Colossians 3:14

ὅ ἐστιν. So ABCGP. ὅς ἐστιν, א*D*. ἥτις, Text. Rec. with אcDbcKL, etc. Cf. Colossians 2:17. The feminine is so easy that it gives no cause for the others. Of them ὅς is easily explicable as an assimilation to σύνδεσμος, whereas ὅ is so difficult that it would readily be altered.

14. ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ τούτοις. It is tempting to interpret ἐπί locally “on all these” (cf. Matthew 9:16), and if ἐνδύσασθε, Colossians 3:12 (see last note), were not so far off this would perhaps be justifiable. But in view of Luke 3:20, προσέθηκεν καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ πᾶσιν, and Sir 37:15, καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσι τούτοις δεήθητι Ὑψίστου (וְעִם כָּל־אֵלֻּה), it probably = “in addition to”; so Blass, Gram. § 43. 3. In any case, of course, a garment put on in addition to others will be over them. P. Ewald, however, apparently interprets the phrase as referring to an additional charge by the Apostle; in addition to what I have said—Love, etc.

τὴν�, Colossians 1:4, note. This marks a distinct advance on Colossians 3:12-13. For the virtues enumerated there either refer to separate acts, or to states of mind that have but partial influence on the character. They can, to some degree at least, be exercised while the heart is still but coldly affected towards others (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:3). Therefore St Paul here demands active love to others which embraces all our relations towards them; cf. Romans 13:10.

The addition of the article is due, probably, to its greater importance than the virtues mentioned in Colossians 3:12.

ὅ ἐστιν. See notes on Textual Criticism, as also at Colossians 1:27; Colossians 2:17. The neuter cannot refer to the action of “putting on love” (B Weiss), for this as such is not συνδ. τ. τελειότητος, but doubtless refers to ἀλάπην, “the antecedent being viewed under an abstract and generalized aspect” (Ell.; cf. Meyer). Blass’ explanation is hardly different when he says (Gram. p. 77), “This phrase ὅ ἐστι has become as much a stereotyped formula as the equivalent τοῦτʼ ἔστι (τουτέστι).” Cf. Ephesians 5:5. Barn. XV. 8.

σύνδεσμος, Colossians 2:19; Acts 8:23; Ephesians 4:3†. In the LXX. it nowhere refers to clothing. Anarthrous, probably as predicate after the verb substantive. The article would have implied “the bond which all recognise as existing,” although they may not know that love is that bond; cf. Middleton, Gr. Art. III. § 3. 2, cf. 5. Compare 2 Thessalonians 3:17. Perhaps it is followed by the article to exclude the possibility of the τελειότης being a mere quality.

It is hard to determine whether St Paul intended the image to be that of the outer robe or of the girdle. The former, however, whether the στολή of the upper classes or the ἱμάτιον of the traveller (cf. Hastings’ Dict. I. 625), could hardly be said to bind anything together, whereas this is the characteristic of the girdle. This therefore appears to be the more probable. That ζώνη is not used lies in the wish to express the fact of binding.

To interpret σύνδεσμος as = σύνθεσις, bundle, totality (cf. Ign. Trall. 3, σύνδεσμον�) suits neither N.T. usage nor the context.

τῆς τελειότητος. Hebrews 6:1†; cf. τέλειος, Colossians 1:28; Colossians 4:12.

(1) “Perfection” not “maturity,” for the latter is inconsistent with the image of a bond. (2) Some have supposed that it refers to the perfection of the community. So, it would appear, the early Western scribe who inserted ἑνότητος as a gloss. But we should have expected some hint that St Paul is passing in thought from the individual to the community. Such a hint occurs in Colossians 3:15 a, and the passage is definitely made in Colossians 3:15 b. (3) Assuming that the perfection is that of the individual, what is the exact force of the genitive?

(i) It may be the genitive of apposition. So probably Ephesians 4:3, ἐν τῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης. But in our case this would either (a) make love = bond = perfection, i.e. love itself be perfection, which, though true in one aspect (Romans 13:8-10), is suggested by nothing in our context; or (b) it would = love is the bond in which perfection consists; but there is then but little force in “bond,” for we should expect to find a clear intimation of what is bound. In Ephesians 4:3 this is evidently the community.

(ii) It may be the subjective genitive: “love is the bond which belongs to, is the distinctive feature of perfection” (Ell.); or the genitive of quality, “a perfect bond” (P. Ewald). This is very similar to (i) (b), and the same objection applies.

(iii) It is probably the objective genitive in one of two senses.
(a) τελειότης is a condensed way of expressing the various graces whose state and interrelation are perfect. Love binds them, and maintains them bound, in such a way that lacking it they would cease to have perfection. For such a use of σύνδεσμος cf. Plato, Rep. X. 14, p. 616 c, which Chrysostom seems to have known, διαλύεται γὰρ πάντα ἐκεῖνα (i.e. Colossians 3:12), ἄν μὴ μετὰ�. πάντα ἐκεῖνα αὔτη συσφίγγει· ὅπερ ἂν εἴπῃς�, ταύτης�, οὐσέν ἐστιν, ἀγγὰ διαρρεῖ. καὶ ὅν τρόπον ἐπὶ πλοίου, κἄν μεγάλα ᾗ τὰ σκεύη, τὰ σὲ ὑποζώματα μὴ ᾗ. οὐδέν ὄφελος κ.τ.λ. The difficulty however is that it gives to τελειότης a meaning which is, no doubt, possible but strained.

(b) A simple explanation, at first sight, is that perfection is regarded as an abstract quality which love binds on to the virtues. Love is not perfection but its addition makes all perfect. The force of σύν in σύνδεσμος would then be “binding on perfection with the virtues.” Such is the meaning in συνδέω, Hebrews 13:3†, “as bound with the prisoners. But though this interpretation suits τελειότης better, there seems to be no parallel to this use of σύνδεσμος, which when followed by a genitive of the object is spoken of as exercising its conjunctive force on that object.

On the whole (iii) (a) appears to present the least difficulty (cf. Lightfoot).

Before leaving this verse it is proper to notice that it suggests a curious enquiry as to the language in which St Paul thought.
(1) τελειότης may be expressed in Aramaic by שַׁלְמוּתָא or שְׁלִימוּתָא, which is closely akin to שְׁלָמָא or שְׁלָם, “peace,” and indeed in Syriac often means “peace” (e.g. Pesh. 2 Corinthians 13:11, ܘܰܐܠܴܗܳܐ ܕܚܘܟܽܐܵ ܘܰܕܫܰܠܡܘܽܬܴܐ, ὁ θεὸς τῆς�).

Hence if St Paul was thinking in Aramaic, “perfection” (in Colossians 3:14) would readily suggest to him καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη (in Colossians 3:15).

In this connexion it is at least a curious coincidence, if nothing more, that while in this passage St Paul speaks of “the bond of perfection,” in Ephesians 4:3 the words are “the bond of peace.”

Compare for this point especially C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, I. 19.

(2) If, on the other hand, St Paul thought in Greek, τελειότης may possibly have suggested to him the peculiar word of Colossians 3:15, βραβευέτω. For in the Hexaplaric fragments the Thummim of Urim and Thummim is sometimes represented by τελειότης, either in the plural, Exodus 28:30, τοὺς φωτισμοὺς καὶ τὰς τελειότητας (Aq., Sym., Theod.), or the sing., Deuteronomy 33:8, τελειότης σου καὶ διδαχή σου (Sym.), and the function of the Urim and Thummim appears to have been precisely that of acting as umpire, i.e. βραβεύειν; cf. 1 Samuel 14:41, LXX.