Colossians 2

CHAPTER II

II

The Burden of the Letter: The Warning against the Judaizers, Chapter 2

Paul’s Deep Concern Prompts His Warning

Colossians 2:1

1 In 1:29 Paul makes the transition to what follows, and γάρ now completes the connection. Paul toils, “straining” (ἀγωνιζόμενος) with the energy God gives him in his office. For I want you to know what great strain (ἀγών, matching the participle used in 1:29) I have for you and those in Laodicea and as many as have not seen my face in the flesh.

In 1:28, 29 Paul speaks of what he and his assistants do for “every man,” and thus in 1:29 his straining concerns his entire work. Now he specifies the strain for his readers in their present situation, who were being troubled by Judaizers. In “strain” the picture of a contestant seeking victory in an athletic contest is continued. We need not ask how Paul strains and strives; we have his own letter which speaks of his prayers and points to his discussions with Epaphras and with Timothy (1:1) regarding what to do for the Colossians. One preposition makes one group of those for whom Paul strains and not two or more groups: “for you” Colossians, “those of Laodicea,” “as many as have not seen my face in the flesh.”

Paul thus says that the Colossians and the Laodiceans had never seen him, he had never visited them. He includes the Laodiceans because he asks that this letter be sent also to them (4:16). It is proper to conclude that they were facing the same danger as the Colossians. In fact, as we have already stated, we conclude that the letter to the Laodiceans, which Paul wants also the Colossians to read, was written and sent at this time through Tychicus and treated the same subject; hence the exchange of letters which Paul desires. “As many as,” etc., certainly does not include all Christians who had never seen Paul’s face but refers only to the general group here concerned, to which also the Christians in Hieropolis belonged. The reason that they are not named directly may lie in the fact that they were few in number and were not yet organized, perhaps, too, they were connected with Laodicea, see the introduction. Although Paul had not been in their midst, his concern for them is not less because of that fact.

Colossians 2:2

2 We regard ἵνα as non-final, as a statement of what Paul strains and strives to attain: that their hearts be encouraged—they having been knit together in love—even for all the riches of the full assurance of the understanding, for full knowledge of the mystery of God, (namely) Christ, in whom are all the treasures of the wisdom and the knowledge as hidden away.

Παρακαλεῖν always gets its specific meaning from the context and here does not mean: “that their hearts be comforted” (our versions). In this trouble with errorists their need is not comfort. The verb is to be construed with the two εἰς phrases: “be encouraged for all the riches, etc., for the full knowledge,” etc. The hearts of those here referred to are not to hesitate to draw on all the treasures of knowledge that are contained in the blessed mystery, the sum and substance of which is “Christ.” There lies the danger as Paul sees it. These Christians may be induced by the Judaizers to forget, to neglect, or to fear to use some of the knowledge and the wealth of assurance they have in Christ, they may then be deceived by the persuasive speech of the Judaizers. Paul’s great object, therefore, is to encourage them to take and to use this full blessed knowledge, it will make them safe and immune against insidious error.

The aorist denotes actual, complete encouragement: “be fully, actually encouraged for” this riches. “Their hearts” = the mind and the will, yea, the very personality; in the Greek “heart” never refers only to the seat of the feelings as it so generally does in English. “Their” heart = the hearts of those here mentioned: Colossians, Laodiceans, and the rest who are living in this Phrygian section that is now endangered. They are not to be intimidated by a “show of wisdom” (v. 23) on the part of the Judaizers; they are to place over against it the treasures of the real wisdom and knowledge in Christ (v. 3).

The aorist participle: “they having been knit together in love,” is parenthetical, and since it is masculine does not modify “hearts” (feminine) but the subject of the subjunctive. Paul has mentioned all of them in v. 1. Why? Because they have long been knit together in love; the aorist indicates antecedent action. Love has made them one body, and a common danger now threatens them.

The Vulgate rendering “instructed” is inapplicable here and does not agree with “in love.” It is love in which they have been knit together. It is impractical to try to connect: “in love and εἰς, unto all riches,” etc. Καί does not here have the force of such a connecting “and.” This εἰς phrase is to be construed with the main verb, and καί = “even”: “that their hearts be encouraged … even for all the riches of the full assurance of the understanding”; then follows another εἰς which is appositional: “for the full knowledge of the mystery of God.” The idea to be conveyed is not encouragement for acquiring this wealth but for using it against the Judaizers at this time in order to rout their philosophy (v. 8) and show of wisdom (v. 23). Some of this wealth may yet need to be acquired by some, but that is incidental as far as the double εἰς is concerned.

Paul uses many terms: full assurance—understanding—ἐπίγνωσις (twice in 1:9, 10)—wisdom (1:9) γνῶσις. Then he attaches the first two to “all the riches” and the last two to “all the treasures.” All these terms refer to “the mystery of God,” which is expounded in 1:26, 27 and already there is said to = “Christ in you, the hope of the glory,” and which now are again briefly summarized as: ‘Christ.” What Paul prays for in v. 1:9, etc., all these Christians are told to use with full assurance for routing the Judaizers.

Yes, this is “all the riches of the full assurance of the understanding,” i.e., “all the hidden treasures of the wisdom and of the knowledge.” The articles make all of these terms definite, entities that are well known to all the readers. They heap up the wealth and exhibit it from all angles and also name its content: “the mystery—Christ.” “The riches (wealth) of assurance” is an incomplete concept, and “of understanding” completes it: “great wealth of personal full assurance connected with actual understanding and comprehension.”

The Judaizers, like all errorists, also have a wealth of personal assurance; but it is not connected with real understanding. “Full assurance” (our versions) is the correct rendering of πληροφορία; “fulness” (R. V. margin) is a meaning that has been given to the word because of the contention of some commentators that the regular and established meaning cannot be applied in this connection. They find the idea of quantity here and support their argument by the claim that the Judaizers charged the apostle with failure to supply his followers with the full measure of understanding while they, the Judaizers, promised to fill this lack. This was their charge and their claim, but it is taken care of by πᾶνπλοῦτος and by “all the treasures.” The point contained in πληροφορία is far more vital than quantity of knowledge; it is the personal full assurance or conviction on the part of those who have knowledge, of which there is, indeed, much here. See C.-K. 931 which commends also Luther’s adjectival rendering: “aller Reichtum des gewissen Verstaendnisses.”

Paul wants all of his readers actually encouraged “for all the wealth of the full assurance of real understanding” (the difference between πᾶς and πᾶςὁ does not apply to abstract nouns). But what sort of “understanding” is this? The appositional phrase answers by substituting “full knowledge” for “understanding” and then adding the object of this understanding or knowledge; the encouragement is to be “for the knowledge of the mystery of God,” i.e., this mystery is to be grasped by the understanding. We have been told all about it in 1:26–29. God published it, made it fully known to the saints. Its substance, named in 1:27, is now again named: “Christ.” What this means has already been told at length in 1:15–22: Christ, the Son of the Father’s love, the first-born of all creation, the first-born from the dead, the God-man, supreme in his deity, in his divine attributes communicated to his human nature, in his mighty work of reconciling back all that exists, reconciling also the Gentile believers, leaving nothing, nothing whatever to be added by any other power or means.

Indeed, this understanding, this epignosis of the mystery of God, i.e., Christ, has all possible wealth of assurance for us so that we cannot be encouraged too much to use it. Χριστοῦ is the apposition to the genitive “of the mystery”; a look at 1:27 makes this certain. There has been much emending of the reading, see the critical notes in A. Souter’s editions. All of the variants try to improve; some misunderstand the apposition.

Colossians 2:3

3 No wonder the full knowledge (ἐπίγνωσις) of Christ has such a wealth of assurance of understanding, and thus no wonder that Paul strains to encourage his readers to use this wealth of assurance: “in him (Christ) are all the treasures of the wisdom and of the knowledge,” they are all in him “as hidden away.” This concluding relative clause has a causal effect. Where, save in Christ, are these treasures that we reed? And all of them are in him, which is the point to be noted here since the Judaizers thought that they had a few extra ones which they had found elsewhere. But these extra ones were not wisdom but only “a show of wisdom” (v. 23). One naturally reads “in whom” as equal to “in Christ”; yet some interpreters prefer the rendering “in which,” i.e., in which mystery of God. The sense of both renderings is the same.

There is also a grammatical debate about the last adjective, ἀπόκρυφοι. Few will agree that it is to be construed with the copula: “is hid” (A. V.) Some maintain that it is an ordinary attribute: “all the hidden treasures.” So also making the adjective do adverbial duty is not good: “in whom are all the treasures in a hidden way.” This adjective is added at the end for the sake of emphasis and is predicative: “as hidden away,” not as lying open on the surface. For this reason an article would not be in place; such an article would alter the sense.

“Hidden away” matches “the mystery of God.” While this mystery has been published so that all saints may know it (1:26, 27), the treasures are still in Christ “as hidden away.” Not even the saints can find them unless they open this treasure chest, Christ. Judaizers open self-invented treasure vaults and find special kinds of wisdom. They find only tinsel, glass diamonds. “All the treasures,” all of them are in Christ. It is already a wealth of wisdom to know this fact. In v. 1, “wisdom and understanding” are combined, here “wisdom and knowledge,” wisdom as including the proper use of knowledge, and knowledge the apprehended and appreciated information as such.

The supposition that Paul’s terms are, at least in part, quoted from the lips of the Judaizers is not maintainable. Nor is it correct to say that Paul “often took the very words of the Gnostic or Mithra cult and filled them with the riches of Christ.” Paul’s terminology is entirely original and is borrowed from no extraneous source or sources.

Colossians 2:4

4 This is what I am saying, that no one is to engage in cheating you with persuasive argument. For though as to the flesh I am absent, nevertheless as to the spirit I am with you, rejoicing and seeing your good order and the firm condition of your faith in Christ.

“This is my meaning,” Paul says, “no one is to try to cheat you,” etc. Non-final ἵνα is in apposition with τοῦτο and thus states the point of what Paul is saying in v. 1–3. For this reason παραλογίζηται is the present tense, conative (R. 880): “no one is to try to cheat you,” the verb meaning “to cheat by false argument or reasoning.” The usual understanding of this expression is that “this I say” refers to v. 1–3, and that ἵνα states the purpose for which “this” is said. But purpose would require an aorist: “in order that no one may succeed in cheating you.” Paul has more in mind than purpose; this ἵνα is just as appositional as the one used in v. 2. When Paul wants his readers to be decisively encouraged for all the riches, etc., this means, as far as the Judaizers are concerned, that none of them are to try their tricks on them. Πιθανολογία = persuasive argument (M.-M. 512 have one example from the papyri).

Colossians 2:5

5 If Paul could visit Colosse he himself would soon rout all attempts of the Judaizers to carry into effect such cheating. But he has been a prisoner for over three years and is still without prospect of immediate release. This explains γάρ which puzzles some: “For though as to the flesh (dative of relation) I am absent (from you), nevertheless as to the spirit I am σὺνὑμῖν,” which does not mean that Paul is in thought and spirit present with the Colossians but that “as to his spirit,” as to his real person, he is supporting them. As is the case so often, σύν has the connotation “with you” to support and to help you. Although he cannot be physically present in Colosse to rout these Judaizers and to prevent them from making even an attempt to cheat, the Colossians have all Paul’s help right in this epistle, and with that help they can prevent any man from trying to cheat them. Εἰκαί = “if also,” “though”; καίεἰ has a different force (R. 1026). The former belittles; the thing makes no difference.

We do not agree with those who think that the Judaizers faulted Paul for never having visited the Colossians. Such a charge would have been pointless, for Paul had been a prisoner for over three years, and, still more to the point, this Judaizing error had just recently begun in Colosse. How could Paul then in any way be blamed for not being present in Colosse? The words themselves also do not imply a Judaistic charge against Paul for his absence. The fact that Paul had never been in Colosse is not stated or implied in what he says here although his words are at times so understood. He speaks only of his present absence; the fact that he has never visited Colosse is shown elsewhere in this letter.

The two participles are appended and are placed in the proper order. So we do not combine: “rejoicing with you.” This makes σύν merely associative: the Colossians rejoice, and Paul rejoices with them. This idea would erase the support and the help from this preposition, which is the main thought. What Paul says is that “as to the spirit he is with them,” helping them by means of this letter, and this he does “rejoicing.” Why “rejoicing”? Explicative καί answers; “and seeing your order and the firm stand of your faith in Christ.” The ranks of the Colossians have not been broken; in his letter Paul is not hurrying to the rescue of a congregation that has been thrown into disorder. In Corinth the order had been broken; not so in Colosse.

Στερέωμα is “what is made firm,” stiff, hard; the word is used with reference to the firmament. Paul means “the firm condition” into which the faith of his readers has been brought by the good work of Epaphras. He is not hurrying to the rescue of a congregation whose faith has begun to lose its firm stand, has begun to become unsteady. Εἰς = faith and trust directed toward Christ.

No wonder Paul rejoices. Does he use the terms in a military sense: “your battle line”—“the fortress of your faith”? Scarcely. The context does not suggest a military setting; bulwark or fort would be expressed by a different term. It is enough to think of the order and the firm stand of the Colossians. We may note that the two ὑμῶν are placed chiastically, the one before its noun, the other at the end of the sentence. Thus placed, they receive a degree of emphasis although this is usually noted only with reference to the first pronoun. The emphasis, however, is not that of contrast: “your” good stand whereas other congregations are weaker; the thought is rather one of likeness: “yours” like that of others.

But if the Colossians stand so well, why does Paul still come to their support, why does he still strain to encourage them, meaning by this that no one is to try to cheat them? The answer is simple. We have already noted the force of the tense: “try to cheat you.” Thus far the Colossians have stood in line with all firmness, but, like all errorists, the Judaizers are persistent, and this causes Paul’s concern for the Colossians, he is thinking of the future days. He is not one who waits until the damage is done; he acts with promptness so that no damage shall ever be done, so that with his help the Colossians shall stand more firmly than ever. That is a far more joyful task than repairing damage after it has been done, especially when such damage might have been prevented by taking proper measures in time. Fortify in advance! is the proper procedure.

The Main Thing: To be Rooted and Built up in Christ

Colossians 2:6

6 Verses 1–5 are the preamble to the warning which forms the body of the letter. Verses 6, 7 summarize its main contents in positive form. The R. V. does well by making these two verses a small paragraph. Accordingly, as you actually received Christ Jesus, the Lord, in him continue to walk, continuing to be rooted and to be builded up in him and continuing to be confirmed regarding the faith even as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.

The difficulty some interpreters have with the connective οὖν vanishes when the preceding verses are understood. There is no disharmony between the praise of v. 5 and the admonition of v. 6 as though such an admonition is not in harmony with such praise. Paul uses the full soteriological designation: “Christ Jesus, the Lord,” he who is and has done all that 1:14–22 so effectively call to mind. This great Lord and Savior and the immensity and the completeness of his work the Colossians “did actually receive,” the effective historical aorist contrasts with the following durative tenses. All that is needed is that the Colossians abide by this reception of their divine Lord and thus go forward “in connection with him,” ἐναὐτῷ is placed emphatically forward. All the Judaistic vaporings that the Colossians ought to add something are efforts to cheat them with cunning, persuasive argument (v. 4).

They are like the sellers of fake stock, who try to persuade those who have made the most sound and perfect investments to surrender these in exchange for their worthless stock. These salesmen may think their stock sound, but comparison with sound investments shows that they themselves are deceived and cheated.

Περιπατεῖτε is strongly durative: “keep on, continue walking.” But the added participles show that this imperative by no means refers only to Christian moral conduct in distinction from faith. Here it means: Keep on holding fast to Christ, keep on believing in him, and then, of course, also keep on obeying him in good works. “In him” = “in connection with him,” in the connection made when you truly and fully received him by faith. Here, as well as in v. 7, Paul again most thoroughly endorses the work Epaphras has done in Colosse.

Colossians 2:7

7 The four participles are not only a grammatical addition to the imperative but also form one great thought with the imperative, and each participle stresses a part of what this continuous walking in connection with the Lord implies. Thus also the four participles are durative. The first is, however, properly a perfect passive, for the Colossians were rooted in Christ the moment they received him. This participle reaches back to that moment, goes forward to the present day, and continues on into the future. Yet it is passive, for the Colossians did not root and do not now root themselves in Christ. Another did and does this: God or God’s Spirit.

As in Eph. 1:17 Paul combines: “being rooted and having been founded,” so he does also here. He, however, reverses the tenses and combines the closely allied figures: “having been (and thus continuing) rooted and continuing to be upbuilded in him.” This second word is a present passive and marks only the continuance.

The progressive nature of all the participles suggests the idea of “more and more” just as a taproot goes down more and more, and as a building goes up more and more. These two participles and their respective ideas of down and up go together and are made a unit by Paul who gives them but one modifier. The two ἐναὐτῷ are placed chiastically just as are the two ὑμῶν in v. 5, and this is done with even stronger effect since these are phrases.

The third participle is not number three in a series of three; it states the outcome and the result of walking as the first two participles describe. “And” is cumulative: “and continuing to be confirmed regarding the faith even as you were taught” (by Epaphras from the beginning, another endorsement of this missionary). We prefer the dative τῇπίστει to the variant reading “in the faith, ἐντῇπίστει.” But this is not a dative of means; it is a dative of respect. This view is confirmed by the meaning of the participle. Some interpreters regard it as a repetition of the idea of the two preceding participles and say that deeper rooting and fuller building establish (our versions) a person, which is an idea that is rather self-evident, which also the first two participles express more adequately than the third.

“Confirm” is here used in the technical sense: to confirm, guarantee, and make irrevocable legally. Hence “the faith” is objective. In scores of cases it is objective, and here we have one of them: “constantly receiving the divine confirmation in regard to the faith,” i.e., in regard to the doctrine you hold, confirmation that it is lacking in no point, and that any claim which offers you additions and the like is spurious.

Moreover, read as a unit: “continuing to be confirmed regarding the faith (what you believe) even as you were taught (that faith, namely what you are to believe).” The faith Epaphras first taught the Colossians receives constant divine confirmation which shows that it is genuine, complete in every way. How does it receive this? “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God” or not (John 7:17). Thus the confirmation comes continually, the durative tense of βεβαιούμενοι is in place and also the connection: “keep walking—constantly confirmed as to the faith” you embrace and have embraced since Epaphras taught you.

We thus see how finely the last participle is added: “abounding (overflowing) in thanksgiving.” Who would not keep thanking God when he is living in the condition here described? No “and” connects this participle with the preceding, which means that, while it reaches back to the imperative, it is closely united with the confirmation that is constantly received. This completes the whole injunction. Yet the Colossians must understand it properly. People who received and were taught the correct faith by a true teacher from God, who were instructed in that great doctrine which was embodied in “Christ Jesus, the Lord,” people who go on in it (walking), are constantly rooted more deeply and built up more fully in it, are thus constantly confirmed in regard to it by daily testing of it, are thankful for all of it, especially for the ever-renewed confirmation—what will they do? Why, laugh at all errorists who come along and try to alter any part of that faith and doctrine!

This is a most excellent summary, and it is placed exactly in the proper place. It surely helped the Colossians greatly (σύν to indicate help and support in v. 5).

The Warning against all Philosophy which Reduces what the God-man, who Is Supreme over all Principalities and Powers, has Done for our Complete Salvation

Colossians 2:8

8 This is the first part of Paul’s warning; hence we have no connective. Beware lest there shall be anyone who makes booty of you by means of his philosophy and empty deceit in accord with the tradition of men, in accord with the elementary things of the world and in non-accord with Christ! Because in him there dwells all the fulness of the Deity in bodily manner, and in him have you been made full—he the One who is the head of all rule and authority!

Βλέπετεμή is a plain warning, the only notable point being that μή is here followed by the future indicative, the only instance of such a construction in the New Testament (R. 995). Moulton, Einleitung 280, explains it as being eindruecklicher and translates: viel-leicht wird jemand kommen, welcher usw. There are deceivers in Colosse at this writing, who are plying their nefarious work; that is why Paul is writing. The Colossians, however, are to see to it that there shall not be a single successful deceiver, no one who makes booty of them (ὑμας is advanced before the participle), no one who leads them like so many captives taken in war. “Make spoil of” (R. V.) is correct. It is not “rob,” for the idea is not taking something from you but taking you yourselves as booty.

Paul’s imagery is true to fact: error leads its victims away like booty. The thought that some single notable leader headed the Judaizing movement in Colosse has been found in Paul’s use of the singular, especially in ὁσυλαγωγῶνὑμᾶς. We have no objection to thinking that there was possibly a leader; but Paul says τὶς, “anyone,” and thereby generalizes his whole statement so that it refers to no specific person such as the leader of a movement would be.

Paul names the means which the Judaizers employ: making booty of you “by means of his (the article with the force of the possessive) philosophy and empty deceit.” But one article is used with the two nouns so that καί is explicative: this philosophy amounts to nothing but an empty show and deceit. It is speculation, devoid of facts, and thus deceives. “Philosophy” is here used in the general sense according to which we to this day call any speculative scheme a philosophy. Paul’s use of the word does not justify the idea that the Colossian Judaizers had obtained their speculation from the universities of Alexandria or from some notable “philosopher” in the technical sense of the term. These Judaizers are not what we call men of learning, men of standing in the world because of their philosophical study. The whole epistle presents them as being ordinary men. They are like so many modern errorists who invent a specious scheme of reasoning and base their religious notions on it. See the details below where Paul deals with them.

He characterizes the philosophy and deceit by the three κατά phrases: “in accord with the traditions of men,” etc. They are notions that men have invented and that these Judaizers have picked up and use for their purposes. This first phrase is general, hence Paul adds the second phrase which is in apposition: “in accord with the elementary things of the world” (see v. 20). Since στοιχεῖα has a wide range of meaning according to the use to which the word is put, commentators vary greatly in their conception of Paul’s meaning in this passage, in v. 20, and in Gal. 4:3, 9; compare also 2 Pet. 3:10, 12; Heb. 5:12. Etymologically the plural means things placed in a row and thus the letters of the alphabet; since Plato’s time it acquired the meaning the basic elements of which the world is composed, metaphorically, the elements or rudiments of knowledge. Of late the word has been defined: “The great angel powers which were said to preside over natural happenings and to rule over stars, wind, rain, hail, thunder and lightning,” “the spirits of the elements,” “astral spirits.” These latter meanings are not connected with the word, itself but are added speculatively from what Paul says in this epistle about angel powers.

The debate usually centers about the two meanings: elementary instruction and actual physical elements. Thus here: in accord with the A-B-C instruction of the primer departments; or in accord with physical, material elements of the world in. which we live. The preference of meaning is not difficult to attain. “Of the cosmos” points to the physical. In Gal. 4:9, 10 these elements are called “weak and beggarly,” observing days, months, times, and years. In v. 10 below Paul specifies the ordinances: “Handle not, nor taste, nor touch!” things which perish with the using, which are after the precepts and doctrines of men.

The idea that these stoicheia of the world designate personal beings is not in the context. The deceitful and empty philosophy of the Judaizers dealt with physical, material things, with humanly invented rules and regulations regarding these things. In Galatia the Judaizers were of the ordinary type and insisted on the Mosaic laws about using physical things and Paul refers also to the Gentile enslavement to such physical elements. In Galatians Paul preaches complete liberation from all such enslavement. In Colosse the Judaizers had their own empty, speculative system about the physical world and thus their own system of rules about physical things. Here Paul preaches the absolute completeness of Christ and of his work, the folly of regarding it as insufficient and as needing the addition of certain observances about physical things in order to assure our salvation.

Over against both positive phrases Paul sets the mighty negative: “and not in accord with Christ” or “in non-accord with Christ”; οὐ is used when a single concept is denied, οὐ is also used to express decisive denial. The Judaizers presented their philosophy as being in full accord with Christ, as completing the gospel and thus also the Christian faith and life. They were like some errorists of today. Unless you adopt their reasonings and their observances you are either no Christian or are a most inferior one. Rank inconsistencies in their doctrinal statements, flat contradictions are ignored. Enamored of their ideas, they seek to propagate them, generally with the pride of lofty superiority and fanatical zeal, and always only among Christians.

Colossians 2:9

9 Why this judgment that these deceivers try to make booty of you, that they operate with empty, deceitful philosophy, that their doctrine is human invention in contradiction of Christ? “Because in him there dwells all the fulness of the Deity in bodily manner, and because in him (in connection with him) you have been made full—he the One who (demonstrative, emphatic relative as in 1:15, 18) is the head of all rule and authority.” “Christ”—this is what he is, very God himself; and this is what he has done for the Colossians who are in connection with him—he, the head of all rule and authority in the whole universe! What a farce is a philosophy about physical substances that are ruled by an authority independent of this head, that necessitate that Christians use means other than Christ to escape the power of such rule and authority!

Θεότης = τὸΘεὸνεἶναι, which is more than θειότης = τὸθεῖονεἶναι. The former = das Gottsein, das was Gott ist; the latter das was Gottes ist (C.-K. 490). Thus “Deity”—“divinity”: the being of God, God himself—divineness, divine quality (in Rom. 1:20 we have combined: “his everlasting power and divinity,” the qualities of God that are visible in the thmgs he has made). “In him dwells all the fulness of the Deity” = 2 Cor. 5:19: “God was in Christ” = 1 Tim. 3:16: “He (God) was manifested in the flesh.” “All the fulness of the Deity” = the whole sum and substance of the infinite attributes that belong to Deity and thus constitute Deity. This fulness “dwells in Christ.” Some insert: since his exaltation. Paul does not say that. Kenoticism is in error.

So is all Socinianism and its modernistic offspring. Christ is and ever was the God-man.

The emphatic adverb σωματικῶς has caused much discussion, especially as to whether it refers to the body of Christ or not. This word is rare, yet it is only the adverb formed from the adjective, and both refer to σῶμα, “body.” See the adjective in the papyri (M.-M. 621). Luther has leibhaftig, our versions “bodily,” “in bodily manner” or “corporeally” would be equally correct. Some let the word mean “really,” so recht eigentlich und im vollen Umfang; but where is this adverb used in such a sense?

The whole statement refers to “Christ.” It cannot even be said that “all the fulness of the Deity dwells in God,” for “Deity” is only the abstract term for God himself. Deity dwells in Christ because of his human nature, it could not “dwell,” “reside” in him if he had not become man. The adverb modifies the verb and emphasizes the manner of the indwelling: this manner is “bodily,” the idea to be expressed being that the indwelling is not mystical, not spiritual, not in the spirit of Christ alone, but in his whole human nature.

What Paul says here lies back of all statements such as 1 Pet. 2:24: “bore our sins in his own body”; Col. 1:22: “reconciled in the body of his flesh through death”; Heb. 10:5: “a body thou hast fitted for me,” v. 10: “the offering of the body of Christ”; all those passages that speak about the blood and the cross of Christ. Note also Luke 3:22 regarding the Holy Spirit in bodily form. The old Nestorian error which separated Christ’s Deity from his human nature and body is here excluded. The body and the blood that bought our redemption did so and could do so because Deity dwelt in them as in the whole human nature of Christ.

“The fulness of the Deity” can, of course, never be divided. Wherever it dwells, “all” of it dwells. Division is unthinkable. Christ could not have omnipotence, for instance, without having “all the fulness of the Deity.” Yet we cannot agree to the view that the Judaizers asserted a partial indwelling of deity in Christ, and that Paul’s thesis contradicts this idea. Paul is not proving that all the fulness of the Deity dwells in Christ bodily, by this fact he is proving that the whole philosophy of these errorists is empty deception. Paul is bringing forward the immense fact that is known to every believer because this fact destroys the petty philosophy and the scheme the Judaizers had devised for an all-around Christianity. The point of Paul’s statement lies, not in the fact as such, but in the simple use here made of it.

Colossians 2:10

10 It is, therefore, combined with the correlative fact: “and in him (emphatic as in v. 9) you have been made full,” “in him” being made still stronger by the pointed relative clause: “he the One who (strong ὅς) is the head of all principality and authority.” There is no ὑμεῖς which might contrast the subject with somebody else. The periphrastic perfect has the strongest present connotation: “you have been made full, are so now, and continue so.” The passive implies that God made you full “in connection with Christ.” The verb and its phrase express a complete idea, so we need not ask: “Made full of what?” One whom God “has filled full in connection with Christ” has in this connection with Christ all that he needs spiritually for soul and for body, for time and for eternity.

“Have been made full” corresponds with what “all the fulness of the Deity” expresses. When we are connected with a Savior in whom all the fulness of the Deity dwells we are certainly made full to the limit, not a single need remains for human philosophy and human schemes that are built in accord with the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of this world, so that thereby we may be really and completely full. Christ as the God-man does not fill us merely in part and leave something to be added by means of philosophy so as to fill us to the brim.

We have seen that Christ is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation, himself supreme because everything was created “in connection with him,” the first-born from the dead, “through whom” all things were reconciled “for him.” Also the Colossians were thus reconciled in order to be presented as holy, blemishless, unblamable (1:15–22). In this sense he, the One in whom all the fulness of the Deity dwells, is “the head of all rule and authority,” 1:16 already having stated that beneath him are “all the things in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulerships or authorities.” “All rule and authority” summarizes all created powers, the two nouns express one concept: authoritative reign, reigning authority. An “head” the God-man is infinitely above them, all of them are in the hollow of his hand. What folly is the philosophy which pretends that such a rule and authority are able to interfere with Christ in giving us the fulness that we need! That was the figment of the Colossian Judaizers.

Colossians 2:11

11 With καί Paul begins specification and starts with circumcision: in connection with whom you also were circumcised with a circumcision non-handmade, in the removal of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, when you were jointly entombed with him in the baptism in which you also were jointly raised up by means of the faith in the working of God as the One who raised him up from the dead.

Note that in v. 9, 10 we have two ἐναὐτῷ, and that καί does not add a third relative: “in connection with whom,” which means that Paul now specifies what is included in our being made full, so entirely full that these Judaizers could not only not possibly point out some remaining emptiness or lack, but also that they are left far behind with all their schemes of adding to our alleged need; they are like beggars who with their philosophy about “weak and beggarly elementary things” (Gal. 4:9) would enrich those who are infinitely rich and are filled with what they have in the God-man himself.

Since Paul starts with circumcision, we conclude that the errorists in Colosse were Judaizers. Since, however, Paul’s polemics deal with circumcision only here in this epistle and treat physical circumcision as being utterly inferior to what Christians have in baptism, we furthermore conclude that these Judaizers differed decidedly from those found in Galatia, that they did not make circumcision the sine qua non, did not demand it as an essential but only boasted of it: if circumcised men such as they were needed the asceticism and the careful observances they maintained, how much more did Gentile Christians need them, who were not even circumcised? This seems to be the argument regarding their circumcision. Paul points to the vastly superior circumcision which the Colossians have “in connection with Christ.”

“You were circumcised with a circumcision non-handmade.” That of the Judaizers was a poor “handmade” thing, “in flesh” only (Eph. 2:11), the cutting off of a little skin from the genital organ. That of the Colossians is one which consists “in the removal of the (whole) body of the flesh,” of the entire old man. Physical removal of the bit of foreskin—what is that in comparison with the spiritual removal of the whole body of the sinful flesh? “The body of the flesh” is not the whole mass of sinful flesh, nor the whole physical body as composed of physical flesh, but the physical body as belonging to and dominated by sinful flesh. The Christian no longer has such a body.

“Of the body” is the objective; “of the flesh” is the possessive or the qualitative genitive (not the genitive of material). It is like the genitive found in Rom. 6:6: “the body of the sin.” In 1:22, “in connection with the body of his flesh through the death,” the genitive “of his flesh” (note “his”) denotes the physical material of Christ’s body, he died by means of his physical body which was composed of physical flesh.

The spiritual circumcision with which God circumcised us (he is the agent in the passive) occurred “in the removal of the body of the sin,” in that act of God’s by which he stripped off (ἐκ) and away (ἀπό) this body like an old, filthy garment that one throws aside to be rid of it for good and all. The Christian’s physical body is thus a spiritually new one, not belonging to or marked by sinful flesh, but belonging to the spirit, marked and ruled by the spirit. His physical members are no longer instruments of the flesh but instruments of righteousness for God (Rom. 6:12, 13).

The dogmaticians make the distinction that this regeneration is perfect a parte Dei, imperfect a parte hominum recipientium; namely in this way: the flesh has been completely removed from its throne of ruling the body and its members, of making them serve the lusts of the flesh at the behest of the flesh; the spirit now occupies the throne, the body and its members obey the spirit, the flesh lurks about, seeks again to usurp the throne, invades our members, but succeeds only in making them sin here and there. Gal. 5:17.

The second ἐν phrase is appositional to the first. It thus elucidates: “in the removal,” etc., means: “in the circumcision of Christ.” This phrase tells us the kind of circumcision we received. This is, of course, not the objective genitive: “of Christ” when he was circumcised on the eighth day; it is subjective: the circumcision he inaugurated by baptism. There is a contrast between this and what the Judaizers had in the way of circumcision.

In this connection we should remember that the old covenant circumcision which was given to Abraham was a true sacramental seal of justification by faith (Rom. 4:11), the Old Testament anticipation of baptism; but the Jews had made it a mere legal rite that was disconnected from justification by faith, a piece of law and not a piece of pure gospel. These Judaizers in Colosse had made it even less than that: something on which they merely prided themselves. Moreover, Christ had brought in the new covenant which superseded the old and replaced the true circumcision given to Abraham by the baptism he (Christ) instituted. This circumcision which was instituted by Christ, Paul pits against the miserable, physical circumcision of which the Judaizers were proud.

Colossians 2:12

12 The participle and the following verb state what was done by God (passives) when the Colossians were circumcised by God (passive) with the true spiritual circumcision: no less than this that “they were jointly entombed with Christ in the baptism” he instituted, and thus “also in connection with him they were jointly raised up by means of the faith” wrought by God. What a vast difference between this circumcision and that on which the Judaizers prided themselves! How ridiculous that they should boast of their beggarly distinction which cannot even be remotely compared with what God had bestowed on the Colossians in the mighty sacrament Christ had instituted! The parallel passage is Rom. 6:3–5. Both deal with baptism, both are couched in mystical language: “jointly entombed—jointly you were raised up.” All three occurred simultaneously: “you were circumcised,” in that instant entombed, in that instant raised up. “Jointly entombed” is purposely a participle in order to indicate a subsidiary act while “you were raised up” is a finite verb in a relative clause, this being the main act. The entombment is to be followed by the resurrection.

We should understand what mystical language is. It is neither figurative (metaphorical) nor symbolical. There is no thought of immersion, the plunge beneath the water symbolizing burial in a tomb, the lifting out of the water symbolizing resurrection out of the tomb. What would be the symbolism in Gal. 2:20: “I have been jointly crucified with Christ”? have been and so remain? Moreover, a symbol does not consist in re-enacting something; nor does a symbol picture something. A few drops of water may symbolize if a symbol is, indeed, desired. But we ought not attribute such a thought to Paul. This is mystical language, a concentrated statement of two immense realities by means of one expression.

First, Christ was laid into his tomb; secondly, we are laid into that very tomb jointly with him. Baptism joins us with Christ’s entombment. The same is true with regard to the raising up. Both joint acts involve a joint death, i.e., a joint crucifixion (Gal. 2:20). The interval of time between what happened to Christ and what happened to us is ignored. The fact that Christ was actually buried and raised up is, of course, beyond question.

That implies that σύν in the participles, joint entombment, joint being raised up, cannot denote anything that is not equally actual, i.e., cannot denote something that is only figurative or symbolical, unreal, that may become real in some other way, at some other time, by some other means. Christ’s entombment and his resurrection were actual and in their actuality atoning, substitutionary, vicarious, full of saving power. Duplication of this by having others join him is impossible even as one world atonement is sufficient, even as one God-man alone could and did accomplish it.

But its very nature implies fullest impartation of all that Christ achieved. Christ died, was entombed, was raised up for us. The impartation to us of what is for us is spiritual in its very nature. It demands a spiritual joining to this Christ, to his crucifixion, etc. This is the force of the σύν here and in Rom. 6 and in Gal. 2. It leaves the saving power in these acts to Christ and adds our being saved in these acts when we are joined to them—both in fullest reality and actuality. This joining, so wonderful and blessed for us, takes place “in the baptism,” βάπτισμα, the suffix-μα naming it as a result accomplished and wrought; in Rom. 6:4 βαπτισμός = the act (R. 151; C.-K. 199).

Those who, like the Baptist R., W. P., speak of “a symbolic burial with Christ,” “a picture of the change already wrought,” of Gnostics and of Judaizers as beings “sacramentalists,” of Paul as not being “a sac-ramentalist,” have a conception of baptism that is not in accord with what Paul says of it here and elsewhere. Our spiritual circumcision is real and not merely a picture. These Judaizers, too, were not Gnostics. To associate all those who adhere to the full spiritual efficacy of baptism as joining us spiritually to the entombment and the resurrection of Christ with Gnostics and with Judaizers and labelling them “sacramentalists,” does not separate us from Paul or from Jesus (John 3:3, 5), nor does this procedure make symbolists of Paul and of Jesus. Although ἐνᾧ is like the relative phrase at the beginning of v. 11, it is not a repetition of it: “in whom”; it resumes “the baptism”: “jointly entombed with him in the baptism in which also you were jointly raised up” (with him), i.e., in that same baptism—no comma: “in the baptism in which,” etc.

The idea that would make an opus operatum of baptism is excluded by Paul’s phrase: “by means of the faith,” etc. This was the false view of the Jews concerning their circumcision: the mere operation of cutting off the foreskin made them the chosen of God. Such a view of baptism is excluded by the very fact that it joins us to Christ’s entombment, etc. Its efficacy is spiritual and not mechanical. Faith is ever the subjective means which is joined with baptism as the objective means in our joint resurrection with Christ. A man may be baptized a thousand times; but he is not jointly raised up with Christ unless he believes. Note that all the passives and baptism bestow, and that “through the faith” adds the thought that we receive what is thus bestowed.

That is why the phrase regarding faith, the ὄργανονληπτικόν, is added to the positive statement: “you were jointly raised up by means of the faith,” etc. But the idea that there are two blessings, one the entombment, the other the raising up, is untenable. We have one blessing, and that has a negative and a positive side. We are not entombed for a time and then after some time are raised to life. In the case of Christ three days intervened between these two events, in our case there is no interval of time. Yes, there is a removal for us, one that is vastly more than cutting off a bit of skin, the whole body of the flesh is removed by entombing us with Christ.

This removal by entombment takes place “in that baptism in which” we are also raised up. The one objective means, baptism, accomplishes both. Not only is there a riddance of something bad which absolutely outclasses the riddance of a bit of foreskin, there is at the same time the production of a new life, something for which the Judaizers did not have even the least counterpart, for their removal of the foreskin was all they had, and even that amounts to nothing.

The reception of the new life in the resurrection of baptism involves faith. “In baptism you were jointly raised up (with Christ) διὰτῆςπίστεως, through or by means of the faith,” etc., the faith which receives all that God bestows in baptism. Luther: “Faith trusts such Word of God in the water.” For baptism is not a mere symbol; it is “the washing of water in connection with a (divine) utterance” (Eph. 5:26), “the washing of regeneration” (Tit. 3:5).

The fact that in the case of adults faith precedes baptism causes no difficulty, for this faith promptly asks for baptism so that all the treasures of it may be possessed. He who scorns baptism has no faith to receive its resurrection power. “Raised you up through the faith” has been referred to our bodily resurrection which is said to occur “ideally” in baptism and is to be consummated at the last day. The baptismal resurrection is thought to be only “ethical,” a start in good works. This baptismal resurrection is spiritual. A new spiritual life is produced. When this is present by faith, baptism seals, confirms, assures it. This faith is justifying faith. “Not the ethical life attitude but the religious treasures of justification and adoption constitute the contents of the συνεγερθῆναι.” Haupt.

Luther heads the list of those who regard the genitive as a genitive of cause: “the faith which God works,” etc., “of the operation of God” (A. V.), i.e., produced in us by his work. So this passage has come to be a dictum probans against synergism. The fact that faith is in toto of God’s production is the teaching of all Scripture. Luther’s causal genitive is made doubtful by the fact that, when “faith” is followed by a genitive, this genitive is either subjective, naming the person who believes; or it is objective, naming the person or the object which is believed.

The Greek fathers regarded this genitive as an objective genitive: “the faith in the working of God as the One who raised him (Christ) up from the dead” (R. V.). We see no escape from this construction. By accepting this object, faith is, indeed, the subjective means for our being raised up by God. The objection does not hold that faith cannot be said to rely on only one divine attribute. Why not?

But this ἐνέργεια is the energy or working of all God’s saving attributes. All of them are present in the raising up of Christ, and it is jointly with him that we have been raised up in baptism. This is “the faith” (note the article), the one holding to this object, which receives the resurrection bestowed by God. This object of faith comes to us in the objective means of baptism and is received as in a cup by this faith as the subjective means of appropriation.

Colossians 2:13

13 We do not begin the new sentence with the διά phrase: “By means of the faith … also you … be quickened,” etc. The ordinary reader begins the new sentence, as do our versions, with v. 13. And you, being dead due to the trespasses and the foreskin of your flesh, he quickened you together with him by forgiving us all the trespasses after having blotted out the to us hostile handwriting in decrees, which was opposed to us. And it he has borne clear away by having nailed it to the cross. Having stripped the rulerships and authorities, he put them to shame publicly by causing a triumph over them in connection with him. Compare the close parallel in Eph. 2:1, 5 where Paul writes about the same deadness and the same quickening.

The entombment and the resurrection involve a death and a quickening or making alive. The main thought, however, lies in the two added participles which show how this quickening was wrought. The trespasses that rendered the Colossians spiritually “dead,” all of them God graciously forgave (χαρισάμενος) and by this act quickened and made the Colossians spiritually alive. This is justification by faith, “the faith” whose object v. 12 describes.

Note the repetition of παραπτώματα and the “all” the second time they are mentioned. No transgressions of any kind are left in the spiritually quickened, which they still need to trouble about and try to remove by Judaistic regulations and observances. It is a farce when the Judaizers claim to stand on a higher, cleaner level than the Colossian Christians. These παραπτώματα are not mere “lapses,” the word does not have a mild force; this word is never used in a mild sense in the New Testament. These are “transgressions” that have killed spiritually; no worse effect could be caused, and in Eph. 2:1 Paul adds “sins.” The dative is causal: “dead due to the transgressions.” God’s forgiveness destroys this cause and thus works spiritual life.

Because Paul has said in v. 11: “you were circumcised with a non-handmade circumcision,” etc., he adds as the cause of the spiritual deadness: “the foreskin of your flesh.” Καί is explicative; this foreskin is the mass of the transgressions. The spiritual circumcision which the Colossians had received took place “in the removal of the body of the flesh” (v. 11). This body of the flesh = the foreskin of your flesh. Cutting it away in baptism removed the deadness and gave spiritual life. In baptism the forgiveness took place, which removed the transgressions, i.e., this deadly foreskin, this body of the flesh. There is no reference to the physically uncircumcised condition of the Colossians.

Jews and Gentiles, physically circumcised and uncircumcised, are alike dead due to the transgressions and the foreskin of their flesh or sinful nature. This spiritual foreskin that must be cut off if we are to be made alive is a far different thing from the foreskin of the penis, the removal of which the Judaizers made so important.

We should not forget that we ordinarily entomb the dead in order to be entirely rid of them. The entombment which the Colossians have undergone is totally different. It joined them to Christ who was entombed, not to decay in corruption, but to be raised up from the dead. So the Colossians were entombed in order to be raised jointly with Christ, to be “jointly quickened with him,” the σύν of the verb is even repeated with the pronoun, which is an exceptional usage with this verb, and thus the union with Christ is strongly emphasized. The expression is again mystical: what occurred in Christ’s physical quickening occurs spiritually in our quickening, his quickening effects and produces ours. The expression, which has God as the subject, is intended to make the facts stand out in their absolute divine greatness and completeness so that the ideas of the Judaizers may appear as utterly insane as they really are.

“He quickened by forgiving,” the participle is modal, the action contemporaneous with that of the verb. The preceding aorists also express activities that are contemporaneous: “you were circumcised—by being entombed—you were raised up.” All of this is one comprehensive act of God’s in connection with Christ Jesus and not a succession of acts that has intervals of time. As a diamond has many facets but is only one diamond, so this one act has various aspects and yet remains one. Facing the removal of the control exercised by our flesh, it is called circumcision, it is also called an entombment; facing our deadness, it is called an entombment, a resurrection, a quickening; facing our transgressions, it is called forgiveness. We cannot make the participle express antecedent action; the forgiveness does not precede the quickening in point of time. No spiritually dead first have forgiveness and then await the reception of life. This is the constant teaching of Scripture which no commentator is able to change by his conception of the grammatical relation of the participle to its main verb.

Von Hofmann, who is followed by Zahn (Introduction 1, 475), has ὑμᾶς = you Colossians who are Gentile Christians, and ἡμῖν = to us Jews, Paul and the Jewish Christians, and supports this view with an extended argument. We note the same type of exegesis in connection with Eph. 1:12, etc., where “we” and “you” are divided in the same way (see this passage). Why did Paul place this participial clause here if it means that God forgave the Jews their trespasses while he made alive the Gentile Colossians who had been dead in their trespasses? Separating the participle from its verb and letting it begin a new sentence does not yield the sense advocated by these expositors. The παραπτώματα which God forgave are the very ones which rendered all their owners dead. This word so unites verb and participle that they cannot well be separated.

Paul’s change from “you” Colossians to “we” combines him and Timothy (1:1) with the Colossians. The broadening into “we” indicates that others besides the Colossians have had God do for them what Paul says God has done for his readers in Colosse.

Colossians 2:14

14 Not even this second participle begins a new sentence. Still less is this second participle modal to the first and thus simultaneous with it: “After God in grace forgave us (Jewish Christians) all our lapses by blotting out the bond,” etc. (Zahn, Introduction). This blotting out occurred on Calvary long before Paul, Timothy, and the Colossians were raised to life, quickened, and forgiven. This blotting out is the atonement made by God through Christ’s death on the cross. It is applied to us in the forgiveness of our sins when we are brought to contrition and faith. This participle is antecedent: “after having blotted out the to us hostile handwriting in decrees,” etc. On the strength of this act God forgives the penitent believer.

Καθʼ ἡμῶν is used as an adjective and hence is placed between the article and the noun: this is “the down on us handwriting,” the written law of God. Χειρόγραφον is “handwriting,” a document in writing. The translation of the R. V. “bond” is not an improvement on that of the A. V. Misleading conceptions are introduced when the word is thought to mean Schuldschein, a “debtor’s bond.” It would then be the debtor who writes or at least signs the bond and states the amount owed as is done in a promissory note. Because they found this idea of a bond here some commentators searched the Old Testament for something that resembled a signature made by Israel, by which it obligated itself to keep the law; a few passages such as Exod. 24:3 were found.

It is, however, too narrow a view to assume that “handwriting” always = “debtor’s bond.” Ewald finds that of thirteen such cheirographa, five were debtor’s bonds, two concerned deposits made, two were labor contracts, one gave authority to act, three were business agreements. This diversity in meaning shows the range of the word.

The contents of this adversely written document are here indicated by the dative τοῖςδόγμασιν. The document contained the divine decrees (Eph. 2:15). No signature of ours is remotely thought of. God issued the decrees, he acted like the Roman emperor; he issued them in a written document with his signature and his seal affixed. This describes the divine law exactly: “written and engraven in stones” (2 Cor. 3:7) and demanding, “Thou shalt! Thou shalt not!” It is too narrow a view to say that this document of the law was given only to the Jews. Rom. 3:9–20 (note v. 19) shows that, by giving this law to the Jews, God shut every mouth and made the whole world guilty before him. By condemning the Jews this law condemned every man on earth.

It was certainly “down on us,” no man could meet its demands. To speak of moral and ceremonial laws is to limit this term unduly. Whether a man knew the emperor’s decrees or not, whether he knew some or all of them, made no difference as far as the force of the document was concerned. Luther’s reference to conscience is not in place when he regards it as our signature, it is in place only when we regard it as showing how absolutely the divine law and decrees bind and convict us.

There is a diversity of opinion regarding the construction of the dative. The ancients construed: “having blotted out the to us hostile handwriting by the decrees (of grace),” dative of means, but δόγματα never means gospel “decrees.” Today no one accepts this view. A few draw the dative into the relative clause: “which by the decrees (contained in the handwriting) was opposed to us.” But this gives an overemphasis to the Greek dative which is placed before the relative “which.” Most of the grammars do not list this dative; Winer, 6th ed., § 31, 10, note 1, has: den wider uns (lautenden) Schuldbrief durch die Satzungen. It is certain that the dative, whatever one is pleased to call it, is to be construed with the noun “handwriting” despite the fact that some call this construction “hard.” It will not do to construe it with καθʼ ἡμῶν: “against us because of the decrees.” If that were the sense, the dative should be next to the phrase in its attributive position between the article and the noun.

The relative clause: “which was contrary or opposed to us,” seems redundant since the handwriting has already been described as being “hostile to us.” But this is the very point that requires emphasis, one form of such emphasis being repetition by means of the same or by means of similar words. Completely, utterly against us was this handwriting which no man in the world could face and live. God blotted it out, cancelled and annulled it completely! Remember that this handwriting contained all the demands God made upon us. The cancellation wiped out all of them. That means that none are now left such as the Judaizers in Colosse imagined, which required Christians to avoid this and that (v. 20) and to observe this and that (v. 16).

Paul might have continued with a participle: “by having nailed it to the cross.” But this act is too great to be expressed only by participles which are so often used to express minor actions. Paul repeats the thought with a finite verb and by means of this tells us what he means by the figurative blotting out: “And it he has borne clear away by nailing it to the cross.” That was, indeed, blotting it out. The two αὐτό are emphatic: “it itself.” Not only the writing was stricken out, the very document itself perished on the cross. This verb is used when Jesus is said to carry away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Here the perfect tense “has borne away” goes beyond the previous aorist “did blot out” in that it adds the enduring condition to the past fact: bore away so that it remains so borne away. The phrase ἐκτοῦμέσου = “clear away.” We need not stress the idea that the document no longer stands “in the midst” between God and us. Eph. 2:11, etc., speaks of an entirely different subject, namely of the abolition of the law which kept Jews and Gentiles apart, an idea that is not touched upon here.

The climax lies in the arresting, concentrated statement: “nailing it (aorist, one act) to the cross.” Christ was so nailed to the cross, and in him the law was nailed to it; Christ, when he was nailed up, died; so did the law. Christ rose again, but not the law; Christ rose because his death killed the law forever. If the law had not died in the blood of the cross, Christ could not have arisen. Since the law is dead and gone, spiritual quickening and resurrection are now ours.

As we read all this, passage after passage that Paul has written on the abolition of the law occurs to us. Here we have one of the strongest and the most expressive. Yet as we read we should not forget what precedes in 1:13–20 and in 2:9, 10 where Christ is called the God-man, supreme over all creation, very God himself. It is his cross that blotted out the law.

Colossians 2:15

15 For us, in our ordinary situation, Paul might have stopped at this point: the whole handwriting and its decrees are nailed to the cross. But he cannot do so for the Colossians who have to face the miserable Judaizers. For them Paul must top the pyramid: “Having stripped the rulerships and authorities, he put them to shame publicly by causing a triumph over them in connection with him.” The supposition that Paul changes the subject from God to Christ is answered by the closing phrase. The debate about the middle voice of ἀπεκδυσάμενος, as to whether it is reflexive or not, and if, to what extent and in what manner, need not delay us long. See Moulton, Einleitung 245–252, on the fluctuations between the active and the middle; B.-D. 316, the use of the middle for the active.

We regard Zahn’s translation: “God put away from himself as a garment,” as inaccurate, and R. 805 (not “undress” but “throw off from oneself”) and the R. V. (“having put off from himself”) are not improvements. The idea that evil spirits were in any way a garment of God, which he finally had to throw off, is untenable. Nor does Zahn improve this when he makes this garment a mist and tells us that this “mist” hid God from the Gentiles so that he finally put it away. But how could God take off this garment-mist and put it to shame publicly by having it carried in a grand triumphal procession!

This garment of mist is due to the distinction that is made between Jew and Gentile which some have found in the pronouns “we” and “you” in v. 13. Then the mist is advanced as an interpretation of the whole of v. 15, this mist is dissolved by the gospel preaching among the Gentiles who now see God, which is a great triumph for him.

The A. V. is correct: God “spoiled” or despoiled, he “stripped” the rulerships and authorities. In connection with Christ, “the Stronger One,” he took away their armor wherein they trusted and divided the spoils (Luke 11:22; Matt. 12:29). Thus he exposed them to public shame, thus he caused them to be led in the triumphal procession which he granted to Christ. The Scripture substantiates this interpretation: Gen. 3:15; Ps. 68:18 (Eph. 4:8); Isa. 53:12; Matt. 12:29; Luke 11:22; John 12:31; 16:11; Heb. 2:14. Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture.

The difference between the noun ἀπεκδυσις used in v. 11 and the participle ἀπεκδυσάμενοι occurring in 3:9, on the one hand, and the participle ἀπεκδυσάμενος in our passage on the other hand, lies in the objects: in the former something that clings to us is stripped away, namely “the body of the flesh” (v. 11), “the old man with his practices” (3:9); in our passage persons or personal powers are stripped. The difference between the objects of the actions is so plain that the A. V. translates the former: “putting off” and “have put off,” but the latter, “having despoiled.”

Now we see why Paul in 1:16 writes about “thrones, lordships, rulerships, authorities” and again in 2:10, “all rulership and authority,” and states that Christ, the God-man, is over them all also in his human nature. Paul had in mind the satanic powers, Satan and the evil angels. The good angels served (Luke 1:13, 26; Matt. 1:20; 2:13) and worshipped Christ (Luke 2:9–14) from the beginning; but the power of the evil angels he came to destroy (Heb. 2:14). The abstract terms “rulerships and authorities,” of course, denote concrete beings who exercise rule and authority; but these abstract terms, each with its own article, imply that the beings referred to were stripped of all their ruling power, of all their authoritative power. They had usurped this because of hostility to God. God stripped them.

For this reason Paul uses the middle voice in preference to the active. This usurpation of rulership and authority was a matter regarding him and not only regarding us. This rule and authority had set itself up in a war against him, we were only the victims that were struck down in the fight against him. On his own behalf God thus stripped them; the middle voice of the participle is correct, nor need the force of reflexive action be inserted.

Ἐνπαρρησίᾳ is used exactly as it is in John 7:4, “in public,” it is the opposite of ἐνκρυπτῷ, “in secret.” “In public” is a better translation than the adverb “openly” (our versions). God “made a show of them in public,” made a public example of them, i.e., “he put them to shame.” The thought which is not yet quite complete is made so by another aorist participle that expresses simultaneous action: “by causing a triumph over them in connection with him” (i.e., Christ, the God-man). See this participle (present tense) in 2 Cor. 2:14: God “causing us a triumph in connection with Christ,” i.e., making us (Paul and his assistants) march in a triumphal procession as victors. In our passage the vanquished are the direct object of the participle: “causing them (the stripped usurpers of rule and authority) to march in a triumphal procession.” We find no difficulty between 2 Cor. 2:14 and our passage; the difference in the nature of “us” and of “them” makes everything plain just as does the difference between the objects of the first participle as used here and in 3:9 (the noun in 2:11) as explained above.

The Roman emperors or the senate granted a returning victorious general a grand triumph. This was a glorious procession through the streets of Rome: the general with his victorious legions, the captives bound with chains, all the spoils that had been taken displayed to the public (see further 2 Cor. 2:14). This is the imagery back of Paul’s figurative participle. There is irony in his saying that God accorded them, these stripped captives in whom captivity itself was taken captive (Eph. 4:8), a public triumph. In such a triumph they marched as chained captives (Rev. 20:1, 2). The irony is deepened by the addition “in connection with him” (Christ); the very opposite of this phrase is found in 2 Cor. 2:14.

Yes, all the hellish spirits had a connection with Christ, so had Paul and his gospel assistants—need we state the difference? This irony manifests a keen contempt. The Judaizers in Colosse claimed that these spirits still exercised great power, and that all Christians must protect themselves against it by observing the rules and regulations which the Judaizers prescribed. Behold, Paul says, this is how God gave these spirits a Roman triumph “in connection with Christ” (just as he keeps giving us such triumphs in connection with him, 2 Cor. 2:14): they, stripped completely, march in shame as utterly crushed and vanquished, an example of all those who are in the same awful connection with Christ!

This is the climax of Paul’s exposition. It harks back to v. 8: Watch out lest there come someone to make booty of you with his philosophy and empty deceit. Do you want to be the booty that is carried in such a triumph of the vanquished spirits of hell? The whole presentation is stunning because of its power of warning. The figures are powerful, every one of them is true to the reality it describes. The climax at the end is simply tremendous. Let nothing spoil it for you.

The aorists used in v. 15 are historical, they state facts that occurred. Zahn and others who follow him refer them to the progressive triumph of the gospel work among pagans. But these aorists designate acts that were completed a long time ago, they are history. When did they occur? When Christ descended to hell (1 Pet. 3:18, 19). Then he took captivity itself captive (Ps. 68:18; Eph. 4:8), crushed the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15); follow out the other passages noted above.

But literalize the figure from the facts. This means, do not lose the facts in the figures. There was no procession in hell, etc. The streets of hell were not lined with spectators to view the procession, etc. What does Paul then mean? What a Roman triumph meant to a conquered king and a vanquished army that is what God’s destruction of the powers of Satan “in connection with Christ” means.

It was victory, more than that, an absolute, final triumph.

It may be well to add a word. The old Judaistic notion seems to have perpetuated itself to the present day. Christians believe in signs, in charms. Read Wuttke, Der Deutsche Volksaberglaube, 2nd ed. All the German signs and charms he speaks of are also used here in America plus others that have other origins. Unseen powers, often conceived as spirits, are supposed to rule and govern the world of nature in thousands of ways, in thousands of things, in thousands of details.

And these powers may either hurt or help us. Unless we do this, avoid that, use this and that we shall be harmed in this or in that manner. Here we have the medicine for all this witchcraft and its basis of superstition. When will Christians shake it off with finality? It has been kept alive to a large extent by the preachers themselves who, instead of rooting it out with Pauline contempt and decisiveness, themselves still believe and lead their own people to believe that, while 90 per cent may be pure fake, a certain percent is genuine devil’s work.

The Warning against Grasping the Shadow and Losing the Body, yea, the Head, Christ

Colossians 2:16

16 Both of the statements of warning are formulated in the third person singular imperative (v. 16 and 18). They continue the warning of v. 8: “See to it lest there shall be,” etc. Paul now specifies the Judaistic demands and claims. From what is here said and implied the picture of these errorists is largely drawn. Accordingly, let nobody whatever judge you in eating or in drinking or in the matter of festival or new moon or sabbath, which things are a shadow of those coming, now the body is Christ’s.

Οὖν makes this warning accord with the preceding one (v. 8–15) which is general. Since no one is to make booty of us with his philosophy and empty deceit (v. 8) for the reason assigned (v. 9–15), we are to permit no person, no matter who he is (τὶς), to usurp judicial authority over us and dictate anything whatever regarding the five points here specified. “Let nobody whatever be judging you” means, whether he be one of these Judaizers or somebody else.

The verb is neutral: “Judge with approval or with disapproval”; to say that only condemning is intended here is not tenable. The Colossians are not only to avoid what such a judge forbids, they are also not to do what such a judge approves. The latter would be as serious a mistake as the former. The reasons for which such a judge approves a thing are just as wrong as the reasons for which he forbids it. For he is not prompted by the gospel nor by Christ’s words but by his vapid philosophy and empty deceit (v. 8) and would make booty of us either way. The main concern is always, not what we do or avoid, but the inner reason for our conduct.

Βρῶσις is “eating,” not βρῶμα, “food”; πόσις is “drinking,” not πόμα, “drink.” Our versions: “meat or drink,” are inexact. The distinction is material, for these Judaizers are not described as laying down rules about proper and improper food and drink, some being clean, others unclean, but rules about when to eat and to drink and to fast. They decree certain seasons of fasting as this is done to this day by certain church authorities. So also “in any festival matter,” “newmoon matter,” “sabbath matter”; ἐνμέρει is to be construed with all three genitives and means “any part or matter whatever” pertaining to festival, new moon, or sabbath, whether in the nature of approval or of disapproval, their “yea” as well as their “nay” would be the outcome of their false philosophy and deceit.

Five specifications, the broken ten, are not an accidental number but denote that these Judaizers have more judgments of this kind which the Colossians are to scorn and to reject altogether and never to act on. This verse shows that the errorists in Colosse were, indeed, Judaizers, for these specifications are plainly Jewish. Ἑορτή is not “holyday” (A. V.), nor “feast day” (R. V.), except in the sense of “festival.” Since Paul tells the Colossians to scorn anything these errorists say about anything regarding these points, we are left to guess as to what they really did say, i.e., to what extent their philosophy incorporated Old Testament Jewish regulation or Pharisaic legal traditionalism. Only so much seems to be assured, that they insisted on the Jewish practice of fasting and on observing Jewish festivals, new moons, and the sabbath (the Greek plural is used also to designate a single sabbath).

The regular type of Judaizers demanded circumcision above everything else; the way in which Paul speaks of circumcision in v. 11 indicates that the Colossian Judaizers only boasted of their own circumcision and did not demand it as a sine qua non for all Christians. So also, as Paul’s polemics show, fastings and festival days were not demanded legalistically as conditioning salvation but as great aids to the Christian life which freed the Christian from the dangerous influences of certain στοιχεῖα, earthly elementary things. The Galatian Judaizers were different. They demanded circumcision, the keeping of the law, all this as being essential to salvation; hence Paul writes as he does in Gal. 5:2, 3; 4:10, 11 and goes into the whole question of the law and of our liberty.

This point is most important for us. When law observance is demanded by present-day legalists, the gospel is upset and we must fight as Paul does in Galatians. But when certain observances, rules, and regulations are attached to the gospel, which are said to produce a much safer and superior Christianity, we must fight as Paul does in Colossians, scorn this fictitious safety and superiority with the absolute completeness and superiority of the gospel, with the infinite supremacy of the God-man, the utter fulness and completeness of his saving work, and the fulness (v. 10) which he has bestowed upon us. We must despise these rags of philosophy, traditions of men, elements of the world as not being in accord with Christ (v. 8) and not think for a moment of exchanging our perfect white silk robe for such rags or of sewing some of them onto this robe in order to make it really superior and beautiful. There is a queer and persistent tendency in the church to do this sort of thing, to pick up the fake excellencies of which errorists boast, to decorate ourselves with them when we ought to scorn the very idea.

Colossians 2:17

17 The folly of the Colossian Judaizers calls for only a brief relative clause in order to expose it: “which things are a shadow of those coming,” and for the sake of clarity Paul adds: “now the body is Christ’s.” The relative “which things” refers to all of those mentioned in v. 16. We really have an understatement: these things are a shadow at best, especially when we consider how God used them in the old covenant. If one should consider how the Jews abused them by their Pharisaism, how they multiplied external, hypocritical traditions, far different language should be used.

Paul’s understatement destroys the best that can be said for these regulations: they are at best out of date, long ago discarded by God himself, even when God was still using them in the old covenant he employed them only as “a shadow of the things about to come,” to be superseded by these things when they arrived, i.e., by the great realities themselves, the actual substance or “body.” What these substantial things are, and how all of them are “Christ’s,” i.e., belong to him, Paul has already set forth at length in 1:13–23 and 2:9–15. They are certainly tremendous. The old shadow has completely faded away before them.

This is not the adversative δέ, “but” (our versions). Δέ is explanatory, parenthetical, helping us to understand “shadow of the things coming.” “Shadow” and “the body” are not in opposition or contrast but in conjunction even as we never have a shadow without the body by which it is cast. Both terms are figurative, the figure making clear the relation between God’s Old Testament regulations and the New Testament realities: they are related as is “a shadow” to its “body.”

Paul does not say that the body is “Christ.” This would be out of the line of thought and thus not really correct. “The body,” the coming realities, are “Christ’s”; they belong to him, are his as shown in 1:13, etc.; 2:9, etc. We need scarcely say that the body does not here mean the church or anything else that is foreign to “shadow.” Moreover, this whole statement is doctrinal; such statements use the present tense which simply notes the fact as a fact without regard to time. This disposes of the view that the “shadow” is all that we still have, that “the things about to come” are those that will arrive at the time of Christ’s Parousia; that if the shadow refers to the old covenant which is now past and gone, and “the things about to come” refer to the new covenant that is now here, Paul should have written ἦν instead of ἐστί. If this contention were true, the shadow would now not be out of date, the Judaizers in Colosse would have been right in clinging to it, and Paul would be wrong in warning against them.

The picture is not that of a shadow cast by a body that is standing on the ground and thus waiting to step forward into full sight; this is the body of realities that are waiting to descend from heaven, its shadow is spreading beneath it, the body is already so near that its great shadow falls on those beneath who are standing in expectation. We should not think slightingly of the shadow. It was no less than the divine promise of all the heavenly realities about to arrive. The shadow proved the actuality and even the nearness of the realities, for only an actual body and one that is not far away casts a shadow. So the shadow called out all the faith and the hope of the Old Testament saints in the impending realities and guaranteed that faith and that hope in the strongest way. By faith Abraham saw Christ’s day and was glad (John 8:56); Isaiah saw Christ’s glory and spoke of it (John 12:41; Isa. 53).

Paul does not say that the regulations referred to in v. 16 formed “the shadow,” they were only “a shadow.” The whole of it was far greater, these few things were only a small part of this whole. If, however, one asks how these few things foreshadowed so much, the answer is that, if God had not intended to send the great body of coming things, all of which were Christ’s very own, he would never have given Israel a single regulation, would have left it as he left the pagan nations. Jesus says: “Moses wrote of me” (John 5:46), which means that he did so, not in a few direct promises, but in all that he wrote, not a line of which would have been penned save for Christ and the things Christ would be and bring.

While the shadow and its every part dare not be discounted, once the body of the realities had descended, the whole shadow was superseded. To try to cling to the shadow or to any part of it now, could mean only one thing, namely that what the shadow had so long foreshadowed was not understood, was not appreciated and desired now that it had all come. To the extent to which the Judaizers clung to the past shadow as if it were still present, to that extent they abandoned the body which had filled the place of the former shadow. Instead of the gospel and its heavenly realities they had an empty, deceptive philosophy without the saving realities, traditions of men, poor earthly elements, not at all Christ (v. 8). The shadow is good for its time, by means of it faith and hope embrace the coming realities; but when men prefer the shadow instead of the realities they end with nothing, for even the shadow has disappeared when the shining, heavenly realities stand in its place. This is the point of Paul’s warning.

Verses 16, 17 have been of the greatest value to the church. This passage appears in her Catechisms and in her confessions (C. Tr.) no less than seven times, it is repeatedly combined with v. 20, 21. Here all the conscience-binding power and the meritoriousness of church rites and observances are destroyed, in particular also all Sabbatarianism, a substitution by divine right of the Christian Sunday for the abrogated Jewish Sabbath (C. Tr. 91, § 57, etc.) You may also think of the introduction of tithing with the attempts to give it a Christian coloring. A study of the use which the church has made of this passage is most illuminating.

Colossians 2:18

18 Now the second half of Paul’s warning. Let no one deny you the prize by his mere will in connection with (any) lowliness and worship practiced by the angels, (such a person) going in for (only) the things he has seen, vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh and not holding fast the head, him from whom all the body, by means of the joints and bands receiving supply and being knit together, grows with the growth of God. Save for the clause about being puffed up, verse 18 is much debated. We consider it best to present only our own views for the reader’s consideration without going into the many other views.

“Let nobody whatever” (v. 16) is not quite the same as this downright: “Let no one.” So also the first imperative is general: “let nobody whatever judge you,” i.e., do you disregard anybody who arrogates to himself the right in any way to dictate to you about eating, etc. This second imperative is special: the self-appointed judge may approve or condemn, the self-appointed referee or judge in a contest is described as doing only the latter to the Colossians: “let no one deny you the prize” in such a way as is here stated by the modifiers. This is more graphic. It pictures the man who awards the prize in the athletic contests and denies this prize to the true Christians in Colosse, and does this mean thing in the way and on the grounds now stated.

Paul says: “Let no one do this sort of thing to you, i.e., disregard him who tries it, laugh at him; the prize is yours whatever decision the fellow may hand down. He acts as though he is the final arbiter, as though he could award the prize to Judaizers at his pleasure, being one himself. Well, he is about the last man in the world who has such a right!” Some specify the prize to be the award that is accorded to the one who is considered the victor in a contest. Here we have the picture of the Colossians and the followers of the Judaizers being engaged in an athletic contest, and some leader of the Judaizers refusing the prize to the Colossians. Laugh at such an attempt of his! is Paul’s meaning.

All the modifiers substantiate this imperative. First of all, the fellow does this θέλων, “of his own mere will.” We regard the R. V. margin as correct on this point; the participle is adverbial (R. 551) and = “wilfully, arbitrarily” this man denies you the prize that in all fairness belongs to you as a reward for the true Christianity you have shown. We do not regard θέλωνἐν as a strong Hebraism: “delighting in” lowliness, etc. (Thayer and others). Paul does not use such bold Hebraisms (the New Testament has no duplicate), and it would here spoil what Paul is saying.

When an arbiter decides adversely in an arbitrary manner, he may have some odd reason that sways him. A Judaistic arbiter of the type found in Colosse would arbitrarily deny the prize to true Christians “in connection with (what he considers) lowliness and worship practiced by the angels.” Note that the governing nouns are without articles and hence do not mean “the lowliness,” etc., which the angels really have but “some kind of lowliness,” etc., such as this arbiter imagines the angels to have. The fellow acts arbitrarily on a mere fiction and not with fairness in accordance with the rules of the game.

Ἐν, “in connection with,” is the proper preposition, the context indicates the connection: the Colossians are denied the prize of being honored and acclaimed genuine, superior, first-class Christians in comparison with all others such as Judaizers and other errorists because the denial as also the award are made by a willful act (θέλων) which connects the decision of the arbiter with a false criterion. Instead of using Christ, “the head,” and noting how closely the Colossians are connected with him, from whom all life and all spiritual growth are derived, this arbiter in his arbitrariness (θέλων) uses as the criterion “lowliness and worship as practiced by the angels” and so rejects the Colossians as being far below par, as being far behind in the race, and awards the prize to his fellow Judaizers as being up to par, as winning the race. Errorists, especially rigorists, always set up false standards for measuring people’s Christianity. Unless you eat and drink as they say, observe Sunday (they call it “Sabbath”!) as they prescribe, you are a most inferior Christian; they generally say, no real Christian at all. They by their will (θέλων) deny you the prize.

The two nouns are governed by one preposition: ἐνταπεινοφροσύνῃκαὶθρησκείᾳ. We thus regard the genitive τῶνἀγγέλων as belonging to both. If it were read by itself without the genitive, “in lowliness” would be an incomplete concept. “Lowliness and worship” naturally go together, for θρησκεία, the worship in acts (cultus exterior), is practiced in humility; the worshiper approaches God in a humble, lowly attitude. We thus regard the genitive as subjective: “the angels’ lowliness with which they bring their worship to God.” The Judaistic arbiter sets up the angels as the standard and so denies the prize to the Colossians but accords it to Judaizers alone. “The angels” are, of course, the good angels. C.-K. 499 translates: Demut in Betaetigung der Froemmigkeit, wie sie die Engel ausueben.

We have only the context to guide us in defining this angelic standard and model of piety and worship. Nothing is gained by going beyond this. The Judaizers taught that the evil angels had power to do great damage to Christians through the στοιχεῖατοῦκόσμου, the material, earthly elements of this world (see v. 8, 20). Hence there arose the Judaistic system for preventing this damage (v. 16, 20, 21). Hence the good angels are tha perfect model. In their lowly worship these angels are superior to all earthly, material stoicheia, are wholly unaffected by them; no evil angel can in any way spoil their worship by detrimental contact with material things of the cosmos.

Who, then, most nearly approaches this standard of the angels? Certainly not the Colossians who disregarded all of the Judaistic rules and regulations for keeping away from material elements; certainly only the Judaizers who observed these rules. They were accorded the prize; the Colossians were denied the prize. “Never let that bother you,” Paul tells the Colossians.

He has already shown that Christ is infinitely superior to all angelic beings (1:16, 20), yea, that God has stripped the demons of their power and has let Christ celebrate a grand triumph over them (2:15). This takes the ground from under the feet of the whole Judaistic philosophy as far as the demonic damage done through earthly elements is concerned. The whole matter is “empty deceit” (v. 8), a bugaboo to frighten people, and nothing more. This causes the whole scheme of the Judaizers to collapse: their fastings, observance of Jewish festivals, new moons, sabbaths, their, “Touch not, taste not, handle not!” (v. 21) so as to escape diabolical danger. This wipes out their angelic model and their claim that we must be as free as the good angels from contact with the material things of the cosmos in which we live.

Luther has given the idea exactly in his masterly rendering: in Demut und Geistlichkeit der Engel. We meet this ideal of angelic purity to this day and not only in the false spirituality of monks and of nuns but also in the sanctity that is supposed to develop from a life that exalts itself above the common earthly contacts. This is that dangerous, morbid piety, which was fought so strenuously by Luther, which despises the robust Christian life of living the gospel in daily labor: the workman in his trade, the housewife in tending her home and her children (Luke 3:10–14). Note well that Paul has used only a phrase to characterize this false angelic, Judaistic ideal, which means that it was only an incidental feature of the false philosophy of the Judaizers. Paul may even be quoting the Judaistic expression “lowliness and worship of the angels.”

We cannot agree with the view of those who regard the genitive as the objective genitive; this view attaches τῶνἀγγέλων only to the second noun, θρησκείᾳ. The Judaizers did not worship the good angels. This would have been flagrant idolatry, and Paul would not have dealt with it by a mere incidental phrase and in a connection that referred to denial of the prize. No worship of angels was known in Paul’s day. To posit such a worship on the strength of this genitive is asserting too much as far as the genitive is concerned and as far as Paul’s whole statement is concerned.

In the Greek the four participles: θέλων—ἐμβατεύων—φυσιούμενος—οὐκρατῶν multiply the specifications by which a Judaizer comes to deny the prize to the Colossian Christians: he does it 1) by acting arbitrarily in setting up a false standard; 2) by thus going in for only the things he has seen; 3) by being puffed up in the mind of his flesh; 4) by letting go of the head, Christ. Note the absence of connectives save with the last participle. This means that by doing the one thing he does also the next, and so on throughout. But letting go of Christ is the effect of all three preceding participles. By acting on his mere will in connection with what he conceives the lowliness and worship of the good angels to be a Judaistic arbiter “goes in for (only) the things he has seen.”

This is the most difficult of the four participial clauses. The reading itself is in doubt. Shall we retain μή: “going in for what he has not seen”? Yet why is μή and not οὐ used as it should be with a finite verb? The texts that have μή are not wrong linguistically; early copyists would have changed a wrong negative by replacing it with the linguistically correct one. Μή seems to have been considered correct because of the preceding μηδείς with the imperative.

At first glance the sense seems to require the negative: by setting up the angels as models of truly humble worship this arbiter goes in for things he has not seen, he has never seen the angels and the way in which they worship. True, indeed, but have we seen our model of worship? Do we, too, not walk by faith in things unseen? This “not” seems to have slipped into the text because the copyist thought that Paul was referring to the angels. If we omit the negative, “the things he has seen” (perfect tense: and still has before his eyes) would be the earthly, material elements, the things not to touch, taste, handle (v. 21) in eating or drinking, at festivals, sabbaths, etc. (v. 16), these being only samples of the Judaistic system of life. This seems correct. The Judaizer, who by his will sets up his angelic ideal, goes in for these visible, material things and demands avoidance in order to make us as angelic as possible.

C. K. 1164 translates ἐμβατεύω: auf etwas ausgehen. We do not accept the proposed textual alterations. The word is uncommon, and the task of the linguists is to find its meaning and not to substitute a word of their own choosing. “To go in for something” seems to approximate the true meaning. Of course, like any other word, this one, too, is used in various contexts; the fact that it is used in the mystery cults does not make it technical, does not make Paul say that this Judaistic arbiter acts like an initiate of a secret cult.

The road is easier now: because of his notion about the earthly elements he has seen the Judaizer is described “as vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh.” That is why he acts as the arbiter, because he regards himself qualified to decree where the prize is to go. But he is puffed up “in vain.” He has seen the stoicheia, the earthly elements, and that is all that he has seen; he has not seen the absolute supremacy of Christ over all things whether in heaven or in earth, the visible and invisible (1:15, etc.), the absolute victory and power of Christ over the whole hellish realm (2:15). This Judaizer’s puffed up condition (durative participle) is caused (ὑπό to indicate the agent) “by the mind of his flesh” (qualitative genitive), by his blind, perverted “fleshly mind.” When a man who has such a mind pretends to deny us the prize and calls us inferior Christians, we certainly will only smile at his silly dictum.

Colossians 2:19

19 Καί can scarcely connect the last participle with only the third and ignore the other two; it implies that the three preceding participles involve the thought that the head is not held fast. When οὐ negates a participle, the negation is “clear-cut and decisive” (R. 1137–8): the thing is simply not so. In all that Paul has said of him this arbiter is simply “not holding fast the head,” him who is over all things whatever (Eph. 2:22), the head of all rule and authority (v. 10); who as such is in a special sense the head of his body, the church (1:18; Eph. 2:22; 5:23), as its Savior (Eph. 5:23). How can a Judaist who does not see anything aright (the angels, the things on earth) be allowed in the puffed up condition of his fleshly mind to judge those who belong to the spiritual body of this head and to decide that the prize is not theirs? The very idea of allowing him to do so is outrageous.

As is so often the case in Paul’s writings, the relative is also here weighty and thus demonstrative: not holding fast the head, “him from whom all the body, by means of the joints and bands receiving supply and being knit together, grows with the growth of God.” This great relative clause, which reminds of Eph. 4:16, does far more than to show who the head is (we have already been told that in 1:18, and in 2:10), or how he is the head; this clause shows that only he who holds fast the head is able to declare anything about the body of this head, and that, to be worth anything at all, every pronouncement of this kind must be based on the relation which the person or the persons pronounced upon sustain to this head.

“All the body” with all its members as a grand whole “grows with the growth of God” out of no one and out of nothing but this head. Who, then, deserves and must be accorded the prize? The pupils of the Judaizers who do not hold fast the head? Never! Only those whose spiritual growth is derived from this head, the God-man of 1:13, etc., and of 2:10, etc. For “out of him alone” (ἐκ) grows “all the body” with the growth of God.

In the entire universe there is no head like this head. All other heads grow, grow just as their bodies grow, head and body grow simultaneously. This head does not, could not grow, only its body grows. No ordinary body grows “out of” its head. But this body (the church) derives all of its growth “out of” its head, who is the sole source and fountain of its growth.

Is this a straining of the figure of head and body? It surely is: Paul intends that it shall be. He dominates figures, does not let them dominate him. These Judaizers go in for what they have seen and hand out their prizes accordingly. Fools! How can they pronounce any judgment at all on this body or on any member of it when the mind of their flesh has never had an inkling of a body growing out of its head, when they know nothing about this wonderful spiritual body of Christ and about its still more wonderful head, the fount of the whole body’s growth?

The simple verb “grows” would not be strong enough; Paul adds the cognate object: “grows the growth (we say: with the growth) of God.” This is, indeed, not the growing we see in nature. Plants grow out of their root; living creatures grow with head and body as one; nothing grows “out from” its head. Nothing makes “the growth of God” (characterizing genitive), this divine growth. This is not the genitive of author or source, for the author and source is the head.

Paul adds that the whole body does its divine growing “by (constantly) receiving supply (of vitality) and by (constantly) being knit together (as one developing unit) through its joints and bands.” The participles denote means just as διά also denotes means. From the head the supply flows out through the joints and bands to every part of the body and at the same time knits it together into one spiritual, divine, living and growing organism. On “joints” compare Eph. 4:16; this plural cannot mean merely “contacts.” As joints and ligaments connect the members in an ordinary human body, so the members of the church are joined and fastened together, their whole growth proceeds in this way.

Paul is not speaking of numerical growth. Every new convert, of course, belongs to the body, and this increases in great numbers, which is here taken for granted. Paul is speaking of inner, spiritual growth. He adds these participial amplifications, which his readers will know so well from their own spiritual experience in growth, in order to make plain to his readers that all that he says about the life of the real body is a closed book to the Judaizers. Not holding fast the head, they have never been a part of the body, jointed and hgated into it. What do they then know about it? How can they possibly judge the Colossians pro or con, either as to membership in the body or as to excellence in a membership which deserves recognition as a prize?

Colossians 2:20

20 The two imperatives used in v. 16 and 18: “Let not somebody judge you—let nobody deny you the prize!” are now followed by a question of indignant feeling. It is as though Paul says: “These presumptuous fellows, why are we at all bothered with them?” With this rhetorical question Paul explodes the claim which the Judaizers laid to wisdom (see verse 8).

If you died with Christ away from the elementary things of the world, why, as living in the world, are you being pestered with decrees: Handle not! Neither taste! Neither touch! (which are all things for perishing by being used up) in accord with the prescriptions and teachings of men? things of a kind which have, indeed, a show of wisdom in connection with arbitrarily chosen worship and lowliness and not sparing the body, not in connection with a certain price toward satiation of the flesh.

The condition is one of reality; Paul takes it for granted that the Colossians have, indeed, died with Christ away from the elementary things of the world. “Died with Christ” continues the mystical language of v. 12: “entombed with him in the baptism in which you were also jointly raised up.” This entombment and this resurrection with Christ include the death with Christ. Although it is implied in v. 12, this death is now mentioned and used and thus completes the circle of mystical thought. Baptism does not need to be mentioned again, for the fact that the death, like the entombment and the resurrection, occurred in baptism is understood. Christ died for our sins on the cross; we died in a spiritual way when baptism connected us with Christ spiritually, i.e., with all the power and the efficacy of his atoning death.

Here, however, Paul states to what we became dead. In Rom. 6:6, 7 he says it is the old man, the body of sin, the sin, thus to something that is in our own selves. Dead to this, we no longer respond to it as a dead slave no longer responds to his master’s demands. Here, however, Paul says that we became dead to “the elementary things of the world,” to something outside of ourselves. We are no longer concerned with these material elements as a dead man no longer pays attention to the earthly things around him. You died “away from” them repeats the preposition ἀπό which is a part of the verb, which is exact and fine in the Greek but cannot be reproduced in our idiom.

It is overdoing it when Christ’s death is said to remove also him from “the elementary things of the world.” We have already shown the difference between Christ’s death, entombment, and resurrection (physical, vicarious, atoning, saving) and ours (by means of baptism, spiritual, receiving atonement and salvation). On this very difference rests the conjunction with Christ which is expressed by σύν. It never rests on mere likeness or similarity alone. Christ underwent no spiritual, inner change which placed his soul beyond effect from earthly things; he was sinless in his very nature.

We have defined “the elementary things of the world” in v. 8. The supposition that this expression refers to spirits of some kind, demons, astral spirits, and such like is refuted in the present connection. The prohibitions of v. 11 show exactly what is meant: earthly, material substances, a whole row of them (στοιχεῖα = things in a row) which, according to the Judaizers, are not to be handled, tasted, or even touched.

Dead to these things, Paul asks, “why, as living in the world, are you being pestered with decrees: Handle not!” etc. The very idea of pestering people like you Colossians with such inapplicable decrees! Ὡς does not mean “as though” living in the world, for this would imply that the Colossians were not living in the world. “As living in the world” means that they are living in the world, and that the Judaizers think that for this very reason the Colossians need all the Judaistic decrees about the material elements of the world. These Judaizers have not the least conception that Christians, living in the world, are dead to these elements of the world, their death with Christ rendering them perfectly safe from anything belonging to the world. They come with their silly decrees and pester the Christians when 10, 000 such decrees would produce not the least safety for themselves or for anybody else. These wise decrees are full of empty deceit (v. 8), the height of folly.

The verb δογματίζεσθε is passive: “why are you being decreed?” why are you being pestered with decrees by these Judaizers? The verb is not middle: “why do ye subject yourselves to ordinances?” (our versions). This would imply that the Colossians were already doing this whereas the entire epistle shows that they were not. They were being pestered by the Judaizers but had not as yet submitted to them. If they had “subjected themselves,” Paul could not have expressed this with a mere verb form, and one that can be read as a middle and must not be read as a passive. The same may be said with regard to the permissive passive: “why are you letting yourselves be decreed?” The Colossians were not telling themselves; like true errorists, the Judaizers were constantly trying to inflict their system of decrees upon the Colossians.

The verb is aptly chosen. It recalls the δόγματα of God’s own divine law (v. 14), and δόγμα is the term for a “decree” issued by the Roman emperor (Luke 2:1) which tolerates no disobedience. Paul’s verb implies that these Judaizers considered their rules and regulations as being no less binding than imperial, yea, divine decrees. So the Pharisees set aside God’s laws in preference to the laws they made for men. Yet note that Paul’s question: “why are you afflicted, pestered with decrees?” scoffs at these high and mighty decrees. They are like noxious insects that are to be brushed away and killed as being pestiferous.

Colossians 2:21

21 Paul quotes tersely three samples of these Judaistic decrees without further introductory particle or phrase: “Handle not! Nor taste! Nor touch!” The objects are omitted, and thus the emphasis is placed on the decreeing verbs. The next clause takes care of the objects. Negative aorist commands are expressed by the subjunctive and not the imperative, and aorist commands are peremptory and therefore exactly suited to express decrees that brook no violation. Some find a gradation in the three decrees, but since “taste not” stands between the handling and the touching, gradation is not apparent. The main point is the fact that all three prohibitions deal with physical, earthly, material elements. “Taste not!” reverts to the eating and the drinking mentioned in v. 16; the other two are broader but refer equally to material stoicheia.

The prohibitions imply that, if certain things were handled, etc., the Christians would thereby be hurt in some way. Why and how can be inferred only from the rest of the epistle, from what it intimates about the evil spirits and the powers that the God-man has crushed in every way. The Judaizers seem to have limited or minimized Christ’s work as though it still left us subject to harm from these spirits so that only by observing the Judaistic decrees regarding material things could we escape the harm. Pagan superstition may have been the soil for these Ideas. We say pagan, not because only pagans had such superstition, but because to this day such really pagan superstition lurks in Jews, in Christians, in skeptics, in all kinds of people. Only the fulness of Christ (v. 10) completely expels it and all its outgrowths.

Colossians 2:22

22 The relative clause is parenthetical and is inserted in order to show the folly of such decrees from already this minor angle: “which are all things (destined) for perishing by being used up.” Ἀπόχρησις is not Gebrauch, the using of a thing (our versions), but Verbrauch, using the thing up. We see this most readily in the case of food and drink: we use these up. This explains the phrase of purpose εἰςφθοράν, which recalls John 6:27: “Work not for the eating which perishes.” These earthly, material things with which the decrees of the Judaizers deal are by their very nature intended “for perishing by being used up.” Since that is what they are for (εἰς), it is ridiculous to treat them in any other way, to build around them a philosophy of superstition and demonic powers, and then to set up a system of decrees in order to shield Christians.

Paul uses only negative samples of these decrees but does not thereby imply that all the Judaistic decrees were negative. Negatives are the basis of the positive: Do not do this in order that you may do that! Paul destroys the very foundation; after that is shattered, the whole superstructure crashes in ruins. The ἅ, “which are all,” does not refer to the decrees: “Handle not!” etc., as if these decrees are intended “for perishing by being used up.” This relative is construed ad sensum; it takes up the objects that are left unnamed in the three decrees so as to tell us their nature and their purpose, and already this takes away the ground on which such decrees try to stand.

The κατά phrase is not to be construed with the parenthetical relative clause but with the three decrees; these decrees are “in accord with the prescriptions and teachings of men.” Men everlastingly set up rules and regulations and combined these with their teachings; and all of these Judaistic decrees are of this type. Paul properly uses two nouns, for every human rule and regulation is connected with some sort of teaching: the teaching justifies the rule, the rule is the practical application of the teaching. So the Judaistic philosophy (v. 8) produces the Judaistic decrees. The trouble is not in the fact that teachings produce ἐντάλματα, “precepts.” Christ’s teachings do the same (John 14:15, 21, 23, 24; 15:10: ἐντολαί). Paul properly does not use δόγματα, “decrees,” but the milder word “precepts”; for only the extremists, such as the Judaizers, make ironclad “decrees” of their teachings. Saner men are satisfied with precepts.

The point of Paul’s phrase is the fact that all these precepts, in which class also the Judaistic decrees belong, are only “of men” (the Greek article is generic); together with their supporting teachings they are man-made (Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:9). Some think that Paul had this passage from Isaiah in mind. Why not? But he surely also thought of Christ’s word which reflects Isaiah’s. “Of men” is ample, the Colossians have something to teach and to direct them that is of God.

Colossians 2:23

23 All that Paul appends from v. 22 onward is construed ad sensum in order to show his readers how preposterous it is for these Judaizers to pester them with their decrees which deal with things to be used up, which decrees with their support are entirely man-made. And now he adds the last and worst indictment: these decrees are of a kind that make a show in a certain connection but in a connection where making a show would be a rather damning revelation. The ἅ occurring in v. 22 is definite: “which things”; ἅτινα now = “things of a kind which,” i.e., having a certain characteristic or quality. The qualitative neuter relative has its ad sensum antecedent: all such Judaistic decrees and all with which they deal. They are of a kind that, “indeed, have a show of wisdom” in a certain connection, λόγον is used in the sense of “show.” These things appear mighty wise, Paul says, yes, wise “in connection with arbitrarily chosen worship and lowliness and not sparing the body.”

We differ with R. 1152 regarding the present μέν solitarium. Some think that it calls for a contrasting δέ, and B.-D. 447 even calls μέν anacoluthic without its δέ. This claim is serious because it is thought that the contrast is indicated in οὐκἐντιμῇτινί, a construction that has made the interpretation of this passage extremely difficult. The interpretation is so difficult that B.-P. 1307 writes: hat noch keine annehmbare Deutung gefunden; and that Peake, after passing in review the interpretations of the commentators, joins Hort in supposing that the text has been corrupted. It thus seems well-nigh hopeless to find a satisfactory interpretation for this passage. It might be helpful if μέν is not regarded as calling for a δέ and thus a contrast. Μέν is truly solitary, its sole function is to lay a slight stress on λόγονἔχοντα between which it is placed: which “have, indeed, a show,” etc. This should, in fact, be plain, for μέν is not placed after ἐν and hence in no way indicates a contrast between the positive and the negative ἐν phrases.

These are the kind of things, Paul says, that have a show of wisdom—mark it, only a show!—“in connection with self-willed worship and lowliness and not sparing the body.” These three terms describe the piety of the Judaizers. In the compound ἐθελοθρησκεία we have the same meaning as that of θέλων in v. 18 where both θρησκεία (the other half of the compound) and ταπεινοφροσύνη occur. The term means just what Luther says: selbsterwaehlte Geistlichkeit, a self-chosen worship that is willed by the will of those who want it and not a type of worship that is willed by God. These Judaizers invent their own worship. In connection with that kind of worship their decrees and their philosophy “have, indeed, a show of wisdom” although, of course, only a show (μέν after λόγον).

To be sure, “lowliness,” which is now added gets the same color. It is not, indeed, a hypocritical or merely pretended lowliness but one that in its way is sincere enough and matches the self-chosen worship of these Judaizers. This is also true with regard to their “not sparing the body,” their laws about eating and drinking (fasting, v. 16; “taste not,” v. 21) and about treating the body severely in other ways. Grant them their philosophy with its superstitious fears regarding material elements, then all their decrees look wise although they only look so.

It is the negative phrase οὐκἐντιμῇτινὶπρὸςπλησμονὴντῆςσαρκός that causes difficulty for the translators (Luther, our versions, and others) and for some commentators. It would take considerable space to make an inventory of their efforts. The first point to be noted is that τιμή does not mean “honor” (A. V.) nor “value” (R. V.) but “price,” and πρός is construed with it in a natural way: we pay a price toward a thing, meaning that more will still have to be paid. Hence also Paul writes ἐντιμῇτινί, “a certain price,” not the entire price; the remainder, the bulk of the price will fall due presently and will then be paid.

Paul tells the Colossians toward what the Judaizers are really paying this advance price: “toward satiation of the flesh,” i.e., to satiate and satisfy the cravings of the flesh. But let us keep to the context. Paul is not speaking in general of the common bodily vices of the flesh, of carousings, sexual excesses, etc. The Judaizers seek satiety for their pride in their peculiar philosophy, in judging others as to whether they are up to par in their Christianity (v. 16), in assuming the position of a referee who has the power to award or to deny the prize (v. 18), in inflicting their peculiar decrees upon the Colossians (v. 21), in posing as men of the greatest wisdom. Like a flash this final phrase: “toward satiation of the flesh,” floods the whole Judaistic system with a light that horrifies all true Christians. It is this final phrase that exposes the whole inwardness of the Judaistic position to the Colossians so as to make them recoil.

Now let us note the connection. Yes, these are things of a type (ἅτινα) that have a show of wisdom, namely these decrees, regulations, and Judaistic teaching and philosophy; they have such a show “in connection with arbitrarily chosen worship and lowliness and not sparing the body” as these are exhibited and advocated by the Judaizers. That is, however, the limit of even this show of wisdom. These things have a show of wisdom that is “not at all in connection with a certain price,” αὐκἐντιμῇτινί, which all these Judaizers are paying for what they really desire, a price “toward the satiation of the flesh.” This satiation is what they are really buying and making payments on.

Paul does not say what the final payment will be, he leaves that to his readers; it will be eternal perdition. “Not in connection with a certain price” is a powerful litotes: in connection with this price there is not even a show of wisdom but the absolute opposite, there is sheer folly. It is frightful folly even to want satiety of the flesh, to say nothing of paying a price toward (πρός) securing such satiety.

In his interpretation Meyer notes the fine points in this masterly clause. Πρός implies that, in spite of the price that is being paid, the Judaizers and any who would follow their show of wisdom do not get even full satisfaction for the flesh. The devil always cheats even in this respect. See the fine balance: “not sparing the body—satiation of the flesh.” Twice an objective genitive; all four nouns are exact even also “of the body—of the flesh.” Ἐν and οὐκἐν are equally balanced. Masterly is the manner in which Paul reserves the crushing phrase “for satiation of the flesh” until the very end.

M.-M. 520 state that πλησμονή is used only in malam partem for repletion or satiety; Luther missed the meaning. “Will-worship” in our versions is meaningless. The question that Paul answers is simply how far the show of wisdom reaches. Whatever show of wisdom may be put forth, in all errors there is always a point at which even the show ceases, at which the deadly, terrible folly stands out fully.

Severe, unsparing were these Judaizers toward their body like the Romish monks and nuns. And yet all of them are after satiation of the flesh. Luther scourged the monks for this much as Paul scourged the Colossian Judaizers. Rules—rules—rules, severe as possible for the body but all to buy food for their pride of monkery. They are the paragons in all Christendom, they alone! Read Luther. Protestantism has allied types.

C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition..

M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.