Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Colossians 2:1 - 2:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2:1-7. The apostle’s care and anxiety are not limited to those Churches which he had himself founded, or to which he had personally preached, but extended to those whom he had never seen. He is anxious that they should be confirmed in the faith and united in love, and, moreover, may learn to know the mystery, that is, the revealed will of God. It is no new doctrine they are to look for, but to seek to be established in the faith which they have already been taught, and to live in conformity thereto
1. Γρ “Striving, I say, for,” etc. The general statement κπῶἀωιόεο is supported by this special instance of his anxiety for the Colossian Church; and thus although γρis not merely transitional, the transition to the personal application is naturally effected.
θλ γρὑᾶ εδνι So 1Co_11:3. More frequently ο θλ ὑᾶ ἀνεν That either phrase does not necessarily commence a new section is clear from 1Co_11:3; Rom_11:25.
ἡίο, a classical word, not found in Sept. or Apocrypha, and in the N.T. only here and Jam_3:5.
ἀῶαἔω As he was now a prisoner this ἀώ can only be an inward one. It is not to be limited to prayer (iv. 12), but includes anxiety, etc.
ὑὲ ὑῶ. Here, as often, the reading varies between ὑέ and πρ. The former is that of אA B C Db P; the latter of D*c G K L.
κὶτνἐ Λοιί (sic אA B* C D* G K L P).
The Laodiceans were probably exposed to the influence of the same heretical teaching as the Colossians. Hierapolis is probably alluded to in the words κὶὅο, κτλ see 4:13. κὶτνἐ Ἰρπλιis actually added in some MSS. (10 31 73 118) and in Syr-Harcl.* It is clearly a gloss from 4:13.
κὶὅο, κτλ κίhere introduces the general after the particular, as in Act_4:6 and often. It is only the context that decides whether this is the case or whether a new class is introduced. Here there would be no meaning in mentioning two particular Churches which had known him personally, and then in general all who had not known him. The inference is therefore certain that he had never visited Colossae, and this agrees with the incidental references in the Epistle as well as with the narrative in the Acts. See on ατν ver. 2.
ἑρκν(Alexandrian) is better supported than the Attic ἑρκσ. The spelling with ωis rather better supported here than that with o.
ἐ σρίdoes not qualify the verb, as if “seeing in the flesh” were contrasted with “seeing in the spirit” (δίνσνἐτῦαὅιἑρνσνχςἐ πεμτ, Chrys.), but goes with πόωό μυ giving vividness to the expression. Naturally it is implied that they had a knowledge of him, though not personal.
2. ἵαπρκηῶι α κρίιατν “That their hearts may be strengthened.” It can hardly be doubted that this is the meaning of πρκλῖ here, where there is no mention of, or allusion to, troubles or persecutions. The sense “comforted, consoled” is, indeed, defended by Meyer, Ellicott, Eadie, al. Ellicott observes: “surely those exposed to the sad trial of erroneous teachings need consolation”; but there is no trace of this view in the Epistle, nor would such consolation be the prime object of the apostle’s prayer and anxiety. No; what made him anxious was the danger they were in of being carried away by this erroneous teaching. It was not consolation that was required, but confirmation in the right faith. For this sense of πρκλῖ cf. 1Co_14:31 (RV. marg.).
ατν We might have expected ὑῶ, but ατνwas suggested by the preceding ὅο. This is decisive as to the Colossians being included in the ὅο; for if excluded there, they are excluded here, and the writer returns to the Colossians in ver. 4 (ὑᾶ) in a most illogical manner: “This I say about others who do not know me, in order that no man may deceive you.”
σμιαθνε. “United, knit together,” the common meaning of the verb, and that which it has elsewhere in this Epistle (ver. 19) and in Eph_4:16, q.v. In the Sept. it always means to “instruct,” cf. 1Co_2:16 (quotation) and Act_19:33. It is so rendered here by the Vulg. “instructi.” The nominative agrees with the logical subject of the preceding.
It is read by אA B C D* P al., Vulg., Syr. (both). The genitive σμιαθνω is read in א Dc K L and most MSS., but is obviously a grammatical correction.
ἐ ἀάῃ “In love,” which is the “bond of perfection” (3:14).
κὶεςexpresses the object of the σμι.; connected by κί because the verb contains the idea of motion.
πνποτςτςπηοοίςτςσνσω. “All riches of full assurance of the understanding.” “Full assurance” seems the most suitable sense for πηοοί, and it is also suitable in every other place in the N.T. where the word occurs (1Th_1:5; Heb_6:11, Heb_10:22). “Fulness” would also be suitable, except in 1Th_1:5. The word does not occur in Sept. or Apocr., nor in classical authors. On σνσςcf. 1:9. It has an intransitive sense, and hence never takes a genitive of the object; here it appears to mean the faculty of judging. He desires their judgment to be exercised with full certainty. De Wette observes that ποτςexpresses a quantitative, πηοοί a qualitative, characteristic.
εςἐίνσν κτλ seems best taken as parallel to the preceding ες so that it emphatically points out the special object on which the σνσςis to be exercised. Some, however, connect this with πρκηῶι, on the ground that ἐίνσςimplies as an antecedent condition the σμι. κτλ For ἐίνσς “full knowledge,” see Eph_1:17.
τῦθο Χιτῦ If this reading is adopted, there are three conceivable constructions: (a) Χιτῦin apposition to Θο, (b) Χιτῦdependent on Θο, (c) Χιτῦin apposition to μσηίυ The first (adopted by Hilary of Poitiers, also by Steiger and Bisping) is generally rejected, either on account of the context (Ell.) or because the phrase is destitute of Pauline analogy (Meyer, Moule, Lightfoot). But it appears to be inadmissible on other grounds. To point τῦΘο, Χιτῦ taking these in apposition and thus identifying ὁΘό and Χιτς is obviously impossible, as it would mean, not that Θό could be predicated of Χιτς but that Χιτςcould be predicated of ὁΘό, thus ignoring the distinction of Persons. On the other hand, if we point τῦΘο Χιτῦ and understand “the God Christ” (according to the rendering suggested, though not accepted, by Moule), the expression seems inconsistent with strict Monotheism. It defines Θο by the addition Χιτῦ and therefore suggests that other definitions are possible. ὁΘὸ πτρis not analogous, for two reasons; first, πτρonly suggests υό, and, secondly, πτρexpresses a relation proper to the Deity. Ellicott, who considers the construction not indefensible, takes it to mean “of God, even of Christ.” This is rather to suppose μσηίυsupplied before Χιτῦ which is certainly untenable. But this is clearly not what he means, and it suggests that he hesitated to accept either of the other renderings.
According to the third view, Χιτῦis in apposition to μσηίυ so that Christ personally is the mystery of God (Ellicott, Lightfoot, Moule, al.). If this is the apostle`s meaning, he has expressed himself very obscurely. As μσήινis an abstract name, when it is explained as a person, we should expect ὅἐτνas in i. 24, 27; 1Co_3:11. Lightfoot understands the “mystery” not as “Christ,” but “Christ as containing in Himself all the treasures of wisdom,” and in illustration of the form of the sentence compares Eph_4:15, εςατν…ὅ ἐτνἡκφλ, Χιτς ἐ ο πντ σμ, κτλ This passage, it is obvious, adds another example of the use of ὅ ἐτνin such sentences, and it can hardly be said to furnish a parallel to Lightfoot’s interpretation of ἐ ᾧ for in Eph_4:15 a full stop might have been placed after Χιτςwithout impairing the figure. Moreover, the apostle has given a different definition of the μσ. in i. 27 (to which he again alludes in iv. 3), and it is hard to suppose that he would give a different definition within a few lines, for different this certainly is. The second translation mentioned above, “the God of Christ,” has its parallel in the phrase, ὁΘὸ κὶπτρἸσῦΧιτῦ and in Eph_1:17, ὁΘὸ τῦΚρο ἡῶ ἸσῦΧιτῦ This construction is adopted by Meyer and v. Soden. The addition of Χιτῦis explained by the consideration that it is only through Christ that God’s plan in this mystery is carried out; it is only because and in so far as God is the God of Christ that this μσήινcould exist and be revealed. Meyer adds, “He that has recognised God as the God of Christ, to him is the Divine μσήινrevealed.” This, after all, is not quite satisfactory, and requires us to read into the text more than is expressed.
If the shorter reading τῦΘο (omitting Χιτῦ is adopted, the difficulty disappears; but the difficulty is not so obvious as to tempt the ordinary copyist to omit the word.
The different readings are as follow:—
(1) τῦΘο. Without any addition. Db P 37 67** 71 80 116.
Adopted by Griesbach, Tisch. 2, Olsh., De Wette, Alford.
(2) τῦΘοΧιτῦ B, Hilary of Poitiers (De Trin. ix. 62, “in agnitionem sacramenti dei Christi,” adding, “Deus Christus sacramentum est”). Adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, and Lightfoot without a comma after θο; by Tisch. 8, RV. with a comma, also by Harless (Eph. p. 458), Ellicott, Meyer, and v. Soden.
(3) τῦΘο, ὅἐτνΧιτς D* “Dei quod est Christus,” d e, Vigilius Thaps. So Augustine, De Trin. xiii. 24, “Dei quod est Christus Jesus.”
(4) τῦθο πτὸ (add τῦA C 4) Χιτῦ א A C 4, Vulg. in Codd., Amiat., Fuld.., f. Boh. (add Ἰσῦ Lagarde).
(5) τῦΘο κὶπτὸ τῦΧιτῦ א two of Scrivener’s MSS. and a corrector in the Harclean Syriac.
(6) τῦθο πτὸ κὶτῦΧιτῦ 47 73, Syr-Pesh (ed. princeps and Schaaf).
(7) τῦΘο κὶπτὸ κὶτῦΧιτῦ(Rec. Text), D3 K L most cursives, Syr-Harcl. (text), Theodoret, etc.
Isolated readings are—
(8) τῦΘο κὶΧιτῦ Cyril. Thes. p. 287.
(9) τῦΘο ἐ Χιτ, Clem. Alex. v. 10, 12, and with τῦbefore ἐ,17. So Ambrosiaster, “Dei in Christo.” τῦΧιτῦis given by Tisch. from his MS. of Euthalius, but with the remark, “sed non satis apparet.”
As far as documentary evidence goes (4) seems the best attested, and is probably the source of (5) (6) (7). But it is most probably an attempt to remove the difficulty of the simpler reading (1) or (2). Of these (2) is preferred by the critics above named, as accounting for all the rest, (1) the witnesses for which are later, being supposed to have originated from an attempt to remove the difficulty of the former reading. Meyer thinks that the original reading must have involved some dogmatic difficulty, which (4) does not.
The short reading, τῦΘο (1), would account for the others, but the attestation of it is not sufficiently early. Wescott and Hort suspect some corruption.
3. ἐ ᾧ The antecedent is probably μσηίυ not Χιτῦ What the apostle is dwelling on is the greatness of the “mystery” (1:27), and the importance of the knowledge of it, in opposition to the supposed wisdom of the false teachers; hence the statement that “all the treasures,” etc., are contained in it. This is confirmed by the use of ἀόρφι which corresponds to μσήιν So Alford, Eadie, Meyer, Soden, De Wette, etc.; but Ellicott, Lightfoot, and many comm. refer the ᾧto Christ. With this latter reference, the wisdom and knowledge are those possessed by Christ as a treasure which He communicates. With the reference to μσ. the terms have an objective sense, these being characteristics of the Divine plan. These treasures St. Paul calls ἀόρφι probably in allusion to the pretended hidden wisdom of the false teachers, which nevertheless was merely superficial and concerned external observances, whereas the true Christian wisdom was inward and profound. These treasures of wisdom are not “kept concealed,” ἀοερμέο, they are “hidden, laid up,” ἀόρφι but capable of being discovered. For this reason, as well as on account of the position of the word, ἀόρφιis not to be construed with εσνas the direct predicate,—a construction which would require it to come next to εσν Meyer and Alford take the word as attributive, “all the secret treasures.” The absence of the article is against this, although not perhaps fatal; since, as Alford observes, ο ἀόρφιwould imply that there were other treasures, only those that are secret being contained, etc. The position of the word, however, suggests that it is a secondary predicate (Ellicott, Lightfoot, v. Soden, al.), “all the treasures, etc., as hidden treasures,” i.e. “hiddenly,” ὥτ πρ ατῦδῖπναατῖ. Chrys. “quo verbo innuitur quod pretiosum et magnificum est in Christo non prominere, aut protinus in oculos incurrere hominum carnalium, sed ita latere ut conspiciatur tantummodo ab illis quibus Deus oculos dedit aquilinos, id est, spirituales ad videndum,” Davenant, quoted by Ellicott. The word occurs in connexion with θσυο in Isa_45:3, δσ σιθσυοςσοενὺ ἀορφυ: also 1 Macc. 1:23, ἔαετὺ θσυοςτὺ ἀορφυ. On the Gnostic use of the word to designate their esoteric writings, see Lightfoot’s note.1
The expression θσυὸ σφα is used by Plato, Phileb. 15 E, ὥ τν σφα ερκςθσυό, and by Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 9, ἄαα συδόιοκἀγρο κὶχυίυποίο θσυοςκκῆθιμλο ἢσφα.
σφα κὶγώες These terms occur together, Rom_9:33, and several times in Eccles. Sept. “While γῶι is simply intuitive, σφαis ratiocinative also. While γῶι applies chiefly to the apprehension of truths, σφαsuperadds the power of reasoning about them and tracing their relations,” Lightfoot. Augustine’s distinction is that σφαis “intellectualis cognitio aeternarum rerum”; γῶι, “rationalis temporalium,” so that the former pertains to contemplation, the latter to action (De Trin. xii. 20, 25). This, however, is quite opposed to usage. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. i. 1, opposed γῶι to πᾶι. And in 1Co_13:2, St. Paul connects γῶι with the apprehension of eternal μσήι.
4. τῦολγ. In this expression τῦοoften refers to what follows, but with ἵαit refers to what precedes; cf. Joh_5:34. τῦοis not to be limited to ver. 3. Ver. 5 shows that 1-3 are included, if, indeed, the reference does not extend further back.
δ is omitted in א A* (apparently) B, but added in א Acorr. C D K L P, and apparently all other authorities. Weiss considers it certainly genuine.
ἳαμδί. So א A B C D P al. ἳαμ τς א K L, most MSS.
πρλγζτι In N.T. only here and Jam_1:22; frequent in Sept. and later Greek writers. It applies primarily to false reckoning, and thence to fallacious reasoning; hence, πρλγσό, a fallacy or paralogism; cf. ἀάῃτν πρλγσμνςὑᾶ, Aeschines, p. 16, 33.
ἐ πθνλγᾳ “By persuasive speech,” “a persuasive style,” Moule. The word occurs in Plato, Theaet. p. 162 E (πθνλγᾳτ κὶεκσ); the verb πθνλγῖ in Arist. Eth. Nic. i. 1; also Diog. Laert. x. 87, al. In classical writers the sense is only that of probable reasoning as opposed to demonstration; but see Demosth. 928, 14, λγυ θυαίςπθνύ, and ἡπθνλγκ= “the art of persuasion,” Arrian, Epict. i. 8. 7.
Compare St. Paul, 1Co_2:4, οκἐ πιοςσφα λγι, ἀλ ἐ ἀοεξιπεμτς πθνλγαexpresses the subjective means of persuasion, the personal influence; πρλγ the objective, the appearance of logic.
5. ε γρκὶ The κὶafter ε does not belong to the whole clause introduced by ε, but emphasises the word immediately following; cf. 2Co_4:16, 2Co_11:6.
τ σρὶἄεμ. It has been inferred from this that St. Paul had been at Colossae; but without reason. The same expression, indeed, occurs 1Co_5:3; but this proves nothing, γρ
ἀλ introduces the apodosis, when it is contrasted with a hypothetical protasis; cf. Rom_6:5; 1Co_8:6; 2Co_5:16, al. τ πεμτ, “in spirit,” not “by the spirit,” as Ambrosiaster and Grotius, “Deus Paulo revelat quae Colossis fierent.” The antithesis is the common one of body and spirit; cf. 1Co_5:3, ἀὼ τ σμτ, πρνδ τ πεμτ.
σνὑῖ. Stronger than ἐ ὑῖ, expressing union in a common interest.
χίω κὶβέω. There is no need to suppose a logical transposition, or to separate the participles as if χίω meant “rejoicing at being with you in the spirit” (Meyer, Alford). The apostle’s joy may have been due to many circumstances, and this joy led him to contemplate further their orderly array.
ὑῶ τντξν The pronoun is placed emphatically first, not so much to accentuate this τξςas an advantage which they possessed over others, as because the apostle’s interest was in them personally and in the τξςonly as belonging to them.
τντξνκὶτ σεέμ. Both terms are supposed by Hofmann, Lightfoot, Soden, al., to contain a military metaphor, perhaps suggested by St. Paul’s enforced companionship with the praetorian guard, σεέμ being rendered by Lightfoot “solid front, close phalanx”; by Soden, “bulwark,” “Bollwerk.” τξςis frequently used of military array, e.g. Xen. Anab. i. 2. 18, ἰοσ τνλμρττ κὶτντξντῦσρτύαο ἐαμσν Plut. Vit. Pyrrh. 16, κτδντξντ κὶφλκςκὶκσο ατνκὶτ σῆατςσρτπδίςἐαμσ. σεέμ is found in the Sept. Psa_18:2; Gen_1:6, Rev_1 Macc. 9:14 is quoted in support of the military sense, εδνὁἸύα ὅιΒκίη κὶτ σεέμ τςπρμοῆ ἐ τῖ δξος
But neither word has this military sense of itself, but from the context, and here the context suggests nothing of the kind. τξςis used equally of the organisation of a state or a household, e g. Demosth. p. 200, 4, τύη τντξναρῖθιτςπλτίς Compare also Plato, Gorgias, p. 504 A, τξω …κὶκσο τχῦαοκα St. Paul has it again, 1Co_14:40, πνα…κτ τξνγνσω Here the idea of a well-ordered state lies much nearer than that of an army. The apostle rejoices in the orderly arrangement of the Colossian Church. The opposite state would be ἀαί, and of this he finds some instances in Thessalonica, where some walked ἀάτς and he reminds them ὅιοκἠατσμνἐ ὑῖ (2Th_3:6, 2Th_3:8, 2Th_3:11).
With σεέμ τςπσεςcompare Act_16:5, ἐτρονοτ πσε, and 1Pe_5:9, ᾧἀτσηεσεεὶτ πσε. It is most natural to take the word here as = the firm structure of your faith, i.e. the solidity of your faith. ὅεπλὰσνγγνσγολσι πκῶ κὶἀισατς ττ σεέμ γντι Chrys.
We gather from this that the Church at Colossae was still substantially sound in the faith, and it is instructive to observe how here as in other Epistles St. Paul is careful to commend what he finds deserving of commendation.
It is worthy of notice that d e translate as if they read ὑτρμ for σεέμ “quod deest necessitatibus fidei vestrae.” Augustine agrees, quoting, “id quod deest fidei vestrae” (Ep. 149, Joh. 98). So also Ambrosiaster.
6. ὡ ονπρλβτ. “As, then, ye received, i.e. from your teachers” = κθςἐάεεἀὸἘαρ, 1:7; κθςἐιάθτ, ver. 7. Compare 1Th_4:1, κθςπρλβτ πρ ἡῶ τ πςδῖ κτλ 1Co_15:1, 1Co_15:2, 1Co_15:11:23; Gal_1:9, Gal_1:12; Php_4:9 (ἐάεεκὶπρλβτ).
Ellicott, however, and Moule understand it as meaning that they received “Christ Himself, the sum and substance of all teaching.” The sense is good, but does not agree so well with the usage of πρλμάενor with the context, in which we have the contrast between true and false teaching in relation to the Christian walk (κθςἐιάθτ, κτ τνπρδσντνἀθ.).
τνΧιτνἸσῦ τνΚρο. As St. Paul does not use the phrase ὁΧιτςἸσῦ, this is naturally divided into τνΧιτνand Ἰσῦ τνΚρο, so that τνΧ. is the immediate object of πρλ This is confirmed by the frequency of ὁΧιτςin this Epistle, and by the designation of the object of the Christian preaching as ὁΧιτςin Php_1:15, Php_1:17. Further, it will be observed that in what follows up to 3:4 it is not the notion of Ἰσῦ or of Κρο that is prominent, but that of Χιτς The Christ, rather than the gospel, is specified as the object of the instruction, because “the central point of the Colossian heresy was the subversion of the true idea of the Christ,” Lightfoot. Ἰσῦ τνΚρο adds to the official designation the name of Him to whom it belongs, “even Jesus the Lord.” Compare Eph_4:20, Eph_4:21. The position of τνΚρο after Ἰσῦ (instead of the usual τνΚρο Ἰσῦ) points to the two elements of which the true doctrine of the Christ consists, viz. first, the recognition of the historical person, Jesus; and, secondly, the acceptance of Him as the Lord.
ἐ ατ πρπτῖε This phrase does not occur elsewhere, but it corresponds to the idea of τςὁοςμυἐ Χιτ, 1Co_4:17; ζνα ἐ Χιτ, Rom_4:11, etc.
7. ἐρζμνικὶἐοκδμύεο. The propriety of the tenses is to be observed; the settled state, which is the antecedent condition of πρπττῖ ἐ ατ, is expressed by the perfect; the continual development which is always advancing, by the present. The three figures are disparate, the apostle’s thoughts being occupied with the lesson to be enforced, without regard to the consistency of his metaphor; see Eph_3:18. Some commentators put a stop at πρπτῖε connecting the participles with the following ver. 8 a construction which leaves ἐ ατ π very isolated.
The ἐι in ἐοκδ probably does not convey “the accessory idea of the foundation,” which would not agree well with ἐ; besides, it is clear from πρπτῖεand ἐρζ that the apostle has not before him the distinct figure of a building, but is using the word as St. Jude does, ver. 20, ἐοκδμῦτςἑυοςτ ἁιττ ὑῶ πσε, in the derived ethical sense “being built up.” Lightfoot remarks that in this Epistle and that to the Ephesians, Christ is represented rather as the binding element than as the foundation of the building; see Eph_2:20.
ββιύεο qualifies the idea of both the preceding participles. The present gives the idea “being more and more stablished.”
τ πσε is taken by Meyer and Lightfoot as an instrumental dative, “by your faith.” “Faith,” says the latter, “is, as it were, the cement of the building.” But this is to press unduly the metaphor in ἐοκδ which, as we have seen, is not intended any more than the other two verbs to convey a definite picture. There is no question here of the instrument, and τ πσε is better taken as a dative of reference, as in Jud_1:20. There πσι was that which needed ββίσς κθςἐιάθτ, “even as ye were taught,” i.e. so that ye continue firm and true to the lessons which ye were taught by Epaphras; cf. 1:7, not “taught to be established by or in your faith.”
πρσεοτςἐ εχρσί. “Abounding in thanksgiving.” If ἐ ατ is read after πρσ., then ἐ εχ is “with thanksgiving,” although even with this reading some expositors interpret “in your faith abounding in thanksgiving.”
τ πσε without ἐ, B D* 17 al., Vulg., Ambrosiaster, Theoph. ἐ τ πσε, אDo K L P, most MSS., Chrys., al. ἐ πσε, A C 672. ἐ would readily come in from the impression made by the repeated ἐ in the context.
ἐ ατ is added after πρσεοτςin B Dc K L most MSS., Syr-Pesh, Arm., Chrys. Also א D* 1 d e f, Vulg., Syr., mg. have ἐ ατ. The words are absent from א A C 17 and some other MSS., Amiat., Fuld.., Eth. The words are omitted in the text of RV. but retained in the marginal reading. They may have been added originally from a recollection of 4:2, where we have ἐ ατ ἐ εχρσί. This is rather more probable than that they were omitted because πρσεοτςwas thought to be sufficiently defined by ἐ εχρσί. So Weiss.
8-15.
he apostle has reason to know (having, no doubt, been so informed by Epaphras) that there are amongst the Colossians teachers who are propagating mischievous heresies, dangerous to the faith, and inculcating precepts not consistent with their position as members of Christ’s kingdom. These teachers make a professsion of philosophy, but it is a mere system of deceit and of human origin, and so far is it from being an advance on what they have been taught that it really belongs to a more elementary stage of progress. Ye, he tells them, have been already made full in Christ, in whom dwells the whole fulness of the Godhead, and who is therefore far above all these angelic beings of whom they speak. Ye need no circumcision of the flesh, for ye have received in Christ the true circumcision of the spirit. By Him ye have been raised from death to life, and His work is complete; He has wholly done away with the bond that was against you.
8. βέεεμ τςὑᾶ ἔτι “Beware lest there be anyone,” etc. For τςwith the participle and article, cf. Gal_1:7, ε μ τνςεσνο τρσοτςὑᾶ. As it gives prominence to the person and his action, it appears to point to some particular person whom the apostle has in view but does not wish to name. Compare Ignat. Smyrn. 5, ὅ τνςἀνονε ἀνῦτι…τ δ ὀόααατν…οκἔοέμιἐγάα. The future indic. ἔτιindicates the reality of the danger, cf. Mar_14:2, μπτ ἔτιθρβς and Heb_3:12, βέεεμπτ ἔτιἔ τν ὑῶ, κτλ ὑᾶ before ἔτιis somewhat emphatic: “you who are such persons as I have thus commended.”
This order, ὑᾶ ἔτι is that of B C K L P; but אA D have ἔτιὑᾶ, which, as the more obvious order, was more likely to be written in error.
ὁσλγγν A later Greek word (not indeed found till after St. Paul) used by Aristaenetus (2:22) with οκνin the sense “plunder,” in which sense it is understood here by Chrys., Theodoret, and some moderns. Theodoret supplies τνπσι, Theophyl. τννῦ. If this were the sense here, the object could hardly be omitted. But the proper meaning of the word seems to be “to carry off as spoil.” So Heliodorus, Aeth. x. 35, ὁτνἐὴ θγτρ σλγγσς And this meaning corresponds with that of the analogous compounds, δυαωεν σεαωεν λφργγῖ. Von Soden remarks that it also corresponds better with the idea of a destroyed bond in ver. 14 to suggest that they might again be brought into bondage; cf. Gal_5:1. The Vulgate “decipiat” is very inadequate.
δὰτςφλσφα. A term not occurring elsewhere in the N.T., and no doubt adopted here because it was used by the false teachers themselves. The combination of it here with κν ἀάηindicates that the sense is nearly “his philosophy, so called, which is a vain deceit.” Compare ψυώυο γῶι, 1Ti_6:20. Chrysostom remarks: ἐεδ δκῖσμὸ ενιτ “τςφλσφα” ποέηε κὶκνςἀάη. That the word φλσφαwas in use in Jewish circles appears from Philo and Josephus. The former applies the word to the religion of the Jews and the law of Moses, perhaps for the purpose of giving dignity to them in the eyes of Gentile readers. He speaks of ἡκτ Μϋῆ φλσφα(De Mut. Nom. 39), ἡπτιςφλσφα(Leg. ad Cai. 23), ἡἸυακ, φλσφο(ib. 33). Josephus calls the three Jewish sects τεςφλσφα (Ant. xviii. 1. 2). It is clear from the connexion with κνςἀάη that St. Paul is not condemning philosophy in general, which, indeed, would be quite beside his purpose.
κὶκνςἀάη. The absence of the article shows that this is not a different thing from ἡφλσφα but is a characteristic of it. ἀάηis opposed to λγςτςἀηεα, 1:5, and to σφακὶγῶι, 2:3.
κτ τνπρδσντνἀθώω. Probably to be connected with the immediately preceding words rather than with σλγγν The teaching of the Colossian false teachers was essentially traditional and esoteric. The Essenes, their spiritual predecessors, as well as the Gnostics, subsequently claimed to possess such a source of knowledge. The oath taken by the full members of the former sect bound them not to communicate any of their doctrines to anyone otherwise than as he himself had received them, and, further, to guard carefully the books of their sect and the names of the angels (Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 7; Lightfoot, pp. 89, 90). Compare the designation Kabbala, “tradition,” applied by the Jews to their later mystic theology.
κτ τ σοχῖ τῦκσο. “According to the rudiments of the world” (?). This κτ with the following κτ Χιτνmay perhaps be best connected with σλγγν as the ideas they introduce have a different logical relation to the main idea, and ο κτ Χιτνis too brief to form the antithesis to the other two κτ clauses.
τ σοχῖ (= Gal_4:3) (originally = “letters of the alphabet”) is generally understood by modern commentators as meaning “elementary teaching,” “the A B C of religious instruction”; compare πιαωό in Gal. Then τῦκσο would mean having reference to mundane, or material, not spiritual things (Alford, Lightfoot, al.). But De Wette takes κσο as = “humanity,” as the subject of this instruction (Joh_3:16; 2Co_5:19). So Oltramare. Meyer, on the other hand, understands by it “the non-Christian world,” “rudiments with which the world concerns itself” ( = Bleek, Weiss, al.).
Neander judges that a comparison of all the Pauline passages and the Pauline association of ideas favour our understanding the phrase as denoting the earthly, elsewhere termed τ σριά Hence, 2:20, σοχῖ τῦκσο and κσο may, he thinks, be considered as synonymous.
An entirely different interpretation has been adopted by several recent commentators. According to this, τ σοχῖ τῦκσο are the personal elemental spirits. According to Jewish ideas, not only were the stars conceived as animated by spiritual beings,1 but all things had their special angels. In the Book of Enoch, 82. 10 ff., it is said with reference to the angels of the stars that they keep watch, that they may appear at their appointed times, in their proper orders, etc. There are, first, the four leaders who divide the seasons, then the twelve leaders of the orders (taxiarchs), who divide the months; and for the 360 days there are heads over thousands (chiliarchs), who divide the days. Anyone who is curious about the matter may learn the principal names in the book itself. In 18. 15 we read of stars which suffer punishment because they have transgressed the commandment of God as to their appearing. In the Book of Jubilees, cap. 2, amongst the creations of the first day are the Angels of the Presence, but also the angels of the winds, of clouds, of cold and heat, of hail, hoarfrost, thunder, etc. Perhaps Psa_104:4 may have some relation to this conception; certainly it seems to be illustrated by the Apocalypse, vii. 1, 2, xiv. 18, xvi. 5 (τῦἀγλυτνὑάω), xix. 17; and by the interpolation in Joh_5:4. It is obvious that the term properly used of the elements ruled by these spirits might readily be applied to the spirits themselves, especially as there was no other convenient term. It agrees with this that in Gal_4:1 ff. those who were δδυωέο ὑὸτ σοχῖ τῦκσο are compared to those who are under ἐίρπικὶοκνμι—a comparison which suggests personality in the former. And again, ib. 8, 9, δυεεντῖ φσιμ οσνθοςappears to be equivalent to δυεεντῖ σοχίι, κτλ
In the present passage the observance of times and seasons, etc., is κτ τ σ.τκ not κτ Χ., a contrast which does not agree well with the conception of σ. as elements of instruction. This view of τ σοχῖ gives special pertinence to the proposition which follows, ὅιἐ ατ, κτλ and ver. 10, ὅ ἐτνἡκφλ πσςἀχςκὶἐοσα. Ritschl defends this personal interpretation of σοχῖ at length (Rechtfertigung u. Versö 3rd ed. ii. p. 252), but needlessly limits the meaning to the angels of the lawgiving. Spitta adopts the more general reference (Der Zweite Brief des Petras u.der Brief des Judas, 1885, 263 ff.). He quotes from the Test. Levi, c. 4, a passage which speaks of the burning up of τ ἀρτ πεμτ, just as 2Pe_3:10 speaks of the burning up of σοχῖ. This view is unreservedly adopted by Kü the recent editor of the Epistles of Peter and Jude in Meyer’s Kommentar, and by v. Soden in his comment on the present passage.2
9. ὅιἐ ατ κτιε πντ πήωα See 1:19; and on πήωα Lightfoot’s dissertation, Colossians, p. 323 ff.
τςθόηο, “of the Godhead,” i.e. of the Divine nature. θόη, the abstract of θό, must not be confounded with θιτς which is used with propriety in Rom_1:20, and which means, not the essence, but the quality of divinity. θόη is found in Lucian, Icarom. ix., τνμντν πῶο Θὸ ἐεάον τῖ δ τ δύεακὶτ τίαἔεο τςθόηο; and in Plutarch, Mor. p. 415 C, ἐ δ διόω ὀία μνἔιχόῳπλῷδʼἀεῆ κθρεσιπνάαιθόηο μτσο. The δίοε were always θῖι but a few became in course of time θο. The same author, Mor. p. 857 A, says, πσνΑγπίι θιττ πλὴ κὶδκισννμρυήα, i.e. a Divine faculty. The Versions generally, including the Vulgate, fail to mark the distinction, doubtless for want of a word to express θόη. The word deitas was a later coinage (not quite according to Latin analogy). Trench quotes from Augustine, De Civ. Dei, vii. §1, “Hanc divinitatem, vel, ut sic dixerim deitatem: nam et hoc verbo uti jam nostros non piget, ut de Graeco expressius transferant id quod illi θόηαappellant.”
σμτκς “bodilywise, corporeally.” Not ἀωάω as in the λγςbefore the Incarnation, but in His glorified body σμ τςδξςατῦ Php_3:21. Chrysostom draws attention to the accuracy of the expression, μ νμσςΘὸ σγελῖθι ὡ ἐ σμτ.
This interpretation, which is that adopted by most modern commentators, is the only one tenable, but many others have been suggested. Theophylact and Oecumenius took the word to mean “essentially,” οσωῶ, i.e. not merely as an influence, as in the saints or as in the prophets. So Calvin, Beza, and, more recently, Olshausen and Usteri. But the word cannot have this meaning.
Augustine (Epist. 149) understands it to mean “really” not “typically,” “vere non umbratice,” not “umbratiliter,” as in the temple made with hands; and so many moderns (including Bengel and Bleek), comparing ver. 17, where σμ is contrasted with σι. But there the idea is that of a body which cast a shadow, and the passage does not justify our rendering the adverb “really.”
Others, again, understanding πήωαof the Church, take σμτκςto mean, “so that the Church is related to Him as His body” (Baumgarten-Crusius, al.), thus making the body of Christ dwell in Christ, instead of Christ in the body.
10. κὶἐτ ἐ ατ ππηωέο. “And ye are in Him made full.” Alford, Ellicott, and Lightfoot render, “ye are in Him, made full,” regarding the clause as containing two predications. But the connexion seems to require the fact to be emphasised, that it is “in Him” that the ππηωέο ενιrests; for on this depends the inference that nothing more is lacking in our relation to God. The ππηωέο obviously corresponds with the πήωα Christ is ππηωέο: ye being in Him share in His πήωα and are therefore yourselves ππηωέο. Compare Joh_1:16, ἐ τῦπηώαο ατῦἡεςπνε ἐάοε: Eph_3:9, ἴαπηωῆεεςπντ πήωατῦΘο, also ibid. 4:13 and 1:23.
ὃ ἐτν So אA C K L P and nearly all MSS. with the Latin e f g Vulg. and Chrys., Theodoret, al. But B D G 47* with d have ὅἐτν perhaps a correction made on the supposition that ατ referred to πήωα or by oversight c was lost before e c. Lachmann adopts it, placing κὶto ἐ ατ in a parenthesis. The image, however, would be quite confused if the πήωαwere represented as the head; ἡκφλ is always Christ. Besides, we should be obliged to refer ἐ ὧalso to πήωα and this would not yield any tolerable sense. Ewald, adopting ὅἑτν takes it as= “scilicet,” comparing 1:24, 27 and 3:17; but this would require τ κφλ.
ἡκφλ πσςἀχ κὶἐοσα. He is the head of all those angelic powers to whose mediation the false teachers would teach you to seek. As they are subordinate to Christ, ye have nothing to expect from them which is not given you in full completeness in Christ.
11. ἐ ὧκὶπρεμθτ. “In whom also ye were (not ‘are,’ as AV.) circumcised.” “Ye have received the circumcision of the heart, by which ye have put off the whole body of the flesh, and therefore ye have no need of the symbolical circumcision of the flesh.”
The aorists point to the time of their reception into the Christian Church by baptism.
πρτμ, “with a circumcision,” not “the circumcision.”
ἀερπιτ, “not wrought by hands,” not physical: cf. Mar_14:58; 2Co_5:1; and Eph_2:11, where we have the other side of the contrast, ολγμνιἀρβσί ὑὸτςλγμνςπρτμ ἐ σριχιοοήο. The idea of spiritual circumcision is frequent in the O.T.; see note on the passage in Eph. In St. Paul, compare Rom_2:28; Php_3:3. At first sight it might appear from this clause that the Colossians had been tempted like the Galatians to submit to circumcision. But in that case we should find, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, some direct condemnation of the practice; whereas in 16-23 there is no reference to it. Possibly the allusion here is to some claim to superiority on the part of the false teachers.
ἐ τ ἀεδσι ἐ specifies that in which the πρτμ consisted. The substantive ἀέδσςhas not been found in any earlier writer (for the verb, see ver. 15). It expresses a complete putting off and laying aside, and was probably chosen with reference to the figure of circumcision. The connexion requires it to be understood passively, not “ye have put off,” but “was put off from you.”
τῦσμτςτςσρό, i.e. “the body which consists in the flesh,” “the fleshly body,” so that we are no more ἐ τ σρι(Rom_7:5, Rom_7:8:8, Rom_7:9). The change is ideally represented as complete, which it is in principle.
Some expositors take σμ in the sense of “mass, totality” (Calvin, Grotius, al.); but this is against N.T. usage, and does not agree so well with the context, the images in which are connected with the body, “buried, raised.” The expression σμ τςσρό, 1:22, has a different meaning.
The Rec. Text after σμτςadds τνἁατῶ, with א Dbc K L and most MSS., Syr., Chrys., etc.
The words are absent from א A B C D* G P some good cursives, Old Lat. Vulg., Boh., etc. They are clearly a gloss.
ἐ τ πρτμ τῦΧιτῦ The simplest and most natural interpretation is: “the circumcision which belongs to Christ, and is brought about by union with Him,” in contrast to the circumcision of Moses and of the patriarchs. Thus it is nearly equivalent to “Christian circumcision,” but expresses the idea that the source of this circumcision is in Christ.
Some commentators have taken Χιτῦas the genitive of the object, the thought being supposed to be that in the circumcision of Christ we are circumcised. So Schö “Circumcisio Christi qui se nostri causa sponte legi subjecit, tam efficax fuit in omnes homines, ut nulla amplius circumcisione carnis opus sit, praecipue quum in locum illius baptismus a Christo surrogatus sit.” This is not only without support from Scripture analogy, but is foreign to the context, in which the circumcision spoken of is ἀερπίτς The baptism mentioned in ver. 12, in which we are buried with Him, is our baptism. Soden also takes Χιτῦas an objective genitive, understanding, however, πρτμ in the sense of ἀέδσςτῦσμτςτςσρό just specified, which echoes 1:22.
Chrysostom and Theophylact understand the genitive as subj