1:96 M.).
Compare Chrysostom: pavnta tivna ; toutevsti to;n u{pnon, th;n ojligwrivan, tou;" logismou;" tou;" eujtelei'", pavnta ta; ajnqrwvpina .
Theodoret: to;n tw'n perittw'n frontivdwn ajporrivywmen o[gkon . Theophylact: toutevsti to; bavro" tw'n ghi?nwn pragmavtwn kai; tw'n ejpj aujtoi'" frontivdwn .
For the image in ajpoqevmenoi , putting off from one's self as a robe, see Acts 7:58; comp. Heb. 10:11 ( perielei'n ); Rom. 13:12; Col. 3:8, & c. th;n eujperivstaton aJmartivan ] The Christian must put off not only encumbrances but, that which is the source of all failure, sin ( aJmartiva not aJmartivai ). This sin is described as eujperivstato" . The word eujperivstato" is not found except in places where it has been derived from this passage. The sense is doubtful. Three meanings have support either from analogy or from early Greek interpreters.
(1) easy to be put off, avoided, removed, from the sense of
periivstasqai
in 2 Tim. 2:16; Tit. 3:9. This sense is adopted by Chrysostom in treating of the passage:
eujperivstaton h[toi th;n eujkovlw" periistamevnhn hJma'"
h] th;n eujkovlw" perivstasin dunamevnhn paqei'n levgei
:
ma'llon de; tou'to
:
rJav/dion ga;r eja;n qevlwmen perigenevsqai th'" aJmartiva"
: and d gives
fragile.
But the form is decisive against the derivation on which it rests. The compound could not lose the -
i
-: it must be formed from
statov"
.
(2) well-befriended, popularly supported, admired of many. This interpretation is derived from the corresponding sense of perivstato" (from Isocrates downward), and ajperivstato" unsupported, desolate (Phocyl., Arrian). The form of the word is favourable to this sense.
(3) readily besetting (Vulg. circumstans ). There is no exact parallel for such an active sense in compounds of i{stasqai , but this interpretation has been most generally adopted; and it is given by Chrysostom as an alternative on the passage, and by other Greek writers.
Theodoret gives a different explanation, easily contracted: eujperivstaton th;n aJmartivan ejkavlesen wJ" eujkovlw" sunistamevnhn te kai; ginomevnhn : and Theophylact adds to the two explanations given by Chrysostom yet another: h] dij h}n eujkovlw" ti" eij" peristavsei" ejmpivptei : oujde;n ga;r ou{tw kindunw'de" wJ" aJmartiva .
Of these interpretations (1) and (2) do not seem to fall in well with the scope of the passage, or with the imagery. It does not seem likely that the writer would choose an epithet for sin which should describe it from the side of its impotence. Nor again is the common estimate or regard of sin that with which the Christian is concerned. It is rather the personal relation of sin to the believer in his work that we expect to find noticed. In this connexion the sense of readily encircling, besetting, entangling is singularly appropriate. Nor is there anything contrary to analogy in such a sense. The simple verbal
statov"
, from which the compound is formed, is used of anything standing (a house,
a stone, water):
perivstato"
would then naturally bear the sense of placed, standing round, as enclosing, confining; and
eu\
would express the fatal facility with which this fence of evil custom hems us in. The sin by which we are practically encircled answers to the cloud of witnesses with which God surrounds us for our encouragement.
Perivstato" is found in a sense not unlike this in a fragment of