Chapter V: PERSONAL (iv. 7–18) (5)

A wholly different interpretation however prevails universally among Greek commentators both here and in Ephes. ii. 15. They take τοῖς δόγμασιν, ἐν δόγμασιν, to mean the ‘doctrines or precepts of the Gospel’, and so to describe the instrument by which the abrogation of the law was effected. So Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret, followed by the later commentators [OE]cumenius and Theophylact. Strangely enough they do not allude to the correct interpretation; nor (with the exception of the passage ascribed to Irenæus which is quoted above) have I found any distinct traces of it in any Greek father. The grammatical difficulty would be taken to favour this interpretation, which moreover was characteristic of the age when the battle of creeds was fought. But it has been universally abandoned by modern interpreters, as plainly inappropriate to the context and also as severing the substantive δόγμα here from the verb δογματίζειν in ver. 20. The Latin fathers, who had either _decretis_ or _sententiis_ in their version, were saved from this false interpretation; e.g. Hilar. _de Trin._ i. 12 (II. p. 10), ix. 10 (II. p. 265 sq.), Ambros. _Apol. Dav._ 13 (I. p. 698), _de Fid._ iii. 2 (II. p. 499), August. _de Pecc. Mer._ i. 47 (X. p. 26): though they very commonly took τοῖς δόγμασιν, ἐν δόγμασιν, to refer to the decree of condemnation. Jerome however on Ephes. ii. 15 (VII. p. 581) follows the Greeks. The later Christian sense of δόγμα, meaning ‘doctrine’, came from its secondary classical use, where it was applied to the authoritative and categorical ‘sentences’ of the philosophers: comp. Just. Mart. _Apol._ i. 7 (p. 56 D) οἱ ἐν Ἕλλησι τὰ αὐτοῖς ἀρεστὰ δογματίσαντες ἐκ παντὸς τῷ ἑνὶ ὀνόματι φιλοσοφίας προσαγορεύονται, καίπερ τῶν δογμάτων ἐναντίων ὄντων, Cic. _Acad._ ii. 9 ‘de suis decretis quæ philosophi vocant δόγματα’, Senec. _Epist._ xcv. 10 ‘Nulla ars contemplativa sine decretis suis est, quæ Græci vocant _dogmata_, nobis vel _decreta_ licet adpellare vel _scita_ vel _placita_’. See the indices to Plutarch, Epictetus, etc., for illustrations of the use of the term. There is an approach towards the ecclesiastical meaning in Ignat. _Magn._ 13 βεβαιωθῆναι ἐν τοῖς δόγμασιν τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων, Barnab. § 1 τρία οὖν δόγματά ἐστιν Κυρίου (comp. § 9, 10).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. 14]

δόγμασιν, ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν· καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ

ὃ ἦν κ.τ.λ.] ‘_which was directly opposed to us_’. The former expression, τὸ καθ’ ἡμῶν, referred to the _validity_ of the bond; the present, ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, describes its _active hostility_. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the first preposition in ὑπεναντίος mitigates its force, as in ὑποδήλωσις, ὑπόλευκος, ὑπομαίνομαι, ὑποσημαίνειν, etc. Neither in classical writers nor in the LXX has the word any shade of this meaning. It is very commonly used for instance, of things which are directly antagonistic and mutually exclusive: e.g. Aristot. _de Gen. et Corr._ i. 7 (p. 323) Δημόκριτος ... φησὶ ... τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ὅμοιον εἶναι τό τε ποιοῦν καὶ τὸ πάσχον ... ἐοίκασι δὲ οἱ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον λέγοντες ὑπεναντία (i.e. self-contradictory) φαίνεσθαι λέγειν· αἴτιον δὲ τῆς ἐναντιολογίας κ.τ.λ., [Plato] _Alcib. Sec._ 138 C ΣΩ. Τὸ μαίνεσθαι ἆρα ὑπεναντίον σοι δοκεῖ τῷ φρονεῖν; ΑΛ. Πάνυ μὲν οὖν.... 139 B ΣΩ. Καὶ μὴν δύο γε ὑπεναντία ἑνὶ πράγματι πῶς ἂν εἴη; (i.e. how can one thing have two direct opposites?), where the whole argument depends on this sense of ὑπεναντίος. In compounds with ὑπὸ the force of the preposition will generally be determined by the meaning of the other element in the compound; and, as ἐναντίος (ἔναντι) implies locality, a local sense is communicated to ὑπό. Thus ὑπεναντίος may be compared with ὑπαλλάσσειν, ὑπαντᾶν, ὑπαντιάζειν, ὑποτρέχειν (Xen. _Cyrop._ i. 2. 12 ληστὰς ὑποδραμεῖν, ‘to hunt down’), ὑπελάυνειν (Xen. _Anab._ i. 8. 15 ὑπελάσας ὡς συναντῆσαι, ‘riding up’), ὑφιστάναι (Polyb. i. 50. 6 ὑπέστησε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ναῦν ἀντίπρωρον τοῖς πολεμίοις, ‘he brought up’ his own ship). With this meaning, ‘over against,’ ‘close in upon,’ the preposition does not weaken but enhance the force of ἐναντίος, so that the compound will denote ‘direct,’ ‘close,’ or ‘persistent opposition.’

καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν κ.τ.λ.] ‘_and He_, i.e. Christ, _hath taken it away_’. There is a double change in this clause: (1) The participles (χαρισάμενος, ἐξαλέιψας) are replaced by a finite verb. (2) The aorists (συνεζωοποίησεν, χαρισάμενος, ἐξαλέιψας) are replaced by a perfect. The substitution of ᾖρεν for ἦρκεν in some copies betrays a consciousness on the part of the scribes of the dislocation produced by the new tense. As a new subject, ὁ Χριστός, must be introduced somewhere (see the note on ver. 13), the severance thus created suggests this as the best point of transition. The perfect ἦρκεν, ‘He hath removed it’, is suggested by the feeling of relief and thanksgiving, which rises up in the Apostle’s mind at this point. For the strong expression ἄιρειν ἐκ [τοῦ] μέσου, ‘to remove and put out of sight’, comp. LXX Is. lvii. 2, Epictet. iii. 3. 15, Plut. _Mor._ p. 519 D; so 2 Thess. ii. 7 ἐκ μέσου γένηται.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. 15]

τοῦ μέσου, προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ· ^{15}ἀπεκδυσάμενος

προσηλώσας κ.τ.λ.] ‘The abrogation was even more emphatic. Not only was the writing erased, but the document itself was torn up and cast aside.’ By προσηλώσας is meant that the law of ordinances was nailed to the cross, rent with Christ’s body, and destroyed with His death: see the notes on Gal. vi. 14 δι’ οὗ [τοῦ] σταυροῦ ἑμοὶ κόσμος (the world, the sphere of material ordinances) ἐσταύρωται κἀγὼ κόσμῳ, where the idea is the same. It has been supposed that in some cities the abrogation of a decree was signified by running a nail through it and hanging it up in public. The image would thus gain force, but there is no distinct evidence of such a custom.

15. ἀπεκδυσάμενος κ.τ.λ.] This word appears not to occur at all before St Paul, and rarely if ever after his time, except in writers who may be supposed to have his language before them; e.g. Hippol. _Hær._ i. 24 ἀπεκδυσάμενον τὸ σῶμα ὃ περικεῖται. In Joseph. _Ant._ vi. 14. 2 ἀπεκδὺς is only a variation for μετεκδὺς which seems to be the correct reading. The word also appears in some texts of Babrius _Fab._ xviii. 3, but it is merely a conjectural emendation. Thus the occurrence of ἀπεκδύεσθαι here and in iii. 9, and of ἀπέκδυσις above in ver. 11, is remarkable; and the choice of an unusual, if not a wholly new, word must have been prompted by the desire to emphasize the _completeness_ of the action. The force of the double compound may be inferred from a passage of Lysias, where the two words ἀποδύεσθαι and ἐκδύεσθαι occur together; _c. Theomn._ i. 10 (p. 117) φάσκων θοιμάτιον ἀποδεδύσθαι ἢ τὸν χιτωνίσκον ἐκδεδύσθαι. Here however the sense of ἀπεκδυσάμενος is difficult. The meaning generally assigned to it, ‘having spoiled, stripped of their arms’, disregards the middle voice. St Jerome is chiefly responsible for this common error of interpretation: for in place of the Old Latin ‘exuens se’, which was grammatically correct, he substituted ‘exspolians’ in his revised version. In his interpretation however he was anticipated by the commentator Hilary, who read ‘exuens’ for ‘exuens se’ in his text. Discarding this sense, as inconsistent with the voice, we have the choice of two interpretations.

(1) The common interpretation of the Latin fathers, ‘_putting off_ the body’, thus separating ἀπεκδυσάμενος from τὰς ἀρχὰς κ.τ.λ. and understanding τὴν σάρκα or τὸ σῶμα with it; comp. 2 Cor. v. 3 ἐνδυσάμενοι. So Novat. _de Trin._ 16 ‘exutus carnem’; Ambros. _Expos. Luc._ v. § 107 (I. p. 1381) ‘exuens se carnem’, comp. _de Fid._ iii. 2 (II. p. 499); Hilar. _de Trin._ i. 13 (II. p. 10) ‘exutus carnem’ (comp. ix. 10, p. 265), x. 48 (p. 355) ‘spolians se carne’ (comp. ix. 11, p. 266); Augustin. _Epist._ 149 (II. p. 513) ‘exuens se carne’, etc. This appears to have been the sense adopted much earlier in a Docetic work quoted by Hippol. _Hær._ viii. 10 ψυχὴ ἐκέινη ἐν τῷ σώματι τραφεῖσα, ἀπεκδυσαμένη τὸ σῶμα καὶ προσηλώσασα πρὸς τὸ ξύλον καὶ θριαμβεύσασα κ.τ.λ. It is so paraphrased likewise in the Peshito Syriac and the Gothic. The reading ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὴν σάρκα καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας (omitting τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ), found in some ancient authorities, must be a corruption from an earlier text, which had inserted the gloss τὴν σάρκα after ἀπεκδυσάμενος, while retaining τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ, and which seems to have been in the hands of some of the Latin fathers already quoted. This interpretation has been connected with a common metaphorical use of ἀποδύεσθαι, signifying ‘to strip’ and so ‘to prepare for a contest’; e.g. Plut. _Mor._ 811 E πρὸς πᾶσαν ἀποδύομενοι τὴν πολιτικὴν πρᾶξιν, Diod. Sic. ii. 29 ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν ἀποδύντες. The serious objection to this rendering is, that it introduces an isolated metaphor which is not explained or suggested by anything in the context.

(2) The common interpretation of the Greek fathers; ‘_having stripped off and put away the powers_ of evil’, making ἀπεκδυσάμενος govern τὰς ἀρχὰς κ.τ.λ. So Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret. This also appears to have been the interpretation of Origen, _in Matt._ xii. § 25 (III. p. 544), _ib._ § 40 (p. 560), _in Ioann._ vi. § 37 (IV. p. 155), _ib._ xx. § 29 (p. 356), though his language is not explicit, and though his translators, e.g. _in Libr. Ies. Hom._ vii. § 3 (II. p. 413), make him say otherwise. The meaning then will be as follows. Christ took upon Himself our human nature with all its temptations (Heb. iv. 15). The powers of evil gathered about Him. Again and again they assailed Him; but each fresh assault ended in a new defeat. In the wilderness He was tempted by Satan; but Satan retired for the time baffled and defeated (Luke iv. 13 ἀπέστη ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἄχρι καιροῦ). Through the voice of His chief disciple the temptation was renewed, and He was entreated to decline His appointed sufferings and death. Satan was again driven off (Matt. xvi. 23 ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ, σκάνδαλον εἶ ἐμοῦ: comp. Matt. viii. 31). Then the last hour came. This was the great crisis of all, when ‘the power of darkness’ made itself felt (Luke xxii. 53 _ἡ ἐξουσία_ τοῦ σκότους; see above i. 13), when the prince of the world asserted his tyranny (Joh. xii. 30 _ὁ ἄρχων_ τοῦ κόσμου). The final act in the conflict began with the agony of Gethsemane; it ended with the cross of Calvary. The victory was complete. The enemy of man was defeated. The powers of evil, which had clung like a Nessus robe about His humanity, were torn off and cast aside for ever. And the victory of mankind is involved in the victory of Christ. In His cross we too are divested of the poisonous clinging garments of temptation and sin and death; τῷ ἀποθέσθαι τὴν θνητότητα, says Theodore, ἣν ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς ἀφεῖλεν εὐεργεσίας, ἀπεδύσατο κἀκείνων (i.e. τῶν ἀντικειμένων δυνάμεων) τὴν αὐθεντείαν ᾗπερ ἐκέχρηντο καθ’ ἡμῶν. For the image of the garments comp. Is. lxiv. 6, but especially Zech. iii. 1 sq., ‘And he showed me Joshua the high-priest standing before the angel of the Lord and _Satan standing at his right hand to resist him_. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan.... Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments.... And He answered and spake unto those that stood before Him saying _Take away the filthy garments_ from him. And unto him He said Behold, _I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee_’. In this prophetic passage the image is used of His type and namesake, the Jesus of the Restoration, not in his own person, but as the high-priest and representative of a guilty but cleansed and forgiven people, with whom he is identified. For the metaphor of ἀπεκδυσάμενος more especially, see Philo _Quod det. pot. ins._ 13 (I. p. 199) ἐξαναστάντες δὲ καὶ διερεισάμενοι τὰς ἐντέχνους αὐτῶν περιπλοκὰς εὐμαρῶς _ἐκδυσόμεθα_, where the image in the context is that of a wrestling bout.

This interpretation is grammatical; it accords with St Paul’s teaching; and it is commended by the parallel uses of the substantive in ver. 11 ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός, and of the verb in iii. 9 ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν πάλαιον ἄνθρωπον κ.τ.λ. The ἀπέκδυσις accomplished in us when we are baptized into His death is a counterpart to the ἀπέκδυσις which He accomplished by His death. With Him indeed it was only the temptation, with us it is the sin as well as temptation; but otherwise the parallel is complete. In both cases it is a divestiture of the powers of evil, a liberation from the dominion of the flesh. On the other hand the common explanation ‘spoiling’ is not less a violation of St Paul’s usage (iii. 9) than of grammatical rule.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. 15]

τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας ἐδειγμάτισεν

τὰς ἀρχὰς κ.τ.λ.] What powers are especially meant here will appear from Ephes. vi. 12 πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τούτου, πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας κ.τ.λ. See the note on i. 16.

ἐδειγμάτισεν] ‘_displayed_’, as a victor displays his captives or trophies in a triumphal procession: Hor. _Epist._ i. 17. 33 ‘captos ostendere civibus hostes’. The word is extremely rare; Matt. i. 19 μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι (where it ought probably to be read for the more common word παραδειγματίσαι), _Act. Paul. et Petr._ 33 ἔλεγε πρὸς τὸν λαὸν ἵνα μὴ μόνον ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Σίμωνος ἀπάτης φύγωσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ δειγματίσουσιν αὐτόν. Nowhere does the word convey the idea of ‘making an example’ (παραδειγματίσαι) but signifies simply ‘to display, publish, proclaim’. In the context of the last passage we have as the consequence, ὥστε πάντας τοὺς εὐλαβεῖς ἄνδρας βδελύττεσθαι Σίμωνα τὸν μάγον καὶ ἀνόσιον αὐτὸν _καταγγέλλειν_, i.e. to _proclaim_ his impieties. The substantive occurs on the Rosetta stone l. 30 (Boeckh, _C. I._ 4697) τῶν συντετελεσμένων τὰ πρὸς τὸν δειγματισμὸν διάφορα.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. 15]

ἐν παρρησίᾳ, θριαμβεύσας αὐτοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ.

ἐν παρρησίᾳ] ‘_boldly_’, not ‘_publicly_’. As παρρησία is ‘unreservedness, plainness of speech’ (παν-ρησία, its opposite being ἀρρησία ‘silence’), so while applied still to language, it may be opposed either (1) to ‘fear’, as John vii. 13, Acts iv. 29, or (2) to ‘ambiguity, reserve’, Joh. xi. 14, xvi. 25, 29; but ‘misgiving, apprehension’ in some form or other seems to be always the correlative idea. Hence, when it is transferred from words to actions, it appears always to retain the idea of ‘confidence, boldness’; e.g. 1 Macc. iv. 18 λήψετε τὰ σκ^υλα μετὰ παρῥησίας, _Test. xii. Patr._ Rub. 4 οὐκ εἶχον παρῥησίαν ἀτενίσαι εἰς πρόσωπον Ἰακώβ, Jos. _Ant._ ix. 1O. 4 ὑπ’ αἰσχύνης τε τοῦ συμβεβηκότος δεινοῦ καὶ τοῦ μηκέτ’ αὐτῷ παρῥησίαν εἶναι. The idea of publicity may sometimes be connected with the word as a secondary notion, e.g. in Joh. vii. 4, where ἐν παρρησίᾳ εἶναι ‘to assume a bold attitude’ is opposed to ἐν κρυπτῷ ποιεῖν (comp. xviii. 20); but it does not displace the primary sense.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. 16]

^{16}Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει ἢ >

16. ἢ ἐν πόσει.

θριαμβεύσας] ‘_leading them in triumph_’, the same metaphor as in 2 Cor. ii. 14 τῷ πάντοτε θριαμβεύοντι ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ κ.τ.λ., where it is wrongly translated in the A. V. ‘causeth us to triumph’. Here however it is the defeated powers of evil, there the subjugated persons of men, who are led in public, chained to the triumphal car of Christ. This is the proper meaning and construction of θριαμβεύειν, as found elsewhere. This verb takes an accusative (1) of the person over whom the triumph is celebrated, e.g. Plut. _Vit. Arat._ 54 τοῦτον Αἰμίλιος ἐθριάμβευσε, _Thes. et Rom. Comp._ 4 βασιλεῖς ἐθριάμβευσε: (2) of the spoils exhibited in the triumph, e.g. Tatian _c. Græc._ 26 παύσασθε λόγους ἀλλοτρίους θριαμβεύοντες καί, ὥσπερ ὁ κολοιός, οὐκ ἰδίοις ἐπικοσμούμενοι πτεροῖς: (3) more rarely of the substance of the triumph, e.g. _Vit. Camill._ 30 ὁ δὲ Κάμιλλος ἐθριάμβευσε ... τὸν ἀπολωλυίας σωτῆρα πατρίδος γενόμενον, i.e. ‘in the character of his country’s saviour’. The passive θριαμβεύεσθαι is ‘to be led in triumph’, ‘to be triumphed over’, e.g. _Vit. C. Marc._ 35. So the Latins say ‘triumphare aliquem’ and ‘triumphari’.

ἐν αὐτῷ] i.e. τῷ σταυρῷ: comp. Ephes. ii. 16 ἀποκαταλλάξῃ τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους ... διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ. The violence of the metaphor is its justification. The paradox of the crucifixion is thus placed in the strongest light—triumph in helplessness and glory in shame. The convict’s gibbet is the victor’s car.

16–19. ‘Seeing then that the bond is cancelled, that the law of ordinances is repealed, beware of subjecting yourselves to its tyranny again. Suffer no man to call you to account in the matter of eating or drinking, or again of the observance of a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only shadows thrown in advance, only types of things to come. The substance, the reality, in every case belongs to the Gospel of Christ. The prize is now fairly within your reach. Do not suffer yourselves to be robbed of it by any stratagem of the false teachers. Their religion is an officious humility which displays itself in the worship of angels. They make a parade of their visions, but they are following an empty phantom. They profess humility, but they are puffed up with their vaunted wisdom, which is after all only the mind of the flesh. Meanwhile they have substituted inferior spiritual agencies for the One true Mediator, the Eternal Word. Clinging to these lower intelligences, they have lost their hold of the Head; they have severed their connexion with Him, on whom the whole body depends; from whom it derives its vitality, and to whom it owes its unity, being supplied with nourishment and knit together in one by means of the several joints and attachments, so that it grows with a growth which comes from God Himself.’

16 sq. The two main tendencies of the Colossian heresy are discernible in this warning (vv. 16–19), as they were in the previous statement (vv. 9–15). Here however the order is reversed. The practical error, an excessive ritualism and ascetic rigour, is first dealt with (vv. 16, 17); the theological error, the interposition of angelic mediators, follows after (vv. 18, 19). The first is the substitution of a shadow for the substance; the second is the preference of an inferior member to the head. The reversal of order is owing to the connexion of the paragraphs; the opening subject in the second paragraph being a continuation of the concluding subject in the first, by the figure called chiasm: comp. Gal. iv. 5.

κρινέτω] not ‘_condemn you_’, but ‘_take you to task_’; as e.g. Rom. xiv. 3 sq. The judgment may or may not end in an acquittal; but in any case it is wrong, since these matters ought not to be taken as the basis of a judgment.

ἐν βρώσει κ.τ.λ.] ‘_in eating and in drinking_’; Rom. xiv. 17 οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις, ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνη κ.τ.λ., Heb. ix. 10 ἐπὶ βρώμασιν καὶ πόμασιν καὶ διαφόροις βαπτισμοῖς, δικαίωματα σαρκός, comp. 1 Cor. viii. 8 βρῶμα δὲ ἡμᾶς οὐ παραστήσει τῷ Θεῷ κ.τ.λ. The first indication that the Mosaic distinctions of things clean and unclean should be abolished is given by our Lord Himself: Mark vii. 14 sq. (the correct reading in ver. 19 being καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα). They were afterwards formally annulled by the vision which appeared to St Peter: Acts x. 11 sq. The ordinances of the Mosaic law applied almost exclusively to meats. It contained no prohibitions respecting drinks except in a very few cases; e.g. of the priests ministering in the tabernacle (Lev. x. 9), of liquids contained in unclean vessels etc. (Lev. xi. 34, 36), and of Nazarite vows (Num. vi. 3). These directions, taken in connexion with the rigid observances which the later Jews had grafted on them (Matt. xxiii. 24), would be sufficient to explain the expression, when applied to the Mosaic law by itself, as in Heb. _l.c._ The rigour of the Colossian false teachers however, like that of their Jewish prototypes the Essenes, doubtless went far beyond the injunctions of the law. It is probable that they forbad wine and animal food altogether: see the introduction pp. 86, 104 sq. For allusions in St Paul to similar observances not required by the law, see Rom. xiv. 2 ὁ δὲ ἀσθενῶν λάχανα ἐσθίει, ver. 21 καλὸν τὸ μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα μηδὲ πιεῖν οἶνον κ.τ.λ., 1 Tim. iv. 2, 3 κωλυόντων ... ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων ἃ ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισεν κ.τ.λ., Tit. i. 14 μὴ προσέχοντες ... ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων ... πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς. The correct reading seems to be _καὶ_ ἐν πόσει, thus connecting together the words between which there is a natural affinity. Comp. Philo _Vit. Moys._ i. § 33 (II. p. 110) δεσποίναις χαλεπαῖς συνεζευγμένου βρώσει καὶ πόσει, Ign. _Trall._ 2 οὐ γὰρ βρωμάτων καὶ ποτῶν εἰσὶν διάκονοι.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. 17]

ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νεομηνίας ἢ σαββάτων, ^{17}ἅ ἐστιν σκὶα

17 ὅ ἐστιν σκιὰ.

ἐν μέρει] ‘_in the matter of_,’ etc.; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3 ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ. The expression seems originally to mean ‘in the division or category’, and in classical writers most commonly occurs in connexion with such words as τιθέναι, ποιεῖσθαι, ἀριθμεῖν, etc.: comp. Demosth. _c. Aristocr._ § 148 ὅσα ... στρατίωτης ὢν ἐν σφενδονήτου καὶ ψιλοῦ μέρει ... ἐστράτευται, i.e. ‘in the capacity of.’ Hence it gets to signify more widely, as here, ‘with respect to’, ‘by reason of’: comp. Philo _Quod det. pot. ins._ § 2 (I. p. 192) ἐν μέρει λόγου τοῦ προκόπτοντος κατὰ τὸν πάτερα κοσμοῦνται, _in Flacc._ 20 (II. p. 542) ὅσα ἐν μέρει χάριτος καὶ δωρεᾶς ἔλαβον. But Ælian _V. H._ viii. 3 κρίνοντες ἕκαστον ἐν τῷ μέρει φόνου, quoted by the commentators, is a false parallel: for φόνου is there governed by κρίνοντες and ἐν τῷ μέρει means ‘in his turn’.

ἑορτῆς κ.τ.λ.] The same three words occur together, as an exhaustive enumeration of the sacred times among the Jews, in 1 Chron. xxiii. 31, 2 Chron. ii. 4, xxxi. 3, Ezek. xlv. 17, Hos. ii. 11, Justin _Dial._ 8, p. 226; comp. Is. i. 13, 14. See also Gal. iv. 10 ἡμέρας παρατηρεῖσθε καὶ μῆνας καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἐνιαυτούς, where the first three words correspond to the three words used here, though the order is reversed. The ἑορτή here, like the καιροί there, refers chiefly to the _annual_ festivals, the passover, pentecost, etc. The νεομηνία here describes more precisely the _monthly_ festival, which is there designated more vaguely as μῆνες. The σάββατα here gives by name the _weekly_ holy-day, which is there indicated more generally by ἡμέραι.

νεομηνίας] See Num. xxviii. 11 sq. The forms νεομηνία and νουμηνία seem to be used indifferently in the common dialect, though the latter is more common. In the Attic νουμηνία alone was held to be correct; see Lobeck _Phryn._ p. 148. On the whole the preference should perhaps be given to νεομηνίας here, as supported by some authorities which are generally trustworthy in matters of orthography, and as being the less usual form in itself.

σαββάτων] ‘_a sabbath-day_’, not, as the A.V., ‘_sabbath days_’; for the coordinated words ἑορτῆς, νεομηνίας, are in the singular. The word σάββατα is derived from the Aramaic (as distinguished from the Hebrew) form שבתא, and accordingly preserves the Aramaic termination in α. Hence it was naturally declined as a plural noun, σάββατα, σαββάτων. The general use of σάββατα, when a single sabbath-day was meant, will appear from such passages as Jos. _Ant._ i. 1. 1 ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν, προσαγορεύοντες αὐτὴν σάββατα, _ib._ iii. 10. 1 ἑβδόμην ἡμέραν ἥτις σάββατα καλεῖται, Plut. _Mor._ 169 C Ἰουδαῖοι σαββάτων ὄντων ἐν ἀγνάμπτοις καθεζόμενοι, _ib._ 671 F οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τὴν τῶν σαββάτων ἑορτὴν μὴ παντάπασιν ἀπροσδίονυσον εἶναι, Hor. _Sat._ i. 9. 69 ‘hodie tricesima sabbata’. In the New Testament σάββατα is only once used distinctly of more than a single day, and there the plurality of meaning is brought out by the attached numeral; Acts xvii. 2 ἐπὶ σάββατα τρία.

On the observance of days and seasons see again Gal. iv. 10, Rom. xiv. 5, 6. A strong anti-Judaic view on the subject is expressed in the _Epist. ad Diogn._ § 4. Origen _c. Cels._ viii. 21, 22, after referring to Thucyd. i. 70 μήτε ἑορτὴν ἄλλο τι ἡγεῖσθαι ἢ τὸ τὰ δέοντα πρᾶξαι, says ὁ τέλειος, ἀεὶ ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ὢν καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις καὶ τοῖς διανοήμασι τοῦ τῇ φύσει κυρίου λόγου Θεοῦ, ἀεί ἐστιν αὐτοῦ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις καὶ ἀεὶ ἄγει κυριακὰς ἡμέρας, and he then goes on to explain what is the παρασκευή, the πάσχα, the πεντεκοστή, of such a man. The observance of sacred times was an integral part of the old dispensation. Under the new they have ceased to have any value, except as a means to an end. The great principle that ‘the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath’, though underlying the Mosaic ordinances, was first distinctly pronounced by our Lord. The setting apart of special days for the service of God is a confession of our imperfect state, an avowal that we cannot or do not devote our whole time to Him. Sabbaths will then ultimately be superseded, when our life becomes one eternal sabbath. Meanwhile the Apostle’s rebuke warns us against attributing to any holy days whatever a meaning and an importance which is alien to the spirit of the New Covenant. Bengel on the text writes, ‘Sabbatum non laudatur, non imperatur; dominica memoratur, non præcipitur. Qui profundius in mundi negotiis hærent, his utilis et necessarius est dies definitus: qui semper sabbatizant, majori libertate gaudent’. Yes: but these last are just they who will most scrupulously restrict their liberty, so as ἀπρόσκοποι γίνεσθαι.

17. Two ideas are prominent in this image. (1) The contrast between the ordinances of the Law and the teaching of the Gospel, as the shadow and the substance respectively; Philo _de Conf. ling._ 37 (I. p. 434) νομίσαντας τὰ μὲν ῤητὰ τῶν χρησμῶν σκιάς τινας ὡσανεὶ _σωμάτων_ εἶναι, Joseph. _B.J._ ii. 2. 5 σκιὰν αἰτησόμενος βασιλείας ἧς ἥρπασεν ἑαυτῷ τὸ σῶμα; comp. Philo _in Flacc._ 19 (II. p. 541) σκιὰ πραγμάτων ἄρ’ ἦσαν, οὐ πράγματα. (2) The conception of the shadow as thrown before the substance (ἡ δὲ σκιὰ προτρέχει τοῦ σώματος, says a Greek commentator), so that the Law was a type and presage of the Gospel; Heb. x. 1 σκιὰν ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν (comp. viii. 5). Thus it implies both the _unsubstantiality_ and the _supersession_ of the Mosaic ritual.

ἅ] ‘_which things_’, whether distinctions of meats or observances of times. If the other reading ὅ be taken, it will refer to the preceding sentence generally, as if the antecedent were ‘the whole system of ordinances’.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. 18]

τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. ^{18}μηδεὶς

τὸ δὲ σῶμα κ.τ.λ.] As the shadow belonged to Moses, so ‘_the substance belongs to Christ_’; i.e. the reality, the antitype, in each case is found in the Christian dispensation. Thus the passover typifies the atoning sacrifice; the unleavened bread, the purity and sincerity of the true believer; the pentecostal feast, the ingathering of the first fruits; the sabbath, the rest of God’s people; etc.

18. The Christian’s career is the contest of the stadium (δρόμος, Acts xx. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 7); Christ is the umpire, the dispenser of the rewards (2 Tim. iv. 8); life eternal is the bay wreath, the victor’s prize (βραβεῖον, 1 Cor. ix. 24, Phil. iii. 14). The Colossians were in a fair way to win this prize; they had entered the lists duly; they were running bravely: but the false teachers, thrusting themselves in the way, attempted to trip them up or otherwise impede them in the race, and thus to rob them of their just reward. For the idea of καταβραβεύετω compare especially Gal. v. 7 ἐτρέχετε καλῶς· τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν κ.τ.λ.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. 18]

ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ

καταβραβευέτω] ‘_rob of the prize, the_ βραβεῖον’; comp. Demosth. _Mid._ p. 544 (one of the documents) ἐπιστάμεθα Στράτωνα ὑπὸ Μειδίου _καταβραβευθέντα_ καὶ παρὰ πάντα τὰ δίκαια ἀτιμωθέντα, which presents a close parallel to the use of καταβραβεύειν here. See also Eustath. _in Il._ i. 403 sq. (p. 43) καταβραβεύει αὐτόν, ὥς φασιν οἱ πάλαιοι, ib. _Opusc._ 277, etc. The false teachers at Colossæ are not regarded as umpires nor as successful rivals, but simply as persons frustrating those who otherwise would have won the prize. The word καταβραβεύειν is wide enough to include such. The two compounds καταβραβεύειν and παραβραβεύειν (Plut. _Mor._ p. 535 C οἱ παραβραβεύοντες ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσι) only differ in this respect, that _deprivation_ is the prominent idea in the former word and _trickery_ in the latter. Jerome, _Epist._ cxxi. _ad Algas._ (I. p. 879), sets down this word, which he wrongly interprets ‘bravium accipiat adversum vos’, as one of St Paul’s Cilicisms. The passages quoted (whether the document in the Midias be authentic or not) are sufficient to show that this statement is groundless.

θέλων ἐν] ‘_taking delight in_’, ‘_devoting himself to_’. The expression is common in the LXX, most frequently as a translation of חפץ ב״, 1 Sam.חפץ xviii. 22, 2 Sam. xv. 26, 1 Kings x. 9, 2 Chron. ix. 8, Ps. cxi. 1, cxlvi. 10, but in one passage of רצה ב״, 1 Chron. xxviii. 4. So too _Test. xii. Patr._ Asher 1 ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ψυχὴ θέλῃ ἐν καλῷ. Comp. also 1 Macc. iv. 42 θελητὰς νόμου, and see ἐθελοθρησκεία below. Against this construction no valid objection has been urged. Otherwise θέλων is taken absolutely, and various senses have been assigned to it, such as ‘imperiously’ or ‘designedly’ or ‘wilfully’ or ‘gladly, readily’; but these are either unsupported by usage or inappropriate to the context. Leclerc (_ad loc._) and Bentley (_Crit. Sacr._ p. 59) conjectured θέλγων; Toup (_Emend. in Suid._ II. p. 63) more plausibly ἐλθών; but the passages quoted show that no correction is needed.

ταπεινοφροσύνῃ] Humility is a vice with heathen moralists, but a virtue with Christian Apostles; see the note on Phil. ii. 3. In this passage, which (with ver. 23) forms the sole exception to the general language of the Apostles, the divergence is rather apparent than real. The disparagement is in the accompaniments and not in the word itself. Humility, when it becomes self-conscious, ceases to have any value; and self-consciousness at least, if not affectation, is implied by θέλων ἐν. Moreover the character of the ταπεινοφροσύνη in this case is further defined as θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων, which was altogether a perversion of the truth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. 18]

θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων, ἃ ἑόρακεν ἐμβατεύων, εἰκῇ φυσιούμενος

θρησκείᾳ] This word is closely connected with the preceding by the vinculum of the same preposition. There was an officious parade of humility in selecting these lower beings as intercessors, rather than appealing directly to the throne of grace. The word refers properly to the external rites of religion, and so gets to signify an over-scrupulous devotion to external forms; as in Philo _Quod det. pot. ins._ 7 (i. p. 195) θρησκείαν ἀντὶ ὁσίοτητος ἡγούμενος, Plut. _Vit. Alex._ 2 δοκεῖ καὶ τὸ θρησκεύειν ὄνομα ταῖς _κατακόροις_ γενέσθαι καὶ _περιέργοις_ ἱερουργίαις: comp. Acts xxvi. 5, and see the well-known remarks of Coleridge on James i. 26, 27, in _Aids to Reflection_ p. 14. In the LXX θρησκεύειν, θρησκεία, together occur four times (Wisd. xi. 16, xiv. 16, 18, 27), and in all these examples the reference is to idolatrous or false worship. Indeed generally the usage of the word exhibits a tendency to a bad sense.

τῶν ἀγγέλων] For the angelology and angelolatry of these Colossian false teachers, more especially in its connexion with Essene teaching, see the introduction, pp. 89 sq., 101 sq., 110, 181 sq. For the prominence which was given to angelology in the speculations of the Jews generally, see the _Preaching of Peter_ quoted in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vi. 5 (p. 760) μηδὲ κατὰ Ἰουδαίους σέβεσθε, καὶ γὰρ εκεῖνοι ... οὐκ ἐπίστανται λατρεύοντες ἀγγέλοις καὶ ἀρχαγγέλοις, Celsus in Orig. _c. Cels._ v. 6 (i. p. 580) πρῶτον οὖν τῶν Ἰουδαίων θαυμάζειν ἄξιον, εἰ τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῷδε ἀγγέλους σέβουσι κ.τ.λ., comp. _ib._ i. 26 (p. 344). From Jews it naturally spread to Judaizing Christians; e.g. _Clem. Hom._ iii. 36 ἀγγέλων ὀνόματα γνωρίζειν, viii. 12 sq., _Test. xii. Patr._ Levi 3 (quoted above on i. 16). The interest however extended to more orthodox circles, as appears from the strange passage in Ignat. _Trall._ 5 μὴ οὐ δύναμαι τὰ ἐπουράνια γράψαι; ... δύναμαι νοεῖν τὰ ἐπουράνια καὶ τὰς τοποθεσίας τὰς ἀγγελικὰς καὶ τὰς συστάσεις τὰς ἀρχοντικάς κ.τ.λ. Of angelology among Gnostic sects see Iren. ii. 30. 6, ii. 32. 5, Orig. _c. Cels._ vi. 30 sq. (I. p. 653), Clem. Alex. _Exc. Theod._ p. 970 sq., _Pistis Sophia_ pp. 2, 19, 23, etc.

ἃ ἑόρακεν κ.τ.λ.] literally ‘_invading what he has seen,_’ which is generally explained to mean ‘parading’ or ‘poring over his visions’. For this sense of ἐμβατεύειν, which takes either a genitive or a dative or an accusative, comp. Philo _de Plant. Noe_ ii. 19 (i. p. 341) οἱ προσωτέρω χωροῦντες τῶν ἐπιστημῶν καὶ ἐπὶ πλέον ἐμβατεύοντες αὐταῖς, 2 Macc. ii. 30 τὸ μὲν ἐμβατεύειν καί περὶ πάντων ποιεῖσθαι λόγον καὶ πολυπραγμονεῖν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ μέρος. At a later date this sense becomes common, e.g. Nemesius _de Nat. Hom._ p. 64 (ed. Matthæi) οὐρανὸν ἐμβατεύει τῇ θεωρίᾳ. In Xen. _Symp._ iv. 27 ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ βιβλίῷ ἀμφότεροι ἐμβατεύετέ τι, the reading may be doubtful. But though ἃ ἑόρακεν singly might mean ‘his visions’, and ἐμβατεύων ‘busying himself with’, the combination ‘invading what he has seen’, thus interpreted, is so harsh and incongruous as to be hardly possible; and there was perhaps some corruption in the text prior to all existing authorities (see the note on Phil. ii. 1 for a parallel case). Did the Apostle write )έωρᾳ (or αἴωρᾳ) κενεμβατεύων? In this case the existing text ==αεωρακενεμ βατευων== might be explained partly by an attempt to correct the form )εώρᾳ into αἰώρᾳ or conversely, and partly by the perplexity of transcribers when confronted with such unusual words. This reading had suggested itself to me independently without the knowledge that, so far as regards the latter word, it had been anticipated by others in the conjecture ἃ ἑώρα (or ἃ ἑώρακεν) κενεμβατεύων. The word κενεμβατεῖν ‘to walk on emptiness’, ‘to tread the air’, and so metaphorically (like αἐροβατεῖν, αἰθεροβατεῖν, αἰθερεμβατεῖν, etc.) ‘to indulge in vain speculations’, is not an uncommon word. For its metaphorical sense especially see Plut. _Mor._ p. 336 F οὕτως ἐρέμβετο κενεμβατοῦν καὶ σφαλλόμενον ὑπ’ ἀναρχίας τὸ μέγεθος αὐτῆς, Basil. _Op._ I. p. 135 τὸν νοῦν ... μυρία πλανηθέντα καὶ πολλὰ κενεμβατήσαντα κ.τ.λ., _ib._ I. p. 596 σοῦ δὲ μὴ κενεμβατέιτω ὁ νοῦς, Synes. _de Insomn._ p. 156 οὔτε γὰρ κενεμβατοῦντας τοὺς λόγους ἐξήνεγκαν. Though the precise form κενεμβατεύειν does not occur, yet it is unobjectionable in itself. For the other word which I have ventured to suggest, ἐώρᾳ or αἰώρᾳ, see Philo _de Somn._ ii. 6 (I. p. 665) _ὑποτυφούμενος_ ὑπ’ αἰώρας φρενῶν καὶ _κενοῦ_ φυσήματος, _ib._ § 9 (p. 667) τὴν ἐπ’ _αἰώρας_ φορουμένην _κενὴν_ δόξαν, _Quod Deus immut._ § 36 (I. p. 298) ὡσπερ ἐπ’ αἰώρας τινὸς ψευδοῦς καὶ ἀβεβαίου δόξης φορεῖσθαι _κατὰ κενοῦ βαίνοντα_. The first and last passages more especially present striking parallels, and show how germane to St Paul’s subject these ideas of ‘suspension or balancing in the air’ (ἐώρα or αἰώρα) and ‘treading the void’ (κενεμβατεύειν) would be, as expressing at once the spiritual pride and the emptiness of these speculative mystics; see also _de Somn._ ii. 2 (p. 661) ἐμφαίνεται καὶ τὸ τῆς _κενῆς_ δόξης, ἐφ’ ἣν, ὡς ἐφ’ ἅρμα, διὰ τὸ κοῦφον _ἀναβαίνει, φυσώμενος_ καὶ μετέωρον _ᾐωρηκὼς_ ἑαυτόν. The substantive, ἐώρα or αἰώρα, is used sometimes of the instrument for suspending, sometimes of the position of suspension. In this last sense it describes the poising of a bird, the floating of a boat on the waters, the balancing on a rope, and the like. Hence its expressiveness when used as a metaphor.

In the received text a negative is inserted, ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων. This gives a very adequate sense ‘_intruding into those things which he has not seen_’; οὐ γὰρ εἶδεν ἀγγέλους, says Chrysostom, καὶ οὕτω διάκειται ὡς ἰδών: comp. Ezek. xiii. 3 οὐὰι τοῖς προφητεύουσιν ἀπὸ καρδίας αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ καθόλου μὴ βλέπουσιν. But, though the difficulty is thus overcome, this cannot be regarded as the original reading of the text, the authorities showing that the negative was an after insertion. See the detached note on various readings.

For the form ἑόρακεν, which is better supported here than ἑώρακεν, see the note on ii. 1.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. 19]

ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, ^{19}καὶ οὐ

εἰκῇ φυσιούμενος] ‘_vainly puffed up_.’ Their profession of humility was a cloke for excessive pride: for, as St Paul says elsewhere (1 Cor. viii. 1), ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ. It may be questioned whether εἰκῇ should be connected with the preceding or the following words. Its usual position in St Paul, before the words which it qualifies (Rom. xiii. 4, 1 Cor. xv. 2, Gal. iv. 11; there is an exceptional reason for the exceptional position in Gal. iii. 4), points to the latter construction.

τοῦ νοὸς κ.τ.λ.] ‘_the mind of his flesh_’, i.e. unenlightened by the Spirit; comp. Rom. viii. 7 τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός. It would seem that the Apostle is here taking up some watchword of the false teachers. They doubtless boasted that they were directed ὑπὸ τοῦ νόος. Yes, he answers, but it is ὁ νοῦς τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν. Compare Rev. ii. 24, where the favourite Gnostic boast γινώσκειν τὰ βαθέα is characterized by the addition of τοῦ Σατανᾶ (see _Galatians_ p. 298 note 3). Comp. August. _Conf._ x. 67 ‘Quem invenirem qui me reconciliaret tibi? Ambiendum mihi fuit ad angelos? Qua prece? quibus sacramentis? Multi conantes ad te redire, neque per se ipsos valentes, sicut audio, tentaverunt hæc et inciderunt in desiderium curiosarum visionum et digni habiti sunt illusionibus. Elati enim te quærebant doctrinæ fastu, etc.’

19. οὐ κρατῶν] ‘_not holding fast_.’ This is the most common construction and meaning of κρατεῖν in the New Testament; e.g. Mark vii. 8 _ἀφέντες_ τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ _κρατεῖτε_ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων; comp. Cant. iii. 4 ἑῦρον ὃν ἠγάπησεν ἡ ψυχή μου, ἐκράτησα αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκα αὐτόν.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. 19]

κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν, ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν

τὴν κεφαλήν] ‘_the Head_’ regarded as a title, so that a person is at once suggested, and the relative which follows is masculine, ἐξ οὗ; comp. the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 16 ὅς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλή, Χριστὸς ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα κ.τ.λ. The supplication and worship of angels is a substitution of inferior members for the Head, which is the only source of spiritual life and energy. See the introduction pp. 34, 78, 101 sq., 181 sq.

διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν κ.τ.λ.] ‘_through the junctures and ligaments_.’ Galen, when describing the structure of the human frame, more than once specifies the elements of union as twofold: the body owes its compactness partly to the _articulation_, partly to the _attachment_; e.g. _Op._ II. p. 734 (ed. Kühn) ἔστι δὲ ὁ τρόπος τῆς συνθέσεως αὐτῶν διττὸς κατὰ γένος, ὁ μὲν ἕτερος κατὰ _ἄρθρον_, ὁ δὲ ἕτερος κατὰ _σύμφυσιν_. Similarly, though with a more general reference, Aristotle speaks of two kinds of union, which he describes as ἁφή ‘contact’ and σύμφυσις ‘cohesion’ respectively; _Metaph._ iv. 4 (p. 1014) διαφέρει δὲ _σύμφυσις ἁφῆς_· ἕνθα μὲν γὰρ οὐθὲν παρὰ τὴν ἁφὴν ἕτερον ἀνάγκη εἶναι, ἐν δὲ τοῖς συμπεφύκοσιν ἐστί τι ἓν τὸ αὐτὸ ἐν ἀμφοῖν ὃ ποιεῖ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἅπτεσθαι συμπεφυκέναι καὶ εἶναι ἓν κ.τ.λ., _Phys. Ausc._ iv. 6 (p. 213) τούτοις ἁφή ἐστιν· σύμφυσις δέ, ὅταν ἄμφω ἐνεργείᾳ ἓν γένωνται (comp. _ib._ v. 3, p. 227), _Metaph._ x. 3 (p. 1071) ὅσα ἐστιν ἁφῇ καὶ μὴ συμφύσει. The relation of contiguous surfaces and the connexion of different parts together effect structural unity. This same distinction appears in the Apostle’s language here. Contact and attachment are the primary ideas in ἁφαί and σύνδεσμοι respectively.

Of the function of ἁφή, ‘contact’, in physiology (περὶ ἁφῆς τῆς ἐν τοῖς φυσικοῖς) Aristotle speaks at some length in one passage, _de Gen. et Corr._ i. 6 (p. 322 sq.). It may be mentioned, as illustrating St Paul’s image, that Aristotle in this passage lays great stress on the mutual sympathy and influence of the parts in contact, describing them as παθητικὰ καὶ ποιητικά and as κινητικὰ καὶ κινητὰ ὑπ’ ἀλληλῶν. Elsewhere, like St Paul here, he uses the plural αἱ ἁφαί; _de Cælo_ i. 11 (p. 280) τὸ ἄνευ φθορᾶς ὁτὲ μὲν ὂν ὁτὲ δὲ μὴ ὄν, οἷον τὰς ἁφάς, ὅτι ἄνευ τοῦ φθείρεσθαι πρότερον οὖσαι ὕστερον οὐκ εἰσίν, _de Gen. et Corr._ i. 8 (p. 326) ὄυτε γὰρ _κατὰ τὰς ἁφὰς_ ἐνδέχεται διιέναι διὰ τῶν διαφανῶν ὄυτε διὰ τῶν _πόρων_, _ib._ § 9 (p. 327) εἰ γὰρ διακρίνεσθαι δύναται

------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. 19]

καὶ συνδέσμων ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συνβιβαζόμενον

κατὰ τὰς _ἁφάς_, ὥσπερ φασί τινες, κἂν μήπω ᾖ διηρημένον, ἔσται διηρημένον· δυνατὸν γὰρ διαιρεθῆναι: comp. [Plat.] _Axioch._ p. 365 A συνειλεγμένον τὰς ἁφὰς καὶ τῷ σώματι ῥωμαλέον. It is quite clear from these passages of Aristotle, more especially from the distinction of ἁφαί and πόροι, that αἱ ἁφαί are the joinings, the junctures. When applied to the human body they would be ‘joints,’ provided that we use the word accurately of the relations between contiguous limbs, and not loosely (as it is often used) of the parts of the limbs themselves in the neighbourhood of the contact. Hippocrates indeed used ἁφαί as a physiological term in a different sense, employing it as a synonyme for ἅμματα i.e. the fasciculi of muscles (see Galen _Op._ XIX. p. 87), but this use was quite exceptional and can have no place here. Thus αἱ ἁφαί will be almost a synonyme for τὰ ἄρθρα, differing however (1) as being more wide and comprehensive, and (2) as not emphasizing so strongly the _adaptation_ of the contiguous parts.

The considerations just urged seem decisive as to the meaning of the word. Some eminent modern critics however explain αἱ ἁφαί to be ‘the senses’, following Theodoret on Ephes. iv. 16 ἁφὴν δὲ τὴν ἄισθησιν προσηγόρευσεν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ αὕτη μία τῶν πέντε αἰσθήσεων, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ μέρους τὸ πᾶν ὠνόμασε. St Chrysostom had led the way to this interpretation, though his language is less explicit than Theodoret’s. To such a meaning however there are fatal objections. (1) This sense of ἁφή is wholly unsupported. It is true that touch lies at the root of all sensations, and that this fact was recognised by ancient physiologists: e.g. Aristot. _de Anim._ i. 13 (p. 435) ἄνευ μὲν γὰρ ἁφῆς οὐδεμίαν ἐνδέχεται ἄλλην ἄισθησιν ἔχειν. But here the connexion ends; and unless more cogent examples not hitherto adduced are forthcoming, we are justified in saying that αἱ ἁφαί could no more be used for αἱ αἰσθήσεις, than in English ‘the touches’ could be taken as a synonyme for ‘the senses.’ (2) The image would be seriously marred by such a meaning. The ἁφαί and σύνδεσμοι would no longer be an exhaustive description of the elements of union in the anatomical structure; the conjunction of things so incongruous under the vinculum of the same article and preposition, _διὰ τῶν_ ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων, would be unnatural; and the intrusion of the ‘senses’ would be out of place, where the result specified is the supply of nourishment (ἐπιχορηγούμενον) and the compacting of the parts (συμβιβαζόμενον). (3) All the oldest versions, the Latin, the Syriac, and the Memphitic, explain it otherwise, so as to refer in some way to the connexion of the parts of the body; e.g. in the Old Latin it is rendered _nexus_ here and _junctura_ in Ephes. iv. 16.

συνδέσμων] ‘_bands_,’ ‘_ligaments_.’ The Greek σύνδεσμος, like the English ‘ligament,’ has a general and a special sense. In its general and comprehensive meaning it denotes any of the connecting bands which strap the body together, such as muscles or tendons or ligaments properly so called; in its special and restricted use it is a ‘ligament’ in the technical sense; comp. Galen _Op._ IV. p. 369 σύνδεσμος γάρ ἐστιν, ὁ γοῦν ἰδίως, οὐ κοινῶς ὀνομαζόμενος, σῶμα νευρῶδες ἐξ ὀστοῦ μὲν ὁρμώμενον πάντως διαπεφυκὸς δὲ ἢ εἰς ὀστοῦν ἢ εἰς μῦν. Of the σύνδεσμοι or ligaments properly so called Galen describes at length the several functions and uses, more especially as binding and holding together the διαρθρώσεις; _Op._ I. 236, II. 268, 739, III. 149, IV. 2, etc., comp. Tim. Locr. _de An. Mund._ p. 557 συνδέσμοις ποττὰν κίνασιν τοῖς νεύροις συνᾶψε τὰ ἄρθρα (_Opusc. Mythol._ etc. ed. Gale). In our text indeed σύνδεσμοι must be taken in its comprehensive sense; but the relation of the ἁφαί to the σύνδεσμοι in St Paul still remains the same as that of the διαρθρώσεις to the σύνδεσμοι in Galen.

ἐπιχορηγούμενον κ.τ.λ.] The two functions performed by the ἁφαί and σύνδεσμοι are _first_ the supply of nutriment etc. (ἐπιχορηγούμενον), and _secondly_ the compacting of the frame (συνβιβαζόμενον). In other words they are the communication of life and energy, and the preservation of unity and order. The _source_ of all (ἐξ οὗ) is Christ Himself the Head; but the _channels_ of communication (διὰ τῶν κ.τ.λ.) are the different members of His body, in their relation one to another. For ἐπιχορηγούμενον ‘bountifully furnished’ see the note on Gal. iii. 5. Somewhat similarly Aristotle speaks of σῶμα κάλλιστα πεφυκὸς καὶ κεχορηγημένον, _Pol._ iv. 1 (p. 1288). For examples of χορηγία applied to functions of the bodily organs, see Galen _Op._ III. p. 617 ἐν ταῖς εἰσπνοαῖς χορηγίᾳ ψυχρᾶς ποίοτητος, Alex. _Probl._ i. 81 τὸ πλεῖστον τῆς τροφῆς ἐξυδαρούμενον χορηγεῖται πρὸς γένεσιν τοῦ πάθους. For συνβιβαζόμενον, ‘joined together, compacted’, see the note on ii. 2. In the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 16, this part of the image is more distinctly emphasized, συναρμολούμενον καὶ συνβιβαζόμενον. The difference corresponds to the different aims of the two epistles. In the Colossian letter the vital connexion with the Head is the main theme; in the Ephesian, the unity in diversity among the members.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. 20]

αὔξει τὴν αὔυξησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. ^{20}εἰ ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ

αὔξει τὴν αὕξησιν κ.τ.λ.] By the two-fold means of contact and attachment nutriment has been diffused and structural unity has been attained, but these are not the ultimate result; they are only intermediate processes; the end is _growth_. Comp. Arist. _Metaph._ iv. 4 (p. 1014) _αὔξησιν ἔχειδ’_ ἑτέρου τῷ _ἅπτεσθαι_ καὶ _συμπεφυκέναι_ ... διαφέρει δὲ σύμφυσις ἁφῆς, where growth is attributed to the same two physiological conditions as here.

τοῦ Θεοῦ] i.e. ‘which partakes of God, which belongs to God, which has its abode in God.’ Thus the finite is truly united with the Infinite; the end which the false teachers strove in vain to compass is attained; the Gospel vindicates itself as the true theanthropism, after which the human heart is yearning and the human intellect is feeling. See above p. 183 sq. With this conclusion of the sentence contrast the parallel passage Ephes. iv. 16 τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ σώματος _ποιεῖται εἰς οἰκοδομὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ_, where again the different endings are determined by the different motives of the two epistles.

The discoveries of modern physiology have invested the Apostle’s language with far greater distinctness and force than it can have worn to his own contemporaries. Any exposition of the nervous system more especially reads like a commentary on his image of the relations between the body and the head. At every turn we meet with some fresh illustration which kindles it with a flood of light. The volition communicated from the brain to the limbs, the sensations of the extremities telegraphed back to the brain, the absolute mutual sympathy between the head and the members, the instantaneous paralysis ensuing on the interruption of continuity, all these add to the completeness and life of the image. But the following passages will show how even ancient scientific speculation was feeling after those physiological truths which the image involves; Hippocr. _de Morb. Sacr._ p. 309 (ed Foese) κατὰ ταῦτα νομίζω τὸν ἐγκέφαλον δύναμιν πλείστην ἔχειν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ... οἱ δὲ ὀφθαλμοὶ καὶ τὰ οὔατα καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες καὶ οἱ πόδες, οἷα ἂν ὁ ἐγκέφαλος γινώσκῃ, τοιαῦτα ὑπηρετοῦσι ... ἐς δὲ τὴν σύνεσιν ὁ _ἐγκέφαλος_ ἐστὶν ὁ διαγγέλλων ... διότι φημὶ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον εἶναι τὸν ἑρμηνεύοντα τὴν σύνεσιν, αἱ δὲ _φρένες_ ἄλλως ὄνομα ἔχουσι τῇ τύχῃ κεκτημένον ... λέγουσι δέ τινες ὡς φρονέομεν τῇ _καρδίῃ_ καὶ τὸ ἀνίωμενον τοῦτο ἐστι καὶ τὸ φροντίζον· τὸ δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει ... τῆς ... φρονήσιος οὐδετέρῳ μέτεστιν ἀλλὰ πάντων τουτέων ὁ ἐγκέφαλος αἴτιός ἐστιν ... πρῶτος αἰσθάνεται ὁ ἐγκέφαλος τῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι ἐνεόντων (where the theory is mixed up with some curious physiological speculations), Galen _Op._ I. 235 αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ ἐγκέφαλος ὅτι μὲν ἀρχὴ τοῖς νεύροις ἅπασι τῆς δυνάμεώς ἐστιν, ἐναργῶς ἐμάθομεν ... πότερον δὲ ὡς αὐτὸς τοῖς νεύροις, οὕτω ἐκέινῳ πάλιν ἕτερόν τι μόριον ἐπιπέμπει, ἢ πηγή τις αὐτῶν ἐστίν, ἔτ’ ἄδηλον, _ib._ IV. p. 11 ἀρχὴ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν (i.e. τῶν νεύρων) ὁ ἐγκέφαλός ἐστι, καὶ τὰ πάθη εἰς αὐτὸν φέρει, οἷον εἰς ἄρουράν τινα τῆς λογιστικῆς ψυχῆς· ἔκφυσις δ’ ἐντεῦθεν, οἷον πρέμνου τινὸς εἰς δένδρον ἀνήκοντος μέγα, ὁ νωτιαῖός ἐστι μυελὸς ... σύμπαν δ’ οὕτω τὸ σῶμα μεταλαμβάνει δι’ αὐτῶν πρώτης μὲν καὶ μάλιστα κινήσεως, ἐπὶ τάυτῃ δ’ αἰσθήσεως, XIV. p. 313 hάυτη γὰρ (i.e. ἡ κεφαλή) καθάπερ τις ἀκρόπολίς ἐστι τοῦ σώματος καὶ τῶν τιμιωτάτων καὶ ἀναγκαιοτάτων ἀνθρώποις αἰσθήσεων οἰκητήριον. Plato had made the head the central organ of the reason (_Tim._ 69 sq.: see Grote’s _Plato_ III. pp. 272, 287, _Aristotle_ II. p. 179 sq.), if indeed the speculations of the Timæus may be regarded as giving his serious physiological views; but he had postulated other centres of the emotions and appetites, the heart and the abdomen. Aristotle, while rightly refusing to localize the mind as mind, had taken a retrograde step physiologically, when he transferred the centre of sensation from the brain to the heart; e.g. _de Part. Anim._ ii. 10 (p. 656). Galen, criticizing his predecessors, says of Aristotle δῆλός ἐστι κατεγνωκὼς μὲν αὐτοῦ (i.e. τοῦ ἐγκεφάλοὐ τελέαν ἀχρηστίαν, φανερῶς δ’ ὁμολογεῖν αἰδούμενος (_Op._ III. p. 625). The Stoics however (Ζήνων καὶ Χρύσιππος ἅμα τῷ σφετέρῳ χορῷ παντί) were even worse offenders; and in reply to them more especially Galen elsewhere discusses the question πότερον ἐγκέφαλος ἢ καρδία τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχει, _Op._ V. p. 213 sq. Bearing in mind all this diversity of opinion among ancient physiologists, we cannot fail to be struck in the text not only with the correctness of the image but also with the propriety of the terms; and we are forcibly reminded that among the Apostle’s most intimate companions at this time was one whom he calls ‘the beloved physician’ (iv. 14).

20–23. ‘You died with Christ to your old life. All mundane relations have ceased for you. Why then do you—you who have attained your spiritual manhood—submit still to the rudimentary discipline of children? Why do you—you who are citizens of heaven—bow your necks afresh to the tyranny of material ordinances, as though you were still living in the world? It is the same old story again; the same round of hard, meaningless, vexatious prohibitions, ‘Handle not,’ ‘Taste not,’ ‘Touch not.’ What folly! When all these things—these meats and drinks and the like—are earthly, perishable, wholly trivial and unimportant! They are used, and there is an end of them. What is this, but to draw down upon yourselves the denunciations uttered by the prophet of old? What is this but to abandon God’s word for precepts which are issued by human authority and inculcated by human teachers? All such things have a show of wisdom, I grant. There is an officious parade of religious devotion, an eager affectation of humility; there is a stern ascetic rigour, which ill-treats the body; but there is nothing of any real value to check indulgence of the flesh.’

20. From the theological tenets of the false teachers the Apostle turns to the ethical—from the objects of their worship to the principles of their conduct. The baptism into Christ, he argues, is death to the world. The Christian has passed away to another sphere of existence. Mundane ordinances have ceased to have any value for him, because his mundane life has ended. They belong to the category of the perishable; he has been translated to the region of the eternal. It is therefore a denial of his Christianity to subject himself again to their tyranny, to return once more to the dominion of the world. See again the note on iii. 1.