Col 2:1. Γάρ] The apostle now confirms in concreto the εἰς ὃ κ. κοπ. ἀγωνιζόμενος κ.τ.λ., which has just been affirmed of himself in general: in proof of that assertion I would have you to know, etc. Hofmann holds erroneously, in consequence of his mistaken explanation of κοπιῶ in Col 1:29, that Paul desires to explain why he has said that he is becoming weary over the exertion, etc.
Instead of the more frequent οὐ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν (see on Rom 11:25; Rom 1:13), Paul uses the θέλω ὑμ. εἰδέναι, also in 1Co 11:3; comp. Php 1:12.
ἡλίκον] what a great, vehement conflict. Paul nowhere else uses this word, which is classical, but does not occur either in the LXX. or in the Apocrypha; in the N. T. it is only found again at Jam 3:5. That by the conflict is meant the internal pressure of solicitude and apprehension, etc. (comp. Col 1:29, also Rom 15:30), is plain-when we remember the imprisoned condition of the apostle, who now could not contend outwardly with the false teachers themselves-from Col 2:2. It is at the same time self-evident that the wrestling of prayer was an eminent way of conducting this spiritual conflict, without its being necessary to regard Col 4:12 as a criterion for determining the sense in our passage.
καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικ.] The neighbouring Laodiceans (Rev 3:14 ff.) were without doubt exposed to like heretical dangers; hence also the injunction as to the mutual communication of the Epistles, Col 4:16.
καὶ ὅσοι κ.τ.λ.] The sense is: and, generally (καί, see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 786. 870) for all to whom I am personally unknown. It adds the entire category, to which the ὑμεῖς and those ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ, both regarded as churches, were reckoned to belong. Comp. Act 4:6. It is plain from our passage that Paul had not been in Colossae and Laodicea. It is true that Wiggers, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 176, would have ὅσοι κ.τ.λ. understood as referring to a portion of the Colossians and Laodiceans, in which case καί would mean even; but the text itself is decisively opposed to this view by the following αὐτῶν, Col 2:2, which, if the ὃσοι κ.τ.λ. to which it refers be not the class in which the readers and Laodiceans were included, would be altogether unsuitable; as, indeed, the bare even does not suffice to give special prominence to a particular portion (we should expect μάλιστα δέ or the like), and the comprehensive ὅσοι withal does not seem accounted for. Erroneous also is the view (held already by Theodoret in the Hypothes. and in the Commentary, though Credner, Einl. § 154, erroneously denies this) of Baronius, Lardner, and David Schultz (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 535 ff.), that the ὅσοι κ.τ.λ. were other than the ὑμεῖς and οἱ ἐν Λαοδικ.; Paul having been personally known to both the latter. The subsequent αὐτῶν is fatal to this theory likewise; and how singularly without reason would it have been, if Paul had designated as the objects of his anxiety, along with two churches of the district which are supposed to have known him personally, all not knowing him personally, without distinction of locality! With how many of the latter were there no such dangers at all existing, as the Colossians and Laodiceans were exposed to! To this falls to be added the fact, that in the entire Epistle there is not a single hint of the apostle having been present in Colossae. See, on the contrary, on Col 1:8 and on Col 1:23. Comp. Wieseler, Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt. p. 440. According to Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. 1870, p. 245 f., the intimation that Paul was personally unknown to the Colossians betrays the composition of the Epistle at a later, time, when the recollection of his labours there had been already superseded and had vanished from the memory of the churches. As if such a forgetfulness were even conceivable, in presence of the high esteem in which the apostle was held!
That Paul should have been so concerned about the Colossians and Laodiceans, as those who did not know him personally, is natural enough, seeing that they were not in a position to oppose the living impression of the apostle’s personal ministry, and his direct authority, to the heretical seductions. Comp. Col 2:5.
ἐν σαρκί] not belonging to ἑωράκασι-in which case it would be a contrast to seeing ἐν πνεύματι (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Baumgarten-Crusius)-joins itself, so as to form one idea, with τὸ πρόσωπον μον (Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 169]). See Col 2:5. The addition, which might in itself be dispensed with (comp. Gal 1:22; 1Th 2:17), serves the purpose of concrete representation, without its being necessary to import into it a contrast to the “spiritual physiognomy” (Olshausen), or to the having made acquaintance in a spiritual fashion (Hofmann), in connection with which Estius even discovers a certain ταπείνωσις through a higher estimation of the latter; although generally the idea of a spiritual mode of intercourse, independent of bodily absence, very naturally occasioned the concrete description: my bodily face. There is all the less ground for assigning ἐν σαρκί, as an anticipation of Col 2:5, to the hand of the manipulator, and that in such a way as to betray an author who knows the apostle to be already snatched away from the flesh and present in heaven (Holtzmann).
Col 2:2. The end aimed at (ἵνα) in this conflict: in order that their hearts may be comforted, viz. practically by the fact, that they are united in love, etc. Accordingly, συμβιβασθ. κ.τ.λ. contains the mode of that comforting, which ensues, when through loving union the evil of heretical division, whether threatening or already rampant, is removed. Most thoughtfully and lovingly Paul designates the concern of his solicitude as παράκλησις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν, not impeaching them on account of the heretical seductions, but making those temptations to be felt as a misfortune, in the presence of which one requires comfort (Vulgate: “ut consolentur”). Chrysostom remarks aptly (comp. Theophylact): ἤδη λοιπὸν σπεύδει καὶ ὠδίνει ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς τὸ δόγμα, οὔτε κατηγορῶν οὔτε ἀπαλλάττων αὐτοὺς κατηγορίας. The explanation which makes παρακαλ. mean, like אמץ (LXX. Deu 3:28; Job 4:3), to strengthen, confirm (so Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius), is quite opposed to the Pauline usage, according to which it means to exhort (so Luther here), to give consolation (so Hofmann; comp. Bleek), to entreat, to encourage, to comfort; the latter in particular when, as here, it is joined with καρδία. Comp. Col 4:8; Eph 6:22; 2Th 2:17 (also Sir 30:23).
συμβιβασθέντες] referred to the logical subject of the foregoing, i. e. to the persons, of whom αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν was said. See on Eph 4:2. It means here not instructi (Vulgate; comp. 1Co 2:16, and the LXX.), nor yet introduced,[78] which linguistic usage does not permit, but brought together, united, compacti (Col 2:19; Eph 4:16; Thuc. ii. 29. 5; Herod. i. 74; and see Wetstein and Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 453 f.). In connection therewith, ἐν ἀγάπῃ, which denotes Christian brotherly love, is the moral element, in which the union is to subsist; to which is then added the telic reference of συμβιβασθ. by καὶ εἰς κ.τ.λ.: united in love and for behoof of the full richness, etc., i.e. in order, by that union, to attain the possession of this full richness, which could not be attained, but only hindered, by division and variance, καὶ εἰς is not to be joined with παρακλ. (Storr, Flatt), since the καί rather adds to the ἐν-relation of the συμβιβ. its εἰς-relation, and is therefore merely the simple and, not etiam (Bengel, Hofmann); but not to be explained either as et quidem (Bähr, Böhmer), or by an ἔλθωσι to be supplied (Olshausen permits a choice between the two).
τῆς πληροφ. τῆς συνέσ.] The full certainty of Christian insight is the lofty blessing, the whole riches of which, i.e. its blissful possession as a whole, they are to attain, so that in no element of the σύνεσις and in no mode thereof does there remain any lack of completely undoubting conviction;[79] comp. 1Th 1:5; Heb 6:11; Heb 10:22; Rom 4:21; Rom 14:5. On the conception of πληροφορεῖν, see Bleek on Hebr. II. 2, p. 233 f. As to σύνεσις, intelligence, both theoretical and practical, comp. on Col 1:9; that here also what is specifically Christian is meant κατʼ ἐξοχήν, is plain from the context. See the sequel. The cumulative fulness of the description πᾶν τὸ πλ. τ. πληρ. τ. συνέσ. is naturally and earnestly called forth by the consideration of the dangers which threatened the πληροφ. τ. συνέσ. through the attempts of false teachers (Col 2:4). Οἶδα, ὃτι πιστεύετε, ἀλλὰ πληροφορηθῆναι ὑμᾶς βούλομαι· οὐκ εἰς τὸν πλοῦτον μόνον, ἀλλʼ εἰς πάντα τὸν πλοῦτον, ἵνα καὶ ἐν πᾶσι καὶ ἐπιτεταμένως πεπληροφορημένοι ἦτε, Chrysostom.
εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κ.τ.λ.] parallel to the preceding εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος κ.τ.λ., and destined to bring in with emphasis the great object of the σύνεσις (the divine counsel of redemption, τὸ μυστήριον, see on Col 1:26); so that what was previously set forth at length by εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος τ. πληροφ. τ. συνέσ. is now succinctly summed up for the sake of annexing the object by εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν. Thus the distinction between ἐπίγνωσις and γνῶσις (Col 2:3) is brought out clearly.[80] Comp. on Col 1:9. But τοῦ μυστ. τ. Θ. is not to be attached also to τῆς συνέσεως (Hofmann), so that the τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν would occupy an interrupting position.
τοῦ Θεοῦ] Genitive of the subject; it is God, whose decree the μυστ. is. The reading to be approved, τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ (see the critical remarks), means: of the God of Christ, i.e. to whom Christ belongs in a special way, as to His Father, Sender, Head, etc.; see on Eph 1:17; comp. Joh 20:17; Mat 27:46. The separation of Χριστοῦ, however, from τ. Θεοῦ, and the taking it as apposition to τοῦ μυστηρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ, so that Christ Himself appears as the personal secret of God, “because He is personally the truth contained in God and revealed from God” (Hofmann, comp. Holtzmann, p. 215), must be rejected, because Paul would thus have expressed himself in a way as much exposed to misapprehension as possible. He would either have inserted an ὅ ἐστι after τοῦ Θεοῦ (Col 1:24; 1Co 3:11), or have omitted τοῦ Θεοῦ, which would have made τὸ μυστήριον Χριστοῦ, as in Eph 3:4, the mystery contained personally in Christ. But as the apostle has actually written, the reader could only understand the mystery of the God of Christ. If Christ is God’s (see on 1Co 3:23; comp. Luk 2:26; Luk 9:20; Act 4:26), then God is also the God of Christ. After Θεοῦ, therefore, no comma is to be inserted. Finally, the view of Hilary (“Deus Christus sacramentum est”), that ὁ Θεός is Christ Himself (so Steiger and Bisping, also Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 1, p. 460, ed. 2), is wholly without Pauline analogy, and is not to be supported by such passages as Rom 9:5; Tit 2:13; Eph 5:5; in fact, even the lofty predicates employed in Col 1:15 ff., Col 2:9, draw the line of distinction between God and Christ. Moreover, the expression itself is not harsher (de Wette), or even more inconceivable (Olshausen), more unsuitable and obscure (Reiche), than the phrase ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ κυρίου ἡμ. Ἰησοῦ Χ. in Eph 1:17; since in connection with the notion “the God of Christ,” the designation of the latter as our Lord is unessential. The addition Χριστοῦ finds its motive in the connection, because it was just in Christ that God formed the decree of redemption (the μυστήριον), and has carried it out (Eph 3:10 f., et al.). Whosoever has known God as the God of Christ, has the divine μυστήριον therewith unveiled to him.
[78] So Hofmann, who couples it in this sense with εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος, taking ἐν ἀγάπῃ adverbially, and explaining the καί, which stands in the way, in the sense of “even,” to the effect that this introduction into all riches of the understanding has as its presupposition another introduction, viz. that into the faith. This is a sophistically forced mode of disposing of the καί, suggested by nothing in the context, especially since faith by no means, either of itself or in vv. 5-7, falls to be considered as a preliminary stage, as if the πληροφορία κ.τ.λ., like a new stadium, had to be entered upon through a second introduction; on the contrary, this πληροφορία is the full rich development of faith in the inner life. We may add that συμβιβάζειν=to introduce is nothing but a lexicographical fiction invented by Hofmann. Chrysostom already says rightly: ἵνα ἑνωθῶσι.
[79] Neither Greek authors, nor the LXX., nor the Apocrypha have πληροφορία. In Ptol. Tetr. p. 4. 9, πληροφόρησις is found.
[80] According to Holtzmann, p. 303, in the frequent mention of γνῶσις and ἐπίγνωσις, of σοφία and σύνεσις, of γνωρίζειν and φωτίζειν, of μυστήριον ἀποκεκρυμμ. and φανέρωσις τοῦ μυστ., we may detect already the terminology of the Grecian mysteries. As if these ideas and expressions were not sufficiently Pauline, and their intentional application were not sufficiently intelligible in the light of theosophic aberrations. Comp. also on Col 1:23; and Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 420, ed. 2.
Col 2:3. Ἐν ᾧ] is to be referred to τοῦ μυστηρίου-a remark which applies also in the case of every other reading of the foregoing words-not to Christ,[81] as is commonly done with the Recepta, and by Böhmer, Dalmer, and Hofmann even with our reading. The correct reference is given, in connection with the Recepta, by Grotius (against whom Calovius contends), Hammond, Bengel, and Michaelis; and in connection with our reading, by Huther, Schenkel, and Bleek; its correctness appears from the correlation in which ἀπόκρυφοι stands to τοῦ μυστηρ. The destination of this relative clause is to bring out the high value of the ἐπίγνωσις τοῦ μυστηρίου (since in Him, etc.), and that in contrast to the pretended wisdom and knowledge of the false teachers; hence also the emphatic πάντες οἱ θησ. κ.τ.λ.
The σοφία and γνῶσις are here conceived objectively, and the genitives indicate wherein the treasures consist. The distinction between the two words is not, indeed, to be abandoned (Calvin: “duplicatio ad augendum valet;” comp. Huther and others), but yet is not to be defined more precisely than that γνῶσις is more special, knowledge, and σοφία more general, the whole Christian wisdom, by which we with the collective activity of the mind grasp divine relations and those of human morality, and apply them to right practice. Comp. on Col 1:9.
On θησαυροί, comp. Plato, Phil. p. 15 E: ὥς τινα σοφίας εὑρηκὼς θησαυρόν, Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 9, i. 6. 14; Wis 7:14; Sir 1:22; Bar 3:15.
ἀπόκρυφοι] is not the predicate to εἰσί (so most writers, with Chrysostom and Luther), as if it were ἀποκεκρυμμένοι εἰσιν instead of εἰσὶν ἀπόκρυφοι; for, as it stands, the unsuitable sense would be conveyed: “in whom all treasures … are hidden treasures.” But neither is it a description of the qualitative how of their being in Him,[82] in so far, namely, as they do not lie open for ordinary perception (Hofmann); for this adverbial use of the adjective (see Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 4. 12, 2:2. 17; Krüger, § 57. 5) would be without due motive here, seeing that the apostle is concerned, not about the mode of the ἐν ᾧ εἰσι, but about the characterizing of the treasures themselves, whereupon the how in question was obvious of itself. We must therefore take ἀπόκρυφοι simply as an attributive adjective to ΘΗΣΑΥΡΟΊ, placed at the end with emphasis: in whom the collective hidden treasures … are contained. Comp. LXX. Isa 45:3; 1Ma 1:23; Mat 13:44. The treasures, which are to be found in the mystery, are not such as lie open to the light, but, in harmony with the conception of the secret, hidden (comp. Matt. l.c.), because unattainable by the power of natural discernment in itself, but coming to be found by those who attain εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου, whereby they penetrate into the domain of these secret riches and discover and appropriate them. The objection to this view of ἈΠΟΚΡ. as the adjective to ΘΗΣ., viz. that there must then have been written ΟἹ ἈΠΟΚΡ. (Bähr, Bleek, Hofmann), is erroneous; the article might have been (1Ma 1:23), but did not need to be, inserted. With the article it would mean: quippe qui absconditi sunt; without the article it is simply: “thesauri absconditi” (Vulgate), i.e. ἀπόκρυφοι ὄντες, not ΟἹ ὌΝΤΕς ἈΠΌΚΡΥΦΟΙ.
[81] Older dogmatic expositors (see especially Calovius) discover here the omniscience of Christ.
[82] In connection with which Bähr, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Bleek convert the notion of being hidden into that of being deposited for preservation (ἀποκεϊσθαι, Col 1:5).
Col 2:4. After this affecting introduction, testifying to his zealous striving for the Christian development of his readers, and thereby claiming their faithful adherence to his gospel, the warning now follows, for the sake of which Paul has prefixed Col 2:1-3 (τοῦτο). That τοῦτο does not refer merely to Col 2:3 (so Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Zanchius, Estius, and others, including Bähr and Böhmer; Huther is undecided) is in itself probable, since Col 2:1-3 form a connected sentence admirably preparatory in its entire purport for what follows, and is confirmed by Col 2:5, which glances back to Col 2:1. Hence: This contained in Col 2:1-3, which ye ought to know, I say with the design that, etc.
ἵνα μηδείς (see the critical remarks); comp. Mar 5:43; Tit 3:12; Rev 3:11, et al.
παραλογίζ.] In N. T., only found elsewhere in Jam 1:22 (see Theile in loc.); frequent in the later Greek writers since Demosthenes (822. 25, 1037. 15). It indicates, by a term borrowed from false reckoning, the deception and overreaching that take place through false reasoning. What particular sophistries the false teachers, whose agitations at all events tended (see Col 2:8 f.) to the disadvantage of the Pauline gospel, were guilty of, does not appear. It is certain, however, that they were not those suggested by Böhmer (nothing good can come out of Nazareth; one who was crucified cannot have possessed divine wisdom), since the false teachers were not non-Christians. Hardly did these beguiling sophistries affect the person of the apostle, as if he were not concerning himself about the confirming and training of churches not planted by himself, as Hofmann thinks. In that case we should have in Col 2:1-3 only a self-testimony to the contrary, which, as assertion against assertion, would neither have been skilful nor delicate; nor do we in what follows find any defence in opposition to personal calumniation. This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 177. The γάρ in Col 2:5 by no means requires this interpretation.
ἐν πιθανολογίᾳ] by means of persuading speech; Luther’s “with rational discourses” misapprehends the meaning. It occurs in this place only in the N. T.; but see Plato, Theaet. p. 162 E; comp. Dem. 928. 14: λόγους θαυμασίως πιθανούς, also πιθανολογεῖν, Diog. L. x. 87; Diod. Sic. i. 39; and πιθανῶς λέγειν, Lucian, Amor. 7. Hence the art of persuasion: ἡ πιθανολογική, Arr. Epict. i. 8. 7.
Col 2:5. A special reason, having reference to his bodily absence, by which his readers are encouraged not to allow themselves to be deceived.
τῇ σαρκί] with respect to the flesh, i.e. bodily. Comp. 1Co 5:3.
ἁλλά] at, yet am I on the other hand, beginning the apodosis; see on Rom 6:5 and 1Co 4:15.
τῷ πνεύματι] with respect to the spirit, i.e. mentally; my spirit, translating itself in thought into your midst, is along with you. Erroneously Grotius: “Deus Paulo revelat, quae Colossis fierent,” so that πνεῦμα would be meant of the Holy Spirit. According to Wiggers, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 181, and Vaihinger, in Herzog’s Encyklop. IV. p. 79, ἄπειμι takes for granted the apostle’s having been there previously. A quite groundless assumption; the verb expresses (ἀπό) the being away from, but does not indicate whether a person had been previously present or not, which can only be gathered from the connection or other circumstances of the case. In this case the context directly indicates, by Col 2:1, that a bodily παρεῖναι had not occurred. It is otherwise in 1Co 5:3; 2Co 10:1; 2Co 10:11; 2Co 13:2; 2Co 13:10; Php 1:27. Prom the similar expression in 1Co 5:3. Theodoret nevertheless infers that Paul ὡς θεασάμενος αὐτοὺς ἔγραψεν τὴν ἐπιστολήν.
σύν ὑμὶν] in your society, among you. Comp. Luk 8:38; Luk 22:56; Php 1:23; 1Th 4:17; 2Pe 1:18, et al.
χαίρων κ. βλέπων] There is here no illogical prefixing of the χαίρων in the lively feeling of joy (Huther, comp. de Wette); χαίρων rather expresses joy at the fact that he is with them spiritually, and καὶ βλέπων ὑμ. τὴν τάξιν κ.τ.λ. then adds what at this joyful being with the Colossians he sees in them, so that the description thus advances with κ. βλέπ.: in spirit I am along with you, rejoicing in this mental presence, and therewith seeing, etc. Comp. also Hofmann, who, however, imports into βλέπων the pregnant meaning not conveyed by the simple verb; it is as plainly present to my soul, as if I saw it with my eyes. This would be κ. ὡς βλέπων, or κ. ὡς ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς βλ. Renderings blending the ideas, such as gaudeo videns (Grotius, Wolf, Bähr, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and others), or beholding with joy (Bengel, Heinrichs, Flatt), are at variance with the words as they stand. Some erroneously cite Josephus, Bell. iii. 10. 2, where χαίρω καὶ βλέπων (not βλέπω) means: I rejoice, when I even see it. Winer, p. 438 [E. T. 589], and Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 425, supply with χαίρων the words: concerning you. But the supplying of ἐφʼ ὑμῖν is not justified by the context, which naturally suggests joy at the being together with the readers, for χαίρ. stands alongside of this as an accompanying relation without any other definition of object. And according to this view there is no ground at all for an explicative rendering of καί, which Winer still admits (so also Böhmer and Olshausen).
The testimony, moreover, which is given to the readers by βλέπων κ.τ.λ. is not inconsistent with the anxious conflict in Col 2:1; but, on the contrary, makes the latter, in a psychological point of view, all the more conceivable, when the dangers which threatened a state of things still even now so good are considered.
ὑμῶν τ. τάξιν] The prefixed pronoun owes this position to the favourable expectation which the Colossians, more than many others, have awakened in the apostle. The τάξις is order, orderly condition. Its antithesis is ἀταξία, Plato, Tim. p. 30 A. For the idea see Plato, Gorg. p. 504 A: τάξεως … καὶ κόσμου τυχοῦσα οἰκία, Polyb. i. 4. 6: ἡ σύμπασα σχέσις κ. τάξις τῆς οἰκουμένης, iii. 36. 6: ἡ … διαίρεσις κ. τάξις. It is often used of the organized condition of the state, Dem. 200. 4, Plat. Crit. p. 109 D; elsewhere also (see Sturz, Lex. Xen. IV. p. 245) of the army, sometimes to designate a section of it (a company of two λόχοι), and sometimes to express its regular arrangement in rank and file (Thuc. iii. 87. 2, iv. 72. 2, 126. 4, viii. 69. 1). Hofmann[83] takes both ΤΆΞ. and ΣΤΕΡΈΩΜΑ in a military sense. But the two words have not in and of themselves the military sense; they would receive it from the context, which is not the case here. Moreover, the meaning fortress, military bulwark, is expressed not by στερέωμα generally, but by ἜΡΥΜΑ or ὈΧΎΡΩΝΑ, 2Co 10:4. Hence, if we would avoid arbitrariness, we can only abide by the view that here ΤΆΞΙς means the orderly state of the Christian church, which has hitherto not been disturbed by sectarian divisions or forsaken by the readers. Comp. 1Co 14:40. To this outward condition Paul then subjoins the inner one, by which the former is conditioned: and the solid hold of your faith in Christ. στερέωμα, firmamentum, that which has been made firm (Arist. partt. an. ii. 9; Theophr. H. pl. v. 7. 3), a late word, often found in LXX., Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and Apocrypha (see Schleusner, Thes. V. p. 102 f.), represents the stedfastness and immoveableness of faith in such a way, that the latter appears as protected by a strong work (with solid foundation, masonry, etc.) from injury (Eze 13:5; Psa 18:2; Psalms 3 Esdr. 8:81). On the subject-matter, comp. Act 16:5 : ἐστερεοῦντο τῇ πίστει, 1Pe 5:9 : ἈΝΤΊΣΤΗΤΕ ΣΤΕΡΕΟῚ Τῇ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ. The abstract firmness, however (Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and older expositors), which would be στερεότης, is never designated by the word. Chrysostom explains rightly: ὍΤΕ ΠΟΛΛᾺ ΣΥΝΑΓΑΓῺΝ ΣΥΓΚΟΛΛΉΣΕΙς ΠΥΚΝῶς ΚΑῚ ἈΔΙΑΣΠΑΣΤῶς, ΤΌΤΕ ΣΤΕΡΈΩΜΑ ΓΊΝΕΤΑΙ. The genitive τῆς πίστεως, finally, is not to be taken in such a way as to make faith the στερέωμα (Hofmann), which protects the readers, as if it were ΤῸ ὙΜῶΝ ΣΤΕΡΈΩΜΑ; but as the genitive of the subject, in such a way that their faith has the στερέωμα securing it, which Paul spiritually sees.
To call in question the unseducedness here attested (Baumgarten-Crusius, who leaves it a question whether the sense is not merely: “if it is so”), or to refer it to only a part of the church (Flatt), is a quite arbitrary result of unduly pressing the general utterance of commendation.
[83] Whom Holtzmann, p. 177, has too rashly followed.
Col 2:6 f. From the warning given in Col 2:4 and having its ground assigned in Col 2:5, follows (οὖν) the positive obligation to make Christ, as He had been communicated to them through the instruction which they had received, the element in which (ἐν αὐτῷ) their conduct of the inner and outer life moves (περιπατεῖτε), whereupon the more precise modal definitions are subjoined by ἐῤῥιζωμένοι κ.τ.λ.
ὡς] according as. Observe that in the protasis παρελάβετε and in the apodosis περιπατεῖτε (not ἐν αὐτῷ, as Hofmann thinks) have the emphasis, in which case the addition of an οὕτως was not necessary. Their walk in Christ is to be in harmony with the instruction, by means of which they have through Epaphras received Christ.
παρελάβετε] have received (Col 1:7; Eph 4:20), comp. Gal 1:9; Gal 1:12; 1Th 2:13; 1Th 4:1; 2Th 3:6; 1Co 11:23. Christ was communicated to them as the element of life.[84] The rendering: have accepted (Luther, Bähr, Böhmer, Huther, Hofmann), is not contrary to Pauline usage (de Wette; but see on Php 4:9; 1Co 15:1); but it is opposed to the context, in which after Col 2:4 (see especially Col 2:7 : καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε, and Col 2:8 : ΚΑΤᾺ ΤῊΝ ΠΑΡΆΔΟΣΙΝ ΤῶΝ ἈΝΘΡ.) the contrast between true and false Christian instruction as regulative of the walk, and not the contrast between entrance into the fellowship of Christ and the walk therewith given (Hofmann), predominates.[85]
ΤῸΝ Χ. Ἰ. ΤῸΝ ΚΎΡΙΟΝ] A solemnly complete designation, a summary of the whole confession (1Co 12:3; Php 2:11), in which τὸν κύριον, conformably with its position and the entire connection, is to be taken in the sense: as the Lord, consequently attributively, not as a mere apposition (de Wette, Bleek, Ellicott, and others), in which Hofmann includes also Ἰησοῦν, a view which is not warranted by Eph 3:1.
Col 2:7. ἘῤῬΙΖΩΜ. Κ. ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔ. ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ] introduces the ethical habitus in the case of the required περιπατεῖν ἐν Χ. But the vivid conception, in the urgency of properly exhausting the important point, combines very dissimilar elements; for the two figures, of a plant and of a building, are inconsistent as such both with ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖΤΕ and with one another. Comp. Eph 3:17 f. By beginning a new sentence with ἘῤῬΙΖΩΜΈΝΟΙ Κ.Τ.Λ., and thus construing it in connection with Col 2:8 (Schenkel, Hofmann), we should gain nothing in symmetry, and should only lose without sufficient reason in simplicity of construction; while we should leave the ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖΤΕ in Col 2:6 in a disproportionately bald and isolated position. This conjunction, moreover, of heterogeneous figures might quite as legitimately have been made by the apostle himself as by an interpolator, whose hand Holtzmann thinks that he here discovers.
Observe further the difference in time of the two participles, whereby the stedfastness of the ἐν Χριστῷ εἶναι (figuratively represented by ἘῤῬΙΖΩΜ.) is denoted as a subsistent state, which must be present in the case of the περιπατεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ, while the further development of the Christian condition (figuratively represented by ἐποικοδ.) is set forth as a continuing process of training; comp. Act 20:32.
ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔ.] becoming built up, in which ἐπί exhibits the building rising on the foundation. Comp. 1Co 3:10; 1Co 3:12; Eph 2:20; Xen. Anab. iii. 4. 11; Plat. Legg. v. p. 736 E. The building up may in itself be also regarded as an act accomplished (through conversion), as in Eph 2:20 : ἐποικοδομηθέντες, which, however, as modal definition of ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤ., would not have suited here. The progress and finishing of the building (de Wette, following Act 20:32, where, however, the simple form οἰκοδ. should be read) are conveyed by the present, not by ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔ. in itself (comp. Eph 2:22). Nor does the latter represent the readers as stones, which are built up on the top of those already laid (Hofmann); on the contrary, they are in their aggregate as a church (comp. on Eph. l.c.) represented as an οἰκοδομή in the course of being built (i.e. of a more and more full development of their Christian common life), in regard to which the ἐπί in ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔ. presupposes the foundation laid by Epaphras, namely, Christ (1Co 3:11); and the building materials, including the stones, are not the persons, but the doctrines, by means of which the builders accomplish their work (see on 1Co 3:12).
ἐν αὐτῷ] belongs to both participles, so that Christ is to be conceived doubtless as the soil for the roots striking downwards (Eph 3:17), and as the foundation (1Co 3:11) for the building extending upwards; but the expression is determined by the conception of the thing signified, namely, the ἐν Χριστῷ εἶναι, as in ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤ., and not by the figures; hence Paul has not written ἐπʼ αὐτόν (1Co 3:12), or ἘΠʼ ΑὐΤῷ (Eph 2:20), which would have been in harmony with the latter participle, but he exhibits Christ as the Person, in whom that which is meant by the being rooted and becoming built up has its specific being and nature, and consequently the condition of endurance and growth.[86] Comp. on Eph 2:21.
καὶ βεβαιούμ. τῇ πίστ.] And to this being rooted and becoming built up there is to be added the being stablished by the faith, as the development of quality in the case, in order that no loose rooting may take place, nor any slack building be formed. The dative τῇ πίστει (see the critical remarks) is to be taken as instrumental, not: with respect to (in opposition to de Wette), since the following modal definition περισσ. ἐν αὐτῇ specifies, not how they are to be stablished in respect of the faith, but how they are to be stablished by it, by the fact, namely, that they are rich in faith; poverty in faith would not be sufficient to bring about that establishment. In like manner we should have to take the reading ἐν τ. πίστει, which Hofmann defends. He, however, joins this ἘΝ Τ. ΠΊΣΤΕΙ not with ΒΕΒΑΙΟΎΜ., but with the following ΠΕΡΙΣΣΕΎΟΝΤΕς,-a connection which is excluded by the genuineness of ἘΝ ΑὐΤῇ, but which is, even apart from this, to be rejected, because Paul would, in order to be fairly intelligible, have inserted the ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ only after ΒΕΒΑΙΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ, to which it would also refer.
ΚΑΘῺς ἘΔΙΔΆΧΘ.] namely, to become stablished by the faith. For this they have received (from Epaphras, Col 1:7) the instructions which are to guide them.
περισσεύοντες κ.τ.λ.] is subordinate to the ΒΕΒΑΙΟΎΜ., and that as specifying the measure of the faith, which must be found in them in order that they may be stablished through faith; while at the same time the requisite vital expression, consecrated to God, of the piety of the believing heart is brought out by ἐν εὐχαρ.: while ye are abounding in the same amidst thanksgiving, i.e. while ye are truly rich in faith, and at the same time giving thanks to God for this blessing of fulness of faith. The emphasis is upon περισσ., in which lies the more precisely defining element; περισσεύειν ἐν is nothing else than the usual abundare aliqua re, to have abundance of something (Rom 15:13; 1Co 8:7; Php 1:9, et al.), and ἐν εὐχαρ. indicates an accompanying circumstance in the case, the ethical consecration of grateful piety, with which the richness in faith must be combined; comp. Col 3:17, Col 1:12. It is well explained, in substance, by Theophylact: περισσόν τι ἐνδείκνυσθαι ἐν τῇ πίστει, εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ θεῷ, ὅτι ἠξίωσεν ἡμᾶς τοιαύτης χάριτος, καὶ μὴ ἑαυτοῖς τὴν προκοπὴν ἐπιγράφοντας. Rightly also by Oecumenius, who takes ἘΝ ΕὐΧΑΡ. as equivalent to ΣῪΝ ΕὐΧΑΡ. Comp. Castalio, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bähr, Steiger, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dalmer, Hofmann, and others. Others, however, regard ἘΝ ΕὐΧΑΡ. as belonging to ΠΕΡΙΣΣ. Such is the view not only of the majority who reject ἘΝ ΑὐΤῇ on critical grounds (as Ewald), but also of Luther, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, Huther (that the Colossians in their faith towards God … are to show themselves abundantly grateful). De Wette favours this rendering on the ground that the clause is not attached by καί, which, however, is quite in keeping with the circumstance that ΠΕΡΙΣΣ Κ.Τ.Λ. is subordinate to the ΒΕΒΑΙΟΎΜ. Κ.Τ.Λ. In opposition to the combination ΠΕΡΙΣΣ. ἘΝ ΕὐΧΑΡ. there may be urged, first, the arrangement of the words in itself; secondly, the fact that ἘΝ ΑὐΤῇ would be superfluous; and thirdly, that all the other elements of the verse refer to the nature of faith, and hence the latter, in harmony with the context, is to be regarded also in the last participial clause as the object of the discourse, whereas ἐν εὐχαρ. is to be treated as a relation associated with the faith.
[84] To this conception ἐν αὐτῷ refers subsequently. Chrysostom and his followers take this ἐν so, that Christ is regarded as the way. But this Johannine conception nowhere occurs in Paul’s writings; nor does it accord with παρελάβετε, with which, however, the extremely common Pauline idea of the ἐν Χρεστῷ εἶναι is in harmony.
[85] Eph 3:17 f., by comparing which Holtzmann discovers in our passage the hand of the interpolator, is both as regards contents and form too diverse for that purpose.
[86] Hofmann inappropriately, since in the case of ἐποικοδ. at any rate we have to think of the foundation, takes ἐν αὐτῷ in the sense that Christ surrounds the building.
Col 2:8. Be upon your guard, lest there shall be some one carrying you, away as a prey. In that case, how grievously would what I have just been impressing upon your hearts, in Col 2:6-7, be rendered fruitless!
The future ἔσται after μή (comp. Heb 3:12) has arisen from the apprehension that the case may yet actually occur. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 451 A; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 139 f.; Ellendt·, Lex. Soph. II. p. 104. Comp. also on Gal 4:11.
As to the participle with the article, comp. on Gal 1:7 : τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες.
Respecting συλαγωγεῖν, belonging to the later Greek, see Eustath. ad Il. v. p. 393, 52. Very inaccurately rendered by the Vulgate: decipiat. In Aristaen. ii. 22, joined with οἶκον, it means to rob; and is so taken here by Hilary, Chrysostom, Theodoret (ἀποσυλᾶν τὴν πίστιν), Theophylact (τὸν νοῦν), Luther, Wolf, and many others, including Baumgarten-Crusius. But the stronger sense of the word praedam abigere (Heliod. x. 35; Nicet. Ann. 5, p. 96 D) is in keeping with the verb of the previous exhortation, περιπατεῖτε, as well as with the purposely chosen peculiar expression in itself, which is more significant than the classical συλᾶν or συλεύειν, and serves vividly to illustrate the idea of the seduction, through which one falls under extraneous power, as respects its disgracefulness.
διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας κ. κενῆς ἀπάτης] through philosophy and empty deceit. It is to be observed that neither the preposition nor the article is repeated before κενῆς (see Kühner, II. 1, pp. 476, 528; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 86 [E. T. 100]), because with καὶ κεν. ἀπατ. there is added no further element different from τῆς φιλοσοφ. (in opposition to Hofmann), but only that which the philosophy in its essence is; it is empty deception, that is, having no real contents; the πιθανολογία (Col 2:4), with which it is presented, is a κενεαγορία (Plat. Rep. p. 607 B), and κενολογία (Plut. Mor. p. 1069 C). On the idea of κενός (1Co 15:14; Eph 5:6), comp. Dem. 821. 11.: κενώτατον πάντων λόγων λέγουσι, and on ἀπάτη, Plat. Soph. p. 260 C: ὄντος δέ γε ψεύδους ἔστιν ἀπάτη …, καὶ μὴν ἀπάτης οὔσης εἰδώλων τε καὶ εἰκόνων ἤδη καὶ φαντασίας πάντα ἀνάγκη μεστὰ εἶναι. The φιλοσοφία, however, against which Paul utters his warning, is not philosophy generally and in itself,-a view at variance with the addition κ. κενῆς ἀπατ. closely pertaining to it, however much the wisdom of the world in its degeneracy (comp. Herm. gottesd. Alterth. § 12; and Culturgesch. d. Griech. u. Röm. I. p. 236 ff., II. p. 132), as experience was conversant with its phenomena in that age,[87] may have manifested itself to the apostle as foolishness when compared with the wisdom of the gospel (1Co 1:18 ff; 1Co 2:6). Rather, he has in view (comp. Col 2:18) the characteristic speculation, well known to his readers, which engaged attention in Colossae and the surrounding district,[88] and consisted of a Gnostic theosophy mixed up with Judaism (Essenism). This is, on account of its nature directed to the supersensuous and its ontological character, correctly designated by the term philosophy in general, apart from its relation to the truth, which is signalized by the κ. κενῆς ἀπάτης appended.[89] (Plat. Def. p. 414 C: τῆς τῶν ὌΝΤΕΝ ἈΕῚ ἘΠΙΣΤΉΜΗς ὌΡΕΞΙς· ἝΞΙς ΘΕΩΡΗΤΙΚῊ ΤΟῦ ἈΛΗΘΟῦς, Πῶς ἈΛΗΘΈς). Possibly it was also put forward by the false teachers themselves expressly under this designation (comp. the Sophists as the ΦΆΣΚΟΝΤΕς ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΕῖΝ, Xen. Mem. i. 2. 19; and οἰόμενοι πάντʼ εἰδέναι, in i. 4. 1). The latter is the more probable, since Paul uses the word only in this passage. Comp. Bengel: “quod adversarii jactabant esse philosophiam et sapientiam (Col 2:23), id Paulus inanem fraudem esse dicit.” The nature of this philosophy is consequently to be regarded as Judaistic-Oriental;[90] we are under no necessity to infer from the word φιλοσοφία a reference to Greek wisdom, as Grotius did, suggesting the Pythagorean (Clemens Alexandrinus thought of the Epicureans, and Tertullian of such philosophers as Paul had to do with at Athens). The idea that the “sacrarum literarum earumque recte interpretandarum scientia” (Tittmann, de vestigiis Gnosticor. in N. T. frustra quaesitis, p. 86 ff.) is meant, is opposed, not to the word in itself, but to the marks of heretical doctrine in our Epistle, and to the usage of the apostle, who never so designates the O. T. teaching and exposition, however frequently he speaks of it; although Philo gives it this name (see Loesner, Obss. p. 364), and Josephus (see Krebs, p. 236) applies it to the systems of Jewish sects, and indeed the Fathers themselves apply it to the Christian doctrine (Suicer, Thes. s.v.); see Grimm on 2Ma 1:1, p. 298 f.
κατὰ τ. παράδ. τ. ἀνθρ.] might be-and this is the common view-closely joined with ἈΠΆΤΗς (Winer, p. 128 f. [E. T. 169]). But the Οὐ ΚΑΤᾺ ΧΡΙΣΤΌΝ would not suit this connection, since ἈΠΆΤΗ is already in itself a definite and proper idea, in association with which a ΚΑΤᾺ ΧΡΙΣΤΌΝ would be inconceivable; whereas the figurative συλαγωγεῖν still admits also the negative modal statement (Οὐ ΚΑΤᾺ Χ.) for greater definiteness. Accordingly ΚΑΤᾺ Τ. ΠΑΡΆΔ. Κ.Τ.Λ. (comp. Steiger, Ellicott) is to be taken as definition of mode to ΣΥΛΑΓΩΓῶΝ. Paul, namely, having previously announced whereby the συλαγωγεῖν takes place, now adds for the still more precise description of that procedure, in order the more effectively to warn his readers against it, that in accordance with which it takes place, i.e. what is the objective regulative standard by which they permit themselves to be guided. He does this positively (κατὰ τὴν … κόσμου) and negatively (κ. οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν). The genitive ΤῶΝ ἈΝΘΡ. is to be explained: ἫΝ ΠΑΡΈΛΑΒΕ ΠΑΡᾺ ΤῶΝ ἈΝΘΡ. (comp. 2Th 3:6), and ΤῶΝ denotes the category, the traditio humana as such, opposed to the divine revelation. Comp. Mar 7:8. What is meant, doubtless, is the ritual Jewish tradition outside of the Mosaic law (comp. on Mat 15:2), the latter being excluded by τῶν ἀνθρ.; but Paul designates the thing quite generally, according to the genus to which it belongs, as human.
κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου] Parallel of the foregoing: according to the elements of the world, i.e. according to the religious rudiments, with which non-Christian humanity occupies itself. The expression in itself embraces the ritual observances[91] both of Judaism and heathenism, which, in comparison with the perfect religion of Christianity, are only “puerilia rudimenta” (Calvin), as it were the A B C of religion, so that Paul therefore in this case also, where he warns his readers against Judaistic enticing, characterizes the matter according to its category. As to the designation itself and its various interpretations, see on Gal 4:3. Among the latest expositors, Bleek agrees with our view, while Hofmann explains: “because it (the philosophy which is described as deceit) permits the material things, of which the created world consists, to form its standard.” See in opposition to this on Gal. l.c. Both expressions, τὴν παράδ. τ. ἀνθρ. and ΤᾺ ΣΤΟΙΧ. Τ. ΚΌΣΜΟΥ, have it as their aim to render apparent the worthlessness and unsuitableness for the Christian standpoint (comp. Gal 4:9). Hence, also, the contrast which, though obvious of itself, is nevertheless emphatic: ΚΑῚ Οὐ ΚΑΤᾺ ΧΡΙΣΤΌΝ. The activity of that ΣΥΛΑΓΩΓΕῖΝ has not Christ for its objective standard; He, in accordance with His divine dignity exalted above everything (see Col 2:9), was to be the sole regulative for all activity in Christian teaching, so that the standard guiding their work should be found in the relation of dependence upon Him; but instead of this the procedure of the συλαγωγῶν allows human tradition, and those non-Christian rudiments which the Christian is supposed to have long since left behind, to serve as his rule of conduct! How unworthy it is, therefore, to follow such seduction!
[87] Comp. Luther’s frequent denunciations of philosophy, under which he had present to his mind its degeneracy in the Aristotelian scholasticism.
[88] Comp. also Calovius. The latter rightly remarks how ἀφιλοσόφως and ἀθεολόγως men would proceed, who should regard philosophical and theological truth as opposites; and points out that if Greek philosophy do not teach the doctrine of eternal life and its attainment, it is not a κενὴ ἀπάτη, but an imperfectio. Fathers of the Church also, as e.g. Clemens Al. (comp. Spiess, Logos spermat. p. 341), aptly distinguish philosophy itself from the phenomena of its abuse. The latter are philosophy also, but not in accordance with the truth of the conception.
[89] These words κ. κεν. ἀπ., characterizing the philosophy meant, are therefore all the less to be regarded, with Holtzmann, as a tautological insertion; and it is mere arbitrariness to claim the words κατὰ τ. παράδ. τῶν ἀνθρώπ. for the Synoptical Gospels (Mat 15:2 f.); as if παράδοσις (comp. especially Gal 1:14) were not sufficiently current in the apostle’s writings.
[90] The speculations of Essenism are also designated as philosophy in Philo. Comp. Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 292.
[91] Calvin well says: “Quid, vocat elementa mundi? Non dubium quin ceremonias; nam continuo post exempli loco speciem unam adducit, circumcisionem scilicet.”
Col 2:9. Since indeed in Him dwells, etc. This is not “a peg upon which the interpolator hangs his own thoughts” (Holtzmann). On the contrary, Paul assigns a reason for the οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν just said, with a view more effectually to deter them from the false teachers. The force of the reason assigned lies in the fact that, if the case stand so with Christ, as is stated in Col 2:9 ff., by every other regulative principle of doctrine that which is indicated in the words κατὰ Χριστόν is excluded and negatived. Others make the reason assigned refer to the warning: βλέπετε κ.τ.λ., so that ὅτι adduces the reason why they ought to permit this warning to be addressed to them (Hofmann, comp. Huther and Bleek); but, in opposition to this view, it may be urged that the ἐν αὐτῷ placed emphatically first (in Him and in no other) points back to the immediately preceding οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν (comp. Chrysostom and Calvin); there is therefore nothing to show that the reference of ὅτι ought to be carried further back (to βλέπετε). In Christ the whole fulness of Godhead-what a contrast to the human παράδοσις and the στοιχεῖα of the world!
κατοικεῖ] The present, for it is the exalted Christ, in the state of His heavenly δόξα, that is in view. Comp. Col 1:15. In Him the entire πλήρωμα has its κατοικητήριον (Eph 2:22), so that He is the personal bearer of it, the personal seat of its essential presence.
πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα (comp. on Col 1:19) is here more precisely defined by the “vocabulum abstractum significantissimum” (Bengel) τῆς θεότητος, which specifies what dwells in Christ in its entire fulness, i.e. not, it may be, partially, but in its complete entirety. On the genitive, comp. Rom 11:25; Rom 15:29. It is not the genitive auctoris (Nösselt: “universa comprehensio eorum, quae Deus per Christum vellet in homines transferre”); the very abstract θεότητ. should have been a sufficient warning against this view, as well as against the interpretation: “id quod inest θεότητι” (Bähr). ἡ θεότης, the Godhead (Lucian, Icarom. 9; Plut. Mor. p. 415 C), the abstract from ὁ Θεός, is to be distinguished from ἡ θειότης, the abstract from θεῖος (Rom 1:20; Wis 18:19; Lucian, de calumn. 17). The former is Deitas, the being God, i.e. the divine essence, Godhead; the latter is divinitas, i.e. the divine quality, godlikeness. See on Rom 1:20. Accordingly, the essence of God, undivided and in its whole fulness, dwells in Christ in His exalted state, so that He is the essential and adequate image of God (Col 1:15), which He could not be if He were not possessor of the divine essence. The distinction between what is here said about Christ and what is said about Him in Col 1:19 is, that the πλήρωμα is here meant metaphysically, of the divina essentia, but in the former passage charismatically, of the divina gratia, and that κατοικεῖν is conceived here as in present permanence, but in the former passage historically (namely, of Christ’s historical, earthly appearance). See on Col 1:19. The erroneous attempts that have been made to explain away the literal meaning thus definitely and deliberately expressed by Paul, are similar to those in Col 1:19. One of these, in particular, is the mis-explanation referring it to the church as the God-filled organ of divine self-revelation (Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel) which has its dwelling-place in Christ.[92] Already Theodoret (comp. τινές in Chrysostom), indeed, quotes the explanation that Christ signifies the church in which the πλήρωμα dwells, but on account of σωματικῶς hesitates to agree to it, and rather accedes to the common view, thereby deviating from his interpretation of Col 1:19. Theophylact is substantially right (comp. Chrysostom and Oecumenius): εἰ τί ἐστιν ὁ Θεὸς λόγος, ἐν αὐτῷ οἰκεῖ, so that the fulness of the Godhead in the ontological, and not in the simply mystical or morally religious sense (de Wette) is meant.
But how does it dwell in Christ? σωματικῶς, in bodily fashion, i.e. in such a way that through this indwelling in Christ it is in a bodily form of appearance, clothed with a body. Comp. also Hofmann in loc., and Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 29; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 428, ed. 2. It is not in Christ (ἀσωμάτως), as before the Incarnation it was in the λόγος (Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, Joh 1:1), but (comp. also Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 260 ff.) it is in His glorified body (Php 3:21), so that the ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ and ἰσα Θεῷ εἶναι, which already existed in the λόγος ἄσαρκος (Php 2:6), now in Christ’s estate of exaltation-which succeeded the state of humiliation, whereby the μορφὴ Θεοῦ was affected-have a bodily frame, are in bodily personality.[93] Of course the θεότης does not thereby itself come into the ranks of the σωματικαὶ οὐσίαι (Plat. Locr. p. 96 A), but is in the exalted Christ after a real fashion σωματικῷ εἴδει (Luk 3:22), and therefore Christ Himself is the visible divine-human image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). In this glory, as Possessor of the Godhead dwelling in Him bodily, He will also appear at the Parousia-an appearance, therefore, which will manifest itself visibly (1Jn 3:2) as the actual ἐπιφάνεια τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ (Tit 2:13). The reference of the whole statement, however, to the exalted Christ is placed beyond question by the use of the present κατοικεῖ, which asserts the presently existing relation, without requiring a νῦν along with it (in opposition to Huther). The renderings: essentialiter, οὐσιωδῶς (Cyril, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, and others, including Usteri, Steiger, Olshausen, Huther, Bisping), in which case some thought of a contrast to the divine ἐνέργεια in the prophets (see Theophylact), and: realiter (Augustine, Erasmus, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Schoettgen, Wolf, Nösselt, Bleek, and others), in which was found the opposite of τυπικῶς (Col 2:17), are linguistically inappropriate; for σωματικός never means anything else than corporeus. Comp. on the adverb, Plut. Mor. p. 424 D. The less justifiable is the hypothesis of Rich. Schmidt (Paul. Christol. p. 191), that in the term σωματικῶς the contrast of Col 2:17 was already present to the apostle’s mind. Those who adopt the erroneous explanation of πλήρωμα as referring to the church, assign to σωματικῶς the meaning: “so that the church stands related to Him as His body” (Baumgarten-Crusius and Schenkel), which issues in the absurdity that the body of Christ is held to dwell in Christ, whereas conversely Christ could not but dwell in His body. It is true that the church is related to Christ as His body, not, however, in so far as it dwells in Him (and, according to the context, this must have been the case here, if the explanation in question be adopted), but either in so far as He dwells in it, or in so far as He is its Head, which latter thought is quite foreign to the connection of the passage; for even in Col 2:10 Christ is not called the Head of the church. It is, morever, to be observed, that the adverb is placed emphatically at the end. The special reason, however, on account of which the κατοικεῖν κ.τ.λ. is thus prominently set forth as bodily, cannot, indeed, be directly shown to have been supplied by the circumstances of the Colossians, but is nevertheless to be recognised in an apologetic interest of opposition to the false teachers, who by their doctrines concerning the angels (comp. Col 2:10 : ἀρχῆς κ. ἐξουσ.) must have broken up, in a spiritualistic sense, the πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος.
[92] Thus, indeed, the fulness of the Godhead has been removed from Christ, but there has only been gained instead of it the unbiblical idea that the church dwells in Christ. The church has its support in Christ as the corner-stone (Eph 2:20-21), but it does not dwell in Him. On the contrary, Christ dwells in the church, which is His body, and the πλήρωμα filled by Him (see on Eph 1:23), namely, in virtue of the Spirit dwelling in the church (see on Eph 2:22), which is the Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Php 1:19).
[93] It is now only worth remarking historically, but is almost incredible, how the Socinians have twisted our verse. Its sense in their view is: “quod in doctrina ipsius tota Dei voluntas integre et reapse est patefacta,” Catech. Racov. 194, p. 398, ed. Oeder. Calovius gives a refutation in detail.
Col 2:10. Καί ἐστε ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρ.] still depending on ὅτι: and (since) ye are filled in Him, i.e. and since the πληρότης which ye possess rests on Him, the bodily Bearer of the divine πλήρωμα. The two are correlative: from the πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος, which dwells in the exalted Christ, flows the πεπληρωμένον εἶναι of the Christian, which has its basis, therefore, in no other than in Christ, and in nothing else than just in fellowship with Him. Filled with what? was self-evident to the consciousness of the reader. It is the dynamic, charismatic πλήρωσις, which Christians, in virtue of their union of life with the Lord, whose Spirit and ζωή are in them, have received, and continuously possess, out of the metaphysical πλήρωμα dwelling in Christ, out of the πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος.
The emphasis is not upon ἐστέ, but, as shown by the subsequent relative definitions, upon ἐν αὐτῷ. If the πεπληρωμένον εἶναι depends on Him, on nothing and on no one but on Him, then everything else which men may teach you, and with which they may wish to seize you and conduct you in leading strings, is οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν. With due attention to this emphasis of ἐν αὐτῷ, we should neither have expected ὑμεῖς (in opposition to de Wette; comp. Estius and others: “et vos”) nor have explained ἐστέ in an imperative sense (in opposition to Grotius, Bos, Heumann); which latter view is to be rejected, because the entire connection is not paraenetic, and generally because, whilst a πληροῦσθε (Eph 5:18) or γίνεσθε πεπληρ. may, ἐστε πεπληρ. cannot, logically be enjoined.[94] There is, moreover (comp. also Hofmann), nothing to be supplied with πεπληρ. (usually: τῆς θεότητος, see Theophylact and Huther; de Wette, Bleek: τοῦ πληρώμ. τ. θεότ.), since the specifically ontological sense of the purposely-chosen θεότητος would not even be consistent with the supposed equalization of the Christians with Christ (οὐδὲν ἔλαττον ἔχετε αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ πεπληρωμένοι καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐστε τῆς θεότητος, Theophylact), and this equalization does not exist at all, because Paul has not written καὶ ὑμεῖς. In what their being filled consisted, was known to the readers from their own experience, without further explanation; their thoughts, however, were to dwell upon the fact that, since their being full depended on Christ, those labours of the false teachers were of quite another character than κατὰ Χριστόν.
ὅς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ κ.τ.λ.] This, as also Col 2:11, now supplies confirmatory information regarding the fact that they have their being filled not otherwise than just in Christ; namely, neither through ἀρχαὶ κ. ἐξουσίαι, since Christ is the head of every ἀρχή and ἐξουσία; nor yet through circumcision, since they have received in Christ the real ethical circumcision.
πάσης ἀρχ. κ. ἐξουσ.] is not more precisely defined as in Eph 3:10; hence, in virtue of the munus regium of the Lord quite generally: every principality and power, but with the tacit apologetic reference: consequently also of the angelic powers (Col 1:16) belonging to these categories and bearing these names, to whose mediation, to be attained through θρησκεία, the false teachers direct you,-a reference which Hofmann, understanding the expressions in the sense of spiritual beings ruling arbitrarily and in opposition to God especially over the Gentile world (notwithstanding the fact that Christ is their Head!), groundlessly denies; see Col 2:18. If Christ be the Head of every ἀρχή and ἐξουσία, i.e. their governing sovereign, the Christian cannot have anything to expect from any angelic powers subordinate to Christ,-a result involved in the union in which He stands to the Higher, to Christ Himself.
With the reading ὅ ἐστιν (see the critical remarks), which is also preferred by Ewald,[95] Lachmann has placed καί ἐστε ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρ. in a parenthesis. But, while this important thought would neither have motive nor be appropriate as a mere parenthesis, it would also be improper that the neuter subject ΤῸ ΠΛΉΡΩΜΑ Τ. ΘΕΌΤ. should be designated as Ἡ ΚΕΦΑΛῊ Κ.Τ.Λ., which applies rather to the personal possessor of the ΠΛΉΡΩΜΑ, to Christ.
[94] Calovius has well said: “Beneficium Christi, non nostrum officium;” comp. Wolf. In complete opposition to the context, Grotius brings out the sense: “illo contenti estote,” which he supports by the remark: “quia quod plenum est, nihil aliud desiderat.”
[95] Inasmuch as he takes ὅ ἐστιν directly as scilicet, utpote, and regards this usage as a linguistic peculiarity of this Epistle. But this rendering is not required either in Col 1:24 or in Col 3:17; and respecting Col 1:27, see the critical remarks.
Col 2:11. Respecting the connection and its reference to the false teachers, so far as they “Iegem evangelio miscebant” (Calvin), see on Col 2:10.
ἐν ᾧ] like ἐν αὐτῷ in Col 2:10 : on whom it also causally depends that ye, etc. This applies to the point of time of their entrance into the union with Christ, as is clear from the historical περιετμ., which took place on them through their conversion (comp. Col 2:12).
καί] also circumcised were ye. The καί is the simple also, which, however, does not introduce an element included under πεπληρωμ. ἐστε (Hofmann), but to the previous relative statement (ὅς ἐστιν κ.τ.λ.) appends another; comp. Col 2:12. Hofmann’s objection, that the foregoing relative statement has indeed reference to the readers, but is made without reference to them, is an empty subtlety, which is connected with the erroneous rendering of πάσης ἀρχῆς κ. ἐξουσ.
περιτομῇ ἀχειροπ.] is not supplementary and parenthetical (Hofmann), as if Paul had written περιτομῇ δὲ ἀχειροπ., but appends immediately to περιετμηθ. its characteristic, whereby it is distinguished from what is elsewhere meant by circumcision; hence the thought is: “in your union with Christ there has also taken place a circumcision upon you (Gentiles), which is not (like the Jewish circumcision) the work of hands;” comp. Eph 2:11. On the word ἀχειροπ. itself (which is similar to ἀχειρούργητος, Poll. ii. 154), in analogous antithetical reference, comp. Mar 14:58; 2Co 5:1; and on the idea of the inner ethical circumcision, of which the bodily is the type, comp. Deu 10:16; Deu 30:6; Eze 44:7; Act 7:51. See Michaelis in loc., and the expositors on Rom 2:29; Schoettgen, Hor. I. p. 815.
ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει κ.τ.λ.] This characteristic περειτμήθητε περιτ. ἀχειρ. took place by means of the putting off of the body of the flesh, which was accomplished in your case (observe the passive connection), i.e. in that the body, whose essence and nature are flesh, was taken off and put away from you by God.[96] With reference to ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει κ.τ.λ., which is to be coupled not merely with ΠΕΡΙΕΤΜΉΘΗΤΕ (Hofmann), but with the entire specifically defined conception of circumcision ΠΕΡΙΕΤΜ. ΠΕΡΙΤ. ἈΧΕΙΡΟΠ., it is to be noticed: (1) that the genitive Τῆς ΣΆΡΚΟς is the genitivus materiae, as in Col 1:22; (2) that the σάρξ here is not indifferent, but means the flesh as the seat of sin, and of its lusts and strivings (Rom 7:23; Rom 7:25; Rom 8:3; Rom 8:13; Gal 5:16; Eph 2:3; Col 3:5, et al.); so that Paul (3) might have conveyed the idea of τὸ σῶμα τῆς σαρκ. also by ΤῸ ΣῶΜΑ Τῆς ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς (Rom 6:6), but the description by Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς was suggested to him by the thought of the circumcision (Rom 2:28; Eph 2:11). (4) The significant and weighty expression ἈΠΕΚΔΎΣΕΙ (the substantive used only here, the verb also in Col 2:15; Col 3:9; Josephus, Antt. vi. 14. 2) is selected in contrast to the operation of the legal circumcision, which only wounded the σῶμα τ. σαρκός and removed a portion of one member of it; whereas the spiritual circumcision, divinely performed, consisted in a complete parting and doing away with this body, in so far as God, by means of this ethical circumcision, has taken off and removed the sinful body from man (the two acts are expressed by the double compound), like a garment which is drawn off and laid aside. Ethically circumcised, i.e. translated by conversion from the estate of sin into that of the Christian life of faith and righteousness (see Col 2:12), consequently born again as καινὴ κτίσις,[97] as a καινὸς ἄνθρωπος created after God (Eph 4:24), man has no longer any σῶμα τῆς σαρκός at all, because the body which he has is rid of the sinful ΣΆΡΞ as such, as regards its sinful quality; he is no longer ἘΝ Τῇ ΣΑΡΚΊ as previously, when lust ἘΝΗΡΓΕῖΤΟ ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ΜΈΛΕΣΙΝ (Rom 7:5; comp. Col 2:23); he is no longer ΣΆΡΚΙΝΟς, ΠΕΠΡΑΜΈΝΟς ὙΠῸ ΤῊΝ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΝ (Rom 7:14), but is dead for sin (Rom 6:11); he has crucified the ΣΆΡΞ (Gal 5:24), and no longer walks ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ, but ἘΝ ΚΑΙΝΌΤΗΤΙ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς (Rom 7:6); by the law of the Holy Spirit he is freed from the law of sin and death (Rom 8:2), ἘΝ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΙ (Rom 8:9), dead with Christ (Gal 2:19; 2Co 5:14; Col 3:3), and risen, so that his members are ὍΠΛΑ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗς Τῷ ΘΕῷ (Rom 6:13). This Christian transformation is represented in its ideal aspect, which disregards the empirical imperfection, according to which the σάρξ is still doubtless even in the regenerate at variance with the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ (Gal 5:17). Our dogmatists well describe regeneration as perfecta a parte Dei, but as imperfecta a parte hominum recipientium. To take σῶμα in the sense of massa or aggregate (Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, and others, including Steiger and Bähr[98]), is opposed as well to the context, in which the discourse turns upon circumcision and (Col 2:12) upon burial and resurrection, as also to the linguistic usage of the N. T. In classic authors it expresses the notion in question in the physical sense, e.g. Plat. Tim. p. 32 C: τὸ τοῦ κόσμου σῶμα (comp. p. 31 B, Hipp. maj. p. 301 B), and in later writers may also denote generally a whole consisting of parts (comp. Cicero, ad Att. 2:1. 4). In opposition to the erroneous assumption that σῶμα must have a figurative meaning here, as Julius Müller, v. d. Sünde, I. p. 459 f., still in the 5th ed., thinks,[99] see on Rom 6:6; comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 560 f.
ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χ.] by means of the circumcision of Christ, parallel to the previous ἐν τῇ ἀπεκσύσει κ.τ.λ., naming specifically (as different from that of the Old Testament) the circumcision described previously according to its nature. The genitive τοῦ Χριστοῦ is to be rendered: the circumcision, which is produced through Christ. The context requires this by the further explanation of the thing itself in Col 2:12. Comp. above, ἐν ᾧ. But Christ is not conceived of as Himself the circumciser, in so far, namely, as by baptism (Theophylact, Beza, and others), or by His Spirit (Bleek), He accomplishes the cleansing and sanctification of man (see on Col 2:12); but as the One through whom, in virtue of the effective living union that takes place in conversion between man and Himself, this divine περιτομή, in its character specifically different from the Israelite circumcision, is practically brought about and rendered a reality, and in so far it is based on Christ as its αἴτιος (Theodoret). It is not, however, baptism itself (Hofmann, following older expositors) that is meant by the circumcision of Christ, although the predicate ἀχειροπ. would not be in opposition to this view, but the spiritual transformation, that consecration of a holy state of life, which takes place in baptism; see Col 2:12 : ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι. According to Schneckenburger, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1848, p. 286 ff., the ἀπέκδυσις τ. σώμ. τ. σαρκ. is meant of the death of Christ, and also the περιτομὴ τοῦ Χ. is meant to denote this death, so that the latter is an explanation by way of application of the former, in opposition to the heretical recommendation of a bodily or mystical περιτομή. It may be decisively urged against this view, that after τῆς σαρκός there is no αὐτοῦ, (comp. Col 1:22), which was absolutely necessary, if the reader was to think of another subject than that of περιετμήθητε; further, that τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν, in Col 2:13, stands in significant retrospective reference to the ἀπέκδυσις τ. σώμ. τῆς σαρκός; and that συνταφέντες κ.τ.λ. in Col 2:12 is synchronous with περιετμήθητε κ.τ.λ., and represents substantially the same thing. Moreover, the description of the death of Christ as His circumcision would be all the more inappropriate, since, in the case of Christ, the actual circumcision was not absent. According to Holtzmann, the entire clause: ἐν τ. ἀπεκδ. τοῦ σώμ. τ. σαρκ., ἐν τ. περιτ. τ. Χ., should be deleted as an addition of the interpolator, because the expression σῶμα τῆς σαρκός has occurred at Col 1:22 in quite another-namely, an indifferent, genuinely Pauline-reference. This reason is incorrect, because in Col 1:22 it is not τῆς σαρκός, but τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, and this αὐτοῦ makes the great essential difference between the expression in that passage and that employed in our present one.
[96] Compare Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 171. The same writer, however, now objects that ἀπέκδυσις cannot have passive significance. But this it is not alleged to have: God is the ἀπεκδύων i.e. He who, as author of regeneration, puts off from man the body of flesh.
[97] The epoch of this transformation is baptism (see Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 439, ed. 2; comp. Holtzmann, p. 178), by which, however, the baptism of Christian, children is by no means assumed as the antitype of circumcision (Steiger, Philippi). Comp. on 1Co 7:14; Act 16:15.
[98] Comp. also Philippi, Glaubensl. V. 2, p. 225, who declares my explanation to be forced, without proof, and contrary to the Scripture; and Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 274, who understands σῶμα of the “toto quasi vitiositatis (τ. σαρκός) corpore,” so that the putting away of all immorality is denoted. Similarly Dalmer.
[99] Müller also holds that Paul here conceives the old sinful nature as a body which, in regeneration, the Christian puts off; and that σάρξ is to be understood only of the earthly-human life.
Col 2:12 supplies further information as to how the περιετμήθητε, so far as it has taken place by means of the circumcision of Christ, has been accomplished.
συνταφέντες κ.τ.λ.] synchronous with περιετμ. (comp. on Col 1:20, εἰρηνοποιήσας): in that ye became buried with Him in baptism. The immersion in baptism, in accordance with its similarity to burial, is-seeing that baptism translates into the fellowship of the death of Christ (see on Rom 6:3)-a burial along with Christ, Rom 6:4. Through that fellowship of death man dies as to his sinful nature, so that the σῶμα τῆς σαρκός (Col 2:11) ceases to live, and by means of the fellowship of burial is put off (Col 2:11). The subject who effects the joint burial is God, as in the whole context. In the burial of Christ this joint burial of all that confess Him as respects their sinful body was objectively completed; but it takes place, as respects each individually and in subjective appropriation, by their baptism, prior to which the realization of that fellowship of burial was, on the part of individuals, still wanting.
ἐν ᾧ καὶ συνηγέρθητε] A new benefit, which has accrued to the readers ἐν Χριστῷ, and which in their case must bring still more clearly to living consciousness their ἐν Χριστῷ πεπληρωμένον εἶναι; so that ἐν ᾧ here is parallel to the ἐν ᾧ in Col 2:11, and refers to Christ, as does also αὐτόν subsequently. It is rightly taken thus, following Chrysostom and his successors, by Luther and most others, including Flatt, Bähr, Huther, Ewald. Others have referred it to ἐν τῷ βαπτ. (Beza, Calixtus, Estius, Michaelis, Heinrichs, and others, including Steiger, Böhmer, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, Dalmer, Bleek); but, in opposition to this may be urged, first, the very symmetry of the discourse (ὅς … ἐν ᾧ καί … ἐν ᾧ καί); secondly, and specially, the fact that, if ἐν ᾧ refers to baptism, ἐν could not be the proper preposition, since ἐν ᾧ βαπτ., in accordance with the meaning of the word and the figure of burial, refers to the dipping into (not overflowing, as Hofmann thinks), whilst the spiritual awakening to new life, in which sense these expositors take συνηγέρθ., would have taken place through the emerging again, so that we should expect ἐξ οὗ, or, at all events, the non-local διʼ οὗ; and, thirdly, the fact that just as συνταφέντες has its own more precise definition by ἐν τῷ βαπτ., so also has συνηγέρθ. through διὰ τῆς πίστεως κ.τ.λ., and therefore the text affords no occasion for taking up again for συνηγέρθ. the more precise definition of the previous point, viz. ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι. No, the first benefit received in Christ which Paul specifies, viz. the moral circumcision, accomplished by God through the joint burial in baptismal immersion, has been fully handled in Col 2:11 down to βαπτίσματι in Col 2:12, and there now follows a second blessing received by the readers in Christ (ἐν ᾧ καί): they have been raised up also with Christ, which has taken place through faith, etc. The previous joint burial was the necessary moral preliminary condition of this joint awakening, since through it the σῶμα τῆς σαρκός was put off. This συνηγέρθ. is to be understood in the sense of the fellowship of the bodily resurrection of Christ, into which fellowship man enters by faith in such a way that, in virtue of his union of life and destiny with Christ brought about by means of faith, he knows his own resurrection as having taken place in that of Christ-a benefit of joint resurrection, which is, indeed, prior to the Parousia, an ideal possession, but through the Parousia becomes real (whether its realization be attained by resurrection proper in the case of the dead, or by the change that shall take place in those who are still alive). Usually συνηγέρθ. is taken in the ethical sense, as referring to the spiritual awakening, viz. from moral death, so that Paul, after the negative aspect of the regeneration (Col 2:11; βαπτίσματι, Col 2:12), now describes its positive character; comp. also Huther, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann. But in opposition to this view is the fact that the fresh commencement ἐν ᾧ καί, corresponding with the similar commencement of Col 2:11, and referring to Christ, makes us expect the mention of a new benefit, and not merely that of another aspect of the previous one, otherwise there would have been no necessity for repeating the ἐν ᾧ καί; as also, that the inference of participation in the proper resurrection of Christ from death lies at the basis of the following τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν. Comp. on Eph 2:1; Eph 2:5-6. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Oecumenius have already correctly explained it of the proper resurrection (καὶ γὰρ ἐγηγέρμεθα τῇ δυνάμει, εἰ καὶ μὴ τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ), but Theophylact makes it include the ethical awakening also: holding that it is to be explained κατὰ δύο τρόπους, of the actual resurrection in spe, and at the same time ὅτι πνευματικῶς τὴν νέκρωσιν τῶν ἔργων τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀπεῤῥίψαμεν.
διὰ τῆς πίστεως κ.τ.λ.] The τῆς πίστεως is described by Holtzmann, p. 70, as syntactically clumsy and offensive; he regards it as an interpolation borrowed from Eph 1:19 f. Groundlessly; Paul is describing the subjective medium, without which the joint awakening, though objectively and historically accomplished in the resurrection of Christ, would not be appropriated individually, the ληπτικόν for this appropriation being wanting. The unbeliever has not the blessing of having risen with Christ, because he stands apart from the fellowship of life with Christ, just as also he has not the reconciliation, although the reconciliation of all has been accomplished objectively through Christ’s death. The genitive τῆς ἐνεργείας τ. Θ. is the object of faith; so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Zeger, Grotius, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, and others, including Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, and Hofmann, in the 2d ed. of the Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 174 f. But others, such as Luther (“through the faith which God works”), Bengel, Flatt, Bähr, Steiger, de Wette, Böhmer, Huther, et al., take τῆς ἐνεργ. τ. Θ. as genitivus causae, for which, however, Eph 1:19 is not to be adduced (see in loc.), and in opposition to which it is decisive that in all passages, where the genitive with πίστις is not the believing subject, it denotes the object (Mar 11:22; Act 3:16; Rom 3:22; Gal 2:16; Gal 2:20; Gal 3:22; Eph 3:12; Php 1:27; Php 3:9; 2Th 2:13; Jam 2:1; Rev 2:13; Rev 14:12), and that the description of God as the Being who has raised up Christ from the dead stands most naturally and directly in significant reference to the divine activity which procures, not the faith, but the συνεγείρεσθαι, and which is therefore set forth in a very appropriate manner as the special object[100] of faith (comp. 4:17, 24, 6:8, 10:9; 2Co 4:13-14; Eph 1:19 f.; 1Pe 1:21). At the basis, namely, of the τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτ. ἐκ νεκρ. lies the certainty in the believer’s consciousness: since God has raised up Christ, His activity, which has produced this principale and majus, will have included therein the consequens and minus, my resurrection with Him. To the believer the two stand in such essential connection, that in the operation of God which raised up Christ he beholds, by virtue of his fellowship of life with Christ, the assurance of his own resurrection having taken place along with that act; in the former he has the pledge, the ἐνέχυρον (Theodoret) of the latter. Hofmann now again (as in the first ed. of the Schriftbeweis) explains τῆς ἐνεργ. τ. Θ. as in apposition to τῆς πίστεως, in such a way that Paul, “as if correcting himself,” makes the former take the place of the latter, in order to guard against the danger of his readers conceiving to themselves faith as a conduct on man’s part making possible the participation in the resurrection of Christ by God, while in reality it is nothing else than the product of the ἐνέργεια of God. A quite gratuitously invented self-correction, without precedent, and undiscoverable by the reader; although the thought, if it had entered the mind of Paul, might have been indicated with the utmost simplicity and ease (possibly by διὰ τῆς πίστεως, μᾶλλον δὲ διὰ τῆς ἐνεργ. τ. Θ.).
[100] The efficacy of the divine power shown in the resurrection of Christ is the guarantee of the certainty of salvation.
Col 2:13. Since that συνηγέρθητε was the awaking to eternal life, Paul now goes on to give special prominence to this great blessing, the making alive, and that in reference to the Gentile-Christian position of the readers; and to this he annexes, in Col 2:14 f., an anti-Judaistic triumphant statement reminding them of the cancelling of their debt-bond with the law.
To attach καὶ ὑμᾶς … σαρκὸς ὑμῶν still to Col 2:12, and to make it depend on ἐγείραντος (Steiger), is rendered impossible by the right explanation of τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐνεργείας τ. Θ. in Col 2:12,[101] to say nothing of the abrupt position in which συνεζωοπ. would thus appear. Καὶ ὑμᾶς goes along with συνεζωοπ., so that ὑμᾶς is then repeated (see Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 14; Bornemann in the Sächs. Stud. 1846, p. 66; Kühner, II. 1, p. 568; Winer, p. 139 [E. T. 184]), the repetition being here occasioned by the emphasis of the συνεζωοπ.: “You also, when ye were dead … He made you alive together with Him.” The καί therefore is not the copula and, but, in harmony with the ὑμᾶς placed in the front emphatically: also, as in Eph 2:1. It has its reference in this, that the readers had been Gentiles liable to eternal death, but the συνεζωοπ. had been extended, as to all believers, so also to them. The correctness of this reference is shown by the context as well through τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκ. ὑμ., as through the pronoun of the first person which is introduced after χαρισάμ. Extremely arbitrary is the view of Olshausen, who thinks that in Col 2:11 f. the readers are addressed as representatives of the collective community, but by καὶ ὑμᾶς in Col 2:13 personally; while Baumgarten-Crusius, in complete antagonism to the position of the words, joins καί, not to ὑμᾶς, but to the verb: “also He has called you to the new life that abideth.”
To arrive at a proper understanding of what follows we must observe: (1) That συνεζωοποίησεν is not to be taken, any more than συνηγέρθητε previously, in an ethical sense, as referring to regeneration (so usually since Oecumenius, as e.g. Grotius: “sicut Christo novam contulit vitam ex morte corporis, ita et nobis novam ex morte animorum;” comp. also Bleek and Hofmann), but in its proper sense, and that (comp. Kaeuffer, de ζωῆς αἰων. not. p. 94 f.) as referring to the everlasting life to which God[102] raised up Christ, and which He has thereby also provided for believers in virtue of their fellowship with Christ (as an ideal possession now, but to be realized at the Parousia). See also Eph 2:5. The reconciliation (which de Wette understands) is not the ζωοποίησις itself, as is plain from the compound συνεζωοπ., but its precursor and medium. The συζωοποιεῖν stands in the same relation to the συνεγείρειν as the nature of the act to its process; but the reason why συνηγέρθ. here stands before the συζωοποιεῖν (it is different in Eph 2:5) is, that the συνηγέρθητε was correlative with the συνταφέντες in Col 2:12, hence that word is used first, while in Eph. l.c. the being dead preceded, with which the συζωοποιεῖν primarily corresponds. (2) Like συνεζωοπ., so also νεκρούς is not to be taken in an ethical sense (so usually both here and in Eph 2:1, as e.g. Calvin, who thinks that the alienatio a Deo is meant), but, with Chrysostom and Theodoret, in its proper sense; the readers have been-this is the conception-prior to their conversion to Christ a prey of death. This is by no means to be understood, however, in the sense of physical death (for that comes from Adam’s sin, see on Rom 5:12), but in that of eternal death, to which they were liable through their sins, so that they could not have become partakers of the eternal ζωή (comp. on Rom 7:9 f.). See also on Eph 2:1. What is meant, therefore, is not a death which would have only become their eternal death in the absence of the quickening (Hofmann), but the eternal death itself, in which they already lay, and out of which they would not have come without that deliverance, nay, which on the contrary-and here we have a prolepsis of the thought-would only have completed itself in the future αἰών.[103] (3) This being dead occurred in the state (ἐν) of their sins (τοῖς indicates the sins which they had committed) and of the uncircumcision of their flesh, i.e. when as respects their sinful materially-psychical nature they were still uncircumcised, and had not yet put off by conversion their Gentile fleshly constitution.[104] The ἈΚΡΟΒΥΣΤΊΑ in itself they even now had as Gentile Christians, but according to Col 2:11 it was no longer ἀκρόβ. τῆς σαρκός in their case, but was now indifferent (Col 3:11; 1Co 7:19; Gal 5:6; Gal 6:15), since they had been provided with the ethical circumcision of Christ and emptied of the σῶμα τῆς σαρκός. The ethical reference of the expression does not lie, therefore, in ἈΚΡΟΒΥΣΤΊΑ itself, but in the characteristic Τῆς ΣΑΡΚῸς ὙΜῶΝ (genitive of the subject); in this uncircumcision they were as Gentiles prior to their conversion, but were so no longer as Christians. Consequently ἀκροβ. is not to be taken figuratively (Deu 10:16; Eze 44:7; Jer 4:4) as a designation of vitiositas (so Theodoret, Beza, Grotius, Bähr, Bleek, and most expositors), but in its proper sense, in which the readers as ἀκρόβυστοι could not but have understood it, and therein withal not as a symbol of uncleanness (Huther), or of the alienatio a Deo (Calvin, comp. Hofmann), or the like; on the contrary, the entire ethical stress lies on τῆς σαρκ. ὑμ. The idea of original sin (Flacius and other dogmatic expositors, comp. Bengel: “exquisita appellatio peccati origin.”) is likewise involved, and that according to its N. T. meaning (Rom 7:14 ff.), not in ἀκροβυστ., but doubtless in Τῆς ΣΑΡΚ. ὙΜῶΝ. Nevertheless this Τῆς ΣΑΡΚ. ὙΜῶΝ belongs only to Τῇ ἈΚΡΟΒΥΣΤΊᾼ, and not to ΤΟῖς ΠΑΡΑΠΤΏΜΑΣΙ as well (Hofmann); comp. Eph 2:11. Otherwise we should have, quite unnecessarily, two references heterogeneous in sense for the genitive; besides, the notion of ΠΑΡΆΠΤΩΜΑ presupposes not the ΣΆΡΞ, but the Ego in its relation to the divine law as the subject; hence also the expression παράπτ. τῆς σαρκ. (or ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑ Τ. Σ.) does not occur, while we find ἜΡΓΑ Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς in Gal 5:19. Holtzmann, p. 71, ascribes the words ΚΑῚ Τῇ ἈΚΡΟΒ. Τ. ΣΑΡΚῸς ὙΜ. to the interpolator’s love for synonyms and tautological expressions, and wishes to condemn them also in consequence of what in Col 2:11 belongs to the latter (p. 155). But they are not at all tautological; and see on Col 2:11.
ΧΑΡΙΣΆΜΕΝΟς Κ.Τ.Λ.] after having granted to us, i.e. forgiven, etc. This blotting out of our whole debt of sin was necessarily prior to the συνεζωοπ. ὑμᾶς σὺν αὐτῷ. By the fact, namely, that He remitted to us all the sins which we had committed (πάντα τὰ παραπτ.), the causa efficiens of the being (eternally) dead was done away. Comp. Chrysostom: τὰ παραπτώματα, ἃ τὴν νεκρότητα ἐτοίει. This ΧΑΡΙΣΆΜΕΝΟς Κ.Τ.Λ. is the appropriation of the reconciliation on the part of God, which believers experienced when they believed and were baptized; the objective expiatory act through the death of Christ had preceded, and is described in Col 2:14.
ἡμῖν] applies to believers generally.[105] This extension, embracing himself in common with others, is prepared for by καὶ ὑμᾶς, but could not have been introduced, if χαρισάμ. κ.τ.λ. had been conceived as synchronous with συνεζωοπ., in which case Paul must logically have used ὑμῖν (not ἡμῖν), as the reading is in B א** Vulg. Hilary. On χαρίζεσθαι, comp. 2Co 2:10; 2Co 12:13; Eph 4:32. On the subject-matter: 2Co 5:19 ff.
[101] This applies also in opposition to Hofmann, who takes ver. 13 likewise as a continuation of the description of God given in τοῦ ἐγείρ. αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρ., and therein makes the apostle guilty of a clumsy change of construction, viz. that he intended to make συζωοποιήσαντος follow, but, because this word would have been “inconvenient” after νεκροὺς ὄντας κ.τ.λ., exchanged it for an independent sentence. But συζωοποιήσαντος would have been inserted without any inconvenience whatever: on the contrary, it would only have expressed the alleged idea conformably to the construction clearly and definitely. The comparison of Col 1:26 is unsuitable. Holtzmann follows substantially the view of Hofmann, but regards the change of structure as the result of dictation. There is no change of structure in the passage at all.
[102] God is the subject of συνεζωοποίησεν, not Christ (Ewald and the older expositors); for God has raised up Christ, and God is, according to the present context (it is different in Col 3:13), the forgiver of sins, and has brought about the remission of sins through the ἱλαστήριον of Christ (ver. 14). Hence also it is not to be written σ. αὑτῷ (with the aspirate). Just as God was obviously the acting subject in περιετμήθητε, in συνταφέντες, and in συνηγέρθ., so also He is introduced in the same character emphatically in ver. 12, and remains so till the close of ver. 15.
[103] Quite correlative is the conception of the ζωή as eternal life, which the righteous man already has, although he has still in prospect the glorious perfection of it in the future αἰών.
[104] The ἐν is not repeated before τῆ ἀκροβ. because the two elements coupled by καί are conceived together so as to form the single idea of unconversion; Kühner, II. 1, p. 476. This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 156.
[105] Not specially to Jewish Christians (Hofmann, who discovers here the same idea that is expressed in Heb 9:15, and makes a new period begin with χαρισάμενος), since Paul does not express a contrast with the Gentile-Christians, but very often passes from the second person, which refers to the readers, to the first, in which he, in accordance with the sense and connection, continues the discourse from the standpoint of the common Christian consciousness. Comp. Col 1:12; Gal 4:5-6; Eph 2:1; Eph 2:4, et al.; Winer, p. 539 [E. T. 725]. Nor does the idea of the figurative χειρόγραφον, which Hofmann urges, by any means require such a limitation-which there is nothing to indicate-of the ἡμῖν embracing himself and others.
Col 2:14. The participle, which is by no means parallel and synchronous with χαρισάμενος in Col 2:13, or one and the same with it (Hofmann), is to be resolved as: after that He had blotted out, etc. For it is the historical divine reconciling act of the death of Christ that is meant, with which χαρισάμενος κ.τ.λ. cannot coincide, since that work of reconciliation had first to be accomplished before the χαρίζεσθαι κ.τ.λ. could take place through its appropriation to believers.
ἐξαλείφειν] is to be left quite in its proper signification, as in Act 3:19, Rev 3:5; Rev 7:17; Rev 21:4, and frequently in LXX. and Apocrypha, since the discourse has reference to something written, the invalidating of which is represented in the sensuous form of blotting out, even more forcibly than by διαγράφειν (to score out; see Ruhnken, ad Tim. p. 81). Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 386 C, p. 501 B: ἐξαλείφοιεν … πάλιν ἐγγράφοιεν, Ep. 7, p. 342 C: τὸ ζωγραφούμενόν τε καὶ ἐξαλειφόμενον, Dem. 468. 1 in reference to a law: εἰ χρὴ τοῦτον ἐξαλεῖψαι, Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 51; Lucian, Imag. 26; Eur. Iph. A. 1486. Comp. Valckenaer, ad Act. iii. 19.
τὸ καθʼ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον] the handwriting existing against us. What is thus characterized is not the burden of debt lying upon man, which is, as it were, his debt-schedule (Bleek), but the Mosaic law. A χειρόγραφον, namely, is an obligatory document of debt (Tob 5:3; Tob 9:5; Polyb. 30:8. 4; Dion. Hal. v. 8; and the passages in Wetstein; also the passages quoted from the Rabbins in Schoettgen), for which the older Greek writers use συγγραφή or γραμματεῖον, Dem. 882. 7, 956. 2; see also Hermann, Privatalterth. § 49, 12. And the law is the χειρόγραφον confronting us, in so far as men are bound to fulfil it perfectly, in order to avoid the threatened penal curse; and consequently because no one renders this fulfilment, it, like a bill of debt, proves them debtors (the creditor is God). We are not to carry the figure further, in which case we should come to the halting point in the comparison, that the man who is bound has not himself written the χειρόγραφον.[106] Hofmann maintains that this element also, namely, man’s having written it with his own hand, is retained in the conception of the figurative χειρόγραφον. But the apostle himself precludes this view by his having written, not: ΤῸ ἩΜῶΝ ΧΕΙΡΌΓΡ. (which would mean: the document of debt drawn by us), but: τὸ καθʼ ἡμῶν χειρόγρ.; which purposely chosen expression does not affirm that we have ourselves written the document, but it does affirm that it authenticates us as arrested for debt, and is consequently against us. The words τοῖς δόγμασιν appended (see below) also preclude the conception of the debt-record being written by man’s own hand. Moreover, the law is to be understood as an integral whole, and the various limitations of it, either to the ceremonial law (Calvin, Beza, Schoettgen, and others), or to the moral law (Calovius), are altogether in opposition to the connection (see above, πάντα τὰ παραπτ.), and un-Pauline. The explanation referring it to the conscience (Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and others) is also at variance both with the word and with the context.[107] The conscience is the medium for the knowledge of the law as the handwriting which testifies against us; without the activity of the conscience, this relation, in which the law stands to us, would remain unknown. Exception has been taken to its being explained of the Mosaic law on account of the use of ἡμῶν, seeing that this law existed only for the Jews. But without due ground; for it is in fact also the schedule of debt against the Gentiles, in so far, namely, as the latter have the knowledge of the δικαίωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ (Rom 1:32), have in fact ΤῸ ἚΡΓΟΝ ΤΟῦ ΝΌΜΟΥ ΓΡΑΠΤῸΝ ἘΝ ΤΑῖς ΚΑΡΔΊΑΙς ΑὐΤῶΝ (Rom 2:15), and, consequently, fall likewise under the condemning sentence of the law, though not directly (Rom 3:19; Rom 2:12), but indirectly, because they, having incurred through their own fault a darkening of their minds (Rom 1:20-23), transgress the “ΚΟΙΝῸΝ ἉΠΆΝΤΩΝ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ ΝΌΜΟΝ” (Dem. 639. 22). The earnest and graphic description of the abrogation of the condemning law in Col 2:14 is dictated by an apologetic motive, in opposition to the Judaism of the false teachers; hence it is the more inappropriate to understand with Cornelius a Lapide and others the covenant of God with Adam in Gen 2:16, as was already proposed by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact (comp. Iren. Haer. v. 17. 3, and Tertullian).
τοῖς δόγμασιν] Respecting ΔΌΓΜΑ, command, especially of legal decrees, see on Eph 2:15; Wetstein on Luk 2:1; the dative is closely connected with χειρόγραφον, and is instrumental: what is written with the commands (therein given), so that the δόγματα, which form the constituent elements of the law, are regarded as that wherewith it is written. Thus the tenor of the contents of what is written is indicated by the dative of the instrument (ablativus modi), just as the external constituent elements of writing, e.g. γράμμασι in Gal 6:11, and ΤΎΠΟΙς in Plat. Ep. 7, p. 343 A, are expressed by the same dative. Observe the verbal nature of χειρόγραφον, and that the dative is joined to it, as to ΤῸ ΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΈΝΟΝ (comp. Plat. l.c.: τὰ γεγραμμένα τύποις). This direct combination of a verbal substantive with a dative of the instrument is such an unquestionable and current phenomenon in classical Greek (see Matthiae, II. p. 890; Heindorf, ad Plat. Cratyl. p. 131; and especially Kühner, II. 1, p. 374), that the connection in question cannot in the least degree appear as harsh (Winer, Buttmann), or even as unnatural (Hofmann); nor should it have been regarded as something “welded on” by the interpolator (Holtzmann, p. 74), who had desired thereby to give to χειρόγρ. its reference to the law. The explanation given by many writers (Calvin, Beza, Vitringa, Wolf, Michaelis, Heinrichs, and others, comp. Luther), which hits nearly the true sense: the ΧΕΙΡΌΓΡΑΦΟΝ, consisting in the ΔΌΓΜΑΣΙ, is to be corrected grammatically in accordance with what we have said above. It is in complete variance with the arrangement of the words to join ΤΟῖς ΔΌΓΜ. to ΤῸ ΚΑΘʼ ἩΜῶΝ by supplying an ὌΝ (Calovius).[108] Bähr, Huther, and Dalmer (comp. de Wette) regard it as a more precise definition of the entire τὸ καθʼ ἡμ. χειρόγρ., so that Paul explains what he means by the χειρόγρ., and, at the same time, how it comes to be a debt-document testifying against us. So also Winer, p. 206 [E. T. 275]. This, however, would have been expressed by τὸ τοῖς δόγμασι καθʼ ἡμῶν χειρόγρ., or in some other way corresponding grammatically with the sense assumed. Ewald joins τοῖς δόγμ. as appropriating dative (see Bernhardy, p. 88 f.) to χειρόγρ.: our bond of obligation to the statutes.[109] But if χειρόγρ. were our bond of obligation (subjectively), the expression τὸ καθʼ ἡμῶν χειρ. would be inappropriate, and Paul would have said merely τὸ ἡμῶν χειρ. τ. δόγμ. It is incorrect as to sense, though not linguistically erroneous, to connect τοῖς δόγμ. with ἐξαλείψας, in which case it is explained to mean (as by Harless on Eph 2:15) that the abrogation of the law had taken place either as regards its statutes (Steiger); or by the evangelical doctrines of faith (the Greek expositors, Estius, Grotius, Hammond, Bengel, and others); or nova praecepta stabiliendo (Fritzsche, Diss. in 2 Cor. II. p. 168 f.). In opposition to these views, see Eph 2:15. Erasmus, Storr, Flatt, Olshausen, Schenkel, Bleek, and Hofmann have attached it to the following relative clause,[110] in opposition to the simple order of the words, without any certain precedent in the N. T. (with regard to Act 1:2, Rom 16:27, see on those passages), and thereby giving an emphasis to the τοῖς δόγμ. which is not warranted (for the law as such contains, in fact, nothing else than δόγματα).
Ὃ ἮΝ ὙΠΕΝΑΝΤΊΟΝ ἩΜῖΝ] an emphatic repetition-bringing into more marked prominence the hostile relation-of the thought already expressed by ΚΑΘʼ ἩΜῶΝ, with the view of counteracting the legalistic efforts of the false teachers. Bengel’s distinction, that there is here expressed ipsa pugna, and by καθʼ ἡμῶν, status belli, is arbitrary and artificial. It means simply: which was against us, not: secretly against us, as Beza and others, including Böhmer, interpret the word, which Paul uses only in this place, but which is generally employed in Greek writers, in the Apocrypha and LXX., and in the N. T. again in Heb 10:27. The relative attaches itself to the entire τὸ καθʼ ἡμ. χειρόγρ. τοῖς δόγμ.
καὶ αὐτο ἦρκεν κ.τ.λ.] Observe not only the emphatic change of structure (see on Col 1:6) which passes from the participle, not from the relative (Hofmann), over to the further act connected with the former in the finite tense, but also (comp. on Col 1:16) the perfect (Thuc. viii. 100; Dem. 786. 4): and itself (the bill of debt) he has taken out of the way, whereby the abrogation now stands completed. A graphically illustrative representation: the bill of debt was blotted out, and it has itself been carried away and is no longer in its place; ἦρκεν αὐτὸ ἐκ τοῦ μέσου μὴ ἀφεὶς ἐπὶ χώρας, Oecumenius. ΑὐΤΌ denotes the handwriting itself, materialiter, in contrast to the just mentioned blotting out of its contents. For He has nailed it, etc.; see the sequel. Hofmann imports the idea: it in this (hostile) quality; as if, namely, it ran καὶ τοιοῦτο ὄν (Xen. Anab. vi. 5.13; Phm 1:9).
The ἐκ τοῦ μέσου is our: “out of the way,” said of obstructions which are removed. Comp. Plat. Eryx. p. 401 E; Xen. Anab. i. 5. 14; de praefect. 3. 10, and the passages in Kypke, II. p. 323. The opposite: ἐν μέσῳ εἶναι, to be in the way, Dem. 682. 1; Aesch. Suppl. 735; Dorv. ad Charit. vii.3, p. 601. Thus the law stood in the way of reconciliation to God, of the χαρίζεσθαι κ.τ.λ. in Col 2:13.
ΠΡΟΣΗΛΏΣΑς Κ.Τ.Λ.] ΠΡΟΣΗΛΟῦΝ only found here in the N. T.; see, however, Plat. Phaed. p. 83 D (with πρός); Lucian, Prom. 2, Dial. D. I. (τῷ Καυκάσῳ προσηλωμένος); Galen. IV. p. 45, 9: Τῷ ΣΤΑΥΡῷ, 3Ma 4:9. Since the law which condemned man lost its punitive force through the death of Christ on the cross, inasmuch as Christ through this death suffered the curse of the law for men (Gal 3:13), and became the end of the law (Rom 10:4), at the same time that Christ was nailed as ἱλαστήριον to the cross, the law was nailed to it also, and thus it ceased to be ἘΝ ΜΈΣῼ. Observe, moreover, the logical relation of the aorist participle to the perfect ἦρκεν. The latter is the state of the matter, which has emerged and exists after God has nailed, etc. The κ. αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ μέσου takes place since that nailing. In the strong expression προσηλώσας, purposely chosen and placed foremost, there is involved an antinomistic triumph, which makes the disarming of the law very palpably apparent. Chrysostom has aptly observed on the whole passage: οὐδαμοῦ οὕτως μεγαλοφώνως ἐφθέγξατο. Ὁρᾷς σπουδὴν τοῦ ἀφανισθῆναι τὸ χειρόγραφον ὅσην ἐποιήσατο; οἷον πάντες ἦμεν ὑφʼ ἁμαρτίαν κ. κόλασιν· αὐτὸς κολασθεὶς ἔλυσε καὶ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν κόλασιν. Nevertheless, ΠΡΟΣΗΛΏΣΑς neither figuratively depicts the tearing in pieces of the χειρόγρ. (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact), nor is there any allusion to an alleged custom of publicly placarding antiquated laws (Grotius). According to Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 370 f.), a public placarding with a view to observance is meant; the requirement of Israelitish legal obligation has become changed into the requirement of faith in the Crucified One which may be read on the cross, and this transformation is also the pardon of transgressions of the law. This is a fanciful pushing further of the apostolic figure, the point of which is merely the blotting out and taking away of the law, as the debt-document hostile to us, by the death of the cross. The entire representation which is presented in this sensuous concrete form, and which is not to be expanded into the fanciful figure of transformation which we have just referred to, is intended, in fact, to illustrate merely the forgiveness of sins introduced by χαρισάμενος κ.τ.λ. in Col 2:13, and nothing more. Comp. 1Pe 2:24. It is to be observed, at the same time, that the ἘΞΑΛΕΊΦΕΙΝ and the ΑἼΡΕΙΝ ἘΚ Τ. ΜΈΣΟΥ do not represent two acts substantially different, but the same thing, the perfect accomplishment of which is explained by way of climax with particularising vividness.
[106] The relation of obligation and indebtedness in which man stands to the law (comp. Gal 3:10) is quite sufficient to justify the conception of the latter as the χειρόγραφον, without seeking this specially in the promise of the people, Exo 24:3 (Chrysostom, (Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others; also Hofmann); which the reader could not guess without some more precise indication. Indeed, that promise of the people in Exo 24:3 has by no means the mark of being self-written, but contains only the self-obligation, and would not, therefore, any more than the amen in Deuteronomy 27 (which Castalio suggests), suffice for the idea of the χειρόγραφον, if the latter had to contain the debtor’s own handwriting. In accordance with the apostle’s words (τὸ καθʼ ἡμῶν χειρόγρ., see above), and with the type of his doctrine regarding the impossibility of legal righteousness, his readers could think only of the γράμμα of the law itself as that which proves man a debtor; comp. Rom 2:27; Rom 2:29; Rom 7:6; 2Co 3:6. Wieseler, on Gal. p. 258 (appealing to Luk 16:5 ff.), Bleek, and Holtzmann, p. 64, also erroneously press the point that the χειρόγρ. must necessarily be written or signed by the debtor himself.
[107] Luther’s gloss: “Nothing is so hard against us as our own conscience, whereby we are convinced as by our own handwriting, when the law reveals to us our sin.” Melanchthon: “sententia in mente et corde tanquam scripta lege et agnitione lapsus,” in connection with which he regards the conscience as “syllogismus practicus ex lege ductus.”
[108] So also Wieseler in Rosenmüller’s Rep. II. p. 135 ff.: τὸ χειρόγρ. τὸ τοῖς δόγμ. καθʼ ἡμῶν ὄν.
[109] Comp. Wieseler on Gal. p. 258: “with reference to the statutes.” He takes Paul’s meaning to be, “our testimony with our own hand, that we have transgressed the statutes of the law of Moses.”
[110] So also Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Work, III. 1, p. 110. He considers as the χειρόγραφον not the Mosaic law itself, but the bill of debt which the broken law has drawn up against us. The very parallel in Eph 2:15 is decisive against this view.
Col 2:15.[111] In this doing away of the law was involved the victory and triumph of God over the devilish powers, since the strength of the latter, antagonistic to God, is in sin, and the strength of sin is in the law (1Co 15:56); with the law, therefore, the power of the devil stands or falls.
If ἀπεκδυσ. ran parallel, as the majority suppose, with ΠΡΟΣΗΛΏΣΑς, there must have been a ΚΑΊ inserted before ἘΔΕΙΓΜΆΤ., as in Col 2:14 before the finite verb, because otherwise no connection would be established. Hence a full stop (Beza) must be placed before ἈΠΕΚΔΥΣ., or at least a colon (Elzevir, Bleek); and without any connecting particle the significant verb heads all the more forcibly the description of this final result expressed with triumphant fulness: Having stripped the lordships and powers, he has made a show of them boldly, holding triumph over them in the same. Observe the symmetrical emphatic prefixing of ἀπεκδυσ., ἐδειγμάτ.,., and ΘΡΙΑΜΒ. The subject is still always God, not Christ,[112] as Baur and Ewald hold, following Augustine, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Erasmus, Grotius, Calovius, and many others; hence the reading ἀπεκδ. τὴν σάρκα in F G (which omit Τ. ἈΡΧ. Κ. Τ. ἘΞΟΥΣ.) Syr. Goth. Hil. Aug. was an erroneous gloss; and at the close, not αὑτῷ (Syr. Vulg. It. Theodoret, Luther, Melanchthon, Elzevir, Griesbach, and Scholz), instead of which G has ἙΑΥΤῷ, but ΑὐΤῷ should be written; see Wolf in loc. The figurative ἀπεκδυσ., which illustrates the deprivation of power that has taken place through the divine work of reconciliation, represents the ἀρχὰς καὶ ἐξουσ. as having been clothed in armour (comp. Rom 13:12; Eph 6:11; 1Th 5:8), which God as their conqueror stripped off and took from them; Vulg.: exspolians. Comp. on ἐκδύειν and ἈΠΟΔΎΕΙΝ, used from Homer’s time in the sense of spoliare, Dem. 763. 28, 1259. 11; Hesiod, Scut. 447; Xen. Anab. v. 8. 23; 2Ma 8:27; and on the subject-matter, Mat 12:19; Luk 11:22. Moreover, we might expect, in accordance with the common usage of the middle, instead of ἀπεκδυσάμενος, which is elsewhere used intransitively (comp. Col 3:9), the active ἀπεκδύσας (comp. Mat 27:28; Mat 27:31; Luk 10:30); yet even in Plat. Rep. p. 612 A, the (right) reading ἀπεδυσάμεθα is to taken in the sense of nudavimus; and Xenophon uses the perfect ἀποδέδυκεν, which is likewise intransitive elsewhere (see Kühner, I. p. 803), actively, see Anab. l.c.: πολλοὺς ἤδη ἀποδέδυκεν, multos veste spoliavit; comp. Dio Cass. xlv. 47. Further, the middle, as indicating the victorious self-interest of the action (sibi exspoliavit), is here selected even with nicety, and by no means conveys (as Hofmann, in order to refute this explanation, erroneously lays to its charge) the idea: in order to appropriate to Himself this armour; see on the contrary generally, Krüger, § 52. 10. 1; Kühner, II. 1, p. 93 f. The disarming in itself, and not the possession of the enemy’s weapons, is the interest of the victor. Lastly, the whole connection does not admit of any intransitive interpretation, such as Hofmann, in his Schriftbew. I. p. 350 f. (and substantially also in his Heil. Schr. in loc.), has attempted, making the sense: God has laid aside from Himself the powers ruling in the Gentile world-which were round about Him like a veil concealing Him from the Gentiles-by manifesting Himself in unveiled clearness. Something such as this, which is held to amount to the meaning that God has put an end to the ignorance of the Gentile world and revealed Himself to it, Paul must necessarily have said; no reader could unravel it from so strange a mode of veiling the conception, the more especially seeing that there is no mention at all of the victorious word of Christ[113] converting the Gentiles, as Hofmann thinks, but on the contrary of what God has effected in reference to the ἀρχαὶ and ἐξουσίαι by the fact of reconciliation accomplished on the cross; He has by it rendered powerless the powers which previously held sway among mankind; comp. Joh 12:30 f., Joh 16:11.
That these ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι are two categories of evil angels (comp. Eph 6:12), corresponding to two classes of good angels similarly named (comp. Col 2:10), is taught by the context, which has nothing to do with mediating beings intervening between God and the world (Sabatier), or even with human rulers. Ritschl, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 522, understands the angels of the law-giving (comp. on Col 1:20), of whom God has divested Himself (middle), i.e. from whose environment He has withdrawn Himself. Even apart from the singular expression ἀπεκδυσάμ. in this sense, this explanation is inappropriate, because the ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι appear here as hostile to God, as beings over whom He has triumphed; secondly, because the angels who ministered at the law-giving (see on Gal 3:19) have no share in the contents of the law, which, as the νόμος Θεοῦ, is holy, righteous, good, and spiritual (Romans 7), and hence no deviation from God’s plan of salvation can be attributed to the angels of the law; and, finally, because the expression τὰς ἀρχὰς κ. τὰς ἐξουσίας is so comprehensive that, in the absence of any more precise indication in the text, it cannot be specially limited to the powers that were active in the law-giving, but must denote the collective angelic powers-hostile, however, and therefore devilish. Them God has disarmed, put to shame, and triumphed over, through the abrogation of men’s legal debt-bond that took place by means of the atoning death. The emphatic and triumphant prominence given to this statement was, doubtless, specially occasioned by those speculations regarding the power of demons, with which the false teachers were encroaching on the work of Christ.
δειγματίζειν, preserved only here and in Mat 1:19 (comp. however, παραδειγματίζειν, especially frequent in Polybius; see Schweighäuser, Lex. p. 429), denotes, in virtue of its connection with the conception of triumph, the making a show (Augustine, ep. 59: “exemplavit;” Hilary, de trin. 9: “ostentui esse fecit”) for the purpose of humiliation and disgrace (comp. Chrysostom), not in order to exhibit the weakness of the conquered (Theodoret, Böhmer), but simply their accomplished subjugation; comp. Nah 3:6 : θήσομαί σε εἰς παράδειγμα.
ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ] is usually rendered publicly, before the eyes of all, consequently as equivalent to φανερῶς in Joh 7:10 (the opposite: ἐν κρυπτῷ, Joh 7:4; Mat 6:4; Rom 2:28); but this the word does not mean (see on Joh 7:4); moreover, the verb already implies this idea;[114] and the usage of Paul elsewhere warrants only the rendering: boldly, freely and frankly. Comp. Eph 6:19; Php 1:20. Hilary: “cum fiducia;” Vulgate: “confidenter palam.” The objection that this sense is not appropriate to the action of God (Hofmann), overlooks the fact that God is here represented just as a human triumpher, who freely and boldly, with remorseless disposal of the spoils acquired by victory, subjects the conquered to ignominious exhibition.[115]
θριαμβεύσας αὐτ. ἐν αὐτῷ] synchronous with ἐδειγμ.: while He triumphed over them. Respecting θριαμβεύειν τινα, to triumph over some one, see on 2Co 2:14. Comp. the passive θριαμβεύεσθαι, to be led in triumph, Plut. Coriol. 35. αὐτούς refers κατὰ σύνεσιν to the devils individually, who are conceived as masculine (as δαίμονες, κοσμοκράτορες, Eph 6:12), see generally Winer, p. 138 [E. T. 183]; and ἐν αὐτῷ is referred either to the cross (hence, also, the readings ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ or σταυρῷ) or to Christ. The former reference is maintained by the majority of the Fathers (Theophylact: ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοὺς δαίμονας ἡττημένους δείξας), Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and many others, including Böhmer, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald, Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 432, ed. 2; and the latter, by Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Wolf, Estius, Bengel, and many others, including Flatt, Bähr, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, Bleek, Hofmann, Rich. Schmidt. The reference to Christ is erroneous, because Christ is not mentioned at all in Col 2:14, and God pervades as subject the entire discourse from Col 2:11 onwards. We must hold, therefore, by the reference to τῷ σταυρῷ, so that ἐν αὐτῷ once more places the cross significantly before our eyes, just as it stood emphatically at the close of the previous sentence. At the cross God celebrated His triumph, inasmuch as through the death of Christ on the cross obliterating and removing out of the way the debt-bill of the law He completed the work of redemption, by which the devil and his powers were deprived of their strength, which rested on the law and its debt-bond. The ascension is not to be here included.
[111] Holtzmann, p. 156 f., rejects this verse because it interrupts the transition of thought to ver. 16 (which is not the case); because δειγματίζειν is un-Pauline (but in what sense is it un-Pauline? it is in any sense a very rare word); because θριαμβεύειν is used here otherwise than in 2Co 2:14 (this is incorrect); but, especially, because ver. 15 can only be explained by the circle of ideas of Eph 3:10 and Col 1:10; Eph 4:8; Eph 2:15 f. (passages which touch our present one either not at all, or at the most very indirectly).
[112] Through this erroneous definition of the subject it was possible to discover in our passage the descent into hell (Anselm and others).
[113] In which sense also Grotius explained it, though he takes ἀπεκδυσάμ. rightly as exarmatos. See, in opposition to him, Calovius. Hofmann’s explanation is also followed by Holtzmann, p. 222; it is an unfortunate attempt at rationalizing.
[114] Hence Hofmann joins it with θριαμβεύσας, in which, however, the idea of publicity is obviously already contained. Hofmann, indeed, assumes a reference of contrast to the invisible triumphs, which God has ever been celebrating over those powers. But thus the idea of θριαμβεύειν is extended to an unwarranted amplitude of metaphorical meaning, while, nevertheless, the entire anthropopathic imagery of the passage requires the strict conception of the public θρίαμβος Moreover, the pretended contrast is altogether foreign to the context.
[115] It is an inconsiderate fancy of Hofmann to say, by way of controverting our explanation: Who would be surprised, that the triumpher should make a show of the conquered, “without previously asking their permission”? As if such a thought, no doubt very silly for the victor, were necessarily the contrast to the frank daring action, with which a general, crowned with victory, is in a position to exhibit his captives without any scruple, without sparing or hesitation! He has the ἐξουσία for the δειγματίζειν, and uses it ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ.
Col 2:16. Οὖν] since ye, according to Col 2:11-15, are raised to a far higher platform than that of such a legal system.
κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει] No one is to form a judgment (whether ye are acting allowably or unallowably, rightly or wrongly) concerning you in the point of eating (ἐν, comp. Rom 2:1; Rom 14:22; 1Pe 2:12). There is hereby asserted at the same time their independence of such judgments, to which they have not to yield (comp. Eph 5:6). With Paul, βρῶσις is always actio edendi, and is thus distinct from βρῶμα, cibus (Rom 14:17; 1Co 8:4; 2Co 9:10; also Heb 12:16), although it is also current in the sense of βρῶμα with John (Joh 4:32, Joh 6:27; Joh 6:55), and with profane authors (Hom. Il. xix. 210, Od. i. 191, x. 176, et al.; Plat. Legg. vi. p. 783 C; Hesiod, Scut. 396). This we remark in opposition to Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 200. The case is the same with πόσις (Rom 14:17) and πόμα (1Co 10:4; Heb 9:10).
ἐν πόσει] Since the Mosaic law contained prohibitions of meats (Lev 7:10 ff.), but not also general prohibitions of drinks, it is to be assumed that the false teachers in their ascetic strictness (Col 2:23) had extended the prohibition of the use of wine as given for the Nazarites (Num 6:3), and for the period of priestly service (Lev 10:9), to the Christians as such (as ἁγίους). Comp. also Rom 14:17; Rom 14:21. De Wette arbitrarily asserts that it was added doubtless in consideration of this, as well as of the Pharisaic rules as to drinks, Mat 23:24, and of the prohibition of wine offered to idols (οὖν does not point to such things), but still mainly on account of the similarity of sound (Rom 14:17; Heb 9:10, and Bleek in loc.).
ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς κ.τ.λ.] ἐν μέρει, with the genitive, designates the category, as very frequently also in classical authors (Plat. Theaet. p. 155 E, Rep. p. 424 D; Dem. 638. 5, 668. 24); comp. on 2Co 3:10, and see Wyttenbach, ad Plut. I. p. 65. The three elements: festival, new moon, and Sabbath, are placed side by side as a further classis rerum; in the point (ἐν) of this category also no judgment is to be passed upon the readers (if, namely, they do not join in observing such days). The elements are arranged, according as the days occur, either at longer unequal intervals in the year (ἑορτῆς), or monthly (νουμην.), or weekly (σαββάτ.). But they are three, co-ordinated; there would be only one thing with three connected elements, if καί were used instead of ἤ in the two latter places where it occurs. The three are given in inverted order in 1Ch 23:31; 2Ch 2:4; 2Ch 31:3. On the subject-matter, comp. Gal 4:10. Respecting the Jewish celebration of the new moon, see Keil, Archäol. I, § 78; Ewald, Alterth. p. 470 f.; and on σάββατα as equivalent to σάββατον, comp. Mat 12:1; Mat 28:1; Luk 4:16, et al. ἐν μέρει has been erroneously understood by others in the sense of a partial celebration (Chrysostom: ἐξευτελίζει λέγεν· ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς· οὐ γὰρ δὴ πάντα κατεῖχον τὰ πρότερα, Theodoret: they could not have kept all the feasts, on account of the long journey to Jerusalem; comp. Dalmer), or: vicibus festorum (Melanchthon, Zanchius), or, that the participation in the festival, the taking part in it is expressed (Otto, dekalog. Unters. p. 9 ff.), or that it denotes the segregatio, “nam qui dierum faciunt discrimen, quasi unum ab alio dividunt” (Calvin). Many, moreover inaccurately, hold that ἐν μέρει means merely: in respect to (Beza, Wolf, and most expositors, including Bähr, Huther, and de Wette); in 2Co 3:10; 2Co 9:3, it also denotes the category. Comp. Aelian. V. H. viii. Colossians 3 : κρίνοντες ἕκαστον ἐν τῷ μέρει φόνου.
Col 2:17.[116] An epexegetical relative sentence, assigning the ground for what has just been said.
ὅ, which (see the critical remarks), is not to be arbitrarily referred merely to the observance of feasts and days (Flatt and Hofmann), but to the things of the law mentioned in Col 2:16 generally, all of which it embraces.
σκιά] not an outline (σκιαγραφία, σκιαγράφημα), as in the case of painters, who “non exprimunt primo ductu imaginem vivis coloribus et εἰκονικῶς, sed rudes et obscuras lineas primum ex carbone ducunt,” Calvin (so also Clericus, Huther, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), which σκιά does not mean even in Heb 8:5; Heb 10:1, and which is forbidden by the contrast of τὸ σῶμα, since it would rather be the perfect picture that would be put in opposition to the outline. It means nothing else than shadow. Paul is illustrating, namely, the relation of the legal ordinances, such as are adduced in Col 2:16, to that which is future, i.e. to those relations of the Messianic kingdom, which are to be manifested in the αἰὼν μέλλων (neither ἀγαθῶν from Heb 10:1, nor anything else, is to be supplied with τῶν μελλόντων), and in doing so he follows the figurative conception, that the μέλλοντα, which therefore, locally considered, are in front, have cast their shadow behind, which shadow is the Mosaic ritual constitution,-a conception which admirably accords with the typical character of the latter (Heb 8:5; Heb 10:1), of which the constitution of the Messianic kingdom is the antitype. It is to be noted further: (1) The emphasis of confirmation lies not on τῶν μελλόντων (Beza), but on σκιά, in contrast to τὸ σῶμα. If, namely, the things in question are only the shadow of the Messianic, and do not belong to the reality thereof, they are-in accordance with this relatively non-essential, because merely typical nature of theirs-not of such a kind that salvation may be made dependent on their observance or non-observance, and adjudged or withheld accordingly. (2) The passage is not to be explained as if ἦν stood in the place of ἐστί, so that τὰ μέλλοντα would denote the Christian relations already then existing, the καινὴ διαθήκη, the Christian plan of salvation, the Christian life, etc. (so usually since Chrysostom); but, on the contrary, that which is spoken of is shadow, not, indeed, as divinely appointed in the law (Hofmann)-for of this aspect of the elements in question the text contains nothing-but in so far as Paul sees it in its actual condition still at that time present. The μέλλοντα have not yet been manifested at all, and belong altogether (not merely as regards their completion, as de Wette thinks, comp. also Hofmann) to the αἰὼν μέλλων, which will begin with the coming again of Christ to set up His kingdom-a coming, however, which was expected as very near at hand. The μέλλοντα could only be viewed as having already set in either in whole or in part, if ἦν and not ἐστί were used previously, and thereby the notion of futurity were to be taken relatively, in reference to a state of things then already past (comp. Gal 3:23; 1Ti 1:16), or if ἐστί were meant to be said from the standpoint of the divine arrangement of those things (Hofmann), or if this present tense expressed the logical present merely by way of enabling the mind to picture them (Rom 5:14), which, however, is inadmissible here, since the elements indicated by σκιά still continued at this time, long after Christ’s earthly appearance, and were present really, and not merely in legal precepts or in theory. (3) The characteristic quality, in which the things concerned are meant to be presented by the figurative σκιά, is determined solely by the contrast of τὸ σῶμα, namely, as unsubstantiality in a Messianic aspect: shadow of the future, standing in relation to it, therefore doubtless as typically presignificant, but destitute and void of its reality. The reference to transitoriness (Spencer, de legit, rit. p. 214 f., Baumgarten-Crusius, and others) is purely imported.
τὸ δὲ σῶμα] scil. τῶν μελλόντων, but the body of the future.[117] Inasmuch as the legal state of things in Col 2:16 stands to the future Messianic state in no other relation than that of the shadow to the living body itself, which casts the shadow, Paul thus, remaining faithful to his figure, designates as the body of the future that which is real and essential in it, which, according to the context, can be nothing else than just the μέλλοντα themselves, their concrete reality as contrasted with the shadowy form which preceded them. Accordingly, he might have conveyed the idea of the verse, but without its figurative garb, in this way: ὅ ἐστι τύπος τῶν μελλόντων, αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ μέλλοντα Χριστοῦ.
Χριστοῦ] scil. ἐστί, belongs to Christ. The μέλλοντα, namely, viewed under the figurative aspect of the σῶμα which casts the shadow referred to, must stand in the same relation to Christ, as the body stands in to the Head (Col 2:19); as the body now adumbrating itself, they must belong to Christ the Head of the body, in so far, namely, as He is Lord and ruler of all the relations of the future Messianic constitution, i.e. of the Messianic kingdom, of the βασιλεία τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Col 1:13; Eph 5:5). Whosoever, therefore, holds to the shadow of the future, to the things of the law (as the false teachers do and require), and does not strive after the μέλλοντα themselves, after the body which has cast that shadow, does not hold to Christ, to whom as Head the σῶμα (τῆς σκιᾶς) belongs as His own. This view, which is far removed from “distorting” the thought (as Hofmann objects), is required by the natural and obvious correlation of the conception of the body and its head, as also by Col 2:19. There is much inaccuracy and irrelevancy in the views of expositors, because they have not taken τὰ μέλλοντα in the sense, or not purely in the sense, of the relations of the αἰὼν μέλλων, but in that of the then existing Christian relations, which in fact still belonged to the αἰὼν οὗτος, and because, in connection therewith, they do not take up with clearness and precision the contextually necessary relation of the genitive Χριστοῦ as denoting Him, whose the σῶμα is, but resolve it into what they please, as e.g. Grotius (so also Bleek): “ad Christum pertinet, ab eo solo petenda est;” Huther: “the substance itself, to which those shadowy figures point, has appeared in Christ;” Ewald: “so far as there is anything really solid, essential, and eternal in the O. T., it belongs to Christ and to His Spirit;” Hofmann: “the body of the future is there, where Christ is, present and given with Him” (consequently as if ἐν Χριστῷ were used).
On τὸ σῶμα in contrast to σκιά, comp. Josephus, Bell. ii. 2. 5: σκιὰν αἰτησόμενος βασιλείας, ἧς ἥρπασεν ἑαυτῷ τὸ σῶμα. Philo, de conf. ling. p. 434: τὰ μὲν ῥητὰ τῶν χρησμῶν σκιάς τινας ὡσανεὶ σωμάτων εἶναι· τὰς δʼ ἐμφαινομένας δυνάμεις τὰ ὑφεστῶτα ἀληθείᾳ πράγματα. Lucian, Hermot. 29. Observe, however, that σῶμα invariably retains its strict literal sense of body, as a sensuous expression for the substantially real, in contrast to the unsubstantial shadow of it.
[116] Holtzmann, without assigning his reasons, regards the entire verse as an “extract from the Epistle to the Hebrews” (Heb 9:6; Heb 9:9 f., 25, Heb 10:1; Heb 10:11, Heb 8:5); he thinks that the whole polemic of Col 2:16-23 was intended to introduce the more developed features of later heresy into the picture of the apostolic age. But the difficulty of Col 2:18 (which Holtzmann considers utterly unintelligible) and Col 2:22 f., as well as the alleged un-Pauline character of some expressions in Col 2:19, does not furnish a sufficient basis for such an opinion. Comp. on Col 2:18-19; Col 2:22-23.
[117] The explanation of Hilgenfeld, 1873, p.199: “the mere σῶμα Χριστοῦ, a purely somatic Christianity,” is at variance with the antithetical correlation of σκιά and σῶμα, as well as with the apostle’s cherished conception of the σῶμα of Christ, which is contained immediately in ver. 19.
Col 2:18.[118] Warning against a further danger, with which they were threatened on the part of these false teachers.
μηδείς] not different from μήτις in Col 2:16, as if the latter emphasized the verb and the former the subject (Hofmann). This would be correct, if in Col 2:16 it were μὴ οὖν κρινέτω τις ὑμᾶς. Comp. on μήτις, Col 2:8, and on μηδείς, Col 2:4. Moreover, the words cannot be regarded (with Holtzmann) as a duplicate proceeding from the interpolator, especially as they contain a new warning, and in such a peculiar form (καταβραβ.).
καταβραβευέτω] Let no one deprive you of the prize. καταβραβεύειν, which is not a Cilician word (Jerome; see, on the contrary, Eustath. ad Il. i. 93. 33: καταβραβεύει αὐτὸν, ὥς φασιν οἱ παλαιοί), is only now preserved among ancient Greek authors in Dem. c. Mid. 544, ult.: ἐπιστάμεθα Στράτωνα ὑπὸ Μειδίου καταβραβευθέντα καὶ πὰντα πὰντα τὰ δίκαια ἀτιμωθέντα, where it expresses the taking away of victory in a judicial suit, and the procuring of a sentence of condemnation, and that in the form of the conception: to bring it about to the injury of some one, that not he, but another, shall receive the prize from the βραβεύς. Midias had bribed the judges. The κατά intimates that the prize was due to the person concerned, although it has been in a hostile spirit (not merely unrighteously, which would be παραβραβεύειν,[119] Plut. Mor. p. 535 C; Polyb. xxiv. 1. 12) withdrawn from him and adjudged to another. The right view substantially, though not recognising the distinction from παραβραβ., is taken by Chrysostom (παραβραβευθῆναι γάρ ἐστιν, ὅταν παρʼ ἑτέρων μὲν ἡ νίκη, παρʼ ἐτέρων δὲ τὸ βραβεῖον) and Theophylact, also Suidas: τὸ ἄλλου ἀγωνιζομένου ἄλλον στεφανοῦσθαι λέγει ὁ ἀπόστολος καταβραβεύεσθαι. Comp. also Zonaras, ad Concil. Laod. can. 35, p. 351: τὸ μὴ τὸν νικήσαντα ἀξιοῦν τοῦ βραβείου, ἀλλʼ ἑτέρῳ διδόναι αὐτὸ ἀδικουμένου τοῦ νικήσαντος. The conception is: (1) To the readers as true believers belongs the Messianic prize of victory,-this is the assumption upon which the expression is based; (2) The false teachers desire to deprive them of the prize of victory and to give it to others, namely, to themselves and their adherents, and that through their service of angels, etc.; (3) Just as little, however, as in the case of the κρίνειν in Col 2:16, ought the readers to give heed to, or let themselves be led astray by, this hostile proceeding of the καταβραβεύειν, which is based upon subjective vanity and is (Col 2:19) separation from Christ and His body,-this is implied in the imperatives. Consequently, the view of Jerome, ad Aglas. p. 10, is not in substance erroneous, although only approximately corresponding to the expression: “Nemo adversus vos praemium accipiat;” Erasmus is substantially correct: “praemium, quod sectari coepistis, vobis intervertat;” comp. Calvin, Estius, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, and others; while the Vulgate (seducat), Luther (“to displace the goal”), and others content themselves with a much less accurate statement of the sense, and Bengel imports into the passage the sense of usurped false leading and instruction, as Beza similarly took it.[120] The ΒΡΑΒΕῖΟΝ, to which ΚΑΤΑΒΡ. refers, is not Christian liberty (Grotius, who explains it praemium exigere), nor yet: “the honour and prize of the true worship of God” (de Wette), but, in accordance with the standing apostolic conception (comp. Php 3:14; 1Co 9:24): the bliss of the Messianic kingdom, the incorruptible στέφανος (1Co 9:25), the ΣΤΕΦ. Τῆς ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗς (2Ti 4:8), Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς (1Pe 5:4), Τῆς ΖΩῆς (Jam 1:12); comp. 2Ti 2:5. With reference to the ΒΡΑΒΕῖΟΝ, Elsner, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, Steiger, and others, including Bähr, Böhmer, Reiche, Huther, and Bleek, following Photius in Oecumenius (ΜΗΔΕῚς ὙΜᾶς ΚΑΤΑΚΡΙΝΈΤΩ), have taken ΚΑΤΑΒΡΑΒ. in the sense of to condemn, parallel to the κρινέτω in Col 2:16, or to refuse salvation to (Hofmann). This rendering is not, indeed, to be rejected on linguistic grounds, since Hesychius and Suidas both quote the signification κατακρίνειν in the case of ΚΑΤΑΒΡΑΒΕΎΕΙΝ; but it cannot be justified by proofs adduced, and it is decidedly in opposition to the context through the following ΘΈΛΩΝ Κ.Τ.Λ., which presupposes not a judgment of the opponents, but an action, something practical, which, through their perverse religious attitude, they would fain accomplish.
θέλων] sc. καταβραβεύειν ὑμᾶς: while he desires to do this, would willingly accomplish it (comp. Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. ii. 97) by humility, etc. So rightly Theodoret (τοῦτο τοίνυν συνεβούλευον ἐκεῖνοι γίνεσθαι ταπεινοφροσύνῃ δῆθεν κεχρημένοι), Theophylact (ΘΈΛΟΥΣΙΝ ὙΜᾶς ΚΑΤΑΒΡΑΒΕΎΕΙΝ ΔΙᾺ ΤΑΠΕΙΝΟΦΡ.), Photius in Oecumenius, Calvin, Casaubon, and others, including Huther and Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 322 [E. T. 376]. The “languidum et frigidum,” which Reiche urges against this view, applies at the most only in the event of καταβραβ. being explained as to condemn; and the accusation of incorrectness of sense (Hofmann) is only based upon an erroneous explanation of the subsequent ἐν ταπεινοφρ. κ.τ.λ. The interpretation adopted by others: taking delight in humility, etc. (Augustine, Castalio, Vatablus, Estius, Michaelis, Loesner, and others, including Storr, Flatt, Bähr, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, Hofmann, and Hilgenfeld), is based upon the extremely unnecessary assumption of an un-Greek imitation of חמץ ב, such as occurs, indeed, in the LXX. (1Sa 18:22; 2Sa 15:26; 1Ki 10:9; 2Ch 9:8; Psa 146:10), but not in the N. T.; for in Mat 27:43, ΘΈΛΕΙΝ is used with the accusative, comp. on Rom 7:21. Moreover, in the O. T. passages the object of the delight is almost invariably (the only exception being Psa 147:10) a person. Even in the Apocrypha that abnormal mode of expression does not occur. Others, again, hold that it is to be joined in an adverbial sense to καταβρ. It would then (see Erasmus, Annot.) have to be rendered cupide or studiose (Plat. Theaet. p. 143 D; and see Reisig, Conject. p. 143 f.), or unconstrained, voluntarily, equivalent to ἐθελοντί, ἐθελοντήν, ἐθελοντής (Plat. Symp. p. 183 A, very frequent in Homer, Soph. Phil. 1327, Aesch. Choeph. 19. 790, and the passages from Xenophon quoted by Sturz, Lex. II. p. 21), which sense, here certainly quite unsuitable, has been transformed at variance with linguistic usage into the idea: “hoc munus sibi a nullo tributum exercens” (Beza), or: unwarrantably (Böhmer, comp. Steiger), or of his own choice (Luther, who, like Ewald, couples it with ἘΜΒΑΤΕΎΩΝ), or: arbitrarily (Ewald), or: capriciously (Reiche), etc.; consequently giving it the sense of ἙΚΏΝ, ΑὐΤΟΘΕΛΉς, ΑὐΤΟΚΈΛΕΥΣΤΟς, or ΑὐΤΟΓΝΏΜΩΝ. Even Tittmann, Synon. p. 131, comes at length to such an ultro, erroneously quoting Herod, 9:14, where ΘΈΛΩΝ must be taken as in Plat. Theaet. l.c.
ἐν ταπεινοφρ. κ. θρησκ. τῶν ἀγγέλ.] ἐν is not propter, which is supposed to have the meaning: because ΤΑΠΕΙΝΟΦΡ. Κ.Τ.Λ. is necessary to salvation (Reiche); nor does it denote the condition in which the καταβραβεύειν takes place (Steiger, Huther); but, in keeping with the θέλων, it is the means by which the purpose is to be attained: by virtue of humility and worshipping of angels. Thereby he wishes to effect that the βραβεῖον shall be withdrawn from you (and given to himself and his followers). τ. ἀλλέλων is the genitive of the object (comp. Wis 14:27; Herodian, iv. 8. 17; Clem. Cor. I. 45; see also Grimm on 4Ma 5:6, and the passages from Josephus in Krebs, p. 339), and belongs only to θρησκ., not to ταπεινοφρ. That the latter, however, is not humility in the proper sense, but is, viewed from the perverse personal standpoint of the false teachers, a humility in their sense only, is plain from the context (see below, εἰκῆ φυσιούμ. κ.τ.λ.), although irony (Steiger, Huther) is not to be found in the word. Paul, namely, designates the thing as that, for which the false teachers held it themselves and desired it to be held by others, and this, indeed, as respects the disposition lying at the root of it, which they sought to exhibit (ἘΝ ΤΑΠΕΙΝΟΦΡ.), and as respects the abnormal religious phenomenon manifested among them (Κ. ΘΡΗΣΚ. Τ. ἈΓΓΈΛΩΝ); and then proceeds to give a deterrent exposure of both of these together according to their true character in a theoretical (Ἃ … ἘΜΒΑΤ.) and in a moral (ΕἸΚῆ ΦΥΣ … ΤῊΝ ΚΕΦΑΛῊΝ) respect. How far the false teachers bore themselves as ταπεινόφρονες, is correctly defined by Theodoret: λέγοντες, ὡς ἀόρατος ὁ τῶν ὅλων Θεὸς, ἀνέφικτος τε καὶ ἀκατάληπτος, καὶ προσήκει διὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τὴν θείαν εὐμένειαν πραγματεύεσθαι, so that they thus regarded man as too insignificant in the presence of the divine majesty to be able to do without[121] the mediation of angels, which they sought to secure through θρησκεία (comp. 4Ma 4:11), thereby placing the merit of Christ (Rom 5:2) in the background. It is differently explained by Chrysostom and Theophylact (comp. also Photius in Oecumenius): the false teachers had declared the majesty of the Only-Begotten to be too exalted for lowly humanity to have access through Him to the Father, and hence the need of the mediation of angels for that purpose. In opposition to this view it may be urged, that the very prominence so frequently and intentionally given to the majesty of Christ in our Epistle, and especially as above the angels, rather goes to show that they had depreciated the dignity of Christ. Reiche and Ewald (comp. Hofmann’s interpretation below) find the ταπεινοφροσύνη in the ἀφειδία σώματος of Col 2:23, where, however, the two aberrations are adduced separately from one another, see on Col 2:23. Proofs of the existence of the worship of angels in the post-apostolic church are found in Justin, Ap. I. 6, p. 56,[122] Athenagoras, and others; among the Gnostic heretics (Simonians, Cainites): Epiph. Haer. xx. 2; Tertullian, praescr. 33; Iren. Haer. i. 31. 2; and with respect to the worshipping of angels in the Colossian region Theodoret testifies: ἔμεινε δὲ τοῦτο τὸ πάθος ἐν τῇ Φρυγίᾳ καὶ Πισιδίᾳ μέχρι πολλοῦ· οὗ δὴ χάριν καὶ συνελθοῦσα σύνοδος ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ τῆς Φρυγίας (A.D. 364, can. 35) νόμῳ κεκώλυκε τὸ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις προσεύχεσθαι, καὶ μέχρι δὲ τοῦ νῦν εὐκτήρια τοῦ ἁγίου Μιχαὴλ παρʼ ἐκείνοις καὶ τοῖς ὁμόροις ἐκείνων ἐστὶν ἰδεῖν. The Catholic expedients for evading the prohibition of angel-worship in our passage (as also in the Concil. Laod., Mansi, II. p. 568) may be seen especially in Cornelius a Lapide, who understands not all angel-worship, but only that which places the angels above Christ (comp. also Bisping), and who refers the Laodicean prohibition pointing to a “κεκρυμμένη εἰδδωλολαατρεία (“ὃτι οὐ δεῖ Χριστιανοὺς ἐγκαταλείπειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἀπιέναι καὶ ἁγγέλους ὀνομάζειν” κ.τ.λ.), in accordance with the second Nicene Council, only to the cultus latriae, not duliae, consequently to actual adoration, not τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν. In opposition to the words as they stand (for θρησκεία with the genitive of the subject would necessarily be the cultus, which the angels present to God, 4Ma 5:6; 4Ma 5:12; Joseph. Antt. xii. 5. 4; comp. Act 26:5), and also in opposition to the context (see Col 2:19), several have taken τῶν ἀγγέλων as the genitive of the subject, and have explained it of a religious condition, which desired to be like that of the angels, e.g. Luther: “spirituality of the angels,” comp. Melanchthon, Schoettgen (“habitus aliquis angelicus”), Wolf, Dalmer. Nevertheless, Hofmann, attempting a more subtle definition of the sense, has again taken τῶν ἀγγέλων as genitive of the subject, and joined with it not only θρησκείᾳ, but also ταπεινοφροσύνῃ. The ταπεινοφροσύνη of the angels, namely, consists in their willingly keeping within the bounds assigned to them as spirits, and not coveting that which man in this respect has beyond them, namely, what belongs to the corporeal world. And the θρησκεία of the angels is a self-devotion to God, in which, between them and Him, no other barrier exists than that between the Creator and His creatures. That ταπεινοφροσύνη and this θρησκεία man makes into virtue on his part, when he, although but partially, renounces that which belongs to Him in distinction from the angels (ταπεινοφρ.), and, as one who has divested himself as much as possible of his corporeality, presents himself adoringly to God in such measure as he refrains from what was conferred upon him for bodily enjoyment. I do not comprehend how, on the one hand, the apostle could wrap up the combinations of ideas imputed to him in words so enigmatical, nor, on the other, how the readers could, without the guidance of Hofmann, extract them out of these words. The entire exposition is a labyrinth of imported subjective fancies. Paul might at least have written ἐν ἐγκρατείᾳ ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι (or καθʼ ὁμοίωσιν, or καθʼ ὁμοιότητα) τῆς ταπεινοφροσύνης καὶ θρησκείας τῶν ἀγγέλων! Even this would still have been far enough from clear, but it would at least have contained the point and a hint as to its interpretation. See, besides, in opposition to Hofmann, Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 193 f.
ἃ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων] Subordinate to the θέλων κ.τ.λ. as a warning modal definition to it: entering upon what he has beheld, i.e. instead of concerning himself with what has been objectively given (Col 2:19), entering the subjective domain of visions with his mental activity,-by which is indicated the mystico-theosophic occupation of the mind with God and the angels,[123] so that ἑώρακεν (comp. Tert. c. Marc. v. 19) denotes not a seeing with the eyes, but a mental beholding,[124] which belonged to the domain of the ΦΑΝΤΆΖΕΣΘΑΙ, in part, doubtless, also to that of visionary ecstasy (comp. Act 2:17; Rev 9:17; ὍΡΑΜΑ in Act 9:10; Act 9:12; Act 10:3; 2Ch 9:29, et al.; Luk 1:22). This reference must have been intelligible to the readers from the assertions put forth by the false teachers,[125] but the failure to observe it induced copyists, at a very early date, to add a negative (sometimes μή and sometimes οὐ) before ἑώρακεν. Ἐμβατεύειν (only used here in the N. T.; but see Wetstein, also Reisig, ad Oed. Col. praef. p. xxxix.), with accusative of the place conceived as object (Kühner, II. 1, p. 257), also with the genitive, with the dative, and with εἰς, means to step upon, as e.g. νῆσον, Aesch. Pers. 441; πόλιν, Eur. El. 595; γῆν, Jos 19:49; also with reference to a mental domain, which is trodden by investigation and other mental activity, as Philo, de plant. Noë, p. 225 C, et al.; see Loesner, p. 369 f.; 2Ma 2:30; comp. also Nemes. de nat. hom. p. 64, ed. Matth.: οὐρανὸν ἐμβατεύει τῇ θεωρίᾳ, but not Xen. Conv. iv. 27, where, with Zeunius, ἐμαστεύετε ought to be read. Phavorinus: ἐμβατεῦσαι· τὸ ἔνδον ἐξερευνῆσαι ἢ σκοπῆσαι. It is frequently used in the sense of seizing possession (Dem. 894. 7; Eur. Heracl. 876; Schleusner, Thes. II. 332; Bloomfield, Gloss. in Aesch. Pers. p. 146 f.). So Budaeus and Calvin (se ingerens), both with the reading μή, also Huther (establishing himself firmly in the creations of fancy); still the context does not suggest this, and, when used in this sense, ἐμβατ. is usually coupled with εἰς (Dem. 894. 7, 1085. 24, 1086. 19; Isa 9:3, et al.; 1Ma 12:25). In the reading of the Recepta, ἃ μὴ ἑώρ., the sense amounts either to: entering into the unseen transcendental sphere,[126] wherein the assumption would be implied that the domain of sense was the only field legitimately open, which would be unsuitable (2Co 5:7; 2Co 13:12); or to: entering into things, which (although he dreams that he has seen them, yet) he has not seen-a concealed antithetical reference, which Paul, in order to be intelligible, must have indicated. The thought, in the absence of the negative, is not weak (de Wette), but true, in characteristic keeping with the perverseness of theosophic fancies (in opposition to Hofmann’s objection), and representing the actual state of the case, which Paul could not but know. According to Hofmann, the ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν which he reads is to be taken, not with ἐμβατεύων, but with what goes before: of which, nevertheless, he has seen nothing (and, consequently, cannot imitate it). This is disposed of, apart even from the incorrect inference involved in it,[127] by the preposterousness of Hofmann’s exposition of the ταπεινοφροσύνη κ. θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγ., which the connection, hit upon by him, of εἰκῆ with ἐμβατεύων (“an investigation, which results in nothing”), also falls to the ground.
εἰκῆ φυσιούμ. κ.τ.λ., and then καὶ οὐ κρατῶν κ.τ.λ., are both subordinate to the ἃ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων, and contain two modal definitions of it fraught with the utmost danger.
εἰκῆ φυσιούμ.] for the entering upon what was seen did not rest upon a real divine revelation, but upon a conceited, fanciful self-exaggeration. Τὸ δέ γε φυσιούμενος τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ ἐναντίον οὐκ ἔστι· τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἐσκήπτοντο, τοῦ δὲ τύφου τὸ πάθος ἀκριβῶς περιέκειντο, Theodoret. On εἰκῆ, temere, i.e. without ground, comp. Mat 5:22; Rom 13:4; Plat. Menex. p. 234 C; Xen. Cyrop. ii. 2. 22. It places the vanity, that is, the objective groundlessness of the pride, in contradistinction to their presumptuous fancies, emphatically in the foreground. Even if ἐμβατ. is not taken absolutely with Hofmann, we may not join it with εἰκῆ (in opposition to Steiger, de Wette, Reiche; Böhmer is doubtful), since it is not the uselessness (in this sense εἰκῆ would require to be taken, 1Co 15:2; Gal 3:4; Gal 4:11) of the ἐμβατεύειν ἃ ἑώρ. (or ἃ μὴ ἑώρ.), but this ἐμβατεύειν in and of itself, that forms the characteristic perversity in the conduct of those people-a perversity which is set forth by εἰκῆ φυσιούμ. κ.τ.λ., and in Col 2:19 as immoral and antichristian.
ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκ. αὐτοῦ] becoming puffed up by (as operative principle) the reason of his flesh. This is the morally determined intellectual faculty in its character and activity as not divinely regulated, in which unennobled condition (see on Eph 4:23) it is the servant, not of the divine πνεῦμα, whose organ it is designed to be, but of the materio-physical human nature, of the σάρξ as the seat of the sin-power, and is governed by its lusts instead of the divine truth. Comp. Rom 1:21; Rom 1:28; Rom 4:1; Rom 6:19; Rom 7:14; Rom 12:2; Eph 4:17 f.; see also Kluge in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1871, p. 329 ff. The νοῦς does not belong to the essence of the σάρξ (in opposition to Holsten); but, be it observed, the matter is so represented that the σάρξ of the false teacher, in accordance with its dominant superiority, appears personified (comp. Rom 8:6), as if the νοῦς, influenced by it, and therewith serviceable to it, were its own. In virtue of this non-free and, in its activity, sinfully-directed reason, the man, who is guided by it, is ἀνόητος (Gal 3:1; Gal 3:3; Tit 3:3), loses his moral judgment (Rom 12:2), falls into ἐπιθυμίας ἀνοήτους (1Ti 6:9), and withstands Christian truth and purity as κατεφθαρμένος τὸν νοῦν (2Ti 3:8; 2Co 11:3), and ἐσκοτισμένος τῇ διανοίᾳ (Eph 4:18).
The puffing up of the persons in question consisted in this, that with all their professed and apparent humility they, as is commonly the case with mystic tendencies, fancied that they could not be content with the simple knowledge and obedience of the gospel, but were capable of attaining a special higher wisdom and sanctity. It is well said by Theophylact: πῶς γὰρ οὐ σαρκικοῦ νοὸς κ. παχέος τὸ ἀθετῆσαι τὰ ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ λεχθέντα, Joh 3:16-17; Joh 3:19; Joh 10:26 f., καὶ μυρία ὅσα!
[118] See upon ver. 18, Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 277 ff.
[119] With which Theodoret confounds it (ἀδίκως βραβεύειν); he makes it the unrighteous awarding of the prize of victory: ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν καὶ οἱ τὰς νομικὰς παρατηρήσεις τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ παραμιγνῦντες ἀπὸ τῶν κρειττόνων αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὰ ἐλάττω αετέφερον, εἰκότως ἔφη· μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω.
[120] “Nemo adversum vos rectoris partes sibi ultro sumat.” He starts from the common use of βραβεύειν in the sense of regere ac moderari (see Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 404). Comp. on Col 3:15. But neither the passage of Dem. l.c., nor the testimony of the Greek Fathers, of Suidas, Eustathius, and Zonaras, nor the analogy of παραβραβεύειν, would justify the adoption of this sense in the case of the compound καταβραβ.
[121] Compare Augustine, Conf. x. 42: “Quem invenirem, qui me reconciliaret tibi? Abeundum mihi fuit ad angelos? Multi conantes ad te redire, neque per se ipsos valentes, sicut audio, tentaverunt haec, et inciderunt in desiderium curiosarum visionum, et digni habiti sunt illusionibus.” The (false) ταπεινοφροσύνη was the subjective source of their going astray to angel-worship.
[122] Hasselbach gives substantially the right interpretation of the passage in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 329 ff.
[123] This fanciful habit could not but be fostered and promoted by the Jewish view, according to which the appearances of angels were regarded as φαντάσματα (Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. 1, p. 153, ed. 4).
[124] Ewald regards ἑώρακεν as more precisely defined by ἐν ταπεινοφρ. κ.τ.λ., as if it ran ἅ ἐν ταπεινοφρ. κ.τ.λ. ἑώρακεν: “while he enters arbitrarily upon that, which he has seen in humility and angel-worship (consequently has not actually himself experienced and known), and desires to teach it as something true.” But such a hyperbaton, in the case of the relative, besides obscuring the sense, is without precedent in the N. T. Comp. on ver. 14. Besides, the thought itself is far from clear; and respecting θέλων, see above.
[125] For the sphere of vision of the ἑώρακεν lay not outside of the subjects, but in the hollow mirror of their own fancy. This applies also in opposition to Hilgenfeld, who now (1873, p. 198 f.) properly rejects the μή, but takes ἃ ἑώρ. ἐμβατ. incorrectly: “abiding by the sensuous.” Opposed to this is the very use of the perfect ἑώρ. and the significant expression ἐμβατεύων. The apostle does not mean the ὁρατά, but the ἀόρατα (Col 1:16), into which they ascend by visions which they profess to have had.
[126] Comp. Chrysostom: they have not seen the angels, and yet bear themselves as if they had seen them.
[127] For even the unseen, which may in any other way have been brought to our knowledge, we may and under certain circumstances should imitate (comp. e.g. Eph 5:1). And even the angels and their actions have been included among the objects of the divine revelation as to the history of salvation and its accomplishment.
Col 2:19. Καί] annexing to εἰκῆ φυσιούμενος κ.τ.λ. a further, and that a negative, modal form of the ἃ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων. This ἐμβατεύειν into what is seen takes place, namely, in such a way, that one is puffed up by fleshly reason, and does not hold the Head, etc. So much is it at variance with the nature and success, as respects unity, of the church![128]
οὐ κρατῶν κ.τ.λ.] not holding fast (but letting it go, comp. Son 3:4 : ἐκράτησα αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκα αὐτόν) the Head, inasmuch, namely, as they seek angelic mediation. Bengel aptly observes: “Qui non unice Christum tenet, plane non tenet.”
ἐξ οὗ κ.τ.λ.] represents the whole objectionableness of this οὐ κρατῶν τ. κεφ., and the absolute necessity of the opposite. This οὗ is not to be referred to the verbal idea (Bengel’s suggestion: “ex quo sc. tenendo caput”), but applies objectively (comp. Eph 4:15 f.) to that which was designated by τὴν κεφαλ. In this view it may be masculine, according to the construction κατὰ σύνεσιν (Kühner, II. 1, p. 49), as it is usually taken, but it may also-and this is preferable, because here the personality is not, as in Eph 4:15 f., specially marked-be neuter, so that it takes up the Head, not personally (though, it is Christ), but in accordance with the neuter idea: from which. See Matthiae, p. 988; Kühner, II. 1, p. 55. Comp. Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 201. The τ. κεφαλ. might also be taken attributively: not holding fast as the Head Him, from whom, etc. (Ewald), which would be, however, less simple and less forcibly descriptive. ἐξ denotes the causal issuing forth of the subsequently expressed relation, comp. Eph 4:16.
τᾶν τὸ σῶμα] consequently no member is excepted, so that no member can expect from any other quarter what is destined for, and conveyed to, the whole body from the head. The conception of the church as the body of Christ, the Head, is not in our Epistle and the Ephesian letter different from that of the other Epistles (in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 239 ff.). Comp. on 1Co 12:12 f., 1Co 6:15; Rom 12:4 f.; also Rom 11:3. Any pressing contrary to the author’s design of the thought of a σῶμα, which strictly taken is a trunk, is in this particular case excluded by the graphic delineation of the constantly living and active connection of the members with the Head. Every comparison, indeed, when pressed, becomes halting.
διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν κ. συνδεσμῶν ἐπιχορ. κ. συμβιβ.] The participial relation to the following verb is this: from the Head the whole body is furnished and bound together and grows in this way, so that ἐξ οὗ therefore is to be referred neither to the participles only, nor to the verb only, but to both; and διὰ τ. ἁφ. κ. συνδεσμ. specifies by what means the ἐπιχορ. κ. συμβιβ., proceeding from the Head, is brought about, viz. through the (bodily) nerve-impulses (not joints, as it is usually explained; see on Eph 4:16), which are conveyed from the Head to the body, and through the bands, which, proceeding from the Head, place the whole in organic connection. Observe that ἐπιχορ. refers to διὰ τ. ἁφῶν, and συμβιβ. to κ. συνδεσμ. Theophylact (comp. Theodoret) has aptly illustrated the former by the action of the nerves which is diffused from the head through the entire body, so that ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἐστι πᾶσα αἴσθησις κ. πᾶσα κίνησις. As, therefore, the body receives its efficiency from the head through the contact of impulses effected by means of the network of nerves, so would the church, separated from Christ-from whom the feelings and impulses in a spiritual sense, the motions and activities of the higher ζωή, are conveyed to it-be without the supply in question. Comp. the idea of the figure of the vine. Further: as, starting from the head, the whole body, by means of the bands which bind member to member, is bound together into one organic whole; so also is the entire church, starting from Christ, by means of the bands of Christian communion (κοινωνία), which give to the union of individuals the coherence of articulate unity. Faith is the inner ground of the ἁφαί, not the latter themselves (in opposition to Bengel); so also is love the inner ground of the συνδεσμοί of the mystical body, not these latter themselves (in opposition to Tertullian, Zanchius, Estius, Bengel, and others); and the operative principle on the part of Christ the Head is the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:4; 1Co 12:3 f., 7, et al.). Theodoret erroneously (comp. Ewald) explains the συνδεσμοί as the ἀπόστολοι κ. προφῆται κ. διδάσκαλοι, and Böhmer takes the ἁφαί and συνδεσμ. as the believers. The latter, as also the teachers, are in fact the members, and share in experiencing what is here asserted of the entire body.
ἐπιχορηγούμ.] receiving supply, being furnished. Comp. on the passive expression, which is not un-Pauline (Holtzmann), but in harmony with the general passive usage (Kühner, II. 1, p. 109), Polyb. iv. 77. Colossians 2 : πολλαῖς ἀφορμαῖς ἐκ φύσεως κεχορηγημένος, iii. 75. 3, et al.; Diod. Sic. i. 73; Sir 44:6; 3Ma 6:40. The compound, not expressing “in addition besides” (Bleek), denotes that the χορηγία is coming to, is being conveyed towards. Comp. 2Co 9:10; Gal 3:5; Dion. Hal. x. 54. But it is not said with what the body is provided, as χορηγεῖν (comp. also ἐπιχορ., Sir 25:22) is often used absolutely (see e.g. the passages from Polybius in Schweighäuser, Lex. p. 663), and admits of its more precise definition being supplied from the context, which, however, here points not to nourishment (Grotius, de Wette), but to that which is accomplished through the feelings (ἁφῶν), namely, the vital activity, of which the body would be destitute in the absence of the different impulses. Comp. Chrysostom: τὸ εἶναι καὶ το καλῶς εἶναι, Theophylact: πᾶσα αἴσθησις κ. πᾶσα κίνησις, and in the application: λαμβάνει τὸ ζῇν κ. αὔξειν πνευματικῶς.
τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ] denoted by the article as the divine growth absolutely; τοῦ Θεοῦ is the genitive auctoris: which God confers (1Co 3:6-7), with which ἐξ οὗ is not at variance (as Bähr thinks), since God is ranked above Christ (1Co 11:3), and is the supreme operating principle in the church (1Co 12:6; Eph 4:6). At once weak, and suggested by nothing in the text, is the view: “incrementum, quod Deus probat” (Calvin, Bähr[129]). What is meant is the gradual growth of Christians collectively toward Christian perfection. The circumstance that αὔξει as an intransitive only occurs again in Eph 2:21, comp. Col 4:15, and αὔξησις only in Eph 4:16, cannot prove it to be an un-Pauline mode of expression (Holtzmann). Respecting the connection of the verb with the more precisely defined cognate noun, see Winer, p. 210 [E. T. 281]; Lobeck, Paralip. p. 507 f.; Kühner, II. 2, p. 262 f.
[128] The conduct of those men is the negation of this holy relation, a separation from the organism of the body of Christ as an unity. The compressed characterizing of this articulated organism is therefore as suitable here as in Eph 4:16, and by no means an opus supererogationis on the part of the author (Holtzmann).
[129] Comp. Chrysostom and Oecumenius, who explain τοῦ Θεοῦ by κατὰ Θεόν.
Col 2:20 f. After these warnings, Col 2:16-19, which were intended to secure his readers against the seduction threatening them, the apostle now returns for the same purpose once more to the two main foundations of the Christian life, to the fellowship with Christ in death (Col 2:20), and fellowship with Him also in resurrection (Col 3:1). His aim is to show, in connection with the former, the groundlessness and perversity of the heretical prohibitions of meats (Col 2:20-23), and to attach to the latter-to the fellowship of resurrection-the essence of Christian morality in whole and in detail, and there with the paraenetic portion of the Epistle (Col 3:1 to Col 4:6), the tenor of which thereby receives the character of the holiest moral necessity.
εἰ ἀπεθάνετε κ.τ.λ.] the legal abstinence required by the false teachers (see below) stands in contradiction with the fact, that the readers at their conversion had entered into the fellowship of the death of Christ, and thereby had become loosed from the στοιχεία τοῦ κόσμου (see on Col 2:8), i.e. from the ritual religious elements of non-Christian humanity, among which the legal prohibition of meats and the traditional regulations founded thereon are included. How far the man who has died with Christ has passed out of connection with these elementary things, is taught by Col 2:14, according to which, through the death of Christ, the law as to its debt-obligation has been abolished. Consequently, in the case of those who have died with Christ, the law, and everything belonging to the same category with it, have no further claim to urge, since Christ has allowed the curse of the law to be accomplished on Himself, and this has also taken place in believers in virtue of their fellowship of death with Him, whereby the binding relation of debt which had hitherto subsisted for them has ceased. Comp. Gal 2:19; Gal 4:3; Gal 4:9; Rom 7:4, et al.
ἀποθνήσκειν, with ἀπό, meaning to die away from something, moriendo liberari a (Porphyr. de abstin. ab esu anim. i. 41), is only met with here in the N. T.; elsewhere it is used with the dative, as in Gal 2:19, Rom 6:2, whereby the same thing is otherwise conceived in point of form. It is, moreover, to be observed, that Christ Himself also is by death released from the στοιχεία, since He was made under the law, and, although sinless, was destined to take upon Himself the curse of it; hence it was only by His death in obedience to the Father (Php 2:8; Rom 5:19), that He became released from this relation. Comp. on Gal 4:4. Huther erroneously denies that such an ἀποθανεῖν can be predicated of Christ, and therefore assumes (comp. Schenkel and Dalmer) the brachylogy: “if, by your dying with Christ, ye are dead from the στοιχεία τοῦ κοσμοῦ.”
τί ὡς ζῶντες κ.τ.λ.] why are ye, as though ye were still alive in the world, commanded: Touch not, etc. Such commands are adapted to those who are not, like you, dead, etc. As ἀποθανόντες σὺν Χ. ἀπὸ τ. στοιχ. τ. κόσμ., ye are no longer alive in the domain of the non-Christian κόσμος, but are removed from that sphere of life (belonging to the heavenly πολίτευμα, Php 3:20). The word δογματίζειν, only found here in the N. T., but frequently in the LXX. and Apocrypha, and in the Fathers and decrees of Councils (see Suicer, Thes. I. p. 935), means nothing more than to decree (Diod. Sic. iv. 83; Diog. L. iii. 51; Anth. Pal. ix. 576. 4; Arrian. Epict, iii. 7; Est 3:9; Esther 3 Esdr. 6:34; 2Ma 10:8; 2Ma 15:36; 3Ma 4:11), and δογματίζεσθε is passive: why are ye prescribed to, why do men make decrees for you (vobis)? so that it is not a reproach (the censure conveyed by the expression affects rather the false teachers), but a warning to those readers (comp. Col 2:16; Col 2:18) who were not yet led away (Col 1:4, Col 2:5), and who ought not to yield any compliance to so absurd a demand. That the readers are the passive subject, is quite according to rule, since the active has the dative along with it, δογματίζειν τινι (2Ma 10:8); comp. also Hofmann and Beza. The usual rendering takes δογματ. as middle, and that either as: why do ye allow commands to be laid down for you (Huther), rules to be imposed upon you, (de Wette), yourselves to be entangled with rules (Luther)? and such like;[130] or even: why do ye make rules for yourselves (Ewald)? comp. Vulgate: decernitis. This, however, would involve a censure of the readers, and ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ would express the unsuitableness of their conduct with their Christian standing-a reproach, which would be altogether out of harmony with the other contents of the Epistle. On the contrary, Ὡς ΖῶΝΤΕς ἘΝ Κ. indicates the erroneous aspect in which the Christian standing of the readers was regarded by the false teachers, who took up such an attitude towards them, as if they were not yet dead from the world, which nevertheless (comp. Col 2:11 f.) they are through their fellowship with Christ (Col 3:3; Gal 2:19 f.; 2Co 5:14 f.). The ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ, moreover, is entirely misunderstood by Bähr: “as if one could at all attain to life and salvation through externals.” Comp., on the contrary, the thought of the εἶναι ἐν τῇ σαρκί in Rom 7:5 and Gal 6:14. Observe, further, that this ΖῆΝ ἘΝ ΚΌΣΜῼ is not one and the same thing with εἷναι ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (Hofmann, by way of establishing his explanation of ΣΤΟΙΧΕῖΑ in the sense of the material things of the world); but the ζῆν ἐν κ. is the more general, to which the special εἶναι ὑπὸ τ. στοιχεῖα τ. κ. is subordinate. If the former is the case, the latter also takes place by way of consequence.
μὴ ἅψῃ κ.τ.λ.] a vivid concrete representation of the ΔΌΓΜΑΤΑ concerned, in a “compendiaria mimesis” (Flacius). The triple description brings out the urgency of the eager demand for abstinence, and the relation of the three prohibitions is such, that μηδέ both times means nor even; in the second instance, however, in the sense of ne quidem, so that the last point stands to the two former together in the relation of a climax: thou shalt not lay hold of, nor even taste, nor once touch! What was meant as object of this enjoined ἀπέχεσθαι (1Ti 4:3) the reader was aware, and its omission only renders the description more vivid and terse. Steiger’s view, that the object was suppressed by the false teachers themselves from fear and hypocrisy, is quite groundless. From the words themselves, however (γεύσῃ), and from the subsequent context (see Col 2:23), it is plain that the prohibitions concerned certain meats and drinks (comp. Col 2:16); and it is entirely arbitrary to mix up other things, as even de Wette does, making them refer also to sexual intercourse (θιγγάνειν γυναικός, Eur. Hipp. 1044, et al.; see Monck, ad Eur. Hipp. 14; Valckenaer, ad Phoen. 903), while others distinguish between ἅψῃ and ΘΊΓῌς in respect of their objects, e.g. Estius: the former refers to unclean objects, such as the garments of a menstruous woman, the latter to the buying and selling of unclean meats; Erasmus, Zanchius: the former concerns dead bodies, the latter sacred vessels and the like; Grotius: the former refers to meats, the latter to the “vitandas feminas,” to which Flatt and Dalmer, following older writers, make ἅψῃ refer (1Co 7:1). Others give other expositions still; Böhmer arbitrarily makes ΘΊΓῌς refer to the oil, which the Essenes and other theosophists regarded as a labes. That Paul in ἅψῃ and ΘΊΓ. had no definite object at all in view, is not even probable (in opposition to Huther), because γεύσῃ stands between them, and Col 2:23 points to abstinence from meats, and not at the same time to anything else.
Following the more forcible ἍΨῌ, lay hold of, the more subtle θίγῃς, touch, is in admirable keeping with the climax: the object was to be even ἄθικτον (Soph. O. C. 39). Comp. on the difference between the two words, Xen. Cyrop. i. 3. 5: ὅταν μὲν τοῦ ἄρτου ἅψῃ, εἰς οὐδὲν τὴν χεῖρα ἀποψώμενον (σὲ ὁρῶ), ὅταν δὲ τούτων (these dainty dishes) ΤΙΝῸς ΘΊΓῌς, ΕὐΘῪς ἈΠΟΚΑΘΑΊΡῌ ΤῊΝ ΧΕῖΡΑ ΕἸς ΤᾺ ΧΕΙΡΌΜΑΚΤΡΑ, also v. 1. 16. In an inverted climax, Eur. Bacch. 617: οὔτʼ ἔθιγεν οὔθʼ ἥψαθʼ ἡμῶν. See also Exo 19:12, where the LXX. delicately and aptly render נְגֹעַ בְּקָעֵהוּ, to touch the outer border of the mountain, by the free translation θίγειν τι αὐτοῦ, but then express the general הַנֹגֵעַ בָּהָר by the stronger ὁ ἁψάμενος τοῦ ὄρους. Hofmann erroneously holds that ἅπτομαι expresses rather the motion of the subject grasping at something, θιγγάνω rather his arriving at the object. In opposition to this fiction stands the testimony of all the passages in the Gospels (Mat 8:3; Mat 9:20; Joh 20:17, and many others), in which ἅπτεσθαι signifies the actual laying hold of, and, in Paul’s writings, of 1Co 7:1, 2Co 6:17, as also the quite common Grecian usage in the sense of contrectare (attingere et inhaerere), and similarly the signification of the active to fasten to, to make to stick (Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 698; Duncan, Lex. Hom. ed. Rost, p. 150). The mere stretching out the hand towards something, in order to seize it, is never ἍΠΤΕΣΘΑΙ. Hofmann, moreover, in order to establish a climax of the three points, arbitrarily makes the subtle gloss upon ΓΕΎΣῌ, that this might even happen more unintentionally, and upon θίγῃς, that this might happen involuntarily.
Respecting the aorist ΘΙΓΕῖΝ (a present ΘΊΓΕΙΝ instead of ΘΙΓΓΆΝΕΙΝ can nowhere be accepted as certain), see Schaefer, ad Greg. Cor. p. 990, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 804; Kühner, I. p. 833.
[130] Comp. Chrysostom: πῶς τοῖς στοιχείοις ὑπόκεισθε; similarly Theodoret, Beza; and recently, Bähr, Böhmer, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and others.
Col 2:22. We are not to put in a parenthesis μὴ ἅψῃ … ἀποχρήσει (Erasmus Schmid, Heinrichs, and others), but merely ἅ ἐστιν … ἀποχρ. (Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Ewald); for the construction proceeds uninterruptedly to θίγῃς, is then only broken by the judgment ἅ ἐστι π. εἰς φθ. τ. ἀποχρ., and thereafter runs on with κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλμ. κ.τ.λ.
ἅ ἐστι … ἀποχρ. is an inserted[131] judgment of the apostle anent that which the false teachers interdicted by μὴ ἅψῃ κ.τ.λ.: which all are destined to destruction[132] through the using,-from which it is to be rendered palpably apparent, how preposterous it is to make such things a condition of eternal bliss by urging abstinence from them. We have here a similar line of argument to that in Mat 15:17. Comp. 1Co 6:13. Hence φθορά is meant to denote the perishing which takes place through the natural dissolution (digestion) of the meats and drinks; and with this conception quite accords the purposely-chosen compound τῇ ἀποχρήσει, which, like abusus, indicates the using up, the consuming (Plut. Mor. p. 267 E; Davis, ad Cic. N. D. iv. 60). So it is unanimously explained by Chrysostom, Theodoret (εἰς κόπρον γὰρ ἅπαντα μεταβάλλεται), Oecumenius (φθορᾷ γὰρ, φησιν, ὑπόκειται ἐν τῷ ἀφεδρῶνι), Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Wolf, Grotius, Michaelis, and many others, including Bähr, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann. But, according to others, who likewise regard ἅ … ἀποχρ. as a parenthetical judgment, the ἅ is to be referred to the prohibitions, ἀποχρ. to the use, i.e. the following of them, and φθορά (comp. Gal 6:8) to the destruction of the persons who follow them: all which δόγματα by their use tend to (eternal) destruction. So Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Cornelius a Lapide, Calixtus, Heumann, Junker. Erroneously; because ἀπόχρησις never means merely use, and even the simple χρῆσις, in the sense of τήρησις, would be an unsuitable designation; in fact, the entire addition, “by the use,” would be utterly superfluous. On account of ἀποχρ., the expedient must also be rejected, on linguistic grounds, that ἅ … ἀποχρ. are still words of the false teachers, which Paul repeats with irony: “omnia haec (vetita) usu suo perniciem afferunt,” Heinrichs, comp. Schenkel. By others, who, like Tischendorf, have deleted the marks of parenthesis, the whole down to ἀνθρώπων is taken together: all this, which the false teachers forbid, tends through the using to (“moral,” de Wette) destruction, “si sc. ex doctorum Judaicorum praeceptis et doctrinis hac de re judicium feratur,”[133] Kypke; so also Vatablus, Storr, Flatt, Böhmer, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius (Huther is undecided between this explanation and ours). But in opposition to this it may be urged, that the compound ἀποχρήσει would be entirely without a motive, since not the consumption, but the use at all would be soul-destroying according to the maxims of those people. Our view alone supplies a motive for the use of ἀποχρήσει, and that through the point of its connection with εἰς φθοράν, in which case, however, the object affected by ἈΠΟΧΡ. and ΕἸς ΦΘΟΡ. must be the same (the things forbidden). De Wette’s objections are irrelevant, since the thought of the parenthesis ἅ … ἀποχρ. is expressed not strangely, but with Pauline ingenuity, the words ΚΑΤᾺ ΤᾺ ἘΝΤΆΛΜ. Κ.Τ.Λ. annexed to ΔΟΓΜΑΤΊΖΕΣΘΕ are by no means superfluous (see below), nor does this annexation require us to begin the parenthesis with ΜῊ ἍΨῌ and thereby to include heterogeneous elements together; for ΜῊ ἍΨῌ Κ.Τ.Λ. still belongs closely to ΔΟΓΜΑΤ., of which it is the contents, and ΚΑΤᾺ ΤᾺ ἘΝΤΆΛΜ. Κ.Τ.Λ. is then annexed, after the brief incidentally inserted remark, to ΔΟΓΜΑΤ. and its contents (μὴ ἅψῃ κ.τ.λ.).
ΚΑΤᾺ ΤᾺ ἘΝΤΆΛΜΑΤΑ Κ.Τ.Λ.] The article before ἘΝΤΆΛΜ., and extending also to ΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛ., is generic. The μὴ ἅψῃ κ.τ.λ. was decreed by the false teachers conformably to the commandments and doctrines of men, not in consequence of what God had commanded and taught. This element, annexed to δογματίζ., is by no means superfluous (in opposition to de Wette), since, in fact, ΔΌΓΜΑ in itself is a command generally, and may be one based upon divine authority; it rather serves to bring out with perfect clearness the conflicting relation, in which that δογματίζεσθαι stands to the ἈΠΕΘΆΝΕΤΕ ΣῪΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ Κ.Τ.Λ. For what the false teachers decreed was not the prohibitions of meats contained in the law of Moses as such, and these alone (although they too would have been incompatible with the ἈΠΕΘΆΝΕΤΕ ΣῪΝ Χ. Κ.Τ.Λ.), but such as consisted in the human (Essene) definitions, expansions, and amplifications of the former (ΚΑΤᾺ ΤῊΝ ΠΑΡΆΔΟΣΙΝ ΤῶΝ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ, Col 2:8). It was in this, and not in the mere setting up again of the Mosaic law abolished through Christ (Chrysostom and many others), that the ΔΟΓΜΑΤΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ was regulated by human standard, without the divine authority and warrant. Moreover, διδασκ. is not synonymous with ἐντάλμ., but has a wider sense (in Mat 15:9 and Mar 6:7, the narrower idea comes after as a more precise definition), so that the two together specify the preceptive and generally (καί) the doctrinal standard. Comp. Isa 29:13.
[131] For it is only an incidental observation in opposition to the above δογματίζεσθαι; the main ground of opposition to the latter lies in εἰ ἀπεθάν. σὺν Χ.
[132] ἐστὶν εἰς φθοράν, it serves for destruction, i.e. it serves for the purpose of being destroyed. See generally Winer, p. 173 [E. T. 229]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 131 [E. T. 150 f.]. Comp. Wis 4:18; Sir 34:10; Jdt 5:21; Jdt 5:24; Jdt 8:22.
[133] Similarly Dalmer, who, however, takes τῇ ἀποχρ. in the sense of abuse, joining it immediately to κατὰ τὰς διδασκ. κ.τ.λ. But while ἀποχρῆσθαι (Dem. 215. 8; Herodian, v. 1. 13) is found in the sense of abuse (καταχρῆσις, παραχρῆσις), ἀποχρῆσις is not, though it was so taken by Erasmus Schmid, Schoettgen, Zachariae, as also by Grimm in his Lexicon.
Col 2:23. And of what nature and quality is that, which I have just termed τὰ ἐντάλματα κ. διδασκαλ. τῶν ἀνθρ.?
ἅτινα] quippe quae, i.e. ita comparata, ut (Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 30). The conception was different in ἅ of Col 2:22, where the thing in question was regarded purely objectively, as mere object.
ἐστί] belongs to ἔχοντα, without, however, being with this equivalent to ἔχει; it introduces what the ἅτινα are as regards their quality. If it belonged to οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι (Bähr), or to πρὸς πλησμ. τ. σ. (Bengel), or to ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ κ.τ.λ. (that which moves and has its being in ἐθελορ. κ.τ.λ.), as Hofmann thinks, taking λόγον μ. ἔχοντα σοφ. parenthetically-why should it not have been actually placed beside that to which it would belong? Apart from this, Hofmann’s connection of it with ἐν ἐθελοθρ. could alone deserve consideration, since from ἐν ἐθελοθρ. onwards all that follows is consecutive. But even this connection must be abandoned, because the sphere of subsistence indicated by ἐν ἐθελοθρ. κ.τ.λ. would be too wide for such special prohibitions, Col 2:21, as are conveyed by ἅτινα, and because we have no right to put aside from the connection, as a mere incisum, the important thought (comp. Col 2:8) expressed by λόγ. τ. ἔχ. σοφίας, which comes in with ἐστί so emphatically at the very head of the judgment, and appropriately, as regards meaning, attaches to itself all that follows.
λόγον ἔχειν, explained by many since Jerome approximately in the sense of speciem or praetextum habere (see Kypke, de Wette, Dalmer, and others; also Köster in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 318), may, according as we adopt for λόγος the signification ratio or sermo, mean either: to have ground (so in the passages from Demosth., Dionys. Hal., and Lesbonax in Kypke; from Plat, in Ast, Lex. II. p. 257; from Polyb. in Schweighäuser, Lex. p. 370[134]), in which case the ground may certainly be only an apparent one, a pretext (comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 36); further, to have an insight into something (often thus in Plato, e.g. Rep. p. 475 C), to have regard to (Herod. i. 62; Plat. Tim. p. 87 C); or: to have a reputation, so that one is in any relation the subject of discourse, of legend, of mention, of rumour, etc.; see e.g. Plat. Epin. p. 987 B: Ἑωσφόρος … Ἀφροδίτης εἶναι σχεδὸν ἔχει λόγον (dicitur), Herod. v. 56: λόγον ἔχει τὴν Πυθίην ἀναπεῖσαι, comp. 9:78; Xen. Oec. 11. 4 (the same thing conceived under another form: λόγος ἔχει τινα, Herod. vii. 5, and frequently). The latter signification is here to be adhered to, because the subsequent ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ, when correctly rendered, accords with it as bearing on the matter in hand, and is in sense appropriately correlative. Hence: that which has a repute of wisdom, popularly passes for wisdom. Comp. ὄνομα ἔχειν (Rev 3:1) and ὈΝΟΜΆΖΕΣΘΑΙ (1Co 5:11).
ΜΈΝ] without a subsequent ΔΈ; there was before the apostle’s mind the contrast: repute, truly, but not the reality, οὐ δύναμιν, οὐκ ἀλήθειαν, Chrysostom. He omitted to express this, however, led aside by the progress of his discourse, so that instead of bringing in the antithesis of ΛΌΓΟΝ by ΔΈ, he makes ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ follow without ΔΈ, and in contrast not to the ΛΌΓΟΝ, but to the ἘΝ ἘΘΕΛΟΘΡ. Κ. Τ. Λ.,-from which we are to gather in substance, what in starting with ΛΌΓΟΝ ΜΈΝ it was intended to express. See Erasmus, Annot., and generally Winer, p. 534 f. [E. T. 719]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 313 [E. T. 365]; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 656; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 153; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 163 f. The linguistic phenomenon of this μέν without an adversative word following is so common, that there is no ground for requiring before ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ Τ. an ἈΛΛΆ (Hofmann), which might have been used (Baeumlein, p. 170), but not necessarily. Holtzmann also takes too much offence at the absence of a formal contrast, and finds in πρὸς πλησμ. τ. σαρκός an ill-inserted remnant of the original.
ἘΝ ἘΘΕΛΟΘΡΗΣΚΕΊᾼ] instrumental, specifying by what means it is brought about, on the part of those who lay down the commandments and doctrines referred to, that the latter have a repute of wisdom: through self-chosen worship, i.e. through a cultus, which is not divinely commanded, but is the work of their own self-determination. What was meant by this, the reader was aware; and Col 2:18 places it beyond doubt that the worship of angels formed an essential and chief part of it, though it need not, from the general character of the expression in our passage, have been meant exclusively; other forms of capricious cultus may have been included with it. The substantive ἐθελοθρ. does not occur elsewhere except in ecclesiastical writers; but the verb ἐθελοθρησκεῖν is explained by Suidas: ἸΔΊῼ ΘΕΛΉΜΑΤΙ ΣΈΒΕΙΝ ΤῸ ΔΟΚΟῦΝ, and Epiph. Haer. i. 16 explains the name Pharisees: διὰ τὸ ἀφωρισμένους εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων διὰ τὴν ἐθελοπερισσοθρησκείαν παρʼ αὐτοῖς νενομισμένην. Comp. ἘΘΕΛΟΔΟΥΛΕΊΑ (Plat. Symp. p. 184 C, Rep. p. 562 D), ἐθελοκάκησις, ἐθελοκίνδυνος, ἐθελόπορος, ἐθελοπρόξενος (Thuc. iii. 70. 2, where the scholiast explains: ἈΦʼ ἙΑΥΤΟῦ ΓΕΝΌΜΕΝΟς ΚΑῚ ΜῊ ΚΕΛΕΥΣΘΕῚς Κ. Τ. Λ.), and various others. Hofmann erroneously takes away from the word in itself the bad sense, and explains (after the analogy of ἘΘΕΛΟΠΟΝΊΑ and ἘΘΕΛΟΥΡΓΊΑ): worship, which one interests himself in. This view is prohibited by the evident retrospective reference of this word and the following one to Col 2:18, where, according to the right interpretation, the θρησκεία was certainly something bad. The unfavourable meaning, according to Hofmann’s present explanation (he gave a different but also erroneous view in his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 72; see, in opposition to it, my third edition), is only got by the addition of σώματος, which belongs to all the three points, so that ἐθελοθρησκεία σώματος must be understood as a worship gladly and earnestly rendered, but which is rendered only with bodily demeanour. But σώματος does not suit either with ἘΘΕΛΟΘΡ. or ΤΑΠΕΙΝΟΦΡ.,[135] but only with ἀφειδίᾳ. For it is plain from ἈΦΕΙΔΊᾼ ΣΏΜΑΤΟς that ΣΏΜΑΤΟς is the genitive of the object, from which it follows that θρησκεία σώματος would yield the opposite sense: a ΘΡΗΣΚΕΊΑ rendered to the body (comp. θρησκ. τῶν ἀγγέλων in Col 2:18), which would come ultimately to the idea of the ΛΑΤΡΕΎΕΙΝ Τῇ ἩΔΟΝῇ (Lucian, Nigr. 15), comp. Plut. Mor. p. 107 C: λατρεία τοῦ σώματος, and on the matter conceived as ΘΡΗΣΚΕΊΑ, Php 3:19.
ΤΑΠΕΙΝΟΦΡΟΣ.] from the point of view of the false teachers (comp. Col 2:18), what they thus designated; although in fact it consisted in this, that, as in all false humility, they with spiritual conceit (comp. Col 2:18, and subsequently πρὸς πλησμον. τ. σαρκός) took pleasure in unduly undervaluing themselves-an ethical self-contempt, which involved in relation to God the ἘΘΕΛΟΘΡΗΣΚΕΊΑ, and towards the body an unsparingness through mistaken abstinence and mortifying asceticism, inconsistent with Christian liberty. On ἀφειδίᾳ, comp. Plat. Defin. p. 412 D; Plut. Mor. p. 762 D; further, ἀφειδεῖν βίου, Thuc. ii. 43. 3; ΨΥΧῆς, Soph. El. 968; σωμάτων, Lys. ii. 25, Diod. Sic. xiii. 60.
ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ] not through anything whatever that is an honour, not through anything honourable, by which that repute would appear founded in truth and just. The expression is purposely chosen, in order to make the λόγος σοφίας appear as repute without honour, i.e. without any morally estimable substratum on the part of the persons concerned. The following πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός is also purposely chosen; in it ΠΛΗΣΜΟΝ. significantly glances back to ἈΦΕΙΔΊᾼ, and Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς to ΣΏΜΑΤΟς, and there is produced a thoughtful contrast, a striking ethical oxymoron: for the sake of fully satisfying the flesh. Those commandments and doctrines have a repute of wisdom, etc., in order to afford thereby full satisfaction to the material-psychical human nature. Thus, while the repute of wisdom is procured among other things by mortifying the body, the flesh is satisfied; the fleshly sinful lust of these men gets fully satisfying nourishment conveyed to it, when they see that their doctrines and commandments pass for wise. What lust of the flesh it is which Paul has in view, is placed beyond doubt by the case itself and also by Col 2:18, namely, that of religious conceit and pride, which through the λόγον σοφίας ἔχειν feels itself flattered and gratified in the fancy of peculiar perfection. This interpretation, which we have given of ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ, ΠΡῸς ΠΛΗΣΜΟΝῊΝ Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς, is held in substance, following Hilary (“sagina carnalis sensus traditio humana est”), by Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Böhmer, Steiger, Bähr, Huther, Dalmer, Bleek, and others. Most, however, refer ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ to the honour to be shown to the body (or the σάρξ, see Luther), and ΠΡῸς ΠΛΗΣΜ. Τ. ΣΑΡΚ. to bodily satisfaction, so that the sense results: not in some esteeming of the body to the satisfying of bodily wants;[136] “sentit apost., sapientiam illam aut praecepta talia esse, per quae corpori debitus honor, pertinens ad expletionem, i.e. justam refectionem carnis, subtrahatur,” Estius. So, in substance, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Oceumenius, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Musculus, Clarius, Zeger, Erasmus Schmid, Zanchius, Vatablus, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Michaelis, Nösselt, Rosenmüller, and others, including de Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius. It is fatal to this view:-(1) that ἐν τιμῇ τινι, as is shown by the repetition of ἘΝ, is the contrast not merely to ἘΝ ἈΦΕΙΔΊᾼ ΣΏΜΑΤΟς, but to the entire connected ἘΝ ἘΘΕΛΟΘΡΗΣΚΕΊᾼ … ΣΏΜΑΤΟς, and hence the reference to the honour to be shown to the body does not seem justified by the context;[137] (2) further, that for the designation of the mere satisfaction at this particular place, where Paul could only have had a πρόνοιαν τῆς σαρκός in view, as in Rom 13:14, the term ΠΛΗΣΜΟΝΉΝ would be very inappropriate, especially in contradistinction to the mortifications of the false teachers, since it denotes filling up, satisfying fully, even in Exo 16:3 (see generally the passages from the LXX. and Apocrypha quoted by Schleusner, Thes. IV. p. 375 f.); comp. Plat. Legg. viii. p. 837: Xen. Mem. iii. 11. 14, rep. Lac. 2. 5, Cyrop. iv. 2. 40, Ages. 5. 1; Lucian. Nigr. 33, Ep. Saturn. 28; Polyb. ii. 19. 4; (3) finally, that the interchange of σώματος and ΣΑΡΚΌς, in the event of the latter not being meant in an ethical character, would seem to be without a motive, while, according to our view, ΣΑΡΚΌς stands in as ingenious correlation with ΣΏΜΑΤΟς, as ΠΛΗΣΜΟΝΉΝ with ἈΦΕΙΔΊᾼ. These arguments apply also in opposition to Ewald’s view; “what seems very wise, but is in no value whatever, is rather quite useless for the satisfaction of the flesh, which yet also demands its rights, if man would not wantonly disorganize his earthly life or even destroy it” (2Co 10:3). Hofmann finally takes πλησμονὴ τ. σαρκός rightly, but explains ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΤΙΜῇ ΤΙΝΙ in such a way as to make ΤΙΝΙ masculine, and to attach it as appropriating dative to τιμῇ: “not so that honour accrues to any one.” This is to be rejected, because Paul, instead of simply and clearly writing τιμῇ τινος, would only have expressed himself in a way singularly liable to be misunderstood by ΤΙΝΊ, which every reader was led to join as a feminine with ΤΙΜῇ (“in honore aliquo,” Vulgate). Nor is it to be easily seen what subjects, beyond the teacher of the false wisdom himself, we should have to conceive to ourselves under τινί taken as masculine.
[134] So Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. 1870, p. 250, holding that what is rejected in the legal sense in ver. 22 is here “permitted as voluntary asceticism.” See, however, on the sequel, from which the impossibility of this interpretation is self-evident.
[135] According to Hofmann, namely, ταπεινοφροσύνη σώματος is a disposition of self-humiliation, which, however, only weakens the body by abstinences. But it would rather have the absurd sense: humility of the body; for τατεινοφροσύνη neither means humiliation nor self-humiliation, but humility, meekness, ver. 18, Col 3:12; Php 2:3.
[136] “God will have the body honoured, i.e. it is to have its food, clothing, etc., for its necessities, and not to be destroyed with intolerable fasting, labour, or impossible chastity, as the doctrine of men would do,” Luther’s gloss.
[137] This applies also in opposition to Olshausen, who in the case of ἐν τιμῇ τινε follows the explanation of respect for the body, but with regard to πρὸς πλησμ. τ. σαρκ. follows our view.
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.”
