Col 2:1-3. PAUL’S DEEP CONCERN FOR THE COLOSSIANS AND OTHER CHRISTIANS UNKNOWN TO HIM, THAT THEY MAY BE UNITED IN LOVE, AND ATTAIN FULL KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST, IN WHOM RESIDE ALL THE TREASURES OF WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE.-θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι: for the formula cf. 1Co 11:3, and for a similar formula Php 1:12. More frequently the negative is used, οὐ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν. γὰρ introduces the proof of what he has just said, by the illustration from the case of his readers, and thus prepares the way for the warning that follows in Col 2:4.-ἀγῶνα: the inward struggle of Paul will embrace his prayers, his anxiety and his earnest meditation on the implications of the false teaching and the best manner of refuting it. Added to this are the difficulties caused by his imprisonment and the fact that the Colossians were personally unknown to him.-Λαοδικίᾳ. The members of this Church were probably exposed to the same dangers as their neighbours.-καὶ ὅσοι κ.τ.λ. So far as the words themselves go, they may mean that the Colossians and Laodiceans did belong to the number of those who had not seen him or that they did not. But the latter alternative is very improbable, for Paul would not have joined a general reference to Churches unknown to him to a special mention of two Churches that were known to him. Further, Paul continues with αὐτῶν, which refers to καὶ ὅσοι, but must include the Colossians, since in Col 2:4 he says, “This I say that no one may delude you”. This also corresponds to the use of καὶ ὅσοι after an enumeration. The narrative in Acts favours this view, as does the absence of any hint in the Epistle that Paul had visited Colossæ. We may therefore safely assume with almost all commentators that the Apostle was personally unknown to both of these Churches.-ἐν σαρκί: to be taken with τὸ πρ· μου, not with ἑόρ.
Col 2:2. παρακληθῶσιν. It is disputed what meaning should be attached to this. Meyer, Ellicott and others translate “may be comforted”. This seems to be the more usual sense in Paul, and is supported by the addition “knit together in love,” which favours an emotional reference. It is more probable, however, that we should translate “may be strengthened” (De W., Alf., Kl[10], Ol., Sod.), for this was more needed than consolation in face of heresy. Oltramare quotes Rom 1:12 (where, however, συμπαρ. is used), 1Th 3:2, 2Th 2:17, where this verb is joined to στηρίζειν to show that this sense is Pauline, and in the latter we have παρακαλέσαι ὑμῶν τ. καρδίας καὶ στηρίξαι. Haupt, following Luther, thinks it means “may be warned,” but this does not suit καρδίαι, especially in Col 4:8.-αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν. We might have expected ὑμῶν, but καὶ ὅσοι, while not excluding the Colossians, includes other Churches as well. καρδία implies more than our word “heart,” it embraces also the intellect and the will.-συνβιβασθέντες agrees with αὐτοί, understood as the equivalent of αἱ κ. αὐτῶν. In the LXX the word means “to instruct” (so in 1Co 2:16, which is a quotation from Isa 40:14). But joined to ἐν ἀγ. it must have its usual sense, “knit together,” as in Col 2:19 and Eph 4:16. There may be a reference to the divisive tendencies of the false teaching.-καὶ εἰς πᾶν πλοῦτος τῆς πληροφορίας τῆς συνέσεως: “and unto all riches of the fulness of understanding”. καὶ εἰς is to be taken with συνβιβ., “knit together in order to attain”. συνβιβ. is a verb implying motion, and therefore is followed here by εἰς. It is usual to take πληροφ. as “full assurance,” but the expression “all the riches of full assurance of understanding” has a strange redundance, which seems scarcely to be met, as Klöpper thinks, by De Wette’s remark that πλοῦτ. is a quantitative but πληρ. a qualitative expression. Accordingly it seems better, with Grimm and Haupt, to translate “fulness,” a sense which is possible everywhere in N.T. except 1Th 1:5. For συν. see on Col 1:9. Insight into Christian truth is meant here.-εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ. Probably this is in apposition to the previous clause, εἰς πᾶν κ.τ.λ., and further explains it; all the rich fulness of insight, which he trusts may be the fruit of their union in love, is nothing else than full knowledge of the Divine mystery, even Christ. The false teachers bid them seek knowledge in other sources than Christ, Paul insists on the contrary that full knowledge of the mystery of God is all the wealth of fulness of understanding, and is to be found in the knowledge of Christ alone. This makes it probable that the correct interpretation of the true reading is to take Χριστοῦ as in apposition to μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ (so Ell., Lightf., Findl., Hofm., Holtzmann, Haupt). It is true that this is curt and harsh, and that we should have expected ὅ ἐστιν, but it suits the context better than the translation “the mystery of the God of Christ” (Mey., Gess, Kl[11], Sod., Weiss and apparently Abb.). It is true that Paul uses a similar expression in Eph 1:17. But here it would emphasise the subordination of Christ, which is precisely what is out of place in a passage setting forth His all-sufficiency, and against a doctrine the special peril of which lay in its tendency to under-estimate both the Person and the Work of Christ. The grammatically possible apposition of Χ. with Θεοῦ (Hilary) is out of the question. Christ is the mystery of God, since in Him God’s eternal purpose of salvation finds its embodiment. Hort’s conjecture that the original reading was τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ does not find sufficient support in the textual or exegetical difficulties of the clause.
[10] Klöpper.
[11] Klöpper.
Col 2:3. ἐν ᾧ may refer to μυστηρίου (Beng., Mey., Alf., Ol., Sod., Haupt, Abb.) or to Χριστοῦ (Ell., Hofm., Lightf., Holtzmann, Findl., Moule). The former is defended on the ground that ἀπόκρ. corresponds to μυστ. It is also urged that μυστ. is the leading idea. On the other hand, if Christ is rightly identified with the mystery, there is no practical difference between the two views, and it is simpler to refer ᾧ to Χ. as the nearer noun.-εἰσὶν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι. Bengel, Meyer and Alford take ἀπόκρ. as an ordinary adjective with θησαυροὶ, “in whom are all the hidden treasures”. For this we should have expected οἱ ἀπόκρ., and there is no stress on the fact that the hidden treasures are in Christ, yet the position of the word at the end of the sentence is explained as due to emphasis. Generally Chrysostom has been followed in taking it as the predicate to εἰσὶν, “in whom are hidden all the treasures”. But this is excluded by its distance from the verb. Accordingly it should be taken as a secondary predicate, and thus equivalent to an adverb, “in whom are all the treasures … hidden,” i.e., in whom all the treasures are, and are in a hidden manner (Hofm., Ell., Lightf., Sod., Haupt, Abb.). The force of the passage then is this; all, and not merely some of, the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are contained in Christ, therefore the search for them outside of Him is doomed to failure. But not only are they in Christ, but they are contained in a hidden way. Therefore they do not lie on the surface, but must be sought for earnestly, as men seek for hidden treasure. They are not matters of external observances, such as the false teachers enjoined, but to be apprehended by deep and serious meditation. If Lightfoot is right in thinking that ἀπόκρ. is borrowed from the terminology of the false teachers, there is the added thought that the wisdom they fancied they found in their secret books was really to be found in Christ alone. But it is hardly likely that there is any such reference here. Even if the allusion to literature were more plausible than it is, there is no evidence that the word was used in this sense so early. Besides it occurs twice with θης. in the LXX. The distinction between σοφίας and γνώσεως is not easy to make here; the former is general, the latter special. Lightfoot says: “While γνῶσις applies chiefly to the apprehension of truths, σοφία super-adds the power of reasoning about them and tracing their relations”. Moule thinks it is God’s wisdom and knowledge that are here attributed to Christ, but this seems uncertain.
Col 2:4-15. PAUL URGES HIS READERS NOT TO BE BEGUILED BY PLAUSIBLE WORDS, BUT TO HOLD CHRIST FAST AS THE PRINCIPLE OF MORAL CONDUCT. THEY MUST LET NO ONE TAKE THEM CAPTIVE BY DECEITFUL PHILOSOPHY AND HUMAN TRADITION, WITH THE ELEMENTS OF THE WORLD AND NOT CHRIST FOR ITS CONTENT. IN HIM ALONE DWELLS THE WHOLE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD, AND THEIR COMPLETENESS IS IN HIM. THEY HAVE DIED, BEEN BURIED AND RAISED WITH HIM, GOD HAS QUICKENED THEM WITH HIM, WHILE THEY WERE DEAD IN SINS, HAS CANCELLED THE HOSTILE LAW ON THE CROSS, AND SPOILED AND LED IN TRIUMPH THE PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS.
Col 2:5. γὰρ is difficult. Meyer thinks that the fact of his spiritual presence is mentioned, in contrast to his bodily absence, as a reason why they should not let themselves be deceived. Ellicott (after Chrysostom) thinks that he is explaining why he can advise them, it is because he thus knows their need. Lightfoot, Soden, Findlay and Haupt think he explains his warning by his personal interest in them.-καὶ goes closely with τῇ σαρκὶ. The dative is one of reference, and τῇ σαρκὶ is equivalent to “in the body”. There is not the least ground for the inference that Paul had ever been to Colossæ.-τῷ πνεύματι: not “by the Holy Spirit,” but “in spirit”. Paul’s own spirit is meant as in 1Co 5:3-4.-σῦν ὑμῖν εἰμί: not simply among you, but “united with you through the warmest community of interest” (Sod.).-χαίρων καὶ βλέπων. Many take this as if it were equivalent to “rejoicing to see,” but it is questionable if the words can mean this. If the object of his joy is the condition of the Church, we should have expected an inversion of the order, first seeing and then rejoicing at what he saw. Lightfoot explains the order as indicating that he looked because it gave him joy to look. Ellicott assumes a continuation of the words σῦν ὑμῖν, “rejoicing with you and beholding”. Meyer thinks χαίρων means rejoicing to be thus present with you in spirit. It is very difficult to decide as to the meaning, possibly Ellicott’s view is best.-τὴν τάξιν καὶ τὸ στερέωμα. A military sense is often found in both of these nouns, though sometimes (as by Ol.) it is restricted to the latter. Meyer and Abbott deny the military reference altogether. Both words are used in a military sense, but this is suggested by the context, and it is said that “here the context suggests nothing of the kind” (Abb.). Haupt decides for it on the ground of the connexion. If the terms had been general, Paul would not have placed his joy over their order before his mention of their faith. But in representing them as a well-ordered army, and then expressing the same idea under the image of a bulwark which consists in their faith, the order is correct. It is, however, very questionable if an argument from order of this kind is to be pressed. Lightfoot translates στερέωμα “solid front”. It may have simply the sense of firm foundation. Whatever the precise force of the words, it is clear that the Church as a whole remained true to the doctrine it had been taught.-πίστεως: cf. Act 16:5, 1Pe 5:9.
Col 2:6. ὧς οὖν παρελάβετε. Oltramare translates “since,” and interprets, “since ye have received Christ … it is in Him you must walk”. But probably the usual interpretation “as” is right, meaning the form in which they had received (= καθὼς ἐμάθετε, Col 1:7). The sense is, in that case, live in accordance with what you received, and the emphasis is on περιπ., not on ἐν αὐτῷ.-παρελάβετε is practically equivalent to ἐμάθετε, received by instruction, rather than received into the heart.-τὸν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν τὸν Κύριον. This is frequently translated “the Christ, even Jesus the Lord” (Hofm., Lightf., Sod., Haupt, Abb.). In favour of this is the fact that ὁ Χ. Ἰ. is not a Pauline expression, but neither is Ἰ. ὁ Κύριος. A further argument in its favour is that ὁ Χριστός is very frequent in this Epistle, and especially prominent in this section of it. If this is so we must suppose that Paul has chosen the form of words to meet some false view at Colossæ. A reference to a Judaistic conception of the Messiah, held by the false teachers, which failed to rise to the Christian conception of His Person as Lord, is supposed by Haupt to be intended. This is possible, but the other possible view “ye received Christ Jesus as Lord” is no more inconsistent with Pauline usage, and emphasises still more the Lordship of Christ, which it was the chief aim of the Apostle to assert. There seems to be no hint that the Messiahship of Jesus was challenged; at most there was the question what Messiahship involved. More probably there is no reference to the Messiahship at all.
Col 2:7. ἐρριζωμένοι καὶ ἐποικοδομούμενοι: “rooted and built up”. The metaphor changes from περιπατ., and again from ἐρριζ., though Lightfoot points out that the term “to root” is not infrequently applied to buildings. More important is the change in tense, the perfect participle expressing an abiding result, the present a continuous process. ἐν αὐτῷ probably belongs to both. We should not (with Schenkel, Hofm.) place a full stop at περιπ. and take the participles with βλέπετε, which would be intolerably awkward.-βεβαιούμενοι τῇ πίστει: “stablished in faith,” also the present of continuous process. Meyer and Lightfoot take the dative as instrumental, but it seems best with most recent commentators to take it as a dative of reference (cf. Col 2:5).-καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε: cf. καθὼς ἐμάθετε, Col 1:7. The words define τῇ πίστει.-περισσεύοντες ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ. Oltramare notes that “thankfulness is a preservative against the new doctrines,” since they remove Christ from His true place. The emphasis on thankfulness is very marked in this Epistle.
Col 2:8. Paul once more (previously in Col 2:4) begins to attack the false teachers, but turns aside in Col 2:9 from the direct attack to lay the basis for the decisive attack in Col 2:16-23.-τις. It is not clear that we can infer from the singular that only one false teacher had appeared in the Colossian Church.-ὑμᾶς is placed in an emphatic position, and its force is “you whose Christian course has been so fair, and who have received such exhortations to remain steadfast”.-ἔσται: the future indicative after μή implies a more serious estimate of the danger than the subjunctive. For the construction, τις followed by a participle with the article, cf. Gal 1:7, Luk 18:9.-συλαγωγῶν. The sense is disputed. Several of the Fathers and some modern writers think it means “to rob”. It is used in this sense with οἶκον (Aristaen., 2, 22), and Field (Notes on the Translation of the N.T., p. 195) says “there can be no better rendering than ‘lest any man rob you’ ”. But, as Soden points out, that of which they were robbed should have been expressed. It is better to take it with most commentators in the more obvious sense “lead you away as prey”. The verb is so used in Heliod., Æth., x., 35 (with θυγατέρα), Nicet., Hist., 5, 96 (with παρθένον), and it may be chosen with the special sense of seduction in mind.-διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης. The second noun is explanatory of the first, as is shown by the absence of the article and preposition before it and the lack of any indication that Paul had two evils to attack. The meaning is “his philosophy, which is vain deceit”. The word has, of course, no reference to Greek philosophy, and probably none to the allegorical method of Scripture exegesis that the false teachers may have employed. Philo uses it of the law of Judaism, and Josephus of the three Jewish sects. Here, no doubt, it means just the false teaching that threatened to undermine the faith of the Church. There is no condemnation of philosophy in itself, but simply of the empty, but plausible, sham that went by that name at Colossæ. Hort thinks that the sense is akin to the later usage of the word to denote the ascetic life.-κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων: “according to human tradition” as opposed to Divine revelation. Meyer, Ellicott and Findlay connect with συλαγ. It is more usual to connect with ἀπ. or τ. φιλ. κ. κεν. ἀπ. The last is perhaps best. It indicates the source from which their teaching was drawn.-κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου. [On this phrase the following authorities may be referred to: Hilgenfeld, Galaterbrief, pp. 66 sq.; Lipsius, Paul. Rechtf., p. 83; Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers,3 ii., 252; Klöpper, ad loc.; Spitta, 2 Pet. u. Jud., 263 sq.; Everling, Paul. Angel. u. Däm., pp. 65 sq.; Haupt, ad loc.; Abbott, ad loc. The best and fullest account in English is Massie’s article “Elements” in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible. To these may now be added St. John Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 163-170, and Deissmann’s article “Elements” in the Encyclopædia Biblica.] Originally στ. meant the letters of the alphabet, then in Plato and later writers the physical elements, and lastly (but only from the first century A.D.) the rudiments of knowledge. It has been frequently taken in this sense as the A B C of religious knowledge (so recently Mey., Lightf., Ol., Cremer and many others). This explanation had, however, been attacked by Neander with powerful arguments in his discussion of the parallel passage Gal 4:3. (Planting and Training, i., 465, 466, cf. 323 [Bohn’s ed.].) He pointed out that if στ. meant first principles we should have had a genitive of the object, as in Heb 5:12, στ. τ. ἀρχῆς τ. λογίων. Such an omission of the leading idea is inadmissible. Further, Paul regarded the heathen as enslaved under στ. τ. κός. and their falling away to Jewish rites as a return to this slavery. Therefore the expression must apply to something both had in common, and something condemned by Paul, which cannot be the first principles of religion (to which also ἀσθενῆ would be inappropriate), but the ceremonial observances, which were so called as earthly and material. It has been further pointed out by Klöpper that following κατὰ τ. παρ. τ. ἀνθρ. this term introduced by κατὰ and not connected by καὶ must express the content of the teaching, which is not very suitable if “religious rudiments” is the meaning. Nor is it true that the false teachers gave elementary instruction. If this view be set aside, as suiting neither the expression in itself nor the context in which it occurs, the question arises whether we should return to the interpretation of several Fathers, that the heavenly bodies are referred to. These were called στοιχεῖα (examples are given in Valesius on Eus. H. E., v., 24, Hilg. l.c.). This is favoured by the reference to “days, and months, and seasons, and years” in Gal 4:11, immediately following the mention of στ. in Col 2:10, for these were regulated by the heavenly bodies. But it is unsatisfactory, for the context in which the expression occurs, especially in Galatians, points to personal beings. In this passage the contrast of στ. τ. κ. with Χριστόν is fully satisfied only if the former are personal. In Gal 4:3 Paul applies the illustration of the heir under “guardians and stewards” to the pre-Christian world under the στ. τ. κ., and here again a personal reference is forcibly suggested. Still more is this the case with Gal 4:8-9. In Col 2:8 Paul says ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσι θεοῖς. In the next verse he asks “how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly στ., to which you wish to be in bondage (δουλεῦσαι) over again?” This clearly identifies τ. στ. with τ. φύς. μὴ οὖσι θεοῖς, and therefore proves their personality, which is suggested also by ἐδουλ.; accordingly they cannot be the heavenly bodies or the physical elements of the world. Hilgenfeld, followed by Lipsius, Holsten and Klöpper, regards them as the astral spirits, the angels of the heavenly bodies. That the latter were regarded as animated by angels is certain, for we find this belief in Philo and Enoch (cf. Job 38:7, Jam 1:17). But it is strange that the spirits of the stars should be called στ. τ. κόσμου. And while they determine the seasons and festivals, they have nothing to do with many ceremonial observances, such as abstinence from meats and drinks. Spitta (followed by Everling, Sod., Haupt, and apparently Abb.) has the merit of giving the true interpretation. According to the later Jewish theology, not only the stars but all things had their special angels. The proof of this belongs to a discussion of angelology, and must be assumed here. στ. τ. κός. are therefore the elemental spirits which animate all material things. They are so called from the elements which they animate, and are identical with the ἀρχαὶ κ. ἐξουσίαι, who receive this name from their sphere of authority. Thus all the abstinence from material things, submission to material ordinances and so forth, involve a return to their service. We need not, with Ritschl, limit the reference to the angels of the law, though they are included. Thus interpreted the passage gains its full relevance to the context, and to the angel worship of the false teachers which Paul is attacking. The chief objection to this explanation is that we have no parallel for this usage of the word, except in the Test. Sol., ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν τὰ λεγόμενα στοιχεῖα, οἱ κοσμοκράτορες τοῦ κόσμου τούτου. But this is late. The term is used in this sense in modern Greek. In spite of this the exegetical proof that personal beings are meant is too strong to be set aside. So we must explain, “philosophy having for its subject-matter the elemental spirits”.-καὶ οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν must be taken similarly, not having Christ for its subject-matter. Χ. means the person of Christ, not teaching about Christ, and is opposed simply to στ., not to παρ. τ. ἀνθρ. The false teachers put these angels in the place of Christ.
Col 2:9. ὅτι is connected by Bleek and Meyer with οὐ κατὰ χ., but it is much more probable that it should be connected with the whole warning introduced by βλέπετε. The false teachers represented the fulness of the Godhead as distributed among the angels, and thus led their victims captive. Paul’s warning against the false doctrine thus rests on the fact that it was in Christ that the whole fulness dwelt.-ἐν αὐτῷ is emphatic, in Him and in Him alone.-κατοικεῖ: “permanently dwells”. The reference is to the Exalted State, not only on account of the present, but of the context and Paul’s Christology generally.-πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος: “all the fulness of the Godhead”. πᾶν is emphatic, the whole fulness dwells in Christ, therefore it is vain to seek it wholly or partially outside of Him. πλ. τ. θ. is not to be taken (as by Ol.) to mean the perfection of Divinity, i.e., ideal holiness. Nor can it mean the Church, for which Eph 1:23 gives no support, nor yet the universe, either of which must have been very differently expressed. The addition of θεότητος defines πλ. as the fulness of Deity. The word is to be distinguished from θειότης as Deity, the being God, from Divinity, the being Divine or Godlike. The passage thus asserts the real Deity of Christ.-σωματικῶς. This word is very variously interpreted. The reference is usually taken to be to the glorified body of Christ, or (as by Lightf.) to the Incarnation, and the word is translated “in bodily fashion”. Apart from the question whether the word naturally expresses this, there is the difficulty caused by the contrast implied in its emphatic position. This contrast is sometimes thought to be to the pre-incarnate state, but this has no relevance here. A contrast to the angels might be in point, but they were closely connected with bodies, so the contrast in this respect did not exist. But neither is Soden’s view that while the angels have bodies what is expressed in them is only θειότης (Rom 1:20) not πλ. τ. θεότητος, a tenable explanation, since this is just read into the words, not elicited from them; nor could such a distinction have occurred to the readers. This interpretation of σωμ., then, as expressing the indwelling of the fulness in a body, although said by Abbott to be “the only one tenable,” is encumbered with grave difficulties, and has been rejected by several commentators. Many have taken it to mean “really” (recently Bleek, Kl[12], Everling, Cremer). This is supported by the contrast of σῶμα with σκιά in Col 2:17, the indwelling is real and not shadowy or typical. But σωματικῶς could hardly express this shade of meaning unless the antithesis was expressed. Oltramare translates “personally, in His person”. But he quotes no instances of the adverb, but only of σῶμα. And Haupt’s criticism is just, that this sense might suggest that in God Himself it dwelt impersonally. After an elaborate examination of the various views, Haupt puts forward the explanation that σωματ. relates to τ. πλ. τ. θ., and is to be translated “in the form of a body”. The meaning he takes to be that the fulness exists in Christ as a body, that is as a complete and organic whole. This suits the context and the general argument better than the reference to Christ’s own body. In contrast to the distribution of the fulness among the angels, or to the view that it dwelt only partially in Him, Paul insists that all the fulness dwells in Him, and not fragmentarily but as an organic whole. This view, like Oltramare’s, is supported only by references to the use of σῶμα. This is not a fatal objectiön, and its harmony with the context makes it the most probable interpretation.
[12] Klöpper.
Col 2:10. καὶ ἐστὲ ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι. This still depends on ὅτι. ἐστὲ is obviously not an imperative. We should, perhaps, reject the view of Ellicott and Lightfoot that there are two predicates. The thoughts thus obtained that they are in Him, and that they are made full, are true in themselves. But, as Abbott points out, the context requires the emphasis to be thrown on the αὐτῷ, so that the sense is “and it is in Him that ye are made full”. πεπλ. is chosen on account of πλήρωμα in Col 2:9, but we cannot explain it as filled with the Godhead, because such an equalising of Christians with their Lord would have been impossible to Paul, and would have required καὶ ὑμεῖς to express it. This meets Oltramare’s objection to the translation adopted. He says that if πεπλ. means filled, they must be filled with something, but since the most obvious explanation that they are filled with the fulness of the Godhead is so largely rejected, it is clear that the translation breaks down. He translates “in Him you are perfect,” and urges that this also overthrows the usual interpretation of πλήρ. τ. θεότ. But apart from the fact that πλήρωμα does not mean moral perfection, τῆς θεότ. cannot be supplied. What Paul means is that in Christ they find the satisfaction of every spiritual want. It therefore follows of itself that they do not need the angelic powers.-ὅς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης ἀρχῆς καί ἐξουσίας: cf. Col 1:18. That Christ is the Head of every principality and power is a further reason why they should not seek to them. All they need they have in Christ. Paul does not mention here the thrones or lordships as in Col 1:16. But it is a questionable inference that they, unlike the principalities and powers, had no place in the false teaching. The latter are probably adduced only as examples.
Col 2:11. The reference to circumcision seems to come in abruptly. But probably it stands in close connexion with what has gone before. For the return to the principalities and powers in Col 2:15 shows that Paul is not passing here to a new section of his subject. Judaism, of which circumcision was the most characteristic feature, was regarded as under angelic powers, and the removal of them meant its abolition. It seems probable that the false teachers set a high value on circumcision, and urged it on the Colossians, not as indispensable to salvation, in which case Paul would have definitely attacked them on this point, but as conferring a higher sanctity. There seems to be no suggestion that it was regarded as a charm against evil spirits. The Apostle does not merely leave them with the statement that they have been made full in Christ, which rendered circumcision unnecessary, but adds that they have already received circumcision, not material but spiritual, not the removal of a fragment of the body, but the complete putting off of the body of flesh.-ἐν ᾧ καὶ περιετμήθητε. A definite historical fact is referred to, as is shown by the aorist. This was their conversion, the inward circumcision of the heart, by which they entered on the blessings of the New Covenant. The outward sign of this is baptism, with which Paul connects it in the next verse. But it cannot be identified with it, for it is not made with hands. The circumcision of the heart is a prophetic idea (Deu 10:16; Deu 30:6, Jer 4:4; Jer 9:25, Eze 44:7; Eze 44:9). In Paul it occurs Rom 2:28-29, Php 3:3.-περιτομῇ ἀχειροποιήτῳ: “with 2 circumcision not wrought by hands,” i.e., spiritual, ethical (cf. Eph 2:11, οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου).-ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός: “in the stripping from you of the body of the flesh”. The expression σῶμα τ. σαρκὸς is unusual. It means the body which consists of flesh, and of flesh as the seat of sin. By the removal of the home in which sin dwelt sin itself was removed. It is one of those cases in which the sense of σῶμα approximates to that of σάρξ. This body of flesh is removed from the Christian at his conversion.-ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. This cannot be the circumcision endured by Christ in His infancy, for that was wrought by hands, and such a reference would be most unfortunate for the polemic against ceremonies and altogether un-Pauline. Usually it is explained as the circumcision of our hearts which comes from Christ. But this has no parallel in the N.T.; further, it practically repeats ἐν ᾧ κ. περιετ.; and, coming between the removal of the body of the flesh and the burial with Christ, breaks the connexion. Accordingly Schneckenburger (followed by Kl[13], Sod., Haupt) suggested that it was really an expression for the death of Christ. (His view that ἀπεκ. τ. σ. τ. σ. was to be taken similarly has met with no acceptance.) In favour of this it may be said that in the immediate context Paul goes on to speak of burial and resurrection with Christ, and a reference to the death would naturally precede. And circumcision is a happy metaphor for Christ’s death to sin (Rom 6:10). Meyer’s objection that it is inappropriate since Christ endured actual circumcision is not serious, for, if sound, it should have excluded the choice of these ambiguous words altogether, which naturally suggest a circumcision suffered by Christ. But what creates a grave difficulty is that the thought does not seem to run on connectedly. There is a transition from the death of Christ on the cross to the burial of Christians with Him in their own personal experience. Perhaps this interpretation involves taking περιετμήθητε of the death of Christians with Christ on the cross (2Co 5:14), for it doubles the difficulty if Paul passes from the personal experience of the Christian to the cross, and from the cross back to personal experience. This suggests the possibility that περ. Χ. might be interpreted on the analogy of θλίψεων τ. Χριστοῦ (Col 1:24) as the circumcision of Christ in the believer. This would give a good connexion, and one that would suit the apparent identification of the circumcision of Christ with the putting off of the body of the flesh. The phrase, however, is so strange, and the idea that Christ dies with us so questionable (we die with Him), that it seems unsafe to adopt it. It is, therefore, best to mitigate the difficulty by the view that in these words Paul interpolates, in a concise and obscure expression, a reference to the great fact which underlay the spiritual experiences of which he is speaking. This circumcision, he would say, that is the removal of the flesh, was first experienced by Christ on the cross, and what happened to you ideally then is realised though union with Him now.
[13] Klöpper.
Col 2:12. συνταφέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτισμῷ. This refers to the personal experience of the Christian. The rite of baptism, in which the person baptised was first buried beneath the water and then raised from it, typified to Paul the burial and resurrection of the believer with Christ. Burial seems to imply a previous death, but Rom 6:3-4 perhaps shows that the metaphors must not be rigidly pressed. συνταφ. is to be joined closely with περιετμήθητε. If any distinction in meaning is to be made between βαπτισμός and βάπτισμα, it is that the former expresses the process, the latter the result.-ἐν ᾧ may refer either to Χρ. or to βαπ. The former view is taken by Chrysostom (followed by Luther, Meyer and many others). The latter is taken by Calvin and most recent commentators (De W., Hofm., Alf., Ell., Lightf., Kl[14], Sod., Haupt, Abb.). In favour of the former it is urged that the parallelism with ἐν ᾧ καὶ περιετμ. requires it. But the real parallel is with “buried with Him in baptism,” and this requires “raised with Him in baptism”. Since baptism is not the mere plunging into the water, but emersion from it too, ἐν is not against this interpretation, and διά or ἐξ is not necessary to express it.-συνηγέρθητε expresses the positive side of the experience. That death with Christ, which is the putting off of the body of flesh, has for its counterpart the putting on of Christ (Gal 3:27), which is followed by a walk with Him in newness of life. It is true that our complete redemption is attained only in the resurrection of the body (Rom 8:23, 2Co 5:2-4). But there is clearly no reference here to the bodily resurrection at the last day, as some have thought; for that is altogether excluded by the whole tenor of the passage, which refers to an experience already complete. Nor can we, with Meyer, think of the bodily resurrection as already ideally accomplished in baptism. For the preceding context speaks only of a spiritual experience, and it is impossible to pass thus violently to one that is physical. Haupt agrees with this, but thinks the reference is not ethical, but religious, that is forensic. The rest of the passage, he argues, shows that it is not moral transformation, but justification, that Paul has in mind. But however true this may be of χαρισάμενος … σταυρῷ, it is at least questionable for the immediately succeeding context. And since the union covers both ethical renewal and justification, it is natural to find both mentioned in connexion with it, and to hold fast the former here as the more natural interpretation of the words.-διὰ τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐνεργείας: “through faith in the working”. Klöpper (following Luth., Beng., De W. and others) makes τῆς ἐνερ. genitive of cause, “faith produced by the working”. He argues that it is strange that in the experience already referred to the faith which proves itself in baptism must be thought of as directed towards the Person of Christ, and so cannot now be spoken of as faith in the working of God; and further, that the whole context has referred to a passive experience, and so this is fitly continued by the assertion that even the faith, which appropriates the death and resurrection of Christ, is the creation of God. But these arguments are insufficient to overthrow the force of Pauline usage, according to which elsewhere the genitive after πίστις, unless it refers to the person who believes, expresses the object of faith. The view of Hofmann that τ. ἐνερ. is a genitive of apposition, and that what is meant is “faith, that is the working of God,” is quite out of the question. For faith directed towards the working of God who raised Christ from the dead, cf. Rom 4:24. God is so characterised, since the working by which He raised Christ will also be effective in our own spiritual experience. Our baptism is therefore not a sign of nothing, but of a real spiritual burial and resurrection with Christ.
[14] Klöpper.
Col 2:13. Partially parallel to Eph 2:1; Eph 2:5.-καὶ ὑμᾶς: “and you”. Frequently this is taken to mean “you also,” i.e., you Gentiles. But since Paul has been using the second person before, he can hardly be introducing a contrast. We should therefore take καὶ as simply copulative. It means “you as well as Christ,” as is shown also by the verbal parallel between ἐκ τ. νεκρῶν and νεκροὺς ὄντας.-νεκροὺς. Here Paul varies the sense of death. In the preceding verses it is death to the old life, here the old life itself is described as a condition of spiritual death. It is not of liability to eternal death (Mey.), or to physical death as the certain consequence of sin that he is speaking, but of a state of actual death, which can only be spiritual (cf. “sin revived and I died,” Rom 7:9).-τοῖς παραπτώμασιν: “by your trespasses”. The dative is probably one of Cause, but it could be translated by “in”. παραπτ. are individual acts of transgression, of which ἁμαρτία is the principle.-τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ της σαρκὸς ὑμῶν: “by the uncircumcision of your flesh”. This is often supposed to refer to literal uncircumcision, i.e., to the fact that they were Gentiles. But we have already seen that there is no emphasis on this fact. And the implied contrast that Jews were not, while Gentiles were, spiritually dead, is impossible in Paul. He cannot have said that they were dead by reason of uncircumcision, and, if the dative is taken otherwise, yet the coupling of τῇ ἀκρ. with τ. παραπτ. shows that physical uncircumcision is not referred to, but an ethical state. And this would not, as Abbott thinks, be unintelligible to Gentile readers, for he had already explained the metaphor in Col 2:11. τ. σαρκὸς is accordingly to be taken as an epexegetical genitive, “the uncircumcision which consisted in your flesh”.-συνεζωοποίησεν: to be taken in the same sense as συνηγέρθητε, not in any of the senses wrongly attributed to that word, which are reintroduced here. Chrysostom (followed by Ew., Ell.) makes Christ the subject. This is defended by Ellicott on the ground of the prominence of Christ through the passage, of the difficulty of supplying Θεός from Θεοῦ, and of referring the acts in Col 2:14-15 to the Father. But this last difficulty, urged also by Lightfoot, rests on a probably wrong interpretation of Col 2:15. Neither of the others is of any weight against the argument from Pauline usage, which always refers such actions to God. This view would also involve the awkwardness of making Christ raise Himself and us with Him, whereas in Col 2:12 His resurrection is referred to God. It is therefore best to regard ὁ Θεός as the subject, as in the parallel Eph 2:4-5.-χαρισάμενος: “forgiving”. Forgiveness is contemporary with quickening.-ἡμῖν: the change from the second person may be due to Paul’s wish gratefully to acknowledge his own participation in this blessing. It must not (with Hofm.) be referred to Jewish Christians.
Col 2:14. Partially parallel to Eph 2:15. Apparently Paul now passes to the historic fact which supplied the ground for the forgiveness. χαρισ. therefore refers to the subjective appropriation of the objective blotting out of the bond in the death of Christ.-ἐξαλείψας: “having blotted out,” i.e., having cancelled.-τὸ καθʼ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν. The original sense of χειρόγ. is handwriting, but it had come to mean a bond or note of hand. It is generally agreed that the reference here is to the Law (cf. Eph 2:15, τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν). That those under the Law did not write the Law has been pressed against this. It is true that χειρόγ. means strictly a bond given by the debtor in writing. It is not necessary, with Chrysostom and many others, to meet the objection by reference to the promise of the people in Exo 24:3. There is no need to press rigidly this detail of the metaphor. It is disputed in what sense we are to take the reference to the Law. Some (including Lightf., Ol., Sod., Abb.) think it embraces the Mosaic Law and the law written in the hearts of Gentiles. It is quite possible, however, that καθʼ ἡμῶν means simply against us Jews. But, apart from this, the addition of τ. δογ. points to formulated commandment. This is confirmed by Eph 2:15, where the similar expression is used, not of what Jews and Gentiles had in common, but that which created the separation between them, viz., the Jewish Law. Whether, with Calvin, Klöpper and Haupt, we should still further narrow the reference to the ceremonial Law is very questionable. It is true that circumcision and laws of meat and drink and sacred seasons are the chief forms that the “bond” takes. And it might make the interpretation of Col 2:15 a little easier to regard the ceremonial as that part of the Law specially given by angels. But this distinction between the moral and ceremonial Law has no meaning in Paul. The Law is a unity and is done away as a whole. And for Paul the hostile character of the Law is peculiarly associated with the moral side of it. The law which slew him is illustrated by the tenth commandment, and the ministry of death was engraved on tablets of stone. It was the moral elements in the Law that made it the strength of sin. It is not certain how τοῖς δόγμασιν should be taken. Frequently it is interpreted “consisting in decrees”. For this we ought to have had τὸ ἐν δόγ. Ellicott says this construction “seems distinctly ungrammatical”. Others (including Mey., Lightf., Sod., Haupt, Abb.) connect closely with χειρόγ., in such a way that the dative is governed by γεγραμμένον implied in χειρόγ. This is questionable in point of grammar. Winer says: “Meyer’s explanation, that which was written with the commandments (the dative being used as in the phrase written with letters), is the more harsh, as χειρόγραφον has so completely established itself in usage as an independent word that it is hardly capable of governing (like γεγραμμένον) such a dative as this”. (Winer-Moulton, p. 275; cf. also Ellicott ad loc.) It seems best then (with De W., Ell., Kl[15], Ol.) to translate “the handwriting which was against us by its ordinances”. For this we should have expected τ. καθʼ ἡμ. τ. δόγ. χειρόγ. or τ. τοῖς δόγ. καθʼ ἡμ. χειρόγ; but this seems to be the best way of taking the text as it stands, and perhaps the position of τ. δόγ. is for emphasis. The Greek commentators, followed by Bengel, explained the passage to mean having blotted out the Law by the doctrines of the Gospel. But δόγ. is a most un-Pauline, because legalist, expression for the Gospel, and by itself could not mean Christian doctrines. Nor is the sense it gives Pauline, for it was not by the teaching of the Gospel, but by the death of Christ, that the Law was done away. Erasmus’ view (followed by Hofm.) that τ. δόγ. should be connected with what follows is very improbable.-ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν: stronger than καθʼ ἡμῶν, asserting not merely that the bond had a claim against us, but that it was hostile to us, the suggestion being that we could not meet its claim. No idea of secret hostility is present.-καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου. “And it He hath taken out of the midst.” The change from aorist to perfect is significant, as expressing the abiding character of the abolition. Lightfoot thinks that a change of subject takes place here, from God to Christ. His reason is that Christ must be the subject of ἀπεκδ., since “no grammatical meaning can be assigned to ἀπεκδυσάμενος, by which it could be understood of God the Father”. Since, however, no change of subject is hinted at in the passage, and would involve great difficulty, it is more reasonable to conclude that an interpretation which requires Christ to be the subject of ἀπεκδ. is self-condemned.-προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ: “having nailed it to the cross”. When Christ was crucified, God nailed the Law to His cross. Thus it, like the flesh, was abrogated, sharing His death. The bond therefore no longer exists for us. To explain the words by reference to a custom of driving a nail through documents to cancel them, is not only to call in a questionable fact (see Field, Notes on Transl. of the N.T., p. 196), but to dilute in the most tasteless way one of Paul’s most striking and suggestive phrases. Quite on a level with it is Field’s own suggestion as to “this seemingly superfluous addition” (!) that the reference is to the custom of hanging up spoils of war in temples. Zahn (Einl. in das N.T., i., 335) draws a distinction between what was written on the bond and was blotted out by God, and the bond itself which was nailed to the cross and taken out of the way. We thus have two thoughts expressed: the removal of guilt incurred by transgression of the Law, and the abolition of the Law itself. It is questionable if this distinction is justified. The object is the same, αὐτὸ simply repeats χειρόγραφον.
[15] Klöpper.
Col 2:15. In this difficult verse the meaning of almost every word is disputed. It is therefore imperative to control the exegesis by strict regard to the context. The main question relates to the character of the principalities and powers. Subordinate questions are raised as to the subject of the sentence and the meaning of ἀπεκδ. The context before and after (οὖν, Col 2:16) requires us to bring the interpretation into close connexion with the main thought, the abolition of the Law.-ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας. Till recently the principalities and powers have been explained as hostile demoniacal spirits, and this view is held by Meyer, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Oltramare and Weiss. In its favour is the impression made by the verse that a victory over the powers is spoken of. How far this is so can be determined only by an examination of the terms employed. Against this view the following objections seem decisive. ἀρχ. κ. ἐξ. occur several times in the Epistle, but nowhere in this sense. In Eph 6:12 the reference to evil spirits is definitely and repeatedly fixed by the context. This is not so here. Further, the connexion with the context is difficult to trace. Bengel says: “Qui angelos bonos colebant, iidem malos timebant: neutrum jure”. Weiss expresses a somewhat similar idea: “It seems that the Colossian theosophists threatened the readers that they would again fall under the power of evil spirits if they did not submit to their discipline”. But not only have we no evidence for this, but this interpretation cuts the nerve of the passage, which is the abolition of the Law by the cross. Meyer’s view is more relevant: the Law is done away in Christ, and since it is the strength of sin, sin’s power is thus broken, and so is the devil’s power, which is exercised only through sin. Gess interprets that the Law through its curse created separation between men and God, and thus gave a point of support for the dominion of evil spirits. “Of this handwriting have they boasted. Our guilt was their strength. He who sees the handwriting nailed to the cross can mock these foes.” But these views are read into the passage, and do not lead up to Col 2:16. And where the Jewish Law was absent, as in the heathen world, sin was rampant. Ellicott and Lightfoot do not attempt to trace a connexion with the context, nor on their view of ἀπεκδ. is one possible. All this strongly suggests that we should give another sense to ἀρχ. κ. ἐξ. And this is secured if we identify them with ἀρχ. κ. ἐξ. already mentioned (Col 1:16 and Col 2:10). In favour of this are the following considerations: (1) Unless we are warned to the contrary it is natural to keep the same meaning throughout. (2) We thus get a thought that perfectly suits the context. This law that has been abolished was given by angels, its abolition implies their degradation. To them was also subject the whole of the observances of eating, drinking, etc. (3) It is a powerful polemic against the worship of angels (Col 2:18), which is lost on the other view. In effect Paul says, “You are worshipping angels who were degraded when Christ was crucified”. We may therefore take ἀρχ. κ. ἐξ, as in the rest of the Epistle, as angelic powers, identical with στοιχεῖα τ. κόσμου, and holding a special relation to the Law. The next question is as to the meaning of ἀπεκδ. The translation “having put off His body” may be safely set aside, for Paul must have said this if he had meant it. The Greek commentators, followed by Ellicott and Lightfoot, interpret “having put off from Himself”. The word is used in this sense in Col 3:9. They explain that Christ divested Himself of the powers of evil that gathered about Him, since He assumed our humanity with all its temptations. But (apart from the change of subject) the change of metaphor is very awkward from stripping off adversaries, like clothes, to exhibiting and triumphing over them. More cogent is the objection caused by the strangeness of the idea. Christ wore our human nature with its liability to temptation. But that He wore evil spirits is a different and indeed most objectionable idea. The same translation is adopted by some who take the other view of ἀρχ. κ. ἐξ., and the explanation given is that God in the death of Christ divested Himself of angelic mediators. This is free from the impropriety of the other view, but shares its incongruity of metaphor. The more usual translation is “spoiled”. The middle can mean “stripped for Himself,” and this again suits either view of ἀρχ. κ. ἐξ. If evil spirits, they are stripped of their dominion; but if angels of the Law, they are despoiled of the dominion they exercise. This view, though stigmatised by Zahn as “an inexcusable caprice,” is probably best. They are fallen potentates. There is no need to worship them, or to fear their vengeance, if their commands are disobeyed. With the true interpretation of this passage, every reason disappears for assuming that Christ is the subject.-ἐδειγμάτισεν ἐν παρρησία. “He made a show of them openly.” No exhibition in disgrace is necessarily implied. The principalities and powers are exhibited in their true position of inferiority, as mediators of an abolished Law and rulers of elements to which Christians have died. ἐν παρ. is not to be translated “boldly,” for courage is not needed to exhibit those who are spoiled. The word is contrasted with “reserve,” and indicates the frank, open exhibition of the angels in their true position when the bond was cancelled and Christ was manifested as the final revelation of God.-θριαμβεύσας. This seems to express most definitely that the ἀρχ. κ. ἐξ. are hostile powers. Alford, referring to 2Co 2:14, says the true victory is our defeat by Him. Findlay thinks the reference in the verb (which is not earlier than Paul) is not to the Roman military triumph, but to the festal procession (θρίαμβος) of the worshippers of Dionysus. In this case God is represented as leading the angels in procession in His honour; in other words, bringing them to acknowledge His greatness and the revelation of Himself in Christ. It is perhaps safest to translate “triumphing over”. This is favoured by other passages in Paul, which imply that the ἀρχ. κ. ἐξ. needed an experience of this kind.-ἐν αὐτῷ may refer to Χριστ. or σταυρ. or χειρόγ. The second is best, for there has been no reference to Christ since Col 2:13, and it is the cancelling of the bond, not the bond itself, that is the cause of the triumph. It is in the death of Christ that this triumph takes place. Zahn explains the passage to mean that God has stripped away the principalities and powers which concealed Him, not from the Jews, to whom He had revealed Himself, but from the heathen world. Thus He has revealed Himself and these apparent deities in their true character. He has triumphed over them in Christ, and led them vanquished in His train. But this was not accomplished on the cross, but through the preaching of the Gospel among the Gentiles, accompanied with such signs and wonders as in the story of the maid with the spirit of divination and the exorcists at Ephesus. But this is not what is required by the argument, which has the Jewish Law in view.
Col 2:16-23. SINCE THE LAW HAS BEEN CANCELLED AND THE ANGELS DESPOILED, RITUAL OR ASCETIC ORDINANCES HAVE NO LONGER ANY MEANING FOR THOSE WHO IN CHRIST POSSESS THE SUBSTANCE, OF WHICH THESE ARE BUT THE SHADOW. THEY MUST NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY ANGEL WORSHIPPERS, WHO ARE PUFFED UP BY FLESHLY CONCEIT, AND ONLY LOOSELY HOLD THE HEAD, FROM WHOM THE BODY DRAWS ALL ITS SUPPLY. SINCE THEY HAVE DIED TO THE ELEMENTAL SPIRITS, THEY MUST NOT SUBMIT TO THE PRECEPTS OF ASCETICISM, WHATEVER REPUTATION FOR WISDOM THEY MAY CONFER.
Col 2:17. This verse contains a hint of the fundamental argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews (cf. esp. Heb 8:5; Heb 10:1).-ὅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων. Whether ὅ or ἅ be read, the reference is to the whole of the ceremonial ordinances just mentioned. σκιὰ is “shadow,” not “sketch” (as Calvin and others). It is cast by the body, and therefore implies that there is a body, and while it resembles the body it is itself insubstantial. τ. μελλ. means the Christian dispensation, not (as Mey.) the still future Messianic kingdom, for, if so, the substance would still lie in the future, and the shadow would not be out of date. It is future from the point of view of Judaism.-τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ: “but the body belongs to Christ”. σῶμα is that which casts the shadow, therefore it existed contemporaneously with its manifestation, and, of course, according to the Jewish view, in heaven. It practically means what we should call “the substance,” and is chosen as the counterpart to σκιὰ, and with no reference to the Church or the glorified body of Christ. Since the substance belonged to Christ, it was foolish for Christians to hanker after the shadow. All that the most sanguine hoped to attain by asceticism and ceremonialism was possessed immediately in the possession of Christ.
Col 2:18. This verse gives us our only definite information, apart from which it would have been a highly probable inference, that the false teachers practised angel-worship.-ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω. This is commonly translated “rob you of your prize”. The judge at the games was called βραβεύς or βραβευτής, and the prize βραβεῖον. But the verb βραβεύω apparently lost all reference to the prize, and meant simply “to decide”. In the two cases in which καταβραβεύω occurs it means to decide against or condemn. It is best therefore to take it so here, “let no one give judgment against you”; it is thus parallel to, though stronger than, κρινέτω (Col 2:16). (Field, Notes on Transl. of the N.T., pp. 196, 197, discusses the word; cf. also Ol. and Abb. ad loc.)-θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ. This phrase is very variously interpreted. Some assume a Hebraism, and translate “taking pleasure in humility” (Winer, Lightf., Findl., Haupt). The LXX uses this not infrequently (but usually with persons, though otherwise in Psa 111:1; Psa 146:10); but there is no N.T. parallel for it, and Paul does not employ Hebraisms. For this idea he uses εὐδοκεῖν. Moreover it yields no relevant sense here. Others translate “wishing to do so in (or by) humility” (Mey., Ell., Sod., Weiss). But for this τοῦτο ποιεῖν should have been added, and on this interpretation θέλων has really little point. The rendering of Alford, Moule and others is not very different from this in sense, but more forcible. It connects θέλ. with καταβραβ., and translates “wilfully,” “of set purpose”. 2Pe 3:5 is referred to for the construction. Oltramare’s view is similar, but he translates “spontaneously,” so apparently the R.V. mg. and Abbott. The unsatisfactoriness of these interpretations suggests that the text may be corrupt. Hort thinks that for θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ we should read ἐν ἐθελοταπεινοφροσύνῃ. This word is used by Basil, and a similar compound occurs in Col 2:23. It is, of course, as Haupt says, difficult to understand how the copyists should have altered it into the very strange expression in the text. But this is not a fatal objection, and the conjecture is very possibly correct. It would mean “gratuitous humility,” a humility that went beyond what was required. ταπεινοφροσύνῃ is frequently explained as ironical. By a display of humility they beguiled their dupes. But the connexion with the following words makes this improbable. Their humility found an expression in angel worship. It is therefore that lowliness which causes a man to think himself unworthy to come into fellowship with God, and therefore prompts to worship of the angels. Such humility was perverted, but not therefore unreal. It was compatible with vanity towards others.-καὶ θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων: “and worship of angels”. The genitive is objective, though some have taken it as subjective. This has been done most recently and elaborately by Zahn. He takes τ. ἀγγ. with ταπειν. as well as with θρησκείᾳ. The former noun is used, he argues, in a non-Pauline sense, therefore it needs a definition, and that τ. ἀγγ. is intended to define it is made probable by the fact that it is not repeated before θρησκ. What is meant is a mortification and devotion suitable for angels, but not for men who live in bodies, an attempt to assimilate themselves to angels, who do not eat or drink. The chief ground urged for this view is that Judaism was too strenuously monotheistic to admit of angel worship, and Paul could only have regarded it as idolatry. Against this what is said in the Introduction, section ii., may be referred to. The angels worshipped by the false teachers are the στοιχεῖα τ. κόσμου, ἀρχαὶ κ. ἐξουσίαι.-ἃ ἑόρακεν ἐμβατεύων. If μὴ is inserted after ἃ, we may translate with Ellicott, in his earlier editions, “intruding into the things which he hath not seen”. This should probably be explained with reference to the invisible world, with which they professed to hold communion, but which really was closed to them. Ellicott still thinks this reading gives the better sense, though adopting the other in deference to the external evidence. But Paul could hardly have brought it against them that they had fellowship with what they could not see. For this was so with all who walked by faith. The negative, therefore, is not helpful to the sense, and is definitely excluded by the external evidence. The text without the negative is very variously explained. ἐμβατεύειν means “to stand upon,” then “to come into possession of” a thing, “to enter upon,” “to invade,” then in a figurative sense “to investigate”. Since ἃ ἑόρακεν also lends itself to diametrically opposite interpretations, the exegesis becomes doubly uncertain. It may mean the things which can be seen with the bodily eye, or it may refer to visions; they may be condemned as deluded visionaries, or for their materialism. Alford and Ellicott translate “taking his stand on the things which he hath seen,” and explain that he becomes an inhabitant of the world of sight rather than of faith. But the use of the perfect is against any reference to the circumstances of ordinary life, and the thought would have been far more simply and clearly expressed by τὰ ὁρατά. Generally it is supposed that “the things which he has seen” means his visions. Various views are then taken of ἐμβατεύων. Meyer translates “entering upon what he has beheld,” and explains that, instead of holding fast to Christ, he enters the region of visions. Several translate “investigating” (Beng., Grimm, Findl., Ol., Haupt). This is probably the best translation of the words as they stand, for the translation “parading his visions” (Sod. and? Abb.) seems not to be well established. The harshness of the combination, and uncertainty of the exegesis, give much probability to the view that the text has not been correctly transmitted. After it had been conjectured that we should read ἃ ἑώρα κενεμβατεύων, Lightfoot independently suggested the latter word, but for ἃ ἑώρα suggested ἐώρᾳ. or αἰώρᾳ. [Sod. incorrectly quotes the emendation as αἰῶρα; and in Abb. by a misprint we have αἰώρα. Ellicott not only misreports Lightfoot’s emendation, but does not even mention Taylor’s.] ἐώρα is used sometimes of that which suspends a thing, sometimes of the act of suspension. “In this last sense,” Lightfoot says, “it describes the poising of a bird, the floating of a boat on the waters, the balancing on a rope, and the like. Hence its expressiveness when used as a metaphor.” κενεμβατεύειν does not actually occur, but the cognate verb κενεμβατεῖν is not uncommon. A much better emendation, however, is that of Dr. C. Taylor (Journal of Philology, vii., p. 130), ἀέρα κενεμβατεύων, “treading the void of air”. In his Pirqe Aboth,2 p. 161, he says that the Rabbinic expression “fly in the air with nothing to rest upon” may have suggested the phrase to Paul. This emendation is accepted by Westcott and Hort, and regarded as the most probable by Zahn, who says that the text as it stands yields no sense. It involves the omission of a single letter, and although the province of conjectural emendation in the New Testament is very restricted, yet such a slip as is suggested may very easily have been made by Paul’s amanuensis or a very early copyist. Field urges as a fatal objection that “κενεμβατεύων is a vox nulla, the inviolable laws regulating this class of composite verbs stamping κενεμβατεῖν as the only legitimate, as it is the only existing, form” (loc. cit., p. 198). Lightfoot, on the contrary, asserts that it is unobjectionable in itself. Even if Field’s criticism be admitted, it would be better to read ἀέρα κενεμβατῶν than to retain the text. If the emendation is correct, Paul is asserting the baseless character of the false teaching; and all reference to visions disappears.-εἰκῇ should probably, in accordance with Pauline usage, be connected with the following rather than the preceding words. It may mean “groundlessly” (Mey., Alf., Ell., Ol., Haupt, Abb.) or “without result” (Sod. and others). The latter is the sense in Gal 3:4; Gal 4:11, 1Co 15:2, Rom 13:4, but, since it does not suit φυς., the former is to be preferred here.-φυσιούμενος: cf. 1Co 8:1 ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ, 1Co 13:4. They were puffed up by a sense of spiritual and intellectual superiority.-ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ: “by the mind of his flesh”. The mind in this case is regarded as dominated by the flesh. Soden, followed by Abbott, says that the νοῦς as a natural faculty is ethically indifferent in itself, and so may stand just as well under the influence of σάρξ as of πνεῦμα. But in the most important passage, Rom 7:22-25, it is the higher nature in the unregenerate which wages unsuccessful conflict with the σάρξ. At the same time we see from Eph 4:17 that it could become vain and aimless and even (Rom 1:28) reprobate. The choice of the phrase here is probably dictated by Paul’s wish to drive home the fact that their asceticism and angel worship, so far from securing as they imagined the destruction of the flesh, proved that it was by the flesh that they were altogether controlled, even to the mind itself, which stood farthest from it.
Col 2:19. Largely parallel to Eph 4:15-16. Paul proceeds to point out that so far from securing spiritual growth of a higher order, the false teaching, by loosening the hold on Christ, prevented any growth at all, since it obstructed or severed the very channel of spiritual life.-καὶ οὐ κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν: “and not holding fast the head”. For this sense of κρ. with the accusative cf. Son 3:4, ἐκράτησα αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἀφήκα αὐτόν. It is clear from this that the false teachers were Christians. They did not profess to have no hold upon Christ, but their hold was not firm. All the supplies of life and energy flow from the Head, so that loose connexion with it involves serious loss and not progress in the spiritual life. It is significant that here each member is recognised as having an immediate relation to the Head.-ἐξ οὗ: not neuter, referring to κεφ., for ἐξ ἧς would have been more natural, but “from whom”. It should be connected with both participles.-πᾶν τὸ σῶμα: “the whole body”. Alford takes it “the body in its every part,” but Ellicott denies that any distinction between τὸ πᾶν σῶνα. and πᾶν τὸ σῶνα can be safely drawn. It is the body as a whole that increases, and thus Paul condemns the tendencies to intellectual or spiritual exclusiveness, which cripple alike the body and the members who exhibit such tendencies. As this increase continues each member shares in the body’s progress.-διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων. Lightfoot gives a very full discussion of these terms and their use in medical writers. He translates “through the junctures and ligaments”. No doubt Paul’s language is popular, not technical. He is speaking of the means by which the various parts of the body are supplied and knit together. Meyer takes ἁφ. to mean sensations or nerve impulses, but we have no evidence for this meaning; nor is it suitable here, for there is no reason for referring ἁφ. to ἐπιχορ. and συνδ. to συνβιβ. No explanation is given of ἁφ. κ. συνδ. Some think of the Holy Spirit, others of brotherly love, others of ministers. But probably in Paul’s mind they did not correspond to anything definitely.-ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συνβιβαζόμενον. “being supplied and united”. Often the supply is thought to be of nourishment, but perhaps we should interpret more generally of life. ἁφ. κ. συν. are thus the media through which life is communicated and the unity of the organism secured.-αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ: “increaseth with the increase of God”. Generally αὔξ. τ. Θ. is explained to mean the growth which God gives (cf. 1Co 3:6). Against this is the fact that Christ is referred to as the source of growth. We may better take it “a growth such as God requires” (Ol., Haupt).
Col 2:20. The Apostle, recalling them to the time of their conversion, points out how inconsistent with a death to the elemental spirits any submission to ordinances belonging to their sphere would be. The death of the believer with Christ is a death to his old relations, to sin, law, guilt, the world. It is a death which Christ has Himself undergone (Rom 6:10). Here it is specially their death to the angels, who had ruled their old life, and under whose charge the Law and its ceremonies especially stood. They had died with Christ to legalism, how absurd then for ordinances to be imposed upon them.-εἰ ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ: “if, as is the case, you died in union with Christ”. The aorist points to the definite fact, which took place once for all. It was in union with Christ, for thus they were able to repeat Christ’s own experience.-ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσμου. The use of ἀπὸ with ἀποθν. expresses more strongly than the dative (as in Rom 6:2) the completeness of the severance, and adds the idea of escape from the dominion of the personal powers. On στ. τ. κ. see note on Col 2:8.-ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ. For the death of the Christian with Christ includes his crucifixion to the world (Gal 6:14). The world is ruled by these angels; but Christians belong to the world to come (cf. τ. μελλόντων, Col 2:17), which, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us, has not been made subject to the angels. Since they were still living in the physical world κός. has evidently an ethical sense.-δογματίζεσθε may be middle, “subject yourselves to ordinances,” or passive. Since Paul nowhere says that the readers had accepted the false teaching, the latter is better: “Why are ye prescribed to?” (Mey., Winer, Hofm., Findl., Haupt.) Alford also takes it as a passive, but thinks it implies a keener rebuke than the middle. The middle asserts rather that they had submitted, the passive need only imply, not their submission, but that their resistance might have been more energetic. If there is blame it seems to be slighter. The verb δογματ. is chosen with reference to τοῖς δόγμασιν in Col 2:14.
Col 2:21. The precepts here quoted are those of the false teachers, and are, of course, quoted to be condemned, though their meaning is frequently misunderstood. It is not said what things are thus prohibited, but the context supports the reference to meats and drinks, and is confirmed by μηδὲ γεύσῃ. There is no reason whatever to suppose that there is any reference to a prohibition of sexual relations.-μὴ ἅψῃ μηδὲ γεύσῃ μηδὲ θίγῃς. “Handle not, nor taste, nor even touch.” There is perhaps a gradation in the order from coarser to more refined contact.
Col 2:22. ἅ ἐστιν πάντα εἰς φθορὰν τῇ ἀποχρήσει. Augustine and Calvin took ἅ as meaning the ordinances referred to in Col 2:20, and explained the words as Paul’s refutation, “all which ordinances lead in their use to spiritual destruction”. But ἀποχ. means much more than use, it means abuse or using up; and ἅ refers more naturally to the prohibited things than to the prohibitions; while the sense would be complete if τῇ ἀποχ. were omitted. A much more attractive interpretation is that of De Wette (followed by Grimm, Ol. and others). He regards the words as a continuation of the injunctions of the false teachers, “all which things tend to spiritual destruction in the abuse”. The sense will then be that certain meats and drinks are forbidden, because the abuse of them leads to spiritual destruction. Lightfoot says “this interpretation, however, has nothing to recommend it”. This is perhaps too strong, for on the usual view κατὰ … ἀνθρώπων comes in awkwardly, as its place is at the end of the prohibitions. But it must be rejected. The translation is a little strained, and it would have been much simpler to say “the use of these things is destructive”. It is therefore best to adhere to the common view, and translate “all which things are to perish with the using”. The meaning is, then, that with consumption the forbidden meats and drinks were destined to perish. This interpretation has the advantage of being forcible, for it throws one side of Paul’s refutation into a terse parenthesis. His argument is, these meats and drinks, on which the false teachers lay such stress, are of no such importance, for in the nature of things they perish in their very use. If we can annihilate them they cannot rule us. The words should be included in brackets.-κατὰ τὰ ἐντὰλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων: to be taken with δογματίζεσθε. This states the other side of Paul’s refutation. The precepts are not only concerned with things destined to perish, they have their source in human commandments. Lightfoot aptly points out the striking parallel between these words of Paul and those of Christ on defilement (Mark 7). Both argue from the perishableness of meats, both treat these things as indifferent in themselves, and both quote Isaiah. Even though these precepts are partially found in the O.T., they are rightly called precepts of men, partly because they went beyond what it enjoined, partly because their object is different.
Col 2:23. ἅτινα: i.e., which commandments and teachings.-λόγον σοφίας. This may be taken in the sense of “a word of wisdom,” but with no inner truth. Others translate “appearance of wisdom” (Beng., De W. and others). But this seems not to be a meaning of λόγ. Klöpper’s translation, “reason” or “ground,” yields no very good sense. It is best, with most recent commentators, to translate “a reputation for wisdom”. μέν is not followed by δε, but this is not uncommon (see Winer-Moulton, pp. 719-721).-ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος. It is impossible to connect σώμ. with all three datives (Hofm.), it can belong only to ἀφειδίᾳ, with which it is connected as an objective genitive, “severity to the body”. If καὶ is retained before ἀφ. the sense of the earlier datives is not affected. If, however, it is omitted their sense may be affected. It is possible to take ἀφ., then, as an instrumental dative with λόγον ἔχοντα. But it is also possible to take it, with Haupt, as an explanatory apposition to the earlier datives. In this case ἐθελ. and ταπ. have both an ascetic meaning. Against this, however, is the fact that the words cannot be separated from the parallel expressions in Col 2:18. This seems to fix the sense of ἐθελ. as a worship of angels, which was not required of them, and ταπ. will mean what it meant in Col 2:18. ἐθελοθρ. occurs nowhere else, and was probably coined by Paul. Similar compounds were not unusual, and generally, though not invariably, had a bad sense. This is commonly supposed to attach to this word, but in any case it gets a bad sense from its context. ἀφ. σώμ. is the clearest assertion we have of the ascetic character of the false teachings.-οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί, πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. These words, which constitute this verse one of the most difficult in the New Testament, have received very various explanations. It is disputed whether οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τ. should be connected with the preceding or following words, and also with what πρ. πλησ. τ. σαρκός should be connected. Sumner, followed by Conybeare and Evans on 1Co 7:2, interpreted πρὸς as meaning “to check,” and translated “not in any value to check the indulgence of the flesh,” connecting οὐκ ἐν τ. τ. with the following words. This view was adopted by Lightfoot, and has been accepted by Moule and now by Ellicott. It has been inserted, with altogether insufficient warning, in R.V. It is a new explanation, and since propounded has found comparatively little favour. Lightfoot quotes numerous examples to prove that πρός after words denoting value, utility, sufficiency, etc., is used in the sense “to check” or “to prevent”. But in these cases the meaning does not lie in πρός, but in πρός after some word which imposes this sense upon it (e.g., φάρμακον), and there is nothing of the kind here. Abbott, in his valuable criticism of this interpretation, points out that πρός means “with a view to,” and if the object is a word signifying action or the production of an effect it will mean with a view to (producing). “Hence it seems to follow that unless πλησμονή be taken in the sense of ‘a state of repletion,’ which would be unsuitable, πρὸς πλησμονήν could only mean to produce πλ.” A further question relates to the use of τιμῇ. Our word “value” is ambiguous, and τιμή may mean “value” in the sense of “price”. But in this interpretation it is used in the sense of “efficacy,” and this sense needs to be established. It seems necessary to reject this explanation on linguistic grounds. But the sense it yields is less good than appears at first sight. For what would be said would be that these things had a reputation for wisdom in “will-worship,” etc., but they had not a reputation for wisdom in any value against the indulgence of the flesh. But obviously this cannot be the meaning. The sense imposed “but have not any value” can only be got out of the words by straining them. Another view, which keeps the same connexion of words, is that the translation should be “not in any honour to it [i.e., the body] to satisfy the [reasonable] wants of the flesh”. This must be rejected because πλ. is not used in this good sense, and σαρκός cannot be used as equivalent to σώματος in a context where σώμ. has been used just before, for the terms must stand in emphatic contrast. Soden and Abbott translate “not in any honour for the full satisfaction of the flesh”. This means that there is no real honour, but what there is, is such as to satisfy the carnal nature. So Meyer, not in any honour, but serving to satiate the flesh. The objection to this view is that ἀλλά at least is required before πρὸς πλ. τ. σαρκός. Alford connects οὐκ ἐν τ. τ. with the preceding words, but πρ. πλ. τ. ς. with δογματίζεσθε. This gives a fairly good sense, and requires no necessary words to be supplied, but the parenthesis is incredibly long. A less lengthy parenthesis is involved in the interpretation of Bähr, Eadie and Weiss: “Which things, having indeed a reputation of wisdom in will-worship and humility and severity to the body, not in any honour, are for the indulgence of the flesh”. If the contrast is between severity to the body and honour to it, we should have expected αὐτοῦ after τιμῇ. It is also strange that ἐν should be placed before τιμῇ and not before ἀφειδ. And the meaning is not probable, for it is implied that Paul thought that a reputation for wisdom ought to rest on honour to the body, which is absurd. Findlay’s view, “not in any honour, against surfeiting of the flesh,” not only yields a thought most obscurely expressed, but must be rejected because of its translation of πρὸς. All these interpretations are open to serious if not fatal objections. It is therefore not unlikely that Hort is right in the suspicion, shared also by Haupt, that we have to do here with a primitive corruption, for which no probable emendation has been suggested. He thinks that the text of the Epistle, and especially of the second chapter, was badly preserved in ancient times.
1. I would have you know. He declares his affection towards them, that he may have more credit and authority; for we readily believe those whom we know to be desirous of our welfare. It is also an evidence of no ordinary affection, that he was concerned about them in the midst of death, that is, when he was in danger of his life; and that he may express the more emphatically the intensity of his affection and concern, he calls it a conflict. I do not find fault with the rendering of Erasmus — anxiety; but, at the same time, the force of the Greek word is to be noticed, for ἀγών is made use of to denote contention. By the same proof he confirms his statement, that his ministry is directed to them; for whence springs so anxious a concern as to their welfare, but from this, that the Apostle of the Gentiles was under obligation to embrace in his affection and concern even those who were unknown to him? As, however, there is commonly no love between those who are unknown to each other, he speaks slightingly of the acquaintance that is contracted from sight, when he says, as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; for there is among the servants of God a sight different from that of the flesh, which excites love. As it is almost universally agreed that the First Epistle to Timothy was written from Laodicea, some, on this account, assign to Galatia that Laodicea of which Paul makes mention here, while the other was the metropolis of Phrygia Pacatiana. (345) It seems to me, however, to be more probable that that inscription is incorrect, as will be noticed in its proper place.
(345) After the time of Constantine the Great, “Phrygia was divided into Phrygia Pacatiana and Phrygia Salutaris.... Colosse was the sixth city of the first division.” — Dr. A. Clarke. — Ed.
2. That their hearts may receive consolation. He now intimates what he desires for them, and shews that his affection is truly apostolic; for he declares that nothing else is desired by him than that they may be united together in faith and love. He shews, accordingly, that it was by no unreasonable affection (as happens in the case of some) that he had been led to take upon himself so great a concern for the Colossians and others, but because the duty of his office required it.
The term consolation is taken here to denote that true quietness in which they may repose. This he declares they will at length come to enjoy in the event of their being united in love and faith. From this it appears where the chief good is, and in what things it consists — when mutually agreed in one faith, we are also joined together in mutual love. This, I say, is the solid joy of a pious mind — this is the blessed life. As, however, love is here commended from its effect, because it fills the mind of the pious with true joy; so, on the other hand, the cause of it is pointed out by him, when he says, in all fullness of understanding. (346) The bond also of holy unity is the truth of God, when we embrace it with one consent; for peace and agreement with men flow forth from that fountain.
Riches of the assurance of understanding. As many, contenting themselves with a slight taste, have nothing but a confused and evanescent knowledge, he makes mention expressly of the riches of understanding. By this phrase he means full and clear perception; and at the same time admonishes them, that according to the measure of understanding they must make progress also in love.
In the term assurance, he distinguishes between faith and mere opinion; for that man truly knows the Lord who does not vacillate or waver in doubt, but stands fast in a firm and constant persuasion. This constancy and stability Paul frequently calls (πληροφορίαν) full assurance, (which term he makes use of here also,) and always connects it with faith, as undoubtedly it can no more be separated from it than heat or light can be from the sun. The doctrine, therefore, of the schoolmen is devilish, inasmuch as it takes away assurance, and substitutes in its place moral conjecture, (347) as they term it.
Is an acknowledgment of the mystery. This clause must be read as added by way of apposition, for he explains what that knowledge is, of which he has made mention — that it is nothing else than the knowledge of the gospel. For the false apostles themselves endeavor to set off their impostures under the title of wisdom, but Paul retains the sons of God within the limits of the gospel exclusively, that they may desire to know nothing else. (1. o 2:2.) Why he uses the term mystery to denote the gospel, has been already explained. Let us, however, learn from this, that the gospel can be understood by faith alone — not by reason, nor by the perspicacity of the human understanding, because otherwise it is a thing that is hid from us.
The mystery of God I understand in a passive signification, as meaning — that in which God is revealed, for he immediately adds — and of the Father, and of Christ — by which expression he means that God cannot be known otherwise than in Christ, as, on the other hand, the Father must necessarily be known where Christ is known. For John affirms both:
He that hath the Son, hath the Father also: he that hath not the Son, hath also not the Father. (1. o 2:23.)
Hence all that think that they know anything of God apart from Christ, contrive to themselves an idol in the place of God; as also, on the other hand, that man is ignorant of Christ, who is not led by him to the Father, and who does not in him embrace God wholly. In the mean time, it is a memorable passage for proving Christ’s divinity, and the unity of his essence with the Father. For having spoken previously as to the knowledge of God, he immediately applies it to the Son, as well as to the Father, whence it follows, that the Son is God equally with the Father.
(346) “En toutes richesses de certitude d’intelligence ;” — “In all riches of assurance of understanding. ”
(347) See Calvin on the Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 112, and vol. 2, p. 397.
3. In whom are all the treasures. The expression in quo (in whom, or in which) may either have a reference collectively to everything he has said as to the acknowledgment of the mystery, or it may relate simply to what came immediately before, namely, Christ. While there is not much difference between the one or the other, I rather prefer the latter view, and it is the one that is more generally received. The meaning, therefore, is, that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Christ — by which he means, that we are perfect in wisdom if we truly know Christ, so that it is madness to wish to know anything besides Him. For since the Father has manifested himself wholly in Him, that man wishes to be wise apart from God, who is not contented with Christ alone. Should any one choose to interpret it as referring to the mystery, the meaning will be, that all the wisdom of the pious is included in the gospel, by means of which God is revealed to us in his Son.
He says, however, that the treasures are hidden, because they are not seen glittering with great splendor, but do rather, as it were, lie hid under the contemptible abasement and simplicity of the cross. For the preaching of the cross is always foolishness to the world, as we found stated in Corinthians. (1. o 1:18.) I do not reckon that there is any great difference between wisdom and understanding in this passage, for the employment of two different terms serves only to give additional strength, as though he had said, that no knowledge, erudition, learning, wisdom, can be found elsewhere.
4. This I say, that no man may deceive you. As the contrivances of men have (as we shall afterwards see) an appearance of wisdom, the minds of the pious ought to be preoccupied with this persuasion — that the knowledge of Christ is of itself amply sufficient. And, unquestionably, this is the key that can close the door against all base errors. (348) For what is the reason why mankind have involved themselves in so many wicked opinions, in so many idolatries, in so many foolish speculations, but this — that, despising the simplicity of the gospel, they have ventured to aspire higher? All the errors, accordingly, that are in Popery, must be reckoned as proceeding from this ingratitude — that, not resting satisfied with Christ alone, they have given themselves up to strange doctrines.
With propriety, therefore, does the Apostle act in writing to the Hebrews, inasmuch as, when wishing to exhort believers not to allow themselves to be led astray (349) by strange or new doctrines, he first of all makes use of this foundation —
Christ yesterday, and to-day, and for ever. (Heb 13:8.)
By this he means, that those are out of danger who remain in Christ, but that those who are not satisfied with Christ are exposed to all fallacies and deceptions. So Paul here would have every one, that would not be deceived, be fortified by means of this principle — that it is not lawful for a Christian man to know anything except Christ. Everything that will be brought forward after this, let it have ever so imposing an appearance, will, nevertheless, be of no value. In fine, there will be no persuasiveness of speech (350) that can turn aside so much as the breadth of a finger the minds of those that have devoted their understanding to Christ. It is a passage, certainly, that ought to be singularly esteemed. For as he who has taught men to know nothing except Christ, has provided against all wicked doctrines, (351) so there is the same reason why we should at this day destroy the whole of Popery, which, it is manifest, is built on ignorance of Christ.
(348) “Tous erreurs et faussetez;” — “All errors and impostures.”
(349) “Qu’ils ne se laissent point distraire ça et la;” — “That they do not allow themselves to be distracted hither and thither.”
(350) Pithanologia — our author having here in view the Greek term made use of by Paul, πιθανολογία, (persuasive speech.) See Calvin on 1. Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 100; also Plat. Theaet. 163, A. — Ed.
(351) “Toutes fausses et meschantes doctrines;” — “All false and wicked doctrines.”
5. For though I am absent in body. Lest any one should object that the admonition was unseasonable, as coming from a place so remote, he says, that his affection towards them made him be present with them in spirit, and judge of what is expedient for them, as though he were present. By praising, also, their present condition, he admonishes them not to fall back from it, or turn aside.
Rejoicing, says he, And seeing, that is — “Because I see. ” For and means for, as is customary among the Latins and Greeks. “Go on as you have begun, for I know that hitherto you have pursued the right course, inasmuch as distance of place does not prevent me from beholding you with the eyes of the mind.”
Order and steadfastness. He mentions two things, in which the perfection of the Church consists — order among themselves, and faith in Christ. By the term order, he means — agreement, no less than duly regulated morals, and entire discipline. He commends their faith, in respect of its constancy and steadfastness, meaning that it is an empty shadow of faith, when the mind wavers and vacillates between different opinions. (352)
(352) “Quand l’esprit est en branle, maintenant d’vne opinion, maintenant d’autre;” — “When the mind is in suspense, now of one opinion, then of another.”
6. As ye have received. To commendation he adds exhortation, in which he teaches them that their having once received Christ will be of no advantage to them, unless they remain in him. Farther, as the false apostles held forth Christ’s name with a view to deceive, he obviates this danger twice, by exhorting them to go on as they had been taught, and as they had received Christ. For in these words he admonishes them, that they must adhere to the doctrine which they had embraced, as delivered to them by Epaphras, with so much constancy, as to be on their guard against every other doctrine and faith, in accordance with what Isaiah said,
This is the way, walk ye in it. (Isa 30:21.)
And, unquestionbly, we must act in such a manner, that the truth of the gospel, after it has been manifested to us, may be to us as a brazen wall (353) for keeping back all impostures. (354)
Now he intimates by three metaphors what steadfastness of faith he requires from them. The first is in the word walk. For he compares the pure doctrine of the gospel, as they had learned it, to a way that is sure, so that if any one will but keep it he will be beyond all danger of mistake. He exhorts them, accordingly, if they would not go astray, not to turn aside from the course on which they have entered.
The second is taken from trees. For as a tree that has struck its roots deep has a sufficiency of support for withstanding all the assaults of winds and storms, so, if any one is deeply and thoroughly fixed in Christ, as in a firm root, it will not be possible for him to be thrown down from his proper position by any machinations of Satan. On the other hand, if any one has not fixed his roots in Christ, (355) he will easily be
carried about with every wind of doctrine, (Eph 4:14,)
just as a tree that is not supported by any root. (356)
The third metaphor is that of a foundation, for a house that is not supported by a foundation quickly falls to ruins. The case is the same with those who lean on any other foundation than Christ, or at least are not securely founded on him, but have the building of their faith suspended, as it were, in the air, in consequence of their weakness and levity.
These two things are to be observed in the Apostle’s words — that the stability of those who rely upon Christ is immovable, and their course is not at all wavering, or liable to error, (and this is an admirable commendation of faith from its effect;) and, secondly, that we must make progress in Christ aye and until we have taken deep root in him. From this we may readily gather, that those who do not know Christ only wander into bypaths, and are tossed about in disquietude.
(353) Murus aheneus . Our author has probably in his eye the celebrated sentiment of Horace — “Hic murus aheneus esto — nil conscire sibi;” — “Let this be the brazen wall — to be conscious to one’s self of no crime.” — (Hor. Ep. I. 1:60, 61.) See also Hor. Od. III. 3, 65. — Ed.
(354) “Toutes fallaces et astutes;” — “All fallacies and wiles.”
(355) “Si quelque vn n’ha la racine de son cœur plantee et fichee en Christ;” — “If any one has not the root of his heart planted and fixed in Christ.”
(356) “Que n’ha point les racines profondes;” — “That has not deep roots.”
7. And confirmed in the faith. He now repeats without a figure the same thing that he had expressed by metaphors, — that the prosecution of the way, the support of the root, and of the foundation, is firmness and steadfastness of faith. And observe, that this argument is set before them in consequence of their having been well instructed, in order that they may safely and confidently secure their footing in the faith with which they had been made acquainted.
Abounding. He would not have them simply remain immovable, but would have them grow every day more and more. When he adds, with thanksgiving, he would have them always keep in mind from what source faith itself proceeds, that they may not be puffed up with presumption, but may rather with fear repose themselves in the gift of God. And, unquestionably, ingratitude is very frequently the reason why we are deprived of the light of the gospel, as well as of other divine favors.
8. Beware lest any one plunder you. He again instructs them as to the poison, which the antidote presented by him should be made use of to counteract. For although this, as we have stated, is a common remedy against all the impostures of the devil, (359) it had, nevertheless, at that time a peculiar advantage among the Colossians, to which it required to be applied. Beware, says he, lest any one plunder you. He makes use of a very appropriate term, for he alludes to plunderers, who, when they cannot carry off the flock by violence, drive away some of the cattle fraudulently. Thus he makes Christ’s Church a sheep-fold, and the pure doctrine of the gospel the enclosures of the fold. He intimates, accordingly, that we who are the sheep of Christ repose in safety when we hold the unity of the faith, while, on the other hand, he likens the false apostles to plunderers that carry us away from the folds. Would you then be reckoned as belonging to Christ’s flock? Would you remain in his folds? Do not deviate a nail’s breadth from purity of doctrine. For unquestionably Christ will act the part of the good Shepherd by protecting us if we but hear his voice, and reject those of strangers. In short, the tenth chapter of John is the exposition of the passage before us. [Joh 10:0 ]
Through philosophy. As many have mistakingly imagined that philosophy is here condemned by Paul, we must point out what he means by this term. Now, in my opinion, he means everything that men contrive of themselves when wishing to be wise through means of their own understanding, and that not without a specious pretext of reason, so as to have a plausible appearance. For there is no difficulty in rejecting those contrivances of men which have nothing to set them off, (360) but in rejecting those that captivate men’s minds by a false conceit of wisdom. Or should any one prefer to have it expressed in one word, philosophy is nothing else than a persuasive speech, which insinuates itself into the minds of men by elegant and plausible arguments. Of such a nature, I acknowledge, will all the subtleties of philosophers be, if they are inclined to add anything of their own to the pure word of God. Hence philosophy will be nothing else than a corruption of spiritual doctrine, if it is mixed up with Christ. Let us, however, bear in mind, that under the term philosophy Paul has merely condemned all spurious doctrines which come forth from man’s head, whatever appearance of reason they may have. What immediately follows, as to vain deceit, I explain thus; “Beware of philosophy, which is nothing else than vain deceit, ” so that this is added by way of apposition. (361)
According to the tradition of men. He points out more precisely what kind of philosophy he reproves, and at the same time convicts it of vanity on a twofold account — because it is not according to Christ, but according to the inclinations of men; (362) and because it consists in the elements of the world. Observe, however, that he places Christ in opposition to the elements of the world, equally as to the tradition of men, by which he intimates, that whatever is hatched in man’s brain is not in accordance with Christ, who has been appointed us by the Father as our sole Teacher, that he might retain us in the simplicity of his gospel. Now, that is corrupted by even a small portion of the leaven of human traditions. He intimates also, that all doctrines are foreign to Christ that make the worship of God, which we know to be spiritual, according to Christ’s rule, to consist in the elements of the world, (363) and also such as fetter the minds of men by such trifles and frivolities, while Christ calls us directly to himself.
But what is meant by the phrase — elements of the world ? (364) There can be no doubt that it means ceremonies. For he immediately afterwards adduces one instance by way of example — circumcision. The reason why he calls them by such a name is usually explained in two ways. Some think that it is a metaphor, so that the elements are the rudiments of children, which do not lead forward to mature doctrine. Others take it in its proper signification, as denoting things that are outward and are liable to corruption, which avail nothing for the kingdom of God. The former exposition I rather approve of, as also in Gal 4:3
(359) Our Author evidently refers to what he had said as to the advantage to be derived from steadfastness in the faith. See p. 178. — Ed.
(360) “Quand elles n’ont ni monstre ni couleur;” — “When they have neither show nor appearance.”
(361) See p. 148, n. 2.
(362) “Selon les ordonnances et plaisirs des hommes;” — “According to the appointments and inclinations of men.”
(363) “Es choses visibles de ce monde;” — “In the visible things of this world.”
(364) “Rudimens, ou elemens du monde;” — “Rudiments, or elements of the world.”
9. For in him dwelleth. Here we have the reason why those elements of the world, which are taught by men, do not accord with Christ — because they are additions for supplying a deficiency, as they speak. Now in Christ there is a perfection, to which nothing can be added. Hence everything that mankind of themselves mix up, is at variance with Christ’s nature, because it charges him with imperfection. This argument of itself will suffice for setting aside all the contrivances of Papists. For to what purpose do they tend, (365) but to perfect what was commenced by Christ? (366) Now this outrage upon Christ (367) is not by any means to be endured. They allege, it is true, that they add nothing to Christ, inasmuch as the things that they have appended to the gospel are, as it were, a part of Christianity, but they do not effect an escape by a cavil of this kind. For Paul does not speak of an imaginary Christ, but of a Christ preached, (368) who has revealed himself by express doctrine.
Further, when he says that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ, he means simply, that God is wholly found in him, so that he who is not contented with Christ alone, desires something better and more excellent than God. The sum is this, that God has manifested himself to us fully and perfectly in Christ.
Interpreters explain in different ways the adverb bodily. For my part, I have no doubt that it is employed — not in a strict sense — as meaning substantially. (369) For he places this manifestation of God, which we have in Christ, to all others that have ever been made. For God has often manifested himself to men, but it has been only in part. In Christ, on the other hand, he communicates himself to us wholly. He has also manifested himself to us otherwise, but it is in figures, or by power and grace. In Christ, on the other hand, he has appeared to us essentially. Thus the statement of John holds good:
He that hath the Son, hath the Father also. (1. o 2:23.)
For those who possess Christ have God truly present, and enjoy Him wholly.
(365) “Toutes leurs inuentions;” — “All their inventions.”
(366) “Ce que Christ a commencé seulement;” — “What Christ has only commenced.”
(367) “Vn tel outrage fait au Fils de Dieu;” — “Such an outrage committed upon the Son of God.”
(368) “D’vn vray Christ;” — “Of a true Christ.”
(369) “Σωματικῶς signifies truly, really, in opposition to typically, figuratively. There was a symbol of the Divine presence in the Hebrew tabernacle, and in the Jewish temple; but in the body of Christ the Deity, with all its plenitude of attributes, dwelt really and substantially, for so the word σωματικῶς means.” — Dr. A. Clarke. — Ed.
10. And ye are complete in him. He adds, that this perfect essence of Deity, which is in Christ, is profitable to us in this respect, that we are also perfect in him. “As to God’s dwelling wholly in Christ, it is in order that we, having obtained him, may posses in him an entire perfection.” Those, therefore, who do not rest satisfied with Christ alone, do injury to God in two ways, for besides detracting from the glory of God, by desiring something above his perfection, they are also ungrateful, inasmuch as they seek elsewhere what they already have in Christ. Paul, however, does not mean that the perfection of Christ is transfused into us, but that there are in him resources from which we may be filled, that nothing may be wanting to us.
Who is the head. He has introduced this clause again on account of the angels, meaning that the angels, also, will be ours, if we have Christ. But of this afterwards. In the mean time, we must observe this, that we are hemmed in, above and below, with railings, (370) that our faith may not deviate even to the slightest extent from Christ.
(370) See Calvin on the Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 474, n. 2.
11. In whom ye also are circumcised. From this it appears, that he has a controversy with the false apostles, who mixed the law with the gospel, and by that means made Christ have, as it were, two faces. He specifies, however, one instance by way of example. He proves that the circumcision of Moses is not merely unnecessary, but is opposed to Christ, because it destroys the spiritual circumcision of Christ. For circumcision was given to the Fathers that it might be the figure of a thing that was absent: those, therefore, who retain that figure after Christ’s advent, deny the accomplishment of what it prefigures. Let us, therefore, bear in mind that outward circumcision is here compared with spiritual, just as a figure with the reality. The figure is of a thing that is absent: hence it puts away the presence of the reality. What Paul contends for is this — that, inasmuch as what was shadowed forth by a circumcision made with hands, has been completed in Christ, there is now no fruit or advantage from it. (371) Hence he says, that the circumcision which is made in the heart is the circumcision of Christ, and that, on this account, that which is outward is not now required, because, where the reality exists, that shadowy emblem vanishes, (372) inasmuch as it has no place except in the absence of the reality.
By the putting off of the body. He employs the term body, by an elegant metaphor, to denote a mass, made up of all vices. For as we are encompassed by our bodies, so we are surrounded on all sides by an accumulation of vices. And as the body is composed of various members, each of which has its own actings and offices, so from that accumulation of corruption all sins take their rise as members of the entire body. There is a similar manner of expression in Rom 6:13.
He takes the term flesh, as he is wont, to denote corrupt nature. The body of the sins of the flesh, therefore, is the old man with his deeds; only, there is a difference in the manner of expression, for here he expresses more properly the mass of vices which proceed from corrupt nature. He says that we obtain this (373) through Christ, so that unquestionably an entire regeneration is his benefit. It is he that circumcises the foreskin of our heart, or, in other words, mortifies all the lusts of the flesh, not with the hand, but by his Spirit. Hence there is in him the reality of the figure.
(371) “Maintenant le fruit et l’vsage d’icelle est aneanti;” — “The fruit and advantage of it are now made void.”
(372) “Le signe qui la figuroit s’esuanouit comme vn ombre;” — “The sign which prefigured it vanishes like a shadow.”
(373) “Ce despouillement;” — “This divesture.”
12. Buried with him, in baptism. He explains still more clearly the manner of spiritual circumcision — because, being buried with Christ, we are partakers of his death. He expressly declares that we obtain this by means of baptism, that it may be the more clearly apparent that there is no advantage from circumcision under the reign of Christ. For some one might otherwise object: “Why do you abolish circumcision on this pretext — that its accomplishment is in Christ? Was not Abraham, also, circumcised spiritually, and yet this did not hinder the adding of the sign to the reality? Outward circumcision, therefore, is not superfluous, although that which is inward is conferred by Christ.” Paul anticipates an objection of this kind, by making mention of baptism. Christ, says he, accomplishes in us spiritual circumcision, not through means of that ancient sign, which was in force under Moses, but by baptism. Baptism, therefore, is a sign of the thing that is presented to us, which while absent was prefigured by circumcision. The argument is taken from the economy (374) which God has appointed; for those who retain circumcision contrive a mode of dispensation different from that which God has appointed.
When he says that we are buried with Christ, this means more than that we are crucified with him; for burial expresses a continued process of mortification. When he says, that this is done through means of baptism, as he says also in Rom 6:4, he speaks in his usual manner, ascribing efficacy to the sacrament, that it may not fruitlessly signify what does not exist. (375) By baptism, therefore, we are buried with Christ, because Christ does at the same time accomplish efficaciously that mortification, which he there represents, that the reality may be conjoined with the sign.
In which also ye are risen. He magnifies the grace which we obtain in Christ, as being greatly superior to circumcision. “We are not only,” says he, “ingrafted into Christ’s death, but we also rise to newness of life:” hence the more injury is done to Christ by those who endeavor to bring us back to circumcision. He adds, by faith, for unquestionably it is by it that we receive what is presented to us in baptism. But what faith ? That of his efficacy or operation, by which he means, that faith is founded upon the power of God. As, however, faith does not wander in a confused and undefined contemplation, as they speak, of divine power, he intimates what efficacy it ought to have in view — that by which God raised Christ from the dead. He takes this, however, for granted, that, inasmuch as it is impossible that believers should be severed from their head, the same power of God, which shewed itself in Christ, is diffused among them all in common.
(374) “Du gouuernement et dispensation que Dieu a ordonné en son Eglise;” — “From the government and dispensation which God has appointed in his Church.”
(375) “Afin que la, signification ne soit vaine, comme d’vne chose qui n’est point;” — “That the signification may not be vain, as of a thing that is not.”
13. And you, when ye were dead. He admonishes the Colossians to recognize, what he had treated of in a general way, as applicable to themselves, which is by far the most effectual way of teaching. Farther, as they were Gentiles when they were converted to Christ, he takes occasion from this to shew them how absurd it is to pass over from Christ to the ceremonies of Moses. Ye were, says he, dead in Uncircumcision. This term, however, may be understood either in its proper signification, or figuratively. If you understand it in its proper sense, the meaning will be, “Uncircumcision is the badge of alienation from God; for where the covenant of grace is not, there is pollution, (376) and, consequently, curse and ruin. But God has called you to himself from uncircumcision, and, therefore, from death.” (377) In this way he would not represent uncircumcision as the cause of death, but as a token that they were estranged from God. We know, however, that men cannot live otherwise than by cleaving to their God, who alone is their life. Hence it follows, that all wicked persons, however they may seem to themselves to be in the highest degree lively and flourishing, are, nevertheless, spiritually dead. In this manner this passage will correspond with Eph 2:11, where it is said,
Remember that, in time past, when ye were Gentiles, and called uncircumcision, by that circumcision which is made with hands in the flesh, ye were at that time without Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the promises.
Taking it metaphorically, there would, indeed, be an allusion to natural uncircumcision, but at the same time Paul would here be speaking of the obstinacy of the human heart, in opposition to God, and of a nature that is defiled by corrupt affections. I rather prefer the former exposition, because it corresponds better with the context; for Paul declares that uncircumcision was no hinderance in the way of their becoming partakers of Christ’s life. Hence it follows, that circumcision derogated from the grace of God, which they had already obtained.
As to his ascribing death to uncircumcision, this is not as though it were the cause of it, but as being the badge of it, as also in that other passage in the Epistle to the Ephesians, which we have quoted. It is also customary in Scripture to denote deprivation of the reality by deprivation of the sign, as in Gen 3:22, —
Lest peradventure Adam eat of the fruit of life, and live.
For the tree did not confer life, but its being taken away was a sign of death. (378) Paul has in this place briefly expressed both. He says that these were dead in sins: this is the cause, for our sins alienate us from God. He adds, in the uncircumcision of your flesh. This was outward pollution, an evidence of spiritual death.
By forgiving you. God does not quicken us by the mere remission of sins, but he makes mention here of this particularly, because that free reconciliation with God, which overthrows the righteousness of works, is especially connected with the point in hand, where he treats of abrogated ceremonies, as he discourses of more at large in the Epistle to the Galatians. For the false apostles, by establishing ceremonies, bound them with a halter, from which Christ has set them free.
(376) “Là il n’y a que souillure et ordure;” — “There, there is nothing but filth and pollution.”
(377) “Il vous a donc retirez de la mort;” — “He has, therefore, drawn you back from death.”
(378) See Calvin on Genesis, vol. 1, p. 184.
14. Having blotted out the hand-writing which was against us. He now contends with the false apostles in close combat. For this was the main point in question, — whether the observance of ceremonies was necessary under the reign of Christ? Now Paul contends that ceremonies have been abolished, and to prove this he compares them to a hand-writing, by which God holds us as it were bound, that we may not be able to deny our guilt. He now says, that we have been freed from condemnation, in such a manner, that even the hand-writing is blotted out, that no remembrance of it might remain. For we know that as to debts the obligation is still in force, so long as thehand-writing remains; and that, on the other hand, by the erasing, or tearing of the handwriting, the debtor is set free. Hence it follows, that all those who still urge the observance of ceremonies, detract from the grace of Christ, as though absolution were not procured for us through him; for they restore to the hand-writing its freshness, so as to hold us still under obligation.
This, therefore, is a truly theological reason for proving the abrogation of ceremonies, because, if Christ has fully redeemed us from condemnation, he must have also effaced the remembrance of the obligation, that consciences may be pacified and tranquil in the sight of God, for these two things are conjoined. While interpreters explain this passage in various ways, there is not one of them that satisfies me. Some think that Paul speaks simply of the moral law, but there is no ground for this. For Paul is accustomed to give the name of ordinances to that department which consists in ceremonies, as he does in the Epistle to the Ephesians, (Eph 2:15,) and as we shall find he does shortly afterwards. More especially, the passage in Ephesians shews clearly, that Paul is here speaking of ceremonies.
Others, therefore, do better, in restricting it to ceremonies, but they, too, err in this respect, that they do not add the reason why it is called hand-writing, or rather they assign a reason different from the true one, and they do not in a proper manner apply this similitude to the context. Now, the reason is, that all the ceremonies of Moses had in them some acknowledgment of guilt, which bound those that observed them with a firmer tie, as it were, in the view of God’s judgment. For example, what else were washings than an evidence of pollution? Whenever any victim was sacrificed, did not the people that stood by behold in it a representation of his death? For when persons substituted in their place an innocent animal, they confessed that they were themselves deserving of that death. In fine, in proportion as there were ceremonies belonging to it, just so many exhibitions were there of human guilt, and hand-writings of obligation.
Should any one object that they were sacraments of the grace of God, as Baptism and the Eucharist are to us at this day, the answer is easy. For there are two things to be considered in the ancient ceremonies — that they were suited to the time, and that they led men forward to the kingdom of Christ. Whatever was done at that time shewed in itself nothing but obligation. Grace was in a manner suspended until the advent of Christ — not that the Fathers were excluded from it, but they had not a present manifestation of it in their ceremonies. For they saw nothing in the sacrifices but the blood of beasts, and in their washings nothing but water. Hence, as to present view, condemnation remained; nay more, the ceremonies themselves sealed the condemnation. The Apostle speaks, also, in this manner in the whole of his Epistle to the Hebrews, because he places Christ in direct opposition to ceremonies. But how is it now? The Son of God has not only by his death delivered us from the condemnation of death, but in order that absolution might be made more certain, he abrogated those ceremonies, that no remembrance of obligation might remain. This is full liberty — that Christ has by his blood not only blotted out our sins, but every hand-writing which might declare us to be exposed to the judgment of God. Erasmus in his version has involved in confusion the thread of Paul’s discourse, by rendering it thus — “which was contrary to us by ordinances.” Retain, therefore, the rendering which I have given, as being the true and genuine one.
Took it out of the way, fastening it to his cross. He shews the manner in which Christ has effaced the hand-writing; for as he fastened to the cross our curse, our sins, and also the punishment that was due to us, so he has also fastened to it that bondage of the law, and everything that tends to bind consciences. For, on his being fastened to the cross, he took all things to himself, and even bound them upon him, that they might have no more power over us.
15. Spoiling principalities. There is no doubt that he means devils, whom Scripture represents as acting the part of accusing us before God. Paul, however, says that they are disarmed, so that they cannot bring forward anything against us, the attestation of our guilt being itself destroyed. Now, he expressly adds this with the view of shewing, that the victory of Christ, which he has procured for himself and us over Satan, is disfigured by the false apostles, and that we are deprived of the fruit of it when they restore the ancient ceremonies. For if our liberty is the spoil which Christ has rescued from the devil, what do others, who would bring us back into bondage, but restore to Satan the spoils of which he had been stript bare?
Triumphing over them in it. The expression in the Greek allows, it is true, of our reading — in himself; nay more, the greater part of the manuscripts have ἐν αὑτῳ with an aspirate. The connection of the passage, however, imperatively requires that we read it otherwise; for what would be meagre as applied to Christ, suits admirably as applied to the cross. For as he had previously compared the cross to a signal trophy or show of triumph, in which Christ led about his enemies, so he now also compares it to a triumphal car, in which he shewed himself conspicuously to view. (379) For although in the cross there is nothing but curse, it was, nevertheless, swallowed up by the power of God in such a way, that it (380) has put on, as it were, a new nature. For there is no tribunal so magnificent, no throne so stately, no show of triumph so distinguished, no chariot so elevated, (381) as is the gibbet on which Christ has subdued death and the devil, the prince of death; nay more, has utterly trodden them under his feet.
(379) “En grande magnificence;” — “In great magnificence.”
(380) “La croix;” — “The cross.”
(381) “Tant eminent et honorable;” — “So lofty and honourable.”
16. Let no one therefore judge you. What he had previously said of circumcision he now extends to the difference of meats and days. For circumcision was the first introduction to the observance of the law, other things (384) followed afterwards. To judge means here, to hold one to be guilty of a crime, or to impose a scruple of conscience, so that we are no longer free. He says, therefore, that it is not in the power of men to make us subject to the observance of rites which Christ has by his death abolished, and exempts us from their yoke, that we may not allow ourselves to be fettered by the laws which they have imposed. He tacitly, however, places Christ in contrast with all mankind, lest any one should extol himself so daringly as to attempt to take away what he has given him.
In respect of a festival-day. Some understand τὸ μέρος to mean participation. Chrysostom, accordingly, thinks that he used the term part, because they did not observe all festival days, nor did they even keep holidays strictly, in accordance with the appointment of the law. This, however, is but a poor interpretation. (385) Consider whether it may not be taken to mean separation, for those that make a distinction of days, separate, as it were, one from another. Such a mode of partition was suitable for the Jews, that they might celebrate religiously (386) the days that were appointed, by separating them from others. Among Christians, however, such a division has ceased.
But some one will say, “We still keep up some observance of days.” I answer, that we do not by any means observe days, as though there were any sacredness in holidays, or as though it were not lawful to labor upon them, but that respect is paid to government and order — not to days. And this is what he immediately adds.
(384) “Les autres ceremonies;” — “Other rites.”
(385) “Mats c’est vne conjecture bien maigre;” — “But this is a very slender conjecture.”
(386) “Estroittement;” — “Strictly.”
17. Which are a shadow of things to come. The reason why he frees Christians from the observance of them is, that they were shadows at a time when Christ was still, in a manner, absent. For he contrasts shadows with revelation, and absence with manifestation. Those, therefore, who still adhere to those shadows, act like one who should judge of a man’s appearance from his shadow, while in the mean time he had himself personally before his eyes. For Christ is now manifested to us, and hence we enjoy him as being present. The body, says he, is of Christ, that is, IN Christ. For the substance of those things which the ceremonies anciently prefigured is now presented before our eyes in Christ, inasmuch as he contains in himself everything that they marked out as future. Hence, the man that calls back the ceremonies into use, either buries the manifestation of Christ, or robs Christ of his excellence, and makes him in a manner void. (387) Accordingly, should any one of mortals assume to himself in this matter the office of judge, let us not submit to him, inasmuch as Christ, the only competent Judge, sets us free. For when he says, Let no man judge you, he does not address the false apostles, but prohibits the Colossians from yielding their neck to unreasonable requirements. To abstain, it is true, from swine’s flesh, is in itself harmless, but the binding to do it is pernicious, because it makes void the grace of Christ.
Should any one ask, “What view, then, is to be taken of our sacraments? Do they not also represent Christ to us as absent?” I answer, that they differ widely from the ancient ceremonies. For as painters do not in the first draught bring out a likeness in vivid colors, and (εἰκονικῶς) expressively, but in the first instance draw rude and obscure lines with charcoal, so the representation of Christ under the law was unpolished, and was, as it were, a first sketch, but in our sacraments it is seen drawn out to the life. Paul, however, had something farther in view, for he contrasts the bare aspect of the shadow with the solidity of the body, and admonishes them, that it is the part of a madman to take hold of empty shadows, when it is in his power to handle the solid substance. Farther, while our sacraments represent Christ as absent as to view and distance of place, it is in such a manner as to testify that he has been once manifested, and they now also present him to us to be enjoyed. They are not, therefore, bare shadows, but on the contrary symbols (388) of Christ’s presence, for they contain that Yea and Amen of all the promises of God, (2. o 1:20,) which has been once manifested to us in Christ.
(387) “Inutile et du tout vuide;” — “Useless and altogether void.”
(388) “Signes et tesmoignages;” — “Signs and evidences.”
18. Let no one take from you the palm. (389) He alludes to runners, or wrestlers, to whom the palm was assigned, on condition of their not giving way in the middle of the course, or after the contest had been commenced. He admonishes them, therefore, that the false apostles aimed at nothing else than to snatch away from them the palm, inasmuch as they draw them aside from the rectitude of their course. Hence it follows that they must be shunned as the most injurious pests. The passage is also carefully to be marked as intimating, that all those who draw us aside from the simplicity of Christ cheat us out of the prize of our high calling. (Phi 3:14.)
Desirous in humility. Something must be understood; hence I have, inserted in the text id facere , (to do it.) For he points out the kind of danger which they required to guard against. All are desirous to defraud you of the palm, who, under the pretext of humility, recommend to you the worship of angels. For their object is, that you may wander out of the way, leaving the one object of aim. I read humility and worship of angels conjointly, for the one follows the other, just as at this day the Papists make use of the same pretext when philosophizing as to the worship of saints. For they reason on the ground of man’s abasement, (390) that we must, therefore, seek for mediators to help us. But for this very reason has Christ humbled himself — that we might directly betake ourselves to him, however miserable sinners we may be.
I am aware that the worship of angels is by many interpreted otherwise, as meaning such as has been delivered to men by angels; for the Devil has always endeavored to set off his impostures under this title. The Pope at this day boasts, that all the trifles with which he has adulterated the pure worship of God are revelations. In like manner the Theurgians (391) of old alleged that all the superstitions that they contrived were delivered over to them by angels, as if from hand to hand. (392) They, accordingly, think that Paul here condemns all fanciful kinds of worship that are falsely set forth under the authority of angels. (393) But, in my opinion, he rather condemns the contrivance as to the worshipping of angels. It is on this account that he has so carefully applied himself to this in the very commencement of the Epistle, to bring angels under subjection, lest they should obscure the splendor of Christ. (394) In fine, as he had in the first chapter prepared the way for abolishing the ceremonies, so he had also for the removal of all other hinderances which draw us away from Christ alone. (395) In this class is the worship of angels
Superstitious persons have from the beginning worshipped angels, (396) that through means of them there might be free access to God. The Platonists infected the Christian Church also with this error. For although Augustine sharply inveighs against them in his tenth book “On the City of God,” and condemns at great length all their disputations as to the worship of angels, we see nevertheless what has happened. Should any one compare the writings of Plato with Popish theology, he will find that they have drawn wholly from Plato their prattling as to the worship of angels. The sum is this, that we must honor angels, whom Plato calls demons, χάριν τὢς εὐφήμου διαπορείας (for the sake of their auspicious intercession.) (397) He brings forward this sentiment in Epinomis, and he confirms it in Cratylus, (398) and many other passages. In what respect do the Papists differ at all from this? “But, ” it will be said, “they do not deny that the Son of God is Mediator.” Neither did those with whom Paul contends; but as they imagined that God must be approached by the assistance of the angels, and that, consequently, some worship must be rendered to them, so they placed angels in the seat of Christ, and honored them with Christ’s office. Let us know, then, that Paul here condemns all kinds of worship of human contrivance, which are rendered either to angels or to the dead, as though they were mediators, rendering assistance after Christ, or along with Christ. (399) For just so far do we recede from Christ, when we transfer the smallest part of what belongs to him to any others, whether they be angels or men.
Intruding into those things which he hath not seen. The verb ἐμβατεύειν, the participle of which Paul here makes use of, has various significations. The rendering which Erasmus, after Jerome, has given to it, walking proudly, would not suit ill, were there an example of such a signification in any author of sufficient note. For we see every day with how much confidence and pride rash persons pronounce an opinion as to things unknown. Nay, even in the very subject of which Paul treats, there is a remarkable illustration. For when the Sorbonnic divines put forth their trifles (400) respecting the intercession of saints or angels, they declare, (401) as though it were from an oracle, (402) that the dead (403) know and behold our necessities, inasmuch as they see all things in the reflex light of God. (404) And yet, what is less certain? Nay more, what is more obscure and doubtful? But such, truly, is their magisterial freedom, that they fearlessly and daringly assert what is not only not known by them, but cannot be known by men.
This meaning, therefore, would be suitable, if that signification of the term were usual. It is, however, among the Greeks taken simply as meaning to walk. It also sometimes means to inquire. Should any one choose to understand it thus in this passage, Paul will, in that case, reprove a foolish curiosity in the investigation of things that are obscure, and such as are even hid from our view and transcend it. (405) It appears to me, however, that I have caught Paul’s meaning, and have rendered it faithfully in this manner — intruding into those things which he hath not seen. For that is the common signification of the word ἐμβατεύειν — to enter upon an inheritance, (406) or to take possession, or to set foot anywhere. Accordingly, Budaeus renders this passage thus: — “Setting foot upon, or entering on the possession of those things which he has not seen.” I have followed his authority, but have selected a more suitable term. For such persons in reality break through and intrude into secret things, (407) of which God would have no discovery as yet made to us. The passage ought to be carefully observed, for the purpose of reproving the rashness (408) of those who inquire farther than is allowable.
Puffed up in vain by a fleshly mind. He employs the expression fleshly mind to denote the perspicuity of the human intellect, however great it may be. For he places it in contrast with that spiritual wisdom which is revealed to us from heaven in accordance with that statement —
Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee.
(Mat 16:17.)
Whoever; therefore, depends upon his own reason, inasmuch as the acuteness of the flesh is wholly at work in him, (409) Paul declares him to be puffed up in vain. And truly all the wisdom that men have from themselves is mere wind: hence there is nothing solid except in the word of God and the illumination of the Spirit. And observe, that those are said to be puffed up who insinuate themselves (410) under a show of humility. For it happens, as Augustine elegantly writes to Paulinus, by wonderful means, as to the soul of man, that it is more puffed up from a false humility than if it were openly proud.
(389) “The Latin, ‘seducat,’ correctly gives the intention of καταβραβευέτω which signifies, to cause a competitor to lose his prize, by drawing him aside from the goal, (seorsim ducendo, or seducendo.)” — Penn. — Ed.
(390) “Car ayans proposé l’indignite de l’homme, et presché d’humilite, de là ils concluent;” — “For having set forth man’s unworthiness, and having preached of humility, they conclude from this.”
(391) The Theurgians were the followers of Ammonius Saccas, who prescribed an austere discipline with the view of “refining,” as he pretended, “that faculty of the mind which receives the images of things, so as to render it capable of perceiving the demons, and of performing many marvellous things by their assistance.” See Mosheim’s, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, p. 174. — Ed.
(392) Per manus , (from one hand to another.) The reader will find the same proverbial expression made use of by Calvin on the Corinthians, vol. 1, pp. 150, 373, and vol. 2, p. 9. — Ed.
(393) “Lesquelles on fait receuoir au poure monde sous la fausse couuerture de l’authorite des anges;” — “Which they make the world receive under the false pretext of the authority of angels.”
(394) “La splendeur de la maieste de Christ;” — “The splendor of Christ’s majesty.”
(395) “De seul vray but, qui est Christ;” — “From the only true aim, which is Christ.”
(396) See Calvin’S Institutes, vol. 1, p. 200.
(397) “A cause de l’heureuse intercession qu’ils font pour les hommes;” — “On account of the blessed intercession which they make for men.”
(398) See Calvin’S Institutes, vol. 1, p. 202.
(399) “Comme s’ils estoyent mediateurs ou auec Christ, ou en second lieu apres Christ, pour suppleer ce qui defaut de son costé “ — “As if they were mediators either with Christ, or in the second place after Christ, to supply what is wanting on his part.”
(400) “Mettent en auant leurs mensonges;” — “Bring forward their false hoods.”
(401) “Ils prononcent et determinent comme par arrest;” — “They declare and determine as if by decree.”
(402) “Perinde atque ex tripode,” (just as though it were from the tripod.) Our author manifestly alludes to the three-footed stool on which the Priestess of Apollo at Delphi sat, while giving forth oracular responses. — Ed.
(404) “En la reuerberation de la lumiere de Dieu;” — “In the reflection of the light of God.”
(405) “Et surmontent toute nostre capacite;” — “And exceed all our capacity.”
(406) Thus ἐμβατεύειν εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν is made use of by Demosthenes, as meaning — “to come in to the property.” — See Dem. 1086. 19. — Ed.
(407) “Es choses secretes et cachees;” — “Into things secret and hidden.”
(408) “La role outrecuidance;” — “The foolish presumption.”
(409) “Pource qu’il n’est gouuerné que par la subtilite charnelle et naturelle;” — “Because he is regulated exclusively by carnal and natural acuteness.”
(410) “En la grace des hommes;” — “Into the favor of men.
19. Not holding the Head. He condemns in the use of one word whatever does not bear a relation to Christ. He also confirms his statement on the ground that all things flow from him, and depend upon him. Hence, should any one call us anywhere else than to Christ, though in other respects he were big with heaven and earth, he is empty and full of wind: let us, therefore, without concern, bid him farewell. Observe, however, of whom he is speaking, namely, of those who did not openly reject or deny Christ, but, not accurately understanding his office and power, by seeking out other helps and means of salvation, (as they commonly speak,) were not firmly rooted in him.
From whom the whole body by joints. He simply means this, that the Church does not stand otherwise than in the event of all things being furnished to her by Christ, the Head, and, accordingly, that her entire safety (411) consists in him. The body, it is true, has its nerves, its joints, and ligaments, but all these things derive their vigor solely from the Head, so that the whole binding of them together is from that source. What, then, must be done? The constitution of the body will be in a right state, if simply the Head, which furnishes the several members with everything that they have, is allowed, without any hinderance, to have the pre-eminence. This Paul speaks of as the increase of God, by which he means that it is not every increase that is approved by God, but only that which has a relation to the Head. For we see that the kingdom of the Pope is not merely tall and large, but swells out into a monstrous size. As, however, we do not there see what Paul here requires in the Church, what shall we say, but that it is a humpbacked body, and a confused mass that will fall to pieces of itself.
(411) “Toute la perfection de son estre;” — “The entire perfection of her being.”
20. If ye are dead. He had previously said, that the ordinances were fastened to the cross of Christ. (Col 2:14.) He now employs another figure of speech — that we are dead to them, as he teaches us elsewhere, that we are dead to the law, and the law, on the other hand, to us. (Gal 2:19.) The term death means abrogation, (416) but it is more expressive and more emphatic, (καὶ ἐμφατικώτερον.) He says, therefore, that the Colossians, have nothing to do with ordinances. Why? Because they have died with Christ to ordinances; that is, after they died with Christ by regeneration, they were, through his kindness, set free from ordinances, that they may not belong to them any more. Hence he concludes that they are by no means bound by the ordinances, which the false apostles endeavored to impose upon them.
(416) “Et abolissement;” — “And abolishment.”
21. Eat not, taste not. Hitherto this has been rendered — Handle not, but as another word immediately follows, which signifies the same thing, every one sees how cold and absurd were such a repetition. Farther, the verb ἅπτεσθαι is employed by the Greeks, among its other significations, in the sense of eating, (417) in accordance with the rendering that I have given. Plutarch makes use of it in the life of Caesar, when he relates that his soldiers, in destitution of all things, ate animals which they had not been accustomed previously to use as food. (418) And this arrangement is both in other respects natural and is also most in accordance with the connection of the passage; for Paul points out, (μιμητικῶς,) by way of imitation, to what length the waywardness of those who bind consciences by their laws is wont to proceed. From the very commencement they are unduly rigorous: hence he sets out with their prohibition — not simply against eating, but even against slightly partaking. After they have obtained what they wish they go beyond that command, so that they afterwards declare it to be unlawful to taste of what they do not wish should be eaten. At length they make it criminal even to touch. In short, when persons have once taken upon them to tyrannize over men’s souls, there is no end of new laws being daily added to old ones, and new enactments starting up from time to time. How bright a mirror there is as to this in Popery! Hence Paul acts admirably well in admonishing us that human traditions are a labyrinth, in which consciences are more and more entangled; nay more, are snares, which from the beginning bind in such a way that in course of time they strangle in the end.
(417) An example occurs in Homer’s Odyssey, (6: 60,) σίτου θ ᾿ ἅπτεσθον καὶ χαρ́ετον. — “Take food and rejoice.” See also Xenoph. Mem. 1. 3. 7. — Ed.
(418) “The passage referred to is as follows: — “ ᾿Εβρώθη δὲ καὶ φλοιὸς ὡς λέγεται, καὶ ζώων ἀγεύστων πρότερον ἥ ψαντο.” — “Even the bark of trees, it is said, was devoured, and they ate animals not previously tasted.” — Ed.
22. All which things tend to corruption. He sets aside, by a twofold argument, the enactments of which he has made mention — because they make religion consist in things outward and frail, which have no connection with the spiritual kingdom of God; and secondly, because they are from men, not from God. He combats the first argument, also, in Rom 14:17, when he says,
The kingdom of God is not in meat and drink;
likewise in 1. o 6:13,
Meat for the belly, and the belly for meats: God will destroy both.
Christ also himself says,
Whatever entereth into the mouth defileth not the man, because it goes down into the belly, and is cast forth.
(Mat 15:11.)
The sum is this — that the worship of God, true piety, and the holiness of Christians, do not consist in drink, and food, and clothing, which are things that are transient and liable to corruption, and perish by abuse. For abuse is properly applicable to those things which are corrupted by the use of them. Hence enactments are of no value in reference to those things which tend to excite scruples of conscience. But in Popery you would scarcely find any other holiness, than what consists in little observances of corruptible things.
A second refutation is added (419) — that they originated with men, and have not God as their Author; and by this thunderbolt he prostrates and swallows up all traditions of men. For why? This is Paul’s reasoning: “Those who bring consciences into bondage do injury to Christ, and make void his death. For whatever is of human invention does not bind conscience.”
(419) “Le second argument par lequel il refute telles ordonnances, est;” — “The second argument by which he sets aside such enactments, is.”
23. Which have indeed a show. Here we have the anticipation of an objection, in which, while he concedes to his adversaries what they allege, he at the same time reckons it wholly worthless. For it is as though he had said, that he does not regard their having ashow of wisdom. But show is placed in contrast with reality, for it is an appearance, as they commonly speak, which deceives by resemblance. (420)
Observe, however, of what colors this show consists, according to Paul. He makes mention of three — self-invented worship, (421) humility, and neglect of the body. Superstition among the Greeks receives the name of ἐθελοβρησκεία — the term which Paul here makes use of. He has, however, an eye to the etymology of the term, for ἐθελοβρησκεία literally denotes a voluntary service, which men choose for themselves at their own option, without authority from God. Human traditions, therefore, are agreeable to us on this account, that they are in accordance with our understanding, for any one will find in his own brain the first outlines of them. This is the first pretext.
The second is humility, inasmuch as obedience both to God and men is pretended, so that men do not refuse even unreasonable burdens. (422) And for the most part traditions of this kind are of such a nature as to appear to be admirable exercises of humility.
They allure, also, by means of a third pretext, inasmuch as they seem to be of the greatest avail for the mortification of the flesh, while there is no sparing of the body. Paul, however, bids farewell to those disguises, for
what is in high esteem among men is often an abomination in the sight of God. (Luk 16:15.)
Farther, that is a treacherous obedience, and a perverse and sacrilegious humility, which transfers to men the authority of God; and neglect of the body is not of so great importance, as to be worthy to be set forth to admiration as the service of God.
Some one, however, will feel astonished, that Paul does not take more pains in pulling off those masks. I answer, that he on good grounds rests contented with the simple term show. For the principles which he had taken as opposed to this are incontrovertible — that the body is in Christ, and that, consequently, those do nothing but impose upon miserable men, who set before them shadows. Secondly, the spiritual kingdom of Christ is by no means taken up with frail and corruptible elements. Thirdly, by the death of Christ such observances were put an end to, that we might have no connection with them; and, fourthly, God is our only Lawgiver. (Isa 33:22.) Whatever may be brought forward on the other side, let it have ever so much splendor, is fleeting show.
Secondly, he reckoned it enough to admonish the Colossians, not to be deceived by the putting forth of empty things. There was no necessity for dwelling at greater length in reproving them. For it should be a settled point among all the pious, that the worship of God ought not to be measured according to our views; and that, consequently, any kind of service is not lawful, simply on the ground that it is agreeable to us. This, also, ought to be a commonly received point — that we owe to God such humility as to yield obedience simply to his commands, so as not to lean to our own understanding, etc., (Pro 3:5,) — and that the limit of humility towards men is this — that each one submit himself to others in love. Now, when they contend that the wantonness of the flesh is repressed by abstinence from meats, the answer is easy — that we must not therefore abstain from any particular food as being unclean, but must eat sparingly of what we do eat of, both in order that we may soberly and temperately make use of the gifts of God, and that we may not, impeded by too much food and drink, forget those things that are God’s. Hence it was enough to say that these (423) were masks, that the Colossians, being warned, might be on their guard against false pretexts.
Thus, at the present day, Papists are not in want of specious pretexts, by which to set forth their own laws, however they may be — some of them impious and tyrannical, and others of them silly and trifling. When, however, we have granted them everything, there remains, nevertheless, this refutation by Paul, which is of itself more than sufficient for dispelling all their smoky vapours; (424) not to say how far removed they (425) are from so honorable an appearance as that which Paul describes. The principal holiness of the Papacy, (426) at the present day, consists in monkhood, and of what nature that is, I am ashamed and grieved to make mention, lest I should stir up so abominable an odour. Farther, it is of importance to consider here, how prone, nay, how forward the mind of man is to artificial modes of worship. For the Apostle here graphically describes (427) the state of the old system of monkhood, which came into use a hundred years after his death, as though he had never spoken a word. The zeal of men, therefore, for superstition is surpassingly mad, which could not be restrained by so plain a declaration of God from breaking forth, as historical records testify.
Not in any honor. Honor means care, according to the usage of the Hebrew tongue. Honour widows, (1. i 5:3,) that is, take care of them. Now Paul finds fault with this, that they (428) teach to leave off care for the body. For as God forbids us to indulge the body unduly, so he commands that these be given it as much as is necessary for it. Hence Paul, in Rom 13:14, does not expressly condemn care for the flesh, but such as indulges lusts. Have no care, says he, for the flesh, to the gratifying of its lusts. What, then, does Paul point out as faulty in those traditions of which he treats? It is that they gave no honor to the body for the satisfying the flesh, that is, according to the measure of necessity. For satisfying here means a mediocrity, which restricts itself to the simple use of nature, and thus stands in opposition to pleasure and all superfluous delicacies; for nature is content with little. Hence, to refuse what it requires for sustaining the necessity of life, is not less at variance with piety, than it is inhuman.
(420) “Par similitude qu’elle ha auec la verite;” — “By the resemblance which it bears to the reality.”
(421) “Le seruice forgé a plaisir, c’est a dire inuenté par les hommes;” — “Worship contrived at pleasure, that is to say, invented by men.”
(422) “Iniques et dures a porter;” — “Unreasonable and hard to be borne.”
(423) “Ces traditions;” — “These traditions.”
(424) “Tous les brouillars desquels ils taschent d’esblouir les yeux au poure monde;” — “All the mists by which they endeavor to blind the eyes of the poor world.”
(425) “Leurs traditions;” — “Their traditions.”
(426) “La premiere et la principale honnestete et sainctete de la Papaute;” — “The first and principal decency and sanctity of the Papacy.”
(427) “Peind yci au vif;” — “Paints here to the life.”
