnamed Mark in Act 12:12; Act 12:25; Act 15:37, who in Act 15:39 is called, as here, simply Mark. The mother of this last had a house at Jerusalem to which Peter went when released from prison Act 12:12. And the Mark here mentioned was (Col 4:11) a joy to Paul. This identification is confirmed by the explanation it affords of Barnabas strong wish to keep him as his companion after he had once proved faithless: Act 15:37-39. For in that case they were cousins.
And the references to Mark here and in 2Ti 4:11 are pleasant proofs how completely the timid one had regained the friendship and approval of Paul.
Eusebius (Church History bk. ii. 15) says that the Mark to whom Peter refers was the author of the Second Gospel; and (bk. iii. 39) quotes Papias, a writer of the second century, to the same effect, Similarly Irenus (bk. iii. 10. 6) quotes the beginning and end of the Second Gospel as written by Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter. Eusebius says also (bk. ii. 16) that he founded the Church at Alexandria.
Cousin: the constant sense, except in very late Greek where it has the sense of nephew, of the common Greek word here used. So in Num 36:11 (LXX.) it is used as a rendering of their uncles sons. And Eusebius (Ch. Hist. iii. 11) speaks of Simeon, second bishop of Jerusalem, as said to be cousin of Christ, on the ground that his father Clopas was brother to Joseph.
Barnabas: the last mention in the N.T. of this valued friend of Paul.
About whom: i.e. Mark, the chief person in Pauls thought now.
Received commands: already conveyed, as is implied in the past tense. Whether by messenger, or by a lost letter, we do not know. The plural number, commands, in view of the frequent rise of the word in the singular, e.g. Eph 6:2; Rom 7:8-13, suggests that Pauls will was conveyed in more ways than one. Notice the apostolic authority implied in this word, The tenour of these commands is evidently given in the words following.
If he come to you; suggests that Mark had been sent on a mission, and that Paul was uncertain whether in discharging it he would visit Coloss. Very similar injunction in 1Co 16:10, if Timothy come, see that etc.
Receive him, welcome him in whatever aspect he presents himself, whether as Pauls delegate or simply as a brother Christian. Same word in same sense in 2Co 7:15; 2Co 11:16; Gal 4:14.
Jesus: the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua, and used for the ancient leader in the LXX. constantly, and in Act 7:45; Heb 4:8. The same name is also found in the genealogy of Christ: Luk 3:29. Its use here as a designation of an obscure Jewish Christian proves that the Eternal Son bore on earth, not merely a human name, but a name given to ordinary men.
Justis: a Latin name meaning fit or righteous, and common as a Jewish surname. It is the name given by Eusebius (Ch. Hist. iii. 35) to the third bishop of Jerusalem, a Jew. Same name in Act 1:23, undoubtedly of a Jew; and in Act 18:7 of a proselyte.
Col 4:11 b. The words who are of the circumcision are joined by A.V. and R.V. to the foregoing. This punctuation makes the words following an absolute assertion, and excludes even Epaphras from the number of Pauls helpers. But this is plainly contradicted by Col 4:12 and Col 1:7. The words above must therefore be joined to those following, as nominative absolute, limiting the assertion therein contained. Evidently, Paul means that these three men were Jews, and were the only Jews who by joining with him in work for the Kingdom of God, had been a comfort to him. This meaning is best reproduced by rendering Of those who are of the circumcision, these only etc.
Of the circumcision: same phrase in Rom 4:12; Gal 2:12; Tit 1:10; Act 10:45; Act 11:2. It describes their origin by pointing to the visible sign of the Covenant which of old God made with their race.
These only; reminds us of the wide-spread hostility of the Jews to Paul. Cp. Tit 1:10.
Fellow-workers: as in Php 2:25; Php 4:3 : cp. 2Co 8:23, fellow-worker for you. They laboured together each with each and all with Paul, for the advancement of the Kingdom of God; i.e. for the eternal kingdom, over which God will reign for ever, and of which His servants, rescued from the grave to die no more, will be citizens, every citizen sharing its glory and blessedness. For that kingdom Paul and his companions toiled, by drawing men to Christ and thus making them even on earth citizens of this heavenly kingdom, and by teaching each citizen to labour for the same object. They were thus fellow-workers, co-operating harmoniously. Since the work of God needs the co-operation of many workers, a chief Christian excellence is that spirit of harmony which enables one to work well with others. It is the willing subordination of the individual to the general good. Absence of this spirit of brotherhood has frequently hindered the usefulness of able men.
Men who etc.: a larger class to which these three, and of Jews these only, belonged; viz. those who were, or became, a comfort or encouragement to Paul.
Such were Pauls three Jewish friends at Rome: Aristarchus from Thessalonica, in some way a sharer of his imprisonment; Mark from Jerusalem, himself once a deserter and a cause of contention between Paul and his old friend Barnabas, but now a valued helper; and a brother unknown to us but bearing the sacred name. All these joined with Paul in his toil for the Kingdom of God; and each was to the Apostle, amid the hardships of that toil, a joy in sorrow and a stimulus to exertion. Mark was soon to leave him, and would possibly visit Coloss. But about him Paul had already sent directions that he receive a worthy welcome.
Col 4:12. Another greeting, from Epaphras, the founder of the Church at Coloss: see under Col 1:7.
Who is one of you: same words and sense as in Col 4:9. Like Onesimus, Epaphras came from Coloss either as a native or as a former inhabitant.
Servant of Jesus Christ: a title of highest honour, though shared by all Christians. For the faithfulness of our service of Christ is the measure of our spiritual stature.
Always etc.: further description of Epaphras.
Wrestling: same word as contend in Col 1:29.
Wrestle in prayers: same words in Rom 15:30. The effort of Epaphras prayers was like the intense effort of a Greek athlete contending for a prize. The appropriateness of this phrase is felt by all to whom prayer is a reality. And to Epaphras this intense effort was ceaseless: always wrestling. He thus exemplified the exhortation in Col 4:2.
Stand: maintain our position and erectness in spite of enemies or burdens threatening to drive us back or crush us. So Eph 6:1; Eph 6:13-14; Rom 5:2; Rom 11:20, etc. That the Colossian Christians might thus maintain their position in spite of the snares of false doctrine and the hostility of open enemies, was the definite purpose of the earnest prayers of Epaphras.
Mature or full grown: as in 2Co 2:6, where see note.
Fully-assured: same word and sense as in Rom 4:21; Rom 14:5. A cognate word in Col 2:2; Heb 6:11; Heb 10:22. While praying that the Christians at Coloss may firmly hold their own, Epaphras remembered that only full-grown men in Christ can do this, and that of this Christian maturity assured faith in Christ is an essential condition.
In every will of God: in everything God desires us to do and to be, this looked upon as the spiritual locality of Christian firmness, maturity, and confidence. Epaphras prayed that his converts might know without doubt whatever God would have them do and be, that every element of His will might be realised in their spiritual growth, and that thus they might maintain their spiritual position.
Col 4:13. Confirmation of the foregoing by Pauls direct testimony.
Much labour; confirms and strengthens the most conspicuous point in Col 4:12, viz. that the prayers of Epaphras involved intense effort.
Laodicea and Hierapolis: other cities of the valley of the Lycus: see Introd. iv. This statement suggests that in these cities also the Gospel was first preached by Epaphras. And the nearness of the cities, and the main road passing through all three, would make it easy to carry the good news of salvation from one to the others.
Col 4:14. A third greeting.
Luke: mentioned by name only here, and Phm 1:24 where he and Demas are called Pauls fellow-workers, and 2Ti 4:11. Probably he wrote the Third Gospel: see my Corinthians p. 493. Now Col 4:11 implies that he was a Gentile: Perhaps he was the only Gentile N.T. writer. Notice that, of the four Evangelists, Mark and Luke were with Paul at Rome. Only here do we learn that Luke was a physician. Possibly this term was added merely for definiteness, or more likely in remembrance of medical help kindly rendered by Luke to Paul. Luke was with Paul on his second and third missionary journeys and on his voyage to Rome, as we learn from the first person we and us in Act 16:10-17; Act 20:5 to Act 21:18; Act 27:1 to Act 28:16. That they are together now at Rome, and again (2Ti 4:11) during Pauls second imprisonment there, is a coincidence worthy of note. Luke seems to have been his almost inseparable companion. Hence the affection expressed here: Luke, the physician, the beloved one.
The absence of any commendation of Demas here is an unfortunate, though perhaps undesigned, coincidence with his later desertion of Paul recorded in 2Ti 4:10. There was nothing to move Paul to say anything about him, even when speaking in warm terms of Luke. But in Phm 1:24 he is counted, with Mark, Aristarchus, Luke, among Pauls fellow-workers.
Col 4:15. After three greetings to the Christians at Coloss, now follows a greeting to a neighbouring Church.
Laodicea: the nearer of the two other Churches for which (Col 4:13) Epaphras prayed so earnestly.
Nymphas: evidently a member of the Church at Laodicea. For, had he been at Coloss, in the Church to which this letter was sent, this greeting to him could hardly have been put after that to brethren twelve miles away. Pauls reason for singling him out of the Church at Laodicea, in this special way, is probably to be found in the words following.
The Church in their house: same words in Rom 16:5; 1Co 16:19, where see notes. Cp. Phm 1:2. That Nymphas opened his house for worship, accounts for his special mention here.
The Sinai. Alex., and Ephraim copies read in their house. So R.V. text. The Vatican MS. reads her house. So R.V. margin. Some later uncials and most cursives read his house. The first reading has best documentary support. If genuine, it might easily have been altered by a copyist who could not understand a plural pronoun after the one name Nymphas. And, if so, the substituted pronoun might be of either gender: for the Greek name may be either masculine Nymphas, or feminine Nympha. Thus the better attested reading their would account for both the others. We may therefore accept it as the more likely. Paul wrote their house probably because in entertaining the Church others, perhaps his wife and family, were associated with Nymphas. So was Prisca with Aquila: Rom 16:5.
Col 4:16. This injunction suggests that the same errors were prevalent both at Coloss and Laodicea.
The Epistle: that now concluding, as in Rom 16:22; 1Th 5:27.
That from Laodicea: not written from Laodicea. For it was to be read by the Christians at Coloss as well as by others: also ye read. And these others must have been the Christians at Laodicea. It could only be a letter to the Church there; to be sent from Laodicea and read at Coloss. And, if so, this injunction suggests very strongly that it was written by Paul. Doubtless the letter was to be left at Laodicea by Tychicus as he passed through on his way to Coloss; and if so it would be at Laodicea, when this letter reached Coloss. Paul bids that each letter be sent to, and read in, the other of the two Churches.
What was this letter of Paul to the Church at Laodicea? Two suppositions are possible. It may have been lost; sharing the fate which, under 1Co 5:9, we saw reason to believe had overtaken an epistle to the Corinthian Church. If we had no epistle meeting the conditions of the case, we might accept this suggestion with some confidence. But another explanation is at hand. We shall see, under Eph 1:1, that the Epistle to the Ephesians, although sent expressly to the Church at Ephesus, the metropolis of the Roman province of Asia which included Laodicea and Coloss, was probably designed also for other Churches in the same province. If so, it is quite conceivable that Paul gave orders to Tychicus to leave at Laodicea, for the Church there, a copy of the Epistle to the Ephesians. And this copy would be the letter from Laodicea which Paul wished the Colossians to read. This wish we can well understand. For the two Epistles, though closely related in thought and phraseology, are yet quite distinct. Each supports the other. The letter to Ephesus deals chiefly with the Church: that to Coloss expounds the dignity and work of Christ, and rebuts certain special errors. This suggestion is so free from objection, and meets so well all the facts of the case, that with our scanty information we may accept it as probable. It has also an advantage over the former suggestion in not requiring us to believe that Paul wrote at the same time and sent by the same messenger to the same province four epistles.
Col 4:17. Archippus: mentioned elsewhere only Phm 1:2, where see note. The word say-ye suggests that he was close at hand to hear what was said; and was therefore probably a member of the Church at Coloss. Indeed it is most unlikely that a warning to a member of another Church would be thus sent. And this agrees with his apparent relation to Philemon, who also seems to have been a Colossian. That this word to Archippus is put after a direction about Laodicea, is very small presumption that he was a Laodicean. For, apart from locality, Paul may have thought fit to reserve this warning to be the last of his injunctions. That Archippus is called in Phm 1:2 a fellow-soldier of Paul, suggests that he had shared with the Apostle the peril of Christian work. And this agrees with the work in the Lord referred to here.
The ministry which thou hast received; may be the office of a deacon, as in Rom 12:7, where it is distinguished from prophecy and teaching but is joined with them as requiring each a special gift. Or, it may have been some other permanent position in the Church, as when Paul in Col 1:23 calls himself a minister of the Gospel. Or, some temporary work committed by the Church to Archippus, like the ministry fulfilled by Paul and Barnabas (Act 12:25) when they took a contribution in money from Antioch to Jerusalem. Between these alternatives we have nothing to guide us. This warning is no presumption of unfaithfulness on the part of Archippus. For it may be that his work was specially important, or had been lately entrusted to him. Indeed this last is rather suggested by the words which thou hast received. It is remarkable that this warning was sent to Archippus through the Church as a whole: say ye to Archippus. Perhaps Paul thought thus to inspire in him a sense of responsibility to the whole Church.
In the Lord: as in Col 4:7; Php 2:29, etc. This work for the Church was a part of his service of Christ.
Fulfil it: as in Act 12:25 : fill up by actual and faithful service the outline of work sketched out by this Commission.
Col 4:18. The greeting by the hand of me, Paul: word for word as in 1Co 16:21; 2Th 3:17. At this point the chained hand of the prisoner takes the pen from the friend who was writing for him, whose name probably we should know, and adds as a mark of genuineness the few words which follow. And the chained hand bids us remember the bonds of him who writes. This reference to himself claims for the warnings he now sends the loving and grateful respect due to the prisoner in the Lord.
Grace: the undeserved favour of God through Christ. Paul desires that this divine smile be his readers companion: be with you.
The personal details of DIVISION V. link the doctrinal and practical teaching of the Epistle with the actual life of Paul. They remind us that the Gospel is not mere abstract truth but touches the every-day life of actual men. This historic setting of the Gospel, which we find in many casual notices in Pauls Epistles and in the narratives of the Book of Acts, by affording matter for historical criticism, furnishes proof of the historic truth of the statements on which the Gospel rests. It also helps us, by reproducing the surroundings and the inner and outer life of the Apostle, to understand and better appreciate the thought embodied in the doctrinal parts of his Epistles. Time spent in bringing together, and endeavouring to interpret, these scanty notices will bear abundant fruit in a clearer conception of his inner thought and of the Gospel which permeated and moulded and ennobled his entire inner and outer life.
THE ERRORS AT COLOSS. Since this Epistle was professedly (Col 2:4) written to guard the readers against error, it can be fully understood only by reproducing in some measure the errors it was designed to counteract. To do this, is no easy task. For the errors combated are not formally stated. Paul endeavours to meet them not so much by direct disproof as by asserting and enforcing positive and contrary truth. This method leaves us in considerable doubt about the nature of the errors refuted. But it has the immense advantage of making exact knowledge of them a matter of secondary importance. For we can understand and appreciate the positive teaching of the Epistle, even while somewhat uncertain about the precise nature of the specific errors against which this positive teaching was adduced. At the same time whatever knowledge we can gain about the error combated will shed light upon the argument and thought of the Apostle. We will therefore gather together all the indications the Epistle affords of the nature of these errors; and then compare them with similar teaching in the rest of the New Testament and in other early literature.
Our thoughts go back at once to another letter written by Paul to counteract serious and definite error, the Epistle to the Galatians. The points of comparison and contrast in the two Epistles will help us to understand, after our study in a previous volume of the errors in Galatia, those with which Paul is now dealing.
We notice at once the entirely different tone of the two Epistles. The news from Galatia was altogether bad. Pauls one thought about the Christians there was wonder at their early desertion of the truth. But the news about Coloss evokes gratitude to God. And with this gratitude no sorrow is mingled. This does not prove that the errors at Coloss were in themselves less deadly than those in Galatia. But it proves clearly that the peril was not so near. In Galatia the defection was (Gal 1:6) already going on: in Coloss Paul hopes to ward off what at present is only a danger. Moreover the stronger language of the earlier letter may have been prompted by Pauls closer relation to the Churches addressed, and to the fact that his authority as an Apostle had been directly attacked by the false teachers. On the other hand whereas the Churches of Galatia had been founded by Paul himself and the news of their defection reached him years afterwards, the news of the danger among the Colossians was brought by the man who first told him the story of their conversion. This would naturally soften the language of the Epistle before us.
Both in Galatia and at Coloss one element of error was observance of the sacred seasons of the Law of Moses: Gal 4:10; Col 2:16. With this were associated at Coloss, and doubtless in Galatia, restrictions of food. And at Coloss as at Rome (Rom 14:3) some were ready to judge others according as they observed or neglected these restrictions. The false teachers in Galatia strenuously asserted the abiding obligation of circumcision: Gal 5:3; Gal 6:12. And the references to circumcision in Col 2:11; leave little or no doubt that the rite was insisted upon by the false teachers at Coloss. Here then we have an element common to the two cases, viz. the continued validity of the ancient law. In other words, both errors were of Jewish origin. But the whole tone of both Epistles proves that the false teachers were members of the Church. Jews who rejected Christ would have no common ground of approach to the Gentile Christians of Asia Minor. We must therefore suppose that in both cases the false teachers were Jewish converts who maintained that all Christians were bound to keep the whole Law of Moses. Possibly, the false teachers here referred to were not members of the Church at Coloss but Jewish Christians moving about in Asia Minor and exerting an evil influence.
Amid these errors already familiar to us there appears at Coloss, as disproved by Paul, other teaching of which we find no trace in the Epistle to the Galatians.
Except to Nazarites and priests ministering at the altar, the Law of Moses laid no restrictions on drink. But in Col 2:16 we find men who made both eating and drinking a standard of judgment about their fellow-Christians. Similar persons seem to be referred to in Rom 14:21. The words of the false teachers quoted in Col 2:21 prove that these prohibitions of food and drink were very stringent. And from Col 2:22 we learn that they were of merely human origin. All this proves that the teachers in question added to the Divinely commanded restrictions of the Law of Moses other restrictions of their own. With the refusal to eat certain kinds of food stands in close connection the general description in Col 2:23 of such needless and useless abstinence as hard treatment of the body. We may safely say that in the error feared at Coloss an ascetic element, going far beyond the Mosaic prohibitions, occupied a conspicuous place.
It is also worthy of note that, whereas to the Galatians Paul speaks of the advocates of circumcision as seeking to be justified by works of law and rebuts their error by proclaiming justification through a faith like that of Abraham, his disproof of the errors at Coloss makes no reference to justification, but is prefaced by a profound exposition of the dignity of the Son of God and of His relation to the created universe, to the Church, and to the work of salvation. This different method of reply suggests that the error at Coloss differed from that in Galatia as being specially derogatory to the unique dignity of the Son of God as the Creator and Ruler of the universe and as the one sufficient Saviour of men. We notice also that the restrictions referred to in Col 2:21 are over turned by reference to the original purpose of the food needlessly forbidden.
Other elements are easily detected. With asceticism is ever associated professed humility. And in the warnings to the Church at Coloss worship of the angels is a marked feature. This accounts probably for the mention in Col 1:16 of the different ranks of angels as created by the Son, and in Col 2:15 as being led in triumph by Him. Now angels have their place of honour in the Old Testament; and are mentioned by Paul and by Christ. But nothing in the Bible affords ground for offering them worship. Such worship. therefore implies fuller information: and this could be obtained only by visions of the unseen world and its mysterious and glorious inhabitants. We therefore are not surprised to find that the false teacher claimed to have had such visions, and pretended (Col 2:18) to investigate what he had seen.
Such were some of the outward forms of the religion practised by the teachers in question. We may conceive them asserting the abiding validity of the Law of Moses, going beyond its restrictions by ascetic prohibitions of merely human origin which refused to the body its rightful nourishment, performing a ritual of angel-worship, and doing all this on the ground of supposed revelations of the unseen world.
Under these outward forms of religion lay other elements. The worshippers claimed to be philosophers. Their philosophy must have been, like that of Greece, an attempt to reach the realities underlying the phenomena around. That the attempt was complete failure, Paul declares by calling their philosophy empty error. Like the prohibitions of food and drink, this teaching consisted, as did much ancient philosophy, of unproved assertions, true or false, passed on from one to another. It had therefore for its source and standard only the tradition of men. And since these purely human additions to the Divine revelations of the Old Testament could not rise above their source, they were shaped by the rudiments of teaching common to the whole world. It cannot be doubted that this theoretical teaching was the foundation both of the ascetic restriction of food and drink and of the worship of angels. For philosophy without visible embodiment would have little attraction for the comparatively uneducated Christians at Coloss; and we are told by Paul that self-imposed worship and neglect of the body had repute of wisdom.
The absence throughout the Epistle of any mention of righteousness or justification-a very marked contrast to the Epistle to the Galatians-suggests that these prohibitions of certain kinds of food, this worship of angels, and philosophy, were not proposed as a means of obtaining the favour of God. And that they were proposed as a means of attaining a higher Christian life, is suggested by Pauls frequently expressed desire that his readers attain true knowledge and wisdom, and by his assertion that all such knowledge dwells in Christ, and that in Him His people are complete: Col 1:9; Col 1:28; Col 2:2-3; Col 3:10; Col 3:16; Col 4:5. We may conceive these teachers admitting that confessed faith in Christ is the one means of obtaining the favour of God, and yet professing a deeper philosophy and practising a stricter regimen of life and additional modes of worship as means of attaining a spiritual elevation beyond that of the Church in general. In other words, the teaching which Paul opposes was a counsel of perfection for a select few.
Traces of similar error, further developed, are found in Pauls later Epistles. In another letter to the province of Asia (1Ti 4:3) we notice a prohibition of certain kinds of food, a prohibition set aside by a development of the argument in Col 2:21. With this is coupled prohibition of marriage: and the whole is said to be a teaching of demons. Of empty Jewish error under the guise of philosophy, we find abundant traces in the Pastoral Epistles; and of the disputes to which naturally it gave rise. So, in Tit 1:14, We have Jewish myths and commands of men. And that these commands were connected with needless prohibitions, probably of food, we learn from Tit 1:15 : All things are pure to the pure; but to the polluted and unbelieving nothing is pure. In 1Ti 1:4; 1Ti 1:8 we read of myths and endless genealogies connected with unlawful use of the Law. Other similar references in 1Ti 6:4, 2Ti 2:23, Tit 3:9. The darker description in these Epistles as compared with that to the Colossians suggests that during the interval the evil seed had taken root and borne hurtful fruit.
From all this we infer that at Coloss were professed Christians who not only taught the abiding validity of the Law but added to it further prohibitions of merely human origin, professing thus to point out a way to loftier purity; that with this ascetic element was associated theoretical teaching vainly attempting to explain the phenomena around, teaching based upon supposed visions of the unseen world; that the would-be philosophers practised a ritual in honour of the heavenly beings whom they professed to have seen; and that all this was prompted, not by humility, as was pretended, but by an inflated self-estimate which was in reality a form of self-indulgence. The argument of the Epistle before us proves plainly that this teaching was derogatory to the unique dignity of Christ and inconsistent with the full salvation to be obtained by union with Him.
THE GNOSTICS. The above-noted scanty indications of the errors combated in this Epistle recall at once a very conspicuous feature of Church life in the second century, the chaos of beliefs and sects known as Gnosticism. These later beliefs will help us to understand both the meaning and the importance of Pauls argument in the Epistle before us.
This strange medley of opinions is well known to us from early Christian writings, the sole records of beliefs which otherwise would long ago have been forgotten. The great work of Irenus quoted in my Romans (Introd. ii.) contains a full account of the various forms of Gnostic teaching, with elaborate disproof. Clement of Alexandria refers to the same frequently and by name. The longest work of Tertullian is Against Marcion, a conspicuous Gnostic. We have another account of Gnosticism, anonymous but probably by Hippolytus, a later contemporary of Tertullian. The earnestness of these refutations proves how wide-spread and how serious in the eyes of conspicuous members of the early Church were the errors refuted.
The name Gnostic, or knowing-one, a curious contrast to the modern name Agnostic, i.e. one who does not know, marks out the Gnostics as claiming superior knowledge. And that they adopted this as their name, suggests that they looked upon knowledge as mans highest good. This recalls the warning in 1Ti 6:20. Indeed this warning is embodied in the title of Irenus great work: Refutation of the knowledge falsely so called.
The rise of this intellectual movement is not difficult to understand Before Christ came, even outside the sacred nation, men had sought to grasp the realities underlying the phenomena around them, and thus to explain the origin of these phenomena. In their search, two great questions had claimed their attention: Whence came the world? Whence came evil? The first of these questions was discussed by the early Greek philosophers. Their answers are clearly embodied in abundant writings which have come down to us. Of these, the Timus of Plato is a good representative. A favourite belief was that the world was made by subordinate but superhuman beings created by the Supreme God and acting more or less under His direction. The second question received from the Greeks, who carefully discussed morals from a practical point of view, only scanty and indefinite answers. Put the answers given to it in Persia and in India reveal the large place it occupied in the thought of those nations. In Persia, the followers of Zoroaster, a somewhat mythical person who lived possibly in the days of the early Persian kings, taught that good and evil are alike eternal, and have their source in two eternal persons, from whom respectively come all things good and bad. This teaching is embodied in the sacred books of Persia, of which the oldest, the Avesta, dates perhaps from the third century after Christ, and certainly preserves still earlier traditions. The Indian answer is that matter is essentially evil, and unreal, and opposed to mind; that the world has come into being by successive emanations from the Supreme, each lower and worse with increasing distance from its origin.
An important element common to the Persian and Indian answers is the all-pervading sense of duality and opposition, viz. of good and bad, and of spirit and matter.
The above answers to these great questions were widely disseminated far beyond the limits of the nations which seem to have given them birth. Especially were the philosophies of Greece stimulated and moulded by the speculations of the East.
At the time of Christ Jewish thought was greatly influenced by the Gentile thought around. The influence of Greek writers is very conspicuous in the writings of Philo, an Egyptian Jew contemporary with Christ, who under the form of an allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament introduces very much of the teaching of Plato. On the other hand, the Essenes, a brotherhood said by Philo to be in his day 4,000 strong and described by Josephus as one of the three sects or philosophies of the Jews, (the others being the Pharisees and the Sadducees,) taught that pleasure is evil, and that sin must be overcome by ascetic refusal of pleasure; ideas conspicuously Oriental. In agreement with this belief, they not only obeyed most rigorously the prescriptions of the Law but added to them prescriptions of merely human origin. They despised wealth; and lived together with a common purse and common table in the utmost simplicity. They forbade or discountenanced marriage, recruiting their numbers from the children of others. They believed firmly in an immortal life beyond death; but did not expect a resurrection of the body, looking upon material clothing as a bondage to the spirit. The Essenes had secret doctrine and sacred books of their own: and they paid a certain adoration to the sun; and had secret teaching about, and reverence for, the angels. They gained respect by their strict morality, their simplicity of life, and mutual concord. Many of them were reputed to have the gift of predicting future events: a gift implying special intercourse with the unseen world. All this we learn from contemporary descriptions of them by Philo, especially (vol. ii. 457-459) The good man always free 12,13; and by Josephus, especially Jewish War bk. ii. 8. 2-13.
These two forms of Jewish belief present, as the reader will notice, many points of contact with the errors at Coloss. And we can easily believe that, even where there were no Essenes and no one familiar with the writings of Philo, these modes of thought would exert an influence co-extensive with Jewish nationality.
Into the Jewish nation thus influenced by Gentile thought, Christ was born; and from Jerusalem, carried by Jews, went forth the good news of salvation for all mankind. The Gospel must needs come into contact with, and take up a definite relation to, the religious thought then prevalent. And inasmuch as the Gospel itself professed to explain in some measure the mystery of being and of the world around, it must necessarily, according to the disposition of each who felt its influence, either supplement or correct or displace this earlier teaching, or be itself moulded by it. Gnosticism was a reaction of the existing religious thought of the world, in part Greek but chiefly Oriental, upon the new truth proclaimed by Christ.
The Gnostics were divided into many sects known by various names, for the more part those of their leaders, and each presenting a distinct type of teaching. The sects grouped themselves according to their affinities. But all had conspicuous elements in common. All Gnostic schools agree to give honour to Christ as the Teacher and Saviour of men. But along with this great truth, all teach two great errors, viz. that matter is essentially or practically evil; and that the Creator of the world, who is also the Lawgiver of Sinai, is distinct from, and inferior to, the Supreme God who sent His Son to save the world. The Gnostics favourable to Judaism represent the God of Israel as a deity subordinate to the Supreme, and the Old Testament as imperfect only because preparatory to the New. On the other hand, the anti-Jewish Gnostics represented the God of Sinai as essentially hostile to the God who revealed Himself in Christ.
Of the Jewish Gnostics, Cerinthus is a good example. His date is fixed by a statement of Irenus (bk. iii. 3. 4) that in his own day there were some who had heard Polycarp say that once the Apostle John, going to a bath, saw Cerinthus within, and fled from the bath in fear lest it should fall. Whatever this story be worth, it is complete proof that Cerinthus lived long before Irenus, and affords a fair presumption that he was a contemporary of the Apostle John. In his teaching therefore we have a form of Gnosticism almost or quite as early as the days of the Apostles. It is thus described by Irenus, bk. i. 26. 1: A certain Cerinthus in Asia taught that the world was made, not by the Supreme literally, the First) God, but by a certain power altogether separated and distinct from that Supreme Power which is over the universe, and ignorant of Him who is God over all things. He represented Jesus, not as born from a maiden-for this seemed to him impossible-but as a son of Joseph and Mary like all other men, and as being much greater than others in justice and prudence and wisdom. He taught that after Baptism Christ descended into him, from that Supreme Power which is over all things, in the figure of a dove; and that then he announced the unknown Father, and wrought miracles; and that at last Christ flew back from Jesus, that Jesus suffered and rose but that Christ continued without suffering, a spiritual being. Epiphanius (Against Heresies xxviii.) says that Cerinthus taught that the Law and the Prophets were inspired by angels, and that the giver of the Law was one of the angels who made the world.
An extreme example of Anti-Jewish Gnostics is found in the Ophites, or followers of the serpent; who taught that the Creator of the world was evil, and that therefore the so-called fall of man was really emancipation from the rule of evil, and the tempter a benefactor of mankind.
Another Gnostic, Saturninus, from Antioch in Syria, taught (Irenus bk. i. 24. 1, 2) that there is one Father unknown to all, who made angels, archangels, powers, authorities; that the world and all things in it were made by certain seven angels; that man is a work of angels He taught that the Saviour was without birth and without body and without form, a man only in appearance. He said that the God of the Jews was one of the angels; and that, because the Father wished to destroy all His princes, Christ came for destruction of the God of the Jews and for the salvation of those who believe him He said that there are two races of men formed by angels, one bad and the other good; and that because the demons helped the bad, the Saviour came for destruction of bad men and demons and for salvation of the good. They say that marriage and procreation are from Satan. Hence also the more part of them abstain from animal food; by this assumed self-control leading away some into their own error.
More fully developed Gnostic systems, and somewhat later than the above, were those of Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion. All these flourished in the former half of the second century.
The moral influence of Gnosticism took two opposite directions. On the ground that matter is evil, many Gnostics taught that all pleasure derived from matter is also evil, and that only by refusing such pleasure can men rise above bondage to evil. Of this ascetic side of Gnosticism, the Encratites are an example: Irenus bk. i. 28. 1. Others, looking upon matter as worthless, taught that mans relation to it is of no moment, and that the spirit within, as being essentially superior to matter, is not soiled by any bodily sin. In this way Gnosticism gave rise to wildest immorality. Of this immoral direction, the Carpocratians are an example: Irenus bk. i. 25.
Another practical outworking of Gnosticism was that inasmuch as matter was in their view essentially evil, the Son of God could not have entered into any real relation to a material body. All Gnostics therefore taught either, with Saturninus and the Docet, that His body was a mere appearance; or, with Cerinthus as quoted above, that the Son of God was united only for a time to the personality of the man Jesus.
The above extracts and descriptions may give some slight conception of the infinite chaos of strange beliefs, held by countless sects which began to assume definite form at the close of the first century and reached its full development about the middle of the second.
It is at once evident that these strange perversions of the Gospel stand in some real relation to the Epistle to the Colossians. The points of contact are too many and too close to be accidental. Evidently the Epistle is a foregoing protest against the teaching common to all the Gnostics and especially against the early form of Gnosticism which was favourable to Judaism. The statement in DIV. II. that the universe, including the successive ranks of angels, was created by the agency of the Son meets beforehand the Gnostic teaching that creation and salvation had different, and in some measure antagonistic, sources. And the warnings in DIV. III. against mere human prohibitions, and against empty forms of worship based on fancied revelations of the unseen world, might have been written to guard against the practical and ritual sides of Gnosticism. In deed the warning in Col 2:8 is a correct description of the Gnostic teaching of the second century.
All this has been made an argument against the genuineness of the Epistle. Some have said that the letter itself implies the existence of Gnosticism in a form which did not exist till the second century. But we have seen that Cerinthus, whose teaching comes nearest to that of the errors rebuked here, was probably a contemporary of the Apostle John. It is also worthy of note that the Fathers with one consent trace Gnosticism to Simon Magus whom Peter rebuked in Samaria apparently before the conversion of Paul: so Irenus bk. i. 22. 1, 2. This tradition proves the very early date of the errors in question. Moreover, a system of belief so widespread and so various as Gnosticism reveals a deep-seated cause, one existing long before its various known manifestations. In the speculative teaching of Philo and in the asceticism of the Essenes we have already found, in the time of Christ, a soil ready for such a growth as the errors combated in this Epistle. All this makes very precarious any argument based on the unlikelihood of these opinions existing during the lifetime of Paul; and makes such argument utterly worthless when opposed to the abundant evidence internal and external (see Introd. ii.) that the Epistle is genuine. Moreover, the references to Gnosticism, sufficient as they are for identification, are far from definite. Had this letter been written in the second century, the references would almost certainly have been more precise.
It is not difficult to suggest an explanation of the indisputable connection between this letter written by Paul in the first century and the errors so prevalent a few years later. We can easily conceive that, soon after the first preaching of the Gospel, as men began to ponder the new teaching and to compare it with their previous beliefs, these last would tend unconsciously to appropriate, or rather to modify so as to harmonize with earlier teaching, the new truth learnt from Christ. Specially would this be the case with those who boasted more profound knowledge, and were therefore not satisfied with teaching given even to the most ignorant. This innate tendency of human nature was the real source of Gnosticism, and may easily even in the days of Paul have revealed itself in early forms sadly prophetic of a fuller subsequent development. These germs of evil so serious would naturally attract the attention of the weary Apostle. It is not unlikely that they were specially prominent at Coloss. For Phrygia, to which in the popular geography Coloss belonged, is spoken of by Hippolytus (bk. v. 7-9) as a cradle of Gnostic teaching. The quotations above from the Pastoral Epistles show that the incipient peril was, a few years later, present to the Apostles anxious thought. The simplest explanation of the whole case is that when the Gospel was first preached there were in the minds of many, Jews and Gentiles, elements of thought which must either be transformed by the Gospel or must themselves mould and pervert it; that this latter possibility soon became in some cases actuality; and that this defection and the peril of further similar defection evoked the warnings contained in the Epistle before us.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
“Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)”
An encouragement to receive others that may come your way. What a proof text if one is needed to give traveling missionaries welcome.
One of the shocks of our years on deputation was the lack of welcome that pastors gave us. Only a very few times were we offered a place to stay, and those usually when we were going to be present more than one day for a conference. Normally housing was never discussed.
Many are the times that I would present our ministry to a church and have to drive all night to make it to where I was staying or to our home. This usually after presenting an A.M. message as well.
Yep, lived through it, and many were the most beautiful sunrises and early breakfasts that I thoroughly enjoyed. My personality is one that it did not bother me, but I have wondered at how missionaries traveling with families make it through from Sunday services to Wednesday evening services and from Wednesday to Sunday.
It is most important to me that one of the qualifications for elder is “hospitality” and so few pastors practice this today. (1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:8) In fact Titus says that he is supposed to love hospitality – most love the hospitality shown them, but seldom do they show it to others.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
B. Greetings from Paul’s companions 4:10-14
Paul mentioned six individuals, five of whom he also named in Philemon.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Aristarchus came from Thessalonica (Act 20:4), had been with Paul in Ephesus (Act 19:29), and had accompanied him to Rome (Act 27:2). "Prisoner" (Col 4:10) is the translation of an unusual Greek word (lit. prisoner of war). It probably means prisoner to the will of God rather than prisoner of Caesar (cf. Phm 1:23). [Note: Carson, p. 98.]
John Mark (Act 12:25) had rejoined Paul after their separation during Paul’s first missionary journey (Act 13:5; Act 13:13). The Colossians knew his cousin Barnabas better. This Mark wrote the Gospel that bears his name (cf. 2Ti 4:11).
"John Mark is an encouragement to everyone who has failed in his first attempts to serve God. He did not sit around and sulk. He got back into the ministry and proved himself faithful to the Lord and to the Apostle Paul." [Note: Wiersbe, 2:150.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 4
SALUTATIONS FROM THE PRISONERS FRIENDS
Col 4:10-14 (R.V.)
Here are men of different races, unknown to each other by face, clasping hands across the seas, and feeling that the repulsions of nationality, language, conflicting interests, have disappeared in the unity of faith. These greetings are a most striking, because unconscious, testimony to the reality and strength of the new bond that knit Christian souls together.
There are three sets of salutations here, sent from Rome to the little far off Phrygian town in its secluded valley. The first is from three large-hearted Jewish Christians, whose greeting has a special meaning as coming from that wing of the Church which had least sympathy with Pauls work or converts. The second is from the Colossians townsman Epaphras; and the third is from two Gentiles like themselves, one well known as Pauls most faithful friend, one almost unknown, of whom Paul has nothing to say, and of whom nothing good can be said. All these may yield us matter for consideration. It is interesting to piece together what we know of the bearers of these shadowy names. It is profitable to regard them as exponents of certain tendencies and principles.
I. These three sympathetic Jewish Christians may stand as types of a progressive and non-ceremonial Christianity.
We need spend little time in outlining the figures of these three, for he in the centre is well known to everyone, and his two supporters are little known to anyone. Aristarchus was a Thessalonian, {Act 20:4} and so perhaps one of Pauls early converts on his first journey to Europe. His purely Gentile name would not: have led us to expect him to be a Jew. But we have many similar instances in the New Testament, such for instance, as the names of six of the seven deacons, {Act 7:5} which show that the Jews of “the dispersion,” who resided in foreign countries, often bore no trace of their nationality in their names. He was with Paul in Ephesus at the time of the riot, and was one of the two whom the excited mob, in their zeal for trade and religion, dragged into the theatre, to the peril of their lives. We next find him, like Tychicus, a member of the deputation which joined Paul on his voyage to Jerusalem. Whatever was the case with the other, Aristarchus was in Palestine with Paul, for we learn that he sailed with him thence. {Act 27:2} Whether he kept company with Paul during all the journey we do not know. But more probably he went home to Thessalonica, and afterwards rejoined Paul at some point in his Roman captivity. At any rate here he is, standing by Paul, having drunk in his spirit, and enthusiastically devoted to him and his work.
He receives here a remarkable and honourable title, “my fellow prisoner.” I suppose that: it is to be taken literally, and that Aristarchus was, in some way, at the moment of writing, sharing Pauls imprisonment. Now it has been often noticed that, in the Epistle to Philemon, where almost all these names reappear, it is not Aristarchus, but Epaphras, who is honoured with this epithet; and that interchange has been explained by an ingenious supposition that Pauls friends took it in turn to keep him company, and were allowed to live with him, on condition of submitting to the same restrictions, military guardianship, and so on. There is no positive evidence in favour of this, but it is not improbable, and, if accepted, helps to give an interesting glimpse of Pauls prison life, and of the loyal devotion which surrounded him.
Mark comes next. His story is well known-how twelve years before he had joined the first missionary band from Antioch, of which his cousin Barnabas was the leader, and had done well enough as long as they were on known ground, in Barnabas (and perhaps his own) native island of Cyprus, but had lost heart and run home to his mother as soon as they crossed into Asia Minor. He had long ago effaced the distrust of him which Paul naturally conceived on account of this collapse. How he came to be with Paul at Rome is unknown. It has been conjectured that Barnabas was dead, and that so, Mark was free to join the Apostle; but that is unsupported supposition. Apparently he is how purposing a journey to Asia Minor, in the course of which, if he should come to Colossae (which was doubtful, perhaps on account of its insignificance), Paul repeats his previous injunction, that the church should give him a cordial welcome. Probably this commendation was given because the evil odour of his old fault might still hang about his name. The calculated emphasis of the exhortation, “receive him,” seems to show that there was some reluctance to give him a hearty reception and take him to their hearts. So we have an “undesigned coincidence.” The tone of the injunction here is naturally explained by the story in the Acts. So faithful a friend did he prove, that the lonely old man, fronting death, longed to have his affectionate tending once more; and his last word about him, “Take Mark, and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry,” condones the early fault, and restores him to the office which, in a moment of selfish “weakness,” he had abandoned. So it is possible to efface a faultful past, and to acquire strength and fitness for work to which we are by nature most inapt and indisposed. Mark is an instance of early faults nobly atoned for, and a witness of the power of repentance and faith to overcome natural weakness. Many a ragged colt makes a noble horse.
The third man is utterly unknown-“Jesus, which is called Justus.” How startling to come across that name, borne by this obscure Christian! How it helps us to feel the humble manhood of Christ, by showing us that many another Jewish boy bore the same name; common and undistinguished then, though too holy to be given to any since. His surname Justus may, perhaps, like the same name given to James, the first bishop of the Church in Jerusalem, hint his rigorous adherence to Judaism, and so may indicate that, like Paul himself, he came from the straitest sect of their religion into the large liberty in which he now rejoiced.
He seems to have been of no importance in the Church, for his name is the only one in this context which does not reappear in Philemon, and we never hear of him again. A strange fate his! to be made immortal by three words-and because he wanted to send a loving message to the Church at Colossae! Why, men have striven and schemed, and broken their hearts, and flung away their lives, to grasp the bubble of posthumous fame and how easily this good “Jesus which is called Justus” has got it! He has his name written forever on the worlds memory, and he very likely never knew it, and does not know it, and was never a bit the better for it! What a satire on “the last inafirmity of noble minds!”
These three men are united in this salutation, Because they are all three, “of the circumcision”; that is to say, are Jews, and being so, have separated themselves from all the other Jewish Christians in Rome, and have flung themselves with ardour into Pauls missionary work among the Gentiles, and have been his fellow workers for the advancement of the kingdom-aiding him, that is, in seeking to win willing subjects to the loving, kingly will of God. By this cooperation in the aim of his life, they have been a “comfort” to him. He uses a half medical term, which perhaps he had caught from the physician at his elbow, which we might perhaps parallel by saying they had been a “cordial” to him-like a refreshing draught to a weary man, or some whiff of pure air stealing into a close chamber and lifting the damp curls on some hot brow.
Now these three men, the only three Jewish Christians in Rome who had the least sympathy with Paul and his work, give us, in their isolation, a vivid illustration of the antagonism which he had to face from that portion of the early Church. The great question for the first generation of Christians was, not whether Gentiles might enter the Christian community, but whether they must do so by circumcision, and pass through Judaism on their road to Christianity. The bulk of the Palestinian Jewish Christians naturally held that they must; while the bulk of Jewish Christians who had been born in other countries as naturally held that they need not. As the champion of this latter decision, Paul was worried and counterworked and hindered all his life by the other party. They had no missionary zeal, or next to none, but they followed in his wake and made mischief wherever they could. If we can fancy some modern sect that sends out no missionaries of its own, but delights to come in where better men have forced a passage, and to upset their work by preaching its own crotchets, we get precisely the kind of thing which dogged Paul all his life.
There was evidently a considerable body of these men in Rome; good men no doubt in a fashion, believing in Jesus as the Messiah, but unable to comprehend that he had antiquated Moses, as the dawning day makes useless the light in a dark place. Even when he was a prisoner, their unrelenting antagonism pursued the Apostle. They preached Christ of “envy and strife.” Not one of them lifted a finger to help him, or spoke a word to cheer him. With none of them to say, God bless him! he toiled on. Only these three were large hearted enough to take their stand by his side, and by this greeting to clasp the hands of their Gentile, brethren in Colossae and thereby to endorse the teaching of this letter as to the abrogation of Jewish rites.
It was a brave thing to do, and the exuberance of the eulogium shows how keenly Paul felt his countrymens coldness, and how grateful he was to “the dauntless three.” Only those who have lived in an atmosphere of misconstruction, surrounded by scowls and sneers, can understand what a cordial the clasp of a hand, or the word of sympathy is. These men were like the old soldier that stood on the street of Worms, as Luther passed in to the Diet, and clapped him. on the shoulder, with “Little monk! little monk! you are about to make a nobler stand today than we in all our battles have ever done. If your cause is just, and you are sure of it, go forward in Gods name, and fear nothing.” If we can do no more, we can give some one who is doing more a cup of cold water, by our sympathy and taking our place at his side, and so can be fellow workers to the kingdom of God.
We note, too; that the best comfort Paul could have was help in his work. He did not go about the world whimpering for sympathy. He was much too strong a man for that. He wanted men to come down into the trench with him, and to shovel and wheel there till they had made in the wilderness some kind of a highway for the King. The true cordial for a true worker is that others get into the traces and pull by his side.
But we may further look at these men as representing for us progressive as opposed to reactionary, and spiritual as opposed to ceremonial, Christianity. Jewish Christians looked backwards; Paul and his three sympathisers looked forward. There was much excuse for the former. No wonder that they shrank from the idea that things divinely appointed could be laid aside. Now there is a broad distinction between the divine in Christianity and the divine in Judaism. For Jesus Christ is Gods last word, and abides forever. His divinity, His perfect sacrifice, His present life in glory for us, His life within us, these and their related truths are the perennial possession of the Church. To Him we must look back, and every generation till the end of time will have to look back, as the full and final expression of the wisdom and will and mercy of God. “Last of all He sent unto them His Son.”
That being distinctly understood, we need not hesitate to recognise the transitory nature of much of the embodiment of the eternal truth concerning the eternal Christ. To draw the line accurately between the permanent and the transient would be to anticipate history and read the future. But the clear recognition of the distinction between the Divine revelation and the vessels in which it is contained, between Christ and creed, between Churches, forms of worship, formularies of faith on the one hand, and the everlasting word of God spoken to us once for all in His Son, and recorded in Scripture, on the other, is needful at all times, and especially at such times of sifting and unsettlement as the present. It will save some of us from an obstinate conservatism which might read its fate in the decline and disappearance of Jewish Christianity. It will save us equally from needless fears, as if the stars were going out, when it is only men-made lamps that are paling. Mens hearts often tremble for the ark of God, when the only things in peril are the cart that carries it, or the oxen that draw it. “We have received a kingdom that cannot be moved,” be, cause we have received a King eternal, and therefore may calmly see the removal of things that can be shaken, assured that the things which cannot be shaken will but the more conspicuously assert their permanence. The existing embodiments of Gods truth are not the highest, and if Churches and forms crumble and disintegrate, their disappearance will not be the abolition of Christianity, but its progress. These Jewish Christians would have found all that they strove to keep, in higher form and more real reality, in Christ; and what seemed to them. the destruction of Judaism was really its coronation with undying life.
II. Epaphras is for us the type of the highest service which love can render.
All our knowledge of Epaphras is contained in these brief notices in this Epistle. We learn from the first chapter that he had introduced the gospel to Colossae, and perhaps also to Laodicea and Hierapolis. He was “one of you,” a member of the Colossian community, and a resident in, possibly a native of, Colossae. He had come to Rome, apparently to consult the Apostle about the views which threatened to disturb the Church. He had told him, too, of their love, not painting the picture too black, and gladly giving full prominence to any bits of brightness. It was his report which led to the writing of this letter.
Perhaps some of the Colossians were not over pleased with his having gone to speak with Paul, and having brought down this thunderbolt on their heads; and such a feeling may account for the warmth of Pauls praises of him as his “fellow slave,” and for the emphasis of his testimony on his behalf. However they might doubt it, Epaphras love for them was warm. It showed itself by continual fervent prayers that they might stand “perfect and fully persuaded in all the will of God,” and by toil of body and mind for them. We can see the anxious Epaphras, far away from the Church of his solicitude, always burdened with the thought of their danger, and ever wrestling in prayer on their behalf.
So we may learn the noblest service which Christian love can do-prayer. There is a real power in Christian intercession. There are many difficulties and mysteries round that thought. The manner of the blessing is not revealed, but the fact that we help one another by prayer is plainly taught, and confirmed by many examples, from the day when God heard Abraham and delivered Lot, to the hour when the loving authoritative words were spoken, “Simon, Simon, I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.” A spoonful of water sets a hydraulic press in motion, and brings into operation a force of tons weight; so a drop of prayer at the one end may move an influence at the other which is omnipotent. It is a service which all can render. Epaphras could not have written this letter, but he could pray. Love has no higher way of utterance than prayer. A prayerless love may be very tender, and may speak murmured words of sweetest sound, but it lacks the deepest expression, and the noblest music of speech. We never help our dear ones so well as when we pray for them. Do we thus show and consecrate our family loves and our friendships?
We notice too the kind of prayer which love naturally presents. It is constant and earnest -“always striving,” or as the word might be rendered, “agonising.” That word suggests first the familiar metaphor of the wrestling ground. True prayer is the intensest energy of the spirit pleading for blessing with a great striving of faithful desire. But a more solemn memory gathers round the word, for it can scarcely fail to recall the hour beneath the olives of Gethsemane, when the clear paschal moon shone down on the suppliant who, “being in an agony, prayed the more earnestly.” And both Pauls word here, and the evangelists there, carry us back to that mysterious scene by the brook Jabbok, where Jacob “wrestled” with “a man” until the breaking of the day, and prevailed. Such is prayer; the wrestle in the arena, the agony in Gethsemane, the solitary grapple with the “traveller unknown”; and such is the highest expression of Christian love.
Here, too, we learn what love asks for its beloved. Not perishable blessings, not the prizes of earth -fame, fortune, friends; but that “ye may stand perfect and fully assured in all the will of God.”
The first petition is for steadfastness. To stand has for opposites-to fall, or totter, or give ground; so the prayer is that they may not yield to temptation, or opposition, nor waver in their fixed faith, nor go down in the struggle; but keep erect, their feet planted on the rock, and holding their own against every foe. The prayer is also for their maturity of Christian character, that they may stand firm, because perfect, having attained that condition which Paul in this Epistle tells us is the aim of all preaching and warning. As for ourselves, so for our dear ones, we are to be content with nothing short of entire conformity to the will of God. His merciful purpose for us all is to be the goal of our efforts for ourselves, and of our prayers for others. We are to widen our desires to coincide with His gift, and our prayers are to cover no narrower space than His promises enclose.
Epaphras last desire for his friends, according to the true reading, is that they may be “fully assured” in all the will of God. There can be no higher blessing than that-to be quite sure of what God desires me to know and do and be-if the assurance comes from the clear light of His illumination, and not from hasty self-confidence in my own penetration. To be free from the misery of intellectual doubts and practical uncertainties, to walk in the sunshine-is the purest joy. And it is granted in needful measure to all who have silenced their own wills, that they may hear what God says, -“If any man wills to do His will, he shall know.”
Does our love speak in prayer? and do our prayers for our dear ones plead chiefly for such gifts? Both our love and our desires need purifying if this is to be their natural language. How can we offer such prayers for them if, at the bottom of our hearts, we had rather see them well off in the world than steadfast, matured, and assured Christians? How can we expect an answer to such prayers if the whole current of our lives shows that neither for them nor for ourselves do we “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness”?
III. The last salutation comes from a singularly contrasted couple-Luke and Demas, the types respectively of faithfulness and apostasy. These two unequally yoked together stand before us like the light and the dark figures that Ary Scheffer delights to paint, each bringing out the colouring of the other more vividly by contrast. They bear the same relation to Paul which John, the beloved disciple, and Judas did to Pauls master.
As for Luke, his long and faithful companionship of the Apostle is too well known to need repetition here. His first appearance in the Acts nearly coincides with an attack of Pauls constitutional malady, which gives probability to the suggestion that one reason for Lukes close attendance on the Apostle was the state of his health. Thus the form. and warmth of the reference here would be explained-“Luke the physician, the beloved.” We trace Luke as sharing the perils of the winter voyage to Italy, making his presence known only by the modest “we” of the narrative. We find him here sharing the Roman captivity, and, in the second imprisonment, he was Pauls only companion. All others had been sent away, or had fled; but Luke could not be spared, and would not desert him, and no doubt was by his side till the end, which soon came. As for Demas, we know no more about him except the melancholy record, “Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world; and is departed unto Thessalonica.” Perhaps he was a Thessalonian, and so went home. His love of the world, then, was his reason for abandoning Paul. Probably it was on the side of danger that the world tempted him. He was a coward, and preferred a whole skin to a clear conscience. In immediate connection with the record of his desertion we read, “At my first answer, no man stood with me, but all men forsook me.” As the same word is used, probably Demas may have been one of those timid friends, whose courage was not equal to standing by Paul when, to use his own metaphor, he thrust his head into the lions mouth. Let us not be too hard on the constancy that warped in so fierce a heat. All that Paul charges him with is, that he was a faithless friend, and too fond of the present world. Perhaps his crime did not reach the darker hue. He may not have been an apostate Christian, though he was a faithless friend. Perhaps, if there were departure from Christ as well as from Paul, he came back again, like Peter, whose sins against love and friendship were greater than his-and, like Peter, found pardon and a welcome. Perhaps, away in Thessalonica, he repented him of his evil, and perhaps Paul and Demas met again before the throne, and there clasped inseparable hands. Let us not judge a man of whom we know so little, but take to ourselves the lesson of humility and self-distrust!
How strikingly these two contrasted characters bring out the possibility of men being exposed to the same influences and yet ending far away from each other! These two set out from the same point, and travelled side by side, subject to the same training, in contact with the magnetic attraction of Pauls strong personality and at the end they are wide as the poles asunder. Starting from the same level, one line inclines ever so little upwards, the other imperceptibly downwards. Pursue them far enough, and there is room for the whole solar system with all its orbits in the space between them. So two children trained at one mothers knee, subjects of the same prayers, with the same sunshine of love and rain of good influences upon them both, may grow up, one to break a mothers heart and disgrace a fathers home, and the other to walk in the ways of godliness and serve the God of his fathers. Circumstances are mighty; but the use we make of circumstances lies with ourselves. As we trim our sails and set our rudder, the same breeze will take us in opposite directions. We are the architects and builders of our own characters, and may so use the most unfavourable influences as to strengthen and wholesomely harden our natures thereby, and may so misuse the most favourable as only thereby to increase our blameworthiness for wasted opportunities.
We are reminded, also, from these two men who stand before us like a double star-one bright and one dark-that no loftiness of Christian position, nor length of Christian profession, is a guarantee against falling and apostasy. As we read in another book, for which also the Church has to thank a prison cell-the place where so many of its precious possessions have been written -there is a back way to the pit from the gate of the Celestial City. Demas had stood high in the Church, had been admitted to the close intimacy of the Apostle, was evidently no raw novice, and yet the world could drag him back from so eminent a place in which he had long stood. “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.”
The world that was too strong for Demas will be too strong for us if we front it in our own strength. It is ubiquitous, working on us everywhere and always, like the pressure of the atmosphere on our bodies. Its weight will crush us unless we can climb to and dwell on the heights of communion with God, where pressure is diminished. It acted on Demas through his fears. It acts on us through our ambitions, affections, and desires. So, seeing that miserable wreck of Christian constancy, and considering ourselves lest we also be tempted, let us not judge another, but look at home. There is more than enough there to make profound self-distrust our truest wisdom, and to teach us to pray, “Hold Thou me up, and I shall be safe.”