St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon A...

ἐν ᾧ] i.e. βαπτισμῷ. Others would understand Χριστῷ for the sake of the parallelism with ver. 11 ἐν hῷ καὶ ... εν ᾧ καί. But this parallelism is not suggested by the sense: while on the other hand there is obviously a very close connexion between συνταφέντες and συνηγέρθητε as the two complementary aspects of baptism; comp. Rom. vi. 4 sq. συνετάφημεν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος ἵνα ὥσπερ ἐγέρθη Χριστὸς ... ὅυτως καὶ ἡμεῖς ... εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ ὁμοίωματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόμεθα, 2 Tim. ii. 11 εἰ γὰρ συναπεθάνομεν , καὶ συνζήσομεν . In fact the idea of Χριστῷ must be reserved for συνηγέρθητε where it is wanted, ‘ye were raised together with Him’.

διὰ τῆς πίστεως κ.τ.λ.] ‘through your faith in the operation,’ ἐνεργείας being the objective genitive. So St Chrysostom, πίστεως ὅλον ἐστίν· ἐπιστεύσατε ὅτι δύναται ὁ Θεὸς ἐγεῖραι, καὶ οὕτως ἠγέρθητε. Only by a belief in the resurrection are the benefits of the resurrection obtained, because only so are its moral effects produced. Hence St Paul prays that he may ‘know the power of Christ’s resurrection’ (Phil. iii. 10). Hence too he makes this the cardinal article in the Christian’s creed, ‘If thou ... believest in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved’ (Rom. x. 9). For the influence of Christ’s resurrection on the moral and spiritual being, see the note on Phil. l.c. Others take τῆς ἐνεργείας as the subjective genitive, ‘faith which comes from the operation etc.’, arguing from a mistaken interpretation of the parallel passage Ephes. i. 19 (where κατὰ τῆν ἐνέργειαν should be connected, not with τοὺς πιστεύοντας, but with τί τὸ ὑπερβάλλον μέγεθος κ.τ.λ.). The former explanation however yields a better sense, and the genitive after πίστις far more commonly describes the object than the source of the faith, e.g. Rom. iii. 22, 26, Gal. iii. 22, Ephes. iii. 12, Phil. i. 27, iii. 9, 2 Thess. ii. 13.

(3) Though it might be possible to assign σὺν αὐτῷ to the subject of συνεζωοποίησεν (see the note on i. 20), yet a reference to some other person is more natural. These reasons seem to decide the subject of συνεζωοποίησεν. But at the same time it appears quite impossible to continue the same subject, ὁ Θεός, to the end of the sentence. No grammatical meaning can be assigned to ἀπεκδυσάμενος, by which it could be understood of God the Father. We must suppose therefore that a new subject, ὁ Χριστός, is introduced meanwhile, either with ἦρκεν or with ἀπεκδυσάμενος itself; and of the two the former seems the easier point of transition. For a similar instance of abrupt transition, which is the more natural owing to the intimate connexion of the work of the Son with the work of the Father, see e.g. i. 17 sq.

τοῖς παραπτώμασιν κ.τ.λ.] ‘by reason of your transgressions etc.’ The παραπτώματα are the actual definite transgressions, while the ἀκροβυστία τῆς σαρκός is the impure carnal disposition which prompts to them. For the dative comp. Ephes. ii. 1, 5, where the same expression occurs; see Winer Gramm. § xxxi. p. 270. On the other hand in Rom. vi. 11 νεκροὺς μὲν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ζῶντας δὲ τῷ Θεῷ, the dative has a wholly different meaning, as the context shows. The ἐν of the received text, though highly supported, is doubtless an interpolation for the sake of grammatical clearness.

τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ κ.τ.λ.] The external fact is here mentioned, not for its own sake but for its symbolical meaning. The outward uncircumcision of the Gentiles is a type of their unchastened carnal mind. In other words, though the literal meaning is not excluded, the spiritual reference is most prominent, as appears from ver. 11 ἐν τῆι ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος. Hence Theodore’s comment, ἀκροβυστίαν (ἐκάλεσεν) τὸ περικεῖσθαι ἔτι τὴν θνητότητα. At the same time the choice of the expression shows that the Colossian converts addressed by St Paul were mainly Gentiles.

συνεζωοποίησεν] It has been questioned whether the life here spoken of should be understood in a spiritual sense of the regeneration of the moral being, or in a literal sense of the future life of immortality regarded as conferred on the Christian potentially now, though only to be realised hereafter. But is not such an issue altogether superfluous? Is there any reason to think that St Paul would have separated these two ideas of life? To him the future glorified life is only the continuation of the present moral and spiritual life. The two are the same in essence, however the accidents may differ. Moral and spiritual regeneration is salvation, is life.

ὑμᾶς] The pronoun is repeated for the sake of emphasis. The omission in some good copies is doubly explained; (1) By the desire to simplify the grammar; (2) By the wish to relieve the awkwardness of the close proximity between ὑμᾶς and ἡμῖν. This latter consideration has led a few good authorities to substitute ἡμᾶς for ὑμᾶς, and others to substitute ὑμῖν for ἡμῖν. For instances of those emphatic repetitions in St Paul see the note on i. 20 δι’ αὐτοῦ.

χαρισάμενος] ‘having forgiven’, as in Luke vii. 42 sq., 2 Cor. ii. 7, 10, xii. 13, Ephes. iv. 32; see also the note on iii. 13 below. The idea of sin as a debt incurred to God (Matt. vi. 12 τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, comp. Luke xi. 4) underlies this expression, as it does also the commoner term for pardon, ἄφεσις ‘remission’. The image is carried out in the cancelled bond, ver. 14.

ἡμῖν] The person is changed; ‘not to you Gentiles only, but to us all alike’. St Paul is eager to claim his share in the transgression, that he may claim it also in the forgiveness. For other examples of the change from the second to the first person, see i. 10–13, iii. 3, 4, Ephes. ii. 2, 3, 13, 14, iv. 31, 32, v. 2 (the correct reading), 1 Thess. v. 5, where the motive of the change is similar. See also Gal. iii. 25, 26, iv. 5, 6, where there is the converse transition.

14. ἐξαλέιψας] ‘having cancelled’. The word ἐξαλέιφειν, like διαγράφειν, signifying ‘to blot out, to erase’, is commonly opposed to ἐγγράφειν ‘to enter a name, etc.’; e.g. Arist. Pax 1181, Lysias c. Nicom. p. 183, Plato Resp. vi. p. 501 B. More especially is it so used in reference to an item in an account, e.g. Demosth. c. Aristog. i. p. 791 ἐγγράφονται πάντες οἱ ὀφλισκάνοντες ... ἐξαλήλιπται τὸ ὄφλημα.

τὸ καθ’ ἡμῶν κ.τ.λ.] ‘the bond standing against us’. The word χειρόγραφον, which means properly an autograph of any kind, is used almost exclusively for a note of hand, a bond or obligation, as having the ‘sign-manual’ of the debtor or contractor: e.g. Tobit v. 3 (comp. ix. 5) ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ τὸ χειρόγραφον, Plut. Mor. p. 829 A τῶν χειρογράφων καὶ συμβολαίων. It is more common in Latin than in Greek, e.g. Cic. Fam. vii. 18 ‘Misi cautionem chirographi mei’, Juv. Sat. xvi. 41 ‘Debitor aut sumptos pergit non reddere nummos, vana supervacui dicens chirographa ligni’ (comp. xiii. 137). Hence chirographum, chirographarius, are frequent terms in the Roman law-books; see Hesse Handlexicon zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts s.v. p. 74.

In the case before us the Jewish people might be said to have signed the contract when they bound themselves by a curse to observe all the enactments of the law (Deut. xxvii. 14–26; comp. Exod. xxiv. 3); and the primary reference would be to them. But ἡμῖν, ἡμῶν, seem to include Gentiles as well as Jews, so that a wider reference must be given to the expression. The δόγματα therefore, though referring primarily to the Mosaic ordinances, will include all forms of positive decrees in which moral or social principles are embodied or religious duties defined; and the ‘bond’ is the moral assent of the conscience, which (as it were) signs and seals the obligation. The Gentiles, though ‘not having a law, are a law to themselves’, ὅιτινες ἐνδείκνυνται τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν, συμμαρτυρούσης αὐτων τῆς συνειδήσεως, Rom. ii. 14, 15. See the notes on Gal. ii. 19, iv. 11. Comp. Orig. Hom. in Gen. xiii. 4 (II. p. 96).

τοῖς δόγμασιν] ‘consisting in ordinances’: comp. Ephes. ii. 15 τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν. The word δόγμα is here used in its proper sense of a ‘decree’, ‘ordinance’, corresponding to δογματίζεσθε below, ver. 20. This is its only sense in the N. T.; e.g. Luke ii. 1, Acts xvii. 7, of the Emperor’s decrees; Acts xvi. 4 of the Apostolic ordinances. Here it refers especially to the Mosaic law, as in Joseph. Ant. xv. 5. 3 τὰ κάλλιστα τῶν δογμάτων καὶ τὰ ὁσιώτατα τῶν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις, Philo Leg. All. i. 16 (I. p. 54) διατήρησις τῶν ἁγίων δογμάτων, 3 Macc. i. 3 τῶν πατρίων δογμάτων. Comp. Iren. Fragm. 38 (p. 855 Stieren) where, immediately after a reference to our text, τοῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων δόγμασι προσέρχεσθαι is opposed to πνευματικῶς λειτουργεῖν. In the parallel passage, Ephes. ii. 15, this is the exclusive reference; but here (for reasons explained in the last note) it seems best to give the term a secondary and more extensive application.

The dative is perhaps best explained as governed by the idea of γεγραμμένον involved in χειρόγραφον (comp. Plat. Ep. vii. p. 243 A τὰ γεγραμμένα τύποις); as in 1 Tim. ii. 6 τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις, where καιροῖς depends on an implied μεμαρτυρημένον. Otherwise it is taken as closely connected with καθ’ ἡμῶν, ‘the bond which was in force against us by reason of the ordinances’: see Winer § xxxi. p. 273, A. Buttmann p. 80. Possibly an ἐν has dropped out of the text before τοῖς δόγμασιν, owing to the similar ending χειρογραφονεν (comp. Ephes. ii. 15); but, if so, the omission must date from the earliest age, since no existing authorities exhibit any traces of such a reading; see the note on ver. 18 ἃ ἑόρακεν, and comp. Phil. ii. 1 εἴ τις σπλάγχνα.

A wholly different interpretation however prevails universally among Greek commentators both here and in Ephes. ii. 15. They take τοῖς δόγμασιν, ἐν δόγμασιν, to mean the ‘doctrines or precepts of the Gospel’, and so to describe the instrument by which the abrogation of the law was effected. So Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret, followed by the later commentators Œcumenius and Theophylact. Strangely enough they do not allude to the correct interpretation; nor (with the exception of the passage ascribed to Irenæus which is quoted above) have I found any distinct traces of it in any Greek father. The grammatical difficulty would be taken to favour this interpretation, which moreover was characteristic of the age when the battle of creeds was fought. But it has been universally abandoned by modern interpreters, as plainly inappropriate to the context and also as severing the substantive δόγμα here from the verb δογματίζειν in ver. 20. The Latin fathers, who had either decretis or sententiis in their version, were saved from this false interpretation; e.g. Hilar. de Trin. i. 12 (II. p. 10), ix. 10 (II. p. 265 sq.), Ambros. Apol. Dav. 13 (I. p. 698), de Fid. iii. 2 (II. p. 499), August. de Pecc. Mer. i. 47 (X. p. 26): though they very commonly took τοῖς δόγμασιν, ἐν δόγμασιν, to refer to the decree of condemnation. Jerome however on Ephes. ii. 15 (VII. p. 581) follows the Greeks.

The later Christian sense of δόγμα, meaning ‘doctrine’, came from its secondary classical use, where it was applied to the authoritative and categorical ‘sentences’ of the philosophers: comp. Just. Mart. Apol. i. 7 (p. 56 D) οἱ ἐν Ἕλλησι τὰ αὐτοῖς ἀρεστὰ δογματίσαντες ἐκ παντὸς τῷ ἑνὶ ὀνόματι φιλοσοφίας προσαγορεύονται, καίπερ τῶν δογμάτων ἐναντίων ὄντων, Cic. Acad. ii. 9 ‘de suis decretis quæ philosophi vocant δόγματα’, Senec. Epist. xcv. 10 ‘Nulla ars contemplativa sine decretis suis est, quæ Græci vocant dogmata, nobis vel decreta licet adpellare vel scita vel placita’. See the indices to Plutarch, Epictetus, etc., for illustrations of the use of the term. There is an approach towards the ecclesiastical meaning in Ignat. Magn. 13 βεβαιωθῆναι ἐν τοῖς δόγμασιν τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων, Barnab. § 1 τρία οὖν δόγματά ἐστιν Κυρίου (comp. § 9, 10).

ὃ ἦν κ.τ.λ.] ‘which was directly opposed to us’. The former expression, τὸ καθ’ ἡμῶν, referred to the validity of the bond; the present, ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, describes its active hostility. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the first preposition in ὑπεναντίος mitigates its force, as in ὑποδήλωσις, ὑπόλευκος, ὑπομαίνομαι, ὑποσημαίνειν, etc. Neither in classical writers nor in the LXX has the word any shade of this meaning. It is very commonly used for instance, of things which are directly antagonistic and mutually exclusive: e.g. Aristot. de Gen. et Corr. i. 7 (p. 323) Δημόκριτος ... φησὶ ... τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ὅμοιον εἶναι τό τε ποιοῦν καὶ τὸ πάσχον ... ἐοίκασι δὲ οἱ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον λέγοντες ὑπεναντία (i.e. self-contradictory) φαίνεσθαι λέγειν· αἴτιον δὲ τῆς ἐναντιολογίας κ.τ.λ., [Plato] Alcib. Sec. 138 C ΣΩ. Τὸ μαίνεσθαι ἆρα ὑπεναντίον σοι δοκεῖ τῷ φρονεῖν; ΑΛ. Πάνυ μὲν οὖν.... 139 B ΣΩ. Καὶ μὴν δύο γε ὑπεναντία ἑνὶ πράγματι πῶς ἂν εἴη; (i.e. how can one thing have two direct opposites?), where the whole argument depends on this sense of ὑπεναντίος. In compounds with ὑπὸ the force of the preposition will generally be determined by the meaning of the other element in the compound; and, as ἐναντίος (ἔναντι) implies locality, a local sense is communicated to ὑπό. Thus ὑπεναντίος may be compared with ὑπαλλάσσειν, ὑπαντᾶν, ὑπαντιάζειν, ὑποτρέχειν (Xen. Cyrop. i. 2. 12 ληστὰς ὑποδραμεῖν, ‘to hunt down’), ὑπελάυνειν (Xen.

Anab. i. 8. 15 ὑπελάσας ὡς συναντῆσαι, ‘riding up’), ὑφιστάναι (Polyb. i. 50. 6 ὑπέστησε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ναῦν ἀντίπρωρον τοῖς πολεμίοις, ‘he brought up’ his own ship). With this meaning, ‘over against,’ ‘close in upon,’ the preposition does not weaken but enhance the force of ἐναντίος, so that the compound will denote ‘direct,’ ‘close,’ or ‘persistent opposition.’

καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν κ.τ.λ.] ‘and He, i.e. Christ, hath taken it away’. There is a double change in this clause: (1) The participles (χαρισάμενος, ἐξαλέιψας) are replaced by a finite verb. (2) The aorists (συνεζωοποίησεν, χαρισάμενος, ἐξαλέιψας) are replaced by a perfect. The substitution of ᾖρεν for ἦρκεν in some copies betrays a consciousness on the part of the scribes of the dislocation produced by the new tense. As a new subject, ὁ Χριστός, must be introduced somewhere (see the note on ver. 13), the severance thus created suggests this as the best point of transition. The perfect ἦρκεν, ‘He hath removed it’, is suggested by the feeling of relief and thanksgiving, which rises up in the Apostle’s mind at this point. For the strong expression ἄιρειν ἐκ [τοῦ] μέσου, ‘to remove and put out of sight’, comp. LXX Is. lvii. 2, Epictet. iii. 3. 15, Plut. Mor. p. 519 D; so 2 Thess. ii. 7 ἐκ μέσου γένηται.

προσηλώσας κ.τ.λ.] ‘The abrogation was even more emphatic. Not only was the writing erased, but the document itself was torn up and cast aside.’ By προσηλώσας is meant that the law of ordinances was nailed to the cross, rent with Christ’s body, and destroyed with His death: see the notes on Gal. vi. 14 δι’ οὗ [τοῦ] σταυροῦ ἑμοὶ κόσμος (the world, the sphere of material ordinances) ἐσταύρωται κἀγὼ κόσμῳ, where the idea is the same. It has been supposed that in some cities the abrogation of a decree was signified by running a nail through it and hanging it up in public. The image would thus gain force, but there is no distinct evidence of such a custom.

15. ἀπεκδυσάμενος κ.τ.λ.] This word appears not to occur at all before St Paul, and rarely if ever after his time, except in writers who may be supposed to have his language before them; e.g. Hippol. Hær. i. 24 ἀπεκδυσάμενον τὸ σῶμα ὃ περικεῖται. In Joseph. Ant. vi. 14. 2 ἀπεκδὺς is only a variation for μετεκδὺς which seems to be the correct reading. The word also appears in some texts of Babrius Fab. xviii. 3, but it is merely a conjectural emendation. Thus the occurrence of ἀπεκδύεσθαι here and in iii. 9, and of ἀπέκδυσις above in ver. 11, is remarkable; and the choice of an unusual, if not a wholly new, word must have been prompted by the desire to emphasize the completeness of the action. The force of the double compound may be inferred from a passage of Lysias, where the two words ἀποδύεσθαι and ἐκδύεσθαι occur together; c. Theomn. i. 10 (p. 117) φάσκων θοιμάτιον ἀποδεδύσθαι ἢ τὸν χιτωνίσκον ἐκδεδύσθαι. Here however the sense of ἀπεκδυσάμενος is difficult. The meaning generally assigned to it, ‘having spoiled, stripped of their arms’, disregards the middle voice. St Jerome is chiefly responsible for this common error of interpretation: for in place of the Old Latin ‘exuens se’, which was grammatically correct, he substituted ‘exspolians’ in his revised version. In his interpretation however he was anticipated by the commentator Hilary, who read ‘exuens’ for ‘exuens se’ in his text. Discarding this sense, as inconsistent with the voice, we have the choice of two interpretations.

(1) The common interpretation of the Latin fathers, ‘putting off the body’, thus separating ἀπεκδυσάμενος from τὰς ἀρχὰς κ.τ.λ. and understanding τὴν σάρκα or τὸ σῶμα with it; comp. 2 Cor. v. 3 ἐνδυσάμενοι. So Novat. de Trin. 16 ‘exutus carnem’; Ambros. Expos. Luc. v. § 107 (I. p. 1381) ‘exuens se carnem’, comp. de Fid. iii. 2 (II. p. 499); Hilar. de Trin. i. 13 (II. p. 10) ‘exutus carnem’ (comp. ix. 10, p. 265), x. 48 (p. 355) ‘spolians se carne’ (comp. ix. 11, p. 266); Augustin. Epist. 149 (II. p. 513) ‘exuens se carne’, etc. This appears to have been the sense adopted much earlier in a Docetic work quoted by Hippol. Hær. viii. 10 ψυχὴ ἐκέινη ἐν τῷ σώματι τραφεῖσα, ἀπεκδυσαμένη τὸ σῶμα καὶ προσηλώσασα πρὸς τὸ ξύλον καὶ θριαμβεύσασα κ.τ.λ. It is so paraphrased likewise in the Peshito Syriac and the Gothic. The reading ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὴν σάρκα καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας (omitting τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ), found in some ancient authorities, must be a corruption from an earlier text, which had inserted the gloss τὴν σάρκα after ἀπεκδυσάμενος, while retaining τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ, and which seems to have been in the hands of some of the Latin fathers already quoted. This interpretation has been connected with a common metaphorical use of ἀποδύεσθαι, signifying ‘to strip’ and so ‘to prepare for a contest’; e.g. Plut. Mor. 811 E πρὸς πᾶσαν ἀποδύομενοι τὴν πολιτικὴν πρᾶξιν, Diod. Sic. ii. 29 ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν ἀποδύντες. The serious objection to this rendering is, that it introduces an isolated metaphor which is not explained or suggested by anything in the context.

(2) The common interpretation of the Greek fathers; ‘having stripped off and put away the powers of evil’, making ἀπεκδυσάμενος govern τὰς ἀρχὰς κ.τ.λ. So Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret. This also appears to have been the interpretation of Origen, in Matt. xii. § 25 (III. p. 544), ib. § 40 (p. 560), in Ioann. vi. § 37 (IV. p. 155), ib. xx. § 29 (p. 356), though his language is not explicit, and though his translators, e.g. in Libr. Ies. Hom. vii. § 3 (II. p. 413), make him say otherwise. The meaning then will be as follows. Christ took upon Himself our human nature with all its temptations (Heb. iv. 15). The powers of evil gathered about Him. Again and again they assailed Him; but each fresh assault ended in a new defeat. In the wilderness He was tempted by Satan; but Satan retired for the time baffled and defeated (Luke iv. 13 ἀπέστη ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἄχρι καιροῦ). Through the voice of His chief disciple the temptation was renewed, and He was entreated to decline His appointed sufferings and death. Satan was again driven off (Matt. xvi. 23 ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ, σκάνδαλον εἶ ἐμοῦ: comp. Matt. viii. 31). Then the last hour came. This was the great crisis of all, when ‘the power of darkness’ made itself felt (Luke xxii. 53 ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους; see above i. 13), when the prince of the world asserted his tyranny (Joh. xii. 30 ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου). The final act in the conflict began with the agony of Gethsemane; it ended with the cross of Calvary. The victory was complete. The enemy of man was defeated.

The powers of evil, which had clung like a Nessus robe about His humanity, were torn off and cast aside for ever. And the victory of mankind is involved in the victory of Christ. In His cross we too are divested of the poisonous clinging garments of temptation and sin and death; τῷ ἀποθέσθαι τὴν θνητότητα, says Theodore, ἣν ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς ἀφεῖλεν εὐεργεσίας, ἀπεδύσατο κἀκείνων (i.e. τῶν ἀντικειμένων δυνάμεων) τὴν αὐθεντείαν ᾗπερ ἐκέχρηντο καθ’ ἡμῶν. For the image of the garments comp. Is. lxiv. 6, but especially Zech. iii. 1 sq., ‘And he showed me Joshua the high-priest standing before the angel of the Lord and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan.... Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments.... And He answered and spake unto those that stood before Him saying Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him He said Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee’. In this prophetic passage the image is used of His type and namesake, the Jesus of the Restoration, not in his own person, but as the high-priest and representative of a guilty but cleansed and forgiven people, with whom he is identified. For the metaphor of ἀπεκδυσάμενος more especially, see Philo Quod det. pot. ins. 13 (I. p. 199) ἐξαναστάντες δὲ καὶ διερεισάμενοι τὰς ἐντέχνους αὐτῶν περιπλοκὰς εὐμαρῶς ἐκδυσόμεθα , where the image in the context is that of a wrestling bout.