Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 2:8 - 2:8
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Col_2:8. Be upon your guard, lest there shall be some one carrying you, away as a prey. In that case, how grievously would what I have just been impressing upon your hearts, in Col_2:6-7, be rendered fruitless!
The future ἔσται after μή (comp. Heb_3:12) has arisen from the apprehension that the case may yet actually occur. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 451 A; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 139 f.; Ellendt·, Lex. Soph. II. p. 104. Comp. also on Gal_4:11.
As to the participle with the article, comp. on Gal_1:7 : τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες .
Respecting συλαγωγεῖν , belonging to the later Greek, see Eustath. ad Il. v. p. 393, 52. Very inaccurately rendered by the Vulgate: decipiat. In Aristaen. ii. 22, joined with οἶκον , it means to rob; and is so taken here by Hilary, Chrysostom, Theodoret ( ἀποσυλᾶν τὴν πίστιν ), Theophylact ( τὸν νοῦν ), Luther, Wolf, and many others, including Baumgarten-Crusius. But the stronger sense of the word praedam abigere (Heliod. x. 35; Nicet. Ann. 5, p. 96 D) is in keeping with the verb of the previous exhortation, περιπατεῖτε , as well as with the purposely chosen peculiar expression in itself, which is more significant than the classical συλᾶν or συλεύειν , and serves vividly to illustrate the idea of the seduction, through which one falls under extraneous power, as respects its disgracefulness.
διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας κ . κενῆς ἀπάτης ] through philosophy and empty deceit. It is to be observed that neither the preposition nor the article is repeated before κενῆς (see Kühner, II. 1, pp. 476, 528; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 86 [E. T. 100]), because with καὶ κεν . ἀπατ . there is added no further element different from τῆς φιλοσοφ . (in opposition to Hofmann), but only that which the philosophy in its essence is; it is empty deception, that is, having no real contents; the πιθανολογία (Col_2:4), with which it is presented, is a κενεαγορία (Plat. Rep. p. 607 B), and κενολογία (Plut. Mor. p. 1069 C). On the idea of κενός (1Co_15:14; Eph_5:6), comp. Dem. 821. 11.: κενώτατον πάντων λόγων λέγουσι , and on ἀπάτη , Plat. Soph. p. 260 C: ὄντος δέ γε ψεύδους ἔστιν ἀπάτη …, καὶ μὴν ἀπάτης οὔσης εἰδώλων τε καὶ εἰκόνων ἤδη καὶ φαντασίας πάντα ἀνάγκη μεστὰ εἶναι . The φιλοσοφία , however, against which Paul utters his warning, is not philosophy generally and in itself,—a view at variance with the addition κ . κενῆς ἀπατ . closely pertaining to it, however much the wisdom of the world in its degeneracy (comp. Herm. gottesd. Alterth. § 12; and Culturgesch. d. Griech. u. Röm. I. p. 236 ff., II. p. 132), as experience was conversant with its phenomena in that age,[87] may have manifested itself to the apostle as foolishness when compared with the wisdom of the gospel (1Co_1:18 ff; 1Co_2:6). Rather, he has in view (comp. Col_2:18) the characteristic speculation, well known to his readers, which engaged attention in Colossae and the surrounding district,[88] and consisted of a Gnostic theosophy mixed up with Judaism (Essenism). This is, on account of its nature directed to the supersensuous and its ontological character, correctly designated by the term philosophy in general, apart from its relation to the truth, which is signalized by the κ . κενῆς ἀπάτης appended.[89] (Plat. Def. p. 414 C: τῆς τῶν ὌΝΤΕΝ ἈΕῚ ἘΠΙΣΤΉΜΗς ὌΡΕΞΙς · ἝΞΙς ΘΕΩΡΗΤΙΚῊ ΤΟῦ ἈΛΗΘΟῦς , Πῶς ἈΛΗΘΈς ). Possibly it was also put forward by the false teachers themselves expressly under this designation (comp. the Sophists as the ΦΆΣΚΟΝΤΕς ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΕῖΝ , Xen. Mem. i. 2. 19; and οἰόμενοι πάντʼ εἰδέναι , in i. 4. 1). The latter is the more probable, since Paul uses the word only in this passage. Comp. Bengel: “quod adversarii jactabant esse philosophiam et sapientiam (Col_2:23), id Paulus inanem fraudem esse dicit.” The nature of this philosophy is consequently to be regarded as Judaistic-Oriental;[90] we are under no necessity to infer from the word φιλοσοφία a reference to Greek wisdom, as Grotius did, suggesting the Pythagorean (Clemens Alexandrinus thought of the Epicureans, and Tertullian of such philosophers as Paul had to do with at Athens). The idea that the “sacrarum literarum earumque recte interpretandarum scientia” (Tittmann, de vestigiis Gnosticor. in N. T. frustra quaesitis, p. 86 ff.) is meant, is opposed, not to the word in itself, but to the marks of heretical doctrine in our Epistle, and to the usage of the apostle, who never so designates the O. T. teaching and exposition, however frequently he speaks of it; although Philo gives it this name (see Loesner, Obss. p. 364), and Josephus (see Krebs, p. 236) applies it to the systems of Jewish sects, and indeed the Fathers themselves apply it to the Christian doctrine (Suicer, Thes. s.v.); see Grimm on 2Ma_1:1, p. 298 f.
κατὰ τ . παράδ . τ . ἀνθρ .] might be—and this is the common view—closely joined with ἈΠΆΤΗς (Winer, p. 128 f. [E. T. 169]). But the Οὐ ΚΑΤᾺ ΧΡΙΣΤΌΝ would not suit this connection, since ἈΠΆΤΗ is already in itself a definite and proper idea, in association with which a ΚΑΤᾺ ΧΡΙΣΤΌΝ would be inconceivable; whereas the figurative συλαγωγεῖν still admits also the negative modal statement ( Οὐ ΚΑΤᾺ Χ .) for greater definiteness. Accordingly ΚΑΤᾺ Τ . ΠΑΡΆΔ . Κ . Τ . Λ . (comp. Steiger, Ellicott) is to be taken as definition of mode to ΣΥΛΑΓΩΓῶΝ . Paul, namely, having previously announced whereby the συλαγωγεῖν takes place, now adds for the still more precise description of that procedure, in order the more effectively to warn his readers against it, that in accordance with which it takes place, i.e. what is the objective regulative standard by which they permit themselves to be guided. He does this positively ( κατὰ τὴν … κόσμου ) and negatively ( κ . οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν ). The genitive ΤῶΝ ἈΝΘΡ . is to be explained: ἫΝ ΠΑΡΈΛΑΒΕ ΠΑΡᾺ ΤῶΝ ἈΝΘΡ . (comp. 2Th_3:6), and ΤῶΝ denotes the category, the traditio humana as such, opposed to the divine revelation. Comp. Mar_7:8. What is meant, doubtless, is the ritual Jewish tradition outside of the Mosaic law (comp. on Mat_15:2), the latter being excluded by τῶν ἀνθρ .; but Paul designates the thing quite generally, according to the genus to which it belongs, as human.
κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ] Parallel of the foregoing: according to the elements of the world, i.e. according to the religious rudiments, with which non-Christian humanity occupies itself. The expression in itself embraces the ritual observances[91] both of Judaism and heathenism, which, in comparison with the perfect religion of Christianity, are only “puerilia rudimenta” (Calvin), as it were the A B C of religion, so that Paul therefore in this case also, where he warns his readers against Judaistic enticing, characterizes the matter according to its category. As to the designation itself and its various interpretations, see on Gal_4:3. Among the latest expositors, Bleek agrees with our view, while Hofmann explains: “because it (the philosophy which is described as deceit) permits the material things, of which the created world consists, to form its standard.” See in opposition to this on Gal. l.c. Both expressions, τὴν παράδ . τ . ἀνθρ . and ΤᾺ ΣΤΟΙΧ . Τ . ΚΌΣΜΟΥ , have it as their aim to render apparent the worthlessness and unsuitableness for the Christian standpoint (comp. Gal_4:9). Hence, also, the contrast which, though obvious of itself, is nevertheless emphatic: ΚΑῚ Οὐ ΚΑΤᾺ ΧΡΙΣΤΌΝ . The activity of that ΣΥΛΑΓΩΓΕῖΝ has not Christ for its objective standard; He, in accordance with His divine dignity exalted above everything (see Col_2:9), was to be the sole regulative for all activity in Christian teaching, so that the standard guiding their work should be found in the relation of dependence upon Him; but instead of this the procedure of the συλαγωγῶν allows human tradition, and those non-Christian rudiments which the Christian is supposed to have long since left behind, to serve as his rule of conduct! How unworthy it is, therefore, to follow such seduction!
[87] Comp. Luther’s frequent denunciations of philosophy, under which he had present to his mind its degeneracy in the Aristotelian scholasticism.
[88] Comp. also Calovius. The latter rightly remarks how ἀφιλοσόφως and ἀθεολόγως men would proceed, who should regard philosophical and theological truth as opposites; and points out that if Greek philosophy do not teach the doctrine of eternal life and its attainment, it is not a κενὴ ἀπάτη , but an imperfectio. Fathers of the Church also, as e.g. Clemens Al. (comp. Spiess, Logos spermat. p. 341), aptly distinguish philosophy itself from the phenomena of its abuse. The latter are philosophy also, but not in accordance with the truth of the conception.
[89] These words κ . κεν . ἀπ ., characterizing the philosophy meant, are therefore all the less to be regarded, with Holtzmann, as a tautological insertion; and it is mere arbitrariness to claim the words κατὰ τ . παράδ . τῶν ἀνθρώπ . for the Synoptical Gospels (Mat_15:2 f.); as if παράδοσις (comp. especially Gal_1:14) were not sufficiently current in the apostle’s writings.
[90] The speculations of Essenism are also designated as philosophy in Philo. Comp. Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 292.
[91] Calvin well says: “Quid, vocat elementa mundi? Non dubium quin ceremonias; nam continuo post exempli loco speciem unam adducit, circumcisionem scilicet.”