Colossians 4:10

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. )

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 apostle’s 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 Paul’s bonds. Yet the Papists contend that Peter presided over the church at Rome twenty-five years successively.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2. Greetings and messages

(Col_4:10-17.)

10Aristarchus my fellow prisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s 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 [ἀγωνιζόμενος, 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; ἀνεψιος 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 Lange’s Comm. Mark, [p. 4–7, 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 ἐλάβετε as meaning accipetis after the manner of letter writing, and supposes it took place with this letter through Tychicus and Onesimus; ἐντολάς 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 [ἐὰνἤλθῃ 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. Paul’s 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 kinsman’s part; and Mark, though he faltered for a time, has profited by his kinsman’s 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 Mark’s 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.] Παραγορία, 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: παραμυθία is in private grief, παραγορία 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 God—“That” 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 (Winer’s 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 Christian’s life. [On πε πληροφ., see Col_2:2, πληροφορία; also 1Th_1:6.—R.] “In all” etc., is not to be joined with “stand” (Bengel, Meyer, Bleek); nor does ἐν mean “in virtue of,” and “will” the decree of God (Baehr).

Col_4:13. For I bear him record.—Attesting witness—That 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 one’s 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 Hierapolis—On 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, Winer’s Realwörterbuch, II p. 34), but must not be confounded with Lucius (Act_13:1). Lucas from Lucanus (Winer’s 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 Lange’s Commentary, Luke p. 6, where Schaff favors the view that it was written during Paul’s imprisonment at Cæsarea.—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 τῆς οἰκίας, 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 Winer’s Gram. p. 102). The verb (ἀναγνωσθῇ) 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 Laodiceans—“Cause 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 Winer’s 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 Winer’s 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. 296—R.]; 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., 394–8, where this view is advocated at length—R,.]. 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. [Macknight’s 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. Paul’s 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 improbable—R.]; 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 God’s “Will” we find our “Ought,” and to this our “Can” must reach. [In Gottes Wollen liegt unser Sollen, und darauf muss unser Können 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 God’s 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.—[Ἀνεψιός, 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.—[א. A. B. C. L. insert Ἰησοῦ; Lachmann, Tischendorf, most modern editors.—R.]

[8]Col_4:12.—א. A. B. C. and others read πεπληροφορημένοι instead of πεπληρωμένοι. [So modern editors, Lachmann, Tischendorf and other. Braune renders it “erfüilt;” Eadie, Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth: “fully assured” or “fully persuades.”—R.]

[9]Col_4:13.—א. A. B. C. and other read πόνον instead of ζῆλον. [Others κόπον, πόθον, ἀγῶνα. Modern editors have generally adopted πόνον, multum laborem. The word is rare in New Testament. hence the variety of readings.—R.]

[10]Col_4:15.—Αὐτοῦ is well attested by D. E. F. G. K. L. and other; א. [A. C.] have αὐτῶν. B. reads Νύμφαν—αὐτῆς. The context requires the first, since Νυμφᾶν, 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: Νυμφᾶν—αὐτοῦ. 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.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 4 Part 3

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 selfdistrust!

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."

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

4:10-14 Of the six people named, five are also mentioned in Phlm 1:23-24.

4:10 Aristarchus was a common name, but he was probably the same man from Thessalonica (Acts 19:29; 20:4) who accompanied Paul on his voyage to Rome (Acts 27:2). Acts does not suggest that Aristarchus was also under arrest, so perhaps he was in prison with Paul voluntarily, sharing his confinement in order to encourage him and assist him in ministry. • Mark, Barnabas’s cousin, had gone with Barnabas and Paul on their first missionary journey but had left them before the journey was finished (Acts 13:13). That desertion led to a split between Paul and Barnabas as the second journey was about to begin (Acts 15:37-40). Paul and Mark were apparently now reconciled (see also 2 Tim 4:11; Phlm 1:24). • As you were instructed before: There is no other record of this communication.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Col 4:10. Συναιχμάλωτός μου, 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.—ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρνάβα, [sister’s son, Engl. Vers.] kinsman to Barnabas) Barnabas was better known than Mark; therefore the latter is designated from the former.—περὶ οὗ, concerning whom) namely Mark; the οὗ refers to the nominative, not to the oblique case, of Barnabas [though Βαρνάβα immediately precedes].—ἐλάβετε) 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.—ἐντολὰς, commandments) These are put in antithesis to the writing.—ἐὰν, if) This is the sum of those commandments.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Col_4:10. Sending of salutations down to Col_4:14.

Ἀρίσταρχος] 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.

ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου] Οὐδὲν τούτου τοῦ ἐγκωμίου μεῖζον, Chrysostom. In the contemporary letter to Philemon at Phlemon Col_1:24, the same Aristarchus is enumerated among the συνεργοί; 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 συναιχμάλωτος, so that in Philem. l.c. the συναιχμάλωτος is expressly distinguished from the mere συνεργοί, 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 συναιχμάλωτος (comp. Lucian, As. 27), seeing that Paul himself was a prisoner, and consequently they could not but find in συναιχμάλ. simply the entirely similar position of Aristarchus as a συνδεσμώτης (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 αἰχμάλ. always denotes captivity in war (see on Eph_4:8; also Luk_4:18), Paul by συναιχμ. sets himself forth as a captive warrior (in the service of Christ). Comp. συστρατιώτης, Php_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 συναιχμάλωτος 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 ἀνεψιός, 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 (ἀδελφιδοῦς) or with ἀνεψιάδης, cousins son, in the classical writers, ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς. 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 ὁ ἀνεψ. Βαρν. 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.

περὶ οὗ ἐλαβ. ἐντολ.] 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 ἀγράφως διά τινων (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 ἐντολή, that letters of recommendation are meant from Barnabas (Grotius), or from the Roman church (Estius); while others think that the following ἐὰν ἔλθῃ κ. τ. λ. forms the contents of ἐντολάς (Calvinwho, with Syriac, Ambrosiaster, and some codd., reads subsequently δέξασθαι,comp. Beza, Castalio, Bengel, Bähr, and Baumgarten-Crusius),a view against which may be urged the plural ἐντολάς and the absence of the article. Hofmann incorrectly maintains that περὶ οὗ ἐλάβ. ἐντολάς is to be taken along with ἐὰν ἔλθῃ π. ὑμ.: respecting whom ye have obtained instructions for the case of his coming to you. This the words could not mean; for ἐὰν ἔλθῃ π. ὑμ. signifies nothing else than: if he shall have come to you, and this accords not with ἐλάβ. ἐντολ., but only with δέξασθε αὐτόν,[174] which Hofmann makes an exclamation annexed without connecting link (that is, with singular abruptness).

ἐὰν ἔλθῃ κ. τ. λ.] Parenthesis; Mark must therefore have had in view a journey, which was to bring him to Colossae. δέχεσθαι 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 δέξασθε 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 δέξασθε, but a more precise definition, would have been called for in the event of such an apprehension.

[173] περὶ οὗ is not to be referred to Barnabas, as, following Theophylact and Cajetanus (the former of whom, however, explains as if παρʼ οὗ were read), Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 259 ff., has again done. The latter understands under the ἐντολάς instructions formerly issued to the Pauline churches not to receive Barnabas, which were now no longer to be applied. As if the παροξυσμός 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 (γράφω), not, as would be the case here, a praeterite, which expresses an act of the past (ἐλάβετε). 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 ἐλάβετε, 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: εἰ ἔλθοι πρὸς ὑμᾶς (comp. Act_24:19; Act_27:39; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 491 f.).

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Col 4:10 . Ἀρίσταρχος : 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. Μᾶρκος (so accented by Blass and Haupt, who refers to Dittenberger in confirmation), the cousin ( ἀνεψιὸς ) of Barnabas, who may by this time have been dead. He is no doubt the John Mark of the Acts and the evangelist. ἐλάβετε ἐντολάς . We do not know what these commands were. ἐλάβ . cannot be an epistolary aorist (2nd person), therefore the commands must have been sent previously. ἐὰν ἔλθῃ κ . τ . λ . may express the substance of them. δέξασθε . 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.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10. ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς. Repeated Col 4:12; Col 4:14. In each case it introduces a fresh class, viz. (a) those of the Circumcision, Col 4:10-11. (b) Epaphras their fellow-townsman, etc., Col 4:12-13. (c) Luke and Demas who were perhaps Gentile Christians, Col 4:14. In Phm 1:23 the verb is used once to include all.

Observe that of the six who send greeting here all except Jesus Justus send greeting also to Philemon. Similar greetings by name are found in Rom 16:21-23; 1Co 16:19; 2Ti 4:21; 1Pe 5:13.

On the frequency of the expression in inscriptions and papyri see Nägeli, D. Wortschatz d. Ap. Paulus, 1905, p. 55.

Ἀρίσταρχος. A Hebrew-Christian (Col 4:11), of Macedonia (Act 19:29), of Thessalonica (Act 20:4), a fellow-traveller of St Paul, seized with Gaius by the Ephesian mob and carried into the theatre (Act 19:29), who afterwards followed St Paul, apparently from Greece, on his last journey to Jerusalem (Act 20:4). Two years later he was with St Paul on the ship of Adramyttium between Caesarea and Sidon, sailing with him as far as Myra, but, as it seems, going on it towards his own home without being transferred there to the Alexandrian ship sailing straight for Italy (Act 27:2; Act 27:6, see Lightfoot, Phil. p. 34, note). Some two years later we find him once more with St Paul at Rome (Phm 1:24), when, as our verse tells us, he is in some sense St Paul’s συναιχμάλωτος.

ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου, “my fellow captive.” So of Andronicus and Junias, τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου, Rom 16:7, and of Epaphras in Phm 1:23, where it has the addition ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. The fact that in Phm. the title is not given to Aristarchus but to Epaphras instead, as it seems, suggests that one had been imprisoned instead of the other. Whether the imprisonment was compulsory, or voluntarily endured in order to cheer St Paul’s loneliness, cannot be determined. Observe that (a) It cannot possibly refer to the long past incident of Act 19:29; for that would not account for Epaphras; (b) As St Paul was literally a captive when he wrote this the captivity spoken of in the case of Aristarchus and Epaphras which they shared with him can hardly be metaphorical; (c) The employment of a term which properly means “captive by war” may possibly be due to St Paul’s vivid sense of the strife between the world and Christ being strictly warfare (cf. the contemporary Eph 6:11 sqq.).

καὶ Μάρκος. That it is rightly Μᾶρκος, the a being long (cf. Μάαρκος in certain inscriptions), see especially Swete, St Mark, p. ix., following Blass, Gram. § 4. 2.

ὁ ἀνεψιὸς†, “the cousin.” So in Num 36:11, the daughters of Zelophehad became wives of their “father’s brothers’ sons,” τοῖς ἀνεψιοῖς αὐτῶν; cf. Herod. 7:5, Μαρδόνιος ὁ Γωβρύεω, ὅς ἦν Ξέρξῃ μὲν ἀνεψιὸς Δαρείου δὲ ἀδελφεῆς παῖς, also VII. 82.

Βαρνάβα. Probably originally the word meant “son of Nebo” (Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 40, Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 307 sqq.), though interpreted in Act 4:36 υἱὸς παρακλήσεως as though it were connected with nabi (prophet).

It is evident that the connexion with so honoured a Christian worker as Barnabas is intended to do honour to Mark, and thus to lead the Colossians to receive him the more readily. To us it is of interest as explaining the warmth with which Barnabas espoused his cause and took him with him to Cyprus, Act 15:37-39.

περὶ οὖ. The antecedent is clearly Μᾶρκος, for the tone of superiority forbids the supposition that the following words refer to Barnabas.

ἐλάβετε ἐντολάς. “Mandata opponuntur literis,” Beng. Perhaps but not necessarily so. For the phrase see Act 17:15.

This can hardly be the epistolary aorist (Col 4:8), especially if Ellicott is right in limiting the epistolary aorist to the first person, but when and by whom they received the charge is quite unknown. Presumably it had been sent from St Paul. So also the reference of the plural ἐντολάς is purely a matter of conjecture; perhaps they received one charge through many persons or perhaps many through one.

ἐὰν ἔλθῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς δέξασθε αὐτόν. It has been conjectured that St Mark gave up his plan of visiting Asia Minor and went to Egypt instead (Swete, St Mark, pp. xiv. sq.). Some unforeseen occurrence may indeed have brought this about, cf. probably 1Co 16:10, but our passage implies that when it was written he quite expected to be at least in the neighbourhood of Colossae, and had had this expectation for some time (ἐλάβ. ἐντ.). 1Pe 5:13 leads us to suppose that he had some connexion with Asia Minor before that was written. In 2Ti 4:11 he was at Ephesus or near there.

Bengel interprets ἐὰν ἔλθῃ κ.τ.λ. as the sum of the ἐντολαί. Δέξασθε will then be a sudden change to the oratio recta (cf. Luk 5:14; Act 1:4; Act 23:22). Although those copyists who read δέξασθαι instead of δέξασθε clearly understood it so, the simpler interpretation, making it St Paul’s present command, is preferable.

The only special reason (with which we are acquainted) for this charge respecting St Mark is his defection at Perga, Act 13:13; Act 15:38. But that was twelve years earlier and was probably quite unknown to the Colossian Christians, though important to the historian as supplying the occasion for St Paul’s independent journeys. If any special reason is required, it more probably lies in his attachment to the conservative party in the primitive Church (St Peter) rather than to St Paul’s. Hence it was possible that some at least of the Colossians would not greet him warmly, especially after receiving such an epistle as this, full of warning against Jewish tendencies.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Aristarchus--a Macedonian of Thessalonica (Act 27:2), who was dragged into the theater at Ephesus, during the tumult with Gaius, they being "Paul's companions in travel." He accompanied Paul to Asia (Act 20:4), and subsequently (Act 27:2) to Rome. He was now at Rome with Paul (compare Plm 1:23-24). As he is here spoken of as Paul's "fellow prisoner," but in Plm 1:24 as Paul's "fellow laborer"; and vice versa, Epaphras in Plm 1:23, as his "fellow prisoner," but here (Col 1:7) "fellow servant," MEYER in ALFORD, conjectures that Paul's friends voluntarily shared his imprisonment by turns, Aristarchus being his fellow prisoner when he wrote to the Colossians, Epaphras when he wrote to Philemon. The Greek for "fellow prisoner" is literally, fellow captive, an image from prisoners taken in warfare, Christians being "fellow soldiers" (Phi 2:25; Plm 1:2), whose warfare is "the good fight of faith."

Mark--John Mark (Act 12:12, Act 12:25); the Evangelist according to tradition.

sister's son--rather, "cousin," or "kinsman to Barnabas"; the latter being the better known is introduced to designate Mark. The relationship naturally accounts for Barnabas' selection of Mark as his companion when otherwise qualified; and also for Mark's mother's house at Jerusalem being the place of resort of Christians there (Act 12:12). The family belonged to Cyprus (Act 4:36); this accounts for Barnabas' choice of Cyprus as the first station on their journey (Act 13:4), and for Mark's accompanying them readily so far, it being the country of his family; and for Paul's rejecting him at the second journey for not having gone further than Perga, in Pamphylia, but having gone thence home to his mother at Jerusalem (Mat 10:37) on the first journey (Act 13:13).

touching whom--namely, Mark.

ye received commandments--possibly before the writing of this Epistle; or the "commandments" were verbal by Tychicus, and accompanying this letter, since the past tense was used by the ancients (where we use the present) in relation to the time which it would be when the letter was read by the Colossians. Thus (Plm 1:19), "I have written," for "I write." The substance of them was, "If he come unto you, receive him." Paul's rejection of him on his second missionary journey, because he had turned back at Perga on the first journey (Act 13:13; Act 15:37-39), had caused an alienation between himself and Barnabas. Christian love soon healed the breach; for here he implies his restored confidence in Mark, makes honorable allusion to Barnabas, and desires that those at Colosse who had regarded Mark in consequence of that past error with suspicion, should now "receive" him with kindness. Colosse is only about one hundred ten miles from Perga, and less than twenty from the confines of Pisidia, through which province Paul and Barnabas preached on their return during the same journey. Hence, though Paul had not personally visited the Colossian Church, they knew of the past unfaithfulness of Mark; and needed this recommendation of him, after the temporary cloud on him, so as to receive him, now that he was about to visit them as an evangelist. Again, in Paul's last imprisonment, he, for the last time, speaks of Mark (Ti2 4:11).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

10. Fellow-prisoner. From this it appears that there were others that were associated with Paul, 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, 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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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 Cæsarea 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 Apostle’s captivity.

Marcus, sister’s 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 him”—a kind of “letter of commendation” (2Co_3:1)—evidently shows that they had known of him as under St. Paul’s 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. Paul’s 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. Paul’s 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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Colossæ.

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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Aristarchus my fellow prisoner saluteth you,.... This man was a man of Macedonia, and a Thessalonian; Act 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 Plm 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, Act 12:12 concerning whom there was a difference between Paul and Barnabas, Act 15:37, and is the same Mark that wrote the Gospel, and was converted by the Apostle Peter, Pe1 5:13 and who is said to have received his Gospel from him; he is also mentioned Ti2 4:11 . 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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner - Aristarchus was of Thessalonica, and is mentioned in Act 19:29; Act 20:4, as Paul’s 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, sister’s 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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The same as John and Mark mentioned in the Acts, xv. 37, 39.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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, sister’s 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 Peter’s 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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—’Ανεψιος, 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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, saluteth you (Phm_1:2, Php_2:25; Rom_16:7) Aristarchus, as a Thessalonian, accompanied the apostle to Jerusalem, along with Tychicus the Asian, (Act_20:4) and was his companion at least during the first part of his voyage to Rome. (Act_27:2) In Phm_1:23, 24 his name follows that of Mark as a "fellow worker" (comp. ver. 11) and of Epaphras "my fellow prisoner". (comp. Rom_16:7) "Fellow prisoner" (aijcmalwtov, captive, prisoner of war) differs from the "prisoner" (desmiov, one in bonds) of Eph_3:1 Eph_4:1; Phm_1:9; 2Ti_1:8. The supposition that these men were permitted as friends to share St. Paul"s captivity in turn, is conjectural (see Meyer) Possibly the incident recorded in Act_19:29 was attended by some temporary joint imprisonment of St. Paul and Aristarchus. As "a soldier of Christ Jesus," the apostle was himself now "a prisoner of war" (2Ti_2:3, 2Ti_2:4; 2Co_10:3-6) and therefore those who shared his sufferings were his "fellow prisoners," as they were his" fellow soldiers" (Phm_1:2; Php_1:30) and his "fellow servants". (Col_1:7 Col_4:7) And Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, about whom you received commandments if he should come to you, welcome him. (Phm_1:24; 2Ti_4:11; 1Pe_5:13) It is pleasant to find John Mark, who deserted the apostle in his first missionary journey, (Act_13:13) and on whose account he separated from Barnabas (Act_15:37-40) ten years before, now taken again into his confidence and friendship. (comp. 2Ti_4:11) And indeed it is evident that there was no permanent estrangement between the two great Gentile missionaries; for Mark is called "cousin of Barnabas" by way of recommendation. (comp. 1Co_9:6; Gal_2:1, Gal_2:9, Gal_2:13) Mary, the mother of John Mark, was a person of some consideration in the Church at Jerusalem, (Act_12:12) and through her he may have been related to Barnabas, who, though a Cypriot Jew, had property near Jerusalem, (Act_4:36, Act_4:37) and was also highly honoured by the mother Church. (Act_9:27 Act_11:22-24 Act_15:25, Act_15:26) Mark is, moreover, a link between the Apostles Paul and Peter. It is to the house of his mother that the latter betakes himself on his escape from Herod"s prison. (Act_12:12) In 1Pe_5:13 he appears, along with Silvanus (Silos), St. Paul"s old comrade, in St. Peter"s company, who calls him "my son." St. Peter was then at Babylon, where Mark may have arrived at the end of the journey eastwards which St. Paul here contemplates his undertaking. The striking correspondence of language and thought between St. Peter"s First Epistle (addressed, moreover, to Churches of Asia Minor) and those of St. Paul to the Ephesians and Colossians (and, in an equal degree, that to the Romans) suggests the existence of some special connection at this time between the two writers, such as may well have been afforded by Mark, if, leaving Rome soon after the despatch of these letters, he travelled in their track by way of Asia Minor to join St. Peter at Babylon. At the time of St. Paul"s second imprisonment, about four years later, Mark is again in Asia Minor in the neighbourhood of Timothy, and the apostle desires his services at Rome. (2Ti_4:11) When or how the Colossians had received already directions concerning Mark, we have no means of knowing. His journey appears to have been postponed. The apostle must before this have communicated with the Colossians. The visit of Epaphras to Rome may have been due to some communication from him. "If he should come to you, give him a welcome," is the request the apostle now makes.

Vers. 10, 11.

Greetings from three loyal friends of the apostle.

The Epistle ends with salutations, first from three Jews, and then from three Gentiles.

I THE THREE JEWISH FRIENDS OF THE APOSTLE.

1. Aristarchus. "Aristarchus my fellow prisoner saluteth you." He was a native of Thessalonica, (Act_20:4) who accompanied the apostle in his third missionary journey. He was seized along with the apostle at Ephesus, (Act_19:29) and accompanied him in his voyage to Rome. (Act_27:2) He now shared the apostle"s imprisonment at Rome. Adversity does not lessen his affection for the apostle.

1. Marcus. "And Mark, the cousin of Barnabas (touching whom ye received commandments; if he come unto you, receive him)." This was the

2. author of the second Gospel, who was associated with the apostle in his earlier missionary labours, and afterwards forsook him at Pamphylia, under circumstances that led to a rupture between Paul and Barnabas. (Act_15:39) He is now affectionately commended to the Colossians for he had evidently recovered the confidence and love of the apostle as "one useful to him for the ministry". (2Ti_4:11) Mark was now resident in Rome. It is not possible to know what were the commands which the apostle had sent to the Colossians concerning him; probably they were to bespeak a hospitable reception for him, as the Pauline Churches may have suspected his fidelity.

3. Jesus. "And Jesus, which is called Justus." He is only mentioned in this place. He is not probably the same as Justus of Corinth. (Act_18:7) He was attached to the apostle. It is curious that a disciple who bore the name of our Lord should have also borne his title of "the just one.

II THE APOSTLE"S HIGH COMMENDATION OF THE THREE FRIENDS, "These only are my fellow workers unto the kingdom of God, men that have been a comfort unto me.

1. They were Jews. "Who are of the circumcision.

2. They were exceptions to the rule of anti-Pauline animosity on the part of Christian Jews. The exception is limited, probably, to those Jews in Rome, who preached Christ "through strife and envy," hoping thus to "add affliction to his bonds". (Php_2:20) But these three comforted him by hearty cooperation and their kindly sympathies. The best and greatest men need the comfort of the very humblest, who in their turn rebuke the conduct of those who grieve God"s servants and are thorns in their sides. T.C.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Aristarchus my fellowprisoner - Such was Epaphras likewise for a time, Phil. i, 23. Ye have received directions - Namely, by Tychicus, bringing this letter. The ancients adapted their language to the time of reading the letter; not, as we do, to the time when it was written. It is not improbable, they might have scrupled to receive him, without this fresh direction, after he had left St. Paul, and "departed from the work."

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10–13. There follow Christian remembrances from several of Paul's companions. Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoner. A Macedonian from Thessalonica (Acts 19:29; 20:4; 27:2). He accompanied Paul from Jerusalem to Rome. He is named in Philemon 24. And Marcus. The old companion of Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary tour. Sister's son to Barnabas. It is now conceded that this should be, “Cousin to Barnabas.” Since in this year (probably a.d. 62) Mark attends Paul, it is inferred that Barnabas was dead. Touching whom. Mark. Commandments. Commendations. Receive him. Perhaps these churches knew that at one time Paul had refused to have Mark in his company (Acts 15:38), and hence would not have received him cordially without such a commendation.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Aristarchus

He was in prison with Paul in Ephesus when Paul wrote this letter to the Colossians.

if he comes

"if Mark comes"

Jesus who is called Justus

This is a man who also worked with Paul.

These alone of the circumcision are my fellow workers for the kingdom of God

Paul uses "circumcision" here to refer to Jews because, under the Old Testament law, all male Jews had to be circumcised. AT: "These three men are the only Jewish believers working with me to proclaim God as king through Christ Jesus" (See: Metonymy)

These alone of the circumcision

"These men—Aristarchus, Mark, and Justus—alone of the circumcision"

translationWords

John Mark

Barnabas

circumcise

kingdom of God

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

10-14.] Various greetings from brethren.

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 συνέκδημοι Παύλου. He accompanied Paul to Asia (ib. 22:4), and was with him in the voyage to Rome (27:2). In Phm 1:24, he sends greeting, with Marcus, Demas, and Lucas, as here. On συναιχμάλωτος, 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 συναιχμ., and in Phm 1:24, συνεργός, whereas Epaphras is here, ch. 1:7, merely a σύνδουλος, and in Phm 1:23 a συναιχμάλωτος. 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. συναιχμάλωτος belongs to the same image of warfare as συνστρατιώτης, Php 2:25; Phm 1:2.

Μάρκος] 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.13:13; 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.

ἀνεψιός] not ‘sister’s son:’ this rendering has arisen from mistaking the definition given by Hesych., ἀνεψιοί, ἀδελφῶν υἱοί,—meaning that ἀνεψιοί 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 ἀνεψιούς, ex his prognatos ἀνεψιαδοῦς, ἀνεψιαδάς,—tertio gradu ἐξανεψιούς, ἐξανεψιάς a Menandro dici.” Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 306. This is decisively shewn in Herod. vii. 5, Μαρδόνιος … ὃς ἦν Ξέρξῃ μὲν ἀνεψιός, Δαρείου δὲ ἀδελφεῆς πάϊς. It is also used in a wider sense (see Hom. Il. α. 464): but there is no need to depart here from the strict meaning.

περὶ οὗ …] What these commands were, must be left in entire uncertainty. They had been sent previous to the writing of our Epistle (ἐλάβετε): 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 ἐὰν ἔλθῃ, δέξασθε αὐτόυ, 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.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 [ανεψιος] . 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.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

10–14. ‘I send you greeting from Aristarchus who is a fellow-prisoner with me; from Marcus, Barnabas’ cousin, concerning whom I have already sent you directions, that you welcome him heartily, if he pays you a visit; and from Jesus, surnamed Justus; all three Hebrew converts. They alone of their fellow-countrymen have worked loyally with me in spreading the kingdom of God; and their stedfastness has indeed been a comfort to me in the hour of trial. Greeting also from Epaphras, your fellow-townsman, a true servant of Christ, who is ever wrestling in his prayers on your behalf, that ye may stand firm in the faith, perfectly instructed and fully convinced in every will and purpose of God. I bear testimony to the earnestness with which he labours for you and the brethren of Laodicea and those of Hierapolis. Greeting also from Luke the physician, my very dear friend, and from Demas.’

10. The salutations to Philemon are sent from the same persons as to the Colossians, except that in the former case the name of Jesus Justus is omitted.

Ἀρίσταρχος] the Thessalonian. He had started with St Paul on his voyage from Jerusalem to Rome, but probably had parted from the Apostle at Myra (see Philippians p. 33 sq.). If so, he must have rejoined him at Rome at a later date. On this Aristarchus see Philippians p. 10 and the introduction to the Epistles to the Thessalonians. He would be well known in proconsular Asia, which he had visited from time to time; Acts xix. 29, xx. 4, xxvii. 2.

συναιχμάλωτός μου] In Philem. 23 this honourable title is withheld from Aristarchus and given to Epaphras. In Rom. xvi. 7 St Paul’s kinsmen, Andronicus and Junias, are so called. On the possibility of its referring to a spiritual captivity or subjection see Philippians p. 11. In favour of this meaning it may be urged, that, though St Paul as a prisoner was truly a δέσμιος, he was not strictly an αἰχμάλωτος ‘a prisoner of war’; nor could he have called himself so, except by a confusion of the actual and metaphorical. If on the other hand συναιχμάλωτος refers to a physical captivity, it cannot easily be explained by any known fact. The incident in Acts xix. 29 is hardly adequate. The most probable solution would be, that his relations with St Paul in Rome excited suspicion and led to a temporary confinement. Another possible hypothesis is that he voluntarily shared the Apostle’s captivity by living with him.

Μάρκος] doubtless John Mark, who had been associated with St Paul in his earlier missionary work; Acts xii. 25, xv. 37 sq. This commendatory notice is especially interesting as being the first mention of him since the separation some twelve years before, Acts xv. 39. In the later years of the Apostle’s life he entirely effaced the unfavourable impression left by his earlier desertion; 2 Tim. iv. 11 ἔστιν γάρ μοι εὔχρηστος εἰς διακονίαν.

This notice is likewise important in two other respects. (1) Mark appears here as commended to a church of proconsular Asia, and intending to visit those parts. To the churches of this same region he sends a salutation in 1 Pet. v. 13; and in this district apparently also he is found some few years later than the present time, 2 Tim. iv. 11. (2) Mark is now residing at Rome. His connexion with the metropolis appears also from 1 Pet. v. 13, if Βαβυλῶν there (as seems most probable) be rightly interpreted of Rome; and early tradition speaks of his Gospel as having been written for the Romans (Iren. iii. 1. 1; comp. Papias in Euseb. H.E. iii. 39).

ὁ ἀνεψιὸς] ‘the cousin’. The term ἀνεψιοί is applied to cousins german, the children whether of two brothers or of two sisters or of a brother and sister, as it is carefully defined in Pollux iii. 28. This writer adds that αὐτανέψιοι means neither more nor less than ἀνεψιοί. As a synonyme we find ἐξάδελφος, which however is condemned as a vulgarism; Phryn. p. 306 (ed. Lobeck). Many instances of ἀνεψιοί are found in different authors of various ages (e.g. Herod, vii. 5, 82, ix. 10, Thucyd. i. 132, Plato Charm. 154 B, Gorg. 471 B, Andoc. de Myst. § 47, Isæus Hagn. Her. § 8 sq., Demosth. c. Macart. § 24, 27, etc., Dion. Hal. A. R. i. 79, Plut. Vit. Thes. 7, Vit. Cæs. 1, Vit. Brut. 13, Lucian Dial. Mort. xxix. 1, Hegesipp. in Euseb. H.E. iv. 22), where the relationship is directly defined or already known, and there is no wavering as to the meaning. This sense also it has in the LXX, Num. xxxvi. 11. In very late writers however (e.g. Io. Malalas Chron. xvii. p. 424, Io. Damasc. adv. Const. Cab. 12, II. p. 621; but in Theodt. H.E. v. 39, which is also quoted by E. A. Sophocles Gr. Lex. s.v. for this meaning, the text is doubtful) the word comes to be used for a nephew, properly ἀδελφιδοῦς; and to this later use the rendering of our English versions must be traced. The German translations also (Luther and the Zürich) have ‘Neffe’. The earliest of the ancient versions (Latin, Syriac, Egyptian) seem all to translate it correctly; not so in every case apparently the later. There is no reason to suppose that St Paul would or could have used it in any other than its proper sense. St Mark’s relationship with Barnabas may have been through his mother Mary, who is mentioned Acts xii. 12. The incidental notice here explains why Barnabas should have taken a more favourable view of Mark’s defection than St Paul, Acts xv. 37–39. The notices in this passage and in 2 Tim. iv. 11 show that Mark had recovered the Apostle’s good opinion. The studious recommendation of St Mark in both passages indicates a desire to efface the unfavourable impression of the past.

The name of Mark occurs in five different relations, as (1) The early disciple, John Mark, Acts xii. 12, 25, xv. 39; (2) The later companion of St Paul, here and Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11; (3) The companion and ‘son’ of St Peter, 1 Pet. v. 13; (4) The evangelist; (5) The bishop of Alexandria. Out of these notices some writers get three or even four distinct persons (see the note of Cotelier on Apost. Const. ii. 57). Even Tillemont (Mem. Eccl. II. p. 89 sq., 503 sq.) assumes two Marks, supposing (1) (2) to refer to one person, and (3) (4) (5) to another. His main reason is that he cannot reconcile the notices of the first with the tradition (Euseb. H.E. ii. 15, 16) that St Mark the evangelist accompanied St Peter to Rome in A. D. 43, having first preached the Gospel in Alexandria (p. 515). To most persons however this early date of St Peter’s visit to Rome will appear quite irreconcilable with the notices in the Apostolic writings, and therefore with them Tillemont’s argument will carry no weight. But in fact Eusebius does not say, either that St Mark went with St Peter to Rome, or that he had preached in Alexandria before this. The Scriptural notices suggest that the same Mark is intended in all the occurrences of the name, for they are connected together by personal links (Peter, Paul, Barnabas); and the earliest forms of tradition likewise identify them.

Βαρνάβα] On the affectionate tone of St Paul’s language, whenever he mentions Barnabas after the collision at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 sq.) and the separation of missionary spheres (Acts xv. 39), see the note on Gal. ii. 13. It has been inferred from the reference here, that inasmuch as Mark has rejoined St Paul, Barnabas must have died before this epistle was written (about A. D. 63); and this has been used as an argument against the genuineness of the letter bearing his name (Hefele Sendschr. d. Apost. Barnab. p. 29 sq.); but this argument is somewhat precarious. From 1 Cor. ix. 6 we may infer that he was still living, A. D. 57. The notices bearing on the biography of Barnabas are collected and discussed by Hefele, p. 1 sq.

ἐλάβετε ἐντολάς] These injunctions must have been communicated previously either by letter or by word of mouth: for it cannot be a question here of an epistolary aorist. The natural inference is, that they were sent by St Paul himself, and not by any one else, e.g. by St Peter or St Barnabas, as some have suggested. Thus the notice points to earlier communications between the Apostle and Colossæ.

But what was their tenour? It seems best to suppose that this is given in the next clause ἐὰν ἔλθῃ κ.τ.λ. By an abrupt change to the oratio recta the injunction is repeated as it was delivered; comp. Ps. cv (civ). 15 ἤλεγξεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν βασιλεῖς· μὴ ἅψησθε κ.τ.λ. After verbs signifying ‘to command, charge, etc.’, there is a tendency to pass from the oblique to the direct; e.g. Luke v. 14, Acts i. 4, xxiii. 22. The reading δέξασθαι gives the right sense, but can hardly be correct. If this construction be not accepted, it is vain to speculate what may have been the tenour of the injunction.

J. B. Lightfoot, St Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon: a revised text with introductions, notes and dissertations (London: Macmillan, 1875) — public domain. Electronic text from Project Gutenberg (ebook #50857). Covers Colossians and Philemon only (the verse-by-verse notes; introductions and dissertations are omitted); Lightfoot's companion Galatians and Philippians volumes are not included, as the available public-domain scans carry garbled Greek that cannot be faithfully reproduced.