Commentari biblici

CHAPTER 2

Colossians 2:1. περί] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read ὑπέρ, following A B C D* P א min. But how easily may ὑπέρ have been suggested to the copyists by Colossians 1:24 and Colossians 4:12!

The form ἑώρακαν (Lachm. and Tisch. 7) or ἑόρακαν (Tisch. 8) is more than sufficiently attested by A B C D* א*, etc., to induce its reception in opposition to the usage elsewhere. Respecting this Alexandrian form see Winer, p. 73 [E. T. 90]; and on ἑόρ., Fritzsche, ad Aristoph. Th. 32.

Colossians 2:2. Instead of συμβιβασθέντες, Elzevir has συμβιβασθέντων, in opposition to decisive testimony; an emendation.

πάντα πλοῦτον] A C min. have πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος (so Lachm. Tisch. 7), and are also joined by B א* Clem. with πᾶν πλοῦτος (so Tisch. 8). Here also (comp. Colossians 1:27) the neuter is the original; in thinking of the more common ὁ πλοῦτος the ΠΑΝΤΟ became ΠΑΝΤΑ, in accordance with which πλοῦτον also came to be written. The reading of Tisch. 8 is a restoration of the neuter form after the article had been lost.

Instead of the simple τοῦ Θεοῦ (so Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. 7, Rinck; among modern expositors, Bähr, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald), Elzevir has τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, while Lachm. reads τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ, and Tisch. 8 τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ. Among the numerous various readings, τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ (also adopted by Steiger, Huther, Bleek, Hofmann) is certainly strongly enough attested by B. Hilar, (but without vss.), while the simple τοῦ Θεοῦ has only 37, 67**, 71, 80*, 116, Arm. ed. Venet. in its favour. A C * א, 4, Sahid. Vulg. ms. have τοῦ Θεοῦ πατρὸς (τοῦ) Χ., which Böhmer and Reiche prefer, whilst א** Syr. p. have τ. Θεοῦ καὶ πατρ. τοῦ Χ., and others still, such as Syr. Copt. Chrys. read τ. Θ. πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, and consequently come nearest to the Recepta; but a few authorities, after the mention of God, insert ἐν Χριστῷ, as Clem. Ambrosiaster: τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Χ. Regarding these variations we must judge thus: (1) the far too weak attestation of the bare τοῦ Θεοῦ is decisive against it; (2) the reading of Lachm.: τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ, is to be regarded as the original, from which have arisen as glosses the amplifications τοῦ Θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ Χ.,[77] and τοῦ Θεοῦ πατρ. καὶ τοῦ Χ., as well as the Recepta; (3) the reading τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ arose out of a gloss (ἐν Χριστῷ) written on the margin at ἐν ᾧ, in accordance with Colossians 1:27, which supplanted the original Χριστοῦ; (4) the ἐν Χριστῷ thus introduced was again subsequently eliminated, without, however, the original Χριστοῦ being reinserted, and thus arose the reading of Griesb. τοῦ Θεοῦ, which therefore—and with this accords its late and weak attestation—appears to be merely a half completed critical restoration.

Colossians 2:4. δέ] is wanting in B א*, Tisch. 8; but it was readily omitted by the copyists before the syllable ΛΕ.

μή τις] Lachm. and Tisch. read μηδείς, which, following preponderant codd. (A B C D E P א), is to be preferred.

Colossians 2:7. ἐν τῇ πίστ.] Lachm. and Tisch. have only τῇ πίστει, following B D* min. Vulg. It. Archel. Ambrosiast. Theophyl. Properly; the ἐν was mechanically introduced from the adjoining text.

ἐν αὐτῇ] though suspected by Griesb., and rejected by Tisch. 8 (it is wanting in A C א*, min. Copt. Tol. Archel.), is to be defended. Its omission was easily occasioned by the fact that περισσ. was found to be already accompanied by a more precise definition expressed by ἐν. The ἐν αὐτῷ read by D* א**, 1, Pel. VSS., though only a mechanical repetition of the preceding ἐν αὐτῷ, testifies indirectly to the fact that originally ἐν αὐτῇ was in the text.

Colossians 2:10. ὅζ ἐστιν] Lachm. reads ὅ ἐστιν, following B D E F G Germ. Hilar. A mistaken correction, occasioned by the reference of the preceding ἐν αὐτῷ to τὸ πλήρωμα.

Colossians 2:11. After σώματος Elz. has τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν; an exegetical addition, in opposition to decisive testimony. Comp. Romans 6:6.

Colossians 2:13. The second ὑμᾶς is indeed wanting in Elz., but receives so sufficient attestation through A C K L א*, min. VSS. and Fathers, that its omission must be explained on the ground of its seeming superfluous. B min. Ambr. have ἡμᾶς, which is conformed to the following ἡμῖν. Instead of this ἡμῖν, Elz. has ὑμῖν, in opposition to decisive testimony.

Colossians 2:17. ἅ] Lachm. reads ὅ, following B F G It. Goth. Epiph. Ambrosiast. Aug. To be preferred, inasmuch as the plural was naturally suggested to the copyists by the plurality of the things previously mentioned.

Colossians 2:18. ἃ μὴ ἐώρακεν] μή is wanting in A B D* א*, 17, 28, 67**, Copt. Clar. Germ. codd. in Aug., Or. ed. Tert. ? Lucif. Ambrosiast., while F G have οὐκ. The negation is with justice condemned by Griesb., Steiger, Olshausen, Huther, Ewald; deleted by Tisch. 8 (bracketed by Lachm.), although defended specially by Reiche, whom Hofmann also follows. An addition owing to misapprehension. See the exegetical remarks.

Colossians 2:20. εἰ] Elz. reads εἰ οὖν, in opposition to decisive testimony. An addition for the sake of connecting, after the analogy of Colossians 2:16; Colossians 3:1.

[77] If this reading, relatively so strongly attested, were the original one, it would not be easy to see why it should have been glossed or altered. The original expression must have given rise to dogmatic scruples, and only the description of God as τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ could have done so.

Expressing in a heart-winning way his earnest concern for the salvation of the souls of his readers, Paul introduces (Colossians 2:1-3) what he has to urge upon them in the way of warning against the seduction of false teachers (Colossians 2:4-5), of exhortation to faithfulness (Colossians 2:6-7), and then, again, of warning (Colossians 2:8). He then supports what he has urged by subjoining the relative soteriological instructions and remindings (Colossians 2:9-15), from which he finally draws further special warnings as respects the dangers threatening them on the part of the false teachers (Colossians 2:16-23).

Colossians 2:1. Γάρ] The apostle now confirms in concreto the εἰς ὃ κ. κοπ. ἀγωνιζόμενος κ.τ.λ., which has just been affirmed of himself in general: in proof of that assertion I would have you to know, etc. Hofmann holds erroneously, in consequence of his mistaken explanation of κοπιῶ in Colossians 1:29, that Paul desires to explain why he has said that he is becoming weary over the exertion, etc.

Instead of the more frequent οὐ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν (see on Romans 11:25; Romans 1:13), Paul uses the θέλω ὑμ. εἰδέναι, also in 1 Corinthians 11:3; comp. Php 1:12.

ἡλίκον] what a great, vehement conflict. Paul nowhere else uses this word, which is classical, but does not occur either in the LXX. or in the Apocrypha; in the N. T. it is only found again at Jam 3:5. That by the conflict is meant the internal pressure of solicitude and apprehension, etc. (comp. Colossians 1:29, also Romans 15:30), is plain—when we remember the imprisoned condition of the apostle, who now could not contend outwardly with the false teachers themselves—from Colossians 2:2. It is at the same time self-evident that the wrestling of prayer was an eminent way of conducting this spiritual conflict, without its being necessary to regard Colossians 4:12 as a criterion for determining the sense in our passage.

καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικ.] The neighbouring Laodiceans (Revelation 3:14 ff.) were without doubt exposed to like heretical dangers; hence also the injunction as to the mutual communication of the Epistles, Colossians 4:16.

καὶ ὅσοι κ.τ.λ.] The sense is: and, generally (καί, see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 786. 870) for all to whom I am personally unknown. It adds the entire category, to which the ὑμεῖς and those ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ, both regarded as churches, were reckoned to belong. Comp. Acts 4:6. It is plain from our passage that Paul had not been in Colossae and Laodicea. It is true that Wiggers, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 176, would have ὅσοι κ.τ.λ. understood as referring to a portion of the Colossians and Laodiceans, in which case καί would mean even; but the text itself is decisively opposed to this view by the following αὐτῶν, Colossians 2:2, which, if the ὃσοι κ.τ.λ. to which it refers be not the class in which the readers and Laodiceans were included, would be altogether unsuitable; as, indeed, the bare even does not suffice to give special prominence to a particular portion (we should expect μάλιστα δέ or the like), and the comprehensive ὅσοι withal does not seem accounted for. Erroneous also is the view (held already by Theodoret in the Hypothes. and in the Commentary, though Credner, Einl. § 154, erroneously denies this) of Baronius, Lardner, and David Schultz (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 535 ff.), that the ὅσοι κ.τ.λ. were other than the ὑμεῖς and οἱ ἐν Λαοδικ.; Paul having been personally known to both the latter. The subsequent αὐτῶν is fatal to this theory likewise; and how singularly without reason would it have been, if Paul had designated as the objects of his anxiety, along with two churches of the district which are supposed to have known him personally, all not knowing him personally, without distinction of locality! With how many of the latter were there no such dangers at all existing, as the Colossians and Laodiceans were exposed to! To this falls to be added the fact, that in the entire Epistle there is not a single hint of the apostle having been present in Colossae. See, on the contrary, on Colossians 1:8 and on Colossians 1:23. Comp. Wieseler, Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt. p. 440. According to Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. 1870, p. 245 f., the intimation that Paul was personally unknown to the Colossians betrays the composition of the Epistle at a later, time, when the recollection of his labours there had been already superseded and had vanished from the memory of the churches. As if such a forgetfulness were even conceivable, in presence of the high esteem in which the apostle was held!

That Paul should have been so concerned about the Colossians and Laodiceans, as those who did not know him personally, is natural enough, seeing that they were not in a position to oppose the living impression of the apostle’s personal ministry, and his direct authority, to the heretical seductions. Comp. Colossians 2:5.

ἐν σαρκί] not belonging to ἑωράκασι—in which case it would be a contrast to seeing ἐν πνεύματι (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Baumgarten-Crusius)—joins itself, so as to form one idea, with τὸ πρόσωπον μον (Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 169]). See Colossians 2:5. The addition, which might in itself be dispensed with (comp. Galatians 1:22; 1 Thessalonians 2:17), serves the purpose of concrete representation, without its being necessary to import into it a contrast to the “spiritual physiognomy” (Olshausen), or to the having made acquaintance in a spiritual fashion (Hofmann), in connection with which Estius even discovers a certain ταπείνωσις through a higher estimation of the latter; although generally the idea of a spiritual mode of intercourse, independent of bodily absence, very naturally occasioned the concrete description: my bodily face. There is all the less ground for assigning ἐν σαρκί, as an anticipation of Colossians 2:5, to the hand of the manipulator, and that in such a way as to betray an author who knows the apostle to be already snatched away from the flesh and present in heaven (Holtzmann).

Colossians 2:2. The end aimed at (ἵνα) in this conflict: in order that their hearts may be comforted, viz. practically by the fact, that they are united in love, etc. Accordingly, συμβιβασθ. κ.τ.λ. contains the mode of that comforting, which ensues, when through loving union the evil of heretical division, whether threatening or already rampant, is removed. Most thoughtfully and lovingly Paul designates the concern of his solicitude as παράκλησις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν, not impeaching them on account of the heretical seductions, but making those temptations to be felt as a misfortune, in the presence of which one requires comfort (Vulgate: “ut consolentur”). Chrysostom remarks aptly (comp. Theophylact): ἤδη λοιπὸν σπεύδει καὶ ὠδίνει ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς τὸ δόγμα, οὔτε κατηγορῶν οὔτε ἀπαλλάττων αὐτοὺς κατηγορίας. The explanation which makes παρακαλ. mean, like אמץ (LXX. Deuteronomy 3:28; Job 4:3), to strengthen, confirm (so Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius), is quite opposed to the Pauline usage, according to which it means to exhort (so Luther here), to give consolation (so Hofmann; comp. Bleek), to entreat, to encourage, to comfort; the latter in particular when, as here, it is joined with καρδία. Comp. Colossians 4:8; Ephesians 6:22; 2 Thessalonians 2:17 (also Sir 30:23).

συμβιβασθέντες] referred to the logical subject of the foregoing, i. e. to the persons, of whom αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν was said. See on Ephesians 4:2. It means here not instructi (Vulgate; comp. 1 Corinthians 2:16, and the LXX.), nor yet introduced,[78] which linguistic usage does not permit, but brought together, united, compacti (Colossians 2:19; Ephesians 4:16; Thuc. ii. 29. 5; Herod. i. 74; and see Wetstein and Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 453 f.). In connection therewith, ἐν ἀγάπῃ, which denotes Christian brotherly love, is the moral element, in which the union is to subsist; to which is then added the telic reference of συμβιβασθ. by καὶ εἰς κ.τ.λ.: united in love and for behoof of the full richness, etc., i.e. in order, by that union, to attain the possession of this full richness, which could not be attained, but only hindered, by division and variance, καὶ εἰς is not to be joined with παρακλ. (Storr, Flatt), since the καί rather adds to the ἐν-relation of the συμβιβ. its εἰς-relation, and is therefore merely the simple and, not etiam (Bengel, Hofmann); but not to be explained either as et quidem (Bähr, Böhmer), or by an ἔλθωσι to be supplied (Olshausen permits a choice between the two).

τῆς πληροφ. τῆς συνέσ.] The full certainty of Christian insight is the lofty blessing, the whole riches of which, i.e. its blissful possession as a whole, they are to attain, so that in no element of the σύνεσις and in no mode thereof does there remain any lack of completely undoubting conviction;[79] comp. 1 Thessalonians 1:5; Hebrews 6:11; Hebrews 10:22; Romans 4:21; Romans 14:5. On the conception of πληροφορεῖν, see Bleek on Hebr. II. 2, p. 233 f. As to σύνεσις, intelligence, both theoretical and practical, comp. on Colossians 1:9; that here also what is specifically Christian is meant κατʼ ἐξοχήν, is plain from the context. See the sequel. The cumulative fulness of the description πᾶν τὸ πλ. τ. πληρ. τ. συνέσ. is naturally and earnestly called forth by the consideration of the dangers which threatened the πληροφ. τ. συνέσ. through the attempts of false teachers (Colossians 2:4). Οἶδα, ὃτι πιστεύετε, ἀλλὰ πληροφορηθῆναι ὑμᾶς βούλομαι· οὐκ εἰς τὸν πλοῦτον μόνον, ἀλλʼ εἰς πάντα τὸν πλοῦτον, ἵνα καὶ ἐν πᾶσι καὶ ἐπιτεταμένως πεπληροφορημένοι ἦτε, Chrysostom.

εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κ.τ.λ.] parallel to the preceding εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος κ.τ.λ., and destined to bring in with emphasis the great object of the σύνεσις (the divine counsel of redemption, τὸ μυστήριον, see on Colossians 1:26); so that what was previously set forth at length by εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος τ. πληροφ. τ. συνέσ. is now succinctly summed up for the sake of annexing the object by εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν. Thus the distinction between ἐπίγνωσις and γνῶσις (Colossians 2:3) is brought out clearly.[80] Comp. on Colossians 1:9. But τοῦ μυστ. τ. Θ. is not to be attached also to τῆς συνέσεως (Hofmann), so that the τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν would occupy an interrupting position.

τοῦ Θεοῦ] Genitive of the subject; it is God, whose decree the μυστ. is. The reading to be approved, τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ (see the critical remarks), means: of the God of Christ, i.e. to whom Christ belongs in a special way, as to His Father, Sender, Head, etc.; see on Ephesians 1:17; comp. John 20:17; Matthew 27:46. The separation of Χριστοῦ, however, from τ. Θεοῦ, and the taking it as apposition to τοῦ μυστηρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ, so that Christ Himself appears as the personal secret of God, “because He is personally the truth contained in God and revealed from God” (Hofmann, comp. Holtzmann, p. 215), must be rejected, because Paul would thus have expressed himself in a way as much exposed to misapprehension as possible. He would either have inserted an ὅ ἐστι after τοῦ Θεοῦ (Colossians 1:24; 1 Corinthians 3:11), or have omitted τοῦ Θεοῦ, which would have made τὸ μυστήριον Χριστοῦ, as in Ephesians 3:4, the mystery contained personally in Christ. But as the apostle has actually written, the reader could only understand the mystery of the God of Christ. If Christ is God’s (see on 1 Corinthians 3:23; comp. Luke 2:26; Luke 9:20; Acts 4:26), then God is also the God of Christ. After Θεοῦ, therefore, no comma is to be inserted. Finally, the view of Hilary (“Deus Christus sacramentum est”), that ὁ Θεός is Christ Himself (so Steiger and Bisping, also Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 1, p. 460, ed. 2), is wholly without Pauline analogy, and is not to be supported by such passages as Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Ephesians 5:5; in fact, even the lofty predicates employed in Colossians 1:15 ff., Colossians 2:9, draw the line of distinction between God and Christ. Moreover, the expression itself is not harsher (de Wette), or even more inconceivable (Olshausen), more unsuitable and obscure (Reiche), than the phrase ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ κυρίου ἡμ. Ἰησοῦ Χ. in Ephesians 1:17; since in connection with the notion “the God of Christ,” the designation of the latter as our Lord is unessential. The addition Χριστοῦ finds its motive in the connection, because it was just in Christ that God formed the decree of redemption (the μυστήριον), and has carried it out (Ephesians 3:10 f., et al.). Whosoever has known God as the God of Christ, has the divine μυστήριον therewith unveiled to him.

[78] So Hofmann, who couples it in this sense with εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος, taking ἐν ἀγάπῃ adverbially, and explaining the καί, which stands in the way, in the sense of “even,” to the effect that this introduction into all riches of the understanding has as its presupposition another introduction, viz. that into the faith. This is a sophistically forced mode of disposing of the καί, suggested by nothing in the context, especially since faith by no means, either of itself or in vv. 5–7, falls to be considered as a preliminary stage, as if the πληροφορία κ.τ.λ., like a new stadium, had to be entered upon through a second introduction; on the contrary, this πληροφορία is the full rich development of faith in the inner life. We may add that συμβιβάζειν=to introduce is nothing but a lexicographical fiction invented by Hofmann. Chrysostom already says rightly: ἵνα ἑνωθῶσι.

[79] Neither Greek authors, nor the LXX., nor the Apocrypha have πληροφορία. In Ptol. Tetr. p. 4. 9, πληροφόρησις is found.

[80] According to Holtzmann, p. 303, in the frequent mention of γνῶσις and ἐπίγνωσις, of σοφία and σύνεσις, of γνωρίζειν and φωτίζειν, of μυστήριον ἀποκεκρυμμ. and φανέρωσις τοῦ μυστ., we may detect already the terminology of the Grecian mysteries. As if these ideas and expressions were not sufficiently Pauline, and their intentional application were not sufficiently intelligible in the light of theosophic aberrations. Comp. also on Colossians 1:23; and Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 420, ed. 2.

Colossians 2:3. Ἐν ᾧ] is to be referred to τοῦ μυστηρίου—a remark which applies also in the case of every other reading of the foregoing words—not to Christ,[81] as is commonly done with the Recepta, and by Böhmer, Dalmer, and Hofmann even with our reading. The correct reference is given, in connection with the Recepta, by Grotius (against whom Calovius contends), Hammond, Bengel, and Michaelis; and in connection with our reading, by Huther, Schenkel, and Bleek; its correctness appears from the correlation in which ἀπόκρυφοι stands to τοῦ μυστηρ. The destination of this relative clause is to bring out the high value of the ἐπίγνωσις τοῦ μυστηρίου (since in Him, etc.), and that in contrast to the pretended wisdom and knowledge of the false teachers; hence also the emphatic πάντες οἱ θησ. κ.τ.λ.

The σοφία and γνῶσις are here conceived objectively, and the genitives indicate wherein the treasures consist. The distinction between the two words is not, indeed, to be abandoned (Calvin: “duplicatio ad augendum valet;” comp. Huther and others), but yet is not to be defined more precisely than that γνῶσις is more special, knowledge, and σοφία more general, the whole Christian wisdom, by which we with the collective activity of the mind grasp divine relations and those of human morality, and apply them to right practice. Comp. on Colossians 1:9.

On θησαυροί, comp. Plato, Phil. p. 15 E: ὥς τινα σοφίας εὑρηκὼς θησαυρόν, Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 9, i. 6. 14; Wis 7:14; Sir 1:22; Bar 3:15.

ἀπόκρυφοι] is not the predicate to εἰσί (so most writers, with Chrysostom and Luther), as if it were ἀποκεκρυμμένοι εἰσιν instead of εἰσὶν ἀπόκρυφοι; for, as it stands, the unsuitable sense would be conveyed: “in whom all treasures … are hidden treasures.” But neither is it a description of the qualitative how of their being in Him,[82] in so far, namely, as they do not lie open for ordinary perception (Hofmann); for this adverbial use of the adjective (see Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 4. 12, 2:2. 17; Krüger, § 57. 5) would be without due motive here, seeing that the apostle is concerned, not about the mode of the ἐν ᾧ εἰσι, but about the characterizing of the treasures themselves, whereupon the how in question was obvious of itself. We must therefore take ἀπόκρυφοι simply as an attributive adjective to ΘΗΣΑΥΡΟΊ, placed at the end with emphasis: in whom the collective hidden treasures … are contained. Comp. LXX. Isaiah 45:3; 1Ma 1:23; Matthew 13:44. The treasures, which are to be found in the mystery, are not such as lie open to the light, but, in harmony with the conception of the secret, hidden (comp. Matt. l.c.), because unattainable by the power of natural discernment in itself, but coming to be found by those who attain εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου, whereby they penetrate into the domain of these secret riches and discover and appropriate them. The objection to this view of ἈΠΟΚΡ. as the adjective to ΘΗΣ., viz. that there must then have been written ΟἹ ἈΠΟΚΡ. (Bähr, Bleek, Hofmann), is erroneous; the article might have been (1Ma 1:23), but did not need to be, inserted. With the article it would mean: quippe qui absconditi sunt; without the article it is simply: “thesauri absconditi” (Vulgate), i.e. ἀπόκρυφοι ὄντες, not ΟἹ ὌΝΤΕς ἈΠΌΚΡΥΦΟΙ.

[81] Older dogmatic expositors (see especially Calovius) discover here the omniscience of Christ.

[82] In connection with which Bähr, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Bleek convert the notion of being hidden into that of being deposited for preservation (ἀποκεϊσθαι, Colossians 1:5).

Colossians 2:4. After this affecting introduction, testifying to his zealous striving for the Christian development of his readers, and thereby claiming their faithful adherence to his gospel, the warning now follows, for the sake of which Paul has prefixed Colossians 2:1-3 (τοῦτο). That τοῦτο does not refer merely to Colossians 2:3 (so Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Zanchius, Estius, and others, including Bähr and Böhmer; Huther is undecided) is in itself probable, since Colossians 2:1-3 form a connected sentence admirably preparatory in its entire purport for what follows, and is confirmed by Colossians 2:5, which glances back to Colossians 2:1. Hence: This contained in Colossians 2:1-3, which ye ought to know, I say with the design that, etc.

ἵνα μηδείς (see the critical remarks); comp. Mark 5:43; Titus 3:12; Revelation 3:11, et al.

παραλογίζ.] In N. T., only found elsewhere in Jam 1:22 (see Theile in loc.); frequent in the later Greek writers since Demosthenes (822. 25, 1037. 15). It indicates, by a term borrowed from false reckoning, the deception and overreaching that take place through false reasoning. What particular sophistries the false teachers, whose agitations at all events tended (see Colossians 2:8 f.) to the disadvantage of the Pauline gospel, were guilty of, does not appear. It is certain, however, that they were not those suggested by Böhmer (nothing good can come out of Nazareth; one who was crucified cannot have possessed divine wisdom), since the false teachers were not non-Christians. Hardly did these beguiling sophistries affect the person of the apostle, as if he were not concerning himself about the confirming and training of churches not planted by himself, as Hofmann thinks. In that case we should have in Colossians 2:1-3 only a self-testimony to the contrary, which, as assertion against assertion, would neither have been skilful nor delicate; nor do we in what follows find any defence in opposition to personal calumniation. This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 177. The γάρ in Colossians 2:5 by no means requires this interpretation.

ἐν πιθανολογίᾳ] by means of persuading speech; Luther’s “with rational discourses” misapprehends the meaning. It occurs in this place only in the N. T.; but see Plato, Theaet. p. 162 E; comp. Dem. 928. 14: λόγους θαυμασίως πιθανούς, also πιθανολογεῖν, Diog. L. x. 87; Diod. Sic. i. 39; and πιθανῶς λέγειν, Lucian, Amor. 7. Hence the art of persuasion: ἡ πιθανολογική, Arr. Epict. i. 8. 7.

Colossians 2:5. A special reason, having reference to his bodily absence, by which his readers are encouraged not to allow themselves to be deceived.

τῇ σαρκί] with respect to the flesh, i.e. bodily. Comp. 1 Corinthians 5:3.

ἁλλά] at, yet am I on the other hand, beginning the apodosis; see on Romans 6:5 and 1 Corinthians 4:15.

τῷ πνεύματι] with respect to the spirit, i.e. mentally; my spirit, translating itself in thought into your midst, is along with you. Erroneously Grotius: “Deus Paulo revelat, quae Colossis fierent,” so that πνεῦμα would be meant of the Holy Spirit. According to Wiggers, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 181, and Vaihinger, in Herzog’s Encyklop. IV. p. 79, ἄπειμι takes for granted the apostle’s having been there previously. A quite groundless assumption; the verb expresses (ἀπό) the being away from, but does not indicate whether a person had been previously present or not, which can only be gathered from the connection or other circumstances of the case. In this case the context directly indicates, by Colossians 2:1, that a bodily παρεῖναι had not occurred. It is otherwise in 1 Corinthians 5:3; 2 Corinthians 10:1; 2 Corinthians 10:11; 2 Corinthians 13:2; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Php 1:27. Prom the similar expression in 1 Corinthians 5:3. Theodoret nevertheless infers that Paul ὡς θεασάμενος αὐτοὺς ἔγραψεν τὴν ἐπιστολήν.

σύν ὑμὶν] in your society, among you. Comp. Luke 8:38; Luke 22:56; Php 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; 2 Peter 1:18, et al.

χαίρων κ. βλέπων] There is here no illogical prefixing of the χαίρων in the lively feeling of joy (Huther, comp. de Wette); χαίρων rather expresses joy at the fact that he is with them spiritually, and καὶ βλέπων ὑμ. τὴν τάξιν κ.τ.λ. then adds what at this joyful being with the Colossians he sees in them, so that the description thus advances with κ. βλέπ.: in spirit I am along with you, rejoicing in this mental presence, and therewith seeing, etc. Comp. also Hofmann, who, however, imports into βλέπων the pregnant meaning not conveyed by the simple verb; it is as plainly present to my soul, as if I saw it with my eyes. This would be κ. ὡς βλέπων, or κ. ὡς ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς βλ. Renderings blending the ideas, such as gaudeo videns (Grotius, Wolf, Bähr, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and others), or beholding with joy (Bengel, Heinrichs, Flatt), are at variance with the words as they stand. Some erroneously cite Josephus, Bell. iii. 10. 2, where χαίρω καὶ βλέπων (not βλέπω) means: I rejoice, when I even see it. Winer, p. 438 [E. T. 589], and Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 425, supply with χαίρων the words: concerning you. But the supplying of ἐφʼ ὑμῖν is not justified by the context, which naturally suggests joy at the being together with the readers, for χαίρ. stands alongside of this as an accompanying relation without any other definition of object. And according to this view there is no ground at all for an explicative rendering of καί, which Winer still admits (so also Böhmer and Olshausen).

The testimony, moreover, which is given to the readers by βλέπων κ.τ.λ. is not inconsistent with the anxious conflict in Colossians 2:1; but, on the contrary, makes the latter, in a psychological point of view, all the more conceivable, when the dangers which threatened a state of things still even now so good are considered.

ὑμῶν τ. τάξιν] The prefixed pronoun owes this position to the favourable expectation which the Colossians, more than many others, have awakened in the apostle. The τάξις is order, orderly condition. Its antithesis is ἀταξία, Plato, Tim. p. 30 A. For the idea see Plato, Gorg. p. 504 A: τάξεως … καὶ κόσμου τυχοῦσα οἰκία, Polyb. i. 4. 6: ἡ σύμπασα σχέσις κ. τάξις τῆς οἰκουμένης, iii. 36. 6: ἡ … διαίρεσις κ. τάξις. It is often used of the organized condition of the state, Dem. 200. 4, Plat. Crit. p. 109 D; elsewhere also (see Sturz, Lex. Xen. IV. p. 245) of the army, sometimes to designate a section of it (a company of two λόχοι), and sometimes to express its regular arrangement in rank and file (Thuc. iii. 87. 2, iv. 72. 2, 126. 4, viii. 69. 1). Hofmann[83] takes both ΤΆΞ. and ΣΤΕΡΈΩΜΑ in a military sense. But the two words have not in and of themselves the military sense; they would receive it from the context, which is not the case here. Moreover, the meaning fortress, military bulwark, is expressed not by στερέωμα generally, but by ἜΡΥΜΑ or ὈΧΎΡΩΝΑ, 2 Corinthians 10:4. Hence, if we would avoid arbitrariness, we can only abide by the view that here ΤΆΞΙς means the orderly state of the Christian church, which has hitherto not been disturbed by sectarian divisions or forsaken by the readers. Comp. 1 Corinthians 14:40. To this outward condition Paul then subjoins the inner one, by which the former is conditioned: and the solid hold of your faith in Christ. στερέωμα, firmamentum, that which has been made firm (Arist. partt. an. ii. 9; Theophr. H. pl. v. 7. 3), a late word, often found in LXX., Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and Apocrypha (see Schleusner, Thes. V. p. 102 f.), represents the stedfastness and immoveableness of faith in such a way, that the latter appears as protected by a strong work (with solid foundation, masonry, etc.) from injury (Ezekiel 13:5; Psalm 18:2; Psalms 3 Esdr. 8:81). On the subject-matter, comp. Acts 16:5 : ἐστερεοῦντο τῇ πίστει, 1 Peter 5:9 : ἈΝΤΊΣΤΗΤΕ ΣΤΕΡΕΟῚ Τῇ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ. The abstract firmness, however (Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and older expositors), which would be στερεότης, is never designated by the word. Chrysostom explains rightly: ὍΤΕ ΠΟΛΛᾺ ΣΥΝΑΓΑΓῺΝ ΣΥΓΚΟΛΛΉΣΕΙς ΠΥΚΝῶς ΚΑῚ ἈΔΙΑΣΠΑΣΤῶς, ΤΌΤΕ ΣΤΕΡΈΩΜΑ ΓΊΝΕΤΑΙ. The genitive τῆς πίστεως, finally, is not to be taken in such a way as to make faith the στερέωμα (Hofmann), which protects the readers, as if it were ΤῸ ὙΜῶΝ ΣΤΕΡΈΩΜΑ; but as the genitive of the subject, in such a way that their faith has the στερέωμα securing it, which Paul spiritually sees.

To call in question the unseducedness here attested (Baumgarten-Crusius, who leaves it a question whether the sense is not merely: “if it is so”), or to refer it to only a part of the church (Flatt), is a quite arbitrary result of unduly pressing the general utterance of commendation.

[83] Whom Holtzmann, p. 177, has too rashly followed.

Colossians 2:6 f. From the warning given in Colossians 2:4 and having its ground assigned in Colossians 2:5, follows (οὖν) the positive obligation to make Christ, as He had been communicated to them through the instruction which they had received, the element in which (ἐν αὐτῷ) their conduct of the inner and outer life moves (περιπατεῖτε), whereupon the more precise modal definitions are subjoined by ἐῤῥιζωμένοι κ.τ.λ.

ὡς] according as. Observe that in the protasis παρελάβετε and in the apodosis περιπατεῖτε (not ἐν αὐτῷ, as Hofmann thinks) have the emphasis, in which case the addition of an οὕτως was not necessary. Their walk in Christ is to be in harmony with the instruction, by means of which they have through Epaphras received Christ.

παρελάβετε] have received (Colossians 1:7; Ephesians 4:20), comp. Galatians 1:9; Galatians 1:12; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 11:23. Christ was communicated to them as the element of life.[84] The rendering: have accepted (Luther, Bähr, Böhmer, Huther, Hofmann), is not contrary to Pauline usage (de Wette; but see on Php 4:9; 1 Corinthians 15:1); but it is opposed to the context, in which after Colossians 2:4 (see especially Colossians 2:7 : καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε, and Colossians 2:8 : ΚΑΤᾺ ΤῊΝ ΠΑΡΆΔΟΣΙΝ ΤῶΝ ἈΝΘΡ.) the contrast between true and false Christian instruction as regulative of the walk, and not the contrast between entrance into the fellowship of Christ and the walk therewith given (Hofmann), predominates.[85]

ΤῸΝ Χ. Ἰ. ΤῸΝ ΚΎΡΙΟΝ] A solemnly complete designation, a summary of the whole confession (1 Corinthians 12:3; Php 2:11), in which τὸν κύριον, conformably with its position and the entire connection, is to be taken in the sense: as the Lord, consequently attributively, not as a mere apposition (de Wette, Bleek, Ellicott, and others), in which Hofmann includes also Ἰησοῦν, a view which is not warranted by Ephesians 3:1.

Colossians 2:7. ἘῤῬΙΖΩΜ. Κ. ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔ. ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ] introduces the ethical habitus in the case of the required περιπατεῖν ἐν Χ. But the vivid conception, in the urgency of properly exhausting the important point, combines very dissimilar elements; for the two figures, of a plant and of a building, are inconsistent as such both with ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖΤΕ and with one another. Comp. Ephesians 3:17 f. By beginning a new sentence with ἘῤῬΙΖΩΜΈΝΟΙ Κ.Τ.Λ., and thus construing it in connection with Colossians 2:8 (Schenkel, Hofmann), we should gain nothing in symmetry, and should only lose without sufficient reason in simplicity of construction; while we should leave the ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕῖΤΕ in Colossians 2:6 in a disproportionately bald and isolated position. This conjunction, moreover, of heterogeneous figures might quite as legitimately have been made by the apostle himself as by an interpolator, whose hand Holtzmann thinks that he here discovers.

Observe further the difference in time of the two participles, whereby the stedfastness of the ἐν Χριστῷ εἶναι (figuratively represented by ἘῤῬΙΖΩΜ.) is denoted as a subsistent state, which must be present in the case of the περιπατεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ, while the further development of the Christian condition (figuratively represented by ἐποικοδ.) is set forth as a continuing process of training; comp. Acts 20:32.

ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔ.] becoming built up, in which ἐπί exhibits the building rising on the foundation. Comp. 1 Corinthians 3:10; 1 Corinthians 3:12; Ephesians 2:20; Xen. Anab. iii. 4. 11; Plat. Legg. v. p. 736 E. The building up may in itself be also regarded as an act accomplished (through conversion), as in Ephesians 2:20 : ἐποικοδομηθέντες, which, however, as modal definition of ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤ., would not have suited here. The progress and finishing of the building (de Wette, following Acts 20:32, where, however, the simple form οἰκοδ. should be read) are conveyed by the present, not by ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔ. in itself (comp. Ephesians 2:22). Nor does the latter represent the readers as stones, which are built up on the top of those already laid (Hofmann); on the contrary, they are in their aggregate as a church (comp. on Eph. l.c.) represented as an οἰκοδομή in the course of being built (i.e. of a more and more full development of their Christian common life), in regard to which the ἐπί in ἘΠΟΙΚΟΔ. presupposes the foundation laid by Epaphras, namely, Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11); and the building materials, including the stones, are not the persons, but the doctrines, by means of which the builders accomplish their work (see on 1 Corinthians 3:12).

ἐν αὐτῷ] belongs to both participles, so that Christ is to be conceived doubtless as the soil for the roots striking downwards (Ephesians 3:17), and as the foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11) for the building extending upwards; but the expression is determined by the conception of the thing signified, namely, the ἐν Χριστῷ εἶναι, as in ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤ., and not by the figures; hence Paul has not written ἐπʼ αὐτόν (1 Corinthians 3:12), or ἘΠʼ ΑὐΤῷ (Ephesians 2:20), which would have been in harmony with the latter participle, but he exhibits Christ as the Person, in whom that which is meant by the being rooted and becoming built up has its specific being and nature, and consequently the condition of endurance and growth.[86] Comp. on Ephesians 2:21.

καὶ βεβαιούμ. τῇ πίστ.] And to this being rooted and becoming built up there is to be added the being stablished by the faith, as the development of quality in the case, in order that no loose rooting may take place, nor any slack building be formed. The dative τῇ πίστει (see the critical remarks) is to be taken as instrumental, not: with respect to (in opposition to de Wette), since the following modal definition περισσ. ἐν αὐτῇ specifies, not how they are to be stablished in respect of the faith, but how they are to be stablished by it, by the fact, namely, that they are rich in faith; poverty in faith would not be sufficient to bring about that establishment. In like manner we should have to take the reading ἐν τ. πίστει, which Hofmann defends. He, however, joins this ἘΝ Τ. ΠΊΣΤΕΙ not with ΒΕΒΑΙΟΎΜ., but with the following ΠΕΡΙΣΣΕΎΟΝΤΕς,—a connection which is excluded by the genuineness of ἘΝ ΑὐΤῇ, but which is, even apart from this, to be rejected, because Paul would, in order to be fairly intelligible, have inserted the ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ only after ΒΕΒΑΙΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ, to which it would also refer.

ΚΑΘῺς ἘΔΙΔΆΧΘ.] namely, to become stablished by the faith. For this they have received (from Epaphras, Colossians 1:7) the instructions which are to guide them.

περισσεύοντες κ.τ.λ.] is subordinate to the ΒΕΒΑΙΟΎΜ., and that as specifying the measure of the faith, which must be found in them in order that they may be stablished through faith; while at the same time the requisite vital expression, consecrated to God, of the piety of the believing heart is brought out by ἐν εὐχαρ.: while ye are abounding in the same amidst thanksgiving, i.e. while ye are truly rich in faith, and at the same time giving thanks to God for this blessing of fulness of faith. The emphasis is upon περισσ., in which lies the more precisely defining element; περισσεύειν ἐν is nothing else than the usual abundare aliqua re, to have abundance of something (Romans 15:13; 1 Corinthians 8:7; Php 1:9, et al.), and ἐν εὐχαρ. indicates an accompanying circumstance in the case, the ethical consecration of grateful piety, with which the richness in faith must be combined; comp. Colossians 3:17, Colossians 1:12. It is well explained, in substance, by Theophylact: περισσόν τι ἐνδείκνυσθαι ἐν τῇ πίστει, εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ θεῷ, ὅτι ἠξίωσεν ἡμᾶς τοιαύτης χάριτος, καὶ μὴ ἑαυτοῖς τὴν προκοπὴν ἐπιγράφοντας. Rightly also by Oecumenius, who takes ἘΝ ΕὐΧΑΡ. as equivalent to ΣῪΝ ΕὐΧΑΡ. Comp. Castalio, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bähr, Steiger, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dalmer, Hofmann, and others. Others, however, regard ἘΝ ΕὐΧΑΡ. as belonging to ΠΕΡΙΣΣ. Such is the view not only of the majority who reject ἘΝ ΑὐΤῇ on critical grounds (as Ewald), but also of Luther, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, Huther (that the Colossians in their faith towards God … are to show themselves abundantly grateful). De Wette favours this rendering on the ground that the clause is not attached by καί, which, however, is quite in keeping with the circumstance that ΠΕΡΙΣΣ Κ.Τ.Λ. is subordinate to the ΒΕΒΑΙΟΎΜ. Κ.Τ.Λ. In opposition to the combination ΠΕΡΙΣΣ. ἘΝ ΕὐΧΑΡ. there may be urged, first, the arrangement of the words in itself; secondly, the fact that ἘΝ ΑὐΤῇ would be superfluous; and thirdly, that all the other elements of the verse refer to the nature of faith, and hence the latter, in harmony with the context, is to be regarded also in the last participial clause as the object of the discourse, whereas ἐν εὐχαρ. is to be treated as a relation associated with the faith.

[84] To this conception ἐν αὐτῷ refers subsequently. Chrysostom and his followers take this ἐν so, that Christ is regarded as the way. But this Johannine conception nowhere occurs in Paul’s writings; nor does it accord with παρελάβετε, with which, however, the extremely common Pauline idea of the ἐν Χρεστῷ εἶναι is in harmony.

[85] Ephesians 3:17 f., by comparing which Holtzmann discovers in our passage the hand of the interpolator, is both as regards contents and form too diverse for that purpose.

[86] Hofmann inappropriately, since in the case of ἐποικοδ. at any rate we have to think of the foundation, takes ἐν αὐτῷ in the sense that Christ surrounds the building.

Colossians 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 Colossians 2:6-7, be rendered fruitless!

The future ἔσται after μή (comp. Hebrews 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 Galatians 4:11.

As to the participle with the article, comp. on Galatians 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 (Colossians 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 (1 Corinthians 15:14; Ephesians 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 (1 Corinthians 1:18 ff; 1 Corinthians 2:6). Rather, he has in view (comp. Colossians 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 (Colossians 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. 2 Thessalonians 3:6), and ΤῶΝ denotes the category, the traditio humana as such, opposed to the divine revelation. Comp. Mark 7:8. What is meant, doubtless, is the ritual Jewish tradition outside of the Mosaic law (comp. on Matthew 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 Galatians 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. Galatians 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 Colossians 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 (Matthew 15:2 f.); as if παράδοσις (comp. especially Galatians 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.”