Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 2:18 - 2:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_2:18.[118] Warning against a further danger, with which they were threatened on the part of these false teachers.
μηδείς ] not different from μήτις in Col_2:16, as if the latter emphasized the verb and the former the subject (Hofmann). This would be correct, if in Col_2:16 it were μὴ οὖν κρινέτω τις ὑμᾶς . Comp. on μήτις , Col_2:8, and on μηδείς , Col_2:4. Moreover, the words cannot be regarded (with Holtzmann) as a duplicate proceeding from the interpolator, especially as they contain a new warning, and in such a peculiar form ( καταβραβ .).
καταβραβευέτω ] Let no one deprive you of the prize. καταβραβεύειν , which is not a Cilician word (Jerome; see, on the contrary, Eustath. ad Il. i. 93. 33: καταβραβεύει αὐτὸν , ὥς φασιν οἱ παλαιοί ), is only now preserved among ancient Greek authors in Dem. c. Mid. 544, ult.: ἐπιστάμεθα Στράτωνα ὑπὸ Μειδίου καταβραβευθέντα καὶ πὰντα πὰντα τὰ δίκαια ἀτιμωθέντα , where it expresses the taking away of victory in a judicial suit, and the procuring of a sentence of condemnation, and that in the form of the conception: to bring it about to the injury of some one, that not he, but another, shall receive the prize from the βραβεύς . Midias had bribed the judges. The κατά intimates that the prize was due to the person concerned, although it has been in a hostile spirit (not merely unrighteously, which would be παραβραβεύειν ,[119] Plut. Mor. p. 535 C; Polyb. xxiv. 1. 12) withdrawn from him and adjudged to another. The right view substantially, though not recognising the distinction from παραβραβ ., is taken by Chrysostom ( παραβραβευθῆναι γάρ ἐστιν , ὅταν παρʼ ἑτέρων μὲν ἡ νίκη , παρʼ ἐτέρων δὲ τὸ βραβεῖον ) and Theophylact, also Suidas: τὸ ἄλλου ἀγωνιζομένου ἄλλον στεφανοῦσθαι λέγει ὁ ἀπόστολος καταβραβεύεσθαι . Comp. also Zonaras, ad Concil. Laod. can. 35, p. 351: τὸ μὴ τὸν νικήσαντα ἀξιοῦν τοῦ βραβείου , ἀλλʼ ἑτέρῳ διδόναι αὐτὸ ἀδικουμένου τοῦ νικήσαντος . The conception is: (1) To the readers as true believers belongs the Messianic prize of victory,—this is the assumption upon which the expression is based; (2) The false teachers desire to deprive them of the prize of victory and to give it to others, namely, to themselves and their adherents, and that through their service of angels, etc.; (3) Just as little, however, as in the case of the κρίνειν in Col_2:16, ought the readers to give heed to, or let themselves be led astray by, this hostile proceeding of the καταβραβεύειν , which is based upon subjective vanity and is (Col_2:19) separation from Christ and His body,—this is implied in the imperatives. Consequently, the view of Jerome, ad Aglas. p. 10, is not in substance erroneous, although only approximately corresponding to the expression: “Nemo adversus vos praemium accipiat;” Erasmus is substantially correct: “praemium, quod sectari coepistis, vobis intervertat;” comp. Calvin, Estius, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, and others; while the Vulgate (seducat), Luther (“to displace the goal”), and others content themselves with a much less accurate statement of the sense, and Bengel imports into the passage the sense of usurped false leading and instruction, as Beza similarly took it.[120] The ΒΡΑΒΕῖΟΝ , to which ΚΑΤΑΒΡ . refers, is not Christian liberty (Grotius, who explains it praemium exigere), nor yet: “the honour and prize of the true worship of God” (de Wette), but, in accordance with the standing apostolic conception (comp. Php_3:14; 1Co_9:24): the bliss of the Messianic kingdom, the incorruptible στέφανος (1Co_9:25), the ΣΤΕΦ . Τῆς ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗς (2Ti_4:8), Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς (1Pe_5:4), Τῆς ΖΩῆς (Jam_1:12); comp. 2Ti_2:5. With reference to the ΒΡΑΒΕῖΟΝ , Elsner, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, Steiger, and others, including Bähr, Böhmer, Reiche, Huther, and Bleek, following Photius in Oecumenius ( ΜΗΔΕῚς ὙΜᾶς ΚΑΤΑΚΡΙΝΈΤΩ ), have taken ΚΑΤΑΒΡΑΒ . in the sense of to condemn, parallel to the κρινέτω in Col_2:16, or to refuse salvation to (Hofmann). This rendering is not, indeed, to be rejected on linguistic grounds, since Hesychius and Suidas both quote the signification κατακρίνειν in the case of ΚΑΤΑΒΡΑΒΕΎΕΙΝ ; but it cannot be justified by proofs adduced, and it is decidedly in opposition to the context through the following ΘΈΛΩΝ Κ . Τ . Λ ., which presupposes not a judgment of the opponents, but an action, something practical, which, through their perverse religious attitude, they would fain accomplish.
θέλων ] sc. καταβραβεύειν ὑμᾶς : while he desires to do this, would willingly accomplish it (comp. Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. ii. 97) by humility, etc. So rightly Theodoret ( τοῦτο τοίνυν συνεβούλευον ἐκεῖνοι γίνεσθαι ταπεινοφροσύνῃ δῆθεν κεχρημένοι ), Theophylact ( ΘΈΛΟΥΣΙΝ ὙΜᾶς ΚΑΤΑΒΡΑΒΕΎΕΙΝ ΔΙᾺ ΤΑΠΕΙΝΟΦΡ .), Photius in Oecumenius, Calvin, Casaubon, and others, including Huther and Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 322 [E. T. 376]. The “languidum et frigidum,” which Reiche urges against this view, applies at the most only in the event of καταβραβ . being explained as to condemn; and the accusation of incorrectness of sense (Hofmann) is only based upon an erroneous explanation of the subsequent ἐν ταπεινοφρ . κ . τ . λ . The interpretation adopted by others: taking delight in humility, etc. (Augustine, Castalio, Vatablus, Estius, Michaelis, Loesner, and others, including Storr, Flatt, Bähr, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, Hofmann, and Hilgenfeld), is based upon the extremely unnecessary assumption of an un-Greek imitation of çîõ á , such as occurs, indeed, in the LXX. (1Sa_18:22; 2Sa_15:26; 1Ki_10:9; 2Ch_9:8; Psa_146:10), but not in the N. T.; for in Mat_27:43, ΘΈΛΕΙΝ is used with the accusative, comp. on Rom_7:21. Moreover, in the O. T. passages the object of the delight is almost invariably (the only exception being Psa_147:10) a person. Even in the Apocrypha that abnormal mode of expression does not occur. Others, again, hold that it is to be joined in an adverbial sense to καταβρ . It would then (see Erasmus, Annot.) have to be rendered cupide or studiose (Plat. Theaet. p. 143 D; and see Reisig, Conject. p. 143 f.), or unconstrained, voluntarily, equivalent to ἐθελοντί , ἐθελοντήν , ἐθελοντής (Plat. Symp. p. 183 A, very frequent in Homer, Soph. Phil. 1327, Aesch. Choeph. 19. 790, and the passages from Xenophon quoted by Sturz, Lex. II. p. 21), which sense, here certainly quite unsuitable, has been transformed at variance with linguistic usage into the idea: “hoc munus sibi a nullo tributum exercens” (Beza), or: unwarrantably (Böhmer, comp. Steiger), or of his own choice (Luther, who, like Ewald, couples it with ἘΜΒΑΤΕΎΩΝ ), or: arbitrarily (Ewald), or: capriciously (Reiche), etc.; consequently giving it the sense of ἙΚΏΝ , ΑὐΤΟΘΕΛΉς , ΑὐΤΟΚΈΛΕΥΣΤΟς , or ΑὐΤΟΓΝΏΜΩΝ . Even Tittmann, Synon. p. 131, comes at length to such an ultro, erroneously quoting Herod, 9:14, where ΘΈΛΩΝ must be taken as in Plat. Theaet. l.c.
ἐν ταπεινοφρ . κ . θρησκ . τῶν ἀγγέλ .] ἐν is not propter, which is supposed to have the meaning: because ΤΑΠΕΙΝΟΦΡ . Κ . Τ . Λ . is necessary to salvation (Reiche); nor does it denote the condition in which the καταβραβεύειν takes place (Steiger, Huther); but, in keeping with the θέλων , it is the means by which the purpose is to be attained: by virtue of humility and worshipping of angels. Thereby he wishes to effect that the βραβεῖον shall be withdrawn from you (and given to himself and his followers). τ . ἀλλέλων is the genitive of the object (comp. Wis_14:27; Herodian, iv. 8. 17; Clem. Cor. I. 45; see also Grimm on 4Ma_5:6, and the passages from Josephus in Krebs, p. 339), and belongs only to θρησκ ., not to ταπεινοφρ . That the latter, however, is not humility in the proper sense, but is, viewed from the perverse personal standpoint of the false teachers, a humility in their sense only, is plain from the context (see below, εἰκῆ φυσιούμ . κ . τ . λ .), although irony (Steiger, Huther) is not to be found in the word. Paul, namely, designates the thing as that, for which the false teachers held it themselves and desired it to be held by others, and this, indeed, as respects the disposition lying at the root of it, which they sought to exhibit ( ἘΝ ΤΑΠΕΙΝΟΦΡ .), and as respects the abnormal religious phenomenon manifested among them ( Κ . ΘΡΗΣΚ . Τ . ἈΓΓΈΛΩΝ ); and then proceeds to give a deterrent exposure of both of these together according to their true character in a theoretical ( Ἃ … ἘΜΒΑΤ .) and in a moral ( ΕἸΚῆ ΦΥΣ … ΤῊΝ ΚΕΦΑΛῊΝ ) respect. How far the false teachers bore themselves as ταπεινόφρονες , is correctly defined by Theodoret: λέγοντες , ὡς ἀόρατος ὁ τῶν ὅλων Θεὸς , ἀνέφικτος τε καὶ ἀκατάληπτος , καὶ προσήκει διὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τὴν θείαν εὐμένειαν πραγματεύεσθαι , so that they thus regarded man as too insignificant in the presence of the divine majesty to be able to do without[121] the mediation of angels, which they sought to secure through θρησκεία (comp. 4Ma_4:11), thereby placing the merit of Christ (Rom_5:2) in the background. It is differently explained by Chrysostom and Theophylact (comp. also Photius in Oecumenius): the false teachers had declared the majesty of the Only-Begotten to be too exalted for lowly humanity to have access through Him to the Father, and hence the need of the mediation of angels for that purpose. In opposition to this view it may be urged, that the very prominence so frequently and intentionally given to the majesty of Christ in our Epistle, and especially as above the angels, rather goes to show that they had depreciated the dignity of Christ. Reiche and Ewald (comp. Hofmann’s interpretation below) find the ταπεινοφροσύνη in the ἀφειδία σώματος of Col_2:23, where, however, the two aberrations are adduced separately from one another, see on Col_2:23. Proofs of the existence of the worship of angels in the post-apostolic church are found in Justin, Ap. I. 6, p. 56,[122] Athenagoras, and others; among the Gnostic heretics (Simonians, Cainites): Epiph. Haer. xx. 2; Tertullian, praescr. 33; Iren. Haer. i. 31. 2; and with respect to the worshipping of angels in the Colossian region Theodoret testifies: ἔμεινε δὲ τοῦτο τὸ πάθος ἐν τῇ Φρυγίᾳ καὶ Πισιδίᾳ μέχρι πολλοῦ · οὗ δὴ χάριν καὶ συνελθοῦσα σύνοδος ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ τῆς Φρυγίας (A.D. 364, can. 35) νόμῳ κεκώλυκε τὸ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις προσεύχεσθαι , καὶ μέχρι δὲ τοῦ νῦν εὐκτήρια τοῦ ἁγίου Μιχαὴλ παρʼ ἐκείνοις καὶ τοῖς ὁμόροις ἐκείνων ἐστὶν ἰδεῖν . The Catholic expedients for evading the prohibition of angel-worship in our passage (as also in the Concil. Laod., Mansi, II. p. 568) may be seen especially in Cornelius a Lapide, who understands not all angel-worship, but only that which places the angels above Christ (comp. also Bisping), and who refers the Laodicean prohibition pointing to a “ κεκρυμμένη εἰδδωλολαατρεία (“ ὃτι οὐ δεῖ Χριστιανοὺς ἐγκαταλείπειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἀπιέναι καὶ ἁγγέλους ὀνομάζειν ” κ . τ . λ .), in accordance with the second Nicene Council, only to the cultus latriae, not duliae, consequently to actual adoration, not τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν . In opposition to the words as they stand (for θρησκεία with the genitive of the subject would necessarily be the cultus, which the angels present to God, 4Ma_5:6; 4Ma_5:12; Joseph. Antt. xii. 5. 4; comp. Act_26:5), and also in opposition to the context (see Col_2:19), several have taken τῶν ἀγγέλων as the genitive of the subject, and have explained it of a religious condition, which desired to be like that of the angels, e.g. Luther: “spirituality of the angels,” comp. Melanchthon, Schoettgen (“habitus aliquis angelicus”), Wolf, Dalmer. Nevertheless, Hofmann, attempting a more subtle definition of the sense, has again taken τῶν ἀγγέλων as genitive of the subject, and joined with it not only θρησκείᾳ , but also ταπεινοφροσύνῃ . The ταπεινοφροσύνη of the angels, namely, consists in their willingly keeping within the bounds assigned to them as spirits, and not coveting that which man in this respect has beyond them, namely, what belongs to the corporeal world. And the θρησκεία of the angels is a self-devotion to God, in which, between them and Him, no other barrier exists than that between the Creator and His creatures. That ταπεινοφροσύνη and this θρησκεία man makes into virtue on his part, when he, although but partially, renounces that which belongs to Him in distinction from the angels ( ταπεινοφρ .), and, as one who has divested himself as much as possible of his corporeality, presents himself adoringly to God in such measure as he refrains from what was conferred upon him for bodily enjoyment. I do not comprehend how, on the one hand, the apostle could wrap up the combinations of ideas imputed to him in words so enigmatical, nor, on the other, how the readers could, without the guidance of Hofmann, extract them out of these words. The entire exposition is a labyrinth of imported subjective fancies. Paul might at least have written ἐν ἐγκρατείᾳ ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι (or καθʼ ὁμοίωσιν , or καθʼ ὁμοιότητα ) τῆς ταπεινοφροσύνης καὶ θρησκείας τῶν ἀγγέλων ! Even this would still have been far enough from clear, but it would at least have contained the point and a hint as to its interpretation. See, besides, in opposition to Hofmann, Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 193 f.
ἃ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων ] Subordinate to the θέλων κ . τ . λ . as a warning modal definition to it: entering upon what he has beheld, i.e. instead of concerning himself with what has been objectively given (Col_2:19), entering the subjective domain of visions with his mental activity,—by which is indicated the mystico-theosophic occupation of the mind with God and the angels,[123] so that ἑώρακεν (comp. Tert. c. Marc. v. 19) denotes not a seeing with the eyes, but a mental beholding,[124] which belonged to the domain of the ΦΑΝΤΆΖΕΣΘΑΙ , in part, doubtless, also to that of visionary ecstasy (comp. Act_2:17; Rev_9:17; ὍΡΑΜΑ in Act_9:10; Act_9:12; Act_10:3; 2Ch_9:29, et al.; Luk_1:22). This reference must have been intelligible to the readers from the assertions put forth by the false teachers,[125] but the failure to observe it induced copyists, at a very early date, to add a negative (sometimes μή and sometimes οὐ ) before ἑώρακεν . Ἐμβατεύειν (only used here in the N. T.; but see Wetstein, also Reisig, ad Oed. Col. praef. p. xxxix.), with accusative of the place conceived as object (Kühner, II. 1, p. 257), also with the genitive, with the dative, and with εἰς , means to step upon, as e.g. νῆσον , Aesch. Pers. 441; πόλιν , Eur. El. 595; γῆν , Jos_19:49; also with reference to a mental domain, which is trodden by investigation and other mental activity, as Philo, de plant. Noë, p. 225 C, et al.; see Loesner, p. 369 f.; 2Ma_2:30; comp. also Nemes. de nat. hom. p. 64, ed. Matth.: οὐρανὸν ἐμβατεύει τῇ θεωρίᾳ , but not Xen. Conv. iv. 27, where, with Zeunius, ἐμαστεύετε ought to be read. Phavorinus: ἐμβατεῦσαι · τὸ ἔνδον ἐξερευνῆσαι ἢ σκοπῆσαι . It is frequently used in the sense of seizing possession (Dem. 894. 7; Eur. Heracl. 876; Schleusner, Thes. II. 332; Bloomfield, Gloss. in Aesch. Pers. p. 146 f.). So Budaeus and Calvin (se ingerens), both with the reading μή , also Huther (establishing himself firmly in the creations of fancy); still the context does not suggest this, and, when used in this sense, ἐμβατ . is usually coupled with εἰς (Dem. 894. 7, 1085. 24, 1086. 19; Isa_9:3, et al.; 1Ma_12:25). In the reading of the Recepta, ἃ μὴ ἑώρ ., the sense amounts either to: entering into the unseen transcendental sphere,[126] wherein the assumption would be implied that the domain of sense was the only field legitimately open, which would be unsuitable (2Co_5:7; 2Co_13:12); or to: entering into things, which (although he dreams that he has seen them, yet) he has not seen—a concealed antithetical reference, which Paul, in order to be intelligible, must have indicated. The thought, in the absence of the negative, is not weak (de Wette), but true, in characteristic keeping with the perverseness of theosophic fancies (in opposition to Hofmann’s objection), and representing the actual state of the case, which Paul could not but know. According to Hofmann, the ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν which he reads is to be taken, not with ἐμβατεύων , but with what goes before: of which, nevertheless, he has seen nothing (and, consequently, cannot imitate it). This is disposed of, apart even from the incorrect inference involved in it,[127] by the preposterousness of Hofmann’s exposition of the ταπεινοφροσύνη κ . θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγ ., which the connection, hit upon by him, of εἰκῆ with ἐμβατεύων (“an investigation, which results in nothing”), also falls to the ground.
εἰκῆ φυσιούμ . κ . τ . λ ., and then καὶ οὐ κρατῶν κ . τ . λ ., are both subordinate to the ἃ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων , and contain two modal definitions of it fraught with the utmost danger.
εἰκῆ φυσιούμ .] for the entering upon what was seen did not rest upon a real divine revelation, but upon a conceited, fanciful self-exaggeration. Τὸ δέ γε φυσιούμενος τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ ἐναντίον οὐκ ἔστι · τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἐσκήπτοντο , τοῦ δὲ τύφου τὸ πάθος ἀκριβῶς περιέκειντο , Theodoret. On εἰκῆ , temere, i.e. without ground, comp. Mat_5:22; Rom_13:4; Plat. Menex. p. 234 C; Xen. Cyrop. ii. 2. 22. It places the vanity, that is, the objective groundlessness of the pride, in contradistinction to their presumptuous fancies, emphatically in the foreground. Even if ἐμβατ . is not taken absolutely with Hofmann, we may not join it with εἰκῆ (in opposition to Steiger, de Wette, Reiche; Böhmer is doubtful), since it is not the uselessness (in this sense εἰκῆ would require to be taken, 1Co_15:2; Gal_3:4; Gal_4:11) of the ἐμβατεύειν ἃ ἑώρ . (or ἃ μὴ ἑώρ .), but this ἐμβατεύειν in and of itself, that forms the characteristic perversity in the conduct of those people—a perversity which is set forth by εἰκῆ φυσιούμ . κ . τ . λ ., and in Col_2:19 as immoral and antichristian.
ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκ . αὐτοῦ ] becoming puffed up by (as operative principle) the reason of his flesh. This is the morally determined intellectual faculty in its character and activity as not divinely regulated, in which unennobled condition (see on Eph_4:23) it is the servant, not of the divine πνεῦμα , whose organ it is designed to be, but of the materio-physical human nature, of the σάρξ as the seat of the sin-power, and is governed by its lusts instead of the divine truth. Comp. Rom_1:21; Rom_1:28; Rom_4:1; Rom_6:19; Rom_7:14; Rom_12:2; Eph_4:17 f.; see also Kluge in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1871, p. 329 ff. The νοῦς does not belong to the essence of the σάρξ (in opposition to Holsten); but, be it observed, the matter is so represented that the σάρξ of the false teacher, in accordance with its dominant superiority, appears personified (comp. Rom_8:6), as if the νοῦς , influenced by it, and therewith serviceable to it, were its own. In virtue of this non-free and, in its activity, sinfully-directed reason, the man, who is guided by it, is ἀνόητος (Gal_3:1; Gal_3:3; Tit_3:3), loses his moral judgment (Rom_12:2), falls into ἐπιθυμίας ἀνοήτους (1Ti_6:9), and withstands Christian truth and purity as κατεφθαρμένος τὸν νοῦν (2Ti_3:8; 2Co_11:3), and ἐσκοτισμένος τῇ διανοίᾳ (Eph_4:18).
The puffing up of the persons in question consisted in this, that with all their professed and apparent humility they, as is commonly the case with mystic tendencies, fancied that they could not be content with the simple knowledge and obedience of the gospel, but were capable of attaining a special higher wisdom and sanctity. It is well said by Theophylact: πῶς γὰρ οὐ σαρκικοῦ νοὸς κ . παχέος τὸ ἀθετῆσαι τὰ ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ λεχθέντα , Joh_3:16-17; Joh_3:19; Joh_10:26 f., καὶ μυρία ὅσα !
[118] See upon ver. 18, Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 277 ff.
[119] With which Theodoret confounds it ( ἀδίκως βραβεύειν ); he makes it the unrighteous awarding of the prize of victory: ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν καὶ οἱ τὰς νομικὰς παρατηρήσεις τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ παραμιγνῦντες ἀπὸ τῶν κρειττόνων αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὰ ἐλάττω αετέφερον , εἰκότως ἔφη · μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω .
[120] “Nemo adversum vos rectoris partes sibi ultro sumat.” He starts from the common use of βραβεύειν in the sense of regere ac moderari (see Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 404). Comp. on Col_3:15. But neither the passage of Dem. l.c., nor the testimony of the Greek Fathers, of Suidas, Eustathius, and Zonaras, nor the analogy of παραβραβεύειν , would justify the adoption of this sense in the case of the compound καταβραβ .
[121] Compare Augustine, Conf. x. 42: “Quem invenirem, qui me reconciliaret tibi? Abeundum mihi fuit ad angelos? Multi conantes ad te redire, neque per se ipsos valentes, sicut audio, tentaverunt haec, et inciderunt in desiderium curiosarum visionum, et digni habiti sunt illusionibus.” The (false) ταπεινοφροσύνη was the subjective source of their going astray to angel-worship.
[122] Hasselbach gives substantially the right interpretation of the passage in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 329 ff.
[123] This fanciful habit could not but be fostered and promoted by the Jewish view, according to which the appearances of angels were regarded as φαντάσματα (Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. 1, p. 153, ed. 4).
[124] Ewald regards ἑώρακεν as more precisely defined by ἐν ταπεινοφρ . κ . τ . λ ., as if it ran ἅ ἐν ταπεινοφρ . κ . τ . λ . ἑώρακεν : “while he enters arbitrarily upon that, which he has seen in humility and angel-worship (consequently has not actually himself experienced and known), and desires to teach it as something true.” But such a hyperbaton, in the case of the relative, besides obscuring the sense, is without precedent in the N. T. Comp. on ver. 14. Besides, the thought itself is far from clear; and respecting θέλων , see above.
[125] For the sphere of vision of the ἑώρακεν lay not outside of the subjects, but in the hollow mirror of their own fancy. This applies also in opposition to Hilgenfeld, who now (1873, p. 198 f.) properly rejects the μή , but takes ἃ ἑώρ . ἐμβατ . incorrectly: “abiding by the sensuous.” Opposed to this is the very use of the perfect ἑώρ . and the significant expression ἐμβατεύων . The apostle does not<