Colossians 2 - Pulpit Commentary vs Calvin John

Colossians 2

Colossians 2:1

Verses 1-7. - SECTION IV. THE APOSTLE'S CONCERN FOR THE COLOSSI. AN CHURCH. So far the contents of the letter have been of a general and preparatory character. New the writer begins to indicate the special purpose he has in view by declaring, in connection with his concern for the welfare of the Gentile Churches at large (Colossians 1:24-29), the deep anxiety which he at present feels respecting the Colossian and neighbouring Churches. Verse 1. - For I would have you know how great a strife I have on behalf of you and those in Laodicea (Colossians 4:12, 13; 2 Corinthians 11:28, 29; Romans 1:9-13; Philippians 1:8, 25-30; 1 Thessalonians 2:17, 18; Galatians 4:20). The apostle has dwelt at such length and so earnestly upon his own position and responsibilities (Colossians 1:24-29), that the Colossians may feel how real and strong is his interest in their welfare, though personally strangers to him (see next clause). His solicitude for them is in keeping with the toil and strife of his whole ministry. "I would have you know;" a familiar Pauline phrase (1 Corinthians 11:3; Philippians 1:12; Romans 1:13, etc.). Ηλίκον ("how great') has, perhaps, a slightly exclamatory force, as in James 3:5 (only other instance of the word in the New Testament), and in classical Greek. For "strife," see note on "striving" (Colossians 1:29): the energy and abruptness of language characterizing this second chapter bear witness in the inward wrestling which the Colossian difficulty occasioned in the apostle's mind. (On the close connection of Colossae with Laodicea, comp. Colossians 4:13-17, notes; also Introduction, § 1.) The danger which had come to a head in Colassae was doubtless threatening its neighbours. The words, and as many as have not seen my face in (the) flesh (ver. 5; Colossians 1:8; Romans 1:11; Galatians 1:22; Acts 20:25), raise the question whether St. Paul had ever visited Colossae. The language of Colossians 1:7 (see note) raises a strong presumption against his being the founder of this Church, and the narrative of the Acts scarcely admits of any visit to this region in former missionary journeys. Theodoret amongst the Greeks, followed by our own Lardner and a few recent critics, contended that the apostle distinguishes here between Colossians and Laodiceans (or at least the former), and those who had not seen His face. But the disjunction is grammatically harsh and improbable (see Ellicott). (On the general question, see Introduction, § 2.) The apostle is the more anxious for this endangered Church, as the gifts that his presence might have conveyed (Romans 1:11) were wanting to them. He says, "in flesh," for "in spirit" he is closely united with them (ver. 5; Colossians 1:8: comp. 1 Corinthians 5:3, 4). The object of his strife on their behalf is -

Colossians 2:2

Verse 2. - That their hearts may be encouraged (Colossians 4:8; Ephesians 6:22; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Thessalonians 4:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:17; 2 Corinthians 13:11). For the mischief at work at Colossae was at once unsettling (vers. 6, 7; Colossians 1:23) and discouraging (Colossians 1:23; Colossians 2:18; Colossians 3:15) in its effects, Παρακαλῶ, a favourite word of St. Paul's, means "to address," "exhort," then more specially "to encourage," "comfort," (2 Corinthians 1:4), "to beseech" (Ephesians 4:1; 2 Corinthians 6:1),or "to instruct" (Titus 1:9). The heart, in Biblical language, is not the seat of feeling only, but stands for the whole inner man, as the "vital centre" of his personality (see Back's 'Biblical Psychology:' comp. Mark 7:19, 21; 1 Peter 3:4; Romans 7:22; Ephesians 3:16, 17). While they are (literally, they having been) drawn together in love, and into all (the) riches of the full assurance of the understanding, unto (or, into) (full) knowledge of the mystery of God, (even) Christ (ver. 19; Colossians 1:9; Colossians 3:10, 14; Colossians 4:12; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ephesians 3:17-19; Ephesians 4:2, 3, 15, 16; Philippians 1:9; Philippians 2:2; 1 Corinthians 1:10; 2 Corinthians 13:11). In the best Greek copies "drawn together" is nominative masculine, agreeing with "they," the logical subject implied in "their hearts" (feminine). Συμβιβάζω has the same sense in ver. 19 and Ephesians 4:16; in 1 Corinthians 2:16 it is quoted from the LXX in another sense; and it has a variety of meanings in the Acts. "Drawn together" expresses the double sense which accrues to the verb in combination with the two prepositions "in" and "into:" "united in love," Christians are prepared to be "led into all the wealth of Divine knowledge." This combination of "love and knowledge" appears in all St. Paul's letters of this period (comp. Ephesians 4:12-16; Philippians 1:9; and contrast 1 Corinthians 8:1-3; 1 Corinthians 13:1, 2, 8-13). "The riches of the full assurance," etc., and "the knowledge of the mystery" are the counterpart of "the riches of the glory of the mystery," of Colossians 1:27; the fulness of conviction and completeness of knowledge attainable by the Christian correspond to the full and satisfying character of the revelation he receives in Christ (comp. Ephesians 1:17-19). (On "understanding," see note, Colossians 1:9.) "Full assurance," or "conviction" (πληροφορία), is a word belonging to St. Luke and St. Paul (with the Epistle to the Hebrews) in the New Testament (not found in classical Greek), and denotes radically "a bringing to fall measure or maturity." Combined with "understanding," it denotes the ripe, intelligent persuasion of one who enters into the whole wealth of the "truth as it is in Jesus" (comp. Colossians 4:12, R.V.; also Romans 4:21 and Romans 14:5, for corresponding verb). In this inward "assurance," as in a fortress, the Colossians were to entrench themselves against the attacks of error (Colossians 1:9; Colossians 3:15, and notes). Αἰς ἐπίγνωσιν is either in explanatory apposition to the previous clause, or rather donors the further purpose for which this wealth of conviction is to be sought: "knowledge of the Divine mystery, knowledge of Christ" - this is the supreme end, ever leading on and upward, for the pursuit of which all strengthening of heart and understanding are given (Colossians 3:10; Ephesians 3:16-19; Philippians 3:10). The Revisers have corrected the erroneous "acknowledgment" by their paraphrastic rendering, "that they may know." (On ἐπίγνωσις (comp. γνῶσις, ver. 3), see note, Colossians 1:6.) The object of this knowledge is the great manifested mystery of God, namely Christ (Colossians 1:27). We confidently accept here the Revised reading, that of nearly all recent textual critics, which omits the words found in the Received Text between "God" and "Christ." There are extant eleven distinct variations of this reading, and that of the Textus Receptus is, to all appearance, the latest and worst; "the passage is altogether an instructive lesson on textual criticism" (Lightfoot, pp. 252, 253; also Westcott and Hort, 'Introduction: Notes on Selected Readings,' pp. 125, 126). The words thus read have been interpreted mystery of the God Christ" (the Latin Hilary, and a few moderns); of the God of Christ" (Meyer, quoting Ephesians 1:17; John 20:17; Matthew 27:46); - both interpretations grammatically correct, but unsuitable here, even if in harmony with Pauline usage elsewhere. Alford omits "of Christ" altogether, distrusting the textual evidence. Meyer objects to the rendering we have followed (that of Ellicott, Lightfoot, Revisers), that the apostle, if this be his meaning, has expressed himself ambiguously; but comp. Colossians 1:27 (see note); also 1 Timothy 3:16, "The mystery, who was manifested in flesh."

Colossians 2:3

Verse 3. - In whom (or, which) are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden(ly) (Ephesians 1:8, 9; Ephesians 3:8; Romans 11:33; 1 Corinthians 1:5, 6, 30; 1 Corinthians 2:7; 2 Corinthians 4:3). Bengel, Meyer, Alford, and others make the relative pronoun neuter, referring to "mystery;" but "Christ," the nearer antecedent, is preferable (vers. 9, 10; Colossians 1:16, 17, 19). In him the apostle finds what false teachers sought elsewhere, a satisfaction for the intellect as well as for the heart - treasures of wisdom and knowledge to enrich the understanding, and unsearchable mysteries to exercise the speculative reason. "Hidden" is, therefore, a secondary predicate: in whom are these treasures, - as hidden treasures" (Ellicott, Lightfoot). (For a similar emphasis of position, compare "made complete," ver. 10, and "seated," Colossians 3:1.) Meyer and Alford, with the Vulgate, make "hidden" an attributive: "in whom are hidden treasures." Chrysostom and leading versions make it primary predicate: "in whom are hidden," etc., against the order of the words. This word also belongs to the dialect of the mystic theosophists (see note, Colossians 1:27: comp. 1 Corinthians 2:6-16; Isaiah 45:3; Proverbs 2:1-11). (On "wisdom," see note, Colossians 1:9.) Knowledge (γνῶσις, not ἐπίγνωσις, ver. 2; Colossians 1:9; Colossians 3:10; for this phrase is more comprehensive) is the more objective and purely intellectual side of wisdom (comp. Romans 11:33).

Colossians 2:4

Verse 4. - In this verse the apostle first definitely indicates the cause of his anxiety, and the Epistle begins to assume a polemic tone. This verse is, therefore, the prelude of the impending attack on the false teachers (vers. 8-23). This I say, that no one may be deluding you in persuasive speech (vers. 8, 18, 23; Ephesians 4:14; 1 Corinthians 2:1, 4, 13; 1 Timothy 6:20; Psalm 55:21). This was the danger which made a more adequate comprehension of Christianity so necessary to the Colossians (vers. 2, 3). Πιθανολογία, one of the numerous hapax legomenon of this Epistle (words only used here in the New Testament), compounds into one word the πειθοῖ λόγοι ("persuasive words") of 1 Corinthians 2:4 (compare "word of wisdom," ver. 23). In classical writers it denotes plausible, ad captandum reasoning. Παραλογίζομαι (only here and James 1:22 in the New Testament) is "to use bad logic," "to play off fallacies (paralogisms)." The new teachers were fluent, specious reasoners, and had a store of sophistical arguments at command. The tense of the verb indicates an apprehension as to what may be now going on (vers. 8, 16, 18, 20; Colossians 1:23). We shall see afterwards (vers. 8-23) what was the doctrine underlying this "persuasive speech."

Colossians 2:5

Verse 5. - For if indeed I am absent in the flesh, yet in the spirit I am with you (1 Thessalonians 2:17; 1 Corinthians 5:3, 4). The connection of this verse with the last is not obvious. Ellicott, following Chrysostom, makes St. Paul's spiritual presence the reason for his being able to give the Colossians this warning; Meyer, his bodily absence the reason for their needing it. It is better, with Lightfoot, to see here a general explanatory reference to the previous context, a renewed declaration (ver. 1) of watchful interest in these distant brethren and a hearty acknowledgment of their Christian loyalty. The tone of authoritative warning just assumed (ver. 4) is thus justified, and yet softened (compare the apologetic tone of Romans 15:14, 15). The phrase, "if I am absent," does not imply a previous presence (see note, ver. 1). Rejoicing and beholding your order, and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ (Philippians 1:4-8, 27; 1 Corinthians 1:5-8; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:4). St. Paul dos not say, "rejoicing in beholding." The consciousness of union with brethren far away, whom he has never seen (ver. 1), is itself a joy; and this joy is heightened by what he sees through the eyes of Epaphras (Colossians 1:4, 6-8: comp. 2 Corinthians 7:7) of the condition of this Church. Τάξις and στερέωμα are military terms, denoting the "ordered array" and "solid front" of an army prepared for battle (Lightfoot, Hofmann): comp. Ephesians 6:11, etc.; Philippians 1:27. Others find the figure of a building underlying the second word - Vulgate, firmamentum ("solid basis") - and this is its more usual meaning, and agrees with ver. 7 and Colossians 1:23 (comp. 2 Timothy 2:19; 1 Peter 5:9; Acts 16:5; also Psalm 18:2, LXX, for the noun, not found, elsewhere in the New Testament). The precise expression, "faith in Christ" (literally, into - εἰς, not ἐν, as in Colossians 1:4, see note) occurs only here in the New Testament; in Acts 24:24 read "in Christ Jesus." In such passages as Romans 3:22, 26 (where πίστις is followed by the genitive), Christ appears as object of faith; in such as Colossians 1:4 and Colossians 2:5 he is its ground or substratum, that in which it rests and dwells, into which it roots itself.

Colossians 2:6

Verse 6. - As therefore ye received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in him (Philippians 1:27; Philippians 2:9-11; 1 Thessalonians 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15; 1 Corinthians 15:1, 2; Galatians 3:2-4; Galatians 5:1; Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 4:14; Hebrews 10:23; John 7:17; John 15:5-10; Romans 3:11). Such a walk will be consistent with their previous steadfastness, and will lead them to larger spiritual attainments (Colossians 1:10; see note). "Ye received" (παραλαμβάνω, not δέχομαι, as in Colossians 4:10: comp. 1 Thessalonians 2:13) reminds the Colossians of what they had received (compare" ye were taught," ver. 7 and Colossians 1:7) rather than of the way of their receiving it. "Christ Jesus the Lord," is literally, the Christ Jesus, the Lord - an expression found besides only in Ephesians 3:11 (Revised Text). The prefixed article points out Christ Jesus in his full style and title as the Person whom the Colossians had received, and received as the Lord. "The Lord" has a predicative force, as in 1 Corinthians 12:3 (R.V.); 2 Corinthians 4:5; Philippians 2:11. "Jesus is Lord" was the testing watchword applied in the discerning of spirits; "Jesus Christ is Lord" is to be the final confession of a reconciled universe; and "Christ Jesus is Lord" is the rule of faith that guides all conduct and tests all doctrine within the Church (comp. ver. 19; Romans 16:18). It is "a summary of the whole Christian confession" (Meyer). To vindicate this lordship, on which the Colossian error trenched so seriously, is the main object of the Epistle (Colossians 1:13-20). We must not, therefore, with Alford, Lightfoot, Hofmann, analyze "the Christ Jesus:" "Ye received the Christ, (namely) Jesus, who is the Lord." The writer has already used "Christ Jesus" as a single proper name at the outset (Colossians 1:1, 4); and it was the lordship of Christ Jesus, not the Messiahship of Jesus, that was now in question. In Acts 18:5, 28 the situation is entirely different. In the following clause, "in him" is emphatic, as in ver. 7 (compare the predominant αὐτός of Colossians 1:16-22; Colossians 2:9-15). Hence the contradiction of figure, "walk, rooted, and builded up," does not obtrude itself. (On "walk," see note, Colossians 1:10; and on "in Christ" in this connection, see notes, Colossians 1:4; Colossians 2:10; and comp. Romans 6:3-11; Romans 8:1; 2 Corinthians 5:17; John 15:1-7.)

Colossians 2:7

Verse 7. - Rooted and builded up in him (Colossians 1:23; Colossians 2:5; Ephesians 2:20, 21; Ephesians 3:18; Ephesians 4:16; 1 Corinthians 3:9-12; Jude 1:20; Luke 6:47, 48). "Rooted" is perfect participle, in, plying an abiding fact ("fast rooted"); while "builded up" (literally, upon or unto) is in the present tense of a continued process, the prefix ἐπὶ also implying growth and gain (Colossians 1:6, 10; Colossians 2:19). Meyer and Ellicott view ἐν αὐτῷ as a mere complement of the latter participle: "being builded in him." This weakens the force of both prepositions (ἐπὶ and ἐν), and the emphasis of the repeated "in him." The ideas of planting and building are similarly combined in 1 Corinthians 3:9; Ephesians 3:18; and rooted is a figure applied to buildings in ether Greek writers (Lightfoot). "Christ is the ground for the roots below, and the foundation for the building above" (Meyer). And stablished in (or, by) your faith, according as ye were taught (Colossians 1:5-7, 23; 1 Corinthians 1:6-8; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Thessalonians 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15; 1 Peter 5:9, 10). 'Αν before πίστει ("faith") is struck out in the Revised Text, and is probably a correct gloss. The instrumental dative, preferred by Meyer and Lightfoot, does not accord so well with ver. 5 and Colossians 1:23 (comp. Philippians 1:27; 1 Corinthians 16:13; 1 Timothy 5:8; 2 Timothy 4:7; 1 Peter 5:9). "Stablished" (βεβαιούμενοι, being kept firm) is present in tense, like "builded up" (ver. 6, see note): comp. Romans 4:16; Philippians 1:7; Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 6:19; Hebrews 13:9; and distinguish from στηρίζω, to make stable, fix firmly. In "as ye were taught" the apostle reminds his readers again of their first lessons in the gospel (Colossians 1:5-7, see notes; 2 Thessalonians 2:15). Abounding in it, with thanksgiving; or, abounding in thanksgiving (Colossians 1:3, 12; Colossians 3:15, 17; Colossians 4:2; Ephesians 5:4, 20; 1 Thessalonians 5:18; Hebrews 13:15). The Revisers relegate "in it (your faith)" to the margin, following the judgment of Tischendorf and Tregelles; while Westcott and Hort, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, retain the words in the text. The reading "in him," found in the Vulgate and leading Western documents, throws doubt on these words; but it is difficult to see why they should have been inserted if not authentic, and they might easily be confused by a copyist with the foregoing "in him." The second ἐν, if ἐν αὐτῇ be retained, becomes ἐν οφ αξξομπανιμεντ, and may be rendered "with," as in Colossians 1:29; Ephesians 6:2. (On "thanksgiving," see note, Colossians 1:12.)

Colossians 2:8

Verses 8-15. - SECTION V. THE CHRISTIAN'S COMPLETENESS IN CHRIST. The apostle has first defined his own doctrinal position in the theological deliverance of Colossians 1:15-20, and has then skilfully brought himself into suitable personal relations with his readers by the statements and appeals of Colossians 1:23-2:7. And now, after a general indication in ver. 4 of the direction in which he is about to strike, he unmasks the battery he has been all the while preparing, and delivers his attack on the Colossian error, occupying the rest of this second chapter, he denounces

(1) its false philosophy of religion (vers. 8-15);

(2) its arbitrary and obsolete ceremonialism (vers. 16, 17);

(3) its visionary angel worship (vers. 18, 19);

(4) its ascetic rules (vers. 20-22; ver. 23)

reviewing the whole system in a brief characterization of its most prominent and dangerous features. It will be convenient to treat separately the first of these topics, under the heading already given, which indicates the positive truth developed by St. Paul in antagonism to the error against which he contends - a truth which is the practical application of the theological teaching of the first chapter. Verse 8. - Beware lest there shall be some one who maketh you his spoil through his philosophy and empty deceit (vers. 4, 18, 23; Ephesians 4:14; 1 Timothy 6:20; 1 Corinthians 2:1, 4; Galatians 1:7; Acts 20:30). "Beware;" literally, see (to it), a common form of warning (Colossians 4:17). The future indicative" shall be," used instead of the more regular subjunctive "should be," implies that what is feared is too likely to prove the case (comp. Hebrews 3:12 and (with another tense) Galatians 4:11). "Some one who maketh (you) his spoil (ὁ συλαγωγῶν)" is an expression so distinct and individualizing that it appears to single out a definite, well known person. The denunciations of this Epistle are throughout in the singular number (vers. 4, 16, 18), in marked contrast with the plural of Galatians 1:17, and that prevails in the apostle's earlier polemical references. It is in harmony with the philosophical, Gnosticizing character of the Colossian heresy that it should rest on the authority of some single teacher, rather than on Scripture or tradition, as did the conservative legalistic Judaism. Συλαγωγῶν, a very rare word, hapax legomenon in the New Testament, bears its meaning on its face. It indicates the selfish, partisan spirit, and the overbearing conduct of the false teacher. Against such men St. Paul had forewarned the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:29, 30). "And empty deceit" stands in a qualifying apposition to "philosophy:" "His philosophy, indeed! "It is no better than a vain deceit." This kind of irony we shall find the writer using with still greater effect in ver. 18. Deceit is empty (κενός: comp. Ephesians 5:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:1; 1 Corinthians 15:14; distinguish from μάταιος, fruitless, vain), which deceives by being a show of what it is not, a hollow pretence. From the prominence given to this aspect of the new teaching, we infer that it claimed to be a philosophy, and made this its special distinction and ground of superiority. And this consideration points (comp. Introduction, § 4), to some connection between the system of the Colossian errorists and the Alexandrine Judaism, of which Philo, an elder contemporary of St. Paul, is our chief exponent. The aim of this school, which had now existed for two centuries at least, and had diffused its ideas far and wide, was to transform and sublimate Judaism by interpreting it under philosophical principles. Its teachers endeavoured, in fact, to put the "new wine" of Plato into the old bottles" of Moses, persuading themselves that it was originally there (comp. note on "mystery," Colossians 1:27). In Philo, philosophy is the name for true religion, whose essence consists in the pursuit and contemplation of pure spiritual truth. Moses and the patriarchs are, with him, all "philosophers;" the writers of the Old Testament" philosophize;" it is" the philosophical man" who holds converse with God. This is the only place where philosophy is expressly mentioned in the New Testament; in 1 Corinthians 1:21 and context it is, however, only verbally wanting. According to the tradition of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ (vers. 17, 20, 22; Galatians 1:11, 12; Galatians 4:3, 9; 1 Corinthians 1:20, 21; 1 Corinthians 3:19-21; Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:8; 1 John 4:5; 1 Peter 1:18). This clause qualifies "making spoil" (Meyer, Ellicott) rather than "deceit;" human authority and natural reason furnish the principles and the method according to which the false teacher proceeds. "Tradition" does not necessarily imply antiquity (comp. 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6); "of men" is the emphatic part of the phrase. These words are characteristic of St. Paul, who was so profoundly conscious of the supernatural origin of his own doctrine (see Galatians 1:11-17; 1 Corinthians 11:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:15: comp. John 3:31-35; John 8:23; 1 John 4:5). Similarly, "the rudiments of the world" are the crude beginnings of truth, the childishly faulty and imperfect religious conceptions and usages to which the world had attained apart from the revelation of Christ (comp. Galatians 4:3, 9; also Hebrews 5:12, for this use of στοιχεῖα). It is not either Jewish or non-Jewish elements specifically that are intended. Jew and Greek are one in so far as their religious ideas are "not according to Christ." Greek thought had also contributed its rudiments to the world's education for Christ: hence, comprehensively, "the rudiments of the world "(comp. 1 Corinthians 1:21). The blending of Greek and Jewish elements in the Colossian theosophy would of itself suggest this generalization, already shadowed forth in Galatians 4:3. Neander, Hofmann, and Klopper (the latest German commentator), have returned to the view that prevailed amongst the Fathers, from Origen downwards, reading this phrase, both here and in Galatians, in a physical sense, as in 2 Peter 3:10, 12; the elementa mundi, "the powers of nature," "heavenly bodies," etc., worshipped by the Gentiles as gods, and which the Jews identified with the angels (ver. 18; Hebrews 1:7) as God's agents in the direction of the world. This interproration has much to recommend it, but it scarcely harmonizes with the parallel "tradition of men," still less with the context of ver. 20, and is absolutely at variance, as it seems to us, with the argument involved in Galatians 4:3. Not the doctrine of Christ, but Christ himself is the substitute for these discarded rudiments (vers. 17, 20). His Person is the norm and test of truth (1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 John 4:1-3). The views combatted were "not according to Christ," for they made him something less and lower than that which he is.

Colossians 2:9

Verse 9. - Because in him dwelleth all the fulness (or, completeness) of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 1:19; Philippians 2:6-8; Romans 1:3, 4; Romans 9:5; John 1:1, 14). In Colossians 1:18-20 we viewed a series of events; here we have an abiding fact. The whole plenitude of our Lord's Divine-human person and powers, as the complete Christ, was definitively constituted when, in the exercise of his kingly prerogative, "he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." "From henceforth" that fulness evermore resides in him (comp. note, Colossians 1:19). The undivided pleroma of Colossians 1:19 now reveals its twofold nature: it is "the fulness of the Godhead," and yet "dwells corporeally in him." "Godhead" (θεότης) is the abstract of "God" (θεός), not of the adjective "Divine" (θεῖος: the Vulgate therefore, wrongly, divinitatis: comp. Romans 1:20; Acts 17:29; Wisd. 18:9), and denotes,"not Divine excellences, but the Divine nature" (Bengel); see Trench's 'Synonyms.' Schenkel and others, guided by a conjecture of Theodoret, have found here the Church, supporting their view by a very doubtful interpretation of Ephesians 1:23. Still more groundless is the identification of this pleroma with the created world. The apostle unmistakably affirms that the Divine nature, in its entirety, belongs to the Church's Christ. The literal sense of "bodily" (maintained by Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Hofmann, after Chrysostom and Athanasius) has been avoided by those who render it "wholly" (Jerome); "essentially, substantially" (Cyril, Theophylact, Calvin, Klopper), as opposed to "relatively" or "partially;" "truly" (Augustine, Erasmus, Bengel, Bleek), as opposed to "figuretively" (ver. 17). The adverb σωματικῶς (always literal in classical usage, along with its adjective) occurs only here in the New Testament; the adjective "bodily" in 1 Timothy 4:8; Luke 3:22. "The body of his flesh" in Colossians 1:22 affords a truer parallel than the language of ver. 17, where σῶμα, bears an exceptional sense (see note). Elsewhere St. Paul balances in similar fashion expressions relating to the twofold nature of Christ (see parallels). The assertion that "all the fulness of Deity" dwells in Christ negatives the Alexandrine "philosophy," with its cloud of mediating angel powers and spiritual emanations; the assertion that it dwells in him bodily equally condemns that contempt for the body and the material world which was the chief practical tenet of the same school (comp. notes on Colossians 1:22 and Colossians 2:23).

Colossians 2:10

Verse 10. - And (because) ye are in him made complete; or fulfilled (Ephesians 1:3, 7-11, 23; Ephesians 3:18, 19; Ephesians 4:13; Philippians 4:19; Galatians 3:14, 24; Galatians 5:1, 4; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 1 Corinthians 2:2). A complete Christ makes his people complete; his pleroma is our plerosis. Finding the whole fulness of God brought within our reach and engaged in our behalf (Philippians 2:7; Matthew 20:28) in him, we need not resort elsewhere to supply our spiritual needs (Philippians 4:19). "In him" is the primary predicate (see Alford, Ellicott, against Meyer: comp. ver. 3): "Ye are in him" is the assumption (Romans 8:1; Romans 16:7); "(ye are) made complete" is the inference. (On the verb πληρόω (the basis of pleroma), used in perfect participle of abiding result, see notes, Colossians 1:9, 19.) This completeness includes the furnishing of men with all that is required for their present and final salvation as individuals (vers. 11-15; Colossians 1:21, 22, 28), and for their collective perfection as forming the Church, the body of Christ (vers. 2, 19; Colossians 1:19; Ephesians 1:23; Ephesians 5:26, 27); for this twofold completeness, comp. Ephesians 4:12-16. Who is the Head of all principality and dominion (vers. 15, 18; Colossians 1:16; Ephesians 1:21; Philippians 2:10, 11; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Hebrews 1:6, 14; 1 Peter 3:22). (On "principality," etc., see note, Colossians 1:16.) The Colossians were being taught to replace or supplement Christ's offices by those of angel powers (see notes, vers. 15, 18). Philo ('Concerning Dreams,' 1. §§ 22, 23) writes thus of the angels: "Free from all bodily encumbrance, endowed with larger and diviner intellect, they are lieutenants of the All ruler, eyes and ears of the great King. Philosophers in general call them demons (δαίμονες); the sacred Scripture angels, for they report (διαγγέλλουσι) the injunctions of the Father to his children, and the wants of the children to their Father.... Angels, the Divine words, walk about [comp. 2 Corinthians 6:16] in the souls of those who have not yet completely washed off the (old) life, foul and stained through their cumbersome bodies, making them bright to the eyes of virtue." In such a strain the Colossian "philosopher" may have been talking. But if Christ is the Maker and Lord of these invisible powers - (Colossians 1:15, 16), and we are in him, then we must no longer look to them as our saviours.

Colossians 2:11

Verse 11. - In whom also ye were circumcised, with a circumcision not wrought by hands (Ephesians 2:11; Philippians 3:3; Galatians 5:2-6; Galatians 6:12-15; Romans 2:25-29; Romans 4:9-12; 1 Corinthians 7:18; Acts 15:l, 5; Deuteronomy 30:6). Circumcision was insisted on by the new "philosophical" teacher as necessary to spiritual completeness; but from a different standpoint, and in a manner different from that of the Pharisaic Judaizers of Galatia and of Acts 15:1. By the latter it was preached as matter of Law and external requirement, and so became the critical point in the decision between the opposing principles of "faith" and "works." By the philosophical school it was enjoined as matter of symbolic moral efficiency. So Philo speaks of circumcision ('On the Migration of Abraham,' § 16) as "setting forth the excision of all the pleasures and passions, and the destruction of impious vain opinion" (see also his treatise 'On Circumcision'). From this point of view, baptism is the Christian circumcision, the new symbolic expression of the moral change which St. Paul and his opponents alike deemed necessary, though they understood it in a different sense from him (see vers. 20-23). In this respect the Christian is already complete, for his circumcision took place in the stripping off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 3:5, 8, 9; Ephesians 4:22-25; Romans 6:6; Romans 7:18-25; Romans 13:12; 1 Peter 2:1; 1 Peter 4:1, 2). The inserted "of the sins" is an ancient gloss. Ἀπ(έκ(δυσις, a double compound, found only in this Epistle (see corresponding verb in ver. 15; Colossians 3:9), denotes both "stripping off" and "putting away." "The stripping off of the body" was the ideal of the philosophical ascetics (see note on "body," ver. 23, and quotations from Philo). The apostle adds "of the flesh;" i.e. of the body in so far as it was the body of the flesh (vers. Colossians 2:13, 18, 23; Colossians 3:5). "The flesh" (in Colossians 1:22 that which Christ had put on; here that which the Christian puts off: comp. Romans 8:3) is "the flesh of sin," of Romans 8:3; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 2:3, etc. "The body," while identified with this "flesh," is "the body of sin" and "of death" (Romans 6:6; Romans 7:24; see Meyer, Godet, or Beet); sin inhabits it, clothes itself with it, and presents itself to us in its form; and this being the normal condition of unregenerate human nature, the sinful principle is naturally called the flesh. So "the (bodily) members" become "the members that are upon the earth," employed in the pursuit of lust and greed, till they become practically one with these vices (Colossians 3:5, see note; also Romans 7:5, 23). Yet "the body" and "the (sinful) flesh," while in the natural man one in practice, are in principle distinguishable (ver. 23: comp. Colossians 1:22], and separable (Romans 6:12). The deliverance from the physical acts and habits of the old sinful life, experienced by him who is "in Christ" (ver. 10; Romans 8:1-4; 2 Corinthians 5:17), is "the circumcision according to the Christ," or here more pointedly "of Christ" - a real and complete, instead of a partial and symbolic, putting away of the organic life and domination of sin which made the body its seat and its instrument. The genitive" of Christ "is neither objective ("undergone by Christ"), nor subjective ("wrought by Christ"), but stands in a mere general relation - "belonging to Christ," "the Christian circumcision." The occasion of this new birth in the Colossians was their baptism -

Colossians 2:12

Verse 12. - When ye were (literally, having been) buried with him in your baptism (ver. 20; Colossians 3:3; Romans 6:1-11; Galatians 3:26, 27; Ephesians 4:5; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21). Βαπτισμός, the rarer form of the word, is preferred by Tregelles, Alford, Lightfoot (see his note), being found in Codex B, with other good authorities; it indicates the process ("in your baptizing"). Βάπτισμα, the usual form of the word, is retained by Revisers, after Tischendorf, Ellicott, Westcott and Herr. Baptism stands for the entire change of the man which it symbolizes and seals (Romans 6:3-5; Galatians 3:27). The double aspect of this change was indicated by the twofold movement taking place in immersion, the usual form of primitive baptism - first the κατάδυσις, the descent of the baptized person beneath the symbolic waters, figuring his death with Christ as a separation from sin and the evil past (ver. 20), - there for a moment he is buried, and burial is death made complete and final (Romans 6:2-4); then the ἀνάδυσις, the emerging from the baptismal wave, which gave baptism the positive side of its significance. In which (or, whom) also ye were raised with (him), through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead (Colossians 3:1; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 2:6, 8; Romans 6:4; Romans 4:24, 25; 1 Peter 1:21). We refer the relative pronoun to the immediately antecedent "baptism," although the previous ἐν ῷ refers to "Christ" (ver. 11: comp. Ephesians 2:6) and some good interpreters follow the rendering "in whom." For the Christian's being raised with Christ is not contrasted with his circumcision (ver. 11) - that figure has been dismissed - but with his burial in baptism (ver. 12 a); so Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Revisers. "Having been buried" is replaced in the antithesis by the more assertive "ye were raised" (comp. vers. 13, 14; Colossians 1:22, 26). "With" points to the "him" (Christ) of the previous clause (comp. Ephesians 2:6; Romans 6:6). Faith is the instrumental cause of that which baptism sets forth (comp. Galatians 3:26, 27), and has for its object (not its cause: so Bengel) "the working" (ἐνεργεία: see note, Colossians 1:29; also Ephesians 1:20; Ephesians 3:20) "of God." And the special Divine work on which it rests is "the resurrection of Christ" (Romans 4:24, 25; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 15:13-17): comp. note on "Firstborn out of the dead," Colossians 1:19. Rising from the baptismal waters, the Christian convert declares the faith of his heart in that supreme act of God, which attests and makes sure all that he has bestowed upon us in his Son (Colossians 1:12-14: comp. Romans 1:4; also 1 Peter 1:21; Acts 2:36; Acts 13:33, 38, etc.). Baptism symbolizes all that circumcision did, and more. It expresses more fully than the older sacrament our parting with the life of sin; and also that of which circumcision knew nothing - the union of the man with the dying and risen Christ, which makes him "dead unto sin, and alive unto God." How needless, then, even if it were legitimate, for a Christian to return to this superseded rite! To heighten his readers' sense of the reality and completeness of the change which as baptized (i.e. believing) Christians they bad undergone, he describes it now more directly as matter of personal experience.

Colossians 2:13

Verse 13. - And you, being dead by reason of (or, in) your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses (Ephesians 2:1-5; Ephesians 1:7; Romans 5:12-21; Romans 6:23; Romans 7:9-13, 24; Romans 8:1, 2, 6, 10; 1 Corinthians 15:56; John 5:24; John 6:51; 1 John 3:14; Genesis 2:17). (For the transition from "having raised" (ver. 12) to this verse, comp. Ephesians 1:20 - 2:1; also Colossians 1:20, 21.) Again the participle gives place to the finite verb: a colon is a sufficient stop at the end of ver. 12. Death, in St. Paul's theology, is "a collective expression for the entire judicial consequences of sin" (see Cromer's ' Lexicon,' on θάνατος and νεκρόζς), of which the primary spiritual element is the sundering of the soul's fellowship with God, from which flew all other evils contained, in it. Life, therefore, begins with justification, (Romans 5:18). "Trespasses" are particular acts of sin (Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 2:1, 5; Romans 5:15-20; Romans 11:11); "uncircumcision of the flesh" is general sinful impurity of nature. The false teachers probably stigmatized the uncircumcised state as unholy. The apostle adopts the expression, but refers it to the pre-Christian life of his readers (see vers. 11, 12), when their Gentile uncircumcision was a true type of their moral condition (Romans 2:25; Ephesians 2:11). These sinful acts and this sinful condition were the cause of their former state of death (Romans 5:12). The Revisers rightly restore the second emphatic "you" - "you, uncircumcised Gentiles" (comp. Colossians 1:21, 22, 27; Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 2:11-18; Romans 15:9). It is God who "made you alive" as he "raised him (Christ)," (ver. 12); the second act being the consequence and counterpart of the first, and faith the subjective link between them. Χαρίζομαι to show grace, used of Divine forgiveness only in this and the Ephesian Epistle (Colossians 3:13; Ephesians 4:32: comp. Luke 7:42, 43; 2 Corinthians 2:7, 10; 2 Corinthians 12:13), points to the cause or principle of forgiveness in the Divine grace (Ephesians 2:4, 5; Romans 3:26; Romans 5:17). In "having forgiven us" the writer significantly passes from the second to the first person: so in Ephesians 2:1-5 (comp. Romans 3:9, 30; 1 Timothy 1:15). The thought of the new life bestowed on the Colossians with himself in their individual forgiveness calls to his mind the great act of Divine mercy from which it sprang (the connection corresponds, in reverse order, to that of Colossians 1:20, 21; 2 Corinthians 5:19, 20), and he continues -

Colossians 2:14

Verse 14. - Having blotted out the bond (that was) against us with (or, written in) decrees, which was opposed to us (Ephesians 2:14-16; Romans 3:9-26; Romans 7:7-14; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Galatians 3:10-22; 1 Corinthians 15:56; Acts 13:38, 39). The ancients commonly used wax tablets in writing, and the flat end of the pointed stylus drawn over the writing smeared it out (expunged) and so cancelled it (comp. Acts 3:19; Psalm 51:9; Isaiah 43:25, LXX). "God," not "Christ," is the subject of this verb, which stands in immediate sequence to those of vers. 12, 13 (comp. 2 Corinthians 5:19). It is the receiver rather than the offerer of satisfaction who cancels the debt: in Ephesians 2:15 (comp. Colossians 1:22) a different verb is used. Ξειρόγραφον ("handwritten;" a word of later Greek, only here in the New Testament) is used specially of an account of debt, a bond signed by the debtor's hand (see Meyer and Lightfoot). This bond (with its decrees) can be nothing other than "the law" (Ephesians 2:14-16; Acts 13:38, 39; Romans 3:20; Romans 7:25; Galatians 3:21, 22, etc.); not, however, the ritual law, nor even the Mosaic Law as such (as Meyer contends), but law as law, the Divine rule of human life impressed even on Gentile hearts (Romans 2:14, 15), to which man's conscience gives its consent (Romans 7:16, 22), and yet which becomes by his disobedience just a list of charges against him (so Neander and Lightfoot; see the latter on Galatians 2:19). Exodus 24:3 and Deuteronomy 27:14-26, indeed, illustrate this wider relation of Divine law to the human conscience generally. Τοῖς δόγμασιν is dative of reference either to καθ ἡμῶν ("against us:" qualifying or explanatory - in respect of its decrees) or to the verbal idea contained in χειργόραφον ("written in," or "with decrees"). The former explanation (that of Winer and Ellicott) is preferable. The Greek Fathers made it instrumental dative to ἐξαλείψας, understanding by these δόγματα τηε δοξτρινεσ (dogmas) of the gospel by which the charges of the Law against us are expunged. But this puts on δόγμα a later theological sense foreign to St. Paul, and universally rejected by modern interpreters. In the New Testament (comp. Luke 2:1; Acts 16:4; Hebrews 11:23), as in classical Greek, dogma is a decree, setting forth the will of some public authority (comp. note on δογματίζω, ver. 20). The added clause, "which was opposed to us," affirms the active opposition, as "against us" the essential hostility of the decrees of God's law to our sinful nature (Romans 4:15; Galatians 3:10: comp. Romans 7:13, 14). The emphasis with which St. Paul dwells on this point is characteristic of the author of Romans and Galatians. Ψπενάντιος occurs besides only in Hebrews 10:27; the prefix ὑπὸ implies close and persistent opposition (Lightfoot). And he hath taken it out of the midst, having nailed it to the cross (Colossians 1:20-22; Ephesians 2:18; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Romans 3:24-26; Romans 5:1, 2; Galatians 3:13; Hebrews 1:3; John 1:29; 1 John 4:10). A third time in these three verses (12-14) we note the transition from participle to coordinate finite verb; and here, in addition, the aorist tense passes into the perfect ("hath taken"), marking the finality of the removal of the Law's condemning power (Romans 8:1; Acts 13:39): comp. the opposite transition in Colossians 1:26, 27. The moral deliverance of ver. 11 is traced up to this legal release, both contained in our completeness in Christ (ver. 10). The subject is still "God." Cancelling the bond which he held against us in his Law, God has forver removed the barrier which stood between mankind and himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). Christ's place in this work, already shown in Colossians 1:18-23 (in its relation to himself), is vividly recalled by the mention of the cross. And the abolition of the Law's condemnation is finally set forth by a yet bolder metaphor - "having nailed it to the cross." The nails of the cross in piercing Christ pierced the legal instrument which held us debtors, and nullified it; see Galatians 3:13 (comp. Galatians 2:19, 20); Romans 7:4-6. Προσηλώσας may suggest the further idea of nailing up the cancelled document, by way of publication. At the cross all may read, "There is now no condemnation" (compare the "making a show" of ver. 15; also Romans 3:25; Galatians 3:1). (For vers. 11-14, compare concluding remark on Colossians 1:14.)

Colossians 2:15

Verse 15. - Having stripped off the principalities and the dominions (Colossians 1:16; Colossians 2:10; Acts 7:38, 53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 1:5, 7, 14; Hebrews 2:2, 5; Deuteronomy 33:2; Psalm 68:17). Απεκδυσάμενος has been rendered, from the time of the Latin Vulgate, "having spoiled" (exspolians), a rendering which is "not less a violation of St. Paul's usage (Colossians 3:9) than of grammatical rule" (Lightfoot; so Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Hofmann, Revisers). It is precisely the same participle that we find in Colossians 3:9, and the writer has just used the noun ἀπέκδυσις (ver. 11) in a corresponding sense (see note in loc. on the force of the double compound). He employs compounds of δύω in the middle voice seventeen times elsewhere, and always in the sense of "putting off [or, 'on'] from one's self;" and there is no sure instance in Greek of the middle verb bearing any other meaning. Yet such critics as Meyer, Eadie, Klopper, cling to the rendering of the Vulgate and our Authorized Version; and not without reason, as we shall see. The Revised margin follows the earlier Latin Fathers and some ancient versions, supplying "his body" as object of the participle, understanding "Christ" as subject. But the context does not, as in 2 Corinthians 5:3, suggest this ellipsis, and it is arbitrary to make the participle itself mean "having disembodied himself." Nor has the writer introduced any new subject since ver. 12, where" God" appears as agent of each of the acts of salvation set forth in vers. 12-15. Moreover, "the principalities and the dominions" of this verse must surely be those of ver. 10 and of Colossians 1:16 (compare the "angels" of ver. 18). We understand St. Patti, therefore, to say "that God [revealing himself in Christ; 'in him,' 15 b] put off and put away those angelic powers through whom he had previously shown himself to men." The Old Testament associates the angels with the creation of the world and the action of the powers of nature (Job 38:7; Psalm cir. 4), and with its great theophanies generally (Psalm 68:7; Deuteronomy 33:2; 2 Kings 6:17, etc.); and its hints in this direction were emphasized and extended by the Greek translators of the LXX. Acts 7:38, 53 (St. Stephen); Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2, ascribe to them a special agency in the giving of the Law. Hebrews 1. and it. show how large a place the doctrine of the mediation of angels filled in Jewish thought at this time, and how it tended to limit the mediatorship of Christ. The mystic developments of Judaism among the Essenes and the Ebionites (Christian Essenes), and in the Cabbala, are full of this belief. And it is a cornerstone of the philosophic mysticism of Alexandria. In Philo the angels are the "Divine powers," "words," "images of God," forming the court and entourage of the invisible King, by whose means he created and maintains the material world, and holds converse with the souls of men (see quotation, ver. 10). This doctrine, we may suppose, was a chief article of the Colossian heresy. Theodoret's note on ver. 18 is apposite here: "They who defended the Law taught men to worship angels, saying that the Law was given by them. This mischief continued long in Phrygia and Pisidia." The apostle returns to the point from which he started in ver. 10. He has just declared that God has cancelled and removed the Law as an instrument of condemnation; and now adds that he has at the same time thrown off and laid aside the veil of angelic mediation under which, in the administration of that Law, he had withdrawn himself. Both these acts take place "in Christ." Both are necessary to that "access to the Father" which, in the apostle's view, is the special prerogative of Christian faith (Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 3:12; Romans 5:2), and which the Colossian error doubly barred, by its ascetic ceremonialism and by its angelic mediation. (See, on this passage, Alford; also Peirce's 'Paraphrase and Notes,' 2nd edit., 1729; Robertson Smith, on 'Christ and the Angels,' Expositor, second series, vol. 1:138, etc.; A. Sabatier's 'L'Apotre Paul,' p. 220, 2nd edit., 1881.) We are compelled, with all deference to its high authority, to reject the view of the Greek Fathers, to which Ellicott, Lightfoot, and Wordsworth have returned, according to which "Christ in his atoning death [in it; 'the cross,' ver. 15 b] stripped off from himself the Satanic powers." For it requires us to bring in, without grammatical warrant, "somewhere" (Lightfoot), "Christ" as subject; it puts upon" the principalities and the dominions" a sense foreign to the context, and that cannot be justified by Ephesians 6:12, where the connection is wholly different and the hostile sense of the terms is most explicitly defined; and it presents an idea harsh and unfitting in itself, the incongruity of which such illustrations as those of the Nessus robe and Joseph's garment only make more apparent. It is one thing to say that the powers of evil surrounded Christ and quite another thing to say that he wore them as we have worn "the body of the flesh" (ver. 11; Colossians 3:9). He made a show (of them) openly, having led them in triumph in him; or, it (Ephesians 1:21, 22; Philippians 2:10; 1 Peter 3:22; Hebrews 1:5, 6; John 1:52; Matthew 25:31; Matthew 26:53; Revelation 19:10; Revelation 22:9). In this, as in the last verse, we have a finite verb between two participles, one introductory ("having stripped off"), the other explanatory, Δειγματίζω, to make a show or example, occurs in the New Testament besides only in Matthew 1:17, where it is compounded with παρα (Revised Text), giving it a sinister meaning of not belonging to the simple verb. With the angelic "principalities," etc., for object, the verb denotes, not a shameful exposure, but "an exhibition of them in their true character and position," such as forbids them to be regarded superstitiously (ver. 18). God exhibited the angels as the subordinates and servants of his Son (ver. 10: camp. Luke 1:26; Luke 2:10, 13; Mark 1:13; Luke 22:43; Matthew 28:2, etc.). "Openly" ( ἐν παρρησίᾳ: literally, in freedom of speech, a favourite word of St. Paul s) implies the absence of reserve or restraint, rather than mere publicity (comp. Ephesians 6:19; Philippians 1:20). Θριαμβεύσας ("having triumphed;" 2 Corinthians 2:14 only other instance of the verb in the New Testament; its use in classical Greek confined to Latinist writers, referring, historically, to the Roman triumph) presents a formidable difficulty in the way of the interpretation of the verse followed so far. For the common acceptation of the word "triumph" compels us to think of the "principalities," etc., as hostile (Satanic); and this, again, as Meyer strongly contends, dictates the rendering "having spoiled" for ἀπεκδυσάμενος. So we are brought into collision with two fixed points of our former exegesis. If we are bound lexically to abide by the reference to the Roman military triumph, then the angelic principalities must be supposed to have stood in a quasi-hostile position to "the kingdom of God and of Christ," in so far as men had exaggerated their powers and exalted them at Christ's expense, and to have been now robbed of this false pre-eminence. The writer however, ventures to question whether, on philological grounds, a better, native Greek sense cannot be found for this verb. The noun thriambos ("triumph"), on which it is based, is used, indeed, in the Latin sense as early as Polybius, a writer on Roman history (). But it is extant in a much earlier classical fragment as synonymous with dithyrambos, denoting "a festal song;" and again in Plutarch, contemporary with St. Paul, it is a name of the Greek god Dionysus, in whose honour such songs were sung, and whose worship was of a choral, processional character. This kinder triumph was, one may imagine, familiar to the eyes of St. Paul and of his readers, while the spectacle of the Roman triumph was distant and foreign (at least when he wrote 2 Corinthians). We suggest that the apostle's image is taken, beth here and in 2 Corinthians 2:14, from the festal procession of the Greek divinity, who leads his worshippers along as witnesses of his power and celebrants of his glory. Such a figure fittingly describes the relation and the attitude of the angels to the Divine presence in Christ. Let this suggestion, however, be regarded as precarious or fanciful, the general exposition of the verse is not thereby invalidated. (For further elucidation, see the Expositor, first series, vol. 10. pp. 403-421; 11. p. 78. On "triumph," in 2 Corinthians, see Mr. Waite's Additional note in 'Speaker's Commentary.') The Revisers omit the marginal "in himself" of the Authorized Version, which correctly, as we think, refers the final ἐν αὐτῷ to Christ (ver. 10), though incorrectly implying "Christ" as subject of the verse. It was not only "in the cross" that God unveiled himself, dispensing with angelic theophanies, but in the entire person and work of his Son (Colossians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 4:4; John 1:14, 18; John 14:9). "Which veil" (for here we may apply the words of 2 Corinthians 3:14) "is done away in Christ." So the whole passage (vers. 10-15) ends, as it begins, "in him:" "We are complete in him" - in our conversion from sin to holiness set forth in baptism, and our resurrection from death to life experienced in forgiveness (vers. 11-13); and in the removal at once of the legal bar which forbade our access to God (ver. 14), and of the veil of inferior and partial mediation which obscured his manifestation to us (ver. 15).

Colossians 2:16

Verses 16-23. - SECTION VI. THE CLAIMS OF THE FALSE TEACHER. Verse 16. - Do not let any one, therefore, be judging you in eating or in drinking (vers. 21-23; 1 Timothy 4:1-5; Romans 14:17; Hebrews 9:10; Hebrews 13:9; Mark 7:14-19). The new teachers dictated to the Colossians in these matters from the philosophical, ascetic point of view (see notes on "philosophy," "circumcision," vers. 8, 11), condemning their previous liberty. (For the adverse sense of "judge," comp. Romans 14:4, 10, 13.) The scruples of the "weak brethren" at Rome (Romans 14) were partly of an ascetic character, but are not ascribed to any philosophic views. In 1 Corinthians 8:8 and 10 the question stands on a different footing, being connected with that of the recognition of idolatry (comp. Acts 15:29). In Hebrews 9:10 it is purely a point of Jewish law. In one form or other it was sure to be raised wherever Jewish and Gentile Christians were in social intercourse. Ver. 17 shows that such restrictions are "not according to Christ" (ver. 8), belonging to the system which he has superseded. "Therefore" bases this warning upon the reasoning of the previous context. Tertullian ('Against Marcion,' 5:19) supplies the link connecting this verse with vers. 10, 15, 18, when he says, "The apostle blames those who alleged visions of angels as their authority for saying that men must abstain from meats." The abolishing of angel mediation (ver. 15) robs these restrictions of their supposed authority. The Essenes found in the Nazarite life and the rules for the ministering Jewish priest (Numbers 6:3; Leviticus 10:8-11; Ezekiel 44:21) their ideal of holiness. Philo also attached a high moral value to abstinence from flesh and wine, and regarded the Levitical distinctions of meats as profoundly symbolic. Or in respect of feast, or new moon, or sabbath (Romans 14:5, 6; Galatians 4:9, 10). The yearly feast, the monthly new moon, and the weekly sabbath (1 Chronicles 23:31; Isaiah 1:13, 14) cover the whole round of Jewish sacred seasons. These the Colossian Gentile Christians, disciples of St. Paul through Epaphras, had not hitherto observed (Galatians 4:9, 10). Philosophic Judaists insisted on these institutions, giving them a symbolical and ethical interpretation (see Philo, 'On the Number Seven;' also, 'On the Migration of Abraham,' § 16, where he warns his readers lest, "because the feast is a symbol of the joy of the soul and of thanksgiving towards God," they should imagine they could dispense with it, or "break through any established customs which divine men have instituted").

Colossians 2:17

Verse 17. - Which are a shadow of the things to come, but the body is of Christ (Galatians 3:23-25; Galatians 4:4; 2 Corinthians 3:11, 13; Hebrews 7:18, 19; Hebrews 9:11-14; Hebrews 10:1-4). The apostle's opponents, we imagine, taught in Platonic fashion that these things were shadows of ideal truth and of the invisible world (comp. Hebrews 8:5), forms necessary to our apprehension of spiritual things. With St. Paul, they shadow forth prophetically the concrete facts of the Christian revelation, and therefore are displaced by its advent. The singular verb (literally, is) quite grammatically combines the particulars of ver. 16 under their common idea of a foreshadowing of the things of Christ; and the present tense affirms here a general truth, not a mere historical fact. How this was true of the "sabbath," e.g., appears in Hebrews 4:1-11; comp. 1 Corinthians 5:6-8; John 19:36, for the Christian import of the Passover feast. The figurative antithesis of "shadow" and "body" is sufficiently obvious; it occurs in Philo and in Josephus: to refer to ver. 19 and Colossians 1:18 for the sense of body, is misleading. For "the things to come" (the things of Christ and of the new, Christian era, now commencing), comp. Romans 4:24; Romans 5:14; Galatians 3:23; Hebrews 2:5; Hebrews 10:1. This substance of the new, abiding revelation (2 Corinthians 3:11) is "Christ's," inasmuch as it centres in and is pervaded and governed by Christ (Colossians 1:18; Colossians 3:11; Romans 10:4; 2 Corinthians 3:14). Nothing is said here to discountenance positive Christian institutions, or the observance of the Lord's day in particular, unless enforced in a Judaistic spirit. The apostle is protecting Gentile Christians from the re-imposition of Jewish institutions as such, as impairing their faith in Christ (comp. Galatians 5:2-9), and as, in the case of the Colossians, involving a deference to the authority of angels which limited his sovereignty and sufficiency (vers. 8-10, 18, 19). This verse contains in germ much of the thought of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Colossians 2:18

Verse 18. - Let no one defraud you of your prize (Colossians 1:5, 23; Colossians 3:15; Philippians 3:14; Galatians 5:7; 1 Corinthians 9:24-27; 2 Timothy 4:7, 8; James 1:12; 1 Peter 5:4; Revelation 2:10; Revelation 3:11). These eight words represent but three in the Greek. (On καταβραβεύω, see Meyer's elaborate note.) Βραβούω is used again in Colossians 3:15 (see note), meaning primarily" to act as βραβεύς," arbiter of the prize in the public games; βραβεῖον, the prize, is also figuratively used in Philippians 3:14, and literally in 1 Corinthians 9:24, and is synonymous with the "crown" of other passages. Κατὰ gives the verb a hostile sense; and the present tense, as in vers. 4, 8, 16, 20, implies a continued attempt. Let no one be acting the umpire against you, is the literal sense. The errorist condemns the Colossian Christian for his neglect of Jewish observances (ver. 16), and warns him that in his present state he will miss the heavenly prize, "the hope" he had supposed to be "in store for him in heaven" (ver. 5: comp. notes on Colossians 1:5 and Colossians 3:15; also Ephesians 1:13, 14). Delighting in lowliness of mind and worship of the angels (ver. 23; Revelation 19:10; Revelation 22:8, 9; Judges 13:17, 18). By these means the false teacher impressed his disciples. His angel worship commended itself as the mark of a devout and humble mind, reverent towards the unseen powers above us, and made purely Christian worship seem insufficient. "Delighting in" is the rendering of θέλων ἐν given by Bengel, Hofmann, Lightfoot, Klopper, and is preferable to that of Meyer and Ellicott, who, with several Greek interpreters, supply the sense of the previous verb "desiring (to do so) in lowliness etc.; and to that followed in the Revisers' margin,which puts a sort of adverbial sense on θέλων - "of his mere will, by humility," etc. This latter rendering underlies the paraphrastic" voluntary humility" of the A.V., and agrees with the common interpretation of ἐθελοθρησκεία in ver. 23 (see note). Θέλων ἐν is, no doubt, a marked Hebraism, and St. Paul's language is "singularly free from Hebraisms" (compare, however, the use of εἰδέναι to know, in 1 Thessalonians 5:12; the similar εὐδοκέω ἐν is well established, 1 Corinthians 10:5; 2 Corinthians 12:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:12). This very idiom is frequently used in the LXX, and occurs in the 'Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,' a Christian writing, of the second century. The apostle may surely be allowed occasionally to have used a Hebraistic phrase, especially when so convenient and expressive as this. Westcott and Hort, with scrupulous purism, mark the reading on this account as doubtful. Ταπεινοφροσύνη ("lowliness of mind"), a word, perhaps, compounded by St. Paul himself (see Trench's 'Synonyms'), is almost confined to the Epistles of this group (comp. ver. 23; Colossians 3:12; Ephesians 4:2; Philippians 2:3; also Acts 20:19; 1 Peter 5:5). This quality is ascribed ironically to the false teacher (compare the "puffed up" of the next clause, and for similar irony see 1 Corinthians 8:1, 2; Galatians 4:17). Θρησκεία is "outward worship" or "devotion:" comp. note on ver. 23; elsewhere in New Testament only in Acts 26:5 and James 1:26, 27 (see Trench's 'Synonyms'). "Worship of the angels" is that paid to the angels; not "offered by them," as Luther and Hofmann interpret, supposing that the errorists pretended to imitate the worship of heaven. Investigating (or, dwelling on) the things which he hath seen'! vainly - being puffed up by 'the reason' of his flesh (2 Corinthians 12:l, 7; 1 Corinthians 8:1; 1 Timothy 6:3-5; 2 Peter 2:18; Jude 1:16). For ἐμβατεύων, we adopt the sense which it bears in 2 Macc. 2:30; in Philo, 'On the Planting of Noah,' § 19. and in patristic and later Greek generally, viz. "to search into," "examine," "discuss" (see Suicer's 'Thesaurus'). The rendering "proceeding" or "dwelling on," though near the radical sense of the word ("to step on" or "in"), wants lexical support. The same may be said of the rendering "intruding into," which suits the Received reading, "which he hath not seen." The "not" of the relative clause is wanting in nearly all our eldest and best witnesses, and is cancelled by the Revisers, with Tregelles, Tischendorf, Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort, etc. Its appearance in two different forms (οὐχ and μὴ) in the documents that present it, makes it still more certain that it is a copyist's insertion. The common reading gives, after all, an unsatisfactory sense; it is not likely the apostle would blame the errorist simply for entering into things beyond his sight (comp. 2 Corinthians 4:18; 2 Corinthians 5:7). Meyer, after Steiger and Huther, gives the best explanation of "which he hath seen," supposing the writer to allude ironically to pretended visions of angels or of the spiritual world, by which the false teacher sought to impose on the Colossians. This view is suggested by Tertullian in the passage cited under ver. 16. Such visions would be suitable for the purpose of the errorist, and congenial to the Phrygian temperament, with its tendency to mysticism and ecstasy (see Theodoret, quoted under ver. 15, who also says that angel worship was specially forbidden by the Council of Laodicea, A.n. 364). If the false teacher were accustomed to say with an imposing air, "I have seen, ah! I have seen!" in referring to his revelations, the apostle's allusion would be obvious and telling. The language of 2 Corinthians 12:1 (R.V.) suggests a similar reliance on supernatural visions on the part of the apostle's earlier opponents. This pretentious visionary is, however, a "philosopher" and a "reasoner" first of all (vers. 4, 8). Accordingly he investigates what he has seen; inquires into the import of his visions, rationally develops their principles, and deduces their consequences. So far, the apostle continues in the ironical vein in which the first words of the verse are written, setting forth the pretensions of his opponent in his own terms, his irony "restraining itself till, after the word ἐμβατεύων, the indignation of truth breaks forth from it" (Steiger) in the caustic and decisive "vainly." Αἰκῆ qualifies the foregoing participle (so Origen, apparently, in Cramer's 'Catena,' vol. 4. p. 69; Steiger, De Wette, Hofmann, Conybeare) more suitably than the following. Thus it signifies "idly," "to no purpose," as everywhere else in St. Paul (Romans 13:4; 1 Corinthians 15:2; Galatians 3:4; Galatians 4:11); not "without cause," as joined to φυσιούμενος ("puffed up"), whose 'force it could only weaken. "Vainly" stigmatizes the futility, "puffed up" the conceit, and "by the reason of his flesh" the low and sensuous origin of these vaunted revelations and of the high-flown theosophy which they were used to support. (For the sarcastic force of "puffed up," comp. 1 Corinthians 4:6, 19; 1 Corinthians 5:2; 1 Corinthians 8:1; 1 Corinthians 13:4). The "reason" (νοῦς) is, in Greek philosophy, the philosophical faculty, the power of supersensible intuition; and in Plato and Philo, the organ of the higher, mystical knowledge of Divine things (see Philo, 'Who is Heir of Divine Things?' §§ 13, 20, and passim). The Colossian "philosopher" (ver. 8) would, we may imagine, speak of himself as "borne aloft" in his visions "by heavenly reason," "lifted high in angelical communion," or the like. Hence the apostle's sarcasm, "Exalted are they? say rather, inflated: lifted high by Divine reason? nay, but swollen high by the reason of their flesh." Some such allusion to the language of the errorists best accounts for the paradoxical νοῦς τῆς σαρκός (see Lightfoot); contrast with Romans 7:25, and compare the disparaging reference to διανοία, Colossians 1:21 (note). Difficult as this passage is, we hesitate to follow Lightfoot, and Westcott and Herr, who have given their weighty sanction to the perilous remedy of conjectural emendations; the latter editors for the second Line in this verse, and again in ver. 23. The line of interpretation here adopted is advocated in the Expositor, first series, vol. 11. pp. 385-398.

Colossians 2:19

Verse 19. - And not holding fast the Head (vers. 6, 8; Colossians 1:15-20; Ephesians 1:20-23; Philippians 2:9-11; Romans 9:5; Romans 14:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 19:16). In the last verse the errorist was judged "out of his own mouth," and the intrinsic hollowness of his pretensions was exposed. Now" he appears before the judgment seat of Christ," charged with high treason against him, the Lord alike of the kingdoms of nature and of grace. So the apostle falls back once more (comp. ver. 10) on the foundation laid down in Colossians 1:15-20, on which his whole polemic rests. Both in creation and redemption, the philosophic Judaists assigned to the angels a role inconsistent with the sovereign mediatorship of Christ (see notes on vers. 10 and 15). From whom all the body, through its joinings and bands being supplied and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God (Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:22, 23; Ephesians 4:15, 16; John 15:1-6; 1 Corinthians 3:6). Disloyalty to "the head" works destruction to "the body," which in this case "proceeds from" ("grows out of," ἐξ... αυ}ξει,) its Head, while it depends upon him. Gnosticism from the beginning tended to disintegrate the Church, by the caste feeling (Colossians 1:28, note; Colossians 3:11) and the sectarian spirit to which it gave birth (ver. 8; Acts 20:30). Its vague and subjective doctrines were ready to assume a different form with each new exponent, Here lies the connection between this and the Ephesian letter, the doctrine of the Church following upon and growing out of that of the person of Christ, each being threatened - the latter immediately, the former more remotely - by the rise of the new Judaeo-Christian mystic rationalism. Colossians asserts the "thou in me" of John 17:23; Ephesians the corresponding "I in them;" and both the consequent "they made perfect in one" (comp., especially, Ephesians 3:14-21 and Ephesians 4:7-16 with Colossians 1:15-20 and Colossians 2:9-15). (On "body," see note, Colossians 1:18.) Αφαὶ signifies, not "joints "as parts of the bony skeleton, but includes all points of contact and connection in the body; Latin nexus, junetura (see Lightfoot). Bengel and Meyer, following Chrysostom, interpret it as "senses," or "nerves;" but this does not commend itself either lexically or contextually. The συνδεσμοί (comp. Colossians 3:14) are the "ligaments," the stronger and more distinct connections that give the bodily framework unity and solidity. So, by the organic cooperation of the whole structure, the body of Christ is furnished with its supplies, enabled to receive and dispense to each member the needed sustenance; and "knit together" (ver. 2), drawn into a close and firm unity. "Supplied" (comp. 2 Corinthians 9:10; Galatians 3:5) indicates a sustenance both required and due. In Colossians 1:6 we read of the increase of the gospel, in Colossians 1:10 of the individual believer, and now of the Church as a body) Ephesians 2:21; Ephesians 4:16). "The increase of God" is that which God bestows (1 Corinthians 3:6), as it proceeds "from Christ" (ἐξ οῦ: ver. 10; Colossians 3:11; John 1:16), in whom is "the fulness of the Godhead" (ver. 9: comp. Ephesians 1:23 and Ephesians 3:17 - 19). In Ephesians 4:16 the same idea is expressed in almost the same terms. There, however, the growth appears as proper to the body, resulting from its very constitution; here, as a bestowment of God, dependent, therefore, upon Christ, and ceasing if the Church ceases to hold fast to him.

Colossians 2:20

Verses 20-23. - The apostle's fourth and last warning is directed against ascetic rules of life. Verse 20. - If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world (vers. 8, 10-13; Colossians 3:3; Romans 6:1-11; Romans 7:1-6; 2 Corinthians 5:14-17). "Therefore" is struck out by the Revisers on the best authority. It would imply a logical dependence of this verse upon the last, which does not exist. This warning, like those of vers. 16, 18, looks back to the previous section, and especially to vers. 8, 10, 12. It is a new application of St. Paul's fundamental principle of the union of the Christian with Christ in his death and resurrection (see notes, vers. 11, 12). Accepting the death of Christ as supplying the means of his redemption (Colossians 1:14, 22), and the law of his future life (Philippians 3:10; 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15; Galatians 2:20), the Christian breaks with and becomes dead (to and) from all other, former religious principles; which appear to him now but childish, tentative gropings after and preparations for what is given him in Christ (comp. Galatians 2:19; Galatians 3:24; Galatians 4:2, 3; Romans 7:6). On "rudiments," see note, ver. 8. There these "rudiments of the world" appear as general ("philosophical") principles of religion, intrinsically false and empty; here they are moral rules of life, mean and worthless substitutes for "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus." (For the Pauline idiom, "died from (so as to be separate, or free from)," comp. Romans 7:2, 6; Acts 13:39.) Why, as (men) living in (the) world, are you made subject to decrees (Galatians 4:9; Galatians 5:1; Galatians 6:14; 2 Corinthians 5:17). To adopt the rules of the new teachers is to return to the worldly, pre-Christian type of religion which the Christian had once for all abandoned (Galatians 4:9). "World" bears the emphasis rather than "living" ("having one's principle of life:" comp. 1 Timothy 5:6; Luke 12:15). Standing without the article, it signifies "the world as such," in its natural character and attainments, without Christ (ver. 8; Ephesians 2:12; 1 Corinthians 1:21). Δογματίζεσθε (the verb only here in the New Testament) is passive rather than middle in voice (Winer, p. 326; see Meyer in loc.); literally, why are yon being dogmatized, overridden with decrees? Compare "spell" (ver. 8), "judge" (ver. 16), for the domineering spirit of the false teacher. The "dogmas" or "decrees" of ver. 14 (see note) are those of the Divine Law; these are of human imposition (vers. 8, 22), which their authors, however, seem to put upon a level with the former. In each case the decree is an external enforcement, not an inner principle of life.

Colossians 2:21

Verse 21 gives examples of the decrees which the Colossians are blamed for regarding and in this respect more than in any other they seem to have yielded to the demands of the false teacher. Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch' (vers. 16, 23; 1 Corinthians 6:12, 13; 1 Corinthians 8:8; 1 Corinthians 10:25-27, 30; Romans 14:14-17; 1 Timothy 4:3-5; Titus 1:15). These rules form part of a prohibitory regimen by which sinful tendencies to bodily pleasure were to be repressed (ver. 23), and spiritual truths symbolically enforced (ver. 17; see note on "circumcision," ver. 11): comp. Philo, 'On Concupiscence;' also 'On Victims,' § 3. Θίγης the last of the three verbs, appears to be the strongest, forbidding the slightest contact. Αψῃ is better rendered "handle" (comp. John 20:17); by itself it will scarcely bear the meaning it has in 1 Corinthians 7:1. The next verse seems to imply that all three verbs relate to matters of diet. Ambrose and other Latin Fathers of ascetic tendencies put these prohibitions into the mouth of St. Patti himself, reversing his meaning.

Colossians 2:22

Verse 22 a is the apostle's comment on these rules, in the form of a continuation of their terms. Do not touch - things which are an intended to perish (literally, for corruption) in their consumption (Matthew 15:17; Mark 7:19; 1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 8:8; 1 Timothy 4:3-5), which, being destroyed as they are used, therefore do not enter into the soul's life, and are of themselves morally indifferent; so the Greek Fathers, and most modern interpreters. This is the position which Christ himself takes in regard to Jewish distinctions of meats (Mark 7:14-23, R.V.). We note the same style of sarcastic comment on the language of the false teachers as that exhibited in ver. 18. Augustine, Calvin, and some ethers render, "which (decrees) tend to (spiritual) destruction in their use;" but ἀποχρῆσις never means simply "use," and the antecedent "decrees" is awkwardly supplied. More plausibly, De Wette and some moderns interpret, "things which tend to (spiritual) destruction in their abuse," putting the words in the mouth of the false teacher, as though he said, "Abstain from everything the use of which may be fatal to the soul." But this ascribes to the errorist an argument which fails short of his principles (see note on "hard treatment of the body," ver. 23); and to which, specious as it is, and in harmony with the apostle's own teaching (1 Corinthians 6:12; 1 Corinthians 9:26, 27), he makes no reply. According to the commandments and teachings of men (Isaiah 29:13, LXX; Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7; ver. 8; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 1 Corinthians 2:5, 13); the only passage in this Epistle which distinctly alludes to the language of the Old Testament. But the words are, we may suppose, primarily a reminiscence of the language of Christ, who uses them in connection with his announcement of the abolition of the sacred distinctions of meats (comp. Mark 7:1-23). This clause points out the method after which, and direction in which, the new teachers were leading their disciples, on the line of a man-made instead of a God given religion. "Commandments" (or, "injunctions") include the prescriptions of ver. 21 and all others like them; "teachings" embrace the general principles and doctrines on which these rules were based. So this expression, following "rudiments of the world (ver. 20), leads us back by a rapid generalization from the particulars specified in ver. 21 to the general starting point given in ver. 8 (see note), and prepares us for the brief and energetic summary of the whole Colossian error which we find in -

Colossians 2:23

Verse 23. - Such as have (literally, are (things) having) word indeed of wisdom (vers. 4, 8; 1 Corinthians 2:1, 4, 13; 1 Corinthians 12:8). The antecedent of "such as" is "command merits and teachings" (Meyer, Alford, Ellicott), not "decrees" (ver. 21). For ver. 22 supplies the immediate antecedent, and the wider sense thus given is necessary to support the comprehensive and summary import of ver. 23. The Greek "are having" brings into view the nature and qualities of the subject, in accordance with ἅτινα, such as, the qualitative relative (comp. ἥτις, Colossians 3:5; see Moulton's Winer, pp. 209, 210; also Meyer and Ellicott, on the grammatical point). A certain "word of wisdom" was ascribed to the false teachers in ver. 4 (note the play upon λόγος in St. Paul's Greek). They were plausible dealers in words, and had the jargon of philosophy at their tongue's end (ver. 8, compare note on ἐμβατεύων, ver. 18). On this the apostle had first remarked in his criticism of their teaching, and to this he first, adverts in his final resume. "Word of wisdom" is one of the "gifts of the Spirit" in 1 Corinthians 12:8; but the disparaging μέν, indeed, with the emphatic position of λόγον throwing σοφίας into the shade, in view also of the censures already passed in vers. 4, 8, puts a condemnatory sense upon the phrase: "having word indeed of wisdom" - "that and nothing more, no inner truth, no pith and substance of wisdom" (so Chrysostom and OEcumenius). "Word and deed," "word and truth," form a standing antithesis (Colossians 3:17; Romans 15:18; 1 Corinthians 4:19, 20; 1 John 3:18, etc.), the second member of which supplies itself to the mind; and the solitary μὲν in such a connection is a well-established classical idiom (see Winer's or A. Buttmann's 'Grammar;' also Meyer). It is superfluous, therefore, as well as confusing to the order of thought, to seek in the sequel for the missing half of the antithesis. Other renderings of λόγον - "show" (English A.V., Bengel, De Wette), "ground" or "reason" (Vulgate, Klopper), "reputation" (Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot) - are partly doubtful or exceptional in point of usage, and partly overlook the pointed reference of vers. 22, 23 to the language of vers. 4 and 8. And the combination of λόγον ἔχοντα into a single phrase is scarcely justified here in face of the established Pauline association of "word" and "wisdom" (comp. 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:16, as well as 1 Corinthians 12:8). Both in this Epistle and in 1 Corinthians the writer is contending against forms of error which found their account in the Greek love of eloquence and of dexterous word-play. While the first part of the predicate, therefore, explains the intellectual attractiveness of the Colossian error, the clause next following accounts for its religious fascination; and the third part of the verse strikes at the root of its ethical and practical applications. (Shown) in (or, with) devotion to (or, delight in) worship (or, voluntary worship) and lowliness of mind (ver. 18). The preposition "in" brings us into the moral and religious sphere of life in which this would be wisdom of doctrine had its range and found its application. The prefix ἐθελο = - ofἐθελοθρησκεία ordinarily connotes" willingness" rather than "wilfulness;" and the "delighting in worship" of ver. 18 (see note) points strongly in this direction. As against Ellicott and Lightfoot on the etymological point, see Hofmann, pp. 102, 103. Only so far as the worship in question (see note, ver. 18, on "worship") is evil, can the having a will to worship be evil. The other characteristics of the error marked in this verse seem to be recommendations, and "devotion to worship" is in keeping with them. This disposition, moreover, has an air of "humility," which does not belong to a self-imposed, arbitrary worship. There is a love of worship for mere worship's sake which is a perversion of the religious instinct, and tends to multiply both the forms and objects of devotion. This spurious religiousness took the form, in the Colossian errorists, of worship paid to the angels. On this particular worship the apostle passed his judgment in ver. 18, and now points out the tendency from which it springs. In ver. 18 "humility" precedes; here it follows "worship," by way of transition from the religious to the moral aspect of the now teaching. And (or, with) unsparing treatment of (the) body - not in any honour (as) against surfeiting of the flesh (vers. 16, 21, 22; Philippians 3:19-21; 1 Timothy 4:3; 1 Corinthians 6:13-20; 1 Corinthians 12:23-25; 1 Thessalonians 4:4). The "and" linking this clause to the last under the government of "in," is textually doubtful; Lightfoot cancels it; Westcott and Hort give the omission as a secondary reading. Mr. Hort regards the passage, like ver. 18, as hopelessly corrupt - a verdict which we would fain believe is too despairing. If καὶ be struck out, then ἀφειδείᾳ must be attached, somewhat loosely, to the principal predicate (" are having") as an instrumental dative. On either construction, the sense appears to be that it was its combination of ascetic rigour with religious devotion that gave to the system in question its undoubted charm, and furnished an adequate field for the eloquence and philosophical skill of its advocate. 'Αφειδεία, unsparingness, and πλησμονή, surfeiting - both found only here in the New Testament - and along with them "body" and "flesh," stand opposed to each other. This clause, therefore, contains a complete sense, and we must not look outside it for an explanation of the included words, "not in any honour." As we have seen, the first clause of the predicate (" having word indeed," etc.) needs no such complement. The clause "not .... flesh" is a comment on the words, "unsparing treatment of the body." On this topic the apostle had not yet expressed his mind sufficiently. He has in vers. 16, 20-22 denounced certain ascetic rules as obsolete, or as trifling and needless; but he has yet to expose the principle and tendency from which they sprang. He is the more bound to be explicit on this subject inasmuch as there were ascetic leanings in his own teaching, and passages in his earlier Epistles such as Romans 8:13; Romans 13:14; 1 Corinthians 7:1; 1 Corinthians 9:27, which the "philosophical" party might net unnaturally wrest to their own purposes. He could not condemn severity to the body absolutely, and in every sense. The Colossian rigorism he does condemn -

(1) as not in keeping with bodily self-respect, which is the safeguard of Christian purity; and

(2) as not in reality directed against sensual indulgence, the prevention of which is the proper end of rules of abstinence. These two objections are thrown into a single terse, energetic negative clause, obscure, like so much in this chapter, from its brevity and want of connecting particles. In 1 Thessalonians 4:4 the phrase, "in honour," occurs in a similar connection: "That each one of you know how to 'gain possession of his own vessel" (i.e. "to become master of his body:" see Wordsworth and Alford on the passage; also Meyer's reference on Romans 1:24) "in sanctification and honor" (comp. 1 Corinthians 6:13-20 for the apostle's teaching respecting the dignity of the human body; also Philippians 3:19-21). The contempt of Alexandrine theosophists for physical nature was fatal to morality, undermining the basis on which rests the government of the body as the "vessel" and vesture of the spiritual life. Their principles took effect, first, in a morbid and unnatural asceticism; then, by a sure reaction, and with equal consistency, in unrestrained and shocking licence. See, for the latter result, the Epistles to the seven Churches of Asia (Romans 2. and 3.); in the Pastoral Epistles, the two opposite effects are both signalized. The rendering "value" given by Lightfoot and the Revisers seems to us misleading; τιμὴ means "value" only in the sense of "price," as in 1 Corinthians 6:20, and this surely is not their meaning. Πλησμονὴ has been taken in a milder sense by the Greek commentators, Luther, and others: "satisfaction" "(legitimate) gratification." So the apostle is made to charge the false teachers with "not honouring the body, so as to grant the flesh its due gratification." But this rendering confounds the "body" and the "flesh," here contrasted, and gives πλησμονὴ a meaning without lexical warrant (see Meyer and Lightfoot). And the sentiment it expresses errs on the anti-ascetic side, and comes into collision with Romans 13:14 and Galatians 5:16. Πλησμονή, in the LXX and in Philo, as in earlier Greek, denotes "physical repletion," and is associated with drunkenness and sensual excess generally. Hence we cannot admit the interpretation of Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, who make the "flesh" here the sinful principle generally, and understand "surfeiting" figuratively, supposing the apostle to mean, that the ascetic rules in question, while they dishonour the body, tend to gratify the carnal mind." This gives an idea true in itself, and agreeing with the sense of "flesh" in vers. 11, 18, but out of place here, while it strains the meaning of πλησμονή (see Lightfoot's exhaustive argument). The preposition πρὸς does not help us, meaning "for" or "against," according to its connection. We combine Lightfoot's interpretation of πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκὸς with Wordsworth's and Alford's of οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί. The saying of Philippians 3:19 ("whose god is their belly, and their glory in their shame") contains the same opposition of "honour" to "fleshly indulgence" as that supposed here, possibly suggested by the phrase, "surfeiting of dishonor" (πλησμονὴ ἀτιμίας), of the LXX in Habakkuk 2:16. Here, then, the apostle lays hold of the root principle of the false teachers' whole scheme of morality, its hostility to the body as a material organism. Such a treatment, he declares, dishonours the body, while it fails, and for this very reason, to prevent that feeding of the flesh, the fostering of sensual appetency and habit, in which lies our real peril and dishonour in regard to this vessel of our earthly life. Here we have a suitable starting-point for the exhortations of the next chapter, where the apostle, in vers. 1-4, shows the true path of deliverance from sensual sin, and in vers. 5-7 sets forth the Christian asceticism - "unsparing treatment" of the flesh indeed! The line of teaching adopted by the errorists may be illustrated by Philo's doctrine in his third book of the 'Allegories of the Sacred Law,' § 22: "'God saw that Er was wicked;' for he knows that this leathern burden of ours, the body - for Er, being interpreted, is leathern - is evil and always plotting against the soul; and it is ever under the power of death, indeed actually dead [comp. Romans 8:10]. Yet this all do not see, but only God, and those he loves. For when the mind [νοῦς comp. note, ver. 18] becomes engaged in sublime contemplations and is initiated into the mysteries of the Lord [note, Colossians 1:26], it judges the body to be evil and hostile;" again ('On the Change of Names,' § 4): "Pale and wasted, and reduced to skeletons as it were, are the men devoted to instruction, having transferred to the powers of the soul their bodily vigour also, so that they have become, as we might say, dissolved into a single form of being, that of pure soul made bodiless by force of thought [διανοία: see Colossians 1:21, note]. In them the earthly is destroyed and overwhelmed, when reason [νοῦς: ver. 18], pervading them wholly, has see its choice on being well pleasing to God." The writer has attempted an elucidation of this verse in the Expositor, first series, vol. 12. pp. 289-303.

Colossians 2

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.

(403) “Les saincts trespassez;” — “Departed saints.”

(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.”

(428) “Les traditions;” — “The traditions.”