(by leading you astray to his false doctrines) rob you of your prize,"
that is, draw you away from Christ, and consequently from your
eternal happiness, which rests on him. The four participles which
follow describe more accurately the nature of these heretics, and
depend therefore, one and all, on p.rjdel^ narappafieviTu. This con-
struction then refutes at once the interpretation which Steiger,
among others, has once more defended, in which Bikw is taken ad-
verbially here, in conformity with the well-known Greek use of the
word " willingly/' For Bahr justly observes that each of the four
participles must clearly have its independent meaning, as each has
its particular appendage. Besides, no construction gives a natural
sense, if 0e/twv is taken adverbially. Connected with vf\\&t follows,
the words would necessarily mean, " willingly walking solemnly in
humility and angel-worship." But Steiger himself confesses that it
is unsuitable to take tyfiareveiv in the sense " to walk in state," and
besides, then the junction of a prj Eupanev is but harsh. But neither
will 06VLOW give a suitable sense when connected adverbially with
what precedes: " let no one willingly rob you of your prize," gives
an incongruous idea. For, even if we turn the words so, " let no
one have a pleasure in robbing you of your prize," they involve the
* It has already been observed in the Introduction to this epistle ( 2, ^f 2), that
these words might be taken as if these false teachers here designated were different from
those described in ver. 16 ; their identity is not expressly asserted, but the analogy of the
heretics in the Pastoral Epistles makes their identity still hi the highest degree probable.
COLOSSIANS II. 18. 219
awkwardness of addressing to the heretics the admonition which
should, under the scope of the passage, be addressed to the exposed
and tempted Colossians. Just as little is there to favour the inter-
pretation which takes 0tvlwv in its usual meaning, so that the sense
is this : " as he (the misleader) will designedly deprive you of your
crown in false humility and angel-worship/' For how the angel-
worship of others is to contribute to deprive the Christians in
Colossge of their prize, is not to be seen. The only correct method
is, certainly, according to Hesychius and Phavorinus, whom most of
the interpreters have followed, especially, among the latest, Bahr,
Bohrner, and others, to take 0eAwv here = evdon&v . " who takes a
delight in humility and angel-worship." Qeheiv is often found so in
Hellenistic usage, with KV following, after the analogy of the Hebrew
a r?h. (See the LXX. at 1 Sam. xviii. 22 ; 2 Sam. xv. 26 ; 1
Chron. xxviii. 4 ; Ps. cxvi 2.) It is clear from the nature of the
case that raneivo^poavvr) here is a pretended humility ; elsewhere
the term is used of true humility, as Eph. iv. 2 ; Phil. ii. 3 ;
1 Pet. v. 5 ; and also Col. iii. 12. Here, and at ver. 23, it de-
notes that simulated humility which appeared in those heretics
coupled with conceit and pride. But as to the second phrase, dprj-
oKeia T&V dyyekuv, the more ancient interpretations, which take the
genitive subjectively, may be viewed as sufficiently refuted. (See
Bahr on this passage, p. 209, seq.) The translation, " worship,
which is taught by angels," or " which the angels practise," i. e. }
worship in angel-like holiness, plainly does not suit the context.
Bahr rightly observes that the defenders of this interpretation seem
to be compelled to it only by the circumstance that they had inter-
preted the names K^ovoiai, dp%al, K. r. A., in what precedes, not of
angels, but of human powers. The ov Kpar&v rr\v Ke0a/bp, i. e. }
Christ (ver. 19), leaves no doubt that the discourse is here of a wor-
ship dedicated to the angels, which many of the Gnostic sects prac-
tised, and for that purpose clothed themselves with secret names of
angels. (See Iren. adv. h?er. i. 31, 2, ii. 32, 5 ; Tertull. de praescr.
c. 33. Josephus also relates similar things of the Essenes [B. J. ii.
8, 7.]) This interpretation clears up the union of " false humility'
and " angel- worship ;" that is to say, the false teachers in the wor-
shipping of angels strove after a false humility in that they thought
they dared not venture to approach the supreme God himself ; in
like manner as the adoration of angels and saints in the Eomish
church is usually justified. Thus Chrysostom had already observed
of this false humility : dot TIVE$ ol /Leyovre^ ov del did rov Xpiorov
irpoadyeadai, d/lAd did T&V dyyeAcov, KKEIVO yap fj,eiov ij read' i]^aq. (See
Bohmer's second excursus after his isagoge.) This self-chosen and
invented worship is called afterwards in ver. 23 tfleAoflpTya/cem, which
term also there again appears in conjunction with
220 COLOSSIANS II. 19.
In the words following, a HTJ twpa/cev ^/t/Jarevwv, the critical au-
thorities vary exceedingly. First of all, F.G. read OVK instead of
ji??, but A.B.D. omit the negative altogether. This latter reading
Lachmann has adopted, and it seems, in fact, to deserve the prefer-
ence ; for it is easily understood how people thought they were
obliged to add a negative to d twpa/cev, which was afterwards ex-
pressed at one time by OVK, at another by ////, but scarcely how one
could strike out the existing ////. For, without a negative, a twpa/cev
is ironical ; it refers to the pretended knowledge of the heavenly
world on the part of the heretics which they gave out that they pos-
sessed through visions and intuitions. The readings twpa/ca/iev and
twpa/care have but inconsiderable authorities for them, and their ori-
gin is also explained by the assumption that d tu>pa:ev was the orig-
inal reading, which some copyists endeavoured to make intelligible
to themselves by referring the contemplation to the apostle or to the
readers. The word fyfta-eveiv is not found again in the New Testa-
ment, but is often found elsewhere in the sense, " to go, intrude,
into something," and that, too, both of God, inasmuch as he pene-
trates the world and the hearts of men, and of men in relation to
God and Divine things. (Compare the citations in Biihr on this
passage, p. 212, seq.) The meaning, " to go in state, incedcre,"
which Erasmus ascribes to the word, is founded on a false etymol-
ogy. In meaning ij&mfo? here answers to the term Kt-venftareveiVj
which, however, is read here only by conjecture. It means dg rd
Kevd Paivav, i. e., to strive to find out empty things. The words
blame, therefore, the pretended possession of profound wisdom of
which these false teachers boasted. For the relative a refers to the
angels, and to all which is taught concerning them. They thought
they had penetrated into the depths of the spiritual world by means
of spiritual contemplation, die?] <j>voiov[jvoi vnb rov vob$ rf/g oapitbg
avr&v. Their conceit had not, considering the absurdity of their
pretended secrets as to the realm of spirits, even a show of truth ;
they were so conceited, /}, " without ground or reason." (See on
<j>vaiovodai } 1 Cor. iv. 6, v. 2, viii. 1, and passim.) The combina-
tion vovg -/"/ aapicos is found only here. The apparently contradic-
tory form of the combination is chosen purposely in order to mark
the unnaturalness of their condition of mind. That which should
govern the flesh, the vovg , is itself in those false teachers sunk under
the power of the flesh, their vovq is become oapKiKo$. (See my
Opusc. TheoL, p. 157, note.) For the rest the odpt- here is not to
be understood of gross fleshliness, for the Colossian false teachers
were actually given to a rigorous asceticism (see ver. 23). The term
rather marks the entire ungodly tendency of the natural man, even
when it exhibits itself in more spiritual forms.
Ver. 19. Finally, Paul closes the description with the words,
COLOSSIANS II. 20, 21. 221
" and not holding the head" (ai ov Kpartiv rr^v rce^aA^v, i. e. } Xpia-
TOV). It has already been remarked in the Introduction to this epistle,
that ov Kparelv cannot be understood as implying that the false
teachers had not known of Christ at all, nor wished to know of him.
Had that been the case, Paul might have spared all his polemics.
The Kparelv is to be taken here as = Kar&xeiv, the metaphor, as is
shewn by what follows, being derived from the members of the body,
which remain members of the organism only by preserving their liv-
ing connexion with the head. Those false teachers, therefore, if
they do not adhere to Christ, are by that very circumstance sepa-
rated from his church, and by that from his spirit and life. The
heretics in Colossae wished, it is true, to be Christians ; but they
placed the angels on a par with the Eedeemer, did not consider
him as the only way and the truth, and by that course had already
pronounced their own sentence they were apostate members. The
succeeding words describe the relation of the whole body, i. e., of the
church, to Christ, more in detail. (Paul writes e ov with reference
to the person of Christ, which is the head.) As to the rest the passage
exactly answers to the one already explained at Eph. iv. 16, on which
see the Comrn.
Vers. 20, 21. To this warning description of the perverseness of
those heretics, the fundamental features of whose character fit the
sects of all ages, so far as they pursue a similar direction as to knowl-
edge, Paul now annexes an apostrophe which sounds as if the
heretics themselves were members of the church, or as if the Chris-
tians in Colossse had already lapsed to the false doctrine altogether.
But the remaining contents of the epistle accord with neither of
these suppositions. The defenders of that false philosophy (ii. 8)
cannot possibly be conceived as to be found in communion with the
church ; they rather wish to draw the Christians in Colossee out of
that, into their circle. But, again, the laudatory description (ii. 5),
and the continuous exhortation (ii. 8, 16, 18) not to let themselves
be led astray, do not suit the supposition that the Colossian Chris-
tians were led astray. We can therefore in ver. 20 see only a form
of representation ; " Ye who are dead with Christ to the worldly
elements, why do ye again set up worldly ordinances ?" means sim-
ply, "ye incline that way; ye are on the point of again setting up
worldly ordinances." In order to bring the inconsistency of this
proceeding more home to them, Paul represents their apostacy as
already accomplished. With reference to the description ii. 11, 12,
he assumes that the Colossians, as true believers, are with Christ
dead to the world in general, and therefore to the worldly elements
also, i. e., to the law in its outward literal mode of conception. (Cf.
on ii. 8.) It must therefore appear incongruous if those dead to
the world, like those who still live in the world, wish again to set
222 COLOSSIANS II. 22.
up ordinances which are in accordance with the elements of the
world. (Ver. 20, on drrodv^aKeiv drco see at Rom. vii. 6 ; Gal. ii. 19.
Ztiv-res cv KOCTJUW forms the antithesis to d-rrodavovreg. The discourse,
therefore, is not of physical life in the world, but of life in the ele-
ment of worldliness which forms the antithesis to the element of
Christ. AoyfMrrt<w is not found again in the New Testament. It
means " to set up an ordinance;" in the middle, "to let an ordinance
be imposed on one." But the allowing it to be imposed involves an
acknowledgment of the righteousness of the ordinance ; consequently,
the giving one's self up to error. The choice of the word contains a
clear reference to the doypara in ver. 14. The imperative form p)
oi/>g, K. T. A., unmistakably expresses the character of the doy/wra.)
In ver. 21 the (irjds yevaq points back to the laws as to meats, which
were spoken of in ver. 16, but the two expressions [itj i/>g and nqde
Oiyw present a difficulty as being synonymous. One of these two
expressions might be referred to the touching of corpses and other
things which the Mosaical law pronounces unclean, but how then is
the other to be taken ? It is somewhat plausible to refer (as par-
ticularly Bohmer still does), ^ ot/^ to the prohibition of marriage.
For aTrreaOai is used per euphemismum for matrimonial cohabitation.
It is so in 1 Cor. vii. 1, and according to 1 Tim. iv. 3 the false teach-
ers in Ephesus, who were akin to thos"e at Colossee, decidedly for-
bade marriage. The ascetic tendency of the Colossian false teach-
ers (see ver. 23) also well suits the assumption that they abstained
from marriage. But as any certain intimation on that point fails us
in this epistle, just as with regard to the docetic tendency, it may
be too bold to found on the word ai/>7? alone a fresh and so important
a feature of the heretics in Colossze. In the passage 1 Tim. iv. 3
Paul designates the opposition to marriage as a devilish doctrine.
From this it is scarcely probable that he would have here touched
thus merely incidentally on that error. To me it is most probable,
as Biihr, too, supposes, that the three synonymous words express
together the formal tendency of the false teachers, and their recep-
tion of the law in the letter only, looking for holiness in the outward
instead of the imvard, while the individual prohibitions have not,
and were not to have, a definite separate reference to different
objects.
Ver. 22. The succeeding words admit of being interpreted in
two ways, either as giving the reasons of the false teachers for their
ordinances, or as containing condemnatory words of Paul in respect
to those worldly ordinances. In either case by a ndvra are to be un-
derstood, not the prohibitions themselves, but the different objects to
which the prohibitions of the heretics /*?/ atyq, K. r. A., refer ; but
(ftdopd, in the case of the reference to the false teachers and their de-
fence of their ordinances, is to be interpreted of eternal perdition ;
COLOSSIANS II. 22. 223
in the case of the reference to Paul and his argument against the
false teachers, of the physical destruction of the prohibited sub-
stances. In the former case the meaning of the words would be this,
" all which, by the use which is made of them after the command-
ments and doctrines of men, lead to everlasting perdition, and there-
fore must be avoided." This interpretation is defended by Storr
and Bohmer. With the other interpretations, they must be trans-
lated thus : " all which through use are destined to destruction, i. e.,
which according to God's design are meant to be used/' whence it
follows, that God's will cannot possibly be that we should avoid
them, and that the avoiding these objects is not capable of produc-
ing holiness. In this acceptation the words d Ion dnoxprjaei have a
parenthetical character ; the words following, viz., Kara ra evrdtyara
Kal didaaKakiag r&v dvdpu-rruv, allow, according to it, of no direct
connexion with what immediately precedes, but determine more ac-
curately doyfiaTL&ode JUT? ai/>^, K. r. A., in that they designate the 86y-
fiara of the heretics as mere human inventions. For this interpre-
tation Chrysostom, Theodoret, and other fathers of the church, had
already declared themselves, afterwards Luther, Grotius, Bahr,
Steiger, and others. The decision between these two interpretations
is difficult, as many things are in favour of both, and no other is
assuredly admissible. For against the explanation of Ambrose,
Augustine, and some later interpreters, who refer the d to the <Joy-
juara themselves, with the sense, " which commandments, if they are
followed, all lead to man's destruction," it is a decisive objection,
that d-n6xpr]aig cannot be taken as fulfilment of the commandments.
Or, if in dTroxp^atg we insist on the meaning " abuse," in opposition
to the right use, in the sense, " all these things tend, through the
abuse of them, to the destruction of men, but not through the right
use of them," we are led into an entirely irrelevant circle of thought.
For Paul is not occupied with the question as to where the limit
between use and abuse of meats and other outward things passes,
but is combating the whole principle of the heretics again to en-
slave under a new law the faithful released from the old law.
There remain to us, therefore, only the two above-given interpreta-
tions, which, grammatically viewed, are equally admissible. Still, the
context would seem to favour that which finds here conftitatory
words of Paul, and not defensive utterances of the heretics. For,
first, the whole passage is not such as to intimate that Paul wished
here to draw attention to the way in which the false teachers de-
fend their opinions. And, secondly, it is unsuitable to consider the
words, Kara TO, evrdtyara ical dcdaoKa^iag r&v dvdp&Trwv, according to
the commandments and teachings of men, as utterances of the here-
tics, for then, according to that, the apostles themselves, and all
true believers, would be the dvdpunoi here. From the phrase in ii. 8,
224 COLOSSIANS II. 23.
Kara rfjv rrapadomv TWV dvdp&rruv, after the tradition of men. it is
in the highest degree probable that the analogous one in this pas-
sage is also meant to characterize the ordinances of the false teach-
ers as mere human conceptions, in opposition to the Divine doc-
trines of revelation. Besides we find the same idea, that meats
and such outward things are, as being empty, without influence on
the moral life, elsewhere also in Paul (comp. 1 Cor. vi. 13, with 1
Tim. iv. 4 ; Matth. xv. 11.) ; it is, therefore, not improbable that
he has also laid a stress on it here. It is clear then, according to
this, that Paul is far from reckoning the Mosaical ordinances, as
such, among the " elements of the world ;" it is only in the purely
outward conception and arbitrary transformation of them by human
teachers that he treats them as human ordinances. The terms KV-
TaXfia-a and diSaanaXiai seem thus to differ here ; tVraP./tara are
definitely-conceived commandments or prohibitions, didaaKaXiai the
principles on which they are grounded. (See Matth. xv. 9 ; Mark
vii. 7.) This our interpretation of the words d Ian irdvra dc </>0opav
TJ/ aTroxwoei, confirms also the interpretation of ver. 21 above given.
We declined in ptj aipq the reference to the rejection of marriage ;
ver. 22 shews that such a supposition is inadmissible as fostering
also the repulsive meaning, that woman, according to God's de-
sign, exists for the sole purpose of being used by man. ('A-o^-
P>TI<U$ is not found again in the New Testament. The proper mean-
ing of the word is "use, wear and tear," i. e., the consuming by
use. It is, however, used, even by good writers, without that
reference, as entirely = xpn m <;. Thus by Polybius i. 45, 2, xvii.
15, 9.)
Ver. 23. Paul, in finishing off this warning against the false
teachers at Colossa3, again recapitulates in conclusion their prepos-
terous notions. Thoy have but an apparent wisdom in their hypo-
critical worship, in their affected humility, in their self-invented
and self-imposed mortification of the flesh ; in short, all is human
and earthly in them, not Divine and heavenly, as in Christ's doc-
trine. "Ariva connects itself quite simply with the preceding
phrase, tvraA/zara Kal didavK.a'kiai ; but the construction of t<m' is
questionable. Some connect it with the OVK iv rifiq nvi } or even
with Trpof TrhrjcfiovTiv rift oapnos, as, particularly, Biihr still does.
But Bohmer justly observes that then tori would be entirely out
of place, not only separated from the words with which it was espe-
cially connected, but also unduly separating a-iva from the Aoyov
ra belonging to it. In the second place, the connexion tarl rrpof
TJS oapKog would, it is true, afford a good sense, but as
connected with OVK KV riny TOY, yields a less appropriate meaning,
" these . precepts are not exactly in a certain honour, have no di-
rect significance." Who can persuade himself that Paul would
COLOSSIANS II. 23. 225
have declared himself so indefinitely as to doctrines which he else-
where blames so severely ? The nvi along with npy leaves no doubt
that it defines more accurately the foregoing dfaidia awjuarof. The
only correct construction, for which, too, most interpreters by far
have from the first decided, is that in which arivd eon Xoyov fiev
K%ovra ao(piag are united. For Adyof is here, as it occurs also else-
where, an antithesis to dvvajj,i(; or d^deta (1 Thess. i. 5 ; 1 John iii.
18). The [lev is to be explained by the suppressed antithesis, " but
not the substance of wisdom." 5 Ev now introduces the particulars in
which this show of wisdom after the opinion of men declares itself.
And first, out of the three points produced, as respects eOekodprjaiceia,
the word is found in the classics not at all, and in the later Chris-
tian writers is, we may presume, 'borrowed from Paul. We are,
therefore, in interpreting this word, formed probably by Paul him-
self, obliged to have recourse to its etymology. The numerous
words compounded with t-0e'Ao) have a two-fold meaning : they con-
vey the idea either of what is voluntary, self-made, or of what is
simulated, self-pleasing. Accordingly, ideXoOprianda may mean " a
self-invented, arbitrarily-contrived worship," as a contrast to that
ordained by God. Thus Suidas explains the term, Me^odprjoicei by
I6i<tt 6e^rjfj,ari O8(3ei TO dotcovv. Or edekoOprjoiteia may mean " a self-
pleasing, hypocritical worship," as Theophylact explains 77 v-noic.pi-
vonEvr) evha(3eia v ry Bprjonda. The parallel passage, ver. 18,
decides for this latter explanation, as our passage undoubtedly
conveys a reference to the 0eAwv KV OprjaKeia r&v ayyeXuv there. In
the same passage (ver. 18) is also found the second of the three par-
ticulars, in which the apparent wisdom of the false teachers shews
itself, the Ta-neivo^poavvrj, i. e. } here too / the hypocritical humility,
which acts as if it dares not draw near to God. And thirdly, in
fine, the dfeiSia aw\iaroq is mentioned, i. e., the rigorous asceticism
which deals unmercifully with the body as a dungeon of the soul.
This is especially adapted to create the appearance of wisdom
and godliness, because it represents itself as an abnegation of what
is earthly, as a mastery over the desires ; and yet such self-chosen
abnegation is exactly calculated to make the old man strong. The
more accurately to define the preposterousness of this asceticism,
Paul further adds, OVK v ripy TIVI } where only a^narog can be sup-
plied. These words point to the doctrine, that to the body, as the
temple of the Holy Spirit, a relative honour and care, determined
by its position towards the Spirit, are due ; that, therefore, the
withholding that care is not holiness, but sin. To construe the
last words, npbg nkr)0[j,ovr}v -nfr aapitog with the directly-foregoing OVK
ev Tipy TIVI, and refer them to the satisfying of the body, as if the
sense were, " without shewing the body a certain honour, so that
the flesh is satisfied" cannot possibly recommend itself. Neither
VOL. V. 15
COLOSSIANS II. 23.
does Trp6$ admit of that connexion, nor is it conceivable that <ropand
ffwf/a should have been so exchanged. Even the difference between
those two words leads to the opinion that adpt; has here the ideal
meaning, " sinful nature," whence arises this pertinent meaning of
the words, one that accords also with experience, that outward abne-
gation and chastising of the body may yet afford nourishment to sin-
fulness, in that they, as proceeding from one's own strength, beget
conceit and pride in the mind. All abnegation possesses value only
when it is done for Christ's sake, and thus is born of faith in him
and love to him. (See at Matth. x. 39.)
n.
PART SECOND,
(III. 1 IV. 18.)
3. GENERAL ETHICAL PRECEPTS.
(iii. 1-17.)
SEVERAL critics and interpreters connect chap. iii. 1-4 also with
what precedes, and allow the hortatory part to begin only with ver.
5 ; but the venptioare ovv in ver. 5 is nothing but the resumption of
ver. 1, inasmuch as what is here predicated is predicated there, only
expressed from the negative point of view. Thus in point of fact,
we directly seek what is above when we mortify what belongs to
the earth. Therefore the hortatory part must begin with the third
chapter.
Vers. 1, 2. With a retrospective reference to ii. 12, Paul con-
ceives his readers, and in them all believers, as risen with Christ.
Now, as the Eedeemer, who rose in the body, ascended into heaven
also in the body, because he belonged no longer to the earth, so also
must those risen in the Spirit tend towards things above with all